Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

pery, that tho he had commanded them to tamper with them, they would not have obey'd him. There was therefore no Manner of Occafion to forbid them to do it. Nay he might as well have forbid them to preach Judaifm to them as Popery. I believe indeed he never molefted his Children about their Religion. For as he gave free Liberty of Conscience to all his Subjects, it was not reafonable that his own Children should be the only Perfons excluded from the Benefit of it. But he could never be capable of fuch a grofs Solecism in Practice, as to declare his Children fafe in that Religion, which he had renounced himfelf upon a Conviction of Confcience, that he could not fave his Soul in it.

» G. Yes, My Lord, he might think his own Religion beft for himself without thinking those in » any Hazard, who were fincerely of the Church of » England, and lived up to the Rules of it. pag. 101.

[ocr errors]

L. Sr, when you convince me that King James was a Latitudinarian in Religion, then I shall be of your Mind, that he might think one Church beft for himself, and another better for his Children. I am fure he could not think his own Religion beft for himself as to this World; and if he only thought it beft as to his future Happiness, he could not but, have the fame Opinion of it with Relation to his Children.

» G. However King James did not think it un» lawful to be prefent at our Common Prayers, be» caule he heard them at his Coronation. pag. 101.

L. But did any Man in the whole Nation look upon his being prefent at your Common Prayers on that Occafion as a diftinctive Mark, whereby he profefs'd himself to be of the Proteftant Communion, or that he therefore approved of your Liturgy? No furely. Nor can you conclude from what he did at his

323 Coronation, that therefore he thought it Lawful to be

prefent at your Common Prayers in other Occafions. For if he had, he might have kept the Crown upon

his Head.

G. My Lord, what is Lawful once, is Lawful al

ways.

L. I beg your Pardon, Sr. For the fame external Action may be Lawful or unlawful as circumftances vary. As for Inftance: A Cafe of Neceffity may oblige a virtuous Perfon to go into very fcandalous Company, where it would be unlawful for him to appear at other Times. And the fame Action may give great Scandal at one Time, and none at all at another. If I should go upon Sundays to hear Prayers at my own Parish Church, where most of the Congregation know me, every Body would conclude I came with a Defign to conform because going to Church in that Manner is regarded as a diftinctive Mark, But if I went only out of Curiofity to hear the Parfon exercife his Talent in a Place, where I am not known, I should give no Handle to any one to interpret it as a Renouncing of my own Religion. Ti's plain then that the fame Thing may be Lawful in one Circumftance, and unlawful in another. Now the Circumstances of King Jame's being present at your Common Prayers were fuch, as render'd it impoffible for any Man to interpret it either a Diflike. of his own, or an Approbation of your Liturgy or Communion. Nor can you, by Confequence conclude from it, that he did not think it unlawful to be prefent at your Commun Prayers in ordinary Occafions; as I am fure no Roman Catholick thinks it Lawful.

[ocr errors]

S. 53.

Pope Pius V. was not the Author of the English Schifm.

» G.

[ocr errors]

Mful. For after the Reformation the Roman

Y Lord, formerly they thought it Law

» Catholicks of England came to our Churches, and to our Common Prayer without any Scruple. And this » continued till about the 10th Year of the Reign of » Queen Elizabeth, when Pope Pius forbad it by his

Bull. So that he made the Separation. And if he » had not fufficient Power to do it, or that there was not fufficient Caufe for it, then he made the Schifm too, and it lies wholly at his Door. Now it » is the undoubted Right of every National Church to reform, alter, and model their own Liturgy, as shall be moft convenient; provided there be nothing put into it, that is contrary to the Faith; which is not fo much as alledged againft our publick Offices. They have a Breviary at Milan, and other Places different from that at Rome. And in England before the Reformation there were diverfe in feveral Diocefes. As what was used in the » Church of Salisbury, of Hereford, of Bangor, of Tork, of Lincoln, &c. as is mention'd in the Pre» face of our Common Prayer-book concerning the ?? Service of the Church. But thefe Differences did not break Communion; nor did the Alteration made at the Reformation, till the Pope by the Plenitude » of his Supremacy, and to be revenged upon Queen » Elizabeth took upon him to break the Commu »nion. For which, as there was no fufficient Cause, » our Liturgy being all Orthodox even our Enemies being » Judges; fo on the other Hand the Pope's Supre»macy did not extend to break in upon the Rights

[ocr errors]

and Liberties of any National Church, as has been, and is still maintain'd by the whole Gallicane Church, « and others the moft learned in the Church of Rome. And, My Lord, I know fome Roman Catholicks of « Figure and good Senfe in England, who meerly upon this Account have come over to our Church, « and thought themselves obliged to return to the « Communion of their National Church, and to heal « the Breach made by that Excefs of the Pope's Su- « premacy, which no fober Man on this Side of the « Alps will own. It is ftrange to own it in Fact, and deny it in Words. Whoever owns this Bull of « Pius V. for Breaking Communion in England, « must also own the full Extent of the Bulla Cœna, « which has his Authority in a particular Manner, « as well as of all the Popes fince. And it damns al- « moft all Papifts as well as all who are not Papifts. « pag. 101. 102. 103. «

L. What, St! Will you never leave off Baiting that poor Bull? But we have now a Question of greater Moment before us, to wit, whether Pius V. was the Author of the English Schifm, which you boldly affirm, and endeavour to prove from a Fact, which upon Examination will appear to be a grofs miftake. You fay, that after the Reformation the Catholicks of England came to your Churches and Common Prayer without Scruple till the tenth Year of Queen Elizabeth. This, I fay, is a grofs Mistake, because your Meaning (to be any Thing to the Purpose) must be, that either the whole Body of Roman Catholicks; or at leaft the most eminent Part in England came to your Churches and Common Prayer; and that they did it upon a full Persuasion of the Lawfulness of it. For whoever do's a Thing without Scruple, unless he be an Atheist, is convinced in Confcience, that he may lawfully do it. Now it is neither true, that the whole

Body of Roman Catholicks, or the most eminent Part did conform nor that they, who conform'd, did it without Scruple.

י,

I prove the first from Dr Heylyn, who writes thus pag. 286. 3d Edit, London) It was upon the 8th Day of May, that the Parliament ended (viz. 1. of Eliz.) and on the 24 of June that the publick Liturgy was to be offi. ciated in all the Churches of the Kingdom. In the Perfor mance of which Service the Bishops giving no Encourage, ment, and many of the Clergy being backward, it was thought fit to put them to the final Teft, and either to bring them to Conformity, or to beflow their Places and Preferments upon more Tractable Perfons,

In the fame Page he tells us, that many of the Bishopricks being vacant when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, there were no more than fifteen living of that facred Order. And of thofe fifteen only one conform'd, viz. Kitchin of Landaf; who (as Dr. Heylyn remarks) having formerly fubmitted to every Change refolved to shew himself no Changeling in not Conforming to the Pleasure of higher Powers. So that no lefs than 14 Bishops of fifteen refufed to conform, and were accordingly deprived of their Bishopricks.

In the next Page he tells us, that befides the 14 Bishops, fix Abbots, Priors, and Governours of Religious Houfes (that is, all that were at that Time in England restored by Queen Mary) twelve Deans, and as many Arch.deacons is Prefidents, or Mafters of Colleges: 50 Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches, and above So Parsons of Vicars were deprived of their Preferments.

But Mr Rishton, who lived in thofe unhappy Times, and could not but know what happen'd, relates that great Numbers of the Layity, and many eminent Perfors of both Universities quitted the Kingdom, and chofe to undergo a voluntary Banishment ra

« AnteriorContinuar »