obliged to acquaint him with her Desires Reasons Places Seasons and Necessaries of Convening To petition his Leave and Favour his Inspection Assistance and Succour to the Piety of her Designs To secure him of her Fidelity to all his Proper Honours and Interests That they will keep within Ecclesiastical Concerns and do all things Openly to the Glory of God and the Good of Souls in the Vnity Order and Purity of the Church preserved by the Rules of Catholick and Canonical Communion and this under the Guard and Watch of Temporal Powers Well but what if the Prince shall not approve of the Reasons that are offered to Him for their Assembling nor think either the Time Convenient or the Place Proper and shall thereupon refuse Them the Leave they Petition for What if He shall think their Designs not to be so Pious as they pretend but rather to have a great Allay of Humane Passion and Prejudice in them What if He shall differ with them in His Notion of what is his Proper Honour and Interest May he in such a Case forbid them to Meet May he Assign them some Other Time or Place Or Command them not to meddle with such Causes or Persons as he shall judge his Honour or Interest to be Concern'd in What if what they call Ecclesiastical Concerns should chance to have an Influence upon Civil Affairs And that instead of Preserving they shall Act so as to divide the Vnity of the Church May he by the Temporal Power which is still left to Him put a stop to their Proceedings or Annul their Acts or Receive and Appeal from their Sentences On the contrary He flatly tells us That all the Power of Calling Moderating at and Dissolving Synods of Confirming their Acts or Suspending their Sentences is Negative of those Liberties and Authorities of the Church which she once claim'd as of Divine Right and of which He before affirm'd that they were neither forfeited nor forfeitable And here then we have a plain Account of the Judgment of this Author in the Case before Us. I was willing the rather to put it together in this Place that so by comparing it with what is said in the following Collection the Reader may be the better enabled to judge who has acted more sincerely upon the Church of England's Principles I in Asserting the King's Supremacy as by Law Establish'd or He in his violent and impetuous Opposing of it Or if this shall not be thought enough to convince those who have been dissatisfied with my Undertaking how close I have kept to our Churches Doctrine let me then for a final Proof desire this Author in his next Attempt to satisfie the World in these 3 Points 1st Let him shew wherein I have ascribed any more or Greater Power to the Prince than our Laws have given Him and our Convocations and Clergy have either expresly or by a plain Consequence approved of and declared to be his Right 2dly Let him tell us Wherein the Opinion here advanced by Him differs from that of our Missionary Papists and Jesuits who have written against the Supremacy and against whom our Divines have so Learnedly maintain'd the King's Prerogative 3dly Let him inform Us Whether any Writers of the Church of England since the passing of this Convocation Act have ever made any such Exceptions as he has here done against it and charged it as Destructive of the Divine Rights and Powers of the Church And who those Writers are and in what Books they have done it This being done if it shall appear that in any thing I have run into an undue Extreme and by that means derogated from the Churches Authority I shall then be ready to comply with the Advice he has given Me and not only humble my self before God for the Wrongs I have done the Church but publickly make a Reparation of them But if upon the Enquiry it shall appear that I have affirm'd nothing but what the Law Establishes our Convocations have Agreed to and our most Eminent Clergy Men have constantly defended I must then be excused if I look upon my self to have done no more than in Duty I was bound to do and by Opposing whereof I take this Gentleman not only to have acted contrary to the Laws of the Land and the Articles and Canons of the Church but to have actually incurr'd an Excommunication for such his Offence Having said thus much with respect to the Subject of my late Treatise I shall add but little more concerning the Design which is here laid for the Answering of it As this Author has order'd the matter it is become absolutely Necessary for Him to Go on with it For having charged me with Violating the most important Truths of Principles and Histories having told the World that I have treated the Synods of the Church with Spite and Contumely and Recommended the Greatest Slavery of Her to the Appetite of the Civil Powers and every part of which Charge does I conceive Accuse Me of no small Crime the Weight of this Accusation must fall very Heavy either upon Him or Me and I look upon my self as concern'd to tell him that I do expect he should make it Good or Honestly own that he cannot do it Only for his own sake as well as mine and which is yet more for the Satisfaction of Those who shall think fit to Interest themselves in this Controversy some few things there are which I would here Recommend to him and they are such as in my Apprehension ought not to be thought at all Unreasonable by Him And 1st Since this Debate however managed must be likely to Run out into a considerable Length I would desire him not to Increase the necessary Bulk of it by alledging Passages out of the Antient Fathers to prove that which Neither of Us make any doubt of Thus p. 160. He produces the Authority of Athanasius to prove that the Nicene Fathers were not constrain'd by any force that was laid upon them to condemn Arius but did it freely and of their Own Accord Now this I allow to be very true but cannot help thinking it to be in our present Case very little to the Purpose And p. 162. He cites a much larger Proof out of Gregory Nazianzen the Appositeness of which to our Debate I cannot yet imagine unless it be that He thinks all Greek to be equally Pertinent to most Readers in which he is certainly in the Right 2dly I would intreat him not to insist upon any Testimonies of Antiquity which have been already alledged again and again by Harding and Stapleton by Saunders and Dorman and the Rest of our Popish Fugitives in their Treatises against the Oath of Supremacy and as often answer'd by Our Writers unless he shall think fit at the same time to take Notice of their Replys to them and shew that they do not destroy the force of His Allegations To what purpose for example does he bring
