The nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of their judgment in certain things…

§ 43. VI. Lastly, which is the formal Head of the Church of England, and so what that Church is, we are left as much uncertain. 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One, then it is but a Christian Kingdom, which we never questioned. And Dr. Rich. Cousins, in his Tables of the English Church-Policy, saith [That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam, quae dicitur Primatus Regius. And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James, saith [Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est, Coronae & dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima, praecipua, indivisibilis pars: Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt, neque alibi oriuntur, aut aliunde sustentantur, aut fulciuntur: penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos & Episcopos, derivata a Rege potestate, jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it: And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance, declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood, or power to administer the Word and Sacraments; but, as Crompton adds from Constantine, is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus; alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi. This is plain: If they hold to this, and claim no power in the English-Policy, but as the Kings Officers, in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates, who will oppose them? But this reacheth not to the Keys, Preaching or Sacraments. 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man, as Melchizedek, and so that he is the formal Head, and might perform the Priestly Office if he would: But this our Kings have themselves renounced. 3. Some say ⟨p. 299⟩that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head; but that cannot be, because he is no Governor over the Arch-Bishop of York, or his Province. 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head, which makes it One Political Church. But 1. If so, then why saith the Canon that the Convocation [is the true Church of England by Representation] and those excommunicate that deny it? We enquire after the Church-Head or Governor: And that which is but the Church it self by representation, is not its Head, unless the Head and Body be the same, and the Church govern it self, and so it be Democratical: The governed and Governors, sure, are not the same. 2. And the Supreme Power is supposed, by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order, to be in the Supreme Order only:

§ 43. VI. Lastly, which is the formal Head of the Church of England, and so what that Church is, we are left as much uncertain. 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One, then it is but a Christian Kingdom, which we never questioned. And Dr. Rich. Cosins, in his Tables of the English Church-Policy, saith [That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam, quae dicitur Primatus Regius. And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James, saith [Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est, Coronae & dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima, praecipua, indivisibilis pars: Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt, neque alibi oriuntur, aut aliunde sustentantur, aut fulciuntur: penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos & Episcopos, derivata a Rege potestate, jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it: And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance, declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood, or power to administer the Word and Sacraments; but, as Crompton adds from Constantine, is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus; alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi. This is plain: If they hold to this, and claim no power in the English-Policy, but as the Kings Officers, in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates, who will oppose them? But this reacheth not to the Keys, Preaching or Sacraments. 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man, as Melchizedek, and so that he is the formal Head, and might perform the Priestly Office if he would: But this our Kings have themselves renounced. 3. Some say