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
considered with other things which have affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. Chap. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome Sect. 1. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 2. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 3. Such claims can have no Foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge Sect. 4. Other Arguments for the pretended Papal Authority answered and refuted Chap. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England Sect. 1. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 2. No Patriarch ever had any just right to Patriarchal Authority in this Island Sect. 3. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates Chap. VIII Some pretences of other parties against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical refuted Sect. 1. Of Liberty of Conscience and Toleration Sect. 2. Of some other rigid and dangerous Principles against the Supremacy of Princes Chap. IX Corollaries concerning some duties of subjection The Second BOOK Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King Chap. I. THE publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered Sect. 1. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes Power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government Sect. 2. Of the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon any pretence whatsoever against the King Sect. 3. Of the traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or against those who are Commissionated by him Chap. II. The Laws of Nature and of General Equity and the right grounds of Humane Polity do condemn all Subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign Power Sect. 1. The preservation of Peace and common Rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Sect. 2. The Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince Sect. 3. The condition of Subjects would not be the better but the worse if it were lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign Sect. 4. The Plea that Self-defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature considered and of the end of Soveraign Power with a representation of the pretence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined Sect. 5. The Divine Original of Soveraign Power asserted Chap. III. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament Sect. 1. The need and usefulness of considering this Case Sect. 2. The general unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 3. Objections from the behaviour of David answered Sect. 4. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered Chap. IV. The Rules and Precepts delivered by Christ and his Apostles concerning resistance and the practice of the Primitive Christians declared Sect. 1. The Doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself Sect. 2. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practices Sect. 3. The practice and sense of the Primitive Church concerning resistance Chap. V. Of the Extent of the Duty and obligation of non-resistance Sect. 1. Resistance by force against the Soveraign Prince is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 2. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected on and considered ERRATA PAge 64. line 8. read 2 Kin. 1.10 12. p. 71. l. 19. Marg. r. de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 40. p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 106. l. 3. Marg. r. n. 6. p. 107. l. 4. r. Frischmuthius p. 219. l. 14. r. Sword and p. 223. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 1. Marg. r. Comen p. 268. l. 25. r. Patriarchdoms Christian Loyalty The First BOOK Of Regal Supremacy especially in matters Ecclesiastical and the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction CHAP. I. The Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared SECT I. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England 1. THE things established in the Church of England which all Ecclesiastical persons are required to declare their consent unto B. 1. C. 1. do concern matters of so high importance that both the being and the purity and perfection of a Church doth very much depend upon the consideration thereof to wit the order and way of its worship the due honour it gives to the King and Secular Authority the truth of its doctrine and the right and regular ordination of its Ministry That the publick worship of God in our Church is free from all just exception and agreeable to the rules of Christianity and the best and primitive patterns I have given some account in a former Treatise And in this discourse I shall treat of that Authority and Dignity which is justly yielded and ascribed to the supreme civil power 2. Loyal Principles useful to the world And if a general right understanding of this matter could every where be obtained together with a practice suitable thereunto it would greatly contribute to the advancement and honour of Christianity and the peace of the world The great miscarriages and irregular practices by not yielding to Soveraign Princes their due Authority hath strangely appeared in the enormous Usurpations of the Romish Church and the frequent distractions of the Empire and other Kingdoms which have been thence derived For the Roman Bishop who still claimeth even where he possesseth not Sect. 1 by his exorbitant encroachment upon the Royalty of Kings especially in matters Ecclesiastical and thereupon in Civil also did advance himself unto the highest step of his undue Papal exaltation And he thereby also more firmly fixed and rivetted his usurpation over other Christian Bishops and put himself into a capacity of propagating his corrupt doctrines without probable appearance of any considerable check or controul and with the less likelyhood of redress and reformation And from the like cause have proceeded divers exorbitancies in opinion and practice concerning the Church and its Government in another sort of men And the want of Conscientious observance of the duties of subjection hath too often manifested it self in the world by the sad effects of open tumult and rebellion all which hath highly tended to the scandal of Religion 3. It seemeth also considerable that almost all Sects and erring parties about matters of Religion and many of them to very ill purposes do nourish false conceptions and mistaken opinions concerning the civil power
the persons governed and an obligation upon them unto obedience so the chief and special works of secular Government are frequently expressed in the Holy Scripture by judging and doing judgment and justice 1 Kin. 10.9 Jer. 22.15 hence the ancient rulers of Israel were called their Judges by being as a Shepherd unto the people Num. 27.17 and also by giving praise to them that do well and executing wrath on them who do evil Rom. 13.3 4. 1 Pet. 2.14 Phil. de praem poen p. 918. de Vit. Mos l. 2. And Philo accounteth the authority of Government to be a power of commanding and prohibiting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which encludeth an authoritative power over the persons of others and being the life of and giving execution to the law The sense of which and especially of the Scripture expressions is That the Governing power includeth an authority to take care of the Community and of what is just and right and to command and encourage well-doing and when occasion requires to take an account of the actions and causes of inferiours acquitting or punishing them according to their merit and opposing all injurious and evil doers And he who hath a right to do all this towards all other persons in his Dominions without being governed by subject to or accountable before any other superiour authority upon earth is a Supreme Governour 2. But it is neither necessary nor most suitable to supremacy of Government that the rules by which the Governour proceedeth should be altogether at his own will and pleasure But it is sufficient that these rules be such as he either judgeth to be good and therefore chuseth of himself or else freely accepteth and consenteth to them if they be formed to his hands or proposed by others For it is no abatement of the high Soveraignty of the Glorious God over the world that all his government and executing judgment is ordered according to the natural and eternal rules and measures of goodness and justice and not by any such arbitrary will which excludeth all respect thereto And man hath not a less but a greater government over himself when he guideth himself by the rules of reason nor is it therefore any diminution of the power of a Governour when the exercise thereof is and ought to be managed by rules of common equity Yea the Kings of Judah enjoyed a compleat Supremacy though they were to govern according to the law of Moses and so much more may Christian Kings do while they maintain a Religious respect to the positive laws of Christianity And there are some Kingdoms where without any disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince they are governed by the fixed rules of the civil law and others where other laws established by their Predecessors are standing rules And if in the last place we consider that when great Emperours yielded to their conquered and tributary Principalities at their Petition and desire the priviledge of being governed by their own former laws as was done to Judaea by their Persian Josep Ant. l. 11. c. 4. c. 8. lib. 12. c. 2. c. 3. lib. 14. c. 17. Grecian Egyptian Syrian and Roman Governours under whose Dominion they were this was no giving the Supremacy of Government out of their own hands much less can it be a Plea against the Supremacy of Government in a free natural Prince where the consent of his Subjects in Parliament is always taken in for the forming and enacting any new law which he establisheth at their request and Petition 3. And as such a model of framing laws is very well consistent with the Supremacy of the Prince so it is a great priviledge to the subjects of such a Realm which they cannot but be sensible of and which will make their subjection more cheerful and free And it further encludeth this advantage to the Government it self that there is like to be greater care of obedience to those laws where the people are not only obliged thereto from the duty of submission and the fear of penalties but have also given their own consent and agreement to their being and constitution St. de Marlbridge St. de Bigamis St. quo Warranto passim To this purpose the things established by our laws are called things agreed and assented to and concordata and very often they are declared to be enacted by the Kings Majesty with the advice and assent of the Lords and Commons but always it is acknowledged that neither nor both Houses of Parliament have any legislative power without the King and whosoever shall assert the contrary is by a late statute declared to be under a Praemunire 13 Car. 2.1 4. And it is plainly evident Supremacy is a right of governing not of performing all particular offices that the supreme government in all things or causes is quite of a different nature from the right of performing the actions or offices of all persons who are under this government which for the most part are inconsistent with the dignity of Supremacy though some have been willing to confound these things and thereby hinder themselves and others from a right understanding of them De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. And Cardinal Bellarmine himself spent his strength and courage in fighting in the dark when he somewhat largely insists on this argument That secular Princes have not a supreme Government with respect to the Church because they cannot perform the offices of other Governours of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and argues they may not baptize and consecrate non sunt igitur Reges supremi Ecclesiae Magistratus But no man need be to seek for the true sense of supremacy as it is acknowledged in this Church and Realm who doth consider duly those very words both in the Oath of Supremacy and the Canonical subscription That the King is supreme Governour as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal Wherefore 5. Obs 1. In temporal things or causes there are some rights of power and authority Some authority besides the supreme by peculiar divine institution both in spiritual and temporal things which are wholly derived from the King as the Commanding an Army or Navy and the governing any place or County in his Dominion but there are others which depend upon divine institution which institution must be reverenced and the rules thereof attended unto by all sorts of men such is the authority and right of the Husband over his Wife in the state of marriage appointed of God And in Ecclesiastical matters there are some things in our ancient laws reserved as peculiar to the Ecclesiastical power not without good reason and yet much by the favour of the soveraign authority as the power of proving wills and testaments 21 Hen. 8.5.22 23 Car. 2. and granting administrations concerning which our late Statutes have made some additional provisions but there are other matters of Ecclesiastical authority
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
