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
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
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
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
God and to Religion and as concerne Gods service in the Church and the welfare of the souls and spirits of men so all men have a spirituall charge in generall for all men by their generall callings are servants to God and are not only bound to provide for their owne souls but to promote also the worship of God and the salvation of other men And in this respect that man which is most pious is most holy and spirituall and most acceptable to God and though his condition be but private here in this World yet his reward in Heaven may be more glorious then theirs who have publike Offices and Dignities here and whose particular callings are farre more sacred But besides this internall holinesse of persons visible only to God there is an externall politicall holinesse also of persons which arises from our particular Functions in this World and the measure of this holinesse is the profit and consequence of our professions and employments The Regall and Sacerdotall Offices have ever beene held comparatively of all other the most holy and worshipfull and the reason is because of all others they are the most advantagious and of most extensive benefit to the people of God And therefore the person is alwayes valued according to the function and the function according to its benefit and not on the contrary The man is Honourable because hee is a King and the King is honourable because He is the Conservator of the people and of this reason of Honour man is able to Judge God accepts of such a man to serve him in such an honourable place the place is not here honourable because He serves in it but he is Honourable because the place is profitable and though of Gods meere acceptance of the person no reason can be given yet there is great reason that all men should bee Honourable with men as they are acceptable with God God honoured the Israelites before other Nations they were a royall Priesthood in comparison of Heathens because God by his peculiar choice of them to his service did give them that more then regall or more then Sacerdotall priviledge The Israelites in condition were more contemptible and in disposition more incorrible than other Nations but because God separates them they are holy and because God separates them to serve him according to his pure will they are holy as Princes and Priests Christians also may now be termed Princes and Priests in comparison of the Iews in as much as God of his free pleasure is now more extensive and diffusive of his graces amongst us that we may adore him more ingenuously more intelligently and more comfortably then the Jews did and in the like manner amongst Christians Princes and Priests are yet higher elevated above common lay-men in as much as they have neerer accesse to God at the Throne and at the Altar and by their more sublime employments are more highly dignified more honorably consecrated With the Prince and the Priest no man will enter into any coÌ„petition but the coÌ„petition now being between the Prince the priest we must search into the nature of this political sanctitie that we may the better distinguish its de-grees Calvin wee see complains that the persons of Princes are made too spirituall by our appropriating to them spirituall authoritie because hee holds that authority too spirituall for their persons The same thing is here the reason of the same thing spirituall offices and services belong not to Princes because their persons are not spirituall and why are their persons not spirituall because their offices and services are not spirituall This is unjust and unscholasticall against the person no exception lies but such as is drawn from the function the person is coruscant only by the rayes of the function they which wil prove Kings to be not spiritual must first prove their offices to be meerly temporall and not on the contrary Such proofs as infirme the Kings power and interest in spiritualibus are proper such proofs let us heare Ambrose and Athanasius indeed say directly that Emperours have no right over divine things nor power over sacred things but they are very briefe and give no reason for their allegations nor doe they leave us satisfied in their true meanings The persons and offices of Kings were ever held sacred and if that which is sacred be not spirituall it were good that the difference were set forth between them Palaces are for Princes and Temples for Priests but palaces are not the sole interest of Princes so as that they are excluded thereby from all power in Temples nor is this a good result because priests may not move in the Civill Orbe therefore Princes may not in the Ecclesiasticall But Nazianzen is more full and expressive of his reasons and those reasons also are further pressed by Bishop Bilson let us bend our forces thither Nazianzen concludes the regiment of Priests to be more perfect and excellent then that of Princes and compares it to that of the soule over the body because things committed to the priests charge are heavenly and spirituall whereas Kings he sayes have in their power things earthly and bodiâ—y He takes three things here for granted First that the office of a Priest is as properly and truly a power and rule as that of Princes Secondly that the rule of Princes extends only to earthly things Thirdly whatsoever may be spoken of the whole order