AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England In behalf of the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy AS By Law Establish'd by our Convocations Approved and by our most Eminent Bishops and Clergy-Men Stated and Defended against both the Popish and Fanatical Opposers of it By WILLIAM WAKE D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty LONDON Printed for Richard Sare at Grays-Inn-gate in Holborn MDCXCVIII TO The most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitan My LORD THIS Appeal which Addresses it self to Others for their Judgment Sues with all Humility to Your Grace for Your Protection and that such as I conceive is neither Unfit for me to Ask nor for Your Grace to Afford You will here see what that true Agreement is between the Priesthood and the Empire which our Laws have Establish'd our Convocations approv'd of and our Greatest Clergy-men hitherto defended without the Censure of Any but the profess'd Enemies of our Church and Constitution But now a New Sort of Disciplinarians are risen up from within our selves who seem to comply with the Government of the Church much upon the same account that Others do with that of the State not out of Conscience to their Duty or any Love they have for it but because it is the Establish'd Church and they cannot keep their Preferments without it They hate our Constitution and Revile all such as stand up in Good Earnest for it but for all that they resolve to hold fast to it and go on still to Subscribe and Rail IN Opposition either to the Errors or Designs of these Men the Present Appeal bespeaks Your Grace's Protection not so much for its self as for the Articles and Canons of our Church and for those Excellent Worthies who in their several Successions have appear'd in Defence of the King's Supremacy over the State Ecclesiastical as by Law declared and Establish'd That you will vouchsafe still to Continue to Own a Cause in which not only the Church of England but the Church Catholick ever since the Civil Powers have become Christian is concern'd together with her The Authority we plead for in behalf of our Kings being no Other than what the most famous Bishops and Councils of the Church have given to their Empeperors and who by consequence must All be involved in the same Censure with our Parliaments and Convocations And they who now Revile the One would as freely Condemn the Other but that they are sensible that many who are well content with the Reproach of King Henry VIII and his Clergy would not endure to hear the like Charges made against Constantine and Theodosius and those Bishops and Councils which all Christians in all Ages have been wont to pay so Great a Regard to THIS My LORD is the Cause which I here bring before Your Grace In the Defence whereof I have Once already been engaged and shall with God's Assistance again appear when those who now talk with such Confidence against my former Allegations shall give me Occasion to shew how just they were and how little in Reality there is to be excepted against them In the mean time I was willing for the better Discovery of these New-Reformers by this short preliminany Treatise to draw aside the Curtain and let the World see whose Off-spring they are and from whom they derive both their Principles and their Animosities against Us. I cannot but hope that by this I shall awaken all the Sincere Members of our Church to beware of them and not give Countenance to such Attempts as under a shew of bettering Our Constitution do in Reality tend to the Utter Subversion of it To Your Grace I submit both the Design and the Performance and with all possible Duty and Respect Remain My LORD Your Grace's Most Humble and Obedient Servant WILLIAM WAKE THE PREFACE WHEN I entred upon the Defence of the Kings Supremacy in Answer to the Letter to a Convocation Man I was not so little acquainted with the Tempers and Designs of a certain Party among us as not to know that my Undertaking would be likely to displease Those who think any the least Authority that is given to his present Maiesty to be an Encroachment either upon their Civil or Ecclesiastical Rights Nor was I unsensible what might possibly be reply'd to the Arguments which I brought in Proof of it The knowledge I had of what the Papists were wont to return to the like Allegations of our Writers against them having in some measure inform'd me what upon this Occasion might probably be said in Answer to Me. But to find my self charged as if in defending the Authority of the Prince I had betray'd the Rights of the Church and appear'd in such a Cause as neither became my Function nor had any of our Clergy ever before concern'd themselves withall this I confess was a perfect Surprise to me and abundantly Convinces me that some Mens Resentments are as much beyond Modesty as they are without Reason It cannot be unknown to any who is not an utter stranger to the History of our Reformation upon what Principles it was undertaken and at last happily setled among us How the Prince's Authority was both the Means by which it was carry'd on and the Ground on which we justify'd our selves in the doing of it And indeed at the first none but the Papists that is to say those who had engrossed this Power into their own Hands and could neither endure to part with it nor to submit to the Use which they saw we intended to make of it complain'd of what we did in restoring the Prince to his antient and undoubted Right or pretended to enter any Process against us upon the Account of it It is true some time after another Party how opposite soever to the Papists in other Matters yet in this too nearly Approaching to Them began to set up themselves and to claim the same Power in behalf of their Kirk that the Romanists had pretended to in Right of their Pope and Church But against Both these our Bishops and Clergy continued firm and costant and were by all impartial Judges allow'd to be as much Superiour to them Both in their Arguments as they were in the Justice of the Cause which they maintained Thus stood this Controversy till our Own times Insomuch that I hardly know any Author professing himself a Member of the Church of England who has either cast any Aspersion upon our first Reformers for restoring the Crown to its Antient Jurisdiction or pretended that the Divine Rights of the Church were in any wise violated or infringed by it But it seems the Case is very much altered now And it is of a suddain become an Encroachment not to be endured by our New-Church-Patriots for the King to pretend to lay any Restraint upon their Assemblies and an Enterprise unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel tho'
Judging Controversies in Religion you might have learnt by these Examples in Ambrose time Against this T. C. then objected as some others from their Pattern do now the disability of Princes to Decree of what pertains to the Church The Archbishop replies That the Debâ—ting and Deciding of Matters in Religion by Bishops doth not derogate from the Prince's Authority No Godly Princes having Godly Bishops and Ministers of the Church will alter or change determine or appoint any thing in Matters of Religion without their Advice and Counsel But how if there be Dissention among them Shall not the Prince determine the Controversie as Constantinus Theodosius and other Godly Emperours did In short to T. C. 's Endeavour to clear the Puritans from running in with the Papists in this Particular the Archbishop thus replies Concerning the Determination of Matters in Religion I know not wherein you differ from them For tho' the Prince mislikes your Determination yet can he not Himself conclude any thing only he may compel you to go to it again and take better Rold But if it shall please you to Go forward in your Determination or if you cannot Agree among your selves I see not what Authority you have given the Civil Magistrate to Determine the matter but for ought I can espy if you and your Seniors be disposed to be peevish either must the Prince have no Religion or such as you shall appoint unto Him For potestatem Facti you have given Him that is you make him your Executioner but Potestatem Juris you do as fully Remove from him as the Papists do For he hath not as you say any Authority to make Orders or Laws in Ecclesiastical Matters Thus this great Assertor both of the Prince's and of the Church's Power To him let me add his Successor both in the See of Canterbury and in this Controversy Archbishop Bancroft Who in his Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline thus marks out those Parts of it which he look'd upon to be prejudicial to the Regal Authority No Civil Magistrate hath Pre-eminence by Ordinary Authority to determine Church Causes No Chief Magistrate in Councils or Assemblies for Church Matters can either be Chief Moderator Over-Ruler Judge or Determiner No Civil Magistrate hath such Authority that without his Consent it should not be Lawful for Ecclesiastical Persons to make any Church-Order or Ceremony The Judgment of Church Matters pertaineth to God The Principality or Direction of the Judgment of them is by God's Ordinance pertaining to the Ministers of the Church As they meddle not with the making of Civil Laws and Laws for the Commonwealth so the Civil Magistrate hath not to Ordain Ceremonies pertaining to the Church These he calls Puritane-Popish Assertions and says that they do much derogate from the Lawful Authority of Christian Princes There is but this only Difference betwixt them and the Rankest Jesuits in Europe that what the One sort ascribe to the Pope and his Shavelings the Others challenge to Themselves and their Aldermen For the better clearing of which he compares their Principles together And thus He sets down the Puritane Hypothesis from their Own Stating of it The Prince may call a Council of the Ministry and appoint both the Time and Hours for the same He may be assistant there and have his Voice but he may not be either Moderator Determiner or Judge Neither may the Orders or Decrees there made be said to have been done by the Prince's Authority They are to Defend Councils being Assembled If any One behave themselves there Tumultuously or otherwise Disorderly the Prince may Punish him Lastly He not only may but Ought to Confirm the Decrees of such Councils and see them Executed and punish the Contemners of them Thus far Mr. Cartwright And in the next Page the Archbishop shews that the Papists say the very same things and of both He affirms in his following Chapter that Hereby they Exclude Christian Princes from their Lawful Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical Having thus seen what these Masters of the Consistory allow to Christian Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters it might not perhaps be