CICERO maketh honourable mention of one of the Cassii,a severe judge amongst the Romans,for a custom he had in criminal causes,when the testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient,to ask the accusers,cui bono;that is to say,what profit,honour,or other contentment the accused obtained or expected by the fact.For amongst presumptions,there is none that so evidently declareth the author as doth the benefit of the action.By the same rule I intend in this place to examine who they may be that have possessed the people so long in this part of Christendom with these doctrines contrary to the peaceable societies of mankind.
And first,to this error that the present Church,now militant on earth,is the kingdom of God (that is,the kingdom of glory,or the land of promise;not the kingdom of grace,which is but a promise of the land),are annexed these worldly benefits:first,that the pastors and teachers of the Church are entitled thereby,as God's public ministers,to a right of governing the Church;and consequently,because the Church and Commonwealth are the same persons,to be rectors and governors of the Commonwealth.By this title it is that the Pope prevailed with the subjects of all Christian princes to believe that to disobey him was to disobey Christ himself;and in all differences between him and other princes (charmed with the word power spiritual)to abandon their lawful sovereigns;which is in effect a universal monarchy over all Christendom.For though they were first invested in the right of being supreme teachers of Christian doctrine,by and under Christian emperors within the limits of the Roman Empire (as is acknowledged by themselves),by the title of Pontifex Maximus,who was an officer subject to the civil state;yet after the Empire was divided and dissolved,it was not hard to obtrude upon the people already subject to them,another title,namely,the right of St.Peter;not only to save entire their pretended power,but also to extend the same over the same Christian provinces,though no more united in the Empire of Rome.This benefit of a universal monarchy,considering the desire of men to bear rule,is a sufficient presumption that the Popes that pretended to it,and for a long time enjoyed it,were the authors of the doctrine by which it was obtained;namely,that the Church now on earth is the kingdom of Christ.For that granted,it must be understood that Christ hath some lieutenant amongst us by whom we are to be told what are his commandments.
After that certain Churches had renounced this universal power of the Pope,one would expect,in reason,that the civil sovereigns in all those Churches should have recovered so much of it as (before they had unadvisedly let it go)was their own right and in their own hands.
And in England it was so in effect;saving that they by whom the kings administered the government of religion,by maintaining their employment to be in God's right,seemed to usurp,if not a supremacy,yet an independency on the civil power:and they but seemed to usurp it,inasmuch as they acknowledged a right in the king to deprive them of the exercise of their functions at his pleasure.
But in those places where the presbytery took that office,though many other doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught;yet this doctrine,that the kingdom of Christ is already come,and that it began at the resurrection of our Saviour,was still retained.But cui bono?What profit did they expect from it?The same which the popes expected:to have a sovereign power over the people.For what is it for men to excommunicate their lawful king,but to keep him from all places of God's public service in his own kingdom;and with force to resist him when he with force endeavoureth to correct them?Or what is it,without authority from the civil sovereign,to excommunicate any person,but to take from him his lawful liberty,that is,to usurp an unlawful power over their brethren?The authors therefore of this darkness in religion are the Roman and the Presbyterian clergy.
To this head,I refer also all those doctrines that serve them to keep the possession of this spiritual sovereignty after it is gotten.As first,that the Pope,in his public capacity,cannot err.
For who is there that,believing this to be true,will not readily obey him in whatsoever he commands?
Secondly,that all other bishops,in what Commonwealth soever,have not their right,neither immediately from God,nor mediately from their civil sovereigns,but from the Pope,is a doctrine by which there comes to be in every Christian Commonwealth many potent men (for so are Bishops)that have their dependence on the Pope,owe obedience to him,though he be a foreign prince;by which means he is able,as he hath done many times,to raise a civil war against the state that submits not itself to be governed according to his pleasure and interest.
Thirdly,the exemption of these and of all other priests,and of all monks and friars,from the power of the civil laws.For by this means,there is a great part of every Commonwealth that enjoy the benefit of the laws and are protected by the power of the civil state,which nevertheless pay no part of the public expense;nor are liable to the penalties,as other subjects,due to their crimes;and,consequently,stand not in fear of any man,but the Pope;and adhere to him only,to uphold his universal monarchy.
Fourthly,the giving to their priests (which is no more in the New Testament but presbyters,that is,elders)the name of sacerdotes,that is,sacrificers,which was the title of the civil sovereign,and his public ministers,amongst the Jews,whilst God was their king.
Also,the making the Lord's Supper a sacrifice serveth to make the people believe the Pope hath the same power over all Christians that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews;that is to say,all power,both civil and ecclesiastical,as the high priest then had.
