THE TRUE GROUNDS OF ecclesiastical Regiment SET FORTH In a brief Dissertation. Maintaining the King's spiritual supremacy against the Pretended independency of the PRELATES, &c. TOGETHER, with some passages touching the ecclesiastical Power of Parliaments, the use of Synods, and the Power of Excommunication.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Bostock. 1641.   

The Divine Right of episcopacy refuted.  
IN this controversy about episcopacy by reason of many mistakes of either side much time hath been spent to little purpose, and the right and truth is yet as far imbosked, and buried in darkness as ever it was. Me thinks, the case is, as if two well imbattailed Armies had marched forth for a mutual encounter, but both not taking the same way, there never was yet any meeting in any one certain place, where this great strife might be decided. These mistakes and misadventures on both sides, as I conceive, have happened for want of an exact, and adequate definition of episcopacy first set down, 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 he endeavours to maintain as being of Divine right, I according to my power shall endeavour 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 Calvin's discipline may according to this definition be called Episcopacy, and it may be affirmed that episcopacy has been 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 profess to shake off, and neglect the mentioning, or answering of any thing which the Patrons of episcopacy have alleged, and stuffed their volumes withal, 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 mere equality, 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 itself, as our Hierarchists seem to gainsay. To let pass all impertinent vagaries, our dispute must be not whether Church polity 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 politic, or no; but whether such parity as now is at Geneva amongst presbyters be politic, or no: but my present scope is not to defend the presbyterial 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 cannot choose 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 wedlock between man and wife, and that is not maintained without some disparity, yet that disparity is as little as may be, and that only for parities sake, Non aliter fuerint foemina virque pares. But of this no more; I come to Bishop Hall's next more exact definitions: and they run thus; Episcopacy is an Eminent Order of sacred function appointed in the Evangelical Church by the Holy Ghost, for the governing and overseeing thereof, and besides the Word and Sacraments, it is endued with power of Ordination and perpetuity of jurisdiction. Or thus: A Pastor ordained perpetual moderator in Church affairs with a fixed imparity exercising spiritual jurisdiction out of his own peculiarly demandated authority is a Bishop. Or thus: add majority above Presbyters, and power of jurisdiction by due Ordination for constant continuance, and this makes a Bishop: take away these, and he remains a mere Presbyter.  
It is to be observed now that four things are here asserted.  
First, episcopal power is such as none are capable of, but only men within Sacred Orders. A Bishop must be a Presbyter endued with power of Ordination, and spiritual jurisdiction by due Ordination, and without these he remains a mere Pastor.  
Secondly, episcopal power is such as is wholly independent upon temporal Rulers, Its institution was from the Holy Ghost in the Evangelical Church, It must rule out of its own 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 till the world's end.  
In brief, the sum of all these definitions is this: Episcopacy is a form of ecclesiastical policy instituted by Christ, whereby a superior Order of Presbyters is endued with a perpetual independent power of Ordination, and spiritual jurisdiction, and with majority above Presbyters, and this power as it appertains to all that Order, so it appertains 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, spiritual jurisdiction, and such a majority above Presbyters, as now they enjoy, excluding from all such power and majority, not only all Laymen, and Princes, but also Presbyters themselves. Secondly, if power of Ordination, and spiritual jurisdiction, and pre-eminence above all the clergy be due only to Bishops, yet we complain that now in England that power and pre-eminence is abused, and too far 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 extremes, some defend episcopacy as it is now constituted in England, as apostolical, others withstand it as Antichristian: my opinion is that the government is not so faulty as the governors have been, and that it is better than no government at all, nay, and may be better than 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 appear in some things unprofitable, in some things inconvenient, in some things mischievous: in notihng necessary, or unalterable. And it ought to be observed, that evil forms of policy 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 prosperity not to the government of the city, for that was ill constituted, and composed: but to the governors, for they were wise and virtuous. The contrary also happened to Lacedaemon, for that fared ill sometimes and suffered much distemper, because though its fundamental Laws were good, yet its Kings and ephory were many times tyrannous, and unjust. And this should teach Bishops not always to boast of the sanctity 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 forms 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 something to secular Magistrates in the rule of the Church, but supremacy of rule they do utterly in very terms deny. The Protestants though divided amongst themselves, some placing supreme power in episcopacy, 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, he was of necessity to commit, not only doctrine but all discipline also to the charge of his Apostles, and their Substitutes only: wherefore though Secular authority be now come in, & become friendly to Religion, & willing to advance the spiritual prosperity of the Church, as welll as the temporal of the State, yet Clergiemen having obtained possession of power in the Church, and that by Christ's own institution, they think they ought not to resign the same again at the demand of Princes. And because the certain form 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 form 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 do as the Romans once did when they were chosen arbitrators between 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 imparity was necessary in the Primitive Church, in the very House of God, and therefore was so countenanced by our Saviour: but for aught 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 prelacy, or such as the Presbytery mayntaines, it is so far from being now unchangeable since Princes are come in to do their offices in the house of God, that I think it cannot remain 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 endeavour to confirm, and demonstrate. In the first place then, I am to impugn those grounds whereby a sole, independent, perpetual power of Church Government is appropriated to ecclesiastical persons only: and whereby Princes, &c. are excluded as incompetent for the same. That there is no such thing as Ordination, and spiritual 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 ecclesiastical, or no. It is agreed by all, that God hath not left human 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 supreme power ought to be entire and undivided, and cannot else be sufficient for the protection of all, if it do not extend overall: without any other equal power to control, or diminish it: and that therefore the Supreme temporal Magistrate ought in some cases to command ecclesiastical persons, as well as civil: but here lies the difference, the Papists hold, that though spiritual persons as they are men, and Citizens of the commonwealth in regard of their worldly habitation are subject to temporal 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 do erect regnum in regno, they give temporal monarchy an imperfect, broken right in some things, but controlable and defeasible by the spiritual monarchy in other things. And the World has had a long sad experience of this, whilst Kings had the Pope for their superior in any thing, they remained supreme in nothing, whilst their rule was by division diminished in some things, they found it insufficient in all things, so that they did not command jointly 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 spiritual Dominion, and execute not the same in show 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, than they are to him. And whereas the Canon Law allows temporal Princes to punish the insolence and oppressions of Bishops within their respective Territories, modò sint verae oppressiones, we know this comes to nothing, if Princes claim it not by something higher than Canon Law. For how shall this be tried? how shall it appear, whether these oppressions be true, and heinous, or no? if Bishops will not submit themselves in this trial, and refuse to appeal, Kings are no competent Judges, nor can take no just cognizance hereof: and what redress then is in the King's power? Even Popish Princes now know well enough how ridiculous this favour of the Canonists is, & therefore as the Popes fed them 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 do partake in some errors, and absurdities of the like nature: One Scotist says, That Montague, and our learnedest Protestant Divines, nay, even Rainolds himself though otherwise a Puritan, yet they all hold, that there is due to the King, no spiritual but only a temporal rule over persons and causes ecclesiastical, and that also by accident for the common peace sake. he says also that in his presence at a Cambridge Commencement, the chief Bishop was called Maximus Pater, and that it was maintained that the care of spiritual things did appertain to the chief Bishop, and of temporal to the King, and whereas it was at last concluded that all was to be governed by the King, yet he says questionless the intent was civilitèr, not spiritualitèr. And if we look back to the primitives we shall find that in good times before Popery had any considerable growth Kings for penance were enjoined to kneel to Priests, and were not admitted to have seats in the chancel near the Altar, no not amongst the Deacons: but were sometimes subjected to heavy and sharp censures of Bishops, and sometimes struck with the thunderbolt of Excommunication itself. And we shall find that the Name Church was applied in common speech to Churchmen only, and the Name spirituality was taken in the same sense, as if all other persons had been strangers to the Church, and had been of a mere temporal and Secular condition: and by the name clergy it was intimated to the World, that the sacerdotal function was the only lot and patrimony of God: and these usages were ab antiquo. And we shall find that the holiest and learnedest Fathers of the Church did seem to prefer the Mitre before the diadem, and to dream of a spiritual Empire belonging to Priests more worthy and sacred then that of Emperors. And therefore Gregory of Nazianzen in a Sermon before the Emperor 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, he calls the one spiritual the other fleshly, and concludes that the spirit ought not to give place to the flesh, nor heavenly things to earthly. What he meant here by giving place, whether he meant it of external submission, or internal awe I cannot tell: but he left it uncertain. To the same purpose that of Ambrose tends also: think not, O Emperor, that thou hast any right over divine things: for the Palace is for the Emperor, but Churches for Priests. And that also of Athanasius, It's neither lawful for us to hold a kingdom upon earth: nor hast thou O Emperor power over sacred things. we see they speak of their ministry and ecclesiastical vocation as of a sovereignty, and rule, and that more sacred, then that of Princes, of which Princes were not worthy, or capable. And to pass by the blind times of Popery wherein upon these grounds the Roman Bishops enthralled a great part of Christendom with temporal bondage, we shall find also that since the abjuration of Romish servitude, yet Protestant Ministers themselves have assumed a sanctity more than is due. The King's supremacy or Headship over the ecclesiastical or spiritual State, he being accounted but merely temporal 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 himself condemns this realm of Blasphemy for entitling Henry the Eighth Supreme Head of the Church here under Christ. And not only the Name, but the power itself which we give to civil Magistrates he protesteth against, as that which had wounded him deeply, Princes being made thereby too spiritual, he complaineth that this fault did reign throughout Germany, and in some parts of France, to the taking away of spiritual Regiment, whilst Princes were made chief 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 spiritual regency, accounting the intermeddling of Princes therein as an abolition, or profanation of the same.  
And hence it is, that our contrary faction of Hierarchists also, deny the King's supremacy in Spiritualibus, though not in Ecclesiasticis, and our prelates Style is providentia divina, not gratiâ Regis, and as they issue Writs in their own Names, so they use their own arms in their seals, and not the Kings. And we know it was my Lord of Canterbury's industry of late to procure a Commission about five years since, that all Bishops Courts might proceed without any subordination or dependency to any other of the King's Courts. So that though they complain of the Presbyterian Discipline, and the doctrine of Calvin as injurious to Princes, yet they themselves seem to be of the same confederacy.  
