of those of the Reign foregoing I have already alledged the Authorities of those two Eminent Archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft To these I have added those of Bilson and Hooker and I thought it but Reasonable to give them a place in the same Period in which their Books were publish'd But yet I must observe that the most of These not only continued to the present time but attain'd to their highest Promotions under this Government The Synod of 1603 was held under the Presidence of Bancroft then Bishop of London Bishop Bilson was a Member of it and no doubt concurr'd heartily to the passing of those Canons which relate to the King's Supremacy in it I shall therefore here add only the Judgment of One Learned Man more who must never be mentioned but with a particular Respect by Us Mr. Mason and that out of a Work which he wrote expresly in Vindication of the Reformed Church and Ministry of England Champanaeus his Adversary had thus far allow'd of the Authority of the Christian Prince in Matters of Religion That He might make Laws in Defence of the true Religion which he was to learn from the Clergy and might nay was bound to see them Put in Execution But that Princes should have a Power of Judging or Defining in Ecclesiastical Matters as the Proper Judges and Hearers of them this he says is a Paradox never heard of in the Christian World before the time of Henry VIII To this Mr. Mason Replies That it is indeed the Business of Pastors to Explain the Doubtful things of the Law But that it belongs to the Prince to Promulge the Truth when known and to command his Subjects to Obey it That he must judge Whether the Priests do Go according to the Law of God And to that End must Search the Scriptures Pray to God Advise with Learned Men and not be led away with the fair Titles or Characters of Any nor have so much Regard to the Number of Votes as to Truth Upon this Foundation he proceeds at large to assert these following Points 1. That it is the Prince 's business to Call Councils and to appoint the Time and Place of their Assembling 2. That he has the Power to propose to the Bishops and Clergy what shall be treated on in their Synod 3. To prescribe the Rule and Measure of Judging 4. To Restrain them from calling in question the Faith already Orthodoxly setled in former Synods 5. To Rescind the Pernicious Decrees of Councils and to Confirm and Ratify such as are Pious and Wholesom by his Authority Lib. iii. c. iv p. 298. To which Points thus put together by Himself let me add from the other parts of his Discourse 6. The Power to Preside in Synods and to Govern their Acts. 7. To Appoint Judges in Ecclesiastical Matters and over Ecclesiastical Persons 8. To Judge between the Bishops if they shall happen to differ even in Matters of Faith And lastly To suspend the Acts of Councils tho' in relation to Points of Doctrine so that during such Suspension they shall not take Effect This is that Authority which this Renowned Defender of our Ministry and Reformation look'd upon as due of Right to the Christian Prince Of what Esteem this Work in those days was may be Gather'd not only from the Great Care and Accuracy with which it was Composed but from that Concern which the Archbishop of Canterbury shew'd for the Publication of it Twice it was solemnly dedicated to King James And being first publish'd in our Own Language it was thought considerable enough to Carry both the Doctrine and Defence of our Church to those Abroad in a Latin Translation And I have never yet heard that any of its Adversaries could charge it with any false Representation of our Church's Sense how little soever they pretended to be satisfied with His Vindication of it KING CHARLES I. But I shall not tarry any longer in this Reign but proceed to pursue the History of the Supremacy in the Sense of our most Eminent Bishops and Divines during the Unfortunate Reign of that Excellent Prince and true Friend of our Church King Charles the First And here one would have thought that the Account I took care on purpose to give with a more than ordinary particularity of the Convocation of 1640 might have sufficiently convinced all Unprejudic'd Persons what the Judgment of those Times was in the present Case But since it is insinuated by some who cannot deny but that that Prince did in Fact both Claim and Exercise all that Power over the Convocation for which I am pleading as if All this were done meerly in compliance with the Iniquity of our Laws and not as what Either the King or his Archbishop in their Own Consciences approved of I will proceed to clear this matter a little farther and shew that we have all the Reason in the World to believe that in the Management of that Convocation they Both of them acted not more agreeably to the Laws of the Realm than to the Real Sense of their Own Judgment It was but about Twelve Years before the Meeting of that Synod that upon the breaking out of some Disturbances upon the Account of the Arminian Tenets the King was induced to publish anew the Articles of Religion and to prefix his