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 Prophet to death if the limit of his royal power could not extend it self to the case of a Prophet Jer. 26.18 19. See also Jer. 26.21 22 23. 7. Gr. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. in Jer. 26. in Jer. 28. in Mat. 5.22 Yet the learned Grotius and other Writers think they have found some evidence for the exemption of a Prophet from the royal power in the words of Zedekiah to the Princes concerning Jeremy Jer. 38.5 he is in your hands for the King is not he that can do any thing against you But herein he follows the steps of Brutus J. Brut. Vind. qu. 3. p. 96 97. Barclai adv Antimonarch l. 4. c. 12. whose great mistake was sufficiently detected by Barclay And these words have no other sense than that Zedekiah in his present straits must yield to this their desire as David was sometimes necessitated unto a complyance with the Children of Zerviah who he saith were too strong for him But we may wonder that so judicious a man should in this matter overlook many plain expressions in that very Chapter which beyond all contradiction evince the supreme authority of King Zedekiah in determining this very case of Jeremy v. 4. The Princes said to the King we be seech thee let this man be put to death And when Zedekiah had yielded him into their hands and they had cast him into the dungeon Ebedmelech makes his suit to the King for Jeremy and the King orders his being taken thence v. 8 9 10. And the King sware to Jeremy v. 16. I will not put thee to death nor will I give thee into the hands of these men that seek thy life Bertr de Rep. Jud. c. 11. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 6. n. 4. c. 9. n. 1. And yet this one mistaken expression above mentioned against the scope of the whole Chapter was made use of also by Bertram Selden and many English Writers in our late sad times for the abridging of the royal power 8. The words of our Saviour are also urged Luk. 13.33 It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem The sense of which words is that Jerusalem was so far degenerated that he who came from God and in his name should no where meet with so much opposition enmity and violence as in that place where there ought to be the readiest acceptance But that our Saviour should design Drus Praet ad Luc. 13.33 Grot. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. as many Writers would infer that no Prophet could be condemned to dy by any but the Jewish Sanhedrim would also have been contrary to the History of Johns being beheaded by Herod and to what Jesus had frequently foretold of himself that he should be crucified which was a kind of death never inflicted by the Jewish law but by the Roman 9. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 8. n. 1. Of the High Priest The judgment of the high priest claimed as peculiar to the Sanhedrim is by some restrained to capital causes only Yet the judgment concerning any of the priesthood whether there was any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or blemish Middoth c. 5. Sect. 3. Joma in Hor. Heb. in Mat. Chorogr c. 31. which rendred them unfit for their office was also claimed to the great Sanhedrim But had this case truly been as is pretended exempt from the regal power the sentence of Saul against Ahimelech and his Sons 1 Sam. 22 13-18 must have been accounted null and insignificant being pronounced by one who had no authority over him whereas at that time Ahimelech freely acknowledgeth his subjection to Saul as I above observed Nor can this Synedrial power consist with Salomons undertaking to depose Abiathar or his declaring it as a favour that he did not put him to death 1 Kin. 2.26 27. 10. And as to the admitting the priests to minister in their office this seemeth anciently to have belonged to the high Priests authority from 1 Sam. 2.36 but upon account of moral defilements and some other extraordinary cases there are instances of the Priests being rejected from their ministration by the authority of the Prince and secular governour And thus it was ordered by Josiah concerning them who had been Priests of the high places 2 Kin. 23.9 and by Nehemiah concerning them who could not make out their Genealogy and right of succession Neh. 7.65 From all this it is manifest that all these three cases have been misrepresented and that it is a bad description of the Kingdom of Judah which placeth all these things without the limits of the Royal authority 11. But there are also several other constitutions and determinations of authority which by these Writers are appropriated to the Synedrial power as the making of arbitrary wars the establishing and ordering inferiour judicatures and the constituting laws Of making War And to debar the King of all power in these matters and reserve them as peculiar to the Sanhedrin is in effect to affirm that neither the Royal Crown and Scepter nor the power of the Sword did belong unto the King 12. Sanh c. 1. Sect. 5. Coch. ibid. n. 23. Buxt Lex Ch. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 12. n. 1 2. Schick de jur Reg. H. b. c. 5. Theor. 17. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arbitrary war or War of choice whereby they understand all War besides what God commanded them against the seven Nations of Canaan might never be undertaken by the King but only by the authority of the Sanhedrin is generally asserted by these Jewish Writers and their followers Insomuch that Schickard producing Maimonides to the same purpose saith Rex arma finitimis illaturus necessariò prius deliberabat cum magno senatu citra cujus consensum miles non exibat Yet nothing can be more plain than that the war against the Ammonites for the defence of Jabesh-Gilead was particularly resolved upon by Saul upon his present hearing of the case 1 Sam. 11.5 6 7 12. to which Josephus agreeth Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 5 6. And the Wars against the Children of Ammon in Davids time whereby they were destroyed were by the determination of David 2 Sam. 10.6 7. ch 11.1 And lest any should surmise that this great Court was in such Cases present with the King as the Soul is with the body from which though no man can see it all strength and life is derived I shall add that famous instance of Jehosaphat When he was with the King of Israel out of his Kingdom he upon a sudden resolved on and undertook in League with Ahab a voluntary War against Syria 1 Kin. 22.3 4. and for his proceeding therein desired no instructions from any Council in Judea nor from any other man under Heaven but only concerning the event he enquired of a Prophet of the Lord in Israel v. 5. 13. He who would have any further instances in this
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
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
which undertook to dispose of the High Priesthood in Jewry against both the letter of the law and the design of it But no Governours whosoever they be whether of the Church or Strangers from it have any right to do such things no more than Jeroboam had to set up the worship of the ten Tribes of Israel contrary to the Law or than the Arian Emperours had to oppose the Deity of the Son of God against the Gospel But though it be very desireable that all parts of the Christian Church should be under Christian and pious Princes yet where other powers do take care Sect. 3 that the Christian Church and Ministers do observe the true Christian Rules Spalat Ostensio Error Fr. Suar. c. 3. n. 23. as the Archbishop of Spalato tells us was done in that part of his Province which was under the Turk this so far as it is regularly performed is an advantage to the Christian Religion and no blameable exercise of their authority 3. I think it a very plain and clear truth All Soveraign powers ought to profess and promote true Religion that Kings and Princes are invested with an authority to govern in matters of Religion not as originally arising from their Christianity but from their general right of Dominion and Soveraignty Nor will there be any difficulty in this assertion if we consider that this power of governing about Religion encludeth only a right of establishing by their authority what is truly unblameable orderly useful and necessary with respect to Religion and of enquiring into the practices of their subjects thereupon in order to approbation or punishment but gives no authority against truth or goodness 4. And though some persons by popular expressions declaim against this position De Minist angl l. 3. c. 4. yet the substance of it hath been yielded by men of various perswasions Mr Mason in his defence of the Ministry of England asserteth That they who are Heathens have the same office and authority of the higher power that the Christian Magistrate hath but want the right exercise of it in matters Ecclesiastical Our English Presbyterians have asserted that Heathen Magistrates may be nursing Fathers Jas div Reg. Eccl. c. 9. S. 1. may protect the Church and Religion and order many things in a ploitical way about Religion may not extirpate or persecute the Church may help her in reforming and may not hinder her Spalatens ubi sup And Spalatensis asserteth that the power of the Prince in the external things of the Church is so necessarily connected by divine natural and positive right with the Royal power ut infidelis etiam princeps tali si velit sciat legitime uti possit potestate that even an infidel Prince may use that power if he understand his duty and be willing to perform it And this assertion is approved even by Didoclavius or Mr Caldwood Altar Dam. c. 1. fin Didoclavius being the Anagram of Caldivodius one of the most eager of the Scotish Presbyterians And Rivet very rightly averreth In Decal ad quint. praec In infideli principe non est defectus potestatis sed voluntatis tantùm that an infidel Prince doth not want authority but will and inclination to advance the true Religion 5. Surely it is past doubt that where ever true Religion and Christianity is declared and manifested in the World it is the duty of all men to receive and embrace it because as they are Gods Creatures they ought to obey and honour him and submit to his Laws and believe his Revelations and thereupon every supreme Magistrate ought to advance the name of Christ and the true doctrine and Religion And if a Pagan Prince upon understanding the truth shall use his authority for its advancement this power is justly exercised in such Causes Ecclesiastical I presume no Christian will deny that Nebuchadnezzar did well in making a strict Law Dan. 3.29 that none should speak amiss against the God of Israel and Darius also in making a Decree that men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel Dan. 6.26 and Cyrus Darius and Artaxerxes in giving order for the rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem restoring its Vessels and furnishing it with Sacrifices and executing judgment on the opposers hereof with respect to which thing good Ezra blessed God who had put such a thing into the heart of Artaxerxes And that other Princes in like circumstances should follow the steps of Nebuchadnezzar Darius and the King of Niniveh who proclaimed a strict fast and commanded his people to cry mightily unto God Aug. Ep. 50. Tertul. Apol c. 5. is justly asserted by S. Aug. in his Epistle to Bonifacius 6. Nor are those Heathen Emperours to be censured who acted any thing on the behalf of Christian Religion as Tiberius threatned them who at their peril should accuse Christians for their Religion and other publick rescripts there were of Adrianus Eus Hist Eccl. l. 4.9 Antoninus ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aurelius Tertul. Ap. c. 5. and Galienus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were in the favour of Christians And it is a known and famous case concerning Paulus Samosatenus who for Heresy was deposed by the Christian Bishops in the Council of Antioch and Domnus appointed to succeed him Eus Hist l. 7. c. 24. But Paulus refusing to leave his possession the Orthodox Christians appeal to Aurelianus a Pagan Emperour who referring the case to be heard by the Bishops of Italy and about Rome ordered the Church to be given to him for whom they should determine and by his authority was Paulus ejected and neither his interposing nor their appeal unto him hath been ever thought culpable nor yet Paulus his being dispossessed Constantine before his baptism exercised authority in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the secular power 7. But above all others the acting of Constantine the Great before the time of his Baptism seemeth very considerable to evidence what power hath been exercised in things Ecclesiastical with the general approbation of Christians by one not yet admitted into the Christian Church Of which I shall give some particular instances to which more may be added beginning with what hath relation to the peace and concord of the Church Africa in a short time gave birth to the Schism of Donatus and of Meletius and the Heresy of Arius The Donatists separated themselves from the Church upon some exceptions they made against the Ordination of Caecilianus and being condemned by the African Catholick Bishops they apply themselves to Constantine the Emperour Opt. cont Parm. l. 1. But he being not versed in things of that nature as Optatus tells us did not or as S. Austin several times saith Aug. Ep. 162. 166. durst not undertake the judging of the case himself but by his authority he appointed Melchiades then Bishop of Rome with three Bishops of Gallia to judge
