Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Part 3 · Chapter 8

Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies · Part 3 · Chapter 8

p. 122CHAP. VIII.

That the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies can not be vvarranted by any Ordinance of the Civill Magistrate: vvhose povver in things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, is explained.

NOw are wee fallen upon the strong hold of our Opposites, which is the Kings Majesties Supermacy in things Ecclesiasticall. Sect. 1 If they did meane in good earnest to qualify the lawfulnes of the Ceremonies from holy Scripture, why have they not taken more paines and travel to debate the matter from thence? p. 123And if they meant to justify them by the Lawes & Constitutions of the Church, why did they not study to an orderly peaceable proceeding, and to have things concluded in a lawfull Nationall Synode, after free reasoning and mature advisement? Why did they carry matters so factiously and violently? The truth is, they would have us to acquiesce and to say no more against the Ceremonies, when once we heare that they are enjoyned by his Majestie, our only supreme Governour. What I am here to say, shall not derogate any thing from his Highnesse Supremacy, because it includeth no such thing as a nomotheticall power, to prescribe and appoint such sacred and significant Ceremonies as he shall thinke good.

The Arch-Bishop of Armagh, in his Speach which he delivered concerning the Kings Supremacy, (for which King Iames returned him in a Letter his Princely and gratious thankes, for that he had defended his just & lawfull power, with so much learning and reason,) whiles he treateth of the Supremacy, and expoundeth that Title of The only Supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions and Countries, as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as temporall; mentioneth no such thing, as any power to dispose by his Lawes and ordinances, of things externall in the worship of God. Neither yet shall this following Discourse tend to the cooling & abating of that care and zeale which Princes owe to the oversight & promotion of Religion. For alas! the corruptions which have stept into Religion, and the decayes which it hath felt since Princes beganne to take small thought of it, and to leave the care of it to Popes, Bishops, Monkes, &c. can never be enough bewailed. Nihil enim, &c. For there is nothing (saith ccIn 4. praec. col. 791.Zanchius) more pernitious, either to the Commonwealth or to the Church, then if a Prince doe all things by the judgement of others, and he himself understand not those things which are propounded to bee done.

Nor lastly, are we to sound an alarum of Rebellion. For to say that Subjects are not bound to obey such Lawes and Statutes of their Prince, as impose upon them a Yoke of Ceremonies, which hee hath no power to impose, is one thing; and to say, that they are not bound to subject themselves unto him faithfully and loyally, is another thing. Recte Gerson; Qui abusui potestatis resistit, non resistit divinae ordinationi, saith ddDeIud. controv. cap. 14. p. 76the Bishop of Sarisburie. Subjection, saith eeOf the Church, lib. 4. c. 34. p. 400.D. Field, is required generally and absolutely, where obedience is not. If we have leave to speake with ffGerard. loc. theol. tom. 6. p. 1280. Polan. Synt. lib. 10. cap. 62. col. 960.Divines, the bond and signe of subjection, is only Homage, or the oath of fidelity, whereby Subjects p. 124binde themselves to be faithfull to their Prince. And we take the judge of all flesh to witnesse, before whose dreadfull Tribunall we must stand at that great day, how free we are of thoughts of Rebellion, & how uprightly we meane to be his Majesties most true and loy all Subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote our selves, our bodies, lives, goods and estates, and all that we have in the world, to his Highnesse service, and to the honour of his Royal Crowne.

Now for the purpose in hand, we will first examine what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato saith, for he discourseth much of the jurisdiction Sect. 2 and Office of Princes, in things and causes Ecclesiasticall. The Title of the first Chapter of his sixt Booke de Rep Eccl. holdeth; That it is the duty of Princes super Ecclesiastica invigilare. But in the body of the Chapter, he laboureth to prove, that the power of governing Ecclesiasticall things belongeth to Princes (which is farre more then to watch carefully over them.) This the Reader will easily perceive. Nay, he himselfe, Num. 115. & 174. professeth he hath been proving, that Divine and Ecclesiasticall things, are to be ruled and governed by the authority & Lawes of Princes. The Title prefixed to the sixt Chapter of that same Booke, is this: Legibus & edictis Principum Laicorum, & Ecclesiastica & Ecclesiasticos gubernari. So that in both Chapters, he treateth of one and the same office of Princes about things Ecclesiasticall.

Now, if we would learne what he meanes by those Ecclesiastica, which he will have to be governed by Princes, ggLib 6. Cap. 5. num. 3. & 17.he resolves us that he meanes not things internall, such as the deciding of controversies in matters of faith, feeding with the Word of God, binding & loosing, and ministring of the Sacraments: (for in pure spiritualibus, (as he speaketh in Summa Cap. 5.) he yeeldeth thē not the power of judging and defining:) but onelyonly things externall, which pertaine to the externall worship of God, or which concerne externall Ecclesiastical Discipline. Such things hhOstens. error. Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. Nmu. 23. Sect. 3.he acknowledgeth to be res Spirituales. But vera Spiritualia, he will have to comprehend onelyonly things internall, which hee removeth from the power of Princes. Thus wee have his judgement as plaine as himselfe hath delivered it unto us.

But I demaund, 1. Why yeeldeth he the same power to Princes in governing Ecclesiastica, which he yeldeth them in governing Ecclesiasticos? For Ecclesiasticall Persons, being members of the common-wealth no lesse then Laickes, have the same King and Governour with them. For which reason it is (as iiDe Rep. Eccl. Cap. 6. Num. 38.the B. himself sheweth out of Molina) that they are bound to be subject to their Princes Lawes, which pertaine to the whole common-wealth. But the like cannot be alleadged for the power of Princes to governe Ecclesiastica: for the B. (I trust) would not have said, that things Ecclesiasticall and things civill doe equally and alike belong to their power and Iurisdiction.

p. 1252. Why confoundeth he the governing of things and causes Ecclesiasticall, with watching over and taking care for the same? Let us only call to mind the native signification of the word: foreign Guberno signifieth properly to rule or governe the course of a S…p: And in a Ship there may be many watchfull and carefull eyes over her course, and yet but one Governour directing the same.

3. Why holdeth he, that things externall in the worship of God are not vera spiritualia? For if they be Ecclesiasticall and sacred Ceremonies (not fleshly and wordly) why will he not also acknowledge them for true spirituall things? And if they be not vera spiritualia, why calls he them res spirituales? For are not Res and Verum reciprocall, as wel as Ens and Verum?

4. Even as a Prince in his Sea-voyage is supreme Governour of all which are in the Ship with him, end by consequence of the Governour, who directs her course, yet doth he not governe the action of governing or directing the course of the Ship: So though a Prince be the only supreme Governour of all his Dominions, & by consequence of Ecclesiasticall persons in his Dominions, yet he can not be said to Governe all their Ecclesiasticall actions & causes. And as the Governour of a Ship acknowledgeth his Prince for his only supreme Governour, even then whiles he is governing & directing the course of the ship, (otherwise whiles he is governing her course, he should not be his Princes Subject) yet he doth not thereby acknowledge that his Prince governeth his action of directing the course of the Ship, (for then should the Prince be the Pilot:) So when one hath acknowledged the Prince to be the only supreme Governour upon Earth, of all Ecclesiasticall persons in his Dominions, even whiles they are ordering and determining Ecclesiasticall causes; yet he hath not thereby acknowledged that the Prince governeth the Ecclesiasticall causes. Wherefore whiles kkOstens. error Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. n. 23.the B. taketh the English Oath of Supremacy, to acknowledge the same which he teacheth touching the Princes power, he giveth it another sence then the words of it can beare. For it saith not that the Kings Majestie is the only supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions, and OF all things and causes therein, as well Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall, as Temporall. But it saith, that he is the only Supreame Governour of all his Highnes Dominions IN all things or causes, &c. Now, the spirituall Guides of the Church substituted by Christ, as Deputies in his stead, who is the most supreame Governour of his own Church, and llIsa. 96.on whose shoulder the Governement resteth as his Royall prorogative; even then whiles they are governing and putting order to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall causes, they acknowledge their Prince to be their only supreme Governour upon Earth: yet hereby they implie not that he governeth their Governing of Ecclesiasticall causes, as hath been shewed by that Simele of governing a Ship.

p. 1265. Whereas the B. leaveth all things externall, which pertaine to the worship of God, to be governed by Princes, I object that the version Sect. 4 of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Grèeke into the vulgar tongue, is an externall thing, belonging to the worship of God, yet it cannot be governed by a Prince who is not learned in the originall tounges.

6. Whereas he yeeldeth to Princes the power of governing in spiritualibus, but not in pure spiritualibus, I cannot comprehend this Distinction. All sacred and Ecclesiasticall things belonging to the worship of God are spirituall things.

What then understands he by things purely spirituall? If he meane things which are in such sort spirituall, that they have nothing earthly not externall in them; in this sence the Sacraments are not purely spirituall, because they consist of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly, as Ireneus saith of the Eucharist. And so the Sacraments not being things purely spirituall, shall be left to the power and government of Princes. If it be said, that by things purely spirituall, he meanes things which concerne our Spirits onelyonly, and not the outward man; I still urge the same Instance: For the Sacraments are not in this sence spirituall, because a part of the Sacraments, to wit, the Sacramentall Signes or Elements, concerne our externall & bodily sences of seeing, touching, and tasting.

7. The B. also contradicteth himselfe unawares: For in mmLib. 6. cap. 5. n. 174.one place hee reserveth and excepteth from the power of Princes, the judging and deciding of controversies and questions of faith. Yet in nnIbid. num. 177.another place hee exhorteth Kings and Princes, to compell the Divines of both sides (of the Roman and Reformed Churches) to come to a free conference, and to debate the matters controverted betwixt them; in which conference, hee requireth the Princes themselves to bee Iudges.

It remaineth to trie what force of reason the B. hath to backe his opinion. As for the ragged rabble of humane Testimonies, which Sect. 5 he taketh together, I should but weary my Reader, and spend paper and Inke in vaine, if I should insist to answer them one by one. Only thus much I say of all those Sentences of the Fathers, and Constitutions of Princes and Emperours about things Ecclesiasticall, together with the Histories, of the submission of some Ecclesiasticall causes to Emperours; Let him who pleaseth read them; And it shall appeare,

1. That some of those things whereunto the power of Princes was applied, were unlawfull.

2. There were many of them things Temporall or Civill, not Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall, nor such as pertaine to the worshippe of God.

p. 1273. There were some of them Ecclesiasticall or spirituall things, but then Princes did only ratify that which had beene determined by Councells, and punish with the civill sword such as did stubbornly disobey the Churches lawfull constitutions. Neither were Princes allowed to doe any more.

4. Sometimes they interposed their authority and medled in causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, even before the definition of Councells: yet did they not judge nor decide those matters, but did only convocate Councells, and urge the Cleargie to see to the misordered and troubled estate of the Church, and by their wholesome Lawes & ordinances to provide the best remedies for the same which they could.

5. At other times Princes have done somewhat more in Ecclesiasticall matters: but this was only in extraordinary cases, when the Cleargy was so corrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through malice and perversnesse unwilling to doe their duty in deciding of controversies, making of Canons, using the keyes, and managing of other Ecclesiasticall matters: in which case Princes might and did by their coactive temporall Iurisdiction, avoid disorder, errour and superstition, and cause a Reformation of the Church.

6. Princes have likewise in rightly constituted and well reformed Churches, by their owne Regall authority, straitly injoyned things pertaining to the worship of God: but those things were the very same which Gods owne written Word had expressely commanded.

