Priests as also of the reall effectuall dominion of Princes I shall now prove further that the sword of Kings if it be not so spirituall as the Pope pretends to cut off souls yet it is more then temporall and extends to things most spirituall The Founders and Patriarchs of the World before the Law of Moses did not only governe the Church but also execute all pastorall spirituall Offices as they were Princes and Supream Potentates within their own limits they did not governe men as they were the Priests of God but they did sacrifice and officiate before God as they were the Heads and Governours of men In those times it was not held usurpation or intrusion upon priests for Princes to sacrifice with their own hands or to teach the will of God with their own mouthes it would have been held presumption if any else had attempted the like and a dishonour to Gods service Nature then taught that the most excellent person was most fit for Gods service in the Church and that no person could be more excellent then hee which served God in the Throne The word priest now may have divers acceptions In some sense whole Nations have been called priests viz. comparatively and in some sense all Fathers of Children and Masters of Servants are in the nature of priests and in more usuall sense all Princes so farre as they have charge and cure of souls and are intrusted with Divine Service within their severall commands are more supereminently taken for priests but the most usuall sense is this A Priest is hee which hath cure of Souls and a trust of Gods worship by a more peculiar kinde of publike and politike consecration and dedication thereunto of such consecration or ordination before Aaron we read nothing and for ought I see we are bound to believe nothing Melchisideck was a pious man a devout Father a religious Master nay a zealous Prince and Commander but in all these respects hee had no priviledge nor right to the denomination of priest more then Adam Sem Noah c. had You will say then how is that denomination given him so peculiarly This denomination might be given not by reason of any externall formall ceremoniall Unction or imposition of hands or any other solemne Dedication or separation before men but in this respect that he did perhaps publikely officiate in the presence of all his Subjects and perhaps in behalfe of all his subjects and this is a higher and blesseder Sacerdotall Office then any we read of in his predecessors or successors till Aarons dayes It is probable that God was served in Families before Aaron and perhaps there were solemne days and Feasts which all Families by joynt consent did in severall places dedicate to Gods service by strict observance of the same but that any publike places were appointed for whole Congregations to joyne and meet publikely in under the charge and function of any one publike Priest till Aaron is not specified This only we may guesse by the speciall name of priest applied to Melchisedeck that perhaps being a priest of Salem he was the first that made the worship of God so publike and did not only by the generall influence of his power take order for the service and knowledge of God in severall Families but also gather severall assemblies of united Families and there publikely sacrifise and officiate in behalf of great and solemne Congregations wherein he might far exceed Abraham Howsoever its sufficient for my purpose that this he might doe by vertue of his Regall power and dignity without any further consecration or Sacerdotal instalment whatsoever And in this respect he was without predecessor and perhaps successor so that I think hee was the most lively and Honourable type of our Saviour for Aarons Order was Substitute and his consecration was performed by the hand of his Prince and Superiour and being so consecrated He did sacrifise not as a Prince but meerly as a Priest Whereas Melchisedeck received his Order from none but himselfe and so remayned not only independent but his service also being both Regall and Sacerdotall as our Saviours also was it was yet more Honorable in that it was Regall then in that it was Sacerdotall And this certainly sutes best with our Saviours Order for no Secular authority but his own did concurre in his inauguration hee was his owne Ancestor in this in that his owne Royall dignitie gave vertue to his Sacerdotall and though hee would not assume to himselfe the externall Function of Royalty in meer Secular things yet in this he would follow holy Melchisedeck But to passe from Melchisedeck within some few ages after wee finde the Scepter and Censor severed Wee finde no prints of great Empires before Moses for in small Countries we finde divers petty independant principalities and it may be imagin'd that neither true policie nor wicked tyranny was then knowne in such perfection as now it is The Israelites at their departure from Egypt were a great and formidable Nation as appeares by the combinations of many other Potentates against them yet at that time the weightie charges both of prince and priest were supported by Moses alone This was exceeding grievous till Jethro in civill affaires and till God himselfe in matters of Religion for his further ease took much of his laborious part from off his shoulders Subordinate Magistrates were now appointed in the State and priests and Levits in the Church the Nation being growne numerous and Ceremonies in Religion very various but wee must not think that Moses was hereby emptied or lesned of any of his Civill or Ecclesiasticall authoritie as he retained still Supremacie of power to himselfe in all things so that Supremacy became now the more awfull and Majesticall The poet says of waters Maxima per multos tenuantur flumina rivos And indeed did waters run backwards they would spend and diminish themselves by often divisions in their courses but we see that in their ordinary naturall Tracts many litle petty streams officiously hasten to discharge themselves into greater so that the more continued the course is the greater the streams ever grow It is so with power both in Church and State Sovereigntie is as the mayne Ocean of its vast abundance it feeds all and is fed by all as it is the fountain to enrich others so it is the Cisterne to receive and require back againe all the riches of others That which Moses parted with all and derived to others was for the better expedition both of pietie and justice that GOD might be more duly served that the people might be more quickly relieved and that his own shoulders might be the freelier disburdened for as a man hee could not intend universall businesse yet a Prince he might well superintend it in others And it is manifest that after the separation of the Priesthood he did still as superiour to Aaron in the most sacred things approach God in the Mountain to receive the
