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
Conspiracies have been frequently contrived against the Safety and Welfare of Princes and their Kingdoms as the consequent of the wicked Positions which I have undertaken to refute But all these attempts which are Pernicious and Destructive to Humane Society will I hope sufficiently appear by the following Discourse to be perfectly opposite to the Christian Doctrine also and severely condemned by it Wherefore the things treated of in this Book are of such a nature that they are of great concernment for the good Order Peace and Settlement of the World the security of Kings and Kingdoms and the vindicating the Innocency of the Christian Religion Upon this Account I could wish my self to be more able to discourse of such a subject as this every way suitably to and worthy of it self But as I have herein used diligent care and consideration so I can freely say I have every where endeavoured impartially to discover and faithfully to express the truth and have never used any unworthy Artifices to evade or obscure it And therefore if the sober and judicious Reader shall in any thing of less moment as I hope he will not in matters of great moment discern any mistake I shall presume upon his Candor and Charity In the manner of handling things I have avoided nothing which I apprehended to be a difficulty or considerable matter of objection but in the return of Answers and the use of Arguments to confirm what I assert I have oft purposely omitted many things in themselves not inconsiderable for the shunning needless prolixity and have waved several things taken notice of by others for this cause sometimes because I was not willing to lay any stress upon such things as seemed to me not to be of sufficient strength On this account for instance in discoursing of the Supremacy of Princes over Ecclesiastical Officers I did not insist on our Saviour and S. Peter paying Tribute Mat. 17.24 27. For though many ancient Writers speak of this as paid to Caesar and some expressions in the Evangelist seem to favour this sense yet I suppose there is rather greater likelyhood that this had respect to the annual oblation unto God himself which the Jews paid for the service of the Temple to which St Hilary and some other Ancients refer it Yet in rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesars I still reserve unto God the things that are Gods acknowledging the primary necessity of embracing the true Worship of God and the Doctrine and practice of Christianity and that all Christians ought to bear an high reverence to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ under the Gospel and to that Authority and those Officers which he hath peculiarly established therein But there is a very great miscarriage among men that there are those who look upon many weighty things in Christianity as if they were merely secular Constitutions and were no further necessary to be observed than for the securing men from outward penalties These men do not observe and consider that there lyeth a far greater necessity of keeping and valuing the Communion of the Church of devoutly attending Gods publick worship and orderly performing its Offices with other things of like nature from the Precepts and Institutions of Christ and from the Divine Sanctions than from the countenance or establishment of any civil Law or secular Authority whatsoever The lively sense and consideration of this was that which so wonderfully promoted and preserved both Piety and Unity in the Primitive Church when it had no encouragement from the Temporal Power But there must be no opposition made between Fearing God and Honouring the King but a careful discharge of both and these Precepts which God hath joined together let no man separate And now I shall only entreat that Reader who is inclined to have different apprehensions from the main things I assert to be so just to his own reason and Conscience as impartially to consider and embrace the evidence of Truth which is the more necessary because truths of this nature are no mere matters of speculation but are such Rules to direct our practice which they who are unwilling to entertain act neither charitably to themselves nor accountably to God And he who is the Father of Spirits direct the hearts of all men into the wayes of Goodness Uprightness Truth and Peace Lyn Regis June 21. 1678. THE CONTENTS THE First BOOK Chap. I. THE Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared Sect. 1. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England Sect. 2. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to Causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 3. The Declaration of this sense by publick Authority observed Sect. 4. The spiritual Authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the Secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy Sect. 5. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto Chap. II. The Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered Sect. 1. Their supreme Authority over things and persons sacred manifested Sect. 2. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same Authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Chap. III. No Synedrial Power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal Sect. 1. The Exorbitant Power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 2. The determination of many weighty Cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the Royal Power examined and refuted Sect. 3. Of the Antiquity of the Synedrial Power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate Chap. IV. Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical proved from reason and the Doctrine of Christ Sect. 1. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign Power Sect. 2. The same established by the Christian Doctrine Sect. 3. What Authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church Sect. 4. An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great with respect to the fuller clearing this matter Chap. V. An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the Authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion Sect. 1. Of the General Exercise of this Supremacy and its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice Sect. 2. This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople and the third at Ephesus Sect. 3. The same acknowledged in the Council of Chalcedon and others Sect. 4. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered Sect. 5. Other Objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their Authority Sect. 6. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the Causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance
Christian Emperours themselves so we have this evidence that none of these Emperours affected or ordinarily used this title if they did at all own it not only in that Gratian openly declared against it but also 1. In that none of them used it in any of their publick edicts as was done usually by the Pagan Emperours 2. Nor so far as can be collected from the various medals stamped in their times did they make use thereof as the Pagan Emperours had done in any of their Coins which Mr Selden acknowledgeth Seld. ibid. 3. It is mentioned by Sozomen Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. as one of the notes of Julians forsaking Christianity that he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Pontifex 4. But when God eminently revealing his will by Moses had formed a more publick Ecclesiastical and civil power separated in the old Testament ample and visible establishment of a Church in the World under the Jewish dispensation than was before it he then divided the Kingly authority and the Priesthood into distinct hands And nothing is more manifest than that under Judaism the Priesthood was fixed in the Family of Aaron Ex. 28.1 ch 40.15 And when Corah who was of the chief Family of the Levites which had the charge of the most holy things Num. 16.1 compared with Num. 4.4 c. and his Company undertook presumptuously to invade this office they were punished with severe dreadful and miraculous judgments in that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the Company of Corah Num. 16.32 33. and the fire that came out from the Lord consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 3. Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 693. v. 35. and as the ancient Jewish Writers tell us there was not any member of these men remaining which could receive a Burial and from hence the Jews received a strict admonition that no man whosoever who was not of the seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense before the Lord v. 40. And this peculiar priviledge of the Family of Aaron was further confirmed by the miracle of Aarons rod blossoming Num. 17 1.-10 5. And that the King and chief ruler among the Jews being not of the line of Aaron might not intermeddle with the execution of this Priestly Office is manifest besides the general rules of the law from other special instances For when Saul undertook to offer Sacrifice 1 Sam. 13.9 13 14. he was sharply rebuked by Samuel and thereupon God denounced this heavy judgment against him that his Kingdom must not continue And when Vzziah attempted to offer incense he was smitten with leprosy for this transgression Ant. Jud. l. 9. c. 11. 2 Chr. 26.16 22. to which Josephus addeth other testimonies of the divine displeasure against him and telleth us that this judgment upon Vzziah was inflicted on one of their solemn Feast days which if it was so might render it the more remarkable And the reason why God fixed the Priesthood in the Family of Aaron and not in Moses and the successive Governours was not chiefly Ant. l. 3. c. 10. as Josephus representeth Moses to speak from the worth and desert of Aaron But it tended much to excite the greater reverence and awe towards the majesty of God and an higher veneration for the offices of Religion that no person no not the highest among men might perform these sacred offices of approaching to God by offering Sacrifices and Oblations save only those persons whom God had particularly set apart for that purpose And withall the Priest blessing in the name of the Lord and especially Aarons putting the sins of the people upon the head of the live-Goat Lev. 16.21 22. which included the applying Gods pardon to them and other Priestly performances which were not mere actions of natural Religion but depended upon Gods institution could not be performed but by an especial and peculiar authority derived from God to that intent or in the language of the Apostle Heb. 5.3 No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron 7. And in the state of Christianity And under the Gospel as Christ hath established the Officers of his Church so there seemeth rather more reason for the peculiar distinct institution of these Officers under the Christian Church than under the Jewsih For while the Jewish Priests chiefly acted for men towards God in Sacrifices and Oblations the Christian Officers do in more things than they did act from God and in his name towards men which in the nature of the thing doth more especially require an authority peculiarly received from God For who can deprive any person of the communion of that Society which Christ hath founded or receive and restore them unto it but by the authority which he hath appointed Or how can any persons consecrate Symbols and dispense them as sealing the Covenant of grace and exhibiting from Christ the blessings and benefits thereof to the due receivers unless they be those who have