Authority yet neither can any Ecclesiastical Canon be made or any new Heresie be declared without their Advice and Approbation Grotius is indeed of Opinion That the supream Civil Authority has a Right to make Laws without the Consent of the Clergy for the Government of the Church Because if it could not it would receive some Right of governing from the Synod and consequently could not be supream whereas the highest Power being subject to God alone has under him the sole Right of Governing Besides if the supream Power could not enforce the Observance of that without a Synod which it might with one then it should receive part of its Right and Authority to govern from thence And by Consequence some part of the Government must be lodged in the Synod Which it can neither challenge by Human or Divine Right God having no-where committed such a Power to the Church and therefore not to Synods And for these Reasons he is of Opinion That the highest Power has a Right to make Orders for the Government of the Church without a Synod And to confirm it he adds the Examples of the Hebrew Kings and some of the first Christian Emperors that have exercised their Authority about things sacred without any such Convention of the Clergy But tho' these Reasons should prove such a Right in General to belong to the supream Power yet it cannot be doubted but that the same Power may so far dispense with the Execution of it as to consent That no Laws shall be made relating to Religion without the Counsel and Approbation of the Clergy But if it may be thought reasonable to have the Advice of the Clergy in all Matters of such Importance it must be also absolutely necessary That the Civil Power which is to enforce the Observance of the Injunctions resolved on by the Spiritual should have the Right of judging of its Determinations especially where all Mens Consciences as well secular as Ecclesiastical are to be concluded by them This is most certain That it is a Duty incumbent on the Prince whether the Clergy give their Opinions or not to reform and correct Abuses in the Church and he must answer for his Neglect to God if he does not do so And if before any Declaration of the Judgment of the Clergy he has a Right to order what is necessary in sacred Affairs 't is plain That his Power is superior to theirs and that it cannot be less at the meeting of a Synod than it was before it The supream Authority continues the same whether it acts by the Counsel of others or without it And there can be no Obligation to comply with it but that of Reason and Prudence The Notion of the King's Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil established by our Laws owned and asserted by our Clergy and very frequently vindicated with much Strength and Learning by the greatest Men of our Church ever since the Reformation grants all that Right and Power to the King over Convocations that we contend for This Power says the Excellent Mr. Hooker being sometime in the Bishop of Rome who by sinister Practices had drawn it into his Hands was for Iust Considerations by Publick Consent annex'd unto the King 's Royal Seat and Crown from thence the Authors of Reformation would translate it into their National Assemblies or Synods Which Synods are the only Helps which they think lawful to use against such Evils in the Church as particular Iurisdictions are not sufficient to redress In which Cause our Laws have provided That the King 's Super-eminent Authority and Power shall serve As namely when the whole Ecclesiastical State or the Principal Persons therein do need Visitation and Reformation when in any part of the Church Errors Schisms Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts Enormities are grown which Men in their several Jurisdictions either do not or cannot help Whatsoever any Spiritual Power and Authority such as Legats from the See of Rome did sometime exercise hath done or might heretofore have done for the Remedies of those Evils in lawful sort that is to say without the Violation of the Laws of God or Nature in the Deed done as much in every Degree our Laws have fully granted that the King for ever may do not only by setting Ecclesiastical Synods on work that the thing may be their Act and the King the Motioner unto it for so much perhaps the Masters of the Reformation will grant But by Commissions few or many who having the King's Letters Patents may in the Vertue thereof execute the Premises as Agents in the Right not of their own peculiar and ordinary but of his Super-eminent Power This Passage as tho' designed on Purpose against the present Opposers of the King's Supremacy is not only an Account of the Power our King has over his Convocations by the Law of the Land but also a Vindication of that Law in investing him with such Authority And I the rather thought it deserved to be taken notice of that I might oppose the Judgment of this great and learned Man to the Censures of two late Authors who have taken a great deal of Freedom in blackening the Memory of the Convocation in Henry the 8th's Reign for surrendring up to the King the Right and Liberty of meeting without his Leave The Author of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum in his Preface insults over that Convocation as under the lash of a Praemunire and from thence seeks to prejudice the Authority of