and Titus committed to them by vertue of their Episcopall Order What more sacred what more spirituall offices could they performe in the Church What could Gods children suck from their brests other then milke then sincere spirituall milke Saint Augustine agrees to this when hee says that Kings as Kings serve God so as none but Kings can doe and when he confesses that Christ came not to the detriment of sovereigntie And the Church in Tertullians words ascribing worship to their Heathen Emperours as being second immediatly to God and inferiour to none but God says as much as words can expresse In regard of internall sanctitie Peter may be more excellent then Caesar and so may Lazarus perhaps then Peter but in regard of that civill sanctitie which is visible to mans eye Caesar is to be worshipped more then Peter Caesar is to be looked upon as next in place here to God betwixt whom and God no other can have any superiour place Wisdome and goodnesse are blessed graces in the sight of GOD but these are more private and Power is an excellence more perfect and publike and visible to man then either if Ministers do sometimes in wisdome and goodnesse excell Princes yet in Power they doe not and therefore though wisdome and goodnesse may make them more amiable somtimes to God yet Power shall make Princes more Honourable amongst men There is in heaven no need of Power in the glorified creatures and yet the glorified creatures are there differenced by Power it is hard to say that one Angell or Saint differs from another in wisdome or in holinesse yet that they differ in power and glory we all know The twelve Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles sit in heaven upon higher Thrones then many Saints which perhaps here in this life might be endued with a greater portion of wisdome and holinesse then they were and by this it may seeme that there is a species of externall sanctitie of power dispensed according to the free power of God even in Heaven also and that that sanctity is superiour to the other more private sanctity of other graces and excellences And if power in heavenly creatures where it is of no necessity has such a supereminent glory appertaining to it with what veneration ought wee to entertain it on earth where our common felicitie and safetie does so much depend upon it Goodnesse here wee see is a narrow excellence without wisdome and power and wisdome in men that have neither power nor goodnesse scarce profits at all but power in infants in women in Ideots hands is of publike use in as much as the wisdome and goodnesse of other men are ready to be commanded by it and its more naturall that they should be obsequious and officious in serving power then that the transcendent incommunicable indivisible Royalty of power should condiscend to bee at their devotion And for this reason when Princes are said to be solo Deo minores and Deo secundi this is spoken in regard of power and this being spoken in regard of power we must conceive it spoken of the most perfect excellence and dignity and sanctitie that can be imagined amongst men on earth And for the same reason when Princes are said to serve God as Princes and so to serve him as none other can we must conceive this spoken also with respect to their power in as much as wisdome and goodnesse in other men cannot promote the glory of God and the common good of man so much as power may in them But Stapleton takes foure exceptions to those times whereby if it bee granted that the Jewish Kings had supreame Ecclesiasticall authority yet hee sayes it does not follow that our Kings now ought to have the same Hee sayes first That the Iewish Religion was of farre lesse dignitie and perfection then ours is ours being that truth of which theirs was but a shadowish prefigurative resemblance Our answere here is that the Religion of the Jews as to the essence of it was not different from ours either in dignitie or perfection The same God was then worshipped as a Creatour Redeemer Sanctifier and that worship did consist in the same kinde of love feare hope and beliefe and the same charitie and justice amongst men The Law of Ceremonies and externall Rites in the bodily worship of God did differ from our discipline that being more pompous and laborious but the two great Commandements which were the effects and contents of all heavenly spirituall indispensible worship and service whereby a love towards God above that of our selves and a love towards man equall with that of our selves was enjoyned these two great Commandements were then as forcible and honourable as they are now Sacrifice was but as the garment of Religion obedience was the life the perfection the dignity of Religion and the life perfection and dignitie of that obedience consisted then in those weighty matters of the Law Piety and mercie as it now does but if the Jewish Religion was lesse excellent and more clogged with shadows and ceremonies in its outward habit what argument is this for the Supremacie of Regall rather then Sacerdotall power The more abstruse and dark the forme of that worship was and the more rigorous sanctity God had stamped upon the places and instruments and formalities of his worship and the more frequent and intricate questions might arise thereabout me thinks the more use there was of Sacerdotall honour and prerogative and the lesse of Regall in matters of the Lord I see not why this should make Princes more spirituall then their Order would beare but Priests rather His second reason is That all parts of the Jewish Religion Laws Sacrifices Rites Ceremonies being fully set down in writing needing nothing but execution their Kings might well have highest authoritie to see that done Whereas with us there are numbers of mysteries even in beliefe which were not so generally for them as for us necessary to be with some expresse acknowledgment understood many things belonging to externall government and our service not being set down by particular ordinances or written for which cause the State of the Church doth now require that the spirituall authoritie of Ecclesiasticall persons be large absolute and independent This reason is every way faulty for as to matters of Discipline and externall worship our Church is lesse incumbred with multiplicity of Rites such as Saint Paul cals carnall and beggerly rudiments and in this respect there is the lesse use of Ecclesiasticall authoritie amongst us and if popish Bishops doe purposely increase Ceremonies that they may inlarge their own power they ought not to take advantage of their own fraud And as for matters of faith and doctrinall mysteries we say according to Gods ancient promise knowledg doth now abound by an extraordinary effusion of Gods Spirit upon these latter dayes wee are so farre from being more perplexed with shadows and mysticall formalities or with weighty disputes that we are and
