those evasions which some have endeavoured to make in this Case as if in other things besides Ordination they might be subject to the Bishop of Antioch he who duly weighteth this Canon will discern that it plainly enough condemns the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch as an invading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another distinct Eparchy or Province which was not heretofore and from the beginning under the authority of him or of those who did precede him Conc. in Trul. c. 39. And when the sixth General Council did confirm this Canon of Ephesus concerning the Liberties of the Cyprian Churches they do own the priviledges given to the Metropolitan of Cyprus in his Territories to be equal to those which the Bishop of Constantinople enjoyeth in his To which may be added that in the Synod of Antioch in the Reign of Constantius among the several Provinces belonging to that Patriarch which therein assembled there is no mention at all of Cyprus 6. Also the West African Churches The African Churches taking in all Numidia Mauritania and the other ample Territories of the Carthaginian Jurisdiction were never under any of the Patriarchs These limits were never claimed to any of the Eastern Patriarchates and are sufficiently excluded from thence by the Canons of Nice Nic. Conc. c. 6. Constantinople and Chalcedon which fix the bounds of those Churches Const c. 2. Chalc. c. 28. But when the Bishop of Rome claimed a power to receive appeals from those Churches in the case of an African Presbyter who was therein censured and pretended a Canon of the Council of Nice to give him that authority the African Fathers after they had diligently sought for the most perfect Copies of the Nicene Canons from Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch besides what they had before in Latine did detect the fraud and falshood of the claim of the Bishop of Rome and rejected his demand To this purpose the sum of their proceedings may be viewed not only in particular Writers but also in the Greek Copy of the African Code which was received in the sixth general Council partly in the beginning and partly in the conclusion thereof 7. But whereas it is pretended by several Romish Writers that these African Fathers did in the end of this contest yield this authority to the Bishop of Rome even this is very far from truth Indeed they were resolved to submit if there was any Canon of Nice which enjoined that submission but after this demand concerning appeals was made by Pope Zosimus and canvased in the time of his Successor Bonifacius the African Fathers write to Coelestin who succeeded him Ad finem Conc. Carth. Gr. both asserting their own liberty of Governing their own Church and requiring him not to receive any into Communion whom they had rejected from it And whereas in the beginning of this contest with Zosimus there was a Canon made in the Council of Milevis declaring Conc. Milev 2. Can. 22. that those who should make appeals beyond the Seas or to Rome should be uncapable of being received into Communion by any in Africa Cod. Afric c. 27. after this dispute was more fully debated and considered they were so far from retracting this Canon that they caused it to be put into the African or Carthaginian Code Conc. Carth. gr c. 31. which was compiled and confirmed about the end of this disquisition and therein this Canon remains as a standing rule 8. But because it hath been observed by Zonaras Zonar in Conc. Sard. c. 5. and by very many since that what the Bishop of Rome falsly urged as a Canon of Nice was to be found among the Canons of Sardica concerning that I shall note two things First Of the Canon of Sardica That he who considers that Zosimus would herein have falsified the Council of Nice that neither he nor they who managed this contest under him or after him did urge the authority of the Council of Sardica to those African Bishops and that those Bishops after all their enquiry did declare to the Bishop of Rome Epist ad Coelestin ubi sup that they had never read in any Synod of the Fathers that any such authority was granted to him may be apt to suspect that possibly there hath been no very fair dealing about this Council of Sardica or at least must conclude that they at Rome were sensible that Africa was not subject to the authority of that Council 9. Secondly That in this Council of Sardica Cham. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 7. Marc. de Conc. l. 7. c. 3. n. 6. as Chamier observed and P. de Marca owneth here were no proper appeals to Rome asserted that the case under complaint might be there determined but only that the Bishop of Rome might order a revising of the sentence which had been pronounced against any Bishop upon his application to him And the state of the Church and the occasion of this Constitution was this Socr. l. 2. c. 5 6 7 16 18. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5 10 11. Arianisme greatly prevailing in the East the Arian Bishops there sentenced and deposed divers Catholick Bishops as particularly they had done to Athanasius in a Synod of Antioch who yet was received at Sardica Now that the faith of Nice might not by such methods be suppressed and the Communion of the Catholick Church be thereby confounded the Orthodox Bishops at Sardica who thought themselves not bound to disclaim Communion with all whom the Arian Heretical Bishops should reject allowed the Bishop who had been censured a liberty to have his Case re-examined And they committed this as a trust to the Bishop of Rome for the preserving the Catholick Communion that he should appoint Bishops about that Province sending others also to join with them to judge of that Case which trust the succeeding Bishops of Rome made ill use of for the inordinate advancement of that See But this Canon gave not the Bishop of Rome an Vniversal superiority in the right of his Church Sozom. l. 7. c. 9. Marca de Conc. l. 1. c. 3. n. 9. but dealt with him as the second General Council did with several eminent Bishops of the Eastern Churches who were appointed as Capita communionis that the rest of the Church might communicate with them with whom they held Communion Nor could the Western Bishops convey any authority over the Eastern Church which was here chiefly concerned 10 Now as these Cyprian and African Churches as well as those in these Islands had an Independent Ecclesiastical authority of the same nature with the Patriarchal but not honoured with that title so I might discourse further of other somewhat like instances both in the East and the West but I think that would be needless especially because the Patriarchal bounds and the limits of other free Churches ought not now to be fixed in all places upon the same terms on which they stood in the ancient Church as I shall
a General Council by the Emperours command where he was anathematized and condemned of Heresy and notwithstanding some appearance of repentance Hieron adv Lucifer Baron an 327. n. 3. as S. Hierome declares was sentenced no more to come to Alexandria that is as Baronius rightly explaineth it not to be received in his former place in that Church Now it was not in the power of any single Bishop whomsoever to rescind the judgment or reverse the sentence of a General Council or indeed to take a new cognisance of what had been thereby determined And to acknowledge the Emperour to have a power of immediate judging and determining concerning the censures of the Church especially if against the Sentence of a General Council cannot be consistent with the Ecclesiastical authority and the power of the Keys committed to the Ecclesiastical Officers and in the most eminent and highest manner resident in Oecumenical Councils And therefore Athanasius could not obey that command of the Emperour procured by the subtilty of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party without an exorbitant usurping and invading an authority which was superiour to him and undermining the unity of the Catholick Church Weights and measures Ch. 6. as is observed by Mr Thorndike in justification of Athanasius 5. And a Case much of like nature with this was considered in the third general Council of Ephesus who rejected them from their Communion who in a separate Conventicle from the General Council undertook to censure Cyril of Alexandria who presided in that Council and Memnon of Ephesus and were also fautors of Nestorius Concerning these Bishops that Council gave this instruction to their delegates whom they sent to the Emperour that if he should insist upon these persons being restored to their Communion they declare that so much as can be is to be done to express obedience to the Emperour Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 19. Sanctioni Augusti pro viribus obediendum este and that if these persons shall join with the Council in rejecting the Heresy of Nestorius and deposing him and submitting themselves shall heartily embrace Vnity with them they may be admitted again to their Communion But if these delegate Bishops in this Case should admit them upon any other terms than these which the Council it self upon considering and debating the Case had determined they are there told Arianisme and all false doctrine to be rejected though favoured by Princes that they themselves would incur the censure of the Council 6. Obj. 2. Athanasius in the time of Constantius S. Basil of Valens and S. Ambrose of Valentinian the younger and divers Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours put in their exceptions against the Emperours judging in matters of Faith as not being a competent judge in that Case nor would they be therein determined by him And when Constantius had banished many Catholick Bishops for withstanding Arianisme and used severe punishments towards others and threatned Hosius Bishop of Corduba Athanas ad solitar vit agentes who drew up the form of the Nicene Creed he in an Epistle to Constantius adviseth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not put they self upon things Ecclesiastical nor do thou give commands to us concerning such things but rather learn these things from us God hath put into thy hand the Kingdom he hath committed unto us the things of the Church And when S. Ambrose was commanded in the Emperours name Ambr. Ep. 33. ad Marcellinam to yield up the possession of his Church to be delivered to the Arians he refused so to do in a matter of Gods right declaring ea quae divina sunt Imperatoris potestati non esse subjecta that those things which are Gods are not in subjection to the Emperour 7. Ans First Since the Christian profession is a taking up the Cross all those who embrace it must undertake to hold fast the truth of the Christian faith though this should be against the command and will of any Prince or Ruler whosoever and must be followers of him who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession Martyr Polycarpi Tertul. Apol c. 27. This was the practice of the Apostles of S. Polycarp and divers Christian Martyrs to profess the Christian doctrine when they were commanded to disown or abjure it And as they must hold fast Christianity notwithstanding the Prohibitions or threats of Diocletian or Julian so must they keep close to the Catholick doctrine notwithstanding the command of any Arian Emperour to the contrary And it is no more a derogation from the Royal authority to say that it hath no right to command against truth or duty in Religion than to declare that it hath no right to command against honesty or chastity in the Common-wealth The Princes Supremacy in these matters is under God and Christ to establish what is according to the Rules of our Religion and the good of Mankind The deciding questions of faith and guiding in it more proper to Bishops thanings but can have no authority to oppose or undermine the doctrines of our Saviour 8. Secondly That as this Case hath respect to the truth of the Christian doctrine it is certain that not the Emperour but these Catholick Bishops themselves were the most proper and fit judges in this matter of faith especially having the evidence of Scripture the consent of the ancient Apostolical men and the confirmation of the Synod of Nice The deciding and determining matters of faith peculiarly and chiefly belongeth to the Pastors of the Church and is a matter for their judgment In Athanas ubi sup cognisance and discussion By them as Hosius said above even Princes are to be taught and should receive the doctrines of Religion But the Christian Bishops are not to receive any thing as a doctrine of Christianity from the Command of any Prince in the World but herein they and all other Christians must be guided only by what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles for the knowledge of which the consent of the Catholick Church doth in many things give very great light 9. How much honour and respect in this particular the ancient Emperours did give to the office and judgment of the Bishops of the Church we may understand from Theodosius the Second Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. When he sent a secular person to be present by his authority at the Ephesine Council he particularly declared that for him to have any thing to do in their Synodical decisions of the Questions of faith would be a nefarious thing And it is truly observed by Baronius Baron an 325. n. 73. that Constantine and other Christian Emperours who were themselves present in ancient Councils did not interpose in giving votes or suffrages in decisions of faith or inflicting of censures as concurring to the spiritual effect but only did consent to and ratify these determinations of the Councils by their secular authority And these
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
evidence in my third assertion And therefore I shall omit the considering the Church of Bulgaria and of the Asia Iberia which by Balsamon are owned to have been in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals in Conc. Const c. 2. Novel 131. the former according to the Constitution of Justinian and the latter by a Synod of Antioch appointing that that Church which was before under the Patriarch of Antioch should be free and head of it self 11. And concerning the Western Church it may be observed that whereas a prime patriarchal right is expressed by the Council of Chalcedon and the same may be collected from the Council of Ephesus in the place above-mentioned concerning the Cyprian Church to be this that the Metropolitans under him Conc. Chalc. c. 28. who have liberty to ordain the Bishops of their Provinces should be ordained by the Patriarch it is no difficulty to prove and is granted by P. de Marca Ubi sup l. 1. c. 7. that the chief part of the Western Church even all out of the Vrbicarian Diocese which took in only some part of Italy did never thus anciently depend on the Bishop of Rome for Ordination 12. And touching the Eastern Church the limits of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have been above observed The Territories of Alexandria were by the Council of Nice declared to be Egypt Conc. Nic. Can. 6. V. Praef. and Conc. Antioch Conc. Chalc. Actions 7. Libya and Pentapolis Antioch had once under it Coelosyria Phoenicia Palaestine Arabia Mesopotamia Cilicia and Isauria but when the Church of Jerusalem was made Patriarchal it was agreed in the Council of Chalcedon that all the three Palaestines should be reserved to its Jurisdiction 13. And such few expressions in some ancient Authors as speak of the Bishop of Rome presiding in the West or being the Patriarch of the West are not sufficient to prove the whole Western Church to have been subject to him Conc. Const c. 2. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. Hieron Ep. 61. c. 15. but only some part thereof For the Bishop of Antioch is oft said both by Councils and other Writers to govern the East and yet the whole Eastern Church as distinguished from the Western never was under his Jurisdiction SECT II. No Patriarch ever had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority in this Island 1. The second Assertion which I shall make good is that the Churches of this Island had that ancient liberty and freedom that no Patriarch had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority over them The Eastern Patriarchs never pretended to any nor had the Romish Bishop any right to challenge it 2. For since this Island received Christianity Britain received Christianity before Rome some years before any Church was founded at Rome it could not then have any dependance upon the Church of Rome Besides what many other Writers express concerning Joseph of Arimathea preaching the Gospel here Bar. An. 35. n. 5. even Baronius from a Manuscript in the Vatican gives a relation of his coming into France and thence into England upon the dispersion after the death of S. Steven and this must be divers years before S. Peters coming to Rome Antiq. Brit. p. 1 2 3. Mason de Min. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Usser de Prim. Ec. Br. And there want not Authors to assert that S. Simon S. Philip and other Apostles and Apostolical men did declare the doctrine of Christ in this Island as hath been observed by those who purposely give us an account of the original of Christianity here Sect. 2 But concerning the early Conversion of the Britans it will be sufficient to observe the testimony of Gildas who was himself a Britan Gild. de Excid Brit. who tells us that here the Precepts of Christ were made known tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris in the latter end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar Baron An. 44. n. 25. Now the second year of Claudius when according to the general account S. Peter first preached Christianity at Rome must be about five years after the death of Tiberius Caligula wanting but little more than a month of four years Wherefore with respect to the first planting of the Church one Sister Church cannot claim superiority over another especially not over the Elder 3. Nor were there ever any Canons of the ancient Church which subjected these Realms to the See of Rome but the fixed rights of the free Churches were secured in the three first General Councils in those Canons I have above mentioned Conc. Nic. c. 6. Const c. 2. Eph. c. 8. And the Council of Ephesus is very zealous against the invaders of these priviledges as being a thing in which the liberties of all Churches are concerned and by which the intent of the sacerdotal function is perverted 4. That these Churches did preserve and retain their liberties Britannick liberty preserved till Austin the Monk Bed Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 4. until the time that Austin the Monk came into England is manifest in that both in the Southern and Northern parts of this Island as also in Ireland they celebrated Easter and observed some other rites differently from the Rules and Canons of the other Western Churches and particularly of the Roman and therefore were not governed by them Indeed they celebrated Easter upon the Lords day as was noted by the Emperour Constantine Euseb de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 18. Bed Hist Eccl. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. l. 3. c. 4. at the time of the Council of Nice but they fixed on this day by a different rule from that of other Churches And when Austin required them to submit themselves to the Romish Church and to change these their different rites they would not hearken to him herein but both Britans and Scots long observed their former usages and some of their Clergy and Monks who lived within the English limits Bedae Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 20. l. 3. c. 26. Bishop Spotsw Hist of Sc. l. 1. p. 18. H. Huntingd. Hist l. 3. and Colman Bishop of the Northumbrians rather left their places than they would forsake the customs of their own Church Yea they disowned Communion with him as invading the Liberties of their Churches and the Scotch Bishops would not so much as eat in the House where Austins Company was as is related in a Letter of Laurentius who succeeded Austin at Canterbury recorded in H. Huntingdon And the plain Declaration of the Abbot and Monks of Bangor who were the most eminent Society of the British Church consisting of thousands did fully disclaim and protest against all right of subjection to the Bishop of Rome as is expressed in their protestation made to Austin and exhibited in the British tongue by Sir Hen. Spelman Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 108 109. wherein they own no subjection to any above their own Archbishop as a superiour Ecclesiastical Officer 5. Nor did the Bishop of
