Religion and the publick order for the service of God an Assembly of select Divines is call'd by special order from the Kings Majesty for debating of the settlement of things according to the Word of God and the practice of the Primitive Church These sate as Mr. Fox tells us in Windsor Castle where as he expresseth it after long learned wise and deliberate advises they did finally conclude and agree upon one uniform order c. No more is said by him of it and less by the late Historian The proceedings then in order to Reformation being so dark hitherto and obscure by what is as yet extant much light may accrue thereto by the help of some authentick MS. which by a hand of providence have happily come into my hands wherein the manner and method of the Reformation will be more evident to the World and the grounds upon which they proceeded In the Convocation that year sitting with the Parliament I find two Petitions made to the Archbishop and the Bishops of the upper house for the calling an Assembly of select Divines in order to the setling Church-affairs and for the Kings Grant for their acting in Convocation Which not being yet to my knowledge extant in publike and conducing to our present business I shall now publish from the MS. of Bishop Cranmâ—rs They run thus Certain Petitions and requests made by the Clergy of the lower house of the Convocation to the most Reverend Father in God the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury's Grace and the Residue of the Prelates of the higher house for the furtherance of certeyne Articles following First That Ecclesiastical Laws may be made and established in this Realm by xxxij persons or so many as shall please the Kings Majesty to name and appoint according to the effect of a late Statute made in the thirty fifth year of the most noble King and of most Famous memory King Henry the eighth So that all Iudges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril Also that according to the antient custome of this Realm and the Tenor of the Kings Writs for the summoning of the Parliament which be now and ever have been directed to the Bishops of every Diocess the Clergy of the lower house of the Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the lower house of Parliament or else that all such Statutes and Ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of Religion and Causes Ecclesiastical may not pass without the sight and assent of the said Clergy Also that whereas by the commandment of King Henry 8. certeyne Prelates and other Learned men were appointed to alter the service in the Church and to dewise other convenient and uniform order therein who according to the same appointment did make certeyne books aâ— they be informed their request is that the said books may be seen and perused by them for a better expedition of divine service to bee set furthe accordingly Also that men being called to spiritual promotions or benefices may have sum allowance for their necessary living and other charges to be susteyned and born concerning the said Benefices in the first year wherein they pay the first Fruits The other is Where the Clergy in the present Convocation Assembled have made humble suite unto the most Reverend Father in God my Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and all other Bishops That hit may please them to be a mean to the Kings Majesty and the Lord Protectors Grace that the said Clergy according to the tenor of the Kings will and the auncient Laws and customes of this noble Realme might have their rowme and place and be associated with the Communs in the nether howse of this present Parliament as members of the Communwealth and the Kings most humble subjects and if this may not be permitted and graunted to them that then no Laws concerning the Christiâ—n Religion or which shall concern especially the persons possessions rowmes lyveings jurisdictions goods or cattalls of the said Clergy may passe nor be enacted the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto and their aunswers and reasons not heard The said Clergy dò most humbly beseech an answer and declaration to be made unto them what the said most Reverend Father in God and all other the Bishoppes have done in this their humble suit and request to the end that the said Clergy if nede bee may chose of themself such able and diserete persons which shall effectually follow the same suite in name of them all And where in a Statute ordeyned and established by auctorite of Parliament at Westminster in the twenty fifth year of the reigne of the most excellent Prince King Henry the eighth the Cleregy of this Realme submitting themselfe to the Kings Highness did knowledge and confesse according to the truth that the Convocations of the same Cleregie hath ben and ought to be assembled by the Kings writt And did promise further in verbo sacerdotii that they never from thenceforth wolde presume to attempt allege clayme or put in ure or enact promulge or execute any new Canons constitutions ordinances provincialls or other or by whatsoever other name they shall bee called in the convocation oneles the Kings most royal Assent and Lisence may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same And his Majesty to give his most royall Assent and Auctorite in that behalfe upon peyne of every one of the Cleregie doeyng the contrary and beinge thereof convict to suffre imprisonment and make Fine at the Kings will And that noe Canons constitutions or ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this Realme by auctorite of the convocation of the Cleregie which shall be repugnant to the Kings Prerogative royall or the Customes Laws or Statutes of this Realme Which Statute is eftsoons renewed and established in the xxvij yere of the reigne of the said most noble Kinge as by the tenor of both Statutes more at large will appear the said Cleregie being presently assembled in Convocation by auctorite of the Kings Writ do desire that the Kings Majesties licence in writeing may be for them obteyned and granted according to the effect of the said Statutes auctoriseing them to attempt entreate and commune of such matters and therein freely to geve their consents which otherwise they may not doe upon peyne and perill premised Also the said Cleregie desireth that such matters as concerneth religione which be disputable may be quietly and in good order reasond and disputed emongst them in this howso whereby the verites of such matters shall the better appear And the doubtes being opened and resolutely discussed men may be fully persuaded with the quyetnes of their consciences and the tyme well spent Thus far those Petitions containing some excellent proposalls for a through Reformation Soon after were called together by the Kings special order the former select Assembly at Windsor Castle where met as far as I can guesse by the several papers delivered
