THE TRUE GROUNDS OF Ecclesiasticall Regiment SET FORTH In a breife Dissertation Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the Pretended Independencie of the PRELATES c. TOGETHER VVith some passages touching the Ecclesiasticall Power of Parliaments the use of Synods and the Power of Excommunication LONDON Printed for Robert Bostock 1641. The Divine Right of Episcopacie refuted IN this Controversie about Episcopacie by reason of many mistakes of either side much time hath beene spent to little purpose and the right and truth is yet as farre imbosked and buried in darknesse as ever it was Me thinks the case is as if two well imbattail'd Armies had marched forth for a mutuall encounter but both not taking the same way there never was yet any meeting in any one certain place where this great strife might bee decided These mistakes and misadventures on both sides as I conceive have happened for want of an exact and adequate definition of Episcopacie first set downe and agreed upon by both and then by both equally pursued It shall be therefore my care at this time to begin with a definition of Episcopacy and that such a one as I shall take out of Bishop Hall one of the greatest asserters and in that the noblest of Episcopacy and that which hee indevours to maintaine as being of Divine right I according to my power shall indeavour to disprove The first definition given by the same Bishop is this Episcopacy is an holy Order of Church-government for the administration of the Church This definition I hold to be too large and unadequate for the determining of this doubt for Calvins discipline may according to this definition be called Episcopacy and it may be affirmed that Episcopacie has bin in all ages since God had never yet any Church wherein was not some holy Order of Church discipline for better ruling of the same And by the way I must here professe to shake off and neglect the mentioning or answering of any thing which the Patrons of Episcopacie have alledged and stuft their volumes withall in defence of Order and disparity in the Church for let our Adversaries be never so clamorous in this point yet it is manifest that no Church was ever yet so barbarous as to plead for anarchy or a meere equalitie neither did Calvin ever favour any such parity as was inconsistent with Order and government neither do we see any such confusion introduced into Geneva it selfe as our Hierarchists seem to gainsay To let passe all impertinent vagaries our dispute must be not whether Church politie be necessary or no but whether that Church policy which is now exercised in England be necessary unalterable or no And not whether such parity as is the mother of Confusion be politique or no but whether such parity as now is at Geneva amongst presbyters be politique or no but my present scope is not to defend the Presbyteriall discipline in all things it is only to maintain against the necessity of such an immutable Episcopacy as is now constituted in England so far to defend parity as our Hierarchists take advantage against it for the upholding of their own side To this purpose I cānot chuse but say that in nature that seems to be the best parity which admits of some disparity in Order and that seems to be the best disparity which prevents confusion with the most parity And therefore we see that our Saviour recommended as unlordly a disparity as might be not unlike that of marriage for there is a great and sweet parity in the tie of Wedlocke between man and wife and that is not maintained without some disparity yet that disparity is as little as may be and that only for parities sake Non aliter fuerint foemina virque pares But of this no more I come to Bishop Halls next more exact definitions and they run thus Episcopacy is an Eminent Order of sacred function appointed in the Evangelicall Church by the Holy Ghost for the governing and overseeing thereof and besides the Word and Sacraments it is indued with power of Ordination and perpetuity of jurisdiction Or thus A Pastor ordained perpetuall moderator in Church affaires with a fixed imparity exercising spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority is a Bishop Or thus Adde majority above Presbyters and power of jurisdiction by due Ordination for constant continuance and this makes a Bishop take away these and he remaines a meere Presbyter It is to bee observed now that foure things are here asserted First Episcopall power is such as none are capable of but only men within Sacred Orders A Bishop must be a Presbyter indued with power of Ordination and spirituall jurisdiction by due Ordination and without these hee remaines a meere Pastor Secondly Episcopall power is such as is wholly independent upon temporall Rulers Its institution was from the Holy Ghost in the Evangelicall Church It must rule out of its owne peculiarly demandated authority Thirdly Episcopal power consists in Ordination and spiritual jurisdiction and in majority above Presbyters Fourthly Episcopal power is unalterable by any temporal authority it is perpetual by divine right As it was fixed and where it was settled by Christ and his immediate successors so and there it must continue unchanged til the worlds end In briefe the summe of all these definitions is this Episcopacy is a forme of Ecclesiasticall policy instituted by Christ whereby a Superiour Order of Presbyters is indued with a perpetual independent power of Ordination and spiritual jurisdiction and with majority above Presbyters and this power as it