7. When Princes went beyond these limits and bounds, they tooke upon them to judge and command more then God hath put within the compasse of their power

But as touching the passages of holy Sripture whichthe B. alleadgeth, Sect. 6 I will answer thereto particularly. And first, hee produceth that place Deut. Chap. 17. vers. 19. where the King was appointed to have the Booke of the Law of God with him, that he might learne to feare the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to doe them. What Logicke (I pray) can from this place inferre that Princes have the supreme power of governing all Ecclesiasticall causes? Next, the B. tells us of Davids appointing of the offices of the Levites, and dividing of their courses, 1 Chron. 23. and his commending of the same to Solomon, 1. Chron 28. But he might have observed, that David did not this as a King, but as a Prophet or man of God. 2. Chron. 8. 14. yea those orders and courses of the Levites, were also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord. 2. Chron 29. 25. As touching Solomons appointing of the courses and charges of the Priests, Levites, & Porters, he did it not of himselfe, nor by his owne Princely authority, but because David the man of God had so commanded, 2. Chron. 8 14. For Solomon received p. 128from David, a patterne for all that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord, and also for the courses of the Priests and Levites, 1. Chron. 28. 11. 12 13.

The B…comes on and tells us that Hezekiah did applie his Regall Sect. 7 power to the Reformation of the Levites, and of the worship of God in their hands; oo2. Chrō 29. 5.saying: Heare me yee Levites, sanctify now your selves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthinesse out of the holy place.

Ans. He exhorted them to no more then Gods Law required of them. For the Law ordained them to sanctify themselves, and to doe the service of the house of the Lord, Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. & 18. 32. So that Hezekiah did here constitute nothing by his owne arbitrement and authority, but plainly sheweth his warrant, vers. 11. The Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him. But the B, further alleadgeth out of 2 Chron. 31. that Hezekiah appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites, every man according to his service.

Answ. He might have read 2. Chron. 29. 25. that Hezekiah did all this according to the commandement of David & of God the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet: for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets. And who doubteth but Kings may command such things as God hath commanded before them.

The next example which the B. alleadgeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35. Sect. 8 where we read that Iosias did set the Priests and Levites againe in their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the supreme power of governing Ecclesiasticall causes, unlesse it be evinced that Iosias changed those orders and courses of the Levites & Priests, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. and that he did institute other orders by his owne Regall authority. Whereas the contrary is manifest from the Text. For Iosias did only set the Priests and Levites those charges and courses, which had been assigned unto them after the writing of David and Solomon vers. 4. and by the commandement of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Ieduthun the Kings Seer, vers 15. Neither did Iosias command the Priests and Levites, any other service then that which was writen in the booke of Moses vers. 12. So that from his example it only followeth, that when Princes see the state of Ecclesiasticall persons corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to those orders and functions, which Gods Word commandeth.

Moreover, the B. objecteth the example of Ioash: who, while he Sect. 8 yet did right in the dayes of Iehojada the Priest, pp2. Chrō 24.sent the Priests & Levites, to gather from all Israell, money for repairing the house of the Lord: and when they dealt negligently in this businesse, he transferred the charge of the same unto others, and making himselfe p. 129the Keeper of the holy money, did both prescribe how it was to be …eboursed, and likewise take from good Iehojada the Preist the administration of the same. Now, where he hath read that Ioash made himselfe the keeper of the money and prescribed how it should be deboursed, also that he tooke the administration …rom Iehojada; I can not guesse, or the Text hath no such thing in it, but the contrary, viz. that the Kings Scri…e, and the High Preists Officer, keeped the money and deboursed the same, as the King and Iehojada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly alleadgeth out of the holy Text, I answer, 1. The collection for repairing the house of the Lord was no humane ordinance, for Ioash sheweth the Commandement of Moses for it, Vers. 6. having reference to Exod. 30. 12. 13. 14. No other collections did Ioash impose, qqI. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12.2 Kgs 12but those quae divino sure debebantur. 2. As for the taking of the charge of this collection from the Priests, he behooved to doe so, because they had still neglected the worke, when the three & twentie yeare of his raigne was come. And so say we, that when the ministers of the Church faile to doe their duty, in providing that which is necessary for the service of God, Princes ought by some other meanes to cause these things be redressed. 3. Joash did nothing with these money…s without Iehojada, but rrId. I. bid.Pontifex eas primum laborantibus tribuit, tum in aedis s…crae restauration em maxime converti…. 4. And what if he had done this by himselfe? I suppose no man will reckon the hiring of Masons and Carpenters, with such as wrought Iron and Brasse, or the gathering of money for this purpose, among spirituall things or causes. 5. And if these employments about Solomons Temple were not to be called Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, farre lesse about our materiall Churches, which are not holy nor consecrated as Solomons was for a typicall use. Wherefore without all prejudice to our cause, we may and doe commend the building and repairing of Churches by Christian Princes.

But the B. returneth to another Example in Solemon, which is the Sect. 10 putting of Abjathar the chief Priest from his Office, and surrogating of another in his place. Answ. Abjathar was civilly dead, as the Lawyers use to speake, and it was only by accident or by consequent that Solomon put him from his Office: he sent him away to Anathoth, because of his treasonable following and aiding of Adonijah, whereupon necessarily followed his falling away from the honour, dignity and Office of the High-Priest: whence it only followeth, that if a Minister be found guilty of l…se Majesty, the King may punish him either with banishment or proscription, or some such civill punishment, whereupon by consequence will follow his falling from his Ecclesiasticall office and dignity. 2. As for Solomons putting of Zadok in the roome of Abjathar, it maketh as litle against us, for Zadok did fall to the place jure divino.

p. 130The honour and office of the High-Priesthood was given to Eliazer the Elder Sonne of Aaron, and was to remaine in his family. How it came to passe that it was transferred to Eli, who was of the family of Ithamar, we read not. Alwayes after that Abjathar, who was of the family of Ithamar, and descended of Eli, had by a capitall crime fallen from it, it did of very right belong to Zadoke, who was the chiefe of the family of Eliazer. And so all this flowed, not from Solomons, but from Gods owne authority.

The B. remembreth another example in Hezekiah to, telling us Sect. 11 that he removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut downe the groves, and brake in peeces the brazen serpent, when the children of Israel did burne incense vntounto it. Now, we wish from our hearts, that from this example all Christian Kings may learne to remove and destroy the monuments of Idolatry out of their Dominions. And if it be said that in so doing, Kings take vponupon them to governe by their Princely authority, an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall cause; It is easily answered that when they destroy Idolatrous monuments, they doe nothing by their owne authority, but by the authority of Gods Law, ssExod. 33 13. & 34. 13. 14. Deut 7 5. Isa. 30. 22.Exod 33:13Exod 34:13Exod 34:14Deut 7:5Isa 30:22which commandeth to abolish such monuments, and to root out the very names of Idolls: which commandement is to be executed by the coaction of temporall power.

Finally, saith the B. the Kings of the Iewes tt1. Kings 23. & 2… Chron. 192 Chr 19have in the Temple propounded the Law of the Lord to the people, renued the covenant Sect. 12 of religion, pulled downe profane Altars, broken downe Idols, slaine idolatrous Priests, liberated their Kingdome from abomination, purged the Temple, ww2 Chrō. 34 & 35.proclaimed the keeping of the passeover, and of the Feast of the Dedication, yyEsther. 9. 26.Esth 9:26and have also instituted new Feasts. For all which things they are in zz2. Chrō. 29. 2 & 34. 2. &c.the Scriptures much praised by the Holy Spirit.x 1. Maccab. 4. 59.1 Macc 4:59

Answ. True it is, Iosias did reade the Law of the Lord to the people in the Temple, and made a covenant before the Lord, but 1. He prescribed nothing at his owne pleasure, only he required of the people to walke after the Lord, and to keepe his commaundements.

2. Neither yet did he this worke by himselfe, but did convocate a Counsell of the Prophets Priests and Elders of Israel, for the advancing of that reformation, 2. Kings. 23. 1.

3. And if he had done it by himselfe, yet we are to remember that the reformation of a Church generally and greatly corrupted, craveth the more immediate intermedling of Princes, and a great deale more then can be ordinarily and orderly done by them, in a Church already reformed. The slaying of the Idolatrous Priests had also the warrant and authority of the Law of God, which appointed a capitall punishment for blasphemers, aaZanch. in 3. praec. 575. 576. 577. 578.or such as in p. 131contempt of God, and to rub some ignominie upon his name, did traduce his doctrine and religion, and either detract from him and attribute to Idolls that which appertained properly unto him, or else attributed unto him either by enunciation or imprecation, such things as could not stand with the glory of the Godhead. Concerning the abolishing of Idolatry and all the reliques thereof, we have answered that it was commaunded by God. The keeping of the passeover was also commaunded in the Law: so that when Hezekiah enjoyned it, he did but publish Gods owne expresse ordinance.

Last of all touching the two remanent examples. 1. The Feast of the Dedication was not ordained by the sole authority of Iudas, but bb1. Mac. 4. 59.1 Macc 4:59by his brethren and by the whole Congregation of Israel: and the dayes of Purim ccEst. 9. 20. 21.Esth 9:20Esth 9:21were established by Mordecai a Prophet.

2. We have else-where made it evident, that the dayes of Purim by their first Institution were only dayes of civill joy and solemnity: and that the Feast of the Dedication was not lawfully instituted.d Supra Cap. 6.

Thus having dismissed the B. we will make us for clearing the purpose in hand. But before we come to shew particularly what Princes Sect. 13 may doe, and what they may not doe, in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, we will first of all lay downe these Propositions following:

1. Whatsoever the power of Princes be in things and causes Ecclesiasticall, it is not (sure) absolute nor unbounded. Solius Dei est, saith eePromp…. morall. in Domin. 1. quadrag. text. 10.Stapleton, juxta suam sanctissimam voluntatem, action… suas omn… dirigere, & omnia facere quaecunque voluit. And againe: Vis tuam voluntatem esse regulam rerum omnium, ut omnia siant pro tuo beneplacito? Whether we respect the persons or the places of Princes, their power is confined within certaine limits, so that they may not enjoyne whatsoever they list. As touching their persons: Bishop Spotswood would doe no lesse then warrant the Articles of Perth, by King Iames his personall qualities. His person ffSerm. in Perth. assemb.saith he, were he not our Soveraigne, gives them sufficient authority, being recommended by him: For he knowes the nature of things, and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then we doe all.

I meane not to derogate any thing from King Iames his due deserved praise, nor to obscure his never dying memory. Only I say, that such a Prince as the B. speaketh of, who knoweth what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then many learned and godly Pastors assembled in a Synode, is Rara a…is in terris nigroque simillima Cygno. For a Prince beeing but a man, and so subject to errour: being p. 132but one man, and so in the greater hazard of errour, for plus vident oculi, quam oculus; and woe to him that … alone, when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up saith ggEccl. 4. 10.Eccl 4:10the wisest of mortall Kings: being also compassed & assailed with so many and so mighty tentations, which other men are free of: and lastly, beeing so taken up and distracted with secular affaires and cares, that very seldome is he found well versed or singularly learned in the controversies of Religion: may not such a one in the common sence of Christians, be thought more like to faile & miscarry, in his judgement about things Ecclesiasticall, then a whole Synod, wherein there are many of the learned, judicious and godly Ministers of the Church. Papists tell us, that they will not defend the personall actions of the Pope, hhOnuphr de. vit. Hadr. 6.quasi ipse solus omnibus horis sapore potuerit, id quod recte nemini concessum perhibetur. Their own records let the world know the abominable vices and impieties of Popes. Witnesse Platina, in the life of John the 10. Benedict the 4. John the 13. Boniface the 7. Iohn the 20:—Iohn the 22. Paul the 2. &c. And further when our Adversaries dispute of the Popes infallability, they graunt, for his owne person, he may be an Heriticke: only they hold that he cannot erre e Cathedra.

