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
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-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
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
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
that the King is supreme and he but the secondary agent therein But Bishop Bilson will yet say that the Priest in the worke of conversion winnes the soule to a willing obedience and that the Princes worke only by externall politicall terror which begets not virtutis amorem but only formidinem panae and therefore it seemes that the worke of the Minister and the Prince differ not only in order but also in kinde the one being far more spirituall and divine than the other I answer hereunto that if power doth only induce a servile feare of punishment and so cause of forcible forbearance of sin and if preaching only make a voluntary conquest upon the soule then by the same reason the power of Bishops as well as the power of Civill Magistrates is of lesse value than preaching but this none of our adversaries will agree to My next answer therefore is that Preachers in the wonderfull worke of regeneration are not in the nature of Physicall causes they are rather in the nature of the meanest instrumentall causes under GOD they are but as Vessels in the hand of Husband men from whence the seed Corne is throwne into the ground If the Corne fall into the furrow and there fructifie God opens and enlives the wombe of the Earth God sends showres and influence from Heaven God blesses the seeds with a generative multiplying vertue nay God casts it into the furrow from the mouth of the Preacher and as He uses the mouâ—h of the Preacher for the effusion of his grain so He uses the Princes power as his Plough to breake and prepare the ground and in this case the use and service of the plough is as Noble as that of the Bushell Neither is the office of Kings the lesse Glorious because they can use force nor Ministers the more Glorious because they may use none but ethicall Motives and allurements for power it selfe being a Glorious Divine thing it cannot bee ignoble to use it in Gods cause And therefore wee see Iosiah and other good Kings are commended for using compulsion and diverse other Kings which used it not for the removing of Idolatry and suppressing of the high places did grievously offend God and draw curses upon themselves and their subjects And whereas it is objected that force and compulsion restraineth only from the act of sin but restraineth not the will from the liking thereof We see common experience teaches us the contrary For Scotland Holland Denmarke Sweden Bohemia England c. Suffered great changes of Religion within a short space and these changes were wrought by the force of civill Magistrates and could never else without strange miracles from Heaven have been so soone compassed but these changes are not the lesse Cordiall and sincere because civill authority wrought them Authority it selfe hath not so rigorous a sway over the soules of men as to obtrude disliked Religions universally it must perswade as well as compell and convince as well as commandâ— or else gâ—eat alterations cannot easily and suddainly bee perfected And in this respect the Proclamations of Princes become ofâ—entimes the most true and powerfull preaching that can be and t is beyond all doubt that if preaching were as a Physicall cause in the act of regeneration of sinners or reformation of Nations yet the edicts and commands of Princes are sometimes more efficacious Sermons than any which wee heare from out our Pulpits For let us suppose that a considerable number of our Ministers were sent into Mexico or Perue to preach the Gospell of Christ amongst the poore blinde Savages could wee hope for so great successe thereby without the concurrence of some Princes there as we might if some of them would assist and joyne to advance the same word and doctrine by their wisdome and power which our Ministers should publish with their art and eloquence If we cast our eyes back upon former times also we shall see that before Constantine favoured Religion the Gospell spread but slowly and that not without a wonderfull confluence of heavenly signes and miracles wrought by our Saviour and his Disciples all which we may suppose had never bin in such plentifull measure shewed to the world had it not bin to countervaile the enemity and opposition of secular authority And it may be conceived that had the Caesars joyned in the propagation of CHRISTS Doctrine more might have beene effected for the advantage of Religion by their co operation than all Christs Apostles Bishops Prophets Evangelists and other Elders did effect by their extraordinary gifts and supernaturall endowments We see also that Constantines conversion was of more moment and did more conduce to the prosperity and dilatation of Christianity than all the labours and endeavours of thousands of Preachers and Confessors and Martyrs which before had attempted the same And to descend to our late reformations wee see Edward the sixth though very young in a short time dispelled the mists of Popish error and superstition and when no men were more adverse to