But that I may not seem to misreport, or misinterpret any, I will cite only two Divines of prime note, both defenders of supremacy. Hooker speaking of that dutiful subjection which is due from all Christians to the Pastors of their souls in respect of their sacred Order, affirms that the same is as due from Kings and Princes, as from their meanest vassals. Reverence due to the Word, and Sacraments, and to God's 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 calls 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) infers thereupon, that Priests have a greater and perfecter regiment than Princes: For (Says he) Priests govern 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. he does not compare the offices but the Regiments of Priests and Princes, and he avers as confidently that Priests govern 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 sanctity, before the sceptre: to detect therefore the error of Divines herein, I will now truly produce, and throughly poise those arguments which they most rely upon. The first argument runs thus. spiritual things are not to be managed, and treated, but only by spiritual persons: but Princes are not spiritual, Ergo. we must first understand here what is meant by spiritual things, and spiritual persons. If by spiritual things here, such things are meant as appertain to God and to Religion, and as concern God's service in the Church, and the welfare of the souls and spirits of men; so all men have a spiritual charge in general: for all men by their general callings are servants to God, and are not only bound to provide for their own 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 spiritual, 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 public Offices and Dignities here, and whose particular callings are far more sacred. But besides this internal holiness of persons visible only to God, there is an external, political holiness also of persons which arises from our particular Functions in this World, and the measure of this holiness, is the profit and consequence of our professions, and employments. The regal and sacerdotal Offices have ever been held comparatively of all other the most holy, and worshipful, and the reason is because of all others they are the most advantageous, and of most extensive benefit to the people of God. And therefore the person is always valued according to the function, and the function according to its benefit, and not on the contrary: The man is Honourable because he 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 God's mere acceptance of the person no reason can be given, yet there is great reason that all men should be Honourable with men, as they are acceptable with God. God honoured the Israelites before other Nations; they were a royal Priesthood in comparison of Heathens, because God by his peculiar choice of them to his service did give them that more than regal, or more than sacerdotal privilege. 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 Jews 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 than 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 nearer access to God at the Throne and at the Altar, and by their more sublime employments are more highly dignified, & more honourably consecrated. With the Prince and the Priest no man will enter into any competition, but the competition now being between the Prince & the priest, we must search into the nature of this political sanctity, that we may the better distinguish its degrees. Calvin we see complains, that the persons of Princes are made too spiritual, by our appropriating to them spiritual authority: because he holds that authority too spiritual for their persons. The same thing is here the reason of the same thing; spiritual offices and services belong not to Princes, because their persons are not spiritual: and why are their persons not spiritual? because their offices, and services are not spiritual. 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 rays of the function: they which will prove Kings to be not spiritual, must first prove their offices to be merely temporal, and not on the contrary. Such proofs as infirm the King's power, and interest in spiritualibus are proper, such proofs let us hear. Ambrose, and Athanasius indeed say directly, that Emperors have no right over divine things, nor power over sacred things: but they are very brief, and give no reason for their allegations, nor do 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 spiritual, 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 civil orb, therefore Princes may not in the ecclesiastical. 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 soul over the body, because things committed to the priests charge are heavenly and spiritual, whereas Kings (he says) have in their power things earthly, and bodily. 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 applies to every particular Priest. And thus he seems to attribute a greater sanctity not only intensive, but extensive also, to any priest, then to any Prince. The gloss of Bilson also hereupon is: That Priests govern 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 says) 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 we receive from the mouths, and hands of his Messengers. As to external power, and corporal 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 concur 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 engendereth faith and winneth the soul unto God to serve him with a willing mind, whereas the Sword in the Prince's hand striketh only a terror into men to refrain the outward act, but reformeth not the secrets of the heart. This is Bilson's sense, and I think 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 lessened, and that by this instance: for that the preacher winneth souls to a willing service, but the prince by external terror restraineth only from the outward act of sin. And thirdly, his comparison is indefinite, between Prince, and preacher, that which is employed of Priest in general, he seemeth to apply to every priest in particular. I must frame my answer to every particular. Power and Dominion of itself is divine, and add but infinite, or absolute to it, it is divinity itself. Nothing is more desirable to man, or more adequate to the aims of intelligent creatures than power▪ the Angels in Heaven are known to us by the Names of Thrones, and Principalities, Heaven itself is known to us by the name of a kingdom: 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 blessedness is the unity of the Godhead, and that unity must needs subsist in absolute power, absolute wisdom, and absolute goodness. Absolute power also in order of Nature (according to man's understanding) as a Father gives being to absolute wisdom: as both give being to absolute goodness. Whatsoever is in God must needs be God, and of the same substance indivisible, and so infinite wisdom, and infinite goodness, must needs be coeternal, and consubstantial with infinite power: yet this excludes not all order of distinction; and according to order of distinction it is more proportionable to our capacity, that infinite wisdom should derive its divine generation from infinite power, then infinite power from infinite wisdom. Unity of perfect blessedness cannot comprehend any thing more than this Trinity, neither can it comprehend any thing less: and therefore 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 internal operations, wherein one person is more generative than another. And according to these internal operations of the deity we ought (to speak after the manner of men) to ascribe priority of Order to infinite power, the first person of the Godhead, in as much as we cannot conceive but that God is rather wise, as he is powerful, and Good as he is both powerful, and wise: then that he is powerful, as he is wise, or wise, and powerful, as he is good. Having premised these things in general concerning power, and dominion, and the excellence thereof, I am come now to see what that power and Dominion is which Churchmen claim 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 spiritual 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 spiritual rule, they derive it from preaching, and the subordinate Offices of the ministry, but when they would exercise their rule, than they allege that to rule over Preachers is more, & greater than to preach: because the spirits of men are properly subject to no rule; and because preaching▪ though it be one of God's most effectual Ordinances, yet is no proper rule but a service rather: therefore they lay hold of ecclesiastical juridiction for proof of their holy spiritual rule. And yet because ecclesiastical jurisdiction is of itself 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 ecclesiastical jurisdiction is more sacred and spiritual than the ministration of the Word, and Sacraments, or not; if it be, than these arguments drawn 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 capacity: 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 less excellent, and holy: but we shall not need to stick here.  
The papists themselves do acknowledge, that to preach, &c. is less than to rule, and to prescribe Laws to preachers, &c. and Bilson makes a plain confession, that the sacerdotal Office is rather ministerial, then imperial, and that such reverence and subjection as is due in spiritual affairs 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 he) 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 God's stead: for in these services there is the same honour due to GOD from Ministers themselves, as from laymen. And therefore we see if the greater Priest hear the word, &c. from the less, this does not sanctify the less above the greater, as it would, if sanctity did rest in the person, and not in the Ordinance, or if it did not pass from the actor, or instrument, to the Author and Ordainer himself. I think we may therefore proceed now from this, that power, and Government is a thing in itself most awful and honourable, to this: that the truest owners thereof next under God, whom the Church ever looked upon as God's immediate Vicegerents, and Deputies thereof, are Princes. Saint Peter 1. 2. writing to the Church in the time of a Heathen, and impious Emperor, 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 soul Christian and Heathen, Priest and Laymen. For the same cause also the primitives in Tertullian's mouth make this humble profession: Colimus imperatorem, ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem: & this profession was made under the Reign of wicked Emperors, to whom in ecclesiastical affairs more might be denied, then to ours: for though Reges, in quantum Reges serviunt Deo, as Saint Augustine says, yet in quantum pii Reges, they serve God the more gloriously, and have a nearer access to God, and in that respect it may be more truly said of them, that they are à Deo secundi, & solo Deo minores: and if so, how awful and venerable must this render their persons, and with what submission must we prostrate ourselves at their sacred feet? and that it may not seem strange that mere power and rule in an unbelieving or wicked Prince should be so sacred and inviolable, we must take notice that the wickedness 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 endurance is an effect of obedience and subjection. Peter as a Citizen of the commonwealth is a servant to Nero, and though in the mere consideration of a Christian, he has not dependence upon Nero further than is to be testified by suffering under him in ill commands, yet in all civil things, and things indifferent, his dependence remains 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 supreme Judge of such cases, and had given him a power independent, it had been necessary that he had given him withal some remedy, 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 entreat, or persuade only, for these may be done without power, but to command, and commands are vain without compulsion, and they which may not compel, may not command, and they which cannot command, may not meddle at all except to entreat, or persuade. Power then there must be, and that power must be somewhere supreme that it may command all good, and punish all evil, or else it is insufficient, and if all, then in religious as well as in civil cases, for supremacy may be severally exercised, but the right of it cannot be severally enjoyed: if Peter may do more than persuade Nero, the sceptre is Peter's not nero's; if he may do no more, he is as mere a subject as any other Layman: but in whethersoever the power of commanding rests, it cannot rest in both, the sceptre cannot be shared, independence cannot be divided: the people cannot obey both as equal Judges whilst their judgements remain contrary, nor serve both as equal Lords whilst their commands are contrary. To persuade and entreat in Ministers, are the offices of a blessed vocation, but they are not properly Ensigns of royalty, and power: and if the spirits of men are sometimes moved, & won by the persuasions 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 rivality with that solid, sensible, coercive, binding power wherewith God has invested his true lieutenants upon earth. That power which is proper, must include not only a right of commanding, but also an effectual virtue of forcing obedience to its commands, and of subjecting and reducing such, as shall not render themselves obedient. The supreme civil Magistrate has this power grounded upon the common consent of mankind, and as strong as is the political consent of human nature in its supreme Law of public conservation, so vigorous, and invincible is this power. Had Priests any such power or sword, we should soon see it, and feel it, and voluntarily stoop under it: but since they can pretend to none such, the mere noise of an imaginary spiritual 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 external and political, the sword must not be invisible, and merely spiritual. If the Pope can impose an oath upon us to stand to his laws, and to obey his awards, our obedience being here political, 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 uneffectual. We cannot think that God has given the Pope any power but for good, and we cannot think that power good, whereby the Pope may destroy Millions of souls, and yet cannot reclaim, or convince one. The Pope's commands seem to me unreasonable, unnatural, impious, the Pope herein has no spiritual power to rectify me, or to discover my error to me, or to procure obedience from me, that power which he has over my soul 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 natural light. Can we think that God gave this new Power, never before known, to these latter days out of mercy, that all except one handful 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 temporal, not spiritual yoke: howsoever it be otherwise pretended. Voluntary obedience also is such as is rendered without any external influence from the Pope; For the will is capable of no compulsion, and if it were, my will would be as liable to the same as any other man's: and if the Pope may compel my will, and so open Heaven to me (as it were) by his spiritual keys, and will not, 'tis his cruelty, not my contumacy. It's no glory to the Pope, that some few by blind voluntary obedience acknowledge the power of his keys, in this he has no advantage of Mahomet, that sword which was so victorious in the hand of Mahomet, was as spiritual, and as universally prevalent as the Popes. So much of the imaginary rule and spiritual sword of Priests, as also of the real effectual dominion of Princes, I shall now prove further, that the sword of Kings if it be not so spiritual, as the Pope pretends, to cut off souls; yet it is more than temporal, and extends to things most spiritual. The Founders and Patriarchs of the World before the Law of Moses, did not only govern the Church, but also execute all pastoral, spiritual Offices as they were Princes, and supreme Potentates within their own limits: they did not govern men as they were the Priests of God, but they did sacrifice and officiate before God, as they were the Heads, and governors 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 mouths; it would have been held presumption if any else had attempted the like, and a dishonour to God's service. Nature then taught that the most excellent person was most fit for God's service in the Church, and that no person could be more excellent, than he 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 usual sense all Princes, so far as they have charge and cure of souls, and are entrusted with Divine Service within their several commands, are more supereminently taken for priests: but the most usual sense is this. A Priest is he which hath cure of Souls, and a trust of God's worship by a more peculiar kind of public and politic consecration and dedication thereunto: of such consecration, or ordination, before Aaron, we read nothing, and for aught 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 he had no privilege nor right to the denomination of priest more than 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 external, formal, ceremonial Unction, or imposition of hands, or any other solemn Dedication or separation before men: but in this respect, that he did perhaps publicly officiate in the presence of all his Subjects, and perhaps in behalf of all his subjects, and this is a higher and blesseder sacerdotal Office, than any we read of in his predecessors or successors till Aaron's days. It is probable that God was served in Families before Aaron, and perhaps there were solemn days and Feasts, which all Families by joint consent did in several places dedicate to God's service by strict observance of the same, but that any public places were appointed for whole Congregations to join and meet publicly in under the charge and function of any one public Priest, till Aaron is not specified. This only we may guess by the special name of priest applied to Melchisedeck, that perhaps being a priest of Salem, he was the first that made the worship of God so public: and did not only by the general influence of his power take order for the service and knowledge of God in several Families, but also gather several assemblies of united Families, and there publicly sacrifice and officiate in behalf of great, and solemn Congregations: wherein he might far exceed Abraham. Howsoever its sufficient for my purpose, that this he might do by virtue of his regal 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 he was the most lively and Honourable type of our Saviour: for Aaron's Order was Substitute, and his consecration was performed by the hand of his Prince and superior, and being so consecrated, He did sacrifice, not as a Prince but merely as a Priest. Whereas Melchisedeck received his Order from none but himself, and so remained not only independent, but his service also being both regal and sacerdotal, as our Saviours also was, it was yet more honourable in that it was regal, then in that it was sacerdotal. And this certainly suits best with our saviour's Order, for no Secular authority but his own did concur in his inauguration, he was his own Ancestor in this, in that his own royal dignity gave virtue to his sacerdotal: and though he would not assume to himself the external Function of Royalty in mere Secular things, yet in this he would follow holy Melchisedeck. But to pass from Melchisedeck, within some few ages after we find the sceptre and Censor severed; we find no prints of great Empires before Moses, for in small Countries we find divers petty independent principalities: and it may be imagined that neither true policy, nor wicked tyranny was then known in such perfection, as now it is. The Israelites at their departure from Egypt were a great and formidable Nation, as appears by the combinations of many other Potentates against them, yet at that time the weighty charges both of prince and priest were supported by Moses alone. This was exceeding grievous till Jethro in civil affairs, and till God himself 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 Levites in the Church, the Nation being grown numerous, and Ceremonies in Religion very various: but we must not think that Moses was hereby emptied, or lessened of any of his civil, or ecclesiastical authority: as he retained still supremacy of power to himself in all things, so that Supremacy became now the more awful, and majestical. 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 natural Tracts many little 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: sovereignty is as the main 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 cistern to receive and require back again all the riches of others. That which Moses parted with all and derived to others was for the better expedition both of piety 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 he could not intend universal business: 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 superior to Aaron in the most sacred things approach God in the Mountain to receive the custody of the Law from God's hand, and to receive Orders from God for the Tabernacle, and all religious services, and did perform the act of consecration to Priests, and did always consult with God by Priests, and command all men as well Priests, and Levites, as other men. Hooker and Bilson, and I think most of our Divines do confess not only this, that Moses retained all ecclesiastical supremacy to himself, but that he left the same also to his successors. Hooker says that by the same supreme power David, Asa, Jehosaphat, Josias, &c. made those laws and Statutes (mentioned in sacred History) touching matters of mere Religion, the affairs of the Temple, and service of God. And by virtue of this power the piety and impiety of the King did always change the public face of Religion, which the Prophets by themselves never did, nor could hinder from being done. And yet if Priests alone had been possessed of all spiritual power, no alteration in Religion could have been made without them, it had not been in the King, but in Priests to change the face of Religion. And the making of ecclesiastical laws also with other like actions pertaining 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 says not one jot less. He confesses the Jewish Kings were charged with matters of Religion, and the custody of both Tables, nay, publishing, preserving, executing points of Law concerning the first table he assigns as the principal charge committed to Kings, as Kings, Religion being the foundation of policy. He instances also in the good Kings of Judah, who as they were bound, so they were commended for their duty by God himself, 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 do not gainsay this evident truth, and therefore Stapleton being I suppose fully convinced of it, seeks to answer and avoid it another way.  