improper for me to ask of our New Disciplinarians wherein they differ from them in the Point before us But indeed it is clear that if there be any Difference at all between them it consists in this That those Men as bad as they were yet really allow'd more Authority to the Civil Magistrate over their Church Assemblies than our Modern Disputers are willing to afford him over Our Convocations And then I shall leave it to any one to judge what those Great Prelates would have said of these who Wrote so severely as we have seen against Those From these Archbishops of the See of Canterbury let us descend to two of their Suffragan Bishops and engaged against Another Party tho' still in Defence of the same Authority viz. Jewell Bishop of Salisbury and Bilson Bishop of Winchester As for the former of these our Learn'd Jewell he thus declares to us the Right of the Prince in the Defence of his Apology against Harding Page 582. The Christian Emperors in the Old time appointed the Councils of Bishops Continually for the space of 500 Tears the Emperor alone appointed the Ecclesiastical Assemblies and call'd the Councils of the Bishops together As for Right of Place and Voice in Council it pertaineth no less to the Prince than to the Pope The Emperor Theodosius as saith Socrates did not only Sit among the Bishops but also order'd the whole Arguing of the Cause and tare in pieces the Hereticks Books and allow'd for Good the Judgment of the Catholicks But ye say they Sate as Assessors only not as Judges That is to say they Sate by the Bishops and held their Peace and told the Clock and said nothing The Lay Prince hath had Authority in Council not only to Consent and Agree unto Others but also to define and determine and that in Cases of Religion as by many Evident Examples it may appear In all Cases as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal the Emperor was Judge over All. Whatsoever the Council had determined without the Emperors Consent it had no force Theodosius at the desire of the Bishops Confirm'd the Council of Ephesus So high an Erastian was this Good Old Bishop and so freely has he Sacrificed all the Rights of the Church to the Will of the Prince Nor has Bishop Bilson come at all behind him The Second Part of whose Book Entituled The true Difference between Christian Subjection and Vnchristian Rebellion 4 o. Oxford 1585. is but One continued Discourse in Defence of the Supremacy and of which it shall suffice to point out some Brief Heads on this Occasion 1. That the Emperors heretofore call'd Councils This he proves pag. 134 153 159 227 c. 2. That they appointed the Time and Place of
as not to Prejudice the Other Here therefore was a just Opportunity given to the Convocation to have declared its self and for the Parliament to have provided for the Liberties of the Church They were actually Repealing One Branch of that very Statute of the First of Eliz. c. 1. And two Lines more had done the Business But alas they were both Negligent in this Particular Or rather for that is the Truth they Neither of them thought the Church was at all Oppress'd by this just Jurisdiction of the Prince over it But we know Acts of Parliament are Obstinate things and will no longer bend as they were wont to do to the Ecclesiastical Canon Did the Synod therefore at least make bold with its Own Constitutions and Rescind those base and flattering Canons which stampt upon this Act the Churches Approbation And by so doing sign'd the Theta upon her Rights Liberties and Authorities On the contrary they continue still in force and have as far as One of King Henry's Convocations has power to do it ipso facto Excommunicated some among Us who while they make a Noise in the World as if they only were the true Sons of the Church of England are Really cut off from all Communion with Her In a word When upon the Review of the Liturgie several other Alterations were made in the Forms of Ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons did they slip aside the Oath of Supremacy that Bond of Iniquity contriv'd by the Atheists and Erastians of the Parliament in the First of Q. Elizabeth on purpose to run down the Rights of the Clergy and set up an Oppressive Supremacy over them But they still stand as they did before and may move some to consider who have been Ordain'd by these Forms How to Reconcile the Solemn Recognition of that Oath in behalf of the King's Authority with what they have since Written with so much Bitterness against it But tho' the Convocation therefore did nothing to Recover the Church out of that slavish Estate into which former Convocations and Parliaments had brought her it may be some Others of the Clergy at least in their Writings on this Subject may have Remonstrated against it That any have done so till this present Controversy began is what I never Heard This I know that several have Asserted and which is more defended too the Supremacy on its present Legal Bottom beyond the possibility of a Reasonable Reply Among these I know not whom more properly to mention in the very first place than our Pious and Learned Bishop Taylour It was but a very little while before the Restauration of King Charles that he published his Excellent Book of Cases of Conscience and which has never I conceive fallen under any Censure tho' often Re-printed since In these having first in General shewn that the Prince has Authority in Matters of Religion and Asserted it so highly as to say That without it he is but the Shadow of a King and the Servant of his Priests He proceeds more particularly to lay down this as his next Rule of Conscience That Kings have a Legislative Power in the Affairs of Religion and the Church Which having also shewn his next Conclusion to our purpose is this § 9. The Supreme Civil Power hath a Power of External Judgment in Causes of Faith That is as he Explains himself a Power to determine what Doctrines are to be taught to the People and what not And to prevent mistake he thus declares himself more particularly as to this matter § 16. I do not intend by this that whatsoever Article is by Princes allow'd is therefore to be accounted a part of True Religion For that is more than we can justify of a Definition made by a Synod of Bishops But that They are to take care that True Doctrine be Establish'd That they that are bound to do so must be supposed Competent Judges what is true Doctrine Else They Guide their Subjects and some Body Else Rules them And then Who is the Prince The Prince then is to Judge what is true Doctrine yet this He must do by the Assistance and Ministries of Ecclesiastical Persons Kings are the Supreme Judges of Law Yet in Cases where there is Doubt the Supreme Civil Power speaks by them whose Profession it is to Vnderstand the Laws And so it is in Religion The King is to study the Law of God not that He should wholly depend in Religion upon the Sentences of Others but be able of Himself to Judge But the Prince's Office of providing for Religion and his Manner of doing it in Cases of Difficulty are rarely well discoursed by Theodosius the Younger in a Letter of his to St. Cyrill The Doctrine of Godliness shall be discuss'd in the Sacred Council and it shall prevail or pass into a Law so far as shall be judged Agreeable to Truth and Reason Where the Emperor gives the Examination of it to the Bishops to whose Office and Calling it does belong But the Judgment of it and the Sanction are the Right of the Emperor who would see the Decrees should be Establish'd if they were True and Reasonable Ib. § 5. This I observe in Opposition to those bold Pretences of the Court of Rome and of the Presbytery that Esteem Princes bound to Execute their Decrees and account them but Great Ministers and Servants of their Sentences And a little lower he saith If He the Prince be not bound to Confirm All then I suppose He may chuse which he will and which he will not § 6. He shews that Princes are not bound to Govern their Churches by the Consent and Advice of their Bishops but only that it is Reasonable they should For says he Bishops and Priests are the most Knowing in Spiritual Affairs and therefore most fit to be Councellors to the Prince in them In his Fifth Rule § 1. he Affirms That Kings have Power of Making Laws And therefore as Secular Princes did use to Indict or Permit the Indiction of Synods of Bishops so when they saw Cause they Confirm'd the Sentences of Bishops and pass'd them into Laws Before Princes were Christian the Church was Govern'd by their Spiritual Guides who had Authority from God in All that was Necessary and of Great Convenience next to Necessity And in Other things they had it from the People For the better providing for These God raised up Princes to the Church And then Ecclesiastical Laws were Advised by Bishops and Commanded by Kings They were but Rules and Canons in the hands of the Spiritual Order but made Laws by the Secular Power These Canons before the Princes were Christian were no Laws farther than the People did Consent but now even the Wicked must Obey This was the Judgment of that Great Bishop as to the Princes Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastical And this Judgment he delivered in his full Years in One of his last Works and that purposely design'd to
