is the assisting of the Church in her business not the abridging of her in her power The Second Thesis That the Clergy cannot alienate or make over and give away to the Secular Governor §. 4 Thes 2. or to his Ministers and Delegates any authority or office which they have received and been charged with by Christ with a Command to execute the same to the end of the world and with a threat to become answerable to God for any miscarriage of the people by their default therein From which it follows that the Clergy's doing of either of these Two things First The binding themselves for ever to any Secular Governor never to make or never to teach abroad and publish to the people his Subjects any judgment or decision of theirs made in matters of Faith and Gods Worship or made for reforming some Error or Heresy or other abuse in Gods Service without the consent of such Governor first obtained thereto which Governor as I said tho Christian and a Believer yet may be a Sectarist an Heretick c. 2. Or Secondly which is yet worse the authorizing of the Secular Governor or of those whom he shall please to choose and nominate who will be sure to name those rather of his own Sect to determine and decide and promulge such Spiritual matters for the Clergy and in their stead So that now not only the Clergy cannot do such things without such Secular Governor but also such Governor may do those things without the Clergy I say these two are unlawful as being contrary to the duties of the Clergy said above Thesis the First to be committed to them by Christ The Third Thesis §. 5. Thes 3. That the Secular Prince cannot depose or eject front the exercise of their office in his Dominions any of the Clergy neither absolutely without any cause pretended as he may remove those Officers and Ministers under him who hold their places only durante beneplacite Nor for a cause alledged if it be such as this namely for their not obeying the decisions which he or his civil Council shall make in Spiritual matters or for their transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons 2 nor can introduce others into the places of the ejected without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or of their Ecclesiastical Superiors which consent if he obtain I reckon not this deposition c. to be his Act but theirs And here note that what is said of other Clergy may be said likewise of the Patriarch for any authority in such Princes Dominions which he stands possessed of by such Ecclesiastical Canons as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the civil Government Touching which matter see Church Gov. 1. Par. § 38. c. § 6 First The Prince cannot eject them 1. 1. Neither without giving any cause thereof because they hold not these their Offices from the Prince much less from him only during pleasure but they receive them by Solemn Ordination from their Predecessors in this Ministery the Substitutes of the Lord Christ even this Office among the rest to oversee instruct and use Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in making or publishing Ecclesiastical Laws and imposing censures over the flock of Christ in what Princes Dominions soever or in whatsoever Province or Diocess thereof as every one by his Ecclesiastical Superiors is appointed as appears by their equally exercising such Office in the three first Centuries in all Dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial Governments the Twelve Apostles being said at the first to have allotted to themselves several Circuits after the same manner even when the Supreme Power-civil not only licenced not but opposed and prohibited them to do it on pain of death Of which matter see Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church 1 chap. Seeing the Church saith he subsisted Three Hundred years before any State professed Christianity whatsoever right it used during that time manifestly therefore it ought still to use and enjoy this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it i. e. of such rights independent on any Temporal Governor See him 4. c. p. 169. And the Apostles themselves were they who first set up this Church Government in Civil States And St. Paul made Titus Superintendent of Creet and Timothy of Ephesus for Spiritual Affairs without the Secular Governors leave * who were in these places to ordain others to preserve for ever the Doctrines and Discipline delivered to them For this cause saith Paul to Titus 1. chap. 5. ver left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in order the things that are left undone and ordain Presbyters in every City as I had appointed thee Which ordaining of others signifieth also Institution in the charge or cure whereto they ministred as Bishop Carleton confesseth Jurisdict Regal Episcopal 4. chap. pag. 40. Again * Who were in these places to receive Accusations hear Witnesses which cannot be without appointed Assemblies and Meetings silence false Teachers excommunicate Offenders See Tit. 1.11 Rev. 2.20 1. Tim. 1.3.5.19 Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses Now he saith the same Author pag. 42. that is appointed to hear Accusations and to receive the testimonies of witnesses is seated in a place of judgment with Jurisdiction See more of this in Succes Clergy § 4. and this they did when the Temporal Governors of those places licenced them not yea persecuted them So Athanasius ejected by Constantius his Emperor from the charge which the Church had committed to him of Alexandria and Paulus from Constantinople were nevertheless accounted still the true Bishops of those Sees Princes indeed may deprive the Clergy at pleasure or according as Covenants made of what they bestow on them Houses Lands Priviledges Jurisdictions Lordships Temporal but the Offices abovenamed they bestow not 2. Again as Princes may not depose them at pleasure so neither for any cause which concerns things Spiritual without the Clergy's consent For it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam as in personam and the Prince as hath been mentioned in the first Thesis hath no authority to judge such causes meerly Spiritual To this may be added that neither Heathen nor Heretical Prince can justly prohibit totally all that Clergy whom the Church declares Orthodox from entring into or from preaching and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions And if he put such to death for disobeying this his Command when as it is contrary to Gods and Christs who sendeth them to all Nations in effect he puts them to death for obeying Gods Command and they dye Martyrs As also the Primitive Martyrs were put to death for not obeying the Emperors Laws concerning matters of their Religion § 7 Second 2. As the Prince cannot thus eject or depose Clergy so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceased without