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
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
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
Conspiracies have been frequently contrived against the Safety and Welfare of Princes and their Kingdoms as the consequent of the wicked Positions which I have undertaken to refute But all these attempts which are Pernicious and Destructive to Humane Society will I hope sufficiently appear by the following Discourse to be perfectly opposite to the Christian Doctrine also and severely condemned by it Wherefore the things treated of in this Book are of such a nature that they are of great concernment for the good Order Peace and Settlement of the World the security of Kings and Kingdoms and the vindicating the Innocency of the Christian Religion Upon this Account I could wish my self to be more able to discourse of such a subject as this every way suitably to and worthy of it self But as I have herein used diligent care and consideration so I can freely say I have every where endeavoured impartially to discover and faithfully to express the truth and have never used any unworthy Artifices to evade or obscure it And therefore if the sober and judicious Reader shall in any thing of less moment as I hope he will not in matters of great moment discern any mistake I shall presume upon his Candor and Charity In the manner of handling things I have avoided nothing which I apprehended to be a difficulty or considerable matter of objection but in the return of Answers and the use of Arguments to confirm what I assert I have oft purposely omitted many things in themselves not inconsiderable for the shunning needless prolixity and have waved several things taken notice of by others for this cause sometimes because I was not willing to lay any stress upon such things as seemed to me not to be of sufficient strength On this account for instance in discoursing of the Supremacy of Princes over Ecclesiastical Officers I did not insist on our Saviour and S. Peter paying Tribute Mat. 17.24 27. For though many ancient Writers speak of this as paid to Caesar and some expressions in the Evangelist seem to favour this sense yet I suppose there is rather greater likelyhood that this had respect to the annual oblation unto God himself which the Jews paid for the service of the Temple to which St Hilary and some other Ancients refer it Yet in rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesars I still reserve unto God the things that are Gods acknowledging the primary necessity of embracing the true Worship of God and the Doctrine and practice of Christianity and that all Christians ought to bear an high reverence to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ under the Gospel and to that Authority and those Officers which he hath peculiarly established therein But there is a very great miscarriage among men that there are those who look upon many weighty things in Christianity as if they were merely secular Constitutions and were no further necessary to be observed than for the securing men from outward penalties These men do not observe and consider that there lyeth a far greater necessity of keeping and valuing the Communion of the Church of devoutly attending Gods publick worship and orderly performing its Offices with other things of like nature from the Precepts and Institutions of Christ and from the Divine Sanctions than from the countenance or establishment of any civil Law or secular Authority whatsoever The lively sense and consideration of this was that which so wonderfully promoted and preserved both Piety and Unity in the Primitive Church when it had no encouragement from the Temporal Power But there must be no opposition made between Fearing God and Honouring the King but a careful discharge of both and these Precepts which God hath joined together let no man separate And now I shall only entreat that Reader who is inclined to have different apprehensions from the main things I assert to be so just to his own reason and Conscience as impartially to consider and embrace the evidence of Truth which is the more necessary because truths of this nature are no mere matters of speculation but are such Rules to direct our practice which they who are unwilling to entertain act neither charitably to themselves nor accountably to God And he who is the Father of Spirits direct the hearts of all men into the wayes of Goodness Uprightness Truth and Peace Lyn Regis June 21. 1678. THE CONTENTS THE First BOOK Chap. I. THE Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared Sect. 1. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England Sect. 2. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to Causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 3. The Declaration of this sense by publick Authority observed Sect. 4. The spiritual Authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the Secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy Sect. 5. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto Chap. II. The Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered Sect. 1. Their supreme Authority over things and persons sacred manifested Sect. 2. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same Authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Chap. III. No Synedrial Power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal Sect. 1. The Exorbitant Power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 2. The determination of many weighty Cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the Royal Power examined and refuted Sect. 3. Of the Antiquity of the Synedrial Power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate Chap. IV. Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical proved from reason and the Doctrine of Christ Sect. 1. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign Power Sect. 2. The same established by the Christian Doctrine Sect. 3. What Authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church Sect. 4. An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great with respect to the fuller clearing this matter Chap. V. An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the Authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion Sect. 1. Of the General Exercise of this Supremacy and its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice Sect. 2. This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople and the third at Ephesus Sect. 3. The same acknowledged in the Council of Chalcedon and others Sect. 4. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered Sect. 5. Other Objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their Authority Sect. 6. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the Causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance
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
Supremacy according to this article of our Church At the end of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge King James so approved his explication thereof that he returned him particular thanks for the same which is printed with his speech And the Bishop therein plainly asserted that God had established two distinct powers on earth the one of the Keys committed to the Church and the other of the Sword which is committed to the civil Magistrate and by which the King governeth And therewith he declareth that as the spiritual Rulers have not only respect to the first table but to the second so the Magistrates power hath not only respect to the second table but also to the first 5. From all this we have this plain sense That the King is supreme Governour that is under God say the Injunctions and with the civil sword say the Articles as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal that is he hath the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born in these Dominions of what estate soever either Ecclesiastical or temporal say the Injunctions and to the same purpose the Articles Only here we must observe that the King 's being supreme Governour in all things and causes is one and the same thing with his having the chief Government over the persons of all his subjects with respect to their places actions and employments and therefore is well explained thereby For it must necessarily be the same thing to have the command or oversight of any Officer subject or servant about his business and to have a command or over-sight concerning the business in which he is to be employed and the same is to be said concerning the power of examining their cases or punishing neglects and offences 6. And from hence we may take an account Of supreme head of the Church of England Def. of Apol Part 6. Ch. 11. div 1. of the true sense of that title used by King Henr. 8. and King Edw. 6. of supreme head of the Church of England This stile was much misunderstood by divers Foreigners seemed not pleasing to Bishop Juel and some others of our own Church was well and wisely changed by our Governours and hath been out of date for above sixscore years past And though this title was first given to King Hen. 8. Tit. Of this civil Magistrate by a Convocation and Parliament of the Roman Communion it was used all King Edwards days and then owned even in the book of Articles And the true intended sense from the expressions above mentioned appeareth manifestly to be this to acknowledge the King to be head or chief Governour even in Ecclesiastical things of that number of Christians or that part of the Catholick Church who reside in these Realms and are subjects to his Crown even as Saul by being anointed King Wh. Treat 8. ch 1. div 4. Bishop Saund. Episcop not prejud to reg p. 130 131. Mas de Min. Anglic l. 3. c. 4. was made head of the tribes of Israel 1 Sam. 15.17 And according to this sense the use of this title was allowed and justified by very worthy men such as Bishop Whitgift Bishop Saunderson Mr Mason and others And to this end and purpose it is the just right of the King of England to own himself the supreme Governour of the Church of England which was a stile sometime used by our pious and gracious King Charles the First Declar. before 39. Articles in his publick Declaration about Ecclesiastical things but with due respect to the Ecclesiastical Officers 7. In the ancient Church it was not unusual for him who had the chief preeminence over a Province or a considerable part of the Christian Church to be owned as their head Can. Apost 34. whence in the ancient Collection or Code called the Canons of the Apostles the chief Bishop in every Nation was required to be esteemed by the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head And that Bishops may be called heads of their Churches is asserted by Gregorius de Valentia from that expression of Scripture lately mentioned concerning Saul Tom. 4. Disp 1. qu. 8. punct 4. which yet must more directly and immediately prove that title to be applicable to a Sovereign Prince And as the name of head is only taken for a chief and governing member the Author of the Annotations upon the Epistles under S. Hierom's name was not afraid of this expression In 1 Cor. 12. Sacerdos caput Ecclesiae the Priest is the head of the Church 8. And though that Statute whereby the title of supreme head of the Church of England was yielded to King Hen. 8. 26 Hen. 8.1 doth assert the Kings power to correct and amend by spiritual authority and Jurisdiction yet that this was intended only objectively concerning his government in spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes or his seeing these things be done by Ecclesiastical Officers and was only so claimed and used we have further plain evidence both concerning the time of King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. Under the Reign of King Hen. 8. by his particular command for the acquainting his subjects with such truths as they ought to profess was published a Book called The Institution of a Christian man which was subscribed by twenty one Bishops and divers others of the Clergy and the Professors of Civil and Canon law and in the dedication thereof to the King Of the Sacr. of Orders f. 39. by them all is given to him this title of Supreme head in Earth immediately under Christ of the Church of England In this Book besides very many other things to the same purpose it is asserted That Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the new testament that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes which is called potestas gladii the power of the sword there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other Ministers or Officers which should have special power authority and commission under Christ to preach and teach the word of God to dispense and administer the Sacraments to loose and absolve to bind and to excommunicate to order and consecrate others in the same room order and office f. 40. And again This said power and administration in some places is called claves sive potestas clavium that is to say the Keys or the power of the Keys whereby is signified a certain limited office restrained unto the execution of a special function or ministration f. 41. And yet further we have therein this very clear passage That this office this power and authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain persons only that is to say unto Priests or Bishops whom they did elect call and admit thereto by their prayer and imposition of their hands 9. And concerning the office and power of Kings the Doctrine and positions then received were such as