a Right to give its Establishment to such Constitutions and the Ecclesiastical Officers as Subjects are bound to apply Themselves thereto for the Obtaining of it The calling of Councils so far as is needful for the Preservation of the Peace and Order of the Church may be perform'd as the former by Ecclesiastical Officers where the Civil disowneth the Church But this being no particular Exercise of the Power of the Keys but only of a general Authority doth peculiarly belong to the Prince or Supreme Governour if he will make use thereof The antient Right and Exercise of the Authority of Kings in Summoning Provincial or National Councils is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca But indeed he himself in his 5th Chapter abundantly Demonstrates both that and all the rest that is Contended for in the present Dispute And the Heads of which are such as these That the antient Emperours had Power to Call Councils p. 156 158 159 161 165 170 To be present at Them p. 157 160. And by Themselves or their Deputies to Preside in Them p. 162 167 170. To direct them what they should Consult about p. 157 163 170. To appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting p. 166 170. To keep the Bishops from leaving the Council till all should be Finish'd for which it was Called p. 163. To Confirm what they do aright p. 157 160 161 164 169 170. To Rescind what they do amiss p. 163. To Suspend their Acts from taking Effect till they should give way to it p. 165. These are the Instances which may be observed in that Chapter of the Jurisdiction and Authority which the antient Emperours Exercised over their Synods heretofore And by which we are to Expound as our Church has taught Us the Supremacy of our Own Princes in the like Cases I shall conclude what I have to observe from this Learned Writer with a Remark which I wish some Men would be perswaded a little more seriously to Consider p. 204. Some things which at first Sight may seem an Abatement of the Authority of the Church is rather such a way of Regulating the Exercise of its Power as under Religious Princes is for the Churches Advantage Of this Nature I conceive that Constitution of the 25 H. VIII that No new Canons shall be Enacted Promulged or Executed without the Royal Assent and Licence to Enact Promulge and Execute the same For hereby the Cergy give such Security to the King against all jealousies of Renew'd Ecclesiastical Usurpations that thereupon the Church may under the Kings Favour and with the Assurance of greater Safety and Protection practise upon its Establish'd Constitutions which are so Good that we have great Reason to bless God for them And hereupon it may also be hoped that what shall be farther needful may be Super-added by the Royal Licence and become more Effectual to its End by the Confirmation of that Authority There is yet One Author more who must not be pass'd by Our Learned and Accurate Dr. Barrow And a better than whom I could not have desired to close up this Collection withall In his Treatise of the Vnity of the Church a Discourse which would some Men more diligently Read and more judiciously Consider they would not talk so loosely as they do on that Subject He gives Us this Account of the State of the Church in the times Immediately after Christ. Each Church did Seperately Order its Own Affairs without Recourse to Others except for Charitable Advice or Relief in Cases of extraordinary Difficulty or urgent Need. Each Church was Endow'd with a perfect Liberty and a full Authority without Dependence or Subordination to Others to govern its Own Members to manage its Own Affiairs to Decide Controversies and Causes Incident among themselves without allowing Appeals or rendring Accounts to Others It is true that the Bishops of several Adjacent Churches did use to meet upon Emergencies to consult and conclude upon Expedients for attaining such Ends as they met for This probably they did at first in a Free Way without Rule according to Occasion as Prudence Suggested But afterwards by Confederation and Consent these Conventions were formed into Method and Regulated by certain Orders establish'd by Consent whence did arise an Ecclesiastical Unity of Government within certain Precincts Hence every Bishop or Pastor was conceived to have a double Relation or Capacity One towards his Own Flock another towards the Whole Flock Of Councils he thus delivers his Opinion General Councils are Extraordinary Arbitrary Prudential Means of restoring Truth Peace Order Discipline During a long time the Church wanted Them Afterwards had them but Rarely and since the Breach between the Oriental and Western Churches for many Centuries there hath been none The first General Councils indeed All were Congregated by Emperours their Congregation dependeth on the Permission and Pleasure of Secular Powers and in all Equity should do so And in his most Elaborate Treatise of the Popes Supremacy The most Just and Pious Emperours who did bear greatest Love to the Clergy did call them without Scruple It was deem'd their Right to do it none did Remonstrate against their Practise The same he shews of National and Provincial Councils p. 186 c. To these they Summon'd the Bishops in a Peremptory Manner and directed both the Time and Place of their Meeting The Popes petition'd them to Call Councils and sometimes they Prevailed and sometimes they did not This Power upon many just Accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes It suiteth to the Dignity of their State It appertaineth to their Duty They are most Able to Discharge it They alone can well cause the Expences needful for holding Synods to be Exacted and Defray'd They alone can Protect Them can maintain Order and Peace in Them can procure Observance to their Determinations They alone have a Sword to Restrain Resty and Refractory Persons To oblige them to Convene to Conferr Peaceably to Agree to Observe what is Setled It inseperably doth belong to Sovereigns in the General Assemblies of their States to Preside and Moderate Affairs proposing what they Judge fit to be Consulted or Debated stopping what seemeth unfit to be moved keeping Proceedings within Order and Rule and steering them to a Good Issue Checking Disorders and Irregularities which the Distemper or Indiscretion of any Persons may create in Deliberations or Disputes This therefore he shews the Emperours to have done in all the first Synods The Word Presidency hath an Ambiguity It may be taken for a Priviledge of Praecedence or for Authority to Govern things This latter kind of Presidency was disposed of by the Emperour as he saw Reason The Power of Enacting and Dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching Exteriour Discipline did of Old belong to the Emperour And it was Reasonable that it should By many Laws and Instances it appeareth that Appellations have
is a Party and the Appeal therefore is to stop at the Vpper House of Convocation I see no Reason why this Authority should not be reserved to the King and I conceive the Law of our Realm does allow of it 8thly As for the Dissolving of the Convocation that is so evidently a part of the Royal Jurisdiction and has been so fully adjudged to belong to the King that I do not see what Exceptions can be taken at it However the Constant Practice of our Convocations in this matter is on my Side And I have herein ascribed no Authority to the Prince but what our Clergy for above these Hundred and Fifty Years last past have constantly submitted to and by that Submission alone have sufficiently Vested in Him But if I am not mistaken in Point of Law what is it that deserves so Tragical an Outcry as this late Author has made against me Is it that being a Clergy-Man my self I appear'd in Defence of the King's Authority over the Clergy and which in some Mens Notion is the same thing as to say against the Rights of the Church So indeed the Convocation seem'd to think in the Case of Dr. Standish heretofore and so Some seem to account it now But God be thanked the Reformed Church of England never yet thought it any Offence in her Clergy to stand up for the just Rights of the Prince nor have I any Apprehension that I shall ever be Condemn'd upon this account by any True Members of Her Communion And for Others give me leave to ask only Am I the First of Our Order that have appear'd on this Occasion Or do I stand Alone in this Cause But what then shall we say of all those Learned Bishops and Clergy-Men whose Books I have here Quoted to the same Purpose Nay rather what shall we say of those whole Convocations who compiled our Articles and Canons And have Obliged us thereby not only Occasionally to Defend the Kings Supremacy but to the best of our Wit Learning and Knowledge publickly to Declare and Confirm it to our Congregations four times every Year If this be that for which I ought to be Censured I am afraid so great a part of our Order will go along with me as may make it even Scandalous to stay behind And be number'd among that Little Noisy Turbulent Party that now set themselves up as Judges over Us. But if both the Law be on my side and it be no improper Enterprize for a Clergy-Man to appear in What shall we say more Was the Time improper Did I take an Unseasonable Opportunity of Asserting this Authority Nay but this They should have consider'd who by appearing so Eagerly against the Princes Power over the Convocation made it absolutely Necessary for some or Other of our Church to do her Right and let the World know that she never Commission'd any of her Members to broach any such Principles on her Behalf That she is content to Act under the Royal Supremacy and is sensible that it is her Duty so to do That if some Hot Men for ought she knows her Enemies will under pretence of asserting such a Power to her as she has always disclaim'd endeavour to raise any Jealousies in the Mind of her Defender against her it is what she cannot help And she hopes she shall not be the worse Accounted of for such Attempts as she neither approves of nor knows how to Prevent And now there is but One thing more that can I think be Objected against my Undertaking And I shall lay it down in the Words in which it is Charged upon me For what if the Publick from such a Work inscribed to the Metropolitan should be tempted to proceed to further Resolves against the Powers Hierarchicall This I confess would be such a use of it as I should be heartily sorry for tho' even in such a Case I cannot tell whether I should ever the more deserve to be Censured for what I had done There can nothing be either so well Design'd or so carefully Perform'd of which an ill Use may not be made And if that should be Sufficient to cry down any Undertaking I do not see how we shall be able to Satisfie our Consciences in anything we have to do But in Reason I am sure the Church might have expected to suffer much more by the Letter to the Convocation Man than by the Answer which I made to it When Church-Men set up their Divine Rights in opposition to the Laws of their Country and upon Visionary Notions endeavour to lead Men into Discontents against their Governours it is Natural not to say Necesiary for Princes to look to themselves and consider how to stop those Attempts at the Beginning which Experience has shewn them may Otherwise in time grow too strong for Them It was the Intollerable Insolence and Vsurpations of the Roman Church that made her first Fear'd then Hated and at last crush'd the Hierarchic in many Places to peices And whatever Party shall think fit to pursue the same Methods ought in all Reason to expect the same Treatment If Clergy-Men will enjoy the Protection of Princes it is but Reasonable that they should be Content to acknowledge their Authority To contend for more Power than either Christ has left us or our Calling requires or the Bishops and Councils under the first Christian Emperours pretended to or desired is neither Prudent nor Justifyable It is to render the Church suspected by the State and to set those Powers in Opposition to which ought mutually to Help and Support One-Another I have before shewn what Opinion a very Learned Man upon this Ground had of the Act of Submission now so much railed at in these Days He look'd upon it as a Law of great Benefit to the Church even for this Reason alone that it freed the Civil Powers from entertaining any more Fears and Jealousies of the Clergy This was a Remark founded upon Good Reason as well as upon the Experience of those former Miscarriages which the Clergy had run into for want of such a Restraint And I cannot but every Day more and more acknowledge the Goodness of God towards our Church in that very thing for which some Men so Tragically lament the Oppression and Slavery of it Being fully Perswaded that nothing at this Day preserves us from Ruin and Desolation but that we have not Power of our selves to do the Church a Mischief and the Prince who sees but too much of our Tempers is too Gracious to Us and has too Great a Concern for the Churches Good to suffer Us to do it These are the Advantages which I look upon the Church to derive to her self from this Act. It prevents all Jealousies which either the Odd Principles the Violent Tempers Or the Wicked Designs of some Men might justly raise in the Minds of our Governours against us And frees them from all Temptation as well