But I proceed to the times of thraldom, wherein the Jews were governed by the Persians. How far the Jews 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, than Christians did afterwards under the Roman Emperors: before this time there is no probability of Excommunication, or any spiritual Judicature, we read nothing of Maranathaes', or anathemas, but now perhaps some such government might take place: for where no peculiar consecrated ministry is, the Magistrate is fittest to officiate before God, and where no magistracy is permitted Ministers are fittest to preserve order. Some Papists that will undertake to prove any thing out of any thing allege Cain as an instance of Excom. as if Adam were so a Priest, as that he 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 temporal punishment, when Adam had proceeded against murder by spiritual: but not to insist longer upon these conjectural passages, I come to our saviour's days, & his government also being Regal, as well as sacerdotal, nay, being rather divine then either, I shall not stay there neither. Our main strife is how the Apostles & their successors governed after his ascension during the times of persecution: but little need to be said hereof: For in Scripture we find the Apostles themselves very humble, and unlordly, and transacting all things (according to our saviour's command and example) rather by persuasion, 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 majority very small: and the very terms themselves were promiscuously applied. In the next ensuing times also we find by ancient Testimony, that Omnia communi Clericorum consilio agebantur: and after that Episcopacy had gotten some footing, yet, as another ancient testimony informs us, except â Ordinatione, setting Ordination only aside it challenged no privilege above Presbyters: but as I have said before, whatsoever authority did reside in the clergy whilst temporal rule was wanting to the Church, and whilst miraculous power of binding and losing sinners, and of opening and shutting Heaven was supplied by the Holy Ghost for the emergent necessity of those times, the reason thereof no longer remaining, it ought now to remain no longer as it did, but to devolve again into the Temporall Rulers hands; from whence it was not taken by Christ, but where it was then abused, and made unprofitable by the owners themselves. If we do imagine that Timothy and Titus had episcopal power, and by that episcopal power did send out processes, and keep Courts, and holds pleas of all Testamentary, and matrimonial Causes, and Tithes, Fasts and all other which our Bishops now claim; and did redress all grievances for the preventing of confusion in the Church, during the malignity of Secular power; if we take all this for granted, though it be some thing too large to be granted, yet still we ought to conceive that this power was conferred upon them not in derogation of Secular authority, but for necessities sake, till Secular authority should again come in, and undertake the same offices, which Timothy and Titus were now to perform: when confusion cannot otherwise be prevented, Timothy and Titus shall govern, but when it may be prevented by that authority which is most competent, and when more perfect order shall be 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 leisure more seriously to attend their own proper function, and ministration? Hooker's own words are, if from the approbation of Heaven the Kings of God's own chosen people had in the affairs of the Jewish Religion supreme power, why should not Christian Kings have the like in Christian Religion? And Bilson having maintained the supremacy of the Jewish Kings, he ascribes the like to the whole function. he says, it is the essential 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 says, 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. he says further, that what the Jewish Kings had, Christian Kings ought to enjoy, and therefore Esay (says he) prophesying of the Evangelical 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 spiritual milk. Now what can be added to this, what more excellent and perfect Regiment than this had Timothy and Titus committed to them by virtue of their episcopal Order? What more sacred, what more spiritual offices could they perform in the Church? What could God's children suck from their breasts other than milk, then sincere, spiritual milk? Saint Augustine agrees to this, when he says that Kings, as Kings, serve God, so as none but Kings can do, and when he confesses, that Christ came not to the detriment of sovereignty. And the Church in Tertullian's words, ascribing worship to their Heathen Emperors, as being second immediately to God, and inferior to none but God, says as much as words can express. In regard of internal sanctity Peter may be more excellent than Caesar, and so may Lazarus perhaps then Peter: but in regard of that civil sanctity which is visible to man's eye, Caesar is to be worshipped more than Peter. Caesar is to be looked upon as next in place here to God, betwixt whom and God no other can have any superior place. Wisdom and goodness are blessed graces in the sight of GOD, but these are more private, and Power is an excellence more perfect, and public, and visible to man then either: if Ministers do sometimes in wisdom, and goodness excel Princes, yet in Power they do not: and therefore though wisdom and goodness may make them more amiable sometimes 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 angel, or Saint differs from another in wisdom, or in holiness, yet that they differ in power and glory we all know. The twelve Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles sit in heaven upon higher Thrones, than many Saints which perhaps here in this life might be endued with a greater portion of wisdom, and holiness than they were: and by this it may seem that there is a species of external sanctity of power dispensed according to the free power of God even in Heaven also, and that that sanctity is superior 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 we to entertain it on earth where our common felicity and safety does so much depend upon it? Goodness here we see is a narrow excellence, without wisdom, and power: and wisdom in men that have neither power, nor goodness, scarce profits at all: but power in infants, in women, in idiots hands is of public use, in as much as the wisdom and goodness of other men are ready to be commanded by it, and its more natural that they should be obsequious and officious in serving power, then that the transcendent, incommunicable, indivisible Royalty of power, should condescend to be 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 sanctity 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 wisdom and goodness 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 four exceptions to those times, whereby if it be granted that the Jewish Kings had supreme ecclesiastical authority, yet he says, it does not follow that our Kings now ought to have the same. he says, first, That the Jewish Religion was of far less dignity and perfection than ours is: ours being that truth of which theirs was but a shadowish prefigurative resemblance. Our answer here is, that the Religion of the Jews, as to the essence of it, was not different from ours, either in dignity or perfection. The same God was then worshipped as a creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and that worship did consist in the same kind of love, fear, hope, and belief, and the same charity, and justice amongst men. The Law of Ceremonies, and external Rites in the bodily worship of God, did differ from our discipline, that being more pompous and laborious: but the two great commandments which were the effects, and contents of all heavenly, spiritual, indispensable worship, and service, whereby a love towards God above that of ourselves, and a love towards man equal with that of ourselves was enjoined, these two great commandments 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 dignity of that obedience consisted then in those weighty matters of the Law, Piety, and mercy, as it now does; but if the Jewish Religion was less excellent, and more clogged with shadows, and ceremonies in its outward habit, what argument is this for the supremacy of regal, rather than sacerdotal power? The more abstruse and dark the form 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, methinks, the more use there was of sacerdotal honour, and prerogative, and the less of regal in matters of the Lord: I see not why this should make Princes more spiritual than their Order would bear, 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 authority, to see that done: Whereas with us there are numbers of mysteries even in belief which were not so generally for them as for us necessary to be with some express acknowledgement understood, many things belonging to external 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 spiritual authority of ecclesiastical persons be large, absolute, and independent. This reason is every way faulty: for as to matters of Discipline and external worship our Church is less encumbered with multiplicity of Rites, such as Saint Paul calls carnal and beggarly rudiments, and in this respect there is the less use of ecclesiastical authority amongst us: and if popish Bishops do purposely increase Ceremonies, that they may enlarge their own power, they ought not to take advantage of their own fraud. And as for matters of faith and doctrinal mysteries, we say according to God's ancient promise knowledge doth now abound by an extraordinary effusion of God's Spirit upon these latter days; we are so far from being more perplexed with shadows, and mystical formalities, or with weighty disputes, that we are, and aught to be a great deal less, and we do the rather suspect all popish traditions, and additions in Religion, because we 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 cloudy, and if the Scriptures, Councils, Fathers, and all learning were now more imperfect to us than they are, I cannot imagine how an unconfined absolute dominion of Churchmen should be more necessary then of Princes. For if absoluteness of power be of necessary use in intricate perplexed mysteries & controversies, yet why must that absolute power be more effectual in Priests than Princes? is not the counsel of prelates the same, and of the same vigour to solve doubts, and determine controversies, whether their power be subordinate, or not? doth mere power ad to the knowledge of Priests? or is the power of Priests more virtuous for the promoting of truth, than 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 commonwealth: subordinate counsels are held as available for the discerning of truth, and far more available for the conserving of peace and order. And who can then assign 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 mere servants to the King?  
His third exception is: That God having armed the Jewish Religion with a temporal sword, and the Christian with that of spiritual punishment only, the one with power to imprison, scourge, put to death, the other with bare authority 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 loseth.  
This reason taketh it for granted, that amongst the Jews the Church and State was the same, had the same body, the same head, the same sword, and that head was temporal, and that sword was material. 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 spiritual sword in the Church, as that Jews had only a temporal one. A diametrical opposition is here put betwizt Jews and Christians in Church Regiment, and yet no cause showed, or account given of that opposition.  
We have very good colour to argue, that without some strong reason showed of opposition, Christians ought not to be so contrary to that excellent discipline of the Jews which God himself ordered, and to introduce I know not what spiritual rule in prejudice of temporal rule: but how will Stapleton prove, that amongst Christians the Church and State are two divided bodies, so as they may admit of two several heads, and several swords, the one temporal the other spiritual, the one yielding precedence as temporal, the other predominating as spiritual? This we desire to see fortified with better proofs.  
Hooker in his eighth book not yet published has a learned clear discourse to show the fallacy, and injustice of this blind presumption. he allows that a Church is one way, and a Commonwealth another way defined, and that they are both in nature distinguished, but not in substance perpetually severed. Since there is no man (says he) of the Church of England, but the same is a member of the commonwealth, nor any of the commonwealth, but the same is of the Church, therefore as in a figure triangle, the base differs from the sides, and yet one and the selfsame line, is both a base and a side: a side simply, a base if it chance to be the bottom, and to underlie the rest. So though properties and actions of one do cause the name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort give the name of a Church to a multitude, yet one and the same multitude may be both. Thus in England there's none of one Corporation, but he is of the other also, and so it was amongst the Jews. Two things cause this error.  
First, because professors of the true Religion sometimes live in subjection under the false, so the Jews did in Babylon, so the Christians in Rome under Nero, in such cases true professors do 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 spiritual and temporal affairs and persons, but this proveth no perpetual necessity of personal separation: for the Heathens always had their spiritual Laws and persons and causes severed from their temporal, yet this did not make two independent States among them: much less doth God by revealing true Religion to any Nation distract it thereby into several independent communities, his end is only to institute several functions of one and the same community. Thus far Hooker most judiciously, and profoundly.  
We must not here expect any satisfaction from our Adversaries, why there should be less division between Church and State amongst the Jews, and less use of two several swords, then is amongst us: 'tis sufficient that they have said it. There's no crime so scandalous amongst our churchmen, or wherein they claim so much spiritual interest of jurisdiction as adultery, yet amongst the Jews that crime was carnal, not spiritual; and its punishment was death inflicted by the civil Judge, not damnation denounced by the Priest. Now if adultery in these days were better purged away, and less countenanced in our Christian Courts than it was amongst the Jews, there might something be alleged to prefer our modern inventions before God's own Statutes, but when ecclesiastial persons shall therefore encroach upon civil, that by, I know not what, pecuniary corruptions and commutations, vice, and scandal may abound, we do strangely 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 King's general chiefty of power, yet now the Church having spread itself over all Nations great inconvenience must thereby grow if every Christian King in his several territory should have the like power.  
By this reason it's presumed, that all the Universe ought to have but one head on earth, and that Rome must be its Court, and that it must be endued with Oraculous infallibility, and so to remain till the world's end: and this must be admitted out of some obscure general Metaphors in Scripture, or else God has not sufficiently provided for the wise government of his Catholic 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 universal government of Mankind: for what one man can receive Appeals either in temporal or spiritual affairs, or direct final, 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 customs to be chained to One City, thither to travel for all final determinations, and there to attend confused sentences, and in the mean time to endure at home endless dissensions, and hopeless divisions under the insufficient rule of subordinate limited Princes and Bishops? Surely had Mahomet preached any such gross doctrine amongst his ragged, barbarous Arabians, he had never tamed and broken them so easily to his wretched usurpation: 'tis wonderful that our Ancestors could drink of such a cup of intoxication in the worst of times, but that the nauseous dregs of its bottom should now be obtruded upon us in these golden, shining days, is almost past belief.  
