his Army? Or did ever any conquering Prince cut off all Communication, or fuffer it to be cut off, between his own Country and that which he conquered? And if his Communication with his own Country was not cut off, he could not want Chriftian Priests. So that the Suppofition is altogether unreasonable. And the like may be faid in the other Cafe. For what can be a more unreasonable Suppofition, than to fuppofe that all the Bishops of a Region or Country fhould die fo juft together as to break the Succeffion fo entirely, as that one fhall not be left to preferve it? Nay, the Queftion goes further, and fuppofes all the Priests to be dead likewife. I do not deny but fuch a thing may be: All the Bishops and Pricfts. too may die, or be banished out of fome particular Country or Kingdom; but I deny that fuch a thing can reasonably be fuppofed under a Chriftian King: Such an one will not extirpate his Bishops and Priefts either by Death or Banifhment; and if they be not fo extirpated by Violence, the Succeffion cannot fail in any Country whatsoever; for fo long as Bishops and Priefts are permitted to live in Security, and receive Protection from the State, they will take care to continue the Succeffion there, fo that the Word fhall never remain there unpreached, nor the Sacraments unminiftred. The Cafes therefore being built upon fuch unreasonable Suppofitions as never have yet happened, neither can reasonably be fuppofed ever to happen, it is evident that they were propofed with a Defign to bring the Bishops and Divines, to whom they were propafed, to give fuch Answers as might tend to place the Spiritual as well as the Temporal Power in the Crown. A thing which King Henry VIII, plainly aimed at when he took that ftrange and unheard of Title, SUPREAM HEAD OF THE CHURCH F 3 CHURCH. But the Bishops and Divines not coming entirely into his Sentiments, he never thought it proper to attempt to make Bishops or Priests by his own Authority, but left them to be confecrated and ordained in the fame manner as they were before. I fhall therefore briefly examine the two oppofite Opinions, and enquire which is the right. XXX. The one Party fays, That Lay-men in thefe Cafes have Authority to minifter the Sacraments, and to make Priefts. But what reafon have they for it? Or what Authority from Scripture or Primitive Practice? even none at all that I can find. Archbishop Cranmer indeed does fay, that there be Hiftories that witness that fome Chriftian Princes, and other Lay-men unconfecrate, have done fo. But he tells not where thofe Hiftories are to be met with, nor gives any one Inftance. And I am very confident that no Hiftory before his Time witneffes any fuch thing as he here pretends they do. Therefore till fuch Example is produced, I fhall not trouble my felf to make Enquiry after it. And Heath Bishop of Rochefter plainly fays upon the Occafion, I never read thefe Cafes, neither in Scripture nor in the Doctors, and therefore I cannot anfwer unto them by Learning, but think this to be a good Anfwer for all fuch Questions, viz. Neceffitas non habet legem. And the other Doctors, who give their Opinion on Archbishop Cranmer's fide, generally found it upon Neceffity. So Dr. Redmayne lays, I think they might in fuch Cafe of NECESSITY. So Dr. Symmons likewife, I think that in fuch a NECESSITY. Dr. Cox alfo, In thefe Cafes of EXTREAM NECESSITY. And Dr. Day fays, The fame NECESSITY ftanding. The only Plea therefore which is made for this Opinion being NECESSITY, I fhall examine that Matter, and very briefly briefly fhew the Weakness of it. Now what is this NECESSITY which is here given as a Reafon why Lay-men may miniftr the Sacraments, and make Bijhops and Priests? It is this, either Lay-men must do this, or elfe they must live without a Priesthood, and without the Sacraments. But then here ariles another Question, Will thofe Perfons ordained by Lay-men be Priefts? Or will their Miniftrations be Sacraments? Lay-men may happen (and indeed have prefumed) to take upon them to fer apart fuch as they judge fit to minifter in facred Offices; but for as much as Lay-men have no Authority from God to do this, the Perfons fo fet apart by them can be none of God's Priests: For St. Paul fpeaking of the Priesthood fays exprefly, (0) That no Man taketh this Honour to himJelf, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. If any one therefore is