ought to be a great deal lesse and we doe the rather suspect all popish traditions and additions in Religion because wee see they make use of them for the augmenting of the power and regiment of Prelates And yet if knowledge did not abound if our Religion were more cloudie and if the Scriptures Councils Fathers and all learning were now more imperfect to us then they are I cānot imagin how an uncōfined absolute dominion of Churchmen shold be more necessary thē of Princes For if absolutenes of power be of necessary use in intricate perplexed mysteries cōtroversies yet why must that absolute power be more effectuall in Priests then Princes is not the counsel of Prelats the same and of the same vigor to solve doubts and determine controversies whether their power be subordinate or not doth meer power ad to the knowledg of Priests or is the power of Priests more virtuous for the promoting of truth then the power of Magistrates how comes this vast irreconcilable difference betwixt the government of the Church and State In matters of Law in matters of policy in matters of war unlimited power in such as are most knowing and expert does not conduce to the safety of the Common-wealth subordinate Counsells are held as available for the discerning of truth and far more available for the conserving of peace and order And who can then assigne any particular sufficient reason why matters of religion should not as well be determined in the consistory by dependent Prelates as matters of Law are by the Judges and Justices in their tribunals where they sit as meere servants to the King His third exception is That God having armed the Jewish Religion with a temporall sword and the Christian with that of spirituall punishment only the one with power to imprison scourge put to death the other with bare authoritie to censure and excommunicate there is no reason why our Church which hath no visible sword should in regiment be subject unto any other power then only to that which bindeth and looseth This reason taketh it for granted that amongst the Jewes the Church and State was the same had the same body the same head the same sword and that head was temporall and that sword was materiall This we freely accept of but in the next place without any reason at all given it as freely assumes that Christians now have only a spirituall sword in the Church as that Jews had only a temporall one A diametricall opposition is here put betwizt Jews and Christians in Church Regiment and yet no cause shewed or account given of that opposition We have very good colour to argue that without some strong reason shewed of opposition Christians ought not to bee so contrary to that excellent discipline of the Jewes which God himself ordered and to introduce I know not what spirituall rule in prejudice of temporall rule but how will Stapleton prove that amongst Christians the Church and State are two divided bodies so as they may admit of two severall heads and severall swords the one temporall the other spirituall the one yielding precedence as temporall the other predominating as spirituall This wee desire to see fortified with better proofs Hooker in his eighth booke not yet publisht has a learned cleere discourse to shew the fallacie and injustice of this blind presumption Hee allows that a Church is one way and a Commonwealth another way defined and that they are both in nature distinguisht but not in substance perpetually severed Since there is no man sayes hee of the Church of England but the same is a member of the Common-wealth nor any of the Common-wealth but the same is of the Church therefore as in a figure triangle the base differs from the sides and yet one and the self-same line is both a base and a side a side simply a base if it chance to be the bottome and to underlie the rest So though properties and actions of one doe cause the name of a Common-wealth qualities and functions of another sort give the name of a Church to a multitude yet one and the same multiude may be both Thus in England there 's none of one Corporation but hee is of the other also and so it was amongst the Jews Two things cause this errour First because professours of the true Religion somtimes live in subjection under the false so the Jews did in Babylon so the Christians in Rome under Nero in such cases true professors doe civilly only communicate with the State but in matters of their Religion they have a communion amongst themselves This now is not our case and therefore these instances are not proper amongst us Secondly In all States there is a distinction between spirituall and temporall affaires and persons but this proveth no perpetuall necessity of personall separation for the Heathens always had their spiritual Laws and persons and causes severed from their temporall yet this did not make two independent States among them much lesse doth God by revealing true Religion to any Nation distract it thereby into severall independent communities his end is only to institute severall functions of one and the same community Thus farre Hooker most judiciously and profoundly Wee must not here expect any satisfaction from our Adversaries why there should be lesse division betweene Church and State amongst the Jews and lesse use of two severall swords then is amongst us 't is sufficient that they have said it There 's no crime so scandalous amongst our Church-men or wherein they claime so much spirituall interest of jurisdiction as adultery yet amongst the Iews that crime was carnall not spirituall and its punishment was death inflicted by the Civill Judge not damnation denounced by the Priest Now if adultery in these days were better purged away and lesse countenanced in our Christian Courts then it was amongst the Jews there might something be alleaged to preferre our moderne inventions before Gods owne Statutes but when Ecclesiastiall persons shall therefore incroach upon Civill that by I know not what pecuniary corruptions and commutations vice and scandall may abound we doe strangly dote to suffer it For his last reason he says That albeit whilst the Church was restrained into one people it seemed not incommodious to grant their Kings generall chiefty of power yet now the Church having spread it self over all Nations great inconvenience must thereby grow if every Christian King in his severall Territorie should have the like power By this reason it s presumed that all the Universe ought to have but one head on earth and that Rome must be its Court and that it must be indued with Oraculous infallibilitie and so to remayne till the Worlds end and this must bee admitted out of some obscure generall Metaphors in Scripture or else God has not sufficiently provided for the wise government of his Catholike Church Man can scarce imagine any thing more mischievous or impossible then that which these goodly