And shall we now Idolize the persons of Princes more then Papists doe the persons of Popes? Or shall Papists object to us, that we extoll the judgement of our Princes to a higher degree of authority & infallibility, then they yeeld to the judgement of their Popes? Alas, why would we put Weapons in the hands of our Adversaries?

But what say we of Princes in respect of their place and Sect. 14 calling? Is not their power absolute in that respect? Recte quidam, saith iiDe imper. aut. lib. 2. cap. 55.Saravia, illiberalis & inverecundi censet esse ingenij, de Principum potestate & rebus gestis questionem movere, quando & Imperator sacrilegium esse scribit, de eo quod a Principe factum est disputare. kkpraelect. tom. 1. pa. 370. 372. & tom. 2. pag. 41.Camero holdeth that in things pertaining to externall order in religion, Kings may command what they will pr… authoritate, and forbidde to seeke another reason beside the Majesty of their authority: yea that vvhen they command frivola, dura, & iniqua respectu nostri, our consciences are bound by those their frivolous and unjust commaundements, not only in respect of the end, because scandall should possibly follovv in case vve obey them not, but also Iubentis respectu, because the Apostle biddeth us, obey the Magistrate for conscience sake. At the reading of these Passages in Sarauia & Camero, horrour and amazement have taken hold on me. O wisedome of God, by whom Kings doe raigne & Princes decree Iustice upon whose thigh & vesture is written King of Kings & Lord of Lords; make the Kings of the Earth to know that their Lawes are but Regulae regulatae, and mensurae mensuratae. Be wise now therefore. O ye Kings: Be instructed ye Iudges of the Earth. Serve the Lord with feare, and rejoyce p. 133with trembling. Kisse the Sonne, and lay downe your Crownes at he feete of the Lambe llCalv. in Psal. 2.Ps 2that sits upon the Throne, discite justitiam moniti, and remember that this is the beginning of wisedome, by casting pride away, to addict yourselves to the Dominion of Christ: Who albeit he hath given the Kingdomes of this world unto your hands, and Non a…feret mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia; mmPsal. 9. 6, & 22. 21.Ps 9:6Ps 22:21yet hath he kept the governement of his Church upon his owne shoulder. So that Rex non est proprie Rector Ecclesiae, sed Reipublicae: Ecclesiae vero Defensor est. O all yee Subjects of Kings and Princes understand that in things pertaining to the Church and Kingdome of Christ, nn1. Cor. 7. 23.1 Cor 7:23ye are not the Servants of men; to doe what they list, and that for their listing. The Apostle Rom. 13. (o) urgeth not obedience to Magistrates for conscience sake, but only subjection for conscience (a) Taylor. on Tit. 3. 1. pag. 543.Titus 3:1sake. For ppPareus in illum locum.he concludeth his whole purpose Vers. 7. Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour. There is not in all that Chapter one word of obedience to Magistrats.

And as touching the binding power of their Lawes, be they never so just they cannot bind you any other way nor in respect of the generall end of them: For per se they cannot bind more then the Churches Lawes can. Which things qqIren. lib 2. cap. 4. §. 3.D. Forbesse also hath told you out of Calvine.

And hence it followeth, that whensoever you may omit that which Princes enjoyne, without violating the Law of Charity, you are not holden to obey them, for the Majesty of Princely authority. Be ashamed O ye Formalists of your ascribing to Princes a Iurisdiction so absolute. Bury it in the grave of eternall silence. Tell it not in Rome: publish it not among the Vashals of Antichrist, lest the daughters of Babylon rejoice, lest the worshippers of the Beast triumph. O how small confidence have the Cardinals, I say not now into the Popes person, but even into his chaire, when beeing entered in the Conclave, for the election of a new Pope, they spend the whole day following in the making of Lawes, belonging to the administration & handling of all things by him. who shalbe advāced to the Popedome: which lawes every one of them subscribeth, and swareth to observe, if he be made Pope, as Onuphrius writeth. Though the Popes owne creatures the Iesuites in their Schooles and Bookes, must dispute for his infallibility e Cathedra, yet we see what trust the wise Cardinalls shut up in the Conclave, doe put in him, with what bound they tie him & within what bounds they confine his power. Albeit the Pope after he is created observeth not strictly this oath, as rrLib. 1.that wise writer of the History of the Councell of Trent noteth: yet let me say once againe; shall we set up the power of Princes higher, or make their power lesse limited, then Papists doe the power of Popes? Or shall they set bounds, to Popes, and we set none to Princes.

p. 134But I find my self a little digressed, after the roving absurdities Sect. 15 of some opposites. Now, therefore to returne, the second Proposition which I am here to lay downe, before I speak particularly of the pow er of Princes, is this, whatsoeuer Princes can commendably either do by themselves, or command to be done by others, in such matters as any way pertaine to the externall worship of God, must be both law ful in the nature of it, and expedient in the use of it, which conditions if they be wanting, their commandemēts cannot bind to obedience.

For ssPareus in Rom. 13. 4.Rom 13:41. The very ground and reason wherefore we ought to obey the Magistrate, is, for that he is the Minister of God, or a Deputie set in Gods stead to us. Now, he is the Minister of God, only for our good, Rom. 13 4. Neither were he Gods Minister, but his owne Master, if he should rule at his pleasure…, and command things which serve not for the good of the Subjects. Since therefore the commaundements of Princes bind only so farre as they are the Ministers of God for our good: and Gods Ministers they are not, in commanding such things as are either in their nature unlawfull, or in their use inconvenient: it followeth that such commaundements of theirs cannot bind.

2. Princes cannot claime any greater power in matters Ecclesiasticall, then the Apostle Paul had, or the Church her selfe yet hath: that is to say, Princes may not by any Temporall or Regall Iurisdiction urge any Ceremony or forme of Ecclesiasticall Policy, which the Apostle once might not, and the Church yet may not urge by a Spirituall Jurisdiction. But neither had the Apostle of old, nor hath the Church now power to urge either a Ceremony or any thing else, which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could doe nothing against the truth but for the truth, and his power was given him to edification and not to destruction, 2. Cor. 13. 8 10. Neither shall Ecclesiasticall persons to the worlds end receive any other power, beside that which is for the perfecting of the Saints, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. Eph. 4. 12. Therefore as ssD. Forb. Iren. lib 2 cap 4s. 10.the Churches power is only to prescribe that which may edify, so the power of Princes is in like sort given to them for edification, and not for destruction, neither can they doe ought against the truth, but only for the truth.

3. We are bound by the Law of God, to doe nothing which is not good & profitable or edifying, 1. Cor. 6. 12. & 14. 26. This Law of Charity is of a higher and straiter bound then the Law of any Prince in the World.

The generall rule of all indifferent things, is, let all things be done to edification: And Rō. 15. 1. 2. let every man please his neighbour to edification, even as Christ pleased not himself, but others. Whatsoever then is of this ranke, which either would weaken or not edify our p. 135brother, he it never so lawfull, never so profitable to our selves, never so powerfully by earthly authority injoyned; Christians who are not borne vntounto themselues, but vntounto Christ, vntounto his Church, and fellowe members, must not dare to m…ddle with it, saith ttTaylor on Tit. 1. 15. pag. 295.Titus 1:15one well to our purpose.

A third Proposition I premit, which is this. Since the power Sect. 16 of Princes to make Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, is not absolute, but bound and adstricted vntounto things lawfull and expedient, which sort of things, and no other, we are allowed to doe for their commandements: and since Princes many times may and doe not only transgresse those bounds and limits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed they are without them, and inioyne things vnlawfull and in convenient, vnderunder the name, title, and shew of things lawfull and convenient: Therefore it is most necessary as well for Princes to permit, as for Subjects to take liberty to trie and examine by the judgement of discretion, everie thing which auctority enjoyneth whether it be agreeable or repuguant to the rules of the word, and if after triall it be found repugnant to abstaine from the doing of the same.

For 1. The word teacheth us, that the spirituall man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. 15. trieth the things that are different. Phil. 1. 10. hath his sences exercised to discerne both good and evill. Hebr. 5. 14. and that every one who wold hold fast that which is good, and abstaine from all appearance of evill, must first prove all things. 1. Thessal. 5. 21.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. 23. But whatsoever a man doeth without the triall, Knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfullnesse of it, by the word of God, that is not of faith. Ergo a sinne. It is the word of God, and not the arbitrement of Princes wehereupon faith is grounded. And though the word may be withoutfaith, yet faith can not be without the word. By it therefore must a man trie and know assuredly the lawfullnesse of that which he doth.

3. Everie one of vsus shall give account of himself to God. But as we cannot give an account to God of those actions which wee have done in obedience to our Prince, except we have examined… considered, and vnderstood the lawfullnesse of the same: so an account could not be required of us for them, if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances, in such sort that we might not trie and examine them, with full liberty to refuse those which we judg out of the word to be vnlawfull or inconvenient: for then Princes ordinances were a most sufficient warrant to us: we needed trie no more▪ let him make an account to God of his command: we have acount to make of our obedience.

4. If we be bound to receive and obey the lawes of Princes, p. 136without making a free triall and examining of the equity of the same, then wee could not be punished for doing … ▪ willingly and in ignorance, things unlawfull prescribed by them. Whereas every soule that sinneth shall dye; and when the blind leads the blind, he who is ledde falls in the ditch as well as his leader.

5. No man is permitted to doe every thing which seemeth right in his eyes, and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head: but every man is bound ttGal. 6. 16.Gal 6:16to walke by a rule: But the Law of a Prince cannot be a rule, except it be examined, whether it, be consonant to the Word of God. Index secundum legem, and his Law is only such a rule as is ruled by a higher rule: In so farre as it is ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is a rule to us: and in so farre as it is not ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is not a rule to us. Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano cuique convenientiam regula & regulati (ut vocant observare? saith wwAnimad. in Bell. cont. 1. lib. 3. cap. 10.Iunius.

6. The rule whereby we ought to walke in all our wayes, and according to which we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God xxPsal. 9. 7.Ps 9:7a stable and sure rule, that it being obserued and taken heed unto, may guide and direct our practise aright, about all those things which it prescribeth. But the Law of a Prince (if we should without triall and examination take it for our rule,) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case that a Prince enjoyne two things which sometimes fall out to be incompatible, and cannot stand together, in that case his Law cannot direct our practise, nor resol… … what to doe. Whereas God hath so provided for us, that the case can never occurre, wherein we may not be resolved what to doe, if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walke by.

7. Except this Iudgement of discretion which we plead for, be permitted unto us, it will follow that in the point of obedience we ought to give no lesse, but as much honour unto Princes, as unto God himselfe: For when God publisheth his Commandements unto us, what greater honour could we give him by our obedience, then to doe that which he commandeth, for his owne sole will and authority, without making further enquiry for any other reason.

8. The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. 23. forbiddeth us to be the servant of men, that is, to doe things for which we have no other warrant, beside the pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is grounded upon other places of Scripture, that teach us, we are not bound to obey men in any thing, which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. 6 6. 7. that we ought not to live to the lusts of men but to the will of God, 1. Pet. 4. 2. and that therefore we ought in every thing to prove what is acceptable unto the Lord, Eph. 5. 20.

