They either beyond due bounds exalt it so high as not to reserve that respect which belongeth to God and Christian institutions which is done by some few or else depress it so low as to devest it directly of its authority in causes Ecclesiastical if not to erect and acknowledge some other power Papal or popular as rival or paramount thereunto And therefore it is a work worthy the care and industry of one who loveth truth and goodness to endeavour the healing such a Fountain of deadly evil which hath diffused it self into so many several streams and Channels And I heartily and humbly beseech the Almighty God and Governour of all the Earth that he will guide and assist my undertaking and dispose the hearts of all men to a right understanding of truth and a serious performance of their duty 4. Now for the preservation of the peace and Government of Kingdoms these two things are especially necessary 1. That there be an acknowledgment of the Rulers just authority in his Dominions against all false pretenders and those who would undermine it or incroach upon it 2. And are asserted in this Realm That there be due care for maintaining that fidelity in the subjects which is suitable hereunto And both these things are so far provided for in the Constitutions of our Church and Kingdom that the Royal Authority is therein fully acknowledged and asserted and all Ecclesiastical persons and together with them civil and military Officers besides divers other subjects of this Realm are required to yield to the King that authority and duty which consisteth chiefly in these two things 1. The asserting in the King the Supremacy of Government in all causes against the claim of any Foreign pretenders or any others and their engaging to maintain all those Royalties which belong to the Crown 2. That such a faithful Allegiance be performed to him as disclaimeth all right and power whether by pretended Papal Excommunication or otherwise to set free any of his subjects from their duty of Loyalty and obedience and particularly declareth it unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against him And of the matter of our publick acknowledgments which relate to these two heads I shall discourse concerning the former head in this Book and the latter in the second Book 5. The Supremacy of Government in the King of England over this Realm In our Statute Laws and all other his Dominions which is his just and undoubted right is plainly declared in our most solemn publick Constitutions both Civil and Ecclesiastical It was asserted in our Laws in the time of King Richard the Second 16 Ric. 2.5 that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalty of the same Crown and to none other And in the time of King Henry the Eighth 24 Hen. 8.12 it was declared in Parliament that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accounted in the world governed by one supreme Head and King having the dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a body politick of spiritualty and temporalty be bounden and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience And it is usual for the Lords and Commons jointly even in the framing Acts of Parliament to mention the King under the stile of Our Soveraign Lord the King which is obvious in our Statutes By out Laws also since the Reformation the usurpations which had incroached upon his Supremacy are discarded the ancient right of Jurisdiction restored to the Crown 1 Eliz. 1. and the Oath of Supremacy established wherein this Royal Authority is solemnly owned acknowledged and declared and which is taken by all the Clergy of England and many others 6. The Oath of Supremacy The Oath of Supremacy containeth in it three things 1. The asserting the Kings Highness to be the only supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal 2. A disowning and renouncing all foreign Jurisdiction and authority within this Realm 3. An engaging true allegiance to the King and his Successors and a defence of the Jurisdictions and pre-eminencies of the Crown The lawfulness fitness and reasonableness of which things as they are expressed in that Oath I am the more enclined carefully to consider Weights and Measures Ch. 20. because a very learned man too readily and unadvisedly expressed his dissatisfaction concerning some clauses thereof But as the two first things contained therein will be the chief matter of my discourse so under the first nothing else need be much enquired after save the supremacy of the King in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes 7. For that the Kings Majesty is in general the chief Governour of this Realm is as evident as that this is the Kingdom of England and it is as needless a thing to say any thing in proof thereof as to go about to prove the Sun to be risen at Noon-day For there is an actual constant visible exercise of this Government in such an ample manner as to extend it self to all persons whomsoever in the Realm and this authority is very plainly acknowledged and confirmed throughout the whole body of our English laws and the Constitution of the Kingdom And the Title of our present Soveraign is manifestly undoubted by clear succession and descent not only from the Kings since the Conquest but from those before it For Margaret the Heiress of the Saxon Kings was about the time of the Conquest married to Malcom King of Scotland from whence our Soveraign is descended and thereby M. Paris an 1067. as M. Paris expressed it Regum Angliae nobilitas ad reges devoluta est Scotorum 8. And Ecclesiastical Constitutions This Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical is frequently asserted in the Constitutions of our Church It is owned and declared in the Book of Articles Art 37. And the Canons of our Church not only acknowledge this Supremacy Can. 1. but also enjoin Ministers frequently to teach the same Can. 36. And they moreover require subscription thereunto according to the purport of the Oath of Supremacy from all persons who come to be ordained or to be admitted to any living or employment in the Church Can. 2. and denounce Excommunication ipso facto against all impugners thereof in causes Ecclesiastical SECT II. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 2 1. To prevent the inconveniency which ariseth from misunderstanding it is needful to consider what is meant by the phrase of supreme Governour Of Supreme Government which will easily be discerned if we first consider what is understood by Governing Now as Governing eâ—cludes a power of superiority over
authority of men the substance of which I have in another discourse taken notice of But this will be more apparently manifest from another position which I shall now reflect upon 2. It is asserted by them that if a Minister shall speak treason in his Pulpit by way of doctrine the Church only is to try whether it be treason indeed Ibid. Ch. 24. p. 551 552. The like Plea was used by A. Melvil a chief Modeller of the Scotish Presbytery in his own Case 1584. and he may decline the civil judg and appeal to a Synod This is not only affirmed by Mr Rutherford but this position was in an exceeding strange manner espoused by the General Assembly of the Kirk who contested with King James concerning it upon this occasion Mr D. Blake having in his Sermon at S. Andrews declared that the King had discovered the treachery of his heart That all Kings are the Devils Bearnes That the Queen of England Queen Elizabeth was an Atheist with many more dangerous assertions and being cited by the Kings authority to answer these things he alledged that he could not in this case be judged by the King till the Church had taken the first cognition thereof Spotsw Hist of Sc. l. 6. p. 330. And the Kirk-Commissioners enter a Declinator and Protestation against the Kings proceedings and would not consent that any punishment should be inflicted upon Mr Blake because there was no tryal before a proper judge and declared that if he should submit his doctrine to be tryed by the Council the liberty of the Church and the spiritual Government of the House of God Hist of Sc. l. 6. an 1596. would be quite subverted A full and particular account of this whole matter is expressed by Bishop Spotswood and this contest was so great and famous and the disturbances ensuing thereupon so notorious that they were thought fit to be signified to the States General of the united Provinces Adr. Damman in Praest Viror Epist p. 49. c. by their Agent then sent into Scotland in the entrance of 1597. But such positions and undertakings as these are calculated for a Meridian equal in Elevation with the Italian 3. One thing insisted on for this exemption of the Church and its Officers from the Civil Authority is that the Officers of the Church act by Authority from Christ and therefore are not to be in immediate subjection to Kings and Princes Chap. 6. Sect. 4. But this hath been particularly answered above 4. But they further argue Christs Royal Authority not invaded by Princes governing in causes Ecclesiasticale that it is the Royalty of Christ to Govern his Church in matters of Religion and if the Civil Rulers do intermeddle herein they thereby invade Christs Kingly Government To which I answer 1. That this way of arguing put into other language would amount to thus much That because Christ is the King of his Church or of all Christians yea and of all the earth therefore Christians and the whole World ought not to be subject to any other King or Ruler but to Christ And this would serve the design of the highest Fifth Monarchy men if it had any weight in it 2. It is a gross falshood that no act that Christ doth as King may be performed by any other King There are some great things in the Kingly power of Christ which are wholly incommunicable in the nature of them to any other human person whomsoever being founded on his Mediatory Office Such are his giving the Sanction to the Laws and Precepts of the Gospel to become the rule of the Christian Religion his Soveraign dispensing divine grace upon account of his own merits his pronouncing the final sentence of Absolution and Condemnation and his having by a peculiar right an Vniversal authority over all the World all power in heaven and earth being committed to him And all such things as these are as far disclaimed from Kings as from other men But there are other acts of Christs Government of his Church where some thing of like nature ought to be performed by others though in a different manner thus Christ ruleth Christians and so may all Christian Kings do Christ doth protect his Church and so ought all Soveraign Powers to do Christ by his Authority encourageth the pious and devout and discountenanceth the negligent and so ought all Rulers as well as all other good men to do by theirs 3. If governing others with respect to Religion were peculiar to Christ himself and his Royal Authority the authority of Ecclesiastical Officers would by this method become void also for Christ hath not conveyed the peculiarities of his Royal Authority to them But as they in their places have authority from Christ so the civil power is in subordination to him who is King of Kings and is confirmed by him 5. There have been also other very pernicious principles which undermine the whole foundation of the Royal Supremacy both in matters civil and Ecclesiastical In our late dreadful times of Civil War the whole management of things against the King and the undertaking to alter and order publick affairs without him was a manifest and practical disowning the Kings Supremacy Popular Supremacy disclaimed Some persons then who would be thought men of sense did assert that though the King was owned to be supreme Governour yet the supremest Soveraign power was in the people Others declared that the title of Supreme Governour was an honourary title given to the King to please him instead of fuller power And in the Issue July 17. 