the Convocation-Act But this is a great Blunder for the Praemunire was off at least three Years before and released by Act of Parliament in the 22d of Henry the 8th the Convocation-Act being not till the 25th But to let that pass this whole Eighth Book of Ecclesiastical Polity is designed for a Vindication of the Kings Power in that Particular as also of our Laws and the Consent of the Clergy by which it was confirmed Except therefore we make the King's Authority over the Clergy less in the greatest things than the Power of the meanest Governors is in all things over those which are under them how should we think it a Matter decent that the Clergy should impose Laws the supream Governors Assent not asked But lest some sort of Men should pretend that this 8th Book is not so much and truly Mr. Hooker's as those which are published by himself which however is not questioned by the last of these Authors mentioned that quotes from it how much to his purpose I shall consider hereafter I shall add a Passage out of his Preface There was says he speaking in Reference to some who had a Dislike to the Constitution of the Church then established by Law in my poor Understanding no Remedy but to set down this as my final resolute Persuasion Surely the present Form of Church-Government which the Laws of this Land have established is such as no Law
in this kind they should not be able when need is to do as Vertuous Kings have done As Iosia and Hezekiah in the Old Testament did when they Assembled the Priests and Levites to renew the House of the Lord and to Celebrate the Passover The like before them did David and Solomon for removing the Ark and Dedicating the Temple Such Authority as the Iewish Kings Exercised over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons the like we claim to belong to our Kings and those that deny them the same Authority are to be Excommunicated according to the Doctrine of the Church of England But since there is an Argument now again insisted upon from the New Testament to prove the Right which belongs to the Clergy to Assemble and make Ecclesiastical Laws without the leave of the Supream Authority which in Mr. Hooker's Time was brought for an Objection against such a Supremacy in the King I shall take the freedom to set it down in his Words with his Answer to it It will be says that Excellent Author perhaps alledged That a part of the Unity of Christian Religion is to hold the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws a thing appropriated unto the Clergy in their Synods and whatsoever is by their only Voices agreed upon it needeth no farther Appropriation to give unto it the strength of a Law as may plainly appear by the Canons of that first most venerable Assembly Where those things the Apostles and Iames had concluded were afterwards published and imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles abroad as Laws the Records threof remaining still in the Book of God for a Testimony that the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws belongeth to the Successors of the Apostles the Bishops and Prelates of the Church of God To this we Answer That the Council of Ierusalem is no Argument for the Power of the Clergy to make Laws For first There has not been since any Council of like Authority to that in Ierusalem Secondly The Cause why that was of such Authority came by a special Accident Thirdly The Reason why other Councils being not like unto that in Nature the Clergy in them should have no Power to make Laws by themselves alone is in Truth so forcible that except some Commandment of God to the contrary can be shewed it ought notwithstanding the aforesaid Example to prevail The Decrees of the Council of Ierusalem were not as the Canons of other Ecclesiastical-Assemblies Humane but very Divine Ordinances For which Cause the Churches were far and wide commanded every where to see them kept no otherwise than if Christ himself had personally on Earth been the Author of them The Cause why that Council was of so great Authority and Credit above all others which have been since is expressed in those Words of principal Observation Vnto the Holy Ghost and to us it hath seemed good Which form of Speech though other Councils have likewise used yet neither could they themselves-mean nor may we so understand them as if both were in equal sort assisted with the Power of the Holy Ghost Wherefore in as much as the Council of Ierusalem did consist of Men so enlightned it had Authority greater than were meet for any other Council besides to challenge wherein such kind of Persons are as now the State of the Church doth stand Kings being not then that which now they are and the Clergy not now that which then they were Till it be proved that some special Law of Christ hath for ever annexed unto the Clergy alone the Power to make Ecclesiastical Laws we are to hold it a thing most Consonant with Equity and Reason that no Ecclesiastical Laws be made in a Christian Common-wealth without consent as well of the Laity as of the Clergy but least of all without consent of the highest Power The Opinion of the Learned Grotius being more short and decisive in our present Case upon that forementioned place of the Acts I shall also give an account of it The Original of Synods says he is usually taken from that History in