and of Soepter in the singular number we may well understand the King before mentioned And however the Pâ—ophetick designation of Monarchical government to succeed as under the notion of Kings as the adopted Father of each Country took not place until Moses but that those that were the natural Fathers of the Tribes and had right of Government by primogeniture continuâ—â— as Princes and Rulers yet their as he was the first that was so stiled being King in Jesâ—uâ—â—â—â— even as the succeeding Judges may be so well called for that in the inter-regnum it is said there was no King in Israâ—l so shall we â—ind Moses again as expresly foretelling that they should have a King as that they should possess the Land For the words to each Promise run absolute Dent. 17. 14. When tâ—â—u art come into the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shâ—lt possess it and shalt dwell therein and shalt say I will set a King over me like all the Nations that are round about me c. It is not said If thou shalt say no such conditional but an express duty or prophecie For the conjunction and here used and shalt possess it and dwell therein and shalt say makes all of them equally certain as certain in the blessing of Kingship as in that of the promised Land it self Of all which I have formerly at large discoursed and have briefly here premised to unprejudice such as are averse to Monarchy or the acknowledgment of the power of Kings in the Church and shall now treat of the Church it self and of its proper cognisance and power in which we shall have farther occasion to assert this Kingly superintendencie CHAP. II. Of the Church Catholick and of the power and jurisdiction of each particular Church and Head thereof THe word Ecclesia or ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English Church doth originally import a Company called forth or men met together upon some special occasion But the Scripture treating of Religious matters applies that notion to Meetings made to that end And therefore that Assembly which Demetrius and his Craftsmen made is called by that name But then farther because to be called forth must presuppose some person or persons having power so to do and also to propound and regulate what shall be disputed of or determined in these Assemblies in that respect again we after find that those things which in the former unruly meeting could not be composed are by the Town-Clark promised to be determined in a more lawful Church or assembly to be called according to Authority All Religions agreeing in this truth that without observation of Government and Order both Church and State will quickly run into confusion After Christianity had a while been professed this name by way of excellence was appropriate to them and those of their communion Insomuch as in the beginning thereof and while the Land of Jewry did contain the whole number of Believers or that the Christians there or elswhere had not cast themselves into any proper or distinct forms of regiment all such as stood as well separated from the world as associated amongst themselves by their joint profession of the same faith stood only distinct from the rest of the world by the word Church or Church of Christ Catholickly applied without distinction thereof into parts in respect of any local application But when afterwards they came to be dispersed into several Cities so distant from one another in place and so different in jurisdictions as to require some form of Ecclesiastical discipline to be setled amongst themselves for their more orderly service in their Religion it came then to pass that as those that had begotten them in the faith and been their spiritual fathers and instructors had chief authority herein so were those their Churches and followers distinguished by topical additions as the Church or Saints at Rome at Corinth at Ephesus or the like By the use of the word at such a place and not saying the Church of Rome of Corinth of Ephesus or the like as now we do the Church of Rome England Geneva c we are to conceive that as the first Believers were in respect of this separation from the rest of the world in faith and some religious exercises called by the name of a Church so these in those several Cities wherein they lived were called Saints or Church at such a City and not of as betokening that they were aswel but a part of that City as to civil regiment as also a part of the whole Catholick Church now subordinate to some separate Authority in the exercise of their Religion But then we are to conceive that although this separation of theirs from others of the same City both in their meetings and holy exercises were done in order to their Religion yet was it not the quality of any Religion as such a Religion but difference in rites and form of Worship and in meeting thereabouts from that other Religion which was publikely authorised in that place which made it preserve this name of Church as taken in its proper sense And therefore as before said we shall usually find that the Addition of the Church of God or of Christ is put to distinguish as well as to dignifie it above other religious Congregations that were not such And upon this reason it is that we never read in the Scripture that the the word Church is applied to the Jews although they were a Nation separate from all the rest of the world both in their Religion it self and in the Ceremonies thereof even for that it was all one and the same with that which the publick Authority of that place did appoint and