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
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
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
State of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this Case because the proper Affairs and Actions of the Church as it is the Church hath no Dependence on the Laws or upon the Government of the civil State an Opinion hath thereby grown That even so it should be always This was it which deceived Allen in the writing his Apology The Apostles saith he did govern the Church in Rome when Nero bare Rule even as at this Day in all the Churches Dominions the Church hath a spiritual Regiment without Dependence and so ought she to have amongst Heathens or with Christians Another Occasion of which Mis-conceit is That things appertaining to Religion are both distinguished from other Affairs and have always had in the Church spiritual Persons chosen to be exercised about them By which Distinction of spiritual Affairs and Persons therein employed from temporal the Error of personal Separation always necessary between the Church and Common-wealth hath strengthned it self These Notions have been often made use of by the Papists in their Disputes against the King's Supremacy and 't is strange they should be now revived when they have been so learnedly considered and refuted by Mr. Hooker Dean Nowel Bishop Iewell and other great Men of our Church And I may add That some of our present Adversaries Opinions are much the same with those of the Scotch Disciplinarians refuted by Bishop Bramhal The Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops hath told us That Mr. Hooker for whom he pretends a very great Respect tho' for what Reasons I know not since they differ in every thing is against him in making the Church one Body with the believing State And therefore I suppose he would have it taken for granted That his Reasons are more conclusive in making them distinct Indeed it was necessary for this Author's Purpose That the Church and State should be separate Societies for all the Weight of his Arguments depends upon it and if this should fail his whole Fabrick must sink of Course It was certainly time for him to call a new Cause and since the Practice of the whole Church is against him to omit Authorities and the Sense of Antiquity and to retire to downright Reason But he would have done well to have considered and answered Mr. Hooker's Arguments before he had produced any others on the contrary side For certainly if the Common-wealth be Christian if the People which are of it do publickly embrace the true Religion this very thing doth make it the Church And to make it a separate and independent Society from the State where all Mens Principles are the same is a Notion neither agreeable to Scripture or Reason But I shall not pursue an Argument which has been already so fully and learnedly managed by Mr. Hooker to whom I shall refer the Reader But I think my self obliged to do Mr. Hooker Justice in a Passage cited from him by this Author as though it made for him and which appears to me to be designed to prove directly contrary This Author it seems would perswade us that Mr. Hooker is of his Opinion That the Deprivation of spiritual Persons by the Civil Power is not justifiable by even our present secular Laws And to this end he cites these Words all Men are not for all things sufficient and therefore publick Affairs being divided such Persons must be authorized Iudges in each kind as common Reason may presume to be most fit Which cannot of Kings and Princes ordinarily be presumed in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical so that even common Sense doth rather adjudge this Burthen to other Men. This indeed looks plausibly as it is here set down without its Connexion with what goes before and follows it But however all that it can prove by its self is only That it may be more proper for spiritual Persons to judge in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical But then it denies not That if Princes are so pleased they may judge themselves this takes not away their Right though it may be Prudence in them to appoint others to sit in their stead But let us see the full Scope and Extent of Mr. Hooker ' s Words As says he the Person of the King may for just Considerations even where the Cause is civil be notwithstanding withdrawn from occupying the Seat of Iudgment and others under his Authority be fit he unfit himself to judge so the Considerations for which it were haply not convenient for Kings to sit and give Iudgment in spiritual Courts where Causes Ecclesiastical are usually debated can be no bar to that Force and Efficacy which their Sovereign Power hath over those very Consistories And for which we hold without any Exception That all Courts are the King 's And then follows All Men are not for all things sufficient c. And after that he goes on We see it hereby a thing necessary to put a difference as well between that ordinary Iurisdiction which belongs unto the Clergy alone and that Commissionary wherein others are for just Considerations appointed to join with them as also between both these Iurisdictions and a third whereby the King hath transcendent Authority over both Why this may not lawfully be granted unto him there is no Reason Now take the whole together and the Argument turns on the other side and proves That the Judgment of the supream Power is in all manner of Causes to be the highest But hower were Ecclesiastical Courts alone to judge of spiritual Matters and there could be no Appeals from their Decisions which yet the supream Power has a Right to receive yet these Courts do not exercise any Power that is not derived from the Supremacy either mediately or immediately The