the 15th Chap. of the Acts. But whether that Assembly may be properly termed a Synod as we now understand that Word may very well be questioned There arose a Controversie between Paul and Barnabas and certain Iews of Antioch concerning the Obligations of the Mosaick Law Paul and Barnabas are sent with some of Antioch to know the Opinion of the Pastors but were they those of all Asia Syria Cilicia and Judea Assembled together in one place that were to give their Iudgment No certainly but of the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem the Company of the Apostles was a College not a Synod and the Elders of one City could not certainly be called a Synod One Church therefore alone is consulted or more truly and properly speaking the Apostles only are consulted and they alone give Iudgment to whose Authority the Elders and Brethren of Jerusalem yield their Consent and Approbation Thus I think there can't be the least shadow of an Argument brought from Scripture for a Divine Institution of Synods But to return once more to Mr. Hooker Were it so adds that judicious Author that the Clergy alone might give Laws unto all the rest is it not easie to see how injurious this might prove to Men of other Conditions Peace and Justice are maintained by preserving unto every Order their Right and by keeping all Estates as it were in even ballance which thing is no way better done than if the King their Common Parent whose Care is presumed to extend most indifferently over all do bear the chiefest sway in making Laws which all must be ordered by wherefore of them which attribute most to the Clergy I would demand what Evidence there is whereby it may clearly be shewed that in ancient Kingdoms Christian any Canon devised alone by the Clergy 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 This was the Sense of that Great-Man and the very same Opinion and Notions they are and no other as far I can judge which are maintained by them who at present defend the King's Authority in calling Convocations and in other Ecclesiastical Affairs And I can't yet apprehend how those who so warmly and furiously oppose them can reconcile their Notions with the Doctrines which have been always received in the Church of England But it may probably be urged That though the Clergy's Right to Assemble themselves and make Laws for the Government of the Church by their own Power could not be proved by Revelation yet in Reason it ought to be allowed to them because the security of Religion depends upon it For if the Clergy alone may not make any new Orders which may seem wanting nor pass a general Censure upon any false
against some of the Rules of his own Profession 't would be more proper for the College of Physicians to judge of the Nature and Manner of it But where the Crime has no Relation to the Profession there is required no Skill in Physick to judge of it If a Person be convicted of Heresie 't is just he should be tried by the spiritual Power and according to what has been judged by them so to be But if his Offence be against the King or the Publick if he refuse Allegiance to his Majesty or Obedience to his Laws be he a spiritual Person or not there is no doubt but his Majesty has a Right to forbid him the Exercise of any Office or Function within his Territories The King does not judge herein of his Qualifications as a Divine but of his Duty as a Subject And as such has a Right to command his Obedience and to punish him as he thinks fit for his Disloyalty But if what the Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops urges is of any Force as That the Church and State tho' Christian are two distinct Societies and that spiritual Persons tho' defended and preserved by the Sovereign Power have yet as such no Dependence upon it and are not subject to its Authority How advantageous soever this may prove to the Church it will be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State For if the Prince has no just Power over spiritual Persons as such it must follow That in several Cases he can have no Authority over them as temporal As suppose any of that Body should be guilty of a Crime which requires such a Punishment as can't be inflicted without depriving him of his Ecclesiastical as well as his Civil Rights 't is plain according to that Author's way of arguing That in such a Case the State can have no Authority to punish And if the Clergy will not pass Sentence against him he must go unpunished For how guilty soever he may be the King can pretend no Authority either to imprison or banish him Because according to this Author the supream Power has no Right upon any Account whatsoever to prohibit him the Exercise of his Ecclesiastical Function which he must do if he punishes him either of the fore-mentioned ways The same Reasons will I think also forbid the Civil Authority from having any Right of sentencing an Ecclesiastical Person to Death as well as to perpetual Imprisonment be his Offence of what Nature soever The Consequences of such Notions are more than sufficient Confutations of them The great Grotius who could have no Interest or Prejudice to mis-guide his Judgment in Relation to this Controversie is of Opinion That the Right of removing a Pastor from the Cure of any certain Place ought always to remain in the highest Power So Solomon deposed Abiathar