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
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
Guide the Consciences of such as should make Use of it I shall from him descend but to One more Whom I fitly place the last of his Order And to whose Judgment tho' I pay no more than it deserves yet I cannot but think it may have some weight with those whom I am now concern'd especially to Convince In his Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity Chap. 1. he affirms The Affairs of Religion to be Subject to the Supreme Civil Power and to no Other p. 2. That as in the first Ages of the World the Kingly Power and Priestly Function were alway Vested in the same Persons So when they were separated in the Jewish State the Supremacy was annexed to the Civil Power and so continued until and after our Saviour's Death Ibid. This he more largely delivers p. 32. Tho' in the Jewish Commonwealth the Priestly Office was separated by a divine positive Command from the Kingly Power yet the Power and Jurisdiction of the Priest remain'd still subject to the Sovereign Prince Their King always Exercising a Supremacy Over All Persons and in All Causes Ecclesiastical The Power wherewith Christ invested the Governors of his Church in the Apostolical Age was purely Spiritual They had no Authority to inflict Temporal Punishments or to force Men to submit to their Canons Laws and Paenalties They only declared the Laws of God and denounced the Threatnings annexed to Them But when Christianity was become the Imperial Religion then began its Government to Re-settle where Nature had placed it and the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was annex'd to the Civil Power So that tho' the Exercise of the Ministerial Function still continued in the Persons that were thereunto Originally Commissioned by Our Saviour the Exercise of its Authority and Jurisdiction was Restored to the Imperial Diadem Constantine was no sooner settled in his Imperial Throne but he took the Settlement of All Ecclesiastical Matters into his Own Cognizance He Called Synods and Councils in Order to the Peace and Government of the Church He Ratified their Canons into Laws c. In the Exercise of which Jurisdiction he was carefully follow'd by all his Successors Nay he doubts not to affirm That had it not been for the Care of Christian Princes Christianity had in all humane Probability been utterly destroy'd by its Own Tumults and Seditions He adds That this Supremacy of the Civil Power in Religious Matters is expresly Asserted by Our Church which is not content barely to Affirm it but denounces the Sentence of Excommunication against All that deny it Thus stood this Author ' s Judgment in this Case about the Year 1669 It is true that being engaged against another sort of Adversaries and which led him to somewhat different Reflections we find him a little gone off from this Hypothesis in the Year 1681. Yet even there he is much more for the Supremacy than those we have now to do with He affirms indeed p. 105. That from the Precedent of the Apostles in the First Council of Jerusalem the Governours of the Church in all Ages enjoy'd a Power of making Canons and Constitutions for Discipline and Good Order But withal he adds that By the Example of the Primitive Church our Bishops submitted the Exercise thereof to the King 's Sovereign Authority as we see in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy Whereby says he p. 106. they do not pass away their Power of making Ecclesiastical Canons but only give Security to the Government that under that Pretence they would not attempt any thing tending to the Disturbance of the Kingdom or Injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown Which in truth is such a Submission as all the Clergy in the World ought in duty to make to their Sovereign at least in Gratitude for his Protection and that without any Abatement or Diminution of their Own Authority viz. The standing Laws of Christianity being secured to submit All Other Matters to his Sovereign Will and Pleasure And p. 108. He approves King James Reply to Cardinal Perron where he lets him know That tho' Christian Kings and Emperors never arrogated to themselves a Power of being Sovereign Judges in Matters and Controversies of Faith yet for Moderation of Synods for Determinations and Orders Establish'd in Councils and for the Discipline of the Church they have made a full and Good Vse of their Imperial Authority Such was the last Sense if I mistake not of this Writer and that when he was in his highest Exaltation of the Churches Authority And all the Difference I can find between his Own last and first Opinion is but this that what He before gave the Christian Prince as his Own due He now grants him by the Concession of the Clergy yet so as to declare the Clergy bound to yeild it to Him and to affirm the Churches Rights to be in no wise injured or impeach'd by it But I shall not insist any longer on this Authority but pass on to consider the Judgment of an Author or Two of a Lower Rank but whose Learning and Steddiness will much more recommend Them to all Sober and Indifferent Persons Of these the first I shall