but I know not of any Henrician Creed incorporated into our Faith The Romanists have a Creed Younger by some Years then King Henry but nothing is a part of our Faith but what sprung up with Infant-Christianity It is therefore a wild Inference that because we own the King to be Supreme Head of the Church therefore We make the Christian Religion mutable Did we make Acts of Parliament the Rule of our Faith there would be ground for such an Objection For then an Article of Faith might be enacted and repeal'd at pleasure and He who was Orthodox in one Session might become an Heretic in the next But Scripture is the Rule of our Faith a Rule like it's Author unchangeable the same yesterday to day and for ever The Christian indeed is obnoxious to the power of the Prince but Christianity is without the reach of his Sword Nor has the King this influence over the external profession of Religion as he is the Ecclesiastical Head but as he is the Civil Supreme God has intrusted him as such with the power of the Sword with a command indeed to use it for the protection of the true Religion but with a natural liberty still of using it for the Protection of a false This Author I confess has a remedy against this namely some Temporal coactive power lodg'd in the Pope in order to dissolve upon Occasion the coactive power of the Prince But we do not envy him this Catholicon against Innovation Passive Obedience is our Principle and if this renders the legal Establishment of our Religion more obnoxious to the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate Yet it better secures our common Christianity Q. Mary therefore may repeal King Edward's Laws but unless she could repeal Christ's Law too Ridley's and Latimer's Religion will still be the same The only difference is that the Faith which before they defended from the Pulpit they now more effectually propagate at the Stake To conclude this point whilst Princes have the power of the Sword and Subjects are oblig'd to Non-resistance the Supreme Governor will have an influence over the outward State of Religion and He that complains of this repines against the Methods of God's providence It is no blemish therefore on the Reform'd Religion which is here dwelt upon by this Author that it went forward or backward under King Henry according as his different passions or Interests inclin'd him Whilst Q. Ann liv'd it had indifferent success saith Fox Here then saith our witty Observer the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and manag'd the Affairs of Religion accordingly Now admitting this were a truth which had escap'd him Yet the curious Editor I doubt not amongst his Collections has met with a Medal representing Donna Olympia with the Pope's Mitre on her Head and St. Peter's Keys in her Hands and on the Reverse the Pope with his Head drest like a Lady and a Spindle in his hand Be it also true that Cromwel a Laic had the total management of Ecclesiastical affairs under King Henry Yet any one Who is conversant in History knows that the administration of the Popedom has been in the Hands of more obnoxious Favourites § 86 What is said in the next Paragraph is not of more moment here then when first mention'd in Paragraph the 19th § 87 By Virtue of such Supremacy he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses Our prolix Author who never spares his own Labour or his Reader 's Patience has enlarg'd upon this point for 12 Paragraphs and is very copious against Sacrilege But I do not see how our Cause is concern'd in this charge Avarice and Sacrilege are as great Sins in our Homilies as they are in the Popish Canons and Cranmer and Ridley were as severe against robbing the Church as this Declaimer We are no more concern'd to defend King Henry's rapines then the Lusts some have charged him with Were the Suppression of Abbies as great a crime as it is here under false colours represented I do not see why we are more oblig'd to plead in it's favour than this Writer would think himself bound because he asserts the power of the Roman Patriarch to justifie the foul and unparallel'd enormities of those who have sat in St. Peter's chair But were the dissolution of Monasteries represented impartially it would be easie were it necessary to give it a fair appearance and it must be at last confest that the fault of King Henry was not so much in taking away those foundations of Superstition as in not applying all the Revenues as he did some and had done more if the Reformers had had more Influence over him to Uses truly Religious By Virtue of such a Supremacy he made orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage §. 99.100 of Fasts of Holydays of Election and Consecration of Bishops and Challeng'd a power of abrogating several other Ceremonies It ought to have been shewn that any Constitutions concerning these did ever oblige us but such as either were made and ordained within this Realm or such other as were induced into the Realm by sufferance consent and custom for until this Proposition laid down in the Statute a 25. of Hen. 8.27 c. be disprov'd the Assumption there that the State hath power to dispence with it's own Laws will be unshaken Ecclesiastical Canons with this Author is another expression for Papal Decrees the Autority therefore which supported them being justly taken away it is no wonder if they fell with it Amongst the Rites which King Henry commands to be observ'd till he shall be pleas'd to alter them Fox reckons paying of Tithes Where this Annotator observes that Tithes are here conceiv'd to be in the disposal of the Supreme Head of the English Church Now whether King Henry thought Tithes to be jure divino or not doth not concern the Reformation But what is here said of payment of Tithes doth not prove that he thought them alienable from the Clergy For he might by his Laws regulate the payment of them tho' he did not think them disposable in this Author's sense Several Statutes were made in his Reign for the better securing this Right of the Clergy In them a 27. Hen. 8. c. 20. Tithes are said to be due to God and the Church the detainers of them to have no regard of their b 32. Hen. 8. c. 7. duties to Almighty God And the c Ref. Leg. Tit. de Decimis cap. 1. Reformatio legum derives the Clergy's original right to them from the Laws of Christ § 101 By Virtue of such Supremacy he without any consent of the Clergy by his Vice-gerent Cromwel order'd that English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church The translation of the Bible was petition'd by the 2 d Bur. V. 1. p. 195. Houses of Convocation and the publication of it was included in that request This Act therefore had the consent of the
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.
prejudicial to the Temporal and Civil Rights and Emoluments and Priviledges of the Prince and of his Subjects that the Mitre might not encroach upon the Crown both which have their certain limits of Jurisdiction and may do wrong one to the other Such authority as this then in Church-matters you may find exercised by former Princes of England or perhaps some other power used by them against the Church and defended by the common Lawyers of those days more than is justifiable But on the other side I think you will not find either assumed by the Prince or allowed to him by any Statutes before the times of Henry the Eighth such Powers in Ecclesiastical matters as some of these following Namely A Power to correct and reform all Errors and Heresies in Religion by such persons as the Prince shall appoint to judge thereof half of them being Laicks repealing also the former course of tryal of them by the ordinary Church-Magistrates as you may see below § 39. A Power to make and reverse Ecclesiastical Laws alter the Church Liturgies publick Forms of administring the Sacraments Ordinals c without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or any lawful Church Authority A Power to hinder and prohibits the Clergy that they may correct or reform any such Heresies or may make or publish any such Ecclesiastical Decrees or Laws within the Kings Dominions without his consent thereto first obtained Without his Consent not to examine whether such their Constitutions might be any way prejudicial to the State Temporal for this were but meet and just but whether such be agreeable or repugnant to Gods Word and dangerous to the Peoples Salvation and Spiritual State A Power thus in all Causes Ecclesiastical Licences Faculties Dispensations to be the final Judge by himself or by his Court of Chancery or by some other Deputies whom he pleaseth to choose to whom Appeal may be made concerning what is agreeable or what repugnant to the Holy Scripture A Power to restrain all Forreign Appeals and Censures from thence not only in all Cases mixt with the Interests of the Temporal Government but also in all matters meerly Spiritual and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance A Power to prohibit or reverse any Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Councils Patriarchal or General tho in things wherein Temporal Regalities or Prerogatives or the Temporal safety and peace of the people is not concerned but as I said upon pretence of their being conceived to contain something repugnant to Gods Law A Power to hinder that no Ecclesiastical Governors may call any Synod or Assembly within his Dominions nor exercise in foro externo any Ecclesiastical Censures without his consent A Power to command such persons to be induced and instituted in Ecclesiastical Benefices and Dignities whom the lawful Ecclesiastical Power refuseth as Unorthodox or Uncanonical See Schism Guardâ—d p. 61.161 Vindic. p. 268. Lastly A Coactive Power in foro externo so far extended as that it leaves for the Clergy as independently belonging to them only an Internal Power or Jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience or an Habitual Power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments exercising the power of the Keys in foro conscientiae ordaining and degrading Ecclesiasticks but without any Liberty actually or lawfully to exercise the same in any Princes Dominions if he denyeth it without any Power allowed to the Clergy to summon Offenders in foro externo and to punish them with the Spiritual Sword either for their convicted crimes or for non-appearance and this whether Secular Princes either favour or oppose without any Power to call or keep any publick Assemblies for publick Worship for decision of Controversies in Religion for making Church Laws i. e such as prejudice no Temporal Rights and publishing and imposing the same Determinations and Canons upon Ecclesiastical Censures upon the Church's Subjects in the several Dominions of Princes whether they consent or resist Without any Power of their electing and ordaining future Clergy in the several Dominions of Princes Christian as well as others whenever these Princes shall propose or assent to the admission of no such persons as they I mean the lawful Church Authority shall judge Orthodox and capable Such Powers are not mentioned at least clearly by Bishop Bramhal to belong to the Clergy but seem to be swallowed in the Coactive Power of the Prince Such Powers were in the possession of the Church independently on Princes for the first Three Hundred Years Such Powers being translated to the Secular Governors when Christian do arm them when Christians Heretical to change and overturn the Church in their Dominions as they please whilst the Clergy ought not to contradict Such Powers are said to belong to the Prince since the Reformation and indeed without these the Reformation could not well have been effected and I think are given to them in the fore-quoted Statutes If these Powers are said not to belong to these Princes let them name which of these are not But Lastly such Powers cannot be shewed to have been given or been due to our Kings by the former Laws unless we will believe that the Laws of the Land then contradicted that Obedience which those Princes yielded to the Church or that those Princes even when most fallen out with the Church would voluntarily forego so many of their rights Thus much to the first Defence used by Bishop Bramh. §. 35. n. 3. That Henry the Eighth's Statutes were only declarative of the former Laws For the second thing said by him That King Henry the Eighth by these Statutes claimed only an External Coactive Power in Causes Ecclesiastical in foro contentioso if by External Coactive Power he meaneth the exercising of all those Powers which I have but now named with Coaction and the Material Sword then the Secular Prince seems to assume and exercise several of those Powers which are only the Churches rights But if by Coactive Power he meaneth only the Kings calling of the Clergy together to consult of Church Affairs and his assisting with the Secular Sword their Constitutions and Decrees and making their Laws his own by Temporal Mulcts and Penalties and compelling particular Clergy as well as Laity to do that which the Church declares to be their duty compelling I say with outward force for herein the Bishop seemeth to place the Kings Power in Spiritual matters See Schism Guarded p. 93. How can the Pope saith he pretend to any Coactive power in England where the Power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King And p. 92. The Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons c But they had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his Will the uttermost they could do was to separate him from their Communion And p. 166 Who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison and punish them for not appearing without his leave Likewise p. 168. and compare them with his former
agree that the Bishop shall practice exercise or have any manner of Authority Jurisdiction or Power within this Realm but shall resist the same at all times to the uttermost of my power And I from henceforth will accept repute and take the Kings Majesty to be the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England And to my Wit and uttermost of my Power I will observe and defend the whole Effects and Contents of all and singular Acts and Statutes made and to be made within this Realm in derogation extirpation and extinguishing of the Bishop of Rome and his Authority and all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made in Confirmation and Corroboration of the Kings Power of the Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England c. Here is the Clergy tied to swear as to all Acts of the Civil Power already past so indefinitely and beforehand to all also that are to come which may derogate any thing from the Popes power or add to the Kings in Spiritual matters as if no bounds or limits at all were due thereto § 43 Again in the Sixth Year of King Edward the whole Synod of the Clergy if we may credit the relation of Mr. Philpot See Fox p. 1282. in the Convocation 1. Mariae did grant Authority to certain persons to be appointed not by them but by the Kings Majesty to make Ecclesiastical Laws where it seems to me somewhat strange that the Synod should now de novo give to the King what was before assumed as his Right And accordingly a Catechisme bearing the name of the Synod was set forth by those persons nominated by the King without the Synods revising or knowing what was in it tho a Catechisme said Dr. Weston the Prolocutor 1. Mariae full of Heresies This Book being then produced in Convocation and denied by the Synod to be any Act of theirs Philpot urged it was because the Synodal Authority saith he was committed to certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary Which Argumentation of Philpots seems to be approved by Dr. Fern in Consid upon the Reform 2. chap. 9. sect Here then the Synod grants Authority in Spiritual matters that they know not who shall in their name establish that which they please without the Synods knowing either what Laws shall be made or who shall make them which is against the First and Second Thesis and is far from adding any just authority to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of those times or to any Acts which are thus only called Synodal because the Synod hath in general given away their Power to those who make them afterward as themselves think fit Whereas to make an Act lawfully Synodical the Consent of the Clergy must be had not to nominate in a Trust which Christ hath only committed to themselves in general another Law-giver viz. the King or his Commissioners for thus King Edward will choose Cranmer and Ridley and Queen Mary will choose Gardiner and Bonner to prescribe Laws for the Church but to know approve and ratify in particular every such Law before it can be valid § 44 Besides these Acts of Parliament and Synod the manner of Supremacy then ascribed to the Prince yet further appears in the Imprisonment of Bishop Bonner in the First year of King Edward for making such an hypothetical Submission as this to the Kings Injunctions and Homilies then by certain Commissioners sent unto him I do receive these Injunctions and Homilies See Fox p. 1192. with this Protestation that I will observe them if they be not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and the Statute and Ordinance of the Church the fault imputed here to him I suppose being that he refused to obey any Injunctions of the King when repugnant to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church for which Fox calls this Protestation Popish But the manner of this Supremacy appears yet more specially in the several Articles proposed to be subscribed by Bishop Gardiner § 45. n 1. upon his refusing to execute or submit to divers particular Injunctions of King Edward in Spiritual matters imposed upon the Clergy the Subscription required of him was To the Book of Homilies affirmed to contain only godly and wholsome Doctrine and such as ought by all to be embraced To new Forms of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and to the denyal of Real Presence or of Transubstantiation if any thing in that Form may may be said to oppose either of these To the new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests To the disannulling and abolition of the former Church Liturgy and Canon of the Mass and of the Litanies to Saints and Rituals of the Church To the abolition of Sacred Images and Sacred Relicks To the permission of Marriage to the Clergy To the acknowledging that the Statute of the Six Articles was by Authority of Parliament justly repealed and dis-annulled To the acknowledging that the appointment of Holy-days and Fasting-days as Lent and Ember-days and the dispensing therewith is in the Kings Majesty's Authority and Power as Supreme Head of the Church of England To the acknowledging that Monastick Vows were Superstitious and the Religious upon the dissolution of their Monasteries lawfully freed from them as likewise that the suppressing and dissolution of Monasteries and Convents by the King was done justly and out of good reason and ground For all which see the Copy of the Second and of the Last Articles sent to Bishop Gardiner in Fox p. 1234 and 1235. In which Articles the Kings Supremacy is thus expressed in the Second of the First Articles sent to him That his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church of England hath full Power and Authority to make and set forth Laws Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion and Orders in the said Church for repressing of all Errors and Heresies and other enormities and abuses so that the same alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scripture and Law of God as is said in the Sixth of the Second Articles sent to this Bishop Now how far this repressing and reforming of Errors c. claimed by the King did extend we may see in those points but now named In the Fifth That all Subjects who disobey any his said Majesties Laws Injunctions Ordinances in such matters already set forth and published or hereafter to be set forth and published ought worthily to be punished according to his Ecclesiastical Law used within this his Realm Again in the 7.11 12.14.16 of the Third Articles sent to the same Bishop That the former Liturgies of the Church Mass-Books c that the Canons forbidding Priests Marriage c are justly taken away and abolish'd and the new Forms of Common-Prayer and of Consecration of Bishops and Priests are justly established by Authority of Parliament and by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm and therefore ought to be received
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
