Episcopacy (as established by law in England) not prejudicial to regal power a treatise written in the time of the Long Parliament, by the special command of the late King / and now published by ... Robert Sanderson ...

THE II. SECTION

In answer to the former Objection.

I. WHereunto I make answer as followeth. To the for∣mer Objection, I say first, that it is evi∣dently of no force at all against those Divines, who for the maintenance of Episcopacy lay their claim under another notion, and not under that of Ius Divinum. Which expression, for that it is (by reason of the ambi∣guity thereof) subject to be mistaken, and that captious men are so willing to mistake it for their own advantage; might peradventure without loss of

Truth, or prejudice to the Cause, b•• with as much prudence laid aside a•• used, as in this, so in sundry other disputes and controversies of these Times.

II. If it shall be replyed, that then belike the Proctors for Episcopacy are not yet well agreed among them∣selves by what title they hold: and that is a shrewd prejudice against them, that they have no good title. For it is ever supposed he that hath a good title, knoweth what it is: and we are to presume the power to be u∣surped, when he that useth it cannot well tell how he came by it. I say therefore secondly, that the difference between the Advocates for Episcopa∣cy is rather in the different manner of expressing the same thing, then in their different judgement upon the substance of the matter. The one sort making choise of an expression

which he knoweth he is able to make good against all gainsayers, if they will but understand him aright: the other out of wariness or condescension forbearing an expression, (no necessity requiring the use of it,) which he seeth to have been subject to so much mis-construction.

III. For the truth is, all this ado about Ius divinum is in the last re∣sult no more then a meer verbal ni∣cety: that term being not alwayes ta∣ken in one and the same latitude of signification. Sometimes it importeth a divine precept (which is indeed the primary and most proper significati∣on:) when it appeareth by some clear express and peremptory command of God in his word, to be the will of God that the thing so commanded should be perpetually and universally ob∣served. Of which sort, setting aside the Articles of the Creed, and the Mo∣ral

duties of the Law (which are not much pertinent to the present en∣quiry) there are, as I take it, very few things that can be properly said to be of divine positive right under the New Testament. The Preaching of the Gospel, and administration of the Sacraments are two: which when I have named, I think I have named all.

IV. But there is a secondary and more extended signification of that term, which is also of frequent use among Divines. In which sense such things, as having no express command in the word, are yet found to have authority and warrant from the insti∣tution, example, or approbation either of Christ himself, or his Apostles; and have (in regard of the importance and usefulness of the things them∣selves) been held, by the consentient judgement of all the Churches of

Christ in the primitive and succeeding ages, needful to be continued: such things I say are (though not so pro∣perly as the former, yet) usually and interpretativè said to be of Divine Right. Of which sort I take the ob∣servation of the Lords day, the or∣dering of the Keys, the distinction of Presbyters and Deacons, and some o∣ther things (not all perhaps of e∣qual consequence) to be. Unto Ius divinum in that former acception is required a Divine Precept: in this later, it sufficeth thereunto that a thing be of Apostolical institution or practice. Which ambiguity is the more to be heeded, for that the observati∣on thereof is of great use for the a∣voyding of sundry mistakes that through the ignorance or neglect thereof daily happen to the enga∣ging of men in endless disputes, and entangling their consciences in un∣necessary scruples.

V. Now, that the Government of the Churches of Christ by Bishops is of divine right in that first and stricter sence, is an Opinion at least of great probability, and such as may more easily and upon better grounds be defended then confuted: especially if in expounding those Texts that are alleaged for it we give such deference to the authority of the Ancient Fathers and their expo∣sitions thereof, as wise and sober men have alwayes thought it fit we should do. Yet because it is both inexpedient to maintain a dispute where it needs not, and needless to contend for more, where less will serve the turne: I finde that our Divines that have travailed most in this Argument, where they purposely treat of it, do rather chuse to stand to the tenure of Episcopacy ex A∣postolicâ designatione, then to hold a

contest upon the title of jus divi∣num, no necessity requiring the same to be done. They there∣fore that so speak of this Govern∣ment as established by Divine right, are not all of them neces∣sarily so to be understood, as if they meant it in that first and stricter sense. Sufficient it is for the justification of the Church of England in the constitution and government thereof, that it is (as certainly it is) of Divine right in the latter and larger signification: that is to say, of Apostolical in∣stitution and approbation; exer∣cised by the Apostles themselves, and by other persons in their times, appointed and enabled thereunto by them, according to the will of our Lord Iesus Christ, and by ver∣tue of the Commission they had re∣ceived from him.

