THE TRUE GROUNDS OF Ecclesiasticall Regiment SET FORTH In a breife Dissertation Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the Pretended Independencie of the PRELATES c. TOGETHER VVith some passages touching the Ecclesiasticall Power of Parliaments the use of Synods and the Power of Excommunication LONDON Printed for Robert Bostock 1641. The Divine Right of Episcopacie refuted IN this Controversie about Episcopacie by reason of many mistakes of either side much time hath beene spent to little purpose and the right and truth is yet as farre imbosked and buried in darknesse as ever it was Me thinks the case is as if two well imbattail'd Armies had marched forth for a mutuall encounter but both not taking the same way there never was yet any meeting in any one certain place where this great strife might bee decided These mistakes and misadventures on both sides as I conceive have happened for want of an exact and adequate definition of Episcopacie first set downe and agreed upon by both and then by both equally pursued It shall be therefore my care at this time to begin with a definition of Episcopacy and that such a one as I shall take out of Bishop Hall one of the greatest asserters and in that the noblest of Episcopacy and that which hee indevours to maintaine as being of Divine right I according to my power shall indeavour to disprove The first definition given by the same Bishop is this Episcopacy is an holy Order of Church-government for the administration of the Church This definition I hold to be too large and unadequate for the determining of this doubt for Calvins discipline may according to this definition be called Episcopacy and it may be affirmed that Episcopacie has bin in all ages since God had never yet any Church wherein was not some holy Order of Church discipline for better ruling of the same And by the way I must here professe to shake off and neglect the mentioning or answering of any thing which the Patrons of Episcopacie have alledged and stuft their volumes withall in defence of Order and disparity in the Church for let our Adversaries be never so clamorous in this point yet it is manifest that no Church was ever yet so barbarous as to plead for anarchy or a meere equalitie neither did Calvin ever favour any such parity as was inconsistent with Order and government neither do we see any such confusion introduced into Geneva it selfe as our Hierarchists seem to gainsay To let passe all impertinent vagaries our dispute must be not whether Church politie be necessary or no but whether that Church policy which is now exercised in England be necessary unalterable or no And not whether such parity as is the mother of Confusion be politique or no but whether such parity as now is at Geneva amongst presbyters be politique or no but my present scope is not to defend the Presbyteriall discipline in all things it is only to maintain against the necessity of such an immutable Episcopacy as is now constituted in England so far to defend parity as our Hierarchists take advantage against it for the upholding of their own side To this purpose I cānot chuse but say that in nature that seems to be the best parity which admits of some disparity in Order and that seems to be the best disparity which prevents confusion with the most parity And therefore we see that our Saviour recommended as unlordly a disparity as might be not unlike that of marriage for there is a great and sweet parity in the tie of Wedlocke between man and wife and that is not maintained without some disparity yet that disparity is as little as may be and that only for parities sake Non aliter fuerint foemina virque pares But of this no more I come to Bishop Halls next more exact definitions and they run thus Episcopacy is an Eminent Order of sacred function appointed in the Evangelicall Church by the Holy Ghost for the governing and overseeing thereof and besides the Word and Sacraments it is indued with power of Ordination and perpetuity of jurisdiction Or thus A Pastor ordained perpetuall moderator in Church affaires with a fixed imparity exercising spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority is a Bishop Or thus Adde majority above Presbyters and power of jurisdiction by due Ordination for constant continuance and this makes a Bishop take away these and he remaines a meere Presbyter It is to bee observed now that foure things are here asserted First Episcopall power is such as none are capable of but only men within Sacred Orders A Bishop must be a Presbyter indued with power of Ordination and spirituall jurisdiction by due Ordination and without these hee remaines a meere Pastor Secondly Episcopall power is such as is wholly independent upon temporall Rulers Its institution was from the Holy Ghost in the Evangelicall Church It must rule out of its owne peculiarly demandated authority Thirdly Episcopal power consists in Ordination and spiritual jurisdiction and in majority above Presbyters Fourthly Episcopal power is unalterable by any temporal authority it is perpetual by divine right As it was fixed and where it was settled by Christ and his immediate successors so and there it must continue unchanged til the worlds end In briefe the summe of all these definitions is this Episcopacy is a forme of Ecclesiasticall policy instituted by Christ whereby a Superiour Order of Presbyters is indued with a perpetual independent power of Ordination and spiritual jurisdiction and with majority above Presbyters and this power as it appertaines to all that Order so it appertaines only to that Order And those things which we oppose herein are chiefly two First we see no ground in the word of God why Bishops should arrogate to