allow Whereas when Christianity first began amongst them the first Professors thereof being but subordinately divided were set down as a Church or Congregation of men in that respect separate saying The Church or Church of Christ which is at Jerusalem Which being considered we need not wonder why S. Paul should proceed to no higher punishment then that of Excommunication against a Blasphemer or an incestuous person or the like who by the very heinousness and nature of their sins might be presumed not greatly desirous of their Communion even for that it was at that time all the punishment he or other Heads of Churches could inflict wanting as before noted all coercive jurisdiction Upon which ground again we find not that the Jews did ever exercise this kind of punishment while they continued masters of their own soveraignty but comprising all offences under the same Law they punished transgressions of all sorts as breaches thereof when yet afterward in the time of our Saviour that the supreme power was in the hand of the Romans we find them both threatening and actually thrusting men out of their Synagogues But however such notorious sinners as those might in the infancie of Christianity set lightly of any Church-censure in that kind yet with the
But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant King or green head of the Church come to years of discretion Do your Bishops your â—ierarchy your succession your Sacraments your being or not being Hereticks for want of Succession depend on this new found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shamefull ends Impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chief Protestants as Doctor Andrews Wâ—tton c not held any necessary point of Faith And from whom I pray you had Bishops their authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greek Patriarchs receive spiritual jurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the baptism of Princes lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the Temporal Magistrate authority to preach to assoil from sins to inflict Excommunications and other censures Why hath he not power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King James either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gave Commission to some Bishops to do it And since they were subject to the Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as superior to them all and Head in the Protestants Church in England If we have no such authority how can he give to others what himself hath not Your Ordination or Conseâ—ration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no character can only consist in giving a power authority jurisdiction or as I said before Episcopal or Priestly functions If then the temporal Magistrate confers this power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but ordain and consecrate Bishops and Priests as often as he confers authority or jurisdiction and your Bishops as soon as they are designed and confirmed by the King must ipso facto be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or matter and form of Ordination Which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledg to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal Prince And therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledg that he hath spiritual jurisdiction or that your selves can receive none from him And afterwards again sect 22. he saith But besides this defect in the personal succession of Protestant Bishops there is another of great moment which is that they want the right form of ordaining Bishops and Priests because the manner which they use is so much different from the Roman Church at least according to the common opinion of Divines that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of Ordination as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise and will not fail to do if D. Potter give me occasion In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author cited here in the margent and then compare our form of Ordination with that of Protestants and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating Bishops or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtful they can never have undoubted Priests nor Bishops For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops nor can any be true Bishop unless he be at first Priest I say their Ordination is at least doubtful because that sufficeth for my present purpose For Bishops and Priests whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful are not to be esteemed Bishops or Priests and no man without sacrilege can receive Sacraments from them all which they administer unlawfully And if we except Baptism with manifest danger of invalidity and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated so Protestants must remain doubtful of Remission of sins of their Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true Church which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests nor without due administration of Sacraments which according to Protestants is an essential note of the true Church And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordination For first An. 3 Ed. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve years of age it was enacted That such a form of making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests as by six Prelates and six other to be appointed by the King should be devised Mark well this word devised and set forth under the Great Seal should be used and none other But after this Act was repealed 1 Mar. Sess 2. Insomuch as that when afterwards An. 6 7 Regin Eliz. Bishop Bonner being indicted upon a Certificate made by Doctor Horn a Protestant Bishop of Winchester for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacie and excepting against the Indictment because Dr. Horn was no Bishop they were all at a stand till An. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. the Act of Ed. 6. was renewed and confirmed with a particular Proviso That no man should be impreached or molested by means of any Certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act whereby it is cleer that they made some doubt of their own Ordination and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their Ordination which forsooth must depend on six Prelates the Great Seal Acts of Parliament being contrary one to another and the like So that you see all along the authority and interposition of the Magistrate is scoffed at and by them made ineffectual in the ordering of the affairs of the Church nay the Church must be no Church if not wholly and independently governed by the Clergy and a Clergy too that do particularly derive their Ordination and power from a forein Head and according to Rights and Ceremonies then abolished If none but true Priests can administer the Sacraments nor none but true Bishops make true Priests nor none but the Pope make true Bishops but that the authority of the Magistrate doth interpose why then no true Sacraments nor no true Church by their doctrine And to that purpose he doth put a mark upon the word devised as deriding the Civil power therein 38. If we shall add to this what was before him observed by Father Parsons concerning the institution of the Service-book and objected against the validity and use of it as well as the power to abolish their Mass and other Ceremonies it will make us wary in condemning less Alterations now made by a greater Power while yet we shall commend conformity to a less Power in a matter of greater alteration For he alleadgeth in his Book of the Three Conversions of England par 2. chap. 12. sect 25. That the Reformation and Service-book were made by the then Protector to Edward the
person now possessed And then they alleadge for themselves both Laws of Reason and Natural equity and also positive Divine Constitutions to shew that this power was by such original right vested in them and therefore that no particular Sanction can deprive them of it Whereas the other as they would have whole Societies of men ruined and disturbed by Civil war only to prefer and advance one single Person or Family before another who in reference to the State is as like to rule well as he or his so have they no allegation for it but some particular and private Laws made at the instance of and during the government of this person or his family When as in truth since in positive Edicts made by unequal authority the last is to stand and to be observed they should of right be governed by these present Constitutions that do authorise the party in possession and not those that are now abrogated and bereft of their force even as that person or family they were made by and for are bereft of their power 4. If we shall apply these things to our selves in England and examine how they have been generally resented by that part which was in that respect justly called the Royalist or Cavalier we shall find all three sorts by them condemned as contrary to them in their original principles which were maintenance of Peace and Monarchy The first two they opposed and went against as matters of fact and which did already make disturbance when as there being then no fear how disturbance would be made by claim the other way and finding many Laws in force to continue their obedience to him in possession they did usually inveigh not only against all Usurpation in attempt but also against all right to possess and continue the more to affright from and discountenance such undertakings In which last respect of lawfulness to possess or continue they must still be understood to intend that Right which is to be considered in relation to the party dispossessed against whom and to whose prejudice if he had right he is only in reason to be taken as an unlawful Disseisor And therefore they might by these or the like imputations be supposed to hope that since in him was the fault of entrance whereby publike peace was disturbed and it being in his power only by his quiet resignation to do personal right again without civil war and blood that for his farther incitement thereunto they would also insinuate some unlawfulness to those acts of obedience which shal be done unto him by such as are now actually his Subjects 5. To which end and none other we may well apply that additional Expression of the University of Oxford before set down viz On what head that Crown ought to stand none can be ignorant For having before pag. 7. alleadged the Act made 1 Eliz. 1. for restoring to the Crown the antient jurisdiction in things Ecclesiastical they may by that Crown be well conceived to mean that Ecclesiastical authority which thereto belonged And so not only to declare against that usurpation of power which the Parliament then took in their enacting in such matters whilst the Crown and consequently the power did and ought to continue in him that was still reigning and actually possessed but they might in duty also to the settlement and security of their present Prince as well as the setling of the peace