An appeal to all the true members of the Church of England, in behalf of the King's ecclesiastical supremacy ... by William Wake ...

An appeal to all the true members of the Church of England, in behalf of the King's ecclesiastical supremacy ... by William Wake ...

Table of contents

Title page

§

TO The most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS, By Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan.

THE PREFACE.

THE CONTENTS.

AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England, &c.

§

II.

QVEEN ELIZABETH.

KING JAMES I.

KING CHARLES I.

KING CHARLES II.

III.

ERRATA.

Books Printed for R. Sare, at Grays-Inn-Gate.

§

[Page]

[Page]

AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England, In behalf of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy; AS By Law Establish'd; by our Convocations Approved; and by our most Eminent Bishops, and Clergy-Men, Stated, and Defended; against both the Popish, and Fanatical, Opposers of it.

By WILLIAM WAKE, D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.

LONDON: Printed for Richard Sare at Grays-Inn-gate in Holborn, MDCXCVIII.

§

[Page]

[figure]

TO The most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS, By Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan.

[Page]

My LORD;

THIS Appeal which Addresses it self to Others for their Judgment, Sues, with all Humility, to Your Grace for Your Protection; and that such, as, I conceive, is neither Unfit for me to Ask, nor for Your Grace to Afford. You will here see what that true Agreement is between [Page] the Priesthood and the Empire, which our Laws have Establish'd; our Convocations approv'd of; and our Greatest Clergy-men hitherto defended; without the Censure of Any, but the profess'd Enemies of our Church and Constitution. But now a New Sort of Disciplinarians are risen up from within our selves, who seem to comply with the Government of the Church, much upon the same account that Others do with that of the State; not out of Conscience to their Duty, or any Love they have for it; but because it is the Establish'd Church, and they cannot keep their Preferments without it. They hate our Constitution, and Revile all such as stand up in Good Earnest for it: but, for all that, they resolve to hold fast to it; and go on still to Subscribe, and Rail.

[Page] IN Opposition either to the Errors or Designs of these Men, the Present Appeal bespeaks Your Grace's Protection, not so much for its self, as for the Articles and Canons of our Church; and for those Excellent Worthies who, in their several Successions, have appear'd in Defence of the King's Supremacy over the State Ecclesiastical, as by Law declared, and Establish'd. That you will vouchsafe still to Continue to Own a Cause, in which not only the Church of England, but the Church Catholick, ever since the Civil Powers have become Christian, is concern'd together with her: The Authority we plead for in behalf of our Kings, being no Other than what the most famous Bishops and Councils of the Church have given to their Empeperors; [Page] and who, by consequence, must All be involved in the same Censure with our Parliaments and Convocations. And they who now Revile the One, would as freely Condemn the Other, but that they are sensible that many who are well content with the Reproach of King Henry VIII. and his Clergy, would not endure to hear the like Charges made against Constantine and Theodosius; and those Bishops and Councils which all Christians, in all Ages, have been wont to pay so Great a Regard to.

THIS, My LORD, is the Cause which I here bring before Your Grace: In the Defence whereof I have Once already been engaged, and shall, with God's Assistance, again appear; when those [Page] who now talk with such Confidence against my former Allegations, shall give me Occasion to shew how just they were, and how little, in Reality, there is to be excepted against them. In the mean time, I was willing, for the better Discovery of these New-Reformers; by this short, preliminany Treatise, to draw aside the Curtain, and let the World see whose Off-spring they are, and from whom they derive both their Principles, and their Animosities, against Us. I cannot but hope, that by this I shall awaken all the Sincere Members of our Church to beware of them; and not give Countenance to such Attempts, as under a shew of bettering Our Constitution, do in Reality tend to the Utter Subversion of it. To Your Grace I submit both the Design and the [Page] Performance; and with all possible Duty and Respect Remain,

My LORD,

Your Grace's Most Humble and Obedient Servant, WILLIAM WAKE.

THE PREFACE.

[Page]

WHEN I entred upon the Defence of the Kings Supremacy, in Answer to the Letter to a Convocation Man, I was not so little acquainted with the Tempers and Designs, of a certain Party among us, as not to know that my Undertaking would be likely to displease Those, who think any the least Authority that is given to his present Maiesty, to be an Encroachment either upon their Civil or Ecclesiastical Rights. Nor was I unsensible what might possibly be reply'd to the Arguments which I brought in Proof of it: The knowledge I had of what the Papists were wont to return to the like Allegations of our Writers against them, having, in some measure, inform'd me what, upon this Occasion, might probably be [Page] said in Answer to Me. But to find my self charged, as if in defending the Authority of the Prince, I had betray'd the Rights of the Church, Municip. Eccles. Pref. and appear'd in such a Cause as neither became my Function, nor had any of our Clergy ever before concern'd themselves withall; this, I confess, was a perfect Surprise to me, and abundantly Convinces me that some Mens Resentments are as much beyond Modesty, as they are without Reason.

It cannot be unknown to any, who is not an utter stranger to the History of our Reformation, upon what Principles it was undertaken, and at last happily setled among us. How the Prince's Authority was both the Means by which it was carry'd on, and the Ground on which we justify'd our selves in the doing of it. And, indeed, at the first, none but the Papists, (that is to say those who had engrossed this Power into their own Hands, and could neither endure to part with it, nor to submit to the Use which they saw we intended to make of it;) complain'd of what we did, in restoring the [Page] Prince to his antient, and undoubted Right; or pretended to enter any Process against us, upon the Account of it. It is true, some time after, another Party, (how opposite soever to the Papists in other Matters, yet in this too nearly Approaching to Them) began to set up themselves; and to claim the same Power in behalf of their Kirk, that the Romanists had pretended to in Right of their Pope and Church. But against Both these our Bishops and Clergy continued firm and costant; and were, by all impartial Judges, allow'd to be as much Superiour to them Both in their Arguments, as they were in the Justice of the Cause which they maintained.

Thus stood this Controversy till our Own times: Insomuch that I hardly know any Author, professing himself a Member of the Church of England, who has either cast any Aspersion upon our first Reformers, for restoring the Crown to its Antient Jurisdiction; or pretended that the Divine Rights of the Church, were in any wise violated, or infringed by it.

[Page] But it seems the Case is very much altered now: And it is, of a suddain, become an Encroachment, not to be endured by our New-Church-Patriots, for the King to pretend to lay any Restraint upon their Assemblies; and an Enterprise unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel, Ib. Preface. tho' 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;Municip. Eccles. Pref. pag. 2. and such as will hardly be Credited, except I repeat it in his own Words. ‘'Twas 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 [Page] taken for Sincere, and for that Cause, Just.’

‘King Henry the VIII of famous Memory,Ib. pag. 3. notwithstanding all his Claims at Common-law, and his Interest in his Parliament, thro' Power, and the Rewards by Abby and Churchlands, 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, Pag. 4. 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 [Page] 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, [Page] have solemnly declared our Assent to,39th. Can. and are obliged to our Power to maintain. First Can.

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, Ibid. p. 107. 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[Page]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 [Page] speak well of, this part of the King's Supremacy. See how he Harangues his Brethren of the Clergy upon this Occasion,Comp. p. 155. 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, 'tis 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 [Page] 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,Pag. 123, 124. is this: ‘That the Church be 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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,Pag. 109. ‘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 [Page] 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?

[Page] 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, Pag. 177. 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; By the 1, 2, and 12. Can. 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 [Page] Necessary for Him to Go on with it. For having charged me with Violating the most important Truths of Principles and Histories; Preface. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] their Replys to them, and shew that they do not destroy the force of His Allegations.

To what purpose, for example,P. 160. does he bring the Sayings of Athanasius against the Synod of Tyre; of Osius against Constantius; of St. Ambrose against Valentinian the Younger; to us who know what has long since been Return'd to them by our learnedDef. of the Apolog. p. 590. 605. &c. Jewel andBilson. p. 174 179. 182. 184. 186. 200. Bilson; Whitgift. fol. 700 Whitgift andTort. Torti. 169. 170. Andrews; and the rest of our Writers upon this Subject. This may pass with those, who are Ignorant of these Matters, for a shew of Reading; and they may, for a while, look with Wonder on the Vnknown Character; and applaud the learning of the Text, and Margin. But when the Common place shall be lay'd open, and they shall begin to discover out of whose Magazine these Authorities are Transcribed; and shall be convinced how often they have already been both Alledged and Answered; the most Charitable Reader will be apt to shake his Head, and think the worse both of the Cause, and the Defenders of it.

[Page] And this I desire with relation to other Mens Writings: As for my own Book,

3dly, I would request him, when he cites my Words, but especially when he does it with a Design of Reflecting upon them, that he would take them as they lie; and not leave out, or insert, any that may have an Influence upon the Sense of what He quotes. Of the former of these I take my self to have some reason to complain, in his References of p. 100. and 101. of his Book. But of the latter yet more, p. 109. where He says, that I give the Prince Power to suspend not only the Sentences of Synods, but their Canons too; And of which I do assure the Reader he will not find the least mention in the Passages to which he is Referr'd.

But 4thly, And to go yet farther; Would his design, or prejudices, give him leave, I could wish he would take care to distinguish a little better between what I Relate as matter of History, and what I deliver as my own Sense. It being easie to imagine that in a Work of such a Nature as that is which he has undertaken to [Page] Examine, many things may be Recited from Others, which a Man is not bound himself to approve of. Had he used this Precaution, he would not have told his Reader, as he does, p. 160. that I charge the Synod of Ariminum with the Sin of Disobedience, for dissolving themselves without the Emperours leave: Whereas, in Truth, I only give a sincere Account of the Matter of Fact, and shew (from my Author) what those Fathers did, and what Resentments the Emperour had of it? What reasons those Holy Bishops had for returning to their Churches, after a tedious Absence, tho' not Licensed by Constantius so to do, it cannot be thought we at this Distance should be so well able to judge, as They, at that time were. And if they were Satisfied, that they had Reason so to do; far be it from me to Condemn them for preferring their Duty to their Flocks, before the Satisfaction of a Violent, and Heretical Prince.