themselves such a peculiar independent perpetual power of Ordination spirituall jurisdiction and such a majority above Presbyters as now they injoy excluding from all such power and majoritie not only all Laymen and Princes but also Presbyters themselves Secondly if power of Ordination and spirituall jurisdiction and preheminence above all the Clergie bee due only to Bishops yet we complaine that now in England that power and preheminence is abused and too farre extended and to such purposes perverted as the Apostles never practised or intended Of these two points in this Order but for my part I am no favourer of extreames some defend Episcopacie as it is now constituted in England as Apostolicall others withstand it as Antichristian my opinion is that the government is not so faulty as the Governours have beene and that it is better then no government at all nay and may be better then some other forms which some Sectaries have recommended to the World And my opinion further is that it is not alike in all respects and that it ought to be severally examined and ventilated and that so it will probably appeare in some things unprofitable in some things
three things necessary 1. Invenire 2. Disceptare 3. Ferre The invention of all necessary Lawes is almost perfect alreadie to our hands Those Lawes which God ordained for the Iewes and those which our Ancestors found out for us are daily before our eyes and little can now be added of moment except only for illustration of what was ambiguous before In the Church also is lesse want of perpetuall alterations and additions of Canons than in the State our misery is that we succeed Ancestors which were opprest with too vast a Church discipline Our reformation hath rid us of some part of this burthen but yet no sensible man can chuse but see that our Ecclesiasticall Courts are yet of larger jurisdiction and fuller of trouble than ever the Iewish were or those of the Primitive Christians The reason of this is because wee still rely too much upon Divines herein and they for their own profit and power are still as willing to uphold their own Tribunals as ever they were Did they thinke it a greater honour to serve at the Altar than in the Consistory and did they take more delight in Preaching than attending suites they would not study New Canons but discharge themselves of many old ones and so ease themselves and us too and restore backe againe to the Civill Magistrate that which Popery first usurped and their ambition hath since continued Howsoever if Ministers can adde any Articles to the Doctrine of our Church for the better preventing of Schismes or frame any orders for the more decent performance of Gods worship in the Church I would not exclude them from proposing it I only desire that since they are men and may have private interests and respects to the prejudice of other men they may not ingrosse all power of proposing what they list and to exclude all others from the like power And in the second place if Clergie men only shall propose all Ecclesiasticall Lawes yet it is most unjust that Princes and Lay-men should be held utterly uncapable of ventilating and debating the same Id quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet Nature hath printed this in us if the Priest propose any thing tending to the disservice of God that disservice will draw the same guilt upon me and all others as upon him and it shall not excuse me or others that he pretended his judgment to be unquestionable and shal it then here be unlawfull for me and others to use any endeavour for the prevention of this guilt If Angels from Heaven should seduce me I were inexcusable and when Ministers whom I know to bee subject to the same naturall blindnesse and partiality as I am and to whom I see generall error may be a private advantage in matters of this private advantage shal I be allowed no liberty to search and trye and to use my best art of discussion If this were so God had made my condition desperate and remedilesse and I might safely attribute my error and destruction to the hand of God alone but this no man can imagine of God without great impiety God hath declared himselfe contrary herein for he hath exempted none from error though never so learned nor leaves none excusable in error though never so unlearned if we will blindly trust others t is at our own perill He will require it at our hands but if we will seeke industriously we shall finde if wee will knock at his dore He hath promised to open to us And if private men stand accountable for their owne soules whatsoever the Priests doctrine or commands be how much more shall Princes and Courts of Parliament answer for their wilfull blindnesse if they will depart from their owne right and duty in sifting and examining al such religious constitutions as concerne them and all others under their charge Shall they sit to treate of Lether and Wooll and neglect doctrine and discipline Shall they consult of the beauty and glory of the kingdom and transfer Religion to others which is the foundation of all happines Shall they be sollicitous for transitory things and yet trust their soules into other mens hands who may make a profit of the same Let us not so infatuate our selves let us honour Divines and reverence their counsels but let us not superstitiously adore them or dotingly in-slave our selves to their edicts THe 3d. thing in making of laws is that which we term ferre Legem and till this act of carrying passing or enacting give the binding force of Law to it how good and wholsome soever it be after all debate yet it is but as the counsell of a Lawyer or the prescription of a Physition And here we maintaine that if Divines are the most