against some of the Rules of his own Profession 't would be more proper for the College of Physicians to judge of the Nature and Manner of it But where the Crime has no Relation to the Profession there is required no Skill in Physick to judge of it If a Person be convicted of Heresie 't is just he should be tried by the spiritual Power and according to what has been judged by them so to be But if his Offence be against the King or the Publick if he refuse Allegiance to his Majesty or Obedience to his Laws be he a spiritual Person or not there is no doubt but his Majesty has a Right to forbid him the Exercise of any Office or Function within his Territories The King does not judge herein of his Qualifications as a Divine but of his Duty as a Subject And as such has a Right to command his Obedience and to punish him as he thinks fit for his Disloyalty But if what the Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops urges is of any Force as That the Church and State tho' Christian are two distinct Societies and that spiritual Persons tho' defended and preserved by the Sovereign Power have yet as such no Dependence upon it and are not subject to its Authority How advantageous soever this may prove to the Church it will be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State For if the Prince has no just Power over spiritual Persons as such it must follow That in several Cases he can have no Authority over them as temporal As suppose any of that Body should be guilty of a Crime which requires such a Punishment as can't be inflicted without depriving him of his Ecclesiastical as well as his Civil Rights 't is plain according to that Author's way of arguing That in such a Case the State can have no Authority to punish And if the Clergy will not pass Sentence against him he must go unpunished For how guilty soever he may be the King can pretend no Authority either to imprison or banish him Because according to this Author the supream Power has no Right upon any Account whatsoever to prohibit him the Exercise of his Ecclesiastical Function which he must do if he punishes him either of the fore-mentioned ways The same Reasons will I think also forbid the Civil Authority from having any Right of sentencing an Ecclesiastical Person to Death as well as to perpetual Imprisonment be his Offence of what Nature soever The Consequences of such Notions are more than sufficient Confutations of them The great Grotius who could have no Interest or Prejudice to mis-guide his Judgment in Relation to this Controversie is of Opinion That the Right of removing a Pastor from the Cure of any certain Place ought always to remain in the highest Power So Solomon deposed Abiathar from being Priest The Vindicator of the deprived Bishops has been at some pains to prove that Abiathar was not high Priest Which whether true or no is little to his Purpose for if he was a Priest and deprived by a Lay Power it is sufficient So the Bishops of Rome were more than once deposed by the Imperial Authority as is owned by Bellarmine himself And to prove this says Grotius is not difficult For if the supream Authority hath a Right to forbid any one the City or Province he must of Necessity have a Right to prohibit him the Ministry of that City or Province For this is included in the other For he who has a Power over the whole must have the same no doubt over the part And he adds That if the Sovereign Power had not this Right the State could not be able to provide for its own Security But what seems to me most absurd in the Management of this Controversie by the Vindicator of the depriv'd Bishops is this That he condemns all those of Schism who go upon different Principles or that conform with these who fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops For by this means he not only involves the Christians of several Centuries in the same Guilt even from Constantine's time till Papal Usurpations were introduced who submitted to Bishops put into the Places of others deprived by the Emperors as has been learnedly shewn in a great many Instances beyond all Possibility of a Reply But he also condemns and contradicts himself For I believe his Practice has been contrary to his present Opinion Since if I mistake not he held Communion with the Church of England till the late Revolution And I believe this Doctrin of the Prince's Authority over spiritual Persons was the same then as now If not what can those Words signifie That the King is over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Supream Mr. Hooker tells us That the Prince has by this the same Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as the Pope had usurped before the Reformation And indeed if these Words do not imply That Ecclesiastical Persons as such are subject to the King's Authority they signifie nothing And if they carry such a Sense with them they must also denote the Sufficiency of the King's Authority for depriving Bishops of their Sees upon a just Cause And tho' it be granted there were no Instances of this Nature in the late Reigns yet the Case is much the same if such a Doctrin was then held and maintained by the Church And if 't is a Sin to communicate with the Bishops who are put into the Sees of them who were deprived by the Supream Power 't is a Sin also not to separate from that Church which requires all its Members to acknowledge and believe such a Right to belong to that Power For the Nature of the Church is the same whether the King exercises that Authority or not if it be owned and allowed by the Church to belong to him But this Author pretends that he has the Church and the Laws on his side since Queen Elizabeth's Time and that he will agree to the Supremacy as then stated by her and as it is expressed in the 37th Article If he will put the Cause upon this Issue we must also submit to be determined by it For we cannot desire to carry the Supremacy farther than it was in that Queen's Time and as 't is specified in that Article But then we demand That the Words may be explained according to the most easie and natural Sense of them and not understood only as this Author would interpret them The Queen lays claim to the same Authority over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons that was Exercised by all Godly Princes in Scripture and which at all times belonged to the Imperial Crown of England And this must include the Power which was given to her Predecessors Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th The 37th Article allows the King all that Power which we contend for and asserts his Supremacy over all sorts of Persons as well
