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
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
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
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
in the first Article of the 39th Canon and the Promissory no other than what is tied upon Us in the 1st Canon by an Authority which Our Adversaries I conceive will not presume to except against But not to insist upon the present Obligation of this Oath thus much at least must be confess'd and that is enough for my Purpose that All those who heretofore took the Oath of Supremacy as it was first drawn up in the Statute of Queen Elizabeth did thereby without Question both declare their Approbation of the Kings Supremacy as by that Act Establish'd and promise to their Power to Assist and Defend it But now this All our Clergy and almost all Others who were admitted to any Employ whether Civil or Ecclesiastical did do And therefore it must be allow'd that till within these last ten Years the Authority by me ascribed to the King was not only agreeable to the Sense of the Laity but to that of the Clergy too since every Clergy Man in the Realm till then did upon his Oath both declare his Approbation of it and Engage himself to his Power to Defend it And how that Authority which was so Universally received and acknowledged by us for so long a time should now become so Detestable in it self and so Destructive of the Rights and Liberties of the Church I would desire these Gentlemen if they can to Inform Me. It was about four Years after the Session of this Parliament and the Passing of this Act that the Nine and Thirty Articles of Religion were agreed upon in Convocation and Publish'd by the Queen's Authority Of these the 37th relates to the Civil Magistrate and is drawn up so exactly according to the Words as well as Sense of the Oath of Supremacy that we cannot doubt but that the Convocation had a particular Respect thereunto in the Framing of it The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and Other her Dominions unto whom the * Chief Government of All Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in All Causes doth appertain So this Article determines And what we are to Undestand by Supreme Power and Supreme Government of all Estates and in all Causes Our Laws tell us and from which we may be sure neither the Queen nor the Convocation had any Intention to depart But the Article goes on Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the Chief Government by which Title We understand the Minds of some dangerous Folks to be Offended We give not our Princes the Ministring either of God's Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie But that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal And if you would know what Ruling of the Ecclesiastical Estate is hereby intended the Injunctions to which the Article Referrs us will fully clear it Where having first denied as the Article also does that by the Words of the Oath of Supremacy before-mention'd the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessors of the Crown may challenge Authority and Power of Ministry of Divine Service in the Church they declare That Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority than what was challenged and lately used by the noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. which is and was of Antient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be These are the Words of the Queens Injunction and agreeably whereunto it is manifest the Convocation design'd to frame this part of their Article as they took the Oath of Supremacy for their Pattern in the foregoing And in consequence whereof as well as in conformity to the Laws of the Realm then Establish'd we must conclude That this Power of calling and directing the Convocation being one main part of that Jurisdiction which was declared by Act of Parliament to belong to the Crown and was accordingly Restored and Annex'd to it thereby And having as such been challenged and used both by King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. is also a part of that Supremacy which the Convocation here intended to attribute to the Queen as we are sure the Queen must have understood it to have been hereby ascribed to her And of this I shall give a more particular Proof when I come to consider the Notions which this Queen and her Clergy had of her Authority as to this Matter In the mean time I cannot but desire this Late Writer and All Others of the same Judgment with him who have in like manner Subscribed these Articles seriously to bethink themselves with what Conscience they did it if they had in Good earnest so ill an Opinion as they now pretend of that Power which those Articles most certainly allow of and profess to be due to the Civil Magistrate That the Author of the late Treatise not so much againt my Book as against our Laws and Government must have several times Subscribed these Articles the Character of a Minister which he takes to himself sufficiently assures Us. No Man can be Ordained a Deacon or Priest without doing of it Nor being in Orders can be admitted to any Cure of Souls or to any Other Ecclesiastical Administration whatsoever but he must again Repeat it The Method taken for performing of this Subscription is full and positive For first the Substance of what we are to Subscribe to is drawn up into three Articles whereof the first and third are these 1. That the King's Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness's Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal c. Which being the very Words of the Oath of Supremacy must be taken in the same Sense that I have before shewn that Oath was to be Understood in And 3. That we allow the Book of Articles of Religion and acknowledge All and Every the Articles therein contain'd to be agreeable to the Word of God And then to these Articles we subscribe in these very Words I S. H. do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three Articles above mentioned and to All things contained in them He therefore who does this either must subscribe to them against his Conscience or he must thereby be concluded to profess this belief That the Authority given to the King by Our Laws and approved of in these Articles is agreeable to the Word of God The Danger of Impugning any