fit to invent and discusse Ecclesiasticall Constitutions yet they have not in themselves that right and power which is to imprint the obliging vertue of Lawes upon them The forme or essence of Law is that coercive or penall vertue by which it bindes all to its obedience and all cannot be bound to such obedience but by common consent or else some externall compulsion take away this binding vertue and it is no Law it is but a Counsell wherein the inferior hath as much power towards his superior as the superior hath towards his inferior If then Divines will vindicate to themselves a Legislative power in the Church they must deduce the same either from the common consent of the Church or from some other authority to which all the Church is subject and to which the whole Church can make no actuall opposition If they clayme from common consent they must produce some act of State and formall record to abet their clayme and common consent must also still strengthen the same or else by the same that it was constituted it may still be dissolved and if they clayme from some higher externall authority stronger than common consent they must induce that authority to give vigor to their Lawes and to use means of constraint against all such as shall not voluntarily yeeld obedience to the same And it is not sufficient for them to alledge God for their authority without some speciall expresse words from Gods owne mouth for God gave no man a right but he allowes him some remedy agreeable thereunto and God is so great a favourer also of common consent that though hee hath an uncontroleable power above it yet as Hooker observes He would not impose his owne profitable Lawes upon his people by the hands of Moses without their free and open consent And if God which cannot doe unjustice nor will impose lawes but such as are profitable to us and yet hath an undisputable Empire over us will so favour common consent shall man which may erre and doe injurie and is of lesse value then communities and wants might to inforce and put in execution his owne commands usurpe that which God relinquishes Take it for granted that Priests cannot erre out of ignorance or be
custodie of the Law from Gods hand and to receive Orders from God for the Tabernacle and all religious services and did performe the act of consecration to Priests and did always consult with God by Priests and command all men as well Priests and Levits as other men Hooker and Bilson and I thinke most of our Divines doe confesse not only this that Moses retained all Ecclesiasticall Supremacie to himselfe but that hee left the same also to his Successours Hooker sayes that by the same supreame power David Asa Jehosaphat Josias c. made those Lawes and Statutes mentioned in sacred History touching matters of meer Religion the affairs of the Temple and service of God And by vertue of this power the piety and impietie of the King did alwayes change the publike face of Religion which the Prophets by themselves never did nor could hinder from being done And yet if Priests alone had bin possest of all spirituall power no alteration in Religion could have beene made without them it had not beene in the King but in Priests to change the face of Religion And the making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes also with other like actions pertayning to the power of dominion had still been recorded for the acts of Priests and not of Kings whereas we now find the contrary Hooker says this and more and Bilson sayes not one jot lesse Hee confesses the Jewish Kings were charged with matters of Religion and the custodie of both Tables nay publishing preserving executing points of Law concerning the first table hee assignes as the principall charge committed to Kings as Kings Religion being the foundation of policy Hee instances also in the good Kings of Iudah who as they were bound so they were commended for their dutie by God himselfe in removing Idols purging abominations reforming Priests renewing the covenant and compelling all Priests Prophets people to serve God sincerely Many of the learnedest papists doe not gainsay this evident truth and therefore Stapleton being I suppose fully convinced of it seekes to answer and avoid it another way But I proceed to the times of thraldome wherein the Iews were governed by the Persians How far the Iews were left in Babylon to the free exercise of their own Religion is uncertain it may be conceived that their condition was not always alike under all Kings but generally that they found more favour there then Christians did afterwards under the Roman Emperours before this time there is no probability of Excommunication or any spirituall Judicature wee reade nothing of Maranathaes or Anathemaes but now perhaps some such government might take place for where no peculiar consecrated Ministery is the Magistrate is fittest to officiate before God and where no Magistracie is permitted Ministers are fittest to preserve order Some Papists that wil undertake to prove any thing out of any thing alleage Cain as an instance of Excom. as if Adam were so a Priest as that hee were no Prince and had power to excommunicate in case of so horrid a murder but not to execute any other Law or as if Moses would proceed against adultery by temporall punishment when Adam had proceeded against murther by spiritual but not to insist longer upon these conjecturall passages I come to our Saviours days his government also being Regal as wel as Sacerdotall nay being rather divine then either I shal not stay there neither Our mayn strife is how the Apostles their successors governed after his Ascention during the times of persecution but little need to be said hereof For in