Supremacy according to this article of our Church At the end of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge King James so approved his explication thereof that he returned him particular thanks for the same which is printed with his speech And the Bishop therein plainly asserted that God had established two distinct powers on earth the one of the Keys committed to the Church and the other of the Sword which is committed to the civil Magistrate and by which the King governeth And therewith he declareth that as the spiritual Rulers have not only respect to the first table but to the second so the Magistrates power hath not only respect to the second table but also to the first 5. From all this we have this plain sense That the King is supreme Governour that is under God say the Injunctions and with the civil sword say the Articles as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal that is he hath the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born in these Dominions of what estate soever either Ecclesiastical or temporal say the Injunctions and to the same purpose the Articles Only here we must observe that the King 's being supreme Governour in all things and causes is one and the same thing with his having the chief Government over the persons of all his subjects with respect to their places actions and employments and therefore is well explained thereby For it must necessarily be the same thing to have the command or oversight of any Officer subject or servant about his business and to have a command or over-sight concerning the business in which he is to be employed and the same is to be said concerning the power of examining their cases or punishing neglects and offences 6. And from hence we may take an account Of supreme head of the Church of England Def. of Apol Part 6. Ch. 11. div 1. of the true sense of that title used by King Henr. 8. and King Edw. 6. of supreme head of the Church of England This stile was much misunderstood by divers Foreigners seemed not pleasing to Bishop Juel and some others of our own Church was well and wisely changed by our Governours and hath been out of date for above sixscore years past And though this title was first given to King Hen. 8. Tit. Of this civil Magistrate by a Convocation and Parliament of the Roman Communion it was used all King Edwards days and then owned even in the book of Articles And the true intended sense from the expressions above mentioned appeareth manifestly to be this to acknowledge the King to be head or chief Governour even in Ecclesiastical things of that number of Christians or that part of the Catholick Church who reside in these Realms and are subjects to his Crown even as Saul by being anointed King Wh. Treat 8. ch 1. div 4. Bishop Saund. Episcop not prejud to reg p. 130 131. Mas de Min. Anglic l. 3. c. 4. was made head of the tribes of Israel 1 Sam. 15.17 And according to this sense the use of this title was allowed and justified by very worthy men such as Bishop Whitgift Bishop Saunderson Mr Mason and others And to this end and purpose it is the just right of the King of England to own himself the supreme Governour of the Church of England which was a stile sometime used by our pious and gracious King Charles the First Declar. before 39. Articles in his publick Declaration about Ecclesiastical things but with due respect to the Ecclesiastical Officers 7. In the ancient Church it was not unusual for him who had the chief preeminence over a Province or a considerable part of the Christian Church to be owned as their head Can. Apost 34. whence in the ancient Collection or Code called the Canons of the Apostles the chief Bishop in every Nation was required to be esteemed by the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head And that Bishops may be called heads of their Churches is asserted by Gregorius de Valentia from that expression of Scripture lately mentioned concerning Saul Tom. 4. Disp 1. qu. 8. punct 4. which yet must more directly and immediately prove that title to be applicable to a Sovereign Prince And as the name of head is only taken for a chief and governing member the Author of the Annotations upon the Epistles under S. Hierom's name was not afraid of this expression In 1 Cor. 12. Sacerdos caput Ecclesiae the Priest is the head of the Church 8. And though that Statute whereby the title of supreme head of the Church of England was yielded to King Hen. 8. 26 Hen. 8.1 doth assert the Kings power to correct and amend by spiritual authority and Jurisdiction yet that this was intended only objectively concerning his government in spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes or his seeing these things be done by Ecclesiastical Officers and was only so claimed and used we have further plain evidence both concerning the time of King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. Under the Reign of King Hen. 8. by his particular command for the acquainting his subjects with such truths as they ought to profess was published a Book called The Institution of a Christian man which was subscribed by twenty one Bishops and divers others of the Clergy and the Professors of Civil and Canon law and in the dedication thereof to the King Of the Sacr. of Orders f. 39. by them all is given to him this title of Supreme head in Earth immediately under Christ of the Church of England In this Book besides very many other things to the same purpose it is asserted That Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the new testament that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes which is called potestas