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
the persons governed and an obligation upon them unto obedience so the chief and special works of secular Government are frequently expressed in the Holy Scripture by judging and doing judgment and justice 1 Kin. 10.9 Jer. 22.15 hence the ancient rulers of Israel were called their Judges by being as a Shepherd unto the people Num. 27.17 and also by giving praise to them that do well and executing wrath on them who do evil Rom. 13.3 4. 1 Pet. 2.14 Phil. de praem poen p. 918. de Vit. Mos l. 2. And Philo accounteth the authority of Government to be a power of commanding and prohibiting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which encludeth an authoritative power over the persons of others and being the life of and giving execution to the law The sense of which and especially of the Scripture expressions is That the Governing power includeth an authority to take care of the Community and of what is just and right and to command and encourage well-doing and when occasion requires to take an account of the actions and causes of inferiours acquitting or punishing them according to their merit and opposing all injurious and evil doers And he who hath a right to do all this towards all other persons in his Dominions without being governed by subject to or accountable before any other superiour authority upon earth is a Supreme Governour 2. But it is neither necessary nor most suitable to supremacy of Government that the rules by which the Governour proceedeth should be altogether at his own will and pleasure But it is sufficient that these rules be such as he either judgeth to be good and therefore chuseth of himself or else freely accepteth and consenteth to them if they be formed to his hands or proposed by others For it is no abatement of the high Soveraignty of the Glorious God over the world that all his government and executing judgment is ordered according to the natural and eternal rules and measures of goodness and justice and not by any such arbitrary will which excludeth all respect thereto And man hath not a less but a greater government over himself when he guideth himself by the rules of reason nor is it therefore any diminution of the power of a Governour when the exercise thereof is and ought to be managed by rules of common equity Yea the Kings of Judah enjoyed a compleat Supremacy though they were to govern according to the law of Moses and so much more may Christian Kings do while they maintain a Religious respect to the positive laws of Christianity And there are some Kingdoms where without any disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince they are governed by the fixed rules of the civil law and others where other laws established by their Predecessors are standing rules And if in the last place we consider that when great Emperours yielded to their conquered and tributary Principalities at their Petition and desire the priviledge of being governed by their own former laws as was done to Judaea by their Persian Josep Ant. l. 11. c. 4. c. 8. lib. 12. c. 2. c. 3. lib. 14. c. 17. Grecian Egyptian Syrian and Roman Governours under whose Dominion they were this was no giving the Supremacy of Government out of their own hands much less can it be a Plea against the Supremacy of Government in a free natural Prince where the consent of his Subjects in Parliament is always taken in for the forming and enacting any new law which he establisheth at their request and Petition 3. And as such a model of framing laws is very well consistent with the Supremacy of the Prince so it is a great priviledge to the subjects of such a Realm which they cannot but be sensible of and which will make their subjection more cheerful and free And it further encludeth this advantage to the Government it self that there is like to be greater care of obedience to those laws where the people are not only obliged thereto from the duty of submission and the fear of penalties but have also given their own consent and agreement to their being and constitution St. de Marlbridge St. de Bigamis St. quo Warranto passim To this purpose the things established by our laws are called things agreed and assented to and concordata and very often they are declared to be enacted by the Kings Majesty with the advice and assent of the Lords and Commons but always it is acknowledged that neither nor both Houses of Parliament have any legislative power without the King and whosoever shall assert the contrary is by a late statute declared to be under a Praemunire 13 Car. 2.1 4. And it is plainly evident Supremacy is a right of governing not of performing all particular offices that the supreme government in all things or causes is quite of a different nature from the right of performing the actions or offices of all persons who are under this government which for the most part are inconsistent with the dignity of Supremacy though some have been willing to confound these things and thereby hinder themselves and others from a right understanding of them De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. And Cardinal Bellarmine himself spent his strength and courage in fighting in the dark when he somewhat largely insists on this argument That secular Princes have not a supreme Government with respect to the Church because they cannot perform the offices of other Governours of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and argues they may not baptize and consecrate non sunt igitur Reges supremi Ecclesiae Magistratus But no man need be to seek for the true sense of supremacy as it is acknowledged in this Church and Realm who doth consider duly those very words both in the Oath of Supremacy and the Canonical subscription That the King is supreme Governour as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal Wherefore 5. Obs 1. In temporal things or causes there are some rights of power and authority Some authority besides the supreme by peculiar divine institution both in spiritual and temporal things which are wholly derived from the King as the Commanding an Army or Navy and the governing any place or County in his Dominion but there are others which depend upon divine institution which institution must be reverenced and the rules thereof attended unto by all sorts of men such is the authority and right of the Husband over his Wife in the state of marriage appointed of God And in Ecclesiastical matters there are some things in our ancient laws reserved as peculiar to the Ecclesiastical power not without good reason and yet much by the favour of the soveraign authority as the power of proving wills and testaments 21 Hen. 8.5.22 23 Car. 2. and granting administrations concerning which our late Statutes have made some additional provisions but there are other matters of Ecclesiastical authority
these which are in that Book expressed f. 49. That God constituted and ordained the authority of Christen Kings and Princes to be the most high and supreme above all other powers and offices in the regiment and governance of his people f. 50. Vnto them of right and by Gods commandment it belongeth principally to defend the faith of Christ and his Religion and to abolish all abuses heresies and idolatries Notwithstanding we may not think that it doth appertain unto the office of Kings and Princes to preach and teach to administer the Sacraments to absolve to excommunicate and such other things belonging to the office and administration of Bishops and Priests but we must think and believe that God hath made Christian Kings to be as the chief heads and over-lookers over the said Priests and Bishops to cause them to administer their office and power committed unto them purely and sincerely and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof to cause them to supply and repair the same again 10. And for the time of King Edward it is manifest from the Book of Ordination that the offices of Bishop Priest and Deacon the power of remitting and retaining sins and the Pastoral authority in the Church was accounted by ordination to be committed to those persons only who receive such ordination And in his time the royal authority and dignity is described K. Edw. Inj. 1. and asserted in his Injunctions in the very same words whereby it is declared in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and no otherwise Qu. Elizab. Injunct 1. and almost in the same phrases which are made use of in our Canons Can. 1. 1603. i. e. that the Kings power within his Realms and Dominions is the highest power under God to whom all men within the same Realms and Dominions by Gods law owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other powers and potentates upon earth 11. Now these things do clearly manifest that the spiritual authority of the Clergy was both in King Hen. and King Edwards reign owned to be really distinct from the secular authority and was not swallowed up into it And this I have the rather taken notice of because it gives us a clearer prospect into the plain sense of the interpretation of the Kings Supremacy Sect. 4 as it was declared in the Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions unto which the explication of the statute and Articles do refer And what is herein observed from the Institution of a Christian man is the more considerable because that Book was then designed by the King and Bishops as a guide to direct the Bishops and Preachers what they should teach the people committed to their spiritual charge as is very often expressed throughout the whole Book almost in every leaf of a great part thereof SECT IV. The spiritual authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy 1. The wisdom and goodness of God is eminently conspicuous both in founding his Church and establishing an Ecclesiastical Society and authority and also in ordering a civil polity in the world And these two things were well observed by Justinian to be high instances of the great goodness and bounty of God towards men Maxima inter homines dona Dei sunt a superna collata clementia Novel 6. sacerdotium imperium And these two being both of them from God do not if rightly understood clash with but are useful and helpful to one another 2. Of old the same person oft King and Priest Whilst God was worshipped only in some particular Families of the holy Patriarchs he who was the chief Governour of those Societies was also in the place of a Priest to that Family whence Noah Abraham and Job offered Sacrifice And in those ancient times in some principalities the same person was King and Priest as Melchisedec was both King of Salem and Priest of the most high God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hebrew is the ordinary word to express a Priest Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 681. doth also signify a Prince And Moses himself before the Jewish Government was compleatly formed sustained the office both of a Prince and a Priest whence Philo in his description of a compleat Governour maketh the Priesthood to reside in him as then it was in Moses 3. And from the traditions of the ancient times the general custom of divers Pagan Nations might have its original who in several distant parts of the world conjoined in the same person the royal authority and the Priesthood This was done saith Clemens Alexandrinus by those who were the wisest of them Cl. Alex. Str. l. 7. p. 720. Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 1. Aelian Var. Hist l. 14. c. 34. and is particularly averred by Diodorus Siculus concerning the ancient Ethiopians and of the Egyptians also by Aelianus as also by Plato in Politic. and by Synesius Ep. 121. And that Jethro Moses his Father in Law was both King and Priest is expressed by Ezekielus a Poet of Jewish Extraction in some Verses mentioned by Eusebius Eus Pr. Evang. l. c. 28. Cont. Ap. l. 1. That the same usage did sometimes take place among the Tyrians of old appears from Josephus and in the time of Aeneas his travels Virg. Aeneid 3. after the destruction of Troy at Delos there was saith Virgil Rex idem hominum PhoebÃque sacerdos The Pagan Emperours at Rome had likewise the Office of Pontifex Maximus and used this title in several Edicts as part of their stile of dignity of which we have a plain instance in Eusebius Hist Eccl. l. 8. c. 29. concerning Galerius Maximinus and Constantius This was also ordinarily impressed upon their coins where sometimes the proper imperial title was stamped on the one side and that of Pontifex Maximus on the other as appears in that Medal exhibited to this purpose M. Freh Tr. de Numism censûs Xenoph. de Inst Cyr. l. 2 3 8. by Marquardus Freherus And that Cyrus the King of Persia did himself both Sacrifice and annex his Prayers therewith is observed by Xenophon And there are several learned men who assert that this title of Pontifex Maximus was retained Bar. An. 312. n. 94 95 97 c. and an 383. n. 6. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 10. à p. 329. ad 344. as an ordinary part of the Imperial stile even by the first Christian Emperours until the time of Gratian who according to the testimony of Zosimus is said to have rejected it as unsuitable to Christianity And it is certain that this title was given to some of them and even to Gratian himself as well and as oft as to any other in some few publick inscriptions which are urged to this purpose by Baronius and Selden But as these inscriptions were probably ordered by others and not by these
good of Israel And thus much might be done by a private person who dedicated an offering unto God though he was in no secular or sacerdotal office as we have the like example and practice in the Prayer those persons were to make who presented their first-fruits and the third years tith Deut. 26 3-10 12-15 and this might be more fitly done by Solomon because he was an inspired person And Solomon also as King commanded a great festivity and a joyful solemnity to be then observed Eus de Vit. Const ubi sup and the like did Constantine at Jerusalem at the time above-mentioned 2. There was the acceptance of this temple and taking possession thereof in Gods name and for his service and the setting it apart thereto upon account of Gods authority by them who were his Officers in the Church and this was then to be done by the Priests to whose office it did belong to sanctify the most holy things 1 Chr. 23.13 And this was partly done by their bringing in the Ark and other holy things into the temple 2 Chr. 5.5 7. and partly by the solemn sacrifices which they offered whereby the temple is said to be dedicated 1 Kin. 8.63 as the tabernacle was purified or dedicated by the blood of the Sacrifices as both the Apostle Heb. 9.21 22 23. and Josephus do declare 3. Jos Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. Here was Gods owning this his possession and his House and Temple and this was done by the glory of God filling the house immediately upon the Ark being brought into it 1 Kin. 8.10 11. and by the fire coming down from heaven upon the Sacrifices 2 Chr. 7.1 2 3. as had been before done at the dedication of the tabernacle and hence God declared that he hallowed this house 1 Kin. 9.3 7. And all these things which were not performed by Salomon were the chief parts of the dedication and therefore this instance from Salomon will not prove Princes to have had any peculiar Ecclesiastical authority in the Jewish Church above what they may enjoy in the Christian 13. In the last place I shall consider the suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Church in the time of the Old Testament might be under the temporal Government because it then was more external and enjoyed temporal promises chiefly whereas it is otherwise under the New Testament Now though it is hard to discern any strength or force in this way of discoursing especially because all Religion as such hath a respect to God and to things spiritual and also because Kings under the Old Testament were not Governours of the promises which God made to his Church for the future but of its present polity yet I shall return hereto these considerations which I suppose will be sufficient 1. That those things of the Gospel which are of a pure spiritual nature as the dispensing heavenly grace and pardon of sin the taking men into an inward relation unto God and Christ and the bestowing on them eternal life so far as these things are considered separately and distinctly from all visible and external dispensations are not claimed to be under the government of any civil power and this is all that his consideration can amount unto 2. That the persons admitted into the Christian Church and the Officers thereof have still under the Gospel visible beings and their actions of life their publick service and profession with several divine institutions and other things relating to the order of the Church are still things external and therefore capable of being under the inspection of authority which is managed by men concerning things visible and external CHAP. III. No Synedrial power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal SECT I. The exorbitant power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 1 1. THere are divers both Jewish and Christian Writers and some of them men of great worth who entertain a notion which if it were true would evacuate the force of the argument made use of in the former Chapter De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. Sch. de Jur. Reg. Hebr. c. 1. Theor. 2. Even Grotius will not allow the Government over the House of Israel to have been perfectly Monarchical and Schickard asserteth it to have been mixtly Aristocratical and these with divers other persons Dangerous and false pretences of the Synedrial power being chief assert the Royal Government of the Family of Jacob to be under the Synedrial authority Now if what I shall say in opposition hereto may seem over-long and tedious to some Readers I hope the usefulness thereof for vindicating royal authority and discovering usual and considerable mistakes B. 1. C. 3. will be a sufficient Apology And although the rights of Christian Princes do not directly depend upon the political constitution of the Jews or the Family of Jacob but are founded in the laws of nature of nations and of Christianity yet it is in general a great advantage and honour to the royal government that God himself established a pattern thereof in the House of David as well as the authority of the civil power about matters of Religion may be hence also inferred And both Romish Writers and others of an Antimonarchical strain Salm. Defen Reg. c. 2. p. 49. or as Salmasius calleth them Hildebrandinae Enthusiasticae doctrinae auctores in managing their designs have frequent recourse to this Plea of the Jewish Synedrial power against the right of Kings 2. Annal. Eccles an 57. n. 36. Thus Baronius declareth Apud Hebraeos Lex divinitùs data monstravit c. The law which God gave the Hebrews did shew that the chief government was to be in the hands of Priests and although they at length began to have Kings yet saith he even those Kings were subject to the High Priest who as he pleased was moderator in that great Council of 72. Elders which was called the Sanhedrin whose office and charge it was to judge concerning the law concerning the King and concerning a Prophet In which words besides other mistakes he asserteth as that which would best serve the interest of his party that the Sanhedrim was a Court governed by the High Priest whereas according to the constant description of the Jewish Writers V. Seld. de Syne l. 2. c. 15. n. 14. the High Priest was neither ordinarily president thereof nor necessarily a member of it though at some times he might be both 3. And for an instance of the latter sort of men who are for popular supremacy Junius Brutus maketh use of this argument Synedrium Hierosolymitanum c. Vindic. contra Tyran Qu. 3. p. 96. The Sanhedrim of Jerusalem seemeth to have been of so great authority that they could judge the King in like manner as the King could judge other persons And not long
after he saith In this Kingdom there were Officers of the Realm rege superiores I say saith he in this Kingdom which was established and ordained not by Plato or Aristotle but by God himself the supreme founder of all Monarchy 4. And it is very manifest The pretended power of the Sanhedrin that the greater part of the Jewish Rabbinical Writers and from them divers Christians some of them so judicious that it is strange they should be so much imposed upon by Fables and Romances do assert that the Sanhedrim or Senate of seventy one persons had such a power over the Kings of Judah as to call them to account and punish them And they also assert that according to the original establishment of the Jewish laws and polity the chief causes of moment both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature were exempt from the Kings jurisdiction and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance Grot. Schick ubi supra To this purpose Grotius declareth aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta I think there were some cases of judgment reserved from the King which remained in the Sanhedrim of seventy men i. e. besides the Nasi or president Schickard goes farther and sayes sine senatus magni assensu Rex in gravioribus causis nihil poterat decernere that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters without the assent of this great Senate And our Author de Synedriis De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 1. among other things discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio magno propriis ut nec à Regibus aut impediri aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt in which words he fetters and confines the Kings power but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large 5. Carpzov in Schick c. 2. p. 142. But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions that they have no better a foundation than a tradition delivered by some of the Jewish Rabbins This a fabulous tradition of the Rabbins against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular there lie these exceptions 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority before the captivity but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time and therefore can give no testimony upon their own knowledge and writing one from another with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered the number of them who are produced can add nothing to their testimony But both divine and humane writers who are of an ancienter date do sufficiently contradict this position as I hope to make plain He therefore who can believe that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders because divers of late but neither Scripture nor ancient Writers do assert it and he who can perswade himself that our Saviour made the Bishop of Rome the Vniversal Monarch of the whole World and gave him a plenitude of all temporal and spiritual power because many Writers of that Communion do now assert this while what is inconsistent therewith was declared by Christ his Apostles and the ancient Christian Church such men have understandings of a fit fize and sutable disposition to receive these Rabbinical traditions concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy which are also things fit for their purpose 6. Gemar Sanhed Cocc c. 2. Sect. 10. Secondly It is evident that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Nation were forward to extol it even beyond the bounds of truth of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud of the number of the Horses for Salomons own Stables which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty millions accounting a thousand thousand to a Million Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory for a considerable time Sed. Olam zut in fin before the reign of Aristobulus and under the Roman Government and some continuance thereof remained towards five hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem as their Chronicle informs us which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers And it is very probable that the pressures and sufferings which the Jews sustained under the Roman Emperours or Kings might prejudice them against Monarchical Government 7. Thirdly There are other Rabbinical and Talmudical Writers of good note who will by no means be perswaded to embrace this tradition which disparageth the Royal power Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rabba and others are cited by Mr Selden and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius who assert that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King And that the highest authority is in the King who standeth in Gods place is asserted by R. Abarbanel Carpzov in Schick p. 165. Their pretended power over the person of the King refuted whose words are in Carpzov 8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim over the person of the King They deal with the royal authority as the Jews did with our Saviour who gave him the title of the King of the Jews but yet scourged him and treated him with great indignity For these Writers do assert that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim only by the great Sanhedrim at Jernsalem saith Schickard De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7. and he acknowledgeth that even this appeared to him valde paradoxum a thing far from truth and very unlikely until his own apprehensions were moulded into a complyance with the Jewish Writers But Mr Selden addeth De Syn. l. 2. c. 9. n. 5. that according to the testimony of the Rabbins he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three which was the Government of every particular City And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging enumerated by Maimonides Ibid. c. 13. n. 8. and mentioned from him by Selden the three last are if the King multiply Wives if he multiply Horses and if he multiply silver and gold Now these things are so strange in themselves reducing the King to the same circumstances with every common and petty offender that how this can consist with the majesty and soveraignty of a Prince is utterly unconceiveable and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies must also perswade himself to believe against the plainest evidence that David and those who sat upon his throne were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah but were all of them subjects under the common and ordinary government and authority of that Common-wealth 9. Schickard de Jur.
