I. WE come now to the last thing whereof there is controversy moved, namely the power of supreme jurisdiction, which for distinction’s sake we call the power of ecclesiastical dominion.
It was not thought fit in the Jews’ commonwealth, that the exercise of supremacy ecclesiastical should be denied unto him, to whom the exercise of chiefty civil did appertain; and therefore their kings were invested with 1both. This power they gave unto Simon2, when they consented that he should be “their prince,” not only “to set men over the3 works, and 4over the country, and 4over the weapons, 4and over the fortresses,” but also “to provide for the holy things;” “and that he should be obeyed of every man, and that 5all the writings in the country should be made in his name, and that it should not be lawful for any of the people or priests to withstand his words, or to call any congregation in the country without him6.”
And if it be haply7 surmised, that thus much was given unto8 Simon, as being both prince and high priest; which otherwise, being only9 their civil governor, he could not lawfully have enjoyed: we must note, that all this is no more than the ancient kings of that people had, being kings and not priests. By this power David, Asa, Jehosaphat, Ezekias10, Josias, and the rest, made those laws and orders which the11 Sacred History speaketh of, concerning matter12 of mere religion, the affairs13 of the temple, and service of God. Finally, had it not been by the virtue of this power, how should it possibly have come to pass, that the piety or impiety of the king14 did always accordingly change the public face of religion, which thing15 the priests16 by themselves never did, neither17 could at any time18 hinder from being done? Had the priests alone been possessed of19 all power in spiritual affairs, how should any law20 concerning matter of religion have been made but only by them? In them it had been, and not in the king, to change the face of religion at any time. The altering of religion, the making of ecclesiastical laws, with other the like actions belonging unto the power of dominion, are still termed the deeds of the king; to shew that in him was placed 21supremacy of power even22 in this kind over all, and that unto their high23 priests the same was never committed, saving only at such times as their24 priests were also kings or25 princes over them.
According to the pattern of which example, the like power in causes ecclesiastical is by the laws of this realm annexed unto the crown. And there are which imagine26, that27 kings, being mere lay persons, do by this means exceed the lawful bounds of their calling28. Which thing to the end that they may persuade, they first make a necessary separation perpetual and personal between the Church and the29 commonwealth. Secondly30, they so tie all kind of power ecclesiastical unto the Church, as if it were in every degree their only right which31 are by proper spiritual function32 termed Church-governors, and might not unto Christian princes in33 any wise appertain.
To lurk under shifting ambiguities and equivocations of words in matters34 of principal weight is childish. A church and a commonwealth we grant are things in nature the35 one distinguished from the other. A commonwealth is one way, and a church another way, defined. In their opinion36 the church and the37 commonwealth are corporations, not distinguished only in nature and definition, but in subsistence38 perpetually severed; so that they which39 are of the one can neither appoint nor execute, in whole nor in part, the duties which belong unto them which are of the other, without open breach of the law of God, which hath divided them, and doth require that being so40 divided they should distinctly and41 severally work, as depending both upon God, and not hanging one upon the other’s approbation for that which either hath to do.
We say that the care of religion being common unto all societies politic, such societies as do embrace the true religion have the name of the Church given unto every42 of them for distinction from the rest; so that every body politic hath some religion, but the Church that religion which is only true. Truth of religion is that proper difference whereby a church is distinguished from other politic societies of men. We here mean true religion in gross, and not according to every particular: for they which in some particular points of religion do swerve43 from the truth, may nevertheless most44 truly, if we compare them to men of an heathenish religion, be said to hold and profess that religion which is true. For which cause, there being of old so many politic societies established throughout45 the world, only the commonwealth of Israel, which had the truth of religion, was in that respect the Church of God: and the Church of Jesus Christ is every such politic society of men, as doth in religion hold that truth which is proper to Christianity. As a politic society it doth maintain religion; as a church, that religion which God hath revealed by Jesus Christ.
With us therefore the name of a church importeth only a society of men, first united into some public form of regiment, and secondly distinguished from other societies by the exercise of Christian46 religion. With them on the other side the name of the Church in this present question importeth not only a multitude of men so united and so distinguished, but also further the same divided necessarily and perpetually from the body of the commonwealth: so that even in such a politic society as consisteth of none but Christians, yet the Church of Christ and the commonwealth are two corporations, independently each subsisting by itself47.
We hold, that seeing there is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth; nor any man a48 member of the commonwealth, which is not also of the Church of England; therefore as in a figure triangular49 the base doth differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the selfsame line is both a base and also a side; a side simply, a base if it chance to be the bottom and underlie the rest: so, albeit properties and actions of one kind50 do cause the name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of a Church51 to be given unto52 a multitude, yet one and the selfsame multitude may in such sort be both, 53and is so with us, that no person appertaining to the one can be denied to be also54 of the other. Contrariwise, unless they against us should hold, that the Church and the commonwealth are two, both distinct and separate societies, of which two, the55 one comprehendeth always persons not belonging to the other; that which they do56 they could not conclude out of the difference between the Church and the commonwealth; namely, that57 bishops may not meddle with the affairs of the commonwealth, because they are governors of another corporation, which is the Church; nor kings with making laws for the Church, because they have government not of this corporation, but of another divided from it, the commonwealth; and the walls of separation between these two must for ever be upheld. They hold the necessity of personal separation, which clean excludeth the power of one man’s dealing in58 both; we of natural, which doth not hinder59 but that one and the same person may in both bear a60 principal sway61.
The causes of common received error62 in this point seem to have been especially two: one, that they who embrace true religion living in such commonwealths as are opposite thereunto, and in other public affairs retaining civil communion with such, 63are constrained, for the exercise of their religion, to have a several communion with those who are of the same religion with them. This was the state of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and in 64Babylon, the state of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this case, because the proper affairs and actions of the Church, as it is the Church, have65 no dependence66 upon the laws, or upon the governors67 of the civil state, an opinion hath thereby grown, that even so it should be always68. This was it which deceived Allen in the writing of his Apology: “The Apostles,” saith he69, “did govern the church in Rome when Nero bare70 rule, even as at this day in all the Turk’s71 dominions, the Church hath a spiritual regiment without dependence, and so ought she to have, live she72 amongst heathens, or with Christians.”
Another occasion of which misconceit is, that things appertaining unto religion are both distinguished from other affairs, and have always had in the Church special73 persons chosen to be exercised about them. By which distinction of spiritual affairs and persons therein employed from temporal, the error of personal separation always necessary between the Church and the74 commonwealth hath strengthened itself. For of every politic society that being true which Aristotle hath75, 76namely, “that the scope thereof is not simply to live, nor the duty so much to provide for life77, as for means of living well:” and that even as the soul is the worthier part of man, so human societies are much more to care for that which tendeth properly unto the soul’s estate, than for such temporal things as this life doth stand in78 need of: other proof there needs79 none to shew that as by all men the kingdom of God is first to be sought80 for81, so in all commonwealths things spiritual ought above temporal to be provided82 for. And of things spiritual, the chiefest is religion83. For this cause, persons and things employed peculiarly about the affairs of religion, are by an excellency termed spiritual. The heathen84 themselves had their spiritual laws, causes, and offices85, 86always severed from their temporal; neither did this make two independent estates among87 them. God by revealing true religion doth make them that receive it his Church. Unto the Jews he so revealed the truth of religion, that he gave them in special consideration88 laws, not only for the administration of things spiritual, but also temporal. The Lord himself appointing both the one and the other in that commonwealth, did not thereby distract it into several independent communities, but institute several functions of one and the same89 community. Some reason90 therefore must91 be alleged92 why it should be otherwise in the Church of Christ.
I shall not need to spend any great store of words in answering that which is brought out of93 holy Scripture to shew that secular and ecclesiastical affairs and offices are distinguished; neither that which hath been borrowed from antiquity, using by phrase of speech to oppose the commonwealth94 to the Church of Christ; nor yet the95 reasons which are wont to be brought forth as witnesses, that the Church and commonwealth are96 always distinct. For whether a church and a97 commonwealth do differ, is not the question we strive for; but our controversy is concerning the kind of distinction, whereby they are severed the one from the other; whether as under heathen kings the Church did deal with her own affairs within herself, without depending at all upon any in civil authority, and the commonwealth in hers, altogether without the privity of the Church; so it ought to continue still, even in such commonwealths as have now publicly embraced the truth of Christian religion; whether they ought to be98 evermore two societies, in such sort, several and distinct.
I ask therefore, what society that was, that was99 in Rome, whereunto the Apostle did give the name of the Church of Rome in his time? If they answer, as needs they must, that the Church of Rome in those days was that whole society of men which in Rome professed the name of Christ, and not that religion which the laws of the commonwealth did then authorize; we say as much, and therefore grant that the commonwealth of Rome was one society, and the Church of Rome another, in such sort as100 there was between them no mutual dependency101. But when whole Rome became Christian, when they all embraced the gospel, and made laws in the102 defence thereof, if it be held that the church and the103 commonwealth of Rome did then remain as before; there is no way how this could be possible, save only one, and that is, they must restrain the name of the104 Church in a Christian commonwealth to the clergy, excluding all the residue105 of believers, both prince and people. For if all that believe be contained106 in the name of the Church, how should the Church remain by personal subsistence107 divided from the commonwealth, when the whole commonwealth doth believe?
The Church and the commonwealth therefore108 are in this case personally one society, which society being termed a commonwealth as it liveth under whatsoever form of secular law and regiment, a church as it hath109 the spiritual law of Jesus Christ110; forasmuch111 as these two laws contain so many and so112 different offices, there must of necessity be appointed in it some to one charge, and some to another, yet without dividing the whole, and making it two several impaled societies.
The difference therefore either of affairs or offices ecclesiastical from secular113, is no argument that the Church and the commonwealth are always separate and independent the one on114 the other: which thing even Allen himself considering somewhat better, doth in this point a little115 correct his former judgment before mentioned116, and confesseth in his Defence of English Catholics, that “the power political hath her princes, laws, tribunals; the spiritual, her prelates, canons, councils, judgments; and those (when the117 princes are pagans) wholly separate, but in Christian commonwealths joined though not confounded118.” Howbeit afterwards his former sting appeareth again; for in a Christian119 commonwealth he holdeth, that the Church ought not to depend at all upon the authority of any civil person whatsoever, as in England he saith it doth.
It will be objected, that “the Fathers do oftentimes mention the commonwealth and the Church of God by way of opposition120. Can the same thing be opposite121 unto itself? If one and the same society be both122, what sense can there be in that speech which saith123, that ‘they suffer and flourish together124?’ What sense in that which maketh one thing125 adjudged to the Church, another126 to the commonwealth127? Finally, in that which putteth a difference between the causes of the province and of128 the Church? Doth129 it not hereby appear that the Church and the commonwealth are things evermore personally separate130?”
No, it doth not hereby appear that there is131 perpetually any such separation; we may132 speak of them as two, we may sever the rights and causes of the one well enough from the other, in regard of that difference which we grant there133 is between them, albeit we make no personal difference. For the truth is, that the Church and the commonwealth are names which import things really different; but those things are accidents134, and such accidents as may and should always135 dwell lovingly136 together in one subject. Wherefore the real difference between the accidents signified by those names, doth not prove different subjects for them always to reside in. For albeit the subjects wherein they are137 resident be sometime138 different, as when the people of God have their being139 among infidels; yet the nature of them is not such but that their subject may be one, and therefore it is but a changeable accident, in those accidents140, when the subjects they are in be diverse.
There can be no error in our conceit concerning this point, if we remember still what accident that141 is, for which a society hath the name of a commonwealth, and what accident that which doth cause it to be termed a Church. A commonwealth we name it simply in regard of some regiment or policy under which men live; a church for the truth of that religion which they profess. Now names betokening accidents unabstracted, do betoken142 not only those143 accidents, but also together with them the144 subjects whereunto they cleave. As when we name a schoolmaster and a physician, these145 names do not only betoken two accidents, teaching and curing, but also some person or persons in whom these accidents are. For there is no impediment but both may be one man146, as well as they are for the most part diverse147. The commonwealth and the Church therefore being such names, they do not only betoken those accidents of civil government and Christian religion which we have mentioned, but also together with them such multitudes as are the subjects of those148 accidents. Again, their nature being such that149 they may well enough dwell together in one subject, it followeth that their names, though always implying that difference of accidents which150 hath been set down, yet do not always imply different subjects also. When we oppose the Church151 therefore and the commonwealth in a152 Christian society, we mean by the commonwealth that society with relation unto all the public affairs thereof, only the matter of true religion excepted; by the Church, the same society with only reference unto the matter of true religion, without any other153 affairs besides: when that society which is both a church and a commonwealth doth flourish in those things which belong unto it as a commonwealth, we then say, “the commonwealth doth flourish;” when154 in those things which concern it as a church, “the Church doth flourish;” when in both, then155 “the Church and commonwealth flourish together.”
The Prophet Esay, to note corruptions in the commonwealth, complaineth, “156That where judgment and justice157 had lodged now were murderers; princes were become companions of thieves; every one loved gifts and rewards; but the fatherless was not judged, neither did the widow’s cause come before them.” To shew abuses in the Church, Malachy doth make his complaint158: “Ye offer unclean bread upon mine altar: if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is not amiss159 as ye160 think; if the lame and the sick, nothing is amiss.” The treasures161 which David162 did bestow163 upon the temple do164 argue the love which he bare to the Church: the pains that165 Nehemias166 167took for building the walls of the city are tokens of his care for the commonwealth. Causes of the commonwealth, or province, are still as Gallio was content to be judge of168: “If it were a matter of wrong, or an evil deed, O ye Jews, I would according to reason maintain you.” Causes of the Church are such as Gallio there169 rejecteth170: “If it be a question of your law, look you unto it, I will be no judge of those things171.” In respect of these differences172 therefore the Church and the commonwealth may in speech be compared or opposed aptly enough the one to the other; yet this is no argument that they are two independent societies.
Some other reasons there are, which seem a little more nearly to make for the purpose, as long as they are but heard and not sifted. For what though a man being severed by excommunication from the Church, be not thereby deprived of freedom in the city; nor173 being there discommoned, is thereby174 forthwith excommunicated and excluded from175 the Church176? what though the Church be bound to receive them upon repentance, whom the commonwealth may refuse again to admit177 if it chance the same men to be shut out of both? That division178 of the church and commonwealth, which they contend for, will very hardly hereupon follow.
For we must note that members of a Christian commonwealth have a triple state; a natural, a civil, and a spiritual. No man’s natural estate is cut off otherwise than by that capital execution, after179 which he that is gone from180 the body of the commonwealth doth not, I think, remain still181 in the body of the182 visible Church.
And concerning a183 man’s civil estate184, the same is subject partly to inferior abatements of liberty, and partly unto diminution in the very185 highest degree, such as banishment is; which186, sith it casteth out quite and clean from the body of the commonwealth, must187 needs also consequently cast the banished party even out of the very Church he was of before, because that Church and the commonwealth he was of were both one and the same society: so that whatsoever doth separate utterly188 a man’s person from the one, it separateth also from the other189. As for such abatements of civil state as take away only some privilege, dignity, or other benefit which a man enjoyeth in the commonwealth, they reach only unto our dealing with public affairs, from which what should190 let but that men may be excluded and thereunto restored again, without diminishing or augmenting the number of persons in whom either church or commonwealth consisteth? He that by way of punishment loseth his voice in a public election of magistrates, ceaseth not thereby to be a citizen. A man disfranchised may notwithstanding enjoy as a subject the common benefit of protection under laws and magistrates. So that these inferior diminutions which touch men civilly, but neither do clean extinguish their estate as they belong to the commonwealth, nor impair a whit their condition as they are of the Church of God: these I say clearly do191 prove a difference of the affairs of192 the one from the other, but such a difference as maketh nothing for their surmise of distracted societies.
And concerning excommunication, it cutteth off indeed from the Church, and yet not from the commonwealth; howbeit so, that the party excommunicate is not thereby severed from one body which subsisteth in itself, and retained of193 another in like sort subsisting; but he that194 before had fellowship with that society whereof he was a member, as well touching things spiritual as civil, is now by force of excommunication, although not severed from the same195 body in civil affairs, nevertheless for the time cut off from it as touching communion in those things which belong to the said196 body, as it is the Church.
A man which hath197 both been excommunicated by the Church, and deprived of civil dignity in the commonwealth, is upon his repentance necessarily readunited198 into the one, but not of necessity into the other. What then? that which he is adunited199 unto is a communion in things divine, whereof saints200 are partakers; that from which he is withheld is the benefit of some human privilege or right which other citizens haply enjoy. But are not those201 Saints and Citizens one and the same people? are they not one and the same society? doth it hereby appear that the Church which receiveth202 an excommunicate man203, can have no dependency of204 any person which is of205 chief authority and power, in those things of206 the commonwealth whereunto the same207 party is not admitted?
Wherefore to end this point, I conclude: First, that under 208dominions of infidels, the Church of Christ, and their commonwealth, were two societies independent. Secondly, that in those commonwealths where the bishop of Rome beareth sway, one society is both the Church and the commonwealth; but the bishop of Rome doth divide the body into two diverse bodies, and doth not suffer the Church to depend upon the power of any civil prince or209 potentate. Thirdly, that within this realm of England the case is neither as in the one, nor as in the other of the former two: but from the state of pagans we differ, in that with us one society is both the Church and commonwealth, which with them it was not; as also from the state of those nations which subject210 themselves to the bishop of Rome, in that our Church hath dependency upon211 the chief in our commonwealth, which it hath not under him212. In a word, our estate is according to the pattern of God’s own ancient elect people, which people was not part of them the commonwealth, and part of them the Church of God, but the selfsame people whole and entire were both under one chief Governor, on whose supreme authority they did all213 depend.
II. Now the drift of all that hath been alleged to prove perpetual separation and independency between the Church and the commonwealth is, that this being held necessary, it might consequently be thought214, that in a Christian kingdom he whose power is greatest over the commonwealth may not lawfully have supremacy of power also over the Church, as it is a church215; that is to say, so far as to order216 and dispose217 of spiritual affairs, 218as the highest uncommanded commander in them. Whereupon it is grown a question, whether power219 ecclesiastical over the Church220, power221 of dominion in such degree222 as the laws223 of this land do grant unto the sovereign governor thereof, may by the said supreme Head and224 Governor lawfully be enjoyed and held? For resolution wherein, we are, first, to define what the power of dominion is: 225then to shew by what right: after what sort: in what measure: with what conveniency226: according unto whose example Christian kings may have it. And when these generalities227 are opened, to examine afterwards how lawful that is which we in regard of dominion do attribute unto our own: namely, the title of headship over the Church, so far as the bounds of this kingdom do reach: 228the prerogative of calling and dissolving greater229 assemblies, about spiritual affairs public: the right of assenting unto all those orders concerning religion, which must after be in force as laws230: the advancement of principal church-governors to their rooms of prelacy: judicial authority higher than others are capable of: and exemption from being punishable with such kind of censures as the platform of reformation doth teach that they ought to be subject unto.