gladii the power of the sword there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other Ministers or Officers which should have special power authority and commission under Christ to preach and teach the word of God to dispense and administer the Sacraments to loose and absolve to bind and to excommunicate to order and consecrate others in the same room order and office f. 40. And again This said power and administration in some places is called claves sive potestas clavium that is to say the Keys or the power of the Keys whereby is signified a certain limited office restrained unto the execution of a special function or ministration f. 41. And yet further we have therein this very clear passage That this office this power and authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain persons only that is to say unto Priests or Bishops whom they did elect call and admit thereto by their prayer and imposition of their hands 9. And concerning the office and power of Kings the Doctrine and positions then received were such as
manumission which still leaves the person under civil Government Ubi supra and in the Institutions the freedom which is opposed thereto is bounded by that which is prohibited by law And besides this freedom of the outward condition Ciceron Paradox 5. Cicero doth well and wisely account that man to have attained a true and proper freedom of mind who obeys and reverenceth the Laws not so much for fear as because he judgeth it useful and good so to do 11. Now if Government be the Constitution of God to make forcible opposition against it must either be in design to have Gods authority subject to them who so act or at least that themselves may not be subject unto it both which are unreasonable and include a resisting the ordinance of God But of the divine law in this particular I shall speak in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament SECT I. The need and usefulness of considering this Case 1. The reason why the state of the Old Testament is here particularly considered THE enquiry into the times of the Old Testament is of the greater import because it would be a considerable testimony that neither the Rules of common equity nor the true foundations of humane polity do condemn all forcible resistance against the Soveraign Power if this was allowed to Subjects under the Jewish constitution which was very much ordained by the wisdom of God himself Concerning the Jewish Constitution Lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. the learned Grotius doth in his Book De Jure belli pacis assert that in ordinary Cases of injury they were not allowed to make resistance and therefore he expoundeth what Samuel spake of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the right or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. to intend that in such things as the King was there declared to undertake Sect. 1 the people had non resistendi obligationem an obligation upon them to make no resistance Ibid. n. 7. But yet he afterward asserteth that in great and weighty Cases either of manifest civil injury as in what David sustained from Saul or of violence offered to their Religion and whole Nation as was done by Antiochus when the Maccabees withstood him it was lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign But he proposeth it as a Question of greater difficulty whether Christians may be allowed to do the like and here he recommends the duty of Christian Patience and bearing the Cross from the example of Christ himself and the Primitive Church 2. And Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue Epil Part. 2. Ch. 32. from the instance of the Maccabees doth allow the lawfulness of subjects taking Armes under the Jewish State for the defence of their Religion and very plainly asserteth the same in his Treatise of the right of the Church in a Christian State Right of Church Ch. 5. p. 306. c. But in both those places he declareth the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon the same account under Christianity because of the difference of the spirit rules and conditions of the Law and the Gospel But yet in this last mentioned Book there are some expressions which will make it manifest that that learned man was not so fixed in this Position concerning the Jewish Government but that he sometimes much inclined to and plainly embraced the contrary assertion For speaking of that Government which the Jews entred into under Ezra and Nehemiah he declared that this was allowed by the Grant and Commission of the King of Persia and saith Right of Ch. Ch. 4. p. 229. It is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renewed by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them 3. But that which will make this enquiry into the times of the Old Testament The Gospel makes no new model for the rights of all political Societies the more necessary is this because so far as I can discern it is an assertion which cannot be maintained or defended That there is in this particular any such difference between the State of the Old Testament and the New as that it should be lawful for Subjects before the coming of Christ and particularly for the Jews to defend their Liberties or Religion by War against their Soveraign but it is now become unlawful for all Subjects under Christianity by the peculiar Precepts of the Gospel For though it is manifest that the spirit of the Law and the Gospel do very much differ and that meekness and peace are more peculiarly recommended in the Gospel by the Precepts and by the example of Christ both to Rulers and Subjects yet I see not how