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
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
And whereas hee sayes further of the power of Priests that God Himselfe would not impart it to Angels or Arch-Angels wee may adde also nor to Princes yet this concludes nothing to the derogation of Angels or Arch-Angels or Princes For the Angels c. though they have not the same Ministery in the same kinde and order yet they have a more glorious and heavenly and consequently so may Princes That which Saint Augustine sayes also that Princes beare the Image of God Bishops of Christ We willingly consent to and yet by Bishops here we do not intend only such Church-Governours as our Bishops now in England are but all other such as doe the same offices over Gods people whatsoever their stiles or externall additions be otherwise And these things we conceive ought to receive such constructions because our Saviour Himselfe did alwayes decline all State and pompe and recommend the same lowly president to his followers with strict command not to exercise any Lordly Dominion nor to assume the Name of Rabbi upon them ever pressing this That he came to serve and not to be served And yet in the meere Name of Lord or Rabbi there could be no offence if the power and grandour belonging to those names had not bin displeasing to him and if it was displeasing in those his immediate followers whom he had made governours as wel as Preachers and for their better governing had indued with many miraculous gifts to discerne spirits and to open and shut Heaven and inriched with many other weighty graces we cannot imagine it should now be pleasing in our Ministers where lesse power is necessary and lesse vertue granted However it is farre from our meaning to detract or derogate any thing from that internall reverence which is due to Christs Embassadors and Stewards c. in the Church we know that he that despises them despises Christ Himselfe according to Christs own words our meaning is only to place them next and in the second seate of Honour after Princes and Rulers and Iudges which have Scepters committed to them by God either mediately or immediately Cyp. sayes well that our Saviour being King and God did Honour the Priests and Bishops of the Iewes though they were wicked for our instruction we grant that our Saviour ought in this to be imitated and that all Priests whether they have such command or no as the Iewish had or whether they bee Religious or no yet for Christs sake which is our High-Priest and their Head we ought to pay all reverence and awe to them THe last Argument urged is this That Order which is of the greatest necessitie in Religion without which no Church can at all subsist is most Holy and excellent but such is the sacerdotall order for Religion had subsistence under the Apostles without Princes and that it never had nor could have under Princes without Priests Ergo This is no way true for Religion can have no being without men and men can have no being without government and therefore as to this first and most necessary being wee may justly say that the Gospell it selfe was as well protected by Caesar which hated it as by Peter which preached it For Peter did owe his civill being to Caesar and without this civill being his Ecclesiasticall being had perished Besides Peter c. was not only a Preacher but also a Governor and those offices which he did as a Governour might be as much conducing to the welfare of Religion as those which hee did as a Preacher and yet for want of the civill Magistrates further assistance both offices were some way defective and perhaps had bin wholly unprofitable had not miraculous gifts and graces superabounded to supply that defect Howsoever it is more true that after the Creation Religion did subsist under Princes onely without Priests for untill the Priest-hood was severed in Aron Adam Melchisedeck c. were not so properly Priests as Princes for though they performed the offices of Priests yet they had no other Consecration to inable them therefore than their Regall Sanctity and sublimity If the meere officiating did make a Priest then the Priest-Hood were open to all and if some right and warrant be necessary it must orginally flow from Princes and they which may derive it to others have it till they derive it in themselves The essence of Priest-Hood doth no more consist in the rites and Ceremonies of Consecration than Royalty doth in Coronation and the due warrant of lawfull authority being that essence before that warrant granted we must looke upon authority as including that warrant within its vertue and after that warrant granted as not exhausted of its vertue When the Priest-hood was separated from the greater and confered upon the inferior some formall Ceremonious resignation therof was thought necessary but before that resignation till Moses wee may well conceive that Princes did officiate in their owne rights without borrowing any thing therein from Ceremonies or from any higher power than their own I have now done with Arguments of the first kinde which are urged against the sanctity and competence of Princes in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall things