CHAP. I. Eight Propositions, whereby the lawfulness of this Reformation is to be tryed.

§. 1 TO finish these Discourses of Church Govern­ment,Eight Theses pre-posed, whereby to try the law­fulness of this Refor­mation. there remain yet behind some Con­siderations concerning the lawfulness and re­gularity of the Reformations made here in England, in the days of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, according to the Principles already established. Of which Reformations that you may make the more exact judgment; 'tis fit to remind you, first of these few Propositions, which have been cleared, or [Page 2]do necessarily follow from what hath been cleared in the former Discourses. And they are these;

The First, §. 2. Thes. 1. That, amongst other offices and authorities which the Clergy, Christ's substitutes, (by Clergy I mean the lawful Church-Authority) have received from him, as God's High-Priest and Prophet, these are two prin­cipal ones.1 First, The power to determine Controver­sies in pure matters of Religion, and to judge and de­cide, (where doubts arise) what is Gods Word and di­vine Truth; what are errors, in the Faith, or in the practice and performance of Gods Worship and Service (which errors in Practice always pre-suppose some error in matter of Faith.)2 And Secondly, The power, to pro­mulgate, teach, preach, and make-known such matters, when decided by them, to Gods people, who are, for doctrine in Spiritual things, committed to their charge; and to require their obedience and submission thereto; with power to execute the Ecclesiastical Censures (which have reference to things not of this, but of the next, world) upon all such, as disobey their Authority: else what profits the Church a silent determination of a Con­troversy, more, than letting it alone; a concealed, more than a non-decision thereof? And these things from our Saviours Commission they are obliged to perform, and consequently to use such Assemblies and Meetings toge­ther, Consults, Summons, Examinations, &c. Without which such things cannot be performed, tho' any Civil or Secular power, Heathen, or Christian (who perhaps may be an Heretick or Schismatick; as some Christian Princes have been Arians) doth oppose them. [So, a Christian Emperor Constantius being an Arian, and prohibiting in his Empire the promulgation of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Western Catholick Bishops, nevertheless, did promulgate their definition of the Con­substantiation of the Son with the Father.] And in­deed of these two Secular Powers the Christian, if either, seems to have the less capacity to hinder or resist them: because he professeth himself, with the rest of the Christi­ans, as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths, a Subject, [Page 3]and a Scholar of the Church; and because he so earnest­ly claimeth a Supreme Power, and professeth an Obli­gation from God over all persons, in all Spiritual mat­ters, to bind them, upon Temporal punishments, to the obedience of the Church's (or Clergy's) Determi­nations and Decrees. But if he meaneth here, only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees orthodox and right, this power is, (in effect,) claimed, to bind all persons, in all Spiritual matters, only to his own De­crees; whilst he pretends an Obligation both of himself and of his Subjects to the Churches. Yet so it is indeed, that all Princes whatever, even the Heathen, have such an Obligation from God: Nor doth any Text of the New Testament give Christian Princes more Authority over the Church, to restrain any Liberties thereof, than it giveth to the Heathen Princes. For all the Texts, which are urged thence, ordain obedience of Church men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned, no less, than to others. And all Princes are obliged, with the Sword, which God hath given them, not only not to persecute, but to protect and defend, his true Religion and Service in their Dominions, whensoever it offereth it self to them, and claimeth their Subjection and Pro­tection. See Psal. 2.1, 2, 10, 11, 12. Tho the Obliga­tion of some Princes to this may be more than that of others, as he hath had more divine Truth revealed, and hath received more favors from God and his Church. See these things more largely handled before, in Suc­cession of Clergy, &c. And in Church Government. 1. Part. §. 38.

§. 2 Neither doth that, which is ordinarily urged, viz. That the Acts and Laws of the ancient Councills of the Church de Facto had always the Christian Emperors con­sent, (tho indeed they always had not: not the Anti­arian Councills in Constantius his time, and yet they were obliging in the establishing the Nicene Decrees) prove, that they were not of force without such consent: nor doth the Councills intreating the Emperors consent, when Christian, prove; they did this, to legitimate the [Page 4]making or enjoyning of such laws (for such laws they had formerly both made, and imposed, when Emperors were their enemies) but to strengthen the observance of them. Indeed the Prince, who beareth the Secular Sword, his giving to the Ministers of Christ his li­cence, to exercise their office, and their ecclesiastical censures in his dominions, or in any part or province thereof, as it implies the prohibiting of his officers or subjects any way to disturb them, is to great pur­pose, and therefore much to be desired; But it sheweth not, that it is in his just power to deny them such li­cence. (I mean in general; for I meddle not here with the Princes denying some of them to do these things, whilst he admits others); or that his officers or sub­jects, without it, may lawfully disturb them in any part of their Spiritual Function. Touching these things this is the concession of Bishop Andrews (Tort. Tort. p. 366) potestatis merè Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae, Conciones [i. e, docendi munus, & dubia legis explicandi, as he saith, ibid. p. 380] claves [to which he adds Censurae p. 380] Sa­cramenta [& omnia, quae potestatem ordinis consequun­tur p. 380] and (somewhat more plainly) of Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Epis­copal 1. c. p. 9. ‘As far Spiritual Jurisdiction (saith he) standing in examination of controversies of Faith; judging of Heresies; deposing of Hereticks; excom­munications of notorious and stubborn offenders; or­dination of Priests and Deacons; institution and colla­tion of Benefices and Spiritual Cures; this we reserve entire to the Church; which Princes cannot give to, nor take from, the Church. So he saith, p. 42. That external jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative. Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belonged to the Church: Mulctative power is un­derstood, either as it is with coaction, or as it is re­ferred to Spiritual censures. As it standeth in Spiri­tual censures, it is the right of the Church, and was practiced by the Church, when without Christian Ma­gistrate, and since. But coactive Jurisdiction was al­ways [Page 5]ways understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate, whether Christian, or Heathen.’ ‘And by this power (saith he, c. 4 p. 39.) without coaction, the Church was called, Faith was planted, Devils were subdued, the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness, the World reduced to the obedience of Christ; by this power, without coactive Jurisdiction, the Church was governed for Three Hundred years together.’ [But, if it be inquired what was done, when the Emperors were Christian, and when their coactive power came in?] ‘The Emperors (saith he, p. 178.) never took upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith and Re­ligion; that they left to the Church. But when the Church had defined such truths against Hereticks, and had deposed such Hereticks; then the Emperors, con­curring with the Church by their Imperial Constitu­tions, did, by their coactive power, give strength to the Canons of the Church.’ But then: what if the Emperors, being Christian, should take upon them, by their authority, to define matters of Faith, or should use their coactive power against the Canons of the Church? Take the answer of another reformed Writer, Mr. Thorndike. Right of Church 4. c. p. 234. ‘The power of the Church is so absolute (saith he) and depending on God alone, that if a Sove­reign professing Christianity should forbid, the Professi­on of that Faith, or the exercise of those Ordinances, which God hath required to be served with, or even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church; it must needs be necessary, for those that are trusted with the power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign, but to use that power, which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them, to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular powers. A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions; wherein they refused, to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks, and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them, to the prejudice of [Page 6]Christianity. Which actions whosoever justifies not, he will lay the Church open to ruine, whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by Hereticks. And such a difference falling out [i. e, between Prince and Clergy, in Church matters] as that to particular persons it cannot be clear, who is in the right; It will be re­quisite (saith he) for Christians, in a doubtful case, at their utmost perils, to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns, tho to no other effect, than to suffer [if the Prince impose it] for the exercise of their Christianity, and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity [tho contrary to the Sovereigns commmands.]’ Thus Mr. Thorndike, in Right of the Church, 4. chap. And like things he saith in his Epilog. of the Church of Engl. See there 1. l. 9. c. the Contents whereof touching this Subject he hath briefly expressed thus: ‘That that power, which was in Churches under the Apostles, can never be in any Christian Sovereign. That the Interest of Secular power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church, and the Act of it. That the Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity thro Christendome, as the Sovereign is of civil Peace thro his Dominions.’ And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith, rather than the State, supposing neither to be infallible. And see 1. l. 20. c. p. 158. Where he saith, That He, who disturbs the Communion of the Church, remains punishable by the Secular power (to inflict Temporal Penalties) not absolutely, because it is Christian; but upon suppo­sition, that this Temporal power maintaineth the true Church. And afterward, ‘That the Secular power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts, which the Church (i. e, those who are qualified by and for the Church) are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do, without committing the Sin of Sa­criledge (in seizing into its own hands the powers, which by Gods Act are constituted; and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own Service) not [Page 7]supposing the free Act of the Church, without fraud and violence, to the doing of it; [i. e. joyned to the Secular power, doing such Act.]’ Now amongst the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church (which he calls a Corporation) by divine right and appointment he names these l. 1. c. 16. p. 116. ‘The power of making Laws within themselves; of Electing Church Governors (of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398,) and of excommunicating, and (3. l. 32. c. p 385,) the power to determine all matters, the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the communion of Christians in the Service of God; and [the power] to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion; the power of holding Assemblies, of which he speaketh thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 54. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation Founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service of God, notwithstanding any Secular force prohibiting the same, must needs main­tain by consequence, that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it, and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it.’ Thus Mr. Thorndike. Discourse of Episcopacy and Presby­tery p. 19. And thus Dr Fern of the power of Judicature belonging to the Clergy. ‘It is confessed (saith he) on both sides, that the power of Ordination and of Judicature, so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend, is of divine Institution; and that this power must be exercised or administred in the Church by some [either Bishops or Presbyters] is also confessed to be of divine right Therefore, surely, no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his domini­ons the exercise of such Judicature; nor, prohibiting is to be obeyed; and Christ's substitutes, herein being denyed the assistance of the Civil power, are to pro­ceed without it.’ To these I will add what Dr. Taylor hath delivered on the same Subject in Episcopacy assert­ed; and this the rather, because this Treatise was pub­lished by the Command of so understanding a Prince. He, [Page 8]after that, p. 263. he hath laid this ground for the se­curity of Secular Princes; ‘That, since that Christ hath professed, that his Kingdom is not of this world, that Government, which he hath constituted de novo, doth no way make any intrenchment on the Royalty; hath these passages. P. 237. he saith, That those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick) hath introduced, all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of. Such are causes of Faith; Ministration of Sacraments; and Sacramentals; Subordinations of inferiour Clergy to their superiour; Rites, Liturgies, &c. As for the rights of the Secular power, he layeth down this Rule, p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cog­nizance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are: All actions civil, all publick violations of Justice, all breach of Municipal laws. These the Church (saith he) hath nothing to do with, unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it [these by their favour then indulged, but not so the former.]. Accordingly p. 239. he saith: Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions, and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities. That the Bishops jurisdiction hath a Compulsory, derived from Christ only, viz. Infliction of Censures by Ex­communication, or other minores plagae, which are in order to it. And that the King is supreme of the Ju­risdiction, viz. that part of it, which is the external compulsory [i. e, as he saith before] to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy, or some other way abett the censures of the Church. P. 243. he saith, That in those cases, in which by the law of Christ Bi­shops may, or in which they must, use Excommunica­tion, no power can forbid them. For what power Christ hath given them, no man can take away. And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without asking leave; that Christ [Page 9]is her [...] for that; he is her warrant and security. And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely, by Gods law, em­ployed for regiment and cure of Souls: [I suppose those he named before p. 237.] and in these also, that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction [as he ex­poundeth it before p. 239] is the Kings.’ And lastly, ‘p. 241. he saith, that the Catholick Bishops [in time of the Arian Emperors] made humble and fair remon­strance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction; that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty, so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exteriour Jurisdiction and Power, [i. e, the Royal.] See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal, Schism Guarded, p. 61. All which our Kings (saith he) assume to themselves, is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the res­pective branches of it’ [i. e, of that regiment;] and p. 63, He comments thus on the 37^th Article of the Church of England. ‘You see the Power is political, the Sword is political, all is political. Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiri­tual to those to whom Christ hath left it.’ And p. 92, he saith, ‘We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christi­an Emperors; but they had no coactive power to com­pel any man against his will [this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them, with­out taking away, I hope, any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes.]’And p. 119, ‘We acknowledge, that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons, both for composing of them, and executing of them; but with this caution, that to make them laws [he means such Laws, for observance of which Secular coaction might be used,] the Confirmation of the Prince was requi­red, and to give the Bishop a coactive power to exe­cute [Page 10]them, the Princes grant or concession was needful.’ [Doth not this Bishop mean here, that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings domini­ons, and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority; only that they can use no coaction by pecu­niary or corporal punishments in the execution of them, without his? But see below§. 22. The Bishops de­prived of the former power in the Reformation: See more of this §. 35. N. 2.] And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith, ‘It is coercive and compulsory and cor­robatory Power, it is the application of the matter, it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiasti­cal Jurisdiction in the [external] Court of the Church; [Why or under what pretence?] to prevent (saith he) the oppression of their Subjects, and to provide for the tranquility of the Common wealth, [not therefore to examine, what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to Gods word; for this Princes are to learn from those Courts] which belongs to Sovereign Princes.’ Thus he Lastly see the Kings last Paper in the Isle of Wight, p 3. where it is said. ‘That tho the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over mens persons or estates [no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure:] Yet inasmuch as every Christian man, when he became a member of the Church, did, ipso facto and by that his own volun­tary Act, put himself under their Government [so Christian men do still, Princes and all] they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus; in making Ecclesiastical Canons, in receiving Accusa­tions, conventing the accused, examining witnesses, judg­ing of crimes [against Gods law] excluding such men, as they found guilty of scandalous offences, from the Lords Supper, enjoyning Penancies upon them, cast­ing them out of the Church, receiving them again upon their Repentance, &c.’ [Now I subsume, the same ma­king of Ecclesiastical Canons, the same Church Disci­pline, casting out of the Church or Excommunication, [Page 11] &c. they are, and must be allowed still in Christian States; being things which as Bishop Carleton saith, Princes can neither give to, nor take from, the Church. And there­fore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done: and these are means absolutely necessary; Convening, for the making of Ca­nons: Knowing the Fact, for Excommunication: there­fore, in case the Christian Prince will not call them, they may assemble themselves, when the Church's necessi­ties require such Canons; and when the Christian Secu­lar Courts will not, they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency: but this in order to Church punishments only. When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen, in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things, then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathen­ism, i. e, do these things without their leave, against their prohibitions. All the Plea, that a Secular State subjecting it self to the Church can make for medling in such Spiritual affairs, seems to be this; that the Church shall not be troubled (now as formerly) to do all, because the State with its more awing power will do something for it. Which is, the assisting of the Church in her business, not the abridging of her in her power.]

The Second Thesis. That the Clergy cannot alienate or make over and give away to the Secular Governor, §. 4 Thes. 2. or to his Ministers and Delegates, any authority or office, which they have received and been charged with by Christ, with a Command to execute the same to the end of the world, and with a threat to become answerable to God for any miscarriage of the people by their de­fault therein. From which it follows, that the Clergy's doing of either of these Two things. First, The binding themselves for ever to any Secular Governor, never to make, or never to teach abroad and publish to the peo­ple his Subjects any judgment or decision of theirs, made in matters of Faith and Gods Worship, or made for re­forming some Error or Heresy, or other abuse in Gods Service, without the consent of such Governor first ob­tained [Page 12]thereto (which Governor, as I said, tho Christian and a Believer, yet may be a Sectarist, an Heretick, &c.) 2. Or Secondly, (which is yet worse) the authorizing of the Secular Governor, or of those whom he shall please to choose and nominate (who will be sure to name those rather of his own Sect) to determine, and decide, and promulge such Spiritual matters; for the Clergy, and in their stead: So that now not only the Clergy cannot do such things without such Secular Governor, but also such Governor may do those things without the Clergy. I say, these two are unlawful, as being contrary to the duties of the Clergy, said above (Thesis the First,) to be committed to them by Christ.

The Third Thesis. §. 5. Thes. 3. That the Secular Prince cannot de­pose or eject front the exercise of their office in his Do­minions any of the Clergy; neither absolutely, with­out any cause pretended: as he may remove those Offi­cers and Ministers under him, who hold their places only durante beneplacite. Nor for a cause alledged: if it be such as this; namely, for their not obeying the decisions which he or his civil Council shall make in Spiri­tual matters; or for their transgressing of the Ecclesiasti­cal Canons; ² nor can introduce others into the places of the ejected; without the consent of the major part of the Clergy, or of their Ecclesiastical Superiors (which consent if he obtain I reckon not this deposition &c. to be his Act, but theirs:) [And here note, that what is said of other Clergy, may be said likewise of the Patri­arch, for any authority in such Princes Dominions which he stands possessed of by such Ecclesiastical Canons, as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the civil Government. Touching which matter see Church Gov. 1. Par. §. 38. &c.]

§. 6 First: The Prince cannot eject them.1. 1. Neither without giving any cause thereof; 1 because they hold not these their Offices from the Prince; much less from him, only during pleasure; but they receive them by So­lemn Ordination from their Predecessors in this Ministery, the Substitutes of the Lord Christ; even this Office [Page 13]among the rest, to oversee, instruct and use Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, in making or publishing Ecclesiastical Laws, and imposing censures over the flock of Christ in what Princes Dominions soever, or in whatsoever Province or Diocess thereof, as every one by his Ecclesiastical Su­periors is appointed; as appears by their equally exer­cising such Office in the three first Centuries in all Do­minions distributed into several Provincial and Paro­chial Governments, (the Twelve Apostles being said at the first to have allotted to themselves several Circuits after the same manner) even when the Supreme Power-civil not only licenced not, but opposed and prohibi­ted them to do it on pain of death. Of which matter see Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church 1 chap. ‘Seeing the Church (saith he) subsisted Three Hundred years, before any State professed Christianity, whatsoever right it used during that time, manifestly therefore it ought still to use and enjoy: this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it [(i. e.) of such rights independent on any Temporal Governor] See him 4. c. p. 169.’ And the Apostles themselves were they, who first set up this Church Government in Civil States. And St. Paul made Titus Superintendent of Creet, and Timothy of Ephesus for Spiritual Affairs, without the Secular Go­vernors leave; * who were, in these places, to ordain others, to preserve for ever the Doctrines and Disci­pline delivered to them. For this cause (saith Paul to Titus 1. chap. 5. ver.) left I thee in Creet, that thou should­est set in order the things that are left undone, and ordain Presbyters in every City, as I had appointed thee. [Which ordaining of others signifieth also Institution in the charge, or cure, whereto they ministred (as Bishop Carle­ton confesseth Jurisdict. Regal Episcopal 4. chap. pag. 40.) Again, * Who were, in these places, to receive Accusa­tions; hear Witnesses; (which cannot be without ap­pointed Assemblies and Meetings) silence false Teach­ers; excommunicate Offenders. See Tit. 1.11. Rev. 2.20. 1. Tim. 1.3.5.19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before two or three Witnesses. [Page 14] ‘[Now he (saith the same Author pag. 42.) that is ap­pointed to hear Accusations, and to receive the testi­monies of witnesses, is seated in a place of judgment with Jurisdiction.]’ (See more of this in Succes Clergy. §. 4.) and this they did, when the Temporal Gover­nors of those places licenced them not, yea persecuted them. So Athanasius, ejected by Constantius his Emperor from the charge which the Church had committed to him of Alexandria, and Paulus from Constantinople, were nevertheless accounted still the true Bishops of those Sees. Princes indeed may deprive the Clergy at pleasure or according as Covenants made, of what they bestow on them, Houses, Lands, Priviledges, Jurisdictions, Lord­ships Temporal; but the Offices abovenamed they be­stow not.2 2. Again, as Princes may not depose them, at pleasure; so neither, for any cause, which concerns things Spiritual, without the Clergy's consent. For it is necessary, that a Judge, to be a competent one, have as well potestatem in causam, as in personam: and the Prince (as hath been mentioned in the first Thesis,) hath no authority to judge such causes meerly Spiritual. To this may be added; that neither Heathen nor Heretical Prince can justly prohibit totally all that Clergy, whom the Church declares Orthodox, from entring into, or from preaching and otherwise officiating in Divine mat­ters within his Dominions. And if he put such to death for disobeying this his Command, when as it is contrary to Gods, and Christs, who sendeth them to all Nations, in effect he puts them to death for obeying Gods Com­mand, and they dye Martyrs. As also the Primitive Martyrs were put to death for not obeying the Emperors Laws concerning matters of their Religion.

§. 7 Second: 2. As the Prince cannot thus eject or depose Clergy; so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceased, without the con­currence of the Clergy. For such person must be or­dained by the Clergy, before he can officiate; and must have the consents or approbation of his Spiritual Supe­riors; a Bishop of his Metropolitan; a Metropolitan, [Page 15]of his Patriarch; and also of the major part of the Clergy of the Province which he belongs to [I mean Clergy Episcopal] before he can be rightly ordained. See Conc. Nic. can. 4. and 6. And Conc. Nic. 2. can. 3. Can. Apost. 31. Conc. Gen. 8.^nm can. 10.12.22. Conc. Laodic, can. 13 With the Concessions of Dr. Field of the Church, p. 581, and p. 551. And of Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. and others quoted in Chur. Gov. 1 part. §. 9. And of Mason de Minist. Angl. 4. l. 6. c. And of Mr. Thorn­dike Right of the Church, 5 c. p. 248, &c. Which Canons were purposely made to exclude for ever out of the Clergy those, who are, in the common judgment of that Clergy, corrupt in manners, or factious in opini­ons. Tho Princes therefore for the greater security of their civil Government, and for the recompence of the great Obligations which the Church hath to their Libe­rality and to their Secular power, may nominate and recommend a person to the Clergies Election; yet if they propose not any whom the Clergy thinks fit and ca­nonical; the Clergy may refuse such presentment; and in case of no new presentation of a person worthy, may elect some other to teach, officiate, &c, in any part of their Dominions: whom such Princes ought not to re­fuse, if he be no way prejudicial to the good of their civil Estate. For the Prince can neither prohibite to Christi­ans, tho his Subjects, all Pastors; nor yet all such Pastors, as the Governors, whom Christ hath set over his people, only think worthy. See Mr. Thorndike, Right of the Chur. 5. c. And indeed all this is but necessary for the propo­gating, of the Gospel against Infidelity, where the Prince is Heathen; and of the truth of the Gospel, against He­resy, where the Prince is, or at least may be, a Sectarist, amongst all Nations without depending on any ones leave; and for the preserving of the Church uniform, entire, and incorrupt, in her Doctrine and Discipline. For if Temporal Governors could at their pleasure, or, as they thought meet, place and displace the Clergy, tho they cannot state all Divine matters by themselves, yet may they make the Church's Synods (which is all one) [Page 16]to state them according to their minds, either by intro­ducing some de novo who are for them; (as Princes can never want those who conform to, or at least comply with, their judgment;) or by removing some who op­pose them; and so making, the formerly lesser, then, a major part in such Assemblies. Thus Constantius an A­rian, by unjustly displacing the Bishops procured Arian­isme to be voted in several Eastern Synods.

§. 8 Meanwhile, let it here be granted; that, cui conceditur regnum, necessario omnia censentur concessa, sine quibus reg­num gubernari non potest; and therefore that the civil power may judge and eject, and disauthorize Spiritual persons for matters of Secular Judicature, as Treason, and other moral and civil misdemeanors damageable to the Common-wealth; and such I suppose was the case of Abiathar. And if upon this it should at any time hap­pen; that the thus ejected be numerous; and the new ones introduced by any connivance of the rest of the Clergy and by the importunities and threats of the Prince, should be also heterodox and factious; and by this means the prevailing part of a Provincial, or Na­tional, Church, corrupt; yet whilst Christ hath pro­mised to preserve the main body of his Church from such corruption, we have some remedy from the General, for the delinquencies of such a national Church: in that their Decrees are subjected to the Decrees of superior Coun­cels, nor may these decide any thing against those; the next Thesis; which in such case we must repair to.

The Fourth Thesis: §. 9. Thes. 4. That a Provincial or National Synod may not lawfully make any definitions, in matters of Faith, or in reforming some Error or Heresy, or other abuse in Gods Service, contrary to the Decrees of for­mer superiour Synods; or contrary to the judgment of the Church Ʋniversal of the present age shèwed in her publick Liturgies; which judgment is equivalent to that of a General Council of the same age. See this Propo­sition amply proved in 2. Part. §. 27. and 44. and 55. &c. and in many other places of the precedent Dis­courses.

The Fifth Thesis: That,§. 10. Thes. 5. could a National Synod make such definitions, yet that a Synod wanting part of the National Clergy, unjustly deposed or restrained; and consisting partly of persons unjustly introduced, partly of those who have been first threatned, with fines, im­prisonment, deprivation, in case of their non-conformity to the Prince's Injunctions in matters meerly Spiritual; is not to be accounted a lawful National Synod, nor the Acts thereof free and valid; especially as to their establishing such Regal Injunctions.

The Sixth Thesis: §. 11. 1. [...]. Thesi 6th. That the judgment or consent of some Clergy-men or Bishops of a Province, whether sitting by themselves, or joyned with some of the Laity, cannot be called the judgment and consent of the Clergy, or Church of that Province (tho the Metropolitan be one of them) when these are only some smaller part of such Clergy. See Can. Apost. 35. Conc. Antioch. 9. c. Neither, since the Clergy is in its self a subordinate and united body, can the Prince, when following the di­rections of some few Clergy, whom he knows or fears to differ in their judgment from the main body thereof, be said to be guided by his Clergy, but to go against it. For if some smaller part of the Clergy joyned with the Prince could by this outweigh the rest, what opinion can the Prince entertain so extravagant, wherein he can­not draw some Church-men to his side?

Much less may an Act of Parliament be urged for an Act of the Clergy, because the Lords Spiritual sit there­in;§. 12. n. 2. or because it commonly runs thus: [Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal] unless it be first shewed that the major part or the Bishops of the Nation gave their consents therein. For since, herein, the Clergy do vote together with the Laity; and since it is enough, if the major part of the Parliament vote any thing, to pro­mulgate it as an Act of all the Members thereof, and to use the form above-named; so long as the others Mem­bers have no Negative voice to what is passed by this major part; It would hence follow, that it were an Act [Page 18]of the Clergy, or Synodal, where, not one, or where only some few, of the Clergy do give their consent, if so be that the Laity, that vote with them, do equal or exceed their number.1. Eliz. 1. c. So An. 1. Eliz. the reintroducing of the Protestant Religion passed as an Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Par­liament, when all the Bishops, therein present, opposed it. See Camden's An. 1. Eliz. And 1. Eliz. 1. c..

§. 13 The Seventh Thesis: That,Thesis 7th. tho Secular Princes were allowed to have a decisive power in some matters of Faith, such as are no way formerly determined (which is con­trary to the First and Second Thesis) yet, for such points as have been formerly determined on any side, here, since a National Synod may not define any such thing contrary to former superior Councils, much less may any Secular person define any such things contrary to those Councils; or also contrary to a National Synod.

§. 14 The Eighth Thesis: That,Thesis 8th. as touching Divine truths and matters of Faith (spoken of hitherto;) so now for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution, and not Di­vine Command, Neither National Synod nor Secu­lar power may make any new Canons concerning the Government and Discipline of the Church contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former superior Coun­cils, nor reverse those formerly made by them; at least, so many of these; as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his civil Government; nor the Na­tional Synod can shew some way more prejudicial to their particular Church, than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches See this Thesis proved in Chur. Gov. 2. Part. §. 63. And 3. Part. §. 13. n. 3. And §. 27. n. 2.

§. 15 These Theses being set down whereby to judge of the Regularity of a Reformation; let us now view the car­riage thereof here in England in the time of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth; and how far it hath deviated from them. Touching which Reformation, I would desire you to read together with these [...]ay Observations what is related in defence there­of [Page 19]by, Dr. Hammond, Schism, 7. c. Dr. Fern in Con­siderations touching the Reformed Church, 2. and 9. Chap. And Dr. Heylin's Treatise called the Reformation of the Church of England Justified; lest I may have related some things partially, or omitted some things considerable, in this matter.

And here,§. 16. 1. Three Heads of this Dis­course. confining my Discourse to Three Heads, I will first give you an account, how the Clergy, in Henry the Eighth's days, were at the beginning induced to ac­knowledge the Kings Supremacy in Spiritual matters after another manner, than his Predecessors had exer­cised it formerly: and, how far only at first they seem to have allowed it. [I say after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly. Because some Su­premacy, namely this; of assembling a Synod of the Clergy, upon Temporal punishments in case of Disobe­dience, by their Writs (the ancient form of which see in Dr. Heylin, p. 4) when any urgent occasions required: as likewise of enjoyning to all their Subjects, as well Clergy, as others, upon Temporal Penalties, the obser­vance of the Decrees and Constitutions of such Synods, or of any other former lawful Councils (such as the Clergy shall acknowledge to have been the Decrees there­of) these Supremacies (I say) the Princes of this Land before Henry the Eighth, had and exercised; neither was any such Supremacy usurped, or interrupted, by the Pope. Neither do the Roman Doctors deny such an external coactive Jurisdiction of Princes in Spiritual Affairs; 1. as to bind their Clergy,1 upon Temporal Mulcts, to meet together in Council, when the same Princes shall think it necessary; the Ecclesiasticks being their Subjects, as well as Christs Clergy, and on this account bound to obey them, as well as their Spiritual Governors on the other; and there being often good cause of their assembling in order to the peace and wel­fare of the civil State committed to the Princes care, because this dependeth much on the right Government of the Church committed to theirs. Provided only, that these Assemblies be so timed and disposed by the [Page 20]Prince, as that the authority which our Saviour hath com­mitted to the Church concerning the assembling of the same persons be no way disturbed thereby. For doubt­less, when both at the same time cannot be done, their Service to the Church is to be preferred before that to the State.2 2. as to bind their Subjects, upon External and Temporal Mulcts and Punishments, to observe the Laws and Determinations of the Church. But, First that the Governors of the Church have also power, upon Ecclesiastical Censures, to assemble a Synod of Clergy, when there seems need, tho the Prince oppose it, this indeed those Doctors affirm. And secondly whether, in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiri­tual matters against the Definitions of the Church, then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince, namely; to dissolve the Prince's coactive power, or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince, in order to the good of he Church, this they bring in question. But then, as his last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors, so it is opposed by others of them.2] 2. We will consider what manner of Supremacy was afterward by little and little either challenged by the Prince; or by the Clergy or Parliament given unto him, 3 as his right. 3. And Thirdly how, according to this their conceived right, those Three Princes acted.

CHAP. II. The Inducement of the English Clergy to acknow­ledge a Regal Supremacy in Spirituals.I. Head.

§. 17 FOR the First. Henry the Eighth, whether because scrupulous in Conscience,How the Engl. Cler­gy were first induced to acknow­ledge a new Regal Su­premacy in Spirituals. occasioned by his Daugh­ter Mary's being offered in Marriage first to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and then to Francis King of France; and by both refused (as is said) upon this account, be­cause they doubted of the lawfulness of Henry' s Mar­riage with her Mother: or whether because much en­amoured on another Lady Anne Bullen, Daughter to the Treasurer of his Houshold, and an Attendant on the Queen [yet between whom and him it is said, that the King was conscious of some Impediments, why he could not lawfully marry her, for which an Act of Par­liament 28. Hen. 8.7. c. never after repealed plainly de­clared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown: and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the Seventh. Etiamsi illa tibi aliàs secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis, aut primo affinitatis gradu, etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu, proveniente in­vicem conjuncta sit, do give some suspicion.] Had a great desire, after Twenty years cohabitation, to be divorced from Queen Katherine, because having been formerly his Brother's Wife. Cardinal Wolsey being made the Bishops Legate together with Cardinal Cam­pegius for the hearing and determining this matter, tho at first he much corresponded with the King's Inclina­tions, having designed his Matching with the King of France his Sister (as is thought) from some Self-interests; yet, when he discovered the King's Affections settled on Anne Bullen, one inclined to Lutheranisme,See Fox p. 988. 1036. he proves averse now to what he had formerly advanced, and de­lays the decision of the Divorce so long, till at last the [Page 22]Pope, moved thereto by the Emperor, Nephew to Queen Katherine, did, upon her appeal, revoke the cause to Rome, and inhibited the Legats Proceedings. 'Tis said also, that some others of the chief of the English Clergy,See Fox p. 96. and 962. Edit. 1610. whether it were conscientiously, or out of the same dis-affection of their's to Anne Bullen, I cannot tell, much disliked the same Divorce.

§. 18 The King, for this, much displeased with both Car­dinal and Clergy, first accuseth the Cardinal to have in­curred a Premunire, for having exercised his Legantine Office in his Dominions, without the Kings Licence, contrary to a Statute made in the days of King Richard the Second. Yet had the King formerly been pleased to appear before him in Court, as the Popes Legate, and his delegated Judge, together with Campegius, in the Cause of the Kings Divorce. Upon this he is con­demned,See Godw. Annal. An. Reg. Henr. 21. and all his Estate seized on by the King. Tho the Cardinal pleaded: ‘That it was well known to his Majesty that he would not presume to execute his power Legantine before the King had been pleased to ratify it with his Royal Assent given under his Seal, which notwithstanding he could not produce, that and all his Goods being taken from him.’ See Godwin's Annals p. 107. who also (p. 119.) saith;See Godw. Annal. p. 107, and p. 119. that it was certain that Wolsey was Licensed to exercise his Authority Le­gantine.

