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'
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
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
them p. 154 155. Nay and even the Persons that should come to them p. 207. And have Voices in them p. 208. 3. That they directed what should be handled in them p. 135. Managed their Debates p. 134. And forbad them to call in Question the Faith that had by former Synods been Establish'd p. 155 208. 4. That they judged of their Proceedings p. 135. And that in Matters of Doctrine p. 261. By the Common Rule of All Christians the Word of God p. 264 266 276. 5. That they Confirm'd the Councils Decrees See p. 242. And this not at all adventures but chose such of their Canons as they approv'd and passed them into Laws p. 139. 6. That as to their Sentences they Received Appeals from Councils p. 135 151 152. Suspended p. 154. And if they thought them too severe Released the Rigour of their Censures and Determinations p. 136. These are some of the Points which this Learned Man not only allows of but defends from the Examples of the Jewish Princes and Christian Emperors And I will be bold to say either his Treatise is altogether False and Scandalous contrary to the Rights of the Church and the Sense of the Antient Fathers or my Discourse after all that has been said against it must be Confessed to be True and Orthodox and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England But because Bishops may be look'd upon as Suspicious Men let us see what those of an Inferior Order have written in this Case And for these I will take but One of a Kind Dean Nowell for the Dignitaries and the Venerable Mr. Hooker for the Rest of the Lower House As for Mr. Hooker the latter of these He was much too Young to have had any part in that Convocation in which our Articles of Religion were settled But Dr. Nowell was not only one of the most considerable Members of the Lower House at that time by his Own Dignity but chosen by the Clergy for their Prolocutor and so had the Chief Management of All that was done in it It was but Three Years after this that Mr. Dorman one of our Fugitive English Papists attacking the Queen's Supremacy as by Law Establish'd and then newly approv'd of by the Convocation this Learned Dean thought himself concern'd to undertake the Defence of it And indeed he has so well discharged his Part in it that I believe it will be very hard for our Modern Transcribers of their Arguments and Authorities to alledge any thing upon this Occasion that will not be found to have been fully answer'd before-hand in that Book His Treatise is expresly Referr'd to and approved of by Archbishop Whitgift in his Discourse upon this Subject and so may be look'd upon to deliver the Sense of that Great Archbishop as well as the Dean's Nor can it be reasonably doubted by Any but that it does deliver the Sense of the Whole Convocation and Clergy of the Church of England in this particular Let us see then how he States the Point between Us and his Adversary as to this matter and by what kind of Proofs he undertakes to Vindicate the One against the Other The matter in debate he thus accurately determines For. 23. We expresly divide the Offices of Christian and Godly Princes from the Offices of Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church under Them as distinct and divers Offices And we do teach that the Offices of Preaching of God's Word of the Pronouncing of Publick Prayer in the Church of Christ the Power of the Keys or of Binding and Loosing and of Ministring the Holy Sacraments are by the Word of God appointed to be the Peculiar Offices of Bishops and of other Ecclesiastical Ministers And we Teach and Preach even in Presence of Princes that neither Princes nor Any Other Persons saving only Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Ministers under them may intermeddle with the said Offices and Ministries Ecclesiastical so peculiarly and only appertaining to the said Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church P. 24. When we do speak of Causes Ecclesiastical wherein Christian Princes are the Chief Governors we mean not that Princes should Execute these Peculiar Offices of Priests as is also in the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions notified to all the Subjects of the Realm that will be disposed to understand the Truth without Cavillation But now touching the Authority of Princes to Oversee that the Bishops and Clergy do these their Offices diligently and truly according to the Rule of God's Word to Command them to do their Duty to Admonish them being therein slack to Reprehend them Offending Depose or Deprive them being Incorrigible This we say is the Office of a Chief Governor over the the said Persons Ecclesiastical which doth appertain to Christian Princes every One in their own Dominions Further besides the Office of Preaching and Ministring the Sacraments there are many other Orders Matters and Causes Ecclesiastical touching Ceremonies and the outward Regiment of the Church which may be term'd the Ecclesiastical Policy Page 25. There is