Having thus proved that nothing hath been done amisse by the Church of England, with reference to Gods Word, the testimonies of godly Fathers, and the usage of the primitive times, in leaving off the Latine Service, and celebrating all Divine Offices in the English Tongue: I am to justifie it next, in order to the carrying on of that weighty businesse, whether so Regular or not, as we fain would have it. I see you are not scrupled at the subject-matter of the Common-prayer-Book, which being translated into Greek, Latine, French, and Spanish, hath found a general applause in most parts of Christendome; no where so little set by as it is at home. All scruples in that kinde have been already fully satisfied by our learned Hooker, who hath examined it per partes, and justified it in each part and particular Office. But for the greater honour of it take this with you also, which is alledged in the Conference of Hampton Court, touching the Marquesse of Rhosny (after Duke of Sally and Lord High Treasurer of France) who coming Ambassador to King Iames from Henry the 4. and having seen the solemn celebration of our Service at Canterbury, and in his Majesties Royall Chappels, did often and publickly affirm, that if the Reformed Churches in France had kept the same Orders as were here in England, he was assured there would have been many thousand Protestants in that Kingdome more then were at that time. That which you seem to stick at only is in the way and manner of proceeding in it: which though you finde by perusal of the papers which I sent first unto you, not to have been so Parliamentarian as the Papists made it; yet still you doubt whether it were so Regular and Canonical as it might have been. And this you stumble at the rather, in regard that the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation, had no hand therein, either as to decree the doing of it, or to approve it being done; but that it was resolved on by the King (or rather by the Lord Protector in the Kings Minority) with some few of the Bishops; by which Bishops and as small a number of learned Church-men, being framed and fashioned, it was allowed of by the King, confirmed or imposed rather by an Act of Parliament. Your question hereupon is this, Whether the King (for his acting it by a Protector doth not change the Case) consulting with a lesser part of his Bishops and Clergy, and having their consent therein, may conclude any thing in the way of a Reformation, the residue and greatest part not advised withall, nor yeelding their consent unto it in a formal way. This seems to have some reference to the Scottish Liturgie (for by your Letter I perceive that one of the chief of your Objectors is a Divine of that Nation) and therefore it concerns me to be very punctual in my Answer to it.

And that my Answer may be built on the surer Ground, it is to be considered, first whether the Reformation be in corruption of manners, or abuses in Government, whether in matters practical, or in points of Doctrine. 2. If in matters practical, whether such practise have the character of Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent, imprinted on it; or that it be the practise of particular Churchs, and of some times only. And 3. if in points of Doctrine, whether such points have been determined of before in a General Councel, or in particular Councels universally received and countenanced; or are to be defined de novo on emergent controversies. And these Distinctions being laid, I shall answer briefly. First, if the things to be reformed be either corruptions in manners, or neglect of publick duties to Almighty God, abuses either in Government or the parties governing: the King may do it of himself by his sole authority. The Clergy are beholding to him, if he takes any of them along with him when he goeth about it. And if the times should be so bad, that either the whole body of the Clergy or any (though the greatest) part thereof should oppose him in it; he may go forwards notwithstanding, punishing such as shall gainsay him in so good a work, and compelling others. And this I look on as a Power annexed to the Regal Diadem, and so inseparably annexed, that Kings could be no longer Kings if it were denied them. But hereof we have spoke already in the first of this Section, and shall speak more hereof in the next that followes. And on the other side, if the Reformation be in points of Doctrine, and in such points of doctrine as have not been before defined, or not defined in form, and manner as before laid down: the King only with a few of his Bishops and learned Clergy (though never so well studied in the point disputed) can do nothing in it. That belongs only to the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted; whose Acts being ratified by the King, binde not alone the rest of the Clergy in whose names they Voted, but all the residue of the subjects of what sort soever, who are to acquiesce in their Resolutions. The constant practise of the Church, and that which we have said before touching the calling and authority of the Convocation, makes this clear enough. But if the thing to be Reformed be a matter practical, we are to look into the usage of the primitive times. And if the practise prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church, though intermitted for a time and by time corrupted: the King consulting with so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Clergy, as he thinks fit to call unto him, and having their consent and direction in it; may in the case of intermission revive such practise, and in the case of corruption and degeneration restore it to its Primitive and original lustre, whether he do it of himself, of his own meer motion, or that he follow the advice of his Councel in it; whether he be of age to inform himself, or that he doth relie on those to whom he hath committed the publick Government; it comes all to one: so they restrain themselves to the ancient patterns. The Reformation which was made under Iosias, though in his Minority and acting by the Counsel of the Elders as Iosephus telleth us, Antiqu Iud 1. cap. was no lesse pleasing unto God, nor lesse valid in the eyes of all his subjects; then those of Iehosaphat and Hezekiah in their riper years, and perhaps acting singly on the strength of their own judgements only without any advice. Now that there should be Liturgies for the use of the Church, that those Liturgies should be celebrated in a language understood by the people: that in those Liturgies there should be some prescribed Formes for giving the Communion in both kindes, for Baptizing Infants, for the reverent celebration of Marriage, performing the last office to the sick and the decent burial of the Dead, as also for set Feasts and appointed Festivals; hath been a thing of primitive and general practise in the Christian Church. And being such, though intermitted or corrupted, as before is said, the King advising with his Bishops and other Church-men (though not in a Synodical way) may cause the same to be revised and revived: and having fitted them to edification and increase of piety either commend them to the Church by his sole authority, or else impose them on the people under certain penalties by his power in Parliament. Saepe Coeleste Regnum per Terrenum proficit. The Kingdome of Heaven (said Reverend Isidore of Sevil) doth many times receive increase from these earthly kingdomes; in nothing more then by the regulating and well ordering of Gods publick worship.

