ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE EIGHT THESES Laid down, and the INFERENCES, Deduced from them, in a DISCOURSE ENTITLED Church-Government. PART. V. Lately Printed at OXFORD.  
They went out from Us, because they were not of Us: for if they had been of Us, they would 〈◊〉 no doubt have continued with Us; but they went out that they may be made manifest, that they were not all of Us. 1 Joh. 2. 19  
OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER. Anno 1687.   

Imprimatur.  
IO. VENN Vicecan. Oxon. jun. 2. 1687.   

To the UNIVERSITY READER.  
THESE Papers neither have, nor need any other recommendation, then that of the Cause which they maintain. They are extorted by the importunity of those Adversaries, who have endeavoured to wound us in all our nearest concerns, The Honour of our University, the Authority of our Church, and the Rights of our Sovereign. The Laborious Author of the Discourses spared no pains to shake the foundations of our Religion; and the designing Publisher has with no inconsiderable expense, endeavoured a farther advantage from them, by casting a reproach npon these Seminaries of our Education. But it is justly hoped, that their designs against the University will prove as successless as their attempts on the Church; Of which we know, that tho' the Rains descend, the Floods come, and the Winds blow, yet it cannot fall, for it is founded upon a Rock. The hopes of our Enemies abroad have been entertained, and the solicitude of our Friends awakened by the news of our Oxford Converts daily flocking into the bosom of the Roman Church. But we hope All men are by this time convinced that they deserve as little consideration for their Number, as they do regard for their accomplishments. No one need to be alarmed at the Desertion of Six or Seven Members, who shall consider their dependence on One who by the Magazines, which He had stored up against Us, shows that He has not now first changed his Complexion, but only let fall the Vizour. Nor ought we more to regard the Insinuations of those, who tell us of the secret Promises of such as have not openly Professed, as having no other ground but the confidence of the Reporters. But be it as it will, God covers us with his Feathers, and under his Wings will We trust; We will neither be afraid of the arrow that flieth by day, nor for the Pestilence that walketh in darkness: But we lest of all fear any danger from this present attempt of our Author, since the Regal power seems engaged with our Church in one common defence; For she is no farther concerned in this present Controversy, then as she is accused to have been too great a friend to the Prerogative of the Crown. And certainly that Doctrine which invades the just Rights of the Prince, can hope but for few Proselytes amongst those, who have constantly defended them in their Writings, asserted them in their Decrees, and upon all occasions vindicated them with their Swords. For We do not lie open to the imputation of a conditioned and distinguishing Loyalty, who have showed our readiness to imitate the glorious examples of our Fathers, and were prepared (had not God's good Providence prevented our service) to have transcribed that Copy lately at Sedgmore, which they set us formerly at Edge-hill. And in truth our steady fidelity to the Prince is so unquestionable, that our Enemies have been pleased to ridicule what they could vot deny, and have made Passive Obedience bear a part in our Character, when the Muse has been inclined to satire.  
As for our Author and his Theses there is nothing here advanced which was not in King Edward's time fully answered by Protestant Writers; and had he written in Henry the 8th's Reign, he might have received a Reply from a Roman Catholic Convocation; So vain is it to urge Us now with the stale pretences of a Foreign jurisdiction, which our Ancestors of the Roman Communion ejected with so Universal a consent, and which our Fathers of the Reformation resisted even unto death; I mean those Glorious Prelates, who here dying sealed the truth of our Religion with their Blood, and left it as a Legacy to us their Children, by us to be conveyed to the Generations yet to come.   

Animadversions on the Eight Theses etc.  
AS that Person, who would prove himself a genuine Son of the Church of England, had need of more Sincerity than this Editor showed, whilst He professed to be of Her Communion; so one, who has the ambition of appearing a potent Enemy against her, had need of greater Strength than he has either produced of his own, or borrowed from others, since he has been her declared Adversary. Had he continued still to dissemble his Faith, and affected an aequilibrium betwixt both Churches, His writings would have been more suitable to such a Character; where the attentive Reader will find the Church of England but weakly attacqed, and that of Rome as faintly vindicated. But since some Motives have prevailed with him to assume the Name of another Church, as that which he has left has no great cause to lament the loss of such a Member, so that which He would seem to have fled to will have little reason to boast that She has gained a Proselyte. For how plausibly soever He may discourse of Church-Autority, He abounds in too great a Plerophory of his own sense, to submit himself either to a Convocation at home, or Council abroad; and altho' he would appear an Enemy to Luther, he seems at this very time to be drawing up a novel Scheme of Doctrines, and modelling to himself a new Church.  
Hence it is that in one of his Treatises he has deserted the ancient Plea of Transubstantiation, upon which the Tridentine Fathers founded their Adoration of the Host; and from which all the great Champions of that Church have constantly deduced it. Hence his modifying the Council's Sacramentum into Res Sacramenti, his prescinding from the Symbols, his certain inferior cult only due to them, his stripping them even of the Schoolmens latricall, qualified, secondary, improper, accidental coadoration; and such other his abstractive Notions of that Worship, as do indeed befit a Nominal Philosopher, but have no agreement with the avowed doctrines and practices of the Roman Communion. Hence it is that in the Discourse we are now upon, We read nothing of the Dominus Deus Papa of the Canonists; Nothing of the Vicar of Christ; the Holy, Apostolic, and Infallible See which their former Writers have endeavoured to establish jure divino; Nothing of the Supreme Pastor, Governor and Head of Christ's Church, the Successor of S. Peter, and other Titles which even our Representers of late (whose business it hath been to mollifi●) have furnished us with; No not so much as of the modest Bishop of Meauxes Primacy of S. Peter's chair and common Centre of Catholic Unity; but instead of these we are told of a Western Patriarch, one who pleads the Prescription of some Years for his Authority, and thinks himself hardly dealt with, 
pag. 21●  that because He claims more than his due, that which is his due should be denied him. Hence it seems to be that He is so wary in giving us his own Opinions; that He disputes so much, and affirms so little; that he bounds all his Positions with so many limitations that they seem contrived on purpose for subterfuges; and that He very cautiously ventures not any farther than He thinks, tho' falsely, the Authority of our Writers will bear him out. Hence those Concessions (which will perhaps by that Party be judged over-liberall) That Images, 
§. 117.  and so the veneration or worship of them were very seldom, if at all, used in the Primitive Church. That the public Communion was then most commonly, if not always, administered in both kinds unto the People. That the Divine Service which then, as now, was celebrated usually in the Latin or Greek Tongue, was much better in those days than now understood of the Common people. That the having the Liturgy, or Divine Service, or the Holy Scriptures in a known tongue is not prohibited, nor the using of Images enjoined; nor the Priest's administering, and the people's receiving the Communion in both kinds, if the Supreme Church-governors so think fit (and we say they ill discharge the Office of Church-governors, who do not think fit our Saviour's Institution should be observed) declared unlawful by any Canon of any Council. Ancient Council he means, for latter Councils have declared these unlawful. These are large grants from a Romanist, and which give a great shock to their so much magnified pretence of Universal Tradition. Had this Author lived in those Ages when the Secular Prince countenanced the beginnings of Reformation, He would have scarce lost any thing for his too rigorous adhaesion to the C. of Rome. For he thinks it probable that had the Reformation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known tongue; 
§. 118.  administered Communion in both kinds, thought fit not to use Images; changed something of practice only without any decession from the Church's Doctrines, the Church-governors would have been facile to licence these. Where by the way it seems something unintelligible how they should change practice without decession from Doctrines, if Doctrines enjoined such Practices, 
pag 2. §. 2.  and if according to him, Errors in practice always presuppose some Error in matter of Faith. But at least we may expect He would have outwardly complied, since he notes, That some outward compliance at the first, 
pag. 140. §. 123.  of those Bishops, who made an open Opposition afterward, might be upon a fair Pretence, because the first Acts of the Reformation might not be so insupportable as the latter. Where it is worth our Observing, that the very first Act, which gave life to the Reformation, was shaking off all manner of Obedience to the See of Rome, than which I believe his Holiness, contrary to this Author's Sentiments, thinks no Act more unsupportable.  
These things considered, We could not have had a more easy Adversary than this Gentleman, and the Church has less reason to fear his open Opposition, than had he still continued in her bosom. For it seems not to be his Province to publish what is Material against us, but to publish Much. But, God be thanked, our Religion is not established upon so weak a basis, as to be overthrown by a few Theses unproved, and falsely applied. Nor is it any wonder if that arguer doth not convince, who uses for Principles Conclusions drawn from Praemisses, which the world never saw, and then assumes such things as every one acquainted with History is able to contradict. Certainly his University-Readers will not be very fond of the Conclusion of that Syllogism, whose Major is a petitio principii, & Minor a downright falsehood in matter of fact. They no doubt are surprised to find Consequents come before their Antecedents, and Church-Government part the 5th to have stepped into the World (somewhat immaturely methinks) before the other four. But the Lawfulness of the English Reformation was to be examined, and it would have took up too much time to show why he imposed upon us such a Test.  
It might therefore be thought seasonable enough to examine the Truth of his Theses, when he shall be pleased to communicate to us whence they are inferred. In the meanwhile, it may not be unuseful to consider what disservice he had done to our Cause, had his success aequaled the boldness of his attempt. After all his Theses and their Applications, his Correspondent Alpha's and Beta's, his perplexed Paragraphs, his intricate Paratheses, and his tedious Citations, what Doctrine of the Church of Rome has he established, or what principle of Ours has he disproven? Should we grant that the Clergy only have power in Controversies of Religion, that the Secular Prince has no Authority to reform Errors in the Church, that our Princes did wrongfully usurp such an Authority, and that our Reformation was not the act of the Clergy; will it hence follow (which yet is to be proved by this Author, ere he can persuade us to entertain any favourable Opinion of Popery) That the second Commandment ought to be expunged out of the Decalogue? that Idolatry is no Sin? or worshipping of Images no Idolatry? that Transubstantiation is to be believed in despite of Sense, Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity? the Service of God to be administered in an unknown tongue, as it were in mere contradiction to Saint Paul? and the Communion to be celebrated in one kind notwithstanding our Saviour's, Drink ye all of this. It is indeed our happiness, that the Reformation was carried on by the joint concurrence of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power; that We are united together by common Rules for Government and Worship agreed on by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation, and made Laws to us by the Authority of the Sovereign: We are always ready to prove that the Church of England being a National Church, and not Subject to any foreign Jurisdiction, owed no Obedience to the Bishop or Church of Rome, & therefore might without their leave reform herself, and that accordingly our Religion is established by such Laws as want no authority either Civil or Ecclesiastical, which they ought to have. This is a Plea which we shall be always prepared to justify; and a Blessing for which we thank God, and for the continuance of which we shall never cease to pray. But now had those which we esteem corruptions of the Roman Church never been cast out, or were they reestablished (which God in his mercy forbid) by as good authority as that by which they are now abolished; Yet even then we could not submit to such Determinations, and being concluded by an antecedent Obligation to God durst not obey even lawful authority commanding unlawful things. He therefore that would gain a Proselyte, who acts upon prudent and Conscientious principles, in vain entertains him with Schemes of Church-Government, since the things contested are such as no Government in the world can make lawful; It would be more rational to show (were not that an attempt long since despaired of) that the particular doctrines and practices to which we are invited, are agreeable to the word of God; or that it doth not concern us, whether they be, or not. For if either it may be proved, that the Errors of the Church of Rome were so great, that there was a necessity of reforming them, that every National Church has a right to reform herself, that this right of the Church of England in particular was unquestionable, that she used no other than this her lawful right, and that accordingly the Reformation was effected by the Major part of the then legal Church-governors: Or if in failure or this (which yet we say is far from being our case) it may be proved, that where evident Necessity requires, and the prevailing Errors are manifest, there the Civil power may lawfully reform Religion without the concurrence of the major part of the Clergy, for Secular Interests averse from Reformation; Or if lastly, supposing no such Reformation made by lawful authority, but the Laws which enjoin such erroneous Doctrines, remaining in their full force and vigour, every private Christian can plead an Exemption from his Obedience to them, by proving them evidently contradictory to the known laws of God; if any one of these Pleas are valid, all which have by our Writers been proved to be so beyond the possibility of a fair Reply, than Nothing which is aimed at in these Papers can affect us, and tho' the author would have showed more skill in proving his Question, yet he had still betrayed his want of prudence in the choice of it.  