But those judicial Laws which are founded upon common equity to bind still not by virtue of that Sanction but by virtue of common principles of equity which certainly in the present shortness of humane reason cannot be fetched from a clearer Fountain then those Laws which once came from the Fountain of Goodness none of whose constitutions can any ways be supposed to deviate from the exactest rules of Justice and Equity And upon this very ground too some part of the fourth Commandment is abrogated and the other continues to bind still For the reason of the Ceremonial and occasional part is ceased and the reason of what was Moral continues Therefore the School-men say right of the Sabbath day Cultus est à naturâ modus à lege virtuâ— Ã Gratiâ Nature dictates that God should be worshipped the Law informs what day and time to spend in his worship Grace must enable us to perform that worship on that day in a right manner And because the same reason for Gods Worship continueâ— still therefore it is a Precept of the Natural Law that God should be worshipped What time precisely must be spent in Gods Worship as one day in seven though the reason be evident to nature of it when it is made known yet it is hard to conceive that Nature could have found out the precise determination of the time Although I must confess the general consent of Nations as to the seventh part if it were fully cleared would speak fair to be the voice of Nature or at least a tradition received from the Sons of Noah which if so will be an evidence of the observation of the Sabbath before the Children of Israels being in the Wilderness But granting that the seventh part of time was a positive Law of God yet I say it binds immutably because there is as strong a reason for it now as ever and Ratio immutabilis praecepti facit praeceptum immutabile This I take to be the sense of those who distinguish between morale positivum and morale naturale i. e. that some things are so moral that even Nature its self can discover them as that God should be worshipped Other things are so moral that though the reason of them be founded in Nature yet there wants Divine Revelation to discover them to us but when once discovered are discerned to be very agreeable to common principles of reason And these when thus discovered are as immutably obligatory as the other because the reason of them is immutable And of this nature is the determination of the particular time for Gods worship and limitation of it to one day in seven But what was in that Precept meerly occasional as the first and original ground of its limitation to the seventh in order Gods resting on that day from the work of Creation and the further ground of its inforcement to the Jews viz. their deliverance out of Egypt these being not immutâ—ble but temporary and occasional may upon as great ground given and approved of God for that end as is evident by the Apostles practice be sufficient reason of the alteration of the seventh day to the first day of the week By this may briefly be seen how irrationally those speak who say we have no further ground for our observation of the Lords day now then for other arbitrary Festivals in the Church viz. The Tradition of the Church of God I grant the Tradition of the Church doth acquaint us with Apostolical practice but the ground of our observation of the Lords day is not the Churches Tradition but that Apostolical practice conveyed by Universal Tradition which setting aside the Festivals observed upon the Lords days can very hardly be â—ound for any other But supposing Universal Tradition for other Festivals I say here Tradition is not only used as a testimony and instrument of conveyance as in the other case of the Lords day but is it self the only argument and the very ground of the original observation Between which two what a wide difference there is let any rational man judge But for a further clearing this observation we must consider that the reason of the Command which we say is the measure of its obligation must not be fetched from mens uncertain conjectures among whom dreams often pass for reasons but it must be either expressed in the Law its self or deducible by apparent and easie collection from it as is plain in the Decrees of the Apostles about things strangled and offered to Idols where the reason of the Command is plainly implied to wit for present compliance with the Jews and therefore no sooner did the reason of the Command cease but the obligation of it ceased too but of this more afterwards This is one way then to discern the difference between positive Laws as to the obligation of them by the ground and reason of the Command And therefore it is well observed by Divines which further confirms what I now prove that no Command doth bind against the reason of the Command because it is not the words but the sense and reason of a Command which hath the greatest obligatory force Therefore Tully tells us that the ratio juris legislatoris consilium is the best Interpreter of any Law who excellently and largely proves that the reason of the Law is the Law and not the words So much for the first Rule Secondly Another way to know when Positive Laws are immutable is when Gods Will is expresly declared that such Laws shall bind immutably For it being granted on all hands that God may bind us to those things which are left indifferent by the Law of Nature and likewise for what term he please the only inquiry left is to see in his Word whether he hath so bound us or no and if he hath whether he hath left it in mans power to revoke his Laws For as to Positive Laws expresly laid down in Scripture the ground of which is only as the Jews speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the will of the King i. e. Gods own pleasure without any reason or occasion of it else expressed or necessarily implied these do bind immutably unless the same Power which commanded them doth again revoke them For we cannot in any wise conceive that the wise God should after the declaring his own will leave it in the power of any corrupt fallible Being to determine or dispence with the obligation of his own Laws Which to do and instead of them to enforce others immediately upon the Consciences of men as standing Laws is an attempt beyond that of the Gyants against heaven or the men at Babel that being only an affectation of reaching heaven but this an actual usurpation of Gods supreme and legislative power and authority But though man hath nor God alwayes reserves to himself a power to relax interpret and dispence with his own positive Laws which imply no repugnancy to his own nature And this
