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 vir que 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 from theſe Tenets, but becauſe many of them, eſpecially Clergimen do not wholly diſſent from all the grounds of theſe Tenets, therefore they alſo doe partake in ſome errours, and abſurdities of the like nature: One Scotiſt ſays, That Mountague, and our learnedeſt Proteſtant Divines, nay, even Rainolds himſelfe though otherwiſe a Puritan, yet they all hold, that there is due to the King, no ſpirituall but only a temporall rule over perſons and cauſes Eccleſiaſticall, and that alſo by accident for the common peace ſake. Hee ſayes alſo that in his preſence at a Cambridge Commencement, the chiefe Biſhop was called Maximus Pater, and that it was maintained that the care of ſpirituall things did appertain to the chiefe Biſhop, and of temporall to the King, and whereas it was at laſt concluded that all was to be governed by the King, yet he ſayes queſtionleſs the intent was civilitèr, not ſpiritualitèr. And if wee look back to the primitives we ſhal find that in good times before Popery had any conſiderable growth Kings for penance were enjoyned to kneele to Prieſts, and were not admitted to have ſeats in the Chancell neere the Altar, no not amongſt the Deacons: but were ſometimes ſubjected to heavie and ſharp cenſures of Biſhops, and ſometimes ſtrucke with the thunderbolt of Excommunication it ſelf. And we ſhall find that the Name Church was applyed in common ſpeech to Churchmen only, and the Name Spiritualitie was taken in the ſame ſenſe, as if all other perſons had beene ſtrangers to the Church, and had beene of a meere Temporall and Secular condition: and by the name Clergie it was intimated to the World, that the Sacerdotall function was the only lot and patrimony of God: and theſe uſages were ab antiquo. And wee ſhall finde that the holieſt and learnedeſt Fathers of the Church did ſeeme to preferre the Mitre before the Diademe, and to dream of a Spirituall Empire belonging to Prieſts more worthy and ſacred then that of Emperours. And therefore Gregory of Nazianzen in a Sermon before the Emperour ſays thus to him: The Law of Chriſt hath committed you to my Charge, and to my Pulpit: for we rule alſo and ours is a more excellent and perfect regiment. And comparing further the rule of Prieſts with the rule of Princes, Hee cals the one ſpirituall the other fleſhly, and concludes that the ſpirit ought not to give place to the fleſh, nor heavenly things to earthly. What hee meant here by giving place, whether hee meant it of externall ſubmiſsion, or internall awe I cannot tell: but he left it uncertain. To the ſame purpoſe that of Ambroſe tends alſo: Thinke not, O Emperour, that thou haſt any right over divine things: for the Palace is for the Emperour, but Churches for Prieſts. And that alſo of Athanaſius, Its neither lawfull for us to hold a Kingdome upon earth: nor haſt thou O Emperour power over ſacred things. Wee ſee they ſpeake of their Miniſtery and Eccleſiaſticall vocation as of a ſovereigntie, and rule, and that more ſacred, then that of Princes, of which Princes were not worthy, or capable. And to paſſe by the blinde times of Popery wherein upon theſe grounds the Roman Biſhops inthralled a great part of Chriſtendome with temporall bondage, wee ſhall finde alſo that ſince the abjuration of Romiſh ſervitude, yet Proteſtant Miniſters themſelves have aſſumed a ſanctitie more then is due. The Kings Supremacie or Headſhip over the Eccleſiaſticall or Spirituall State, Hee being accounted but meerly temporall in compariſon of Prieſts is as ill wiſhed by many Calviniſts, as by Papiſts, their word is of Secular Princes, Iſtis non competit iſte Primatus. And as Sir Thomas More ſuffered death in teſtimony of his diſlike, ſo Calvin himſelfe condemnes this Realme of Blaſphemy for entitling Henry the Eighth Supreme Head of the Church here under Chriſt. And not only the Name, but the power it ſelfe which wee give to Civill Magiſtrates he proteſteth againſt, as that which had wounded him deeply, Princes being made thereby too ſpirituall, hee complaineth that this fault did raigne throughout Germany, and in ſome parts of France, to the taking away of Spirituall Regiment, whilſt Princes were made chiefe Judges as well in matters of doctrine as diſcipline.

Hence it is that all which follow Calvin, which is almoſt the generality of Proteſtants, beſides Papiſts, hold Princes incompetent for ſpirituall Regencie, accounting the intermedling of Princes therein as an abolition, or prophanation of the ſame.

And hence it is, that our contrary faction of Hierarchiſts alſo, deny the Kings Supremacie in Spiritualibus, though not in Eccleſiaſticis, and our Prelats Style is providentia divina, not gratiâ Regis, and as they iſſue Writs in their own Names, ſo they uſe their owne armes in their Seales, and not the Kings. And wee know it was my Lord of Canterburies induſtry of late to procure a Commiſsion about five yeeres ſince, that all Biſhops Courts might proceed without any ſubordination or dependency to any other of the Kings Courts. So that though they complaine of the Presbyterian Diſcipline, and the doctrine of Calvin as injurious to Princes, yet they themſelves ſeeme to be of the ſame confederacie.

But that I may not ſeem to miſreport, or miſinterpret any, I will cite only two Divines of prime note, both defenders of Supremacie. Hooker ſpeaking of that dutifull ſubjection which is due from all Chriſtians to the Paſtors of their ſouls in reſpect of their ſacred Order, affirmes that the ſame is as due from Kings and Princes, as from their meaneſt vaſſals. Reverence due to the Word, and Sacraments, and to Gods Ordinances is not here meant, for that is as due from Prieſts themſelves alſo, as from any other, it is meant of reverence due to the perſons of Prieſts, & this he cals ſubjection, and challenges as due in reſpect of their ſacred Order. And ſo Bilſon deſcanting upon the words of Nazianzen, after a comparative manner (as Hooker did) inferres thereupon, that Prieſts have a greater and perfecter regiment then Princes: For (ſayes he) Prieſts governe the ſouls of men, and diſpenſe the myſteries of God, whereas Princes are ſet to rule the bodies of men, and to diſpoſe the things of this life, &c. Hee does not compare the offices but the Regiments of Prieſts and Princes, and hee averres as confidently that Prieſts governe the ſouls, and exerciſe dominion over the ſpirits of Chriſtians, as that Princes have no power at all, but over the bodies and temporalities of their Subjects. And for theſe cauſes the Croſier is generally preferred in Honour, and Sanctitie, before the Scepter: to detect therefore the errour of Divines herein, I will now truly produce, and throughly poize thoſe arguments which they moſt rely upon. The firſt argument runs thus. Spirituall things are not to be managed, and treated, but only by ſpirituall perſons: but Princes are not ſpirituall, Ergo. Wee muſt firſt underſtand here what is meant by ſpirituall things, and ſpirituall perſons. If by ſpirituall things here, ſuch things are meant as appertain to God and to Religion, and as concerne Gods ſervice in the Church, and the welfare of the ſouls and ſpirits of men; ſo all men have a ſpirituall charge in generall: for all men by their generall callings are ſervants to God, and are not only bound to provide for their owne ſouls, but to promote alſo the worſhip of God, and the ſalvation of other men. And in this reſpect that man which is moſt pious, is moſt holy, and ſpirituall, and moſt acceptable to God, and though his condition be but private here in this World, yet his reward in Heaven may be more glorious, then theirs who have publike Offices and Dignities here, and whoſe particular callings are farre more ſacred. But beſides this internall holineſſe of perſons viſible only to God, there is an externall, politicall holineſſe alſo of perſons which ariſes from our particular Functions in this World, and the meaſure of this holineſſe, is the profit and conſequence of our profeſſions, and employments. The Regall and Sacerdotall Offices have ever beene held comparatively of all other the moſt holy, and worſhipfull, and the reaſon is becauſe of all others they are the moſt advantagious, and of moſt extenſive benefit to the people of God. And therefore the perſon is alwayes valued according to the function, and the function according to its benefit, and not on the contrary: The man is Honourable becauſe hee is a King, and the King is honourable becauſe He is the Conſervator of the people: and of this reaſon of Honour man is able to Judge. God accepts of ſuch a man to ſerve him in ſuch an honourable place; the place is not here honourable▪ becauſe He ſerves in it, but he is Honourable becauſe the place is profitable: and though of Gods meere acceptance of the perſon no reaſon can be given, yet there is great reaſon that all men ſhould bee Honourable with men, as they are acceptable with God. God honoured the Iſraelites before other Nations; they were a royall Prieſthood in compariſon of Heathens, becauſe God by his peculiar choice of them to his ſervice did give them that more then regall, or more then Sacerdotall priviledge. The Iſraelites in condition were more contemptible, and in diſpoſition more incorrible than other Nations, but becauſe God ſeparates them they are holy, and becauſe God ſeparates them to ſerve him according to his pure will, they are holy as Princes, and Prieſts. Chriſtians alſo may now be termed Princes and Prieſts in compariſon of the Iews in as much as God of his free pleaſure is now more extenſive and diffuſive of his graces amongſt us, that we may adore him more ingenuouſly, more intelligently, and more comfortably then the Jews did: and in the like manner amongſt Chriſtians, Princes and Prieſts are yet higher elevated above common laymen, in as much as they have neerer acceſſe to God at the Throne and at the Altar, and by their more ſublime employments are more highly dignified, & more honorably conſecrated. With the Prince and the Prieſt no man will enter into any cōpetition, but the cōpetition now being between the Prince & the prieſt, we muſt ſearch into the nature of this political ſanctitie, that we may the better diſtinguiſh its de-grees. Calvin wee ſee complains, that the perſons of Princes are made too ſpirituall, by our appropriating to them ſpirituall authoritie: becauſe hee holds that authority too ſpirituall for their perſons. The ſame thing is here the reaſon of the ſame thing; ſpirituall offices and ſervices belong not to Princes, becauſe their perſons are not ſpirituall: and why are their perſons not ſpirituall? becauſe their offices, and ſervices are not ſpirituall. This is unjuſt and unſcholaſticall: againſt the perſon no exception lies, but ſuch as is drawn from the function; the perſon is coruſcant only by the rayes of the function: they which wil prove Kings to be not ſpiritual, muſt firſt prove their offices to be meerly temporall, and not on the contrary. Such proofs as infirme the Kings power, and intereſt in ſpiritualibus are proper, ſuch proofs let us heare. Ambroſe, and Athanaſius indeed ſay directly, that Emperours have no right over divine things, nor power over ſacred things: but they are very briefe, and give no reaſon for their allegations, nor doe they leave us ſatisfied in their true meanings. The perſons and offices of Kings were ever held ſacred, and if that which is ſacred be not ſpirituall, it were good that the difference were ſet forth between them. Palaces are for Princes, and Temples for Prieſts: but palaces are not the ſole intereſt of Princes, ſo as that they are excluded thereby from all power in Temples: nor is this a good reſult, becauſe prieſts may not move in the Civill Orbe, therefore Princes may not in the Eccleſiaſticall. But Nazianzen is more full, and expreſſive of his reaſons, and thoſe reaſons alſo are further preſſed by Biſhop Bilſon, let us bend our forces thither. Nazianzen concludes the regiment of Prieſts to be more perfect, and excellent then that of Princes, and compares it to that of the ſoule over the body, becauſe things committed to the prieſts charge are heavenly and ſpirituall, whereas Kings (he ſayes) have in their power things earthly, and bodi • y. He takes three things here for granted, Firſt, that the office of a Prieſt is as properly and truly a power, and rule, as that of Princes. Secondly, that the rule of Princes extends only to earthly things. Thirdly, whatſoever may be ſpoken of the whole order of Prieſthood, that he applyes to every particular Prieſt. And thus hee ſeems to attribute a greater ſanctitie not only intenſive, but extenſive alſo, to any prieſt, then to any Prince. The gloſſe of Bilſon alſo hereupon is: That Prieſts governe the ſouls of men, and diſpenſe the myſteries of God, whereas Princes are ſet to rule the bodies of their Subjects, and to diſpoſe the things of this life. And therefore if the fruits and effects of their callings be compared, the Preachers (he ſayes) paſses that of Princes by many degrees of excellence and perfection: God giving earthly food, and peace by the Prince, but heavenly grace and life by the Word and Sacraments; which wee receive from the mouthes, and hands of his Meſſengers. As to externall power, and corporall compulſion: So Preachers are ſervants to their brethren, Princes are Lords over them. Preachers may reprove & threaten, but Princes muſt ſeize the goods, and chaſtiſe the bodies of offenders. Preaches may ſhut the gates of Heaven againſt non-repentants: Princes muſt root them from the face of the earth, and inflict the juſt vengeance of their ſins in this world. And whereas the Princes and Preachers functions concurre in ghoſtly and heavenly things, that the Preacher declareth, and the Prince eſtabliſheth the word of truth: yet the Preachers ſervice in theſe caſes excelleth the Princes: for that the word in the Preachers mouth ingendreth faith and winneth the ſoule unto God to ſerve him with a willing minde, whereas the Sword in the Princes hand ſtriketh only a terrour into men to refraine the outward act, but reformeth not the ſecrets of the heart. This is Bilſon's ſenſe, and I thinke the ſenſe of almoſt all our Divines: by this is Nazianzen fully ſeconded and abetted, for firſt, the true and proper rule of prieſts is not only aſſerted, but alſo explained, for it gives grace and life by the Word and Sacraments, it reproves and threatens, it ſhuts the gate of Heaven againſt Non-repentants. Secondly, the rule of princes is leſned, and that by this inſtance: for that the preacher winneth ſoules to a willing ſervice, but the prince by externall terrour reſtraineth only from the outward act of ſin. And thirdly, his compariſon is indefinite, betweene Prince, and preacher, that which is implyed of Prieſt in generall, hee ſeemeth to apply to every prieſt in particular. I muſt frame my anſwer to every particular. Power and Dominion of it ſelfe is divine, and adde but infinite, or abſolute to it, it is Divinitie it ſelfe. Nothing is more deſirable to man, or more adequate to the aymes of intelligent creatures then power▪ the Angels in Heaven are known to us by the Names of Thrones, and Principalities, Heaven it ſelf is knowne to us by the name of a Kingdome: and our beſt devotion to God conſiſts in aſcribing to him, honour, worſhip, ſubjection, &c. and the firſt and greateſt ſin of men and Angels, was an aſpiring to undue Power, and excellence. Abſolute perfection and bleſſedneſſe is the Unitie of the Godhead, and that Unitie muſt needs ſubſiſt in abſolute power, abſolute wiſdome, and abſolute goodneſſe. Abſolute power alſo in order of Nature (according to mans underſtanding) as a Father gives being to abſolute wiſdome: as both give being to abſolute Goodneſſe. Whatſoever is in God muſt needs be God, and of the ſame ſubſtance indiviſible, and ſo infinite wiſdome, and infinite Goodneſſe, muſt needs be coeternall, and conſubſtantiall with infinite power: yet this excludes not all order of diſtinction; and according to order of diſtinction it is more proportionable to our capacitie, that infinite Wiſdome ſhould derive its divine generation from infinite power, then infinite power from infinite Wiſdome. Unitie of perfect bleſſedneſſe cannot comprehend any thing more then this Trinity, neither can it comprehend any thing leſſe: and therfore though this word Trinity cannot have any relation to the eſſence of God, or to his works ad extra, which flow from the eſſence, yet to his perſons it may, and to his internall operations, wherein one perſon is more generative then another. And according to theſe internal operations of the Deitie we ought (to ſpeak after the manner of men) to aſcribe prioritie of Order to infinite power, the firſt perſon of the Godhead, in as much as wee cannot conceive but that God is rather wiſe, as he is powerfull, and Good as hee is both powerfull, and wiſe: then that hee is powerfull, as hee is wiſe, or wiſe, and powerfull, as he is good. Having premiſed theſe things in generall concerning power, and dominion, and the excellence thereof, I am come now to ſee what that power and Dominion is which Churchmen clayme to themſelves. Our Hierarchiſts uſe the words Power and regiment to deſcribe all their actions, and employments: the Power of Order, the Power of Juriſdiction, the Power of the Word and Sacraments, and the Power of the Keys, all their ſpirituall Offices, and Faculties are expreſſed in commanding, and high terms, that they may ſeem to owe no ſubordination, or dependence to any above themſelves. And this art they further uſe, when they would prove the excellence of their ſpirituall rule, they derive it from preaching, and the ſubordinate Offices of the Miniſtery, but when they would exerciſe their rule, then they alleage that to rule over Preachers is more, & greater then to preach: becauſe the ſpirits of men are properly ſubject to no rule; and becauſe preaching▪ though it be one of Gods moſt effectuall Ordinances, yet is no proper rule but a ſervice rather: therefore they lay hold of Eccleſiaſticall juridiction for proofe of their holy ſpirituall rule. And yet becauſe Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction is of it ſelfe no ſuch divine ſublime thing, as the miniſtration of the Word, and Sacraments, nor ſo incompetent for Princes, as to the uſe of it, therefore their proofs are chiefly grounded upon the ordinances of the Word and Sacraments: but this ſlight impoſture cannot ſo delude us: for either Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction is more ſacred and ſpirituall then the miniſtration of the Word, and Sacraments, or not; if it be, then theſe arguments drawne from the Word and Sacraments are impertinent: The queſtion is whether Princes be capable of ſuch juriſdiction or not, and this proves not the incapacity of Princes, this only proves the honour of ſuch capacitie: but on the other ſide, if it be not, yet there is the ſame impertinence, for if prieſts challenge to themſelves power in things more excellent, and holy, this excludes not Princes from things leſſe excellent, and holy: but wee ſhall not need to ſtick here.

