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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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