Clavi Trabales; OR, NAILES FASTNED by some Great MASTERS of ASSEMBLYES. Confirming

  • The KINGS SUPREMACY.
  • The SUBJECTS Duty.
  • Church Government by BISHOPS.

The Particulars of which are as followeth

  • I. Two Speeches of the late LORD PRIMATE USHERS.
    • The one of the Kings Supremacy,
    • The other of the Duty of Subjects to supply the Kings Necessities.
  • II. His Judgment and Practice in Point of Loyalty, Episcopacy, Liturgy and Constitutions of the Church of England,
  • III. Mr. HOOKERS Judgment of the Kings Power in matters of Religion, advancement of Bishops &c.
  • IV. Bishop ANDREWS of Church-Government &c. both con­firmed and enlarged by the said PRIMATE.
  • V. A Letter of Dr HADRIANUS SARAVIA of the like Subjects.

Unto which is added a Sermon of REGAL POVVER, and the Novelty of the DOCTRINE of RESISTANCE, Also a Preface by the Right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of LINCOLNE.

Published by Nicholas Bernard, Doctor of Divinity, and Rector of Whit-church in Shropshire.

Si totus orbis adversum me conjuraret, ut quid quam moliret adversus Regiam Majestatem, ego tamen Deum [...] & ordinatum ab eo Regem offendere temere non auderem.

Bern. Ep. 170. ad Ludovicem Regem. An. 11 [...]0

London, Printed by R. Hodkginson, and are to be sold by R. Marriot, at his Shop in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleetstreet. 1661.

THE PREFACE.

THese two learned Speeches of the late Lord Primate Usher have been by some prudent persons judged seasonable to be thus published together. The one, Of the Kings Supremacy, may not only be instructive to those of the Church of Rome, but to some of our own Communion, who have been and are too scanty in the acknowledgment of it. The other, Of the duty of Subjects to sup­ply the Kings necessities, was occasioned by the slowness in Ireland of contributing to the King, for the maintenance of the Ar­my, continued there for their own defence, the great imprudence of which parsimony, [Page] we felt, to our own loss not many years after; wherein that distinction in point of Loyalty, made between those descended of the antient English race (though diffe­ring from us in point of Religion) and those of the meer Irish (which is there much enlarged) may be now worthy of obser­vation. The whole Speech is full of Loyalty, Prudence and Learning, for which, as he had his late Majesties (of Blessed Memory) gracious thanks, so he had as lit­tle from others, who were then as back­ward in assenting to the like Propositi­ons here, conceiving he had pressed their duty too high in that point.

Both these Speeches thus tending to the defence of Regal Power, and the duty of Sub­jects, hath (in submission to the judgments of those whom I much reverence) occasi­oned the putting forth a Sermon of mine upon the like Subject, which I have the rather adventured so near this eminent Primate, as having had his approbation oc­casioned by the censure of some at Dublin, anno 1642. when it was first delivered; of [Page] which more is said in an Advertisement before it.

Hereupon I have been further induced unto a vindication of the said most eminent Prelate not only of His Judgment in this Subject, but in point of Episcopacy, Litur­gy, and Constitutions of the Church of Eng­land, from the various misapprehensions of such, who being of different opinions, the great respect given him by the one, hath been a scandal to the other: But by this im­partial relation of his Judgment and Pra­ctice in each, it may be hoped that both sorts will be so fully satisfyed as to unite in the exemplary observance of that Piety, Loyalty, Conformity, and Humility found in him.

And whereas some do much appeal to that Accommodation of his in relation to Epis­copacy (wherein he was not single) propo­sed Anno 1640. (which then they did not hearken unto) they are herein remembred what was that which caused it, even the pressing violence of those times, threatning the destruction of the whole, with the sole end of it, a pacification, whose readiness [Page] in yielding up so much of his own Interest then, for the tranquility of the Church (like Jonas willing to be cast overboard for the stilling of the Tempest) would be worthy of all our Imitations now. The ap­peale here is from that Storm, unto what his practice was in calme and peaceable times, which if followed, would give a check to most of those disputes which have of late taken up so much time a­mongst us.

The Fruite expected to be reaped from this declaration (besides the satisfaction of mine own mind, which was not at rest without it) is the due honor of him, for whose I am oblieged to sacrifice mine own. That as he is admired abroad, so he may not want that love and general esteem he hath deserved at home. And as the peace and unity of the Church was studied by him in his life time, so there might not be the least breach continued by a misapprehension of him after his death. And surely if such of us who think him worthy of being our co­py, would but now upon the sight of this, [Page] writ after him the Arke of our Church would cease to be tossed too and fro in this floating uncertain condition, and immedi­ately rest upon firm ground.

Heretofore, having an occasion to vin­dicate this most Learned Primate in point of Doctrine (so unhappy often are persons of his eminency, as after their deaths to be challenged Patrons to contrary partyes) I had An. 1658. a Letter of Thanks from the late Reverend Bishop of Durham (Bishop Morton) in these wordes, viz. I acknowledge hereby my obligation of Thankfulness to you, not only for the book it self, but especially for your pains, in vindicating that admirable Saint of God, and Starr, primae magnitudinis, in the Church of God, the Primate of Armagh, &c. In which high esteem of the Primate, the now Reverend Bish. of Durham succeeds him, who hath often signified it, in divers of his Letters which I receiued from Paris to that purpose.

Hereunto two other Treatises have been thought fit to be added (mentioned in the foresaid vindication (but then not intend­ed [Page] to be published) which the Eminent Primate had a hand in. The one, Mr. Hookers Judgment of Regal Power, in Matters of Religion, the advancement of Bishops, and the Kings Exemption from censure &c. Left out of the common copyes inlarged and confirm­ed by the Primate, all the marginal notes of the quotations out of the Fathers, being un­der his own hand, are noted with this mark*

The other a Treatise of the Form of Church Government before and after Christ, &c. The main aime of it is to shew, that the Government of the Christian Church e­stablished by the Apostles under the New Testament was according to the pattern of that in the Old, then which scarce any book in so little, speaks so much, for the pre­heminency of Episcopacy. It first appear­ed Anno 1641. under the Title of the rude draughts of Bishop Andrews, (which though I was in doubt of, by the contrary opinion of an eminent person, (heretofore near unto him) yet I am confirmed in it by what I find written by that Learned Bishop [Page] in answer to Peter de Moulin, wherein is found not only the substance, but the very words that are used both within this Trea­tise, and the Emendations. vid. resp. ad 3. epist. p. 193. 194. Vis arcessam adhuc altius, vol è ve­teri Testamento, atque ipsâ adeò lege divinâ? Facit Hieronymus, & ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex veteri Testamento, quod Aaron, & filii ejus, atque Levitae in Templo fu­erunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri, atque Diaconi vendicant in Ecclesiâ▪ Facit Ambrosius, utro­bique, in 1. Co. 12. & 4. ad Ephes, de Judaeis lo­quens; Quorum, inquit, traditio ad nos tranfitum fecit, Aaronem mitto ne quasi Christi typum rejicias. Filiis ejus sacer dotibus nonne in singulis familiis suus [...] id est Praelatus, sive ut alibi di­citur [...] i. e. Episcopus? Gersonitis, Num. 3. 24. Kaathitis v. 30. Meraritis, v. 30? Nonne vi­vente adhuc patre suo, Eleazar ibi [...] quasi dicas Praelatus Praelatorum v. 32. [...] quasi di­cas Archiepiscopus, sunt ergo in lege [...]. In Evangelio Apostoli, septuaginta duo, septem illi, Act. 6. In Apostolorum praxi de duohus illis sump­ta, Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi.

Again it hath been assured me by a Reve­rend [Page] Bishop, that the abovesaid Rude Draught was wrote by the hand of Bishop Andrews own Secretary, and that the said Bishop did deliver it himself to the Primate, Anno 1640. who, though it came in that imperfect condition, yet finding so many excellent observations wrought out with very great industry, he judged it forth with, as it was, worthy of the Press: But afterwards upon a further review, he added his strength to the perfecting of it, which I found a­mongst his papers done throughout with his own hand, and with it a Manuscript of the same, corrected accordingly by him. And in the conclusion of that, a very learn­ed hand had contributed to it also, signify­ing by markes refering to several Pages, what he would have added, altered, or fur­ther enquired into, Now whether the Au­thor of that be Bishop Andrews, or some o­ther learned person, I shall not determine, only seeing it was his custom in what he published (as I am assured) first to write a rough draught, then after some distance of time to take a review, and a third before it [Page] passed his hand, this might be the second, and the third supplyed by the Lord Primate, wherein the last desire of the Author hath been satisfied, he not only inquiring into, but clearing those difficulties in Chorography and Chronology, which I have in their due pla­ces inserted, with the learned additions be­fore mentioned. So that whether the whole be the labour of those two eminent Prelats (the one laying the Foundation, the other building upon it) or be a three fold cord, it is here faithfully presented without any di­munition or addition, even where there seemed to be some small imperfection which in a few places do occurre, all which some years agon Doctor Brounrigg the late Bishop of Exeter, upon the view of gave me his judgment for the publishing of them.

I have only this to add, That for every particular passage in the whole, I have no warrant to intitle the Primates judgment to it. Only it is apparent by his great pains in the double correction, and supply made by himself in some Specialties, he had a ve­ry [Page] great valew of it. The Primates Annotations are noted with this marke*. And the sup­posed Authors additions and changes are no­ted with this mark [] though in some o­mitted.

Lastly, finding among the said Primates papers a Letter of D. HADRIANUS de SARA­VIA to the Ministers of the Isle of Garnsey, (which I cannot hear was ever published.) I have thought fit to add also, the Subject being so near a kin to the former, con­cerning both the KINGS POWER, EPIS­COPACY, and the CONSTITUTIONS of the Church of England, whose advice to them many years agon, may be of good use to o­thers now.

I have no more, but to wish that the Judgment of these eminent Authors may be so prevalent with others, much inferior to them, that they may be moved accord­ingly to study quietness, and seek those ways of peace, which of latter years we have not known.

The Bishop of Lincoln's Preface to the Reader.

Courteous Reader,

THe Four Authors of these scattered (and some of them imperfect) pieces, by the care and diligence of the learn­ed Publisher gathered up, preser­ved from perishing, and presented to the World here altogether in one view, were all of them men famous in their times, and of so high esteem, that common opinion had set them up (which is not alwaies the Lot of Worth and Vertue) a­bove the reach of Calumny and Envy, even whilst they were yet living, much reverence eve­ry where paid, not to their Persons only, but to their very Names: Their writings carried Au­thority with them, as well as Weight; and the evidence of Truth (which hath a marvelous strength to cast down every imagination that exalteth it self there against) shining forth [Page] in their Works, subdued all men (that had not to serve Interests laid aside their Reason) to their Judgments, insomuch as the Adverse Party finding themselves not so well able to stand upon their own bottom, nor likely to hold up the re­putation they had gained among the vulgar with­out a juggle, have been sometimes put to the pit­tifull shift of setting forth Suppositious Pam­phlets in favour of their cause, under the coun­terfeit names of other men of known Piety and Parts, whose former writings having been en­tertained with general approbation abroad in the world, their very names (they thought) would give some countenance to any cause which they could seem in any degree to own. So some­times poor mens Bastards are fathered upon those that never begat them; only because it is known they are well able to maintain them.

This is one of their Piae fraudes or Godly Cheats, a practice common to them with the Je­suites, as many other of their practises (ey and of their Doctrines too) are. Such an unhappy fatal coincidence, not seldom there is of Ex­treams. Thus dealt they with the Reverend Pri­mate of Armagh, printing in his name, and that [Page] in his life time too, (such was their modesty and tenderness of Conscience) two severall Pamphlets, the one called Vox Hiberniae, and the other, A Direction to the Parliament, &c. See pag. 151. And sure, if they had the fore­head to make thus bold with him, when he was alive, able to complain of the injury done him, and to protest against it: We cannot doubt but that if need were, they would make at least as bold with him and his name after he was dead, when they might doe it with greater secu­rity and less fear of controll. See pag. 60. They that betake themselves to these un worthy arts, though they may please themselves for a while with an imagination, that by this means the people will fall to them apace, and there­out they shall suck no smal advantage to their Cause and Party; yet as it mostly cometh to pass, such their rejoycing is but short: For the imposture once discovered (nor is it often long before that be done; for a lying tongue is but for a moment) the Imposters are forced to lye down in sorrow, and that (if they could be found out) with shame enough. For, such disco­very once made, wisemen fall off faster from [Page] them, then ever fools came on; concluding the Cause to be desperately crazy, that must be be­holding to such weak props as these to shore it up, and support it.

How they that are guilty of such foul play will be able to make answer for their insincerity be­fore the tribunal of the great Judge at that his day (if yet they that do such things can really be­lieve there is any such thing as a day of Judg­ment to come) I leave to their own Judg­ments in this their day to consider. As for us qui leges colimus severiores, as we profess our utter abhorrency of all forgery and other like un worthy & unchristian attempts in any per­son of whatsoever perswasion he be, or for what soever end it be done, so we hold our selves religi­ously obliged to use all faithfulness and sincerity in the publishing of other mens works; by suffering every Author to speak his own sense in his own words, nor taking the boldness to change a phrase or syllable therein, at least not without giving the Reader, both notice where, and some good account also why we have so done. Such faithfulness and ingenuity the learned publisher of these Treatises professeth himself to have used, [Page] in setting them forth, neither better nor worse, but just as he found them in the Reverend Pri­mate's Paper, some perfect, and some imperfect, according as they were, and still are in the Copies which are in his custody, and which he is ready up­on all occasions to shew, if need shall require.

The Primates two Speeches, and Dr. Sara­via's Letter, are set forth perfect, according as they are in the Original Copies to be seen. The Treatise of the Form of Church-Govern­ment heretofore published, and (very probably) supposed to have been some Collections of the most Learned and Reverend Bishop Andrews, but whereunto the Author had not put to his last hand, is a piece though little in bulk, yet of huge industry, and such as neither could the materi­als thereof have been gathered without very fre­quent reading, and attent observing of the sa­cred Text, nor being gathered could they have been easily contrived or digested into any hand­some Form so compendiously without the help of a methodical and mature judgment; which doubtless had the Author polished and finished ac­cording to his own mind, abilities, and exact­ness in other things, would have given very [Page] much satisfaction to the impartial Reader, and done good service to the Church of God. Yet rather then a Tract of so much usefulness should not be publickly known to the World, the Publisher in order to the publick good, thought fit (notwith­standing whatsoever defects it may have for want of the Authors last hand thereunto) to joyn it with the rest in this Edition, especially the Learned Primate having had it under his File, as by the Notes and other Additi­ons written with the Primates own hand (which I have seen and can testifie) doth plainly appear. The same also is to be said of the three pieces of the renowned Hooker, and of what is written with the same hand in the Margent of the Manuscript Copie, whereof some ac­count is given, pag. 47.

Great pity it is, if it could be holpen, that a­ny thing which fell from the Pen of any of these Four Worthies should be lost. But where the entire Work cannot be retrived; it is pity but (as in a Shipwrack at Sea, or Scath-fire by land) so much of it should be saved as can be sa­ved, be it more or lesse. Those men have been always thought to have deserved well of the [Page] Commonwealth of Learning, that have be­stowed their pains in collecting out of the Scholi­asts, Grammarians, Lexicons, and other an­tient Authors, the Fragments of Ennius, Lu­cilius, Cicero, the Dramatike Poets, and of other learned, though but Heathen Writers, whether Greek or Latine. How much more then ought the very imperfest Fragments and Re­likes (so they be genuine) of such excellent per­sons, that tend so much to the advancement, not of the knowledge only, but of the Power al­so of Christianity, and of Godliness as well as Truth, be acceptable to all those that are true Lovers of either? Of Gold quaevis bracteola, the very smalest filings are precious, and our Blessed Saviour, when there was no want of provision, yet gave it in charge to his Disciples, the off-fall should not be lost. The more com­mendable therefore is, and the more acceptable to the men of this Generation should be, the care of the Reverend Preserver and Publisher of these small but precious Relikes of so many emi­nent persons, men of exquisite learning, sober understandings, and of exemplary piety and gravity, all concurring in the same judgment, [Page] as concerning those points (Factious Spirits in these latter times so much opposed) of Regal Soveraignty, Episcopal Government, and Obe­dience in Ceremonialls.

What the Reverend Doctor hath added of his own, as touching the Learned Primates Judg­ment in the Premises, and confirmed the same by instancing in sundry particulars under those three Generall Heads; and that, from his own perso­nal knowledge, and long experience (having for divers years lived under or near him) is in the general very well known to my self and many others, who have sundry times heard him, as occa­sion was given, deliver his opinion clearly in every of the aforesaid points, which were then grown to be the whole Subject (in a manner) of the common discourse of the times. But one particular I shall mention, which above the rest I perfectly remember, as taking more special notice of it when it was spoken then of the rest, because I had never heard it observed by any be­fore, and having my self oftentimes since spoken of it to others upon several occasions; which for that it hath given satisfaction to some, I think it my duty to make it known to as many others as I [Page] can, by acquainting the Reader with it, and it concerneth the Ceremony of the Cross after Bap­tisme, as it is enjoyned by Law, and practised in the Church of England.

The use of this Ceremony had been so fully declared, and (as to the point of Superstition where with some had charged it) so abundantly vindicated, both in the Canons of the Church, and other writings of Learned men, that before the beginning of the Long Parliament, and the unhappy Divisions that followed thereupon, there were very few in the whole Nation (scarce here and there one) either of the Ministers that made scruple to use it, or of the People that took offence at it. But after that some leading men of the House of Commons in that Par­liament, for the better driving on the design they had upon the King, had let all loose in the Church, whilst some few stood fast to their ho­nest Principles (and were most of them undone by it) the greatest part of the Clergy (to their shame be it spoken) many for fear of loosing their own, more in hope to get other mens livings, and some possibly out of their simplicity beguiled with the specious name of Reformation, in a [Page] short space became either such perfect Time-Ser­vers as to cry down, or such tame Complyers with the stronger Side, as to lay down ere they needed, the use of the whole Liturgy, and of all the Rites and Ceremonies therein prescribed. But among them ail none in the whole bunch so bitterly inveighed against, nor with such severi­ty anathematized, as this of the Cross, as smelling ranker of Popery & Superstition then any of the rest, as it is even at this day by the Managers of the Presbyterian Interest represent­ed as of all other, the greatest Stone of offence to tender Consciences, and the removal of it more insisted upon, then of all the other Ceremo­nies, by such men, as having engaged to plead in the behalf of other mens tender Consciences, do wisely consider withall, that it will not be so much for their own Credit, now to become Time-Servers with the Laws, as it was some years past for their profit to become Time-Servers a­gainst the Laws.

These out-cries against a poor Ceremony, to us (who were not able to discerne in it any thing of harme or Superstition, worthy of so much noise) afforded sometimes, when two or three of [Page] us chanced to meet together, matter of dis­course. It hapned upon a time, that falling occa­sionally upon this Theme, the Learned Primate among other things said to us that were then casu­ally present with him, that in his opinion the Sign of the Cross after Baptisme, as it is appointed in the Service-Book, and taken to­gether with the words used there withall, was so far from being a Relike of Popery, that he verily believ'd the same to have been retained in the Church of England at the Reformation, of purpose to shew that the custom used in the Church of Rome, of giving the Chrisme to Infants immediately after their Baptisme, was in their Judgments neither necessary to be continued in all Churches, nor expedient to be observed in ours. Which his opinion, as it is most certainly true in the former, so to me it seemeth very pro­bable in the latter branch thereof.

For first, how can that be with any truth affir­med, or but with the least colour of reason suspect­ed to be a Popish Custom, or a Rag or Relike of Rome, that hath been for above a hundred years used (and that use by Law established) in the Protestant Church of England, but is [Page] not at all used, nor (for ought I can learn) ever was used by the Papists in their Churches, nor is it by any Order or Authority of the Church of Rome enjoyned to be used in any Church in the world that professeth subjection thereunto. True it is, that in the Office of Baptisme, according to the Romane Ritual, the signe of the Cross is very often used, from first to last, at least twen­ty times (viz. in the Benediction of the Salt, in the Exorcismes, in the formal words of Ad­ministration, and otherwise) yet as luck would have it, that signe is not made, nor by the Ri­tual appointed to be made upon the Childs Fore­head, as with us is used: Nor are those very words therewithal used, nor other words to the like purpose by the said Ritual appointed to be so used (shewing what the intent, meaning and signification of that Sign is) as in our Service Book is done. And true it is also (for I wil not, as I think Iought not dissemble any thing that I can imagine might be advantagiously objected by an Adversary) that according to the Romane Order the Minister as soon as he hath finished the Baptisme (Ego baptizo te &c.) is in the next place to annoint the Infant cross-wise, [Page] with a certain Prayer (or Benediction rather) to be said at the same time, as by the Ritual printed at Antwerp, An. Dom. MDCLII. pag. 23. may appear. But so far distant is that Rite of theirs from this of ours in many respects, as may also by comparing their Ritual with our Ser­vice Book appear; that ours cannot with any congruity be thought to have been drawen by that patterne, or to have been borrowed or ta­ken from their practice. For first,

1. Theirs is actus immanens, a material an­nointing and so leaveth a real effect behind it, the visible Form or Figure of a Cross, to be seen up­on the Childs head, after the act is done. But ours is a meer transient act, an immaterial sign of a Cross made in the aire, without any sensible either impression or expression remain­ing when the act is over.

2. Theirs is done upon the Top or Crown of the head (in summitate capitis. Ritual p. 23.) which is else where expressed by Vertex (see pag. 49. & 51. & 56.) which sure must needs have some other signification, if it have any, then ours hath. Which is done upon the Childs Forehead, the proper seat (by the common [Page] judgment of the world, and according to the grounds of Phisiognomy) of shamefastness and boldness, and so holdeth a perfect analogy with that which the Church intended to signifie by it in token that he shall not be ashamed &c.

3. Their Cross belongeth precisely to the an­nointing with the Chrisme, whereunto it rela­teth, and hath such a dependance thereupon, that supposing there were no such Chrisme used in the Church of Rome, there would be no place left for the Cross in all that part of the Office that followeth after the formal words of Baptisme, as from the frame and order of their Ritual is most evident. It cannot therefore be the same with the Cross used in our Church, where the Chrisme is not at all used, but thought fit rather at the Reformation to be (I dare not say con­demned as unlawful and superstitious, but) laid aside, as at least unnecessary and useless, as many other Ceremonies (still retained in the Church of Rome) were, because, though some of them were guiltless, yet they were grown so burden­some by reason of their multitude, that it was fit the number of them should be abated.

[Page] And yet secondly there might be, and (in the Primates judgment) probably there was a more peculiar Reason why after Baptisme our Church did substitute the signe of the Cross with the words thereto appertaining, in stead of the Chrisme and the Cross attending it, used in the Church of Rome. The Ceremony of give­ing the chrisme to Infants in all likelihood came into the church about the same time, when (through the misunderstanding of a passage in John 6. 53.) the opinion of the necessity of administring the Lords Supper to Infants had obtained in the christian church. And that (as it seemeth) to supply in some sort the want of con­firmation wherein the like Ceremony of annoint­ing with the chrisme was used) of which young children were not capable, and which yet was in all reason to precede the receiving of the Lords Supper. That opinion in time vanished as an Error, and with it the practise of communica­ting Infants ceased. But still the custom of giving them the chrisme continued, as a kind of initial confirmation (if I may so call it) as if by it were conferred some degree of that grace, which in their account) is the proper effect of the Sa­crament [Page] of confirmation, to wit, the grace of Spiritual Strength, to fight against the Spiri­tual Enemie of the Soul, the flesh, the world and the Divel: Now to prevent the imaginati­on of any such efficacious vertue in the chrisme, and to shew that by Baptisme alone (which is sa­cramentum militare) without the addition of the chrisme, the person baptized receiveth all that benefite of grace and strength, whatsoever it be, which he should do, if the chrisme were joyned with it (for by Baptisme he is not on­ly received into the church as a Member of Christ, but matriculated also into the Militia as a Soldier of Christ) it might very well be thought convenient, laying aside the annointing with the chrisme (per modum crucis) cross­wise, that the Minister as soon as he hath bap­tized the child, should in express words signifie to the Congregation, that he is now become the Soldier of Jesus Christ, as well as a Member of his Church, with the sign of the cross also used there withall as a significant ceremony in token that the person so baptized being now the Soldier of Christ, should not be ashamed of his professi­on, nor behave himself cowardly therein.

[Page] This is the substance of what the Learned Primate declared to us to be his Judgment con­cerning the use of this Ceremony, and the place it hath in our Liturgy. In the setting down where­of, if for the Readers fuller satisfaction I have allowed my self a good liberty of enlargement, either for the farther confirming, or the bet­ter clearing of [...]is opinion: I hope none will therefore charge me to have misrepre­sented it, having gone all along upon his grounds, and perfectly to his sense. This Story, of what discourse we had with the Primate at that time (as I had to others heretofore, so) I told very lately to the Re­verend Doctor, the Publisher of these Trea­tises, who told me back again, that himself had also heard him declare his opinion to the same effect as aforesaid, and remembreth particularly (which I here publish, having the Doctors Warrant so to do) that he so de­clared it in a publick Speech (mentioned pag. 63.) before a great Auditory at Drogheda in Ireland, when he first confirmed children there.

[Page] I am unwilling, having gone thus far alrea­dy to weary the Reader or my Self with pro­ceeding any farther, nor indeed is it needful I should. For (since only by pride commeth contention, Prov. 13. 10. if all men that pretend to be wise and honest would be humble (and truly he that is not so, is nei­ther honest nor wise) and make that their business which is certainly their Duty: That is to say, if they would study quietness more, and Parties less, bear a just reverence to Antiquity and to their betters, allow as fa­vorable a construction to things established as they are capable of, suspect their own judg­ment, wherein it differeth from the publick, submit to reason, and yield when they are convinced, obey cheerfully where they may, and where they dare not, suffer without noise, a little saying and writing would serve the turn. But when men are once grown to this, to make it their Glory to head or hold up a Party; To study wayes how to evade when they are called to obey; To resolve to erre, because they have erred, and to hold their conclu­sion in despite of all Premises; To preferre [Page] their private opinions before wiser mens judg­ments, and their reputation with the vulgar be­fore Obedience to Superiors; In a word, to suffer themselves to be swayed with Passions, Parties, or Interests; all the writing and saying in the World, as to such men (untill it shall please God to put their hearts into ano­ther Frame) is to no more purpose, then if a man should go about to fill a Seive with Water, or to wash a Blackamore white.

When we have tried all the ways and con­clusions we can, we shall in the end find the best expedient for Peace, and the best Ser­vice we can do the Church, our Selves, and our Brethren, to be our constant and instant Prayers to Almighty God (with our subservient Endeavors) that he would give to every one of us, a discerning judg­ment to see the Truth, and a willing mind to embrace it, conscience to do what we ought, and Patience to suffer what wee must, Humility to acknowledge our own, and Charity to bear with other mens infirmi­ties, [Page] that so we may keep the unity of the Spi­rit in the bond of peace, and fulfil the Law of Christ, which is the unfeigned hearty Wish of

London Aug. 10. MDCLXI.
The unworthy Servant of JESUS CHRIST Ro. Lincoln.

The Contents of each Treatise.

I. Of the Oath of Supremacy.

  • THe distinct Power of the Sword and Keys.
  • That the Sword is not restrained to Temporal Cau­ses only.
  • That there is a Civil Government in Causes Spiri­tual, and a Spiritual Government in Causes Civil.
  • The Right Sense of the Oath.
  • Four Arguments against the Bishop of Romes Title, to an uni­versal Supremaey.
  • King James His gracious Thanks to the Primate for it.

II. Of the Duty of Subjects to supply the Kings Necessities.

  • The Pretensions of Spain to the Kingdom of Ireland.
  • The Distinction in point of Loyalty between those of the ancient English Race, and the meer Irish.
  • The hatred shewn by the latter to the former in the Colledges a­broad.
  • The moderating and answering Objections on both sides, for and a­gainst the Contribution propounded.
  • Divers Records produced as presidents for it
  • His Iudgment, as a Divine, in the [...]ase, not to be an Arbitrary Act, but a matter of Duty and Conscience.
  • That the denying of the King what is necessary for the support of his Kingdom, is no less a Robery of him then a Subtracting of Tithes and Oblations is called a Robbery of God by the Pro­phet.

III. Of the late Lord Primate Ushers Judgment and Practice.

  • 1. In point of Loyalty.
    • The Occasion of his writing of that book of the Power of the Prince, &c.
    • His joy or sorrow, according to the success of his Majesties af­fairs.
    • His compassionate affection to such as had suffered for his Majesty.
  • 2. In point of Episcopacy.
    • His writing for it. Exercise of the Iurisdiction of it.
    • The occasion and end of those Proposals concerning it, An. 1641.
    • His censure upon the Omission of the form of words used by the Bishop in the Ordination of the Church of England.
    • His sufferings for it.
    • The right sense of that gradual superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter.
    • His confirmation of Books tending to the Preheminency of Episco­pacy.
  • 3. Of the Liturgy.
    • His dayly observing of the Book of Common-prayer.
    • At Drogheda the Service sung upon Sundays before him, as in Cathedrais of England.
    • His observing of the Ceremonies and causing them so to be.
    • His pains in reducing and satisfying the scrupulous.
    • His Constancy in the above-mentioned to the last.
    • The falsehood of some Pamphlets since his death.
    • Some specialties observed in him as to decency and Reverence in the Church at publick prayer, &c.
  • 4. The Constitutions and Canons, &c.
    • His subscription to the 3. Articles in the 36. cap. of the book of the Canons of England.
    • The severity, put in with his own hand, in the first Canon of Ire­land against such as should refuse to subscribe to the Articles of England, Observation of the annual Festivals, Good-Fri­day, &c.
    • [Page] Confirmation of Children, Church Catechisme.
    • Canonical decency of Apparrel in the Clergie.
    • Consecration of Churches, &c.

IV. Mr. Hookers Judgment confirmed by the Primate.

  • 1. The Kings power in matters of Religion.
  • 2. Of his Power in advancement of Bishops to their Rooms of Pre­lacy.
  • 3. The King exempt from Censure and other Iudicial power.

V. Bishop Andrews Judgment, (as it is conceived) of Church Government before and after Christ, &c. con­firmed and enlarged by the Primate.

In the Old Testament.
  • 1. Before the Law.
  • 2. Under Moses.
  • 3. Among the Priests.
  • 4. Under Joshua,
  • 5. Under David (where is much added by the Primate.)
  • 6. Under Nehemiah.

A Recapitulation of the whole, &c. with some new enlargements by the supposed Author, answering the objections made a­gainst having the like government now, and giving reasons why it may be now.