was no small occasion of sorrow unto them to understand by the complaints of many that the said Book so much travelled for remaineth in many places of the Realm either not known at all or not used or if used very seldome and that in such a light and irreverent sort that c. The fault whereof say they to the Bishop we must of reason impute to you and others of your vocation And thus Fox in the same Page What zealous care was in this young King concerning Reformation by these Injunctions it may tight well appear Whereby we have to note not so much the careful diligence of the King and his learned Council as the lingring slackness and drawing back on the other side of divers but especially of Bishops and old Popish Curates he meaneth the Clergy such as had not been changed by King Edward by whose cloaked contempt wilful winking and stubborn disobedience the Book of Common Prayer was long after the publishing thereof either not known at all or else very irreverently used throughout many places of the Realm And the same thing may be collected from the many Risings in several Counties that were in King Edward's days chiefly for matter of Religion First in Somerset-Shire and Lincoln-shire then in Essex Kent Suffolk Norfolk Cornwal and Devon-shire and afterward also in York shire Which Risings of the Laity in such numbers for their former way of Religion would not have been had not their Clergy justified it unto them § 123 To these give me leave to add yet further the testimony of Bishop Ridley one who knew well the pulse of those times in his Treatise lamenting the State of England apud Fox p. 1616. Even of the greatest Magistrates saith he some spurned privily and would not spare to speak evil of those Preachers who went about most wholsomely to cure their sore backs As for the common fort of other inferiour Magistrates as Judges c it may be truly said of them as of the most part of the Clergy Parsons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Deans yea and I may say of Bishops also I fear me for the most part altho I doubt not but God had and hath ever whom he in every state knoweth to be his but for the most part I say they were never perswaded in their hearts but from the teeth forward and for the Kings sake in the truth of Gods word i. e. in the Protestant tenents and yet all these did dissemble he meaneth many for of all it is not true See before § 107. and bear a Copy of a countenance as if they had been sound within Hitherto Bishop Ridley Where note that some outward compliance at the first of those Bishops who made an open opposition afterward might be upon a fair pretence because the first Acts of the Reformation might be not so unsupportable as the later for the Reformation winded and insinuated it self into the common practice by certain gentle degrees the greatest blow to the former doctrine and discipline of the Church being given in the later times of this Kings Reign when it was now by some success grown more bold and confident But however it be such compliance used for a while but after ward renounced does avail nothing the Protestant cause since the later judgment in such matters is to be taken especially where it is no way corrupted by but proceedeth against secular advantages Again the perpetual outward compliance of some other Bishops contrarily affected since there preceded before it penalties and fears and the seeing of the prime Bishops to be imprisoned and ejected for standing our is far from an authentical consent and unjustly reckoned as such For tho none can know mens hearts but by their outward appearance yet where mens votes are asked after penalties imprisonments of others threats which are so strong motives of dissimulation now all that conform in these are to be presumed compilers and none free voters § 124 This testimony of Bishop Ridley's I will second with Mr. Fuller's Chur. Hist. 7. l. p. 414. We find saith he the Bishops of that time divided into three sorts zealous Protestants Cranmer Ridley Hooper Farrer c. but these named were made Bishops or consecrated as Ridley in King Edward 's time all save Cranmer ' Zealous Papists Bonner Gardiner Tonstal he might have named so many of the rest as were then ejected for their Religion Voicy Heath Day Papists in their hearts but outwardly conforming to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws as Heath then Bishop of Worcester yet Heath was ejected and many other Bishops amongst whom elsewhere he numbreth S. l. p. 11. Sampson Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield of whom Godwin in Catalogue of Bishops saith That he began to shew himself a Papist in the second year of King Edward and was put out of the Presidentship of Wales Capon Bishop of Salisbury Thirlby Bishop of Norwich Buckly Bishop of Bangor add Parfew Bishop of Asaph Kitchin Bishop of Landaff Aldrich Bishop of Carlile Goodrich Bishop of Ely Chambers Bishop of Peterborough King Bishop of Oxford who all returned to the profession of the old Religion in Queen Mary's days Some of these forenamed flinging up a good part of their lands to keep their ground and complying with the Kings commands so coldly and with such reluctancy as laid them open to the spoil tho not to the loss of their Bishopricks as Dr. Heylin relates it in Hist of Reform p. 100. And here it is worthy of enquiry saith Fuller why this later sort which so complyed under King Edward should be so stubborn and obstinate under Queen Elizabeth whereof I can give but this reason assigned that growing old and near their graves they grew more conscientious and faithful to their own tho erroneous Principles Thus he I add to the open maintaining of which Principles their long experience having seen the arbitrary and floating state of Religion under a secular Supremacy in their old age excited them § 125 Lastly for the inferior Clergy tho many of them doubtless were changed in King Edward's days yet so many of them then remained still of the old Religion either in heart or also in profession that a Synod being called within five or six days after Queen Mary's Coronation before any new moulding of this Ecclesiastical body all of them except six voted against King Edward's Reformation See before § 51. To which may be added the zeal and forwardness of the Clergy and People at the same time preventing the Queen's Edicts in erecting again the Altars and using the Mass and Latine Service c. of which see Heylin Hist Q. Mary p. 24. All which could not have happened so soon after King Edward's death if during his life they had all so really and unanimously received and observed it Which Reformation also the Lady Mary in her Letter to the Council who blamed her for inconformity to the Kings laws intimates that it was not done without partiality nor consented unto without compulsion See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law saith she unless it be a late law of your own making for the altering matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the name of a Law both
literis excitaverat ipse Sanctus adversus Regem pro Ecclesia starent redarguerent comminarentur oâ—â—entantes quae in arcu sagittae paratae erant ad feriendum censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes ut potius adversus eundem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent telis oppeterent jurgiorum in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum Bar. An. A. C. 1167. Margin A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton de tribus Thomis in Thoma Cant. * Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tecte postulavit quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia aperte u surpavit nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurp'd viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England and again * Quid hoc est aliud nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papâ— what was this but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects So that according to this Author Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Popes Encroachments viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edv. 3. Stat de provisoribus 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1.2 4. stat 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6.8 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our * Cokes Inst l. 4. c. â—4 Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19. concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm * 1. Eliz. c. 1. and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all forreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Jurisdictions of the same Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiasticall Where 1st As to the title of Head of the Church we find that * Twisd c. 5. par 2. King Edgar was reputed and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum the Vicar of Christ and by his Laws and Canons assur'd the world he did not in vain assume those titles * Chap. 5. par 14. c. 6. par 8. That our Forefathers stil'd their Kings Patrons Defenders Governours Tutors and Protectors of the Church And the Kings Regimen of the Church is thus exprest by King Edward the Confessor in his laws Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriosis defendat Leg. Edv. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a priviledge delegated by him what he claim'd as a right deriv'd immediately from God * Vobis posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae justa sunt To you saith that Pope to the Confessor and your Successours the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power They challenge from St. Peter himself to be * 1 Pet. II. 13. Supreme and from St. Paul that * Rom. XIII 1. every Soul should be subject to them And the extent of their Regal power may be learn'd from St. Austin who teaches us * In hoc Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in Regno suo bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem Aug. contra Crescâ—n l. 3. c. 51. that the Divine right of Kings as such authorized them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion In pursuance of which 2ly As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy namely the Keyes of Order and Jurisdiction so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices is evident to any one who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant A Collection of the Laws made by Ina Alfred Edward Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Ethelred Canutus and others we have publish'd by Mr. Lambard in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith Baptism Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops Priests Marriage Observance of Lent appointing of Festivals and the like And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Autority which our Editor cannot justly decline I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Publish'd in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford in the Name of the Alumni of that Society This Author speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical makes this Inference from them * Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur quod ex iis constat etiam illis temporibus Reges Saxonicos Alfredum Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos quam in Laicos neque Ecclesiam quae in ipsorum ditione esset esse quid peregrinum vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam quod Anselmus Beckettus aliique deinceps insecuti acriter eontenderunt Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par 12. These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation because from them it is evident that the
Act which is by this Author judg'd contrary to his first Thesis is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking holding or doing against any Laws call'd Spiritual Laws made by Autority of the See of Rome which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm § 34. p. 39. or the King's Praerogative shall be deem'd to be Haeresie from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Haeresie Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Haereticks Whether such speaking or doing be Haeresie or not they have power to ordain that it shall not be deem'd so i. e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment to use our Author's expression of another Act made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queens Majesties Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religtion shall be to all intents adjudg'd as Traytors and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason and the like of Persons willingly reconcil'd Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler or Reconciled is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traytor all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments without being accountable for this to any Autority under God's And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself or acts against such Laws of a Forreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right Another Act condemn'd by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Autority to make Ecclesiastical laws §. 43. p. 56. and pursuant to this 42 Articles of Religion publish'd by the Autority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign Now not to engage my self in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title praefix'd they are said to be Articuli de quibus in Synodo London A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros convenerat Regia autoritate in lucem editi I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London §. 166. p. 187. So that here is only a part of the Synod employ'd in drawing up these Articles and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transfer'd from Ecclesiastial persons to Secular which was by him to have been prov'd Another Inference which he deduces from these Theses is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy §. 185. p. 214. Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended will best be learnt from our Articles * Art 37. The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not or ought not to be subject to any forreign Jurisdiction So far for the extent of this power but now for the restraint Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended We give not to our Prince the ministring either of God's word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn evil doers It is therefore by our Author to be prov'd that they who give no more to their Prince then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself do alienate to the Secular Governour any Autority or Office which they the Clergy have receiv'd and been charg'd with by Christ with a command to execute the same to the end of the World which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile That by this Oath or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assum'd by her self or given to her by Others then is consistent with that Autority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us * Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684. Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Autority but what was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning Her Majesty is well pleas'd to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contain'd in the act therein mention'd against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath So that it 's evident from this Injunction that it 's no way here stated what Autority belongs to the Church and what to the Civil Magistrate farther then that the Queen as justly she might challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and neither did nor would challenge more but what that was is not here determin'd and she is content without such Determination if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all forreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil Another Act which He finds repugnant to his his 1st pag. 36. Thesis is King Henry the Eth's claiming a right that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave
the King and Parliament ordain'd that such Laws which prohibited Marriage to any Spiritual Persons who by Gods Law might Marry should be of none effect The Convocation had declar'd the Marriage of Priests lawfull by the Law of God the State found the Prohibition tended to the detriment of the Republic and therefore had they had no other reason might according to our Author 's own principles take it off § 166 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King published 42 Articles of Religion said to be agreed on in a Synod of the Clergy held at London If these Articles were the legitimate Act of the Synod then they were not the effects of mere Regal Supremacy and that they were so will I doubt not appear notwithstanding all his cavils If any one should question whether the Iliads and Aeneids were the genuine works of Homer and Virgil the Title they carry and the Universal Tradition which assigns them to these Authors would be thought a sufficient Vindication of them This Author builds part of his Faith on the second Nicene Council and opposes it's Decree in favour of Image-Worship to the second Commandment forbidding it If I should ask him how he knew such a Decree to be genuine he would not I believe produce the Records but think it a good Reply that it is found amongst those Acts which bear the Name of that Council and which the Church has allways accepted as such These Articles are published with the Title of the Synod this publication was Anno 1553 the next Year to that in which we say they were past in Convocation the Church for the first 5 years of Queen Elizabeth retain'd these Articles as her Doctrine the Convocation in that Queen's time reestablish'd them with very little Alteration they have been appeal'd to ever since by our Writers as the Acts of that Synod they have been own'd by our Adversaries as such and if so general a Tradition of a thing so notorious and so lately done may not be admitted the Church of Rome is built upon a weak Foundation But all this notwithstanding this Author thinks he has good Reason to deny that these Articles were establish'd by that Synod First he transcribes what Mr. Fuller saith of this Convocation which I shall not hear copy because the Author has here once for all dealt ingenuously Mr. Fuller saith the Records of this Convocation are but one degree above blanks and to the same purpose Dr. Heylin But neither of these Historians had seen Q Mary's Commission for razing the Records else they could have given us an account why these Registers are so bare Dr. Heylin a Heylin's History p. 121. found left upon Record in that Convocation a Memorandum concerning the Dissolution of the Bishoprick of Westminster and it is not improbable that these Articles were expung'd by some Persons who yet were willing that the Dissolution of a Bishoprick which they thought might cast an odium upon the Reformation might remain upon Record As for Fuller's Assertion that the Convocation had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business it is only a conjecture which he makes from the silence of the Records Fuller's Discourse of the Catechism doth not at all affect the Articles unless it be prov'd that by Catechism must be understood Articles which our Author endeavours to perswade his unwary Reader For this purpose he next presents us with a Relation from Fox concerning the questioning of a Catechism in the 1st Synod of Q. Mary but here he is himself again as will appear to the Reader if he compares this Relation with Fox's He concludes this Story with this Epiphonema This concerning the questioning of the Catechism and Articles whereas in the Relation nothing is said of the Articles but the Catechism only To clear this point a little farther He finds in Fox Arch-Bishop Cranmer charg'd amongst other things with being Author of the Catechism and Articles and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them Here again he shuffles Arch-Bishop Cranmer is not there charg'd for compelling Men to subscribe the Catechism but the Articles as appears from Fox's relation as it is transcrib'd even by himself but he makes the Catechism subscrib'd that it may look like a Synonymous term to Articles Arch-Bishop Cranmer answer'd to that charge that he exhorted such as were willing to subscribe but compell'd none against their wills Now where this Exhortation and Subscription was unless in Synod will not easily be answered Having given us these three relations he next proceeds to make reflections on them First he excepts against the words in the Title of the Articles de quibus inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros c. that they seem not the ordinary expression of a Synodal Act which runs more generally as thus de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clerum universum or the like This which he calls an ordinary expression will scarce be found in the Title of any Synodal Act before Q. Elizabeth These Articles are by him confest to have been subscrib'd by part of the Synod Cranmer who drew up the Articles and procur'd Subscriptions to them must himself be a Subscriber probably also Holgate Arch-Bishop of York who was a Reformer Archiepiscopal Autority therefore might have been mention'd had they been the Act of only a part of the Synod and therefore that it is not explicitly mention'd for it is implied in the Episcopal can be no argument that they were the Act of a part only But the other words in the Title ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum shew they must have been the Act of the whole Synod since the Opinion of a part could not be effectual to such an End Next he observes that tho' the Prolocutor in the Synod 10 Mariae questions and Philpot answers concerning the Catechism yet they speak not of the Catechism but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of the Catechism and bound up with it which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechism and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation and so also calls them the Catechism because the first Title of this Book is Catechismus brevis c. In this Period we have as much crude unconcocted reasoning as would have furnish'd an ordinary Writer for some Pages Weston ill deserv'd the Office of Prolocutor if speaking of a Catechism he meant not that but the Articles which are two as distinct things as can well be imagin'd The Articles a They are so bound up together in the public Library were indeed bound up with the Catechism but have a new Title-page and are as distinct from it as the Discourse of Caelibacy is from the Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther Now had the Answerer to the Considerations on Martin Luther entitl'd his Book an Answer to the Discourse of Caelebacy or should