The Pope never yet had the rule of a third part of the World, but so far as he has had it he has given sufficient testimony how insupportable great Monarchies are, both to the governor, and the governed. And where the yoke of Rome has prevailed, what has that infallible judgement, and unlimitable power, which the Pope pretends to for our good, what has it availed the Church of God? when the Eastern Churches were in unity, this gave them occasion to depart, and revolt, but when the rent was, what virtue had the Pope to reduce them to unite? The like may be asked concerning all Protestant Countries now fall'n from Romish obedience, nay of all Turks & Heathens not yet subdued to the triple crown; if Christ intended the Pope's infallibility for the discovery of all errors and heresies, and his supremacy for the subjugation of all such as would maliciously persevere in discord errors and heresies, how comes this intention to be so defeated, and frustrated? if the Pope's keys 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 universal sceptre, such as the World never before heard of, such as he himself 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 stubbornness and perverseness have hardened our hearts, let the key of power dissolve and bruise us: and if he can do neither of these, what virtue is there in the Roman Oracle, what benefit is there in that prophetic chair? what privilege has Peter more than John? Shall the city of Rome itself 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 fail in England, it may fail at Rome; if it fail not at Rome, it would not fail in England, but that the Pope is less propitious. O why should his mercy be more narrow, than his virtue? O let him once again graciously ascend his reverent chair, let him congregate general Councils, and there pour out the treasures of his inspired breast let him there give judgements as clear, pure, irrefragable, and as obvious to human apprehension as Scripture itself, nay, if something more sufficient than Scripture be necessary for the composing of all our strifes, let him give us Solutions in a phrase more powerful than the Apostles ever used, and prescribe rules more convincing than God himself, or Christ in his incarnation ever prescribed, and if Kings and Emperors still make resistance, let him put on his robes of Majesty and terror, let him pass over them as Serpents and Basilisks, whilst the stroke of his foot upon the earth fills all Countries with battalions of armed men: nay if terrestrial forces come not in fast enough, let him shake the Heavens with the thunder of his voice, and call down 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 prelates also, but I forbear: for if God has given them sole knowledge to determine all controversies, and power to enact all ecclesiastical Canons, doubtless he has given them some binding coercive force correspondent thereunto: and if so, why do they not expel all dissension by it? if their virtue 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 history makes it as plaine that Christian Princes at their first entrance, till Popery began to intoxicate them, did claim, and exercise the same as their due. Constantine had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} given him for his Title, and we know he showed himself no less, and we know his successors for divers Ages did assume and verify the same Title as their due. And therefore Bilson proves out of Socrates, and other Historians, That in the Primitive Christian Emperors times all ecclesiastical affairs did depend upon Emperors: and that the greatest Synods, and counsels were called at their appointment: and that Appeals from counsels were reserved to them, and sometimes overruled by them: and that all ecclesiastical Laws were by them enacted, confirmed, and repealed; and that the greatest Prelates were by them ordered, and commanded: and that whole Provinces and kingdoms were by them visited, and reformed in all cases whatsoever.  
And this truth, the learnedst of Papists will nor deny, and those which do deny the same rely upon some particular exception only, and have very few instances before the Pope's inthronization at Rome, and these of matters of fact, and not rights alleged neither. Valentinian the Elder is one main Instance, and he when strife was between 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 says of him; Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicii. 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 mean time let the Arians do what they list. And this cannot be excused, for if he was doubtful of his own faith, this was ignorance: and if he was not, and yet tolerated Arianism, this was neglect in him: and if he did shun this decision as burdensome to him, this was impious: and if as intricate, this was inconsiderate. For what if he 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 employed, as if it were his own? Bishops themselves might err, and dissent, and in that point many of them did err, and hold against the truth: and without his aid this division was irreconcilable; but by his influence and superintendence; truth might obtain a fair trial, and Bishops themselves might be convinced by Bishops. This case in Divinity might be too intricate for his sole judgement, and too ponderous for his actual determination: but what he could not do single, and personally, he might well effect by the counsel and advice of his most moderate, and disinteressed clergy: for in Divinity the Prince is as in juridical, or martial affairs, As he is not always the ablest Divine, so neither is he the ablest Lawyer, nor the ablest soldier, and yet by the advice of Divines, Lawyers, and soldiers, He may conclude that wisely which neither He without them nor they without him could ever have concluded. Therefore against this remiss, cold slackness, and haesitancy of Valentinian we may oppose the politic, and courageous 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, which otherwise had been endless, and remediless. After the first 5. or 6. hundred years' 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 everywhere did blindly and superstitiously too far abandon their own right, but by the light of Nature, the wisest Kings in all countries were ever the most refractory, and most impatient of the Pope's tyranny▪ and in the most ignorant times, some there were found, that made resistance to the same.  
Much blood 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 Pope's ass, yet in the quarrel of supremacy it was jealous, and had almost perpetual conflicts. I will only cite one story. Henry the second was a very puissant Prince, and in all other things except only ecclesiastical. He was fortunate and victorious: but his misery was, that He reigned in such an Age as the Pope was in his Zenith, and had to do with Becket of all the Pope's dependants the most seditious. Henry the first his Grandfather out of the greatness of his Spirit and wit, had passed these laws; That no Appeal should stand, That no Bishops should go out of the realm, That no Tenant in Capite should be excommunicated; That no official of the Kings should be interdicted without the King's leave, and consent, And that Clergimen should be subject to secular judgement, and that laymen under the King, should judge of tithes, and other causes ecclesiastical.  
At these just and necessary laws, the clergy hitherto rested quiet, if not contented, but now a most rebellious Becket arises to spurn against them, and in his mouth they are dangerous encroachments, and breaches upon the Church. Rather than he will subscribe to these so long established laws; He departs the kingdom in contempt of the King, and with all violence and bitterness that may be incenses the Pope, the King of France, and all the Italian and French Bishops against his natural Lord. The King at first gallantly relies upon the edge of his temporal sword, and whets it sharper in behalf of his legal prerogative▪ and for some years together stands out against the danger of the Pope's confounding blow; but at last when Becket the fierce traitor was slain, 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 appeals to Rome. Long it was before he would submit himself in this contestation betwixt a subject, and himself to the Romish tribunal, or yield to any condemnation being untried, and unheard; and it appears by the Pope's forbearance of his last thunderbolt, that the Pope was diffident in his power, and durst not sentence him, if He had not yielded 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 appear, but that diverse Princes began to awake, and to shake off that blind servitude of Rome which had so long lain upon them, and locked up their senses like a deep sleep: How be it the light was not alike welcome to all, some fully and wholly gave it entertainment, others opened some curtains only, and so yielded themselves to a little further slumber. Henry the eighth here in England was well pleased with that Doctrine which discovered his own independence, and the weakness of the Pope's 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 itself; He took no delight to look upon. So far as his own interest, and worldly advantage was represented by the beams of the gospel, so far his eyes thought it amiable And so far Bishop Gardiner though a Bishop was ready to assist him: but so far as his spiritual interest, and the general advantage of his Subjects was concerned, so far, he and Gardiner both could remain as blind as Sir Thomas More: 'tis wonderful that so sharp-sighted a man, as Sir Thomas More was, should lay down his life in justification of the Pope's supremacy; but 'tis more wonderful that Gardiner should see the weakness of that supremacy, and yet still adhere to diverse other Popish superstitions as absurdly resulting from the same principles. The State of Venice also out of mere policy has long been at defiance with the Court of Rome, so far as mere rules of Government guide, and direct it: but in all other spiritual delusions, and impostures it is as dead, as heavy-eyed, as ever▪ Spain, France, and Germany also, though they speak not the same, yet they now do the same as Venice, they all shut up and impale the Pope's Authority within Peter's Patrimony, leaving him no command but within his own Italian territories, and yet besides his authority they cast off nothing else: so much do we generally esteem Earth before Heaven, and our temporal advantages before the subsistence of our souls. But let reason of State be what it will, The Parliament here agrees to annex to the crown of Henry the eighth and his successors whatsoever sole, independent power was before challenged in ecclesiastical and spiritual things by the Pope, or any churchman whatsoever: And Hooker seems both to confess and justify the same, for says 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 affairs by the same Law their supreme power and authority reaches. Crowned we see they are, and enthronized, and anointed, the crown a sign of Military dominion, the Throne of sedentary or judicial, The oil of Religious, and sacred power. he here Attributes as supreme a rule, and as independent in Religious and sacred affairs, as he does either in Military, or judicial, and he accounts that venerable Ceremony of unction, as proper to the Kings of England as that of Crowning, or Inthroning.  
Nevertheless, 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 Queen Mary, and Elizabeth, and whatsoever we may allow to men, such as Henry the eighth, yet it seems unreasonable, to allow it Women, and Children. The Papists think this objection of great moment, and therefore Bellarmine in great disdain casts it out, that in England they had a certain Woman for their Bishop: meaning by that woman, Q. Elizabeth: And Q. Elizabeth herself 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 she claimed no other Head-ship in the Church, but such as might exclude all dependency upon foreign headships, and secure her from all danger of being deposed.  
How this paper could satisfy all, I cannot see: My thinks the Bishops in this did as warily provide for their own claim, as the Queens: for whatsoever power she had in the Church, it was either absolute, Coordinate, or Subordinate. If it was subordinate, she was in danger of deposition, and was to be ordered, and limited, and commanded by her Superior. If her power was coordinate; She had no more power over her equal, than her equal had over her: and it being as lawful for her equal to countermand, as it was for her to command: her power would be as easily disabled and made frustrate by her equals, as her equals 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 ourselves & others with mere ambiguities does often very great harm, 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 Queen's paper many Papists at this day take the Oath penned in the Statute for that purpose: they will abjure the Pope's 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 bloody, and dangerous, but by the light of nature abhor regicides, rest themselves upon these shallow distinctions: but such as are jesuitically furious, and murderous, break through them as mere Cobwebs: and the more secure Princes are from the other, the less 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 Queen be not competent for that lower Order to whom the Word and Sacraments are committed, than she is not competent for that higher Order which has power over the lower: but the Queen is not competent for the lower, therefore not for the higher. They say, that to prescribe laws 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 denies that which is inferior, and less. 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 himself, Christ they say, giveth the Commission, Kings give but a permission only. All the power at last of our Kings, which is acknowledged equal with that of the Jewish, and has been so far all this while magnified, and defended against Papists, inables them now no further, than to a naked permission in religious affairs, their most energetical influence is permission.  