9. They who cleanse their way, must take heed thereto according p. 137to the Word, Psal. 119. 9. Therefore if wee take not heed to our way according to the Word, we doe not cleanse it. They who would walke as the Children of light, must have the Word for a lampe unto their feet, and a light unto their path, Psal. 119. 105. Therefore if we goe in any path, without the light of the Word to direct us, we walke in darkenesse and stumble, because we see not where wee goe. They who would not bee unwise, but walke circumspectly, must understand, what the will of the Lord is, Eph. 5. 17. Therefore, if we understand not what the Will of the Lord is concerning that which we doe, we are unwise, and walke not circumspectly.

10. yyZanch. in Phil. 1. 10.Phil 1:10Dona Dei in Sanctis non sunt otiosa. Whatsoever Grace God giveth us, it ought to be used and exercised, and not to lie idle in us. But zzId. ibid.God giveth us actionem cognoscendi, foreign discernendi, &c. a certaine measure of the Spirit of Discretion, to teach us what to choose as good, and what to refuse as evill, 1 Ioh. 2. 27. The same anointing teacheth you of all things, 1 Cor. 2. 15. He that is Spirituall judgeth all things. Therefore God would have us to exercise that measure of the gift of discretion, which he hath bestowed on us, in discerning of things which are propounded to us, whether they ought to be done or not.

11. Doe not our Divines plead for this judgement of private discretion, which ought to be permitted to Christians, when any thing is propounded to bee believed or done by them? And this their judgement is to bee seene in their writings against Papists about the Controversies de interpretatione Scripturae, deside implicita, &c.

12. The Bishop of Sarisburie in his Prelections de judice controversiarum, doth often and in many places commend unto Christians, the same judgement of discretion which wee stand upon, & holdeth it necessary for them to trie and examine whatsoever either Princes or Prelates command them to doe. Coactiva, &c. The coactive Power of a Prince aacap. 14. pag. 77.saith he, doth not absolutely bind the Subject, but onelyonly with this condition, except he would compell him to that which is unlawfull. Therefore there is ever left unto Subjects a Power of proving and judging in their owne mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and unlawfull or not: and if it be ungodly, that which the King threatneth should be suffered, rather then that which he commandeth bee done. This Augustine hath taught &c. And whereas it might be objected, that this maketh a Subject to be his Princes Iudge, bbIbid. c. 26. p. 152.he answereth thus. Non se &c, He maketh not himselfe anothers Iudge, who pondereth and examineth a Sentence published by another, in so farre as it containeth something either to be done or to be believed by him; but onelyonly hee maketh himselfe the Iudge of his owne actions. For, howsoever he who playeth the Iudge, is truly said to judge, yet every one who judgeth is not properly sayd to play the Iudge. Hee playeth the Iudge, who in a externall Court pronounceth a Sentence, which by force of p. 138Iurisdiction toucheth another: but he judgeth, who in the inferiour Court of his owne private Conscience conceiveth such a Sentence of the things to be believed or done, as pertaineth to himselfe alone: This latter way private men both may and ought to judge of the Sentences and Decrees of Magistrates, neither by so doing doe they constitute themselves Iudges of the Magistrates, but Iudges of their owne actions.

Finally, there is none of our Opposites, but saith so much as inferreth Sect. XVII the necessity of this Iudgement of private and practicall discretion, for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth, that if the King or the Church commande any thing unlawfull, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they commaund things indifferent and lawfull, then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us, how wee shall know, whether the things which the King, or the Church (as they speake) doe injoyne, are lawfull or unlawfull, indifferent, or not indifferent; and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that we must judge those things indifferent which our Superiours judge to be such, and those unlawfull, which our Superiours so judge of? Nay, then they should deliver their distinction in other tearmes, and say thus: If our Superiours injoyne any thing which they judge to be unlawfull, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they injoyne such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which distinction me thinks, would have made Heraclitus himselfe to fall a lauging with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our Opposites must either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not onelyonly a Liberty but a duty of Inferiours, not to receive for a thing lawfull that which is injoyned by Superiours, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgement of their owne discretion following the rules of the Word, to trie and examine, whether the same be lawfull or unlawfull.

These Praecognita beeing now made good, come wee to speake Sect. XVIII more particularly of the Power of Princes to make Lawes and Ordinances about things which concerne the Worship of God. The purpose we will unfold in three distinctions, 1. of things. 2. of times 3. of ties. First, let us distinguish two sorts of things in the Worship of God, viz. things substantiall, & things circumstantiall. To things substantiall we referre as well sacred and significant Ceremonies as the more necessary and essentiall parts of Worship, and in a word, all things which are not mere externall circumstances such as were not particularly determinable within those bounds which it pleased God to set to his written Word, and the right ordering whereof, as it is common to all humane societies whether civill or sacred, so it is investigable by the very light and guidance of naturall reason. That p. 139among this kind of mere circumstances, sacred signifiant Ceremonies can not be reckoned, we have otherwhere made it evident. Now therefore of things pertaining to the substance of Gods worship, whether they be sacred Ceremonies, or greater and more necessary duties, we say that Princes have not power to injoyne any thing of this kynd, which hath not the plaine and particular Institution of God himself in Scripture. They may indeed and ought to publish Gods owne ordinances and commandements, and by their coactive temporall power urge and inforce the observation of the same. Notwithstanding it is a Princes duty, ccDanaus pol. Chryst. lib. 6. Cap. 3.that in the worship of God, whether internall or externall, he move nothing, he prescribe nothing, except that which is expressely delivered in Gods owne written Word. We must beware we confound not things which have the plaine warrant of Gods Word, with things devised by the will of man. David, Iehosaphat, Hezekiah, Iosiah, and other Kings among the people of God, did as well laudably as lawfully, injoyne and command that worship and for me of Religion, which God in his Law and by his Prophets commanded; and forbid, avoid, and abolish such corruptions, as God had for bidden before them, and appointed to be abobished: whence it followeth not that Kings may in joyne things which want the warrant of the word, but only this much, which we all commend, viz. ddZanch. in 4. praec. col. 791. Polan. synt. lib. 10. cap. 65.That a Christian Princes office in Religion, is diligently to take care that in his Dominion or kingdome, Religion out of the pure word of God, expounded by the word of God it self, and understood according to the first Principles of faith (which others call the analogy of faith) either be instituted; or beeing instituted be kept pure; or beeing corrupted be restored and reformed: that false doctrines, abuses, Idolls, and superstitions, be taken away to the glory of God, and to his owne and his Subjects salvation.

But in all the Scripture Princes have neither a commendable example, Sect. XIX not any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in Religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant Ceremonies of mens devising. Ieroboam caused a change to be made in the Ceremonies and forme of Gods worship. Whereas God ordained the Arke of the Covenant to be the signe of his presence, and that his glory should dwell between the Cherubims. Ieroboam set up two Calves to be the signes representative of that God who brought Israel out of Egypt. And this he meanes while he saith, ee1. King 12. 28.1 Kgs 12:28Behold thy Gods, &c. giving to the signes the thing signified. Whereas God ordained Ierusalem to be the place of worship, and all the sacrifices to be brought to the Temple of Solomon, Ieroboam made, Dan and Bethel to be places of worship, and built there Altars and high places for the sacrifices. Whereas God ordained the sonnes of Aaron onelyonly to be his Priests, Ieroboam made Priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sonnes of Levi. Whereas God ordained the feast of Tabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day of the seaventh monethmonth, Ieroboam appointed p. 140it on the sisteenth day of the eight monethmonth. Now, if any Prince in the world might have faire pretences for the making of such innovations in Religion. Ieroboam much more. He might alledge for his changing of the signes of Gods presence, and of the place of worship, that since Rehoboams wrath was incensed against him, and against the ten Tribes which adhered vntounto him, (as appeareth by ff2. Chron. 13. 6.2 Chr 13:6the accounting of them to be rebells, and by gg2. Chron 11. 1.2 Chr 11:1the gathering of a huge armie, for bringing the kingdome againe to Rehoboam) it was no longer safe for his subjects to goe up to Ierusalem to worsh p, in which case God who required mercy more then sacrifice, would beare with their changing of a fewe Ceremonies, for the safety of mens lives. For his putting downe of the Priests and Levites, and his ordaining of other Priests which were not of the sonnes of Levi: he might pretend that they were rebellious to him, in that hhMartir. in 1. Reg. 8. 31.1 Kgs 8:31hey would not assent vntounto his new ordinances, which he had enacted for the safetie and security of his Subjects, and that they did not only simply refuse obedience to these his ordinances, but in their refusall shew themselves so stedfastly minded, that they wolud refuse and with stand even to the suffering of deprivation and deposition; and not only so, but likewy se ii2. Chron. 11. 16.2 Chr 11:16drew after them many others of the rest of the Tribes, to be of their judgement, and to adhere to that manner of worship which was retained in Ierusalem. Lastly, for the change which he made about the season of the feast of Tabernacles, he might have this pretence, that as it was expedient for the strengthening of his kingdome, kkMartir. in 1. Reg. 8. 32.1 Kgs 8:32to drawe and allure as many as could be had, to associat and joyne themselves with him in his forme of worship, (which could not be done if he should keep that feast, at the same time when it was keeped at Ierusalem;) so there was no lesse (if not more) order and decency in keeping it in the eight monethmonth, llId. ibid.when the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in (for thankefull remembrance whereof, that feast was celebrated) then in the seaventh, when they were not so fully collected.

These pretences he might have made yet more plausible, by professing and avouching, that he intended to worship no Idolls, but the Lord only; that he had not fallen from any thing which was fundamentall and essentiall in divine Faith and Religion; that the changes which he had made, were only about some alterable Ceremonies, which were not essentiall to the worship of God; and that even in these Ceremonies he had not made any change for his owne will and pleasure, but for important reasons which concerned the good of his Kingdome and saffety of his Subjects. Notwithstanding of all this, the innovations which he made about these Ceremonies of sacred Signes, sacred Places, sacred Persons, sacred Times, are condemned for this very reason, because mm1. Kings 22. 33.1 Kgs 22:33he devised them of his owne heart, p. 141which was enough to convince him of horrible impiety in making Israel to sinne. Moreover, when king Ahaz tooke a patterne of the Altar of Damascus and sent it to Vrijah the Priest, though we can not gather from the Text, that he either intended or pretended any other respect beside nn2. Kings 16. 10. 18.2 Kgs 16:102 Kgs 16:18the honouring and pleasuring of his Patrone and Protectour the king of Assyria, (for of his appointing that new altar, for his owne and all the peoples sacrifices, there was nothing heard till after his returne from Damascus, at which time he beganne to fall backe, from one degree of defection to a greater:) yet this very innovation of taking the patterne of an Altar from Idolaters, is marked as a sinne and a snare. Last of all, whereas many of the kings of Iudah and Israel, did either themselves worship in the groves and the high places, or else at least suffer the people to doe so: housoever ooHospin. de orig Tēpl. lib. 1. Cap. 1. 10. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12. 4.2 Kgs 12:4they might have alledged specious reasons for excusing themselves, as namely, that they gave not this honour to any strange Gods, but to the Lord only; that they choosed these places only to worship in, wherein God was of olde seene and worshipped by the Patriarchs; that the groves and the high places added a most amiable splendor and beauty, to the worship of God; and that they did consecratethese places for divine worship, in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to the honour of God: yet notwithstanding, because this thing was not commanded of God, neither came it in to his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever challengeth it as a grievous fault in the governement of those Kings, that the high places were not taken away, and that the people still sacrificed in the high places. From all which examples, we learne how higly God was and is displeased with men, ppHospin. ibid. pag. 3.for adding any other sacred Ceremonies to those which he himselfe hath appointed.

Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in Sect. XX the Worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantiall, and such as have the very same use and respect in civill, which they have in sacred actions; we hold, that whensoever it happeneth to be the duty and part of a Prince, to institute and injoyne any order or policy in these circumstances of Gods Worship, then he may onelyonly injoyne such an order, as may stand with the observing and following of the Rules of the Word, whereunto wee are tied in the use and practice of things which are in their generall nature indifferent.

Of these Rules I am to speake in the fourth part of the Dispute. And here I say no more but this: Since the Word commandeth us qq1 Cor. 10. 31.1 Cor 10:31to doe all things to the Glory of God, rr1 Cor. 14. 26.1 Cor 14:26to doe all things to edifying, & ssRom. 14. 5. 23.Rom 14:5Rom 14:23to doe all things in Faith, & full persuasion of the lawfulnesse of that which we doe: therefore there is no Prince in the world who hath Power to command his Subjects, to doe that which should either dishonour God, or not honour him; or that which should either offend their brother, or not edify him, or lastly, that p. 142which their conscience either condemneth, or doubteth of. For how may a Prince command that which his Subjects may not doe? But a wonder it were, if any man should so farre refuse to be ashamed, that he would dare to say, we are not bound to order whatsoever we doe according to these Rules of the Word, but onelyonly such matters of private action, wherein we are lest at full liberty, there beeing no Ordinance of Superiours to determine our practi…; and that it such an Ordinance be published and propounded unto us, we should take it alone for our Rule, and no longer thinke to examine and order ourpractise by the Rules of the Word.

For, 1. This were as much as to say, that in the circūstances of Gods Worship, we are bound to take heed unto Gods Rules, then onelyonly and in that case, when men give us none of their Rules, which if they doe, Gods Rules must give place to mens Rules, and not theirs to his.

2. If it were so, then we should never make reckoning to God, whether that which wee have done in obedience to Superiours, was right or wrong, good or bad: and we should onelyonly make reckoning of such things done by us, as were not determined by a humane Law.

3. The Law of Superiours in never the supreame, but ever a subordinate Rule, and (as we said before) it can never be a Rule to us, except in so farre onelyonly, as it is ruled by a higher Rule. Therefore we have …ver another Rule to take heed unto, beside their Law.

4. The Scripture speaketh most generally, and admitteth no exception from the Rules which it giveth. Whatsoever ye doe (though commanded by Superiours) doe all to the Glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by Superiours) be done to edifying. Whatsoever is not of Faith (though commanded by Superiours) is sinne.

5. We may doe nothing for the sole will and pleasure of men: for this were to be the Servants of men, as hath been shewed ttde justit. actual. cap. 41.The Bishop of Sarisburie also assenteth hereunto. Non enim (saith he) Deus vult, ut hominis alicujus voluntatem regulam nostrae voluntatis atque vitae faciams: sed hoc privilegium sibi ac verbo suo reservatum voluit. And againe Pio itaqu… animo haec consideratio semper adesse debet, utrum id quod (u) dejudice controv. cap. 26. pag. 153praecipitur sit divino mandato contrarium, necne: atque ne ex hac parte fallantur, adhibedum est illud judicium discretionis, quod nos tantopere urgemus.

These things if xxde imper. author. lib. 2. c. 52.Saravia had considered, he had not so absolutely Sect. XXI pronounced that the Power of Kings may make Constitutions of the places and times, when and where the exercises of Piety may bee conveniently had: also with what Order, what Rite, what Gesture, what Habite, the Mysteries shall bee more decently celebrated. But what? thought hee, this Power of Kings is not a st…cted to the Rules of the Word? have they any Power which is to destruction, and not to edification? p. 143Can they commaund their Subjects to doe any thing in the circumstances of Divine Worship, which is not for the Glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, and which they can not doe in Faith? Nay, that all the Princes in the world have not such Power as this, will easily appeare to him who attendeth unto the reasons, which wee have propounded. And because men doe easily and ordinarily pretend, that their constitutions are according to the Rules of the Word, when they are indeed repugnant to the same, therefore we have also proven, that Inferiours may & must trie and examine every ordinance of their Superiours, and that by the judgement of private discretion, following the Rules of the Word. I say, following the Rules of the Word, because wee will never allowe a man to follow Anabaptisticall or Swenckfeldian-like enthysiasmes and inspirations.

Touching the application of what hath been said, unto the controverted Sect. XXII Ceremonies, there needs nothing now to be added. For that they belong not to that sort of things which may be applied to civill uses, with the same respect and account which they have, being applied to religious uses, the account I meane of mere circumstances, serving onelyonly for that common order and decency, which is and should be observed in civill, no lesse then in sacred actions; but that they belong to the substance of Worship, as beeing sacred significant Ceremonies, wherein both holinesse and necessity are placed, and which may not without high sacriledge be used out of the compasse of Worship, wee have elsewhere plainly evinced. And this kinde of things, whensoever they are mens devices, and not Gods Ordinances, can not be lawfully injoyned by Princes, as hath been shewed.

But if any man will needs have these Ceremonies in question, to goe under the name of mere circumstances, let us put the case they were no other, yet our conforming unto them, which is urged, can not stand with the Rules of the Word.

It could not be for the Glory of God, not onelyonly for that it is offensive to many of Christs litle ones, but likewise for that it ministreth occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; to Atheists, because by these naughty observances they see the Commandements of God made of litle or no effect, and many godly both Persons & Purposes despised and depressed, whereat they laugh in their sleeve, and say, Aha, so would we have it; to Papists, because as by this our Conformity, they confirme themselves in sundry of their errors and superstitions, so perceiving us so litle to abhorre the Pompe & Bravery of their Mother of Harlots, that we care not to borrow from her some of her meretricious trinckets, they promise to themselves, that in the end we shall take as great a draught of the Cup of the Wine of her Fornications, as they themselves

p. 144Neither yet can our conforming unto the Ceremonies pressed on us, be profitable for edifying, for we have given sufficient demonstration of manifold hurts and inconveniences ensuing thereo….

Nor lastly can we conforme to them in Faith, for as our Consciences can not finde, so the Word can not afford any warrant for them. Of all which things now I onelyonly make mention, because I have spoken of them enough otherwhere.

The second distinction, which may help our light in this question Sect. XXIII about the Power of Princes, is of times: for, when the Church and Ministers thereof are corrupted and must be reformed, Princes may doe much more in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, then regularly they may, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are both able and willing to doe their duty, in rightly taking care of all things, which ought to be provided for the good of the Church, and conservation or purgation of Religion. For (saith yy…nimad. in Bell. cōtr. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. & 18.Iunius) both the Church, when the joyning of the Magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily doe something, which ordinarily shee can not: and againe, when the Church faileth of her duty, the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure, that the Church returne to her duty: that is, in such a case extraordinarily happening, these (Ecclesiasticall Persons) and those (Magistrates) may extraordinarily doe something, vvhichwhich ordinarily they can not. For this belongeth to common Lavv and Equity, that unto extraordinary evils, extraordinary remedies must also be applied. We aknowledge, that it belongeth to Princes, zzCartwr. on Math. 22. sect. 3.Matt 22to reforme things in the Church as often as the Ecclesiasticall Persons shall either through ignorance or disorder of the affection of covetousnesse or ambition, defile the Lords Sanctuary. At such extraordinary times, Princes by their coactive temporall Power, ought to procure & cause a Reformation of a buses, and the avoiding of misorders in the Church, though with the discontent of the Cleargie: for which end and purpose they may not onelyonly injoyne and command the Profession of that Faith, and the Practise of that Religion which Gods Word appointeth, but also prescribe such an order and policy in the circumstances of Divine Worship, as they in their judgement of Christian Discretion, observing and following the Rules of the Word, shall judge and trie to be convenient for the present time and case, and all this under the commination of such temporall losses, paines, or punishments, as they shall deprehend to be reasonable. But at other ordinary times, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are neither through ignorance unable, nor through malice and perversenesse of affection unwilling, to put order to whatsoever requireth any mutation to bee made in the Church and Service of God, in that case without their advice and consent, Princes may not make an innovation of any Ecclesiasticall Rite, nor publish any Ecclesiasticall Law.

p. 145When aaof the Church. lib. 5. cap. 53.D. Field speaketh of the Power of Princes, to prescribe Sect. XXIV and make Lawes about things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, he saith, That the Prince may with the advice and direction of his Cleargie, command things pertaining to Gods Worship and Service, both for Profession of Faith, Ministration of the Sacraments, and conversation fitting to Christians in generall, or men of Ecclesiasticall order in particular, under the paines of Death, Imprisonement, Banishment, Confiscation of goods, and the like: and by his Princely Power establish things formerly defined and decreed against whatsoever error, and contrary ill custome and observation. In all this the D. saith very right: but I demaund further these two things. 1. What if the thing have not been decreed before? and what if the free assent of the Cleargie be not had for it? would the D. have said, that in such a case, the Prince hath not Power by himselfe & by his owne sole Auctority, to injoyne it, and to establish a Law concerning it. For example, that K. Iames had not Power by himselfe to impose the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland, at that time, when as no free assent (much lesse the direction) of the Cleargie, was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed, but Lawes and Decrees were formerly made against them. If the D. would have answered affirmatively, that he had this Power, then why did he in a scornefull dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the Power of Princes, by requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the Cleargie? If he would have answered negatively, that he had not such Power, wee should have rendred him thankes for his answer. 2. Whether may the Cleargie make any lawes about things pertaining to the Service of GOD which the Prince may not as well by himselfe and without them, constitute and authorize? If the affirmative part bee graunted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose D. Field did, and our Opposites yet doe hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very same Power of making lawes in all Ecclesiasticall things which the Cleargie themselves have when they are conveened in a lawfull and free Assembly, yet I guesse from the D. words, what hee would have replied, namely, that the difference is great betwixt the Power of making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, in the Prince, and the same Power in the Cleargie assembled togither: for he describeth the making of a Law, to be the prescribing of something, under some paine or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath Power to inflict. Whereby hee would make it appeare, that he yeeldeth not unto Princes, the same power of Spirituall Iurisdiction, in making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, which agreeth to the Cleargie: because whereas a Councell of the Cleargie may frame Canons about things which concerne the Worship of God, and prescribe them under the paine of excommunication and p. 146other Ecclesiasticall censures, the Ordinance of Princes about such matters, is onelyonly under the paine of some externall or bodily punishment. But I answer Potestas foreign is one thing, and Potest… foreign is another thing. When the making of a Law is joyned either with the intention, or with the commination of a Punishment, in case of transgression, this is but accidentall and adventitious to the Law, not naturally or necessarily belonging to the essence of the same. For many Lawes there hath been, and may be, which prescribe not that which they containe under the same paine or punishment. bbdecr. part. 1. dist. 3. c. 4.Gratian distinguisheth three sorts of Lawes. Omnis &c. Fvery Law saith he, either permits something, for example, let a valorous man seeke a reward: or forbids, for example, let it be lawfull to no man to seeke the marriage of holy Virgins: or punisheth, for example, Hee who committeth Murther, let him bee capitally punished. And in this third kinde onelyonly, there is something prescribed under a paine or punishment. It is likewise holden by ccAquin. 1… 2… q. 92. art. 2.Schoolemen, that it is a Law which permitteth some indifferent thing, as well, as it which commandeth some vertue, or forbiddeth some vice. When a Prince doth statute and ordaine, that whosoever out of a generous and magnanimous Spirit, will adventure to imbarke and hazard in a certaine military exploit, against a forraine enemy whom he intendeth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himselfe in propriety, all the rich spoile which he can lay hold on: there is nothing here prescribed under some paine or punishment, yet is it a Law; and properly so tearmed. And might not the name of a Law be given unto that Edict of King Darius, whereby ddDan. 6.Dan 6hee decreed that all they of his Dominions, should fear the God of Daniel, forasmuch as he is the living and eternall God, who raigneth for ever: yet it prescribed nothing under some paine or punishment to be inflicted by him who so prescribed. Wherefore though the Princ… publisheth Ecclesiasticall Lawes under other paines and punishments, then the Cleargie doth, this sheweth onelyonly that Potest…s foreign is not the same, but different in the one and in the other: yet if it be granted, that whatsoever Ecclesiasticall Law, a Synode of the Cleargie hath Power to make and publish, the Prince hath Power to make and publish without them, by his owne sole Auctority, it followeth, that that Power of the Church to make Lawes which is called Potest… foreign, doth agree as much, as properly, and as directly to the Prince, as to a whole Synode of the Church.