But for our more distinct clear and rationaâ—â— proceeding I shall lay down some things as so many Postulata or generall Principles and Hypotheses which will be as the basis and foundation of the following Discourse which all of them concern the obligation of Laws wherein I shall proceed gradually beginning with the Law of Nature and so to Divine positive Laws and lastly to speak to humane positive Laws The first Principle or Hypothesis which I lay down is That where the Law of Nature doth determine any thing by way of duty as flowing from the principles of it there no positive Law can be supposed to take off the obligation of it Which I prove both as to humane positive Laws and Divine First as to humane For first the things commanded in the Law of Nature being just and righteous in themselves there can be no obligatory Law made against such things Nemo tenetur ad impossibile is true in the sense of the Civil Law as well as in Philosophy as impossibile is taken for turpe and turpe for that which is contrary to the dictates of Nature A man may be as well bound not to be a man as not to act according to principles of reason For the Law of Nature is nothing else but the dictate of right reason discovering the good or evil of particular actions from their conformity or repugnancy to natural light Whatever positive Law is then made directly infringing and violating natural principles is thereby of no force at all And that which hath no obligation in it self cannot dissolve a former obligation Secondly the indispensablenesse of the obligation of the Law of Nature appears from the end of all other Laws which are agreed upon by mutual compact which is the better to preserve men in their rights and priviledges Now the greatest rights of men are such as flow from Nature its self and therefore as no Law binds against the reason of it so neither can it against the common end of Laws Therefore if a humane positive Law should be made that God should not be worshipped it cannot bind being against the main end of Laws which is to make men live together as reasonable creatureâ— which they cannot do without doing what Nature requires which is to serve God who made it Again it overturns the very foundation of all Government and dissolves the tye to all humane Laws if the Law of Nature doth not bind indispensably for otherwise upon what ground must men yield obedience to any Laws that are made Is it not by vertue of this Law of Nature that men must stand to all compacts and agreements made If Laws take their force among men from hence they can bind no further then those compâ—cts did extend which cannot be supposed to be to violate and destroy their own natures Positive Laws may restrain much of what is only of the permissive Law of Nature for the intent of positive Laws was to make men abate so much of their naturall freedom as should be judged necessary for the preservation of humane Societies but against the obligatory Law of Nature as to its precepts no after-Law can derogate from the obligation of it And therefore it is otherwise between the Law of Nature and positive Laws then between Laws meerly civil for as to these the rule is that posterior derogat priori the latter Law cassats and nulls the obligation of the former but as to natural Laws and positive prior derogat posteriori the Law oâ— Nature which is firstâ— takes away the obligation of a positive Law if it be contrary to it As Iustellus observe it was in the primitive Church in reference to the obligation of the Canons of the Councils that such as were inserted in the Codex Canonum being of the more ancient Councils did render the obligation of later Canons invalid which were contrary to them unlesse it were in mâ—tteâ—s of small moment We see then that supposing the Law of Nature doth not continue obligatory the obligation of all humane positive Laws will fall with it as the superstructure needs must when the foundation is removed for if any other Law of Nature may be dissolved why not that whereby men are bound to stand to Covenants and contracts made and if that be dissolved How can the obligation to humane Laws remain which is founded upon that basis And so all civil Societies are thereby overturned Thirdly it appears from the nature of that obligation which follows the Law of Nature so that thereby no humane Law can bind against this for humane Laws bind only outward humane actâ—ons directly and internall acts only by vertue of their necessary connexion with and influence upon outward actions and not otherwise but the Law of Nâ—ture immediately binds the soul and conscience of man And therefore obligatio naturalis and nexus conscientiae are made to be the same by Lessius Suarâ—z and others For Lessius dâ—sputing Whether a Will made without solemnity of Law doth bind in conscience or no He proves it doâ—h by â—his argument from the opinion of the Lawyers that without those solemnities there doth arise from it a natural obligation and the hresae ab Intestato who is the next of Kin is bound to make it good therefore it doth bind in conscience So then there ariseth a necessary obllgation upon conscience from the dictâ—tes of the Law of Nature which cannot be removed by any positive Law For although there lye no action in the civil Law against the breach of a meerly natural Law as in the former case of succession to a Will not legally made in covenants made without conditions expressed in recovery of debtâ— from a person to whom money was lent in his Pupillage without consent of his Tutor in these cases though no action lie against the persons yet this proves not that these have no obligation upon a man but only that he is not responsible for the breach of morall honesty in them before civil Courts In which sense those Lawyers are to be understood which deny the obligation of the Law of Nature But however conscience binds the offender over to answer at a higher tribunal before which all such offences shall be punished Thus then we see no positive humane Law can dispence with or dissolve the obligation of thâ— Law of nature Much lesse Secondly can we suppose any positive Divine Law should For although Gods power be immense and infinite to do what pleaseth him yet we must always suppose this power to be conjoyned with goodnesse else it is no divine power and therefore posse malum non est posse it is no power but weakness to do evil and without this posse malum there can be no alteration made in the nature of good and evil which must be supposed if the obligation of the natural Law be dispensed with Therefore it was well said by Origen when Câ—lsus objected it as the common speech of