or supreme governour if he will make use thereof as hath been declared by the chief persons of this Church Can. 1. 1640. And the ancient right and exercise of the authority of Kings in summoning provincial or national Councils De Conc. Sac. Imp. l. 6. c. 18 19 22 23 24 c. The Kings just authority in matters Ecclesiastical opposed is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca 6. But against these just rights of the Princes power there are various oppositions Such are the claims of the Romish Bishops universal Supremacy either in all affairs or at least in all things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as also the pretence for the necessity of general liberty and exemption from all authority in matters of Conscience and Religion Ch. 6. 8. which things I shall so far as is needful in due place particularly consider 7. The Writers of the Romish Church do 1. V. l. 2. Decretal Tit. de Jud. c. At si clerici c. Clerici Tit. de foro comp c si diligenti Bellar. de Cler. c. 28. Generally assert and some other parties also encline the same way that the state of the Church and all Ecclesiastical affairs are exempt from the civil power and not under the inspection and government thereof and that the Clergy as such are not subjects to the secular Governour and that they are not accountable before him no not so much say divers of them as in criminal causes nor yet in civil Layman l. 4. Tr. 9. c. 2 4 5. seq 2. Not only the Canonists but many others also do found this Ecclesiastical immunity upon a proper divine right which is also asserted by some of the Romish Biships Innoc. 3. in Conc. Lateran Leo 10. in Bul. Reform in Conc. Later 5. Ses 9. Azor. Tom. 1. l. 5. c. 12. Laym ubi sup c. 8. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. p. 4. Bannes in 2. secundae qu. 6â— Art 1. Dub. 2. in such Councils as they call General And some of their Writers run so high as Layman Theol. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. cap. 13. and divers others by him there cited as to assert that no civil or secular laws do lay any obligation directly upon the Clergy as having no authority over them But if I shall shew that all members of the Christian Church are nevertheless subjects or the Realm and that the nature of civil Soveraignty doth directly include a right to givern them and an obligation to take care of the affairs of the Church this will sufficiently refute these contrary positions 8. But these Writers are sensible that in the general practice of the Christian World almost in all ages thereof secular Governours have interposed in many cases Ecclesiastical And the great advantages from Christian Religion being established and Gentilisme opposed by the Laws and Constitutions of Constantine and other worthy Christian Emperours are so visible that they cannot be denied and therefore the Romanists do acknowledge that the Princes care of the Church affairs is of great use I. Zecch de principe l. 2. cap. 5. and that he is as Laelius Zecchius expresseth it Ecclesiae brachium Religionis propugnaculum the arm and defence of the Church and the fortress of Religion Greg. de Valentia ubi supra Laym l. 4. tr 9. c. 10. P. de Marca de Concord l. 1. cap. 12. in Prolegom p. 28. Yet that all this may be consistent with the former positions we have another device set on foot which acknowledgeth that this useful power of Soveraign Princes in things Ecclesiastical must be owned only as a priviledge granted them by the Bishop of Rome and that they must act therein as by his favour and as his deputies and by the right of protecting the Church which he committeth to them 9. Now though this pretence will fall with the former if it be manifested that the nature end and constitution of civil government as established by God is to be extended to matters Ecclesiastical yet concerning this pretence I shall here further note these things 1. That they must cast reflections upon the wise and good God who asserting the great usefulness of the civil Ruler interposing in matters Ecclesiastical will not grant that the wisdom and goodness of God should be as ready to allow the Church this advantage as the prudence of the Pope 2. That if this anthority in matters Ecclesiastical be against the rules of the divine law which God hath established for the honour and freedom of his Church the Bishop of Rome dealeth ill with the Church touching its freedoms by giving them away and makes very bold with God by daring to confront Gods laws with his priviledges and indulging any person to disobey them 3. That Christian Princes would be in a very unsafe condition whilest they act any thing about the affairs of the Church if they have no better foundation to bear them up than the pretence of the Popes power to dispense with the laws of God Surely had Justinian thought Novel 58. that his care of the Church had been so ventuous and hazardous an enterprise it would have cooled the heat of his zeal that he would never have professed his care for the Churches wilfare to be equal to that for his own life 4. That whilest any persons do think it meet that Princes should act under the Pope as his deputy in the affairs of Religion to whom they owe no subjection and from whom they receive no ruling authority it must certainly be much more reasonable that they should act under God and as his Deputies whose Vice-gerents they certainly are and from whom I shall now design to prove them to have authority in matters Ecclesiastical B. 1. C. 2. CHAP. II. The Royal Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered SECT I. Their supreme authority over things and persons sacred manifested 1. Kings in the Old Testament governed about things of the Church Art 37. THE inference which may be made from the authority of the Kings under the Old Testament is an argument to which our Church hath a great respect in asserting the Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical In her Articles she declareth this acknowledgment of Royal Supremacy to be a yielding that only prerogative unto our Kings which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture Can. 2. by God himself And in her Canons she threatneth excommunication against them who shall affirm that the King hath not the same authority in causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 1 that the godly Kings had among the Jews Wherefore I shall for the inforcing this argument shew 1. That the Kings of Judah had and exercised a supreme power of Government in things belonging to the Church 2. That they did this by such a right as is common to all other Soveraign powers and not by any peculiar priviledge and
David 1 Kin. 1.26 and that David was his Lord v. 11 27. and David owned himself to be his Lord v. 33. and gave him command concerning the inaugurating of Salomon v. 32 33 34. which Nathan observed Schickard de Jur. Reg. Heb. c. 4. Theor 13. Carpzov in Schick ibid. v. 38. And the testimony of the Jewish Rabbins Maimonides and R. Bechai have been by others observed who from the example of Nathan 1 Kin. 1.23 declare that a Prophet is to stand before the King and to do reverence to him with his face to the Earth 7. Idolatry c. Concerning other general and necessary matters of Religion it is so plain from the History of the Scriptures that idolatry witchcraft and other such gross pollutions were punished and suppressed by the authority of the good Kings that it is needless to refer to particular places When Micah and the Danites had an House of Gods it is particularly observed that in those days there was no King in Israel Jud. 17.5 6. ch 18.1 which words do plainly intimate that if there had been then a King or setled Governour it should have been his care to prohibit and root out such transgressions against God and S. Aug. asserteth Aug. Epist ad Bonifac that other Kings ought to serve God as hezekiah did who destroyed the Groves and Temples of Idols And that Josiah the King was to destroy the Altar of Bethel was foretold 1 Kin. 13.2 8. Now though most of these things with many others of like nature have been frequently observed by other Writers yet I thought it necessary somewhat particularly to take notice of them in the management of this argument especially because of the opposition I must meet with and encounter in the following Chapter 9. But lest any should say Their governing herein was approved of God that all these things were indeed matters of fact but undertaken without right it must be further considered that the exercise of this royal authority in things Ecclesiastical was approved and commended by God himself and therefore was no unjust usurpation Thus for instance Asa's care of reforming Religion and establishing it tbroughout all Judah is declared to be that which was right in the eyes of the Lord 2 Chr. 14 2-5 and those pious acts of Hezekiah and Josiah for the suppressing false worship and establishing true Religion had an high and signal commendation from God himself 2 Kin. 18.3 4 5 6. and ch 23.1 2 -25. And where there were defects in the purity of the publick worship even this was charged as a blemish in the government of the Kings who then reigned as upon Asa Jehosaphat Joash Amaziah and others 1 Kin. 15.4 ch 22.43 2 Kin. 12.3 ch 14.4 And from hence it appears according to what hath been declared in our Church Can. 1.1640 that the care of Gods Church is so committed to Kings in the Scripture that they are commended when the Church keepeth the right way and taxed when it runs amiss and therefore her Government belongeth in chief unto Kings for otherwise one man would be commended for anothers care and taxed for anothers negligence which is not Gods way SECT II. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Sect. 2 1. That the force of this argument might be avoided divers methods are made use of the chief of which I shall consider And those which in this Section I shall take notice of are reducible to two ranks Under the former I shall examine those pretences which are made to evidence that the Jewish Kings ordering things about Religion was an extraordinary case and by an extraordinary power and Commission and therefore must not be made a pattern for other times Under the second I shall consider such Pleas as would make a shew of proof that there is such a difference between the Gospel state and the Mosaical dispensation in this particular that thereupon Princes are not capable now of the like Soveraignty which they then enjoyed 2. With respect to the former head first Bellarmine will have David Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. Salomon and Josiah to have acted in matters of Religion as Prophets not as Kings and if this speak to the purpose the like must be supposed concerning all other Kings They governed as Kings not as Prophets in things Ecclesiastical who commanded about Religion And yet the Scriptures expresly call these orders the commandment of the King 2 Chr. 29.24 ch 30.6 ch 31.13 ch 35.10 16. and elsewhere and sometimes the commandment of the King and his Princes 2 Chr. 29.30 ch 30.12 Nor is there any pretence for affixing the prophetical office unto all the Kings of Judah who gave commands about Religion it being certain that neither Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah nor divers others of them were themselves Prophets but did as occasion required consult others as the Prophets of God De Concordia Sa. Imp. l. 2. c. 4. n. 5. And this is so far acknowledged by P. de Marca that thereupon he justly rejecteth this Plea as insufficient though he confesseth it to be usual 3. They had no extraordinary Commission herein V. Bishop Bilson of Christian subj Par. 2. p. 198. But others say the Kings of the Family of Israel might do what they did warrantably concerning Religion by a special command of God made known by a Prophet and this might make their undertaking herein necessary Now that Prophets did advise and direct in some of these cases is granted but still the authority which established such directions by a publick Sanction was the royal power But if any pretend that the Kings received their authority herein by an extraordinary commission from a Prophet he ought to give proof of this which he can never do but that there can be no place for any such conjecture will appear because 1. It is not likely that Gods Prophets should constantly require the Kings to intermeddle in any thing that was ordinarily unsuitable for their office to undertake and it is also injurious to the wisdom of God to think that he should make the care of Religion the duty of all the Kings of the stock of David only by an extraordinary message to every one of them 2. It is manifest that many things concerning Religion were well undertaken by the Kings of Judah without so much as the special direction of a Prophet Such were Davids first intentions to build a temple which God approved Hezekiahs order for the general Passover in the second month which is declared to be done by the consultation of the King and his Princes 2 Chr. 30.2 and Josiah's reformation was in a good measure effected before he advised with the Prophetess Huldah 4. Cun. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 14. Marca de Conc. l. 2. c. 4. n. 4 5. But there is another Plea made use of by Cunaeus
