Guide the Consciences of such as should make Use of it I shall from him descend but to One more Whom I fitly place the last of his Order And to whose Judgment tho' I pay no more than it deserves yet I cannot but think it may have some weight with those whom I am now concern'd especially to Convince In his Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity Chap. 1. he affirms The Affairs of Religion to be Subject to the Supreme Civil Power and to no Other p. 2. That as in the first Ages of the World the Kingly Power and Priestly Function were alway Vested in the same Persons So when they were separated in the Jewish State the Supremacy was annexed to the Civil Power and so continued until and after our Saviour's Death Ibid. This he more largely delivers p. 32. Tho' in the Jewish Commonwealth the Priestly Office was separated by a divine positive Command from the Kingly Power yet the Power and Jurisdiction of the Priest remain'd still subject to the Sovereign Prince Their King always Exercising a Supremacy Over All Persons and in All Causes Ecclesiastical The Power wherewith Christ invested the Governors of his Church in the Apostolical Age was purely Spiritual They had no Authority to inflict Temporal Punishments or to force Men to submit to their Canons Laws and Paenalties They only declared the Laws of God and denounced the Threatnings annexed to Them But when Christianity was become the Imperial Religion then began its Government to Re-settle where Nature had placed it and the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was annex'd to the Civil Power So that tho' the Exercise of the Ministerial Function still continued in the Persons that were thereunto Originally Commissioned by Our Saviour the Exercise of its Authority and Jurisdiction was Restored to the Imperial Diadem Constantine was no sooner settled in his Imperial Throne but he took the Settlement of All Ecclesiastical Matters into his Own Cognizance He Called Synods and Councils in Order to the Peace and Government of the Church He Ratified their Canons into Laws c. In the Exercise of which Jurisdiction he was carefully follow'd by all his Successors Nay he doubts not to affirm That had it not been for the Care of Christian Princes Christianity had in all humane Probability been utterly destroy'd by its Own Tumults and Seditions He adds That this Supremacy of the Civil Power in Religious Matters is expresly Asserted by Our Church which is not content barely to Affirm it but denounces the Sentence of Excommunication against All that deny it Thus stood this Author ' s Judgment in this Case about the Year 1669 It is true that being engaged against another sort of Adversaries and which led him to somewhat different Reflections we find him a little gone off from this Hypothesis in the Year 1681. Yet even there he is much more for the Supremacy than those we have now to do with He affirms indeed p. 105. That from the Precedent of the Apostles in the First Council of Jerusalem the Governours of the Church in all Ages enjoy'd a Power of making Canons and Constitutions for Discipline and Good Order But withal he adds that By the Example of the Primitive Church our Bishops submitted the Exercise thereof to the King 's Sovereign Authority as we see in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy Whereby says he p. 106. they do not pass away their Power of making Ecclesiastical Canons but only give Security to the Government that under that Pretence they would not attempt any thing tending to the Disturbance of the Kingdom or Injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown Which in truth is such a Submission as all the Clergy in the World ought in duty to make to their Sovereign at least in Gratitude for his Protection and that without any Abatement or Diminution of their Own Authority viz. The standing Laws of Christianity being secured to submit All Other Matters to his Sovereign Will and Pleasure And p. 108. He approves King James Reply to Cardinal Perron where he lets him know That tho' Christian Kings and Emperors never arrogated to themselves a Power of being Sovereign Judges in Matters and Controversies of Faith yet for Moderation of Synods for Determinations and Orders Establish'd in Councils and for the Discipline of the Church they have made a full and Good Vse of their Imperial Authority Such was the last Sense if I mistake not of this Writer and that when he was in his highest Exaltation of the Churches Authority And all the Difference I can find between his Own last and first Opinion is but this that what He before gave the Christian Prince as his Own due He now grants him by the Concession of the Clergy yet so as to declare the Clergy bound to yeild it to Him and to affirm the Churches Rights to be in no wise injured or impeach'd by it But I shall not insist any longer on this Authority but pass on to consider the Judgment of an Author or Two of a Lower Rank but whose Learning and Steddiness will much more recommend Them to all Sober and Indifferent Persons Of these the first I shall mention shall be our Excellent Dr. Falkner who in his Discourse of Christian Loyalty fully examines and determines the Case before Us. Concerning the Christian Doctrine and Profession says he tho' no Authority has any Right to Oppose any part of the Christian Truth yet Princes may and ought to take Care of the True Profession thereof in their Dominions and to Suppress such dangerous Errours as are manifestly contrary thereunto But in Cases of Difficulty for the deciding or ending of Controversies about Matters of Faith the Disquisition and Resolution of the Spiritual Guides ought to take Place and be Embraced In such Cases the Catholick Christian Emperours did by their Authority Establish the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils But in Matters of Truth which are plain and manifest from the Holy Scriptures themselves or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith the Saecular Governour so far as is Necessary may proceed upon the Evidence thereof to his Own Understanding In establishing Rules and Constitutions for Order Decency and Peace it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers to consult advise and take Care thereof But yet this with such Dependance upon the Royal Power as King Charles has declared that is That they first obtain the Kings leave to do it and execute nothing but with his Approbation See above § 28. In such an extraordinary Case as that in the Primitive Times was when the Civil Power will not own the Church the Ecclesiastical Governours by their Own Authority may establish necessary Rules of Order as was then done But since the External Sanction of such things doth flow from the general Nature of Power and Authority wheresoever the Temporal Power will take that Care of the Church which it ought it hath