§. 19 After this fall of Wolsey; Next a Bill was given up in the Parliament held 1530. (and the Summe demanded from the Clergy, as conspiring with the Cardinal,) of an 100000 l. Charges, that the King had been put to, to obtain so many Instruments from Forreign Univer­sities, which had decided this matter. From which Universities the King is said to have procured their Suffrages for his Divorce not without seeing several of them with great Summs of Money. Concerning which see the Testimonies of several Authors produced by Sanders (p. 49. &c.) Some of those he quotes saying, that they had Money offered to themselves; some, that they were Eye-witnesses of it received by others. [Tho [Page 23](with your leave to make here a little digression touching this Controversy) these Universities, at least some of them, considered only the point of the unlawfulness of one marrying his Brothers Wife, when such former Mar­riage was consummate by carnal knowing of her (See the Determinations of Paris, and others in Hollinsh. (p. 924.) putting in the Clause; so that the Marriage be consummate.) Without considering that circumstance, whether Katherine was carnally known by her first Hus­band, which was denied by the Queen and her Advo­cates (Prince Arthur being thought somewhat infirm, and being but Fifteen years old when he Married her, and dying shortly after.) You may see, if you have the curiosity, what is said for the consummation of that Marriage in Fox Mon. p. 958. Edit. 1610. against it in Sanders de Schism Ang l. 1. l. p. 40. Yet, tho the former Marriage had been consummate, many Learned Men of that Age of several Nations (amongst whom were Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Tonstall Bishop of Duresme) whom you may find diligently reckoned up to the num­ber of almost Twenty by Sanders de Schism Angli. 1. l. p. 42. 53, 54. writ Books in Justification, that the Marriage of Henry with Katherine was a matter dispen­sable. For tho this was agreed on all sides, That Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impediment is jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus, sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt: Yet some of these Authors held first, that all the Impediments named in the Mosaical Law were not dirimentia conjugium jure divino naturali (which only now oblige Christians:) and then secondly that, in matter of Affinity, only primus gradus rectae lineae, as between Father and his Sons Wife, and not primus gra­dus lineae, collateralis or transversae, as between the Brother and his Brothers Wife, was such an Impediment, as did dirimere conjugium jure divino naturali, and indispen­sably. Others gathered the Law in Levit. 18.16. dis­pensable in some cases, from the express dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5. Now the preservation of Peace between the two Kingdomes of England and Spain [Page 24]is a motive for such dispensation much more considerable, than that mentioned in Deut. the preservation of the name and honor of the deceased. (See Card. Cajetan de Conjug. Reg. Angl. 6. c.) And for the general judgment of the Learned in this matter, and particularly of the Universities, after you have read the Story in Sanders, p. 49, 50, 51. concerning them and especially concern­ing Oxford, as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert. Hist. Hen. 8. p. 324, 325. See what the Act of Parlia­ment 1. Mar. 1. c. saith of them. viz. ‘That this Mar­riage betwixt Henry and Katherine was solemnized by the deliberate and mature consideration and consent of the best and most notable men in Learning, in those days, of Christendome. That the perverse affections of some, a very few, persons, for their own singular glory and vain reputation, pretended the same Marriage to be against the word of God: and to this intent caused the Seals as well of certain Universities in Italy and France to be gotten (as it were for a testimony) by the corruption with Money of a few light persons Scholars of the said Universities, as also the Seals of the Universities of this Realm to be obtained by sinister working, secret threatnings, &c. And that Arch-Bishop Cranmer in giving Sentence, that the said Matrimony was unlaw­ful, took his Foundation, partly upon his own unad­vised judgment of the Scripture, joyning therewith the pretended testimonies of the said Universities: and partly upon bare and most untrue conjectures [i. e, concerning the consummation of the former Marriage of Katherine with Arthur.]’ And see what Lord H [...]rbert delivers of the hesitancy of the German Protestant Divines (being several times and that long after the Divorce made requested thereto by King Henry) to declare the Divorce lawful p. 448. and 379. where he saith, That for the Approbation of the Divorce proposed to the German Divines Luther, Justus Jonas, Philip Melancthon and others, they delayed to approve it, and the King was judiciously advised by his Agents from thence, not to require any thing of them, which would be too hard to grant. I have made this Di­gression [Page 25]to shew you the diversity of opinions, which was in this difficult matter (that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgment:) and how the several interests of several times justified and condemned the same thing. Now to return to our matter in hand.]

§. 19 The foresaid Summe of 100000 l. spent upon the Uni­versities abroad was demanded by the Parliament from the Clergy at home; because it was said, that the Car­dinal, and some other chief amongst them were, thro their falshood and dissimulation, the cause of this For­reign Expence: Which Summe they resolutely refusing to contribute, the whole Clergy are sued by the King, and condemned by the Kings Bench in a Premunire also, for receiving and acknowledging the Cardinals Power Legantine, exercised by him ignorantly or presumptu­ously, without the Kings consent and allowance first ob­tained. The Clergy, thus become liable, at the Kings pleasure, to the Imprisonment of their Persons, and confiscation of their Estates, assemble themselves in the House of Convocation; offer to pay for their Ransome the demanded 100000 l.

§. 20 But the King, having now no hopes of obtaining a Licence for his Divorce from the Pope, (who at this time stood much in awe of the Emperor, victorious in Italy, and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Ka­therine) that the Popes Decrees might be of no force against him, negociates also by his Agents with the Clergy, (whilst, in these fears,) to give him the Title of Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters within his Do­minions; making account that, this obtained, he had the assent of his own Clergy at his beck for the nulling of his former Marriage. Therefore, in the drawing up of the Clergy's Petition to the King for release of the Premunire, it was signified from the Court (cujus consilii Cranmerus & Cromwellus clam authores fuisse existima­bantur; saith the Author Antiq. Brittanic. p. 325.) that a Title should be prefixed, wherein they should stile the King ecclesiae & cleri Anglicani Protector & supremum Caput, or else the Petition would not be accepted. To [Page 26]which with some difficulty they agreed, so, as qualifying it with this Clause [Quantum per legem Christi licet.] But, the King again excepting at this limitation, as un­worthy the Clergy (who either did or ought to know, and definitively instruct others, what Christs Law did, or did not, allow) at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted. See Antiquit. Brit­tannic. p. 326. Sed Regi (saith that Author) displicuit ancipitem dubiamque mitigationem & moderationem verbo­rum a cleri sui Synodo, quae de Christi lege aut certa fuit, aut certa esse debuit, tam frigide proferri. Itaque Crom­wellum ad Synodum iterum mandans, eam aut tolli voluit, aut clerum incursas Sanctionum paenas pati. Omnium igitur ex sententiis Rex sine ambiguitate ullâ ecclesiae Angliae supre­mum caput declaratus est. But yet this was not done; till after the Clergy, who much alledged, that the King, or some of his Successors might, upon this Title, ruine the Church of England in their ordering Spiritual matters without or against the Clergy thereof, had obtained a voluntary promise from him to this effect: That he would never by vertue of that Grant assume to himself any more power over the Clergy, than all others the Kings of England had assumed; nor that he would do any thing without them, in altering, ordering, or judging, in any Spiritual matters. See Bishop Fisher's Life published by Dr. Bayly. And this was the first Act of the Clergy, which, being so un­derstood, as excluding all authority of the Western Patriarch over the Church of England, and transferring such authority for the future to the King is contrary to the Fourth Thesis: because some such authority was con­ferred on this Patriarch by Superior Councils. And which Act was so passed by them, that, as Dr. Ham­mond acknowledged, (of Schism 7. c.) it is easy to be­lieve,See Church Gov. 1. Part §. 4. and §. 20. that nothing but the apprehensions of dangers, which hung over them by a Premunire incurred by them, could pro­bably have inclined them to it.

§. 22 After the conceding of this Title of Supremacy to the King, and exclusion of the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions, and the voiding of all appeals made hence [Page 27]unto him; and after the Kings Marriage to Anne Bullen also, but before the publication thereof; Cranmer, being now chosen Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, upon the death of Warham, a Favourer of the Queen Katherine's Cause, Summons her to appear before him and some other Bi­shops and Commissioners; and, upon her neglect, so­lemnly dissolveth the Kings former Marriage with her, and divorceth him from her.

§. 23 But, the Kings ends thus obtained, yet things rested not here. ‘And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it.But, whereas formerly till the Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth the Synods of the Clergy (saith Dr. Heylin §. 1. p, 7.) after called by the Kings Writ, acted absolutely in their Convocations of their own authority, the Kings or Parliaments assent or ra­tification neither concurring nor required; and whereas by this sole authority, which they had in themselves, they made Canons, declared Heresies, convicted and censured persons suspected of Heresy, &c:’ Now, they having declared the King supream Head of the Church, instead of the Pope the Western Patriarch, it seemed reasonable therefore that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head: And conducing much to this end (as I learn from the fore­named Dr) was a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons (after the Ice was broken) A. 1532.See Full [...]rs Appeal of Injur'd In­nocence Pa. 2. p. 65. ‘In which (saith he) they, de­siring that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament, and that their Acts and Constitutions should not bind their Sub­jects, as before, in their Goods and Possessions, until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power, they shewed themselves aggrieved, that the Clergy of this Realm should act authoritatively and supreamly in the Convocation and they in Parliament do no­thing but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent. An Answer unto which Remonstrance (saith he) was drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester, and being allowed of by both Houses of Convocation was by them pre­sented [Page 28]to the King. But the King not satisfied with this Answer resolved to bring them to his bent, and therefore on the Tenth of May sent a Paper to them by Dr. Foxe (after Bishop of Hereford) in which it was peremptorily required: that no Constitution or Ordi­nance shall be hereafter, by the Clergy Enacted, pro­mulged, or put in execution, unless the Kings Highness do approve the same, and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution &c. Whereupon on the Fifteenth of the same Month they made their absolute submission.’ So He. And thus the next step therefore of this Reformation was; that, the King so requiring it, they bound themselves by a Synodical Act for the time to come, not to assemble themselves at all without the Kings Writ; and when assembled not to enact, pro­mulge, or execute any Canons, Constitutions, Ordinan­ces Provincial or 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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]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 [Page 31]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,1 by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supream recited before. Secondly,2 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,3 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,4 By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12. c. where, in the Pre­face [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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 [Page 35]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,) [Page 36]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 'tis 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 [Page 37]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, [Page 38]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, [Page 39] ‘That no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever. Secondly, That, for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop; Commissio­ners, by the Kings Highness to be appointed, shall have full power and authority, to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal, with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same; and no further Appeals to be made.’ These Commissioners therefore, (appointed by the King,) are the ultimate and unap­pealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters; of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word; wherein accord­ing to the Canon when they were Causes of moment, Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod, or to the Patriarch.

§. 34 Again; 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament: ‘That no speaking, doing, or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws, made by au­thority of the See of Rome, by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, or the Kings Prerogative, shall be deemed to be Heresy.’ From which all that I would note is this: that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy, and do declare, that no Laws of the Realm nor the Preroga­tive assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them. —Again; it is Enacted by Parliament 34, 35. Hen. 8.1. c. ‘That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540, are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned; that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick, and shall suffer pains of death by Burning.’ Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy, without any Ap­peal, as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19. c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis. And the Protestants, in justifying this Supremacy, must allow their own Condemnation, if teaching against any thing [Page 40]written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man; Or, A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People, set forth by the King's Authority at that time; or a­gainst the Six Articles, which were in the same Act Established; as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14. c. the Publish­ing of which Act (saith Lord Herbert, p. 447.) ‘gave no little occasion of murmur; since to revoke the conscience, not only from its own Court, but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies; to such an abrupt de­cision of the Common-Law, as is there [Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14. c.] set down,§. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course.’ Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted. 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal (Schism Guarded §. 3. p. 262.1 the Title of which Section is, That Henry the Eighth made no new Law. See likewise his Vindic. p. 86.) 1. ‘That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth,1 were only declarative of old Law, not enactive of new Law, proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert, and of the Lord Coke (Reports, 2 Fifth Part.’) And 2^ly (Schism Guarded, 2 p. 61, 62.) ‘That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all, save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesi­astical Causes in foro contentioso.’ [Fox the First of these, if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed,1 with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke (Reports, §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part) and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. &c. You shall find no such thing, if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes. You may find Appeals to the Pope (or other Forreign Judge,) and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him (except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus) to have been prohibited by former Laws; that is, in some particular Cases, wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights, Profits, Securities, or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope, (See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. [Page 41]the Confessor. Vobis & posteris vestris Regibus, &c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66.) [This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5. c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where, upon pain of a Premunire, all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome. But this is in certain Cases only (see Vindic. p. 81.) Cases in­deed Ecclesiastical; but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects (which, all Ecclesiastical matters (I hope) neither are nor are pretended to be) viz. these Cases. Popes re­fusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church [that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question.] Again; ‘The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent, whereby (saith the Statute) the Kings Liege Sages of his Coun­cil should be without his assent, and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm, and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away, and so the Realm destitute as well of Council, as of Substance [surely these are Temporal Considerations] and so the Crown of England, which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things [not abso­lutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things] touching the Regality of the same Crown, and to none other, should be submitted to the Pope, &c.’ [the Regality; (that is) in those Temporal things above named.] In these Cases Bulls, &c, from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited, as infringing the Civil Rights. ‘And to this Statute in such case (it is said there) the Lords Spiritual gave their consent: But meanwhile making Protestations (saith the Statute) that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops, nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church.’ And Richard the Second, notwithstanding this Act, was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms [Page 42]as to many other respects, as appears by his zealous supporting of Ʋrban the Sixth in it. 2. Rich. 2.7.] Again you may find perhaps Appeals, Bulls, &c, pro­hibited, in general, without the Kings content first ob­tained thereto; But this not out of an intention of sup­pressing all such Appeals, or Ecclesiastical Laws or Cen­sures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiri­tual authority abroad, or out of an intention of deny­ing these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them: but only out of an intention to examine them first, whether any thing were contained in them prejudicial to the Temporal and Civil Rights, and Emoluments and Priviledges of the Prince and of his Subjects, that the Mitre might not encroach upon the Crown; both which have their certain limits of Jurisdiction, and may do wrong one to the other. Such authority as this (then) in Church-matters you may find exercised by for­mer Princes of England; or perhaps some other power used by them against the Church, and defended by the common Lawyers of those days, more than is justifiable. But, on the other side, I think you will not find either assumed by the Prince, or allowed to him by any Statutes before the times of Henry the Eighth, such Powers in Ecclesiastical matters, as some of these following. Name­ly; A Power to correct and reform all Errors and Heresies in Religion by such persons, as the Prince shall appoint to judge thereof, half of them being Laicks, repealing also the former course of tryal of them by the ordinary Church-Magistrates, as you may see below, §. 39. A Power to make and reverse Ecclesiastical Laws, alter the Church Liturgies, publick Forms of administring the Sacraments, Ordinals, &c without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or any lawful Church Au­thority. A Power to hinder and prohibits the Clergy, that they may correct or reform any such Heresies, or may make or publish any such Ecclesiastical Decrees or Laws within the Kings Dominions without his con­sent thereto first obtained. Without his Consent, not to examine, whether such their Constitutions might be any [Page 43]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 Guard [...]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 [Page 44]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. 2 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 [Page 45]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 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

2 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 [Page 46]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; 1 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; 2 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.3 Thirdly, In the Act fore-quoted 25. Hen. 8.19. c. 'Tis 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, 4 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.’ [Ʋnless 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 [Page 48]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 [...]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 expressed, and as I think some of these Instances in the Parliaments Acts, &c made above do confirm; tho some Writers in our latter times seem to be somewhat unwilling to acknowledge it.’ And it is plain, that Calvin (in Amos 7.) understood those times (in which he writ) to have given Supremacy to [Page 49]Kings, and particularly to Henry the Eighth in this gross sense. Whilst he complains thus. —Et hodiè quam multi sunt in Papatu, qui Regibus accumulant quicquid possunt juris & potestatis; ita, ut ne qua fiat disceptatio de religione, sed potestas haec sit penes Regem unum, ut Statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit, & sine controversiâ hoe firmum maneat. Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt Henri­cum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt inconsiderati homines. Dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem; & hoc me semper graviter vulneravit: erant enim blasphemi, cùm vocarent ipsum summum caput Ecclesiae sub Christo. Hoc certè fuit nimium: Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat, quia pec­carunt inconsiderato zelo. Sed impostor ille [Stephen Gar­diner] qui postea fuit Cancellarius hujus Proserpinae, quae hodiè illic superat omnes diabolos [he means Queen Mary] Ille, cum esset Ratisponae, non pugnabat rationibus (loquor de hoc postremo Cancellario qui Episcopus fuit Vintoniensis) sed quemadmodum jam caepi dicere, non multum curabat Scripturae testimonia, sed dicebat fnisse in arbitrio Regum, Statuta abrogare, & ritus novos instituere. Si de jejunio agitur, illud regem posse populo indicere, & jubere ut hoc vel illo die vescatur populus carnibus: licere etiam prohibene Sacerdotes a conjugio: licere etiam regi interdicere populo usum calicis in caenâ: licere regi statuere hoc vel illud in regno suo: Quare? Potestas enim summa est penes Regem. He goes on complaining. Certum quidem est Reges, si fungantur suo officio, esse & Patronos Religionis, & nutri­cios Ecclesiae. Hoc ergo summoperè requiritur a Regibus, ut gladio, quo praediti sunt, utantur ad cultum Dei asserendum [but of whom shall they learn the right cultus Dei? Of the Body of Church-men? Then what will become of Galvinisme?] Sed interea sunt homines inconsiderati [such as Arch-Bishop Granmer and others] qui faciunt illos nimis Spirituales. Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germaniâ. In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur [amongst the Genevois and the Swisses] & nunc sentimus quales fructus nascantur ex illâ radice; quod sic Principes & quicunque po­tiuntur imperio putant se ita Spirituales esse, ut nullum sit am­plius Ecclesiasticium regimen. Non putant se posse regnare, [Page 50]nisi aboleant omnem Ecclesiae authoritatem, & sint summi Judices tam in doctrinâ, quam in toto Spirituali regimine. Tenendum est igitur temperamentum, quia hic morbus semper in Principibus regnavit, ut vellent inflectere religionem pro suo arbitrio & libidine, & interea etiam pro suis commodis. Hodiè dolendae sunt nobis nostrae vices & deplorandae. Thus he goes on complaining of the reforming Princes in those times making themselves the summi Judices both in Ec­clesiastical Doctrines and Government; Himself mean­while, thus, being destitute of any Judge at all in these matters (the judgment of Seculars being (by his sen­tence) invalid) of the Church opposing him. To this of Calvin may be added what Dr. Fern saith, in his Consid. concerning Reform 2. c. 6. §. ‘That the Bishops and Clergy under Henry the Eighth may seem, at least in words and expression, to have over-done their work; not in that part which they denied to the Pope, but in that part which they attributed to the King.’ [I add, which part wrongly attributed to the King, by consequence they faultily denied, if not to the Pope, yet to some other, whose right it was: And then I ask what person or persons this should be?]

CHAP. IV. The Supremacy claimed by King Edward the Sixth.

§. 38 NExt to come to the Times of Edward the Sixth. Here we find the Power and Priviledges of the Kings Supremacy nothing diminished:2. In the times of Ed­ward the Sixth. but all those by Act of Parliament confirmed to Edward the Sixth, which were formerly conceded to Henry the Eighth.

§. 39 1. First, Whereas there had been in former Ages several Parliament Statutes made in Confirmation of the Determinations of the Church, and concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Bishops their Ordinaries [As, that Act, 2. Hen. 4.15. ‘That none shall preach, hold, teach, or instruct contrary to the Catholick Faith, or Determination of Holy Church; and if any person shall offend in this kind, that the Diocesan shall judicially proceed against him; and that Act, 2. Hen. 5.7. That, for so much as the Cognizance of Heresy belong­eth to the Judges of Holy Church, and not to the Secu­lar Judges, such persons indited shall be delivered to the Ordinary of the Places to be acquitted or convicted by the Laws of Holy Church;] we find these Statutes repealed by King and Parliament 1. Edw. 6.12. c.’ And when-as they were again revived by Queen Mary 1, and 2. Mariae 6. c. with this Preface: for the eschewing and avoid­ing of Heresies, which of late have much increased within this Realm, for that the Ordinaries have want­ed authority to proceed against those that were infected therewith; we find them again repealed, as soon as Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown. 1. Eliz. 1. c. the Tryal of Heresies and Hereticks by the Clergy accord­ing to the Determinations and Laws of Holy Church being admitted or excluded here, according as the Prince was Catholick or Reformed.

§. 40 Further; we find it affirmed in the Act 1. Edw. 6.2. c. ‘That all authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the Kings Majesty, as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England. Consequently (in 1. Edw. 6.2. c.) we find ordered, That no Election be made of any Bishop by the Dean and Chapter; but that the King by his Letters-Patents shall confer the same to any person whom he shall think meet, and a Collation so made stand to the same effect, as tho a Conge-d'-eslire had been given &c. That all Processes Ecclesiastical shall be made in the name and with the stile of the King, as in Writs at Common-Law, and the Teste thereof shall be in the name of the Bishop. These likewise to be sealed with no other Seal but the Kings, or such as should be authorized by him.’ Con­cerning which Act, thus Dr. Heylin candidly (Hist. of Reform. p. 51.) ‘By the last Branch thereof it is plain, that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their hold of Divine Institution, and making them no other than the Kings Ministers only, his Ec­clesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates. And of this Act such use was made (tho possibly beyond the true intention of it) that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders, but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence.’ [Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below §. 145.] ‘Which (saith he) being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power, but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ: She caused this Act to be re­pealed, leaving the Bishops to depend on their former [i. e, Divine] Institution; and to act in all things, which belonged to their Jurisdiction, in their own Names and under their own Seals, as in former times. In which Estate they have continued, without any legal inter­ruption, from that time to this. Thus He.’ Now to go on.

‘Consequently we find (in 2. Edw: 6.1. c.) the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. [Page 53]by vertue of their Act, to take Informations concern­ing the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer &c therein prescribed; and to punish the same by Excom­munication &c.’ And in Stat. 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament. ‘That all Arch-Bishops, Bishops &c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons, who shall offend against this Act and Statute.’ Which Clause, by vertue of this Act, and the like, im­plies, that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence; or ought to excommu­nicate in all matters, wherein the King and Parliament command it. Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act (forementioned p. 44. §. 26.) 26. Hen. 8.1. c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiri­tual Jurisdiction, there ascribed to the King or Queen, involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication, as well as others; not for the King to exercise this himself, but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute, or not execute, it: so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Cen­sure in his Dominions also from the King; contrary to the Second and Third Thesis. And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws, may not correct what they judge Heresies, Errors, Vices, &c, without the Kings consent had thereto (See the Acts set down before §. 31, 32, 33, &c.) it is but reason­able, that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent, for not obeying such Laws, or for being thought guilty of such Crimes. And this is the reason, I suppose, of Dr. Heylins Observation (Hist. of Reform. p. 94.) ‘That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped, that it was scarce able to fly abroad; the Sentence of Excommunication, wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People, not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward:’ and, of that Suit of Latimer [Page 54]to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid: ‘That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England.’

§. 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3, and 4. Edw. 6.11. c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons, half Seculars, to be nominated by him (as was done in Henry the Eighth's days, in 35. Hen. 8.16. c. 27. Hen. 8.15. c. 25.19. c.) who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church: and these reformed Laws only, established by a major part of them, and published by the Kings Proclamation, thence forward to stand in force. [The Statute runs thus. ‘Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects, and the Deter­minations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical, as Tem­poral;’ [therefore you see the Statutes, concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes, repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12. c. above-mentioned] ‘yet the same, as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes, having not of long time been put in ure, nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome, is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and there­fore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted &c, that the Kings Majesty shall, from henceforth during Three years, have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy (whereof Four to be Bishops) and Sixteen of the Temporalty (whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm) to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used, and to gather, order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical, as shall be thought to his Majesty, his said Council, and them, or the more part of them, convenient to be used, practiced or set forth within this his Realm, in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conven­tions. And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them, and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall, by [Page 55]vertue of this present Act, be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm, and no other: Any Law, Statute, or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.]’

§. 42 Again, we find, in the same Act, Six Prelates, and Six others, such as the King should nominate, delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Conse­cration of Bishops and Priests; and this, devised by them, and set forth under the Great Seal, to be used, and none other. The words are these. ‘Forasmuch as, that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties domini­ons [some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old] it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests; be it therefore Enacted, that such Form, as by Six Pre­lates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law, by the King to be appointed, or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose, and set forth under the Great Seal, shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used, and none other; any Law, Statute, or Prescription, to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.’ Here the King and Parliament assume power, to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church, and, by their Delegates, to constitute, and by their sole Act, to authorize, new, without any con­sent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod. And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders. ‘I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome, and his Authority, Power, and Jurisdiction. And I shall never consent nor 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 [Page 56]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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 Holy­days 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 [Page 59]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 and approved of all the faithful Mini­sters of Gods word.’

Where note; That tho, in some of these Articles,§. 45. n. 2. the Authority of Parliament is mentioned; yet in none of these is any thing said of the consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Regal or Parliamentary In­junctions in Ecclesiastical matters valid. From which may be collected; That when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mentioned, as sometimes it is, (See the Letter of the King and Council to Bishop Bonner, Fox p. 1186, and the Kings Message to the Re­bels of Cornwal, Fox p. 1189:) it is not to add any Authority to those Injunctions thereby; (which Injuncti­ons were imposed on the Clergy before any Synodal consent of the Clergy was either given or asked:) but to propose the judgment and example of the Clergy con­senting, as a motive to render others, that stand out, conformable; as whose judgment they ought to reve­rence, and whose example they ought to follow; not, as whose Decree and Constitution they ought to obey. And if you wonder, why the King and Parliament of those days never pleaded this last (as you shall never find it pleaded by them); the reason (I conjecture) was (besides that they were conscious of some changes made by them of these Ecclesiastical Judges, displacing those who would not conform to their Inclinations; which rendred them not so authentical) because they saw, that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force, by vertue of their Office or any Commission from Christ; but that so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods, which were Superior to the English Clergy, and which were contrary to the Laws [Page 60]of this National Synod; and so would void and make them of none effect. And if the King by vertue of his Supremacy urged his, and his Subjects, freedome from the former Laws and Constitutions of the Church Ʋniversal; so must he, from the present Laws of his own Church National: He, and his Subjects, being tied in no more Duty to the one, than to the other; nor in so much.

§. 46 If you would know how Bishop Gardiner behaved himself in this Tryal; it was with great perplexity and distraction: as neither knowing now, how, safely, to recal and recant that Supremacy of the King in Spirituals, which he had formerly acknowledged and sworn to; nor how, in that Duty which he owed to the Church, to obey those particular Injunctions, which the King imposed upon him by vertue of this Supremacy acknow­ledged by him; and so he incurred, for this latter, de­privation and imprisonment. And perhaps it may be thought a just judgment from God, that he should be thus ensnared and undone by that sense of Supremacy; of which he had been, in Henry the Eighth's days, both at home and abroad,See §. 37. as you have heard from Calvin, so zealous an Abettor.

§. 47 I will conclude these Evidences under Edward the Sixth, with what is said in Antiquit. Brittannic. (p. 339. which quotes for it the Archives) touching the re­sentment of their lost Synodal Authority which some of the Clergy shewed in a Synod called by Arch-Bishop Cranmer, in the First Year of King Edward's Reign, for the furthering of a Reformation, tho he could effect nothing therein. In which Synod the Clergy (now too late perceiving, that, not only the Pope, but them­selves, had lost their former Ecclesiastical Power; and that the King and Parliament ordered Spiritual Affairs as they pleased, without their consents) requested, that, at least, the rest of their Convocation might be joyned, with the House of Commons; as the Bishops were, with the Lords: that so they might have a Vote also in passing Church matters; but this request would not be granted [Page 61]them. The Authors words are these, —Animadver­terunt Praelati omnem vim authoritatemque Synodi non modò diminutam, sed penitus fractam eversamque esse; postquam Clerus in verbo Sacerdotis Henrico Regi pro­misisset, sine authoritate Regiâ, in Synodo se nihil decreturos; [or indeed that the King might decree what he pleased without the Authority of the Synod: for such a Su­premacy was either granted to, or assumed by, the King.] Quâ Ecclesiasticarum rerum potestate abdicatâ, Populus in Parliamento caepit de rebus divinis, inconsulto Clero, sancire; tum absentis cleri privilegia & immuni­tates sensim detrahere; juraque duriora, quibus Clerus in­vitus teneretur, constituere. Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est. Proinde petierunt, ut in Concilio inferiori Praelati Clerique procuratores cum populo permixti de Republicâ & Ecclesiâ unà consulant &c. Thus that Author. And you may see also the Petition it self lately Printed out of a Manuscript of Arch-Bishop Cran­mers by Mr. Stillingfleet Irenicum 2. Part 8. c. Where, seeking too late to recover their former Steerage in Ec­clesiastical Affairs now transacted in the Court of Parlia­ment, the Lower House of Convocation prefers these Requests, ‘That, Whereas in a Stat. 25. Hen. 8. the Clergy had promised in Verbo Sacerdotii never from thenceforth to Enact &c any new Canons, Constitutions &c unless the Kings Assent and Licence may to them be had &c: therefore they desire that the Kings Ma­jesties Licence may be for them obtained, authorizing them to attempt and commune of such matters, and therein freely to give their consent; which otherwise they may not do, upon pain and peril premised. That either the Clergy of the Lower House of the Convo­cation may be adjoyned and associate with the Lower House of Parliament; or else, that all such Statutes, as shall be made concerning matters of Religion, may not pass, without the sight and assent of the said Clergy;’ [or (as it runs in the Second Petition) the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto, and their An­swers and Reasons not heard] ‘That [since the former [Page 62] were annulled] Ecclesiastical Laws may be established in the Realm by Thirty Two persons, or so many as shall please the King to appoint, &c. That all Judges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril. That, whereas they were informed, that certain Prelates and other Learned Men were appointed to alter the Service in the Church and did make certain Books &c: the said Books may be seen and perused by them, for a better expe­dition of Divine Service &c. That such matters as concern Religion, which be disputable, may be reasoned and disputed amongst them in this House; whereby the Verity of such matters shall the better appear &c.’ Thus laboured then the poor Clergy to obtain a joint share at least with the Parliament and civil State, in transacting the Affairs of the Church. And Dr. Heylin (in Reform. Justified §. 4. p. 21.) grants thus much, ‘That the Censures of the Church were grown weak, if not invalid, and consequently, by degrees, became neglected; ever after that King Henry the Eighth took the Headship on him, and exercised the same by a Lay Vicar-General: and p. 20, That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot; and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use, than afterward in times well ballanced and established [meaning those following times, wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince.]’ And, as for these days of King Edward; what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people, but the new Divines of Edward, acknow­ledged and enstated in the King and Parliament, may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper, when in Prison, sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary: Episcopis, Decanis wherein he cites them before the High Court of Parliament, [...]ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies, i. e, for so far as any man can be Judge. In this Letter, after having urged Deut. 17.8. because of the mention made there, of a Judge besides the Priest; Vo [...] omnes (saith he) obtestor, ut causam hanc [Page 63]vel aliam quamcunqne, ob religionem ortam inter nos & vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti; ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro & excelso senatu sese religiosè & animo submisso, judicio & authoritati Verbi Dei sub­jiciat. Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat, ut palam e. c lites inter nos componantur; idque coram competenti judice. Quid hoc est igitur? Quo jure contenditis? Vultis & nostri, & causae nostrae testes, accusatores & judices esse? Nos tantùm legem & evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus. Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa. Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus, ut coram compe­tenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium. Non vos fugit, quomodo publicè, palam, & in facie ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni, in summâ curià Par­liamenti, veritas verbi Dei per fidos, doctos, & pios mi­nistros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit. Quae, quocunque titulo, tempore, universalitate, splenduit, ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari, per proceres, heroas, ac doctos hujus regni, erat mandatum, statim evanuit &c. Here that Bishop professeth, when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion, not the Synod, but the Parliament, the competent Judge therein; and urgeth, if I rightly understand him, the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass. Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgment; which as it was then affected, would have cast him? It seemeth, Not; by that he faith [Tantum legem Dei in causâ re­ligionis judicem competentem agnoscimus. Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra.] By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it; that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him, a Prisoner for this Controversy? By the Clergy's? No. By the Parliament's? No; for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter? By the Scrip­ture then its self? But this is urged, by both sides, to speak for them; and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament, than it did before. So that, in nominating no other final Judge, the Bishops Request here in summe is; that his Cause may never be tryed by any Judge.

CHAP. V. King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary.

§. 48 AFter King Edward's Death, in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign (a Princess otherwise princi­pled,The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days; and the Popes Su­premacy re-acknowledged.) all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns, by Prince, by State, or by Clergy; in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals; in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church; in in­novating the Forms, of Divine Service and Admini­stration of the Sacraments, of Ordination, of Church Rites and Discipline, and Jurisdiction; in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions, and composing new ones; All was now, by an equal Authority of Prince, Clergy, and State, reversed, re­pealed, ejected; and Religion, (only rendred much poorer) as for Temporals, put into the same course, which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth; before a new Wife, or a new Title, was by him thought on. So that any new Reformation, to come afterward, must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation; not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure, being now, by the like Authority, defaced and thrown down.

§. 49 This Restitution of things, made in Queen Mary's days, will chiefly appear to you; in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap, where, the ancient Form of Divine Service &c, used in Henry the Eighths days, is restored; as being the Service (saith the Act) which we and our Fore-fathers found in this Church of England, left unto us by the Au­thority of the Catholick Church: And the fi­nal judg­ment of Ec­clesiastical matters re­stored to the Church. and several Acts of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws &c, or introduced new Forms, of Divine Service, of Election and Ordination of Bi­shops and Priests, are repealed. And in 1, and 2. Mar. 6. [Page 65]chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Hereticks first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again; and the Statutes to this purpose, which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy, are revived.

§. 50 And in 1, and 2. Mar. 8. c, where the Pope's Su­premacy is re-acknowledged; when also (as Fox ob­serves p. 1296.) the Queen's Stile concerning Supre­macy was changed; and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted: as also Bonner Bishop of London, being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Arch-Bishop, did omit, in his Writs to the Clergy, Authoritate Illustrissimae &c legitime suffulttus. In which Statute also the whole Nation, by their Representative in Parliament, ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism, repealing the Oath of the Kings Supre­macy, and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth's time against the Popes Supremacy: and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy, set down before §. 22. and §. 23; whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons with­out the Kings consent; and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased, to reform Errors, Heresies &c, i, e. to do the Offices of the Clergy. In which Statute also the Clergy, in a distinct Suppli­cation beginning, Nos Episcopi & Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati &c, calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma, do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights, Jurisdictions, Liberties, taken from her by the injustice of former times. [The words are, Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus, pro suâ pietate efficere dignentur, ut ea, quae ad jurisdictionem nostram & libertatem Ecclesiasticam per­tinent, sine quibus debitum nostri pastoralis officii & curae animarum nobis commissae exercere non possumus, nobis su­periorum temporum injuriâ ablata, restituantur; & ea nobis & Ecclesiae perpetuò illaesa & salva permaneant: & ut om­nes leges, quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem & libertatem [Page 66]Ecclesiasticam tollunt, seu quovis modo impediunt, abrogen­tur, ad honorem Dei &c.] Which Rights how wel­come they were to them when now regained in Queen Mary's days, we may guess from their former complaint in the beginning of King Edward's days; where we see how much they grieved, when they saw them lost. Sand­ers 2. l. p. 244. adds also, that at this time Singuli Epis­copi (uno tantum Landaffensi excepto) peculiariter petierunt à sede Apostolicâ veniam prioris gravissimae culpae, See before §. 47. & con­firmationem in suo cujusque Episcopatu. Lastly in the same Statute it is concluded: That the Ecclesiastical Juris­dictions of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops and Ordinaries, should be in the same State, for process of Suits, punish­ments of Errors, and execution of Censures of the Church, with knowledge of Causes belonging to the same, and as large in these Points as the said Jurisdiction was in the Twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth.