Without order there is no living in public society, because the want thereof is the mother of confusion, whereupon division of necessity followeth, and out of division, inevitable231 destruction232. The Apostle233 therefore giving instruction to public societies, requireth that all things be orderly done. Order can have no place in things, unless234 it be settled amongst the persons that shall by office be conversant about them. And if things or235 persons be ordered, this doth imply that they are distinguished by degrees. For order is a gradual disposition.
The whole world consisting of parts so many, so different, is by this only thing upheld; he which framed them hath set them in order. Yea236, the very Deity itself both keepeth and requireth for ever this to be kept as a law, that wheresoever there is a coagmentation237 of many, the lowest be knit to the highest by that which being interjacent may cause each to cleave unto other238, and so all to continue one.
This order of things and persons in public societies is the work of polity239, and the proper instrument thereof in every degree is power; power being that ability which we have of ourselves, or receive from others, for performance of any action. If the action which we are240 to perform be conversant about matter241 of mere religion, the power of performing it is then spiritual; and if that power be such as hath not any other to overrule it, we term it dominion, or power supreme, so far as the bounds thereof do extend242.
When therefore Christian kings are said to have spiritual dominion or supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs and causes, the meaning is, that within their own precincts and territories they have 243authority and power to command even in matters of Christian religion, and that there is no higher nor greater that can in those causes244 over-command them, where they are placed to reign as kings. But withal we must likewise note that their power is termed supremacy, as being the highest, not simply without exception of any thing. For what man is there245 so brain-sick, as not to except in such speeches God himself, the King of all the kings of the earth?246 Besides, where the law doth give him dominion247, who doubteth but that the king who receiveth it must hold it of and under248 the law? according to that249 axiom, “Attribuat rex legi, quod lex attribuit ei, potestatem et dominium250:” and again, “Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege251.” Thirdly, whereas it is not252 altogether without reason, “that kings are judged to have by virtue of their dominion, although greater power than any, yet not than all the states253 of those societies conjoined, wherein such sovereign rule is given them;” there is not hereunto any thing contrary254 by us affirmed, no, not when we grant supreme authority unto kings, because supremacy is no255 otherwise intended or meant256 than to exclude partly foreign powers, and partly the power which belongeth in several unto others, contained as parts 257within that politic body over which those kings have supremacy. “Where the king hath power of dominion, or supreme power, there no foreign state or potentate, no state or potentate domestical, whether it consist258 of one or 259of many, can possibly have in the same affairs and causes authority higher than the king.”
Power of spiritual dominion therefore is in causes ecclesiastical that ruling authority, which neither any foreign state, nor yet any part of that politic body at home, wherein the same is established, can lawfully overrule260.
Unto which supreme power in kings two kinds of adversaries there are that261 have opposed themselves: one sort defending, “that supreme power in causes ecclesiastical throughout the world appertaineth of divine right to the bishop of Rome:” another sort, “that the said power belongeth in every national church unto the clergy thereof assembled.” We which defend as well against the one as against the other262, “that kings within their own precincts may have it,” must shew by what right it may263 come unto them.
First, unto me it seemeth almost out of doubt and controversy, that every independent multitude, before any certain form of regiment established, hath, under God’s264 supreme authority, full dominion over itself, even as a man not tied with the bond265 of subjection as yet unto any other, hath over himself the like power. God creating mankind did endue it naturally with 266full power to guide itself267, in what kind268 of societies269 soever it270 should choose to live. A man which is born lord of himself may be made another’s servant: and that power which naturally whole societies have, may be derived into271 many, few, or one, under whom the rest shall then live in subjection.
Some multitudes are brought into subjection by force, as they who being subdued are fain to submit their necks unto what yoke it pleaseth their conquerors to lay upon them; which conquerors by just and lawful wars do hold their power over such multitudes as a thing descending unto them, divine providence itself so disposing. For it is God who giveth victory in the day of war. And unto whom dominion in this sort is derived, the same they enjoy according unto that272 law of nations, which law authorizeth conquerors to reign as absolute lords over them whom they vanquish.
Sometimes273 it pleaseth God himself by special appointment to choose out and nominate such as to whom dominion shall be given, which thing he did often in the commonwealth of Israel. They who274 in this sort receive power have it275 immediately from God, by mere divine right; they by human, on whom the same is bestowed according unto men’s discretion, when they are left free276 by God to make choice of their own governor277. By which of these means soever it happen that kings or governors be advanced unto their states278, we must acknowledge both their lawful choice to be approved of God, and themselves to be279 God’s lieutenants280, and confess their power281 his282.
As for supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs, the word of God doth no where appoint that all kings should have it, neither that any should not have it; for which cause it seemeth to stand altogether by human right, that unto Christian kings there is such dominion given.
Again, on whom the same is bestowed even283 at men’s discretion, they likewise do hold it by divine right. If God in his own284 revealed word have285 appointed such power to be, although himself extraordinarily bestow it not, but leave the appointment of the286 persons unto men; yea, albeit God do neither appoint the thing287 nor assign the person; nevertheless when men have288 established both, who doth doubt but that sundry duties and offices289 depending thereupon are prescribed in290 the word of God, and consequently by that very right to be exacted?
For example’s sake, the power which the291 Roman emperors had over foreign provinces was not a thing which the law of God did ever institute, neither was Tiberius Cæsar by special commission from heaven therewith invested; and yet the292 payment of tribute unto Cæsar being293 made emperor is the plain law of Jesus Christ. Unto kings by human right, honour by very divine right, is due; man’s ordinances are many times presupposed294 as grounds in the statutes of God. And therefore of what kind soever the means be whereby governors are lawfully advanced unto their seats295, as we by the law296 of God stand bound meekly to acknowledge them for God’s lieutenants, and to confess their power his, so they by the same law297 are both authorized and required to use that power as far as it may be in any sort298 available to his honour. The law appointeth no man to be an husband, but if a man have299 betaken himself unto that condition, it giveth him then300 authority over his own wife. That the Christian world should be ordered by301 kingly regiment, the law of God doth not any where command; and yet the law of God doth give them right302, which once are exalted to that303 estate, to exact304 at the hands of their subjects general obediences in whatsoever affairs their power may serve to command. So305 God doth ratify the306 works of that sovereign authority which kings have received by men.
This is therefore the right whereby kings do hold their power; but yet in what sort the same doth rest and abide in them it somewhat further behoveth307 to search. Wherein, that we be not enforced to make over-large discourses about the different conditions of sovereign or supreme power, that which we speak of kings shall be with308 respect to309 the state and according to the nature of this kingdom, where the people are in no subjection, but such as willingly themselves have condescended unto, for their own most behoof and security. In kingdoms therefore of this quality the highest governor hath indeed universal dominion, but with dependence upon that whole entire body, over the several parts whereof he hath dominion; so that it standeth for an axiom in this case, The king is “major singulis, universis minor310.”
The king’s dependency we do not construe as some have done, who are of opinion that no man’s birth can make him a king, but every particular person advanced unto such authority hath at his entrance into his reign the same bestowed upon him, as an estate in condition, by the voluntary deed of the people, in whom it doth lie to put by any one, and to prefer some other before him, better liked of, or judged fitter for the place, and that the party so rejected hath herein311 no injury312, no not313 although this314 be done in a place where the crown doth go κατὰ315 γένος, by succession, and to a person which being capable316 hath apparently, if blood be respected, the nearest right. They plainly affirm317, that318 “in all well-appointed kingdoms, the custom evermore hath been, and is, that children succeed not their deceased319 parents till the people after a sort have created them anew, neither that they grow to their fathers as natural and proper heirs, but are then to be reckoned for kings, when at the hands of such as represent the people’s320 majesty they have by a sceptre and diadem321 received as it were the investiture of kingly power.” Their very words are322, “That where such power is settled into a family or kindred, the stock itself is thereby chosen, but not the twig that springeth of it. The next of the stock unto him which323 reigneth are not through nearness of blood made kings, but rather set forth to stand for the kingdom. Where regal dominion is hereditary, it is notwithstanding if ye324 look to the persons themselves325 which have it altogether elective.” To this purpose are alleged326 327heaps of Scriptures concerning the solemn coronation or inauguration of Saul, of David, of Solomon, of328 others, by the nobles, ancients, and people of the commonwealth of Israel; as if these solemnities were a kind of deed, whereby the right of dominion is given329. Which330 strange, untrue, and unnatural conceits, set abroad by seedsmen of rebellion, only to animate unquiet spirits, and to feed them with a possibility of aspiring unto thrones and sceptres331, if they can win the hearts of the people, what hereditary title soever any other before them may have, I say, these332 unjust and insolent positions I would not mention, were it not thereby to make the countenance of truth more orient: for unless we will openly proclaim defiance unto all law, equity, and reason, we must (there is no remedy) acknowledge, that in kingdoms hereditary birth giveth right unto sovereign dominion; and the death of the predecessor putteth the successor by blood in seisin. Those public solemnities before mentioned333 do but either334 serve for an open testification of the inheritor’s right, or belong to the form of inducting him into possession of that thing he hath right unto. And335 therefore in case it do336 happen that without right of blood a man in such wise be possessed, all those things337 are utterly void, they make him no indefeasible estate, the inheritor by blood may dispossess him as an usurper.
The case thus standing, albeit we judge it a thing most true, that kings, even inheritors, do hold their right to338 the power of dominion, with dependency upon the whole entire339 body politic over which they rule340 as kings; yet so it may not be understood, as if such dependency did grow, for that every supreme governor doth personally take from thence his power by way of gift, bestowed of their own free accord upon him at the time of his entrance into his341 said place of sovereign342 government. But the cause of dependency is in343 that first original conveyance, when power was derived by344 the whole into one; to pass from him unto345 them, whom out of him nature by lawful birth346 should produce, and no natural or legal inability make uncapable347. Neither can any man with reason think, but that the first institution of kings is348 a sufficient consideration wherefore their power should always depend on that from which it did then flow349. Original350 influence of power from the body into the king, is cause of the king’s351 dependency in power upon the body.
By dependency we mean subordination and subjection. A manifest token of which dependency may be this: as there is no more certain argument that lands are held under any as lord352, than if we see that such lands in defect of heirs do fall by escheat unto him353; in like manner it doth rightly follow354, that seeing dominion, when there is none to inherit it, returneth unto the body, therefore they which before were inheritors thereof did hold it with dependency upon the body. So that by comparing the body with the head, as touching power, it seemeth always to reside in both; fundamentally or355 radically in the one, in the other derivatively; in the356 one the habit, in the other the act of power.
May then a body politic357 at all times withdraw in whole or in part that358 influence of dominion which passeth from it, if inconvenience doth359 grow thereby? It must be presumed, that supreme governors will not in such case oppose themselves, and be stiff in detaining that, the use whereof is with public detriment: but surely without their consent I see not how the body should be able by any just means360 to help itself, saving when dominion doth escheat. Such things therefore must be thought upon beforehand, that power may be limited ere it be granted; which is the next thing we are to consider.
In power of dominion, all kings have not an equal latitude. Kings by conquest make their own charter: so that how large their power, either civil or spiritual, is, we cannot with any certainty define, further than only to set them in general 361the law of God and nature for bounds. Kings by God’s own special appointment have also that largeness of power, which he doth assign or permit with approbation. Touching kings which were first instituted by agreement and composition made with them over whom they reign, how far their power may lawfully362 extend, the articles of compact between them must363 shew: not the articles only364 of compact at the first beginning, which for the most part are either clean worn out of knowledge, or else known unto very few, but whatsoever hath been after in free and voluntary manner condescended unto, whether by express consent, whereof positive laws are witnesses, or else by silent allowance famously notified through custom reaching beyond the memory of man. By which means of after-agreement, it cometh many times to pass in kingdoms, that they whose ancient predecessors were by violence and force made subject, do grow even by little and little365 into that most366 sweet form of kingly government which philosophers define to be367 “368regency willingly sustained369 and endured, with chiefty of power in the greatest things.”
Many of the ancients in their writings do speak of kings with such high and ample terms, as if universality of power, even in regard of things and not of persons only, did appertain to the very being of a king370. The reason is, because their speech concerning kings they frame according to the state of those monarchs to whom unlimited authority was given: which some not observing, imagine that all kings, even in that they are kings, ought to have whatsoever power they find371 any sovereign ruler lawfully to have enjoyed. But the372 most judicious philosopher, whose eye scarce any thing did escape373 which was to be found in the bosom of nature, he considering how far the power of one sovereign ruler may be different from another’s374 regal authority, noteth in Spartan kings375, “that of all others lawfully reigning they had376 the most restrained power377.” A king which hath not supreme power in the greatest things, is rather entitled a king, than invested with real sovereignty. We cannot properly term him a king, of whom it may not be said, at the leastwise, as touching certain the very378 chiefest affairs of state379, αὐτῳ̑ μὲν380 ἄρχειν, ἄρχεσθαι381 δὲ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς, “his right in them is to have rule, not subject to any other predominant382.” I am not of opinion that simply always383 in kings the most, but the best limited power is best384: the most limited is, that which may deal in fewest things; the best, that which in dealing is tied unto the soundest, perfectest, and most indifferent rule; which rule is the law; I mean not only the law of nature and of God, but very national or municipal law consonant thereunto385. Happier that people whose law is their king in the greatest things, than that whose king is himself their law. Where the king doth guide the state, and the law the king, that commonwealth is like an harp or melodious instrument, the strings whereof are tuned and handled all by one386, following as laws the rules and canons of musical science387. Most divinely therefore Archytas maketh unto public felicity these four steps388, every later whereof389 doth spring from the former, as from a mother390 cause; ὁ μὲν391 βασιλεὺς νόμιμος, ὁ δὲ ἄρχων ἀκόλουθος, ὁ δὲ ἀρχόμενος ἐλεύθερος392, ἁ δ’ ὅλα393 κοινωνία εὐδαίμων394; adding on the contrary side, that “where this order is not, it cometh by transgression thereof to pass that the king395 groweth396 a tyrant; he that ruleth under him abhorreth to be guided and commanded by him397; the people subject under398 both, have freedom under neither; and the whole community is wretched399.”
In which respect, I cannot choose but commend highly their wisdom, by whom the foundations of this400 commonwealth have been laid; wherein though no manner person401 or cause be unsubject to the king’s power, yet so is the power of the king over all and in all limited, that unto all his proceedings the law itself is a rule. The axioms of our regal government are these: “Lex facit regem:” the king’s grant of any favour made contrary to the402 law is void; “Rex nihil potest nisi quod jure potest.” Our kings therefore, when they take403 possession of the room404 they are called unto, have it painted405 out before their eyes, even by the very solemnities and rites of their inauguration, to what affairs by the said406 law their supreme authority and power407 reacheth. Crowned we see they are, and408 enthronized, and anointed: the crown a sign of military409; the throne, of sedentary or410 judicial; the oil, of religious or sacred power.
It is not on any side denied, that kings may have such411 authority in secular affairs. The question then is, “What power they lawfully may412 have, and exercise in causes of God.” “A prince, a magistrate, or community,” saith D. Stapleton413, “may have power to lay corporal punishment414 on them which are teachers of perverse things; power to make laws for the peace of the Church; power to proclaim, to defend, and even by revenge to preserve from violation415 dogmata, very416 articles of religion themselves.” Others417 in affection no less devoted unto the papacy, do likewise yield, that “the civil magistrate may by his edicts and laws keep all ecclesiastical persons within the bounds of their duties, and constrain them to observe the canons of the Church, to follow the rules418 of ancient discipline.” That “if Joas419 were420 commended for his care and provision concerning so small a part of religion as the church-treasury421; it must needs be both unto Christian kings themselves greater honour, and to Christianity a larger benefit, when the custody of religion whole422 and of423 the worship of God in general is their charge.” If therefore all these things mentioned be most properly the affairs of God, and ecclesiastical424 causes; if the actions specified be works of power; and if that power be such as kings may use of themselves, without the leave425 of any other power superior in the same things426: it followeth necessarily, that kings may have supreme power, not only in civil, but also in ecclesiastical affairs; and consequently, that they may withstand what bishop or pope soever shall, under the pretended claim of higher spiritual authority, oppose himself427 against their proceedings. But they which have made us the former grant, will hereunto never428 condescend. What they yield that princes may do, it is with secret exception always understood, if the bishop of Rome give leave, if he interpose no prohibition: wherefore somewhat it is in shew, in truth nothing, which they grant.
Our own reformers do the very like. When they make their discourses429 in general concerning the authority which magistrates may have, a man would think them far430 from withdrawing any jot of that which with reason may be thought due. “The prince and civil magistrate431,” saith one of them, “hath to see that432 the laws of God touching his worship, and touching all matters and orders433 of the Church be434 executed, and duly observed; and to see that435 every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly.” Another acknowledgeth436, that “the magistrate may lawfully uphold all truth by his sword, punish all persons, enforce all to do437 their duties unto438 God and men; maintain by his laws every point of God’s word, punish all vice in all men; see into all causes, visit the ecclesiastical estate, and correct the abuses thereof; finally, to look to his subjects, that under him they may lead their lives in all godliness and honesty.” A third more frankly professeth439, that in case their church-discipline were established, so little it shorteneth the arms of sovereign dominion in causes ecclesiastical, that her gracious Majesty, for any thing which440 they teach or hold to the contrary, may no less than now “remain still over all persons, in all things supreme governess, even with that full and royal authority, superiority, preeminence441, supremacy, and prerogative, which the laws already established do give her, and her Majesty’s injunctions, and the articles of the Convocation-house, and other writings apologetical of her royal authority and supreme dignity, do declare and explain.”
