its Ecclesiastical Governours or else because those Princes did not sufficiently understand or thought it not advisable to claim and exercise their own right of Soveraignty even in Ecclesiastical matters And it must also be granted Conc. Chalc. c. 28. that if any part of the Roman Provinces and consequently of the Christian Churches therein were by Wars brought under the power of barbarous Nations the Canons required that their Ecclesiastical Government should be ordered as it was before But this was no so much a claiming dominion over them by their former Patriarch as his exercising Christian Charity towards them in assisting those afflicted parts of the Church 6. But it may possibly be objected that if every Soveraign Princes Dominions may claim a freedom from Foreign Ecclesiastical Supremacy how shall Christian Unity be preserved Ans In the same manner as in the Primitive times wherein whilest many of the Nations of Europe had not yet embraced Christianity there were within the Empire many head and independent Churches as I have above manifested But the Christian Vnity did then consist Theod. Hist l. 3. c. 8. partly in their embracing the same faith and giving the same worship to God as the Fathers at Sardica declared partly in their holding communion with and receiving one another in all parts of the World as Brethren which is by Tertullian discoursing hereof De Praescr c. 20. expressed by communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis and partly also in that as need required they held correspondence with each other and in chief matters of order and Government they observed the same Canonical Rules and after the first Oecumenical Councils they generally submitted to their Canons And they constantly acknowledged all acts of Government in the true Catholick Officers of a particular Church in receiving or rejecting members to be of force in the whole Catholick Church wherein no excommunicated person would be received in any part of it Can. Ap. 12. Nic. 5. Chalc. 13. Antioch 6 7. nor any suspected persons without dimissory or commendatory Letters And they also owned all dividing from or communicating with a particular Church to have respect to the whole Catholick Church of which that particular was a member Cyp. de Unit. Eccles because as S. Cyprian declares Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur 7. Secondly 2. From the dangerons abuse of pretended Apostolical Power The right of Patriarchal claim is altered from what it once was by the Romish Bishops abusing and perverting the pretence of Apostolical authority and challenging such an Vniversal Supremacy as encludeth a power of disposing Kingdoms deposing Kings and dissolveing the bonds of subjects obedience And besides these general positions he not only challenged this Kingdom as feudatory but undertook to discharge all English Subjects from their Allegiance to Queen Elizabeth but in the following Book I shall speak more to the things contained under this head But he who acts against the safety of the Realm V. Conc. Turon 1510. and the rights of the Crown whatsoever his dignity is in the Church may be rejected as a common Enemy even as Abiathar the High Priest when he became an abetter of Sedition was justly deposed by Solomon That man who will give liberty of free access to his House for his Friend or his Physician will not think it reasonable to do the same to him who without all right claims a power to turn him out of his own estate and to dispose of it as the chief Lord. 8. 3. From pernicious and false doctrine Thirdly From the corrupt doctrines which he propagates with that earnestness as to reject all others who will not embrace them Now because there is no authority above or against God and his truth there lyeth the same obligation upon all good Christians in this Case to reject and disown his superiority as there doth to hold and maintain the true Catholick Christian doctrine which he will not allow against the gross corruptions which have invaded it Thus in the time of Constantius when the present possessors of the Patriarchdom were favourers of Arianisme it was the honour of many Catholick Bishops and other Christians that they kept close to the Catholick doctrine even in opposition to those Patriarchs And the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus declared Conc. Eph. c. 1. that if any Metropolitan had forsaken or should forsake and oppose the true doctrine which the Council did profess he should have no authority over others in his province and this was determined with a particular respect to the Case of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople whose Heresy was then also favoured by John Patriarch of Antioch 9. Indeed upon pretence of personal crimes concerning life and manners no inferiour was allowed by the Canons to deny his subjection to his Bishop Metropolitan or Patriarch until a Council had judged thereof But if the Case be such that he with open face asserts manifest Heresy or false doctrine which hath been so declared by approved Councils the disowning all Communion with him Syn. prim Sec. c. 15. and subjection to him even before a Council is commended by some Canons as a practice which deserves honour And it must be so where subjection must enclude embracing corruptions 10. But the various false Conc. Trid. passim and Corrupt doctrines of the Church of Rome are openly asserted under Anathema's against all who shall oppose them And these present erroneous doctrines of the Roman Church according to the definitions of the Council of Trent are by the Bull of Pius the Fourth declared to be the true Catholick faith Bul. Pii 4. superform Juram prof fid extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And an assent unto all these doctrines is enjoined in that Bull to be declared upon Oath by all persons who have any dignity or cure of souls Sept. Decret l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 2. which is extended by a following Constitution to all who take Academical degrees in any faculty and to all Professors and Readers in publick Schools 11. Now one thing in this Bull enjoined to be thus necessarily professed and believed is that the Roman Church is omnium Ecclesiarum mater magistra the mother of all Churches and hath authority over them but this is plainly contrary to the determination of Oecumenical Councils which I have above produced who do make the authority of other Churches equal with the Roman Many other things are manifestly contrary to the doctrine of Christ himself and his Apostles as their Transubstantiation the allowing the Communion in one kind against the express institution of Christ the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass for the quick and the dead and many more of like nature Eulla in Coena c. 2. And yet the Pope not only excommunicates all those as Hereticks who do oppose these
that the Popes usurped power was not so quietly and freely submitted to in this Realm as thereby to give him any right to govern here SECT III. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates 1. The bounds of Patriarchal Authority altered The third Assertion is That the Patriarchal rights especially those of Rome do not now stand on the same terms as they did in the ancient Church nor can the present Roman Bishop claim subjection in all those limits which of right were under the ancient and Catholick Bishops of Rome No man can reasonably think that the bounds of the Patriarchal Sees were unalterable unless they had been of a divine or Apostolical Authority But that they were never looked upon as such in the Catholick Church may besides other testimonies appear in that the General Councils undertook to erect Patriarchates and to divide the limits of others as they saw cause Sect. 3 Thus the dignity and honour of a Patriarch was given to the Bishop of Constantinople Conc. Const c. 3. in the second General Council and his Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction were fixed in the fourth and in the same the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided and part thereof allotted to the Bishop of Jerusalem who then received Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. But I shall only consider four things which may so alter the state of Patriarchal Jurisdictions that every one of them besides what is abovesaid is a bar against all claim of authority in the Bishop of Rome to these Churches and Realms 2. First from the different territories 1. From the different bounds of free Kingdoms and Dominions of Soveraign Kings and Princes For the doctrine and design of Christianity did not intend to undermine and enervate but to establish and secure the right of Kings and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free Kingdoms to devest themselves of sufficient means to preserve their own security and peace and the necessary administration of justice Nor can the former acts of any Councils or Bishops wheresoever any such were give away the rights of Kings and Realms But a Foreign Bishop who is under no Allegiance to this Crown and hath no particular obligation to seek the good of this Kingdom Mischiefs from Foreign Jurisdiction may probably oft incline to designs either of his own ambition or the interests of other Princes against the true welfare of this Realm as hath sufficiently been done in the Court of Rome And if such an one hath power to cite before him any person whomsoever of this Realm either to his Patriarchal Seat or his Legate and hath the authority without all redress or appeal save to an Oecumenical Council which probably will never be had to inflict so severe a sentence as Excommunication truly is he would hereby have a considerable awe and curb upon many of the subjects of the Realm that they would be wary of opposing or provoking him And if Canonical obedience were due to him from all the Clergy and filial reverence from the laiety such a person being the Kings Enemy may have greater opportunity of indirect managing his ill projects than is consistent with the safety of the Realm or with the innocency and goodness of the Christian Religion to promote 3. The exercise of a foreign authority when managed by haughty and ambitious spirits hath been of such ill consequence to Kings and Emperours that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his Crown to the Popes Legate Henry the Third Emperour of Germany Mart. Polon in Greg. Sept. p. 361. was compelled to stand at the Popes Gate barefoot several dayes n frost and snow to beg for absolution and Frederick the First to submit to Pope Alexander treading upon his neck And other instances there are of like nature of the despising Dominions and Dignities being the effects of Interdicts and Romish Excommunications Towards the whole Kingdom St. 25 Hen. 8.21 it becomes a method of exhausting its treasure by tedious and expensive prosecution of appeals and many other ways which were not without cause publickly complained of in this Kingdom Antiq. Brit. p. 178. insomuch that the yearly revenue of the Court of Rome out of this Kingdom was in the time of Henry the Third found to be greater than the revenue of the King And it is an high derogation from the Soveraignty of a King as well as a prejudice to the subjects where justice cannot be effectually administred and Cases of right determined by any authority within his own Dominions And with respect to the Clergy Pryn An. 24 25 Edw. 1. p. 689 c. the Foreign Jurisdiction sometimes brought them into great straits as did that Bull of Boniface the Eighth which put them to avoid his Excommunication upon contesting with the King and thereby brought them under the Kings displeasure and into very great grievances as appears from the Records of that time 4. And as upon these accounts it appears reasonable and necessary that the Dominions of Soveraign Princes should be free from any Foreign Ecclesiastical superiority so there are many things which may be observed to this purpose in the ancient state of the Church The Government of Dioceses Provinces and Patriarchates hath been acknowledged to have been ordered within the Empire and according to the distinct limits of the Provinces thereof Conc. Const c. 3. Chalc. c. 28. Conc. Chalc. c. 17. Trul. c 38. The Sees of Rome and Constantinople enjoyed the greatest Ecclesiastical priviledges because they were the Imperial Cities The Canons also of Oecumenical Councils enjoined that if any City receive new priviledges of honour by the Imperial authority the Ecclesiastical Constitutions for the honour of its See shall be regulated thereby And whereas the Slavonian Churches were first Converted to Christianity by them who were of the Eastern or Greek Church and embraced their Rites when Bohemia and some other branches of the Slavonian Nations were made members of the German Empire they thereupon became subject to the Government of the Western Church Thus also when the Bishop of Arles had an eminent authority in the ancient Gallia Comâ— Hist n 18. upon that City being divided from those Dominions and becoming subject to the Goths who then Commanded Italy and Spain he exercised no longer any Jurisdiction there but had his authority changed to be Delegate over the Spanish Territories but when this City was again reduced to the French Government he no longer exercised his authority in the Dominions of Spain 5. Yet it must be acknowledged that in practice the Dominions of several Soveraign Princes have been subject to a Foreign Patriarch which was not their duty But this was undertaken either upon presumption that because of the excellency and simplicity of the Christian Religion there could be no fear of prejudice from
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