of Priesthood that he applyes to every particular Priest And thus hee seems to attribute a greater sanctitie not only intensive but extensive also to any priest then to any Prince The glosse of Bilson also hereupon is That Priests governe the souls of men and dispense the mysteries of God whereas Princes are set to rule the bodies of their Subjects and to dispose the things of this life And therefore if the fruits and effects of their callings be compared the Preachers he sayes passes that of Princes by many degrees of excellence and perfection God giving earthly food and peace by the Prince but heavenly grace and life by the Word and Sacraments which wee receive from the mouthes and hands of his Messengers As to externall power and corporall compulsion So Preachers are servants to their brethren Princes are Lords over them Preachers may reprove threaten but Princes must seize the goods and chastise the bodies of offenders Preaches may shut the gates of Heaven against non-repentants Princes must root them from the face of the earth and inflict the just vengeance of their sins in this world And whereas the Princes and Preachers functions concurre in ghostly and heavenly things that the Preacher declareth and the Prince establisheth the word of truth yet the Preachers service in these cases excelleth the Princes for that the word in the Preachers mouth ingendreth faith and winneth the soule unto God to serve him with a willing minde whereas the Sword in the Princes hand striketh only a terrour into
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
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
contrary and we will acknowledge the Function of Ministers to bee more venerable than any amongst men besides that which beares the sword the Embleme of Gods imperiall Majestie But to such as are Gods sword-bearers upon Earth we conceive Ministers ought to give place and pay subjection as humbly as any others The preminence of Kings we hold to be three ways manifest in order in measure and in kind In the very sanctity of the Priest-hood it selfe we conceive the ministration of Priests to be subordinate to Princes inasmuch as to superintend in the most religious affaires is due to Princes and to officiate only to Priests and to superintend is more than to officiate Secondly In measure we conceive Princes excell also in asmuch as in religious affaires such Priests have the charge of such flockes and such Bishops of such Priests but all both Bishops Priests and flockes are under the Kings charge And not only in religious affaires but in civill also the authority of Princes is both intensive and extensive many wayes where Priests may not at all intermeddle And though to governe Christians as Christians be the most transcendent honour of Kings yet to governe men as men and not only to governe but to governe well is a thing of divine impression Thirdly in kinde the regiment of Princes is far excelling for the regiment of Kings is a true proper regiment assisted with reall power decored with externall honour founded in the generall consent of men and blessed by the gratious influence of God but the rule of Priests is but ethicall or metaphoricall only its utmost vigor is but perswasive and is not at all coercive either inwardly or outwardly and that subjection which it challengeth is not to it selfe but to the Word and Sacraments whereto it selfe rendreth as much as it requireth from others This generall answer might suffice but to each particular Title we will briefly reply further Ministers they are GODS viz. to such as are under their cure but then as they are GODS to others so Princes are GODS to them Thus Moses was a God to Aaron though Aaron was a God to his inferiors Ministers are Stars but not in magnitude equall to the Sun neither is their light and influence so independent as the Suns Ministers are Angels viz. upon earth and their internall piety is like a shining rayment to them amongst men but they serve under Gods on Earth whose robes of Majesty are every way resplendent as well externally as internally Ministers are Embassadors but all Embassadors persons are not of the like honour nor all their Embassages of the like moment nor all their Commissions of the like extent and in all these respects Preachers are inferior to Princes being joyned to them as Aaron was to Moses for a spokesman or an Interpreter only Ministers are Rulers viz. quoad vim directivam but not quoad vim coactivam Ministers are Fathers viz. such as have been Gods instruments to regenerate us and so as Saint Ierome sayes they are the Fathers of our soules and perhaps as Chrysostome sayes in this respect they are more to be honoured than our naturall parents But Ministers alwayes and onely are not so our Parents and they that are so our Parents are not so physicall and selfe efficacious causes as our naturall Parents are but if they may challenge more honour than our fleshly Parents yet this advances them not above Kings who are both politicall and Spirituall Fathers also Fabius the Consull though he was to pay Honour and reverence to his naturall Father yet he was to demand a greater measure of the same from him being his politicall son and it did not mis-beseeme him to prefer the civill right before the physicall Yet Fabius here was a meere Magistrate and in that farre lesse glorious than our Christian Magistrates are Ministers are Stewards but not the highest in the house of God for Princes are Stewards also and only accountable to God but they are accountable to Princes