Posidonius was wont to say of the Epicure, “That he thought there were no gods, but that those things which he spake concerning the gods were only given out for fear of growing odious amongst men; and therefore that in words he left gods remaining, but in very deed overthrew them, inasmuch442 as he gave them no kind of motion443, no kind of action444.” After the very selfsame manner, when we come unto those particular effects and445 prerogatives of dominion which the laws of this land do grant unto the kings thereof, it will appear how these446 men, notwithstanding their large and liberal speeches, abate such parcels out of the fore-alleged grand447 and flourishing sum448, that a man comparing the one with the other may half stand in doubt, lest their opinions449 in very truth be against that authority which by their speeches they seem mightily to uphold, partly for the avoiding of public obloquy, envy, and hatred; partly to the intent they may both in the end, by establishment450 of their discipline, extinguish the force of supreme power which princes have, and yet in the meanwhile by giving forth these smooth discourses, obtain that their favourers may have somewhat to allege for them by way of apology, and that in such words as sound towards all kind of fulness in power451. But for myself, I had rather construe such their contradictions in the better part, and impute their general acknowledgment of the lawfulness of kingly power unto the force of truth, presenting itself before them sometimes alone452; their particular contrarieties, oppositions, denials, unto that error which having so fully possessed their minds, casteth things inconvenient upon them; of which things in their due place.
Touching that which is now in hand, we are on all sides fully agreed; first, that there is not any restraint or limitation of matter for regal authority and power to be conversant in, but of religion whole453, and of whatsoever cause thereto454 appertaineth, kings may lawfully have charge, they lawfully may therein exercise dominion, and use the temporal sword: secondly, that some kinds455 of actions conversant about such affairs are denied unto kings; as, namely, actions of the power of order456, and of that power of jurisdiction, which is457 with it unseparably458 joined; power to administer the word and sacraments, power to ordain, to judge as an ordinary, to bind and loose, to excommunicate, and such like: thirdly, that even in these459 very actions which are proper unto dominion, there must be some certain rule, whereunto kings in all their proceedings ought to be strictly tied; which rule for proceedings460 in ecclesiastical affairs and causes by regal power, hath not hitherto been agreed upon with so461 uniform consent and certainty as might be wished462. The different sentences of men herein I will not463 now go about to examine, but it shall be enough to propose what rule doth seem in this case most reasonable.
It hath been declared already464 in general, how “the best established dominion is where the law doth most rule the king:” the true effect whereof particularly is found as well in ecclesiastical as in465 civil affairs. In these the king, through his supreme power, may do great things and sundry466 himself, both appertaining unto peace and war, both at home, by commandment467 and by commerce with states abroad, because so much the law doth468 permit. Some things469 on the other side, the king470 alone hath no power471 to do without consent of the lords and commons assembled in parliament472: the king of473 himself cannot change the nature of pleas, nor courts, no not so much as restore blood; because the law is a bar unto him; not any law divine474 or natural475, for against neither it were though kings of themselves476 might do both, but477 the positive laws of the realm have abridged therein478 and restrained479 the king’s power; which positive laws, whether by custom or otherwise established without repugnancy unto the law480 of God and nature, ought no481 less to be of482 force even in the spiritual483 affairs of the Church. Wherefore484 in regard of ecclesiastical laws, we willingly embrace that of Ambrose, “Imperator bonus485 intra ecclesiam, non supra ecclesiam, est; kings have dominion to exercise in ecclesiastical causes, but according to the laws of the Church.” Whether it be therefore the nature of courts, or the form of pleas, or the kind of governors, or the order of proceedings486 in whatsoever spiritual487 businesses488; for the received laws and liberties489 of the490 Church the king hath supreme authority and power, but against them, none491.
What such positive laws have appointed to be done by others than the king, or by others with the king, and in what form they have appointed the doing of it, the same of necessity must be kept, neither is the king’s sole authority to alter it.
Yea492 even as it were a thing unreasonable, if in civil affairs the king (albeit the whole universal body did join with him) should do any thing by their absolute supreme power493 for the ordering of their state at home, in prejudice of any of494 those ancient laws of nations which are of force throughout495 the world, because the necessary commerce of kingdoms dependeth on them; so in principal matters belonging to Christian religion, a thing very scandalous and offensive it must needs be thought, if either kings or laws should dispose of the affairs496 of God, without any respect had to that which of old hath been reverently thought of throughout the world, and wherein there is no law of God which forceth us to swerve from the way497 wherein so many and so498 holy ages have gone.
Wherefore not without good consideration the very law itself hath provided, “That judges ecclesiastical appointed under the king’s commission shall not adjudge for heresy any thing but that which heretofore hath been so499 adjudged by the authority of the canonical scriptures, or by the first four general councils, or by some other general council wherein the same hath been declared heresy by the express words of the said canonical scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be termed500 heresy by the high court of parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in the convocation501.” By which words of the law who doth not plainly see, how in that502 one branch of proceeding by virtue of the king’s supreme authority, the credit which those four503 general councils have throughout all churches evermore504 had, was judged by the makers505 of the foresaid act a just cause wherefore they506 should be mentioned in that case, as a requisite part of the507 rule wherewith dominion was to be limited508. But of this we shall further consider, when we come unto that which sovereign power may do in making ecclesiastical laws.
The cause509 of deriving supreme power from a whole entire multitude unto510 some special part thereof, is partly the necessity of expedition in public affairs; partly the inconveniency of511 confusion and trouble, where a multitude of equals dealeth; and partly the dissipation which must needs ensue in companies, where every man wholly seeketh his own particular (as we all would do, even with other men’s hurt512) and haply the very overthrow of ourselves513 in the end also, if for procurement514 of the common good of all men, by keeping every several man in order, some were not armed515 with authority over all, and encouraged with prerogatives of honour516 to sustain the weighty burden of that charge. The good which is proper unto each man belongeth to the common good of all, as a part of the whole’s perfection517; but yet518 these two are things different; for men by that which is proper are severed, united they are by that which is common. Wherefore, besides that which moveth each man in particular to seek his private, there must519 of necessity in all public societies be also a general mover, directing unto the520 common good, and framing every man’s particular to it. The end whereunto all government was instituted, was bonum publicum, the universal or common good. Our question is of dominion, for that end and purpose derived into one521. Such as in522 one public state have agreed that the supreme charge of all things should be committed unto one, they I say, considering what inconveniences523 may grow where states are subject unto sundry supreme authorities, were524 for fear of those525 inconveniences withdrawn from liking to establish many; οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη, the multitude of supreme commanders is troublesome. “No man,” saith our Saviour, “can serve two masters:” surely two supreme masters would make any one526 man’s service somewhat uneasy in such cases as might fall out. Suppose that to-morrow the power which hath dominion in justice require thee at the court; that which in war, at the field; that which in religion, at the temple: all have equal authority over thee, and impossible it is, that thou shouldest be in such case527 obedient to all: by choosing any one whom thou wilt obey, certain thou art for thy disobedience to incur the displeasure of the other two.
[III.] But there is nothing for which some colourable528 reason or other may not be found. Are we able to shew any commendable state of government, which by experience and practice hath felt the benefit of being in all causes subject unto the supreme authority of one? Against the polity529 of Israel530, I hope there will no man except, where Moses deriving so great a part of his burden in government unto others, did notwithstanding retain to himself universal supremacy. Jehosaphat appointing one to be chief531 in the affairs of God, and another in the king’s affairs, did this as having himself532 dominion over them in both. If therefore, with533 approbation from534 heaven, the kings of God’s own chosen people had in the affairs of Jewish religion supreme power, why not Christian kings the like power535 also in Christian religion? Unless536 men will answer, as some have done537, “that touching the Jews, first their religion538 was of far lessHooker1888: 1. perfection and dignity than ours is539, ours being that truth whereof theirs was but a shadowish prefigurative resemblance.” Secondly540, “That all parts of their religion,Hooker1888: 2. their laws, their sacrifices, their541 rites and ceremonies, being fully set down to their hands, and needing no more but only to be put in execution, the kings might well have highest authority to see that done: whereas with us there are a number of mysteries even in belief, which were not so generally542 for them, as for us, necessary to be with sound express acknowledgment understood; a number of things belonging unto external regiment543, and one544 manner of serving God, not set down by particular ordinances, and delivered unto us in writing; for which cause the state of the Church doth now require that the spiritual authority of ecclesiastical persons be large, absolute, and not subordinateHooker1888: 3. to regal power.” Thirdly545, “that whereas God armeth religion Jewish, with546 temporal, Christian, with a547 sword but of spiritual punishment; the one with power to imprison, to scourge, and548 to put to death, the other with bare authority to censure and excommunicate; there is no reason that the Church, which now549 hath no visible sword, should in regiment be subject unto any other power, than only unto theirs which have authority to bind andHooker1888: 4. loose.” Fourthly550, “that albeit while551 the Church was restrained unto552 one people, it seemed not incommodious to grant their kings553 the general chiefty of power; yet now, the Church having spread itself over all nations, great inconveniency554 might555 thereby grow, if every Christian king in his several territory should have the like power.” Of all these differences, there is not one which doth prove it a thing repugnant unto the law either of God or nature556, that all supremacy of external power be in Christian kingdoms granted unto the557 kings thereof, for preservation of quietness, unity, order, and peace, in such manner as hath been shewed.
558The service which we do unto the true God 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 offices 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 publicly grow, as long as fear to displease (they knew not what) divine power was some kind of bridle unto them, did therefore provide that the highest degree of care for their religion should be the principal 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 men’s temporal peace, and not for559 their eternal safety: and 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 mast560? 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 far forth as the same are disposable by human authority, and to think them uncapable thereof, only for that the said religion is everlastingly beneficial 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 exercising any such power, for the dignity and perfection which is in our religion more than in theirs561.
It may be a question, whether the affairs of Christianity require more wit, more study, more knowledge of divine things in him which shall order them, than the Jewish religion did. For although we deny not the form of external government, together with all other rites and ceremonies, to have been in more particular manner set down: yet withal 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 borne; 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, inasmuch as their law did also dispose even of all kind of civil affairs; their clergy, being the interpreters of the whole law, sustained not only the same labour which divines do amongst us, but even the burthen of our lawyers too. Nevertheless, be it granted that moe things do now require to be publicly deliberated and resolved upon with exacter judgment in matters divine than kings for the most part have: their personal inability to judge, in such sort as professors do, letteth not but that their regal authority may have the selfsame 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 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 expediency of their continuance therein now. As we degrade and excommunicate, even so did the Church of the Jews both separate offenders from the temple, and depose the clergy also from their rooms, when cause required. The other sword of corporal punishment is not by Christ’s own appointment in the hands of 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 persuasive means, were to build up his Church even within the bosom of kingdoms, 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 quiet and peaceable manner; the subjects of no commonwealth being touched in goods or person, by virtue of that spiritual regiment whereunto Christian religion embraced did make them subject.
Now when afterwards it came to pass, that whole kingdoms were made Christian, I demand whether that authority, which562 served before for the furtherance of religion, may not as effectually serve563 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 aided with the power of the civil sword. The help whereof, although when Christian religion cannot have, it must without it sustain itself 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 corporal punishment to keep her children in obedience withal? Such a law as Macabeus564 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.
Again, the custom which many Christian churches have to fly to the civil magistrate for coercion of those that will not otherwise be reformed,—these things are proof sufficient that even in Christian religion, the power wherewith ecclesiastical persons were endued at the first is unable to do of itself so much as when secular power doth strengthen it; and that, not by way of ministry or service, but of predominancy, 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 supreme 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 supreme power over all churches into one only pastor’s hands; but the framing of their government, especially for matter of substance, every where according to the rule of one only Law, to stand in no less force than the law of nations doth, to be received in all kingdoms, all sovereign rulers to be sworn no otherwise unto it than 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 woeful inconveniences whereunto the state of Christendom was subject heretofore, through the tyranny and oppression of that one universal Nimrod565 who alone did all.
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 Juda 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 selfsame people are the Church and the commonwealth, God through Christ directing that people to see it for good and weighty considerations expedient that their sovereign lord and governor in causes civil have also in ecclesiastical affairs a supreme power; forasmuch as the light of reason doth lead them unto it, and against it God’s own revealed law hath nothing: surely they do not in submitting themselves thereunto any other than that which a wise and religious people ought to do.
It was but a little overflowing of wit in Thomas Aquinas566, so to play upon the words of Moses567 in the Old, and of Peter568 in the New Testament, as though because the one did term the Jews “a priestly kingdom,” the other us “a kingly priesthood,” those two substantives “kingdom” and “priesthood” should import, that Judaism did stand through the kings’ superiority over priests, Christianity through the priests’ supreme 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 God doth glorify and sanctify his, even with full perfection in both; which thing St. John doth in plainer sort express, saying that “Christ hath made us both kings and priests569.”
[IV. 1.] These things being thus first considered570, it will be the easier571 to judge concerning our own estate, whether by force of ecclesiastical dominion572 with us573 kings have any other kind of prerogative than they may lawfully hold and enjoy. It is as some do imagine too much, that kings of England should be termed Heads, in relation to the Church. That which we understand574 by headship, is their only supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs or575 causes. That which lawfully576 princes are, what should make it unlawful for men by577 special578 styles or titles to signify? If the having of supreme power be allowed, why is the expressing thereof by the title of head condemned? They seem in words, at the579 leastwise some of them, now at the length to acknowledge that kings may have supreme580 government even over all, both persons and causes. We in terming our princes heads of the Church, do but testify that we acknowledge them such governors.
Against581 this peradventure it will582 be replied583, that howsoever we interpret ourselves, it is not fit for a mortal man, and therefore not fit584 for a civil magistrate, to be entitled head of the Church. Why so? First “this title, Head of the Church585, was given unto our Saviour Christ586, to lift him above all powers, rules, and dominions587, either in heaven or in earth. Where if this title belong also to the civil magistrate588, then it is manifest that there is a power in earth whereunto our Saviour Christ is not in this point superior. Again, if the civil magistrate may have this title, he may be also termed589 the first-begotten of all creatures, the first-begotten of590 the dead, yea the Redeemer of his people. For these are alike given him as dignities whereby he is lifted up above all creatures. Besides this, the whole argument of the Apostle in both places doth lead to shew that this title, Head of the Church, cannot be said of any creature. And further, the very demonstrative article591, among the Hebrews especially, whom S. Paul doth follow, serveth to tie that which is verified of one, unto himself alone: so that when the apostle doth say that Christ is ἡ κεϕαλὴ, the Head; it is as much as592 if he should say, Christ, and no593 other, is the Head of the Church.”
Thus have we against the entitling of the highest magistrates594, Head, with relation unto the Church, four several arguments, gathered by strong surmise out of words marvellous unlikely to have been written for595 any such purpose as that whereunto they are now urged596. To the Ephesians, the apostle writeth597, “That Christ, God hath seated on his598 own right hand in the heavenly places, above all regency, and authority, and power, and dominion, and whatsoever name is named, not in this world only, but in that which shall be also: and hath under his feet set all things, and hath given him head above all things unto the Church, which is his body, even the complement599 of him which accomplished all in all.” To the Colossians in like manner600, “That He is the head of the body of the Church, who is a first-born regency out of the dead, to the end he might be made amongst them all such an one as hath the chiefty:” he meaneth, amongst all them whom before he mentioned601, saying602, “In603 him all things that are, were made; the things in the heavens, and the things in604 the earth, the things that are visible, and the things that are invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominations605, or regencies,” &c.
Unto the fore-alleged arguments therefore we answer: first, that it is not simply the title of Head, which lifteth our Saviour above all powers, but the title of Head606 in such sort understood, as the apostle himself meant it: so that the same being imparted in another sense unto others, doth not any way607 make those others therein608 his equals; inasmuch as diversity of things is usual609 to be understood, even when of words there is no diversity; and it is only the adding of one and the selfsame610 thing unto diverse persons, which doth argue equality in them. If I term Christ and Cæsar lords, yet this is no equalling of611 Cæsar with Christ, because it is not thereby intended. “To term the emperor Lord,” saith Tertullian612, “I for mine own part will not refuse, so that I be not required to term613 him Lord in the same sense that God is so termed.”
Neither doth it follow, which is objected in the second place, that if the civil magistrate may be entitled an Head, he may also as well be614 termed, “the first-begotten of all creatures,” “the first-begotten of the dead,” and “the Redeemer of his people.” For albeit the former dignity do615 lift him up no less than these, yet these terms are not appliable and apt to signify any other inferior dignity, as the former term of Head was.
The argument or matter which the Apostle followeth hath small evidence for616 proof, that his meaning was to appropriate unto Christ617 the foresaid title, otherwise than only in such sense as doth make it, being so understood, too high to be given to any creature.
As for the force of the article, whereby618 our Lord and Saviour is named619 the Head, it serveth to tie that unto him by way of excellency, which in a meaner degree620 is common to others; it doth not exclude any other utterly from being termed Head, but from being entitled as Christ is, the Head, by way of the very highest degree of excellency. Not in the communication of names, but in the621 confusion of things, is622 error.
Howbeit, if Head were a name which well could not be623, or624 never had been used to signify that which a magistrate may be in relation unto some church, but were by continual use of speech appropriated unto that625 only thing which626 it signifieth, being applied unto Jesus Christ; then, although we might627 carry in ourselves a right understanding, yet ought we otherwise rather to speak, unless we interpret our own meaning by some clause of628 plainer speech; because we are else in manifest danger to be understood according to that construction and sense wherein such words are usually taken629. But here the rarest construction, and most removed from common sense, is that which the word doth import being applied unto Christ; that which we signify by it in giving it unto the magistrate, is a great deal more familiar in the common conceit of men. The word is so fit to signify630 all kinds of superiority, preeminence, and chiefty, that no one thing631 is more ordinary than so to use it even632 in vulgar speech, and in common understanding so to take it. If therefore a Christian king633 may have any preeminence or chiefty above all other634 in the Church, (albeit it were635 less than636 Theodore Beza637 giveth, who placeth kings amongst the principal members whereunto public function in the Church belongeth, and denieth not, but that of them which have public function, the civil magistrate’s power hath all the rest at commandment638, in regard of that part of his office, which is to procure that peace and good order be especially kept in things concerning the first Table;) even639 hereupon to640 term him the Head of that641 Church which is his kingdom, should not642 seem so unfit a thing: which title surely we would643 not communicate to any other, no not although it should at our hands be exacted with torments, but that our meaning herein is made known to the whole644 world, so that no man which will understand can easily be ignorant, that we do not impart to kings, when we term them Heads, the honour which properly is645 given to our Lord and Saviour Christ, when the blessed Apostles in Scripture do646 term him the Head of the Church.
The power which we signify by that name, differeth in three things plainly from that which Christ doth challenge.