the Sayings of Athanasius against the Synod of Tyre of Osius against Constantius of St. Ambrose against Valentinian the Younger to us who know what has long since been Return'd to them by our learned Jewel and Bilson Whitgift and Andrews and the rest of our Writers upon this Subject This may pass with those who are Ignorant of these Matters for a shew of Reading and they may for a while look with Wonder on the Vnknown Character and applaud the learning of the Text and Margin But when the Common place shall be lay'd open and they shall begin to discover out of whose Magazine these Authorities are Transcribed and shall be convinced how often they have already been both Alledged and Answered the most Charitable Reader will be apt to shake his Head and think the worse both of the Cause and the Defenders of it And this I desire with relation to other Mens Writings As for my own Book 3dly I would request him when he cites my Words but especially when he does it with a Design of Reflecting upon them that he would take them as they lie and not leave out or insert any that may have an Influence upon the Sense of what He quotes Of the former of these I take my self to have some reason to complain in his References of p. 100. and 101. of his Book But of the latter yet more p. 109. where He says that I give the Prince Power to suspend not only the Sentences of Synods but their Canons too And of which I do assure the Reader he will not find the least mention in the Passages to which he is Referr'd But 4thly And to go yet farther Would his design or prejudices give him leave I could wish he would take care to distinguish a little better between what I Relate as matter of History and what I deliver as my own Sense It being easie to imagine that in a Work of such a Nature as that is which he has undertaken to Examine many things may be Recited from Others which a Man is not bound himself to approve of Had he used this Precaution he would not have told his Reader as he does p. 160. that I charge the Synod of Ariminum with the Sin of Disobedience for dissolving themselves without the Emperours leave Whereas in Truth I only give a sincere Account of the Matter of Fact and shew from my Author what those Fathers did and what Resentments the Emperour had of it What reasons those Holy Bishops had for returning to their Churches after a tedious Absence tho' not Licensed by Constantius so to do it cannot be thought we at this Distance should be so well able to judge as They at that time were And if they were Satisfied that they had Reason so to do far be it from me to Condemn them for preferring their Duty to their Flocks before the Satisfaction of a Violent and Heretical Prince Let me to this add 5thly As not very different from what I have now mentioned such other Mistakes as either want of Care or the Heat of Contention has sometimes led him into and by reason of which he charges me with several things which I am by no means concern'd to admit of Thus for Example It is not less than four several times that he Speaks of my Definition of a Synod And in one Place censures me for the Vn-accuracy of it p. 49. And indeed a very loose Definition of a Synod it is tho' fit enough to keep Company with that which Himself gives of it in the same Place But then it is a great Mistake to say that I had any thoughts of Defining a Synod in the Place to which he refers On the contrary I acknowledge the very Meeting of which I there Speak not to be what we properly mean by a Synod Only I shew both from the Persons of which it consisted and from the Business which it met about that if the Prince has Authority over such an Assembly as that was there is no Reason why he should not have an equal Authority over Synods which both consist of the same kind of Persons and meet about the like Affairs But 6thly And to have done There is yet one Thing more which I cannot but think to be worthy his Regard and it is this That before he draws up any more Charges of Absurdities and Contradictions against me He would take some tollerable Care to examine Matters thoroughly and to advise with some clearer Heads and not charge That upon my Words which is really the Misfortune of his own Vnderstanding What a strange Confusion for Example is it p. 166. because I prove from the Matters of Fact in the first Ages after the Empire became Christian and from what was orderly and regularly done in those times too the Princes Supremacy to fancy that I had overthrown my own Foundation by saying that in the Dreggs of Popery and when Princes had lost their Antient and just Authority many things were done by the Clergy in their Synods very irregularly and their bare doing of which is by no means sufficient to prove that they had a Right to do it Again p. 167. Because I cite Eusebius for an Expression of Constantine's that he was Bishop in things without the Church what strange Logick is it from thence to conclude that Princes have nothing to do in the Affairs of Synods Whereas it is Notorious that those above any thing were the very Matters of which he Spake So p. 168. I quote Socrates for saying that the Greatest Synods were called by the Emperors Ergo says he 't is plain that the lesser Ones were not Again p. 169. I affirm that in peaceable Times and under Princes who take Care of the Church Synods ought not to meet but by the Command or Allowance of the Civil Magistrate To this he conceives it is a Contradiction to say as yet I do that in Cases of extreme Necessity when Princes shall so far abuse their Power as to render it absolutely needful for the Clergy by some extraordinary Methods to provide for the Churches Welfare that Necessity will warrant their taking of them And again Because I assert that in quiet Times and under a Pious Christian Prince the Prince is to judge when it is proper for Synods to meet to this he fancys it to be a Contradiction to allow that when the Danger is apparent and the Necessities of the Church will not bear the farther delay of Them if the Prince does refuse to let them meet they must rather venture his Displeasure and do it of themselves than be wanting in such Circumstances to the Churches Safety and Preservation These are some of those Absurdities which this Ingenious Writer has been pleased to lay to my Charge Many more there are of the like kind and by which whether he has more exposed my Weakness or his Own I am very well Content to leave it to any
impartial Reader to judge It is one of the ill Effects that commonly attend Controversial Writings that it is very Difficult to manage them either with that Temper and Ingenuity that becomes Scholars or with that Charity that good Christians ought to do And 't is this has given me almost as great a Disgust at them as ever Gregory Nazianzen profess'd himself to have against Synods and that almost upon the same Account Pride and Ill-Nature commonly Domineer in them and sometimes it so falls out that an Opponent must be freely dealt with or a good Cause must suffer in the Opinion of a great Many who conclude that a Man therefore only spares his Adversary because he could not get an Advantage against him How far I have fallen under this Censure in the Management of the present Controversy I must submit it to others to judge but do hope I have not so far Transgress'd as this late Author charges me to have done As for the Logick Law and History of the Person I had to deal with What it really is I pretend not to say What it appear'd to me to be my Book has shewn And if I have any where fail'd in my Allegations against him this Gentleman no doubt will take care to call me to Account for it But Honesty is a tender Point and I do not remember I have any where touch'd upon it 'T is true I have shewn what was indeed too plain to be deny'd that whosoever he were that Wrote that Pamphlet he could be no Friend to our present Establishment And this I am sure was to my Purpose to observe how little so ever it was to his to have it so plainly Discover'd However if in any thing I have been Mistaken in my Judgment either of his Affections of his Abilities I am heartily sorry for it and shall be ready to submit to whatsoever Pennance his most Vpright Logical Historical Second shall from his better skill in Antiquity and the Laws of our Church think fit to lay upon me for it THE CONTENTS INtroduction § 1. The Design of the following Treatise viz. To shew what has been the Sense of the Church of England ever since the Reformation as to the Authority of Christian Princes over the Ecclesiastical Synods of their Realms § 2. The Substance of the 25 H. 8. c. 19. to this Purpose § 3. Of its Repeal by Q. Mary and Revival by Q. Elizabeth § 4. That the Authority therein given to the King is no Other than what did always of Right belong to the Crown § 5. That it was to secure this Authority the Oath of Supremacy was framed § 6. The present Obligation of which is enquired into Ibid. That the same Authority is agreed to in the 37th Article § 7. The Sense of which is shewn Ib. And the Nature of that Subscription we make to those Articles consider'd § 8. And is yet more fully enjoin'd by the Canons of 1603. § 9. Which ipso facto Excommunicate all those who Impugn this Supremacy § 10. II. This Supremacy Confirm'd from the Sense of our Divines and Others ever since the Reformation § 11. Of the Times of K. H. 8. K. Edw. 6. and Q. Mary 1. § 12. Queen ELIZABETH The Judgment of her Self and her Parliament § 13. Of all her first Bishops § 14. Of Archbishop Whitgift § 15. Archbishop Bancroft § 16. Bishop Jewel § 17. Bishop Bilson § 18. Dr. 