The papiſts themſelves doe acknowledge, that to preach, &c. is leſſe then to rule, and to preſcribe Laws to preachers, &c. and Bilſon makes a plaine confeſſion, that the Sacerdotall Office is rather Miniſteriall, then Imperiall, and that ſuch reverence and ſubjection as is due in ſpirituall affaires from Princes is not due to the perſons of prieſts, but to the Ordinances of God, and to the graces of the Church: For (ſays hee) the word is to be ſubmitted to in the mouths of Prophets, and the Ordinances are to be honoured in the adminiſtration of Prieſts, but the perſons of Prophets, and Prieſts, muſt not be objects to terminate this ſubmiſsion, and honour. God is to be honoured in the ſervice of his Miniſters, not the Miniſters in Gods ſtead: for in theſe ſervices there is the ſame honour due to GOD from Miniſters themſelves, as from Lay-men. And therefore wee ſee if the greater Prieſt heare the word, &c. from the leſſe, this does not ſanctifie the leſſe above the greater, as it would, if ſanctitie did reſt in the perſon, and not in the Ordinance, or if it did not paſſe from the actor, or inſtrument, to the Author and Ordainer himſelfe. I thinke wee may therefore proceed now from this, that power, and Government is a thing in it ſelfe moſt awfull and honourable, to this: that the trueſt owners thereof next under God, whom the Church ever look't upon as Gods immediate Vicegerents, and Deputies thereof, are Princes. Saint Peter 1. 2. writing to the Church in the time of a Heathen, and impious Emperour, commands every ſoul to be ſubject to the higher powers. He acknowledges power in a very Nero, and that to be the higher power, and to that higher power of that Nero he ſubjects every ſoule Chriſtian and Heathen, Prieſt and Laymen. For the ſame cauſe alſo the primitives in Tertullians mouth make this humble profeſſion: Colimus imperatorem, ut hominem à Deo ſecundum, & ſolo Deo minorem: & this profeſſion was made under the Reign of wicked Emperours, to whom in Eccleſiaſticall affaires more might be denied, then to ours: for though Reges, in quantum Reges ſerviunt Deo, as Saint Auguſtine ſayes, yet in quantum pii Reges, they ſerve God the more gloriouſly, and have a neerer acceſſe to God, and in that reſpect it may bee more truly ſaid of them, that they are à Deo ſecundi, & ſolo Deo minores: and if ſo, how awfull and venerable muſt this render their perſons, and with what ſubmiſſion muſt we proſtrate our ſelves at their ſacred feet? and that it may not ſeeme ſtrange that meer power and rule in an unbelieving or wicked Prince ſhould be ſo ſacred and inviolable, wee muſt take notice that the wickedneſſe of Princes in ill commands though it diſcharge us as to thoſe ill commands, yet it does not diſcharge their power or rule either in thoſe, or in any other: For when Princes rule well, they are to be obeyed, when ill, they are to be endured, and this very indurance is an effect of obedience and ſubjection. Peter as a Citizen of the Common-wealth is a ſervant to Nero, and though in the meere conſideration of a Chriſtian, Hee has not dependance upon Nero further then is to be teſtified by ſuffering under him in ill commands, yet in all civill things, and things indifferent, his dependance remayns undiſſolved. If Nero forbid Peter to preach, contradicting God herein, whoſe power is ſtill tranſcendent, this prohibition binds not Peter, but if Nero uſe the Sword hereupon againſt Peter, this ſword is irreſiſtible, becauſe though in this it be injurious, in other things it is ſtill ſacred. This one violence of Nero is tyrannous, but the authority whereby this is done is not tyranny; For the ſame ſword which offends one defends many ſtill, and if one here be defended, many muſt be offended, and the good of many is to be preferred before the good of one. And yet if God had made Peter ſupreame Judge of ſuch caſes, and had given him a power independent, it had been neceſſary that he had given him withall ſome remedie, and ſufficient means to ſupport the ſame Supremacy & independent right: for God gives no man an abſolute right without ſome proper remedy appertaining to the ſame. The uſe of power is not to intreat, or perſwade only, for theſe may bee done without power, but to command, and commands are vaine without compulſion, and they which may not compell, may not command, and they which cannot command, may not meddle at all except to intreat, or perſwade. Power then there muſt be, and that power muſt be ſomewhere ſupreame that it may command all good, and puniſh all evill, or elſe it is inſufficient, and if all, then in religious as well as in civill caſes, for Supremacie may be ſeverally exerciſed, but the right of it cannot be ſeverally enjoyed: if Peter may doe more then perſwade Nero, the Scepter is Peters not Neroes; if hee may doe no more, he is as meer a ſubject as any other Layman: but in whetherſoever the power of commanding reſts, it cannot reſt in both, the Scepter cannot be ſhared, independence cannot be divided: the people cannot obey both as equall Judges whilſt their judgments remain contrary, nor ſerve both as equal Lords whilſt their commands are contrary. To perſwade and intreat in Miniſters, are the offices of a bleſſed vocation, but they are not properly Enſigns of Royaltie, and power: and if the ſpirits of men are ſomtimes moved, & won by the perſwaſions of Miniſters, as they may by other means, yet captivated, and commanded they cannot be: and therefore if this be called power, it is but imaginary, and improper, and ſuch as ought not to enter into any compariſon, or rivalitie with that ſolid, ſenſible, coercive, binding power wherewith God has inveſted his true Lievtenants upon earth. That power which is proper, muſt include not only a right of commanding, but alſo an effectuall vertue of forcing obedience to its commands, and of ſubjecting and reducing ſuch, as ſhall not render themſelves obedient. The ſupreame civill Magiſtrate has this power grounded upon the common conſent of Mankinde, and as ſtrong as is the politicall conſent of humane nature in its ſupream Law of publike conſervation, ſo vigorous, and invincible is this power. Had Prieſts any ſuch power or ſword, we ſhould ſoon ſee it, and feele it, and voluntarily ſtoop under it: but ſince they can pretend to none ſuch, the meere noyſe of an imaginary ſpirituall power and ſword muſt not deceive us. The ſword muſt be of ſympathy and proportion anſwerable to thoſe commands for which it was ordained, if the commands be externall and politicall, the ſword muſt not be inviſible, and meerly ſpirituall. If the Pope can impoſe an oath upō us to ſtand to his laws, and to obey his awards, our obedience being here politicall, his power of impoſing Oaths muſt be the like; for if he pretend a right, and have no remedy, that is no power; & if he have a remedy that is not of the ſame nature with his command, it will prove no remedy, it will be found vain and uneffectuall. Wee cannot thinke that God has given the Pope any power but for good, and wee cannot think that power good, whereby the Pope may deſtroy Millions of ſouls, and yet cannot reclayme, or convince one. The Popes commands ſeeme to mee unreaſonable, unnaturall, impious, the Pope herein ha's no ſpirituall power to rectifie mee, or to diſcover my errour to me, or to procure obedience from me, that power which he ha's over my ſoule is only to exclude it from heaven, and to give it as a prey to Satan, for not attributing more to him then to my own conſcience, and naturall light. Can wee think that God gave this new Power, never before knowne, to theſe latter days out of mercy, that all except one handfull of men ſhould periſh by it, and none at all receive benefit by it? It cannot be ſaid that the ſame keys which ſhut heaven to ſo many, open heaven to any one: for thoſe few which obey the Pope, obey him either voluntarily, or by conſtraint: and they which are conſtrained, obey him as a Prince, not as a Prieſt, and bow under his temporall, not ſpirituall yoke: howſoever it be otherwiſe pretended. Voluntary obedience alſo is ſuch as is rendred without any externall influence from the Pope; For the will is capable of no compulſion, and if it were, my will would be as lyable to the ſame as any other mans: and if the Pope may compell my will, and ſo open Heaven to me (as it were) by his ſpirituall keys, and will not, tis his crueltie, not my contumacie. Its no glory to the Pope, that ſome few by blinde voluntary obedience acknowledge the power of his keyes, in this hee has no advantage of Mahomet, that ſword which was ſo victorious in the hand of Mahomet, was as ſpirituall, and as univerſally prevalent as the Popes. So much of the imaginary rule and ſpiritual ſword of Prieſts, as alſo of the reall effectuall dominion of Princes, I ſhall now prove further, that the ſword of Kings if it be not ſo ſpirituall, as the Pope pretends, to cut off ſouls; yet it is more then temporall, and extends to things moſt ſpirituall. The Founders and Patriarchs of the World before the Law of Moſes, did not only governe the Church, but alſo execute all paſtorall, ſpirituall Offices as they were Princes, and Supream Potentates within their own limits: they did not governe men as they were the Prieſts of God, but they did ſacrifice and officiate before God, as they were the Heads, and Governours of men. In thoſe times it was not held uſurpation, or intruſion upon prieſts, for Princes to ſacrifice with their own hands, or to teach the will of God with their own mouthes; it would have been held preſumption if any elſe had attempted the like, and a diſhonour to Gods ſervice. Nature then taught that the moſt excellent perſon was moſt fit for Gods ſervice in the Church, and that no perſon could be more excellent, then hee which ſerved God in the Throne. The word prieſt now may have divers acceptions. In ſome ſenſe whole Nations have been called prieſts, viz. comparatively, and in ſome ſenſe all Fathers of Children, and Maſters of Servants are in the nature of prieſts, and in more uſuall ſenſe all Princes, ſo farre as they have charge and cure of ſouls, and are intruſted with Divine Service within their ſeverall commands, are more ſupereminently taken for prieſts: but the moſt uſuall ſenſe is this. A Prieſt is hee which hath cure of Souls, and a truſt of Gods worſhip by a more peculiar kinde of publike and politike conſecration and dedication thereunto: of ſuch conſecration, or ordination, before Aaron, we read nothing, and for ought I ſee, we are bound to believe nothing. Melchiſideck was a pious man, a devout Father, a religious Maſter, nay, a zealous Prince and Commander, but in all theſe reſpects hee had no priviledge nor right to the denomination of prieſt more then Adam, Sem, Noah, &c. had. You will ſay then how is that denomination given him ſo peculiarly? This denomination might be given not by reaſon of any externall, formall, ceremoniall Unction, or impoſition of hands, or any other ſolemne Dedication or ſeparation before men: but in this reſpect, that he did perhaps publikely officiate in the preſence of all his Subjects, and perhaps in behalfe of all his ſubjects, and this is a higher and bleſſeder Sacerdotall Office, then any we read of in his predeceſſors or ſucceſſors till Aarons dayes. It is probable that God was ſerved in Families before Aaron, and perhaps there were ſolemne days and Feaſts, which all Families by joynt conſent did in ſeverall places dedicate to Gods ſervice by ſtrict obſervance of the ſame, but that any publike places were appointed for whole Congregations to joyne and meet publikely in under the charge and function of any one publike Prieſt, till Aaron is not ſpecified. This only we may gueſſe by the ſpeciall name of prieſt applied to Melchiſedeck, that perhaps being a prieſt of Salem, he was the firſt that made the worſhip of God ſo publike: and did not only by the generall influence of his power take order for the ſervice and knowledge of God in ſeverall Families, but alſo gather ſeverall aſſemblies of united Families, and there publikely ſacrifiſe and officiate in behalf of great, and ſolemne Congregations: wherein he might far exceed Abraham. Howſoever its ſufficient for my purpoſe, that this he might doe by vertue of his Regall power and dignity without any further conſecration or Sacerdotal inſtalment whatſoever. And in this reſpect he was without predeceſſor, and perhaps ſucceſſor, ſo that I think hee was the moſt lively and Honourable type of our Saviour: for Aarons Order was Subſtitute, and his conſecration was performed by the hand of his Prince and Superiour, and being ſo conſecrated, He did ſacrifiſe, not as a Prince but meerly as a Prieſt. Whereas Melchiſedeck received his Order from none but himſelfe, and ſo remayned not only independent, but his ſervice alſo being both Regall and Sacerdotall, as our Saviours alſo was, it was yet more Honorable in that it was Regall, then in that it was Sacerdotall. And this certainly ſutes beſt with our Saviours Order, for no Secular authority but his own did concurre in his inauguration, hee was his owne Anceſtor in this, in that his owne Royall dignitie gave vertue to his Sacerdotall: and though hee would not aſſume to himſelfe the externall Function of Royalty in meer Secular things, yet in this he would follow holy Melchiſedeck. But to paſſe from Melchiſedeck, within ſome few ages after wee finde the Scepter and Cenſor ſevered; Wee finde no prints of great Empires before Moſes, for in ſmall Countries we finde divers petty independant principalities: and it may be imagin'd that neither true policie, nor wicked tyranny was then knowne in ſuch perfection, as now it is. The Iſraelites at their departure from Egypt were a great and formidable Nation, as appeares by the combinations of many other Potentates againſt them, yet at that time the weightie charges both of prince and prieſt were ſupported by Moſes alone. This was exceeding grievous till Jethro in civill affaires, and till God himſelfe in matters of Religion, for his further eaſe, took much of his laborious part from off his ſhoulders; Subordinate Magiſtrates were now appointed in the State, and prieſts and Levits in the Church, the Nation being growne numerous, and Ceremonies in Religion very various: but wee muſt not think that Moſes was hereby emptied, or leſned of any of his Civill, or Eccleſiaſticall authoritie: as he retained ſtill Supremacie of power to himſelfe in all things, ſo that Supremacy became now the more awfull, and Majeſticall. The poet ſays of waters, Maxima per multos tenuantur flumina rivos.