1649. by a pretended Act it was called Treason to say that the Commons assembled in Parliament were not the supreme authority of the Nation But there were also some who then affirmed the whole body of the people to be superiour to the Parliament and that they might call them to an account 6. But because I hope these positions are now forsaken and because much in the following Book is designed against the dangerous effect of them in taking Arms I shall content my self here to observe three things First that those who would disprove the Royal Supremacy because of some actions which have been undertaken by some of the people or by any in their name against their Kings or even to the deposing of them do first stand bound to prove all these actions to be regular and justifiable or else it is no better argument than they might make use of against the authority of God from the disobedience of men 7. Secondly The asserting supremacy of Government in the body of the people is a position big with nonsense and irreligion 'T is nonsense like a whole Army being General since Supremacy of Government in the whole body of the people can be over no body unless something could be supreme over it self whereas if there be no higher power than what is in the whole body of the people this must be a state of
taken that no acts of Ecclesiastical authority do render Soveraign Princes the more disrespected and disesteemed of their Subjects And upon this account also it is needful that all Ecclesiastical Officers do carefully avoid the suspicion of undermining the secular rights of Princes which hath been inordinately done in the Romish Church under the pretence of the power of the Keyes and of binding and loosing 15. And lastly and chiefly The manner of proceeding in the Sentence of Excommunication being ordinarily by a judicial process and a publick Judicial sentence and there being no Ecclesiastical Court or Person who hath any superiour power or authority over a Soveraign Prince to Command or Summon his appearing before them to answer to what shall be objected against him I cannot see how unless by his own consent he should become subject to such Judicial proceedings The Bishop of Rome did indeed presume to summon Kings before him but this was an high act of his Vsurpation Whereas according to the groundwork now laid a Soveraign Prince cannot by any coactive Ecclesiastical Power become subject to such a sentence and the open and outward proceedings therein But still Princes as well as any other persons must submit themselves to the power of the Keyes in undertaking the rules of repentance so far as they are needful for procuring the favour of God and obtaining the benefit of the Keyes by Absolution as was in a great part done in that memorable Case of Theodosius Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 17. Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 24. upon the sharp rebuke of S. Ambrose And though all Christians upon manifest evidence may in some Cases see cause to disown a Soveraign Prince as was done in Julian from being any longer a Member of the Christian Society yet in such Cases this Membership ceaseth and is forfeited by his own act and not properly by a Judicial sentence and formal Process Gr. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp 3. Qu. 15. Punct 3. And some of the Romish Writers go much this way in giving an account how the Bishop of Rome whom they suppose to be superiour to all men on Earth may be reason of Heresy or such Crimes be deprived of Christian Communion 16. Heresy doth not deprive men of all temporal rights Valent. T. 3. Disp 1. Qu. 10. P. 8. qu. 11. P. 3. qu. 12. p. 2. Concerning Heresy it might be sufficient in this Case to observe that those who in Communion with the Church of England embrace that true Christian Doctrine which was taught in the Primitive and Apostolical Church are as far from being concerned in the crime and guilt of Heresy as loyal Subjects are from being chargeable with Rebellion But that assertion which some Romish Writers embrace that Hereticks are ipso facto deprived of all temporal rights Layman The Mor. l. 2. Tr. 2. c. 16. and superiority etiam ante judicis sententiam say some is necessary to be rejected For this is a position that would ruine the Peace of the World when it would put every party upon seising the possessions of all whom they account Hereticks as having a just right so to do And this is certainly false because temporal Dominion is not originally founded in the entertaining the true Doctrine of Religion or the Faith of Christianity since S. Paul required subjection to the Pagan Rulers as being ordained of God Rom. 13.1 7. Had this been true the Scribes and Pharisees who were guilty of Heresy could not have sat in Moses Seat nor ought Constantius and Valens to have been acknowledged as they always were by the Christian Church for Soveraign Princes 17. That damnable doctrine and position Suar. in Reg. Brit. l. 6. c. 6. Vide Arnaldi Oration cont Jesuitas in Cur. Parlam Sixt. 5. in Orat. in Consist Rom. Comolet in Arnald Orat ubi sup which is abjured in the Oath of Allegiance as impious and heretical That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever is owned and asserted even with respect to the murdering them by several Popish Doctors and by some of them as a thing most highly meritorious Among whom also the murdering of Princes is approved if they be only thought remiss and not zealous in carrying on the interest of the Romish Church and on this account the horrid murther of Hen. 3. and Hen. 4. of France hath been applauded and commended by divers of them But the wickedness of all such assertions and practises will be abhorred by all loyal and Christian Spirits and will I hope be plainly manifested from the following part of this discourse 18. And whereas this Doctrine and Position is abjured as Heretical Of Heretical Doctrines the phrase Heretical must be here taken in a proper and strict sense But when the Scriptures or ancient Fathers speak of Heresy or Heretical Doctrines strictly and properly they thereby understand such Positions which under the profession of Christianity do so far oppose and undermine the true Christian Doctrine as to bring those who maintain and practise these things to the wayes of destruction Thus those Doctrines were by S. Peter esteemed damnable Heresies which were proposed by false Teachers and were pernicious and destructive both to them and to those who followed them Ignat. ad Trallian 2 Pet. 2.1 2 3. Ignatius also describeth Heresy to be a strange Herb no Christian food which joineth the name of Christ with corrupt doctrines quae inquinatis implicat Jesum Christum in the Latin published by Bishop Vsher by which the Medicean Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is certainly amiss and concerning which both Vossius and P. Junius add their different conjectures may be corrected for that Copy out of which this Latin was translated seemeth to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as they who give a deadly poyson with wine and honey which may please and yet kill And Tertullian accounted such assertions to be Heresy as undermine the Faith Tert. de Praescript c. 2 5. and lead to eternal death and where the Teachers of them though they profess the name of Christ do corrupt his Doctrine and are Adulteri Evangelizatores In like manner S. Austin owneth him to be an Heretick Aug. de Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. who under the Christian name resisteth the Christian Doctrine and persisteth in maintaining dogmata pestifera mortifera pestilent and deadly opinions And when Aquinas treated of Heresy 22ae q. 11. a. 2. o. he declared that the import thereof is the corruption of the Christian Faith Nor would it be difficult to add a numerous Company of approved Writers to the same purpose 19. Doctrines allowing Subjects or others to depose or murther Princes are Heretical Now since the Popes depriving power hath been disproved this Position here abjured is not only false but according to this notion of Heresy it is
of their duty in loyal obedience And indeed it would be an high reflexion on the Laws of our Realm if such things as these should be acknowledged to be matters of such a perplexed intricacy that honest and indifferent minds who stand obliged to the practice of peace and loyalty should not without consulting skillful Lawyers be able to understand the general rule of thier duty and to whom they ought to yield obedience and submission 12. Besides the words of this publick Declaration and acknowledgment against lawfulness of taking Armes which yet might be accounted sufficient in the Statutes in the time of King Edw. the third â—t Edw. 3.2 it is declared without allowance of any case or pretence to the contrary to be treason if any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere 13 Car. 2.1 And since the restauration of his present Majesty it is also in general terms declared treason to levy War against the King within the Realm or without And to cut off all pretences either from the nature of the War as defensive only or from the authority of a Parliament or of the Lrods or commons we have in two several Statutes this Declaration 13 Car. 2.6 that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive 14 Car. 2.3 against his Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors In which Statutes also the sole supreme Command and Government of the Militia is declared by the Law of England ever to be the undoubted right of his Majesty and his Predecessors Kings and Queens of England 13. And from the Declaration and evidence of these Laws that Plea which hath been made from the Authority of Grotius becomes wholly void Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. That