VI. Which besides that it is clear from evident Texts of Scri∣pture, and from the testimony of as ancient and authentique Records as the world hath any to shew for the attesting of any other part of Ecclesiastical story; it is also in truth a part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England: evidently deduced out of sun∣dry passages in the booke of Con∣secration, (which book is Ap∣proved in the Articles of our Religion Art. 36. Confirmed by Act of Parliament, and Subscribed unto by all persons that have heretofore taken Orders in the Church, or Degrees in the Uni∣versity;) and hath been con∣stantly and uniformly Maintain∣ed by our best Writers, and by all the sober, orderly and Ortho∣doxe

sons of this Church. The point hath been so abundantly pro∣ved by sundry Learned men, and cleared from the exceptions of Novellists; that more need not be said for the satisfaction of any intelligent man that will but first take the pains to read the books, and then suffer himself to be ma∣ster of his own reason.

VII. Only I could wish, that they who plead so eagerly for the jus divinum of the Lords day, & yet reject (not without some scorn) the jus divinum of Episcopacy, would ask their own hearts (deal∣ing impartially therein) whether it be any apparent difference in the nature of the things themselves, or in the strength of those reasons that have been brought for either, that leadeth them to have such

different judgments thereof; or rather some prejudicate conceit of their own; which having former∣ly fancied to themselves even as they stood affected to parties, the same affections still abiding, they cannot easily lay aside. Which partiality (for I am loath to call it perversness) of spirit, is by so much the more inexcusable in this particular; by how much Episcopal government seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture-Texts of greater pregnancy and clear∣ness, and attested by a fuller con∣sent of Antiquity to have been Uni∣formly and Universally observed throughout the whole Christian world, then the Lords day hath hitherto been shewen to be.

VIII. But should it be granted that all the defenders of Episcopacy

did indeed hold it to be jure divi∣no in the strictest and most proper sence; yet could not the Objectors thence reasonably conclude, that it should be eo nomine inconsistent with the Regal power, or so much as derogatory in the least degree to that Supream power Ecclesiasti∣cal, which by the Laws of our Land is established, and by the doc∣trine of our Church acknowledged to be inherent in the Crown. As themselves may easily see, if they will but consider.

IX. First, that Regal and Epi∣scopal power are two powers of quite different kinds: and such as considered purely in those things that are proper and essential to ei∣ther, have no mutual relation un∣to, or dependence upon, the one the other; neither hath either of

them any thing to do with the o∣ther. The one of them being purely spiritual and internal, the other external and temporal: al∣beit in regard of the Persons that are to exercise them, or some ac∣cidental circumstances appertaining to the exercise thereof, it may hap∣pen the one to be somewayes help∣ful or prejudicial to the other; yet is there no necessity at all that the very powers themselves in respect of their own natures should be (at that distance) either of them so destructive of other, but that they might consist well enough together. Yea although either of them or both should claime (as indeed they both may do) to be of divine right independently upon the other. Let any man come up to the point, and shew

if he can, how and wherein the Episcopal power is any thing at all diminished by affirming the Regal to be of divine right; or how and wherein the Regal power is at all Prejudiced, by affirming the Episcopal to be of divine right. The opposition between those two Terms, To be from Heaven and To be of Men, which was obje∣cted, cometh not home enough: unless we should affirm them both of one and the same power in the same respect. Which since we do not; that opposition hindereth not, but that the same power may be said to be of both in divers re∣spects, viz. to be from Heaven, or of God, in respect of the substance of the thing in the general; and yet to be of Men in respect of the determination of sundry particula∣rities

requisite unto the lawful and laudable exercise thereof.