〈◊〉 § 19. Mr. Hooker § 20. King JAMES 1. Of the Revival of the Dispute concerning the Supremacy under this King § 21. The Judgment of the King himself Ib. And Of B. Andrews § 22. Against the Papists Of the Controversy which the King had on this Subject with the Scotch Ministers § 23. Vpon this Occasion B. Andrews Judgment more fully declared § 24. Which was also the Sense of the Rest of the Clergy at that time § 25. Particularly of our Learned Mason § 26. King CHARLES I. The Judgment of these Times more particularly shewn § 27. From the Sense of the King himself § 28. Of his Bishops especially A. B. Laud § 29. And of the whole Convocation 1640 § 30. The Judgment of A. B. Bramhall § 31. Bishop Davenant § 32. and Dr. Heylin § 33. King CHARLES II. The State of the Parliament and Convocation in 1660 consider'd How far this shews the same Sense to have continued of the Supremacy that had all along obtain'd before § 34. This farther shewn from the Opinion of Bishop Taylor § 35. B. S. Parker § 36. Dr. Falkner § 37. Dr. Barrow § 38. III. Vpon this Foundation an Appeal is here made to all the True Members of our Church against those who now Oppose this Authority § 39. And it is farther shewn That I have not been mistaken in Point of Law § 39. That the Cause was not unbecoming a Clergy Man to appear in § 40. That the time was not improper for the handling of it § 41. That it is not probable the Church will Suffer by what I have done but may by their Fury who oppose me in this Point § 42. The Close § 43. AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England c. AFTER an Age and half 's Dispute with those of the Church of Rome in Defence of the King's Supremacy and of the Laws that have been made for the Establishment of it it cannot but seem a little strange to Us to be Now call'd upon to begin the Controversy again with some among our selves who would be thought the Best if not the only True Members of the Church of England But that which seems yet more amazing is that tho' our Laws subsist in the same State which they have been in ever since the Reformation Our Articles and Canons made in pursuance of those Laws continue firm and unrepealed Tho' the Books that have been written by our Bishops and Clergy in defence of Both are not only not Censured but are Read Approved and Received on all hands as delivering the undoubted Sense of our Church and Convocations as well as of our Princes and Parliaments with relation to this matter it should now nevertheless be thought a Crime to assert the Supremacy of the Christian Magistrate and a Scandal for a Clergy-Man more especially to appear in behalf of that Cause by defending whereof so much Honour has been gain'd by the greatest Writers of that Order heretofore Had we now to do with the same Adversaries that those Learned Men were engaged with Were the Persons who in Our days set up against the Rights of the Prince either open Romanists on the one hand or avowed Members of the Kirk and Consistory on the Other we should the less wonder either at the Principles which they Advance or the Zeal with which they appear in Favour of them But to be Summon'd by Members of our Own Communion to defend the Doctrine of our Own Canons and Articles to be rail'd at as little better than
of these Articles is Great and Unavoidable To affirm them in any part to be Superstitious or Erroneous whether he who does it be found out or no is by the Canons of our Church Excommunication ipso facto And if the Offender be discover'd and fortunes to be a Clergy-Man he is by the Statute Law of the Realm to be convented before his Bishop for it and if he does not presently Revoke his Error is in the First Instance to be Deprived of All his Ecclesiastical Promotions and in the Second loses them without more ado This is the Law both of the Church and of the State in the present Case And with what Conscience any Clergy-Man beneficed in such a Church can excuse himself for flying with so much Virulence in the Face both of these Laws and of these Canons I shall leave it to any One who has any Conscience himself though never so much prejudiced against the King's Supremacy to consider To the Articles of Religion set forth by Queen Elizabeth let us add the next authentick Evidence of our Church's Sense in this particular the Canons and Constitutions made by the Convocation in the first Year of King James I. Of these the very first is design'd to assert the Supreme Authority of the King's Majesty over the Church of England In order whereunto it ordains That All Persons Ecclesiastical shall faithfully keep and observe and as much as in them lieth shall cause to be observed and kept of Others All and Singular Laws and Statutes made for Restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom the antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical Which last words being the very Title of the Act of the First of Queen Elizabeth we must conclude the meaning of the Canon to be this That they shall faithfully Observe the Laws referred to in that Statute and do what in them lies to cause All Others to Observe the same Seeing then that Act of the 25 H. 8. c. 19. is One of those which is there expresly Revived it will follow that it expresly comes within the Words of this Canon and that the Powers therein annexed to the Crown over the Convocation are hereby approv'd and allow'd of as part of that Antient Jurisdiction which always of Right belong'd to our Kings over the Estate Ecclesiastical But the next Canon is more express and will come more fully up to our present purpose It s design is to Restrain the Impugners of the King's Supremacy over the Church of England And thus it runs in our English Version of it Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the King's Majesty hath not the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church Or impeach any part of the Regal Supremacy in the said Causes Restored to the Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein Established let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not Restored but only by the Archbishop after his Repentance and Publick Revocation of those his Wicked Errors It is plain by comparing of these two Canons together that the design of the Convocation was in the First to Declare and Assert the King's Supremacy and to oblige the Clergy to a strict and diligent Observance of it By the Second to Restrain all sorts of Persons from denying or otherwise endeavouring to hurt or extenuate the Legal Notion of it And two things there are which will deserve to be taken notice of in this Second Canon First What that Supremacy is which our Convocation was so careful to Assert and Defend And Secondly What it is to Impugn this Supremacy within the meaning of this Canon First As for the former of these the Supremacy here meant two Rules there are delivered by this Canon whereby we may come to a Right Understanding of it First It is that Authority over the Estate Ecclesiastical which by the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth was Restored and by the Act of Queen Elizabeth Confirm'd as of Right belonging to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And Secondly It is such a Power in matters of Religion as the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church And from which by the way it may be Observed what good Reason I had to enquire into the Authority of the Christian Emperors in these Cases and to argue from thence in behalf of that Power which our Church ascribes to our Own Princes on the like Occasions How much soever some Men may slight such Proofs as being sensible that they are not to be Answer'd Secondly To impugn this Supremacy within the meaning of this Canon is either first to deny Altogether this Authority and affirm that the King either has not or ought not to have any such Power Or it is secondly By any other means to Impeach or as the Latin Canon has it more plainly to Extenuate or Hurt this Supremacy Which I conceive is then done when Men Write and Argue against it when they Censure the Laws for Establishing of it and Damn the Prince so long as he shall continue to Exercise it according to those Laws But these are not the only Canons which justify what I have written in Defence of the King's Supremacy and Condemn those who appear against it The Twelfth is yet more express to my particular Case and will shew what the Sense of our Church is concerning those who Abet the now so much magnified Opinion on the other side Whosoever shall affirm that it is lawful Cuivis Ministrorum aut Laicorum Ordini vel Eorum alterutris simul Congregatis for any Sort Rank or Degree of Ministers or Laics or for either of them Gathered together to make Canons Decrees or Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastical things without the King's Authority and shall submit themselves to be Ruled and Govern'd by them let them be Excommunicated ipso facto and not be Restored until they Repent and publickly Revoke those their Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors For if in the Opinion of our Church it be necessary for the Clergy to have Authority from the King to meet on such Occasions If to say that any Persons of what Order soever they be may without his Licence make any Canons Decrees or Constitutions Ecclesiastical nay or but even submit themselves to be govern'd by such as shall be so made be a Wicked Anabaptistical Errour and for which a Man deserves to be cast out of the Communion of our Church then it must without all Question be allow'd that according to the Doctrine Establish'd among Us the Clergy can neither Meet nor Act but with the King's Permission Nor ought we to account those Constitutions of any Authority which any Persons shall make without his leave or as such submit to them how much soever they may please to cry up their Divine Powers and Vnalienable Rights to justify their Irregular and Anabaptistical Proceedings