I come now to answer such things as are further objected against other defects of qualification in them especially in learning knowledge and theologicall understanding THe maine argument here is thus Whosoever is fitest to direct to Truth is also fittest to command for Truth but Ministers being most skilld in Divinity are most fit to direct Ergo In answer hereunto I must make appeare 1. That Ministers are not alwayes most learned 2. That the most learned are not alwayes the most judicious 3. That learned and judicious men are not alwayes Orthodox and sound in faith 4. That there is no necessitie in policy that the most learned judicious and sincere men should be promoted to highest power in the Church And first we deny not that the blessing of God doth usually accompany the due act of Ordination to adde gifts and abilities to the party ordained we only say that Gods grace like the winde hath its free arbitrary approaches and recesses and is not alwayes limited or necessitated by the act done of consecration And we say also that as God usually sanctifies Ministers for their function so he doth also Kings and when he did lay his command upon Kings to have a Copy of his Law alwayes by them to reade and study it for their direction we conceive it is intimated to us what kinde of knowledge is most fit for Kings and what kinde of grace God doth most usually supply them withall King Edward the sixth Queene Elizabeth and King Iames of late and happie memory were so strangly learned and judicious in Divinity that we may well thinke there was something in them above the ordinary perfection of nature and had they perhaps relyed lesse upon the greatest of their Clergie in matters concerning the interest and honour of the Clergie the Church might
have been more free from these controversies and disturbances at this day Counsellors of State were by a wise King of Spaine compared to Spectacles and so may Prelates also but as the same King well observed those eyes are very wretched which can see nothing at all without them T is as much wisdome in Princes to look into the particular interests of Counsellors and not to be too light of beliefe as t is to do nothing without counsell and to suspect their owne imaginations If we did attribute to our Iudges a freedome from all fallibility and corruption and so intrust all Law into their hands this would be as dangerous as to allow Iudges no credit at all The Anabaptists which rely only upon their own private Enthusiasmes are not mislead into greater idolatry and slavery than the Papists which renounce their owne light and reason to cast themselves wholly upon the directions of their Ghostly Fathers Our Prelates at this day have not so rigorous an Empire over our beliefe as the Papists grone under yet they have given us a taste of late what Canons should be held most religious and fit for us if we would admit all to bee indisputable which they thinke fit to bee imposed upon us And truely when Clergie men were confessed to be the only Oracles and infallible Chaires of Divinity in the world t was but a modest Law my thinkes that all Lay-men being on Horse-backe and meeting Clergy-men on foote should perpetually dismount and resigne their horses to Clergie-men sure those times which thought this reasonable and just were prety modest times and Lay-men did not deserve so good In the second place also admit Clergie-men to be only and alwayes learned yet the learnedst men are not alwayes the wisest and fittest for action Sometimes where great reading meets with shallow capacities it fumes like strong Wine in their heads and makes them reele as it were under the burthen of it it causes sometimes greater disquiet both to themselves and other men In our Ancestors dayes when all learning was ingrossed by the Clergie and thrust into Cloysters and Colledges from the Laity yet there were many grave and wise States-men that were as an allay to the insolent and vaine excesses of the Clergie or else this State had bin often ruined But admit in the third place that Clergie-men are alwayes more learned and wise than all Lay-men yet we see they are not more free from errors heresies and jars amongst themselves than other men but rather lesse When Schismes rise amongst Divines as they doe almost perpetually Divines being thereby banded and divided against Divines what can the poore Laicke doe both sides he cannot adhere to and if he adhere to this that side condemnes him and if to that this condemnes him if hee make use of his judgment herein than hee trusts himselfe more than the Priest and if he use not his judgment at all He commits himselfe meerly to fortune and is as likely to embrace the wrong as the truth if he apply himselfe to the Major party that is hard somtimes to discern and if it be discernable yet it is many times the erroneous party The Papists are not the major part of Christians Christians are not the major part of men The orthodox amongst us are not the major part of Calvinists Calvinists are not the Major part of Protestants Before the Law the Minor part worshipped the true God and amongst those which worshipped the true God the Minor part were heartily his servants and made a Conscience