Rome gain any just right of Patriarchal Authority over this Realm This Realm not made subject to Rome by the Conversion of the Saxons after the coming of Austin into England and all that can be pretended to that purpose is either by pleading that the English were converted by Austin who was sent hither by Pope Gregory or that there was a great honour respect and subjection for many years yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island Both these pretences I shall examine 6. Now it is acknowledged that this Austin was instrumental for the converting very many of the Saxons to Christianity Yet here I observe three things 1. That they who Convert Foreign Nations do not thereby make those Nations and Churches to be perpetually subject to those Foreign Churches from whence they came For this would make Christianity to enclude a servitude in the profession of it and worldly Dominion in the preaching it Had this been a rule in the Primitive Times this Island and a greater part of the Christian Church all over the World must have yielded subjection to the Bishop of Jerusalem many Cities and Regions being first instructed in the Christian Doctrine and converted thereto by the dispersed Members of that Church and amongst others Antioch it self Act. 11.19 22 26. and even Rome also was partaker of their spiritual things Rom. 15.27 And yet these Christians being made subject to Christ and not to Jerusalem Hieron Ep. 61. n. 15. Conc. Nic. c. 7. the Bishop of Jerusalem for some hundred years was no Patriarch even till the Council of Chalcedon nor Metropolitan but was under the Bishop of Cesarea only he had a peculiar honour reserved to him by the Council of Nice Bed Hist l. 5. c. 20. And if this had been a rule for later times then Frisia Zealand and other Belgick Provinces must have been subject to the Church of England since under God they owed their Conversion to Wilfrid an English Bishop Cone Carth. gr c. 103 120 121. Indeed some Canons have given Bishops Authority to govern such places as they should convert but this tended only to give those persons the deserved honour of being the Bishops of those places which they had reduced from heresy or infidelity where any other had not a previous right thereto but not to make that Church or Kingdom subject to a remote Foreign Soveraignty All that could be hence inferred is that it was reasonable that Austin should be Bishop in England but not that Gregory should be Patriarch over it though he also deserved to be greatly honoured for being so instrumental to the Conversion of the English 7. I observe Secondly That when Austin came into this Island it was inhabited by four distinct sorts of Nations or people the Britans the Scots the Picts and the English with which without being curious about words I enclude also the Sexons and others who accompanied them out of Germany That the Britans were ancient Christians before the coming of Austin needeth no further proof Bed Hist l. 1. c. 13. Bed Hist l. 3. c. 4. Chronol Sax. And such were also the Scots over whom Palladius was an eminent Bishop almost two hundred years before Austin The Picts also in their Northern quarters towards forty years before the coming of Austin were Converted by Columba or Columbanus who came out of Ireland and the Southern Picts before that time by Ninias a British Bishop Now what pretence can be made that they who converted or presided in the three former Nations should neither have an authority over the whole Island nor a liberty left to govern themselves and yet the conversion of the last should swallow up the liberties of all the former three and convey a Patriarchal right over the whole Island yea though this last Nation or people were possessors of those limits which were within the ancient British Dioceses 8. I observe Thirdly That the Conversion of the English and Saxons was not performed only by Austin or his Successors or any other appointed by him or sent from Rome but a very considerable part of this work was effected by other persons who observed the rites of the British Church Bed Hist l. 3. c. 1 3. Amongst many things worthy observation the Kingdom of the Northumbrians after defection from Christianity which Paulinus taught them wee instructed therein and Converted Sporsw Hist l. 1. p. 14. by Aidanus a Scotchman who observed the ancient Rites of that Church and was made Bishop among the Northumbrians of whom it is related that in seven days he converted and baptized fifteen thousand The Mercians also and Middle Angles received their Conversion by Finanus a Scotchman Bed Hist l. 3. c. 21 25. who was Successor to Aidanus in his Bishoprick among the Northumibrians and is observed by Beda to have been a strict opposer of the introduced Romish Rites And this good work was carried on by others of the ancient British and Scotch Church 9. And Finanus above-mentioned did baptize Sighercht King of the East-Sexons and others of his Company who were converted to Christianity among the Northumbrians Bed ibid. c. 22. After which Cedda and another Presbyter of the Middle-Angles was sent for to instruct the Kingdom of the East-Saxons in the Christian Faith and by them they wee Converted after the defection of that Kingdom from their formerly professed Christianity And this Cedda was made Bishop of the East-Saxons by Finanus and two other Bishops with him and at that time observed the ancient British Rites but after the death of Sinanus when Colman Finanus his Successor deserted his bishoprick among the Northumbrians and went into Scotland Ibid. c. 26. rather than he would relinquish the ancient practises and usage of his Church Cedda was then brought over to comply with the Rites brought in by Austin All which will evidence that what was done by Austin could not bring England into a subjction to the Bishop of Rome unless he admit divers equals and rivals in his claim And a reflexion upon what hath been now observed will evidence that to found a constant Ecclesiastical superiority and subjection upon such pretences as these would bring in an unavoidable confusion sinto the Church and it would have overthrown in all the ancient Patriarchates in which no such rule was observed 10. Nor by the power the Pope once here exercised I shall now consider that subjection which was yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island And it is acknowledged that the Roman Bishop was for many years highly esteemed in this Realm and consulted with and many things after the Conquest were decided by his determination And also that he did receive great sums of money from hence not only from the Clergy in disms first-fruits and other payments but also Peter-pence were paid by the Laity also not as a tributary acknowledgment of the subjection of the Realm Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p.
794. as some Romanists would have it but this was granted as an Eleemosynary pension for maintaining an English School at Rome And it must also be acknowledged that the Pope did sometimes since the Conquest exercise a great authority here disposing frequently by his provision of spiritual preferments confirming or nulling the Election of Metropolitans Pyn in Edward 1. an 30. p. 985 986. an 32. p. 1040. and some other Bishops and receiving Appeals And in those days there are some instances in our Records that the Kings Writ against persons excommunicated by the Archbishop was sometimes superseded upon their alledging that they prosecuted Appeals to the Apostolical See 11. But this submission in different persons had not always the same principle being sometimes yielded out of an high measure of voluntary respect and kindness and sometimes more was given to the Pope than otherwise would have been because the circumstances of Princes oft made their courting the Popes favour in former times to be thought by them to be a piece of needful policy And much also was done from the superstition and misapprehension of those Ages in many persons who supposed him to have that right of governing these Churches as S. Peters successor which he is now sufficiently evidenced not to have had Now what is done out of courtesy and by leave or out of some emergent necessity may at other times be otherwise ordered and no Christians are obliged to continue in practising upon superstitious mistakes more than they are obliged to live in errour and superstition And mere possession upon an unjust claim can give no good title to the Government of a Church but when the injustice thereof is made manifest it may be rejected and abolished Conc. Eph. c. 8. as the ancient Canons especially that Canon of the Council of Ephesus which speaks particularly of the Patriarchal Authority enjoin that no Bishop shall invade any Church which was not from the beginning under his Predecessors and if he should compel it to be under him he must restore its Jurisdiction again 12. Yet that exercise and possession of authority which the Pope here enjoyed was not so constant and undisturbed but that it was many times by the Kings and States of the Realm and even by the Bishops at some times complained of and opposed as injurious and the true rights and liberties of this Church and Kingdom were oft demanded and insisted upon Of which among very many instances I shall take notice of so many as are sufficient Before the Conquest I find not that the Pope exercised or claimed any governing authority distinct from counsel and advice in this Realm and therefore there was no need of any opposition to be made agianst it Indeed when Wilfrid Bishop of York who was twice censured in England G. Malmsbur de Gestis Pontific l. 3. f. 150. did both times make his application to Rome his Case was there heard and considered in a Synod and such examination and consideration of the Case even of the Bishop of Rome as Cornelius and others was sometimes had in other ancient Churches But for the decision of the Case the Pope requires it either to be ended by an English Council or to be determined by a more general Council And when Wilfrid at his first return from Rome brings the Popes Letters in favour of him King Egfrid put him in Prison and at his second return from Rome Ib. f. 152. King Alfrid who succeeded Egfrid in the Kingdom a Prince highly commended for hispiety learning and valour declared that it was against all reason to communicate with a man who had been twice condemned by English Councils notwithstanding any writing whatsoever from the Pope Nor were these things only sudden words but when the Pope had done all he could Wilfrid was not thereby restored or as Malmsburiensis expresseth it Malms de gest pont l. 1. init f. 111. Ib. f. 124. non tamen rem obtinuit After the Conquest it was declared by W. Rufus to be a custom of the Kingdom which had been established in the reign of his Father that no Pope should be appealed unto without the Kings Licence consuetudo regni mei est à patre meo instituta ut nullus praeter licentiam regis appelletur Papa Anselm Epist l. 3. Ep. 40. Paschali And Anselme acquainted the Pope that this King William the Second would not have the Bishop of Rome received or appealed unto in England without his command Nor would he allow Anselme then Archbishop of Canterbury to send Letters to him or receive any from him or to obey his Decrees He further tells the Pope that the generality of the Kingdom and even the Bishops of his own Province sided with the King and that when Anselme asked the Kings leave to go to Rome he was highly offended at this request and required that no such leave be afterward asked and that he appeal not to the Apostolical See and that when Anselme went to Rome without his leave he seised the Revenue of his Bishoprick M. Paris in Henr. 2. an 1164. And amongst the liberties and customs sworn to at the Parliament at Clarendon one was against appeales to Rome and receiving Decrees from thence 13. Ex lib. Assis Lord Cokes Reports in Cawdreys Case In the Reign of King Edward the First a subject of this Realm brought a Bull of Excommunication against another subject from Rome and this was adjudged Treason by the Common law of England and divers other instances are brought by Sir Edward Coke wherein the Excommunication and Absolution of the Pope or his Legate was declared null or invalid Pryn in Edw. 1. An. 20. p. 454. And much of the usurped power which the Pope here practised and claimed was rejected as a great grievance in the Statute of Provisors An. 25 Edw. 3. concerning his making provision for and collating to Dignities and Benefices against the method of free Elections and they who should apply themselves to Rome for this purpose became thereby liable to severe penalties And appeals to Rome in certain Cases and the procuring thereupon Processes Bulls and Excommunications from thence was by the Parliament in the Reign of King Richard the Second 16 Ric. 5. taxed and complained of as that which did apparently hinder the determining causes and the effectual execution of justice in England and tended to the destruction of the Kings Soveraignty Crown and Regalty And all those who should bring from Rome such Processes Excommunications Bulls or other Instruments both themselves and all their Fauthors were then by the Statute of Praemunire put out of the Kings Protection their Lands and Goods forfeited and their Bodies to be attached And this Statute continued in force and unrepealed as that former also notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Pope and his Adherents even an hundred and fifty years before the Protestant Reformation And this is sufficient to shew
doctrines but also all those who do appeal to any future Council Wherefore as much as it is the duty of any Church or Christian to own Gods authority and embrace his truth so much it must be their duty to reject the Romish authority which opposeth and withstandeth them 12. Fourthly From the sin of pursuing Schism with which the Romish Bishop and Church do stand chargeable 4. From Schism No Christian Bishop can have any authority against the Vnity of the Christian Church and against that authority whereby that Unity is established And therefore all Christians are obliged to avoid sinful divisions and Schisms though the names of Paul or Apollos or Cephas may be pretended to head them And it was the fault of S. Barnabas to comply with and be led by S. Peter himself in a groundless withdrawing from the Church of Antioch And it could not be the duty of any Catholick Christians who lived within the Dioceses of the Donatist Bishops to submit to them and thereby not hold the Catholick Communion Cyp. Ep. 52. ad Anton For as S. Cyprian said he who doth not keep the Vnity of the Spirit and the conjunction of peace and separateth himself from the bond of the Church and the Society of its Priests Episcopi nec potestatem potest habere nec honorem can neither have the honour nor the power of a Bishop And he who submits to or complyeth with the manager of a Schism in his prosecution thereof doth involve himself in the same crime 13. Gr. de Valent Tom. 3. disp 3. qu. 15. Punct 2. Bannes in 2. â—ae qu. 1. Art 10. p. 83 84. qu. 39. Art 1. Now that the Bishop of Rome himself may be a Schismatick in separating from the Unity of the Church is acknowledged by their own Writers And he is actually guilty of Schism in rejecting Communion with a great part and with the best and purest part of the Catholick Church and requiring them to be accounted Hereticks And his Schism hath such aggravations as these 1. In the ill design of upholding corrupt doctrines and practises of that Church without due reformation 2 From his high uncharitableness in not allowing salvation to other Christian Churches besides the Roman 3. From his great usurpation excommunicating all who do not yield obedience to him and the free Churches who reform themselves although their power of holding Synods includeth a right to reform themselves and all who appeal from him to a general Council who are subjected to excommunication Jac. de Graf Decis Aur. l. 4. c. 18. n. 55. as some who write upon the bull in coena domini tell us for accounting a general Council superior to the Pope 14. Wherefore the Bishop of Rome as things now stand hath no just right to a Patriarchal Power in any part whatsoever of the Christian Church having forfeited this by the corrupt doctrines and interests and by the Schism which are there managed And he is excluded from Foreign Soveraign Princes Dominions by the Supremacy of their Crown and by his undue claims inconsistent with their regalities But if he would become truly Catholick both as to Christian Vnity and doctrine and therein give due honour to secular authority he might then claim a Patriarchal right so far as the present civil power of Rome reacheth but no further unless by the leave and pleasure of other Princes and Churches And he might then expect and would receive an high honour all over the Christian World upon account of the ancient prime Patriarchal See CHAP. VIII B. 1. C. 8. Some pretences of other parties against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical refuted SECT I. Of Liberty of Conscience and Toleration AGainst the Authority of the Civil Power in matters of Religion there are some who undertake such a Patronage of Liberty of Conscience as thereby to infer a necessity of Toleration And what is urged upon this Topick hath either respect to Conscience it self or else the peace of the Christian World and so either pretendeth that it is the proper right of Conscience to be free from subjection to any men in matters Ecclesiastical and the affairs of Religion or else that the yielding this liberty to every man is a principle of peace The consequences from the Pleas for General liberty of Conscience and would tend greatly to the quiet of the World 2. the chief force of what is said upon the first pretence lyeth in this kind of reasoning which some account plausible to wit That every man hath a Conscience or capacity of discerning what is his duty in matters of Religion and that what he thus discerns to be his duty he ought to practise and no man ought to hinder or restrain him and the consequence of this is that concerning the affairs of Religion he ought to be under no Government whether Civil or Ecclesiastical But the vanity and fallaciousness of this way of arguing will sufficiently appear by improving the same to a further purpose to which it is altogether as well adapted concerning matters of common right For it may be said here that man is a Creature endued with principles of Conscience and capacities to discern what is just and honest and what he discerneth to be so he ought to pursue and should be permitted so to do and therefore according to the former method of argumentation he must in civil affairs be under no Government and no judge ought to question him Now the result of all this and what it would tend to prove is that man is such a Creature who ought not to be a subject or under Government and from hence it would follow that all the Precepts of subjection and obedience in the Gospel and the whole establishment which God hath made of Civil and Ecclesiastical power and authority are all of them opposite to the nature of man and to the rights and priviledges of his being And now would it not heartily grieve any pious and understanding man to see by what pitiful pretences men undertake to argue against the institution and authority of God 3. Men may not safely be left to the sole conduct of themselves and their Consciences But they who make use of such arguments about matters of Religion will be ready to say concerning things civil that though men have Consciences to guide them yet they may sometimes mistake the due measures of justice and right and sometimes an inordinate pursuing their own interest or gratifying some evil temper of mind may make men act contrary to what they know to be right and by such means other mens properties would be injured if there were not a civil judge to interpose and laws established for the securing these properties And all this is indeed truth but then these two things are also to be observed 1. That hereby it is granted that even in those things wherein men ought to be directed by the rules of Conscience they