measures of it Every one sees what Distractions such a Power might occasion and therefore we can't pay too great a Veneration to our Laws which have wisely provided against them That have intrusted this Power with the Prince whose Interest it is as much to preserve the Church as the State And I hope we have no Reason to believe but that he makes it as truly and sincerely his concern to vindicate the Cause of Religion as any amongst us If there are such Dangers threaten the Church that nothing but a Convocation can prevent no doubt but he will think it a great Obligation upon him to call one But yet it is not at all times necessary Mens Heats will not always suffer it And if it should chance to fire their Tempers instead of cooling them it would be then very Prejudicial We confess indeed with Grotius and Others That Synods are often times very useful to the Order and Government of the Church yet we also join with them that there may be such a time when they are far from being convenient much less necessary But our greatest wonder is at the Boldness of some Men who maintain That even when the Powers take on them the Protection of the Church whether they will or no Synods may lawfully and rightly be Assembled Of another Mind says Vossius were all those who have hitherto defended the Cause of the Protestants against the Papists and he cites several Authorities for it As for the Assertors of a Divine Right of Synods 't is something difficult to know their meaning they seem too much to distrust their Cause to speak plain enough to be understood If they mean no more by that Expression than that Christ hath so constituted his Church as to leave a Power of Goverment with the Bishops of it for the better ordering its Affairs who accordingly may either by Consent meet themselves or by their Authority call together their Clergy and agree on such things as are necessary for the ordering of it This is what in States not Christian will never be deny'd by us But if they pretend to a Power from God of Meeting and Acting independently on the Sovereign Authority tho' Christian and of Making and Establishing Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions without his Consent this is what we utterly deny And I would desire to know of the Author of The Vindication of the depriv'd Bishops by what Authority either from the Scripture or the Practice of the Church he will oppose this or with what Justice he can so severely reflect on the Memory of the first Reformers for being of the same Opinion But to return supposing we should allow this jus divinum which they contend for yet after all it must be left to human Prudence to determine when 't is proper for Convocations to meet and then who is it that must judge of the proper Seasons for it Who of the Clergy have a divine Commission to judge of the Reasons and fix the time for it Or suppose the Clergy should differ in their Judgments who is the supream Arbiter that must decide when it is most convenient and accordingly shall have the Power of summoning all the rest Superiority in Bishops over each other is an act of human Authority since Christ did not appoint a Head and therefore any one of those can't have a Power by Divine Right of summoning all the rest Where then must the Power be placed For they who urge such an Institution against us ought to assign where they would have the divine Power of summoning the Convocation to be lodged After all 't is Reason that must direct in these Cases when a Convocation ought to be Assembled of what Number of the Clergy it ought to consist where their Power is to be fixed and limited and to whom the chief Authority ought to belong of Calling and Dissolving them and of giving their Resolutions the Force and Sanction of a Law This the Wisdom of the Nation has entrusted with the Sovereign Power and the Church of England has ever since the Reformation own'd and acknowledg'd it to be its peculiar Province As for the Author of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum poor Man he is rather to be Pitied then Censured as to the arguing part of his Book he writes so much backwards and forwards for and against himself and withal so very obscurely that the most charitable Opinion of him is That he knew nothing of what he writ He is so strangly bewildred in his own Notions and so fond of Ill-nature that he is neither to be understood or convinced All he has urged in defence of the Divine Right of Convocations will as much prove a Divine Right of Constables and Church-wardens or any other Officers that may be useful for punishing Immorality or for supporting or advancing the Interest of the Church And for all the Argument I can find in his Book he might as well have called it a Criticism upon Honer's Iliads as an Answer to Dr. Wake This Author is one great Instance why I think a Convocation necessary that Malice and Uncharitableness may have their just Reward that he may be convinced that he who writes at all adventures upon every thing he least understands must not think to carry a Cause only by abusing and defaming his Adversary which is all that I can find he pretends to in all his Prints And lastly that he may be satisfied that his Ill-breeding which he values himself so much upon is but one way Meritorious I should not have digressed into this way of Writing was it not to inform this Author that there is a difference between Railing and Argument That the one is rude and indecent even when mixt with the other but without it 't is insufferable Thus have I run thro' all the parts of this Dispute about a Convocation which I thought necessary to be considered and discussed I have endeavoured to reduce the Controversie into as narrow a compass and to set it in as clear and true a Light as I could