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
familiarly with them cannot stand with our owne safety or the honour of Religion or the Law of common decency but those whom we account as Publicans we doe not make Publicans whom we shun as infectious we doe not punish as rebellious their actions we doe generally detest but their persons we doe not judicially condemne Princes under the Law might not eate of the Shew bread nor approach the Sanctuary being in a polluted condition nor in case of Leprosie might they be admitted into the Congregation of the Lord so nor bastards c. but these are all instances of Non-communion not of Excommunication and the reason of Non-communion is perpetuall so that if Princes in open contempt of the Sacraments should desire them at the Ministers hands Ministers ought rather to dye than to administer them But to deny the Sacrament is not any spirituall obduration or castigation to this denyall no speciall authority is necessary neither to that authority is any coercive force internally working upon the soule granted Cain having committed an unnaturall murther was generally abhorred amongst his brethren and abandoned as unfit for humane society but this was a crime proper for the temporall sword and if this was a proper punishment it was temporall And it is plainly cleered to us that adultery it selfe by Gods Law was punished by the temporall not spirituall sword and that abscissio animae amongst the Iewes was ever spoken of corporall punishment by death the inffliction whereof was only left to the temporall Magistrate and that there was no difference observed betweene Crimes Spirituall and Crimes Temporall Non-Communion then we grant to have bin of ancient use and perpetuall but we wish great caution and circumspection to be had therein amongst Christians for as visibly prophane persons are to be rejected so no former profanenesse ought to be cause of rejection where the party with outward professions of repentance and gestures of reverence craves the mysteries at the Ministers hands as almost all Christians doe For in such case if the Sacrament then the word also may be denyed and so no manner of salvation shall be left to such as have bin formerly vitious whatsoever their present demeanour be To come now to Excommunication or the Spirituall Sword and sentence of the Church as it was used in the Primitive times yet so wee finde differences of it amongst our Divines That incestuous Corinthian which was said to be traditus Satanae as Chrysostome conceives was not ejected out of the Church by ordinary excommunication but was miraculously left to Satan ut percelleretur vulnere malo aut morbo and such was the punishment of Ananias and his Wife and of Elymas c. according to Ierom Ambrose Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact c. This excommunication if it may be called so was a corporall punishment and there is no appearance of any internall obduration by the binding power of the Minister and it was miraculous and therefore though it was of use then when the Keyes of Church-men could not erre and when a Temporall Sword was wanting yet now it is utterly uselesse and abolisht For any other excommunication of present and perpetuall necessity in Ecclesiasticall regiment there is little proofe in Scripture it is the spirituall Scepter of our Hierarchrists without which their Empire would appeare meerely imaginary and therefore their zeale is strong for it though their grounds be weake It seemes to me a very darke deduction that the Keyes of Heaven in the Gospell must needs import reall power and jurisdiction in Church-men and onely in Church-men and that that power and jurisdiction must needs intend such a spirituall sword as our present form of excommunication is and that that sword is as miraculous as it was or as usefull as if it were miraculous and that the stroke of it is meerly spirituall and not to be supplyed by the temporall sword and that Princes are as well lyable to it as other Lay-men Ierome sayes that with God not the sentence of the Priest but the life of the sentenced party is look'd upon and regarded and sayes he Vt Leprosum mundum vel immundum Sacerdos facit Sic alligat vel solvit Presbyter It should seeme our Priests now have the same power to try and discerne scandalous persons amongst us as the Iewish had Leapers in their times and no man supposes that the Iewish Priests had any vertue or force in their judgements to purge such as were uncleane or to infect those which were cleane they were held the most fit and impartiall judges but the matter to bee judged of was visible easie and sensible So much as this no man will deny to our Ministers for if they binde and shut Heaven to persons sensibly profan not altering at all the condition of such as they binde and shut out this is no such strange Spirituall Sword and Celestiall power and supereminent dominion as they have hitherto pretended to neither is it of any such great consequence in the Church of God But if Ministers can yet by vertue of their Keyes either search into the reines and hearts of hypocrites as the Apostles did or alter the condition of such as are subject to them either by absolving or obdurating the guilty or can effect any remedy in the Church for the taking away of scandall by their spirituall power which the temporall ruler doth not effect as the Apostles may be supposed to have done This is more than the Iewish Priests ever professed this is supernaturall and wee ought to admire it I doe not beleeve that our Ministers will lay clayme to any such miraculous vertue and infallibility and if they did I hope they would give us some signes and demonstrations therof by opening Heaven to thousands and by confounding all incorrigible opposers of Religion If Nero had resorted to Peters ministery desiring to bee made partaker of the Word and Sacraments out of fraud and dissimulation Peter doubtlesse would not have refused him and cast him off without a certaine insight into his hypocrisie but if Peter did discerne his hypocrisie and reject him yet our Ministers cannot discerne the like and therefore cannot reject in the like manner With us take Excommunication as a spirituall punishment as it hardens and drives from Repentance for so the shutting of Heaven intimates and our Ministers should bee cruell to use it where they are ignorant of the heart and take it as a wholesome remedy and fit meanes to draw to repentance as corporall punishments sometimes are though it bee strange to conceite the like of spirituall yet their vertue being ignorantly applyed is no proper vertue For in case of utter impenitence and open perversenesse Heaven is shut without the Ministers power and in case of fained penitence the Ministers Key cannot open effectually though he discerne not the fraud and in case of true penitence if the Minister be mistaken yet Heaven will not remaine shut Howsoever if Priests may now