By what hath been said, the Reader will be induced to think that these Papers do not so much concern the Church of England, as the State; and that a Reply to them is not so properly the task of a Divine, as of a Lawyer. The Civil power is indeed manifestly struck at, and an Answer might easily be fetched from Keble and Coke. He may persuade himself that he acts craftily, but certainly he acts very inconsistently, who erects a Triumphal Statue to his Prince, and at the same time undermines his Authority; in monumental Inscriptions gives him the glorious and astonishing Title of Optimus Maximus, and yet sets up a superior Power to his. If neither Loyalty nor gratitude could persuade him to speak more reverently, yet out of wariness he ought to have been more cautious in laying down such things, as seem to have an ill aspect on his Majesty's proceedings. For it may seem very rash to deny, 
§. 5. p. 12.  that the Prince can remove from the Exercise of his Office any of his Clergy for not obeying his Decisions in matters of a Spiritual Nature, when a Reverend Prelate suffers under such a Sentence; 
§. 7. p. 14.  to assert that the Prince, ought not to collate to Benefices, where the Clergy have Canonical exceptions against the Person nominated, whilst a Friend of his thus qualified enjoys the benefit of such a Collation; to find fault with the Reformers that they gave their Prince leave to dispense with Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, 
§. 28. p. 36.  when he himself is in that case most graciously dispensed with. How far the Regal power extends itself in these cases, especially as it may be limited by the municipal laws of the Realm, I am not so bold as to determine; but where such Rights are claimed by the Sovereign, and actually exercised, there it becomes not the modesty of a private Subject to be so open and liberal in condemning them. But then above all he renders his Loyalty justly questionable, when he tells us it is disputed by the Roman Doctors, and leaves it a Question, Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church, 
§. 16. p. 20.  than 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 the Church? Now I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether the substance of that infamous Libel, which was part of a late 
* See Sidney's Trial.  Traytour's Indictment, and which was written by way of Polemical Discourse, as he pleaded, might not if managed by this Author's pen have been thus warily expressed; Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Civil matters against Acts of Parliament, than the Parliament hath not also virtually some temporal coactive power against the Prince; namely, to dissolve the Prince's coactive power, or to authorise others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the State? Such bold Problems as these ought not to be left undecided; and one who had any zeal for his Prince, would scarce let the Affirmative side of the Quaestion pass without affixing a brand on it.  
These Expressions among others He might well be conscious would be offensive to any SIR of known Fidelity and Loyalty to his Prince; and therefore such person's good Opinion was to be courted in an Epistle Apologetick● But certainly it was expected that the kind Sir should read no farther than the Epistle; for if he did, he would find himself miserably imposed upon. The Author in this Epistle praeacquaints him with these things.  
1. That there is nothing touched in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such matters, as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal, but only in things which are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical.  
2. That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but which, or at least the chiefest of which, all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed states do forego to Exercise.  
3. Nor of any, but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth.  
Now I shall humbly beg leave to undeceive the unknown Sir, and to represent to him that in all these he is misinformed. As to the first, 1. That there is nothing touched in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only such as are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical.  
Now if by dubious he means such things as He does not doubt, but they are Spiritual, than this doth not reach our case; because We may doubt whether some things are not Temporal, which He doubts not but they are Spiritual; But if by dubious He means such things as are doubted by no body but that they are purely Spiritual, then are we agreed; since neither do We allow the Temporal Prince any power in things of which We ourselves doubt not but they are purely Spiritual. That there are some Powers merely Spiritual, appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Prince, no true Son of the Church of England will deny; but now altho' the substance of those Powers be immediately from God, and not from the King, as those of Preaching, Ordaining, Absolving etc. Yet whether these are not subject to be limited, inhibited, or otherwise regulated in the outward Exercise of them by the Laws of the Land, and the Authority Regal is the thing quaestioned. This cannot perhaps be better expressed then in the words of the Reverend Bp. Sanderson; The King doth not challenge to himself as belonging to him by Virtue of his Supremacy Ecclesiastical the power of Ordaining Ministers, excommunicating scandalous Offenders, or doing any other act of Episcopal Office in his own Person; nor the power of Preaching, Administering the Sacraments, or doing any other act of Ministerial Office in his own person: but leaves the performance of all such acts of either sort unto such persons, as the said several respective powers do of divine right belong to, viz. of the one sort to the Bishops, and of the other to the Priests. 
* Episcopacy not prejud. to Reg power. p 22  Yet doth the King by Virtue of that Supremacy challenge a power as belonging to him in the right of his Crown, to make Laws as well concerning Preaching, Administering the Sacraments, and other acts belonging to the Function of a Priest, as concerning Ordination of Ministers, proceeding in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognisance in the Spiritual Courts, and other acts belonging to the Function of a Bishop: to which Laws as well the Priests, as the Bishops are subject, and aught to submit to be limited and regulated thereby in the Exercise of those their several respective Powers; their claim to a Ius Divinum, and that their said several powers are of God notwithstanding. Now to apply this; That the deciding Controversies of Faith, and Excommunicating Offenders, etc. are the proper Province of the Clergy, we deny not; but that the indicting Synods in order to such Matters, or making Laws to regulate the Exercise of them are purely Spiritual, is not so undoubted as He would persuade us. Again, that the Spiritual Authority which is to be exercised in the Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions can be derived from none but those spiritual persons who were invested with that Authority, and power of delegating it to others, is willingly allowed; but that collation to Benefices can be the act of none but the Clergy will not be hence inferred. For the Spiritual Authority itself, and the application of it to such an Object are very different things. The power by which a Clergy man is capacitated for his Function is derived from the Bishop which ordains him; but the applying this Power to such a Place, the ordering that the Ecclesiastical Person shall execute that Authority which he derived from the Church in such a peculiar part of the Kingdom is not without the reach of the Civil Jurisdiction; and therefore Collation to Benefices (in the sense this Author understands it) should not have been reckoned by him amongst those things of which it is not doubted but they are purely Spiritual. Another power of which he abridges the Prince, and by consequence would have to be esteemed purely Spiritual, is the deposing from the Exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy for transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons. Now that the Secular Prince should have an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual matters to bind them by Temporal Punishments to the Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's determinations, and decrees (as he words it) and yet that the Exercising this power, their performing what they are obliged to by God, should be without the reach of their Authority, seems to me a paradox. That the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times challenged such a power is plain from the undoubted testimony of the Learned Petrus de Marca. 
* Cura principum Christianorum olim non solum Haereticorum ●uroros compressi, contumacia Episcoporum aut Clericorum adversus Synodorum sententias rebellium ab externa potentia repressa; sed etiam Principum studio prohibiti Episcopi ne legibus secularibus vel Canonibus violatis injuriam subditis inferrent De concord. l. 4. cap. 1. par. 2.  Who tells us, that by the care of Christian Princes, Heretics were repressed, the contumacy of Bishops and Clergymen against the Decrees of Synods punished, and Bishops restrained from oppressing their subjects by the violation of the Canons. If we inquire how the Princes secured the Keeping of the Canons; 
* Canonum custodiae duobu● modis prospiciebant Principes, tum delegatione Magistratuum, qui ve●arent ne quid contra Canon's tentareture, tum exactis poenis à contumacibus si quid perperam gestum effect. ●b par 4.  He tells us they did it by these 2 Methods. 1st. By delegating Magistrates to see they were observed. 2ly. By punishing those who were guilty of the breach of them. And he particularly mentions Deprivation inflicted by the Secular power for violation of the Canons. 
* In manifestissima violatione, canonibus factam injuriam iis poenis Principes ulsciscebantur, quae legibus irrogatae erant, nempe expulsione à sede. Deturbationem enim illam quae vacantem Ecclesiam redderet sui arbitrii esse putabant; non autem regradationem vel dejectionem ab Episcopali dignitate, quae erat poena mere Ecclesiastica. Ib. par. 6.  For that, they thought removal from the See within the reach of their Jurisdiction, tho' not Degradation, which is a punishment merely Ecclesiastical. (Which neither did the Reforming Princes ever think in their power to inflict.) And he 
* Ibid.  there gives instances of Bishops so deprived. And indeed this seems to be a Necessary branch of power, which naturally flows from his being Custos Canonum, which he is proved by this Author at large to be. How far the Prince may abridge himself of this power by the laws of the Land, I meddle not; it suffices to show that it is not originally a power merely Spiritual. And from this and the former Instances the Reader will be able to judge the truth of that assertion, That there is nothing touched in this Discourse concerning such Matters, as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual, or Temporal.  
Come we now to that other assertion of his, That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which (or at least the chiefest of which) all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed States do forego to exercise.  
Now if by the chiefest, which he excepts, he means preaching the word, and administering the Sacraments, Excommunicating, and absolving; neither do the Reformed States challenge the Exercise of these; and as for others it will appear that the Princes of the Roman-Catholick Communion extend their Supermacy as far as the Reformed.  
And here it may not be improper to instance in that right which the Kings of Spain enjoy in Sicily, which seems to extend even to those Spiritual powers which our Author calls the chiefest. 
* Hist. of Eccl, Rev by a Learned Priest in France. p. 116.  And this I find ushered in by a Roman-Catholick Writer with an assertion quite opposite to that which is laid down in this Epistle. It even surpasses (saith he) that which Henry the Eighth of England boldly took when he separated from the Church of Rome. The King of Spain as King of Sicily pretends to be Legate à latere, and born Legate of the H. See; so that he and his Viceroys in his absence have the same power over the Sicilians as to the Spiritual that a Legate à latere could have. And therefore they who execute that Jurisdiction of Sicily for the King of Spain have power to absolve, punish, and excommunicate all sorts of persons, whether Laics or ecclesiastics, Monks, Priests, Abbots, Bishops, and even Cardinals themselves, that reside in the Kingdom. They acknowledge not the Pope's Authority, being Sovereign Monarches as to the Spiritual. They confess that the Pope hath heretofore given them that privilege: (So that his Holiness it seems thought even those chiefest Powers of the Church alienable) but at the same time they pretend that it is not in his power to recall it; and so they acknowledge not the Pope for head, to whose Tribunal no Appeal can be made because their King has no Superior, as to the Spiritual. Moreover this right of superiority is not considered as delegate, but proper; and the King of Sicily or they who hold Jurisdiction in his place, and who are Laymen take the title of Beatissimo & Santissimo Padre attributing to themselves in effect in respect of Sicily what the Pope takes to himself in regard of the whole Church; and they preside in Provincial Councils. As for the title of Head of the Church which taken by the Reformers so much offends our Discourser, this Critical Historian farther observes; It was matter of great astonishment that in our age Queen Elizabeth took the title of Head of the Church of England. But seeing in the Kingdom of Sicily, the Female succeeds as well as in England, a Princess may take the title of Head of the Church of Sicily, and of Beatissimo & Santissimo Padre. Nay it hath happened so already in the time of jean of Arragon & Castille the mother of Charles the 5th: So that this Critic concludes that it may be said there are two Popes, and two sacred Colleges in the Church, to wit, the Pope of Rome, and the Pope of Sicily, to whom also may be added the Pope of England.  
What Jurisdiction Spiritual the King of France challenges will best be learned from the Liberties of the Gallican Church, published by the learned Pitthaeus and to be found in his Works. Two of them which seem to come home to our purpose are these.  

* Le Rois tres-Chrestiens ont de tout temps selon les occurrences & necessitez de leur pays, assemblè o● fait assembler Synods o● Conciles Provinciaux & Nationaux, esquels entre autres choses importantes à conservation de leur estate, se sont aussi traitezles affairs concernans l'ordre & discipline Ecclesiastic de leurs pays, dont ils ont saict fair Reigles, chapters, Loix, Ordonnances, & Pragmatiques Sanctions sou● leur Nom & autoritè: & s●en lisent encor aujourd hue plusieurs ès recueils des ecrets receus par● Eglise Universelle, & aucunes approuvees par Conciciles generaux.  The most Christian King hath had power at all times according to the occurrences and necessity's of his own affairs, to assemble or cause to be assembled Synods or Councils Provincial and National; and therein to treat not only of such things as tend to the preservation of his State, but also of affairs which concern the Order and Discipline of the Church in his own Dominions; and therein to make Rules, Chapters, Laws, Ordinances, and Pragmatic sanctions in his own Name and by his own Authority. Many of which have been received among the Decrees of the Catholic Church, and some of them approved by General Councils.  