It differeth in order, measure, and kind. In order, because647 God hath given him to his Church for the Head, ὑπὲρ πάντα, above all648, ὑπεράνω πάσης τη̑ς649 ἀρχη̑ς, “far650 above all principality, and power651, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not in this world only, but also in that which is to come:” whereas the power which others have is subordinate652 unto his.
Again653, as he differeth in order, so in measure of power also; because God hath given unto him654 the ends of the earth for his possession; unto him, dominion from sea to sea; unto him, all power655 in heaven and in earth; unto him, such sovereignty, as doth not only reach over all places, persons, and things, but doth rest in his one656 only person, and is not by any succession continued: He reigneth as Head and King for ever657, nor is there any kind of law which tieth him, but his own proper will and wisdom: his power is absolute, the same jointly over all which it is severally over each; not so the power of any other’s658 headship. How kings are restrained, and in what sort their authority659 is limited, we have shewed before. So that unto him is given by the title of Headship over the Church, that largeness of power, wherein neither man nor angel can be matched or compared with him.
The last660 and the weightiest661 difference between him and them, is in the very kind of their power. The head being of all other parts of man’s662 body the663 most divine664, hath dominion over all the rest: it is the fountain of sense, of motion; the throne where the guide of the soul doth reign; the court from whence direction of all things human proceedeth. Why Christ is called Head of his Church665, these causes they666 themselves do yield. As the head is the highest667 part of a man, above which there is none, always joined with the body: so Christ is668 the highest in his Church, inseparably knit with it669. Again, as the head giveth sense and moving to670 all the body, so he quickeneth671, and together with understanding of heavenly things, giveth strength to walk therein. Seeing therefore, that they cannot affirm Christ sensibly present, or always visibly joined unto his body the Church which is on earth, inasmuch as his corporal residence is in heaven; again, seeing they do not affirm (it were intolerable if they should) that Christ doth personally administer the external regiment of outward actions in the Church, but by the secret inward influence of his grace, giveth spiritual life and the strength of ghostly motions thereunto: impossible it is, that they should so close up their eyes, as not to discern what odds there is between that kind of operation which we imply in the headship of princes, and that which agreeth to our Saviour’s dominion over the Church. The headship which we give unto kings is altogether visibly exercised, and ordereth only the external frame of the Church’s affairs672 here amongst us; so that it plainly differeth from Christ’s, even in very nature and kind. To be in such sort united unto the Church as he is; to work as he worketh, either on the whole Church, or on any particular assembly, or in any one man; doth neither agree, nor hath possibility673 of agreeing, unto any besides674 him.
Against the first distinction or difference it is objected675, that to entitle a magistrate Head of the Church, although it be under Christ, is most676 absurd. For Christ hath a twofold superiority; a superiority over his Church, and a superiority over kingdoms677: according to the one, he “hath a superior, which is his Father; according to the other, none but immediate authority with his Father:” that is to say, of the Church he is Head and Governor only as the Son of man; Head and Governor over678 kingdoms only as the Son of God. In the Church, as man, he hath officers under him, which officers are ecclesiastical persons: as for the civil magistrate, his office belongeth unto kingdoms, and commonwealths679, neither is he therein680 an under or subordinate head of Christ681; “considering that his authority cometh from God, simply and immediately, even as our Saviour Christ’s doth682.”
Whereunto the sum of our answer is, first, that as Christ being Lord or Head over all, doth by virtue of that sovereignty rule all; so he hath no more a superior in governing his Church, than in exercising sovereign dominion upon the rest of the world besides. Secondly, that all authority, as well civil as ecclesiastical, is subordinate unto his683. And thirdly, that684 the civil magistrate being termed Head, by reason of that authority in ecclesiastical affairs which it685 hath been already declared that themselves do in word686 acknowledge to be lawful; it followeth that he is an Head even subordinated of687, and to Christ.
For more plain explication whereof, first688, unto God we acknowledge daily689, that kingdom, power, and glory, are his; that he is690 the immortal and invisible691 King of ages, as well the future which shall be, as the present which now is. That which the Father doth work as Lord and king over all, he worketh not without, but by the Son, who through coeternal generation receiveth of the Father that power which the Father hath of himself. And for that cause our Saviour’s words concerning his own dominion are, “To me all power both in heaven and in692 earth is given.” The Father by the Son both693 did create, and doth guide all; wherefore Christ hath supreme dominion over the whole universal world.
Christ is God, Christ is Λόγος, the consubstantial Word of God, Christ is also that consubstantial Word made694 man. As God, he saith of himself695, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: he which was, which is, and which is to come; even the very Omnipotent.” As the consubstantial Word of God, he had696 with God before the beginning of the world, that glory which as man697 he requesteth698 to have699; “Father, glorify thy Son now700 with that glory which with thee I701 enjoyed before the world was.” For there is no necessity702 that all things spoken of Christ should agree unto him either as God, or else as man; but some things as he is the consubstantial Word of God, some things as he is that Word incarnate. The works of supreme dominion which have been since the first beginning wrought by the power of the Son of God, are now most truly and properly703 the works of the Son of man: the Word made flesh doth sit for ever, and reign as sovereign Lord over all. Dominion belongeth unto the kingly office of Christ, as propitiation and mediation unto his priestly; instruction, unto his pastoral or704 prophetical office. His works of dominion are in sundry degrees or705 kinds, according to the different condition706 of them which are subject unto it: he presently doth govern, and hereafter shall judge the world, entire and whole707, therefore708 his regal power cannot be with truth restrained unto a portion709 of the world only. Notwithstanding forasmuch as all do not shew and acknowledge with dutiful submission that obedience which they owe unto him; therefore such as do, their Lord he is termed by way of excellency, no otherwise than the Apostle doth term God710, the Saviour711 generally of all, but especially of the faithful: these being brought to the obedience of faith, are every where spoken of as men translated into that kingdom, wherein whosoever is comprehended, Christ is712 the author of eternal salvation unto them; they have a high kind of ghostly713 fellowship714 with God, and Christ, and saints; or as the Apostle in more ample manner speaketh715, “Aggregated they are unto Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the celestial Jerusalem, and to the company of innumerable angels, and to the congregation of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just and perfect men, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Testament.” In a word, they are of that mystical body, which we term the Church of Christ. As for the rest, we find them accounted716 “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, men that lay717 in the kingdom of darkness, and that are in this present world without God.” Our Saviour’s dominion is therefore over these, as over rebels; over them as dutiful subjects718.
Which things being in holy Scriptures so plain, I somewhat muse at those719 strange positions, that Christ720 in the government of the721 Church, and superiority over the officers of it, hath himself a superior, which is his722 Father; but in the government723 of724 kingdoms and commonwealths, and in the superiority which he hath over kings725, no superior. Again726, “that the civil magistrate727 cometh from God immediately, as Christ728 doth, and is not subordinate729 unto Christ.” In what evangelist, apostle, or prophet, is it found, that Christ, supreme governor of the Church, should be so unequal to himself, as he is supreme governor of kingdoms? The works of his providence for preservation730 of mankind by upholding of731 kingdoms, not only obedient unto, but even732 rebellious and obstinate733 against him, are such as proceed from divine power; and are not the works of his providence for safety of God’s elect, by gathering, inspiring, comforting, and every way preserving his Church, such as proceed from the same power likewise? Surely, if Christ734 “as God and man have ordained certain means for the gathering and keeping of his Church,” seeing this doth belong to the government of his735 Church; it must in reason follow, I think, that as God and man he worketh in church regiment, and consequently hath no more therein736 any superior737, than in the government of commonwealths738.
Again, to “be in the midst of his, wheresoever they are assembled in his name,” and to be “with them till739 the world’s end,” are comforts which Christ doth perform to his Church as Lord and Governor; yea, such as he cannot perform but by that very power wherein he hath no superior.
Wherefore, unless it can be proved, that all the works of our Saviour’s government in the Church are done by the mere and only force of his human nature, there is no remedy but to acknowledge it a manifest error, that Christ in the government of the world is equal unto the Father, but not in the government of the Church. Indeed, to the honour of this dominion it cannot be said that God did exalt him otherwise than only according to that human nature wherein he was made low: for as the Son of God, there could no advancement or exaltation grow unto him: and yet the dominion, whereunto he was in his human nature lifted up, is not without divine power exercised. It is by divine power, that the Son of man who sitteth in heaven, doth work as king and lord upon us which are on earth.
The exercise of his dominion over the Church militant cannot choose but cease, when there is no longer any militant Church in the world. And therefore as generals of armies when they have finished their work, are wont to yield up such commissions as were given them740 for that purpose, and to remain in the state of subjects and not of741 lords, as concerning their former authority; even so, when the end of all things is come, the Son of man, who till then reigneth, shall do the like, as touching regiment over the militant Church on earth742. So that between the Son of man and his brethren, over whom he now reigneth743 in this their warfare, there shall be then, as touching the exercise of that regiment, no such difference; they not warfaring under him any longer744, but he together with them under God receiving the joys of everlasting triumph, that so God may be all in all; all misery in all the wicked through his justice; in all the righteous, through his love, all felicity and bliss. In the meanwhile he reigneth over this745 world as king, and doth those things wherein none is superior unto him, whether we respect the works of his providence over kingdoms746, or of his regiment over the Church.
The cause of error in this point doth seem to have been a misconceit, that Christ, as Mediator, being inferior unto his Father, doth, as Mediator, all works of regiment over the Church747; when in truth, government748 doth belong to his kingly office, mediatorship, to his priestly. For, as the high priest both offered sacrifice749 for expiation of the people’s sins, and entered into the holy place, there to make intercession for them: so Christ750, having finished upon the cross that part of his priestly office which wrought the propitiation for our sins, did afterwards enter into very heaven, and doth there as mediator of the New Testament appear in the sight of God for us. A like slip751 of judgment it is, when they hold752 that civil authority is from God, but not mediately753 through Christ, nor with any subordination unto Christ. For “there is no power,” saith the Apostle, “but from God754;” nor doth any thing come from God but by the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ755.
They deny it not to be said of Christ in the Old Testament756, “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice757; by me princes rule, and the nobles, and all the judges of the earth.” In the New as much is taught758, “That Christ is the Prince of the kings of the earth.” Wherefore to the end it may more plainly appear how all authority of man is derived from God through Christ, and must by Christian men be acknowledged to be no otherwise held than of and under him; we are to note, that because whatsoever hath necessary being, the Son of God doth cause it to be, and those things without which the world cannot well continue, have necessary being in the world; a thing of so great use as government amongst men, and human dominion in government759, cannot choose but be originally from him, and have reference also of subordination unto him760. Touching that authority which civil magistrates have in ecclesiastical affairs, it being from God by Christ, as all other good things are, cannot choose but be held as a thing received at his hands; and because such power as761 is of necessary use762 for the ordering of religion, wherein the essence and very being of the Church consisteth, can no otherwise flow from him, than according to that special care which he hath to guide and govern763 his own people: it followeth that the said authority is of and under him after a more peculiar764 manner, namely765, in that he is Head of the Church, and not in respect of his general regency over the world. “All things,” (saith the Apostle766 speaking unto the Church) “are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” Kings are Christ’s, as saints; and kings are Christ’s, as kings: as saints, because they are of the Church; as kings, because they are in authority over the Church, if not collectively767, yet divisively understood; that768 is over each particular person within that Church where they are kings. Such769 authority, reaching770 both unto all men’s persons, and unto all kinds of causes also, it is not denied but that they lawfully may have and exercise771; such authority it is, for which, and for no other in the world, we term them heads; such authority they have under Christ, because he in all things is Lord over all. And even of Christ it is that they have received such authority, inasmuch as of him all lawful powers are: therefore the civil magistrate is, in regard of this power, an under and subordinate head of Christ’s people.
It is but idle 772when they plead773, “that although for several companies of men there may be several heads or governors, differing in the measure of their authority from the chiefest who is head of774 all; yet so775 it cannot be in the Church, for that the reason why head-magistrates appoint others for such several places is, because they cannot be present every where to perform the office of a head. But Christ is never from his body, nor from any part of it, and therefore needeth not to substitute any, which may be heads, some over one church and some over another.” Indeed the consideration of man’s imbecillity, which maketh many hands776 necessary where the burden is too great for one, moved Jethro to be a persuader of Moses, that a777 number of heads or rulers might be instituted for discharge of that duty by parts, which in whole he saw was troublesome. Now although there be not in Christ any such defect or weakness, yet other causes there may778 be diverse, moe779 than we are able to search into, wherefore it might seem to him expedient to divide his kingdom into many portions780, and to781 place many heads over it, that the power which each of them hath in particular with restraint, might illustrate the greatness of his unlimited authority. Besides, howsoever Christ be spiritually always united unto every part of his body, which is the Church; nevertheless we do all know, and they themselves who allege this will, I doubt not, confess also, that from every church here visible, Christ, touching visible and corporal presence, is removed as far as heaven from earth782 is783 distant. Visible government is a thing necessary for the Church; and it doth not appear how the exercise of visible government over such multitudes every where dispersed throughout the world should consist without sundry visible governors; whose power being the greatest in that kind so far as it reacheth, they are in consideration thereof termed so far heads. Wherefore, notwithstanding that784 perpetual conjunction, by virtue whereof our Saviour remaineth always785 spiritually united unto the parts of his mystical body; Heads endued786 with supreme power, extending unto a certain compass, are for the exercise of visible787 regiment not unnecessary.
Some other reasons there are belonging unto this branch, which seem to have been objected, rather for the exercise of men’s wits in dissolving sophisms, than that the authors of them could think in likelihood thereby to strengthen their cause. For example788, “If the magistrate be head of the Church within his own dominion, then is he none of the Church; for all that Church maketh789 the body of Christ, and every one of the Church fulfilleth the place of one member of the body. By making the magistrate therefore head790, we do exclude him from being a member subject to the head, and so leave him no place in the Church.” By which reason, the name of a body politic is supposed to be always taken of the inferior sort alone, excluding the principal guides and governors; contrary to all men’s custom791 of speech. The error riseth by misconstruing792 of some scripture sentences, where Christ as the head, and the Church as the body, are compared or opposed the one to the other: and because in such comparisons and793 oppositions, the body is taken for794 those only parts which are subject to the head, they imagine that whoso is head795 of any church, he is even thereby796 excluded from being a part of that church: that the magistrate can be none of the Church, if so be797 we make him the head of the church in his own dominions. A chief and principal part of the Church798, therefore no part; this is799 surely a strange conclusion. A church doth indeed make the body of Christ, being wholly taken together; and every one in the same church fulfilleth the place of a member in the body, but not the place of an inferior member, he800 which hath supreme authority and power over all the rest. Wherefore, by making the magistrate head in his own dominions, we exclude him from being a member subject unto any other person which may visibly there rule in place of an head or governor801 over him; but so far are we off from leaving him by this means no place in the Church, that we grant802 him the chiefest803 place. Indeed the heads of those visible bodies, which are many, can be but parts inferior in that spiritual body which is but one; yea, they may from this be excluded clean, who notwithstanding ought to be honoured, as possessing in the other804 the highest rooms: but for the magistrate to be termed, one way, within805 his own806 dominions, an head, doth not bar him from being either807 way a part or member of the Church of God.
As little to the purpose are those other cavils: “A Church which hath the magistrate for head, is a808 perfect man without Christ. So that the knitting of our Saviour thereunto should be an addition of that which is too much.” Again, “If the Church be the body of Christ, and of the civil magistrate, it shall have two heads, which being monstrous, is to the great dishonour of Christ and his Church809.” Thirdly, “If the Church be planted in a popular estate, then, forasmuch as all govern in common, and all have authority, all shall be head810 there, and no body at all; which is another monster809.” It might be feared what this birth of so many monsters811 might portend, but that we know how things natural enough in themselves may seem monstrous through misconceit; which error of mind is indeed a monster, and so the skilful in nature’s mysteries have used to term it. The womb812 of monsters, if any be, is813 that troubled understanding, wherein, because things lie confusedly mixed together, what they are it appeareth not814.
A Church perfect without Christ, I know not which way815 a man should816 imagine; unless there may be either Christianity without Christ, or else a Church without Christianity. If magistrates be heads of the Church, they are of necessity Christians; if Christians817, then is their Head Christ.
The adding of Christ the818 universal Head over all unto the818 magistrate’s particular headship, is no more superfluous in any church than in other societies it819 is to be both severally each820 subject unto some head, and to have also a head821 general for them all to be subject unto. For so in armies and822 in civil corporations we see it fareth. A body politic in such respects is not like to a natural body; in this, moe823 heads than one are824 superfluous; in that, not.
It is neither monstrous nor as much as uncomely825 for a church to have different heads: for if Christian churches be in number many, and every of them a body perfect826 by itself, Christ being Lord and Head over all; why should we judge it a thing more monstrous for one body to have two heads, than one head so many bodies? Him God827 hath made the supreme Head of the whole Church; the Head, not only of that mystical body which the eye of man is not able to discern, but even of every Christian politic society, of every visible Church in the world.
And whereas, lastly, it is thought so strange, that in popular states a multitude should to itself828 be both body and head, all this wonderment doth grow from a little oversight, in deeming that the subject wherein headship is829 to reside, should be evermore some one person; which thing is not necessary. For in a830 collective body that hath not derived as yet the principality of power into some one or few, the whole of necessity must be head over each part; otherwise it could not possibly have power831 to make any one certain person head; inasmuch as the very power of making a head belongeth unto headship. These supposed monsters therefore we see832 are no such giants, that833 there should need any Hercules to tame them.
