<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2009-01-04</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Emma Leeson Huber</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch Z080711.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A77210">
<STC T="W">B4088B</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99895580</BIBNO>
<VID>153059</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="1"><!-- PDF PAGE 8 -->
<HEAD>An Appendix to my humble Petition, lately pre&s;ented to the mo&s;t Honourable Courts of Parliament: wherein I did but lightly touch upon the point of Con&s;ecration: Now becau&s;e as I conceive, the Kings Supremacy is therein denied, I humbly crave leave further to clear up this point.</HEAD>
<HEAD>Of a Bi&s;hops Con&s;ecration to his Office.</HEAD>
<P>_THe <HI>Office</HI> of a Bi&s;hop as I humbly conceive, is a mixt office, partly divine, and partly humane or Civill: It is <HI>Divine,</HI> as concerning the Admini&s;tration of the Word and Sacraments. It is <HI>Humane,</HI> as concerning the u&s;e of their coercive power in the Church: For 1. They receive authority to excerci&s;e a coercive power by Com|mi&s;&s;ion from the King; and therefore it is humane. 2. It cannot be proved to be Divine, and therefore it mu&s;t be humane. 3. I prove, it is not Divine; becau&s;e <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> forbade his Apo&s;tles, and in them all the Clergy to <HI>exerci&s;e authority,</HI> Mat. 20.25, 26. And St. <HI>Peter</HI> for|bade it &s;aying, Not as though <HI>ye were Lords over Gods heritage,</HI> or people, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 5.3. So that this Juri&s;diction, Authority, and Coercive power is not divine, becau&s;e Chri&s;t forbad it. 4 Co|ercive power in the Church hath been u&s;ed by Kings, Princes, and Rulers, <HI>Ezra</HI> 10.8. 1 <HI>Kings</HI> 2.27. And therefore it is not <HI>divine,</HI> but <HI>humane.</HI></P>
<P>A Bi&s;hop was ordained a Mini&s;ter, before he was con&s;ecrated and made a Bi&s;hop: and when he &s;teps above the Mini&s;try, into the office of a Bi&s;hop, then <HI>De novo</HI> he takes upon him the of|fice to rule and exerci&s;e authority and his coercive power over an whole Dioce&s;s. If then he preach and admini&s;ter the Sacraments (which few of them do, or do as other Mini&s;ters con&s;tant|ly) then he preacheth not as a Bi&s;hop, but as a Mini&s;ter: And when he ruleth over a Dioce&s;s, he ruleth not as a Mini&s;ter, but as a Bi&s;hop. Whereby it appears, that the office of a Bi&s;hop, as he is a Bi&s;hop, i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> onely to rule and exerci&s;e a Coercive power: and this power is an humane or Civill thing. Hence it follows,</P>
<P>That being this Authority is humane, it mu&s;t be of and from the King, and mu&s;t be derived from the King, who is &s;upream in Authority in or over the Church: The <HI>King</HI> derives his au|thority and &s;upremacy from <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.13. But Bi&s;hops like other Magi&s;trates mu&s;t derive all their authority, not from Chri&s;t immediately, but from the King: Wherefore if the King may have his right, Bi&s;hops mu&s;t be con&s;ecrated onely in the Kings name, not in Chri&s;ts name; for this is to derive from another and higher power than the King, and to make them&s;elves next unto CHRIST, and equall to the KING, for the King onely is next unto Chri&s;t: but Bi&s;hops are now con&s;ecrated by authority of Chri&s;t and the holy Gho&s;t imme|diately, and <HI>Peters</HI> keys: not in the name of the King, whereby they deny the Kings authority and &s;upremacy in the Church, in their con&s;ecration as I conceive it. I have formerly wrote in defence of the Kings Prerogative and Supremacy, and here added this, as being more full, and more cleer.</P>
<P>Object. 1. <HI>But Bi&s;hops may &s;ay, We have authority from the King, to</HI> exerci&s;e <HI>our Coercive power: and therefore we acknowledge the Kings Authority and Supremacy?</HI></P>
<P><HI>I an&s;wer,</HI> 1. By di&s;tingui&s;hing between an office and the exerci&s;e of that office. If therefore you own the Kings Supremacy in the exerci&s;e of your office, yet it followeth not, that thereby you own it in your office, and in your Con&s;ecration to your office: It is evident, that you deny it in your Con&s;ecration, becau&s;e you refu&s;e to con&s;ecrate in the Kings Name, and do all in the name of another and higher power. 2. Your authority from the King, to exerci&s;e your office, doth not imply the Kings Supremacy: thereby indeed you acknowledge the Kings Authority, but not his Supremacy. 3. As far as I can &s;ee, you acknowledge neither the Kings Supremacy, nor his Authority in your office, nor in the exerci&s;e of it: For in your Courts, you i&s;&s;ue out all <HI>Citations, Proce&s;&s;es, Summons,</HI> and <HI>Excommunications,</HI> not in the Kings name, but in your own names. 4. Suppo&s;ing but not granting, that in the exerci&s;e of your office, the Kings Supremacy is by con&s;equence implied, why then do you not in expre&s;&s;e words do it al&s;o, but refu&s;e to do it in the Con&s;ecration to your office? For both the office and the exerci&s;e of it, are wrought to be from the &s;ame hand and power.</P>
<P>Object. 2. <HI>Again, Bi&s;hops may &s;ay, We took the Oath of</HI> Supremacy <HI>at our Con&s;ecration, and therefore we own the Kings Supremacy.</HI></P>
<P><HI>I an&s;w.</HI> 1. You took this Oath indeed <HI>at</HI> your Con&s;ecration, but not <HI>in</HI> your Con&s;ecration: before it, but not in it: for about a quarter of an hour before Con&s;ecration this Oath is taken: but in Con&s;ecration it is not, nor any words expre&s;&s;ing or implying the Kings Supremacy: And yet all Magi&s;trates in the Kingdome, who exerci&s;e a Coercive power, do be&s;ides the Oath of Supremacy, take al&s;o a Commi&s;&s;ion in the Kings name, as deriving their Authority from him, and &s;o &s;hould Bi&s;hops do in Con&s;ecration. 2. Bi&s;hops a little before Con&s;ecration, do &s;wear that the King is &s;upream in Authority, but pre&s;ently after in their Con&s;ecration they deny it; for they refu&s;e to name the King, or own his Supremacy: For they are Con&s;ecrated in the name of another and higher power than the King, as in the name of Chri&s;t, the holy Gho&s;t, and as by the authority of <HI>Peters</HI> keys. Suppo&s;e, a Judge, high Sheriffe, or Mayor of a City, who after they have taken the Oath of Supremacy, &s;hould refu&s;e to take al&s;o a Commi&s;&s;ion for their office in the Kings name? and will derive their Authority from &s;ome other or higher power, as from the Emperour of <HI>Rome,</HI> or <HI>Germany,</HI> would not this be a deniall of the Kings Authority and Supremacy? It will not excu&s;e the matter to &s;ay, we fir&s;t took the Oath of Supremacy: and can the like ex|cu&s;e Bi&s;hops from denying the Kings Supremacy in their Con&s;ecration? My humble Petition therefore is, that if it may &s;tand with your Honours wi&s;dome, this <HI>Con&s;ecration</HI> may be altered and changed into a <HI>Commi&s;&s;ion</HI> in the Kings name; like as it is with all Magi&s;trates, who exerci&s;e a Coercive power under the King.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your Honours humble and dutifull Servant, THEOPHIL&V;S BRABO&V;RN,</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