learned man indeed did assert that if the supreme Government be part in the people or Senate and part in the King if the King invade what is not his right he may be opposed with just force because he hath not so far any Supremacy And this he thinks must take place though it be said that the power of War is in the King for that saith he is only to be understood of Foreign War when whosoever hath any pat in the supreme power cannot but have a right to defend that part But these words seem very strange and inconsiderate from so intelligent a person if they be intended as they seem to be concerning one simple and unmixt supremacy For to assert two capacities where each hath authority to make War with the other is not to found one only regular Government but to erect two distinct Governments each of which have a supreme power of judging and of execution Indeed in such a mixt and divided Government as is in the German Empire it is allowed by the Constitutions and Capitulations of the Empire that the several Principalities or rather the Princes and Governours thereof have a power of taking Armes if their rights be invaded by the Emperour but then these Princes in their own territories enjoy a right of peculiar Soveraignty But if the whole of this notion of Grotius be taken together it will according to his judgment conclude that the people of England Lords Commons or both jointly have no part in the supreme power because these publick Laws declare that they have no power of making so much as a defensive War against the King 14. And if we look into the Records of the former Ages we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an Authority to bear Armes against the King To which purpose it may be sufficient to consider the Conclusion of the Barons Wars in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the Third Very many of the Peers and chief Barons of the Realm undertook to make War with the King under the Conduct of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester M. Par. An. 1264. whom M. Paris calls Baronum Capitaneum and after several Battels had been fought the Kings person was seized and taken at Lewis And not long after this Idem an 1265. the King Summons a Parliament at Winchester in which all those who acted under or with Simon de Montfort are disinherited Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. p. 31. which act of disinheriting is reported to have been confirmed in a following Parliament at Westminster But in order to the setling the State of the Realm upon more mild and gentle terms by agreement between the King and the Barons a Plenipotentiary Power was delegated and committed to twelve Peers that they might establish what they thought fit and convenient concerning them who thus stood disinherited 15. These twelve published their determination An. 51 H. 3. Dict. de Kenilw. c. 2. which had the force of a Law under the name of Dictum de Kenilworth In which it was concluded that they who had been engaged in Armes against the King unless the King had pardoned them should pay the revenue of their lands for five years And they who had no Lands were to give their own Oath and to find other Sureties for their peaceable behaviour and also make such satisfaction and undergo such pennance as the Church should appoint Ibid. c. 9. And that they who were Tenants should lose their right in their Farms C. 11. saving the right of their Lords And that they who by their perswasion did instigate any to fight against the King should forfeit the profit of their Lands for two years with many other provisions for particular Cases And they also determined that if any persons should refuse these terms which were proposed as a favourable mitigation of strict justice they should be de exhaeredatis C. 29. and have no power of recovering their Estates But some persons and particularly Simon de Montfort himself C. 21. was excluded from these terms of favour and left to the ordinary proceedings of justice in manus Regis Now those practises and enterprises which were so publickly censured condemned and punished by our Parliaments and proceedings of justice must needs be accounted by them unlawful actings 16. In the year following An. 52 Hen. 3. the Statute of Marlbridge mentions it St. Marlbridge c. 1. as a great and heavy mischief and evil that in the time of the late troubles in England many Peers and others refused to receive justice from the King and his Court as they ought to have done which is more expresly contained in the Original Latine than in the common English Translation justitiam indignati fuerint recipere per Dominum Regem curiam suam prout debuerunt consueverunt and did undertake to vindicate their own causes of themselves Now to declare that all Peers and all other persons ought to have
Reg. ubi sup And this absurd assertion hath put those Christian Writers who close with it upon unreasonable shifts for the defence thereof And for the reconciling this with the dignity of a King many of them make this their last refuge that this scourging amongst the Jews Grot. de Jur. Bel. pac ubi sup was without any note of infamy or disgrace and was voluntarily to be submitted to by their Kings as an act of penance and not of force But this answer stands chargeable with a twofold miscarriage 1. With a contradiction to the design of them who urge it and a giving up their cause for if there be nothing in it of disgrace it cannot be inflicted as a censure and the publick punishment of a fault and if it be undertaken only of voluntary choice and not of force then is it not the result of the sentence of a superiour Synedrial authority 2. This would also conclude that many considerable offenders who were to be punished with scourging as by the custom of the Jews according to the cases mentioned by Maimonides Maimon n. 134 135 156. he that curseth his neighbour in the name of Jehovah he that is guilty of perjury and he that commits whoredome and by the law of God the unfree woman who played the whore being betrothed Lev. 19.20 were free from all penalty and disgrace though the divine law Deut. 25.3 peculiarly mentions this punishment as infamous Wherefore these traditions are so absurd that Petitus justly affirmed Petit. Diatribe de Jure pr. c. 2. istam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animo tantum conceperunt nulli principes eo jure regnarunt that no King of Judah with this manacled authority ever reigned any where else but in the fancies and pens of these Jewish Writers and their followers 10. Now a position so strange in it self and which puts men of learning upon such difficult service and hard shifts to bear it up had need bring with it very clear evidence if it expect to be entertained But in this case Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 9. n. 2. Mr Selden who is forward enough to embrace the notions of the Rabbins after he had represented what is usually said was so far in doubt of the truth that he saith hac in re nihil omnino definimus Schick ubi sup And Schickard who largely asserteth this synedrial power confesseth that he could not meet with any one instance of its having ever been reduced to practice And those who have ventured either at instances or arguments have greatly miscarried therein 11. Two instances by some have been produced only to shew that Kings have been cited before the Jewish Sanhedrim The one of Herod the King An. 31. n. 1◠mentioned by Baronius but it is strange to see how pitifully he mistakes the case or else imposeth upon his Reader For it is plain from Josephus whence he hath this story that Herod was then no King of Judea nor was he cited by the Sanhedrim but by Hyrcanus Ant. Jud. l. 14. c. 17. who was then King by the Roman authority And it is much that the Cardinal should not consider that if Herod after he was King of Judea by the Roman right was under the Jurisdiction of the standing Jewish Synedrial authority the consequence must be that the Jews then were Governours over the Romans and their power but were in no subjection to them which besides the credit of History herein concerned he who acknowledgeth Christ crucified cannot admit 12. Another instance is mentioned of Jannaeus the King who is said to have been cited by the Sanhedrim upon account of a servant of his being charged with murder This instance in his second thoughts Schick append in Carpzov p. 152 153. Schickard preferreth to the former Now if this had been true concerning Jannaeus it would be of no great moment since he lived under the lapsed state of the Jews and had the name but not the authority and dignity of a King But this story is manifestly fictitious is stiled by Salmasius nugae fabulae Rabbinicae is not at all mentioned by Josephus Defens Reg. c. 2. p. 49. or any good Historian and also brings in the Angel Gabriel to bear a part in it by coming then into the Senate and destroying all the assessors thereof And this story is taken out of the Gemara where the whole Section is evidently vain and frivolous Gemar in Sanhed c. 2. Sect. 1. as amongst other things may appear from the way of its arguing in this matter which I shall presently take notice of Besides this I shall add that so much as hath any truth in this relation is very probably a kind of fabulous representation of the former instance of Herod under different names and circumstances For both of them are said to be cited upon occasion of some persons being put to death both the stories say that upon their appearance the whole Court whether properly the Sanhedrim or Hyrcanus his Judges called by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spake not a word against them save only one bold man and that thereupon all the rest besides this man were after put to death And this man is called Sameas or Shammai in the one story and Simeon in the other which I conceive to be one and the same name in a different Dialect Grot. in Mat. 16.17 Drus Praet in Joh. 21.15 Hor. Hebr. in Joh. 11.1 in Luk. 16.20 even as Johannes Johanan and Jonah in likelyhood are the vulgar latin expressing Jonas by Johannes Joh. 21.15 And so are Lazarus and Eleazar and many others whence the Ethiopick Version instead of Lazarus constantly useth Eleazar Luk. 16. and Joh. 11. and that they are one and the same name hath been clearly evinced To which I add submitting these conjectures to the judgments of others that the name of Jannaeus or Jannas might possibly be made use of in this Talmudical relation from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the Hebrew and Chaldee for one injurious and oppressive 13. How extream vainly they argue in this particular will appear from that noted instance of the Talmud Sanh c. 2. Sect. 2. The Mishneh had declared that the King neither judgeth nor is judged which it manifestly expresseth concerning the Kings of the line of David nor doth it intend to deny them the authority of judging because the same Treatise affirms C. 7. Sect. 3. capital punishments by the sword to be inflicted by the King but that they did not usually in person sit in any Court or Consistory Gemara ubi sup But the Gemara here being a Comment which contradicteth the Text telleth us that this sentence The King doth not judge nor is judged doth not belong to the Kings of the House of David for they did both judge and were judged And the proof it produceth that they were judged is from Jer. 21.12