Now therefore we firmly hold, 1. That the Prince may not innovate Sect. XXV any Cuctome or Rite of the Church, nor publish any Ecclesiasticall law, without the free assent of the Cleargie, they beeing neither unable for, nor unwilling unto their Ecclesiasticall functions p. 147and duties: yea further, that so farre as is possible, the consent of the whole Church ought to be had, whensoever any change is to be made of some order or custome in the Church. For that which toucheth the whole Church, and is to be used by the whole Church eeBald de cas. consc lib. 4. cap. 11. c…s. 1.ab omnibus etiam merito curatur. Therefore ffIde. ibid.when there is any change to be made in the Rites of the Church, merito fit hoc eum omnium ordinum Ecclesiae consensu. Neither was there ever a rightly reformed Church, which was helped and not hurt, by such Rites and Customes, as to their grief and miscontentment Princes did impose upon them. Whence it was, that ggIbid, cas. 2they who were orthodoxe did ever withstand such a Magistrate, as would have by his commandements tied the Church, to that vvhichwhich vvas burdensome to their consciences. That such inconveniencie… may be shunned, it is fit, that when any change is to be made in the Policy of a Church, not the Cleargy alone, but the Elders also, and men of understanding among the Laytie, in a lawfull Assembly, freely give their voices, and consent thereunto. Good reason have our Writers to holde against Papists, that Laymen ought to have place in Councells, wherein things which concerne the whole Church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Lest it be thought enough that Princes devyse, frame, and establish Ecclesiasticall lawes, as them best liketh, and then for more shew of orderly proceeding, some secrete and sinistrous way extort and procure the assent of the Synod of the Church; therefore we adde, that it belongeth to the Synode (the Cleargie having the chiefe place therein to give direction and advice,) not to receave and approve the definition of the Prince, in things which concerne the worship of God, but it selfe to define and determine what orders and customes are fittest to bee observed, in such things, that thereafter the Prince may approve and ratify the same, and presse them upon his Subjects by his regall coactive Power. To me, it is no lesse then a matter of admiration; how hhPralect. tom. 2. pag. 50.Camero could so farre forget himself as to say, that in things pertaining unto Religion, dirigere atque disponere penes magistratum est proprie, penes Ecclesiasticos ministerium atque executio proprie, telling us further, that the directing and disposing of such things, doth then only belong to Ecclesiasticall Persons, when the Church suffereth persecution, or when the Magistrate permitteth, that the matter be judged by the Church.

Our Writers have said much of the power of the Church to make lawes. But this man (I perceive) will correct them all, and will not aknowledge, that the Church hath any power of making lawes, about things pertaining to Religon, (except by accident, because of persecution, or permission) but only a power of executing what Princes pl…ase to direct. More fully to deliver our minde, we say; that in the making of Lawes about things which concerne the worship of God, the Prince may doe much … act… i…os, but nothing p…r act… …licitos. For the more full explanation of which distinction, I liken the Prince to the will of man: the Ministers of the Church, to mans particular sences: a Synod of the Church, to that internall sence which is called Sensus communis, the fontaine & originall of all the externall: things and actions Ecclesiasticall, or such as concerne the worship of God, to the objects and actions of the particular sences: and the power of making Ecclesiasticall lawes, to that power and vertue of the common sence, whereby it perceiveth, discerneth, and judgeth of the objects and actions of all the particular sences. Now as the will commandeth the common sence to discerne and judge of the actions and objects of all the particular sences, thereafter commandeth the eye to see, the eare to heare, the nose to smell, &c yet it hath not power by it selfe to exercice or bring forth any of these actions; for the will can neither see, nor yet judge of the object and action of sight, &c. So the Prince may command a Synode of the Church, to judge of Ecclesiasticall things and actions, and to define what order and forme of policy is most convenient to be observed, in things pertaining to divine worship, and thereafter he may command the particular Ministers of the Church to exercise the workes of their Ministery, and to applie themselves unto that forme of Church regiment and policy, which the Synode hath prescribed, yet he may not by himselfe define and direct such matters, nor make any lawes thereanent.

For proof of these things I adde, 1. Politicke government, versatur Sect. XXVI circa res terrenas & hominem externum (saith iiTil. synt. part. 2. disp. 32. th. 33.one of our Writers) Magistratus saith kkDanaeus. pol. christ. lib. 6. cap. 1.another) instituti sunt a Deo rerum humanarum quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu, & ad earum curam. But they are Ecclesiasticall Ministers, who are llHebr. 5. 1.Heb 5:1ordained for men in thing pertaining to God, that is, in things which pertaine unto Gods worship. It belongeth not therefore to Princes to governe and direct things of this nature, even as it belongeth not to Pastors to governe and direct earthly things, which are necessary for the externall, and civill societie of men. I meane, ordinarly and regularly, for of extraordinary cases we have spoken other wise. But according to the common order and regular forme, we are ever to put this difference, betwixt Civill and Ecclesiasticall governement, which mmFr. Iun. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 4.one of our best learned Divines hath excellently conceived after this manner. Altera differentia, &c. The other difference (saith he) taken from the matter and subject of the administrations. For we have put in our definition humane things to be the subject of civill administration: but the subject of Ecclesiasticall administration, we have taught to be things divine and sacred: Things divine and sacred we call, both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience, as things necessary; and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed, for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary. For example, Prayers; the p. 149administration of the Word and Sacraments, Ecclesiasticall censure; are things necessary, and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saincts: but set dayes, set houres, set places, fasts, and if there be any such like, they belong to the decency and order of the Church: without which the Church can not be well edified, nor any particular member thereof rightly fashioned, and fitly set in the body. But humane things, we call, such duties as touch the life, the body, goods, and good name, as they are expounded in the seconde table of the Decalogue: for these are the things in which the wholle civill administration standeth. Behold, how the very circumstances, which pertaine to Ecclesiasticall order and decency, are exempted from the compasse of civill governement.

2. Naturall reason (saith nnde Iudice controv. cap. 14 p. 70.the Bishop of Sarisburie) telleth, that to judge of every thing, and to instruct others, belongeth to them who before others take paines & study to the care and knowledge of the same. So Phisitions judge, which meat is whollesome, which noysome: Lawyers declare, what is just, what unjust: and in all Arts and Sciences, they who professedly place their labour and study in the polishing and practising of the same, both use and ought to direct the judgements of others. Since therefore ooGerard. locor. theol. tom. 6. pag. 840.the Ministers of the Church are those quibus Ecclesiae cura incumbit vel maxime; since they doe above and before the civill Magistrate, devote themselves to the care and knowledge of things pertaining to God & his worship, where about they professe to bestow their ordinary study and painefull travell; were it not most repugnant to the law of naturall reason, to say, that they ought not to direct, but be directed by the Magistrate in such matters?

3. The Ministers of the Church are appointed to be Watchmen in the City of God, Mich. 7. 4. and Overseers of the Flocke, Acts. 20. v. 28. But when Princes doe without the direction and definition of Ministers establish certaine Lawes to be observed in things pertaining to Religion, Ministers are not then Watchmen and Overseers, because they have not the first sight, and so can not give the first warning of the change which is to be made in the Church. The Watchmen are upon the walles: the Prince is within the City. Shall the Prince now view and consider the breaches and defects of the City, better and sooner then the Watchmen themselves? Or, shall one within the City tell what should be righted and helped therein, before them who are upon the walles? Againe, the Prince is one of the flocke, and is committed among the rest to the care, attendance, and guidance of the Overseers. And I pray, shall one of the sheep direct the Overseers how to governe and leade the whole flocke, or prescribe to them what orders and customes they shall observe for preventing or avoiding any hurt and inconvenience, which may happen to the flocke?

4. Christ hath ordained men of Ecclesiasticall order, ppzanch. in Eph. 4. 12.Eph 4:12not onelyonly for the worke of the Ministery, that is, for preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments, for warning and rebuking them who sinne, for comforting the afflicted, for confirming the weake, &c. but also for provyding whatsoever concerneth either the private spirituall good of any member of the Church, which the Apostle calleth the perfecting of the Saincts, or the publike spirituall good of the whole Church, which he calleth the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. 12. Since therefore the making of Lawes, about such things without which the worship of God can not be orderly nor decently (and so not rightly) performed, concerneth the spirituall good and benefit of the whole Church, and of all the members thereof; it followeth, that Christ hath committed the power of judging, defining, and making lawes about those matters, not to Magistrats, but to the Ministers of the Church.

5. qqHebr. 13. 17.Heb 13:17The Apostle speaking of the Church Ministers, saith, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves: for they watch for your soules as they that must give account. Whence we gather, that in things pertaining to God, & which touch the spirituall benefit of the soule, the Ministers of the Church ought to give direction, & to be obeyed, as those who in things of this nature have the rule over all others in the Church, (and by consequence over Princes also,) so that it bee in the Lord. And lest this place and power which is given to Ministers, should either be abused by thēselves to the commanding of what they will, or envied by others, as too great honour & preeminence, the Apostle sheweth what a painefull charge lieth on them, and what a great reckoning they have to make. They watch for your soules saith he, not only by preaching & warning every one, and by offering up their earnest prayers to God for you, but likewise by taking such care of Ecclesiasticall discipline, order, and policy, that they must provide and procure whatsoever shall be expedient for your spirituall good, and direct you in what convenient and beseeming manner, you are to performe the workes of Gods worship, as also to avoid and shunne every scandall and inconveniency, which may hinder your spirituall good. And of these things, whether they have done them or not, they must make account before the judgement seat of the great Bishop of your soules. Surely, if it belong to Princes to define and ordaine, what order & policy should be observed in the Church, what formes and fashiones should be used, for the orderly and right managing of the exercises of Gods worship, how scandalls and misorders are to be shunned, how the Church may be most edified, and the spirituall good of the Saincts best helped and advanced, by whollesome & profitable lawes, concerning things which pertaine to Religion; then must Princes take also upon them a great part of that charge of Pastors, to watch for the soules of men, and must liberat them from beeing lieable to a reckoning for the same.

