the primary and most proper signification when it appeareth by some clear express and peremptory command of God in his word to be the will of God that the thing so commanded should be perpetually and universally observed Of which sort setting aside the Articles of the Creed and the Moral duties of the Law which are not much pertinent to the present enquiry there are as I take it very few things that can be properly said to be of divine positive right under the New Testament The Preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments are two which when I have named I think I have named all IV. But there is a secondary and more extended signification of that term which is also of frequent use among Divines In which sense such things as having no express command in the word are yet found to have authority and warrant from the institution example or approbation either of Christ himself or his Apostles and have in regard of the importance and usefulness of the things themselves been held by the consentient judgement of all the Churches of Christ in the primitive and succeeding ages needful to be continued such things I say are though not so properly as the former yet usually and interpretativè said to be of Divine Right Of which sort I take the observation of the Lords day the ordering of the Keys the distinction of Presbyters and Deacons and some other things not all perhaps of equal consequence to be Unto Ius divinum in that former acception is required a Divine Precept in this later it sufficeth thereunto that a thing be of Apostolical institution or practice Which ambiguity is the more to be heeded for that the observation thereof is of great use for the avoyding of sundry mistakes that through the ignorance or neglect thereof daily happen to the engaging of men in endless disputes and entangling their consciences in unnecessary scruples V. Now that the Government of the Churches of Christ by Bishops is of divine right in that first and stricter sence is an Opinion at least of great probability and such as may more easily and upon better grounds be defended then confuted especially if in expounding those Texts that are alleaged for it we give such deference to the authority of the Ancient Fathers and their expositions thereof as wise and sober men have alwayes thought it fit we should do Yet because it is both inexpedient to maintain a dispute where it needs not and needless to contend for more where less will serve the turne I finde that our Divines that have travailed most in this Argument where they purposely treat of it do rather chuse to stand to the tenure of Episcopacy ex Apostolicâ designatione then to hold a contest upon the title of jus divinum no necessity requiring the same to be done They therefore that so speak of this Government as established by Divine right are not all of them necessarily so to be understood as if they meant it in that first and stricter sense Sufficient it is for the justification of the Church of England in the constitution and government thereof that it is as certainly it is of Divine right in the latter and larger signification that is to say of Apostolical institution and approbation exercised by the Apostles themselves and by other persons in their times appointed and enabled thereunto by them according to the will of our Lord Iesus Christ and by vertue of the Commission they had received from him VI. Which besides that it is clear from evident Texts of Scripture and from the testimony of as ancient and authentique Records as the world hath any to shew for the attesting of any other part of Ecclesiastical story it is also in truth a part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England evidently deduced out of sundry passages in the booke of Consecration which book is Approved in the Articles of our Religion Art 36. Confirmed by Act of Parliament and Subscribed unto by all persons that have heretofore taken Orders in the Church or Degrees in the University and hath been constantly and uniformly Maintained by our best Writers and by all the sober orderly and Orthodoxe sons of this Church The point hath been so abundantly proved by sundry Learned men and cleared from the exceptions of Novellists that more need not be said for the satisfaction of any intelligent man that will but first take the pains to read the books and then suffer himself to be master of his own reason VII Only I could wish that they who plead so eagerly for the jus divinum of the Lords day yet reject not without some scorn the jus divinum of Episcopacy would ask their own hearts dealing impartially therein whether it be any apparent difference in the nature of the things themselves or in the strength of those reasons that have been brought for either that leadeth them to have such different judgments thereof or rather some prejudicate conceit of their own which having formerly fancied to themselves even as they stood affected to parties the same affections still abiding they cannot easily lay aside Which partiality for I am loath to call it perversness of spirit is by so much the more inexcusable in this particular by how much Episcopal government seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture-Texts of greater pregnancy and clearness and attested by a fuller consent of Antiquity to have been Uniformly and Universally observed throughout the whole Christian world then the Lords day hath hitherto been shewen to be VIII But should it be granted that all the defenders of Episcopacy