Bertram ibid. this which is also improved by some in favour of the highest sort of Presbyterian Consistories and against the supremacy of the King in matters of the Church is necessary to be rejected concerning which it will be sufficient to note two things 7. First That this hath no foundation in the Jewish Writers according to whom it is not to be doubted but that in the declining time of their state they had only one Great Sanhedrin which took cognisance both of chief civil and Ecclesiastical causes And the asserting of two such properly distinct Synedrial Courts is justly exploded by Grotius Gr. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 5. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26. v. 3. Selden Dr Lightfoot and others well acquainted with Jewish learning And what number soever they had of particular Consistories the Royal power hath been sufficiently proved supreme as well in causes Ecclesiastical as Civil 8. Secondly The pretended proofs from Scripture upon which they who embrace this conceit do build are very weak Some persons would find an evidence for a divine appointment of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of 71. in Exod. 24.1 where God said unto Moses Jus divin Regim Eccl Part. 2. ch 12. Come up thou and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the Elders of Israel unto the Lord and worship ye afar off And yet here is nothing at all mentioned concerning any Consistory or power of Government nor is it usual to account seventy four persons to be but seventy one 9. Others as L'empereur and Rutherford L'emp in Annot. in Bertr in Comment in Middoth ubi supra Rutherf Div. Right of Ch. Gov. ch 23. p. 505. insist on Deut. 17.8 12. where a Court of Appeales in difficult cases is established and the Law declares If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroke and stroke being matters of controversy between thy gates then thou shalt arise and go to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and which Particle some render or unto the Judge Now all the force of argument from this place for two distinct Consistories is that here is mention both of the Priests and of the Judge But this Text gives sufficient intimation that here is only one chief Court designed and that with particular respect to matters of civil cognisance which might consist of Ecclesiastical or secular persons or rather of both Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. Josephus tells us there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Assembly the High Priest the Prophet and the Company of Elders meeting together And the Law of Moses did also expresly require concerning one and the same case Deut. 19.16 17. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the Lord before the Priests and the Judges which shall be in those days and the Judges shall make diligent inquisition And how the Priest might sometimes be particularly concerned in the enquiry about civil Cases and matters of trespass and injury may be observed from 1 Kin. 8.31 32. 10. Another place frequently alledged for this Ecclesiastical Sanhedrim distinct from the civil is the constitution of Jehosaphat 2 Chr. 19 8.-11 which is ordinarily called the restoring the Synedrial Government Grot. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. Joseph Antiq. l. 9. c. 1. But Grotius doth with considerable probability deny that two Courts were here appointed and Josephus whom he cited seemeth to be of the same mind And I think it sufficient to add that since two distinct Courts do not appear enjoined by the Law of Moses and since David and Jehosaphat did differently model their Courts of Judicature in complyance with the end and design of the Law of Moses 1 Chr. 26 29-32 2 Chr. 19 8-11 it is not to be doubted but this modelling was performed by their own prudence and Royal authority But that here was no such Sanhedrim erected as is pretended is the more manifest because I have given plain evidence that both before and after Jehosophats time the power claimed at peculiar to them was exercised by the King Nor could the act of Jehosophat give any Court an original sanction as from the Law of Moses nor ought it to be imagined that he invested them with any power paramount to the Royal by which they were constituted 11. And now again I think it not unmeet to apologize for the length of this discourse concerning the Synedrial power which is much larger than I could have desired it to have been And yet considering how great the mistakes of very many Christian Writers are in this particular and to what ill purposes this errour hath been by some abused both for the subverting the Royal and Ecclesiastical Government I thought it useful to add this Chapter in this place and to say so much therein as would be sufficient with impartial men for the refuting over-grown mistakes And this I have done the rather P. de Marc. Proleg p. 23 24 25. because one of the most ingenuous Romanists lately though he mention other Pleas doth insist on this as a chief one against the admitting that Royal Supremacy asserted in the Church of England to be proved from the Authority of Princes under the Old Testament because he tells us the King then in all difficult Cases must depend on this great Sanhedrin And this he there insists upon with particular opposition to the Anglobritanni or the positions concerning the due authority of Princes which are asserted in the Church of England CHAP. IV. Arguments for Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical from the nature of Soveraignty and the doctrine of Christianity with an enquiry how far Princes who are not of the Church may claim and use this authority SECT I. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign power Sect. I 1. IN considering the nature of civil Government Princes as Gods Ministers must take care of his honour and Religion we may in the first place reflect upon the original thereof It is derived from and appointed by God who as Creator and Lord of all hath the highest right to rule and govern the whole World Hence the Apostle calleth Government an Ordinance of God and Rulers his Ministers Rom. 13.1 2 3. who are also stiled Children of the most high Ps 82.6 And that this is a divine institution was constantly acknowledged by the ancient Christians notwithstanding their persecution from the civil powers as is manifest from many expressions to that purpose B. I. C. 4 Tertul. Apol c. 36. ad Scap. c. 2. Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Tertullian Dionysius Alexandrinus and others of which thing I shall discourse more in another place Wherefore Rulers ought to
that the Popes usurped power was not so quietly and freely submitted to in this Realm as thereby to give him any right to govern here SECT III. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates 1. The bounds of Patriarchal Authority altered The third Assertion is That the Patriarchal rights especially those of Rome do not now stand on the same terms as they did in the ancient Church nor can the present Roman Bishop claim subjection in all those limits which of right were under the ancient and Catholick Bishops of Rome No man can reasonably think that the bounds of the Patriarchal Sees were unalterable unless they had been of a divine or Apostolical Authority But that they were never looked upon as such in the Catholick Church may besides other testimonies appear in that the General Councils undertook to erect Patriarchates and to divide the limits of others as they saw cause Sect. 3 Thus the dignity and honour of a Patriarch was given to the Bishop of Constantinople Conc. Const c. 3. in the second General Council and his Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction were fixed in the fourth and in the same the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided and part thereof allotted to the Bishop of Jerusalem who then received Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. But I shall only consider four things which may so alter the state of Patriarchal Jurisdictions that every one of them besides what is abovesaid is a bar against all claim of authority in the Bishop of Rome to these Churches and Realms 2. First from the different territories 1. From the different bounds of free Kingdoms and Dominions of Soveraign Kings and Princes For the doctrine and design of Christianity did not intend to undermine and enervate but to establish and secure the right of Kings and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free Kingdoms to devest themselves of sufficient means to preserve their own security and peace and the necessary administration of justice Nor can the former acts of any Councils or Bishops wheresoever any such were give away the rights of Kings and Realms But a Foreign Bishop who is under no Allegiance to this Crown and hath no particular obligation to seek the good of this Kingdom Mischiefs from Foreign Jurisdiction may probably oft incline to designs either of his own ambition or the interests of other Princes against the true welfare of this Realm as hath sufficiently been done in the Court of Rome And if such an one hath power to cite before him any person whomsoever of this Realm either to his Patriarchal Seat or his Legate and hath the authority without all redress or appeal save to an Oecumenical Council which probably will never be had to inflict so severe a sentence as Excommunication truly is he would hereby have a considerable awe and curb upon many of the subjects of the Realm that they would be wary of opposing or provoking him And if Canonical obedience were due to him from all the Clergy and filial reverence from the laiety such a person being the Kings Enemy may have greater opportunity of indirect managing his ill projects than is consistent with the safety of the Realm or with the innocency and goodness of the Christian Religion to promote 3. The exercise of a foreign authority when managed by haughty and ambitious spirits hath been of such ill consequence to Kings and Emperours that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his Crown to the Popes Legate Henry the Third Emperour of Germany Mart. Polon in Greg. Sept. p. 361. was compelled to stand at the Popes Gate barefoot several dayes n frost and snow to beg for