received Commission from him to this purpose Or who can pronounce absolution in Christs name which is also implicitely included in the administration of the Sacraments and other ministerial Offices unless he hath given them such particular authority And the same may be said of solemn Ecclesiastical benedictions with imposition of hands and particularly of the ordination of such Officers in the Christian Church who are to be invested with this authority 8. And that this Ecclesiastical authority under the Gospel should be committed to peculiar Officers and not fixed in them who have the civil power is that which the wisdom of our Saviour hath appointed who did not call secular rulers to be his Apostles This was partly requisite because there are different qualifications to fit persons for secular government and for presiding in the Church and because the Christian Church being called to take up the Cross should not be destitute of its guides in a time of persecution when it may need them most But this also maketh the communion of the Church it self as it is a peculiar Christian Society and its dependance on the grace of God and its relation to him to be the more visible and remarkable by the distinct Officers and authority constituted to dispense the mysteries of his grace And it tendeth also to conciliate an higher honour and veneration for the particular institutions of God and our Saviour in the new Covenant in that the administration of them is the proper designed work of such peculiar officers of his appointment And therefore if any would make the Ecclesiastical offices to be an authority appendent or annexed unto the civil he undertakes to unite those things which are in Synesius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 57. such as cannot be knit or woven into one another 9. But it is to be observed Ecclesiastical
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
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
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
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
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
are still under the Government of their Superiours who may take care that they therein act not contrary to the true grounds of Conscience which in this Case is justice and right 2. That in matters of Religion also it is manifest that very many are prone to run into mistakes more than about other things and to be too much hurried by pride prejudice passion or by following erroneous guides And is it reasonable to think it agreeable to the will of God and the Christian Doctrine that it should be necessary to preserve the civil interests of men whether Princes or Subjects but that such liberty must be granted that the sacred Majesty of God may be affronted the truths of the Gospel opposed the Unity of the Church broken by Schism the power of Religion undermined by vain fancies and the reputation of the Christian Religion stained and the eternal happiness of many thousands be thereby hazarded and all this not thought so considerable as to provide against it Or as S. Austin said Aug. Ep. 50. An fidem non servare levius est animam Deo quà m foeminam viro is it a lighter and more inconsiderable thing for the soul of man not to be faithful to God than for a Woman not to be faithful to her Husband Wherefore since it is as easy for men of understanding to discern the duty of man in the main things of Religion and the Rules of decency as in civil matters it is very requisite that with allowance of reasonable liberty to them who are soberly inquisitive about truth there should be a restraint upon men by Laws and Government from following every inordinate inclination of their own minds though they miscal it by the name of Conscience that so Piety Order and Peace may be secured 4. But though I would be as charitable to all who err in matters of Religion as may consist with a due consideration of things yet I cannot account all that to be Conscience which is by some men in the World so called Conscience doth not always really guide where its name is pretended For those proper dictates of Conscience which in this case ought to command obedience must proceed upon such convictive evidence of truth and duty which no errour and mistake can bring along with it with that clearness which truth doth and this ought to be followed by every pious man whatever difficulties may assault him herein but passions and disordered affections ought to be governed and restrained and the Laws and Commands of Superiours ought to be obeyed where there is no such evidence to be opposed against them as I have mentioned But let any person who understandeth the state of the World consider whether it be not an apparent sad truth and matter of real lamentation that the chief and most earnest men who close with erring and dividing parties amongst us do this either out of some fond affection to a weak argument which they are highly pleased with or because they are resolved to hold fast some things as certain principles which have no evidence of truth or that they follow willingly and of choice the opinion of some other persons whom they admire or have a great prejudice against those whom they account an opposite party or are not willing to be subject and to be guided by their Superiours in things relating to order And I heartily wish it were not so plain a truth as it is that such men are rarely willing to consider seriously and impartially of what is said against their errour and do not make so much scruple of Conscience as they ought of breaking those numerous and plain Precepts which enjoin obedience humility and the keeping the Peace and Vnity of the Church 5. Now in men who thus proceed True liberty of Conscience opposed by them who plead for it in words it is very plain that their