of these Articles is Great and Unavoidable To affirm them in any part to be Superstitious or Erroneous whether he who does it be found out or no is by the Canons of our Church Excommunication ipso facto And if the Offender be discover'd and fortunes to be a Clergy-Man he is by the Statute Law of the Realm to be convented before his Bishop for it and if he does not presently Revoke his Error is in the First Instance to be Deprived of All his Ecclesiastical Promotions and in the Second loses them without more ado This is the Law both of the Church and of the State in the present Case And with what Conscience any Clergy-Man beneficed in such a Church can excuse himself for flying with so much Virulence in the Face both of these Laws and of these Canons I shall leave it to any One who has any Conscience himself though never so much prejudiced against the King's Supremacy to consider To the Articles of Religion set forth by Queen Elizabeth let us add the next authentick Evidence of our Church's Sense in this particular the Canons and Constitutions made by the Convocation in the first Year of King James I. Of these the very first is design'd to assert the Supreme Authority of the King's Majesty over the Church of England In order whereunto it ordains That All Persons Ecclesiastical shall faithfully keep and observe and as much as in them lieth shall cause to be observed and kept of Others All and Singular Laws and Statutes made for Restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom the antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical Which last words being the very Title of the Act of the First of Queen Elizabeth we must conclude the meaning of the Canon to be this That they shall faithfully Observe the Laws referred to in that Statute and do what in them lies to cause All Others to Observe the same Seeing then that Act of the 25 H. 8. c. 19. is One of those which is there expresly Revived it will follow that it expresly comes within the Words of this Canon and that the Powers therein annexed to the Crown over the Convocation are hereby approv'd and allow'd of as part of that Antient Jurisdiction which always of Right belong'd to our Kings over the Estate Ecclesiastical But the next Canon is more express and will come more fully up to our present purpose It s design is to Restrain the Impugners of the King's Supremacy over the Church of England And thus it runs in our English Version of it Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the King's Majesty hath not the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church Or impeach any part of the Regal Supremacy in the said Causes Restored to the Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein Established let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not Restored but only by the Archbishop after his Repentance and Publick Revocation of those his Wicked Errors It is plain by comparing of these two Canons together that the design of the Convocation was in the First to Declare and Assert the King's Supremacy and to oblige the Clergy to a strict and diligent Observance of it By the Second to Restrain all sorts of Persons from denying or otherwise endeavouring to hurt or extenuate the Legal Notion of it And two things there are which will deserve to be taken notice of in this Second Canon First What that Supremacy is which our Convocation was so careful to Assert and Defend And Secondly What it is to Impugn this Supremacy within the meaning of this Canon First As for the former of these the Supremacy here meant two Rules there are delivered by this Canon whereby we may come to a Right Understanding of it First It is that Authority over the Estate Ecclesiastical which by the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth was Restored and by the Act of Queen Elizabeth Confirm'd as of Right belonging to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And Secondly It is such a Power in matters of Religion as the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church And from which by the way it may be Observed what good Reason I had to enquire into the Authority of the Christian Emperors in these Cases and to argue from thence in behalf of that Power which our Church ascribes to our Own Princes on the like Occasions How much soever some Men may slight such Proofs as being sensible that they are not to be Answer'd Secondly To impugn this Supremacy within the meaning of this Canon is either first to deny Altogether this Authority and affirm that the King either has not or ought not to have any such Power Or it is secondly By any other means to Impeach or as the Latin Canon has it more plainly to Extenuate or Hurt this Supremacy Which I conceive is then done when Men Write and Argue against it when they Censure the Laws for Establishing of it and Damn the Prince so long as he shall continue to Exercise it according to those Laws But these are not the only Canons which justify what I have written in Defence of the King's Supremacy and Condemn those who appear against it The Twelfth is yet more express to my particular Case and will shew what the Sense of our Church is concerning those who Abet the now so much magnified Opinion on the other side Whosoever shall affirm that it is lawful Cuivis Ministrorum aut Laicorum Ordini vel Eorum alterutris simul Congregatis for any Sort Rank or Degree of Ministers or Laics or for either of them Gathered together to make Canons Decrees or Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastical things without the King's Authority and shall submit themselves to be Ruled and Govern'd by them let them be Excommunicated ipso facto and not be Restored until they Repent and publickly Revoke those their Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors For if in the Opinion of our Church it be necessary for the Clergy to have Authority from the King to meet on such Occasions If to say that any Persons of what Order soever they be may without his Licence make any Canons Decrees or Constitutions Ecclesiastical nay or but even submit themselves to be govern'd by such as shall be so made be a Wicked Anabaptistical Errour and for which a Man deserves to be cast out of the Communion of our Church then it must without all Question be allow'd that according to the Doctrine Establish'd among Us the Clergy can neither Meet nor Act but with the King's Permission Nor ought we to account those Constitutions of any Authority which any Persons shall make without his leave or as such submit to them how much soever they may please to cry up their Divine Powers and Vnalienable Rights to justify their Irregular and Anabaptistical Proceedings
The Sentence of both these last Canons is That they who Offend against them are to be ipso facto Excommunicated And concerning which I shall only observe thus much first that in such a Case there is no need of any Admonition as where the Judge is to give Sentence but every One is to take notice of the Law at his Peril and see that he be not overtaken by it And Secondly That there is no need of any Sentence to be pronounced Which the Canon it self has pass'd and which is by that Means already Promulged upon every One as soon as he comes within the Obligation of it In other Cases a Man may do things worthy of Censure and yet behave himself so warily in Them as to escape the Punishment of the Church for want of a legal Evidence to convict him But Excommunicatio Canonis Ligat etiam Occulta delicta Where the Canon gives Sentence there is no escaping but the Conscience of every Man becomes Obliged by it as soon as ever he is Sensible that he has done that which was forbidden under the Pain of such an Excommunication To these Canons relating to the Kings Supremacy I might add those which speak of the Authority of our Synods and there again Expressly provide for the Princes Rights Thus Can. 139. the Church affirms the Assembling of Synods to be by the Kings Authority In the 140th she acknowledges the Necessity of his Licence both for the Making and Ratifying of her Decrees in Causes Ecclesiastical And Can. 141. Censures such as shall upon this Account undervalue the Acts of our Synods in these Words Whosoever shall affirm that