DISCOURSE, 306 Wake and Kennett on the inherent right of PREFAT. ministerially under the queen and in her stead, and derived SECT. XXII. their power of ordination, as other civil or military officers derive theirs, from her majesty's signet or broad seal? After writing all this to set the question of the bishops' power to consecrate bishops in a true light, I need make no difficulty to say the same of it, and every other part of their sacerdotal power, what two very learned men, the bishop of Lincoln, and Dr. Kennett dean of Peterborough, say of their power to summon and hold convocations. "The statute of the 25 of Hen. VIII. had not any other influence on the state of these assemblies (the convocation) [as to this matter] than only this; that whereas before the archbishop might, whenever he pleased, without any other direction, by his own proper motion have summoned his clergy to his synod; now he may do it but by the king's writ to warrant him therein; but as for the power of calling them, that is still left to him, as [it was] before; his mandates run in the same form, and by his summons it is, and by no other, that our convocations do assemble at this day." "Should we ever be so unhappy under a Christian magistrates, as to be denied all liberty of these assemblies, though the governors and fathers of the Church should with all their care and interest endeavour to obtain it; should he so far abuse his prerogative, as to turn it not only to the detriment, but to the ruin of all true religion and morality among us, and thereby make it absolutely necessary for something extraordinary to be done to preserve both in such a case of extremity, I have before said, and I still adhere to it, [that] the bishops and pastors of the Church must resolve to hazard all in the discharge of their duty; they must meet, consult, and resolve upon such measure, as, by God's assistance, they shall think their unhappy circumstances to require, and be content to suffer any loss, and to run any danger for so doing." [The passage continues; "For then the prince would only have the name of a Christian, but would act like an infidel; and so having thrown off the care and protection of the Church, it would naturally return to the bishops and pastors to whom Christ committed it, to take upon themselves the care and protection of it."] The State of the Church and : Clergy of England, [in their councils, synods, convocations, conventions, and other public assemblies,] by William Wake, D.D., dean of Exeter, [bishop of Lincoln, in 1705.] London, 1703, ch. i. sect. 20. p. 11. [This work was a reply to Atterbury's Rights, &c., quoted pp. 223, sqq.] g Ibid., ch. iii. § 12. p. 86. the Church to hold synodical assemblies. 307 To this purpose Mr. Dean Kennett, in the Preface to his Ecclesiastical Synods", declares, that one motive of writing it was this: "To assert the nature of the Christian Church, as a society endowed with fundamental rights to preserve its own being; and among these a right for the governors to assemble and agree upon the common measures of faith and unity, as at first independent on the heathen, so even now on the Christian magistrate, when the necessities of desertion and persecution so require." So in p. 98 of the book: "Indeed if an English synod find it necessary to support religion by some new constitutions, and upon the prospect of such necessity desire the prince's leave to provide for it; and the prince long and often denies that leave, with design of letting the Church, being incapable to consult her own preservation: in such a case (which is not ours) let the Church be true to Christ, and to the powers she received from Him. This is the original right which we assert." So in p. 82, saith he, "Therefore for all this act of submission, (Dr. Wake) would not have our princes think, that the convocations of the clergy should depend on their mere arbitrary will, but on the benefit of the Church, and the great occasion of religion. For he says, p. 1453, 'Notwithstanding any thing that has hitherto been said, I shall not doubt to affirm, that whenever the king is in his own conscience convinced, that for the convocation to sit and act [would] be for the glory of God, the benefit of the Church, or otherwise for the public good and welfare of his realm; he is obliged both by the law of reason as a man, by his duty to God as a Christian, and by his duty to his people, as a ruler set over them for their good, to permit, or rather to command his clergy to meet in convocation, and transact what is fit, for any or all these ends, to be done by them.'" So in p. 83 he cites the bishop for saying, when the king doth abuse his trust, ““When the exigences of the Church call for a convocation.... I confess the Church has a right to its sitting; h [Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations in the Church of England, historically stated and justly vindicated from the misrepresentations of Mr. Atterbury, by White Kennett, D.D. 1701. He became dean of Peterborough in 1707.] 