for the internal acts of Worship for he can neither add to that Rule nor dissolve the obligation of it nor yet can he force the consciences of men the chief seat of Religion it being both contrary to the nature of Religion its self which is a matter of the greatest freedom and internal liberty and it being quite out of the reach of the Magistrates Laws which respect only external actions as their proper object for the obligation of any Law can extend no further then the jurisdiction and authority of the Legislator which among men is only to the outward actions But then if we consider Religion as it is publikely owned and professed by a Nation the supreme Magistrate is bound by vertue of his office and authority not only to defend and protect it but to restrain men from acting any thing publikely tending to the subversion of it So that the plea for liberty of conscience as it tends to restrain the Magistrates power iâ— both irrationall and impertinent because liberty of conscience is the liberty of mens judgements which the Magistrate cannot deprive them of For men may hold what opinions they will in their minds the Law takes no cognizance of them but it is the liberty of practice and venting and broaching those opinions which the Magistrates power extends to the restraint of And he that hath the care of the publike good may give liberty to and restrain liberty from men as they act in order to the promoting of that good And as a liberty of all opinions tends manifestly to the subverting a Nations peace and to the embroyling it into continual confusions a Magistrate cannot discharge his office unlesse he hath power to restrain such a liberty Therefore we find plainly in Scripture that God imputes the increase and impunity of Idolatry as well as other vices to the want of a lawful Magistracy Iudges 17. 5 6. where the account given of Micahs Idolatry was because there was no King in Israel which implies it to be the care and duty of Magistrates to punish and restrain whatever tends to the opposing and subverting the true Religion Besides I cannot find any reason pleaded against the Magistrates power now which would not have held under David Solomon Asa Iehosophat Hezekias Iosias or other Kings of the Jews who asserted the publike profession to the extirpation to what opposed it For the plea of Conscience taken for mens judgements going contrary to what is publikely owned as Religion it is indifferently calculated for all Meridians and will serve for a Religion of any elevation Nay stiff and contumacious Infidels or Idolaters may plead as highly though not so truly as any that it goes against their judgements or their conscience to own that Religion which is established by authority If it be lawfull then to restrain such notwithstanding this pretence why not others whose doctrine and principles the Magistrate judgeth to tend in their degree though not so highly to the dishonouring God and subverting the profession entertained in a Nation For a mans own certainty and confidence that he is in the right can have no influence upon the Magistrate judging otherwise only if it be true it wil afford him the greater comfort and patience under his restraint which was the case of the primitive Christians under persecutions The Magistrate then is bound to defend protect and maintain the Religion he owns as true and that by vertue of his office as he is Custos utriusque tabulae The maintainer of the honour of Gods Laws which cannot be if he suffer those of the first Table to be broken without any notice taken of them Were it not for this power of Magistrates under the Gospel how could that promise be ever made good that Kings shall be nursing Fathers to the Church of God unlesse they mean such Nursing Fathers as Astyages was to Cyrus or Amulius to Romulus and Remus who exposed their nurslings to the Fury of wild Beasts to be devoured by them For so must a Magistrate do the Church unlesse he secure it from the incursion of Hereticks and the inundation of Seducers But so much for that which is more largely asserted and proved by others The Magistrate then hath power concerning Religion as owned in a Nation Secondly We must distinguish between an external and objective power about matters of Religion and an internal formal power which some call an Imperative and Elicitive power others a power of Order and a power of Jurisdiction others potestas Ecclesiastica and potestas circa Ecclesiastica or in the old distinction of Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power of things within and without the Church the sense of all is the same though the terms differ The internal formal Elicitive power of Order concerning things in the Church lies in authoritative exercise of the Ministerial Function in preaching the Word and administration of Sacraments but the external objective Imperative power of Jurisdiction concerning the matters of the Church lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the latter to the Supreme Magistracy For though the Magistrate hath so much power about Religion yet he is not to usurp the Ministerial Function nor to do any proper acts belonging to it To which the instance of Uzzias is pertinently applied But then this takes nothing off from the Magistrates power for it belongs not to the Magistrate imperata facere but imperare facienda as Grotius truly observes not to do the things commanded but to command the things to be done From this distinction we may easily understand and resolve that so much vexed and intricate Question concerning the mutual subordination of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power For as Peter Martyr well observes these two powers are some wayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conversant several wayes about the same thing but the Functions of both of them must be distinguished For the Pastors of the Church are not to administer Justice but it is their duty to declare how Justice should be rightly administred without partiality or oppression So on the other side the Magistrate must not preach the Gospel nor administer Sacraments but however must take care that these be duly done by â—hose to whose Function it belongs But for a clearer making it appear these things are to be considered both in a Magistrate and Minister of the Gospel In a Magistrate the Power it self and the Person bearing that Power The power it self of the Magistrate is no ways subordinate to the Power of the Ministry Indeed if we consider both Powers in reference to their objects and ends there may be an inferiority of Dignity as Chamier calls it in the civil power to the other considered abstractly but considering it concretely as lodged in the persons there is an inferiority of Subjection in the Ecclesiastical to the Civil But still the person
