Judging Controversies in Religion you might have learnt by these Examples in Ambrose time Against this T. C. then objected as some others from their Pattern do now the disability of Princes to Decree of what pertains to the Church The Archbishop replies That the Debâ—ting and Deciding of Matters in Religion by Bishops doth not derogate from the Prince's Authority No Godly Princes having Godly Bishops and Ministers of the Church will alter or change determine or appoint any thing in Matters of Religion without their Advice and Counsel But how if there be Dissention among them Shall not the Prince determine the Controversie as Constantinus Theodosius and other Godly Emperours did In short to T. C. 's Endeavour to clear the Puritans from running in with the Papists in this Particular the Archbishop thus replies Concerning the Determination of Matters in Religion I know not wherein you differ from them For tho' the Prince mislikes your Determination yet can he not Himself conclude any thing only he may compel you to go to it again and take better Rold But if it shall please you to Go forward in your Determination or if you cannot Agree among your selves I see not what Authority you have given the Civil Magistrate to Determine the matter but for ought I can espy if you and your Seniors be disposed to be peevish either must the Prince have no Religion or such as you shall appoint unto Him For potestatem Facti you have given Him that is you make him your Executioner but Potestatem Juris you do as fully Remove from him as the Papists do For he hath not as you say any Authority to make Orders or Laws in Ecclesiastical Matters Thus this great Assertor both of the Prince's and of the Church's Power To him let me add his Successor both in the See of Canterbury and in this Controversy Archbishop Bancroft Who in his Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline thus marks out those Parts of it which he look'd upon to be prejudicial to the Regal Authority No Civil Magistrate hath Pre-eminence by Ordinary Authority to determine Church Causes No Chief Magistrate in Councils or Assemblies for Church Matters can either be Chief Moderator Over-Ruler Judge or Determiner No Civil Magistrate hath such Authority that without his Consent it should not be Lawful for Ecclesiastical Persons to make any Church-Order or Ceremony The Judgment of Church Matters pertaineth to God The Principality or Direction of the Judgment of them is by God's Ordinance pertaining to the Ministers of the Church As they meddle not with the making of Civil Laws and Laws for the Commonwealth so the Civil Magistrate hath not to Ordain Ceremonies pertaining to the Church These he calls Puritane-Popish Assertions and says that they do much derogate from the Lawful Authority of Christian Princes There is but this only Difference betwixt them and the Rankest Jesuits in Europe that what the One sort ascribe to the Pope and his Shavelings the Others challenge to Themselves and their Aldermen For the better clearing of which he compares their Principles together And thus He sets down the Puritane Hypothesis from their Own Stating of it The Prince may call a Council of the Ministry and appoint both the Time and Hours for the same He may be assistant there and have his Voice but he may not be either Moderator Determiner or Judge Neither may the Orders or Decrees there made be said to have been done by the Prince's Authority They are to Defend Councils being Assembled If any One behave themselves there Tumultuously or otherwise Disorderly the Prince may Punish him Lastly He not only may but Ought to Confirm the Decrees of such Councils and see them Executed and punish the Contemners of them Thus far Mr. Cartwright And in the next Page the Archbishop shews that the Papists say the very same things and of both He affirms in his following Chapter that Hereby they Exclude Christian Princes from their Lawful Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical Having thus seen what these Masters of the Consistory allow to Christian Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters it might not perhaps be improper for me to ask of our New Disciplinarians wherein they differ from them in the Point before us But indeed it is clear that if there be any Difference at all between them it consists in this That those Men as bad as they were yet really allow'd more Authority to the Civil Magistrate over their Church Assemblies than our Modern Disputers are willing to afford him over Our Convocations And then I shall leave it to any one to judge what those Great Prelates would have said of these who Wrote so severely as we have seen against Those From these Archbishops of the See of Canterbury let us descend to two of their Suffragan Bishops and engaged against Another Party tho' still in Defence of the same Authority viz. Jewell Bishop of Salisbury and Bilson Bishop of Winchester As for the former of these our Learn'd Jewell he thus declares to us the Right of the Prince in the Defence of his Apology against Harding Page 582. The Christian Emperors in the Old time appointed the Councils of Bishops Continually for the space of 500 Tears the Emperor alone appointed the Ecclesiastical Assemblies and call'd the Councils of the Bishops together As for Right of Place and Voice in Council it pertaineth no less to the Prince than to the Pope The Emperor Theodosius as saith Socrates did not only Sit among the Bishops but also order'd the whole Arguing of the Cause and tare in pieces the Hereticks Books and allow'd for Good the Judgment of the Catholicks But ye say they Sate as Assessors only not as Judges That is to say they Sate by the Bishops and held their Peace and told the Clock and said nothing The Lay Prince hath had Authority in Council not only to Consent and Agree unto Others but also to define and determine and that in Cases of Religion as by many Evident Examples it may appear In all Cases as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal the Emperor was Judge over All. Whatsoever the Council had determined without the Emperors Consent it had no force Theodosius at the desire of the Bishops Confirm'd the Council of Ephesus So high an Erastian was this Good Old Bishop and so freely has he Sacrificed all the Rights of the Church to the Will of the Prince Nor has Bishop Bilson come at all behind him The Second Part of whose Book Entituled The true Difference between Christian Subjection and Vnchristian Rebellion 4 o. Oxford 1585. is but One continued Discourse in Defence of the Supremacy and of which it shall suffice to point out some Brief Heads on this Occasion 1. That the Emperors heretofore call'd Councils This he proves pag. 134 153 159 227 c. 2. That they appointed the Time and Place of
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
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
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