mention shall be our Excellent Dr. Falkner who in his Discourse of Christian Loyalty fully examines and determines the Case before Us. Concerning the Christian Doctrine and Profession says he tho' no Authority has any Right to Oppose any part of the Christian Truth yet Princes may and ought to take Care of the True Profession thereof in their Dominions and to Suppress such dangerous Errours as are manifestly contrary thereunto But in Cases of Difficulty for the deciding or ending of Controversies about Matters of Faith the Disquisition and Resolution of the Spiritual Guides ought to take Place and be Embraced In such Cases the Catholick Christian Emperours did by their Authority Establish the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils But in Matters of Truth which are plain and manifest from the Holy Scriptures themselves or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith the Saecular Governour so far as is Necessary may proceed upon the Evidence thereof to his Own Understanding In establishing Rules and Constitutions for Order Decency and Peace it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers to consult advise and take Care thereof But yet this with such Dependance upon the Royal Power as King Charles has declared that is That they first obtain the Kings leave to do it and execute nothing but with his Approbation See above § 28. In such an extraordinary Case as that in the Primitive Times was when the Civil Power will not own the Church the Ecclesiastical Governours by their Own Authority may establish necessary Rules of Order as was then done But since the External Sanction of such things doth flow from the general Nature of Power and Authority wheresoever the Temporal Power will take that Care of the Church which it ought it hath
by more than one Obligation engaged so to do to appear in defence of the Royal Supremacy It is indeed very strange to consider after what manner a certain Writer has of late deliver'd his Sense as to both these and such as will hardly be Credited except I repeat it in his own Words 'T was Natural says He to expect the Insurrection of Infidels and Hereticks against the Proposals and Power of a Convocation But who would have dreamed that any Clergy Man of the Church should lift up his Heel against Her When the great Luminaries of the Church shall sign the Theta upon Her Rights Liberties and Authorities Divine and Humane and this Voluntarily and without any Bribe offer'd or Menace denounced the Concession is taken for Sincere and for that Cause Just. King Henry the VIII of famous Memory notwithstanding all his Claims at Common-law and his Interest in his Parliament thro' Power and the Rewards by Abby and Church-lands could not have made himself so absolute in Eccesiasticals had he not procured before the Submission of the Clergy Nor could he have compassed That but by the Terrour of a Praemunire under which they had fallen and upon which he was resolved to follow his Blow and so to bend or break them And yet this Act of a Popish Vnreform'd and will nigh Outlaw'd Convocation Extorted for fear of Ruin and thro' Ignorance and Non-suspicion of the Acts consequent upon it prejudges more against our Liberties than all Secular Constitutions could possibly have done without it And must we Now consecrate all these Procedures the Results of which we feel in the total Ruin of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Christian Piety by Our voluntary Pleas and Acclamations And to gratifie the Civil Powers to an Arbitrary Vtmost violate the most Important Truths of Principles and Histories treat the Synods of the Church with Spite and Contumely and Recommend the greatest Slavery of her to the Appetite of Civil Powers This is a severe Charge and a Man had need have a very Good Cause or a very Impregnable Face who treats Kings and Parliaments Convocations and Clergymen after such a Rate For when all is done it cannot be denied but that what that Convocation did and that King and Parliament Enacted was after two intermediate Reigns again Repeated in the First of Queen Elizabeth is at this day Approv'd of by the Canons of King James the First and allow'd of in the Nine and thirty Articles of Religion to which this Author himself has more than once Subscribed And methinks the consideration of that if nothing else might have induced him to have been more temperate in his Charge against me who have defended no Other Authority in the Prince than what both He and I and every Other Clergy-man of the Church of England have solemnly declared our Assent to and are obliged to our Power to maintain But our Author does not intend to leave this Point so easily his Zeal carries him yet farther in Opposition to the King's Supremacy To say nothing of his fresh Invectives against that King and that Convocation which first began to assert the Royal Authority against the Invasions which had so notoriously been made upon it Pag. 110. He affirms the Authority of the Church in the Convention Freedom and Acts of Synods to be of Divine Right This he again insists upon pag. 115. and in the next Page calls them Divine Privileges given by God and granted to Priests for the Conduct and Conservation of the Church And in the same Page speaking of the Prince's breaking in upon these supposed Rights he says Not only the Romish Church but all Other Sectaries and the Scotch Kirk illustriously scorn to admit any Servitude notwithstanding not only National Protection but Promotion being sensible that a Liberty of Religion Government and Church-Discipline is more valuable than all worldly Wealth or Interest and without which they cannot apprehend any Protection to Religion or the Societies that Profess it From which last Words I suppose I shall not injure his Sense if I infer that then according to his Notion the Church of England is really at present in a