thereby to be the better man or the better Christian in that he may seem not to consult his own interest in the World by venturing to displease or provoke his Parents and to lose those advantages and favours he might by a dutiful carriage receive from them Notwithstanding such empty pretences to plead for disobedience we must acknowledge the truth of what Hierocles asserted Hier. in Pythag. p. 53. even from the principles of equity and reason that Parents are no where else to be disobeyed but where themselves are not obedient to the divine Precepts And the duty to Princes is of a like nature 11. 2. They who seem to disregard their own interest in some things in the World and not to desire the favour of their superiours do not deserve to be accounted the better or the wiser men unless this be done in the necessary discharge of duty to God and the keeping firm to the truth of Religion In those Cases forsaking Houses and Lands and Life becomes a needful duty but it is not so at other times Cont. Cels l. 8. p. 420. Origen tells us that the Christians of his Age were not so far besides themselves and void of reason as to displease and provoke Princes further than this was the effect of their observing the laws of God Aug. de Haeres c. 69. Cont. Gaud. Epist l. 2. c. 15. And the Schism of the Donatists and especially the Circumcelliones who were furious and outragious persons among them hath been never the better esteemed in the Christian Church because they not only withstood the laws of the Christian Emperours against it but were very prodigal in casting away their own lives to gain reputation to their party That man who will spend or throw away his Estate in a contention with his equal where it would better become him to live in peace is to be censured not applauded and to do the like in contending with his superiour is the worse of the two because the common good the peace of the Church and the duty of subjection are herein concerned And he who hath undervaluing thoughts of the approbation favour and respect of Governours in the performance of his duty cannot well have high thoughts of the institution and ordinance of God which appointed them for the praise of them that do well Rom. 13.3 1 Pet. 2.14 12. 3. That man only acts as becomes a truly conscientious man and a good Christian who is careful to avoid all sinful dispositions without undue affecting to please himself or to oppose the wayes of peace or to seek applause from any sort of men in the neglect of his duty And indeed the being in vogue and reputation with a particular company of men is to some persons a more prevailing temptation than the proposal of gain or publick honour of which we have a plain example even amongst the Apostles of our Saviour When they had arrived so far as that they could part with all their possessions and be content to undergo scorn and contempt from the generality of their Nation for their Masters sake they were so prone to affect the reputation of being the greatest in their own Society that they needed the watchful eye and frequent rebukes of their Saviour Luk. 9.46 47 48. ch 22.24 25 26. Mar. 10.44 to check and curb this evil temper And besides this there are those who make use of the interest of a party as a method of gain also as is easily observed 13. Wherefore the performing active obedience in lawful things to the Precepts of Superiours is a duty which must not be neglected by him who would keep a good Conscience since according to the will of God we must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake Christian Loyalty The Second Book Of the Vnlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King CHAP. I. The publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered SECT I. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government 1. THE preservation of Civil Governours and the Peace of Kingdoms is of so great concernment that the wisdom of Lawgivers hath justly taken especial care thereof B. 2. C. 1. And Tumults Conspiracies and civil Wars are usually attended with the highest mischiefs the violation of things Sacred the banishing of natural affection and therewith Christian love meekness mercy and the duties of subjection and the practising murder rapine violence and lewdness And besides what every man may himself personally suffer in such Calamities the dismal spectacles which his eyes may behold the tragical relations which his ears must hear and the perplexing fears which may assault his mind in the lively sense of them are effectual and astonishing convictions of the dreadfulness of tumultuous and treasonable Conspiracies beyond all that can be expressed concerning them 2. But though the Christian Religion doth firmly oblige men to peace obedience and due submission there are many persons who own that name and yet entertain positions wholly inconsistent with the Precepts of that Religion and the safety of Princes and their Kingdoms And therefore it is but reasonable that those who are admitted into any Office in the Church and are to teach and instruct others and they who receive any Government in the State and have the power of commanding others Sect. 1 should testify their loyalty and their detestation of such positions as undermine the security of Kings and Kingdoms And to this purpose is established in this Realm a twofold acknowledgment the one more particular against Romish Conspiracies and the other more general 3. The former is contained in the Oath of Obedience or Allegiance 3 Jac. 4. The Oath of Allegiance against the Popes deposing power which all the Clergy and other principal subjects of this Realm do constantly take And therein it is declared that the Pope hath no power to depose the King or to dispose of his Dominions to absolve his Subjects from their Obedience or to Licence them to bear Arms against or offer violence to his Person or Government whether he proceed by Declaration Sentence Excommunication or any otherwise 4. And indeed there was very great reason to use needful circumspection This power of the Pope to depose Kings assorted in the Church of Rome against the pretence of this Papal power of deposing Kings which had appeared with so great boldness in the World and done so much mischief in it And this pretence is not only managed as an intrigue of the policy of the Court of Rome but is engraffed into the doctrine of the Romish Church Conc. Lat. c. de haeret an 1215. In the General Council as they at Rome esteem it at the Laterane under Innocent the Third it was declared that if any temporal Lord did not purge
those who in that Case acted against the Emperour And the consideration of the Popes pretence was also included in that general Declaration in our own Church Can. 1. 1640. against Subjects bearing Arms against their King upon any pretence whatsoever And these Councils though disallowed at Rome were in this respect truly Catholick because they held to the Rules and Foundations of the true and Primitive Doctrine of the Catholick Church 23. But it is unreasonable to demand This Heretical Position entertained by the Pope and his Adherents that for the declaring this to be Heresy we should produce the determination of the present Church of Rome against this detestable Position since the Pope and the main part of the Romish church are the persons who stand chargeable with maintaining either the whole or at least a considerable part of this heretical position here abjured For in this Position That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may he deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever the two main branches do concern the deposing and the murthering of Princes deprived or Excommunicated by the Pope Touching the former the deposing of them the very forms of the Papal sentence which I have above mentioned Supra n. 5 7. not only allow but require and command that such Princes be deposed and that their Subjects do renounce all fealty and Allegiance to them Aventin Ann. Boior l. 5. p. 460. Epist Leodiens advers Paschal 2. And by the Pope his Conclave and their Adherents it hath been accounted a crime deserving Excommunication and Death also for Subjects to defend their Soveraign whom the Pope had sentenced as was long since complained of by some of them who maintained their Allegiance to the Emperour Hen. 4. and were therefore by the Pope devoted to destruction 24. Yet it is certain that there have been and are divers persons and the chief part of some Countries of the Romish Communion who own not but oppose that part of this assertion which concerneth the deposing of Princes Le Merc. Franc. an 1609. But several Writings of this sort of men as of Barclay de potestate Papae and others of the like temper have undergone a publick censure at Rome and their opinions are herein looked on with so ill an eye that at Rome they are thought not to be altogether found in the Roman Faith 25. And touching the depriving such Princes of their lives Bell. Resp ad p. 66. Apolog. pro juram fidelit when Cardinal Bellarmine had asserted that it was not the Popes method to promote any thing against their lives he explains himself that he meant this with respect to private assassinates and not to what might happen in the raising open Wars But yet concerning the more secret attempts of Parricide against such Princes C. 23. q. 5. Excommunicatorum 1. Their Canons declare that they are not accounted Murderers who in a zeal to the Catholick Church do kill some who are Excommunicate 2. The horrid act of James Clement who murthered Henry the Third of France was applauded by Sixtus the Fifth in the Roman Consistory 3. Le Mercure Francois an 1609. f. 376. The arrest of the Parliament of Paris against John Chastell who attempted the murder of Henry the Fourth and wounded him was censured at Rome by a publick Edict Nov. 9. 1609. 4. When Parry undertook to kill Queen Elizabeth Eliz. Annal Christian Subjection Part. 3. p. 503 504. his intention was not only promoted by the Popes Nuncio's and other persons in Venice and France but desiring for his full satisfaction to understand the Popes approbation by a Letter from Cardinal di Como which was read at his Arraignment and owned by him he was assured that the Pope himself highly praised and favoured his undertaking as may appear from the Letter it self in Bishop Bilson dated Januar. 30. 1584. And to these other things of like nature and of later time might be added which will shew that at least at some times such things as these have been encouraged at Rome 26. Yet it may be observed that such Positions as this expressed in this Oath But it was declared to be damnable Heresy by S. Peter were in general accounted and declared damnable Heresies by one who is owned to have had both Apostolical and Episcopal Authority at Rome even by S. Peter himself When he had foretold the comeing in and spreading of damnable Heresies 2 Pet. 2.1 2. and declared the destruction that should come upon those who received them v. 1 3 4 9. he then tells us in some particulars who they are whom God will thus punish v. 10. chiefly them who walk after the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness and despise Government presumptuous are they self-willed they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities Now the walking in the lusts of uncleanness was the practical embracing the impure and heretical doctrines of Simon Magus the Gnosticks and others like them And since Government and Dignities do very properly express Civil as well as Ecclesiastical or any other power and the temper of those who are prone to despise Civil Government is fitly described by their being presumptuous and self-willed and S. Jude in the parallel place Jude 8 11. speaks of their perishing in the gainsaying of Core these words may reasonably be thought to have a great respect to Civil Authority And if we further consider that among those ancient Hereticks some under a pretence of liberty so far opposed Dominion that they despised their Masters and would not obey them the allowing of which S. Paul condemns as a great opposition to the doctrine of Christ 1 Tim. 6.1 2 3 4. and that there is some intimation of the same spirit towards Kings and other Governours 1 Pet. 2.13 14 16. and that at last this proceeded so far that they taught that the Government of the World had its original not from God but from the evil spirit which Position Irenaeus confutes this may well perswade and manifest Iren. adv Haeres l. 5. c. 24. Tertul. adv Valent c. 22. that the Apostle had in this palce an eye to these things And then this sense must be comprehended nder these words that those assertions which eminently include the despising disobeying and speaking evil of civil Government and Authority as the declaring it lawful to depose or murder a Soveraign doth are damnable Heresies 27. I only add that pertinaciousness which is included in the description of an Heretick having respect to the temper of the person who embraceth Heretical Doctrine is not needful though it be also in this Case sufficiently evident to prove a Position to be Heretical 28. Of absolveing from the Oath of Allegiance I shall not insist particularly on that clause in the Oath of Allegiance That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve from that Oath because this must stand and
considered with other things which have affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. Chap. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome Sect. 1. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 2. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 3. Such claims can have no Foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge Sect. 4. Other Arguments for the pretended Papal Authority answered and refuted Chap. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England Sect. 1. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 2. No Patriarch ever had any just right to Patriarchal Authority in this Island Sect. 3. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates Chap. VIII Some pretences of other parties against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical refuted Sect. 1. Of Liberty of Conscience and Toleration Sect. 2. Of some other rigid and dangerous Principles against the Supremacy of Princes Chap. IX Corollaries concerning some duties of subjection The Second BOOK Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King Chap. I. THE publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered Sect. 1. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes Power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government Sect. 2. Of the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon any pretence whatsoever against the King Sect. 3. Of the traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or against those who are Commissionated by him Chap. II. The Laws of Nature and of General Equity and the right grounds of Humane Polity do condemn all Subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign Power Sect. 1. The preservation of Peace and common Rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Sect. 2. The Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince Sect. 3. The condition of Subjects would not be the better but the worse if it were lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign Sect. 4. The Plea that Self-defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature considered and of the end of Soveraign Power with a representation of the pretence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined Sect. 5. The Divine Original of Soveraign Power asserted Chap. III. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament Sect. 1. The need and usefulness of considering this Case Sect. 2. The general unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 3. Objections from the behaviour of David answered Sect. 4. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered Chap. IV. The Rules and Precepts delivered by Christ and his Apostles concerning resistance and the practice of the Primitive Christians declared Sect. 1. The Doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself Sect. 2. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practices Sect. 3. The practice and sense of the Primitive Church concerning resistance Chap. V. Of the Extent of the Duty and obligation of non-resistance Sect. 1. Resistance by force against the Soveraign Prince is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 2. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected on and considered ERRATA PAge 64. line 8. read 2 Kin. 1.10 12. p. 71. l. 19. Marg. r. de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 40. p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 106. l. 3. Marg. r. n. 6. p. 107. l. 4. r. Frischmuthius p. 219. l. 14. r. Sword and p. 223. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 1. Marg. r. Comen p. 268. l. 25. r. Patriarchdoms Christian Loyalty The First BOOK Of Regal Supremacy especially in matters Ecclesiastical and the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction CHAP. I. The Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared SECT I. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England 1. THE things established in the Church of England which all Ecclesiastical persons are required to declare their consent unto B. 1. C. 1. do concern matters of so high importance that both the being and the purity and perfection of a Church doth very much depend upon the consideration thereof to wit the order and way of its worship the due honour it gives to the King and Secular Authority the truth of its doctrine and the right and regular ordination of its Ministry That the publick worship of God in our Church is free from all just exception and agreeable to the rules of Christianity and the best and primitive patterns I have given some account in a former Treatise And in this discourse I shall treat of that Authority and Dignity which is justly yielded and ascribed to the supreme civil power 2. Loyal Principles useful to the world And if a general right understanding of this matter could every where be obtained together with a practice suitable thereunto it would greatly contribute to the advancement and honour of Christianity and the peace of the world The great miscarriages and irregular practices by not yielding to Soveraign Princes their due Authority hath strangely appeared in the enormous Usurpations of the Romish Church and the frequent distractions of the Empire and other Kingdoms which have been thence derived For the Roman Bishop who still claimeth even where he possesseth not Sect. 1 by his exorbitant encroachment upon the Royalty of Kings especially in matters Ecclesiastical and thereupon in Civil also did advance himself unto the highest step of his undue Papal exaltation And he thereby also more firmly fixed and rivetted his usurpation over other Christian Bishops and put himself into a capacity of propagating his corrupt doctrines without probable appearance of any considerable check or controul and with the less likelyhood of redress and reformation And from the like cause have proceeded divers exorbitancies in opinion and practice concerning the Church and its Government in another sort of men And the want of Conscientious observance of the duties of subjection hath too often manifested it self in the world by the sad effects of open tumult and rebellion all which hath highly tended to the scandal of Religion 3. It seemeth also considerable that almost all Sects and erring parties about matters of Religion and many of them to very ill purposes do nourish false conceptions and mistaken opinions concerning the civil power
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
and another learned man who evidently followeth him They assert the right of Kings under the Old Testament to intermeddle in matters Ecclesiastical and that they had then such a supereminent authority that according to Maimonides even the High Priest was to stand in the Kings presence and that no other person no not the Priest might sit within the court of the temple save only the King Their authority not from any sacerdotal Vnction Ibid. c. 6. n. 6. And all this they found upon the vertue of the holy Vnction or his being anointed with the holy Oil hence P. de Marca asserteth that he acted Privilegio Regii Sacerdotii as having obtained by his Unction the priviledge of a royal Priesthood Cun. ibid. and hereupon Cunaeus thinketh that David might wear the Priestly Ephod and thereby consult the Vrim and Thummim But this also is a very weak pretence partly because the royal anointing was only designed to be the anointing such a person to be King as is expressed 1 Sam. 15.1 2 Sam. 3.39 1 Kin. 1.34 and in many other places and partly because such an anointed King had no right to perform the Priestly actions as is plain from the great guilt of Saul in sacrificing And much less could this give thim any Ecclesiastical or sacerdotal superiority over the High Priest himself since every successive High Priest was to be anointed with this holy oyl whilest most of the Kings even of the Family of David were probably not at all anointed as I shall observe in another place and whether that holy oyl of the Tabernacle Abarb. de Unctione in Exod. 30. Schick de Jur. Reg. c. 1. Theor 4. was made use of in the usual anointing of the King though it be asserted by the Jewish Writers as Shickard hath observed may yet possibly admit of a further enquity 5. And I must further observe Or any special law of Moses that there was not any particular law of God under the Old Testament as some would pretend which gave any special authority to their Kings in matters Ecclesiastical and therefore they proceeded only upon the general and common right which chief Governours of a Realm have even concerning those things since in his office he undertakes De Creatione Principis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the care and oversight of private publick and sacred things as Philo expresseth it Indeed the Israelites had particular laws which inflicted the punishment of death upon Idolatry Witchcraft blasphemy and other such like vices Ex. 22.18 20. Levit. 24.15 16. Deut. 17 2-5 but it could no otherwise belong to the King to execute these laws than as a judiciary authority in these cases Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church ch 1. p. 10. was included in his general royal power Had all matters of Religion been in their own nature reserved and exempted from the royal Government it would then have belonged to the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical persons only to have executed those laws especially since the punishment of death was sometimes inflicted by Prophets 1 Sam. 15.33 1 Kin. 18.40 2 Kinse 10 12. And that the death of a Malefactor was sometimes the issue of the sentence of the Priest is intimated in Deut. 17.12 and seemeth also observed by Clemens Romanus Epist ad Cor. p. 54. And with an eye to the declining state of the Jewish Government under the Maccabees and downwards when the chief execution of all laws Joseph cont Apion l. 2. was in the hands of the Priest Josephus frameth his description of the constitution of the Jewish Common-wealth as committing the chief secular power to the Priests and making them both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judges of all cases and the punishers of all offenders But it is manifest that whilest the royal authority flourished the laws against Witchcraft Idolatry and such like vices were put in execution thereby 1 Sam. 28.9 2 Kin. 23.24 2 Chron. 34.4 5. 6. And there is no particular constitution in all the law of Moses which doth assert any singular supremacy more than what is generally included in the Regal authority of the Kings of the Children of Israel over their Priests and in the temple and about the worship of God Indeed Cunaeus doth offer an instance of a particular positive law of Moses Cun. ubi supra to this purpose Deut. 17.18 19 20. where God required that the King should write a copy of the law and that this should be with him and that he should read therein all the days of his life that he might fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them But there is nothing in this law which makes the care of Religion more the duty of the Hebrew Kings than of the Christian since these also are to acquaint themselves with the doctrines of Christianity to fear God and to do his will but neither of them might exercise that spiritual power which belongeth to the distinct Officers of the Church It may indeed be said that Kings cannot rightly fear and serve God unless they make use of their authority to promote Religious piety even in all sorts of their subjects and this was truly asserted by S. Austin Aug. Ep. 50. but then this can be of no peculiar concernment to the kings of the Old Testament but will equally extend it self to those who live under Christianity 7. I shall now shew that whatsoever is pretended from the peculiar state of the Gospel Reverence to Princes more fully required in the Gospel than in the Law to debar Christian Kings from that authority which certainly did belong to the royal Government under the Old Testament is of no force And this will easily be admitted by them who consider that the Precepts for honouring the King being subject to the higher Powers and submitting our selves to the King as supreme are more plainly expressed and universally enjoined under the New Testament than ever they were under the Old But that there is any direct prohibition in the Gospel against the soveraignty of the Royal power in matters of the Church is not so much as pretended and that the doctrine of Christianity doth assert this authority shall be hereafter shewed 8. A learned man of our own Kingdom who owneth the Soveraign power of Kings in matters of Religion Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 8. Epilogue B. 1. ch 19. B. 3. Ch. 33. and alloweth the consequence hereof in general from the government of the Jewish Church doth seem to deny that the same right in matters of Religion may be claimed by the Christian Kings which was exercised by the Jewish Now that which is here demanded is that the general power of Ecclesiastical supremacy is under both dispensations the same in enjoining the observation of the divine laws in establishing matters of expediency for order sake and in punishing transgressors The
Bertram ibid. this which is also improved by some in favour of the highest sort of Presbyterian Consistories and against the supremacy of the King in matters of the Church is necessary to be rejected concerning which it will be sufficient to note two things 7. First That this hath no foundation in the Jewish Writers according to whom it is not to be doubted but that in the declining time of their state they had only one Great Sanhedrin which took cognisance both of chief civil and Ecclesiastical causes And the asserting of two such properly distinct Synedrial Courts is justly exploded by Grotius Gr. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 5. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26. v. 3. Selden Dr Lightfoot and others well acquainted with Jewish learning And what number soever they had of particular Consistories the Royal power hath been sufficiently proved supreme as well in causes Ecclesiastical as Civil 8. Secondly The pretended proofs from Scripture upon which they who embrace this conceit do build are very weak Some persons would find an evidence for a divine appointment of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of 71. in Exod. 24.1 where God said unto Moses Jus divin Regim Eccl Part. 2. ch 12. Come up thou and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the Elders of Israel unto the Lord and worship ye afar off And yet here is nothing at all mentioned concerning any Consistory or power of Government nor is it usual to account seventy four persons to be but seventy one 9. Others as L'empereur and Rutherford L'emp in Annot. in Bertr in Comment in Middoth ubi supra Rutherf Div. Right of Ch. Gov. ch 23. p. 505. insist on Deut. 17.8 12. where a Court of Appeales in difficult cases is established and the Law declares If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroke and stroke being matters of controversy between thy gates then thou shalt arise and go to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and which Particle some render or unto the Judge Now all the force of argument from this place for two distinct Consistories is that here is mention both of the Priests and of the Judge But this Text gives sufficient intimation that here is only one chief Court designed and that with particular respect to matters of civil cognisance which might consist of Ecclesiastical or secular persons or rather of both Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. Josephus tells us there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Assembly the High Priest the Prophet and the Company of Elders meeting together And the Law of Moses did also expresly require concerning one and the same case Deut. 19.16 17. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the Lord before the Priests and the Judges which shall be in those days and the Judges shall make diligent inquisition And how the Priest might sometimes be particularly concerned in the enquiry about civil Cases and matters of trespass and injury may be observed from 1 Kin. 8.31 32. 10. Another place frequently alledged for this Ecclesiastical Sanhedrim distinct from the civil is the constitution of Jehosaphat 2 Chr. 19 8.-11 which is ordinarily called the restoring the Synedrial Government Grot. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. Joseph Antiq. l. 9. c. 1. But Grotius doth with considerable probability deny that two Courts were here appointed and Josephus whom he cited seemeth to be of the same mind And I think it sufficient to add that since two distinct Courts do not appear enjoined by the Law of Moses and since David and Jehosaphat did differently model their Courts of Judicature in complyance with the end and design of the Law of Moses 1 Chr. 26 29-32 2 Chr. 19 8-11 it is not to be doubted but this modelling was performed by their own prudence and Royal authority But that here was no such Sanhedrim erected as is pretended is the more manifest because I have given plain evidence that both before and after Jehosophats time the power claimed at peculiar to them was exercised by the King Nor could the act of Jehosophat give any Court an original sanction as from the Law of Moses nor ought it to be imagined that he invested them with any power paramount to the Royal by which they were constituted 11. And now again I think it not unmeet to apologize for the length of this discourse concerning the Synedrial power which is much larger than I could have desired it to have been And yet considering how great the mistakes of very many Christian Writers are in this particular and to what ill purposes this errour hath been by some abused both for the subverting the Royal and Ecclesiastical Government I thought it useful to add this Chapter in this place and to say so much therein as would be sufficient with impartial men for the refuting over-grown mistakes And this I have done the rather P. de Marc. Proleg p. 23 24 25. because one of the most ingenuous Romanists lately though he mention other Pleas doth insist on this as a chief one against the admitting that Royal Supremacy asserted in the Church of England to be proved from the Authority of Princes under the Old Testament because he tells us the King then in all difficult Cases must depend on this great Sanhedrin And this he there insists upon with particular opposition to the Anglobritanni or the positions concerning the due authority of Princes which are asserted in the Church of England CHAP. IV. Arguments for Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical from the nature of Soveraignty and the doctrine of Christianity with an enquiry how far Princes who are not of the Church may claim and use this authority SECT I. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign power Sect. I 1. IN considering the nature of civil Government Princes as Gods Ministers must take care of his honour and Religion we may in the first place reflect upon the original thereof It is derived from and appointed by God who as Creator and Lord of all hath the highest right to rule and govern the whole World Hence the Apostle calleth Government an Ordinance of God and Rulers his Ministers Rom. 13.1 2 3. who are also stiled Children of the most high Ps 82.6 And that this is a divine institution was constantly acknowledged by the ancient Christians notwithstanding their persecution from the civil powers as is manifest from many expressions to that purpose B. I. C. 4 Tertul. Apol c. 36. ad Scap. c. 2. Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Tertullian Dionysius Alexandrinus and others of which thing I shall discourse more in another place Wherefore Rulers ought to
was baptized being against such great evidence deserves no more assent than the most fabulous stories concerning such religious reliques as do serve only to impose upon the credulous vulgar 7. But that argument which they seem to be most earnest in is that if Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia where Eusebius a chief Ringleader of the Arians was then Bishop this would cast an high aspersion upon that good Emperour who must say they then be concluded to dye in the Arian and not in the Catholick Communion Now it might be sufficient to say that by this same argument they might as well prove all the Nicene Council to be Arians as this good Emperour since they sate and no doubt received the Communion at Nice where Theognis was Bishop who was the constant Companion and Confederate with Eusebius in managing the Arian designs But I shall further add two things 1. That it might be possible that his baptism was not received from the hands of this Eusebius De Vit. Cons l. 4. c. 61 62. Eusebius Pamphilius declaring that there were divers Bishops at that time called to Nicomedia and Gelasius who was a famous Bishop of Palestine in that Century declaring that he was not baptized by an Arian but by one who embraced the Catholick faith as his words in Photius cited by Scaliger do plainly express Scalig. in Euseb Chron. p. 251. 2. That if it should be admitted that he was baptized by this Eusebius as is indeed expressed in the Chronicon of S. Hierome and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 published by Scaliger with the Chronicon of Eusebius yet this will by no means charge him with Arianisme For 1. This Eusebius of Nicomedia had then subscribed the faith of Nice and though he and Theognis were once deposed by that Council yet upon their professed submission to the faith thereof they were again restored and received as S. Hierome acquaints us Hier. adv Lucif and the form of their submission is extant in Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 10. and Sozom. l. 2. c. 15. And though this submission of his was as Theodoret tells us Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 19. out of an ill design this is no way to be imputed to the Emperour 2. The faith of the Council of Nice was then publickly established and the Fathers at Ariminum above-mentioned do sufficiently intimate his being baptized into it 3. He then appeared a manifest friend to the Catholick Bishops who held to the Council of Nice in that at the time of his death at Nicomedia he designed to recal Athanasius from his banishment though Eusebius of Nicomedia perswaded the contrary Theod. ibid. c. 32. Athan. Apol 2. ex lit Const filii as Theodoret with whom Athanasius himself agrees doth acquaint us 4. Nicomedia was not the place he intended for his Baptism but Jordan but his sickness of which he died surprizing him here left him no liberty to choose any other place 8. I shall now only add that according to this evidence all the actions of Constantine expressed in the former Section were performed before his baptism But if any shall embrace the contrary opinion which I reject as false and groundless many of those actions will still be previous thereto And therefore this Princes authority and duty to take care of things Ecclesiastical was not the effect of his undertaking Christianity but was contained in the general authority of his imperial Soveraignty Yet I doubt not but this fiction of Constantines being baptized at Rome and the other of his Donation are two Twins being both of them the spurious and illegitimate off-spring of a luxuriant fancy impregnated by a Romancing Incubus And the large form of his Donation not that in Balsamon but in Binius Bin. Tom. 1. p. 296. expresseth the Baptism of Constantine by Silvester But this Donation is now justly rejected as a manifest forgery by their own learnedest Writers as Morinus and P. de Marca De Concord l. 3. c. 12. n. 3 5. the latter of which supposeth some of the Popes themselves about the eighth Century to be accessory to the framing and obtruding this imposture CHAP. V. B. I.C.5 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 of its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice 1. IT is acknowledged that the truths either of Christian doctrine or of natural reason do not principally depend upon the consent of men It is not to be decided by the voice of the World whether the only true God and he alone ought to be worshipped nor did it depend upon the vote of the Jewish Priesthood or Sanhedrim whether Jesus was the true Messias And upon this account the Gentile Deities were deservedly derided by Tertullian sertul Ap. cap. 5. who had no other title thereto than by the vote of the Senate nisi homini placuerit Deus non erit 2. But yet none can be expected Sect. 1 to give a better and more sure account of the doctrines and duties of Christianity than those who have been the professors and practisers of that Religion in the purer times thereof And therefore there is such a just respect and reverence due to the primitive Christian Church and the assistance of the divine grace which guided and influenced it that that which was generally received therein hath thereby a very great and considerable testimony of its being a truth especially where there are also other great arguments and evidences to evince the same And in such things it may well be allowed Dr. Hammond of Heresy Sect. 14. according to Dr Hammond among the pie credibilia that a truly general Council shall not err And even those persons who have no due regard either to antiquity or the authority of the Christian guides will manifest their great pride if they will reject and contradict the general sense of the Church unless it be upon very clear and manifest evidence to the contrary But such who pretend as the Romish Church doth a reverence and high veneration for Tradition are thereby the more concerned not to disclaim what hath been ordinarily and plainly delivered in the ancient Church 3. Now to give an account of the sense of the particular Fathers in this place would be a more long and tedious work than would be needful And indeed the minds of many of them may sufficiently be discerned by their plain expressions mentioned in several parts of this discourse Nor will I insist upon those commonly observed and very expressive sayings concerning Supremacy in general as that of Tertullian Imperatores in Dei solius potestate sunt Apol. c. 30. 33. cont Parm. l. 3. à quo sunt secundi post quem primi and majestatem Caesaris Deo soli subjicio and that of Optatus super Imperatorem
a General Council by the Emperours command where he was anathematized and condemned of Heresy and notwithstanding some appearance of repentance Hieron adv Lucifer Baron an 327. n. 3. as S. Hierome declares was sentenced no more to come to Alexandria that is as Baronius rightly explaineth it not to be received in his former place in that Church Now it was not in the power of any single Bishop whomsoever to rescind the judgment or reverse the sentence of a General Council or indeed to take a new cognisance of what had been thereby determined And to acknowledge the Emperour to have a power of immediate judging and determining concerning the censures of the Church especially if against the Sentence of a General Council cannot be consistent with the Ecclesiastical authority and the power of the Keys committed to the Ecclesiastical Officers and in the most eminent and highest manner resident in Oecumenical Councils And therefore Athanasius could not obey that command of the Emperour procured by the subtilty of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party without an exorbitant usurping and invading an authority which was superiour to him and undermining the unity of the Catholick Church Weights and measures Ch. 6. as is observed by Mr Thorndike in justification of Athanasius 5. And a Case much of like nature with this was considered in the third general Council of Ephesus who rejected them from their Communion who in a separate Conventicle from the General Council undertook to censure Cyril of Alexandria who presided in that Council and Memnon of Ephesus and were also fautors of Nestorius Concerning these Bishops that Council gave this instruction to their delegates whom they sent to the Emperour that if he should insist upon these persons being restored to their Communion they declare that so much as can be is to be done to express obedience to the Emperour Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 19. Sanctioni Augusti pro viribus obediendum este and that if these persons shall join with the Council in rejecting the Heresy of Nestorius and deposing him and submitting themselves shall heartily embrace Vnity with them they may be admitted again to their Communion But if these delegate Bishops in this Case should admit them upon any other terms than these which the Council it self upon considering and debating the Case had determined they are there told Arianisme and all false doctrine to be rejected though favoured by Princes that they themselves would incur the censure of the Council 6. Obj. 2. Athanasius in the time of Constantius S. Basil of Valens and S. Ambrose of Valentinian the younger and divers Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours put in their exceptions against the Emperours judging in matters of Faith as not being a competent judge in that Case nor would they be therein determined by him And when Constantius had banished many Catholick Bishops for withstanding Arianisme and used severe punishments towards others and threatned Hosius Bishop of Corduba Athanas ad solitar vit agentes who drew up the form of the Nicene Creed he in an Epistle to Constantius adviseth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not put they self upon things Ecclesiastical nor do thou give commands to us concerning such things but rather learn these things from us God hath put into thy hand the Kingdom he hath committed unto us the things of the Church And when S. Ambrose was commanded in the Emperours name Ambr. Ep. 33. ad Marcellinam to yield up the possession of his Church to be delivered to the Arians he refused so to do in a matter of Gods right declaring ea quae divina sunt Imperatoris potestati non esse subjecta that those things which are Gods are not in subjection to the Emperour 7. Ans First Since the Christian profession is a taking up the Cross all those who embrace it must undertake to hold fast the truth of the Christian faith though this should be against the command and will of any Prince or Ruler whosoever and must be followers of him who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession Martyr Polycarpi Tertul. Apol c. 27. This was the practice of the Apostles of S. Polycarp and divers Christian Martyrs to profess the Christian doctrine when they were commanded to disown or abjure it And as they must hold fast Christianity notwithstanding the Prohibitions or threats of Diocletian or Julian so must they keep close to the Catholick doctrine notwithstanding the command of any Arian Emperour to the contrary And it is no more a derogation from the Royal authority to say that it hath no right to command against truth or duty in Religion than to declare that it hath no right to command against honesty or chastity in the Common-wealth The Princes Supremacy in these matters is under God and Christ to establish what is according to the Rules of our Religion and the good of Mankind The deciding questions of faith and guiding in it more proper to Bishops thanings but can have no authority to oppose or undermine the doctrines of our Saviour 8. Secondly That as this Case hath respect to the truth of the Christian doctrine it is certain that not the Emperour but these Catholick Bishops themselves were the most proper and fit judges in this matter of faith especially having the evidence of Scripture the consent of the ancient Apostolical men and the confirmation of the Synod of Nice The deciding and determining matters of faith peculiarly and chiefly belongeth to the Pastors of the Church and is a matter for their judgment In Athanas ubi sup cognisance and discussion By them as Hosius said above even Princes are to be taught and should receive the doctrines of Religion But the Christian Bishops are not to receive any thing as a doctrine of Christianity from the Command of any Prince in the World but herein they and all other Christians must be guided only by what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles for the knowledge of which the consent of the Catholick Church doth in many things give very great light 9. How much honour and respect in this particular the ancient Emperours did give to the office and judgment of the Bishops of the Church we may understand from Theodosius the Second Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. When he sent a secular person to be present by his authority at the Ephesine Council he particularly declared that for him to have any thing to do in their Synodical decisions of the Questions of faith would be a nefarious thing And it is truly observed by Baronius Baron an 325. n. 73. that Constantine and other Christian Emperours who were themselves present in ancient Councils did not interpose in giving votes or suffrages in decisions of faith or inflicting of censures as concurring to the spiritual effect but only did consent to and ratify these determinations of the Councils by their secular authority And these