of their wayes After Moses also when the Iewes began to mingle with the Canaanites and other bordering Heathens in the manner of their sacrifices and high places a very small part sometimes kept it selfe pure from those pollutions and innovations And in that great rent under Ieroboam ten tribes of twelve estranged themselves from God set up a new spurious false worship in Bethel And we reade long before the Captivity that Ephraim was divided against Manasseh and Manasseh against Ephraim and both against Iudah Iudah also it selfe was never wholly untainted for from the Captivity sundry sects and factions had distraited it in so much that when our Saviour came into the world there was scarce sincerity or truth to be found and that that was was not most eminently amongst the greatest Scribes Pharisees or Priests In all those times if there was such an infallibility in the Chayre of Moses as the Papists dreame of it did but little availe the world for he that then would have sought for the true way to walke in disclaiming utterly his owne light and understanding He must not have sought it amongst the multitude and if he had sought it amongst the Priests he would have seene divisions there and if amongst Prophets Hee would have found the same there also God did not deliver Oracles nor inspire Prophets at all times upon all occasions for the ceasing of differences and contestations He did appeare in love but not without all Majesty He did shew grace but not according to obligation After our Saviours Ascension a blessed Spirit of infallibity did rest upon the Church to direct in intricate debates and to prevent schismes till a perfect Gospell was establisht but this Spirit in those very times had not residence in any one mans breast at all times to give judgment in all things The greatest of the Apostles might severally vary and dissent in points of great concernment and therefore they had consultations sometimes and when consultations would not satisfie they did assemble in a greater body and when those assemblies were the wisdome of the Spirit did not alwayes manifest it selfe in those which were of highest order but sometimes the inferior did reprove and convince the superior and the superior did submit and yeeld to his inferior But after one age or two when the Spirit of God had consummated the maine establishment of Religion though it preserved the Church from a totall deviation it secured not all parts thereof from all grosse prevayling rents and Apostasies neither did it affixe it selfe or chuse any certaine resting place in any one part of the world more than an other Three ages being now runne out heresies of a foule nature beginning to spring up and increase with Religion it pleased God to send Constantine to ayd the truth against error and impiety in his power now it was to congregate Bishops of the best abilities for the discussing and discovering of truth and for the upholding the same being discovered When Bishops contended against Bishops and Presbyters against Presbyters and when Arianisme was defended by as great a number of Divines as it was opposed so that from the wisdome of Divines no decision could be expected then doth the power and policy of one Emperor by Divines remedy that which a thousand Divines by themselves could never have remedyed From the Bishop of Rome the Orthodox party could obtaine no succour till Constantines Scepter proved
three things necessary 1. Invenire 2. Disceptare 3. Ferre The invention of all necessary Lawes is almost perfect alreadie to our hands Those Lawes which God ordained for the Iewes and those which our Ancestors found out for us are daily before our eyes and little can now be added of moment except only for illustration of what was ambiguous before In the Church also is lesse want of perpetuall alterations and additions of Canons than in the State our misery is that we succeed Ancestors which were opprest with too vast a Church discipline Our reformation hath rid us of some part of this burthen but yet no sensible man can chuse but see that our Ecclesiasticall Courts are yet of larger jurisdiction and fuller of trouble than ever the Iewish were or those of the Primitive Christians The reason of this is because wee still rely too much upon Divines herein and they for their own profit and power are still as willing to uphold their own Tribunals as ever they were Did they thinke it a greater honour to serve at the Altar than in the Consistory and did they take more delight in Preaching than attending suites they would not study New Canons but discharge themselves of many old ones and so ease themselves and us too and restore backe againe to the Civill Magistrate that which Popery first usurped and their ambition hath since continued Howsoever if Ministers can adde any Articles to the Doctrine of our Church for the better preventing of Schismes or frame any orders for the more decent performance of Gods worship in the Church I would not exclude them from proposing it I only desire that since they are men and may have private interests and respects to the prejudice of other men they may not ingrosse all power of proposing what they list and to exclude all others from