dissent is founded in the voluntary inclination and evil indisposition of their wills And if any such persons shall say that their Consciences oblige them to entertain these inclinations they must give others leave to see that they only substitute the name of Conscience to be a Plea for an unaccountable and bad temper of mind And indeed those persons are great opposers of the just and necessary Liberty of Conscience who will bind it up to comply with their own inclinations and what pleaseth them but will not give it the liberty of impartial consideration that thereby it might guide them by its unbiassed dictates 6. God hath not left mens Consciences at liberty to neglect peace and obedience But because I intend here to discourse no further of liberty of Conscience than to shew that the pretence thereof ought not to be any bar against the exercise of government and authority in the regular establishing of Religion and order in the Church I shall only add that I suppose no man will be so presumptuously bold as to assert that this Plea of liberty should be a priviledge to men against the authority of God and his Laws and Precepts And then I cannot understand what pretence can be made from hence against the necessity of practising those duties which the Commands of God have enjoined of following peace maintaining order and in things lawful being subject to superiours especially since God hath particularly in this Case required us to be subject for Conscience sake and that not as in a matter left at liberty but where he hath declared a necessity upon Conscience Rom. 13.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you most needs be subject for Conscience sake 7. But there are some who say Toleration pretended to be a method for peace that a general liberty for all men to profess what they please or think fit in Religion if it be not necessary from the nature of Conscience yet is the most excellent expedient for the general peace of the World This liberty hath been pretended by them who engage in several Sects to be a principal means to promote the Vnity of the Church which must be by a like method as the compactness and united strength of a building may be procured by providing that all the parts of it may without difficulty fall from one another But this general liberty in Religion is also proposed Humane Reason p. 78. as the best requisite to hinder civil and foreign Wars by a late Writer He tells us that all Wars of late Ages have been either really for Religion or at least that hath been one of the chief pretences and therefore as conducing to peace he requires the imbracing this Position P. 79. That every man ought quietly to enjoy his own Religion And in another place he sayes there cannot certainly in the World be found out P. 11 12. so mild and so peaceable a doctrine as that which permits a difference in beliefs 8. But since he that observes the World must acknowledge that many Wars have been occasioned upon
Priest so there is a peculiar Wire-drawn nicety which some make use of to prove this deposing power from those words of our Saviour Joh. 21.16 Feed my Sheep Hence they argue that it belongs to the office of a Pastor to drive away Wolves and therefore the chief Pastor may depose such Princes who are hurtful to the Church And this same argument may also prove that all Pastors have the power of the Sword and of making resistance and of killing and destroying mens lives and exercising such Authority as the Kings of the Gentiles did But to this which will admit of many answers it may be sufficient to say 1. That it is a great vanity to found an argument upon the straining a metaphorical expression which only proves that they want better proofs As if all Christians from the same text might be concluded to be Fools because Sheep are silly Creatures and that it is not fit that Christian Kingdoms should defend themselves by Arms against an invading Enemy because it agrees not with the nature of Sheep to fight with Foxes or Wolves 2. And it is no part of the peculiar authority of a Shepherd to drive away of Wolf which any Man or Dog either may warrantably do as well as the Shepherd 10. Gr. de Val. ubi supra C. 15. qu. 7. c. nos sanctorum c. Juratos But it is pretended also that those who are Excommunicated because of Heresy or as some add for any other cause do thereby lose their Dominion and Authority over their Subjects And this is asserted and declared by Gregory the Seventh and Vrbane the Second Now though the having disproved the authority of the Bishop of Rome to extend to this Kingdom doth sufficiently manifest that he hath no more power to Excommunicate any Prince or Subject of England having no Jurisdiction here than a Bishop in England hath to Excommunicate any Prince or Subject in Italy yet I shall here take notice of some things further concerning Excommunication and also concerning Heresy Concerning Excommunication I shall observe II. Excommunication doth not forfeit temporal rights First That it is contrary to the nature of Excommunication though in the highest degree that any person and especially a Soveraign Prince should thereby lose those temporal rights which are not founded in their relation to the Church Indeed in Christian Kingdoms there are ordinarily some temporal penalties and abatement of legal priviledges inflicted upon the persons excommunicate but this is not the natural effect of that sentence but is added thereto by the civil Government and Soveraignty under which such persons do live And therefore no such thing can take place with respect to Soveraign Princes who have no temporal superiour to annex this as a penalty Excommunication is a separating an Offender from the Christian Society of the Church not a casting him out of the World it removes him as Tertullian expresseth it Tertul. Ap. c. 