a Successor which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood 3. Of the Apostolical Mission When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him 1. These words enclude a fulness of Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority or the power of the Keys which was given to all the Apostles 2. But they do not make the Apostles equal in dignity or dominion with Christ himself in being Saviour and head of the Church or Lord over and Judge of the quick and the dead 3. Even Christ himself when he was upon Earth being as man under the law was not only obliged to practise the duties of the first table and the other Commandments of the second table but even to the observance of the fifth Commandment al 's 4. And the Office of the Ministry And those persons who in general defence of Ecclesiastical Supremacy urge that they who are Officers of Christ and furnished with his authority ought not to be in subjection to secular rulers but superiour to them to whom Christs authority is superiour may consider 1. That Parents and Husbands have authority from God and from Christ and yet are under Kings and Princes 2. The superiority of any Officer of Christ must not be measured by the height of Soveraignty which Christ himself hath which would make the servant even every Deacon equal with his Lord and by the like pretence every petty Constable must have equal authority with the King but by the constitution of his office and the power thereby conveyed to him For neither God in governing the World nor Christ in governing the Church ever gave to any other an authority equal to what he possesseth 3. Christ came not to overturn the Government of God his father in the World which hath established the supreme temporal power yea his mediatory Kingdom and administration is in subjection to the Father and our Saviours Doctrine yieldeth that authority to Princes that it earnestly presseth a general and necessary subjection for Conscience sake to their Government 5. And as to what Baronius urgeth The Royal Priesthood from the Royal Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.9 it may be observed 1. That that expression hath not respect to a peculiar sacerdotal office in the Church but to the dignity of the Christian Church in general as is manifest from the place it self Salian an 2544. n. 347. Estius in loc and acknowledged by their own Writers 2. If this Text did express any peculiar power in Ecclesiastical Officers it must have particular respect to those Eastern Churches to whom that Epistle was written 1 Pet. 1.1 and 3. It is well observed by Bishop Andrews that even that Royal Priesthood v. 9. is commanded to be subject to every ordinance of man Ch. 4. S. 2. n. 3. and to the King as supreme v. 13. as I above observed 6. And while some say Of the Plea of expediency for the Churches good it is expedient for the Churches good that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be superiour to the temporal otherwise its welfare and good is not sufficiently provided for this Plea might appear more plausible 1. If there could be no ignorance heresy pride or ill designs in any who have the title of chief Officers in the Church which no man can believe who reads the Lives of the Popes written by their own Authors 2. If Kings and Princes must never be expected to be nursing Fathers to the Church and to take care of it 3. If the great design of Christianity was to take care that Christians must never follow their Saviour in bearing the Cross and that this Religion did not aim at the promoting true faith and holiness meekness and peace but at outward splendor dominion and power in the World according to that notion the Jews had of a Messias And this is not only a weak but a presumptuous way of reasoning to controul and affront the Gospel of Christ and to dare to tell him how he ought to have established his Kingdom to other purposes than he hath done 7. And after all this S. Peters Authority not peculiar to Rome there is nothing more unreasonable than for the Church of Rome to monopolize unto its self alone that authority which was committed to S. Peter and the other Apostles For it is not at all to be doubted but the Apostles committed a chief presidential and Governing authority in their several limits to other Churches besides the Roman Basil Ep. 55. Cyp. Epist 69. Firmil in Cyp. Ep. 75. The ancient Fathers frequently express the Bishops of the Christian Church in general to be the Apostles Successors S. Cyprian and Firmilian assert all Bishops to succeed the Apostles even ordinatione vicaria as placed in their stead and possessed of that power which was from them fixed in the Church Hier. ad Marcellam Aug. in Ps 44. Amongst us saith S. Hierome the Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles and for or instead of the Apostles are appointed Bishops saith S. Austin Tertullian declares that to his time Cathedrae Apostolorum the Cathedral Sees placed by the Apostles themselves did still continue their presidency in the Apostolical Churches of which he mentions many by name and Rome as one of them 8. And as there is no evidence that S. Peter who also presided at Antioch left all his authority peculiarly to Rome so there is sufficient evidence that S. Peter who was commanded to feed the Sheep of Christ did yield this authority to the Elders or Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed the flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And hereby he either committed that pastoral authority which he received from Christ unto the Bishops of those free Churches of the Ephesine Thracian and Pontick Dioceses to whom he wrote and which afterward were placed under the Patriarch of Constantinople or at least he acknowledged this authority in them And therefore so far as concerneth a divine right these Eastern Churches in the Territories of Constantinople have fully as fair a Plea hereby for deriving a pastoral authority from S. Peter or having it particularly confirmed by him as they at Rome ever had 9. But with respect to England This Realm not feudatory Bellarm. in Apol. pro Resp ad Jac. Reg. c. 3. in Respons ad Bel. Ap. c. 3. divers Romish Writers alledge that it became feudatory to the See of Rome by King Johns resigning his Crown to Pandulphus the Popes Legate to which thing objected and misrepresented by Bellarmine divers things are returned in Answer by Bishop Andrews But waving such particular answers as might be given I shall chuse to observe in General that this Case is the same as if any seditious persons or Vsurpers should by fraud or force reduce the King to straits and difficulties and should then by like methods gain a promise from him that he
Rome gain any just right of Patriarchal Authority over this Realm This Realm not made subject to Rome by the Conversion of the Saxons after the coming of Austin into England and all that can be pretended to that purpose is either by pleading that the English were converted by Austin who was sent hither by Pope Gregory or that there was a great honour respect and subjection for many years yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island Both these pretences I shall examine 6. Now it is acknowledged that this Austin was instrumental for the converting very many of the Saxons to Christianity Yet here I observe three things 1. That they who Convert Foreign Nations do not thereby make those Nations and Churches to be perpetually subject to those Foreign Churches from whence they came For this would make Christianity to enclude a servitude in the profession of it and worldly Dominion in the preaching it Had this been a rule in the Primitive Times this Island and a greater part of the Christian Church all over the World must have yielded subjection to the Bishop of Jerusalem many Cities and Regions being first instructed in the Christian Doctrine and converted thereto by the dispersed Members of that Church and amongst others Antioch it self Act. 11.19 22 26. and even Rome also was partaker of their spiritual things Rom. 15.27 And yet these Christians being made subject to Christ and not to Jerusalem Hieron Ep. 61. n. 15. Conc. Nic. c. 7. the Bishop of Jerusalem for some hundred years was no Patriarch even till the Council of Chalcedon nor Metropolitan but was under the Bishop of Cesarea only he had a peculiar honour reserved to him by the Council of Nice Bed Hist l. 5. c. 20. And if this had been a rule for later times then Frisia Zealand and other Belgick Provinces must have been subject to the Church of England since under God they owed their Conversion to Wilfrid an English Bishop Cone Carth. gr c. 103 120 121. Indeed some Canons have given Bishops Authority to govern such places as they should convert but this tended only to give those persons the deserved honour of being the Bishops of those places which they had reduced from heresy or infidelity where any other had not a previous right thereto but not to make that Church or Kingdom subject to a remote Foreign Soveraignty All that could be hence inferred is that it was reasonable that Austin should be Bishop in England but not that Gregory should be Patriarch over it though he also deserved to be greatly honoured for being so instrumental to the Conversion of the English 7. I observe Secondly That when Austin came into this Island it was inhabited by four distinct sorts of Nations or people the Britans the Scots the Picts and the English with which without being curious about words I enclude also the Sexons and others who accompanied them out of Germany That the Britans were ancient Christians before the coming of Austin needeth no further proof Bed Hist l. 1. c. 13. Bed Hist l. 3. c. 4. Chronol Sax. And such were also the Scots over whom Palladius was an eminent Bishop almost two hundred years before Austin The Picts also in their Northern quarters towards forty years before the coming of Austin were Converted by Columba or Columbanus who came out of Ireland and the Southern Picts before that time by Ninias a British Bishop Now what pretence can be made that they who converted or presided in the three former Nations should neither have an authority over the whole Island nor a liberty left to govern themselves and yet the conversion of the last should swallow up the liberties of all the former three and convey a Patriarchal right over the whole Island yea though this last Nation or people were possessors of those limits which were within the ancient British Dioceses 8. I observe Thirdly That the Conversion of the English and Saxons was not performed only by Austin or his Successors or any other appointed by him or sent from Rome but a very considerable part of this work was effected by other persons who observed the rites of the British Church Bed Hist l. 3. c. 1 3. Amongst many things worthy observation the Kingdom of the Northumbrians after defection from Christianity which Paulinus taught them wee instructed therein and Converted Sporsw Hist l. 1. p. 14. by Aidanus a Scotchman who observed the ancient Rites of that Church and was made Bishop among the Northumbrians of whom it is related that in seven days he converted and baptized fifteen thousand The Mercians also and Middle Angles received their Conversion by Finanus a Scotchman Bed Hist l. 3. c. 21 25. who was Successor to Aidanus in his Bishoprick among the Northumibrians and is observed by Beda to have been a strict opposer of the introduced Romish Rites And this good work was carried on by others of the ancient British and Scotch Church 9. And Finanus above-mentioned did baptize Sighercht King of the East-Sexons and others of his Company who were converted to Christianity among the Northumbrians Bed ibid. c. 22. After which Cedda and another Presbyter of the Middle-Angles was sent for to instruct the Kingdom of the East-Saxons in the Christian Faith and by them they wee Converted after the defection of that Kingdom from their formerly professed Christianity And this Cedda was made Bishop of the East-Saxons by Finanus and two other Bishops with him and at that time observed the ancient British Rites but after the death of Sinanus when Colman Finanus his Successor deserted his bishoprick among the Northumbrians and went into Scotland Ibid. c. 26. rather than he would relinquish the ancient practises and usage of his Church Cedda was then brought over to comply with the Rites brought in by Austin All which will evidence that what was done by Austin could not bring England into a subjction to the Bishop of Rome unless he admit divers equals and rivals in his claim And a reflexion upon what hath been now observed will evidence that to found a constant Ecclesiastical superiority and subjection upon such pretences as these would bring in an unavoidable confusion sinto the Church and it would have overthrown in all the ancient Patriarchates in which no such rule was observed 10. Nor by the power the Pope once here exercised I shall now consider that subjection which was yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island And it is acknowledged that the Roman Bishop was for many years highly esteemed in this Realm and consulted with and many things after the Conquest were decided by his determination And also that he did receive great sums of money from hence not only from the Clergy in disms first-fruits and other payments but also Peter-pence were paid by the Laity also not as a tributary acknowledgment of the subjection of the Realm Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p.