the like power And in the second place if Clergie men only shall propose all Ecclesiasticall Lawes yet it is most unjust that Princes and Lay-men should be held utterly uncapable of ventilating and debating the same Id quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet Nature hath printed this in us if the Priest propose any thing tending to the disservice of God that disservice will draw the same guilt upon me and all others as upon him and it shall not excuse me or others that he pretended his judgment to be unquestionable and shal it then here be unlawfull for me and others to use any endeavour for the prevention of this guilt If Angels from Heaven should seduce me I were inexcusable and when Ministers whom I know to bee subject to the same naturall blindnesse and partiality as I am and to whom I see generall error may be a private advantage in matters of this private advantage shal I be allowed no liberty to search and trye and to use my best art of discussion If this were so God had made my condition desperate and remedilesse and I might safely attribute my error and destruction to the hand of God alone but this no man can imagine of God without great impiety God hath declared himselfe contrary herein for he hath exempted none from error though never so learned nor leaves none excusable in error though never so unlearned if we will blindly trust others t is at our own perill He will require it at our hands but if we will seeke industriously we shall finde if wee will knock at his dore He hath promised to open to us And if private men stand accountable for their owne soules whatsoever the Priests doctrine or commands be how much more shall Princes and Courts of Parliament answer for their wilfull blindnesse if they will depart from their owne right and duty in sifting and examining al such religious constitutions as concerne them and all others under their charge Shall they sit to treate of Lether and Wooll and neglect doctrine and discipline Shall they consult of the beauty and glory of the kingdom and transfer Religion to others which is the foundation of all happines Shall they be sollicitous for transitory things and yet trust their soules into other mens hands who may make a profit of the same Let us not so infatuate our selves let us honour Divines and reverence their counsels but let us not superstitiously adore them or dotingly in-slave our selves to their edicts THe 3d. thing in making of laws is that which we term ferre Legem and till this act of carrying passing or enacting give the binding force of Law to it how good and wholsome soever it be after all debate yet it is but as the counsell of a Lawyer or the prescription of a Physition And here we maintaine that if Divines are the most fit to invent and discusse Ecclesiasticall Constitutions yet they have not in themselves that right and power which is to imprint the obliging vertue of Lawes upon them The forme or essence of Law is that coercive or penall vertue by which it bindes all to its obedience and all cannot be bound to such obedience but by common consent or else some externall compulsion take away this binding vertue and it is no Law it is but a Counsell wherein the inferior hath as much power towards his superior as the superior hath towards his inferior If then Divines will vindicate to themselves a Legislative power in the Church they must deduce the same either from the common consent of the Church or from some other authority to which all the Church is subject and to which the whole Church can make no actuall opposition If they clayme from common consent they must produce some act of State and formall record to abet their clayme and common consent must also still strengthen the same or else by the same that it was constituted it may still be dissolved and if they clayme from some higher externall authority stronger than common consent they must induce that authority to give vigor to their Lawes and to use means of constraint against all such as shall not voluntarily yeeld obedience to the same And it is not sufficient for them to alledge God for their authority without some speciall expresse words from Gods owne mouth for God gave no man a right but he allowes him some remedy agreeable thereunto and God is so great a favourer also of common consent that though hee hath an uncontroleable power above it yet as Hooker observes He would not impose his owne profitable Lawes upon his people by the hands of Moses without their free and open consent And if God which cannot doe unjustice nor will impose lawes but such as are profitable to us and yet hath an undisputable Empire over us will so favour common consent shall man which may erre and doe injurie and is of lesse value then communities and wants might to inforce and put in execution his owne commands usurpe that which God relinquishes Take it for granted that Priests cannot erre out of ignorance or be