of the Nation have an aim hereby to prevent all attempt towards personal usurpation by implying that that Crown ought not to be on any head but his who now wore it But what if no such Head be Must not the Crown be worne Yes sure For as they had before recited that Act whereby this Authority should be for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm so can we not reasonably presume it their meaning that those Jurisdictions which should be of continual use and for ever annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm should be understood so limited to any one person or family as in defailance of their wearing of it which must be supposed subject to humane chance and casualty the Church should be deprived of that useful power 6. In like manner are we to understand Bishop Andrews and all other in their writings against Usurpation that is intending thereby so much more to confirm Subjects obedience to their present Prince For they then supposing that against him no such thing would be objected and on the other side fearing that Tyranny or any other crime which he might fall into might be alleadged as a just excuse for insubjection they did what they would to make the first odious and these tolerable In which doing since their aim was good they may be apprehended out of duty to be rather officiously then truly guided in many of their expressions that way made and that as they did but hereby intend the more to conform obedience to him under whose power they then lived so to be exemplar herein to others without permitting such as were now Subjects to do evil that good may come of it to wrong their own consciences by disobedience that another may be righted in his private Title And if we look in that Sermon of Bishop Andrews made of giving Caesar his due we shall find him acknowledging as much for saith he fol 91. What Caesar was this for whose interest Christ thus pleadeth It was Tiberius even he under whom our Saviour was and knew he was to be put to death a stranger from Israel a Heathen man uncircumcised an Idolater an enemy to the truth c. Where you see that obedience and tribute is directed to be paid to one that was as great a stranger to Israel as great an Usurper in any legal power there as Nimrod could be And however Nimrod might be thought in other things to equal him yet since he had no hand in putting our Saviour to death we may well think that though it were unlawful for such as Nimrod thus to rise or reign yet did he not intend it lawfull for Subjects to disobey when thus up and ruling 7. So that to take them and all other in like sort according to their right meaning that is to be constant in their direct respect to the common peace and benefit of the whole Society of men without such partial eye to the favor of any particular person or family as to abeâ— what shall be contrary thereunto we are to conceive that as they had pitched upon Monarchy as that which by Divine and humane light was fittest to accomplish this end even so it was not to be supposed they would be so forgetful of their first original ground as to invalidate that use and benefit which by Monarchy was to be expected so as to give leave to Subjects to thrust him out again as often as the Monarch should not have been to their likeing for this had been to overthrow that whole foundation they
invincible Remonstrance as to cause all mens judgements to give place their opposition is to be suspected as proceeding from affected singularity or worse 23. For if in those things wherein controversie is whether they be warranted by Scripture or by the Catholick Church as Fathers Councels or the like such as live under any Christian authority should take upon them to be judges they should then usurpe that proper cognisance and power which is peculiar to the Church onely and leave her nothing to doe For since in points fundamentall or fully agreed upon her power reacheth not it must follow that to her alone it belongeth out of that variety of interpretation made of the meaning of the Texts themselves and out of that variety and contradiction which is found amongst Councels Fathers and other Writers to make choice of and give determination for what sort of doctrine or regiment she shall finde either to have been most Catholiquely received or to be grounded upon most Orthodox Principles and soundest reason Which done for men to say the Church hath no power to institute or or take away contrary to the Word of God and then produce no other Texts for condemning her in any particular then what are by others interpreted otherwise and also after the same manner she hath done already doth certainly argue great arrogance and stubbornness of mind in them that would thus apply it although the speech in it self be most true 24. And no lesse then so it is when out of the Sentences of some Councels Fathers or other Writers the doctrine and authority of the Catholike Church is alledged to take off our obedience to that Church under which we live It being none other in points of controversie in Religion then if in Civill suits and debates the parties in contention should appeal from the Laws of that Common wealth to the Verdict of the Civil Law and avouch the Testimony of Vlpian Papinian or the like for the meaning thereof Or to the Law of Nations and then prove there is such a Law and to be just so construed because some men whom they esteem well of have so thought If there be no controversie about the truth or equity of what they propound but all men are found to