did indeed hold it to be jure divino in the strictest and most proper sence yet could not the Objectors thence reasonably conclude that it should be eo nomine inconsistent with the Regal power or so much as derogatory in the least degree to that Supream power Ecclesiastical which by the Laws of our Land is established and by the doctrine of our Church acknowledged to be inherent in the Crown As themselves may easily see if they will but consider IX First that Regal and Episcopal power are two powers of quite different kinds and such as considered purely in those things that are proper and essential to either have no mutual relation unto or dependence upon the one the other neither hath either of them any thing to do with the other The one of them being purely spiritual and internal the other external and temporal albeit in regard of the Persons that are to exercise them or some accidental circumstances appertaining to the exercise thereof it may happen the one to be somewayes helpful or prejudicial to the other yet is there no necessity at all that the very powers themselves in respect of their own natures should be at that distance either of them so destructive of other but that they might consist well enough together Yea although either of them or both should claime as indeed they both may do
the exercise thereof but even in the very substance of the Power it selfe as namely that of external jurisdiction coercive are by the Laws declared and by the Clergy acknowledged to be wholly and entirely derived from the King as the sole fountain of all authority of external Iurisdiction whether Spiritual or Temporal within the Realm and consequently not of divine right Other-some although the substance of the power it self be immediately from God and not from the King as those of Preaching Ordaining Absolving c. Yet are they so subject to be inhibited limited or otherwise regulated in the outward exercise of that power by the Laws and Customes of the Land as that the whole execution thereof still dependeth upon the Regal Authority And how can the gross of that Power be prejudicial to the King or his Supremacy whereof all the parts are confessed either to be derived from him or not to be executed without him XIII Fifthly that if Episcopacy must be therefore concluded to be repugnant to Monarchy because it claimeth to be of divine Right then must Monarchs either suffer within their dominions no form of Church-government at all and then will Church and with it Religion soon fall to the ground or else they must devise some new model of Government such as never was yet used or challenged in any part of the Christian world since no form of Government ever yet used or challenged but hath claimed to a Ius divinum as well as Episcopacy yea I may say truly every one of them with far more noise though with far less reason then Episcopacy hath done And therefore of what party soever the objectors are Papists Presbyterians or Independents they shew themselves extreamly Partial against the honest Regular Protestant in condemning him as an enemy to Regal Power for holding that in his way which if it be justly chargeable with such a crime themselves holding the very same in their several wayes are every whit as deeply guilty of as he XIIII Lastly that this their partiality is by so much the more inexcusable by how much the true English Protestant for his government not onely hath a better title to a Ius divinum then any of the other three have for theirs but also pleadeth the same with more caution and modesty then any of them do Which of the four Pretenders hath the best title is no part of the business we are now about The tryal of that will rest upon the strength of the arguments that are brought to maintain it wherein the Presbyterians perhaps will not find any very great advantage beyond the rest of those that contest for it But let the right be where it will be we will for the present suppose them all to have equal title and thus far indeed they are equal that every one taketh his own to be best and it shall suffice to shew that the Ius Divinum is pleaded by the Episcopal party with more calmeness and moderation and with less derogation from Regal Dignity then by any other of the three XV. For First the rest when they spake of Ius Divinum in reference to their several waves of Church-Government take it in the highest elevation in the first and strictest sense The Papist groundeth the Popes Oecumenical Supremacy upon Christs command to Peter to execute it and to all the Flock of Christ Princes also as well as others to submit to him as their universal Pastor The Presbyterian cryeth up his Model of Government and Discipline though minted in the last by-gon Century as the very scepter of Christs Kingdome whereunto all Kings are bound to submit theirs making it as unalterable and inevitably necessary to the being of a Church as the Word and Sacraments are The Independent Separatist also upon that grand principle of Puritanisme common to him with the Presbyterian the very root of almost all the Sects in the world viz That nothing is to be ordered in Church-matters other or otherwise then Christ hath appointed in his Word holdeth that any company of people gathered together by mutual consent in a Church-way is Iure Divino free and absolute within it self to govern it self by such rules as it shall judge agreeable to Gods Word without dependence upon any but Christ Iesus alone or subjection to any Prince Prelate or other humane person or