According to this ancient rite,the Apostles and presbyters and the presbytery itself laid hands on them whom they ordained pastors,and withal prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost;and that not only once,but sometimes oftener,when a new occasion was presented:but the end was still the same,namely a punctual and religious designation of the person ordained either to the pastoral charge in general or to a particular mission.So "The Apostles prayed,and laid their hands"on the seven deacons;which was done,not to give them the Holy Ghost (for they were full of the Holy Ghost before they were chosen,as appeareth immediately before),but to design them to that office.And after Philip the Deacon had converted certain persons in Samaria,Peter and John went down "and laid their hands on them,and they received the Holy Ghost."And not only an Apostle,but a presbyter had this power:for St.Paul adviseth Timothy,"Lay hands suddenly on no man";that is,design no man rashly to the office of a pastor.The whole presbytery laid their hands on Timothy,as we read,I Timothy,4.14,but this is to be understood as that some did it by the appointment of the presbytery,and most likely their proestos,or prolocutor,which it may be was St.Paul himself.For in his second Epistle to Timothy,verse 6,he saith to him,"Stir up the gift of God which is in thee,by the laying on of my hands":where note,by the way,that by the Holy Ghost is not meant the third person in the Trinity,but the gifts necessary to the pastoral office.We read also that St.Paul had imposition of hands twice;once from Ananias at Damascus at the time of his baptism;and again at Antioch,when he was first sent out to preach.The use then of this ceremony considered in the ordination of pastors was to design the person to whom they gave such power.But if there had been then any Christian that had had the power of teaching before,the baptizing of him,that is,the ****** him a Christian,had given him no new power,but had only caused him to preach true doctrine,that is,to use his power aright;and therefore the imposition of hands had been unnecessary;baptism itself had been sufficient.But every sovereign,before Christianity,had the power of teaching and ordaining teachers;and therefore Christianity gave them no new right,but only directed them in the way of teaching truth;and consequently they needed no imposition of hands (besides that which is done in baptism)to authorize them to exercise any part of the pastoral function,as namely,to baptize and consecrate.And in the Old Testament,though the priest only had right to consecrate,during the time that the sovereignty was in the high priest,yet it was not so when the sovereignty was in the king:for we read that Solomon blessed the people,consecrated the Temple,and pronounced that public prayer,which is the pattern now for consecration of all Christian churches and chapels:whereby it appears he had not only the right of ecclesiastical government,but also of exercising ecclesiastical functions.
From this consolidation of the right politic and ecclesiastic in Christian sovereigns,it is evident they have all manner of power over their subjects that can be given to man for the government of men's external actions,both in policy and religion,and may make such laws as themselves shall judge fittest,for the government of their own subjects,both as they are the Commonwealth and as they are the Church:for both State and Church are the same men.
If they please,therefore,they may,as many Christian kings now do,commit the government of their subjects in matters of religion to the Pope;but then the Pope is in that point subordinate to them,and exerciseth that charge in another's dominion jure civili,in the right of the civil sovereign;not jure divino,in God's right;and may therefore be discharged of that office when the sovereign for the good of his subjects shall think it necessary.They may also,if they please,commit the care of religion to one supreme pastor,or to an assembly of pastors,and give them what power over the Church,or one over another,they think most convenient;and what titles of honor,as of bishops,archbishops,priests,or presbyters,they will;and make such laws for their maintenance,either by tithes or otherwise,as they please,so they do it out of a sincere conscience,of which God only is the judge.It is the civil sovereign that is to appoint judges and interpreters of the canonical ures;for it is he that maketh them laws.It is he also that giveth strength to excommunications;which but for such laws and punishments as may humble obstinate libertines,and reduce them to union with the rest of the Church,would be contemned.In sum,he hath the supreme power in all causes,as well ecclesiastical as civil,as far as concerneth actions and words,for those only are known and may be accused;and of that which cannot be accused,there is no judge at all,but God,that knoweth the heart.And these rights are incident to all sovereigns,whether monarchs or assemblies:for they that are the representants of a Christian people are representants of the Church:for a Church and a Commonwealth of Christian people are the same thing.
Though this that I have here said,and in other places of this book,seem clear enough for the asserting of the supreme ecclesiastical power to Christian sovereigns,yet because the Pope of Rome's challenge to that power universally hath been maintained chiefly,and I think as strongly as is possible,by Cardinal Bellarmine in his controversy DeSummo Pontifice,I have thought it necessary,as briefly as I can,to examine the grounds and strength of his discourse.