In the New Testament.
  • 1. In the time of our Sáviour.
  • 2. In the dayes of the Apostles and after.
    • Of Deacons, Evangelists, Priests and Bishops.
    • Of the persons executing those Offices.
    • Of the promiscuous use of their names.
    • The use of the Bishops office, and the charge committed to him.
    • The choice of persons to their Callings.

VI. A Letter of Dr. Hadrianus de Saravia to the Island of Garnzay.

  • Of the first Reformation in the Island.
  • Subjection to Episcopal Iurisdiction.
  • Difference in the Case, between them and France and the Low-Countries.
  • Their Synodicall meetings not justifiable.
  • The Kings Power in making of a Law.
  • Of Ordination otherwise then by Bishops.
  • Of the Scotch Reformation.
  • D. Hadr. Saravia with other learned mens Subscriptions to the Articles, and Liturgy of the Church of England.
  • A Pamphlet printed under the name of the late Archbishop of Armagh coucerning the Liturgy and Church Government, declared to be none of his. As he hath been also injured and is still by another Book intituled, a Method of Meditation, or a Manual of Divine Duties, which though by his own directi­on in his life time 1651. I did in his name declare, to be none of
    ☞
    his, but falsly put upon him, and have done so twice since his death, yet is still reprinted, and sold up and down as his, to the great injury of him.
  • The late Lord Primate Ushers Iudgment of the signe of the Cross in Baptisme, confirmed by the Bishop of Lincoln in his Preface.

VII. The Contents of the Sermon

  • Regal Power of Gods Ordination
  • That of 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man &c. Answered, Sauls Election not by the People: Difference in Religion quits not the due of Obedience.
  • The Novelty of the Doctrine of Resistance.
    • The Pharisies the first among the Iews
    • [Page] The Arguments for it, taken out of Bellarmine and the Jesuites, which many other Writers of the Church of Rome do contra­dict.
  • The Antient Fathers Loyalty to the worst of Emperors
    • 1. Constantly praying for them Tertullian, &c.
    • 2. Not giving the least Offence in word or writing, St. Hillary Nazianzen &c.
    • 3. Not stirring up the people in their own defence.
      • St. Augustines Commendation of the Christians under Julian, Tertullians under Severus.
      • St. Ambrose, Athanasius and others.
      • That Evasion viz. That the Christians then wanted Power to resist, cleared out of Eusebius, Tertullian, St. Ambross, The­odoret.
  • Rebellion always found the Ruine of the Actors.
    • The Speech of Rodolphus upon his mortal wound in taking up Armes against the Emperor.
    • A Conclusive Application.

An Animadvertisement.

SUch of the Bishops and Clergy as by Gods Mercy escaped with their Lives to Dublin, in that Bloody Rebellion in Ire ­land Anno 1641. and 1642. did conceive fitting at a so great, though sad meeting, to have somewhat like a Commencement in that University. The Doctors part (pro gradu) was the Concio ad clerum. The Text Rom. 13. 2. was taken out of the Epistle appointed for the day, being the Tuesday after the [Page] Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany. The day (according to that account) of the late Kings (of Blessed Memory) murder. The Doctrine delivered, was then so offensive to some potent persons newly landed, that he was forced to send a Copy to the L. Primate Usher, who gave his approbation of it. And upon the Thirtieth of Ianuary last, 1660. (the day of Humiliation for the abovesaid Murder) it was preached in English at the Honorable Society of Grayes-Inn London. The Intention was to have published it in that Language it had its first being, but by the Printers Experiment of the slowness of the Sale in that, as the better suiting with these other Tracts, and that the Pro­fit intended would be of a farther extent, the latter was resol­ved of.

ERRATA.

PAge 24. line 29. read the. p. 25. l. 8. r. 2. marg. l. 2. [...]. p. 27. l. 3. r. him. l. 4. thee p. 29. l. 19 r. thus. p. 31. 10. Jehu. p. 39. marg. l. 1. r. Julianus l. 5. r iniquus. p. 40. marg. l. 27. r. fletibus. l. 35. r. injuriam. p. 45. marg. l. 6. r. pontisicumque. p. 43. l. 24. dele for. marg. l. 8. r. per regiam. 52. l. 31. r. waited. p. 56. l. 20. r. calls. p. 60. l. 9. r. commendam. p. 81. 6. r. consecratus. l. 7. r. gratias. p. 90. l. 9. r. scarce. l. 10. r. inexcusablae. p. 95. 11. r. Potiphera Job. 1. 5. 42. 8. p. 96. l. 3. r. [...] p. 97. 16. r. fisties. l. pen. Merari. l. ult. after these r. the. p. 100. l. 14 r. [...]. p. 101. l. 5. r. camp. l. 15. r. Asher. p. 102. l. 12. r. Further. p. 103. l. 9. r. Gibethon. p. 105. l. 2. r. [...]. l. 4. [...]. l. 6. [...], l 7. [...]. p. 107. l. 22. r. Gershon. l. 23. r. Ethan. l. ult. [...]. p. 109. l. 12. r. Benaiah. l. 21. [...]. p. 112. l. 7. r. Governors of the. p. 113. l. 25. r. Priest. p. 114. l. 3. dele the. l. 20. r. are. l. 30. de­le, p. 115. l. 24. r. they. p. 116. l. 19. r. of this mind. l. ult. dele ut. p. 117. l. r. degrees. p. 122. l. 4. [...]. p. 128. l. 6. r. Scythia. p. 130. l. 26. r. These. p. 132. l. 26. r. pam. l. ult. r. [...]. p. 133. l. 18. r. [...] l. 23. [...] l. 25. [...]. In marg. p. 134. l. 4. r. [...]—p. 150. l. 12 dele 2. p. 147. l. 2. r. Christi.

REcensui Librum cui Titulus, CLAVI TRABALES.

Imprimatur

Tertio Nonas Sext. 1661.
MA. FRANCK. S. T. P. Reverendo in Christo Patri Episcopo Londi­nesi à Sacris Dome­sticis.

A SPEECH Delivered in the CASTLE-CHAMBER at DUBLIN. 22. of November, Anno 1622. At the Censuring of some Officers who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy.

By the late Lord Primate Usher then Bishop of Meath.

WHat the danger of the Law is for refusing this Oath hath been sufficiently opened by my Lords the Judges, and the quality and quantity of that Offence hath been agrava­ted to the full, by those that have spoken af­ter them. The part which is most proper for me to deal in is the information of the Conscience, touching the Truth and Equity of the matters contained in the Oath; which I also have made choice the rather to insist upon, be­cause [Page] both the form of the Oath it self requireth herein a full resolution of the Conscience (as appeareth by those words in the very beginning thereof; I do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience &c.) And the Persons that stand here to be censured for refusing the same have alledged-nothing in their own defence, but only the simple Plea of Ignorance.

That this point therefore may be cleered, and all need­less Scruples removed out of mens minds: Two maine Branches there be of this Oath which require special Con­sideration. The one Positive, acknowledging the Supre­macy of the Government of these Realms in all Causes whatsoever, to rest in the the Kings Highness only; the other Negative, renouncing all Jurisdictions and Autho­rities of any Forraigne Prince or Prelate within His Ma­jesties Dominions.

For the better understanding of the former we are in the first place to call unto our remembrance that Exhorta­tion of St. Peter, Submit your selves unto every Ordi­nance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto1 Pet. 2. 13, 14.the King, as having the Preheminence, or unto Go­vernors as unto them that are sent by him, for the pun­ishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. By this we are taught to respect the King, not as the only Gove nor of his Dominions Simply (for we see there be other Governors placed under him) but [...], as him that excelleth, and hath the prehemi­nence over the rest, that is to say (according to the Tenure of the Oath) as him that is the only Supream Governor of his Realms. Upon which ground we may safely build this conclusion, that whatsoever Power is inetdent unto the King by vertue of his place, must be acknowledged to [Page 3] be in him Supream, there being nothing so contrary to the nature of Soveraignty, as to have another Superior power to over-rule it.

Qui Rexest, Regem (Maxime) non habeat.

In the second place we are to consider, that God for the better setling of Piety and Honesty among men, and the repressing of Prophaneness and other Vices hath establisted two distinct powers upon earth, the one of the Keys com­mitted to the Church, the other of the Sword committed to the Civil Magistrate, That of the Keys is ordained to work upon the Inner man, having immediate Relation to the remitting or retaining of sins. That of the Sword is John 20. 23. appointed to work upon the outward man, yielding Pro­tection to the obedient, and inflicting external punishment upon the Rebellious and Disobedient. By the former the spiritual Officers of the Church of Christ are enabled to govern well, to speak, and exhort, and rebuke with 1 Tim. 5. 17. Tit. 2. 15. Mat. 16. 19. & 18. 18 all authority, to loose such as are penitent, to commit o­thers unto the Lords Prison until their amendment, or to bind them over unto the Judgment of the great Day) if they shall persist in their wilfulness and obstinacie. By the other, Princes have an imperious power assigned by God unto them, for the defence of such as do well, and execu­ting revenge and wrath upon such as do evil, whether by death or banishment, or confiscation of Goods or Impri­sonment, Rom. 13. 4: Ezra 7. 26. according to the quality of the offence.

When St. Peter that had the Keys committed unto him, made bold to draw the Sword, he was commanded to put it up, as a weapon that he had no authority to meddle with­all; Math. 20. 52. and on the other side, when Uzziah the King would [Page 4] venture upon the Execution of the Priests office; it was said unto him It pertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to 2 Chron 26 18 burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn Incense. Let this therefore be our second conclusion, that the Power of the Sword and of the Keys are two distinct ordinances of God, and that the Prince hath no more authority to enter upon the execution of any part of the Priests function, then the Priest hath to intrude upon an [...] part of the office of the Prince.

In the third place we are to observe that the power of the Civil Sword, (the Supreame managing whereof, belong­eth to the King alone) is not to be restrained unto tempo­ral causes only, but is by Gods ordinance to be extended like­wise unto all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Things and Causes; That as the Spiritual Rulers of the Church do exercise their kind of Government in bringing men unto obedience, not of the duties of the first Table alone, (which concerneth Piety and the Religious Service which man is bound to perform unto his Creator) But also of the second (which respecteth moral honesty, and the Offices that man doth owe unto man: So the Civil Magistrate is to use his Authority also in redressing the abuses committed a­gainst the first Table, as well as against the Second, that is to say as well in punishing of an Heretick or an Idolater or a Blasphemer, as of a Thief, or a Murtherer, or a Traytor, and in providing by all good means, that such as live under his Government may lead a quiet and peace­able life, in all Piety and Honesty.

And how soever by this means we make both Prince and 1 Tim. 2. 2. Priest to be in their several places custodes utriusque Ta­bulae. Keepers of both Gods Tables, yet do we not hereby any way confound both of their Offices together; for though [Page 5] the matter wherein their government is exercised, may be the same, yet is the form and manner of governing them alwayes different, the one reaching to the outward man only, the other to the Inward; the one binding or loo­sing the soul, the other laying hold on the body, and the things belonging thereunto: The one having speciall re­ference to the Judgment of the world to come, the other respecting the present, retaining or loosing of some of the comforts of this Life.

That there is such a As on the o­ther side, that a Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Government is exercised in Causes Civill or Temporal: For is not Ex­communication a main part of Ecclesiastical Government, and Forest Laws a special branch of cau­ses temporal, yet we see in sententiâ, lat [...] super Chartas, An. 12 R. H. 3. that the Bi­shops of Eng­land pronounce a solemn sen­tence of Ex­communication against the In­fringers of the liberties con­tained in Char­tâ de forestâ. Civil Government as this in Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall no man of Judgment can deny; For must not Heresie (for example) be ac­knowledged to be a Cause meerly Spirituall or Ecclesiasti­call? and yet by what power is an Heretick put to death: The Officers of the Church have no authority to take away the life of any man, it must be done therefore per brachi­um seculare, and consequently it must be yeelded without contradiction, that the Tempor all Magistrate doth exercise therein a part of his Civil Government in punishing a crime that is of its own nature Spiritual or Ecclesiasticall.

But here it will be said, the words of the Oath being generall that the King is the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries. How may it appear, that the power of the Civil Sword is only meant by that Government, and that the power of the Keys is not comprebended therein? I answer, First that where a Civil Magistrate is affirmed to be the Governor of his own Dominions and Countries; by common intendment this must needs be understood of a Civil-Government, and may in no reason be extended to that which is meerly of another kind. Secondly, I say, That where an Ambiguity is conceived to be in any part of [Page 6] an Oath, it ought to be taken according to the understand­ing of him for whose satisfaction the Oath was ministred. Now in the case, it hath been sufficiently declared by pub­lick authority, that no other thing is meant by the Govern­ment here mentioned but that of the Civil Sword only.

For in the book of Articles agreed upon by the Arch-Bishop and Bishops, and the whole Clergie in the Convocae­tion holden at London▪ Anno 1562. Thus we read. Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the Chief Government (by which Titles we understand the minds of some standrous folkes to be offended) we give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments (the which thing the In­junctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, doth most plainly testifie) but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their Charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Temporall, and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubbornand evill doers.

If it be here objected, that the Authority of the Convo­cation is not a sufsicient ground for the Exposition of that which was enacted in Parliament: I answer that these Articles stand confirmed, not only by the Royall assent of the Prince (for the establishing of whose Supremacy, the Oath was framed) but also by a speciall Act of Parlia­ment, which is to be found among the Statutes, in the thirteenth yeer of Queen Elizabeth, Cap. 12. Seeing therefore the makers of the Law have full authority to ex­pound the Law, and they have sufficiently manifested, that by the Supream Government given to the Prince, they [Page 7] understand that kind of Government only which is exer­cised with the Civil Sword: I conclude that nothing can be more plaine then this, that without all scruple of consci­ence the Kings Majesty may be acknowledged in this sense to be the only Supream Governor of all his Highness Dominions and Countrys, as well in all Spiritual or Ec­clesiastical Things or Causes, as temporal, and so have I cleered the first main branch of the Oath.

I come now unto the Second which is propounded nega­tively: That no forreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power, Superiority, Preheminence or Authority, Ec­clesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm. The Forrei­ner that challengeth this Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Juris­diction over us is the Bishop of Rome: And the Title whereby he claimeth the Power over us, is the same where­by he claimeth it over the whole world, because he is St. Peters Successor for sooth. And indeed if St. Peter him­self had been now alive, I should freely confess that he ought to have spiritual Authority, and Superiority within this Kingdom, But so would I say also if St. Andrew, St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, or any of the other Apostles had been alive, for I know that their Commission was very large, to go into all the world, and to preach the Gospel unto every Creature. So that in what part of the Mark 16. 15. world soever they lived, they could not be said to be out of their charge, their Apostleship being a kind of an U­niversal Bishoprick. If therefore the Bishop of Rome, can prove himself to be one of this Rank, the Oath must be amended; and we must acknowledge that he hath Ec­clesiastical Authority within this Realm.

True it is that our Lawyers in their yearly Books, by the [Page 8] name of the Apostle do usually designe the Pope. But if they had examined his Title to that Apostleship, as they would try an Ordinary mans Title to a Piece of Land, they might easily have found a number of Flaws and main de­fects therein; for first it would be enquired, whether the Apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour Christ, as a special Commission, which being personal only was to de­termine with the death of the first Apostles. For howsoe­ver at their first entry into the Execution of this Commis­sion, Acts 1. 25, 26. we find that Matthias was admitted to the Apostle­ship in the Roome of Judas; yet afterwards when James the Brother of John was slain by Herod, we do not read that any other was substituted in his place. Nay we know that the Apostles generally left no Successors in this kind: Neither did any of the Bishops (he of Rome only excep­ted) that sate in those famous Churches wherein the Apo­stles exercised their Ministry, challenge an Apostleship or an Universal Bishoprick by vertue of that succession.

It would Secondly therefore be enquired what sound e­vidence they can produce, to shew that one of the Compa­ny was to hold the Apostleship, as it were in Fee, for him and his Successors for ever, and that the other Eleven should hold the same for Term of life only. Thirdly, if this State of perpetuity was to be cast upon one, how came it to fall upon St. Peter, rather then upon St. John, who outlived all the rest of his Fellows, and so as a Surviving Feoffee, had the fairest Right to retain the same in him­self and his Successors for ever; Fourthly if that State were wholy setled upon St. Peter, seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge, that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome; We require them to shew, why so great an Inheritance as this, should descend unto [Page 9] the younger Brother (as it were by Borough-English) rather than to the Elder (according to the ordinary manner of descents) especially seeing Rome hath little else to al­ledge for this preferment, but only that St. Peter was cru­cifyed in it, which was a slender reason to move the Apo­stle so to respect it. Seeing therefore the grounds of this great claime of the Bishop of Rome appear to be so vain and frivolous, I may safely conclude that he ought to have no Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority within this Realme, which is the principal point contained in the Se­cond part of the Oath.

King JAMES His Gracious Let­ter of Thanks to the Primate for his Speech.

JAMES R.
RIght Reverend Father in God, and Right Trusty and well beloved Coun­sellor We greet you well,

you have not de­ceived Our expectation, nor the gracious opinion We ever conceived both of Your Abilities in learning, and of your Faith­fulness to Us and Our Service; Whereof as We have received sundry Testimonies [Page 10] both from Our precedent Deputys, as like­wise from Our Right Trusty and well­beloved Cousin and Counsellor the Vis­count Falkland, Our present Deputy of that Realm, so have We now of late in one par­ticular had a farther Evidence of your Du­ty and Affection well expressed by your late carriage in Our Castle-Chamber there, at the censure of those disobedient Magistrates, who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy, wherein your zeale to the maintenance of Our just and lawfull Power, defended with so much Learning and Reason, deserves Our Princely and Gracious Thanks, which We do by this Our Letter unto you, and so bid you farewel,

Given under Our Signet at Our Court at White-Hall the Eleventh of January 1622. In the Twentieth Year of Our Reign of Great Brit­tain, France and Ireland.

To the Right Reverend Father in God, and Our Right Trusty and Well-Beloved Councellor The Bishop of Meath.

A SPEECH delivered by the Lord PRIMATE USHER be­fore the Lord Deputy and the great Assembly at His Majesties Castle in DUBLIN, A­pril the last 1627.

MY LORD,

THe Resolution of these Gentlemen in denying to contribute unto the supplying of the Army sent hither for their defence, doth put me in mind of the Philosophers observation, That such as have respect unto a few things, are easily misled; the present pressure which they sustain, by the imposition of the Soldiers, and the desire they have to be eased of that Burthen, doth so wholly possess their minds, that they have only an eye to the freeing of themselves from that Incumbrance, without looking at all to the Deso­lations that are like to come upon them by a long and heavy War, which the having of an Army in readiness might be a means to have prevented. The lamentable effects of our last Wars in this Kingdom, doth yet freshly stick in our Memories. Neither can we so soon forget the depopulation [Page 12] of our land, when besides the Combustions of War, the extremity of Famine grew so great, that the very wo­men in some places by the way side, have surprised the men that rode by to feed themselves with the flesh of the horse or the rider; and that now again here is a storm towards wheresoever it will light, every wise man will easily foresee, which if we be not carefull to meet with in time, our State may prove irrecoverable, when it will be too late to think of. Had I wift.

The dangers that now threaten us are partly from abroad, and partly from home; Abroad, we are now at odds with two of the most Potent Princes in Christendom, and to both which, in former times the discontented persons in this Country have had recourse, proffering the Kingdom it self unto them, if they would undertake the conquest of it. For it is not unknown unto them that look into the search of those things, that in the days of King Henry the Eighth, the Earl of Desmond made such an offer of this Kingdom to the French King, (the instrument where­of yet remain's upon record in the Court at Paris) and the Bishop of Rome afterwards transferred the Title of all our Kingdoms unto Charles the Fifth, which by new Grants was confirmed unto his Son Phillip, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, with a resolution to settle this Crown upon the Spanish Infanta; which Donations of the Popes, howsoever in themselves, they are of no value, yet will they serve for a fair colour to a potent Pretender, who is able to supply by the Power of the Sword whatsoever therein may be thought defective. Hereunto may we adde that of late in Spain, at the very same time when the Trea­ty of the Match was in hand. there was a Book published, with great approbation there, by one of this Countrey Birth [Page 13] Phillip O Sullevan, wherein the Spaniard is taught, that the ready way to establish his Monarchy (for that is the on­ly thing he mainly aimeth at, and is plainly there confessed) is first to set upon Ireland, which being quikcly obtain'd, the Conquest of Scotland first, of England next, then of the Low-Countreys, is foretold with great facility will follow after.

Neither have we more cause in this Regard to be afraid of a Forreign Invasion, than to be jealous of a Domest­ick Rebellion, where lest I be mistaken, as your Lord­ships have been lately, I must of necessity put a difference betwixt the Inhabitants of this Nation; some of them are descended of the Race of the antient English, or otherwise hold their Estates from the Crown, and have possessions of their own to stick unto, who easily may be trusted against a Forreign Invader, although they differ from the State in matter of Religion; for proof of which fidelity in this kind, I need go no further than the late Wars in the time of the Earl of Tyrone wherein they were assaulted with as powerfull temptations to move them from their Loyalty as possibly hereafter can be presented unto them for at that time, not only the King of Spain did confederate himself with the Rebels, and landed his forces here for their assist­ance, but the Bishop of Rome also with his Breves and Bulls, solicited our Nobility and Gentry to revolt from their obedience to the Queen; Declaring that the English did fight against the Catholick Religion, and ought to be oppugned as much as the Turks, imparting the same Favours to such as should set upon them, that he doth unto such as fight against the Turk, and finally promising unto them that the God of peace would tread down their enemys under their feet speedily; and yet for all the Popes [Page 14] Promises and Threatnings which were also seconded by a Declaratian of the Divines of Salamanca and Valledo­lid, not only the Lords and Gentlemen did constantly con­tinue their Allegiance unto the Queen, but also were en­couraged so to do, by the Priests of the Pale, that were of the Popish Profession who were therefore vehemently tax­ed by the Traytor O Sullevan, for exhorting them to fol­low the Queens side, which he is pleas'd to term Insanam & venenosam Doctrinam & Tartareum dogma, A O Sullevan Hist. Cathol. Hib. sol. 20. & 2 [...]3. mad and venemous Doctrine, and a hellish opinion; but besides these, there are a great number of Irish, who either beare a secret grudge against the English planted a­mong them, or having nothing at all to loose upon the first occasion, are apt to joyn with any Forreign Invader, for we have not used that policy in our Plantations, that wise States have used in former times. They when they setled new Colonys in any place, did commonly translate the an­tient Inhabitants to other dwellings; We have brought new Planters into the land, and have left the old Inhabi­tants to shift for themselves, who being strong in body, and daily increasing in number, and seeing themselves depri­ved of their means and maintenance, which they and their Ancestors have formerly enjoyed, will undoubtedly be ready when any occasion is offered to disturb our quiet, whe­ther then we cast our eyes abroad, or look at home, we see our danger is very great.

Neither may you, My Lords and Gentlemen, that differ from us in point of Religion, imagine that the Communi­ty of profession, will exempt you more then us from the danger of a Common-Enemy; Whatsoever you may ex­pect from a Forraigner you may conjecture by the Answer which the Duke of Medina Sidonia gave in this Case [Page 15] in 88. That his Sword knew no difference between a Catholique and a Heretique, but that he came to make way for his Master; and what kindness you may look for from the Countrey-men that joyn with them, you may judge as well by the carriage which they ordinarily use towards you and yours, both in the Court, and in the Colledges a­broad, as by the advice not long since presented by them un­to the Councel of Spain, wherein they would not have so much as the Irish Priests and Jesuites that are descended of English blood to be trusted, but would have you and all yours to be accounted enemys to the designs of Spain. In the Declaration publisht about the beginning of the Insur­rection of James Fitz-Morice in the South, the Rebels professed it was no part of their meaning to subvert, ho­norabile Anglorum solium. Their Quarrel was only a­gainst the Person of Queen Elizabeth, and her Govern­ment; but now the case is otherwise, the translating of the Throne of the English to the power of a Forreigner, is the thing that mainly is intended, and the re-establishing of the Irish in their antient possessions, which by the va­lour of our Ancestors were gained from them.

This you may assure your self, Manet alta mente repo­stum, and makes you more to be hated of them than any o­ther of the English Nation whatsoever. The danger there­fore being thus common to us all, it stands us upon to joyn our best helps for the avoiding of it, only the manner how this may be effected is in question. It was wont to be said, In­iquum petas ut aequum feras, and such perhaps might be the intent of the Project, the other day propounded unto you; but now I observe the distaste you have conceived a­gainst that, hath so far possossed you, that you can hardly be drawn to listen to any equal motion. The Exceptions ta­ken [Page 16] against the Project, are partly general, made by all; part­ly special that toucheth only some particulars, of the former there are two, the quantity of the sum demanded, and the indefiniteness of the time, which is unlimited; for the proportion required for the maintenance of Five thousand Foot and Five hundred horse you alledge to be so great, and your means so small, that in undertaking that which you are no ways able to perform, you should but delude His Ma­jesty, and disappoint the Army of their expected pay. And although the sum required were far less, and for a time a­ble to be borne by you, yet are you fearful that the payment being continued for some number of years, may afterwards be continued, as a constant revenue to His Majesties Ex­chequer with which perpetual burden you are unwilling to charge your Posterity.

The Exceptions of the second kind are taken against the grants annexed unto the former demands, the granting whereof seemed rather to hinder then further the Service, as not so agreeing with the Rules of Equity; for first some have the full benefits of the grants, and have their charge little augmented, as the Countrys which pay com­position Rents, which by those grants during the time of the New payments are suspended. Secondly, others that have the charge of the payment imposed upon them to the full, are not Partakers at all of the benefit of the grants, as the Brittish planted in the six escheated Countys of Ul­ster. Thirdly such as are most forward to further His Ma­jesties Service, and to contribute with the Most, are trou­bled in Conscience for yielding thereto upon the Terms proposed, especially for that Condition whereby the Exe­cution of the Statute against Recusants is offered to be forborne.

[Page 17] Wherein if some of my Bretheren the Bishops have been thought to have shewed themselves more forward then wise in preaching publiquely against this kind of Tolerati­on; I hope the great charge laid upon them by your selves in Parliament, wherein that Statute was enacted will plead their excuse. For there the Lords Temporal, and all the Commons do in Gods name earnestly require and Stat. Hyb. 20. Eliz. charge all Arch-Bishops and Bishops and other ordina­ries, that they shall endeavor themselves to the utmost of their knowledge, that the due and true execution of this Statute may be had throughout their Diocesses, and charged as they will answer it before God, for such Evils and Plagues as Almighty God might justly punish his people for neglecting those good and wholesome Laws, So that if in this case they had holden their tongues, they might have been censured little better then Atheists, and made themselves accessary to the drawing down of Gods heavy vengance upon the people.

But if for these and such like Causes the former Project will not be admitted, we must not therefore think our selves discharged from taking further care to provide for our safeties. Other consultations must be had, and other cour­ses thought upon which need not to be trable to the like Ex­ceptions; where the but then is borne in common, and the ayde required to be given to the Prince by his Subjects that are of different Judgments in Religion, it stands not with the ground of common Reason, that such a condition, should be annexed unto the Gift, as must of necessity de [...]er the one party from gi [...]ing at all, upon such Tearms as are repugnam to their Consciences. As therefore on the one side, if we desire that the Recusants should joyn with us in granting of a common aid, we should not put in the [Page 18] condition of executing the Statute, which we are sure they would not yield unto; so on the other side, if they will have us to joyn with them in the like contribution they should not require the condition of suspending the Statute to be added, which we in conscience cannot yield unto. The way will be then freely to grant unto his Majesty what we give, without all manner of condition that may seem un­equal unto any side, and to refer unto his own sacred breast how fat he will be pleased to extend or abridge his Favours, of whose Lenity in forbearing the executing of the Sta­tute, our Recusants have found such experience, that they cannot expect a greater liberty, by giving any thing that is demanded, then now already they do freely enjoy.

As for the fear that this voluntary contribution may in time be made a matter of Necessity, and imposed as a per­petual charge upon posterity, it may easily be holpen, with such a clause as we find added in the grant of an ayde made by the Popes Council An 11. H. 3. out of the Ecclesiasti­cal Pat. An. 11. Hen. 3. 10. Tu [...]r. Lond. Profits of this Land, Quod non debet trahi in confue­tudinem, of which kinds of Grants, many other Exam­ples of later memory might be produced, and as for the proportion of the sum which you thought to be so great in the former proposition, it is my Lords desire that you should signifie unto him, what you think you are well able to bear, and what your selves will be content voluntarily to proffer. To alledge as you have done, that you are not able to bear so great a charge, as was demanded may stand with some reason, but to plead an unability to give any thing at all, is neither agreeable to reason or duty.

You say you are ready to serve the King as your Ancestors did heretofore with your bodys and lives, as if the supply of the Kings wants with monys, were a thing unknown to our [Page 19] Fore-fathers. But if you will search the Pipe-Rolls you shall finde the names of those who contributed to King Henry the third for a matter that did less concern the Pat. An. 3. Hen. 3. Mem­bran. 9. Subjects of this Kingdom, then the help that is now de­manded, namely for the marrying of his Sister to the Em­peror.

In the Records of the same King kept in England, we finde his Letters Patents directed hither into Ireland, for levying of money to help to pay his debts unto Lewis the Son of the King of France. In the Rolls of Gasconie we Pat. Gascony in 18 Edw. 2. m [...]mbr. 25. indo. s. finde the like Letter directed by King Edward the Second unto the Gentlemen and Merchants of Ireland, of whose names there is a List there set down, to give him ayd in his Expedition into Aquitain, and for defence of his Land (which is now the thing in question.) We finde an Ordi­nance likewise made in the time of Edward the Pat an. 44. Edw. 3. [...]n Ar­ch [...] Tu [...]r. Lond. Third, for the personall taking of them that lived in Eng­land, and held Lands and Tenements in Ireland.

Nay in this Case you must give me leave as a Divine to tell you plainly, that to supply the King with means for the necessary defence of your Country, is not a thing left to your own discretion, either to doe or not to doe, but a matter of duty, which in conscience you stand bound to perform.

The Apostle Rom. 13. having affirmed that we must be subject to the higher powers, not only for wrath but for Conscience sake; adds this as a reason to con­firm it, for, for this cause you pay Tribute also, as if the denying of such payment, could not stand with consci­onable Subjection; thereupon he inferrres this conclusion. Render therefore unto all their due; tribute to whom tribute, custome to whom custome is due. Agreeable [Page 20] to that known lesson which he had learned of our Saviour Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and Math. 22, 21. unto God the things which are Gods: Where you may observe that as to with-hold from God the things which are Gods, man is said to be a Robber of God: whereof he himself thus complaineth in case of subtracting of Tythes Mal. 3. 8. & Oblations: So to deny a supply to Caesar of such means as are necessary for the support of his Kingdom, can be ac­counted no less then a Robbing of him, of that which is his due, which I wish you seriously to ponder, and to think better of yielding somthing to this present Necessity, that we may not return from you an undutifull answer, which may justly be displeasing to his Majesty.