absolution and Frederick the First to submit to Pope Alexander treading upon his neck And other instances there are of like nature of the despising Dominions and Dignities being the effects of Interdicts and Romish Excommunications Towards the whole Kingdom St. 25 Hen. 8.21 it becomes a method of exhausting its treasure by tedious and expensive prosecution of appeals and many other ways which were not without cause publickly complained of in this Kingdom Antiq. Brit. p. 178. insomuch that the yearly revenue of the Court of Rome out of this Kingdom was in the time of Henry the Third found to be greater than the revenue of the King And it is an high derogation from the Soveraignty of a King as well as a prejudice to the subjects where justice cannot be effectually administred and Cases of right determined by any authority within his own Dominions And with respect to the Clergy Pryn An. 24 25 Edw. 1. p. 689 c. the Foreign Jurisdiction sometimes brought them into great straits as did that Bull of Boniface the Eighth which put them to avoid his Excommunication upon contesting with the King and thereby brought them under the Kings displeasure and into very great grievances as appears from the Records of that time 4. And as upon these accounts it appears reasonable and necessary that the Dominions of Soveraign Princes should be free from any Foreign Ecclesiastical superiority so there are many things which may be observed to this purpose in the ancient state of the Church The Government of Dioceses Provinces and Patriarchates hath been acknowledged to have been ordered within the Empire and according to the distinct limits of the Provinces thereof Conc. Const c. 3. Chalc. c. 28. Conc. Chalc. c. 17. Trul. c 38. The Sees of Rome and Constantinople enjoyed the greatest Ecclesiastical priviledges because they were the Imperial Cities The Canons also of Oecumenical Councils enjoined that if any City receive new priviledges of honour by the Imperial authority the Ecclesiastical Constitutions for the honour of its See shall be regulated thereby And whereas the Slavonian Churches were first Converted to Christianity by them who were of the Eastern or Greek Church and embraced their Rites when Bohemia and some other branches of the Slavonian Nations were made members of the German Empire they thereupon became subject to the Government of the Western Church Thus also when the Bishop of Arles had an eminent authority in the ancient Gallia Comâ— Hist n 18. upon that City being divided from those Dominions and becoming subject to the Goths who then Commanded Italy and Spain he exercised no longer any Jurisdiction there but had his authority changed to be Delegate over the Spanish Territories but when this City was again reduced to the French Government he no longer exercised his authority in the Dominions of Spain 5. Yet it must be acknowledged that in practice the Dominions of several Soveraign Princes have been subject to a Foreign Patriarch which was not their duty But this was undertaken either upon presumption that because of the excellency and simplicity of the Christian Religion there could be no fear of prejudice from
shall stand in the way of such an ill-designing party of men or shall displease them may easily be charged with treason and thereby be cut off upon pretence of opposing the Laws and Government when the very discharge of honesty and integrity may be so accounted 4. Thirdly They who made use of this Position did give the World sufficient proof that it was only a designed pretence to serve a present turn For when in our late sad commotions they used the Plea of the Kings Authority in acting against his person before they had murthered his person they then laid aside also all pretence of reverent regard to the Kings Authority and by several Acts as they were called Acts May 19. 1649. and of Treason July 17. 1649. declare the supreme authority of England to be in the Commons not at all regarding this Ideal Authority of the King which if they had been true to their own notion must have been acknowledged still remaining And they then required the Engagement to be taken to be true and faithful not to the Kings Laws and Government according to their own Idea but to the Common-wealth of England without King c. Which is evidence enough that those men intended as much to act against and oppose the true Regal dignity and authority as the person of that excellent Prince and that this distinction was not only void of truth and justice in it self but of honesty and good meaning also in these contriving men who were the maintainers of it 5. The last part of this Clause of the acknowledgment Taking Arms against them who are Commissionated by the King unlawful hath respect to them who are commissionated by the King the sense of which must be measured from the intent and tendency thereof which is to secure the Kings safety and Government and to maintain the Subjects true allegiance and fidelity And therefore I doubt not to aver that the use of quirks and niceties Manual p. 102. in supposing some extraordinary Cases which are inconsistent with these duties and which we may well presume or hope may never be in act ought not to be considered in making this acknowledgment Wherefore to supppose that the person of any King of England should be violently surprized and seised by any seditious and ill-designing men which I trust will never come to pass and they should by force or fraud extort Commissions from him against his loyal Subjects and Friends this acknowledgment concerning the ordinary duty of Subjects doth not take in such extraordinary fictions of imaginary Cases which are not fit to be supposed but they who are the Kings regular Officers ought to resist such evil men who offer violence to his person for the good both of the King and Kingdom 6. And also that Case which some put of the King granting a Commission against the legal power which he hath committed to a Sheriff or against any other Commission which himself hath given and doth continue to other Officers is such an unreasonable and undutiful supposition of cross Commissions which no good subject ought to make or to consider in this acknowledgment Only in such an extraordinary Case where any persons whosoever in any Office or Commission shall become Authors or Abetters of Sedition or Robellion and oppose the Kings Authority and Government it is reasonable to be expected that the King will grant Commissions to suppress and reduce them And since no Office or Commission either can or is intended to warrant any man to act against his Loyalty and Allegiance such revolting Officers ought to be opposed by them who are impowered and commanded by their Prince so to do nor is it to be supposed that this acknowledgment doth at all assert the contrary But the true sense of this clause is that it is a traiterous design and therefore to be abhorred for the Kings Subjects without any command from their Prince to take Arms against those who act by vertue and in pursuance of his Commission regularly granted to them And that these words of this acknowledgment may be reasonably taken in this fair and just sense is evident from the result of what I have above discoursed B. 1. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. concerning the sense and interpretation of such publick Declarations 7. And it was reasonable for the avoiding evasions that this acknowledgment condemning the taking Armes against them who are Commissionated by the King should be declared in such general termes If only taking Armes against the Kings person should be disclaimed in a strict sense then the fighting the Kings Armies destroying his Subjects resisting his Government and those who are invested with his Authority which are the usual methods of the most open and daring Enemies would not be provided against But these are the highest oppositions against the King which the most disloyal Subjects can ordinarily make by taking up Armes who cannot probably act immediately against his person unless they can first vanquish those loyal subjects who are his strength and defence Fourth Sermon before King Edw. 6. Bishop Latimer tells us that when he was in the Tower a Lord who had been engaged in Rebellion told him If I had seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field against us I would have lighted from my Horse and taken my Sword by the point and yielded it into his hands To whom the Bishop replied It hath been the cast of all Traitors to pretend nothing against the Kings person subjects may not resist any Magistrate nor do any thing contrary to the Kings Law And the Imperial Law declares that all and every of them are Rebels or Traitors who in any wise publickly or secretly Extravag Henr. 7. Tit. 2. do the works of Rebellion against our honour or their fealty and do enterprise any thing against the welfare of our Empire contra nos seu officiales nostros in iis quae ad commissum eis officium pertinent rebellando by rebelling or taking Arms against us or our Officers in those things which belong to the office committed to them CHAP. II. The Laws of Nature and of general Equity and the right grounds of humane polity do condemn all subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign power SECT I. The preservation of peace and common rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Prince and Governour Sect. 1 1. THose Laws do carry along with them the strongest obligation which are not only established by a positive constitution but are also inforced by the common and necessary Rules of justice truth righteousness and order Rules of common equity are against Subjects taking Arms. Bishop Ferne Episcop and Presbyter considered For here is a joint tye from the Bond of obedience to Superiours of Religion to God and of the general Principles of equity and reason Of this nature is the duty of non-resistance against Soveraign Rulers which our Laws establish And the doctrine of our Church doth