them p. 154 155. Nay and even the Persons that should come to them p. 207. And have Voices in them p. 208. 3. That they directed what should be handled in them p. 135. Managed their Debates p. 134. And forbad them to call in Question the Faith that had by former Synods been Establish'd p. 155 208. 4. That they judged of their Proceedings p. 135. And that in Matters of Doctrine p. 261. By the Common Rule of All Christians the Word of God p. 264 266 276. 5. That they Confirm'd the Councils Decrees See p. 242. And this not at all adventures but chose such of their Canons as they approv'd and passed them into Laws p. 139. 6. That as to their Sentences they Received Appeals from Councils p. 135 151 152. Suspended p. 154. And if they thought them too severe Released the Rigour of their Censures and Determinations p. 136. These are some of the Points which this Learned Man not only allows of but defends from the Examples of the Jewish Princes and Christian Emperors And I will be bold to say either his Treatise is altogether False and Scandalous contrary to the Rights of the Church and the Sense of the Antient Fathers or my Discourse after all that has been said against it must be Confessed to be True and Orthodox and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England But because Bishops may be look'd upon as Suspicious Men let us see what those of an Inferior Order have written in this Case And for these I will take but One of a Kind Dean Nowell for the Dignitaries and the Venerable Mr. Hooker for the Rest of the Lower House As for Mr. Hooker the latter of these He was much too Young to have had any part in that Convocation in which our Articles of Religion were settled But Dr. Nowell was not only one of the most considerable Members of the Lower House at that time by his Own Dignity but chosen by the Clergy for their Prolocutor and so had the Chief Management of All that was done in it It was but Three Years after this that Mr. Dorman one of our Fugitive English Papists attacking the Queen's Supremacy as by Law Establish'd and then newly approv'd of by the Convocation this Learned Dean thought himself concern'd to undertake the Defence of it And indeed he has so well discharged his Part in it that I believe it will be very hard for our Modern Transcribers of their Arguments and Authorities to alledge any thing upon this Occasion that will not be found to have been fully answer'd before-hand in that Book His Treatise is expresly Referr'd to and approved of by Archbishop Whitgift in his Discourse upon this Subject and so may be look'd upon to deliver the Sense of that Great Archbishop as well as the Dean's Nor can it be reasonably doubted by Any but that it does deliver the Sense of the Whole Convocation and Clergy of the Church of England in this particular Let us see then how he States the Point between Us and his Adversary as to this matter and by what kind of Proofs he undertakes to Vindicate the One against the Other The matter in debate he thus accurately determines For. 23. We expresly divide the Offices of Christian and Godly Princes from the Offices of Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church under Them as distinct and divers Offices And we do teach that the Offices of Preaching of God's Word of the Pronouncing of Publick Prayer in the Church of Christ the Power of the Keys or of Binding and Loosing and of Ministring the Holy Sacraments are by the Word of God appointed to be the Peculiar Offices of Bishops and of other Ecclesiastical Ministers And we Teach and Preach even in Presence of Princes that neither Princes nor Any Other Persons saving only Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Ministers under them may intermeddle with the said Offices and Ministries Ecclesiastical so peculiarly and only appertaining to the said Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church P. 24. When we do speak of Causes Ecclesiastical wherein Christian Princes are the Chief Governors we mean not that Princes should Execute these Peculiar Offices of Priests as is also in the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions notified to all the Subjects of the Realm that will be disposed to understand the Truth without Cavillation But now touching the Authority of Princes to Oversee that the Bishops and Clergy do these their Offices diligently and truly according to the Rule of God's Word to Command them to do their Duty to Admonish them being therein slack to Reprehend them Offending Depose or Deprive them being Incorrigible This we say is the Office of a Chief Governor over the the said Persons Ecclesiastical which doth appertain to Christian Princes every One in their own Dominions Further besides the Office of Preaching and Ministring the Sacraments there are many other Orders Matters and Causes Ecclesiastical touching Ceremonies and the outward Regiment of the Church which may be term'd the Ecclesiastical Policy Page 25. There is also the Authority to Receive Appellations and finally to Determine Controversies arising amongst Persons Ecclesiastical To Summon and Call Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Persons as Men exercised in the Study of the Scriptures to Synods Convocations and Councils in Necessary Cases To Order Govern and Protect the said Bishops and Clergy being so call'd together and to Approve and Authorize things for the Outward Order Ecclesiastical and Policy determined in such Synods These be those Causes Ecclesiastical that we do speak of which do not pertain to Bishops and Priests only In these Cases and Causes Ecclesiastical the Authority of a Christian Prince is not only not excluded from intermedling with the Bishops and Clergy but the Prince's Authority is Chief therein Which Authority the Christian Prince exercising doth not Intermeddle with any Office belonging to Bishops and Priests only as the Adversaries of the Truth do falsly bear Men in hand but with their Own Offices by the Examples and Practice of all Antient Godly Princes as well in the Old Law as in Christian Religion proved of Right to them to Appertain And to Our Prince also by the Antient Laws and Statutes of the Realm as to the Learned in the said Laws is not Unknown of Right appertaining This is the Account which he gives of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Authority of Christian Princes in Matters of Religion The Proofs he alledges are full and conclusive From the Examples of Constantine p. 208 to 223. Theodosius p. 227 to 238. The Council of Chalcedons p. 239 to 246. The Third Council of Constantinople p. 250 to 253. Justinian the Emperor p. 276 c. To Omit many other Particulars in the Vindication of which I am not so immediately concern'd And I will be bold to say there is nothing by me advanced in this Argument which has not been both more highly carried and more particularly explain'd
of those of the Reign foregoing I have already alledged the Authorities of those two Eminent Archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft To these I have added those of Bilson and Hooker and I thought it but Reasonable to give them a place in the same Period in which their Books were publish'd But yet I must observe that the most of These not only continued to the present time but attain'd to their highest Promotions under this Government The Synod of 1603 was held under the Presidence of Bancroft then Bishop of London Bishop Bilson was a Member of it and no doubt concurr'd heartily to the passing of those Canons which relate to the King's Supremacy in it I shall therefore here add only the Judgment of One Learned Man more who must never be mentioned but with a particular Respect by Us Mr. Mason and that out of a Work which he wrote expresly in Vindication of the Reformed Church and Ministry of England Champanaeus his Adversary had thus far allow'd of the Authority of the Christian Prince in Matters of Religion That He might make Laws in Defence of the true Religion which he was to learn from the Clergy and might nay was bound to see them Put in Execution But that Princes should have a Power of Judging or Defining in Ecclesiastical Matters as the Proper Judges and Hearers of them this he says is a Paradox never heard of in the Christian World before the time of Henry VIII To this Mr. Mason Replies That it is indeed the Business of Pastors to Explain the Doubtful things of the Law But that it belongs to the Prince to Promulge the Truth when known and to command his Subjects to Obey it That he must judge Whether the Priests do Go according to the Law of God And to that End must Search the Scriptures Pray to God Advise with Learned Men and not be led away with the fair Titles or Characters of Any nor have so much Regard to the Number of Votes as to Truth Upon this Foundation he proceeds at large to assert these following Points 1. That it is the Prince 's business to Call Councils and to appoint the Time and Place of their Assembling 2. That he has the Power to propose to the Bishops and Clergy what shall be treated on in their Synod 3. To prescribe the Rule and Measure of Judging 4. To Restrain them from calling in question the Faith already Orthodoxly setled in former Synods 5. To Rescind the Pernicious Decrees of Councils and to Confirm and Ratify such as are Pious and Wholesom by his Authority Lib. iii. c. iv p. 298. To which Points thus put together by Himself let me add from the other parts of his Discourse 6. The Power to Preside in Synods and to Govern their Acts. 7. To Appoint Judges in Ecclesiastical Matters and over Ecclesiastical Persons 8. To Judge between the Bishops if they shall happen to differ even in Matters of Faith And lastly To suspend the Acts of Councils tho' in relation to Points of Doctrine so that during such Suspension they shall not take Effect This is that Authority which this Renowned Defender of our Ministry and Reformation look'd upon as due of Right to the Christian Prince Of what Esteem this Work in those days was may be Gather'd not only from the Great Care and Accuracy with which it was Composed but from that Concern which the Archbishop of Canterbury shew'd for the Publication of it Twice it was solemnly dedicated to King James And being first publish'd in our Own Language it was thought considerable enough to Carry both the Doctrine and Defence of our Church to those Abroad in a Latin Translation And I have never yet heard that any of its Adversaries could charge it with any false Representation of our Church's Sense how little soever they pretended to be satisfied with His Vindication of it KING CHARLES I. But I shall not tarry any longer in this Reign but proceed to pursue the History of the Supremacy in the Sense of our most Eminent Bishops and Divines during the Unfortunate Reign of that Excellent Prince and true Friend of our Church King Charles the First And here one would have thought that the Account I took care on purpose to give with a more than ordinary particularity of the Convocation of 1640 might have sufficiently convinced all Unprejudic'd Persons what the Judgment of those Times was in the present Case But since it is insinuated by some who cannot deny but that that Prince did in Fact both Claim and Exercise all that Power over the Convocation for which I am pleading as if All this were done meerly in compliance with the Iniquity of our Laws and not as what Either the King or his Archbishop in their Own Consciences approved of I will proceed to clear this matter a little farther and shew that we have all the Reason in the World to believe that in the Management of that Convocation they Both of them acted not more agreeably to the Laws of the Realm than to the Real Sense of their Own Judgment It was but about Twelve Years before the Meeting of that Synod that upon the breaking out of some Disturbances upon the Account of the Arminian Tenets the King was induced to publish anew the Articles of Religion and to prefix his Royal Declaration to them suitable to that Occasion The Words of this Declaration are these Being by God's Ordinance according to our just Title Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church within these our Dominions We hold it most agreeable to this our Kingly Office and our Own Religious Zeal to Conserve and Maintain the Church committed to our Charge in Unity of true Religion and in the Bond of Peace and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations Altercations or Questions to be Raised which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonweal We have therefore upon Mature Deliberation and with the Advice of so many of our Bishops as might conveniently be called together thought fit to make this Declaration following That the Articles of the Church of England which have been allow'd and authorised heretofore and which our Clergy generally have subscribed unto do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word Which we do therefore Ratify and Confirm Requiring all our Loving Subjects to continue in the Vniform Profession thereof and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles which to that End we command to be New-printed and this Our Declaration to be publish'd therewith Such is the beginning of this Declaration and in which we may already observe several notable Instances of that Supremacy we are enquiring into For 1st It is plain this King thought himself Authoriz'd as Supreme Governour of the Church within his Dominions to take care of the Vnity of it and to put an End to those Disputes which Some