Laws by which they act and exercise their Jurisdiction proceed from thence and the Courts are constituted by its Authority So that all that is done there is by Virtue of the King's Commission But besides if the King had no Power at all in spiritual Cases yet it does not appear That the Cause of the deprived Bishops is purely spiritual they are as much Ecclesiastical Persons now as they were before their Deprivation And though they may not exercise any part of Episcopal Power in the King's Dominions yet they still retain their Office and have a Right to perform all the Duties of it where and whensoever the Sovereign Power will authorise them to it It was the Opinion of Archbishop Laud That the Use and Exercise of his Jurisdiction in Foro Conscientiae might not be but by the Leave and Power of the King within his Dominions If his Majesty should forbid a Physician to practise within his Dominions for some Crime committed by him 't is plain That by this means he is not degraded from his Profession nor will it follow That his Majesty ought to be acquainted with that Art before he pronounces Sentence against him If his Offence had been
Spiritual as Temporal in all Causes And all the Limitations that either the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth or that Article hath set to the Regal Power is That Kings have not or do not pretend to have any Authority to minister Divine Service in the Church which we are not Disputing for But if this Author will be concluded by Queen Elizabeth's Notion of the Supremacy he must carry it I am afraid something farther than he is aware of For she thought her Supremacy extended to the giving Commissions to Lay-Persons to proceed by Ecclesiastical Censures And accordingly the Earls of Shrewsbury Derby and others were made Visitors of Ecclesiastical Matters and acted as such This then we may be positive in asserting That the Supremacy as it was confirmed and settled in Queen Elizabeth's Reign is a sufficient Vindication of our Principles and directly opposite to his Upon the whole that Author's Censures are either too far stretcht or too much confin'd Every Man I think ought to be very tender in fixing the Charge of Schism upon a whole Church especially where it has the practice of all Antiquity on its side Charity certainly would rather oblige a Man to distrust the strength of his own Arguments where he has neither the Authority of Scripture and the ancient Church to support them than pass so severe a Censure from the bare result of his own Thoughts and Opinions If we are in the wrong we err with the whole Catholick Church for some Ages together and I believe I may add with the Scriptures themselves I am sure not against them and we have moreover our Canons and Articles for us the Judgment of some of the greatest Men of the last Age who could have no other Motives to mislead them but the impartial discovery of Truth who were of the same Opinion with us Indeed I think we ought to pay a great deal of respect to Men that go upon sincere Principles of Conscience but then it were to be wished That they would not judge too rashly of other Men but consider that they who dissent from their Notions may not be less sincere and consciencious than themselves It can't be supposed that Men who believe Religion should be so fond of the little interest of a short Life as to forfeit all pretences to a better for the sake of it Surely Men that know the present value of things ought to think them very inconsiderate Motives for the byassing a Man's Conscience one way or other There are a great many who can't comply with us whom we must and do entertain a very high Opinion of and who deserve and command our Esteem The late Service which one of them has done the Church and Clergy by the vindicating them from the Contempt and Abuses of the Stage in his admirable and just Reflections upon the Immorality and Profaneness of that Place ought always to be acknowledged with the highest returns of Gratitude But to return to our Convocations if we should grant that Revelation has not in express Terms determined this Matter yet we may venture to lay this down for a certain Principle That in a Christian Common-wealth that Order ought most to be observed which is most subservient to its Peace and Unity and that such a method of Government cannot be lawful which will necessarily confound and destroy it Now if the Clergy should have the sole Power among themselves of meeting and Establishing what Laws they please for the Government of the whole Church and of subjecting all Christians to the observance of them whether they will consent to them or no it will probably occasion great confusion and raise perpetual Heats and Jealousies in the State The State does not challenge such a superiority over the Clergy in Civil Affairs no Temporal Laws are made to bind them but such as themselves have assented to The same Reasons will hold in Christian Discipline none ought to be bound to obey any Constitutions but such as are made by their own consent or which is the same thing by that of the Supream Authority which represents the whole State Nor indeed can the Clergy plead such a Priviledge their Business being only to deliver their Opinions and to declare their own and the Sense of the Church concerning any Point in Religion and no farther than this does their Authority extend G. Vossius has proved this at large and tells us That the Clergy are forbid by the Scripture to Exercise Authority and Grotius tells us That they are called in Holy Writ by the Titles of Embassadors Messengers and Teachers to signifie that it is their Part to declare the Authority and Power of another and not to oblige Men by their own The Government therefore which is committed to them when they are said