the Truth than the Clergy yet He set up the banner thereof in all his Dominions and redeemed millions of soules from the thraldome of Hell and Rome In the like manner Queene Elizabeth also though a woman yet was as admirable an instrument of God in the same designe and what she did in England diverse other Princes about the same time did the like in many other large dominions whatsoever was effected by miracles in the hand of Ministers after our Saviour the same if not greater matters were sooner expedited by the ordinary power and wisdome of Princes when Ministers were generally opposite thereunto And as we see the spirituall power of Princes how strangly prevalent it is for the truth so sometimes we see most wofull effects of the same against the truth Religion was not sooner reformed by Edward the sixth than it was deformed againe by Queene Mary And though many godly Ministers were here then setled as appeares by their martyrdoms yet all those Ministers could not uphold Religion with all their hands so strongly as Queene Mary could subvert it with one finger of her hand onely One fierce King of Spaine bound himselfe in a cursed oath to maintaine the Romish Religion and to extirpate all contrary Doctrines out of his confines if many pious Ministers could have defeated this oath doubtlesse it had not so farre prevailed as it doth but now wee may with teares bewaile in behalfe of that wofull Monarchy that one Kings enmity in Religion is more pernicious than a thousand Ministers zeale is advantagious And by the way let all Princes here take notice what a dreadfull account of soules God is likely to call them to Fort is not the Clergy that are so immediately and generally responsible when Religion is oppressed or not cherished and when soules are misled and suffered to goe astray the abuses of the very Clergy it selfe will be only set upon the Princes account for according to
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
more vertuous than his Crosiers and when the Councell was by Constantine called and ordered the Bishop of Rome was not the onely Oracle in that Councell neither had that great trouble of assembling been if one Bishop had then bin more oraculous than all The same offices also which Constantine did in his dayes many other godly Emperors did in their raignes and had not they done them no one Bishop could for the Catholike Bishops were many times inferior in number and power to the Heretikes and if the Pope had then had the power to utter Oracles yet not having power to inforce and authorise the same upon all opposites hee could not have advantaged Religion amongst Heretikes more than hee doth now amongst Protestants Iewes Turkes or Pagans If God gave infallibility to one Bishop for the availe of all the world why doth not that Bishop availe the whole world Why is so great a light put under a Bushell Why are not all men illuminated by it And if God had no regard therein but to that remnant which worships the Pope if his only ayme therein was at the salvation of Papists why is this made a ground of universall authority to the Pope or of generall priviledge to all Bishops But I am to speake now to Protestants which hold no one Bishop infallible but the whole order of Bishops freer from fallibility than any other condition of men therfore to such I shall instance in Rome it selfe what multitudes of Divines of learned profound Divines of politike Sagacious Divines for many ages together have beene drunke and bewitched with the superstitions Idolatries blasphemies and heresies of that inchanting City Can it bee thought safe for Princes and Lay-men wholly to abjure their owne understandings and yeeld themselves Captives to the dictates of Divines only when so many Millions of them for so many ages notwithstanding all their exquisite learning and rare abilities devote themselves to such sottish impostures and grosse impieties nay to some such infernall diabolicall tenets Can men still persist to give up their judgements wholly to other men for their callings sake or for their learning and wisdome supposed when we see this is the very same rock whereupon Rome suffers Ship-wrack and this blind opinion the very snare wherein so great a part of the world still lies intangled But I will avoydeprolixity And now in the fourth place I come to shew that if we will take all these things for granted and ascribe all learning knowledge and freedome from variance to all Clergie-men and to Clergie-men only yet it doth not follow that they are necessarily to rule and command in chiefe Nay I shall make it appeare that it is not only not necessary but that it is many wayes mischievous that the ablest Divine should alwayes be supreme in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiasticall Power and wisdome are things of a different nature for power cannot stand with inferiority but wisdome may be as efficacious in a man of meane condition as in a man of high quality and power if its supremacy be divided it is diminished but wisdome the more it is dispersed the more the vertue of it is increased Wisedome often is contented to serve and to accept of a low dwelling but power ceases to be power if it dwell not in sublimity and