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
authority of men the substance of which I have in another discourse taken notice of But this will be more apparently manifest from another position which I shall now reflect upon 2. It is asserted by them that if a Minister shall speak treason in his Pulpit by way of doctrine the Church only is to try whether it be treason indeed Ibid. Ch. 24. p. 551 552. The like Plea was used by A. Melvil a chief Modeller of the Scotish Presbytery in his own Case 1584. and he may decline the civil judg and appeal to a Synod This is not only affirmed by Mr Rutherford but this position was in an exceeding strange manner espoused by the General Assembly of the Kirk who contested with King James concerning it upon this occasion Mr D. Blake having in his Sermon at S. Andrews declared that the King had discovered the treachery of his heart That all Kings are the Devils Bearnes That the Queen of England Queen Elizabeth was an Atheist with many more dangerous assertions and being cited by the Kings authority to answer these things he alledged that he could not in this case be judged by the King till the Church had taken the first cognition thereof Spotsw Hist of Sc. l. 6. p. 330. And the Kirk-Commissioners enter a Declinator and Protestation against the Kings proceedings and would not consent that any punishment should be inflicted upon Mr Blake because there was no tryal before a proper judge and declared that if he should submit his doctrine to be tryed by the Council the liberty of the Church and the spiritual Government of the House of God Hist of Sc. l. 6. an 1596. would be quite subverted A full and particular account of this whole matter is expressed by Bishop Spotswood and this contest was so great and famous and the disturbances ensuing thereupon so notorious that they were thought fit to be signified to the States General of the united Provinces Adr. Damman in Praest Viror Epist p. 49. c. by their Agent then sent into Scotland in the entrance of 1597. But such positions and undertakings as these are calculated for a Meridian equal in Elevation with the Italian 3. One thing insisted on for this exemption of the Church and its Officers from the Civil Authority is that the Officers of the Church act by Authority from Christ and therefore are not to be in immediate subjection to Kings and Princes Chap. 6. Sect. 4. But this hath been particularly answered above 4. But they further argue Christs Royal Authority not invaded by Princes governing in causes Ecclesiasticale that it is the Royalty of Christ to Govern his Church in matters of Religion and if the Civil Rulers do intermeddle herein they thereby invade Christs Kingly Government To which I answer 1. That this way of arguing put into other language would amount to thus much That because Christ is the King of his Church or of all Christians yea and of all the earth therefore Christians and the whole World ought not to be subject to any other King or Ruler but to Christ And this would serve the design of the highest Fifth Monarchy men if it had any weight in it 2. It is a gross falshood that no act that Christ doth as King may be performed by any other King There are some great things in the Kingly power of Christ which are wholly incommunicable in the nature of them to any other human person whomsoever being founded on his Mediatory Office Such are his giving the Sanction to the Laws and Precepts of the Gospel to become the rule of the Christian Religion his Soveraign dispensing divine grace upon account of his own merits his pronouncing the final sentence of Absolution and Condemnation and his having by a peculiar right an Vniversal authority over all the World all power in heaven and earth being committed to him And all such things as these are as far disclaimed from Kings as from other men But there are other acts of Christs Government of his Church where some thing of like nature ought to be performed by others though in a different manner thus Christ ruleth Christians and so may all Christian Kings do Christ doth protect his Church and so ought all Soveraign Powers to do Christ by his Authority encourageth the pious and devout and discountenanceth the negligent and so ought all Rulers as well as all other good men to do by theirs 3. If governing others with respect to Religion were peculiar to Christ himself and his Royal Authority the authority of Ecclesiastical Officers would by this method become void also for Christ hath not conveyed the peculiarities of his Royal Authority to them But as they in their places have authority from Christ so the civil power is in subordination to him who is King of Kings and is confirmed by him 5. There have been also other very pernicious principles which undermine the whole foundation of the Royal Supremacy both in matters civil and Ecclesiastical In our late dreadful times of Civil War the whole management of things against the King and the undertaking to alter and order publick affairs without him was a manifest and practical disowning the Kings Supremacy Popular Supremacy disclaimed Some persons then who would be thought men of sense did assert that though the King was owned to be supreme Governour yet the supremest Soveraign power was in the people Others declared that the title of Supreme Governour was an honourary title given to the King to please him instead of fuller power And in the Issue July 17. 1649. by a pretended Act it was called Treason to say that the Commons assembled in Parliament were not the supreme authority of the Nation But there were also some who then affirmed the whole body of the people to be superiour to the Parliament and that they might call them to an account 6. But because I hope these positions are now forsaken and because much in the following Book is designed against the dangerous effect of them in taking Arms I shall content my self here to observe three things First that those who would disprove the Royal Supremacy because of some actions which have been undertaken by some of the people or by any in their name against their Kings or even to the deposing of them do first stand bound to prove all these actions to be regular and justifiable or else it is no better argument than they might make use of against the authority of God from the disobedience of men 7. Secondly The asserting supremacy of Government in the body of the people is a position big with nonsense and irreligion 'T is nonsense like a whole Army being General since Supremacy of Government in the whole body of the people can be over no body unless something could be supreme over it self whereas if there be no higher power than what is in the whole body of the people this must be a state of
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
of them were assaulted by force overcome and slain and two of them in one year Salian An. m. 3264. n. 1. which Salianus observed as an ill omen giving indication of the fall of that State and Government Tres hoc anno in Israele Reges magnum collabentis Reipublicae argumentum During this time there was usurpation upon usurpation in that Kingdom and every one of the succeeding Usurpers had this Character that he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. And such Calamities then befel that Kingdom that during this time in a chief seat of these Wars 2 Kin. 15.16 all the Women with Child were ript up and this Kingdom being greatly weakened by its home divisions was in that compass of time twice invaded by Foreign Enemies at the first time it was forced to pay a very great composition 2 Kin. 15.19 20. and at the second time a great part of the Kingdom was lost and the Inhabitants carried Captive v. 29. And in the Reign of Hoshea who was the last of these Conspirators the Kingdom of Israel became first tributary to Assyria and soon after in his Reign was the utter Captivity and ruine of the ten Tribes and the total subversion of that Kingdom Josep Ant. l. 9. c. 14. and this as Josephus accounts it was the end of those Israelites a Kingdom divided against it self being brought to desolation So that if peace safety and prosperity be desireable to a people the violent resistance of superiours must be hurtful to them 3. And if we reflect on the ordinary effects of such undertakings for some few instances where the people did by Armes assert themselves into liberty from injurious oppressions which things our English constitution doth excellently and effectually provide against divers instances may be given where divine providence hath wrought deliverances for them who discharged the duties of obedience and many others of great devastation and ruine which hath been the consequent of such enterprises And the tragical relations which have attended Rebellious takeing Armes in the ancient Empires and more lately in the Eastern and Western Empires in Germany France England and other Countries might fill Volumes with a sad account of heavy Calamities cruel Sufferings and wicked practises 4. 2. By Authority becoming thereby ineffectual of its necessary ends Cons 2. It is the necessary continual interest of Subjects that so great a power be in their Soveraign that none in his Realm may withstand his authority This is consequent upon what was proved in the first Section And if any Prince should allow his Subjects when they think it necessary to take Armes against him which it cannot be his wisdom to do the Subjects would have a greater loss than gain thereby For instead of gaining that which silenceth their suspicious fears of their Princes power whose interest it is to defend and preserve them they lose the constant advantages of his Government since justice cannot be in all Cases so effectually administred nor peace so surely preserved And upon this very account they have much more cause for frequent fears of suffering greater evils from the mischievous designs of usurping spirits Theodor. Metochit Hist Rom. à Jul. Caes who coming like empty and hungry flies upon a sore to which they have sometimes been compared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They will grievously torture Now it is highly imprudent to seek a remedy for a possible inconvenience which may be otherwise prevented by procuring a more certain mischief As if all the strong men in a Nation should have their sinews cut lest they should hurt the weak whom the Laws desend though thereby the Realm be left without any men of might to oppose its Enemies 5. Cons 3. It is chiefly to be observed 3. Because there must still at last be owned a power that may not be resisted that unless all things be in utter confusion and Anarchy it is not possible but that there must be acknowledged such an authority which none have power of resisting but this can no where be so well placed for the subjects interest as in their Soveraign Prince and supreme Governour Wherefore to give place at present to fiction and imagination concerning any possible forms of Government it is all one to assert that there must somewhere be fixed such an authority against which none hath power of taking Armes and to assert that there must be in one or other some chief authority which hath the highest command of the strength and Military force of a Nation For whosoever hath this authority all the military power ought to be subject to him and none hath any right of commanding it against him But unless it be admitted that this commanding power is placed in some person or persons the Military power must be under no Governour nor can Subjects know whom to obey with respect to Peace and War Now this power of the Militia Ch. 1. Sect. 2. n. 12. must either be placed in the King as our Laws above-mentioned declare it is in this Realm or else either ordinarily or in some certain Cases in some other single person or Senate and Company of men or in the whole body of the people or in so great a number as will repute themselves to include the whole And the allowing this power to any of these last mentioned is lyable to as great or greater danger than the first 6. This is more dangerous to the people to be in any other than their Soveraign To place any such power over the Military Force of a Nation in any person or persons who are n ot the ordinary supreme Governour is a thing can scarce be supposed because the giving them this authority is the giving them power to execute supremacy of Government when they think it fit But if such a supposition be made this must needs cause constant jealousies between the oridinary supreme Governour and them and thereby that Nation and Government must be under much unsettlement And there is greater danger of this power being exorbitantly abused by such persons who may be tempted to affect their own further advancement than there can be in him who is already supreme and whose interest it is to preserve the liberties of his people 7. If a Senate supposed to have this power should become Patrons of injustice and opposers of known legal rights and the same Company of men have also authority of making laws and raising moneys it is not easy to know how far the ill consequences of this may extend For then they are put into the fullest capacity of oppressing innocent persons and depriving them of Estate Liberty or Life and of serving private interests of themselves or a party and even of establishing iniquity by a law And he that thinks that no such thing may be supposed that the major part of such a Senate may be either so formed or over-witted or over awed as to comply with unjust
attempts is a stranger to the proceedings in England from 1640. till 1660. 8. If it should be supposed that the chief power of the Sword and of commanding the military force should be in the whole body of the people or the major part of them this must include the greatest inconvenience of all the other Now though this supposition amongst other things wherewith it is chargeable is impossible because the whole body of the people of a great and populous Kingdom cannot meet together or consult and advise with one another and therefore can give no commands yet in our late distracted times there were some who embraced this assertion Gangr Part. 1. p. 33. In England several Pamphlets from them who allowed the Parliament to have power to levy War against the King did declare that the Parliament having their power from the people the people might call them to an account And Mr Rutherford also allowed Ruth of Civil Poliâ—r Qu. 19. p. 152. they gave to Commissioners of Parliament when they abuse it and may resist them and denude them of their fiduciary power as the King may be denuded of that same power by the three Estates To such extravagant excesses have mens ungoverned heats and passions hurried them But this supposition is a foundation of confusion and is not consistent with the people having any Governours over them to command them and thereupon would lay aside Gods Ordinance of Rule and Government It is also so opposite to Peace that it is the direct way to put the multitude upon insurrections and would turn the World into a disorderly Wilderness And it is dangerous to the state of the World and to all good subjects both because it is unpeaceable and because there can be no security given that the major part of the body of a people who are easily imposed upon at some times shall not incline to any ill design as they evidently did in the instances of Corah and Absalom besides others nearer home and also because rash and ill actions when managed by the body of the people are so much the worse because they are usually attended with violence and fury like the over-flowing of Waters 9. Wherefore since there must some where be placed such a supreme power as hath the highest right to command the force of a Nation and by consequence none can command it or any part of it against that power this from what I have discoursed cannot with so much safety to the people of this Realm be fixed any where else as in the King according to the excellent constitution of our Laws and Government For as Royal Government is free from that heady disorder which attends popular motions so the rule of its exercise is those laws which are not established without the consent of the people Plat. in Politic vers fin Upon this account Plato when he had viewed the various species of Government declared that that which was best of all was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Monarchy coupled with Laws 10. 4. From the insufficiency of the pretended security against these evils Cons 4. If it were granted that people had power to take Armes but not in any other Case save in the highest oppressions and utmost extremities this restriction with respect to the Case would be of very little use for the Peace of the World and the avoiding the inconveniencies and mischiefs above expressed For the instances in the first Section and the experience of this Kingdom and many others testify how apt many people are to be decoyed into gross mistakes in this Case and to be abused and misled by fair speeches of discontented and aspiring men and to draw up such heavy charges against excellent Governours as to conclude their ruine and destruction to be designed where there is not the least intention for their hurt And besides that gross falshoods may easily pass with the credulous vulgar undetected it is an easy thing to perswade many of them Sect. 4 when the ill actions of any men living under the Government are mnanifested to account these to be the faults of the Rulers who did not prevent or restrain them whereas it is no doubt a great truth which was asserted by Bishop Saunderson Sanders de oblig Consc prael 10. n. 7. that in the best constituted Common-wealths there are Gravamina non pauca not a few things amiss which the utmnost care and industry of Rulers and the severity of the Laws is not sufficient wholly to prevent or cure SECT IV. 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 petence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined 1. Of self-defence and self-preservation It is certain that prudence and the Laws of God and Man oblige every man to take just and due care of his own preservation but yet there have been some who under the specious appearance of pleading for self-defence have run into strange exorbitances against the authority of Government It hath been said that self preservation is the first principle and prime law of nature and thence it must be inferred that its obligation is so great in all Cases that all other Laws of Nature and Equity must give place thereto And with respect to resisting a Soveraign Prince by Armes Of Civil Policy Qu. 9. p. 59. Mr Rutherford asserteth that no community can without sin alienate this power of self-defence But though he speaks of the community his argument must have as much force concerning any private person viz. that as man hath nopower from God to murther his Brother so hath he no power to suffer himself or his Brother to be murthered And the consequence of this must be that all men are bound to take Armes against their Soveraign who shall judge any person to be in danger of losing his life without just cause The strange positions of Lessius and Becanus in allowing the killing a King in self defence I have above produced and amongst the Romish Doctors who are very generally prone to embrace disloyal principles Dom. Soto de Justit Jur. l. 1. Qu. 1. Art 2. Q. 5. Art 3. Q. 6. Art 4. Dom. Soto in this particular is as exorbitant as any I have met with He in several places gives such a description of a Tyrant in the administration of Government as discontented persons may easily apply to the most worthy Prince that is that he makes Lawes and orders affairs for his own private and not the publick good Id. ibid. l. 5. qu. 1. Art 3. And he declares that such a person who hath a right title to govern may not be killed by a private person until a publick sentence be declared against him and then any man may be made the Executioner But then he adds Besides this if he forcibly set upon a free
Laws of a Government condemn innocent persons who dye Martyrs they may not take Armes either out of great averseness to some good or lawful thing which they embrace or out of favour and kindness to their Enemies and yet where this is done according to the publick laws under which they live it is unquestionably no sufficient Plea to take Armes Of this nature were the Persecutions and all the sufferings of the Christians under the Pagan and Heretical Emperours when the Laws of the Empire were against Christianity and the true profession thereof And from the History of the Book of Esther it seemeth clear that when at Hamans Request Ahasuerus had granted that all the Jews should be destroyed they had no resolution of defending their lives by Armes till they had liberty to that purpose granted by Ahasuerus And the obtaining this libery was part of the benefit they received by the interecession of Esther and the advice of Mordecai Grot. in Esth 8.11 Esth 8.11 Ch. 9.2 And though Grotius thinks that they might have done this by the right of laws of nature yet the Constitution of the Persian Monarchy placing so large a power of life and death in their Kings of which the hanging Haman v. Dan. 6.24 Esth 7.8 10. and the casting Daniels Accusers into the Lions Den is sufficient evidence no resistance could have been made but against the authority of the Laws and Government under which they lived And there is so great an agreement between the condition of these Jews and of the Primitive Christians under their persecutions that if the laws of nature would have allowed these Jews to resist it must also have been lawful for the Christians to have done the same which is contrary to their general Profession and universal practice or else it must be said that the Christians were prohibited this by such a peculiar Christian-Law as is contrary to the Law of Nature which would be a great slander and calumny upon our Religion 16. Upon this account the Novatians were to be blamed Socr. Hist l. 2. c. 38. gr who when the Souldiers of Constantius the Arian Emperour were by his Command sent to force them to become Arians they took Armes in defence of their Profession of Religion especially because the secular laws of the Empire concerning Religion were directed by the particular Edicts of the Emperour who was then a fierce Arian And in such cases though men were able against the Laws and Government to defend their Bodies by resistance they might better defend their Souls and their Religion by suffering as Christians otherwise the spirit of a Jewish Zealot of whom there were great numbers in Jewry among the unbelieving Jews after our Saviours death must be preferred before that of a Christian Martyr Yet where the Laws of any Realm condemn any persons though underservedly they may flee or use any lawful means of escape but not take Armes for their own defence But with respect to such proceedings as these The advantage of the English Laws our English Government gives us this advantage above what divers ancient and modern nations had that the true Religion is established by our Laws and that no Law can be repealed or altered to the prejudice of English Subjects by the pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers For a Soveraign Power against law and right to resolve to ruine great numbers of Subjects is so inhuman and unlikely that it ought not to be supposed against our ordinary duty and the representatives of the Commons of England 17. The only thing which in this case can farther be proposed is whether if a supreme Governour should according to his own pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subject Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by taking Armes And it is to be heedfully considered that this Question is much notional and speculative and is of small concernment to practice because notwithstanding suspicions and jealousies which may be unreasonably fomented there hath never been in this Kingdome or in most others if not all any such enterprise by the true Soveraign Prince against peaceable and innocent Subjects during our Histories for many hundred years And it is hard to find any such instance of a lawful Prince undertaking to ruine a great part of his People against the plain declarations of the established Laws of the Realm 18. Had Antiochus Epiphanes been the true Soveraign of the Jews his attempting to destroy all those who would observe Circumcision and the Worship of the true God which the Political Laws in Judea established by God and unrepealeable by Antiochus did enjoin them to perform this had then been much to this purpose But he was none of their lawful King but an Enemy and yet died under the dismal lashes of a tormenting Conscience for these and such like wicked actions as I above shewed Jos An. l. 12. c. 6. Liv. Dec. 5. l. 5. And when he invaded Judea he was as a Lion bereaved of his Prey being forced to return from his designed attempts upon Egypt Justin l. 34. by the resolute denunciation of Popilius the Embassadour from Rome The Paris Massacre was also of somewhat a like kind with respect to the greatest numbers who were therein murdered For though I acknowledge the practice of some of them being in Armes about that time was not defensible and towards them this might possibly be intended as an Artifice and stratagem of War or else perhaps it had never been yet that so great numbers as about an hundred thousand should in cold blood be-cruelly assassinated and murdered and most of them manifestly innocent persons without ever being judicially accused Tryed Convicted or Condemned by the Law was such a piece of barbarous savage Cruelty as can scarce be paralleled as some have noted under Mahometanism 19. But if ever any such strange Case as is proposed should really happen in the World I confess it would have its great difficulties De. J.B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Grotius thinks that in this utmost extremity the use of such defence as a last refuge ultimo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the care of the common good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto enclude a disclaiming the governing those persons as subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King And then the expressions of our publick Declaration and acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Christian subjection and Vnchrist Rebel Part. 3. p. 519. edit 1585. But Bishop Bilson speaking of such Popish Cruelties as that I lately mentioned saith they are able to set grave men and good men at their wits end and make them justly