ROM. 13. 2.‘Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation.’

THe former Chapter may be called the A­postles Ethicks; this his Politicks; in the former he had taught them their dutys one to another, in this, towards the Magi­strate. And for this subject, De officio sub­ditorum both St. Peter, and this our Apostle are ve­ry often and copious upon, not only in this Epistle, but in divers others, inculcating it as his last words to Timo­thy and Titus, chargeing them to teach it to the genera­tion Plurima tune tempor is cir­cumserebatur sama traducens Apostolos veluti seditiosos re­rumque nova­tores, &c. succeeding, 1 Tim. 2. 1. & 3. 1. And (a) some Ex­positors conceive one Cause to be the Rumor then falsly raised upon the Apostles, as if they had been Seditious Innovators of the Roman Laws, and the Kingdom of Christ preached by them, tended to the absolving Sub­jects [Page 22] from their obedience to any other. Whose mouths he here stops in shewing that the laws of Christ were not induced for the overturning the Civil, but confirm­ing; not abolishing, but establishing and making them the more sacred. Abhorring those tumultuous spirits who under pretext of Religion and Christian liberty, run into Rebellion as if there could be no perfect ser­vice of Christ, nisi excusso terrenae potestatis jugo, with­out casting off the yoak of earthly power.

In the text it self he exhorts to a Loyall subjection from these two principall Arguments. First from the Originall of Regall Power, ordained of God; Secondly the Penalty of resisting it, threatned as from God him­self; They shall receive to themselves damnation.

Every word in the Text hath its Emphosis.

Whosoever] See how he commands a subjection with­out exception as in the former verse, Let every Soul; Om­nis Anima, si Apostolus sis, si Evangelista, si Prepheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris (as S. Chrysostom upon the place.)

Resisteth] [...] which implies how all pre­parative Ordering of forces & Risings to that end (as the Syriack renders it qui insurgit) are condemned, as a vio­lation of Gods Ordinance; not only an actuall resistance by open force in the field, commonly called Rebellion (like that of Absolom against David, Jeroboam against Rehoboam) but all secret undermining of a Prince by fraud and falsehood tending to it.

The Power] 'Tis observable the Apostle rather men­tions the power then the person armed with it, to teach us we should not so much mind the worth of the person as the authority it self he bears. We acknowledge that sacred Apothegme of the Apostle (Acts 5. 29.) 'tis bet­ter [Page 23] to obey God then man: but both may be at once obeyed: God actively, and the Magistrate passively, as the Apostles themselves then did.

The Ordinance of God] As if Rebellion were Giant­like, [...]. in Rom. [...]om. 23. a waging of war with God himself, as St. Chry­sostome hath it, which fully checks that proud conceit of some (viz.) that being made heirs of God, they are no longer to be made subject to man.

Receive to themselves damnation.] As the Rebellion is against God, so from God the penalty is threatned, and that not [...] in Rom. [...]. 23. a common one, but exceeding heavy, as St. Chrysostom upon it. The Vulgar Latin reads it, Ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt, implying the vanity & madness of it, Nemo enim sanus seipsum laedit, Men that run their heads against a Rock, hurt themselves, not it: and so in conclusion Rebels seek their own ruine, and bring upon themselves swift damnation 2 Pet. 2.

By this short Paraphrase upon the words, these two observations may be deduced: First, that Regal power is derived from God: Secondly, that it is not lawfull for Subjects to take up Arms in the resistance of it with­out being fighters against God, and in peril of damna­tion.

The first is so apparent that I need not insist upon it: 'Tis acknowledged even by heathens [...] cal­led [...], &c. You see it de facto in the old Testament Moses (who was [...] King in Jeshurun) was ap­pointed (d) Deut. 33. 5. of God, and Joshua succeeding him, the Judg­es as Elective Kings were raised by him also: Saul, David, &c. 'Tis the complaint of God (Hoseae the 8.) fecerunt reges, sed non ex me; They have made them­selves Kings, but not by me. God, who is the God [Page 24] of Order, and not of Confusion, was pleased from the very first to take care of constituting a successive Mo­narchy; The first-born was his own establishment in his specch to Cain (though a bad, and his Brother Abel a righteous person) only by right of his primogeniture (Gen 4. 9) his desire shall be subject to thee, and thou shalt rule over him, from whence it succeeded in Jacobs family (Gen. 49 28) Ruben thou art my first born, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power ( [...] & [...] honor and authority▪ (i, e.) the suprema­cy of both, and when he with Symeon and Levy for their severall crimes were disinherited by their father, and the primogeniture fallen to Judah; to him it was said, thou art he whom thy brethren shall honour, thy Fathers children shall bow down unto thee (ver. 10.) to whom the Scepter was given, and the gathering or Assemblies of the People. That as in the creation in the Natural government of the world God made one ruler of the day, the Sun, the sole fountain of Light (for the Moon and Starres are but as a Vice Roy of subordinate Go­vernors, deriving theirs from him:) so was it in the Ci­vil Government also.

As God by whom Kings reign, and who have the Title of God given them, I have said ye are Gods) is one; so was he pleased to represent himself in one accordingly, and in the Text ordained by him.

Object. 1 There is a place which the adversaries of this do­ctrine much insist upon, 'tis out of S. Peter 1. Epist. c. 2. 13. where he calls a Magist [...]ate an Ordinance of man: Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man (as we render it) for the Lords sake, whether to the King as supreme, or Governors sent by him, &c.

[Page 25] The Answer is ready, that this is no ways a contra­diction to St. Paul in this Text; for,

1. By an humane Ordinance he doth not meane an humane Invention, but quia inter homines institutam, because it was ordained or appointed among or over men, called humane, respectu termiiii sive subjecti, but yet divine, respectu authoris primarii.

The word [...], which we render Ordinance (being, as In Decalog. Praer. 5. Nome [...] creaturae, (sio enim malim vo­cem [...] red­dere, quam per ordinationem, cum nullibi in Scriptura tali sensu reperiatur usurpata) acci­pi potest pro e­minentia ut sen­sus sit, subjecti esto [...]e eis qui in­ter homines e­minent, sicut immedtate [...]i­dit sive Regi [...], quasi explicare volu sset ambi­guam vocem [...]. Rivetus observeth) never so taken throughout the Scripture were better rendred Creature (which it pro­perly signifies) as the vulgar Latine doth it, omni huma­nae creaturae, to every humane creature. Now creature is frequently taken for what is eminent and excellent, as if the sense were, submit your selves to all that do excell, or are eminent amongst or over men, according to the next words, whether to the King, [...] that ex­celleth: and the Hebrews do sometimes by a Creation im­ply a Rare and Eminent thing, Num. 16. 30. Si creatio­nem creaverit deus. i. e. if the Lord make a new or rare thing, To which agrees that of our Saviour in his last words to his Apostles, Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospell to every Creature, i. e. man: Because of his excellencie above all sublunary Creatures. Sic quid n [...] á Petro hic per excellenti­ [...]m Rex dicitur, humana Creatu­ra q [...]ia inter reliquos homi­nes eminet. ibi­dem. And thus why may not the King for the same cause, be so called here. So that St. Peter is so far from denying Regal Power to be ordained of God, that he rather confirms it. Ibid. quia d [...]catur Creatura ideo actus Creatoris & humana per excellentiam, ideo a Deo originem traxisse qui origo est omnis excellentiae, quod sequentia etiam confirmant, [...] propter dominum. i. e. quia cum instituit dominus. A Crea­ture, therefore the act of the Creator, and by way of excel­lency, therefore of God the sole original of it, and for the Lords sake, i. e. who hath so ordained him, or whom here­presents.

[Page 26] Object. 2 For that objection of Saul's being elected by the peo­ple; the contrary appears (1 Sam. 12. 8. 5.) where Sa­muel saith thus to them, Answer. Dominus constituit regem su­per vos, and they to Samuel as a Delegate from God, Constitue nobis Regem, who in the name of God pro­posed to them jus Regis. And though Saul was elected by a Sacred Lot, yet ye have not the like again after him in David, Solomon, or any other, but they succeeded jure hereditario.

Object. 3 But have evil Kings their power from God, Answer. Indeed as evil, they are not of him, because no evil can descend from him, from whom every good and perfect gift doth, (though for the sins of people, God may justly permit such) but we must sever their personal staines as men, from their lawfull Authority received of God, which looseth not its essence by such an accession, 'tis no true maxime, Dominium fundatur in gratia, St. Paul applys that of Exod 22. to Ananias, Acts 23, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people, though he commanded him unjustly to be smitten. Pilate condem­ning Innocency it self, our Saviour acknowledgeth his power to have been from above, thou couldst not have any power over me, Nisi tibi data esset desuper. Claudius or Nero (whom elsewhere St. Paul calls a Lyon) reigned when he writ this Epistle, and is doubtless included in the verse before the Text: the powers that be (i. e. now in being) are ordained of God, and exhorts to pay unto him as the Minister of God the due of Tribute, Custome, Fear, Honour, &c. Daniel acknowledgeth Nebuchad­nezzars dominion and Kingdom to have been given him of God, which copy the Fathers of the Primitive Church under Christianity we find to have wrote after.

[Page 27] Constantius was an Arrian, and had exiled many of the Orthodox Bishops, yet Apol. ad Con­stant. Tibi Deus Im­perium com­misi qui tuum imperium ma­lignis occulis carpit contradi­cit ordinationi divinae. Athanasius in his Apo­logy to them saith thus, God hath given the Empire to him, whosover shall with an evil eye reproach it, doth contrary to Gods Ordinance.

Apolog. Necesse est ut suspiciamus e­um quim Do­minus noster ele­git, & merito dixerim, noster est magis Caesar ut a nostro deo constitutus. Tertullian faith thus to the Emperor Severus in his Apologie for the Christians, We must needs have him in great honor whom our Lord hath chosen, that I may truly say Caesar is rather ours then yours, as being constituted by our God, acknowledging him next to God, and less then God only, according to that known speech of Optatus * Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem: There is none above the Em­peror but God only, who made him Emperor. And surely in the Text St. Paul can mean no other by the Powers, but the Roman Empire and Heathens, for none (i) Colimus Imperatorem ut bominem a deo secundum, & solo deo mino­rem. ad scapul. that were Christians had then any dominion. And so much for the first, that Kings and their Royal Power are of Gods ordination.

2 This supposed, the second point necessarily fol­lows (which we shall a little longer insist upon) viz. that it is not lawfull for Subjects to take up Arms. against their lawfull Prince without being fighters a­gainst God, and running the hazard of damnation, ac­cording to the Text, They that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.

The Pharisaei [...]nus hominum astutum, arro­gans, de scru­pu ofitate pater­nae legis gloriantes, & spectem p [...]etatis simulantes, Caesari (etsi cunct [...] gens Ju laica, jureju­rando jurasset) sidelitatem ju are recusaverunt, imo, qui numero erant supra sex millia, Re­gibus adeo in [...]e [...]i suerunt ut eos aperte opp [...]gnare ausi fuerint Josephus. Antiq 17. cap. 3. Pharisees (as Josephus tells us) a subtle kind of men, proud, scrupulous about the Law, wherein they placed their Religion having a seeming shew of piety, [Page 28] took themselves to be of exempt jurisdiction, and being about 6000. besides their party among the people which they had influence upon, stiffly refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to Caesar, (and indeed were the first we read of that did so, for the whole Nation of the Jews had done it) and were great opposites to Regal power. There are too many who of late years have trod in their steps, one writes a seditious book, as an Anony­mus, another puts a feigned name to it, by which dissimu­lation they shew what is to be thought of the thing it self: Nam [...]ui luce indigna tract at, lucem fugit, some of whom being of the vulgar, (and each are most apt to ad­vance their own Order) have so promoted the preten­ded right of the people, that not being satisfied in quit­ting of Subjects from their obedience to their King, they have also (subverting the very course of Nature) given the people power over their King, And I wish the Jesuites only had given their votes to these parado­xes, but (which is the more to be lamented) there are some of our own, at least bearing the name, who either out of an overmuch desire to be heads of parties, or drawn to it like Baalam for the wages of unrighteousness, have to the Scandall of our profession) delivered the same opinion with the Jesuits, and have taken their arguments out of them.

Principem esse propter po­pulum princ [...]p [...] tum esse ex lege & au h [...]r [...]tate humana. Popu­lum nunquam ita suam [...]otestatem in regem transfe [...]re, quin illam sibi in habitu retineat, & in Cer [...] [...]si [...]a, etiam a [...]u recipire possit l. 5. de Pontif. c. 8. quod lib. c. 8. Confirmat exem­plis Oziae & Athalia, qui o [...]e populi, a solio sue [...]unt dejecti. Bellarmine in his first book de pontifice Romano cap. 8. affirms, That the Prince was made for the People, That Principality is from humane Law and Authority, That the People can never so farre transferre their Power [Page 29] over to a King, but they retain the habit of it still within themselves, and in some cases may actually reassume it; which he confirms (in his 5. book cap. 8.) by the Exam­ples of Ozia and Athalia, who were deposed by the peo­ple; These have been the Assertions of some of our own, urged in the same sense and manner.

Who hath not heard of these Maximes Si princeps promissa servet, & no [...] servabi­mus: Bene im­ [...]erant [...], bene obtemperandū: Ad quem per­ [...]n [...] institutio ad eundem de­stitutio. So long as a King keeps his obligation, the people are obliged to theirs; he that governs as he ought, may expect to be ac­cordingly obeyed. They that constitute may depose, &c. But are not these transcribed out of the aforenamed Writers.

It was the speech of the Helmold in Chron. Slau. Bishop af Ments when the Emperor Henry the fourth's deposing was agitated. Quem meritum investivimus quare non immeritum de­vestiamus, i. e. Him while wel meriting we invested with the Empire, why may not we for his unworthi­ness disinvest again; Avent. 5. annal. Gregory the seventh (vulgarly Hildebrand) the Patron of Rebellious subjects endea­voured to draw them away from the Emperor, Quem­admodum militem ignavem imperator, &c. i. e. as the Emperor may Cashier a sluggish Souldier that neglects his duty in the Camp: So may the souldiery put off or desert an unfit King or Emperor. The Obligations of Sub­jects Si ab articu­lis recedant princip [...]s non debet obligatia­tio nocere sub­tis, ibid. are quitted if Princes recede from theirs. Thus much to shew how neer of kin such are to the Sea of Rome, which is a professed Adversary to Regall power, according to St. Pauls description of that man of sin, 2 Thes. 2. 10. Who opposeth himself against all that is cal­led God, i. e. Kings so called in Psalms.

But now leaving these Parallels, let us come to the matter it self, and prove what we have asserted, both [Page 30] out of holy Writ, the ancient Fathers, and Practice of the Primitive Church, who we shall finde have not li­mited their loyalty within that narrow compass, viz. the Kings defence of the true Relogion, but continued it under their opposition to it.

First, That those who have or shall presume thus to resist, doe tread under feet the holy Scriptures; appears by the whole current of them.

Suppose an unjust, cruel, bloody act in a King. Was not David in that sense vir sanguinis in the perfidious murther of Uriah, after his Adultery with his wife Bathsheba: And for my part I see not wherein that of Ahab in the Murther of Naboth doth exceed it, both unjustly caused a Subject to be slain; Ahab only out of a desire to his Vinyard, but David to his wife. Did not Solomon Apostatize when to please his wives and concubines (whom he married out of the Nati­ons whereof God had given him a charge to the con­trary) he tollerated the worshipping of Idols, in build­ing houses for each of them, and went after them also himself. Asa oppressed the people, cast the Prophet in­to 2 Chron. 16. prison that came with a message of God unto him.

Yet we never read that God gave any Commission to the People, either for these or any other (farre more degenerating) any liberty to disturb them in their Re­gall government: For David, God punished him in his son Absolon. Solomon was disturbed by Hadad the Edomite, and Rezon a Servant of Hadadazer King of Zobah. Against Asa God sent some forreign Kings; A­gainst 2 Chron. 16. 2 Chron 28. 2 Chron. 22. Oap 33. Ahaz came the Kings of Ass [...]ria: Hezekiah's pride was punished by Sennacherib, Manass [...]s Idolatry & blood­shed by the Babylonians, Ahab slain at Ramoth Gilcad [Page 31] by the King of Syriah: but for the People, either some or the whole, ye find not an instance where power was given them, to the offering any violence to them.

Who was ever worse and more obstinate then Ahab to all Rapine, Murther and Idolotry, who gave himself to work wickedness; but were ever the People exhort­ed by any Prophet to withdraw their obedience from him, or gather head against him? For his posterity God indeed extraordinarily gives a special Commission by Elisha to John to destroy it, but ye doe not find the Kin. 9. & 10. people of themselves here, or elsewhere so much as at­tempting it, or encouraged by the Prophets persecuted by them so to do; which if it had been in their power, we should have found some president or other for it.

What was the cause David was so carefull that his hand might not be upon Saul, though doubtless he had the hearts of the better, if not the greatest part of the people, and sometimes Saul was, as from God him­self given up into his hands: And he was not altoge­ther a private Subject; but was heir of the Crown af­ter him, being already annointed to it, and none could have a better pretence: Saul was now seeking his life, and injuriously persecuting him by force and fraud, yet he would not lay his hands upon him; what can be ima­gined to be the Cause, but that it was against the do­ctrine then received.

Who knows not, that Saul was become an absolute Tyrant (which some think to be the sense of 1 Sam. 13. Saul reigned two yeers; &c. i. e. Quasi biennium tantum ut Rex reliquum temporis ut Tyrannus.) rejected by Sa­muel: The Kingdome rent from him given to David, yet ye never read of Samuel moving David to get pos­session [Page 32] by force of Armes; he mourned for Saul, but ne­ver stirred up any disturbance in the Kingdome against him, but patiently expected Gods determination.

Lib. 2. ad­vers. Parmen. David. inimi­cum habebat in manibus in cau­tum & securum adversarium, sine labore potu­ti jugulare, & sine sanguine, multorum bellu mutare in cae­dem, preri ejus & opportui [...]as suadebant ad victoriam, &c. sed obstabat plena divino [...]ū memoria man­datorum: re­pressit cum gla­dio manum, & dum timu [...] ole­um servav [...]t in­imicum, &c. & cum comple ret observanti­am, vindicavit occisum. Optatus elegantly enlargeth himself thus upon it, David had Saul his enemy in his hands, might have se­curely slaine him, without the blood of any others, his ser­vants and the opportunity moved him to it, but the full remembrance of Gods commands to the contrary with-held him, he drew back his hand and sword, and whilest he re­verenced the oyntment he spared his enemy, and when he had compleated his loyalty, revenged his death (i. e.) in the Amalekite.)

We doe not say men are bound to doe whatever the Prince shall command against the Law of God and Nature, but yet neither doe we say, we may by force take up Armes against him: he said well Scutum dan­dum est subditis, non gladius: The three children refu­sed to obey the command of Nebuchadnezzar in wor­shipping his golden Image; and Daniel Darius his E­dict in praying for thirty dayes to none but to him, (as a new erected Numen) but yet they resisted not when they were questioned and call [...]d to suffer for it. Elias withdrew himself from Jezebell and Ahabs bloody fu­ry, yet ye doe not read him tampering with those ma­ny thousands hid in Samaria, by any secret Machinati­ons against him, but were all patiently passive, and committed themselves to God that judgeth righteously: When Peter drew his Sword against the present power, though under the best defensive pretence, yet was bid to put it up, with a check as if it had been upon a pri­vate quarrell, qui accipit gladium gladio peribit. Rossae­us a Romanist hath indeed published a Book, De justa [Page 33] Reipublicae in Principem haereticum potestate, not blushing to (a) averre the contrary to what we have asserted, viz. (*) Cap 9. Ju­ [...]ae [...], sepecon­ [...]ra proprios Re­g [...]s, e [...]am á Da­vidica stirpe, approbant [...] Deo [...]s [...]rrexisse [...]le-gumur. That the Israelites did often make insurrections against their Kings, even of the stock of David, and with Gods approbation, but instanceth in none to any purpose.

'Tis true (as he saith) Atheliah was deposed, but 'twas from her usurpation. Hezekiah shook off the yoak of the King of Assyria, to the service of whom he had no just obligation. The Judges before Samuels time did the like in delivering themselves and the Israelites from their several servitudes. Absolon was suppressed by the same way of Force, he had most perfidiously and wickedly attempted his Fathers Crown, but what are these instances to a lawful Prince, or to such as are Sub­jects. Some I find thus endeavoring to evade the Text, by distinguishing between the Power and the Person; as if this and the like were to be understood, only de po­testatein abstracto. But certainly St. Peter applys it 1 Pet. 2. 13. cleerly in co [...]creto, to the Person of the King: Regi quasi praecellenti & Magistratibus ab eo missis, as in the next, Fear God, honor the King. Nei­ther 1 Sam. 24. 6. can that Speech of Davids be otherwise meant then of the Person of Saul. God forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords annointed, to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the annointed of the Lord; 'Tis not the Power that is annointed; but the Person who by it is resigned to the Power.

Again 'tis very probable, that St. Paul writing to the Romans, in this expression here of Powers, conform­ed himself to their Stile. Who as Berclaius observes Lib. 3. cap. 10. out of Pliny, Suetonius and Tertullian, do very frequent­ly take, the Abstract, for the Concrete, i. e. the Power for the Person armed with it.

[Page 34] There is another argumentation still in the mouths of many, viz. That Princes receive their power from the people, and so may be abridged accordingly by them.

But first let such know from whence they had this, even from the Jesuites, or the like (for many other Au­thors of the Church of Rome are against it.) Alphonsus de Castro (de potestate Leg. Paen. lib. 1.) and Vasques (lib. 1. controvers. cap. 47.) averre it, and call all pow­er Tyrannical, that comes not by the people. It was that which Pope Zachariah suggested to the French for de­posing of Childerick their King. Avent. lib. 3. Annal. Regem cum piebs constituit, eunden. & de­slituere potell. Prince S [...]op [...]lo, cujus beneficio posst. [...]. obnoxi­us est. That the people who constituted him may as well depose him; the Prince is obnoxious to the people, by whom he possesseth that Honor. Unto which agrees that of De potestate Eccles. q. 22. Art. 3. Imperatorem à Papa posse depo [...]i [...]jui [...] ibit infic as, ejus e­n [...]m est [...] cujus e [...]t constituere. Augustinus Triumphus de Anchona, (who by the Sea of Rome hath the Title of Beatus given him.) That th Pope may depose the Emperor who can deny it, for he that constitutes can depose, whose practice in story hath been accordingly, Henry the Fourth the Emperor, and Trithem. lib 1. compend. Annal. de [...]. Reg & Gent. Franc. Childerick the Third, the French King, were by Pope Gregory the Seventh, the latter of which was deposed, as the Historian saith, non pro suis iniquitatibus, sed quod inutilis esset tantae potestati, as Platina in Stepb. 6. Princeps qui alias suit Christianis­simus deum ti­mens, Ecclesi­asticis sanct o [...]i­bu [...] devous [...]ame parens in Elce. mo [...]ynts largus Nationibus in desiu [...]nter [...] &. [...] tamen cum his tot, & tantis virtutibus non effugit Carolus notam Tyranni & deposit us [...]u [...]ta subditis. Carolus Crassus, the Germans and Italians withdrew their obedience from him, by the Papal approbation, on­ly ob segnitiem corporis ingeniique traditatem, though o­therwise a most pious, devout and vertuous Prince, ac­cording to which is the Argument and Application of In Recognit. lib. 3. q. de latcis. Brllarmine, Constituens est prius constituto; subditi vero constituunt Reges [...] Principes sunt propter populum, ergo populus est nobilior.

[Page 35] 2 But secondly tis of no force in it self. The Pastor is for the good of the Flock. The master of the family is for the welfare of it: forma est propter actionem, is there­fore actio nobilior formâ? Again a servant voluntarily binds himself to a Master, and after a manner constitutes him over him, What? can he at pleasure withdraw himself again.

3 Again these men consider not of the Oath of God taken of Subjects to their King, which Solomon men­tions, Eccles. 8, 2. I councel thee to keep the Kings com­mandements, and that because of tht Oath of God.

4 They have likewise but little esteem of St. Pauls Judgement in the Text, viz. that the powers are of God, and ordained of God; That they bear the sword of the Lord, and are his ministers. And indeed few Kings have originally come to their Crowns by the people, but most frequently as one observes, invitis subdi [...]is, Belli jure (si hoc jus sit dicendum) prima regnandi fecis­se fundamenta: but after an Oath of an Allegiance the bonds are deposited in Gods hand; so that the whole argumentation is both unchristian and irrational, and rejected by us as the Doctrine of some Romanists, which such as are so afraid to come neer them in any thing else, should be as much deterred in this.

In a word, as Kings receive their power from God: so are we to leave them only unto God, if they shall abuse it, not but that they may and ought to be prudently and humbly reminded of their duties (for which we have the example of the Primitive Fathers & Bishops to the Emperors, Constantius, Constans, and others, introdu­cing Arianism) but yet without lifting up our hands a­gainst them in the least resistance of them, which is the [Page 36] Judgement also of most of our Modern Orthodox Di­vines and even divers of the Writers of the Church of Rome, who have stiffey contradicted the Jesuites as­sertions of the contrary, one of each shall suf­fice.

1. For those of ours, De. Trans­lat. imp. lib. 1 c 2. Omnes injuria [...] a Mgist ata po tius serunt bo­ni, quam atro­cissimus, quàm ut in eum in­vehunt, sermone, scr [...]p [...]c; opere, ad ordinis & pacis public per▪ turbationem. Franciscus Junius thus determines: All good men should bear even the most cru­el injury from the magistrate, rather then enveigh a­gainst him by word, pen, or action, to the disturbance of order and the publick peace, according to which see Lu­ther (lob. de offic. magistr. Tom. 2.) Brentius (Hom. 27. in cap. 8. lib. 1. Sam.) Melanthon, Bucer, Musculus, Ma­thesius Erasmus, and others.

2. For those of the Church of Rome potius re­linquendi sunt mali regnantes judicio dei quā polluendae ma­nus per rebellio­onem; non ca­ret Deus modis quibus possit, quando volue­rit hujusmodi malos principes tollere, vel e­mendare: Ma­lum si sit Impe­rium non est quod male obe­dienda ulcisci debeamus, eut peccatum Regis peccatis nostris pu [...]ire, sed poti­us patienter se­rendo iram Dei tmolliere, qui corda Regum suâ gubernat. manu, &c. lib. 26. derepub. c. 5. Gregorius Tholosanus: Governours (saith he) are rather to be left to the Judgement of God then to defile our hands by a Rebellion against them. God wants not means whereby he can (when he pleaseth) remove or amend them. If there be an evil Government, farre be it from us to re­venge it by an evil obedience, or to punish the sins of the King by our own sins, but rather by a patient bearing, to mollify the wrath of God, who governs the hearts of Kings with his own hands, &c.

And surely if it be a potius re­linquendi sunt mali regnantes judicio dei quā polluendae ma­nus per rebellio­onem; non ca­ret Deus modis quibus possit, quando volue­rit hujusmodi malos principes tollere, vel e­mendare: Ma­lum si sit Impe­rium non est quod male obe­dienda ulcisci debeamus, eut peccatum Regis peccatis nostris pu [...]ire, sed poti­us patienter se­rendo iram Dei tmolliere, qui corda Regum suâ gubernat. manu, &c. lib. 26. derepub. c. 5. terrible thing for any man to fall into the hands of the living God, much more is it to them, who are only accomptable to him, and the Justice of God hath been often notoriously mani­fested upon them, in sacred story. Abimelec, Jerobo­am, Baasa, Ahab, both the Herods. In Ecclesiasticall story. Anastasius, Julian, Valens, and others. So much for holy writ.

Now secondly let me demonstrate this out of the (i) Heb. 10. 31. [Page 37] antient-Fathers, and practise of the Primitive Church in these three things.

1 1. After the example of Jeremiah and Daniel for Nebuchadnezzar, and St. Paul for Nero. 1 Tim. 2. We find the antient Fathers praying for the Emperors (though of a different Religion, and persecutors of the true) Now to be at the same time praying for them and conspiring in any combinations against their govern­ment, are inconsistent.

Lib. ad scapul. Nos prosalute Imperatorum Deum invoca­mus, &c. Tertulliau who lived under Severus the Empe­ror, saith this in the name of the Christians, we pray daily for the health of the Emperors, &c. That of Mar­cus Aurelius distress in his expedition into Germany, when by the prayers of the Christian Legion (as it was acknowledged by the heathen) Rain was obtained in a great Drought, and consequently a victory is sufficient­ly known: They called not for fire from heaven to consume him and his Army, according to that advice of Sanders the Jesuit, in the like case (lib. 2. cap. 4. de visib. Monarch.) but for water to refresh both.

The Letters of the Fathers Synodi Ariminensis writ­ten to Constantius an Arrian are observable, who ask­ing him leave to return to their severall Diocesses, give this for their reason, Sozom lib. 4. cap. 17. ut o­remus sedulo pro tua salute Imperio & race quam Deus tibi sempiternam benignus largia­tur. That we may diligently pray for thy health, Empire, and peace, which the mercifull God everlastingly bestow upon thee.

And in their second Letters, asking the same request of him: they say thus: Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 20. Rursumte, Gloriosissime Imperator obsecramus ut ante hyemis asperitatem jubeas nos ad Ec­clesias nostras redire, ut omnipotenti Deo, pro statu potentiae tuae una cum porulo, quemad­modum serimus & sacimus magno s [...]udio supplicare possemus. Again most glorious Emperor, [Page 38] we beseech thee that before the sharpness of the Winter, thou wouldst command our return to our Churches, that we may, as we have done and doe earnestly pray unto the Al­mighty God for the state of thy might with thy peo­ple.

How are they then to be abhorred who to a Chri­stian, pious, Orthodox King stained neither with Vice nor Heresie, temperate, meek, prudent, gracious, instead of pray­ers have returned menacies, for a dutifull subjection, Arrogant language, if he yield not to every particular of their peremptory demands.

2 You shall not find the antient Fathers either by word or writing giving the least offence to the Emperors, though Hereticks. St. Hillary wrote two books against Constantius the Arrian, yet stiles him Gloriosissimum, Beatissimum; nay Sanctum i. e. Ratione Imperii, Non Religionis &c.

Orat 8 18. 22. 24. 25. 27. Nazianzen is found of the like temper in his Orations against Valens and Valentinian, which are written throughout with all the Reverence and subjecti­on that can be ezpected from a Subject to a Prince; and yet Valens burnt fourscore Orthodox Bishops and Presbyters together in a ship, and did other horrid Acts, which Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 13 Socrates tells us.