difference of Judaism and Christianity considered with respect to supremacy But as to the particular subject matter of this authority which cannot possibly be the same in Judaisme and Christianity there must of necessity appear a difference in the exercise of this supreme authority many things being allowable under the law which are not so under the Gospel But it is here further pleaded that the Kings under the Law might be further interested in Ecclesiastical affairs than the Gospel will admit because the Church and state were not so much distinguished under the legal Oeconomy as under the Evangelical the Mosaical law being the foundation and rule both of the Jewish Church and of the political government But in truth the proper fixed Kingly authority in the Family of Israel was not so much established as only allowed by the Mosaical law and though there was a true royal power in Moses and in the Judges yet this was not fixed and determined to be the constant Government by a particular law And the Priesthood under the law was as fully distinct from the civil power as the Church government under the Gospel is neither of them deriving themselves from the civil nor resolving themselves into it But in both these dispensations as the Ecclesiastical government was appointed by them so was the civil also in general established yet so that the foundation which it hath in the laws of nature is antecedent unto both And if there be any difference as to subjection of things and persons Ecclesiastical unto Princes it might seem plausible which yet is not to be insisted upon that the Jewish Priesthood might the rather pretend exemption from the royal power as being established before the fixed royal line 9. Epil B. 1. Ch. 20. Right of the Church ubi supra It is also urged and must be granted that the Christian Church is of a larger extent than the limits of any single temporal soveraign whereas the Jewish Church and State were one and the same body except the case of some Proselytes such as Naaman was among the Gentiles And from hence it is to be acknowledged that by the determination of Catholick Councils or by the universal practice of Christians abroad any particular Christian Kingdom and the Soveraign thereof may be obliged to entertain and establish some things otherwise indifferent in a compliance with these generally received usages and thereby with respect to the peace unity and honour of the Christian Church Of this nature are some things relating to Canonical ordinations the solemnizing of marriage the observation of the Church festivals and the rules for communicating with other parts of the Christian Church Indeed no such rule as this could have any force in the Jewish Church but yet this consideration cannot hinder either the extent or exercise of the Princes authority in the Christian Church unless this power had consisted in a liberty to lay aside all rules in matters adiaphorous relating to Religion besides his own pleasure Whereas it doth consist in such a right as cannot be restrained or annulled by any power upon earth to establish by civil sanctions what is useful about Religion And his being obliged in Conscience to admit and embrace such particular things as conduce to the Vnity or welfare of the Christian Church which is a duty every Christian oweth unto God is no more prejudicial to his supremacy of Government in this very case than a private mans being bound to admit what general custom hath made a part of decency and civility is prejudicial to or inconsistent with his right and power of governing and commanding his own actions 10. Wherefore it remains that the supremacy of Christian Princes notwithstanding these things objected is the same in substance with the Supremacy of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion but in some particularities there must be a difference in the way of its exercise And this may possibly be all that Mr Thorndike intended who expressing a difference in this matter between the state of the law and the Gospel referreth this sometimes a Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 11. to the consideration of the Churches Vnity or else b Review Ch. 1. p. 11. as a stop to Erastus Yet he plainly asserteth from the consideration that the Apocalypse foretelleth the conversion of the Empire to Christianity c Review p. 15. that it cannot be doubted that Christian powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient people always had by the making Christianity the Religion of the State And he also admits d Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 9 10 11. Review ch 1. p. 13 14. the same power in matters Ecclesiastical both in the Christian state and in the Jewish to flow from the nature of Soveraign power and the necessary duty of this power being employed to advance Religion 11. Of the Consecration of Churches Another thing which may possibly deserve some consideration is from the general usage and practice of the Church concerning the dedication and consecration of Churches Some have thought that when Salomons Temple was consecrated the consecration thereof was mainly performed by Salomon himself who was the King this is urged by the Leviathan Leviath Ch. 40. Hospin de Templ l. 4. c. 2. and some men of learning seem to favour this notion speaking of him Ipse dedicationis praecipuas obivit partes that he himself discharged the chief part of the dedication But the general practice of the Christian Church hath been so far as any account thereof can be discovered to have their Churches dedicated not by Princes undertaking to celebrate that solemnity but by the Bishops of the Church C. 1. q. 2. c. placuit de Consecrat dist 1. Leon. Ep. 88. ad Germ. Gal. Episcop De Vit. Const c. 40 43 44. And this is not only manifest from divers Canons mentioned by Gratian and from the Epistles of Leo but the practice of the Church herein is evident in the time of Constantine the Great For there is a particular account given by Eusebius in the life of Constantine of the dedication of a famous Church in Jerusalem to which he telleth us divers Bishops were assembled and did bear their parts in that solemnity And the same author acquainteth us that in his reign there were in divers Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. consecrations of those places of divine worship which were then lately built and the meeting of Bishops to that end 12. But that this seeming difficulty may be cleared it may be observed that there were three sort of things done at the consecration of the temple at Jerusalem 1. Salomon whom God had chosen to build his House when he had finished it yieldeth up his right and presenteth it to God and by Prayer desireth Gods acceptance and that it might be useful to the designed end and the
after he saith In this Kingdom there were Officers of the Realm rege superiores I say saith he in this Kingdom which was established and ordained not by Plato or Aristotle but by God himself the supreme founder of all Monarchy 4. And it is very manifest The pretended power of the Sanhedrin that the greater part of the Jewish Rabbinical Writers and from them divers Christians some of them so judicious that it is strange they should be so much imposed upon by Fables and Romances do assert that the Sanhedrim or Senate of seventy one persons had such a power over the Kings of Judah as to call them to account and punish them And they also assert that according to the original establishment of the Jewish laws and polity the chief causes of moment both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature were exempt from the Kings jurisdiction and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance Grot. Schick ubi supra To this purpose Grotius declareth aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta I think there were some cases of judgment reserved from the King which remained in the Sanhedrim of seventy men i. e. besides the Nasi or president Schickard goes farther and sayes sine senatus magni assensu Rex in gravioribus causis nihil poterat decernere that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters without the assent of this great Senate And our Author de Synedriis De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 1. among other things discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio magno propriis ut nec à Regibus aut impediri aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt in which words he fetters and confines the Kings power but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large 5. Carpzov in Schick c. 2. p. 142. But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions that they have no better a foundation than a tradition delivered by some of the Jewish Rabbins This a fabulous tradition of the Rabbins against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular there lie these exceptions 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority before the captivity but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time and therefore can give no testimony upon their own knowledge and writing one from another with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered the number of them who are produced can add nothing to their testimony But both divine and humane writers who are of an ancienter date do sufficiently contradict this position as I hope to make plain He therefore who can believe that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders because divers of late but neither Scripture nor ancient Writers do assert it and he who can perswade himself that our Saviour made the Bishop of Rome the Vniversal Monarch of the whole World and gave him a plenitude of all temporal and spiritual power because many Writers of that Communion do now assert this while what is inconsistent therewith was declared by Christ his Apostles and the ancient Christian Church such men have understandings of a fit fize and sutable disposition to receive these Rabbinical traditions concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy which are also things fit for their purpose 6. Gemar Sanhed Cocc c. 2. Sect. 10. Secondly It is evident that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Nation were forward to extol it even beyond the bounds of truth of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud of the number of the Horses for Salomons own Stables which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty millions accounting a thousand thousand to a Million Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory for a considerable time Sed. Olam zut in fin before the reign of Aristobulus and under the Roman Government and some continuance thereof remained towards five hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem as their Chronicle informs us which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers And it is very probable that the pressures and sufferings which the Jews sustained under the Roman Emperours or Kings might prejudice them against Monarchical Government 7. Thirdly There are other Rabbinical and Talmudical Writers of good note who will by no means be perswaded to embrace this tradition which disparageth the Royal power Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rabba and others are cited by Mr Selden and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius who assert that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King And that the highest authority is in the King who standeth in Gods place is asserted by R. Abarbanel Carpzov in Schick p. 165. Their pretended power over the person of the King refuted whose words are in Carpzov 8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim over the person of the King They deal with the royal authority as the Jews did with our Saviour who gave him the title of the King of the Jews but yet scourged him and treated him with great indignity For these Writers do assert that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim only by the great Sanhedrim at Jernsalem saith Schickard De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7. and he acknowledgeth that even this appeared to him valde paradoxum a thing far from truth and very unlikely until his own apprehensions were moulded into a complyance with the Jewish Writers But Mr Selden addeth De Syn. l. 2. c. 9. n. 5. that according to the testimony of the Rabbins he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three which was the Government of every particular City And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging enumerated by Maimonides Ibid. c. 13. n. 8. and mentioned from him by Selden the three last are if the King multiply Wives if he multiply Horses and if he multiply silver and gold Now these things are so strange in themselves reducing the King to the same circumstances with every common and petty offender that how this can consist with the majesty and soveraignty of a Prince is utterly unconceiveable and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies must also perswade himself to believe against the plainest evidence that David and those who sat upon his throne were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah but were all of them subjects under the common and ordinary government and authority of that Common-wealth 9. Schickard de Jur.