'tis true, the Commission of the Apostle was from Christ, His Ite & docete, was their authority: And so it remains still to all their successors; but is it therefore a reason, that there is now, no other Commission necessary? Where Christ's Commission was particular, it was good without any other human commission, nay permission itself was not requisite: the Contents of that Commission was not only Ito, Doceto: but Tu Petre, Tu Paul, &c. Ito, doceto: but now there remains nothing of that Commission, but the generality, Ito, doceto: the particularity requires now particular Commissions, and mere permissions will not serve the turn. And as for succession, we may suppose that our saviour's first Commission was vigorous, as to that purpose, but we must know, That the Apostles being both governors and Preachers, all that commission which was given them as governors, was not given them as Preachers. There must still be successors to the Apostles in Governing, and Preaching: but it's not necessary that the same men now should succeed in both offices, and that whatsoever was commanded or granted to the one office, the same should be granted and commanded to the other The civil judges and councillors of State under the King are not without general Commissions from Heaven to do justice, and preserve order in their several subordinate stations, and yet they depend upon particular commissions too from God's immediate vicegerent. And it seems to me a weak presumption, that Officers in Religion should have more particular Commissions from GOD, than Officers of State: or that Princes should be more permissive, and less influent by way of power in the Church, than in the commonwealth. He that observes not a difference betwixt these times under Christian Princes, and those under unbelieving Caesar's, is very blind, and He is no less, that thinks particular Commissions now as necessary when Princes join to propagate the gospel, as they were when supreme power was abused for its subversion: And so makes no difference betwixt a Nero, and a Constantine. Did Constantine gain the style of Head-Bishop, or Bishop of Bishops merely by permitting the true worship of God? And let us lay aside the strangeness of the Name, and apply the thing, I mean the same episcopal power to Queen Elizabeth, as was to Constantine and what absurdity will follow? What is intended by the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which may not be as properly applied to Queen Elizabeth, as to Constantine? If the Patriarchs, and Kings of Judah and first Christian Emperors had jurisdiction, and a legislative power in the Church, nay had dominion over all those which did exercise judicial power in the Church, and were so exalted in sanctity, and dignity above mere Priests, shall Queen Elizabeth be barred and disabled for the same power and honour merely by the prejudice of her Sex? The very Papists themselves do grant to some abbatisses' power of jurisdiction over some ecclesiastical persons, and this power they hold to be more honourable, than that of suborninate monks, and Priests which officiate under them; and yet to officiate they will not grant to Abbatisses, though they grant more than to officiate. Therefore we see this rule doth not always hold; that he which may not undertake the lesser charge, shall not undertake the greater; for the mere sanctity of the person is not always that which gives Law in these cases. Though the person be not void of sanctity, yet some other unfitness, and defect may stop and bar in less employments, and yet be no stop, nor bar at all in matters of a more excellent, and sublime nature. So it is with Infants and women, though the possession of a crown be more sacred and honourable, than admission into Orders; yet they shall be held more capable of a crown, than of Orders; because personal imbecility, and natural inferiority (as I may so say) is less prejudicial in civil, than in religious affairs, and in matters of function and service, than in matters of privilege, and command. God had confined the right and honour of the priesthood amongst the Jews, to one Tribe, and Family only, and therefore Vzziab might not invade that right, and honour to the infringing of God's special command, and in this respect Uzziah was qualified for a sceptre, yet not qualified for a censer; He was qualified for that authority which was more sacred, yet not for that service which was less. So perhaps it is now under the gospel, women are expressly 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 reign in the Throne, and yet this seems not to prove that that ministration is more holy, than this reigning, but rather that it is more difficult, and such as requires more personal ability, and natural perfection. For let Uzziah's case overrule us. That which disabled Uzziah for the service of the Altar was not personal incompetence, or want of sanctity: for then the same had disabled him for all higher, and more excellent offices. But we know that Uzziah was not so disabled: for he was capable of the sceptre, and by virtue of his sceptre, the whole Temple, and all the sacred things therein, all the Order of the Priests and Levites, the whole Law of God, and the state of Religion, and Policy, and the general welfare of all God's holy beloved people were within his guard, and protection, And will any man conceive this to be less excellent, than to sacrifice? By virtue of the sceptre Moses did consecrate Priests to serve at the Altar, and govern their service at the Altar: by virtue of the sceptre Solomon did build, and dedicate the very Temple, and Altar itself, with his own mouth, bless both them, and those Priests which were to attend them: by virtue of the sceptre, Uzziah himself did inherit the same power, and holiness, and dignity which Moses, or Solomon, or any of his Predecessors had, And shall all this seem less worthy and excellent to us, than to serve with a censer? In this Hooker fully concurres with me. He distinguishes between an Ordinary and a supreme judge, and He allows it unfit for Princes to sit as Ordinary judges in matters of Faith and Religion: and yet he denies not their supreme right and influence of judging. For (Says H.) an Ordinary judge must be of qualities, which in a supreme judge are not necessary, because the person of One is charged with that, which the others mere authority dischargeth, without employing himself personally therein▪ It is an error to think that the King's authority can have no force in doing that, which himself personally may not do: for it is impossible, that at one and the same time, that the King should order so main and different affairs, as by His power everywhere present are ordered in Peace and war; at home, and abroad.  
And the King in regard of Nonage, &c. may be unable to perform that thing wherein years of discretion are requisite for personal action, and yet his authority is still of force: And therefore it is a maxim, that the King's authority never dies, or ceases from working.  
Sundry considerations than may be effectual to hold the King's person from being a doer of that, which notwithstanding his power must give force unto. In civil affairs nothing doth more concern the duty, or better beseem the Majesty of Kings, than personally to administer justice. Yet if it be in case of Felony, and Treason; Lawyers affirm (Stanford l. 2. c. 3.) that well may the King commit his authority to an other, to judge between him, and the offender: but the King being himself 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 bar him from doing those things, which notwithstanding by his substitute power must be done: and yet this prefers not substitutes before him. So in Uzziah's case, the priesthood was for very sufficient reasons in policy, severed from the Kingly office, and that by God's own approbation, and command, Uzziah shall not now conjoin, and unite them again out of a fond pragmatical humour to the disinheriting of the Tribe of Levi, to the disservice of the crown, to the hindrance of Religion, and to the violation of God's command. If Uzziah will content himself to move in his own superior orb, and leave the Priests of God to their own regular subordinate motions, his influence shall give vigour to those actions in them, which are with more honour to him done by them under his superintendence than by himself in person. For as the Ordinary judge deputed by the King, in cases where the King himself either cannot be present, or hath not skill to determine, or may not legally interesse himself, does give judgement, not by virtue of his own, but by virtue of the King's authority, and does therefore acquire more honour to his Majesty, than to himself: So in the Church the Priest ministering in that employment, 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 holier than the King, but even in his very actual administration itself, He is so dependent, and derives such virtue from the King's supreme, spiritual authority, that the King is supreme, and he but the secondary agent therein. But Bishop Bilson will yet say, that the Priest in the work of conversion wins the soul to a willing obedience, and that the Princes work only by external, political terror, which begets not virtutis amorem, but only formidinem panae, and therefore it seems that the work of the Minister and the Prince, differ not only in order, but also in kind, the one being far more spiritual and divine than the other. I answer hereunto, that if power doth only induce a servile fear of punishment, and so cause of forcible forbearance of sin, and if preaching only make a voluntary conquest upon the soul, then by the same reason, the power of Bishops as well as the power of civil Magistrates is of less value than preaching: but this none of our adversaries will agree to. My next answer therefore is, that Preachers in the wonderful work of regeneration are not in the nature of physical causes, they are rather in the nature of the meanest instrumental causes under GOD: they are but as Vessels in the hand of Husband men, from whence the seed corn is thrown into the ground. If the corn fall into the furrow, and there fructify, God opens and enlives the womb of the Earth, God sends showers and influence from Heaven, God blesses the seeds with a generative, multiplying virtue, nay God casts it into the furrow, from the mouth of the Preacher, and as He uses the mouth of the Preacher, for the effusion of his grain; so He uses the Prince's power as his Plough, to break and prepare the ground: and in this case, the use and service of the plough is as Noble, as that of the bushel.  
Neither is the office of Kings the less Glorious, because they can use force; nor Ministers the more Glorious, because they may use none but ethical Motives, and allurements: for power itself being a Glorious, Divine thing, it cannot be ignoble to use it in God's cause. And therefore we see Josiah, 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, Denmark, Sweden, Bohemia, England, &c. Suffered great changes of Religion within a short space, and these changes were wrought by the force of civil Magistrates, and could never else without strange miracles from Heaven have been so soon compassed: but these changes are not the less cordial, and sincere, because civil authority wrought them. Authority itself hath not so rigorous a sway over the souls of men, as to obtrude disliked Religions universally: it must persuade as well as compel, and convince, as well as commands or else great alterations cannot easily, and suddenly be perfected. And in this respect the Proclamations of Princes become oftentimes the most true, and powerful preaching that can be: and 'tis beyond all doubt, that if preaching were as a physical 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 we hear from out our Pulpits. For let us suppose that a considerable number of our Ministers were sent into Mexico, or Perue, to preach the gospel of Christ, amongst the poor blind Savages, could we hope for so great success thereby without the concurrence of some Princes there, as we might, if some of them would assist, and join to advance the same word and doctrine by their wisdom, 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 gospel spread but slowly, and that not without a wonderful confluence of heavenly signs and miracles, wrought by our Saviour, and his Disciples; all which we may suppose had never been in such plentiful measure showed to the world, had it not been to countervail the enemity and opposition of secular authority.  
And it may be conceived, that had the Caesars joined in the propagation of Christ's Doctrine, more might have been effected for the advantage of Religion by their co operation, than all Christ's Apostles, Bishops, Prophets, Evangelists, and other Elders did effect by their extraordinary gifts and supernatural endowments. We see also that Constantine's 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, we 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 souls from the thraldom of Hell, and Rome. In the like manner Queen Elizabeth also, though a woman, yet was as admirable an instrument of God in the same design, 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 wisdom of Princes, when Ministers were generally opposite thereunto.  
And as we see the spiritual power of Princes how strangely prevalent it is for the truth, so sometimes we see most woeful effects of the same against the truth. Religion was not sooner reformed by Edward the sixth, than it was deformed again by Queen Mary. And though many godly Ministers were here then settled, as appears by their martyrdoms: yet all those Ministers could not uphold Religion with all their hands so strongly as Queen Mary could subvert it with one finger of her hand only. One fierce King of Spain bound himself in a cursed oath to maintain the Romish Religion, and to extirpate all contrary Doctrines out of his confines: if many pious Ministers could have defeated this oath, doubtless it had not so far prevailed, as it doth: but now we may with tears bewail in behalf of that woeful Monarchy that one King's enmity in Religion, is more pernicious, than a thousand Ministers zeal is advantageous. And by the way let all Princes here take notice what a dreadful account of souls, 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 souls are misled, and suffered to go astray, the abuses of the very Clergy itself will be only set upon the Prince's account, for according to that vast spiritual power which He hath put into their hands, yea according to that vast spiritual power, so will God certainly require at their hands. Let Princes know that preaching is not the only means 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 spiritual Persons, and the Lot of God, and the Church of Christ, and put them into the number of temporal, and laymen, and limit them to secular things: yet God will not be so abused; they must make an answer to him for things most spiritual, and for the improvement of those graces and prerogatives which belong to God's most beloved inheritance, and honoured servants, and near Officers in his Church. And let Ministers also on the other side learn to acknowledge that Character of Divinity which is so much more fairly 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 enjoy. For as Princes shall answer for them if they employ their power to the depression of Ministers; so shall Ministers also answer for Princes if they cozen Princes out of their supreme power, out of pretence that God's message is so delivered to them. Let Ministers assist Princes in their religious and spiritual 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 look upon Princes, as Joab did upon his Master in martial exploits. 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 return to the first and highest movers. And thus shall more honour and sanctity pass from Ministers to Kings, and more efficacy and virtue from Kings to Ministers, and more grace and happiness from both to the people.  
Another occasion of mistake, and error in Nazianzen, and Bilson seems to be, that in comparing the great fruits of Princes, and Priests, in their several functions, they both speak of the whole order of Priest hood: as if every Prince were therefore less spiritual, or excellent than every Priest, because all Priests in some things excel 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 do so much good in the Church as all his Clergy, yet he may do more than a great number of them. And yet for my part, I am of opinion, that all the clergy are so dependent, and borrow such virtue from the King's supreme spirituality (as I may so say) that whatsoever good they do, they ought not to let the honour thereof terminate in them, but return to him upon whom they depend. And now I think, these things being made clear, that Princes are sacred in respect of their supreme rule, and spiritual in respect of their spiritual rule, and that Priests have no proper rule at all over men's spirits, or in any ecclesiastical 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 personal sanctity.  
And therefore, as it is most erroneous to argue, that Princes are not capable of spiritual rule, because their persons are not holy enough: So it is most undeniably true, and we may safely argue, on the contrary, that no men's persons can be more holy than such as God hath honoured, and entrusted with such supremacy of spiritual rule, as He hath done Princes.  
THe next argument which raises the mitre above the Diadem is drawn 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 ecclesiastical censures, is absurd; but such is here maintained, Ergo: by the word Church may be meant the Catholic Church, or some national 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 Christ's, and we allow with Saint Ambrose in some sense, that the King is Intra, and not supra Ecclesiam: For he is not such an universal supreme Head as Christ is, but is a member under Christ the Head. Yet this impugns not, but that the King may in an other sense be both intra, and supra, as to his own dominions: for take the Church for ecclesiastical persons, and so the King may govern all under Christ, but take it for ecclesiastical 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 applied in so proper and direct a sense to any clergyman whatsoever. But let us briefly see what this spiritual sword of Excommunication is, which the Church, that is, churchmen only claim, and wherewith they think they may as freely strike Princes, as Princes may do them with the temporal.  