Synodical or by whatsoever name they shall be called unless the King by his Royal assent command them to make promulge and execute the same See for this the Preface of the Act of Parliament Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth 19. c. where it is said that the Clergy of the Realm of England had not only acknowledged that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ but also submitting themselves to the Kings Majesty had promised in verbo Sacerdotii that they would never from henceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called unless the Kings most Royal assent may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same But they gave up also their power to execute any old Canons of the Church without the Kings consent had first thereto as appears by what follows in the next Section The whole Debate with all the traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared herein saith Dr. Heylin are specified at large in the Records of Convocation 1532 which were well worthy the viewing Now if the First and Second Thesis above-named stand good this Act of the Clergy is utterly unlawful For by this the Prince hath authority to hinder the Clergy from altering or reforming any former setled Doctrine in his Kingdome As King Charles also in his Declaration before the 39 Articles manifesteth that he will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree from the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England any varying i. e by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation In what case then had the Reformation been if former Princes in the same language as King Charles had used this pretended lawful power in prohibiting Bishops c. to attempt enact promulge c any thing contrary to the then here setled Popish Doctrines To advance yet somewhat further In the Preface of the same Act of Parliament the Clergy are also said which thing neither Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond § 23. nor Dr. Fern have sufficiently weighed in their Relations of the English Reformation to have humbly besought the Kings Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial or Synodal which be thought to be prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of Thirty Two Persons Sixteen of the Temporalty and Sixteen of the Clergy of the Realm to be chosen and appointed by the Kings Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c shall stand in power Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal not only such as were the sole Constitutions and Canons of the Synods of this Nation which the like Synods may lawfully correct but such as were also the Canons of superior Synods which the Synods of this Nation could not lawfully annul This appears both by the practice of their abrogating and reforming of several Canons that were such nay I think such were all that were reformed and also by the Tenent See below § 28. Statute 25. Hen. 8.21 c. that all the Constitutions made only by mans authority are by the King being supream in his Dominions as he thinks fit mutable To stand with the Laws of God therefore any Canon tho it were not against the Kings Prerogative or Law of the Realm yet if thought by these Judges not to stand with the Laws of God might be annulled Shall be thought by the more part of them Therefore an Act of the Laity in these Spiritual matters if obtaining the consent only of one Clergy-man tho all the rest oppose nay if obtaining the consent of the King tho all the Clergy-Commissioners oppose stands good as being an Act of the major part § 25 In this Act of the Clergy if it be supposed a Synodical request of the whole Clergy and not only of some persons thereof more addicted to the Kings Inclinations and if Canons and Constitutions here be not restrained only to those that seem some way to intrench upon the rights of Civil Power or to some Ecclesiastical external Rites and Ceremonies I see not but that the Clergy here gives away to the King and to the Laity at least if assisted with one or two or indeed without any Clergy their Synodical power to conclude and determine matters of Faith and to order the Government of the Church as they shall think best since all the former Canons and Constitutions Synodal are not about matters of External Rite and Ceremony but some doubtless concerning matters of Faith and such Christian Practices and Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline as are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and necessarily involve Faith of all which Canons the 32 are now made Judges what stands with Gods Law or what is contrary thereto and the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum drawn up partly in Henry the Eighth's partly in Edward the Sixth's time by such Commissioners Reprinted 1640 is found to meddle not only with Canons repugnant to Civil Government or with Rites and Ceremonies but with matters of the Divine Offices and Sacraments Heresies c as appears in the very Titles of that Book Now such Act of the Clergy must needs be most unjust and unlawful if the First or Second or Seventh Thesis above-recited stand good § 26 But whatever sense these words in the Preface of the Act were or may be extended to I do not think that the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine Truth By which authority Princes might as they also did change Religion in this Kingdome at their pleasure but imagined that as they obliged themselves to do nothing without the Kings consent so neither in these matters especially should the King do any thing without theirs as may be gathered First by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supream recited before Secondly by the Declaration of the Bishops against the Pope See Fox p. 971. wherein they alledge against him the Third Canon of the Second General Council Enacting ut controversiae ab Episcopis Provinciarum ubi ortae sunt terminentur that all Causes shall be finished and determined within the Province where the same began and that by the Bishops ef the same Province urged also by Bishop Tonstal in his Answer to Cardinal Poole And Thirdly By several of the said Bishops and particularly by this Tonstal's and Gardiner's of whom Dr. Fern saith that none could have written better against the
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
Saying p. 92. If thus the Bishop will have Secular Princes to have nothing to do in the making or hindring any Decrees or Laws of the Church-men in matters meerly Spiritual but only to have such a sole dominion over the Secular Sword as that none can use it but he or by his leave in the execution of such Laws all is well but then the former-quoted Statutes of Henry the Eighth shew much more Power challenged than the Bishop alloweth This in Answer to the Bishop Secondly If it be further said here touching that particular Statute of much concernment 26. Hen. 8.1 c. quoted before § 26 and § 25. Namely §. 35. n. 4. 1 That the King shall have full power from time to time to visit repress reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spritual Authority c lawfully may be reformed c. See §. 25. If it be said here that the King hath only this power therein ascribed to him to redress and reform the Errors and Heresies which are declared such by the Church by former Councils or by the Synods of his Clergy but that he hath no power given him to judge or declare what is Error or Heresy 1. First thus then he hath not all the power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction may be exercised as it follows in that Act because there is a Spiritual Authority also that may declare new Errors and Heresies or that may reform such Errors as have not been by Synods formerly declared such and it seems this He hath not Secondly Thus the Clause ending the Act any Custome Forreign Laws Prescription c notwithstanding is utterly useless because no Forreign Laws or Prescriptions deny this Authority to Kings to reform Errors c in their Dominions so that they still confine themselves to the precedent Judgments of the Church Thirdly In the Act fore-quoted 25. Hen. 8.19 c. 'T is granted to his Highness and Thirty Two Commissioners elected by him to annul and make invalid what former Synodal Canons they think not to stand with the Laws of God therefore they have power to judge which Canons are such and to reform them i. e to teach and declare the contrary truths to them when thought by them Errors against the judgment of former Synods and without the judgment of a new Synod and what is this but to judge and pronounce de novo what is Error and Heresy Enormity Abuse c Fourthly Lastly how comes the King or his Commissioners to be made the ultimate judge See before § 31.25 Hen. 8.19 c. in all Appeals touching Divine matters if he or they cannot judge in these what is Error Since some Causes and Controversies may haply come before him not determined by former Councils And for the Errors he reforms if he is still to follow the judgment of his Clergy what are such Errors how are there in these things Appeals admitted to him from the judgments of his Clergy § 36 This said to remove the mis-interpretation of that Act I will add to these Acts of Parliament which I have been reciting to you from § 26. those words in the Kings last Speech which he made in Parliament not long before his death reprehending his Subjects for their great dissension in Opinion and Doctrine If you know surely saith he that a Bishop or Preacher erreth or teacheth perverse Doctrine Lord. Herb. Hist p. 536. come and declare it to some of our Council or to us to whom is committed by God the high authority to reform and order such causes and behaviours and be not Judges your selves of your fantastical Opinions and vain Expositions Here making his Council or himself Judge of the Bishops Doctrines And those words in King Henry the Eighth's Proclamation 1543. made for the eating of White-Meats Milk Butter Eggs heese in Lent where he saith That the meer positive Laws of the Church may be upon considerations and grounds altered and dispensed with by the publick authority of Kings and Princes In Fox pag. 1104. whensoever they shall perceive the same to tend to the hurt and damage of their people Vnless perhaps he restrain damage here to Civil Affairs Contrary to the Eighth Thesis And those words in Cromwell's Speech when he presided as the Kings Vicar-General over the Clergy assembled to state something in Controversies of Faith then agitated betwixt the Roman Church and Lutherans who told them That His Majesty would not suffer the Scripture to be wrested and defaced by any Glosses Fox p. 1078. any Papistical Laws or by any Authority of Doctors or Councils By which if this be meant that we are not obliged to embrace the Doctrine of Scriptures according to those Determinations and Expositions which lawful Councils have made of them it is contrary to the Fourth and Seventh Thesis and overthrows the Government of the Church See the same thing said on the Kings behalf by the Bishop of Hereford against other Bishops urging the Doctors of the Church Fox p. 1079. I will conclude with what Bishop Carleton in Jurisdict Regal and Episcopal Epist dedicat § 37 And Calvin upon those Words in Amos 7.13 Prophecy not any more at Bethel for it is the Kings Court say of these times Bishop Carleton relateth out of Calvin That Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester being at Ratisbon in Germany upon the Kings Affairs and there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that Title Supreme Head of the Church given to Henry the Eighth taught that the King had such a power that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine and abolish old As Namely ' That the King might forbid the Marriage of Priests and might take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in such things might appoint what he list And there likewise Bishop Carleton confesseth That when Henry the Eighth took this Title of Supreme Head c tho the sounder and more judicious part of the Church then understood the words of that Title so as that no offence might justly rise by it I suppose he means in that sense as himself takes it which is For the King to have a Jurisdiction Coactive in External Courts binding and compelling men by force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments to what the â—hurch in Spiritual matters defines For this Bishop saith that the Church is the only Judge of such matters See before p. 4. and in his whole Book written purposely on this Subject I do not find that he gives the King any Coactive Authority in Spiritual matters against any definition of the Church Yet saith he they that were suddenly brought from their old Opinions of Popery not to the love of the Truth but to the observance of the Kings Religion received a gross and impure sense of these words But this gross sense is such as Bishop Gardiner
§ 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
displease Mr. Fox After the taking away of which Cromwel the State of Religion more and more decayed during all the residue of the Reign of King Henry And amongst these Adversaries was Stephen Gardiner who brought the King at length clean out of credit with the Reformed Religion c. Thus Fox describes the Steerers of the King in his Determinations concerning Church matters And had Mr. Fox been of another perswasion you would have found in his Stile the Lord stirring up the zealous Bishop of Winchester Gardiner and Satan raising Cromwel the Pestilent Adversary of True Religion § 35 And somewhat like to Mr. Fox's is that Saying of Old Latimer to Ridley p. 1562 to shew the miserable fluctuating of this Nation after its having left the rest of the Body of the Church and set up a new Head for its self I refer you saith he to your own Experience to think of our Country-Parliaments and Convocations how and what you have seen and heard The more part in my time did bring forth Six Articles for then the King would so have it being seduced of certain Afterward the more part did expel the same Articles our good Josias King Edward willing to have it so The same Articles now again alas when the Lay Supreme Head was removed another great but worse part hath restored O what an Uncertainty is this Now to proceed in our Story § 86 By vertue of such Supremacy King Henry took away the just Authority of the Patriarch established by Councils In the consecrating and confirming of Bâ—shops and Metropolitan for Confirmation of Metropolitans in this Church subject to his Patriarchy and necessitated also his own Clergy under the Penalty of incurring a Premunire to consecrate and invest into Bishopricks and Arch-Bishopricks void any Person whatever whom he should nominate and present Sec. before §. 29. He also took away the Patriarchs Authority for the receiving of Appeals and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies contrary to what is shewed in Chur. Gov. 1. Part And also took away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular but also from all the Clergy in general not making the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Convocation but himself or his Substitutes the ultimate Judges thereof See Statute 25. Hen. 8 19. c. § 31. contrary to the First and Second Theses § 87 By vertue of such a Supremacy and Headship over this Church It the putting down of Monasteries c. he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses of this Land which were very numerous small and great and likewise of all Chaunteries Free-Chappels Hospitals Colledges except those of the Two Universities which upon their humble Addresses made to the King were reprieved Herb. Hist Hen. 8. p. 537 of their Lands and Goods Places dedicated to Pious and Sacred uses and put into the hands of the Church as by the gift of the Doners so not without the consent of the Prince Their Buildings he caused to be defaced their Churches demolished Their Lands he enjoyed himself setting up a Court of Augmentation of the Revenues of the Crown or sold or gave to particular Families of the Laity Cromwel telling him that the more had interest in them the more they would be irrevocable to them and their Heirs without any condition advantageous to Religion Learning or Charity save only one that Hospitality and Husbandry should be preserved by them which he cautioned upon the Penalty of paying every Month 6. l. 13. s. 4. d for which reason the King is said to have passed them away at such easy Rates Lord Herbert p. 376. Which Forfeitures upon the Hospitality and Husbandry neglected being very great were abolished by King James at the Supplication of the Parliament 21. Jac. 28. c. And all this he did without any benefit returned to Gods Service or to the Church in lieu thereof save only that having possessed himself of 645 Monasteries 90 Colledges in several Shires 110 Hospitals 2374 Chaunteries and Free-Chappels the yearly value of all which is cast up to have been 161100 l. Besides the Plate Church-Ornaments and Treasure given in Honor of some Saints Besides the Money made of Timber Lead Bells Besides the Stock also of Cattle and Corn the Goods and Chattles of the 376 smaller Monasteries being valued at a low rate at 100000 l. I say Herâ—â—377 having possessed himself of all this he is said to have returned to Pious Uses some 8000 l. per annum perhaps about a Thirtieth part of what he took away in erecting some new Bishopricks of Oxford Peterborough Chester Bristol and Gloucester and in changing of the former Monks of many of the Ancient Cathedral Churches into a Dean and Canons See for what is said Cambd. Brit. and Lord Herb. p. 377. 443 444. Neither doth the Parliament in giving their consent to such alienation caution any further concerning Pious Uses save only that the King should do and use therewith his own Will to the pleasure of Almighty God and to the honor and profit of the Realm See Statute 27. Hen. 8. 28. He freed and dismissed the Religious therein from observing those Rules of Poverty and Obedience in a Monastick Life which they had before solemnly vowed I suppose by vertue of that dispensative Power which he finding annexed to the Pope's conceived that he inherited by his Supremacy See Fox p. 1235. where 't is said That the Persons therein bound and professed to Obedience to a person place habit c upon the dissolution appointed by the Kings Majesty's Authority as Supream Head of the Church are clearly released c. All which things are done by him contrary to the Definitions and Canons of the Church in former Councils concerning their Interpretation of Sacriledge and concerning the unlawful alienation of things and non-violation of persons once dedicated and consecrated to God And all which things were done by him without any Concession or Approbation that I can find even of the particular Clergy of this Nation and with the great grief of the People saith Lord Herb p. 377. those who got nothing by this Plunder to see the Monks and Nuns wandring abroad and the Churches and Chappels perverted to secular and profane Vses § 88 For these things see the Relation of zealous Mr. Fox p. 976. Shortly after the overthrow of the Pope saith he consequently began by litle and litle to follow the ruine of Abbies and other Religious Houses in England in a right Order and Method by Gods Divine Providence For neither could the fall of Monasteries have followed after unless that the Suppression of the Pope had gone before neither could any true Reformation of the Church have been attempted unless the Subversion of these Superstitious Houses had been joyned therewith with Whereupon the same Year the King having Tho. Cromwel of his Council sent Dr. Lee to visit the Abbies Priories and Nunneries in all England and
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
Comment it is plain enough and perhaps posterity might have done better to have covered this nakedness of their Forefather then to have published it after so long a silence § 106 Set down Now to proceed 1. First more generally It putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Honilies sending Commissioners thro the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy c. Thus this young Prince armed in such a sence with the Title of Supreme in Church-affairs and directed by such a Council did set forth from time to time nothing being deferred herein by reason of his nonage tho this much sued-for by some Bishops Injunctions concerning Religion and many of them in matters of faith and these contrary to the determinations and decrees of former obliging Councils Set them forth sometimes with the sole authority of this Council sometimes also with that of his Parliament without any precedent consultation with or consent of I say not some particular Bishops or Divines most of them known to be of the same inclinations with the Council as chiefly Cranmer and Ridley to whom I may add Latimer Hooper Rogers Coverdale but of any Ecclesiastical Synod of his Clergy the Act of which only hath force in such matters and usually without the precedent consent of other Bishops very considerable for their learning or place as Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Bonner Bishop of London Tonstal Bishop of Durham and one of the chosen Governors of the Kingdome Heath Bishop of Worcester and others And he imposed the same Injunctions so set forth upon the Bishops also and the rest of the Clergy to be submitted to by them as being the Orders of their Supream Head in Spirituals upon penalty of suspension imprisonment deprivation § 107 Of which actings of the King and State before we descend to particulars hear what Mr. Fox saith in great applause of them p. 1180 where after having told us That the Protector had restored the holy Scriptures to the Mother-Tongue had extinguished and abolished Masses and the Six Articles After softer beginnings saith he by little and little greater things followed in the Reformation of the Churches such as before were in banishment for the danger of the truth were again received in their Country to supply voided places and to be short saith he a new face of things began now to appear as it were on a Stage new Players coming in what needed this if the old consented to the Kings Mandates the old being thrust out therefore the consent of Clergy so much urged in the later end of this Kings Reign will be that of the new For the most part the Bishops of Churches and Diocesses were changed Such as had been dumb Prelates before were compelled to give place to other then that would preach and take pains .. Besides others also out of Forreign Countries which argues scarcity at home of these Clergy who would second the Kings Reformation men of learning and notable knowledge were sent for and received among whom was Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and Paulus Phagius he might have added to them Bernardinus Ochinus but that this man would do him no credit who we read in Coodwin p. 281. was packed away again with Peter Martyr in the beginning of Queen Mary 's Reign and three of these Martyr Bucer and Ochinus were Fryars forsaking the Cloister and marrying Wives after solemn Vows to the contrary Of whom saith he the first taught at Oxford the other two professed at Cambridge sure this was so appointed not because the Vniversities here at that time were not held so learned but because not accounted so orthodox as appeared shortly after in the beginnings of Queen Mary notwithstanding Martyrs and Bucers Lectures there He addeth And that with no small commendation of the whole University and I put in not without opposition of many learned men there disputing ex animo before the Kings Visitors against them and their Tenents as you may see in the solemn disputations had in Cambridge Fox p. 1250. c. Where I would recommend to your reading when at leisure the rational arguings and Apologies for the Church's Doctrines of Dr. Glyn and Mr. Langdale and others Members of the Vniversity of Cambridge against this reforming party and against the interlocutions of Bishop Ridley one of the Visitors As for the Oxford Oppositions Mr. Fox hath not communicated them There is extant P. Martyrs relation of them Fox p. 1255. perhaps not the most impartial yet wherein you may find in his Opponents Tresham Chadsey and Morgan much learning reverence to the Church and zeal in their cause and as we may gather from his Preface a conceived victory of whom there he saith Omnes anguli plateae domus officinae aenopolia adhuc eorum mentitos triumphos de me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resonant By which you may guess how the Vniversity of Oxford then stood affected Mr. Fox proceeds Of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward some to another Bonner Bishop of London was committed to the Marshal see Gardiner Bishop of Winchester with Jonstal Bishop of Duresme was cast into the Tower to whom may be added â—ox p. 1280. as appears out of Fox elsewhere Day removed from Chicester Heath from Worcester Vesy from Excester Likewise Pate Bishop of Rochester Goldwel Bishop of St. Asaph Bishop elect of Bangor are said to have been banished And some more might be removed in like manner who happen not to be mentioned because deceased before the Reign of Queen Mary as Wakeman Bishop of Gloucester Holbeck Bishop of Lincolne Skyp Bishop of Hereford Rugg Bishop of Norwich as may be probably conjectured from Mr. Fox his expressions but now rehearsed § 108 After this Mr. Fox goeth on to describe what course the King and that his Council took in the very beginnings of their power before any Parliament of Synod yet assembled to effect a Reformation in the Church The King saith he following the good Example of King Josias determined forthwith to enter into some Reformation of Religion in the Church of England Whereupon intending first a general Visitation over all the Bishopricks thereby as well to understand as also to redress the abuses of the same the chose out certain wife learned discreet and worshipful persons to be his Commissioners in that behalf and so dividing them into several companies assigned into them several Diocesses to be visited Appointing likewise unto every company one or two godly learned Preachers by which it seems the Commissioners were Laicks unless we say they appointed some godly Preachers to assist the Divines see the names of those for the Diocess of London Fox p. 1192. which Preachers at every Session should instruct the people in the true Doctrine of the Gospel and dehort them from their old Superstition and Idolatry And that they might be more orderly directed in this their Commission there were delivered unto them certain Injuctions and Ecclesiastical Orders drawn up by