agree why then it is a sign God did make the discovery to them since he hath thus enabled them to prove it If not how can they think but reasonable even for peace and order sake if not for her own sake that that side and determination which in this controversie agrees with the Church should be preferred to that which is chosen by them And therefore if the Church may devise new Rites and must for Peace sake be obeyed then certainly when she doth not devise any thing new by way of addition nor so much as retain what was before taken as scandalous in things that were ancient I do not see any invincible reason no nor reason at all for Schisme or separation 25. And as for that power of mitigation what the general and literal rigour of Ecclesiasticall Laws hath set down as he spake it in justification of what was by the then Civill Magistrate or a power from her dispensed with in the cases of Plurality Non-residence and the like so it may also truly inform us that if for the further enabling men in the study of Divinity and consequently in the gift of preaching nay even for their temporal maintenance sake these general Laws and Rules of the Church were dispensed with while the same was still remaining and in power Much more may men now out of the rule of justice and charity both to themselves and others think themselves dispensed with the omission of some Rites and Ceremonies and of reading the Service Book when as not a dispensation alone but a strict injunction against the use of them is by the like soveraign power apparantly made and that Church also whose Laws they were hath neither force or being Charity I say both publike and private when as both preaching it self and the maintenance to rise thereby have so necessary a dependance on the forbearance of them If Preachers that had other places to live on and preach in might out of particular favour to them or some other person whose Chaplains they were be thus dispensed with as we know they were and that they then readily enough made use of it may we not conclude that both the rule of Charity to ones self and of generall charity to others that may reap good by their Doctrine will excuse them in a time when their own maintenance and the exercise of preaching doth wholly rely upon their obedience in this kinde So that seem the thing never so strange and new either in respect of addition or substraction to what was formerly done and established it is not by those that are Members and do live within the jurisdiction thereof to be disobeyed as out of scandal at alteration the Church having power as well to substract as to institute And therefore he saith lib. 5. fol. 196. All things cannot be of ancient continuance which are expedient and needfull for the ordering of spiritual affairs But the Church being a body which dieth not hath alwayes power as occasion requireth no lesse to ordain that which never was then to ratifie what hath been before To prescribe the order of doing all things is a peculiar prerogative which wisdome hath as Queen or Soveraign Commandress over other vertues This in every several mans actions of common life appertaineth unto Morall in publike and politick secular affairs unto civill Wisedom In like manner to devise any certain form for the outward administration of publique duties in the service of God or things belonging thereunto and to find out the most convenient rule for that use is a point of wisedome Ecclesiasticall It is not for a man which doth know or should know what order is and what peaceable government requireth to ask why we should hang our judgement upon the Churches sleeve and why in matters of Order more then in matters of Doctrine The Church hath Authority to establish that for an Order at one time which at another time it may abolish and in both do well Then which nothing could in my opinion have been spoken more pointing to Peace and silencing of disputes in our present alterations and to the satisfaction of such as think that those forms of Prayer and administration of Sacraments Ordination and other publike Rites and Ceremonies may not by a succeeding Church and Power therein be lawfully taken away like as they were by a former established 26. And that specially if to those that have the oversight of these things there shall seem to be superstition incident to the use of them through some over-value and mistake which through frequent use might be cast towards them as though they were indeed Fundamentals of themselves Superstition saith he lib. 5. fol. 191. such as that of the
and thereupon render the abolition of it both just and reasonable Now as the abolition of the Masse Book was formerly in respect of like superstition cast towards it For the late Archbishop sect 35. num 7. punct 5. affirmeth that himself had heard some Jesuites confess that in the Lyturgie of the Church of England there is no positive Error And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us In like manner as now Conformists may be asked now when no positive error can be objected neither They answered saith he they could not do it because though our Liturgy had nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service So that if this answer were not valuable to excuse Refusants then I see not how the like can excuse any now 41. All which well weighed I know no effectuall answer to be made to such as have been Recusants or Non-conformists if we fall from that principle of acknowledgement of that Supremacy which the Church then gave the chief Magistrate amongst