Christianity doth alter the model and frame of humane political Societies so as to debase Subjects or deprive them of any rights or freedoms which they did before enjoy It is indeed truly observed by S. Chrysostome Chrys Hom. 3. de Dav. Saul that David in his actings towards Saul had not all those arguments for subjection which Christians now have haveing never seen nor heard of the great example of Christ Crucified and his doctrine of patience and suffering But though these are high motives to the performance of our duty they do not lay a new foundation for common rights nor do they establish any such new Rules as thereby to determine the unlawfulness of all Wars in the defence of just rights if they be managed by a warrantable authority 4. And they who insist upon the Gospel Precepts of taking up the Cross as if that did put such a difference between the legal State and the Evangelical that thereupon upon it is now become unlawful for Subjects to take Armes especially for the defence of Religion do also proceed upon a mistaken ground For though this Precept and the profession of Christianity doth require great meekness and patience and a firm and stedfast resolution under all difficulties to pursue and maintain the Faith and practice of the Gospel it doth not deprive such persons of a power and right to make War even in the defence of Religion who antecedently to Christianity were invested with such a right And he who will assert this must grant it unlawful for any Soveraign Prince to defend his free profession of the Christian Religion which is one of his just rights against an external force which would impose a contrary Religion upon him Eus Eccl. Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr as was done in the Christian Kingdom of Armenia which then had a Soveraign Prince against the fury of Maximinus who would have forced them to embrace the Pagan Idolatry 5. And whereas in the New Testament we have clear Declarations that the higher Powers are the Ordinance
these which are in that Book expressed f. 49. That God constituted and ordained the authority of Christen Kings and Princes to be the most high and supreme above all other powers and offices in the regiment and governance of his people f. 50. Vnto them of right and by Gods commandment it belongeth principally to defend the faith of Christ and his Religion and to abolish all abuses heresies and idolatries Notwithstanding we may not think that it doth appertain unto the office of Kings and Princes to preach and teach to administer the Sacraments to absolve to excommunicate and such other things belonging to the office and administration of Bishops and Priests but we must think and believe that God hath made Christian Kings to be as the chief heads and over-lookers over the said Priests and Bishops to cause them to administer their office and power committed unto them purely and sincerely and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof to cause them to supply and repair the same again 10. And for the time of King Edward it is manifest from the Book of Ordination that the offices of Bishop Priest and Deacon the power of remitting and retaining sins and the Pastoral authority in the Church was accounted by ordination to be committed to those persons only who receive such ordination And in his time the royal authority and dignity is described K. Edw. Inj. 1. and asserted in his Injunctions in the very same words whereby it is declared in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and no otherwise Qu. Elizab. Injunct 1. and almost in the same phrases which are made use of in our Canons Can. 1. 1603. i. e. that the Kings power within his Realms and Dominions is the highest power under God to whom all men within the same Realms and Dominions by Gods law owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other powers and potentates upon earth 11. Now these things do clearly manifest that the spiritual authority of the Clergy was both in King Hen. and King Edwards reign owned to be really distinct from the secular authority and was not swallowed up into it And this I have the rather taken notice of because it gives us a clearer prospect into the plain sense of the interpretation of the Kings Supremacy Sect. 4 as it was declared in the Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions unto which the explication of the statute and Articles do refer And what is herein observed from the Institution of a Christian man is the more considerable because that Book was then designed by the King and Bishops as a guide to direct the Bishops and Preachers what they should teach the people committed to their spiritual charge as is very often expressed throughout the whole Book almost in every leaf of a great part thereof SECT IV. The spiritual authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy 1. The wisdom and goodness of God is eminently conspicuous both in founding his Church and establishing an Ecclesiastical Society and authority and also in ordering a civil polity in the world And these two things were well observed by Justinian to be high instances of the great goodness and bounty of God towards men Maxima inter homines dona Dei sunt a superna collata clementia Novel 6. sacerdotium imperium And these two being both of them from God do not if rightly understood clash with but are useful and helpful to one another 2. Of old the same person oft King and Priest Whilst God was worshipped only in some particular Families of the holy Patriarchs he who was the chief Governour of those Societies was also in the place of a Priest to that Family