been made to the Emperours in the Greatest Causes So the Donatists did Appeal to Constantine Athanasius and the AEgyptian Bishops to the same Priscillianus to Maximus Idacius to Gratian. III. And here I shall put an End to these Collections It would have been a very easie Matter to have added many more Authors than I have here Alledged and to have much Enlarged upon those which I have Produced But what is already done may Suffice till those who now Advance the Contrary Opinion shall be able at least to make some Tolerable Proof that they do not forsake the Received Doctrine of our Church in Opposing an Authority by Law confessedly Establish'd And I think no less Confirm'd by our Articles and Canons too It remains now that I take the Liberty freely to APPEAL to every Sincere Member of Our Communion to Judge in this Case between Me and Those who so warmly Oppose me and so highly Charge me upon this Occasion And to consider what I have done with Relation to the Rights and Liberties of the Church of England for which I ought to Humble my selfe before God and to make a Satisfaction to Her Is it that I have Asserted the King's Authority over the Ecclesiastical Synods of this Church and Realm But so the Laws speak as well as I And to these both the Articles and Canons of the Church require me to Conform Nay they do more they Require me not only to Conform my self but to do what in me lies to move All Others to the Observance of them And if for this I must be Censured these Laws and Canons must run the same Fate with Me. And I shall always account it an Honour to Suffer for Asserting the Laws of the Realm and for maintaining the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Church of England Or is it that I have gone beyond the Bounds of the Law and given a Greater and more General Authority to the Christian Prince than either the Submission of the Clergy or the Act of King Henry the VIIIth founded thereupon have declared to belong to Him This for ought I know I may have done and yet not be Guilty of any Fault neither in the doing of it I have before said and do here again Repeat it with the same Assurance I at first delivered it That I do not found the Right of our Kings to this Jurisdiction either upon that or upon any Other Act that has been made in pursuance of it I fix it upon the Right of Sovereignty in General and upon that Antient Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical which the very Statute of Queen Elizabeth speaks of and allows to have been always of Right belonging to the Imperial Crown of this Realm To this our Laws themselves agree They speak still of Restoring to the Crown its Antient Rights and our Lawyers have accordingly constantly Affirm'd that these Acts and particularly that which we are here especially concern'd in the 1 Eliz. c. 1. was not Introductory of a New Law but Declaratory of the Old And therefore before I can justly be condemn'd upon this account my Proofs must be Answer'd and it must be shewn that what I ascribe to the King is not a parcel of that Jurisdiction which was once enjoy'd by the Kings and Princes of this Realm and did Always of Right belong to them And that I believe it will be no easie Matter to do 1st I affirm that it is the Right of every Christian King to Call his Clergy together in Convocation and that without his Call they cannot Regularly Assemble to any such purpose of themselves But so our Law expresly declares that the Convocation shall Evermore be Called by the King 's Writ And it is Notorious to Every One who has any Knowledge in these Matters how dangerous it would be for the Clergy to presume to come together without it 2dly I Assert that the very Persons who meet in Our Convocations are Determined and Empower'd by the King 's Writ and that none have a Right to Assemble but such as he Calls by it Let the Writs of Summons be Examined and let it there be seen whether the Case be not so as I pretend it to be Let this Author tell me if he can why such and such Dignitaries are required personally to come to the Convocation Others to send such a certain Number of Delegates to Represent them but that the Writ of Summons so Directs so Authorizes them to do And tho' I do not suppose it to be now in the King's Power to alter this Form yet the Sovereign Legislative Authority may without Controversy do it and appoint any Other Method of Framing the Lower House of Convocation that should appear to them to be more Proper and Expedient 3dly I declare that by Our Law the Convocation can deliberate on No Canons or Constitutions without first Obtaining the King's Licence so to do It is the express Resolution of the Act of Submission And our Convocations do accordingly notoriously Govern their Proceedings by it 4thly I add That heretofore the Christian Emperors prescribed to their Synods the very Method they should observe in handling the Matters which lay before them This indeed I affirm and I think I have proved it too And if to this End Our King should think fit either Himself to Come or to Appoint any Other to Preside in his Stead and Direct the Debates of our Synods as he should Command them to do I do not see that he would therein do any more than what some of the best Christian Princes have done before him 5thly I pretend that to the Civil Magistrate it belongs to Confirm or Annihilate such of the Acts of their Synods as they think fit Our Laws agree to it Our Kings claim it Our Convocations submit to and approve of it And let those who scruple this consider how low they sink the Authority of a Prince if they leave him not the Power which every ordinary Person claims of Judging for Himself but would oblige him at a venture to Confirm whatsoever the Lords of the Consistory shall please to Define 6thly That the Prince may Alter their Constitutions I no otherwise affirm than as I say it is in his Power to make Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical And that for the doing of this He may Advise with his Clergy and follow their Counsel so far as he approves of it Thus Charles the Emperor made up his Capitular And thus any Other Sovereign Prince may take the Canons of the Church and form them in such Wise into an Ecclesiastical Law as he thinks will be most for the Honour of God and the Good of his People 7thly In Cases of Appeals I shew what Power the Antient Emperors both Claim'd and Exercised And I modestly Vindicate to our Own Sovereign the same Authority which the Fathers of the Church without all Scruple allow'd to their Princes And except it be in such Cases where the King