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates And of this Act such use was made tho possibly beyond the true intention of it that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below § 145. Which saith he being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which Estate they have continued without any legal interruption from that time to this Thus He. Now to go on Consequently we find in 2. Edw 6.1 c. the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer c therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. And in Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons who shall offend against this Act and Statute Which Clause by vertue of this Act and the like implies that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence or ought to excommunicate in all matters wherein the King and Parliament command it Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act forementioned p. 44. § 26. 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction there ascribed to the King or Queen involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication as well as others not for the King to exercise this himself but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute or not execute it so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King contrary to the Second and Third Thesis And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws may not correct what they judge Heresies Errors Vices c without the Kings consent had thereto See the Acts set down before § 31 32 33 c. it is but reasonable that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent for not obeying such Laws or for being thought guilty of such Crimes And this is the reason I suppose of Dr. Heylins Observation Hist of Reform p. 94. That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped that it was scarce able to fly abroad the Sentence of Excommunication wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward and of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England § 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3 and 4. Edw. 6.11 c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons half Seculars to be nominated by him as was done in Henry the Eighth's days in 35. Hen. 8.16 c. 27. Hen. 8.15 c. 25.19 c. who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church and these reformed Laws only established by a major part of them and published by the Kings Proclamation thence forward to stand in force The Statute runs thus Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal therefore you see the Statutes concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12 c. above-mentioned yet the same as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes having not of long time been put in ure nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted c that the Kings Majesty shall from henceforth during Three years have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy whereof Four to be Bishops and Sixteen of the Temporalty whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used and to gather order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought to his Majesty his said Council and them or the more part of them convenient to be used practiced or set forth within this his Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall by vertue of this present Act be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and no other Any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding § 42 Again we find in the same Act Six Prelates and Six others such as the King should nominate delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests and this devised by them and set forth under the Great Seal to be used and none other The words are these Forasmuch as that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties dominions some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests be it therefore Enacted that such Form as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law by the King to be appointed or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used and none other any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Here the King and Parliament assume power to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church and by their Delegates to constitute and by their sole Act to authorize new without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome and his Authority Power and Jurisdiction And I shall never consent nor
other general words whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfections or disability that could be objected against the same So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness i. e. in Ecclesiasticals which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops See it before §. 70 it is evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against the said Consecrations c. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church in these Church matters And the Answer seems in effect this That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church § 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject this reformed Clergy being such persons as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince and therefore it is not strange if the Prince acted no more against but by them and began now a-new to use the Synod more than the Senate in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs CHAP. XIII The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy § 196 ONly before I conclude this Discourse let me shew you The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it after all the rest that as it hath been affirmed here that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines tho they contend that our Princes did not so Yet as if they doubted much whether they should be able to make this good do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves that a Prince when there is a necessity that requires it of which necessity the Prince is to judge or in cases extraordinary of which cases the Prince is to judge may lawfully reform Religion both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline contrary to the major part of the Clergy these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Superiors Nay also in the beginning of this work such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent because if they should once maintain That no Reformation is valid which is done against the major part of the National Clergy by the