themselves And as Stewards doe provide food for those by whom themselves are fed and manage only but one part of their Lords affaires so it is with Ministers under Princess Ministers are Pastors Leaders Teachers their Doctrine is their food wherewith they comfort the people their perswasion is the light wherewith they secure them from falling they feede by their exhortations and guide by their dehortations but all these are offices of a servant rather than priviledges of a Master and even in these offices they are subordinate also So the Pilot at Sea may have the safety of his Prince committed to his direction charge and rule So the Commander in Warre gives order for all affaires of the battaile assigning to the King Himselfe a fit station So the Iudge in matters of Law by his just decree bindes the right of his owne Master So the Physition limits and prescribes rules of diet and sets downe Lawes of exercise to his Soveraigne Lord In all these cases there is a kinde of Obedience due from Kings and that obedience implyes some kind of inferiority and yet this obedience of the King doth not drowne the higher and greater obedience of the Subject nor doth this inferiority contradict that which is of a farre other quality and degree In the selfe same manner also the Priest officiates in the Church perhaps before the King perhaps before his owne Metropolitan at this time in this place and in this office there is honour reverence and obedience due to him from the King and Metropolitan yet this doth not exempt him from that stronger and holyer tye of subjection awe and subordination by which he is alwayes bound to those which governe him in other things when Ambrose therefore sayes Honor sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari and againe Nihil potest esse in hoc seculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri wee answer if he here include Princes as having Episcopall power and a jurisdiction both over Priests and Bishops we agree hereunto but if he exclude Princes we exclude this from our beliefe And againe when he sayes if you compare Episcopall sublimity to the brightnesse of Kings or Diadems of Princes that of Kings and Princes will be more inferior than leade compared with gold we answer if he here intend the meere secular authority of Princes in things meerly temporall we suppose some mild construction may bee allowed but if he speake of the intire Soveraignty and Prerogative of Princes and put that as lead in comparison of the golden Miter we reject him as erroneous That which Chrysostome sayes that more awe is due to Priests than to Kings and Princes we admit also in this sense viz. to the Embassages of God in their mouthes not to their persons and those Embassages also and instructions we oppose to the meere civill Ordinances of Kings not to religious injunctions wherein Princes are sent with larger Commission than they are
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
perverted by private interest and that they are superior to all Christians under their charge yea grant them a right to make what Canons they please and grant them no power to compell obedience to the same and to punish disobedience to the same and this would take away peace and cause much mischiefe and disturbance every where and this we cannot thinke God would be the Author of How ridiculous are the Popes anathemaes to those which renounce his allegiance they seem to us but meere Epigrams sent abroad to provoke laughter And yet why doe they not appeare as ridiculous in Italy as in England were it not for common consent they were not in more force amongst Italians then Englishmen and there is no more true naturall vigor in the Popes Bulls to procure common consent in Italy then in England we may gather then from hence that there is no Ecclesiasticall Supremacie but founded upon the same basis of common consent as temporall supremacie is and being so founded it cannot be Divine or unalterable or above common consent so as to have any efficacie without much lesse against it That some Nations are gull'd and cozen'd out of their consents is no presedent for us for as many Nations are addicted to Mahomits commandes as are to the Popes and in this the dominion of Mahomet is as spirituall as the Popes and is as strong a case to over-rule us as the Popes for if consent were to be forced the Pope might as well force Mahometans as Christians and if it be free his Empire depends as much upon it as Mahomets They then that have erected a Spirituall supremacie not depending upon common consent have been in a great error and they that slight common consent as not capable of a spirituall supremacie seem to have been as much mistaken Many of our Divines say that Parliaments are temporall Courts and so not of spirituall jurisdiction and others say that they may as well frame acts to order the Hierarchie in heaven as to dispose of Ecclesiasticall things on earth both these seeme to me verry erroneous The Argument methinks is equally strong as God would not give a right to binde up other men by Statutes and Commandements but he would give some power withall to drive men by constraint to observe and yeeld obedience to the same so He would not indue any Prince or Court with such power but He would give a right of binding equall and congeniall to that power Princes of themselves are sacred as I have proved and spiritually sacred how much more then are they accounted sitting in Parliament and if Princes in Parliament how much more Princes and Parliaments for