as not to Prejudice the Other Here therefore was a just Opportunity given to the Convocation to have declared its self and for the Parliament to have provided for the Liberties of the Church They were actually Repealing One Branch of that very Statute of the First of Eliz. c. 1. And two Lines more had done the Business But alas they were both Negligent in this Particular Or rather for that is the Truth they Neither of them thought the Church was at all Oppress'd by this just Jurisdiction of the Prince over it But we know Acts of Parliament are Obstinate things and will no longer bend as they were wont to do to the Ecclesiastical Canon Did the Synod therefore at least make bold with its Own Constitutions and Rescind those base and flattering Canons which stampt upon this Act the Churches Approbation And by so doing sign'd the Theta upon her Rights Liberties and Authorities On the contrary they continue still in force and have as far as One of King Henry's Convocations has power to do it ipso facto Excommunicated some among Us who while they make a Noise in the World as if they only were the true Sons of the Church of England are Really cut off from all Communion with Her In a word When upon the Review of the Liturgie several other Alterations were made in the Forms of Ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons did they slip aside the Oath of Supremacy that Bond of Iniquity contriv'd by the Atheists and Erastians of the Parliament in the First of Q. Elizabeth on purpose to run down the Rights of the Clergy and set up an Oppressive Supremacy over them But they still stand as they did before and may move some to consider who have been Ordain'd by these Forms How to Reconcile the Solemn Recognition of that Oath in behalf of the King's Authority with what they have since Written with so much Bitterness against it But tho' the Convocation therefore did nothing to Recover the Church out of that slavish Estate into which former Convocations and Parliaments had brought her it may be some Others of the Clergy at least in their Writings on this Subject may have Remonstrated against it That any have done so till this present Controversy began is what I never Heard This I know that several have Asserted and which is more defended too the Supremacy on its present Legal Bottom beyond the possibility of a Reasonable Reply Among these I know not whom more properly to mention in the very first place than our Pious and Learned Bishop Taylour It was but a very little while before the Restauration of King Charles that he published his Excellent Book of Cases of Conscience and which has never I conceive fallen under any Censure tho' often Re-printed since In these having first in General shewn that the Prince has Authority in Matters of Religion and Asserted it so highly as to say That without it he is but the Shadow of a King and the Servant of his Priests He proceeds more particularly to lay down this as his next Rule of Conscience That Kings have a Legislative Power in the Affairs of Religion and the Church Which having also shewn his next Conclusion to our purpose is this § 9. The Supreme Civil Power hath a Power of External Judgment in Causes of Faith That is as he Explains himself a Power to determine what Doctrines are to be taught to the People and what not And to prevent mistake he thus declares himself more particularly as to this matter § 16. I do not intend by this that whatsoever Article is by Princes allow'd is therefore to be accounted a part of True Religion For that is more than we can justify of a Definition made by a Synod of Bishops But that They are to take care that True Doctrine be Establish'd That they that are bound to do so must be supposed Competent Judges what is true Doctrine Else They Guide their Subjects and some Body Else Rules them And then Who is the Prince The Prince then is to Judge what is true Doctrine yet this He must do by the Assistance and Ministries of Ecclesiastical Persons Kings are the Supreme Judges of Law Yet in Cases where there is Doubt the Supreme Civil Power speaks by them whose Profession it is to Vnderstand the Laws And so it is in Religion The King is to study the Law of God not that He should wholly depend in Religion upon the Sentences of Others but be able of Himself to Judge But the Prince's Office of providing for Religion and his Manner of doing it in Cases of Difficulty are rarely well discoursed by Theodosius the Younger in a Letter of his to St. Cyrill The Doctrine of Godliness shall be discuss'd in the Sacred Council and it shall prevail or pass into a Law so far as shall be judged Agreeable to Truth and Reason Where the Emperor gives the Examination of it to the Bishops to whose Office and Calling it does belong But the Judgment of it and the Sanction are the Right of the Emperor who would see the Decrees should be Establish'd if they were True and Reasonable Ib. § 5. This I observe in Opposition to those bold Pretences of the Court of Rome and of the Presbytery that Esteem Princes bound to Execute their Decrees and account them but Great Ministers and Servants of their Sentences And a little lower he saith If He the Prince be not bound to Confirm All then I suppose He may chuse which he will and which he will not § 6. He shews that Princes are not bound to Govern their Churches by the Consent and Advice of their Bishops but only that it is Reasonable they should For says he Bishops and Priests are the most Knowing in Spiritual Affairs and therefore most fit to be Councellors to the Prince in them In his Fifth Rule § 1. he Affirms That Kings have Power of Making Laws And therefore as Secular Princes did use to Indict or Permit the Indiction of Synods of Bishops so when they saw Cause they Confirm'd the Sentences of Bishops and pass'd them into Laws Before Princes were Christian the Church was Govern'd by their Spiritual Guides who had Authority from God in All that was Necessary and of Great Convenience next to Necessity And in Other things they had it from the People For the better providing for These God raised up Princes to the Church And then Ecclesiastical Laws were Advised by Bishops and Commanded by Kings They were but Rules and Canons in the hands of the Spiritual Order but made Laws by the Secular Power These Canons before the Princes were Christian were no Laws farther than the People did Consent but now even the Wicked must Obey This was the Judgment of that Great Bishop as to the Princes Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastical And this Judgment he delivered in his full Years in One of his last Works and that purposely design'd to
