A defence of the Apology of the Church of England containing an answer to…A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to…

M. Harding.

M. Hardinge.

You will prove that Ecclesiastical causes pertain to a Kings of fice, because he hath the charge of both tables. If you mean that a King is bound to keep both tables of the law, so is also every private man. And yet, as no private man is supreme head of the Church by keeping them, so neither the King is proved thereby the^‡ supreme head. If you mean that the King ought to see others to keep both tables of the law: that may he do, either in appointing temporal pains for the transgressors of them, or in executing the said pains upon the transgressors. But as he cannot excommunicate any man for not appearing, when he is called, so can he not judge all causes of the law. For if a man sin only in his heart, as for example, in murder, or adultery: the King cannot have to do with him. And yet the true supreme head of the Church shall have to do with him. For that malicious and sinful thought^* shall never be forgiven, except the party come to be absolved of their Successors, to whom Christ said,³ whose sins ye forgive▪ they are forgiven: and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. To commit murder in heart, is a sin, and it is retained until it be forgiven. ^‡Neither can it be forgiven. until he that is Judge, by the key of discretion, perceive that it is to be forgiven. Which he cannot know, until it be confessed with a contrite hart, by him who only knoweth it, and is bound to tell it, for absolutions sake. If then there be a judge, who can see the law kept in an higher point, and beyond the reach of the King, surely the King shall not be supreme head