Persecuted State and has been so ever since the Reformation And cannot be look'd upon so much as a Protected Church till this Act of the Submission of the Clergy shall be Repealed A strange Reflection certainly and very Unbecoming those manifold Blessings our Church has enjoy'd under its Reformed Princes and does at this time Enjoy under her Glorious Preserver Whose greatest Crime I am afraid it is in some Mens Opinion that he has delivered us from that Slavery into which we were running tho' such as our new Disciplinarians seem to think the only way to a Canonical Liberty I must transcribe a great part of his Book should I here Repeat all that this Author has said in the most spiteful manner that he knew how to Express it against all that plead for or speak well of this part of the King's Supremacy See how he Harangues his Brethren of the Clergy upon this Occasion P. 119. We we only says he are the Poor Tame Dis-spirited Drowsie Body that are in love with our Own Fetters And this is the only Scandalous Part of our Passive Obedience to be not only Silent but Content with an Oc n of our P rs which are not forfeited nor forfeitable to any Worldly Powers whatsoever It might perhaps be here no Improper Question to ask what this Gentleman means by so Warm an Application to the Whole Body of the Clergy Whether he would have them take Heart upon the Matter and having so Redoubted a Champion to lead them on like true Missionaries see what they can do to raise up a Croisade against these wicked Magistrates who so unwarrantably Usurp upon the Churches neither forfeited nor forfeitable Powers At least thus far 't is plain he has gone towards it that as he has before shewn the Church to be out of the Protection of the Prince so he will by and by declare the Prince to be out of the Bosom of the Church and by Both authentically qualified for a Holy War to be made upon Him For thus he goes on p. 122. Can a Claim of an Oppressive Supremacy be deem'd a Glorious Jewel in a Christian Crown which if exercised must of necessity forfeit the King's Salvation And is it not a dangerous complaisance in Priests to fan such an Ambition as must End in the Ruin of the Church the Priesthood and the Soul of the Prince which the Liberties and Powers Hierarchical were design'd to Convert Direct and Preserve But still it may be doubted how far he accounts the King's Supremacy to be Oppressive That the whole Act of the Submission of the Clergy to King Henry the VIIIth falls under this Censure we have already seen In short all that he thinks fit to be allow'd to the Christian Prince is this That the Church be
Clergy of the former of which all but two subscribed to the Instrument which was presented to him upon this Occasion And when notwithstanding this he was again Sollicited by the Emperour and some other Princes the Year after either himself to come or to send his Ambassadors to it He again renew'd his former Protestation and made again the same Exceptions against it Nor in this did he do any more than some even of his Popish Bishops had before approved and that on such Occasions wherein it cannot be pretended that any Force was laid upon them I shall in proof of this alledge only the Letter of Tonstal and Stokesly to Cardinal Poole in which the Authority of the Christian Prince over the Convocations of his Clergy is fully asserted and proved from the like Instances of the Antient Kings and Emperours that I have made use of to the same purpose And tho' Queen Mary in her Zeal to the Papal Interest repealed whatever Acts had been pass'd by her Father and Brother against it and this of the Submission of the Clergy among the Rest yet she did not therefore give up the Power over her Synods but still continued it according to the Substance of that Statute As is evident from her Calling and Dissolving not only the first Convocation of her Reign but of that which was held two Years after and to Assemble which Cardinal Pool himself had her Licence as he also had to make such Canons as should be thought needful in it QVEEN ELIZABETH But I will not tarry any longer in these Times but pass forward to that of the next Reign in which the Reformation was both more regularly carry'd on and at last brought to the State in which it continues at this Day Queen Mary having as I observed abolish'd whatever Laws had been made in the two preceding Reigns in Derogation to the Papal Vsurpations the first Thing done by Queen Elizabeth was to set the Crown again upon its antient Foundation and to Restore it to that Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical which of right belong'd to it This was the Work of the very first Act that pass'd in her Reign and by Vertue whereof the Statute made 25th Henry the VIII c. 19. to Ratifie the Submission of the Clergy was brought again in Force I have before observed what care was taken by this Parliament to secure these Rights of the Crown by an Oath then Establish'd under the Title of the Oath of Supremacy I must now add that the more to oblige the Clergy to a due Observance of them the Queen her self this same Year set out her Injunctions and in the very first Place took care of her Supremacy in them For thus the Injunctions begin That all Deans Archdeacons Parsons Vicars and all other Ecclesiastical Persons shall faithfully keep and observe and as far as in Them may lie shall cause to be observed and kept of Other all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the Restoring of the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical And that this Power over the Convocation was one Branch of it the Revival of the Law of King Henry the VIII relating to it which was made the same Year and in that very Act whose Title the Injunction transcribes is a Proof not to be gain-said It is evident then that this Queen as well as her Parliament looked upon this Power to be not only