their Proceedings in making of Canons and Constitutions in Causes Ecclesiastical by the Kings Authority as aforesaid ought to be Despised and Contemned the same being Ratified and Enjoyn'd by the said regal Power Supremacy and Authority let them be Excommunicated and not Restored untill they Repent and publickly Revoke that their wicked Errour But in a Case so plain I shall not need to insist on any more Proofs and therefore shall content my self to observe that the Title given by publick Authority to these Canons is this Constitutions or Canons Ecclesiastical by the Bishop of London President of the Synod for the Province of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the same Province by the Kings Authority Treated and Concluded upon In their Synod c. Afterwards by the same Royal Majesty Approved Ratified and Confirm'd and by the Authority of the same under the Great Seal of England Promulged to be diligently observed thro' both Provinces as well of Canterbury as York This is the true Title given to these Canons And was fit to be thus particularly taken notice of because in our English Book of Canons which is of most common Use this Inscription as well as many of the Canons themselves is very imperfectly rendred and may be apt to lead Men into some mistakes concerning these as well as other Matters It were easie to make several Observations to our present Purpose upon the several Parts of this truly Accurate and Legal Title But I shall chuse rather to express the process of this Convocation in the Words of an Author who may perhaps be less liable to Exception and whose account of it is this That the Clergy being met in their Convocation according to the Tenour and Effect of his Majesties Writ his Majesty was pleased by Vertue of his Prerogative Royal and Supreme Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical to give and grant unto Them by his Letters Patents dated April 12. and June 25. full free and lawful Liberty Licence Power and Authority to Convene Treat Debate Consider Consult and Agree upon such Canons Orders Ordinances and Constitutions as they should think necessary fit and convenient for the Honour and Service of Alimighty God the good and quiet of the Church and the better Government thereof from time to time c. Which being Agreed on by the Clergy and by them presented to the King humbly requiring him to give his Royal Assent unto them according to the Statute made in the 25 of King Henry VIII and by his Majesties Prerogative and Supreme Authority in Ecclesiastical Causes to Ratifie and Confirm the same His Majesty was graciously pleased to Confirm and Ratifie them by his Letters Patents straightly commanding and requiring all his loving Subjects diligently to observe execute and keep the same c. And here I shall put an end to my first kind of Proofs in Defence of that Authority which I have ascribed to our Kings over the Convocations of the Clergy of the Church and Realm of England I proceed in the next place more fully to confirm this Authority to be agreeable to the Doctrine of our Church from the Testimony 's of our most learned Divines who have written upon this Subject from the beginning of the Reformation to our Own times II. It has been the Endeavour of some of late who would be thought still to retain a good Affection to the Reform'd Religion nevertheless to cast the worst Aspersions they are able upon those who were the chief Instruments of God's Providence in the Reformation of it What their design in this their Procedure is or how upon the Principles now set on Foot to justifie what was heretofore done among us as to this Matter or indeed without a Miracle ever to have had any thing at all done in it I cannot tell It being certain that such a Convocation as they now seem alone to allow of as Canonical would never have departed from the Way that they were in or have endured any Proposals tending to such a Change as was otherwise happily made among Us. But however since such is their Prejudice both against the Opinions and Actions of our first Reformers I will so far comply with their unreasonable Humours as to pass lightly over those Times of Church Servitude as well as Church Reformation and come to such Authorities as I suppose they will not have the Confidence to except against To pass by then the Opinion of the Convocation which about 3 Years after the Submission made to King Henry the VIII set out the first Doctrinal Treatise that led the Way to the Discovery and Renuntiation of the Popish Errors What shall we say to the Publick Declaration made by King Henry himself against the Council of Mantua and in which He cannot be supposed to have Spoken any thing but what he thought carry'd its Own Evidence along with it In times past says He All Councils were appointed by the Authority Consent and Commandment of the Emperours Kings and Princes Why now taketh the Bishop of Rome this upon him Wherefore we think it best that every Prince call a Council Provincial and every Prince to Redress his Own Realm And this he Spake not of his own Head but with the Advice of his Bishops and
Judging Controversies in Religion you might have learnt by these Examples in Ambrose time Against this T. C. then objected as some others from their Pattern do now the disability of Princes to Decree of what pertains to the Church The Archbishop replies That the Debâ—ting and Deciding of Matters in Religion by Bishops doth not derogate from the Prince's Authority No Godly Princes having Godly Bishops and Ministers of the Church will alter or change determine or appoint any thing in Matters of Religion without their Advice and Counsel But how if there be Dissention among them Shall not the Prince determine the Controversie as Constantinus Theodosius and other Godly Emperours did In short to T. C. 's Endeavour to clear the Puritans from running in with the Papists in this Particular the Archbishop thus replies Concerning the Determination of Matters in Religion I know not wherein you differ from them For tho' the Prince mislikes your Determination yet can he not Himself conclude any thing only he may compel you to go to it again and take better Rold But if it shall please you to Go forward in your Determination or if you cannot Agree among your selves I see not what Authority you have given the Civil Magistrate to Determine the matter but for ought I can espy if you and your Seniors be disposed to be peevish either must the Prince have no Religion or such as you shall appoint unto Him For potestatem Facti you have given Him that is you make him your Executioner but Potestatem Juris you do as fully Remove from him as the Papists do For he hath not as you say any Authority to make Orders or Laws in Ecclesiastical Matters Thus this great Assertor both of the Prince's and of the Church's Power To him let me add his Successor both in the See of Canterbury and in this Controversy Archbishop Bancroft Who in his Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline thus marks out those Parts of it which he look'd upon to be prejudicial to the Regal Authority No Civil Magistrate hath Pre-eminence by Ordinary Authority to determine Church Causes No Chief Magistrate in Councils or Assemblies for Church Matters can either be Chief Moderator Over-Ruler Judge or Determiner No Civil Magistrate hath such Authority that without his Consent it should not be Lawful for Ecclesiastical Persons to make any Church-Order or Ceremony The Judgment of Church Matters pertaineth to God The Principality or Direction of