painted out before their eyes even by the very solemnities and rights of their inauguration to what affaires by the same Law their supreme power and authority reaches Crowned we see they are and Inthronized and Annoynted the Crowne a signe of Military dominion the Throne of sedentary or Iudiciall The Oyle of Religious and sacred power Hee here Attributes as supreme a rule and as independent in Religious and sacred affaires as Hee does either in Military or Iudiciall and hee accounts that venerable Ceremony of Vnction as proper to the Kings of England as that of Crowning or Inthroning Neverthelesse it is now a great objection against this chiefly of Dominion that it may descend to Infants under age as it did to King Edward the sixth Or to Women as to Queene Mary and Elizabeth and whatsoever wee may allow to men such as Henry the eighth yet it seemes unreasonable to allow it Women and Children The Papists thinke this objection of great moment and therefore Bellarmine in great disdaine casts it out that in England they had a certaine Woman for their Bishop meaning by that woman Q. Elizabeth And Q. Elizabeth her selfe knowing what an odium that word would draw upon her both amongst Papists and many Protestants also consults her Bishops about it and by their advice sets forth a declaration certifying the world thereby that shee claymed no other Head-ship in the Church but such as might exclude all dependency upon forreigne Head-ships and secure her from all danger of being deposed How this paper could satisfie all I cannot see My thinkes the Bishops in this did as warily provide for their owne clayme as the Queenes for whatsoever power Shee had in the Church it was either absolute Coordinate or Subordinate If it was subordinate Shee was in danger of deposition and was to bee ordered and limited and commanded by her Superior If her power was Co-ordinate She had no more power over her equall than her equall had over her and it being as lawfull for her equall to countermand as it was for her to command her power would be as easily disabled and made frustrate by her equalls as her equalls by hers In the last place therefore if her power or headship were absolute why did not her Bishops uphold and declare the same Such dallying with indefinite expressions and dazelling both our selves others with meere ambiguities does often very great harme for uncertainty in Law is the Mother of confusion and injustice and this is the mother of uncertainty According to this obscure declaration of supremacy in the Queenes paper many Papists at this day take the Oath penned in the Statute for that purpose they will abjure the Popes supremacy as to deposition of Princes but not in any thing else and they will hold the King supreme as to all deposers but not as to all men else Those which are not bloudy and dangerous but by the light of nature abhorre regicides rest themselves upon these shallow distinctions but such as are Iesuitically furious and murdrous break through them as meere Cobwebs and the more secure Princes are from the other the lesse safe they are from these These men will still insist upon absolute supremacy somewhere to rest and that it cannot rest in Women or Minors they will still insist upon this argument If the Queene be not competent for that lower Order to whom the Word and Sacraments are committed then shee is not competent for that higher Order which has power over the lower but the Queene is not competent for the lower therefore not for the higher They say that to prescribe Lawes to Preachers is more than to preach and to have power over Ordination is something greater than to enter into Orders and therefore the Law cannot justly give that which is more and greater when God denyes that which is inferior and lesse Our Divines make a very short unsatisfying reply to this Their reply is that though our Bishops owe some kind of subjection to Kings yet the authority of preaching c. is not from Kings but from Christ Himselfe Christ they say giveth the Commission Kings give but a permission only All the power at last of our Kings which is acknowledged equall with that of the Iewish and has been so farre all this while magnified and defended against Papists inables them now no further than to a naked permission in religious affaires their most energeticall influence is permission T is true the Commission of the Apostle was from Christ His Ite docete was their authority And so it remaines still to all their successors but is it therefore a reason that there is now no other Commission necessary Where Christs Commission was particular it was good without any other humane commmission nay permission it selfe was not requisite the Contents of that Commission was not only Ito Doceto but Tu Petre Tu Paule c. Ito doceto but now there remaines nothing of that Commission but the generality Ito doceto the particularity requires now particular Commissions and meere permissions will not serve the turne And as for succession we may suppose that our Saviours first Commission was vigorous as to that purpose but we must know That the Apostles being both Governours and Preachers all that commission which was given them as Governours was not given them as Preachers There must still be successors to the Apostles in Governing and Preaching but it s not necessary that the same men now should succeed in both offices and that whatsoever was commanded or granted to the one office the same should bee granted and commanded to the other The Civill Iudges and Councellors of State under the King are not without Generall Commissions from Heaven to doe justice and preserve order in their severall subordinate stations and yet they depend upon particular commissions too from Gods immediate Vice-Gerent And it seemes to me a weake presumption that Officers in Religion should have more particular Commissions from GOD than Officers of State or that Princes should bee more permissive and lesse influent by way of power in the Church than in the Common-Wealth He that observes not a difference betwixt these times under Christian Princes and those under unbeleeving Caesars is very blind and He is no lesse that thinks particular Commissions now as necessary when Princes joyne to propagate the Gospell as they were when supreme power was abused for its subversion And so makes no difference betwixt a Nero and a Constantine Did Constantine gaine the style of Head-Bishop or Bishop of Bishops meerely by permitting the true worship of God And let us lay aside the strangenes of the Name and apply the thing I meane the same Episcopall power to Queene Elizabeth as was to Constantine and what absurdity will follow What is intended by the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which may not bee as properly applyed to Queene Elizabeth as to Constantine If the Patriarchs and Kings of Iudah