* Le Papen envoy point en France Legates à latere avec faculte de reformer, juger, conferer, dispenser, & tells autres qui ont accoustumè d'estre specifiees par les Bulles de leur pouvoir, si non a lá postulation du Roy tres-Christien ou de son consentement: & le Legat n' use de ses facultez qu' apres avoir baillè promise au Roy par escrit sous son sein, & jurè par ses Saints Ordres de n'user desdites facultez is Royaume, pays, tertes & Seigneuries the sa suje●tion si non tant & si longuement qu'il plaira au Roy; & que si cost que le dir Legate sera adverty de sa volonte ' au contraire, ils'en desistera & cessera Aussi qu'il n'usera des dites facultez si non pour le regard de celles dont il aura le consentement du Roy & conformement à iceluy sans entreprendre ny fair chose au saints decrets Conciles generaux, Franchises, Libertez, & Privileges the L'Eglise Gallicane & des Universitez, & estatez publiques de ce Royaume. Et à cette fin se presentent les facultez de tells Legates a la Cour de Parliament, ou elles sont veus, examinees, verifiees, publiees & registrees sous tells modifications que la Cour voit estre à fair pour le bien du Royaume: suivant lesqnelles modifications se jugent tous les process & differents qui surviennent pour rai●on de ce, & non autrement.  The Pope cannot send a Legate à latere into France, with power to reform, judge, collate, or dispense, or do such other things which use to be specified in the Bull of his Legation, except it be upon the desire or with the approbation of the most Christian King. Neither can the said Legate execute his Office until he hath promised the King in writing under his seal, and sworn by his holy Orders, that he will not use the said Legantine power in his Kingdom, Countries, Lands and Dominions any longer than it shall please the King; and that so soon as he is admonished of the King's pleasure to the contrary he will cease and forbear; and that whilst he doth use it, it shall be no otherwise exercised then according to the consent of and in conformity to the King, without attemping any thing to the prejudice of the Decrees of General Councils, the Franchises, Liberties, and Privileges of the Gallican Church, and the Universities, and public Estates of the Realm. And to this end they shall present the Letters of their Legation to the Court of Parliament, where they shall be viewed, verified, published and registered with such Modifications as that Court shall think fit for the good of the Realm; and all processes shall proceed according to such restrictions, and no otherwise.  
In these two Liberties, we find the Authority of the French King farther extended, and the Papal power more limited, than our Author can be contented the Regal Jurisdiction should be enlarged, and the Patriarchal confined by the Reformed. What power the most Christian King claims in confirming Canons we may learn from Petrus de Marca 
* De Conc, l 6. c● 34. par. 2. Nunquam discedere oportet ab hac certis●ima Regula, deliberationes Ec●lesiae Gallica●ae considerari non posse a●●ter quam vel●t conssilium Regi datum, ●asque execu●ioni non posse ma●dari absque consensu & confirmatione ej●s  who lays it down for a Rule which never fails, That the deliberations of the Gallican Church can be looked upon no otherwise then as Counsel given to the King; and that they cannot be put in execution without his consent and confirmation. And he there saith, that the King may praeside in Councils as 
* Tanquam caput, comme Chef Ibid.  Head. 
* An ex ●o quod ●uprema Canonum pro●ectio ad Regem pertiner, sequatur cum jubere posse ut observenture, non expectata etiam senten●ia Ecclesiae Gallica●ae.  And in another place proposing to himself this Quaestion, 
* Certum quidem est carum constitutionum obseruationum sore sanctiorem, si conderentur cum generali Cleri consensu; quoniam unusquisque ●am rem obtinere modis omnibus cupit quam ipso suo judicio comprobaverit. N●hilominus aeque certum est Regem ex sententia Concili● sui, quod auget aut minuit prout ei luber, posse latis edictis decernere ut ●ano●es observenture, ac circumstantias & modos necessarios addere ad saciliorem eorum executionem, sive etiam ad veram eorum mentem explicandam, eolque accommodare ad utilitatem Regni lib. 6. c. 36. par. 1.  Whether, since the supreme protection of the Canons doth belong to the King, it thence follows that He can command that they be observed without expecting the sentence of the Gallican Church? He answers, * that it is indeed certain that the Observation of them will be the more sacred, if they be made with the Universal consent of the Clergy, because every one desires that that should take place, which he himself approves of: But then, that it is equally certain, that the King with the advice of his Council, may by his Edicts decree, that the Canons be observed, and may add such Modes and Circumstances as are necessary for the better Execution of them, and accommodate them to the Interest of the State. This Authority he confirms from the Examples of the first Christian Emperors, and the former French Kings, and adds expressly 
* Utuntur adhuc eo jure Reges Christianissimi. ●b par. 3.  That the most Christian Kings still use that right. And now methinks the revising of the Canons by the Kings of England, especially when humbly besought to do it by the Clergy, should not be an Invasion of the Church's rights, when the French Kings even without such Interposition of the Church, exercise the same Right, and yet do, according to our Author, leave to the management of the Clergy all power in Spirituals. I might here insist upon Collation of Benefices, which the French Kings challenge by right of the Regale; but I shall choose rather to mention the assembling of Councils, because a French King in the last Century seems to have doubted whether his Clergy might convene without his consent; as appears from that bold Speech of his Ambassador in the Council of Trent, which because it gives us some insight into the freeness of that Synod, I shall beg leave to transcribe the latter part of it from Goldastus 
* Collect. Const●tut. Imperial. T. 3. p. 373 Pi● quarti imperium de●ractamus, quaecunque sint ejus judicia & sentenciae rejicin●us, respui●●us, & contemnimus. Et quanquam, Pures Sanctissimi, vestra omnium Religio, Vita, & eruditio magnae apud Nos semper suerit & erit Autoritatis, cum tamen nihil ● vobis● sed omnia magis Romae, quam Tridenti agantur, & quae hic publicantur magis P●● Quarti placita, quam Conci●ii Tridentini decreta jure aestimentur, denunciamus & protest amur quaecunque in hoc conventu, hoc est, solo Pii nutu & voluntate ●ecernuntur & publicantur ea neque Regem Christianishmum probat●rum● nequ● Ecclesiam Gadicanam pro de●reto O●cumenici Concilii habituram. Interea quo●quot estis Galliae Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Doctores, Theologi, Vos omnes hinc abire Rex Christianissimus jubet, redituros ut primum l●eus Optimus Maximus Ecclesi●e Catholic in General 〈◊〉 Counciliis antiquam sormam & libert●tem restituerit, Regiautem Christianissimo suam digni atom & Majestatem.  We refuse to be subject to the Command of Pius the 4th, All his judgements and decrees we refuse, reject, and contemn; and although, most Holy Fathers, Your Religion, Life, and Learning was ever and ever shall be of great Authority with Us, Yet seeing You do nothing, but all things are managed rather at Rome, then at Trent; and the things that are here published are rather the Placita of Pius the 4th, than the Decrees of the Council of Trent, We denounce and protest here before You all, that whatsoever things are decreed in this Assembly by the will and pleasure of Pius, neither the Most Christian King will ever approve, nor the French Church ever acknowledge for the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council. In the mean time the Most Christian King commands all you his Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, Doctors, and Divines to depart hence; then to return, when it shall please God to restore to his Catholic Church the ancient methods and liberty of General Councils, and to the Most Christian King his Honour and Dignity. Now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether any Reformed States ever assumed to themselves greater Authority over the ecclesiastics, than this R. Catholic Prince, or Whether ever any Protestant expressed himself with greater warmth concerning this Council, then that Protesting Ambassador. It might be easy to show how much power the Venetian Republic exercises in Spirituals, had not this been done so lately by another Pen. But what hath been said may suffice to evince, that this Epistolographer imposed upon the credulity of his Sir, when he told him, that he knew of no Ecclesiastical powers denied to the Prince but which (or at least the chiefest of which) all other Christian Princes, except those of the Reformed State, do forego to exercise.  
But our Discourser perhaps presumed his Friend a Stranger to sorreign affairs, and therefore thought he might the more securely use a Latitude in his treating of those; it remains therefore to examine whether he has been a more faithful Relator of our own History, and what truth there is in his last Epistolary assertion, that he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but what the Kings of England have foregone before Henry the 8th. Now whatever in relation to a power in Spirituals is in this Discourse accused of Novelty seems easily reducible to these two Heads:  
1st. A Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical denied to the Western Patriarch: as appears by our Princes taking away all manner of Foreign Jurisdiction, prohibiting all appeals to the See of Rome, all Bulls from it, and in general all Intercourse with it.  
2ly. The same Supremacy invested in the Sovereign; as appears by King Henry's assuming the title of Head of the Church; by the Kings making Ecclesiastical Laws; by that Synodical act of the Clergy not to assemble or promulgate any Canons without his leave; by that power granted to the King to visit Ecclesiastical persons, and to reform Errors and Heresies; by his collating to Benefices without consent of the Clergy; and by hindering Excommunications in foro externo.  
Now in Answer to this charge of Novelty; It is confessed that the Pope did for some Years usurp such a superiority; but then, as it is granted that he did de facto claim such a power, so that it did de jure belong to him is denied; and not only so, but farther we affirm, that he neither from the beginning challenged such a power, nor was he afterwards in so full possession of it, but that our Princes have upon Occasion vindicated their own right against all Papal, or, if he pleaseth, Patriarchal Encroachments. And here waving the dispute of right I shall confine myself to matter of Fact, that being the only case here controverted.  
Where 1st of the Supremacy of the Western Patriarch. That when Austin came over to convert the Saxons, no such Supremacy was acknowledged by the British Christians is evident from the celebrated Answer of Dinoth Abbot of Bangor to Austin requiring such subjection. Notum sit Vobis etc. 
* Spelm. Conc. p. 1●8.  Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God, and the Pope of Rome; but so as we are also to every good & pious Christian, viz. to love every one in his degree and place, in perfect Charity, and to help every one by word and deed, to attain to be the Sons of God; and for other Obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope, and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers. As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who is to overlook and govern us under God. This is farther manifest from the 
* Spelm. A. C. 601.  British Clergy twice refusing in full Synod after mature deliberation to own any such subjection. That appeals to Rome were a thing unheard of till Anselms time appears from the application of the Bishops and Barons to him to dissuade him from such an attempt; 
* Inauditum in regno suo esse & usibus ejus omnino contrarium, quemlibet de Principibus & praecipue Te tale quid praesumere, Eadm. p. 39 30.  telling him it was a thing unheard of in this Kingdom, that any of the Peers, and especially one in his station should praesume any such thing. That Legates from Rome were for 1100 Years unheard of in this Kingdom, we may learn from a memorable passage in the same Historian concerning the Archbishop of Vienna reported to have the Legantine power over England granted him A. C. 1100 
* Quod per Angllam auditum in admirationem omnibus veni●, Inaudi●um scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices. postolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscop●m Cantuariae. Ead. p. 58. 41.  The News of which being come to England was very surprising to all people, every one knowing it was a thing unheard of, that any one should have Apostolical Jurisdiction over them, but the Archbishop of Canterbury. And the event of that Legacy was suitable, 
* Quapropter sicut venit, ita reversus est à Nemine pro Legaro susceptus, nec in aliquo Legati officio sunctus. Ibid.  for as he came, so he returned, being taken by no one for a Legate, nor in any thing discharging the office of a Legate. That the Church of Canterbury owned no Superior Bishop to her own but Christ, appears from her being called, 
* Gerard Dorob. Coll. Hist. Angl. 1663. 24. Col. 1615. 60.  Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui jesu Christi dispositione; and in another place, Mater omnium Anglicanarum Ecclesiarum, quae suo post Deum proprio laetatur Pastore. That appeals to Rome were prohibited in King Henry the 2ds' time is manifest from the famous Capitula of Clarendon, amongst which this is one Article. If any appeals shall happen they ought to proceed from the archdeacon to the Bishop, and from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Arch Bishop shall fail in doing Justice, the last Address is to be made to the King. That Doctrines prejudicial to the Pope's power were then publicly maintained, appears from these Propositions amongst others censured by Becket. 1st. That none might appeal to the See Apostolic on any account without the King's leave. 2d. That it might not be lawful for an Archbishop or Bishop to depart the Kingdom and come at the Pope's Summons without the King's leave. 3d. That no Bishop might Excommunicate any who held of the King in capite, nor Interdict his Officers without the King's leave. Which propositions so censured are selected out of the Capitula of Clarendon; to the Observation of which all the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastics (even Becket himself amongst the rest, tho● afterwards falling of) had obliged themselves by a solemn Oath, acknowledging them to be the customs of the King's Predecessors; to wit, Henry the 1st his Grandfather, and others, and that they ought to be kept inviolable by all. To what party the Bishops were inclined in these differences betwixt the King and Becket we cannot better learn then from Baronius, whose severe animadversion on these Praelates, (wherein he teaches us what Kings are to expect if they displease his Holiness, and how dreadful his Fulminations be when they come out with full Apostolic vigour) the Reader may peruse in the 
* Episcopi Angliae suffraganei Sancti Thomae literis ejusdem sui rchiepiscopi Apostolica legatione fungentis exagitati, resilientes, haud (ut par erat) parere mandatis. salubres admon●tiones ●uscipere, Catholicae Ecclesiae u●i●●tati consulere, vendicantes ea●● à ●●iserrima servitute studuerunt, sed ex adverso oppositi pro Rege contra ipsum ser●ptis, verbis, sactisque repugnant, ac tantum abest ut (quod eorum muae●i erat, ad quod & suis cos literis exci●averat ipse Sanctus) adversus Regein pro Ecclesia starent, redarguerent, & comminarentur; ostentantes qu●e in arcu sagittae paratae era●t ad ferie●dum. censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia ●omana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes, ut potius adversus ●undem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent, telis oppe●erent jurgiorum, in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum. B. r. An. A. C. 1167.  Margin. A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton (de tribus Thomis, in Thoma Cant.) 
* Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus t●cte postulavit, quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia apert●u surpavit, nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset?  What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand, but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurped, viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England? and again 
* Quid hoc est aliud, nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud ●uos Pap?  what was this, but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects? So that according to this Author, Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church. It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Pope's Encroachments, viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edu. 3. Stat. de provisoribus. 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1. 2. 4. stat. 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat. 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome. 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6. 8. 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire. fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our 
* Coke Inst. l. 4. c. ●4.  Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19 concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm; 
* 1. Eliz. c. 1.  and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all foreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and jurisdictions of the same. Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope, as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry, how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiastical? Where  
1st. As to the title of Head of the Church, we find that 
* Tw●sd c. 5. par. 2.  King Edgar was reputed, and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum, the Vicar of Christ, and by his Laws and Canons assured the world he did not in vain assume those titles; 
* Chap. 5 par. ●4. c. 6. par. 8.  That our Forefathers styled their King's Patrons Defenders, Governors, Tutors, and Protectors of the Church. And the King's Regimen of the Church is thus expressed by King Edward the Confessor in his laws. Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est, ad hoc est constitutus, ut re●num terrenum, & populum Domini, & super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus, & regat, & ab injuri●sis de●endat. Leg. Edu. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God, so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a privilege delegated by him, what he claimed as a right derived immediately from God 
* Vobis & posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci, & omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, & ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae j'usta sunt. . To you (saith that Pope to the Confessor) and your Successors, the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place, and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops. Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church, as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily, gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province. But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power. They challenge from St. Peter himself to be 
* 1 Pet. II. 13.  Supreme, and from St. Paul that 
* Rom. XIII. 1.  every Soul should be subject to them. And the extent of their Regal power may be learned from St. Austin who teaches us 
* In hoc Reges, sicut eis divinitus praecipitur, Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt, si in Regno suo bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verum etiamu quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem. Aug. contra Crescon. 1. 3. c. 51.  that the Divine right of Kings, as such, authorizeth them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs, but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion. In pursuance of which.  
2ly. As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws; That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church, but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy, namely the Keys of Order and Jurisdiction, so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices, is evident to any one, who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant. A Collection of the Laws made by Ina, Alfred, Edward, Ethelstan, Edmund, Edgar, Ethelred; Canutus, and others we have, published by Mr. Lambard, in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith, Baptism, Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Bishops, Priests, Marriage, Observance of Lent, appointing of Festivals, and the like. And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Authority which our Editor cannot justly decline; I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Published in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford, in the Name of the Alumni of that Society. This Author, speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical, makes this Inference from them. 
* Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur, quod ex iis. constat, etiam illis temporibus, Reges Saxonicos Alfredum & Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos, quam in Laicos, neque Ecclesiam, quae in ipsorum ditione esset, esse quid peregrinum, vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam, domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam, quod Anselmus, Beckettus, aliique deinceps insecuti acriter contenderunt. Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par. 12.  These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation, because from them it is evident that the Saxon Kings Alfred and Edward were of Opinion that they had a Supremacy as well over Ecclesiastical persons as Laymen; and that the Church which was within their Dominions was not out of their Jurisdiction, or subject to a foreign Power and exempted from the Laws of the Country, as Becket, Anselm, and others afterwards fiercely contended. And again; 
* Exipsius (Alfredi: legibus constat vel Suprematum illum Romanum ist is quidem temporibus nondum eo modo; quo posterioribus saeculis, sase extulisse, scilicet ut Christiani Principes angustius reg●arent; vel si eatenus pertigerit, non tamen eo usque se ei adjeci sse Alfred. lb.  From his (King Alfred's) laws it is evident either that the Roman Supremacy was not yet risen to that height as in after Ages, so as to lessen the Jurisdiction of Christian Princes, or if it was, yet that King Alfred did not so far subject himself to it. Nay so far was King Alfred from paying any such Subjection that we are told 
* Rex viam ingressus est, qua universali isti Imperio, quod crassis temporibus recens extruxerant (Pontificii) & absolvere deproperarant, ruinam & excrdium minaretur. l. 3. par. 98.  He found out a way to ruin and destroy that Universal Empire which the Romanists in those dark Ages had newly founded and were hastening to finish. Which is spoken in reference to his restoring the second Commandment expunged out of the Decalogue, of which thus that Author; 
* Neque hoc sane penitus omittendum, videtur, quod inter Decalogum recitandum secundum quidem Praeceptum de sculptilibus non faciendis ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni ante centum annos celobrati suo loco plane praetermissum est. Veruntamen ut ex ipso Sanctorum Bibliorum contextu quod deest suppleretur, post decimum quod dicimus mandatum aliud insuper ad justum Numerum absolvendum, adjicitur. Non tibi facies Deos aureos. Quod, cum ab ipso Rege subjungitur, Ecclesiam jam tum corrupti dogmatis arguit, rectae autem confessionis Regi testimonium perhibet. l. 2. par. 5.  And here it may not be passed over, that in reciting the Decalogue, the second Commandment concerning the not making of graven Images was according to the use of the 2d Nicene Council, which was celebrated an 100 Years before, in its place omitted. But that this defect might be supplied out of the context of the Holy Bible, after that which we call the Tenth Commandment, another was added to complete the just Number, in these words, Thou shalt not make to thyself any Gods of Gold; Which being added by the King himself as it doth argue the Church to have been corrupt in her Doctrine, so it is a testimony of the King's Orthodoxy. From which one Instance it is plain that, contrary to the pretensions of our Author, King Edward the 6th was not the 1st that took upon him to Reform Liturgies; for King Alfred here restores the Decalogue to its primitive Integrity: to judge what is agreeable to the word of God; for He supplies the defect, which he finds in the Missal, from the Scriptures: to judge contrary to the Determinations of the Church; for the Church is here said to have been corrupt in that Doctrine in which the King was Orthodox; to alter the Constitutions of General Councils because repugnant to the law of God; for this Omission of the Commandment was ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni, and the Worshipping of Images here forbidden was introduced by that Council which the Romanists acknowledge General. These passages cited I take to be some of the perperam scripta which the Publisher of that life mentions in the 
* Errores (Authoris) retinuimus, & perperam scripta medicari potius, quam tollere maluimus.  preface. And accordingly we find that whatsoever is advanced against the Papal Authority in the Text is qualified in the Comment, and it is plain that King Alfred was a greater Adversary to the power of the Pope then his Alumnus the Annotator; so that it is matter of surprise to find him appear in the Frontispiece of this Treatise of Church Government, who was so great an Enemy to the Antiregal designs of it.  
3ly. As to the power of calling Synods, we need no more to clear this point then the very words of the Statute by him urged. 25 Hen. 8. c. 19 Where it is said, that the King's Humble and Obedient Subjects the Clergy of the Realm of England had acknowledged according to the truth that the Convocation of the same Clergy is, always hath been, and aught to be assembled only by the King's Writ. Which is farther evident from the ancient from of calling and dissolving Synods by a Writ in each case directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as may be seen in Dr. Heylin 
* Ref, Justif. p. J. C. 2.  The Clergy did indeed before this act of King Henry 8th promulge and execute those Canons by their own authority, which they here promise not to put in Execution without the King's consent. But since no such Canons could be put in ure till made; nor be made but by the Clergy assembled, nor the Clergy be assembled but only by the King's Writ; this executing of Canons did in effect as much before this Statute as after depend upon the King's pleasure.  
4ly. As for visiting Ecclesiastical persons, and reforming Errors and Heresies by proper Delegates, this is a necessary consequence from the Supremacy they challenged. Without such a Power how shall the Confessor regere Ecclesiam, & ab injuriosis defendere? If such a Power as this be inconsistent with the Principles even of Roman-Catholiques, Whence is it that we find Articles sent from Queen Mary to Bp. Bonner to be put in Execution by him and his Officers within his Diocese? Whence is it that we find a Commission directed to some Bishops to deprive the Reformed Bishops? But to speak of former times, if our Kings had not such a Power, Whence is it that in King Henry the fourth's Reign upon the Increase of Lollardy We find the Clergy thus petitioning that Prince in the Names of the Clergy and Praelates of the Kingdom of England, 
* Quatenus inclytissimorum progenitorum & antecessorum vestrorum laudabilia vestigia gratiose considerantes dignetur vestra ●egia celsitudo pro conservatione dictae Ecclesiae Anglicanae ad Deilaudem &c: super novitatibus & excessibus praedictis in praesenti Parliamento providere de remedio opportuno Tw. c. 5. par. 19  That according to the Example of his Royal Praedecessors He would find out some remedy for the Haerefies and Innovations then praevailing? Whence is it that we find a Commission from that King as Defender of the Catholic Faith to empower certain Persons to seize upon Haeretical Books, and bring them before his Council, and such as after Proclamation be found to hold such Opinions, to be called and examined before two Commissioners, who were of the Clergy. 
* lbid.   
5thly. As for Collation of Benefices. Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishoprics are of the King's Foundation, and that they were Originally Donative, not Elective; and that the full right of Investitures was in the Sovereign who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi & annuli by the delivery of a Ring and Crosier Staff to the Person by him elected and Nominated for that Office. 
* Coke Instit. l. 3. S. 648.  Accordingly we find in the Statute of Provisors Ed. 3. A. 28. the King called Advower Paramount of all Benefices which be of the Advowrie of people of Holy Church. And it is there said, That Elections were first granted by the King's Progenitors upon a certain form and Eondition, as to demand Licence of the King to choose, and after Election to have his Royal Assent, and not in other manner. That if such Conditions were not kept, the thing ought in reason to resort to its first Nature.  
Lastly as for Hindering Excommunications in foro externo, It is one of the Articles of Clarendon; That None that hold of the King in capite nor any of his Household Servants may be Excommunicated, nor their Land interdicted, unless our Lord the King, if he be in the Kingdom, be first treated with, or his justice, if he be abroad; so that he may do what is Right concerning him. And amongst the Articuli Cleri. c. 7. It is complained that the King's Letters used to be directed to Ordinaries that have wrapped their Subjects in Sentence of Excommunication that they should assoil them by a certain day, or else that they do appear and answer, wherefore they excommunicated them. This short account, however imperfect, may suffice to show that the Regal power in Spirituals challenged by King Henry the 8th was not quitted by his Predecessors. And if the Reader desires a more full account of these things I shall refer him to Dr. Hammond's Dispatcher Dispatched. c. 2. Sect. 5. Bishop Brambal's just Vindication c. 4. Repl. to the Bishop of Chalcedon c. 4. Sch. guarded c. 12. Sect. 3. as also to Sr. Roger Twisden in his Historical vindication of the C. of England in point of Schism; which Learned Author has by a through insight into History, Law-books, Registers, and other Monuments of Antiquity enabled himself to give full and ample satisfaction to every unpraejudiced Reader concerning this Subject; and to convince him that this Author knew very little either of the English History or of his own Book, if He knew not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but which were foregone by the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth.  
