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 31] 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 32] 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 33] 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 34] 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 35] 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 36] 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 37] 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 38] 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 39] 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 40] 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 41] 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 40]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. 4^o. Oxford, 1585. is but One continued Discourse in Defence of the Supremacy, and of which it shall suffice to point out some Brief Heads on this Occasion.

‘1. That the Emperors heretofore call'd Councils:’ This he proves; pag. 134, 153, 159, 227, &c.

‘2. That they appointed the Time, and Place of 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 41] 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 44] 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. 4^o. 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 45] 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 46] 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 47] 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 48] 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 49] 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 50] 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 51] 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 52] 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 53] 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 54] 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 55] 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 56] 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 57] 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 58] 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 59] 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 60] 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 61] 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 62] 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 63] 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 64] 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 65] 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 66] 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 67] 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 68] 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 69] 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 70] 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 71] 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 72] 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 73] 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 74] 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 75] 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 76] 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 77] 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 78] 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 79] 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 80] ‘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 81] 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 82] 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 83] 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 84] 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 85] 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 86] 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 87] 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 88] 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 89] 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 90] 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 91] 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 92] 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 93] 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 94] 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 95] 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 96] 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 97] —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 98] 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 99] 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 100] 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 101] 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 102] 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 103] 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 104] 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 105] 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 106] 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 107] 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 108] ‘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 109] 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 110] Constantine: Athanasius, and the AEgyp­tian Bishops, to the same; Priscillianus to Maximus: Idacius to Gratian.—’