Reg. ubi sup And this absurd assertion hath put those Christian Writers who close with it upon unreasonable shifts for the defence thereof And for the reconciling this with the dignity of a King many of them make this their last refuge that this scourging amongst the Jews Grot. de Jur. Bel. pac ubi sup was without any note of infamy or disgrace and was voluntarily to be submitted to by their Kings as an act of penance and not of force But this answer stands chargeable with a twofold miscarriage 1. With a contradiction to the design of them who urge it and a giving up their cause for if there be nothing in it of disgrace it cannot be inflicted as a censure and the publick punishment of a fault and if it be undertaken only of voluntary choice and not of force then is it not the result of the sentence of a superiour Synedrial authority 2. This would also conclude that many considerable offenders who were to be punished with scourging as by the custom of the Jews according to the cases mentioned by Maimonides Maimon n. 134 135 156. he that curseth his neighbour in the name of Jehovah he that is guilty of perjury and he that commits whoredome and by the law of God the unfree woman who played the whore being betrothed Lev. 19.20 were free from all penalty and disgrace though the divine law Deut. 25.3 peculiarly mentions this punishment as infamous Wherefore these traditions are so absurd that Petitus justly affirmed Petit. Diatribe de Jure pr. c. 2. istam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animo tantum conceperunt nulli principes eo jure regnarunt that no King of Judah with this manacled authority ever reigned any where else but in the fancies and pens of these Jewish Writers and their followers 10. Now a position so strange in it self and which puts men of learning upon such difficult service and hard shifts to bear it up had need bring with it very clear evidence if it expect to be entertained But in this case Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 9. n. 2. Mr Selden who is forward enough to embrace the notions of the Rabbins after he had represented what is usually said was so far in doubt of the truth that he saith hac in re nihil omnino definimus Schick ubi sup And Schickard who largely asserteth this synedrial power confesseth that he could not meet with any one instance of its having ever been reduced to practice And those who have ventured either at instances or arguments have greatly miscarried therein 11. Two instances by some have been produced only to shew that Kings have been cited before the Jewish Sanhedrim The one of Herod the King An. 31. n. 1◠mentioned by Baronius but it is strange to see how pitifully he mistakes the case or else imposeth upon his Reader For it is plain from Josephus whence he hath this story that Herod was then no King of Judea nor was he cited by the Sanhedrim but by Hyrcanus Ant. Jud. l. 14. c. 17. who was then King by the Roman authority And it is much that the Cardinal should not consider that if Herod after he was King of Judea by the Roman right was under the Jurisdiction of the standing Jewish Synedrial authority the consequence must be that the Jews then were Governours over the Romans and their power but were in no subjection to them which besides the credit of History herein concerned he who acknowledgeth Christ crucified cannot admit 12. Another instance is mentioned of Jannaeus the King who is said to have been cited by the Sanhedrim upon account of a servant of his being charged with murder This instance in his second thoughts Schick append in Carpzov p. 152 153. Schickard preferreth to the former Now if this had been true concerning Jannaeus it would be of no great moment since he lived under the lapsed state of the Jews and had the name but not the authority and dignity of a King But this story is manifestly fictitious is stiled by Salmasius nugae fabulae Rabbinicae is not at all mentioned by Josephus Defens Reg. c. 2. p. 49. or any good Historian and also brings in the Angel Gabriel to bear a part in it by coming then into the Senate and destroying all the assessors thereof And this story is taken out of the Gemara where the whole Section is evidently vain and frivolous Gemar in Sanhed c. 2. Sect. 1. as amongst other things may appear from the way of its arguing in this matter which I shall presently take notice of Besides this I shall add that so much as hath any truth in this relation is very probably a kind of fabulous representation of the former instance of Herod under different names and circumstances For both of them are said to be cited upon occasion of some persons being put to death both the stories say that upon their appearance the whole Court whether properly the Sanhedrim or Hyrcanus his Judges called by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spake not a word against them save only one bold man and that thereupon all the rest besides this man were after put to death And this man is called Sameas or Shammai in the one story and Simeon in the other which I conceive to be one and the same name in a different Dialect Grot. in Mat. 16.17 Drus Praet in Joh. 21.15 Hor. Hebr. in Joh. 11.1 in Luk. 16.20 even as Johannes Johanan and Jonah in likelyhood are the vulgar latin expressing Jonas by Johannes Joh. 21.15 And so are Lazarus and Eleazar and many others whence the Ethiopick Version instead of Lazarus constantly useth Eleazar Luk. 16. and Joh. 11. and that they are one and the same name hath been clearly evinced To which I add submitting these conjectures to the judgments of others that the name of Jannaeus or Jannas might possibly be made use of in this Talmudical relation from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the Hebrew and Chaldee for one injurious and oppressive 13. How extream vainly they argue in this particular will appear from that noted instance of the Talmud Sanh c. 2. Sect. 2. The Mishneh had declared that the King neither judgeth nor is judged which it manifestly expresseth concerning the Kings of the line of David nor doth it intend to deny them the authority of judging because the same Treatise affirms C. 7. Sect. 3. capital punishments by the sword to be inflicted by the King but that they did not usually in person sit in any Court or Consistory Gemara ubi sup But the Gemara here being a Comment which contradicteth the Text telleth us that this sentence The King doth not judge nor is judged doth not belong to the Kings of the House of David for they did both judge and were judged And the proof it produceth that they were judged is from Jer. 21.12
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
1. Con. Eph. c. 32. to engage the Royal power to take care of Religion because all civil powers are to intend the good of their inferiours according to the doctrine of S. Paul Rom. 13.4 And the instances of David Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah Constantine Theodosius and many other pious Kings and Emperours do manifest that they are capable of procuring very great good to their Subjects by their pious care about the matters of Religion And no doubt S. Austin might with good reason be confident Cont. Ep. Gaudent l. 2. c. 17. in Epist 50. that the Laws of Christian Princes about Religion had been the occasion of bringing many to Salvation by Jesus Christ 7. And the Royal Government is much of the same nature with the paternal enlarged in the extent thereof over several Families but not restrained in the nature of it and in the most excellent and useful part of its authority Gods Ordinance hereby placing others in that authority which Adam and Noah had Phil. de creat princip p. 727. over their multiplyed and enlarged Progeny Hence Princes are fitly stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Parents of Cities and Kingdoms their political and civil being having a dependance also upon them who were called Patres patriae 8. And the consideration of the paternal power will remove the objections which some men make use of against the authority of Princes in matters of Religion For if Religion must be so far left free as not to be commanded and enjoined by any humane civil power then would Abrahams commanding his Children and Houshold have been blameable he being in his Sphere a secular Ruler as well as a Prince is Or if it be pretended that grown men who are come to years of understanding and have undertaken the profession of true Religion ought to be so far left to their own choice as not to be under the Government of any civil power with respect to Religion this also is refuted by the instance of Abraham's commanding his Houshold which was so large V. Salian An. M. 2118. n. 13. an 2138. that many years before this time of the destruction of Sodom when God gave Abraham this commendation he could arm three hundred and eighteen Souldiers of his own Houshold Gen. 14.14 and all his numerous Family had been Circumcised And since Abraham continued under the blessing of God it is very probable that his Family was further enlarged before the time of this commendation of him 9. To all this I shall add that he who doth soberly consider what sad disturbances and commotions in divers Kingdoms have been the product of the corruptions and errors in the Christian Religion both upon the account of the Papal Vsurpations under the pretence of spiritual power and by reason of the disloyal positions and tumultuous practices of other Sects and their frequent Rebellions shall need no other argument to convince him that the Princes exercise of Government about the affairs of Religion is greatly necessary for the securing his own authority the peace of his Kingdoms and the property of his subjects SECT II. The same established by the Christian Doctrine 1. That the Gospel Doctrine never intended to destroy or diminish the right of secular powers is granted by some of chief note amongst the Romanists Christus saith P. de Marca cum Evangelium suum institueret De Concord in proleg p. 25. regum dignitatem non laesit And this is not only manifest from the tendency of those great Christian duties of humility meekness peace and righteousness but also from the many particular injunctions of subjection to Rulers and from our blessed Saviour his commanding to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars Christianity establisheth Regal Supremacy And also in that the Christian Doctrine doth peculiarly enjoin fidelity and obedience in all all inferiour relations towards their superiours that by the practice of this duty Christianity may be adorned and recommended in the World even to those who did oppose or reject it Tit. 2.9 10. 1 Pet. 2.12 13 14 15. ch 3.1 2. 2. And with some prospect to Christianity the Kings of the Earth are called upon to serve the Lord Ps 2.10 11. and are foretold to be nursing Fathers Is 49.23 Sect. 2 And both this and their undertaking Christianity and being baptized into it doth require them in their places and by their interest and authority to take care of the honour of God of his Church and Religion And S. Austin well declares Conr. Cresc l. 3. c. 51. that Kings then serve God in their Kingdoms when they therein command what things are good and prohibit evil non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae ad divinant Religionem as well concerning Religion as humane affairs 3. And lest any should think that the establishing the Kingdom of Christ according to the Gospel Doctrine should give any exemption to the subjects thereof from any part of that duty which was incumbent upon them towards other Kings and Governours S. Peter speaking to Christians under the Titles of a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood and a holy Nation In Resp ad Bellarm. Apol. c. 3. doth yet as Bishop Andrews observed particularly enjoin upon these persons submission to the King as supreme and to the Governours sent by him 1 Pet. 2.9 13 14. And the business of the civil power is there declared to be so general as to be for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well and to the same purpose writeth S. Paul Rom. 13.3 4. So that he who would exclude matters Ecclesiastical or concerns of Religion from their government and care under the New Testament must undertake to assert that the performances of Religion contain nothing in them of well doing and that the neglecting contemning or opposing it is no part of evil doing which are such blasphemous assertions as no man can embrace unless he be sunk into Atheism and so really owneth no Religion at all Aug. Epist 160. And S. Aug. from Rom. 13.2 infers that he who contemns the Emperour commanding for truth brings judgment upon himself 4. 1 Tim. 2.12 And when the Apostle requireth that Prayers be made for Kings and all in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty which includeth both Righteousness and Sobriety he thereby expresseth the right administration of Government to be advantageous to these ends Now as it is manifest that Rulers should not only not oppose Peace but establish it and not only not prostitute honesty and sobriety but defend and enjoin the practice of them so the Apostle mentioneth godliness as that which they should advance equally and in like manner with peace and honesty Nor can we suppose that the Christian Prayers were only designed that Kings and Rulers with respect to these particulars mentioned should do no hurt but since Gods
