10. Moses, who was the civil magistrate and leader of the people, received from God the whole body of their religion, and the order of their sacred rites, and delivered them to the people, and severely and sharply chastised Aaron, their bishop, for making the golden calf, and violating the religion by law established. (Exod. xii.) And Joshua, though he were no other than a civil magistrate, yet when he was first inaugurated and set over the people, he received express command concerning religion and the worship of God. David, the king, when their religion had been miserably disordered by Saul, a wicked king, brought back the ark of God, that is, restored religion. And he was not only present as an admonisher or persuader of the work, but he published psalms and hymns, disposed the priests and levites into classes and orders, and in a sort governed the priests as a priest. (2 Chron. xiii.) Solomon, the king, built a temple to the Lord, which his father David had only designed in his thoughts; and after made an excellent oration to the people concerning religion and the worship of God. And after this, he removed Abiathar, the high-priest, and substituted Zadock in his place. (1 Kings, viii.) And when after this the temple was wretchedly ruined by the vice and negligence of the priests, Hezekiah the king commanded it to be cleansed of its rubbish and dirt, the lamps to be lighted, incense to be offered, and the sacred rites to be performed according to the ancient order; and caused the brazen serpent that was then irreligiously worshipped by the people, to be taken away and reduced to dust. (2 Chron. xxix.) Jehoshaphat the king overthrew and took away all the high places, and destroyed the groves, by which he perceived the worship of God was hindered, and the people by a private superstition diverted from attending the service of God in the temple to which

they were bound to go three times in the year out of all parts of his kingdom. (2 Chron. xvii.) Josias, another king, diligently admonished the priests and bishops of their duty; Joash, the king, repressed the luxury and insolence of the priest; Jehu slew the wicked false prophets. (2 Kings, x.) And that I may trouble the reader with no more examples out of the Scriptures, and rather pass to see and consider how the church has been governed since the birth of Christ and the publishing of the Gospel. Heretofore Christian emperors called councils of the bishops: Constantinus called the Nicene council; Theodosius I. the Constantinopolitan; Theodosius II. the Ephesian; Martianus, the Chalcedonian; and when Ruffinus had alleged a synod as making for him, his adversary, St. Jerome, that he might confute him, replied, Tell us what emperor commanded it to be assembled? And he also, in his funeral oration for Paula, a Roman lady, cites the letters of the emperors who had commanded the Greek and Roman bishops to meet at Rome, for the holding of a council.

11. It is most certain, that for five hundred years the Emperor alone took care of calling all the general councils and sacred meetings, and therefore we do now the more admire the unreasonableness of the bishop of Rome, who, though he knows that during the subsistence of the Roman empire in its greatness, this was the sole right of the Emperor, and that now kings have succeeded to part of the Cæsarean or imperial majesty, this right is devolved to all princes in common, yet has so unjustly usurped it to himself alone, and thinks it sufficient to communicate his design of holding a council to the greatest prince in Christendom as to his servant. But if the modesty of Ferdinand the Emperor be so great, perhaps because he doth not thoroughly understand the papal arts, that he can digest this injury; yet the Pope, who

pretends to so much sanctity, ought not to have offered him this affront, and thus to have arrogated to himself another man's right.

12. But some of his party may reply, that the Emperor then called the councils, because the bishop of Rome was not then arrived to that height of greatness; and yet he did not even then sit with the bishops, or at all interpose his authority in their deliberations and consultations: yet, as Theodoret acquaints us, Constantine the Great did not only sit with the bishops, but admonished them to determine the controversy then depending out of the prophetic and apostolic writings. In this disputation (said the Emperor) concerning divine things, there is set before us, which we ought to follow, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost; for the books of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the oracles of the Prophets, do sufficiently shew us what we ought to think of the will of God. Theodosius, another Emperor, not only sat amongst the bishops (as Socrates saith), but also was moderator of the dispute, and rent the papers of the heretics, and approved the sentiments and doctrine of the Catholics. And in the council of Chalcedon, the civil magistrate (who under the Emperor governed that council) condemned three bishops, Dioscorus, Juvenalis, and Thalassius, by his sentence, for heretics, and gave judgment that they should be deposed from that degree. In the third, the Constantinopolitan council, the civil magistrate not only sat with the bishops, but also subscribed the canons with them. We have read (said he) and subscribed them.

In the second council of Orange, the ambassadors of the princes, being noblemen themselves, sat, and not only voted concerning matters of religion, but also subscribed amongst the bishops; for thus it is written in the end of that council: Petrus

Marcellinus and Felix Liberius, two noble and illus trious præfecti-prætorio of Gaul, and patricians, have consented and subscribed. Syragius Opilio, Pantagathus, Deodatus Cariatho, and Marcellus, honourable men and magistrates, have subscribed. But if the præfecti-prætorio, and patricians, or noblemen, could then subscribe the councils, may not emperors and kings do it now? There were no need to prosecute so plain and apparent a point as this is, but that we have to do with a parcel of men who use to deny the clearest things, even those things which lie plain and open before their eyes, out of a contentious disposition and desire of victory. The Emperor Justinianus made a law for the correcting the manner and curbing the insolence of the clergy; and although he was a most Christian and catholic Emperor, yet he deposed Sylverius and Vigilius, two Popes and successors of St. Peter, and vicars of Jesus Christ, as they are now called.

13. And now seeing that princes have employed their authority upon bishops, received commands from God concerning religion, brought back the ark of God, composed sacred hymns and psalms, governed the priests, made public discourses concerning the worship of God, purged the temple, demolished high places, burnt idolatrous groves, and have admonished the priests concerning their office, and given them laws of living, have slain wicked prophets, deposed bishops, called councils of bishops, and sat with them, and taught them what they should do, have punished heretical bishops, have taken cognizance of religion, subscribed councils, and given sentence in them, and done all this, not by the command of another, but in their own names, and that rightly and piously; shall we say, after all this, that the care of religion belongs not to them? or that a Christian prince, who is pleased to concert

himself in these things, acts ill, immodestly, and wickedly? In all these affairs, the most ancient and most Christian kings and emperors have intermeddled, and yet were never accused of impiety or immodesty for so doing; and will any pretend to find either more catholic princes or more illustrious examples?

14. But now, if they might do all these things, though they were only civil princes, and governed their several states; wherein have our princes offended, who, though they are in the same authority, may (it seems) not do the same things? or wherein consists the wonderful force of their learning, wisdom, and holiness, that, contrary to the custom of all the ancient and catholic bishops, who have heretofore deliberated with princes concerning religion, they should now reject and exclude Christian princes from the cognizance of the cause now depending, and from all participation and congress with them in their councils? But yet it cannot be denied they have taken a prudent care for themselves, and the upholding their kingdom, which they foresaw otherwise would soon have perished. For if they who are placed by God in the highest station, had once seen and understood these men's arts; that the commands of Christ are contemned by them, that the light of the Gospel is obscured and extinguished by them, that they play tricks with and delude them, and shut up against them the entrance into the kingdom of God-they would never so patiently have suffered themselves to be so proudly despised, and injuriously scorned and abused. But now, on the other hand, they have rendered all princes ob noxious and subject to them by their blindness and ignorance.

15. We (as I said before) have done nothing in the changing of religion, either insolently or rashly;