CHAP. I. Proving from Erastus Senior's Reasons, that nei­ther those called Bishops in the Church of Rome, nor the Pope himself, are Bishops Ordine.

TO the perfection of all powers, whether Spiritual, Natural, or Legal, these two things are ne­cessary, Jus & Exercitium: these, I think, Erastus Senior calls Order, and Jurisdicti­on or Office; the former may be without the latter, nay it must be afore the latter can be. Therefore a King must be by right or order, before he can rightfully exercise any Regal Authority or Power; so must a Bishop or Priest be by right or order, before he can justly exer­cise any Episcopal or Sacerdotal Jurisdiction; and so Parents, Husbands, Magistrates, and [Page 2] Masters of Families are endued with a right or power, before they can exercise any Juris­diction over their Children, Wives, Fellow-subjects, or Servants. That Kings, Husbands, and Parents are endued with a right or pow­er from the Law of Nature, and Magistrates and Masters of Families from the Municipal Lawes of every place where they do exercise them, hath been asserted by us elsewhere. That Episcopal Order or right is a Divine Institution, and founded by our Saviour, and not by Nature, or any Temporal or Civil Sanction, is affirmed as well by Erastus Senior, as us of the Church of England in the 9. chap. A Bishop then Ordine, or by Right, is he who is so made, or ordained by such form and means as our Saviour hath instituted, and by no other; unless Erastus Senior will grant another a Divine Power, which is Blasphemy. A Bi­shop Jurisdictione, or by Office, we will call him who is possess'd of a Bishoprick. So that Erastus and I will not differ who is a Bishop Ordine, and who Jurisdictione.

Ours in the Church of England are no Bi­shops Ordine, Erastus Senior sayes, because the form of Ordination wants fit words to signi­fie [Page 3] the Order given. The words are these; Take thou the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by Imposition of Hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness. If this form be insufficient to the Ordination of Bi­shops in the Church of England, then were not the Apostles Bishops by order; for our Saviour used no other in their Ordination. Nor were they made Bishops by these or any other Sacramental words (with much confidence, c. 3. p. 10. and no reason) Erastus Senior sayes, but onely S. Peter, and that by these words (Pasce oves meas.)

What? were none of the Apostles Bishops but onely S. Peter? how then, I pray, came the Colledge of Apostles (not Saint Peter) to chuse S. Matthias to the Bishoprick of Judas, ( [...]) if Judas had no Episcopal right or order? Acts 1.20. how came all the Apostles (not S. Peter) to ordain S. Stephen, Acts 6.5. and six other Dea­cons? and how is it that S. Paul and Barna­bas, and not S. Peter, Act. 14.23. did ordain Elders in eve­ry Church; which without all contradiction were acts of Episcopal power? Nay, can any man believe, Acts 8. that when S. Philip the Deacon [Page 4] had converted and baptized Samaria, and gi­ven notice thereof to the Colledge of Apo­stles at Jerusalem, that they, being inferiour Apostles, should upon Canonical Record send their superiour, and only Bishop among them, ( viz. S. Peter) to administer their De­crees, and joyn S. John in equal power with him? Ver. 14. for, sayes the Text, They sent Peter and John to confirm them; Ver. 17. and they laid their hands up­on them, and they received the holy Ghost: or that S. Paul should publickly withstand S. Peter to his face, in that wherein he was to be bla­med, if he had been any wayes inferiour to him either in Order or Power? for however men may privately advise their Superiours, yet no man can without Arrogance and con­tempt of Authority publickly withstand his Superiour. Nor had alwayes S. Peter the pre­cedency of name with the other Apostles; for we read of James, Gal. 2.9. Cephas and John, which seemed, &c. Nay, S. The Lords bro­ther, B. B. of Ierusa­lem. James, though none of the twelve Apostles, did preside in the Coun­cil of Jerusalem, although Saint Peter and the other Apostles were members of it.

Well, but if the form by which our Saviour did ordain the Apostles, did not give them Epi­scopal [Page 5] order, as Erastus Senior sayes, let us see whether upon his own grounds (Pasce oves meas) could endue S. Peter with it. I say it could not.