no Vsurpation upon the Churches Priviledges but to be a part of that Jurisdiction which had always of Right belong'd to the Crown and was Vsurp'd from it in the Times of Popery And so in the next place did her Bishops too For however being not yet assembled in Convocation they could not so Authoritatively settle the Articles of Religion as shortly after they did yet being met together they agreed upon certain Articles to be sent to their Clergy and by them publish'd to the People in the mean time till a Convocation should be call'd to consider farther of this Matter In the 7th of these their Articles they treat of the Power of the Civil Magistrate And therein require their Clergy to acknowledge the Queens Majesties Prerogative and Superiority of Government of all Estates as well Ecclesiastical as Temperal to be Agreeable to God's Word and of Right to appertain to her Highness in such sort as in the late Act of Parliament is express'd and Sithence by her Majesties Injunctions Declared and Expounded It would be needless to observe that the Act of Parliament here referr'd to is that of the same Year made for the Restoring the Crown to its Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and by which the so often mention'd Act of King Henry the VIII was expresly Revived As for the Queen's Injunctions I have already shewn that where they Treat of this Matter the most Favourably they nevertheless assert the same Power to the Queen that King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. challenged and used And what that was in the particular under Debate is not doubted of or deny'd by those who the most oppose Us in the present Vindication of it So that here then we have in our first Entry upon this Reign the Queen the Parliament and the Bishops All approving of and confirming this Authority And so they continued all her Time to do There being hardly any Controversy either more largely Debated or more accurately Handled than this of the Royal Supremacy against which our Adversaries on both sides appear'd with all their Skill and were as effectually Answer'd by the Greatest and most Learned of our Church Among these as there was no one higher in Dignity so neither was there any more Eminent both for his Abilities and good Affections to the Church of England than Arch-Bishop Whitgift And whose Controversy with the Puritans is one of the most learned and judicious Works of those Days In this the xx th Tract is wholly spent in the defence of the Princes Right in Ecclesiastical Matters Wherein having charged his Adversaries with holding the Popish Opinions and even using their very Arguments He tells them Pag. 698 699. That the continual Practice of the Christian Churches in the time of Christian Magistrates before the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome was to give Christian Princes Supreme Authority in making Ecclesiastical Orders and Laws yea and which is more in Deciding of Matters of Religion even in the Chief and Principle Points This he proves by several Instances and then concludes in these very Words whereby it appeareth that the chief Authority in Councils was given to the Emperour and that He was esteem'd as the chief Judge In his next Division he shews that the learned and antient Fathers have committed the Matters of Controversy to Emperours And then adds The Practice therefore of the Authority of Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters even in Determining and
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
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
in behalf of the Prince by this Great Champion of our Church in his accurate and solid Treatise upon the same Subject Such was the Opinion of Dean Nowell nor does Mr. Hooker come at all behind him The Antient Imperial Law says he forbiddeth such Assemblies as the Emperor's Authority did not cause to be made Before Emperors became Christians the Church had never any General Synod their greatest Meetings consisting of Bishops and Others the gravest in Each Province As for the Civil Governor's Authority it suffered them only as things not Regarded or not accounted of at such times as it did suffer them So that what Right a Christian King hath as touching Assemblies of that kind we are not Able to judge till we come to later Times when Religion had won the Hearts of the Higher Powers Constantine was not only the First that ever did Call any General Council together but even the first that devised the Calling of them for Consultation about the Business of God After He had Once given the Example his Successors a long time follow'd the same Touching that Supremacy of Power which our Kings have in the Case of making Laws it resteth principally in the Strength of a Negative Voice which not to give them were to deny them that Without which they were Kings only by a meer Title and not in Exercise of Dominion If it be demanded by what Right from Constantine downwards the Christian Emperors did so far intermeddle in the Church's Affairs either we must herein condemn them as being over-presumptuously bold or else Judge that by a Law which is termed Regia that is to say Royal the People having derived unto their Emperors their whole Power for making Laws what matter soever they did concern As Imperial Dignity endow'd them with competent Authority and Power to make Laws for Religion so they were thought by Christianity to Vse their Power being Christians unto the Benefit of the Church of Christ. Was there any Christian Bishop in the World which did then judge this Repugnant unto that Dutiful Subjection which Christians owe to the Pastors of their Souls Wherefore of them which in this Point attribute most to the Clergy I would demand What Evidence there is whereby it may clearly be shew'd that in Antient Kingdoms Christian any Canon devised by the Clergy alone in their Synods