834835For the title or style836 itself, although the laws of this land have annexed it to the crown, yet so far we would837 not strive, if so be men were nice and scrupulous in this behalf only, because they do wish that for reverence unto Christ Jesus, the civil magistrate did rather use some other form of speech wherewith to express that sovereign authority which he lawfully hath over all, both persons and causes of the Church. But I see that hitherto they which condemn utterly the name so applied, do it because they mislike that any838 such power should be given unto civil governors. The greatest839 exception that Sir Thomas More took against that title, who suffered death for denial of it840, was “for that it maketh a lay, or secular841 person, the head of the state842 spiritual or ecclesiastical;” as though God himself did not name even843 Saul the head of all the tribes of Israel; and consequently of that tribe also among the rest, whereunto the state spiritual or ecclesiastical belonged. When the authors of the Centuries reprove it in kings and civil governors, the reason is844, “istis non competit iste primatus;” “such kind of power is too high for them, they fit it not.” In excuse of Mr. Calvin845, by whom this realm is condemned of blasphemy for entitling Henry the Eighth Supreme Head of this Church under Christ, a charitable conjecture is made, that he spake by misinformation, and thought we had meant thereby far otherwise than we do846; howbeit, as he professeth utter dislike of that name, so whether the name be used or no, the very power itself which we give unto civil magistrates he much complaineth of, and testifieth847, “That their power over all things was it which had ever wounded him deeply; that unadvised persons had made them too spiritual; that throughout848 Germany this fault did reign; that in those very parts where Calvin himself was, it prevailed more than were849 to be wished; that rulers, by imagining themselves so spiritual, have taken away ecclesiastical regiment850; that they think they cannot reign unless they abolish all authority851 of the Church, and be themselves the chief judges, as well in doctrine, as in the whole spiritual regency.” So that in truth the question is, whether the magistrate, by being head in such sense as we term him, do use or exercise any part of that authority, not which belongeth unto Christ, but which other men ought to have852.
The last difference which we have made853 between the title of head when we gave it unto Christ, and when we gave854 it to other governors, is, that the kind of dominion which it importeth is not the same in both. Christ is head as being the fountain of life and ghostly nutriment, the well-spring of spiritual blessings poured into the body of the Church; they855 heads, as being 856his principal instruments for the Church’s outward government: He head, as founder of the house; they, as his chiefest overseers857. Against this there858 is exception859 especially taken, and our purveyors are herein said to have their provision from the popish shambles: for by Pighius and Harding, to prove that Christ alone is not head of the Church, this distinction they say is brought, that according to the inward influence of grace, Christ only is head; but according to outward860 government the being head861 is a thing common with him to862 others863.
To raise up falsehoods of old condemned, and to864 bring that865 for confirmation of any thing doubtful, which hath already866 been sufficiently867 proved an error, and is worthily so taken, this would justly deserve censuring. But shall manifest truth be therefore868 reproached, because men in some things convicted869 of manifest untruth have at any time taught870 or alleged it? If too much eagerness against their adversaries had not made them forget themselves, they might remember where being charged as maintainers of those very things, for which others before them have been condemned of heresy, yet lest the name of any such heretic holding the same which they do should make them odious, they stick not frankly to profess871, “872that they are not afraid to consent in some points with Jews and Turks.” Which defence, for all that, were a very weak buckler for such as should consent with Jews and Turks, in that which they have been abhorred and hated for of873 the Church.
But as for this distinction of headship, spiritual and mystical in874 Jesus Christ, ministerial and outward in others besides Christ; what cause is875 to dislike876 either Harding, or Pighius, or any other besides for it? That which they have been reproved for is, not because they did herein877 utter an untruth, but such a truth as was not sufficient to bear up the cause which they did thereby seek to maintain. By this distinction they have both truly and sufficiently proved that the name of head, importing power of878 dominion over the Church, might be given unto others besides Christ, without prejudice unto any part of his honour. That which they should have made manifest was, that879 the name of Head, importing the power of universal dominion over the whole Church of Christ militant, doth, and that by divine right, appertain unto the Pope of Rome. They did prove it lawful to grant unto others besides Christ the power of headship in a different kind from his; but they should have proved it lawful to challenge, as they did to the bishop of Rome, a power universal in that different kind. Their fault was therefore in exacting wrongfully so great power as they challenged in that kind, and not in making two kinds of power, unless some reason880 can be shewed for which this distinction of power should be thought erroneous and false.
A little they stir, although in vain, to prove that we cannot with truth make any881 such distinction of power, whereof the one kind should agree unto Christ only, and the other be 882further communicated. Thus therefore they argue883: “If there be no head but Christ, in respect of the884 spiritual government, there is no head but he in respect of the word, sacraments, and discipline, administered by those whom he hath appointed, forasmuch as that is also885 his spiritual government.” Their meaning is, that whereas we make two kinds of power, of which two, the one being spiritual is proper unto Christ; the other men are capable of, because it is visible and external: we do amiss altogether, they think, in so distinguishing886, forasmuch as the visible and external power of regiment over the Church, is only in relation unto the word, the sacraments, and discipline, administered by such as Christ hath appointed thereunto, and the exercise of this power is also his spiritual government: therefore we do but vainly imagine a visible and external power in the Church differing from his spiritual power.
Such disputes as this do887 somewhat resemble the wonted888 practising of well-willers upon their friends in the pangs of death, whose manner is even then to put smoke in their nostrils, and so to fetch them again, although they know it a matter impossible to keep them living. The kind affection889 which the favourers of this labouring cause bear towards it will not suffer them to see it die, although by what means they should be able to890 make it live, they do not see. But they may see that these wrestlings will not help. Can they be ignorant how little it booteth to overcast so clear a light with some mist of ambiguity in the name of spiritual regiment?
To make things therefore so plain that henceforth891 a child’s capacity may serve rightly to conceive our meaning: we make the spiritual regiment of Christ to be generally that whereby his Church is ruled and governed in things spiritual. Of this general we make two distinct kinds; the one invisibly exercised892 by Christ himself in his own person; the other outwardly administered by them whom Christ doth allow to be the893 rulers and guiders of his Church. Touching the former of these two kinds, we teach that Christ in regard thereof is peculiarly894 termed the Head of the Church of God; neither can any other creature in that sense and meaning be termed head besides him, because it importeth the conduct and government of our souls by the hand of that blessed Spirit wherewith we are sealed and marked, as being peculiarly his. Him only therefore we do acknowledge895 to be that896 Lord, which dwelleth, liveth and reigneth in our hearts; him only to be that Head, which giveth salvation and life unto his body; him only to be that fountain, from whence the influence of heavenly grace897 distilleth, and is derived into all parts, whether the word, or sacraments898, or discipline, or whatsoever be the mean899 whereby it floweth. As for the power of administering these900 things in the Church of Christ, which power we call the power of order, it is indeed both Spiritual and His; Spiritual, because such duties properly concern901 the Spirit; His, because by him it was instituted. Howbeit neither spiritual, as that which is inwardly and invisibly exercised; nor his, as that which he himself in person doth exercise.
Again, that power of dominion which is indeed the point of this controversy, and doth also belong to the second kind of spiritual government902 namely unto that regiment which is external and visible; this likewise being spiritual in regard of the matter about which it dealeth, and being his, inasmuch as he approveth whatsoever is done by it, must notwithstanding be distinguished also from that power whereby he himself in person administereth the former kind of his own spiritual regiment, because he himself in person doth not administer this. We do not, therefore, vainly imagine, but truly and rightly discern a power external and visible in the Church, exercised by men, and severed in nature from that spiritual power of Christ’s own regiment, which power is termed spiritual, because it worketh secretly, inwardly, and invisibly; his, because none doth or903 can it personally exercise, either besides or together with him. So904 that him only we may name our Head, in regard of this905, and yet, in regard of that other power differing906 from this, term others also besides him heads, without any contradiction at all.
Which thing may very well serve for answer unto that also which they further allege against the foresaid distinction, namely907, “that even in908 the outward society909 and assemblies of the Church, where one or two are gathered910 in his name, either for hearing of the word, or for prayer, or any other church-exercise, our Saviour Christ being in the midst of them as Mediator, must needs be there as head911: and if he be there not912 idle, but doing the office of the head fully, it followeth that even in the outward society913 and meetings of the Church, no mere man can be called the head of it, seeing that our Saviour Christ doing the whole office of the head himself alone, leaveth nothing to men by doing whereof they may obtain that title.”
Which objection I take as being made for nothing but only to maintain argument. For they are not so far gone as to argue thus in sooth and right good earnest. “God standeth,” saith the Psalmist, “in the midst of gods;” if God be there present, he must undoubtedly be present as a God914; if he be there not915 idle, but doing the office of a God fully, it followeth, that God himself alone doing the whole office of a God, leaveth nothing in such assemblies unto any other, by doing whereof they may obtain so high a name. The Psalmist therefore hath spoken amiss, and doth ill to call judges gods. Not so; for as God hath his office differing from theirs, and doth fully discharge it even in the very916 midst of them, so they are not thereby917 excluded from all kind of duty for which that name should be given unto them also, but in that duty for which it was given them they are encouraged religiously and carefully to order themselves. After the selfsame manner, our Lord and Saviour being in the midst of his Church as Head, is918 our comfort, without the919 abridgment of any one duty, for performance whereof others are termed heads in another kind than he is.
If there be of the ancient Fathers which say, “There920 is but one Head of the Church, Christ; and that the minister which921 baptizeth cannot be the head of him which922 is baptized, because Christ is the head of the whole Church: and that Paul could not be the923 head of the Churches924 which he planted, because Christ is Head925 of the whole body926;” they understand the name of head in such sort as we grant that it927 is not appliable to any other, no not in relation to the least part of the whole Church: he which baptizeth, baptizeth into Christ: he which converteth, converteth unto928 Christ; he which ruleth, ruleth for Christ. The whole Church can have but one to be head as lord and owner of all: wherefore if Christ be Head in that kind, it followeth, that no other can be so929 else either to the whole or to any part930.
← That for their unworthiness to deprive both · Contents · To call and dissolve all solemn assemblies a →
Footnotes
-
c in both Q. ↩
-
1 Maccab. xiv. 42. ↩
-
d their E.Q.L.C. ↩
-
e over their works, and country, and weapons, but also, &c. E. ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
f all om. E. ↩
-
Vid. inf. c. iii. 1. ↩
-
g haply it be E.C.L. ↩
-
h to E. ↩
-
i only om. E. ↩
-
k Ezekias om. E.C.L. ↩
-
l the om. E. ↩
-
m matters E.Q.L.C. ↩
-
n officers C.L. ↩
-
o kings E. ↩
-
p things E.C. ↩
-
q prophets E. ↩
-
r nor E.C.L. ↩
-
s at any time could E.L. any time could C. ↩
-
t with D. ↩
-
u thing E.C. change Fulm. ↩
-
x the supremacy E.C. ↩
-
y even om. E.C. ↩
-
z high om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
a the E.C. ↩
-
b and E.Q.L.C. ↩
-
c do imagine E.C. ↩
-
[1 Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 694. “To these three jointly, i. e. to the ministers, seniors, and deacons, is the whole regiment of the Church to be committed.” Answ. ibid. “Methinks I hear you whisper that the prince hath no authority in ecclesiastical matters.” T. C. i. 153. al. 192. “The prince or civil magistrate hath to see that the laws of God touching his worship and touching all matters and orders of the Church be exercised and duly observed, and to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly. As for the making of the orders and ceremonies of the Church, they do (where there is a constituted and ordered Church) pertain unto the ministers of the Church and to the ecclesiastical governors … But if those to whom that doth appertain make any orders not meet, the magistrate may and ought to hinder them and drive them to better.”] ↩
-
d callings E.C. ↩
-
e the om. D. ↩
-
See below, c. ii. 1. ↩
-
f who E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
g functions E. ↩
-
h in om. D. ↩
-
i matter E. ↩
-
k the om. E. ↩
-
kk opinions E′. ↩
-
l the om. E.C. ↩
-
ll substance, ed. 1676, ’82. ↩
-
m that E.Q.C.L. which E′. ↩
-
n so being E.C. ↩
-
o E.Q.L. ↩
-
p every one of them E. ↩
-
q sever E. [swerve Fulm.] ↩
-
r most om. E. ↩
-
s through E.C. ↩
-
t Christian om. C.L. ↩
-
u E. reads the church and commonwealth are two corporations, independently subsisting [each Fulm.] by itself. The correction is made upon the authority of all the MSS. ↩
-
x man a om. E.C. ↩
-
y triangle E. ↩
-
z kind om. E. ↩
-
a the Church E.L. ↩
-
b to E.Q.C. ↩
-
c both. Nay, it is so E. The MSS. read as above, only C. omits so. ↩
-
d also to be E.C. ↩
-
e the om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
ee that—do between brackets E′. ↩
-
f the bishops E. ↩
-
g with E. ↩
-
h which does not hinder, om. E. inserted from Q.D. ↩
-
i a om. E.C.L. ↩
-
[“Etsi duo sunt gubernationis genera, alterum civitatis, alterum ecclesiæ, tamen utrumque ab eodem profectum est auctore. Quod quamvis diversa fiat ratione, et illud a Deo sit quatenus Creator et Moderator rerum humanarum, hoc quatenus Redemptor est humani generis, et unumquodque suum habeat finem; tamen quando eadem societas ecclesia est et civitas, sicut ab eodem utriusque regiminis auctoritas manat, ita ad eundem postremum finem respicit, et eodem se recolligit. Unde fit, ut multa habeant communia, quæ nunquam recte nisi communi consilio et assensu possunt perfici. Evangelii minister a Deo Servatore regiminis in ecclesiam habet auctoritatem: magistratus a Deo omnium Creatore in cives. Qui quoties simul amice conspirant, et eodem sua consilia referunt, optime cum civitate, optime agitur cum ecclesia.” Saravia de Divers. Ministr. Grad. c. xi. p. 27.] ↩
-
k errors E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
l such as are E. [such; are Fulm.] ↩
-
m in om. E.D. ↩
-
n hath E.C. ↩
-
o dependencie D. ↩
-
p government E. ↩
-
[“Dicunt, ecclesiam et rempublicam res distinctas esse: quod nos quidem fatemur nonnunquam personis et ratione fieri, nonnunquam ratione tantum. Ubi universa civitas aut resp. fidem Christi profitetur et amplectitur, ratione tantum differunt cives regni Dei, et reip. Ubi civitas et princeps est infidelis, ibi non ratio tantum, sed personæ civium utriusque regni diversæ sunt. Quo in loco diversæ possunt esse summæ jurisdictiones. Ubi vero eadem est resp. et ecclesia, minime hoc fieri potest. Cum igitur in nostro regno iidem sint cives regni Dei, et reip. una debet esse summa potestas, nisi subditorum et præsidum alia sit ratio.” Sutcliffe, de Presbyterio, p. 42.] ↩
-
[Apol. doctissimi Viri D. Gulielmi Alani [i. e. Cardinal Allen, v. p. 92, note 3] pro Sacerdotibus Societatis Jesu, et aliis Seminariorum Alumnis: Augustæ Trevirorum, 1583. cap. iv. p. 64, 65: “Est error manifestus, omni eruditione tam humana quam divina damnatus, affirmare primatum in causis ecclesiasticis naturalibus aut Christianis legibus in potestate et jure regis temporalis includi, aut hujusmodi dignitatem unquam in gubernatorem aliquem civilem jure collatam aut conferri posse, sive is ethnicus, sive Christianus fuerit, asserere… Sub Nerone, præcipui Apostoli ecclesiam Romanam gubernabant: quemadmodum modo, ubi regna ab avita fide desciverunt, ecclesia suam spiritalem necessario habeat gubernationem, quæ a regibus ethnicis, quibus tamen in rebus sæcularibus obtemperant Christiani, minime dependeat. Quapropter omnia quæ a Protestantibus ex sacris literis adferuntur, non plus principi Christiano quam ethnico quoad hanc potestatem favent.”] ↩