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
Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat Regia authoritate editi In the thirty sixth of which Articles is also ratified the second corrected Form of Common-Prayer and the new Form of Ordination in these words Liber qui nuperrimè authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est continens modum formam orandi Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum Ecclesiae quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris maxime a Ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum gratiarum actione accipiendi approbandi posteritati commendandi sunt λ λ And also for the first new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments it must be granted that in the second year and second Parliament of the Kings Reign the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation gave their approbation and consent thereto as appears both by the Kings message to the Rebels of Cornwal where it is said That what-ever was contained in the new Common-Prayer-Book c. was by Parliament established by the whole Clergy agreed by the Bishops of the Realm devised Fox p. 1189 and by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner where it is said yet more fully That after great and serious debating and long conference of the Bishops and other grave and well learned men in the holy Scriptures one uniform Order of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments hath been and is most Godly set forth not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament and of all other the learned men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial Fox p. 1186. And see much-what the same said in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter Fox p. 1212. 6. ν That such consent and such Constitutions of the Clergy of this Realm being not to be denied at least it will follow that the Reformation as touching the Common-Prayer-Book from the second year of his Reign and as touching the other Articles of Religion from the fifth was regular and canonical as being the act of the Clergy § 111 Thus have I here put you together the ordinary defence excepting the ultimum refugium The Reply thereto That Princes may reform in matters of Religion and of Faith without and against the major part of their Clergy of which hereafter which is made for the regularity of Edward the Sixth's Reformation To which now consider with me what it seemeth may reasonably be replyed tho some things cannot be so fully cleared till I have given you the rest of the Narration of this Kings Proceedings to which therefore I must refer you for them Reply to α To α then I answer That the Arch-Bishop acted not in the setting forth of these Injunctions as the Metropolitan but as one of the Sixteen Councellors whom Henry the Eighth nominated for the Government of his Son and in the same manner as he would have acted had he been Bishop of Asaph or Bangor Neither are the Injunctions grounded at all upon the Metropolitan's assent but on the Kings Supremacy nor do they make any mention of him or his authority but only of the Council in general and of their advice as you may see in what is before related § 108. Neither were those Canons being of humane constitution only conceived either by King Council or this Arch-Bishop to be of any force under this Regal Supremacy But secondly Suppose them in force and these Injunctions published by the Metropolitan's authority yet is not such authority made valid in such things when single without the concurrence of his Bishops by any such Canon For the very same Canon that saith Nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant Episcopi c. saith also Nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum Paraeciis Sic enim unanimitas erit See Can. Apost 35. Thirdly lastly every thing set forth by the advice of this Council is not necessarily so by the Arch-Bishops advice or vote because he is one of the Council For here the vote of the major part who were all Lay-men save himself and one Dr. Wotton if Bishop Tonstal's vote was cast out tho it were contrary to his vote bears the name of the whole § 112 To β. To β. That the advice of many Bishops was used in many of the Kings Injunctions unless in that touching the new Form of Common-Prayer is not evident that the advice of some Bishops was used in all is credible but those such as were presumed to be of the same inclinations with the King and Council as whatsoever colour the State is of it cannot want some Clergy of the same complexion For Example Cranmer and Ridley now called to consutation but Gardiner Tonstal Bonner Heath c. shut out and in Queen Mary's days contra That the advice of many Bishops used is not sufficient for to impose Laws on the rest where all have a decisive vote and where the legislative power lies in the major part viz. in a Synod to prevent Innovations by such Prelates as are singular in their opinions § 113 To γ. That King Edward claimed by his Supremacy according to the power which To γ. as I have shewed above § 39. c. was judged then to belong to it the giving of Laws to his Clergy not only for rectifying their practice but Doctrines only using the assistance of such Divines or other learned men as he thought fit to single out for this purpose as you may see In his prescribing the Doctrine of the Homilies unto them and also Before §. 108. In his injoyning them that whatsoever else should come from him they should see and cause it faithfully to be observed In his silencing the Ministery till something were drawn up by certain Bishops and other learned men congregated by his authority that should put an end to all controversies in Religion before § 109 In the stile of his Proclamation before the order of the Communion where he saith We would not have our Subjects so much to mislike our judgment as tho we could not discern what was to be done c. God be praised we know both what by his word is meet to be redressed and have an earnest mind by the advice of whom of our most dear Uncle and other of our privy Council with all diligence to set forth the same and In the last Articles to the Bishop of Winchester drawn up saith the Kings Diary by Bishop Ridley Pullâ—r 8. l. and Secretary Sir W. Peters which required his Subscription to several points of
where they could be secure of no breach in greater matters § 119 To η. Where concerniâ—g the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations To η. That the words urged out of the charge against Winchester prove not the Clergy's reception of or submission to all the Kings Injunctions touching the Reformation but only to the first Injunctions That whether they be extended to the first or to all they must be understood in some such sense as this That at that time when this charge against Winchester was drawn there were as yet none other known to the Council that did by open Protestation and Letters as it follows in that charge shew a wilful disobedience thereto c. Or else the verity of them will not consist with the story of those times which often signify a great opposition and averseness in many of the Clergy besides Winchester to the Kings proceedings in the alteration of Religion so far as that many were silenced suspended imprisoned ejected out of their Spiritual Preferments for this cause § 120 For evidencing which see first in Fox p. 1192. Bishop Bonner's protestation concerning these first Injunctions and Homilies when they were tendered unto him by the Commissioners which protestation was so far from being interpreted an obedient reception or reverent observance of them that for it he was sent to the Fleet. And what was done by Gardiner and Bonner leading Bishops that it was done also by many others I pray you review Mr. Fox's words before recited § 107 That for the most part the Bishops of Churches and Diocesses were changed which you may compare with what is said before § 107. of the many new Bishops made by King Edward That Learned Men were sent for out of forreign Countries surely not because the Leaders of the Universities were not so well studied see their Disputations but because not so conformable to the new prescriptions That of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward some to another where he names Bonner Gardiner Tonstal but might have mentioned also Heath Day Vesy that we know of And to the same purpose much-what speaketh Godwin p. 223. A. D. 1548 who after having commended Day and Tonstal for very learned Pre lates saith That the drift of the punishments of such men when in Henry's time they were accounted the chief Lights of our Church he conceives to have been that the rest of that Order might by their Example be admonished without dissimulation either to resign their Bishopricks to others that were thought by the present times more worthy or be induced by this terror to conform themselves to the present Reformation of the Church according to the prescript of the Laws in that behalf lately enacted i. e by Parliament Thus he But that the imprisonment of these or of some other Clergy as also that the dissent of many others to the Kings Injunctions who were not as yet imprisoned for it preceded the confirmation of these Injunctions by any Act of Parliament or Convocation appears from the very Act it self 2. Edw. 6.1 c. Where the Parliament desires of the King That all persons that have offended in the Premises i. e in refusing the Form of Common-Prayer or at least of the Mass Fox p. 1184 imposed by the King before this Act other than such person or persons as now be and remain saith the Act in the ward of the Tower of London or in the Fleet may be pardoned thereof Some Clergy therefore were imprisoned for this cause before this Act and more also had offended in this matter than those who were imprisoned whose pardon here was begged by the Parliament § 121 Which reluctance of the Clergy may be seen also in what Mr. Fox relateth p. 1184 who after he hath first told us how a new Form of Communion was agreed on by certain learned men appointed by the King which Form you must know was not allowed or seen by the first Parliament of King Edward which Parliament appointed Communion in both kinds indeed but this might have been observed without altering or adding one Syllable to the Mass and enjoined by the Council to be duly executed both by the Bishops and their subordinate Clergy thus complains Nevertheless saith he as at no time any thing can be so well done of the godly but that the wicked will find some means to deface the same so likewise at this present thro the perverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness of many inferiour Priests and Ministers of Cathedral and other Churches of this Realm there did arise a marvellous Schism and variety of fashions in celebrating the Common Service and administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church For some zealously allowing the Kings proceedings did gladly follow the order thereof and others though not so willingly admitting them did yet dissemblingly and patchingly use some part of them but many carelesly contemning all would still exercise their old wonted Popery i. e in other language would still retain the former solemn Church Service Thus He. Now this variety of fashions only mentioned by Fox if you desire more particularly to know we find a more punctual relation thereof in Parsons 3. Convers of England 2. Part 12. Chapter What a Babylonical confusion saith he in the two first years of the Kings Reign ensued upon these innovations in all Churches is wonderful to recount For some Priests said the Latine Mass some the English Communion some both some neither some half of the one half of the other This was very ordinary to say the Introitus Confiteor in English and then the Collects and some other parts in Latine after that again the Epistles and Gospels in English and then the Canon of the Mass in Latine and lastly the Benediction and last Gospel in English But that which was of more importance and impiety some did consecrate Bread and Wine others did not but would tell the people before-hand That they would not consecrate but restore them their Bread and Wine back again as they received it from them only adding to it the Church's benediction And those that did consecrate did consecrate in divers forms some aloud some in secret some in one form of words some in another And after Consecration some held up the Host to be adored after the old fashion and some did not and of those that were present some did kneel down and adore others did shut their eyes others turn away their faces others run out of the Church crving Idolatry Hitherto Parsons View also Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform p. 63.74 concerning this-matter Whereby we see how averse and unsatisfied divers of the Clergy were with the Kings alterations § 122 And this not only before his new Liturgy is said to be confirmed by Act of Parliament and Convocation but after also For afterward we find the King and his Council in their Letter to the Bishop of London Fox p. 1186. complaining That it
Antiquit-Brittan p. 339. And you see by the Testimonies forecited how many suffered for opposing the Kings Injunctions and particularly this new Form of Common-Prayer and how many more of the old Clergy are said to have opposed them in every place where they might hope for impunity insomuch as that this Book in many places was not so much as heard of and how a major part even of the Bishops are by Protestants confessed in their conformity only to have used an ontward compliance and dissimulation Lastly 3. From what they so many as remained of them did immediately after King Edward s time so soon as this Yoke of fear was removed in the entrance of Queen Mary at which time they threw-off their former vizards and plainly renounced not only the rest of the Reformation the fruit but also the Regal Supremacy i. e quoad talia the root Nor could fear when the Sovereign power rechanged ever make them taught by long experience to take up again their former disguise amongst whom the major part of those seven Bishops chosen to compose the new Common-Prayer-Book who survived to Queen Mary's days namely Day Thirlby and Goodrich Skyp Bishop of Hereford and Holbeck Bishop of Lincolne being dead before deserted this new Form and returned again to the Mass And it is probable that some of those Bishops who by Queen Mary were ejected for Marriage some of them even after a Monastick profession conformed themselves likewise to the old Religion because tho they lived here at home in so inquisitive and severe times we find not that they were restrained or proceeded against as Hereticks Such were Holgate Bird Bush c. § 128 Now since such were the inclinations of all or most of King Edward's first Clergy and to be swayed only from the profession thereof by fear no marvel if his Council went about reforming at the first by vertue of the new Supremacy before the calling of any Synod save that wherein Arch-Bishop Cranmer was frustrated of his intentions And Dr. Fern Exam. Champ. 2. c. § 8. makes this Apology for such proceeding That Reformation of Gods worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote where there is just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times wherein they are to assemble To which purpose saith he sounds that known complaint of Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councils spoken by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians in his time We cannot say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in a Synod especially where there is just cause of fear I suppose that he means Fear that the Synod will go contrary to what the Prince thinks to be right but he may have greater reason to ask advice from persons free from the exceptions of factious interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And saith he how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edward's Reign i. e till the King had otherwise moulded the Members of the Synod or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical Vote I cannot say Thus Dr. Fern. § 129 And much-what in the same manner doth Dr. Heylin Eccles Vindic. 2. Par. 5. § p. 82. discourse of King Edward's Reformation to shew you that our modern Writers are not without some apprehension of the neglect of the Church authority in it Which reviving saith he of the ancient Forms of Gods worship rather than the introduction of a new as the King Edward did here in England by his own authority the body of the Clergy not consulted in it so possibly there might be good reason why those who had the conduct of the Kings Affairs thought it not safe to put the managing of the business to a Convocation and then having shewed that such change of Religion would be both against the reputation and profit of the Clergy he goes on So that as well in point of reputation as of profit besides the love which many of them had to their former Mumpsimus it was most probable that such an hard piece of Reformation would not easily down had it been put into the power of a Convocation especially under a Prince in nonage and a State unsettled Thus he As for that which afterward he saith That this was passed by the Bishops when it passed in Parliament the Bishops making the most considerable van of the House of Peers It is answered by what hath been said before § 11. n. 2. And what he saith That all was confirmed by the Clergy on the Post-fact in the Convocation of 1552 sall be answered by and by See likewise what the same Dr. saith on the same subject in 1. Par. 6. § p. 36 where after doubting whether several particulars of King Edward's Reformation were done of the Kings meer motion or by advice of his Council or by Consultation With his Bishops For saith he there is little left upon record of the Convocation of that time more than the Articles of the year 1552 He speaks also of Queen Elizabeth's Reformation done after the same sort Thus also saith he in Queen Elizabeth's time before the new Bishops were well setled and the Queen assured of the affection of her Clergy she went that way to work in the Reformation which her two Predecessors Henry and Edward had done before her in the well ordering of the Church she published her Injunctions c. But when the times were better setled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation did make Canons c. And thus if a Prince according to the Sect which himself and his Council favours may take the liberty with coactive power to reform at the first against his Clergy he within a short time no doubt may securely leave the Church-work to Church-men as the Dr. saith and justify his Reformation by his Clergy that is either changed first or terrified § 130 To χ. To χ. These two I grant differ little 1 The Clergy's first motioning to the King 2. or The King 's first motioning to the Clergy a Reformation of something in Doctrine or Manners so that the Clergy uncompelled or forced by the King establish it before it be enjoyned or imposed on any to be observed But this following differs from the former toto coelo viz. When the King directed by some particular Bishops whom he thinks good to advise with proposeth to the Clergy a Reformation in Doctrine not to be consulted on by them and their judgment to be exhibited to him upon the assent or denyal of a major part of whom as having in these things the legislative power such Reformation may be established or laid aside but to be obeyed and