For if the form by which our Saviour did ordain his Apostles, which was a form of Or­dination, viz. Receive the holy Ghost, P. 2. &c. were insufficient to confer Episcopal Order for want of fit words to signifie it, as he sayes; then much less can Pasce oves meas (which not onely do not signifie the order given, but are no form of Ordination at all, but onely im­perative, and refer to Jurisdiction) confer any upon S. Peter. If our Saviour had ordain­ed S. Peter in this sense, it must have been by these or like words, Accipe potestatem pascendi oves meas: and that this is not my single sense, but of Erastus Senior, he sayes, c. 2. p. 9. the ex­hortation to the Bishop consecrated, to be­have himself as a good Pastor, does not give this Order: and I pray what is the difference between I exhort thee to be a Pastor, and Feed my sheep? He sayes moreover, c. 6. p. 28. Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the word of God, and his holy Sacraments, do not give any power to this or any other Sacrament, but onely to dispense them; Now to dispense a Sacra­ment [Page 6] is not to consecrate it, for it must be consecrated before it can be dispensed: by like reason cannot Pasce oves meas give any Episcopal Order to S. Peter; for to command to feed is not to consecrate; and S. Peter must have a power to feed, before he can be commanded to feed my sheep. P. 28. Again he sayes, be thou a faithfull dis­penser, &c. give no power, &c. and have thou au­thority, &c. give no power of Order, but of Jurisdiction; and therefore Pasce oves meas give none, for they onely command, and re­fer to Jurisdiction, not Order or Consecra­tion. The Pope therefore, nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome, are Bishops Ordine from Pasce oves meas, nor from the form by which our Saviour ordained the Apostles (he sayes;) and thefore no Bishops Ordine, which was the thing propounded.

Well, but suppose Pasce oves meas did endue S. Peter with Episcopal Order, yet cannot the Pope, nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome, from hence derive it; for being a Divine In­stitution, it cannot be conferred or ordained, but by such means as God did institute and ordain it: but neither the Pope nor any Bi­shops in the Church of Rome are consecrated [Page 7] or ordained by this form, and therefore are not Bishops Ordine by virtue of it. So then take (Pasce oves meas) to be essential, or not es­sential to the conferring of Episcopal Order; yet hence cannot the Pope, nor any Bishops in the Church of Rome, derive any Episcopal Order.

CHAP. II. Asserting the Order of Bishops in the Church of England.

BUt though Erastus Senior, out of his chari­ty to others, hath argued himself and party into a Heathenish state, and redu­ced them into the same condition he intend­ed us of the Church of England in his Preface; yet will not I grant the form used in the Church of England to be insufficient for the consecra­ting of Bishops, of giving Episcopal Order: for since it is evident the Apostles did exercise this Order or Power, yet were endued with it by no other form then that used in our Church; how much better is it to apply this form, being instituted by our Saviour, to one [Page 8] presented to the Consecrators as a Bishop elect, and after examination and prayers as for a Bishop elect, and as called to the office of a Bishop, and after Consecration, to ex­hort him as a Pastor or Bishop, then to alter it into any other, thereby making it doubtfull whether it be done or not? as if any Creature were wiser then God, and would dare to mend what God has made. But certainly it is most abominably done of Erastus Senior, P. 11. equivocally and cantingly to deny this form of our Saviour, used in his Church as well as ours, to be any essential part of their form (which I believe no ingenuous man besides himself in his Church will doe:) and to af­firm that the prayers of Propitiare, Domine, &c. anciently called the Benediction, and used ever since S. Peter's time in their Consecration, Physicè, non moralitèr loquendo, and no wayes es­sential to the Consecration, but of later time altered by his Church, should give that which onely God could do; unless he will make himself or Church equal to God, to abrogate, or make what God has made a vain thing, and set up what himself and his party think fit above it, or instead of it. If there be any de­fect [Page 9] in our Ordination, Erastus with much more ingenuity might have charged it upon our Saviour for instituting it, then upon our Church for imitating it.

CHAP. III. Proving that neither the Pope, nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome, granting Erastus Senior's Reasons for true, are Bishops Jurisdictione.

ERastus Senior sayes, P. 3 [...]. none can give a Ju­risdiction which he hath not: hence, he sayes, it is, that no number of Bishops can va­lidly confirm or consecrate the Bishop of any Diocese, but the Metropolitane of the Pro­vince must be one; nor the Metropolitane of a Province, but the Primate of a Nation; nor the Primate of a Nation, but the Patri­arch of that part of the World (or some per­son having faculty from him:) and in the next page he sayes, the Bishop of Rome is Pa­triarch of the West, and the undoubted right­full Metropolitane to the Primate of this Na­tion; and therefore no Bishop can validly confirm or consecrate the Primate of this Na­tion, but the Bishop of Rome.