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
They either beyond due bounds exalt it so high as not to reserve that respect which belongeth to God and Christian institutions which is done by some few or else depress it so low as to devest it directly of its authority in causes Ecclesiastical if not to erect and acknowledge some other power Papal or popular as rival or paramount thereunto And therefore it is a work worthy the care and industry of one who loveth truth and goodness to endeavour the healing such a Fountain of deadly evil which hath diffused it self into so many several streams and Channels And I heartily and humbly beseech the Almighty God and Governour of all the Earth that he will guide and assist my undertaking and dispose the hearts of all men to a right understanding of truth and a serious performance of their duty 4. Now for the preservation of the peace and Government of Kingdoms these two things are especially necessary 1. That there be an acknowledgment of the Rulers just authority in his Dominions against all false pretenders and those who would undermine it or incroach upon it 2. And are asserted in this Realm That there be due care for maintaining that fidelity in the subjects which is suitable hereunto And both these things are so far provided for in the Constitutions of our Church and Kingdom that the Royal Authority is therein fully acknowledged and asserted and all Ecclesiastical persons and together with them civil and military Officers besides divers other subjects of this Realm are required to yield to the King that authority and duty which consisteth chiefly in these two things 1. The asserting in the King the Supremacy of Government in all causes against the claim of any Foreign pretenders or any others and their engaging to maintain all those Royalties which belong to the Crown 2. That such a faithful Allegiance be performed to him as disclaimeth all right and power whether by pretended Papal Excommunication or otherwise to set free any of his subjects from their duty of Loyalty and obedience and particularly declareth it unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against him And of the matter of our publick acknowledgments which relate to these two heads I shall discourse concerning the former head in this Book and the latter in the second Book 5. The Supremacy of Government in the King of England over this Realm In our Statute Laws and all other his Dominions which is his just and undoubted right is plainly declared in our most solemn publick Constitutions both Civil and Ecclesiastical It was asserted in our Laws in the time of King Richard the Second 16 Ric. 2.5 that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalty of the same Crown and to none other And in the time of King Henry the Eighth 24 Hen. 8.12 it was declared in Parliament that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accounted in the world governed by one supreme Head and King having the dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a body politick of spiritualty and temporalty be bounden and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience And it is usual for the Lords and Commons jointly even in the framing Acts of Parliament to mention the King under the stile of Our Soveraign Lord the King which is obvious in our Statutes By out Laws also since the Reformation the usurpations which had incroached upon his Supremacy are discarded the ancient right of Jurisdiction restored to the Crown 1 Eliz. 1. and the Oath of Supremacy established wherein this Royal Authority is solemnly owned acknowledged and declared and which is taken by all the Clergy of England and many others 6. The Oath of Supremacy The Oath of Supremacy containeth in it three things 1. The asserting the Kings Highness to be the only supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal 2. A disowning and renouncing all foreign Jurisdiction and authority within this Realm 3. An engaging true allegiance to the King and his Successors and a defence of the Jurisdictions and pre-eminencies of the Crown The lawfulness fitness and reasonableness of which things as they are expressed in that Oath I am the more enclined carefully to consider Weights and Measures Ch. 20. because a very learned man too readily and unadvisedly expressed his dissatisfaction concerning some clauses thereof But as the two first things contained therein will be the chief matter of my discourse so under the first nothing else need be much enquired after save the supremacy of the King in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes 7. For that the Kings Majesty is in general the chief Governour of this Realm is as evident as that this is the Kingdom of England and it is as needless a thing to say any thing in proof thereof as to go about to prove the Sun to be risen at Noon-day For there is an actual constant visible exercise of this Government in such an ample manner as to extend it self to all persons whomsoever in the Realm and this authority is very plainly acknowledged and confirmed throughout the whole body of our English laws and the Constitution of the Kingdom And the Title of our present Soveraign is manifestly undoubted by clear succession and descent not only from the Kings since the Conquest but from those before it For Margaret the Heiress of the Saxon Kings was about the time of the Conquest married to Malcom King of Scotland from whence our Soveraign is descended and thereby M. Paris an 1067. as M. Paris expressed it Regum Angliae nobilitas ad reges devoluta est Scotorum 8. And Ecclesiastical Constitutions This Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical is frequently asserted in the Constitutions of our Church It is owned and declared in the Book of Articles Art 37. And the Canons of our Church not only acknowledge this Supremacy Can. 1. but also enjoin Ministers frequently to teach the same Can. 36. And they moreover require subscription thereunto according to the purport of the Oath of Supremacy from all persons who come to be ordained or to be admitted to any living or employment in the Church Can. 2. and denounce Excommunication ipso facto against all impugners thereof in causes Ecclesiastical SECT II. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 2 1. To prevent the inconveniency which ariseth from misunderstanding it is needful to consider what is meant by the phrase of supreme Governour Of Supreme Government which will easily be discerned if we first consider what is understood by Governing Now as Governing eâ—cludes a power of superiority over
Christian Emperours themselves so we have this evidence that none of these Emperours affected or ordinarily used this title if they did at all own it not only in that Gratian openly declared against it but also 1. In that none of them used it in any of their publick edicts as was done usually by the Pagan Emperours 2. Nor so far as can be collected from the various medals stamped in their times did they make use thereof as the Pagan Emperours had done in any of their Coins which Mr Selden acknowledgeth Seld. ibid. 3. It is mentioned by Sozomen Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. as one of the notes of Julians forsaking Christianity that he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Pontifex 4. But when God eminently revealing his will by Moses had formed a more publick Ecclesiastical and civil power separated in the old Testament ample and visible establishment of a Church in the World under the Jewish dispensation than was before it he then divided the Kingly authority and the Priesthood into distinct hands And nothing is more manifest than that under Judaism the Priesthood was fixed in the Family of Aaron Ex. 28.1 ch 40.15 And when Corah who was of the chief Family of the Levites which had the charge of the most holy things Num. 16.1 compared with Num. 4.4 c. and his Company undertook presumptuously to invade this office they were punished with severe dreadful and miraculous judgments in that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the Company of Corah Num. 16.32 33. and the fire that came out from the Lord consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 3. Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 693. v. 35. and as the ancient Jewish Writers tell us there was not any member of these men remaining which could receive a Burial and from hence the Jews received a strict admonition that no man whosoever who was not of the seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense before the Lord v. 40. And this peculiar priviledge of the Family of Aaron was further confirmed by the miracle of Aarons rod blossoming Num. 17 1.-10 5. And that the King and chief ruler among the Jews being not of the line of Aaron might not intermeddle with the execution of this Priestly Office is manifest besides the general rules of the law from other special instances For when Saul undertook to offer Sacrifice 1 Sam. 13.9 13 14. he was sharply rebuked by Samuel and thereupon God denounced this heavy judgment against him that his Kingdom must not continue And when Vzziah attempted to offer incense he was smitten with leprosy for this transgression Ant. Jud. l. 9. c. 11. 2 Chr. 26.16 22. to which Josephus addeth other testimonies of the divine displeasure against him and telleth us that this judgment upon Vzziah was inflicted on one of their solemn Feast days which if it was so might render it the more remarkable And the reason why God fixed the Priesthood in the Family of Aaron and not in Moses and the successive Governours was not chiefly Ant. l. 3. c. 10. as Josephus representeth Moses to speak from the worth and desert of Aaron But it tended much to excite the greater reverence and awe towards the majesty of God and an higher veneration for the offices of Religion that no person no not the highest among men might perform these sacred offices of approaching to God by offering Sacrifices and Oblations save only those persons whom God had particularly set apart for that purpose And withall the Priest blessing in the name of the Lord and especially Aarons putting the sins of the people upon the head of the live-Goat Lev. 16.21 22. which included the applying Gods pardon to them and other Priestly performances which were not mere actions of natural Religion but depended upon Gods institution could not be performed but by an especial and peculiar authority derived from God to that intent or in the language of the Apostle Heb. 5.3 No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron 7. And in the state of Christianity And under the Gospel as Christ hath established the Officers of his Church so there seemeth rather more reason for the peculiar distinct institution of these Officers under the Christian Church than under the Jewsih For while the Jewish Priests chiefly acted for men towards God in Sacrifices and Oblations the Christian Officers do in more things than they did act from God and in his name towards men which in the nature of the thing doth more especially require an authority peculiarly received from God For who can deprive any person of the communion of that Society which Christ hath founded or receive and restore them unto it but by the authority which he hath appointed Or how can any persons consecrate Symbols and dispense them as sealing the Covenant of grace and exhibiting from Christ the blessings and benefits thereof to the due receivers unless they be those who have received Commission from him to this purpose Or who can pronounce absolution in Christs name which is also implicitely included in the administration of the Sacraments and other ministerial Offices unless he hath given them such particular authority And the same may be said of solemn Ecclesiastical benedictions with imposition of hands and particularly of the ordination of such Officers in the Christian Church who are to be invested with this authority 8. And that this Ecclesiastical authority under the Gospel should be committed to peculiar Officers and not fixed in them who have the civil power is that which the wisdom of our Saviour hath appointed who did not call secular rulers to be his Apostles This was partly requisite because there are different qualifications to fit persons for secular government and for presiding in the Church and because the Christian Church being called to take up the Cross should not be destitute of its guides in a time of persecution when it may need them most But this also maketh the communion of the Church it self as it is a peculiar Christian Society and its dependance on the grace of God and its relation to him to be the more visible and remarkable by the distinct Officers and authority constituted to dispense the mysteries of his grace And it tendeth also to conciliate an higher honour and veneration for the particular institutions of God and our Saviour in the new Covenant in that the administration of them is the proper designed work of such peculiar officers of his appointment And therefore if any would make the Ecclesiastical offices to be an authority appendent or annexed unto the civil he undertakes to unite those things which are in Synesius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 57. such as cannot be knit or woven into one another 9. But it is to be observed Ecclesiastical
that whatsoever difference is pretended between them and Christian Princes is of no force to exclude the latter from enjoying the like authority 2. The Ark. Concerning the first I shall design to omit many things but to observe so much as is needful under these several branches First concerning the Ark of the Covenant This was in a peculiar manner sacred and none might carry it but the Priests or Levites of the Family of Kohath and Vzzah died for touching it and the men of Bethshemesh for looking into it It contained the two tables of the Covenant which were the writing of God Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2395 2397 2398. Lempereur in Middoth c. 4. Sect. 5. was placed in the holy of holies the top of it was the mercy-seat and thereupon the Cloud which was the Symbol of divine presence the peculiar Shecinah so much magnified by the Jewish Writers and the Ark and this divine presence were two of the five eminent things wanting in the second temple and there was nothing more sacred than this R. Dav. Kimchi in Hagg. 1.8 in the peculiar Oeconomy of the Jewish dispensation Yet whereas the Ark was sometimes separated from the tabernacle and the temple it is evident that it was David the King who ordered and appointed the removing of the ark of God from Kiriathjearim to the House of Obededom and from thence to the tent which he had pitched for it in Zion 2 Sam. 6.1 2 10 12. 2 Chr. 1.4 and when he fled from Absalom by his command to Zadok and Abiathar the chief Priests the Ark of God which did accompany him was carried back again to Jerusalem 2 Sam. 15.25 29. And it was at the command of King Salomon that the Ark was brought from Zion and placed in the temple which he had built 2 Chr. 6.11 1 Kin. 8.1 4. And when amongst other corruptions in Religion the Ark was removed from the holy of holies it was again replaced there by the authority of King Josiah 2 Chr. 35.3 So that the Kings of Israel and Judah took care of this holy thing Salian M. 2544. n. 431. which as Salianus expresseth it was nobilissima pars sanctuarii quasi thronus Dei locus unde oracula fundebantur 3. The Temple The holy temple was the house of God and it with the Altar were in an especial manner dedicated unto God and yet the Kings authority had to do with it and the affairs thereof The Laws of God required that the presumptuous and wilful murderer should be taken from Gods altar that he might die not allowing as Philo noteth Phil. de lâ—g special that the temple which was Gods holy place should be a refuge for those unholy persons who are enemies unto God Whereupon by Salomons authority Joab was commanded from the bornes of the altar 1 Kin 2.30 and when he refused to come from thence this his carriage considered the command of Salomon to Benajah to slay him there seemeth warranted by the law above-mentioned and is vindicated even by Salianus and Cornelius à Lapide Salian an 3022. n. 21. A Lapide in 3 Reg. 2.31 The cleansing and purging the temple from all defilement was performed by the commandment of Hezekiah 2 Chr. 25.3 5 15. and the like was again done in the reformation undertaken by Josiah 2 Kin. 23.4 6 7. The repairs also of the temple and the manner of disposing of the treasures thereof to that purpose are taken care of by the order and command of Joash 2 Chr. 24.4 8 11 12 14. and by the commandment of Hezekiah were Chambers prepared within the limits of the temple building for the receiving of offerings and tithes and things dedicated 2 Chr. 31.11 13. 4. The Priests and Levites The Kings had a manifest Soveraignty over the Priests who were the chief officers of the temple service yea even with respect to their service in the worship of God After the Priesthood was established in the Family of Aaron Aaron himself though high Priest and elder Brother Abarbinel in Ex. 30. Phil. de praem poenis Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 2. n. 2 3. acknowledged Moses to be his Lord who had the secular soveraignty is in the Scripture stiled a King in Jesurun and is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers to have had a royal authority Ex. 32.22 Num. 12.11 And though Moses enjoyed a singular dignity in being a divine Legislator yet that this title was given and was due to Moses as chief civil Governour is manifest because Ahimelech also the High Priest giveth unto Saul the same title owning him to be his his Lord and himself to be his servant 1 Sam. 22.12 15. And David speaking to Zadok the Priest taketh to himself this title of being his Lord 1 Kin. 1.33 and gives him a command to anoint Salomon And it was very usual for the Kings by their authority to command the Priests even with respect to their temple service and to have such commands observed as appears in the reign of Salomon 2 Chr. 8.15 of Hezekiah 2 Chr. 29.21 24 27. and of Josiah 2 Chr. 35.10 16. The courses of the Priests attendance on their service was ordered by David 1 Chr. 24.3 by Salomon 2 Chr. 8.14 and by Hezekiah 2 Chr. 31.2 And by the authority of Hezekiah and his Princes the great Passover in the second month was observed 2 Chr. 30.2 3 4 5. which was acceptable to God v. 12 20. 5. Gr. de Valent Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. punct 4. Layman The. Mor. Lib. 4. Tr. 9. c. 8. n. 2. Wherefore that argument which some Romanists make use of to prove that Princes have no authority over Ecclesiastical persons because God under the Old Testament took the Levites to be his and he gave them unto Aaron and his Sons Num. 3.9 12. and Num. 8.11 19. and therefore say they they were under subjection to no secular power nor to any other save only to Aaron and his Successors is a very weak inference sinc the High Priests themselves were manifestly under the Royal authority For this being Gods Ordinance and his people being under its government it can be no way incongruous that what is his should be under the inspection of that which hath his authority And that the Levites were under the Government of the Kings is obvious from the holy Scriptures 1 Chr. 15.4 11 12 ch 16.4 2 Chr. 29.30 and from many other places E 4 6. The 6. The Kings Soveraignty over the Prophets is also very evident The Prophets For though the Prophets when they delivered their message from God and in his name might require obedience even from Kings unto the God of Israel yet that themselves as subjects of the Realm were under the Kings authority is sufficiently testified by the instance of the Prophet Nathan besides what I shall superadd in the following Chapter For Nathan acknowledged himself the servant of