X. Secondly, that the derivati∣on of any power from God doth not necessarily infer the non-subje∣ction of the persons in whom that power resideth to all other men. For doubtless the power that Fa∣thers have over their children, husbands over their wives, masters over their servants, is from Heaven, of God and not of Men. Yet are Parents, Husbands, Masters in the exercises of their several respective powers subject to the power, juris∣diction and Laws of their lawful Soveraigns. And I suppose it would be a very hard matter for any man to find out a clear and satisfactory reason of difference between the Ecclesiastical power and the Oeconomical; why the one,

because it claimeth to be of Di∣vine Right should be therefore thought to be injurious to Regal power, and the other (though claim∣ing in the same manner) not to be injurious.

XI. Thirdly, the Ministerial po∣wer, in that which is common to Bishops with their fellow-Presby∣ters, viz. the Preaching of the VVord and administration of the Sacra∣ments, &c. is confessed to be from Heaven and of God; and yet no prejudice at all conceived to be done thereby to the Regal Power: because the Ministers who exercise that power are the Kings subjects, and are also in the executing of those very acts that are proper to their Ministerial functions to be li∣mited and ordered by the Kings Ecclesiastical Lawes. A man might

therefore justly wonder, (but that it is no new thing to find in the bag of such Merchants, as we have now to deal with, pondus & pon∣dus,) how it should come to pass that the Episcopal Power, in that which is peculiar to Bishops above other their brethren in the Mini∣stery, viz. the Ordaining of Priests and Deacons and the managing of the Keyes, cannot be said to be of God, but it must be forthwith condemned to be highly deroga∣tory to the Regal Power: not∣withstanding the Bishops acknow∣ledge themselves as freely as any others whosoever, to be the Kings subjects, and submit themselves, with as much willingness (I dare say, and some Presbyterians know I speak but the truth) as the meanest of their fellow-Mini∣sters do, to be limited in exerci∣sing

the proper Acts of their Episcopal Functions by such Lawes as have been by Regal Power established in this Realm. The King doth no more chal∣lenge to himselfe as belong∣ing to him by vertue of his Su∣premacy Ecclesiastical, the power of Ordaining Ministers, Excom∣municating scandalous offenders, or doing any other act of Episco∣pal Office in his own person; then he doth the power of Preaching, administring the Sacraments, or doing any other act of Ministerial office in his own person: but leav∣eth the performance of all such acts of either sort unto such per∣sons, as the said several respective powers do of divine right belong unto; viz. of the one sort to the Bishops, and of the other to all Preists. Yet doth the King by

virtue of that Supremacy, chal∣lenge a power as belonging unto him in the right of his Crown, to make Laws as well concerning Preaching, administring the Sacra∣ments, and other acts belonging to the function of a Priest, as con∣cerning Ordination of Ministers, proceedings in matters of Eccle∣siastical cognisance in the Spiritu∣al Courts, and other acts belong∣ing to the function of a Bishop. To which Lawes, as well the Priests as the Bishops, are subject, and ought to submit to be limited and regulated thereby in the exercise of those their several respective Po∣wers; their claim to a Ius divi∣num, and that their said several powers are of God, notwithstand∣ing. I demand then: As to the Regal Power, is not the case of the

Bishops and of the Ministers every way alike? Do they not both pre∣tend their Powers to be of God? And are they not yet for all that both bound in the exercise of those powers to obey the King and his Laws? Is there not clearly the same reason of both? How then com∣eth it to pass, that these are pro∣nounced innocent, and those guil∣ty? Can any think God will wink at such foul partiality? or account them pure with the bag of deceitful weights?