As for what he adds, that no more Supremacy in such Ecclesiastical matters, 
Ep.  as are delegated by Christ to the Clergy and are unalienable by them to any Secular power, can belong to the Princes of one time or of one Nation, then do to any other Prince of a former Time, or a divers Nation, We willingly acknowledge it, since no such powers belong to any Prince, at any time, or of any Nation. But then there is a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters delegated by God to the Prince, which may be invaded by a Foreigner under a forged pretence of his being Head of the Church; and here Secular Laws may be made for the protection of such Rights, and for the punishment of those who shall either invade them, or vindicate such Invasion. And that person who under pretext of maintaining the Church's rights shall impugn the just Authority of his Sovereign may be more a disloyal Subject in these days, when this Authority is by the Laws vindicated from Foreign Usurpation, than he would have been in those days, when such Usurpation was tolerated, and connived at.  
Having dwelled hitherto on the Epistle, and discovered so much Insincerity in that, which yet was to bespeak the Reader's good Opinion of the ensuing Discourse, We have no great reason to expect any fairer dealing in the prosecution of his design. And here I shall be excused if I be the shorter in the Examination of his Theses, both because they are such as being proposed only and not proved, it lies in our power to accept, or reject them at pleasure; as also because they have already undergone the Censure of a Noble Pen, and have not been able to abide a fair Trial. Some of them are so ambiguously expressed that they may be either true or false according to the different construction they are capable of. The falsehood of others is self-evident; But then for the better vending of these, some truths are intermixed according to the policy of Luther's Antagonist observed by his Biographer 
* Consid. concerning Luther §. 48. p. 90. , Who, to make his bad wares saleable, diligently mixeth some small stock of good with evil, so to make this more current, and all easily swallowed down together by the imprudent and credulous.  
Another Artifice much practised by our Author is that he lays down his Propositions in general terms, but afterwards restrains them by such limitations, which if adhered to would make them utterly disserviceable to his Cause; but then when they come to be applied, the These are referred to at large without any regard to such limitations. Thus when in his first Thesis he has proposed That it is not in the just power of the Prince to deny giving the Ministers of Christ licence to exercise their Office, 
§. 3. p 4.  and their Ecclesiastical Censures in his Dominions, He means he saith in general, for he meddles not with the Prince, his denying some of them to do these things whilst he admits others. Now if this Restraint be observed, than all which he would establish from this Thesis will come to Nothing. For he will not, I believe, presume to say that the Reforming Princes ever laid a general Interdict upon all the Clergy to prohibit them the exercise of their Ecclesiastical Functions. This is an Act which the Reformation detests, and which we leave to the charitableness of the Universal Pastor, who by Virtue of our Saviour's Command of Pasce oves; challenges to himself a power of depriving the flock of all Spiritual food. Thus again, 
§. 5. p. 12.  When in his third Thesis he has asserted that the Secular Prince cannot eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy, nor consequently the Patriarch from any Authority which he stands possessed of by Ecclesiastical Canons, He restrains such Canons to those only that cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government. Now he knows that all Canons which would obtrude upon us a foreign usurped Authority are by us pretended (whether justly or not, they will best judge who impartially weigh our Reasons) injurious to the Civil Government. Another Limitation of this Thesis is that the Civil power may judge, 
§. 8. p. 16.  and eject, and disauthorize Spiritual Persons for Moral and Civil Misdemeanours damageable to the Commonwealth; But this Limitation is forgot when from this Thesis He would prove the ejection of the Bishops, in Queen Elizabeth's time unlawful; For their Deprivation was for refusing the Oath of Supremacy made first by roman-catholics in King Henry the 8th's time, and revived by Queen Elizabeth; so that the Justice of it depends merely on the Right of the Civil power to make Oaths for the better security of their Government, and to impose such Penalties as are expressed in the Law on the Violators; and if such Refusal be damageable to the Commonwealth (as it was then judged) then the Deprivation of those Refusers will be justifiable according to his own Principles. Thus again in his 8th Thesis When he has laid down, That as for things of mere Ecclesiastical Constitution, 
§. 14. p. 18.  Neither National Synod, nor Secular power may make any New Canons contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former Superior Councils, nor reverse those formerly made by them. He restrains it to those only as neither the Prince can show some way prejudicial to his Civil Government, nor the National Synod can show more prejudicial to their particular Church, than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches. (Where by the way methinks it should suffice if they were equally prejudicial, for one Church is never the less wronged because another suffers.) Now we desire no more than the benefit of this limitation; for if the Prince may reverse such Constitutions when prejudicial to Civil Government, and the National Synod when praejudicial to their particular Church, and each of these are Judges of such praejudice, (for neither doth Equity admit, nor doth He appoint any other Arbiter) than each of these have as much power granted them as they challenge, which is only to alter such Constitutions as are prejudicial to them. Having praemis'd thus much in general, and cautioned the Reader against this piece of Sophistry, which runs through the greatest part of this Discourse, I shall now proceed to a particular survey of his Theses.  
As for the first and second, I shall at present grant him that favour which he seems to request of all his Readers, i. e. suppose them to be true, and shall content myself only to examine what Inferences he deduces from them. And here I cannot but commend his Policy for setting his Conclusions at so great a distance from his Praemisses, for they are commonly such as would have by no means agreed to stand too nigh together.  
From his first and second Thesis, that the Clergy have power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion, and to judge what is divine truth, what are Errors; & that they cannot alienate this Power to the Secular Prince; 
§. 22. p. 29.  he infers That that Synodical Act of the Clergy in K. Henry the Eighth's time, whereby they promise not to Assemble without the King's Writ, nor when Assembled to execute any Canons without the King's consent, is unlawful. Now it is to be observed that the Clergy neither do deny that they have a Power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion, which is what the first Thesis would prove; nor do they transfer such a Power on the King, which might be against the Tenor of the second. The utmost which can be deduced hence is, That the Clergy did for prudential motives limit themselves in the Exercise of one branch of their Spiritual Power; and it will be difficult for this Author to prove that He, who has a power jure divino, may not by humane Laws be limited in the Use of it. Husband's have a power over their Wives, Fathers over their Children, and Masters over their Servants by the Law of God, and yet this power may be regulated by the Laws of the Land. 
§. 27. p. 36.  Thus the Priest has a power to bind and lose from our Saviour's Commission, and yet according to this Author, before the Reformation the Inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the Commands of their lawful Spiritual Superior. Thus also if a General Council have power to determine matters of Faith, then according to his Principles they have power to convene in order to such Determination, and this power of theirs is unalienable; and yet the Romanists will not allow that such Conventions may be made at pleasure, but that the hic & nunc are determinable by the Pope, who only has power to indict Councils, and to give Authority to those decrees, which yet derive their power from the Council's being infallible, and from the Holy Ghost assisting them.  
Another Act, which from the same Thesis he accuses of Injustice, 
§. 25. p. 31.  is the Clergies beseeching the King's Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal, which be thought prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal, or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgement of his Highness, and of 32 Persons, 16 of the Temporalty, and 16 of the Clergy of this Realm to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty, and that such Canons, as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled, shall be made of no value, and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Law of God etc. shall stand in power. Now it is to be considered that the Laws, which the Clergy here desire may be revised, are of a far different Nature, and therefore the Inspection of them may well be committed to different Judges. Some of them were supposed prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal, or repugnant to the Laws of the Realm, and here the Lay-Commissioners, being persons of the upper and lower House of Parliament (see the Stat.) were the best Judges; Of others it was to be enquired Whether they were agreeable to the word of God or not, and here the Clergy were ready to give their Determination. And altho' they both acted in a joint Commission yet no good reason seems assignable why both Lay and Ecclesiastical Judges should be appointed, but that, the matters to be examined being of different cognizance, those which related to Civil Affairs should be determined by the Temporalty, those which were of a Spiritual Nature by the Spiritualty. And if so, than the deciding of these matters is not transferred from the Spiritualty to the Temporalty, but from one part of the Clergy to another. And this He himself, after all his descants upon this Act, confesseth, For, 
§. 26. lb.  whatever sense the words in the preface of this Act were or may be extended to, I do not think the Clergy at first intended any such thing, as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine truth: and for this Opinion of his He gives us his Reasons in that, and the subsequent pages.  
Another Act, which is by this Author judged contrary to his first Thesis, is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking, holding, 
§ 34. p. 39  or doing against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by Authority of the See of Rome, which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, or the King's Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy, from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy. Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith, but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Heretics; Whether such speaking or doing be Heresy or not, they have power to ordain that it shall not be deemed so i e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick. Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment (to use our Author's expression of another Act) made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queen's Majesty's Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religion, shall be to all intents adjudged as Traitors, and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason, and the like of Persons willingly reconciled. Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler, or Reconciled, is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traitor, all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such; For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments, without being accountable for this to any Authority under God's. And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself, or acts against such Laws of a Foreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country, there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right.  
Another Act condemned by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Authority to make Ecclesiastical laws, 
§. 43. p. 56.  and pursuant to this, 42 Articles of Religion published by the Authority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign. Now not to engage myself in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title prefixed they are said to be? Articuli de quibus in Synodo London, A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem, & consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos & alios eruditos Viros convenerat, Regia autoritate in lucem editi, I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos & alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London. 
§. 166. p. 187.  So that here is only a part of the Synod employed in drawing up these Articles, and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transferred from Ecclesiastical persons to Secular, which was by him to have been proved.  
Another Inference, which he deduces from these Theses, is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy. 
§. 185. p. 214.  Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended, will best be learned from our Articles. 
* Art 37.  The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions: Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not or ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. So far for the extent of this power; but now for the restraint. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, We give not to our Prince the ministering either of God's word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also, lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify, but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn & evil doers. It is therefore by our Author to be proved that they who give no more to their Prince, then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself, do alienate to the Secular Governor any Authority or Office which they (the Clergy) have received and been charged with by Christ, with a command to execute the same to the end of the World; which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile.  
That by this Oath, or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assumed by herself, or given to her by Others, then is consistent with that Authority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us; 
* Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684.  Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority, but what was challenged and lately used by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th, and King Edward the 6th, which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; that is, under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms, Dominions, and Countries, of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be; so as no other foreign Power shall or aught to have any Superiority over them. And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation, sense, or meaning; Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects; and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the act therein mentioned, against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath. So that it's evident from this Injunction that it's no way here stated what Authority belongs to the Church, and what to the Civil Magistrate, farther than that the Queen (as justly she might) challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and neither did nor would challenge more; but what that was, is not here determined; and she is content without such Determination, if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all foreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil.  
Another Act which He finds repugnant to his 1st. 
pag. 36  Thesis' is King Henry the 8th's claiming a right that no Clergyman, being a Member of the Church of England, should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave and appointment. But it is to be remembered that the Ecclesiastical. Censures asserted to belong to the Clergy in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world; but the censures here spoken of, are such as have reference to the things of this world. The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows, we confess, from their Ordination; but the Actual exercise thereof in public Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes.  
From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Authority for receiving of Appeals, 
pag. 99  and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies, as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular, but also from all the Clergy in general, not making the Archbishop of Canterbury or Convocation, but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof. For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8. 19 c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch, or Spiritual Controversies, but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery; Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals. Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion, of deciding what is God's word, and divine Truth, what are Errors in the faith or in the practice of God's Worship, and Service, nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis; Or if any such Quaestions should be involved in the Causes to be tried, Why may not the Commissioners, if Secular, judge according to what has been praedetermined, by the Clergy? or let us suppose a case never yet determined, How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transferred on secular Persons, since if Occasion required, the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical?  
But not only the Acts of State and Church, but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examined by his Test, 
p 240.  and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin 
* Heylins' Ref. Justified, part. 1. §. 6.  that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters, until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them. Now it is plain to any one that views the Context, that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual, as hath influence on their Civil rights. For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the King's consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Authority. But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws, and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments. The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent, who only has the power of inflicting them; Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis (had he at so great a distance remembered it) which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures, which have reference to things not of this, but the next World.  