Oh the distance between the spirits of some men now dayes and those of the antient Church, even as as far those excelled these, in sanctimony of life, inte­grity of Conversation, piety and truth of Doctrine.

3 You shall ever find them exemplary in their obedi­ence and subjection to the Emperors, never stirring up the people to the least resistance or mutiny, but ap­peasing them.

[Page 39] Excellently is that of St. Augustine In Psalm. 124. Iulianus, infidelis Impe­rator, Apostata in qus, milites fideles servie­ [...]unt Impe atori infideli quando d [...]ceat, produ­cite aciem ite contra illam [...], statim obtem [...]eraba [...]t, [...]ting [...]ebant, Dem [...]n [...]m [...]er­nuon a Domino temporali, & tamen sui diti erant propter Dominum aeter­nam, etiam Do­mino temporali. of the Chri­stians under Julian; An Infidel Emperor, a wic­ked Apostate. The Faithfull souldiers served a faith­less Emperor; when it came to the Cause of Christ, then they acknowledged no other then him that sits in heaven; but in Millitary affairs, when he said unto them, bring forth your forces into the field goe against such a Nation presently they obeyed, they distinguisht the Lord who is aeternal from him that is only temporall, and yet were subject to the temporall Lord for his sake who is ae­ternall.

Ad Sca [...]. [...]n [...]a Majestatē Imperatora in­samamur tamea nunquam t [...]ter Alb [...]anos, Ni­ga [...]os, vel Cas­sianos nos in ve­nire potu [...]runt. Tertullian affirms it as a high honour to Chri­stianity, that they could never find a Christian in a­ny seditious conspiracy: We are (saith he) defamed in relation to his Imperiall Majesty, but yet they could never find any of us among the Albiniani, Nigriani, or Cassiani (who had been some seditious parties against the Emperor.

That In orat, de busilic, non tra­dend. Volens nunquam dese­ram coastus re­pugnare non no­vi. Fle epot [...]ro, l [...]b [...]ymae m [...]ae mea armi sunt, al [...]ter nec deb [...]o, nec possum resi­sse [...]e. of St. Ambrose was both becomming a good Bishop and a Loyall Subject, when he was com­manded (by the means of Justina the Empress, who was an Arrian) to deliver up the Churches of Mil­lain to the use of the Arrians, returned this answer to his people, and to the Emperor; Willingly I shall ne­ver do it, but if compel'd I have not learned to fight, I can weep, my Tears are my Arms, I neither can nor ought to resist otherwise. Indeed by the desire of the Ortho­dox party he refused to give up the chief Church or his Cathedral to them, but the detaining of it was with all possible humble representation by way of Petition for it, with all the solicitous care that might be, of preventing the least misinterpretation of contumacie, [Page 40] and the people went into it with him, and there continu­ed night and day, in fasting and prayer, that God would move the Emperor, not to disturb them (which as some observe (to prevent a weariness in it) occasio­ned the use of Anthemes in these Western parts, though long before in the East) he offered all his Quod me um est. i. e. sun­dum meum, non refragarer, si co. pus petit oc­cu [...]ram, vultis in unicula ra­pere vultis in mortem volup­tati est mihi non ego me vallabo circumfusione populorum, nec altaria teneb [...] vitam obsecrans sed pro altari­bus gratis im­molabor. ibid. own pro­per goods to the pleasure of the Emperor: Were it my Land, I should not gain-say it, doth the Emperor re­quire my Body, I shall meet him, would he have me to pri­son, put me to death, I am pleas d with it, I shall not en­close my self with a guard of the multitude of the people, nor will I take hold of the Altar to ask my life, but I shall freely be sacrificed for the Altars, (or the Service of God.)

Thus saith another Father many hundreds of years after him. Bern Ep. 221. ad Ludon Reg. pro matre nostra Ecclesia Propugnabimus sed quibus ar­mis non scutis, non glad [...]s sed precibus fl [...]cti­bus (que) ad deum. We will fight for our Mother the Church, but with what arms, not with Swords and Shields, but with Prayers and Tears, to God.

Athanasius was four or five times banished by several Emperors, but in each he quietly yielded, Religioni quam profi eba­tur, putavit magis consen [...]a neum patientia quam injusta seditione conju­riam imperato­ris superare. Apol. as con­ceiving it more consenant to the Religion professed by him, to overcome that injury by a patient suffering, then to have made his defence by an unwarranted seditious opposition by the people, and therefore in his Apology ye shall not find a word tending that way, but on the contrary, up­on any Tumult of them whose zeale to him might pos­sibly have carried them beyond their Limits) he ever exhorts them to be quiet, and to retire to their homes, telling them that for those of his order, no ways was al­lowed them in their defence, but preces, fuga, & humiles supplicationes. i. e. Prayers to God, petitioning the Em­peror, or a flight, and for Petitions to the Emperor, ye [Page 41] have the example of Ebedmelech for Jeremiah to the King of Israel; Esther for her Nation to Ahasuerus, Jonathan for David to Saul; In Ecclesiasticall story Plinius Secundus for the Christians (in the Province of Bythinia) to Trajan. And as each of these in some measure prevailed, so can they be hardly rejected by any person who is not wholly a stranger both to piety and humanity.

For a flight, when petitions will not prevail, the same Athanasius (in his Apologie for his from the Arrians) produceth a great Catalogue of Examples. Jacob from Esau, Moses from Pharaoh, David from Saul, Elias from Jezabel, St. Paul from the Conspirators against him at Damascus, Acts 9. Nay, the Example of our blessed Saviour in his fight from Herod into Egypt in his Infancy, afterwards from the fury of the Jews and Pha­risies, and the other Herod, till his time was come, ac­cording to which is his command to his Disciples, Mat. 10. When ye are persecuted in one City flye to another; but no warrant or example from him or his for a resi­stance, or in the Primitive times succeeding for many hundred years, as Haec sola novitas ne di­cam haeresi [...], nec dum in mundo emenserat: Si­geb. Chronol. Ann. 1088. Sigebert tells us, that Doctrine, or Heresie rather, was a novelty in the world till the year 1088. after Christ.

There is this one Evasion pretended against these Object. Quotations of the Fathers, which must be answered (viz.) that this their patience then, was to be attributed rather to their (b) necessity then virtue, their number Necessita [...]i ma­gic quam vi t [...] ­ [...] & valun [...]ati [...]a [...]ctorum Pa­t [...]um, &c. and strength being so smal, that they could not help it, and so were compelled to yield. This indeed is the very objection of the Jesuites, Bellarmine against Barclay saith the same, facultatibus non fuerint prediti satis ido­neis, [Page 42] i. e. they wanted sufficient forces to resist, and would have that of Nazianzen, Lachrymas solas superes­se Christianis contra Juliani persecutiones, &c. (i. e. That Tears was all the Christians had to defend them­selves against the persecutions of Julian) thus to be understood, as Julianus Tyranide sua vi res omnes prae­ciderit quibus alids its contra Apostatam uti fas fuisses. if Julian had by his tyranny cut off all their forces, which else it had been lawfull for them to have made use of against the Apostate, against whom in that, many of the Church of Rome have written, Gre­gorius Thelosanus, Lib. 6 de regn. c. 26. & depo [...]est. Papae. Bercliaus (whom we named be­fore) In Apol. B [...]ll. a n. 249. us (que) ad u. 267. Widringtonus. This is the objection of Bel­larmine.

But the Contrary is evident, that the number and strength of the Christians was then very great, not only Answer. to have resisted, but overthrown, and even shaken the foundations of the Empire. They were as the Israe­lites in Egypt, stronger then their enemies. See what Eusebius saith, that when Constantine the first professed to be a Christian, who succeed Dioclesian, that had made such havock of them) the Fere om [...]e [...] mortales [...]un [...] denrum cultu reli. to, Christi­anorum genit. &c. Euseb. l b. 9. c. 9. whole world rose with him, and forsaking their Idols, joyned themselves unto him.

Apol. Exter [...] [...]umus, & vestra omnia in p [...]cvimus, ur­bes insulas, ca­ [...]ella, m [...]n [...]ci p [...]a, conciliaba la. castra ipsa, decarias, p [...]la ita, sorum, Se nals [...]: cui bel­lo non. [...] non prem [...] suissexiu [...], [...]i tam [...], si nan apud discipliam nostram. magis ctcid. li [...]re [...] quam [...]. Tertullian who lived an hundred years before him, sets so th thus the number of the Christians in his time. We fill the whole Empire, your Cities, Castles, Corporations, Councels, your very Camps, Courts of Ju­stice, Palaces, Market-places, your Senate, with whom are not we able to make a warre, who so willingly offer our selves to the slaughter, but that our Religion teacheth us, that 'tis better to be killed then-to kill in such cases.

[Page 43] It was so in St. Ambrose his time, the Army and peo­ple were (at least the major part of them) at his beck. I (saith he) upon all occasions am still desired, ut com­pecerem populum, ego Tyrannus appellor & plus quam Ty­rannus. The Emperor often tells his Courtiers, he must doe what Ambrose will have him, the whole im­plying the great number of the Orthodox Christians then, and yet alwayes submitted to the Government.

Now no man can conceive that in this the Christians wanted courage. That passage Theod. lib. 3. cap. 17. Cum multi mil­itum qui exer­ [...]ore thus adole­verunt, impo­sturis Juliani decepti, peregi­am discurren­ces, non tan­tum manus, sed corpor a ad ig­nam offerent ut igne polluti igne repurgarentur. which Theodoret tels us of sufficiently satisfies, viz. that when many of the Souldiers had been deluded by Julians impostures to have offered some incense to the Idols, they ran to and fro the Cities, offered not only their hands, but their bodies to the fire, that being polluted by fire, they might be purged by the fire.

Can any in reason think that they who were so fear­less of death in the profession of what they were taught by the Fathers, if they had been also by the same tea­chers assured what a merit it had been to have fought for them, and themselves against the Emperor and his Edicts made for their destruction, can we think them so senseless and heartless as not to have appeared ac­cordingly? No, it was only for the fear of God, and this Text with-held them, as Tertullian hath it; Repri­mebant manus quia non ignorabant quod leg ssent, qui re­sistit potestati Dei, ordinationi resistit. &c.

There was then no such Jesuiticall doctrine known (contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England) that men may in the like cases take up Arms in Rebel­lion against their lawfull Princes. And surely it not in case of Heresie, i. e. if the Prince shall exemplo vel prae­cepto [Page 44] compel, or endeavour to draw his Subjects to it (which is the assertion of lib. 5. de Pontifice c. 7. Bellarmine, fideles here­tico non obligari; licite posse veneno aut quacunque rati­one è mediorollere, &c.) surely much less may this be in cases of less consequence, which do not touch upon the foundation, but are only circumstantials. The ancient Christians held not these things worthy of blood, but submitted to them after St. Pauls example in the like.

And now 'tis high time to apply my self to the con­sideration of that horrid Fact which, as fruit sprung from those deadly seeds of Doctrine, we lament this day. This was the day when out of pretence of relieving the Mother (as they call the Common-wealth) children de­stroyed the Father, and so at once both, The Casuists say, Si filius patrem in ultionem matris occidat, haec pie­tas erit scelus, but for a Son to slay both Parents at once is a Monster indeed.

This was the black work of this day, rather to be trembled at the thought of, then uttered, when the most wise, pious, prudent, meek, mercifull King was put to death by pefidious sons of Belial, faithless and mer­ciless men: And this not in the dark, but in the face of the Sun, at his own gates, a thing unparalleld in any Story. That which hitherto hath been urged, is from what the ancient Church abhorred even to a Heretick, a Persecutor, a Heathen; how much then is this cruelty and hypocrisie to be loathed when exercised against the life and soveraignty of a pious, orthodox, just, and Chri­stian Prince, not only to a dreadfull Rebellion, but a bloody murther.

All history shews that Rebellion hath ever in con­clusion been the ruine of the Authors; take the [Page 45] word [...] in the Text, as some render it poenam, judici­um, i. e.) for some corporal vengeance from God or man here. That known speech of Helmold. histor. Sclau. cap. 28, 29, 30. lib. 1. Spectate manum meam dextram de vulneie cauciam, haec ego iuravi Domino Henrico, ut non nocerem et, nec insidtarer gloriae ejus, sed jussio Apostolica Po [...]tificamus mandatum me ad id dedu [...]i [...], ut juramenti transgressor ho­norem mihi [...] usorparem: Vide­tis quod in manu unde jura menta violavi mortale hoc vi [...]lnus accepi. Viderint ii qui nos ad [...] instigave [...]unt, qualiter nos duxerint ne forte deducti simus in praeci­pitium aeier [...]ae damnationis Rodolphus to those that were about him when he was nigh unto death after his taking up arms a­gainst his Master the Emperor, is wor­thy to be remembred: See ye my right hand maimed by a wound, with this I sware to my Lord Henry (the Emperor) that I would doe him no hurt, nor treacherously entrap him in his dignity, but the Apostolick Command (or that of the Pope) hath enduced me to it, that as a perjured person, I have usurped an honor not due unto me. Ye see in that very hand with which I violated my oath, I have received my mortall wound, let them look to it, who have invited us, to what a condition they have brought us, even to the very hazard of everlasting damnation; according to the Text, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt.

I shall conclude with that sentence of St. Jude and St. Peter (cap. 2.) upon the like (then which ye have not a more full execration in the whole Bible) These are they that despise dominion, and are so presumptuous, as to speak evil of dignities (i, e. Kings and Princes,) Wo unto them for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Baalam, and perished in the gain-saying of Core, these are spots in your feasts, clouds without water, trees without fruit, withered, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame, wandring stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever: Let us all say [Page 35] Amen to that which fell from a Royal pen, King James of ever happy memory, in his maledictus qui maledicit Praesat. Apol. uncto Domini, pereatque interitu Core, qui peceavit in contradictione Core: Let him be accursed that shall curse the Lords annointed, and let him perish with the perishing of Corah who hath sined in the gain-saying of Korah: And let us earnestly pray for the safety of the Kings Majesty according to that of the Christians for the Emperour in Tertullian. Det Deus illi vitam, ex­ercitus fortes. Senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum, i. e. God give him a long life, a secure Empire, Apol. a safe house, valiant forces, a faithfull Councell, loyall people, and a quiet State, &c. even for his sake who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to whom with the Fa­ther and holy Spirit be all honor and glory now and for ever

Amen.

The late Lord Primate USHER'S Judgment and Practice in point of Loyalty, Episcopacy, Liturgy, and Ecclesiasticall Constitutions of the Church of England.

THe various interpretations which have been made of the Judgement and Practice of this most Eminent Prelate in these particulars and the mis-applications the eupon pread, by some of diffe­rent Judgments to his great prejudice, hath occasion­ed this brief vindication of him, by declaring my own knowledge therein; as followeth.

1. His Judgement and Practise in point of Loyalty.

For his Judgement, it hath been most fully manifest­ed by a most learned Treatise, lately published of the Power of the Prince and [...] of the Sub­ject: the writing of which was thus occasioned. About Occasion of writing that Book of the Power of the Princes, &c. the beginning of those unhappy Commotions in Scotl­and, 1639. Sir George Radoleife desired me very earnest­ly to let him know, what the Lord Primats Judgment was of them, and not being contented with my verball assurance of it, desired to have it more punctually under my hand, which I had no sooner communicated to the Lord Primate, but hereadily and instantly dictated un­to me his sentence upon them, which was accordingly [Page 48] returned, & for which I had a letter of very great thanks.

Now as soon as the Primate came to Dublin the Earl of Strafford, (then Lord Deputy of Ireland) desired him to declare his Judgment publiquely concerning those Commotions, which he forthwith did at Christ-Church Dublin, before the State in two Sermons, to all mens satisfactions, from this Text Eccles. 7. 2. I councel thee to keep the Kings commandement, and that because of the Oath of God. After this, the Lord Deputy (besides his own desire) signified unto him that it would be ac­ceptable to his late Majesty (of ever blessed memory) that he should either print his Sermons, or write a Trea­tise of the like Subject, the latter of which he made choice of: And having with much labour and industry finisht it, and caused it to be fairly transcribed, he came over with it into England with an intention to commit it to the Presse, as hath been declared by the learned and Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Lin­coln in his Preface to that Treatise.

To which give me leave to add: That his Judge­ment was alwayes the same and so declared by him upon all occasions, since I had the happynesse to be known to him: As annually upon the Kings Inaugura­tion day (which was constantly observed by him at Drogheda with great Solemnity:) and occasionly in some learned Sermons preacht by him at the opening of two Parliaments. And especially upon the first so­lemnity for his present Majesties Birth day, anno 1630. at Dublin, being sent for of purpose by the State then to preach, which he did upon this Text, Psalm 45. 26. In­stead of thy Fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make Princes in all the Earth.

[Page 49] But most fully in those two Speeches of his herewith His Speech of the Oath of Supremacy. revived. The one whereof he made while he was Bishop of Meath, Anno 1622. in the Castle-Chamber of Dublin, in defence of the Oath of Supremacy, and in special making good that Clause that the King is the only Su­pream Governor of these his Realms and Dominions. For which King Iames (of happy Memory) sent him a Let­ter of Thanks hereunto annexed, the original of which I have now in my custody.

The other he made Anno 27. before the Lord De­puty His Speech of supplying the Kings Necessi­ries. Falkland, the Councel, and a great Assembly of the Lords, and other persons chosen out of each Coun­ty at His Majesties Castle of Dublin, occasioned by their slowness to contribute to the maintenance of the Army, the main scope of which, is to declare the Du­ty of Subjects to supply the Kings necessities for the defence of his Kingdom, from strength of Reason, antient Re­cords, and Grounds of Divinity, a Copy of which be­ing by the Lord Deputy then desired of him to be sent unto His late Majesty, (for which he received His Royal Thanks) I took a transcript thereof;

Unto which I shall only add this, That I have found among the Primat's papers a Manuscript, containing Mr. Hookers judgment of these three things, Mr. Hookers judgment of Regal Power confirmed by the Primate.

  • 1. Of Regal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs.
  • 2. Of the Kings Power in the advancement of Bishops unto the rooms of Prelacy.
  • 3. Of the Kings exemption from censures and other judicial Power.

All which (as the Primate notes with his own hand) are not found in the common Copys of Mr. Hookers M. S. (though by what art, and upon what designe so much [Page 50] was exspunged I know not) only thus far the Primate hath joyn'd his Testimony with Mr. Hooker in these (which seem to be the true) that he hath corrected and perfected the copy throughout with his own hand, and not only found out the several quotations, and put them down in the Margent, which had been before omitted, but added many of his own, with some other large An­notations, by which his zeal for the defence of Regal Power is the more evident. And what his freedom of speech was frequently here in his Sermons to that pur­pose, and in speciall before his late Majesty (of blessed memory) upon his Birth-day at the Isle of Wight upon this Text, Genes. 49. 3. Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power, I suppose is suffi­ciently known. This for his Judgement.

Secondly, his Practice hath appeared by what his suf­ferings His sufferings for it. have been upon that account, as his forced flight from London to Oxford: His ruff usage in Wales or there­abouts, by the Army then in the field against the King, to the loss of some of his Books and Principall Manu­scripts never recovered: The taking that away from him which had been given him by the King for his maintenance, and at length being necessitated to return to London, he was silenced a long time from preaching, unless in a private house; and when with much adoe he was permitted to preach at Lincolns Inne, it was that Honorable Society which gave him a competent main­tenance; but upon the failing of his eye-sight, being compelled to give it up, his small subsistance after that (besides the continuance of the Countess of Peterbur­roughs respects to him in her house) came (with much [Page 51] difficulty) through my hands unto him.

And as his Prayers (whtch were all the Arms he had) His Prayers, joy, and sor­row according to the success of his Majesties affairs. were daily lifted up (like Moses hands) for the prosperity of his Majesties affairs, notwithstanding the hazzard he ran by it, like that of Daniels; by a prohibition to the contrary: So was his joy or sorrow perpetually shown according to the success of them. I shall instance in one particular.

Anno 1649. (till when, the Book of Common Prayer was in my Charge of Drogheda, to his great content, continued, notwithstanding many Lords of the Parlia­ment forces interchangeably had dominion over us) the now Lord Duke of Ormond then appearing with an Ar­my for the King, and taking the Town, with that part of his forces under the command of the Earl of Inchi­quin, the same day I attended his Lordship in the pro­claiming of his Majesty, and immediately went to the Church, and used the Common Prayer for his Majesty: And afterwards upon the Dukes comming himself thi­ther, we had a Fast for the good success of his Majesties forces (at which I preached:) And a Communion was appointed the next Sunday, though Oliver Cromwels landing with so great a force at Dublin interrupted us (the event of which in that bloody storme, and the haz­zard of my self for the above-mentioned matters, would be impertinent here to relate) only thus much: I may not omit as to this good Lord Primate, That as his Letters were full of encouragement, and approba­tion of me for it; so at my coming over he embraced me with much affection, upon that Accompt, often re­joycing at the constancie of that Town, where himself had refided, and had sown so much of that Doctrine of [Page 52] Loyalty, which by his Order four times a year (ac­cording to the Canon) was preached unto them. And with many Tears he lamented the retarding of his Ma­jesties affairs, by the loss of so many faithfull Servants of his, slain there in that Massacre in cool bloud.

In one thing more, the Demonstration of his loyall affection to his Majesty was manifested by his passio­nate Commiseration of those of the distressed sequestred Clergy, who had suffered for him, and by his appearing to his utmost for them (which was more commenda­ble, then by hiding himself, to have take no more care, but to preserve one.

When that merciless Proclamation issued forth a­gainst His compassio­nate affection to such as had suffered for his Majesty. such that they might not so much as teach a School for their livelyhood; when my soliciting for them (by his encouragement) representing their petiti­ons, and petitioning for them is my own name subscri­bed, only to have had them capable of a Contribution, throughout England (for which as Feoffees in Trust, Doctor Bromrigg then the learned Bishop of Exeter and my self, were nominated) could not prevail, and an e­legant Apologie for them written by Doctor Gauden the now Reverend Bishop of Exeter, which I delivered with my own hand, proved also ineffectuall. Then this eminent Primat out of a compassionate sense of their miseries was perswaded by me to make a Tryall how farr his own personal presence might prevail in their behalf, and so (much against his own Genius and with great regret within himself to go into Whitehall, he having no other occasion in the world besides) he went, and I wated on him thither for that end, where he spake at freely and fully, as some impertinent inter­positions [Page 53] of discourses would permit him; but to his great grief returned fruitless, and I think he never re­sented any thing more deeply, not living many moneths after unto which the ungrateful censures and rash extra­vagant language of such, whom he thus endeavored to serve, added the more to it; which in some hath not been abated to his very Memory: Now in regard their ignorance of thus much, might still occasion it, is one cause of my enlargement upon it; but so much in relation to his Loyalty, whereof he was an eminent Pat­terne.

His Judgment and Practice in point of Episcopacy.

FOr Episcopacy, first in his Judgment, he was a full as­sertor His judgment. of it, which appears in those Learned Tract­ates of the Original of Bishops, and that of the Lydian Asia, where he doth not only deduce Episcopacy from the Apostolique times, but also the Metropolitans or Arch-Bishops to have been accordingly, from the super­scription of St. John to the Seven Churches, each of which Citys being Metropolitical, and the rest of the Citys of Asia, as daughters under them) for the confir­mation of which, he hath given such strong probabili­ties, that 'twill be hard to gainsay them.

Secondly, for his Practice, I can witness his constant His Practice. exercise of the Jurisdiction of it, or his causing it so to be exercised throughout his Diocess and Province, while those quiet times in Ireland did permit it. In all which a Learned and Prudent Divine was his Chancellor or Vicar-General, and afterwards a Bishop (Bishop SINe) [Page 54] one known to have been as much for the Government and Constitutions of the Church of England, as any person whatsoever.

As for that of his Reduction of Episcopacy to the form The reduction of Episcopacy. &c. of Synodical Government &c. presented to his late Maje­of Blessed Memory, Anno 1641. It is to be consider­ed, how it was occasioned by the present Tempestuous Violence of the Times, as an accommodation by way of Prevention of a totall Shipwrack threatned by the Ad­versaries The occasion and end oft it. of it, as appears sufficiently by the Title be­fore it, viz. Proposed in the year 1641. as an expedient for the prevention of those troubles which afterwards did arise in matter of Church Government, &c. Now what can this, in the sense of any prudent unbiassed person prejudice him in his Judgment or Affection to Episco­pacy it self, which rather confirms it.

The Marchant parts with that in a Storme, that he would not have done in a Calme, and at shore recruits himself with the like goods again. St. Paul in that Wracke, Acts 27. consented not only to the lightning of the Ship of the lading, but of the Tackling also, We cast them out (saith he, or St. Luke) with our own hands, and all for the saving (if it were possible) of the Ship, and the Passengers in it. That of the same Apostle in another case, I think it fit for the present necessity, might in some measure in this particular be the Primates Ap­plication, wherein he was not singular neither.

Unto which I can add this further confirmation, that for those many years I had the happines to be known unto him in those serene times, before these troubles arose, to the disturbance of Episcopacy, I never heard him mentioning any thing by way of alteration that [Page 55] way in those Proposals there specified, so that the sole occasion and end of them must be as afore-said.

And for these 4. Propositions, they were only present prudentiall representations, left to the Judgment and correction of others, without any Magisterial Impositi­on of them, as a Copy to be writ after, and as they were not published till an imperfect Copy invited unto it, so the real intent of it was by that Conjunction of both parties in Ecclesiasticall Government to have the easier way prepared to their union in the civil, even an unani­mous endeavour for his Majesties happy Restauration (now through Gods great goodness wonderfully ac­complished) for which, as none prayed more zealous­ly, so none could have exceeded the Primates in the joy for it, had he lived to see it.

For the form of words used by the Bishop in the ordi­nation of the Church of England, he did much approve Ordination of the Church of England. thereof, viz. Receive the Holy Ghost, Whose sins thou re­mittest are remitted, and whose sins thou retainest are re­tained, and be thou a faithfull dispenser of the Word and Sacraments, &c. And the delivering of the Bible into the hands of the person ordained, saying, Take thou au­thority to preach the word of God, and administer the Sa­craments, &c. Which being wholly omitted in that of the Presbyterian way, and no other words to that sense used in their room, and thereupon no express transmis­sion of ministeriall Power, he was wont to say, that such an Imposition of hands (by some called the Seal of Ordination) without a Commision annexed, seemed to him to be as the putting of a seal to a blank, That the scruple was not only in the instrumentall cause, but in [Page 56] the formall: and that if a Bishop had been present, and done no more, the same query might have been of the validity of it: And in his letter to me (which hath been published) he hath declared, the Ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from their Bishops, unto whom they had sworn Canonicall obedience cannot be excused from being Schismaticall.

For that of a gradual superiority of a Bishop above a Episcopal supe­riority over Presbyters. Presbyter which some have been offended at: 1. It is the language of Archbishop Whitgift in the defence of the Answer to the Admonition, Tract. 8. p. 383. that Epis­copus is commonly used for that Priest that is in degree over and above the rest, &c. But secondly, howsoever if so that the gradus be granted to be of Apo­stolicall constitution (which is the Primats sense) I do not see how it any more takes off from the Preheminence and Authority of Episcopacy, then the denomination of Lights, given in common by Moses to As the Sun to the other Lights. all in the Firmament, detracts from the Sun whom he call only the greater, from whom the rest derive theirs, and is the Ruler of the day: Or that of the first-born The dignity and power of the first-born. among his brethren, who by his Primogeniture, had the supremacy of Dignity and Power to whom the rest must bow, and he was to rule over them: The di­stinction in both is but gradual. The Primate hath A [...] the distance beween the High-Priest, and the other inferiour Priests. also elsewere derived the form of Church Government under the New Testament from the Pattern prescribed by God in the Old, and shews how it was from the Imi­tation thereof brought in by the Apostles. Now though the Distinction of the Chief, or High-Priest, and the other inferiour Priests was but gradual, yet there being so great a distance between them, the Chief-Priest ha­ving [Page 57] rule over the rest (called by the 70. [...]) there shall not need any further instance to illustrate it.

And whereas there hath been a learned tractate some years agone published, entitled the form of Church go­vernment before and after Christ, as it is expressed in the Old and New Testament, which then went under the name of Bishop Andrews. I found a Manuscript of it a­mong His approba­tion of books tending to the preheminence of Episcopacy. the Primates Papers, wherein the Author upon a review hath ordered some things to be altered, added, or taken away, and some to be further inquired into, ac­cording as the marks make reference unto several Pages of it. This I found accordingly noted by the Primate throughout, and some passages which the learned Au­thor desired to be farther inquired into, are at large per­fected under the Primats own hand, and I know no book more full for the preheminency of Episcopacy; so that what he did, or was willing to have yielded un­to out of a calme temper of Moderation, in such times of extremity, to preserve the unity and peace of the Church, then in great hazard to be shattered, ought not in reason so to be stretched, as to inferre it was his Ab­solute desire, or free choice, but only upon the present distress to keep the Chariot upon its wheels from a Precipice of a total overturning. So much for Epis­copacy.

3. His Judgement and Practice of the Liturgy of the Church of England.

FOr the Liturgy of the Church of England he was a constant Assertor and observer of to the last. The Liturgy. [Page 58] At Drogheda in Ireland (where I had the happiness for many years to live under him) he had the Common-Prayer read twice every day in his Chappel, from which nothing but sickness excused his absence. And in the Church it was (by his approbation) as duly observed by my self; we had there an Organ and a Quire; on Sun­dayes The Service Song. the Service was sung before him, as is used in Ca­thedrals in England. Anthems were sung very frequen­ly, and often, instead of a Psalm, before Sermon.

He came constantly to the Church in his Episcopal The Ceremo­nies. habit, and preacht in it, and for my self (by his appro­bation) when I officiated I wore my Surplice and Hood; administred the Communion, and at such occasions preached in them also. The Surplice was accordingly observed constantly by the Reader, and some of the Quire every Sunday.

And for all other Administrations they were fully observed in each Rite and Ceremony according to the Rubrick or Rule of the Book of Common-prayer, which many years after his leaving of Ireland, was (according to his trust committed to me) continued, till my Church in that bloody storm of Drogheda 1649. was blown up with Gun-powder, and for my refusing to obey the command of his Nephew Colonel Michael Jones, sent by an Officer unto me in writing, to for­bear the use of the Common-prayer; I had much thanks from the Primate, being much displeased at his presumption in it, though thereupon the little means I had remaining there, was by the Colonels order taken from me; and in the storme of the Town he did not for­get it, in his designing my death, as I was assured by an Ear-witness.

