ought to be a great deal lesse and we doe the rather suspect all popish traditions and additions in Religion because wee see they make use of them for the augmenting of the power and regiment of Prelates And yet if knowledge did not abound if our Religion were more cloudie and if the Scriptures Councils Fathers and all learning were now more imperfect to us then they are I cānot imagin how an uncōfined absolute dominion of Churchmen shold be more necessary thē of Princes For if absolutenes of power be of necessary use in intricate perplexed mysteries cōtroversies yet why must that absolute power be more effectuall in Priests then Princes is not the counsel of Prelats the same and of the same vigor to solve doubts and determine controversies whether their power be subordinate or not doth meer power ad to the knowledg of Priests or is the power of Priests more virtuous for the promoting of truth then the power of Magistrates how comes this vast irreconcilable difference betwixt the government of the Church and State In matters of Law in matters of policy in matters of war unlimited power in such as are most knowing and expert does not conduce to the safety of the Common-wealth subordinate Counsells are held as available for the discerning of truth and far more available for the conserving of peace and order And who can then assigne any particular sufficient reason why matters of religion should not as well be determined in the consistory by dependent Prelates as matters of Law are by the Judges and Justices in their tribunals where they sit as meere servants to the King His third exception is That God having armed the Jewish Religion with a temporall sword and the Christian with that of spirituall punishment only the one with power to imprison scourge put to death the other with bare authoritie to censure and excommunicate there is no reason why our Church which hath no visible sword should in regiment be subject unto any other power then only to that which bindeth and looseth This reason taketh it for granted that amongst the Jewes the Church and State was the same had the same body the same head the same sword and that head was temporall and that sword was materiall This we freely accept of but in the next place without any reason at all given it as freely assumes that Christians now have only a spirituall sword in the Church as that Jews had only a temporall one A diametricall opposition is here put betwizt Jews and Christians in Church Regiment and yet no cause shewed or account given of that opposition We have very good colour to argue that without some strong reason shewed of opposition Christians ought not to bee so contrary to that excellent discipline of the Jewes which God himself ordered and to introduce I know not what spirituall rule in prejudice of temporall rule but how will Stapleton prove that amongst Christians the Church and State are two divided bodies so as they may admit of two severall heads and severall swords the one temporall the other spirituall the one yielding precedence as temporall the other predominating as spirituall This wee desire to see fortified with better proofs Hooker in his eighth booke not yet publisht has a learned cleere discourse to shew the fallacie and injustice of this blind presumption Hee allows that a Church is one way and a Commonwealth another way defined and that they are both in nature distinguisht but not in substance perpetually severed Since there is no man sayes hee of the Church of England but the same is a member of the Common-wealth nor any of the Common-wealth but the same is of the Church therefore as in a figure triangle the base differs from the sides and yet one and the self-same line is both a base and a side a side simply a base if it chance to be the bottome and to underlie the rest So though properties and actions of one doe cause the name of a Common-wealth qualities and functions of another sort give the name of a Church to a multitude yet one and the same multiude may be both Thus in England there 's none of one Corporation but hee is of the other also and so it was amongst the Jews Two things cause this errour First because professours of the true Religion somtimes live in subjection under the false so the Jews did in Babylon so the Christians in Rome under Nero in such cases true professors doe civilly only communicate with the State but in matters of their Religion they have a communion amongst themselves This now is not our case and therefore these instances are not proper amongst us Secondly In all States there is a distinction between spirituall and temporall affaires and persons but this proveth no perpetuall necessity of personall separation for the Heathens always had their spiritual Laws and persons and causes severed from their temporall yet this did not make two independent States among them much lesse doth God by revealing true Religion to any Nation distract it thereby into severall independent communities his end is only to institute severall functions of one and the same community Thus farre Hooker most judiciously and profoundly Wee must not here expect any satisfaction from our Adversaries why there should be lesse division betweene Church and State amongst the Jews and lesse use of two severall swords then is amongst us 't is sufficient that they have said it There 's no crime so scandalous amongst our Church-men or wherein they claime so much spirituall interest of jurisdiction as adultery yet