These are the Inferences which I find deduced, from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse, which had they been as conclusive, as they are false, yet I do not find but that his own party (if that be the Roman Catholic) had suffered most by them. For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right, what shall we think of that Roman Catholic Clergy, who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power? If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had received from Christ, what shall we think of those Pastors, who so unfaithfully managed the Depositum of their Saviour? If denying the Pope's Authority was so piacular a Crime, what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries, who professing a more than ordinary Sanctity, and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so 
* Burn Ref. ●. 3. p. 182.  resolutely abjured it? What of those Learned in the 
* Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis, habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis ampl●, quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia, Justitiae ●elo, religione & conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimo's Interpretes, & eos quidem saepe & saepius a ●obis evolutos, & exactissime collatos, repetitos, & examinatos, deinde & disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis & celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum. Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259.  University, who after a solemn debate, and serious disquisition of the cause, so peremptorily defined against it? What of the 
* Ref. 1. 2. p. 142.  Whole Body of the Clergy, whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies, and to judge what is God's Word, and divine Truth, what are Errors, who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it? 
Pag. 2. §. 2.  What of the leading part of those Prelates, 
* Ibid. p. 137.  Gardiner, Bonner, and Tonstal, who Wrote, Preached, and Framed Oaths against it? What of the 
* Ibid. p. 144.  Nobles and Commons, Persons of presumed Integrity, and Honour, who prepared the Bill against it? What lastly of the Sovereign a declared Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine, and Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith, who past that Bill into a Law, and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments? If all these acted sincerely, than it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed, but of the Romanists which is written against: If not, we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Profesors, then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that, which if it be any part, is a main Article of their Faith? But to return to our Author, what shall we judge of his skill in Controversy who from Principles assumed gratis, draws Deductions which by no means follow, and which if they did follow, would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronise? But because he has offered something under this first Thesis, why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy, I come now to consider it. He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and Scholar of the Church; and he earnestly claims a Supreme power and confesseth an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual Matters to bind them upon Temporal Punishments to Obedience of the Churches (or Clergies) Determinations and Decrees. But here he either willingly misrepresents, or ignorantly mistakes our Principles; For the Prince claims a supreme power over all persons, to bind them by temporal Punishments to the Obedience not of the Churches, but of Christ's Laws; or of the former, no farther than they are agreeable with the latter. But, saith He, if the Prince meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees Orthodox and right, this power is in effect claimed to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees; whilst he praetends an Obligation both of himself and His Subjects to the Churches. But, what if the Prince judge such Decrees neither Orthodox nor right? Must he here give them the Authority of Civil Sanctions? This is to establish Iniquity by a Law; and a power is claimed in effect to bind all persons to the Decrees of the Clergy, whilst, as has been said, He praetends an Obligation of Himself & Subjects to the Laws of Christ. But he goes on and tells us, That all Texts of the New-Testament do ordain Obedience of Churchmen to the Pagan Princes, that then Reigned, no less then to others. From which I suppose he would infer an exemption from Obeying the Prince in Spiritualibus. But supposing that all Texts do equally ordain Obedience to Princes Pagan, and Christain, yet the Obedience to a Christian Prince will be of greater latitude, since because he professes the true Religion, his Commands in Spirituals not contradicting our Saviour's will exact our Compliance. Obedience in licitis is all the Subject ows to a Prince either Christian or Infidel; but the Christian Prince will oftener challenge my Obedience, because he more rarely transgresseth the bounds of licita. If as he adds, all Princes are obliged with the Sword which God hath given them to protect and defend his true Religion, and Service in their Dominions, whensoever it offers itself to them; Since many Religions offer themselves, it becomes the Prince to take Care which is the true; and not to take, whatever is offered; which would be utterly destructive of our Author's Principles. As for the Acts of Ancient Councils obliging even without the Emperor's consent, We own their Obligation over their proper Subjects, so far as they were agreeable with the Laws of Christ, and his Apostles; and urge the Authority of Emperors no farther than as adding their Civil power to the Spiritual Power of the Church. And here we challenge no other Power to our Princes, than was exercised by Christian Emperors, that is, to call Synods, and to have a liberty of confirming, or not confirming their Decrees by Civil Sanctions. As for what he citys out of our Writers, all amounts to no more than this, that there are some Offices peculiar to the Church; Which neither do we deny, nor did our Princes ever invade these Functions. But because from hence He would insinuate that the Prince has no power at all in Causes Ecclesiastical, & in his Citations from these Writers comes up to that Character which the 
* Book of Educ● Ox. 1677 p. 86.  Book of Education gives us of the SLY, the CLOSE, and the RESERVED, who take notice of so much as serves to their own designs, and misinterpret and detort what You say even contrary to Your intention; I shall as briefly as may be show that their Concessions are far from giving any Countenance to his Cause. Bishop Andrews doth indeed say (as all other of our Church) Potestatis mere Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgi●e, Conciones. i e. dubia legis explicandi munus; claves, Sacramenta, & omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur; But then there are other Ecclesiastical powers which he challenges to the Prince; viz. 
a In ●●s, quae Exterioris politiae sunt, ut praecipiat, suo sibi jure vindicat, Tort, p. ●80.  To have Supreme Command in the exterior Polity of the Church; 
b Custos est non modo secundae Tabulae, sed & primae. p. 381.  To be keeper of both Tables; 
c Quodcunque in rebus Religionis Reges Israel fecetunt, id ut Ei faciendi jus sit ac potestas. Ib.  To exercise all that Power which the good Kings of Israel did; 
d Leges Autoritate Regia ferendi, ne blasphemetur Deus, ut jejunio placetur Deus; ut festo honoretur. Ib.  To make Ecclesiastical Laws; To 
e Delegandi qui de lege sic lata judicent Ib.  delegate Persons to judge in causes Ecclesiastical; To 
f Siqui in Leges ita latas committant, ●tsi, Religionis causa sit, in eos Autoritate Regia an●madvertendi Ib.  punish the breach of those Spiritual Laws; To 
g Non ut totus ab alieno ore pendeat, ipse à se nihil dijudicet. Ib.  learn the will of God not only from the Mouth of the Clergy, but also from the Scripture; To 
h Omnibus omnium ordinum jus dicendi. Ib.  have authority over all Persons; To 
i Abiathar ipsum, si ita meruit, Pontificatu abdicandi. 382.  eject even the High Priest if he deserve it; To 
k Excelsa diruendi. i e. peregrinum cultum abolendi. Ib.  pull down High-places 
l Sive in Idololatriam abeat Vitulus aureus; sive in Superstitionem Serpens aeneus, utrumque comminuendi. Ib. ; and to Reform the Church from Idolatry and Superstition. These He claims to appertain to the Prince 
m Haec Primatus apud nos jura sunt, ex jure divino. Ib.  jure Divino.  
The next Author is Dr. Carlton. He amongst other rights of the Church reckons Institution and Collation of Benefices, which this Writer marks with Italian Characters, and makes much Use of. But this Apostolical Institution and Collation by the Bishop alluded to, doth also involve in it Ordination, even as the Ordination (which is observed by himself 
n Pag. 13.  from the Bishop) signified also Institution in the charge and cure. But the Collation challenged by our Princes is of another Nature, and signifies no more than the Nominating a Person to be Ordained to such an Office, or presenting a Person already Ordained to such a Benefice; And the right of Investitures (which is the same with such a Collation) is by this Bishop 
o Jurisd, Reg. Ep. p. 137.  asserted to Emperors. This being cleared which was by him on purpose perplexed, If we take the extent of the Regal power from this Bishop, He tells 
p Id. p. 10.  us, That Sovereign's as Nursing Fathers of the Chu●●● are to see that Bishops and all Inferior Ministers perform their faithful duties in their several places, and if they be found faulty to punish them.  
His next Author is Mr. Thorndike, Who is as large as any one in the Vindication of the Church's rights; and Yet He tells us 
q Epilog. pag. 391. , that No man will refuse Christian Princes the Interest of protecting the Church against all such Acts as may prove praejudicial to the common Faith. He holds (as this Writer with great concern 
r Church Government, pag. 390.  observes) 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 Paenalty of their opposing it, suppress their power and commit it to others, tho' they also be established by another Law Apostolical. Thus that considerative man, who held not the Pope to be Antichrist, or the Hierarchy of the Church to be followers of Antichrist 
s Church Government, pag. 391. .  
Bishop Taylour (his next Author) doth with the rest assert, that the Episcopal Office has some powers annexed to it, independent on the Regal; But than he farther lays down these Rules, 
t Ductor Dub. 1. 3. c. 3. r. 4.  That the Supreme Civil-power is also Supreme Governor over all Persons, and in all Causes; 
u Ibid. r. 5.  Hath a Legislative power in Affairs of Religion and the Church; 
x Ibid. r. 7.  Hath Jurisdiction in causes not only Ecclesiastical, but also Internal and Spiritual; 
y Ibid. r. 7. n. 9  Hath authority to convene and dissolve all Synods Ecclesiastical; 
z Ibid. r. 8.  Is (indeed) to govern in Causes Ecclesiastical by the means and measure of Christ's Institutions, i. e. by the Assistance and Ministry of Ecclesiastical Persons; 
a Ibid. r. 8. n. 6.  but that there may happen a case in which Princes may and must refuse to confirm the Synodical decrees, Sentences, and Judgements of Ecclesiastics; 
b Ibid. 1. 3. c. 4. r. 8.  That Censures Ecclesiastical are to be inflicted by the consent and concurrence of the Supreme Civil power.  
The next Author cited is the Learned Primate Bramhal; and We have here reason to wonder that one Who praetends to have been conversant in his Writings, dares appear in the Vindication of a Cause, which the Learned Author has so long since so shamefully defeated. As for the right of Sovereign Princes, This Archbishop will tell 
c Bp. Br. Works Tom. 1. p. 88  him, That to affirm that Sovereign Princes cannot make Ecclesiastical Constitutions under a Civil pain, or that they cannot (especially with the advice and concurrence of their Clergy assembled in a National Synod) reform errors and abuses, and remedy Encroachments, and Usurpations in Faith or Discipline, is contrary to the sense and practise of all Antiquity, and as for matter of Fact He will instruct him, 
d Ibid. p. 76.  that our kings from time to time called Councils, made Ecclesiastical Laws, punished Ecclesiastical Persons, saw that they did their duties in their calling etc. From this Bishop's acknowledgement, that the Bishops are the proper Judges of the Canon, this Author that He may according to the Language of a 
* Educ. p. 98.  modern Pen, as well waken the Taciturn with Quaestions, as silence the Loquacious with baffling fallacies, takes Occasion briskly to ask whether this Bishop doth not mean here that the Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the King's Dominions, and use Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority? But see, saith He, the Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation. To which I answer that the power of which they were deprived in the Reformation was only of such an executing the Canons as carried with it pecuniary and corporal Punishments, and this power the Bishop has told him they could not Exercise by their own Authority. And here it were to be wished that our Author in reading this Bishop's Works had made use of his advice, 
e Ibid. p. 156.  To cite Authors fully and faithfully, not by halves, without adding to, or new moulding their Autorities according to Fancy or Interest.  
The next Advocate against Regal Supremacy is King Charles the First; But if we may take a draught of that Blessed Martyr's Sentiments from his own Portraiture, 
f F. I. K. B 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Adu. to the Pr. of Wales.  He did not think his Authority confined to Civil Affairs, but that the true glory of Princes consists as well in advancing God's Glory in the maintenance of true Religion, and the Churches good; as in the Dispensation of Civil power with Justice, and Honour, to the public Peace. 
g Ibid. cap. 17.  He thought himself (as King) entrusted by God and the Laws, with the good both of Church and State, and saw no reason why he should give up, or weaken by any change, that power and Influence which in right and reason He ought to have over both. He thought himself obliged to preserve the Episcopal Government in its right Constitution, (not because his Bishops told him so, but) because his judgement was fully satisfied that it had of all other the best Scripture grounds, and also the constant practice of Christian Churches. He was no Friend of implicit Obedience, but after he has told the Prince, 
h Adu. to the Pr. of Wales.  that the best Profession of Religion is that of the Church of England, adds I would have your own judgement and reason now seal to that Sacred Bond which Education hath written, that it may be judiciously your own Religion, and not other men's Custom, or Tradition, which you profess. He did not give that glorious Testimony to the Religion established in the Church of England, that it was the best in the World, not only in the community as Christian, but also in the special Notion as Reform; and for this reason required and entreated the Prince as his Father, and his King, that he would never suffer his Heart to receive the least check against, or disaffection from it; till he had first tried it, and after much search, and many disputes thus concluded.  