appertaines to all that Order so it appertaines only to that Order And those things which we oppose herein are chiefly two First we see no ground in the word of God why Bishops should arrogate to themselves such a peculiar independent perpetual power of Ordination spirituall jurisdiction and such a majority above Presbyters as now they injoy excluding from all such power and majoritie not only all Laymen and Princes but also Presbyters themselves Secondly if power of Ordination and spirituall jurisdiction and preheminence above all the Clergie bee due only to Bishops yet we complaine that now in England that power and preheminence is abused and too farre extended and to such purposes perverted as the Apostles never practised or intended Of these two points in this Order but for my part I am no favourer of extreames some defend Episcopacie as it is now constituted in England as Apostolicall others withstand it as Antichristian my opinion is that the government is not so faulty as the Governours have beene and that it is better then no government at all nay and may be better then some other forms which some Sectaries have recommended to the World And my opinion further is that it is not alike in all respects and that it ought to be severally examined and ventilated and that so it will probably appeare in some things unprofitable in some things
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
from these Tenets but because many of them especially Clergimen do not wholly dissent from all the grounds of these Tenets therefore they also doe partake in some errours and absurdities of the like nature One Scotist says That Mountague and our learnedest Protestant Divines nay even Rainolds himselfe though otherwise a Puritan yet they all hold that there is due to the King no spirituall but only a temporall rule over persons and causes Ecclesiasticall and that also by accident for the common peace sake Hee sayes also that in his presence at a Cambridge Commencement the chiefe Bishop was called Maximus Pater and that it was maintained that the care of spirituall things did appertain to the chiefe Bishop and of temporall to the King and whereas it was at last concluded that all was to be governed by the King yet he sayes questionless the intent was civilitèr not spiritualitèr And if wee look back to the primitives we shal find that in good times before Popery had any considerable growth Kings for penance were enjoyned to kneele to Priests and were not admitted to have seats in the Chancell neere the Altar no not amongst the Deacons but were sometimes subjected to heavie and sharp censures of Bishops and sometimes strucke with the thunderbolt of Excommunication it self And we shall find that the Name Church was applyed in common speech to Churchmen only and the Name Spiritualitie was taken in the same sense as if all other persons had beene strangers to the Church and had beene of a meere Temporall and Secular condition and by the name Clergie it was intimated to the World that the Sacerdotall function was the only lot and patrimony of God and these usages were ab antiquo And wee shall finde that the holiest and learnedest Fathers of the Church did seeme to preferre the Mitre before the Diademe and to dream of a Spirituall Empire belonging to Priests more worthy and sacred then that of Emperours And therefore Gregory of Nazianzen in a Sermon before the Emperour says thus to him The Law of Christ hath committed you to my Charge and to my Pulpit for we rule also and ours is a more excellent and perfect regiment And comparing further the rule of Priests with the rule of Princes Hee cals the one spirituall the other fleshly and concludes that the spirit ought not to give place to the flesh nor heavenly things to earthly What hee meant here by giving place whether hee meant it of externall submission or internall awe I cannot tell but he left it uncertain To the same purpose that of Ambrose tends also Thinke not O Emperour that thou hast any right over divine things for the Palace is for the Emperour but Churches for Priests And that also of Athanasius It s neither lawfull for us to hold a Kingdome upon earth nor hast thou O Emperour power over sacred things Wee see they speake of their Ministery and Ecclesiasticall vocation as of a sovereigntie and rule and that more sacred then that of Princes of which Princes were not worthy or capable And to passe by the blinde times of Popery wherein upon these grounds the Roman Bishops inthralled a great part of Christendome with temporall bondage wee shall finde also that since the abjuration of Romish servitude yet Protestant Ministers themselves have assumed a sanctitie more then is due The Kings Supremacie or Headship over the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall State Hee being accounted but meerly temporall in comparison of Priests is as ill wished by many Calvinists as by Papists their word is of Secular Princes Istis non competit iste Primatus And as Sir Thomas More suffered death in testimony of his dislike so Calvin himselfe condemnes this Realme of Blasphemy for entitling Henry the Eighth Supreme Head of the Church here under Christ And not only the Name but the power it selfe which wee give to Civill Magistrates he protesteth against as that which had wounded him deeply Princes being made thereby too spirituall hee complaineth that this fault did raigne throughout Germany and in some parts of France to the taking away of Spirituall Regiment whilst Princes were made chiefe