the Judgment of them is by God's Ordinance pertaining to the Ministers of the Church As they meddle not with the making of Civil Laws and Laws for the Commonwealth so the Civil Magistrate hath not to Ordain Ceremonies pertaining to the Church These he calls Puritane-Popish Assertions and says that they do much derogate from the Lawful Authority of Christian Princes There is but this only Difference betwixt them and the Rankest Jesuits in Europe that what the One sort ascribe to the Pope and his Shavelings the Others challenge to Themselves and their Aldermen For the better clearing of which he compares their Principles together And thus He sets down the Puritane Hypothesis from their Own Stating of it The Prince may call a Council of the Ministry and appoint both the Time and Hours for the same He may be assistant there and have his Voice but he may not be either Moderator Determiner or Judge Neither may the Orders or Decrees there made be said to have been done by the Prince's Authority They are to Defend Councils being Assembled If any One behave themselves there Tumultuously or otherwise Disorderly the Prince may Punish him Lastly He not only may but Ought to Confirm the Decrees of such Councils and see them Executed and punish the Contemners of them Thus far Mr. Cartwright And in the next Page the Archbishop shews that the Papists say the very same things and of both He affirms in his following Chapter that Hereby they Exclude Christian Princes from their Lawful Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical Having thus seen what these Masters of the Consistory allow to Christian Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters it might not perhaps be improper for me to ask of our New Disciplinarians wherein they differ from them in the Point before us But indeed it is clear that if there be any Difference at all between them it consists in this That those Men as bad as they were yet really allow'd more Authority to the Civil Magistrate over their Church Assemblies than our Modern Disputers are willing to afford him over Our Convocations And then I shall leave it to any one to judge what those Great Prelates would have said of these who Wrote so severely as we have seen against Those From these Archbishops of the See of Canterbury let us descend to two of their Suffragan Bishops and engaged against Another Party tho' still in Defence of the same Authority viz. Jewell Bishop of Salisbury and Bilson Bishop of Winchester As for the former of these our Learn'd Jewell he thus declares to us the Right of the Prince in the Defence of his Apology against Harding Page 582. The Christian Emperors in the Old time appointed the Councils of Bishops Continually for the space of 500 Tears the Emperor alone appointed the Ecclesiastical Assemblies and call'd the Councils of the Bishops together As for Right of Place and Voice in Council it pertaineth no less to the Prince than to the Pope The Emperor Theodosius as saith Socrates did not only Sit among the Bishops but also order'd the whole Arguing of the Cause and tare in pieces the Hereticks Books and allow'd for Good the Judgment of the Catholicks But ye say they Sate as Assessors only not as Judges That is to say they Sate by the Bishops and held their Peace and told the Clock and said nothing The Lay Prince hath had Authority in Council not only to Consent and Agree unto Others but also to define and determine and that in Cases of Religion as by many Evident Examples it may appear In all Cases as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal the Emperor was Judge over All. Whatsoever the Council had determined without the Emperors Consent it had no force Theodosius at the desire of the Bishops Confirm'd the Council of Ephesus So high an Erastian was this Good Old Bishop and so freely has he Sacrificed all the Rights of the Church to the Will of the Prince Nor has Bishop Bilson come at all behind him The Second Part of whose Book Entituled The true Difference between Christian Subjection and Vnchristian Rebellion 4 o. Oxford 1585. is but One continued Discourse in Defence of the Supremacy and of which it shall suffice to point out some Brief Heads on this Occasion 1. That the Emperors heretofore call'd Councils This he proves pag. 134 153 159 227 c. 2. That they appointed the Time and Place of
chiefest and choicest Men for Holiness Learning Vertue and Valour that the Christian Religion ever had before or since Did any of them refuse to come being called by Him Constantine as not called aright Or coming was there any One of them that did Protest against it or pleaded the Churches Interest to meet of Themselves Verily the Council of Nice which is and ever hath been so much admired by All Christians cannot be excused before God or Men if they thus conspired All to betray the Churches Right and suffered it contrary to all Equity to be carried away leaving a dangerous Precedent therein for all Councils ever after to the Worlds End There is no Man of Reason but will think it reasonable if this were the Churches own peculiar if Appropriate unto it and so known to them to be there ought to have been plain dealing now at the very first Council of All that if Constantine would embrace Religion he must forbear to meddle with their Assemblies 4thly But it may be General Councils have a Fashion by Themselves Those Congregations may be called thus but National or Provincial such as Ours How Even so too and no otherwise Yea I add this which is a Point to be consider'd that even then when the Emperours were profess'd Arians even then did the Bishops acknowledge their Power to call Councils Come to them being called Sued to them that they might be called And sometimes They sped and sometimes not And yet when they sped not they held themselves Quiet and never presumed to Draw together of their Own Heads But it may be this was some Imperial Power and that the Emperours had in this Point more Jurisdiction than Kings Not that neither For about 500 Years after Christ when the Empire fell in Pieces and these Western Parts came into the Hands of Kings those Kings had held and enjoy'd and practised the same Power If it be excepted that there are of these Provincial and National Councils which carry in their Acts no mention how they were called For them we are to understand that after the Decrees of the first Nicene Council were by Constantine's Edict confirm'd wherein as likewise in the Council of Chalcedon it was order'd that each Province should Yearly hold their Synods twice We are to conceive the Emperour's Authority was in All afterwards habitually at least 5thly But what say you to the 300 Years before Constantine How went Assemblies then Truly even as the Jews did before in Egypt They were then a Church under Persecution till Moses was raised up by God a lawful Magistrate over them No Magistrate did Assemble them in Egypt And good Reason They had none then to do it True it is therefore that before Constantine's Time they met together as they durst and took such Order as they could But when Constantine came in Moses Place it was lawful for him to do as Moses did And so he did And they never said to him Look how we have done hitherto we will do so even still Meet no otherwise now than in former Times we have by Our Own Agreement No but they went to him as to Moses for their Meetings At his Hands they sought them Without his Leave or Liking they would not Attempt them Yea I dare say they blessed God from their Hearts that they had lived to see the Day that