whether Provincial National or General hath by meer force of their Agreement taken place as a Law making all Men constrainable to be Obedient thereunto without any Other Approbation from the King before or afterwards Required in that behalf And this shall suffice for the Reign of this Great and Wise Queen I shall make no Apology for taking these last Quotations out of that part of Mr. Hooker's Works which are not of Equal Authority with the Books publish'd by himself in his Life time There being so much of Mr. Hooker's Stile and Reason in them as makes me undoubtedly conclude that as they are they proceeded from Him And those who are supposed to have interpolated these Books were never charged with turning things to the Advantage of Sovereign Authority So that if any Changes or Omissions should have happened in this Place it must have been to the Disadvantage not to the Interest of the Cause before Us. But I shall be content to take his Opinion as it still is left to Us and is sufficiently contrary to that wild Notion of Chruch Power which is now again set on foot tho' by another sort of Men in Pretence at least among us KING JAMES I. We have before seen how the Oath of Supremacy fram'd in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth set the Pens of those of that Age on Work in discussing the Authority of the Christian Prince in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical It was not very long after the coming of King James into England before another Oath again Revived the same Controversy and set the most Learned Men of the Church of Rome upon a fresh Opposition of the Royal Authority Among those who on our side appeared in Defence of it as no one began sooner so is there none that ought to be rather taken notice of by Us than the King himself who with Good Learning as well as with a Stile becoming a Prince solemnly asserted his own Royal Rights and Jurisdiction And first In his Apology for the Oath of Allegeance we have his Opinion plainly deliver'd in several Points relating to our present Disquisition Answerably to the Fathers spake the Councils in their Decrees As the Council of Arles submitting the whole Council to the Emperour in these Words These things we have Decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour beseeching his Clemency that if we have done less than we ought it may be supplied by his Wisdom if any thing otherwise than Reason requireth it may be Corrected by his Judgment if any thing be found Fault with by Us with Reason it may be Perfected by his Aid with Gods favourable Assistance But why should I speak of Charles the Great to whom not One Council but Six several Councils Frankford Arles Tours Chalons Mentz and Rhemes did wholly Submit themselves And not rather speak of all the General Councils that of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Calcedon and the four others commonly so Reputed which did submit themselves to the Emperours Wisdom and Piety in all things Insomuch as that of Ephesus repeated it four several times That they were Summon'd by the Emperour 's Oracle beck charge and command and betook themselves to his Godliness beseeching him that the Decrees made against Nestorius and his Followers might by his Power have their full Force and Validitie And in his Defence of the Right of Kings He thus confirms the same Principles It is willingly granted that Emperours never challenged never arrogated to be Sovereign Judges in Controversies of Doctrine and Faith Nevertheless it is clearer than the Suns light at high Noon that for Moderation at Synods for Determinations and Orders establish'd in Councils and for the Discipline of the Church they have made a good and full Use of their Imperial Authority The first Council held at Constantinople bears this Title or Inscription The Dedication of the Holy Synod to the most Religious Emperour Theodsius the Great to whose Will and Pleasure they have Submitted these Canons by them address'd and establish'd in Council And there also they beseech the Emperour to Confirm and Approve the said Canons The like hath been done by the Council of Trullo by whom the Canons of the fifth and sixth Councils were put forth and Publish'd This was not done because Emperours took upon them to be Infallible Judges of Doctrine but only that Emperours might see and judge whether Bishops who feel the Prick of Ambition as other Men do did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations but most of all in their Determinations to undermine the Emperours
Authority to disturb the Tranquility of the Common-wealth and to cross the Determinations of Precedent Councils Now to take the Cognizance of such Matters out of the Kings Hand or Power what is it but even to Transform the King into a Standing Image yea to bring him down to this Basest Condition to become only an Executioner and which I scorn to Speak the unhappy Hangman of the Clergies Will The King having thus asserted the Authority of Christian Princes in this particular was soon Assaulted by those of the other Party Cardinal Bellarmine at that time accounted one of the most Learned Controvertists of the Church of Rome first under the Name of Tortus fell with great Bitterness upon him To him his Majesty scoring to reply Bishop Andrews took the Cause upon himself and with Great Spirit and Judgment replied to him So that here then in these two we may expect to see what is to be said on either side upon this Subject As for the Cardinals Opinion I am not concern'd to take any Notice of it But that which the Bishop asserts and with great Force of Reason and Evidence of Antiquity defends is to this Effect That Kings have Power both to call Synods and to Confirm them and to do all Other things which the Emperours heretofore diligently did do and which the Bishops of those Times willingly acknowledged of Right to belong to them And 1st That to Christian Princes belongs the Sole Right of calling Synods he proves from the History of the General Councils that were assembled under them p. 165. And from the Examples of those which were afterwards held under Charles the Emperour p. 164. 