whence Noah Abraham and Job offered Sacrifice And in those ancient times in some principalities the same person was King and Priest as Melchisedec was both King of Salem and Priest of the most high God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hebrew is the ordinary word to express a Priest Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 681. doth also signify a Prince And Moses himself before the Jewish Government was compleatly formed sustained the office both of a Prince and a Priest whence Philo in his description of a compleat Governour maketh the Priesthood to reside in him as then it was in Moses 3. And from the traditions of the ancient times the general custom of divers Pagan Nations might have its original who in several distant parts of the world conjoined in the same person the royal authority and the Priesthood This was done saith Clemens Alexandrinus by those who were the wisest of them Cl. Alex. Str. l. 7. p. 720. Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 1. Aelian Var. Hist l. 14. c. 34. and is particularly averred by Diodorus Siculus concerning the ancient Ethiopians and of the Egyptians also by Aelianus as also by Plato in Politic. and by Synesius Ep. 121. And that Jethro Moses his Father in Law was both King and Priest is expressed by Ezekielus a Poet of Jewish Extraction in some Verses mentioned by Eusebius Eus Pr. Evang. l. c. 28. Cont. Ap. l. 1. That the same usage did sometimes take place among the Tyrians of old appears from Josephus and in the time of Aeneas his travels Virg. Aeneid 3. after the destruction of Troy at Delos there was saith Virgil Rex idem hominum PhoebÃque sacerdos The Pagan Emperours at Rome had likewise the Office of Pontifex Maximus and used this title in several Edicts as part of their stile of dignity of which we have a plain instance in Eusebius Hist Eccl. l. 8. c. 29. concerning Galerius Maximinus and Constantius This was also ordinarily impressed upon their coins where sometimes the proper imperial title was stamped on the one side and that of Pontifex Maximus on the other as appears in that Medal exhibited to this purpose M. Freh Tr. de Numism censûs Xenoph. de Inst Cyr. l. 2 3 8. by Marquardus Freherus And that Cyrus the King of Persia did himself both Sacrifice and annex his Prayers therewith is observed by Xenophon And there are several learned men who assert that this title of Pontifex Maximus was retained Bar. An. 312. n. 94 95 97 c. and an 383. n. 6. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 10. à p. 329. ad 344. as an ordinary part of the Imperial stile even by the first Christian Emperours until the time of Gratian who according to the testimony of Zosimus is said to have rejected it as unsuitable to Christianity And it is certain that this title was given to some of them and even to Gratian himself as well and as oft as to any other in some few publick inscriptions which are urged to this purpose by Baronius and Selden But as these inscriptions were probably ordered by others and not by these
yet sometimes in this particular he plainly misrepresenteth the laws of Moses as is done in some expressions of this very Chapter now mentioned 3. The Israelites also had Courts of Judicature and Judges in their several Precincts commanded by the law as is necessary in every Kingdom and orderly Government Both in its supreme power and they had one chief court to receive appeals from the inferiour enjoined Deut. 17.8 9 10. But all these in the time of the Royal Government and all matters of justice whatsoever were under the authority of the King ordered by him and dependent upon him Gemar in Sanh c. 2. Sect. 6. Even the Talmud declareth that all that is contained in that Parashah of the law which treateth concerning the King is under the Government of the King which Parashah or Section beginneth Deut. 16.18 and endeth Deut. 21.10 and so taketh in this whole seventeenth Chapter But we have much better evidence hereof both in what I have above observed of the Kings power concerning matters of judicature and in that God chargeth upon the King the care of executing justice Jer. 21.12 ch 22.2 3 4 15 16. See also 2 Kin. 15.6 4. But this Rabbinical Sanhedrim whose name being of a Greek extraction from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may somewhat intimate the time of its production consisting only of Rabbies or such students in the law who received ordination it is reasonably concluded by Mr Thorndike Of Religious Assembl c. 3. that it could not be such in the flourishing times of their Kingdom when no doubt Princes and noble persons enjoyed places of dignity and authority And precise number of judges And whereas these Rabbinical Courts of Judicature consisted of three persons only in lesser places of twenty three in greater Cities and the supreme Court precisely of seventy one it is highly probable that this model so far as respects the number was not the ancient usage in Israel there being no account of any such Courts given either by Josephus or Philo. Ant. l. 4. c. 8. Yea Josephus declares that which is sufficiently contrary hereto that in every City the Government was to be managed by seven men with two Levites which he mentioneth as the direction of Moses but this is not reconcileable with the Rabbinical notions notwithstanding all the endeavours of some learned men to that purpose And when we read of a Court of ten Elders at Bethlehem Ruth 4.2 and of seventy seven Elders at Succoth which was a City of the Gadites Jud. 8.14 it is manifest that in those times they had not the same number of Judges and Rulers which the latter times