These are the Sentiments of our Authors, in which if I have been overlong, the Reader will excuse me, that I choose rather to intermix something useful from these great Pens, then to entertain him altogether with the Paralogisms and prevarications of this Writer. There is nothing that remains considerable under this first Thesis, but his Sub-sumption, that whatever powers belonged to the Church in times of persecution, and before Emperors had embraced Christianity, are, and must still be allowed to belong to her in Christian States. Which I conceive not altogether so Necessary that it must be allowed, and I am sure by our Authors it is not. As for Convening of Councils (the power of greatest concern) Bishop 
i Serm. of the right of Assemblies.  Andrews to this Quaestion (What say you to the 300 Years before Constantine? How went Assemblies then? Who called them all that while?) returns this Answer. Truly as the people of the Jews did before in Egypt under the tyranny of Pharaoh: They were then a Church under persecution, until Moses was raised up by God a Lawful Magistrate over them. The cases are alike for all the world. No Magistrate did assemble them in Egypt, and good reason why; they had none to do it. But this was no bar, but when Moses arose, authorised by God, & had the Trumpets by God delivered to him, He might take them, keep them, use them, for that end, for w ch God gave them, to assemble the Congregation— Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh? or Constantine then Nero? See also 
a Field of the Church. 1. 5 C. 52.  Dr Field.  
His Third Thesis is, That the Secular Prince cannot 
b Soave Hist. of Conc. Tr. pag. 77.  depose or eject from the exercise of their office in his Dominions any of the Clergy, nor introduce others into the place of the ejected. But the Quaestion here is not, Whether the Prince can eject any of the Clergy from the Exercise of their Office, but, Whether he can depose any for not Exercising it? While the Clergy faithfully discharge their Office, the Prince ought to protect them; and if for this they suffer, no doubt but they are Martyrs. But it is possible they may abuse their power, and then it is to be enquired, Whether Civil Laws may not inhibit them the Use of it? This Author holds the Negative, and tell us 1st. They cannot eject them at pleasure, without giving any cause thereof. But he doth not pretend that the Reforming Princes ever ejected any without a Cause given. And therefore he adds 2ly, Neither may Princes depose them for any Cause which concerns things Spiritual; but with this Limitation, without the consent of the Clergy. I could wish he had here told us what he meant by things Spiritual. For things, as well as Persons Spiritual are of great Extent. (d Pope Paul the 3d told the Duke of Mantua, that it is the Opinion of the Doctors, that Priest's Concubines are of Ecclsiastical Jurisdiction.) But he gives us his reason for his assertion Because it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam, as in Personam, and the Prince as has been mentioned in the 1st Thesis has no Authority to judge such Causes purely Spiritual. Now the power denied to the Prince in the Is't Thesis is to determine matters of Faith. But may not the Prince judge whether an Ecclesiastic deserves Deprivation without determining a Matter of Faith? May not he judge according to what has been already determined by the Church? Or may not he appoint such Delegates as can determine matters of Faith? Or are all the Causes, for which a Clergyman may be deprived, merely Spiritual? By Virtue of this Thesis he proves the Ejection of the Western Patriarch unlawful. 
pag. 37.  Now was not this Matter of Faith already determined by the Clergy? Had they not unanimously decreed, That he had no more Authority here, than any other foreign Bishop? And can the King be said here to have acted without the consent of the Clergy? And yet that matter of fact is applied to this Thesis. As for the Ejection of the Bishops in King Edward's time; is not that confessed to have been for not acknowledging the Regal Supremacy? 
pag. 70.  But this was a matter which wanted no new Determination, for the Church-Autority had decided it in their Synod in King Henry's Reign. But it is said, the Judges were not Canonical, as being the King's Commissioners, part Clergy, part Laity. But neither was the cause purely Canonical; for denying the Supremacy was not only an infringement of the Canon, but also a Violation of an Act of Parliament. As for the Bishops, Bonner and Gardiner, they were accused for not asserting the Civil power of the King in his Nonage. Nor do they plead Conscience for not doing it, but deny the Matter of Fact 
* Burn. His. Ref. part. 2. I. 1. p. 127. 165.  The same Objections were then made against their Deprivation, as are reassumed by this Author now; and therefore it may suffice to return the same answers. That the Sentence being only of Deprivation privation from their Sees, it was not so entirely of Ecclesiastical Censure, but was of a mixed nature, so that Laymen might join in it; & since they had taken Commissions from the King for their Bishoprics, by which they held them only during the King's pleasure, they could not complain of their Deprivation, which was done by the King's Authority. Others who looked farther back, remembered that Constantine the Emp. had appointed Secular Men to inquire into some things objected to Bishops, who were called Cognitores, or Triers; and such had examined the business of Coecilian Bishop of Carthage, even upon an Appeal, after it had been tried by several Synods; and given Judgement against Donatus, and his party. The same Constantine had also by his Authority put Eustathius out of Antioch, Athanasius out of Alexandria, and Paul out of Constantinople; and though the Orthodox Bishops complained of their particulars, as done unjustly at the false suggestion of the Arrians, yet they did not deny the Authority of the Emperors in such cases. 
Ibid. p. 127.  But neither is the Archbishop of Canterbury by this Author allowed to be a proper Judge; & that, because He did not Act by his Canonical Superiority in the Church, but by the Authority he jointly with the rest received from the King; As if he had ever the less the power of a Metropolitan, because He was also the King's Commissioner. By this way of arguing the Decrees of Ecumenical Councils will be invalid, because they were called to determine Controversies by the command of Emperors. But how Uncanonical soever King Edward's Bishops are said to have been, He does not except against Queen Mary's Bishops, tho' they in depriving the Reformed, acted by Commission from the Queen. As for the Bishops ejected in Q. Elizabeth's time, it has been already said it was for a Civil cause, i. e. refusing the Oath of Supremacy; which why it should be lawful in her Father's time, and unlawful in here's; why it should be contrived by Roman Catholics in that Reign, and scrupled by the same Roman Catholics in this; Why it should be inoffensive, when expressed in larger terms, and scandalous, when mitigated; whence on a sudden the Refusers espied so much Obliquity in that Oath, which they had all took before probably either as Bishops or Priests in the reigns of King Henry the 8th, and Edward the 6th; whence this change of things proceeded, unless from secret intimations from Rome, or their own Obstinacy, will not easily be conjectured. As for his Note, that what is said of the other Clergy, may be said likewise of the Patriarch, for any Authority which he stands possessed of by such Ecclesiastical Canons, as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government. He has been often told by our Authors, that Patriarches are an Humane Institution; That as they were erected, so they may be dissolved by the Prudence of Men; that as they were erected by leave and confirmation of Princes, so they may be dissolved by the same; that the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate doth not extend beyond the sub-urbicary Churches; that we are without the reach of his Jurisdiction, and therefore that the power claimed over us is an Invasion; that did not Popes think fit to dispense with themselves for Perjury, having sworn to keep inviolably the Decrees of the Eight first General Councils, they would not in plain opposition to the 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7. Here the Council decrees that Ancient Customs should prevail; that the Privileges of all Churches in their distinct Provinces should be kept inviolable. We desire the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate over the Britannic Churches should be proved to be an Ancient Custom; and if not that the Privileges of these Churches may be preserved.  Nicene and 
b The Fathers of the Ephesine Council having decreed that the Cyprian Prelates should hold their rights untouched and unviolated, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers, and the Ancient Customs, Ordaining their own Bishops, and that the Bishop of Antioch who then pretended Jurisdiction over them, (as the Bishop of Rome now doth over us) should be excluded, add farther. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Cone. Eph. Can. 8. Let the same be observed in other Dioceses, and all Provinces every where, That no Bishop occupy any other Province, which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors. If any do occupy any Province, or subject it by force, let him restore it. Now we plead the Cyprian Privileges, and desire we may be exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome till it is proved that He or His Predecessors did from the Beginning exercise any power in these Churches.  Ephesine Canons pretend to any Jurisdiction over us; That they so invading aught to be judged by a free Ecumenical Synod if such an one could be had; but that this Remedy being praecluded us, Each National Church has liberty to free herself from such Usurpation; that the Church of England pleads the benefit of this Right; and her Sovereigns having power to transfer Bishoprics, might remove the Patriarchate from Rome to Canterbury, and justly exclude any foreign Praelate from Jurisdiction within their Territories; But that the power claimed by the Pope (however mollified by the Novices of that Church) is more than Patriarchal, and that it is not our Rule (which this Author so much dislikes) but Pope Leo's the 
c Ep. 54.  1st, that propria perdit, qui indebita concupiscit. This plea of a Western Patriarchate is fatally confounded by that one plain Period of Bishop 
d True Dif. part. 2.  Bilson. As for his Patriarchate, by God's law he hath none; in this Realm for Six Hundred years after Christ he had none; for the last 6 Hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none; Above or against the Prince's Sword he can have none; to the subversion of the Faith, and Oppression of his Brethren he ought to have none; He must seek farther for Subjection to his Tribunal; this land oweth him none.  
So much for the first branch of this Thesis; the 2d is, that as the Prince cannot eject, or depose the Clergy, so neither can be introduce any into the place of those, who are ejected, or deceased without the concurrence of the Clergy. If by the concurrence of the Clergy, he means that the Person assigned by the Prince to any sacred office cannot execute it till he be ordained by the Clergy, No one will deny it; Or if he think that the Ordainer ought to lay hands on none but whom he esteems fit for the discharge of so sacred an Office; here also we agree with him; But how doth it follow that because Ordination, which is consecrating Men to the work of the Holy Ministry, is the proper Office of the Clergy, the Prince may not recommend to the Church a fit Person so to be consecrated, or assign to the Person already consecrated, the place where he shall perform that Holy Work? As for the Canons by him alleged, they being Humane Institutions are not of AEternal Obligation, but changeable according to the different State of the Church. If the 31st Apostolic Canon, which excommunicates all who gain Benefices by the Interest of Secular Princes, and forbids the People to communicate with them, still oblige; then we are exempted from Communion with the Bishop of Rome. How comes the latter part of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which concerns the Election of Bishops still to be valid, and the former part, which limits the Jurisdiction of Patriarches, so long since to be null? Why must the C. of England accept the 2d. Nicene Council in matters of Discipline, which the 
* Petr. de Marc. l. 6. c. 25. §. 8.  Gallican Church rejected in matters of Faith? Were the Canon of the Laodicean Council, here cited, pertinent to the purpose, as it is not, (it being directed only against popular Elections) yet why must that be indispensable, when another Canon, which enumerates the Canonical books of Scripture, has so little Authority? It is plain the manners of Elections have varied much in the divers States of the Church. The Apostles and Apostolical Persons nominated their Successors; afterwards Bishops were chose by the Clergy, and the people; after, by the Bishops of the Province, the Metropolitan ratifying the choice; In process of time Emperors, when become Christian, interposed and constituted and confirmed even Popes themselves 
* Marca de Conc. Imp. & Sac. cap. 8. . Nor is this Power of Princes repugnant to Holy Scripture, in which we find that 
* 1 King. c. 2. v. 35.  King Solomon put Zadok the Priest in the Room of Abiathar; That 
* 2 Chr. 19 11●.  Jehosaphat set Amariah the Chief-Priest over the People in all matters of the Lord: That He 
* v. 8.  set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the Chief Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for Controversies. As for his alleged Inconvenience, that, if temporal Governors can place, and displace the Clergy, they will make the Church's Synods to state divine matters according to their own minds, and so the Church will not be praeserved incorrupt in her Doctrine and Discipline, They who maintain the just rights of the Prince are not obliged to defend the abuse of them; there is perhaps no power ordained for our good, which may not be perverted to mischief; were this right of placing and displacing left to a Patriarch or a Synod, yet either of these might so manage their trust that a corrupted majority of Clergy might state divine matters according to their own minds, and so the Doctrines of Christ be changed for the Traditions of men. But to these objected Injuries which the Church may suffer from a bad Prince, we ought to oppose the benefit she receives from the Protection of a good one; Nor is it more true that Constantius an Arrian, by his unjustly displacing the Orthodox Bishops, procured Arrianism to be voted in several Eastern Synods, then that the succeeding Emperors by justly displacing the Arrian Bishops procured the Nicene Faith to be received in succeeding Synods. But for these mischiefs, which a National Synod is liable to, our Author has found out, as he thinks, a Remedy in his  
Fourth Thesis, That a Provincial, or National Synod may not lawfully make any difinitions in matters of Faith, or in reforming some Error, or Heresy, or other abuse in God's Service contrary to the Decrees of former Superior Synods, or contrary to the judgement of the Church Universal of the present Age Showed in her public Liturgies. But there is a Thesis in our Bibles, which seems to me the very contradictory of this. For saith the Prophet expressly, 
* Host 4. 15.  Though Israel transgress, yet let not judah Sin. Tho' ten tribes continue corrupted in their Faith, yet let the remaining Tribe take care to reform herself. For that judah had sinned, and consequently was here commanded to reform is plain from the words of Scripture, where it is said, that 
* 2 King. c. 17. v. 9  judah kept not the Commandments of the Lord her God, but walked in the Statutes of Israel which they made. But this argument of National Councils reforming without the leave of General has been managed with so great Learning and Demonstration by Archbishop Laud in his Discourse with Fisher, and his Lordship's Arguments so clearly vindicated by the Reverend D. Stillingfleet, that as it is great Presumption in this Author to offer any thing in a cause which has had the Honour to have suffered under those Pens, so neither would it be modest in me to meddle any farther in a Controversy by them exhausted. I shall therefore proceed to his  
Fifth Thesis, That 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 threatened with Fines, Imprisonment, and deprivation, in case of their Nonconformity to the Prince's Injunctions in matters purely 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. Now how this is pertinent to our case I can by no means conjecture. For it has been showed that neither were the Anti-reforming Bps. unjustly deposed, nor the Reformers unjustly introduced. But what he means by the Clergies being threatened with fines, imprisonment, and Deprivation in case of their Nonconformity to the Prince's Injunctions may be learned from another passage in his Discourse, where he tells us that the Clergy being condemned in the King's Bench in a Praemunire for acknowledging the Cardinal's power Legantine, and so become liable at the King's pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons, and Confiscation of their Estates, 
pag 26.  did to release themselves of this Praemunire, give the King the title of Ecclesiae & Cleri Anglicani Protector, & Supremum caput. Which Act, saith he, so passed by them, that, as Dr. Hammond acknowledges, It is easy to believe that Nothing but the apprehensions of dangers, which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it. But here we have great reason to complain of the unpardonable prevarication of this Author in so foully misrepraesenting Dr. Hammond. Which that it may be the more perspicuous, and that the Reader may make from this Instance a true judgement of this Writer's sincerity, it will be necessary to transcribe the whole passage as it lies in the Doctor. 