§. 51 After these Statutes, see to the same purpose the Synod held presently after the Coronation of Queen Mary, A [...]d the Church Do­ctrine un­der King Edward con­demned. before the introduction of any new Bishops, save only some of those that were ejected in King Ed­ward's Reign. In which Synod the Bishop of London presided, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury having been, about a Month before, by the Council, committed to the Tower for Treason; for which he was, some Two Months after, condemned, but afterward pardoned by the Queen. In this Synod Fox saith (p. 1282.) that the whole House of Convocation,Fox p. 1698. except Six persons, did immediately assent, and subscribe to the natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar; and Transubstantiation: and to the renouncing, of the Ca­techisme put forth in the latter time of King Edward, in the name of the Clergy, and of the new Book of Common-Prayer; these things being proposed to them by the Prolocutor. At which time (saith he) Mr. Philpot Arch-Deacon of Winchester was as it were astonied at the multitude of so many Learned Men as there were on purpose gathered together to maintain old Traditions, rather than the Truth of Gods Holy Word.

After this Synod see in Fox p. 1294.§. 52. n▪ 1. the Eighteen Ar­ticles sent by the Queen to the Bishops (but these Ar­ticles such as only enjoyned them the observance of for­mer Church Constitutions, from which the late Inno­vations had disobediently deviated) commanding them, to see to the Observance, in their Diocesses, of the Church Canons used in the time of Henry the Eighth; securing them herein from the incurring any danger from the Laws of the Realm; see the 1. Act. The Second of which Articles requires them to omit in their Writs: Regiâ authoritate fulcitus. The Third, not to require the Oath of the Queens Supremacy, in their admission of any into Church Preferments. The Fourth excludes Sacramentaries from all Ecclesiastical Functions; the Synod, held in October before, having declared against them. The Seventh excludes, according to the former Church Canons, all married Persons from Ec­clesiastical Promotions. The Ninth appointeth the Di­vorce of married Monks and other Religious Persons, who had formerly taken the perpetual Vow of Conti­nency; and the rest are to renew some or other former order of the Church.

Lastly see the Retractation made by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days, confessed by Mason de Minist. §. 52. n. 2. 3. l. 4. c. Regnante Mariâ alia Episcopis mens, alius animus fuit [i, e. concerning Supremacy:] To which all that he answers is this, Eorum subsecuta inconstantia confessi­onis [prioris] soliditatem abolere non potuit. Quamvis sententias revocarunt, suis tamen ipsorum argumentis non satisfecerunt. But, however that he will not grant the Kings Supremacy (I mean in such a sense as it was then maintained) to have been confuted by the Bishops reason­ing; yet he grants it to have been revoked (so much as in them lay) by their Authority.

§. 53 The only thing which can here be questioned, is; whether this Clergy in Queen Mary's days,That Queen Mary's, Clergy was a lawful Cler­gy. who in their following Synods abrogated the Acts and Concessions of the Clergy's former Synods in Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth's days, were a lawful Clergy? Which [Page 68]if they be now; note, that they will also be so in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days; when also they opposed her Reformation. Now it is questioned whe­ther they were a lawful Clergy:α α because many of King Edward's Bishops were, in the beginning of this Queen [...]s Reign, ejected;β β and some also burnt for Hereticks, and others put into their places;γ γ whilst some of them were living, and so those Sees not vacant:δ and δ that without the consent of the Metropolitan, who for the three first Years of Queen Mary was Cranmer; without which Metropolitan's consent the Ordination of any Bishop in his Province was unlawful. See Can. Nicen. 4. Can. Apostol. 35. Now these Bishops are numbred by Fox to have been then ejected:Pag. 1289. Cranmer from Canterbury; Holgate from York; Ridley from London; Poynet from Winchester; Hooper from Worcester; [he might have said from Glocester too, for Hooper, in the latter end of Ed­ward the Sixth's time, held both these Sees together in Com­mendam: and for Worcester,See Godw. Annal. An. Dom. 1555. Latimer (then living) had been Bishop thereof in King Henry's days; out of which, for Non-conformity to the Six Articles, he was ejected, or for fear resigned it, and was imprisoned in the Tower till King Edward's time; yet (for what reason I know not) could never then be restored to his Bishoprick;] Barlow from Bathe; Harley from Hereford; Taylor from Lincoln, [but this was by death; not by the Queen, as appears in Fox p. 1282.] Ferrars from St. Davids; Coverdale from Excester; Scory from Chichester; Besides these I find two more mentioned by Mason de Minist. p. 248. Bush from Bristol; and Bird from Chester. Of which Bishops (Mr. Fox saith, p. 1280) Five were put out; that the former Possessors of those Bishopricks might be restored, Bonner to London, Gardiner to Winchester, Day to Chiche­ster, Heath to Worcester [but Heath was afterward tran­slated to York in Holgates room, and Pate to Worcester in Hoopers room,] Vesy to Excester; Besides which Ton­stal was restored to Durham; a Bishoprick which, after Tonstal's Imprisonment, was first, kept void in King Edward's days; and at last, by Act of Parliament, dis­solved to increase the Kings Revenue.

§. 54 Now in Vindication of the just Authority of Queen Mary's Clergy,Reply to α notwithstanding what hath been ob­jected, you must First 1. take notice, That the Ejection of Bishops in Queen Mary's days was not the First,1 but Second Ejection; the first being made in King Edward's time, when Gardiner, Bonner, Tonstal, Day, Heath, Vesy, That the Bi­shops in K Edward's days were not lawful­ly ejected. and probably some other Bishops were removed from their Sees: for I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any; nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbring the Change of Clergy under King Edward, as he doth that under Queen Mary; yet something may be conjectured from those general words of his, p. 1180, For the most part the Bishops were changed, and the dumb Prelate compelled to give place to others that would Preach. Secondly, That,2 if the Ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was not lawful, so many of the Bishops, as were then ejected, were, by Queen Mary, justly restored; and those, who were introduced into their places, justly excluded. Thirdly, That to prove the Ejection of those Bishops under King Edward lawful; it must be done,3 both by a lawful Authority; and for a lawful Cause. Fourthly, But that, in both these respects, their Ejection,4 if the Principles formerly laid in this Discourse stand good, appears not just.

§. 55 For 1. First, these Bishops being questioned about matters Ecclesiastical and Spiritual,1. Neither for the Judge. their Judges were the Kings Privy Council, or his Commissioners, part Clergy, part Laity, as the King pleased to nominate them (contrary to Third Thesis.) Amongst whom tho the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was one: yet he was so, not for his Canonical Superiority in the Church; but from the Authority he,-jointly with the rest, received from the King, when the former Statutes, concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Clergy, See Fox. p. 1237, and p 1202. had been first abro­gated, (See before §. 39:) whereas the Clergy only are the lawful Judges of these matters; namely, to de­clare what is done contrary to the Laws of God, and of the Church; and to depose from the exercise of their [Page 70]Office the persons found faulty therein. See Thesis Third.

§. 56 Secondly, The Causes Ecclesiastical urged against them, for which they were removed from their Bishopricks, were these;2. Nor for the Cause. their non-acknowledgment of such a large extended Power of the Kings Supremacy, as he then claimed and exercised in Ecclesiastical matters; their non-conformity to the Kings Injunctions (confirmed, if you will, with the consent of the National Synod of the Clergy) in Spiritual matters. And amongst these especially; their not relinquishing the usage of the for­mer Church Liturgies, and Forms of Divine Service, and particularly the Canon of the Mass; which had been a Service approved by the general Practice of the Church Catholick for near a 1000 Years; in which were now said to be many Errors,See Church G [...]v. 4. [...]. §. 39. for which it might not be law­fully used: their not using, and conforming to, the new Form of Common-Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, the new Form of Consecration and Ordi­nation of Priests; and many other clear Innovations against the former, not only Ecclesiastical Constitu­tions, or External Rites and Ceremonies (which it was affirmed, in one of the Questions disputed on in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth, that every particular Church hath Authority to take away and change) but also Ec­clesiastical Doctrines established by Synods superiour to that of this Nation; as hath been shewed in the Fourth Part of Church Govern. A Catalogue of which Doctrines and Canons I have set down before §. 45, having ta­ken them out of the Three Copies of Articles proposed to the then Bishop of Winchester, See Fox p. 1234, 1235. to be subscribed. Now such Canons, whether concerning matters of Doctrine, or of Ecclesiastical Constitution, cannot be lawfully abrogated; neither by the King (See Thesis 1, 2.7, 8;) nor by the National Synods of this Church, (See Thesis 4.8:) and therefore the Ejection of those Bishops in Edward the Sixth's days, for not obeying the King, (I add, or the National Synod, had there been any such before their Ejection,) in breaking such Canons was unjust; and therefore they justly by Queen Mary re­stored, [Page 71]and the others that were found in their places, justly dispossessed.

Fifthly, As for the rest of King Edward's Bishops; who, besides those Bishops that possessed these non-vacant Sees, were ejected in Queen Mary's days:§. 57 5. That the Bi­shops depri­ved in Qu. Mary's days were law­fully ejected their Ejection (contrary to the other) will be justifiable; if done for a lawful Cause, and by a lawful Judge, 1. First then; the Causes of their Ejection were these chiefly.

§. 58 First, For their being Married (which many, if not all, the Ejected were, Cranmer, 1. B [...]th as to the Cause. Holgate the Arch-Bishop of York, Coverdale, Scory, Barlow, Hooper, Farrar, Har­ley, Bird, Bush; and some of them, after having taken Monastick Vows, as Holgate, Coverdale, Barlow, as ap­pears in Fox and Godwin) contrary to the Canons of the Church both Western, and Eastern (as to those that marry after having received Holy Orders) both Mo­dern and Ancient, even before the Council of Nice; as is shewed at large in the Discourse of Celibacy, §. 18: and contrary to the Provincial Canons of the Church of England. (See Fox p. 1051, and 177, granting Celi­bacy of the Clergy to have been established here for a Law by a National Synod in the time of Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, about An. Dom. 1080:) The Pen­alty of transgressing which Canons was Deposition from their Office. See Conc. Constant. in Trullo (less strict in this matter than the Western Church) Can. 6, Si quis post sui ordinationem conjugium contrahere ausus fuerit, deponatur. See the same in Concil. Neocaesar. before that of Nice, Can. 1. Conc Elibert. 33. c. Affrican. Can. 37. And see the same in the Canon of Anselme, that all Priests that keep Women shall be deprived of their Churches and all Ecclesiastical Benefices.

§. 59 Secondly, For their not acknowledging any Supremacy at all of the Roman Patriarch,2, more than of any other Forreign Bishop, over the Clergy of England; contrary to the former Canons of many lawful Superior Councils, as is shewed in Church Gov. 1. Part. §. 53. and also contrary to the former Provincial ones of the Eng­lish Church. And for their placing such an Ecclesiasti­cal [Page 72]Supremacy in the Prince, as to use all Jurisdiction, to reform Heresy, constitute or reverse Ecclesiastical Laws, in the manner before expressed. Which Supre­macy in the Church, since some body in each Prince's Dominion, where Christians are, ever had here on Earth under Christ; I say, ever; not only after that Princes became Christian, but before: Arch-Bishop Cranmer, rather than that he would acknowledge it at any time to have lain in the Church, said that, before the first Christian Emperors time, it resided in the Heathen Princes; and namely in Nero for one; affirming also the Grand Seignior now to be the Head of the Church in Turky; as you may see, in the Conference between Dr. Martin and him at his Tryal, in Fox p. 1704. Which Relation if any think false, let them say, what other answer, upon the former Suppositions there, can ra­tionally be returned.

§. 60 3. For their refusing to officiate or celebrate Divine Service,3. and administer the Sacraments, according to the former established Church Liturgies received and used by the whole Catholick Church for near a 1000 Years; or so much as to be present at it: which Divine Service they accused, not only of many superstitious Ceremonies; but of many Errors also, and of flat Idola­try, in the Adoration of Bread in the Eucharist. See Fox his Preface to the Reign of Queen Mary p 1270; and Bishop Ridley's Conferences with Latimer. Fox p. 1560, and 1562, 1563.

§. 61 For their maintaining several Tenents,4. especially a­bout the Holy Eucharist, such as had been formerly de­clared Heresies by the Definitions of lawful Superior Councils. As 1. First the denying of any corporal Presence of Christ,1 either with the consecrated Elements; or with the worthy Receiver; whether by way of Transub­stantiation, or Consubstantiation: urging, ‘that because this Body was in Heaven, ergo, it could not be in the Sacrament; and affirming only a Real Presence (I give you the very words of Bishop Ridley)’ if taken generally, and so as it may singnify any manner of thing which belong­eth [Page 73]to the Body of Christ. Hence Bishop Ridley's expres­sing of the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist are such as these: ‘That the Consecrated Bread is the Body of Christ, in remembrance of him and of his death. That, besides a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament; the Grace also of Christ's Body, i, e. the Food of Life and Immortality, is given to the faithful. That we recieve the vertue of the very Flesh of Christ; the Life and Grace of his Body: The Grace and the Vertue of his very Nature. Spiri­tual Flesh; but not that which was Crucified. That Christ's Body is in the Sacrament; because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, i, e. the Power of the word of God, which seedeth and cleanseth the Soul. That the Natural Body and Blood, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary &c, is in the Sacrament, ver [...] & realiter; and that the difference from the Roman Church is only in modo, in the way and manner of Be­ing: [how is that?] for we (saith he) confess it to be there Spiritually by Grace and Efficacy; because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine, receiveth effectuously Christ's Body and Blood; i, e. he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion. But otherwise▪ Christ's Body is in the Sacrament really, no more, than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Wa­ter in Baptisme;’ (therefore the Question proposed thus. An Corpus Christi realiter adsit in Encharistiâ? In King Edward's time was held Negatively. See Disput. Oxon. 1549, and King Edw. 28. Article.) Thus Ridley, who spake most clearly;Fox. p. 1703 and whose Schollar in this Opinion Cranmer was, he being formerly a Lutheran, and hold­ing a Corporal Presence. See these words of Ridley, Fox p. 1598. in his last Examination, and p. 1311, 1312. in his stating of the first Question disputed on at Oxford: which was not about Transubstantiation, but about the Corporal Presence of Christ, or the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist; which those Bishops denied, as well as Transubstantiation. The very same with whose Doctrine, was that of Peter Martyr pub­lished [Page 74]in King Edward's days,Disput. Ox­on. 1 [...]49. Fol. 88. Illud idem corpus nos ha­bere in coenâ Domini, quod Christus obtulit in Cruce, quoad substantiam & veritatem naturae fateor, sed non eodem modo: quia spiritualiter, i, e. per fidem ipsi percipimus; id vero substantiali & corporali praesentiâ pependit in cruce. Cum Chrysostomo id ipsum nos [in Eucharistiâ] habere corpus quod in Cruce fuit oblatum fatemur: Sed non est modus recipiendi per praesentiam corpralem; sed per praesentiam fidei, quae potest res absentes spiritualiter praesentes facere. Secondly, The denying, that the Eucharist might be offered as a Sacrifice propitiatory; and asserting that there was in the Eucharist no other Oblation of Christ's Body, than the Oblation of our Thanksgiving for Christ's Body offered on the Cross. To use Peter Martyrs words, Substantia hostiae nostrae est gratiarum actio de Corpore Christi tradito in Crucem; Disput. Ox­on. 1549. & hac gratiarum actione, fide atque confessione dixerunt Patres in Caenâ offerri corpus Christi. Which matters are contrary to the Doctrines, and De­finitions of former lawful Superior Councils; if those Positions stand good, which have been said at large in the Discourse of the Eucharist. §.251. and (Conc. Sacrif.) §. [...] and which have been laid down concerning Councils, in Ch. Gov. 4. Part: which former Positions it must not be expected that I prove again, wherever I make use of them.

§. 62 To justify which Tenents not to be Heresies, those Bishops were fain to appeal from Councils to Scripture, and (not to deny such Councils to be General or Su­perior; but) to deny the Authority of General or Su­perior Councils to be obliging, when contrary to the Holy Scriptures; i, e. to that sense wherein themselves, contrary to the Exposition of the Church, interpreted the Holy Scriptures: as was soberly urged to Bishop Ridley at his Tryal by the Bishop of Glocester. Fox p. 1602. ‘You (saith he) refusing the Determination of the Ca­tholick Church, bring Scripture for the Probation of your Assertions; and we also bring Scriptures. You understand them in one sense; we in another. How will you know the truth herein? If you stand to your [Page 75]own Interpretation, you are wise in your own conceit; and Vae qui sapientes &c. Isa. 5.21. But if you say, you will follow the minds of the Doctors and Ancient Fa­thers: semblably you understand them in one mean­ing, and we take them in another. How will you know the truth herein? If you stand to your own judgment; then are you singular in your own conceit, and cannot avoid the Vae. It remaineth therefore, that you submit your self to the determination and arbi­trement of the Church; with whom God promised to remain to the world's end. Thus the other side argued with them.’ But meanwhile what aversion they had of submitting to the judgment of the Church, or Coun­cils, see in the forecited Conference of Bishop Ridley with Latimer. Where, having objected the Authority of General Councils for the Mass, he answereth thus, ‘That, whensoever they, who rule and govern the Church, are the lively Members of Christ, and walk after the guiding and rule of his Word; Councils ga­thered together of such Guides do indeed represent the Universal Church; and have a promise of the guiding of his Spirit into all truth: But that any such Council hath at any time allowed the Mass &c, I affirm (saith he) to be impossible; for Superstition [i, e. the Masy] and the sincere Religion of Christ, can never agree together. For Determination of all Controver­sies in Christ's Religion, Christ hath left unto the Church not only Moses and the Prophets, to ask coun­sel at; but also the Gospels. Christ would have the Church his Spouse in all doubts to ask counsel at the word of his Father written. Neither do we read, that Christ in any place hath laid so great a Burthen upon the Members of his Spouse; that he hath commanded them to go to the Universal Church. It is true, that Christ gave unto his Church some Apostles, some Prophets &c. But that all men should meet together, out of all parts of the world, to define of the Articles of our Faith; I neither find it commanded of Christ, nor written in the Word of God.’ To which Bishop Latimer [Page 76]nexeth these words, ‘In things pertaining to God and Faith, we must stand only to the Scriptures; which are able to make us all perfect and instructed to Salva­tion, if they be well understood. And they offer them­selves to be well understood, only to those who have good wills, and give themselves to study and Prayer: nei­ther are there any men less apt to understand them, than the prudent and wise men of the world.’ Thus Latimer in application of his Discourse to General Coun­cils. See likewise Bishop Ridley's Disputation at Ox­ford; where being pressed with the Authority of the great Lateran Council;Fox [...]. 1321. after having replyed, that there were Abbots, Priors and Friers in it to the Number of 800; he saith that he denyeth the Authority of this Council, not so much for that cause, as for this especi­ally; because the Doctrine of that Council agreed not with the word of God [i, e. as he understood this word.] Thus he (who was counted the most Learned of those Bishops) concerning the Authority of Councils. See like matter in the Discourse between Lord Rich and Mr. Phil­pot, Fox p. 1641.

§. 63 To proceed. These Canons and Definitions, I say not, of Popes and Pontificians, as they were ordinarily then Nick-named, but of supposed former lawful Superior Councils, were then in just force in Queen Mary's days; notwithstanding any abrogation of them made by a Na­tional (i e. an Inferior) Synod; See Thesis the Fourth, and the Eighth; as also was frequently urged against those questioned Bishops. See the Examination of Arch Bishop Cranmer, Fox p. 1702. where Dr. Story the Queens Commissioner thus objecteth; but receives no answer there to it; ‘The Canons, which be received of all Christendome, compel you to answer. For altho this Realm of late time, thro such Schismaticks, as you, have exiled and banished the Canons; yet that cannot make for you; for you know: that, par in parem, nec pars in totum aliquid statuere potest. Wherefore this Isle, being indeed but a Member of tire whole, could not determine against the whole.’ Thus Dr. Story. [Page 77]Yet neither, in Queen Mary's time, could the Authority of a National Synod, or an Act of Parliament be pleaded, for such an abrogation of the old Canons or Liturgies or Supremacies, and the establishment of new: because both the Synod and Parliament of this Nation, in the beginning of her Reign, had pulled down again, what those under King Edward and Henry had builded; so that those Bishops could not hereupon ground their non-con­formity: which Argument Dr. Story there also prose­cuteth against the Arch-Bishop.

§. 64 Such as these then being the Causes of the Ejection of those Bishops, I think it is evidenced;And 2 [...], [...] to the J [...] that they were Regularly and Canonically ejected, as to the Cause. And 2. Next: so were they, as to the Judge, They being con­demned, as guilty of Heresy,2. or other Irregularities (which are mulcted with Deposition) and so ejected, or also degraded, and excommunicated with the greater Ex­communication (further than which the Ecclesiastical Power did not proceed) not by any Secular Court, or by the Queen's Commissioners; but by those whom the Church hath appointed, in the Intervals of Councils, the ordinary Judges of Heresy, or other Breaches of her Canons: Amongst whom the highest Judges are the Pa­triarchs; and, above them, the first Patriarch of Rome. By whose Delegates the more Eminent Persons, that were accused of Heresy, the Arch-Bishop and the Bi­shops were here tryed (according to the Authority shewed, to be due to, and to be anciently used by, him, in Chur. Gov. 1. Part. §. 9.20. &c, and 2. Part §. 77;) and other Inferior Persons were tryed by the Bishop, who was their Ordinary: Queen Mary having revived the Statutes repealed by King Henry and Edward concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Church's Authority; as hath been noted before §. 49. The issue of which Tryal by the Church, if they found guilty, was either De­position only from their Benefice and Office, for Breach of her Canons; or also Excommunication excommnni­catione majori, and Degradation, for Heresy and Oppo­sition of her Definitions hi matters of Faith; and so the [Page 78]yielding them up, as now by degradation rendred Secu­lar Persons, to have inflicted on them by the Secular Power the punishments appointed for such crimes by the Secular Laws; as you may see, in the Forms of the Condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley, &c Fox p. 1603, and elsewhere; and in the Profession of the Bishop of Lincoln to Bishop Ridley, Fox p. 1597. All (saith he) that we may do, is to cut you off from the Church; for we cannot condemn you to dy (as most untruly hath been reported of us) &c.

§. 65 As for the burning of such afterward, whom the Church first condemns of Heresy,To β. it is to be con­sidered;Where Concern▪ the bu [...]ing of those, wh [...], in Q. Mary, days, were by the C [...]u condemned of Heresy. That the Secular Laws, not Ecclesiastical, appoint it; and the Secular Magistrates, not Eccle­siastical, execute it: Again; That Protestant Princes, as well as Catholick; King Edward, King James, Queen Elizabeth, as well as Queen Mary, have thought fit to execute this Law upon Hereticks. So in Edward the Sixth's days, Joan of Kent, Anne Askews Maid (who was burnt in Henry the Eighth's days, for denying the Real Presence) and George Paris were burnt for Here­ticks. Fox p. 1180: And some other Anabaptists con­demned and recanting were enjoined to bear their Fag­gots. See Stow p. 596. And, in Henry the Eighth's time, Arch-Bishop Cranmer, in the Kings presence, dis­puted against Jo. Lambert for denying the Real Presence; and the Lord Cromwel pronounced Sentence upon him to be burnt for it. Fox p. 1024, 1026. And the same Arch-Bishop, being as yet only a Lutheran, saith Fox p. 1115, prosecuted others upon the same grounds; and also in the beginning of King Edward's Reign, be­fore that the Protector and his Party appeared much for Zuinglianisme, committed to the Counter Thomas Dobb, a Master of Art, upon the same Account; who also dyed in Prison. Fox p. 1180. In Queen Elizabeth's days one Jo. Lewes and Matthew Hammond were burnt for Hereticks; after they were first condemned by the Bishop, and so delivered over to the Secular Power; as those were in Queen Mary's Reign. So also was Hacket [Page 79]executed then partly for Heresy and Blasphemy;See Hollin. Qu. Eliz. A. Reg. 21. & 25. and Two Brownists, Coppin and Thocker, hanged at St. Ed­munds-bury, An. Dom. 1583 for Publishing Brown's Book written against the Common-Prayer-Book: Likewise several others in her time condemned and recanting bare their Faggots. See Stow p. 679, 680.Stow p. 1174 Cambden 's Hist. Eliz. p. 257. In King James's time Bartholomew Legat was burnt for an Heretick. And in his time An. 3. Jac. 4. c. a Law was Enacted concerning Hanging, Drawing, and Quartering any who should turn Papist and be reconciled to the Pope and See of Rome, tho a meer Laick, tho one taking the Oath of Allegiance (as several reconciled do:) The Words are If any shall be willingly reconciled to the Pope or See of Rome, or shall promise Obedience to any such pretended Authority; that every such Person or Persons shall be to all intents ad­judged Traytors. Is not this putting to death for pre­tended Heresy? And to a Death worse than Burning? So in Protestant States abroad, Servetus by that of Ge­neva, Valentinus Gentilis by that of Berne, were burnt for Hereticks, Calvin approving.

§. 66 This to shew the Protestant's judgment, concerning the justness and equity of the Law of burning Hereticks. But whether this Law in it self be just: and again if just, whether it may justly be extended to all those simple Peo­ple put to death in Queen Mary's days (such as St. Austine calls Haereticis credentes) because they had so much Ob­stinacy, as not to recant those Errors, for which they saw their former Teachers Sacrifice their Life; espe­cially when they were prejudiced by the most common contrary Doctrine and Practice in the precedent times of Edward the Sixth; and had lived in such a condi­tion of life, as neither had means, nor leisure, nor ca­pacity, to examine the Church's Authority, Councils, or Fathers; ordinarily such persons being only to be reduced (as they were perverted) by the contrary fashion and course of the times, and by Example; not by Argument, either from reason, or from authority (and the same, as I say of these Laity, may perhaps also be said of some illiterate Clergy:) whether I say this [Page 80]Law may justly be extended to such, and the highest suffering, death be inflicted (especially where the De­linquents so numerous) rather than some lower Cen­sures of Pecuniary Mulcts or Imprisonment; these things I meddle not with, nor would be thought at all in this place to justify. Tho some amongst those unlearned Lay-people I confess to have been extreamly Arrogant and obstinate, and zealous beyond knowledge; and, tho they had suffered for a good Cause, yet suffering for it on no good or reasonable ground: as neither them­selves being any way Learned, nor pretending the Au­thority of any Church; nor relying on any present Teach­ers, but on the certainty of their own private judgment interpreting Scripture; as you may see, if you have a mind, in the Disputations of Anne Askew (Fox p. 1125.) Woodman the Iron-maker, (Fox p. 1800.) Fortune the Smith, (Fox p. 1741.) Allen the Miller, (Fox p. 1796.) and other Mechanicks, with Bishops, and other Learned Men, concerning the lawfulness of the Mass, the Au­thority of the Church, the Number of the Sacraments, the manner or possibility of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, &c: themselves afterward penning or causing to be penned (you may judge with what Integrity,) the Re­lations, which we have of the said Disputations. See more concerning the erroneous zeal of such like Persons in Fox Monuments later Edition Vol. 3. Fol. 242. 286. 396. 886.

§. 67 This concerning the lawful Ejection of those Prote­stant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign;And there­fore others lawfully in­troduced in their places To. γ. 1. which if lawful, so also will be, the introduction of those who were chosen in their rooms: tho this Introduction was, * 1. whilst they Living; or * 2. without their, or the Metropolitan's, Consent. 1. Tho whilst they Liv­ing; if such Election of them be, after that the other are justly ejected: Of this none can doubt. Now most of the Protestant Bishops were ejected, at the very be­ginning of Queen Mary's days, for being married; tho some of them not so speedily sentenced for Heresy. But suppose the Introduction of the other was whilst they [Page 81]living, and before their lawful Ejection: yet these Bi­shops that are so (unjustly, I grant,) introduced, if, after that the others are ejected, then their Superiors, having the power to elect into such place, do acknowledge and approve them, from thence forward begin to be legiti­mate; and enjoy a good Title.

§. 68 2.To δ. 2. Tho without their, or the Metropolitan's, Consent. For if the Arch-Bishop, without whose consent the Canon permitteth not any Bishop to be consecrated in his Province, be, upon just cause, and especially upon suspicion of Heresy, in any restraint; so as he cannot safely be suffered, either in respect of the Church, or State, any longer to execute his office, till cleared of such guilt: here his Office is rightly administred, as in Sede vacante, by some other; whether it be, by some Bishop of the Province, his Ordinary Vice-gerent or Substitute in such Cases; or by the Delegates of that Authority, which in the Church is Superior to the Arch-Bishops; or by the consent of the major part of the Bishops of such Province. And so Arch-Bishop Cranmer being, at Queen Mary's first Entrance, accused, 1. of being Married (an Irregularity incurring Deposition; and also confessed;) and 2. of Treason; and 3. of He­resy; and for the Second of these being by the Queen's Council immediately imprisoned; and shortly after condemned to dye, before the Consecration of any new Bishop: his Office was now lawfully supplyed by another (either by Cardinal Pool the Popes Legat; or by the Bishop the next dignified Person after the Arch-Bishop in the Province; or by whomsoever the Queen should depute:) as for any exceptions, that the Arch-Bishop could make against it; since he acknowledged her for the Supreme Head of the English Church. Or if, notwithstanding such his restraint or condemnation, according to the Canon, no new Bishop could be made without the Arch-Bishop's consent: yet could Arch-Bishop Cranmer justly claim no such Authority from the Canon as indeed he never did.) 1. Because he held the abrogation of such Canons to be in the Power of the Prince,1 as the Supreme [Page 82]Head of this Church; at least when assisted with the Parliament, and major part of the Clergy: And so then was this (arguing ad homines) abrogated by Queen Mary appointing,2 allowing, these new Elections. 2. Because he had consented to the Statutes made formerly. 25. Hen. 8.20. c. and 1 Edw. 6.2; where the Arch-Bishop is necessitated to consecrate such person, as the King, from whom all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is derived, shall pre­sent: or, he refusing, the King may appoint any other two Bishops for him, to do it in his stead; ergo, so might Queen Mary, according to these Statutes.

§. 69 Thus much, That Queen Mary's Clergy were a law­ful Clergy; (which indeed, except for a few, and those not yet chosen or acting in the beginning of her Reign, cannot be called in question;) and That their reversing the former Constitutions of Henry the Eighth, or Ed­ward the Sixth's Clergy, as to the Authority that did it, was a lawful Synodical Act. But in the next place, suppose that the Queen had acted singly without or a­gainst her Clergy (but with the Approbation of those Governors in the Church Catholick as are the lawful Superiors to this Clergy) in re-establishing the former Profession of Religion used in Henry the Eighth's time, before the Reformation; yet, so far as this Profession is evident to have been according to the Constitutions of the Church, and of former Synods Superior to the Synods of this Nation, (which Constitutions do there­fore stand still in their just force;) this Act of hers would still be justifiable: because Sovereigns have such a Su­premacy acknowledged by all due unto them, as to use a Coactive Power in causing the Execution, within their Dominions, of such Church Canons, as are granted to be in force; without any inferiour further Licence or consent thereto. Nor is this doing any more, than if the King of England, now re-established in his Throne, should, without, or against the Vote of the present Mini­stery he [...]e, restore the Bishops, and the Ecclesiastical Laws again to their former office and vigour; which these men never had any just or superior Authority to displace, or abrogate.

CHAP. VI. The former Supremacy re-assumed by Qu. Elizabeth.

§. 70 IN the last place we come to the times of Queen Eliza­beth; where we find, by the Authority of the Queen and her Parliament,3. What Supremacy claimed &c in the times of Q. Eliz. all the repeals of the Statutes of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, in order to the Regal Supremacy and Reformation, which Repeals were made in Queen Mary's days, now again repealed [except in Two, 26. Hen. 8.1. c. and 35. Hen. 8.3. c. which give to Henry the Eighth the Title of Head of the Church of England; which was changed by the Queen into that of Governor, as better befitting a Woman. As for Bishop Bramha's Observation of Two other Statutes of Henry the Eighth, unrestored by Queen Eliz. 28. Hen. 8.10. c. An Act (saith he) of extinguishing the Autho­rity of the Bishop of Rome out of this Realm: and 35. Hen. 8.5. c. An Act made for Corroboration of the former; if you please to view them, and compare with them 1 Eliz. 1. c. you will find the cause to be, not the Queens pre­serving and retaining here any Authority of the Pope, which Henry renounced; but the Six Articles in the one, and the old Forms of Oaths in the other, thought fit by her to be laid aside.] and all the Power and Priviledges whatsoever of Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals, that were conceded to Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth,That as am­ple a Su­preacy was claimed, & by Parlia­ment con­ferred, o [...] her, as on K. Hen. or Ed. as fully transferred to Queen Elizabeth. For which see the Act 1. Eliz. 1. c. (see the same 8. Eliz. 1. c.) run­ning thus; ‘That all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Supe­riorities Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been exercised, for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons, and for Reformation, Orders, and Correction of the same, and of all manner of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, &c, shall for ever, by Authority of this Parliament, be [Page 84]united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And that your Highness, your Heirs &c, shall have full Power and Authority, by vertue of this Act, to name and authorize such persons, as your Majesty shall think meet [without any being obliged as Henry the Eighth was, that half the number should be of the Clergy] to exercise and execute under your Highness all manner of Jurisdictions, Priviledges and to visit, reform, and amend all such Errors, Heresies, Schisms &c, which by any manner Spiritual or Ec­clesiastical Power may lawfully be reformed; and that such persons shall have full power by vertue of this Act to execute all the Premises; any matter or cause to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. Provided always that no manner of Order, Act, or Determina­tion, for any matter of Religion or cause Ecclesiasti­cal, made by the Authority of this present Parliament shall be adjudged [i.e, by those persons] at any time to be any Error, Heresy, Schism &c, any Decree, Con­stitution or Law, whatsoever the same be, to the con­trary notwithstanding’ [this Proviso perhaps was put in, because all the Bishops that were in the Parliament op­posed this Statute. See Cambden 1. Eliz. ‘Provided [again] that such persons authorized to reform &c, shall not in any wise have Authority to determine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy, [I suppose by Heresy is meant here any Error contrary to what ought to be believed and practised in Divine matters] but only, Such as here­tofore have been determined to be Heresy by the Au­thority of the Canonical Scriptures; or by the first Four General Councils; or by any other General Coun­cils, wherein the same is declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures; or Such, as hereafter shall be judged and determined to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convo­cation [here therefore nothing, whether by the Clergy or other, could be de novo declared or adjudged Heresy; un­less the High Court of Parliament also adjudged it to be so]’

§. 71 In the same Statute concerning the Extent of the Queen's Supremacy, it is expresly ordained ‘That the Branches, Sentences, and words of the said several Acts [i. c. made in Henry the Eighth's time touching Su­premacy] and every one of them, shall be deemed and taken to extend to your Highness, as fully and largely, as ever the same Acts did extend to the said late King Henry the Eighth, your Highnesses Father.’ The same thing also appears in the Queen's Admonition, annexed to her Injunctions, to prevent any sinister Interpreta­tions of the Oath of Supremacy then imposed: which saith: ‘That the Queen's Majesty, informed that some of her Subjects found some scruple in the Form of this Oath &c, would that all her loving Subjects should understand; that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath, to have any other Duty or Allegiance required by that Oath, than was acknow­ledged to be due to King Henry the Eighth, her Ma­jesty's Father, or King Edward the Sixth her Majesty's Brother.’ [It proceeds, shewing those scruples that were made by some against the Oath.] ‘And further her Majesty forbiddeth her Subjects to give credit to such persons,See Can [...]od. H [...]st. El [...]z. p. 20. who notify to her Subjects, how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this Realm may challenge authority of Ministery of Di­vine Offices in the Church;’ Wherein her Subjects be much abused. For her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority, than that was chal­lenged, and lately used by King Henry, and King Ed­ward; which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Grown of this Realm; that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms, whether Ec­clesiastical or Temporal, so as no other Sovereign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them [but this Sovereignty and Rule, I suppose, must be understood to extend to all the Particulars, which Queen Elizabeth's Sta­tute but now recited alloweth to belong to it, and wherein Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth used or were [Page 86]allowed it.] And if any Person, who hath conceived any other sense of the Form of the said Oath, [i. e. that in it the Queen challenged Authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church] shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation, sense or meaning [i. e. that she had such Sovereignty as was challenged and lately used by her Father and Brother:] Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such Person in that behalf as her Obedient Subject. Thus the Admonition; and the same is said in the Statute 5. Eliz. 1. c, referring to the Admonition, ‘That none other Authority was by that Oath acknow­ledged in her Majesty, than that which was challenged and used by those Two Kings.’ See likewise 1 Eliz. 1. c, the Repeal of the former way of the Tryal of Hereticks, that was revived according to the former Statutes by Queen Mary, leaving the Supremacy in Spirituals to Church-men.