to Guide to Rule to Feed to be set over the Church ought to be interpreted of the declarative kind or of that which consists only in persuasion When the Apostles are any where said to have commanded it is to be understood in such a figurative Sense as they are said to remit and retain Sins that is to declare them remitted or retained He farther proves That the Church can have no commanding Power by Divine Right because the Sword which is the instrument of Power and denotes Authority is not committed to them There can no Power naturally belong to the Pastors of the Church because no such thing is included in the nature of the Function Under the Mosaical Law when there was neither King nor Judge the Supream Power in Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Affairs devolved on the High Priest But during the Regal Dignity the High Priests Jurisdiction was always under that of the King so Aaron was under that of Moses The Trust that is committed to the Ministers of the Church by the Law of the Gospel and which comes nearest to Iurisdiction though it is distinct from it are those Actions which were either peculiar to the first Christians only or are still continued to the Pastors of the Church Such was that Sharpness which the Apostle threatens the Corinthians with which denotes according to Grotius a certain miraculous Vertue of imposing Punishment Thus Ananias and Sapphira fell down dead Elymas was smitten with blindness and others were delivered to Satan which was plainly an Act of miraculous Power exercised by God himself who at the Denunciation of the Apostles commanded Men to be vexed and tormented with Diseases and seized on by Divels Grotius upon this observes That before the Civil Powers exercised their Authority in the Church God himself supplyed by Divine Assistance what was defective in Human Laws But as Manna ceased after the Israelites were possessed of the Holy Land so after Emperors took upon them to protect the Church their Office being to punish all that any way disturbed its Peace these Divine Executions of Justice were dis-continued But however all those Divine Punishments were the Acts
measures of it Every one sees what Distractions such a Power might occasion and therefore we can't pay too great a Veneration to our Laws which have wisely provided against them That have intrusted this Power with the Prince whose Interest it is as much to preserve the Church as the State And I hope we have no Reason to believe but that he makes it as truly and sincerely his concern to vindicate the Cause of Religion as any amongst us If there are such Dangers threaten the Church that nothing but a Convocation can prevent no doubt but he will think it a great Obligation upon him to call one But yet it is not at all times necessary Mens Heats will not always suffer it And if it should chance to fire their Tempers instead of cooling them it would be then very Prejudicial We confess indeed with Grotius and Others That Synods are often times very useful to the Order and Government of the Church yet we also join with them that there may be such a time when they are far from being convenient much less necessary But our greatest wonder is at the Boldness of some Men who maintain That even when the Powers take on them the Protection of the Church whether they will or no Synods may lawfully and rightly be Assembled Of another Mind says Vossius were all those who have hitherto defended the Cause of the Protestants against the Papists and he cites several Authorities for it As for the Assertors of a Divine Right of Synods 't is something difficult to know their meaning they seem too much to distrust their Cause to speak plain enough to be understood If they mean no more by that Expression than that Christ hath so constituted his Church as to leave a Power of Goverment with the Bishops of it for the better ordering its Affairs who accordingly may either by Consent meet themselves or by their Authority call together their Clergy and agree on such things as are necessary for the ordering of it This is what in States not Christian will never be deny'd by us But if they pretend to a Power from God of Meeting and Acting independently on the Sovereign Authority tho' Christian and of Making and Establishing Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions without his Consent this is what we utterly deny And I would desire to know of the Author of The Vindication of the depriv'd Bishops by what Authority either from the Scripture or the Practice of the Church he will oppose this or with what Justice he can so severely reflect on the Memory of the first Reformers for being of the same Opinion But to return supposing we should allow this jus divinum which they contend for yet after all it must be left to human Prudence to determine when 't is proper for Convocations to meet and then who is it that must judge of the proper Seasons for it Who of the Clergy have a divine Commission to judge of the Reasons and fix the time for it Or suppose the Clergy should differ in their Judgments who is the supream Arbiter that must decide when it is most convenient and accordingly shall have the Power of summoning all the rest Superiority in Bishops over each other is an act of human Authority since Christ did not appoint a Head and therefore any one of those can't have a Power by Divine Right of summoning all the rest Where then must the Power be placed For they who urge such an Institution against us ought to assign where they would have the divine Power of summoning the Convocation to be lodged After all 't is Reason that must direct in these Cases when a Convocation ought to be Assembled of what Number of the Clergy it ought to consist where their Power is to be fixed and limited and to