And indeed did waters run backwards they would ſpend and diminiſh themſelves by often diviſions in their courſes: but we ſee that in their ordinary naturall Tracts many litle petty ſtreams officiouſly haſten to diſcharge themſelves into greater, ſo that the more continued the courſe is, the greater the ſtreams ever grow. It is ſo with power both in Church and State: Sovereigntie is as the mayne Ocean, of its vaſt abundance it feeds all, and is fed by all, as it is the fountain to enrich others, ſo it is the Ciſterne to receive and require back againe all the riches of others. That which Moſes parted with all and derived to others was for the better expedition both of pietie and juſtice, that GOD might be more duly ſerved, that the people might be more quickly relieved, and that his own ſhoulders might be the freelier disburdened: for as a man hee could not intend univerſall buſineſſe: yet a Prince he might well ſuperintend it in others. And it is manifeſt that after the ſeparation of the Prieſthood, he did ſtill as ſuperiour to Aaron in the moſt ſacred things approach God in the Mountain to receive the cuſtodie of the Law from Gods hand, and to receive Orders from God for the Tabernacle, and all religious ſervices, and did performe the act of conſecration to Prieſts, and did always conſult with God by Prieſts, and command all men as well Prieſts, and Levits, as other men. Hooker and Bilſon, and I thinke moſt of our Divines doe confeſſe not only this, that Moſes retained all Eccleſiaſticall Supremacie to himſelfe, but that hee left the ſame alſo to his Succeſſours. Hooker ſayes that by the ſame ſupreame power David, Aſa, Jehoſaphat, Joſias, &c. made thoſe Lawes and Statutes (mentioned in ſacred Hiſtory) touching matters of meer Religion, the affairs of the Temple, and ſervice of God. And by vertue of this power the piety and impietie of the King did alwayes change the publike face of Religion, which the Prophets by themſelves never did, nor could hinder from being done. And yet if Prieſts alone had bin poſſeſt of all ſpirituall power, no alteration in Religion could have beene made without them, it had not beene in the King, but in Prieſts to change the face of Religion. And the making of Eccleſiaſticall Lawes alſo with other like actions pertayning to the power of dominion had ſtill been recorded for the acts of Prieſts, and not of Kings: whereas we now find the contrary. Hooker ſays this and more, and Bilſon ſayes not one jot leſſe. Hee confeſſes the Jewiſh Kings were charged with matters of Religion, and the cuſtodie of both Tables, nay, publiſhing, preſerving, executing points of Law concerning the firſt table hee aſſignes as the principall charge committed to Kings, as Kings, Religion being the foundation of policy. Hee inſtances alſo in the good Kings of Iudah, who as they were bound, ſo they were commended for their dutie by God himſelfe, in removing Idols, purging abominations, reforming Prieſts, renewing the covenant, and compelling all Prieſts, Prophets, people, to ſerve God ſincerely. Many of the learnedeſt papiſts doe not gainſay this evident truth, and therefore Stapleton being I ſuppoſe fully convinced of it, ſeekes to anſwer and avoid it another way.

But I proceed to the times of thraldome, wherein the Iews were governed by the Perſians. How far the Iews were left in Babylon to the free exerciſe of their own Religion is uncertain, it may be conceived that their condition was not always alike under all Kings, but generally that they found more favour there, then Chriſtians did afterwards under the Roman Emperours: before this time there is no probability of Excommunication, or any ſpirituall Judicature, wee reade nothing of Maranathaes, or Anathemaes, but now perhaps ſome ſuch government might take place: for where no peculiar conſecrated Miniſtery is, the Magiſtrate is fitteſt to officiate before God, and where no Magiſtracie is permitted Miniſters are fitteſt to preſerve order. Some Papiſts that wil undertake to prove any thing out of any thing alleage Cain as an inſtance of Excom. as if Adam were ſo a Prieſt, as that hee were no Prince, and had power to excommunicate in caſe of ſo horrid a murder, but not to execute any other Law: or as if Moſes would proceed againſt adultery by temporall puniſhment, when Adam had proceeded againſt murther by ſpiritual: but not to inſiſt longer upon theſe conjecturall paſſages, I come to our Saviours days, & his government alſo being Regal, as wel as Sacerdotall, nay, being rather divine then either, I ſhal not ſtay there neither. Our mayn ſtrife is how the Apoſtles & their ſucceſſors governed after his Aſcention during the times of perſecution: but little need to be ſaid hereof: For in Scripture wee finde the Apoſtles themſelves very humble, and unlordly, and tranſacting all things (according to our Saviours command and example) rather by perſwaſion, and evidence of the ſpirit, then by command and conſtraint, and if any difference was between a Biſhop and a Prieſt, it was in outward eminence or majoritie very ſmall: and the very termes themſelves were promiſcuouſly applyed. In the next enſuing times alſo wee finde by ancient Teſtimony, that Omnia communi Clericorum conſilio agebantur: and after that Epiſcopacy had gotten ſome footing, yet, as another ancient teſtimony informes us, except â Ordinatione, ſetting Ordination only aſide it challenged no priviledge above Presbyters: but as I have ſaid before, whatſoever authority did reſide in the Clergie whilſt temporal rule was wanting to the Church, and whilſt miraculous power of binding and looſing ſinners, and of opening and ſhutting Heaven was ſupplyed by the Holy Ghoſt for the emergent neceſſity of thoſe times, the reaſon thereof no longer remayning, it ought now to remayne no longer as it did, but to devolve againe into the Tempor • ll Rulers hands; from whence it was not taken by Chriſt, but where it was then abuſed, and made unprofitable by the owners themſelves. If wee doe imagine that Timothy and Titus had Epiſcopall power, and by that Epiſcopall power did ſend out proceſſes, and keep Courts, and holds pleas of all Teſtamentary, and Matrimoniall Cauſes, and Tithes, Faſts and all other which our Biſhops now clayme; and did redreſſe all grievances for the preventing of confuſion in the Church, during the malignity of Secular power; if wee take all this for granted, though it be ſome thing too large to be granted, yet ſtill wee ought to conceive that this power was conferred upon them not in derogation of Secular authoritie, but for neceſſities ſake, till Secular authority ſhould againe come in, and undertake the ſame offices, which Timothy and Titus were now to performe: when confuſion cannot otherwiſe bee prevented, Timothy and Titus ſhall governe, but when it may be prevented by that authoritie which is moſt competent, and when more perfect order ſhall bee more naturally and juſtly induced, what injury is this to Timothy or Titus? Why rather is it not an eaſe and comfort to them, that they have now leaſure more ſeriouſly to attend their own proper function, and miniſtration? Hookers owne words are, if from the approbation of Heaven the Kings of GODS own choſen people had in the affaires of the Jewiſh Religion ſupreame power, why ſhould not Chriſtian Kings have the like in Chriſtian Religion? And Bilſon having mayntained the ſupremacie of the Jewiſh Kings, Hee aſcribes the like to the whole function. Hee ſayes, it is the eſſentiall charge of Princes to ſee the Law of God fully executed, his Son rightly ſerved, his Spouſe ſafely nurſed, his houſe timely filled, his enemies duly puniſhed, and this he ſayes, as it was by Moſes preſcribed, and by David required, ſo it was by Eſay propheſied, by Chriſt commanded, by Paul witneſsed, and by the Primitive Fathers conſented too. Hee ſayes further, that what the Jewiſh Kings had, Chriſtian Kings ought to enjoy, and therefore Eſay (ſays Hee) propheſying of the Evangelicall times, foretold that the Church ſhould ſuck the breaſts of Kings and Queens, and that milk which thoſe breaſts ſhould afford, He interprets to be ſpirituall milk. Now what can be added to this, what more excellent and perfect Regiment then this had Timothy and Titus committed to them by vertue of their Epiſcopall Order? What more ſacred, what more ſpirituall offices could they performe in the Church? What could Gods children ſuck from their breſts other then milke, then ſincere, ſpirituall milke? Saint Auguſtine agrees to this, when hee ſays that Kings, as Kings, ſerve God, ſo as none but Kings can doe, and when he confeſſes, that Chriſt came not to the detriment of ſovereigntie. And the Church in Tertullians words, aſcribing worſhip to their Heathen Emperours, as being ſecond immediatly to God, and inferiour to none but God, ſays as much as words can expreſſe. In regard of internall ſanctitie Peter may be more excellent then Caeſar, and ſo may Lazarus perhaps then Peter: but in regard of that civill ſanctitie which is viſible to mans eye, Caeſar is to be worſhipped more then Peter. Caeſar is to be looked upon as next in place here to God, betwixt whom and God no other can have any ſuperiour place. Wiſdome and goodneſſe are bleſſed graces in the ſight of GOD, but theſe are more private, and Power is an excellence more perfect, and publike, and viſible to man then either: if Miniſters do ſometimes in wiſdome, and goodneſſe excell Princes, yet in Power they doe not: and therefore though wiſdome and goodneſſe may make them more amiable ſomtimes to God, yet Power ſhall make Princes more Honourable amongſt men. There is in heaven no need of Power in the glorified creatures, and yet the glorified creatures are there differenced by Power: it is hard to ſay that one Angell, or Saint differs from another in wiſdome, or in holineſſe, yet that they differ in power and glory we all know. The twelve Patriarchs and the twelve Apoſtles ſit in heaven upon higher Thrones, then many Saints which perhaps here in this life might be endued with a greater portion of wiſdome, and holineſſe then they were: and by this it may ſeeme that there is a ſpecies of externall ſanctitie of power diſpenſed according to the free power of God even in Heaven alſo, and that that ſanctity is ſuperiour to the other more private ſanctity of other graces, and excellences. And if power in heavenly creatures where it is of no neceſſity has ſuch a ſupereminent glory appertaining to it, with what veneration ought wee to entertain it on earth where our common felicitie and ſafetie does ſo much depend upon it? Goodneſſe here wee ſee is a narrow excellence, without wiſdome, and power: and wiſdome in men that have neither power, nor goodneſſe, ſcarce profits at all: but power in infants, in women, in Ideots hands is of publike uſe, in as much as the wiſdome and goodneſſe of other men are ready to be commanded by it, and its more naturall that they ſhould be obſequious and officious in ſerving power, then that the tranſcendent, incommunicable, indiviſible Royalty of power, ſhould condiſcend to bee at their devotion. And for this reaſon when Princes are ſaid to be ſolo Deo minores, and Deo ſecundi, this is ſpoken in regard of power, and this being ſpoken in regard of power, we muſt conceive it ſpoken of the moſt perfect excellence, and dignity, and ſanctitie that can be imagined amongſt men on earth. And for the ſame reaſon, when Princes are ſaid to ſerve God as Princes, and ſo to ſerve him as none other can, we muſt conceive this ſpoken alſo with reſpect to their power, in as much as wiſdome and goodneſſe in other men cannot promote the glory of God, and the common good of man, ſo much as power may in them.