[Page 10]If it be true which Erastus Senior sayes, that none can give a Jurisdiction which he hath not, then if he cannot shew, in the intervals of the Papacy, some who may give this su­preme Patriarchal power, or Headship of the Church, to the Pope, then can neither the Pope have it, nor any Primate, Metropoli­tane, or Bishop derive any Jurisdiction from him; and by consequence neither the Pope, nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome, are Bishops Jurisdictione.

I say, it is impossible any such Primacy, as is pretended by Erastus Senior, can be in the Pope: for admitting that our Saviour did en­due S. Peter with a Primacy above the other Apostles, and that he was Bishop of Rome, and the Popes his rightful Successors; yet can­not this Primacy be transferred to any of them; for Extraordinaria potestas non transit in successorem. After S. Peter's death, none of the Apostles having this Primacy could give it to another; for, as Erastus sayes, None can give a Jurisdiction to another which he hath not. The Pope of Rome therefore not having this Pri­macy, no Primate of a Nation can receive Ju­risdiction from him, nor the Metropolitane [Page 11] any from the Primate, nor any Bishop from the Metropolitane; and therefore from Era­stus Senior's Reasons, neither the Pope, nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome, are Bishops Jurisdictione.

Although at first I designed no more then to shew from Erastus Senior's Reasons, there is neither Order nor Jurisdiction in the Church of Rome, and to assert the Order and Jurisdi­ction of our Bishops in the Church of Eng­land; yet cannot I but take notice how igno­rantly (I will say no more) he affirms Bi­shops to be consecrated to their Bishopricks, and that the Pope was Founder of the See of Canterbury.

For no Bishop is consecrated into his Bi­shoprick, but invested or installed; and ori­ginally Bishopricks with us in England were donative, per traditionem baculi (i.e.) the Crosi­er, which was the Pastoral staff, & annuli, the Ring, whereby he was married to the Church: Coke com. Lit. 344. Sect. 648. and therefore if the meanest Bishop of Juris­diction in the world be elected to the Papa­cy, he is no more consecrated; nay though he be one sine titulo, yet he is never more con­secrated, though made Primate, Patriarch, or Pope.

[Page 12]Well, let us see whether the Pope were Founder of the See of Canterbury, as Erastus so vainly, and without any authority or reason affirmeth. That S. Paul did preach the Go­spel here in England, is affirmed by Theod. l. 9. de curandis Graecorum affectibus. Paulum è priori captivitate, Roma dimissum, Britannis & aliis in oc­cidente Evangelium praedicasse; and Nicephorus sayes that Simon Zelotes doctrinam Evangelii ad Occidentalem Oceanum Insulas (que) Britannicas perfert. Lib. 2. c. 40. But I do no where find, that ever any Chri­stian Church was planted and endowed in any part of Britain, now called England, before King Lucius his time, Lib. 1. c. 4. (which Beda sayes was Anno Christi 156. and in the Reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, (yet in the year 156. Antoninus Pius reigned, In vita Sancti Eluth p. 20, 21. and until 160.) when Pla: sayes the 25 Flamens, In Lon­don, York, and Carle­ton. whereof three were Arch-Flamens, were converted into Bi­shopricks and Arch-bishopricks: some say the chief and Metropolitane of all was the Arch-bishoprick of London. I speak this to shew (if this were so) how the Primacy came to be founded in Canterbury, and by whom.

After the English Saxons had not onely [Page 13] driven the ancient Britans our of that part of Britain now called England, some into that part of France called Britannia Aremorica, others into Wales, (where Christianity continued, when the English Saxons were converted) but also the free exercise of Christianity; they conti­nued Pagan till their conversion by S. Austin and Miletus, sent by S. Gregory the Great.