considered with other things which have affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. Chap. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome Sect. 1. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 2. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 3. Such claims can have no Foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge Sect. 4. Other Arguments for the pretended Papal Authority answered and refuted Chap. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England Sect. 1. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 2. No Patriarch ever had any just right to Patriarchal Authority in this Island Sect. 3. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates Chap. VIII Some pretences of other parties against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical refuted Sect. 1. Of Liberty of Conscience and Toleration Sect. 2. Of some other rigid and dangerous Principles against the Supremacy of Princes Chap. IX Corollaries concerning some duties of subjection The Second BOOK Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King Chap. I. THE publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered Sect. 1. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes Power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government Sect. 2. Of the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon any pretence whatsoever against the King Sect. 3. Of the traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or against those who are Commissionated by him 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. 1. The preservation of Peace and common Rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Sect. 2. The Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince Sect. 3. The condition of Subjects would not be the better but the worse if it were lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign Sect. 4. The Plea that Self-defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature considered and of the end of Soveraign Power with a representation of the pretence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined Sect. 5. The Divine Original of Soveraign Power asserted Chap. III. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament Sect. 1. The need and usefulness of considering this Case Sect. 2. The general unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 3. Objections from the behaviour of David answered Sect. 4. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered Chap. IV. The Rules and Precepts delivered by Christ and his Apostles concerning resistance and the practice of the Primitive Christians declared Sect. 1. The Doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself Sect. 2. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practices Sect. 3. The practice and sense of the Primitive Church concerning resistance Chap. V. Of the Extent of the Duty and obligation of non-resistance Sect. 1. Resistance by force against the Soveraign Prince is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 2. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected on and considered ERRATA PAge 64. line 8. read 2 Kin. 1.10 12. p. 71. l. 19. Marg. r. de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 40. p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 106. l. 3. Marg. r. n. 6. p. 107. l. 4. r. Frischmuthius p. 219. l. 14. r. Sword and p. 223. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 1. Marg. r. Comen p. 268. l. 25. r. Patriarchdoms Christian Loyalty The First BOOK Of Regal Supremacy especially in matters Ecclesiastical and the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction CHAP. I. The Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared SECT I. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England 1. THE things established in the Church of England which all Ecclesiastical persons are required to declare their consent unto B. 1. C. 1. do concern matters of so high importance that both the being and the purity and perfection of a Church doth very much depend upon the consideration thereof to wit the order and way of its worship the due honour it gives to the King and Secular Authority the truth of its doctrine and the right and regular ordination of its Ministry That the publick worship of God in our Church is free from all just exception and agreeable to the rules of Christianity and the best and primitive patterns I have given some account in a former Treatise And in this discourse I shall treat of that Authority and Dignity which is justly yielded and ascribed to the supreme civil power 2. Loyal Principles useful to the world And if a general right understanding of this matter could every where be obtained together with a practice suitable thereunto it would greatly contribute to the advancement and honour of Christianity and the peace of the world The great miscarriages and irregular practices by not yielding to Soveraign Princes their due Authority hath strangely appeared in the enormous Usurpations of the Romish Church and the frequent distractions of the Empire and other Kingdoms which have been thence derived For the Roman Bishop who still claimeth even where he possesseth not Sect. 1 by his exorbitant encroachment upon the Royalty of Kings especially in matters Ecclesiastical and thereupon in Civil also did advance himself unto the highest step of his undue Papal exaltation And he thereby also more firmly fixed and rivetted his usurpation over other Christian Bishops and put himself into a capacity of propagating his corrupt doctrines without probable appearance of any considerable check or controul and with the less likelyhood of redress and reformation And from the like cause have proceeded divers exorbitancies in opinion and practice concerning the Church and its Government in another sort of men And the want of Conscientious observance of the duties of subjection hath too often manifested it self in the world by the sad effects of open tumult and rebellion all which hath highly tended to the scandal of Religion 3. It seemeth also considerable that almost all Sects and erring parties about matters of Religion and many of them to very ill purposes do nourish false conceptions and mistaken opinions concerning the civil power
the persons governed and an obligation upon them unto obedience so the chief and special works of secular Government are frequently expressed in the Holy Scripture by judging and doing judgment and justice 1 Kin. 10.9 Jer. 22.15 hence the ancient rulers of Israel were called their Judges by being as a Shepherd unto the people Num. 27.17 and also by giving praise to them that do well and executing wrath on them who do evil Rom. 13.3 4. 1 Pet. 2.14 Phil. de praem poen p. 918. de Vit. Mos l. 2. And Philo accounteth the authority of Government to be a power of commanding and prohibiting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which encludeth an authoritative power over the persons of others and being the life of and giving execution to the law The sense of which and especially of the Scripture expressions is That the Governing power includeth an authority to take care of the Community and of what is just and right and to command and encourage well-doing and when occasion requires to take an account of the actions and causes of inferiours acquitting or punishing them according to their merit and opposing all injurious and evil doers And he who hath a right to do all this towards all other persons in his Dominions without being governed by subject to or accountable before any other superiour authority upon earth is a Supreme Governour 2. But it is neither necessary nor most suitable to supremacy of Government that the rules by which the Governour proceedeth should be altogether at his own will and pleasure But it is sufficient that these rules be such as he either judgeth to be good and therefore chuseth of himself or else freely accepteth and consenteth to them if they be formed to his hands or proposed by others For it is no abatement of the high Soveraignty of the Glorious God over the world that all his government and executing judgment is ordered according to the natural and eternal rules and measures of goodness and justice and not by any such arbitrary will which excludeth all respect thereto And man hath not a less but a greater government over himself when he guideth himself by the rules of reason nor is it therefore any diminution of the power of a Governour when the exercise thereof is and ought to be managed by rules of common equity Yea the Kings of Judah enjoyed a compleat Supremacy though they were to govern according to the law of Moses and so much more may Christian Kings do while they maintain a Religious respect to the positive laws of Christianity And there are some Kingdoms where without any disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince they are governed by the fixed rules of the civil law and others where other laws established by their Predecessors are standing rules And if in the last place we consider that when great Emperours yielded to their conquered and tributary Principalities at their Petition and desire the priviledge of being governed by their own former laws as was done to Judaea by their Persian Josep Ant. l. 11. c. 4. c. 8. lib. 12. c. 2. c. 3. lib. 14. c. 17. Grecian Egyptian Syrian and Roman Governours under whose Dominion they were this was no giving the Supremacy of Government out of their own hands much less can it be a Plea against the Supremacy of Government in a free natural Prince where the consent of his Subjects in Parliament is always taken in for the forming and enacting any new law which he establisheth at their request and Petition 3. And as such a model of framing laws is very well consistent with the Supremacy of the Prince so it is a great priviledge to the subjects of such a Realm which they cannot but be sensible of and which will make their subjection more cheerful and free And it further encludeth this advantage to the Government it self that there is like to be greater care of obedience to those laws where the people are not only obliged thereto from the duty of submission and the fear of penalties but have also given their own consent and agreement to their being and constitution St. de Marlbridge St. de Bigamis St. quo Warranto passim To this purpose the things established by our laws are called things agreed and assented to and concordata and very often they are declared to be enacted by the Kings Majesty with the advice and assent of the Lords and Commons but always it is acknowledged that neither nor both Houses of Parliament have any legislative power without the King and whosoever shall assert the contrary is by a late statute declared to be under a Praemunire 13 Car. 2.1 4. And it is plainly evident Supremacy is a right of governing not of performing all particular offices that the supreme government in all things or causes is quite of a different nature from the right of performing the actions or offices of all persons who are under this government which for the most part are inconsistent with the dignity of Supremacy though some have been willing to confound these things and thereby hinder themselves and others from a right understanding of them De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. And Cardinal Bellarmine himself spent his strength and courage in fighting in the dark when he somewhat largely insists on this argument That secular Princes have not a supreme Government with respect to the Church because they cannot perform the offices of other Governours of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and argues they may not baptize and consecrate non sunt igitur Reges supremi Ecclesiae Magistratus But no man need be to seek for the true sense of supremacy as it is acknowledged in this Church and Realm who doth consider duly those very words both in the Oath of Supremacy and the Canonical subscription That the King is supreme Governour as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal Wherefore 5. Obs 1. In temporal things or causes there are some rights of power and authority Some authority besides the supreme by peculiar divine institution both in spiritual and temporal things which are wholly derived from the King as the Commanding an Army or Navy and the governing any place or County in his Dominion but there are others which depend upon divine institution which institution must be reverenced and the rules thereof attended unto by all sorts of men such is the authority and right of the Husband over his Wife in the state of marriage appointed of God And in Ecclesiastical matters there are some things in our ancient laws reserved as peculiar to the Ecclesiastical power not without good reason and yet much by the favour of the soveraign authority as the power of proving wills and testaments 21 Hen. 8.5.22 23 Car. 2. and granting administrations concerning which our late Statutes have made some additional provisions but there are other matters of Ecclesiastical authority
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
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
Officers not excluded from all civil Government that though these offices be so distinct that none ought to perform the Ecclesiastical ministrations but they who are ordained thereto and that no Ecclesiastical person hath any civil power by mere vertue of his Ecclesiastical office and though the intermedling with such matters of civil affairs as in the nature of them are unsuitable to the Clergy are reasonably prohibited by the ancient Canons yet it would be against all reason to imagine that all civil Government because civil and political is inconsistent with the state of an Ecclesiastical person since he is a part also of the civil Society or the body politick In the Jewish state Syn. Ep. 121. in some extraordinary cases that was very true which Synesius observed that the chief secular power was in the Priest so it was under the government of Eli in the days of the Maccabees and the succeeding times when Aristobulus is observed by S Hierome Hier. in Dan. 9. to be the first who there joined the royal authority and Diadem with the Priesthood But even under the reign of David the Levites and in the time of Jehosophat Deut. 17. v. 8 -12 the Priests and Levites are plainly according to the law declared to have been appointed for Judges and Officers of the Realm 1 Chr. 26 29-32 2 Chr. 19.8 and many other expressions of the Old Testament are interpreted by Mr Thorndike to import the same Of Religious Assembl c. 2. concerning other times of the Jewish Government And in the time of Christianity I suppose no man will doubt but that according to the Command of the Apostle those who are Officers in the Church ought to take care of the Government of their own Families which is a civil affair and authority And whilest the Church was under Pagan Princes V. Const Apostol l. 2. c. 46. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. it was usual for the Officers thereof to sit in judgment to decide all matters of controversy among Christians which was according to the direction of our Saviour Mat. 18.17 and of this Apostle 1 Cor. 6. as I shall in another place take notice And the making peace and deciding differences was thought a work so well becoming such persons and was so usually practised by them about S. Austins time Aug. de Oper. Monach c. 29. Posid de Vit. Aug. c. 19. that he mentions these things as those the hearing and determining of which took up a considerable portion of his time And nothing is more manifest than that divers Imperial Edicts of pious Princes did peculiarly reserve the cognisance of most causes relating to the Clergy besides others Sozom. l. 1. c. 9. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 4. leg 7 8. Novel 83 86 123. to the hearing and decision of the Bishop And as Ecclesastical Officers are members of the Community and subjects to their Prince it is very allowable that they should so far as they can be every way useful unto both and thereby also to the Churches good 10. But this distinct constitution of the Church and its Offices A distinct Ecclesiastical power no prejudice to the civil is no diminution of the civil authority and its supremacy but rather an enlargement thereof and an advancement of its dignity For the whole state of the Christian Church is founded in the superabundant grace and favour of God towards man and the Ecclesiastical authority of its Officers being the ministry of reconciliation is quite of a different nature from secular power being wholly superadded over and above it and without any infringment thereof Right of the Church ch 4. p. 168. Review ch 1. p. 13. Didocl Alt. Dam. cap. 1. p. 15. And hereupon the whole power of the Church is by some Writers termed a cumulative and not a privative power as taking nothing from the civil and the same terms are used concerning the right of the secular power in matters Ecclesiastical as being without any abatement of the proper spiritual power Yea the whole civil authority towards all subjects whatsoever doth not only still remain intire to the secular Ruler but he also receiveth this accession thereunto from the constitution of Christianity that the object of his government is so far enlarged thereby that he hath a right of inspection and care even of those matters which the grace of God or the Gospel dispensation hath established And this doth also so much the more exalt his honour and dignity in that not only all subjects in their general capacity as such Sect. 5 are obliged to submit themselves to their Kings and Princes but that even those Officers of the Church which in their Realms are established by the peculiar appointment of Jesus Christ the King of Kings are also included under this duty and are not the less subjects notwithstanding their relation to the Church To which I may add that there are peculiar arguments for honour and reverence unto Rulers which the doctrine of the Christian Church affordeth SECT V. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto To give a more particular account of Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical we may observe 1. The Princes care about the power of the Keys That though the power of the Keys in admitting any person into rejecting him from or guideing him in the Communion of the Church as a Society founded by Christ and the dispensing Christian mysteries can be exercised by none but the particular Officers of Christs Church to whom it is committed yet the Prince may command them to mind and do their duty therein and if need so require punish their neglect Indeed it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical power to determine rules for the due exercise of the power of the Keys and the ordering such rules is part of that power which hath been frequently exercised in very many Canons of several Councils But the soveraign power hath a right to take care that these rules of Government be practised and observed Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 3. Nov. 6. 123. And the establishing laws of this nature was very frequent both in the Empire and in other Christian Kingdoms and those of Justinian have been especially taken notice of to this purpose And though the late Canonists do broadly censure him as intermedling too far in Church affairs yet Baronius himself is here so modest Annal. Eccles An. 528. n. 1. as to allow low that there is much in this particular to be said in his excuse and the late learned Archbishop of Paris P. de Marcâ— de Concord Sacerd Imp. l. 2. cap. 10. hath sufficiently shewed that the more ancient Bishops Patriarchs and Councils did applaud and honour these his Constitutions in things Ecclesiastical 2. And the worship of God 2. Touching the worship of God since the divine establishment of the publick Christian service is
contained in the Gospel no authority upon earth hath any right to prohibit this And those Christians who rightly worship God in the true Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such assemblies for the Christian worship as appear useful for the Churches good though this should be against the interdict of the civil power As this is well and largely asserted by Mr Thorndike Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 4. c. so was it practised by the Christians under their Persecutions and even by the Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours But the Sovereign Ruler hath a right to promote this publick worship and to establish it by a civil Sanction to protect the Church therein and to punish those who neglect it and in this sense Princes are as Amalarius stiled Ludvicus Pius Amal. Pras lib. de Eccles Offic. Rectores totius Religionis Christianae quantum ad homines pertinet Governours in what relates to the Religion and worship of Christianity And the civil Ruler hath also a right to oppose those who are guilty of schismes and occasion unchristian divisions in the publick worship of God and in so doing S. Austin undertakes to warrant him as well he may from the doctrine of the Apostle That he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Aug. Ep. 164. and they that resist receive to themselves damnation that he is a terrour to evil works and a revenger to execute wrath on him who doth evil tota igitur quaestio est saith he utrum nihil mali sit sohisma the only thing to be enquired into in this case is whether there be no evil in the sin of Schism And though the method and rule of the publick worship it self is to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Officers to whose immediate care the Church is committed yet the secular power hath a right to see that this be done to establish such orders of worship by their Sanctions to provide for their due observance Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 10. and that they may be performed without disturbance And such things as these were established by the Imperial law 3. And the doctrine of Christianity 3. Concerning the Christian doctrine and profession though no authority hath any right to oppose any part of the Christian truth Princes may and ought to take care of the true profession thereof in their Dominions and to suppress such dangerous errors as are manifestly contrary thereunto Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. G. Novel 132. as was done by the pious Emperours in the ancient Church against Arianisme Donatisme Manicheisme and other Heresies But in cases of difficulty for the deciding or ending of controversies about matters of faith the disquisition and Resolution of the spiritual guides ought to take place and to be embraced because they are by their office Pastors and Teachers and their joint and regular determinations of great moment for the Churches peace and also because the Church as a Christian Society and therefore the guides and Officers thereof in the first place is the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim. 3.15 Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 16. Cod. ubi sup Novel 131. Upon this account were many ancient Councils convened and even the first general Council of Nice And accordingly hath the doctrine established in the four first general Councils been constantly received in the Christian Church hence also both the Imperial law and the Canonical decrees Dist 15. c. sicut c. Sancta reverence the doctrine of these Councils tanquam sacras scripturas and a very high respect is given to them in our English laws And the Arian Emperours who lived after the Council of Nice could not by their Imperial power null its decision of doctrine after its plenary establishment and confirmation V. Ch. 5. Sect. 1 2 3. But in such cases the Catholick Christian Emperours did by their authority establish the decisions of the Oecumenical Councils And as it is no abatement of the Royal Supremacy in civil matters that when controversies are determined by able Judges and sometimes by a consultation of many of those Sages their determinations should be established by the royal power no more is the like proceeding in matters of Religion any diminution of the royal power when the regular determinations of Catholick Councils are owned thereby but this method of proceeding doth in both the cases mentioned evidence that the royal power is exercised with due Christian care for the best attaining the designed end But in matters of truth which are plain and manifest from the holy Scriptures themselves and the primitive Christian Doctrine or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith the secular Governour so far as is necessary may proceed upon the evidence thereof to his own understanding 4. Supremacy concerning order decency and peace in the Church 4. In establishing rules and Constitutions for order decency and peace it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers who are Guides and Overseers of the Church to consult advise and take care thereof and this was a great part of the business of many ancient Councils and the Canons thereof But yet this is with such dependance upon the regal power as I cannot better express than in the words of our late Soveraign King Charles the First If saith he any difference in the Church of England arise about the external policy Decl. before 39. Articl concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them having first obtained leave under our broad Seal so to do and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land But in such an extraordinary case as that in the primitive times was when the civil power will not own the Church the Ecclesiastical Governours by their own authority may establish necessary rules of order as was then done But since the external Sanction of such things doth flow from the general nature of power and authority wheresoever the temporal power will take that care of the Church which it ought it hath a right to give its establishment to such Constitutions and the Ecclesiastical Officers as subjects are bound to apply themselves thereto for the obtaining it And as the Canons of Councils were usually confirmed by pious Princes so the Constitutions of the Imperial law did require the Canons to be observed as laws Nov. 6. 131. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 2. l. 6 12. And the Calling of Councils 5. 5. The calling of Councils so far as is needful for the preservation of the peace and order of the Church may be performed as the former by Ecclesiastical Officers where the civil disowneth the Church But this being no particular exercise of the power of the Keys but only of a general authority doth peculiarly belong to the Prince