Consistory whatsoever All these you see do not onely claim to a Ius Divinum and that of a very high nature but in setting down their opinions weave in some expresses tending to the diminution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Princes Whereas the Episcopal Party neither meddle with the power of Princes nor are ordinarily very forward to press the Ius Divinum but rather purposely decline the mentioning of it as a term subject to misconstruction as hath been said or else so interpret it as not of necessity to import any more then an Apostolical institution Yet the Apostles authority in that institution being warranted by the example and as they doubt not the direction of their Master Iesus Christ they worthily esteem to be so reverend and obligatory as that they would not for a world have any hand in or willingly and deliberately contribute the least assistance towards much less bind themselves by solemn League and Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of that Government but rather on the contrary hold themselves in their consciences obliged to the uttermost of their powers to endeavour the preservation and continuance thereof in these Churches and do heartily wish the restitution and establishment of the same wheresoever it is not or wheresoever it hath been heretofore under any whatsoever pretence unhappily laid aside or abolished XVI Secondly the rest not by remote inferences but by immediate and natural deduction out of their own acknowledged principles do some way or other deny the Kings Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical either claiming a power of Iurisdiction over him or pleading a priviledge of Exemption from under him The Papists do it both wayes in their several doctrines of the Popes Supremacy and of the Exemption of the Clergy The Puritances of both sorts who think they have sufficiently confuted every thing they have a mind to mislike if they have once pronounced it Popish and Antichristian do yet herein as in very many other things and some of them of the most dangerous consequence symbolize with the Papists and after a sort divide that branch of Antichristianisme wholly between them The Presbyterians claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute spiritual Iurisdiction over Princes with power even to excommunicate them if they shall see cause for it as the Papists challenge to belong to the Pope And the Independents exempting their Congregations from all spiritual subjection to them in as ample manner as the Papists do their Clergy Whereas the English Protestant Bishops and Regular Clergy as becometh good Christians and good Subjects do neither pretend to any Iurisdiction over the Kings of England nor withdraw
other sorts of men because of their Religion and their abilities above all other men to defend it On the other side the Puritanes who envied their power and some great ones about the Court who having tasted the sweet of Sacriledge in the times of the two last Kings thirsted after the remainder of their Revenues complyed either with other for their several respective ends against the Bishops Which being so it had been the foolishest thing in the world for the Bishops to have used that power or interest they had with the Queen upon whose favour or displeasure their whole livelyhood depended for the procuring of her consent to any Act to be done in favour of them that malice it self could with any colourable construction interpret either to savour of Popery or to trench upon the Royal Supremacy That Queen having both by her sufferings before and actions after she came to the Crown sufficiently witnessed to the world her averseness from Popery and being withall a Princess of a great Spirit and particularly jealous in the point of Prerogative XXIX Whence I think we may with good reason conclude that the ancient custome of the Bishops in making Summons c. in their own names after it was by the Act of Repeal 1. Mar. restored was continued by Queen Elizabeth and her successours ever since without interruption or reviving of the Statute of King Edward neither out of any inadvertency in the State nor through any importune or indirect labouring of the Bishops as by the Objectors is weakly presumed but advisedly and upon important considerations viz. that the devising of such a new way as is set forth and appointed in the said Statute was not only a needless thing and Laws should not be either made or altered but where it is needful so to do but subject also to manifest both inconvenience and Scandal XXX That it was altogether needless to change the old Custome may appear by this that all the imaginable necessity or utility of such a change could be onely this To secure the King by using his Name in their Processes c. as a real acknowledgement that their Iurisdiction is derived from him and no other that the Bishops had no intention in the exercise of their Episcopal power to usurp upon his Ecclesiastical Supremacy Which Supremacy of the King and Superiority of his Jurisdiction Authority over that which the Bishops exercised being already by so many other wayes and means sufficiently secured it could argue nothing but an impertinent jealousie to endeavour to strengthen that security by an addition of so poor and inconsiderable regard XXXI The Kings of England are secured against all danger that may accrue to their Regal power from Episcopal Iurisdiction as it hath been anciently and of later times exercised in this Realm First by the extent