also the Authority to Receive Appellations and finally to Determine Controversies arising amongst Persons Ecclesiastical To Summon and Call Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Persons as Men exercised in the Study of the Scriptures to Synods Convocations and Councils in Necessary Cases To Order Govern and Protect the said Bishops and Clergy being so call'd together and to Approve and Authorize things for the Outward Order Ecclesiastical and Policy determined in such Synods These be those Causes Ecclesiastical that we do speak of which do not pertain to Bishops and Priests only In these Cases and Causes Ecclesiastical the Authority of a Christian Prince is not only not excluded from intermedling with the Bishops and Clergy but the Prince's Authority is Chief therein Which Authority the Christian Prince exercising doth not Intermeddle with any Office belonging to Bishops and Priests only as the Adversaries of the Truth do falsly bear Men in hand but with their Own Offices by the Examples and Practice of all Antient Godly Princes as well in the Old Law as in Christian Religion proved of Right to them to Appertain And to Our Prince also by the Antient Laws and Statutes of the Realm as to the Learned in the said Laws is not Unknown of Right appertaining This is the Account which he gives of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Authority of Christian Princes in Matters of Religion The Proofs he alledges are full and conclusive From the Examples of Constantine p. 208 to 223. Theodosius p. 227 to 238. The Council of Chalcedons p. 239 to 246. The Third Council of Constantinople p. 250 to 253. Justinian the Emperor p. 276 c. To Omit many other Particulars in the Vindication of which I am not so immediately concern'd And I will be bold to say there is nothing by me advanced in this Argument which has not been both more highly carried and more particularly explain'd
Authority to disturb the Tranquility of the Common-wealth and to cross the Determinations of Precedent Councils Now to take the Cognizance of such Matters out of the Kings Hand or Power what is it but even to Transform the King into a Standing Image yea to bring him down to this Basest Condition to become only an Executioner and which I scorn to Speak the unhappy Hangman of the Clergies Will The King having thus asserted the Authority of Christian Princes in this particular was soon Assaulted by those of the other Party Cardinal Bellarmine at that time accounted one of the most Learned Controvertists of the Church of Rome first under the Name of Tortus fell with great Bitterness upon him To him his Majesty scoring to reply Bishop Andrews took the Cause upon himself and with Great Spirit and Judgment replied to him So that here then in these two we may expect to see what is to be said on either side upon this Subject As for the Cardinals Opinion I am not concern'd to take any Notice of it But that which the Bishop asserts and with great Force of Reason and Evidence of Antiquity defends is to this Effect That Kings have Power both to call Synods and to Confirm them and to do all Other things which the Emperours heretofore diligently did do and which the Bishops of those Times willingly acknowledged of Right to belong to them And 1st That to Christian Princes belongs the Sole Right of calling Synods he proves from the History of the General Councils that were assembled under them p. 165. And from the Examples of those which were afterwards held under Charles the Emperour p. 164. 2dly That having Assembled them they have a Right of Inspecting and Examining of Approving or Rejecting their Acts He likewise shews p. 162 164. You know says the Bishop how Constantine wrote to the Synod of Tyre All you as many as made up the Synod of Tyre hasten without delay to come to Us and shew us truly how sincerely and rightly ye have Judged p. 173. He adds 3dly That they may come to and make a part of the Synod This he proves p. 174. And then p. 176. thus Sums up the Royal Authority Put this says he together The King assembles the Synod the Synod presumes to do nothing without his Knowledge The King commits the whole Affair to their Power They by vertue of his Princely Command proceed to do what was needful to be done I might easily Confirm this same Opinion both of the King and Bishop with the Concurrent Authority of Burhil Tooker and some Others who were afterwards engaged in the same Controversy But I must not enlarge upon this Subject having so much more yet to observe both of this King and this Bishop upon another Occasion as to the Points under Debate The King being Dissatisfied with the Proceedings of the Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland for holding a Generally Assembly at Aberdeen contrary to his Command sent for a certain Number of the most Eminent of them to come up to him to London and satisfy him in some Things in which he thought he had just reason of Complaint against them To these Ministers after other things Transacted with them he deliver'd three Quaeres relating to his Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters and demanded their several Answers to them The Second of these Questions and from which we may sufficiently conclude what Opinion his Majesty had of his own Royal Supremacy was this Whether they acknowledge his Majesty by the Authority of his Prerogative Royal as a Christian King to have lawful and full Power to Convocate Prorogate and cause desert upon just and necessare Causes known to him the Assemblies of the Kirk within his Majesties Dominions How they trifled with his Majesty in their Answer to these Questions as well as in all the other Affairs about which they had been sent for is neither material to my Purpose to shew and may at large be seen in the Histories here Referr'd to by me That which I have further to observe is that during the Course of this Transaction the King caused four of his English Bishops on certain Days appointed to them to Preach before him at Hampton-Court and Commanded the Scotch Ministers to be present at their Sermons The third of these turns fell upon our learned Andrews at that time Bishop of Chichester whose Subject assign'd him by the King was to prove the Power of Princes in Convocating Synods and Councils In order whereunto he first laid down these two Points 1. That when the Prince calls the Clergy are to meet And 2. That they are not to meet of Themselves unless he call them The Proof of these Points he thus pursues 1st From the Law of God p. 104. 105. confirm'd by the Law of Nature and Nations p. 106. And 2dly From Matter of Fact Before Christ From Moses to the Macchabee's in the Jewish Church p. 106 107. After Christ From Constantine till a Thousand Years after Christ 1 By General Councils 2 By National and Provincial Councils assembled 3 Under Emperours and 4 Kings by the space of many Hundred Years p. 108. This is the Substance of his Sermon and from which I shall proceed to extract some part of what he says in the Prosecution of most of the Heads before laid down 1st In Speaking of the Law of Nations he has this Remark The Law of Nations in this Point might easily appear if time would suffer both in their General Order for Convocations so to be called and in their General Opposing all Conventicles called Otherwise Verily the Heathen Laws made all such Assemblies Vnlawful which the highest Authority did not cause to meet yea tho' they were Sub praetextu Religionis say the Roman Laws Neither did the Christian Emperours think fit to abate any thing of that Right nay they took more straight Order 2dly Concluding his Account of the Jewish State he has these Words Thus from Moses to the Maccabees we see in whose Hands this Power was And what should I say more There was in all God 's People no One Religious King but this Power he Practised And there was of all God 's Prophets no One that ever interposed any Prohibition against it What shall we say then Were all these wrong Shall we condemn them all Yet to this we are come now that either we must condemn them All the One after Another the Kings as Usurpers for taking on them to use more Power than ever orderly they Received the Prophets for soothers of them in that their unjust Claim Or else confess that they did no more than they might and exceeded not therein the Bounds of their Calling And indeed that we must Confess for that is the Truth 3dly In treating of General Councils he thus Speaks of that of Nice At Nice there were together 318 Bishops the Lights of the whole World the
Chief unto Kings For otherwise One Man would be Commended for Anothers Care and Taxed for Anothers Negligence which is not God's way The Power to Call and Dissolve Councils both National and Provincial is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their Own Realms and Territories And when in the first Times of Christ's Church Prelates used this Power 't was therefore only because in those days they had no Christian Kings And again in the VIIIth Canon they oblige all Preachers positively and plainly to Preach and Instruct the People in their Publick Sermons twice in the Year at least That they ought Willingly to Submit themselves unto the Authority and Government of the Church as it is now Establish'd under the King's Majesty It is therefore as plain as any thing can well be that this Convocation undoubtedly approved of ALL the Laws even this of the Submission of the Clergy made for the Security of the King's Authority over the State Ecclesiastical that they look'd upon the Government of the Church to belong in Chief unto Kings That they accounted the Power of Calling and Dissolving Synods to be the true Right of All Christian Princes and that the Bishops have only then a Power to do this when the Church is in a State of Persecution and the Necessities of it enforce them thereunto And by Consequence that they themselves not only met and acted under the Powers I have formerly shewn because they were forced so to do but Approved of the Vse which the King made of them and were satisfied that in Meeting and Acting according thereunto they behaved themselves so as became Christian Bishops and Clergy-Men to do under the Favour and Authority of a Christian King I shall