-
q did bare D. ↩
-
r church’s E.C. ↩
-
s live she om. E.C.L. ↩
-
t spiritual E. ↩
-
u the om. E.C.L. ↩
-
Polit. [lib. iii. cap. 6.] p. 102. [τὸ κοινῃ̑ συμϕέρον συνάγει, καθ’ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει μέρος ἑκαστῳ̑ του̑ ζῃ̑ν καλω̑ς· μάλιστα μὲν οὐ̑ν του̑τ’ ἔστι τέλος, καὶ κοινῃ̑ πα̑σι, καὶ χωρίς· συνέρχονται δὲ καὶ του̑ ζῃ̑ν ἕνεκεν αὐτου̑.] ↩
-
x saith E.C.L. ↩
-
y the life E. ↩
-
z which the life hath need of E. as this life hath need of C. ↩
-
zz needeth E′. ↩
-
S. Matt. vi. [33. This reference from Q.] ↩
-
a to be sought first for E. ↩
-
b sought E. ↩
-
Arist. Pol. p. 196. [om. E. Q. C. L.] ↩
-
c heathens E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
d affairs E. ↩
-
Arist. Pol. lib. iii. cap. 20. [123. l. 10. et 181. l. 28. D. vi. 8. t. iii. 566. c. ed. Duval. Ἀλλὸ δ’ εἰ̑δος ἐπιμελείας ἡ πρὸς τοὺς θεούς· οἱ̑ον, ἱερει̑ς τε καὶ ἐπιμεληταὶ τω̑ν περὶ τὰ ἱερά.] Liv. lib. i. c. 20. [“(Numa) sacerdotibus creandis animum adjecit … Pontificem … legi eique sacra omnia exscripta exsignataque attribuit … ut esset quo consultum plebis veniret.”] ↩
-
e states amongst D. ↩
-
f considerations E.Q. ↩
-
g selfsame E.L. ↩
-
h reasons E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
i there be E. ↩
-
k already [alleged Fulm.] ↩
-
kk the holy E′. ↩
-
ll commonweal in E′. throughout this §. ↩
-
m their E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
n were E. ↩
-
o or E. ↩
-
p evermore to be E.C.Q. ↩
-
q was that E. that was C.L.Q. ↩
-
r that E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
s dependence E.C. ↩
-
t the om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
tt the om. E′. ↩
-
u a church E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
x rest E. ↩
-
y continued E. corr. in 1662. ↩
-
z subsistencie D. ↩
-
a are in this case therefore E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
b as it liveth under E.C.L. ↩
-
c Jesus om. E.C.L. ↩
-
d forsomuch E.C.L. ↩
-
e so om. E. ↩
-
2 Chron. xix. 8, 11; Heb. v. 1; 1 Thess. v. 12; T. C. iii. 151. ↩
-
f from D. ↩
-
g a little om. Q. ↩
-
[“A true, sincere, and modest Defence of English Catholics that suffer for their faith both at home and abroad; against a false, seditious and slanderous libel, entitled ‘the Execution of Justice in England.’ ” c. v. p. 98, 99. “Though the state, regiment, policy and power temporal be in itself always of distinct nature, quality, and condition from the government ecclesiastical and spiritual commonwealth called the Church or body mystical of Christ, and the magistrate spiritual and civil divers and distinct, and sometime so far that the one hath no dependance of the other, nor subalternation to the other in respect of themselves, (as it is in the churches of God residing in heathen kingdoms, and was in the Apostles’ times under the pagan emperors,) yet now when the laws of Christ are received, and the bodies politic and mystical, the Church and civil state, the magistrate ecclesiastical and temporal, concur in their kinds together, (though ever of distinct regiments, natures and ends) there is such a concurrence and subordination betwixt both, that the inferior of the two (which is the civil state) must needs (in matters pertaining any way either directly or indirectly to the honour of God and benefit of the soul,) be subject to the spiritual, and take direction from the same. The condition of these two powers (as St. Gregory Nazianzen most excellently resembleth it) is like unto the distinct state of the spirit and body or flesh in a man… The spirit may and must command, overrule, and chastise the body … So likewise, the power political,” &c.] ↩
-
h temporal princes C. ↩
-
[“Nor yet the spiritual turned into the temporal, or subject by perverse order (as it is now in England) to the same; but the civil, which indeed is the inferior, subordinate, and in some cases subject to the ecclesiastical; though so long as the temporal state is no hinderance to eternal felicity and the glory of Christ’s kingdom, the other intermeddleth not with his actions.” Allen, ubi supra.] ↩
-
i Christian om. E.C.L. ↩
-
T. C. l. iii. p. 151. ↩
-
l opposed E. ↩
-
m both Church and commonwealth E.C.L. ↩
-
n which saith om. E. that saith Q. ↩
-
Socr. lib. 5. præfat. Sozom. lib. 3. c. 20. [These two references from D.] ↩
-
o to be adjudged E. ↩
-
p and another E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. iii. [c. 65.] ↩
-
q of om. E.C.L. ↩
-
r Church, doth E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
Aug. Ep. 167. [al. 89.] ↩
-
rr not E′. edd. 1662, ’76. corr. 1682. ↩
-
s may om. E.C. ↩
-
t there om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
tt accident E′. ↩
-
u always should E.C.L. ↩
-
x lovingly dwell E.L.D. ↩
-
y be E.C.L. ↩
-
yy sometimes E′. ↩
-
z residence E. ↩
-
a in those accidents they are to be divers E. ↩
-
aa that om. E′. ↩
-
b inabstracted, betoken E.; so in 1662-82. ↩
-
c the accidents themselves E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
d the om. E. ↩
-
e those E.C.L. ↩
-
f in one man E.Q.C. ↩
-
g in divers E. not in E′. ↩
-
h these E. such C.L. ↩
-
i as E.Q. ↩
-
k that E.C.L. ↩
-
l therefore the Church E.C.L. ↩
-
m a om. E. ↩
-
n without any affairs; besides, when, E. ↩
-
o when … church doth flourish om. E.C.L. ↩
-
p when in both [of] them, we then say E. ↩
-
Isai. i. 21, 23. ↩
-
q justice and judgment E.Q.L. [The Geneva Bible, D. and C. read as in the text.] ↩
-
Mal. i. 7, 8. [cf. VII. xxii. 4.] ↩
-
r evil Gen. Bible, E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
s you D. ↩
-
t treasure E.C. ↩
-
1 Chron. xxix. 3. ↩
-
u bestowed E. ↩
-
x did E.C.L. ↩
-
y which E.C.L. ↩
-
Nehem. ii. 17. ↩
-
yy Nehemiah E′. ↩
-
Acts xviii. 14. ↩
-
Ver. 15. ↩
-
z reciteth E.C.L. [rejecteth Fulm.] ↩
-
a thereof E.C. of those matters L. of those things, Gen. Bible. ↩
-
b this difference E. ↩
-
e or E. ↩
-
f is not therefore E.Q. is therefore C.L. ↩
-
g from om. E.C. ↩
-
T. C. l. iii. p. 152. [151. “A man may, by excommunication, be sundred from the Church, which forthwith loseth not of necessity his burgessship or freedom in the city, or commonwealth … The civil magistrate may by banishment cut off a man from being a member of the commonwealth, whom the Church cannot by and by cast out by excommunication … When one is for his misbehaviour deprived of his privileges both in the Church and commonwealth; albeit the Church be upon his repentance bound to receive him in again as member thereof, yet the commonwealth is at her liberty whether she will restore him or no.”] ↩
-
gg admit? If it chance the same man be shut out of both, division E′. 1666. ↩
-
h both, divisions E. ↩
-
hh execution. After E′. ↩
-
i none of E. none of is gone from L. cut off is gone from C. once that way gone from Q. ↩
-
k fit E. [still Fulm.] ↩
-
l that E. ↩
-
m a om. E.D.C.L. ↩
-
n state D. ↩
-
o very om. E.C. ↩
-
p which om. E. ↩
-
q it must E. ↩
-
r utterly separate E. sever C. ↩
-
s from the other also E. ↩
-
t may E. ↩
-
u do clearly E. ↩
-
x the affairs of om. E.C.L. ↩
-
y by E. ↩
-
z which E.C.L. ↩
-
a same om. E. ↩
-
b same E.C. ↩
-
c which having E.L.Q. which having been both D.A. man which hath both been C. ↩
-
d reunited E.L. received C. ↩
-
e admitted E.C. ↩
-
f both parts E. ↩
-
g these E.C. ↩
-
h received E.L. receives C. ↩
-
i man om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
k or E.L. on C.Q. E′. 1666. ↩
-
kk hath E′. 1666. ↩
-
l of these things in E. of those things of C.L. ↩
-
m said D. ↩
-
n the dominions E.C.L. ↩
-
o and E.C.L. ↩
-
p subjected E. submitted C. ↩
-
q dependence from E.C.L. ↩
-
r when he is suffered to rule E.C.L. where he, &c. Q. ↩
-
s all om. D. all did L. ↩
-
t thought fit E. ↩
-
u as it is a Church om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
x order thereby E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
y and to dispose E.C.L. ↩
-
z so far as E.C.L. ↩
-
a government E.C. ↩
-
b over the Church om. E.C. ↩
-
c and power E.C. ↩
-
d degrees E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
dd Law E′. 1666. ↩
-
e Head and om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
f E.C.L. insert “secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly,” to mark the respective clauses of this sentence; to which C. and L. add (as would be correct) sixthly before the word according; but E. in that place has a full stop, for which in the current text and has been substituted. Q. notes the numbers in the margin. The whole stands here as in the Dubl. MSS. ↩
-
g in what inconveniency E. in what conveniency C. ↩
-
h generals E.C. ↩
-
i secondly, the prerogative, &c. E.C.L. (and so in the following clauses of this enumeration). ↩
-
k great E. ↩
-
l law E. ↩
-
m inevitable om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
Luke xi. 17. ↩
-
1 Cor. xiv. 40. ↩
-
n except E.C.L. ↩
-
o and E.C.L. ↩
-
p Yea om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
pp coaugmentation E′. 1666. corr. 1676. ↩
-
q to the other E.Q. ↩
-
r policy E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
s have E.C.L. ↩
-
t matters E. ↩
-
u so…extend om. D. do om. E. ↩
-
x an authority E. ↩
-
y cases E.C.L. ↩
-
z there om. E.C.L. ↩
-
a of all Dominion? om. E. 1666. ↩
-
b Besides—dominion om. E. him om. D. ↩
-
c order E. [Fulm. under.] ↩
-
cc old axiom E′. ↩
-
d et dominium om. E. potestatem, dominium C. ↩
-
[Bracton (circ. 1244.) de Leg. the reading in the former quotation Angl. i. 8. fol. 5. ed. 1569; where is “dominationem et potestatem.”] ↩
-
e not om. E.C. ↩
-
f state E. ↩
-
g any thing hereunto to the contrary E.C. ↩
-
h not E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
i meant to exclude E. (Fulm. inserts “but”). ↩
-
k in E. ↩
-
l consisteth E. ↩
-
m of om. E. ↩
-
n On the authority of the Dublin MS. confirmed by internal evidence, the section headed, “By what rule,” is omitted here, and inserted § 17. Of this arrangement a relic remains in E.Q. and L. viz. the marginal note, “By what rule,” inserted in that place, without any section to which it might refer. Fulm. notes in the margin there, “des.” which probably means “desunt [quædam].” ↩
-
p which E. ↩
-
q against the other E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
r must E.Q. ↩
-
s God supreme E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
t band E.C.L. ↩
-
u full om. E. ↩
-
[Comp. Allen, Apol. c. iv. p. 67. “Oportet ecclesiam … illam retinere et conservare gubernandi rationem, quam Christus ipse immediate instituit, quamque nec elegit nec ordinavit populi decretum et consensus qui origo omnium statuum humanorum est et formarum politiæ.” It is the principle of the Roman law: “Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege regia, quæ de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat.” Dig. i. iv. 1.] ↩
-
x kinds D. ↩
-
y society E.C.L. ↩
-
z they E. he C.L. ↩
-
a unto E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
b to the E.C. to that Q. ↩
-
c Sometime D. ↩
-
d which E.C. ↩
-
e have it om. E.C.L. [which insert it after “God.”] ↩
-
f freely E. ↩
-
g governors E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
h estates E.C. ↩
-
i for D. [see p. 346, line 5.] ↩
-
Dan. ii.21.iv; Is. xlv; Rom.xiii. ↩
-
k power which they have to be his E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
“Corona est potestas delegata a Deo.” Bracton. [The editor has not been able to find these words in the Book De Legibus Angliæ, but the sentiment occurs continually. E. g. ed. 1569, fol. 1. “Rex vicarius Dei;” et fol. 5. “Quod sub lege esse debeat, cum sit Dei vicarius, evidenter apparet ad similitudinem Jesu Christi, cujus vices gerit in terris;” and fol. 55. Habet omnia jura in manu sua, quæ ad coronam et laicalem pertinent potestatem … ut ex jurisdictione sua, sicut Dei minister et vicarius, tribuat unicuique quod suum fuerit… . Est enim corona regis facere justitiam et judicium, et tenere pacem;” and fol. 107. lib. iii. cap. 9. throughout.] “ ‘Rex’ ” “(inquit Sthenidas [Ecphantus] Locrus de Regno) τὸ μὲν [σκα̑νος] τοι̑ς λοιποι̑ς ὅμοιος οἵα γεγονὼς ἐκ τα̑ς αὐτα̑ς ὕλας ὑπὸ τεχνίτα δ’ εἰργασμένος λώστω ὃς ἐτεχνίτευσεν αὐτὸν ἀρχετύπῳ χρώμενος ἑαυτῳ̑.” [Ap. Stobæum, ii. 321. ed. Gaisford.] ↩
-
l even om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
m own om. E.C.L. ↩
-
n hath E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o the om. E.C. ↩
-
p the thing om. E. [Fulm. f. the power.] ↩
-
q assigned and established E. ↩
-
r affairs E. ↩
-
s by E.C. ↩
-
t the om. E. ↩
-
u the om. E. ↩
-
x being now made E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
y proposed E. ↩
-
z states E. estates C. ↩
-
a laws E. ↩
-
b so by the same law they E. ↩
-
c state E. ↩
-
d hath E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
e power and authority E. f. power over C. ↩
-
f the kingly E. ↩
-
g right om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
h place of estate E. the place of state C. that place Q. ↩
-
i right to exact E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
j and E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
k the om. E. ↩
-
m behoveth further E. ↩
-
n in E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o of E. ↩
-
[Vindic. contr. Tyr. p. 63, 65. “Cum de universo populo loquimur, intelligimus eos qui a populo auctoritatem acceperunt, magistratus … intelligimus etiam comitia, quæ nil aliud sunt, quam regni cujusque epitome, ad quæ publica omnia negotia referuntur … Illi vero ut singuli rege inferiores sunt, ita universi superiores.”] ↩
-
p herein om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
q injury done unto him E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
r not om. E.C.L. ↩
-
s the same E.C.L. ↩
-
t μετὰ E. Fulm. by birth, μετὰ L. μεία E′. both Greek words om. C. ↩
-
u is capital, and E. is capable, and C. ↩
-
Junius Brutus, Vindic. p. 83. [“Vindiciæ contra Tyrannos, sive, de Principis in Populum Populique in Principem legitima Potestate; Stephano Junio Bruto, Celta, sive, ut putatur, Theodoro Beza, auctore.” P. 112, ed. Amstelod, 1660. “Etsi, ex quo virtutem patrum imitati filii nepotesve regna sibi quasi hæreditaria fecisse videntur, in quibusdam regionibus electionis libera facultas desiisse quodammodo videatur; mansit tamen perpetuo in omnibus regnis bene constitutis ea consuetudo, ut demortuis non prius succederent liberi, quam a populo quasi de novo constituerentur; nec tanquam sui hæredes patribus agnascerentur, sed tum demum reges censerentur, cum ab iis, qui populi majestatem repræsentarent, regni investituram quasi per sceptrum et diadema accepissent.” The first edition of this work bears date 1579. It appears by the prefixed epistle to have been completed 1577: and from internal evidence to have been written soon after the coronation of the Duke of Anjou (afterwards Henry III.) as king of Poland. See p. 223, ed. 1660; and compare a dissertation by Le Clerc at the end of Bayle’s Dictionary, Eng. Transl. 1734, in which, from this and other circumstances, he seems to have established in opposition to Bayle that Du Plessis Mornay, not Hubert Languet, was the probable author of the Vindiciæ. Sutcliffe in his Answer to the Petition to the Queen, 1591, mentions it repeatedly as the work either of Beza or Hotoman: p. 75, 79, 81. Dr. Mac Crie in his life of Melville, p. 425 (Edinb. 1819), says that the Vindiciæ is properly an enlargement of Beza’s suppressed treatise of De Jure Magistratuum. This, Mr. Gibbings suggests, may be the reason why Hooker seems to have been inclined to ascribe the book to Beza: see above, Editor’s Preface, p. xxii. At one time it was ascribed to the Jesuit Saunders: see Bancroft, Survey, c. 22. It is an essay to settle four questions: 1. “An subditi teneantur aut debeant principibus obedire, si quid contra legem Dei imperent.” 2. “An liceat resistere principi, legem Dei abrogare volenti, ecclesiamve vastanti. Item quibus, quomodo et quatenus.” 3. “An et quatenus principi remp. aut opprimenti aut perdenti resistere liceat. Item, quibus id, quomodo, et quo jure permissum sit.” 4. “An jure possint aut debeant vicini principes auxilium ferre aliorum principum subditis, religionis puræ causa afflictis, aut manifesta tyrannide oppressis.”] ↩
-
x that om. E. ↩
-
y deceased om. E.C.L. ↩
-
z king’s E. ↩
-
a sceptre and a diadem E. ↩
-
Junius Brutus, Vindic. p. 85. [116. “In summa: omnes omnino reges ab initio electi fuerunt. Et qui hodie per successionem regnum adire videntur, prius a populo constituantur necesse est. Denique etsi populus ob egregia quædam merita ex aliqua stirpe reges sibi deligere in quibusdam regionibus solet; stirpem ipsam, non surculum deligit; nec ita deligit, quin, si degeneret, aliam eligere non [?] possit. Qui vero ex ea stirpe etiam proximi sunt, non tam reges nascuntur, quam fiunt; non tam reges, quam regum candidati habentur.” p. 81. [110.] “Si stirpem spectas, hæreditarium certe fuisse; at sane si personas, omnino electivum.”] ↩
-
b that E.C.L. ↩
-
c we E.C.L. ↩
-
d themselves om. E.C.L. ↩
-
e selected E. ↩
-
Page 78. [105, &c.] ↩
-
f and E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
[See this subject treated of at large by Dr. Saravia, “De Imperandi Auctoritate, et Christiana Obedientia,” lib. iii. cap. 1-17; against William Reynolds, of Rheims, who had maintained the contrary doctrine on the part of a Roman Catholic clergy and people in his work, “De Reip. Christianæ Potestate super Reges,” published 1592, under the name of G. Gul. Rossæus. It appears to have been the standing doctrine of the extreme papal party in their contentions with the imperialists.] ↩
-
ff given with E′. ↩
-
g and sceptres om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
gg have. I say these om. E′. ↩
-
h specified E.C.L. ↩
-
i either om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
k And om. E. ↩
-
l doth E.Q.C. ↩
-
m all these new elections and investings E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
n in E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o entire om. E. inserted in C. by an after hand. ↩