The grounds in Scripture for Excommunication, are several, not all intending the same thing, yet all are blended and confounded by clergymen to the same purpose: whereas we ought to put a great difference between Excommunication, and Non-communication, and in Excommunication, between that spiritual stroke, and punishment, which was ordinary in case of contempt, and that which was extraordinary in cases of most heinous nature. Non-communication may be supposed to have been from the beginning; and by common equity; for gems were never to be cast to swine, nor the privileges and Treasures of the Church to be imparted to such as were enemies and strangers to the Church. Heathens and Publicans hated the Religion of the Jews, and therefore it was hateful to the Jews to communicate with them, either in matters of Religion, or in offices of friendship. The Jews did not forbear all civil conversing with them, but all familiarity they did forbear, and yet the forbearance of familiarity was no proper punishment to them: Nor was it a thing spiritually inflicted by authority, but by general, and natural 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 Jews; to mingle familiarly with them cannot stand with our own safety, or the honour of Religion, or the Law of common decency: but those whom we account as Publicans, we do not make Publicans, whom we shun as infectious, we do not punish as rebellious: their actions we do generally detest, but their persons we do not judicially condemn. Princes under the Law might not eat of the show bread, nor approach the Sanctuary being in a polluted condition, nor in case of leprosy 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 perpetual, so that if Princes in open contempt of the Sacraments should desire them at the Ministers hands, Ministers ought rather to die than to administer them. But to deny the Sacrament is not any spiritual obduration, or castigation; to this denial, no special authority is necessary, neither to that authority is any coercive force internally working upon the soul granted. Cain having committed an unnatural murder was generally abhorred amongst his brethren and abandoned as unfit for human society: but this was a crime proper for the temporal sword, and if this was a proper punishment it was temporal. And it is plainly cleared to us, that adultery itself by God's Law was punished by the temporal, not spiritual sword, and that abscissio animae amongst the Jews was ever spoken of corporal punishment by death, the inffliction whereof was only left to the temporal Magistrate; and that there was no difference observed between Crimes spiritual, and Crimes temporal. Non-Communion, than we grant to have been of ancient use, and perpetual, but we wish great caution and circumspection to be had therein amongst Christians, for as visibly profane persons are to be rejected, so no former profaneness 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 do. For in such case if the Sacrament, than the word also may be denied, and so no manner of salvation shall be left to such as have been formerly vicious, whatsoever their present demeanour be.  
To come now to Excommunication, or the spiritual Sword, and sentence of the Church, as it was used in the Primitive times, yet so we find differences of it amongst our Divines. That incestuous Corinthian which was said to be traditus Satanae, as Chrysostom 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 Jerom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, &c. This excommunication, if it may be called so, was a corporal punishment, and there is no appearance of any internal obduration by the binding power of the Minister: and it was miraculous, and therefore though it was of use then, when the keys of churchmen could not err, and when a temporal Sword was wanting, yet now it is utterly useless, and abolished. For any other excommunication of present and perpetual necessity in ecclesiastical regiment there is little proof in Scripture, it is the spiritual sceptre of our Hierarchrists, without which their Empire would appear merely imaginary: and therefore their zeal is strong for it, though their grounds be weak. It seems to me a very dark deduction, that the keys of Heaven in the gospel must needs import real power, and jurisdiction in churchmen, and only in churchmen; and that that power and jurisdiction must needs intend such a spiritual sword, as our present form of excommunication is, and that that sword is as miraculous as it was, or as useful, as if it were miraculous; and that the stroke of it is merely spiritual, and not to be supplied by the temporal sword: and that Princes are as well liable to it as other laymen. Jerome says, that with God not the sentence of the Priest, but the life of the sentenced party is looked upon, and regarded; and says he, Vt Leprosum mundum vel immundum Sacerdos facit, Sic alligat vel solvit Presbyter. It should seem our Priests now have the same power to try and discern scandalous persons amongst us, as the Jewish had Leapers in their times: and no man supposes that the Jewish Priests had any virtue, or force in their judgements to purge such as were unclean, or to infect those which were clean, they were held the most fit and impartial judges, but the matter to be judged of was visible, easy, and sensible. So much as this, no man will deny to our Ministers, for if they bind, and shut Heaven to persons sensibly profan, not altering at all the condition of such as they bind, and shut out, this is no such strange spiritual Sword, and celestial 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 virtue of their keys, either search into the reins 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 scandal, by their spiritual power, which the temporal ruler doth not effect as the Apostles may be supposed to have done; This is more than the Jewish Priests ever professed, this is supernatural, and we ought to admire it. I do not believe that our Ministers will lay claim to any such miraculous virtue and infallibility, and if they did, I hope they would give us some signs and demonstrations thereof by opening Heaven to thousands, and by confounding all incorrigible opposers of Religion. If Nero had resorted to Peter's ministry, desiring to be made partaker of the Word and Sacraments, out of fraud and dissimulation, Peter doubtless would not have refused him, and cast him off, without a certain insight into his hypocrisy: but if Peter did discern his hypocrisy, and reject him, yet our Ministers cannot discern the like, and therefore cannot reject in the like manner. With us take Excommunication, as a spiritual punishment, as it hardens, and drives from Repentance (for so the shutting of Heaven intimates) and our Ministers should be cruel to use it where they are ignorant of the heart: and take it as a wholesome remedy, and fit means to draw to repentance, as corporal punishments, sometimes are (though it be strange to conceit the like of spiritual) yet their virtue being ignorantly applied, is no proper virtue. For in case of utter impenitence, and open perverseness, Heaven is shut without the Ministers power: and in case of feigned penitence, the Ministers Key cannot open effectually, though he discern not the fraud: and in case of true penitence, if the Minister be mistaken, yet Heaven will not remain 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 moderately, 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 laymen. We know also that in all judgements there is a necessity of legal trial to precede conviction: and that great multitudes may be convented, examined, sentenced, and punished with less disturbance of peace, less violation of majesty, and less obstruction to policy, than those which sway the Ball imperial. And if the condemnation of Princes might be upon due trials 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 God's Lieutenant, whom they see accursed, cut off, and abhorred in the Church as the devil's vassal? That which was obtruded upon private men at first as a wholesome Corrosive plaster for their spirits, declined after into corporal penances, and after that into pecuniary mults: but what have been the sufferings of private men in comparison of that which Princes have lost hereby to the clergy? Upon the Excommunication of Princes, whole Nations have been interdicted, whole States ruined, the innocent with the obstinate, the Prince with the people all have been sacrificed to blood 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 scandal given, and no means left for its purgation, and expiation.  
I answer, The Jewish Kings did sin in the most offensive manner that can be imagined; yet God assigned no spiritual 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 been so extremely and publicly mischievous, God would not have suffered it. Besides, in civil transgressions of the Law Priests do not usually claim jurisdiction (though Saint Ambrose vindicated murder upon Theodosius) for so their power would be as temporal, and as large as the Princes, and yet there is no reason why God should not have left a judicatory to punish civil violations in all men whatsoever, as well as ecclesiastical.  
In the last place also, if scandal shall not remain unpunishable in the supreme temporal Magistrate, yet it shall in the spiritual, and that is a mischief of the same nature as the other. For if the King shall abide the judgement of this Bishop, or that Consistory, yet what judgement shall that Bishop or Consistory abide? If this spiritual 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 read 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 cleargymen, or Consistores; and we know that such command and constraint in Justinian is more than to excommunicate, suspend, or deprive. We may justly therefore infer, that Justinian having a power above excommunication, ought not himself 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 be exempted, and privileged than the lower. And so it is a strong argument, that Princes are not liable to excommunication, because even in the power of excommunication itself 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 temperate, anteit— Remigis officium— but when it is argued against Princes, that they may be excommunicated by Priests; because they bear offices less sacred, and serve God in places less 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 judgement of God, for God is not negligent of his office therein, nor need we doubt, or hold ourselves utterly remediless, 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 spiritual sword and miraculous judicatory under the gospel, never before known, or useful to the world, and that of perpetual necessity, doubtless he would have left us some clear command in Scripture, and not have involved his meaning in metaphors so intricate, and ambiguous.  
THe next argument against the sovereign 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 be so, for Christ as Mediator was inferior to his Father, and all works of his regiment over the Church are not done by him as Mediator, but do belong to his Kingly Office, and as to his Kingly power, He is equal with the Father.  
THe next Argument therefore of truer force is this: There can be no office more sacred, or dignity more excellent, than such as is signified under these glorious Titles of Gods, stars, Angels, ambassadors, Rulers, Fathers, Stewards, Pastors, Leaders, Teachers: but these glorious Titles are applied to Ministers, Ergo. we will acknowledge all these Honourable badges given to Ministers, and duly given: and we will acknowledge these no empty words without truth, and so make words and things contrary: and we will acknowledge the Function of Ministers to be more venerable than any amongst men, besides that which bears the sword, the emblem of God's imperial majesty. But to such as are God's 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 priesthood itself we conceive the ministration of Priests to be subordinate to Princes, inasmuch as to superintend in the most religious affairs is due to Princes, and to officiate only to Priests, and to superintend is more than to officiate.  
Secondly, In measure we conceive Princes excel also, in as much as in religious affairs such Priests have the charge of such flocks, and such Bishops of such Priests▪ but all both Bishops, Priests, and flocks are under the King's charge. And not only in religious affairs, but in civil also the authority of Princes is both intensive, and extensive many ways, where Priests may not at all intermeddle. And though to govern Christians as Christians, be the most transcendent honour of Kings; yet to govern men, as men: and not only to govern but to govern well, is a thing of divine impression.  
Thirdly, in kind the regiment of Princes is far excelling, for the regiment of Kings is a true proper regiment assisted with real power, decored with external honour, founded in the general consent of men, and blessed by the gracious influence of God, but the rule of Priests is but ethical, or metaphorical only, its utmost vigour is but persuasive, and is not at all coercive, either inwardly, or outwardly: and that subjection which it challengeth is not to itself, but to the Word and Sacraments, whereto itself rendereth as much, as it requireth from others. This general answer might suffice, but to each particular Title we will briefly reply further. Ministers they are God's, viz. to such as are under their cure: but then as they are God's to others, so Princes are God's to them. Thus Moses was a God to Aaron, though Aaron was a God to his inferiors. Ministers are Stars, but not in magnitude equal to the Sun; neither is their light and influence so independent as the Suns. Ministers are Angels, viz. upon earth, and their internal piety is like a shining raiment 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 ambassadors, but all ambassadors 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 joined 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 God's instruments to regenerate us, and so as Saint Jerome says, they are the Fathers of our souls, and perhaps, as Chrysostom says, in this respect they are more to be honoured than our natural parents. But Ministers always, and only are not so our Parents, and they that are so our Parents, are not so physical, and self efficacious causes as our natural Parents are: but if they may challenge more honour than our fleshly Parents, yet this advances them not above Kings, who are both political, and spiritual Fathers also. Fabius the consul, though he was to pay Honour and reverence to his natural Father, yet he was to demand a greater measure of the same from him being his political son: and it did not misbeseem him to prefer the civil right before the physical: Yet Fabius here was a mere Magistrate, and in that far less 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 do provide food for those, by whom themselves are fed, and manage only but one part of their Lords affairs: so it is with Ministers: under Princess Ministers are Pastors, Leaders, Teachers, their Doctrine is their food wherewith they comfort the people, their persuasion is the light wherewith they secure them from falling, they feed by their exhortations, and guide by their dehortations, but all these are offices of a servant, rather than privileges 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 war gives order for all affairs of the battle, assigning to the King himself a fit station: So the judge in matters of Law by his just decree binds the right of his own Master: So the physician limits and prescribes rules of diet, and sets down laws of exercise to his sovereign Lord.  