difference of Judaism and Christianity considered with respect to supremacy But as to the particular subject matter of this authority which cannot possibly be the same in Judaisme and Christianity there must of necessity appear a difference in the exercise of this supreme authority many things being allowable under the law which are not so under the Gospel But it is here further pleaded that the Kings under the Law might be further interested in Ecclesiastical affairs than the Gospel will admit because the Church and state were not so much distinguished under the legal Oeconomy as under the Evangelical the Mosaical law being the foundation and rule both of the Jewish Church and of the political government But in truth the proper fixed Kingly authority in the Family of Israel was not so much established as only allowed by the Mosaical law and though there was a true royal power in Moses and in the Judges yet this was not fixed and determined to be the constant Government by a particular law And the Priesthood under the law was as fully distinct from the civil power as the Church government under the Gospel is neither of them deriving themselves from the civil nor resolving themselves into it But in both these dispensations as the Ecclesiastical government was appointed by them so was the civil also in general established yet so that the foundation which it hath in the laws of nature is antecedent unto both And if there be any difference as to subjection of things and persons Ecclesiastical unto Princes it might seem plausible which yet is not to be insisted upon that the Jewish Priesthood might the rather pretend exemption from the royal power as being established before the fixed royal line 9. Epil B. 1. Ch. 20. Right of the Church ubi supra It is also urged and must be granted that the Christian Church is of a larger extent than the limits of any single temporal soveraign whereas the Jewish Church and State were one and the same body except the case of some Proselytes such as Naaman was among the Gentiles And from hence it is to be acknowledged that by the determination of Catholick Councils or by the universal practice of Christians abroad any particular Christian Kingdom and the Soveraign thereof may be obliged to entertain and establish some things otherwise indifferent in a compliance with these generally received usages and thereby with respect to the peace unity and honour of the Christian Church Of this nature are some things relating to Canonical ordinations the solemnizing of marriage the observation of the Church festivals and the rules for communicating with other parts of the Christian Church Indeed no such rule as this could have any force in the Jewish Church but yet this consideration cannot hinder either the extent or exercise of the Princes authority in the Christian Church unless this power had consisted in a liberty to lay aside all rules in matters adiaphorous relating to Religion besides his own pleasure Whereas it doth consist in such a right as cannot be restrained or annulled by any power upon earth to establish by civil sanctions what is useful about Religion And his being obliged in Conscience to admit and embrace such particular things as conduce to the Vnity or welfare of the Christian Church which is a duty every Christian oweth unto God is no more prejudicial to his supremacy of Government in this very case than a private mans being bound to admit what general custom hath made a part of decency and civility is prejudicial to or inconsistent with his right and power of governing and commanding his own actions 10. Wherefore it remains that the supremacy of Christian Princes notwithstanding these things objected is the same in substance with the Supremacy of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion but in some particularities there must be a difference in the way of its exercise And this may possibly be all that Mr Thorndike intended who expressing a difference in this matter between the state of the law and the Gospel referreth this sometimes a Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 11. to the consideration of the Churches Vnity or else b Review Ch. 1. p. 11. as a stop to Erastus Yet he plainly asserteth from the consideration that the Apocalypse foretelleth the conversion of the Empire to Christianity c Review p. 15. that it cannot be doubted that Christian powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient people always had by the making Christianity the Religion of the State And he also admits d Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 9 10 11. Review ch 1. p. 13 14. the same power in matters Ecclesiastical both in the Christian state and in the Jewish to flow from the nature of Soveraign power and the necessary duty of this power being employed to advance Religion 11. Of the Consecration of Churches Another thing which may possibly deserve some consideration is from the general usage and practice of the Church concerning the dedication and consecration of Churches Some have thought that when Salomons Temple was consecrated the consecration thereof was mainly performed by Salomon himself who was the King this is urged by the Leviathan Leviath Ch. 40. Hospin de Templ l. 4. c. 2. and some men of learning seem to favour this notion speaking of him Ipse dedicationis praecipuas obivit partes that he himself discharged the chief part of the dedication But the general practice of the Christian Church hath been so far as any account thereof can be discovered to have their Churches dedicated not by Princes undertaking to celebrate that solemnity but by the Bishops of the Church C. 1. q. 2. c. placuit de Consecrat dist 1. Leon. Ep. 88. ad Germ. Gal. Episcop De Vit. Const c. 40 43 44. And this is not only manifest from divers Canons mentioned by Gratian and from the Epistles of Leo but the practice of the Church herein is evident in the time of Constantine the Great For there is a particular account given by Eusebius in the life of Constantine of the dedication of a famous Church in Jerusalem to which he telleth us divers Bishops were assembled and did bear their parts in that solemnity And the same author acquainteth us that in his reign there were in divers Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. consecrations of those places of divine worship which were then lately built and the meeting of Bishops to that end 12. But that this seeming difficulty may be cleared it may be observed that there were three sort of things done at the consecration of the temple at Jerusalem 1. Salomon whom God had chosen to build his House when he had finished it yieldeth up his right and presenteth it to God and by Prayer desireth Gods acceptance and that it might be useful to the designed end and the
O house of David thus saith the Lord execute judgment in the morning declaring hereupon that they could not judge unless they could be summoned to receive judgment from others Which is such a ridiculous pretence of proof against the evidence of common sense which would serve as well to prove Parents to be subject to their Children Masters to their servants Schick de Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 9. n. 2. and their great Sanhedrim to another Consistory as to the purpose they produce it And yet this testimony and tradition of the Gemara though very irrational is made use of very much by them who depress the royal authority among the Jews and advance the Synedrial SECT II. The determination of many weighty cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the royal power examined and refuted 1. The fautors of this Synedrial soveraignty who would make the regal authority to truckle under it do under that polity exempt the decision of the most material cases of right from the Kings Judicature And they do also debar him of all authority to undertake arbitrary wars appoint inferiour officers and judges or to have any interest in enacting laws and constitutions Canin Disquis in Loc. N. Test c. 7. which Caninius doth roundly and plainly express telling us that the Sanhedrim bella decernebant resque omnes publicas administrabant And so there is neither civil nor military supreme authority Sect. 2 no more than Ecclesiastical reserved for the King 2. But I shall undertake to prove that the eminent power by many placed in the Sanhedrim by devesting the Jewish Kings thereof was certainly not seated in any such Synedrial power in the flourishing times of the Jewish Monarchy or before the Captivity of Babylon but was fixed in their Kings both as to cases of judiciary decision and of authoritative consultation and constitution And if either the traditions of the Jewish Writers mentioned in the former Section or those which I shall now discourse of had any good foundation I should readily then grant the consequence hence urged by P. de Marca to be true De Conc. Sac. Imp. l. 2. c. 5. n. ult Proleg p. 25. that they do not deserve well at the hands of Christian Princes who would measure their authority and dignity from the exercise of royal power under the times of the Old Testament 3. Several judiciary cases claimed as peculiar to the Synedrial power are enumerated by our Author de Synedriis De Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Sanh c. 1. n. 5. out of which I shall single out those three chief Cases which are in the first place mentioned by the Talmud concerning a Tribe a false Prophet and the High Priest And these I the rather fix upon De Jur. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. because the learned Grotius made choice of these as special instances of cases peculiarly belonging to that Court and not subject to the King saith he quaedam cognitionum genera regi videntur non permissa ut de tribu pontifice propheta And according to the sense of Grotius Selden speaks of these three cases De Syn. I. 3. c. 9. n. 1. that they are adeo Synedrio magno propria peculiaria ut ne regi quidem ipsi permitterentur And the first of these concerneth things temporal of great moment and the other two cases Ecclesiastical 4. The judgment of a tribe This judgment concerning a tribe is by some declared to be when the greater part of a tribe or the whole becometh guilty of Apostasie or idolatry Coch. not ad Sanh c. 1. n. 21. Grot. de Imper. c. 11. n. 15. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 4. n. 3 4. But Mr Selden though he acknowledgeth this to be the sense of divers Jewish Writers yet his opinion is that all other cases whatsoever concerning a tribe were only determinable by this great Sanhedrim which he thinks is not to be doubted And the consequence of this seemeth plain that if the whole or major part of any tribe became factious or guilty of rebellion as most of them were both after Absalom and after Sheba the King had then no authority to reduce them But that these things are empty dreams and wholly void of truth will be manifest from these following instances 5. When the two tribes and half desired an inheritance on the other side Jordan they spake of this to Moses Eleazar and the Princes of the Congregation Num. 32.2 but the power of determination was in Moses who commanded Eleazar and the Princes concerning them v. 28. and he gave them that land v. 33. Jos 14.3 and so also Josephus declareth Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 7. The dividing the land of Canaan amongst the other tribes was of great concern to the whole tribes and was begun by Eleazar Joshua and the heads of the Children of Israel Jos 14.1 but by the authority of Joshua whom God appointed to divide it ch 13.6 7. and the main part of this division was made not by the Sanhedrim of seventy one but by three men out of every tribe Jos 18.4 5. who acted by Joshua's command v. 4 8. and he cast lots for their divisions and is said to have divided the land v. 10. and also in Josephus Antiq. l. 5. c. 1. When the two tribes and half were suspected of apostasie in building another Altar Phinehas and ten other Princes with him and not any great Sanhedrim had the hearing of it and did clear them Jos 22.13 14 30 31 32. In the time of Rehoboam when the tribes of Israel demanded greater liberty than they had had under Salomon 1 Kin. 12.1 3 4. here was no set Sanhedrim which must determine concerning them but the King himself was to resolve them either according to the counsel of the old men or the young as himself pleased v. 6. 14. And in Hezekiahs time when both the two tribes under the King of Judah and the ten tribes under the King of Israel were fallen to idolatry Hezekiah by his royal authority reformed Judah and in his piety perswaded Israel and in these cases was no appearance of a Synedrial power 6. Of a Prophet Cun. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 12. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 6. n. 1. The judgment of a false prophet is frequently claimed as peculiar to the Synedrial power that is according to Selden the judging him who shall speak any thing in the name of a false God or shall speak falsly in the name of the true God But had the tryal of a true or false Prophet been peculiar to them it is not so probable that Asa would have been obeyed in committing the Seer to Prison this being then a case coram non judice and against their laws and superiour authority Nor is it likely that it would be made the matter of great commendation of Hezekiah that he put not Micab
matter may have recourse besides other cases to the voluntary Wars of Amaziah against Joash 2 Chr. 25.17 18 19 20. and of Josiah against Pharaoh Nechoh 2 Chr. 35.20 21 22. Where as those Wars are related to be undertaken by the choice of these two Kings of Judah so the Kings against whom they Warred sent Embassies for Peace not to any Sanhedrim but to them To this I add that if this notion had any thing of truth in it it might possibly be emproved far toward the justifying the rebellion of Absalom Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 5. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 15. n. 4. Schic de Jur. R. c. 1. Th. 2. against his own Father For if the power of War was in this Court it is altogether unlikely that David in his sudden flight from his Royal City should have them with him but it is much more likely if there was then any such Court it did remain with Absalom in Jerusalem where only that Court could regularly fit according to the Jewish Canons especially if that be admitted for truth Ch. Par. in Ps 140. v. 10. which is declared by the Chaldee Paraphrast that Ahitophel the chief Conspirator was the head of the Sanhedrim 14. Inferiour Courts Sanh ubi sup Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinq in Chal. Par. in Thren c. 5. v. 14. The right of appointing inferiour Courts of Judicature among the Tribes of Israel is claimed also as peculiar to this Sanhedrim And that the Judges of inferiour Courts must be made Rabbies and receive imposition of hands from this great Court is declared by Quinquarboreus But as we have undeniable evidence that in the military Government divers Captains and Generals were appointed by David and Benajah by Solomon so also David established 2700. Levites to be rulers over the two Tribes and half 1 Chr. 26.32 And as the holy Scriptures gives us an account of the Officers and Judges in his time over the other Tribes Antiq. Jud. l. 7. c. 11. Josephus informs us that six thousand of the Levites were made Judges by David And if Judges in the Land had not usually been established by the King there had been no colour for that plausible pretence of Absalom against his Father by telling the men of Israel their matters were good and right but there was no man deputed of the King to hear them 2 Sam. 15.3 Nor can any thing be more clear than that Jehosaphat set judges in the land throughout all the Cities of Judah City by City 2 Chr. 19.5 and also a chief court in Jerusalem v. 8 -11 but that this was no such Sanhedrim as the Rabbins mention I shall hereafter manifest And that the ancient Jewish Writers did acknowledge it a right of the King to appoint judges and judicatures will appear from Philo Phil. de Creat Princip who discoursing of a Prince with a special respect to the Jewish Government directs him to write the Book of the Law with his own hand and to read therein and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse others who shall partake in the rule and Government that is as he expresseth it that the lesser causes he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commit them to inferiour Rulers 15. Of making Laws Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinquarb ubi sup De Syned l. 2. c. 9. n. 7. Carpz in Schickard c. 1. Theor 2. p. 15. The authority of making any new Laws or Constitutions is also pretended to be peculiar to the Synedrial power And consequently their Kings must be denied to have any interest in the legislation since these Rabbinical Writers do generally affirm that the King might have no place in the Sanhedrim nor any share in its authority as hath been observed among others by Selden and Carpzovius But whereas the chief things reported to us concerning the Reign of the Kings of Judah consist either in their care of Religion or their military atchievements we have an instance of a standing military law or statute for dividing the Spoil which was established by David 1 Sam. 30.24 25. And I have in the former Chapter evidenced their establishing Orders in matters Ecclesiastical such were the division made by David of the Priests and Levites for their attendance on the service of God Ant. l. 7. c. 11. and others of like nature and Josephus tells us that this division was observed as long as the Temple and its worship stood Sect. 3 To which we may also adjoin the particular Laws or Constitutions made by Josiah and Nehemiah concerning some of the Priests abovementioned SECT III. Of the antiquity of the Synedrial power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate 1. From what hath been discoursed it is sufficiently evident that whatsoever Courts of Judicature or Officers there were in Judah none of them under the Jewish Monarchy ever did vie for Soveraignty with it but were in subjection to it There was no such authority De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. as is challenged by Schickard to the Sanhedrin who calleth it Synedrium magnum regiae majestatis compar or by Grotius Grot. in Mat. 5.22 who in the reign of the Kings owneth Senatûs authoritatem regiae velut parem in which expressions is asserted its equal or coordinate power with the Kings which Selden also allows Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p 667. Yet for giving further evidence to the truth of what I have above expressed I shall assert 2. That this chief Synedrial Government among the Jews The Original of the great Sanhedrin was since the Captivity was of a later extract than the time of the captivity and had its first original since the decay of the true Royal power There was indeed all along the Mosaical dispensation an High Priest whom the Law of Moses obliged the Judge or King in arduous and weighty matters and in such only to consult and by him to ask counsel of God And they had also Elders and men of wisdom and with some of these the Laws of equity and prudence would direct the King to advise And thus much may not improbably be the sense of those words of Josephus proposing this Rule for the King Joseph Ant. l. 4. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to act without the High Priest and the consent of the Senators Yet Salmasius thinketh that these words of Josephus Defens Regia c. 2. p. 47. are suitable only to those Princes who ruled about the end of the Jewish state and unless they be taken in the sense I have mentioned they are certainly no rule either founded on the law or agreeable to the government of the House of David And indeed Josephus who saw and felt the calamities which the Jews sustained under the Roman Kings was no friend to Monarchy and though he be far from the Rabbinical strain
yet sometimes in this particular he plainly misrepresenteth the laws of Moses as is done in some expressions of this very Chapter now mentioned 3. The Israelites also had Courts of Judicature and Judges in their several Precincts commanded by the law as is necessary in every Kingdom and orderly Government Both in its supreme power and they had one chief court to receive appeals from the inferiour enjoined Deut. 17.8 9 10. But all these in the time of the Royal Government and all matters of justice whatsoever were under the authority of the King ordered by him and dependent upon him Gemar in Sanh c. 2. Sect. 6. Even the Talmud declareth that all that is contained in that Parashah of the law which treateth concerning the King is under the Government of the King which Parashah or Section beginneth Deut. 16.18 and endeth Deut. 21.10 and so taketh in this whole seventeenth Chapter But we have much better evidence hereof both in what I have above observed of the Kings power concerning matters of judicature and in that God chargeth upon the King the care of executing justice Jer. 21.12 ch 22.2 3 4 15 16. See also 2 Kin. 15.6 4. But this Rabbinical Sanhedrim whose name being of a Greek extraction from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may somewhat intimate the time of its production consisting only of Rabbies or such students in the law who received ordination it is reasonably concluded by Mr Thorndike Of Religious Assembl c. 3. that it could not be such in the flourishing times of their Kingdom when no doubt Princes and noble persons enjoyed places of dignity and authority And precise number of judges And whereas these Rabbinical Courts of Judicature consisted of three persons only in lesser places of twenty three in greater Cities and the supreme Court precisely of seventy one it is highly probable that this model so far as respects the number was not the ancient usage in Israel there being no account of any such Courts given either by Josephus or Philo. Ant. l. 4. c. 8. Yea Josephus declares that which is sufficiently contrary hereto that in every City the Government was to be managed by seven men with two Levites which he mentioneth as the direction of Moses but this is not reconcileable with the Rabbinical notions notwithstanding all the endeavours of some learned men to that purpose And when we read of a Court of ten Elders at Bethlehem Ruth 4.2 and of seventy seven Elders at Succoth which was a City of the Gadites Jud. 8.14 it is manifest that in those times they had not the same number of Judges and Rulers which the latter times did direct but very different Perpetual Gov. of Chr. Church ch 4. p. 21. as is from hence observed by Bishop Bilson 5. I know it hath been an opinion commonly received without much examination that this great Court had its original in the Wilderness when the seventy Elders were taken unto Moses his assistance in the Government Num. 11. which Mr Selden accounts a matter so clear De Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 12. that he receiveth it with nihil certius est But he who shall consider that all the evidence that those 70. Elders were such a Sanhedrin as I have above discoursed of doth depend upon the tradition of a very distant age and that there is no certainty that the 70. Elders mentioned in the Book of Numbers were one Court and not Officers in distinct limits as also that the History of the Book of Judges and of the time of Samuel 1 Sam. 7.16 who was himself chief Judge of Israel and in his own person held his assizes in Circuit twice in the year as Josephus tells us give sufficient evidence Ant. l. 6. c. 3. that there was no such supreme Court in being all those times which he judged Israel and that in the following times the authority claimed to them was enjoyed by the Kings as I have evinced I say he who considers all this may very well question if not deny its so early original And the Jewish traditions concerning the continuance of this Court Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 23. p. 661 c. and the series of succession of its presidents hath no shew of probability They ordinarily account from Moses till the Kings of Israel that the several Judges of Israel were the successive heads of the Sanhedrim and yet there is no mention of any such Court in all the History of the Judges and many things therein shew them to have judged Israel as single persons or a kind of Monarchs and had there been such a setled great Court of Judicature with them that people had not been left upon the death of the Judge in such confusion and Anarchy that every man did what was right in his own eyes And the Jewish Writers produce different Catalogues of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President of the Sanhedrin Ibid. n. ◠5. which speaketh them to be at great uncertainty concerning it And many of them will have David and some other Kings to have been Presidents of this Court which is contrary to another of their own traditions above-mentioned But these uncertain and groundless Fables are rejected by divers learned men and even Selden himself acknowledgeth Ibid. n. 6. p. 674. that what the Jewish Writers deliver is successio intuenti haud satis commoda And not only Petavius and Pererius have disowned the Constitution of this Samhedrim to be from Moses but Carpzovius lately Carpz in Schickard p. 11 p. 16. passim and Conringius de Republica Hebraica and Fipschmuthius de rege eligendo deponendo as they are by him cited will not allow it to precede the Captivity 6. There is also another conceit Of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin Bertr de Rep. Hebr. c. 11. L'emp in Bertr ibid. in Middoth c. 5. Sect. 3. Mos Aar l. 5. c. 1. which hath taken place with many as Junius and Tremellius in Deut. 17. Bertram and L'Empereur our English Author of Jewish Antiquities and others that God appointed two Synedrial Consistories among the Jews the one civil the other Ecclesiastical Now if all that is designed by this notion of a distinct Ecclesiastical power was no more than that the Priests as Gods Officers were by divine authority empowered to judge and determine of what related to the regular purity of the Temple worship and of the Rules of Ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness and such like things still acknowledging that they were subjects to the Royal Government all this is to be granted and asserted and some intimations there are in the Jewish Writers of a Council or Consistory of Priests V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26.3 But since the authority pleaded for in the management of this notion is a proper supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastioal so that both these pretended Consistories are stiled by Bertram summa suprema judicia