1 Preface, p. ix. [The authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted, by William Wake, D.D. London, 1697.] [Wake, ibid., pp. 267, 268, quoted by Kennett, p. 83.] RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. DISCOURSE, 308 T.'s objections obviated by having just notions of the Church; PREFAT. and if circumstances be such as to require their frequent SECT. XXII. sitting, during those circumstances it has a right to their frequent meeting and sitting; and if the prince be sensible of this, and yet will not suffer the clergy to come together; in that case I do acknowledge, that he would abuse the trust that is lodged in him, and deny the Church a benefit which of right it ought to enjoy." So in p. 84 he cites him for saying', that "whenever the civil magistrate shall so far abuse his authority, as to render it necessary for the clergy, by some extraordinary methods, to provide for the Church's welfare, that necessity will warrant their taking of them.'' So in p. 85 he recites from Dr. Atterbury this passage out of the bishop of Sarum's History of the Reformation", "That the extreme of raising the ecclesiastical power too high in the times of popery, had now produced another of depressing it too much; so seldom is the counterpoise so justly balanced, that extremes are reduced to a well-tempered mediocrity."" Our author hath other trifling sophistical arguments against Church governments being placed by God in the Apostles and their successors, which, as the archbishop of Spalato observes, are all arguments against fact; and any man will easily discern the weak and fallacious nature of them, who understands the true nature of Church government, or the 1 [Wake, ibid., p. 43, quoted by Kennett, p. 84.] [Burnet's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. pp. 49, 50. fol. 1681, quoted by Atterbury in his Rights, Powers, &c. of an English Convocation, p. 112, ed. 1. p. 142, ed. 2, and by Kennett, p. 85.] "Sed post Christi ascensum in cœlum, quod genus regiminis per homines mortales exercendi idem Christus in Ecclesia reliquerit et instituerit, erit nobis in hoc primo libro inquirendum. Quæsitum proculdubio facti duntaxat est, ut loquuntur jurisperiti: [nam potuit Rex Christus, non destructo suo regno monarchico, eam formam regiminis spiritualis instituere, quæ ipsi magis placuerit:] quænam vero forma regiminis ei magis placuerit, hariolandum non est, sed ex ipso facto inquirendum; [et quamvis nemini dubium sit, neque esse possit, quin et potuerit et voluerit salvator noster Jesus Christus, Ecclesiam suam (ut ponit illustrissimus Bellarminus) ea ratione et modo gubernare, quæ sit omnium optimus et utilissimus]. Is tamen (modus regiminis) sitne monarchicus, an aristocraticus, an democraticus, an ex his mistus, non tam ex nostra speculatione, et dialecticis humanæ sapientiæ rationibus pendet, quam ex ipso facto Christi.... Optime sane monuit Onuphrius Panvinius [in libro de Comitiis Imperatoriis, et cum eo Bellarminus]; non esse fidelis historici rem describere, ut fieri debuisset; sed ut facta est. Alioqui enim, inquit, non res gestæ scribuntur, sed mendacia obtruduntur. Quod autem factum sit, non ex philosophiæ promptuariis hauriendum est, sed eorum narratione ac fide [qui interfuerunt, vel qui ab iis qui interfuerunt acceperunt; aut certe qui aliorum testimonio sibi commendata literis et memoriæ tradiderunt]. Ita nos ex Evangelistis, et Apostolis, ac sanctis patribus quæsiti nostri solutionem, non ex nostro ingenio [vanaque probabilium dialectica] petere debemus.-De Republica Ecclesiastica Prooem., lib. i. $ 3, 4. p. 34. London, 1617. that Episcopacy implies one visible head; answered. 309 RIGHTS OF THE true constitution of the Catholic Church, which was committed in part, and in whole, severally and jointly, to the CHURCH. Apostles and their successors, as I have partly shewed in the following letters; and the true idea of it may be learned by those who are not yet masters of it, from Spalatensis' book cited in the margin, or from the works of St. Cyprian, which those who understand not Latin may read in the French translation, or from an excellent little book, entitled, The Principles of the Cyprianic Age, printed for Walter Kettilby in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1695, and in the Vindication of it, and of the Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction, printed for Robert Clavel and George Strahan, 1701, to which I refer the reader?. As for his objection of a popedom being unavoidable from the episcopal constitution of Church government, and the necessity of having an external head and principle of union and communion in every Church, it needs no answer, the argument being contrary to the aristocratical constitution of the Catholic Church, as well as to matter of fact, and stands confuted by the consentient testimony and practice, not only of the Churches of Great Britain, but of the Greek and Oriental Churches, and all the members of them, as any man may soon see, who will read Nilus Thessalonicensis", Barlaam the Greek monks, and Nectarius patriarch of [The work referred to is, Les Euvres de S. Cyprien, en Français, avec des notes, par M. Lombert. 4to. 1672. The notes are considered valuable. The first English translation of St. Cyprian's entire Works was made by Dr. Nathanael Marshall, and published in 1717.] P [The two last-named works, the second being entitled the Vindication of the Cyprianic Age, &c., were written by Bishop John Sage, the author of the Reasonableness of a Toleration, &c. See note o, p. 290, and the life there referred to, p. lvii. note 1. The former is among the publications of the Spottiswoode Society for 1846.] 