[Page 59] And indeed while the Primate continued in Droghe­da, I doe not remember there were any Protestant In­habitants there that so much as scrupled at the Crosse in Baptism, or kneeling at the Communion, with the like, but in all things conformed and submitted to what they saw was approved by him; and for such as were refractory in the Northern parts of Ireland (where the His reducing the scrupulous Scotch had mingled themselves with the English) he did his utmost to reclaim them in his Provincial Visitation, which I was a witness of, and imployed by his directi­ons among them for that end: Wherein (craving leave for this short digression) I have observed, that such who had so geat a prejudice to the Liturgy, as to run out of the Church when it was offered to be read out of the Book, when I used the very same form in several Admi­nistrations by heart, without the book, Baptism, Com­munion, Matrimony, Burial, and the like, they have highly commended it, as conceiving they had been my own present conceptions (the younger sort having ne­ver heard it, and the other almost forgotten it) which guile, both at Drogheda (when several Parliament Re­giments were sent thither successively to suppress it, like the Messengers of Saul to destroy David at Ramah, they have accordingly Prophesied with us) and in other places since my coming over I have continued, who at first being praeingaged without the Book in the com­mendation of it, the next time upon the use of it, find­ing it to be the same, they have confessed their former delusion, and have been fully satisfied.

And what the Primates Practice had been in Ireland, he continued in England to his last, which in the Coun­tess [...] of Peterboroughs house (where he lived and died) I [Page 60] have been often a witness of. And upon a false ru­mour raised of his remisseness that way, he shewed me; not long before his death, what he then had written to an Eminent person (who had told him of it) signify­ing his high approbation and commendation of the said Book of Common-prayer. And when (after his being destroyed in Ireland) the late King of blessed memory had for his subsistence given him the Bishoprick of Car­lile in Commerdam. He did at a Visitation of the Di­ocess) unto which the remoteness of the place did not permit himself to travel) writ a Letter unto the Mini­sters thereof, charging them to use constantly the Book of Common-prayer, and the publick Catechism in their seve­ral Churches.

Some Pamphlets, which of late years have been pub­lished in his name, containing (as they pretended) his The falshood of some Pam­phlets put out in his name since his death. opinion for the omission and change of divers things in it, as I did at their first comming forth protest against them, to be fictitious papers, so I doe here confirm it; and whatsoever he might now have yeilded unto for the peace and unity of the Church, that we might all speak the same thing; I can assure it (if he were alive) in these late disputes of it, he would have been for the Defen­dant.

And for some other particulars observed by me of Some particu­lars observed by him, him at Drogheda may not be impertinent herewith to relate. At the Creed he stood up constantly, repeated it with the Minister, alwayes received the Communion kneeling; At the publick prayers he kneeled also: At his entrance into the Pulpit he addressed himself with some short prayer unto God for his assistance, not steping in irreverently with a rude confident boldnes as the manen [Page 61] of some is) but rather with some fear and trembling.

At his entrance into his Seat both in the Church and in his Chappel, he kneeled down, with some short Pray­er also, and as he always came reverently into the Church and went out of it uncovered, so did he continue all the time of Divine Service.

And though he had as great an ability as the chief Pretenders to an extemporary expression, yet he constant ly used a set form of Player before his Sermon, and that with a decent brevity, which in private Families (as most profitable he commended accordingly, and even at their Tables, which was his own practice also, when he did not omit to pray (according to the usuall Form) for the Kings Majesty and Royal issue, (now commonly omitted.) In a wotd, this was his of­ten assertion that as the affecting and imposing of a daily sudden conception at Prayer, was a Novelty and a singula­rity (not being practised in any other Reformed Church) so the immethodical impertinencies, and other indiscreet extravagancies both for measure and matter, frequently occasioned by it, were of greater scandal to the Church, then that aptitude, habitually attained un­to by some, could be of profit.

His Judgment of the Articles of Religion and practice of the Eeclesiastical Consti­tutions of the Church of England.

THe Articles of the Church of England, as the Pri­mat The Articles of Religion of England. had long agon subscribed them, so have I often heard him highly commending them. The reception of [Page 62] which Articles in the First Canon of Ireland, Anno 1634. He drew up himself with his own hand, with an addition of a very severe punishment to such as should refuse to subscribe them, as may appear in it.

Anno 1614. He was a principal person then appoint­ed The Canons of Ireland, 1614. taken out of Q. Eliz. Injunct and Can of Engl. for the collecting and drawing up such Canons as might best concern the Discipline and Government of the Church of Ireland, taken out of Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the Canons of England, to be treated up­on by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops and Clergy of that Kingdom, some of which I have, which were written then with his own hand, and presented by him;

The two first of them were these,

1. That no other Form of Liturgy or Divine Service The Common Prayer. shall be used in any Church of this Realm, but that which is established by Law, and comprized in the Book of Com­mon-Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, &c.

2. That no other Form of Ordination, shall be used in Book of Ordi­nation. this Nation, but which is contain'd in the Book of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, allowed by Authority, and hitherto practiced in the Churches of England and Ireland, &c.

And in his subscription (in relation to the above men­tioned) His Subscrip­tion. it is in these words, viz. I do acknowledge the Form of Gods Service prescribed in the book of Common-Prayer, is good and godly, and may lawfully be used, and do promise that I my self will use the Form in the said Book prescribed in celebration of Divine Service, and ad­ministration of the Sacraments, and none other. I do also acknowledge, that such as are consecrated and ordered ac­cording to the form prescribed in the Book of Ordination, set forth by Authority, have truly received holy Orders, and [Page 63] have Power given them to exercise all things belonging to that Sacred Function, whereunto they are called &c.

For the now more perfect Canons of the Church of Canons of Ire­land. Anno 1634. taken out of those of England. Ireland, constituted Anno 1634. in the Convocation there (whereof I was a Member) most of them were taken out of these of England, and he being then Pri­mate, had a principal hand in their collection and pro­posal to the reception of them, the methodizing of all which into due order, I have seen, and have it by me written with his own hand throughout: whereby 'tis apparent what his Judgment was in relation to them.

The Annual Festivals of the Church he duly obser­ved, The Festivals. preaching upon their several Commemorations: On Christmas-Day, Easter, Whitsunday, he never fail'd of Communions, that excellent Treatise of his Entituled, The incarnation of the Son of God, was the substance of two or three Sermons which I heard him preach in a Christmas time.

Good-Fryday, he constantly kept very strictly, preach­ing Good Friday. himself then upon the Passion beyond his ordinary time, when we had the publick prayers in their utmost extent also, and without any thought of a superstiti­on, he kept himself fasting till the Evening.

Confirmation of Children was often observed by him, Confirmation of Children. the first time he did it (when a great number were pre­sented to him by me) he made a Speech to the Auditory, to the satisfaction of all sorts of persons, concerning the Antiquity and good use of it.

The publick Cathechism in the book of Common-Prayer, Catechism. was enjoyned by him to be only observed in the Church, a part of which for a quarter or half an hour was constantly explained by me to the people every [Page 64] Sunday before evening Prayer, himself being present, which was also accordingly enjoyned throughout his Diocess.

He was much for that decent distinctive habit of the Apparrel of the Clergy. Clergy (Cassocks, Gowns, Priests-Clokes, &c.) according to the Canon in that behalf provided, to be used by them in their walking or riding abroad, which himself from his younger years always observed. And in Anno 1634. that Canon of England of the decent Apparrel of Mini­sters was by his special approbation, put in among those of Ireland.

Lastly though in our Constitutions, there is no form Consecration of Churches. appointed for the consecration of a Church or Chap­pel, yet he was so ready to apply himself to what had been accustomed in England, that at his consecration of a Chappel not far from Drogheda in Ireland, he framed no new one of his own, but took that which goes under Bishop Andrews name, and used it, (with little variation) which I have in my custody.

And thus I have endeavored by this Declaration of his Judgment and Practice in these particulars, to give satisfaction to all such, who by their misapprehensions have had their various censures and applications to the great injury of him. I shall only wish that not only they but all others that hear this of him, were both almost and altogether such as he was.

Mr. HOOKERS Judgment of Regal Power in matters of Religion, and the advancement of Bishops (wholy left out of the common Copies in his eighth Book) here confirmed by the late Lord Primate USHER'S marginal notes, and other Enlarge­ments with his own hand.

THe service which we do unto the true God, * This is wanting in the common books of Mr. Hookers M. S. who made heaven and earth, is far diffe­rent from that which Heathens have done unto their supposed Gods, though no­thing else were respected, but only the odds between their hope and ours. The office of piety or true Religion sincerely performed have the promises both of this life and of the life to come, the practices of Superstition have neither. If notwithstanding the Hea­thens reckoning upon no other reward for all which they did, but only protection and favour in the tem­poral estate and condition of this present life, and per­ceiving how great good did hereby publickly grow as long as fear to displease (they knew not what) Divine power was some kind of bridle unto them; did there­fore [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 66] provide that the highest degree of care for their Religion should be the principall charge of such, as ha­ving otherwise also the greatest and chiefest power, were by so much the more fit to have custody thereof: Shall the like kind of provision be in us thought blame­worthy?

A gross error it is to think that Regal Power ought to serve for the good of the body, and not of the soul; for mens temporal peace, and not their eternal safety; as if God had ordained Kings for no other end and purpose, but only to fat up men like hogs, and to see that they have their Mast? Indeed to lead men unto salvation by the hand of secret, invisible, and ghostly regiment, or by the external administration of things belonging unto Priestly order (such as the Word and Sacraments are) this is denied unto Christian Kings: no cause in the world to think them uncapable of su­preme authority in the outward government, which disposeth the affairs of Religion, so farre forth as the same are disposable by humane authority, and to think them uncapable thereof only for that, the said religion is everlastingly beneficiall to them that faithfully con­tinue in it. And even as little cause there is, that being admitted thereunto amongst the Jews, they should a­mongst the Christians of necessity be delivered from e­ver Cor. 3. 7, 8. exercising any such power, for the dignity and per­fection which is in our Religion more then theirs,

It may be a question, Whether the affairs of Christi­anity require more wit, more study, more knowledge Ad. 2. of Divine things in him which shall order them, then the Jewish Religion did: For although we deny not the forme of external government, together with all other [Page 67] Rites and Ceremonies to have been in more particular manner set down; yet withall it must be considered al­so, that even this very thing did in some respects make the burthen of their spiritual regiment the harder to be born, by reason of infinite doubts and difficulties, which the very obscurity and darkness of their Law did breed, and which being not first decided, the Law could not possibly have due execution.

Besides in as much as their Law did also dispose even of all kind of civill affairs, their Clergy being the Inter­pretors of the whole Law, sustained not only the same labour which Divines doe amongst us, but even the burthen of our Lawyers too: Nevertheless be it grant­ed that more things do now require to be publickly de­liberated and resolved upon with exacter judgment in matters divine, then Kings for the most part have; their personal inhability to judge in such sort as professors do, letteth not but that their Regal authority may have the self same degree or sway which the Kings of Israel had in the affairs of their Religion, to rule and command according to the manner of supreme Go­vernors.

As for the sword wherewith God armed his Church Ad. 3. of old, if that were a reasonable cause why Kings might then have Dominion, I see not but that it ministreth still as forcible an argument for the lawfulness and expe­dience of their continuance therein now. As we di­grade and excommunicate, even so did the Church of the Jews, both separate offendors from the Temple, and depose the Clergie also from their rooms when cause required. The other sword of corporall punish­ment is not by Christs own appointment in the hand of [Page 68] the Church of Christ, as God did place it himself in the hands of the Jewish Church: For why? he knew that they whom he sent abroad to gather a people unto him only by perswasive means were to build up his Church even within the bosome of Kingdomes, the chiefest Go­vernors whereof would be open enemies unto it, every where for the space of many years: Wherefore such Commission for discipline he gave them as they might any where exercise in a quiet and peaceable manner, the Subjects of no Common-wealth being touched in goods or person by virtue of that spirituall regiment whereunto Christian Religion embraced did make them subject.

Now when afterwards it came to pass that whole Kingdomes were made Christian, I demand whither that authority served before for the furtherance of Re­ligion, may not as effectually serve to the maintenance of Christian Religion? Christian Religion hath the sword of spiritual Discipline. But doth that suffice? The Jewish which had it also, did nevertheless stand in need to be ayded with the power of the Civil sword. The help whereof, although when Christian Religion cannot have it, must without it sustain it self as far as the other which it hath will serve, notwithstanding where both may be had: what forbiddeth the Church to en­joy the benefit of both? Will any man deny that the Church doth need the rod of corporall punishment to keep her children in obedience withall? Such a Law as Macabeus made amongst the Scots, that he which continued an excommunicate two years together, and reconciled not himself to the Church, should forfeit all his goods and possessions.

[Page 69] Again, the custom which many Christian Churches have to fly to the Civil Magistrate for coertion of those that will not otherwise be reformed, these things are proof sufficient, that even in Christian Religion, the power wherewith Eeclesiastical persons were indued at the first, unable to do of it self so much as when secu­lar power doth strengthen it, and that not by way of Ministry or Service, but of predominancie, such as the Kings of Israel in their time exercised over the Church of God.

Yea but the Church of God was then restrained more narrowly to one people and one king; which now be­ing spread throughout all Kingdoms, it would be a cause of great dissimilitude in the exercise of Christian Religion, if every King should be over the Affairs of the Church, where he reigneth Supream Ruler.

Dissimilitude in great things, is such a thing which draweth great inconvenience after it, a thing which Christian Religion must always carefully prevent. And the way to prevent it is not, as some do imagine, the yielding up of Supream Power over all Churches into one only Pastors hands, but the framing of their government, especially for matter of substance, every wher according to one only Law, to stand in no less force then the Law of Nations doth to be received in all Kingdoms; all So­veraigne Rulers to be sworn no otherwise unto it, then some are to maintain the Liberties, Laws, and received Customs of the Country where they reign: This shall cause uniformity even under several Dominions, with­out those woful inconveniencies whereunto the State of Christendom was subject heretofore, through the Ty­ranny and Oppression of that one universal Nimrod, who alone did all.

[Page 70] And till the christian world be driven to enter into the peaceable and true consultation about some such kind of general Law concerning those things of weight and mo­ment wherein now we differ; If one church hath not the same order which another hath, let every Church keep as near as may be the order it should have, and commend the just defence thereof unto God, even as Judah did when it differed in the exercise of Religion from that form which Israel followed.

Concerning therefore the matter whereof we have hitherto spoken, let it stand for our final conclusion, that in a free christian State or Kingdom, where one and the self same people are the church and the common­wealth, God through christ directing that people, to see it for good and weighty considerations expedient, that their Soveraign Lord and Governor in causes Civil, have also in Ecclesiastical Affairs a Supream Power; Forasmuch as the Light of reason doth lead them unto it, and against it, Gods own revealed law, hath nothing; surely they do not in submitting themselves thereunto, any other then that which a wise and religious people ought to do; it was but a little over-flowing of wit in Thomas Aquinas, so to play upon the words of Moses in the old, and of Peter in the new Testament; as though Exod. 19. because the one did term the Jews a Priestly Kingdom, 1 Pet. 2. the other us a Kingly Priesthood: Those two Substan­tives Kingdom and Priesthood, should import that Ju­daisme *Thom. in cum locum. did stand through the Kings Superiority over Priests, christianity through the Priests Supream Autho­rity over Kings. Is it probable that Moses and Peter had herein so nice and curious conceits? or else more likely that both meant one and the same thing, namely that [Page 71] God doth glorifie and sanctifie his, even with full per­fection in both; which thing St. John doth in plainer sort express, saying that Christ hath made us both Kings Revel. 1. 6. and Priests.

Wherein it is from̄ the purpose altogether alledged * This is also wanting in the common copy.) that Constantine termeth church-Officers Overseers of things within the church, himself of those without the church; that Hilarie beseecheth the Emperor Constance *Euseb. l. 4. de vit. Constant. to provide that the Governor of his Provinces should not presume to take upon them the judgment of Eccle­siastical *Dib. ad Const. Causes, unto whom commonwealth matters on­ly belonged. That Ambrose affirmeth Palaces to belong unto the Emperor: but churches to the minister; The Emperor to have Authority of the common walls of the *Lib. 5. Epi. 33. city, and not over holy things; for which cause he would never yield to have the causes of the Church debated in the Princes consistory, but excused himself to the Em­peror Valentinian for that being convented to answer concerning Church matters in a Civil Court, he came not. That Augustine witnesseth how the Emporor not daring to judge of the Bishops cause committed it unto the Bishops, and was to crave pardon of the Bishops, *Ep. 166. 162. for that by the Donatists importunity which made no end of appealing unto him, he was, being weary of them, drawn to give sentence in a matter of theirs, all which hereupon may be inferred reacheth no further then only unto the administration of Church Affairs, or the determination of Strifes and Controversie, rising about the matter of Religion: It pro­veth that in former ages of the world it hath been judged most convenient for Church-Officers to have [Page 72] the hearing of causes meerly Ecclesiasticall, and not the Emperour himself in person to give sentence of them. No one man can be sufficient for all things.

And therefore publick affairs are divided, each kind, in all well ordered States, allotted unto such kind of persons, as reason presumeth fittest to handle them. Reason cannot presume Kings ordinarily so skilfull as to be personal Judges meet for the common hearing and determining of Church controversies. But they which are hereunto appointed and have all their proceedings authorized by such power as may cause them to take effect. The principality of which power (in making Laws, whereupon all these things depend) is not by any of these allegations proved incommunicable unto Kings, although not both in such sort, but that still it is granted by the one, that albeit Ecclesiastical Councels consisting of Church Officers did frame the Lawes, whereby the Church affairs were ordered in ancient times; yet no Canon, no not of any Councel had the force of Law in the Church, unless it were ratified and confirmed by the Emperour, being Christian.

Seeing therefore it is acknowledged that it was then the manner of the Emperor to confirm the Ordinances which were made by the Ministers, which is as much T. C. l. 1. p 193. in effect to say that the Emperour had in Church Ordi­nances, a voice negative, and that without his confirma­tion they had not the strength of publick Ordinances; Why are we condemned as giving more unto Kings then the Church did in those times, we giving them no more but the supreme power which the Emperor did then ex­ercise with much larger scope then at this day) any Chri­stian King, either doth ar possibly can use it over the Church?

[Page 73] The case is not like when such Assemblies are gathe­red together by supreme authority concerning other This is in the common co­pies. affairs of the Church, and when they meet about the making Ecclesiasticall Lawes or Statutes. For in the one That is, in the copies which the Pri­mate then saw, but not in that which is now printed they only are to advise, in the other they are to decree: The persons which are of the one the King doth vo­luntarily assemble as being in respect of gravity fit to consult withall; them which are of the other he cal­leth by prescript of Law as having right to be thereun­to Of their pow­er in making Ecclesisticall Laws. called. Finally, the one are but themselves, and their sentence hath but the weight of their own judge­ment; the other represent the whole Clergie, and their voices are as much as if all did give personal verdict. Now the question is whether the Clergie alone so as­sembled ought to have the whole power of making Ec­clesiasticall Laws, or else consent of the Laity may thereunto be made necessarie, and the Kings assent so necessary, that his sole deniall may be of force to stay them from being Laws.

If they with whom we dispute were uniform, strong What Laws may be made for the affairs of the Church, & to whom the power of ma­king them ap­pettaineth and constant in that which they say we should not need to trouble our selves about their persons to whom the power of making Laws for the Church belongeth; For they are sometimes very vehement in contention, that from the greatest thing unto the least about the Church all must needs be immediatly from God: & to this they apply the patern of the ancient Tabernacle which God delivered unto Moses, and was therein so exact, that there was not left as much as the least pin for the wit of man to devise in the framing of it. To this they al­so apply that strict and severe charge which God so of­ten [Page 74] gave concerning his own Law; Whatsoever I com­mand you take heed you doe it; thou shalt put nothing Deut. 12. 32▪ 4. 2. thereto, thou shalt take nothing from it; nothing, whe­ther it be great or smal. Yet sometime bethinking Jos. 1. 7. themselves better, they speak as acknowledging that it doth suffice to have received in such sort the principall things from God, and that for other matters the Church hath sufficient authority to make Laws; wherupon they now have made it a question, what persons they are, whose right it is to take order for the Churches affairs when the institution of any new thing therein is requi­site. Laws may be requisite to be made either con­cerning things that are only to be known and believed in, or else touching that which is to be done by the Church of God. The Law of nature and the Law of God are sufficient for declaration in both, what belong­eth * Tho. 2. quaest. 1 c 8. artic. 2. unto each man separately as his soule is the spouse of Christ; yea so sufficient that they plainly and fully shew whatsoever God doth require by way of necessary introduction unto the state of everlasting bliss. But as a man liveth joyned with others in common society, and belongeth unto the outward politique body of the Church, albeit the said Law of Nature and of Scripture, have in this respect also made manifest the things that are of greatest necessity, nevertheless by reason of new occasions still arising, which the Church, having care of souls must take order for, as need requireth; hereby it cometh to pass, that there is, and ever will be so great use even of humane Laws and Ordinances deducted by way of discourse, as conclusions from the former di­vine and natural serving for principles thereunto. No man doubteth but that for matters of action and pra­ctice [Page 75] in the affairs of God, for manner in divine service, for order in Ecclesiastical proceedings about the Regi­ment of the Church, there may be oftentimes cause ve­ry urgent to have Laws made: but the reason is not so plain, wherefore humane Laws should appoint men what to believe.

Wherefore in this we must note two things: First, that in matter of opinion, the Law doth not make that to be truth which before was not, as in matters of action it causeth that to be duty which was not before; but it manifesteth only and giveth men notice of that to be truth, the contrary whereunto they ought not before to have believed. Secondly, that as opinions doe cleave to the understanding, and are in heart asserted unto, it is not in the power of any humane Law to command them, because to prescribe what men shall think, belongeth only unto God corde creditur ore fit confessio, saith the Apostle: As opinions are either fit or inconvenient to be professed, so mans Law hath to determine of them. It may for publick unities sake require mens professed assent, or prohibit their contradiction to speciall articles, wherein as there hap­pily hath bin controversie what is true, so the same were like to continue still, not without grievous detriment unto a number of souls, except Law to remedy that e­vil should set down a certainty, which no man after­wards is to gain-say.

Wherefore as in regard of divine Lawes, which the Church receiveth from God, we may unto every man apply those words of wisdom in Solomon, Conserva fili Prov. 6. mi praecepta patris tui, My sonne keep thou thy fathers pre­cepts: Even so concerning the statutes and ordinan­ces [Page 76] which the Church it self makes, we may add there­unto the words that follow: Et ne dimittas legem ma­tris tua, And forsake not thou thy mothers Law. It is undoubtedly a thing even naturall, that all free and in­dependent societies should themselves make their own Lawes. And that this power should belong to the whole, not to any certain part of a politique body, though happily some one part may have greater sway in that action then the rest. Which thing being gene­rally fit and expedient in the making of all Lawes, we see no cause why to think otherwise in lawes concerning the service of God, which in all well-ordered States and Common-wealthes is the first thing that Law hath care to provide for: When we speak of the right which na­turally * [...]. Archit. de le [...]e & justit. belongeth to a Common-wealth, we speak of that which must needs belong to the Church of God; For if the Common-wealth be Christian; if the people which are of it do publickly imbrace the true Religion, this very thing doth make it the Church, as hath been shewed; so that unless the verity and purity of Religi­on doe take from them which imbrace it, that power wherewith otherwise they are possessed: Look what authority, as touching Laws for Religion a Common­wealth hath simply—

Here this breaks off abruptly.

The Princes power in the advancement of Bishops, unto the rooms of Prelacy.

TOuching the advancement of Prelats unto their * This is wan­ting in the common books of Mr Hooker's M. S. rooms by the King: Whereas it seemeth in the eyes of many a thing very strange, that Prelates the Officers of Gods own Sanctuary, then which nothing is more sacred, should be made by persons secular; there are that will not have Kings be altogether of the Laitie, but to participate that sanctifyed power which God hath indued his Clergy with, and that in such respect they are anointed with oyle. A shift vain and needless for as much as if we speak properly, we cannot say Kings do make, but that they only do place Bishops, for in a Bishop there are these three things to be considered; The power whereby he is distinguished from other Pa­stors; The special portion of the Clergy, and the peo­ple over whom he is to exercise that Bishoplie Power; and the place of his Seat or Throne, together with the Profits, Preheminencies, Honors thereunto belong­ing. The first every Bishop hath by consecration, the second the Election invested him with, the third he re­ceiveth of the King alone.

Which consecration the King intermedleth not farther then only by his Letters to present such an elect Bishop as shall be consecrated. Seeing therefore that none but Bishops do consecrate, it followeth that none but they do give unto every Bishop his being: The manner of uniting Bishops as heads unto the flock, and Clergy un­der [Page 87] them, hath often altered; for if some be not decei­ved, this thing was somtime done even without any e­lection at all. At the first (saith he to whom the name of Ambrose is given) the first created in the Colledg of Presbyters was still the Bishop, he dying, the next Se­nior did succeed him. Sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presby­teri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenēdos, immutata est ra­tio, prospiciente concilio, ut non ordo sed meritū crearet epis­copum multorum, sacerdotum constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet & esset multis scandalum; In elections at the beginning the Clergy and the people both had to do, although not both after one fort. The people gave their, Testimonie and shewed their affection either of desire or dislike concerning the party which was to be chosen. But the choice was wholy in the sacred Col­ledg of Presbyters, hereunto it is that those usual spee­ches of the antient do commonly allude, as when Pon­tius concerning St. Cyprians election saith he was chosen In vit. Cypy. judicio Dei & populifavore, by the judgment of God, and favor of the people, the one branch alluding to the voices of the Ecclesiastical Senat which with religi­on, sincerity chose him, the other to the peoples affecti­on, who earnestly desired to have him chosen their Bi­shop. Again, Leo, nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos ha­beantur Nulla ratio Dist. 63. qui nec a clericis sunt electi nec applebibus expeti­ti. No reason doth grant that they should be recko­ned amongst Bishops whom neither Clergy hath elect­ed, nor Laitie coveted, in like so [...]t Honorius. Let * Ep. Hono [...] Imp. ad Bonif. Concil. Tom. 1. him only be established Bishop in the Sea of Rome, whom Divine Judgment and universal consent hath chosen.

That difference which is between the form of ele­cting [Page 79] Bishops at this day with us, and that which was usual in former ages riseth from the ground of that right which the Kings of this Land do claim in furnish­ing the places where Bishops elected & consecrated are to reside as Bishops: for considering the huge charges which the ancient famous Princes of this Land have been at, as well in erecting Episcopal Seas, as also in en­dowing them with ample possessions, sure of their religi­ous magnificence and bounty, we cannot think but to have been most deservedly honored, with those Roy­all prerogatives, taking the benefit which groweth out of them in their vacancy, and of advancing alone unto such dignities what persons they judge most fit for the same. A thing over and besides, even therefore the more seasonable, for that as the King most just­ly hath preheminence to make Lords Temporal, which are not such by right of birth, so the like pre­heminence of bestowing where pleaseth him the ho­nour of Spiritual Nobility also cannot seem hard, Bi­shops being Peers of the Realm, and by law it self so reckoned.

Now whether we grant so much unto Kings in this respect, or in the fomer consideration, whereupon the Lawes have annexed it unto the Crown it must of necessity being granted both make void whatsoever in­terest the people aforetime hath had towards the choice of their own Bishop, and also restrain the very act of Canonical election usually made by the Dean and Chapter, as with us in such sort it doth, that they neither can proceed unto any election till 25 Ed. 3. 25 Ed. 3. 25 H. 8. c. 20 leav be granted, nor elect any person but that is named unto them. If they might doe the one it would be in them [Page 80] to defeat the King of his profits: If the other, then were the Kings preheminences of granting those digni­ties nothing. And therefore were it not for certain Canons requiring canonical election to be before conse­cration, * C. Nullu [...], Dist. 63. I see no cause but that the Kings Letters patents alone might suffice well enough to that purpose, as by Law they doe in case those Electors should happen not to satisfie the Kings pleasure. Their election is now but a matter of form; it is the Kings meer grant which pla­ceth, and the Bishops consecration which maketh Bi­shops: Neither do the Kings of this Land use herein any other then such prerogatives as foraign Nations have been accustomed unto.

About the year of our Lord 425. Pope Boniface sol­licited * Tom. 1. Concil. most earnestly the Emperour Monorius to take some order that the Bishops of Rome might be created without ambitious seeking of the place. A needless petition if so be the Emperour had no right at all in the placing of Bishops there. But from the days of Ju­stinian the Emperour about the year 553. Onuphrius * Onuph. in Pe­lag. 2. himself doth grant that no man was Bishop in the Sea of Rome whom first the Emperor by his Letters-patents did not licence to be consecrated, till in Benedicts time it pleased the Emperor to forgoe that right, which af­terwards was restored to Charles with augmentation, and continued in his successors till such time as Hilde­brand took it from Hen. 4. and ever since the Cardinals have held it as at this day.

Had not the right of giving them belonged to the Emperours of Rome within the compass of their Do­minions what needeth Pope Leo the fourth to trouble Lotharius and Lodowick with those his Letters whereby [Page 81] having done them to understand that the Church called Reatina was without a Bishop, he maketh suit that one * [...]Rea in. Dist. 63. Colonus might have the Rome, or if that were o­therwise disposed, his next request was, Tusculanam Ecclesiam quae viduata existit illi vestra serenitas digne­tur concedere, ut consecratis à nostro presulatu Deo om­nipotenti vestroque imperio grates peragere valeat: May it please your Clemencies to grant unto him the Church of Tuscula, now likewise void, that by our Episcopal authority, he being after consecrated may be to Al­mighty God and your Highness therefore thankfull.

