impartial Reader to judge It is one of the ill Effects that commonly attend Controversial Writings that it is very Difficult to manage them either with that Temper and Ingenuity that becomes Scholars or with that Charity that good Christians ought to do And 't is this has given me almost as great a Disgust at them as ever Gregory Nazianzen profess'd himself to have against Synods and that almost upon the same Account Pride and Ill-Nature commonly Domineer in them and sometimes it so falls out that an Opponent must be freely dealt with or a good Cause must suffer in the Opinion of a great Many who conclude that a Man therefore only spares his Adversary because he could not get an Advantage against him How far I have fallen under this Censure in the Management of the present Controversy I must submit it to others to judge but do hope I have not so far Transgress'd as this late Author charges me to have done As for the Logick Law and History of the Person I had to deal with What it really is I pretend not to say What it appear'd to me to be my Book has shewn And if I have any where fail'd in my Allegations against him this Gentleman no doubt will take care to call me to Account for it But Honesty is a tender Point and I do not remember I have any where touch'd upon it 'T is true I have shewn what was indeed too plain to be deny'd that whosoever he were that Wrote that Pamphlet he could be no Friend to our present Establishment And this I am sure was to my Purpose to observe how little so ever it was to his to have it so plainly Discover'd However if in any thing I have been Mistaken in my Judgment either of his Affections of his Abilities I am heartily sorry for it and shall be ready to submit to whatsoever Pennance his most Vpright Logical Historical Second shall from his better skill in Antiquity and the Laws of our Church think fit to lay upon me for it THE CONTENTS INtroduction § 1. The Design of the following Treatise viz. To shew what has been the Sense of the Church of England ever since the Reformation as to the Authority of Christian Princes over the Ecclesiastical Synods of their Realms § 2. The Substance of the 25 H. 8. c. 19. to this Purpose § 3. Of its Repeal by Q. Mary and Revival by Q. Elizabeth § 4. That the Authority therein given to the King is no Other than what did always of Right belong to the Crown § 5. That it was to secure this Authority the Oath of Supremacy was framed § 6. The present Obligation of which is enquired into Ibid. That the same Authority is agreed to in the 37th Article § 7. The Sense of which is shewn Ib. And the Nature of that Subscription we make to those Articles consider'd § 8. And is yet more fully enjoin'd by the Canons of 1603. § 9. Which ipso facto Excommunicate all those who Impugn this Supremacy § 10. II. This Supremacy Confirm'd from the Sense of our Divines and Others ever since the Reformation § 11. Of the Times of K. H. 8. K. Edw. 6. and Q. Mary 1. § 12. Queen ELIZABETH The Judgment of her Self and her Parliament § 13. Of all her first Bishops § 14. Of Archbishop Whitgift § 15. Archbishop Bancroft § 16. Bishop Jewel § 17. Bishop Bilson § 18. Dr. 〈◊〉 § 19. Mr. Hooker § 20. King JAMES 1. Of the Revival of the Dispute concerning the Supremacy under this King § 21. The Judgment of the King himself Ib. And Of B. Andrews § 22. Against the Papists Of the Controversy which the King had on this Subject with the Scotch Ministers § 23. Vpon this Occasion B. Andrews Judgment more fully declared § 24. Which was also the Sense of the Rest of the Clergy at that time § 25. Particularly of our Learned Mason § 26. King CHARLES I. The Judgment of these Times more particularly shewn § 27. From the Sense of the King himself § 28. Of his Bishops especially A. B. Laud § 29. And of the whole Convocation 1640 § 30. The Judgment of A. B. Bramhall § 31. Bishop Davenant § 32. and Dr. Heylin § 33. King CHARLES II. The State of the Parliament and Convocation in 1660 consider'd How far this shews the same Sense to have continued of the Supremacy that had all along obtain'd before § 34. This farther shewn from the Opinion of Bishop Taylor § 35. B. S. Parker § 36. Dr. Falkner § 37. Dr. Barrow § 38. III. Vpon this Foundation an Appeal is here made to all the True Members of our Church against those who now Oppose this Authority § 39. And it is farther shewn That I have not been mistaken in Point of Law § 39. That the Cause was not unbecoming a Clergy Man to appear in § 40. That the time was not improper for the handling of it § 41. That it is not probable the Church will Suffer by what I have done but may by their Fury who oppose me in this Point § 42. The Close § 43. AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England c. AFTER an Age and half 's Dispute with those of the Church of Rome in Defence of the King's Supremacy and of the Laws that have been made for the Establishment of it it cannot but seem a little strange to Us to be Now call'd upon to begin the Controversy again with some among our selves who would be thought the Best if not the only True Members of the Church of England But that which seems yet more amazing is that tho' our Laws subsist in the same State which they have been in ever since the Reformation Our Articles and Canons made in pursuance of those Laws continue firm and unrepealed Tho' the Books that have been written by our Bishops and Clergy in defence of Both are not only not Censured but are Read Approved and Received on all hands as delivering the undoubted Sense of our Church and Convocations as well as of our Princes and Parliaments with relation to this matter it should now nevertheless be thought a Crime to assert the Supremacy of the Christian Magistrate and a Scandal for a Clergy-Man more especially to appear in behalf of that Cause by defending whereof so much Honour has been gain'd by the greatest Writers of that Order heretofore Had we now to do with the same Adversaries that those Learned Men were engaged with Were the Persons who in Our days set up against the Rights of the Prince either open Romanists on the one hand or avowed Members of the Kirk and Consistory on the Other we should the less wonder either at the Principles which they Advance or the Zeal with which they appear in Favour of them But to be Summon'd by Members of our Own Communion to defend the Doctrine of our Own Canons and Articles to be rail'd at as little better than