39. à communicatione orationis conventus omnis sancti Commercii from communicating in Prayer Christian Assemblies and all holy Commerce But that temporal rights are not thereby lost or forfeited is acknowledged by some considerable Writers of the Romish Church Blackw his Examination 1607. n. 39. as Richeome and Soto who are cited with approbation by Blackwell 12. This may be further manifest from the words of our Saviour wherein he expresseth the state and condition of a person Excommunicate Mat. 18.17 Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican Now supposing here that a Christian Prince were Excommunicated to be as an Heathen man is no more than to be as the Roman Governours were to whom S. Paul and S. Peter enjoin obedience and to be as Tiberius himself was towards whom our Saviour commands the performance of duty The Publicans who received the Roman Tribute were so hateful to the Jews that they would not eat with them Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 5. 46. they were accounted oppressive exactors as the Jewish Rabbins declare and the words of S. John Baptist intimate Luk. 3.12 13. And indeed they had so general a reputation of injustice even amongst the Romans that it was thought a remarkable commendation of the Father of Vespasian Suet. in Vesp n. 1. in the publick Inscription upon the Statues erected in honour of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was an honest Publican But yet with respect to the civil rights of tribute which they demanded our Saviour requires and commands to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars Mat. 22.21 13. Princes may not be Excommunicated as others may Secondly I observe that Soveraign Princes are not liable to the Sentence of Excommunication in the same manner with Christian Subjects Though Princes must be under the care and conduct of Ecclesiastical Pastors and Guides yet the duties of that relation must be discharged with a reverent respect to the state of subjection And the different Case of a Prince and a subject with respect to Excommunication may be discerned by distinct reflecting on the causes the effects the end and the manner of proceeding in Excommunication If we consider the causes or occasions of Excommunication a Soveraign is capable of losing and forfeiting his relation to the Society of the Christian Church as well as other persons Right of the Church Ch. 4. p. 236. because as Mr Thorndike observeth he as well as others comes into the Communion of the Church upon the terms and conditions of Christianity and a failure in the condition must make the effect void Such was the Case of Julian who being an Apostate and no longer embracing Christianity had no more any right to be accounted a Christian The effect of Excommunication is such that it sometimes prohibits converse among private persons except in such relations as do not depend upon the Society of the Church and therefore remain intire notwithstanding the separation from that Society as of Parents and Children Husband and Wife Master and Servant And upon this account Davenant Determ 48. no subject can by vertue of Excommunication be prohibited converse with and discharge of all duty and respect to his Soveraign because this is that which he oweth him by the bond of Allegiance and the laws of nature humane Society and civil polity 14. And the end of all Ecclesiastical power being for the good of the Church and of Mankind it being an authority for edification and not for destruction in all the acts thereof due caution ought to be used in avoiding the unnecessary exasperating those who are in chief authority against the Officers of the Church which oft occasioneth lamentable discords and contentions V. Barcl de potest Papae c. 9. c. 26. And because the good of the Church consists chiefly in the advancement of Piety and Religious obedience of which one branch is the honouring and obeying superiours and Governours upon account of Christian piety all just care must be
taken that no acts of Ecclesiastical authority do render Soveraign Princes the more disrespected and disesteemed of their Subjects And upon this account also it is needful that all Ecclesiastical Officers do carefully avoid the suspicion of undermining the secular rights of Princes which hath been inordinately done in the Romish Church under the pretence of the power of the Keyes and of binding and loosing 15. And lastly and chiefly The manner of proceeding in the Sentence of Excommunication being ordinarily by a judicial process and a publick Judicial sentence and there being no Ecclesiastical Court or Person who hath any superiour power or authority over a Soveraign Prince to Command or Summon his appearing before them to answer to what shall be objected against him I cannot see how unless by his own consent he should become subject to such Judicial proceedings The Bishop of Rome did indeed presume to summon Kings before him but this was an high act of his Vsurpation Whereas according to the groundwork now laid a Soveraign Prince cannot by any coactive Ecclesiastical Power become subject to such a sentence and the open and outward proceedings therein But still Princes as well as any other persons must submit themselves to the power of the Keyes in undertaking the rules of repentance so far as they are needful for procuring the favour of God and obtaining the benefit of the Keyes by Absolution as was in a great part done in that memorable Case of Theodosius Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 17. Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 24. upon the sharp rebuke of S. Ambrose And though all Christians upon manifest evidence may in some Cases see cause to disown a Soveraign Prince as was done in Julian from being any longer a Member of the Christian Society yet in such Cases this Membership ceaseth and is forfeited by his own act and not properly by a Judicial sentence and formal Process Gr. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp 3. Qu. 15. Punct 3. And some of the Romish Writers go much this way in giving an account how the Bishop of Rome whom they suppose to be superiour to all men on Earth may be reason of Heresy or such Crimes be deprived of Christian Communion 16. Heresy doth not deprive men of all temporal rights Valent. T. 3. Disp 1. Qu. 10. P. 8. qu. 11. P. 3. qu. 12. p. 2. Concerning Heresy it might be sufficient in this Case to observe that those who in Communion with the Church of England embrace that true Christian Doctrine which was taught in the Primitive and Apostolical Church are as far from being concerned in the crime and guilt of Heresy as loyal Subjects are from being chargeable with Rebellion But that assertion which some Romish Writers embrace that Hereticks are ipso facto deprived of all temporal rights Layman The Mor. l. 2. Tr. 2. c. 16. and superiority etiam ante judicis sententiam say some is necessary to be rejected For this is a position that would ruine the Peace of the World when it would put every party upon seising the possessions of all whom they account Hereticks as having a just right so to do And this is certainly false because temporal Dominion is not originally founded in the entertaining the true Doctrine of Religion or the Faith of Christianity since S. Paul required subjection to the Pagan Rulers as being ordained of God Rom. 13.1 7. Had this been true the Scribes and Pharisees who were guilty of Heresy could not have sat in Moses Seat nor ought Constantius and Valens to have been acknowledged as they always were by the Christian Church for Soveraign Princes 17. That damnable doctrine and position Suar. in Reg. Brit. l. 6. c. 6. Vide Arnaldi Oration cont Jesuitas in Cur. Parlam Sixt. 5. in Orat. in Consist Rom. Comolet in Arnald Orat ubi sup which is abjured in the Oath of Allegiance as impious and heretical That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever is owned and asserted even with respect to the murdering them by several Popish Doctors and by some of them as a thing most highly meritorious Among whom also the murdering of Princes is approved if they be only thought remiss and not zealous in carrying on the interest of the Romish Church and on this account the horrid murther of Hen. 3. and Hen. 4. of France hath been applauded and commended by divers of them But the wickedness of all such assertions and practises will be abhorred by all loyal and Christian Spirits and will I hope be plainly manifested from the following part of this discourse 18. And whereas this Doctrine and Position is abjured as Heretical Of Heretical Doctrines the phrase Heretical must be here taken in a proper and strict sense But when the Scriptures or ancient Fathers speak of Heresy or Heretical Doctrines strictly and properly they thereby understand such Positions which under the profession of Christianity do so far oppose and undermine the true Christian Doctrine as to bring those who maintain and practise these things to the wayes of destruction Thus those Doctrines were by S. Peter esteemed damnable Heresies which were proposed by false Teachers and were pernicious and destructive both to them and to those who followed them Ignat. ad Trallian 2 Pet. 2.1 2 3. Ignatius also describeth Heresy to be a strange Herb no Christian food which joineth the name of Christ with corrupt doctrines quae inquinatis implicat Jesum Christum in the Latin published by Bishop Vsher by which the Medicean Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is certainly amiss and concerning which both Vossius and P. Junius add their different conjectures may be corrected for that Copy out of which this Latin was translated seemeth to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as they who give a deadly poyson with wine and honey which may please and yet kill And Tertullian accounted such assertions to be Heresy as undermine the Faith Tert. de Praescript c. 2 5. and lead to eternal death and where the Teachers of them though they profess the name of Christ do corrupt his Doctrine and are Adulteri Evangelizatores In like manner S. Austin owneth him to be an Heretick Aug. de Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. who under the Christian name resisteth the Christian Doctrine and persisteth in maintaining dogmata pestifera mortifera pestilent and deadly opinions And when Aquinas treated of Heresy 22ae q. 11. a. 2. o. he declared that the import thereof is the corruption of the Christian Faith Nor would it be difficult to add a numerous Company of approved Writers to the same purpose 19. Doctrines allowing Subjects or others to depose or murther Princes are Heretical Now since the Popes depriving power hath been disproved this Position here abjured is not only false but according to this notion of Heresy it is