Touching other Bishopricks extant, there is a very short, but a plain discourse written almost 500. years since, by occasion of that miserable contention raised between the Emperor Henr. 4. and Pope Hildebrand. * W [...]tthramu [...] Naumburgensis, deinvestit Epis­coporum per Im­perat. saciendâ. named otherwise Gregory the seventh, not as Platina would bear men in hand for that the D. of Rome would not brook the Emperors Symoniacall dealing, but be­cause the right which Christian Kings and Emperors had to invest Bishops, hindred so much his ambitious de­signments, that nothing could detain him from at­tempting to wrest it violently out of their hands. This Treatise I mention for that it shortly comprehendeth not only the fore-alledged right of the Emperour of Rome, acknowledged by six several Popes, even with bitter execration against whomsoever of their succes­sors that should by word or deed at any time goe about to infringe the same, but also further these other spe­cialties appertaining thereunto: First, that the Bi­shops likewise of Spain, England, Scotland, Hungary had by ancient institution alwaies been invested by their Kings without opposition or disturbance. Secend­ly, [Page 82] that such was their royal interest partly for that they were founders of Bishopricks, partly because they un­dertook the defence of them against all ravenous op­pressions and wrongs, part in as much that it was not safe, that rooms of so great power and consequence in their estate, should without their appointment be held by any under them. And therfore that ev'n Bishops then did homage, and took their oathes of fealty unto the Kings which invested them. Thirdly, that what so­lemnitity or Ceremony Kings do use in this action it skilleth not; as namely whether they doe it by word or by precept, set down in writing or by delivery of a staffe and a ring, or by any other means whatsoever on­ly that use and Custome would, to avoid all offence, be kept. Some base Canonists there are which con­tend that neither Kings nor Emperours had ever any right hereunto saving only by the Popes either grant or toleration. Whereupon nor to spend any further la­bour we leave their folly to be controlled by men of more ingenuity & judgment even amongst themselves: Duarensis, Papon, Choppinus, Aegidius, Magister, Ar­nulphus, Ruzaeus, Costvius, Philippus Probus, and the rest, by whom the right of Christian Kings and Princes herein is maintained to be such as the Bishops of Rome cannot lawfully either withdraw, or abridge or hinder. But of this thing there is with us no question although with them there be; the Laws and customes of the Realm approving such regalities in case no reason there­of did appear, yet are they hereby aboundantly war­ranted unto us, except some Law of God or nature to the contrary could be shewed.

How much more when they have been every where [Page 83] thought so reasonable, that Christian Kings through­out the world use and exercise, if not altogether: yet surely with very little odds the same; so far that Gregorie the tenth forbidding such regalities to be newly begun, where they were not in former times, if * Cap. General. de elect. l. 6. any doe claim those rights from the first foundation of Churches, or by ancient custome of them, he only re­quireth that neither they nor their agents damnifie the Church of God, by using the said prerogatives: Now as there is no doubt but the Church of England by this means is much eased of some inconveniences, so like­wise a speciall care there is requisite to be had, that o­ther evils no less dangerous may not grow. By the hi­story of former times it doth appear, that when the freedom of Elections was most large, mens dealings and proceedings therein were not the least faulty.

Of the people St. Jerome complaineth, that their * Adver. Jo­vin. l. 1. judgements many times went much awrie, and that in allowing of their Bishops, every man favoured his own quality, every ones desire was not so much to be under the regiment of good and virtuous men, as of them which were like himself. What man is there whom it doth not exceedingly grieve to read the tumults, tra­gidies, and schismes which were raised by occasion of the Clergy at such times as divers of them standing for some one place, there was not any kind of practise though never so unhonest ot vile left unassaied, where­by men might supplant their Competitors, and the one side foil the other. Sidonius speaking of a Bishoprick * L. 7. Epist 5. void in his time: The decease of the former Bishop (saith he) was an alarm to such as would labour for the room: Whereupon the people forthwith betaking them selves unto [Page 84] parts, storm on each side, few there are that make suit for the advancement of any other man; many who not only of­fer but enforce themselves. All things light, variable, counterfeit. What should I say? I see not any thing plain and open but impudence only.

In the Church of Constantinople about the election of * Theod. lib. 5. cap. 27. S. Chrysostome by reason that some strove mightily for * Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 2. him and some for Nectarius, the troubles growing had not been small, but that Aroadius the Emperor inter­posed himself; even as at Rome the Emperor Valenti­nian, * Marcel. l. 15. whose forces were hardly able to establish Damasus * Socr. 2. c. 27. & l. 4. c. 29. Bishop, and to compose the strife between him and his Competitor Urficinus, about whose election the blood * Theod. l. 2. c. 15, 16, 17. of 137 was already shed. Where things did not * Sozom. lib. 4. c. 11. & l. 6. c. 23. break out into so manifest and open flames; yet between them which obtained the place, and such as before withstood their promotion, that secret hart burning often grew, which could not afterwards be easily sla­ked; insomuch that Pontius doth note it as a rare point * In vit. Cypr. of vertue in Cyprian, that whereas some were against his election, he notwithstanding dealt ever after in most friendly manner with them, all men wondering that so good a memory was so easily able to forget. These and other the like hurts accustomed to grow from an­cient elections we doe not feel. Howbeit least the Church in more hidden sort should sustain even as grie­vous detriment by that order which is now of force; we are most humbly to crave at the hands of Soveraign Kings and Governors, the highest Patrons which this Church of Christ hath on earth, that it would please them to be advertised thus much.

Albeit these things which have been sometimes, [Page 85] done by any sort may afterwards appertain unto others, and so the kind of Agents vary as occasions dayly growing shall require, yet sundry unremovable and un­changeable burthens of duty there are annexed unto e­very kind of publique action, which burthens in this case Princes must know themselves to stand now charg­ed with in Gods sight, no lesse than the People and the Clergy, when the power of electing their Prelates did rest fully and wholly in them.

A fault it had been if they should in choice have pre­ferred any, whom desert of most holy life and the gift * C. Sacrorum Canon. dist. 63. of divine wisedome did not commend, a fault if they had permitted long the rooms of the principal Pastors of * C. Lectis Dist. 63. God to continue void, not to preserve the Church patri­mony, as good to each Successor as any Predecessor enjoy the same, had been in them a most odious & grie­vous fault. Simply, good and evil doe not loose their nature. That which was is the one or the other, what­soever the subject of either be. The faults mentioned are in Kings by so much greater for that in what Chur­ches they exercise those Regalities, whereof we do now intreat, the same Churches they have received into their speciall care and custody, with no lesse effectual obli­gation of conscience then the Tutor standeth bound in for the person and state of that pupill whom he hath so­lemnly taken upon him to protect and keep. All pow­er is given unto edification, none to the overthrow and destruction of the Church. Concerning therefore the first branch of spiritual dominion, thus much may suf­fice, seeing that they with whom we contend doe not directly oppose themselves against regalities, but only so far forth as generally they hold that no Church dignity [Page 86] should be granted without consent of the common People, and that there ought not to be in the Church of Christ any Episcopall Rooms for Princes to use their Regalitie in. Of both which questions we have suffi­ciently spoken before.

As therefore the person of the King may for just con­sideration, * This is in the common Copy of Mr. Ho [...]ke, M. S. that is, in the copies which the Primate then saw, but not in the now printed ones. even where the cause is civil, be notwith­standing withdrawn from occupying the seat of Judgment and others under his authority be fit, he unfit himself to judge; so the considerations for which it were happily not convenient for Kings, to sit and give sentence in spiritual Courts, where causes Ec­clesiastical are usually debated, can be no bar to that force and efficacie which their Sovereign power hath over those very Consistories, and for which we hold without any exception that all Courts are the Kings. All men are not for all things sufficient, and therefore pub­lick affairs being divided, such persons must be au­thorised Judges in each kinde as common reason may presume to be most fit; Which cannot of King's and Princes ordinarily be presumed in causes meerly Eccle­siastical; so that even common sense doth rather adjudge this burthen unto other men. We see it hereby a thing necessary to put a difference as well between that ordi­nary jurisdiction which belongeth to the Clergy alone, and that Commissionary wherein others are for just considerations appointed to joyn with them, as also be­tween both these Jurisdictions and a third, whereby the King hath a transcendent Authority, and that in all causes over both. Why this may not lawfully be grant­ed unto him, there is no reason. A time there was when Kings were not capable of any such power, as namely [Page 87] when they professed themselves open Adversaries unto Christ and christianity. A time there followed when they being capable, took sometimes more, sometimes less to themselves, as seem'd best in their own eyes, be­cause no certainty touching their right was as yet de­termined.

The Bishops who alone were before accustomed to have the ordering of such Affairs, saw very just cause of grief when the highest, favoring Heresie, withstood by the strength of Soveraign Authority, religious pro­ceedings; whereupon they oftentimes against this un­resistable Power, pleaded that use and custom which had been to the contrary; namely, that the Affairs of the church should be dealt in by the clergy and by no o­ther, unto which purpose the sentences that then were uttered in defence of unabolishing Orders and Laws, a­gainst such as did of their own heads contrary thereun­to, are now altogether impertinently brought in oppo­sition against them who use but that power which Laws have given them, unless men can show that there is in those Laws some manifest Iniquity or Injustice. Where­as * T. C. lib 3. Pag. 155. therefore against the force Judicial & Imperial which Supream Authority hath, it is alledged how Constantine * Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. termeth Church Officers, Overseers of things within the Church, himself of all without the Church; how * Epist. 162. 166. Augustine witnesseth that the Emperor not daring to judge of the Bishops cause, committed it unto the Bishops, and was to crave pardon of the Bishops, for that by the Donatists importunity, which made no end of appealing unto him, he was (being wea­ry of them) drawn to give sentence in a matter of theirs, * Lib. ad Con­stant. how Hilarie beseecheth the Emperor Constance to pro­vide [Page 88] that the Governors of his Provinces should not pre­sume to take upon them the Judgment of Ecclesiastical causes, to whom Commonwealth matters only belong­ed; how Ambrose affirmeth that Palaces belong unto * Lib. 5. Ep 33 the Emperor, Churches to the Minister, that the Em­peror hath Authority over the Commonwealth of the City, and not in holy things, for which cause he never would yield to have the Causes of the Church debated in the Princes Consistory, but excused himself to the Em­peror Valentinian, for that being convented to Answer concerning Church Matters in a civil court, he came not.

[Besides these Testimonies of Antiquity, which Mr. Cart. * Inclusa de­sunt in vul [...]atis exempl [...] ib. bringeth forth, Doctor Stapleton who likewise ci­teth them one by one to the same purpose, hath aug­mented the number of them, by adding other of the * Doctrin. [...]ic­cip. lib 5. Cont. 2 cap. 18. like nature; namely, how Hosius the Bishop of Cordu­ba answered the Emperor, saying, God hath committed to thee the Empire; with those things that belong to * Apud Athanos in Epist. ad so­lit. vit. agen­tes. the Church, he hath put us in trust. How Leontius Bishop of Tripolis also told theself same Emperor as much. I wonder how thou which art called unto one thing, * Suid. in verb. Leontius. takest upon thee to deal in another, for being placed in Mi­litary and Politique Affairs, in things that belong unto Bi­shops alone thou wilt bear rule.] We may by these Testi­monies drawn from Antiquity, if we list to consider them, discern how requisite it is that Authority should always follow received laws in the manner of proceed­ing. For in as much as there was at the first no certain law determining what force the principal Civil Magi­strates Authority should be of, how far it should reach, and what order it should observe, but Christian Empe­rors from time to time did what themselves thought [Page 89] most reasonable, in those Affairs, by this mean it cometh to pass, that they in their practice varie, and are not uniforme.

Vertuous Emperors, such as Constantine the great was, made conscience to swerve unnecessarily from the customes which had been used in the Church, even when it lived under Infidels. Constantine of reverence to Bishops, and their spiritual authority, rather abstained from that which himself might lawfully do, then was willing to claim a power not fit or decent for him to ex­ercise. The order which had been before he ratifieth, exhorting Bishops to look to the Church, and promi­sing that he would do the office of a Bishop over the Common-wealth. Which very Constantine notwith­standing did not thereby so renounce all authority in judging of spirituall causes, but that sometimes he took, * Epist. 68. as St. Augustine witnesseth, even personall cognition of them. Howbeit whether as purposing to give there­in judicially any sentence, I stand in doubt; for if the other, of whom St. Augustine elsewhere speaketh, did in such sort judge, surely there was cause why he should excuse it as a thing not ususally done. Otherwise there is no let but that any such great person may hear those causes to and fro debated, and deliver in the end his own opinion of them, declaring on which side him­self doth judge that the truth is. But this kind of sen­tence bindeth no side to stand thereunto: it is a sen­tence of private perswasion, and not of solemn juris­diction, albeit a King or an Emperour pronounce it.

Again on the contrary part, when Governors infe­cted with Heresie were possessed of the highest power they thought they might use it, as pleased themselves [Page 90] to further by all means therewith that opinion which they desired should prevail. They not respecting at all what was meet, presumed to command and judge all men in all causes without either care of orderly pro­ceeding or regard to such laws & customs as the Church had been wont to observe. So that the one sort fea­red to doe even that which they might, and that which the other ought not they boldly presumed upon: the one sort modestly excused themselves when they scace needed, the other though doing that which was inex­sable bare it out with main power, not enduring to be told by any man how far they roved beyond their bounds. So great odds between them whom before we mentioned, and such as the younger Valentinian, by whom St. Ambrose being commanded to yeild up one of the Churches under him unto the Arrians, whereas they which were sent on his message, alledged that the Emperour did but use his own right for as much as all things were in his own power, the answer which the holy Bishop gave them was, that the Church is the House of God, and that those things which be Gods are not to be yielded up and disposed of at the Empe­rors will and pleasure; his pallaces he might grant un­to whomsoever. A cause why many times Emperours did more by their absolute authority then could very well stand with reason, was the over-great importunity of wicked Hereticks, who being enemies to peace and quietness cannot otherwise then by violent means be supported. In this respect therefore we must needs think the state of our own Church much better settled then theirs was, because our Laws have with farr more certainty prescribed bounds unto each kind of power. [Page 91] All decisions of things doubtfull, and corrections of things amiss are proceeded in by order of Law, what person soever he be unto whom the administration of judgement belongeth: It is neither permitted unto Prelate nor Prince to judge and determin at their own discretion, but Law hath prescribed what both shall do. What power the King hath, he hath it by Law, the bounds and limits of it are known. The entire com­munity giveth general order by Law how all things publickly are to be done, and the King as the head thereof the highest in authority over all, causeth ac­cording to the same Law every particular to be framed and ordered thereby. The whole body politick ma­keth Lawes, which Lawes give power unto the King, and the King having bound himself to use according unto Law that power, it so falleth out that the executi­on of the one is accomplished by the other in most re­ligious and peaceable sort. There is no cause given un­to any to make supplication as Hilary did, that Civil Covernors to whom Common-wealth matters only be­long, may not presume to take upon them the judg­ment of Ecclesiastical causes.

If the cause be spiritual, secular Courts doe not med­dle with it, we need not excuse our selves with Am­brose, but boldly and lawfully we may refuse to an­swer before any Civill Judge in a matter which is not Civill; so that we doe not mistake the na­ture either of the cause or of the Court, as we ea­sily may doe both, without some better direction then can be had by the rules of this new-found Disciplines But of this most ceertain we are that our [Page 92] Lawes doe neither suffer a See the Sta­ture of Edward 1. and Edward 2. and Nat. Bren. touching Prohibition. See also in Bract n these sentences l. 5. c. 2. Est jurisdi­ctio quaedā ordi­naria quaedam delegata, quae pertinet ad Sacerdotium & forum Ecclesiasticum, sicut in causis spiritualibus & spiritualitati annexis. Est etiam alia jurisdictio, ordinaria vel delegata, quae pertinet ad Coronam & dignitatem Regis. & ad Regnum, in causis & placitis rerum temporalium in so [...]o seculari. Again, Cum diversae sint binc inde jurisdictiones, & diversae judices, & di­versae causae; debet quilibet ipsorum inprimis aestimare, an sua sit jurisdictio, ne falcem vide­atur ponere in messem alienam. Again, Non pertinet ad Regem injungere poenitentias, nec ad judicem secularem. Nec etiam ad eos pertinet cognoscere de iis quae sunt, spiritualibus annex a­secut de decimis & aliis Ecclesiae proventionibus. Again, Non est laicus conveuiendus co­ravs judice Ecclesiastico de aliquo quod in soro seculari terminari possit & debeat. Spirituall Court to enter­tain those causes which by Law are Civil; nor yet if the matter beindeed spirituall a meer Civil Court to give judgement of it. Touching supreme power therefore to command all men, and in all manner of causes of judgement to be highest. Let thus much suffice as well for declaration of our own meaning, as for defence of the truth therein.

This is added by the Lord Primat Usher.

None of all this which fol­lows is to be found in the common coppy of Mr Hookers MS The Kings exemption from Censure, and other Judiciall Power.

THe last thing of all which concerns the Kings Su­premacie is whither thereby he may be exempted from being subject to that judiciall Power which Eccle­siasticall consistories have over men. It seemeth first in most mens Judgements to be requisite, that on earth there should not be any alive altogether without stan­ding in aw of some by whom they may be controled and bridled.

The good estate of a Commonwealth within it self [Page 93] is thought on nothing to depend more then upon these two speciall affections Feare and Love: Feare in the highest Governour himself, and Love in the Subjects that live under Him. The Subjects love for the most part continueth as long as the righteousness of Kings doth last, in whom vertue decaieth not as long as they feare to do that which may alienate the loving hearts of their Subjects from them. Feare to do evill groweth from the harm which evill doers are to suffer. If there­fore private men which know the danger they are sub­ject unto, being malefactors, do notwithstanding so boldly adventure upon heinous crimes, Only because they know it is possible for some Transgressor some­times to escape the danger of law. In the Mighty upon earth (which are not alwaies so Virtuous and Holy that their own good minds will bridle them) what may we look for considering the frailty of mens nature, if the world do once hold it for a Maxime that Kings ought to live in no subjection, that how grievous disorder soever they fall into, none may have coercive power over them. Yet so it is that this we must necessarily admit as a number of rightwell Learned men are perswaded.

Let us therefore set down first what there is which may induce men so to think, and then consider their se­verall inventions or ways who judge it a thing necessary even for Kings themselves to be punishable, and that by men. The question it self we will not determine, The reasons of each opinion being opened it shall be best for the wise to judge which of them is likeliest to be true. Our purpose being not to oppugne any save onely that which Reformers hold and of the rest rather to enquire then to give sentance. Induce­ments [Page 94] leading men to think the highest Majestrate should not be judged of any saving God alone, are spe­cially these.

First, as there could be in naturall bodies no motion of any thing unlesse there were some which moved all things and continueth unmoveable, even so in politick Societies, there must be some unpunishable or else no man shall suffer punishment, For sith punishments pro­ceed alwaies from Superiors to whom the administra­tion of justice belongeth, which administration must have necessarily a fountain that deriveth it to all others, and receiveth not from any, because otherwise the Course of Justice should go infinitely in a Circle every Superiour having his Superior without end; which can­not be; therefore a well-spring, it followeth there is, and a supreme head of Justice whereunto all are subject, but it self in subjection to none. Which kind of Pre­heminence if some ought to have in a Kingdome, who but the King shall have it? Kings therefore no man can have lawfull power and Authority to judge.

If private men offend, there is the Majestrate over them which judgeth; if Majestrates they have their Prince. If Princes there is Heaven, a Tribunall, before which they shall appeare: on earth they are not ac­comptable to any.

Here it breaks off abruptly.

The FORM OF Church Government, Before and after Christ. As it is expressed in the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT.

Of the Form of Government in the Old Testament.

THerewere Priests before the Law.

Melchisedech Genes. 14. 18.

In Egypt

  • 46. 20.
  • 41. 50. Patiphera.

In the East,

  • Job. 12. 19.
  • Exod. 2. 16. Madian.

Among the Jews. Exod. 19. 22, 24.

These were Young men of the Sons of Israel Exod. 24. 5.

The Eldest Sons or First-Born Numb. 3. 12. 8. 16.

Under MOSES.

The Commonwealth of Israel was either personal, con­taining all the whole people, not a man left. [...].

Or Representative in which the

  • Estate,
  • Tribes,
  • Cities, whose Daughters the towns adjacent are called.

I. The Estate had ever one Governor,

  • 1. Moses,
  • 2. Joshua,
  • 3. Judges,
  • 4. Tirshathaes or (Vice-Roys) Ezra 2. 63. with whom were joyned the LXX. Elders called ( [...]) and ( [...].)

II. The Tribes had every one their Prince, [...] Phy­larcha (Num. 2.) with whom were joyned the Chief of the Families, Patriarchae (Num. 1. 4.)

III. The Cities had each likewise their Ruler: Judg. 9. 30. 1 Kings 22. 26. 2 Kings 23. 8. with whom were joyned the Elders, or Ancients (Ruth 4. 2. Ezra 10. 14.

These last, not before they came into Canaan, (and were setled in their Citys.)

It appeareth, that Moses sometime consulted only with the heads of the Tribes, and then one Trumpet on­ly sounded, Num. 10. 4. In some other causes with the [...] (or Assembly of the LXX.) and then both Trum­pets [Page 97] called (Num. 10. 3.) Antiquit. l. 4. c. 8. when all did meet it represen­ted the whole body of Israel: [So then sometimes all the people, the whole body of Israel met; sometimes the whole people were represented by the chief men of the several Tribes.]

The highest BENCH, or Judgment for causes of greatest difficulty was that of the LXX, who at the first were the Fathers of each Family that came down to E­gypt (Gen. 46.) which number did after that remain, Exod. 24. 1. 9. and was at last by God himself so ap­pointed Num. 11. 16. See (2 Chron. 19. 8.)

The inferiour BENCHES, for matters of less im­portance were erected by Jethroes advice.

Of Rulers of

  • Thousands
  • Hundreds
  • Fiftiss
  • Tithings

Exod. 18. 21, 26,

And after established by Gods approbation (Deut. 16.) in every City, wherein (as Josephus saith) were seven Judges, and for each Judge two Levites, which made together the Bench of each City.

The Forme of Ecclesiasticall Government [amongst the Priests.

THe Priesthood was settled in the Tribe of Levy by God.

Levy had three Sons, Cohath, Gershom, and [...].

Of these, Line of Cohath was preferred before the rest.

[Page 98] From him descended four Families, Amram, Izhar, He­bron, and Uzziel.

Of these the Stock of Amram was made chief.

He had two Sons, Aaron and Moses.

Aaron was by God appointed High-priest,

So that there came to be four distinctions of Levites:

  • 1. Aaron as chief.
  • 2. Cohath.
  • 3. Gershon.
  • 4. Merari.

The Common-wealth of Israel was at the beginning in the Desert, a Camp in the middest whereof the Ark and Tabernacle were pitched; and according to the four Coasts whereof they quartered themselves, on every side three Tribes.

On theEastsideJudah, Issachar, Zabulon,Num. 2 verse 3
SouthReuben, Simeon, Gad,10
WestEphraim, Manasses, Ben­jamin.18
NorthDan, Asher, Napthali.25

These four Quarters were committed to those four Di­visions of Levites.

TheEastquar­ter toAaron and his Family,Numb. 3. verse 38.
SouthThe Cohathites,29.
WestThe Gershonites,23.
NorthThe Merarites,35.

[Page 99] Who lodged among them, and took charge of them as of their several Wards.

But there was not an * equality in these four; for,

1. Aarons Family, which bare the Ark it self was chief.

2. Cohaths, which bare the Tabernacle, and Vessels next.

3. Gershons, which bare the Veile and Hangings of the Court, Third

4. Meraries, which bare the Pillars and Posts, last. Neither were all the Levites of each of these several houses equal, but God ordained a superiority among them.

Over thePriestsEleazarNumb. 3. ver. 30.
CohathitesElizaphau
GershonitesEliasaph24.
MeraritesZuriel35.

Whom he termeth Nesiim, that is, Prelates or Superi­ors. No, nor did he permit these four to be equals a­mong themselves; but

Appointe [...]

  • Ithamar (Exod. 38. 21. to com­mand over
    • Eliasaph with his Gershonites Num. 4. 28.
    • Zuriel with his Merarites, Num. 4. 33.
  • Eleazar (Nu. 4. 16) to have ju­risdiction over
    • his own Family.
    • Elizaphau with his Coha­thites.

[Page 100] Note. Yea he maketh not Eleazar, and Ithamar to be absolute equalls, but giveth Eleazar preeminence over Ithamer, and therefore termeth him Nasi Nasiim, Princeps Prin­cipum, or Praelatus Praelatorum, Num. 3. 32.

And all these under Aaron the * highest.

So that

1. Aaron was the High Priest.

2. Under him Eleazar; who as he had his peculiar charge to look unto, so was he * also generally to rule both Ithamars jurisdiction and his own.

3. Under him Ithamar, over two Families.

4. Under him the three Prelates.

5. Under each of them their several Chief Fathers, [...] as they are termed (Exod. 6. 25.) under Eliza­phau Foure, under Eliasaph two, under Zuriel two. Num. 3. 18. &c.

6. Under these the several persons of their Kin­dred.

Note. This is here worth the noting, that albeit, it be granted that Aaron was the type of Christ, and so we forbear to takeany argument from him, (yet Eleazar) who was no Type, nor ever so deemed by any Writer) will serve sufficiently to shew such superiority as is plead­ed for, that is a personal Jurisdiction in one Man resiant over the Heads or Rulers of divers charges [in one King­dom State or National Government, as here in Israel under Moses, who was (as Kings now are) custos utri­usque tabulae, and took care of all matters Civil and Ecclesiastical.]

The Form of Government under JOSHUA.

THe Commonwealth being changed from the Am­bulatory Form, into a setled Estate in the Citys of Caanau, as before the Levites were divided according to the several Quarters of the Campe, so now were they sorted into the several Territories of the Tribes, so God commanded, Num. 35. 2. 8.

The Lot so fell, that the four partitions of the XII. Tribes were not the same, as when they camped before together, but after another sort, for the Tribes of

  • 1. Juda, Simeon, and Benjamine made the first Quarter.
  • 2. Ephraim, Dan, and half the Tribe of Manasses, the second Quarter.
  • 3. Izachar, Ashur, Napthali, and the o­ther half of Manasses, the third Quarter.
  • 4. Zebulun, Reuben, and Gad the fourth Quarter.

Now in these Four.

1. The charge, or over-sight of the first was com­mitted to Aaron and his Family, and they had therein assigned to them XIII. Cities, in Judah and Simeon IX. and in Benjamin IV. (Joshua 21. 10. &c.)

2. of the second the care was committed to the Fa­mily of the Cohathites, and they had * therein assigned to them X. cities; in Ephraim IV. in Dan. IV. and in the half of Manasses II. (Joshua 21. 20.)

3. The third was committed to the Family of Ger­shon, and they had therein assigned to them XIII. cities; [Page 102] in Issachar IV. in Asher IV. in Napthali III. in the other half of Manasses II. (Joshua 21. 27.)

4. The oversight of the fourth partition was com­mitted to the Merarites, and they had therein assigned to them XII. cities; in Zebulun IV. in Reuben IV. in Gad IV. (Joshua 21. 34.)

These were in all XLVIII cities, whereof the chief (as may appear) were cities set on hills, and all scituate in such proportion of distance, as they most equally par­ted their Tribe among them, to perform unto them their duties of attendance and instruction.

Further, there were in Joshua's time added by decree of the Princes, the Nethinims of the people of Gibeon for the lowest Ministeries, and for the service of the Le­vites (Joshua 9. 27.)

So that now the order was thus.

  • 1. Eleazer.
  • 2. Phineas.
  • 3. Abisa.
  • 4. The three Nesilm.
  • 5. The Rase Aboth (or heads of the Families.)
  • 6. The Levites.
  • 7. The Nethinims.

Note. If this power and superiority was necessary, when all the people and Priests were within one Trench, even within the view of Aarons eye, much more in Canaan, when they were scattered abroad in divers cities farre distant, was the retaining of it more then necessary.

* Now the abovesaid 48. Cities of the Levites were these,

[Page 103] In Judah and Simeon IX. viz. 2 Sam. 2, 3. Nehem. 11. 25.
"Hebron, Libna, Jattir, Estitema, Holon, Debir, Ain, Jutta, Bethshemesh.

In Benjamin IV. viz.
"Gibeon, Geba, Anathoth, Almon.

In Ephraim IV. viz. All this is writ with the Lord Primat Ushers own hand.
"Sichem, Gezer, Kibraim, Beth-horon.

In Dan IV. viz.
"Eltekah, Tekoa, Gibethorn, Aialon.

In the half of Manasses II. viz,
"Taanach, Gathrimmon.

In Issachar IV. viz.
"Kishon, Dabera, Jarmath, Engamin.

In Aser IV. viz.
"Mishall, Abdon, Helka, Rehob.

In Nepthali III. viz.
"Kedish Galilaae, Itamoth Dor, Kiriathaim.

In the half of Manasses II. viz.
"Golau Ashtaroth.

In Zabulon IV. viz.
"Jockmea, Karta, Dimna, Nahalal.

[Page 104] In Reuben IV. viz.
"Bezer, Jahaza, Kedimoth, Nephaath.

In Gad. IV. viz.
Ramoth Gilead, Mahanaim Heshbon, and Jazer. 2 Sam. 17. 24.

The Forme of Government under DAVID.

Note. ALbeit under Sauls Government small regard was had to the Church, yet David found at his coming a Superiority among them.

For besides the Priests, he found six Princes or Rulers [...] over six families of the Levites (1. Chron. 15. 5, 6. &c.)

Uriel.overCohath.
Asaiah.Merart.
Joel.Gershom.
Shemaiah.Elizaphau.
Eliel.Hebron.
Aminadab.Uzziel.

Likewise between the two Priests an inequality, the one Abiathar, attending the Ark at Jerusalem: the higher Function, the other Zadock, the Tabernacle at Gibeon (2 Sam. 20. 25. 1 Chr 16. 37. 39.) But after the Arke was brought back, he set a most exquisite Order among the Levites, and that by Samuels direction. 1. Chron. 9. 22. So that he is there reckoned as a new Founder.

[Page 105] Of them he made six Orders. 1 Chron. 23.

1.Priests. [...]24000.Vers. 4.
2.Ministers of Priests.
3.Judges. [...].6000.Vers. 4.
4.Officers. [...].
5.Singers. [...].4000Vers. 5.
6.Porters. [...].4000

1. Of Priests, Zadock was the Chief of the Family of Eleazar, and Abimelech the second of the Family of 1 Of Priests. Ithamar (1 Chron. 24. 3.)

* Besides and under these were XXIIII other Courses.

Of the Posterity of

  • Eleazar. XVI.
  • Ithamar. VIII.

1 Chron. 24. 4.

Which 24 are called in the 5. verse Rulers of the San­ctuary, and Rulers of the House of God, to whom it is thought by learned Interpreters, That the 24. Elders Apoc. 4. 4. have reference.

2. Of Levites that ministred to the Priests in their Function, likewise 24. Courses, out of the 9. Families 2 Of Levites. the heads of whom are set down in the first of Chron. 23. 6. & 24. & 20. And the Genealogy of them is thus as followeth.

[Page 106]All this was written with the L. Primats own hand.