did direct but very different Perpetual Gov. of Chr. Church ch 4. p. 21. as is from hence observed by Bishop Bilson 5. I know it hath been an opinion commonly received without much examination that this great Court had its original in the Wilderness when the seventy Elders were taken unto Moses his assistance in the Government Num. 11. which Mr Selden accounts a matter so clear De Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 12. that he receiveth it with nihil certius est But he who shall consider that all the evidence that those 70. Elders were such a Sanhedrin as I have above discoursed of doth depend upon the tradition of a very distant age and that there is no certainty that the 70. Elders mentioned in the Book of Numbers were one Court and not Officers in distinct limits as also that the History of the Book of Judges and of the time of Samuel 1 Sam. 7.16 who was himself chief Judge of Israel and in his own person held his assizes in Circuit twice in the year as Josephus tells us give sufficient evidence Ant. l. 6. c. 3. that there was no such supreme Court in being all those times which he judged Israel and that in the following times the authority claimed to them was enjoyed by the Kings as I have evinced I say he who considers all this may very well question if not deny its so early original And the Jewish traditions concerning the continuance of this Court Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 23. p. 661 c. and the series of succession of its presidents hath no shew of probability They ordinarily account from Moses till the Kings of Israel that the several Judges of Israel were the successive heads of the Sanhedrim and yet there is no mention of any such Court in all the History of the Judges and many things therein shew them to have judged Israel as single persons or a kind of Monarchs and had there been such a setled great Court of Judicature with them that people had not been left upon the death of the Judge in such confusion and Anarchy that every man did what was right in his own eyes And the Jewish Writers produce different Catalogues of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President of the Sanhedrin Ibid. n. ◠5. which speaketh them to be at great uncertainty concerning it And many of them will have David and some other Kings to have been Presidents of this Court which is contrary to another of their own traditions above-mentioned But these uncertain and groundless Fables are rejected by divers learned men and even Selden himself acknowledgeth Ibid. n. 6. p. 674. that what the Jewish Writers deliver is successio intuenti haud satis commoda And not only Petavius and Pererius have disowned the Constitution of this Samhedrim to be from Moses but Carpzovius lately Carpz in Schickard p. 11 p. 16. passim and Conringius de Republica Hebraica and Fipschmuthius de rege eligendo deponendo as they are by him cited will not allow it to precede the Captivity 6. There is also another conceit Of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin Bertr de Rep. Hebr. c. 11. L'emp in Bertr ibid. in Middoth c. 5. Sect. 3. Mos Aar l. 5. c. 1. which hath taken place with many as Junius and Tremellius in Deut. 17. Bertram and L'Empereur our English Author of Jewish Antiquities and others that God appointed two Synedrial Consistories among the Jews the one civil the other Ecclesiastical Now if all that is designed by this notion of a distinct Ecclesiastical power was no more than that the Priests as Gods Officers were by divine authority empowered to judge and determine of what related to the regular purity of the Temple worship and of the Rules of Ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness and such like things still acknowledging that they were subjects to the Royal Government all this is to be granted and asserted and some intimations there are in the Jewish Writers of a Council or Consistory of Priests V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26.3 But since the authority pleaded for in the management of this notion is a proper supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastioal so that both these pretended Consistories are stiled by Bertram summa suprema judicia
thereof Eus Hist l. 10. c. 5. and they by vertue of his delegation examined the case and adjudged it against the Donatists 8. But they being still unquiet and this hearing being ineffectual for procuring the peace of the Church he orders this to be further examin'd by the Council of Arles which he summoned and enjoins the parties concerned to attend that Council Eus ubi sup as his own Letters in Eusebius do declare Bar. An. 314. n. 53. And Baronius who fixeth the Baptism of Constantine ten years after this Council yet asserteth him to have been present in it which by the way is sufficient to discover how little the presence of Constantine in the Council of Nice can prove him to have been then baptized as Baronius would thence infer who was not there to give suffrage or vote for the deciding questions of faith but to observe their proceedings and preserve unity and where indeed even Heathen Philosophers were sometimes present An. 125. n. 45. which Baronius himself admitteth And after all this the Donatists being condemned at Arles but still dissatisfied and turbulent though Constantine was unwilling to have judged a Canonical case concerning Bishops in his own person yet at last he undertook the hearing the Case of Caecilianus himself and justified him And the accusations the Donatists brought against Felix who was one of them who ordained Cecilian Aug. Ep. 166. was by the Emperours command and