Judges as well in matters of doctrine as discipline Hence it is that all which follow Calvin which is almost the generality of Protestants besides Papists hold Princes incompetent for spirituall Regencie accounting the intermedling of Princes therein as an abolition or prophanation of the same And hence it is that our contrary faction of Hierarchists also deny the Kings Supremacie in Spiritualibus though not in Ecclesiasticis and our Prelats Style is providentia divina not gratiâ Regis and as they issue Writs in their own Names so they use their owne armes in their Seales and not the Kings And wee know it was my Lord of Canterburies industry of late to procure a Commission about five yeeres since that all Bishops Courts might proceed without any subordination or dependency to any other of the Kings Courts So that though they complaine of the Presbyterian Discipline and the doctrine of Calvin as injurious to Princes yet they themselves seeme to be of the same confederacie But that I may not seem to misreport or misinterpret any I will cite only two Divines of prime note both defenders of Supremacie Hooker speaking of that dutifull subjection which is due from all Christians to the Pastors of their souls in respect of their sacred Order affirmes that the same is as due from Kings and Princes as from their meanest vassals Reverence due to the Word and Sacraments and to Gods Ordinances is not here meant for that is as due from Priests themselves also as from any other it is meant of reverence due to the persons of Priests this he cals subjection and challenges as due in respect of their sacred Order And so Bilson descanting upon the words of Nazianzen after a comparative manner as Hooker did inferres thereupon that Priests have a greater and perfecter regiment then Princes For sayes he Priests governe the souls of men and dispense the mysteries of God whereas Princes are set to rule the bodies of men and to dispose the things of this life c. Hee does not compare the offices but the Regiments of Priests and Princes and hee averres as confidently that Priests governe the souls and exercise dominion over the spirits of Christians as that Princes have no power at all but over the bodies and temporalities of their Subjects And for these causes the Crosier is generally preferred in Honour and Sanctitie before the Scepter to detect therefore the errour of Divines herein I will now truly produce and throughly poize those arguments which they most rely upon The first argument runs thus Spirituall things are not to be managed and treated but only by spirituall persons but Princes are not spirituall Ergo Wee must first understand here what is meant by spirituall things and spirituall persons If by spirituall things here such things are meant as appertain to
custodie of the Law from Gods hand and to receive Orders from God for the Tabernacle and all religious services and did performe the act of consecration to Priests and did always consult with God by Priests and command all men as well Priests and Levits as other men Hooker and Bilson and I thinke most of our Divines doe confesse not only this that Moses retained all Ecclesiasticall Supremacie to himselfe but that hee left the same also to his Successours Hooker sayes that by the same supreame power David Asa Jehosaphat Josias c. made those Lawes and Statutes mentioned in sacred History touching matters of meer Religion the affairs of the Temple and service of God And by vertue of this power the piety and impietie of the King did alwayes change the publike face of Religion which the Prophets by themselves never did nor could hinder from being done And yet if Priests alone had bin possest of all spirituall power no alteration in Religion could have beene made without them it had not beene in the King but in Priests to change the face of Religion And the making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes also with other like actions pertayning to the power of dominion had still been recorded for the acts of Priests and not of Kings whereas we now find the contrary Hooker says this and more and Bilson sayes not one jot lesse Hee confesses the Jewish Kings were charged with matters of Religion and the custodie of both Tables nay publishing preserving executing points of Law concerning the first table hee assignes as the principall charge committed to Kings as Kings Religion being the foundation of policy Hee instances also in the good Kings of Iudah who as they were bound so they were commended for their dutie by God himselfe in removing Idols purging abominations reforming Priests renewing the covenant and compelling all Priests Prophets people to serve God sincerely Many of the learnedest papists doe not gainsay this evident truth and therefore Stapleton being I suppose fully convinced of it seekes to answer and avoid it another way But I proceed to the times of thraldome wherein the Iews were governed by the Persians How far the Iews were left in Babylon to the free exercise of their own Religion is uncertain it may be conceived that their condition was not always alike under all Kings but generally that they found more favour there then Christians did afterwards under the Roman Emperours before this time there is no probability of Excommunication or any spirituall Judicature wee reade nothing of Maranathaes or Anathemaes but now perhaps some such government might take place for where no peculiar consecrated Ministery is the Magistrate is fittest to officiate before God and