Ordinance of Government is a useful institution that Christian Prayer which suiteth the Christian doctrine can desire no less than that this institution should attain its end and become every way effectual for the doing good And many Christian Princes have signally advanced both the doctrine and practice of Godliness and Religion Ecclesiastical persons subject to Princes 5. And that Ecclesiastical persons as well as others are included under the duty of yielding obedience and subjection to this authority doth appear from that general Precept Rom. 13.1 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Where as the expression is universal and unlimited so the Comments of S. Chrysostome Theodoret In Loc. Theophylact and Oecumenius S. Bernard Ep. ad Senonens Archiep. Est in loc Gr. de Valent Tom. 4. Disp 9. qu. 5. punct 4. Bell. de Rom Pont. l. 2. c. 29. do plainly declare all Ecclesiastical persons and Officers of what degree soever even Apostles and Evangelists to be concerned therein But this sense of these words though urged also by S. Bernard is not embraced by the present Romish Writers but their exceptions made use of to elude this testimony are of no great force For while they tell us that these words do as much if not more require subjection to the Ecclesiastical power as to the temporal those who thus interpret are by S. Aug. censured Aug. cont Ep. Parm. l. 1. c. 7. to be sane imperitissimi And that the Apostle doth directly discourse here of obedience to the civil and temporal Rulers appears evidently from his mentioning their bearing the sword v. 4. and receiving tribute v. 6. 6. And the pretence that this command doth only oblige them who are properly subjects but not those Ecclesiastical persons who are pretended not to be subject but superior to the secular power doth proceed upon such a Notion which was wholly unknown to the ancient times of Christianity For it was then usual to hear such expressions as these Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem we reverence the Emperour as being next to God and inferior to none besides him Hom. 2. ad Antioch And S. Chrysostome owned Theodosius as the head over all men upon Earth i. e. in his Dominions And according to this perverse Exposition there is no more evidence from the Apostles doctrine concerning any Christians in general being subject to Princes than concerning Ecclesiastical Officers because his doctrine must then be owned only to declare that those who are in subjection ought to be subject but not to determine whether any Christians were to be esteemed subjects to the Pagan Rulers or no. 7. But though the Apostles were ready to declare all needful truth even before Princes and Consistories we never find them when they were accused before Magistrates to plead against their power of judicature or that they had no authority over them but they defended themselves and their doctrine before them And when S. Paul declared Act. 25.10 11. S. Paul's appeal considered I stand at Caesars Judgment-seat where I ought to be judged if I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dy I appeal unto Caesar he doth thereby acknowledge the Emperour to have such a power over him who was a great Ecclesiastical Officer as to take cognisance of his acting whether he did any thing worthy of death or of civil punishment 8. But against this instance Bellarmine who in his Controversies did yield De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Apostle did appeal to Caesar as to his superiour in civil causes afterwards retracts this and declares that the clergy being Ministers of the King of Kings are exempt de jure from the power not only of Christian but of Pagan Kings and therefore asserteth that S. Paul appealed unto Caesar In Libr. Recognit not as to his superiour but as to one who was superiour to the President of Judea and to the Jews 9. But such shifts are first contrary to the sense of the ancient Church concerning this case as may be observed from the words of Athanasius who being accused before Constantius telleth him if I had been accused before any other Athan. Apol ad Constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would have appealed unto your piety even as the Apostle did appeal unto Caesar but from thee to whom should I appeal but to the father of him who said I am the truth which words declare this appeal to be as to a superiour and the highest on Earth who is only under God Secondly this perverteth the Apostles sense and contradicteth his words who declared in his appealing where he ought to be judged if he had done any thing worthy of death which is a plain acknowledgment of superiority over him 10. Thirdly Besides that all appeals are owned by Civilians and Canonists as an application from an inferiour judge to a superiour judge this particular liberty of appealing to the Roman Emperour was a priviledge granted only to them who were free Citizens of Rome and the Apostle could not claim this but by owning himself a Citizen of Rome and therefore a subject to the chief Governour thereof For this appeal was founded upon that Roman law which condemned that inferiour Judge as deeply criminal who should punish any Citizen of Rome thus appealing To this purpose Jul. Paul Sentent l. 5. Tit. 28. n. 1. Julius Paulus saith Lege Julia de vi publica damnatur qui aliqua potestate praeditus civem Romanum antea ad populum nunc ad Imperatorem appellantem necarit necarive jusserit torserit verberaverit condemnaverit in vincula publica duci jusserit And accordingly upon this appeal S. Paul declared that no man no not Festus himself the President of Judea who otherwise was enclinable to have done it might deliver him to the Jews Act. 25.11 SECT III. What authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church 1. It may be said that what is declared by S. Peter and by S. Paul to the Romans and also his appeal did immediately respect Heathen Governours and therefore if these places will prove any thing of the Princes power in matters Ecclesiastical they must fix it in Pagan Princes as well as in Christian Div. right of Ch. Gov. ch 26. And this is the principal thing objected against the argument from S. Paul's appeal by Mr. Rutherford who tells us that this would own the Great Turk to be Supreme Governour of the Church 2. And it must be confessed that it is a very sad and heavy calamity to the Church when those soveraign powers who are not of the true Religion will intermeddle in the affairs of the Church without the fear of God and due respect to the Rules of Religion Such was the case of the Jewish Church under the Roman power
insolently exalted himself against and cruelly murdered his own Lord and Master And if S. Martin being once brought to his Table would not upon this account drink to him or to any other with him who were partakers or might be presumed favourers of his insurrection this spake him a zealous friend to justice and the right of Princes and one who earnestly detested Usurpation and Rebellion 7. The places produced from Nazianzen Naz. orat 17. Ambr. de dign Sacerdot c. 2. S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome do express the Ecclesiastical authority to have an higher excellency than the temporal which Gr. Nazianz. declareth by comparing his Episcopal dignity with the prefect of his City but the other two by preferring the Ecclesiastical authority in some Excellencies to the Royal. And indeed there are very great Excellencies do attend the Ecclesiastical Ministry even in some respects above those which belong unto the secular and it becomes every good Christian who hath a value for the Gospel Grace highly to esteem this Ministry but its worth and excellency doth not at all prove its superiority of Government in the state of the World 8. The Ecclesiastical Ministry hath such excellencies as these The excellency of the Christian Ministry That the persons towards whom it is exercised are not only men or members of an humane Society but are advanced to be Christians or persons admitted into the body of Christs Church and that the constitution of this Ministry was established by the dispensation of that admirable grace and love of God which was manifested to the World by our Lord and Saviour and that the design of it hath more immediate respect to the souls of men and their salvation as also that heavenly and spiritual mysteries and blessings are dispensed thereby And some of these things are those to which S. Chrysostome had peculiar respect Chrys in Esai Hom. 4. 5. as his words do particularly declare 9. Excellency and supremacy of Government are different things But that such excellencies attending this ministration doth not place the Ecclesiastical Officers above the condition of being subjects to Princes may appear by proposing a like way of arguing in another case Every truly pious man doth rightly govern his own heart and life and thereby is not only a man and a visible Christian but is a true and real Christian and member of Christ whose practice is according to his profession And his chief care is about such excellent things as the divine life and the salvation of his Soul which he attaineth effectually and this man doth receive the grace of the Gospel to the highest and most advantageous purposes and is not only dignified with the honourable titles of a King a Priest and a Son of God but doth receive those great benefits which are included under these high expressions And these are spiritual excellencies of a more sublime nature than the bare enjoying either civil or Ecclesiastical Offices 10. But if every good man because of these excellencies which attend his state should be concluded to have a greater dignity of authority and Government in the World invested in him than is in Kings and Princes and that therefore he is not nor ought not to be subject unto them then must the Christian Religion not only bring confusion into the World but also make void its own Precepts of obedience subjection and humility and must also make men and the World the worse by taking them off from performing the duties of their relations 11. And that neither S. Chrysostome nor S. Ambrose ever intended by such expressions as are above-mentioned to discharge the Clergy from the obligations to obedience and humble reverence to Kings and Emperours is manifest Chrys in Rom. 13. from S. Chrysostomes declaring that even Apostles Evangelists and all persons whosoever ought to be subject to the civil power and from the dutiful behaviour of S. Ambrose to Valentinian of which I shall give some account in the following Book SECT VI. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance considered with some other things which have some affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. 