one or more Medin in 1. 2ae qu. 90. Art 2. And Medina declares that Principes si legitimi sunt habent authoritatem jus Dominandi à Republica lawful Princes have their authority and right of Governing from the Common-wealth 6. The ill consequences they hence deduce And from this very principle the same sort of Writers do also grant and assert the lawfulness of the people resisting their King by force Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 19. in necessary Cases Bellarmine allows that the political head may be deposed by the people because he depends on them and receives his power from them Gr. de Val. T. 3. Qu. 1. Disp 1. Punc 7. div 45. Greg. de Valentia affirms that the secular Prince having his power from the community over which he is from hence it is that he is above any parts of the community but not above the whole community jointly considered at least he is not so in all cases Hence also Navarrus asserted that the people did never so give over their power unto the King but that they retain it to themselves in the habit that in some certain Cases they may also receive it again in act Mariana de Rege Reg. insist l. 1. c. 6. And Mariana affirms that the Royal power having its birth from the Common-wealth there is reserved in it a power of deposing the King and making War against him and if it be necessary destroying him with the Sword And he adviseth as the safest course that such an ill governing Prince should be declared a common Enemy in a publick convention and then he allows it lawful for any private man to kill him but if there can be no such publick Assembly if it be according to the common vote of the people he commends the wicked attempts of such as would take away his life as if such horrid enterprises were famous atchievements 7. There are also other new Modellers whose Positions founded upon the same bottom of Princes having their power from the people are very dangerous to Government The like dangerous Positions of other extravagant Writers Such persons I mean as Mr Hobbs and the Author of the Tractatus Theologico-politicus for though these men seemingly yield a great Authority to the Prince yet building upon a wrong and rotten foundation they afford him no further security in his Government than is the effect of his mere strength and power The Tractatus Theologico-politicus owneth Dominion to be founded in mens resigning up their own rights to another by pacts But besides other things the admitting these two assertions in that Discourse will be sufficient to manifest the instability of any Government where those Positions are embraced For as he asserteth that naturally there is nothing unlawful which any man can desire and obtain so 1. he sayes Pactum nullam vim habere posse nisi ratione utilitatis qua sublata pactum tollitur irritum manet which is as much as to say that Subjects are no further bound to submission Tract The-pol Cap. 16. p. 254. p. 256. V. p. 262. than till they can propose to themselves an advantage by Rebellion And since no rebellion was ever undertaken in the World but upon the proposal of some advantage to the undertakers those evil men must be justified as having a right to do what they did according to this pernicious Principle Ib. p. 259. V. p. 261 257 258. 2. It is there also asserted Summis potestatibus hoc jus quicquid velint imperandi c. The right of commanding what they please doth only so long belong to the supreme powers as they indeed have the highest or greatest power but if they lose that they lose also the right of commanding all and this right falls upon him or them who gain the greatest power and are able to keep it Which words do make void all true and proper right of Princes and leave them no other foundation to support their Government but their present possession of power which if any other person can possess himself of he therewith hath the right also 8. And though Mr Hobbs sometimes hath over-large expressions concerning the power of Governours yet he having before laid the same foundation for the original of political Government doth also undermine the safety and stability of Governours and Government 1 By asserting Leviath Cap. 14. p. 67 68 70. That these pacts are so reciprocal that they who yield up their right do it for the receiving good thereby and the end of pacts being the preservation of life and of such things as conduce thereto jus contra vim se defendendi necessariò retinetur and any pact to give up the power of defending ones self against Death Wounds or Imprisonment must be void being against that self-preservation which is the end of these pacts And these general Positions and grounds concerning pacts will destroy either the nature or at least the security of that power which in words he otherwhere yields to Governours 2. Because according to his frame and model there can be no foundation laid for these pacts becoming obligatory further than the mere fear of external coactive power can enforce the observation of them Ibid. c. 14. p. 67 71. Cap. 17. p. 83. Cap. 18. p. 87. For as he sometimes tells us that these pacts do not oblige in their own nature but from the fear of loss and the punishment from a visible power so since he asserts that in the state or condition of liberty antecedently to these pacts Justice equity or doing to others as they would they should do to them Had no place nor were men any ways obliged to observe them it is impossible there should be any obligation introduced upon men according to this method to perform their pacts save only from fear of external force Tract The. -pol p. 254. For as the Tractator doth expresly allow fraud and deceit in that imaginary state of liberty the consequence of which will be that they may deal falsly in their pacts so the Leviathan model must according to the principles there laid allow the same P. 71. And though he sometimes speaks of the confirming these pacts by Oaths and the fear of a Deity yet this can add nothing to the obligation upon the principles of the Leviathan because the fear of God only obligeth men to do their duty but doth not deny them the use of their liberty in other things But as these Positions are framed upon such suppositions as look upon man in his begining to stand without due respect to God and the rules and notions of good and evil so the dangerous aspect they have on peace and Government doth speak the folly of them and they will be sufficiently in this particular confuted by asserting the divine original of Soveraignty 9. But it seemeth most strange De Jur. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. that the Learned
to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Anointed And behold as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulation 9. When the seventh Psalm was penned whose Title is concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite Chald. Par. Vers Vulg. Grot. Vatabl Munst in loc some ancient Versions expresly refer this to Saul the Son of Kish And many good Expositors do with much reason judge that when David was accused by Saul himself of lying in wait against him 1 Sam. 22.8 and by others of seeking his hurt Ch. 24.9 David in this Psalm under the Conduct of Gods Infallible Spirit declareth His Abhorrence of such things as being very wicked and deserving severe punishment in these words O Lord my God if I have done this if there be iniquity in my hands If I have rewarded evil to him that was at peace with me Yea I have delivered him that without cause was mine Enemy Let the Enemy persecute my Soul and take it c. v. 3 4 5. And even they who rather interpret the Title to relate to the words of Shimei must grant the like sense to be intended in these verses 10. And lest any should think He here acted not the Politician but observed the rules of Conscience Davids expressions and especially his killing the Amalekite to be the actions of a Politician for the better securing his own Government though this be sufficiently refuted in what I have said above I further add 1. That he had plainly declared the Sin and Guiltiness of disloyal Acts of violence at such times when mere Policy if considered as abstract from Duty might have prompted him to free himself from a potent deadly irreconcilable Enemy and thereby to gain the Possession of the Crown 2. That if David had shed the blood of the Amalekite without respect unto justice and only to strike an awe into others whilst he believed he did not deserve death this had been a designedly contrived wilful murder to gratifie his own lust and would have been a sin at least as deeply dyed as the Murder of Vriah which yet with its attendants is accounted the singular stain and blemish in the Life of David 1 Kin. 15.5 And therefore Davids Deportment in things towards Saul was Gr. Nys ubi sup c. 17. as Gr. Nyssen expresseth it because he judged it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an unlawful and unjust thing to have done otherwise and what he said and did was in the fear of God SECT III. Objections from the behaviour of David answered 1. It may be first objected Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Ruth of Civ Pol. Qu. 31. Qu. 10. that Davids Carriage reacheth not so far as to condemn all taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince but only such force where assaults are made or violence offered unto his Person and towards such a Person too who was particularly anointed by Gods especial Command Ans 1. The words of David do indeed directly condemn hostile Acts against the Person of the King But his proceeding upon this ground because Saul was the Lords anointed or one appointed by Gods Authority and invested with his Power David not only repressed violence against the person of Saul but reverenced his authority must also condemn acts of violence against his Power and Authority derived from God 2. Forcible opposing the Kings strength doth naturally tend to expose his Person also to violence for if his strength be subdued what defence remains for his Person against the fury of his Enemies or the rage of Assailants we may learn from the History of our Civil Wars and our late good Soveraign But David whose heart smote him for cutting off the lap of Saul's Garment whereby he might fall under some appearance of dishonour or disgrace would much more avoid what might bring him into real danger And it is very considerable that when David had the opportunity of coming upon Saul and his Army when God had cast them all into a deep sleep he not only spared Sauls Person but did not offer any violence to any single man in the whole Army 1 Sam. 26.7 8 12 16. 2. And 3. there could be nothing more contained under the Rite of anointing by Gods Command than to express in the first fixing a Governour or Government that this was appointed and approved by God Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 7. To which purpose Josephus who was well acquainted with the sence of the Jewish Phrases doth give such Paraphrases of the Lords anointed as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who was by God advanced to the Kingdome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one ordained of God and in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to anoint is in 2 Sam. 3.39 rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to constitute And it was not so much the use of any outward anointing by a Prophet or any other as the Authority ordained of God which was chiefly to be considered in them who were acknowledged to be the Lords Anointed Enxt. Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schickard de J. R. Heb. c. 1. Theor. 4. Abarb. in Ex. 30. de Unct. c. 8. For Cyrus was called the Lords Anointed though no such Unction was used among the Persians Isai 45.1 And in the Kingdom of Judah Maimonides and other Jewish Writers tell us that no King was anointed who was the Son of a King and came to the Crown by manifest and undoubted Succession and yet these Kings such as Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah were nevertheless to be honoured Only Salomon Joash and Jehoahaz were anointed because of some different claims of succession or interruption of the true right but not by any special divine command But all other Power and Authority as well as that of Saul is ordained of God Rom. 13.1 2. 3. But the chief thing here objected is De jure Magis in subdit qu. 6. that there are appearances of evidence that David did take up Armes against Saul and undertook the defence of himself by force and three things are alledged in proof hereof Grot. ubi sup Quò nisi ad vim arcendam si inferretur The first thing produced is that David was Captain over four hundred men 1 Sam. 22.2 and then over six hundred Ch. 23.13 and a far greater number came to him to Ziklag who were called helpers of the War 〈◊〉 Chr. 12.1 And Mr Rutherford again and again saith Ruth of Civ Pol. Qu. 32. that these Armed men who came to Ziklag came to help David against Saul but the Scripture saith not so Ans 1. David having been a person of chief eminency both in Sauls Court Davids six hundred men not intended to make War against Saul and the Armies of Israel and being Son-in-law to the King and