be a Power Governing is supposing a Society of the immutable Law of Nature because it is that without which no Society can be maintained And this is one of those things which are of the Law of Nature not in an absâ—lute state of Liberty but supposing some Acts of Men which once supposed become immutable and indispensable As supposing Propriety every Man is bound to abstain from what is in anothers Possession without his consent by an immutable Law of Nature which yet supposeth some Act of Man viz. the voluntary introducing of Propriety by consent So supposing a Society in being it is an immutable dictate of the Law of Nature that a Power of Government should be maintained and preserved in it So I say for the second thing Order This as it implies the Subordination of some in a Society to others as their Rulers is immutable and indispensable but as to the Form whereby that Order should be preserved that is whether the Government should be in the hands of one or more is no wise Determined by the Obligatory Law of Nature because either of them may be lawfull and usefull for the ends of Government and so neither necessary by that Law For as to the Law of Nature the Case is the same in Civil and Religious Societies Now who will say that according to the Law of Nature any form of Government Monarchy Aristocracy Democracy is unlawfull These things are then matters of Naturall Liberty and not of Naturall necessity and therefore must be examined according to positive Determinations of Divine and Humane Lawes where we shall speak of it This then is clear as to our purpose That a power in the Church must be constantly upheld and preserved fitly qualified for the ends of Government is an immutable Law so that this power be lodged in some particular Persons to act as Governours and so distinct from others as subordinate to them but whether the Power of Government come from People by Election or from Pastors by Ordination or from Magistrates by Commission and Delegation whether one two or all these wayes is not determined by Naturall Law but must be looked for in Gods positive Laws if not there neither to be found we must acquiesce in what is determined by lawful Authority The same I say again as to forms of Government whether the Power of sole Jurisdiction and Ordination be invested in one person above the rank of Presbyters or be lodged in a Colledge acting in a pâ—rity of Power is a plea must be removed from the Court of common Law of Nature to the Kings Bench I mean to the positive Lawes of God or the Supream power in a Common-wealth There being no Statutes in the Law of Nature to determine it it must be therefore Placitum Regis some positive Law must end the controversie We therefore traverse the Suit here and shall enter it at the other Court The second thing dictated by the Law of Nature is That the persons imployed in the immediate Service of God and entrusted with the Power of governing the Society appointed for that end should have respect paid them answerable to the Nature of their imployment This appears to have foundation in the Law of Nature being easily deducible from one of the first principles of that Law that God is to be worshipped if so then those whose imployment is chiefly to attend upon himself ought to have greater Reverence then others By the same Reason in Nature that if we do honour the King himself the nearer any are to the Kings Person in attendance and imployment the greater honour is to be shewed them The ground of which is that the honour given to servants as such is not given to their persons but to their Relation or to the one only upon the account of the other and so it doth not fix and terminate upon themselves but rebounds back and reflects upon the Original and Fountain of that Honour the Prince himself So if any be honoured upon the account of their immediate imployment in the service of God it is God who is chiefly honour'd and not they it being the way men have to expresse their honour to God by shewing it proportionably and respectively to those who either represent him or are imployed by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome speaks in this very case The honour pâ—sseth through them to God himself Where he largely proves this very thing from the Egyptians sparing the Lands of their Priests and argues at least for an equality of honour from reason to be given to those who serve the true God Nay he is so far from looking upon it as part of their superstition that he mounts his argument à pari to one à minori ad majus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is As much as truth exceeds errour and the servants of God do the Idol-priests so much let the honour we give to them exceed that which was given by the Heathen to theirs But we have a further evidence of the honourablenesse of this imployment by the light of Nature from the persons imployed in this work before any positive Laws did restrain it For I say not that the Law of Nature doth dictate that the function of those imployed in this work should be differenced from all other that is done by Divine positive Laws but the honour of those in that function is from the Law of Nature which appears hence in that in the eldest times those who had the greatest authority civil had likewise the sacred conjoyned with it For as Aristotle rightly observes that the originall of civil Government was from private families so in those families before they came to associate for more publike worship the Master of the family was the Priest of it Thence we read of Noahs sacrificing Abrahams duty to instruct his family and his own command for offering up his Son we read of Iacobs sacrificing and Iobs and so of others Every Master of the family then was the High Priest too and governed his family not only as such but as a religious Society Afterwards from what institution we know not but certainly the reason of it if it were so was to put the greater honour upon the eldest son it is generally conceived that the first-born had the Priesthood of the Family in their possession till the time of the Leviticall Law The Jewish Doctors think that was the Birthright which Iacob procured from his Father and which Abraham gave to Isaac when it is said that he gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that he had For saith Postellus if it be meant in a literall sense how could he give those gifts to his other Sons which are mentioned before Wherefore he conjectures by that All is meant the spiritual knowledge of Christ which he calls Intellectus generalis which might be more proper to him as Priest of the family But the plain meaning is no more than