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
in the first Article of the 39th Canon and the Promissory no other than what is tied upon Us in the 1st Canon by an Authority which Our Adversaries I conceive will not presume to except against But not to insist upon the present Obligation of this Oath thus much at least must be confess'd and that is enough for my Purpose that All those who heretofore took the Oath of Supremacy as it was first drawn up in the Statute of Queen Elizabeth did thereby without Question both declare their Approbation of the Kings Supremacy as by that Act Establish'd and promise to their Power to Assist and Defend it But now this All our Clergy and almost all Others who were admitted to any Employ whether Civil or Ecclesiastical did do And therefore it must be allow'd that till within these last ten Years the Authority by me ascribed to the King was not only agreeable to the Sense of the Laity but to that of the Clergy too since every Clergy Man in the Realm till then did upon his Oath both declare his Approbation of it and Engage himself to his Power to Defend it And how that Authority which was so Universally received and acknowledged by us for so long a time should now become so Detestable in it self and so Destructive of the Rights and Liberties of the Church I would desire these Gentlemen if they can to Inform Me. It was about four Years after the Session of this Parliament and the Passing of this Act that the Nine and Thirty Articles of Religion were agreed upon in Convocation and Publish'd by the Queen's Authority Of these the 37th relates to the Civil Magistrate and is drawn up so exactly according to the Words as well as Sense of the Oath of Supremacy that we cannot doubt but that the Convocation had a particular Respect thereunto in the Framing of it The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and Other her Dominions unto whom the * Chief Government of All Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in All Causes doth appertain So this Article determines And what we are to Undestand by Supreme Power and Supreme Government of all Estates and in all Causes Our Laws tell us and from which we may be sure neither the Queen nor the Convocation had any Intention to depart But the Article goes on Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the Chief Government by which Title We understand the Minds of some dangerous Folks to be Offended We give not our Princes the Ministring either of God's Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie But that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal And if you would know what Ruling of the Ecclesiastical Estate is hereby intended the Injunctions to which the Article Referrs us will fully clear it Where having first denied as the Article also does that by the Words of the Oath of Supremacy before-mention'd the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessors of the Crown may challenge Authority and Power of Ministry of Divine Service in the Church they declare That Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority than what was challenged and lately used by the noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. which is and was of Antient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be These are the Words of the Queens Injunction and agreeably whereunto it is manifest the Convocation design'd to frame this part of their Article as they took the Oath of Supremacy for their Pattern in the foregoing And in consequence whereof as well as in conformity to the Laws of the Realm then Establish'd we must conclude That this Power of calling and directing the Convocation being one main part of that Jurisdiction which was declared by Act of Parliament to belong to the Crown and was accordingly Restored and Annex'd to it thereby And having as such been challenged and used both by King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. is also a part of that Supremacy which the Convocation here intended to attribute to the Queen as we are sure the Queen must have understood it to have been hereby ascribed to her And of this I shall give a more particular Proof when I come to consider the Notions which this Queen and her Clergy had of her Authority as to this Matter In the mean time I cannot but desire this Late Writer and All Others of the same Judgment with him who have in like manner Subscribed these Articles seriously to bethink themselves with what Conscience they did it if they had in Good earnest so ill an Opinion as they now pretend of that Power which those Articles most certainly allow of and profess to be due to the Civil Magistrate That the Author of the late Treatise not so much againt my Book as against our Laws and Government must have several times Subscribed these Articles the Character of a Minister which he takes to himself sufficiently assures Us. No Man can be Ordained a Deacon or Priest without doing of it Nor being in Orders can be admitted