or supreme governour if he will make use thereof as hath been declared by the chief persons of this Church Can. 1. 1640. And the ancient right and exercise of the authority of Kings in summoning provincial or national Councils De Conc. Sac. Imp. l. 6. c. 18 19 22 23 24 c. The Kings just authority in matters Ecclesiastical opposed is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca 6. But against these just rights of the Princes power there are various oppositions Such are the claims of the Romish Bishops universal Supremacy either in all affairs or at least in all things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as also the pretence for the necessity of general liberty and exemption from all authority in matters of Conscience and Religion Ch. 6. 8. which things I shall so far as is needful in due place particularly consider 7. The Writers of the Romish Church do 1. V. l. 2. Decretal Tit. de Jud. c. At si clerici c. Clerici Tit. de foro comp c si diligenti Bellar. de Cler. c. 28. Generally assert and some other parties also encline the same way that the state of the Church and all Ecclesiastical affairs are exempt from the civil power and not under the inspection and government thereof and that the Clergy as such are not subjects to the secular Governour and that they are not accountable before him no not so much say divers of them as in criminal causes nor yet in civil Layman l. 4. Tr. 9. c. 2 4 5. seq 2. Not only the Canonists but many others also do found this Ecclesiastical immunity upon a proper divine right which is also asserted by some of the Romish Biships Innoc. 3. in Conc. Lateran Leo 10. in Bul. Reform in Conc. Later 5. Ses 9. Azor. Tom. 1. l. 5. c. 12. Laym ubi sup c. 8. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. p. 4. Bannes in 2. secundae qu. 6â— Art 1. Dub. 2. in such Councils as they call General And some of their Writers run so high as Layman Theol. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. cap. 13. and divers others by him there cited as to assert that no civil or secular laws do lay any obligation directly upon the Clergy as having no authority over them But if I shall shew that all members of the Christian Church are nevertheless subjects or the Realm and that the nature of civil Soveraignty doth directly include a right to givern them and an obligation to take care of the affairs of the Church this will sufficiently refute these contrary positions 8. But these Writers are sensible that in the general practice of the Christian World almost in all ages thereof secular Governours have interposed in many cases Ecclesiastical And the great advantages from Christian Religion being established and Gentilisme opposed by the Laws and Constitutions of Constantine and other worthy Christian Emperours are so visible that they cannot be denied and therefore the Romanists do acknowledge that the Princes care of the Church affairs is of great use I. Zecch de principe l. 2. cap. 5. and that he is as Laelius Zecchius expresseth it Ecclesiae brachium Religionis propugnaculum the arm and defence of the Church and the fortress of Religion Greg. de Valentia ubi supra Laym l. 4. tr 9. c. 10. P. de Marca de Concord l. 1. cap. 12. in Prolegom p. 28. Yet that all this may be consistent with the former positions we have another device set on foot which acknowledgeth that this useful power of Soveraign Princes in things Ecclesiastical must be owned only as a priviledge granted them by the Bishop of Rome and that they must act therein as by his favour and as his deputies and by the right of protecting the Church which he committeth to them 9. Now though this pretence will fall with the former if it be manifested that the nature end and constitution of civil government as established by God is to be extended to matters Ecclesiastical yet concerning this pretence I shall here further note these things 1. That they must cast reflections upon the wise and good God who asserting the great usefulness of the civil Ruler interposing in matters Ecclesiastical will not grant that the wisdom and goodness of God should be as ready to allow the Church this advantage as the prudence of the Pope 2. That if this anthority in matters Ecclesiastical be against the rules of the divine law which God hath established for the honour and freedom of his Church the Bishop of Rome dealeth ill with the Church touching its freedoms by giving them away and makes very bold with God by daring to confront Gods laws with his priviledges and indulging any person to disobey them 3. That Christian Princes would be in a very unsafe condition whilest they act any thing about the affairs of the Church if they have no better foundation to bear them up than the pretence of the Popes power to dispense with the laws of God Surely had Justinian thought Novel 58. that his care of the Church had been so ventuous and hazardous an enterprise it would have cooled the heat of his zeal that he would never have professed his care for the Churches wilfare to be equal to that for his own life 4. That whilest any persons do think it meet that Princes should act under the Pope as his deputy in the affairs of Religion to whom they owe no subjection and from whom they receive no ruling authority it must certainly be much more reasonable that they should act under God and as his Deputies whose Vice-gerents they certainly are and from whom I shall now design to prove them to have authority in matters Ecclesiastical B. 1. C. 2. CHAP. II. The Royal Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered SECT I. Their supreme authority over things and persons sacred manifested 1. Kings in the Old Testament governed about things of the Church Art 37. THE inference which may be made from the authority of the Kings under the Old Testament is an argument to which our Church hath a great respect in asserting the Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical In her Articles she declareth this acknowledgment of Royal Supremacy to be a yielding that only prerogative unto our Kings which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture Can. 2. by God himself And in her Canons she threatneth excommunication against them who shall affirm that the King hath not the same authority in causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 1 that the godly Kings had among the Jews Wherefore I shall for the inforcing this argument shew 1. That the Kings of Judah had and exercised a supreme power of Government in things belonging to the Church 2. That they did this by such a right as is common to all other Soveraign powers and not by any peculiar priviledge and
difference of Judaism and Christianity considered with respect to supremacy But as to the particular subject matter of this authority which cannot possibly be the same in Judaisme and Christianity there must of necessity appear a difference in the exercise of this supreme authority many things being allowable under the law which are not so under the Gospel But it is here further pleaded that the Kings under the Law might be further interested in Ecclesiastical affairs than the Gospel will admit because the Church and state were not so much distinguished under the legal Oeconomy as under the Evangelical the Mosaical law being the foundation and rule both of the Jewish Church and of the political government But in truth the proper fixed Kingly authority in the Family of Israel was not so much established as only allowed by the Mosaical law and though there was a true royal power in Moses and in the Judges yet this was not fixed and determined to be the constant Government by a particular law And the Priesthood under the law was as fully distinct from the civil power as the Church government under the Gospel is neither of them deriving themselves from the civil nor resolving themselves into it But in both these dispensations as the Ecclesiastical government was appointed by them so was the civil also in general established yet so that the foundation which it hath in the laws of nature is antecedent unto both And if there be any difference as to subjection of things and persons Ecclesiastical unto Princes it might seem plausible which yet is not to be insisted upon that the Jewish Priesthood might the rather pretend exemption from the royal power as being established before the fixed royal line 9. Epil B. 1. Ch. 20. Right of the Church ubi supra It is also urged and must be granted that the Christian Church is of a larger extent than the limits of any single temporal soveraign whereas the Jewish Church and State were one and the same body except the case of some Proselytes such as Naaman was among the Gentiles And from hence it is to be acknowledged that by the determination of Catholick Councils or by the universal practice of Christians abroad any particular Christian Kingdom and the Soveraign thereof may be obliged to entertain and establish some things otherwise indifferent in a compliance with these generally received usages and thereby with respect to the peace unity and honour of the Christian Church Of this nature are some things relating to Canonical ordinations the solemnizing of marriage the observation of the Church festivals and the rules for communicating with other parts of the Christian Church Indeed no such rule as this could have any force in the Jewish Church but yet this consideration cannot hinder either the extent or exercise of the Princes authority in the Christian Church unless this power had consisted in a liberty to lay aside all rules in matters adiaphorous relating to Religion besides his own pleasure Whereas it doth consist in such a right as cannot be restrained or annulled by any power upon earth to establish by civil sanctions what is useful about Religion And his being obliged in Conscience to admit and embrace such particular things as conduce to the Vnity or welfare of the Christian Church which is a duty every Christian oweth unto God is no more prejudicial to his supremacy of Government in this very case than a private mans being bound to admit what general custom hath made a part of decency and civility is prejudicial to or inconsistent with his right and power of governing and commanding his own actions 10. Wherefore it remains that the supremacy of Christian Princes notwithstanding these things objected is the same in substance with the Supremacy of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion but in some particularities there must be a difference in the way of its exercise And this may possibly be all that Mr Thorndike intended who expressing a difference in this matter between the state of the law and the Gospel referreth this sometimes a Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 11. to the consideration of the Churches Vnity or else b Review Ch. 1. p. 11. as a stop to Erastus Yet he plainly asserteth from the consideration that the Apocalypse foretelleth the conversion of the Empire to Christianity c Review p. 15. that it cannot be doubted that Christian powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient people always had by the making Christianity the Religion of the State And he also admits d Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 9 10 11. Review ch 1. p. 13 14. the same power in matters Ecclesiastical both in the Christian state and in the Jewish to flow from the nature of Soveraign power and the necessary duty of this power being employed to advance Religion 11. Of the Consecration of Churches Another thing which may possibly deserve some consideration is from the general usage and practice of the Church concerning the dedication and consecration of Churches Some have thought that when Salomons Temple was consecrated the consecration thereof was mainly performed by Salomon himself who was the King this is urged by the Leviathan Leviath Ch. 40. Hospin de Templ l. 4. c. 2. and some men of learning seem to favour this notion speaking of him Ipse dedicationis praecipuas obivit partes that he himself discharged the chief part of the dedication But the general practice of the Christian Church hath been so far as any account thereof can be discovered to have their Churches dedicated not by Princes undertaking to celebrate that solemnity but by the Bishops of the Church C. 1. q. 2. c. placuit de Consecrat dist 1. Leon. Ep. 88. ad Germ. Gal. Episcop De Vit. Const c. 40 43 44. And this is not only manifest from divers Canons mentioned by Gratian and from the Epistles of Leo but the practice of the Church herein is evident in the time of Constantine the Great For there is a particular account given by Eusebius in the life of Constantine of the dedication of a famous Church in Jerusalem to which he telleth us divers Bishops were assembled and did bear their parts in that solemnity And the same author acquainteth us that in his reign there were in divers Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. consecrations of those places of divine worship which were then lately built and the meeting of Bishops to that end 12. But that this seeming difficulty may be cleared it may be observed that there were three sort of things done at the consecration of the temple at Jerusalem 1. Salomon whom God had chosen to build his House when he had finished it yieldeth up his right and presenteth it to God and by Prayer desireth Gods acceptance and that it might be useful to the designed end and the
after he saith In this Kingdom there were Officers of the Realm rege superiores I say saith he in this Kingdom which was established and ordained not by Plato or Aristotle but by God himself the supreme founder of all Monarchy 4. And it is very manifest The pretended power of the Sanhedrin that the greater part of the Jewish Rabbinical Writers and from them divers Christians some of them so judicious that it is strange they should be so much imposed upon by Fables and Romances do assert that the Sanhedrim or Senate of seventy one persons had such a power over the Kings of Judah as to call them to account and punish them And they also assert that according to the original establishment of the Jewish laws and polity the chief causes of moment both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature were exempt from the Kings jurisdiction and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance Grot. Schick ubi supra To this purpose Grotius declareth aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta I think there were some cases of judgment reserved from the King which remained in the Sanhedrim of seventy men i. e. besides the Nasi or president Schickard goes farther and sayes sine senatus magni assensu Rex in gravioribus causis nihil poterat decernere that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters without the assent of this great Senate And our Author de Synedriis De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 1. among other things discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio magno propriis ut nec à Regibus aut impediri aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt in which words he fetters and confines the Kings power but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large 5. Carpzov in Schick c. 2. p. 142. But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions that they have no better a foundation than a tradition delivered by some of the Jewish Rabbins This a fabulous tradition of the Rabbins against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular there lie these exceptions 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority before the captivity but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time and therefore can give no testimony upon their own knowledge and writing one from another with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered the number of them who are produced can add nothing to their testimony But both divine and humane writers who are of an ancienter date do sufficiently contradict this position as I hope to make plain He therefore who can believe that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders because divers of late but neither Scripture nor ancient Writers do assert it and he who can perswade himself that our Saviour made the Bishop of Rome the Vniversal Monarch of the whole World and gave him a plenitude of all temporal and spiritual power because many Writers of that Communion do now assert this while what is inconsistent therewith was declared by Christ his Apostles and the ancient Christian Church such men have understandings of a fit fize and sutable disposition to receive these Rabbinical traditions concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy which are also things fit for their purpose 6. Gemar Sanhed Cocc c. 2. Sect. 10. Secondly It is evident that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Nation were forward to extol it even beyond the bounds of truth of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud of the number of the Horses for Salomons own Stables which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty millions accounting a thousand thousand to a Million Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory for a considerable time Sed. Olam zut in fin before the reign of Aristobulus and under the Roman Government and some continuance thereof remained towards five hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem as their Chronicle informs us which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers And it is very probable that the pressures and sufferings which the Jews sustained under the Roman Emperours or Kings might prejudice them against Monarchical Government 7. Thirdly There are other Rabbinical and Talmudical Writers of good note who will by no means be perswaded to embrace this tradition which disparageth the Royal power Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rabba and others are cited by Mr Selden and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius who assert that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King And that the highest authority is in the King who standeth in Gods place is asserted by R. Abarbanel Carpzov in Schick p. 165. Their pretended power over the person of the King refuted whose words are in Carpzov 8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim over the person of the King They deal with the royal authority as the Jews did with our Saviour who gave him the title of the King of the Jews but yet scourged him and treated him with great indignity For these Writers do assert that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim only by the great Sanhedrim at Jernsalem saith Schickard De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7. and he acknowledgeth that even this appeared to him valde paradoxum a thing far from truth and very unlikely until his own apprehensions were moulded into a complyance with the Jewish Writers But Mr Selden addeth De Syn. l. 2. c. 9. n. 5. that according to the testimony of the Rabbins he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three which was the Government of every particular City And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging enumerated by Maimonides Ibid. c. 13. n. 8. and mentioned from him by Selden the three last are if the King multiply Wives if he multiply Horses and if he multiply silver and gold Now these things are so strange in themselves reducing the King to the same circumstances with every common and petty offender that how this can consist with the majesty and soveraignty of a Prince is utterly unconceiveable and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies must also perswade himself to believe against the plainest evidence that David and those who sat upon his throne were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah but were all of them subjects under the common and ordinary government and authority of that Common-wealth 9. Schickard de Jur.