§. 72 Neither do the several things,Where Concerning certain q [...]alifications of her Su­premacy ur­ged by the Reformed. that are noted by Dr. Fern (in his Examen. of Champny 9. c. §. 16.20.) and others, as qualifications and bounds of the Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth, seem to come home to their pur­pose so far, as to render it justifiable. There are urged by them; 1. The Stile she used, in calling her self not Supream Head, but only Supream Governor. 2. The Words in the Admonition, viz. Her Majesty doth not challenge any other Authority, 1 than under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons &c: 2 as the words are recited but now.3 3. The words of the 37. Article of the Church of England relating to these of the Admonition; We give not to our Princes the mini­string either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments; the which thing the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself: that is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal; and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers. 4 4. The Qualification of the Authority of the Queen's Commissi­oners [Page 87]to judge or determine Heresies, Provided always▪ that such persons authorized &c. See the Words quoted before §. 70.

§. 73 But to these it is rationally replyed;And the Replies to them. Reply to the First. To the First, That, if the same, and as much power be still signified by the Queen's Title now, as was before by the other; which hath been shewed but now in the Statute, in the Admonition &c: what matters the varying of words, that alters nothing in the sense? Neither is the Title of Head of the Church, so it be understood subordinate to Christ, incompetent to some person or other, here on earth.

§. 74 To the Second, To the 2d That the words quoted out of the Admonition may indeed be taken in such a general sense, that all sides will willingly subscribe to. For the Queen hath a Sovereignty and Rule over all manner persons born within her Realms so [i. e. in such manner] as no other Forreign Sovereign Power hath: namely, in this manner; to punish her Subjects whatsoever with the Temporal Sword, either for the Breach of the Church's Canons and Decrees, or for the Breach of her own Laws. Again; That the words may be taken in such a sense, as that, tho they signified no more (of which presently) yet none can justly subscribe them, supposing those things true concerning the Western Patriarch, and concerning Su­perior Councils, and concerning Church Constitutions, which are laid down in the First and Second Part of Church Government, and in the Fourth and Eighth Thesis: name­ly, if they be taken in this sense: That no Forreign Power hath any Ecclesiastical Superiority or Jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever over the Church of England (without reflecting on this Controversy at all; namely, Whether the Sovereign Power here at home, for the judging and reforming of what is Error, Heresy, Superstition &c, and for the abrogating or establishing the former Litur­gies of the Church, Canons of Superior, or also Natio­nal Synods, doth lye in the Prince; or in some others, viz the Clergy of this Nation; or also, in the Parlia­ment: or in all these jointly; so that the Clergy can [Page 88]do none of these things without the Prince, or Parlia­ment; nor Prince, without the major part of Clergy.) But these Two Senses of these words (of which the later is not justifiable) are, both of them, too much restrained, in respect of the intent of this Admonition, as may be gathered from the Precedents in the same Admonition; where the Queen's Sovereignty is extended to all the Particulars, wherein Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it. And from the Sta­tute 1. Eliz. 1. but now recited; which surely this Ad­monition was not written to contradict or repeal. And from the ordinary practice of these Princes, which shall be more shewed anon; without which Practice such Re­formation could not have been effected; and therefore this Practice must be justified. And from the Testimony of the Protestant Writers; who vindicate and main­tain a Supremacy of a much larger extent, and answer­able to the Expressions in the Acts of Parliament; even to the Prince's not only ruling over all Persons Eccle­siastical, but judging and determining in matters Eccle­siastical, what therein is Dissonant from, or Consonant to, Gods Word; and then establishing it in their Do­minions, tho contrary to former Church Canons, tho without or against the Vote of the major part of their own Clergy; as shall be shewed below §. 203 &c: which thing also is maintained to have been done by the Holy Kings of Israel.

§. 75 To the Third the same may be repeated, which is said to the Second; To the Third and this part of the Article, tho annexed for an Explanation, is couched in such general Terms, as that it will be subscribed to by all sides: (Fr. a S. Clara Expos. 39 Articles alloweth it; and saith also: Hic Articulus a Gallis & Parliamento Parisiensi, salvâ communione Ecclesiae, usurpatur.) Neither doth it con­tain any thing but which may well consist with the con­tradictory of that Proposition, which follows there, viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm.

§. 76 To the Fourth. 1. That the Proviso made by the Queen and her Parliament seems only to limit the Per­sons,To the Fourth. 1. whom the Queen shall nominate for her Delegates; that they shall adjudge nothing Error or Heresy with­out the consent of Parliament and Convocation (as like­wise they made another Proviso, that they should ad­judge no Order of the Parliament in Ecclesiastical mat­ters to be Error or Heresy. See the same Statute:) but not to limit the Queen; who holds the Supremacy of this Church, and so these pretended Consequences there­of, as her own right, and not from Gift, but Recog­nition only, of the Parliament and Clergy; and, who, in the Statute, and, I think, in the Doctrine of our Di­vines, See below §. 204. &c, is acknowledged to have Power to reform Error, Heresy, Schism (which pre­supposeth judging what is so) without any such Proviso of consent of Councils, or Parliament: as also the pious Kings of Judah are urged to have done the like. Or if the Proviso limit the Prince also; That then the Practice of the Reforming Princes will not be justifiable, nor their Reformation; who have corrected many Doctrines with­out consent of Councils (nay when lawful Superior Synods have decreed the contrary) and without con­sent of Convocation; and others without consent of Parliament. But Secondly, The limitation here,2 whether of those Persons, or of the Prince, in adjudging Errors and Heresies in Divine matters, if the words be narrow­ly considered, seems to be, in effect, none. For (as you may see in the Proviso) if such thing hath been de­termined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canoni­cal Scripture (i. e. seem to them to be so) they need look no further for consent of Councils, or Parliament, or Clergy: and no more need they to regard Councils, tho defining the contrary, if they have not defined so by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scrip­ture; of which thing they are to judge. See before §. 36. the Speech of the Lord Cromwel.3 Thirdly, Suppose there be a consent of the King and Clergy, without, or against Authority of Parliament: such thing cannot [Page 90]be adjudged Heresy, according to this Proviso; if it be extended▪ to the Prince.4 Fourthly, Supposing that the Clergy and Parliament judge something to be Error or Heresy, which former Councils, Superior to this National Synod, have determined to be a Divine Truth: this Proviso's allowing the Prince to follow the consent of his Parliament and Clergy, upon pretence of the Coun­cils not defining according to express Scripture, will offend against the Fourth and Eighth Thesis.

§. 77 Thus much to shew,But such Supremacy not acknowled­ged or con­sented to by the Clergy. that the same Supremacy, that was acknowledged to King Henry and King Edward, was also to Queen Elizabeth, by her Parliament. But you may observe; that neither it (in such a sense as it was challenged) nor the Reformation, that was effect­ed by it, were acknowledged, or consented to, by her Bishops, or the Clergy: I mean that Clergy which was in being at the beginning of her Reign; which hath been proved already, §. 54. &c, to be a lawful Clergy. And, when these things touching Supremacy and Reformation were passed by the Parliament, all the Bishops, that sate there, opposed them (See Cambden A. 2. Eliz.) probably, because in those Two former Kings days they had by Experience learnt the Trespasses which such a Supremacy made upon the proper Rights and Jurisdicti­ons of the Clergy; and the Irreverence, and Liberti­nisme, and Distraction which the Innovation of the Li­turgies and other Religious Rites brought into the Church; besides the unlawfulness of a part reforming against the whole. Thus at that time the Clergy be­haved themselves. Neither, in lieu thereof, can the Concessions to these or the like things by the former Clergy that was under Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth, be here pleaded; because these were retracted again by the Clergy in Queen Mary's time: neither can the Concession of the Clergy of later times, in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, be urged; because this Clergy was first changed and moulded to the Queen's Religion; the former being unlawfully ejected, as shall be shewed here­after.

CHAP. VII. The Actings of Henry the Eighth (upon such Su­premacy acknowledged) in Ecclesiastical Affairs.III. Head.

§. 78 I have spoken hitherto from Sect. 26. concerning what manner of Supremacy it was, that these Princes assumed, How, according to such Supremacy assumed, these Three Prieces act­ed in Eccle­si [...]st [...]cal Af­fair [...]. or also the Clergy or Parliament recognized, as their Right. In the Third place I promised to shew you, how, according to this their conceived right, these Three Prin­ces acted in matters Ecclesiastical

And first to begin with Henry the Eighth. First, By vertue of such a Supremacy, he committed the for­mer Canons and Laws of the Church,§. 79 calling them the Pontificial Laws,The Actings of Hen. 8th in Ecclesi­astical Af­fairs. In the abro­gating of former Ec­clesiast [...]c [...]l Laws, and compiling a new Body of them. to the Arbitrement of Thirty Two Persons nominated by him, half Laicks; to be abro­gated, corrected, reformed, as they, with his Confir­mation, should think meet. Nec eo contentus (saith the Prefacer to the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum Re­printed 1640.) cordatus Rex [Henry the Eighth] ut no­men, nudosque solum titulos a se suisque depelleret, nisi & jura decretaque omnia, quibus adhuc obstringebatur Ec­clesia [Anglicana] perfringeret; huc quoque animum adic­cit, ut universam secum remp. in plenam adsereret liberta­tem. Quocirca tum ex ipsius, tum ex publico senatus de­creto, delecti sunt viri aliquot, usu & doctrinâ praestantes, numero 32, qui penitùs abolendo Pontificio juri (quod Ca­nonicum vocamus) cum omni aliâ Decretorum & Decre­talium facultate, novas ipsi leges, quae controversiarum & morum judicia regerent, Regis nomine & authoritate surro­garent. And thus saith the King himself, in his Epistle to all Arch-Bishops, Barons &c printed before the same Book; Abundè vobis declaratum hactenusfuit, quantopere, in hac nostrâ Brittanniâ, multis retro saeculis Episcopi Ro­mani vis injusta religioni Christianae, verae doctrinae propa­gandae adversata est. Potestatem hanc huic cum divino mu­nere [Page 92]sublatam esse manifestum est: & ne quid superesset, quo non planè fractam illius vim esse constaret; leges omnes, decreta atque instituta, quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta 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 [Page 93]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 Holy­days, 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 S [...]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 [Page 94]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. [Page 95]c. where it is Enacted, ‘That every Person that doth preach, teach, declare, argue against any of the Six Articles, being thereof convicted, shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick.’

§. 82 And thus Heresy, now belonging to the Kings Cog­nizance, as the Church's Supream Head, became also, by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joyned with the Kings, a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King's. Of their Cognizance; not only for the declaring and punishing, but the adjudging of it. And their Vote herein was joyned at least with that of the Clergy, if not in Authority preferred before it; as appears by these, and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14. c. mentioned before §. 34; and in the two Proviso's of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned §. 70. And see the Reason given by Dr. Heylin, why Parliaments, which in former Ages abstained from them, in this Age of Henry the Eighth began to intermeddle in stating of matters of Religion (namely this reason, A new Supream in Ecclesiastical Affairs then set up) Engl. Reform. Justified p. 41. ‘Where he first relateth, out of Walsingham, how (long since) Wickleff, having many Doctrines strange and new, which he desired to establish in the Church of England, and seeing he could not au­thorize them in a regular way, addressed his Petition to the Parliament;’ laying this down for a Position, That the Parliament might lawfully examine and reform the Disorders and Corruptions of the Church, and upon a discovery of the Errors and Corruptions of it, devest her of all Tithes and Temporal Endowments, till she were re­formed. But neither his Petition, nor Position (saith he) found any welcome in that Parliament: [and then he goeth on thus;] ‘To say truth; as long as the Clergy were in Power, and had Authority in Convocation to do what they would, in matters which concerned Religion; those of the Parliament conceived it nei­ther safe nor fitting, to intermeddle in such business as concerned the Clergy; for sear of being questioned for it at the Church's Barr’ [the Church being then con­ceived [Page 96]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 compla [...]ts made by P [...]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 [Page 97]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 [Page 98]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; [Page 99]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 B [...]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, [Page 100]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,Her [...] [...]377having 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 [Page 101]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 'tis 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 Ʋses.

§. 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. [Page 102]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 to set at liberty all such Religious Persons, as desired to be free; and all other that were under the Age of 24 Years: providing withal, that such Monks, Canons, and Fryars, as were dismissed, should have given them by the Abbot or Prior, instead of their habit, a Secular Priests Gown, and Forty Shillings of Money; and likewise the Nunns to have such Apparel, as Secular Women did then commonly use; and be suffered to go where they would.’ [Cromwel saying, Lord Herb. pag. 462. That this Expulsion of the Monks &c was no more than a restoring them to their first Institution of being Lay and labouring Persons; and that they might keep the austerity of life, in their several Orders, enjoyned them, in any con­dition.] ‘At which time also from the said Abbies, and Monasteries were taken their chief Jewels and Relicks.’ And see the words of the Statute 31. Hen. 8.13. c, ‘where all and singular Religious Persons, of what Order, Rule or Habit soever, are said to be put at their liberties from the danger, servitude and condition of their Re­ligion and Profession, whereunto they were professed: and have free liberty given them to purchase to them and their Heirs in Fee-Simple, Fee-Taile &c, Mannors, Lands, &c. in like manner, as tho they or any of them had never been professed, nor entred into any such Religion.’ And for the ground of all this, viz. The Kings conceived lawful Church Supremacy to act such things, see some of the Forms of the Monks Re­signations transcribed by Mr. Fuller Chur. Hist. 6. l. p. 321. which runs thus. Whereas your Highness being Su­pream Head, immediately after Christ, of his Church in this your Realm of England, and so consequently general, and only, Reformator of all Religious Persons there, have full Authority to correct or dissolve, at your Grace's Plea­sure and Liberty, all Convents and Religious Companies abusing the Rules of their Profession &c therefore &c.

§. 89 Now the whole carriage and pretence of the disso­lution of these Religious Places,The Preten­ces thereof. if you desire to know the Particulars, was this. The King tho having left to him a very great Treasure by his Father Henry the Seventh, yet by his high Expences, and frequent-Engage­ments in Forreign Wars and the Interests of Neighbor Princes, became very necessitous; and for the continu­ance of the like Expences stood in need of an extraordi­nary recruit. Whereupon, as some think, he was first invited to this Act, by those 40 smaller Monasteries, which he saw Wolsey (who likewise had much used in this Affair his diligent Servant Cromwel) had obtained by grant from the Pope, Clement the Seventh, to translate this Means of some of those Houses of Devotion, which in this Nation abounded, to the maintenance of two Colledges built by him for the advancement of Learn­ing; of which Houses there was more scarcity. And he is said to have been excited also thereto by Cromwel, who was now, after Wolsey's fall, the Kings Servant; one already experienced in this matter; and who could best inform concerning the Treasure attainable thereby: especially when the King, being now invested with the Supremacy, could confer on himself the same Dispen­sation, for taking more; which the Pope had done on Wolsey, for a few. The King knew also, that he had the Laity and the Parliament ready to second him; who were willing by any means to remove the burthen of furnishing the Kings necessities from themselves, and to give up the Church's Patrimony to save their own: and besides, who in those days looked, with no good Eye, on the Authority of the Clergy (against whom the Commons had formerly put up a Supplication to the King) and the Wealth of the Monasticks;Iord Herb. p. 329. Fox. p. 960. and who also might expect no small share in this Booty. And some reason he had also to hope for the connivance of the Clergy, from the ancient difference, that is between Regulars and Seculars; and from these Religious Houses being exempted from the Jurisdiction and Visitation of Bishops; and from the access of Benefit, which they [Page 104]might hope from the others mine, to some places of cure, that were meanly provided for. Add to this; that the number of them in this Nation was conceived to be excessive, in proportion to a well composed State, (so the multiplying of them accidentally being their de­struction): and Lastly; that these Religious Houses were looked on as the chief Supporters of the Papal Su­premacy, and Opposers of the Regal Authority in matters Ecclesiastical: and in Innovations in Religion, their Vow of Obedience to their Superiors leaving them less flexible to change, and their Vow of Poverty and Single Life less obnoxious to those fears in declaring of their minds; which others are subject to, in respect of their Estates and Posterity, or their expectation of Pre­ferments.

§. 90 Swayed by these Motives yet the King invaded not all the Religious Houses in the Land at once; but first be­gan to take Possession of the smaller Ones, such as were under 200 l. annual Revenue; and this upon these Three Pretences (see Statute 27. Hen. 8.28. c.)1 1. ‘That the Persons living therein were very vicious; whereas (saith that Statute made for the alienation of these, before the Attachment of the rest thought on) in the great Solemn Monasteries of the Realm, Thanks be to God, Religion is right well kept and observed.’ 2 2. ‘That these small Societies were not so capable of Reformation, as the greater.3 3. That the greater were not sufficiently re­plenished. Whereupon (saith that Statute) the Lords and Commons by a great deliberation finally be resolv­ed; That it is and shall be much more to the Pleasure of Almighty God, and for the Honor of this Realm, that the Possessions of those small Religious Houses, not being spent, spoiled and wasted for the increase of maintenance of Sin, mould be used and converted to better uses; and the unthrifty Religious Persons so spending the same should be compelled to reform their lives.’

§. 91 But afterward, the Revenue of these by the King sold, spent, or disposed-of, the sweetness of such a con­siderable [Page 105]wealth already tasted, the Kings great Ex­pences very craving, and his Courtiers and Favourites not yet satisfied; from smaller beginnings he ascends higher; and the great Monasteries also begin now to be looked after. And now within three or four years they of the great Monasteries are so overgrown with vice, that were so right before; that complaints are made of them: and Visitors, Cromwel being made Visitor-Gene­ral, are sent, both to discover their crimes, and to restrain, by certain Injunctions from the King, their former li­berty. Amongst whom many hainous faults (especially as for Incontinency) are found out: whilst the more notorious Offenders, somewhat to excuse themselves, impeached others; and the Religious mutually recrimi­nated one another. Upon these Delinquencies now dis­covered in the great Houses, as before in the lesser; together with many impostures and falsifications of Miracles, to procure greater resort and gain to such Houses; Next, the more dignified and powerful amongst the Religious are acquainted, what Penalties they have incurred, and have seen already inflicted on others; and that the King, as Supream Head of this Church, might also depose their Societies, alienate and dispose of their Estates, as he saw sit, to those who would serve God better; but that they might one way sooner obtain, both security and pardon for their past faults, and pro­vision for their future livelihoods; if they would rather preventively resign their Foundations and Possessions into the King's hands, then stay to have them by his just power taken from them: especially, since the King on such condition would either to the present Incumbents give other Preferments; or allow considerable Pensions, equalling their former Income, to the unpreferred, for their lives. And thus; many, if not all, of these greater Foundations having seen already the lesser seized on; some persons having fair hopes of being well provided for, others of Impunity, others also desiring more li­berty, and weary of the fetters of a Cloistered life, especially as restrained by the new Regal Injunctions, [Page 106]give-up and make-over their Monasteries, and all the Estate belonging thereto, under their Hands and Seals, to the King and his Heirs for ever. And the King again returns yearly a vast summe of Money in Pensions be­stowed on the more Eminent of the Monasticks for term of life. A many of which Pensions you may see set down in Mr. Fuller 6. l. p. 304. who also ibid. p. 316. makes this Relation how the Monks were tempted with them; ‘It was also pressed upon the Monks, Fryars, and Nuns; that they thro their viciousness being ob­noxious to the King's anger, this [i. e. the taking away of their Estates] might and would be done without their consent: So that it was better for them, rebus sic stantibus, to make a Vertue of Necessity; the rather, because this Compliment conduced nothing to the Kings Right, on whom the Parliament had already bestowed those Abbey-Lands; but might add much to their own advantage, as being the way, whereby their Pen­sions might be the more easily procured, largely alotted, and surely paid unto them.’ Thus He. And thus the Lord Herb. p. 442. to the same purpose, ‘Cromwel, betwixt Threats, Gifts, Perswasions, Promises, and whatsoever might make men obnoxious, obtained of the Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, &c, that their Houses might be given up. Among which those, that offered their Monasteries freely, got best Conditions of the King: for if they stood upon their right, the Oath of Supremacy, and some other Statutes and Injunctions, brought them in danger; or their Crimes at least made them guilty of the Law; which also was quickly executed, and particularly on the Abbots of Glassenbury, Colchester, and Reading; who more than any else re­sisted.’

§. 92 When these Lands also were dispersed and disposed-of, and this great income spent, the King's Necessities being no less argent upon him, than formerly, nay more (he having lately engaged a War with France and Scot­land) the gleanings as it were of this Harvest, which before lay unregarded, are now looked after; and all [Page 107]the Chaunteries, Free-Chappels, Colledges (except the Universities) Fraternities &c (Dedicated also to such pious uses, as neither the King nor Parliament of that time disallowed, viz. offering the Holy Eucharist, distri­buting Alms, and saying Prayers for the faithful de­ceased, as likewise the advancing of Learning, sustenance of the Poor &c,) are thrown into the King's Lap, upon pretence of abuses found in these too. For which see Statute 37, Hen. 8.4. c. where the reason of giving them away to the King and frustrating the uses for which they were founded is; lest the Priests or Governors, that enjoyed them, should sell them away and frustrate the same uses; (as some had done already, probably for preven­tion of the Storm they saw coming upon these after the Monasteries:) as if such faults of the Incumbents were capable of no other cure; nor these Lands preservable by Law to the Founders intentions.

§. 93 Now to reflect a little on these Ads of King Henry so odious to the memory of posterity;Reflections upon these Pre [...]eaces. in them he seem many ways void of excuse, For 1. First; For the King's Necessities, many of them seem to be faultily contracted, 1. by (to say no worse) needless expence; ‘and because this high-spirited and valiant Prince would needs en­gage himself (as Lord Herb. p. 511. judiciously ob­serves) beyond what was requisite; and would be an Actor for the most part, where he needed only to have been a Spectator.’ And methinks these things do not sute well together; to pull down Religious Houses for meer necessity;Herbert. p. 513. and in such Expeditions to cross the Seas in a Ship trimmed with Sails of Cloth of Gold.

§. 94 Secondly, For the Precedent of Cardinal Wolsey; 1. 2. There was nothing done in it,1 but what was justifiable by the Ecclesiastical Canons: it being lawful in some Cases, and on some Conditions, for the Supreme Gover­nors amongst Church-men to alienate, or rather to trans­fer from one pious use to another, those things which are given to them; or, being given to God, are in his right possessed by them, as his Ministers. But hence will it riot follow; that any Lay, tho the Sovereign, [Page 108]Power, who is not the Receiver or Possessor of such a Gift, but rather the Doner (for without the King's Consent the Church receives no such Gifts) can after­ward resume from God and the Church the disposal of it. Here I may say as St. Peter Acts 5. 4. Before it was so bestowed by him, was it not his own? But once so passed away, and his Mort-main allowed to it; it can­not then be recalled, upon any Secular Title. But Secondly,2 Suppose the King Heir to all that Supremacy, which in these matters the Pope or other Ecclesiastical Persons have formerly exercised; yet this Power will not extend to that which the King assumed. For the Pope pretends to no such Power, as to alienate the Church Revenues, for to spend them himself; or to dispose of them in what manner, or to what Persons, he pleaseth; but only for some just cause, i.e. in a pru­dential arbitration, for an equal or greater Benefit thence accrewing to the Church, or Christianity. Which also was observed in his concession of those to Cardinal Wolsey, in a time when Religious abounded, more than Schollars; and by that Concession the Church still en­joys them. But whither Henry the Eighth's Abbey-lands went, and what uses they have served, we all know; and this some think, to the enriching of few, but ruine of many, Noble Families in this Nation. See Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform. of Qu. Mary p. 45. and p. 67, 68.

§. 95 Thirdly, Neither were the Vices of those Religious a sufficient ground of overthrowing their Societies and Foundations;3. because the King might have punished, ejected, changed, the Persons, without taking away the Houses or Maintenance (as is frequently done in all So­cieties; and, particularly, in Religious Houses abroad) unless 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, [Page 109]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, [Page 110]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 [Page 112]in the second Articles of Religion, called a Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People, published 1543. he care­fully perused them (saith Dr. Heylin p. 23.) and al­tered many things with his own hand, as appears by the Book still extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library.’ And in the Answer, which he writ himself to the York-shire Rebels offended with the State of Religion, he hath this Clause; That he marvelled much, that ignorant People would go about to take upon them to instruct him (who had been noted something Learned) what the Faith should be. With­out which consciousness and esteem of his own Learning and Abilities, it is probable he would have been a more dutiful Son of the Church;Her. p. 417. and never have owned such a Supremacy in stating Theological Controversies, with such severe punishments to all that thwarted his Doctrines: Whereby he seemed to act the Part, tho he assumed not the Title of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; to which place his Father is said to have designed him.] By ver­tue of the same Supremacy he made Orders, and gave Dispensations in matters of Fasts; of Holy-days; of Election and Consecration of Bishops; as you may see in Fox, in the King's Injunctions and Proclamations p 960. 999. 1104. and before in §. 36. and §. 68.

§. 100 By vertue of such a Supremacy, concerning several other Ceremonies, as he calls them, the King speaketh in this wise,Fox p. 1035. in his Injunctions put forth 1539. ‘Com­manding that the Holy Bread and Holy Water, Pro­cession, kneeling, and creeping on Good-Fryday to the Cross, and Easter-day setting up Lights to the Corpus Christi, bearing of Candles on Candlemas-day, Purifi­cation of Women delivered of Child, offering of Chry­somes, keeping of the four Offering-days; paying their Tithes; and such like Ceremonies be observed and kept; till it shall please the King to change or abro­gate any of them.’ [Where note, that as Colledges (see before §. 87.) so here Tithes also are conceived to be in the disposal of this Supream Head of the English Church.]

§. 101 By vertue of such Supremacy he, without any con­sent of the Clergy,1. by his Vice-gerent Cromwel, first, [Page 113]ordered; ‘That English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church; and that the Parson of the Parish (say the Injunctions 1536. and 1538. set forth by Crom­wel) shall discourage no man from the reading or hear­ing of the said Bible; but shall expresly provoke, stir and exhort every Person to read the same, admonish­ing them nevertheless to avoid all contention and al­tercation therein, and to use an honest sobriety in the inquisition of the true sense of the same; and to refer the explication of the obscure places to men of higher judgment in Scripture.’ Which Publication of the Scriptures, in the beginning of his recession from Rome, perhaps he was the more inclined to; for two things, wherein he pleaded much their evidence in his justifica­tion, The one;See Fox p. 1000. That it was unlawful for him to have his Brothers Wife. The other; That the Pope could not, by them, claim any Jurisdiction over England: He justly therefore relinquishing the one, because it was there prohibited; and disacknowledging the other, because not there commanded. Also in this Translation (as those words 1. Pet. 2. [...] were then, and till the end of King Edward's days, rendred [...], submit your selves unto the King.) He was declared the chief Head of the Church of England. But these words were changed afterward, when Queen Elizabeth had refused such Title, into King as having the Preheminence, and King as Supreme. But upon what ground soever it was, that he made the Holy Scriptures common to the Vulgar for a time; afterward, when by three or four Years experience he had seen, that so many Divisions came thereby; the unlearned and unstable, now, as in St. Peter's time, z. Pet. 3.16. wresting these holy wri­tings, hard in some things to be understood, to their own destruction (when the People had now ceased to depend on the authoritative Exposition of their Spiritual Su­periors; especially when they had also seen the King and his Vicar Cromwel, Lay-men, to judge of the Judg­ments of the Clergy, and to reform their former Er­ments of the Clergy, and to reform their former Er­rors;) after this experience, I say, by Authority of [Page 114]the same Supremacy. 2. He commands again the Scrip­tures to be shut up and withdrawn from them, prohibi­ting, upon the Penalty of a Months Imprisonment toties quoties, that any Woman, Husbandman, Artificer, Yeo­man, Serving-man, Apprentice, or Journy-man, La­bourer &c, should read them to themselves, or to others, privately, or openly; See Stat. 34, 35. Hen. 8. 1. c. ‘Because, saith the Preface of that Statute, his High­ness perceived, that a great multitude of his Subjects, most especially of the lower sort, had so abused the Scriptures, that they had thereby grown and increased in divers naughty and erroneous Opinions, and, by occasion thereof, fallen into great divisions and dissen­sions among themselves.’ And if you shy, that the Opinions; the King calls here erroneous, were the Pro­testant Doctrines, discovered by the vulgar from the new light of the Scriptures; First you may see the very Opini­ons, as the Bishops collected them, in Fox p. 1136. &c unownable by any sober Christian. Secondly, We, who have had sad experience what monstrous opinions the vulgar; by wresting those farted Writings, have taken up in our days, may rationally allaw the same inci­dent to former times. Of the same thing I find that King much complaining, in his Preface also to Necessary Doctrine, in this manner. ‘Like as in the time of dark­ness and ignorance [so he calls the ages of the Church preceding his own] finding our People seduced from the Truth by Hypocrisy and Superstition, we by the help of God and his Word have travelled to purge and cleanse our Realm from the Enormities of the same; wherein; by opening Gods Truth with publishing of the Scriptures, our labours have not been void and frustrate: So now we perceive, that in the time of knowledge [so he calls his own times] the Devil hath attempted to return again, into the House purged and cleansed, accompanied with seven worse Spirit; and Hypocrisy and Superstition being excluded, we find entered into some of our Peoples hearts an inclina­tion to sinister understanding of Scripture, presump­tion, [Page 115]arrogancy, carnal liberty and contention; we be therefore constrained &c. And afterward, It must be agreed (saith he) that, for the instruction of those whose Office it is to teach, the reading and studying of Holy Scripture is necessary; but, for the other part ordained to be taught, it ought to be deemed cer­tainly, that the reading of the Scripture is not so ne­cessary for those Folks, that of duty they be bound to read it; but, as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient, so to be tolerated, or taken from it. Consonant whereunto, the politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it, &c.’ [Where note that he puts the just power of this toleration or restraint in the States, not in the Church-men's, Power.] Sec the like complaint made by him in his last Speech in Parliament, 1545, Lord Herb. p. 536. ‘I am very sorry to know and hear, how irreverently that most precious Jewel the Word of God is disputed and jangled in every Ale-house and Tavern, contrary to the true mean­ing and doctrine of the same, I am sure that vertuous and godly living was never less used, nor God never less reverenced or honoured.’ Thus King Henry. And this, to shew you, how and when this vulgar Theology first began; and how much then, so early, it was re­lented by the Magistrate.

§. 108 By vertue of such a Supremacy these things that King did; some of them against the Canons not of Popes, but of the Church Catholick, and of Superior Councils: and as some of them with, (for he used the consent of his Convocation more than his Successor) so others of them without, the consent of his Clergy; ‘whom (saith Lord Herb. p. 439.) he every day more and more devested of their former Authority.’ And, for the beginnings of his Reformation, Arch-Bishop Parker in his Antiquit. Brittan. p. 325. saith, that Cromwellus, cum Cranmero Archiepiscopo, tanquam in puppi sedit, clavum­que Ecclesiae Anglicanae tenuit. Nam Praelatorum fides eo magis dubia & incerta Regi visa est; quod long â morâ & difficultate tanquam taedio abducti sint a Papa; sibique Su­premi [Page 116]Capitis titulum detulissent. But whether these things done with or without his Clergy; yet the stile of his Injunctions sufficiently sheweth, in what person the legislative power in Spiritual matters was then con­ceived to reside: these Injunctions running authorita­tively, and for the submission of all mens judgments to them; either in his own name single, as the Church's Supreme Head; or in the name of his Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cromwel (who therefore is order­ed 31. Hen. 8.10. c. in regard of this Office (and all those who should succeed him therein) to sit in the Par­liament-house above the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury;) or in the name of the King and Parliament. The usual Phrase of the King and Parliament in such Decrees you have seen in former instances; where they do not ground these Decrees any further on the Authority of the Clergy, save only on their recognizing of the Kings Supremacy; upon which Supremacy all the rest are Super-structions.