and first Christian Emperors had jurisdiction and a legislative power in the Church nay had dominion over all those which did exercise judiciall power in the Church and were so exalted in sanctity and dignity above meere Priests shall Queene Elizabeth bee barred and disabled for the same power and honour meerely by the prejudice of her Sex The very Papists themselves do grant to some Abbatisses power of jurisdiction over some Ecclesiasticall persons and this power they hold to be more honourable than that of suborninate Monkes and Priests which officiate under them and yet to officiate they will not grant to Abbatisses though they grant more than to officiate Therefore wee see this rule doth not alwayes hold that Hee which may not undertake the lesser charge shall not undertake the greater for the meere sanctity of the person is not alwayes that which gives Law in these cases Though the person bee not voyd of sanctity yet some other unfitnesse and defect may stop and barre in lesse imployments and yet bee no stop nor bar at all in matters of a more excellent and sublime nature So it is with Infants and VVomen though the possession of a Crowne be more sacred and honourable than admission into Orders yet they shall bee held more capable of a Crowne than of Orders because personall imbecillity and naturall inferiority as I may so say is lesse prejudiciall in civill than in religious affaires and in matters of function and service than in matters of priviledge and command God had confined the right and honour of the Priest-hood amongst the Iewes to one Tribe and Family onely and therefore Vzziab might not invade that right and honour to the infringing of Gods speciall command and in this respect Vzziah was qualified for a Scepter yet not qualified for a censer He was qualified for that authority which was more sacred yet not for that service which was lesse So perhaps it is now under the Gospell women are expresly barred from the Altar that very Sex is precisely excluded and excepted against by God they may not Minister in the Church yet this is no exception but that they may Raigne in the Throne and yet this seemes not to prove that that ministration is more holy than this raigning but rather that it is more difficult and such as requires more personall ability and naturall perfection For let Vzziahs case over-rule us That wch disabled Vzziah for the service of the Altar was not personall incompetence or want of sanctity for then the same had disabled him for all higher and more excellent offices But we know that Vzziah was not so disabled for he was capable of the Scepter and by vertue of his Scepter the whole Temple and all the sacred things therin all the Order of the Priests and Levites the whole Law of God and the state of Religion and Policy and the generall welfare of all Gods holy beloved people were within his guard and protection And will any man conceive this to be lesse excellent than to sacrifice By vertue of the Scepter Moses did consecrate Priests to serve at the Altar and governe their service at the Altar by vertue of the Scepter Salomon did build and dedicate the very Temple and Altar it selfe with his owne mouth blesse both them and those Priests which were to attend them by vertue of the Scepter Vzziah himselfe did inherit the same power and holinesse and dignity which Moses or Salomon or any of his Predecessors had And shal all this seeme lesse worthy and excellent to us than to serve with a censer In this Hooker fully concurres with me He distinguishes betweene an Ordinary and a supreme Iudge and He allowes it unfit for Princes to sit as Ordinary Iudges in matters of Faith and Religion and yet hee denies not their supreme right and influence of judging For sayes H. an Ordinary Iudge must be of qualities which in a supreme Iudge are not necessary because the person of One is charged with that which the others meere authority dischargeth without imploying himselfe personally therein It is an error to thinke that the Kings authority can have no force in doing that which himselfe personally may not doe for it is impossible that at one and the same time that the King should order so maine and different affaires as by His power every where present are ordered in Peace and Warre at home and abroad And the King in regard of Nonage c. may be unable to performe that thing wherein yeares of discretion are requisite for personall action and yet his authority is still of force And therefore it is a maxime that the Kings authoritie never dyes or ceases from working Sundry considerations then may be effectuall to hold the Kings person from being a doer of that which notwithstanding his power must give force unto In civill affaires nothing doth more concerne the duty or better beseeme the Majesty of Kings than personally to administer justice Yet if it bee in case of Felony and Treason Lawyers affirme Stanford l. 2. c. 3. that well may the King commit his authority to an other to judge betweene him and the offender but the King being himselfe there a party cannot personally sit there to pronounce judgement Here we see sometimes the King cannot be possibly present to act his part sometimes defect of knowledge may hinder him sometimes other exceptions as being a party and the like may barre him from doing those things which notwithstanding by his substitute power must bee done and yet this preferres not substitutes before him So in Vzziahs case the Priest-hood was for very sufficient reasons in policy severed from the Kingly office and that by Gods owne approbation and command Vzziah shall not now conjoyne and unite them again out of a fond pragmaticall humor to the dis-inheriting of the Tribe of Levi to the disservice of the Crowne to the hinderance of Religion and to the violation of Gods command If Vzziah will content himselfe to move in his owne superior Orbe and leave the Priests of God to their owne regular subordinate motions his influence shall give vigor to those actions in them which are with more honour to him done by them under his superintendence than by himselfe in person For as the Ordinary Iudge deputed by the King in cases where the King Himselfe either cannot be present or hath not skill to determine or may not legally interesse himselfe does give judgment not by vertue of his owne but by vertue of the Kings authority and does therefore acquire more honour to his Majesty than to himselfe So in the Church the Priest ministring in that imployment which in all places the King cannot minister in and which is too difficult for some Kings to minister in and prohibited to others yet is not hereby greater or holyer than the King but even in his very actuall administration it selfe He is so dependent and derives such vertue from the Kings supreme spirituall authority