from being Priest The Vindicator of the deprived Bishops has been at some pains to prove that Abiathar was not high Priest Which whether true or no is little to his Purpose for if he was a Priest and deprived by a Lay Power it is sufficient So the Bishops of Rome were more than once deposed by the Imperial Authority as is owned by Bellarmine himself And to prove this says Grotius is not difficult For if the supream Authority hath a Right to forbid any one the City or Province he must of Necessity have a Right to prohibit him the Ministry of that City or Province For this is included in the other For he who has a Power over the whole must have the same no doubt over the part And he adds That if the Sovereign Power had not this Right the State could not be able to provide for its own Security But what seems to me most absurd in the Management of this Controversie by the Vindicator of the depriv'd Bishops is this That he condemns all those of Schism who go upon different Principles or that conform with these who fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops For by this means he not only involves the Christians of several Centuries in the same Guilt even from Constantine's time till Papal Usurpations were introduced who submitted to Bishops put into the Places of others deprived by the Emperors as has been learnedly shewn in a great many Instances beyond all Possibility of a Reply But he also condemns and contradicts himself For I believe his Practice has been contrary to his present Opinion Since if I mistake not he held Communion with the Church of England till the late Revolution And I believe this Doctrin of the Prince's Authority over spiritual Persons was the same then as now If not what can those Words signifie That the King is over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Supream Mr. Hooker tells us That the Prince has by this the same Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as the Pope had usurped before the Reformation And indeed if these Words do not imply That Ecclesiastical Persons as such are subject to the King's Authority they signifie nothing And if they carry such a Sense with them they must also denote the Sufficiency of the King's Authority for depriving Bishops of their Sees upon a just Cause And tho' it be granted there were no Instances of this Nature in the late Reigns yet the Case is much the same if such a Doctrin was then held and maintained by the Church And if 't is a Sin to communicate with the Bishops who are put into the Sees of them who were deprived by the Supream Power 't is a Sin also not to separate from that Church which requires all its Members to acknowledge and believe such a Right to belong to that Power For the Nature of the Church is the same whether the King exercises that Authority or not if it be owned and allowed by the Church to belong to him But this Author pretends that he has the Church and the Laws on his side since Queen Elizabeth's Time and that he will agree to the Supremacy as then stated by her and as it is expressed in the 37th Article If he will put the Cause upon this Issue we must also submit to be determined by it For we cannot desire to carry the Supremacy farther than it was in that Queen's Time and as 't is specified in that Article But then we demand That the Words may be explained according to the most easie and natural Sense of them and not understood only as this Author would interpret them The Queen lays claim to the same Authority over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons that was Exercised by all Godly Princes in Scripture and which at all times belonged to the Imperial Crown of England And this must include the Power which was given to her Predecessors Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th The 37th Article allows the King all that Power which we contend for and asserts his Supremacy over all sorts of Persons as well
have the supream Right over it in all things that concern Religion either for making any new Orders or Offices that may tend to the Advantage of the Church and that no humane Authority can of Right interfere with or hinder it It can't indeed be denied but that Christ has instituted and ordained a Succession of Pastors of his Flock and committed certain proper Functions to them such as the preaching the Word the Administration of the Sacraments the Power of the Keys and the like and that there shall be such no Power on Earth has a Right to forbid so far there is a Divine Institution But that the supream Governor to whom these Pastors are subject has not a Power over them in all those things which the Scripture mentions nothing of and which are not any part of the Ministerial Office or Function this we absolutely deny All human Institutions must be subject to human Laws and since Convocations are such because not appointed by any Divine Law all the Power they have must be deriv'd from that Authority to which they are subject If it be said That if the Prince has this Power he may make a wrong use of it yet this does not prove against his Right Our Abuse of any thing is not an Argument that we have no Rightor Title to it If indeed the Prince should happen to be of a different Religion and disclaim all Right to his Supremacy over the Church or abuse it to the Destruction of it I see no Reason