The truth of what appears concerning Davids intention relating to Keilah is this that David purposed to have made some stay in that place which he had then rescued from their Besiegers the Philistines But understanding that Saul intended to destroy that place if they should harbour him and not seize on him and that they for their own security would hinder his further escape if he should continue there and would lay hold on him and deliver him up to Saul he timely prevented this danger by a speedy removal Ch. 23 7-12 SECT IV. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered 1. Among other Objections I shall not need to take notice in this place of the pretences for a constant power among the Jews superiour to the Regal The Romanists indeed are sometimes forward to assert the Priest to have been above the King as Bellarmine affirms Bellarm. do Offic. Princ. c. 4. that after Moses semper praepositus erat Pontifex Principi And others besides those I have before mentioned speak the like of the Synedrial power insomuch that when Grotius did in his Book de Imperio assert some of the pretended Synedrial Authority to have been in truth fixed in the King saying hoc ipsum Synedrii jus regni tempore videtur fuisse penes Reges Blondel in his Scholia upon that place on the contrary asserts Sch. ad Grot. de Imp. S. p. c. 10. n. 17. that this Sanhedrim did judge the King imo de Regibus Synedrium judicavit And if either of these pretences were true it must also be granted that a superiour authority may lawfully make use of force towards an inferiour power when it be necessary so to do B. 1. Ch. 3. But these things are sufficiently refuted in the former Book to which I remit the Reader Sect. 4 and proceed to satisfy other Objections 2. Obj. 1. It is urged Of the wars of the Maccabees that in the Jewish Church Armes might lawfully be taken in the defence of their Religion against their Soveraign from the instance of the Wars of the Maccabees The Maccabees are generally commended and very probably by the Apostle Heb. 11.34 35 37. and by some of the Prophets When Antiochus Epiphanes polluted the Temple and did prostitute the Jewish Religion and Laws and commanded the Jews to offer Sacrifice after the manner of the Heathen Mattathias and his Sons being zealous for the Law took up armes against him 1 Mac. Ch. 1. and Ch. 2. which were chiefly managed after the Fathers Death by Judas Maccabaeus Brut. Vinâ—â— Qu. 2. p. 61. Qu. 3. p. 199. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Right of Church ch 5. p. 306. This instance is produced by Junius Brutus and Grotius as a lawful War against their lawful Soveraign And of this Case Mr Thornedike hath these words It is manifest that the Armes which the Maccabees took up against Antiochus Epiphanes their lawful Soveraign are approved by God not only as foretold by Daniel and Ezekiel and other Prophets but also because the Apostle manifestly commendeth their faith on the other side it is manifest that they justified their Armes upon the title of Religion Now it is obvious that as this Case stands thus represented it is the very same in which the Primitive Christians refused to make resistance and which Mr Thorndike will not allow under Christianity 3. Answ Antiochus Epiphanes against whom the Maccabees fought was no lawful Soveraign in Judea Grot. ibid. but an invader This assertion is indeed rejected by Grotius pretending that he had the right of succession from the Macedonian power saith he quòd quidem haec arma eo titulo defendunt quasi Antiochus non Rex sed invasor fuerit vanum puto But though there is some difference amongst Historians concerning the division of the Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander I see no reason to doubt of the account given by Josephus concerning Judea He tells us that then Egypt Jos Ant. l. 12. c. 1. Cont. Apion l. 1. and also Judea was under Ptolomaeus the Son of Lagus not Seleucus from whom Antiochus Epiphanes did descend who giving the Jews ample priviledges took of them an Oath of Fidelity to him and his Posterity and that they were then under Ptolomaeus he cites the Testimony also of Agatharcides Cnidius an ancient Historian who wrote the Acts of the Successors of Alexander Antiq. l. 12. c. 3. And Judea continued under the Egyptian Ptolomyes above an hundred years until Antiochus Magnus gained it by Conquest but enjoyed it a little time restoring it as part of the Portion of Cleopatra his Daughter whom he gave in Marriage to Ptolomaeus Epiphanes But this Ptolomy dying Antiochus Epiphanes in the Minority of his son Ptolomaeus Philometor overcame him and being invited by a Seditious party invadeth Judea taketh Jerusalem and exerciseth himself there in cruelty and impiety Josep l. 12. c. 6 7. Prol. de Bel. Jud. And under these circumstances Mattathias and his Son resisted him by War Josep Ant. l. 12. c. 8. de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 1 2. 4. Now a violent possession of what he had no just claim to was far from being a Title of right And therefore the Jews might very lawfully endeavour by Arms to recover their rights their Country and the liberty of Religious Worship from the forceable violence of an open Enemy and an invader who had cruelly oppressed them about three years Indeed he is sometime stiled the King being truly King of Syria but by no right King of Judea but other times in the Book of the Maccabees he and his Forces are stiled Enemies 1 Mac. 2.7 9. Ch. 13.51 and the like in Josephus who against Apion declareth that Antiochus came as an Enemy against them who were his Friends and Confederates Cont. Apion l. 2. nos socios amicos aggressus est saith the Latine Translation the ordinary Greek being there defective 5. The Wars of the Judges Of the same nature also were the Wars of Barak against Jabin King of Canaan of Gideon against the Midianites and of Othniel against Cushan Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia and also the acting of Sampson against the Philistines and of Ehud against Eglon. For none of these Princes against whom these Judges took Armes or towards whom they did acts of violence had any just right of Superiority and Soveraignty over Israel but they had injuriously invaded and oppressed them and it is very usual with Scholastick Writers to give the instance of Eglon D. Sot de Just jure l. 5. Qu. 1. Art 3. for one who was Tyrannus titulo or an Usurper having no just Title And besides this since God reserved the disposal of the Government of Israel peculiarly in his own hand Lessius de Just l. 2. c. 9. dub 4. and he raised up and sent all these Judges Jud. 3.9 15. Ch. 4.6 Ch. 6.14 Ch. 13.25 1
a Successor which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood 3. Of the Apostolical Mission When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him 1. These words enclude a fulness of Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority or the power of the Keys which was given to all the Apostles 2. But they do not make the Apostles equal in dignity or dominion with Christ himself in being Saviour and head of the Church or Lord over and Judge of the quick and the dead 3. Even Christ himself when he was upon Earth being as man under the law was not only obliged to practise the duties of the first table and the other Commandments of the second table but even to the observance of the fifth Commandment al 's 4. And the Office of the Ministry And those persons who in general defence of Ecclesiastical Supremacy urge that they who are Officers of Christ and furnished with his authority ought not to be in subjection to secular rulers but superiour to them to whom Christs authority is superiour may consider 1. That Parents and Husbands have authority from God and from Christ and yet are under Kings and Princes 2. The superiority of any Officer of Christ must not be measured by the height of Soveraignty which Christ himself hath which would make the servant even every Deacon equal with his Lord and by the like pretence every petty Constable must have equal authority with the King but by the constitution of his office and the power thereby conveyed to him For neither God in governing the World nor Christ in governing the Church ever gave to any other an authority equal to what he possesseth 3. Christ came not to overturn the Government of God his father in the World which hath established the supreme temporal power yea his mediatory Kingdom and administration is in subjection to the Father and our Saviours Doctrine yieldeth that authority to Princes that it earnestly presseth a general and necessary subjection for Conscience sake to their Government 5. And as to what Baronius urgeth The Royal Priesthood from the Royal Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.9 it may be observed 1. That that expression hath not respect to a peculiar sacerdotal office in the Church but to the dignity of the Christian Church in general as is manifest from the place it self Salian an 2544. n. 347. Estius in loc and acknowledged by their own Writers 2. If this Text did express any peculiar power in Ecclesiastical Officers it must have particular respect to those Eastern Churches to whom that Epistle was written 1 Pet. 1.1 and 3. It is well observed by Bishop Andrews that even that Royal Priesthood v. 9. is commanded to be subject to every ordinance of man Ch. 4. S. 2. n. 3. and to