But Stapleton takes foure exceptions to thoſe times, whereby if it bee granted that the Jewiſh Kings had ſupreame Eccleſiaſticall authority, yet hee ſayes, it does not follow that our Kings now ought to have the ſame. Hee ſayes, firſt, That the Iewiſh Religion was of farre leſse dignitie and perfection then ours is: ours being that truth of which theirs was but a ſhadowiſh prefigurative reſemblance. Our anſwere here is, that the Religion of the Jews, as to the eſſence of it, was not different from ours, either in dignitie or perfection. The ſame God was then worſhipped as a Creatour, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and that worſhip did conſiſt in the ſame kinde of love, feare, hope, and beliefe, and the ſame charitie, and juſtice amongſt men. The Law of Ceremonies, and externall Rites in the bodily worſhip of God, did differ from our diſcipline, that being more pompous and laborious: but the two great Commandements which were the effects, and contents of all heavenly, ſpirituall, indiſpenſible worſhip, and ſervice, whereby a love towards God above that of our ſelves, and a love towards man equall with that of our ſelves was enjoyned, theſe two great Commandements were then as forcible, and honourable, as they are now. Sacrifice was but as the garment of Religion, obedience was the life, the perfection, the dignity of Religion, and the life, perfection, and dignitie of that obedience conſiſted then in thoſe weighty matters of the Law, Piety, and mercie, as it now does; but if the Jewiſh Religion was leſſe excellent, and more clogged with ſhadows, and ceremonies in its outward habit, what argument is this for the Supremacie of Regall, rather then Sacerdotall power? The more abſtruſe and dark the forme of that worſhip was, and the more rigorous ſanctity God had ſtamped upon the places, and inſtruments, and formalities of his worſhip, and the more frequent, and intricate queſtions might ariſe thereabout, me thinks, the more uſe there was of Sacerdotall honour, and prerogative, and the leſse of Regall in matters of the Lord: I ſee not why this ſhould make Princes more ſpirituall then their Order would beare, but Prieſts rather. His ſecond reaſon is. That all parts of the Jewiſh Religion, Laws, Sacrifices, Rites, Ceremonies, being fully ſet down in writing, needing nothing but execution, their Kings might well have higheſt authoritie, to ſee that done: Whereas with us there are numbers of myſteries even in beliefe which were not ſo generally for them as for us neceſſary to be with ſome expreſſe acknowledgment underſtood, many things belonging to externall government, and our ſervice not being ſet down by particular ordinances, or written, for which cauſe the State of the Church doth now require that the ſpirituall authoritie of Eccleſiaſticall perſons be large, abſolute, and independent. This reaſon is every way faulty: for as to matters of Diſcipline and externall worſhip our Church is leſſe incumbred with multiplicity of Rites, ſuch as Saint Paul cals carnall and beggerly rudiments, and in this reſpect there is the leſſe uſe of Eccleſiaſticall authoritie amongſt us: and if popiſh Biſhops doe purpoſely increaſe Ceremonies, that they may inlarge their own power, they ought not to take advantage of their own fraud. And as for matters of faith and doctrinall myſteries, we ſay according to Gods ancient promiſe knowledg doth now abound by an extraordinary effuſion of Gods Spirit upon theſe latter dayes; wee are ſo farre from being more perplexed with ſhadows, and myſticall formalities, or with weighty diſputes, that we are, and 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: 'tis 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 its 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 Politicians have invented to be profitable, nay neceſſary for the univerſall government of Mankind: for what one man can receive Appeals either in temporall or ſpirituall affaires, or direct finall, unerring diſpatches to all the remote climates of the earth at one time? or what a curſed vexation were it for all people of all languages and cuſtomes to be chained to One City, thither to travell for all finall determinations, and there to attend confuſed ſentences, and in the mean time to endure at home endleſſe diſſentions, and hopeleſſe diviſions under the inſufficient rule of ſubordinate limited Princes and Biſhops? Surely had Mahomet preached any ſuch groſſe doctrine amongſt his ragged, barbarous Arabians, hee had never tamed and broken them ſo eaſily to his wretched uſurpation: Tis wonderfull that our Anceſtors could drink of ſuch a cup of intoxication in the worſt of times, but that the nauſeous dregs of its bottome ſhould now be obtruded upon us in theſe golden, ſhining dayes, is almoſt paſt belief.

The Pope never yet had the rule of a third part of the World, but ſo far as hee ha's had it he ha's given ſufficient teſtimony how inſupportable great Monarchies are, both to the Governour, and the governed. And where the yoke of Rome ha's prevailed, what ha's that infallible judgement, and unlimitable power, which the Pope pretends to for our good, what ha's it availed the Church of God? when the Eaſterne Churches were in Unitie, this gave them occaſion to depart, and revolt, but when the rent was, what vertue had the Pope to reduce them to unite? The like may bee asked concerning all Proteſtant Countries now falne from Romiſh obedience, nay of al Turks & Heathens not yet ſubdued to the triple crown; if Chriſt intended the Popes infallibilitie for the diſcovery of all errors and hereſies, and his ſupremacie for the ſubjugation of al ſuch as would maliciouſly perſevere in diſcord errours and hereſies, how comes this intention to be ſo defeated, and fruſtrated? if the Popes keyes be potent enough for both theſe purpoſes, why does he not force all men to come in within his ſheepfold? and if not, why does he pretend ſo much? Would Chriſt put into one Biſhops hand an univerſall Scepter, ſuch as the World never before heard of, ſuch as hee himſelfe here on earth never exerciſed, and yet leave it contemptible to the greateſt part of the World? if ignorance prevail and incredulity, let the key of knowledge aſsiſt us, and bring us into light; if ſtubbornes and perverſneſſe have hardned our hearts, let the key of power diſſolve and bruize us: and if hee can doe neither of theſe, what vertue is there in the Roman Oracle, what benefit is there in that prophetick chaire? what priviledge ha's Peter more then Iohn? Shall the Citie of Rome it ſelfe be upheld and ſecured from ever erring and falling away, and ſhall not England, ſhall not Scotland, ſhall not all Nations be the like? The power of the Pope is the ſame in all Countries, if it faile in England, it may faile at Rome; if it faile not at Rome, it would not faile in England, but that the Pope is leſſe propitious. O why ſhould his mercy bee more narrow, then his vertue? O let him once againe graciouſly aſcend his reverent chaire, let him congregate generall Councils, and there poure out the treaſures of his inſpired breaſt let him there give judgements as cleere, pure, irrefragable, and as obvious to humane apprehenſion as Scripture it ſelf, nay, if ſomething more ſufficient then Scripture be neceſſary for the compoſing of all our ſtrifes, let him give us Solutions in a phraſe more powerful then the Apoſtles ever uſed, and preſcribe rules more convincing then God himſelfe, or Chriſt in his incarnation ever preſcribed, and if Kings and Emperours ſtill make reſiſtance, let him put on his robes of Majeſty and terrour, let him paſſe over them as Serpents and Baſilisks, whilſt the ſtroke of his foot upon the earth fils all Countries with battalions of armed men: nay if terreſtriall forces come not in faſt enough, let him ſhake the Heavens with the thunder of his voice, and call downe Seraphims to his attendance, and let the higheſt orders of Heaven give teſtimony to his earthly Deity. I might frame the like expoſtulations after a ſort againſt our own Prelats alſo, but I forbeare: for if God ha's given them ſole knowledge to determine all controverſies, and power to enact all Eccleſiaſticall Canons, doubtleſſe hee ha's given them ſome binding coercive force correſpondent thereunto: and if ſo, why doe they not expel all diſſention by it? if their vertue extend no further then to exhortation, why do they urge commands upon us? if they have a commanding power, why do they not ſecond it with due compulſion?

And as this is ſufficient to prove independent power due to Chriſtian Princes in all cauſes whatſoever, ſo Hiſtorie makes it as plaine that Chriſtian Princes at their firſt entrance, till Popery beganne to intoxicate them, did clayme, and exerciſe the ſame as their due. Conſtantine had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 given him for his Title, and wee know hee ſhewed himſelfe no leſſe, and wee know his Succeſſours for divers Ages did aſſume and verifie the ſame Title as their due. And therefore Bilſon proves out of Socrates, and other Hiſtorians, That in the Primitive Chriſtian Emperours times all Eccleſiaſticall affairs did depend upon Emperours: and that the greateſt Synods, and Councels were called at their appointment: and that Appeals from Councels were reſerved to them, and ſometimes over-ruled by them: and that all Eccleſiaſticall Laws were by them enacted, confirmed, and repealed; and that the greateſt Prelates were by them ordered, and commanded: and that whole Provinces and Kingdomes were by them viſited, and reformed in all caſes whatſoever.

And this truth, the learnedſt of Papiſts will nor deny, and thoſe wch do deny the ſame rely upon ſome particular exception onely, and have very few inſtances before the Popes inthronization at Rome, and theſe of matters of fact, and not rights alledged neither. Valentinian the Elder is one maine Inſtance, and he when ſtrife was betweene the Arians and the Orthodox Chriſtians would not take upon him to determine the ſame, his modeſt Anſwer was, non eſt meum judicare inter Epiſcopos, And Ambroſe ſayes of him; Inhabilem ſe ponderi tanti putabat eſſe Iudicii. Valentinian here was a pious Emperor and Orthodox, but his blame was (as Socrates juſtly taxes him) that though he honoured thoſe that were of his true faith, and ſound opinion, yet he in the meane time let the Arians doe what they liſt. And this cannot be excuſed, for if hee was doubtfull of his owne faith, this was ignorance: and if Hee was not, and yet tolerated Arianiſme, this was neglect in him: and if he did ſhunne this deciſion as burthenſome to him, this was impious: and if as intricate, this was inconſiderate. For what if hee could not judge as a Biſhop, could not he therefore judge by Biſhops; was not the learning and knowledge of all Biſhops, at his command to be imployed, as if it were his owne? Biſhops themſelves might erre, and diſſent, and in that point many of them did erre, and hold againſt the truth: and without his ayde this diviſion was irreconcileable; but by his influence and ſuperintendence; truth might obtaine a faire tryall, and Biſhops themſelves might be convinced by Biſhops. This caſe in Divinity might be too intricate for his ſole judgment, and too pondrous for his actuall determination: but what he could not doe ſingle, and perſonally, Hee might well effect by the counſell and advice of his moſt moderate, and diſintereſſed Clergie: for in Divinity the Prince is as in juridicall, or Martiall affaires, As he is not alwayes the ableſt Divine, ſo neither is he the ableſt Lawyer, nor the ableſt Souldier, and yet by the advice of Divines, Lawyers, and Souldiers, He may conclude that wiſely which neither He without them nor they without him could ever have concluded. Therefore againſt this remiſſe, cold ſlackneſſe, and haeſitancy of Valentinian we may oppoſe the politike, and couragious reſolution of Conſtantine, Theodoſius and diverſe other pious Emperors, who all did compoſe debates, and end controverſies, and vindicate Truth and Religion from many errors and abuſes, wch otherwiſe had bin endleſſe, and remedileſſe. After the firſt 5. or 6. hundred yeares Epiſcopacy began to invade the rights of Royalty by the Sophiſtications, and impoſtures of the See of Rome, and till this laſt Age, Princes almoſt every where did blindly and ſuperſtitiouſly too farre abandon their owne right, but by the light of Nature, the wiſeſt Kings in all Countryes were ever the moſt refractory, and moſt impatient of the Popes tyranny▪ and in the moſt ignorant times, ſome there were found, that made reſiſtance to the ſame.

Much bloud was ſhed upon this Theme in diverſe other Countries, and even in our own ſtories we find, that though England was prone otherwiſe to be the Popes Aſſe, yet in the quarrell of ſupremacy it was jealous, and had almoſt perpetuall conflicts. I will only cite one ſtory. Henry the ſecond was a very puiſſant Prince, and in all other things except only Eccleſiaſticall. He was fortunate and victorious: but his miſery was, that He raigned in ſuch an Age as the Pope was in his Zenith, and had to doe with Becket of all the Popes dependents the moſt ſeditious. Henry the firſt his Grandfather out of the greatneſſe of his Spirit and wit, had paſſed theſe Lawes; That no Appeal ſhould ſtand, That no Biſhops ſhould go out of the Realme, That no Tenant in Capite ſhould bee excommunicated; That no officiall of the Kings ſhould be interdicted without the Kings leave, and conſent, And that Clergimen ſhould be ſubject to ſecular judgement, and that Lay-men under the King, ſhould judge of Tythes, and other cauſes Eccleſiaſticall.