amongst the Iews that crime was carnall not spirituall and its punishment was death inflicted by the Civill Judge not damnation denounced by the Priest Now if adultery in these days were better purged away and lesse countenanced in our Christian Courts then it was amongst the Jews there might something be alleaged to preferre our moderne inventions before Gods owne Statutes but when Ecclesiastiall persons shall therefore incroach upon Civill that by I know not what pecuniary corruptions and commutations vice and scandall may abound we doe strangly dote to suffer it For his last reason he says That albeit whilst the Church was restrained into one people it seemed not incommodious to grant their Kings generall chiefty of power yet now the Church having spread it self over all Nations great inconvenience must thereby grow if every Christian King in his severall Territorie should have the like power By this reason it s presumed that all the Universe ought to have but one head on earth and that Rome must be its Court and that it must be indued with Oraculous infallibilitie and so to remayne till the Worlds end and this must bee admitted out of some obscure generall Metaphors in Scripture or else God has not sufficiently provided for the wise government of his Catholike Church Man can scarce imagine any thing more mischievous or impossible then that which these goodly
And 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
inconvenient in some things mischievous in notihng necessary or unalterable And it ought to be observed that evill formes of policie have been sometimes well ordered and rectified by good Commanders and so the State of Boetia once flourished under Epaminondas and Pelopidas and yet it owed this prosperitie not to the government of the Citie for that was ill constituted and composed but to the Governours for they were wise and vertuous The contrary also happened to Lacedaemon for that fared ill sometimes and suffered much distemper because though its fundamentall Laws were good yet its Kings and Ephorie were many times tyrannous and unjust And this should teach Bishops not alwayes to boast of the sanctitie of their Order because such such in ancient and modern times were Martyrs or were humble and fortunate to the Church nor always to blame all other formes of government for the faults of such such Governors But in this my ensuing discourse I must undertake almost all Churchmen at least some if not all of all Religions opinions Papists allow somthing to secular Magistrates in the rule of the Church but Supremacie of rule they do utterly in very terms deny The Protestants though divided amongst themselvs some placing supreme power in Episcopacie others in presbytery yet both in effect deny it to the King though in words they pretend otherwise The grounds of this mistake as I conceive are these when our Saviour first gave commission to his Disciples to preach and baptise and to propagate the true faith in the World Secular authority being then adverse thereunto Hee was of necessity to commit not only doctrine but all discipline also to the charge of his Apostles and their Substitutes only Wherfore though Secular authority be now come in become friendly to Religion willing to advance the spirituall prosperity of the Church aswel as the temporall of the State yet Clergiemen having obtained possession of power in the Church and that by Christs own institution they think they ought not to resigne the same againe at the demand of Princes And because the certain forme of discipline which our Saviour left and to whom it was left is doubtfully and obscurely set forth in Scripture and is yet controverted of all sides therefore some contend for one thing some for an other but all agree in this that whatsoever forme was appointed for those times is unalterably necessary for these and that to whomsoeever rule was designed to Christian Princes it was not my drift therefore must now be to discover the erroneous conceits herein of all sides and to doe as the Romans once did when they were chosen arbitrators betweene two contesting Cities I must neither decree for the Plaintiff nor Defendant but for the King who is in this case a third party I am of opinion that some order and imparitie was necessary in the Primitive Church in the very House of God and therefore was so countenanced by our Saviour but for ought I see that power which was then necessary was not so large as our Prelates nor so narrow as our Presbyterians plead for but whatsoever it was or wheresoever it rested questionless it is now unknown and not manifest in Scripture but if it were manifest and that such as the Prelacie or such as the Presbytery mayntaines it is so far from being now unchangeable since Princes are come in to doe their offices in the house of God that I think it cannot remayne unchanged without great injury to Princes and damage to the Church and by consequence great dishonour to our Saviour And this is that now which I shall endevour to confirme and demonstrate In the first place then I am to impugne those grounds whereby a sole independent perpetuall power of Church Government is appropriated to Ecclesiasticall persons only and whereby Princes c. are excluded as incompetent for the same That there is no such thing as Ordination and spirituall Jurisdiction due and necessary in the Church is not now to be questioned the question is what persons are most capable of the same whether such as are commonly called