which undertook to dispose of the High Priesthood in Jewry against both the letter of the law and the design of it But no Governours whosoever they be whether of the Church or Strangers from it have any right to do such things no more than Jeroboam had to set up the worship of the ten Tribes of Israel contrary to the Law or than the Arian Emperours had to oppose the Deity of the Son of God against the Gospel But though it be very desireable that all parts of the Christian Church should be under Christian and pious Princes yet where other powers do take care Sect. 3 that the Christian Church and Ministers do observe the true Christian Rules Spalat Ostensio Error Fr. Suar. c. 3. n. 23. as the Archbishop of Spalato tells us was done in that part of his Province which was under the Turk this so far as it is regularly performed is an advantage to the Christian Religion and no blameable exercise of their authority 3. I think it a very plain and clear truth All Soveraign powers ought to profess and promote true Religion that Kings and Princes are invested with an authority to govern in matters of Religion not as originally arising from their Christianity but from their general right of Dominion and Soveraignty Nor will there be any difficulty in this assertion if we consider that this power of governing about Religion encludeth only a right of establishing by their authority what is truly unblameable orderly useful and necessary with respect to Religion and of enquiring into the practices of their subjects thereupon in order to approbation or punishment but gives no authority against truth or goodness 4. And though some persons by popular expressions declaim against this position De Minist angl l. 3. c. 4. yet the substance of it hath been yielded by men of various perswasions Mr Mason in his defence of the Ministry of England asserteth That they who are Heathens have the same office and authority of the higher power that the Christian Magistrate hath but want the right exercise of it in matters Ecclesiastical Our English Presbyterians have asserted that Heathen Magistrates may be nursing Fathers Jas div Reg. Eccl. c. 9. S. 1. may protect the Church and Religion and order many things in a ploitical way about Religion may not extirpate or persecute the Church may help her in reforming and may not hinder her Spalatens ubi sup And Spalatensis asserteth that the power of the Prince in the external things of the Church is so necessarily connected by divine natural and positive right with the Royal power ut infidelis etiam princeps tali si velit sciat legitime uti possit potestate that even an infidel Prince may use that power if he understand his duty and be willing to perform it And this assertion is approved even by Didoclavius or Mr Caldwood Altar Dam. c. 1. fin Didoclavius being the Anagram of Caldivodius one of the most eager of the Scotish Presbyterians And Rivet very rightly averreth In Decal ad quint. praec In infideli principe non est defectus potestatis sed voluntatis tantùm that an infidel Prince doth not want authority but will and inclination to advance the true Religion 5. Surely it is past doubt that where ever true Religion and Christianity is declared and manifested in the World it is the duty of all men to receive and embrace it because as they are Gods Creatures they ought to obey and honour him and submit to his Laws and believe his Revelations and thereupon every supreme Magistrate ought to advance the name of Christ and the true doctrine and Religion And if a Pagan Prince upon understanding the truth shall use his authority for its advancement this power is justly exercised in such Causes Ecclesiastical I presume no Christian will deny that Nebuchadnezzar did well in making a strict Law Dan. 3.29 that none should speak amiss against the God of Israel and Darius also in making a Decree that men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel Dan. 6.26 and Cyrus Darius and Artaxerxes in giving order for the rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem restoring its Vessels and furnishing it with Sacrifices and executing judgment on the opposers hereof with respect to which thing good Ezra blessed God who had put such a thing into the heart of Artaxerxes And that other Princes in like circumstances should follow the steps of Nebuchadnezzar Darius and the King of Niniveh who proclaimed a strict fast and commanded his people to cry mightily unto God Aug. Ep. 50. Tertul. Apol c. 5. is justly asserted by S. Aug. in his Epistle to Bonifacius 6. Nor are those Heathen Emperours to be censured who acted any thing on the behalf of Christian Religion as Tiberius threatned them who at their peril should accuse Christians for their Religion and other publick rescripts there were of Adrianus Eus Hist Eccl. l. 4.9 Antoninus ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aurelius Tertul. Ap. c. 5. and Galienus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were in the favour of Christians And it is a known and famous case concerning Paulus Samosatenus who for Heresy was deposed by the Christian Bishops in the Council of Antioch and Domnus appointed to succeed him Eus Hist l. 7. c. 24. But Paulus refusing to leave his possession the Orthodox Christians appeal to Aurelianus a Pagan Emperour who referring the case to be heard by the Bishops of Italy and about Rome ordered the Church to be given to him for whom they should determine and by his authority was Paulus ejected and neither his interposing nor their appeal unto him hath been ever thought culpable nor yet Paulus his being dispossessed Constantine before his baptism exercised authority in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the secular power 7. But above all others the acting of Constantine the Great before the time of his Baptism seemeth very considerable to evidence what power hath been exercised in things Ecclesiastical with the general approbation of Christians by one not yet admitted into the Christian Church Of which I shall give some particular instances to which more may be added beginning with what hath relation to the peace and concord of the Church Africa in a short time gave birth to the Schism of Donatus and of Meletius and the Heresy of Arius The Donatists separated themselves from the Church upon some exceptions they made against the Ordination of Caecilianus and being condemned by the African Catholick Bishops they apply themselves to Constantine the Emperour Opt. cont Parm. l. 1. But he being not versed in things of that nature as Optatus tells us did not or as S. Austin several times saith Aug. Ep. 162. 166. durst not undertake the judging of the case himself but by his authority he appointed Melchiades then Bishop of Rome with three Bishops of Gallia to judge
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.
non esse nisi Deum qui fecit Imperatorem which very plainly assert that the Emperour was under none but only God himself But I shall apply my self to such things as will enclude the more general and publick acknowledgment of the Christian Church and shall then answer what may be objected in this particular 4. The actual exercise of Government in the ancient Christian Realms is somewhat considerable to this purpose That the Christian Emperours did exercise authority in matters Ecclesiastical is manifest from the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Roman Emperors Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5 c. which are yet to be seen in the Codex and the Novellae Justiniani Wherein among other things there are laws establishing the Catholick faith and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Novel 6. 123. passim so as not to allow any to contend against it as also concerning the manner of Ordinations Excommunications and Absolutions and the duty of the Clergy even of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs And in these and other particulars the Nomocanon of Photius doth designedly shew Phot. Nomoc Tit. 1. c. how the Imperial law doth provide for various Cases concerning which the Canons of the Church also had taken care 5. The Laws of like nature are also yet extant of the Kings of France Kings anciently governed in things Ecclesiastical and other Realms abroad And in our own Kingdom the Ecclesiastical laws of Ina Alfred Edgar Canutus and Edward the Confessor may be seen in Sir H. Spelman Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. The Laws made and executed by Christian Emperours against Arians Nestorians Manichees and others guilty of Heresy or Schism were very many and the proceedings by the Imperial law against the Donatists was in divers places defended by S. Austin And that all the godly Emperours of old Aug. Ep. 50.162 164 166. De correct Donatist passim even from the beginning of the Emperours professing Christianity did take such care of the Church that the affairs thereof and the matters of Religion were very much ordered by their authority Socr. Procem l. 5. Hist Eccl. is plainly declared by Socrates And this is a thing so manifest to all who look into the History and Records of those Times that it is as needless to go about to prove this as it would be to prove them to have been Christian Emperours 6. But that which will give the most evident Declaration of the sense of the Christian Church is the considering how this authority of Christian Princes hath been acknowledged and complyed with by Councils and by those especially which were the first general or Oecumenical Councils For whilest the opinion of some particular fathers may possibly be thought not sufficient to give a satisfactory account of the general sense of the Christian Church in those days and whereas the proof produced from the Imperial laws and the constant exercise of the Emperors authority in affairs of Religion may possibly fall under a suspicion of undue encroachment or may be pretended by some to be executed by an authority dependent upon and derived from some Ecclesiastical Officers no such exceptions can lie against the concurrent testimony and acknowledgment of the chief general Councils in the flourishing times of Christianity And I suppose that no man will deny that the assembling of Oecumenical Councils and the matters therein transacted were properly things Ecclesiastical 7. And here I shall begin with the first Council of Nice This Supremacy owned by the Council of Nice concerning whicn I shall need to say the less because many things mentioned in the third Section of the foregoing Chapter do sufficiently manifest the Supremacy exercised by Constantine the first Christian Emperour in whose Reign that Council sate That this general Council was called by the Command of Constantine the Emperour is expresly declared by Eusebius with whom Socrates Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 6. Theodoret and other ancient Historians do agree But the later Romish Writers would perswade the World that it was assembled by the authority of the Romish Bishop Bin. in Not. in Cone Nicen Not. a. So Binius Authoritate Silvestri Romani Pontificis By the authority of Silvester Bishop of Rome this holy Synod was summoned and was gathered together by the consent help and Counsel of Constan tine the Emperour And Baronius likewise declares that no man may doubt Baron an 325. n. 13. but that the authority of Silvester was in this case interposed But in truth they produce nothing that can justly be accounted any evidence hereof 8. But that it may appear past all doubt by whose authority this Council was convened we have a twofold testimony beyond all exception Constantine himself who was able to give an account of his own actions in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 6. which is extant in Socrates declares that it was he who called this Council Ibid. And the Synodical Epistle which was written by the Council of Nice to Alexandria which may be seen in Socrates and Theodoret Theod. Hist l. r. c. 9. doth attest the same and therein the Fathers of Nice themselves who could not but know who summoned that Council declare that it was gathered together by the grace of God and by the Religious Emperour Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who called us together out of divers Provinces and Cities 9. That the most eminent Bishops from the several quarters of the Empire did with much readiness repair to this Council according to the Emperors command is particularly attested by Eusebius Euseb ubi sup c. 6 7. and other Historians Yet it is not to be doubted that if they had received summons and command from a person whom they knew to be inferiour and not superiour to them as a Presbyter or Deacon they would never have yielded general obedience to him but would have rebuked and repressed his insolence and therefore this their obedience to the Emperour was an acknowledgment of his authority and supremacy And this is the more remarkable because these Nicene Bishops were persons of the highest worth and esteem of any in the Christian Church which appears from the general fame and deserved honour which this Council hath obtained in all succeeding ages unto this day 10. And the chief occasion of calling the Council was by reason of the evil opinions of Arius and the difference about the day for observing Easter which things the Emperour considering Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 6. gr though this the only effectual way for the redressing them and thereupon directed this Council particularly to consult about them which was accordingly done And whilest this Council was sitting the Emperour who was present with them used very great care and diligence Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. cap. 12 13. for the suppressing unnecessary occasions of discord and quarrel and for the
plead for it this inspection of such secular persons cannot be regular or expedient 6. Evagr. l. 2. c. 18. In this Council those of the party of Dioscorus and Eutyches whom this Council rejected Leon. Ep. 69. were censured with the approbation of the Emperour And Leo in an Epistle to Marcianus after the end of this Council acknowledged that it was he chiefly who effected the extirpation of heresy thereby vestro praecipue opere est effectum c. Evagr. l. 2. c. 4. Ibid. c. 18. The restoring them who were censured by Dioscorus and his party was also done with the Emperours consent And at the Emperours desire were the Canons of that Council made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. Conc. Chalc. Action 3. And after this Council was ended both Valentinian and Marcian jointly Sacra Marcian in fin Conc. Chalc. and again Marcian singly publish their Imperial Edict for the establishing the faith and doctrine which was declared in this Council and signifying to all their subjects that whosoever shall oppose this their decree shall not remain in any Ecclesiastical preferment and if he be of the Militia he shall be cashiered with other penalties for other persons 8. And whereas after the death of Marcianus the Eutychian party favoured by Anatolius of Constantinople desired to make new stirs and projected in their thoughts to have a new Council called that these matters might be again canvased and debated Leo still Bishop of Rome Leon. Ep. 73 74 75. makes his supplication to the Emperour Leo entreating him not to suffer any new disquisition of that truth concerning the humanity of our Saviour which had been so fully determined in the Council of Chalcedon 9. Some of these matters relating to this Council I have the more particularly mentioned because they not only shew the supreme authority of the Emperour about matters Ecclesiastical to have been owned and complyed with by a general Council but even by that Council whose number of Bishops did almost equal the number of all the three former general Councils joined together And also because this doth shew the same to have been sufficiently acknowledged by the then Romish Bishop even by Leo who was a man of great courage boldness and activeness and far enough from being charged with any pusillanimity and lowness of spirit 10. And besides other things there is observable from this short account concerning these Councils What power the four first general Councils gave to Princes in Ecclesiastical cases 1. That all the Fathers of these several general Councils acknowledged the authority of the Emperours to take care of the Church and Religion and to command Bishops with respect thereto in that they readily obeyed their commands in meeting together at the time and place appointed by the Imperial authority to consider of matters of Faith and Religion 2. That they acknowledged that these Councils when met were in the first and chief place to discuss those matters of faith or order for which they were summoned by the Emperour appeareth from them all And that at the time of their assembling they shewed so great respect to the Emperour that in expectation of his presence they deferred the opening the Council till they heard from him and in obedience to his pleasure and by his authority the Seat of the General Council was removed from one place to another is particularly evident in the fourth Council 11. Thirdly That they thought themselves obliged when they should be required so to do to give an account of the manner of their proceedings in these general Councils unto the Emperour And that though they were in Council and about matters Ecclesiastical they were still subject to the Emperours laws and his coercive authority as is manifest from the third general Council 4 That they though matters Ecclesiastical and the decisions of the Church a fit subject to receive the civil Sanction and establishment of the secular power And that they esteemed such a Sanction to be of great moment to add weight to their Constitutions doth appear from them all and particularly from the second and third general Councils 12. I omit all large discourse of other Councils which might easily be performed and many things also in these Councils which might be worthy observation But whosoever will read the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sixth General Council to the Emperour Justinian and their first Canon Conc. Trull can 1. will discern them to have the same reverence for their Prince which these former Councils had And amongst Provincial Councils Conc. Mogunt an 813. in praef ad Imp. that of Mentz did acknowledge Charles the Great to be verae Religionis Rector and Defensor Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae and Sanctae Ecclesiae Rector And the Council of Merida in Spain Conc. Emer in Praefat. In fin Conc. Ecclesiastica disponere to order matters Ecclesiastical but also that he did sapientia divinitus concessa regere Ecclesiastica govern matters Ecclesiastical SECT IV. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered 1. There are some things which have the appearance of arguments to prove that the ancient Christian Bishops did not own the Supremacy of Princes in matters Ecclesiastical And the reflecting upon these may be of good use to give us a right understanding of that Supremacy which hath been acknowledged in the Christian Church To which purpose I shall here consider two Objections concerning the Arian Controversies 2. The Case of Arius Obj. 1. When Constantine the Emperour upon the Oath and subscription of Arius to the Faith asserted in the Council of Nice Sect. 4 did again and again give his commands to Athanasius Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 26 27. gr Athanas in Apol. Sec. with Menaces annexed that he should receive Arius again unto the Church of Alexandria Athanasius refused to do this notwithstanding these Precepts of the Emperour And the Catholick Bishops justified him and refused communion with them who took part with Arius which seemeth to disown the supreme Government of the Emperour in Causes Ecclesiastical 3. Ans First The exercise of the Keys is not to be guided by the pleasure of a Prince as its rule That the sentence of Excommunication and Absolution being a proper exercise of the power of the Keys the Ecclesiastical Officers are the immediate and peculiar Judges in these Cases And if any person shall assert that they are always obliged in these things to do whatsoever the Emperour should give them in command though he himself should be imposed upon by the sleight of others or otherwise be mistaken this would tend to disown the subject of this enquiry concerning the Emperours power or to deny that there are such Causes or matters Ecclesiastical that the Rules of Religion and Christianity ought to be the guide and measure of them 4. Secondly The Case of Arius had been largely heard and adjudged by the highest Ecclesiastical audience of