And as I have given my Thoughts freely so I have not been misled by any Prejudice or a desire of pleasing any Party My first Designs were to get a clear view of the Controversie and since there had been of late some heats about it I thought it not improper to expose my Enquires to publick Examination I consulted the best and most rational Authors that I could find had writ upon the Subject tho' I thought it unnecessary to fill out a Volume with Quotations But I shall add what the Learned Vossinus as well as Grotius says upon this occasion namely That besides the Divines all the Writers of Polity that are worth the Reading have declared the supreme Authority of Princes over Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes to be one of the principal parts of the Imperial Right Dr. Wake as well as all the other Writers upon this Subject is wholly unknown to me But I can't but think upon an impartial Enquiry into the Controversie that he has given us a very just and learned Account of it and that he agrees with the most judicious and eminent Men that have treated the Subject before him What a peice of daring Confidence must it then be to tax those as mercenary designing Writers that only espouse a Cause which some of the greatest and most learned Men in the World have before defended But I shall urge nothing more but only That I have delivered what I judged to be Right without either Hopes or Fears FINIS * Epis. 23. Dr. Wake Act. Parl. An. 25. Hen. VIII Upon the submission of the Clergy and restraint of Appeals De Imperio sum Potest circa Sacra c. 7. See Bp. Taylor 's Duct Dub. L. 3. C. 3. Eccl. Polity l. 8. p. 462. That Clause of the 1st Eli. which gave the King Power to make such high Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes is now repealed Municip Eccles. Preface Defence of the Vind. of the depriv'd Bishops p. 104. See Rast. Stat. 22. H. VIII Ecclesiastical Polity p. 469. Preface p. 44. Ed. Lond. 1682. Vid. Stat. 16. R. 2. against purchasing Bulls from Rome G. Voss. Ep. 23. See Canon 1640. Can. 1. See Bishop Andrews's Sermon before the King at H. C. Canons 1640 Can. 1. See Bishop Andrews Sermon at Hampton Court See Bishop Taylor 's Duct Dub. L. 3. C. 3. Vid. Grot. de Imp. sum Pot. cir Sacra C. 3. Eccl. Pol. p. 444. C. 7. de Synodis See the Defence of the Vind. of the Deprived Bishops Municip Eccl. p. 439. See Bishop Bramhal against the Scotch Discipline p. 109. Eccl. Pol. 467. p. 440 441 c. Defence of the Vind. of the deprived Bishops p. 108. Eccl. Pol. p. 464. See the History of the Troubles and Tryal of Arch-Bp Laud p. 309. lb. p. 309. De Impersum Potest Circa Sacra Chap. 10. By Doctor Hody See Dean Nowel against Dorman See the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Independency of the Clergy on the Lay-Power by the Vindicator of the deprived Bishops Vid. Bp. Burnet's Hist. of the Reform Vol. 2 p. 399. See Dean Nowel who was Prolocut of the Convocat when the Articl were made in his Books against Dorman Hist. of the Reform Vol. 2. p. 400. See Bp. Taylor 's Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 23. Cap. 4. Vid. Selden de Synedriis See Vossius Ep. 23. Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. Cap. 7. De Synodis Cap. 7. De Synodis Vid. Eccle Politie p. 461. P. 467. Acts 15. Chap. 7. De Synodis Voss. Epist 23. Cap. 1. De Imperio See Bishop Andrew's Sermon at Hampton-Court See Bishop Andrew's Sermon at Hampt Court Cap. 7. Vid. Bp. Bramhal against the Scotch Discipline Vossius Epist 23. Vid. Bp. Taylor Ductor Dubitamium Archbp. Bramhal against the Scots Discipline c. Vos Ep. 23. De Imperio sum Potest circa Sacra
have the supream Right over it in all things that concern Religion either for making any new Orders or Offices that may tend to the Advantage of the Church and that no humane Authority can of Right interfere with or hinder it It can't indeed be denied but that Christ has instituted and ordained a Succession of Pastors of his Flock and committed certain proper Functions to them such as the preaching the Word the Administration of the Sacraments the Power of the Keys and the like and that there shall be such no Power on Earth has a Right to forbid so far there is a Divine Institution But that the supream Governor to whom these Pastors are subject has not a Power over them in all those things which the Scripture mentions nothing of and which are not any part of the Ministerial Office or Function this we absolutely deny All human Institutions must be subject to human Laws and since Convocations are such because not appointed by any Divine Law all the Power they have must be deriv'd from that Authority to which they are subject If it be said That if the Prince has this Power he may make a wrong use of it yet this does not prove against his Right Our Abuse of any thing is not an Argument that we have no Rightor Title to it If indeed the Prince should happen to be of a different Religion and disclaim all Right to his Supremacy over the Church or abuse it to the Destruction of it I see no Reason but if the Necessities of the Church should require it the Clergy now may have the same Privilege as the Primitive Christians and may assemble of their own accord as they might have done when their Emperors were Heathen Common Prudence will direct what is proper in such Cases As Right Reason and the Laws of Equity would advise That the chief Power over Ecclesiastical Affairs should be committed to the Sovereign Authority when Christian which is supposed upon that Account to be as much concerned for the Good of the Church as of the State And indeed where nothing is determined on either side this must necessarily be fixt there Because there is no other that can either by Divine or human Right lay claim to the like Authority There is no other possible way of determining the Bounds of the supream Power but by the Law of God or Nature It s Right extends over all things but what are either commanded or forbidden by them Now then allowing Mr. Hooker's Opinion That as for supream Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs the Word of God doth no-where appoint that all Kings shall have it neither that any should not have it yet for this