§. 103 Now hear the Stile of his Vicegerent Cromwel, (upon whom, a Secular Person too and unlearned, that the King should derive his whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority, you may read, in Lord Herb. Hist. p. 402, ‘what a wonderment it caused amongst many, as a thing in no other time or person to be parallelled; neither in the much pleaded Patterns of the Kings of Israel, nor in the former practice of Popes.)’ This Vicegerent thus prefaceth to the Injunctions that were published 1536. ‘I Tho. Cromwel &c Vicegerent to our Sovereign Lord the King for and concerning all his Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm, to the Glory of Almighty God, to the Kings Highness's Ho­nor, the publick Weale of this Realm, and increase of Vertue in the same, have appointed and assigned these Injunctions ensuing to be kept and observed of the Dean, Parsons, Vicars &c, under the pains here­after limited and appointed.’ And the like Expressions much what are observed in the Injunctions set forth in 1538, [...] p. 1000 ‘By the Authority and Commission of the most excellent Prince Henry, in Earth Supreme Head under [Page 117]Christ of the Church of England, I Tho. Cromwel Vice­gerent &c, do, for the discharge of the King's Majesty, give and exhibit these Injunctions following to be kept and fulfilled &c. First, that ye shall truly observe all and singular the Kings Highness's Injunctions given unto you heretofore in my name by his Grace's Autho­rity &c.’ This is enough to shew where the legislative Power for Spiritual matters rested in Henry the Eighth's days. After which Injunctions this is Mr. Fox's Epi­phonema. ‘By these Articles and Injunctions (saith he) thus coming forth one after another for the necessary Instruction of the People’ [but surely Mr. Fox had here forgot the Contents of the Kings first Articles (which I mentioned before §. 80.) much contrary to the Reformed Doctrines, conformable to the Romish] it may appear, how well the King deserved then the Title of his Supreme Government given unto him over the Church of Eng­land [but to moderate Mr. Fox his Acclamations here; let me put him in mind, at another time, in his esteem, how ill he deserved it, remembring his words set down before § 84.] ‘By the which Title and Authority he did more good for the redressing and advancing of Christ's Church and Religion here in England in those three years; than the Pope, the great Vicar of Christ, with all his Bi­shops and Prelates had done in the space of three hun­dred years before.’

CHAP. VIII. The Actings of Edward the Sixth in Eccle­siastical Affairs.

THE Breach upon the Church's former Authority, Doctrines,§. 104 and Practices, being thus made by Henry the Eighth,2. The Act­ings of K. Edward in Ecclesiasti­cal Affairs. No marvel if by his Successors it was much enlarged. Next then to look into the actions of Ed­ward the Sixth with relation to Church affairs. This Prince, being not yet ten years old when he came to the Crown, was chiefly directed and steered by Arch-Bishop Cranmer; and by his Uncle the Duke of Somerset, who was made Protector of his Person and Realm, not by the will of Henry the Eighth, who dreaded to trust any one person with this Charge; but by the major part of those sixteen persons, to whom in common he com­mitted the government of his Son and Kingdome. Of which Duke Mr. Fox saith p. 1180 and 1248, ‘That he bare great favour to Gods word; and that he brought with him, to the State of that his Dignity, his an­cient love and zeal Of the Gospel and of Religion [he means, reformed.] The proof whereof (saith he p. 1183.1184.) was sufficiently seen in his constant standing to Gods truth, and zealous defence thereof against the Bishops of Chichester, Norwich, Lincolne, London, and others moe, in the consultation [about composing a new form of administring the Sacrament] had at Windsor in the first year of the King's Reign.’

So inclined was the Protector; and so inclined were many of the Council;§ 105. n.1. and some of those, who were otherwise, yet openly complyed with the prevailing party for secular ends; and, amongst these, even Dudley the great Duke of Northumberland, the chief Agent in the later times of Edward; who confessed so much at his death: he then exhorting the people; See Stow An. [Page 119]1553. Fox p. 1280. and Goodwin p. 278. ‘That they should embrace the Religion of their Forefathers, re­jecting that of later date, which had occasioned all the miseries of the forepast thirty years [i. e. from the be­ginning of Henry the Eighth's Supremacy:] and that, for prevention for the future, they should expel those Trumpets of Sedition, the Preachers of the reformed Religion. [and declaring 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, [Page 120]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 [Page 121]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 [Page 122]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 [Page 123]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 [Page 124]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 Ʋniversities 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 Ʋniversity 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 Ʋniversity 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, [...]ox p. 1280. as appears out of Fox elsewhere, Day re­moved [Page 125]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 [Page 126]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 Ʋncle 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, [Page 127]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 1. That these Injunctions (and the like) of the King and Council were not set forth, α α but [Page 128]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. β) and of β other Bishops and learned men first consulted with. γ 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 δ which was necessary to be provided for in present. Dr. Fern p. 74, 75. 3. ζ 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 (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 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 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 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 μ That, at least in, the fifth, year [Page 129]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 [Page 130]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.6 Fox p. 1212. 6. ν 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 [Page 131]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 [Page 132]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, Pull [...]r 8. l. and Secre­tary Sir W. Peters) which required his Subscription to several points of Doctrine, mentioned above: be­fore §. 45.

§. 114 To δ.To δ. That if there was then a present necessity of providing for the publick exercise of Religion and Wor­ship; so, this being a matter of the greatest moment, there was also a necessity, that the judgment of the Na­tional Synod, and not only of the Kings private Coun­cil should be had therein: lest, by remedying such things hastily, they should be remedied amiss. 1. That it is most probable, had the Clergy been generally consulted-with herein, they would have discovered no such necessi­ty: because the same Clergy, but a year ago, in Henry the Eighth's time, at least for a major part of them, saw no necessity of charging the Church's Service; as ap­peareth in the first, second, fifth, sixth of the Six Ar­ticles, ratified as by the King, so by Synod. And this their judgment not likely to be mistaken, because the judgment of the whole Catholick Church for near a 1000 years had been the same; using the same publick exer­cise of Worship, which King Edward found in this Church of England, See Church Govern. 4. Part: and therefore some of King Edward's Bishops saw a necessity of leaving their Bishopricks, rather than to admit any change thereof.

§. 115 To ε. That the sew things here mentioned are not the only considerable things that passed in King Edward's Reformation,To ε. as will be seen by and by; and as is mani­fest [Page 133]in Queen Elizabeth's and the modern Reformation, which our Writers contend scarce in any thing to differ from King Edward's. But, if it be meant, that those matters were the main of his Reformation in the begin­ning of his Reign, the Doctrines of the Homilies then also imposed contradict this; and the Articles to Win­chester: before §. 108. But now to come to what is said of the points here mentioned.

§. 116 To ζ.1. That first, where a pretension is, that the things by the King enjoyned are things evident;ζ. and e­stablished in the ancient Church; the Clergy also ought to be Judge of this (especially when the contrary was said in King Henry's days) whether evident, whether primitive: because to judge whether primitive requires much learning; and is indeed the chief means, by which Controversies are decided; namely this, the examining how former Church hath interpreted the Scriptures; which Scriptures all sides draw to their own sense.

§. 117 But secondly it is denyed,2. that all the Reformation made in the publick Service was established in the ancient Church; and affirmed, that the Reformation proceeded also further in these points, than is here mentioned. Thus much is granted (to remove here that ambiguity and deceit which lies in Universals;) That Images, and so the veneration or worship of them, were very seldome (if at all) used in the Christian Church for some of the first Centuries. That the publick Communion was, then, most commonly, if not always, administred in both kinds unto the people. That the Divine Ser­vice, which then, as now, was celebrated usually in the Latine, or Greek, Tongue, was much better, in those days, than now, understood of the common people. Likewise it is granted, That the having the Liturgy, or Divine Service, or the Holy Scriprures, in a known tongue is not prohibited; nor the using of Images en­joyned; nor the Priests administring and the Peoples receiving the Communion in both kinds, if the Supreme Church Governors so think fit, declared unlawful, by any Canon of any Council.

§. 118 But the Reformation of King Edward in these things went further. For it translated not simply the former Divine Service into a known Tongue (a thing which might easily have been done, for Mr. Fox himself hath done so much, see p. 1272. in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign, to expose it to laughter and lay open its Errors and Superstitions;) but changed and altered it (of which is made no mention in ζ) taking away the Sacrifice of the Mass,See Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14. c. A [...]d Ar­ticles sent to Winche­ster. and declaring such thing unbene­ficial and vain either pro vivis or defunctis; Contrary to the tenent and practice of the Primitive Church, which in such sense offered it, as is shewed elsewhere in the discourse of the Eucharist, and in Chur. Govern. 4. Part; and Contrary to the declared judgment of the English Clergy but a few years before; as appears in the fifth of the Six Articles: and declared likewise the Mass-book to have many Superstitions in it, and to be full of abuses; contrary to the long approbation of the whole Church Catholick in the publick use thereof from age to age without any considerable difference. Again; his Reforma­tion held no consideration sufficient to deny the Cup to the Communicants; contrary not only to the defi­nition of a former Superior Council, that of Constance, and the declared opinion of the English Clergy, in the second of the Six Articles; but contrary to the te­nent and practice of the Primitive times, who some­times in private Communions administred it only in one kind; as is shewed in the discourse of Communion in one kind. It took away all private Masses, as holding it un­lawful for the Priest to celebrate and communicate alone; contrary to the ancient practice of the quotidian Christian Sacrifice, (whether any of the people communicating, or no,) offered unto God for the impetration of his mercies upon the Church: and contrary to the declared judgment of the English Clergy in the fifth of the Six Articles. In which single communicating of the Priest (casually happening) if there be any fault made, it is to be laid not on the Priests performance of this dayly Service, but on the people's indevotion and neglect to [Page 135]accompany him in that holy Banquet. Whereas the Church that useth such private Masles, wisheth, that the Priest might never communicate alone, but if this some­times happen, which is not the Priests fault, the Church doth not therefore command this Sacrifice of the Eu­charist to be omitted: quod Sacrificium a publico Ecclesiae ministro non pro se tantum, sed pro omnibus fidelibus, qui ad Christi corpus pertinent, celebratur. See Conc. Trid. 22. Sess. 6. cap. This loss is a worse thing than the other indecency. Lastly, It held the veneration of Images or Saints Reliques unlawful: contrary to the definition of a former General Council, the second Nicene; which Council also justifies it by Antiquity. Now King Ed­ward's Reformation proceeeding thus far, you see, in­terests it self not only in matter of Practice, but Doctrine. And indeed there could be no such necessity pretended of reforming the publick Service in such a manner, had they not judged the former frame thereof to be ground­ed on some erroneous opinions. But, had the Refor­mation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known Tongue; administred Com­munion in both kinds; thought fit not to use Images; changed something of practice only without any de­cession from the Church's Doctrines: 'tis probable, the Church-Governors would have been facile to li­cence these, where they could be secure of no breach in greater, matters.

§. 119 To η. Where concerni [...]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, [Page 136]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 [Page 137]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 [Page 138]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 was no small occa­sion [Page 139]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 [Page 140]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, [Page 141]&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 [Page 142]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 for &c, and for the partiality used in the same. But I am well assured, that the King his Fathers Laws were all al­lowed and consented to, without compulsion, by the whole Realm, both Spiritual and Temporal &c.’ Thus the Lady Mary, An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my re­membrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector:Sec before §. [...]04. That, in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor, he, in the zealous defence of Gods truth, opposed the Bishops. I have here on purpose thrown to­gether thus many testimonies; to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations; and to manifest the more, how neither the Prelates (except those new ones, whom King Edward advanced); nor the inferiour Clergy, neither at first, nor at last, were so conforming to the Kings proceedings, as is pre­tended out of the charge against Winchester, That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received &c.

§. 126 To θ.1. To θ. First; That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward; we do not find, that the major part of the Clergy, in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth [Page 143]year of the Kings Reign, is pretended to have consented to any of them, save one; namely the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, in the second year of the King: and that consent was also had after this Book was, first, passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament; as may be gathered: 1.1 Both by the Act, which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men (which were in all fourteen, whereof seven Bishops; two of which were Cranmer and Ridley) but not any concur­rence or authority of a Synod.See Heylin Sect 5.7 3 [...]. (But, had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament; this, which was more, would rather have been mentioned, than the other, which was less.) and which Act also by vertue of it self, see before §. 40. not of arty Synodical Act, confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book. 2.2 And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second re­formed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward; which was authoritate Regis & Parliamenti; as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles, Liber qui nu­perrime authoritate Regis & Parliamenti Ecclesiae Angli­canae traditus est, similiter & libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veri­tatem pii sunt &c. Which stile differs much from either of these, A Rege & Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae tra­ditus; i. e, that it might be established by the Church's authority; or; Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi & Parlia­mento propositus, i. e, that, being established by the Church, it might be enjoyned also, under temporal punishments, by the State Laws. Neither do the words following in that Article (see them recited before §. 110.) Ex­press any authoritative ratification, but only a single testimony of their judgment concerning those Forms; or say any thing which any other person, void of au­thority, may not use. Now of this consent of the Con­vocations, An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament, and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first Common-Prayer-Book, a chief motive, (besides fear of [Page 144]punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments In­junctions or Laws,) was, as I conceive, this; because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church (as likewise the later Common-Prayer-Book more omissions) but no decla­ration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine; of which I shall say more by and by. And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have staid here,See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable (tho these omissions I excuse not, as faultless, or not offending against former Church-Canons:) But his Reformation proceeded much further, to the condemning also of the Church's tenents and practice; which cannot be shewed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government; of which I shall speak here­after. But, as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy, proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions, from the paucity of the num­ber of those who were imprisoned, or ejected, in com­parison of the rest; the argument is not good. First, Because many more might dissent, and refuse obedience thereto, then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it. Might? Nay did dissent; for the Parliament beggeth their pardon; see before §. 120: and it is ac­counted a prudent policy of State, where very many are guilty, only to punish some of the chief for Example sake. Secondly, And again many more might be ejected, or questioned for this, than are by name mentioned in Fox or others: and were so; if you consider the testi­monies before cited. Thirdly, But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected; yet as, where all the rest unanimously accord, this restraint of a few chan­geth not the Church-affairs: so when such a body is di­vided, and all the rest are not of one mind; this with­drawing of a few, especially if these be the prime Lead­ers, and the introducing of so many new voters, who are of a contrary perswasion, into their rooms, (suppose, taking away six old Bishops, and putting six new ones in their places) may render that, which was before a [Page 145]major and the more prevalent, now a lesser and a weaker, part; and consequently, if they be unjustly withdrawn, will render the Act of this major part invalid.

§. 127 Secondly,2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer &c. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act; because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy, inforcing, as other Ecclesi­astical Injunctions of the King, so also, the new Form of Communion, before it was proposed to any Parlia­ment or Convocation; for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies; that I may spare the taedium of repeating them. But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were (for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward) if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-power had been removed from them (touching which see their sad complaint before §. 47) may be gathered, 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Con­vocation the Six Articles; and the the Necessary Doctrine: 31. Hen. 8.14. c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days; in the very beginning of which Arch-Bishop Cranmer called a Synod of them, wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation, but could not: See 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; [Page 146]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 [Page 147]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 [Page 148]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 submitted-to by the Clergy; as the King having the legislative power in these things by his Ec­clesiastical Supremacy; to be obeyed and submitted to by them, upon penalties of suspension, imprisonment, [Page 149]deprivation, &c. and when upon this in the issue (after some of the Clergy punished) the rest do conform to the Kings commands. Now which of these two were the proceedings of King Edward; I refer the matter to the Story of those times, and the testimonies above produced.

§. 131 First, And note here, 1. That tho the whole Clergy should have submitted to such a Reformation; 1 yet can­not it be said to be their authentick Act at all; or to be done, but suffered, by them: as long as anothers command and force comes in; especially, where an after departure of a many of them shews us, that their former compliance was feigned. 2.2 That tho the sub­mittance of the whole Clergy to such a Reformation had been ex animo and voluntary; yet this rendereth not the former Imposition or Injunction of the King lawful or obligatory: the lawfulness or unlawfulness of which cannot depend on an after casual event. For I ask: Suppose the Clergy generally had opposed them, were these Injunctions justly imposed upon them by the King or not? If not; Then neither were they justly imposed, tho the Clergy had consented; because im­posed before they consented, whose consent is held ne­cessary, that they may be justly imposed. But, if justly imposed; then why is the Clergy's consent or reception of such Injunctions at all urged here to justify them? Suppose a Prince should first decide some Theological Controversy; and then require submission thereto, just on the same side affirmatively or negatively, as a Synod of the Clergy would have done both these; yet thus, he taketh their office not rightly; tho he manageth it not amiss. And such Act will not be allowable; because to the justifying of an action two things are requisite: That the thing be right which is done; That the person have lawful authority to do it.

§. 132 3. That the King or State never sought for, or pre­tended the Synods consent,3 as authoritative to make the Kings or their Ecclesiastical Injunctions lawful or obligatory: but required the duty of their obedience [Page 150]to these Acts of the Kings Supremacy; which Supre­macy was confirmed both by the Clergy's Recognition and Oath. Which thing is sufficiently manifested; in that many of the Kings Ecclesiastical Injunctions were set forth, and did exact the Clergy's obedience to them, before any Synods consent given or asked; and when it was yet uncertain, whether a major part would ap­prove, or condemn them. But, if you desire further evidence thereof, I refer you to the matter delivered before, In §. 40, 41. where you may see the Par­liament Acts establishing such Laws, without pretend­ing or involving any Synodal authority; nay giving authority by vertue of such Act to the Clergy to execute such Laws; and In §. 45; where you may see, why it was necessary, according to their principles, that they should do so; and In §. 45; where you may see, the obedience thought due in these matters to the regal Supre­macy, and the edicts issuing from it, required to be sub­scribed by Winchester: and In §. 47; where you may see the description of the exauctorated State of the Clergy in those times; and In §. 103; where you may see the usual stile of Henry the Eighth (whose Supremacy was no way remitted by his Son); and In §. 107. &c. and, §. 113. the practice of Edward the Sixth; which yet will be further declared in the following instances of his Supremacy. W hen therefore the consent of Synod or Convocation is urged, to the people or to some single person, by the King, or his Council; it is not urged, as an authority (see the reason §. 45.) which these, as subject to their decrees, ought to obey; but as an example, which these, as less knowing, ought to follow. But if the bare mentioning sometimes of the Clergy's consent argues this then thought necessary to the estab­lishing of such decrees; then would the mentioning of the consent of Parliament argue as much, which is urged together with that of the Clergy; and so no Ecclesiasti­cal Acts of the King and Clergy would be obligatory, unless confirmed by Parliament. But this will destroy the authority of the 42 Articles made in the fifth year [Page 151]of King Edward; ratified by no Parliament.

§. 133 To λTo λ the Answer is prepared out of what hath been already said to θ. That, before there had been any force used upon the Clergy, a Reformation was en­deavoured in a Synod by Arch-Bishop Cranmer; but repelled. That the vote of a Convocation, after such violences first used, after Clergy restrained or changed, is not to be reckoned free. That the major part only outwardly complyed for fear, as is confessed by Pro­testants; and seen both in their former decrees under King Henry; and in their suddain recidivation (I mean the Clergy not introduced by King Edward) under Queen Mary. That this consent of Convocation can only be urged for the Common-Prayer-Book; but not for other parts of the Reformation: which new Form of Com­mon-Prayer omitted rather than gain-said the former Church-tenents and practice; and these omissions not so many in the former Book of King Edward, as in the latter. That this consent of Convocation is not urged in the places cited as necessary to make the King and Parliaments Church-Constitutions valid; but as exem­plary, to make others more conformable to them. That the Bishops that framed this new Form of publick Ser­vice, were but seven: whereof those who survived till Queen Mary's time, except Cranmer and Ridley, returned to the Mass.

§. 134 To μ.To μ. First, Whether there was indeed any such Synodal Act, as is here pretended in the times of King Edward, shall be examined hereafter. But Secondly, Supposing, for the present, that there was so; I answer, (besides that which is said in the Reply to λ and θ ap­pliable to this;) That by this time the Clergy was much changed, according to Mr. Fox's description made thereof before §. 107; a many new Bishops introduced by King Edward; several old ones displaced; so that now, after the State's five years reforming, Church-work, (to use Dr. Heylin's Phrase) might more securely be committed to Church-men: Yet that many also then, for fear of the times, either absented themselves from [Page 152]this Synod; or in the Synod were guilty of much dissi­mulation; as appears by their contrary votes soon after in the beginning of Queen Mary. See before §. 51.

§. 135 To ν.To ν. I answer, That if such Synodal Acts were of the right Clergy, and their Acts voluntary and unforced; the Reformation here in England from the time of such Synods, was, as to this authority, re­gular and canonical; till reversed by the like autho­rity. But then this Reformation, as it is supposed to be made by the Clergy, is void upon another ac­count; viz. as being contrary to the former defi­nitions 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 [Page 153]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 [Page 154]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. H [...]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 [Page 155]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 repugning, (as they might well) against the late spoyl of the Church-goods, taken away only by commandment of the higher pow­ers, without any law or order of Justice; and with­out request or consent of them to whom they did be­long.’ And Calvin in a Letter to Arch-Bishop Cranmer written about An. Dom. 1551. giving a reason why the English Church was so ill stored with good Pastors hath these words, Ʋnum apertum obstaculnm esse intelligo, quod praedae expositi sunt Ecclesiae reditus. So early you see, even [Page 156]together with the first dawning of the Reformation, began that Sacriledge to be committed on some Bisho­pricks; which our days have seen accomplished on the rest: Lay menders of Religion ordinarily terminating in these two things; the advancing of their carnal Li­berty, and temporal Estates.

§. 140 In defacing of Images.By vertue of such Supremacy, He caused to be re­moved out of Churches, and to be defaced and destroy­ed, all Images of Saints. Concerning which Reforma­tion his Council writes to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in this stile, ‘We have thought good to signify unto you, that his Highnesse's pleasure with the advice and consent of us the Lord Protector and the rest of the Council is, that immediately upon the sight hereof you shall give order, that all the Images remaining in any Church within your Diocess be taken away; and also by your Letters shall signify unto the rest of the Bishops within your Province this his Highnesse's plea­sure &c.’ Fox p. 1183. See likewise Stat. 3. and 4. Edw. 6.10. c. This he did when as the second Nicene Council not only had allowed, but recommended the use of them. But he proceeded also further than this; and declared the worshiping and veneration of any such Images or Relicks to be repugnant to Gods word, and unlawful, superstitious, idolatrous. See the 22 of the 42 Articles; and Article to Winchester 11; and the Doctrine of his Homilies.

§. 141 By vertue of such Supremacy, He imposed (An. Dom. 1547) a Book of Homilies, not approved by any Synod before, nor after till 1552, if then; in which Book were stated several Controversies of Divinity. See Ar­ticle 11 of the 42 referring to these Homilies for the stating of Justification ex solâ fide; the King forbidding the Clergy to preach any Doctrine repugnant to the same Homilies, under pain of being silenced, or otherwise punished.§. 142 [...]injoyning administra­tion of the Communion in both [...]inds. See before, §. 108. Winchester Articles 15. Fox p. 1255.

By vertue of such Supremacy, He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion to the [Page 157]people in both kinds,Stat. 1. Ed. 6.1. c. Co [...] ­cil. Con­stant. 13. sess. See before, §. 118. contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance; and without any preceding con­futation of a National Synod; and notwithstanding the former late decree concerning the non-necessity there­of by the same National Synod in Henry the Eighth's days, in the second of the Six Articles.

§. 143 In suppres­sieg the for­mer Church Liungies, Ordiaals, and other Rituals.By vertue of such Supremacy, He caused to be re­moved and suppressed the former Church Liturgies and Rituals for the publick Prayers, for the celebration of the Communion and other Sacraments, for the Ordi­nations of the Clergy. See Fox p. 1211. ‘The King (saith he) with the body and state of the Privy Coun­cil then being, directed out his Letters of request and strait commandment to the Bishops in their Diocess to cause and warn all Parsons, Curates, &c. to bring in and deliver up all Antiphoners, Missals, Grailes, Pro­cessionals, Manuals, Legends, Pies, Ordinals, and all other Books of Service, the having whereof might be any let to the Service now set forth in English; charging also and commanding all such as should be found disobedient in this behalf to be committed unto ward. Saying in the Articles sent to Winchester, That the Mass was full of abuses,Fox p. 1235. and had very few things of Christ's institution, besides the Epistle, Gos­pel, and the Lord's Prayer, and the words of the Lord's Supper: that the rest for the more part were invented and devised by Bishops of Rome, and by other men of the same sort [i. e. by Ecclesiastical Constitution] and therefore were justly taken away by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm’ [this being the perswasion of those times, That the King as Supreme might change, as to him seemed good, any thing established only by humane- (tho it were Church-) authority.] And see Stat. 3, 4. Edw. 6.10. c. ‘Whereas the King hath of late set forth and established an uniform Order of Common-Prayer and whereas in the former Service-Books are things corrupt, untrue, vain, and superstitious: Be it enacted by the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parlia­ment [Page 158]assembled, that all Missals, Ordinals, &c. here­tofore used for Service of the Church shall be utterly abolished, extinguished, &c.’

§. 144 And injet­ting u [...] new Forms of ce­lebrating the Commu­nion.But you must observe that all was not done at once, or at the first, but by certain steps and degrees. For Exam­ple. The Form of administring the Communion suffered three Alterations or Reformations one after another; the later still departing further from the ancient Form used in the Church than the former. First the King: assembled certain Bishops and others at Windsor in the first year of his Reign (such as he pleased to appoint) to compile a new Form of celebrating the Communion according to the Rule (saith Fox p. 1184) of the Scrip­tures of God, and first usage of the Primitive Church. Yet the Bishops at this time so ordered and moderated the matter (which perhaps may be the reason of those words in Fox see before §. 125.See Heylin Hist. of K. Edw. p. 57. That the Protector at Windsor in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops) that the whole office of the Mass should proceed as for­merly in the Latine, even to the very end of the Canon, and the receiving of the Sacrament by the Priest him­self. Which done the Priest is appointed to begin the exhortation in English. [We be come together at this time Dearly Beloved &c.] as it is in the present English Liturgy. After which follows also the disswasion of great offenders impenitent from receiving, the General Confession and Absolution, the Prayer [We presume not &c.] and so the administration of the Eucharist to the people in both kinds. The words of the Rubrick in that first Order of the Communion reprinted at London 61 are these, ‘The time of the Communion [of the people] shall be immediately after that the Priest shall have received the Sacrament, without the varying of any other Rite or Ceremony in the Mass (until other order shall be provided.) But as heretofore usually the Priest hath done with the Sacrament of the Body, to prepare bless and consecrate so much as will serve the people, so it shall yet continue still after the same manner and form; save that, he shall bless and consecrate the biggest Cha­lice [Page 159]or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of Wine with some water put unto it, and that day, not drink it up all himself; but taking one only sup or draught leave the rest upon the Altar covered, and thus exhort the people, Dearly beloved &c. Thus the Rubrick. And this Form (as Mr. Fox goes on) ex­habited unto the King was by his Majesty's Council particularly sent to every Bishop of the Realm, re­quiring and commanding them, by their Letters on the Kings Majesty's behalf, that they should forthwith have diligent respect to the due execution thereof &c. In which Letter the motive urged by the Council why this new Form was drawn up and imposed, is; That the Statute of the former Parliament, ordering that the Sacrament should be distributed unto the people in both kinds, might be well executed, in such sort as is agreeable with the word of God [as if for the di­stribution of the Sacrament in both kinds there was any need of altering or superadding any thing to the Mass; when as, with that same Form of the Mass it was in the publick Com­munions, for many Centuries, only so distributed; and when as that same Form of the Mass is urged by Protestants, as contrary to communicating the people only in one kind; but the true cause of altering it I shall shew you by and by.]’ Now this new Form was thus imposed by the King and his Council, before allowed by any Synod of the Clergy, or Act of Parliament; which were procured afterward in the second Parliament of King Edward. Meanwhile such alterations in King Edward's time about the Do­ctrine and the Administration of this Sacrament as they were uncanonical, so they were, in this respect, also very hurtful; in that they occasioned (in the ignorant especially) much profaneness and irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament in those days; as you may partly also gather from an Act (1. Edw. 6.1. c.) made against such irreverent speaking against it. For whereas the Sacrament was, according to ancient custome, delivered to each Communicant in a small round Wafer, hence they gave it the name of Round-Robin. And because the [Page 160]parts thereof, that were reserved to be carried to the sick, were hanged up over the Altar in a Pix or Box; they named it Jack in a Box; and instead of the Sacra­ment of the Altar, called it the Sacrament of the Halter. (See Heylin's Hist. of Reform. 49.63.) Such profaneness followed the remedy of what they called Superstition.

§. 145 Secondly,2. Of Ordina­tion. See 3, 4. Edw. 6.10. c. Having likewise condemned, amongst o­ther superstitious Books, the former Church-form of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops and Priests, the King caused a new Form to be prescribed, upon this pretence in the Act of Parliament, ‘That so concord and unity might be had, within his Majesty's domini­ons, in these Ordinations.’ [But could not this have been done without innovation, by strictly confining all to the use of the former Church form; or, if these were various, to some one of them?] Stat. 3, 4. Edw. 6.12. c. Now for the compiling of this new Form the Parliament orders, That such, as by fix Prelates,See before, §. 42. and six others to be appointed by the King, or by the major part of them, should be devised for that purpose and set forth under the great Seal, should by ver­tue of their Act (without obtaining or requiring any rati­fication thereof from any Synod) be lawfully used, and none other, any law or prescription to the contrary thereof notwithstanding. In which new Form, amongst other things, which were in the former, now cast out, this is one, (to the great contradiction of all Antiquity) The Bishops conferring on the ordained Presbyters po­testatem offerendi sacrificium propriè dictum & verè pro­pitiatorium (see in what sense understood and explained by the Church in Discourse of the Eucharist, §. 251. &c) Deo, Missasque celcbrandi tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis. Quod omnem superat impietatem, saith Mason de Minist. p. 242. 17. c. And this is another: The Oath of Sub­mission of the Ordained or Consecrated to the Supre­macy of the Patriarch: instead of which is prescribed another Oath, to the Supremacy of the Temporal Prince. From which Regal Supremacy also we find Cranmer (after fifteen years governing the Province of Canter­bury) receiving, at the coming in of a new Sovereign, a [Page 161]new Licence of ordaining Bishops and Priests therein durante Beneplacito Regis. [The Form, as Sanders p. 170. hath set it down, runs thus, Quandoquidem omnis juris­dicendi authoritas atque etiam jurisdictio omnimoda, tam illa quae ecclesiastica dicitur, quam seecularis, a Regia pe­testate velut a supremo capite manta &c. Ad ordinan­dum igitur quoscunque intra Diaecesim tuam Cantuarien­sem & ad omnes etiam sacros & Presbyteratus ordines pro­movendum, per praesentes ad nostrum beneplacitum duratu­ros, tibi damus potestatem.] And some such thing is in­timated by Mr. Prin (unbishoping of Timothy p. 80.) ‘I must inform our Bishops (saith he) for their Learn­ing, that all the Bishops in King Edward the Sixth's time had special clauses in their Letters Patents autho­rizing them to ordain Ministers and Deacons; as Bi­shop Poynet's, Scory's, Coverdale's Patents (5. Edw. 6. pars. 1.) testify at large (and there is no wonder in this, if you recall to mind Arch-Bishop Cranmer's An­swers to the Queries made concerning these matters re­cited before §. 105. n. 3.):’ Which Patents, if they imply such a Supremacy Ecclesiastical in the Prince, as that he may, if he please, prohibit any Ecclesiastical person at all from ordaining Ministers in his dominions, are contrary to the first Thesis above. §. 2. But yet this new Ordinal was not so well purified from former Superstitions,See in Fox p. 1366. the Kings and Earl of War wick's Let­ters. but that some who were presented to Bishopricks were stumbled therewith; and the Kings dispensation was obtained, in order to the consecrating of Bishop Hooper, for his not observing of some things therein; and particularly for his not taking the new Oath, either that of obedience to the Arch-Bishop; or that of the Kings Supremacy; which perhaps he, late­ly seasoned abroad with Calvin's Doctrine,See before: §.37. could not so easily digest.

§. 146 Thirdly,3 [...] of Common Prayer. Not long after the production of the new Form in administring the Communion, in the second year of his Reign he caused it to be reviewed; and also then to be drawn up a new Form of Common Prayer for Mattins and Evensong, and the Administration of [Page 162]the other Sacraments of the Church (if I may use the phrase of the Act, 2. Edw. 6.1. c.): which Form com­posed by seven Bishops, and seven other learned men of the Clergy chosen by the King (yet one of them Day Bishop of Chicester, after it was done, refused to sub­scribe it; who was afterward also turned out of his Bishoprick. See Heylin's Hist. of Reform. p. 65. quoting the Register of Petworth) was authorized by Act of Parliament, and at the same time consented to (as it seems by what is urged above §. 110) by a Convocation of the Clergy: of which see what is said §.126. And the pretence of making this new Form, in the Preface of that Act, is this, ‘That, whereas of long time there had been in the Realm divers Forms of Common Prayer, the use of Sarum, of York, of Bangor and Lin­colne; and besides the same, now of late much more divers and sundry Forms and Fashions have been used &c: to stay Innovation and Rites concerning the Pre­mises; his Highness, being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his subjects in that behalf, hath appointed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury &c. having as well respect to the most pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages in the Primi­tive Church, to draw and make one convenient and meet order, rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and Administration to be had and used in his Majesty's Realms.’ Thus the Act. But to remedy these inno­vations or diversities of Forms, how easy had it been to establish any one of the ancient Forms? Or at least reasonable, to retain in the new draught those things wherein all the former Church-Services agreed? And not themselves to innovate, for the hindering of inno­vations? But the fact discovers the intention.

§. 147 Out of which was ejected the Sacri­fice of the Mass.For in this new draught was ejected and left out the Sacrifice of the Mass, or the oblation to God of the Holy Eucharist, as propitiatory or impetratory of any bene­fits, to the living, or to the dead; contrary to the be­life of former Church and Councils, as is mentioned before §. 118. And for this reason were the Altars [Page 163]in Churches commanded to be changed into Tables; that the eating might be thought on, but not the offering. Whenas Hooper had preached before the King, ‘That so long as Altars remained, both the ignorant people, and the ignorant and evil-perswaded Priest would al­ways dream of Sacrifice: and besides, the great men about the Court (saith Dr. Heylin, Hist. of Reform. p. 95.) had promised themselves no small hopes of profit by the dis-furnishing these Altars of the Hangings, Palls, Plate, and other rich Utensils. — The leaving of one Chalice to every Church with a Cloth or covering for the Communion-Table being thought sufficient.’ Upon the same excuse were the Chaunteries, Free-Chap­pels &c. seized on, as chiefly erected for the relieving of the deceased with the offering of this Sacrifice, and the Alms and Prayers accompanying it; of which see before §. 138. The benefit of which Sacrifice for the dead was yet a thing the more maintainable in those days; because the new Form still retained this manner of praying for the dead, ‘Grant unto this thy Servant that the sins which he committed in this world be not imputed unto him; but that he, escaping the gates of Hell, and pains of eternal darkness, may ever dwell in the region of light with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place where is no weeping, sorrow, nor heavi­ness, &c. See the Order for Burial, Fol. 28.’