At theſe juſt and neceſſary Lawes, the Clergie hitherto reſted quiet, if not contented, but now a moſt rebellious Becket ariſes to ſpurne againſt them, and in his mouth they are dangerous incroachments, and breaches upon the Church. Rather than hee will ſubſcribe to theſe ſo long eſtabliſht Lawes; He departs the Kingdome in contempt of the King, and with all violence and bitterneſſe that may bee incenſes the Pope, the King of France, and all the Italian and French Biſhops againſt his naturall Lord. The King at firſt gallantly relyes upon the edge of his temporall ſword, and whets it ſharper in behalfe of his legall prerogative▪ and for ſome yeares together ſtands out againſt the danger of the Popes confounding blow; but at laſt when Becket the fierce Traytor was ſlaine, through the execrations and anathemas of the Pope, and by the threats and exclamations of the King of France, and diverſe other Biſhops and Potentates; He is beaten from his ground, ſwearing fealty to the Pope and his ſucceſſors, and admitting of Appeales to Rome. Long it was before hee would ſubmit himſelfe in this conteſtation betwixt a ſubject, and himſelfe to the Romiſh Tribunall, or yeeld to any condemnation being untryed, and unheard; and it appeares by the Popes forbearance of his laſt thūderbolt, that the Pope was diffident in his power, and durſt not ſentence him, if He had not yeelded before the ſentence. But I leave Popery, & come now to our reformed times. The dead time of night being now over, Luther began to crow in Germany, and to give notice of light ready to dawn upon the Earth: and no ſooner did that light appeare, but that diverſe Princes began to awake, and to ſhake off that blind ſervitude of Rome which had ſo long layne upon them, and lock'd up their ſenſes like a deepe ſleepe: How be it the light was not alike welcome to all, ſome fully and wholly gave it entertainement, others opened ſome Curtaines onely, and ſo yeelded themſelves to a little further ſlumber. Henry the eighth here in England was well pleaſed with that Doctrine which diſcovered his owne independence, and the weakeneſſe of the Popes Prerogative: but thoſe further monſtrous, deformed errors, and ſuperſtitions of Rome, which are founded upon its abſolute Prerogative, and are as inconſiſtent with light, as the Prerogative it ſelfe; He tooke no delight to looke upon. So farre as his owne intereſt, and worldly advantage was repreſented by the beames of the Goſpell, ſo farre his eyes thought it amiable And ſo farre Biſhop Gardiner though a Biſhop was ready to aſſiſt him: but ſo farre as his ſpirituall intereſt, and the generall advantage of his Subjects was concerned, ſo farre, Hee and Gardiner both could remaine as blind as Sir Thomas More: Tis wonderfull that ſo ſharpſighted a man, as Sir Thomas More was, ſhould lay downe his life in juſtification of the Popes ſupremacie; but tis more wonderfull that Gardiner ſhould ſee the weakeneſſe of that ſupremacie, and yet ſtill adhere to diverſe other Popiſh ſuperſtitions as abſurdly reſulting from the ſame principles. The State of Venice alſo out of meere policy has long been at defiance with the Court of Rome, ſo farre as meere rules of Government guide, and direct it: but in all other ſpirituall deluſions, and impoſtures it is as dead, as heavie-eyed, as ever▪ Spaine, France, and Germany alſo, though they ſpeake not the ſame, yet they now doe the ſame as Venice, they all ſhut up and impale the Popes Authority within Peters Patrimony, leaving him no command but within his owne Italian territories, and yet beſides his authority they caſt off nothing elſe: ſo much doe we generally eſteeme Earth before Heaven, and our temporall advantages before the ſubſiſtance of our ſoules. But let reaſon of State bee what it will, The Parliament here agrees to annex to the Crowne of Henry the eighth and his ſucceſſors whatſoever ſole, independent power was before challenged in Eccleſiaſticall and Spirituall things by the Pope, or any Church-Man whatſoever: And Hooker ſeemes both to confeſſe and juſtifie the ſame, for ſayes H, Our Kings of England when they are to take poſſeſsion of the Crown, have it painted out before their eyes, even by the very ſolemnities, and rights of their inauguration, to what affaires by the ſame Law their ſupreme power and authority reaches. Crowned we ſee they are, and Inthronized, and Annoynted, the Crowne a ſigne of Military dominion, the Throne of ſedentary or Iudiciall, The Oyle of Religious, and ſacred power. Hee here Attributes as ſupreme a rule, and as independent in Religious and ſacred affaires, as Hee does either in Military, or Iudiciall, and hee accounts that venerable Ceremony of Vnction, as proper to the Kings of England as that of Crowning, or Inthroning.

Nevertheleſſe, it is now a great objection againſt this chiefly of Dominion, that it may deſcend to Infants under age, as it did to King Edward the ſixth: Or to Women, as to Queene Mary, and Elizabeth, and whatſoever wee may allow to men, ſuch as Henry the eighth, yet it ſeemes unreaſonable, to allow it Women, and Children. The Papiſts thinke this objection of great moment, and therefore Bellarmine in great diſdaine caſts it out, that in England they had a certaine Woman for their Biſhop: meaning by that woman, Q. Elizabeth: And Q. Elizabeth her ſelfe knowing what an odium that word would draw upon her, both amongſt Papiſts, and many Proteſtants alſo, conſults her Biſhops about it, and by their advice ſets forth a declaration, certifying the world thereby, that ſhee claymed no other Head-ſhip in the Church, but ſuch as might exclude all dependency upon forreigne Head-ſhips, and ſecure her from all danger of being depoſed.

How this paper could ſatisfie all, I cannot ſee: My thinkes the Biſhops in this did as warily provide for their owne clayme, as the Queenes: for whatſoever power Shee had in the Church, it was either abſolute, Coordinate, or Subordinate. If it was ſubordinate, Shee was in danger of depoſition, and was to bee ordered, and limited, and commanded by her Superior. If her power was Coordinate; She had no more power over her equall, than her equall had over her: and it being as lawfull for her equall to countermand, as it was for her to command: her power would be as eaſily diſabled and made fruſtrate by her equalls, as her equalls by hers. In the laſt place therefore if her power or headſhip were abſolute, why did not her Biſhops uphold and declare the ſame? Such dallying with indefinite expreſſions, and dazelling both our ſelves & others with meere ambiguities does often very great harme, for uncertainty in Law is the Mother of confuſion, and injuſtice, and this is the mother of uncertainty. According to this obſcure declaration of ſupremacy in the Queenes paper many Papiſts at this day take the Oath penned in the Statute for that purpoſe: they will abjure the Popes ſupremacy, as to depoſition of Princes: but not in any thing elſe: and they will hold the King ſupreme, as to all depoſers, but not as to all men elſe. Thoſe which are not bloudy, and dangerous, but by the light of nature abhorre regicides, reſt themſelves upon theſe ſhallow diſtinctions: but ſuch as are Ieſuitically furious, and murdrous, break through them as meere Cobwebs: and the more ſecure Princes are from the other, the leſſe ſafe they are from theſe. Theſe men will ſtill inſiſt upon abſolute ſupremacy ſomewhere to reſt; and that it cannot reſt in Women, or Minors, they will ſtill inſiſt upon this argument, If the Queene be not competent for that lower Order to whom the Word and Sacraments are committed, then ſhee is not competent for that higher Order which has power over the lower: but the Queene is not competent for the lower, therefore not for the higher. They ſay, that to preſcribe Lawes to Preachers is more than to preach: and to have power over Ordination is ſomething greater, than to enter into Orders, and therefore the Law cannot juſtly give that which is more, and greater, when God denyes that which is inferior, and leſſe. Our Divines make a very ſhort unſatisfying reply to this. Their reply is, that though our Biſhops owe ſome kind of ſubjection to Kings, yet the authority of preaching, &c. is not from Kings, but from Chriſt Himſelfe, Chriſt they ſay, giveth the Commiſſion, Kings give but a permiſſion only. All the power at laſt of our Kings, which is acknowledged equall with that of the Iewiſh, and has been ſo farre all this while magnified, and defended againſt Papiſts, inables them now no further, than to a naked permiſſion in religious affaires, their moſt energeticall influence is permiſſion.

Tis true, the Commiſſion of the Apoſtle was from Chriſt, His Ite & docete, was their authority: And ſo it remaines ſtill to all their ſucceſſors; but is it therefore a reaſon, that there is now, no other Commiſſion neceſſary? Where Chriſts Commiſſion was particular, it was good without any other humane commmiſſion, nay permiſſion it ſelfe was not requiſite: the Contents of that Commiſſion was not only Ito, Doceto: but Tu Petre, Tu Paule, &c. Ito, doceto: but now there remaines nothing of that Commiſſion, but the generality, Ito, doceto: the particularity requires now particular Commiſſions, and meere permiſſions will not ſerve the turne. And as for ſucceſſion, we may ſuppoſe that our Saviours firſt Commiſſion was vigorous, as to that purpoſe, but we muſt know, That the Apoſtles being both Governours and Preachers, all that commiſſion which was given them as Governours, was not given them as Preachers. There muſt ſtill be ſucceſſors to the Apoſtles in Governing, and Preaching: but its not neceſſary that the ſame men now ſhould ſucceed in both offices, and that whatſoever was commanded or granted to the one office, the ſame ſhould bee granted and commanded to the other The Civill Iudges and Councellors of State under the King are not without Generall Commiſſions from Heaven to doe juſtice, and preſerve order in their ſeverall ſubordinate ſtations, and yet they depend upon particular commiſſions too from Gods immediate Vice-Gerent. And it ſeemes to me a weake preſumption, that Officers in Religion ſhould have more particular Commiſſions from GOD, than Officers of State: or that Princes ſhould bee more permiſſive, and leſſe influent by way of power in the Church, than in the Common-Wealth. He that obſerves not a difference betwixt theſe times under Chriſtian Princes, and thoſe under unbeleeving Caeſars, is very blind, and He is no leſſe, that thinks particular Commiſſions now as neceſſary when Princes joyne to propagate the Goſpell, as they were when ſupreme power was abuſed for its ſubverſion: And ſo makes no difference betwixt a Nero, and a Conſtantine. Did Conſtantine gaine the ſtyle of Head-Biſhop, or Biſhop of Biſhops meerely by permitting the true worſhip of God? And let us lay aſide the ſtrangenes of the Name, and apply the thing, I meane the ſame Epiſcopall power to Queene Elizabeth, as was to Conſtantine and what abſurdity will follow? What is intended by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may not bee as properly applyed to Queene Elizabeth, as to Conſtantine? If the Patriarchs, and Kings of Iudah and firſt Chriſtian Emperors had juriſdiction, and a legiſlative power in the Church, nay had dominion over all thoſe which did exerciſe judiciall power in the Church, and were ſo exalted in ſanctity, and dignity above meere Prieſts, ſhall Queene Elizabeth bee barred and diſabled for the ſame power and honour meerely by the prejudice of her Sex? The very Papiſts themſelves do grant to ſome Abbatiſſes power of juriſdiction over ſome Eccleſiaſticall perſons, and this power they hold to be more honourable, than that of ſuborninate Monkes, and Prieſts which officiate under them; and yet to officiate they will not grant to Abbatiſſes, though they grant more than to officiate. Therefore wee ſee this rule doth not alwayes hold; that Hee which may not undertake the leſſer charge, ſhall not undertake the greater; for the meere ſanctity of the perſon is not alwayes that which gives Law in theſe caſes. Though the perſon bee not voyd of ſanctity, yet ſome other unfitneſſe, and defect may ſtop and barre in leſſe imployments, and yet bee no ſtop, nor bar at all in matters of a more excellent, and ſublime nature. So it is with Infants and VVomen, though the poſſeſſion of a Crowne be more ſacred and honourable, than admiſſion into Orders; yet they ſhall bee held more capable of a Crowne, than of Orders; becauſe perſonall imbecillity, and naturall inferiority (as I may ſo ſay) is leſſe prejudiciall in civill, than in religious affaires, and in matters of function and ſervice, than in matters of priviledge, and command. God had confined the right and honour of the Prieſt-hood amongſt the Iewes, to one Tribe, and Family onely, and therefore Vzziab might not invade that right, and honour to the infringing of Gods ſpeciall command, and in this reſpect Vzziah was qualified for a Scepter, yet not qualified for a cenſer; He was qualified for that authority which was more ſacred, yet not for that ſervice which was leſſe. So perhaps it is now under the Goſpell, women are expreſly barred from the Altar, that very Sex is preciſely excluded, and excepted againſt by God▪ they may not Miniſter in the Church: yet this is no exception, but that they may Raigne in the Throne, and yet this ſeemes not to prove that that miniſtration is more holy, than this raigning, but rather that it is more difficult, and ſuch as requires more perſonall ability, and naturall perfection. For let Vzziahs caſe over-rule us. That wch diſabled Vzziah for the ſervice of the Altar was not perſonall incompetence, or want of ſanctity: for then the ſame had diſabled him for all higher, and more excellent offices. But we know that Vzziah was not ſo diſabled: for he was capable of the Scepter, and by vertue of his Scepter, the whole Temple, and all the ſacred things therin, all the Order of the Prieſts and Levites, the whole Law of God, and the ſtate of Religion, and Policy, and the generall welfare of all Gods holy beloved people were within his guard, and protection, And will any man conceive this to be leſſe excellent, than to ſacrifice? By vertue of the Scepter Moſes did conſecrate Prieſts to ſerve at the Altar, and governe their ſervice at the Altar: by vertue of the Scepter Salomon did build, and dedicate the very Temple, and Altar it ſelfe, with his owne mouth, bleſſe both them, and thoſe Prieſts which were to attend them: by vertue of the Scepter, Vzziah himſelfe did inherit the ſame power, and holineſſe, and dignity which Moſes, or Salomon, or any of his Predeceſſors had, And ſhal all this ſeeme leſſe worthy and excellent to us, than to ſerve with a cenſer? In this Hooker fully concurres with me. He diſtinguiſhes betweene an Ordinary and a ſupreme Iudge, and He allowes it unfit for Princes to ſit as Ordinary Iudges in matters of Faith and Religion: and yet hee denies not their ſupreme right and influence of judging. For (ſayes H.) an Ordinary Iudge muſt be of qualities, which in a ſupreme Iudge are not neceſſary, becauſe the perſon of One is charged with that, which the others meere authority diſchargeth, without imploying himſelfe perſonally therein▪ It is an error to thinke that the Kings authority can have no force in doing that, which himſelfe perſonally may not doe: for it is impoſſible, that at one and the ſame time, that the King ſhould order ſo maine and different affaires, as by His power every where preſent are ordered in Peace and Warre; at home, and abroad.

And the King in regard of Nonage, &c. may be unable to performe that thing wherein yeares of diſcretion are requiſite for perſonall action, and yet his authority is ſtill of force: And therefore it is a maxime, that the Kings authoritie never dyes, or ceaſes from working.