Ecclesiasticall or no It is agreed by all that God hath not left Humane nature destitute of such remedies as are necessary to its conservation and that rule and dominion being necessary to that conservation where that rule and dominion is granted there all things necessary for the support of that rule and dominion are granted too It is further agreed also that Supream power ought to be intire and undivided and cannot else be sufficient for the protection of all if it doe not extend overall without any other equall power to controll or diminish it and that therefore the Supreme Temporall Magistrate ought in some cases to command Ecclesiasticall persons as well as Civill but here lies the difference the Papists hold that though spirituall persons as they are men and Citizens of the Common-wealth in regard of their worldly habitation are subject to temporall Commanders yet this subjection is due ob pacem communem or quoad commune bonum and that per accidens and indirectè and that no further neither but only secundum partem directivam seu imperativam Thus whatsoever they pretend to the contrary they doe erect regnum in regno they give temporall Monarchie an imperfect broken right in some things but controlable and defeasible by the spirituall Monarchie in other things And the World ha's had a long sad experience of this whilst Kings had the Pope for their superiour in any thing they remayned Supreame in nothing whil'st their rule was by division diminished in some things they found it insufficient in all things so that they did not command joyntly with the Pope but were commanded wholly by the Pope And in Popish Countries now Princes do suffer themselves in word to be excluded from all spirituall Dominion and execute not the same in shew but by subordinate Clerks under them and that by privilege of the Popes grant but we know in truth they hold it and use it as their own and the Pope is more officious to them then they are to him And whereas the Canon Law allows temporall Princes to punish the insolence and oppressions of Bishops within their respective Territories modò sint verae oppressiones wee know this comes to nothing if Princes claime it not by somthing higher then Canon Law For how shall this be tryde how shall it appeare whether these oppressions be true and hainous or no if Bishops will not submit themselves in this tryall and refuse to appeale Kings are no competent Judges nor can take no just cognizance hereof and what redresse then is in the Kings power Even Popish Princes now know well enough how ridiculous this favour of the Canonists is therfore as the Popes fed thē heretofore with the name and shadow only of painted Sovereignty in temporalibus so they feed him the like now in spiritualibus Protestants dissent much
Priests as also of the reall effectuall dominion of Princes I shall now prove further that the sword of Kings if it be not so spirituall as the Pope pretends to cut off souls yet it is more then temporall and extends to things most spirituall The Founders and Patriarchs of the World before the Law of Moses did not only governe the Church but also execute all pastorall spirituall Offices as they were Princes and Supream Potentates within their own limits they did not governe men as they were the Priests of God but they did sacrifice and officiate before God as they were the Heads and Governours of men In those times it was not held usurpation or intrusion upon priests for Princes to sacrifice with their own hands or to teach the will of God with their own mouthes it would have been held presumption if any else had attempted the like and a dishonour to Gods service Nature then taught that the most excellent person was most fit for Gods service in the Church and that no person could be more excellent then hee which served God in the Throne The word priest now may have divers acceptions In some sense whole Nations have been called priests viz. comparatively and in some sense all Fathers of Children and Masters of Servants are in the nature of priests and in more usuall sense all Princes so farre as they have charge and cure of souls and are intrusted with Divine Service within their severall commands are more supereminently taken for priests but the most usuall sense is this A Priest is hee which hath cure of Souls and a trust of Gods worship by a more peculiar kinde of publike and politike consecration and dedication thereunto of such consecration or ordination before Aaron we read nothing and for ought I see we are bound to believe nothing Melchisideck was a pious man a devout Father a religious Master nay a zealous Prince and Commander but in all these respects hee had no priviledge nor right to the denomination of priest more then Adam Sem Noah c. had You will say then how is that denomination given him so peculiarly This denomination might be given not by reason of any externall formall ceremoniall Unction or imposition of hands or any other solemne Dedication or separation before men but in this respect that he did perhaps publikely officiate in the presence of all his Subjects and perhaps in behalfe of all his subjects and this is a higher and blesseder Sacerdotall Office then any we read of in his predecessors or successors till Aarons dayes It is probable that God was served in Families before Aaron and perhaps there were solemne days and Feasts which all Families by joynt consent did in severall places dedicate to Gods service by strict observance of the same