In all these cases there is a kind of Obedience due from Kings, and that obedience implies some kind of inferiority: and yet this obedience of the King, doth not drown the higher and greater obedience of the Subject, nor doth this inferiority contradict that which is of a far other quality, and degree. In the self same manner also the Priest officiates in the Church, perhaps before the King, perhaps before his own 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 holier tye of subjection, awe▪ and subordination, by which he is always bound to those which govern him in other things; when Ambrose therefore says honour & sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari: and again, Nihil potest esse in hoc seculo excellentius Sacerdotibus, nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri: we answer, if he here include Princes, as having episcopal power, and a jurisdiction both over Priests and Bishops, we agree hereunto, but if he exclude Princes, we exclude this from our belief. And again when he says: if you compare episcopal sublimity to the brightness of Kings, or Diadems of Princes, that of Kings and Princes will be more inferior than lead, compared with gold: we answer, if he here intend the mere secular authority of Princes in things merely temporal, we suppose some mild construction may be allowed: but if he speak of the entire sovereignty, and Prerogative of Princes, and put that as lead in comparison of the golden mitre, we reject him as erroneous. That which Chrysostom says, 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 mouths, not to their persons: and those Embassages also and instructions we oppose to the mere civil Ordinances of Kings, not to religious injunctions, wherein Princes are sent with larger Commission than they are. And whereas he says further of the power of Priests, that God himself would not impart it to Angels, or Arch-Angels we may add 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 ministry in the same kind, and order, yet they have a more glorious and heavenly, and consequently so may Princes. That which Saint Augustine says also that Princes bear the Image of God, Bishops of Christ, We willingly consent to, and yet by Bishops here we do not intend only such church-governors as our Bishops now in England are, but all other such as do the same offices over God's people, whatsoever their styles, or external additions be otherwise. And these things we conceive aught to receive such constructions, because our Saviour himself did always decline all State and pomp, and recommend the same lowly precedent 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 mere Name of Lord, or Rabbi there could be no offence, if the power and grandeur belonging to those names, had not been displeasing to him: and if it was displeasing in those his immediate followers whom he had made governors as well as Preachers, and for their better governing had endued with many miraculous gifts, to discern spirits, and to open and shut Heaven: and enriched with many other weighty graces, we cannot imagine it should now be pleasing in our Ministers, where less power is necessary, and less virtue granted. However it is far from our meaning to detract or derogate any thing from that internal reverence which is due to Christ's ambassadors, and Stewards, &c. in the Church, we know that he that despises them, despises Christ himself, according to Christ's own words, our meaning is only to place them next and in the second seat of Honour after Princes, and Rulers, and judges which have sceptres committed to them by God, either mediately, or immediately. Cyp. says well, that our Saviour being King and God did Honour the Priests and Bishops of the Jews, 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 Jewish had, or whether they be Religious or no: yet for Christ's sake which is our highpriest, 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 necessity in Religion, without which no Church can at all subsist, is most Holy and excellent, but such is the sacerdotal 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, we may justly say, that the gospel itself was as well protected by Caesar, which hated it, as by Peter which preached it: For Peter did owe his civil being to Caesar, and without this civil being, his ecclesiastical being had perished. Besides Peter, &c. was not only a Preacher, but also a Governor, and those offices which he did as a governor, might be as much conducing to the welfare of Religion, as those which he did as a Preacher: and yet for want of the civil Magistrates further assistance, both offices were some way defective, and perhaps, had been 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 only without Priests, for until the priesthood 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 enable them therefore, than their regal Sanctity, and sublimity. If the mere officiating did make a Priest, than the priesthood were open to all: and if some right and warrant be necessary, it must originally flow from Princes, and they which may derive it to others, have it, till they derive it, in themselves. The essence of priesthood doth no more consist in the rites and Ceremonies of Consecration, than Royalty doth in Coronation: and the due warrant of lawful authority being that essence, before that warrant granted, we must look upon authority as including that warrant within its virtue: and after that warrant granted, as not exhausted of its virtue. When the priesthood was separated from the greater, and conferred upon the inferior, some formal Ceremonious resignation thereof was thought necessary: but before that resignation till Moses, we may well conceive that Princes did officiate in their own 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 kind, which are urged against the sanctity, and competence of Princes, in ecclesiastical and spiritual things. I come now to answer such things as are further objected against other defects of qualification in them, especially in learning, knowledge, and theological understanding.  
THe main argument here, is thus: Whosoever is fittest to direct to Truth, is also fittest to command for Truth: but Ministers being most skilled in Divinity are most fit to direct, Ergo.  
In answer hereunto, I must make appear.  
1. That Ministers are not always most learned.  
2. That the most learned are not always the most judicious.  
3. That learned and judicious men are not always Orthodox, and sound in faith.  
4. That there is no necessity 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 add gifts and abilities to the party ordained: we only say, that God's grace like the wind hath its free arbitrary approaches and recesses, and is not always 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 always by them, to read and study it for their direction, we conceive it is intimated to us what kind of knowledge is most fit for Kings, and what kind of grace God doth most usually supply them withal. King Edward the sixth, Queen Elizabeth, and King James of late, and happy memory were so strangely learned and judicious in Divinity, that we may well think there was something in them above the ordinary perfection of nature: and had they perhaps relied less upon the greatest of their clergy in matters concerning the interest and honour of the clergy, the Church might have been more free from these controversies, and disturbances at this day.  
Counsellors of State were by a wise King of Spain 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 wisdom in Princes to look into the particular interests of Counsellors, and not to be too light of belief, as 'tis to do nothing without counsel and to suspect their own imaginations. If we did attribute to our judges a freedom from all fallibility and corruption, and so intrust all Law into their hands, this would be as dangerous, as to allow judges no credit at all. The Anabaptiss which rely only upon their own private enthusiasms are not mislead into greater idolatry, and slavery than the Papists, which renounce their own 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 belief as the Papists groan 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 be indisputable: which they think fit to be imposed upon us. And truly when clergy men were confessed to be the only Oracles and infallible chairs of Divinity in the world, 'twas but a modest Law my thinks, that all laymen being on horseback, and meeting clergymen on foot, should perpetually dismount, and resign their horses to clergymen: sure those times which thought this reasonable, and just were pretty modest times, and laymen did not deserve so good. In the second place also admit clergymen to be only and always learned, yet the learnedst men are not always 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 reel, as it were, under the burden of it: it causes sometimes greater disquiet both to themselves, and other men. In our Ancestors days when all learning was engrossed by the clergy, and thrust into cloisters, and colleges from the Laity, yet there were many grave and wise statesmen that were as an allay to the insolent, and vain excesses of the clergy, or else this State had been often ruined. But admit in the third place, that clergymen are always more learned and wise than all laymen, yet we see they are not more free from errors, heresies, and jars amongst themselves, than other men, but rather less. When schisms rise amongst Divines, as they do almost perpetually, Divines being thereby banded, and divided against Divines, what can the poor Laicke do? both sides he cannot adhere to, and if he adhere to this, that side condemns him, and if to that, this condemns him: if he make use of his judgement herein, than he trusts himself more than the Priest, and if he use not his judgement at all; He commits himself merely to fortune, and is as likely to embrace the wrong, as the truth: if he apply himself to the Major party, that is hard sometimes to discern▪ and if it be discernible, 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 ways. After Moses also when the Jews 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 itself pure from those pollutions, and innovations. And in that great rent under Jeroboam ten tribes of twelve estranged themselves from God, set up a new spurious false worship in Bethel. And we read long before the Captivity, that Ephraim was divided against Manasseh, and Manasseh against Ephraim, and both against Judah. Judah also itself 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 chair of Moses (as the Papists dream of) it did but little avail the world, for he that then would have sought for the true way to walk in, disclaiming utterly his own light and understanding He must not have sought it amongst the multitude: and if he had sought it amongst the Priests, he would have seen divisions there: and if amongst Prophets, he 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 appear in love, but not without all Majesty; He did show grace, but not according to obligation. After our saviour's Ascension a blessed Spirit of infallibility did rest upon the Church to direct in intricate debates, and to prevent schisms, till a perfect gospel was established: but this Spirit in those very times had not residence in any one man's breast at all times, to give judgement 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 satisfy, they did assemble in a greater body; and when those assemblies were, the wisdom of the Spirit did not always manifest itself in those which were of highest order, but sometimes the inferior did reprove and convince the superior, and the superior did submit, and yield to his inferior. But after one age or two, when the Spirit of God had consummated, the main establishment of Religion, though it preserved the Church from a total deviation, it secured not all parts thereof from all gross prevailing rents, and Apostasies, neither did it affix itself, or choose any certain resting place in any one part of the world more than an other. Three ages being now run out, heresies of a foul nature beginning to spring up and increase with Religion, it pleased God to send Constantine to aid 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 Arianism was defended by as great a number of Divines as it was opposed, so that from the wisdom of Divines, no decision could be expected, than doth the power and policy of one Emperor, by Divines remedy, that, which a thousand Divines by themselves could never have remedied. From the Bishop of Rome the Orthodox party could obtain no succour, till Constantine's sceptre proved more virtuous than his Crosiers: and when the council was by Constantine called, and ordered, the Bishop of Rome was not the only Oracle in that council, neither had that great trouble of assembling been, if one Bishop had then been more oraculous than all. The same offices also which Constantine did in his days, many other godly Emperors did in their reigns: and had not they done them, no one Bishop could; for the Catholic Bishops were many times inferior in number, and power to the heretics: and if the Pope had then had the power to utter Oracles, yet not having power to enforce, and authorise the same upon all opposites, he could not have advantaged Religion amongst heretics, more than he doth now amongst Protestants, Jews, Turks, or Pagans. If God gave infallibility to one Bishop, for the avail of all the world, why doth not that Bishop avail the whole world? Why is so great a light put under a bushel? 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 aim therein was at the salvation of Papists, why is this made a ground of universal authority to the Pope, or of general privilege to all Bishops? But I am to speak now to Protestants which hold no one Bishop infallible, but the whole order of Bishops freer from fallibility, than any other condition of men: therefore to such, I shall instance in Rome itself what multitudes of Divines; of learned, profound Divines; of politic, Sagacious Divines for many ages together have been drunk and bewitched with the superstitions, Idolatries, blasphemies, and heresies of that enchanting City? Can it be thought safe for Princes and laymen wholly to abjure their own understandings, and yield 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 gross impieties, nay to some such infernal, diabolical tenets? Can men still persist to give up their judgements wholly to other men for their callings sake, or for their learning and wisdom supposed, when we see this is the very same rock, whereupon Rome suffers shipwreck, and this blind opinion the very snare wherein so great a part of the world still lies entangled? But I will avoydeprolixity.  
And now in the fourth place, I come to show, that if we will take all these things for granted, and ascribe all learning, knowledge, and freedom from variance to all clergymen and to clergymen only, yet it doth not follow that they are necessarily to rule, and command in chief. Nay I shall make it appear, that it is not only not necessary, but that it is many ways mischievous, that the ablest Divine should always be supreme in all causes, and over all persons ecclesiastical. Power and wisdom are things of a different nature, for power cannot stand with inferiority, but wisdom may be as efficacious in a man of mean condition as in a man of high quality; and power if its supremacy be divided, it is diminished: but wisdom the more it is dispersed, the more the virtue of it is increased. Wisdom 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 be a commander of other men's wisdom: Nay to be potent hath no term convertible, but to be potent. Power in the State, is preserved as the ark was in the Jewish Church, it is privileged from common sight, and touch in all well constituted commonwealths, it is united in some one person only, and to him so lineally intayled, that it may never die, never cease, never suffer any violent motion, or alteration. Power is as the soul of Policy, of so exquisite, and delicate sense, that nothing but the wings of Cherubims is fit to guard and enclose 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 axiom, which makes power servile to wisdom, not wisdom to power, which 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 shall be made so cheap, and vulgar, and prostituted daily to so many uncertainties, what quiet can she procure to the world? Nay what blood will she not procure? I need say no more: this axiom is neither consistent with monarchical, nor hereditary rule.  
For first, if the most knowing Divine shall always be supreme Commander in all Church affairs (for more than this the Pope never claimed) then by the same reason the most knowing statesman shall be supreme in the Palace, the most knowing soldier in the camp, the most knowing Lawyer in the tribunal, &c. and so Monarchy shall be changed not into the aristocracy, or democracy, which are forms 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 several independent Commanders, which cannot choose but enjoin impossible things sometimes: for all these commanders may at the same time use the same man's service in several places, and in this they never can be satisfied: wherefore we may well account this rule as bad as anarchy itself. Nay even Religion itself by this means may be distracted into several supremacies, for He that is the ablest Divine in polemical 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 always uncertain, 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 year, is not so this year, neither perhaps will he be next year, that is so this year. A thousand incongruities and inconveniences attend upon this paradox: for the abilities of men are very hardly tryable, and discernible: and if they were not, yet the subjecting of power to the perpetual, giddy changes of new elections would soon confound us into our old Chaos again, as the poet's word is.  
The three principal acts of power are,  
First, to make laws.  
Secondly, to give judgement according to laws made.  
Thirdly, to execute according to the right intent of judgements.  
In the making of laws also according to Tully, there is three things necessary: 1. Invenire. 2. Disceptare. 3. Far. The invention of all necessary laws is almost perfect already to our hands; Those laws which God ordained for the Jews, 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 less want of perpetual alterations, and additions of Canons, than in the State, our misery is, that we succeed Ancestors which were oppressed with too vast a Church discipline. Our reformation hath rid us of some part of this burden, but yet no sensible man can choose but see, that our ecclesiastical Courts are yet of larger jurisdiction, and fuller of trouble, than ever the Jewish were, or those of the Primitive Christians. The reason of this is, because we 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 think it a greater honour to serve at the Altar than in the Consistory, and did they take more delight in Preaching, than attending suits, they would not study New Canons, but discharge themselves of many old ones: and so ease themselves and us too, and restore back again to the civil Magistrate that which Popery first usurped, and their ambition hath since continued. Howsoever if Ministers can add any Articles to the Doctrine of our Church for the better preventing of schisms, or frame any orders for the more decent performance of God's 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 engross all power of proposing what they list, and to exclude all others from the like power.  