when Abraham had bestowed Legacies on his other Children he left Isaac haredem ex asse his lawfull heir I am unwilling to deny a Tradition so generally received among both Jewish and Christian Writers as the Priesthood of the first-born before the Law but this I say I cannot yet find any other ground for it but Tradition no place of Scripture giving us sufficient evidence for it and many against it That which serves sufficiently for the consutation of it is that observation of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is to be observed that the younger are alwayes preferred before the first-born Which he takes notice of from the case he there speaks to of Ephraim and Manasses and so runs it up to Abel preferr'd before Cain Seth before Iapheth Abraham before his elder brethren Isaac before Ismael Iacob before Esau Iudas and Ioseph before Reuben Moses before Aaron and David before the rest of his Brethren although that was after the Law That place which gives the greatest countenanc◠to the opinion is Numbers 3. 41. And thou shalt take the Levites for me instead of the first-born where it seems that the first-born were formerly the Priests in whose room the Levites were taken But with submission to better judgements I can see nothing implyed in this place but only that God having delivered their first-born in Egypt Exodus 12. 23. and calling for them to be sanctified to him Exodus 13. 2. upon the account of the propriety he had in them in a peculiar manner by that deliverance and not on the account of any speciall service for many were very unfit for that by reason of age and which is observable God requires as well the first-born of beasts both to be sanctified and redeemed Numbers 3 41. therefore God now setling a way of Worship he gave the Israelites liberty to redeem them and instead of them pitched on the Tribe of Levi for his own service Another plac◠is Exodus 24. 5. where the young men are mentioned that offered burnt-offering It is confessed that the Chaldee Paraphrast and Arabick Version understand here the First-born but however the place implyes no more then that they were employed to bring the sacrifices for so the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else that they were employed as the Popae only to kill the Sacrifices for we see the sprinkling of the blood which was the main thing intended here as a foederal rite was done by Moses himself who was the High priest of the people as well as Prince till Aaron and his sons were set a part which was not till Exodus 28. 1 2. and yet Aaron was three years elder then Moses Exod. 7. 7. which is an evidence that Aaron as first-born was not the Priest for till his consecration Moses and not Aaron performed the offices of Priesthood Thence we read Psalm 99. 6. Moses and Aaron among his Priests For although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sometimes attributed to those in civill authority 1 as 2 Samuel 8. 18. compared with 1 Chron. 18. 17. and 2 Sam. 26. 26. Gen. 41. 50. Exodus 2. 16. Iob 12. 19. yet there is no reason so to understand it of Moses And further the ground why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was attributed to both Prince and Priest before the Law was because the same person might be both as the Priests of Egypt were Princes too Gen. 41. 50. But for Moses we read not only of the title but the proper offices of Priests attributed to him as sacrificing Exodus 24. 5. consecrating Aaron and his sons Exodus 29. 35. and therefore Aben Ezra upon that Psalm forecited calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the High Priest This Priest-hood of Moses leads us to another evidence of the honour of those who were employed in the service of God which is that when Families encreased and many associated into a Common-wealth though the private service might belong to the master of the Family yet the publike before positive Laws restraining it was most commonly joyned with the civill power That Melchizedek was both King and Priest in Salem if with the Jews we conclude he was Som which we have little reason for it will be a greater evidence Sem being then the greatest Potentate Living But we passe from him to other Nations after the dispersion to see where the power over religious Societies was generally held In Egypt we find that their Priests were often made Kings as Plutarch observes out of Hecataeus and is confessed by Strabo Diodorus and others Of the Greeks the same Plutarch gives us a large testimony that among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Priesthood was accounted of equal dignity with the Kingdom The same doth Aristotle in severall places of his Politicks and particularly of the Spartans of whom Herodotus adds that the Priest-hood of Iupiter Coelestis and Lacedaemonius did alwayes belong to the Kings own person For the old Latins Virgils Anius is sufficient and among the Romans after the powers were separated the Pontifex Max. had royal state his cella'curulis and Lictores as the Consuls had only their Priests medled not in civill affairs of which Plutarch gives a double reason the impossibility of minding both imployments as they should do and so must either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neglect the Worship of the Gods or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrong the people with the neglect of the administration of justice The other reason is because those that were imployed in civill affairs were put upon execution of justice and it was no wayes fit a man should come reeking from the blood of Citizens to go and sacrifice to the Gods This conjunction of civill and sacred power is attested by Clemens Alexandrinus of the most civilized Heathens so likewise by Synesius of the most ancient Nations by Strabo of the Ephesians by the Roman Historians of the Roman Emperours who from Augustus to Gratian and some say after continued the title of Pontifex Maximus among the rest of the Imperiall Honours Thus much then may serve to manifest how the Honour of those persons who are im 〈…〉 e service of God and the Governme 〈…〉 is a dictate of the Law of 〈…〉 CHAP. V. The third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lies in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods worship rationall His spirit destroyes not the use of reason The Enthusiastick Spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit time and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Silence in Devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of discipline Excommunication among the Iews by the sound of a Trumpet amongst Christians by a Bell. THe next