to Princes on their awfull Tribunalls is something more due then at other times but to Princes in Parliament there is most of all due in regard that there they are invested with more then their owne naturall power common consent having not derived all power into the King at any other time or in any other place but reserved much thereof till a full union be in Parliament besides setting aside the sanctity of power in Parliaments yet in regard that they are assisted with the best counsell of Divines so they ought not to be accounted meere Temporall Courts for what better advise can those Divines give out of Parliament then in Parliaments Some Parliaments in England have made some Ecclesiasticall acts excluso clerò nay that which was the the most holy act which ever was established in England viz. The Reformation of Religion was passed invito clero and when these things are not only legall but honorable shall we limit Parliaments in any thing wherein the votes of the Clergie are concomitant and concurrent with the Laytie Hooker sayes that the most naturall and religious course for the making of Lawes is that the matter of them be taken from the judgement of the wisest in those things whom they concerne and in matters of God he saies it were unnaturall not to thinke the Pastors of our soules a great deale more wise than men of secular callings but when all is done for devising of Lawes it is the generall consent of all that gives them the forme and vigor of Lawes This we allow of for the most part but wee conceive this to be understood of such Divines as in the judgement of Parliaments are omni exceptione majores for it was not unnaturall in the beginning of the Reignes of Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth to thinke that the Lords and Commons were better Judges of Religion than the Bishops and the Convocation house as matters then stood in England For the whole body can have no sinister end or interest to blinde them but the whole Clergie which is but a part of the whole body may and therefore the whole body is to judge of this and when they see a deviation in the Clergie and observe the occasion of it they must not blindly follow blinde guides but doe according to that light which God hath given them And certainly it were contrary to that interest which every man hath in the Truth that any should be obliged to receive it from other mens mouths without any further inquiry or judgement made upon the same The meanest man is as much interessed and concerned in the truth of Religion as the greatest Priest and though his knowledge thereof be not in all respects equally easie yet in some respects it may be easier for want of learning doth not so much hinder the light of the Laymen as worldly advantage and faction sometimes doth the Priests Examples of these are infinite corruption in the Church before our Saviour and in our Saviours daies and ever since hath oftner begun amongst the greatest Priests Rabbers and Bishops than amongst the meaner Laitie And for this cause God requires at every mans hands an account what doctrine he admits what Lawes he obeys holding no man excused for putting blinde confidence in his ghostly Father and not taking upon him to weigh and try how sure his grounds were And if every private man stand so responsible for his particular interest in the Truth being equally great in the Truth shall not whole States and Nations whose interest is farre greater than their Priests or Bishops is give a sadder account to God if they leave themselves to be seduced by such men which are as liable to error as themselves If wee consider the meere matter of Lawes they are either profitable for the Church or not if they are profitable why should wee thinke that Princes and Parliaments want power to impose Lawes upon themselves for the availe of their owne soules they standing to God accountable for the same according to the greatnesse of their owne interest and if they are not profitable there is no obedience due to them whether Priests or Princes make them and that they be not profitable is equally doubtfull whether Priests or Princes make them Take then Lawes to be questionable as all
was not the learning and knowledge of all Bishops at his command to be imployed as if it were his owne Bishops themselves might erre and dissent and in that point many of them did erre and hold against the truth and without his ayde this division was irreconcileable but by his influence and superintendence truth might obtaine a faire tryall and Bishops themselves might be convinced by Bishops This case in Divinity might be too intricate for his sole judgment and too pondrous for his actuall determination but what he could not doe single and personally Hee might well effect by the counsell and advice of his most moderate and disinteressed Clergie for in Divinity the Prince is as in juridicall or Martiall affaires As he is not alwayes the ablest Divine so neither is he the ablest Lawyer nor the ablest Souldier and yet by the advice of Divines Lawyers and Souldiers He may conclude that wisely which neither He without them nor they without him could ever have concluded Therefore against this remisse cold slacknesse and haesitancy of Valentinian we may oppose the politike and couragious resolution of Constantine Theodosius and diverse other pious Emperors who all did compose debates and end controversies and vindicate Truth and Religion from many errors and abuses wch otherwise had bin endlesse and remedilesse After the first 5. or 6. hundred