XII. Fourthly, that there can be no fear of any danger to a∣rise to the prejudice of the Re∣gal power from the opinion that Bishops are jure divino, unless that opinion should be stretched to one of these two constructions: viz. as if it were intended ei∣ther 1. that all the Power which

Bishops have legally exercised in Christian Kingdomes did belong to them as of divine right; or 2. that Bishops living under Christian Kings, might at least exercise so much of their power as is of divine right after their own pleasure, without, or even against the Kings leave, or without respect to the Laws and Customes of the Realm. Neither of which is any part of our meaning. All power, to the exercise whereof our Bishops have pretended, cometh under one of the two heads: of Order, or of Iurisdiction. The Power of Order consisteth partly in preaching the word and other offices of pub∣lique VVorship; common to them with their fellow-Ministers; part∣ly in Ordaining Preists and Deacons admitting them to their Particular

Cures, and other things of like nature, peculiar to them alone. The power of Iurisdiction is either Internal in retaining and remitting sins in foro conscientiae, common to them also (for the sub∣stance of the authority, though with some difference of degree,) with other Ministers: or External for the outward government of the Church in some parts thereof peculiar to them alone. For that external power is either Directive in prescribing rules and orders to those under their jurisdictions, and making Canons and Constituti∣ons to be observed by the Church; wherein the inferior Clergy by their Representatives in Convocation have their votes as well as the Bishops; and both dependently upon the King (for they cannot

either meet without his VVrit, or treat without his Commission, or establish without his Royal Assent:) or Iudiciary and Coercive, in giv∣ing sentence in foro exteriori in matters of Ecclesiastical cogni∣sance, Excommunicating, Fining, Imprisoning offenders, and the like. Of these powers some branches, not onely in the exercise thereof, but even in the very substance of the Power it selfe, (as namely that of external jurisdiction coercive,) are by the Laws declared, and by the Clergy acknowledged to be wholly and entirely derived from the King, as the sole fountain of all authority of external Iuris∣diction whether Spiritual or Tem∣poral within the Realm; and consequently not of divine right. Other-some, although the sub∣stance

of the power it self be im∣mediately from God and not from the King, as those of Preaching, Ordaining, Absolving &c. Yet are they so subject to be inhibited, limited, or otherwise regulated in the outward exercise of that power by the Laws and Customes of the Land, as that the whole execution thereof still depend∣eth upon the Regal Authority. And how can the gross of that Power be prejudicial to the King or his Supremacy, whereof all the parts are confessed either to be derived from him, or not to be executed without him?

XIII. Fifthly, that if Episcopa∣cy must be therefore concluded to be repugnant to Monarchy, because it claimeth to be of di∣vine Right: then must Monarchs

either suffer within their domi∣nions no form of Church-govern∣ment at all (and then will Church, and with it Religion, soon fall to the ground;) or else they must devise some new model of Govern∣ment, such as never was yet used or challenged in any part of the Christian world; since no form of Government ever yet used, or challenged, but hath claimed to a Ius divinum as well as Episcopacy: yea, I may say truly, every one of them with far more noise, though with far less reason then Episcopa∣cy hath done. And therefore of what party soever the objectors are, (Papists, Presbyterians, or Independents) they shew them∣selves extreamly Partial against the honest Regular Protestant; in condemning him as an enemy to

Regal Power for holding that in his way, which (if it be justly chargeable with such a crime,) themselves holding the very same in their several wayes, are every whit as deeply guilty of, as he.

XIIII. Lastly, that this their partiality is by so much the more inexcusable, by how much the true English Protestant for his government not onely hath a better title to a Ius divinum then any of the other three have for theirs; but also pleadeth the same with more caution and modesty, then any of them do. Which of the four Pretenders hath the best title, is no part of the business we are now about. The tryal of that will rest upon the strength of the arguments that are brought to maintain it: wherein the Presby∣terians

perhaps will not find any very great advantage beyond the rest of those that contest for it. But let the right be where it will be; we will for the present sup∣pose them all to have equal title (and thus far indeed they are equal, that every one taketh his own to be best:) and it shall suffice to shew, that the Ius Divinum is plea∣ded by the Episcopal party with more calmeness and moderation, and with less derogation from Re∣gal Dignity, then by any other of the three.