to any Cure of Souls or to any Other Ecclesiastical Administration whatsoever but he must again Repeat it The Method taken for performing of this Subscription is full and positive For first the Substance of what we are to Subscribe to is drawn up into three Articles whereof the first and third are these 1. That the King's Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness's Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal c. Which being the very Words of the Oath of Supremacy must be taken in the same Sense that I have before shewn that Oath was to be Understood in And 3. That we allow the Book of Articles of Religion and acknowledge All and Every the Articles therein contain'd to be agreeable to the Word of God And then to these Articles we subscribe in these very Words I S. H. do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three Articles above mentioned and to All things contained in them He therefore who does this either must subscribe to them against his Conscience or he must thereby be concluded to profess this belief That the Authority given to the King by Our Laws and approved of in these Articles is agreeable to the Word of God The Danger of Impugning any
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
AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England In behalf of the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy AS By Law Establish'd by our Convocations Approved and by our most Eminent Bishops and Clergy-Men Stated and Defended against both the Popish and Fanatical Opposers of it By WILLIAM WAKE D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty LONDON Printed for Richard Sare at Grays-Inn-gate in Holborn MDCXCVIII TO The most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitan My LORD THIS Appeal which Addresses it self to Others for their Judgment Sues with all Humility to Your Grace for Your Protection and that such as I conceive is neither Unfit for me to Ask nor for Your Grace to Afford You will here see what that true Agreement is between the Priesthood and the Empire which our Laws have Establish'd our Convocations approv'd of and our Greatest Clergy-men hitherto defended without the Censure of Any but the profess'd Enemies of our Church and Constitution But now a New Sort of Disciplinarians are risen up from within our selves who seem to comply with the Government of the Church much upon the same account that Others do with that of the State not out of Conscience to their Duty or any Love they have for it but because it is the Establish'd Church and they cannot keep their Preferments without it They hate our Constitution and Revile all such as stand up in Good Earnest for it but for all that they resolve to hold fast to it and go on still to Subscribe and Rail IN Opposition either to the Errors or Designs of these Men the Present Appeal bespeaks Your Grace's Protection not so much for its self as for the Articles and Canons of our Church and for those Excellent Worthies who in their several Successions have appear'd in Defence of the King's Supremacy over the State Ecclesiastical as by Law declared and Establish'd That you will vouchsafe still to Continue to Own a Cause in which not only the Church of England but the Church Catholick ever since the Civil Powers have become Christian is concern'd together with her The Authority we plead for in behalf of our Kings being no Other than what the most famous Bishops and Councils of the Church have given to their Empeperors and who by consequence must All be involved in the same Censure with our Parliaments and Convocations And they who now Revile the One would as freely Condemn the Other but that they are sensible that many who are well content with the Reproach of King Henry VIII and his Clergy would not endure to hear the like Charges made against Constantine and Theodosius and those Bishops and Councils which all Christians in all Ages have been wont to pay so Great a Regard to THIS My LORD is the Cause which I here bring before Your Grace In the Defence whereof I have Once already been engaged and shall with God's Assistance again appear when those who now talk with such Confidence against my former Allegations shall give me Occasion to shew how just they were and how little in Reality there is to be excepted against them In the mean time I was willing for the better Discovery of these New-Reformers by this short preliminany Treatise to draw aside the Curtain and let the World see whose Off-spring they are and from whom they derive both their Principles and their Animosities against Us. I cannot but hope that by this I shall awaken all the Sincere Members of our Church to beware of them and not give Countenance to such Attempts as under a shew of bettering Our Constitution do in Reality tend to the Utter Subversion of it To Your Grace I submit both the Design and the Performance and with all possible Duty and Respect Remain My LORD Your Grace's Most Humble and Obedient Servant WILLIAM WAKE THE PREFACE WHEN I entred upon the Defence of the Kings Supremacy in Answer to the Letter to a Convocation Man I was not so little acquainted with the Tempers and Designs of a certain Party among us as not to know that my Undertaking would be likely to displease Those who think any the least Authority that is given to his present Maiesty to be an Encroachment either upon their Civil or Ecclesiastical Rights Nor was I unsensible what might possibly be reply'd to the Arguments which I brought in Proof of it The knowledge I had of what the Papists were wont to return to the like Allegations of our Writers against them having in some measure inform'd me what upon this Occasion might probably be said in Answer to Me. But to find my self charged as if in defending the Authority of the Prince I had betray'd