very Cause it seemeth to stand altogether by human Right that unto Christian Kings there is such Dominion given As for the Law of Nature I think it must be granted to be no way concerned in the present Controversie Grotius does indeed allow That the Original of Synods is derived from the Law of Nature For Man being a sociable Creature does naturally associate himself with those who pursue the same Methods and Manner of Life So Merchants for the Improvement of Traffick so Physicians and Lawyers meet and consult together for the examining the Mysteries of their Art and for the advancing their Profession But then to prevent Mistake he distinguishes between an absolute Law of Nature which cannot be changed as to worship God honour our Parents and to do no Injury to the Innocent and that which is natural after a sort as being most reasonable and allowed of by Nature till human Laws interpose Thus every thing by Nature is common all Men are free the nearest Relation is Heir till by human Appointment and Consent Propriety and Subjection were introduced and the Inheritance disposed of by Will In this latter Sense he allows it to be natural to hold Synods but he denies it to be so in the other because then no Bishops would ever have petitioned the Emperors for leave to meet and St. Hierom's Argument to prove a Synod unlawful would be invalid Shew me saith he what Emperor commanded the meeting of that Council Synods therefore are to be accounted in the number of those things which being allowed of by the Law of Nature are yet subject to human Constitutions and may be assembled or prohibited by them And if in the Reigns even of the Pagan Emperors any Laws or Imperial Edicts had been published against holding Synods and the Necessities of the Church not evidently required their meeting but especially had those heathen Powers allowed them all the Liberty of meeting for Prayers and performing other Duties which Christ had appointed and were necessary to be done by them in Obedience to his Commands I know no Right the Clergy could have pretended for their assembling It is certain That the Church might subsist and be preserved without them And thereupon the Bishops were very careful not to offend or provoke their Governors by their Synodical meeting whatever Occasions there might be for them St. Cyprian as Grotius observes has shewn in several Places That when in times of Persecution there arose a hot Contest about receiving the lapsed into Communion and for the putting an end to it nothing seemed more necessary than for the Clergy to meet and consult together in common yet the Bishops deferred the meeting till the Storm was blown over which certainly they ought not to have done if Synods had been enjoin'd by a positive Law either Divine or Natural and could have been no more dispensed with than the Duties of worshipping God and honouring our Parents Since then there appears no Authority from Scripture or from the Practice of the Church after the State was Christian or from the Law of Nature to found this Pretence upon of the Clergy's having a distinct Right from the State of assembling themselves in Convocation it is evident That the Laws of the Land and the Suffrage of the Convocation in Henry the 8th's Reign and of all the Convocations that have been held since which by common Consent have invested the King with this Power and have submitted to it were not so rash and irreligious as some Men would insinuate Even the Convocations in Queen Mary's Reign when that Law was abrogated yet met and acted by her Authority But it is to be observed That the Arguments which are now produced to prove the Church Independent on the State by a Divine Right are the same which Mr. Hooker taxed as the Errors of some in his time who asserted the Unlawfulness of the Prince's exercising any Authority in the Affairs of the Church The Causes of common received Errors in this point seem to be especially two One That they who embrace true Religion living in such Common-wealths as are opposite thereunto in other publick Affairs retain civil Communion with them This was the State of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and Babylon the
in this kind they should not be able when need is to do as Vertuous Kings have done As Iosia and Hezekiah in the Old Testament did when they Assembled the Priests and Levites to renew the House of the Lord and to Celebrate the Passover The like before them did David and Solomon for removing the Ark and Dedicating the Temple Such Authority as the Iewish Kings Exercised over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons the like we claim to belong to our Kings and those that deny them the same Authority are to be Excommunicated according to the Doctrine of the Church of England But since there is an Argument now again insisted upon from the New Testament to prove the Right which belongs to the Clergy to Assemble and make Ecclesiastical Laws without the leave of the Supream Authority which in Mr. Hooker's Time was brought for an Objection against such a Supremacy in the King I shall take the freedom to set it down in his Words with his Answer to it It will be says that Excellent Author perhaps alledged That a part of the Unity of Christian Religion is to hold the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws a thing appropriated unto the Clergy in their Synods and whatsoever is by their only Voices agreed upon it needeth no farther Appropriation to give unto it the strength of a Law as may plainly appear by the Canons of that first most venerable Assembly Where those things the Apostles and Iames had concluded were afterwards published and imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles abroad as Laws the Records threof remaining still in the Book of God for a Testimony that the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws belongeth to the Successors of the Apostles the Bishops and Prelates of the Church of God To this we Answer That the Council of Ierusalem is no Argument for the Power of the Clergy to make Laws For first There has not been since any Council of like Authority to that in Ierusalem Secondly The Cause why that was of such Authority