inconvenient in some things mischievous in notihng necessary or unalterable And it ought to be observed that evill formes of policie have been sometimes well ordered and rectified by good Commanders and so the State of Boetia once flourished under Epaminondas and Pelopidas and yet it owed this prosperitie not to the government of the Citie for that was ill constituted and composed but to the Governours for they were wise and vertuous The contrary also happened to Lacedaemon for that fared ill sometimes and suffered much distemper because though its fundamentall Laws were good yet its Kings and Ephorie were many times tyrannous and unjust And this should teach Bishops not alwayes to boast of the sanctitie of their Order because such such in ancient and modern times were Martyrs or were humble and fortunate to the Church nor always to blame all other formes of government for the faults of such such Governors But in this my ensuing discourse I must undertake almost all Churchmen at least some if not all of all Religions opinions Papists allow somthing to secular Magistrates in the rule of the Church but Supremacie of rule they do utterly in very terms deny The Protestants though divided amongst themselvs some placing supreme power in Episcopacie others in presbytery yet both in effect deny it to the King though in words they pretend otherwise The grounds of this mistake as I conceive are these when our Saviour first gave commission to his Disciples to preach and baptise and to propagate the true faith in the World Secular authority being then adverse thereunto Hee was of necessity to commit not only doctrine but all discipline also to the charge of his Apostles and their Substitutes only Wherfore though Secular authority be now come in become friendly to Religion willing to advance the spirituall prosperity of the Church aswel as the temporall of the State yet Clergiemen having obtained possession of power in the Church and that by Christs own institution they think they ought not to resigne the same againe at the demand of Princes And because the certain forme of discipline which our Saviour left and to whom it was left is doubtfully and obscurely set forth in Scripture and is yet controverted of all sides therefore some contend for one thing some for an other but all agree in this that whatsoever forme was appointed for those times is unalterably necessary for these and that to whomsoeever rule was designed to Christian Princes it was not my drift therefore must now be to discover the erroneous conceits herein of all sides and to doe as the Romans once did when they were chosen arbitrators betweene two contesting Cities I must neither decree for the Plaintiff nor Defendant but for the King who is in this case a third party I am of opinion that some order and imparitie was necessary in the Primitive Church in the very House of God and therefore was so countenanced by our Saviour but for ought I see that power which was then necessary was not so large as our Prelates nor so narrow as our Presbyterians plead for but whatsoever it was or wheresoever it rested questionless it is now unknown and not manifest in Scripture but if it were manifest and that such as the Prelacie or such as the Presbytery mayntaines it is so far from being now unchangeable since Princes are come in to doe their offices in the house of God that I think it cannot remayne unchanged without great injury to Princes and damage to the Church and by consequence great dishonour to our Saviour And this is that now which I shall endevour to confirme and demonstrate In the first place then I am to impugne those grounds whereby a sole independent perpetuall power of Church Government is appropriated to Ecclesiasticall persons only and whereby Princes c. are excluded as incompetent for the same That there is no such thing as Ordination and spirituall Jurisdiction due and necessary in the Church is not now to be questioned the question is what persons are most capable of the same whether such as are commonly called Ecclesiasticall or no It is agreed by all that God hath not left Humane nature destitute of such remedies as are necessary to its conservation and that rule and dominion being necessary to that conservation where that rule and dominion is granted there all things necessary for the support of that rule and dominion are granted too It is further agreed also that Supream power ought to be intire and undivided and cannot else be sufficient for the protection of all if it doe not extend overall without any other equall power to controll or diminish it and that therefore the Supreme Temporall Magistrate ought in some cases to command Ecclesiasticall persons as well as Civill but here lies the difference the Papists hold that though spirituall persons as they are men and Citizens of the Common-wealth in regard of their worldly habitation are subject to temporall Commanders yet this subjection is due ob pacem communem or quoad commune bonum and that per accidens and indirectè and that no further neither but only secundum partem directivam seu imperativam Thus whatsoever they pretend to the contrary they doe erect regnum in regno they give temporall Monarchie an imperfect broken right in some things but controlable and defeasible by the spirituall Monarchie in other things And the World ha's had a long sad experience of this whilst Kings had the Pope for their superiour in any thing they remayned Supreame in nothing whil'st their rule was by division diminished in some things they found it insufficient in all things so that they did not command joyntly with the Pope but were commanded wholly by the Pope And in Popish Countries now Princes do suffer themselves in word to be excluded from all spirituall Dominion and execute not the same in shew but by subordinate Clerks under them and that by privilege of the Popes grant but we know in truth they hold it and use it as their own and the Pope is more officious to them then they are to him And whereas the Canon Law allows temporall Princes to punish the insolence and oppressions of Bishops within their respective Territories modò sint verae oppressiones wee know this comes to nothing if Princes claime it not by somthing higher then Canon Law For how shall this be tryde how shall it appeare whether these oppressions be true and hainous or no if Bishops will not submit themselves in this tryall and refuse to appeale Kings are no competent Judges nor can take no just cognizance hereof and what redresse then is in the Kings power Even Popish Princes now know well enough how ridiculous this favour of the Canonists is therfore as the Popes fed thē heretofore with the name and shadow only of painted Sovereignty in temporalibus so they feed him the like now in spiritualibus Protestants dissent much