-
p have rule Q.C.L. E′. om. E. ↩
-
q the D.E.C.L. [Q. reads his.] ↩
-
r of his sovereign E.C.L. ↩
-
s in om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
t from E.C. ↩
-
u into D. ↩
-
x births E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
y incapable D.C.L. ↩
-
z is om. E. which gives the whole sentence in italics. ↩
-
Vide Cicer. de Offic. [ii. 12.] ↩
-
a it did always flow by original E. ↩
-
b the cause of kings’ E. ↩
-
c lords E.C. ↩
-
d fall unto them by escheat E.C. ↩
-
e follow rightly E. rightly om. C. ↩
-
f and E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
g the om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
h may a body politic then E.C. ↩
-
i the E.C.L. ↩
-
k inconveniences do E.Q.C. conveniences do L. ↩
-
l by any just means should be able E. ↩
-
m the line of E. [underscored by Fulm.] ↩
-
n lawfully om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o is to E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
p only the articles E.C.L. ↩
-
q do by little and little growE. do grow by little, &c. Q.C.L. ↩
-
r most om. E. ↩
-
s to be om. E. ↩
-
Arist. Pol. lib. iii. cap. 1. [cap. 10. E. cap. 16, ed. Duval, t. iii. 477. B. βασιλείας μὲν οὐ̑ν εἴδη ταυ̑τα, τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμόν· μία μὲν, ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωϊκοὺς χρόνους· αὕτη δ’ ἠ̑ν έκόντων μὲν, ἐπί τισι δ’ ὡρισμένοις· στρατηγὸς γὰρ ἠ̑ν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς, καὶ τω̑ν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος.] ↩
-
ss sustained, and endued with . . E′. and edd. ↩
-
Pythagoras apud Ecphant. de Regno. Ὁ κατ’ ἀρετὰν ἐξάρχων καλέεται [τε] βασιλεὺς, καὶ ἔντι, ταύταν ἔχων ϕιλίαν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν ποτὶ τὼς ὑπὸ αὐτὸν, ἅνπερ ὁ Θεὸς ἔχει ποτί τε τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῳ̑. [ap. Stob. Floril. ii. 323. ed. Gaisford.] “He that ruleth according to virtue is called a king, and hath such friendship and community towards those that be under him, as God hath towards the world and those things that be in it.” ↩
-
t judge E.C.L. ↩
-
u that D. ↩
-
x scape D. ↩
-
y another E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
Polit. iii. 14. [Ἡ ἐν τῃ̑ Λακωνικῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ δοκει̑ μὲν εἰ̑ναι βασιλεία μάλιστα τω̑ν κατὰ νόμον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων· ἀλλ’ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν χώραν, ἡγεμὼν ἔστι τω̑ν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον. ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀποδέδοται τοι̑ς βασιλευ̑σιν. comp. c. 15. init.] ↩
-
z have E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
a they were most tied to law, and so [had C.L.Q.] the most restrained power E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
b very om. E.C.L. ↩
-
c the state E.C.L. ↩
-
d αὐτῳ̑ μὲν, and afterwards δὲ, om. E.C. ↩
-
[The margin of the Queen’s Coll. MS. has here, “Ecphantus Pythagoricus.” Vid. Stob. Floril. ed. Gaisford, II. 326. The whole passage is, Ὅπερ ἔντι μὲν τῳ̑ Θεῳ̑, ἕντι καὶ τῳ̑ βασιλει̑, αὐτῳ̑ μὲν ἄρχειν (ἀϕ’ ὠ̑περ καὶ ὁ αὐτάρκης καλέεται) ἄρχεσθαι δ’ ὑπ’ οὐδενός.] ↩
-
e predominancy E. ↩
-
f always om. E.C.L. ↩
-
g E.Q.C. insert “both for them and the people,” as does L, repeating “best” before that clause. ↩
-
h The reading of C. here is, “I mean not only the law of nature and the law of God, but the national consent thereunto.” Q, as in the text, omitting “very.” L and E, “I mean not only the law of nature and of God, but the national law consonant thereunto.” The text is from D. ↩
-
hh hand ins. E′. ↩
-
hhh Happier—science ital. E′. ↩
-
i and degrees ins. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
j every of which E. later of which Q.C.L. ↩
-
k another E.C.L. ↩
-
l δὲ E. ↩
-
m ἀπόλυπος E. ↩
-
n ἡ δὲ ὅλη E.Q. [C. omits the Greek.] ↩
-
[Ap. Stob. Floril. II. 166.] “The king ruling by law, the magistrate following, the subject free, and the whole society happy.”] ↩
-
o a king E.C. ↩
-
p grows D. ↩
-
q by him, or commanded E. ↩
-
r unto E.Q.L. ↩
-
[Καὶ τούτων παραβάσει μὲν βασιλευς, τύραννος· ὁ δὲ ἄρχων, ἀνακόλουθος· ὁ δ’ ἀρχόμενος, δου̑λος· ἁ δ’ ὅλα κοινωνία, κακοδαίμων. Id. ibid.] ↩
-
s the E.C. ↩
-
t manner of person E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
u the om. D. ↩
-
x are to take E.C. ↩
-
y crown E. ↩
-
z pointed E.C.L. ↩
-
a same E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
b power and authority E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
c and om. E. ↩
-
d military dominion E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
e and E.Q.L. ↩
-
f such om. E.C.L. ↩
-
g may lawfully E.C. ↩
-
Stapl. de Doct. Princip. [Controv. II.] lib. v. c. 17. [“Non negatur principi, magistratui, vel communitati potestas, perversa docentes corporali pœna puniendi, legesque pro ecclesiæ pace ferendi, dogmata promulgandi, defendendi, et contra violatores vindicandi.” p. 189. Paris, 1579.] ↩
-
h punishments D. ↩
-
i from violation om. E. which inserts it after themselves. ↩
-
j the very E. ↩
-
Choppin. [René Chopin, 1537-1606.] de Sacra Politia forensi. Par. 1577, and 1589. Præfat. [This reference is from the Dubl. MS. Hooker quotes from the dedication of the edition of 1589, addressed to cardinal Bourbon under the name of Charles X. “Regium istud est, civiliumque magistrorum munus, ecclesiæ decreta tueri, conservare, tum latis legibus omnes sacris addictos continere in officio; urgendos etiam ad canonum ecclesiasticorum veterisque cultum disciplinæ, principali non minus auctoritate quam pontificali… . Laudatus est enim vel ex eo Joas Hebræorum rex, quod metuens ne sacerdotes nummos interverterent, qui offerebantur a populo ad tutelam templi, eos primum in arcam clausam inferri jussisset, deinde scriba suo præsente fabris ac cæmentariis erogari. Sed longe augustius illud, Christianæque utilius reip. regem ipsius adeo religionis cultusque divini custodem se profiteri, nedum sacri ærarii: qualem se gessisse Constantinum Magnum accepimus, et Galliæ tuæ heroas præstantissimos plerosque.” The writer was a lawyer of eminence in the parliament of Paris, and a vehement partisan of the League. v. Biog. Univ.] ↩
-
k rule E. ↩
-
kk Joash E′. 1666. ↩
-
l was E.Q. ↩
-
m treasure E. ↩
-
n whole om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o of om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
p God’s ecclesiastical E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
q fear E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
r thing E.C. ↩
-
s themselves E.C.L. ↩
-
t never hereunto E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
u discourse E.C.L. ↩
-
x to be far E. ↩
-
T. C. lib. i. p. 192. [154.] ↩
-
y that om. E. ↩
-
z all orders E.C. ↩
-
a to be E. ↩
-
b that om. E. ↩
-
Fenner’s “Defence of the godly Ministers [against the slanders of D. Bridges, contained in his answer to the preface before the Discourse of Ecclesiastical Government.” 1587. Sign. E. 1.] ↩
-
c do om. E. ↩
-
d towards E. ↩
-
Humble Motion, p. 63. ↩
-
e which om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
f and preeminence E.C. ↩
-
g insomuch E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
h no kind of motion om. E. ↩
-
Cicero, lib. i. de Nat. Deor. [c. 44. “Posidonius disseruit in libro quinto, nullos esse deos, Epicuro videri; quæque is de diis immortalibus dixerit, invidiæ detestandæ gratia dixisse: neque enim tam desipiens fuisset, ut fingeret … omnino nihil curantem, nihil agentem … Re tollit, oratione relinquit, deos.” Lactant. Epit. 36. “Verbo reliquisti, re sustulisti.”] ↩
-
k and om. E. ↩
-
l those D. ↩
-
m afore alleged E′. grant E.C. ground Q. ↩
-
n shew E. some C. ↩
-
o opinion E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
p the establishment E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
q that such words only sound towards all kind of fulnes of power E. All the MSS. read as in the text, except that C has a kind of fulness of power. ↩
-
r above E. ↩
-
s only E. ↩
-
t thereunto E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
u kinds Q.L. In the margin of E. Kinds stand here, as if the title of a section; perhaps by the printer’s mistake, from its being inserted in his copy as a probable emendation. ↩
-
x power and order, and of spiritual jurisdiction E. the power of order and of spiritual jurisdiction C.L. ↩
-
y hath E. which has no stop at joined. ↩
-
z inseparably E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
a those E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
b proceeding E. ↩
-
c such E.C. some L. ↩
-
d wish’t D. ↩
-
e E. omits not. ↩
-
[Vid. supra, § 2, 3.] ↩
-
g in om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
h sundry great things E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
i and by command E. ↩
-
j the law doth so much E. ↩
-
k sometimes E. ↩
-
l the king, &c. (as a quotation) E. ↩
-
m right E.C.L. ↩
-
n his lords and commons in parliament E.C. ↩
-
o of om. E. ↩
-
p either divine Q. ↩
-
q human L. ↩
-
r the kings in themselves C. ↩
-
s not any … both, but om. E. ↩
-
t have a privilege therein E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
u restrain E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
x laws E.Q.L. ↩
-
y not E. ↩
-
z in E.C.L. ↩
-
a supernatural E. ↩
-
b church, whether E. church; where even C. ↩
-
Ambros. Ep. 32. d. 160. [II. 873. N. B. The word “bonus” is not in the MSS. of St. Ambrose.] ↩
-
c proceeding E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
d spiritual om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
e business E.C.L. ↩
-
f liberty E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
g C. has that church. ↩
-
h never E. ↩
-
i alter it; yet E. (Fulm. yea.) ↩
-
j supreme om. E. ↩
-
k any of om. E.Q. ↩
-
l throughout all E.Q.L. throughout the whole C. ↩
-
m law E. laws Q.C.L. ↩
-
n ways E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o so om. E. ↩
-
p so om. E. ↩
-
q determined to be E.Q.C.L. [The phrase of the statute is, “adjudged to be.”] ↩
-
An. 1. Reg. Eliz. [1 Eliz. c. 1. § 36.] ↩
-
r that in E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
s four first E.C. ↩
-
t churches, and evermore E. ↩
-
u making E.L. ↩
-
x it D. ↩
-
y that E. ↩
-
[“It hath been generally holden that although the high commission court was abolished by the statute of 16 Car. I. c. 11, yet these rules will be good directions to ecclesiastical courts in relation to heresy.” 1 Hawkins, 4. ap. Burn. Eccl. Law, II. 277. ed. 1788.] ↩
-
zz case E′. 1662. ↩
-
a into E.C.L. ↩
-
b inconvenience E.L. ↩
-
c hurts E. ↩
-
d themselves E. ↩
-
e the procurement E.C. ↩
-
f invested E. arrayed marg. Q. ↩
-
g prerogative honour E. ↩
-
h as part to the whole perfection E. as part of L.C. as part to Q. ↩
-
i yet om. E.C.L. ↩
-
k E inserts be here, and omits it after societies. ↩
-
l the om. E. ↩
-
Ob utilitatem publicam Reip. per unum consuli oportere, prudentissimi jurisconsulti docuerunt. Just. Dig. i. 2. de Orig. Juris. 2. § 11. [quoted in substance. The words are, “Novissime, sicut ad pauciores juris constituendi via transisse ipsis rebus dictantibus videbatur, per partes evenit, ut necesse esset reip. per unum consuli: nam senatus non perinde omnes provincias probe gerere poterat. Igitur constituto Principe, datum est ei jus, ut quod constituisset, ratum esset.”] ↩
-
m all in E. ↩
-
n inconveniency E. ↩
-
o have E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
p these E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
q one’s E.C. ↩
-
r then in such case thou shouldest be E. ↩
-
t comparable E.C. ↩
-
u policy E. ↩
-
x the Israelites E. ↩
-
y chosen E. ↩
-
z himself om. E.C.L. ↩
-
a from E.C.L. ↩
-
b of E.C.L. ↩
-
c power om. E. ↩
-
d First, unless E.C. ↩
-
Staplet[on] de Princ. Doct. p. 197. [194. Opp. t. i. Controv. 11.] lib. v. c. 22. “Primum, ut Judæorum sacerdotium imperfectius erat, quia umbraticum tantum ac melioris præfigurativum, suoque tempore in melius commutandum: sic ipsius sacerdotii regimen imperfectius fuit, ut illud viz. etiam aliqua ex parte ad Reges pertinere non incongrue posset.” ↩
-
e that the Jews [first C.] religion E.C. ↩
-
f is om. E. ↩
-
Stapl. ibid. [“Rursum, sacerdotium vetus habuit suas leges, sacrificia, ritus, et cæremonias omnes a Moyse præscriptas atque conscriptas, quibus nefas erat vel addere vel detrahere quicquam: ut hic nulla fere alia re opus esset, quam præscriptos cultus et leges executioni mandare; in quo genere Reges concurrere commodissime possent. Nam ardua et sublimiora fidei mysteria, quæ sacerdotum judicia maxime desiderarent, nondum erant necessario ab omnibus explicite credenda, sed tantum a majoribus, a cæteris autem in fide majorum … At in ecclesia Christi et quam plurima accesserunt mysteria explicite credenda, etiam a minoribus et vulgo fidelium … et præterea cultus divini externique regiminis ratio, ritus, ac cæremoniæ, scriptæ omnino non fuerunt.”] ↩
-
g and their E.C.L. Rights E′. ↩
-
h so generally om. Q. ↩
-
i government E.C.L. ↩
-
k our E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
Idem ibid. [“Tertio, synagogæ disciplina erat gladius, et pœnæ temporales … Ut totus ille status servorum erat, non filiorum; sic terrore et externis pœnis, non amore et spiritualibus pœnis ducebantur. ‘Quod enim tunc fiebat gladio, lapidationibus, aliisque corporeis censuris, illud’ (ait Augustinus) ‘degradationibus et excommunicationibus faciendum esse significatum est hoc tempore; cum in ecclesiæ disciplina visibilis fuerit gladius cessaturus.’ Hæc ille. Hinc ergo factum est, ut propter disciplinam illam corporalem, et visibilis gladii, qui in manu regum erat, reges ipsi causis ecclesiasticis non solum pie, sed etiam necessario sese nonnihil immiscuerint. Nunc vero, cum visibilis gladius non pertineat amplius ad disciplinam ecclesiæ, ut docuit Augustinus, datur intelligi non amplius ad reges disciplinam ecclesiæ et regimen pertinere; sed ad illos tantum quorum est ligare et solvere, et cætera.”] ↩
-
l as E. ↩
-
m the E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
n and om. E. ↩
-
o now om. E. ↩
-
Stapl. ibid. [“Quarto, cum synagoga vetus in uno populo concluderetur, et in uno loco sub illo sacrificaretur, non erat incommodum, ut uni quoque regi synagogæ cura magna ex parte committeretur. At in ecclesia multarum gentium ut idem fiat impossibile est … . Cum unitate religionis Christianæ bene constat multitudo regnorum.”] ↩
-
p whilst E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
q into E.C. ↩
-
r king E.C. ↩
-
s inconveniences E. ↩
-
t must E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
u of nature E. ↩
-
x the om. E. ↩
-
y The following paragraphs, to “kings and priests” in p. 367, are inserted here on the authority of the Dublin MS.; and collated with Clavi Trabales, pp. 64-71. ↩
-
z for om. Cl. Trab. D. ↩
-
[See book v. c. 76, § 4.] ↩
-
2 Cor. iii. 7, 8. ↩
-
a which om. Cl. Trab. ↩
-
b seem D. ↩
-
[See in Hector Boeth. Scot. Hist. lib. xii. fol. 250. ed. Paris. 1574; circ. ad 1050, the third law of Maccabæus (or Macbeth): “Qui pontificis authoritatem annum totum execratus contempserit, neque se interim reconciliarit, hostis reip. habetor: qui vero duos annos in ea contumacia perseverarit, fortunis omnibus multator.” This may be seen in the Councils, Hard. t. vi. p. 1. pag. 974: with his other canons, the one transferring all judicature over Christians to the clergy, the other confirming their right to tithes and oblations.] ↩
-
[Whitaker. adv. Campian, p. 201. “Pontifex Romanus ille est Nemrodes, robustus venator ecclesiæ.”] ↩
-
[In 1 Pet. ii. 9. Comm. in Epist. omnes Canonicas, Antwerp, 1591. fol. 270. “Cum dicitur, Exod. xix, Vos eritis in regnum sacerdotale, quare dicatur hic regale sacerdotium? Resp. Ad innuendam prærogativam novi testamenti respectu veteris: in novo enim testamento sacerdotium præeminet regno; sicut spiritus præeminet corpori. Regnum enim consistit in regimine corporali, sacerdotium vero in regimine spirituali. Ideo potestas sacerdotalis ponitur in substantivo, regalis autem in adjectivo.” This work is omitted in the Roman and Venetian editions of Aquinas, and is ascribed by many critics to Thomas Anglicus; i. e. to Thomas Gualensis or Wallensis, a Dominican of Oxford, about ad 1332: whose nomen gentilitium may have been confounded with Angelicus, the well-known epithet of Aquinas. See Wharton ap. Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 728, and App. 10, 29, ed. 1668; Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. i. 482. Neap. 1742; Lorinus, in S. Jac. Præf. § 11. The same doctrine however is clearly enough taught in the treatise De Regimine Principum, Aquin. t. xvii. Opusc. xx. lib. i. c. 14. “Ab eo (Christo) regale sacerdotium derivatur … Quia in veteri lege promittebantur bona terrena … religioso populo exhibenda, ideo et in lege veteri sacerdotes regibus leguntur fuisse subjecti. Sed in nova lege est sacerdotium altius, per quod homines traducuntur ad bona cœlestia: unde in lege Christi reges debent sacerdotibus esse subjecti.” Wharton however doubts the genuineness of this treatise also.] ↩
-
Exod. xix. [6.] ↩
-
1 Pet. ii. [9.] Thomas in eum locum. ↩
-
Revelat. i. 6. ↩
-
c first considered thus E. first thus considered C.L. ↩
-
d easier E.C.L. ↩
-
e government E. ↩
-
f with us om. C. ↩
-
g do understand E. ↩
-
h and E.C. ↩
-
i lawful E.C. princes lawfully Q. ↩
-
k in E.C.Q.L. ↩
-
l spiritual E. [Fulm. special] D. ↩
-
m the om. E.C.Q. ↩
-
n dominion or [of C.] supreme E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
o Again to E. ↩
-