Let me to this add, 5thly, As not very different from what I have now mentioned, such other Mistakes, as either want of Care, or the Heat of [Page] Contention, has sometimes led him into; and by reason of which, he charges me with several things which I am by no means concern'd to admit of. Thus, for Example; It is not less than four several times that he Speaks of my Definition of a Synod: Pag. 6. 8. 49. 55. And in one Place censures me for the Vn-accuracy of it, p. 49. And indeed a very loose Definition of a Synod it is, tho' fit enough to keep Company with that which Himself gives of it, in the same Place. But then it is a great Mistake, to say that I had any thoughts of Defining a Synod in the Place to which he refers. On the contrary I acknowledge the very Meeting, of which I there Speak, not to be what we properly mean by a Synod. Only I shew both from the Persons of which it consisted, and from the Business which it met about; that if the Prince has Authority over such an Assembly as that was, there is no Reason why he should not have an equal Authority over Synods; which both consist of the same kind of Persons, and meet about the like Affairs.

[Page] But 6thly, And to have done: There is yet one Thing more which I cannot but think to be worthy his Regard, and it is this; That before he draws up any more Charges of Absurdities and Contradictions against me, He would take some tollerable Care to examine Matters thoroughly; and to advise with some clearer Heads; and not charge That upon my Words, which is really the Misfortune of his own Vnderstanding.

What a strange Confusion, for Example, is it, p. 166. because I prove from the Matters of Fact in the first Ages after the Empire became Christian; and from what was orderly and regularly done in those times too, the Princes Supremacy; to fancy that I had overthrown my own Foundation, by saying that in the Dreggs of Popery, and when Princes had lost their Antient and just Authority, many things were done by the Clergy in their Synods very irregularly; and their bare doing of which is by no means sufficient to prove that they had a Right to do it.

Again, p. 167. Because I cite Eusebius for an Expression of Constantine's, [Page] that he was Bishop in things without the Church; what strange Logick is it from thence to conclude that Princes have nothing to do in the Affairs of Synods? See Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 1. p. 352. Comp. p. 405. Whereas it is Notorious that those, above any thing, were the very Matters of which he Spake.

So, p. 168. I quote Socrates for saying, that the Greatest Synods were called by the Emperors: Ergo, says he, 'tis plain that the lesser Ones were not?

Again, p. 169. I affirm that in peaceable Times, and under Princes who take Care of the Church, Synods ought not to meet but by the Command or Allowance of the Civil Magistrate. To this, he conceives it is a Contradiction to say, as yet I do, that in Cases of extreme Necessity, when Princes shall so far abuse their Power, as to render it absolutely needful for the Clergy, by some extraordinary Methods, to provide for the Churches Welfare; that Necessity will warrant their taking of them.—And again; Because I assert that in quiet Times, and under a Pious, Christian Prince, the Prince is to judge, when it is proper for [Page] Synods to meet: to this he fancys it to be a Contradiction to allow, that when the Danger is apparent, and the Necessities of the Church will not bear the farther delay of Them, if the Prince does refuse to let them meet, they must rather venture his Displeasure, and do it of themselves, than be wanting, in such Circumstances, to the Churches Safety and Preservation.

These are some of those Absurdities which this Ingenious Writer has been pleased to lay to my Charge. Many more there are of the like kind; and by which whether he has more exposed my Weakness, Pag. 177. or his Own, I am very well Content to leave it to any impartial Reader to judge.

It is one of the ill Effects that commonly attend Controversial Writings, that it is very Difficult to manage them either with that Temper and Ingenuity that becomes Scholars, or with that Charity that good Christians ought to do. And 'tis this has given me almost as great a Disgust at them, as ever Gregory Nazianzen profess'd himself to have against Synods, [Page] and that almost upon the same Account. Pride and Ill-Nature commonly Domineer in them; and sometimes it so falls out that an Opponent must be freely dealt with, or a good Cause must suffer in the Opinion of a great Many, who conclude that a Man therefore only spares his Adversary, because he could not get an Advantage against him.

How far I have fallen under this Censure, in the Management of the present Controversy, I must submit it to others to judge; but do hope I have not so far Transgress'd, as this late Author charges me to have done.Pag. 177. As for the Logick, Law, and History, of the Person I had to deal with, What it really is, I pretend not to say; What it appear'd to me to be, my Book has shewn: And if I have any where fail'd in my Allegations against him, this Gentleman, no doubt, will take care to call me to Account for it. But Honesty is a tender Point; and I do not remember I have any where touch'd upon it. 'Tis true I have shewn, what was indeed too plain to be deny'd, that whosoever he were that Wrote that Pamphlet, he could [Page] be no Friend to our present Establishment. And this I am sure was to my Purpose to observe, how little so ever it was to his, to have it so plainly Discover'd. However, if in any thing I have been Mistaken in my Judgment either of his Affections, of his Abilities, I am heartily sorry for it; and shall be ready to submit to whatsoever Pennance his most Vpright, Logical, Historical Second, shall, from his better skill in Antiquity, and the Laws of our Church, think fit to lay upon me for it.

THE CONTENTS.

[Page]

INtroduction, §. 1.

The Design of the following Treatise, viz. To shew what has been the Sense of the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, as to the Authority of Christian Princes over the Ecclesiastical Synods of their Realms, §. 2.

The Substance of the 25 H. 8. c. 19. to this Purpose, §. 3.

Of its Repeal by Q. Mary, and Revival by Q. Elizabeth, §. 4.

That the Authority, therein given to the King, is no Other than what did always, of Right, belong to the Crown, §. 5.

That it was to secure this Authority, the Oath of Supremacy was framed, §. 6.

—The present Obligation of which is enquired into; Ibid.

That the same Authority is agreed to in the 37th Article, §. 7.

—The Sense of which is shewn, Ib. And the Nature of that Subscription we make to those Articles consider'd, §. 8.

And is yet more fully enjoin'd by the Canons of 1603. §. 9.

[Page]—Which ipso facto Excommunicate all those who Impugn this Supremacy, §. 10.

II.

This Supremacy Confirm'd from the Sense of our Divines and Others, ever since the Reformation, §. 11.

Of the Times of K. H. 8.—K. Edw. 6.— and Q. Mary 1. §. 12.

Queen ELIZABETH.

The Judgment, of her Self, and her Parliament, §. 13.

Of all her first Bishops, §. 14.

Of Archbishop Whitgift, §. 15.

Archbishop Bancroft, §. 16.

Bishop Jewel, §. 17.

Bishop Bilson, §. 18.

Dr. [...], §. 19.

Mr. Hooker §. 20.

King JAMES 1.

Of the Revival of the Dispute, concerning the Supremacy, under this King, §. 21.

The Judgment of the King himself, Ib. And

—Of B. Andrews, §. 22.

Against the Papists.

Of the Controversy which the King had on this Subject, with the Scotch Ministers, §. 23.

Vpon this Occasion B. Andrews Judgment more fully declared, §. 24.

Which was also the Sense of the Rest of the Clergy at that time, §. 25.

Particularly of our Learned Mason, §. 26.

King CHARLES I.

The Judgment of these Times, more particularly shewn, §. 27.

From the Sense of the King himself, § 28.

Of his Bishops, especially A. B. Laud, §. 29.

And of the whole Convocation, 1640, §. 30.

The Judgment of A. B. Bramhall, §. 31.

Bishop Davenant, §. 32. and Dr. Heylin, §. 33.

King CHARLES II.

The State of the Parliament and Convocation, in 1660 consider'd: How far this shews the same Sense to have continued of the Supremacy, that had all along obtain'd before? §. 34.

This farther shewn from the Opinion of; Bishop Taylor, §. 35. B. S. Parker, §. 36. Dr. Falkner, §. 37. Dr. Barrow, §. 38.

III.

Vpon this Foundation, an Appeal is here made, to all the True Members of our Church, against those who now Oppose this Authority, §. 39.

And it is farther shewn,

That I have not been mistaken in Point of Law, §. 39.

That the Cause was not unbecoming a Clergy Man to appear in, §. 40.

That the time was not improper for the handling of it, §. 41.

That it is not probable, the Church will Suffer by what I have done; but may, by their Fury, who oppose me in this Point, §. 42.

The Close, §. 43.

AN APPEAL To all the True Members OF THE Church of England, &c.

[Page]

§

AFTER an Age and half's Dispute with those of the Church of Rome, §. 1. in Defence of the King's Supremacy, and of the Laws that have been made for the Establishment of it; it cannot but seem a little strange to Us, to be Now call'd upon to begin the Controversy again, with some among our selves, who would be thought the Best, if not the only True Members, of the Church of England.

But that which seems yet more amazing is, that tho' our Laws subsist [Page] in the same State which they have been in ever since the Reformation; Our Articles and Canons made in pursuance of those Laws continue firm, and unrepealed: Tho' the Books that have been written by our Bishops, and Clergy, in defence of Both, are not only not Censured, but are Read, Approved, and Received on all hands, as delivering the undoubted Sense of our Church and Convocations, as well as of our Princes and Parliaments, with relation to this matter; it should now, nevertheless, be thought a Crime to assert the Supremacy of the Christian Magistrate; and a Scandal for a Clergy-Man, more especially, to appear in behalf of that Cause, by defending whereof so much Honour has been gain'd, by the greatest Writers of that Order, heretofore.

Had we now to do with the same Adversaries that those Learned Men were engaged with; Were the Persons who, in Our days, set up against the Rights of the Prince, either open Romanists on the one hand, or avowed Members of the Kirk and Consistory on the Other; we should the less wonder either at the Principles which [Page] they Advance, or the Zeal with which they appear in Favour of them. But to be Summon'd by Members of our Own Communion to defend the Doctrine of our Own Canons and Articles; to be rail'd at as little better than Apostates from the Church Catholick, for pretending to Vindicate the Constitution of the Church of England, as by Law Establish'd; this is a Novelty which we know not what to make of, a Prodigy becoming a Time, and Place, of Wonders.