but that any publike places were appointed for whole Congregations to joyne and meet publikely in under the charge and function of any one publike Priest till Aaron is not specified This only we may guesse by the speciall name of priest applied to Melchisedeck that perhaps being a priest of Salem he was the first that made the worship of God so publike and did not only by the generall influence of his power take order for the service and knowledge of God in severall Families but also gather severall assemblies of united Families and there publikely sacrifise and officiate in behalf of great and solemne Congregations wherein he might far exceed Abraham Howsoever its sufficient for my purpose that this he might doe by vertue of his Regall power and dignity without any further consecration or Sacerdotal instalment whatsoever And in this respect he was without predecessor and perhaps successor so that I think hee was the most lively and Honourable type of our Saviour for Aarons Order was Substitute and his consecration was performed by the hand of his Prince and Superiour and being so consecrated He did sacrifise not as a Prince but meerly as a Priest Whereas Melchisedeck received his Order from none but himselfe and so remayned not only independent but his service also being both Regall and Sacerdotall as our Saviours also was it was yet more Honorable in that it was Regall then in that it was Sacerdotall And this certainly sutes best with our Saviours Order for no Secular authority but his own did concurre in his inauguration hee was his owne Ancestor in this in that his owne Royall dignitie gave vertue to his Sacerdotall and though hee would not assume to himselfe the externall Function of Royalty in meer Secular things yet in this he would follow holy Melchisedeck But to passe from Melchisedeck within some few ages after wee finde the Scepter and Censor severed Wee finde no prints of great Empires before Moses for in small Countries we finde divers petty independant principalities and it may be imagin'd that neither true policie nor wicked tyranny was then knowne in such perfection as now it is The Israelites at their departure from Egypt were a great and formidable Nation as appeares by the combinations of many other Potentates against them yet at that time the weightie charges both of prince and priest were supported by Moses alone This was exceeding grievous till Jethro in civill affaires and till God himselfe in matters of Religion for his further ease took much of his laborious part from off his shoulders Subordinate Magistrates were now appointed in the State and priests and Levits in the Church the Nation being growne numerous and Ceremonies in Religion very various but wee must not think that Moses was hereby emptied or lesned of any of his Civill or Ecclesiasticall authoritie as he retained still Supremacie of power to himselfe in all things so that Supremacy became now the more awfull and Majesticall The poet says of waters Maxima per multos tenuantur flumina rivos And indeed did waters run backwards they would spend and diminish themselves by often divisions in their courses but we see that in their ordinary naturall Tracts many litle petty streams officiously hasten to discharge themselves into greater so that the more continued the course is the greater the streams ever grow It is so with power both in Church and State Sovereigntie is as the mayne Ocean of its vast abundance it feeds all and is fed by all as it is the fountain to enrich others so it is the Cisterne to receive and require back againe all the riches of others That which Moses parted with all and derived to others was for the better expedition both of pietie and justice that GOD might be more duly served that the people might be more quickly relieved and that his own shoulders might be the freelier disburdened for as a man hee could not intend universall businesse yet a Prince he might well superintend it in others And it is manifest that after the separation of the Priesthood he did still as superiour to Aaron in the most sacred things approach God in the Mountain to receive the
that vast spirituall power which He hath put into their hands yea according to that vast spirituall power so will God certainly require at their hands Let Princes know that preaching is not the onely meanes of salvation nor are Ministers the only Preachers nor that the Sacraments are therefore efficacious because the Clergy only may administer them Let them know that though Ministers call themselves only spirituall Persons and the Lot of God and the Church of Christ and put them into the number of Temporall and Lay-men and limit them to secular things yet God will not be so abused they must make an answer to him for things most spirituall and for the improvement of those graces and prerogatives which belong to Gods most beloved inheritance and honoured servants and neere Officers in his Church And let Ministers also on the other side learne to acknowledge that Character of Divinity which is so much more fairely stamped upon Princes than it is upon them and let them not rob Princes of that influence in sacred things which they of themselves can never injoy For as Princes shall answer for them if they imploy their power to the depression of Ministers so shall Ministers also answer for Princes if they cosen Princes out of their supreme power out of pretense that Gods message is so delivered to them Let Ministers assist Princes in their