they might now Assemble by the Sound of the Trumphet To conclude this Point then These two Times or Estates of the Church are not to be Confounded There is a plain difference between them and a diverse Respect to be had of Each If the Succession of Magistrates be interrupted in such Case of Necessity the Church of her self maketh supply because then God's Order Ceaseth But God granting a Constantine to them again God's former Positive Order returneth and the Case is to proceed and go on as before In a Word None can seek to have the Congregation so called as before Constantine but they must secretly and by Implication confess they are a Persecuted Church as that then was without a Moses without a Constantine 6thly Hitherto we have seen the Opinion of this Learned Prelate in the Case before us let us now see what Application he made of what he had offer'd on this Subject You may please to Remember says he there was not long since a Clergy in place that was wholly ad Oppositum and would never have yeilded to Reform ought Nothing they would do and in Eye of the Law without them Nothing could be done They had encroached the Power of Assembling into their Own Hands How then How shall we do for an Assembly Then the Prince had this Power and to him of Right it belonged This was then God Divinity And what Writer is there extant of those Times but it may be turn'd to in him And was it Good Divinity then and is it now no longer so Was the King but Licensed for a while to hold this Power till another Clergy were in and must he then be deprived of it again Was it then Usurped from Princes and are now Princes Usurpers of it Themselves Nay I trust we will be better Advised and not thus go against our selves and let Truth be no longer Truth than it will serve our turns I shall conclude all I have to draw out of this Discourse with the same Words that the Learned Preacher concludes his Sermon It remaineth that as God by his Law hath taken this Order and his People in former Ages have kept this Order that we do so too That we say as God saith This Power pertaineth unto Moses And that neither with Core we say We will not come Nor with Demetrius run together of our selves and think to carry it away with crying Great is Diana But as we see the Power is of God so truly to acknowledge it and dutifully to yeild to it That so they whose it is may quietly hold it and laudably use it to his Glory that gave it and to their Good for whom it was given It will not I hope be thought much of that I have so long insisted upon the Judgment of this Great Prelate in the present Case No Man there was in that Time or perhaps in any Other Age of the Church that was either fitter to deliver the Sense of our Clergy or better qualified to maintain it I might add that this Discourse being Preached first and then Publish'd by the express Command of the King carries with it somewhat more than a Private Authority And when it shall be consider'd how little a while it was before this that that Convocation met which took such care both to explain its Sense of the Royal Supremacy and to give the utmost Cononical Enforcement that could be given to it we may well conclude this to have been the Vniversal Judgment of our Church Divines in that Reign as we are sure it was
Clergy of the former of which all but two subscribed to the Instrument which was presented to him upon this Occasion And when notwithstanding this he was again Sollicited by the Emperour and some other Princes the Year after either himself to come or to send his Ambassadors to it He again renew'd his former Protestation and made again the same Exceptions against it Nor in this did he do any more than some even of his Popish Bishops had before approved and that on such Occasions wherein it cannot be pretended that any Force was laid upon them I shall in proof of this alledge only the Letter of Tonstal and Stokesly to Cardinal Poole in which the Authority of the Christian Prince over the Convocations of his Clergy is fully asserted and proved from the like Instances of the Antient Kings and Emperours that I have made use of to the same purpose And tho' Queen Mary in her Zeal to the Papal Interest repealed whatever Acts had been pass'd by her Father and Brother against it and this of the Submission of the Clergy among the Rest yet she did not therefore give up the Power over her Synods but still continued it according to the Substance of that Statute As is evident from her Calling and Dissolving not only the first Convocation of her Reign but of that which was held two Years after and to Assemble which Cardinal Pool himself had her Licence as he also had to make such Canons as should be thought needful in it QVEEN ELIZABETH But I will not tarry any longer in these Times but pass forward to that of the next Reign in which the Reformation was both more regularly carry'd on and at last brought to the State in which it continues at this Day Queen Mary having as I observed abolish'd whatever Laws had been made in the two preceding Reigns in Derogation to the Papal Vsurpations the first Thing done by Queen Elizabeth was to set the Crown again upon its antient Foundation and to Restore it to that Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical which of right belong'd to it This was the Work of the very first Act that pass'd in her Reign and by Vertue whereof the Statute made 25th Henry the VIII c. 19. to Ratifie the Submission of the Clergy was brought again in Force I have before observed what care was taken by this Parliament to secure these Rights of the Crown by an Oath then Establish'd under the Title of the Oath of Supremacy I must now add that the more to oblige the Clergy to a due Observance of them the Queen her self this same Year set out her Injunctions and in the very first Place took care of her Supremacy in them For thus the Injunctions begin That all Deans Archdeacons Parsons Vicars and all other Ecclesiastical Persons shall faithfully keep and observe and as far as in Them may lie shall cause to be observed and kept of Other all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the Restoring of the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical And that this Power over the Convocation was one Branch of it the Revival of the Law of King Henry the VIII relating to it which was made the same Year and in that very Act whose Title the Injunction transcribes is a Proof not to be gain-said It is evident then that this Queen as well as her Parliament looked upon this Power to be not only no Vsurpation upon the Churches Priviledges but to be a part of that Jurisdiction which had always of Right belong'd to the Crown and was Vsurp'd from it in the Times of Popery And so in the next place did her Bishops too For however being not yet assembled in Convocation they could not so Authoritatively settle the Articles of Religion as shortly after they did yet being met together they agreed upon certain Articles to be sent to their Clergy and by them publish'd to the People in the mean time till a Convocation should be call'd to consider farther of this Matter In the 7th of these their Articles they treat of the Power of the Civil Magistrate And therein require their Clergy to acknowledge the Queens Majesties Prerogative and Superiority of Government of all Estates as well Ecclesiastical as Temperal to be Agreeable to God's Word and of Right to appertain to her Highness in such sort as in the late Act of Parliament is express'd and Sithence by her Majesties Injunctions Declared and