To lay open the Design of this New-Attempt, § 2. and which may otherwise, in time, improve into Another Schism, and produce us a Third Church of England, composed only of such Persons as will disclaim all Authority of the Civil-Magistrate, from having any thing to do in Matters of Religion; it may possibly be of some Use to represent to such, as have not yet lay'd aside all Regard to Her, the plain Sense of our Reformed Church, in the Points under Debate; and shew them from whom I received the Doctrine which I have asserted, in Vindication of the Kings Supremacy. And having done this, [Page] I cannot but hope that some of them will consider; what is the true Design of those who are so forward to pull down, what our Wise and Pious Ancestors, took so much care to Build: And whether the Methods we are now running so blindly into, must not end either in downright Popery, or Fanaticism, at the last.

When the Foundation was first laid for a regular Reformation of Religion among Us;§ 3. One of the first things which those,The Act of 25 H. VIII c. 19. who carry'd on that great Work, saw it needful to do, was, to restore the Crown to that Authority, which the Prevalence of the Papal Power had so notoriously deprived it of. In order hereunto, the Convocation having agreed to submit themselves to the King, an Act of Parliament was framed upon that Submission, 26. H. VIII. c. 19. in which, among Others, these four things were Establish'd. 1st. That the Convocation should from thenceforth be Assembled only by the Kings Writ. 2dly. That it should make no Canons, or Constitutions, but by Virtue of the Kings Licence, first given them, so to do. [Page] 3dly. That having agreed on any Canons or Constitutions, they should yet neither Publish nor Execute them, without the Kings Confirmation of them: Nor, 4thly; By his Authority, Execute any, but with these Limitations; That they be neither against the Kings Prerogative; nor against any Common, or Statute Law; nor, finally, in any other respect, contrary to the Customs of the Realm.

This Act being thus pass'd,§ 4. continued in force all the time of King Henry the VIII. and his Son King Edward the VI. Queen1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 8. Mary succeeding, and rescinding whatsoever her Father, or Brother had done, in prejudice of the Romish Church, abolish'd, among Others, this Act also. But her Reign ending within a few Years after; One of the first things done, by her Sister Queen Elizabeth, was to Revive such Laws, made by those two Kings, as were thought Necessary for the Reformation of the Church; and so this Statute was brought again in Force.1 Eliz. c. 1.

The Title of the Act by which this Statute was revived,§ 5. and the other Authorities therein express'd [Page] were again Annex'd to the Crown, 1 Eliz. c. 1. is this; ‘An Act restoring to the Crown the antient Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual,’ &c. And that taken from the Words of the Act its self; wherein the design of this Statute is declared to be, ‘for the Restoring of the Rights,Ib Sect. 1. & 2. Jurisdictions, and Preheminencies, appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm:’ Which I observe in answer to the Peevish cavils of a late Author against me on this Account: Municip. Eccles. p. 108. 176. See below. §. 39. And in another place; ‘To the Imperial Crown of this Realm, of Right belonging and appertaining.’ And from which it is, I suppose, obvious to conclude, that in the Opinion of that Parliament, such an Authority over our Convocations, as is before shewn to have been Establis'd by the 25 H. VIII. c. 19. and was hereby again vested in the Crown; was not either by that, or this, Statute, first given to our Kings, but only Restored to them, as a part of their Royal Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical; and which did always, of right, belong and appertain to them.

The Rights of the Crown being thus once more,§ 6 by Law, Restored to it; [Page] to secure them the better against any New Encroachments for the time to come,The Oath of Supremacy. it seem'd good to this Parliament (after the Example of those of King Henry the VIII.)28. H. VIII. c. 10. and 35. H. VIII. c. 1. that an Oath should be framed, in Recognition of the Supremacy here declared to belong to our Royal Sovereigns; and be enjoyn'd to be taken by all Officers and Ministers Ecclesiastical and Temporal; as in the Act may more fully be seen. ‘In this Oath, we solemnly testify and declare in our Conscience, that the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual, or Ecclesiastical things, or Causes, as Temporal.—And we do promise, that, to our Power, we will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences, and Authorities, granted, or belonging, to the Kings and Queens of this Kingdom; or United, and Annex'd, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm.’ Now this Oath being design'd, as both the Subject of it shews, and1 Eliz c. 1, Sect. 7. the Words of the Act it self, expressly declare, [Page] to be for the better Observation and Maintenance of that Statute; it must follow, that the Supremacy which we there Testify in our Conscience to belong to our Princes, must be Interpreted by what that Act has United and Annex'd to the Crown; and so comprehend All that Authority of the King over his Convocation, which in the 25th. H. VIII was expressly Restored to our Princes; and which being again, by the Repeal of that Act, recovered from them, was by this present Statute, once more, Re-setled in the Crown, as it had been before.

How those, who now appear so Zealous in Opposition to this Authority, and have probably more than Once,Which all Persons in H. Orders, are, at their Ordination, obliged to do. solemnly taken this Oath, will acquit themselves either before God, or the World, of a manifest Violation of it, by their present Behaviour, is past my skill to Comprehend: Unless, because some part of that Oath is now laid aside, they should chance to think, that therefore the whole Obligation of it is ceased, even to those who have taken it in its former Integrity. But indeed [Page] should we allow that there were some weight in this; yet since the Laws made in Defence of the Kings Supremacy, are still the same they ever were; our Recognition of it must be look'd upon to be the same too: And in renouncing all Forreign Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical, See 1 of W. & M. c. 8. which We still do; we must be accounted as Effectually to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy, according to the legal Notion of it, as when we the most fully declared our Assent to it; tho' it should be granted, that we do not now so expressly Oblige our selves to the Defence of it, as we were heretofore wont to do.

And this I say with particular Respect to the present State of this Oath; for otherwise, as to what concerns Us of the Clergy, it cannot be doubted but that Our Obligation, as to the Substance of it, is still the same it ever was: The Declaratory part of this Oath being what we in Terms subscribe to, 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. [Page] 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, 1. Eliz. c. 1. 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,—From the 1st of Eliz to the 1st of W. and M. above 130 Years. for so long a time, should now become so Detestable in it self, and so Destructive [Page] 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, §. 7. and the Passing of this Act, The Nine and Thirty Articles. 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 In the Latin Article it is Supreme. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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, §. 8. 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. See p. 10.

That the Author of the late Treatise, Municip. Eccles. pag. 119. not so much againt my Book, as against our Laws, and Government, must haveEspecially if Graduated in the University too. 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, See Can. 36. or Priest, without doing of it: Nor being in Orders, can [Page] 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,Ibid. 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 [Page] 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 of these Articles, is Great, and Unavoidable. To affirm them, in any part, to be Superstitious, or Erroneous (whether he who does it be found out or no) is by the Canons of our Church, Can. v. Excommunication ipso facto. And if the Offender be discover'd, and fortunes to be a Clergy-Man, he is by the Statute Law of the Realm to be convented before his Bishop for it;13 Eliz. c. 12. and if he does not presently Revoke his Error, is, in the First Instance, to be Deprived of All his Ecclesiastical Promotions; and, in the Second, loses them without more ado.

This is the Law both of the Church, and of the State, in the present Case: And with what Conscience any Clergy-Man, beneficed in such a Church, can excuse himself for flying with so much Virulence in the Face both of these Laws, and of these Canons; I shall leave it to any One, who has any [Page] Conscience himself, though never so much prejudiced against the King's Supremacy, to consider.

To the Articles of Religion, §. 9. set forth by Queen Elizabeth, Of the Canons of King James the First. let us add the next authentick Evidence of our Church's Sense, in this particular, the Canons and Constitutions, made by the Convocation in the first Year of King James I. Of these the very first is design'd to assert the ‘Supreme Authority of the King's Majesty over the Church of England.’ In order whereunto it ordains, ‘That All Persons Ecclesiastical, shall faithfully keep and observe, and, as much as in them lieth, shall cause to be observed, and kept of Others, All, and Singular Laws and Statutes, made for Restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom, the antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical.’ Which last words being the very Title of the Act of the First of Queen Elizabeth, we must conclude the meaning of the Canon to be this; That they shall faithfully Observe the Laws referred to in that Statute, and do what in them lies, to cause All Others to Observe the same. Seeing then that Act of the 25 H. 8. c. 19. is [Page] One of those which is there expresly Revived, it will follow, that it expresly comes within the Words of this Canon; and that the Powers therein annexed to the Crown over the Convocation, are hereby approv'd and allow'd of, as part of that Antient Jurisdiction which always, of Right, belong'd to our Kings over the Estate Ecclesiastical.

But the next Canon is more express, and will come more fully up to our present purpose. Its design is to ‘Restrain the Impugners of the King's Supremacy over the Church of England:’ And thus it runs, in our English Version of it.Comp. Munic. Eccles. pag. 165. ‘Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the King's Majesty hath not the same Authority, in Causes Ecclesiastical, that the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church; Or impeach any part of the Regal Supremacy in the said Causes, Restored to the Crown, and by the Laws of this Realm therein Established, let him be Excommunicated ipso facto, and not Restored but only by the Archbishop, after his Repentance, and Publick Revocation of those his Wicked Errors.’

[Page] It is plain by comparing of these two Canons together, that the design of the Convocation was, in the First, to Declare, and Assert the King's Supremacy, and to oblige the Clergy to a strict, and diligent Observance of it: By the Second, to Restrain all sorts of Persons, from denying, or otherwise endeavouring to hurt, or extenuate, the Legal Notion of it. And two things there are which will deserve to be taken notice of in this Second Canon; First, What that Supremacy is which our Convocation was so careful to Assert, and Defend? And Secondly, What it is to Impugn this Supremacy, within the meaning of this Canon?