6. … the great, Theodosi… both the one and the other, Sect. XXVII Martian…, Charles the great, and other Christian Princes, when there was any change to be made of Ecclesiasticall rites, did not by their owne auctority imperiously injoyne the change, but convocate Synods for deliberating upon the matter, as rr… cas. consc. lib. 6. c. 11. cas. 2.Balduine noteth. The great Counsell of Nice was assembled by Constantine, not only because of the Arrian heresie, but also (as sslib. 1. cap. 8.Socrates witnesseth) because of the difference about the keeping of Easter. And though the Bishops, when they were assembled did put up to him libells of accusation, one against another, so that there could bee no great hope of their agreement upon fit and convenient Lawes; yet notwithstanding, he did not interpone his owne definition and decree, for taking up that difference about Easter, only he exhorted the Bishops conveened in the Councell to peace, and so commended the whole matter to be judged by them.

7. We have for us the judgment of worthie Divines. A notable Testimony of Iunius we have allready cited. ttpol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 3.Dan… will not allowe Princes by thēselves to make Lawes about Ecclesiasticall rites, but this he will have done by a Synod. Porro quod ad ritus, &c. Furthermore saith he for Rites & Ceremonies, & that externall order which is necessary in the administration of the Church, let a Synod of the Church conveene; the supreme and Godly Magistrat both giving commandement for the conveening of it, and beeing present in it. And let that Synod of the Church lawfully assembled, define what should be the order and externall regiment of the Church. This decree of the Ecclesiasticall Synod, shall the godly and supreame Magistrat afterward confirme, stablish, and ratify by his edict. uuIn. 2. Reg. 12. 5.2 Kgs 12:5Ioh. Wolphius observeth of King Ioash, that he did not by himself take order for the reparation of the Temple, nor define what was to be done unto every breach therein, but committed this matter to be directed and cared for by the Priests, whom it chiefly concerned, commanding them to take course for the reparation of the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach should be found, and allowing them money for the worke. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the superior part of mans soule, doth not it self, heare, see, touch, walke, speake, but commandeth the eares, eyes, hands, feet, and tounge, to doe the same, so the Magistrat should not himselfe either teach, or make lawes, but command that these things be done by the Doctors and Teachers. Cartwright and Pareus upon Hebr. 13. 17. tell the Papists, that we aknowledge, Princes are holden to be obedient unto Pastors, in things that belong unto God, if they rule according to the Word. Which could not be so, if the making of Lawes about things pertaining to God and his worship, did not of right and due belong unto Pastors, but unto Princes themselves. Our secound Booke of Discipline Chap. 12. ordaineth. The Ecclesiasticall Assemblies have their place: vvith povver to the Kirke to appoint times and places convenient▪ for the same, and all men as vvell Magistrats, as inferiours, to be subject to the judgement of the same in Ecclesiasticall causes. xxubi supra.Balduine holdeth, that a Prince may not by himself injoyne any new Ecclesiasticall rite, but must convocat a Synod, for the deliberation and definition of such things. And what meane yyPerk. on Revel. 3. 7.Rev 3:7our Writers, when they say, that Kings have no spirituall, but only a civill power in the Church? As actions are discerned by the objects, so are powers by the actions: If therefore Kings doe commendably by themselves make lawes, about things pertaining to Gods worship, which is an spirituall action, then have they also a spirituall power in the Church. But if they have no spirituall power, that is, no power of spirituall jurisdiction, how can they actually exerce spirituall jurisdiction? That the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Gods worship, is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, it needeth not great demonstration. For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Lawes, about such things, all men know that this is an action of spirituall jur…ction, flowing from that power of spirituall jurisdiction w… is called potestas foreign. And how then can the Princes making of such lawes, be called an action of civill, not of spirituall jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said, that the making of those lawes by a Synod is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments, in case of transgression; but the making of them by the Prince, is an action of civill jurisdiction only, because he prescribeth and commandeth, under the paine of some temporall losse or punishment. But I have allready confuted this answere; because notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflict, yet at least that part of spirituall jurisdiction which we call potestas foreign remaineth the same in both, which power of making Lawes must not (as I shew) be confounded with that other power of judging & punishing offenders. 2. Actions take their species or kynd from the object and the end, when other circumstances hinder not. Now a Prince his making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, is such an action of Iurisdiction, as hath both a spirituall end, which is the edification of the Church and spirituall good of Christians, and likewise a spirituall object, for that all things pertaining to divine worship, even the very externall circumstances of the same, are rightly called things spirituall and divine, not civill or human, our Opposites can not denie, except they say, not only that such things touch the lives, bodies, estates, or names of men, and are not ordained for the spirituall benefit of their soules, but also that the Synod of the Church, whose power reacheth only to things spirituall, not civill or human, can never make Lawes about those circumstances which are applied unto and used in the worship of God. And as the Prince his making of Lawes about things of this nature, is in respect of the object and end, an action of spirituall jurisdiction, so there is no circumstance at all, which varieth the kind, or maketh it an action of civill jurisdiction only. If it be said that the circumstance of the person changeth the kynd of the action, so that the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, if they be made by Ecclesiasticall persons, is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, but if by the civill Magistrat, an action of civill jurisdiction: this were a most extreamely unadvised distinction: for so might zz2. Chrō. 26. 18.Vzziah the King have answered for himself, that in burning incense he did not take upon him to execute the Priests office, because he was only a civill person: so may the Pope say, that he taketh not upon him the power of Emperours and Monarchs, because he is an Eccle…sticall person. Many things men may doe de facto, which they can not de jure. Civill persons may exerce a spirituall jurisdiction and office, and againe Ecclesiasticall persons may exerce a civill jurisdiction, de facto, thought not de jure. Wherefore the Prince his making of Lawes about things spirituall, remaineth still an action of spirituall jurisdiction, except some other thing can be alledged to the contrary, beside the circumstance of the Person. But some man peradventure will object, that a Prince by his civill power may injoyne and command, not only the observation of those Ecclesiasticall rites which a Synod of the Church prescribeth, but also that a Synod (when need is) presribe new orders and rites, all which are things spirituall and divine: And why then may he not by the same civill power make lawes about the Rites and circumstances of Gods worship, notwithstanding that they are (in their use and application to the actions of worship) things spirituall, not civill.

Ans. aaAquin. 3…. q. 85. art. 2.The Schoolmen say, that an action proceedeth from charity two wayes, either elicitivè, or imperativè: and that those actions which are immediatly produced and wrought out by charity, belong not to other vertues distinct from charity, but are comprehended under the effects of charity it self, such as are the loving of good, and rejoycing …o it: other actions say they, which are only commanded by charity, belong to other speciall vertues distinct from charity; So say I, an action may proceed from a civill power either elicitivé, or imperativè. Elicitivè a civill power can only make Lawes about things civill or human: but imperativé, it may command the Ecclesiasticall power to make Lawes about things spirituall, which Lawes thereafter it may command to be observed by all who are in Sect. XXVIII the Church.

8. Our Opposites themselves aknowledge no lesse, then that which I have beene pleading for. To devise new rites and Ceremonies saith bbapud Parker …f th…osse; c. 5. sect. 6.D. Bilson, is not the Princes vocation, but to receive and allowe such p. 154as the Scriptures and Canons commend, and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the place shall advise. And saith not ccde Iudice controv. cap. 16. pag. 92.the Bishop of Sarisburie, Ceremonias utiles & decoras excogitare, ad Ecclesiasticos pertinet, tamen easdem comprobare, & toti populo observandas imponere, ad Reges spectat. ddpraelect. tom. 1. pag. 25.Camero saith, that it is the part of a Prince to take care for the health of mens soules, even as he doth for the health of their bodies, and that as he provideth not for the curing or preventing of bodily deseases directly and by himself, but indirectly and by the Phisitions, so he should not by himself prescribe cures & remedies for mens spirituall maladies. Perinde Principis est curare salutem animarum, ac ejusdem est saluti corporum prospicere: non est autem Principis providere ne morbi grassentur directe, esset enim Medicus, at in directe tamen Princeps id sludere debet. Whence it followeth, that even as when some bodily sicknesse spreadeth, a Princes part is not to prescribe a cure, but to command the Phisitions to doe it: just so, when any abuse, misorder, confusion, or scandall in the Church, requireth or maketh it neecssary that a mutation be made of some rite or order in the same, & that wholesome Lawes be enacted, which may serve for the order, decency, & edification of the Church, a Prince may not doe this by himself, but may only command the Pastors and Guides of the Church, who watch for the soules of men, as they who must give account, to see to the exigency of the present state of matters Ecclesiasticall, and to provide such Lawes as they beeing met togither in the name of the Lord, shall after due and free deliberation, find to be convenient, and which being once prescribed by them, hee shall by his royall auctority confirme, establish, and presse.

Needs now it must be manifest, that the lawfullnesse of our conforming unto the Ceremonies in question, can be no way warranted Sect. XXIX by any ordinance of the Supreame Magistrat, or any power which he hath in things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall. And if our Opposites would ponder the reasons we have given, they should be quickely quieted, understanding that before the Princes ordinance about the Ceremonies can be said to bind us, it must first be shewed that they have beene lawfully prescribed by a Synod of the Church. So that they must retire and hold them at the Churches ordinance. And what needeth any more? let us once see any lawfull ordinance of the Synod or Church representative for them we shall without any more adoe aknowledge it to be out of all doubt, that his Majesty may well urge Conformity unto the same.

Now of the Churches power we have spoken in the former Chapter. And if we had not, yet that which hath beene said in this Chapter, maketh out our point. For it hath beene proven, that neither King nor Church hath power to command any thing, which is not according to the rules of the Word, that is, which serveth not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, & which p. 155may not be done in faith, unto which rules whether the things which are commanded us, be agreeable or not, we must trie and examine by the privat judgement of Christian discretion, following the light of Gods Word.

Resteth the third distinction, whereof I promised to speake, & that Sect. XXX was of Ties or Bonds. Quaedam obligatio, &c. Some bond (saith eelocor. theol. tom. 6. p. 963.Gerard) is absolute, when the Lavv bindeth the conscience simply, so that in no respect, nor in no case, without the offence of God, and vvound of conscience, one may depart from the prescript thereof: but another bond is hypotheticall, vvhen it bindeth not simply, but under a condition, to vvit, if the transgression of the Lavv be done of contempt; if for the cause of lucre or some other vitious end; if it have scandall joyned vvith it. The former way he saith that the Law of God and Nature bindeth, and that the Law of the civill Magistrat bindeth the latter way. And with him we hold, that whatsoever a Prince commandeth his Subjects in things any way pertaining to Religion, it bindeth only this latter way; and that hee hath never power to make Lawes, binding the former way. For confirmation wherefore wee say,

1. The Lawes of an Ecclesiasticall Synod, to the obedience whereof in things belonging to the worship of God, we are farre more strictly tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath beene shewed) in this sort of things, hath not such a vocation nor power to make Lawes: the Lawes (I say) of a Synod can not bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or in case they can not be transgressed without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt shewed, or scandall given. Which as I have made good in the first part of this Dispute; so let me now produce for it a plaine testimony of ffde Iudice controv. c. 16. pag. 86. 87.the Bishop of Sarisburie, who holdeth that the Churches rites and ordinances, doe only bind in such sort, ut si extra, &c. That if out of the case of scandall or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some reasonable cause inforcing, they be omitted, no mortall sinne is incurred before God. For as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of Gerson to be most true, to vvit, that they remaine unviolated, so long as the Lavv of Charity is not by men violated about the same. Much lesse then, can the Lawes of Princes about things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, bind absolutely, and out of the case of violating the Law of Charity.