came by a special Accident Thirdly The Reason why other Councils being not like unto that in Nature the Clergy in them should have no Power to make Laws by themselves alone is in Truth so forcible that except some Commandment of God to the contrary can be shewed it ought notwithstanding the aforesaid Example to prevail The Decrees of the Council of Ierusalem were not as the Canons of other Ecclesiastical-Assemblies Humane but very Divine Ordinances For which Cause the Churches were far and wide commanded every where to see them kept no otherwise than if Christ himself had personally on Earth been the Author of them The Cause why that Council was of so great Authority and Credit above all others which have been since is expressed in those Words of principal Observation Vnto the Holy Ghost and to us it hath seemed good Which form of Speech though other Councils have likewise used yet neither could they themselves-mean nor may we so understand them as if both were in equal sort assisted with the Power of the Holy Ghost Wherefore in as much as the Council of Ierusalem did consist of Men so enlightned it had Authority greater than were meet for any other Council besides to challenge wherein such kind of Persons are as now the State of the Church doth stand Kings being not then that which now they are and the Clergy not now that which then they were Till it be proved that some special Law of Christ hath for ever annexed unto the Clergy alone the Power to make Ecclesiastical Laws we are to hold it a thing most Consonant with Equity and Reason that no Ecclesiastical Laws be made in a Christian Common-wealth without consent as well of the Laity as of the Clergy but least of all without consent of the highest Power The Opinion of the Learned Grotius being more short and decisive in our present Case upon that forementioned place of the Acts I shall also give an account of it The Original of Synods says he is usually taken from that History in the 15th Chap. of the Acts. But whether that Assembly may be properly termed a Synod as we now understand that Word may very well be questioned There arose a Controversie between Paul and Barnabas and certain Iews of Antioch concerning the Obligations of the Mosaick Law Paul and Barnabas are sent with some of Antioch to know the Opinion of the Pastors but were they those of all Asia Syria Cilicia and Judea Assembled together in one place that were to give their Iudgment No certainly but of the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem the Company of the Apostles was a College not a Synod and the Elders of one City could not certainly be called a Synod One Church therefore alone is consulted or more truly and properly speaking the Apostles only are consulted and they alone give Iudgment to whose Authority the Elders and Brethren of Jerusalem yield their Consent and Approbation Thus I think there can't be the least shadow of an Argument brought from Scripture for a Divine Institution of Synods But to return once more to Mr. Hooker Were it so adds that judicious Author that the Clergy alone might give Laws unto all the rest is it not easie to see how injurious this might prove to Men of other Conditions Peace and Justice are maintained by preserving unto every Order their Right and by keeping all Estates as it were in even ballance which thing is no way better done than if the King their Common Parent whose Care is presumed to extend most indifferently over all do bear the chiefest sway in making Laws which all must be ordered by wherefore of them which attribute most to the Clergy I would demand what Evidence there is whereby it may clearly be shewed that in ancient Kingdoms Christian any Canon devised alone by the Clergy in their Synods whether Provincial National or General hath by meer force of their agreement taken place as a Law making all Men constrainable to be Obedient thereunto without any other approbation from the King before or afterwards required in that behalf This was the Sense of that Great-Man and the very same Opinion and Notions they are and no other as far I can judge which are maintained by them who at present defend the King's Authority in calling Convocations and in other Ecclesiastical Affairs And I can't yet apprehend how those who so warmly and furiously oppose them can reconcile their Notions with the Doctrines which have been always received in the Church of England But it may probably be urged That though the Clergy's Right to Assemble themselves and make Laws for the Government of the Church by their own Power could not be proved by Revelation yet in Reason it ought to be allowed to them because the security of Religion depends upon it For if the Clergy alone may not make any new Orders which may seem wanting nor pass a general Censure upon any false
SOME THOUGHTS ON A Convocation And the Notion of its DIVINE RIGHT WITH SOME Occasional Reflections ON The Defence of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops LONDON Printed for Tim. Childe at the White-Hart the West-end of St. Paul's-Charch-yard 1699. THE PREFACE I Shall only thus far endeavour to prepossess the Reader in Favour of the following Papers as to assure him That the Author is not Conscious to himself of having advanced any Notion that is repugnant to the Sense of Scripture or Antiquity To the Articles of our own Church or the Opinions of its greatest Divines who have treated this Subject The Authority of the King over our Convocations has indeed been of late disputed by some and a Learned Treatise that was writ in Defence of it has had the Misfortune of meeting with a great many Enemies that are very free in thier Censures upon it what their Reasons are themselves best know For they are so kind as not to let them appear in Publick But these Papers are only designed to give as true a State and Notion of the Controversie as the Authors Enquiries could lead him into and not for a Vindication of others Opinions And if they should chance to fall in with any of those delivered in that forementioned Treatise it was no other than a sober and impartial View of the Subject that occasioned it And I can't but think that they who assent to the Articles of our