First, As for the former of these, the Supremacy here meant; two Rules there are delivered by this Canon, whereby we may come to a Right Understanding of it. First, It is that Authority over the Estate Ecclesiastical, which by the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth, and King Edward the Sixth, was Restored, and by the Act of Queen Elizabeth Confirm'd, as of Right belonging, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And, Secondly: It is such a Power, in matters of Religion, [Page] as the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church. And from which, by the way, it may be Observed, what good Reason I had to enquire into the Authority of the Christian Emperors in these Cases; Municip. Eccles. chap. x. p. 126. and to argue from thence in behalf of that Power which our Church ascribes to our Own Princes, on the like Occasions; How much soever some Men may slight such Proofs, as being sensible that they are not to be Answer'd.

Secondly, To impugn this Supremacy, within the meaning of this Canon; is either, first, to deny Altogether, this Authority; and affirm, that the King either has not, or ought not to have, any such Power: Or it is, secondly, By any other means to Impeach (or, as the Latin Canon has it more plainly) to Extenuate, or Hurt this Supremacy: Which, I conceive, is then done when Men Write and Argue against it; when they Censure the Laws for Establishing of it; and Damn the Prince, Pag. 122, 155, 176. so long as he shall continue to Exercise it, according to those Laws.

[Page] But these are not the only Canons which justify what I have written in Defence of the King's Supremacy, and Condemn those who appear against it. The Twelfth is yet more express to my particular Case, and will shew what the Sense of our Church is, concerning those who Abet the, now so much magnified, Opinion, on the other side. ‘Whosoever shall affirm that it is lawful [Cuivis Ministrorum aut Laicorum Ordini, vel Eorum alterutris simul Congregatis;] for any Sort, [Rank, or Degree] of Ministers, or Laics, or for either of them Gathered together; to make Canons, Decrees, or Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastical things, without the King's Authority; and shall submit themselves to be Ruled and Govern'd by them, let them be Excommunicated ipso facto; and not be Restored until they Repent, and publickly Revoke those their Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors.’

For if, in the Opinion of our Church, it be necessary for the Clergy to have Authority from the King to meet on such Occasions; If to say that any Persons, of what Order soever they be, may without his Licence make any [Page] Canons, Decrees or Constitutions Ecclesiastical; nay or but even submit themselves to be govern'd by such as shall be so made, be a Wicked, Anabaptistical, Errour; and for which a Man deserves to be cast out of the Communion of our Church; then it must without all Question be allow'd, that according to the Doctrine Establish'd among Us, the Clergy can neither Meet nor Act, but with the King's Permission: Nor ought we to account those Constitutions of any Authority, which any Persons shall make without his leave; or, as such submit to them; how much soever they may please to cry up their Divine Powers, and Vnalienable Rights, to justify their Irregular, and Anabaptistical Proceedings.

The Sentence of both these last Canons is,§ 10. That they who Offend against them are to be,Excommunication Ipso facto. ipso facto Excommunicated: And concerning which I shall only observe thus much; first, that in such a Case there is no need of any Admonition, Cap. 26. Ext. de Appellat. as where the Judge is to give Sentence; but every One is to take notice of the Law at his Peril, and see that he be not overtaken [Page] by it. And, Secondly; That there is no need of any Sentence to be pronounced, Which the Canon it self has pass'd; and which is by that Means already Promulged upon every One, as soon as he comes within the Obligation of it. In other Cases, a Man may do things worthy of Censure, and yet behave himself so warily in Them, as to escape the Punishment of the Church, for want of a legal Evidence to convict him. But, Excommunicatio Canonis, Ligat etiam Occulta delicta: Where the Canon gives Sentence, there is no escaping; but the Conscience of every Man becomes Obliged by it, as soon as ever he is Sensible that he has done that which was forbidden under the Pain of such an Excommunication.

To these Canons relating to the Kings Supremacy, I might add those which speak of the Authority of our Synods, and there again Expressly provide for the Princes Rights.

Thus Can. 139. the Church affirms the Assembling of Synods, to be by the Kings Authority. In the 140th, she acknowledges the Necessity of his Licence, both for the Making and Ratifying[Page]of her Decrees, in Causes Ecclesiastical. And Can. 141. Censures such as shall, upon this Account, undervalue the Acts of our Synods, in these Words: ‘Whosoever shall affirm that their Proceedings in making of Canons and Constitutions, in Causes Ecclesiastical, by the Kings Authority, as aforesaid, ought to be Despised and Contemned; the same being Ratified and Enjoyn'd, by the said regal Power, Supremacy and Authority; let them be Excommunicated, and not Restored untill they Repent, and publickly Revoke that their wicked Errour.’

But in a Case so plain I shall not need to insist on any more Proofs; and therefore shall content my self to observe, that the Title given by publick Authority to these Canons, is this: ‘Constitutions or Canons Ecclesiastical; by the Bishop of London, President of the Synod for the Province of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the same Province, by the Kings Authority, Treated and Concluded upon: In their Synod, &c.—Afterwards, by the same Royal Majesty, Approved, Ratified and Confirm'd;[Page]and by the Authority of the same, under the Great Seal of England, Promulged, to be diligently observed thro' both Provinces, as well of Canterbury, as York.’ This is the true Title given to these Canons: And was fit to be thus particularly taken notice of, because in our English Book of Canons, which is of most common Use, this Inscription (as well as many of the Canons themselves) is very imperfectly rendred, and may be apt to lead Men into some mistakes concerning these, as well as other Matters. It were easie to make several Observations, to our present Purpose, upon the several Parts of this truly Accurate, and Legal, Title: But I shall chuse rather to express the process of this Convocation, in the Words of an Author, who may perhaps be less liable to Exception;Heylin Ref justified. p. 19. 20. and whose account of it is this: ‘That the Clergy being met in their Convocation, according to the Tenour and Effect of his Majesties Writ, his Majesty was pleased, by Vertue of his Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical, to give and grant unto Them, by his Letters [Page] Patents, dated April 12. and June 25. full, free, and lawful Liberty, Licence, Power and Authority, to Convene, Treat, Debate, Consider, Consult and Agree upon such Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, as they should think necessary, fit, and convenient, for the Honour and Service of Alimighty God, the good and quiet of the Church, and the better Government thereof from time to time &c.—Which being Agreed on by the Clergy, and by them presented to the King, humbly requiring him to give his Royal Assent unto them, according to the Statute made in the 25 of King Henry VIII. and by his Majesties Prerogative and Supreme Authority, in Ecclesiastical Causes, to Ratifie and Confirm the same; His Majesty was graciously pleased to Confirm and Ratifie them by his Letters Patents—straightly commanding, and requiring, all his loving Subjects, diligently to observe, execute and keep the same, &c.—’

And here I shall put an end to my first kind of Proofs, in Defence of that Authority which I have ascribed to our Kings, over the Convocations of the [Page] Clergy of the Church, and Realm, of England. I proceed in the next place more fully to confirm this Authority to be agreeable to the Doctrine of our Church; from the Testimony's of our most learned Divines, who have written upon this Subject, from the beginning of the Reformation, to our Own times.

II.

It has been the Endeavour of some of late who would be thought still to retain a good Affection to the Reform'd Religion, § 11. nevertheless to cast the worst Aspersions they are able,The Testimony of our Clergy in defence of this Supremacy. upon those who were the chief Instruments of God's Providence in the Reformation of it. What their design in this their Procedure is, or how, upon the Principles now set on Foot, to justifie what was heretofore done among us as to this Matter; or indeed, without a Miracle, ever to have had any thing at all done in it, I cannot tell. It being certain that such a Convocation, Municip. Eccles. pag. 55. as they now seem alone to allow of as Canonical, would never have departed from the Way that they were in; or have endured any Proposals tending to such a [Page] Change, as was otherwise happily made among Us. But however since such is their Prejudice, both against the Opinions, and Actions, of our first Reformers, I will so far comply with their unreasonable Humours, as to pass lightly over those Times of Church Servitude, Ib. p. 121. 122. as well as Church Reformation; and come to such Authorities, as, I suppose, they will not have the Confidence to except against.§ 12.

To pass by then the Opinion of the Convocation, Of K. H. 8. & Q. Mary. which, about 3 Years after the Submission made to King Henry the VIII. set out the first Doctrinal Treatise that led the Way to the Discovery,Institution of a Christian Man: Anno. 1537. See the Convocations Address to the King; subscribed by both Houses. and Renuntiation, of the Popish Errors. What shall we say to the Publick Declaration made by King Henry himself against the Council of Mantua; and in which He cannot be supposed to have Spoken any thing but what, he thought, carry'd its Own Evidence along with it? Regis▪ senatus, populi (que) Angliae sententia de Concilio &c. Witebergae, Anno 1537. A. 5. ‘In times past, says He, All Councils were appointed by the Authority, Consent and Commandment, of the Emperours, [Page] Kings and Princes. Why now taketh the Bishop of Rome this upon him? Ib. B. 5. Wherefore we think it best that every Prince call a Council Provincial, and every Prince to Redress his Own Realm.’

And this he Spake not of his own Head,Bishop Burnet. Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. App. p. 155. 156. but with the Advice of his Bishops and Clergy; of the former of which, all but two, subscribed to the Instrument which was presented to him upon this Occasion. And when notwithstanding this, he was again Sollicited by the Emperour, and some other Princes, the Year after, either himself to come, or to send his Ambassadors to it;Regis Angl. Epistola de Synod. Vincentina. Vitebergae Anno. 1539. He again renew'd his former Protestation, and made again the same Exceptions against it.

Nor in this did he do any more, than some even of his Popish Bishops had before approved; and that on such Occasions, wherein it cannot be pretended that any Force was laid upon them.Munucip. Eccles. Pref. I shall in proof of this, alledge only the Letter of Tonstal and Stokesly to Cardinal Poole; Fox M [...]rt. 2 Vol. 347. in which the Authority of the Christian Prince, over the Convocations of his Clergy, is fully asserted; and proved from the [Page] like Instances of the Antient Kings and Emperours, that I have made use of to the same purpose. And tho' Queen Mary in her Zeal to the Papal Interest, repealed whatever Acts had been pass'd by her Father and Brother against it, and this of the Submission of the Clergy among the Rest; yet she did not therefore give up the Power over her Synods; but still continued it, according to the Substance of that Statute: As is evident from her Calling and Dissolving, Fox Ibid. 3 Vol. p. 19. 29. not only the first Convocation of her Reign, but of that which was held two Years after; and to Assemble which Cardinal Pool himself had her Licence; Strype. Hist. of A. B. Cranmer. p. 368. as he also had to make such Canons, as should be thought needful, in it.