Scripture wee finde the Apostles themselves very humble and unlordly and transacting all things according to our Saviours command and example rather by perswasion and evidence of the spirit then by command and constraint and if any difference was between a Bishop and a Priest it was in outward eminence or majoritie very small and the very termes themselves were promiscuously applyed In the next ensuing times also wee finde by ancient Testimony that Omnia communi Clericorum consilio agebantur and after that Episcopacy had gotten some footing yet as another ancient testimony informes us except â Ordinatione setting Ordination only aside it challenged no priviledge above Presbyters but as I have said before whatsoever authority did reside in the Clergie whilst temporal rule was wanting to the Church and whilst miraculous power of binding and loosing sinners and of opening and shutting Heaven was supplyed by the Holy Ghost for the emergent necessity of those times the reason thereof no longer remayning it ought now to remayne no longer as it did but to devolve againe into the Temporâ—ll Rulers hands from whence it was not taken by Christ but where it was then abused and made unprofitable by the owners themselves If wee doe imagine that Timothy and Titus had Episcopall power and by that Episcopall power did send out processes and keep Courts and holds pleas of all Testamentary and Matrimoniall Causes and Tithes Fasts and all other which our Bishops now clayme and did redresse all grievances for the preventing of confusion in the Church during the malignity of Secular power if wee take all this for granted though it be some thing too large to be granted yet still wee ought to conceive that this power was conferred upon them not in derogation of Secular authoritie but for necessities sake till Secular authority should againe come in and undertake the same offices which Timothy and Titus were now to performe when confusion cannot otherwise bee prevented Timothy and Titus shall governe but when it may be prevented by that authoritie which is most competent and when more perfect order shall bee more naturally and justly induced what injury is this to Timothy or Titus Why rather is it not an ease and comfort to them that they have now leasure more seriously to attend their own proper function and ministration Hookers owne words are if from the approbation of Heaven the Kings of GODS own chosen people had in the affaires of the Jewish Religion supreame power why should not Christian Kings have the like in Christian Religion And Bilson having mayntained the supremacie of the Jewish Kings Hee ascribes the like to the whole function Hee sayes it is the essentiall charge of Princes to see the Law of God fully executed his Son rightly served his Spouse safely nursed his house timely filled his enemies duly punished and this he sayes as it was by Moses prescribed and by David required so it was by Esay prophesied by Christ commanded by Paul witnessed and by the Primitive Fathers consented too Hee sayes further that what the Jewish Kings had Christian Kings ought to enjoy and therefore Esay says Hee prophesying of the Evangelicall times foretold that the Church should suck the breasts of Kings and Queens and that milk which those breasts should afford He interprets to be spirituall milk Now what can be added to this what more excellent and perfect Regiment then this had Timothy
Priests as also of the reall effectuall dominion of Princes I shall now prove further that the sword of Kings if it be not so spirituall as the Pope pretends to cut off souls yet it is more then temporall and extends to things most spirituall The Founders and Patriarchs of the World before the Law of Moses did not only governe the Church but also execute all pastorall spirituall Offices as they were Princes and Supream Potentates within their own limits they did not governe men as they were the Priests of God but they did sacrifice and officiate before God as they were the Heads and Governours of men In those times it was not held usurpation or intrusion upon priests for Princes to sacrifice with their own hands or to teach the will of God with their own mouthes it would have been held presumption if any else had attempted the like and a dishonour to Gods service Nature then taught that the most excellent person was most fit for Gods service in the Church and that no person could be more excellent then hee which served God in the Throne The word priest now may have divers acceptions In some sense whole Nations have been called priests viz. comparatively and in some sense all Fathers of Children and Masters of Servants are in the nature of priests and in more usuall sense all Princes so farre as they have charge and cure of souls and are intrusted with Divine Service within their severall commands are more supereminently taken for priests but the most usuall sense is this A Priest is hee which hath cure of Souls and a trust of Gods worship by a more peculiar kinde of publike and politike consecration and dedication thereunto of such consecration or ordination before Aaron we read nothing and for ought I see we are bound to believe nothing Melchisideck was a pious man a devout Father a religious Master nay a zealous Prince and Commander but in all these respects hee had no priviledge nor right to the denomination of priest more then Adam Sem Noah c. had You will say then how is that denomination given him so peculiarly This denomination might be given not by reason of any externall formall ceremoniall Unction or imposition of hands or any other solemne Dedication or separation before men but in this respect that he did perhaps publikely officiate in the presence