Constantius De Episc Presbyt and other succeeding Emperours which may be seen in the Code of Theodosius 11. And for the Judicatures of Christian Bishops who therein tryed civil causes under the time of christian Emperours no man in reason can think but this must be done by favour and a delegated authority And it is manifest from the Imperial law that this was a priviledge granted unto them out of respect to the honour of Christianity God l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 7 8. Nov. 83. 123. it being therein enacted that whatsoever persons shall please by their own consent to have their Cases tryed and adjudged by the Bishop they shall have liberty so to doe 12. Obs 3. That the Canons were never intended to disclaim the Supremacy of Princes over the Clergy is manifest because in them is allowed the application to the secular authority against such bishops as will not submit to the determination of the Ecclesiastical This was done by a Carthaginian Synod Conc. Carth. gr c. 53. Conc. Trull c. 2. against Cresconius a Bishop of that Province as is manifest from the Greek Copy of the African Code which was the Copy confirmed in the sixth general Council And this particular Case is approved in the Comments of the Greek Scholiasts and is also referred unto in the Nomocanon of Photius Nomocan Tit. 9. c. 8. as giving direction when one Bishop may prosecute another before a secular ruler And it may be further observed that the Canons from the 37th to the 61st of that Greek Code were taken out of the third Council of Carthage this fifty third Canon to which this action is there annexed or according to Justellus his code the forty eighth is the thirty eighth Canon of that Council wherein a particular Canon for the priviledge of the Clergy was established And the Canons prohibited applications to the secular power against any of the Clergy almost in the same manner as they forbad the application to a general Council against a Bishop Conc. constant c. 6. which was condemned unless the other methods by the Bishops of the Province should prove ineffectual CHAP. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the Supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome SECT I. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 1 1. THE Royal Supremacy will be further vindicated by resuting the pretences which are vainly made by others to the whole or any part of the just Soveraignty of Princes wherein I must chiefly consider the claims of Foreign Jurisdiction Foreign Jurisdiction disclaimed which are rejected and disowned in the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath it is declared that no Foreign Prince Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore all such Authority is disclaimed and renounced 2. But thereby it is not intended that no Foreign Bishop Priest or Deacon shall be owned in this Realm to have that preeminence of Order in the Catholick Church The just auâ—â—â—ty of Church Officers asserted unto which they have been duly received nor that their power of order for the performing Ecclesiastical Offices is invalid and null if they come into this Realm But this is no power of Government and Jurisdiction within this Kingdom by a Foreign Authority which is herein rejected Neither is it hereby meant that if the Ecclesiastical Governours of any Foreign Church do within their Jurisdiction duly admit any person into the Church or do clave non errante excommunicate or absolve any that the Christians in this Realm have no obligation upon them from the authority of such proceedings to embrace or avoid Ecclesiastical Society with such persons For thiswould be contrary to the Article of our Church which asserteth Article 33. that that person which is rightly cut off from the Vnity of the Church and Excommunicate ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican until he be openly reconciled by penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto Can. Apost 12. Conc. antioch c. 6. And the ancient Canons of the Church did determine that he who was excommunicated by his own Bishop might not be received by another 3. But the obligation which in this Case lyeth upon us and all the members of the Catholick Church is not from any Jurisdiction or Superiority which we acknowledge any such Foreign Officers of the Church to have over us because this obligation equally lies upon all Catholick Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as well as upon ordinary and private Christians And it would bring in an unaccountable confusion to assert that every Bishop under the Patriarch of Alexandria should have a superiority over all the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Roman Constantinopolitan and other free Churches throughout the World not excepting the Alexandrian it self and at the same time to assert that every Bishop in any of these other Churches hath upon the same account superiority over him and all other Bishops and Churches But this duty is incumbent upon us from the nature of our Christianity and Christian Vnity For Christ having made his Church to be one Body who ever undertakes Christianity is thereby obliged to own Communion with this Church and all the regular Members thereof and to disown Communion with those who are rightly cut off therefrom and he having appointed Officers in his Church hath accordin gto their Offices given them authority to exercise the power of the Keys in his name in the Churches committed to them And hereupon Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais having excommunicated Andronicus and others Svness Epist 58. by vertue of his Sentence pronounced against them did require the Churches all over the Earth that they should not receive them into Communion 4. But this Oath tending according to the design of that Statute by which it was established to restore to the Crown its ancient Jurisdiction that authority which ischiefly rejected thereby is such as invaded or opposed the Royalty of the King and particularly that which claimeth any supreme cognisance of Ecclesiastical affairs as if they were not under the care of the temporal power or that pretendeth to any other authority above or against the just rights of the Crown And suh is the arrogance of the See of Rome which assumes to it self a claim of supreme authority in matters Ecclesiastical and even in temporal also which many of its followers defend as belonging thereto upon account of its spiritual authority Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6. Thus Bellarmine declareth that if the management of temporal affairs appeareth prejudicial to spiritual ends potestas spiritualis potest debet coercere temporalem the spiritual power may and ought to restrain the temporal by all ways and means which shall seem needful to that purpose And Boetius Epo
tells us Quaestion Heroicar l. 2. c. 5. n. 105. that the Roman bishop virtute potestatis merè spiritualis by vertue of his mere spiritual power doth sometimes deprive had Kings of their Kingdoms But the falshood and injustice of this claim will be discovered by detecting the fraud and vanity of the Pleas made use of to support the Popish power of which in the following Sections 5. But a learned man hath given intimation of some suspicion Weights and Meas Ch. 20. Of a general Council that by these words of this Oath of Supremacy the authority of a general Council of the Western Churches may seem to be disclaimed And it must be granted that the determination of a truly regular general Council either of all the Western Churches or of the whole especially if it should establish a due reformation of the corrupt part of the Church and a right order and unity throughout Christendome would be obligatory upon us not only from the real goodness of the design but from the authority of the Council or the obligation that lies on the members or several parts of the Christian Church to be guided by the directions and rules established by the united consent and authority of the Pastors Yet 1. since such a Council neither is in being nor in any likelyhood thereof that which is not hath no Authority or Jurisdiction 2. This Church and Realm being a considerable branch of the Catholick Church the authority of such a Council or of the Christian Church therei is no more foreign to us who ought to bear a part therein than the soul is to a chief member of the body or than the laws of nature and rules of civility may be esteemed foreign things which have as considerable residence here as any where else 3. The Oath it self is so expressed as if it purposely designed not to exclude the authority of a General Council which properly is neither a Prince a Person a State or Potentate 4. As this Oath disowneth all foreign authority encroaching upon the Crown so if any Council how general soever should abridge or violate the Royal Authority all faithful subjects are so far bound by the authority of God to disclaim it 5. Though the determinations of a Council be never so excellent if any Princes by their laws reject or prohibit them as the Arian Princes dealt with the Council of Nice Christians in such places are bound to embrace them upon no other terms than they do their common Christianity that is in bearing the Cross and undergoing unavoidable penalties and thereby acknowledging the right and due extent of the authority of the civil power 6. The last part in the Oath of Supremacy The Oath of Supremacy engageth a defence of priviledges and authorities united to the Crown engageth Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and also a defence of all Jurisdictions priviledges preeminencies and authorities granted and belonging to the King or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Now the only appearing difficulty here is concerning the last clause for if when the great encroachments of the Pope were discarded some thing might be overdone 27 H. 8. 28. 37 H. 8.4 1 Ed. 6.14 in annexing things to the Crown as in fixing in the Crown those great Revenues given to Religious uses when in many places there then was and yet is wanting a competent provision for the support of the Ministry it may be enquired how good men and good subjects may and ought to defend these things And it will be sufficient to observe that the defence here undertaken is that of a subject towards his Soveraign And all subjects of the Realm are as such obliged both with respect to the duties of obedience and peace in their capacities to oppose all persons who would injuriously violate what is enjoyed by the Crown and established by the law since such persons may justly be suspected of designs to subvert the Government and undermine the publick welfare and do act disorderly and against authority 7. And some thing which at first view may seem an abatement of the authority of the church is rather such a way of regulating the exercise of its power as under Religious Princes is for the Churches advantage Of this nature I conceive that constitution 25 H. 8.19 that no new Canons shal be enacted promulged or executed without the Royal assent and licence to enact promulge and execute the same For hereby the Clergy give such security to the King against all jealousy of renewed Ecclesiastical usurpations that thereupon the Church may under the Kings favour and with assurance of greater safety and protection practise upon its established constitutions which are so good that we have great cause to bless God for them And hereupon it may also be hoped that what shall be further needful may be superadded by the Royal Licence and become more effectual to its end by the confirmation of that authority 8. But because what I have now discoursed dependeth upon a fair How the words of publick acknowledgments must be interpreted but natural and genuine interpretation of these words of the Oath of Supremacy it may be further enquired how we may safely and prudently interpret the forms of publick acknowledgments where the bare Grammatical construction may be possibly capable of different senses Grot. de J. B. P. l. 2. c. 13. n. 3 5 c. 16. n. 12. l. 3. c. 1. n. 19. Sanders de oblig Juram Pral 2. n. 8. Now though a forced laxe sene by an evasion to avoid the design of the law or constitution be justly and must necessarily be rejected yet a rigid interpretation to strain the words and force them to an harsh and unlawful sense as is too oft done by discontented persons is also to be discarded where there is another construction or meaning of which the words by natural interpretation are capable which is agreeable to truth and justice and secures the intention of our Superiours For besides that Christian charity and equity will incline to this sense the politick rules of Government will require Governours to draw up publick acknowledgments in such phrases that they cannot by a fair construction naturally admit a lower sense than is designed For otherwise such forms of words would be useless and not attain their end and this consideration alone is sufficient to vindicate and acquit the form of words in this Oath of supremacy from such censures as have inconsiderately dropt from the Pen of a learned person 9. But those general words of this Oath of supremacy Qu. Eliz. Inj. 1. Can. 1. 1603. and the Canonical subscription and words of like general force in the Queens Injunctions and our Canons whereby all foreign Jurisdiction and obedience thereto is renounced have manifestly a more particular respect to the Bishop and Church of Rome For the design of that Statute which enjoins the disclaiming all
Const c. 2 3. the sence of which is explained and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon in a genuine Canon received into the Code of the Vniversal Church but disgusted by the Roman Church Which Canon doth assert the priviledge and authority of the Romish Church Conc. Chalc. c. 28. to have had its original from the Constitution of the Fathers out of respect to the Imperial City and therefore they upon the same account give to Constantinople which was the Seat of the Eastern Empire a right of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges and dignity of See with that of Rome and to be next to it in order Conc. in Trul. c. 36. The same also is established in the sixth general Council 4. But since there is an high pretence to a divine right according to the doctrine of Christ generally made by the Romanists for the Universal Supreme Spiritual Power of the Pope and by many of them for the temporal also these pretensions must be discussed and examined And though the latter be the more extravagant and exhorbitant yet they being both false and some of the same Foundations being made use of to support them both I shall consider them together Now it is highly improbable that he whose doctrine establisheth the temporal power as Gods ordinance and requires subjection from all persons to the same should wholly devest Kings of their Supremacy and appoint their authority to be altogether under the disposal of another to wit the Bishop of Rome But my design being to defend the Royal Supremacy and not only to oppose the Roman I shall assert that no Officers of the Christian Church ever were or are invested with any such superiority over Princes and if none then not they at Rome 5. Some testimonies of Scripture What Scriptures the Popes themselves have used for their universal supreme claim Extrav Com. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam produced for the asserting a general Supremacy of the Pope both temporal and spiritual are so extremely fond and frivolous that I should account it a piece of vanity to take notice of them had they not been urged by the Popes themselves who challenge a title to infallibility Such is that of Boniface the Eighth proving that S. Peter and the Church had the power of the temporal Sword because our Saviour said to him Put up thy Sword into the sheath therein using these words thy Sword and that when the Disciples said to our Lord here are two Swords he answered it is enough Luk. 22.18 non nimis esse sed satis and also urging those words of the Apostle The spiritual man judgeth all things Surely such instances as these and divers of like nature give evidence enough that God never designed the whole Christian Church should be so sottish and void of all understanding as to be guided by the dictates of such men as infallible 6. Bonif. 8. ibid. Joh. 22. in Extrav c. Super gentes Some of the Popes have also made use of those words of Jeremy Jer. 1.10 I have set thee this day over the Nations and over the Kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to build and to plant But 1. What authority can these words give to the Pope when they respect not the time of Christianity nor speak of any ordinary authority in the Jewish Church Innoc. 3. in Decretal l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. in which Jeremy was no High Priest but they only express a prophetical Commission to him an inspired man to declare the pleasure of God from his mouth concerning the Kingdoms of the World as is manifest from v. 5 9. 2. How strangely different was the spirit and temper of Jeremy towards Kings from that of the Roman Bishop notwithstandiug this his Commission When he speaketh of the disposal of many Kingdoms into Nebuchadnezzars hands he useth not the Roman stile as coveying the title unto him himself but speaketh on this manner Thus saith the Lord I have made the earth and I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 27.4 5 6. And when he spake to Zedekiah he treated him not as his Vasal but his words are Jer. 27.20 O my Lord the King Let my supplication I pray thee be accepted before thee So far was that mournful Prophet from being the Vniversal Monarch of the World 7. Other arguments from Scripture examined But the arguments most insisted on by the Romish Writers are more plausible though insufficient and unconcluding For S. Peters singular supremacy they produce Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church Ans 1. That S. Hilary the Commentaries in S. Ambrose Gr Nyssen Cyrillus Alexandrinus S. Aug. and Chrysostome understand this rock of the faith of S. Peters Confession Barrad de Conc. Evang Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 23. Chamier Tom. 2. Pans l. 11. c. 3 4. is acknowledged by Barradius the Jesuit besides others observed in Chamier to the same purpose as the Liturgy of S. James Basil of Seleucia Theodoret and Epiphanius And divers Fathers are in the same place noted to understand this rock of Christ himself which sense is favoured much from Is 28.16 1 Pet. 2.4 7. Ans 2. As the Church of God is oft resembled to a building and called the house of God S. Peter according to the expression of divers Catholick Writers V. Dr Hammonds Annot on Mat. 10. b. may be herein owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word ordinarily signifies a Rock or a Stone a prime stone of the foundation united to Christ the chief Corner-stone and so were also the rest of the Apostles Eph. 2.20 Rev. 21.14 But to assert him to be the rock distinct from the whole building and which beareth the whole together with the foundation it self would be to exclude him from being any member of Christs Church and to own him as supporting Christ himself who is called the foundation and the chief Corner-stone And though S. Peter had a kind of priority of order yet all the Apostles had the same office and were with him equally partakers both of honour and of power or in S. Cyprians Phrase Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. they were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis This place therefore gives S. Peter a spiritual eminency in the Church but with the rest of the Apostles but it nothing at all concerneth any temporal power in him nor any exclusion of Princes from supreme Government 8. It is also pleaded that Christ Mat. 16.19 promised S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Ans 1. The Keys being an Embleme of Authority this Text doth treat of a very high and great spiritual power of receiving men into the Church of Christ and the several ranks and orders thereof and unto the participation of Christian priviledges and of excluding