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
properly an Heretical Position For this justifieth the highest disobedience and resistance of Superiours though the Apostle declares that such shall receive to themselves damnation This gives liberty to the greatest acts of unrighteousness towards Princes and consequently towards their Subjects and the whole Community although the doctrine of Christianity declares that the unrighteous cannot inherit the Kingdom of God It also gives way to the wicked practises of murder The like Position in the Arrest of the Parl. of Paris against Chastell was condemned as heretical And on these accounts in Greg. 7. Plerisque Episcopis pestifera haeresis visa est Aventin Annal. Boior l. 5. and breaking the peace and order of the World under most heinous aggravations though all this be severely decryed and condemned in the Christian Doctrine And it allows of the most signal instances of perfideiousness notwithstanding the obligations in this Case to fidelity from the divine Precepts the reverence of an Oath the respect to Gods Ordinance by which Rulers are established and the interest of the common good And after all this to aver that any thing of Christ's institution and appointment doth give a Warrant to and approbation of these impieties is a Position both heretical and blasphemous concerning the Government of our Saviour Now not only those assertions which directly contradict the Articles of our Creed but those also which oppose the necessary Rules and Precepts of a holy life which are a considerable part of the Christian Faith and Doctrine have generally been esteemed heretical doctrines in the Church of God Thus those assertions of Simon Magus Epiph. Haer. 21 25 26. the Gnosticks and the Nicolaitans whereby they gave allowance to impure and unclean practises have ever been reckoned among their heretical doctrines Ibid. Haer. 47. 61. Such also were accounted the Positions condemning Marriage by the Encratitae and Apotactici and the rejecting all proper possessions and Dominion by the latter of them with many other things of like sort 20. But some may incline to think that wicked assertions contrary to the Faith and Doctrine of Christianity ought not to be accounted heretical unless they be so adjudged and declared by a Catholick Council Now here I acknowledge that with respect to external penalties to be inflicted on Hereticks such Rules have oft times been reasonably observed And it must also be granted that in what Church soever truth and a zeal for Religion is maintained it may well be expected that spurious and dangerous Doctrines which openly spring up therein will be there detested and condemned and the authoritative sentence of lawful Councils ought to be reverenced But it cannot be that in the inward nature of the thing the being of an heretical doctrine must depend on such a Declaration Had this been true the first Broachers and secret Spreaders of all Heresies how impious soever they were could not be forthwith chargeable with Heretical doctrine And if the Catholick Bishops were either wanting to their duties or by any extraordinary emergency were in an incapacity of meeting in Council or else were over-voted in the Council as it happened in the Synod of Ephesus concerning Eutyches and in many other Heretical Conventions this would excuse from Heresy the Teachers of the most wicked doctrines though they propagated them and persisted in them to their lives end And if the determination of an Oecumenical Council should be thought necessary to the asserting any doctrine to be Heretical then could there be no Heresies in the first three hundred years after Christ unless it should be in opposition to the things declared in that Council Acts 15. if that should be supposed general Then also Irenaeus Tertullian and others of the Fathers were unadvised in their undertaking to write against Heresies which there never had been any such things And then it must be asserted also that Arius was falsly accused of Heresy before the meeting of the Council of Nice And what in its nature is not Heresy cannot be truly so adjudged 21. Practises of difloyalty condemned by Councils Yet the substance of this Position here rejected and abjured hath been also censured and condemned by Christian Councils In the beginning of the Primitive Church it cannot reasonably be expected that such things should be condemned by Councils because no such positions were then defended nor any such wicked undertakings against Princes than practised by the Professors of Christianity But after that disloyal and treacherous practises were entertained they were earnestly censured and condemned by divers Councils In the fourth Council of Toledo it was declared Conc. Tolet 4. c. 74. that whosoever should violate their Oaths made for the preservation of the King or should attempt his death or the deposing him from his Kingdom qualibet conjuratione aut studio by any Covenant or design whatsoever should be Anathema from the presence of God and have no Society with his Church Conc. Tolet 5. c. 2. And much to the same purpose was declared in the fifth and other following Councils of Toledo And in a Synod of all England in which also the Popes Legates were present In Conc. Calcuthens an 787. c. 12. in Spelm. a like dreadful Curse is denounced against them who shall violate the Majesty of Princes and also that they who shall consent to such a sacriledge as to take away the life of the King shall perish with an everlasting Curse and being Companions with Judas shall be burnt with eternal fire And in the Council of Constance Conc. Constant Sess 15. that assertion that an ill governing Prince may lawfully or meritoriously be killed by his subject or Vasal was condemned as erroneous in faith and manners and rejected as heretical scandalous c. 22. It is confessed indeed that there is no particular clause in these Councils now produced for condemning these treasonable acts in this special Case of the Popes pretended deprivation But yet the former Councils take in all Cases without exception and no such Papal power was ever pretended to in those days And though the Council of Constance hath a reservation of a dangerous aspect concerning the sentence of a judge yet since the Pope is in truth no judge to depose Princes the pretence hereof can no more mend the matter than the censure of the High Priest against our Saviour Apud Brixinam Hildebrandum Haereseoscondemnam Avent l. 5. p. 460. Urspergens ad ann 1080. 1085. could vindicate Judas for betraying him or the Jews for Crucifying him Yet still it is easy to produce several Councils who since the appearance of this haughty Papal claim of deposing Princes have with particular respect thereto declared against this impious doctrine which is detested by them who take the Oath of Allegiance When this Papal Usurpation was first put in practice by Greg. 7. against Henry 4. Emperour there were Councils at Mentz Ticinum and Brixia and others after them who still condemned all
Apostle commands subjection and against whom he condemns all resistance Now this is commonly acknowledged to have been written under the Reign of Nero who was a man of excessive intemperance and lust and prodigious cruelty even to that height as to cast off natural affection to his nearest relations In his time Suetonius tells us Suet. in Ner. n. 16. punishments were inflicted upon the Christians and according to Tacitus Tac. Annal l. 15. Tertul. Apol c. 6. in Scorpiac c. 15. poenis quaesitissimis by the most exquisite pains and he is noted by Tertullian to be the first of the Roman Emperours who undertook fiercely to persecute Christianity and under him S. Peter and S. Paul and divers other Christians were cruelly put to death And yet in this Case and under that Emperour whom the Roman Spirit would not endure without taking Armes against him and whom their Senate declared to be an Enemy Suet. in Ner. n. 49. Tacit. Hist l. 1. Aur. Vict. in Ner. and to be punished more majorum by an infamous Death S. Paul would not allow the Christians to resist and take Armes against this higher power And this was the Christian temper and Spirit that they kept themselves free from all those tumults and Seditions which other persons in the Empire were many times engaged in Tert. ad Scap. c. 2. And this is that which gave Tertullian occasion to say nunquam Albiniani vel Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani 5. And since the Church of Rome was founded in the beginning of the Government of Claudius and S. Paul was put to Death in the end of Nero's time who was the next Successor to Claudius in the Empire this Epistle to the Romans must be written in one of their Reigns Indeed Illyricus Illyr Chronol in Act. Apost Dr. Hammonds Annot on the Title of the Ep. to Rom. and Dr Hammond sometimes think it to have been written under Claudius And those expressions in this Epistle which intimate that S. Paul before the writing thereof had never been at Rome with this Christian Church may possibly seem to encline to the same sense Ch. 1 10.-13.-15 and Ch. 15.19 -22 23. But it was certainly written many years after the Conversion of the Romans Ch. 15.23 And if it should be supposed to have been sent to them under Claudius even he was not much a better man than Nero. For Claudius was a debauched and vicious person and barbarously cruel to which purpose amongst other expressions Suetonius saith of him Suet. in Claud. 33 34. that he was libidinis profusissimae and also saevum sanguinarium natura fuisse apparuit And even he was so great an Enemy to the right worship of the only true God that under the name of Jews he banished also Christians from Rome Act. 18.2 6. Rutherf of Civ Policy Qu. 33. The New Testament gives respect to the Emperour above the Senate But because there are some who say that these expressions of the Apostle have no particular mention of Nero or any Emperour and therefore may as well have respect to the Roman Senate To obviate this exception it may be observed that wheresoever in the New Testament there is any notice taken of or any respect given to the Roman power this is done with a principal and primary respect to the Emperour and subordinately to others as his Officers This is manifest in the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles The taxing or enrolling at the Birth of our Saviour was by the Decree of Augustus and the tribute money had Caesars Image and Inscription to whom Christ commanded the Jews to render what was his S. Pauls appeal was made unto Caesar and S. Peters commanding submission was directed to the King as supreme and to Governours as unto them who are sent by him So that the Spirit of God speaketh much in favour of Monarchical power though then Pagan but gives no encouragement to the notion of them who would embrace a popular Soveraignty 7. Now these words of S. Paul are so full that I shall not need to add any further evidences of Scripture in this particular But when S. Peter and S. Jude 2 Pet. 2.10 Jude 8. so highly condemn the despising Dominions and speaking evil of dignities as sins against which God will chiefly execute judgment it is evident à majori that their doctrine cannot give allowance to that forcible resistance whereby the greatest contempt of dignities is expressed and which runs higher than to speak evil especially when S. Jude speaks particularly against them who perish in the gain-saying of Core or in the practises of Sedition And S. Peter also proposeth the example of Christ as that which he himself intended should be an example to all Christians who when in well-doing he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously 1 Pet. 2.19.20 21 22 23. 8. Having now shewed Christianity doth not infringe Soveraignty that the Christian Doctrine doth fully provide for the safety and security of Princes it is matter of wonder that any men should have the considence to make Christianity a foundation for the highest resistance against Princes to depose them from their Crowns and forbid Subjects to yield them obedience and this Authority the Pope claims upon a Christian title Bellarm. in Resp ad Apol. pro Juram fidelit in init Bellarmine affirms it to be a thing agreed upon by their Lawyers and Divines that the Pope may by right depose heretical Princes and set free their Subjects from obedience to them for cum hac conditione reges terrae ad Ecclesiam admittuntur c. upon this condition the Kings of the Earth are admitted unto the Church that they shall subject their Scepters unto Christ and that they should protect and not destroy Religion which if they will not do he who is over the whole Church in the place of Christ vice Christi hath a right to separate them from the Communion of the faithful and to forbid their Subjects from giving them obedience Indeed all persons by their Baptism are engaged to yield up themselves to be Subjects to Christ But how can the baptism of Princes include a condition that they must yield their Scepters to be disposed of by any Officer of the Christian Church when they are baptized into that Doctrine which makes so great provision for the security of Kings and against all manner of resistance This would make Christianity to be prejudicial to the authority of Governours to assert which is contrary to the nature of its doctrine And the Holy Spirit seemeth to have taken special care to prevent this claim in any person of the Romish Church in that whosoever resisteth the power c. being particularly directed to that Church must deny all power to any person therein to oppose the authority of Rulers under the peril of damnation 9.