Church can hardly deny joyning in the same Notions It is very common with the Managers of Disputes of late to fix Characters of Ignominy upon those who dissent from them And some who have engaged in this Controversie for want of other Arguments have thought I suppose to carry the Cause by insulting over their Adversaries as Latitudinarians and Erastians And therefore least they should fix the same Titles upon the Author of these Thoughts he desires they would first answer these two Queries Whether he who advances no other Doctrin than what has always been maintained by the Church of England and is intirely agreeable to its 39 Articles can justly be charged by any Member of that Church as a Latitudinarian in point of Doctrin And whether he who subscribes to the Government of the same Church as by Law Established and maintains no other Notions but what our Convocations have agreed to and are at this Day the standing Rules delivered to us in her Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions can by any Member of the Church of England be reasonably charged as an Erastian in point of Church-government And if he that guides himself by these Methods is in the wrong the Church must answer for his Errors and not he for being obliged to defend her And therefore the Church must be taxt with our false Principles if they are such or it ought to be shewn wherein we have differed from her It may probably be one Objection against these Papers that a Book of Grotius's is sometimes cited in them which lies under the Censure of Erastian Principles It is foreign to my present Business to engage in its Defence Ger. Vossius gives it the Character of a most Excellent Book and offers to defend it against all Opposers But it is enough to my purpose that there is nothing cited from him that is disagreeable to the Doctrines of our Church And it was not his Authority but the strength of his Argument that occasion'd his being introduced in the Debate But I hope the other Authorities that are here made use of can have no such Objections against them Tho' if these Papers are condemned they can hardly escape notwithstanding the Characters they have always bore in the World ought to secure them from such Treatment since if this Author is an Error 't is they who have led him into it SOME THOUGHTS ON A Convocation c. THE stating the Rights and Authority of the Clergy must be confest to be a very nice and tender Point and in Attempts of this Nature it is almost impossible not to offend Let a Man deliver his Opinions with never so much Sincerity and Caution yet after all he must expect to find that some Party or other will be displeased The asserting the Privileges of the Clergy but even as far as those Bounds which Religion and the Laws of the Land have set them and the Nature of their Function requires is almost a downright Affront to a sort of Men who think the whole Order useless and their Office only an Imposition upon the Rights and Liberties of the rest of Mankind And the not carrying their Authority to a higher pitch than the Constitution of the State does or can admit of or than the Law of God has allowed or even to such Immunities as some Mens mistaken Zeal would challenge to belong to them is represented as an Indignity to Religion and an open Violation of the Rights and Honours of that Profession I shall not concern my self in determining whose Censure 't is most safe to fall under But this seems very apparent That the pretending to too unlimited a Power is as great a Prejudice and of as dangerous Consequence to the Clergy as the parting with some of their just Rights and Privileges Either of these Extreams may be fatal and therefore the more Caution is required to avoid them It is certainly a great Weakness in any Clergy to raise themselves Enemies in the State by laying Claim to an Authority which is none of theirs The intolerable Usurpation of the See of Rome on the Rights of Princes and the Revolutions occasioned by it in a great many parts of Europe afford us Instances enough of this Nature Let us in God's Name maintain the Honours and Privileges of the Holy Function as far as of right we may but let us not extend them to such a Power and Superiority as neither the Laws of God will justifie nor those of the Land admit of and which the first Ages of the Church after the State was Christian never exercised The whole Controversie about a Convocation may be I think reduced to this Either that the time and manner of its sitting acting or debating is to be determined by the Laws of the Land and the Prudence of the supream Authority or that the Clergy have a Power by Divine Right independent on the State to assemble themselves decree and enact Ecclesiastical Laws without the Consent of the secular Authority If the latter of these Notions be true 't is plain That all human Laws to the contrary can be of no force A Divine Institution being unalterable by any other Power And if any other Power has decreed any thing in Opposition to it 't is a Sin to submit to its Commands But in Cases of this Nature where such a Right is pretended it ought to be made very clear and indisputable from the express Declaration of Scripture or at least from the Practice of the first Christians where any Parallel Instances can