p it will peradventure E.L.Q. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 411. [See also T. C. i. 35; Def. 181; and in Bristow, Motives to the Catholic Faith, fol. 157. ed. 1599, almost the same argument alleged on the part of the Church of Rome.The following memoranda are found in the Dubl. MS. fol. 154. with a reference, in Archbishop Ussher’s handwriting, to this part of the treatise.“The name of ‘Head of the Church of England,’ to give to the prince, they count it injurious unto Christ. See Mr. Cartw. second book, p. 411.” (Here Abp. Ussher adds a note; “vid. supr. pag. 47:” i. e. p. 47. of the MS.) “See Counterpoison, pag. 173, what authority they leave to princes.”“The cause of this doubt is a conceit that the Church and commonweale in respect of regiment must needs be always two distinct bodies; so that the head of the one cannot be the head of the other also. Their reason frivolous, that because Christ is properly termed the Head of the Church, therefore the Prince may not be called the Head of this Church under Christ. What the name of Headship doth import being attributed unto Christ; that his headship over all churches doth not exclude the authority of governors placed as heads over each particular church for the visible regiment thereof. That a Christian prince within his dominions hath supreme power, authority, and headship, over all governors, and that in causes of whatsoever kind, no less if they belong to the Church of Christ than if they merely concern the temporal and civil state.“Their minds, I doubt not, are far from treason. Howbeit, in the days of Henry VIII. to have held that which now is maintained concerning the prince’s power, had then been adjudged a capital offence.“Out of the principles which the learneder sort of them deliver the simpler may draw, as some have done, that by just execution of law hath cost them their lives. A hard case, and to them small comfort which have taught these silly persons such doctrine as being unsaid they have notwithstanding suffered death.”It will be perceived that most of these notes are expanded more or less entirely in the book as we now have it. Some of the topics however do not there occur. The memoranda are exactly of the same sort as those in the C. C. C. copy of the Christian Letter, inserted here and there in the notes on the five first books. This is a confirmation (if any were needed) of their genuineness.] ↩
-
q fit om. D. ↩
-
r entitled Head of the Church, which was given E. ↩
-
Ephes. i. 21, Col. i. 18. ↩
-
s rules, dominions, titles E. rules or dominions C. ↩
-
t to civil magistrates E. ↩
-
u termed also E. ↩
-
x of all E. ↩
-
y articles E. ↩
-
z much as om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
a none E. ↩
-
b magistrate E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
c to E.C. ↩
-
d used and urged E.C. ↩
-
Ephes. i. 20-23. ↩
-
e had [hath C.] set on his E.C. ↩
-
f fulness E. ↩
-
Col. i. 18. ↩
-
g he mentioned before E.C.L. named before Q. ↩
-
Col. i. 16. ↩
-
h By E. ↩
-
i on D. ↩
-
k dominions E.C. ↩
-
l which lifteth… of head om. E. ↩
-
m ways E. ↩
-
n therein om. E. ↩
-
o usually E. ↩
-
p self om. E.C. ↩
-
q equalizing E. equalling [of om.] C. ↩
-
Apol. [adv. Gent. c. 34.] “Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam.” ↩
-
r call E. ↩
-
s may be also as well D. ↩
-
t doth E.C.L. ↩
-
u or E. ↩
-
x Christ, that the E.C.L. ↩
-
y where E. ↩
-
z called E. termed C. ↩
-
a in meaner degrees E.C. in meaner degree L. ↩
-
b the om. D. ↩
-
c there is E. is the C.L. ↩
-
d that could not well be E. ↩
-
e nor E. ↩
-
f the E.C.L. ↩
-
g which om. E.C.L. ↩
-
h must E. [might Fulm.] ↩
-
i plain E. ↩
-
k personally spoken E. unusually taken C. ↩
-
Capita papaverum, primores civitatis. Liv. I. [54.] Roma κεϕαλὴ συμπάσης Ἰταλίας. Dionys. Halic. Antiq. lib. II. Pekah is termed the Head of Samaria, which was the seat of his throne and kingdom. Esai. vii. 9. ↩
-
l nothing E. ↩
-
m even om. E. ↩
-
n Christian kings E. ↩
-
o others D. ↩
-
p other, although it be E.C. although Q.L. ↩
-
q than that which E.Q.L. ↩
-
Confess. c. 5. art. 23 [“Eorum qui publico munere funguntur in ecclesia, alii … partim administrant civilia negotia, partim ecclesiæ tranquillitatem in genere procurant ac tuentur, et quidem accepta in hos usus gladii potestate:”] et 32. [“Civili magistratui obnoxii sunt omnes, cujus etiam potestas est suo respectu ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ, quatenus pacem et εὐταξίαν procurare debet, præsertim in iis quæ primam tabulam respiciunt.” Tract. Theol. i. 42. 46. Gen. 1570.] ↩
-
r command E. ↩
-
s if even E. ↩
-
t they E. ↩
-
u the E.C. ↩
-
v it should not E. ↩
-
x could E. ↩
-
y whole om. E. ↩
-
z is properly E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
b Apostle…doth E. ↩
-
d First, It differeth in order, because E. in measure…in kind Q.L. first in order…secondly…thirdly C. ↩
-
e above all om. E.C. ↩
-
f τη̑ς om. E. ὑ. π. τ. ἀ. om. L. all the Greek om. C. ↩
-
Ephes. i. 21, 22. ↩
-
g principalities…powers E.C. ↩
-
h subordinated D. ↩
-
i Secondly, again E. ↩
-
Psal. ii. 8. ↩
-
k both in E.C.L. ↩
-
l own E.C. ↩
-
m for ever om. E.C. ↩
-
n other E.C.Q.L. ↩
-
o How their power E.C. ↩
-
p Thirdly, The last E. ↩
-
q and greatest E.C. ↩
-
r the E.C. ↩
-
s the om. E.C. ↩
-
Θειότατον καὶ τω̑ν ἐν ἡμι̑ν πάντων δεσποτου̑ν. Plat. in Tim. ↩
-
q the Head of the Church E.C.L. ↩
-
r they om. E.C. ↩
-
s chiefest E.C. ↩
-
t is om. E.C.L. ↩
-
u is always knit to it E. is inseparably knit with it. L. ↩
-
x motion unto E. ↩
-
y quickeneth us E. ↩
-
z Church affairs E.C.L. ↩
-
a any possibility E.C.Q. ↩
-
b one besides E.C. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 411. [and i. 167.] ↩
-
d not E. ↩
-
e over his, and over kingdoms, E. [Fulm. “ ‘other kingdoms,’ i. e. over his own, and over other kingdoms.”] ↩
-
f of E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
g to commonwealths E. ↩
-
h there E.C. ↩
-
i of Christ om. E.C. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 418. [Of this and the passage last referred to, the substance is given, not the very words.] ↩
-
j him E.C. ↩
-
k that om. E.C.Q.L. ↩
-
l it om. E. ↩
-
m in word om. E.C. in words Q. ↩
-
n of Christ E.C.Q.L. ↩
-
o first om. E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
Matt. vi. 13. ↩
-
1 Tim. i. 17. ↩
-
p the invisible D. ↩
-
q in om. D. ↩
-
r both om. E.C.L. ↩
-
s which made E. ↩
-
Apoc. i. 8. ↩
-
s hath E. ↩
-
t as he was man E. ↩
-
u requireth E. ↩
-
John xvii. 5. ↩
-
x now om. E.C.L. ↩
-
y he E. ↩
-
z Further, it is not necessary E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
a properly and truly E. ↩
-
b and E.C. ↩
-
c and E.C. ↩
-
d conditions E.C.L. ↩
-
e wholly E. ↩
-
f and therefore E.C. ↩
-
g proportion E. ↩
-
1 Tim. iv. 10. ↩
-
h succour E1. 1666, corr. 1676. ↩
-
Heb. v. 9. ↩
-
i high and ghostly E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
1 John i. 3. ↩
-
Heb. xii. 22[-24.] ↩
-
k we account them E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
l and that live E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
m as over dutiful and loving subjects E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
n the E. ↩
-
[T. C.] ii. 411. l. 14. ↩
-
o his E. ↩
-
p the E.C. ↩
-
q in governing E.Q.L.C. ↩
-
r of om. E. [not E1.] ↩
-
s kingdoms E. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 418. l. 10. [rather 416 . . 418.] ↩
-
t magistrates authority E.C.L. ↩
-
u Christ’s E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
x is subordinate E. ↩
-
y the preservation E.C. ↩
-
z of om. E.L.C.Q. ↩
-
a also E. ↩
-
b obstinate and rebelliousE.C. ↩
-
T. C. ii. 417. l. 12. ↩
-
c that E. the C.L.Q. ↩
-
g there E.L. om. C. ↩
-
h superiors E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
i of the commonwealth E. ↩
-
k to E.Q. until C. ↩
-
l them om. E. ↩
-
m as E. ↩
-
n on the earth E.C.L. ↩
-
o reigneth now E. ↩
-
p any longer under him E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
q the E. ↩
-
r providence and kingdom E. ↩
-
[T. C.] lib. ii. p. 411. lin. 16. [D.] ↩
-
s regiment E. ↩
-
t sacrifices E. ↩
-
Heb. ix. 25. ↩
-
u sleight E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 415. ↩
-
x immediately E.C. ↩
-
Rom. xiii. 1. ↩
-
y nor with any subordination to God, nor doth any thing from God, but by the hands of our Lord, &c. E. ↩
-
Prov. viii. 16. Humble Motion, p. 63. [“Seeing her highness doth acknowledge Christ to be her head, and renounceth the pope, is it not for her safety, by her authority, to set up that which remaineth of Christ’s most holy laws, and to banish all the pope’s canons! May not her princely mind perceive it to be so, if she remember that it is said of Christ, ‘By me kings reign, and princes decree justice: by me princes rule,’ ” &c.] ↩
-
z By me …justice om. E. ↩
-
Rev. i. 5. ↩
-
a amongst…government om. E.C.L. ↩
-
b and have…unto him om. E. ↩
-
c as om. E. ↩
-
d of necessity E.C. ↩
-
e govern and guide E.C. ↩
-
f special E. ↩
-
g namely om. E. ↩
-
1 Cor. iii. 22, [23.] ↩
-
h E. reads kings are Christ’s as saints, because they are of the Church, if not collectively, &c. C. reads, as saints, because they are of the Church: as kings, because they are in authority over the Church, &c. in which L. agrees. D. and Q. give it as in the text. ↩
-
i It E. [The mistake might arise from the old way of abbreviating “that.”] ↩
-
k surely E.C.L. ↩
-
l reacheth E.C. ↩
-
m may have and lawfully exercise it E. ↩
-
o where they speak E. where C.L.Q. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 413. ↩
-
p over E. ↩
-
q seeing E. ↩
-
r heads E.L. ↩
-
s the E1. ↩
-
t may om. E. [Fulm. “may be”] C. ↩
-
u more E1. ↩
-
v provinces E.C. ↩
-
w to om. E. ↩
-
x the earth E. ↩
-
y is om. D. ↩
-
z the E. ↩
-
a always remaineth E.C.L. ↩
-
b indeed E. ↩
-
c a visible E. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 419. ↩
-
d that are of the Church make E. ↩
-
Ut Hen. 8. 6. 9. [26 Hen. viii. cap. 1.?] ↩
-
e customs E.C.L. ↩
-
f misconceiving E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
g or E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
h from E.C.L. ↩
-
i the head E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
k therefore even E. ↩
-
l be om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
m of the Church om. D. ↩
-
n the Church therefore next this, is E. ↩
-
o the E. ↩
-
p a superior or head E.C.L. ↩
-
q do grant E.C. ↩
-
r chief E. ↩
-
s order E.L. the order C. ↩
-
t termed in E.Q. termed within [C. in] his own dominions C.L. ↩
-
u own om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
v any E. ↩
-
x a om. E1. ↩
-
y heads E. ↩
-
z monsters together E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
a the skilful in nature’s mysteries have been used to term it, The womb, &c. ↩
-
b it is E. ↩
-
c appears D. ↩
-
d how E.C.L. ↩
-
e shall E. ↩
-
f if Christians om. E. ↩
-
h each E. ↩
-
i each om. E. ↩
-
k a head also E. ↩
-
l and om. E. ↩
-
m more E1. ↩
-
n is E.C. ↩
-
o nor yet uncomely E.Q.C. ↩
-
p perfect body E.C. ↩
-
q him that God E.C.L. ↩
-
r to itself should E. should be to itself C. ↩
-
s ought E. ↩
-
t the E. ↩
-
u have power possibly E.C. ↩
-
x we see therefore E.C. ↩
-
y as that E.C. ↩
-
[This section stands here on the authority of the Dublin MS. But it must be apparent to every reader that it is out of its place. Probably it was a note made to be inserted, in substance, somewhere in the treatise, but the place of insertion not determined. The conclusion of the whole subject, in p. 392, seems no improper place for it. But without MS. authority it might be too great a liberty to transpose it. The Dublin MS. bears marks of unusual inattention in this part.] ↩
-
z This paragraph is inserted before “these things,” p. 368. E.Q.C.L. There it is clearly incongruous, and here the transition would be clearer without it. ↩
-
a state E.C. [style Fulm.] ↩
-
b should E. ↩
-
c any om. E. ↩
-
d great E. ↩
-
G. Courin. in Epist. de Morte T. Mori, et Episcopi Roffensis, p. 517. [ap. “Thomæ Mori, Angliæ Ornamenti eximii Lucubrationes.” Basil. 1563.] ↩
-
e a secular E. ↩
-
[“Illud dico, me septem annis intendisse animum studiumque meum in istam causam, verum hactenus in nullo doctorum ab ecclesia probatorum reperi scriptum,] quod laicus, aut, ut vocant, sæcularis, possit aut debeat esse caput status spiritualis aut ecclesiastici.” ↩
-
f even om. E. ↩
-
Præf. Cent. 7. [t. iv. p. 11. Basil. 1567. “Non sint capita ecclesiæ, quia istis,” &c.] ↩
-
Calvin. in Com. in Amos vii. 13. [Quoted by T. C. ii. 413. “Qui initio tantopere extulerunt Henricum regem Angliæ, certe fuerunt inconsiderati homines: dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem: et hoc me semper graviter vulneravit. Erant enim blasphemi, qui vocarent eum summum caput ecclesiæ sub Christo. Hoc certe fuit nimium. Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat, quia peccarunt inconsiderato zelo … Faciunt illos nimis spirituales. Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germania. In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur …Principes, et quicunque potiuntur imperio, putant se ita spirituales esse, ut nullum sit amplius ecclesiasticum regimen. Non putant se posse regnare, nisi aboleant omnem ecclesiæ auctoritatem, et sint summi judices, tam in doctrina, quam in toto spirituali regimine.” p. 282. ed. 1610.] ↩
-
g and thought … . we do om. E. ↩
-
h protesteth E.L.Q. ↩
-
i through D. ↩
-
j was E.C. ↩
-
k government E. ↩
-
l the authority E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
m Here the Dublin MS. proceeds as in p. 388, line 20. “Their meaning is,” to “whole or any part,” in p. 392: and then inserts what follows in this place, as far as “spiritual government,” p. 388. ↩
-
o made om. E. ↩
-
p give E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
q these D. ↩
-
r the E.C. ↩
-
[Whitg. Def. 300, 301. “Christ is the only head of the Church, if by the head you understand that which giveth the body life, sense, and motion: for Christ only by his Spirit doth give life and nutriment to his body. He only doth pour spiritual blessings into it, and doth inwardly direct and govern it. Likewise he is only the head of the whole Church, for that title cannot agree to any other. But if by the head you understand an external ruler and governor of any particular nation or church, (in which signification head is usually taken) then I do not perceive why the magistrate may not as well be called the head of the church, i.e. the chief governor of it in the external policy, as he is called the head of the people, and of the commonwealth. And as it is no absurdity to say, that the civil magistrate is head of the commonwealth, next and immediately under God, (for it is most true,) so is it none to say, that under God also he is head of the church, i. e. chief governor, as I have before said.”] ↩
-
s there om. E.C. ↩
-
t exceptions D. ↩
-
u the outward E.C. ↩
-
x of head D. ↩
-
y to him with E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
T. C. ii. 414. [“It is first to be noted from whom this provision was brought him. For as Harding borrowed it of Pighius, so the doctor’s purveyors had it from Harding, or from both.”] ↩
-
z to om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
a it E. ↩
-
b already hath E. ↩
-
c sufficiently been E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
d therefore be E.Q.C. ↩
-
e convicted in some things E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
f thought E. ↩
-
g confess E.C. ↩
-
T. C. lib. iii. p. 168. ↩
-
h in E.C. ↩
-
i of E. in E′. ↩
-
k is there E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
l mislike E. ↩
-
m therein E. ↩
-
n and E.C. ↩
-
o that om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
p reasons E.C.L. ↩
-
q any om. E. ↩
-
r to be D. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 415. ↩
-
s the om. E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
t also as it is E. as it is also C. ↩
-
u in distinguishing, they think E. as they think, in so distinguishing C. ↩
-
x doth D.E′. ↩
-
y wonted om. E.C. ↩
-
z kind of affection E.C.L. ↩
-
a be able to om. E. ↩
-
b henceforward E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
c invisible, exercised E.C.L. ↩
-
d the om. E. ↩
-
e particularly E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
f him only do we acknowledge E. him therefore only (L. only therefore) do we C.L. ↩
-
g the E.C. ↩
-
h graces E. ↩
-
i the sacraments E.C.L.Q. ↩
-
k means E.C.L. ↩
-
l those D. ↩
-
m such properly concerns E. ↩
-
n regiment D. ↩
-
o nor E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
p seeing E. ↩
-
q his E. ↩
-
r differing om. E. ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 415. ↩
-
s in om. E. ↩
-
t societies E.Q. ↩
-
u gathered together E.L. ↩
-
x must be their head E. must needs be their head C.L. ↩
-
y not their E.C. there E′. ↩
-
z societies E.Q.C. ↩
-
a as God E.C. ↩
-
b not there E. there om. C. ↩
-
c very om. E.C. ↩
-
d hereby E.C.L. ↩
-
e as D. ↩
-
f and not the D. ↩
-
g that there E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
h that E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
i that E. ↩
-
k the om. E.L. ↩
-
l Church E. ↩
-
m the head E.Q.C.L. ↩
-
T. C. ii. 413. [“As it hath certain ground in the Scripture that this title of Head of the Church is too high to be given unto any man, so hath it been confirmed from time to time by writers both old and new, which have had the honour of Christ in any convenient estimation … Cyprian saith, ‘there is but one head of the Church.’ De Simplicitate Prælatorum,” (i.e. de Unitate Ecclesiæ: “Ecclesia Domini … ramos suos in universam terram copia ubertatis extendit … Unum tamen caput est, et origo una.” p. 195. ed. Baluz.) “The bishop of Sarisbury affirmeth the same. Apol. p. 2. c. 2. div. i.” (“Christ alone is the prince of this kingdom; Christ alone is the head of this body; Christ alone is the bridegroom of this spouse.”) “Augustine proveth that the minister which baptizeth cannot be the head of him which is baptized, because Christ is the Head of the whole Church. Contr. Lit. Petil. i. [4.] 5.” (“Id enim agunt isti, ut origo, radix, et caput baptizati non nisi ille sit a quo baptizatur … O humana temeritas et superbia … . Cur non sinis ut semper sit Christus origo Christiani, in Christo radicem Christianus infigat, Christus Christiano sit caput? … .An vero Apostolus Paulus caput est et origo eorum quos plantaverat … cum dicat, nos multos unum esse corpus in Christo, ipsumque Christum caput esse universi corporis?” t. ix. 208. comp. lib. iii. c. 42. p. 322.) ↩
-
n it om. D. ↩
-
o into E. ↩
-
p besides can be so E. ↩
-
q Here the Dublin MS. goes back to p. 386. “The last difference … . . spiritual government.” p. 388. ↩