contrary and we will acknowledge the Function of Ministers to bee more venerable than any amongst men besides that which beares the sword the Embleme of Gods imperiall Majestie But to such as are Gods sword-bearers upon Earth we conceive Ministers ought to give place and pay subjection as humbly as any others The preminence of Kings we hold to be three ways manifest in order in measure and in kind In the very sanctity of the Priest-hood it selfe we conceive the ministration of Priests to be subordinate to Princes inasmuch as to superintend in the most religious affaires is due to Princes and to officiate only to Priests and to superintend is more than to officiate Secondly In measure we conceive Princes excell also in asmuch as in religious affaires such Priests have the charge of such flockes and such Bishops of such Priests but all both Bishops Priests and flockes are under the Kings charge And not only in religious affaires but in civill also the authority of Princes is both intensive and extensive many wayes where Priests may not at all intermeddle And though to governe Christians as Christians be the most transcendent honour of Kings yet to governe men as men and not only to governe but to governe well is a thing of divine impression Thirdly in kinde the regiment of Princes is far excelling for the regiment of Kings is a true proper regiment assisted with reall power decored with externall honour founded in the generall consent of men and blessed by the gratious influence of God but the rule of Priests is but ethicall or metaphoricall only its utmost vigor is but perswasive and is not at all coercive either inwardly or outwardly and that subjection which it challengeth is not to it selfe but to the Word and Sacraments whereto it selfe rendreth as much as it requireth from others This generall answer might suffice but to each particular Title we will briefly reply further Ministers they are GODS viz. to such as are under their cure but then as they are GODS to others so Princes are GODS to them Thus Moses was a God to Aaron though Aaron was a God to his inferiors Ministers are Stars but not in magnitude equall to the Sun neither is their light and influence so independent as the Suns Ministers are Angels viz. upon earth and their internall piety is like a shining rayment to them amongst men but they serve under Gods on Earth whose robes of Majesty are every way resplendent as well externally as internally Ministers are Embassadors but all Embassadors persons are not of the like honour nor all their Embassages of the like moment nor all their Commissions of the like extent and in all these respects Preachers are inferior to Princes being joyned to them as Aaron was to Moses for a spokesman or an Interpreter only Ministers are Rulers viz. quoad vim directivam but not quoad vim coactivam Ministers are Fathers viz. such as have been Gods instruments to regenerate us and so as Saint Ierome sayes they are the Fathers of our soules and perhaps as Chrysostome sayes in this respect they are more to be honoured than our naturall parents But Ministers alwayes and onely are not so our Parents and they that are so our Parents are not so physicall and selfe efficacious causes as our naturall Parents are but if they may challenge more honour than our fleshly Parents yet this advances them not above Kings who are both politicall and Spirituall Fathers also Fabius the Consull though he was to pay Honour and reverence to his naturall Father yet he was to demand a greater measure of the same from him being his politicall son and it did not mis-beseeme him to prefer the civill right before the physicall Yet Fabius here was a meere Magistrate and in that farre lesse glorious than our Christian Magistrates are Ministers are Stewards but not the highest in the house of God for Princes are Stewards also and only accountable to God but they are accountable to Princes themselves And as Stewards doe provide food for those by whom themselves are fed and manage only but one part of their Lords affaires so it is with Ministers under Princess Ministers are Pastors Leaders Teachers their Doctrine is their food wherewith they comfort the people their perswasion is the light wherewith they secure them from falling they feede by their exhortations and guide by their dehortations but all these are offices of a servant rather than priviledges of a Master and even in these offices they are subordinate also So the Pilot at Sea may have the safety of his Prince committed to his direction charge and rule So the Commander in Warre gives order for all affaires of the battaile assigning to the King Himselfe a fit station So the Iudge in matters of Law by his just decree bindes the right of his owne Master So the Physition limits and prescribes rules of diet and sets downe Lawes of exercise to his Soveraigne Lord In all these cases there is a kinde of Obedience due from Kings and that obedience implyes some kind of inferiority and yet this obedience of the King doth not drowne the higher and greater obedience of the Subject nor doth this inferiority contradict that which is of a farre other quality and degree In the selfe same manner also the Priest officiates in the Church perhaps before the King perhaps before his owne Metropolitan at this time in this place and in this office there is honour reverence and obedience due to him from the King and Metropolitan yet this doth not exempt him from that stronger and holyer tye of subjection awe and subordination by which he is alwayes bound to those which governe him in other things when Ambrose therefore sayes Honor sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari and againe Nihil potest esse in hoc seculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri wee answer if he here include Princes as having Episcopall power and a jurisdiction both over Priests and Bishops we agree hereunto but if he exclude Princes we exclude this from our beliefe And againe when he sayes if you compare Episcopall sublimity to the brightnesse of Kings or Diadems of Princes that of Kings and Princes will be more inferior than leade compared with gold we answer if he here intend the meere secular authority of Princes in things meerly temporall we suppose some mild construction may bee allowed but if he speake of the intire Soveraignty and Prerogative of Princes and put that as lead in comparison of the golden Miter we reject him as erroneous That which Chrysostome sayes that more awe is due to Priests than to Kings and Princes we admit also in this sense viz. to the Embassages of God in their mouthes not to their persons and those Embassages also and instructions we oppose to the meere civill Ordinances of Kings not to religious injunctions wherein Princes are sent with larger Commission than they are