§. 148 For the exclusion of this Sacrifice,Where 1. Concern­ing the al­terations in the first Common-Prayer Book if K. Edward's in relation to the Sac ifice of the Eu­charist. you may find in the new Communion (see Communion, Fol. 128.) all those expressions in the former Liturgy, that signify it, dili­gently cancelled (forbidding also the elevation of the Host after Consecration;) as these following, In the Canon before Communicating; Te supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas & benedicas haec dona, haec mu­nera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; inprimis quae Tibi offeri­mus pro Ecclesiâ tuâ sanctâ Catholicâ &c. And, Memento Domine famulorum &c, pro quibus tibi offcrimus hoc sa­crificium laudis pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis & incolumitatis suae &c. And, Memores ejusdem Christi filii tui, tam beatae passionis &c. offerimus praeclarae [Page 164]Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, Hostiam puram, Hosti­am sanctam, Hostiam inmaculatam, panem sanctum vit [...] aeternae, & calicem salutis perpetuae: supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere sicuti ac­cepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium Patriarchae nostril Abrahae, & quod tibi obtu­lit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrifici­um, immaculatam hostiam. Jube haec perferri per manus Sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Di­vinae Majestatis tuae: ut quotquot ex hac altaris participa­tione, sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpseri­mus, omni benedictione caelesti & gratiâ repleamur. And that in Post-Communion; Praesta, ut sacrificium, quod oculie tuae Majestatis indignus obtuli, Tibi sit acceptabile, & omnibus, pro quibus illud obtuli, sit, te miserante, pro­pitianile. These Expressions I say are cancelled, and, instead of these, the new Form makes an oblation to God, not of the consecrated Gifts or Sacrament, (at least expresly) but of our thanks, and of our own per­sons and service. But this Oblation, in imitation of the former, it brings in immediately after the Consecra­tion, and before Communicating, whilst the cones­crated Elements yet remain upon the Table. This new Form I thought good to transcribe; because perhaps you may not have the Book. ‘Wherefore (O Lord and heavenly Father) according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son, we do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy Gifts, the Memorial, which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed Passion &c.’ [where, whether some of the Composers (who were of different per­swasions see before, §.127, 128.) retaining the former in­tentions under an only-varied expression might not extend these ambiguous words to an offering of the holy misteries to God the Father, as a commemorative Sacrifice of that of his Son upon the Cross, I cannot say: but thus it goes on] ‘Rendring unto thee most hearty thanks for the innu­merable benefits procured unto us by the same. En­tirely desiring thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to ac­cept [Page 165]this our Sacrifice of praise and thansgiving. Most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, We and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his Passion. And here we offer and present unto thee (O Lord) our selves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy, and lively Sacrifice unto Thee: humbly beseeching thee, that whosoever shall be par­takers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction [the ancienter Form, Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione Sacro-sanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione &c. replea­mur, seems to be thus changed, because Christ's body and blood were held by some only to be present to, and received by, the worthy Communicant, and not to the Symbols.]’ ‘And altho we be unworthy &c. to offer unto thee any Sacri­fice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, and command these our Prayers and Supplications [put instead of panis sanctus & calix sa­lutes] by the ministery of thy Holy Angels to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle [formerly. Altare] be­fore the sight of thy Divine Majesty &c.’

§. 149 Thus were things mended in the first Form of King Edward. 2 Concern­ing the fur­ther altera­tions in the second Com­mon-Prayer Book in re­lation to the same Sacri­fice. Stat 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. But in the latter Common-Prayer Book, which came out a new-reformed three years after, there is no oblation at all made, nor no petition put up, be tween the Consecration, and the receiving of the Holy Mysteries: but the one immediately follows the other. The Collect of humble access [We do not presume to come &c.] and the Lord's Prayer with its Preface [Divinâ institutione formati audemus dicere;] and the Memorial or Prayer of Oblation; which are put, according to the manner of the Mass, after the consecration of the holy Mysteries, and before the receiving of them in the first Form, are all removed in the second: and the first placed before the Elements begin to be consecrated; and the other two placed after the holy Mysteries are [Page 166]removed from the Altar or Table, and are distributed to the Communicants; and in the Prayer of Oblation, the first part thereof [We do celebrate and make the Me­morial &c.] is omitted. The reason of which altera­tion seems to be, That so the new Service might still appear more remote, from making any oblation to God of the consecrated Mysteries remaining on the Table; or from making any request to God in the vertue of the Body and Blood of our Saviour there present.

§. 150 But,3. Coucern­ [...]g the re­duction of s [...]ne things [...]ouching this matter in the new Cö­mon Prayer Book prepa­red for Scot­land to the first Form of K. Edward. again, in the last English Liturgy prepared for Scotland, the sober moderation of those, who governed the Church at this time, thought fit to reduce things, as far, as without offence they might, to the first Form of King Edward: restoring all these Prayers to their former place again; and re-inserting the Memorial in the Front of the Prayer of Oblation. Moreover, in the Prayer for the State of the Catholick Church, add­ing these words [We commend especially unto thy merci­ful goodness the Congregation here assembled to celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious death and sacrifice of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ;] before which Prayer also they order an oblation to be of the Bread and Wine, prepared for the Sacrament, upon the Lord's Table. All which they seem to have done, as regretting the mistaken zeal of their Fore-fathers, mis-led by Calvin and other forreign Reformers; but not finding as yet a season for a more compleat reduction of the Reforma­tion to the former universal practice of the Church of God.

§. 151 Much com­plained of in Laudensi­um autoca­tacrisis.Of all which things thus complains the contrary Party, who looked upon their alterations with a zea­lous eye, in Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 109. ‘As for that wicked Sacrifice of the Mass, which the Canon puts at the back of the Consecration, the English [i. e. the later Reformation of Common-Prayer Book under King Edward] banisheth it all utterly out of their Book. But the faction, to shew their zeal in their reforming the Errors of the English Church their Mother,1 1. puts down here in our Book [the Book sent to Scotland,] at [Page 167]the back of the Consecration, their Memento and Prayer of Oblation. 2.2 That Prayer of Thansgiving [begin­ning O Lord &c. we thy humble servants entirely desire] which the English sets after the Communion, (in a place where it cannot be possibly abused, as it is in the Mass, for a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood,) they transpose and set it just in the old place where it stood in the order of Sarum at the back of the Consecration, and before the Communion. 3.3 The clause of the Missal which for its savour of a Corporal presence the English put out of this Prayer [may wor­thily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Christ Jesus] they have here restored. 4.4 That we may plainly understand, that this Prayer is so transplanted, and supplied for this very end, that it may serve, as it did of old in the Missal, for a Prayer of Obla­tion of that unbloody Sacrifice by the Priest for the sins of the world, behold the first eight lines of it, which of old it had in the Missal, but which in the Re­formation [the second Reformation under Edward] were scraped out, are plainly restored; wherein we profess to make, and, over again, to make, before God's Di­vine Majesty, a Memorial; as Christ hath commanded. Which making not only the Papists, but Heylin, speak­ing from Canterbury, expounds, far otherwise, than either Andrews, Hooker, Mountague, or the grossest of the English Divines, for a true, proper, corporal, visible, un­bloody, sacrificing of Christ; for which [sacrificing] first the Apostles, and then all Ministers, are as truly Priests, tho Evangelical and after the order of Mel­chisedech, as ever the Sons of Aaron were under the Law; and the Communion-Table, as true and proper an Altar, as ever was the Brasen Altar of Moses [you may see Dr. Heylin's words in Antid. p. 6. § 2.] 5.5 After the Consecration and Oblation they put to the Lord's Prayer with the Missals Preface, Audemus dicere. Where the Papists tell us, that the Priest having offered up, in an unbloody Sacrifice, the body of Christ, for the reconciling of us to the Father, becomes bold to say [Page 168]with a loud voice, Pater noster. The English, to ba­nish such absurdities, put away that naughty Preface, and removed the Prayer it self from that place: But our men, to shew their Orthodoxy, repone the Prayer in the own old place; and set before it the old Preface. 6. The first English Prayer [We do not presume &c.] which stood before the Consecration (where the pas­sages of eating Christ's Body, and drinking Christ's Blood could not possibly be detorted to a corporal presence) yet now in our Book must change the place, and be brought to its old Stance, after the Consecration and Oblation, immediately before the Communion, as a Prayer of humble access.’ Thus Autocatacrisis sound­ed the Trumpet, not without a sad storm falling after­ward upon the heads of the English Clergy.

§. 152 Aad the C [...] ­lemation of the Eucha­rist prohibited, wh [...]n note other to commu­nicate wi [...]h the Priest.All use of the Eucharist, as a Sacrifice, being thus dis-avowed by King Edward's Reformation, and no benefit acknowledged of this high Service, save to the Communicants in their receiving it, and in the Priests distributing of it to the people; in the next place the Priest was prohibited the celebration thereof, whenso­ever there were no other Communicants besides him­self. [Tho this communicating of the Priest alone is no de­signed, but a casual, thing, as hath been said; and can only be charged upon the peoples neglect and fault: who ha­ving the same need thereof, and benefit thereby, as the Priest, might, being many, at least by turns, accompany him in the dayly breaking of that celestial Bread (if it were so hainous a thing for him to feed thereon alone) rather than that this the most honorable part of the divine Service should be discontinued in the Church; See before, §.118. contrary to the former uni­versal practice of Christianity, and also the late judgment, under Henry the Eighth, of the English Clergy.] ‘It was ordered therefore, that all those, called private, Masses should be suppressed: add that on the Litany-days, Wednesdays and Frydays, and all other solemn days of worship, when there was none disposed to commu­nicate with the Priest, he, after the Litany ended, should put upon him a plain Albe or Surplice, with a [Page 169]Cope, and say all things at the Altar appointed to be said at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper,See K. Edw. first Com­mon-Prayer Book Rubi­fol. 133. until after the Offertory: and then letting alone the fore­said Celebration, add one or two of the Collects which are annexed to the Communion; and then turning him to the people, shall let them depart with the ac­customed Blessing.’

§. 153 And thus first began the Christian Sacrifice,See the first Com. Prayer Book of Ed. 6. fol. 133. (that ne­ver ceased formerly in the Church every day, or at least on all solemn days to be offered,) by certain degrees to be omitted in this purified Church; the practice there­of decreasing, from once a day, to once a week; from once a week, to once a month; from this to once a year; and of late in many Churches not to be had at all. Tho they, who in these days of King Edward made the first breach upon the Church's former practice, as it were foreseeing this evil, endeavoured in some part to remedy or prevent it, by enjoyning: ‘That, in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches [where they sup­pose, that there should be still dayly Communion. See King Edward's first Common-Prayer-Book, Fol. 113, compared with Fol. 123.] there should always in them some com­municate with the Priest that ministreth: And that in Parish-Churches, whereas the Parishioners of every Parish were ordered in such a course as they were wont to find the holy Loaf formerly, now to offer every Sunday, at the time of the offertory, the just valor and price of the holy Loaf, with all such money and other things, as were wont to be offered with the same, out of which the Pastors were to provide sufficient Bread and Wine for the weekly Communion; In these Parish-Churches, I say, it was enjoyned, that some one at the least [for one, besides the Priest, was as yet suf­ficient] of that house in the Parish, to which by course it appertained to offer for the charges of the Com­munion, should on that Sunday receive the Holy Communion with the Priest. Which [saith the Book] may be better done, for that they know before, when their course cometh, and may therefore dispose themselves [Page 170]to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament. And by this means the Minister, having always some to com­municate with him, may accordingly solemnize so high and holy mysteries with all the suffrages and due order appointed for the same.’ But in the second re­formed Book these Orders are relaxed, the weekly offer­ing by turns for the charges of the Communion now remitted, the Celebration of the Lord's Supper or Com­munion required in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches every Sunday; and that in Parish-Churches it should be celebrated at least three times in a year; and that it should be celebrated in no place, at no time, unless there be three to communicate besides him that office­ates. By which, when none or only fewer than three offered to communicate with the Priest, he was necessi­tated to omit this Service, as well in Cathedral as Pa­rish-Churches; notwithstanding any Injunction of fre­quentation. But the first Innovators might have pru­dently discerned, that when as the Celebration of this Service, thus, would depend only on the peoples de­votion, either a reception of the mysteries by the Priest alone must some times be permitted, or this Sacrifice many times omitted. [There are two Injunctions in­deed, wherein these Reformers seem to have endeavour­ed, to some degree, the preservation of the former Devotion of the Clergy in Prayer and Communion. The one,See the Rub. after the Communion. this (forementioned.) ‘That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, where be many Priests and Dea­cons, they-should all receive the Communion with the Minister every Sunday at the least, except they [i. e. some, not all, of them] had a reasonable cause to the contrary.’ See the P [...] ­face to the Com. Prayer Book. — The other, this (for saying their office dayly, as formerly,) — ‘That all Priests and Deacons shall be bound to say dayly the Morning and Evening Prayer [yet how short this in respect of the office they quit­ted!] either openly, in the Parish Church or Chappel, if at home and not being otherwise reasonably letted; or privately, except they be let by Preaching, study­ing of Divinity, or some other urgent cause.’ But [Page 171]here also the two exceptive Clauses annext [Except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary, in the former; and Except they be let by Preaching, studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause, in the latter,] have rendered these Injunctions, as to the general, without vigour and effect, or practice in this Church. Which the Prudence of those who contrived the Scotch Liturgy well observing thought fit thus to qualify the latter Exception:See the Pre­face to the Scotch Li­turgy. ‘Of which Cause, (say they) if it be frequently pretended, they are to make the Bishop of the Diocess, or the Arch-Bishop of the Province the Judge and Allower.]’

§. 154 Aad In­vocation of Saiats ex­punged out of the Lita­nies.Besides the Sacrifice of the Mass thus removed out of the second new Form of the Communion; the Invo­cation and Suffrages of the Saints were also expunged out of the publick Litanies: When-as, even in the first English Litany put out under King Edward, after O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity &c. have mercy upon us, it followed thus, Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God our Saviour Jesus Christ Pray for us. All holy Angels and Arch-Angels, and all holy orders of blessed Spirits pray for us. All holy Patriarchs and Prophets, Apostlet, Martyrs, Con­fessors, and Virgins, and all the blessed company of Heaven, Pray for us. Likewise in the Parliament-Act, 3, 4. Edw. 6.10. c. it is commanded: That in the Primers the sentences of Invocation or Prayer to Saints be blotted and clearly put out of the same. And this contrary to the former universal practice of the Catholick Church. See Chur. Govern. 4. Par. 98. §.

§. 155 A [...]d the ne­cessity of Sa­cerdotal Co [...] ­fession re­laxed.Besides this, in the same new Form is remitted the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession, and the performing of such penitence and humiliation as the Priest shall judge meet; and the receiving of his absolution and re­conciliation for those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sins, or grievous crimes, before they may presume to approach to Gods Altar, and to the holy Communion of Christs body and blood (contrary to the former decrees of superior Councils, and practice of the Church Catholick:) Instead whereof it is only here ordered, ‘That if any be an open and notorious [Page 172]evil liver, (so that the Congregation by him is offend­ed) or have done any wrong to his Neighbors, the Curate shall not admit him to the Communion before his giving satisfaction of his repentance to the Con­gregation, and at least declaring his full purpose to recompence the party wronged:’ And, before the Communion,Fol. 123. a general exhortation made, ‘That if any be a blasphemer, adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grievous crime, he should not come to that holy Table, except he be truly sorry therefore, and earnestly-minded to leave the same vices, and do trust himself to be reconciled to Almighty God, and in charity with all the world.’ This is said indeed in the second Exhortation,Fol. 124. ‘If there be any whose Con­science is troubled, or grieved in any thing, lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Priest taught in the Law of God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly; that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved; and that, of us, as of the Ministers of God and of the Church, he may receive comfort and absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtsulness.’ But the words following [viz. Re­quiring such, as shall be satisfied with a general Confession, not to be offended with them that do use, to their further satisfying, the auricular and secret Confession to the Priest; nor those also which think needful or convenient, for the quietness of their consciences, particularly to open their sins to the Priest, to be offended with them that are satisfied with their humble confession to God, and the general confession to the Church.] I say these words (which are omitted in the second reformed Com­mon-Prayer-Book, I suppose, as speaking too favour­ably of the use of Auricular Confession) do argue, that thenceforth no necessity of Sacerdotal Confession was imposed upon any, for any crime. Likewise in the Visitation of the Sick it is said; Here shall the sick person make a special confession, if he feel his conscience troubled [Page 173]with any weighty matter: which is also retained in the second Form of Common-Prayer. But here such Con­fession is commanded only hypothetically; not, if he have committed, but if his Conscience be troubled with, any weighty matter, which he hath committed. Which unfortunate [If,] as experience hath shewed, quickly ruined the practice of Sacerdotal Confession.

§. 156[And indeed (with your leave to digress a little) when grievous sins are committed, this [If,] might well have been spared. For 1. every one, that hath committed such sin, as is supposed to have put him out of the State of Grace, and out of his Baptismal Regeneration (for which only the Church requires Sacerdotal Confession) either hath, or ought to have (and probably would have, if the Clergy taught him so) his Conscience troubled; till he hath obtained a new reconciliation to God, by those whom God hath appointed to do this office for him; 2. But if his private repentance, when this is done proportionably to his offence, is sufficient for his recon­ciliation; yet what grievous sinner, after much repen­tance, ought not still to be troubled concerning the un­worthines of it, till he hath consulted, in such an ha­zard, his spiritual Father much more knowing therein than himself? And then if all such ought to be troubled; all ought to confess. Indeed lets trouble of mind is many times a sign of less penitence; and, of such high offend­ers, those have most need of the Priest's cure, who are least troubled. And those who are least troubled, ought to be so much the more troubled, that they are so little troubled: and ought to go to the Priest and confess such sin, that he may excite them to greater trouble and sor­row for it, and may put them to some pain in search­ing their wound to the bottome, that so it may be more capable of cure. And on the other side; those, who in, and after long penitence, and even from all their life, are much troubled for such their crimes, are likely to be the best penitents; and consequently to have least need of Sacerdotal Confession for the examining of their repentance: which examination, and not consolation, I [Page 174]imagine, is the chief end and design of the Reformed's prescribing such Confession to those, who are troubled. 3. But then add to this; that when once such Sacerdotal Confession for great sinners is commanded by the Church (i. e. by a lawful superior Council) to be observed, as necessary, jure divino, or by divine Institution, Now, it comes to pass, that tho such Confession were supposed not necessary to be observed or practised from any such divine institution; yet, after decreed by such a Coun­cil, (as who have authority to impose it also upon seve­ral other motives; from which they think it the most beneficial and the securest course for such sinners so to do;) it becomes necessary to be practised and observed as the Church's constitution, even by those, who think it not necessary jure divino. 4. But yet further; were not such Church-constitution in this respect obliging; yet when as a thing is so far disputable and doubtful, whether jure divino, as that such a judgment, as this of a superiour Council, hath declared, it so; and when­as on the otherside we our selves grant thus much, that such thing, if not necessary, is very beneficial, and may upon this title be lawfully enjoyned by the Church's Superiors: reason will dictate here, that it is the most prudent way, both for the Subjects of a particular Church to observe it; and for the Superiors of such Church to enjoyn it, upon pain of incurring their censures, to be observed. But now to return to our business.]

CHAP. X. Of the Second Change of the Publick Liturgy in his time.

§. 157 Ia setting forth a se­cond Form of Common Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate.THus much concerning the Reformation made in the first new Form of the Publick Service under King Edward, (to say nothing here of the first additions to the Mass made at Windsor) much more temperate, and less varying from the former Service than the present is; as ordinarily things do not on a suddain move from one extreme to another. In which Book also it is to be noted; that many of the alterations, which were made, were only omissions; As of the Sacrifice of the Mass; of Invocation of Saints; of Auricular Confession; of Elevation of the Eucharist (Adoration being not-pro­habited) &c. without tying any to professing his faith to be contrary to such things as were omitted: which I impute to the wariness and moderation of some of the Composers, who retained a different perswasion from the rest. See before, §. 127. And again, that in it were many former usages of the Church still retained: which gave great offence to the forreign Reformers; and to other Precisians here, who had been nursed abroad under their Discipline. Amongst which usages retained may be numbred these. At the Communion, in the Prayer for the estate of the Church Catholick, a solemn Com­memoration of the Saints, and other faithful departed,Fol. 128. (which was thought fit by the late Composers of the Scotch Liturgy to be restored again in part into the same Prayer; where is made a distinct and different Com­memoration of other faithful deceased, and of the Saints deceased) Prayer for the dead, and that in the same manner, as formerly: See Burial of the dead, Fol 28. (as supposing some of them in a state purgative or bet­terable by such Prayers. See before, §. 147.) Exorcisme [Page 176][I command thee, unclean Spirit, that thou depart &c. Fol. 2.] and anction of Infants in Baptisme.Fol. 4. Sanctifying, or Benediction of the Water in the Font before it be used in Baptisme,Fol. 8. (resumed by the Scotch Liturgy.) Extrcam Ʋnction also still retained. Consecrating only so much Bread and Wine, as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion. And ming­ling Water with the Wine.Fol. 126. Reservation of the Sacrament after publick Communion to be carried home to the sick if there be any that day to be communicated (which reservation were it made for some longer time I see not how this difference can alter the lawfulness thereof.Visit. Sick. fol. 22.) The quotidian Celebration of the Eucharist in all Ca­thedral and Collegiate Churrches as yet practiced, tho not enjoined.Fol. 21. See Ruhr. Fol. 123. The Altars still left in the same Position and with the same furniture, as formerly. The Communion-bread made in the same Figure as formerly, only to be somewhat thicker and without any print upon them. The same Holy Vestments, Albes, Copes, still retained. The Oblation made after Consecration, before receiving, spoken of before. And chiefly, the retaining still, in the Consecration and other passages of the Communion, all those former expressi­ons of the Mass, which imply, whether by Trans- or Con-substantiation, a corporal presence. For such pre­sence was not a thing declared against, till the Fifth year of King Edw. in Art. 28. [and then declared against upon this Philosophical reason: because ejusdem hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non potest. But this part a­gainst real or corporal Presence, with its reason, was after­ward thought fit to be cast out of this Article, when they were reviewed by Queen Elizabeth's Synod 1562.] The Obligation of Henry the Eighth's Six Articles being void­ed, all persons in this point were then left, as it were, to their own opinion: amongst whom, as some were Zuinglians, so a major part seem to have been in the former days of King Edward either of the Roman, or Lutheran, perswasion. Neither is there any mention concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist [Page 177]in the Articles proposed to Winchester, or in any other of the Kings Injunctions: and therefore Bonner and Gardiner (when forced to preach in publick) to the great offence of some of their Auditors, made this the chief subject of their Sermons; and many, in the pub­lick Disputations had in Oxford and Cambridge about this matter, freely and ex animo maintained such cor­poral Presence. See before, §. 107. And Cranmer him­self also for a long time was a Lutheran in his opinion, till at last he was otherwise perswaded by Ridley, Fox p. 1115. and p. 1703. Neither was there such agreement between Ridley and Peter Martyr at first: but that the one in the Oxford Disputations held a change after Con­secration in the substance of the Bread and Wine; which the other denyed in Cambridge. Fox p. 1255.

§. 158 Thus stood things somewhat moderated in the first Form:In which se­cond Book are rectified and remo­ved many thing which gave offence in the for­mer. against which therefore were made many com­plaints. Calvin writ to the Protector soon after it was set forth; where he incites him to a new Reformation thereof: and after having found fault with. Prayer for the Dead he goes on, — Sunt & alia non perinde dam­nanda fortasse, sed tamen ejusmodi, ut excusari non possint. Illa omnia abscindi semel praestiterit, ut nihil in Ecclesiâ Dei usurpetur, quod non & ipsius verbo conforme sit, & ad Ecclesiae aedificationem pertineat; ita verò tolerandi sunt infirmi, ut ad meliora promoveantur. After this, about 1551. Epistle, p. 135. he writ thus to Arch-Bishop Cranmer. — Sic correctae sunt externae superstitiones, ut re­sidui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assiduè pullulent. Imò ex corruptelis Papatus audio relictam esse congeriem, quae non obscuret modò, sed propemodum obruat purum & genui­num Dei cultum. Writ likewise to Bucer, then a Teacher of the reformed Religion in Cambridge, that he should solicite this matter; telling him that he was censured for too much moderation, and might thus free himself from such an aspersion. Epistle, p. 107. — Dominum Protectorem, ut volebas, conatus sum hortari, ut stagitabat praesens rerum status: tuum quoque erit modis omnibus in­stare, praesertim verbo; ut ritus, qui superstitionis aliquid [Page 178]redolent, tollant ur e medio. Hoc tibi nominatim commendo, [...] te invidiâ liberes, quâ te falso gravar [...] apud multos non ignoras; nam modiis consiliis te vel authorem vel approba­torem semper inscribunt. Scio hanc quorundam animis sus­picionem altius infixam asse, quam ut eam revellere facile sit, eciamfi nihil omittas. Bucer thus excited by Calvin, and also requested by Cranmer, having the Book translated in to Latine, An. 1551. writes a censure thereof; where­in he desireth the alteration or omission of many things (even to the disallowing of the use of the Surplice, and of such other vestments, as are there appointed; of saying of the second Service at the Altar; of the Pres­byter's taking the bread in his hand, and the using of the sign of the Cross in the Consecration; besides greater matters, of praying for the dead &c.) Yet, of several of those things, which he would have to be changed, he confessed, both that they were ancient, and might in some manner be inculpably used, but yet thought it better that they should be removed: 1. because not ap­pointed in Scripture by word or example: 2. because they might be, or also had been, abused'to superstition: 3. because the Church should partake as little as might be of the same usages with Anti-Christ. Bucer Censur. in Ordinat. Eccles. Angl. p. 458. 467. &c.

§. 179 Upon such exceptions taken at the Liturgy, as well from abroad, as also by some of the preciser sort at home (saith Dr. Heylin, Reform, Justif. p. 31. and Hist. of Reform. p. 107.) and because there had risen divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the said Service, rather by the curiosity of the Minister and mi­stakers, than of any other worthy cause (saith the Act of Parliament: it self, 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. which shews what a good opinion they had of the former Book) It was committed to be new corrected, but by what per­sons we know not. The Act, without any such En­comium of these Reviewers, as of the first Composers, faith only, — That the King caused it to be faithfully and godly perused, explained and made fully perfect. Perhaps [Page 179]it was corrected (which is one of Dr. Heylin's conje­ctures: See before, §. 42.) by those who were appoint­ed by the King about this time to compose a Form of Ordination; which Form the Act joined with this new Service-Book. But it could not be done by the same persons, that composed the former, at least not by all of them; because, Day before this was ejected out of his Bishoprick; and two more Shyp and Holbeck, as I think, before this deceased; and Harley and Taylor were chosen their Successors. The thing matters not much-Thus corrected it was presented to the Parliament, and it only by them authorized to be used.

§. 160 Which second Form (besides casting out several other things that were retained in the former;Among the rest, Prayer for the dead and several expressions that seemed to [...]ser the Rea [...]or Cor­poral Pre­seace in the Eucharist. as the Comme­moration of Saints, and Prayer for the dead; many Rites in the Administration of Baptisme; the liberty of ex­tream Ʋnction; the Oblation and Prayers in the Com­munion; which were made immediately after Conse­cration, spoken-of before §. 148, 149.) above all seems to have taken a vigilant special care for the altering and removing out of the former Form all those passages, Which might, argue any real or corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ (whether it be by Trans- or Con-substantiation, or any other way) with the Sym­bols. Whereas therefore, in the Prayer of Consecration, these words are in the Missal, Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam acceptabilemque facere dig­neris, ut nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat; dilectissimi Filii tui Domini Nostri Jesu Christi; and so in the first Form of King Edward these words, Hear us O Merciful Father, we beseech the: and with Holy Spirit and word vouch­safe to bl ✚ ess and sanc ✚ tify these thy gifts, and crea­tures of Bread md Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son (Both the Missal and that Form ordering the person consecrating at this time to take both the Bread and the Cup into his hands): Instead of this, the second Form is thus changed, ‘Hear us, O Merciful Father, we beseech thee, and▪ grant, that we▪ receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and [Page 180]Wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution; in remembrance of his Death and Passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood (omitting also the Priests touching or handling the Pattin or Chalice:) which is done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468.’ Whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols; of which also Bucer saith, p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quicquam his elementis adesse Christi extra usum praebitionis & receptionis. For the same reason it seems to be, that the Glory be to God on high &c. and the Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum Corda, the one is transferred after the Communion; and the other, o­mitted. Likewise; whereas in the administring of these Mysteries, the Missal useth this Form, Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aternam; and so also the first Book of King Edward the Second (as it were against the apprehending of any Real Presence to the Symbols, or any oral feeding on that Body) re­moveth those words, and placeth instead thereof only these: Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thank­giving: Again; Drink this in remembrance &c: So, whereas it is said in the first Form in the Player of hum­ble access, Grant us so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries; the second omits [in these holy Mysteries.] Likewise, at the end of the Communion-Service is added this Rubrick (declaring, that kneeling at the participation of the Sa­crament is required? for a signification of the humble ac­knowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy receiver; and not, for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily re­ceived; or in regard of any real or essential Presence of Christ's natural Body and Blood.) ‘Whereas its or­dained in the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion, which thing is well meant for a [Page 181]signification of the humble and grateful acknowledg­ing of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorders which about the Holy Communion might else ensue: Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any Adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily re­ceived, or unto any real and essential Presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For as con­cerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine, they remain still in their natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; for that were Idolatry. And as concern­ing the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here: for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural Body to be in moe places than one at one time.’ Thus that Rubrick; thought fit to be omitted in the Common-Prayer-Book of Queen Elizabeth; of which see the Reason below § 179. n. 2. Accordingly the Altar was changed into a Table (the sides whereof were set North and South) set near the Reading-place; ordered, at the Communion time, to be covered with a fair white Linnen Cloth; the other vestments prohibited; save only a Surplice for a Priest, and Rochet for a Bishop; and to take away all Super­stition, the Communion Bread appointed to be such as is usually eaten at the Table; but the purest of that sort that can conveniently be had, See the Rubricks of King Edward's secondCommon Prayer-Book Fol. 126.And Visita, S ck Fol. 22. And lastly; whereas the first gives caution,§. 161 that so much Bread and Wine shall be consecrated, Where Concerning the reducti­on of some­thing [...] touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to K. Edw. fr [...]st Form. as shall suffice for the persons ap­pointed to receive the Holy Communion; except some shall be reserved for the Communion of the Sick: The se­cond omits any such caution; ordering only, that the Curate have the remains to his own use.

But the new Liturgy composed for Scotland, well discerning what these alterations aimed at, reduceth all things to the former way; restores those words in the Consecration [with thy holy spirit and word &c. that [Page 182] They may be unto us the Body &c.] ordering (again) the Presbyter, that officiates, to take the Pattin and Chalice in his hands; and leaving out also the caution of non-ele­vation, which was inserted, in the first Book of King Edward: removes the words added in the delivering of the Mysteries [Take and eat this &c.] and instead thereof adds aster the former words the people's response [Amen] according to the custome of Antiquity (See Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. Histor. 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7. mensis. August. ad Orosium quaest. 49.) spoken as a Confession of their Faith, that they acknow­ledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini. Lastly requires him that officiates, that he consecrate Bread and Wine with the least, to the end there may be little left; and that what is left be not carried out of the Church, but reverently eaten and drunk by such of the Communicants▪ only, as the Presbyter, that celebrates, shall take unto him.

§. 162 All this could not pass the Observation of the Scotch­man, who in the Laudensium Autocatacrisis, Much com­plained of [...] Lauden­sium Auto­catacrisis p. 107. thus censures it. ‘In the next Prayer, saith he, [i. e. that of Consecration] are put in the words of the Mass, where­by God is besought by his omnipotent Spirit so to sancti­fy the Oblations of Bread and Wine, that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood. From these words all Pa­pists use to draw the truth of their Trans-substantia­tion; wherefore the English Reformers [i. e. the lattor] scraped them out of their Books; but our men put them fairly in. And good reason have they so to do. For long ago they professed, that, about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Con­secration, they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists; except only about the formality and mode of Presence [here quoting Mountag. Appeal, p. 289.] They make an express Rubrick for the Priest's taking the Patin, and the Chalice in his hand in the time of Con­secration. Which taking, not being either for his own participation, or the distribution to others, why shall we not understand the end of it to be, that which the [Page 183]Mass there enjoyns, their Elevation and Adoration? The Elevation being long ago practiced by some of our Bishops; and Adoration, when the Patin and Chalice are taken in the Priest's hands, avowed by Heylin's Answ. to Burt. p. 137. The English indeed, in giving the Elements to the people, retain the Mass-words; but to prevent any mischief,Autocat. p. 111. that could arise in the people's mind from their sound of a Corporal Presence, they put in at the distribution of both the Elements, two Golden Sentences: of the hearts eating by Faith; of the Soul's drinking in remembrance. But our men, being nothing affraid for the people's belief of a Cor­poral Presence, have pulled out of their hands, and scraped out of our Book, both these Antidotes. And the Mass-words thus quit of the English Antidotes must not stand in our Book simply: but that the people may take extraordinary notice of these Phrases, there are two Rubricks set up to their backs, obliging every Communicant with their own mouth to say their Amen to them. The English permit the Curate to carry home the relicks of the Bread and Wine, for his private use: but such Profanity by our Book is discharged. The Consecrate Elements are enjoyned to be eaten in the Holy place, by the Priest alone, and some of the Communicants that day: yea, for preventing of all dangers, a cautel is put in, that so few Elements, as may, be consecrate. And our Book will have the Ele­ments after the Consecration covered with a Corporal &c.’