But though Austine was sent by the Pope, yet did he not upon that mission presume to enter King Ethelbert's Dominions without leave; but in the Isle of Thanet gave the King an account of his Embassie, who command­ed him and his followers to remain in the Isle, and provided them necessaries, till he should see convenient how further to dispose of them. After Austin had declared his mes­sage, he received leave of the King, and went to preach in Kent, where the King gave him and his followers dwellings in Canterbury, which was the Metropolis of his Empire, and also leave to preach. Bed. Eccles. Hist. Gent. Ang. cap. 25. Afterward, before he was made a Bishop, or had given any account to the Pope, or received any message from him, cap. 26. the Content sayes, Ut idem (viz. Augusti­nus) [Page 14] in Cantio primitivae Ecclesiae & doctrinam sit imitatus & vitā, at (que) in urbe Regis sedē Episcopatus acceperit. How the same man (viz. Austin) in Kent imitated the doctrine and life of the Primitive Church, and received his Episcopal See in the City of the King. And the Chap. sayes, Austin and those joyned with him, upon the King's conversion to the Faith, in all things received a greater liberty to preach, and to build and restore Churches. And at the end sayes, Neither did the King delay, but gave to his Teachers in the Metropolis of Canterbury a See, or place of Seat, agreeable to their degree, and al­so conferred upon it necessary provisions of divers kinds; Nec distulit, quin etiam Doctoribus suis lo­cum Sedis, eorum gradui congruum, in Doroverniâ Metropoli suâ donaret, simul necessarias in diver­sis speciebus possessiones conferret. And it is in the 27. chap. where Beda relates how he went in­to France to Arles, and there was ordained by Etherius Arch-bishop of that City, Arch-bi­shop: and after he returned into England, he presently sent to Rome Laurence the Priest, and Peter the Monk, who should give an ac­count to the holy Bishop Gregory, how the Nation of England had received the Faith, and how he was made a Bishop.

CHAP. IV. Shewing the Bishops in the Church of England are Bishops Jurisdictione, viz. are rightfully inve­sted and installed in their Bishopricks, and regu­larly may exercise in their Dioceses any Episcopal Act.

I Will not dispute the power of God in his miraculous propagating of Christianity by the means of poor men, and by setting of Dissention and Discord in the World, all tem­poral powers contradicting it: nor is it rea­sonable for any man to imagine, that after Christian Faith and Religion is received and planted in any place, that there men should expect that God would continue it by mi­racle, but that they ought to use what means they can to support them: nor can Erastus Senior by a Bishop Jurisdictione, as of London, or Canterbury, mean this, but of a planted Chri­stian Church, where the State, as well as Church, is Christian.

We, Erastus and my self, both agree, that the Order of Bishops is a Divine Institution, and therefore it cannot suscipere magis aut mi­nus, [Page 16] because no less power then that which made a thing can alter it; and being a Di­vine Institution, all Episcopal Acts are done, and never to be undone, in one place as much as another: and therefore wheresoever any Bishop does confirm a man, ordain a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or consecrate any place to the worship and service of God, these Acts are not onely done, but are indeleble characters, and can never be wiped out. But what pow­er that is which founds and confines Bishop­ricks, and qualifies men so, as none but such men can regularly exercise any Episcopal Act in such limits or precincts, is now to be enquired into.

First then, I answer negatively, the endow­ments and limits of a Bishoprick are not in Spiritual Jurisdiction or cognisance, for no­thing is purely Spiritual but what is derived from our Saviour, either immediately, or me­diately: but the limits and endowments of Bishopricks are temporal things; and our Saviour sayes, Joh. 18.36 My Kingdome is not of this world; and, Joh. 3.17. God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world, but that by him he might save the world; and, Lu. 12.14. O man, who made me a Judge, or Divider among [Page 17] you? Nor can it ever be shewed wherein Christianity does in any respect detract from the Regality of Princes, or temporal Pow­ers. And as under the Gospel, so under the old Law, though the Priesthood were a Di­vine Institution, yet were the Priests subject to the temporal Powers, and their Cities as­signed by temporal Powers. Exo. 4.16. Moses was in the stead of God to Aaron; Josh. 21.8 and the children of Israel gave by lot unto the Levites these Cities with their Suburbs, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses. Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people, &c. and Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, Isa. 49.22, 23. and their Queens thy nur­sing mothers, says the Prophet Isaiah. Yet never after was there any King of Judah, but Idolaters; and the Children of Israel were then carried into so strange a captivity, that to this day is unknown what became of them. This Pro­phecy then has reference to Christian Kings, & in them it is fulfilled. Christian Kings there­fore may, and ought to nurse and indulge God's Church. And if Sacriledge be a sin, then is Oblation to God a vertue. Quod datum est Ecclesiae, datum est Deo. By our Lawes all Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks within [Page 18] the Realm of England, have been founded by the Kings of England, and do hold of the King by Barony, and have been all called by Writ to the Court of Parliament, and are Lords of Parliament; as (among many) take one nota­ble Record: Rot. 18. H. 3. Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis, qui conventuri sunt apud Glocestriam, die Sabbati in cra­stin. Sanctae Katherinae, firmiter inhibendo, quòd si­cut Baronias suas, quas de Rege tenent, diligunt, nullo modo presumant consilium tenere de aliqui­bus quae ad Coronam Regis pertinent, vel quae Personam Regis, vel statum suum, vel sta­tum Concilii sui contingunt; scituri pro certo, quòd si fecerint, Rex indè se capiet ad Baronias suas. Teste Rege apud Hereford. Coke Com. Lit. p. 97. 23. Novemb. &c. And see Com. Lit. 344. At first all Bishopricks in Eng­land were of the King's foundation, and do­nation, per traditionem baculi & annuli. King Henry the first being requested to make them elective, refused it: but King John by his Char­ter bearing date Quinto Julii, Anno decimo septimo, granted that the Bishopricks should be eli­gible. So that at first all Bishopricks were not onely of the King's foundation and dona­tion, but persons to them are eligible from no other cause but the King's Charter. Since [Page 19] therefore by God's Precept Kings ought to be nursing Fathers to Christ's Church, and since all Bishopricks are of the King's foundation, and since the persons of all the King's Subjects are in his dominion and power, or otherwise every soul should not be subject to Higher Powers; it will certainly follow, Bishops rightfully invested and installed in their Bi­shopricks from the King, may regularly exer­cise any Episcopal Act in their Diocese, and none but such, without apparent disobedi­ence and contempt of the Laws of the King, to which they ought to be subject.