Sundry conſiderations then may be effectuall to hold the Kings perſon from being a doer of that, which notwithſtanding his power muſt give force unto. In civill affaires nothing doth more concerne the duty, or better beſeeme the Majeſty of Kings, than perſonally to adminiſter juſtice. Yet if it bee in caſe of Felony, and Treaſon; Lawyers affirme (Stanford l. 2. c. 3.) that well may the King commit his authority to an other, to judge betweene him, and the offender: but the King being himſelfe there a party, cannot perſonally ſit there to pronounce judgement. Here we ſee ſometimes the King cannot be poſſibly preſent to act his part, ſometimes defect of knowledge may hinder him, ſometimes other exceptions, as being a party, and the like, may barre him from doing thoſe things, which notwithſtanding by his ſubſtitute power muſt bee done: and yet this preferres not ſubſtitutes before him. So in Vzziahs caſe, the Prieſt-hood was for very ſufficient reaſons in policy, ſevered from the Kingly office, and that by Gods owne approbation, and command, Vzziah ſhall not now conjoyne, and unite them again out of a fond pragmaticall humor to the diſ-inheriting of the Tribe of Levi, to the diſſervice of the Crowne, to the hinderance of Religion, and to the violation of Gods command. If Vzziah will content himſelfe to move in his owne ſuperior Orbe, and leave the Prieſts of God to their owne regular ſubordinate motions, his influence ſhall give vigor to thoſe actions in them, which are with more honour to him done by them under his ſuperintendence than by himſelfe in perſon. For as the Ordinary Iudge deputed by the King, in caſes where the King Himſelfe either cannot be preſent, or hath not skill to determine, or may not legally intereſſe himſelfe, does give judgment, not by vertue of his owne, but by vertue of the Kings authority, and does therefore acquire more honour to his Majeſty, than to himſelfe: So in the Church the Prieſt miniſtring in that imployment, which in all places the King cannot miniſter in, and which is too difficult for ſome Kings to miniſter in, and prohibited to others, yet is not hereby greater or holyer than the King, but even in his very actuall adminiſtration it ſelfe, He is ſo dependent, and derives ſuch vertue from the Kings ſupreme, ſpirituall authority, that the King is ſupreme, and he but the ſecondary agent therein. But Biſhop Bilſon will yet ſay, that the Prieſt in the worke of converſion winnes the ſoule to a willing obedience, and that the Princes worke only by externall, politicall terror, which begets not virtutis amorem, but only formidinem panae, and therefore it ſeemes that the worke of the Miniſter and the Prince, differ not only in order, but alſo in kinde, the one being far more ſpirituall and divine than the other. I anſwer hereunto, that if power doth only induce a ſervile feare of puniſhment, and ſo cauſe of forcible forbearance of ſin, and if preaching only make a voluntary conqueſt upon the ſoule, then by the ſame reaſon, the power of Biſhops as well as the power of Civill Magiſtrates is of leſſe value than preaching: but this none of our adverſaries will agree to. My next anſwer therefore is, that Preachers in the wonderfull worke of regeneration are not in the nature of Phyſicall cauſes, they are rather in the nature of the meaneſt inſtrumentall cauſes under GOD: they are but as Veſſels in the hand of Huſband men, from whence the ſeed Corne is throwne into the ground. If the Corne fall into the furrow, and there fructifie, God opens and enlives the wombe of the Earth, God ſends ſhowres and influence from Heaven, God bleſſes the ſeeds with a generative, multiplying vertue, nay God caſts it into the furrow, from the mouth of the Preacher, and as He uſes the mou • 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 command • or elſe g • eat alterations cannot eaſily, and ſuddainly bee perfected. And in this reſpect the Proclamations of Princes become of • entimes the moſt true, and powerfull preaching that can be: and tis 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 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, Churchmen 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 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 diffimulation, 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 Lievtenan • , 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 contrary: and we will acknowledge the Function of Miniſters to bee more venerable than any amongſt men, beſides that which beares the ſword, the Embleme of Gods imperiall Majeſtie. But to ſuch as are Gods ſword-bearers upon Earth, we conceive Miniſters ought to give place, and pay ſubjection, as humbly as any others. The preminence of Kings, we hold to be three ways manifeſt: in order, in meaſure, and in kind. In the very ſanctity of the Prieſt-hood it ſelfe we conceive the miniſtration of Prieſts to be ſubordinate to Princes, inaſmuch as to ſuperintend in the moſt religious affaires is due to Princes, and to officiate only to Prieſts, and to ſuperintend is more than to officiate.

Secondly, In meaſure we conceive Princes excell alſo, in aſmuch as in religious affaires ſuch Prieſts have the charge of ſuch flockes, and ſuch Biſhops of ſuch Prieſts▪ but all both Biſhops, Prieſts, and flockes are under the Kings charge. And not only in religious affaires, but in civill alſo the authority of Princes is both intenſive, and extenſive many wayes, where Prieſts may not at all intermeddle. And though to governe Chriſtians as Chriſtians, be the moſt tranſcendent honour of Kings; yet to governe men, as men: and not only to governe but to governe well, is a thing of divine impreſſion.

Thirdly, in kinde the regiment of Princes is far excelling, for the regiment of Kings is a true proper regiment aſſiſted with reall power, decored with externall honour, founded in the generall conſent of men, and bleſſed by the gratious influence of God, but the rule of Prieſts is but ethicall, or metaphoricall only, its utmoſt vigor is but perſwaſive, and is not at all coercive, either inwardly, or outwardly: and that ſubjection which it challengeth is not to it ſelfe, but to the Word and Sacraments, whereto it ſelfe rendreth as much, as it requireth from others. This generall anſwer might ſuffice, but to each particular Title we will briefly reply further. Miniſters they are GODS, viz. to ſuch as are under their cure: but then as they are GODS to others, ſo Princes are GODS to them. Thus Moſes was a God to Aaron, though Aaron was a God to his inferiors. Miniſters are Stars, but not in magnitude equall to the Sun; neither is their light and influence ſo independent as the Suns. Miniſters are Angels, viz. upon earth, and their internall piety is like a ſhining rayment to them amongſt men, but they ſerve under Gods on Earth, whoſe robes of Majeſty are every way reſplendent, as well externally as internally. Miniſters are Embaſſadors, but all Embaſſadors perſons are not of the like honour, nor all their Embaſſages of the like moment, nor all their Commiſſions of the like extent: and in all theſe reſpects, Preachers are inferior to Princes, being joyned to them, as Aaron was to Moſes for a ſpokeſman, or an Interpreter only. Miniſters are Rulers, viz. quoad vim directivam, but not quoad vim coactivam. Miniſters are Fathers, viz. ſuch as have been Gods inſtruments to regenerate us, and ſo as Saint Ierome ſayes, they are the Fathers of our ſoules, and perhaps, as Chryſoſtome ſayes, in this reſpect they are more to be honoured than our naturall parents. But Miniſters alwayes, and onely are not ſo our Parents, and they that are ſo our Parents, are not ſo phyſicall, and ſelfe efficacious cauſes as our naturall Parents are: but if they may challenge more honour than our fleſhly Parents, yet this advances them not above Kings, who are both politicall, and Spirituall Fathers alſo. Fabius the Conſull, though he was to pay Honour and reverence to his naturall Father, yet he was to demand a greater meaſure of the ſame from him being his politicall ſon: and it did not miſ-beſeeme him to prefer the civill right before the phyſicall: Yet Fabius here was a meere Magiſtrate, and in that farre leſſe glorious than our Chriſtian Magiſtrates are; Miniſters are Stewards, but not the higheſt in the houſe of God; for Princes are Stewards alſo and only accountable to God, but they are accountable to Princes themſelves. And as Stewards doe provide food for thoſe, by whom themſelves are fed, and manage only but one part of their Lords affaires: ſo it is with Miniſters: under Princess Miniſters are Paſtors, Leaders, Teachers, their Doctrine is their food wherewith they comfort the people, their perſwaſion is the light wherewith they ſecure them from falling, they feede by their exhortations, and guide by their dehortations, but all theſe are offices of a ſervant, rather than priviledges of a Maſter, and even in theſe offices they are ſubordinate alſo. So the Pilot at Sea may have the ſafety of his Prince committed to his direction, charge, and rule: So the Commander in Warre gives order for all affaires of the battaile, aſſigning to the King Himſelfe a fit ſtation: So the Iudge in matters of Law by his juſt decree bindes the right of his owne Maſter: So the Phyſition limits and preſcribes rules of diet, and ſets downe Lawes of exerciſe to his Soveraigne Lord.

In all theſe caſes there is a kinde of Obedience due from Kings, and that obedience implyes ſome kind of inferiority: and yet this obedience of the King, doth not drowne the higher and greater obedience of the Subject, nor doth this inferiority contradict that which is of a farre other quality, and degree. In the ſelfe ſame manner alſo the Prieſt officiates in the Church, perhaps before the King, perhaps before his owne Metropolitan, at this time, in this place, and in this office, there is honour, reverence, and obedience due to him from the King, and Metropolitan: yet this doth not exempt him from that ſtronger and holyer tye of ſubjection, awe▪ and ſubordination, by which he is alwayes bound to thoſe which governe him in other things; when Ambroſe therefore ſayes Honor & ſublimitas Epiſcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari: and againe, Nihil poteſt eſſe in hoc ſeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus, nihil ſublimius Epiſcopis reperiri: wee anſwer, if he here include Princes, as having Epiſcopall power, and a juriſdiction both over Prieſts and Biſhops, we agree hereunto, but if he exclude Princes, we exclude this from our beliefe. And againe when he ſayes: if you compare Epiſcopall ſublimity to the brightneſſe of Kings, or Diadems of Princes, that of Kings and Princes will be more inferior than leade, compared with gold: we anſwer, if he here intend the meere ſecular authority of Princes in things meerly temporall, we ſuppoſe ſome mild conſtruction may bee allowed: but if he ſpeake of the intire Soveraignty, and Prerogative of Princes, and put that as lead in compariſon of the golden Miter, we reject him as erroneous. That which Chryſoſtome ſayes, that more awe is due to Prieſts, than to Kings and Princes, we admit alſo in this ſenſe, viz. to the Embaſſages of God in their mouthes, not to their perſons: and thoſe Embaſſages alſo and inſtructions we oppoſe to the meere civill Ordinances of Kings, not to religious injunctions, wherein Princes are ſent with larger Commiſſion than they are. And whereas hee ſayes further of the power of Prieſts, that God Himſelfe would not impart it to Angels, or Arch-Angels wee may adde alſo nor to Princes: yet this concludes nothing to the derogation of Angels, or Arch-Angels or Princes. For the Angels, &c. though they have not the ſame Miniſtery in the ſame kinde, and order, yet they have a more glorious and heavenly, and conſequently ſo may Princes. That which Saint Auguſtine ſayes alſo that Princes beare the Image of God, Biſhops of Chriſt, We willingly conſent to, and yet by Biſhops here we do not intend only ſuch Church-Governours as our Biſhops now in England are, but all other ſuch as doe the ſame offices over Gods people, whatſoever their ſtiles, or externall additions be otherwiſe. And theſe things we conceive ought to receive ſuch conſtructions, becauſe our Saviour Himſelfe did alwayes decline all State and pompe, and recommend the ſame lowly preſident to his followers; with ſtrict command not to exerciſe any Lordly Dominion, nor to aſſume the Name of Rabbi upon them, ever preſſing this; That he came to ſerve, and not to be ſerved. And yet in the meere Name of Lord, or Rabbi there could be no offence, if the power and grandour belonging to thoſe names, had not bin diſpleaſing to him: and if it was diſpleaſing in thoſe his immediate followers whom he had made governours as wel as Preachers, and for their better governing had indued with many miraculous gifts, to diſcerne ſpirits, and to open and ſhut Heaven: and inriched with many other weighty graces, we cannot imagine it ſhould now be pleaſing in our Miniſters, where leſſe power is neceſſary, and leſſe vertue granted. However it is farre from our meaning to detract or derogate any thing from that internall reverence which is due to Chriſts Embaſſadors, and Stewards, &c. in the Church, we know that he that deſpiſes them, deſpiſes Chriſt Himſelfe, according to Chriſts own words, our meaning is only to place them next and in the ſecond ſeate of Honour after Princes, and Rulers, and Iudges which have Scepters committed to them by God, either mediately, or immediately. Cyp. ſayes well, that our Saviour being King and God did Honour the Prieſts and Biſhops of the Iewes, though they were wicked, for our inſtruction: we grant that our Saviour ought in this to be imitated, and that all Prieſts whether they have ſuch command or no, as the Iewiſh had, or whether they bee Religious or no: yet for Chriſts ſake which is our High-Prieſt, and their Head, we ought to pay all reverence and awe to them.