QVEEN ELIZABETH.

But I will not tarry any longer in these Times,§ 13. but pass forward to that of the next Reign; in which the Reformation was both more regularly carry'd on, and at last brought to the State in which it continues at this Day.

[Page] Queen Mary having,The Parliament. as I observed, abolish'd whatever Laws had been made in the two preceding Reigns in Derogation to the Papal Vsurpations; the first Thing done by Queen Elizabeth was, to set the Crown again upon its antient Foundation; and to Restore it to that Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical, which of right belong'd to it. This was the Work of the very first Act that pass'd in her Reign; and by Vertue whereof the Statute made 25th Henry the VIII. c. 19. to Ratifie the Submission of the Clergy, was brought again in Force.

I have before observed what care was taken by this Parliament to secure these Rights of the Crown, The Queen by an Oath then Establish'd, under the Title of the Oath of Supremacy. I must now add, that the more to oblige the Clergy to a due Observance of them, the Queen her self, this same Year, set out her Injunctions; and in the very first Place took care, of her Supremacy in them. For thus the Injunctions begin:Sparrow's Collect. p. 67. ‘That all Deans, Archdeacons, Parsons, Vicars, and all other Ecclesiastical Persons, shall faithfully keep and observe; and, as [Page]far as in Them may lie, shall cause to be observed and kept of Other, all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the Restoring of the Crown, the Antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical.’ And that this Power over the Convocation was one Branch of it, the Revival of the Law of King Henry the VIII. relating to it, which was made the same Year, and in that very Act whose Title the Injunction transcribes,1. Eliz. c. 1. is a Proof not to be gain-said.

It is evident then that this Queen, § 14. as well as her Parliament, looked upon this Power to be not only no Vsurpation upon the Churches Priviledges, but to be a part of that Jurisdiction which had always of Right belong'd to the Crown; and was Vsurp'd from it in the Times of Popery. All the Bishops together. And so, in the next place, did her Bishops too. For however being not yet assembled in Convocation, Bishop Burnet Hist of the Reform. 2 Vol. Append. p. 365. 366. they could not so Authoritatively settle the Articles of Religion as shortly after they did; yet being met together, they agreed upon certain Articles to be sent to their Clergy, and by them publish'd to the People, in the mean time, [Page] till a Convocation should be call'd, to consider farther of this Matter. In the 7th of these their Articles they treat of the Power of the Civil Magistrate: And therein require their Clergy ‘to acknowledge the Queens Majesties Prerogative, and Superiority of Government, of all Estates, as well Ecclesiastical as Temperal,—to be Agreeable to God's Word; and of Right to appertain to her Highness, in such sort as in the late Act of Parliament is express'd; 1 Eliz. c. 1. and Sithence by her Majesties Injunctions, Declared and Expounded.’

It would be needless to observe that the Act of Parliament here referr'd to is that of the same Year, made for the Restoring the Crown to its Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical; and by which the so often mention'd Act of King Henry the VIII. was expresly Revived. As for the Queen's Injunctions, I have already shewn that where they Treat of this Matter the most Favourably, they nevertheless assert the same Power to the Queen that King Henry the VIII.Sparrows Collect. pag. 83. and King Edward the VI. challenged, and used: And what that was, in the particular [Page] under Debate, is not doubted of, or deny'd by those,See Municip. Eccles. p. 107. who the most oppose Us in the present Vindication of it.

So that here then we have in our first Entry upon this Reign; the Queen, the Parliament, and the Bishops, All approving of, and confirming this Authority. And so they continued, all her Time, to do: There being hardly any Controversy either more largely Debated, or more accurately Handled, than this of the Royal Supremacy; against which our Adversaries, on both sides, appear'd with all their Skill, and were as effectually Answer'd, by the Greatest, and most Learned, of our Church.

Among these,§ 15. as there was no one higher in Dignity,A. B. Whitgift. so neither was there any more Eminent both for his Abilities, and good Affections to the Church of England, than Arch-Bishop Whitgift: And whose Controversy with the Puritans, is one of the most learned, and judicious Works, Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, &c. of those Days. In this, the xxth Tract, is wholly spent in the defence of the Princes Right in Ecclesiastical Matters: Wherein having charged his Adversaries with holding the Popish[Page]Opinions, and even using their very Arguments; He tells them, Pag. 698, 699. ‘That the continual Practice of the Christian Churches, (in the time of Christian Magistrates) before the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome, was, to give Christian Princes Supreme Authority in making Ecclesiastical Orders, and Laws; yea, and which is more, in Deciding of Matters of Religion, even in the Chief and Principle Points.’ This he proves by several Instances; and then concludes in these very Words, ‘whereby it appeareth, that the chief Authority in—Councils, was given to the Emperour, and that He was esteem'd as the chief Judge.’

In his next Division he shews,Ib. p. 700. ‘that the learned and antient Fathers, have committed the Matters of Controversy to Emperours. And then adds, The Practice therefore of the Authority of Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters, even in Determining and Judging Controversies in Religion, you might have learnt by these Examples in Ambrose time.’ Whose Authority the Municip. Eccles. also, brings against it; p. 163, 164.

[Page] Against this T. C. then objected,Ib. pag. 701. as some others (from their Pattern) do now, the disability of Princes to Decree of what pertains to the Church. See Municip. Eccles. p. 173. very Foolishlyly, as well as Disrespectful, as to this Matter. The Archbishop replies: ‘That the Deb [...]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; Pag. 702. 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 [Page] 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,§. 16. and of the Church's Power.Archbishop Bancroft. 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. See the Survey, &c. chap. xxii, xxiii. ‘No Civil Magistrate hath Pre-eminence (by Ordinary Authority) to determine Church Causes. No Chief Magistrate, in Councils, or Assemblies for Church Matters, can [Page]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.Page 259. 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: Page 267. And thus He sets down the Puritane Hypothesis, from their Own Stating of [Page]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, P. 269. 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 [Page] they differ from them in the Point before us. But, indeed, it is clear, that if there be any Difference at all between them,Municip. Eccle. p. 123, 124. 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, §. 17. 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,Bishop Jewell. our Learn'd Jewell, he thus declares to us the Right of the Prince, Jewell Def. of the Apolog. p. 582. 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, Ibid. p. 592. the Emperor alone [Page] appointed the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and call'd the Councils of the Bishops together.’

‘As for Right of Place, Pag. 558. and Voice in Council, it pertaineth no less to the Prince, Ibid. p. 600. 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,Pag. 597. 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, Ibid. p. 604. 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,Pag. 602. as well Ecclesiastical, as Temporal, the Emperor was Judge over All. Whatsoever the Council had determined, without the Emperors Consent,Ibid. p. 558. it had no force.—Theodosius, at the desire of the Bishops, Confirm'd the Council of Ephesus.’

[Page]So high an Erastian was this Good Old Bishop; §. 18. and so freely has he Sacrificed all the Rights of the Church to the Will of the Prince. Municip. Eccles. Pref. and pag. 7. Nor has Bishop Bilson Bishop Bilson. come at all behind him: The Second Part of whose Book, Entituled, The true Difference between Christian Subjection, and Vnchristian Rebellion. 4o. 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 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 [Page] 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,Pag. 192, to 198.—Ibid. p. 200, 249. 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,§. 19. let us see what those of an Inferior Order, have written in this Case: And for these [Page] 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,Dean Nowell. 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,Dean Nowell's Reproof of Mr. Dorman's Book, Entituled, A Proof, &c. 4o. Lond. 1565. Part Second. 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 [Page] have been fully answer'd, before-hand, in that Book. Against T. C. before: §. 15. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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;Comp. pag 51, 68, 257, 263. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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, in behalf of the Prince, by this Great Champion of our Church, in his accurate, and solid Treatise upon the same Subject.

Such was the Opinion of Dean Nowell;§. 20. nor does Mr. Hooker come at all behind him. Mr. Hooker. ‘The Antient Imperial Law, says he, forbiddeth such Assemblies as the Emperor's Authority did not cause to be made.Eccles. Polit. p. 457. Before Emperors became Christians, the Church had never any General Synod; their greatest Meetings consisting of Bishops, and Others the gravest in Each Province. As for the Civil Governor's Authority, it suffered them only as things not Regarded, or not accounted of, at such times as it did suffer them. So that what Right a Christian King hath, as touching Assemblies of that kind, we [Page] are not Able to judge till we come to later Times, when Religion had won the Hearts of the Higher Powers. Constantine was not only the First that ever did Call any General Council together, but even the first that devised the Calling of them, for Consultation about the Business of God. After He had Once given the Example, his Successors, a long time, follow'd the same.’

‘Touching that Supremacy of Power, Pag 459. which our Kings have in the Case of making Laws, it resteth principally in the Strength of a Negative Voice, which not to give them, were to deny them that Without which they were Kings only by a meer Title, and not in Exercise of Dominion.’

‘If it be demanded by what Right, from Constantine downwards, the Christian Emperors did so far intermeddle in the Church's Affairs; either we must herein condemn them, as being over-presumptuously bold; or else Judge that by a Law which is termed Regia, that is to say, Royal, the People having derived unto their Emperors their whole Power for making Laws, what matter soever they did concern; As Imperial Dignity endow'd them with [Page] competent Authority and Power, to make Laws for Religion; so they were thought by Christianity to Vse their Power, being Christians, unto the Benefit of the Church of Christ. Was there any Christian Bishop in the World which did then judge this Repugnant unto that Dutiful Subjection which Christians owe to the Pastors of their Souls?’