CHAP. V. Answering the Reasons alledged by Erastus against the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of the Church of England.

ALthough Erastus Senior in the first Chap. would distinguish between a Bishop Ordine and Jurisdictione, yet in the 9. chap. he does so confound different things, as it is impossible, without further explaining them, to shew wherein Erastus begs the question, and wherein he is mistaken.

[Page 20]Things which pertain to the Church are two-fold: either as they are in themselves purely and simply spiritual in their Es­sence; or as they accidentally have reference to the Church, and in themselves are not purely and simply spiritual: for example, Blasphemy, Apostasie from Christianity, He­resie, Schisme, Holy Orders, Admissions of Clerks, Celebration of Divine Service, Rights of Matrimony, Divorces, generall Bastardy, Substraction and right of Tithes, Oblations, Obventions, Dilapidations, Ex­communication, Reparation of Church, Pro­bate of Testaments, Administrations, and Accounts upon the same, Simonie, Incests, Fornication, Adultery, Solicitation of Cha­stity, Pensions, Procurations, Appeals in Ec­clesiastical cases, Commutation of Penance, are determined here with us by Ecclesiastical Judges.

So that there is a mix'd Conusance, or Ec­clesiastical Judicature, viz. of things purely spiritual, by which Ecclesiastical Judges are impowered to determine, and that by no Hu­mane Power, but only as they are impowered by our Saviour, and are his Ministers, viz. of [Page 21] Ordination, Consecration, Excommunicati­on, Heresie, &c. and this power the Church and Ecclesiastical persons had, be­fore ever temporall Powers received the Go­spel of Christ, or were converted to Christia­nity. But after it pleased God Kings were converted to Christianity (I do not read, nor ever heard of a State or Common-wealth that ever was) then did Kings cherish and defend God's Church, and endued it with many pri­viledges and immunities, which erewhile was persecuted by them. It is true, no que­stion, but that originally all Bishopricks their bounds, and the Division of Parishes and their Endowments, the conusance of Tithes, the Probation of Wills, the granting Letters of Administration and Accounts up­on the same, the Right of Institution and In­duction, and Erection of all Ecclesiastical Courts, &c. were of the Kings foundation and donation; also to him by all divine and humane Lawes belongs the care and preser­vation of all his Subjects in all cases, none excepted. And therefore not onely all those things which relate to the extern peace and quiet of the Church, although exercised by [Page 22] Ecclesiastical persons; but all those priviled­ges and immunities which the Church and Church-men have in a Church planted, which the Apostles and primitive Christians, in a Church planting, had not, are all origi­nally grants of Kings and supreme Powers.