in by every one of them singly and subscribed with their own hands all which I have perused these following persons Thomas Arch Bishop of Canterbury Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke the Bishop of Rochester Edmund Bishop of London Robert Bishop of Carlisle Dr. George Day Dr. Thomas Robertson Dr. I. Redmayne Dr. Edward Leighton Dr. Symon Matthew Dr. William Tresham Dr. Richard Cozen Dr. Edgeworth Dr. Owen Oglethorp Dr. Thyrleby These all gave in their several resolutions in papers to the Questions propounded with their names subscribed a far more prudent way then the confusion of verbal and tedious disputes all whose judgements are accurately summed up and set down by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury himself Their resolutions contain distinct answers to several Sets of questions propounded to them The first Set contained several Questions about the Mass about the instituting receiving nature celebration of it and whether in the Mass it be convenient to use such speech as the people may understand whether the whole were fit to be translated or only some part of it with several other questions of the same nature The second Set is more pertinent to our purpose wherein are 17 Questions proposed to be resolved Ten of them belong to the number of Sacraments the other 7. concern Church Government The Questions are these Whether the Appostells lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian-King among them made Bishoppes by that necessity or by auctorite given them of God Whether Bishops or Priests were first and if the Priests were first then the Priest made the Bishop Whether a Bishop hath auctorite to make a Priest by the Scripture or no and whether any other but onely a Bishop may make a Priest Whether in the New Testament be required any consecration of a Bishop and Priest or onely appointeinge to the office be sufficient Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christien lerned to conquer certen domynyons of Infidells having non but the temporall lerned men with him it be defended by Gods Law that be and they should preche and teche the word of God there or no and also make and constitute Priests or noe Whether it be forefended by Goddes Law that if it so fortuned that all the Bishopps and Priests were dedde and that the word of God shuld there unpreached the Sacrament of baptisme and others unministred that the King of that region shulde make Bishoppes and Priests to supply the same or noe Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what crimes and whether they only may excommunicate by Goddes Law These are the questions to which the answers are severally returned in distinct papers all of them bound together in a large Volume by Archbishop Cranmer and every one subscribed their names and some their seals to the Papers delivered in It would be too tedious a work to set down their several opinions at large only for the deserved reverence all bear to the name and memory of that most worthy Prelate and glorious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer I shall set down his answer distinctly to every one of these questions and the answers of some others to the more material questions to our purpose To the 9. Q. All Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the holle cure of all their subjects as well concerning the administration of Goddes word for the cure of soul as concerning the ministration of things Political and civil governaunce And in both theis ministrations thei must have sundry ministers under them to supply that which is appointed to their several office The Cyvile ministers under the Kings Majesty in this realme of England be those whom yt shall please his highness for the tyme to put in auctorite under him as for example the Lord Chancellour Lord Treasurer Lord Greate Master Lord privy seal Lord Admyral Mayres Shryves c. The Ministers of Gods wourde under his Majesty be the Bishops Parsons Vicars and such other Priests as be appointed by his highnes to that ministration as for example the Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Duresme the Bishop of Winchester the Parson of Wynwicke c. All the said officers and ministers as well of th' one sorte as the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and orders of Kings and Princes In the admission of many of these officers bee diverse comely ceremonies and solemnities used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and semely fashion For if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnitye thei were nevertheles truely committed And there is no more promise of God that grace is given in the committing of the Ecclesiastical office then it is in the committing of the Cyvile In the Apostles time when there was no Christien Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor synnes by the sword corrected there was no remedie then for the correction of vice or appoynteinge of ministers but onely the consent of Christien multitude amonge themselfe by an uniforme consent to follow the advice and perswasion of such persons whom God had most endued with the spirit of wisdome and counsaâ—le And at that time for as much as Christian people had no sword nor Governer among them thei were constrained of necessity to take such Curates and Priests as either they knew themselfes to bee meet thereunto or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the spirit of God with such knowledge in the profession of Christ such wisdome such conversation and counsell that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them and to accept such as by theym were presented And so some tyme the Appostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometime the people did chose such as they thought meete thereunto And when any were appointed or sent by the Appostles or other the people of their awne voluntary will with thanks did accept them not for the supremitie Imperie or dominion that the Apostells had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people readie to obey the advice of good counsellours and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit The Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christs Religion A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governours alsoe and that by the auctoritie of God committed them and the people alsoe by their election For as we reade that Bishops have done it so Christien Emperours and Princes usually have done it And the people before Christien Princes were commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture for election or appointeing thereto