THe laſt Argument urged is this. That Order which is of the greateſt neceſſitie in Religion, without which no Church can at all ſubſiſt, is moſt Holy and excellent, but ſuch is the ſacerdotall order, for Religion had ſubſiſtence under the Apoſtles without Princes, and that it never had nor could have under Princes, without Prieſts: Ergo, This is no way true, for Religion can have no being without men, and men can have no being without government, and therefore as to this firſt, and moſt neceſſary being, wee may juſtly ſay, that the Goſpell it ſelfe was as well protected by Caeſar, which hated it, as by Peter which preached it: For Peter did owe his civill being to Caeſar, and without this civill being, his Eccleſiaſticall being had periſhed. Beſides Peter, &c. was not only a Preacher, but alſo a Governor, and thoſe offices which he did as a Governour, might be as much conducing to the welfare of Religion, as thoſe which hee did as a Preacher: and yet for want of the civill Magiſtrates further aſſiſtance, both offices were ſome way defective, and perhaps, had bin wholly unprofitable, had not miraculous gifts and graces ſuperabounded to ſupply that defect. Howſoever, it is more true, that after the Creation Religion did ſubſiſt under Princes onely without Prieſts, for untill the Prieſt-hood was ſevered in Aron, Adam, Melchiſedeck, &c. were not ſo properly Prieſts, as Princes: for though they performed the offices of Prieſts, yet they had no other Conſecration to inable them therefore, than their Regall Sanctity, and ſublimity. If the meere officiating did make a Prieſt, then the Prieſt-Hood were open to all: and if ſome right and warrant be neceſſary, it muſt orginally flow from Princes, and they which may derive it to others, have it, till they derive it, in themſelves. The eſſence of Prieſt-Hood doth no more conſiſt in the rites and Ceremonies of Conſecration, than Royalty doth in Coronation: and the due warrant of lawfull authority being that eſſence, before that warrant granted, we muſt looke upon authority as including that warrant within its vertue: and after that warrant granted, as not exhauſted of its vertue. When the Prieſt-hood was ſeparated from the greater, and confered upon the inferior, ſome formall Ceremonious reſignation therof was thought neceſſary: but before that reſignation till Moſes, wee may well conceive that Princes did officiate in their owne rights, without borrowing any thing therein from Ceremonies, or from any higher power than their own.

I have now done with Arguments of the firſt kinde, which are urged againſt the ſanctity, and competence of Princes, in Eccleſiaſticall and Spirituall things. I come now to anſwer ſuch things as are further objected againſt other defects of qualification in them, eſpecially in learning, knowledge, and theologicall underſtanding.

THe maine argument here, is thus: Whoſoever is fiteſt to direct to Truth, is alſo fitteſt to command for Truth: but Miniſters being moſt skilld in Divinity are moſt fit to direct, Ergo.

In anſwer hereunto, I muſt make appeare.

1. That Miniſters are not alwayes moſt learned.

2. That the moſt learned are not alwayes the moſt judicious.

3. That learned and judicious men are not alwayes Orthodox, and ſound in faith.

4. That there is no neceſſitie in policy, that the moſt learned, judicious, and ſincere men ſhould be promoted to higheſt power in the Church.

And firſt, we deny not that the bleſſing of God doth uſually accompany the due act of Ordination, to adde gifts and abilities to the party ordained: we only ſay, that Gods grace like the winde hath its free arbitrary approaches and receſſes, and is not alwayes limited, or neceſſitated by the act done of conſecration. And we ſay alſo, that as God uſually ſanctifies Miniſters for their function, ſo he doth alſo Kings: and when he did lay his command upon Kings to have a Copy of his Law alwayes by them, to reade and ſtudy it for their direction, we conceive it is intimated to us what kinde of knowledge is moſt fit for Kings, and what kinde of grace God doth moſt uſually ſupply them withall. King Edward the ſixth, Queene Elizabeth, and King Iames of late, and happie memory were ſo ſtrangly learned and judicious in Divinity, that we may well thinke there was ſomething in them above the ordinary perfection of nature: and had they perhaps relyed leſſe upon the greateſt of their Clergie in matters concerning the intereſt and honour of the Clergie, the Church might have been more free from theſe controverſies, and diſturbances at this day.

Counſellors of State were by a wiſe King of Spaine compared to Spectacles, and ſo may Prelates alſo, but as the ſame King well obſerved, thoſe eyes are very wretched which can ſee nothing at all without them. Tis as much wiſdome in Princes to look into the particular intereſts of Counſellors, and not to be too light of beliefe, as tis to do nothing without counſell and to ſuſpect their owne imaginations. If we did attribute to our Iudges a freedome from all fallibility and corruption, and ſo intruſt all Law into their hands, this would be as dangerous, as to allow Iudges no credit at all. The Anabaptiſts which rely only upon their own private Enthuſiaſmes are not miſlead into greater idolatry, and ſlavery than the Papiſts, which renounce their owne light, and reaſon, to caſt themſelves wholly upon the directions of their Ghoſtly Fathers. Our Prelates at this day have not ſo rigorous an Empire over our beliefe as the Papiſts grone under, yet they have given us a taſte of late, what Canons ſhould be held moſt religious and fit for us, if we would admit all to bee indiſputable: which they thinke fit to bee impoſed upon us. And truely when Clergie men were confeſſed to be the only Oracles and infallible Chaires of Divinity in the world, twas but a modeſt Law my thinkes, that all Lay-men being on Horſe-backe, and meeting Clergy-men on foote, ſhould perpetually diſmount, and reſigne their horſes to Clergie-men: ſure thoſe times which thought this reaſonable, and juſt were prety modeſt times, and Lay-men did not deſerve ſo good. In the ſecond place alſo admit Clergie-men to be only and alwayes learned, yet the learnedſt men are not alwayes the wiſeſt, and fitteſt for action. Sometimes where great reading meets with ſhallow capacities, it fumes like ſtrong Wine in their heads, and makes them reele, as it were, under the burthen of it: it cauſes ſometimes greater diſquiet both to themſelves, and other men. In our Anceſtors dayes when all learning was ingroſſed by the Clergie, and thruſt into Cloyſters, and Colledges from the Laity, yet there were many grave and wiſe Stateſ-men that were as an allay to the inſolent, and vaine exceſſes of the Clergie, or elſe this State had bin often ruined. But admit in the third place, that Clergie-men are alwayes more learned and wiſe than all Lay-men, yet we ſee they are not more free from errors, hereſies, and jars amongſt themſelves, than other men, but rather leſſe. When Schiſmes riſe amongſt Divines, as they doe almoſt perpetually, Divines being thereby banded, and divided againſt Divines, what can the poore Laicke doe? both ſides he cannot adhere to, and if he adhere to this, that ſide condemnes him, and if to that, this condemnes him: if hee make uſe of his judgment herein, than hee truſts himſelfe more than the Prieſt, and if he uſe not his judgment at all; He commits himſelfe meerly to fortune, and is as likely to embrace the wrong, as the truth: if he apply himſelfe to the Major party, that is hard ſomtimes to diſcern▪ and if it be diſcernable, yet it is many times, the erroneous party. The Papiſts are not the major part of Chriſtians, Chriſtians are not the major part of men, The orthodox amongſt us are not the major part of Calviniſts Calviniſts are not the Major part of Proteſtants.

Before the Law the Minor part worſhipped the true God, and amongſt thoſe which worſhipped the true God, the Minor part were heartily his ſervants, and made a Conſcience of their wayes. After Moſes alſo when the Iewes began to mingle with the Canaanites, and other bordering Heathens in the manner of their ſacrifices and high places, a very ſmall part ſometimes kept it ſelfe pure from thoſe pollutions, and innovations. And in that great rent under Ieroboam ten tribes of twelve eſtranged themſelves from God, ſet up a new ſpurious falſe worſhip in Bethel. And we reade long before the Captivity, that Ephraim was divided against Manaſſeh, and Manaſſeh against Ephraim, and both againſt Iudah. Iudah alſo it ſelfe was never wholly untainted, for from the Captivity, ſundry ſects, and factions had diſtraited it, in ſo much that when our Saviour came into the world, there was ſcarce ſincerity or truth to be found, and that that was, was not moſt eminently amongſt the greateſt Scribes, Phariſees, or Prieſts. In all thoſe times if there was ſuch an infallibility in the Chayre of Moſes (as the Papiſts dreame of) it did but little availe the world, for he that then would have ſought for the true way to walke in, diſclaiming utterly his owne light and underſtanding He muſt not have ſought it amongſt the multitude: and if he had ſought it amongſt the Prieſts, he would have ſeene diviſions there: and if amongſt Prophets, Hee would have found the ſame there alſo. God did not deliver Oracles, nor inſpire Prophets, at all times upon all occaſions for the ceaſing of differences, and conteſtations; He did appeare in love, but not without all Majeſty; He did ſhew grace, but not according to obligation. After our Saviours Aſcenſion a bleſſed Spirit of infallibity did reſt upon the Church to direct in intricate debates, and to prevent ſchiſmes, till a perfect Goſpell was eſtabliſht: but this Spirit in thoſe very times had not reſidence in any one mans breaſt at all times, to give judgment in all things. The greateſt of the Apoſtles might ſeverally vary and diſſent in points of great concernment, and therefore they had conſultations ſometimes, and when conſultations would not ſatisfie, they did aſſemble in a greater body; and when thoſe aſſemblies were, the wiſdome of the Spirit did not alwayes manifeſt it ſelfe in thoſe which were of higheſt order, but ſometimes the inferior did reprove and convince the ſuperior, and the ſuperior did ſubmit, and yeeld to his inferior. But after one age or two, when the Spirit of God had conſummated, the maine eſtabliſhment of Religion, though it preſerved the Church from a totall deviation, it ſecured not all parts thereof from all groſſe prevayling rents, and Apoſtaſies, neither did it affixe it ſelfe, or chuſe any certaine reſting place in any one part of the world more than an other. Three ages being now runne out, hereſies of a foule nature beginning to ſpring up and increaſe with Religion, it pleaſed God to ſend Constantine to ayd the truth againſt error, and impiety: in his power now it was to congregate Biſhops of the beſt abilities, for the diſcuſſing and diſcovering of truth, and for the upholding the ſame being diſcovered. When Biſhops contended againſt Biſhops, and Presbyters againſt Presbyters, and when Arianiſme was defended by as great a number of Divines as it was oppoſed, ſo that from the wiſdome of Divines, no deciſion could be expected, then doth the power and policy of one Emperor, by Divines remedy, that, which a thouſand Divines by themſelves could never have remedyed. From the Biſhop of Rome the Orthodox party could obtaine no ſuccour, till Conſtantines Scepter proved more vertuous than his Croſiers: and when the Councell was by Conſtantine called, and ordered, the Biſhop of Rome was not the onely Oracle in that Councell, neither had that great trouble of aſſembling been, if one Biſhop had then bin more oraculous than all. The ſame offices alſo which Conſtantine did in his dayes, many other godly Emperors did in their raignes: and had not they done them, no one Biſhop could; for the Catholike Biſhops were many times inferior in number, and power to the Heretikes: and if the Pope had then had the power to utter Oracles, yet not having power to inforce, and authoriſe the ſame upon all oppoſites, hee could not have advantaged Religion amongſt Heretikes, more than hee doth now amongſt Proteſtants, Iewes, Turkes, or Pagans. If God gave infallibility to one Biſhop, for the availe of all the world, why doth not that Biſhop availe the whole world? Why is ſo great a light put under a Buſhell? Why are not all men illuminated by it? And if God had no regard therein but to that remnant which worſhips the Pope, if his only ayme therein was at the ſalvation of Papiſts, why is this made a ground of univerſall authority to the Pope, or of generall priviledge to all Biſhops? But I am to ſpeake now to Proteſtants which hold no one Biſhop infallible, but the whole order of Biſhops freer from fallibility, than any other condition of men: therfore to ſuch, I ſhall inſtance in Rome it ſelfe what multitudes of Divines; of learned, profound Divines; of politike, Sagacious Divines for many ages together have beene drunke and bewitched with the ſuperſtitions, Idolatries, blaſphemies, and hereſies of that inchanting City? Can it bee thought ſafe for Princes and Lay-men wholly to abjure their owne underſtandings, and yeeld themſelves Captives to the dictates of Divines only, when ſo many Millions of them for ſo many ages, notwithſtanding all their exquiſite learning and rare abilities, devote themſelves to ſuch ſottiſh impoſtures, and groſſe impieties, nay to ſome ſuch infernall, diabolicall tenets? Can men ſtill perſiſt to give up their judgements wholly to other men for their callings ſake, or for their learning and wiſdome ſuppoſed, when we ſee this is the very ſame rock, whereupon Rome ſuffers Ship-wrack, and this blind opinion the very ſnare wherein ſo great a part of the world ſtill lies intangled? But I will avoydeprolixity.

And now in the fourth place, I come to ſhew, that if we will take all theſe things for granted, and aſcribe all learning, knowledge, and freedome from variance to all Clergie-men and to Clergie-men only, yet it doth not follow that they are neceſſarily to rule, and command in chiefe. Nay I ſhall make it appeare, that it is not only not neceſſary, but that it is many wayes miſchievous, that the ableſt Divine ſhould alwayes be ſupreme in all cauſes, and over all perſons Eccleſiaſticall. Power and wiſdome are things of a different nature, for power cannot ſtand with inferiority, but wiſdome may be as efficacious in a man of meane condition as in a man of high quality; and power if its ſupremacy be divided, it is diminiſhed: but wiſdome the more it is diſperſed, the more the vertue of it is increaſed. Wiſedome often is contented to ſerve, and to accept of a low dwelling, but power ceaſes to be power if it dwell not in ſublimity, and have honour to attend it. To be wiſe, and to be contemned, dejected, ſuppreſſed are things compatible, they are things frequent: but to be potent, is the ſame thing as to be great, to be ſacred, to bee a commander of other mens wiſdome: Nay to be potent hath no terme convertible, but to be potent. Power in the State, is preſerved as the Arke was in the Iewiſh Church, it is priviledged from common ſight, and touch in all well conſtituted Common wealths, it is united in ſome one perſon only, and to him ſo lineally intayled, that it may never dye, never ceaſe, never ſuffer any violent motion, or alteration. Power is as the ſoule of Policy, of ſo exquiſite, and delicate ſenſe, that nothing but the wings of Cherubims is fit to guard and incloſe it, from all rude approaches: vacuity in nature is not a thing more abhorred, or ſhunned with greater diſturbance, and with greater confuſion of properties, than the leaſt temeration, and eclipſe of power in the State. How abſurd then is this axiome, which makes power ſervile to wiſdome, not wiſdome to power, wch ſubjects power to ſo many tranſlations, & competitions, and ceſlations, as often as time ſhall diſcover ſuch and ſuch excellencies in ſuch, and ſuch men? If power ſhall always be at the devotion of ſuch men, as for the preſent appear moſt wiſe, if ſhe ſhal be made ſo cheap, and vulgar, and proſtituted daily to ſo many uncertainties, what quiet can ſhe procure to the world? Nay what bloud wil ſhe not procure? I need ſay no more: this axiome is neither conſiſtent with Monarchicall, nor hereditary rule.