descendents wheras now no such superiority can have place amongst our Clergie-men Fourthly The Priests and Levites had then offices of a different nature some of them were more easie as to superintend c. others more toylesome as to sacrifice c. some more holy as to offer incense c. others more meane as to slaughter beasts c. and so different orders were accordingly appointed but no such difference of service is amongst our Priests in our Churches I shall adde also fifthly that there were then many Ceremonies and Types and rites of worship about which many differences might arise hardly to be decided without some appointed Iudges whereas now the abolition of those externall rudiments and clogs hath discharged us of all such questions and scruples in the Church And sixthly the whole forme of Religious worship was then externally more majesticall and dreadfull and it was convenient that some correspondence should bee in pomp and splendor between the persons which did officiate and the places wherein they did officiate As there was a Sanctum more inaccessible than the outer Court and a propitiatory more reverend than either and as some Altars and Sacrifices were more solemne and venerable than others so it was fit that persons should bee qualified accordingly with extraordinary honor and priviledge but this reason now ceases amongst us There was no inherent holines in that Temple more than is in ours nor no more internall excellence in those Priests than in ours and yet we see an externall splendour was than thought fit for those times which our Saviour did not seeme to countenance in his Church The same glittering garments are not now usefull for our Priests nor the same sanctimonious forbearance and distance due to our Chancels and for ought we know all other grandour and lustre of riches power and honour falls under the same reason but in the next place our answer is that notwithstanding all these differences which may much more plead for power and preeminence amongst the Iewes than amongst us yet we do allow to our Clergy more power and preeminence than was knowne amongst the Iewes There is no colour in Scripture that there were so many Ecclesiasticall Courts in Iudea so thronged with sutors so pestred with Officers so choaked up with causes of all kinds as matrimoniall testimentary and many the like there is no colour that in so many severall divisions of the Land besides ordinary tithes and indowments they had any Ecclesiasticall Lords to injoy so many severall Castles Palaces Parkes Manors c. They had one Miter we have many They had one Priest richly attired but with Ornaments that were left for the use of successive generations we have many whose bravery is perpetually fresh and various Alexander might perhaps wonder at the sumptuous habit of one of Aarons Successors but if Salomon himselfe should see the Majesticall equipage of diverse of our Arch-Bishops or Cardinals as they passe from one tribunall to an other He would think his own Religion simple and naked to ours Besides though the Iewes had but one High-Priest in whom was concerned all the State and glory of their Clergie yet he also was so farre from clayming any independent power that in the most awfull of Religious affaires as consulting with God receiving the Law building and dedicating the Temple ordering and reforming Priests and their services making Lawes and superintending all holy persons places and things in all these things hee was inferior to the Prince not so much as executing the same by subordination That Scotch Gentleman therefore which undertakes to prove the independent unalterable jurisdiction of Bishops as it s now injoyd and accounted divine in England both from the Law and the Gospell is as much to be applauded for his confidence as for his wit One Argument more is brought by some Papists to the same purpose but it is scarce worth repetition They say Ieremy was but a meane Prophet yet it s written of him that he was appointed over Nations and Kingdomes to pull up to beate downe to despise c. and they inferre that what a Prophet might doe a fortiori a Priest may doe But this is not literally spoken as true of Ieremies own exployts The Prophet was here Gods instrument to foretell and proclaime them but God had other instruments to execute them and those instruments in probability were Princes not Prophets nor Priests Princes Prophets and Priests may all be instruments of God in the same service yet not all serve alike honourably for wee must looke further sometimes than into the meere names of things because some names of service import the nature of command and some names of command import the nature of service The word Nurse expresses something of service but more of power and this is fitly applyed sometimes to Princes for the office of Princes is to serve those who are subject to their power On the other side the word Guide expresses somthing of power but more of service and this may be fitly applyed to Priests and Prophets for their skill may make them serviceable in somethings to those which in others are served by them But I conclude these two first points that there is no priviledge either of Sanctity or Knowledge which can exalt Priests above Princes or intitle them to that spirituall regiment in the Church which they would faine pretend to Further at this time I have not leasure to proceed I must now leave this already spoken and all that which naturally will result from it to the Iudicious FINIS