may be determined by lawfull authority and what is so determined by that authority doth bind men to obedience as hath been proved by the 5. Hypothesis in the entrance of this Treatise I conclude all with this earnest desire That the wise and Gracious God would send us one heart and one way that he would be the Composer of our differences and the repairer of our breaches that of our strange divisions and unchristian animosities While we pretend to serve the Prince of peace we may at last see THE END Glory to God on high on earth peace good will towards men Luke 2. 14. A Discourse concerning the Power of EXCOMMUNICATION in a Christian Church The Name of Power in a Church explained The mistake of which the Foundation of Erastianism The Notion of the Church opened as it is the subject of Power The Church proved to be a Society distinct from the Common-wealth by reason of its different Nature and divine Institution distinct Officers different Rights and Ends and peculiar Offences The Power of the Church doth not arise from meâ—r confederation The Churches Power founded on the nature of the Christian Society and not on particular Precepts The Power of Church-Officers not meerly Doctrinal proved by several Arguments Church-Power as to particular persons antecedent to confederation The Power of the Keys relates to Baptism The Churches Power extends to Excommunication what it is and what grounds it had under the Law No exclusion from Temple-worship among the Iews Excommunication necessary in a Christian Church because of the conditions supposed to communion in it Of the Incestuous person and the Grounds of the Apostolical censure Objections against Excommunication answered The fundamental Rights of the Church continue after its being incorporated into the civil State The Magistrates Power as to Excommunication cleared IT is a matter of daily observation and experience in the World how hard it is to keep the eyes of the understanding clear in its judgement of things when it is too far engaged in the dust of Controversie It being so very difficult to well manage an impetuous pursuit after any Opinion nothing being more common than to see men out-run their mark and through the force of their speed to be carried as far beyond it as others in their Opinion fall short of it There is certainly a kind of ebriety of the mind as well as of the body which makes it so unstable and pendulous that it oft times reels from one extream unto the quite contrary This as it is obvious in most eager controvertists of all Ages so especially in such who have discovered the â—alsity of an opinion they were once confident of which they think they can never after run far enough from So that while they start at an apparition they so much dread they run into those untroden paths wherein they lose both themselves and the Truth they sought for Thus we find it to be in the present controversie for many out of their just zeal against the extravagancies of those who scrued up Church-Power to so high a peg that it was thought to make perpetual discord with the Common wealth could never think themselves free from so great an inconvenience till they had melted down all Spiritual Power into the civil State and dissolved the Church into the Common-wealth But that the World way see I have not been more forward to assert the just power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils than to defend the Fundamental Rights of the Church I have taken this opportunity more fully to explain and vindicate that part of the Churches-Power which lies in reference to Offenders It being the main thing struck at by those who are the followers of that noted Physician who handled the Church so ill as to deprive her of her expulsive faculty of Noxious humours and so left her under a Miserere meî I shall therefore endeavour to give the Church her due as well as Caesar his by making good this following Principle or Hypothesis upon which the whole hinge of this Controversie turns viz. That the power of inflicting censure upon Offenders in a Christian Church is a fundamental Right resuâ—â—â—â—g from the constitution of the Church as a Society by Jesus Christ and that the seat of this Power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their power Originally from the Founder of this Society and act by vertue of the Laws of it For the clear stating of this Controversie it will be necessary to explain what that Power is which I attribute to the Church and in what notion the Church is to be considered as it exerciseth this Power First concerning the proper notion of Power by it I cannot see any thing else to be understood than a right of governing or ordering things which belong to a Society And so Power implies onely a moral faculty in the person enjoying it to take care ne quid civitas detrimenti capiat whereby it is evident that every well constituted Society must suppose a Power within its self of ordering things belonging to its welfare or else it were impossible either the being or the rights and priviledges of a Society could be long preserved Power then in its general and abstracted notion doth not necessarily import either meer Authority or proper Coaction for these to any impartial judgement will appear to be rather the several modes whereby power is exercised than any proper ingredients of the specifick Nature of it which in general imports no more then a right to govern a constituted Society but how that right shall be exercised must be resolved not from the notion of Power but from the nature and constitution of that particular Society in which it is lodged and inherent It appears then from hence to be a great mistake and abuse of well-natured Readers when all Power is necessarily restrained either to that which is properly Coâ—rcive or to that which is meerly Arbitrary and onely from consent The Original of which mistake is the stating the Notion of Power from the use of the Word either in ancient Roman Authours or else in the Civil Laws both which are freely acknowledged to be strangeâ— to the exercise of any other Power than that which iâ— meerly authoritative and perswasive or that which is Coactive and Penal The ground of which is because they were ignorant of any other way of conveyance of power besides external force and Arbitrary consent the one in those called Legal Societies or Civitates the other Collegia and Hetaeriae But to as that do acknowledge that God hath a right of commanding men to what Duty he please himself and appointing a Society upon what terms best please him and giving a Power to particular persons to govern that Society in what way shall tend most to advance the Honour of such a Society may easily be made appear that there is a kind of Power neither properly