had raised to the manifest endangering of it 2dly Upon his Own mature Deliberation and with the Advice of such of his Bishops as he thought fit to call to his Assistance he judges anew of the Doctrine of the Church contain'd in the XXXIX Articles and confirm'd by so many Synods of the Clergy as had met since the first Establishment of them And 3dly Upon that Judgment he again Ratifies and Confirms them and Requires all his Subjects to continue in the Vniform Profession of them But we will go on with the Declaration which the King farther makes That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England and that if any difference arise about the External Policy concerning the Injunctions Canons or Other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to Order and Settle them having first Obtain'd Leave under Our Broad Seal so to do and We approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions provided that none be made Contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land This is the next Paragraph and it gives us a clear account of the Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Synods of this Realm To them it belongs to deliberate of what concerns the Policy of the Church and to make Canons c. for the Ordering of it But before they can do this they must have the King's Leave not only to Sit but to Go about any such Work being Sate And having done it the King is to have the last Review He is to Confirm or Reject what they do And even that too within the Bounds that the Laws have set both to Him and Them But we will Go yet farther In the next place then the King thus declares That out of our Princely Care that the Church-men may do the Work which is Proper unto them the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble Desire shall have Licence under our Broad Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by Us shall concern the setled Continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now Established from which we will not endure any Varying or Departing in the least Degree And here we have not only our former Reflections again confirm'd but with an Addition of some farther Instances of the Prince's Authority in these Cases The Clergy in Convocation are humbly to move the King for his Licence to do what they shall Judge to be necessary for the better Establishment of either the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England To this the King is pleased to promise them at all times a favourable Answer That they shall have Leave to do what they desire and he shall judge needful to be done by them But still he declares it shall be with this Restraint that what they desire to do be consistent with the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church already Establish'd For from that the King Resolved that the Clergy even in Convocation assembled should not be at Liberty to Vary or Depart in the least degree All which being supposed yet still they are only to deliberate and make plain to the King what they think to be of Use even within these Restrictions But the King is to Allow or not Allow of it and upon his Rejecting or Ratifying their Resolutions the whole Authority and even Subsistence of them is to depend Such was the Opinion which this Prince had of his Own Royal Authority over the Convocations of his Bishops and Clergy Wherein the Power here claim'd by him comes short of what our Laws have assign'd the King and I in my late Treatise on this Argument have contended for it will I believe be very difficult to shew I shall only add that this Declaration was made by Him with the Advice of so many of the Bishops as might conveniently be Called together Who those Bishops were with whom the King consulted upon this Occasion we are not told But that Archbishop Laud was One of them we have all the Reason in the World to believe He was at that time a Privy-Counsellor Dean of the Chappel and One of the Commissioners for the Administring of the Archbishoprick upon the Sequestration of Archbishop Abbot And especially advised with by the King in all Matters of Importance relating to the Affairs of the Church And upon all which accounts we may venture almost confidently to say that this Declaration was without Controversy publish'd by his Advice above any Others and speaks his Sense in these Matters no less than the King 's It is indeed a thing justly to be wonder'd at after what I have formerly publish'd that any One who pretends to have any Veneration for the Memory of that Great Prelate should be able to make any doubt of his Judgment in this particular The Integrity which he shew'd in all his Actions sufficiently assures us that what he Swore to in the Oath of Supremacy Subscribed in the Articles of Religion Approved of in the Canons of the Church Advised in this last Declaration and Acted under at the Head of the Convocation Anno 1640 was undoubtedly agreeable to the Inward Sense of his Own Mind And I would desire those who upon such slender Grounds now insinuate the Contrary to consider What a mean Spirit they must take a Person of his High Character to have been acted by who can suppose that in a Matter of such vast Concernment to the Church and upon which the Divine Rights and Authority of it in their Opinion so much depend He should nevertheless against his Own Conscience run in with the Iniquity of the Times and thereby give so dangerous a Countenance to those Enslaving Principles to which he submitted However since such is the Rashness of some Men that they care not what Injury they do the Greatest Personages so they may but seem thereby to justify their Own Errors I will now give such an Evidence not only of that Archbishop's but with his of all the Other Bishops and the whole Convocations Sense in this Case as will I think admit of no Exception In the Canons of 1640 and whose Authority tho' I pretend not to assert yet I conceive I may without Offence produce them as a private Evidence of the Judgment of Those who Compos'd Them the very first is Concerning the Regal Power In this they not only Approve of the Acts made for the Acknowledgment of the King's Authority over the State Ecclesiastical but enjoin them All to be carefully Observed by all Persons whom they may Concern They add That a Supreme Power is given by God himself to Kings to Rule and Command all Persons of what Rank soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil The Care of God's Church say they is so committed to Kings in Scripture that they are Commended when the Church keeps the Right way and Taxed when it runs Amiss And therefore Her Government belongs in
Chief unto Kings For otherwise One Man would be Commended for Anothers Care and Taxed for Anothers Negligence which is not God's way The Power to Call and Dissolve Councils both National and Provincial is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their Own Realms and Territories And when in the first Times of Christ's Church Prelates used this Power 't was therefore only because in those days they had no Christian Kings And again in the VIIIth Canon they oblige all Preachers positively and plainly to Preach and Instruct the People in their Publick Sermons twice in the Year at least That they ought Willingly to Submit themselves unto the Authority and Government of the Church as it is now Establish'd under the King's Majesty It is therefore as plain as any thing can well be that this Convocation undoubtedly approved of ALL the Laws even this of the Submission of the Clergy made for the Security of the King's Authority over the State Ecclesiastical that they look'd upon the Government of the Church to belong in Chief unto Kings That they accounted the Power of Calling and Dissolving Synods to be the true Right of All Christian Princes and that the Bishops have only then a Power to do this when the Church is in a State of Persecution and the Necessities of it enforce them thereunto And by Consequence that they themselves not only met and acted under the Powers I have formerly shewn because they were forced so to do but Approved of the Vse which the King made of them and were satisfied that in Meeting and Acting according thereunto they behaved themselves so as became Christian Bishops and Clergy-Men to do under the Favour and Authority of a Christian King I shall observe only this one thing farther to prevent any new Cavils in this particular that we are assured by Him who best knew it Archbishop Laud himself that these Canons were pass'd with the greatest Freedom and Vnanimity that ever any Canons were So that upon that account also we may the more undoubtedly look upon them as delivering the Real Sense of the Church of England in those days To the Judgment of this Archbishop and the Convocation held by him let me subjoin that of an Eminent Bishop in our Neighbour Country the Learned Bramhall afterwards Archbishop of Ardmagh and Primate of All Ireland In his Survey of the Scotch Discipline among other Exceptions which he takes at it we have these to our purpose particularly insisted upon by him That they Affirm 1st That Ecclesiastical Persons have the sole Power of Convening and Convocating Synods 2dly That no Persons Magistrates or Others have Power