observe only this one thing farther to prevent any new Cavils in this particular that we are assured by Him who best knew it Archbishop Laud himself that these Canons were pass'd with the greatest Freedom and Vnanimity that ever any Canons were So that upon that account also we may the more undoubtedly look upon them as delivering the Real Sense of the Church of England in those days To the Judgment of this Archbishop and the Convocation held by him let me subjoin that of an Eminent Bishop in our Neighbour Country the Learned Bramhall afterwards Archbishop of Ardmagh and Primate of All Ireland In his Survey of the Scotch Discipline among other Exceptions which he takes at it we have these to our purpose particularly insisted upon by him That they Affirm 1st That Ecclesiastical Persons have the sole Power of Convening and Convocating Synods 2dly That no Persons Magistrates or Others have Power to Vote in their Synods but only Ecclesiastical 3dly That Synods have the Judgment of True and False Religion of Doctrine Heresy c. That they have Legis-lative Power to make Rules and Constitutions for keeping Good Order in the Kirk And all this without any Reclamation or Appellation to any Judge Civil or Ecclesiastical 4thly That they have these Privileges not from the Magistrate or People or Particular Laws of the Country but Immediately from God c. Lastly That they have all this Power not only without the Magistrate but against him that is tho' he Dissents c. So different a Notion had this great Writer of these Powers of the Kirk for which our Late Author so highly Applauds them and sets up their Discipline above our Own slavish Constitution But the Archbishop proceeds and against these Vsurpations of the Kirk lays down Chap. ii these Orthodox Church of England Principles That All Princes and States invested with Sovereign Power do justly challenge to themselves the Right of Convocating National Synods of their own Subjects and of Ratifying their Constitutions And that he is a Magistate of Straw that will suffer the Church to Convene Whensoever or Wheresoever they list To Convocate before them Whomsoever they please To change the Ecclesiastical Policy of a Common-Wealth To alter the Doctrine and Religion Establish'd and all this of their Own Heads by a Pretended Power given them from Heaven Synods ought to be Called by the Supreme Magistrate if he be a Christian And either by Himself or by such as he shall please to chuse for that purpose he ought to Preside over them This Power the Emperors of Old did challenge over General Councils Christian Monarchs in the Blindness of Popery over National Synods The Kings of England over their Great Councils of Old and their Convocations of latter Times But say they we give the Magistrate a Political Power to Convocate Synods to Preside in Synods to Ratify the Acts of Synods to Reform the Church Here are Good Words but they signify Nothing For in plain English what is this Political Power to call Synods c. It is a Duty which the Magistrate Owes to the Kirk when they think Necessary to have a Synod Convocated to strengthen their Summons by a Civil Sanction To secure them in Coming to the Synod and Returning from the Synod To compel obstinate Persons by Civil Laws and Punishments to submit to their Censures and Decrees What Gets the Magistrate by All this For they declare expresly that neither All the Power nor any Part of the Power which Synods have to Deliberate of or to define Ecclesiastical things doth flow from the Magistrate But can the Magistrate call the Synod to Account for any thing they do Can he Remedy the Errors of a Synod either in Doctrine or Discipline No This is one main branch of Popery and a Gross Encroachment upon the Right of the Magistrate And accordingly we find him charging the Papists with it in his Writings against them He maintains that All Ecclesiastical Coercive Jurisdiction did Originally flow from the Civil Magistrate He bids them Weigh all the Parts of Ecclesiastical Discipline and consider what One there is which Christian Emperours of Old did not either Exercise by themselves or by their Delegates Or did not Regulate by their Laws or Both. And then particularly Instances in the Points of Calling Councils Presiding in Councils Dissolving of Councils and Confirming Councils And Pag. 93. He insists upon it as One just Ground of our Separation from the Court of Rome that they endeavour'd to Rob the King of the fairest Flowers of his Crown namely of his Right to Convocate Synods and to Confirm Synods within his Own Dominions of his Legis-lative and judiciary Power in Ecclesiastical Causes c. To the Opinion of this learned Prelate were conformable the Sentiments of all the Other Bishops and Clergy of these Kingdoms as to these Matters Christian Emperours says Bishop Davenant heretofore Called Councils As in Civil Causes Princes advise with their Learned in the Law so in Theological Matters they ought to Consult with their Divines Yet are they not so tied up to the Opinions of their Clergy but that if They go contrary to the
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