us accounting him in all causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supream Head and Governour If upon any pretence we forsake this hold we not only lose the direct way to unity and peace but do let in error on every side to over master and confound us And although this power were formerly given to the chief Magistrate while they had the stile of King or Queen yet if we shall impartially consider the intention of that Act whereby this power was exercised by the King we shall finde that it like all Laws having a regard to the perpetuall conservation of Peace Order and Unity did not limit it to persons so stiled onely but that it might be kept for ever did for ever unite it to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is to the Monarch thereof although no King nor more crowned nor anointed then some of the Roman Emperors were and accordingly we shall find Mr. Hooker to understand and apply it for reckoning up the Subject whereof his eight Books are to treat He saith The eight is of the power of Ecclesiastical dominion or Supream Authority which with us the highest Governour or Prince hath as well in respect of domestical jurisdictions as of that other forrainly claimed by the Bishop of Rome In which expressions of Highest Governour or Prince Prince signifying the same with Highest Governour or Governour in chief we may presume he meant it due to the King as Monarch and not to the Monarch as King And a great pitty it is that we had not the Book it self to have been further satisfied herein and in the power belonging to him But for want thereof we will adde the judgement of such others as have been generally held most famous in their generations 42. Bishop Andrews in his Sermon upon that Text of Touch not mine annointed proves at large that all persons in Supream Power are to be esteemed Gods annointed although material Unction and other Ceremonies be wanting as primarily he saith It was meant of such as were Patriarchs For saith he fol 798. in the first World the Patriarchs were principal persons and as I may safely say Princes in their generations and for such holden and reputed by those with whom they lived I may safely say it for of Abraham it is in expresse terms said by the Hethites Audi Domine Princeps Dei es inter nos Thou art a Prince of God that is a mighty Prince here among us As indeed a Prince he shewed himself when he gave battel and overthrow to four Kings at once Of Isaac no less may be said who grew so mighty as the King of Palestine was glad to intreat him to remove further off and not dwell so neer him and then to go after him in person and sue to him there might be a league of amity between them And the like of Jacob who by his sword and bow conquered from the Amorite the mightiest of all the Nations in Canaan that Country which by will he gave to Joseph for possession It was neer to Sichar well known you have mention of it Joh. 4. 5 Great men they were certainly greater then most conceive But be their greatness what it will this is sure they were all the Rulers the people of God then had and besides them Rulers had they none And that is it we seek Pater was in them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too Fatherhood and Government And these two made them Patriarchs unctos ante unctionem saith S. Augustine anointed before there was any material anointing at all And as he said it to be properly due to such and none but such as were Rulers of the people of God so because Christian Magistracie in the latter ages was mostly executed by and under the notion of Kings so doth he afterwards prove how they were to succeed in this right Which done he proceeds to censure that usurpation of power foreignly claimed by Pope and Cardinals who under pretence of this title would enter common with Christian Kings proving that thirty three times in Scripture the terms of Gods anointed are used and no where to be applied to any but Patriarchs Christ himself or of Kings all shewing farther that others Priests Prophets or the like although they were anointed and might be so called yet were never stiled the Lords aâ—ointed it may be uncti but not Christi And then setting forth the Kings more proper claim to this title as being chief Christian head he after asks Who be they If we go by the book Princes why then touch not Princes that is such as are in principal power or Rulers in chief And thereupon he after adds to take their supposition off that thought this Authority depended on the Ceremony of Unction or the like fol. 800. This claim by the Ceremony is clean marred by this Text For when these words here were spoken there was no such Ceremony instituted it was non ens no such thing in rerum natura that name not up til Moses Now these here in the Text were in their graves long before Moses was born no meos then no claim by the Ceremony And after it came up no Priest went out of Juâ—â— to Persia to carry the Ceremony to Cyrus yet of him saith Isaiah Haec dicit Dominus Cyro Christo meo Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus mine anointed And yet never came there any oil upon his head So that even after it was taken up yet the Ceremony and the claim by it would not hold The truth is the Ceremony doth not any thing onely declareth what is done The party was before as much as he is after it Onely by it is declared to be that he was before and the which he should have been still though he had never so been declared The truth may and doth subsist as with the Ceremony so without it It