of lawful superiour Councils as may be seen in the several decrees of those Councils set down in Chur. Govern 4. Part compared with these 42 Articles and the Homilies approved by them CHAP. IX Continuation of the same descending to Particulars And of his first Change of the Publick Liturgy § 136 HAving thus described in general the way of King Edward's Reformation H. More particularly and exercising his Supremacy and partly examined the Apologies made for it we will now proceed to nominate to you the several particulars of his Reformation which is usually covered under the name of alteration only of some Rites and Ceremonies as if the Doctrines of the Church suffered no change under him In sending certain doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Win chester By vertue of such Supremacy then were sent those Articles to the imprisoned Bishop of Winchester to be subscribed containing several points of Doctrine or practice involving Doctrine some of which have been named before 45. proposed to his Subscription not as matters passed by any former Synod but saith the twentieth Article as published and set forth by the Kings Majesty's authority by the advice of hit Highnesse's Council for many great and godly considerations Fox p. 1235. Which Articles the Bishop is required there to subscribe publish and preach upon the pain of incurring such Penalties for not doing the same as may by his Majesty's laws be inflicted upon him § 137 By vertue of such Supremacy the Six Articles which contained matter of Doctrine and Faith Ia repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Hen 8. time Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. Fox p. 1036 and that in things of no small moment and which being determined and the observance of them enjoined as well by a Synod as a Parliament justly stand in force till a revocation of them by another Synod of like authority were repealed in the beginning of King Edward's Reign without any such Synod see Stat. 1. Edw. 12. c. and the Members of the Church of England freed from any further obedience to them By which it now became free for any tho having formerly made contrary vows to Marry to omit sacerdotal Confession to preach against the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass contrary to the decrees of former Councils and this National Synod § 138 Ia seizing on Religious houses and some Bishops lands and denying the lawfulness of Motastick Vows By vertue of such Supremacy this King I mean always the Council in the Kings name and by his authority not only justified the power used by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses but declared also Monastick Vows to be unlawful superstitious and unobliging Therefore the first Article drawn up for Winchester's Subscription was this That the late King Henry the Eighth justly and of good reason had caused to be suppressed and defaced all Monasteries Religious Houses c. and That the same being so dissolved the persons therein bound and professed to obedience to a person place habit and other superstitious Rites and Ceremonies are upon that order appointed by the Kings Majesty's authority as Supreme Head of the Church clearly released and acquitted of those Vows and Professions and at their full liberty as tho those unwitty and superstitious vows had never been made Thus the Article And hence it was that some formerly Monasticks in King Edward's days married Wives but this Doctrine his Supremacy did deliver contrary to the Doctrine which his Father's Supremacy published See before § 95. This King also continued his Fathers practice in seizing upon that piously devoted means which his Fathers suddain death after the concession of them by Parliament had left undevoured I mean Chaunteries Free-Chappels Colledges Hospitals c. See Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. But this he did upon another pretence than his Father by reason that his Doctrine herein varied from his Fathers His pretence being the unlawfulness of offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or giving alms for the defunct but his Fathers pretence who in his Doctrine justified these being quite another as you may see before § 92. And therefore the second Act of Parliament in his Stat. 37. Hâ—n 3.4 c. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. and in his Fathers time that agree alike in the donation of these Revenues yet vary in their prefaces and motives § 139 But in this he went beyond his Father that He began the taking of Bishops lands also Sacriledge now after the gain thereof was grown sweet keeping no bounds After therefore that learned and vertuous Prelate Tonstal left by his Father one of his Governors ejected He I mean his Council and Courtiers for happy was that King of his Child-hood that it preserved him unblameable for these things seized upon that rich and tempting Bishoprick of Durham Of which thus Bishop Godwin The removing of these obstacles the ejected Bishops made way for the invasion of their Widow-Sees For as soon as Tonstal was exauctorated that rich Bishoprick of Duresme by Act of Parliament was wracked the chief Revenues and Customes of it being incorporated to the Crown and the rest so guelded that at this day it scarce possesseth the third part of its ancient Revenues The hungry Courtier finding how good a thing the Church was had now for some years become acquainted with it out of zealous intent to prey Neither could the horridness of her sacred Skeleton as yet so work on him as to divert his resolutions and compassionately to leave the Church to her religious poverty Beside the infancy of the King in this uncertain ebb and flow of Religion made her opportune to all kind of Sacriledge So that saith he we are to thank the Almighty Guardian of the Church that these Locusts have not quite devoured the maintenance of the labourers in this English Vineyard Thus he concerning that Bishoprick who had he lived in these days might hare seen the multiplied generation of those Locusts devour his own Besides Duresme for any thing I can find the Bishoprick of Rochester after 1551 when Scory was removed thence and that of Westminster after 1550 when Thirlby was removed thence were enjoyed by the Crown until Queen Mary's days besides that of Worcester given in Commendam to Hooper to exercise the Jurisdiction and Episcopality thereof with some short allowance for his pains saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform under Edw. 6. p. 101. In which Author also see the spoyl committed in those days upon the Bishopricks of Bath and Wells p. 54 of Coventry and Lichfield of Landaff of Lincolne and others p. 100 101. 129. and elsewhere Sure foul things were done in this kind in those innovating times because I find even some of King Edward's favourite-Bishops highly to dislike them For Bishop Ridley in his Treatise Apud Fox 9. 1616. lamenting the State of England relates how he and Cranmer were both in high displeasure with the great ones for
before § 65. and caused Arch-Bishop Whitgift to exact of all those that entred into the Clergy a Subscription that they would use it and no other Form Cambd Eliz. An. Dom. 1583. Ecclesiastical Can. 36. Which Subscription the party that opposed this Book at last prevailing was remitted by the Parliament 1640 and since that I need not tell you what it hath suffered The old Form supplanted the Mass the pew Form the old and then the old one being raised again out of its ashes in the new Scotch Liturgy which began all the troubles had almost brought in the late tumults a fatal overthrow both upon the new one and upon it self Thus much from § 143. concerning this Kings new Liturgies § 164 By vertue of such a Supremacy the King conceiving he had power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws In the abrogatio of several Ecclesiastical law coâ—â—eâ—ning Fastâ— Câ—lâ—bacy of the Cleâ—gy c. tho established by former superior Councils appointed the Parliament assenting thereto eight persons amongst whom were two Bishops Crannier and Thirlby and Peter Martyr to prepare this work Who drew up a body of them which was then made publick and since reprinted 1640. But indeed it appeareth not that this Reformation of them was ever ratified by King Parliament or Convocation See the Preface to Reform Leg. Eccl. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliaments authority and dispensed with whom he thought fit for not observing them See Stat. 2 3. Edw. 19. chap. Wherein after a Preface declaring That the Kings Subjects now had a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel and true word of God shewed declared and opened thro the mercy of God by the hands of the Kings Majesty and his most noble Father and thereby perceived that one day or meat of it self is not more holy more pure or more clean than another c. as if the former Church which they left had taught them otherwise after this Preface I say the King with the consent of Parliament first ordains That all manner of Statutes Laws and Constitutions concerning any manner of fasting or abstinence from any kinds of meats shall from the first of May next ensuing loose their force and strength and be void and of none effect Then sets down the days upon which he will have abstinence from flesh observed upon the Penalty of paying Ten Shillings and suffering ten days Imprisonment except those who being not enfeebled with age or sickness shall receive a licence to eat flesh from the King or his Successors For you must know that the maker of a Law hath power to dispense with it But here note that only abstinence from flesh is enjoyned on those days by this Statute not Fasting nor is Fasting enjoyned by any other Statute that I can find save only on Holy-day-Eves by a Statute made two or three years after Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.3 â— Neither is there any obligation for the observation of either fasting or abstinence on these days by any express Canon of this Church reformed when as now the former Church-Laws concerning this were by the Kings Supremacy nulled in this Act but only by Act of Parliament and the end of such abstinence in the Parliament Act 5. Eliz. 5. c. professed to be only upon a Politick consideration the increase of Fishermen and Mariners c. And not for any Superstition saith that Act to be maintained in the choice of meats or as if such forbearing of flesh were of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be Tho King Edward in the fore-cited Statute I confess mentions partly another end viz. because that due and godly abstinence is a means to vertue and to subdue mens bodies to their Soul and Spirit And I doubt not that many devout persons in this Church holding themselves bounden to the former Ecclesiastical Constitutions notwithstanding the Kings abrogation have still observed this duty in obedience thereto See likewise 5 6. Edw. 6. 3. c. the same Regal authority appointing the Holy-days And these things are done in Parliament without the least mentioning or referring to any Synod § 165 Likewise by vertue of such Supremacy the King with consent of Parliament ordained Staâ— 2 3. Edw 6.21 c. That all Laws positive Canons Constitutions heretofore made by man only which prohibit Marriage to any Spiritual Person who by Gods Law may lawfully marry shall be utterly void and of none effect and this upon consideration as it is in the Preface of the same Act of such uncleanness of living and other great inconveniences which have followed of compelled chastity as if the Church compelled any person to such chastity except hypothetically if he will take on him such a profession Or as if in this the Church enjoyned any thing which she first stated not to be in every ones power to observe if using a just endeavour Now whereas it is said in 5.6 Edw. 6.12 That the slanderous reproach of holy Matrimony i. e. of Priests doth redound to the dishonour of the Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same Marriage of Clergy to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by their common assent as by the subscription of their hands Such assent as likewise that which they say to the same purpose in the 42 Articles Art 31. no way opposeth the Law of the Church For things most lawful by Gods Law as Marriage of the Clergy is by the Church allowed to be yet may be lawfully prohibited by the Church Whose Law in this matter the Clergy of this land justified in the third and fourth of the Six Articles Neither if they had here opposed it as they do not would their sentence be of any force because contrary to the Constitution of former superiour Councils § 166 By vertue of such Supremacy the King in the Sixth year of his Reign published by his authority 42 Articles of Religion containing several matters of Faith Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion dâ—fferent from the foâ—mer dectâ—â—â—eâ— of the Church which are there stated contrary to the definitions of former superiour Councils Which Articles are said indeed to have been first decreed and agreed on by a Synod of the Clergy held at London the Title presixed to them being this Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. Dom. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat regiâ authoritate in lucem editi But this I cannot thus easily concede Where whether these Articles were passed by any Synod notwithstanding this Title Thus far indeed I grant that they seem to be compiled or consented to by some members of
that Synod whom the King after the Synod had appointed the Synod leaving this business to him to draw up such Ecclesiastical Laws and so I grant that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros qui erant pars aliqua Synodi London But that these Articles were published established or passed by that Synod I think there is good reason to deny from these relations which follow § 167 Where I will first transcribe you what Mr. Fuller Hist Eccles 7. l. p 420. who had perused the Records concerning it saith of this Synod or Convocation As for the Records of this Convocation saith he they are but one degree above blanks scarce affording the names of the Clerks assembled therein for which see also Heylin's Hist of Reform King Edw. p. 121. Indeed they had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business and no Convocation can hear complaints in Religion nor speak in redress thereof till a Commission be granted unto it from Regal authority Now the true reason why the King would not entrust the diffusive body of the Convocation with a power to meddle with matters of Religion was a just jealousy which he had of the ill-affection of the major part thereof who under a fair rind of Protestant Profession had the rotten core of Roman Superstition It was therefore conceived safer for the King to rely on the ability and fidelity of some select confidents cordial to the cause of Religion than to adventure the same to be discussed and decided by a suspected Convocation However this barren Convocation is entitled the Parent of those Articles of Religion 42 in number which are printed with this Preface Articuli de quibus c. as is recited before With these Articles was bound a Catechisme younger in age as bearing date of the next year but of the same extract relating to this Convocation as Author thereof Indeed it was first compiled as appears in the Kings Patent prefixed by a single Divine charactered pious and learned but afterwards perused and allowed by the Bishops and other learned men understand it the Convocation and by Royal authority commended to all Subjects commanded to all School-Matters to teach their Scholars Yet very few in the Convocation ever saw it much less explicitly consented thereunto But these had formerly it seems passed over their power to the select Divines appointed by the King In which sense they may be said to have done it themselves by their Delegates to whom they had deputed their authority A case not so clear but that it occasioned a Cavil at the next Convocation in the first of Queen Mary When the Papists i. e. all the Convocation save six persons therein assembled renounced the legality of any such former Transactions Thus Mr. Fuller one interessed in this matter on the other side § 168 Next if you would know the questioning of this Catechisme to which as well as the Articles was pretended the name of the Synod and the answer returned thereto In the Relation made thereof in Fox p. 1282. thus speaks the Prolocutor Dr. Weston to the Convocation concerning it For that saith he there is a Book of late set forth called the Catechisme bearing the name of this Honorable Synod i. e. the last which sate and yet put forth without their consents as I have learned being a Book very pestiferous and full of Heresies and likewise a Book of Common Prayer very abominable I have thought it therefore best first to begin with the Articles of the Catechisme concerning the Sacrament of the Altar to confirm the natural Presence of Christ in the same and also Transubstantiation for which conference the next Fryday being appointed Then saith the relation the Prolocutor exhibited two Bills unto the House The one for the forementioned Article of the Catechisme the natural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar the other concerning the Catechisme that it was not by that House's agreement formerly set forth and that they did not for the present agree thereunto requiring all them to subscribe to the same as he himself had done Whereunto the whole House did immediately assent except six Jo. Philpot one of the six Renegers stood up and spake first concerning the Catechisme That he thought they were deceived in the Title of the Catechisme in that it beareth the Title of the Synod of London last before this altho many of them which then were present were never made privy thereof in setting it forth for that this house had granted the authority to make Ecclesiastical Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty and whatsoever Ecclesiastical Laws they or the most part of them did set forth 3 4. Edw. 6.11 c. according to a Statute in that behalf provided it might well be said to be done in the Synod of London altho such as be of the House now had no notice thereof before the promulgation And that in this point he thought the setter-forth thereof nothing to have slandered the House as they by their Subscription went about to perswade the world since they saith he had our Synodal authority committed unto them to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary This concerning the questioning of this Catechisme and Articles in the beginning of Queen Mary's days and the Answer returned thereto But to clear the matter a little further We find in the same Fox p. 1704 after this Arch-bishop Cranmer in his tryal before the Commissioners at Oxford Brooks Bishop of Gloucester and others charged amongst other things with being the Author of this Catechisme and Articles and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them the former of which he there confesseth but denyeth the latter The words in Fox are 7th Interrog Item That the said Tho. Cranmer did fly and recuse the authority of the Church did hold and follow the Heresy concerning the Sacrament of the Altar and also did compile and caused to be set abroad divers Books Answer Whereunto when the names of the Books were recited to him he denyed not such Books which he was the true Author of As touching the Treatise of Peter Martyr upon the Sacrament he denyed that he ever saw it before it was abroad yet did approve and well like of the same As for the Catechisme the Book of Articles with the other Book against Winchester he granted the same to be his doings 8th Interrog Item That he compelled many against their wills to subscribe to the same Articles Answer He exhorted he said such as were willing to subscribe but against their wills he compelled none § 169 Having given you these three relations now to reflect a little on them First if you well consider the words in the Title of the Articles de quibus inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros c. they seem not the ordinary expresion of a Synodal Act which runs more generally as thus de quibus