the King as supreme v. 13. as I above observed 6. And while some say Of the Plea of expediency for the Churches good it is expedient for the Churches good that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be superiour to the temporal otherwise its welfare and good is not sufficiently provided for this Plea might appear more plausible 1. If there could be no ignorance heresy pride or ill designs in any who have the title of chief Officers in the Church which no man can believe who reads the Lives of the Popes written by their own Authors 2. If Kings and Princes must never be expected to be nursing Fathers to the Church and to take care of it 3. If the great design of Christianity was to take care that Christians must never follow their Saviour in bearing the Cross and that this Religion did not aim at the promoting true faith and holiness meekness and peace but at outward splendor dominion and power in the World according to that notion the Jews had of a Messias And this is not only a weak but a presumptuous way of reasoning to controul and affront the Gospel of Christ and to dare to tell him how he ought to have established his Kingdom to other purposes than he hath done 7. And after all this S. Peters Authority not peculiar to Rome there is nothing more unreasonable than for the Church of Rome to monopolize unto its self alone that authority which was committed to S. Peter and the other Apostles For it is not at all to be doubted but the Apostles committed a chief presidential and Governing authority in their several limits to other Churches besides the Roman Basil Ep. 55. Cyp. Epist 69. Firmil in Cyp. Ep. 75. The ancient Fathers frequently express the Bishops of the Christian Church in general to be the Apostles Successors S. Cyprian and Firmilian assert all Bishops to succeed the Apostles even ordinatione vicaria as placed in their stead and possessed of that power which was from them fixed in the Church Hier. ad Marcellam Aug. in Ps 44. Amongst us saith S. Hierome the Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles and for or instead of the Apostles are appointed Bishops saith S. Austin Tertullian declares that to his time Cathedrae Apostolorum the Cathedral Sees placed by the Apostles themselves did still continue their presidency in the Apostolical Churches of which he mentions many by name and Rome as one of them 8. And as there is no evidence that S. Peter who also presided at Antioch left all his authority peculiarly to Rome so there is sufficient evidence that S. Peter who was commanded to feed the Sheep of Christ did yield this authority to the Elders or Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed the flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And hereby he either committed that pastoral authority which he received from Christ unto the Bishops of those free Churches of the Ephesine Thracian and Pontick Dioceses to whom he wrote and which afterward were placed under the Patriarch of Constantinople or at least he acknowledged this authority in them And therefore so far as concerneth a divine right these Eastern Churches in the Territories of Constantinople have fully as fair a Plea hereby for deriving a pastoral authority from S. Peter or having it particularly confirmed by him as they at Rome ever had 9. But with respect to England This Realm not feudatory Bellarm. in Apol. pro Resp ad Jac. Reg. c. 3. in Respons ad Bel. Ap. c. 3. divers Romish Writers alledge that it became feudatory to the See of Rome by King Johns resigning his Crown to Pandulphus the Popes Legate to which thing objected and misrepresented by Bellarmine divers things are returned in Answer by Bishop Andrews But waving such particular answers as might be given I shall chuse to observe in General that this Case is the same as if any seditious persons or Vsurpers should by fraud or force reduce the King to straits and difficulties and should then by like methods gain a promise from him that he
should be under their government and shall order the affairs of his Realm in complyance with them and subjection to them Now all such acts are utterly void and wholly unobligatory because 1. No just right of Supremacy or any part of Royalty can be gained by possession upon an unjust title against the right owner upon a sure title this being a parallel Case to a Thief being possessed of an honest mans goods Addit to Hen. 3. an 10. f. 70. An. 10 Ed. 1. p. 279. An. 12 Ed. 1. p. 318. An. 17 Ed. 1. p. 391. c. And therefore though some Kings of England as Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. did until they could without danger free themselves pay to the Pope an annuus census of a thousand marks as appears from the Records of the Tower published by Mr Pryn yet this is only an evidence of the oppressive injuries which this Crown sustained by the intolerable exactions of the Pope 2. No Soveraign King unless by voluntary relinquishing his whole authority to the next Heir can transfer his Royal Supremacy to any other person whomsoever partly because the divine constitution having placed Supremacy in the chief secular Governours God expecteth from them a due care of managing of this power for the good of his people and for the advancing his own service and glory nor can any act of theirs make the duty which God still requires from them to become void no more than a Father or Husband can discharge themselves from the duties of those Relations while the Relations themselves continue Partly also because the constitutions of the Realm oblige all the subjects thereof to maintain the Royalties of the Crown and to perform Faith and true Allegiance not only to the King in being but also to his Heirs and Successors And partly because it is a great and special priviledge of a free born people that they cannot according to the condition of slaves have the chief and principal Dominion over them translated from one to another according to the pleasure of any person whomsoever though it be their own natural Prince which is both his and their great security and advantage CHAP. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England SECT I. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 1 1. THE title of Patriarch Of Patriarchal Authority was not in the beginning of the Church fixed as peculiar to the Bishops of those Churches which for many Ages have been so called This stile was not oft used in the first Centuries and when it grew into use was yielded to other famous Bishops by Socrates Socr. Hist l. 5. c. 8. who did not preside in any of those Churches which have been commonly accounted Patriarchal And this title also in an inferiour degree was of late by Duarenus allowed to the Bishop of Aquileia Canterbury and others Duaren de Benef. l. 1. c. 9. The Bishops of Rome themselves seem not to have much affected or used this stile but they were ordinarily owned to be Patriarchs not only in the Ecclesiastical account but in the Imperial law B. 1. C. 7. And as this is a title of special honour given to some Sees so it encluded an Ecclesiastical authority extended to divers Provinces and over several Metropolitans 2. Now though the Romish Bishops pretence to an Vniversal Soveraignty be very vain and unjust yet if he have but a patriarchal right as some have demanded for him over all the Western Churches this will entitle him to an authority in this Realm which is a member of them Hereby he would be chief spiritual judge to receive appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical from the Metropolitical Jurisdiction and to have the highest constant and fixed power of censure and absolution besides what concerneth the Consecration of Archbishops or Metropolitans by his act or consent and a chief authority with respect to Synods And though a true Patriarchal right be of the same nature with the Archiepiscopal which ought to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Crown yet if any such authority be placed in any Foreigner it would impair the just dignity of the Prince as I shall hereafter evidence But that no foreign Bishop or Patriarch ought to have any such authority in this Realm will appear manifest by the proving three assertions which I shall perform in this Chapter 3. Assert 1. The ancient Christian Churches were never all of them under the Patriarchal Bishops viz. of Rome Many free Churches not anciently under any Patriarch Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem But there were anciently divers free Churches or Dioceses which word was several times of old used for the larger limits of many Provinces independent on any superiour Patriarch For that all the Patriarchates and other ancient great Dioceses or Eparchyes were only within the limits of the Roman Empire is manifest because the extent and bounds of their particular Churches was ordered and fixed according to the division of the Imperial Provinces And therefore besides the greater Armenia which was a Christian Kingdom and no part of the Empire in the time of Constantine and both before and after him all the Christians who lived under the Barbarous Nations are reckoned as distinct from the Patriarchal and other head Dioceses or Churches by the second General Council Conc. Const c. 2. 4. And whereas until 450. years after Christ The Pontick Thracian and Asian Churches there were only three Patriarchal Sees erected at Rome Alexandria and Antioch not only the Churches in the remote parts of Asia and Africa and others without the Empire but those of the Pontick Thracian and Asian Dioceses or Eparchies which were in the heart of the Empire were in subjection to none of those Patriarchs but were all that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governed by themselves as appears from the second general Council Conc. Const ib. But when the patriarchal limits and authority of the Church of Constantinople was established the Churches of those three regions now mentioned which as Theodoret acquaints us Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 28. contained twenty eight Provinces or Metropolitical Jurisdictions were made subject to the Bishop of Constantinople by the authority of the fourth general Council Conc. Chalc. c. 28. But besides these there were also other particular Churches free from all Patriarchal Jurisdiction of which I shall give some instances 5. The Province of Cyprus in the Eastern Church The Cyprian Church when the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a superiority over it and a right of ordaining therein had its liberty and freedom defended and secured against him by the third General Council Indeed this Canon of the Council of Ephesus did chiefly provide Conc. Eph. c. 8. that no Cyprian Bishops should receive their ordination from the Bishop of Antioch or from any other than the Bishops of their own Island Yet to put a stop to