from all these and governing the Church Cyp. Ep. 27. 73. Aug. in Joh. Tract 50. But this power as the ancient Church did acknowledge the other Apostles did also enjoy and were actually possessed of as appears Mat. 18.18 Jo. 20.21 22 23. Ans 2. How vastly different is this power from the temporal Dominion over the Kingdoms of the World of which there is not any world here spoken by our Lord And surely any man who considereth the doctrine and lives of the Apostles cannot imagine that every one or any one of them was intended and designed of God to be the Soveraign Potentate and grand Emperour of the World It is therefore a just complaint against the Romish party that ex clavibus cudunt enses Conf. Helvet c. 14. lanceas sceptra coronas out of the Keys they forge Swords and Spears Scepters and Crowns and usurp temporal Dominion equal with or superiour unto Kings notwithstanding that our Saviour expresly rejected from his Apostles such Dominion as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised Mat. 20.25 26. 9. But Pasce oves meas Feed my sheep Jo. 21.16 is a place chiefly insisted upon And if no more was hence inferred than a spiritual and Apostolical authority in S. Peter this is readily granted and asserted and the other Apostles enjoyed the like But Bellarmine will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 14 15 16. Layman Theolog. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. c. 6. to be a Charter of Soveraignty and to enclude governing and commanding as a King doth And he and others also infer the extent of S. Peters power over all Apostles and Kings because they are Christs Sheep To which I Ans 1. Not S. Peter only but all Bishops and Elders are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or have a Pastoral care over the Flock Ambr. de dign Sacerd c. 2. Ignat. Ep. ad Philad ad Rom. Eus Hist Ecc. l. 8. c. 25. Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 And among all Ecclesiastical Writers beginning from Ignatius and downwards the Bishops and chief Officers of the Church have been acknowledged to be Pastors Now if this Office of Pastor doth not necessarily enclude a Soveraign or supreme Government then no such can be asserted to s. Peter or his pretended Successor from this Text if it doth then must this be ascribed to every Bishop which will necessarily overthrow the Popes Vniversal claim Ans 2. Government over the Sheep of Christ is also too narrow a compass for an Vniversal Monarchy 10. Ans 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Metaphor from Shepherds is thence sometimes used for to take care and feed and at other times for to rule and govern and oft for both Now though the Officers of Christ have a pastor al authority over his Flock yet these words Joh. 21.15 16 17. were principally directed to S. Peter as supposing in him this authority and requiring his duty of care and feeding and not as conveying to him a peculiar authority and Dominion because this is enjoined upon him as an evidence of his love to Christ and because among the three Precepts to take care of the Sheep of Christ and his Lambs two of them are there expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be understood only of feeding Ans 4. Civil Governours also are to be as Shepherds over their Flock with particular respect to rule and Government The Government of God is sometimes expressed by his being the Shepherd of Israel and a Prince whom Homer stiles the Pastor of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Philo and other Writers oft mentioned by a like name Phil. de Agricult de Joseph quod omnis probus liber And a civil pastoral power over all their people is yielded to them Num. 27.17 Is 44.28 which is expressed in the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 5.2 Ch. 7.7 Ps 78.71 72. But every one must use their power according to their office Ecclesiastical Officers are to use the spiritual authority but temporal Soveraignty is reserved to Princes Ans 5. The pastoral office of the guides of the Church doth extend it self even to Kings with respect to the conduct of their Souls but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Soveraignty A Prince may be ruled by a Physician concerning his health or be led by a guide at Land or a Pilot at Sea and not lose his Soveraignty over these Subjects And the Kings of the House of David were the chief Rulers over the Realm though the Priests were to offer Sacrifice for Prince and People to direct them in Religion and to judge in case of Leprosy and such like SECT IV. Other arguments for the pretences of Papal Authority answered and refuted 1. Annal. Ecclesian 57. n. 28 29 30. The support which Baronius affords for the Popes Supremacy is that Christ himself is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek being both King and Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7. and that from him the regal and sacerdotal authority are together conferred upon his Church first upon the Apostles and then upon their Successors which he further undertakes to prove because our Saviour declared to his Disciples Jo. 20. As my father sent me so send I you and did establish in his Church a Royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2. Ibid. n. 31 32. And though the Cardinal will not allow that this authority in the Church doth make void the political power yet he doth assert that this Regal Ecclesiastical Authority must be superiour thereunto The Priesthood of Melchisedek 2. But concerning the Melchisedekian Priesthood Sect. 4 he did not consider these two things 1. That the making the supremacy of power to be conjunct with the Priesthood doth destroy the peculiarity of power challenged by the Bishop of Rome for thence it must be inferred that they who equally partake of Priesthood with the Bishop of Rome must have an equal supreme authority with him 2. That one thing which the Apostle did most especially insist on concerning the Priesthood of Melchisedek is that the Priest or High Priest of that Order must not derive or receive his Priesthood from any Predecessor nor leave it to any Successor but must abide a Priest for ever through that whole dispensation under which he is Priest Heb. 7.3 8 16 17 21 23 24 28. And therefore the Melchisedekian Priesthood is no more transferred from Christ to any other person in the Church then his proper mediatory office is Beyerl de Episc Rom. And they who say that this Priesthood of Christ cannot indeed be enjoyed by any as successor to him but only as his Vicar do not so avoid the force of this argument For it remains certain that no such pretended Vicar can partake of this Priesthood because in him it must be received from a Predecessor viz. in that Vicarship and Priesthood and be left to
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
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
for some years was an Enemy to the Arians Ambr. Epist 33. ad Marcellin and expressed great respect for S. Ambrose The Army also of Valentinian whose residence was then at Millan where S. Ambrose was Bishop was so disaffected to the Emperour that they declared as S. Ambrose informs us that they would go over to those to whom S. Ambrose should direct them unless the Emperour would communicate with them who embraced the true Faith But in this Case Theodosius protected and assisted Valentinian and S. Ambrose disclaimed all resistance against him and espoused his interest to the utmost against Maximus 12. Against this instance Bellarmine alledgeth that it was not a fit Case for the Church to make use of her power towards Valentinian Bellarm. de excus Barclaii c. 8. because he was then but young and what he acted was by the contrivance of his Mother Justina who was an Arian and there might be hopes that he might afterwards be converted to the right Faith as indeed he was But this is but a very week exception For if any Christian Bishop was intrusted with any superiority over the Crowns of Princes in order to the Churches good he would but ill discharge his duty if he will suffer the Church to be harassed and persecuted all the time of their minority when it was in him to help and prevent this by the regular exercise of his power Surely if there was any such authority which God had placed over the temporal power of Princes it would have been the most proper time to have undertaken to rule them in those tender years in which they are most apt to be imposed upon and to be led aside by others Had there been any superiour authority to chastise erring Soveraign Princes by temporal punishments it had been most reasonable to begin the exercise thereof in their younger years that by their timely submission and repentance the Church might have the greater advantage by their whole future life And because he was then led by his Mother it would have been then if ever seasonable to have let him understand that he was bound with respect to the right of his Crown to please the Bishop of Rome rather than to be guided by her But neither in this nor in any other Case for many hundred years before and after it did ever the Romish Bishops either claim or make use of such authority though many of them in those ancient times wanted not zeal to undertake any thing even Martyrdom for the advancement of the Christian profession 13. Obj. 2. Some instances are urged Blond in Sch. ad Grot. de Imp. c. 3. n. 14. to prove that the Primitive Christians in some Cases did take Armes against the Soveraign power When Grotius had urged this argument from their general submission without any forcible resistance Primitive Christians vindicated from all appearance of Sedition the Scholia annexed in the Margent under the name of Blondell mention two stories within three hundred and forty years after Christ and some others of an after date as instances of resistance in those Christians Now if all this were true the primitive rule in this Case is rather to be measured by the doctrine and declared sense of the most eminent men in the Church than by a few contrary practices Even in those times there were some evil actions committed by them who professed the doctrine of our Saviour the Church was not then free from Heresies Schismes and other Crimes which administred matter for Canonical censures Yet from what appears I see not but that the duty of peaceable submission was so universally practised by Christians unto their secular Governours for above three hundred years that they cannot be taxed with any one instance of seditious insurrections 14. In the first instance there mentioned it is said that the Christians by a forcible and perilous assault did rescue Dionysius of Alexandria from those infidels who carried him away in the year 235. Now as I find nothing about that time concerning any suffering of Dionysius and because he was not Bishop of Alexandria Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 35. gr till about the year 246. or the third year of Philippus the Emperour as Eusebius testifyeth and also because what he suffered was under the persecution of Decius who began his Reign about 250. years after Christ I must suppose the year to be misprinted The story to which this hath respect I suppose to be this which is mentioned in Eusebius from one of Dionysius his own Letters Ibid. c. 40. gr Before the open persecution of Decius brake forth Dionysius was seised on and carried out of Alexandria and was kept under the Guard of some Souldiers But a Country man who was going to spend all the night in jollity banqueting and revelling according to their custom at Weddings hearing thereof declares this to all the rest of the Guests They with one consent arose and violently ran to the place where Dionysius was and coming thither gave a great shout The Souldiers flying they entred the House and forced him against his own desire and entreaty to rise out of his bed and takeing him by his hands and his feet they drew and haled him out of the House and set him upon a bare Asses back and carried him away and it seems probable that in the consequence Dionysius had hereby an opportunity to make an escape this action is by Baronius placed in the year 253. Annal. Eccl. an 253. n. 100 which by an easy mistake might be altered into 235. But it is not manifest that here was any sighting at all and which is most considerable there is not any expression in this whole relation which so much as intimates that they who undertook this action were Christians The perusal of the whole story will perswade an indifferent Reader that this was a wild exploit and frolick of a Company of rude spirited men in that place Val. in Eus l. 6. c. 40. whom Valesius calleth rusticos temulentos convivas drunken Countrey-Companions Nor is it probable that the Christians of those times would behave themselves after such a manner as this either among themselves or towards so eminent a Bishop And such a charge as this may not be fastned upon them where there is no evidence at all for the proof thereof 15. Blond ubi sup the second instance there given is of the Armenians i. e. of the greater Armenia whom when Maximinus the Emperour would by force have turned from Christianity they defended themselves by War against him in the year 310. and are commended for it An. 311. n. 22 57. This action is also observed and related by Baronius who placeth it in the years 311. and 312. but this was no War against their Soveraign but against a Foreign Prince who would have violently forced upon them a false Religion Sozom. l. 2. c. 7. For this Armenia was a
tthat time no part of the Roman empire but was a Nation bordering upon the Empire who then had a distinct King of their own but acknowledged a subjection to the Persians Evag. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 7. and thereupon this Country was called Persarmenia But for divers years before and after this War they were not under the Roman power and Eusebius who relates this action Eus Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr declares they were friends and Confederates till by this undertaking of Maximinus they became his Enemies 16. I confess some years after the Reign of Constantine was ended This loyalt afterwards declined there were among the Christians some attempts and enterprises undertaken of another spirit and nature Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 2â— c. 12. gr By reason of the great opposition between the Arians and the Orthodox Christians there were in Constantinople and in other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequent seditions and tumults as Socrates expresseth it and these took place from about the year 340. Ibid. c. 134 then among other things Hermogenes the Emperours commander whom he sent to Constantinople to dispossess Paulus from being Bishop there was opposed with force the House in which he was being fired upon him and himself slain in the year 342. Not long after this also Baron aâ— 350. n. 1 2 4. began the more open and contrived rebellion of Magnentius and though this was undertaken out of ambition and unchristian disloyalty yet he carried on his designs under a pretence for Religion He first engaged against Constans the Emperour who was slain by him for which abominable Parricide Athan. Apol ad Constant Baron an 353. n. 5. Athanasius inveighed greatly against him and then managed a War against Constantius And this according to Baronius was the first time that the Banner of the Cross appeared in the Field on both sides one against another and this was indeed a Rebellious Insurrection against a Soveraign Prince But the true primitive and genuine spirit of Christianity was wholly averse from and unacquainted with such proceedings and when the Christian temper did in divers persons degenerate in this particular such exorbitant and evil practises were always contrary to the judgment of the chief guides and Bishops of the Church CHAP. V. Of the extent of the duty and obligation of non-resistance SECT I. Resistance by force is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 1 1. THere have been some who grant the unlawfulness of taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince to be a geneal rule for ordinary circumstances but yet they pretend there are some great and extraordinary cases in which it must admit of exceptions And the proposal of these Cases as they are by them managed is like the Pharisaical Corban an Engine and method to make void the duties of the fifth Commandment concerning obedience and submission to superiours Wherefore in this Chapter I shall undertake the defence of that assertion of Barclay G. Barcl cont Monarchomach l. 3. c. 16. p. 212. who proposeth the Question NullÃne casus c. may there no Cases fall out in which the people by their authority may take Armes against their King B. 2. C. 5. and his answer is Certainly none so long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat 2. The whole Community have no Authority to take Armes against their Soveraign Now the first Question and pretence hath respect to the whole body of the people Whether if the whole or principal part thereof do account themselves injured and oppressed by their Soveraign and judge it needful for their own defence and security and the common good to take Armes and make use of force against him this authority of the Community be not a sufficient Warrant for such resistance This is asserted by the seditious Positions of Mariana Marian. de Reg Reg. Institut l. 1. c. 6. who not only gives a large allowance to Common-wealths and the generality of the people to devest their Kings of their Government and take away their lives but he also grants the same liberty and power to any members of the Common-wealth if learned and grave men be consulted and where there is Publica vox Populi the common voice of the people inclining that way And this notion also though not in the same exorbitant degree is embraced by Bellarmine and many of the Jesuits and other men of disloyal Antimonarchical Spirits But because what I have said in the former Chapters is both of sufficient force and clear enough for the refuting hereof I shall only superadd these brief considerations 3. First That the agreement of the whole body of the people or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient authority to such an enterprise because the whole community are Subjects as well as the particular persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I above observed that our Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Armes against the King The same hath been also acknowledged by men of understanding in Foreign Countryes As Bodinus Bodin de Repub. l. 2. c. 5. concerning England and other places where the Kings have jura majestatis concludeth singulis civibus nec universis fas est summi Principis vitam famam aut fortunas in discrimen vocare it is not lawful for the Subjects either singly or all of them together to bring into danger the life honour or possessions of the Prince Secondly this would open a gap to great confusions since the body of the people are apt to be imposed upon and to be led by their passions as the experience of these latter Ages as well as the Cases of Corah and Absalom do testify And the same appears from the whole Congregation of Israel being forward to cast off Moses and to make them another Captain Numb 14. 2 4. Thirdly This liberty may as reasonably be given to a few private persons as to the whole people because in such enterprises of the people they are counselled by and are generally influenced and led according to the motions of a few private persons Fourothly The Laws of God against any evil actions and consequently against resistance do not become void by any great numbers joining together in practising what is contrary unto them When the primitive Christians were the chief part of the Roman Empire they durst not take up Armes against the Emperour out of the fear of God as hath been shewed No sin is to be esteemed the less but the greater when a multitude shall be actors in it If any violence be offered to a Father or Master this is not the more allowable if all his Children or Servants join in the Confederacy And when great multitudes engage in open insurrections the consequents thereof may