* Sch c 7. §. 5.  Though the first act of the Clergy in this was so introduced, that it is easy to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them (by a Praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, and therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an Act of their first will and choice, but that which the Necessity of affairs recommended to them, Yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a Synodical way, and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitched upon by joint consent of both Houses of Convocation, there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profess, their fear being the Occasion of their Debates, but the Reasons and Arguments observed in debate, the causes, as in all Charity we are to judge, of their Decision. Thus the Doctor. Now this Prevarication is the more culpable, because it is not an Original, but copied from Mr. Sergeant, whom this Writer cannot but be praesumed to have known to have falsified it. For Bishop Bramhal (in whose writings we find him very conversant) had detected this mis-quotation in Mr. Sergeant, and severely Reprimands him for it. His words are so applicable to our Author, that I cannot excuse myself the Omission of them. 
* Bp. Br. Wor. Tom. 1. p. 360.  He citeth half a passage out of Dr. Hammond, but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong. Dr. Hammond speaketh only of the first Preparatory Act which occasioned them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodical way; he applieth it to the subsequent Act of renunciation after debate. Dr. Hammond speaketh of no fear but the fear of the Law, the Law of Praemunire, an Ancient Law made many ages before Henry the 8th was born, the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Usurpations of the Court of Rome; but Mr. Sergeant mis-applieth it wholly to the fear of the King's violent cruelty. Lastly, he smothers Dr. Hammond's sense expressed clearly by himself, that there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profess, the fear being the Occasion of their debates, but the reasons or Arguments offered in debate, the causes (as in all charity we are to judge) of their Decision. He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously. This Author must be thought to have read these passages, and yet ventured the scandal of promoting this Forgery, tho' without the Honour of being the first Inventor of it. Such practices, as these, require little controversial skill, but much forehead; and we have seen a Machine lately publicly exposed for this laudable Quality of imbibing whatever is blown into its Mouth, and then echoing it forth again without blushing. Whether this be not our Author's Talon, let the Reader judge; as also what Opinion we ought to have of his Modesty, who after all this has the confidence to desire us to read, together with these his Observations on the Reformation, Dr. Hammond of Sch. c. 7. (the very Chapter whence this is cited) lest, saith he, I may have related some things partially, or omitted some things considerable in this Matter. As for this Objection of the Clergies being awed by fear in this Act, he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the (then) Lady Mary, which shows the vanity of it. 
●p. 142.  I am well assured (saith She speaking of Edward VI in her Letter to the Council) that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal. I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it, That could an Ecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God, yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops, unjustly excluded, and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduced, partly of those who have been first bribed with Money, and promises of Church praeferment, or praeengaged by Oaths to comply with the Usurpations of a pretended Spiritual Monarch, is not to be accounted a lawful Ecumenical Synod, nor the Acts thereof free and valid, especially as to their establishing such usurpations. This is a Thesis, which needs no Application. I proceed to his  
Sixth Thesis. That the judgement and consent of some Clergymen of a Province, when they are the lesser part, cannot be called the judgement and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province. This Assertion, that a lesser part is not equal to the Whole, is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse; and the Reader may hence be convinced that our Author doth sometimes travel in the 
* Educ. p. 119.  High road of Demonstration. But here we desire it may be proved, either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy, or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obeyed rather than the Major part judging contrary to it. In the mean time it is easily replied, that the judgement and consent of some few Bishops (
* Soave Hist● Conc. Tr. p. 153.  suppose 48. Bishops, and 5. Cardinal's giving Canonical Authority to books Apocryphal, and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original) cannot be esteemed the judgement and consent of the Catholic Church.  
7th. Thesis'. That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils, much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils, or also to a National Synod. The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy; but because every one must give an account of his own Faith, every one is obliged to take care that what he submits to the belief of, be consistent with his Christianity: I am obliged to pay all submission to the Church-Autority, but the Church having bounds, within which she ought to be restrained in her Determinations, if she transgresses these Limits, and acts against that Christianity, which she professes to maintain, I may rather refuse obedience, then forseit my Christianity. If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgement, I am answerable for it at God's Tribunal, not because I usurped a right, which was never granted me, but because I misused a Liberty which was indulged me. This we take to be the case of each private Christian; and farther, that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right, and Worship God (as is praescribed) himself, but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions, aught to use all those means of discovering the Truth, which God has afforded, viz. consulting the Pastors of the Church, reading the word of God etc. And that, having discovered it, He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embraced, but not without the use of that Judgement and Discretion which to them also is allowed. If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary, there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to inquire on which side God is; and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter, He is not on the Church's side for her Spiritual Authority. Thus a good King of Israel might 
* 2 King. 38. 22.  take away the High places and Altars, and say unto judah and jerusalem, Ye shall Worship before the Altar at jerusalem, because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses; Nor is it any Praejudice against it, 
* 2 King. 23. 9  That the Priests of the High places refused to come up to the Altar at jerusalem. Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue, and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos, tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod. And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution, yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute, 
* Mat. 26. 27.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been proved to be Felo de ●e, and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have established. When the Gallican Church shall have received all the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils, When the Western Patriarch shall have rechanged his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum; it may then be seasonable to examine, How far National Churches are obliged by things of mere Ecclesiastical Constitution.  
I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse; but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand, from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account. But I may not omit for the Reader's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as. It is enacted the 32d. Hen. 8. 26. c. 
pag. 38.  That all such Determinations, Decrees, Definitions and Ordinances, as according to God's word, and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty, or else by the whole Clergy of England, in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion etc. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believed, Obeyed, etc. Upon which he makes this learned Note. Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word. i e. when private Men think them to be so, yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained, and private men tied to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word. i e. when the setters forth believe them to be so. To obey a thing defined according to God's word; and to obey a thing defined, as being according to God's word, are Injunctions very different. Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have cleared this point, and a Schoolboy that was to turn this passage into Latin, would have known that as is put for which; Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus, All Decrees and Ordinances which according to God's word, etc. But this it is for people to meddle in Controversy at an Age when they have forgot their Grammar. Notwithstanding therefore this Aristarchus, We still retain the Liberty of believing and obeying only such things, which be defined according to God's Word. For which we are much blamed in the Conclusion of this Discourse.  

* p. 260.  In rejection of the Church's judgement (saith he) let none think himself secure in relying on the Testimony of his Conscience or judgement. But what reason soever he may have to undervalue the Testimony of a good Conscience, we think it advisable from St. Paul, 
* 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 19  to hold faith, and a good conscience which some having put away, concerning faith have made Shipwreck; Of whom are— But saith he, let none think himself secure in any of these things, so long as his Conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing, namely his Disobedience and Inconformity to the Church-Catholic. But our Consciences do not witness to us any disobedience to the Church-Catholic, but only to that Church which falsely praetends to be Catholic. He means to the Major part of the Guides thereof. But the cause has not yet been decided by Poll, that we should know which side has the Majority. Let him know that his Condition is very dangerous, when he maketh the Church-Guides of his own time, or the major part thereof, incommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion; There was a time then, when to believe the Consubstantiality of the Son was a dangerous Condition; and this perhaps made Pope Liberius externally to profess Arrianism. When for the maintaining of his Opinions he begins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of the Scripture, and the Doctrine of the Church. But why not distinguish, where the Church herself distinguishes, and saith, Christ indeed in the Scriptures instituted so, but I institute otherwise; as in the case of denying the Cup. Between the Doctrines of the Catholic Church of the former ages, and of the Catholic Church of the present. But here again the Church herself distinguishes, when She tells us that 
* Conc. Const. Sess. 13.  licet in primitiva Ecclesia sub utraque specie Sacramentum reciperetur, Yet now the contrary Custom habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare. Between the Church's orthodoxness in Necessaries, and non-necessaries to Salvation. If there be no difference betwixt these, why doth a 
* Guide in Controu. Disc. 1. c. 6. par. 56.  Friend of the Author tell us of an Obedience of Assent in the one, but of Noncontradiction only in the other? When he begins to maintain the Authority of an Inferior Ecclesiastical judge against a Superior. But what if this be only where the Inferior Judge agrees though not with his immediate Superior, yet with the Supreme? Or of a minor part of the Church-Guides against a Major. But that is not a case yet fairly decided. When they grant that God hath given them, beside the Scriptures, guides of their Faith. But those Guides themselves to be guided by the Scripture. And that they have in their judgement departed from those Guides. i e. the major part of them. But this we would have proved. Which in a Court consisting of many is the legal judge. Guides and Judges are different things; but we hope when this Court sits, the Judges will consult the Scripture, the Statute they are to go by, and if they judge according to that, they will judge well.  
These are the Doctrines of blind-Obedience which this Author so studiously inculcates. For since Doctrines are taught us different from Scripture, we are advised to use another way of discerning Doctrines, than what the Gospel prescribes. Our Saviour bids us, 
* Mat. 16. 6. 12.  Beware of the leaven. i e. the doctrine of Pharisee's, tho' sitting in Moses his Chair. We are now advised to embrace all the doctrines of those that sit in the Chair of S. Peter. Christ bids us, 
* Mat. 24. 4.  Take heed that no man deceive us tho' coming in his Name. We are now told that they who come to us in the Name of Christ cannot deceive us. St. Paul saith, 
* Gal. 1. 8.  that If an Angel from Heaven preach to us any other Doctrine then that which he preached, Let him be accursed. Now, if we do not embrace whatever a Patriarch from the West preaches, tho' never so contrary to the Gospel, we are concluded under an Anathema. The Apostles tell us, that they 
* 2 Cor. 1. 24.  have no Dominion over our Faith; but their Successors exercise a Despotic power in requiring a servile Obedience to all their Dictates. S. Paul's practice was to 
* Gal. 2. 11. 14.  withstand Peter to the face, When he saw that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel; but St. Peter's Successor pleads that in no case he may be withstood, because it is impossible, but that he should walk uprightly in the truth of the Gospel. The inspired Divine bids us 
* Rev. 18. 4.  Come out of Babylon, that we may not partake of her Sins; Our modern Theologists advise us to come back into 
* Babylonia apud Joannem Romanae ●rbis figura est. Tertuladv. Marc. I. 3. c. 13.  Babylon, for that She only is impeccable. 
Roma quasi secunda Babylon●a est. Aug. de Civit● De●. I. 18. c. 2.   
FINIS