XV. For First, the rest when they spake of Ius Divinum in re∣ference to their several waves of Church-Government, take it in the highest elevation, in the first and strictest sense. The Papist groun∣deth the Popes Oecumenical Supre∣macy

upon Christs command, to Peter to execute it, and to all the Flock of Christ (Princes also as well as others) to submit to him as their universal Pastor The Presbyterian cryeth up his Model of Government and Discipline, (though minted in the last by-gon Century,) as the very scepter of Christs Kingdome, whereunto all Kings are bound to submit theirs; making it as unalterable and ine∣vitably necessary to the being of a Church, as the Word and Sacra∣ments are. The Independent Sepa∣ratist also, upon that grand prin∣ciple of Puritanisme common to him with the Presbyterian (the ve∣ry root of almost all the Sects in the world) viz That nothing is to be ordered in Church-matters, other, or otherwise then Christ hath ap∣pointed

in his Word; holdeth that any company of people ga∣thered together by mutual con∣sent in a Church-way is Iure Di∣vino free and absolute within it self, to govern it self by such rules as it shall judge agreeable to Gods Word, without dependence up∣on any but Christ Iesus alone, or subjection to any Prince, Prelate, or other humane person or Consisto∣ry whatsoever. All these you see do not onely claim to a Ius Di∣vinum, and that of a very high na∣ture; but in setting down their o∣pinions weave in some expresses tending to the diminution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Princes. Whereas the Episcopal Party, nei∣ther meddle with the power of Prin∣ces, nor are ordinarily very for∣ward to press the Ius Divinum,

but rather purposely decline the mentioning of it, as a term sub∣ject to misconstruction (as hath been said) or else so interpret it, as not of necessity to import any more then an Apostolical instituti∣on. Yet the Apostles authority in that institution, being warranted by the example, and (as they doubt not) the direction of their Master Iesus Christ, they worthily esteem to be so reverend and obligatory; as that they would not for a world have any hand in, or willingly and deliberately contribute the least assistance towards (much less bind themselves by solemn League and Covenant to endeavour) the extirpa∣tion of that Government; but ra∣ther on the contrary hold them∣selves in their consciences obli∣ged, to the uttermost of their po∣wers

to endeavour the preservation and continuance thereof in these Churches, and do heartily wish the restitution and establishment of the same, wheresoever it is not, or wheresoever it hath been here∣tofore (under any whatsoever pretence) unhappily laid aside, or abolished.

XVI. Secondly, the rest (not by remote inferences, but) by immedi∣ate and natural deduction out of their own acknowledged princi∣ples, do some way or other deny the Kings Supremacy in matters Ec∣clesiastical: either claiming a pow∣er of Iurisdiction over him, or pleading a priviledge of Exempti∣on from under him. The Papists do it both wayes; in their several doctrines of the Popes Supremacy, and of the Exemption of the Clergy.

The Puritances of both sorts, who think they have sufficiently confu∣ted every thing they have a mind to mislike, if they have once pro∣nounced it Popish and Antichristi∣an, do yet herein (as in very ma∣ny other things, and some of them of the most dangerous conse∣quence) symbolize with the Pa∣pists, and after a sort divide that branch of Antichristianisme whol∣ly between them: The Presbyteri∣ans claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute spiritual Iu∣risdiction over Princes, (with po∣wer even to excommunicate them, if they shall see cause for it,) as the Papists challenge to belong to the Pope: And the Independents exempting their Congregations from all spiritual subjection to them, in as ample manner, as the

Papists do their Clergy. Whereas the English Protestant Bishops and Regular Clergy, as becometh good Christians and good Subjects, do neither pretend to any Iurisdicti∣on over the Kings of England, nor withdraw their subjection from them: but acknowledge them to have Soveraign Power over them, as well as over their other sub∣jects; and that in all matters Ec∣clesiastical as well as Temporal. By all which it is clear, that the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy, as it is maintained by those they call (stylo novo) the Prelatical party in England, is not an opinion of so dangerous a nature, nor so de∣rogatory to the Regal Powers, as the Adversaries thereof would make the world believe it is: but that rather, of all the forms of

Church-government that ever yet were endeavoured to be brought into the Churches of Christ, it is the most innocent in that behalf.