same reason they must assert that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy or of the Church or Council to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience § 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion is that of Dr. Field He The Opinion of Dr. Field after these specious Concessions We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on according to former resolutions Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion but in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils in matters not formerly determined to the judgment of his Clergy i. e. the major part thereof Yet after such specious Concessions I say he proceedeth as it were to protect the Reformation on this manner Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service there is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them But because they may fail they i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and not onely single persons but Synods of them else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods and a minor by the major part and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these to other Judges either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over Gods people and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily Thus Dr. Field § 198 Who not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi cui deplorata res est here seems to six the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice to others or at least cannot fail so soon as the whole body of the Clergy may what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they As one that hath a charge over Gods people and is to see that they worship God aright as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he or as if he could judge what was
warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote p. 73. especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned men of the Church to be the law of Christ shall he not preform his known duty till the vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it And here I suppose Dr. Fern will grant that the Prince is bound also to establish Christ's Law in which he is accountable if he do amiss 9. c. § 21. whenever it should happen to be evidenced to him by any other tho none of or contrary to the Clergy provided that be first consult and hear the reasons of some at least of his Clergy 3. That Princes may prohibit the decrees even of General Councils when they are evidenced to them non docere legem Christi 9. c. 28. § General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their decrees as was done by Theodosius against the second Council of Ephesus and by the Kings of France against the Conventicle of Trent forbidding the decrees of it to be received for the space of fourty years 4ly 9. c. 21. § He approveth The concession of the Clergy under Henry the Eighth in binding themselves by promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to enact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the Kings assent Which assent were it required only for securing the Prince that nothing be acted in such Synods prejudicial to his civil rights 't is willingly allowed but it is extended further for the Prince's prohibiting any other decrees whatever when not evidenced to him to be made juxta legem Christi against which if any thing be done in his dominions he remaineth accountable to God as you have seen before § 210 Now to reflect on what Dr. Fern hath said He seemeth 1. first to grant that the Clergy can publickly establish nothing against or without the Prince's consent So that whatever they cannot evidence to the Prince that so he may concur to the publishing thereof they are hindred from promulgating or evidencing it to the people So that they are in such a manner the ordinary Judges and Definers of Controversies as that their definitions if not evidenced to may be suppressed by the Prince nor ought to come abroad to their flocks And how consists this with what he saith 9. c. § 21. That in order to our believing we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded I suppose he meaneth to us by the Pastors of the Church Again how consists this with the Clergy's coercive power 9. c. 19. § upon the Prince if Christian when obstinately gain-saying them Unless his gain-saying can never be called obstinate Will not this follow from hence that the Clergy might not promulgate Anti-Arrianisme in the Empire until they had evidenced it i. e. by his approbation thereof to Constantitus the then Emperor 2. When he saith That a Prince is not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod but only of some faithful Bishops c. when he hath just cause to fear faction in such Synods he seems in this only to keep a gap open for justifying they past Reformation and in effect to affirm that the Prince may go therein against his Clergy For since the Clergy is a subordinate and regularly-united body he that taketh directions only from some of them whom he knows or doubts and fears to be different in their judgment from the main body taketh directions not from the Clergy but from those that are against them as hath been laid down in the sixth Thesis I mean against them that are the Judges in Spiritual matters and the Definers of things in Controversy and Judges of Heresy what hath been or ought to be condemned as such Without whom therefore the Prince cannot certainly know what is or is not such As for that which is said that the establishments of the Prince are not in order to our believing if Dr. Fern meaneth that the Prince doth not propose what is evidenced to him to be the law of Christ to his Subjects with a requiring of them that they should believe that it is the law of Christ the contrary is clear at least in the practicals enjoyned all which necessarily involve Faith See Chur. Gover. 