Royal Declaration to them suitable to that Occasion The Words of this Declaration are these Being by God's Ordinance according to our just Title Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church within these our Dominions We hold it most agreeable to this our Kingly Office and our Own Religious Zeal to Conserve and Maintain the Church committed to our Charge in Unity of true Religion and in the Bond of Peace and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations Altercations or Questions to be Raised which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonweal We have therefore upon Mature Deliberation and with the Advice of so many of our Bishops as might conveniently be called together thought fit to make this Declaration following That the Articles of the Church of England which have been allow'd and authorised heretofore and which our Clergy generally have subscribed unto do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word Which we do therefore Ratify and Confirm Requiring all our Loving Subjects to continue in the Vniform Profession thereof and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles which to that End we command to be New-printed and this Our Declaration to be publish'd therewith Such is the beginning of this Declaration and in which we may already observe several notable Instances of that Supremacy we are enquiring into For 1st It is plain this King thought himself Authoriz'd as Supreme Governour of the Church within his Dominions to take care of the Vnity of it and to put an End to those Disputes which Some
had raised to the manifest endangering of it 2dly Upon his Own mature Deliberation and with the Advice of such of his Bishops as he thought fit to call to his Assistance he judges anew of the Doctrine of the Church contain'd in the XXXIX Articles and confirm'd by so many Synods of the Clergy as had met since the first Establishment of them And 3dly Upon that Judgment he again Ratifies and Confirms them and Requires all his Subjects to continue in the Vniform Profession of them But we will go on with the Declaration which the King farther makes That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England and that if any difference arise about the External Policy concerning the Injunctions Canons or Other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to Order and Settle them having first Obtain'd Leave under Our Broad Seal so to do and We approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions provided that none be made Contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land This is the next Paragraph and it gives us a clear account of the Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Synods of this Realm To them it belongs to deliberate of what concerns the Policy of the Church and to make Canons c. for the Ordering of it But before they can do this they must have the King's Leave not only to Sit but to Go about any such Work being Sate And having done it the King is to have the last Review He is to Confirm or Reject what they do And even that too within the Bounds that the Laws have set both to Him and Them But we will Go yet farther In the next place then the King thus declares That out of our Princely Care that the Church-men may do the Work which is Proper unto them the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble Desire shall have Licence under our Broad Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by Us shall concern the setled Continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now Established from which we will not endure any Varying or Departing in the least Degree And here we have not only our former Reflections again confirm'd but with an Addition of some farther Instances of the Prince's Authority in these Cases The Clergy in Convocation are humbly to move the King for his Licence to do what they shall Judge to be necessary for the better Establishment of either the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England To this the King is pleased to promise them at all times a favourable Answer That they shall have Leave to do what they desire and he shall judge needful to be done by them But still he declares it shall be with this Restraint that what they desire to do be consistent with the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church already Establish'd For from that the King Resolved that the Clergy even in Convocation assembled should not be at Liberty to Vary or Depart in the least degree All which being supposed yet still they are only to deliberate and make plain to the King what they think to be of Use even within these Restrictions But the King is to Allow or not Allow of it and upon his Rejecting or Ratifying their Resolutions the whole Authority and even Subsistence of them is to depend Such was the Opinion which this Prince had of his Own Royal Authority over the Convocations of his Bishops and Clergy Wherein the Power here claim'd by him comes short of what our Laws have assign'd the King and I in my late Treatise on this Argument have