Of

  • Cohath 4.
    • Amram.
      • Moses
        • Gershom.
        • Shubael.
        • I. Iohdeia.
      • Eleazar.
        • Rehabiah.
        • II. Eshiah
    • Izhar.
      • Shelomith.
        • III. Iahath.
    • Hebron.
      • IIII. Ieriah.
      • V. Amariah.
      • VI. Iahaziel.
      • VII. Iekameam.
    • Uzziel.
      • Micha.
        • VIII. Shamir.
      • Iesiah, or Isshiah.
        • IX. Zechariah.
  • Gershom 2.
    • Laadan. or Libni.
      • X. Iehiel.
      • XI. Zetham.
      • XII. Ioel.
    • Shimei
      • XIII. Shelomith.
      • XIIII. Haziel.
      • XV. Haran.
      • XVI. Iahath.
      • XVII. Ziza or Zina.
      • XVIII. Ieush and Beriah, who were counted for one (1 Chr. 23. 11.)
  • 1 Chron. 24. vers. 26. 27.
    Merari 3.
    • Mahli.
      • Eleazar. (obiit sine filiis 1 Chr. 23. 22)
      • Kish.
        • XIX. Ierahmeel:
    • Mushi
      • XX. Marli.
      • XXI. Eder.
      • XXII. Ierimoth.
    • Iehazia.
      • Beno.
        • XXIII. Shoham.
        • XXIIII. Zaccur.
        • XXV. Ibri.
          IBRI The AUTHOR in his review and emen­dations hath in this place made this Querie. Seeing the Cour­ses were but 24. why should IBRI 25. be reckoned Jedeiah was chief. Quer. Whether he was not to be connted one of the 24. because of his generall superintendency over the rest. This Querie seems to be resolved by the PRIMATE, and was the occasion of setting down the bove mentioned Genealogy.

*

[Page 107] 3 Of Judges. III. Of Judges that sate for Causes as well of God as the King there were appointed

  • 1. On this side Jordan upwards towards the River. Ashabiah the Hebronite (1 Chron. 26. 30.)
  • 2. On this side Jordan downwards towards the Sea Chenaniah the Isharite (1 Chron. 26. 29.)
  • 3. Beyond Jordan over the two Tribes and the half, Jerijah the chief of the Hebronites (1 Chr. 26. 31.)

4 of Officers.IV. Of Officers.

Scribes.

  • Shemajah (1 Chron. 24. 6.)
  • Serajah (2 Sam. 8. 17.)
  • Shevah (2 Sam. 20. 25.)

Scribes of the

  • Levites (1 Chron. 24. 6.)
  • Temple (2 Kings 22. 3. Jerem. 36. 10.)
  • People (Matt. 2. 4.)
  • King. 2 Kings (12. 10.)

V. Of the Singers, likewise he set XXIV. courses, o­ver 5 Of Singers. which he placed three chief out of the three families Chro. 15. 17. & 25. 2, 3, 4.

Out of

  • Cohath, Heman Samuels Nephew (1 Chron. 6. 33.)
  • Gershoni, Asaph (1 Chron. 6. 30.
  • Merari, Ethau, or Jeduthun (1 Chro. 6. 44.)

Of these Heman was the Chief (1 Chron. 25. 5.)

Under these were divers others *(Chron. 15. 18.) [...].

[Page 108]VI. Of 6. Of Porters. Porters who were di­vided into the

  • Keepers of the Watch of the Temple (Matt. 27. 65.) Psal. 134. 1.) who were placed on each quarter of the Tabernacle (1 Chr. 26. 13. 14. &c.) On the
    • East side VI. over whom was Shele­miah.
    • South IV. (for the Tablernacle II. for Asuppim) over whom was Obed-Edom.
    • West IV. over whō was Hosa.
    • North IV. over whom was Ze­chariah.
  • Over all these it seemeth Benajah, the son of Jehoiadah the Priest was the chief (1 Chron. 27 5.) * [...], the Captain of the Temple (Acts 4. 1.)
  • Treasurers for the
    • Revenues of the house of God (1 Chr. 26. 20.) Cohath, Shebuel of Moses, Gershon, Je­hiel, Merari, Ahiah,
    • Things de­dicated by vow, & c. Shelomith (1 Chr. 26. 26.) Cohath, Shebuel of Moses, Gershon, Je­hiel, Merari, Ahiah,

Over all the Porters was Chenaniah (1 Chron. 26, 29. 15. 22, 27,) Officers and Judges. It is to be remembred that besides Za­dock the High-Priest, and Abimelech (the second) we [Page 109] find mention of Hashabiah the sonne of Kemuel, as chief of the whole Tribe (1 Chro. 27. 17.) so that there was

  • One over the Ark, Zadock.
  • The second over the Tabernacle, Ahimeleck.
  • The third over the Tribe. Hashabiah.

As over the

  • Levits Ministers, Jehdaiah.
  • Judges, Chasabiah.
  • Officers, Shemaiah.
  • Singers, Heman.
  • Porters, Chenaniah or Benaeiah.

Agreeable to this form we read, that under. Josias there were three * Rulers of the House of God, that is Hilkiah, Zachariah, and Jehiel (2 Chron. 35. 8.) and that the Levites had over them six [...] (2 Chron. 35. 9.

Again under Zedekiah, that there were carried into Captivity Seraiah the Chief Priest, and Zephaniah the second Priest (2 King. 25. 18.)

Likewise under Ezekiah, at the provision for the Levites portions, there were 10. * [...]—or Over­seers of the Levites: over whom was Cononiah the * Chief, and Shimei the * Second: And so Kore over voluntary Offerings; and six Levites under him (2 Chro. 31. 12, 13, &c.

The Form of Government under NEHEMIAH.

OF whom, and Esdras it is recorded, that they did all according to Moses institution (Ezra 6. 18.) (Nehemiah 10. 34. 36.)

There was then

  • Eliasha, the * High Priest (Nehemiah 3. 1.)
  • Seraiah, the * ruler of the house of God. 11. 11)
  • Zabdiel, the * Overseer of the Priests. 11. 14)

The Courses were then but XXII (Nehemiah 12. 12.)

There was then

  • Uzzi, * the Overseer of the Levites (Ne­hemiah 11. 22.
  • Jezrahia, * the Oveseer of the Singers (Ne­hemiah 12. 42.
  • Shallum, the chief of the Porters (1 Chro. 9. 17.

Under Zabdiel at his hand

  • Adaiah
  • Amasai

(Nehem. 11, ver. 12-13.)

Under Uzzi

  • Shemaiah
  • Sabbethai
  • Jozabad

(Nehem. 11. 15, 16.)

Under Jezrahiah

  • Mattaniah
  • Bakbukiah
  • Abda

(Nehem. 11. 17.

[Page 111]Under Shallum

  • Akkub. (1 Chron. 9. 17.)
  • Talmon. (Nehem. 11. 19.)

So that there was

  • 1. The high-Priest,
  • 2. The Second, and Third, Overseers of the Priests,
  • 3. The Princes of the Priests * Ezra 8. 29.
  • 4. The Priests.
  • 5. The Overseer of the Levites,
  • 6. The Princes of the Levites,
  • 7. The Levites,
  • 8. The Heads of the Nethinims,
  • 9. The Nethinims of
    • the Gibeonites,
    • Solomons Servant.

A brief Recapitulation of the Degrees observed under the Government of the Old Testament, with an accommo­dation thereof unto the New.

OUt of these we gather this Form to have been

I. Moses in whom was the Supream Jurisdicti­on; to visit Aaron (Numb. 3. 10.)

II. Aaron the High Priest (Levit. 21. 20. Numb. 35. 28. Nehem. 3. 1.)

  • head (2 Cron. 19-11.
  • Prince of the House of God (2 Chron. 9. 11.)

III. Eleazar the Second (2 King. 25. 18.) as there Ze­phaniah is said to be.

  • Prelate of Prelates (Num. 3. 22.)
  • Chief Overseer, or Bishop (Jer. 20. 1.)
  • At his hand Ithamar.

IV. Prince of the Tribe (1 Chron. 27. 17)

[Page 112] V. Elizaphau, Eliasaph, Zuriel.

  • Prelates (Num. 3. 24 &c.)
  • Overseers or Bishops (Nehem. 11. 14. 22.) c. 12. 32.

VI. In the XXIV. courses set by David;

The Princes of the Priests. Ezra 8. 29.

The house

  • Of God.
  • Of the Sanctuary.

1 Chron. 24. 5.

Elders of the Priests, Jeremiah 19. 1. (2 Kings 19. 2.)

Heads of the Families, (Nehemiah 12. 12.)

Chief Priests (Acts 19. 14.)

VII. The Priests themselves.

Whether at Jerusalem, or in the Country Towns (2 Chron. 3. 19.)

VIII. The Overseer of the Levites (Nehem. 11. 22.)

IX, The Princes of the Levites (1 Chron, 15, 5,) (2 Chron, 31, 12, and 35, 9,) Nehem, 12, 22,)

X. The Head of the Levites Officers. The Scribe, * (2 Chron, 31. 13.)

* Of the Singers, (1 Chron. 16. 5.) Nehem. 12. 42.

Of the Porters, (1 Chron. 9. 17. and 15. 22.)

Of the Treasurers, (1 Chron. 26. 24. 2 Chron. 21. 11.)

XI. The Levites themselves.

XII. The Chief of the Nethinims, (Nehem. 11. 21.)

XIII. The Ne­thinims

  • Gibeonites, (Josua 9. 21.)
  • Solomons servants, (1 King. 9. 21. Nehem. 7. 60.)

It is not only requisite that things be done, but that [Page 113] they be diligently done, against sloth, and that they be done continually and constantly, * not for a time (against Schism, and if they be not, that redress may be had.

To this end it is, that God appointeth Overseers.

  • 1. To urge others if they be slack, (2 Chron. 24. 5. & 34. 12, 13.
  • 2. To keep them in course, if they be well, 2 Chron. 29. 5. & 31. 12. & 34. 12, 13.
  • 3. To punish, if any be defective (Jerem. 29. 26)

For which cause

A power of commanding was in the High Priest (2 Chron. 23. 8. & 18. & 24. 26. & 31. 13.

A power Judicial, if they transgressed (Deut. 17, 9. Zach. 3. 7. Ezek. 44. 24.)

  • Under paine of death, (Deut. 17. 12.)
  • Punishment in prison, and in the Stocks, (Jer. 29. 26. in the Gate of Benjamin, (Jer. 20. 2.)

Officers to Cite and Arrest. (John 7. 32. Acts 5. 18.) This Corporal.

To suspend from the Function, Ezra 2. 62.

To excommunicate, Ezra 10. 8. John 9. 22. & 12. 42, 16. 2. This Spiritual.

1. Why may not the like now be for the Government of the Christian Church.

There is alledged on only stop. That the High Priests was a Figure of Christ, who being now come in the flesh, the Figure ceaseth, and no Argument thence to be drawn.

Answ. ‘There is no necessity we should press Aaron, for Elea­zar being Princeps principum, that is, having a Superior Authority over the Superiors of the Levites in Aarons [Page 114] life time, was never by any in this point reputed a This answer I find ordered by the Author to be thus put in­stead of that which had been in a former co­py. Type of Christ, so that though Aaron be accounted such, yet Eleazar will serve our purpose.’ As also the (2 Chron. 35, 8.) We read of three at once, one only, of which was the High-Priest, and a Type of Christ, the rest were not, let them then answer to the other twaine, who were Rulers, or chief over the House of God.

Thus we grant, that Aaron and the High Priests This also the Author hath added to be put unto the former answer after him were Types of Christ, and that Christ at his death ended that Type; yet affirm, that Eleazar being Praelatus Praelatorum, governing and directing the Ec­clesiastical persons under him, and being subject to Mo­ses was not any Type of Christ; further we say, that the Twelve Apostles as so many several Eleazars under Christ, were in the Primitive times sent to several Coasts of the world to govern, direct and teach Fcclesiastical persons and people in their several Divisions. We say also that many Primates now, as so many Eleazars under Christ, and in several Kingdoms and States of the world, to govern, direct, and teach Ecclesiastical persons, and people in their several divisions; and yet be under and responsible to Christian Princes and States, who have the chief charge of matters both Civil and Ecclesiasti­cal.

Object. If it be further alledged, that Eleazar and all Sacrifi­cing Priests (quatenus Sacrificers) were Types of Christ, who sacrificed himself for us, and put an end to all Sa­crifices typing himself.

Answ. Answ. This we grant, and further say, that the Po­pish sacrificing Priests, Office and other performance in this regard, is utterly unlawful and sinful. But the other Imployments of Eleazar, viz. His Governing, Directing [Page 115] and teaching both the Ecclesiastical persons and the peo­ple, were not typical nor ended, but are still of use, for the Apostles practiced the same; so have their Successors to these very days. And that this is most true, the Pres­byterial Classes cannot but grant; for this very Authori­ty over Ministers and people, they use, and therefore judg it not Typical.

Besides St. Paul appearing before one, but a weak resemblance of the old High Priest, yielded him obedi­ence, and acknowledged him a Governor of the people, which had been meerly unlawful, if there had not re­mained in him something not Tipical, and not made to cease by Christ.

Hence we see the Anabaptists shifts to be vain and gross, when they say we ought to have no Wars, for the Jews wars were but Figures of our spiritual battle; No Magistrates, for the Jews Magistrates were but Figures of our Pastors, Doctors and Deacons; and as no Ma­gistrates, so no Oaths, pretending these to be abolished by Christ. Answ. As in the Priests Office there were some things not Typical, not ended: So Kings, Types of Christ, in somthing only prefigured, and Typed him. In many things their Office is still of singular use, for they become Nursing Fathers of the Church and pro­vide that we may live a peaceable life in all Godliness and Honesty. The lawfull use of Wars and Oaths hath been often vindicated.

If the Pope here claim authority over all the world, as Eleazar over all his brethren, his Plea is groundless, wicked and insolent. For, first, each chief Bishop in any Kingdom, must be subject to the King, as Aaron and Eleazar to Moses. 2. The Apostles sent into several [Page 116] Kingdoms of the World were all of equal power, no one had Authority above the rest in their line, or division, which shews that no Primate ought to be of Authority over any other Primate under a several Prince. But each Primate subject to Christ as Eleazar to Aaron, and each Primate subject to his several King. As Eleazar to Moses.

2. Why it may be.

I. Out of Dic. Ecclesiae, the New Reformers tell us, we are to fetch our pattern from the Jewish Sanhedrim therefore it seems they are of opinion, that one Form may serve both us and them.

II. Except there should be such a fashion of govern­ment, consisting of inequality. I see not in the new Testament, how any could perish in that contradiction of Core, which St Jude affirmeth, for his plea was for equa­litie; and against the preferring of Aaron above the rest.

III. The Ancient Fathers, seem to be of mind, that the same Form should serve both.

So thinketh St. Cyprian lib. 3. epist. 9. ad Rogatia­num.

So St Hierome. Epist. 85. Ad Evagrium, traditiones Apostolicae sumptae sunt de veteri Testamento, & ad Ne­potianum: de vita Clericorum.

So St. Leo. Ita veteris Testamenti Sacramenta distin­xit, ut quedam ex iis, sicut erant condita, Evangelicae cruditioni profutura decerperet, ut quae dudum fuerant consuetudines Judaicae, fierent obsevantiae Chri­stianae.

So Rabanus, ut de institutione Clericorum (lib. 1. c. 6.)

[Page 117] They ground this their opinion upon that they see

I. That the Synogogue is called a Type, or Shadow, and [an image of the Church now Heb. 10. vers. 1.]

II. That God himself saith of the Christian Church, under the Gentiles that he will take of the Gentiles, and make them Priests and Levites to himself (Esa. 66. 22.) there calling our Presbyters and Deacons by those Le­gall names.

III. That there is an Agreemen in the

  • Numbers
    • XII. Numb. 1. 16. and Luk. 9. 8.
    • LXX. Numb. 11. 16. and Luk. 10. 1.
  • Names Angell, Mal. 2. 7. and Rev. 1. 10.
  • Degreers
    Aaron.Answerable untoChrist.
    Eleazar.Archbishops.
    Princes of Priests.Bishops.
    Priests.Presbyters.
    Princes of LevitesArchdeacons.
    Levites.Deacons.
    Nethinims.Clerks & Sextons.

* And their often enterchange, and indifferent using of Priest or Presbyter: Levite or Deacon, sheweth They presumed a Correspondence, and Agreement between them.

The FORM OF Church Government, In the NEW TESTAMENT.

And first in the days of our Saviour Christ.

1. THE whole Ministrie of the New Testament was at the first invested in Christ alone.

He is term­ed our

  • Apostle (Heb. 3. 1.)
  • Prophet. (Deut. 18. 15. Act. 3. 22.)
  • Evangelist (Esa. 41. 27.)
  • Bishop and * Pastor (1 Pet. 2. 25.)
  • Doctor (Mat. 23. 10.)
  • Deacon. (Rom. 15. 8.)

[Page 119] II. When the Harvest was great (Mat. 9. 38.) that his Personall presence could not attend all, he took unto him XII. as the XII. Patriarchs or XII. Fountains, as St Jerome, or the XII. Princes of the Tribes Exod. 14. 27. Numb. 33. 9. (Num. 1.)

  • Gathering his Disciples Mat. 10. 1.
  • Choosing out of them. Luke 6. 13.
  • Whom he would Mark. 3. 13.
  • He called them to him. Luke 6. 13.
  • Made them. Mark 3. 13.
  • Named them Apostles. Luke 6. 13.
  • These he began to send (Mark 6. 7.)
  • Gave them in charge (Matt. 10. 1. and 11. 1.)
  • To preach the Gospel (Luke 9. 2.)
  • To heal (Matt. 10. 1. Luke 9. 2.)
  • To cast out Devils (Matt. 10. 1.)

Gave them Power,

  • To take maintenance (Matt. 10. 10. Luke 9. 2.)
  • To shake off the dust, for a witness (Matt. 10. 14.)
  • So he sent them (Matt. 10. 5. Luke 9. 1.)
  • They went and preached (Luke 9. 6.)

They returned and made relation, What they had

  • Done
  • Taught

Mark. 6. 30.

III. After this, when the Harvest grew so great, as that the XII. sufficed not all, Luke 10. 1, 2. he took un­to him other LXX, as the 70. Palm trees, Num. 33. 9. the Fathers of Families, Gen. 46. the Elders, Num. 11.

[Page 119] These he

  • Declared, (Luke 10. 1.)
  • Sent by two and two into every City and place whether he himself would come, ibid.

Gave them power, as to the Apostle, to

  • Take maintenance, Luke 10 7.
  • Shake off dust, Luke 10. 11.

  • Heal the sick,
  • Preach,

(Luke 10. 19.)

Tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the pow­er of the Enemy (Luke 10. 19.)

These two Orders (as I think) St. Paul Ephes. 3. 5. doth comprehend under the name of Apostles and Pro­phets, by the LXX. understanding Prophets, as where­soever they are both mentioned together, next to the Apostles he placeth Prophets (1 Corinth. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11.)

None of the Fathers ever doubted, that these two were two several Orders or Sorts, nor that the Apostles were superior to the LXX.

It appeareth also that (the Apostles) had in them power to forbid to preach, Luke 9. 49. and that Mat­thias was exalted from the other order to the Apostle­ship.

This was then the Order while Christ was upon the earth.

I. Christ himself.

II. The XII. were sent to all Nations. Their suc­cessors were Bishops placed and setled in several Na­tions.

[Page 121] III. The LXX. were sent by Christ to the particular Cities of the Jewes, to prepare them for Christ, with his Apostles comming to them. Their Successors were Pres­byters placed in particular Cities and Towns by the A­postles, that they might prepare the hearts of many Christians for the receipt and employment of an Angel or Bishop over the severall Presbyters.

IV. The faithfull people, or Disciples, of whom 500. and more are mentioned in (1 Corinth. 15. 6.) * though at the time of the electing of Matthias, and the Holy Ghost's descending, there were but CXX. present (Acts 1. 15.)

The Form of Government used in the time of the APOSTLES.

ALbeit Christ saith, the people were as Sheep with­out a Shepheard (Mat. 9. 38.) yet he termeth his Apostles Harvest-men, not Shepheards; for while he was in person on earth, himself only was the Shepheard. And they but Arietes Gregis, but at his departure he maketh them Shepheards (John. 21. 15.) as they like­wise others at theirs (1 Pet. 5. 2. Acts 28.)

Of the APOSTLES themselves, and first of their names.

Shelicha, which is the Syrian name, was the title of certain Legats or Commissioners sent from the High-Priest, to visit the Jews and their Synagogues, which [Page 122] were dispersed in other Countries, with authority to redress things amiss.

[...], among the Greeks were [...], into Delphos, an Office of great cre­dit, as by Herodotus and Demosthenes appeareth.

Secondly of their form what it is.

Not to have been with Christ all his life time, Acts 1. 21. so were others more.

Not to be sent immediately of Christ, Gal. 1. 1. so were the LXX. (Luke 10.)

Not to be limitted to one place (Matt. 28. 19.) so­were others, Luke 24. 33. 50.

Not to be inspired of God, so that they did not erre, so were Mark and Luke.

Not to plant Churches, so did Phillip the Evange-list (Acts 8. 5.)

Not to work signes and Miracles: So did Stephen. (Acts. 6. 8.) and Philip (Acts 8. 6.)

But over and above these, or with these that emnient authority or Jurisdiction which they had over all, not only joyntly together, but every one * severally by himself.

I. Of Imposing hands in

  • Ordination (Acts 6. 6)
  • Confirmation (Acts 8. 17. 18.)

II. Of Commanding (the word of the Bench Acts 4. 18. & 5. 28.

Of Caesars, Acts 18. 2.)

The word of Gods command, 1 Cor. 9. 14. 1 Thess. 4. 11. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 12.

Of Christs Acts 1, 2, 4.

[Page 123] [Of the Prophets, Acts 5. 32.

Of the Apostles Phil. 8.

The Apostles ordained matters in Churches, 1 Cor. 7. 17. & 11. 34

The Commandments of the Apostles of Christ the Lord are to be kept 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2.]

III. Of Countermanding (Luke 9. 49. Acts. 15. 24. 1 Tim. 2. 12.)

IV. Of Censuring,

  • Virga 1 Cor. 4. 21. 2 Cor. 13. 10.
  • Gladius, Gal. 5. 12.
  • Tradendi Satanae, 1. Cor. 5. 5. 11. 1 Tim. 1. 20.
  • Claves, Matt. 16. 19. Sit tibi with 18. 18. and John 20. 23.)

In this power it is, that the Bishops succeed the Apo­stles, 1. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. 2. Tertul. de praescript. 3. 3. Cyprian ad Plorent. 3. 9. 4. Epiphan. Haeres. 27. Romae fuerunt primi Pettus & Paulus Apostoli udem ac Epis­copi. 2. Chrysost. in Act 3. Jacobus Episcopus fuit Hie­rosolimae. 6. Hieronym. Epist. 85. & 54. ad Marcellam de Montano, & de scriptoribus, Ecclesiast. in Petro & Ja­cobo. 7. Ambrose in 1 Corinth. 11. (de Angelis) & in Eph. 4. (Apostoli Episcopi sunt).

Of Deacons.

At the beginning the whole weight of the Churches affairs lay upon the Apostles.

  • The Distribution
    • As well of the Sacrament (Act 2. 42.)
    • As of the Oblations (Acts 4. 35)
  • [Page 124] The Ordination (Acts 6. 6.)
  • The Government (Acts 5. 3.)

But upon occasion of the Greeks complaint whose Widdows were not duly regarded in the daily ministra­tion, which was as well of the Sacrament as of the Obla­tions, otherwise the Apostles would not have left out (the mention of) the Sacrament in Act. 6. 4. They transferred that part upon the 7. Deacons whom they ordained for distribution of the Sacrament, not for Consecration. * For that the Deacons dealt not only with The supposed Author in his advertisments concerning this passage, saith, This I know not well what way to make more clear. alms, 'tis acknowledged by all the Primitive Church.

Justin Apolog. 2. Ignatius ad Heron. Tertull. de Bap­tismo, Cyprian de Lapsis, & lib. 3. epist. 9. Chrysost. hom. 83. in. Matth. Hieron. epist. 48. ad Sabinam, & contra Lucifer. Ambr. Offic. lib. 1. c. 41. Greg. 4. 88. Concil. Nicaen. 1 Can. 14. 1 Tim. 3. 12.

Of EVANGELISTS.

Upon occasion of the scattering of the Disciples, by means of the persecution after the death of St. Stephen * grew [...] (Acts 8. 4. & 11. 19.) of which number St. Phillip is reckoned (Acts 8. 21.) and divers others Acts 11. 19, 20. of whom Eusebius ma­keth mention lib. 3. cap. 37. and lib. 5. cap. 10.

Upon these was transferred that part of the Apostles function which consisted in preaching from place to place.

The supposed Author in his Advertisments put this out here, saying [This I thought might better make a chapter of it self: See infra, the last chapter of all.]

  • Electio per sortes, Acts 1. 10.
  • Per populi suffragia, Acts 6. 6.
  • Per spiritum sanctum, Act. 13. 2.

Of PRIESTS.

When the Church was in some sort planted by the preaching of the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, that they might continually be watered, and have a standing attendance, the Apostles ordained them Priests by imposition of hands in every Church, Acts 14. 23. & 11. 30. & 21. 18. And they made choice of the word [...], rather then of the word [...]. more in use with the Greeks, because it includeth an Embassie, and that chiefly of reconcilation, which is the [...] expressed by St. Paul in 2 Cor. 5. 20. with Luke 14. 32. [and thence they were called Presbyters.]

Of BISHOPS.

Last of all, that the Churches thus planted and wa­tered might so continue, the Apostles ordained Over­seers to have a generall care over the Churches, instead of themselves, who had first had the same, which is cal­led [...], Acts 15. 36. and containeth in it, as a strengthening or establishing in that which is already well (Acts 14. 22. & 15. 41. Rev. 3. 2.) so a rectifying or redressing if ought be defective or amiss, Tit. 1. 5.

These are called by the Apostles, Acts 20. 28. [...] in the Syrrian, that is Episcopi, by St. John Rev. 1. 20. the Angels of the Churches. These were set over others both to rule and teach, 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Pet. 5. 2.

Upon these was transferred the chief part of the A­postolick function.

[Page 126] The Oversight of the Church.

The power of

  • Commanding,
  • Correcting,
  • Ordaining,

The occasion which caused the Apostles to appoint Bishops (besides the pattern set by Gods Ordinance in the time of the Law) seemeth to have been Schisms, such as were in the Churches of

  • Rome, Rom. 16. 17.
  • Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 11. and 3. 3, 4.
  • Galatia, Gall. 5. 12.
  • Ephesus, Eph. 4. 2, 3.
  • Phillippi, Phil. 4. 2.
  • Colossi, Col. 3. 13.
  • Thessalonica, 2 Thess. 3. 11.
  • The Hebrews, Heb. 13. 9. James 3. 1.

For which St. Cyprian, S. Jerome, and all the Fathers take the respect to one Governor, to be an especiall re­medy (for which also see Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. 8. 2.)

This power even in the Apostles time was necessary, for God chargeth not his Church with superfluous bur­dens, Acts 5. 5. 15. 13. 11. 19. 2. 1. 16. 46, Acts 14. 11. 8. 13. 5. 11. 13. yet had they such graces (as power of healing, doing signes, sundry languages, &c. that they of all o­ther might seem best able to want it; for by these gra­ces they purchased both admiration and terrour suffici­ent for crediting of their bare word, in the whole Church.

If necessary then in their times that were so furnished, [Page 127] much more in the Ages ensuing, when all these extra­ordinary graces ceased, and no means but it, to keep things in order. So that were it not apparent to have been in the Apostles times, yet the necessity of the times following, destitute of these helps, might enforce it.

Seeing then God hath no less care for the propaga­tion and continuance of his Church, then for the first settling or planting of it, Eph. 4. 13. it must needs fol­low, that the power was not personal in the Apostles, as tyed to them only, but a power given to the Church, and in them for their times resident, but not ending with them as temporary, but common to the ages after, and continuing, to whom it was more needfull then to them) to repress Schism, and to remedy other abuses.

So that the very same power at this day remaineth in the Church, and shall to the worlds end.

Of the PERSONS * (that executed these Offices.

I. Albeit the Commission were generall over all Na­tions, which was given to the XII. yet was that gene­rality only by permission, not expresly mandatory. Else should they have sinned, that went not through all Na­tions.

Therefore how soever the Commission was to all Na­tions, yet was it left to their discretion how, and in what fort they would dispose themselves, as the Holy Ghost should direct them.

Therefore that partition Gal. 2. 9. betwixt St. Peter and St. Paul was lawfull and good, and no wayes dero­gatory to ite praedicate, Goe teach all Nations.

Further the Ecclesiasticall History doth testifie, that [Page 128] they parted the Coasts and Countries of the world among them by common advice, and so sundred them­selves.

  • Peter to Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia.
  • John to Asia, Parthia.
  • Andrew to Cythia, Pontus, Euxinus & Bi­zantium.
  • Phillip to Upper Asia, unto Hierapolis.
  • Thomas to Jndia, Persia, and the Magi.
  • Bartholomew to Armenia, Lycaonia, India cite­rior.
  • Mathew to (Ethiopia.)
  • Simeon to Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Afrique, Britany.
  • Thaddeus to Arabia, Jdumea, Mesopotamia.
  • Matthias to Ethiopia. Soc. 1. 15.

2. Again albeit their preaching was for the most am­bulatory; yet do the same Histories witness that having setled Religion, and brought the Church to some stay, towards their end, they betook themselves to residence in some one place, divers of them, as

St James at Jerusalem (Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 1. Epiphan. Haeres. 66. Chrysost. in Act. 15. Hierom. Chrysost. in Acts 15.

St. John at Ephesus, Euseb. 3. 26. Tertul. lib. 4. con­tra Marcion. Hierom.

St. Peter first at Antioch, and after at Rome.

Which places were more specially accounted their Sees, and the Churches themselves after a more special man­ner were called Apostolick.

Sedes Apostolorum. August in Epist. 42.

Ecclesiae Apostolicae. Tertullian.

[Page 129] 3. It is also plain, that the Apostles * while they lived chose unto them as Helpers ( [...]) divers who were companions with them in their Journies ministred un­to them, and supplyed their absences in divers Churches, when they were occasioned * themselves to depart.

Such were.

  • * Androniours (Rom. 16. 17.)
  • Apollos (Acts 19. 1.) 1 Cor. 3. 6.
  • Aquila (Rom. 16. 3.)
  • Archippus Phil. 2. (Col. 4. 17.)
  • Aristarchus (Acts 20. 4.)
  • Clemens (Phil. 3. 4.)
  • Crescence (2 Tim. 4. 10.)
  • Demetrius (3 John 12.)
  • Epaphras (Col. 4. 12. &c. 1. 7. & Philem. 24.)
  • Epaphroditus (Phil. 2. 23.)
  • Epaenetus (Rom. 16. 5.)
  • Erastus (Acts 19. 22.)
  • Gajus (Acts 20. 4.)
  • Jesus Justus (Col. 4. 11.)
  • John Marke (Acts 13. 5. & 15. 37. &c. Philem. 24.)
  • Lucas (Philem. 24. Col. 4. 14.
  • Secundus (Act. 20. 4.)
  • Silvanus (1 Pet. 5. 12.) (1 Thes. 1. 2. 2 Thes. 11.)
  • Sopater (Acts 20. 4.)
  • Sosttheues (1 Cor. 1. 1.)
  • * Stachys (Rom. 6. 9.)
  • Stephanus (1 Cor. 16, 15.
  • Tertius (Rom. 16. 22.)
  • Timotheus (Acts 19. 22. & 20. 4.)
  • Titus (2 Cor. 8. 23.)
  • Trophimus (Acts 20. 4.)
  • Tychicus (Acts 20. 4.) * Col. 4. 7.
  • Urbanus (Rom. 16. 9.)