Expounded It would be needless to observe that the Act of Parliament here referr'd to is that of the same Year made for the Restoring the Crown to its Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and by which the so often mention'd Act of King Henry the VIII was expresly Revived As for the Queen's Injunctions I have already shewn that where they Treat of this Matter the most Favourably they nevertheless assert the same Power to the Queen that King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. challenged and used And what that was in the particular under Debate is not doubted of or deny'd by those who the most oppose Us in the present Vindication of it So that here then we have in our first Entry upon this Reign the Queen the Parliament and the Bishops All approving of and confirming this Authority And so they continued all her Time to do There being hardly any Controversy either more largely Debated or more accurately Handled than this of the Royal Supremacy against which our Adversaries on both sides appear'd with all their Skill and were as effectually Answer'd by the Greatest and most Learned of our Church Among these as there was no one higher in Dignity so neither was there any more Eminent both for his Abilities and good Affections to the Church of England than Arch-Bishop Whitgift And whose Controversy with the Puritans is one of the most learned and judicious Works of those Days In this the xx th Tract is wholly spent in the defence of the Princes Right in Ecclesiastical Matters Wherein having charged his Adversaries with holding the Popish Opinions and even using their very Arguments He tells them Pag. 698 699. That the continual Practice of the Christian Churches in the time of Christian Magistrates before the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome was to give Christian Princes Supreme Authority in making Ecclesiastical Orders and Laws yea and which is more in Deciding of Matters of Religion even in the Chief and Principle Points This he proves by several Instances and then concludes in these very Words whereby it appeareth that the chief Authority in Councils was given to the Emperour and that He was esteem'd as the chief Judge In his next Division he shews that the learned and antient Fathers have committed the Matters of Controversy to Emperours And then adds The Practice therefore of the Authority of Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters even in Determining and
them p. 154 155. Nay and even the Persons that should come to them p. 207. And have Voices in them p. 208. 3. That they directed what should be handled in them p. 135. Managed their Debates p. 134. And forbad them to call in Question the Faith that had by former Synods been Establish'd p. 155 208. 4. That they judged of their Proceedings p. 135. And that in Matters of Doctrine p. 261. By the Common Rule of All Christians the Word of God p. 264 266 276. 5. That they Confirm'd the Councils Decrees See p. 242. And this not at all adventures but chose such of their Canons as they approv'd and passed them into Laws p. 139. 6. That as to their Sentences they Received Appeals from Councils p. 135 151 152. Suspended p. 154. And if they thought them too severe Released the Rigour of their Censures and Determinations p. 136. These are some of the Points which this Learned Man not only allows of but defends from the Examples of the Jewish Princes and Christian Emperors And I will be bold to say either his Treatise is altogether False and Scandalous contrary to the Rights of the Church and the Sense of the Antient Fathers or my Discourse after all that has been said against it must be Confessed to be True and Orthodox and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England But because Bishops may be look'd upon as Suspicious Men let us see what those of an Inferior Order have written in this Case And for these I will take but One of a Kind Dean Nowell for the Dignitaries and the Venerable Mr. Hooker for the Rest of the Lower House As for Mr. Hooker the latter of these He was much too Young to have had any part in that Convocation in which our Articles of Religion were settled But Dr. Nowell was not only one of the most considerable Members of the Lower House at that time by his Own Dignity but chosen by the Clergy for their Prolocutor and so had the Chief Management of All that was done in it It was but Three Years after this that Mr. Dorman one of our Fugitive English Papists attacking the Queen's Supremacy as by Law Establish'd and then newly approv'd of by the Convocation this Learned Dean thought himself concern'd to undertake the Defence of it And indeed he has so well discharged his Part in it that I believe it will be very hard for our Modern Transcribers of their Arguments and Authorities to alledge any thing upon this Occasion that will not be found to have been fully answer'd before-hand in that Book His Treatise is expresly Referr'd to and approved of by Archbishop Whitgift in his Discourse upon this Subject and so may be look'd upon to deliver the Sense of that Great Archbishop as well as the Dean's Nor can it be reasonably doubted by Any but that it does deliver the Sense of the Whole Convocation and Clergy of the Church of England in this particular Let us see then how he States the Point between Us and his Adversary as to this matter and by what kind of Proofs he undertakes to Vindicate the One against the Other The matter in debate he thus accurately determines For. 23. We expresly divide the Offices of Christian and Godly Princes from the Offices of Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church under Them as distinct and divers Offices And we do teach that the Offices of Preaching of God's Word of the Pronouncing of Publick Prayer in the Church of Christ the Power of the Keys or of Binding and Loosing and of Ministring the Holy Sacraments are by the Word of God appointed to be the Peculiar Offices of Bishops and of other Ecclesiastical Ministers And we Teach and Preach even in Presence of Princes that neither Princes nor Any Other Persons saving only Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Ministers under them may intermeddle with the said Offices and Ministries Ecclesiastical so peculiarly and only appertaining to the said Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church P. 24. When we do speak of Causes Ecclesiastical wherein Christian Princes are the Chief Governors we mean not that Princes should Execute these Peculiar Offices of Priests as is also in the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions notified to all the Subjects of the Realm that will be disposed to understand the Truth without Cavillation But now touching the Authority of Princes to Oversee that the Bishops and Clergy do these their Offices diligently and truly according to the Rule of God's Word to Command them to do their Duty to Admonish them being therein slack to Reprehend them Offending Depose or Deprive them being Incorrigible This we say is the Office of a Chief Governor over the the said Persons Ecclesiastical which doth appertain to Christian Princes every One in their own Dominions Further besides the Office of Preaching and Ministring the Sacraments there are many other Orders Matters and Causes Ecclesiastical touching Ceremonies and the outward Regiment of the Church which may be term'd the Ecclesiastical Policy Page 25. There is also the Authority to Receive Appellations and finally to Determine Controversies arising amongst Persons Ecclesiastical