And in the second place, if clergy men only shall propose all ecclesiastical laws; yet it is most unjust that Princes, and laymen 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 judgement to be unquestionable; and shall it then here be unlawful 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 be subject to the same natural blindness, and partiality as I am, and to whom I see general error may be a private advantage, in matters of this private advantage, shall I be allowed no liberty to search, and try, and to use my best art of discussion? If this were so, God had made my condition desperate, and remediless, 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 himself 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 peril, He will require it at our hands; but if we will seek industriously, we shall find, if we will knock at his door, He hath promised to open to us. And if private men stand accountable for their own souls, whatsoever the priest's doctrine or commands be, how much more shall Princes, and Courts of Parliament answer for their wilful blindness, if they will depart from their own right and duty in sifting, and examining all such religious constitutions, as concern them, and all others under their charge? Shall they sit to treat of leather, and wool, 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 happiness? Shall they be solicitous for transitory things, and yet trust their souls into other men's hands, who may make a profit of the same? Let us not so infatuate ourselves, let us honour Divines, and reverence their counsels, but let us not superstitiously adore them, or dotingly enslave ourselves 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 wholesome soever it be after all debate, yet it is but as the counsel of a Lawyer, or the prescription of a physician. And here we maintain, that if Divines are the most fit, to invent, and discuss ecclesiastical Constitutions, yet they have not in themselves that right and power which is to imprint the obliging virtue of laws upon them. The form or essence of Law is that coercive, or penal virtue by which it binds all to its obedience: and all cannot be bound to such obedience, but by common consent, or else some external compulsion: take away this binding virtue, and it is no Law: it is, but a counsel, 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 actual opposition. If they claim from common consent, they must produce some act of State, and formal record to abet their claim, 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 claim from some higher external authority, stronger than common consent, they must induce that authority to give vigour to their laws, and to use means of constraint against all such, as shall not voluntarily yield obedience to the same. And it is not sufficient for them to allege God for their authority, without some special, express words from God's own mouth, for God gave no man a right, but he allows him some remedy agreeable thereunto, and God is so great a favourer also of common consent, that though he hath an uncontrollable power above it, yet (as Hooker observes) He would not impose his own profitable laws upon his people, by the hands of Moses, without their free, and open consent. And if God, which cannot do unjustice, nor will impose laws, but such as are profitable to us, and yet hath an undisputable Empire over us, will so favour common consent; shall man which may err, and do injury▪ and is of less value than communities, and wants might to enforce and put in execution his own commands, usurp that which God relinquishes? Take it for granted that Priests cannot err 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 compel obedience to the same, and to punish disobedience to the same, and this would take away peace, and cause much mischief and disturbance everywhere, and this we cannot think God would be the Author of.  
How ridiculous are the Pope's anathemas to those which renounce his allegiance, they seem to us but mere Epigrams sent abroad to provoke laughter? And yet why do they not appear as ridiculous in Italy, as in England? were it not for common consent, they were not in more force amongst Italians, than Englishmen: and there is no more true natural vigour in the Pope's Bulls, to procure common consent in Italy, then in England: we may gather then from hence, that there is no ecclesiastical supremacy, but founded upon the same basis of common consent, as temporal supremacy is, and being so founded, it cannot be Divine, or unalterable, or above common consent so as to have any efficacy without, much less against it. That some Nations are gulled, and cozened out of their consents, is no president for us, for as many Nations are addicted to Mahomits commands, as are to the Popes: and in this the dominion of Mahomet is as spiritual as the Popes: and is as strong a case to overrule 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 Mahomet's. They then that have erected a spiritual supremacy, not depending upon common consent, have been in a great error, and they that slight common consent, as not capable of a spiritual supremacy, seem to have been as much mistaken. Many of our Divines say, that Parliaments are temporal Courts; and so not of spiritual jurisdiction, and others say, that they may as well frame acts to order the hierarchy in heaven, as to dispose of ecclesiastical things on earth: both these seem to me very erroneous. The Argument methinks is equally strong: as God would not give a right to bind up other men by Statutes and commandments, but he would give some power withal to drive men by constraint to observe, and yield obedience to the same: so He would not endue any Prince, or Court with such power, but He would give a right of binding equal, and congenial to that power. Princes of themselves are sacred, as I have proved, and spiritually sacred; how much more than are they accounted sitting in Parliament: and if Princes in Parliament, how much more Princes, and Parliaments; for to Princes on their awful tribunals, is something more due than at other times, but to Princes in Parliament, there is most of all due, in regard that there they are invested with more than their own natural 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 counsel of Divines, so they ought not to be accounted mere temporal Courts: for what better advice can those Divines give out of Parliament: then in Parliaments: Some Parliaments in England have made some ecclesiastical 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 legal, but honourable, shall we limit Parliaments in any thing wherein the votes of the clergy are concomitant, and concurrent, with the laity? Hooker says, that the most natural and religious course for the making of laws, is, that the matter of them be taken from the judgement of the wisest in those things whom they concern, and in matters of God (he says) it were unnatural, not to think the Pastors of our souls a great deal more wise than men of secular callings: but when all is done for devising of laws, it is the general consent of all, that gives them the form, and vigour of laws. This we allow of for the most part, but we conceive this to be understood of such Divines, as in the judgement of Parliaments, are omni exceptione majores; for it was not unnatural in the beginning of the reigns of Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, to think that the Lords and Commons were better Judges of Religion, than the Bishops and the Convocation house, as matters than stood in England. For the whole body can have no sinister end, or interest to blind them: but the whole clergy, 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 clergy, and observe the occasion of it, they must not blindly follow blind guides, but do 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 men's 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 easy: 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 saviour's days, and ever since hath oftener begun amongst the greatest Priests, Rabbers, and Bishops, than amongst the meaner laity. And for this cause, God requires at every man's hands an account what doctrine he admits, what laws he obeys, holding no man excused for putting blind 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 far 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 we consider the mere matter of laws, they are either profitable for the Church, or not: if they are profitable, why should we think that Princes and Parliaments want power to impose laws upon themselves, for the avail of their own souls, they standing to God accountable for the same, according to the greatness of their own 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 doubtful whether Priests, or Princes make them. Take then laws to be questionable, as all human are, and liable to examination: and being made without common consent, they bind not at all, and being made by common consent, they bind all either to obedience, or to sufferance. It is God's own Law, that such as shall except against the validity or obliging virtue of common consent, shall die the death: for no peace can ever be in that State where any inconsiderable party shall not acquiesce in the common Statutes of the land. Those laws which Heathen Emperors made by common consent against Christianity, were not wise laws, But they were laws, there was no piety, but there was vigour in them: and doubtless the very Apostles, which might not lawfully obey them, yet might not lawfully contemn them. Two things are objected against the ecclesiastical power of Parliaments. 1. That it is more due to Princes. 2. To counsels, 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 doubtless till policy was now perfect, and exquisite 'twas safer for Nations to depend upon the arbitrary, unconfined power of Princes, then to have their Prince's hands too far bound up, and restrained, but since laws have been invented by common consent, as well to secure Subjects from the tyranny of their own Lords, as from private injuries amongst themselves: and those commonwealths 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 axiom is to be of all received: That that is the most politic 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 counsels, the same now remaining in Princes and the best, and highest of all counsels, viz. Parliaments counsels, also and Synods, are as improperly urged against Parliaments, for counsels and Synods did not at first claim any right, or in dependent power, they were only called by the secular Magistrate, as ecclesiastical courts for the composing of cissention in the Church, and they were as mere assistants, called ad consilium, not ad consensum.  
In 480 years after the establishment of Christians, Religion, from the first to the seventh Constantine there were but fix general counsels called, and those in disputes of a high nature: all other laws were established without Oecumeniall counsels, by the private instruction of such clergymen as Emperors best liked. The truth is, no universal counsel ever was at all, because there never yet was any universal 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 six cases▪ and yet we do not find that those six Counsels, though they have more reverence, yet claimed more power than any other national Synod. Without question no less power than the Emperors could have been sufficient to cite, and draw together so great a body, or to order them being met, or to continue their meeting, and no less power could animate their decrees with universal binding virtue, than the same, that so convened them. But it is sufficient, that Counsels have erred, and that appeals have been brought against them, and that redress hath been 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 overruling superiority, or privilege 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 soul of all policy and power, and that which preserves all Churches and States from utter ruin, 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 judgement according to those laws. But little need here be said, for if we did yield clergymen to be the most skilful and knowing judges in all matter of doctrine and discipline, this is no argument at all, for their supremacy, or independency, neither can any difference be showed why subordinate power in ecclesiastical judgements should not be as effectual, and justifiable, as in temporal, and it is sufficiently cleared that polycoirany is not to be received in any Church or kingdom: and therefore I haste to the third act of power which consists in using compulsory means for procuring obedience. If Priests had any such spiritual sword, as they pretend, virtuous and efficacious enough to inflict ghostly pains upon such as disobey them, doubtless it would reform as well as confound, and procure obedience, as well as chastise disobedience: and then it would as much advance their Empire, as the temporal sword doth the Princes. Doubtless it would have some sensible efficacy, and work to good ends, and men would not nor could not choose but bow, and submit themselves under it, but now a spiritual sword is pretended, whilst the gaining of a temporal sword is intended, and nothing is more plain to be seen. It's not to be wondered at therefore if the people fear not any binding power, where they see no losing, nor regard the shutting of those keys, which cannot open: nor tremble at that thunder, and lightning which is accompanied with no perceivable virtue of warmth and moisture, to open and refresh, as well as to break, and burn. But I have touched upon this already, and so I now leave it.  
THe next Argument is taken from the Jewish policy, for they suppose that the Jewish priesthood was independent in Spiritualibus, and they suppose that the spiritual 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 Jewish Priests than is now. Bilson gives four 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 civil rule was as necessary as else where and that rule could not be administered without inequality, and power, and in this they much differed from our Ministers. Secondly, Priests, and Levites were then the only studied bookmen and scholars of that Nation, learning was at a low ebb, the judicial as well as the ceremonial laws were scarce known, or read by any but that tribe: and in this the State of our times is far different. Thirdly, The Priests and Levites had then a natural command and signiory in their own families, over their own descendents whereas now no such superiority can have place amongst our clergymen. Fourthly, The Priests and Levites had then offices of a different nature, some of them were more easy, as to superintend, &c. others more toilsome, as to sacrifice, &c. some more holy, as to offer incense, &c. others more mean, 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 add 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 judges, whereas now the abolition of those external rudiments, and clogs hath discharged us of all such questions, and scruples in the Church. And sixthly the whole form of Religious worship was then externally more majestical, and dreadful, and it was convenient that some correspondence should be in pomp, and splendour 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 solemn, and venerable than others: so it was fit that persons should be qualified accordingly with extraordinary honour, and privilege but this reason now ceases amongst us. There was no inherent holiness in that Temple more than is in ours, nor no more internal excellence in those Priests, than in ours: and yet we see an external splendour was than thought fit for those times, which our Saviour did not seem to countenance in his Church. The same glittering garments are not now useful for our Priests, nor the same sanctimonious forbearance, and distance due to our Chancels; and for aught we know all other grandeur, 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 Jews, than amongst us, yet we do allow to our Clergy more power, and preeminence than was known amongst the Jews. There is no colour in Scripture that there were so many ecclesiastical Courts in Judea, so thronged with suitors, so pestered with Officers, so choked up with causes of all kinds, as matrimonial, testimentary, and many the like: there is no colour, that in so many several divisions of the Land, besides, ordinary tithes, and endowments, they had any ecclesiastical Lords to enjoy so many several Castles, Palaces, parks, Manors, &c. They had one mitre, 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 Aaron's Successors, but if Solomon himself should see the majestical equipage of diverse of our archbishops, or Cardinals, as they pass from one tribunal to an other; He would think his own Religion simple, and naked to ours. Besides though the Jews had but one highpriest, in whom was concerned all the State and glory of their clergy, yet he also was so far from claiming any independent power, that in the most awful of Religious affairs, as consulting with God, receiving the Law, building and dedicating the Temple, ordering, and reforming Priests, and their services, making laws, and superintending all holy persons, places, and things, in all these things he 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 it's now enjoyed, and accounted divine in England, both from the Law and the gospel, 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, Jeremy was but a mean Prophet, yet it's written of him, that he was appointed over Nations and kingdoms, to pull up, to beat down, to despise, &c. and they infer that what a Prophet might do, a fortiori a Priest may do. But this is not literally spoken as true of Jeremy's own exploits; The Prophet was here God's instrument to foretell, and proclaim 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 we must look further sometimes than into the mere 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 applied 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 something of power, but more of service, and this may be fitly applied 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 privilege either of Sanctity or Knowledge which can exalt Priests, above Princes, or entitle them to that spiritual regiment in the Church, which they would fain pretend to. Further at this time I have not leisure to proceed, I must now leave this already spoken, and all that which naturally will result from it, to the judicious.  
FINIS.