where no Magistracie is permitted Ministers are fittest to preserve order Some Papists that wil undertake to prove any thing out of any thing alleage Cain as an instance of Excom. as if Adam were so a Priest as that hee were no Prince and had power to excommunicate in case of so horrid a murder but not to execute any other Law or as if Moses would proceed against adultery by temporall punishment when Adam had proceeded against murther by spiritual but not to insist longer upon these conjecturall passages I come to our Saviours days his government also being Regal as wel as Sacerdotall nay being rather divine then either I shal not stay there neither Our mayn strife is how the Apostles their successors governed after his Ascention during the times of persecution but little need to be said hereof For in Scripture wee finde the Apostles themselves very humble and unlordly and transacting all things according to our Saviours command and example rather by perswasion and evidence of the spirit then by command and constraint and if any difference was between a Bishop and a Priest it was in outward eminence or majoritie very small and the very termes themselves were promiscuously applyed In the next ensuing times also wee finde by ancient Testimony that Omnia communi Clericorum consilio agebantur and after that Episcopacy had gotten some footing yet as another ancient testimony informes us except â Ordinatione setting Ordination only aside it challenged no priviledge above Presbyters but as I have said before whatsoever authority did reside in the Clergie whilst temporal rule was wanting to the Church and whilst miraculous power of binding and loosing sinners and of opening and shutting Heaven was supplyed by the Holy Ghost for the emergent necessity of those times the reason thereof no longer remayning it ought now to remayne no longer as it did but to devolve againe into the Temporâ—ll Rulers hands from whence it was not taken by Christ but where it was then abused and made unprofitable by the owners themselves If wee doe imagine that Timothy and Titus had Episcopall power and by that Episcopall power did send out processes and keep Courts and holds pleas of all Testamentary and Matrimoniall Causes and Tithes Fasts and all other which our Bishops now clayme and did redresse all grievances for the preventing of confusion in the Church during the malignity of Secular power if wee take all this for granted though it be some thing too large to be granted yet still wee ought to conceive that this power was conferred upon them not in derogation of Secular authoritie but for necessities sake till Secular authority should againe come in and undertake the same offices which Timothy and Titus were now to performe when confusion cannot otherwise bee prevented Timothy and Titus shall governe but when it may be prevented by that authoritie which is most competent and when more perfect order shall bee more naturally and justly induced what injury is this to Timothy or Titus Why rather is it not an ease and comfort to them that they have now leasure more seriously to attend their own proper function and ministration Hookers owne words are if from the approbation of Heaven the Kings of GODS own chosen people had in the affaires of the Jewish Religion supreame power why should not Christian Kings have the like in Christian Religion And Bilson having mayntained the supremacie of the Jewish Kings Hee ascribes the like to the whole function Hee sayes it is the essentiall charge of Princes to see the Law of God fully executed his Son rightly served his Spouse safely nursed his house timely filled his enemies duly punished and this he sayes as it was by Moses prescribed and by David required so it was by Esay prophesied by Christ commanded by Paul witnessed and by the Primitive Fathers consented too Hee sayes further that what the Jewish Kings had Christian Kings ought to enjoy and therefore Esay says Hee prophesying of the Evangelicall times foretold that the Church should suck the breasts of Kings and Queens and that milk which those breasts should afford He interprets to be spirituall milk Now what can be added to this what more excellent and perfect Regiment then this had Timothy
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
perverted by private interest and that they are superior to all Christians under their charge yea grant them a right to make what Canons they please and grant them no power to compell obedience to the same and to punish disobedience to the same and this would take away peace and cause much mischiefe and disturbance every where and this we cannot thinke God would be the Author of How ridiculous are the Popes anathemaes to those which renounce his allegiance they seem to us but meere Epigrams sent abroad to provoke laughter And yet why doe they not appeare as ridiculous in Italy as in England were it not for common consent they were not in more force amongst Italians then Englishmen and there is no more true naturall vigor in the Popes Bulls to procure common consent in Italy then in England we may gather then from hence that there is no Ecclesiasticall Supremacie but founded upon the same basis of common consent as temporall supremacie is and being so founded it cannot be Divine or unalterable or above common consent so as to have any efficacie without much lesse against it That some Nations are gull'd and cozen'd out of their consents is no presedent for us for as many Nations are addicted to Mahomits commandes as are