of their Power over the persons and livelihoods of the Bishops and over the whole State Ecclesiastical as in the ancient right of the Crown which how great it was may appear by these three particulars XXXII First the Collation and Donation of Bishopricks together with the nomination of the persons to be made Bishops in case they did by their Writ of Conge d'eslier permit the formality of Election to others did alwayes belong to the Kings of this Realm both before and since the Conquest as in right of their Crown Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishopricks of this Realm are of the Kings foundation that they were originally donative and not elective and that the full right of Investiture was in the King who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi annuli by the delivery of a ring and a Crosier-staff to the person by him elected and nominated for that office The Popes indeed often assayed to make them elective either by the Dean and Canons of the Cathedral or by the Monkes of some principal Abbey adjoyning but the Kings still withstood it and maintained their right as far as they could or durst Insomuch as King Henry the First being earnestly sollicited by the Pope to grant the election of Bishops to the Clergy constanter allegavit saith the story and verbis minacibus he stoutly and with threats refused so to do saying he would not for the loss of his Kingdome lose the right of those Investitures It is true that King Iohn a Prince neither fortunate nor couragious being overpowred by the Popes did by Charter in the Seventeenth year of his Raign grant that the Bishopricks of England should be eligible But this notwithstanding in the Raign of King Edward the Third it was in open Parliament declared and enacted that to the King and his heirs did belong the collation of Archbishopricks c. and all other dignities that are of his Advowson and that the elections granted by the Kings his progenitors were under a certain form and condition viz. that they should ask leave of the King to elect and that after the election made they should obtain the Kings consent thereunto and not otherwise XXXIII Secondly the King hath power if he shall see cause to suspend any Bishop from the execution of his Office for so long time as he shall think good yea and to deprive him utterly of the dignity and office of a Bishop if he deserve it Which power was de facto exercised both by Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth in the beginning of their several Raigns upon such Bishops as would not conform to their Religion XXXIV Thirdly the Kings of England have a great power over the Bishops in respect of their Temporalties which they hold immediately of the King per Baroniam and which every Bishop Elect is to sue out of the Kings hands wherein they remained after the decease of the former Bishop during the Vacancy and thence to take his only restitution into the same making Oath and fealty to the King for the same upon his Consecration Yea and after such restitution of Temporalties and Consecration the King hath power to seize the same again into his own hands if he see just cause so to do Which the Kings of England in former times did so frequently practice upon any light displeasure conceived against the Bishops that it was presented as a grievance by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Prelates by way of request to King Edw. 3. in Parliament and thereupon a Statute was made the same Parliament that thenceforth no Bishops Temporalties should be seized by the King without good cause I finde cited by Sir Edward Coke out of the Parliament Rolls 18. H. 3. a Record wherein the King straightly chargeth the Bishops not to intermeddle in any thing to the prejudice of his Crown threatning them with seisure of their Temporalties if they should so do The words are Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis quae conventuri sunt apud Gloucestr ' the King having before summoned them by writ to a Parliament to be holden at Gloucester
upon it by some necessity of the times or induced for just reasons of expediency so to do XL. But then Secondly as that Reason relateth to the present business in particular the Scandal thereby given is yet greater For we are to know that when King Henry the Eighth abolished the Papal Power resuming in his own hand the ancient rights of the Crown which the Bishops of Rome had unjustly usurped he took upon himselfe also that title which he then found used by the Bishops of Rome but which none of his Progenitors the Kings of this Realm had ever used of being the Supream head of the Church within his Dominions This title continued during the Reign of his son King Edward the Sixth by whom the Statute aforesaid was made and is mentioned in that very Statute Now albeit by that title or appellation was not intended any other thing then that Supremacy Ecclesiastical which the Kings of this Land have and of right ought to have in the governance of their Realms over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiastical as well as other and which is in the Oath of Supremacy ackowledged to belong unto them yet the Papists took Scandal at the novelty thereof and glad of such an occasion made their advantage of it to bring a reproach upon our Religion as if the Protestants of England were of opinion that all Spiritual Power did belong unto the King and that the Bishops and Ministers of England had their whole power of Preaching administring the Sacraments Ordaining