2. Part 34. § 3. Part 12. § But if he meaneth that the Subjects cannot justly be necessitated to believe what the Prince establisheth so neither are they what the Clergy establisheth in his opinion who I think alloweth to all men judicium disoretivum in respect of any Church-authority 3. The Prince thus establishing Church-matters not upon the Clergy's authority but upon evidence he seems equally to oblige the Prince to establish them by whomsoever evidenced to him or by his own search discovered for what mattereth it to the evidence who bringeth it And then how is the Prince's judgment said to be secondary in respect to the Clergy Indeed if the Prince could always be certain in his evidence so as not to mistake to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and not to think other things sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church-matters thus to his disposal But fince things are much otherwise and evidencing truths to any one by reason of different understandings education passions and interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign power when not patient enough to be informed mis-led and prepossessed by a faction not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c what an uncertain and mutable condition would Church-affairs be put in as we see they have been here in England since the times of Henry the Eighth when all the influence of the authority of the Clergy upon the people is cast upon this evidenceing first of their matters to the present Sovereign Power § 211 Concerning Theodosius's Act urged by Dr. Fern the Story in brief is this The second Ephesine Council was General in its Representation but not in the free votes of the Representatives nor in the acceptation thereof by all or the major part of Catholick Churches In it paucis imprudentibus about some Ninety in all obviantibus sacramento verae
by the Patriarchs Thus much concerning the English Reformations under the three Princes Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth what manner of Ecclesiastical Supremacy was conceded to or recognized in them what exercised by them Where it is evident that tho these Princes pretended only to translate upon themselves the Supremacy formerly used by the Patriarch not forgetting to seize on most of the profits thereof yet theirs was far from being restrained within the same bounds as the Patriarch's was For whether we review the pretended innovations introduced into the Church Catholick before or those introduced since the Council of Trent by the Patriarch's concurrence We cannot say of them that He without out or assisted only with some few of the Clergy imposed them upon the world by his single authority without or contrary to the votes of the major part of the Clergy as King Edward and Queen Elizabeth did Who had they called a Synod of their Clergy and then behaved themselves in it as Constantine in the Council of Nice i. e. left all in pure Spiritual matters to their disposal judge what would have been the issue But it seems by the proceedings forementioned in this Discourse that the Secular Supremacy took it to be the Prince's right to establish in their dominions with or without the major part of the Clergy which they were instructed might fall away from the truth a tenent the Patriarch owns not what they apprehended to be the Law of Christ upon evidence of Scripture i. e. to them so seeming by whomsoever manifested unto them From which apprehensions in single and unstudied persons very mutable and having no such fixedness as the body of the Church hath being tyed by so many subordinations to several degrees of Superiors newer and newer Reformations for ever do flow and multiply without end as we see at this day And so it is also that these Acts of Supremacy coming from the hands of the Temporal power whatever way they incline have much more strength and validity in case of opposition than those coming from the Spiritual this Sword not wounding to sense so deep as the other and therefore is such a Supremacy where Prince's judgments are liable to mistakes much the more dangerous § 215 All which ill-consequences the Protestant Princes of Germany who Several Protestants denying such a Supremacy du◠to Princes being in some respects subordinate to another could not so well settle this Supremacy on themselves in the dawning of the Reformation did well foresee and were as loth to acknowledge the Emperor Supreme as the Pope Nor would they ever allow of this Title assumed by Henry the Eighth out of a jealousy that Charles the Fifth should claim the same And for this reason it is thought that no Accord was made tho much attempted between them and this King See Lord Herbert's Hist p 378 and 448. The Protestants of Germany saith he would not allow the King's Supremacy lest they should infer an investing of the same authority in the Emperor whose absolute power they seemed to fear more than that of the Pope himself And this suspicion alienated secretly the mind of our King who saw that if he embraced their Reformation they would abridge his power i. e. regulate or alter the point of his Supremacy § 216 The same reluctance against such Regal Supremacy was in Calvin and other Reformers as I have shewed before See before §. 37. and hath remained still in the reformed Presbyterian Clergy of Scotland and in those Sects called Puritanical in England and elsewhere which is said to have rendred both Queen Elizabeth and King James much more averse from the Presbyterian Government and Discipline who discharging the authority of the Pope of Councils such as the Church hath had of Bishops yet have endeavoured to reserve the Supremacy as touching all Ecclesiastical Affairs to the Officers of their particular Churches as the power of calling and constituting their Assemblies at time and place as they think fit the making of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies the correcting and ordering all things pertaining to the Congregation tho without the Kings consent and against his will unless he be pleased to be included in the number of the Church Officers there to enjoy a single vote requiring the Civil Magistrate to be subject to this their power To which purpose are those Positions of theirs Seatch Discipline 2. l. 1. c. As the Ministers and others of the Ecclesiastical State are subject to the judgment and punishment of the Magistrate in external things if they offend so ought the Magistrates to be subject to the Kirk Spiritually and in Ecclesiastical Government And to submit themselves to the Discipline of the Kirk if they transgress in matter of Conscience and Religion All men as well Magistrates as Inferiors ought to be subject to the judgment of the National Assemblies of this Country in Ecclesiastical causes Scot. Disc 2. l. 12. c. without any re or appellation to any Judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm See Dr. Heylin's Reform Just p. 88 and Rogers on Art 37. p. 216. and 218. and the two Books of the Scottish Discipline To which may be added those passages of the English Presbyterian in their Confession of Faith An. Dom. 1647. cap. 30 and 31. which say That the Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church hath therein appointed a Government in the hand of Church-officers distinct from the Civil Magistrate And that if the Magistrates be open enemies to the Church the Ministers of Christ of themselves by vertue of their office may meet together in