have honour to attend it To be wise and to be contemned dejected suppressed are things compatible they are things frequent but to be potent is the same thing as to be great to be sacred to bee a commander of other mens wisdome Nay to be potent hath no terme convertible but to be potent Power in the State is preserved as the Arke was in the Iewish Church it is priviledged from common sight and touch in all well constituted Common wealths it is united in some one person only and to him so lineally intayled that it may never dye never cease never suffer any violent motion or alteration Power is as the soule of Policy of so exquisite and delicate sense that nothing but the wings of Cherubims is fit to guard and inclose it from all rude approaches vacuity in nature is not a thing more abhorred or shunned with greater disturbance and with greater confusion of properties than the least temeration and eclipse of power in the State How absurd then is this axiome which makes power servile to wisdome not wisdome to power wch subjects power to so many translations competitions and ceslations as often as time shall discover such and such excellencies in such and such men If power shall always be at the devotion of such men as for the present appear most wise if she shal be made so cheap and vulgar and prostituted daily to so many uncertainties what quiet can she procure to the world Nay what bloud wil she not procure I need say no more this axiome is neither consistent with Monarchicall nor hereditary rule For first if the most knowing Divine shall alwayes be supreme Commander in all Church affaires for more than this the Pope never claymed then by the same reason the most knowing States-man shall be supreme in the Palace the most knowing Souldier in the Campe the most knowing Lawyer in the Tribunall c. and so Monarchy shall be changed not into the aristocracy or democracy which are formes not utterly corrupt but into poly-coirany than which nothing can be more unpoliticke All Nations have ever rejected this broken confused rule of many severall independent Commanders which cannot chuse but injoyne impossible things sometimes for all these commanders may at the same time use the same mans service in severall places and in this they never can be satisfied wherefore we may well account this rule as bad as anarchy it selfe Nay even Religion it selfe by this meanes may be distracted into severall supremacies for He that is the ablest Divine in polemicall points and in deciding controversies may not be ablest in positive points or matters of Discipline and yet here the one hath as good title to absolute power in his sphere as the other hath in his And as Monarchy cannot so secondly neither can hereditary right stand with this alwayes uncertaine variable title of ability and excellence in knowledge Nay possession of supremacy is here no good plea For he that was the greatest and most knowing man last yeare is not so this yeare neither perhaps will he be next yeare that is so this yeare A thousand incongruities and inconveniences attend upon this paradox for the abilities of men are very hardly tryable and discernable and if they were not yet the subjecting of power to the perpetual giddy changes of new elections would soone confound us into our old Chaos againe as the Poets word is The three principall acts of power are First to make Lawes Secondly to give judgement according to Lawes made Thirdly to execute according to the right intent of judgments In the making of Lawes also according to Tully there is
humane are and lyable to examination and being made without common consent they binde not at all and being made by common consent they binde all either to obedience or to sufferance It is Gods owne Law that such as shall except against the validity or obliging vertue of common consent shall die the death for no peace can ever be in that State where any inconsiderable partie shall not acquiesce in the common Statutes of the land Those Lawes which Heathen Emperors made by common consent against Christianity were not wise Lawes But they were Lawes there was no pietie but there was vigor in them and doubtlesse the very Apostles which might not lawfully obey them yet might not lawfully contemne them Two things are objected against the Ecclesiasticall power of Parliaments 1. That it is more due to Princes 2. To Councells or Synods T is true anciently Princes were the only Legislatives the old rule was Quicquid placuerit Principii Legis habet vigorem But we must know that Princes had this power by common consent and doubtlesse till policy was now perfect and exquisite t was safer for Nations to depend upon the arbitrary unconfined power of Princes then to have their Princes hands too far bound up and restrained but since Lawes have bin invented by common consent as well to secure Subjects from the tyranny of their owne Lords as from private injuries amongst themselves and those Common wealths which have left most scope to Princes in doing of good offices and the least in doing acts of oppression are the wisest but ever this golden axiome is to bee of all received That that is the most politicke prerogative which is the best but not the most limited But