Excommunicating c. solely and originally from the King as the members of the body live by the influence which the Head hath into them Upon their clamours that title of Supream head and governour was taken into farther consideration in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign And although that style in the true meaning thereof was innocent and defensible enough yet for the avoiding of Scandal and Cavil it was judged more expedient that the word Head should thenceforth be laid aside and the style run only Supream Governour as we see it is in the Oath of Supremacy and otherwhere ever since without mentioning the word Head according to the intimations given in the Queens Injunctions and elswhere in that behalfe And it seemeth to me very probable that for the same reason especially besides those other reasons already given it was thought fitter by Her then and by her successours hitherto that the Bishops in all their Ecclesiastical Courts and proceedings should act in their own names as formerly they had done then that the Statute of King Edward should be revived for doing it in the Kings name For the sending out processes c. in order to Excommunication and other Church-censures in the Kings name would have served marvellously to give colour and consequently strength in the apprehension at least of weaker judgements to that calumny wherewith the Papists usually asperse our Religion as if the Kings of England took themselves to be proper and competent Iudges of Censures meerly spiritual in their own persons and the Prelates accordingly did acknowledge them so to be Thus have I shewen to the satisfaction I hope of the ingenuous and unprejudiced Reader that Episcopacy is no such dangerous creature either in the Opinion or Practice as some would make the world believe it is but that the Kings Crown may stand fast enough upon his head and flourish in its full verdure without plucking away or displacing the least flower in it notwithstanding Episcopacy should be allowed to be of Divine Right in the highest sence and the Bishops still permitted to make their Processes in their own names and not in the Kings By this time I doubt not all that are not willfully blind for who so blind as he that will not see do see and understand by sad experience that it had been far better both with King and Kingdome then now it is or without Gods extraordinary mercy is like to be in haste if the enemies of Episcopacy had meant no worse to the King and his Crown then the Bishops and those that favoured them did A POST-SCRIPT to the Reader WHereas in my Answer to the former of the two Objections in the foregoing Treatise I have not any where made any clear discovery what my own particular judgement is concerning the Jus divinum of EPISCOPACY in the stricter sense either in the Affirmative or Negative and for want of so doing may perhaps be censured by some to have walked but haltingly or at least wise with more caution and mincing then became me to do in a business of that nature I do hereby declare 1. That to avoid the starting of more Questions then needs must I then thought it fitter and am of the same opinion still to decline that Question then to determine it either way such determination being clearly of no moment at all to my purpose and for the solving of that Objection 2. That nevertheless leaving other men to the liberty of their own judgements my opinion is that EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT is not to be derived meerly from Apostolical Practise or Institution but that it is originally founded in the Person and Office of the Messias our blessed Lord JESUS CHRIST Who being sent by his Heavenly Father to be the great Apostle HEB. III. 1. Bishop and Pastor 1 PET. II. 25. of his Church and anointed to that Office immediately after his Baptisme by JOHN with power and the Holy Ghost ACT. X. 37-8 descending then upon him in a bodily shape LUK. III. 22. did afterwards before his Ascension into Heaven send and impower his holy Apostles giving them the Holy Ghost likewise as his Father had given him in like manner as his Father had before sent him JOH XX. 21. to execute the same Apostolical Episcopal and Pastoral Office for the ordering and governing of his Church until his coming again and so the same Office to continue in them and their Successours unto the end of the world MAT. XXVIII 18 20. This I take to be so clear from these and other like Texts of Scripture that if they shall be diligently compared together both between themselves and with the following practise of all the Churches of Christ as well in the Apostles times as in the Purest and Primitive times nearest thereunto there will be left little cause why any man should doubt thereof 3. That in my Answer to the later Objection I made no use at all nor indeed could do of the Opinion of the Reverend Judges in that point nor of his Majesties Proclamation grounded thereupon For although the Proclamation had been extant Ten years before this task was imposed upon me yet I had never seen nor so much as heard of the same in all the time before nor yet in all the time since till about ten dayes ago I was advertised thereof when these Papers were then going to the Press Which since they give so much strength to the main Cause and so fully avoid the Objection I have followed the advise of some friends and caused them to be printed here withal FINIS See Stat. 25. H. 8. 20 1. Edw. 6. 2. Cok. 1. Instit. 2. Sect. 648. Stat. for the Clergy 14. â— 3. cap. 3.