We saw before what David did in this particular allotting to the Priest the Courses of their Ministration, appointing Hymns and Songs for the Iewish Festivals, ordaining singing-men to sing, and finally prescribing Vestments for the Celebration. Which what else was it but a Regulating of the worship of God, the putting it into a solemn course and order, to be observed from time to time in succeeding ages? Sufficient ground for Christian Princes to proceed on in the like occasions: especially when all they do is rather the reviving of the Ancient Formes then the Introduction of a new. Which as the King did here in England by his own Authority, the Body of the Clergy not consulted in it; so possibly there might be good reason, why those who had the conduct of the Kings affairs, thought it not safe to put the managing of the businesse to a Convocation. The ignorance and superstition of the common people was at that time exceeding profitable to the Clergy, who by their frequent Masses for the quick and dead raised as great advantage, as Demetrius and the Silver-Smith by Dianas shrines. It hapned also in a time when many of the inferiour Clergy had not much more learning then what was taught them in the Missals and other Rituals, and well might fear that if the Service were once extant in the English tongue, the Laity would prove in time as great Clerks as themselves. So that as well in point of Reputation, as in point of Profit, (besides the love which many of them had to their former Mumpsimus) it was most probable that such an hard piece of Reformation would not easily down, had it been put into the power of a Convocation: especially under a Prince in Nonage, and a state unsetled. And yet it was not so carryed without them neither, but that the Bishops generally did concur to the Confirmation of the Book (or the approbation of it rather) when it passed in Parliament: the Bishops in that time and after, (till the late vast and most improvident increase of the Lay-nobility) making the most considerable, if not the greatest part of the House of Peers; and so the Book not likely to be there allowed of, without their consent. And I the rather am inclined unto that Opinion, because I finde that none but Tunstall, Gardiner and Bonner were displaced from their Bishopricks, for not submitting in this case to the Kings appointments; which seems to me a very strong and convincing argument, that none but they dissented or refused conformity. Adde here, that though the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation were not consulted with at first (for the Reasons formerly recited) yet when they found the benefit and comfort which redounded by it to good Christian people, and had by little and little weaned themselves from their private interesses, they all confirmed it on the Post-fact: passing an Article in the Convocation of the year 1552. with this Head or Title, viz. Agendum esse in Ecclesia lingua quae sit Populo nota, which is the 25. Article in King Edwards Book. Lay all that hath been said together, and the result of all will be briefly this, that being the setting out of the Liturgie in the English tongue was a matter practical agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive times; that the King with so many of his Bishops and others of the Clergy as he pleased to call to Counsel in it, resolved on the doing of it; that the Bishops generally confirmed it when it came before them, and that the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation (the Book being then under a review) did avow and justifie it: The result of all I say is this, that as the work it self I say was good, so it was done not in a Regal but a Regular way, Kings were not Kings if regulating the external parts of Gods publick worship according to the Platformes of the Primitive times, should not be allowed them.

But yet the Kings of England had a further right as to this particular, which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy (whether by way of Recognition or Concession, I regard not here) by which they did invest the King with a Supreme Authority not only of confirming their Synodical Acts not to be put in execution without his consent; but in effect to devolve on him all that power, which firmly they enjoyed in their own capacity. And to this we have a paralled Case in the Roman Empire, in which there had been once a time when the Supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and people of Rome, till by the Law which they called Lex Regia, they transferred all their Power on Caesar, and the following Emperors. Which Law being passed, the Edicts of the Prince or Emperor was as strong and binding as the Senatus Consulta and the Plebiscita had been before. Whence came that memorable Maxim in Iustinians Iustitutes; that is to say, Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigerem. The like may be affirmed of the Church of England, immediately before, and in the reign of K. Henry 8. The Clergy of this Realm had a Self-authority in all matters which concerned Religion, and by their Canons and Determinations did binde all the subjects of what rank soever, till by acknowledging that King for their supreme Head, and by the Act of submission not long after following, they transferred that power upon the King, and on his Successors: By doing whereof they did not only disable themselves from concluding any thing in their Convocations, or putting their results into execution without his consent; but put him into the actual possession of that Authority which properly belonged to the supremacy, or the supreme Head, in as full manner as ever the Pope of Rome, or any delegated by and under him did before enjoy it. After which time, whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation, as it had vertually the power of the Convocations; so was it as effectual and good in law, as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly, and in terminis, had agreed upon it. Not that the King or his Successors were hereby enabled to exercise the Keies, and determine Heresies, much lesse to administer the Word and administer the Sacraments, as the Papists falsly gave it out; but as the Heads of the Ecclesiastical Body of this Realm, to see that all the members of that Body did perform their duties, to rectifie what was found amisse amongst them, to preserve peace between them on emergent differences, to reform such errors and corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God; and finally, to give strength and motions to their Councels and Determinations, tending to Edification and increase of Piety. And though in most of their proceedings toward Reformation, the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them, or could assemble without any great trouble or inconvenience, to advise withall; yet was there no necessity, that all or the greatest part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose, no more then it was anciently in the Primitive Times for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire, for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church, or for the godly Kings of Iudah to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Levites, before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses which were crept in amongst them. Which being so; and then with all considering as we ought to do, that there was nothing altered here in the state of Religion, till either the whole Clergy in their Convocation, or the Bishops and most eminent Church-men had resolved upon it; our Religion is no more to be called a Regal then a Parliament-Gospel.

Project Canterbury