called to the Office of a Prieft otherwife than God has appointed, let what Neceffity foever be pleaded for fuch a Call, he is plainly none of God's Prieft. And to fay that Neceffity will warrant fuch a Calling, is to fet up Neceffity in the Place of God. And we have an Inftance in Scripture parallel to one of King Henry the VIIIth's Cafes. When the Ten Tribes revolted from the Houfe of David, and fet up Jeroboam to be their King, (p) the Priests and the Levites that were in all Ifrael, reforted to Rehoboam, out of all their Coafts. For the Levites left their Suburbs, and their Poffeffions, and came to Judah and Jerufalem. By which means this King→ dom was left deftitute of Priests, and was exactly in the fame Condition that a Country must be in, if all its Priefts fhould die, as King Henry's Quetion fuppofes. Neither was it poffible for Jero (o) Heb. v. 4. (p) 2 Chron. xi, 13, 14. boam boam to get true Priefs of God any where elfe, for they were all gone into an Enemies Country, from whence he could not fetch any of them back again. And the Land was left (9) without a Sacrifice, without an Ephod, and without a Teraphim. They had no Prieft (r) whofe Lips fhould keep Knowledge, and from whofe Mouth they should seek the Law. They had no Prieft (s) who should offer their Sacrifice for them, and make an Attonement for their Sin. What then could the King and People do in this Cafe? They must either live without a Priesthood, and without a Sacrifice, or they must make Priests for themfelves. And accordingly (t) the King took Counsel, and made Priests of the lowest of the People which were not of the Sons of Levi, (u) whosoever would, he confecrated him, and he became one of the Priests. I know it may be faid that Jeroboam did alfo fet up Calves at Dan, and at Bethel, and that is to be accounted his great Sin, by which God was fo provoked to Anger against him. But altho' that was an exceeding great Sin, and might of it felf have juftly drawn down the Fiercenefs of God's Wrath upon him, yet his taking upon him to make Priefts (notwithftanding the great Neceffity he might plead for doing it) is by the Scripture particularly affigned as the Caufe for which he fell under the fevere Difpleasure of God. (w) And this thing became Sin unto the House of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the Face of the Earth. Since therefore Jeroboam and his People lay under a Neceffity of living without a Prieft, and without an Altar, or elfe of making Priests, and offering (s) Levit. i. 4, 5. (w) 1 Kings (q) Hof iii 4. (t) Kings xii. 31. xiii. 34. (r) Mal. ii. 7. 1 Sacrifices themselves; and God in that Cafe fhewed fo great Displeasure towards them, because in that Neceffity they did take upon them to make Priefts it is plain that when God lays a People under fuch a Neceffity, it is his Will that they fhould content themfelyes without Priefts, and without fuch Offices and Ordinances as Priests alone can minifter, till he himself find the Means to fupply them. Therefore when God thought fit to permit the Temple at Jerufalem to be deftroyed, where, and where only, the People might offer their Sacrifices, which were to the Jews what our Sacraments are to us, the Jews in their Captivity did not pretend to offer any Sacrifice at all, and God, who knew the Neceffity they then lay under, accepted them without thofe Sacrifices, and in his own good Time reftored their Land and their Temple to them again, and made good all his Promifes to them. But Jeroboam and his People, because they would not be contented to wait God's Time to be reftored to the Liberty of facrificing at the one Altar which by God's Command was fixed in the Temple at Jerufalem, nor stay till they might have the Conve¬ niency of carrying their Offerings to the Priests, who were all gone thither, but becaufe for the prefent they could not with Safety let the People go to worship at Jerufalem, they erected new Altars at Dan and Bethel, and made new Priests, therefore God never reftored them to the true Worship and the true Priesthood, but let them go on in the Way that they had chofen for themfelves, till he caft them entirely out of his Sight, This Query being therefore plainly anfwered in Scripture, fo directly contrary to Archbishop Cranmer's Opinion, and that of those who fided with him, we may fafely conclude that the Judg ment he and they gave upon this Cafe was wrong, |