Of whom Eusebius, lib. 3. Hist. cap. 4. Euthymius in tertium Johannis. Isydorus de patrib. De­rothei Synopsis.

[Page 130] * To these, as namely to Timothy and Titus (two of these) one at Ephesus, the other in Crete, Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. The Apostles imparted their own Com­mission while they yet lived; even the chief Autho­rity they had.

To appoint Priests, Titus 1. 5. & Hieron. in eum lo­cum.

To ordain them by laying on of hands, 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2.

To keep safe and preserve the Depositum, 1 Tim. 6. 14. 20. 1 Tim. 1. 14.

To command not to teach other things, 1. Tim. 1. 3. Titus 3. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 16.

To receive accusations, 1 Tim. 5. 19. 21.

To redress or correct things amiss, Titus 1. 5.

To reject young Widdows, 1 Tim. 5. 11.

To censure Hereticks, and disordered persons; Titus 1. 11. and 3. 10. 1 Tim. 6. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 5.

And these after the Apostles deceased, succeeded them in their charge of Government, which was Ordinary, Successive, and perpetual. Their extraordinary gifts of Miracles and Tongues ceasing with them. So Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Quos & successores relinquebant, suum ip­sorum locum Magisterii tradentes.

Of the promiscuous use of their Names.

Hese were they whom posterity called Bishops, but in the beginning regard was not had to distin­ction of Names, the Authority and power was ever di­stinct, [Page 131] the Name not restrained either in this or others.

The Apostles called

  • Priests, or Seniors 1 Pet. 5. 1.
  • Deacons or Ministers 1 Cor. 3. 5.
  • Teachers or Doctors 1 Tim. 2. 7.
  • Bishops or Overseers Acts 1. 20.
  • Prophets Acts 13. 1 Rev. 22. 9.
  • Evangelists 1 Cor. 9. 16. 9.

The name of Apostle was enlarged and made common to more then the XII.

  • To Barnabas Act. 14. 4. 14.
  • Andronicus Rom. 16. 7.
  • Epaphroditus Phil. 2. 25.
  • Titus and others 2 Cor. 8. 23.
  • Timothy (Hierom. in Cantic. Chro. Euseb.)

The Priests were called

  • Prophets (1 Cor. 14. 32.
  • Bishops Phil. 1. 4. Titus 1. 7.

So Chrysost. in Phil. 1. Quid hoc? an unius eivita­tis multi erant Episcopi, nequaquam sed Presbyteros isto nomine appellavit, tunc enim nomina adhuc erant commu­nia.

Hierom. Hic Episcopos, Presbyteros intelligimus; non enim in una urbe plures Episcopi esse potuissent.

Theodoret. *Ne fieri quidem poterat, ut multi Epis­copi essent unius civitatis pastores, quo fit ut essent Presby­teriquos vocavit Episcopos. Et in 1 Tim. 3. Eosdem olim vocabant Episcopos & Presbyteros; eos autem qui nunc vocantur Episcopi, nominabant Apostolos.

[Page 132] Oecumenius: Non quod in una eivitate multi essent Episcopi, sed Episcopos vocat Presbyteros, tunc enim no­minibus—adhuc communicabant.

For in the Apostles absence in Churches new planted, the oversight was in them, till the Apostles ordained, and sent them a Bishop, either by reason of some Schisme, or for other causes.

The Bishops as the Ecclesiastical History recounteth them, were called,

  • Apostles Phil. 2. 25.
  • Evangelists 2 Tim. 4. 5.
  • Deacons 1 Tim. 4. 6.
  • Priests 1 Tim. 4. 17.

For it is plain by the Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor in Eu­sebius lib. 5. cap. 25. that they at the beginning were called Priests, that in very truth, and propriety of Speech were indeed Byshops, and by Theodoret, Phil. 2. 25. That they that were Bishops were at first called A­postles.

The name ( [...]) saith Suidas was given by the Athenians to them, which were sent to Oversee the cities that were under their Jurisdiction, [...], Suid. in [...] [Rodigin. 18. 3.]

The name Episcopus was given among the Romans to him qui praeerat pansi, & voenalibus ad victum quotidi­anum F. de muneribus & honoribus, Cicero ad Atticum lib. 7. Epist. 10. vult me Pompeius esse quem tota haec Campania, & maritima or a habeat Episcopum.

The name in Hebrew [...] Gen. 41. 34. seem­eth [Page 133] to have relation to the second use, for they were such as had charge of the grain, laying up and sel­ling under Joseph.

The use of the BISHOPS Office, and the charge com­mitted to him.

The party, who in the New Testament is called Epis­copus, is in the Old, called [...] the Office in the New [...], 1 Tim. 3. 1. in the old [...] Psalm. 109. 8. with Acts 1. 20.

In a House or Family it is affirmed of Joseph, Gen. 39. 4. who had the oversight and government of the rest of the Servants.

In a House there be many Servants which have places of charge * Matt. 25. 14. but there is one that hath the charge of all * Luk. 12. 42. that is Occonomus the Steward.

So doe the Apostles term themselves, 1 Cor. 4. 1.

And their Office [...], 1 Cor. 9. 17.

And their successors the Bishops, Tit. 1. 7. 9.

Vide Hilar. in Matt. 24. 45.

In a Flock the Pastor, John 21. 15. Acts 20. 28. Matt. 25. 32. 1. Pet. 3. 2. Eph. 4. 11.

In a Camp, * the Captain [...], Matt. 2. 6. Heb. Vid. Hierem. Epist. 4. ad rusticum. c. 6. Et Epist. ad. Eva [...] ium. 13. 7. 17. 24.

In a Ship the Governor * [...]. 1 Cor. 12. 28. under whom there are * [...], Acts 13. 5.

In the Common-wealth they be such as are set over Officers, to hasten them forward, and so they doe their duties, as in 2 Chron. 34. 13. & 31. 13. Nehemiah 11. 22. & 12. 42.

[Page 134] So that what a Steward is in a House,

  • A Pastour in a Flock,
  • A Captain in a Campe,
  • A Master in a Ship,
  • A Surveyor in an Office,

That is a Bishop in the Ministery.

Upon him lieth first [...]. ( [...]) the eare of the Chur­ches under him, 2 Cor. 11. 28. Phil. 2. [...]. Theodorat, Concil. An­tiochen. can. 9. * Act. 9. 32. & 15. 36. (and to be ob­servant.)

* II. [...], the visiting of them, Acts 9. 32. & 15, 16.

* And in both these

  • I. [...] (Tikkun) * the confirm­ing of that which is well and order­ly Acts 15. 41. Rev, 3. 2.
  • II. [...] (Manatseach) the re­dressing which is otherwise (Tit. 1. 5.)

To him was committed principally

I. Authority of Ordaining, Tit. 1. 5. and so of beget­ting Fathers, Epipha. Haeres. 75. See Ambros. Theodo­ret and Oecumentus in 1 Tim. 3. Damasus Epist. 3. Je­rem. Epist. 85. ad Evagr. Leo Epist. 88. Concil. Ancy­ran. Can. 12. al. 13.

For though St. Paul should mention a Company * together [...]. with him at the Ordaining of Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 14. yet it followeth not but that he only was * the Ordainer. No more, then that Christ is the (b) [...], 2 Tim. 1. 6. only Judge, although the XII. shall sit with him on Thrones, Luke 20. 30.

[Page 135] II. Authority of enjoyning or forbidding; 1 Tim. 1. 3. Ignatius ad Magnesia, Cyprian Epist. 39.

III. Authority of holding Courts, and receiving ac­cusations 1 Tim. 5. 19. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Revel. 2. 2. Au­gustin. de opere, Monachor cap. 24.

IV. Authority of Correcting, 1 Tim. 1. 3. M [...]cro Episcopalis Tit. 1. 5. Hieron. contra Lucifer cap. 4. & E­pist. 53. ad Riparium, Cyprian Epist. 38. ad Rogatia­num.

V. Authority of Appointing Fasts. Tertullian ad­versus Psychicos.

The Choice of persons to their calling.

[1. The Apostles were immediately called by Christ.

2. For the calling of Matthias the Apostle Peter gave direction; two persons were propounded by the 120. the chief and constant disciples of Christ, but he was designed to his place by a sacred Lot.

3. Some were chos [...]n and appointed to their callings by the Holy Ghost, Acts 11. 12. Acts 13. 2. Acts 8. 29. This is added by the supposed Author. Acts 20. 28.

4. In choice of the Seven Deacons who were cre­dited with the provision for such as wanted, the mul­titude of the Chief, and constant Disciples of Christ, and the Apostles who were contributers of the same, present 7. persons, the Apostles ordain them Deacons.

5. The Apostles chose to themselves Helpers, fel­low Servants of Christ, fellow-Souldiers, and the like, Acts 15. 5. Rom. 16. 9. 2 Cor. 8. 23. Coll. 4. 7. Tit. 1. 5. So Timothy well reported of is taken by Paul, Act. 16. 2. 3.

[Page 136] 6. The Apostles chose such as were their Attendants, or Ministers, and sent them to severall Churches and People, Acts 19. 22. 2 Tim. 4. 10. 12. 2 Cor. 12. 17. 1 Thess. 3. 2. and left some to abide in Churches where was need of their help. Tit. 1. 5. Col. 20. Acts 18. 19. 1 Tim. 1. 3.]

A LETTER of Dr. Hadrianus Sa­ravia, to the Ministers of the Isle of Garnsay; written in French and translated into English.

Grace and Peace from Jesus Christ our Lord.

GEntlemen and wel-beloved Brethren in the Lord, my calling doth oblige me to procure the good and the true edification of the Churches of Christ Jesus, and chiefly of those which I have former­ly had to doe with as their Minister; such are those of the Islands, where I was one of the first, and know which were the beginnings, and by which means and occasions the preaching of Gods word was planted there. But you hold now (to my thinking) a course quite contrary to that which we have held. All the fa­vour we then obtained was through the Bishops means, and without them I dare confidently assure you, that you will obtain nothing of what you look for. In the beginning there was no other Reformation in the I­slands then that common throughout the whole King­dome of England. The Priests which a little before had sung Mass, became suddenly Protestants; but yet [Page 138] not one of them was appointed to preach the word of God. They were but ignorant blockheads, continu­ing still in [...]eart and effection Papists, and enemies to the Gospel. Now such as were sincerely affected to the Gospel, prevailed so far as that they obtained Ministers, with whom the Priests could not agree: they retained their Service, and the Ministers preached, and had the exercise of Religion asunder, following the order of the Churches of France. In those beginings at the pursuit of Mr. John After, Dean, I was sent by my Lords of the Councell to the Islands, as well in regard of the School that was newly erected, as to be a Minister there.

At that time the Bishop of Constance was sent Amba­sadour from the French King to Queen Elizabeth, from whom, and from her Councell he obtained, Letters to the Governors of the Islands, whereby they were en­joyned to yeild unto him all authority and right, which he pretended did belong unto him, as being the true Bishop of the Islands. But how this blow as was warded let your Fathers tell you. Upon this occasion the Bi­shop of Winchester (as their true Bishop) took upon him the protection of the Churches of both Islands, representing to the Queen, and unto her Councel, that of old the Islands did belong to his Bishoprick, and that he had ancient Records for it; yea an Excommu­nication from the Pope against the Bishop of Constance, whenever he would challenge any Episcopall Jurisdi­ction over the Islands. So through the means of the said Bishop, and Mr. John After, Dean, two places on­ly were priviledged of my Lords of the Councell, St. Peeter-haven for Garnzay, and St. Helier for Jarnsay, with prohibition to innovate in ought in the other Pa­rishes. [Page 139] Then were the Court and Chapter of the Bi­shop held, which afterwards were supprest, how, by whom, and by what authority, I know not: I fear the Authors have run themselves into Premunires (if pre­munires have power within the Islands) The Consisto­ries, Classes and Synods of Ministers have succeeded them, yet without any Episcopall Jurisdiction. Now so it is, that your Islands want Episcopall Courts for prov­ing of Wills, for Divorces, and Marriages, and for the Tythes which are causes, and Actions, Ecclesiasticall, and have so been these 600. years and upwards, as well under the Dukes of Normandy, as the Kings of Eng­land. The Reformation and change of Religion hath altered nothing; neither is there any one that hath pow­er or authority to transferre the said causes to any other Judges then to the Bishop, but the Kings Majesty: so that your Civil Magistrates have nothing to doe with such causes; if they meddle with them 'tis usurpation. The French Ministers are so rash as to say, that the Bi­shops of England have usurpt this Jurisdiction, and that it belongeth not unto them, because it is Civil, making no difference between what some Bishops have heretofore usurpt, & what the King and Soveragn Ma­gistrates have freely given (for certain reasons moving them thereunto) and conferred upon Bishops; therefore though the matter be civill, yet can they not be held for usurpers. Truly the present state and condition of the Kingdom of England doth bely such slanderers of our Bishops. I fear that your Magistrates being sea­soned with this Doctrine, have carried themselves in this point more licentiously then the Laws of this King­dome and of their Islands will warrant them. I pass o­ver [Page 140] the debates that might be made upon this matter, as a thing impertinent in the place and government under which we live. I consider the state of England. and that of the Islands, and the dignity of Bishops, and the condition of the other Ministers of the Church, such as it is at this day. In Scotland for the time pre­sent the State hath otherwise provided, but not in Eng­land, and therefore ye ought not to take example by them, as though your State were like theirs. I hear that your Governor hath taken order about Wills, and appointed one to prove them. But I cannot conceive how that may be done without Episcopal Jurisdiction conferred by the Bishop. Your Governour I know hath power to present to the Bishop a man proper to execute this authority of the Bishop in his name. Like­wise the Governor as Patron of the Churches and Pa­rishes of his Government, upon the vacancy of any li­ving, ought to present by such a time a man well qua­lified to succeed in the Office of a Pastour, but the ad­mission and induction of such a charge, belongs to your Bishop, and to no body else. If I be well informed, you observe nothing of all this: which if it be so, you'l never be able to justifie it. The example of the French Churches, and of the Low-Countries doe you no good. Your case is quite another: They have Laws from their Soveraigns, and particular places for themselves, but all that you doe is contrary to the Laws and Ordinance of the King your Soveraign. You hold Synodicall meet­ings, wherein you make Statutes about the Govern­ment of the Church, unto which you bind your selves and the rest that are naturall Subjects to the King: wherein you (unsensibly derogate from his authority. [Page 141] The Synods of the Arch-bishops and Bishops, together with the rest of the Clergy of this Realm dare not pre­sume that which you doe, nor attribute to their Canons and Statutes what you attribute to yours. Yet the As­sembly of Bishops and of their Clergie, is of men far o­therwise qualified then some dozen of the Ministers of your Islands to judge and discern what belongs to the edification of the Church; their Decrees nevertheless are of no authority to tye unto them those of this Realm, till the King, yea in his own person, have ap­proved them, and by Proclamation made them his: There is no body in his Realm, nor in any of his Dominions that hath power to enact Laws and Decrees but himself: The Parliaments authority is great, but without the Kings assent nothing takes the rigour of Law. I know very vell, that at the perswasion of the Ministers, your Governours and others that were pre­sent to your Synods, have subscribed and acknowledg­ed your Synodicall Acts, they did it even in my time: but their power doth not stretch so far. That may bring a greater prejudice to themselves, then give force of Ecclesiasticall Law to your Decrees. I doe not think that his Majesty being well informed will grant unto your Ministers or Governours of your Islands such authority: They will be more pernicious to you then youthink. You'l alledge me, I know, your Priviledges; but I dare boldly answer you; that you never had any such priviledges: I have read them, and have the copies of them; and they say; that in matters Civil you shall be governed by the ancient Coustumier of Normandy, and that you are not subject to the Statutes of the Par­liament in such matters, nor to the Subsidies, other [Page 142] charges and impositions that are raised in England, ex­cept (which God forbid ever should come to pass) the King were detained Prisoner by the Enemy. In mat­ters Ecclesiasticall you are freed from the Bishop of Constance, and under that of Winchester, yea even of old by the Popes authority and consent of the two Kings, from whom also in part, your neutrality in times of warre is approved, excommunicating all such as would molest you. Ye cannot shew concerning your priviledges, but only what is renewed as often as there is a new King. And for the Patent which you say you have procured from his Majesty for matters of Religion; First, it is in generall terms, and without any clause derogating from the authority of your Bishops. Secondly, if it be questioned, it may be told you, that it was surreptitious, and granted you before the King was well informed of the business. To conclude you must understand that in matters of Religion the Kings Majesty will doe nothing without the counsell and ad­vice of the Arch-bishop and your Bishop of Winchester; wherefore you may doe well to insinuate your selves in their favour, and conform your selves to them, as we have done in the beginning. You may reduce the De­crees of the Church of England, and the use of the book of prayers to a good and Christian Discipline, farre more solid, and better grounded then that for which ye so earnestly bestirre your selves.

I must addone word more which will be hard of dige­stion. This is it, that you may be upbraided, that as many Ministers that are naturall of the Countrey, being not made Ministers of the Church by your Bishop, nor by his Demissories, nor by any other according to the order [Page 143] of the English Church, you are not true and lawfull Ministers. Likewise that as many among you as have not taken institution and induction into your Parishes from the Bishop, nor from his Substitute lawfully or­dained and authorised so to doe, ye are come in by in­trusion and usurpation of cure of Souls, which no bo­dy could give you but your Bishop, that is, in terms and words Evangelicall, that you are not come into the Sheep-fold by the door, but by elsewhere, and that by the Ecclesiasiastical Laws you are excommunicants and Schismaticks. I know well enough you do not regard such Laws, and think that your Priviledges will exempt you from them, wherein you greatly deceive your selves. For a man may tell you, who are yee that would have your Ecclesiastical Decrees made by Private Au­thority, to have force of Laws, and dare scorn and reject those of the English Church, made by Publick Autho­rity, by farre honester men, greater Scholars (without comparison) more learned, and farre more in number then you are? The Kings Majesty by his Royall au­thority hath approved them, this Realm hath received them. But what are your Synodall Decrees? who be the Authors of them, and who be they that have approved them? 'Tis winkt at, and your ignorance is born with, but think not, that that which is born in you be any such thing as vertue. Your Priviledges do not stretch so far as that you may make Ecclesiasticall Decrees: Had it been so, the Priests had retained Mass and Poperie: In that you hold a contrary course to that of the English Church whereof you are and must be (if you be Englishmen) Members, it proceeds from nothing else but from the connivence and indul­gence [Page 144] of your Governors, who have given too much credit to the French Ministers, and partly in the begin­ning, to the stubborness of the Papists of the Islands. When your Governors shall have a liking to the Eng­lish Reformation, then will they make you leave the French Reformation: You fail against wind and tyde; you think that the Governors you shall have hereafter will be like Sir Tho. Layton, you are deceived. Though this day you had compassed your wish, to morrow or the next day after, at your Governors pleasure, all shall be marred again.

Finally, the Ecclesiasticall Government which you aske, hath no ground at all upon Gods word. 'Tis altogether unknown to the Fathers, who in mat­ter of Christian Discipline, and censure of manners, were more zealous and precise then we are, But you cannot, of all the learned and pious antiquity▪ shew one example of the Discipline or Ecclesiasticall order, which you hold, as your Bishop in his book of the per­petuall government of the Sonne of Gods Church, doth learnedly teach. I pass over what I have my self writ­ten concerning it in my book, De diversis Ministrorum gradibus, and in my Defence against the Answer of Mr. Beza, and more largely in my Confutation of his book De triplicigenere Episcoporum. I cannot wonder enough at the Scotchmen, who could be perswaded to abolish and reject the state of Bishops, by reasons so ill grounded, partly false, partly of no moment at all, and altogether unworthy a man of such fame. If the Scots had not more sought after the temporal means of Bishops, then after true Reformation, never had Mr. Beza's Book perswaded them to do what they [Page 145] have done. And I assure you, that your opinion con­cerning the government of the Church, seems plausible unto great men, but for two reasons, the one is to prey upon the goods of the Church, the other for to keep it under, the Revenues and authority of Bishops being once taken away. For the form of your discipline is such, that it will never be approved of by a wise and discreet supreme Magistrate, who knows how to go­vern. Ye see not the faults you commit in your pro­ceedings as well Consistoriall as Synodals, men well ver­sed in the Lawes, and in government do observe them. But they contemn them so long as they have the law in their own hands, and that it is far easier for them to fru­strate them, & regard neither Consistorie nor Synodes, then for you to command and make Decrees. Were your Discipline armed with power, as the Inquisition of Spain is, it would surpass it in tyranny. The Epis­copall authority is Canonical, that is, so limitted and enclosed within the bounds of the Statutes and Canons [of the Church] that it can command nothing with­out Law, much less contrary to Law. And the Bi­shop is but the Keeper of the Lawes, to cause them to be observed, and to punish the transgressors of your Consistories and Synodes. For the present I will say no more, only take notice of this, that it is not likely the King who knows what Consistories and Synodes be, will grant that to the Islands which doth displease him in Scotland. This, Gentlemen and Brethren, have I thought good to write vnto you, intreating you to take it well, as comming from him that loves the Islands, and the good and edification of the Church of Christ, as much as you can doe.

Upon this occasion I have thought fit to add thus much concerning Dr. Hadrianus Saravia.

HIs learning is sufficiently known by his works, his judgement in relation to the Liturgy and Disci­pline of the Church of England is declared by this Let­ter, which doth further appear by his Subscriptions fol­lowing.

1. In Queen Elizabeth's time the form required was in these words, We whose names are here underwritten, do Declare and unfainedly Testify our assent to all and singu­lar the Articles of Religion, and the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments com­prized in a book imprinted, intituled Articles, whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-bishops and Bishops of both Pro­vinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God 1562. according to the computation of the Church of England, for the a­voiding of the diversities of opinions, and for the establish­ing of Consent touching true Religion, put forth by the Queens Authority. And in testimony of such our Assents we have hereunto subscribed our names, with our own pro­per hands, as hereafter followeth.

Unto this Doctor Hadrianus de Saravia (the sixth Prebend of the Church of Canterbury being conferred upon him) subscribes in these words: Per me Hadria­num de Saravia Sacrae Theologiae Professorem, cui sexta Prebenda in Ecclesia Cathedrali Christi Cantuariens conferenda est sexto December is 1595.

Wherein I find he did immediately succeed Doctor Whitaker, whose Subscription is in these words, viz. Per me Gulielmum Whitaker sacrae Theologiae Doctorem [Page 147] ejusdemque Professorem Regium in Academia Cantabri­giensi, cui sexta Praebenda in Ecclesia Cathedrali Chrstl Cantuarens. conferenda est, Decimo Maii 1595.

According unto which I find Mr. John Dod of Han­well in Oxfordshire (who wrot upon the Commande­ments) to have subscribed in these words: Per me Jo­hannem Dod, in Artibus Magistrum praesentatum ad Ec­clesiam de Hanwell Oxon. Dioces. 28. Julii 1585. unto whom abundance more (and about that time) might be added Mr. Richard Rogers, Doctor Reynolds of Oxford, &c. among whom it pleased me to find the hand of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Hooker thus subscribing: Per me Richardum Hooker Clericum in Artibus Magi­strum praesentatum ad Canonicatum et Praebendam de Neather-haven in Ecclesia Cathedrali Sarum. 17. Julii 1591.

2. In King Jame's time, and since, the form of the Subscription was thus, To the three Articles mention­ed in the 36. Chapter of the Book of Canons.

1 First, that the Kings Majesty under God is the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiri­tuall or Ecclesiasticall things or Causes as Temporall, and that no foraign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within his Majesties said Realms, Dominions and Terri­tories.

2 That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, containeth in it nothing con­trary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used, and that he himself will use the form in the said book [Page 148] prescribed in publick prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and none other.

3 That he alloweth the book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord, One thousand five hundred sixty and two. And that he acknowledgeth all and every the Ar­ticles therein contained, being in number nine and thirty besides the Ratification to be agreeable to the word of God.

To these three Articles, Doctor Hadrianus de Sara­via being instituted unto the Rectory of Great Chart in the Diocess of Canterbury anno 1609. subscribes in these words.

Ego Hadrianus de Saravia Sacrae Theologiae Pro­fessor, cui Ecclesia Parochialis de Charta magna Cantuar. Dioces. conferenda est, his tribus Articulis supra scriptis, & omnibus & singulis in iisdem contentis, lubens & ex animo subscribo, vicessimo quinto die Mensis Februarii, Anno Dom. juxta computationem Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1609.

Hadr. de Saravia.

According unto which in succeeding years I find very many of our reverend Divines, famous in their times for Learning and Piety have subscribed also, which would be needless here to mention, in regard their judgments are sufficiently known that way: Only there are some other learned men, and of a pious estima­tion (whom the vulgar possibly have misapprehended) I have thought fit to doe them that right, as to vindi­cate them in it, having found them there as fully and heartily subscribing also: Each of which being various in some expressions I have put them down distinctly.

[Page 149] Mr. Nicholas Bifeild (whose many pious works hath made him famous) subscribes in these words: Mart. ult. 1615. Ego Nicholaus Bifeild verbi divini Praedicator, admittendus & instituendus ad vicariam de Isleworth in Comitatu Middlesex, hisce tribus Articulis & omnibus in iisdem contentis, libenter & ex animo subscribo.

Mr. Jeremiah Dike of Epping in Essex, (an able and constant Preacher, and of great esteem in his time) sub­scribes thus: Mart. 21. anno 1609. Ego Jeremiah Dike in Artibus Magister legitime praesentatus ad Vicariam de Epping in Essex, his tribus Articulis supra Scriptis, & omnibus in iisdem contentis, lubens, & ex animo subscribo. Which two I find subscribing accordingly twice.

Mr. Daniel Caudery.

April. 25. 1616. Ego Daniel Caudery in artibus Ma­gister admissus ad docendam Grammaticam in Ecclesia Parochiae de Berkin in Comitatu Essexiae, his tribus articu­lis, & omnibus, in iisdem contentis, libenter & ex animo, non coactus, subscribo.

Mr. William Jenkyn.

Jan. 2. 1640. Ego Gulielmus Jenkyn Clericus in Artibus Magister, jam admittendus, & instituendus, ad & in Rectoriam sancti Leonardi in vico Colcestriae in Comitatu Essexiae, hisce tribus articulis praescriptis, an­tea a me lectis, & omnibus, in iisdem contentis, libenter & ex animo, subscribo.

Guil. Jenkyn.

Mr. Calamy.

Novemb. 9. 1637. Ego Edm. Calamy sacrae Theolo­giae [Page 150] Bacch. jam admittendus & instituendus, ad & in Re­ctoriam de Rochford in Comitatu Essexiae, hisce tribus ar­ticulis praescriptis antea a me lectis, & omnibus in iisdem contentis, libenter & ex animo, subscribo.

Edm. Calamy.

And what is here subscribed as to the book of Com­mon-prayer, was heretofore (to my own knowledge) as diligently attended by persons of the like eminency being so farre from absenting themselves, that they were carefull to come to the beginning of it. And it is also as fully defended by Mr. Hildersham in his 26. Lecture upon cap. 24. of St. John) (a man of as much learning and piety as any before mentioned) to be ac­cording to Gods institution, Ordinance and Commande­ment; which in another Treatise I have more largely declared (with the testimonies of divers others.) And in his 27. and 29. Lect. exhorts unto kneeling at it, and being bareheaded even at the reading of the Psalms and Chapters, as of the rest of Divine Service, defends the custome of our Church therein, as well becomming eve­ry one of Gods people to conform themselves unto it.

In the view of the Registry of Subscriptions of later years, I find that till the year 1641. all subscribed as abovesaid, and continued it, to the Articles of Religion, though with several expressions and provisoes,

In an. 1643. thus, Tertio Articulo praescripto, &c. or thus, Articulis Religionis praescriptis juxta formam statuti in eodem Casu editi, & provisi, i. e. To the Articles of Religion before written, according to the form of a Statute (or Ordinance) in that case provided and published.

[Page 151] In 1644. the form was thus, Articulis Religionis Ecclesiae Anglicanae juxta formam Statuti in ea parte editi, &c. quatenus non regugnant foederi Nationali, &c. i. e. To the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, &c. as far as they are not repugnant to the National Covenant, &c. And about 1646. thus: Sal­vo foedere Nationali,

Then about Octob. 1648. that clause was left out (there being it seems in the Covenant somewhat contra­dicting that horrid Act intended unto the late King of blessed Memory) and the form was then only Artioulis Religionis Ecclesiae Anglicanae, and so continued till this late happy change of Government, when the subscrip­tions returned to the first form.

A POSTSCRIPT.

One thing more in relation to the Lord Primate Ush­er, There hath been a Pamphlet of late revived which had been printed before in his name, intituled The Bi­shop of Armaghs Direction to the Parliament concerning the Liturgy and Episcopal Government, &c. against which, as himself had declared in his life time, so have I since his death, to be a false fictitious Paper; yet not­withstanding it is reprinted, and sold up and down as his, and accordingly produced at this day, by many upon all occasions to his great injury.

For the further clearing of which let the Reader take notice that in Anno, 1640. when it came first out, the Primate petitioned the House of Commons for the sup­pressing of it; upon which this Order was conceived as followeth.

An ORDER of the Commons-House of Parliament, for the suppessing of * another Pamphlet falsely fa­thered There was one called Vox Hy berntae, pub­lished in his name, for the suppressing of which he had an Order from the House of Pe [...]rs. upon the said Arch-bishop of Armagh, Die Martis 9. Feb. 1640.

WHereas complaint hath been made unto us by James Lord Archbishop of Armagh, and Pri­of all Ireland, that a certain Pamphlet hath been lately most injuriously fathered upon him, and spread under the false title of the Bishop of Armaghs Direction to the House of Parliament concerning the Liturgy and Epis­copall Government. It is this day Ordered in the Com­mons House of Parliament, that the Master and Compa­ny of Stationers, and all others whom it may concern, shall take such course for the suppressing of the said Book, that they shall not suffer it to be put in Print; or if it be alrea­dy Printed, not permit the same to be divulged; and if any man shall presume to print or publish the Book above mentioned, that he or they shall be then lyable to the Cen­sure of the said House.

H. ELSYNG Cler. Dom. Com.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.