appointment heard by Helianus who declared him innocent 9. Touching Arianism and the dispute concerning the time of the observation of Easter Constantine endeavoured to compose and end them Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 4 5. Soz. l. 1. c. 15. Eus de Vit. Const l. 2. c. 62. by sending Hosius Bishop of Corduba both to Alexandria and into the East or towards Asia to that purpose And after this by his Authority he called that famous Council of Nice to decide these Controversies of which I shall add more in the next Chapter And when they had determined these things and the Case of the Meletians and others Constantine enjoined the burning of all the Books of Arius Socr. l. 1. c. 6. and upon pain of death required every Copy of them to be given up and not to be concealed But afterwards being deceived by Arius and his Complices he was very favourable unto him And many other things passed under his cognisance relating to Arius and his Confederates and Opposers 10. He also published his Edicts against the Donatists Novatians Valentinians Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 5. leg 1. Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 62 63. Sozom. l. 2. c. 30. Marcionists and other Sects forbidding their Assemblies either private or publick and commanding their ordinary meeting places to be pulled down or taken from them And Eusebius observes de Vit. Const. l. 1. c. 37. l. 4. c. 27. how for the procuring the peace of the Church he frequently assembled Councils and confirmed their Canons and Constitutions 11. And when he summoned the Council of Tyre he expressed such words of authority as these recorded by Eusebius and from him admitted by Baronius If saith he any one shall as I suppose they will not Eus de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 42. Bar. an 334. n. 8 9. withst and our mandate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will not be present there shall forthwith be sent one by us who shall by the royal authority eject or banish him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall let him know that it doth not become him to resist the appointments of the Emperour which are published for the defence of the truth And Athanasius otherwise unwilling Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 20 21 22. as Socrates informs us did come to that Council for fear of the Emperours displeasure But when the proceedings of that Council against him were very injurious and irregular for which the Emperour afterwards sharply reproved them Athanasius himself a man of a great and couragious spirit and no way inclinable to any unworthy compliances earnestly desired to have his case heard and examined by the Emperour himself who though at first unwilling did undertake to hear it 12. He also promulged divers laws for the advancement of Christianity and piety by them prohibiting idolatrous sacrifices Eus de Vit. Const l. 2. c. 44. lib. 4. c. 23. and taking care for the erecting Christian Churches ibid. l. 2. c. 44 45. Socr. l. 1. c. 12. and enjoining the reverent observation both of the Lords day and of other fasting and festival days of the Christian Church Eus de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 18 23. And all these things were looked upon by the Christians of that age as no acts of an intruding and usurping power but were attended with great approbation and acclamations and the pious Bishops were ready and forward to examine cases according to his order for the Churches peace or to meet in Councils according to his appointment But where the Emperour through mistake did go beyond his bounds the pious and Catholick Bishops were then careful to preserve the true Catholick rules of Order and Unity as appeared in that notable instance when he commanded Arius to be received into Communion of which hereafter 13. Indeed Constantine did all this time believe and own the doctrine of Christianity Eus de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 61. but was not till toward the end of his life solemnly admitted into the number of the Catechumens when he first received imposition of hands according to the discipline of the Church And therefore when he owned himself to be constituted of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. c. 24. he meant thereby that he had the oversight and government and was to take care of those persons who were without the Church Ib. l. 1. c. 37. And the like general sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be admitted where Eusebius declares that Constantine behaved himself towards the Church of God as one who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a general Governour thereof But whilest he was yet unbaptized being not a perfect member of the visible Church it would be very incongruous to assert that he could derive his authority in causes Ecclesiastical from his relation to that Church whereof he was but a Candidate And no authority of Government in the Christian Church can be conveyed by Christianity antecedently to the Baptismal admission SECT IV. An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great with respect to the fuller clearing this matter 1. But because much of this depends upon the right fixing the time of Constantines Baptism it will be no digression to take a true account thereof which our later Romish Writers do much misrepresent Sect. 4 Now Eusebius the Chronicon of S. Hierome De Vit. Const l. 4. c. 61 62. and divers ancient Writers of good credit inform us that he received his Baptism at Nicomedia Socr. l. 2. c.
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