expressed Socr. l. 6. c. 6. by the appearance of an Army of Angels as a Guard about his Palace which so astonished them who were with Gainas that they gave over their attempt Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 24. And when the small Army of Theodosius was engaged against the formidable Forces of Eugenius who rebelled against him the Enemies Darts and Arrows are related to have been forced back upon themselves by the rising of a violent Wind. To these I shall adde that late relation concerning King James Sect. 3 whom when Agnes Sampson had undertaken to kill by Witchcraft Spotsw Hist of SC. B. 6. an 1509. her Familiar Spirit which She employed to effect it came to her and told her it could not perform it adding these words which She did not understand Il est Homme de Dieu He is a Man of God And though all these things deserve consideration the plain Rules of Conscience and Religion give the most full and unexceptionable testimony of the great displeasure of God against all actings of Treason and Sedition SECT III. The practice and sence of the Primitive Church concerning resistance 1. The loyal spirit of the Primitive Christians Above the examples of any other sort of men the spirit of the Primitive Christians deserves to be reverenced and regarded Whilest they lived under Pagan Emperours before the time of Constantine there was no such thing heard of as their undertaking to depose their Kings or Emperours nor no pretence of power in any Christian Bishop to absolve them from their allegiance And I think that for three hundred and forty years after Christ there can be no one instance given of any Christians making any forcible opposition by taking Armes against their Governours Con◠〈…〉 p 115 Origen in his time tells Ceâ—sâ—s that he could shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—o undertaking of Sedition among Christians who were not allowed to defend themselves against their Persecutors 2. Vnder heavy sufferings Yet the heavy sufferings of the Christians were then very great not only by reason of the several cruel deaths inflicted upon divers of them but also because of the great multitudes who died Martyrs in bearing the Cross and following the patience and meekness of Christ. Of which I shall give three instances from the several parts of the World in the end of the third and beginning of the fourth Centurie Eus Eccl. Hist l. 8. c. 9. Eusebius acquaints us that in the Dioclesian Persecution in Thebais which was none of the greatest Countries of Africa there were not only for some days but for some whole years together sometimes ten or twenty oft thirty other times about sixty and sometimes an hundred with their Wives and Children in one day slain by various Methods of cruel death And he himself had there seen some put to death by fire and others the same day by the Axe even so many that the Executioners were tired out and their Axes blunted Such instances speak the admirable patience hope and obedience of those holy men and the wonderful Power of God that preserved and propagated his Church notwithstanding so great oppositions 3. In Persia Sozomen tells us Sozom. l. 2. c. 10 13. that under Sapores his Reign there were sixteen thousand Martyrs of whom an account could be given by name and that besides them there were so great a multitude who died for the profession of Christ that they were more than could be numbred And in France the Thebaean Legion of almost seven thousand Christians being all armed and valiant men became Martyrs by the cruelty of Maximianus the Emperour when they refused to join in the Pagan worship the Emperour commanded twice that every tenth man should be put to death but after both these executions the remainder persisting in the same resolution were all commanded to be slain But they according to the counsel of Mauritius and Exuperius their Commanders tell the Emperour that they submitted their Bodies to his power that they could never be charged with cowardise or deserting his Wars but in this utmost peril where desperate circumstances might make men more resolute they would not take Armes against him yea said they though we have Armes in our hands we will not use them for resistance Ban. an 297. n. 10 11 12. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. de Imp. c. 3. n. 14. Cent. 4. c. 12. col 1420. tenemus Arma non resistemus This famous Story related by Eucherius and the Martyrology is thence insisted on by Baronius and Grotius as also from Crantzius and others And a like account is given by the Magdeburgenses from P. de Natalibus Simeon Metaphrastes and Vincentius 4. And the chief Guides of the Christian Church who lived under the Arian Princes and Julian the Apostate retained the same spirit and sense of their duty Among other slanders Bar. an 351. n. 34. with which Athanasius was charged he was accused before Constantius Athan. Apolog ad Const of conspiring with and stirring up Magnentius against him But Athanasius not only denyeth the fact and declareth how he had openly prayed for the success of Constantius but he utterly disclaimeth such things as not consistent with Christian Principles affirming that if there was any appearance of any such thing in him he would condemn himself to myriads of deaths And he entreats the Emperour that he would have no such suspicion against the Church as if any right Christian and especially a Bishop would advise or write any such thing And much more is in the same Apology in detestation of resistance though Constantius was an Arian and a Persecutor and Athanasius had in his Reign been ejected from Alexandria 5. Under Julian Naz. Orat. 4. Nazianzen declared that the Christians only arms fortress and defence was their hope in God And when under Valentinian the younger St. Ambr. Orat in Auxent Ambrose was required to yield up his Church to Auxentius he tells his people I shall not leave you willingly if I be compelled I know not how to withstand I can grieve I can weep I can groan aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere by other means I neither ought nor can resist And the language that he and the other sound Christians then used was Rogamus Auguste non pugnamus we ask O Emperour we fight not Id. in Epist 33. aâ— Marcellin and tradere basilicam non possum sed pugnare non debeo I cannot yield up the Church but I ought not to fight The result of all these testimonies is that when the authority laws and rules of Government they lived under did oppose the Christian Profession or the truth and purity of its Doctrine they thought it their duty patiently to suffer and not in opposition to those laws which were then established to take up Armes against their Governors But against the force of this Argument from the
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
be much more dreadful and calamitious to Mankind whereas the embodying of small numbers are the less to be feared because the more easy to be suppressed 4. The next pretence is that subordinate Governours being also Gods Officers may defend the properties of the Subjects and the exercise of true Religion Brut. Vind. qu. 2. p. 56. qu. 3. p. 93. edit 1589. De sur Mag. Qu. 6. even by taking Armes against their King This hath been asserted by such Writers as Junius Brutus the Anonymous discourse de jure Magistratuum in subditos others in England in our late intestine Broils Ruth Qu. 20. 36. J. Sleid. Com. l. 22. an 1550. and Rutherford of Civil Policy And Sleidan in his Commentaries reports that the same was declared in the Magdeburgh Confession And for the supporting of this assertion it is urged that all Governours even subordinate as well as supreme are in the use of their power to serve God and do justice and defend the innocent and do act by Gods Authority As also that if any person in Ecclesiastical power how high soever he be shall oppose the Christian Doctrine his subordinate Clergy lawfully may and ought to withstand him And that saying of Trajan In Vit. Trajan mentioned by Dion Cassius is usually noted to this purpose who delivering the Sword to an inferiour Commander bad him use this for him if he should govern well but against him if he governed or commanded ill 5. Subordinaâ—t Governours may not resist the supreme But such Positions would undermine the peace of the World and lay Foundations for great disturbances and thereby the Commands of God would be broken with the greater force and violence if those who are invested with some part of the Kings Authority should account themselves thereby impowered to make use thereof against him And if this were admitted the state of Kingdoms must be in danger whensoever inferiour Governours shall be imposed upon by the subtilty of others or puffed up by ambition But this is as far from truth as from peace though Corah had 250 Princes who joynen with him and Absalom was assisted by the Elders of Israel besides Ahitophâ—l the great Counsellour of State this did not justifie their Treasonable Conspiracies And though David was a great Officer at Court General of the Army of Israel and the anointed Successour to the Crown by Gods special appointment and no subordinate Ruler in other Dominions could have so much to plead for himself in this case as David had yet it was not lawful for him to stretch out his hand against Saul And in the account of the Thebean Legion above mentioned Mauritius was a great Officer and Commander of the Roman Army and then in Arms at the head of his Legion and yet according to the Primitive Christian principles professed a detestation of making resistance And therefore this pretence is justly rejected De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 6. de Imper. c. 3. with some vehemency by Grotius as being against Scripture reason and the sense of Antiquity 6. Indeed all persons in Authority are bound to do justice but this must only be in their Sphere and according to the proportion of their power but they cannot be allowed to set themselves over their Superiours to usurp upon their Authority or to deny Subjection unto them And with respect to their Soveraign Officers both by Charter and Commission have their Authority depending upon him and are as much his Subjects as other men are and besides the common bonds of Subjection do all with us take the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance Now as a Servant may not put himself into the place of a Ruler or Judge over his Master to force him to what he thinks equal no more may an inferiour ruler do to his Prince To this purpose it is observed by Sleidan Sleidan Comment l. 17. An. 1546. that the Elector of Saxony who was then the chief person against the Emperour in the German Wars under Charles the fifth did openly declare that if Charles the fifth was owned to be Caesar or a proper Soveraign with respect to those great Princes of the Empire it must then be granted cum eo belligerari non licere that it was not lawful to make War with him And whereas subordinate Rulers are to be submitted unto and reverâ—â—â—d in the regular use of their Authority â—â—â—et if they shall oppose the Superiour â—â—â—â—r they are to be deserted and the acting against them in discharge of duty to the Soveraign is no disobedience Thus S. Austin Aug. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 6. ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite consider the orders steps and degrees of human affairs If the Curator command one thing and the Proconsul another must not the greater power be obeyed and so also where the Proconsul commands one thing and the Emperour the contrary And St. Peter in commanding submission to inferiour Governours makes use of these bounds of Subjection as unto them who are sent by him i. e. the King 7. Disparity between secular and Ecclesiastical Governours The objection from the comparing the case of Ecclesiastical and Civil Rulers is of no weight because of the great disparity that is between them The withstanding an Heretical Bishop who would impose corrupt Doctrines upon the Church if this be certain and manifest may lawfully be undertaken not only by the inferiour Clergy but by other Christians and herein they only do their own business of keeping the Faith holding to the truth and rejecting what is contrary thereto Cyp. Epist 68. And S. Cyprian when Basilides and Martialis Spanish bishops had closed with Pagan Idolatry accounted that ordinary Christians ought to separate themselves from such guides And though in our age too many causelessly reject communion with those Officers whom Christ hath set over them which is a sin of no low degree yet it must be acknowledged that there may be just causes for such withdrawing from Communion in obedience to the Christian Doctrine But it can never be lawful for private Christians to usurp to themselves Episcopal power which would be unaccountable and Sacrilegious Aug. ubi sup And if a Soveraign power should command any to embrace Heresie or reject the true Religion or to become unjust to others to refuse such evil practices is their duty they owe to God who is the Supreme Governour and so far they act in their own Sphere but if they take Arms they then take to themselves the power of the publick Sword which is the Soveraigns right and are thereby guilty of invading what is not their own Besides this there is no Ecclesiastical Officer whosoever but his Authority is inferiour to the Authority of the Vniversal Church of which he is a member and this principally takes in the Apostolical and Primitive Church and all Christians are bound to hold to the doctrine and unity of this Church against any