where bad notions or inclinations get a through entrance they are apt to propagate and are not easily rooted out Thus S Hierome observes Hier. Prooem in lib. 2. Comment ad Galat. that Galatia which too readily embraced corrupt doctrines in the Apostles times notwithstanding S. Pauls Epistle to them continued to be a place prone to Heresy unto his time And the Church of corinth was so apt to fall into Divisions and Schisms that notwithstanding the Apostles severe rebukes of them for that sin they were soon after his Death Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. strangely over-run with it again to the great disparagement of their Christian profession 7. Of the undutiful carriage of the Kirk of Scotland I gave a considerable and known instance in the former Book And that they at Rome do cast high disrespects and create great danger to Princes may be discerned both by the former Book and by the foregoing Section 8. Positions of Fanaticism and Jesuicism disloyal And besides these matters of Jact and practise it hath been manifest that many wild extravagant and disloyal Positions which are dangerous and destructive to Government and humane Society have been asserted by men of a Fanatick strain and temper of some of which I shall have occasion to take more particular notice in the progress of this discourse De Jur. Mag. in Subd qu. 6. Junius Brut. Vind. Qu. 2. Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9 31 32 c. Some of them assert that the people in general may take the Power and Government into their own hands and deprive and punish their governours when they see cause others grant this power only to the persons who are the peoples representatives others fix the same in inferiour Officers with respect to the supreme governour And others have run on so far as to yield this pwoer to the meanest part of the people as was asserted by an Anonymous Scotchman about the time of the Galloway Rebellion that in the right of self defence the concourse of the Nobles or the Primores Regni is no way of absolute necessity 9. And amongst the Papists they who are of the Jesuitical strain do not only embrace those notions of the Popes deposing power to the great prejudice of Soveraign Princes Authority and safety but they also run into the highest strain of Fanaticism in violating the majesty of Kings and subjecting them and their authority to the people De Rege l. 1. c. 6. Thus Mariana when the Prince is accounted by the people to pervert his government alloweth to them the liberty of publick resistance by open War and also the use of Private violence commending the treasonable Murther of Hen. 3. of France by James Clement and allows very man to set himself against such a Prince whom he calls a Tyrant saying Ibid. c. 3. tanquam fera omnium telis peti debet He also such are the wicked and wretched principles of these Jesuits approveth the use in this Case of deceit and fraud yea and of poyson by poysoning his Seat or Cloaths But that we may think there is something of Conscience remaining in such a spirit as this he condemns Ibid. c. 7. and declares against the giving such a person poyson in his meat and drink for this doughty reason because it is saith he against humanity that he should be put upon contributing to his own Death by any act of his own which he would here do by taking this poyson in his food But sure this mans reason was as far from him as Conscience when he wrote these things in his not discerning that there was altogether as much done in contributing to his own death by putting on his poysoned Cloaths 10. â—ess de Just Iure l. 2. c. 9. â—ub 4. Becan de jure Just ad Qu. 64. D. Thom. qu. 4. And Lessius and M. Becanus two other Jesuits in this particular agree almost word for word with one another in asserting these Positions that a Prince who hath a just title becomes a Tyrant with respect to the administration of his Government when he designs in his Government and aims at his private advantage and not the publick good and burdens the common-wealth with unjust exactions sells the offices and places of Judges and makes Laws to his own advantage and not the publick That when this Tyranny is no longer fit to be born this Prince is first to be deposed or to be declared an enemy by the Common-wealth or the chief Estates of the Kingdom or by any other who hath authority and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his person and life That so long as he remaineth a Prince that is till such acts be done as are now mentioned he may not be killed by private persons unless it be for their necessary self defence And Lessius saith in another place Dubit 8. for the further clearing his sense in this particular that for the necessary defending a mans own life or securing himself from being maimed it is lawful to kill him who sets upon him himself or procures another to do it And this saith he must be owned allowable against any superiours whatsoever even that a Vasal may in this Case kill his King unless it be likely that civil Wars may follow for discord about succession And in such an high strain of treason and Unchristian disloyalty is the Jesuits Casuistical Divinity But against the falshood and wickedness of these assertions it is needful to declare and defend the true and peaceable principles of Reason and Christianity and against the dangerous effects which such positions tend to promote it is necessary that publick laws provide due security for the person of the King to which purpose the general acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of taking up Armes against him The Laws of England condemnall Waragainst the King is of very good use 11. Our English Laws providing for the safety both of King and Subjects and the preservation of their just Rights do declare it universally unlawful to make or levy any War against the King And upon this account it must also be as much against reason and Christianity yea more both because of the greater duty to superiours and the concern of the general good to invade that Right and Royalty which the Law secures to the King as to deny to Subjects that property right and safety which the Law provides for them I confess the consideration of our Law in matters of doubtfulness difficulty or profound disquisition would be an unfit undertaking for my profession and especially for a man of no deeper study in the Law than my self But I am perswaded that if no men had made use of subtil Artifices and designed methods to obscure plain things there would have been no want of evidence even to any ordinary understanding in this particular to direct them to the honest practises
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