‘Wherefore of them which in this Point attribute most to the Clergy, Page 468. I would demand, What Evidence there is whereby it may clearly be shew'd, that in Antient Kingdoms Christian, any Canon, devised by the Clergy alone in their Synods, whether Provincial, National, or General, hath, by meer force of their Agreement, taken place as a Law; making all Men constrainable to be Obedient thereunto, without any Other Approbation from the King, before, or afterwards, Required in that behalf.’

And this shall suffice for the Reign of this Great, and Wise Queen. I shall make no Apology for taking these last Quotations out of that part of Mr. Hooker's Works, which are not of Equal Authority with the Books publish'd by himself in his Life time: [Page] There being so much of Mr. Hooker's Stile, and Reason in them, as makes me undoubtedly conclude, that, as they are, they proceeded from Him. And those who are supposed to have interpolated these Books, were never charged with turning things to the Advantage of Sovereign Authority. So that if any Changes, or Omissions, should have happened in this Place, it must have been to the Disadvantage, not to the Interest, of the Cause before Us. But I shall be content to take his Opinion as it still is left to Us; and is sufficiently contrary to that wild Notion of Chruch Power, which is now again set on foot, tho' by another sort of Men, in Pretence at least, among us.

KING JAMES I.

We have before seen how the Oath of Supremacy, §. 21. fram'd in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, set the Pens of those of that Age, on Work, in discussing the Authority of the Christian Prince, in Causes, and over Persons, Ecclesiastical. It was not very long after the coming of King James into England, before another Oath, again [Page] Revived the same Controversy; and set the most Learned Men of the Church of Rome, upon a fresh Opposition of the Royal Authority.

Among those who,King James. on our side, appeared in Defence of it, as no one began sooner, so is there none that ought to be rather taken notice of by Us, than the King himself; who with Good Learning, as well as with a Stile becoming a Prince, solemnly asserted his own Royal Rights, and Jurisdiction.

And, first, In his Apology for the Oath of Allegeance, we have his Opinion plainly deliver'd, in several Points relating to our present Disquisition. ‘Answerably to the Fathers,The King's Works, p. 255. spake the Councils in their Decrees: As the Council of Arles, submitting the whole Council to the Emperour in these Words: These things we have Decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour; beseeching his Clemency, that if we have done less than we ought, it may be supplied by his Wisdom; if any thing otherwise than Reason requireth, it may be Corrected by his Judgment; if any thing be found Fault with by Us, [Page] with Reason, it may be Perfected, by his Aid, with Gods favourable Assistance.’

‘But why should I speak of Charles the Great, to whom not One Council, but Six several Councils, Frankford, Arles, Tours, Chalons, Mentz and Rhemes, did wholly Submit themselves: And not rather speak of all the General Councils, that of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Calcedon, and the four others commonly so Reputed, which did submit themselves to the Emperours Wisdom and Piety in all things? Insomuch as that of Ephesus repeated it four several times, That they were Summon'd by the Emperour's Oracle, beck, charge, and command; and betook themselves to his Godliness, beseeching him that the Decrees made against Nestorius, and his Followers, might, by his Power, have their full Force and Validitie.’

And in his Defence of the Right of Kings,Ib p. 427. He thus confirms the same Principles. ‘It is willingly granted that Emperours never challenged, never arrogated, to be Sovereign Judges in Controversies of Doctrine and Faith. Nevertheless it is clearer than the Suns [Page] light at high Noon, that for Moderation at Synods, for Determinations and Orders establish'd in Councils; and for the Discipline of the Church, they have made a good, and full Use of their Imperial Authority. The first Council held at Constantinople, bears this Title, or Inscription; The Dedication of the Holy Synod to the most Religious Emperour Theodsius the Great, to whose Will and Pleasure, they have Submitted these Canons, by them address'd, and establish'd in Council: And there also they beseech the Emperour to Confirm and Approve, the said Canons. The like hath been done by the Council of Trullo, by whom the Canons of the fifth and sixth Councils, were put forth and Publish'd. This was not done because Emperours took upon them to be Infallible Judges of Doctrine, but only that Emperours might see and judge whether Bishops (who feel the Prick of Ambition, as other Men do) did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations, but most of all in their Determinations, to undermine the Emperours Authority; to disturb the Tranquility of the Common-wealth; [Page] 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, § 22. in this particular;Bp. Andrews. 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 [Page] of Antiquity, defends, is to this Effect:Tort. Torti. p. 177. ‘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; Comp. Municip. Eccles. p. 14. 15. and which the Bishops of those Times willingly acknowledged of Right to belong to them.’

And 1st. See also. p. 174. 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 [Page]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, §. 23. for holding a Generally Assembly at Aberdeen, See Spotswood, lib. vii. p. 486. 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.

[Page] 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, Calderwood Hist. p. 543. was this: ‘⸪ Let the Author of the Municip. Eccles. Answer this Question better, if he can. 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 [Page] Hampton-Court, and Commanded the Scotch Ministers to be present at their Sermons.

The third of these turns fell upon our learned Andrews, §. 24. 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:Sermons. pag. 105. ‘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 [Page] 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: Pag. 106. Comp. Municip. Eccles. p. 100. 101. ‘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,Pag. 107. Comp. Municip. Eccles. p. 131, 132, &c. 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 [Page] 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, Pag 108. Comp. Municip. Eccles p. 126, 135, &c. he thus Speaks of that of Nice. At Nice there were together 318 Bishops, the Lights of the whole World, the chiefest and choicest Men for Holiness, Learning, Vertue, and Valour, that the Christian Religion ever had, before or since.—Did any of them refuse to come being called by Him, (Constantine) as not called aright? Or coming, was there any One of them that did Protest against it;Pag. 109. 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 [Page] 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:Pag. 110. Comp. Municip. Eccles. p. 6. Those Congregations may be called thus; but National or Provincial, such as Ours, How? Even so too,Ib. p. 159. 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, Ib. p. 110. 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 [Page] 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,Ib p. 111. Comp. Municip Eccles. p. 168. 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,Comp. Municip. Eccles. Chapt. vi. & vii. 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,Ib. p. 112. 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 [Page] 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,Ib. p. 113. 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,See Municip. Eccles. p. 115. they are a Persecuted Church, as that then was; without a Moses, without a Constantine.’

[Page] 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. Ib. p. 113. ‘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.’

[Page] 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,§ 25. 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 [Page] And when it shall be consider'd how little a while it was, before this, that that Convocation met,Anno 1603. 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 [Page] Us;) Mr. Mason; and that out of a Work which he wrote expresly in Vindication of the Reformed Church, and Ministry of England.

Champanaeus,§. 26. his Adversary, had thus far allow'd of the Authority of the Christian Prince in Matters of Religion;Mr. Mason. ‘That He might make Laws in Defence of the true Religion (which he was to learn from the Clergy) and might,De Ministerio Anglic. lib. 3. c. 3. pag. 271. 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, Page 272. ‘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,Ibid. p. 273. 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.’

[Page] Upon this Foundation he proceeds, at large, to assert these following Points. ‘1. That it is the Prince's business to Call Councils,Pag. 291, 292,—294. 298. and to appoint the Time,Comp. Munic. Eccles. pag. 108, 109. 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.Ibid. 292, 300. 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;Ib. p. 292, 298. 6. ‘The Power to Preside in Synods, and to Govern their Acts.—295. 7. To Appoint Judges in Ecclesiastical Matters, and over Ecclesiastical Persons.—297. 8. To Judge between the Bishops, if they shall happen to differ, even in Matters of Faith.—289. 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, [Page] 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; §. 27. 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, [Page] 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,Municip. Eccles. p. 117. 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, §. 28. that upon the breaking out of some Disturbances,King Charles I. 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.

[Page] The Words of this Declaration are these: Book of Articles, Printed Anno 1628. ‘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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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, Rolles Rep. Hill. 14. Jac. in Cam. Scacc. Colt vers. Glover. p. 454, &c. 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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. §. 29. 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 [Page] 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,Archbishop Laud. 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,Municip. Eccles. pag. 117. 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 [Page] 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;§. 30. (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. Sparrow's Collect. P. 345. 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.’

[Page] ‘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 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 ofTherefore not of ours only; nor by the Stat. of H. 8. Municip Eccles. all Christian Kings, within their Own Realms and Territories. And when, in the first Times of Christ's Church, Prelates used this Power, 'twas therefore only,Therefore not by a Divine, Unalienable Right which they had so to do. 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:) [Page] 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, From the Writs and Commission of King Ch. 1. 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,Hist. of A B. Laud, p. 80, 81, 154, 155, 282. 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.

[Page] To the Judgment of this Archbishop,§. 31. and the Convocation held by him, Archbishop Bramhall. 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,See his W [...]rks, Page 496. 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, Municip. Eccles. p. 116. for [Page] 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, Page 494. 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 [Page] their Great Councils of Old, and their Convocations of latter Times.’

‘But,P. 497, 498. 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,Comp. Municip. Eccles. p. 123, 124. 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 [Page] the Papists with it, in his Writings against them.See his Works Tom. 1. pag. 88. 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; Comp p. 233. Ib. 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, § 32. as to these Matters.

‘Christian Emperours, Bishop Davenant. says Bishop Davenant, heretofore Called Councils.—As in Civil Causes, Determin. qu. xix. p. 95. Princes advise with their Learned in the Law, so in [Page] 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 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, De doub. controv. par. i. p. 73. 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,Ib. p. 76. 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 [Page] 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; Ib. p. 93. 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,§ 33. says Dr. Heylin,Dr. Heylin. in setling the Supremacy in the Royal Crown.—The like Authority was exercised,Historic & Misc. tracts fol. Lond. 1681. Pag. 24. 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; Comp. Municip. Eccles. Pref. &. p. 107, 108, 136, &c. ‘so that when the Supremacy was recognized by the Clergy, in their Convocation, to King Henry [Page] 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, Ib. numb. vi. 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 [Page] 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.See the same tract: p. 7, 23, 24, 39, 40▪ 41, &c. more to the same Effect. 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, [Page] 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,§ 34. 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.