non esse nisi Deum qui fecit Imperatorem which very plainly assert that the Emperour was under none but only God himself But I shall apply my self to such things as will enclude the more general and publick acknowledgment of the Christian Church and shall then answer what may be objected in this particular 4. The actual exercise of Government in the ancient Christian Realms is somewhat considerable to this purpose That the Christian Emperours did exercise authority in matters Ecclesiastical is manifest from the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Roman Emperors Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5 c. which are yet to be seen in the Codex and the Novellae Justiniani Wherein among other things there are laws establishing the Catholick faith and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Novel 6. 123. passim so as not to allow any to contend against it as also concerning the manner of Ordinations Excommunications and Absolutions and the duty of the Clergy even of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs And in these and other particulars the Nomocanon of Photius doth designedly shew Phot. Nomoc Tit. 1. c. how the Imperial law doth provide for various Cases concerning which the Canons of the Church also had taken care 5. The Laws of like nature are also yet extant of the Kings of France Kings anciently governed in things Ecclesiastical and other Realms abroad And in our own Kingdom the Ecclesiastical laws of Ina Alfred Edgar Canutus and Edward the Confessor may be seen in Sir H. Spelman Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. The Laws made and executed by Christian Emperours against Arians Nestorians Manichees and others guilty of Heresy or Schism were very many and the proceedings by the Imperial law against the Donatists was in divers places defended by S. Austin And that all the godly Emperours of old Aug. Ep. 50.162 164 166. De correct Donatist passim even from the beginning of the Emperours professing Christianity did take such care of the Church that the affairs thereof and the matters of Religion were very much ordered by their authority Socr. Procem l. 5. Hist Eccl. is plainly declared by Socrates And this is a thing so manifest to all who look into the History and Records of those Times that it is as needless to go about to prove this as it would be to prove them to have been Christian Emperours 6. But that which will give the most evident Declaration of the sense of the Christian Church is the considering how this authority of Christian Princes hath been acknowledged and complyed with by Councils and by those especially which were the first general or Oecumenical Councils For whilest the opinion of some particular fathers may possibly be thought not sufficient to give a satisfactory account of the general sense of the Christian Church in those days and whereas the proof produced from the Imperial laws and the constant exercise of the Emperors authority in affairs of Religion may possibly fall under a suspicion of undue encroachment or may be pretended by some to be executed by an authority dependent upon and derived from some Ecclesiastical Officers no such exceptions can lie against the concurrent testimony and acknowledgment of the chief general Councils in the flourishing times of Christianity And I suppose that no man will deny that the assembling of Oecumenical Councils and the matters therein transacted were properly things Ecclesiastical 7. And here I shall begin with the first Council of Nice This Supremacy owned by the Council of Nice concerning whicn I shall need to say the less because many things mentioned in the third Section of the foregoing Chapter do sufficiently manifest the Supremacy exercised by Constantine the first Christian Emperour in whose Reign that Council sate That this general Council was called by the Command of Constantine the Emperour is expresly declared by Eusebius with whom Socrates Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 6. Theodoret and other ancient Historians do agree But the later Romish Writers would perswade the World that it was assembled by the authority of the Romish Bishop Bin. in Not. in Cone Nicen Not. a. So Binius Authoritate Silvestri Romani Pontificis By the authority of Silvester Bishop of Rome this holy Synod was summoned and was gathered together by the consent help and Counsel of Constan tine the Emperour And Baronius likewise declares that no man may doubt Baron an 325. n. 13. but that the authority of Silvester was in this case interposed But in truth they produce nothing that can justly be accounted any evidence hereof 8. But that it may appear past all doubt by whose authority this Council was convened we have a twofold testimony beyond all exception Constantine himself who was able to give an account of his own actions in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 6. which is extant in Socrates declares that it was he who called this Council Ibid. And the Synodical Epistle which was written by the Council of Nice to Alexandria which may be seen in Socrates and Theodoret Theod. Hist l. r. c. 9. doth attest the same and therein the Fathers of Nice themselves who could not but know who summoned that Council declare that it was gathered together by the grace of God and by the Religious Emperour Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who called us together out of divers Provinces and Cities 9. That the most eminent Bishops from the several quarters of the Empire did with much readiness repair to this Council according to the Emperors command is particularly attested by Eusebius Euseb ubi sup c. 6 7. and other Historians Yet it is not to be doubted that if they had received summons and command from a person whom they knew to be inferiour and not superiour to them as a Presbyter or Deacon they would never have yielded general obedience to him but would have rebuked and repressed his insolence and therefore this their obedience to the Emperour was an acknowledgment of his authority and supremacy And this is the more remarkable because these Nicene Bishops were persons of the highest worth and esteem of any in the Christian Church which appears from the general fame and deserved honour which this Council hath obtained in all succeeding ages unto this day 10. And the chief occasion of calling the Council was by reason of the evil opinions of Arius and the difference about the day for observing Easter which things the Emperour considering Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 6. gr though this the only effectual way for the redressing them and thereupon directed this Council particularly to consult about them which was accordingly done And whilest this Council was sitting the Emperour who was present with them used very great care and diligence Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. cap. 12 13. for the suppressing unnecessary occasions of discord and quarrel and for the
foreign Jurisdiction by Oath 1 Eliz. 1. Article 37. is to restore that Jurisdiction to the Crown which had been usurped by the Pope and our Articles do assert that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England and the Injunctions of King Edward did also declare K. Edw. Inj. 1. that no manner of obedience and subjection within these Realms and Dominions is due to him And the truth of this I shall undertake to manifest after I have first given some account of the claim he makes SECT II. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 2 1. Against the supreme Government of Princes there is an high and imperious demand made of an Vniversal Monarchy for the Romish Bishop and of an exemption from the secular Government fot all Ecclesiastical things and persons And this is pleaded for and defended by divers of their Writers 2. Various assertions of Romish Writers concerning the Popes Supremacy Earcl de potest Papae c. 3. adversus Monarchomach l. 4. c. 4. l. 5. c. 8. Yet among those who embrace the Romish Communion there have been and are considerable persons who have maintained that the Pope as Pope and by divine right hath no temporal power and in temporal things hath no authority over Kings And yet even these men acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar and the Universal and supreme Pastor to be endowed with a spiritual power and Empire over all Christian Kings and Monarchs But some of them do expresly grant to Princes an authority in causes Ecclesiastical so far as is necessary for the preservation of the temporal Republick 3. This opinion was not only embraced by Joh. Major Jacobus Almain and some others more anciently but is also at large declared and defended by Barclay de potestate Papae Blackwel in his Examination Barnes in his Catholico-Romanus Pacisicus and divers others But this assertion is not only distastful to the Romish Court but even Bellarmine accounted it to be rather an Heresy than an opinion De Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. 4. Many others there are who deny the Pope to have any direct temporal power but yet grant him as much as he can desire nder the terms of indirectè in ordine ad spiritualia For since by this phrase is meant in order to the advancement or preservation of the See and interest of the Romish church and those of its Communion these persons grant as much indirectly as any other do directly even as if any person should aver that Alexander had no direct right to any other Kingdoms or Countries but in order to the advancement of his Crown or enlargement of his Government his claim was valid these give him as large a title as any other persons can do This method doth Eellarmine in his Controversies embrace with many others whom he mentions and he calls this the common opinion in explaining of which he gives the Pope this ample and extensive power that he hath in order to spiritual good Bell. ibid. the supreme authority of disposing of the temporal things of all Christians Yea he asserts that he can depose Kings and transfer Kingdoms not as an ordinary judge but as a supreme spiritual Prince and that he cannot ordinarily either establish temporal laws or make them void as Pope but that he can do this if the Kings themselves will not do it in ordine ad salutem animarum 5. Yet because he who talked at this rate spake with some reserves and seeming limitations of expression rather than of sense and chiefly because by considerable argument against the Popes direct temporal power he had indeed taken away the direct support for this indirect power we are informed by Barclay Barcl de Potest Pap. c. 13. p. 101. c. 40. p. 329. that Sixtus the fifth had a design and almost accomplished it by a publick censure to abolish all Bellarmines Controversies because in this particular he did not comply far enough with his ambition Acts and Monum Co. 8. n. 8. And it hath been observed both by Blackwell and Bishop Mountague that Carerius in his Book de Potestate Rom. Pontificis making it his drift to refute Bellanmine and his notion yet inscribes it adversus politicos nostri temporis haereticos 6. But there are many Canonists and others of whom Baronius was one who asserted the Pope to have a supreme universal temporal power by divine right over all the World tam jurisdictionis quam proprietatis M. Becan de Justit Jure c. 3. q. 7. Blackw Exam. n. 20. as Becanus expresseth their sense Many who maintain this opinion are mentioned by Bellarmine and others by Blackwell who observes that both Rodericus Sancius and Carerius do call this the common opinion of Divines 7. Vniversal temporal supremacy challenged by the Court of Rome But however any private persons of the Romish Communion may think in their studies or dispute in their Writings the publick claim of the Court of Rome hath been for an universal direct temporal power â—â—atina in Greg. 7. Baron as is fully evident from these among other instances When Gregory the seventh undertook to transfer the Imperial Crown from Henry the fourth to Rodolphus he founds the right of his disposal thereof upon the gift of Christ to S. Peter and his pretended Successors at Rome saying Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho 8. Extr. Coml l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam Mart. Polon an 1301. The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth asserted both the spiritual and Temporal power to belong to S. Peter and the Church with respect to which Martinus Polonus declared se dominum spiritualem temporalem in universo mundo asserebat And in his Oration in confirming Albertus to be King of the Romans lately published by Baluzius Baluz in Addit ad Marc. de Conc. l. 2. c. 3. he affirmed that as the Moon hath no light but what it receiveth from the Sun so there is no earthly power which hath any thing but what it deriveth from the Ecclesiastical power and all powers saith he are from Christ and from us as the Vicar of Christ And he there declareth that Christ hath given his Vicar that power that he hath the right of constituting an Emperour and of translating the Empire with much more to that purpose And his high contests with Philip the French King upon the like claim were very notorious which occasioned the earnest Declaration of the Estates of France against him 9. And in that large Rescript of Alexander the Sixth to Ferdinand and Isabella 7. Decretal l. 1. Tit. 9. C. â— King and Queen of Castile and Arragon and to their Heirs and Successors for ever he undertakes to give to them all the American land unpossessed of any other Christian Prince and all Islands and all parts of the Continent which either already are or hereafter shall
794. as some Romanists would have it but this was granted as an Eleemosynary pension for maintaining an English School at Rome And it must also be acknowledged that the Pope did sometimes since the Conquest exercise a great authority here disposing frequently by his provision of spiritual preferments confirming or nulling the Election of Metropolitans Pyn in Edward 1. an 30. p. 985 986. an 32. p. 1040. and some other Bishops and receiving Appeals And in those days there are some instances in our Records that the Kings Writ against persons excommunicated by the Archbishop was sometimes superseded upon their alledging that they prosecuted Appeals to the Apostolical See 11. But this submission in different persons had not always the same principle being sometimes yielded out of an high measure of voluntary respect and kindness and sometimes more was given to the Pope than otherwise would have been because the circumstances of Princes oft made their courting the Popes favour in former times to be thought by them to be a piece of needful policy And much also was done from the superstition and misapprehension of those Ages in many persons who supposed him to have that right of governing these Churches as S. Peters successor which he is now sufficiently evidenced not to have had Now what is done out of courtesy and by leave or out of some emergent necessity may at other times be otherwise ordered and no Christians are obliged to continue in practising upon superstitious mistakes more than they are obliged to live in errour and superstition And mere possession upon an unjust claim can give no good title to the Government of a Church but when the injustice thereof is made manifest it may be rejected and abolished Conc. Eph. c. 8. as the ancient Canons especially that Canon of the Council of Ephesus which speaks particularly of the Patriarchal Authority enjoin that no Bishop shall invade any Church which was not from the beginning under his Predecessors and if he should compel it to be under him he must restore its Jurisdiction again 12. Yet that exercise and possession of authority which the Pope here enjoyed was not so constant and undisturbed but that it was many times by the Kings and States of the Realm and even by the Bishops at some times complained of and opposed as injurious and the true rights and liberties of this Church and Kingdom were oft demanded and insisted upon Of which among very many instances I shall take notice of so many as are sufficient Before the Conquest I find not that the Pope exercised or claimed any governing authority distinct from counsel and advice in this Realm and therefore there was no need of any opposition to be made agianst it Indeed when Wilfrid Bishop of York who was twice censured in England G. Malmsbur de Gestis Pontific l. 3. f. 150. did both times make his application to Rome his Case was there heard and considered in a Synod and such examination and consideration of the Case even of the Bishop of Rome as Cornelius and others was sometimes had in other ancient Churches But for the decision of the Case the Pope requires it either to be ended by an English Council or to be determined by a more general Council And when Wilfrid at his first return from Rome brings the Popes Letters in favour of him King Egfrid put him in Prison and at his second return from Rome Ib. f. 152. King Alfrid who succeeded Egfrid in the Kingdom a Prince highly commended for hispiety learning and valour declared that it was against all reason to communicate with a man who had been twice condemned by English Councils notwithstanding any writing whatsoever from the Pope Nor were these things only sudden words but when the Pope had done all he could Wilfrid was not thereby restored or as Malmsburiensis expresseth it Malms de gest pont l. 1. init f. 111. Ib. f. 124. non tamen rem obtinuit After the Conquest it was declared by W. Rufus to be a custom of the Kingdom which had been established in the reign of his Father that no Pope should be appealed unto without the Kings Licence consuetudo regni mei est à patre meo instituta ut nullus praeter licentiam regis appelletur Papa Anselm Epist l. 3. Ep. 40. Paschali And Anselme acquainted the Pope that this King William the Second would not have the Bishop of Rome received or appealed unto in England without his command Nor would he allow Anselme then Archbishop of Canterbury to send Letters to him or receive any from him or to obey his Decrees He further tells the Pope that the generality of the Kingdom and even the Bishops of his own Province sided with the King and that when Anselme asked the Kings leave to go to Rome he was highly offended at this request and required that no such leave be afterward asked and that he appeal not to the Apostolical See and that when Anselme went to Rome without his leave he seised the Revenue of his Bishoprick M. Paris in Henr. 2. an 1164. And amongst the liberties and customs sworn to at the Parliament at Clarendon one was against appeales to Rome and receiving Decrees from thence 13. Ex lib. Assis Lord Cokes Reports in Cawdreys Case In the Reign of King Edward the First a subject of this Realm brought a Bull of Excommunication against another subject from Rome and this was adjudged Treason by the Common law of England and divers other instances are brought by Sir Edward Coke wherein the Excommunication and Absolution of the Pope or his Legate was declared null or invalid Pryn in Edw. 1. An. 20. p. 454. And much of the usurped power which the Pope here practised and claimed was rejected as a great grievance in the Statute of Provisors An. 25 Edw. 3. concerning his making provision for and collating to Dignities and Benefices against the method of free Elections and they who should apply themselves to Rome for this purpose became thereby liable to severe penalties And appeals to Rome in certain Cases and the procuring thereupon Processes Bulls and Excommunications from thence was by the Parliament in the Reign of King Richard the Second 16 Ric. 5. taxed and complained of as that which did apparently hinder the determining causes and the effectual execution of justice in England and tended to the destruction of the Kings Soveraignty Crown and Regalty And all those who should bring from Rome such Processes Excommunications Bulls or other Instruments both themselves and all their Fauthors were then by the Statute of Praemunire put out of the Kings Protection their Lands and Goods forfeited and their Bodies to be attached And this Statute continued in force and unrepealed as that former also notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Pope and his Adherents even an hundred and fifty years before the Protestant Reformation And this is sufficient to shew