the Rights of the Church and appear'd in such a Cause as neither became my Function nor had any of our Clergy ever before concern'd themselves withall this I confess was a perfect Surprise to me and abundantly Convinces me that some Mens Resentments are as much beyond Modesty as they are without Reason It cannot be unknown to any who is not an utter stranger to the History of our Reformation upon what Principles it was undertaken and at last happily setled among us How the Prince's Authority was both the Means by which it was carry'd on and the Ground on which we justify'd our selves in the doing of it And indeed at the first none but the Papists that is to say those who had engrossed this Power into their own Hands and could neither endure to part with it nor to submit to the Use which they saw we intended to make of it complain'd of what we did in restoring the Prince to his antient and undoubted Right or pretended to enter any Process against us upon the Account of it It is true some time after another Party how opposite soever to the Papists in other Matters yet in this too nearly Approaching to Them began to set up themselves and to claim the same Power in behalf of their Kirk that the Romanists had pretended to in Right of their Pope and Church But against Both these our Bishops and Clergy continued firm and costant and were by all impartial Judges allow'd to be as much Superiour to them Both in their Arguments as they were in the Justice of the Cause which they maintained Thus stood this Controversy till our Own times Insomuch that I hardly know any Author professing himself a Member of the Church of England who has either cast any Aspersion upon our first Reformers for restoring the Crown to its Antient Jurisdiction or pretended that the Divine Rights of the Church were in any wise violated or infringed by it But it seems the Case is very much altered now And it is of a suddain become an Encroachment not to be endured by our New-Church-Patriots for the King to pretend to lay any Restraint upon their Assemblies and an Enterprise unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel tho'
by more than one Obligation engaged so to do to appear in defence of the Royal Supremacy It is indeed very strange to consider after what manner a certain Writer has of late deliver'd his Sense as to both these and such as will hardly be Credited except I repeat it in his own Words 'T was Natural says He to expect the Insurrection of Infidels and Hereticks against the Proposals and Power of a Convocation But who would have dreamed that any Clergy Man of the Church should lift up his Heel against Her When the great Luminaries of the Church shall sign the Theta upon Her Rights Liberties and Authorities Divine and Humane and this Voluntarily and without any Bribe offer'd or Menace denounced the Concession is taken for Sincere and for that Cause Just. King Henry the VIII of famous Memory notwithstanding all his Claims at Common-law and his Interest in his Parliament thro' Power and the Rewards by Abby and Church-lands could not have made himself so absolute in Eccesiasticals had he not procured before the Submission of the Clergy Nor could he have compassed That but by the Terrour of a Praemunire under which they had fallen and upon which he was resolved to follow his Blow and so to bend or break them And yet this Act of a Popish Vnreform'd and will nigh Outlaw'd Convocation Extorted for fear of Ruin and thro' Ignorance and Non-suspicion of the Acts consequent upon it prejudges more against our Liberties than all Secular Constitutions could possibly have done without it And must we Now consecrate all these Procedures the Results of which we feel in the total Ruin of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Christian Piety by Our voluntary Pleas and Acclamations And to gratifie the Civil Powers to an Arbitrary Vtmost violate the most Important Truths of Principles and Histories treat the Synods of the Church with Spite and Contumely and Recommend the greatest Slavery of her to the Appetite of Civil Powers This is a severe Charge and a Man had need have a very Good Cause or a very Impregnable Face who treats Kings and Parliaments Convocations and Clergymen after such a Rate For when all is done it cannot be denied but that what that Convocation did and that King and Parliament Enacted was after two intermediate Reigns again Repeated in the First of Queen Elizabeth is at this day Approv'd of by the Canons of King James the First and allow'd of in the Nine and thirty Articles of Religion to which this Author himself has more than once Subscribed And methinks the consideration of that if nothing else might have induced him to have been more temperate in his Charge against me who have defended no Other Authority in the Prince than what both He and I and every Other Clergy-man of the Church of England have solemnly declared our Assent to and are obliged to our Power to maintain But our Author does not intend to leave this Point so easily his Zeal carries him yet farther in Opposition to the King's Supremacy To say nothing of his fresh Invectives against that King and that Convocation which first began to assert the Royal Authority against the Invasions which had so notoriously been made upon it Pag. 110. He affirms the Authority of the Church in the Convention Freedom and Acts of Synods to be of Divine Right This he again insists upon pag. 115. and in the next Page calls them Divine Privileges given by God and granted to Priests for the Conduct and Conservation of the Church And in the same Page speaking of the Prince's breaking in upon these supposed Rights he says Not only the Romish Church but all Other Sectaries and the Scotch Kirk illustriously scorn to admit any Servitude notwithstanding not only National