obliged to acquaint him with her Desires Reasons Places Seasons and Necessaries of Convening To petition his Leave and Favour his Inspection Assistance and Succour to the Piety of her Designs To secure him of her Fidelity to all his Proper Honours and Interests That they will keep within Ecclesiastical Concerns and do all things Openly to the Glory of God and the Good of Souls in the Vnity Order and Purity of the Church preserved by the Rules of Catholick and Canonical Communion and this under the Guard and Watch of Temporal Powers Well but what if the Prince shall not approve of the Reasons that are offered to Him for their Assembling nor think either the Time Convenient or the Place Proper and shall thereupon refuse Them the Leave they Petition for What if He shall think their Designs not to be so Pious as they pretend but rather to have a great Allay of Humane Passion and Prejudice in them What if He shall differ with them in His Notion of what is his Proper Honour and Interest May he in such a Case forbid them to Meet May he Assign them some Other Time or Place Or Command them not to meddle with such Causes or Persons as he shall judge his Honour or Interest to be Concern'd in What if what they call Ecclesiastical Concerns should chance to have an Influence upon Civil Affairs And that instead of Preserving they shall Act so as to divide the Vnity of the Church May he by the Temporal Power which is still left to Him put a stop to their Proceedings or Annul their Acts or Receive and Appeal from their Sentences On the contrary He flatly tells us That all the Power of Calling Moderating at and Dissolving Synods of Confirming their Acts or Suspending their Sentences is Negative of those Liberties and Authorities of the Church which she once claim'd as of Divine Right and of which He before affirm'd that they were neither forfeited nor forfeitable And here then we have a plain Account of the Judgment of this Author in the Case before Us. I was willing the rather to put it together in this Place that so by comparing it with what is said in the following Collection the Reader may be the better enabled to judge who has acted more sincerely upon the Church of England's Principles I in Asserting the King's Supremacy as by Law Establish'd or He in his violent and impetuous Opposing of it Or if this shall not be thought enough to convince those who have been dissatisfied with my Undertaking how close I have kept to our Churches Doctrine let me then for a final Proof desire this Author in his next Attempt to satisfie the World in these 3 Points 1st Let him shew wherein I have ascribed any more or Greater Power to the Prince than our Laws have given Him and our Convocations and Clergy have either expresly or by a plain Consequence approved of and declared to be his Right 2dly Let him tell us Wherein the Opinion here advanced by Him differs from that of our Missionary Papists and Jesuits who have written against the Supremacy and against whom our Divines have so Learnedly maintain'd the King's Prerogative 3dly Let him inform Us Whether any Writers of the Church of England since the passing of this Convocation Act have ever made any such Exceptions as he has here done against it and charged it as Destructive of the Divine Rights and Powers of the Church And who those Writers are and in what Books they have done it This being done if it shall appear that in any thing I have run into an undue Extreme and by that means derogated from the Churches Authority I shall then be ready to comply with the Advice he has given Me and not only humble my self before God for the Wrongs I have done the Church but publickly make a Reparation of them But if upon the Enquiry it shall appear that I have affirm'd nothing but what the Law Establishes our Convocations have Agreed to and our most Eminent Clergy Men have constantly defended I must then be excused if I look upon my self to have done no more than in Duty I was bound to do and by Opposing whereof I take this Gentleman not only to have acted contrary to the Laws of the Land and the Articles and Canons of the Church but to have actually incurr'd an Excommunication for such his Offence Having said thus much with respect to the Subject of my late Treatise I shall add but little more concerning the Design which is here laid for the Answering of it As this Author has order'd the matter it is become absolutely Necessary for Him to Go on with it For having charged me with Violating the most important Truths of Principles and Histories having told the World that I have treated the Synods of the Church with Spite and Contumely and Recommended the Greatest Slavery of Her to the Appetite of the Civil Powers and every part of which Charge does I conceive Accuse Me of no small Crime the Weight of this Accusation must fall very Heavy either upon Him or Me and I look upon my self as concern'd to tell him that I do expect he should make it Good or Honestly own that he cannot do it Only for his own sake as well as mine and which is yet more for the Satisfaction of Those who shall think fit to Interest themselves in this Controversy some few things there are which I would here Recommend to him and they are such as in my Apprehension ought not to be thought at all Unreasonable by Him And 1st Since this Debate however managed must be likely to Run out into a considerable Length I would desire him not to Increase the necessary Bulk of it by alledging Passages out of the Antient Fathers to prove that which Neither of Us make any doubt of Thus p. 160. He produces the Authority of Athanasius to prove that the Nicene Fathers were not constrain'd by any force that was laid upon them to condemn Arius but did it freely and of their Own Accord Now this I allow to be very true but cannot help thinking it to be in our present Case very little to the Purpose And p. 162. He cites a much larger Proof out of Gregory Nazianzen the Appositeness of which to our Debate I cannot yet imagine unless it be that He thinks all Greek to be equally Pertinent to most Readers in which he is certainly in the Right 2dly I would intreat him not to insist upon any Testimonies of Antiquity which have been already alledged again and again by Harding and Stapleton by Saunders and Dorman and the Rest of our Popish Fugitives in their Treatises against the Oath of Supremacy and as often answer'd by Our Writers unless he shall think fit at the same time to take Notice of their Replys to them and shew that they do not destroy the force of His Allegations To what purpose for example does he bring
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
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