them p. 154 155. Nay and even the Persons that should come to them p. 207. And have Voices in them p. 208. 3. That they directed what should be handled in them p. 135. Managed their Debates p. 134. And forbad them to call in Question the Faith that had by former Synods been Establish'd p. 155 208. 4. That they judged of their Proceedings p. 135. And that in Matters of Doctrine p. 261. By the Common Rule of All Christians the Word of God p. 264 266 276. 5. That they Confirm'd the Councils Decrees See p. 242. And this not at all adventures but chose such of their Canons as they approv'd and passed them into Laws p. 139. 6. That as to their Sentences they Received Appeals from Councils p. 135 151 152. Suspended p. 154. And if they thought them too severe Released the Rigour of their Censures and Determinations p. 136. These are some of the Points which this Learned Man not only allows of but defends from the Examples of the Jewish Princes and Christian Emperors And I will be bold to say either his Treatise is altogether False and Scandalous contrary to the Rights of the Church and the Sense of the Antient Fathers or my Discourse after all that has been said against it must be Confessed to be True and Orthodox and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England But because Bishops may be look'd upon as Suspicious Men let us see what those of an Inferior Order have written in this Case And for these I will take but One of a Kind Dean Nowell for the Dignitaries and the Venerable Mr. Hooker for the Rest of the Lower House As for Mr. Hooker the latter of these He was much too Young to have had any part in that Convocation in which our Articles of Religion were settled But Dr. Nowell was not only one of the most considerable Members of the Lower House at that time by his Own Dignity but chosen by the Clergy for their Prolocutor and so had the Chief Management of All that was done in it It was but Three Years after this that Mr. Dorman one of our Fugitive English Papists attacking the Queen's Supremacy as by Law Establish'd and then newly approv'd of by the Convocation this Learned Dean thought himself concern'd to undertake the Defence of it And indeed he has so well discharged his Part in it that I believe it will be very hard for our Modern Transcribers of their Arguments and Authorities to alledge any thing upon this Occasion that will not be found to have been fully answer'd before-hand in that Book His Treatise is expresly Referr'd to and approved of by Archbishop Whitgift in his Discourse upon this Subject and so may be look'd upon to deliver the Sense of that Great Archbishop as well as the Dean's Nor can it be reasonably doubted by Any but that it does deliver the Sense of the Whole Convocation and Clergy of the Church of England in this particular Let us see then how he States the Point between Us and his Adversary as to this matter and by what kind of Proofs he undertakes to Vindicate the One against the Other The matter in debate he thus accurately determines For. 23. We expresly divide the Offices of Christian and Godly Princes from the Offices of Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church under Them as distinct and divers Offices And we do teach that the Offices of Preaching of God's Word of the Pronouncing of Publick Prayer in the Church of Christ the Power of the Keys or of Binding and Loosing and of Ministring the Holy Sacraments are by the Word of God appointed to be the Peculiar Offices of Bishops and of other Ecclesiastical Ministers And we Teach and Preach even in Presence of Princes that neither Princes nor Any Other Persons saving only Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Ministers under them may intermeddle with the said Offices and Ministries Ecclesiastical so peculiarly and only appertaining to the said Bishops and Other Ministers of the Church P. 24. When we do speak of Causes Ecclesiastical wherein Christian Princes are the Chief Governors we mean not that Princes should Execute these Peculiar Offices of Priests as is also in the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions notified to all the Subjects of the Realm that will be disposed to understand the Truth without Cavillation But now touching the Authority of Princes to Oversee that the Bishops and Clergy do these their Offices diligently and truly according to the Rule of God's Word to Command them to do their Duty to Admonish them being therein slack to Reprehend them Offending Depose or Deprive them being Incorrigible This we say is the Office of a Chief Governor over the the said Persons Ecclesiastical which doth appertain to Christian Princes every One in their own Dominions Further besides the Office of Preaching and Ministring the Sacraments there are many other Orders Matters and Causes Ecclesiastical touching Ceremonies and the outward Regiment of the Church which may be term'd the Ecclesiastical Policy Page 25. There is also the Authority to Receive Appellations and finally to Determine Controversies arising amongst Persons Ecclesiastical To Summon and Call Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Persons as Men exercised in the Study of the Scriptures to Synods Convocations and Councils in Necessary Cases To Order Govern and Protect the said Bishops and Clergy being so call'd together and to Approve and Authorize things for the Outward Order Ecclesiastical and Policy determined in such Synods These be those Causes Ecclesiastical that we do speak of which do not pertain to Bishops and Priests only In these Cases and Causes Ecclesiastical the Authority of a Christian Prince is not only not excluded from intermedling with the Bishops and Clergy but the Prince's Authority is Chief therein Which Authority the Christian Prince exercising doth not Intermeddle with any Office belonging to Bishops and Priests only as the Adversaries of the Truth do falsly bear Men in hand but with their Own Offices by the Examples and Practice of all Antient Godly Princes as well in the Old Law as in Christian Religion proved of Right to them to Appertain And to Our Prince also by the Antient Laws and Statutes of the Realm as to the Learned in the said Laws is not Unknown of Right appertaining This is the Account which he gives of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Authority of Christian Princes in Matters of Religion The Proofs he alledges are full and conclusive From the Examples of Constantine p. 208 to 223. Theodosius p. 227 to 238. The Council of Chalcedons p. 239 to 246. The Third Council of Constantinople p. 250 to 253. Justinian the Emperor p. 276 c. To Omit many other Particulars in the Vindication of which I am not so immediately concern'd And I will be bold to say there is nothing by me advanced in this Argument which has not been both more highly carried and more particularly explain'd
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