of God nor Reason of Man hath hitherto been alledged of Force sufficient to prove they do ill who to the uttermost of their Power withstand the Alteration thereof Contrariwise the other which instead of it we are required to accept is only by Error and Misconceit named the Ordinance of Jesus Christ no one Proof as yet brought forth whereby it may clearly appear to be so in very deed Thus far I have chiefly consider'd what Power the King has over the Meetings of Ecclesiastical Synods by our Constitutions And if in Opposition to this any Laws had been made whilst we were under the Popish Tyranny and Usurpation that had exempted the Clergy from any such Subjection to the supream Authority as 't is certain there were none the King 's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being always asserted against the Encroachments of the Pope and Clergy upon it I think we might justly have deny'd them to be any Argument in the present Controversie But all that we can urge from our Laws will prove little in the Case before us if the Clergy had an Antecedent Right to meet in Convocation by a Divine Commission or are invested with a separate Authority by the Law of God of making Orders for the Government of the Church whether the Sovereign Power be Christian or not and of obliging all Men in Conscience to observe them without any Consent or Licence from thence Now 't is strange if there should be any such Divine Right that the Clergy not only at the Reformation but to this very time should be so very ignorant of it as not only by a tacit Consent to submit to but in all their Writings acknowledge and publickly defend this superior Power in the Prince either to prevent their meeting or forbid their making any Canons unless they had first obtained his Order and Licence If this Divine Right had been plainly declared in Scripture it could not have been over look'd and if 't is not plainly there it can with no tolerable shew of Reason be pretended to And that this Notion of a Divine Right of Convocations is altogether precarious seems evident upon these two Accounts First That all the first Synods where the Emperor was Christian were summoned and conven'd by his Authority and Secondly That this Power of the Emperor's was never disputed by the Clergy as an Usurpation upon their Rights but on the contrary was always approved of by them For the Practice of the Church in those times is of great Moment in the present Controversie For if there is such a Divine Right lodg'd in the Clergy of meeting either to decide Disputes or make Ecclesiastical Laws without the Consent of the Sovereign Power it is strange that the Clergy in those early Ages of Christianity should so quietly part with their Privilege or that an Emperor who was so mighty zealous for Religion as Constantine was should violate the Rights of the Church in so notorious a manner and overthrow its Constitution even contrary to a Divine Appointment by summoning Councils as he did by his own Authority If the Clergy had such a Right as is now pretended it could not so soon be forgotten as in Constantine's time nor could they have given it up or the Emperor have taken it from them without sin It must then be confess'd to be a good Argument against the Divine Right of any thing where the Scripture is silent that the contrary was practised within three or four Ages after Christ even by Men who are allowed on all sides to be of the most Orthodox Principles who could not but know the Rights of the Church and who if they did know them would never suffer them to be violated Now that Christian Princes have pretended to this Authority of assembling General Councils and National Synods and that the Clergy have met upon their Summons is undeniable And 't is also evident That the Clergy when the State was first Christian never thunder'd out any Anathema's against it for this pretended Authority that they never censured it as an Usurpation upon their unalienable Privilege but always quietly and readily submitted to the Prince's Summons without disputing from whence he derived that Power over them Indeed before the supream Authority was Christian the Clergy had a Right to convene themselves to make what Orders might seem requisite for the Good of the Church In this Case the Church has a Right like that of the State In the Vacancy of the Government the Members of each may assemble consult and make Orders as the Exigencies of the Church or State may require Some I know have insisted upon this as an Argument to prove an independent Authority in the Church from that of the State and they are of Opinion That the same Liberty which the Clergy then exercised in meeting upon Affairs of the Church is still their Right in Equity tho' the State be Christian. For the Church ought not to lose any of these Rights and Privileges by the Conversion of Princes which it enjoyed before But the Case is widely different and therefore the Reason cannot be the same The Church and the Common-wealth were then two different Societies very opposite to each other But where they profess the same Religion are incorporated into the same Society and are under one common Governour they are both subordinate to that Power and no Laws can be made to bind either but what shall be approved of by him As for the Right which the Clergy had before the State was converted it was only prudential and was theirs no longer than whilst the supream Power was Heathen When the chief Authority had no Relation to the Church it could not be under its Government but the Care of it must belong to the Clergy who were then most immediately to be concerned for it But this Power was to cease when the chief Governor became Christian who upon that Account engaged to defend and protect the Church and the Reason of the things and the Nature of Government do both require that it should be lodged there It was the Misfortune of the Church and the Necessity of the Clergy's taking care of it in a State of Persecution that made them do it It was no Privilege belonging to their Function and therefore a Christian Ruler coming the Power was to return to the right Channel and the Clergy lost not a Privilege but were freed from the Burden and Care they had before For in those things where there is no Prohibition or Caution in the Divine Law the Church is to be subject to human Government What is commanded by God must not be omitted by the Church but in Matters which are left purely to human Prudence the supream Governour is to be obeyed and there is a Law of God for it Now I think the Mistake about the Divine Right of Convocations is grounded upon this That Christ having constituted spiritual Governors in his Church they consequently must