Law of God Princes are Obliged by their Duty as Kings to set forth the True Religion to their Subjects tho' the Clergy should never so much or so generally Oppose them in it And in Another of his Books he proves the last Judgment in Matters of Religion to belong to Princes by this Argument He to whom the Holy Bishops remit their Decrees to be Examined from whom they desire the Confirmation of them Whom alone they Acknowledge to have the Power to prescribe to the People the True Religion by a Judiciary Coactive Power Him they constitute Supreme Judge in the Business of Religion But all this is ascribed to Pious Emperours and Kings As both from Councils and Fathers may evidently be made Appear I add that the Clergy cannot by Vertue of their Function compel the King to receive for the True Religion whatsoever they shall resolve by their Votes so to be But they must direct him by God's Word and always leave it to Him to Confirm that by his Authority which shall to Him upon Examination of their Reasons appear to be agreeable to God's Word Kings Sin when they throw off all Care of Religion and leave it to their Bishops alone Confirming by their Authority and Defending with their Sword whatsoever Faith They shall think fit to prescribe It is true indeed that as Other Christians so Princes themselves are to be directed in Matters of Religion by the Fathers of the Church But they are to be directed by the Light of God's Word and not to be drawn at the Pleasure of Bishops to the Defence of any Errour whatsoever The Church of England did not Innovate says Dr. Heylin in setling the Supremacy in the Royal Crown The like Authority was exercised and enjoy'd by the Christian Emperours not only in their Calling Councils and many times Assistiug at them or Presiding in them by themselves or their Deputies or Commissioners but also in Confirming the Acts thereof The like he shews to have been done by our Own Kings heretofore and then concludes thus so that when the Supremacy was recognized by the Clergy in their Convocation to King Henry the VIII it was only the Restoring of him to his Proper and Original Power If you conceive that by ascribing to the King the Supreme Authority taking Him for their Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission which ensued upon it the Clergy did unwittingly ensnare Themselves and draw a Vassallage on those of the Times Succeeding inconsistent with their Native Rights and contrary to the Usage of the Primitive Church I hope it will be no hard matter to remove that Scruple Its true the Clergy of this Realm can neither Meet in Convocation nor Conclude any thing therein nor put in Execution any thing which they have Concluded but as they are Enabled by the King's Authority But then it is as true that this is neither inconsistent with their Native Rights nor contrary to the Usage of the Primitive Times I grant indeed that when the Church was under the Command of the Heathen Emperours the Clergy did Assemble in their National and Provincial Synods of their Own Authority Which Councils being Summon'd by the Metropolitans and Subscribed by the Clergy were of sufficient Power to bind all good Christians who lived within the Verge of their Authority But it was Otherwise when the Church came under the Protection of Christian Princes As for the Vassallage which the Clergy are supposed to have drawn upon Themselves by this Submission I see no fear or danger of it That which is most insisted on for the Proof hereof is the Delegating of this Power by King Henry the VIII to Sir Thomas Cromwell by the Name of his Vicar General in Ecclesiastical Matters Who by that Name Presided in the Convocation Anno 1536. And this is look'd upon both by Saunders and some Protestant Doctors not only as a great debasing of the English Clergy but as a kind of Monstrosity in Nature But certainly these Men forget that in the Council of Chalcedon the Emperour appointed certain Noble-Men to sit as Judges whose Names Occur in the first Action of that Council The like we find Exemplified in the Ephesine Council in which by the Appointment of Theodosius and Valentinian the Roman Emperours Candidianus a Count Imperial sat as Judge or President It is not Possible to imagine any thing more express to our present Concern than what this Learned and Zealous Defender of our Church has here advanced If any One should be so Uncharitable as to imagine that this great Man had any Byass of private Interest upon him when he wrote this He may please to know that this Book was set forth by him in the time of Oliver Cromwel when our Church was in its worst Estate and there seemed but little hopes Remaining of its ever Recovering its self to a New Establishment But indeed this was his real Judgment and the General Sense of our Clergy in those Days Nor had our greatest Church-Men then learnt either to think Otherwise of the Princes Right Or to run down the Learning and Piety of those Holy Men by whose Courage and Conduct the Reformation was carry'd on and many of whom sealed the Sincerity of their Opinions with their Own Blood KING CHARLES II. I have now but one Period more to pass over and that a very short One too wherein I am to enquire How this Doctrine continued to be Received after the Restauration of King Charles the II. and upon that last Reveiw that was then made of our Constitution That at that time both the King and his Parliament were not only well Affected to the Interests of our Church but ready to concur with whatever the Convocation could reasonably have proposed to Them for the better Settlement of it is not to be doubted But what then did they do as to this Matter Was this enslaving Act made by our Saint Henry the VIII and continued by all his Oppressing Successors of the Reform'd Religion repealed by this Zealous Church-Parliament Or because that cannot be pretended Did that Reverend Synod which altered so many Other things ever once touch upon this and were stop'd in it Neither can that be Affirm'd Was there in that large Body Any One but One Generous Freeborn Spirit who being Scandalized at the Restraints under which the Divine Rights of the Church had so long lain moved the Convocation to protest against the King's Supremacy if they could not yet be so Happy as totally to shake it off Neither does any thing of this Occurr in the Diary which I have seen of that Convocations Proceedings Now that which makes me the rather to Remark this is that both that Parliament and that Convocation had this very Business of the King's Supremacy and the Churches Power under their Consideration And an Act was made for the better Execution of the One but still so