[Page] 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 ourMunicip. Eccles. p. 107. Saint Henry the VIII. and continued by all hisIb. p. 114▪ 122. &c. 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,Ib. p. 119. 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, [Page] and that Convocation, had this very Business of the King's Supremacy, 13 Car. 2. cap. xii. An Act for Explanation of the 17 Car. 1. c. xi. Entituled, An Act for Repeal of a Branch of a Statute 1 Eliz. c. i. concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical. and the Churches Power, under their Consideration: And an Act was made for the better Execution of the One, but still so 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; Ibid. Pref. and p. 122. And, by so doing, sign'd the Theta upon her Rights, Liberties, and Authorities? On the contrary, they continue still in force; and [Page] 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,Ibid. Pref. p. 1, 2. 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, Ibid. p. 119. 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, §▪ 35. 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 [Page] 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,Bp. Taylour. 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; Book iii. ch. 3. Rule 4. and Asserted it so highly, as to say,Ib. §. 7, 8, 9. ‘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.’

[Page] 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; Ib. Rule 8. 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[Page]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. [Page] —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 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 [Page] 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,§. 36. Chap. 1. he affirms, Bp Parker. ‘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, Ibid. p. 43. 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 [Page] denounced the Threatnings annexed to Them.’

‘But when Christianity was become the Imperial Religion, Ib. p. 48. 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, Ib. p. 49. 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,Ib. p. 50, 51. 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, Ib. p. 53. ‘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, Ib. p. 56. ‘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 [Page] 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;The Case of the Church of England stated. 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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,§ 37. shall be our Excellent Dr. Falkner; Dr. Falkner. who in his Discourse of Christian Loyalty,Christian Loyalty. p. 42. 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,Ib. pag. 44. and manifest from the Holy Scriptures themselves, or the Declarations of approved [Page]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 a Right to give its Establishment to such Constitutions; and the Ecclesiastical Officers, as Subjects, are bound to apply Themselves thereto, for the Obtaining of it.’

‘The calling of Councils, Ib. pag 46. so far as is needful for the Preservation of the Peace [Page] and Order of the Church, may be perform'd, as the former, by Ecclesiastical Officers, where the Civil disowneth the Church. But this being no particular Exercise of the Power of the Keys, but only of a general Authority, doth peculiarly belong to the Prince, or Supreme Governour, if he will make use thereof.—The antient Right, and Exercise of the Authority of Kings, in Summoning Provincial, or National Councils, is sufficiently observed, and asserted, by P. de Marca.’

But indeed he himself in his 5th Chapter, abundantly Demonstrates both that, and all the rest that is Contended for, in the present Dispute. And the Heads of which are such as these: ‘That the antient Emperours had Power to Call Councils:’ p. 156, 158, 159, 161, 165, 170: To be present at Them: p. 157, 160. And by Themselves, or their Deputies, to Preside in Them: p. 162, 167, 170. To direct them what they should Consult about: p. 157, 163, 170. To appoint the Time, and Place, of their Meeting: p. 166, 170. To keep the Bishops from leaving the Council, till all should be Finish'd for which it was Called: p. 163. To Confirm what they do aright: p. 157, 160, 161, 164, 169, 170. [Page] To Rescind what they do amiss: p. 163. To Suspend their Acts from taking Effect, till they should give way to it: p. 165. These are the Instances which may be observed, in that Chapter, of the Jurisdiction and Authority, which the antient Emperours Exercised over their Synods heretofore: And by which we are to Expound,Can. 2. as our Church has taught Us, the Supremacy of our Own Princes in the like Cases. I shall conclude what I have to observe from this Learned Writer, with a Remark, which I wish some Men would be perswaded a little more seriously to Consider:Comp. Munic. Eccles. Pref. p. 204. ‘Some things which, at first Sight, may seem an Abatement of the Authority of the Church, is rather such a way of Regulating the Exercise of its Power, as, under Religious Princes, is for the Churches Advantage. Of this Nature I conceive that Constitution [of the 25 H. VIII.] that No new Canons shall be Enacted, Promulged, or Executed, without the Royal Assent, and Licence, to Enact, Promulge, and Execute the same. For hereby the Cergy give such Security to the King, against all jealousies of Renew'd Ecclesiastical Usurpations, that thereupon the Church may, under the Kings Favour, and with the Assurance of greater Safety [Page]and Protection, practise upon its Establish'd Constitutions; which are so Good, that we have great Reason to bless God for them. And hereupon it may also be hoped, that what shall be farther needful, may be Super-added, by the Royal Licence; and become more Effectual to its End, by the Confirmation of that Authority.’

There is yet One Author more, who must not be pass'd by;§ 38. Our Learned, and Accurate Dr. Barrow: Dr. Barrow. And a better than whom I could not have desired, to close up this Collection withall.

In his Treatise of the Vnity of the Church; (a Discourse which would some Men more diligently Read, and more judiciously Consider, they would not talk so loosely as they do, on that Subject:) He gives Us this Account of the State of the Church, in the times Immediately after Christ.

‘Each Church did,See his Works, 1st Vol. p. 311. Seperately, Order its Own Affairs; without Recourse to Others, except for Charitable Advice, or Relief, in Cases of extraordinary Difficulty, or urgent Need.’

‘Each Church was Endow'd with a perfect Liberty,Ib. Comp. p. 211. 216. and a full Authority, without Dependence, or Subordination to Others; to govern its Own Members; to manage its Own Affiairs; to Decide Controversies [Page] and Causes Incident among themselves; without allowing Appeals, or rendring Accounts, to Others.’

‘It is true that the Bishops of several Adjacent Churches, did use to meet upon Emergencies,—to consult, and conclude upon Expedients, for attaining such Ends (as they met for.)If the Author of the Municip. Eccles. thinks this Account, of the Original of Synods, clearer than Mine, he may take it, as an Explanation of my Meaning; and which I see no Cause yet to Retract. Municip. Chap. 1. This probably they did at first in a Free Way, without Rule, according to Occasion, as Prudence Suggested: But afterwards by Confederation, and Consent, these Conventions were formed into Method, and Regulated by certain Orders, establish'd by Consent; whence did arise an Ecclesiastical Unity of Government, within certain Precincts.’

‘Hence every Bishop, Ib. p. 312. or Pastor was conceived to have a double Relation, or Capacity; One towards his Own Flock, another towards the Whole Flock.’

Of Councils, he thus delivers his Opinion.

‘General Councils, Ib, p. 320. are Extraordinary, Arbitrary, Prudential Means, of restoring Truth, Peace, Order, Discipline.—During a long time the Church wanted Them; Afterwards had them but Rarely; and since the Breach between the Oriental, and Western Churches, for many Centuries, there hath been none.’

[Page] ‘The first General Councils, Ib. p 321. Comp. p. 185. (indeed All) were Congregated by Emperours;—their Congregation dependeth on the Permission, and Pleasure, of Secular Powers; and, in all Equity, should do so.’

And in his most Elaborate Treatise of the Popes Supremacy:Ib p. 185. ‘The most Just and Pious Emperours, who did bear greatest Love to the Clergy,—did call them without Scruple: It was deem'd their Right to do it; none did Remonstrate against their Practise.’

The same he shews of National and Provincial Councils, p. 186, &c.

‘To these they Summon'd the Bishops in a Peremptory Manner,Ib. p. 188, 189. and directed both the Time, and Place of their Meeting. The Popes petition'd them to Call [Councils] and sometimes they Prevailed,Ib. and sometimes they did not.’

‘This Power, Ib. p. 191. Comp. 192. upon many just Accounts, peculiarly doth belong to Princes. It suiteth to the Dignity of their State; It appertaineth to their Duty; They are most Able to Discharge it.—They alone can, well, cause the Expences needful for holding Synods, to be Exacted and Defray'd: They alone can Protect Them; can maintain Order, and Peace, in Them; can procure Observance to their Determinations. They alone have a Sword to Restrain, [Page] Resty and Refractory Persons:—To oblige them to Convene; to Conferr Peaceably, to Agree, to Observe what is Setled.’

‘It inseperably doth belong to Sovereigns, Ib. p. 193. in the General Assemblies of their States, to Preside and Moderate Affairs; proposing what they Judge fit to be Consulted, or Debated; stopping what seemeth unfit to be moved; keeping Proceedings within Order and Rule; and steering them to a Good Issue: Checking Disorders and Irregularities, which the Distemper, or Indiscretion, of any Persons,Ib. p. 194. 206. may create in Deliberations or Disputes.’—This therefore he shews the Emperours to have done, in all the first Synods.

‘The Word Presidency hath an Ambiguity:—It may be taken for a Priviledge of Praecedence, Ib. p. 204, 205. or for Authority to Govern things. This latter kind of Presidency, was disposed of by the Emperour, as he saw Reason.’

‘The Power of Enacting, Ib. p. 24. and Dispensing with, Ecclesiastical Laws, touching Exteriour Discipline, did of Old belong to the Emperour: And it was Reasonable that it should.’

‘By many Laws, Ib p 251. and Instances it appeareth, that Appellations have been made to the Emperours in the Greatest Causes.—So the Donatists did Appeal to [Page] 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.§ 39. It would have been a very easie Matter to have added many moreHorn against Fecknam: Bridges against Sanders: Burhill and Tooker mention'd §. 22. Sarravia: Sutcliffe: Whitaker: Abbot Bp. of Salisbury: Reynolds against Hart: Morton Bp. of Durham against Bellarmine: Carleton Bp. of Chichester: Dr. Ferne. &c. 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,Municip. Eccles. p. 107, 136. 176. 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, Municip. Eccles. p. 177. of the Church of England, for which I ought to Humble my selfe before God, and to make a Satisfaction to Her.