Protection but Promotion being sensible that a Liberty of Religion Government and Church-Discipline is more valuable than all worldly Wealth or Interest and without which they cannot apprehend any Protection to Religion or the Societies that Profess it From which last Words I suppose I shall not injure his Sense if I infer that then according to his Notion the Church of England is really at present in a Persecuted State and has been so ever since the Reformation And cannot be look'd upon so much as a Protected Church till this Act of the Submission of the Clergy shall be Repealed A strange Reflection certainly and very Unbecoming those manifold Blessings our Church has enjoy'd under its Reformed Princes and does at this time Enjoy under her Glorious Preserver Whose greatest Crime I am afraid it is in some Mens Opinion that he has delivered us from that Slavery into which we were running tho' such as our new Disciplinarians seem to think the only way to a Canonical Liberty I must transcribe a great part of his Book should I here Repeat all that this Author has said in the most spiteful manner that he knew how to Express it against all that plead for or speak well of this part of the King's Supremacy See how he Harangues his Brethren of the Clergy upon this Occasion P. 119. We we only says he are the Poor Tame Dis-spirited Drowsie Body that are in love with our Own Fetters And this is the only Scandalous Part of our Passive Obedience to be not only Silent but Content with an Oc n of our P rs which are not forfeited nor forfeitable to any Worldly Powers whatsoever It might perhaps be here no Improper Question to ask what this Gentleman means by so Warm an Application to the Whole Body of the Clergy Whether he would have them take Heart upon the Matter and having so Redoubted a Champion to lead them on like true Missionaries see what they can do to raise up a Croisade against these wicked Magistrates who so unwarrantably Usurp upon the Churches neither forfeited nor forfeitable Powers At least thus far 't is plain he has gone towards it that as he has before shewn the Church to be out of the Protection of the Prince so he will by and by declare the Prince to be out of the Bosom of the Church and by Both authentically qualified for a Holy War to be made upon Him For thus he goes on p. 122. Can a Claim of an Oppressive Supremacy be deem'd a Glorious Jewel in a Christian Crown which if exercised must of necessity forfeit the King's Salvation And is it not a dangerous complaisance in Priests to fan such an Ambition as must End in the Ruin of the Church the Priesthood and the Soul of the Prince which the Liberties and Powers Hierarchical were design'd to Convert Direct and Preserve But still it may be doubted how far he accounts the King's Supremacy to be Oppressive That the whole Act of the Submission of the Clergy to King Henry the VIIIth falls under this Censure we have already seen In short all that he thinks fit to be allow'd to the Christian Prince is this That the Church be
the Sayings of Athanasius against the Synod of Tyre of Osius against Constantius of St. Ambrose against Valentinian the Younger to us who know what has long since been Return'd to them by our learned Jewel and Bilson Whitgift and Andrews and the rest of our Writers upon this Subject This may pass with those who are Ignorant of these Matters for a shew of Reading and they may for a while look with Wonder on the Vnknown Character and applaud the learning of the Text and Margin But when the Common place shall be lay'd open and they shall begin to discover out of whose Magazine these Authorities are Transcribed and shall be convinced how often they have already been both Alledged and Answered the most Charitable Reader will be apt to shake his Head and think the worse both of the Cause and the Defenders of it And this I desire with relation to other Mens Writings As for my own Book 3dly I would request him when he cites my Words but especially when he does it with a Design of Reflecting upon them that he would take them as they lie and not leave out or insert any that may have an Influence upon the Sense of what He quotes Of the former of these I take my self to have some reason to complain in his References of p. 100. and 101. of his Book But of the latter yet more p. 109. where He says that I give the Prince Power to suspend not only the Sentences of Synods but their Canons too And of which I do assure the Reader he will not find the least mention in the Passages to which he is Referr'd But 4thly And to go yet farther Would his design or prejudices give him leave I could wish he would take care to distinguish a little better between what I Relate as matter of History and what I deliver as my own Sense It being easie to imagine that in a Work of such a Nature as that is which he has undertaken to Examine many things may be Recited from Others which a Man is not bound himself to approve of Had he used this Precaution he would not have told his Reader as he does p. 160. that I charge the Synod of Ariminum with the Sin of Disobedience for dissolving themselves without the Emperours leave Whereas in Truth I only give a sincere Account of the Matter of Fact and shew from my Author what those Fathers did and what Resentments the Emperour had of it What reasons those Holy Bishops had for returning to their Churches after a tedious Absence tho' not Licensed by Constantius so to do it cannot be thought we at this Distance should be so well able to judge as They at that time were And if they were Satisfied that they had Reason so to do far be it from me to Condemn them for preferring their Duty to their Flocks before the Satisfaction of a Violent and Heretical Prince Let me to this add 5thly As not very different from what I have now mentioned such other