to the Popes and in this the dominion of Mahomet is as spirituall as the Popes and is as strong a case to over-rule us as the Popes for if consent were to be forced the Pope might as well force Mahometans as Christians and if it be free his Empire depends as much upon it as Mahomets They then that have erected a Spirituall supremacie not depending upon common consent have been in a great error and they that slight common consent as not capable of a spirituall supremacie seem to have been as much mistaken Many of our Divines say that Parliaments are temporall Courts and so not of spirituall jurisdiction and others say that they may as well frame acts to order the Hierarchie in heaven as to dispose of Ecclesiasticall things on earth both these seeme to me verry erroneous The Argument methinks is equally strong as God would not give a right to binde up other men by Statutes and Commandements but he would give some power withall to drive men by constraint to observe and yeeld obedience to the same so He would not indue any Prince or Court with such power but He would give a right of binding equall and congeniall to that power Princes of themselves are sacred as I have proved and spiritually sacred how much more then are they accounted sitting in Parliament and if Princes in Parliament how much more Princes and Parliaments for to Princes on their awfull Tribunalls is something more due then at other times but to Princes in Parliament there is most of all due in regard that there they are invested with more then their owne naturall power common consent having not derived all power into the King at any other time or in any other place but reserved much thereof till a full union be in Parliament besides setting aside the sanctity of power in Parliaments yet in regard that they are assisted with the best counsell of Divines so they ought not to be accounted meere Temporall Courts for what better advise can those Divines give out of Parliament then in Parliaments Some Parliaments in England have made some Ecclesiasticall acts excluso clerò nay that which was the the most holy act which ever was established in England viz. The Reformation of Religion was passed invito clero and when these things are not only legall but honorable shall we limit Parliaments in any thing wherein the votes of the Clergie are concomitant and concurrent with the Laytie Hooker sayes that the most naturall and religious course for the making of Lawes is that the matter of them be taken from the judgement of the wisest in those things whom they concerne and in matters of God he saies it were unnaturall not to thinke the Pastors of our soules a great deale more wise than men of secular callings but when all is done for devising of Lawes it is the generall consent of all that gives them the forme and vigor of Lawes This we allow of for the most part but wee conceive this to be understood of such Divines as in the judgement of Parliaments are omni exceptione majores for it was not unnaturall in the beginning of the Reignes of Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth to thinke that the Lords and Commons were better Judges of Religion than the Bishops and the Convocation house as matters then stood in England For the whole body can have no sinister end or interest to blinde them but the whole Clergie which is but a part of the whole body may and therefore the whole body is to judge of this and when they see a deviation in the Clergie and observe the occasion of it they must not blindly follow blinde guides but doe according to that light which God hath given them And certainly it were contrary to that interest which every man hath in the Truth that any should be obliged to receive it from other mens mouths without any further inquiry or judgement made upon the same The meanest man is as much interessed and concerned in the truth of Religion as the greatest Priest and though his knowledge thereof be not in all respects equally easie yet in some respects it may be easier for want of learning doth not so much hinder the light of the Laymen as worldly advantage and faction sometimes doth the Priests Examples of these are infinite corruption in the Church before our Saviour and in our Saviours daies and ever since hath oftner begun amongst the greatest Priests Rabbers and Bishops than amongst the meaner Laitie And for this cause God requires at every mans hands an account what doctrine he admits what Lawes he obeys holding no man excused for putting blinde confidence in his ghostly Father and not taking upon him to weigh and try how sure his grounds were And if every private man stand so responsible for his particular interest in the Truth being equally great in the Truth shall not whole States and Nations whose interest is farre greater than their Priests or Bishops is give a sadder account to God if they leave themselves to be seduced by such men which are as liable to error as themselves If wee consider the meere matter of Lawes they are either profitable for the Church or not if they are profitable why should wee thinke that Princes and Parliaments want power to impose Lawes upon themselves for the availe of their owne soules they standing to God accountable for the same according to the greatnesse of their owne interest and if they are not profitable there is no obedience due to them whether Priests or Princes make them and that they be not profitable is equally doubtfull whether Priests or Princes make them Take then Lawes to be questionable as all