So that to the Installment of a Bishop in an endowed Bishoprick divers things are neces­sary: viz. That he be a Priest rightly and tru­ly ordained, and consecrated a Bishop, and this is a pure spiritual act: but that he is ele­cted to the Bishoprick, confirmed, invested & installed in it, are no spiritual acts, but found­ed in the King; however it may be they are executed by Ecclesiastical persons. Erastus Senior now confounding the creation and in­stitution of a Pastor, C. 9. p. 34. (whereas they are diffe­rent, for to create or consecrate a Pastor is a power of the Keyes, but to institute him into a Bishoprick is a power of the King's) in the same thing, not onely begs a false questi­on, in making it a power of the Keyes, but also falsely infers, that the King cannot insti­tute a Pastor to a See or Bishoprick, which is purely and solely in him. And therefore Queen Elizabeth might assign, constitute and [Page 23] confirm Matthew Parker to the See of Canterbu­ry, nor could any but she do it. If she were the rightful Queen of England, which Erastus does not deny, What needs Erastus Senior now take such pains to prove ten whole Pages to­gether, that our Bishops had no right to be confirmed, constituted, and assigned to their Bishopricks but from the King, which none will deny him?

I cannot but take notice how Erastus ha­ving confounded Consecration here with In­stitution, P. 7.3 makes confirming and conse­crating of an Arch-bishop or Bishop to any See, the same thing, and purely spiritual: whereas to consecrate an Arch-bishop or Bi­shop is one thing, and purely spiritual; and to confirm an Arch-bishop or Bishop in his See is another, and temporal.

But I would advise Erastus to have a care lest he be not shent for affirming, P. 40. that no Bishop Ordine can confirm or consecrate a Pastor; for the being seized of a Bishoprick does not validate or invalidate any spiritual Act of a Bishop, as to the essence of it: and if Barlow and Scory's being suspended the ex­ercise of their Jurisdiction in their Bishop­ricks [Page 24] of Bath and Chichester, did invalidate their consecrating and confirming Matthew Parker, because they were not actual Bishops of Ca­thedral Churches, P. 42. as Erastus sayes; then do I not see how any Act of Vigilius the first, when he was in exile, and Rome in the possession of Totila, could be valid. Nor could Boniface the Eighth, when he was taken prisoner by Phi­lip the Fair, and Rome possessed by him; nor Clement 7. when Charles 5. had him prisoner, and possessed Rome, consecrate or confirm any Arch-bishop or Bishop; for without doubt they then were not actual Bishops of Rome.

P. 42.For Erastus Senior's Objection, that simple Bishops cannot give a Superiour or Metro­politane Jurisdiction, is nothing to the pur­pose, nor affirmed by us: for though the Order of Bishops be a Divine Institution, yet the extraordinary exercise of a Metropolitane in his Province (being no wise purely spiritu­al, but having onely reference to the extern peace of the Church) is not so, but from hu­mane and temporary Laws.

I will not undertake to answer for all which is literally contained in the Oath of Su­premacy, C. 9 p. 32: [Page 25] or charged by Erastus Senior upon our Church-men taking it, neither is it much to our purpose. This I say, that Queen Elizabeth by her Proclamation, and after by her In­junctions, did declare, that she took nothing upon her more, then what anciently of right did belong to the Crown of England, Cam. Eliz. Reg. 39, 40 viz. that she had supreme Power under God over all sorts of people within the Kingdome of Eng­land, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Lay persons, and that no Foraign power hath, or ought to have any Jurisdiction over them: and in this sense every man is allowed to take the Oath of Supremacy, and I hope Erastus will not deny his Soveraign this power. See the Admoniti­on to sim­ple men in Q Eliz. Injuncti­ons, as they are set out with Dr. Sparrow's Preface, p. 78. C. 11. p. 3 [...].

Nor will I undertake to answer for all the acts of Princes, whether they entrench upon the Power of the Keyes, or not: This I say, that if Kings do entrench upon this power, yet cannot this annihilate any act thereof, be­ing rightfully done. And therefore admit King Jame's did authorizing other Bishops of his own, appointing them to doe all acts pertain­ing to the power and authority of the Arch­bishop of Canterbury in causes or matters Ec­clesiastical, as amply, fully, and effectually to [Page 26] all intents and purposes, as the said Arch­bishop might have done, (which without all doubt the King might do;) and that the De­claration of his now Majesty (whom God grant long to reign over us) touching affairs of Religion, in which he deprives all the Arch­bishops and Bishops of this Land ( Erastus sayes) of their power of sole ordaining and censuring their Presbyters, and joyns their Presbyters in Commission with them, as to the acts of Or­daining and Censuring, did entrench upon the Ghostly Power; yet could not this any wayes rescind the Order of any Priest or Bi­shop rightfully ordained and consecrated, but Priests and Bishops rightfully ordained and consecrated, are as much Priests and Bishops after such acts as before.