contended for it will I believe be very difficult to shew I shall only add that this Declaration was made by Him with the Advice of so many of the Bishops as might conveniently be Called together Who those Bishops were with whom the King consulted upon this Occasion we are not told But that Archbishop Laud was One of them we have all the Reason in the World to believe He was at that time a Privy-Counsellor Dean of the Chappel and One of the Commissioners for the Administring of the Archbishoprick upon the Sequestration of Archbishop Abbot And especially advised with by the King in all Matters of Importance relating to the Affairs of the Church And upon all which accounts we may venture almost confidently to say that this Declaration was without Controversy publish'd by his Advice above any Others and speaks his Sense in these Matters no less than the King 's It is indeed a thing justly to be wonder'd at after what I have formerly publish'd that any One who pretends to have any Veneration for the Memory of that Great Prelate should be able to make any doubt of his Judgment in this particular The Integrity which he shew'd in all his Actions sufficiently assures us that what he Swore to in the Oath of Supremacy Subscribed in the Articles of Religion Approved of in the Canons of the Church Advised in this last Declaration and Acted under at the Head of the Convocation Anno 1640 was undoubtedly agreeable to the Inward Sense of his Own Mind And I would desire those who upon such slender Grounds now insinuate the Contrary to consider What a mean Spirit they must take a Person of his High Character to have been acted by who can suppose that in a Matter of such vast Concernment to the Church and upon which the Divine Rights and Authority of it in their Opinion so much depend He should nevertheless against his Own Conscience run in with the Iniquity of the Times and thereby give so dangerous a Countenance to those Enslaving Principles to which he submitted However since such is the Rashness of some Men that they care not what Injury they do the Greatest Personages so they may but seem thereby to justify their Own Errors I will now give such an Evidence not only of that Archbishop's but with his of all the Other Bishops and the whole Convocations Sense in this Case as will I think admit of no Exception In the Canons of 1640 and whose Authority tho' I pretend not to assert yet I conceive I may without Offence produce them as a private Evidence of the Judgment of Those who Compos'd Them the very first is Concerning the Regal Power In this they not only Approve of the Acts made for the Acknowledgment of the King's Authority over the State Ecclesiastical but enjoin them All to be carefully Observed by all Persons whom they may Concern They add That a Supreme Power is given by God himself to Kings to Rule and Command all Persons of what Rank soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil The Care of God's Church say they is so committed to Kings in Scripture that they are Commended when the Church keeps the Right way and Taxed when it runs Amiss And therefore Her Government belongs in
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
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
Guide the Consciences of such as should make Use of it I shall from him descend but to One more Whom I fitly place the last of his Order And to whose Judgment tho' I pay no more than it deserves yet I cannot but think it may have some weight with those whom I am now concern'd especially to Convince In his Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity Chap. 1. he affirms The Affairs of Religion to be Subject to the Supreme Civil Power and to no Other p. 2. That as in the first Ages of the World the Kingly Power and Priestly Function were alway Vested in the same Persons So when they were separated in the Jewish State the Supremacy was annexed to the Civil Power and so continued until and after our Saviour's Death Ibid. This he more largely delivers p. 32. Tho' in the Jewish Commonwealth the Priestly Office was separated by a divine positive Command from the Kingly Power yet the Power and Jurisdiction of the Priest remain'd still subject to the Sovereign Prince Their King always Exercising a Supremacy Over All Persons and in All Causes Ecclesiastical The Power wherewith Christ invested the Governors of his Church in the Apostolical Age was purely Spiritual They had no Authority to inflict Temporal Punishments or to force Men to submit to their Canons Laws and Paenalties They only declared the Laws of God and denounced the Threatnings annexed to Them But when Christianity was become the Imperial Religion then began its Government to Re-settle where Nature had placed it and the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was annex'd to the Civil Power So that tho' the Exercise of the Ministerial Function still continued in the Persons that were thereunto Originally Commissioned by Our Saviour the Exercise of its Authority and Jurisdiction was Restored to the Imperial Diadem Constantine was no