Hypocrisy and dissembling with God to pray to him for the good of any person whose good and happiness is not really desired therefore the divine Precept to pray for Kings and the Christian practise answerable thereto was well urged as a sufficient evidence by Tertullian Apol. c. 31. to prove Christians to be true and real Friends and no Flatterers of Princes and Emperours wheresoever the true spirit of Christianity is embraced 7. Of obedience to the laws of our Governours Corol. 4. The chief and principal duty required is the practise of obedience to the laws of our superiours Even in lesser Societies a Father or Master whose authority is of an inferiour nature hath a power of commanding without which there can be no order in Families And it is the general acknowledgment of the World Arist Eth. l. 10. c. 9. Politic. l. 6. that the welfare of humane Society of which Government taketh care cannot be obtained without establishing laws and publick Rules and there is no Kingdom or Country in the World under any civil Government where laws have not been established and an authority to enjoin them acknowledged And obedience to such laws is plainly enjoined upon all Christians since they are obliged to be subject to the higher powers and to submit themselves to every ordinance of man But that this duty of obedience may be the better declared I shall take notice of three pretensions which are made use of for the undermining it Wherefore I shall observe 8. First That passive obedience as some call it or a submitting to penalties is in things which may lawfully be done no sufficient discharge of Conscience or performance of duty unto the laws of superiours The necessity of Active Obedience And here Active obedience only deserves the name of obedience and is necessary to be performed This is evident from these three things 1. From the general end and design of all Government which a true Christian subjection must comply with and this is to restrain disorders and evils and to promote what is good and useful in the World Now this end is obtained by the practising wholesome Rules but is not at all effected by the mere bearing penalties For by the suspending active obedience the order of the World would be turned into confusion since as Clemens Romanus urgeth in this Case As the serviceableness of an Army Cl. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 49 50. dependeth much upon its being under Command and the usefulness of the members of our bodies appeareth from their being ready to perform the motions about which they are imployed so the good estate of the weal publick is procured by mens careful observing and attending to useful and profitable Rules and directions 2. From other parallel instances It is against the nature of Religion to imagine that wicked men and evil Angels who despise Gods laws and reject his Precepts are to be esteemed as blameless and Well-doers meerly because they bear the punishment and misery which God inflicts And surely no reasonable man can think that if a servant be idle careless and unfaithful by being only beaten for his fault without any amendment of his carriage he becomes thereby faithful and innocent or that if a Child be disobedient to his Parents and stubborn he hath sufficiently discharged all that duty which God or Man requireth from him by being corrected And the pretence of general performing obedience to Governours by bare submitting to penalties but neglecting in things lawful to practise what is enjoined is as opposite as these former instances to the Rules both of Reason and Religion 3. From the Sanction of punishment towards them who do evil and are disobedient For God who is so just that he will not condemn the righteous nor punish the innocent hath committed to Rulers the power of the sword to execute punishment on the disorderly and disobedient which he would never have done if the neglect of active obedience to laws which is the cause for which punishments are inflicted were not in it self a fault Prov. 20.2 But whoso provoketh him a King to anger sinneth against his own Soul 9. Secondly Nor are subjects disobliged from obeying the laws of their superiours by their entertaining doubts or scruples concerning the lawfulness of them But because what I have written elsewhere is sufficient for the proof of this I shall chiefly refer the Reader thither and shall only add 1. That if we consider doubts in themselves Doubts do not discharge from obedience since here is no certain evidence concerning the unlawfulness of the things commanded if these doubts and scruples proceed from a regular and uniform cautiousness of Conscience there is as much reason if not much more because of the plainness of the commands of obedience to scruple or doubt of the lawfulness of disobeying as of the lawfulness of obeying And so the consideration of doubts and scruples taken singly and alone can be no pretence against the performing obedience when even these very things ought to have as strong a force against the neglecting obedience 2. If we consider the duty and state of subjection it will thence appear that it was well asserted by S. Austin Cont. Faust l. 22. c. 75. that subjects may and ought to obey their Princes Commands where they are certain that what he Commands is not against the Command of God and even where they are not certain that it is so And indeed if an uncertain doubt did but make it safe not to perform obedience this would bring very great confusion and disorder into the World and would teach it the ready way which many would listen unto how children might safely disobey their Parents and servants their Masters as well as subjects their Governours But since next to the obeying God we owe obedience to our superiours even by the command of God no man can warrantably disobey them but where he knows he hath in that Case the Command or Authority of God to the contrary 10. Thirdly Whereas many persons are prone in general to account them who are least studious to comply with the authority of men though they be their Governours in matters of Religion to be men of the greatest Conscience and integrity who do not affect the things of this World nor aim at their own interest therein even this is a perfect misunderstanding and a gross mistake For 1. Since the due performance of obedience in things lawful is a duty Performing obedience is a part of integrity and good Conscience there is more integrity and good Conscience in the peaceable practising it than in the neglecting it This may receive greater clearness by comparing it with the parallel Case of obedience to Parents Now that person who shall forsake or disobey Father or Mother in a necessary Case of Religion acteth as one truly pious but he who will be disobedient to his Parents in things lawful is far from shewing himself
where bad notions or inclinations get a through entrance they are apt to propagate and are not easily rooted out Thus S Hierome observes Hier. Prooem in lib. 2. Comment ad Galat. that Galatia which too readily embraced corrupt doctrines in the Apostles times notwithstanding S. Pauls Epistle to them continued to be a place prone to Heresy unto his time And the Church of corinth was so apt to fall into Divisions and Schisms that notwithstanding the Apostles severe rebukes of them for that sin they were soon after his Death Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. strangely over-run with it again to the great disparagement of their Christian profession 7. Of the undutiful carriage of the Kirk of Scotland I gave a considerable and known instance in the former Book And that they at Rome do cast high disrespects and create great danger to Princes may be discerned both by the former Book and by the foregoing Section 8. Positions of Fanaticism and Jesuicism disloyal And besides these matters of Jact and practise it hath been manifest that many wild extravagant and disloyal Positions which are dangerous and destructive to Government and humane Society have been asserted by men of a Fanatick strain and temper of some of which I shall have occasion to take more particular notice in the progress of this discourse De Jur. Mag. in Subd qu. 6. Junius Brut. Vind. Qu. 2. Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9 31 32 c. Some of them assert that the people in general may take the Power and Government into their own hands and deprive and punish their governours when they see cause others grant this power only to the persons who are the peoples representatives others fix the same in inferiour Officers with respect to the supreme governour And others have run on so far as to yield this pwoer to the meanest part of the people as was asserted by an Anonymous Scotchman about the time of the Galloway Rebellion that in the right of self defence the concourse of the Nobles or the Primores Regni is no way of absolute necessity 9. And amongst the Papists they who are of the Jesuitical strain do not only embrace those notions of the Popes deposing power to the great prejudice of Soveraign Princes Authority and safety but they also run into the highest strain of Fanaticism in violating the majesty of Kings and subjecting them and their authority to the people De Rege l. 1. c. 6. Thus Mariana when the Prince is accounted by the people to pervert his government alloweth to them the liberty of publick resistance by open War and also the use of Private violence commending the treasonable Murther of Hen. 3. of France by James Clement and allows very man to set himself against such a Prince whom he calls a Tyrant saying Ibid. c. 3. tanquam fera omnium telis peti debet He also such are the wicked and wretched principles of these Jesuits approveth the use in this Case of deceit and fraud yea and of poyson by poysoning his Seat or Cloaths But that we may think there is something of Conscience remaining in such a spirit as this he condemns Ibid. c. 7. and declares against the giving such a person poyson in his meat and drink for this doughty reason because it is saith he against humanity that he should be put upon contributing to his own Death by any act of his own which he would here do by taking this poyson in his food But sure this mans reason was as far from him as Conscience when he wrote these things in his not discerning that there was altogether as much done in contributing to his own death by putting on his poysoned Cloaths 10. â—ess de Just Iure l. 2. c. 9. â—ub 4. Becan de jure Just ad Qu. 64. D. Thom. qu. 4. And Lessius and M. Becanus two other Jesuits in this particular agree almost word for word with one another in asserting these Positions that a Prince who hath a just title becomes a Tyrant with respect to the administration of his Government when he designs in his Government and aims at his private advantage and not the publick good and burdens the common-wealth with unjust exactions sells the offices and places of Judges and makes Laws to his own advantage and not the publick That when this Tyranny is no longer fit to be born this Prince is first to be deposed or to be declared an enemy by the Common-wealth or the chief Estates of the Kingdom or by any other who hath authority and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his person and life That so long as he remaineth a Prince that is till such acts be done as are now mentioned he may not be killed by private persons unless it be for their necessary self defence And Lessius saith in another place Dubit 8. for the further clearing his sense in this particular that for the necessary defending a mans own life or securing himself from being maimed it is lawful to kill him who sets upon him himself or procures another to do it And this saith he must be owned allowable against any superiours whatsoever even that a Vasal may in this Case kill his King unless it be likely that civil Wars may follow for discord about succession And in such an high strain of treason and Unchristian disloyalty is the Jesuits Casuistical Divinity But against the falshood and wickedness of these assertions it is needful to declare and defend the true and peaceable principles of Reason and Christianity and against the dangerous effects which such positions tend to promote it is necessary that publick laws provide due security for the person of the King to which purpose the general acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of taking up Armes against him The Laws of England condemnall Waragainst the King is of very good use 11. Our English Laws providing for the safety both of King and Subjects and the preservation of their just Rights do declare it universally unlawful to make or levy any War against the King And upon this account it must also be as much against reason and Christianity yea more both because of the greater duty to superiours and the concern of the general good to invade that Right and Royalty which the Law secures to the King as to deny to Subjects that property right and safety which the Law provides for them I confess the consideration of our Law in matters of doubtfulness difficulty or profound disquisition would be an unfit undertaking for my profession and especially for a man of no deeper study in the Law than my self But I am perswaded that if no men had made use of subtil Artifices and designed methods to obscure plain things there would have been no want of evidence even to any ordinary understanding in this particular to direct them to the honest practises
of their duty in loyal obedience And indeed it would be an high reflexion on the Laws of our Realm if such things as these should be acknowledged to be matters of such a perplexed intricacy that honest and indifferent minds who stand obliged to the practice of peace and loyalty should not without consulting skillful Lawyers be able to understand the general rule of thier duty and to whom they ought to yield obedience and submission 12. Besides the words of this publick Declaration and acknowledgment against lawfulness of taking Armes which yet might be accounted sufficient in the Statutes in the time of King Edw. the third â—t Edw. 3.2 it is declared without allowance of any case or pretence to the contrary to be treason if any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere 13 Car. 2.1 And since the restauration of his present Majesty it is also in general terms declared treason to levy War against the King within the Realm or without And to cut off all pretences either from the nature of the War as defensive only or from the authority of a Parliament or of the Lrods or commons we have in two several Statutes this Declaration 13 Car. 2.6 that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive 14 Car. 2.3 against his Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors In which Statutes also the sole supreme Command and Government of the Militia is declared by the Law of England ever to be the undoubted right of his Majesty and his Predecessors Kings and Queens of England 13. And from the Declaration and evidence of these Laws that Plea which hath been made from the Authority of Grotius becomes wholly void Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. That learned man indeed did assert that if the supreme Government be part in the people or Senate and part in the King if the King invade what is not his right he may be opposed with just force because he hath not so far any Supremacy And this he thinks must take place though it be said that the power of War is in the King for that saith he is only to be understood of Foreign War when whosoever hath any pat in the supreme power cannot but have a right to defend that part But these words seem very strange and inconsiderate from so intelligent a person if they be intended as they seem to be concerning one simple and unmixt supremacy For to assert two capacities where each hath authority to make War with the other is not to found one only regular Government but to erect two distinct Governments each of which have a supreme power of judging and of execution Indeed in such a mixt and divided Government as is in the German Empire it is allowed by the Constitutions and Capitulations of the Empire that the several Principalities or rather the Princes and Governours thereof have a power of taking Armes if their rights be invaded by the Emperour but then these Princes in their own territories enjoy a right of peculiar Soveraignty But if the whole of this notion of Grotius be taken together it will according to his judgment conclude that the people of England Lords Commons or both jointly have no part in the supreme power because these publick Laws declare that they have no power of making so much as a defensive War against the King 14. And if we look into the Records of the former Ages we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an Authority to bear Armes against the King To which purpose it may be sufficient to consider the Conclusion of the Barons Wars in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the Third Very many of the Peers and chief Barons of the Realm undertook to make War with the King under the Conduct of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester M. Par. An. 1264. whom M. Paris calls Baronum Capitaneum and after several Battels had been fought the Kings person was seized and taken at Lewis And not long after this Idem an 1265. the King Summons a Parliament at Winchester in which all those who acted under or with Simon de Montfort are disinherited Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. p. 31. which act of disinheriting is reported to have been confirmed in a following Parliament at Westminster But in order to the setling the State of the Realm upon more mild and gentle terms by agreement between the King and the Barons a Plenipotentiary Power was delegated and committed to twelve Peers that they might establish what they thought fit and convenient concerning them who thus stood disinherited 15. These twelve published their determination An. 51 H. 3. Dict. de Kenilw. c. 2. which had the force of a Law under the name of Dictum de Kenilworth In which it was concluded that they who had been engaged in Armes against the King unless the King had pardoned them should pay the revenue of their lands for five years And they who had no Lands were to give their own Oath and to find other Sureties for their peaceable behaviour and also make such satisfaction and undergo such pennance as the Church should appoint Ibid. c. 9. And that they who were Tenants should lose their right in their Farms C. 11. saving the right of their Lords And that they who by their perswasion did instigate any to fight against the King should forfeit the profit of their Lands for two years with many other provisions for particular Cases And they also determined that if any persons should refuse these terms which were proposed as a favourable mitigation of strict justice they should be de exhaeredatis C. 29. and have no power of recovering their Estates But some persons and particularly Simon de Montfort himself C. 21. was excluded from these terms of favour and left to the ordinary proceedings of justice in manus Regis Now those practises and enterprises which were so publickly censured condemned and punished by our Parliaments and proceedings of justice must needs be accounted by them unlawful actings 16. In the year following An. 52 Hen. 3. the Statute of Marlbridge mentions it St. Marlbridge c. 1. as a great and heavy mischief and evil that in the time of the late troubles in England many Peers and others refused to receive justice from the King and his Court as they ought to have done which is more expresly contained in the Original Latine than in the common English Translation justitiam indignati fuerint recipere per Dominum Regem curiam suam prout debuerunt consueverunt and did undertake to vindicate their own causes of themselves Now to declare that all Peers and all other persons ought to have
received justice only from the King and his Courts and not to revenge themselves or be Judges in their own Cases doth more especially condemn the entring into War it self which is an undertaking founded upon a direct contrary proceeding And thus far we have a sufficient censure in our English Laws upon that War against the King which those who have pleaded for the lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms do account the most plausible instance for their purpose which our Chronicles can furnish them with And it is needless to go about to prove that many other Conspiracies and Rebellions have been justly condemned and punished according to their demerit 17. And whereas unchristian and evil actions Some pretences shortly reflected on may oft be carried on under some fair colours and appearances all such pretences for taking Armes against the King are in this acknowledgment disclaimed the truth of which will be justified in the following Chapters And I shall here only shortly reflect upon some few of those pretences which are commonly made 18. Some have accounted the defence of Religion to be a sufficient Warrant for taking Armes But if the Christian Religion giveth a right to him who professeth it to defend himself and his profession against his Superiours by Armes then must not our Religion be a taking up the Cross but the Sword and it would then be perfectly unlike the Religion of the Primitive Christians and Martyrs and would be no longer a following of Christ our Lord and Saviour 19. Others have asserted the defaults and miscarriages of Superiours Jun. Brut. Vindic. Qu. 1. 3. to be a forfeiture of their Power and Dominion even as a tenure may be forfeited upon the non-performance of the conditions upon which it is held But though God may justly as a punishment of Offenders deprive them of what good they here possess he hath not made inferiours the Judges of their Superiours nor can any such forfeiture devolve on them And he who considers the great viciousness and cruelty of Saul of Tiberius and of Nero under whose Reigns the Holy Scripture presseth the duty of Allegiance will thence discern that the making such a pretence as this is contrary to true Religion and Christianity 20. By many the defending of the rights freedoms and liberties of the Subject hath been esteemed the most specious pretence of all the rest But whereas there are other better wayes to preserve these rights which are most violated by Wars and intestine Tumults and Broils it cannot easily be thought probable that he may be a judge and avenger of his own cause by force against his superiour who may not be so against his equal And since the tenderness of Davids Conscience was such that notwithstanding the many undeserved injuries he sustained he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lords anointed and Peters drawing his Sword to defend his Master was severely rebuked of which things more hereafter the management of this objection must proceed from a Spirit contrary to that of pious David and to the doctrine also of our Lord and Master SECT III. Of the traiterous Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or against those who are commissionated by him 1. The other clause in the forementioned Declaration or acknowledgment is intended against another particular pretence of taking Armes and is this That I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Armes by his the Kings authority Sect. 3 against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him The Position or assertion here rejected is thus expressed in the Oath to be taken by the Lord Lieutenants and Souldiers 14 Car. 2.3 That Arms may be taken by the Kings Authority viz. though the King never own them or give any Commission for them yea though they be against his own person or against those which are Commissionated by him And this Position Taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person disclaimed exposing the sacred person of the King to the highest danger and being against the safety of his Life and Crown is justly declared to be traiterous and it standeth chargeable with these enormities 2. First It is so unreasonable as to be against the common sense of Mankind Would it not look strange and be accounted a prodigious thing to see a Company of Children or Servants beat and abuse the person of their Father or Master dispossess him by violence and possibly at last to confine and murder him and yet to expect that all men should believe they did this for the preservation of his Right and Government and in obedience to his Authority yea though he plainly declared and protested against these things as being heinously injurious and unnatural And it is no less unaccountable to pretend the Kings Authority Judic Univers Oxon de foedere p. 66. for taking Armes against his person This is as it hath been expressed a like contradiction in sense reason and polity as Transubstantiation is in Religion both which must suppose such a presence as is impossible to be there and is contrary to the plainest evidence This pretence of the Kings Authority against his person was hatched under the Romish Territories and made use of in the Holy League of France In the Guisian attempts against Henry the Third Hist of Civil Wars of France l. 5. an 1588. it hath been related as a matter of wonder to the common sense of men that they should besiege the Loure where the King was and yet this should pass under the disguise of obeying the King and defending the King and Country That the name of the King doth denote the royal person who governeth is the general apprehension of Mankind And it is vainly pretended that all the proceedings of justice being always in the Kings name and by his Authority when many of them are not particularly known to his person must require the forming such a legal Idea or Notion of the King as is distinct from his person but this supposeth the Soveraign Authority to be in his Royal person under whom and from whom other Ministers of Justice do execute their several Offices As when any man intrusts another to manage any part of his business and affairs in his name and by his Authority this doth not make the man who commits the trust to become an Idea or Notion distinct from himself or his person 3. Secondly This strained perverting of plain sense in this particular is not only against the security of the King but may upon the same foundation become fatal to the lives of the subjects Manual concerning some priviledges of Parl. p. 16 17 and p. 60. For whereas some who managed this conceit did assert in plain words that even the Statutes which condemned treason against the King had respect to the King in this Novel Idea as intending thereby the Laws and the Kings Courts of Justice it is easy to discern that any subjects who