such Assemblies And there may Ministesrially determine Controversies of Faith set down rules for the better ordering of the publick worship of God and Government of his Church receive complaints and authoritatively determine the same Which decrees and determinations if consonant to the word are to be received and therefore may be divulged with reverence and submission for the power whereby they are made as this power being an Ordinance of God All this they affirm the Church-officers may do of themselves by vertue of their office if the Magistrate be an open enemy to the Church And all this they did King Charles's Supremacy giving no consent thereto but opposing it And then for the meaning of open enemy I have reason to suppose they will pronounce a Popish an Arrian any heretical Prince such as well tho perhaps not every way so much as an Heathen § 217 Lastly The same reluctance also was in those Bishops who first conceded such Supremacy to Henry the Eighth Who as at the fiest they swallowed the Oath of it not without some straining so afterward when by long experience they had seen such Church-laws issuing from it as they thought very grievous and dammageable to the Church and found uncontrollable by their power they very stoutly to the loss of their Bishopricks made resistance to the same Oath
Act which is by this Author judg'd contrary to his first Thesis is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking holding or doing against any Laws call'd Spiritual Laws made by Autority of the See of Rome which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm § 34. p. 39. or the King's Praerogative shall be deem'd to be Haeresie from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Haeresie Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Haereticks Whether such speaking or doing be Haeresie or not they have power to ordain that it shall not be deem'd so i. e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment to use our Author's expression of another Act made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queens Majesties Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religtion shall be to all intents adjudg'd as Traytors and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason and the like of Persons willingly reconcil'd Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler or Reconciled is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traytor all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments without being accountable for this to any Autority under God's And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself or acts against such Laws of a Forreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right Another Act condemn'd by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Autority to make Ecclesiastical laws §. 43. p. 56. and pursuant to this 42 Articles of Religion publish'd by the Autority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign Now not to engage my self in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title praefix'd they are said to be Articuli de quibus in Synodo London A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros convenerat Regia autoritate in lucem editi I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London §. 166. p. 187. So that here is only a part of the Synod employ'd in drawing up these Articles and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transfer'd from Ecclesiastial persons to Secular which was by him to have been prov'd Another Inference which he deduces from these Theses is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy §. 185. p. 214. Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended will best be learnt from our Articles * Art 37. The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not or ought not to be subject to any forreign Jurisdiction So far for the extent of this power but now for the restraint Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended We give not to our Prince the ministring either of God's word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn evil doers It is therefore by our Author to be prov'd that they who give no more to their Prince then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself do alienate to the Secular Governour any Autority or Office which they the Clergy have receiv'd and been charg'd with by Christ with a command to execute the same to the end of the World which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile That by this Oath or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assum'd by her self or given to her by Others then is consistent with that Autority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us * Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684. Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Autority but what was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning Her Majesty is well pleas'd to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contain'd in the act therein mention'd against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath So that it 's evident from this Injunction that it 's no way here stated what Autority belongs to the Church and what to the Civil Magistrate farther then that the Queen as justly she might challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and neither did nor would challenge more but what that was is not here determin'd and she is content without such Determination if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all forreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil Another Act which He finds repugnant to his his 1st pag. 36. Thesis is King Henry the Eth's claiming a right that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave
c. But this it is for people to meddle in Controversie at an Age when they have forgot their Grammar Notwithstanding therefore this Aristarchus We still retain the Liberty of believing and obeying only such things which be defined according to God's Word For which we are much blamed in the Conclusion of this Discourse * p. 260. In rejection of the Churche's Judgment saith he let none think himself secure in relying on the Testimony of his Conscience or judgment But what reason soever he may have to undervalue the Testimony of a good Conscience we think it advisable from St. Paul * 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 19. to hold faith and a good conscience which some having put away concerning faith have made Ship-wrack Of whom are But saith he let none think himself secure in any of these things so long as his Conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing namely his Disobedience and Inconformity to the Church-Catholic But our Consciences do not witness to us any disobedience to the Church-Catholic but only to that Church which falsly praetends to be Catholic He means to the Major part of the Guides thereof But the cause has not yet been decided by Poll that we should know which side has the Majority Let him know that his Condition is very dangerous when he maketh the Church-Guides of his own time or the major part thereof incommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion There was a time then when to believe the Consubstantiality of the Son was a dangerous Condition and this perhaps made Pope Liberius externally to profess Arrianism When for the maintaining of his Opinions he begins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church But why not distinguish where the Church her self distinguishes and saith Christ indeed in the Scriptures instituted so but I institute otherwise as in the case of denying the Cup. Between the Doctrines of the Catholic Church of the former ages and of the Catholic Church of the present But here again the Church her self distinguishes when She tells us that * Conc. Const Sess 13. licet in primitiva Ecclesia sub utraque specie Sacramentum reciperetur Yet now the contrary Custom habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Between the Church's orthodoxness in Necessaries and non-necessaries to Salvation If there be no difference betwixt these why doth a * Guide in Controv. Disc 1 c. 6. par 56. Friend of the Author tell us of an Obedience of Assent in the one but of Non-contradition only in the other When he begins to maintain the Autority of an Inferior Ecclesiastical Judge against a Superior But what if this be only where the Inferior Judge agrees tho' not with his immediate Superior yet with the Supreme Or of a minor part of the Church-Guides against a Major But that is not a case yet fairly decided When they grant that God hath given them beside the Scriptures guides of their Faith But those Guides themselves to be guided by the Scripture And that they have in their judgment departed from those Guides i. e. the major part of them But this we would have prov'd Which in a Court consisting of mapy is the legall Judge Guides and Judges are different things but we hope when this Court sits the Judges will consult the Scripture the Statute they are to go by and if they judge according to that they will judge well These are the Doctrines of blind-Obedience which this Author so studiously inculcates For sice Doctrines are taught us different from Scripture we are advis'd to use another way of discerning Doctrines then what the Gospel prescribes Our Saviour bids us Mat. 16.6.12 Beware of the leaven i. e. the doctrine of Pharisee's tho' sitting in Moses his Chair We are now advis'd to embrace all the doctrines of those that sit in the Chair of S. Peter Christ bids us * Mat. 24.4 Take heed that no man deceive us tho' coming in his Name We are now told that they who come to us in the Name of Christ cannot deceive us St. Paul saith * Gal. 1.8 that If an Angel from Heaven preach to us any other Doctrine then that which he preach'd Let him be accurs'd Now if we do not embrace whatever a Patriarch from the West preaches tho' never so contrary to the Gospel we are concluded under an Anathema The Apostles tell us that they * 2 Cor. 1.24 have no Dominion over our Faith but their Successors exercise a Despotic power in requiring a servile Obedience to all their Dictates S. Paul's practise was to * Gal. 2.11.14 withstand Peter to the face When he saw that he walk'd not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel but St. Peter's Successor pleads that in no case he may be withstood because it is impossible but that he should walk uprightly in the truth of the Gospel The inspir'd Divine bids us * Rev. 18.4 Come out of Babylon that we may not partake of her Sins Our modern Theologists advise us to come back into * Babylonia apud Joannem Romanae urbis figura est Tertul. adv Marc. l. 3. c. 13. Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 2. Babylon for that She only is impeccable Imprimatur GILB IRONSIDE Vice-Can Oxon. Octob. 19. 1687. REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORICAL PART OF church-Church-Government PART V. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his Neighbor cometh and searcheth him Prov. 18.17 OXFORD Printed at the THEATER Anno 1687. The Introduction THE Pamphlet proposes to relate the English Reformation and to examine the lawfulness of it Now from an Examiner we might justly expect Argument and from a Relator Truth How he argues I find consider'd by the Animadverter Two small defects he has been charg'd with 1st That he proceeds upon dubious or false Premises 2ly That were they granted his Conclusions would not follow It is my business to examine his Narrative which yet is not so purely Historical but that it is perplex'd with dispute For it is peculiar to this Author that when he should reason he barely affirms as if he was writing an History but when it is his business to relate being conscious that the stream of Autority is against him he is forc'd to dispute it out as if he was proving a Problem But his arguing is such as the Cause would bear and his History such as it necessarily requires The former has gain'd him no great credit with the Men of Reason and this I doubt will little recommend him to the Honest and Ingenuous But I forbear to prejudge the cause and desire nothing may be farther charg'd on him than it is prov'd I pretend to no Critical skill in the History of the Reformation and I am beholden to the Author that I need it not His prevarications lie so open that a Novice in History may