be much more dreadful and calamitious to Mankind whereas the embodying of small numbers are the less to be feared because the more easy to be suppressed 4. The next pretence is that subordinate Governours being also Gods Officers may defend the properties of the Subjects and the exercise of true Religion Brut. Vind. qu. 2. p. 56. qu. 3. p. 93. edit 1589. De sur Mag. Qu. 6. even by taking Armes against their King This hath been asserted by such Writers as Junius Brutus the Anonymous discourse de jure Magistratuum in subditos others in England in our late intestine Broils Ruth Qu. 20. 36. J. Sleid. Com. l. 22. an 1550. and Rutherford of Civil Policy And Sleidan in his Commentaries reports that the same was declared in the Magdeburgh Confession And for the supporting of this assertion it is urged that all Governours even subordinate as well as supreme are in the use of their power to serve God and do justice and defend the innocent and do act by Gods Authority As also that if any person in Ecclesiastical power how high soever he be shall oppose the Christian Doctrine his subordinate Clergy lawfully may and ought to withstand him And that saying of Trajan In Vit. Trajan mentioned by Dion Cassius is usually noted to this purpose who delivering the Sword to an inferiour Commander bad him use this for him if he should govern well but against him if he governed or commanded ill 5. Subordinaâ—t Governours may not resist the supreme But such Positions would undermine the peace of the World and lay Foundations for great disturbances and thereby the Commands of God would be broken with the greater force and violence if those who are invested with some part of the Kings Authority should account themselves thereby impowered to make use thereof against him And if this were admitted the state of Kingdoms must be in danger whensoever inferiour Governours shall be imposed upon by the subtilty of others or puffed up by ambition But this is as far from truth as from peace though Corah had 250 Princes who joynen with him and Absalom was assisted by the Elders of Israel besides Ahitophâ—l the great Counsellour of State this did not justifie their Treasonable Conspiracies And though David was a great Officer at Court General of the Army of Israel and the anointed Successour to the Crown by Gods special appointment and no subordinate Ruler in other Dominions could have so much to plead for himself in this case as David had yet it was not lawful for him to stretch out his hand against Saul And in the account of the Thebean Legion above mentioned Mauritius was a great Officer and Commander of the Roman Army and then in Arms at the head of his Legion and yet according to the Primitive Christian principles professed a detestation of making resistance And therefore this pretence is justly rejected De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 6. de Imper. c. 3. with some vehemency by Grotius as being against Scripture reason and the sense of Antiquity 6. Indeed all persons in Authority are bound to do justice but this must only be in their Sphere and according to the proportion of their power but they cannot be allowed to set themselves over their Superiours to usurp upon their Authority or to deny Subjection unto them And with respect to their Soveraign Officers both by Charter and Commission have their Authority depending upon him and are as much his Subjects as other men are and besides the common bonds of Subjection do all with us take the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance Now as a Servant may not put himself into the place of a Ruler or Judge over his Master to force him to what he thinks equal no more may an inferiour ruler do to his Prince To this purpose it is observed by Sleidan Sleidan Comment l. 17. An. 1546. that the Elector of Saxony who was then the chief person against the Emperour in the German Wars under Charles the fifth did openly declare that if Charles the fifth was owned to be Caesar or a proper Soveraign with respect to those great Princes of the Empire it must then be granted cum eo belligerari non licere that it was not lawful to make War with him And whereas subordinate Rulers are to be submitted unto and reverâ—â—â—d in the regular use of their Authority â—â—â—et if they shall oppose the Superiour â—â—â—â—r they are to be deserted and the acting against them in discharge of duty to the Soveraign is no disobedience Thus S. Austin Aug. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 6. ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite consider the orders steps and degrees of human affairs If the Curator command one thing and the Proconsul another must not the greater power be obeyed and so also where the Proconsul commands one thing and the Emperour the contrary And St. Peter in commanding submission to inferiour Governours makes use of these bounds of Subjection as unto them who are sent by him i. e. the King 7. Disparity between secular and Ecclesiastical Governours The objection from the comparing the case of Ecclesiastical and Civil Rulers is of no weight because of the great disparity that is between them The withstanding an Heretical Bishop who would impose corrupt Doctrines upon the Church if this be certain and manifest may lawfully be undertaken not only by the inferiour Clergy but by other Christians and herein they only do their own business of keeping the Faith holding to the truth and rejecting what is contrary thereto Cyp. Epist 68. And S. Cyprian when Basilides and Martialis Spanish bishops had closed with Pagan Idolatry accounted that ordinary Christians ought to separate themselves from such guides And though in our age too many causelessly reject communion with those Officers whom Christ hath set over them which is a sin of no low degree yet it must be acknowledged that there may be just causes for such withdrawing from Communion in obedience to the Christian Doctrine But it can never be lawful for private Christians to usurp to themselves Episcopal power which would be unaccountable and Sacrilegious Aug. ubi sup And if a Soveraign power should command any to embrace Heresie or reject the true Religion or to become unjust to others to refuse such evil practices is their duty they owe to God who is the Supreme Governour and so far they act in their own Sphere but if they take Arms they then take to themselves the power of the publick Sword which is the Soveraigns right and are thereby guilty of invading what is not their own Besides this there is no Ecclesiastical Officer whosoever but his Authority is inferiour to the Authority of the Vniversal Church of which he is a member and this principally takes in the Apostolical and Primitive Church and all Christians are bound to hold to the doctrine and unity of this Church against any
bishop or Officer whomsoever who departeth fromit whereas Soveraign Princes are subject to God alone and not to any other upon earth And therefore the comparison would be more equal between a secular Soveraign and the Catholick Church as to the Supremacy of their Authority under God alone 8. Of the words of Trajan The words of Trajan which some have urged seem to have been a popular and somewhat unadvised expression calculated for the obtaining the applause of the people somewhat like that of Marcus Antoninus to the Senate Xiphilin ex Dion who said to them we have so far nothing our own that the very House we dwell in is yours Or they may also be intimations of a strong confidence that he should never himself decline to evil wayes or put any of his Officers upon unworthy actions But the argument from these words is weak and inconsiderable and the determining the true sense of them is not material unless it could be proved that this saying of Trajan is that which all the World ought to observe as their rule rather than the Principles of equity the directiions of Scripture and the sense of the primitive Church SECT II. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected upon Sect. 2 1. Since some other Cases have been discoursed on by learned men I shall take such notice of them as is needful with particular respect to the Government of this Kingdom Wherefore it will be needless for me to enquire into those Cases mentioned by Grotius De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 8 14 15. of the lawfulness of taking Armes against such a Prince who hath no supreme power or who hath no just and warrantable right and title or who receiveth his Government upon express condition that in some special circumstances it shall be lawful to make resistance against him or relinquish obedience to him For such Princes as these are supposed to be have no compleat Soveraign right and the consideration of such things is of no concernment to our English Government 2. Ibid. n. 9. Another question hath been proposed concerning Princes who voluntarily and freely relinquish and lay aside their Crown and Government And there have been several instances of this nature as in the Emperour charles the Fifth Christina of Sweden of late Bambas of Spain which is expressed in one of the Councils of Toledo Conc. Tolet. 12. and in the space of two hundred years nine Saxon Kings have been observed to have done the like in England Fullers Ch. Hist l. 2. an 718. And if such persons should act against the setled Government of their respective Kingdomes after they are fixed in the next Heir in an hereditary Kingdom or in another King according to the constitution of elective Principalities the resisting any of them is not the taking Armes against the King but against him who now is a private person 3. Barcl cont Monarchom l. 3. c. 16. p. 213. The Question concerning a Prince who shall undertake to alienate his Kingdome or to give it up into the hands of another Soveraign Power against the mind of his Subjects hath been considered by Barclay Grot. ubi sup Grotius and before them both was reflected on by Bishop Bilson And I think them truly to assert Bils of Christian subject l. 3. p. 479. 520. that such an act of alienation or of acknowledged subjection especially if obtained by evil methods as was done in the case of King John is null and void and therefore can neither give any right of Soveraignty to another nor dispossess the Prince himself thereof as was said in the former Book But if any such Prince shall actually and forcibly undertake to bring his Subjects under a new supreme power who have no right thereto and shall deliver up his Kingdome to be thereby possessed Ibidem Grotius doubteth not but he may be resisted in this undertaking but then this resolution must proceed upon this ground that this action encludeth his devesting himself of his Soveraignty together with his injurious proceeding against those who were his Subjects Barcl ubi sup And Barclay who allows only two cases in which a Prince may be devested of his royal Dignity doth account this to be one of them But concerning this I think it chiefly necessary to adde that a disquisition of this nature hath much in it of the needless niceties of many disputes of the School-men wherein they contend about empty Notions and exercise themselves in speculations which are not like to be of concernment to Mankind For mens ordinary duties do not depend on such extraordinary unlikely and merely imaginary suppositions And therefore this case might well enough have been omitted were it not that some might account it a defect to take no notice of what other men thought fit to propose and possibly some may account such things to be of more weight than they really are 4. The last case which I shall take notice of as mentioned by these and other Writers is expressed in high words which yet are of no great weight when throughly examined to wit whether if a Soveraign Prince should actually undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom or any considerable part thereof they may not in these circumstances have liberty of defending themselves by taking Armes This Question is started and urged by Junius Brutus Vindic. cont Tyr. Qu. 3. p. 184. c. and insisted on by other subverters of Soveraign Power and is needful to be discoursed because here such men take sanctuary who would undermine the duties of submission It is not reasonable to imagine a King to undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom But good men ought to be cautious even of admitting any such uncharitable suppositions to enter into their hearts concerning their own Rulers whom God hath commanded them to honour and reverence and much more ought they to be wary that they do not account themselves to have ever the more liberty to evade Gods Commands and their ordinary duty of subjection and allegiance by the putting such general and more than extraordinary cases Wherefore I shall first take notice of what is proposed concerning the whole Dominions of a Prince or a whole Kingdom and then concerning any considerable part thereof 5. The suggestion of a Soveraign Prince out of mere will or passion undertaking to cut off or to ruine and destroy the whole Body of his People are expressions which make a great noise and have a terrible sound and dismal aspect but like a Spectrum though they may affright they have little of substance under them Adv. â—â—â— narch l. â— c. 〈◊〉 212. I acknowledge that this is the other only case in which Barclay esteemeth a Soveraign Prince of forfeit his right of Government and that thereupon it may be lawful to resist him l. 3. â—â— p 159. l. 6. c. 23. p. 503. c. 24. p. 513. And the
which intirely flow from the institutions of Christ as the right of consecrating ordaining and the whole power of the Keys doth Now the asserting the supremacy of Government is never designed in any wise to violate either these divine or Christian institutions or to assert it lawful for any Prince to invade that authority and right which is made peculiar thereby whether in matters temporal or spiritual Grot. de Imp. S. m. cap. 2. n. 1. Abbot de suprem pot Reg. prael 2. n. 2. Mas de Min. Angl. l. 3. c. 5. n. 2. l. 4. c. 1. Ecclesiastical and civil rights asserted Wherefore there was just cause for understanding men to tax the vanity and inconsiderateness of those men who will understand nothing else by the Kings Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical but this that he may assume to himself the performance of all proper Ecclesiastical actions 6. Obs 2. Since the asserting the Kings Supremacy in things temporal doth not exclude the subject from a real propriety in his own estate nor declare it lawful for a Prince when he pleaseth to alienate his subjects possessions and inheritance the owning his supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical must not be so far strained as to acknowledge that the revenue of the Church may be alienated at the pleasure of the Civil power For besides that in our English laws this hath the same legal security that all other properties have Magn. Char. c. 1. and with a priority and precedence thereto it is but reasonable that that possession which beareth a respect to God should be as inviolable as the rights of any men And that revenue which is set apart for the support of the service of God and of those administrations which tend to mens eternal felicity ought not to be less secured than what concerneth their temporal welfare 7. Obs 3. Things good and evil cannot be altered but must be established by authority The Soveraign power is so supreme in things temporal as that whatsoever is good or evil by the law of nature or the command of God cannot be altered thereby viz. so as to make theft and murder good or justice chastity and speaking truth evil And in things Ecclesiastical all matters of faith worship and order which Christ hath determined in his Church must remain equally unmoveable and unalterable notwithstanding the acknowledgment of Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical And in temporal affairs what authority the God of nature hath planted in any other persons still remaineth intire notwithstanding the Royal Government over them thus for instance the power right and authority of Parents is still acknowledged such as that it is neither derived from the regal authority nor can be forbidden by it And this power which both the laws of nature and of Christianity establish hath been universally owned throughout the world and it is observed by Philo Phil. de Leg. ad Caium that when Tiberius the Son of Drusus a minor was left Copartner with Caligula in the right of the Empire by the will of Tiberius the deceased Emperour Caligula by this subtile and wicked method brought him to be so under his immediate government as to have opportunity to destroy him Sect. 3 by taking him to be his adopted Son And as the paternal power must be preserved so likewise whatsoever officers or order of men Christ hath committed his authority unto in his Church this authority doth fully still remain and reside in them and as it is not derived from any temporal power neither may it be taken away or abolished thereby But the supreme civil government hath in all these things a right and authority V. Thorndike Right of the Church Ch. 4. p. 168. of enjoining to every one the performance of their duty and also of determining many particularities which have relation to these general heads and to punish irregular exorbitances and miscarriages SECT III. The declaration of this sense by publick authority observed 1. Though these things might of themselves seem clear enough we have yet further two authentick expositions of this supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical confirmed by the greatest authority of this Church and Realm The former with a particular respect to the Oath of Supremacy was at first published in the Queens Injunctions There the Queen disclaiming all authority of ministring divine offices in the Church In the Admonition to simple peopled deceived by malicious as that which cannot by any equity of words or good sense be intended by the Oath doth declare that no other duty or allegiance is meant or intended by the Oath nor any other authority challenged therein than what was challenged by K. Hen. 8. and K. Edw. 6. and which is and was due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the more particular explication of which followeth in these words that is under God to have the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be so as no other foreign power shall have or ought to have any superiority over them And then it follows and if any person shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation sense and meaning her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such person in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects 2. But this explication received a more solemn and ample publick Sanction by a statute law not long after the publication of these Injunctions 5 Eliz. 1. Therein it was enacted that the Oath of Supremacy should be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions in the first year of her Reign that is to say to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth as in the same admonition it plainly may appear 3. The other publickly acknowledged exposition of the sense of this Supremacy is in the Articles of the Church of England agreed on in the Convocation and confirmed or established by a legal Sanction 13 Eliz. 12. Artic. 37. Therein are these words Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government by which title we understand the minds of some slanderous folk to be offended we give not our Princes the ministring of Gods word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alway to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers 4. And when Bishop Vsher in his Speech at the sentencing some Recusants in the Castle Chamber at Duâ—lin explained the Kings