of all his Subjects and perhaps in behalfe of all his subjects and this is a higher and blesseder Sacerdotall Office then any we read of in his predecessors or successors till Aarons dayes It is probable that God was served in Families before Aaron and perhaps there were solemne days and Feasts which all Families by joynt consent did in severall places dedicate to Gods service by strict observance of the same but that any publike places were appointed for whole Congregations to joyne and meet publikely in under the charge and function of any one publike Priest till Aaron is not specified This only we may guesse by the speciall name of priest applied to Melchisedeck that perhaps being a priest of Salem he was the first that made the worship of God so publike and did not only by the generall influence of his power take order for the service and knowledge of God in severall Families but also gather severall assemblies of united Families and there publikely sacrifise and officiate in behalf of great and solemne Congregations wherein he might far exceed Abraham Howsoever its sufficient for my purpose that this he might doe by vertue of his Regall power and dignity without any further consecration or Sacerdotal instalment whatsoever And in this respect he was without predecessor and perhaps successor so that I think hee was the most lively and Honourable type of our Saviour for Aarons Order was Substitute and his consecration was performed by the hand of his Prince and Superiour and being so consecrated He did sacrifise not as a Prince but meerly as a Priest Whereas Melchisedeck received his Order from none but himselfe and so remayned not only independent but his service also being both Regall and Sacerdotall as our Saviours also was it was yet more Honorable in that it was Regall then in that it was Sacerdotall And this certainly sutes best with our Saviours Order for no Secular authority but his own did concurre in his inauguration hee was his owne Ancestor in this in that his owne Royall dignitie gave vertue to his Sacerdotall and though hee would not assume to himselfe the externall Function of Royalty in meer Secular things yet in this he would follow holy Melchisedeck But to passe from Melchisedeck within some few ages after wee finde the Scepter and Censor severed Wee finde no prints of great Empires before Moses for in small Countries we finde divers petty independant principalities and it may be imagin'd that neither true policie nor wicked tyranny was then knowne in such perfection as now it is The Israelites at their departure from Egypt were a great and formidable Nation as appeares by the combinations of many other Potentates against them yet at that time the weightie charges both of prince and priest were supported by Moses alone This was exceeding grievous till Jethro in civill affaires and till God himselfe in matters of Religion for his further ease took much of his laborious part from off his shoulders Subordinate Magistrates were now appointed in the State and priests and Levits in the Church the Nation being growne numerous and Ceremonies in Religion very various but wee must not think that Moses was hereby emptied or lesned of any of his Civill or Ecclesiasticall authoritie as he retained still Supremacie of power to himselfe in all things so that Supremacy became now the more awfull and Majesticall The poet says of waters Maxima per multos tenuantur flumina rivos And indeed did waters run backwards they would spend and diminish themselves by often divisions in their courses but we see that in their ordinary naturall Tracts many litle petty streams officiously hasten to discharge themselves into greater so that the more continued the course is the greater the streams ever grow It is so with power both in Church and State Sovereigntie is as the mayne Ocean of its vast abundance it feeds all and is fed by all as it is the fountain to enrich others so it is the Cisterne to receive and require back againe all the riches of others That which Moses parted with all and derived to others was for the better expedition both of pietie and justice that GOD might be more duly served that the people might be more quickly relieved and that his own shoulders might be the freelier disburdened for as a man hee could not intend universall businesse yet a Prince he might well superintend it in others And it is manifest that after the separation of the Priesthood he did still as superiour to Aaron in the most sacred things approach God in the Mountain to receive the
and Titus committed to them by vertue of their Episcopall Order What more sacred what more spirituall offices could they performe in the Church What could Gods children suck from their brests other then milke then sincere spirituall milke Saint Augustine agrees to this when hee says that Kings as Kings serve God so as none but Kings can doe and when he confesses that Christ came not to the detriment of sovereigntie And the Church in Tertullians words ascribing worship to their Heathen Emperours as being second immediatly to God and inferiour to none but God says as much as words can expresse In regard of internall sanctitie Peter may be more excellent then Caesar and so may Lazarus perhaps then Peter but in regard of that civill sanctitie which is visible to mans eye Caesar is to be worshipped more then Peter Caesar is to be looked upon as next in place here to God betwixt whom and God no other can have any superiour place Wisdome and goodnesse are blessed graces in the sight of GOD but these are more private and Power is an excellence more perfect and publike and visible to man then either if Ministers do sometimes in wisdome and goodnesse excell Princes