Mistakes as either want of Care or the Heat of Contention has sometimes led him into and by reason of which he charges me with several things which I am by no means concern'd to admit of Thus for Example It is not less than four several times that he Speaks of my Definition of a Synod And in one Place censures me for the Vn-accuracy of it p. 49. And indeed a very loose Definition of a Synod it is tho' fit enough to keep Company with that which Himself gives of it in the same Place But then it is a great Mistake to say that I had any thoughts of Defining a Synod in the Place to which he refers On the contrary I acknowledge the very Meeting of which I there Speak not to be what we properly mean by a Synod Only I shew both from the Persons of which it consisted and from the Business which it met about that if the Prince has Authority over such an Assembly as that was there is no Reason why he should not have an equal Authority over Synods which both consist of the same kind of Persons and meet about the like Affairs But 6thly And to have done There is yet one Thing more which I cannot but think to be worthy his Regard and it is this That before he draws up any more Charges of Absurdities and Contradictions against me He would take some tollerable Care to examine Matters thoroughly and to advise with some clearer Heads and not charge That upon my Words which is really the Misfortune of his own Vnderstanding What a strange Confusion for Example is it p. 166. because I prove from the Matters of Fact in the first Ages after the Empire became Christian and from what was orderly and regularly done in those times too the Princes Supremacy to fancy that I had overthrown my own Foundation by saying that in the Dreggs of Popery and when Princes had lost their Antient and just Authority many things were done by the Clergy in their Synods very irregularly and their bare doing of which is by no means sufficient to prove that they had a Right to do it Again p. 167. Because I cite Eusebius for an Expression of Constantine's that he was Bishop in things without the Church what strange Logick is it from thence to conclude that Princes have nothing to do in the Affairs of Synods Whereas it is Notorious that those above any thing were the very Matters of which he Spake So p. 168. I quote Socrates for saying that the Greatest Synods were called by the Emperors Ergo says he 't is plain that the lesser Ones were not Again p. 169. I affirm that in peaceable Times and under Princes who take Care of the Church Synods ought not to meet but by the Command or Allowance of the Civil Magistrate To this he conceives it is a Contradiction to say as yet I do that in Cases of extreme Necessity when Princes shall so far abuse their Power as to render it absolutely needful for the Clergy by some extraordinary Methods to provide for the Churches Welfare that Necessity will warrant their taking of them And again Because I assert that in quiet Times and under a Pious Christian Prince the Prince is to judge when it is proper for Synods to meet to this he fancys it to be a Contradiction to allow that when the Danger is apparent and the Necessities of the Church will not bear the farther delay of Them if the Prince does refuse to let them meet they must rather venture his Displeasure and do it of themselves than be wanting in such Circumstances to the Churches Safety and Preservation These are some of those Absurdities which this Ingenious Writer has been pleased to lay to my Charge Many more there are of the like kind and by which whether he has more exposed my Weakness or his Own I am very well Content to leave it to any
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
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
in behalf of the Prince by this Great Champion of our Church in his accurate and solid Treatise upon the same Subject Such was the Opinion of Dean Nowell nor does Mr. Hooker come at all behind him The Antient Imperial Law says he forbiddeth such Assemblies as the Emperor's Authority did not cause to be made Before Emperors became Christians the Church had never any General Synod their greatest Meetings consisting of Bishops and Others the gravest in Each Province As for the Civil Governor's Authority it suffered them only as things not Regarded or not accounted of at such times as it did suffer them So that what Right a Christian King hath as touching Assemblies of that kind we are not Able to judge till we come to later Times when Religion had won the Hearts of the Higher Powers Constantine was not only the First that ever did Call any General Council together but even the first that devised the Calling of them for Consultation about the Business of God After He had Once given the Example his Successors a long time follow'd the same Touching that Supremacy of Power which our Kings have in the Case of making Laws it resteth principally in the Strength of a Negative Voice which not to give them were to deny them that Without which they were Kings only by a meer Title and not in Exercise of Dominion If it be demanded by what Right from Constantine downwards the Christian Emperors did so far intermeddle in the Church's Affairs either we must herein condemn them as being over-presumptuously bold or else Judge that by a Law which is termed Regia that is to say Royal the People having derived unto their Emperors their whole Power for making Laws what matter soever they did concern As Imperial Dignity endow'd them with competent Authority and Power to make Laws for Religion so they were thought by Christianity to Vse their Power being Christians unto the Benefit of the Church of Christ. Was there any Christian Bishop in the World which did then judge this Repugnant unto that Dutiful Subjection which Christians owe to the Pastors of their