Pope did also assume unto her self the Stile and Title of Queen of England as Cosin and next Heir to Queen Mary deceased quartering the Arms thereof upon all her Plate and Escutcheons Only let me first mind you this concerning Queen Maries Reign that lyeth between That whatever the Reformation had built upon any Synodal vote under Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth was now revoked and demolished under Queen Mary by the like Synods of a legal Clergy as is shewed before § 52. The Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters was re-acknowledged by this National Synod now not due to the Civil but to the Ecclesiastical Chief Governor the Bishop of Rome the Patriarch of the West yet not challenged by him in so high a degree as these Princes used it The Six Articles established by Synod in Henry the Eighth's days as also the ancient Church Liturgy ancient Form of Ordination ancient way of Tryal of Hereticks ancient Canons c were now by the like Synodal power again restored and re-inforced See before § 48. So that the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth was to begin upon a new foundation without grounding any plea upon any Synodal Act or consent of the Clergy made in King Henry or King Edward s days either concerning the new Supremacy or the new Liturgy or the new 42 Articles of Religion c since all these were by the same Synodal authority in Queen Mary's days desclaimed Here seemeth no evasion If we accept the decrees of later Synods rather than of former then Queen Mary's Synods will void King Henry's and King Edward's But if of former Synods rather than of later then the Synods of Henry the Eighth and of former times for the Six Articles c. will void King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's too § 172 And here first concerning the course which Queen Elizabeth took in repairing the Reformation defaced by Queen Mary Dr. Heylin speaks thus of it in general Reform Justified p. 37. In Queen Elizabeth's time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy She went that way to work in her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Jewish State and many of the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by God And to that end she published her Injunctions An. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. all tending unto the Reformation with the advice and counsel of the Metropolitan him that was first ordained so by her appointment and some other godly Prelates who were then about her by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus the Doctor The brief of which is That Queen Elizabeth did the Church-work at first her self without any Synodal authority of the Church-men as not being assured of their affection till she had setled new Church-men according to her mind and then she did Church-work by Church-men § 173 This testimony premised concerning her proceedings in general Hâ—r calling of a Syâ—od which declareth against the Râ—formation Now to mention some particulars which are of the most note In the beginning of her Reign the Queen together with a Parliament called also a Synod in which Bonner Bishop of London in the vacancy of the Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury was President and Dr. Harpsfield was Prolocutor for the inferiour Clergy But this Synod continued in the former resolutions made under Queen Mary and remained inflexible to the Queens inclinations and the Reformation nay declared against it The full relation of which Synod I will give you out of Mr. Fuller's History 9. l. p. 54. who copyed it out of Lib. Synod 1559. because tho somewhat long yet it is very remarkable The Convocation at this time saith he was very small and silent For as it is observed in nature when one twin is of an unusual strength and bigness the other born with him is weak and dwindleth away So here this Parliament being very active in matters of Religion the Convocation younger brother thereunto was little employed less regarded Yet in it in the lower House of Convocation were passed over certain Articles of Religion which they tendred to the Bishops that they might present them to the Parliament The Bishops likewise by their President Bishop Bonner presented them to the Lord Keeper Likewise in the tenth Session of this Convocation an account was given in by both the Vniversities in an Instrument under the hand of a publick Notary wherein they both did concur to the truth of the foresaid Articles the last only excepted § 174 The Articles together with their Preface are these which saith he we here both transcribe and translate copyed by me out of the Original considering they are the last in this kind that ever were represented in England by a legal Corporation in defence of the Popish Religion § 175 Reverendi in Christo Patres ac Domini Colendissimi Quoniam famâ publicâ referente ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit multa religionis christianae dogmata publico unanimi gentium christianarum consensu hactenus recepta probata atque ab Apostolis ad nos usque concorditer per manus deducta praesertim Articulos infra scriptos in dubium vocari Hinc est quod nos Cantuariensis Provinciae inferior secundarius Clerus in uno Deo sic disponente ac Seren Dominae nostrae Reginae Decani Capituli Cant. mandato Brevi Parliament ac monitione ecclesiasticâ solitâ declatatâ id exigente convenientes partium nostrarum esse existimavimus tum nostrae tum eorum quorum curae nobis committitur saluti omnibus quibus poterimus modis prospicere Quocirca majorum nostrorum exemplis commoti qui in similia saepè tempora inciderunt fidem quam in Articulis infra scriptis veram esse credimus ex animo profitemur ad Dei laudem honorem officiique aliarum nostrae curae commissarum animarum exonerationem praesentibus duximus publicè afferendam affirmantes sicut Deus nos in die Judicii adjuvet asserentes 1. Quod in Sacramento Altaris virtute Christi verbo suo a Sacerdote debitè prolato assistentis praesens est realiter sub speciebus Panis Vini naturale Corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Mariâ Item naturalis ejus Sanguis 2. Item Quod post Consecrationem non remanet substantia panis vini neque ulla alia substantia nisi substantia Dei Hominis 3. Item
Quod in Missâ offertur verum Christi Corpus verus ejusdem Sanguis Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis 4. Item Quod Petro Apostolo ejus legitimis Successoribus in Sede Apostolicâ tanquam Christi vicario data est suprema potestas pascendi regendi ecclesiam Christi militantem fratres suos confirmandi 5. Item Quod authoritas tractandi definiendi de iis quae spectant ad fidem Sacramenta disciplinam ecclesiasticam hactenus semper spectavit spectare debet tantum ad Pastores ecclesiae quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc in ecclesiâ Dei posuit non ad Laicos In which Article penned with some tender sense of the invasion which formerly in King Henry and King Edward's days had been made upon the Clergy-rights both the Regal and Parliamentary power being excluded totally by a tantum ad Pastores not only a definiendo but a tractando not only quae ad fidem but quae ad disciplinam ecclesiasticam spectant I suppose made the University so cautious to subscribe thereto Quam nostram assertionem affirmationem fidem nos inferior Clerus praedistus vestris Paternitatibus tenore praesentium exhibemus humiliter supplicantes ut quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam intentionem aliter illis quorum in hac parte interest notificandi Vos qui Patres estis ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis Quâ in re officium charitatis ac pietatis ut arbitramur praestabitis saluti gregis vestri ut par est prospicietis vestras ipsi animas liberabitis § 176 These were the last words and testament as it were of the ancient Clergy now expiring seeing their definitive authority assumed by the Laity and upon this a flood of innovations coming upon them Which Protestation of theirs remaineth upon record to all generations to shew that in the Reformation the Laity deserted their former Guides and Spiritual Fathers the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's and Queen Mary's days all constant to the ancient Church-doctrines saving only Supremacy for King Henry's time and also in King Edward's days the major part of this Clergy tho externally guilty of some dissimulation yet inwardly retaining the same judgment as may be seen by what is acknowledged above § 122. c. and 127. § 177 This Declaration of the Clergy and Universities was ended in the Queens proposal of a Disputation in Westminster Church A Disputation between the Bishops and the reformed Divines between some of the Bishops and others of Queen Mary's Clergy and some of the reformed Divines lately returned home from beyond Sea Of which Disputation the Lord Keeper Bacon one of the Protestant Religion was appointed the Moderator The three Questions which were proposed by the reforming party to the Bishops to be the subject of the Conference were these 1. It is against the word of God and the Custome of the ancient Church to use a tongue unknown to the people in Common-Prayer Fox p. 1924. and the administration of the Sacraments 2. Every Church hath authority to appoint take away and change Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Rites so the same be to edification 3. It cannot be proved by the word of God that there is in the Mass offered up a Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead Of which questions to pass by the first there being nothing either in the former Convocation-Articles or in any decree of former Church against the lawfulness of having the Divine Service in a known tongue which is all that the Reformation desires in this matter and which could be no occasion of difference among Christians were all other Controversies of Doctrine well composed In the second Question it seems to me somewhat strange that whereas the Convocation speaks chiefly of the authority of defining points de fide and contends that the authority of defining such points belongs not to the Laity or to any Civil Power but only ad Pastores and whereas also the main of the Reformation consists in altering such Doctrines belonging to Faith and not in altering some Rites and Ceremonies yet the question here stretcheth no further than to Rites and Ceremonies and then speaks of these as alterable not by the Laity or a Civil Power but by a particular Church i. e. as I suppose by the Clergy thereof And then leaves us in the dark also whether this particular Church be put here as contradistinct only to other particular Churches on which it is independent and hath this power granted to it by all or be put as contradistinct to the Church Vniversal or to Superior Councils on which surely it hath some dependance Again in the last question it seems as strange that whereas the Convocation in their Preface founds this Article together with the rest on Primitive and Apostolical Tradition as well as on Scripture Publico christianarum gentium consensu c. atque ab Apostolis ad not usque c. And whereas the reformed in the first question where seemed some advantage add the custome of ancient Church to the testimony of the Scriptures and in their Preface promise adherence to the Doctrines and Practice of the Catholick Church unless there be some evasion in the limitation there used Fox p. 1930. where they say by Catholick Church they mean that Church which ought to be sought in the holy Scriptures and which is governed and led by the Spirit of Christ Yet here they use that restraining Clause it cannot by the word of God be proved the judgment of the ancient Church the authoritative expounder of the word of God being indeed in this matter very clear against them See Discourse of Eucharist § 92.111 c. § 178 If you would know what end this Disputation had it is thus set down in Cambden Hist. Eliz. An. Dom. 1559. That all came to nothing for that after a few words passed to and fro in writing they could not agree about the manner of disputing The Protestants triumphing as if they had gotten the victory and the Papists complaining that they were hardly dealt withal in that they were not forewarned of the questions above a day or two before and that Lord Keeper Bacon a man little versed in matters of Divinity and a bitter enemy of the Papists sate as Judge whereas he was only appointed as Moderator or keeper of Order But the very truth is that they weighing the matter more seriously durst not without consulting the Bishop of Rome call in question so great matters and not controverted in the Church of Rome exclaiming every where When shall there be any certainry touching Faith Disputations concerning Religion do always bend that way as the Scepters incline and such like And so hot were the Bishops of Lincolne and Winchester that they thought meet that the Queen and the Authors of this falling away from the Church of Rome should be stricken with the censure of Excommunication But
the wiser sort resolved that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome lest they being Subjects should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince and take up the banner of Rebellion Thus Cambden Now the contention about the manner of disputing which Cambden omits was what side should speak last which the Bishops because of their dignity desired to do after having observed Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked But this the Queens Council would not yield to them the first agreement being pretended contrary and so that conference ceased After this Disputation followed the suppressing sect 179. n. 1. The Regâ—l Suâ—remancy and all that K. Edw. hâ—d done in the Refâ—rmâ—tioâ— now re-established by the Queen and Paâ—liament of the Mass of the Popes Supremacy of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigor by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy in all those spiritual Jurisdictions which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary and upon pretence that the Crown could not be supported with such honor as it ought to be if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembred from it all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary Besides which because there were many Impropriations and Tithes by dissolution of Religious Houses invested in the Crown the Queen kept several Bishopricks void till she had taken into her hands what Castles Mannors and Tenements she thought good returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes but this an extended instead of the other old rent Bishopricks being thus kept void also in following times one after another upon several occasions saith Dr. Heylin till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it See his History of Queen Elizabeth p. 120 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. c. sect 179. n. 2. Again Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer but altered first in some things by eight Learned men all of the reformed party and non-Bishops to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen In which review saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Elizabeth p. 111. there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. see before § 160. The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it The Body of our Lord c. Take and eat lest saith that Author under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers Likewise the Rubrick about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground And to come up closer saith he to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood as also the Altar in the Queens own Chappel was furnished with rich Plate two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124. that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus Musick retained in the Church Festivals observed c. Thus Dr. Heylin And some such thing likewise was observed if you will give me leave to digress a little by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion both concerning Real Presence For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words Since as the Holy Scriptures testify Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the world It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out and concerning Church Authority and Church Ceremonies For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days being taken with the Geneva-way were when they returned great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Eâ—â—land and of Church-authority in general therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ' The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence Insomuch as when one of her Divines see Heylin's Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 124. had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complyed so far as to resort to the Mass see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist in answer to a Priest desiring her judgment therein are well known 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies and great Opposer of the Puritans see before § 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist p. 144. c. several of whom tho in such a scarcity of Divines she preferred in the beginning of her Reign as Sampson to be Dean of Christ Church Whittington to be Dean of Durham Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge c Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her And when Alexander Nowel Dean of Pauls had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression and to return unto his Text. Heyl. Hist. p. 124. But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queens days in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad and by Peter Martyr and others here at home and that tho some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived
190 NOW instead of these Catholick Bishops expelled being all that then sate Concerning the defects of the Qu. Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days save only Anthony Bishop of Landaff whom Cambden calls the Calamity of his See and who I think can be much challenged by no side in Henry the Eighth's time in Edward the Sixth's in Queen Mary's in Queen Elizabeth's still acquiescing for his Religion on the Princes direction the Queen had onely six others surviving since King Edward's time out of whom to raise her new Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Scory Bishop of Chicester Coverdale of Excester Barlow of Bath two Suffragan Bishops of Bedford and Thetford and one Bale Bishop of Ossery in Ireland amongst whom was no Metropolitan and of whom but one was consecrated in Henry the Eighth's days the other five in King Edward â—s whose times were full of uncanonical Proceedings and liable to several exceptions Again two of which Bishops Scory and Coverdale in King Edward's time came as is said into Bishopricks not void Besides that on another account they as also Barlow were lawfully ejected in Queen Mary's days as being marryed persons two of them Barlow and Coverdale doing this contrary to the Canons both as Priests and as Religious The later of whom also going beyond-Sea in Q. Mary's days there turned Puritan as they are called and in the troubles of Frankford was one of the Opposers of the Common-Prayer-Book of England and after his return See Bishop Bramhal 's Consecrat of Protestant Bishops jâ—stified â—ollinsheâ—d p. 1309. 26. Heâ— 8.14 c. 1 2. Mar. 8. c. at the Consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker refused to wear an Episcopal habit as is found upon Record nor would resume his Bishoprick of Excester but to his dying day lived a private Preacher in London William Allen in the second year of Queen Elizabeth being made Bishop of Excester in his stead As for the Suffragan Bishops as they were in a way and manner differing from former times first set up by King Henry so were they put down again by Qu. Mary and quite laid aside under Queen Elizabeth § 191 This for the reformed Bishops that are said to remain from King Edward's days Concernâ—â—g the defect of the nâ—w Bishop Oâ—dained in Qu. Elâ—zâ—beth'â— days now touching the new ones who were made by Queen Elizabeth I think not fit to trouble my Reader here with an exact discussion of the validity of their Orders by reason of defects either in the Ordainers or the Ordained since such a discourse for the most part Scholastick disputing of the Character Matter Form Intention c. essentially required for the conferring of this Sacrament may better come out in a Treatise a part then interrupt this Historical Narration Concerning these new Bishops and Prieststhen I will briefly only observe two or three things whereof the first shall be the judgment and esteem the Catholick Church has made of these and the like Orders the second that tho these Orders be supposed valid yet were they certainly unlawful and against the Canons and moreover unprofitable yea noxious to those who conferred and received them As to the first sect 192. 1. the new Ordination grew so far suspected as deficient to Queen Mary that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one That touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders Fox p. 1295. after the new sort and fashion of Orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Bishop Bramhal indeed urgeth this following passage out of Cardinal Pool's Dispensation to prove Consecrat of Protestant Bishops justified 3. c. p. 63. that King Edward's new Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Mary's days by Cardinal Pool by the Pope confirming his Acts and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England Ac omnes Ecclesiasticas saeculares ceu quorumvis Ordinum Regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta â—â—m Ordines quaâ—â— Beneficia Ecclesiastica ceu alias Spirituales matâ—rias praetensâ supremitate authoritatis Ecclesiasticae Anglicanâ— licet nulliter de facto obtinuerint ad cor reversae peâ—â—onae ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus Beneficiis per nos ipsos ceu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in Domino dispensabimus From which words of the Cardinal the Bishop argueth That If King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations which was required by the Institution of Christ then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirm their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church Thus the Bishop But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument you may observe that the Cardinal very cautiously here First saith not dispensamus or recipimus in the present as he doth in every one of his other dispensings throughout the whole Instrument tho in matters uncanonical dispensamus relaxamus remittimus concedimus c. in the present Tense but here dispensabimus in the future And Secondly saith not singlely dispensabimus but recipiemus per nos ipsos seu deputatos which reception per nos seu deputatos was not necessary for a dispensation with a matter only uncanonical And Thirdly saith not recipiemus simply but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt referring to the manner of the reception which had been used formerly in this Queen's days which we find set down in the Queen's thirteenth Article viz. That such new ordained repairing to the Bishop and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders as they being before not ordered in very deed And this is the Reason why the Cardinal could not apply in this Instrument a present recipimus or dispensamus for these Ordines as he doth for other things tho here he ingageth to make good to every one such orders as they then bare the title of This is a sence of which the Cardinals words are very capable and seem also to favour and which accords well with the Histories of those times whereas that which the Bishop puts upon them makes them to contradict the publick actions and proceedings both before and after the passing of this act For that the Cardinal when Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Roman Bishops held not the Orders received by the new Form sufficiently valid quoad Characterem as it may be gathered from Queen Mary's thirteenth Article forecited and first considered no doubt by her Bishops so it is clear from the Bishop of Gloucester the Popes Legate his degrading Ridley
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.