To Summon and Call Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Persons as Men exercised in the Study of the Scriptures to Synods Convocations and Councils in Necessary Cases To Order Govern and Protect the said Bishops and Clergy being so call'd together and to Approve and Authorize things for the Outward Order Ecclesiastical and Policy determined in such Synods These be those Causes Ecclesiastical that we do speak of which do not pertain to Bishops and Priests only In these Cases and Causes Ecclesiastical the Authority of a Christian Prince is not only not excluded from intermedling with the Bishops and Clergy but the Prince's Authority is Chief therein Which Authority the Christian Prince exercising doth not Intermeddle with any Office belonging to Bishops and Priests only as the Adversaries of the Truth do falsly bear Men in hand but with their Own Offices by the Examples and Practice of all Antient Godly Princes as well in the Old Law as in Christian Religion proved of Right to them to Appertain And to Our Prince also by the Antient Laws and Statutes of the Realm as to the Learned in the said Laws is not Unknown of Right appertaining This is the Account which he gives of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Authority of Christian Princes in Matters of Religion The Proofs he alledges are full and conclusive From the Examples of Constantine p. 208 to 223. Theodosius p. 227 to 238. The Council of Chalcedons p. 239 to 246. The Third Council of Constantinople p. 250 to 253. Justinian the Emperor p. 276 c. To Omit many other Particulars in the Vindication of which I am not so immediately concern'd And I will be bold to say there is nothing by me advanced in this Argument which has not been both more highly carried and more particularly explain'd
Authority to disturb the Tranquility of the Common-wealth and to cross the Determinations of Precedent Councils Now to take the Cognizance of such Matters out of the Kings Hand or Power what is it but even to Transform the King into a Standing Image yea to bring him down to this Basest Condition to become only an Executioner and which I scorn to Speak the unhappy Hangman of the Clergies Will The King having thus asserted the Authority of Christian Princes in this particular was soon Assaulted by those of the other Party Cardinal Bellarmine at that time accounted one of the most Learned Controvertists of the Church of Rome first under the Name of Tortus fell with great Bitterness upon him To him his Majesty scoring to reply Bishop Andrews took the Cause upon himself and with Great Spirit and Judgment replied to him So that here then in these two we may expect to see what is to be said on either side upon this Subject As for the Cardinals Opinion I am not concern'd to take any Notice of it But that which the Bishop asserts and with great Force of Reason and Evidence of Antiquity defends is to this Effect That Kings have Power both to call Synods and to Confirm them and to do all Other things which the Emperours heretofore diligently did do and which the Bishops of those Times willingly acknowledged of Right to belong to them And 1st That to Christian Princes belongs the Sole Right of calling Synods he proves from the History of the General Councils that were assembled under them p. 165. And from the Examples of those which were afterwards held under Charles the Emperour p. 164. 2dly That having Assembled them they have a Right of Inspecting and Examining of Approving or Rejecting their Acts He likewise shews p. 162 164. You know says the Bishop how Constantine wrote to the Synod of Tyre All you as many as made up the Synod of Tyre hasten without delay to come to Us and shew us truly how sincerely and rightly ye have Judged p. 173. He adds 3dly That they may come to and make a part of the Synod This he proves p. 174. And then p. 176. thus Sums up the Royal Authority Put this says he together The King assembles the Synod the Synod presumes to do nothing without his Knowledge The King commits the whole Affair to their Power They by vertue of his Princely Command proceed to do what was needful to be done I might easily Confirm this same Opinion both of the King and Bishop with the Concurrent Authority of Burhil Tooker and some Others who were afterwards engaged in the same Controversy But I must not enlarge upon this Subject having so much more yet to observe both of this King and this Bishop upon another Occasion as to the Points under Debate The King being Dissatisfied with the Proceedings of the Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland for holding a Generally Assembly at Aberdeen contrary to his Command sent for a certain Number of the most Eminent of them to come up to him to London and satisfy him in some Things in which he thought he had just reason of Complaint against them To these Ministers after other things Transacted with them he deliver'd three Quaeres relating to his Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters and demanded their several Answers to them The Second of these Questions and from which we may sufficiently conclude what Opinion his Majesty had of his own Royal Supremacy was this Whether they acknowledge his Majesty by the Authority of his Prerogative Royal as a Christian King to have lawful and full Power to Convocate Prorogate and cause desert upon just and necessare Causes known to him the Assemblies of the Kirk within his Majesties Dominions How they trifled with his Majesty in their Answer to these Questions as well as in all the other Affairs about which they had been sent for is neither material to my Purpose to shew and may at large be seen in the Histories here Referr'd to by me That which I have further to observe is that during the Course of this Transaction the King caused four of his English Bishops on certain Days appointed to them to Preach before him at Hampton-Court and Commanded the Scotch Ministers to be present at their Sermons The third of these turns fell upon our learned Andrews at that time Bishop of Chichester whose Subject assign'd him by the King was to prove the Power of Princes in Convocating Synods and Councils In order whereunto he first laid down these two Points 1. That when the Prince calls the Clergy are to meet And 2. That they are not to meet of Themselves unless he call them The Proof of these Points he thus pursues 1st From the Law of God p. 104. 105. confirm'd by the Law of Nature and Nations p. 106. And 2dly From Matter of Fact Before Christ From Moses to the Macchabee's in the Jewish Church p. 106 107. After Christ From Constantine till a Thousand Years after Christ 1 By General Councils 2 By National and Provincial Councils assembled 3 Under Emperours and 4 Kings by the space of many Hundred Years p. 108. This is the Substance of his Sermon and from which I shall proceed to extract some part of what he says in the Prosecution of most of the Heads before laid down 1st In Speaking of the Law of Nations he has this Remark The Law of Nations in this Point might easily appear if time would suffer both in their General Order for Convocations so to be called and in their General Opposing all Conventicles called Otherwise Verily the Heathen Laws made all such Assemblies Vnlawful which the highest Authority did not cause to meet yea tho' they were Sub praetextu Religionis say the Roman Laws Neither did the Christian Emperours think fit to abate any thing of that Right nay they took more straight Order 2dly Concluding his Account of the Jewish State he has these Words Thus from Moses to the Maccabees we see in whose Hands this Power was And what should I say more There was in all God 's People no One Religious King but this Power he Practised And there was of all God 's Prophets no One that ever interposed any Prohibition against it What shall we say then Were all these wrong Shall we condemn them all Yet to this we are come now that either we must condemn them All the One after Another the Kings as Usurpers for taking on them to use more Power than ever orderly they Received the Prophets for soothers of them in that their unjust Claim Or else confess that they did no more than they might and exceeded not therein the Bounds of their Calling And indeed that we must Confess for that is the Truth 3dly In treating of General Councils he thus Speaks of that of Nice At Nice there were together 318 Bishops the Lights of the whole World the