Souls Wherefore of them which in this Point attribute most to the Clergy I would demand What Evidence there is whereby it may clearly be shew'd that in Antient Kingdoms Christian any Canon devised by the Clergy alone in their Synods whether Provincial National or General hath by meer force of their Agreement taken place as a Law making all Men constrainable to be Obedient thereunto without any Other Approbation from the King before or afterwards Required in that behalf And this shall suffice for the Reign of this Great and Wise Queen I shall make no Apology for taking these last Quotations out of that part of Mr. Hooker's Works which are not of Equal Authority with the Books publish'd by himself in his Life time There being so much of Mr. Hooker's Stile and Reason in them as makes me undoubtedly conclude that as they are they proceeded from Him And those who are supposed to have interpolated these Books were never charged with turning things to the Advantage of Sovereign Authority So that if any Changes or Omissions should have happened in this Place it must have been to the Disadvantage not to the Interest of the Cause before Us. But I shall be content to take his Opinion as it still is left to Us and is sufficiently contrary to that wild Notion of Chruch Power which is now again set on foot tho' by another sort of Men in Pretence at least among us KING JAMES I. We have before seen how the Oath of Supremacy fram'd in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth set the Pens of those of that Age on Work in discussing the Authority of the Christian Prince in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical It was not very long after the coming of King James into England before another Oath again Revived the same Controversy and set the most Learned Men of the Church of Rome upon a fresh Opposition of the Royal Authority Among those who on our side appeared in Defence of it as no one began sooner so is there none that ought to be rather taken notice of by Us than the King himself who with Good Learning as well as with a Stile becoming a Prince solemnly asserted his own Royal Rights and Jurisdiction And first In his Apology for the Oath of Allegeance we have his Opinion plainly deliver'd in several Points relating to our present Disquisition Answerably to the Fathers spake the Councils in their Decrees As the Council of Arles submitting the whole Council to the Emperour in these Words These things we have Decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour beseeching his Clemency that if we have done less than we ought it may be supplied by his Wisdom if any thing otherwise than Reason requireth it may be Corrected by his Judgment if any thing be found Fault with by Us with Reason it may be Perfected by his Aid with Gods favourable Assistance But why should I speak of Charles the Great to whom not One Council but Six several Councils Frankford Arles Tours Chalons Mentz and Rhemes did wholly Submit themselves And not rather speak of all the General Councils that of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Calcedon and the four others commonly so Reputed which did submit themselves to the Emperours Wisdom and Piety in all things Insomuch as that of Ephesus repeated it four several times That they were Summon'd by the Emperour 's Oracle beck charge and command and betook themselves to his Godliness beseeching him that the Decrees made against Nestorius and his Followers might by his Power have their full Force and Validitie And in his Defence of the Right of Kings He thus confirms the same Principles It is willingly granted that Emperours never challenged never arrogated to be Sovereign Judges in Controversies of Doctrine and Faith Nevertheless it is clearer than the Suns light at high Noon that for Moderation at Synods for Determinations and Orders establish'd in Councils and for the Discipline of the Church they have made a good and full Use of their Imperial Authority The first Council held at Constantinople bears this Title or Inscription The Dedication of the Holy Synod to the most Religious Emperour Theodsius the Great to whose Will and Pleasure they have Submitted these Canons by them address'd and establish'd in Council And there also they beseech the Emperour to Confirm and Approve the said Canons The like hath been done by the Council of Trullo by whom the Canons of the fifth and sixth Councils were put forth and Publish'd This was not done because Emperours took upon them to be Infallible Judges of Doctrine but only that Emperours might see and judge whether Bishops who feel the Prick of Ambition as other Men do did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations but most of all in their Determinations to undermine the Emperours
a Right to give its Establishment to such Constitutions and the Ecclesiastical Officers as Subjects are bound to apply Themselves thereto for the Obtaining of it The calling of Councils so far as is needful for the Preservation of the Peace and Order of the Church may be perform'd as the former by Ecclesiastical Officers where the Civil disowneth the Church But this being no particular Exercise of the Power of the Keys but only of a general Authority doth peculiarly belong to the Prince or Supreme Governour if he will make use thereof The antient Right and Exercise of the Authority of Kings in Summoning Provincial or National Councils is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca But indeed he himself in his 5th Chapter abundantly Demonstrates both that and all the rest that is Contended for in the present Dispute And the Heads of which are such as these That the antient Emperours had Power to Call Councils p. 156 158 159 161 165 170 To be present at Them p. 157 160. And by Themselves or their Deputies to Preside in Them