profess the contrary nay will say that the succession of the Clergy shall keep teach and maintain our Lord's laws to the end of the world This question he asketh not he solveth not as writing against the Presbyterians who will not ask it him But what can he say Shall the Clergy judge They deny it to be the Lord's law what he against their consent would restore Shall the Prince judge But this is most unreasonable that the judgment of a Laick shall be preferred before the whole succession of the Clergy in Spiritual manters And what mischief will come hereupon if he judge amiss And here let me set before him his own rules Right of Chur. 4. c. p. 235. Such a difference falling out saith he i. e. between the secular power and the Bishops so that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right as how can it be clear to particular persons which is not to their guides in those matters and which is not to other particular persons who also think the contrary clear it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns But if this his answer that the Prince may suppress the Apostolical power of the Clergy when this goeth against other our Lords or the Apostles Laws be unsatisfying to the great difficulty he proposeth I know not what other can possibly be returned to that his objection And I wonder that this considerative man who holds not the Pope to be Anti-Christ or the Hierarchy of the Church to be the followers of Anti-Christ should make such a supposition as this that the Apostolical Succession of the Clergy should oppose our Lords or the Apostles laws so far as that we shall depend on the Laity to restore them and to protect Christianity against their Guides § 205 The fifth is Dr. Heylin Whose testimonies justifying King Edward and Queen Elizabeth's reforming by their own sole authority Of Doctor Heylin or only with the advice of some few of their Clergy where they perceived that the rest would not comply See before § 129. Yet this their reforming I have shewed to have been for some part of it in matters of Doctrine and Faith To which former testimonies I will add here Reform Jâ—stisted p. 86. 1. First what he saith concerning the Clergy's not having any lawful power to conclude any thing in Spiritual matters that may bind King or Subject till the Royal authority confirmeth it contrary to the first Thesis It is true saith he the Clergy in their Convocation can do nothing now but as their doings are confirmed by the Kings authority And I conclude it stands with reason that it should be so For since the two Houses of Parliament can conclude nothing which may bind either King or Subject in their civil rights until they be made good by the royal assent so neither is it fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters what not in such as Prince and People grant to intrench upon no civil Right until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them What if such supreme Governor be an Heretick an Arrian an Anabaptist c Ib. p. 84.2 2. What he saith concerning the King of England's having lawful power to act without his Clergy as the Clergy having conferred on him all their power which they formerly enjoyed in their own capacity Which was Philpot's Plea recited before § 168. contrary to the Second Thesis The Kings of England saith he had a further right as to this particular which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of recognition or concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme authority not only of confirming their Synodal Acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which firmly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this To reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel case in the Roman Empire in which the supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they called Lex Regia they transferred all their power on Caesar and the following Emperors Which Law being passed the Edicts of the Emperor were as binding as the Senatus-consulta had been before Whence came that memorable Maxime in Justinians Institutes Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for the Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after following they transferred that power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the power of the Convocation so was it as good in law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it And tho in most of their proceedings toward Reformation the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them or could assemble without trouble yet was there no necessity that all or the greatest part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose no more than it was anciently for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church or for the godly Kings of Judah to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Levites before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses which were crept in amongst them Thus Dr. Heylin p. 84. § 206 Indeed elsewhere he seemeth to put some limitations to the Prince's acting in such matters without or against their Clergy but then these limitations are such as that the reforming Prince's acts have transgressed his Rules To this purpose he saith p. 80 81. That whereas Reformation may be first in corruption of manners or abuses in Government secondly in matters practical thirdly in points of Doctrine 1. First That if the things to be reformed be either corruptions in manners or neglect of publick duties to Almighty God be abuses either in Government or in the parties governing the King may reform this himself by his sole authority tho the whole body of the Clergy or the greatest part thereof should oppose him in it 2. That if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church the King consulting with so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Clergy as he thinks fit to call
warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote p. 73. especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned men of the Church to be the law of Christ shall he not preform his known duty till the vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it And here I suppose Dr. Fern will grant that the Prince is bound also to establish Christ's Law in which he is accountable if he do amiss 9. c. § 21. whenever it should happen to be evidenced to him by any other tho none of or contrary to the Clergy provided that be first consult and hear the reasons of some at least of his Clergy 3. That Princes may prohibit the decrees even of General Councils when they are evidenced to them non docere legem Christi 9. c. 28. § General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their decrees as was done by Theodosius against the second Council of Ephesus and by the Kings of France against the Conventicle of Trent forbidding the decrees of it to be received for the space of fourty years 4ly 9. c. 21. § He approveth The concession of the Clergy under Henry the Eighth in binding themselves by promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to enact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the Kings assent Which assent were it required only for securing the Prince that nothing be acted in such Synods prejudicial to his civil rights 't is willingly allowed but it is extended further for the Prince's prohibiting any other decrees whatever when not evidenced to him to be made juxta legem Christi against which if any thing be done in his dominions he remaineth accountable to God as you have seen before § 210 Now to reflect on what Dr. Fern hath said He seemeth 1. first to grant that the Clergy can publickly establish nothing against or without the Prince's consent So that whatever they cannot evidence to the Prince that so he may concur to the publishing thereof they are hindred from promulgating or evidencing it to the people So that they are in such a manner the ordinary Judges and Definers of Controversies as that their definitions if not evidenced to may be suppressed by the Prince nor ought to come abroad to their flocks And how consists this with what he saith 9. c. § 21. That in order to our believing we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded I suppose he meaneth to us by the Pastors of the Church Again how consists this with the Clergy's coercive power 9. c. 19. § upon the Prince if Christian when obstinately gain-saying them Unless his gain-saying can never be called obstinate Will not this follow from hence that the Clergy might not promulgate Anti-Arrianisme in the Empire until they had evidenced it i. e. by his approbation thereof to Constantitus the then Emperor 2. When he saith That a Prince is not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod but only of some faithful Bishops c. when he hath just cause to fear faction in such Synods he seems in this only to keep a gap open for justifying they past Reformation and in effect to affirm that the Prince may go therein against his Clergy For since the Clergy is a subordinate and regularly-united body he that taketh directions only from some of them whom he knows or doubts and fears to be different in their judgment from the main body taketh directions not from the Clergy but from those that are against them as hath been laid down in the sixth Thesis I mean against them that are the Judges in Spiritual matters and the Definers of things in Controversy and Judges of Heresy what hath been or ought to be condemned as such Without whom therefore the Prince cannot certainly know what is or is not such As for that which is said that the establishments of the Prince are not in order to our believing if Dr. Fern meaneth that the Prince doth not propose what is evidenced to him to be the law of Christ to his Subjects with a requiring of them that they should believe that it is the law of Christ the contrary is clear at least in the practicals enjoyned all which necessarily involve Faith See Chur. Gover. 2. Part 34. § 3. Part 12. § But if he meaneth that the Subjects cannot justly be necessitated to believe what the Prince establisheth so neither are they what the Clergy establisheth in his opinion who I think alloweth to all men judicium disoretivum in respect of any Church-authority 3. The Prince thus establishing Church-matters not upon the Clergy's authority but upon evidence he seems equally to oblige the Prince to establish them by whomsoever evidenced to him or by his own search discovered for what mattereth it to the evidence who bringeth it And then how is the Prince's judgment said to be secondary in respect to the Clergy Indeed if the Prince could always be certain in his evidence so as not to mistake to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and not to think other things sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church-matters thus to his disposal But fince things are much otherwise and evidencing truths to any one by reason of different understandings education passions and interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign power when not patient enough to be informed mis-led and prepossessed by a faction not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c what an uncertain and mutable condition would Church-affairs be put in as we see they have been here in England since the times of Henry the Eighth when all the influence of the authority of the Clergy upon the people is cast upon this evidenceing first of their matters to the present Sovereign Power § 211 Concerning Theodosius's Act urged by Dr. Fern the Story in brief is this The second Ephesine Council was General in its Representation but not in the free votes of the Representatives nor in the acceptation thereof by all or the major part of Catholick Churches In it paucis imprudentibus about some Ninety in all obviantibus sacramento verae
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
Spiritual Persons for Moral and Civil Misdemeanors damageable to the Common-Wealth But this Limitation is forgot when from this Thesis He would prove the ejection of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time unlawful For their Deprivation was for refusing the Oath of Supremacy made first by Roman-Catholicks in King Henry the 8th's time and reviv'd by Queen Elizabeth so that the Justice of it depends merely on the Right of the Civil power to make Oaths for the better security of their Government and to impose such Penalties as are exprest in the Law on the Violators and if such Refusal be damageable to the Common-Wealth as it was then judg'd then the Deprivation of those Refusers will be justifiable according to his own Principles Thus again in his 8th Thesis When he has laid down That as for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution §. 14. p. 18. Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any New Canons contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former Superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them He restrains it to those only as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his Civil Government nor the National Synod can shew more prejudicial to their particular Church then the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches Where by the way methinks it should suffice if they were aequally prejudicial for one Church is never the less wrong'd because another suffers Now we desire no more then the benefit of this limitation for if the Prince may reverse such Constitutions when prejudicial to Civil Government and the National Synod when praejudicial to their particular Church and each of These are Judges of such praejudice for neither doth Aequity admit nor doth He appoint any other Arbiter then each of these have as much power granted them as they challenge which is only to alter such Constitutions as are prejudicial to them Having praemis'd thus much in general and caution'd the Reader against this piece of Sophistry which runs through the greatest part of this Discourse I shall now proceed to a particular survey of his Theses As for the first and second I shall at present grant him that favour which he seems to request of all his Readers i.e. suppose them to be true and shall content my self only to examin what Inferences he deduces from them And here I cannot but commend his Policy for setting his Conclusions at so great a distance from his Praemisses for they are commonly such as would have by no means agreed to stand too nigh together From his first and second Thesis that the Clergy have power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judge what is divine truth what are Errors that they cannot alienate this Power to the Secular Prince §. 22. p. 29. he infers That that Synodical Act of the Clergy in K. Henry the Eighth's time whereby they promise not to Assemble without the King 's Writ nor when Assembled to execute any Canons without the King's consent is unlawful Now it is to be observed that the Clergy neither do deny that they have a Power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion which is what the first Thesis would prove nor do they transfer such a Power on the King which might be against the Tenor of the second The utmost which can be deduc'd hence is That the Clergy did for prudential motives limit themselves in the Exercise of one branch of their Spiritual Power and it will be difficult for this Author to prove that He who has a power jure divino may not by humane Laws be limited in the Use of it Husbands have a power over their Wives Fathers over their Children and Masters over their Servants by the Law of God and yet this power may be regulated by the Laws of the Land §. 27. p. 36. Thus the Priest has a power to bind and loose from our Saviour's Commission and yet according to this Author before the Reformation the Inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the Commands of their lawful Spiritual Superior Thus also if a General Council have power to determine matters of Faith then according to his Principles they have power to convene in order to such Determination and this power of theirs is unalienable and yet the Romanists will not allow that such Conventions may be made at pleasure but that the hic nunc are determinable by the Pope who only has power to indict Councils and to give Autority to those decrees which yet derive their power from the Council's being infallible and from the Holy Ghost assisting them Another Act which from the same Thesis he accuses of Injustice is the Clergy's beseeching the King's Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal §. 25. p. 31. which be thought prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of 32 Persons 16 of the Temporally and 16 of the Clergy of this Realm to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annull'd shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approv'd to stand with the Law of God c. shall stand in power Now it is to be consider'd that the Laws which the Clergy here desire may be revis'd are of a far different Nature and therefore the Inspection of them may well be committed to different Judges Some of them were suppos'd prejudicial to the King's Praerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws of the Realm and here the Lay-Commissioners being persons of the upper and lower House of Parliament see the Stat. were the best Judges Of others it was to be enquir'd Whether they were agreeable to the word of God or not and here the Clergy were ready to give their Determination And altho' they both acted in a joynt Commission yet no good reason seems assignable why both Lay and Ecclesiastical Judges should be appointed but that the matters to be examin'd being of different cognizance those which related to Civil Affairs should be determin'd by the Temporalty those which were of a Spiritual Nature by the Spiritualty And if so then the deciding of these matters is not transfer'd from the Spiritualty to the Temporalty but from one part of the Clergy to another And this He himself after all his descants upon this Act confesseth For whatever sense the words in the Praeface of this Act were or may be extended to §. 26.10 I do not think the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine truth and for this Opinion of his He gives us his Reasons in that and the subsequent pages Another
and appointment But it is to be remembred that the Ecclesiastical Censures asserted to belong to the Clergie in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world but the censures here spoken of are such as have reference to the things of this world The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows we confess from their Ordination but the Actual exercise thereof in publick Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Autority for receiving of Appeals pag. 99. and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular but also from all the Clergy in general not making the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Convocation but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8.19 c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch or Spiritual Controversies but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion of deciding what is Gods word and divine Truth What are Errors in the faith or in the practise of Gods Worship and Service nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis Or if any such Quaestions should be involv'd in the Causes to be tried Why may not the Commissioners if Secular judge according to what has been praedetermin'd by the Clergy or let us suppose a case never yet determin'd How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transfer'd on secular Persons since if Occasion requir'd the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical But not only the Acts of State and Church but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examin'd by his Test and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin * Heylins Ref. Justified part 1. §. 6. p 240. that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the stamp of Royal Autority be imprinted on them Now it is plain to any one that views the Context that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual as hath influence on their Civil rights For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Autority But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent who only has the power of inflicting them Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis had he at so great a distance remembred it which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures which have reference to things not of this but the next World These are the Inferences which I find deduc'd from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse which had they been as conclusive as they are false yet I do not find but that his own party if that be the Roman Catholick had suffer'd most by them For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right what shall we think of that Roman Catholick Clergy who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had receiv'd from Christ what shall we think of those Pastours who so unfaithfully manag'd the Depositum of their Saviour If denying the Popes Authority was so piacular a Crime what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries who professing a more then ordinary Sanctity and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so * Burn Ref. l. 3. p. 182. resolutely abjur'd it What of those Learned in the * Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae zelo religione conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimos Interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi à Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259. Vniversity who after a solemn debate and serious disquisition of the cause so peremptorily defin'd against it What of the * Ref. l. 2. p. 142. Whole Body of the Clergy whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies Pag. 2. and to judge what is Gods Word and divine Truth § 2 what are Errors who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it What of the leading part of those Prelates Ibid. p. 137. Gardiner Bonner and Tonstal who Wrote Preach'd and Fram'd Oaths against it What of the Ibid. p. 144. Nobles and Commons Persons of presum'd Integrity and Honour who prepared the Bill against it What lastly of the Sovereign a declar'd Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine and Defender of the Roman Catholick Faith who past that Bill into a Law and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments If all these acted sincerely then it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed but of the Romanists which is written against If not we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Professors then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that which if it be any part is a main Article of their Faith But to return to our Author What shall we judge of his skill in Controversie who from Principles assum'd gratis draws Deductions which by no means follow and which if they did follow would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronize But because he has offer'd something under this first Thesis why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy I come now to consider it He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of
the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and Scholar of the Church and he earnestly claims a Supreme power and confesseth an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual Matters to bind them upon Temporal Punishments to Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's Determinations and Decrees But here he either willingly misrepresents or ignorantly mistakes our Principles For the Prince claims a supreme power over all persons to bind them by temporal Punishments to the Obedience not of the Churches but of Christs Laws or of the former no farther then they are agreeable with the latter But saith He if the Prince meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees Orthodox and right this power is in effect claim'd to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees whilst he praetends an Obligation both of himself and His Subjects to the Churches But what if the Prince judge such Decrees neither Orthodox nor right Must he here give them the Autority of Civil Sanctions This is to establish Iniquity by a Law and a power is claim'd in effect to bind all persons to the Decrees of the Clergy whilst as has been said He praetends an Obligation of Himself Subjects to the Laws of Christ But he goes on and tells us That all Texts of the New-Testament do ordain Obedience of Church-men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned no less then to others From which I suppose he would infer an exemption from Obeying the Prince in Spiritualibus But supposing that all Texts do aequally ordain Obedience to Princes Pagan and Christian yet the Obedience to a Christian Prince will be of greater latitude since because he professes the true Religion his Commands in Spirituals not contradicting our Saviours will exact our Compliance Obedience in licitis is all the Subject ow's to a Prince either Christian on Infidel but the Christian Prince will oftner challenge my Obedience because he more rarely transgresseth the bounds of licita If as he adds all Princes are oblig'd with the Sword which God hath given them to protect and defend his true Religion and Service in their Dominions whensoever it offers it self to them Since many Religions offer themselves it becomes the Prince to take Care which is the true and not to take whatever is offer'd which would be utterly destructive of our Authors Principles As for the Acts of Ancient Councils obliging even without the Emperours consent We own their Obligation over their proper Subjects so far as they were agreeable with the Laws of Christ and his Apostles and urge the Autority of Emperours no farther then as adding their Civil power to the Spiritual Power of the Church And here we challenge no other Power to our Princes then was exercis'd by Christian Emperours that is to call Synods and to have a liberty of confirming or not confirming their Decrees by Civil Sanctions As for what he cites out of our Writers all amounts to no more then this that there are some Offices peculiar to the Church Which neither do we deny nor did our Princes ever invade these Functions But because from hence He would insinuate that the Prince has no power at all in Causes Ecclesiastical c in his Citations from these Writers comes up to that Character which the * Book of Educ Ox. 1677 p 86. Book of Education gives us of the SLY the CLOSE and the RESERV'D who take notice of so much at serves to their own designs and misinterpret and detort what You say even contrary to Your intention I shall as briefly as may be shew that their Concessions are far from giving any Countenance to his Cause Bishop Andrews doth indeed say as all other of our Church Potestatis mere Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae Conciones i. e. dubia legis explicandi munus claves Sacramenta omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur But then there are other Ecclesiastical powers which he challenges to the Prince viz. a In iis quae Exterioris politiae sunt ut praecipiat suo sibi jure vindicat Tort. p. 380. To have Supreme Command in the exteriour Polity of the Church b Custos est non modo secunadae Tabulae sed primae p. 381. To be keeper of both Tables c Quodcunque in rebus Religionis Reges Israel fecerunt id ut Ei faciendi jus sit ac potestas Ib. To exercise all that Power which the good Kings of Israel did d Leges Autoritate Regia ferendi ne blasphemetur Deus ut jejunio placetur Deus ut festo honoretur Ib. To make Ecclesiastical Laws To e Delegandi qui de lege sic lata judicent Ib. delegate Persons to judge in causes Ecclesiastical To f Siqui in Leges ita latas committant etsi Religionis causa sit in eos Autoritate Regia animadvertendi Ib. punish the breach of those Spiritual Laws To g Non ut totus ab lieno ore pendeat ipse à se nihil dijudicer Ib. learn the will of God not only from the Mouth of the Clergy but also from the Scripture To h Omnibus omnium ordinum jus dicendi Ib. have autority over all Persons To i Abiathar ipsum si ita meruit Pontificatu abdicandi 382. eject even the High Priest if he deserve it To k Excelsa diruendi i. e. peregrinum cultum abolendi Ib. pull down High-places l Sive in Idololatriam abeat Vitulus aureus sive in Superstitionem Serpens aeneus utrumque comminuendi Ib. and to Reform the Church from Idolatry and Superstition These He claims to appertain to the Prince m Haec Primatus a pud nos jura sunt ex jure divino Ib. Jure Divino The next Author is Dr. Carlion He amongst other rights of the Church reckons Institution and Collation of Benefices which this Writer marks with Italian Characters and makes much Use of But this Apostolical Institution and Collation by the Bishop alluded to doth also involve in it Ordination even as the Ordination which is observ'd by himself n Pag. 13. from the Bishop signified also Institution in the charge and cure But the Collation challeng'd by our Princes is of another Nature and signifies no more then the Nominating a Person to be Ordain'd to such an Office or presenting a Person already Ordained to such a Benefice And the right of Investitures which is the same with such a Collation is by this Bishop o Jurisd â—eg Ep. p. 137. asserted to Emperours This being clear'd which was by him on purpose perplex'd If we take the extent of the Regal power from this Bishop He tells p Id. p. 10. us That Sovereign's as Nursing Fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all Inferiour Ministers perform their faithfull duties in their several places and if they be found faulty to punish them His next Author is Mr. Thorndike Who is as large