to Vote in their Synods but only Ecclesiastical 3dly That Synods have the Judgment of True and False Religion of Doctrine Heresy c. That they have Legis-lative Power to make Rules and Constitutions for keeping Good Order in the Kirk And all this without any Reclamation or Appellation to any Judge Civil or Ecclesiastical 4thly That they have these Privileges not from the Magistrate or People or Particular Laws of the Country but Immediately from God c. Lastly That they have all this Power not only without the Magistrate but against him that is tho' he Dissents c. So different a Notion had this great Writer of these Powers of the Kirk for which our Late Author so highly Applauds them and sets up their Discipline above our Own slavish Constitution But the Archbishop proceeds and against these Vsurpations of the Kirk lays down Chap. ii these Orthodox Church of England Principles That All Princes and States invested with Sovereign Power do justly challenge to themselves the Right of Convocating National Synods of their own Subjects and of Ratifying their Constitutions And that he is a Magistate of Straw that will suffer the Church to Convene Whensoever or Wheresoever they list To Convocate before them Whomsoever they please To change the Ecclesiastical Policy of a Common-Wealth To alter the Doctrine and Religion Establish'd and all this of their Own Heads by a Pretended Power given them from Heaven Synods ought to be Called by the Supreme Magistrate if he be a Christian And either by Himself or by such as he shall please to chuse for that purpose he ought to Preside over them This Power the Emperors of Old did challenge over General Councils Christian Monarchs in the Blindness of Popery over National Synods The Kings of England over their Great Councils of Old and their Convocations of latter Times But say they we give the Magistrate a Political Power to Convocate Synods to Preside in Synods to Ratify the Acts of Synods to Reform the Church Here are Good Words but they signify Nothing For in plain English what is this Political Power to call Synods c. It is a Duty which the Magistrate Owes to the Kirk when they think Necessary to have a Synod Convocated to strengthen their Summons by a Civil Sanction To secure them in Coming to the Synod and Returning from the Synod To compel obstinate Persons by Civil Laws and Punishments to submit to their Censures and Decrees What Gets the Magistrate by All this For they declare expresly that neither All the Power nor any Part of the Power which Synods have to Deliberate of or to define Ecclesiastical things doth flow from the Magistrate But can the Magistrate call the Synod to Account for any thing they do Can he Remedy the Errors of a Synod either in Doctrine or Discipline No This is one main branch of Popery and a Gross Encroachment upon the Right of the Magistrate And accordingly we find him charging the Papists with it in his Writings against them He maintains that All Ecclesiastical Coercive Jurisdiction did Originally flow from the Civil Magistrate He bids them Weigh all the Parts of Ecclesiastical Discipline and consider what One there is which Christian Emperours of Old did not either Exercise by themselves or by their Delegates Or did not Regulate by their Laws or Both. And then particularly Instances in the Points of Calling Councils Presiding in Councils Dissolving of Councils and Confirming Councils And Pag. 93. He insists upon it as One just Ground of our Separation from the Court of Rome that they endeavour'd to Rob the King of the fairest Flowers of his Crown namely of his Right to Convocate Synods and to Confirm Synods within his Own Dominions of his Legis-lative and judiciary Power in Ecclesiastical Causes c. To the Opinion of this learned Prelate were conformable the Sentiments of all the Other Bishops and Clergy of these Kingdoms as to these Matters Christian Emperours says Bishop Davenant heretofore Called Councils As in Civil Causes Princes advise with their Learned in the Law so in Theological Matters they ought to Consult with their Divines Yet are they not so tied up to the Opinions of their Clergy but that if They go contrary to the
Law of God Princes are Obliged by their Duty as Kings to set forth the True Religion to their Subjects tho' the Clergy should never so much or so generally Oppose them in it And in Another of his Books he proves the last Judgment in Matters of Religion to belong to Princes by this Argument He to whom the Holy Bishops remit their Decrees to be Examined from whom they desire the Confirmation of them Whom alone they Acknowledge to have the Power to prescribe to the People the True Religion by a Judiciary Coactive Power Him they constitute Supreme Judge in the Business of Religion But all this is ascribed to Pious Emperours and Kings As both from Councils and Fathers may evidently be made Appear I add that the Clergy cannot by Vertue of their Function compel the King to receive for the True Religion whatsoever they shall resolve by their Votes so to be But they must direct him by God's Word and always leave it to Him to Confirm that by his Authority which shall to Him upon Examination of their Reasons appear to be agreeable to God's Word Kings Sin when they throw off all Care of Religion and leave it to their Bishops alone Confirming by their Authority and Defending with their Sword whatsoever Faith They shall think fit to prescribe It is true indeed that as Other Christians so Princes themselves are to be directed in Matters of Religion by the Fathers of the Church But they are to be directed by the Light of God's Word and not to be drawn at the Pleasure of Bishops to the Defence of any Errour whatsoever The Church of England did not Innovate says Dr. Heylin in setling the Supremacy in the Royal Crown The like Authority was exercised and enjoy'd by the Christian Emperours not only in their Calling Councils and many times Assistiug at them or Presiding in them by themselves or their Deputies or Commissioners but also in Confirming the Acts thereof The like he shews to have been done by our Own Kings heretofore and then concludes thus so that when the Supremacy was recognized by the Clergy in their Convocation to King Henry the VIII it was only the Restoring of him to his Proper and Original Power If you conceive that by ascribing to the King the Supreme Authority taking Him for their Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission which ensued upon it the Clergy did unwittingly ensnare Themselves and draw a Vassallage on those of the Times Succeeding inconsistent with their Native Rights and contrary to the Usage of the Primitive Church I hope it will be no hard matter to remove that Scruple Its true the Clergy of this Realm can neither Meet in Convocation nor Conclude any thing therein nor put in Execution any thing which they have Concluded but as they are Enabled by the King's Authority But then it is as true that this is neither inconsistent with their Native Rights nor contrary to the Usage of the Primitive Times I grant indeed that when the Church was under the Command of the Heathen Emperours the Clergy did Assemble in their National and Provincial Synods of their Own Authority Which Councils being Summon'd by the Metropolitans and Subscribed by the Clergy were of sufficient Power to bind all good Christians who lived within the Verge of their Authority But it was Otherwise when the Church came under the Protection of Christian Princes As for the Vassallage which the Clergy are supposed to have drawn upon Themselves by this Submission I see no fear or danger of it That which is most insisted on for the Proof hereof is the Delegating of this Power by King Henry the VIII to Sir Thomas Cromwell by the Name of his Vicar General in Ecclesiastical Matters Who by that Name Presided in the Convocation Anno 1536. And this is look'd upon both by Saunders and some Protestant Doctors not only as a great debasing of the English Clergy but as a kind of Monstrosity in Nature But certainly these Men forget that in the Council of Chalcedon the Emperour appointed certain Noble-Men to sit as Judges whose Names Occur in the first Action of that Council The like we find Exemplified in the Ephesine Council in which by the Appointment of Theodosius and Valentinian the Roman Emperours Candidianus a Count Imperial sat as Judge or President It is not Possible to imagine any thing more express to our present Concern than what this Learned and Zealous Defender of our Church has here advanced If any One should be so Uncharitable as to imagine that this great Man had any Byass of private Interest upon him when he wrote this He may please to know that this Book was set forth by him in the time of Oliver Cromwel when our Church was in its worst Estate and there seemed but little hopes Remaining of its ever Recovering its self to a New Establishment But indeed this was his real Judgment and the General Sense of our Clergy in those Days Nor had our greatest Church-Men then learnt either to think Otherwise of the Princes Right Or to run down the Learning and Piety of those Holy Men by whose Courage and Conduct the Reformation was carry'd on and many of whom sealed the Sincerity of their Opinions with their Own Blood KING CHARLES II. I have now but one Period more to pass over and that a very short One too wherein I am to enquire How this Doctrine continued to be Received after the Restauration of King Charles the II. and upon that last Reveiw that was then made of our Constitution That at that time both the King and his Parliament were not only well Affected to the Interests of our Church but ready to concur with whatever the Convocation could reasonably have proposed to Them for the better Settlement of it is not to be doubted But what then did they do as to this Matter Was this enslaving Act made by our Saint Henry the VIII and continued by all his Oppressing Successors of the Reform'd Religion repealed by this Zealous Church-Parliament Or because that cannot be pretended Did that Reverend Synod which altered so many Other things ever once touch upon this and were stop'd in it Neither can that be Affirm'd Was there in that large Body Any One but One Generous Freeborn Spirit who being Scandalized at the Restraints under which the Divine Rights of the Church had so long lain moved the Convocation to protest against the King's Supremacy if they could not yet be so Happy as totally to shake it off Neither does any thing of this Occurr in the Diary which I have seen of that Convocations Proceedings Now that which makes me the rather to Remark this is that both that Parliament and that Convocation had this very Business of the King's Supremacy and the Churches Power under their Consideration And an Act was made for the better Execution of the One but still so