Excommunicate as they pretend yet this concludes not that they may excommunicate Princes We know the Primitives did use excommunication very moderatly and tenderly and not without great policy and respect had to the good of the Church and therefore Saint Aug. openly avers that excommunication is a proud pernicious and sacrilegious attempt when it is denounced against any considerable number of people ubi periculum sit schismatis We must know that it is of worse example when it is used against Princes than diverse other great bodies and societies in as much as one Prince is of more consequence and power than thousands of other Lay-men We know also that in all judgments there is a necessity of legall tryall to precede conviction and that great multitudes may be convented examin'd sentenced and punished with lesse disturbance of peace lesse violation of Majestie and lesse obstruction to policy than those which sway the Ball imperiall And if the condemnation of Princes might bee upon due tryalls without violence yet the execution of the sentence would produce more grievous and rigorous events in them than in private men for how shall the people honour obey and worship him in the State as Gods Lievtenanâ— whom they see accursed cut off and abhorred in the Church as the Devils Vassall That which was obtruded upon private men at first as a wholsom Corrosive plaister for their spirits declined after into corporall penances and after that into pecuniary mults but what have beene the sufferings of private men in comparison of that which Princes have lost hereby to the Clergie Vpon the Excommunication of Princes whole Nations have bin interdicted whole States ruined the innocent with the obstinate the Prince with the people all have bin sacrificed to bloud thirsty Priests under pretence of Obedience to the holy Church It will be objected that if Princes be not this way punishable they are no other way punishable and that it is very mischievous in the Church that there should be any scandall given and no meanes left for its purgation and expiation I answer The Iewish Kings did sinne in the most offencive manner that can be imagined yet God assigned no spirituall Rulers for their Castigation and the Heathen Emperors were also free from any coercive restraint or punishment and this God suffered and we must suppose that if it had bin so extremely and publikely mischievous God would not have suffered it Besides in civill transgressions of the Law Priests doe not usually clayme jurisdiction though Saint Ambrose vindicated murder upon Theodosius for so their power would be as temporall and as large as the Princes and yet there is no reason why God should not have left a judicatory to punish civill violations in all men whatsoever as well as Ecclesiasticall In the last place also if scandal shal not remaine unpunishable in the supreme temporall Magistrate yet it shall in the spirituall and that is a mischiefe of the same nature as the other For if the King shall abide the judgement of this Bishop or that Consistory yet what judgment shal that Bishop or Consistory abide If this spirituall supremacy rest in any one that one must be unpunishable for two supremes are things incompatible and if this supremacy rest in more than one this is not consistent with Monarchy for either the one or the other must be predominant and transcendent We reade that lustinian did command the Clergy to be proceeded against by excommunication suspension and deprivation and we cannot deny this to be his right and all other Princes in the like manner when misdemeanours are scandalous in the highest Cleargy-men or Consistores and we know that such command and constraint in Iustinian is more than to excommunicate suspend or deprive We may justly therefore inferre that Iustinian having a power above excommunication ought not himselfe to be excommunicated by those which were under his power for so the excommunication of the inferior would disable the excommunication of the superior And since excommunication cannot be promiscuously and oppositely used by two one against the other without variance and confusion but either the one or the other must be above excommunication it is more reasonable that the higher bee exempted and priviledged than the lower And so it is a stronge argument that Princes are not liable to excommunication because even in the power of excommunication it selfe their function is more excellent and their power more sublime than theirs is which excommunicate under them and at their command the Prince doing herein the nobler office quantum qui navem temperat anteit Remigis officium but when it is argued against Princes that they may be excommunicated by Priests because they beare offices lesse sacred and serve God in places lesse glorious than Priests the grounds are here utterly false and repugnant to all right reason and sound Divinity Let us not then doubt to submit all things under one supreme on Earth submitting him to his supreme in Heaven For it is no small thing as we imagine in such case to be left to the searching judgment of God for God is not negligent of his office therein nor need we doubt or hold our selves utterly remedilesse whilst we can say truly Omne sub regno graviore regnum est And let us not mistake our supreme on earth for if God had intended to have left us a spirituall sword and miraculous judicatory under the Gospell never before knowne or usefull to the world and that of perpetuall necessity doubtlesse he would have left us some cleere command in Scripture and not have involved his meaning in metaphors so intricate and ambiguous THe next argument against the Soveraigne Dignity of Kings is this If servants are to be measured by the degree of their Master whom they serve they are the greatest servants which serve Christ But Ministers serve Christ Ergo This can decide nothing for Princes and Priests serving both the same Master The argument hath the same force for Princes and for Priests and if it be further said that Christ as a Priest is greater than Christ as a Prince and that Princes therefore serving under him as a Prince are not so great as Priests serving under him as a Priest I shall deny that to bee so for Christ as Mediator was inferior to his Father and all workes of his regiment over the Church are not done by him as Mediator but doe belong to his Kingly Office and as to his Kingly power He is equall with the Father THe next Argument therefore of truer force is this There can be no office more sacred or dignity more excellent then such as is signified under these glorious Titles of Gods Starres Angels Embassadors Rulers Fathers Stewards Pastors Leaders Teachers but these glorious Titles are applyed to Ministers Ergo Wee will acknowledge all these Honourable badges given to Ministers and duely given and wee will acknowledge these no empty words without truth and so make words and things
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
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
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
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