was not the learning and knowledge of all Bishops at his command to be imployed as if it were his owne Bishops themselves might erre and dissent and in that point many of them did erre and hold against the truth and without his ayde this division was irreconcileable but by his influence and superintendence truth might obtaine a faire tryall and Bishops themselves might be convinced by Bishops This case in Divinity might be too intricate for his sole judgment and too pondrous for his actuall determination but what he could not doe single and personally Hee might well effect by the counsell and advice of his most moderate and disinteressed Clergie for in Divinity the Prince is as in juridicall or Martiall affaires As he is not alwayes the ablest Divine so neither is he the ablest Lawyer nor the ablest Souldier and yet by the advice of Divines Lawyers and Souldiers He may conclude that wisely which neither He without them nor they without him could ever have concluded Therefore against this remisse cold slacknesse and haesitancy of Valentinian we may oppose the politike and couragious resolution of Constantine Theodosius and diverse other pious Emperors who all did compose debates and end controversies and vindicate Truth and Religion from many errors and abuses wch otherwise had bin endlesse and remedilesse After the first 5. or 6. hundred yeares Episcopacy began to invade the rights of Royalty by the Sophistications and impostures of the See of Rome and till this last Age Princes almost every where did blindly and superstitiously too farre abandon their owne right but by the light of Nature the wisest Kings in all Countryes were ever the most refractory and most impatient of the Popes tyranny and in the most ignorant times some there were found that made resistance to the same Much bloud was shed upon this Theme in diverse other Countries and even in our own stories we find that though England was prone otherwise to be the Popes Asse yet in the quarrell of supremacy it was jealous and had almost perpetuall conflicts I will only cite one story Henry the second was a very puissant Prince and in all other things except only Ecclesiasticall He was fortunate and victorious but his misery was that He raigned in such an Age as the Pope was in his Zenith and had to doe with Becket of all the Popes dependents the most seditious Henry the first his Grandfather out of the greatnesse of his Spirit and wit had passed these Lawes That no Appeal should stand That no Bishops should go out of the Realme That no Tenant in Capite should bee excommunicated That no officiall of the Kings should be interdicted without the Kings leave and consent And that Clergimen should be subject to secular judgement and that Lay-men under the King should judge of Tythes and other causes Ecclesiasticall At these just and necessary Lawes the Clergie hitherto rested quiet if not contented but now a most rebellious Becket arises to spurne against them and in his mouth they are dangerous incroachments and breaches upon the Church Rather than hee will subscribe to these so long establisht Lawes He departs the Kingdome in contempt of the King and with all violence and bitternesse that may bee incenses the Pope the King of France and all the Italian and French Bishops against his naturall Lord The King at first gallantly relyes upon the edge of his temporall sword and whets it sharper in behalfe of his legall prerogative and for some yeares together stands out against the danger of the Popes confounding blow but at last when Becket the fierce Traytor was slaine through the execrations and anathemas of the Pope and by the threats and exclamations of the King of France and diverse other Bishops and Potentates He is beaten from his ground swearing fealty to the Pope and his successors and admitting of Appeales to Rome Long it was before hee would submit himselfe in this contestation betwixt a subject and himselfe to the Romish Tribunall or yeeld to any condemnation being untryed and unheard and it appeares by the Popes forbearance of his last thūderbolt that the Pope was diffident in his power and durst not sentence him if He had not yeelded before the sentence But I leave Popery come now to our reformed times The dead time of night being now over Luther began to crow in Germany and to give notice of light ready to dawn upon the Earth and no sooner did that light appeare but that diverse Princes began to awake and to shake off that blind servitude of Rome which had so long layne upon them and lock'd up their senses like a deepe sleepe How be it the light was not alike welcome to all some fully and wholly gave it entertainement others opened some Curtaines onely and so yeelded themselves to a little further slumber Henry the eighth here in England was well pleased with that Doctrine which discovered his owne independence and the weakenesse of the Popes Prerogative but those further monstrous deformed errors and superstitions of Rome which are founded upon its absolute Prerogative and are as inconsistent with light as the Prerogative it selfe He tooke no delight to looke upon So farre as his owne interest and worldly advantage was represented by the beames of the Gospell so farre his eyes thought it amiable And so farre Bishop Gardiner though a Bishop was ready to assist him but so farre as his spirituall interest and the generall advantage of his Subjects was concerned so farre Hee and Gardiner both could remaine as blind as Sir Thomas More T is wonderfull that so sharp-sighted a man as Sir Thomas More was should lay downe his life in justification of the Popes supremacie but t is more wonderfull that Gardiner should see the weakenesse of that supremacie and yet still adhere to diverse other Popish superstitions as absurdly resulting from the same principles The State of Venice also out of meere policy has long been at defiance with the Court of Rome so farre as meere rules of Government guide and direct it but in all other spirituall delusions and impostures it is as dead as heavie-eyed as ever Spaine France and Germany also though they speake not the same yet they now doe the same as Venice they all shut up and impale the Popes Authority within Peters Patrimony leaving him no command but within his owne Italian territories and yet besides his authority they cast off nothing else so much doe we generally esteeme Earth before Heaven and our temporall advantages before the subsistance of our soules But let reason of State bee what it will The Parliament here agrees to annex to the Crowne of Henry the eighth and his successors whatsoever sole independent power was before challenged in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall things by the Pope or any Church-Man whatsoever And Hooker seemes both to confesse and justifie the same for sayes H Our Kings of England when they are to take possession of the Crown have it