2. If we be not bound to receive and aknowledge the Lawes of Princes as good and equitable, except only in so farre, as they are warranted by the Law of God and Nature, then we are not bound in conscience to obey them, except only conditionally, in case the violating of them include the violating of the Law of God and Nature. But the former is true. Therefore the latter. It is Gods pecuculiar soveraignety, that his will is a rule ruling but not ruled, and that therefore a thing is good, because God will have it to be good. p. 156Mans will is only such a rule, as is ruled by higher rules, and it must be knowne to be norma recta, before it can be to us norma recti.

3. If we be bound te trie and examine by the judgement of discretion (following the rules of the Word,) whether the things which Princes command be right, and such as ought to be done, and if we find them not to be such, to neglect them; then their Lawes can not bind absolutely and by themselves, (else what need were there of such triall and examination?) but only conditionally, and in case they can not be neglected without violating some other Law, which is of a superior bond. But the former wee have proven by strong reasons. Therefore the latter standeth sure.

4. If neither Princes may command, nor wee doe any thing, which is not lawfull and expedient, and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Lawes of Princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them can not stand with the Law of Charity, and the rules of the Word. But the former hath beene evinced and made good. Therefore the latter necessarily followeth.

5. If the Lawes of Princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no case without offending God & wounding our conscience, we could neglect them, this bond should arise either from their owne auctority, or from the matter and thing it self which is commanded. But from neither of these it can arise. Therefore from nothing. It can not arise from any auctority which they have, for if by their auctority we meane their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawfull, as well, as when they command things lawfull, and so if because of their preeminence their Lawes doe bind, then their unlawfull ordinances doe bind, no lesse then if they were lawfull: but if by their auctority, we meane the power which they have of God to make Lawes, this power is not absolute, (as hath beene said,) but limited: therefore from it no absolute bond can arise, but this much at the most, that ggPerkins on Rev. 1. 5.Rev 1:5Kings on earth must be obeyed, so farre as they command in Christ. Neither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing it self which is commanded.

When Princes publish the commandements of God, the things them selves binde, whether they should command them or not: but we speake of such things as Gods Word hath left in their nature indifferent, & of such things we say, that if being injoyned by Princes they did absolutely binde, then they should be in themselves immutably necessary, even secluding, as well the Lawes of Princes which injoyne them, as the end of order, decency, and edification, where unto they are referred. To say no more, hath not hhIren. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 3.D Forbesse p. 157told us in Calvines words, Notatu dignum, &c. It is vvorthy of observation that human Lavves, vvhether they be made by the Magistrat or by the Church, hovvsoever they be necessary to be observed, (I speake of such as are good & just,) yet they doe not therefore by themselves binde the conscience, because the vvhole necessity of observing them, looketh to the generall end, but consisteth not in the things commanded.

6. Whatsoever bond of conscience, is not confirmed and warranted by the Word, is before God no bond at all. But the absolute bond, wherewith conscience is bound to the obedience of the Lawes of Princes, is not confirmed nor warranted by the Word. Ergo. The Proposition no man can denie who aknowledgeth, that none can have power or dominion over our consciences, but God only, iiIa. 4. 12.the great Lawgiver, who alone can save and destroy. Neither doth any Writer whom I have seene, hold that Princes have any power over mens consciences, but only that conscience is bound by the Lawes of Princes, for this respect, because God who hath power over our consciences, hath tied us to their Lawes. As to the assumption, he who denieth it, must give instance to the contrary. If kkRom. 23. 5.those vvords of the Apostle be objected; Yee must needs be subject, not only for vvrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not, that we must obey, but that we must be subject, for conscience sake. And how oft shall we need to tell our Opposites, that subjection is one thing, & obedience another?

2. If he had said, that we must obey for conscience sake, yet this could not have beene expounded of an absolute bond of conscience, but only of an hypotheticall bond, in case that which the Magistrat commandeth, can not be omitted, without breaking the Law of Charity. If it be said againe that we are not only bidden be subject, llTit. 3. 1….Titus 3:1but likewise to obey Magistrats. Ans. And who denieth this? But still I aske, are we absolutely and allwayes bound to obey Magistrats? Nay, but only when they command such things as are according to the rules of the Word, so that either they must be obeyed, or the Law of Charity shall be broken: in this case, and no other, we are bidden obey.

Thus have we gained a principall point, Viz, That the lawes of Sect. XXXI Princes bind not absolutely but conditionally, nor propter se, but propter aliud. Whereupon it followeth, that except the breach of those ceremoniall Ordinances wherewith we are pressed, include the breach of the law of Charity, which is of a superior bond, we are not holden to obey them. Now that it is not the breach, but the obedience of those ordinances, which violateth the law of Charity, we have heretofore made manifest, and in this place we will adde only one generall. Whensoever the lawes of Princes about things Ecclesiasticall, doe bind the conscience conditionally, & because of some other law of a superior bond, which can not be observed if they be transgressed; (which is the only respect for which they bind, when they bind at all;) then the things which they perscribe belong either to the conservation, or purgation of Religion. But the controverted Ceremonies belong to neither of these. Therefore the lawes made thereanent bind not, because of some other law which is of a superior bond. As to the Proposition, will any man say that Princes have any more power, then that which is expressed in the 25 Article of the Confession of Faith, ratified in the first Parliament of King Iames the 6. which saith thus, Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrats, we a…me that chiefly and most principally, the conservation and the purgation of the Religion appertaines, so that not only they are appointod for civill policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever. Hoe nomine (saith mmInst. lib. 4. cap. 20. §. 9.Calvine) maxime laudantur sancti Reges in Scriptura, quod Dei cultum corruptum vel eversum restituerint, vel curam gesserint Religionis, ut sub illis pura & incolumis floreree. The 21, Parliament of King Iames holden at Edinburgh 1612. in the ratification of the Acts and Conclusions of the generall Assembly, keeped in Clasgove 1610. did innovate and change some words of that Oath of Allegiance, which the generall Assembly in reference to the conference keeped 1571. ordained to be given to the Person provided to any benefice with cure, in the time of his admission by the Ordinare. For the forme of the Oath set downe by the act of the Assembly, beginneth thus. I. A. B. now nominat and admitted to the Kirk of D, vtterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the right excellent, right high, and mighty Prince, Iames 6, by the grace of God King of Scots, is the only lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme, as well in things temporall, as in the conservation and purgation of Religion, &c. But the forme of the Oath set downe by the Act of Parliament, beginneth thus. I. A. B. now nominat and admitted to the Kirk of D, testify and declare in my conscience, that the right excellent &c. is the only lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme, as well in matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, as in things temporall &c. Yet I demand, whether or not doe those Matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, of which the Act of Parliament speaketh, or those All Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, of which the English Oath of Supremacie speaketh, comprehend any other thing then is comprehended under the conservation and purgation of Religion, where of the Act of Assembly speaketh? If it be answered affirmatively, ti will followe that Princes have power to destruction, and not to edification only, for whatsoever may edify or profit the Church, pertaineth either to the conservation, or the purgation of Religion. If negatively, then it can not be denied that the conservation and purgation of Religion doe comprehend all the power which Princes have in things Ecclesiasticall.

Now to the Assumption. And first, that the controverted Ceremonies Sect. XXXII pertaine not to the conservation of Religion, but contrary wise to the hurt and prejudice of the same, experience hath (alas) made it too manifest. For, o what a dolefull decay of Religion have they drawne with them in this Land! Let them who have seene Scotland in her first glory, tell how it was then, and how it is now. nnCart…. on Act. 8. sect. 7.Acts 8Idle and idole-like Bishopping hath shut to the doore painefull and profitable Catechising. The keeping of some Festivall dayes, is set up in stead of the thankefull commemoration of Gods inestimable benefites: howbeit ooG. B… chan. hist. …. Scot. lib. 5. p. 152.the festivity of Christmasse hath hitherto served, more to Bachanalian lasciviousnesse, then to the remembrance of the birth of Christ. The kneeling downe upon the knees of the body, hath now come in place of that humiliation of the soule, wherwith worthy communicants addressed temselves unto the holy Table of the Lord. And generally, the externall shew of these fruitlesse observances, hath worne out the very life and power of Religion. Neither have such effects ensued upon such Ceremonies among us only, but let it be observed every where else, if there be not least substance and power of godlinesse, among them who have most Ceremonies, where unto men have at their pleasure given some sacred use and signification in the Worship of God, and most substance among them, who have fewest shewes of externall rites. No man of sound judgement (saith ppConfess. cap. 5. art. 20.Baza) will denie, Iesum Christum quo nudior, &c. that IESVS CHRIST, the more naked he be, is made the more manifest to us: whereas contrarywise all false religions use by certaine externall gesturings to turne away men from divine things. qqepist. ad Regin Elisab. epistolar lib. 1. p. 112.Zanchius saith well of the Surplice and other popish Ceremonies, quod haec nihil ad pietatem accendendam, multum autem ad restinguendam valeant. rrde effect. sacr. cap. 31.Bellarmine indeed pleadeth for the vtility of Ceremonies, as things belonging to the conservation of Religion. His reason is, because they set before our sences such an externall majesty and splendor, whereby they cause the more reverence. This hee alledgeth for the utility of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome. And I would know, what better reason can be alledged for the utility of ours. But if this be all, we throwe backe the Argument, because the externall majesty and splendor of Ceremonies doth greatly prejudge and obscure the spirit and life of the worship of God, and diverteth the minds of men from adverting vntounto the same: which we have offered to be tried by common experience. Durand himself, for as much as he hath written in the defence of Ceremonies, in his unreasonable Rationale, yet ssRat. lib. 1. tit de pietur & cortin.he maketh this plaine confession. Sane in primitiva Ecclesia, Sacrificium fiebat in vasis ligneis & vestib… communibus: tune enim evant lignei calices & aurei Sacerdotes: nunc vero ècontra est. Behold what followeth upon the majesty and splendor which Ceremonies carry with them, and how Religion at it's best and first estate was without the same!

Neither yet doe the Ceremonies in question belong to the purgation Sect. XXXIII of Religion. For wheresoever Religion is to be purged in a corrupted Church, all men know that purgation standeth in putting some thing away, not in keeping it still, in voiding some what, not in retaining it: so that a Church is not purged, but left unpurged, when the unnecessary monuments of by past superstition are still preserved and kept in the same. And as for the Church of Scotland, least of all could there be any purgation of it intended, by the resuming of those Ceremonies, for such was the most glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland, that it was farre better purged then any other nighbour Church. And of Mr. Hookers jest we may make good earnest, for in very deed as the reformation of Genevah did passe the reformation of Germany, so the reformation of Scotland did passe that of Genevah.

Now hitherto we have discoursed of the power of Princes, in making Sect. XXXIV of lawes about things which concerne the worship of God; for this power it is, which our Opposites alledge for warrant of the controverted Ceremonies: wherefore to have spoken of it is sufficient for our present purpose. Neverthelesse, because there are also other sorts of Ecclesiasticall things, beside the making of lawes, such as the vocation of men of Ecclesiasticall order, the convocation and moderation of Councells, the judging and deciding of controversies about faith, and the use of the keyes, in all which Princes have some place and power of intermeddling, and a mistaking in one, may possibly breed a mistaking in all: Therefore I thought good here to digresse, and of these also to adde some what, so farre as Princes have power and interest in the same.