Law of God Princes are Obliged by their Duty as Kings to set forth the True Religion to their Subjects tho' the Clergy should never so much or so generally Oppose them in it And in Another of his Books he proves the last Judgment in Matters of Religion to belong to Princes by this Argument He to whom the Holy Bishops remit their Decrees to be Examined from whom they desire the Confirmation of them Whom alone they Acknowledge to have the Power to prescribe to the People the True Religion by a Judiciary Coactive Power Him they constitute Supreme Judge in the Business of Religion But all this is ascribed to Pious Emperours and Kings As both from Councils and Fathers may evidently be made Appear I add that the Clergy cannot by Vertue of their Function compel the King to receive for the True Religion whatsoever they shall resolve by their Votes so to be But they must direct him by God's Word and always leave it to Him to Confirm that by his Authority which shall to Him upon Examination of their Reasons appear to be agreeable to God's Word Kings Sin when they throw off all Care of Religion and leave it to their Bishops alone Confirming by their Authority and Defending with their Sword whatsoever Faith They shall think fit to prescribe It is true indeed that as Other Christians so Princes themselves are to be directed in Matters of Religion by the Fathers of the Church But they are to be directed by the Light of God's Word and not to be drawn at the Pleasure of Bishops to the Defence of any Errour whatsoever The Church of England did not Innovate says Dr. Heylin in setling the Supremacy in the Royal Crown The like Authority was exercised and enjoy'd by the Christian Emperours not only in their Calling Councils and many times Assistiug at them or Presiding in them by themselves or their Deputies or Commissioners but also in Confirming the Acts thereof The like he shews to have been done by our Own Kings heretofore and then concludes thus so that when the Supremacy was recognized by the Clergy in their Convocation to King Henry the VIII it was only the Restoring of him to his Proper and Original Power If you conceive that by ascribing to the King the Supreme Authority taking Him for their Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission which ensued upon it the Clergy did unwittingly ensnare Themselves and draw a Vassallage on those of the Times Succeeding inconsistent with their Native Rights and contrary to the Usage of the Primitive Church I hope it will be no hard matter to remove that Scruple Its true the Clergy of this Realm can neither Meet in Convocation nor Conclude any thing therein nor put in Execution any thing which they have Concluded but as they are Enabled by the King's Authority But then it is as true that this is neither inconsistent with their Native Rights nor contrary to the Usage of the Primitive Times I grant indeed that when the Church was under the Command of the Heathen Emperours the Clergy did Assemble in their National and Provincial Synods of their Own Authority Which Councils being Summon'd by the Metropolitans and Subscribed by the Clergy were of sufficient Power to bind all good Christians who lived within the Verge of their Authority But it was Otherwise when the Church came under the Protection of Christian Princes As for the Vassallage which the Clergy are supposed to have drawn upon Themselves by this Submission I see no fear or danger of it That which is most insisted on for the Proof hereof is the Delegating of this Power by King Henry the VIII to Sir Thomas Cromwell by the Name of his Vicar General in Ecclesiastical Matters Who by that Name Presided in the Convocation Anno 1536. And this is look'd upon both by Saunders and some Protestant Doctors not only as a great debasing of the English Clergy but as a kind of Monstrosity in Nature But certainly these Men forget that in the Council of Chalcedon the Emperour appointed certain Noble-Men to sit as Judges whose Names Occur in the first Action of that Council The like we find Exemplified in the Ephesine Council in which by the Appointment of Theodosius and Valentinian the Roman Emperours Candidianus a Count Imperial sat as Judge or President It is not Possible to imagine any thing more express to our present Concern than what this Learned and Zealous Defender of our Church has here advanced If any One should be so Uncharitable as to imagine that this great Man had any Byass of private Interest upon him when he wrote this He may please to know that this Book was set forth by him in the time of Oliver Cromwel when our Church was in its worst Estate and there seemed but little hopes Remaining of its ever Recovering its self to a New Establishment But indeed this was his real Judgment and the General Sense of our Clergy in those Days Nor had our greatest Church-Men then learnt either to think Otherwise of the Princes Right Or to run down the Learning and Piety of those Holy Men by whose Courage and Conduct the Reformation was carry'd on and many of whom sealed the Sincerity of their Opinions with their Own Blood KING CHARLES II. I have now but one Period more to pass over and that a very short One too wherein I am to enquire How this Doctrine continued to be Received after the Restauration of King Charles the II. and upon that last Reveiw that was then made of our Constitution That at that time both the King and his Parliament were not only well Affected to the Interests of our Church but ready to concur with whatever the Convocation could reasonably have proposed to Them for the better Settlement of it is not to be doubted But what then did they do as to this Matter Was this enslaving Act made by our Saint Henry the VIII and continued by all his Oppressing Successors of the Reform'd Religion repealed by this Zealous Church-Parliament Or because that cannot be pretended Did that Reverend Synod which altered so many Other things ever once touch upon this and were stop'd in it Neither can that be Affirm'd Was there in that large Body Any One but One Generous Freeborn Spirit who being Scandalized at the Restraints under which the Divine Rights of the Church had so long lain moved the Convocation to protest against the King's Supremacy if they could not yet be so Happy as totally to shake it off Neither does any thing of this Occurr in the Diary which I have seen of that Convocations Proceedings Now that which makes me the rather to Remark this is that both that Parliament and that Convocation had this very Business of the King's Supremacy and the Churches Power under their Consideration And an Act was made for the better Execution of the One but still so