yeares Episcopacy began to invade the rights of Royalty by the Sophistications and impostures of the See of Rome and till this last Age Princes almost every where did blindly and superstitiously too farre abandon their owne right but by the light of Nature the wisest Kings in all Countryes were ever the most refractory and most impatient of the Popes tyranny and in the most ignorant times some there were found that made resistance to the same Much bloud was shed upon this Theme in diverse other Countries and even in our own stories we find that though England was prone otherwise to be the Popes Asse yet in the quarrell of supremacy it was jealous and had almost perpetuall conflicts I will only cite one story Henry the second was a very puissant Prince and in all other things except only Ecclesiasticall He was fortunate and victorious but his misery was that He raigned in such an Age as the Pope was in his Zenith and had to doe with Becket of all the Popes dependents the most seditious Henry the first his Grandfather out of the greatnesse of his Spirit and wit had passed these Lawes That no Appeal should stand That no Bishops should go out of the Realme That no Tenant in Capite should bee excommunicated That no officiall of the Kings should be interdicted without the Kings leave and consent And that Clergimen should be subject to secular judgement and that Lay-men under the King should judge of Tythes and other causes Ecclesiasticall At these just and necessary Lawes the Clergie hitherto rested quiet if not contented but now a most rebellious Becket arises to spurne against them and in his mouth they are dangerous incroachments and breaches upon the Church Rather than hee will subscribe to these so long establisht Lawes He departs the Kingdome in contempt of the King and with all violence and bitternesse that may bee incenses the Pope the King of France and all the Italian and French Bishops against his naturall Lord The King at first gallantly relyes upon the edge of his temporall sword and whets it sharper in behalfe of his legall prerogative and for some yeares together stands out against the danger of the Popes confounding blow but at last when Becket the fierce Traytor was slaine through the execrations and anathemas of the Pope and by the threats and exclamations of the King of France and diverse other Bishops and Potentates He is beaten from his ground swearing fealty to the Pope and his successors and admitting of Appeales to Rome Long it was before hee would submit himselfe in this contestation betwixt a subject and himselfe to the Romish Tribunall or yeeld to any condemnation being untryed and unheard and it appeares by the Popes forbearance of his last thūderbolt that the Pope was diffident in his power and durst not sentence him if He had not yeelded before the sentence But I leave Popery come now to our reformed times The dead time of night being now over Luther began to crow in Germany and to give notice of light ready to dawn upon the Earth and no sooner did that light appeare but that diverse Princes began to awake and to shake off that blind servitude of Rome which had so long layne upon them and lock'd up their senses like a deepe sleepe How be it the light was not alike welcome to all some fully and wholly gave it entertainement others opened some Curtaines onely and so yeelded themselves to a little further slumber Henry the eighth here in England was well pleased with that Doctrine which discovered his owne independence and the weakenesse of the Popes Prerogative but those further monstrous deformed errors and superstitions of Rome which are founded upon its absolute Prerogative and are as inconsistent with light as the Prerogative it selfe He tooke no delight to looke upon So farre as his owne interest and worldly advantage was represented by the beames of the Gospell so farre his eyes thought it amiable And so farre Bishop Gardiner though a Bishop was ready to assist him but so farre as his spirituall interest and the generall advantage of his Subjects was concerned so farre Hee and Gardiner both could remaine as blind as Sir Thomas More T is wonderfull that so sharp-sighted a man as Sir Thomas More was should lay downe his life in justification of the Popes supremacie but t is more wonderfull that Gardiner should see the weakenesse of that supremacie and yet still adhere to diverse other Popish superstitions as absurdly resulting from the same principles The State of Venice also out of meere policy has long been at defiance with the Court of Rome so farre as meere rules of Government guide and direct it but in all other spirituall delusions and impostures it is as dead as heavie-eyed as ever Spaine France and Germany also though they speake not the same yet they now doe the same as Venice they all shut up and impale the Popes Authority within Peters Patrimony leaving him no command but within his owne Italian territories and yet besides his authority they cast off nothing else so much doe we generally esteeme Earth before Heaven and our temporall advantages before the subsistance of our soules But let reason of State bee what it will The Parliament here agrees to annex to the Crowne of Henry the eighth and his successors whatsoever sole independent power was before challenged in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall things by the Pope or any Church-Man whatsoever And Hooker seemes both to confesse and justifie the same for sayes H Our Kings of England when they are to take possession of the Crown have it