2dly That having Assembled them they have a Right of Inspecting and Examining of Approving or Rejecting their Acts He likewise shews p. 162 164. You know says the Bishop how Constantine wrote to the Synod of Tyre All you as many as made up the Synod of Tyre hasten without delay to come to Us and shew us truly how sincerely and rightly ye have Judged p. 173. He adds 3dly That they may come to and make a part of the Synod This he proves p. 174. And then p. 176. thus Sums up the Royal Authority Put this says he together The King assembles the Synod the Synod presumes to do nothing without his Knowledge The King commits the whole Affair to their Power They by vertue of his Princely Command proceed to do what was needful to be done I might easily Confirm this same Opinion both of the King and Bishop with the Concurrent Authority of Burhil Tooker and some Others who were afterwards engaged in the same Controversy But I must not enlarge upon this Subject having so much more yet to observe both of this King and this Bishop upon another Occasion as to the Points under Debate The King being Dissatisfied with the Proceedings of the Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland for holding a Generally Assembly at Aberdeen contrary to his Command sent for a certain Number of the most Eminent of them to come up to him to London and satisfy him in some Things in which he thought he had just reason of Complaint against them To these Ministers after other things Transacted with them he deliver'd three Quaeres relating to his Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters and demanded their several Answers to them The Second of these Questions and from which we may sufficiently conclude what Opinion his Majesty had of his own Royal Supremacy was this Whether they acknowledge his Majesty by the Authority of his Prerogative Royal as a Christian King to have lawful and full Power to Convocate Prorogate and cause desert upon just and necessare Causes known to him the Assemblies of the Kirk within his Majesties Dominions How they trifled with his Majesty in their Answer to these Questions as well as in all the other Affairs about which they had been sent for is neither material to my Purpose to shew and may at large be seen in the Histories here Referr'd to by me That which I have further to observe is that during the Course of this Transaction the King caused four of his English Bishops on certain Days appointed to them to Preach before him at Hampton-Court and Commanded the Scotch Ministers to be present at their Sermons The third of these turns fell upon our learned Andrews at that time Bishop of Chichester whose Subject assign'd him by the King was to prove the Power of Princes in Convocating Synods and Councils In order whereunto he first laid down these two Points 1. That when the Prince calls the Clergy are to meet And 2. That they are not to meet of Themselves unless he call them The Proof of these Points he thus pursues 1st From the Law of God p. 104. 105. confirm'd by the Law of Nature and Nations p. 106. And 2dly From Matter of Fact Before Christ From Moses to the Macchabee's in the Jewish Church p. 106 107. After Christ From Constantine till a Thousand Years after Christ 1 By General Councils 2 By National and Provincial Councils assembled 3 Under Emperours and 4 Kings by the space of many Hundred Years p. 108. This is the Substance of his Sermon and from which I shall proceed to extract some part of what he says in the Prosecution of most of the Heads before laid down 1st In Speaking of the Law of Nations he has this Remark The Law of Nations in this Point might easily appear if time would suffer both in their General Order for Convocations so to be called and in their General Opposing all Conventicles called Otherwise Verily the Heathen Laws made all such Assemblies Vnlawful which the highest Authority did not cause to meet yea tho' they were Sub praetextu Religionis say the Roman Laws Neither did the Christian Emperours think fit to abate any thing of that Right nay they took more straight Order 2dly Concluding his Account of the Jewish State he has these Words Thus from Moses to the Maccabees we see in whose Hands this Power was And what should I say more There was in all God 's People no One Religious King but this Power he Practised And there was of all God 's Prophets no One that ever interposed any Prohibition against it What shall we say then Were all these wrong Shall we condemn them all Yet to this we are come now that either we must condemn them All the One after Another the Kings as Usurpers for taking on them to use more Power than ever orderly they Received the Prophets for soothers of them in that their unjust Claim Or else confess that they did no more than they might and exceeded not therein the Bounds of their Calling And indeed that we must Confess for that is the Truth 3dly In treating of General Councils he thus Speaks of that of Nice At Nice there were together 318 Bishops the Lights of the whole World the