whom the chief Authority ought to belong of Calling and Dissolving them and of giving their Resolutions the Force and Sanction of a Law This the Wisdom of the Nation has entrusted with the Sovereign Power and the Church of England has ever since the Reformation own'd and acknowledg'd it to be its peculiar Province As for the Author of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum poor Man he is rather to be Pitied then Censured as to the arguing part of his Book he writes so much backwards and forwards for and against himself and withal so very obscurely that the most charitable Opinion of him is That he knew nothing of what he writ He is so strangly bewildred in his own Notions and so fond of Ill-nature that he is neither to be understood or convinced All he has urged in defence of the Divine Right of Convocations will as much prove a Divine Right of Constables and Church-wardens or any other Officers that may be useful for punishing Immorality or for supporting or advancing the Interest of the Church And for all the Argument I can find in his Book he might as well have called it a Criticism upon Honer's Iliads as an Answer to Dr. Wake This Author is one great Instance why I think a Convocation necessary that Malice and Uncharitableness may have their just Reward that he may be convinced that he who writes at all adventures upon every thing he least understands must not think to carry a Cause only by abusing and defaming his Adversary which is all that I can find he pretends to in all his Prints And lastly that he may be satisfied that his Ill-breeding which he values himself so much upon is but one way Meritorious I should not have digressed into this way of Writing was it not to inform this Author that there is a difference between Railing and Argument That the one is rude and indecent even when mixt with the other but without it 't is insufferable Thus have I run thro' all the parts of this Dispute about a Convocation which I thought necessary to be considered and discussed I have endeavoured to reduce the Controversie into as narrow a compass and to set it in as clear and true a Light as I could And as I have given my Thoughts freely so I have not been misled by any Prejudice or a desire of pleasing any Party My first Designs were to get a clear view of the Controversie and since there had been of late some heats about it I thought it not improper to expose my Enquires to publick Examination I consulted the best and most rational Authors that I could find had writ upon the Subject tho' I thought it unnecessary to fill out a Volume with Quotations But I shall add what the Learned Vossinus as well as Grotius says upon this occasion namely That besides the Divines all the Writers of Polity that are worth the Reading have declared the supreme Authority of Princes over Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes to be one of the principal parts of the Imperial Right Dr. Wake as well as all the other Writers upon this Subject is wholly unknown to me But I can't but think upon an impartial Enquiry into the Controversie that he has given us a very just and learned Account of it and that he agrees with the most judicious and eminent Men that have treated the Subject before him What a peice of daring Confidence must it then be to tax those as mercenary designing Writers that only espouse a Cause which some of the greatest and most learned Men in the World have before defended But I shall urge nothing more but only That I have delivered what I judged to be Right without either Hopes or Fears FINIS * Epis. 23. Dr. Wake Act. Parl. An. 25. Hen. VIII Upon the submission of the Clergy and restraint of Appeals De Imperio sum Potest circa Sacra c. 7. See Bp. Taylor 's Duct Dub. L. 3. C. 3. Eccl. Polity l. 8. p. 462. That Clause of the 1st Eli. which gave the King Power to make such high Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes is now repealed Municip Eccles. Preface Defence of the Vind. of the depriv'd Bishops p. 104. See Rast. Stat. 22. H. VIII Ecclesiastical Polity p. 469. Preface p. 44. Ed. Lond. 1682. Vid. Stat. 16. R. 2. against purchasing Bulls from Rome G. Voss. Ep. 23. See Canon 1640. Can. 1. See Bishop Andrews's Sermon before the King at H. C. Canons 1640 Can. 1. See Bishop Andrews Sermon at Hampton Court See Bishop Taylor 's Duct Dub. L. 3. C. 3. Vid. Grot. de Imp. sum Pot. cir Sacra C. 3. Eccl. Pol. p. 444. C. 7. de Synodis See the Defence of the Vind. of the Deprived Bishops Municip Eccl. p. 439. See Bishop Bramhal against the Scotch Discipline p. 109. Eccl. Pol. 467. p. 440 441 c. Defence of the Vind. of the deprived Bishops p. 108. Eccl. Pol. p. 464. See the History of the Troubles and Tryal of Arch-Bp Laud p. 309. lb. p. 309. De Impersum Potest Circa Sacra Chap. 10. By Doctor Hody See Dean Nowel against Dorman See the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Independency of the Clergy on the Lay-Power by the Vindicator of the deprived Bishops Vid. Bp. Burnet's Hist. of the Reform Vol. 2 p. 399. See Dean Nowel who was Prolocut of the Convocat when the Articl were made in his Books against Dorman Hist. of the Reform Vol. 2. p. 400. See Bp. Taylor 's Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 23. Cap. 4. Vid. Selden de Synedriis See Vossius Ep. 23. Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. Cap. 7. De Synodis Cap. 7. De Synodis Vid. Eccle Politie p. 461. P. 467. Acts 15. Chap. 7. De Synodis Voss. Epist 23. Cap. 1. De Imperio See Bishop Andrew's Sermon at Hampton-Court See Bishop Andrew's Sermon at Hampt Court Cap. 7. Vid. Bp. Bramhal against the Scotch Discipline Vossius Epist 23. Vid. Bp. Taylor Ductor Dubitamium Archbp. Bramhal against the Scots Discipline c. Vos Ep. 23. De Imperio sum Potest circa Sacra