For firſt, if the moſt knowing Divine ſhall alwayes be ſupreme Commander in all Church affaires (for more than this the Pope never claymed) then by the ſame reaſon the moſt knowing Stateſ-man ſhall be ſupreme in the Palace, the moſt knowing Souldier in the Campe, the moſt knowing Lawyer in the Tribunall, &c. and ſo Monarchy ſhall be changed not into the ariſtocracy, or democracy, which are formes not utterly corrupt, but into poly-coirany, than which nothing can be more unpoliticke.

All Nations have ever rejected this broken confuſed rule of many ſeverall independent Commanders, which cannot chuſe but injoyne impoſſible things ſometimes: for all theſe commanders may at the ſame time uſe the ſame mans ſervice in ſeverall places, and in this they never can be ſatisfied: wherefore we may well account this rule as bad as anarchy it ſelfe. Nay even Religion it ſelfe by this meanes may be diſtracted into ſeverall ſupremacies, for He that is the ableſt Divine in polemicall points and in deciding controverſies, may not be ableſt in poſitive points, or matters of Diſcipline, and yet here the one hath as good title to abſolute power in his ſphere, as the other hath in his. And as Monarchy cannot, ſo ſecondly, neither can hereditary right ſtand with this alwayes uncertaine, variable title of ability, and excellence in knowledge. Nay poſſeſſion of ſupremacy is here no good plea: For he that was the greateſt, and moſt knowing man laſt yeare, is not ſo this yeare, neither perhaps will he be next yeare, that is ſo this yeare. A thouſand incongruities and inconveniences attend upon this paradox: for the abilities of men are very hardly tryable, and diſcernable: and if they were not, yet the ſubjecting of power to the perpetual, giddy changes of new elections would ſoone confound us into our old Chaos againe, as the Poets word is.

The three principall acts of power are,

Firſt, to make Lawes.

Secondly, to give judgement according to Lawes made.

Thirdly, to execute according to the right intent of judgments.

In the making of Lawes alſo according to Tully, there is three things neceſſary: 1. Invenire. 2. Diſceptare. 3. Ferre. The invention of all neceſſary Lawes is almoſt perfect alreadie to our hands; Thoſe Lawes which God ordained for the Iewes, and thoſe which our Anceſtors found out for us, are daily before our eyes, and little can now be added of moment, except only for illuſtration of what was ambiguous before. In the Church alſo is leſſe want of perpetuall alterations, and additions of Canons, than in the State, our miſery is, that we ſucceed Anceſtors which were oppreſt with too vaſt a Church diſcipline. Our reformation hath rid us of ſome part of this burthen, but yet no ſenſible man can chuſe but ſee, that our Eccleſiaſticall Courts are yet of larger juriſdiction, and fuller of trouble, than ever the Iewiſh were, or thoſe of the Primitive Chriſtians. The reaſon of this is, becauſe wee ſtill rely too much upon Divines herein, and they for their own profit, and power are ſtill as willing to uphold their own Tribunals as ever they were. Did they thinke it a greater honour to ſerve at the Altar than in the Conſiſtory, and did they take more delight in Preaching, than attending ſuites, they would not ſtudy New Canons, but diſcharge themſelves of many old ones: and ſo eaſe themſelves and us too, and reſtore backe againe to the Civill Magiſtrate that which Popery firſt uſurped, and their ambition hath ſince continued. Howſoever if Miniſters can adde any Articles to the Doctrine of our Church for the better preventing of Schiſmes, or frame any orders for the more decent performance of Gods worſhip in the Church, I would not exclude them from propoſing it; I only deſire that ſince they are men, and may have private intereſts and reſpects to the prejudice of other men, they may not ingroſſe all power of propoſing what they liſt, and to exclude all others from the like power.

And in the ſecond place, if Clergie men only ſhall propoſe all Eccleſiaſticall Lawes; yet it is moſt unjuſt that Princes, and Lay-men ſhould be held utterly uncapable of ventilating, and debating the ſame.

Id quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. Nature hath printed this in us, if the Prieſt propoſe any thing tending to the diſſervice of God, that diſſervice will draw the ſame guilt upon me, and all others, as upon him, and it ſhall not excuſe me or others, that he pretended his judgment to be unqueſtionable; and ſhal it then here be unlawfull for me and others to uſe any endeavour for the prevention of this guilt? If Angels from Heaven ſhould ſeduce me, I were inexcuſable: and when Miniſters, whom I know to bee ſubject to the ſame naturall blindneſſe, and partiality as I am, and to whom I ſee generall error may be a private advantage, in matters of this private advantage, ſhal I be allowed no liberty to ſearch, and trye, and to uſe my beſt art of diſcuſſion? If this were ſo, God had made my condition deſperate, and remedileſſe, and I might ſafely attribute my error, and deſtruction to the hand of God alone: but this no man can imagine of God without great impiety. God hath declared himſelfe contrary herein, for he hath exempted none from error though never ſo learned, nor leaves none excuſable in error though never ſo unlearned▪ if we will blindly truſt others, tis at our own perill, He will require it at our hands; but if we will ſeeke induſtriouſly, we ſhall finde, if wee will knock at his dore, He hath promiſed to open to us. And if private men ſtand accountable for their owne ſoules, whatſoever the Prieſts doctrine or commands be, how much more ſhall Princes, and Courts of Parliament anſwer for their wilfull blindneſſe, if they will depart from their owne right and duty in ſifting, and examining al ſuch religious conſtitutions, as concerne them, and all others under their charge? Shall they ſit to treate of Lether, and Wooll, and neglect doctrine and diſcipline? Shall they conſult of the beauty and glory of the kingdom, and transfer Religion to others, which is the foundation of all happines? Shall they be ſollicitous for tranſitory things, and yet truſt their ſoules into other mens hands, who may make a profit of the ſame? Let us not ſo infatuate our ſelves, let us honour Divines, and reverence their counſels, but let us not ſuperſtitiouſly adore them, or dotingly in-ſlave our ſelves to their edicts.

THe 3d. thing in making of laws is that which we term ferre Legem: and till this act of carrying, paſſing or enacting give the binding force of Law to it, how good and wholſome ſoever it be after all debate, yet it is but as the counſell of a Lawyer, or the preſcription of a Phyſition. And here we maintaine, that if Divines are the moſt fit, to invent, and diſcuſſe Eccleſiaſticall Conſtitutions, yet they have not in themſelves that right and power which is to imprint the obliging vertue of Lawes upon them. The forme or eſſence of Law is that coercive, or penall vertue by which it bindes all to its obedience: and all cannot be bound to ſuch obedience, but by common conſent, or elſe ſome externall compulſion: take away this binding vertue, and it is no Law: it is, but a Counſell, wherein the inferior hath as much power towards his ſuperior, as the ſuperior hath towards his inferior. If then Divines will vindicate to themſelves a Legiſlative power in the Church, they muſt deduce the ſame either from the common conſent of the Church, or from ſome other authority to which all the Church is ſubject, and to which the whole Church can make no actuall oppoſition. If they clayme from common conſent, they muſt produce ſome act of State, and formall record to abet their clayme, and common conſent muſt alſo ſtill ſtrengthen the ſame, or elſe by the ſame that it was conſtituted, it may ſtill be diſſolved; and if they clayme from ſome higher externall authority, ſtronger than common conſent, they muſt induce that authority to give vigor to their Lawes, and to uſe means of conſtraint againſt all ſuch, as ſhall not voluntarily yeeld obedience to the ſame. And it is not ſufficient for them to alledge God for their authority, without ſome ſpeciall, expreſſe words from Gods owne mouth, for God gave no man a right, but he allowes him ſome remedy agreeable thereunto, and God is ſo great a favourer alſo of common conſent, that though hee hath an uncontroleable power above it, yet (as Hooker obſerves) He would not impoſe his owne profitable Lawes upon his people, by the hands of Moſes, without their free, and open conſent. And if God, which cannot doe unjuſtice, nor will impoſe lawes, but ſuch as are profitable to us, and yet hath an undiſputable Empire over us, will ſo favour common conſent; ſhall man which may erre, and doe injurie▪ and is of leſſe value then communities, and wants might to inforce and put in execution his owne commands, uſurpe that which God relinquiſhes? Take it for granted that Prieſts cannot erre out of ignorance; or be 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. Tis 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 twas 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 Clergiemen 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 mee • 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 thei • 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. Its 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 deſcendents wheras now no ſuch ſuperiority can have place amongſt our Clergie-men. Fourthly, The Prieſts and Levites had then offices of a different nature, ſome of them were more eaſie, as to ſuperintend, &c. others more toyleſome, as to ſacrifice, &c. ſome more holy, as to offer incenſe, &c. others more meane, as to ſlaughter beaſts, &c. and ſo different orders were accordingly appointed, but no ſuch difference of ſervice is amongſt our Prieſts in our Churches. I ſhall adde alſo fifthly, that there were then many Ceremonies, and Types, and rites of worſhip, about which many differences might ariſe hardly to be decided without ſome appointed Iudges, whereas now the abolition of thoſe externall rudiments, and clogs hath diſcharged us of all ſuch queſtions, and ſcruples in the Church. And ſixthly the whole forme of Religious worſhip was then externally more majeſticall, and dreadfull, and it was convenient that ſome correſpondence ſhould bee in pomp, and ſplendor between the perſons which did officiate, and the places wherein they did officiate. As there was a Sanctum more inacceſſible than the outer Court, and a propitiatory more reverend than either, and as ſome Altars, and Sacrifices were more ſolemne, and venerable than others: ſo it was fit that perſons ſhould bee qualified accordingly with extraordinary honor, and priviledge but this reaſon now ceaſes amongſt us. There was no inherent holines in that Temple more than is in ours, nor no more internall excellence in thoſe Prieſts, than in ours: and yet we ſee an externall ſplendour was than thought fit for thoſe times, which our Saviour did not ſeeme to countenance in his Church. The ſame glittering garments are not now uſefull for our Prieſts, nor the ſame ſanctimonious forbearance, and diſtance due to our Chancels; and for ought we know all other grandour, and luſtre of riches, power, and honour falls under the ſame reaſon, but in the next place our anſwer is, that notwithſtanding all theſe differences which may much more plead for power and preeminence amongſt the Iewes, than amongſt us, yet we do allow to our Clergy more power, and preeminence than was knowne amongſt the Iewes. There is no colour in Scripture that there were ſo many Eccleſiaſticall Courts in Iudea, ſo thronged with ſutors, ſo peſtred with Officers, ſo choaked up with cauſes of all kinds, as matrimoniall, teſtimentary, and many the like: there is no colour, that in ſo many ſeverall diviſions of the Land, beſides, ordinary tithes, and indowments, they had any Eccleſiaſticall Lords to injoy ſo many ſeverall Caſtles, Palaces, Parkes, Manors, &c. They had one Miter, we have many. They had one Prieſt richly attired, but with Ornaments that were left for the uſe of ſucceſſive generations, we have many, whoſe bravery is perpetually freſh, and various. Alexander might perhaps wonder at the ſumptuous habit of one of Aarons Succeſſors, but if Salomon himſelfe ſhould ſee the Majeſticall equipage of diverſe of our Arch-Biſhops, or Cardinals, as they paſſe from one tribunall to an other; He would think his own Religion ſimple, and naked to ours. Beſides though the Iewes had but one High-Prieſt, in whom was concerned all the State and glory of their Clergie, yet he alſo was ſo farre from clayming any independent power, that in the moſt awfull of Religious affaires, as conſulting with God, receiving the Law, building and dedicating the Temple, ordering, and reforming Prieſts, and their ſervices, making Lawes, and ſuperintending all holy perſons, places, and things, in all theſe things hee was inferior to the Prince, not ſo much as executing the ſame by ſubordination. That Scotch Gentleman therefore, which undertakes to prove the independent, unalterable juriſdiction of Biſhops, as its now injoyd, and accounted divine in England, both from the Law and the Goſpell, is as much to be applauded for his confidence, as for his wit.

One Argument more is brought by ſome Papiſts, to the ſame purpoſe, but it is ſcarce worth repetition. They ſay, Ieremy was but a meane Prophet, yet its written of him, that he was appointed over Nations and Kingdomes, to pull up, to beate downe, to deſpiſe, &c. and they inferre that what a Prophet might doe, a fortiori a Prieſt may doe. But this is not literally ſpoken as true of Ieremies own exployts; The Prophet was here Gods inſtrument to foretell, and proclaime them, but God had other inſtruments to execute them, and thoſe inſtruments in probability were Princes, not Prophets, nor Prieſts. Princes, Prophets, and Prieſts, may all be inſtruments of God in the ſame ſervice, yet not all ſerve alike honourably: for wee muſt looke further ſometimes than into the meere names of things, becauſe ſome names of ſervice import the nature of command, and ſome names of command import the nature of ſervice. The word, Nurſe, expreſſes ſomething of ſervice, but more of power, and this is fitly applyed ſometimes to Princes, for the office of Princes is to ſerve thoſe who are ſubject to their power. On the other ſide, the word, Guide, expreſſes ſomthing of power, but more of ſervice, and this may be fitly applyed to Priests and Prophets, for their skill may make them ſerviceable in ſomethings to thoſe which in others are ſerved by them. But I conclude theſe two firſt points, that there is no priviledge either of Sanctity or Knowledge which can exalt Prieſts, above Princes, or intitle them to that ſpirituall regiment in the Church, which they would faine pretend to. Further at this time I have not leaſure to proceed, I muſt now leave this already ſpoken, and all that which naturally will reſult from it, to the Iudicious.