sooner settled in his Imperial Throne but he took the Settlement of All Ecclesiastical Matters into his Own Cognizance He Called Synods and Councils in Order to the Peace and Government of the Church He Ratified their Canons into Laws c. In the Exercise of which Jurisdiction he was carefully follow'd by all his Successors Nay he doubts not to affirm That had it not been for the Care of Christian Princes Christianity had in all humane Probability been utterly destroy'd by its Own Tumults and Seditions He adds That this Supremacy of the Civil Power in Religious Matters is expresly Asserted by Our Church which is not content barely to Affirm it but denounces the Sentence of Excommunication against All that deny it Thus stood this Author ' s Judgment in this Case about the Year 1669 It is true that being engaged against another sort of Adversaries and which led him to somewhat different Reflections we find him a little gone off from this Hypothesis in the Year 1681. Yet even there he is much more for the Supremacy than those we have now to do with He affirms indeed p. 105. That from the Precedent of the Apostles in the First Council of Jerusalem the Governours of the Church in all Ages enjoy'd a Power of making Canons and Constitutions for Discipline and Good Order But withal he adds that By the Example of the Primitive Church our Bishops submitted the Exercise thereof to the King 's Sovereign Authority as we see in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy Whereby says he p. 106. they do not pass away their Power of making Ecclesiastical Canons but only give Security to the Government that under that Pretence they would not attempt any thing tending to the Disturbance of the Kingdom or Injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown Which in truth is such a Submission as all the Clergy in the World ought in duty to make to their Sovereign at least in Gratitude for his Protection and that without any Abatement or Diminution of their Own Authority viz. The standing Laws of Christianity being secured to submit All Other Matters to his Sovereign Will and Pleasure And p. 108. He approves King James Reply to Cardinal Perron where he lets him know That tho' Christian Kings and Emperors never arrogated to themselves a Power of being Sovereign Judges in Matters and Controversies of Faith yet for Moderation of Synods for Determinations and Orders Establish'd in Councils and for the Discipline of the Church they have made a full and Good Vse of their Imperial Authority Such was the last Sense if I mistake not of this Writer and that when he was in his highest Exaltation of the Churches Authority And all the Difference I can find between his Own last and first Opinion is but this that what He before gave the Christian Prince as his Own due He now grants him by the Concession of the Clergy yet so as to declare the Clergy bound to yeild it to Him and to affirm the Churches Rights to be in no wise injured or impeach'd by it But I shall not insist any longer on this Authority but pass on to consider the Judgment of an Author or Two of a Lower Rank but whose Learning and Steddiness will much more recommend Them to all Sober and Indifferent Persons Of these the first I shall mention shall be our Excellent Dr. Falkner who in his Discourse of Christian Loyalty fully examines and determines the Case before Us. Concerning the Christian Doctrine and Profession says he tho' no Authority has any Right to Oppose any part of the Christian Truth yet Princes may and ought to take Care of the True Profession thereof in their Dominions and to Suppress such dangerous Errours as are manifestly contrary thereunto But in Cases of Difficulty for the deciding or ending of Controversies about Matters of Faith the Disquisition and Resolution of the Spiritual Guides ought to take Place and be Embraced In such Cases the Catholick Christian Emperours did by their Authority Establish the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils But in Matters of Truth which are plain and manifest from the Holy Scriptures themselves or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith the Saecular Governour so far as is Necessary may proceed upon the Evidence thereof to his Own Understanding In establishing Rules and Constitutions for Order Decency and Peace it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers to consult advise and take Care thereof But yet this with such Dependance upon the Royal Power as King Charles has declared that is That they first obtain the Kings leave to do it and execute nothing but with his Approbation See above § 28. In such an extraordinary Case as that in the Primitive Times was when the Civil Power will not own the Church the Ecclesiastical Governours by their Own Authority may establish necessary Rules of Order as was then done But since the External Sanction of such things doth flow from the general Nature of Power and Authority wheresoever the Temporal Power will take that Care of the Church which it ought it hath
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