Pauls rule be admitted dico nullum imperium diutins in tuto fore quà m donec talia sentientibus vires defuerint I affirm that no Government can be any longer safe than whilst those who have such sentiments want strength And from hence it is manifest that Grotius in his elder time did disallow all Subjects taking Armes against their King and accounted it wholly inconsistent with the peace safety and Government of the World 12. The Royal Authority a legal right as well as the Subjects property And since it is part of the Kings Royalty according to the Laws of this Realm that none may take Armes against him Sect. 2 all Subjects who expect to enjoy their own legal rights are obliged to maintain this right of the King by that great rule of Righteousness and Religion as ye would that men should do unto you do ye also unto them likewise Luk. 6.31 And this also is included in the Oath of Supremacy wherein Subjects swear to maintain all Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm V. Sanders de obligat Consc Prael 10. And it is against all pretence of Reason that the rights of Superiours which are the greatest and on which all inferiour rights have dependance should be least regarded as if it were fit that the interest of a Child or Servant should be preserved and not those of a Father or a Master SECT II. Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince 1. It must here be considered as an objection and seeming difficulty that since it is greatly necessary to the good of the World that the just properties of subjects be defended if it be once granted that they may in no Case take Armes against their Soveraign how can these properties be secured may they not then be exposed to irreparable injuries and the utmost pressures and if a Prince will exercise an unlimited power where is there help and redress Now in answer to this I premise that the principal care which must be taken for providing for the preservation of the rights of subjects is not on that part which concerns the defending them against their Prince but rather against the violence of other injurious persons which is done by the great Authority of Government and the due execution thereof For as in a Family the main thing designed in the Government thereof is not that Children may be secured from receiving any injury from their Father The Authority of Rulers is the defence of the people and their jecurity but rather that for their own quiet and good order at home and their honour and safety abroad they submit without gain-saying and resistance to his Government and thereby receive protection from the injurious dealings of others so Gods providence for preventing the greatest dangers of violence of men one towards another hath established the Authority of Rulers as a defence against them Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9. And therefore such such persons who say a people cannot so readily destroy themselves viz. if they have no Governour or cast him off as one man may speak falsly and rashly against the wisdom of God and his Ordinance and against the common sense of the World as if Rulers were not Ministers of God for good to men and as if it would be better for the World to be without them whom all Nations have found necessary and consequently without peace order and justice 2. And as the Governours men live under The security for the Subjects rights are their defence from the violence and injuries which may be sustained from other men so there is great security for Subjects without their taking Armes that their rights and properties shall not be violated by their Prince which I shall manifest with a particular respect to our English Government Now amongst the ground of this security the Principles of Conscience which lay a great and moral obligation upon the greatest persons in the World not to be injurious to the meanest and the watchful providence of God who unless it be for the punishment of the grievous sins of a people doth not suffer them to be afflicted and oppressed are considerations which are not in this Case to be over-looked But there are two thins which I shall chiefly insist upon 3. From the Laws they have the security of good and wholsome Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And that Laws were originally established that right and justice might thereby be impartially administred to every man Cic. de Offic l. 3. de leg l. 4. is reasonably declared by Cicero And it is a great priviledge in this Realm that both civil rights and matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick moneys raised but by consent of the Commons by their representatives And somewhat a like form for the Enacting Laws was resolved on a most Excellent method Cod. l. 1. Tit. 16. leg 8. by the Emperour Theodosius And since no design can be managed to defeat legal rights but the instruments therein must be private persons every one of these may be called to an account and suffer their deserved punishment by the justice of the Law And this is a like security to that which may be had against the meanest Subject in the Realm if he be the stronger man or get an advantage whereby he is able to do another a mischief And it is here worthy to be noted that whereas many plausible notions and pretences when they are reduced into practice fall short of accomplishing what was expected by their proposal in the Theory the benefit of the protection which Subjects enjoy from the Law is such that for divers Ages past in many hundred years the general rights and properties of the people of England legally established have thereby been excellently preserved And the like may be asserted concerning many other parts of the World and therefore they who will dispute against this provision must dispute also against the evidence of sense and of a long continued experience 4. But because jealous and suspicious minds may possibly suppose that at one time or other a Prince having the authority of administring justice and appointing Judges and Officers in his Kingdom may design to destroy his Subjects rights and property and thereby the fruitful inclosures of their civil interests may be laid wast and all respect to Laws utterly laid aside I shall take these suspicious jealousies into consideration And here we must all grant Naz. Orat. 19. that the state of this present World is such that at the best it is not above all instability uncertainty and danger And I shall in the next Section shew that there is much more cause of jealous fears of Subjects losing their legal rights by
unsetled ungoverned confusion It would be also a reflexion upon the goodness of God to imagine that it was not his will that justice should be administred and viciousness punished among men that peace should not be preserved and goodness encouraged in the World and it would be a disparagement to his wisdom to conceive that he should appoint all these things to be done whilst he committeth no power or authority to any person or order of men to take care of them 3. By the testimony of the Scriptures But the express testimonies of the holy Scripture put this matter out of doubt There Governours as having Gods Authority are stiled Gods and Children of the most high Ps 82.6 And besides the Government of Israel which was evidently established by Gods appointment which was the reason why David so much reverenced Saul as being the Lords anointed we are told Pr. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice by me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And God declared by Jeremy Jer. 27.5 6. I have made the Earth and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant Cyrus also was called the Lords Shepherd Is 44.28 Princes being oft stiled Shepherds because their Office and Government is thereby much resembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Basil and the Hebrew word for a Shepherd is sometimes rendred in the Chaldee Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Governour he was also called the Lords anointed Is 45.1 And Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God setteth up Kings Dan. 2.21 and that the God of Heaven had given him a Kingdom v. 37. S. Paul also declares that there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 And he stileth the power the ordinance of God v. 2. and the Ruler the Minister of God v. 4. 4. By the sense of the ancient Church The ancient Christian Church even when they were under persecution by the Roman Emperours did yet constantly acknowledge their Authority to be from God Tert. ad Sâ—â—p c. 2. Apol. c. 30. Adv. Hares l. 5. c. 24. Tertullian declares that the Christian knows that the Emperour is constituted by his God And saith he from thence is the Emperour from whence is the man from thence is his power from whence is his spirit And the same sense is expressed by Irenaeus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 11. gr And Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius acknowledged that it was God who gave the Empire to Valerian and Galienus The same truth is asserted by S. Aug. de Civ Dei l 5. c. 21. by Epiphanius Haeres 40. and by divers other Christian Writers Bell. in Lib. Recogn de laicis insomuch that when Bellarmine sought for the testimonies of ancient Writers to prove Dominion to be of humane original he could meet with no Theological Writer of the Christian Church who favoured his opinion amongst the Fathers and therefore takes up with Aquinas And Paulus Orosius affirms Oros HIst l. 2. c. 1. Vell. in 4. Tom. Aug. ad 22 Qu. Dc Concord l. 2. c. 2. n. 1 2 3. that all Power and Government is of god is that which they who have not read the Scriptures do think and they who have read them do know And some of the Romish Church speak to this purpose as Vellosillus and especially P. de Marca 5. And now let any equal Reader consider whether the evidence of reason Scripture and the ancient Fathers will agree with that reproachful Position of Hildebrand or Greg. 7. Greg. 7. Epist l. 8. Ep. 21. against God and his Vice-gerents That Kings had their beginning from them who affected rule by the instigation of the Devil But they all tend to confirm what hath been asserted in our church Can. 1. 1640. That the most high and sacred order of Kings is of divine right being the ordinance of God himself founded in the prime laws of nature and clearly established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments 6. And the nature of the Rulers power And from the nature of this Authority will further speaks its Constitution to be from God He is to judge the people but God being the judge of all the earth all acts of judgment are declared to be not for men but for the Lord 2 Chr. 19.6 and therefore must be performed by an Authority derived from him And the punishment inflicted by Governours is an act of vengeance or revenging and therefore as vengeance or revenging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is claimed by God himself as peculiarly belonging to him Rom. 12.19 vengeance is mine so the Ruler as the Minister of God is made an Executor of Vengeance or a Revenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.4 which must be by Gods Authority derived to him And since the Ruler who bears the Sword hath an Authority of Life and Death this could not be derived to him from the community since no man hath such a Dominion over his own Life as to have a power to take away his Life Lessius de Just Jur. l. 2. c. 4. dub 10. M. Becan de Jur. c. 4. q. 1. as hath been truly asserted by Schoolmen and others and therefore cannot transfer such a power to any other person And therefore this Authority of Governours must be received from God who is Lord of life and death 7. Objections answered Having proved the Authority of Governours to be of a divine extract I shall now shew that the various pretences for founding it in the consent of men are of very little weight From the Election of some Princes It is confessed that there are elective Kingdoms and Empires in the World and that where there hath been a vacancy of a Governour and none could claim a right of succession Princes have oft been chosen by the people In this Case several Roman Emperours were Elected by their Army and received by the Senate and thus were Gideon Jephtha and other Judges established in Israel But such a liberty of choice in the people in these circumstances carries no opposition to the Authority being from God For the entring into a conjugal Society is by a free choice even so far of choice that many persons if they please may live in celibate and single life whilest men cannot live without Government and yet Matrimony and the Husbands Authority is by divine appointment And Members of a Corporation do usually chuse their chief Magistrate but thought they determine upon the person it is not they but the Princes Charter and Grant that gives him his Authority 8. And they who tell us M. Salamon de princip that Soveraign Authority cannot be a proper divine institution because then its rights would be wholly unalterable and the same in all the Governments in the World do
rely upon a meer fallacy From the different rights of Regality For this Topick would with equal force and evidence prove the paternal right not to be founded in the laws of nature or the institution of God because the authority of the Father and the priviledges of Children are not the same in different parts of the World The Rules of inheriting by the right of devolution in some part of the Low-Countries Goâ—osred not ad Dig. l. 1. Tit. 6. n. 1. de jure Capp de vor Jephthae Instit l. 1. Tit. 9. and of Gavelkind and some other tenures in England do vary from the more general usage And in many places of the World the Father had Jus vitae neeis and Cappellus asserteth him to have had that power of life and death among the Jews The Institutions of Justinian expresly testify that that right of power which the Roman Fathers had over their Children was that which was proper to the Citizens of Rome and it is there added no other men have that power over their Children which we have Nor will it prove Matrimony to be no institution of God because the priviledges of the Wife are esteemed greater in England than in other Countries and are not the same at the Death of the Husband in the Province of York and the City of London with the other parts of the Kingdom But the truth is in those States or Relations which are fixed by divine institution there are some things so necessary and essential that they cannot be separated from them such are in the Conjugal Relation the Headship of the Husband the ordinary inseparableness of that Society till Death and the performance of Conjugal Duties and such are in the supreme Government the necessary care of justice and the common good and even of matters of Religion and the having a power fitted to these ends and which in pursuance of them may not by inferiours be forcibly resisted But in many other particular things the priviledges of inseriour relations and the dignities and rights of superiours may be greater or less according to what is concluded by their mutual consent 9. The Solemnity of Coronation From the Rites of Coronation when the people acknowledge their King and the King again gives the people assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws and govern them according to those Laws is far from intending to express the Kings Authority to be derived from the people by a contract as some have weakly argued For the King is actually King by his right of inheritance and succession upon the Death of his Predecessor antecedently to this Solemnity as our Law-Books do generally acknowledge and Henry the Sixth Reigned divers years in England before he was Crowned Du May 's Estate of the Empire Diâ—l 2. vers fin Extrav Com. l. 5. Tit. 10. c. 4. And even in Elective Principalities the rights of Soveraignty are invested in the person elected thereto before the Coronation both in the Empire it self and other Dominions But the intent of this Solemnity is that as the Rites of Inauguration in other Magistrates tend to make such impressions in the people as may beget a reverence towards them so the Prince his appearing with splendour to his people doth both excite them to and give them opportunity for publick acknowledgments and expressions of affection and honour towards him and joyful acclamations To this purpose Henry the Third was twice Crowned once in the first year of his Reign Mat. Par. an 1216. where M. Paris treateth De prima Coronatione Regis Henrici and again in his twentieth year as is manifest in the preamble of the Statute of Merton Fullers Hist an 1194. and Richard the First was observed also to have been twice Crowned In like manner David notwithstanding his right by Divine appointment besides his being anointed by Samuel was twice anointed by the people Sed. Olam Rab. c. 13. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 6. And both the Jewish Chronicle and Josephus declare that Saul also was anointed a second time And the kind expressions of the Prince and the assurance that he gives his people that he will govern them by their laws and maintain their Religion and Rights is designed to banish and expel all jealous fears from them and to encrease their affection to him and make their obedience and submission the more ready and chearful by their having security from their Princes reputation honour and integrity that he will intend the preservation of the great things which conduce to their welfare 10. It hath also been objected From the Civil Law Digest l. 1. Tit. 4. n. 1. quod Principi that besides the like expressions in other Law-Books the Civil Law declares Lege Regia quae de ejus Principis imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem confert which words declare that by that Law which was made concerning the Empire of the Prince the people yield to him all their authority and power It also asserteth that Nations were divided and Kingdoms established by the Jus gentium or the Law of Nations Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 5. Ex hoc jurc Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 4. Manumiss Justin Inst l. 1. Tit. 3. and also that liberty is the natural state and servitude is introduced by the Law of Nations Now though it might be said against the force of any such allegations which seem to oppose this truth that the right of God and of his constitution and authority is not to be determined by any humane writings especially if they speak against the Scripture and rational evidence Yet I further observe 1. That the first expression hath respect to the political sanction or establishment of the Civil Government of the Roman Empire and even with respect to the peculiar priviledges of the Emperour himself as having a legislative power in his own breast to which purpose that very law declares Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote lege regia quae de ejus imperio c. Novel 73. Novel 85. passim And though these political sanctions be a proper consideration for humane Laws to take notice of yet this hinders not but that there may be a superiour divine constitution of Soveraignty and secular power which also is oft asserted in the Civil Law 2. The following expression doth speak of the like political sanction and doth further acknowledge and assert the bounds and limits of the several Kingdoms and Nations to be established by the Law of Nations jure gentium discretae gentes regna condita 3. That liberty which in the last clause above-cited is declared to be the natural state and the servitude which is there said to be introduced do not respect freedom from Government and Laws but from vasallage which is evident because in the Digests this servitude is said to be discharged by