in this Matter As for this Objection of the Clergy's being aw'd by fear in this Act he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the then Lady Mary which shews the vanity of it p. 142. I am well assur'd saith She speaking of Edward VI. in her Letter to the Council that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it That could an Oecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops unjustly excluded and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first bribed with Mony and promises of Church-praeferment or praeengag'd by Oaths to comply with the Vsurpations of a praetended Spiritual Monarch is not to be accounted a lawful Oecumenical Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such usurpations This is a Thesis which needs no Application I proceed to his Sixth Thesis That the Judgment and consent of some Clergy-men of a Province when they are the lesser part cannot be call'd the judgment and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province This Assertion that a lesser part is not aequall to the Whole is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse and the Reader may hence be convinc'd that our Author doth sometimes travel in the * Educ p. 119. High road of Demonstration But here we desire it may be prov'd either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obey'd rather then the Major part judging contrary to it In the mean time it is easily reply'd that the judgment and consent of some few Bishops * Soave Hist Conc. Tr. p. 153. suppose 48. Bishops and 5. Cardinals giving Canonical Autority to books Apocryphal and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original cannot be esteem'd the judgment and consent of the Catholic Church 7th Thesis That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils or also to a National Synod The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy but because every one must give an account of his own Faith every one is oblig'd to take care that what he submits to the belief of be consistent with his Christianity I am oblig'd to pay all submission to the Church-Autority but the Church having bounds within which she ought to be restrain'd in her Determinations if she transgresses these Limits and acts against that Christianity which she professes to maintain I may rather refuse obedience then forfeit my Christianity If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgment I am answerable for it at Gods Tribunal not because I usurped a right which was never granted me but because I misus'd a Liberty which was indulg'd me This we take to be the case of each private Christian and farther that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right and Worship God as is praescrib'd himself but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions ought to use all those means of discovering the Truth which God has afforded viz. consulting the Pastours of the Church reading the word of God c. And that having discover'd it He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embrac'd but not without the use of that Judgment and Discretion which to them also is allowed If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to enquire on which side God is and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter He is not on the Churches side for her Spiritual Autority Thus a good King of Israel might * 2 King 38.22 take away the High places and Altars and say unto Judah and Jerusalem Ye shall Worship before the Altar at Jerusalem because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses Nor is it any Praejudice against it * 2 King 23.9 That the Priests of the High places refus'd to come up to the Altar at Jerusalem Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute * Mat. 26.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been prov'd to be Felo de se and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have establish'd When the Gallican Church shall have receiv'd all the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils When the Western Patriach shall have rechang'd his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum it may then be seasonable to examine How far National Churches are oblig'd by things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account But I may not omit for the Reader 's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as pag. 38. It is enacted the 32d Hen. 8.26 c. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to God's word and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion c. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believ'd Obey'd c. Vpon which he makes this learned Note Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word i. e. when private Men think them to be so yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrain'd and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word i. e. when the setters forth believe them to be so To obey a thing defin'd according to God's word and to obey a thing defin'd as being according to God's word are Injunctions very different Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have clear'd this point and a School-boy that was to turn this passage into Latin would have known that as is put for which Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus All Decrees and Ordinances which according to Gods word
Sword And least it be thought that in this subscription he was over-rul'd by a majority in a c Bur. V. 2. p. 71. Work which was wholly his own without the concurrence of any other He sets forth their Divine Institution Posterity saith our Commentator might have done better to have cover'd this Nakedness of their forefather then to have publish'd it after so great Silence A caution this of great use to the Followers of Ignatius and Francis but till we come to draw Parallels betwixt Cranmer and our Saviour we shall not be asham'd to own in him the frailties of a Man § 106 King Edward sent out Injunctions in matters of Religion True And these contrary to the Decrees of former Obliging Councils Which till the four former parts of Church-Government are publish'd I may safely deny Without the consent of a Synod the Act of which only has force in such Matters This has been said often but never yet attempted to be prov'd § 107 He next presents us with a summary of the King's proceedings from Fox but according to his usual method very much interpolated Men of Learning were sent for from forreign Countries saith Fox Which argues scarcity at home of those Clergy who would second the King's Reformation saith the Comment After his rate of arguing very possibly it may men of great Learning say Travellers are at this time great rarities in some Popish Countries Yet my Logick gives me no encouragement to argue that in those places there is a scarcity of Popish Clergy Among those sent for saith Fox were Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and Paulus Fagius He might have added saith the Parathesis Bernardus Ochinus Had he been as much delighted in adding as we find this Church-Governor he no doubt would have added it But Mr. Fox very probably had not read that Ochinus was sent for and therefore besides other reasons made Conscience of saying it Martyr taught at Oxford Bucer and Fagius at Cambridge saith Fox Sure saith our Author not because the Vniversities were not held so Learned but because they were not counted so Orthodox Very sure it is that a composition of both was requir'd and it is no wonder if in the very dawnings of Reformation Persons so qualified were very rare Fox addeth And that with no small commendation of the whole University The Author puts in not without opposition of many Learned Men there and recommends to our Reading when at leisure the rational arguings of Mr. Glyn Mr. Langdale and others against the Reformers How rational their arguings are he that is at leisure may consider but this Writer has given us such a Specimen of his own that I doubt his Judgment will little recommend them But since he has impos'd this task upon us I hope by way of return he will be pleas'd to peruse the Dialogue between Custom and Veritie which immediatly follows that part of Fox which he has assign'd us As for the Oxford oppositions Peter Martyr's relation is perhaps not the most impartial And some may say our Church-Governor is perhaps not the most Honest For if by this scrupulosity of Expression he would insinuate that Martyr was partial this is a Calumny borrow'd from Sanders and replied to by his a Bur. V. 2. App. p. 394. Confuter You may find in his Opponents Tresham Chadsey and Morgan much Learning Reverence to the Church and zeal in their Cause I have not the Relation by me and therefore can pass no judgment on this Learned Triumvirate But as for Tresham we have a Specimen in Fox b Fox p. 1475. how great a Talent he was Master of in disputing Being Pro-Sub-Dean of Christ-Church he call'd all the Students together and recommended Popery to them upon these convincing grounds 1st He urg'd that there were a goodly company of Copes that were appointed to Windsor but he had found the Queen so gracious to him that they should come to Christ-Church Now if they like honest men would come to Mass they should wear them on Holy-days A second motive was that he would get them the Lady-Bell of Bampton and that should make the sweetest ring in all England The third was that as for an Holy-Water-Sprinkle he had allready the fairest within this Realm He thought therefore no man would be so mad as to forego these commodities It may be needless to remark to the Gentle-men of that Foundation that our Adversaries are still the same dangerous Orators and therefore if any should have irrecoverably engag'd his Affections to a pretty pair of Beads or set his heart immoderately upon the great Bell it concerns him to have a guard upon himself The Author having muster'd up the Bishops ejected in King Edward's days adds Pate Bishop of Rochester Goldwel Bishop of St. Asaph Bishop elect of Bangor are said to have been Banish'd If the Author was Jesuite enough to say this to himself before he wrote it he may come off If not it will prove a most unconscionable Gasconade Pate a Godw. Catal. of Bishops in Worcester Bur. V. 2. p. 324. was never Bishop of Rochester but of Worcester he was not Banish'd but Fled and this not in King Edward's time but in King Henry's So here was multum in parvo Goldwell b Heylin's History p. 224. was not Bishop of St. Asaph nor any other Bishop till A. 1555. which was in Q. Mary's time and therefore it was an unreasonable Prolepsis to make him one of the exil'd Bishops in King Edward's time Anonymus Long-stroke Bishop Elect of Bangor is one of our Author 's own Creation Some more he saith might be remov'd in like Manner who happen not to be mention'd because deceas'd before the Reign of Q. Mary as Wakeman Bishop of Glocester Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln Skyp Bishop of Hereford Rugg Bishop of Norwich No doubt they might have been if this Church-Governor had pleas'd for never Committee-man ejected more arbitrarily then he But that they actually were not remov'd we have these good reasons to think The ejection of Bishops is particularly insisted on by our Historians but these Bishops make none of the number All these Bishops do happen to be mention'd not as depriv'd but deceas'd Tho' their Deprivation had deserv'd mentioning as well as their Death c Burn. V. 2. p. 152. Heylin's Hist p 90. Wakeman dyed in Dec. 1549. d Burn. V. 2. p. 203. Heylin's Hist p. 129. Holbeck in August 1551. e Burn. V. 2. p. 218. Skyp in the Year 1552. Rugg dyed in the Year 1550 according to f Godwin's Catalogue in Norwich Godwin Dr. Burnet g Burn. V. 2. p. 150. call's him Reps and saith heresign'd So that what our Author has inserted here de proprio is like to be lookt upon as one continu'd Forgery The next two Paragraphs have more truth in them §. 108.109 being transcrib'd from Fox But the Proclamation inhibiting the whole Clergy to preach cited from Fuller is question'd by
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
as particularly that 1. Edw. 6.2 mentioned before § 40 Yet so it was that all the chief Acts that King Edward's Parliaments or Clergy had made concerning the Reformation were now revived Sec 1. Eliz. â— c. 2. and all that Queen Mary's or Henry the Eighth's save in the matter of Supremacy Parliaments or Clergy had done against it was repealed But this §. 179. n. 3. Bâ—t nâ—t by the Clergy tho done in spiritual matters was done by the sole authority of the Queen and her Parliament without obtaining any Synod to reverse the contrary decrees of the former Synods under those two Princes nay further whilst all the Bishops that fate then in Parliament openly opposed these Innovations Cambden Hist Eliz. p 9. By her own sole authority the Queen likewise published certain Injunctions to the Clergy And now the Regal Supremacy being thus restored only by the Civil power an Oath of Supremacy was also drawn up and imposed on all Ecclesiastical persons upon penalty of the Refuser's losing all their Ecclesiastical promotion benefice and office 1. Eliz. 1. c. And so this Oath being unanimously refused by all the Bishops that then sate save only the Bishop of Landaff I say all that then sate For by reason of a contagious sickness that then reigned within less than the space of a twelve-month saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Mary p. 81. almost one half of the English Bishops had made void their Sees three Bishopricks having been void from 1557 three Bishops dying some few weeks before the Queen three not long after one on the same day which with the death of so many of the Priests also in several places did much facilitate the way saith he to that Reformation that soon after followed they were all ejected out of their Bishopricks and with them of the chief of the Clergy fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Deans twelve Arch-Deacons six Abbots Camb. p. 17. fifty Prebendaries lost their Spiritual Preferments Meanwhile many others saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Qu. Eliz. p. 115. who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome dispensing with themselves in outward conformities upon a hope of such revolutions in Church-affairs as had hapned formerly § 180 Here that we may examine the lawfulness of the ejection of these Prelates for refusing such Oath The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy The unlawfulness there of upon which depends the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Acts of the Clergy succeeding them I will first set you down the form of the Oath which was this I do testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce all forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall assist and defend to my power all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm § 181 This Oath you see consists of two parts a Supremacy attributed and professed to the Prince Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend and a Supremacy denyed and renounced to any Forreign power And that I may speak more distinctly in this matter 1. As to the first of these thus much is freely conceded That the Civil Magistrate hath a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs and that such as none other hath namely this An external coactive power or jurisdiction committed to him by God to enjoyn to his Subjects the observance of the Laws of the Church and of the Laws of God as they are declared to him to be such by the Church and to restrain and punish the transgressors of them whether Clergy or Laity within his Dominions with the Civil Sword which God hath put only into his hands So that no Canons of the Church can be by the Ecclesiasticks or others executed or enforced on the Subject as Laws viz. with external Coaction pecuniary or corporal mulcts or punishments c. before the Secular Prince is pleased to admit such Canons and enroll them amongst his Laws or to concede such coactive power to his Clergy How far also the Kings Supremacy may extend over all Ecclesiastical persons concerning the Investiture and presentation of them so long as their canonical sufficiency is not denyed by the Clergy to such Temporal Church-Possessions as either Princes or others by their permission have conferred on the Church about which hath been in ancient times great Controversy between several Kings of England and the Pope I meddle not to determine Let this for the present be granted as much as any Prince hath claimed It is likewise conceded that in those words of the Oath only Supreme Governor in Spiritual things there is not any thing that expresly extends the Regal Supremacy any further which may be the only supreme power m Ecclesiasticals in one respect and not in another Nor no more is there in the thirty seventh Article of the Church of England which expounds the Kings Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All which he may do and yet be tyed in all things to obey the Church her Laws and to leave to her the sole judgment who are these evil-doers as to the breaking of Gods Laws or who stubborn and heretical persons And such Regal Supremacy will well consist with another either with a domestick Supremacy of his own Clergy in judging Controversies and promulgating Laws in meerly Spirituals or also with a forreign Supremacy and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch over all the Bishops of his Patriarchy in what Prince's Dominions soever or of a General Council over all Provincial or National Churches If therefore only such a Regal Supremacy as this were intended in the Oath it cannot be justly refused viz. If the Oath should run thus I do testify that the King is the Supreme c. as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal that is as this Supremacy is expounded in Article thirty seventh to rule with the Civil Sword all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers And if this word such be inserted in the words following And I do testify that no forreign Prince Prelate c. ought to have any such jurisdiction c. And Ergo I do utterly renounce all such forreign Jurisdiction c. You will say what is gained to the King by an Oath so limited This that no Forreign or Domestick
Power within his Dominions may upon any pretence of Religion or other whatsoever either take up himself or licence any others to take up the Civil Sword against the King or make any resistance to him therewith in order to any person or cause whatsoever Which thing sufficiently secures his government and the peace of his Kingdome § 182 2. Again as to the second part of the Oath thus much shall be freely conceded That there is some Supremacy in or dine ad Spiritualia to which no Forreign State or Prelate may lay claim As besides that which is named already to belong only to the Civil Magistrate it shall here be granted as being the opinion of several Catholicks That no General Council hath any authority to make any Ecclesiastical Law which any way entrencheth upon any Civil Right Nor any forreign Prelate hath authority to use a Temporal power over Princes when judged heretical to kill or depose them or absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance Were therefore these words of the Oath understood only of such a Forreign power which opposeth the security of the Queens Civil Government as Dr. Hammond urgeth Schism 7. c. § 17. Or which layeth intolerable burthens and exactions upon the Subjects of the Land i. e. as to temporal matters and which draws after it Positions and Doctrines to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince's Crown and Dignity to the exemption of all Ecclesiastical persons such as makes them but half-Subjects to the deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdomes as Dr. Fern urgeth Examin Champ. 9. c. p. 279 it shall be granted here without disputing any such controversy that the Oath for such thing as this could not be justly refused But after these Concessions now to review the two parts of the Oath again §. 183. n. 1. How far not to see what more might lye in them 1. For the First There is a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Civil Magistrate cannot justly claim viz. Such Supremacies as these that a Prince may when a Superior Council abroad or the major part of his Clergy at home hath or doth determine against something which he with some few or a lesser part of his Clergy is perswaded to be consonant to the word of God may I say suppress and forbid the Doctrine of those and establish and promulgate the Doctrine of these may thus make and publish new Ecclesiastical Articles or Canons and correct suspend or dispense with former and that where no just pretence of their violating any way his Civil Government That he without any Synodal consent of his Clergy or He with it against the decrees of Superior Councils may change the publick Church Liturgies her Service or Discipline and that when these no way hurtful to the Civil State That the Clergy may not assemble about Spiritual concernments which none deny that they may do even under Heathen Princes but when he pleaseth to call them may teach or promulgate no Ecclesiastical Decisions in matter of Doctrine or Constitutions in matter of Discipline to their flocks being his Subjects unless he first give his consent unto them tho these concern no civil right That he may introduce into Bishopricks whom he approves without the consent of a major part of the present Episcopacy or may displace any or prohibite the function of their office within his Dominions without any concurrence of the Clergy and where is no just pretence of danger to his Secular Government Briefly to use Bishops Carleton's words cited before That he may use any such Spiritual Jurisdiction § 3 as stands in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offenders Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures All or most of which Supremacies are not Supremacies belonging to the Prince but to the Clergy to Prelates to Councils and Synods Provincial National or higher As hath been laid down in the first and second These See before sect 2.4 and as will appear to any one at the first sight if he will but empty his fancy a little of the prime Patriarch of the Catholick Church his being Anti-Christ and of an erroneous and Superstitious Hierarchy and on the other side of an orthodox and godly Jesias-Prince and seriously consider what a mischief it will bring upon a National Church when the supreme Secular Magistrate thereof is an Heretick or Schismatick and invested with the above-named Supremacies in Spiritual Affairs Nay I may further add to these that there is some Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Protestants themselves or the most Learned of them do not allow to the Prince as this That the Prince alone without the consent of some of his Clergy may make or impose upon his Subjects Ecclesiastical Laws or decide such Controversies And secondly there is another Supremacy which all the Presbyterian Protestants do not allow to the Prince namely that he may prohibite the Church Ministery and Officers from making or imposing any Ecclesiastical Law without his licence and consent first obtained thereto as you may see below § 211. Meanwhile how both these do safely take this Oath there being neither of these limitations by the Oath-imposer mentioned either in it or elsewhere with reference to it nay the contrary being declared concerning the later of these two Supremacies I see not unless the Oath-taker may qualify his Oath according to his own sense To require therefore submission by Oath to such Supremacies of the Civil Magistrate as these now named is not lawful § 184 And that such submission was required from these Bishops is evident I think That submission to the Royal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops 1. Both from that Supremacy which the Queen at that very time in these very things exercised without any Synodal consent against former Synods a Specimen of which you may see below § 201. in Her Majesties Commission to the Uncanonical Ordainers of Arch-bishop Parker and to the same purpose in Stat. 8. Eliz. 1. and which the Kings Henry and Edward had formerly exercised 2. And from that Supremacy which the Parliaments granted and acknowledged due in these things to the Prince as hath been shewed I think sufficiently in this former discourse they granting to the King all that authority and jurisdiction which any Spiritual person or persons had formerly excepting only the authority of ministery of divine offices in the Church See before § 71. All which authority formerly thus granted by the laws and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the taker of this Oath is bound to assist and defend The like to which see also in the 1. and 2. Canon Ecclesiast 1603. Altho the former Clergy under Henry the Eighth had never annexed these Supremacies to the Crown See before § 25 or if they had had again under Queen Mary reversed it Neither is it enough for our men for the setling of