religious and spirituall offices as Aaron and Hur did Moses Let them not contend for supremacy in the highest offices of devotion but like humble servants let them account it their most supreme service to attend upon that supremacy Let them in the most glorious services of Religion looke upon Princes as Ioab did upon his Master in martiall exployts Let them be jealous of themselves that no part of honour due to the independent power of Princes may rest upon the secondary instruments but returne to the first and highest movers And thus shal more honour and sanctity passe from Ministers to Kings and more efficacy and vertue from Kings to Ministers and more grace and happinesse from both to the people Another occasion of mistake and error in Nazianzen and Bilson seemes to be that in comparing the great fruits of Princes and Priests in their severall functions they both speake of the whole order of Priest hood as if every Prince were therefore lesse spirituall or excellent than every Priest because all Priests in some things excell some Princes If we speak of a Prince and all the Clergy within his dominion perhaps we may say he is universis minor and yet he may be singulis major perhaps he may not doe so much good in the Church as all his Clergy yet he may doe more than a great number of them And yet for my part I am of opinion that all the Clergie are so dependent and borrow such vertue from the Kings supreme spirituality as I may so say that whatsoever good they doe they ought not to let the honour thereof terminate in them but returne to him upon whom they depend And now I thinke these things being made cleere that Princes are sacred in respect of their supreme rule and spirituall in respect of their spirituall rule and that Priests have no proper rule at al over mens spirits or in any Ecclesiasticall cases but derivative and subordinate to Princes I may conclude that there can be no office nor action so sacred upon Earth for which Princes are incompetent in respect of personall sanctity And therefore as it is most erroneous to argue that Princes are not capable of spirituall rule because their persons are not holy enough So it is most undenyably true and we may safely argue on the contrary that no mens persons can bee more holy than such as God hath honoured and intrusted with such supremacy of spirituall rule as He hath done Princes THe next argument which raises the Miter above the Diadem is drawne from the power of the Church in Excommunication and it is framed thus That supremacy which makes Princes to be above the Church and free from Ecclesiasticall censures is absurd but such is here maintained Ergo by the word Church may be meant the Catholike Church or some Nationall Church The Church Triumphant or the Church Militant th Church which was from the beginning and shall be to the end or the Church which now is We apply the Title of Head ship to Princes over no Churches but such as are under their present Dominions and that Head-ship we account subordinate to Christs and we allow with Saint Ambrose in some sense that the King is Intra and not supra Ecclesiam For he is not such an universall supreme Head as Christ is but is a member under Christ the Head Yet this impugnes not but that the King may in an other sense be both intra and supra as to his owne dominions for take the Church for Ecclesiasticall persons and so the King may governe all under Christ but take it for Ecclesiasticall graces and so the King may be subject He may be superior to Priests yet acknowledge inferiority to Scripture Sacraments c. And therefore with that of Ambrose that of Nazianzen may well stand Thou raignest King together with Christ Thou rulest together with him Thy sword is from him Thou art the Image of God And surely this is something more glorious than can be applyed in so proper and direct a sense to any Clergie-man whatsoever But let us briefly see what this spirituall sword of Excommunication is which the Church that is Church-men only clayme and wherewith they thinke they may as freely strike Princes as Princes may doe them with the temporall The grounds in Scripture for Excommunication are severall not all intending the same thing yet all are blended and confounded by Clergie-men to the same purpose wheras we ought to put a great difference betweene Excommunication and Non-communication and in Excommunication betweene that spirituall stroke and punishment which was ordinary in case of contempt and that which was extraordinary in cases of most hainous nature Non-communication may be supposed to have beene from the beginning and by common equity for Gemmes were never to be cast to Swines nor the priviledges and Treasures of the Church to bee imparted to such as were enemies and strangers to the Church Heathens and Publicans hated the Religion of the Iewes and therefore it was hatefull to the Iewes to communicate with them either in matters of Religion or in offices of friendship The Iewes did not forbeare all civill conversing with them but all familiarity they did forbeare and yet the forbearance of familiarity was no proper punishment to them Nor was it a thing spiritually inflicted by authority but by generall and naturall consent practised So men of the same nature as Publicans and Heathens now viz. such as hold our Religion contemptible or whose profession is scandalous to Religion they ought to be to us as they were to the Iewes to mingle
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