of several times justified and condemn'd the same thing I am very well convinc'd tho' not from our Author's proof that the Pope stood not alone in his judgment For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion The Pope judg'd for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph when the Dispensation was procur'd from him but here in the 19th he judges against it But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles then his Passions or Interest And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when telling us in the same Page that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinc'd of the Unlawfulness of it but because at the same time he stood much in aw of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine He needed not therefore to have instanc'd in the different Opinions of diverse Men since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinc'd us that the several Interests of several times justifi'd and condemn'd the same thing Now to return to our Matter in hand So that it seems he has digress'd for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to shew that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses The aforesaid Summ of 100000 l spent upon the Vniversities abroad c. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie and I need say no worse of it § 20 The King he saith excepted at the Limitation of Quantum per legem Christi licet in the Title given him by the Clergy and so at last upon renew'd threats this Clause also was procur'd to be omitted See Antiquit. Britannic The Author knew or might have known that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken For Dr. Burnet a Hist V. 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observ'd that King Henry when the Province of York demurr'd upon granting the King the Title of Head as improper in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ Accordingly it is represented as pass'd with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif § 2. Historians He refers us again to Dr. Bailie But the Reader I presume has had enough of him already The excluding the Patriarch is he saith contrary to his 4th Thesis It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope They could find no grounds for the Papal Autority from Scripture Antiquity or Reason but they might perhaps have been convinc'd from our Author's Theses which are an Autority distinct to all those This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon it is because I would not gall him too much Cranmer is said to have divorc'd the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Autority out of his Dominions § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compar'd with p. 144. was pronounc'd in May 1533 and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following Cranmer in the Sentence is call'd Legate of the Apostolic See By this Instance it is plain how implicitely our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology as well as History Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat saith Sanders This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first propos'd c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declar'd it was contrary to the Law of God He induc'd d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it f Ibid. p. 38. He subscrib'd and perswaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it He earnestly prest Fisher to concurr and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops These are some of the favours which Warham shew'd to the Queen's Cause § 23 The Clergy having declar'd the King Supreme Head of the Church it seem'd reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head This is a wild and senseless Calumny the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Autority her Charter she derives immediately from Christ The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave but the execution of which they abridg themselves is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject and therefore necessarily requir'd the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power He cites from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner and allow'd by the Convocation to a Parliamentary Remonstrance But either my a Reform Just in the Historical Tracts Edit Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin or which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations this Author deceives me The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be review'd by 32 Commissioners § 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weigh'd by Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation and it is one of our Author 's pertinent remarks that they did not meddle with what was not reform'd The Reformation of the Canons was a design of which Nothing worse can be said than that it did not take effect If it trouble him that Canons contrary to the King's Prerogative Laws of the Land good of the Subject and Laws of God should be reform'd no Honest man can pity him If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers that has been spoke to by the b Animadv p. 36. Animadverter If by Canons Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation it is out of his wonted pride to outface the Statutes For the c Forasmuch as such Canons Constitutions and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm cannot now be view'd examin'd and determin'd by the King 's Highness and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 c. Act expresly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods and had no
belonged to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual censures As it standeth in Spiritual censures it is the right of the Church and was practiced by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always ways understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen And by this power saith he c. 4 p. 39. without coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the World reduced to the obedience of Christ by this power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for Three Hundred years together But if it be inquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive power give strength to the Canons of the Church But then what if the Emperors being Christian should take upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith or should use their coactive power against the Canons of the Church Take the answer of another reformed Writer Mr. Thorndike Right of Church 4. c. p. 234. The power of the Church is so absolute saith he and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the Profession of that Faith or the exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with or even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that power which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity tho contrary to the Sovereigns commmands Thus Mr. Thorndike in Right of the Church 4. chap. And like things he saith in his Epilog of the Church of Engl. See there 1. l. 9. c. the Contents whereof touching this Subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the Interest of Secular power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it That the Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity thro Christendome as the Sovereign is of civil Peace thro his Dominions And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible And see 1. l. 20. c. p. 158. Where he saith That He who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict Temporal Penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this Temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i. e those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the Sin of Sacriledge in seizing into its own hands the powers which by Gods Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own Service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence to the doing of it i. e. joyned to the Secular power doing such Act. Now amongst the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these l. 1. c. 16. p. 116. The power of making Laws within themselves of Electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398 and of excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p 385 the power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the communion of Christians in the Service of God and the power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion the power of holding Assemblies of which he speaketh thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 54. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation Founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service of God notwithstanding any Secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike Discourse of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. And thus Dr Fern of the power of Judicature belonging to the Clergy It is confessed saith he on both sides that the power of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend is of divine Institution and that this power must be exercised or administred in the Church by some either Bishops or Presbyters is also confessed to be of divine right Therefore surely no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his dominions the exercise of such Judicature nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's substitutes herein being denyed the assistance of the Civil power are to proceed without it To these I will add what Dr. Taylor hath delivered on the same Subject in Episcopacy asserted and this the rather because this Treatise was published by the Command of so understanding a Prince He after that p. 263. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdom is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any intrenchment on the Royalty hath these passages P. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all
them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordinations of inferiour Clergy to their superiour Rites Liturgies c. As for the rights of the Secular power he layeth down this Rule p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are All actions civil all publick violations of Justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Infliction of Censures by Excommunication or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory i. e as he saith before to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy or some other way abett the censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law employed for regiment and cure of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth it before p. 239 is the Kings And lastly p. 241. he saith that the Catholick Bishops in time of the Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exteriour Jurisdiction and Power i. e the Royal. See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded p. 61. All which our Kings saith he assume to themselves is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it i. e of that regiment and p. 63 He comments thus on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see the Power is political the Sword is political all is political Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it And p. 92 he saith We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them without taking away I hope any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes And p. 119 We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them laws he means such Laws for observance of which Secular coaction might be used the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needful Doth not this Bishop mean here that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings dominions and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority only that they can use no coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments in the execution of them without his But see below § 22. The Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation See more of this § 35. N. 2. And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith It is coercive and compulsory and corrobatory Power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the external Court of the Church Why or under what pretence to prevent saith he the oppression of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquility of the Common wealth not therefore to examine what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to Gods word for this Princes are to learn from those Courts which belongs to Sovereign Princes Thus he Lastly see the Kings last Paper in the Isle of Wight p 3. where it is said That tho the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over mens persons or estates no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure Yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government so Christian men do still Princes and all they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons in receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining witnesses judging of crimes against Gods law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper enjoyning Penancies upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. Now I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Canons the same Church Discipline casting out of the Church or Excommunication c. they are and must be allowed still in Christian States being things which as Bishop Carleton saith Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done and these are means absolutely necessary Convening for the making of Canons Knowing the Fact for Excommunication therefore in case the Christian Prince will not call them they may assemble themselves when the Church's necessities require such Canons and when the Christian Secular Courts will not they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency but this in order to Church punishments only When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathenism i. e do these things without their leave against their prohibitions All the Plea that a Secular State subjecting it self to the Church can make for medling in such Spiritual affairs seems to be this that the Church shall not be troubled now as formerly to do all because the State with its more awing power will do something for it Which