§. 163 Thus the first Form, both when first established in King Edward's, and when revived in King Charles's time, found many Adversaries. But did the new one escape any better? No. For when all these offensive things in the second draught were amended according to several preciser fancies; yet neither so did the second content all palats, for the humour of Innovation know­eth no bounds. Soon after it was framed, as the chief body of the Clergy under Queen Mary deserted both it, and the former, and returned to the old Church-Ser­vice; so the English Protestants, that were then dis­persed [Page 184]abroad at Franckford in Germany, fell into great dissensions about it: as some for, so many against, it. See a fuller relation in Heylin's Hist of Reform. in Queen Mary. p. 59. &c. And Calvin hearing the noise thereof, as he had formerly used his Pen to the Protector &c, against the first Book; so now doth he to the English in Franckford, Calvin Ep. p. 213. against the second; saying, In Anglicanâ Liturgiâ qualem describitis [i. e. the new one, which some of them then used at Franckford] mult as video fu­isse tolerabiles ineptias. Sic ergo a talibus rudimentis in­cipere licuit, ut doctos tamen & graves Christi ministros ultra eniti & aliquid limatius ac purius quaerere consenta­neum foret. Si hactenus in Anglia viguisset sincera religio, aliquid in melius correctum multaque detracta esse oportuit. Nunc cum, eversis illis princtpiis, alibi instituenda vobis sit Ecclesia & liberum sit formam de integro componere [he thinks it seems any Pastors have power to make to them­selves new Liturgies] quid sibi velint nescio, quos faecis Papisticae reliquiae tantopere delectant. Amant ea quibus assueti sunt? Hoc nugatorium & puerile est; &c. Thus Calvin. And so Bucer likewise in his censure of the first (who died within a few weeks after he had writ it, be­fore the compiling of the second) hath blamed many things that remain in the second. After Queen Mary's death, the second Book being restored here again to its former authority, many of the more zealous Refor­mists, both by words and writings, made such oppo­sition against it, that Queen Elizabeth, in terrorem, executed two for this cause: See 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 [Page 185]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, co [...]e [...] ­ning Fast [...], C [...]l [...]bacy of the Cle [...]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 [Page 186]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. [...]. 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 Holy­days. 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,Sta [...]. 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. [Page 187]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 d [...]f­ferent from the fo [...]mer dect [...]e [...] 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 [Page 188]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 [Page 189]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, [Page 190]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, —7^th 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. 8^th In­terrog. [Page 191]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 convenit inter Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, & Clerum universum] or the like. Next, you may ob­serve, that tho the Prolocutor in the Synod 1^o Mariae questioneth, and Philpot answereth concerning the Ca­techisme, why it should be published in the name of the Synod; yet they both speak, not of the Catechisme taken by it self; but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of this Catechisme, and bound up with it; which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechisme, and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation; and so also calleth them the Catechisme, because the first title of this Book is Catechismus brevis &c. Now that they must speak of the Articles is plain; because the Catechisme as taken by it self is not at all entitled to the Synod; but only the Articles at the end thereof. The Title of the Catechisme is only this Catechismus brevis Christianae disciplinae summam continens omnibus Ludimagistris autho­ritate regiâ commendatus. Neither do those words in Philpot's Answer [that the house had committed their Sy­nodal authority to certain persons to be appointed by the King to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient &c.] agree at all to this Catechisme; but to the Ar­ticles only. For this Catechisme was made before by a private person (that is, by the Arch-bishop, if we may believe his own confession related above) and after­ward approved only by some Bishops and other eruditi viri, as the King saith in the Preface thereof. Cum bre­vis & explicata Catechismi ratio a pio quodam & erudito viro conscripta nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur, ejus dili­gentem [Page 192]inquisitionem quibusdam episcopis & aliis eruditis commisimus, quorum judicium magnam apud nos authori­tatem habet; & quia conveniens cum scripturis &c. visa est, placuit non solum eum in aspectum lucemque proferre, sed etiam propter perspicuitatem omnibus ludorum magistris ad docendum proponere &c. Neither is this Catechisme ab­stracted from the Articles any such pestiferous Book, or so full of Heresies, as the Prolocutor complains of; be­ing composed in general terms for School-boys; and not stating, scarce touching, any controversy. Add to this, that, tho the Catechisme was not made by the Synod, yet if the 42 Articles that were then printed and bound with the Catechisme, were framed by it; neither had the Prolocutor any reason to have fallen upon and gotten hands against the Catechisme, as being falsly ascribed to that Reverend Assembly, (when as, that, which was far more opposite to that which he accounted the Orthodox Religion, (namely these Articles) were known to be passed by them;) Neither would Philpot have concealed this matter; since this known Act of the Synod composing these Articles would have justified that Act of the Delegates composing the Catechisme; for the Doctrine of the Catechisme is contained in the Ar­ticles. But, if by this Catechisme both the Prolocutor and Philpot meant the Articles at the end thereof, (as it cannot be otherwise) then Philpot hath revealed to us all the truth concerning the composing or ratifying of them; and why, in the impression, they were ascribed to the Synod: Namely because the Synod had given authority to those the King should nominate, to make Ecclesiastical Laws; and so by those persons (being Epis­copi. & alii eruditi viri) were these Articles compiled or confirmed; the Synod it seems leaving both this mat­ter, and the election of the persons for doing of it to the Kings care, without reserving any review thereof to themselves, contrary to the First, Second and Sixth Theses. But Mr. Philpot discovers the motive which this Synod (if he meant this, and not some former Synod) might have to do this, when he mentions a former [Page 193]Act of Parliament, 3, 4. Edw. 6.11. c. enstating the King in this power; which Act was made two years be­fore the Session of this Synod: but then this is somewhat strange, that what was acknowledged (formerly) as the Kings right, is (now) made by Mr. Philpot the Clergy's concession to him. Thus then were these Ar­ticles made, not by, but after, the Synod: and this is the reason, why tho the production of such a Body of Articles would have been by much the solemnest Act of a Synod, that was done in King Edward's days; yet both the Records and the Historians, Fox, Godwin, An­tiquitates Britanicae, and those others, that I have seen▪ are silent therein. And the Arch-bishop, to whom it would have been an excellent defence, to have shewed them, tho of his compiling, yet to have been confirmed and generally subscribed by such a full Synod; yet he also pleads no such thing. And hence we may learn the rea­son of that which Dr. Heylin observeth p. 25. ‘That tho a Parliament was held at this very time, and that this Parliament had passed several Acts, which con­cerned Church-matters, as, an Act for Ʋniformity of Divine Service, and for the Confirmation of the Book of Ordination 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. An Act declaring, which days shall only be kept for Holy-days, and which for Fast­ing-days. 3. c. An Act against striking or drawing any weapon in the Church, or Church-yard. 4. c. An Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests. 12. c.: Yet neither in this Parliament (saith he) nor in that which followed, is there so much as the least Syllable which reflecteth this way, or medleth any thing at all with the Book of Articles.’ Thus Dr. Heylin. Which Observation, as to him it affords an Argument, that Religion reformed in these Articles therefore can be called no Parliament-Religion; so to me, that it was also no Synodal-Religion: because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating or rather prevent­ing the Synod in all other Transactions about the Refor­mation. See before, §. 47. Neither can it be said im­proper to the Parliament to enjoyn obedience to these, [Page 194]as well as it had done to other Church- or Synod-decrees.

§. 170 If it be urged here, what Philpot urged of the Cate­chisme, that these Articles are Synodical; because the Synod conceded to the King the election of such persons, who should frame and publish these Articles, without any communicating them first to the Synod: See the Answer returned to this before, §. 42.

CHAP. XI. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Eccle­siastical Affairs: And of the unlawful Ejection of the Catholicks.

§. 171 HAving thus from §. 104. viewed the course of the Reformation under King Edward; 3. The Act­ing of Qu. El [...]z. in Ec­clesiastical matters. now I pass to that under Queen Elizabeth, one much interessed to re­new an opposition to the Pope; in as much as his pro­nouncing King Henry's Marriage with Anne Bullen her Mother unlawful, invalidated her Title to the Crown. Upon which Mary the Queen of Scots a Catholick,All the for­mer decrees of the Cler­gy in King Henry and Edw. days being rever­sed by the Clergy i [...] Q. Mary's d [...]ys newly married to the Daulphin of France, and animated by the 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 [Page 195]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; [Page 196]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.H [...]r calling of a Sy [...]od which de­clareth a­gainst the R [...]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 Ʋniversities in an Instrument under the hand of a publick Notary; wherein, they, both, did concur to [Page 197]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 [Page 198]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 [Page 199]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, 1 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, 2 take away and change Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Rites, so the same be to edification. 3.3 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 [Page 200]to the Church, Ʋniversal, 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 [Page 201]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 Reg [...]l Su [...]remancy and all that K. Edw. h [...]d done in the Ref [...]rm [...]tio [...] now re-esta­blished by the Queen and Pa [...]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 [Page 202]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 [Page 203]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 E [...]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;

She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Cere­monies, [Page 204]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 (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. [...]. 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. B [...]t n [...]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 [Page 205]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 twelve­month (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 [Page 207]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:2 That there is some Su­premacy, in or dine ad Spiritualia, to which no Forreign State or Prelate may lay claim. As, besides that which [Page 208]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 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 [Page 209]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 [Page 210]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 [Page 211] Mary, reversed it. Neither is it enough for our men, for the setling of such Supremacies upon the Crown,Ham. Schis. c. 7. p. 150. to prove, that they belong not to the Pope, as long as they may belong to the National Clergy, and to Councils. The qualification of such Regal Supremacy, which Dr. Fern, Examin. Champ. p. c. §. 16.20. hath pro­duced as mitigating it, see replyed to before §. 72. And see himself, (if I mistake him not) also defending such Regal Supremacy, as is here affirmed to be claimed in the places quoted below, §. 205: and not only him, but many other learned Protestant Divines. And there­fore well might those Bishops understand the regal Su­premacy in the Oath, in the same latitude, as these still do allow and maintain it. But see Mr. Thorndike (Just Weights, 20. c) freely acknowledging what we have said here, and desiring therefore the abrogating of this, and the enacting of a new, Oath. — ‘It is manifest (saith he) that not only the unlimited power of the Pope, but all authority of a General Council of the Western Churches (whereof the Pope is and ought to be the chief Member) may justly seem to be disclaimed, by other words of the same Oath; and that, whereas the Pope usurped not only upon the Crown, but upon the Clergy of this Kingdome; all those Usurpations [as welt upon Clergy as King] are, by the Act of resump­tion under Hen. 8. invested in the Crown. So that, when the Oath declares to maintain all Rights and Pre­eminences annexed to the Crown, you may understand that maintenance which a Subject owes his Sovereign against those that pretend to force his [just] claim from Him; But you may also understand that mainte­nance, which a Divine owes the Truth in asserting the Title of the Crown to all Rights [whatever now] vest­ed in it. Which [maintenance] he that believes that some Rights of the Church are invested in the Crown, ought not to undertake. — And again below: There is an appearance (saith he) that the mis-understand­ing of this Oath hath produced an opinion destructive to one Article of the Creed; [viz.] to the being of [Page 212]any Visible Church, as Founded by God. And besides it is not possible that all they, who are called to this Oath by Law, can ever be able to distinguish that sense in which they ought, from that wherein they ought not, to take it. And therefore of necessity, the Law gives great offence; and that offence is the sin of the King­dome, and calls for Gods Vengeance upon it. There­fore there is great reason, why, the Kingdome should enact a new Oath &c. Thus He.’

§. 185 2. For the second part of the Oath:2. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesi­astical affairs: how far it is to be acknow­ledged. And therefore I do utterly renounce all Forreign Jurisdictions &c: You are first to note. That from what is said before in the Oath [that the Queens Highness is the only Supreme Governor in all Ecclesiastical things] it followeth; That so far as the Oath binds any to renounce all Forreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or Authority, save the Queens, (that is, for any such Jurisdiction in Spirituals, as the Queen claimeth, whether such Jurisdiction be challenged by the Pope, or by a General Council for here none is excepted) so far the Oath bindeth him also to renounce all Domestick Jurisdiction and Authority, (whether it be of the Arch-Bishops, or Bishops, or of a National Synod) in respect of, such Jurisdiction as is claimed by the Prince. So that none, who holdeth any such Jurisdiction in the Clergy at home, as others put in the Clergy or some Prelate abroad, may think that he escapeth the reach and power of the Oath, because of the word [Forreign] inserted therein. Having given you this pre-caution then, that you swear as well a­gainst any Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, or the National Synod of this Church, as of the Pope, or of a General Council concerning the Jurisdiction that is challenged by the Prince: Now to consider the thing it self. There may be such a Forreign or also Domestick Ecclesiastical Supremacy and Authority, as no way op­poseth the good of the Civil State, nor any just privi­ledge of a Secular Prince; but rather much corrobo­rated and fortifieth it: and again as mainly tendeth to the unity and peace of the Church; which thro all [Page 213]the world is only one Corporation and Body. And such Supremacy may be instituted and established, either by our Saviour; or by his Apostles; or later Eccle­siastical Constitution: as the varying State of the Church may stem to require. Neither can an Authority, thus established, and relating only to Spiritual Affairs, be justly disturbed or annulled by any Secular Governor; neither Heathen (as is granted by all) nor Christian (as there is more reason, that he, who is a Son and Subject of the Church, should never do it) as hath been she wed in Chur. Govern. 1. Par. §. 38. and Succes. Cler. §. [...]. Again there actually is such a Supremacy for some Spiritual matters by some of the former ways given to the Representative of the whole Church Ca­tholick, General Councils (which have been hitherto Forreign, and perhaps will always be so:) which Coun­cils have a Jurisdiction and Authority over, and whose Canons and Decrees do oblige, particular Churches, tho the Secular Magistrate dissent or oppose; as the Em­peror Constantius opposed the Nicene condemnation of Arianisme. Secondly, There is also given,2 at least in the intervals of these Councils, a Supremacy to the Bishop of the Apostolick See of Rome: to whom also is committed the care of seeing to the execution of the Canons and Decrees of these General Councils in all par­ticular Churches: as hath been shewed in Chur. Gov. 1. Par. And such Supremacy was ratified by the Clergy of this Nation; as formerly, so in their late Synods under Qu. Mary, and also under Qu. Elizabeth: See before §. 175. Art. 4. which Synods stood in force at the imposition of this Oath. Of these Supremacies thus Mr. Thorndike (Due way of composing differences p. 7.) ‘It were a contradiction for the Church of England to pray for the Catholick Church and the unity thereof, and yet renounce the Jurisdiction of the whole Church, and the General Councils thereof, over it self. King James acknowledgeth the Pope to be Patriarch of the West; that is, Head of the General Council of the Western Churches. And Thomas Lord Bishop of Winchester [Page 214]under Queen Elizabeth being demanded, why we own him not so in effect? Answereth bluntly but truly, be­cause he is not content with the Right of a Patriarch. For should he disclaim the pretence of dissolving the bond of Allegiance, should he retire to the Priviledges of a Patriarch, in seeing the Canons executed; the Schism would lye at our door, if we should refuse it [deny such his Patriarchship.] Thus He.’ Now whether, upon ones demanding more than his right; we may (after­ward) lawfully deny him his right, or, for ever after, swear that he hath no right, judge you: as likewise whether the General Councils have lost their right, to­gether with their Head, the Pope? Again of the Su­premacy of a General Council over particular Churches, and so over this of England thus Bishop Bramhal (Reply to Chalced. p. 293.) upon the words in the Oath [and that no Forreign Prelate hath &c.] ‘A General Council, which is no standing Court, but an aggregate body, composed partly of our selves [i. e. of the Prelates of the Church of England] is neither included here nor in­tended.’ General Councils then, it seems, of which the English Prelates are a part, have a Jurisdiction, over a particular Church, not subordinate to the Secular Go­vernors thereof. And if a General Council be once thus admitted, I see not how the Head thereof will be totally excluded; 3 nor yet inferior Synods. Thirdly, There is a Supremacy in Spiritual matters, Decisions, and De­crees (I mean as to an independance on the Secular Power for the exercising their office, and enacting or divulging of such Decrees) belonging to the Metropoli­tans and their Provincial Synods in all National or Pro­vincial Churches; if the First and Second Thesis above stand good.

§. 186 To require therefore upon Oath an utter renouncing of any such Forreign,That the renouncing such Supre­macy was required of those Bi­shops.or also Domestick, Clergy-Supre­macy, is not lawful. But such was required of these Bishops, as appears; 1. by the express words of the Oath; and 2. by the giving of all such Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by Any Spiritual or Eccle­siastical [Page 215]power [i. e. Forreign or Domestick] had thither­to been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm, to the Queen, at the same time, that this Oath was made; See before §. 70. And 3. by the practice of these times suitable.

Neither, here, are those Pleas good: that one may take away a just authority from him, who hath exercised an unjust. (for will Secular Princes admit this Rule concerning themselves?) Or that any small part of the Church Catholick, if declining to joyn with the whole, is not obliged to the Constitutions of the whole; Or, not later ages to the Constitutions of the former: Or, that no particular Church is tyed to the Constitutions of Superior Councils past or present in matter of Church Government or Discipline, but only in matters of Faith: Or,See Church G [...]v. par. 1. sect;. 38.40.59. 2. Par. §. 63. 3. Par. §. 27. n. 2. that the Church of England hath not given her consent to such for­mer Constitutions concerning such Church-Government, as well as other Churches: All which have been discussed in their places. Now if these Bishops were, thus, un­justly ejected for refusing to take an unlawful Oath; it follows,Sac. Clerg. §. that the Bishops succeeding them were un­justly introduced; and, consequently, their Synodal Acts illegal and void.

§. 187 To prevent which inference, I find this pleaded by Dr. Fern, Examin. Champ. 2. c. p. 84.That so ma­ny of Queen Mary's Bi­shops could not be eject­ed on any other groūd so as to rea­der the Pro­testant Bi­shops a ma­jor part,That, had none of these Bishops been removed, yet the Queens Re­forming-Bishops in Synod would have made a major part ‘For (saith he) α α there were six Bishops re­maining [of King Edward's;] and besides, there were many Bishopricks actually void at Queen Mary's death; which Bishopricks being supplyed [by Queen Elizabeth] there was no fear, that the Popish Bishops (who were very suddenly reduced to Nine by death or by quitting the Land) should make the major part; had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote.’ Thus He. To which it is added by others: β β That no new Bishops had been elect­ed into the vacant Bishopricks, yet if so many only of these Queen Mary's Bishops should have been displaced, as [Page 216]came into the Bishopricks of King Edward's former Pro­testant Bishops unjustly cast out; the six remaining Bi­shops of King Edward, with Landaff joyned to them, would have out-numbred the remainder of Queen Mary's Bishops.

§. 188 Reply to αBut to these 'tis easily replyed. To α; That 1. First it hath been shewed already, That some of these six Bishops could not lawfully now act, because justly re­moved from their Bishopricks in Queen Mary's days; 1 of the Suffragan Bishops,See before, §. 54. &c. more by and by. Secondly, That Queen Elizabeth could not justly and legally sup­ply the then vacant Bishopricks with any persons,2 but such as the major part of her present Clergy (which surely were Catholicks, and would have admitted no other) did first approve of, consecrate, and confirm. Of which see what is said before in the Third Thesis, and in the Church-Canons there-cited. To which I will add the testimony of Mr. Thorndike, Right of the Church, 5. c. p. 248. &c. ‘The fourth Canon (saith he) of the Council of Nice requireth, that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Pro­vince [sifieri potest.] Which Council because it can­not always be had; therefore it is provided [there] that two or three may do the work, the rest consent­ing and authorizing the proceeding. And this is that, which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided, to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in unity. But when, among the Bishops of any Pro­vince, part consent to Ordination, part not: the unity of the Church cannot be preserved; unless the con­sent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part. And therefore it seemeth, that there can no valid ordination be made, where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent. Which is con­firmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome. Which, tho done by three Bishops, yet was the Foundation of that great Schisme; because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by Sixteen. Thus Mr. Thorndike.’

§. 189 To β.To β. 1. First, that those may be lawful Bishops, who come into the places of other Bishops whilst living, if the other be justly ejected,1 as King Edward's Bishops were. Secondly,2 That of the fifteen Catholick Bishops there were only four that came into the place of any Protestant Bishop living when he was first elected there­to, namely Heath, Bourne, Christophorson, See before, §. 54. and Turber­vile, into the place of Holgate, Barlow, Scory, and Co­verdale. (For all of the rest, Bonner, Pate, White, Gold­well, Watson, Poole, Scot, Bayne, Oglethorp, Thirlby, Ton­stal succeeded either Catholick Bishops, or Protestant Bishops deceased:) And those four Protestant Bishops were all married persons, and so excluded by the Canon; and three of them, Holgate, Barlow, Coverdale, married Monks. But of the fifteen Catholick Bishops there were only two that came into the place of any Protestant Bishop, when living: which Protestant Bishop had not first entred into the place of a Catholick Bishop, when living. For Coverdale and Scory Protestants came into the Catholicks Day's and Voicy's Bishopricks in King Ed­ward's time whilst they living. The truth of these things you may see in Godwins Catalogue of Bishops.

CHAP. XII. The Canonical Defects of King Edward's, and Queen Elizabeth's new Bishops.

§. 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 [Page 218]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 [...]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 j [...]stified [...]ollinshe [...]d p. 1309. 26. He [...]. 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:Concern [...]g the defect, of the n [...]w Bishop O [...] ­dained in Qu. El [...]z [...] ­beth' [...] 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 [Page 219]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, [...]m Ordines, qua [...] Beneficia Ecclesiastica, ceu alias Spirituales mat [...]rias prae­tensâ supremitate authoritatis Ecclesiasticae Anglican [...], licet nulliter & de facto obtinuerint, & ad cor reversae [pe [...]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 [Page 220]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 onely from his Presbytership,See Fox p. 1604. and not his Episcopacy: For, saith he, We do not acknowledge you for a Bishop. Which had he under­stood quoad Excercitium, and not also quoad Characterem; then neither so ought he to have acknowledged him for, or degraded him as, a Presbyter; he being, quoad excer­citium, [Page 221]no more the one then the other. Now the reason why he acknowledged him no Bishop quoad Cha­racterem, was, I conceive, upon supposition that Ridley was not ordained by the old Form; because much of­fence being taken at that old Form, we may conjecture by the reason given in the Preface of the Statute recited before §. 42. that also before the new set-form estab­lished, there were in Ordinations some varyings from the old. The same you may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old Form; Bishop by the new: and therefore degraded in Queen Mary's days only as a Priest. Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new Form: and therefore, in his condemnation not degra­ded at all, but treated as a meer Laick. In these days likewise Bishop Bonner writ a Book call'd A pro­fitable and necessary Doctrine, &c. wherein he contend­eth,See F. a S. Clara E [...] ­chirid. p. 93. that the new devised Ordination of Ministers was unsufficient and void: because no authority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; but both the Ordainer and Or­dained despised and impugned not onely the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass, but also the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. Lastly 'tis probable, that Mason and others,Art. of Edw. 6.28. Art. to whom this dispensation could not be unknown, and was so serviceable for this Controversy, would not have left it unmentioned; could they have made any such con­struction thereof as Bishop Bramhal doth.

2 2. In general, those who are truly ordained, yet, if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church, their true Orders, as to the exercise of them, are unlawful; and so, unless a Church be first cleared from Heresy and Schisme, these Orders are not rightly employed in it. And those also, who receive the Sacraments from their Ministery, do (tho truly, yet) fruitlesly receive them. I mean so many, as by their obstinacy or ignorance culpable are guilty of the same Heresy or Schisme: because these do not receive with the Sacrament gratiam sanctificatio­nis or charitatem, or jus ad regnum caelorum, thro such [Page 222]their sin; without which Charity any other fruition of the Sacrament is nothing worth. [Of which thus St. Austine, De Baptis. 7. l. 52. c. against the Donatists concerning their Priests giving, and others receiving the Sacrament of Baptisme from them. Habent [po­testatem dandi baptismum] quamquam inutiliter habe­ant: & accipitur ab eis etiam, cum inutile est accipientibus: quod ut fiat utile, ab haeresi vel schismate recedendum est. 54. c. Infructuose atque inutiliter [tradunt baptismum] tales talibus in eo, quod regnum Dei non possidebunt. Haereticis correctis baptisma non incipit adesse quod deerat, sed prodesse, quod in­erat. And thus the Schools-Haereticus [i. e. manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisus] excommunicatus &c. non amittit potestatem conferendi Sacramentum, sed licentiam utendi hâc potestate, & ideo quidem confert, sed tamen peccat conferendo: & similiter ille, qui ab eo accipit Sacramentum; & sic non percipit rem Sa­cramenti [i e. gratiam sanctificationis] nisi forte per ignoran­tiam excusetur. Si sunt manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisi, ex hoc ipso, quod aliquis accipit Sacramenta ab eis peccat, & per hoc impeditur, ne effectum Sacramenti consequatur. Thus Aquinas, p. 3.64. ^q 9. ^a.] And then what great difference in the giver of such Sacraments, not to have true Or­ders, and not to have the power to use them? Or in the receiver of the Sacraments, not to have true Sacra­craments, and not to be benefited by them? Excepting only such, who living in such a separate Society are by their invincible ignorance excused from fault; to whom it is granted, that such Sacraments are effectual. When they return to the unity of the Church indeed, then his true Orders formerly received become to the one usable, and the true Sacraments formerly received to the other profitable. But this is in effect all one, as if then the one first de novo received Orders; §. 193 3. and the other the Sacraments.Whether their Ordi­nation un­lawful ac­cording to the Church C [...].

3. But again, tho I do not here state the question; Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops: Yet their Introduction and Ordination, if valid, seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful:1 Because they came many of them into the [Page 223]places of others unjustly expelled. 2.2 Because neither the major part nor any, save one, of the former in­cumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordi­nation:See Thes. 3. §. 6.7. which consent is a thing most necessary for preservation of the Church, both in true Doctrine and in Unity. Of which you have heard but now Mr. Thorn­dike's Testimony. Who, in the same place, applying his Doctrine to this very fact, goeth on thus; ‘Now it is manifest, that the Ordinations, by which that Order [of Bishops] is propagated in England at and since the Reformation, were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province; but against their mind, tho they made no contrary Or­dinations. And by the same means it is manifest, that all those Ecclesiastical Laws, by which the Reforma­tion was established in England [i. e. by these new Bi­shops] were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church; if we set aside the Secular power, that gave force unto that which was done [by the Bi­shops] contrary to that rule, wherein the unity of the Church consisteth. But in other parts, the Refor­mation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters, or any consent, which was able to con­clude the Church by the Constitution of the Church; that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot, if not worse, i. e. detested, among them. Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us; that, the unity of the whole being [thus] dissolved by the Reformation [i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops, or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops:] the unity of the Re­formation cannot be preserved, but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us. The like he saith before, p. 248. If the Clergy of that time [i. e. in the begin­ning of Queen Elizabeth's Reformation] had been sup­ported in that power, which, by the premises [set down and justified in his Book] is challenged on behalf of the Clergy; this Reformation could not have been brought to pass, 3.’ 3 Because to prevent all division [Page 224]and faction, as likewise to appoint a certain place and bounds for the exercise of his Jurisdiction, no Bishop, by the Church-Canon, can be made without the con­sent of his Superior, the Metropolitan; nor Metropoli­tan without the consent of the Patriarch:See Chur. Gov. 1. par. 9. §. who is to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans under his Patri­arch-ship; either by imposition of hands himself, or by appointing his Ordainers, (at which time his Bull for authorizing the Ordainers was used to be read) and by Mission of the Pall: See Conc. Nic. 4. c. Can. Apost. 34. Council Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Act. 8. Ge­neral Council, 10. c. confessed by Protestants: by Dr. Field, 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. and 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitan's subject unto them might be ordained. What they bring proves nothing, that we ever doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of Confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own. Patriarch-ship. By Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. 9. c. p. 297. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province, the same had a Pa­triarch over the Metropolitans, &c. Wherein then consist­ed Patriarchal Authority? In ordaining their Metropo­litans, or confirming them, in imposing of hands, or giving the Pall, &c. And indeed what defence can the Church have from frequent Schisme, if two or three, or a few Bishops, dissenting from the whole, may not only make other persons of the like inclinations Bishops to govern the people with them; but also may make new Metro­politans to preside over themselves? But Arch-Bishop Parker was thus ordained by two Bishops of the same Province, without and against the consent, of the Pa­triarch; and of the Arch-Bishops Vice-gerent, side va­cante, the Bishop of London; and of the other Metro­politan, the Arch-Bishop of York. Neither did he re­ceive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Eccle­siastical Superior; but meerly that which the Queen (a Lay-person) by these men, her Delegates in this im­ployment, did undertake (according to the warrant of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. contrary to the First and Third [Page 225] Thesis above) to confer upon him. Which Delegates of her's were none of them at that time possessed of any Diocess, (Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chicester, and Hereford; and Coverdale never admitted or elected to any; and Hoskins a Suffragan) nor, had they had Diocesses, could have had any larger jurisdiction save only within these; at least, being single Bishops, could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction; which yet they conferred on Parker, not on their own surely, but on the Queens score. And then, might not she at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction, which he held only on her gift?See above the First and Third Thes. 4. Of their four Bishops, that undertook to ordain Parker, three, Barlow, Coverdale and Scory, were upon several accounts justly before deprived or their Bishopricks; 4 and as for the fourth, Hoskins the Suffragan,See before, §. 58.189.190. these had their office formerly taken away, and never after re­stored. Neither, their authority standing good,See before, §. 190. is one or two Bishops a competent number for Ordination. 5. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops,5 as it was made in Edward the Sixth's time; so it was revoked by Synod in Queen Mary's days; and by no Synod afterward restored, before their Ordination. Revoked also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days, and not by any Act restored,1. Mar. 2. c. till long after the Or­dination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops, viz. in 8. Eliz. 1. Upon Bonner's urging hereupon, that the Queens, were no legal, Bishops.

§. 194 And for such considerations as these, it seems, it was, that the Queen in her Mandate to Coverdale, Scory, Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesi­asticals her dispensing with the former Ec­clesiastical Laws for their Ordi­nation. &c. for the Ordination of her new Arch-Bishop Parker, &c. was glad, out of her Spiritual Supremacy, and Univer­sal jurisdiction, (which the Parliament had either given, or recognized to belong to her; and had enacted also, That Her Majesty might assign, name and authorize any per­son being natural born Subjects to her Highness to exercise all manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction, [of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining.] See 1. Eliz. 1.) to di­spense, and give them leave to dispense to themselves, [Page 226]with all former Church-laws, which should be transgrest, in the electing, consecrating, and investing of this Bishop. The words in her Letters Patents to them are these, Mandantes, quatenus vos eundem in Archiepiscopum & pa­storem ecclesiae praedictae confirmare & consecrare &c. velitis. Supplentes nihilominus Supremâ authoritate nostrâ regiâ, si quid in vobis aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, aut fa­cultate vestris, ad praemissa perficienda desit eorum, quae per leges ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessa­ria sunt, temporis ratione & rerum necessitate id postulante. [Which Dispensation some would restrain only to these Ordainers their using of the new Ordinal before it was licensed again by a new Parliament after the repeal thereof by Parliament in Queen Mary's day.Bish. Bram. Consecrat. of Protestant Bishop [...] 4. c. P. 94. But this was a scruple started afterward by Bishop Bonner; and not now dreamt on. Nor did the new Ordinal want sufficient Lay-licence, having the Queens; nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it (for which see ibid. Bishop Bramh. p. 96:) nor are those words in the Dispensation — Si quid in vobis conditione, statu &c, rerum necessitate id postulante, applicable to it.] ‘And these are the words in the Instrument of Arch-Bishop Parker's Confirmation — Nos &c, praedictam electionem Matthaei Parker in Archiepiscopum &c, Supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis in hac parte commissâ confirmamus.’ Supplentes ex supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis delegatâ, quicquid in nobis aut aliquo nostrum &c. And, notwith­standing this regal Dispensation, yet afterward, ‘Di­vers questions [to give you it in the words of the Statute 8. Eliz. 1. c.] by overmuch boldness of speech and talk, amongst many common sort of people being un­learned, growing upon the making and consecrating of Arch-Bishops and Bishops within this Realm, whe­ther the same were and be duly and orderly done ac­cording to the Law or not?’ [give me leave here to suppose that these scrupulous people meant according to the Ecclesiastical Law; for what doth the observing of the Civil Law concern them in the ordaining of their Spiritual Governors?] ‘which is much tending to the slander of [Page 227]all the State of the Clergy, being one of the greatest States of this Realm;’ It is answered to them in the same Statute thus, ‘That the Queens Majesty in her Letters Patents &c, had not only used such words, as were accustomed to be used by King Henry and Edward, but also had put, in those Letters, divers other general words, whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes, or doubts, of any imperfections or disability, that could be ob­jected against the same. So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness [i. e. in Ecclesiasticals] which she had used and put in ure in the making and conse­crating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops,See it be­fore, §. 70 it is evi­dent, that no cause of scruple, ambiguity, or doubt, can be justly objected against the said Consecrations, &c.’ Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satis­faction of those, whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church, in these Church matters. And the Answer seems in effect this, That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church, yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land: and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination; because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any re­pugnant Laws of the Church.

§. 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy. And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Sub­ject; this reformed Clergy being such persons, as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince; and therefore it is not strange, if the Prince acted no more against, but by, them; and began now a-new to use the Synod more, than the Senate, in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs.

CHAP. XIII. The Opinion of several Protestant Divines con­cerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy.

§. 196 ONly, before I conclude this Discourse, let me shew you,The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prin­ce's reform­ing of Reli­gion in matters of do­ctrine a­gainst the major part of his Cler­gy, when to him seemeth a necessity that requi­reth it. after all the rest; that, as it hath been affirm­ed here, that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation, but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof: So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines, tho they contend, that our Princes did not so; Yet, as if they doubted much, whether they should be able to make this good, do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves; that a Prince, when there is a necessity that requires it, of which necessity the Prince is to judge, or in cases extraordinary, of which cases the Prince is to judge, may lawfully reform Religion, both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline, contrary to the major part of the Clergy (these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel.) Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants, whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Su­periors: Nay also, in the beginning of this work, such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land. And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent; because if they should once maintain, That no Reformation is valid, which is done against the major part of the National Clergy; by the same reason they must assert, that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid, which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy; or of the Church, or Council; to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience.