yet in Power they doe not and therefore though wisdome and goodnesse may make them more amiable somtimes to God yet Power shall make Princes more Honourable amongst men There is in heaven no need of Power in the glorified creatures and yet the glorified creatures are there differenced by Power it is hard to say that one Angell or Saint differs from another in wisdome or in holinesse yet that they differ in power and glory we all know The twelve Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles sit in heaven upon higher Thrones then many Saints which perhaps here in this life might be endued with a greater portion of wisdome and holinesse then they were and by this it may seeme that there is a species of externall sanctitie of power dispensed according to the free power of God even in Heaven also and that that sanctity is superiour to the other more private sanctity of other graces and excellences And if power in heavenly creatures where it is of no necessity has such a supereminent glory appertaining to it with what veneration ought wee to entertain it on earth where our common felicitie and safetie does so much depend upon it Goodnesse here wee see is a narrow excellence without wisdome and power and wisdome in men that have neither power nor goodnesse scarce profits at all but power in infants in women in Ideots hands is of publike use in as much as the wisdome and goodnesse of other men are ready to be commanded by it and its more naturall that they should be obsequious and officious in serving power then that the transcendent incommunicable indivisible Royalty of power should condiscend to bee at their devotion And for this reason when Princes are said to be solo Deo minores and Deo secundi this is spoken in regard of power and this being spoken in regard of power we must conceive it spoken of the most perfect excellence and dignity and sanctitie that can be imagined amongst men on earth And for the same reason when Princes are said to serve God as Princes and so to serve him as none other can we must conceive this spoken also with respect to their power in as much as wisdome and goodnesse in other men cannot promote the glory of God and the common good of man so much as power may in them But Stapleton takes foure exceptions to those times whereby if it bee granted that the Jewish Kings had supreame Ecclesiasticall authority yet hee sayes it does not follow that our Kings now ought to have the same Hee sayes first That the Iewish Religion was of farre lesse dignitie and perfection then ours is ours being that truth of which theirs was but a shadowish prefigurative resemblance Our answere here is that the Religion of the Jews as to the essence of it was not different from ours either in dignitie or perfection The same God was then worshipped as a Creatour Redeemer Sanctifier and that worship did consist in the same kinde of love feare hope and beliefe and the same charitie and justice amongst men The Law of Ceremonies and externall Rites in the bodily worship of God did differ from our discipline that being more pompous and laborious but the two great Commandements which were the effects and contents of all heavenly spirituall indispensible worship and service whereby a love towards God above that of our selves and a love towards man equall with that of our selves was enjoyned these two great Commandements were then as forcible and honourable as they are now Sacrifice was but as the garment of Religion obedience was the life the perfection the dignity of Religion and the life perfection and dignitie of that obedience consisted then in those weighty matters of the Law Piety and mercie as it now does but if the Jewish Religion was lesse excellent and more clogged with shadows and ceremonies in its outward habit what argument is this for the Supremacie of Regall rather then Sacerdotall power The more abstruse and dark the forme of that worship was and the more rigorous sanctity God had stamped upon the places and instruments and formalities of his worship and the more frequent and intricate questions might arise thereabout me thinks the more use there was of Sacerdotall honour and prerogative and the lesse of Regall in matters of the Lord I see not why this should make Princes more spirituall then their Order would beare but Priests rather His second reason is That all parts of the Jewish Religion Laws Sacrifices Rites Ceremonies being fully set down in writing needing nothing but execution their Kings might well have highest authoritie to see that done Whereas with us there are numbers of mysteries even in beliefe which were not so generally for them as for us necessary to be with some expresse acknowledgment understood many things belonging to externall government and our service not being set down by particular ordinances or written for which cause the State of the Church doth now require that the spirituall authoritie of Ecclesiasticall persons be large absolute and independent This reason is every way faulty for as to matters of Discipline and externall worship our Church is lesse incumbred with multiplicity of Rites such as Saint Paul cals carnall and beggerly rudiments and in this respect there is the lesse use of Ecclesiasticall authoritie amongst us and if popish Bishops doe purposely increase Ceremonies that they may inlarge their own power they ought not to take advantage of their own fraud And as for matters of faith and doctrinall mysteries we say according to Gods ancient promise knowledg doth now abound by an extraordinary effusion of Gods Spirit upon these latter dayes wee are so farre from being more perplexed with shadows and mysticall formalities or with weighty disputes that we are and