shall stand in the way of such an ill-designing party of men or shall displease them may easily be charged with treason and thereby be cut off upon pretence of opposing the Laws and Government when the very discharge of honesty and integrity may be so accounted 4. Thirdly They who made use of this Position did give the World sufficient proof that it was only a designed pretence to serve a present turn For when in our late sad commotions they used the Plea of the Kings Authority in acting against his person before they had murthered his person they then laid aside also all pretence of reverent regard to the Kings Authority and by several Acts as they were called Acts May 19. 1649. and of Treason July 17. 1649. declare the supreme authority of England to be in the Commons not at all regarding this Ideal Authority of the King which if they had been true to their own notion must have been acknowledged still remaining And they then required the Engagement to be taken to be true and faithful not to the Kings Laws and Government according to their own Idea but to the Common-wealth of England without King c. Which is evidence enough that those men intended as much to act against and oppose the true Regal dignity and authority as the person of that excellent Prince and that this distinction was not only void of truth and justice in it self but of honesty and good meaning also in these contriving men who were the maintainers of it 5. The last part of this Clause of the acknowledgment Taking Arms against them who are Commissionated by the King unlawful hath respect to them who are commissionated by the King the sense of which must be measured from the intent and tendency thereof which is to secure the Kings safety and Government and to maintain the Subjects true allegiance and fidelity And therefore I doubt not to aver that the use of quirks and niceties Manual p. 102. in supposing some extraordinary Cases which are inconsistent with these duties and which we may well presume or hope may never be in act ought not to be considered in making this acknowledgment Wherefore to supppose that the person of any King of England should be violently surprized and seised by any seditious and ill-designing men which I trust will never come to pass and they should by force or fraud extort Commissions from him against his loyal Subjects and Friends this acknowledgment concerning the ordinary duty of Subjects doth not take in such extraordinary fictions of imaginary Cases which are not fit to be supposed but they who are the Kings regular Officers ought to resist such evil men who offer violence to his person for the good both of the King and Kingdom 6. And also that Case which some put of the King granting a Commission against the legal power which he hath committed to a Sheriff or against any other Commission which himself hath given and doth continue to other Officers is such an unreasonable and undutiful supposition of cross Commissions which no good subject ought to make or to consider in this acknowledgment Only in such an extraordinary Case where any persons whosoever in any Office or Commission shall become Authors or Abetters of Sedition or Robellion and oppose the Kings Authority and Government it is reasonable to be expected that the King will grant Commissions to suppress and reduce them And since no Office or Commission either can or is intended to warrant any man to act against his Loyalty and Allegiance such revolting Officers ought to be opposed by them who are impowered and commanded by their Prince so to do nor is it to be supposed that this acknowledgment doth at all assert the contrary But the true sense of this clause is that it is a traiterous design and therefore to be abhorred for the Kings Subjects without any command from their Prince to take Arms against those who act by vertue and in pursuance of his Commission regularly granted to them And that these words of this acknowledgment may be reasonably taken in this fair and just sense is evident from the result of what I have above discoursed B. 1. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. concerning the sense and interpretation of such publick Declarations 7. And it was reasonable for the avoiding evasions that this acknowledgment condemning the taking Armes against them who are Commissionated by the King should be declared in such general termes If only taking Armes against the Kings person should be disclaimed in a strict sense then the fighting the Kings Armies destroying his Subjects resisting his Government and those who are invested with his Authority which are the usual methods of the most open and daring Enemies would not be provided against But these are the highest oppositions against the King which the most disloyal Subjects can ordinarily make by taking up Armes who cannot probably act immediately against his person unless they can first vanquish those loyal subjects who are his strength and defence Fourth Sermon before King Edw. 6. Bishop Latimer tells us that when he was in the Tower a Lord who had been engaged in Rebellion told him If I had seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field against us I would have lighted from my Horse and taken my Sword by the point and yielded it into his hands To whom the Bishop replied It hath been the cast of all Traitors to pretend nothing against the Kings person subjects may not resist any Magistrate nor do any thing contrary to the Kings Law And the Imperial Law declares that all and every of them are Rebels or Traitors who in any wise publickly or secretly Extravag Henr. 7. Tit. 2. do the works of Rebellion against our honour or their fealty and do enterprise any thing against the welfare of our Empire contra nos seu officiales nostros in iis quae ad commissum eis officium pertinent rebellando by rebelling or taking Arms against us or our Officers in those things which belong to the office committed to them CHAP. II. The Laws of Nature and of general Equity and the right grounds of humane polity do condemn all subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign power SECT I. The preservation of peace and common rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Prince and Governour Sect. 1 1. THose Laws do carry along with them the strongest obligation which are not only established by a positive constitution but are also inforced by the common and necessary Rules of justice truth righteousness and order Rules of common equity are against Subjects taking Arms. Bishop Ferne Episcop and Presbyter considered For here is a joint tye from the Bond of obedience to Superiours of Religion to God and of the general Principles of equity and reason Of this nature is the duty of non-resistance against Soveraign Rulers which our Laws establish And the doctrine of our Church doth
so far assert this that it was truly affirmed by a reverend person B. 2. C. 2. That since the Reformation it is now again current Episcopal doctrine as it was always Apostolical That Subjects ought not to resist nor can be disobliged of their obedience to their Soveraign upon any pretence whatsoever And that this is founded upon the necessary Principles of equity and the Laws of nature and of civil Society I shall now manifest 2. And I lay this down as an undeniable Principle Otherwise justice and peace cannot be secured by Government that in every civil Government such an authority must be acknowledged in the supreme Governour as is necessary for the administring justice securing property and the preserving of order peace and quiet For without this the benefit of Government and civil Society is lost and amongst such men where honesty and good Conscience do not greatly prevail we should live as amongst Wolves in constant danger of having our rights or lives surprized And where there are not such advantages from Authority according to the known expression among the Jews Pirk. Av. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man would swallow up his Brother alive But if it be allowed lawful for Subjects or inferiours upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against their Rulers and Soveraign Governours neither justice nor peace can be sufficiently provided for by the authority of that Government 3. For if it be allowed lawful for Subjects in any Case to take Arms against their Soveraign this must include a right in them of judging whether their present Case be such in which they may lawfully resist or no. Subjects no fit Judges of their Superiours Otherwise they must either have a general power of resistance and taking Armes without distinction of any Cases to assert which would be all one as to declare them to be no Subjects or under no Government or else they must resist in no Case at all But to assert that the people or inferiours are of right Judges of the Cases in which they may resist their Superiours is as much as to say they are bound to subjection only so far as themselves shall think it fit and that they may claim an authority over their Governours and pass judgment upon them and deprive them of their dignity authority and life it self whensoever they shall think it requisite and needful But this cannot be otherwise than a foundation of great and general confusion in the World And as the general proceedings of justice are stopped whilest there is any open violent opposition to that power which should administer it so the particular decisions thereof must needs prove ineffectual where the execution of them may be refisted by force in any notable Case concerning a popular person 4. And besides this the judgments of the common sort of men are so apt to be imposed upon and are many times so partially affected and linked to that which they esteem their own interest that even under the best Government they are frequently prone to conceive themselves greatly injured when they are not and to make grievous complaints and out-cries against their Superiours without just cause It is truly said in our Homilies Hom. against Rebell Part 1. Some Subjects or other mislike even the best Government and wish a change And it is rightly asserted by Philo Phil. de Vit. Mos l. 1. that even plenty and prosperity sometimes dispose the generality of men to be insolent against their Superiours and their established Laws And where the persons who promote these discontents are popular men dissatisfactions and unquietness of temper oft spreadeth more than can well be imagined Discontented minds are apt to be unquiet under the best Government the minds of many men being enclined to pity and believe them who complain of injury or hard measure and in these circumstances to join with them as acting their common interest And how unsafe all Government would be and how unfixed and tumultuous a state the World is like to be in if Subjects were in any Case and upon any pretence allowed to take Armes will appear by considering some remarkable instances where besides what our own Nation may afford us I shall mention two from the Holy Scriptures as known and certain accounts of matters of fact 5. The first instance is concerning the Government of Moses They were so under Moses He was faithful in all Gods House a man of singular integrity and meekness and a great friend to Israel His conduct over the Israelites was accompanied with various miracles and admirable and extraordinary deliverances and preservations which they received under him While he guided Israel the dreadful presence of God on Mount Sinai was manifested to them and a constant visible Symbol of his presence was continued amongst them And the fame and honour of Moses was so great that even the Gentile Historians in some after Ages Joseph cont Apion l. 1. Eus pr. Ev. l. 9. c. 26. took considerable notice thereof as hath been observed by Josephus Eusebius and other ancient Writers And at that time God had also signally testified his chusing Aaron and his Family to the Priesthood both by his especial Command to Moses concerning them and by the Fire which in the presence of all the people came from before the Lord upon the Altar and Burnt-Offering at the first time of Aarons Ministration Lev. 9.24 Yet in this Case Corah Dathan and Abiram pretended themselves grievously wronged and appeared to plead the Religious rights of the whole Congregation that they were all holy as well as Aaron Num. 16.3 and to defend their civil priviledges against Moses Him as the Scripture intimateth and Josephus particularly expresseth Jos Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 2. they accused of tyranny and charged him with a design of destroying and ruining the Congregation of Israel Num. 16.13 and that this was so apparent that unless mens eyes were put out they could not but see it v. 14. And these unjust and unreasonable out-cries were so taking that presently two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation took part with these men Num. 16.2 and not long after the whole body of the Israelites were gathered against Moses and Aaron v. 19. And as Josephus represents it Ibid. they were taught by Corah that it became them to inflict punishment upon such persons who secretly designed their destruction that so they might not suffer the utmost violence from them 6. And it is wonderful to observe how far these bold and confident Speeches and popular pretences did prevail even after God had manifested his abhorrence of them by the dreadful judgment of the earth opening its mouth and swallowing up Corah and his Company Num. 16.32 33. and by the fire from the Lord consuming the 250 men who offered incense v. 35. For notwithstanding this all the body of the Israelites the very next day justify the Plea of Corah