9 ["Without some visible head or universal bishop the Church could never be so united in itself; ... without a common head... it is impossible there should be a succession of bishops; ... without such a head no acts of a bishop could be valid further than his own district; nor without such ... a head could any differences between r [Nilus Cabasilas, archbishop of Thessalonica, Latinorum hostis infensissimus, (see R. G. apud Cave, Hist. Lit., tom. ii. App., p. 39,) cl. A.D. 1340. His principal works are, one, De Processione Spiritus Sancti; and that here referred to, De Primatu Papæ ; printed in Greek at London, without year or printer's name; in Greek and Latin, besides other places, at Hanover, with notes, by Salmasius, 1608.] [Barlaam the monk was cotemporary with Nilus Cabasilas; he was born in Calabria, and brought up in the Latin Church. He afterwards went over to the Greeks, and wrote against the Latins, and became abbot of St. Saviour's at Constantinople. He took an active part in the disputes between the Churches; but matters not taking the course he wished, he withdrew from DISCOURSE, 310 Testimonies of the Greeks against the Papal Supremacy. PREFAT. Jerusalem', and many others, against the papal supreSECT. XXII. macy", and the several accounts, particularly that excellent one which Dr. Tho. Smith wrote, of the state of the Greek Church'. To mention his calumny upon the English clergy for "carrying the power of the Church as high as the papists themselves," and assuming a power to judge for the people*, Constantinople, was condemned and excommunicated. On this he rejoined the Latin Church, and was made bishop of Hieracum, a small island near Sardinia. The work referred to is, Liber contra Primatum Papæ; it was first published at Oxford in 1595; and afterwards with Nilus' work by Salmasius in 1608; and with that also appended to his treatise de Primatu Papæ. Lugd. Bat. 1645. (Cave, Hist. Lit., tom. ii. App., pp. 36, 37.)] [Nectarius was Patriarch of Jerusalem from 1662 to 1671. See an interesting history of his life in Renaudot's edition of Gennadius' Homiliæ de Sacramento Eucharistiæ; Paris, 1709. His work is frequently referred to in Hickes' Letters, &c., mentioned in the next note. It is called, Confutatio Imperii Papæ in Ecclesiam, and was written (see Hickes' Letters, p. 88.) "in answer to Dom. Petre." A Latin translation was published by Dr. Allin in 1702.] u See the Reverend Mr. Chishul's Letter at the end of the preface to a book entituled, Several Letters between Dr. Hickes and a Popish Priest, 1705. [The letter is one of a few lines only, addressed to Hickes by the Rev. Edmund Chishull, then Fellow of C. C. C., Oxford, who appears to have had a collection of tracts written by members of the Greek Church. He had been chaplain at Smyrna; and was distinguished for his antiquarian knowledge and works. His "Travels in Turkey and back to England" were published, after his death, by Dr. Mead in 1747.-See Chalmers' Biog. Brit. His letter enclosed a paper of testimonies of the Greeks against the Latins, which occupies one page. They are; 1. An extract from the confession of the faith of the Greek Church, compiled by a synod at Jass in Moldavia, and confirmed by another at Constantinople in the presence of the four patriarchs, A.D. 1643; which enumerates the Roman among particular and local Churches, διατὶ αἱ τοπικαὶ ἐκκλησίαι εἶναι μερικαί· οἷον ἡ Ἐφεσίνη, ἡ ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ, ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, ἡ ἐν ̓Αντιοχείᾳ, ἡ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, ἡ ἐν ̓Αλεξανδρείᾳ, καὶ αἱ λοιπαί. The confession, called "Orthodoxa Confessio Catholicæ atque Apostolicæ Ecclesiæ Orientalis," is printed in Kimmel's Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Orientalis, Jenæ. 1843. The passage quoted is Parsi. Quæst. 84. p. 154. An epistle by Nectarius is prefixed, p. 45. See the Prolegomena, pp. liv. sqq. 2. The testimony of the then patriarch of Jerusalem in the preface to his edition of the τόμος ἀγάπης: where he says, that if the Latins would admit that the bishop of Rome is chief and head in the Church only in the same sense in which the orientals maintain the patriarch of Constantinople to be so, the Greeks would admit the same: but as the Latins would not concede this, it concludes, ἄρα καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐ παραδεχόμεθα τὸν Ῥώμης οὔτε πρῶτον, οὔτε κεφαλὴν, οὔτε μὲν διόλου ἐπίσκοπον ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. 3. Another volume, by the same patriarch, under the title of τόμος καταλλαγῆς, of which the following are summaries of particular chapters ; ὅτι οὐ μόνον ὁ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης θρόνος ἀποστολικός και λεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκαστος τῶν ἄλλων πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων. And, ὅτι μία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία, οὐχ ἡ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης λέγεται, ἀλλ ̓ ἡ τῆς οἰκουμένης πάσης τῶν ὀρθοδόξων.] [An Account of the Greek Church, as to its Doctrine and Rites of Worship, &c., by Thomas Smith, D.D., and Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxon. London, 1680. See pp. 2-7, 71, sqq. Smith had resided some time at Constantinople. His work was first published in Latin by Bishop Fell, at the Theatre, Oxford, in 1676, under the title, De Græcæ Ecclesiæ hodierno Statu Epistola; and afterwards, with large additions, in English, in 1680.] ["That which gave the papists so great advantage, was clergymen's talk, ing.. so very inconsistent with themselves... when they disputed with papists and dissenters... When they |