§. 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion, is that of Dr. Field. He,The Opinion of Dr. Field. after these specious Concessions, ‘We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy.Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again: We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be He­resy, without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy; but only to judge in those matters of Faith, that are resolved on, according to former resolutions.’ [Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion: but, in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils; in matters not formerly determined, to the judgment of his Clergy [i. e. the major part thereof:] Yet, after such specious Con­cessions, I say, he proceedeth, as it were to protect the Reformation, on this manner, ‘Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Wor­ship and Service, there is no question, but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church, to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth, are the ordinary and fittest Judges: and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them. But because they may fail [they; i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, and not onely single persons, but Synods of them; else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods, and a minor by the major part, and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them; and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular. Nei­ther needs the Prince to remove the matter from these, to other, Judges] either thro negligence, ignorance, or malice, Princes having charge over Gods people; and being to see, that they serve and worship him aright, are to judge and condemn them [the foresaid Clergy] that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians; or, into any other Heresies formerly condemned [I conceive he meaneth, condemned by for­mer [Page 230]Councils.] And tho there be no general failing [in the Clergy:] yet if they see violent and partial courses taken, they may interpose themselves to stay them, and cause a due proceeding; or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another [I suppose he mean­eth, either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges; or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes, to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves: for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordi­nary.’ But here he speaks what the Prince may do extra­ordinarily.] Thus Dr. Field.

§. 198 Who (not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him:Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis, nisi cui deplorata res est.) here seems to six the Prince, as one that cannot fail thro negligence, ignorance or malice to others, or at least cannot fail so soon, as the whole body of the Clergy may; (what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they?) As one that hath a charge over Gods people, and is to see, that they worship God aright: as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he; or, as if he could judge what was right in Gods Worship, better than they. Again: he represents this body, or the major part of this Clergy as those that may fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians; and into Heresies con­demned, he meaneth, by former Clergy. But why may not those former Clergy be supposed by the Prince to have erred sometimes contrary to the common sense of Christians, as well as the present Clergy? And if the present Clergy may err against common sense in Spiri­tual matters; why may not the Secular Prince sooner? And why should not they discern former condemned Heresies, better than he? Or if in all these things the Prince be liable to mistakes, to sects, and sides, and par­tialities, as much as they: why are not they made his Judges in these Spiritual matters, who cannot be denyed to be his Spiritual Fathers in respect of his Christianity; rather than he theirs? But however this Dr. plainly saith: that there may be some cases, wherein, concern­ing [Page 231]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 [Page 232]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 [Page 233]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? 'Tis 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. that, Regis est veri­tatem cognitam promulgare, & subditis, cujuscunque sint ordinis, imperare. And 2. that, in consulting his Clergy about such truth, he ought not suffragiorum numero tantum credere, quantum veritati; and ought paucis secundum scrip­turas docentibus [i. e. in his opinion, which Prince is, casually, of an able, or weak, judgment, as other men are] potius credere, quam 400 non docentibus secundum scripturas. Which I undertook to shew you. There­fore King Edward shall rather believe Cranmer and Ridley, and Queen Elizabeth Dr. Cox and Mr. Grindale docenti­bus veritatem, (i. e. most commonly, that Doctrine, to which such Princes have been formerly educated and ac­customed,) than 400 in a Synod teaching the contrary.

§. 201 The next I shall name to you on this subject is Bishop Andrews; Of B sh [...]p Andrews. who after he had declared thus in Tort. Tort. p. 380. Rex noster vestrum illud (quod ad primatum pontificium proprie pertinere dicitis) docendi munus, vel dubia legis explicandi, non assumit: Yet in his Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 14. p. 332. to Bellarmine urging Deut. 17. &c. That the supreme decisive judgment in divine matters belongeth to the Priests, thinketh fit to answer thus; Rex adibit Sacerdotes; ubi tamen hoc fecerit, cum in Deute­ronomio dicere jubeantur sacerdotes & docere juxta legem Dei, See the like Tort. Tort. p. 370. leget exemplar suum Rex (quod sibi descripsit, ut se­cum habeat) ut sciat an ex eâ respondeant. E Malachiá sciet, cos a quibus requirere jubetur legem, interdum rece­dere de viâ, & scandilizare plurimos in lege: quare recurret denuo ad exemplar suum. A Christo autem discet, ut Phari­saeos e cathedrâ docentes audire, ita a Pharisaeorum fermento, i. e. doctrinâ aliquâ, cavere.—Pascua petet; nec sibi Pastor erit, sed sibi tamen gustabit: &, si amarum pabulum & noxium, gustabit, ut Christus acetum: quod, cum gustasset, noluit bibere. Where the Prince is allowed both to try and reject the Clergy's doctrines; when, upon tasting, he finds the doctrine to be pabulum amarum & noxium, and the Clergy, recedere de viâ & non docere juxta legem Dei. And then, since the Prince doth not tast and try only for himself, as private persons do, but for all his Subjects also; consequently it will belong to him, veritatem cognitam promulgare, & subditis suis cu­juscunque sunt ordinis imperare against the Priests, when recedentes e viâ. Wherein the Bishop's, concurs with Mason's, Doctrine. Again: Cap. 1. to Bellarmine urging a place of S. Ambrose he replies thus; Verum laudat Am­brosium,St. Ambros. Ep. 2. l. 13. Epist. qui negat in causis ecclesiasticis Imperatorem idoneum cognitorem [i. e. judicem] Quem? Valentini­anum juniorem, imberbem, nec dum baptizatum, totum ex matris arbitrio pendentem, quae ipsa [...]. Sed esto. Quid hoc ad rem? Non de cognitione causarum hic agitur, ad quam non tam fortasse semper idoneus Rex (qui saepe immaturâ aetate, saepe infans, saepe Marti magis ad­dictus, quam Mercurio.) Agitur de authoritate, quae ido­neos [Page 235]cognitores det. 1 Where the Bishop 1. first seemeth very loth to yield Princes in causis ecclesiasticis non esse idoneos cognitores; using a non tam fortasse semper; and catching at Valentinian's being junior, imberbis, nec dum baptizatus, ex matris arbitrio pendens, &c. When as S. Ambrose giveth his reason plainly, for that the Emperour was Laicus. (But upon this word the Bishop thought not fit to touch) Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator) (saith St. Ambrose) in causâ fidei laicos de Episcopo judicare? What? not, quando Episcopus recedit de viâ, quando non docet juxta legem; then shall not the Prince recurrere ad ex­emplar suum &c? 2. The Bishop in allowing, at last,2 this authority to the Prince [ut det idoneos cognitores] I think will be found to allow, what he would fain wave. For what meaneth he by dare idoneos cognitores? The authority to call a Council or Synod of the Clergy, those Judges whom our Lord Christ hath given us for these matters; to be changed or altered by no other Lord whatever; whose final judgment in these matters the Prince himself is to stand-to and follow?See 3. Thes. §. 5, 6. But this can­not be his meaning; because after their teaching and judgment, the Prince is to recurrere ad exemplar suum: a fermento e cathedrâ docentium cavere: not only sibi, but subditis suis gustare; whether their Pabulum be dulce & salutare, or amarum & noxium; and accordingly to re­commend, or prohibite it to his people. Or meaneth he, that, amongst this Clergy that are not all of one judgment (for example, some reformers, a smaller part; some anti-reformers, a greater;) the Prince may autho­rize those of them, whom he judgeth the more orthodox, to be the cognitores in causis ecclesiasticis? But thus, a­mongst these Cognitores differing, for the Prince to chuse and decide which party of them shall decide such con­troversies, is all one in effect, as for himself to decide such controversies; He allowing such and not another to be teacher, from first a judging and an approving of, his Doctrine.

§. 202 I must confess I find elsewhere a timorousness, as to me seemeth, in Bishop Andrews, tho speaking much on [Page 236]this Subject, to speak out plainly concerning this branch of Supremacy; Whether the Prince may reform any thing in matters of Faith against the major part of Church-Go­vernors or against Synods: Yet is this the chief point of Supremacy which sustaineth the English Reforma­tion. Amongst all the parts of the Regal Primacy, which he reckoneth up p. 373. and again p. 380, 381. against Tortus, this is not, that I can discern at all, di­rectly spoken to. He saith indeed p. 380. Regi jus nul­lum esse vel fidei novos articulos, vel cultus divini novas for­mulas procudendi. But here novos may be opposed either to the former decrees of the Synods and Councils of the Church; or only to the Scriptures; and he may mean the later. Again, p. 365. to Tortus saying; Regi ex officio incumbere, ut qui in doctrinâ sunt abusus & corrup­telas tollat; sed post ecclesiae declarationem: he answers; Nos vero citra declarationem omnem, ubi repurgatae sunt corruptelae per Reges, docemus. Where you may observe this still left in doubt: Whether Rex contra declarationem &c. may do such things; and yet, if the King be bound to consult the Church first in such matters, according to Mal. 2.8, his reforming will still be either secundum; or contra; and not citra only. Neither is it credible, but that both Hezekiah and Josiah &c. consulted with the Priests in their Reformation. Again, p. 369. he saith: Authoritate Rex propriâ resecare potest superstitio­nes quas sacerdotes ipsi tolerant; but he saith not; quas sacerdotes ipsi docent nen esse superstitiones. Again, p. 364. he speaks thus of a thing done. In Israele praecipuae in re religionis partes penes Regem extiterunt; vel uno hoc argu­mento, quod per sacrae historiae seriem totam mutato novi regis animo mutata semper est facies religionis. Nec Pon­tifices unquam vel praestare poterant, ut fieret mutatio in me­lius; vel ne fieret in pejus, impedire. And p. 368. Passim per fastos sacros quod in religione fit, a rege fieri diserte dici­tur, Regis factum esse: Pontificis haud unquam, nisi ex Regis mandato. But I hope he will not hence infer; that summa religionis is not penes Pontifices, if the Prince apo­statizeth from the true Religion; or that the Church [Page 237]Governors may do nothing contra Regis mandatum; nor may oppose him and teach the people contrary to his Reformations; where they judge that he reformeth not aright (what did the Church-Governors for the first 300 years?) Especially since p. 377. (which I desire you much to mark) he alloweth such Ecclesiastical Pri­macy as the good Kings of Israel used, not to all, but only to Christian, Princes; and to Christian Princes, not all, but only those not heretical; and I suppose he would say also, not schismatical (for if the Prince were heretical or schismatical he well saw the mischief of such a power) so he saith there. Interim autem sit vel infide­lis [Princeps] sit vel haereticus; Oretur pro eo, non minus quam pro Nebuchadonozar; nemo vitae ejus insidietur, non magis quam Ahasueri. Fidem penes semet habeant Christiani subditi coram Deo, caeteris in rebus pietatem colant. Non ergo id agitur, ut ecclesiae persecutores ecclesiae gubernatores habeantur &c. And something toward this saith Mr. Mason, de Minist. 3. l. 5. c. if I rightly understand him. Regibus, qui vel non sunt christiani; vel si christiani, non tamen orthodoxi; vel si orthodoxi, non tamen sancti, prima­tus competit quidem, sed secundum quid: i. e. quoad au­thoritatem, non quoad rectum & plenum usum authoritatis; quoad officium, non quoad illustrem executionem officii [none such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primate­ship, unless the Author seek for some refuge in the Epi­thets rectus, plenus, & illustris.] And the same saith Bi­shop Bicson. ‘When the Magistrate doth not regard, but rather afflict the Church, as in times of infidelity and heresy; who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger?’ [To which question he answers] The Metropolitan. Now if no Prince heretical, tho Christian, hath any Primacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs; before we yield such Primacy to a Prince, we must know, whether he be not hereti­cal; and who can so rightly judge of this, as the Church or Clergy? And then, will not the Church (and is it not right to,) judge him such, when he opposeth her present or former definitions in matters of Faith? See [Page 238] Church Govern. 3. Part, §. 42. And what just Supre­macy, then, for matter of Doctrine, is left here to the Prince, but an authorizing by his coactive power the Church's decrees? Which Regal Supremacy all sides allow. But, as I said, this is contrary to what Bishop Andrews saith elsewhere; that the Princes Supremacy may oppose the Clergy, when they do (i. e. when he thinks they do) recedere de viâ, & non docere juxta le­gem Dei &c.

§. 203 The fourth Author I shall produce is Mr. Thorndike, who writing very rationally and resolutely in vindica­tion of the Church's authority,Of Mr. Thorndike. as using his Pen against modern Sectarists, yet takes care also to save the Phae­nomena of the Reformation. He therefore, in his Right of the Church, 5. c. p. 248. after he had with much free­dome shewed, That the Succession of the Clergy in such a Government as that the visible Communion of the whole Church might be perpetually kept in unity,See before, §. 188. was a Law ordained by the Apostles: and That the Refor­mation made in England had plainly violated this Law, in that the new Bishops that were introduced were made without and against the consent of the former (some of his words are cited before §. 200.) taketh this course to solve this difficulty, and to preserve the English Re­formation, notwithstanding this, from being unlawful or schismatical. ‘To come then (saith he) to the great difficulty proposed: it is to be acknowledged, that the power of the Church, in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continual Succession, is a Law ordained by the Apostles, for the unity of the Church &c. But withal it is to be acknowledged, that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, whether they concern matters of Faith; or matter of Works, &c. which proceeding from the same, if not a greater, power, than the Succession of the Church, are to be retained all, and every one of them with the same re­ligion and conscience [as the succession of the Church.] Again, I have shewed indeed, that the secular power [Page 239]is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical, in their deter­mining all things which are not [otherwise] deter­mined by our Lord and his Apostles; and to give force and effect to the acts of the same. But in matters al­ready determined by our Lord and his Apostles, as Laws given to the Church, if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law; the Sovereign power, being bound to protect Christianity, is bound to employ it self in giving strength, first, to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles. By conse­quence, if those, with whom the power of the Church is trusted, shall hinder the restoring of such Laws; the Sovereign power may and ought, by way of penalty to such persons, to suppress their power; that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles.’ Here Mr. Thorndike holds, that the Secular power may restore any law, which Christ or his Apostles have or­dained, not only against a major part, but all, the Clergy, and Governors of the Church: and may, for a penalty of their opposing it, suppress their power and commit it to others, tho they also be established by another Law Apo­stolical. Which was the thing I undertook to shew you.

§. 204 But to say something to this discourse of his. What reasonable man is there hearing this, that will not pre­sently ask: Who shall judge, whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles, which the Prince would introduce or restore, and the succession of the Clergy doth oppose? Which Clergy sure will never confess such to be a law of our Lord, but always will profess the con­trary: nay will say, that the succession of the Clergy shall keep, teach, and maintain, our Lord's laws to the end of the world? This question he asketh not; he solveth not; as writing against the Presbyterians, who will not ask it him. But what can he say? Shall the Clergy judge? They deny it to be the Lord's law, what he, against their consent, would restore. Shall the Prince judge? But this is most unreasonable, that the judg­ment of a Laick shall be preferred before the whole suc­cession [Page 240]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. J [...]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,1 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 [Page 241]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.] 2.2 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; [Page 242]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 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 2. That if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally re­ceived over all the Church; the King consulting with [Page 243]so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Cler­gy as he thinks fit to call unto him, and having their consent and direction in it, may in case of intermission or corruption, restore such practice to its primitive lustre [tho he do it against the major part of his Clergy or Synod, as you may see, p. 83.]’ 3. He intimates; 3 That if the Reformation be in such point of Doctrine, as hath been before defined in a General Council or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced; the King consulting with some of his learned Bishops may enjoyn it without or against a Synod. 4. But he saith:4 ‘That if the Reformation be in such points of Doctrine, as have not been before defined in such manner; the King, only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the point disputed, can do nothing in it. That belongs only to the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted. So he saith, p. 85. That the King cannot determine Heresies.’ 5 From this by necessary consequence it follows: That if any point of doctrine hath been determined by a former General Council (I add, or law­ful superior Council) the King neither against, nor with­out, (I add, nor with) the major part of his Clergy, can reform, or establish the contrary of, such doctrine.

§. 207 Now to reflect op the Drs. Limitations. Concern­ing the two last, I leave it to your judgment, whether, in the instances made above, the contrary to several doctrines determined by former lawful General, or other superior, Councils, have not been established by our reforming Princes, without, or also against, the major part of their Clergy. And again; whether other do­ctrines not determined by any former lawful Council, yet have not thus also, without any such consent, been established by them. Both which Dr. Heylin condemn­eth. Again, concerning all these limitations, I ask; when all or the major part of Clergy affirmeth, that such things are not corruptions in manners, nor abuses in Government; that such practices are not primitive, nor universal; that such doctrines are not formerly so deter­mined; [Page 244]and none or a smaller part of the said Clergy saith the contrary: How will Dr. Heylin here direct the Kings Supremacy? Will he here allow him, after hearing all, to follow his own judgment? Or that of the fewer against his Synod, or the major part thereof? It seems in some things he will not allow it; (See Limi­tation the fourth) and it seemeth unreasonable to be allowed in any of the rest. For why should not a Synod discern corruption in manners, as well as he, or some few? Or why may not he mistake and miscall their reason, passion, or partiality? But if the Prince follow the major part of his Clergy in their judgment of what are corruptions, what are formerly defined &c. then cannot the Prince be said or supposed to reform such corruptions &c. against this major part; whose judg­ment in this Reformation of them he followeth.

§. 208 The last I shall propose to your considering is Dr. Fern, Of Doctor Pern. Exam. Cha. 9. c. 19. §. p. 290. who speaketh somewhat more particularly in this matter. ‘He, first, affirmeth indeed in behalf of the Clergy, that the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate, proper and ordinary, Judges in de­fining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline.— And, That they have a co­ercive power in a Spiritual restraint of those that ob­stinately gain-say, as far as the power of the Keys, put into their hands by Christ, for Spiritual binding and loosing, will reach. And that this power is coer­cive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Chri­stian and continue in the Society of the Church [I sup­pose therefore upon Christian Princes also, if obstinately gain-saying]’ And 20. §. He quoteth, 1. Eliz. 1. ‘That the judging of Heresy is restrained, for Heresies past, to the Declaration of the first General Councils, and for such as shall arise, to the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation. And §. 15. he saith: It is a mi­stake to think, that the Prince by his supreme power in Spiritual things is made supreme Judge of Faith, and decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging, and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Re­ligion. [Page 245]—Again, Ibid. he affirmeth; that the Prince's giving publick establishment [to the doctrine defined by the Clergy and evidenced to him] is not in order, to our believing (as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us, in saying our belief follows the State;) but to our secure ind free profession and exercise of Religion. For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe, as Pastors of the Church are. 1. Cor. 3.9. And §. 21. That we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church, who have commission to do it in order to our believing; and must yield obedience to the establish­ment of the Sovereign, either by doing and conform­ing thereunto, or by suffering for not doing accord­ing thereunto. And §. 25. That it is the office of the Pastors of the Church to evidence what is truth and conformable to Scripture, and that in order both to our and to the Prince's believing. —Again §. 21. he affirmeth, that the immediate and ordinary judgment of matters of Religion belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing: but that a secondary judgment is necessary in the Sovereign; for his establishing by Laws that which is evidenced to him upon the judgment and advice of the Pastors of the Church [or (as §. 23.) for his being satisfied, that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the law of Christ, before he use or apply his authority to the pub­lick establishment of it:] and this upon a double reason. [the first of which is] In respect of his duty to God, whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his dominions, and is accounta­ble for it, if he do it amiss; as the Kings of Israel and Judah were.’

§. 209 But then he saith these things (further) in behalf of the Supremacy of the Prince, which seem to reduce the Clergy's power into a very narrow compass, and to render it uneffective toward the Subjects of the Church, unless thro the coacting of the Prince. He saith then▪ 1.1 That Princes are not bound to follow the directions of the [Page 246]Clergy any further than they are evidenced to them. See 9. c. §. 21. ‘Princes are not meer Executioners of the de­terminations and decrees of the Church Pastors, nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish, as matter of Faith and Religion, whatsoever they de­fine and propound for such. But they are to do their work so, as it may by the demonstration of truth be evidenced to the Sovereign Power.’ 2 That Princes are not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy, or of a Synod, where they fear the Synod will not go aright. 2. c. 8. §. ‘Reformation of Gods Worship (saith he) may be 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.] 3.3 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 [Page 247]against the Conventicle of Trent, forbidding the de­crees of it to be received for the space of fourty years.’ 4^ly 9. c. 21. §. He approveth— ‘The concession of the Clergy under Henry the Eighth,4 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, 'tis 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.1 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,2 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 [Page 248]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. 3.3 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 [Page 249]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 [Page 250]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 [Page 251]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. 1.1 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. — 2.2 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,3 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 [Page 252]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 — 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, 5 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 l­ [...]eaged by the Patri­archs.Thus much concerning the English Reformations un­der the three Princes, Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth; what manner of Ecclesi­astical Supremacy was conceded to, or recognized in, them; what, exercised by them. Where it is evident, that tho these Princes pretended only to translate upon themselves the Supremacy formerly used by the Patri­arch (not forgetting to seize on most of the profits thereof:) yet theirs was far from being restrained within the same bounds, as the Patriarch's was. For, whether we review, the pretended innovations intro­duced into the Church Catholick, before, or those in­troduced since the Council of Trent, by the Patriarch's, concurrence, We cannot say of them; that He, with­out, [Page 253]out, or assisted only with some few of, the Clergy im­posed them upon the world by his single authority, with­out, or contrary to, the votes, of the major part of the Clergy, as King Edward and Queen Elizabeth did: Who had they called a Synod of their Clergy, and then behaved themselves in it, as Constantine in the Council of Nice, i. e. left all in pure Spiritual matters to their disposal; judge what would have been the issue. But it seems, by the proceedings forementioned in this Dis­course, that the Secular Supremacy took it to be the Prince's right to establish in their dominions, with, or without, the major part of the Clergy (which, they were instructed, might fall away from the truth, a tenent the Patriarch owns not) what they apprehended to be the Law of Christ, upon evidence of Scripture (i. e. to them so seeming) by whomsoever manifested unto them. From which apprehensions, in single, and unstudied, persons, very mutable, and having no such fixedness, as the body of the Church hath (being tyed by so many subordinations to several degrees of Superiors,) newer and newer Reformations for ever do flow and multiply without end, as we see at this day. And so it is also, that these Acts of Supremacy coming from the hands of the Temporal power, whatever way they incline, have much more strength and validity, in case of opposition, than those coming from the Spiritual; this Sword not wounding, to sense, so deep, as the other; and there­fore is such a Supremacy, where Prince's judgments are liable to mistakes, much the more dangerous.

§. 215 All which ill-consequences the Protestant Princes of Germany (who,Several Pro­testants de­nying such a Supremacy du [...] to Prin­ces. being in some respects subordinate to another, could not so well settle this Supremacy on them­selves) in the dawning of the Reformation did well fore­see; and were as loth to acknowledge the Emperor Supreme, as the Pope: Nor would they ever allow of this Title assumed by Henry the Eighth; out of a jea­lousy, that Charles the Fifth should claim the same. And for this reason, it is thought that, no Accord was made, tho much attempted, between them and this King. See [Page 254]Lord Herbert's Hist. p 378, and 448. ‘The Protestants of Germany (saith he) would not allow the King's Supremacy, lest they should infer an investing of the same authority in the Emperor, whose absolute power they seemed to fear, more, than that of the Pope him­self. And this suspicion alienated secretly the mind of our King: who saw, that, if he embraced their Refor­mation, they would abridge his power [i. e. regu­late or alter the point of his Supremacy.]’

§. 216 The same reluctance against such Regal Supremacy was in Calvin and other Reformers, as I have shewed before;See before, §. 37. and hath remained still in the reformed Presby­terian Clergy of Scotland, and in those Sects called Pu­ritanical in England, and elsewhere (which is said to have rendred both Queen Elizabeth and King James much more averse from the Presbyterian Government and Discipline:) who discharging the authority of the Pope, of Councils, such as the Church hath had, of Bishops; yet have endeavoured to reserve the Supre­macy, as touching all Ecclesiastical Affairs to the Officers of their particular Churches: as the power of calling and constituting their Assemblies at time and place as they think fit; the making of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies; the correcting and ordering all things pertain­ing to the Congregation, tho without the Kings consent, and against his will; unless he be pleased to be included in the number of the Church Officers, there to enjoy a single vote; requiring the Civil Magistrate to be sub­ject to this their power. To which purpose are those Positions of theirs,Seatch. Di­scipline, 2. l. 1. c. ‘As the Ministers, and others of the Ecclesiastical State are subject to the judgment and punishment of the Magistrate in external things, if they offend; so ought the Magistrates to be subject to the Kirk Spiritually, and in Ecclesiastical Government. And to submit themselves to the Discipline of the Kirk, if they transgress in matter of Conscience and Religion. All men as well Magistrates as Inferiors, ought to be subject to the judgment of the National Assemblies of this Country in Ecclesiastical causes,Scot. Disc. 2. l. 12. c. without any re [Page 255]or appellation to any Judge Civil, or Eccle­siastical, within the Realm.’ See Dr. Heylin's Reform. Just. p. 88, and Rogers on Art. 37. p. 216. and 218. and the two Books of the Scottish Discipline. To which may be added those passages of the English Presbyterian in their Confession of Faith, An. Dom. 1647. cap. 30, and 31. which say, — ‘That the Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a Go­vernment in the hand of Church-officers, distinct from, the Civil Magistrate. — And, that, if the Magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the Ministers of Christ of themselves by vertue of their office may meet to­gether in such Assemblies, — And there may Ministes­rially determine Controversies of Faith; set down rules for the better ordering of the publick worship of God and Government of his Church; receive complaints, and authoritatively determine the same. Which de­crees and determinations, if consonant to the word, are to be received [and therefore may be divulged] with reverence and submission, for the power whereby they are made, as [this power] being an Ordinance of God.’ All this (they affirm) the Church-officers may do of themselves, by vertue of their office, if the Magistrate be an open enemy to the Church. And all this they did, King Charles's Supremacy giving no consent thereto, but opposing it. And then for the meaning of open ene­my, I have reason to suppose, they will pronounce a Popish, an Arrian, any heretical, Prince such, as well (tho perhaps not every way so much) as an Heathen.

§. 217 Lastly, The same reluctance also was in those Bishops who first conceded such Supremacy to Henry the Eighth. Who, as at the fiest they swallowed the Oath of it, not without some straining: so afterward, when, by long experience they had seen such Church-laws issuing from it, as they thought very grievous and dammageable to the Church, and found uncontrollable by their power, they very stoutly, to the loss of their Bishopricks, made resistance to the same Oath, in Queen Elizabeth's days: and also in Qeeen Mary's days, upon some respiring, [Page 256]took care to reverse as well the Supremacy of Henry the Eighth, as the Injunctions of Edward the Sixth. And those Bishops only, who came to their Bishopricks and Church-Government by the high-hand of such Supre­macy, have since maintained it.

CHAP. XIV. The CONCLƲSION.

§. 218 HAving thus brought this whose Discourse of Church Government to an end,Conclusion of this whole Discourse of Chur. Gov. I pray you consider a lit with me, how matters stand with the Reformation ge­nerally in application thereto.

§. 219 Where Concerning the benefit that may be hoped for from a fu­ture free Ge­neral Coun­cil for the setling of present Con­troversies.1. First it seemeth clear: That in Controversies of Religion (which Christ hath foretold shall arise) and in contests concerning the true sense of his word, he hath not left his people under the Gospel without some visible Judge thereof, beside the words of the Gospel; since he did not leave his people under the Law without such Judge, beside the words of the Law. See what hath been said of this in Success. of Clergy, §. 6. &c. And, in such Controversies concerning the meaning of the Scrip­tures, for any party to fly only to the same Scriptures to judge this matter between them and their adversaries, is, as if Titius and Sempronius, suing one another at the Law, would have no other judge in the matter, but Justinian's Code or Pandects, about the meaning of which they are already in the debate. 2. But, if it seem reasonable, that, in such Controversy concerning the understanding of Scripture, there should be some other Judge besides Scripture; secondly it is out of question, that the Church Catholick, which hath such ample promises from our Saviour, should be this Judge sooner, than any particular person or Church therein: and, if the Church Catholick, then a legal General Council thereof; since this is the highest and ultimate way, where­by [Page 257]the Church Catholick is capable of declaring her judg­ment; as hath been shewed in the 2. Part, §. 22. &c. 3. Hence therefore 3ly are the Reformed forced, as it were, in their debates of Religion to refer their matters to, and not to decline, the decisive judgment of a fu­ture legal and free General Council. 4. But this seem­eth by consequence to oblige them somewhat further; and that in this their appeal to, and acquiescence in, a future General Council, they cannot reasonably refuse the judgment of such Councils fore-past, as have been legally General. 5. And again 5ly that, to denominate any former Councils to have been such, they cannot rationally require any fuller conditions, than have been set down in 2. Part, §. 4. unless they will make either no Councils at all; or not all those, which themselves allow, to have been General. And 6ly if they will thus stand to the judgment of former legal General Councils; then it seems they ought also to stand to the doctrines, which are cleared to them to be held and taught by the Church Catholick of that age, wherein they reformed: since we may presume, that had a Council thereof been collected in the same times; they would in it have testi­fied the same doctrines, which the Catholick Church then held., But thus the Reformation will be cast; since I think it is sufficiently cleared in 2. Part, §. 30. &c. that the doctrines they opposed, at least for the most of them, were not only the Tenents of the Roman or other. Churches adhering to it, but of the whole Church Catholick of that time: a thing which is of great weight, and ought diligently to be examined. And, 7ly, if they will submit to a General Council; I do not see how, in the absenee of a General, their duty doth not bind them to submit also to a Patriarchal, Council; as being, tho inferior to General, yet superior to any Provincial, or National, one, within the same Patriarchy. And, if submit to such; I see not why they should reject the judgment of the Council of Trent, as to the Protestant Controversies free and unforced: there needing to be used no illegal or indirect proceedings herein; because [Page 258]the Fathers, in condemning these, did unanimously agree; as hath been shewed at large in Par. 4. §. 70. by Soave's testimony in particular to these points.

§. 220 But, notwithstanding the fair inclinations the Reform­ed (I mean some of their writers, desiring that nothing here may be charged on any further, than proved by some testimonies in the other places of this discourse, which are here referred to) may seem, to have to a final decision of differences; and the happy issue to their cause they seem to hope-for from the sentence of such a future Council, general and free, could it once be pro­cured: Yet there are not a few things, which well con­sidered do discover their diffidence in any such tryal; and no such submission in them to such Council, could it be assembled, as is necessary to the ending of conten­tions. As namely these following. 1. That, for the Councils which have been held already in the Church, they have so limited the obligation to their authority, and clogged it with such conditions (which you may be pleased to review in 2. Par. §. 36, 37. &c:) that, in respect of these, they have reserved to themselves liberty to yield, or withdraw, their obedience, as they see fit. From which we may gather, that, if they see need thereof, they will in like manner limit the future, and so render it as unobliging to them, as former have been. 2. That they have been so scrupulous about the Universality, legal actings, &c. of past Councils beyond what seems requisite (See 2. Par. §. 4.) that, of eighteen or not much fewer, General Councils, which the other side accepts, they acknowledge only four or very few more: and not these four for all those decrees, wherein the rest of the Church admits them. See 4. Par. §. 92.95. 3. That they maintain, that, tho all the Church-guides never shall, yet the major part of the Church guides and of such Councils may, dangerously err, to the imposing of false belief and false worship, and pars melior a majore vinci. See 2. Part, §. 29. Which tenent will overthrow the authority of such future Council also; because it can hardly happen in so great n Body, but that there [Page 259]will be some dissenters; and then they will not be tyed to a major part. 4. That, for a future Council they demand such a one, for the universality of it, as probably can never be had: and such voters therein, as is contrary to the former customes of the Church, and such other con­ditions, as are several ways unreasonable, and destructive of having Church-matters governed by the Church. See, concerning these, the 4. Part, §. 65, 66. &c. Tho, were all such their conditions observed, excepting only one, that nothing done in such Council should oblige, till their con­sent first obtained, I see not, but that things will thus also go against them because as the major part of the Clergy of Christianity, so of the Laity and Princes, were they made the Judges in that Council, are opposite to the Re­formation. 5. That they do set up the authority of Pro­vincial or National Synods, in some cases,See 2. Part, § 29.44. against Gene­ral (the ill consequences of which introducing such an Ari­stocratical, or rather so many several Monarchical, Go­vernments into the Church, as there are several Metropo­litans or Primates, see in 2. Part, §. 78. n. 2.) and do hold this a sufficient foundation of Reformation; tho indeed so much, if the things said in this 5th Part stand good, can­not be pleaded for it. Now all these guards and fences of the Reformed seem to me to render a future Council, were it never so universal and free, of none effect, as to ending Controversies; unless it pass on their side: and again seem to argue an Autocatacrisis in them, as to the judgment of the Church Catholick, and of Councils; viz. that they apprehend, they should be cast by those, whom yet they shew a willingness to be tryed by. Especially when as, after now an 140 years divulging of their doctrines, their rea­sons, and their demonstrations; they see, that, tho at the first (perhaps out of novelty) their opinions made a wonderful progress and growth: yet, for above half of this age, the Reformation hath stood at a stay; and of late hath rather lost ground, and is grown decrepit and much abated of its former bulk and stature.

§. 221 To conclude. In such a rejection of, or aversion from, the Church's judgment, let none think himself secure, in [Page 260]relying on the testimony of his conscience or judgment; 1. either that he doth nothing against it; which security many of all sects, not only living, but dying, have (for sickness ordinarily hath no new revelations of truth in it) and what sect is there, that hath not had Martyrs? The Roman party many at Tiburn, and the Protestant, in Smith­field; and even Atheism it self hath had those that have dyed for it, Vaninus, and others: 2. Or that he hath taken sufficient care to inform it; which thing also all sects shew themselves confident-in. I say let none think him­self secure in any of these things, so long as his conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing, namely, his disobedi­ence and inconformity to the Church Catholick. I mean to the major part of the Guides thereof, as formerly explained in Chur. Gov. 2. Part, §. 8. &c. 24. &c. (a disobedi­ence which Luther and the first Reformers could not but acknowledge;Epistle to Melancthon 145. Nos discessionem a toto mundo (saith facere coacti sumus.) And let him know, that his condition is very dangerous, when he maketh the Church-guides of his own time, or the major part thereof, uncommuni­cable-with in their external profession of Religion; when, for the maintaining of his opinions, he begins to distin­guish and divide between the doctrine of Scripture, and the doctrine of the Church; between the doctrines of the Catholick Church of the former ages, and of the Catho­lick Church of the present; between the Church's ortho­doxness in necessaries, and in non-necessaries, to salvation; when he begins to maintain the authority of an inferior ecclesiastical judge, against a superior; or of a minor part of the Church-guides, against a major. Which whosoever doth, tho perchance he wanteth not many companions, had need to be sure, and sure again, that he is in the right: because this thing, in the day of judgment, will hinder all those, that err, from pleading invincible or inculpable ig­norance, when as they do grant, both that God hath given them, beside the Scriptures, guides of their Faith; and that they have in their judgment departed from these guides, i. e, from a major part of them; which, in a Court consist­ing of many, is the legal Judge. I say; In the Name of God let every Religious Soul take heed of such Autocatacrises.