but if the Necessities of the Church should require it the Clergy now may have the same Privilege as the Primitive Christians and may assemble of their own accord as they might have done when their Emperors were Heathen Common Prudence will direct what is proper in such Cases As Right Reason and the Laws of Equity would advise That the chief Power over Ecclesiastical Affairs should be committed to the Sovereign Authority when Christian which is supposed upon that Account to be as much concerned for the Good of the Church as of the State And indeed where nothing is determined on either side this must necessarily be fixt there Because there is no other that can either by Divine or human Right lay claim to the like Authority There is no other possible way of determining the Bounds of the supream Power but by the Law of God or Nature It s Right extends over all things but what are either commanded or forbidden by them Now then allowing Mr. Hooker's Opinion That as for supream Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs the Word of God doth no-where appoint that all Kings shall have it neither that any should not have it yet for this very Cause it seemeth to stand altogether by human Right that unto Christian Kings there is such Dominion given As for the Law of Nature I think it must be granted to be no way concerned in the present Controversie Grotius does indeed allow That the Original of Synods is derived from the Law of Nature For Man being a sociable Creature does naturally associate himself with those who pursue the same Methods and Manner of Life So Merchants for the Improvement of Traffick so Physicians and Lawyers meet and consult together for the examining the Mysteries of their Art and for the advancing their Profession But then to prevent Mistake he distinguishes between an absolute Law of Nature which cannot be changed as to worship God honour our Parents and to do no Injury to the Innocent and that which is natural after a sort as being most reasonable and allowed of by Nature till human Laws interpose Thus every thing by Nature is common all Men are free the nearest Relation is Heir till by human Appointment and Consent Propriety and Subjection were introduced and the Inheritance disposed of by Will In this latter Sense he allows it to be natural to hold Synods but he denies it to be so in the other because then no Bishops would ever have petitioned the Emperors for leave to meet and St. Hierom's Argument to prove a Synod unlawful would be invalid Shew me saith he what Emperor commanded the meeting of that Council Synods therefore are to be accounted in the number of those things which being allowed of by the Law of Nature are yet subject to human Constitutions and may be assembled or prohibited by them And if in the Reigns even of the Pagan Emperors any Laws or Imperial Edicts had been published against holding Synods and the Necessities of the Church not evidently required their meeting but especially had those heathen Powers allowed them all the Liberty of meeting for Prayers and performing other Duties which Christ had appointed and were necessary to be done by them in Obedience to his Commands I know no Right the Clergy could have pretended for their assembling It is certain That the Church might subsist and be preserved without them And thereupon the Bishops were very careful not to offend or provoke their Governors by their Synodical meeting whatever Occasions there might be for them St. Cyprian as Grotius observes has shewn in several Places That when in times of Persecution there arose a hot Contest about receiving the lapsed into Communion and for the putting an end to it nothing seemed more necessary than for the Clergy to meet and consult together in common yet the Bishops deferred the meeting till the Storm was blown over which certainly they ought not to have done if Synods had been enjoin'd by a positive Law either Divine or Natural and could have been no more dispensed with than the Duties of worshipping God and honouring our Parents Since then there appears no Authority from Scripture or from the Practice of the Church after the State was Christian or from the Law of Nature to found this Pretence upon of the Clergy's having a distinct Right from the State of assembling themselves in Convocation it is evident That the Laws of the Land and the Suffrage of the Convocation in Henry the 8th's Reign and of all the Convocations that have been held since which by common Consent have invested the King with this Power and have submitted to it were not so rash and irreligious as some Men would insinuate Even the Convocations in Queen Mary's Reign when that Law was abrogated yet met and acted by her Authority But it is to be observed That the Arguments which are now produced to prove the Church Independent on the State by a Divine Right are the same which Mr. Hooker taxed as the Errors of some in his time who asserted the Unlawfulness of the Prince's exercising any Authority in the Affairs of the Church The Causes of common received Errors in this point seem to be especially two One That they who embrace true Religion living in such Common-wealths as are opposite thereunto in other publick Affairs retain civil Communion with them This was the State of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and Babylon the