manumission which still leaves the person under civil Government Ubi supra and in the Institutions the freedom which is opposed thereto is bounded by that which is prohibited by law And besides this freedom of the outward condition Ciceron Paradox 5. Cicero doth well and wisely account that man to have attained a true and proper freedom of mind who obeys and reverenceth the Laws not so much for fear as because he judgeth it useful and good so to do 11. Now if Government be the Constitution of God to make forcible opposition against it must either be in design to have Gods authority subject to them who so act or at least that themselves may not be subject unto it both which are unreasonable and include a resisting the ordinance of God But of the divine law in this particular I shall speak in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament SECT I. The need and usefulness of considering this Case 1. The reason why the state of the Old Testament is here particularly considered THE enquiry into the times of the Old Testament is of the greater import because it would be a considerable testimony that neither the Rules of common equity nor the true foundations of humane polity do condemn all forcible resistance against the Soveraign Power if this was allowed to Subjects under the Jewish constitution which was very much ordained by the wisdom of God himself Concerning the Jewish Constitution Lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. the learned Grotius doth in his Book De Jure belli pacis assert that in ordinary Cases of injury they were not allowed to make resistance and therefore he expoundeth what Samuel spake of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the right or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. to intend that in such things as the King was there declared to undertake Sect. 1 the people had non resistendi obligationem an obligation upon them to make no resistance Ibid. n. 7. But yet he afterward asserteth that in great and weighty Cases either of manifest civil injury as in what David sustained from Saul or of violence offered to their Religion and whole Nation as was done by Antiochus when the Maccabees withstood him it was lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign But he proposeth it as a Question of greater difficulty whether Christians may be allowed to do the like and here he recommends the duty of Christian Patience and bearing the Cross from the example of Christ himself and the Primitive Church 2. And Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue Epil Part. 2. Ch. 32. from the instance of the Maccabees doth allow the lawfulness of subjects taking Armes under the Jewish State for the defence of their Religion and very plainly asserteth the same in his Treatise of the right of the Church in a Christian State Right of Church Ch. 5. p. 306. c. But in both those places he declareth the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon the same account under Christianity because of the difference of the spirit rules and conditions of the Law and the Gospel But yet in this last mentioned Book there are some expressions which will make it manifest that that learned man was not so fixed in this Position concerning the Jewish Government but that he sometimes much inclined to and plainly embraced the contrary assertion For speaking of that Government which the Jews entred into under Ezra and Nehemiah he declared that this was allowed by the Grant and Commission of the King of Persia and saith Right of Ch. Ch. 4. p. 229. It is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renewed by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them 3. But that which will make this enquiry into the times of the Old Testament The Gospel makes no new model for the rights of all political Societies the more necessary is this because so far as I can discern it is an assertion which cannot be maintained or defended That there is in this particular any such difference between the State of the Old Testament and the New as that it should be lawful for Subjects before the coming of Christ and particularly for the Jews to defend their Liberties or Religion by War against their Soveraign but it is now become unlawful for all Subjects under Christianity by the peculiar Precepts of the Gospel For though it is manifest that the spirit of the Law and the Gospel do very much differ and that meekness and peace are more peculiarly recommended in the Gospel by the Precepts and by the example of Christ both to Rulers and Subjects yet I see not how Christianity doth alter the model and frame of humane political Societies so as to debase Subjects or deprive them of any rights or freedoms which they did before enjoy It is indeed truly observed by S. Chrysostome Chrys Hom. 3. de Dav. Saul that David in his actings towards Saul had not all those arguments for subjection which Christians now have haveing never seen nor heard of the great example of Christ Crucified and his doctrine of patience and suffering But though these are high motives to the performance of our duty they do not lay a new foundation for common rights nor do they establish any such new Rules as thereby to determine the unlawfulness of all Wars in the defence of just rights if they be managed by a warrantable authority 4. And they who insist upon the Gospel Precepts of taking up the Cross as if that did put such a difference between the legal State and the Evangelical that thereupon upon it is now become unlawful for Subjects to take Armes especially for the defence of Religion do also proceed upon a mistaken ground For though this Precept and the profession of Christianity doth require great meekness and patience and a firm and stedfast resolution under all difficulties to pursue and maintain the Faith and practice of the Gospel it doth not deprive such persons of a power and right to make War even in the defence of Religion who antecedently to Christianity were invested with such a right And he who will assert this must grant it unlawful for any Soveraign Prince to defend his free profession of the Christian Religion which is one of his just rights against an external force which would impose a contrary Religion upon him Eus Eccl. Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr as was done in the Christian Kingdom of Armenia which then had a Soveraign Prince against the fury of Maximinus who would have forced them to embrace the Pagan Idolatry 5. And whereas in the New Testament we have clear Declarations that the higher Powers are the Ordinance
of God and that they who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13.1 2. the sense of these truths was contained under the acknowledgment which David made in the Old Testament who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed Hom. 1. de Dav. Saul and be guiltless For as S. Chrysostome noted when David declared Saul to be the Lords anointed he did acknowledge him to have Gods Authority and that to resist him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight against God or in the Apostles words to resist the Ordinance of God Aug. Quaest ex Vet. Test c. 35. And S. Austin observing that David called Saul the Lords anointed after the Lord had departed from him he adds that David was not ignorant divinam esse traditionem in officio ordinis Regalis that the royal office was Gods Ordinance and appointment and therefore he both did honour Saul and ought so to do 6. Some possibly may here urge that the Laws and Rules of right and all the Precepts of Religion amongst the Israelites were there established antecedently to the being of the Royal Authority among them and that these things standing by Divine Authority no King had any power to repeal or break them and on this account they might have liberty from the nature of their Constitution to defend these rights by the Sword though Christians have not But even this also will not alter the Case For throughout all the World the common Rules of right and justice have a divine stamp and are of as great Antiquity as the World it self and the nature of man and there is scarce any Kingdom in the World which hath continued without interruption of its succession and establishment so long as the doctrine of Christianity hath been in the World Tert. Ap. c. 4. Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 4. Orig. cont Cel. l. 1. l. 5. l. 8. which peculiarly is from God And however no prescription can be pleaded against the right of God and the Soveraignty of Christ no more than it could be pleaded for the establishment of the Pagan Idolatry in which Case the ancient Christians constantly asserted their duty to God and his Religion to be above that which they owed to the contrary Laws and Constitutions of humane Authority 7. Wherefore it will be of considerable moment clearly to prove that Subjects in the Church of Israel according to the will of God under the Old Testament were not allowed in any such Cases as have been pretended to take Armes against their Soveraign And if this was then unlawful it is now much more so under the dispensation of the Gospel SECT II. The general unlawfulness of Subjects takeing Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 2 1. Because the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King Kings under the Old Testament might not be resisted under the Old Testament will receive the fullest evidence from the behaviour of David towards Saul and those principles of duty whereby he was guided I shall pass by many other things with much brevity When Samuel declared the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner or as very many Translations render it and the word most frequently signifies V. Vers Vulg. Syr. Arab. Par. Chald. Sept. Barclai adv Monarch l. 2. p. 64. the judgment or right of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. and Ch. 10.25 many judicious men with great reason have accounted it to contain this sense that such was the right dignity and authority of their King that though the people might bear and sustain such injuries as are there mentioned Carpzov in Schick Th. 1. p. 1. Th. 7. p. 160. Grot. ubi sup in 1 Sam. 8.11 de Imp. c. 3. n. 6. they had no lawful power of redressing themselves by force but only must apply themselves to God This Grotius in his Annotat. upon that place thus expresseth si peccarent reges graviter in Dei legem ad Deum ultio pertinebat non ad singulos ac ne ad populum quidem And de Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra he saith Jus regis vocatur quia ita agenti nemini liceret vim ullam opponere And to the like sense Salmasius Defens Reg. c. 2. 2. Salomon perswading to that duty and reverence which Subjects owe to Princes Eccl. 8.2 3. declareth v. 4. where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou and speaks of the King against whom there is no rising up Prov. 30.31 which words give a fair intimation that the dignity of the King of Israel was such that no opposition or resistance might be made against him by inferiours And when David declared Ps 51.4 Against thee only have I sinned Ambr. Apol Dav. c. 10. S. Ambrose gives this sense thereof That David being King was not subject to the penalties of any humane Laws but the whole punishment of his sin was in the hands of God alone This is owned by Vega Veg. in Ps 4. Poenit. Conc. 2. to be the sense also of S. Hierome Austin Chrysostome and Cassiodorus and he himself gives this as a kind of Paraphrase upon that expression nullum alium praeter te unum in terra superiorem recognosco I acknowledge none other besides thee alone my superiour upon earth And this interpretation was received in the Christian Church as early as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and though other Expositions also have been given Strom. l. 4. p. 517. this shews what apprehensions these Christian Writers had of the nature of Davids Regal Authority And this hath so much evidence of truth that when Murder and Adultery in inferiour persons was punished by the Judges of Israel according to the Law of Moses Davids judgment must be according as God himself would pronounce and execute And though God so far pardoned David as to spare his life 2 Sam. 12.13 yet his Child must die v. 14. even by the hand of God v. 15 18 22. And God denounced against him that the Sword should not depart from his house v. 10. whereby Amnon Absalom and Adonijah were cut off And the Rebellion of Absalom as a judgment which God inflicted was part of the punishment of this sin v. 11. 3. When there were any corruptions in Religion publickly tolerated as the worshipping in high places and Groves the holy Scriptures lay the blame constantly upon the King and Prince whereas if the people and subjects had the power of defending their Religion and the purity thereof by the Sword the fault would have been equally chargeable upon them under the Government of their Kings For the same pious spirit which would engage a good Prince must also oblige a pious people to make use of their just power for the honour and service of God and if the Case had been lawful it would have been a kind of Martyrdom to hazard or lay down their
comparing several places in that Book will necessitate the interpreting those expressions to extend only to this case which allow the people under the fiercest and highest tyranny to resist provided they exceed not the bounds of mere defence without any attempts of invading or revenging But then withal he will not allow in this case or any other the taking Armes against the Soveraign Power but saith a Prince by such an undertaking as this loseth his Royal Authority and is no longer King se omni dominatu principatu exuit atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desinit Cont. Monarchomachos l. 6. c. 23. And Grotius also agreeing with Barclay whom he here cites granteth that the People may in such a case as this resist by force De Jur. Bel. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. si Rexvere hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur And he also proceedeth upon the like foundation that this is not to resist a Soveraign King but him who ceaseth to be such consistere simul non possunt volunt as imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem populi totitus profitatur eo ipso abdicat regnum 6. Now the design of these learned men is thus far herein to be much approved that they though it necessary to take care that whilst the Right and Authority of Princes was asserted the safety of the people and the common good should still be provided for Yet because I conceive these answers to leave things too loosely and afford over-much occasion for unquiet spirits to lay hold on I shall endeavour to speak a little more closely to this matter Wherefore I assert 1. That there is a great difference between the discoursing of such things as mere notional suppositions and the considering them as matters of practice and reality In the former way there may be suppositions made of things which actually are not never were nor are ever like to be and there may also be supposed such evidence as is clear and beyond all possibility of mistake when there is no such thing in reality And only upon the yielding such suppositions I shall grant the answer given to be true Thus the River Thames may be granted to be hurtful and pernicious upon supposition that it should overflow and drown the whole Kingdom but though such a thing may be imagined in speculation men of common understanding cannot much fear any such actual danger Now the taking Armes is not a notion but a matter of fact and therefore the reason and ground of such undertakeings must be from things as they actually and really are in the World 7. I assert Secondly That if we consider this as a Case of practice which is that to which our publick acknowledgments also must be referred this pretence is no sufficient Plea for Subjects to take Armes upon these two reasons 1. From the unreasonableness of the thing supposed and the great unlikelyhood of its ever being true though it may be so pretended For such a thing probably never was actually in the World and Grotius acknowledgeth Grot. ubi sup that this can scarce seem possible to happen in a King who is compos mentis towards his whole Dominions Adv. Monarchomach l. 3. to c. 16. Indeed Barclay gives instance in Nero whom Aurelius Victor relateth to have talked of destroying Rome and the Senate with Fire and Sword and placeing his residence elsewhere Sueton. in Calig n. 30. 49. and much to the same purpose is declared concerning Caligula Now though these were Monsters of men and it may be hoped that no Princes like to them will ever live under Christianity especially yet these expressions had not respect to the whole Empire but only to Rome and furious speeches even of such men whose actions spake them savagely cruel might probably vent much more than would ever be enterprised and attempted And it seemeth considerable that S. Pauls Prohibition against resistance was written to the Romans within a few years after the end of Caligula his Reign and about the entrance of Nero and therefore was a firm rule and binding obligation even under their Government 8. I know it is not simply impossible that such a Case should be in act If Antiochus had been really King of Judea while he resolved to destroy all persons of the whole Nation of the Jews who observed the Law of Moses this had been a Case of somewhat like nature and upon this Foundation Barclay also goes Ibid. l. 6. c. 24. to justify the Wars of the Maccabees of which I have given another account But though it be not utterly impossible yet there is as much or more reason for those Children who maintain and support their Parents by their industry to fear the these Parents do design to poyson them because there have been some unnatural and Saturnine Parents than that Subjects should fear any such design of their Prince against his whole Realm And such Children might with as much justice attempt the murdering of these Parents upon such suspicions which would be horrid and inhumane and Subjects upon the mentioned pretence take Armes against their King both having equal appearance of self-preservation and being defensive and both being impious and opposite to Righteouseness and Christianity 9. 2. The other reason is from the dangerous effects and great mischief that hath been and still may be in the World by proceeding upon such pretences For he who doth observe that Moses who was so great a deliverer of Israel was charged by them in their murmurings as one who intended to ruine and destroy them and that this was done not only once but frequently Ex. 16.3 Ex. 17.3 Numb 16.13 14. and that they spake to like purpose concerning God himself Num. 14.2 Numb 21.5 Deut. 1.27 may discern that upon small or no occasions the suspicions of discontented spirits carried on by plausible insinuations will easily pretend to certain evidence of the design of ruining the people in the best Governours to the neglect of their duty and the disturbance of peace and quiet It is manifest both in our own and other Nations that much Christian blood hath been shed by giving way to such false surmises against truth and Christian Charity And it is to be expected that male-contented persons if they have any ill enterprises will shell them over with the fairest pretences they can take up as a disguise for themselves Duct Dubit b. 3. c. 3. rule 3. n. 15. and a way to inveigle others But as Bishop Taylor asserting the unlawfulness of resistance well observed such wild Cases as this of a King endeavouring to destory his Kingdom are not to be pretended against that which Religion and natural reason hath established 10. But I come now to consider the other part of this Question Of a Prince or Soveraign power undertaking to cut off a considerable number of Subjects if a Soveraign
Power undertake to destroy any great or considerable part of the people Such things in some Cases have oft happened in the World but herein the English constitution doth afford peculiar advantages and securities to the Subjects of this Realm above what is in many other Soveraignties But these Cases may be best judged of by ranking them in several Orders and by observing particular instances of fact which have happened under other different Governments 11. Wherefore 1. Soveraign Powers have sometimes undertaken to destroy a part of the people Where this is a proceeding according to the Laws and Rules of the Government and upon great crimes upon account of some great or enormous crime charged upon them and by vertue of such a publick sentence which may be called Judiciary and legal proceedings Amongst the Israelites when they had no King or Judge the chief power was in the heads of the Tribes in which time that horrid wickedness was committed by the men of Gibeah upon the Levites Concubine Judg. 19. But the Benjamites standing in defence of these wicked men Antiquit. Jud. l. 5. c. 2. that they might not suffer deserved justice that whole Congregation of Israel set themselves against the Tribe of Benjamin Ch. 20. And they bound themselves by Oath saith Josephus to act more fiercely against them than their Fathers had done against the Canaanites And when this whole Tribe Men Women and Children were utterly destroyed except six hundred men the same Author tells us that both the Israelites and these surviving Benjamites acknowledge that this execution was just Ibid. And indeed those Benjamites who undertook the defence of that hainous wicked action did thereby entitle themselves to the guilt thereof Ambr. Ep. 65. ad Syagr for S. Ambrose rightly declares non minoris esse criminis tantum facinus defendisse quam exercuisse it is a matter of no less crime to defend so great a villany than to commit it And about the same time the Inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead were utterly destroyed by the Congregation of Israel except four hundred Virgins because they were so far Favourers of this wickedness of the Gibeathites that they would not join with the rest of the Israelites to punish it Oros l. 7. c. 12. 12. The Jews also after their Commonwealth was destroyed and themselves dispersed in many places of the Empire rose up in rebellion in Reign of Trajan and also of Adrain when they were headed by the pretended Messiah called Barchocab or the Son of a Star with respect to that prophecy of the Star of Jacob Numb 24.17 though the Jews found sufficient reason to call him Barcozib the Son of a Lie and proceeded with that fury that they laid many places utterly wast both about Egypt and Libya Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio. cit à Scldeno and other Parts of Africa and Cyprus And both the. Jewish Chronicle Tzemach David and other Historians account two hundred thousand or a greater number to have been then slain by them about Alexandria and the Parts of Egypt Eus Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 2 6. To prevent the like sad effects in Judea and Mesopotamia where Orosius relates them to have been in Armes also in the time of Trajan the Emperour determined the destroying all the Jews there as a stop to the Enthusiastick Fury of that people And upon this account great multitudes of the Jews were destroyed by him and Adrian his successour in several Countries especially in and near Judea in the Expedition of Qu. Lucius and the taking the City Bitter What the Jews themselves express Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the vast numbers who were then destroyed is indeed utterly incredible but Eusebius mentioneth infinite multitudes cut off and Dion speaks of five hundred thousand slain by the Sword All which was the sad effect of the seditious outrages of the Jewish Nation when they might have otherwise enjoyed safety 13. To these I adde the instance of Thessalonica in the Reign of Theodosius the Emperour Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 17. When there had been a great tumultuous in surrection in that City wherein some of the Magistrates were stoned to death the Emperour highly incensed at the hearing thereof gave sentence for the destroying the Inhabitants of that City which was the Chief City of that part of the Roman Empire Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. under the Praefectus Illyriae And accordingly seven thousand men were slain even the innocent with the guilty all cut off together as Corn by the Sickle For which Fact proceeding from great unadvised passion that Emperour upon St. Ambrose's reproof manifested great repentance 14. Now the destroying innocent persons can never be just and the killing Infants among others though allowed and sometimes enjoined under the Mosaical Dispensation is certainly so contrary to the Spirit of Christian meekness that under the Gospel it may in no case be defended Yet forasmuch as the Soveraign Power in Judea The Subjects under the English Government have great advantages above many others and many other Eastern Nations and also in the Roman Empire as their Laws declare had such an authority that the particular Rescripts and Edicts of the Emperours were accounted law and what they determined was esteemed a legal decision or sentence and a judicial way of proceeding From these Considerations I suppose it was not lawful for any of the persons in the instances above-mentioned though some of them were unjustly sentenced to have taken Armes in their own defence But they were in this case to commit themselves to him that judgeth righteously as our Lord and Saviour hath lest us an example to do For if it were lawful for persons condemned without just cause to resist by force the proceedings of a judicial Sentence pronounced by the greatest authority according to the Constitution of that Government then were they not in subjection to that Government and Authority And they who were guilty of Capital Crimes were upon account of their offences so much the more obliged to submit themselves and their lives either to the justice or mercy of their Soveraign and not to add to their former crimes a continued resisting just Authority But the excellent Constitution of our English Government hath this advantage among others that it gives sufficient security to the English Subjects that there is no way of judiciary and legal proceedings by the King himself or any other against the life or property of any person Magn. Chart. c. 30. who lives peaceably and orderly but according to the established Laws of the Land and upon a fair tryal of his case Nor will our Laws allow any such general sentence which may take in innocent persons 15. And secondly there have also been cases in World where a Soveraign Power hath engaged in the destroying a great part of their Subjects who were guilty of no real Crime Where the