chiefest and choicest Men for Holiness Learning Vertue and Valour that the Christian Religion ever had before or since Did any of them refuse to come being called by Him Constantine as not called aright Or coming was there any One of them that did Protest against it or pleaded the Churches Interest to meet of Themselves Verily the Council of Nice which is and ever hath been so much admired by All Christians cannot be excused before God or Men if they thus conspired All to betray the Churches Right and suffered it contrary to all Equity to be carried away leaving a dangerous Precedent therein for all Councils ever after to the Worlds End There is no Man of Reason but will think it reasonable if this were the Churches own peculiar if Appropriate unto it and so known to them to be there ought to have been plain dealing now at the very first Council of All that if Constantine would embrace Religion he must forbear to meddle with their Assemblies 4thly But it may be General Councils have a Fashion by Themselves Those Congregations may be called thus but National or Provincial such as Ours How Even so too and no otherwise Yea I add this which is a Point to be consider'd that even then when the Emperours were profess'd Arians even then did the Bishops acknowledge their Power to call Councils Come to them being called Sued to them that they might be called And sometimes They sped and sometimes not And yet when they sped not they held themselves Quiet and never presumed to Draw together of their Own Heads But it may be this was some Imperial Power and that the Emperours had in this Point more Jurisdiction than Kings Not that neither For about 500 Years after Christ when the Empire fell in Pieces and these Western Parts came into the Hands of Kings those Kings had held and enjoy'd and practised the same Power If it be excepted that there are of these Provincial and National Councils which carry in their Acts no mention how they were called For them we are to understand that after the Decrees of the first Nicene Council were by Constantine's Edict confirm'd wherein as likewise in the Council of Chalcedon it was order'd that each Province should Yearly hold their Synods twice We are to conceive the Emperour's Authority was in All afterwards habitually at least 5thly But what say you to the 300 Years before Constantine How went Assemblies then Truly even as the Jews did before in Egypt They were then a Church under Persecution till Moses was raised up by God a lawful Magistrate over them No Magistrate did Assemble them in Egypt And good Reason They had none then to do it True it is therefore that before Constantine's Time they met together as they durst and took such Order as they could But when Constantine came in Moses Place it was lawful for him to do as Moses did And so he did And they never said to him Look how we have done hitherto we will do so even still Meet no otherwise now than in former Times we have by Our Own Agreement No but they went to him as to Moses for their Meetings At his Hands they sought them Without his Leave or Liking they would not Attempt them Yea I dare say they blessed God from their Hearts that they had lived to see the Day that they might now Assemble by the Sound of the Trumphet To conclude this Point then These two Times or Estates of the Church are not to be Confounded There is a plain difference between them and a diverse Respect to be had of Each If the Succession of Magistrates be interrupted in such Case of Necessity the Church of her self maketh supply because then God's Order Ceaseth But God granting a Constantine to them again God's former Positive Order returneth and the Case is to proceed and go on as before In a Word None can seek to have the Congregation so called as before Constantine but they must secretly and by Implication confess they are a Persecuted Church as that then was without a Moses without a Constantine 6thly Hitherto we have seen the Opinion of this Learned Prelate in the Case before us let us now see what Application he made of what he had offer'd on this Subject You may please to Remember says he there was not long since a Clergy in place that was wholly ad Oppositum and would never have yeilded to Reform ought Nothing they would do and in Eye of the Law without them Nothing could be done They had encroached the Power of Assembling into their Own Hands How then How shall we do for an Assembly Then the Prince had this Power and to him of Right it belonged This was then God Divinity And what Writer is there extant of those Times but it may be turn'd to in him And was it Good Divinity then and is it now no longer so Was the King but Licensed for a while to hold this Power till another Clergy were in and must he then be deprived of it again Was it then Usurped from Princes and are now Princes Usurpers of it Themselves Nay I trust we will be better Advised and not thus go against our selves and let Truth be no longer Truth than it will serve our turns I shall conclude all I have to draw out of this Discourse with the same Words that the Learned Preacher concludes his Sermon It remaineth that as God by his Law hath taken this Order and his People in former Ages have kept this Order that we do so too That we say as God saith This Power pertaineth unto Moses And that neither with Core we say We will not come Nor with Demetrius run together of our selves and think to carry it away with crying Great is Diana But as we see the Power is of God so truly to acknowledge it and dutifully to yeild to it That so they whose it is may quietly hold it and laudably use it to his Glory that gave it and to their Good for whom it was given It will not I hope be thought much of that I have so long insisted upon the Judgment of this Great Prelate in the present Case No Man there was in that Time or perhaps in any Other Age of the Church that was either fitter to deliver the Sense of our Clergy or better qualified to maintain it I might add that this Discourse being Preached first and then Publish'd by the express Command of the King carries with it somewhat more than a Private Authority And when it shall be consider'd how little a while it was before this that that Convocation met which took such care both to explain its Sense of the Royal Supremacy and to give the utmost Cononical Enforcement that could be given to it we may well conclude this to have been the Vniversal Judgment of our Church Divines in that Reign as we are sure it was