[Page] 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,Can. 1. 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 [Page] that, or upon any Other Act, that has been made in pursuance of it. I fix it upon the Right ofSee Mr. Hooker's Judgment, §. 20 Bishop Andrews, § 34. Convoc. of 1640, §. 30. A. B. Bramhall, Sect. 31, &c. 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 1 Eliz. c. 1. Sect. 1. Laws themselves agree: They speak still of Restoring to the Crown its Antient Rights; and ourCoke v. Rep. Cawdries Case—Id. 4. Inst. p. 325, 326. More's Rep. p. 755. 2. Crook Rep. p. 73. Heylin. Ref. Just. p. 7, 23.—See the Queen's Injunctions; above Sect. 7. Canons of K. James, §. 9. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 is a Party,4 Inst. pag. 340. and the Appeal therefore is to stop at the Vpper [Page]House of Convocation; I see no Reason why this Authority should not be reserved to the King, and I conceive the Law of our Realm does allow of it.

8thly. As for the Dissolving of the Convocation, that is so evidently a part of the Royal Jurisdiction, and has been so fully adjudged to belong to the King; that I do not see what Exceptions can be taken at it. However the Constant Practice of our Convocations, in this matter, is on my Side: And I have herein ascribed no Authority to the Prince, but what our Clergy, for above these Hundred and Fifty Years last past, have constantly submitted to; and, by that Submission alone, have sufficiently Vested in Him.

But if I am not mistaken in Point of Law, §. 40. what is it that deserves so Tragical an Outcry, as this late Author has made against me? Is it, that being a Clergy-Man my self, I appear'd in Defence of the King's Authority over the Clergy; and which, in some Mens Notion, is the same thing as to say, against the Rights of the Church? So indeed the Convocation seem'd to think, in the Case of Dr. Standish, Municip. Eccles. Pref. heretofore; and so Some seem to account it now. But, God be thanked, the Reformed Church of England, never yet thought it any Offence in [Page] her Clergy to stand up for the just Rights of the Prince; nor have I any Apprehension that I shall ever be Condemn'd, upon this account, by any True Members of Her Communion. And for Others, give me leave to ask, only; Am I the First, of Our Order, that have appear'd on this Occasion? Or do I stand Alone in this Cause?

But what then shall we say of all those Learned Bishops, and Clergy-Men, whose Books I have here Quoted to the same Purpose? Nay rather, what shall we say of those whole Convocations, who compiled our Articles, and Canons? And have Obliged us thereby, not only Occasionally to Defend the Kings Supremacy; 1. Can. but to the best of our Wit, Learning, and Knowledge, publickly to Declare, and Confirm it to our Congregations, four times every Year. If this be that for which I ought to be Censured; I am afraid so great a part of our Order will go along with me, as may make it even Scandalous to stay behind: And be number'd among that Little, Noisy, Turbulent Party, that now set themselves up as Judges over Us.

But if both the Law be on my side;§ 41. and it be no improper Enterprize for a Clergy-Man to appear in; What shall [Page] we say, more? Was the Time improper? Did I take an Unseasonable Opportunity of Asserting this Authority?

Nay but this They should have consider'd, who by appearing so Eagerly against the Princes Power over the Convocation, made it absolutely Necessary for some or Other of our Church, to do her Right; and let the World know, that she never Commission'd any of her Members, to broach any such Principles, on her Behalf. That she is content to Act under the Royal Supremacy; and is sensible that it is her Duty so to do. That if some Hot Men, (for ought she knows her Enemies,) will under pretence of asserting such a Power to her, as she has always disclaim'd, endeavour to raise any Jealousies in the Mind of her Defender against her; it is what she cannot help: And she hopes, she shall not be the worse Accounted of, for such Attempts, as she neither approves of, nor knows how to Prevent.

And now,§. 42. there is but One thing more, that can, I think, be Objected against my Undertaking: And I shall lay it down in the Words in which it is Charged upon me.Municip. Eccles Pref. p. 5. Comp. p. 3. For what if the Publick from such a Work (inscribed to the Metropolitan) should be tempted to proceed to further[Page]Resolves against the Powers Hierarchicall? This I confess would be such a use of it, as I should be heartily sorry for; tho' even, in such a Case, I cannot tell whether I should ever the more deserve to be Censured for what I had done. There can nothing be either so well Design'd, or so carefully Perform'd, of which an ill Use may not be made. And if that should be Sufficient to cry down any Undertaking, I do not see how we shall be able to Satisfie our Consciences, in anything we have to do.

But, in Reason, I am sure the Church might have expected to suffer much more by the Letter to the Convocation Man, than by the Answer which I made to it. When Church-Men set up their Divine Rights, in opposition to the Laws of their Country; and upon Visionary Notions, endeavour to lead Men into Discontents against their Governours; it is Natural, not to say Necesiary, for Princes to look to themselves, and consider how to stop those Attempts at the Beginning, which, Experience has shewn them, may Otherwise, in time, grow too strong for Them. It was the Intollerable Insolence, and Vsurpations, of the Roman Church, that made her first Fear'd, then Hated; and, at last, crush'd the [Page] Hierarchic in many Places, to peices. And whatever Party shall think fit to pursue the same Methods, ought, in all Reason, to expect the same Treatment. If Clergy-Men will enjoy the Protection of Princes, it is but Reasonable that they should be Content to acknowledge their Authority. To contend for more Power, than either Christ has left us; or our Calling requires, or the Bishops, and Councils, under the first Christian Emperours, pretended to, or desired; is neither Prudent, nor Justifyable: It is to render the Church suspected by the State; and to set those Powers in Opposition to, which ought mutually to Help, and Support, One-Another.

I have before shewn what Opinion a very Learned Man,See above §. 37. upon this Ground, had of the Act of Submission, now so much railed at, in these Days. He look'd upon it as a Law of great Benefit to the Church, even for this Reason alone, that it freed the Civil Powers from entertaining any more Fears, and Jealousies, of the Clergy. This was a Remark founded upon Good Reason, as well as upon the Experience of those former Miscarriages, which the Clergy had run into, for want of such a Restraint. And I cannot but every Day more and more acknowledge [Page] the Goodness of God towards our Church, in that very thing, for which some Men so Tragically lament the Oppression, and Slavery, of it: Being fully Perswaded that nothing, at this Day, preserves us from Ruin, and Desolation; but that we have not Power, of our selves, to do the Church a Mischief; and the Prince, who sees but too much of our Tempers, is too Gracious to Us, and has too Great a Concern for the Churches Good, to suffer Us to do it.

These are the Advantages which I look upon the Church to derive to her self from this Act. It prevents all Jealousies, which either the Odd Principles, the Violent Tempers, Or the Wicked Designs, of some Men, might justly raise in the Minds of our Governours against us: And frees them from all. Temptation, as well as from all Need, of laying any farther Restraints upon Us. It encourages the Civil Powers to be willing to allow us both Liberty to come Together, and leave to Deliberate, of what may be Profitable to the Church; when ever they shall Judge it to be, in any wise, Needful, or but Proper so to do. And, in the mean while, it hinders us from throwing all into Confusion, in such Times of Faction, and Discontent▪ [Page] of Heats and Animosities, as we are at present in; to the certain Scandal, and Division, of the Church; it may be, to a New Confusion of All things in the State too.

And thus have I deliver'd the Real Sense of my Own Conscience, §. 43. in the Matter before me. I have shewn what my Principles, as to the Kings Supremacy, are; and from Whom I have Learnt them. That the Laws, the Articles, and Canons of our Church, are my Instructors: And all these, as explain'd to me, by the Greatest, and most Eminent of our Profession, both for Character, and Ability, that Our Church has produced ever since the Reformation. All that I desire, in Return, is, That those who now appear so vehemently against me, in this Point, would as freely declare their Sense; and as plainly shew from whom they have Received it. If they can make as fair a Plea to our Church's Patronage, as I have here done, I must then ingenuously Own, I have been Greatly Mistaken. If they cannot, I shall then leave them under this Character; that whatever they may pretend, they must, in Reality, be either of the Conclave, or of the Consistory; and manage this Cause, for the Pope, or [Page] for the Kirk. Whether of these Parties they will fly unto, to me it is indifferent. This I am sure of, that if they are resolved to hold to our Church, in Defiance of Her Doctrine; they must, at least, be confessed to be in a very low Degree of Communion with Her: She having solemnly, by her Canons, excluded them from her Sacraments; and left them no Regular method of returning to the participation of them, but by the Archbishop's, Absolution; and that upon Sincere Repentance for what they have done, and after a Publick Revocation of their present Wicked Errors.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAge vii. Margin, for 39 Can. read 36. p. 9. f. 39. Can. r. 36: p. 68. l. 20. f. Attain'd to, r. Enjoy'd. The literal Errors the Reader will please to Correct.

IN my other Book of the Authority of Christian Princes: p. 382. Blot out line 5. 6, 7, 8. In which I find my self to have been mistaken.

Books Printed for R. Sare, at Grays-Inn-Gate.

[Page]

THE Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods Asserted; With particular Respect to their Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm, and Church of England. Occasioned by a late Pamphlet, Intituled, A Letter to a Convocation-Man, &c. 8o Price 5 S.

A Practical Discourse concerning Swearing 8o. Price 1 s. 6 d.

Also several Sermons upon particular Occasions. All by W. Wake, D. D.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

An appeal to all the true members of the Church of England, in behalf of the King's ecclesiastical supremacy ... by William Wake ...

Wake, William, 1657-1737.

Edition statement

1698

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A66109

ID [STC]

Wing W229

ID [STC]

ESTC R3357

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12310538

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12310538

ID [VID]

59355

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A66109)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59355)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 441:23)

Source

— An appeal to all the true members of the Church of England, in behalf of the King's ecclesiastical supremacy ... by William Wake ..., Wake, William, 1657-1737..

Extent

[9], xxv, [3], 123, [1] p.

Printed for Richard Sare ...,. London :: 1698.. (Errata: p. 123.) (Advertisements: p. [1] at end.) (Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library.) (Marginal notes.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.