Opinions or Innovations in Religion by a judicial Sentence against them in Convocation without the Pleasure of the State The Church will by this means be deprived of its Liberty and never be in a Capacity of deciding any Controversies which may disturb its Peace and Unity And if the Prince be Heretical as 't is not impossible and will not suffer the Meeting of a Convocation our Religion will then very probably be corrupted by Errors and Heresies and the Church unable to relieve it by being divested of the Power of summoning its Clergy by whose united Opinions and Decrees a timely stop might be put to all false Doctrines and Divisions To this I answer That the Case is the same wherever the Power shall be lodged Let us suppose in a Metropolitan Now 't is not impossible but he also may be a Heretick and will not suffer a Convocation of the Clergy For if the Authority is in him the inferior Order must be as much subject to his Will as to that of the Civil Governor and may as equally be deprived of their Liberty of Meeting by the one as the other and so it may be let the Authority be placed in any other Hands But perhaps it may be thought that the Civil Power is not a proper Judge of the Necessities of the Church when its Faith or Discipline are in danger of being corrupted or destroyed Let it be granted That there may be others more fit to judge of these things tho' it may happen that even some of the Clergy themselves may be mistaken in these Matters and may be sometimes very unfit Judges of the most proper Times for calling a Convocation Yet I hope the King is not to be precluded from all Council and Advice in such Cases If any of the Clergy had the Power they would not I presume make use of it upon their own single Opinion They would certainly ask the Advice of the most Wise and Judicious in such Matters And why the King may not have the same Priviledges and Opportunities of Enquiry I can see no Reason But it is objected That the Office of the Clergy is distinct from that of the Civil Power and they receive no Parts of it from thence and therefore cannot be under its Jurisdiction So it was also among the Jews yet their Kings had the Supream Power over their Priests The Power and Authority of the King is Spiritual though he is not invested with the Spiritual Office The King indeed seems in some Cases to be subject to the Priestly Office as he is to receive the Sacraments Absolution and the like from them So also is he subject to his Physician as to his Health he is to be governed by his Rules and Methods for preserving Life Yet this does not diminish his Authority over either His Right over them as Supream Governor still remains the same But 't is again objected That the Care of Souls is the particular and immediate Business of the Clergy And the observance of the true Religion being necessary to that end 't is undeniable that they ought to have a Power of endeavouring to preserve it by such ways as may seem most effectual and proper for it To this we may answer That the Supream Governor has the same Care incumbent upon him he is obliged to preserve and defend the true Religion to see it rightly observed and to punish those that do Evil For which Reason G. Vossius as well as Grotius is of Opinion that Princes have the Supream Authority in Sacred Matters by a Divine Right For if they are the Ministers of God for Good they must have the Supream Command in Religious Matters whereby to enforce Obedience to them And indeed if the Commission given by God to Moses and Exercised afterwards by Ioshua and the Iewish Kings and never abolished by our Saviour does give the same Right and Authority to Christian Kings now to call Ecclesiastical Assemblies as they did it can't be denied that they also Act by a Divine Commission And it is one great Business of theirs that Divine Things should be rightly ordered and the Salvation of Men procured They are the Defenders and Guardians of the Divine Law The Inspectors of the Actions of all Men and have accordingly a Power to Reward and Punish 'T is also necessary that Kings should have the chief Command in Religious Matters because Religion is of mighty Service to the Civil Government nothing more advantageous for the preserving Peace and Unity Love of our Country Justice Equity and all other Moral Duties which 't is a Princes Duty to maintain And which he has no means of effecting so well as by his Sovereign Power in all Sacred Concerns And therefore to deprive him of this Power is to forbid him the Exercising those Commands which a Vertuous King is obliged to Upon the whole then it can't be denied That by our Constitution the King has the sole Power of calling and dissolving Convocations and that they have no Authority to Act but what is derived from him And whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy grants as much That this Power is no other than what was Exercised by the Iewish Kings and afterwards by the first Christian Emperors and was never disowned and protested against by the Clergy That the Practice of the Christians before the Conversion of the Supream Authority is not concerned in the Dispute and that the Scriptures are either for us or wholly silent in the Matter Tho' I think we may fairly urge That the Examples of the Iewish Kings and the general Authority given to Princes by God do sufficiently prove even from Scripture that this Power does belong to them That the Ends of Government require That where all profess the same Religion they should all be subject to the same Common Head in Spiritual as well as Civil Affairs And that He to whom the chief Care of the Church is committed and to whom it principally belongs to preserve and defend the Orders and Constitutions of it should also have the Principality of Power in Approving and Establishing them But if the Clergy have the sole Power by a Divine Commission of making Ecclesiastical Laws it will follow That 't is the Prince's Business to maintain and see them observed whether he is willing to consent to them or not He cannot refuse to obey them himself nor to oblige others to submit to them Nay more if the Clergy have a Divine Right to meet and constitute any Orders without the leave of the Supream Power they have a Right also to Decree and Enact what Laws they may judge beneficial to the Church how opposite soever to the Constitutions of the State They may declare what Doctrines they please to be taught in the Church provided they be not repugnant to the Law of God For if their Right is Divine their Power is Absolute and Uncontroulable where Scripture has not determined the bounds and