p. 162 167 170. To direct them what they should Consult about p. 157 163 170. To appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting p. 166 170. To keep the Bishops from leaving the Council till all should be Finish'd for which it was Called p. 163. To Confirm what they do aright p. 157 160 161 164 169 170. To Rescind what they do amiss p. 163. To Suspend their Acts from taking Effect till they should give way to it p. 165. These are the Instances which may be observed in that Chapter of the Jurisdiction and Authority which the antient Emperours Exercised over their Synods heretofore And by which we are to Expound as our Church has taught Us the Supremacy of our Own Princes in the like Cases I shall conclude what I have to observe from this Learned Writer with a Remark which I wish some Men would be perswaded a little more seriously to Consider p. 204. Some things which at first Sight may seem an Abatement of the Authority of the Church is rather such a way of Regulating the Exercise of its Power as under Religious Princes is for the Churches Advantage Of this Nature I conceive that Constitution of the 25 H. VIII that No new Canons shall be Enacted Promulged or Executed without the Royal Assent and Licence to Enact Promulge and Execute the same For hereby the Cergy give such Security to the King against all jealousies of Renew'd Ecclesiastical Usurpations that thereupon the Church may under the Kings Favour and with the Assurance of greater Safety and Protection practise upon its Establish'd Constitutions which are so Good that we have great Reason to bless God for them And hereupon it may also be hoped that what shall be farther needful may be Super-added by the Royal Licence and become more Effectual to its End by the Confirmation of that Authority There is yet One Author more who must not be pass'd by Our Learned and Accurate Dr. Barrow And a better than whom I could not have desired to close up this Collection withall In his Treatise of the Vnity of the Church a Discourse which would some Men more diligently Read and more judiciously Consider they would not talk so loosely as they do on that Subject He gives Us this Account of the State of the Church in the times Immediately after Christ. Each Church did Seperately Order its Own Affairs without Recourse to Others except for Charitable Advice or Relief in Cases of extraordinary Difficulty or urgent Need. Each Church was Endow'd with a perfect Liberty and a full Authority without Dependence or Subordination to Others to govern its Own Members to manage its Own Affiairs to Decide Controversies and Causes Incident among themselves without allowing Appeals or rendring Accounts to Others It is true that the Bishops of several Adjacent Churches did use to meet upon Emergencies to consult and conclude upon Expedients for attaining such Ends as they met for This probably they did at first in a Free Way without Rule according to Occasion as Prudence Suggested But afterwards by Confederation and Consent these Conventions were formed into Method and Regulated by certain Orders establish'd by Consent whence did arise an Ecclesiastical Unity of Government within certain Precincts Hence every Bishop or Pastor was conceived to have a double Relation or Capacity One towards his Own Flock another towards the Whole Flock Of Councils he thus delivers his Opinion General Councils are Extraordinary Arbitrary Prudential Means of restoring Truth Peace Order Discipline During a long time the Church wanted Them Afterwards had them but Rarely and since the Breach between the Oriental and Western Churches for many Centuries there hath been none The first General Councils indeed All were Congregated by Emperours their Congregation dependeth on the Permission and Pleasure of Secular Powers and in all Equity should do so And in his most Elaborate Treatise of the Popes Supremacy The most Just and Pious Emperours who did bear greatest Love to the Clergy did call them without Scruple It was deem'd their Right to do it none did Remonstrate against their Practise The same he shews of National and Provincial Councils p. 186 c. To these they Summon'd the Bishops in a Peremptory Manner and directed both the Time and Place of their Meeting The Popes petition'd them to Call Councils and sometimes they Prevailed and sometimes they did not This Power upon many just Accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes It suiteth to the Dignity of their State It appertaineth to their Duty They are most Able to Discharge it They alone can well cause the Expences needful for holding Synods to be Exacted and Defray'd They alone can Protect Them can maintain Order and Peace in Them can procure Observance to their Determinations They alone have a Sword to Restrain Resty and Refractory Persons To oblige them to Convene to Conferr Peaceably to Agree to Observe what is Setled It inseperably doth belong to Sovereigns in the General Assemblies of their States to Preside and Moderate Affairs proposing what they Judge fit to be Consulted or Debated stopping what seemeth unfit to be moved keeping Proceedings within Order and Rule and steering them to a Good Issue Checking Disorders and Irregularities which the Distemper or Indiscretion of any Persons may create in Deliberations or Disputes This therefore he shews the Emperours to have done in all the first Synods The Word Presidency hath an Ambiguity It may be taken for a Priviledge of Praecedence or for Authority to Govern things This latter kind of Presidency was disposed of by the Emperour as he saw Reason The Power of Enacting and Dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching Exteriour Discipline did of Old belong to the Emperour And it was Reasonable that it should By many Laws and Instances it appeareth that Appellations have