this objection makes for Parliaments for whatsoever power was vested before in Princes and their Councells the same now remaining in Princes and the best and highest of all Counsells viz. Parliaments Counsells also and Synods are as improperly urged against Parliaments for Counsells and Synods did not at first clayme any right or in dependent power they were only called by the secular Magistrate as Ecclesiasticall Courtes for the composing of cissention in the Church and they were as meere assistants called ad consilium not ad consensum In 480 yeares after the establishment of Christians Religion from the first to the seventh Constantine there were but fixe generall Counsells called and those in disputes of a high nature all other Lawes were establisht without Oecumeniall Counsells by the private instruction of such Clergie-men as Emperors best liked The truth is no universall Counsell ever was at all because there never yet was any universall Monarch or Pope whose power was large enough to call the whole world but Princes to the utmost of their bounds did in that space of time congregate Bishops out of all their dominions in those sixe cases and yet we do not finde that those sixe Counsels though they have more reverence yet claymed more power than any other Nationall Synod Without question no lesse power than the Emperors could have bin sufficient to cite and draw together so great a body or to order them being met or to continue their meeâ—ing and no lesse power could animate their decrees with universall binding vertue then the same that so convened them But it is sufficient that Counsels have erred and that appeales have been brought against them and that redresse hath beene made by Emperors in other Counsels called for that purpose for this takes away from them that they are either supreme or sole or infallible judges of Religion and this being taken away they cannot be pretended to have any over-ruling superiority or priviledge above Parliaments The assistance of Counsels and Synods scarce any opposes so that they be not indeed with an obliging Legislative force above Parliaments or preferred in power above common consent which is the soule of all policy and power and that which preserves all Churches and States from utter ruine and confusion and this no wise man can agree too So much of the first act of power in passing and promulgating of Law I now come to the second In giving judgment according to those Lawes But little need here be said for if we did yeeld Clergie-men to be the most skilfull and knowing Iudges in all matter of doctrine and discipline this is no argument at all for their supremacy or independency neither can any difference be shewed why subordinate power in Ecclesiasticall judgments should not be as effectual and justifiable as in temporall and it is sufficiently cleered that poly coirany is not to bee received in any Church or Kingdome and therefore I haste to the third act of power which consists in using compulsory meanes for procuring obedience If Priests had any such spirituall sword as they pretend vertuous and efficacious enough to inflict ghostly paines upon such as disobey them doubtlesse it would reform as well as confound and procure obedience as well as chastise disobedience and then it would as much advance theiâ— Empire as the temporall sword doth the Princes Doubtlesse it would have some sensible efficacy and worke to good ends and men would not nor could not chuse but bow and submit themselves under it but now a spirituall sword is pretended whilst the gaining of a temporall sword is intended and nothing is more plaine to be seene It s not to be wondered at therefore if the people feare not any binding power where they see no loosing nor regard the shutting of those keyes which cannot open nor tremble at that thunder and lightning which is accompanied with no perceiveable vertue of warmth and moysture to open and refresh as well as to breake and burne But I have touched upon this already and so I now leave it THe next Argument is taken from the Iewish policy for they suppose that the Iewish Priest-Hood was independent in Spiritualibus and they suppose that the spirituall knowledge and ability of the Priests and Levites was the ground of this independency Here we say first that there are diverse reasons why more power and preeminence was requisite amongst the Iewish Priests than is now Bilson gives foure differences and I shall add two more for first the Priests and Levites were then a great body they were a twelfth part of Israel and had many Cities and their territories wherein they lived a part from other Tribes and in those Cities and precincts a civill rule was as necessary as els where and that rule could not be administred without inequality and power and in this they much differed from our Ministers Secondly Priests and Levites were then the onely studied Booke-men and Schollers of that Nation learning was at a low ebbe the judiciall as well as the Ceremoniall Lawes were scarce knowne or reade by any but that tribe and in this the State of our times is farre different Thirdly The Priests and Levites had then a naturall command and signiory in their owne families over their owne