I shall dissemble no part of the clergy’s blame on this occasion; and
there is the less need, if I were ever so tender of their reputation,
as their inducements to preach up this doctrine were neither slight in
themselves, nor unfriendly to the public interest.
It cannot be doubted that the churchmen especially, both by interest
and principle, would be closely connected with the new head of the
church. Their former subjection in spirituals to the papal authority
would of itself create a prejudice in favour of it, as now residing
in the king’s person. And the disposal of bishopricks and other great
preferments being now entirely in the crown, they would of course, you
will say, be much addicted to his service.
But these were not the sole, or even the principal, reasons that
induced so wise and so disinterested persons, as our first reformers,
to exalt the royal prerogative. They were led into this pernicious
practice by the most excusable of all motives, in their situation, an
immoderate zeal against popery.
It is true, a very natural prejudice mixed itself with their other
reasonings. “The crown had been declared supreme, and to have chief
government of all estates of this realm, and in all causes.” And,
though this declaration was levelled only against the pretensions of
every foreign, and particularly the papal power, yet, the clergy were
given to conceive of it as a general proposition. The reason was, that
the people, from whom the just right of supremacy is derived, having,
at this juncture, not yet attained the consideration, which the nobles
had lost, they forwardly concluded, that if the royal estate were
independent of the pope, it was unquestionably so of every other power.
They could not, on the sudden, be brought to think so reverendly of the
poor people, even in their representatives, as to allow that they had
any pretension to restrain their sovereign.