1. There are divers ancient Canons which require the causes which concern the Clergy especially among themselves to be examined by the Bishop or the Bishops of the Province or if it be needful by a greater Synod but not to be brought before the Courts of the secular power Some such Canons are referred to by Photius Phot. Nomoc Tit. 9. c. 1. c. 11. qu. 1. Barcl de Pot. Pap. c. 32. Conc. Agath c. 23. Conc. Matisc 1. c. 5. Conc. Antioch c. 11 12. and others are produced by Gratian and divers of them are enquired into by Barclay To this purpose tend some Canons of the Second and fourth General Councils and others of the Provincial Councils both in Africa Asia and Europe But it may be presumed that these Canons of the Church would not have thus determined unless the Church had judged such cases and persons not to be under the Supremacy and Government of the secular authority And which may seem to add strength to this Objection even the civil law it self gives some allowance to these proceedings Sect. 6 2. And it may be further added Secular causes were anciently determined in the Ecclesiastical Judicatures Mat. 18.17 that when our Saviour established his Church there is some appearance of his giving the whole body or Society of Christians a kind of immunity from the supremacy of the secular power in that in Cases of trespass and injury which are civil matters he directs the proceeding concerning them to be brought before the Church 1 Cor. 6. 1 c. And S. Paul enjoins Christians not to go to law before the civil Pagan Judicatures which things carry an appearance of a diminution of the secular Supremacy towards the members of the Christian Church And the usual Trials of the civil causes of Christians by Ecclesiastical Judges both before and after the Empire was Christian is manifest not only from the Apostolical Constitutions Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Gr. Nys in Vit. Gr. Thaum Aug. Cons l. 6. c. 3. Amb. Ep. ad Marcellum Ep. 24. and S. Aug. which I above produced but also from what Gregory Nyssen relateth concerning Gregorius Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocesarea and from the practice of S. Ambrose an account of which we have both from S. Austin and from himself 3. But for answer hereunto and for a right understanding of all this I shall think it sufficient to observe three things Obs 1. That those rules were established out of a true Christian and peaceable design This sometime by peaceable arbitration and to prevent scandal and thereupon had no ill aspect upon secular authority If a father of a numerous Progeny or a Master of a great Family consulting the honour reputation and peace of his Family enjoin them
Constantius De Episc Presbyt and other succeeding Emperours which may be seen in the Code of Theodosius 11. And for the Judicatures of Christian Bishops who therein tryed civil causes under the time of christian Emperours no man in reason can think but this must be done by favour and a delegated authority And it is manifest from the Imperial law that this was a priviledge granted unto them out of respect to the honour of Christianity God l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 7 8. Nov. 83. 123. it being therein enacted that whatsoever persons shall please by their own consent to have their Cases tryed and adjudged by the Bishop they shall have liberty so to doe 12. Obs 3. That the Canons were never intended to disclaim the Supremacy of Princes over the Clergy is manifest because in them is allowed the application to the secular authority against such bishops as will not submit to the determination of the Ecclesiastical This was done by a Carthaginian Synod Conc. Carth. gr c. 53. Conc. Trull c. 2. against Cresconius a Bishop of that Province as is manifest from the Greek Copy of the African Code which was the Copy confirmed in the sixth general Council And this particular Case is approved in the Comments of the Greek Scholiasts and is also referred unto in the Nomocanon of Photius Nomocan Tit. 9. c. 8. as giving direction when one Bishop may prosecute another before a secular ruler And it may be further observed that the Canons from the 37th to the 61st of that Greek Code were taken out of the third Council of Carthage this fifty third Canon to which this action is there annexed or according to Justellus his code the forty eighth is the thirty eighth Canon of that Council wherein a particular Canon for the priviledge of the Clergy was established And the Canons prohibited applications to the secular power against any of the Clergy almost in the same manner as they forbad the application to a general Council against a Bishop Conc. constant c. 6. which was condemned unless the other methods by the Bishops of the Province should prove ineffectual CHAP. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the Supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome SECT I. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 1 1. THE Royal Supremacy will be further vindicated by resuting the pretences which are vainly made by others to the whole or any part of the just Soveraignty of Princes wherein I must chiefly consider the claims of Foreign Jurisdiction Foreign Jurisdiction disclaimed which are rejected and disowned in the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath it is declared that no Foreign Prince Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore all such Authority is disclaimed and renounced 2. But thereby it is not intended that no Foreign Bishop Priest or Deacon shall be owned in this Realm to have that preeminence of Order in the Catholick Church The just auâ—â—â—ty of Church Officers asserted unto which they have been duly received nor that their power of order for the performing Ecclesiastical Offices is invalid and null if they come into this Realm But this is no power of Government and Jurisdiction within this Kingdom by a Foreign Authority which is herein rejected Neither is it hereby meant that if the Ecclesiastical Governours of any Foreign Church do within their Jurisdiction duly admit any person into the Church or do clave non errante excommunicate or absolve any that the Christians in this Realm have no obligation upon them from the authority of such proceedings to embrace or avoid Ecclesiastical Society with such persons For thiswould be contrary to the Article of our Church which asserteth Article 33. that that person which is rightly cut off from the Vnity of the Church and Excommunicate ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican until he be openly reconciled by penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto Can. Apost 12. Conc. antioch c. 6. And the ancient Canons of the Church did determine that he who was excommunicated by his own Bishop might not be received by another 3. But the obligation which in this Case lyeth upon us and all the members of the Catholick Church is not from any Jurisdiction or Superiority which we acknowledge any such Foreign Officers of the Church to have over us because this obligation equally lies upon all Catholick Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as well as upon ordinary and private Christians And it would bring in an unaccountable confusion to assert that every Bishop under the Patriarch of Alexandria should have a superiority over all the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Roman Constantinopolitan and other free Churches throughout the World not excepting the Alexandrian it self and at the same time to assert that every Bishop in any of these other Churches hath upon the same account superiority over him and all other Bishops and Churches But this duty is incumbent upon us from the nature of our Christianity and Christian Vnity For Christ having made his Church to be one Body who ever undertakes Christianity is thereby obliged to own Communion with this Church and all the regular Members thereof and to disown Communion with those who are rightly cut off therefrom and he having appointed Officers in his Church hath accordin gto their Offices given them authority to exercise the power of the Keys in his name in the Churches committed to them And hereupon Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais having excommunicated Andronicus and others Svness Epist 58. by vertue of his Sentence pronounced against them did require the Churches all over the Earth that they should not receive them into Communion 4. But this Oath tending according to the design of that Statute by which it was established to restore to the Crown its ancient Jurisdiction that authority which ischiefly rejected thereby is such as invaded or opposed the Royalty of the King and particularly that which claimeth any supreme cognisance of Ecclesiastical affairs as if they were not under the care of the temporal power or that pretendeth to any other authority above or against the just rights of the Crown And suh is the arrogance of the See of Rome which assumes to it self a claim of supreme authority in matters Ecclesiastical and even in temporal also which many of its followers defend as belonging thereto upon account of its spiritual authority Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6. Thus Bellarmine declareth that if the management of temporal affairs appeareth prejudicial to spiritual ends potestas spiritualis potest debet coercere temporalem the spiritual power may and ought to restrain the temporal by all ways and means which shall seem needful to that purpose And Boetius Epo
tells us Quaestion Heroicar l. 2. c. 5. n. 105. that the Roman bishop virtute potestatis merè spiritualis by vertue of his mere spiritual power doth sometimes deprive had Kings of their Kingdoms But the falshood and injustice of this claim will be discovered by detecting the fraud and vanity of the Pleas made use of to support the Popish power of which in the following Sections 5. But a learned man hath given intimation of some suspicion Weights and Meas Ch. 20. Of a general Council that by these words of this Oath of Supremacy the authority of a general Council of the Western Churches may seem to be disclaimed And it must be granted that the determination of a truly regular general Council either of all the Western Churches or of the whole especially if it should establish a due reformation of the corrupt part of the Church and a right order and unity throughout Christendome would be obligatory upon us not only from the real goodness of the design but from the authority of the Council or the obligation that lies on the members or several parts of the Christian Church to be guided by the directions and rules established by the united consent and authority of the Pastors Yet 1. since such a Council neither is in being nor in any likelyhood thereof that which is not hath no Authority or Jurisdiction 2. This Church and Realm being a considerable branch of the Catholick Church the authority of such a Council or of the Christian Church therei is no more foreign to us who ought to bear a part therein than the soul is to a chief member of the body or than the laws of nature and rules of civility may be esteemed foreign things which have as considerable residence here as any where else 3. The Oath it self is so expressed as if it purposely designed not to exclude the authority of a General Council which properly is neither a Prince a Person a State or Potentate 4. As this Oath disowneth all foreign authority encroaching upon the Crown so if any Council how general soever should abridge or violate the Royal Authority all faithful subjects are so far bound by the authority of God to disclaim it 5. Though the determinations of a Council be never so excellent if any Princes by their laws reject or prohibit them as the Arian Princes dealt with the Council of Nice Christians in such places are bound to embrace them upon no other terms than they do their common Christianity that is in bearing the Cross and undergoing unavoidable penalties and thereby acknowledging the right and due extent of the authority of the civil power 6. The last part in the Oath of Supremacy The Oath of Supremacy engageth a defence of priviledges and authorities united to the Crown engageth Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and also a defence of all Jurisdictions priviledges preeminencies and authorities granted and belonging to the King or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Now the only appearing difficulty here is concerning the last clause for if when the great encroachments of the Pope were discarded some thing might be overdone 27 H. 8. 28. 37 H. 8.4 1 Ed. 6.14 in annexing things to the Crown as in fixing in the Crown those great Revenues given to Religious uses when in many places there then was and yet is wanting a competent provision for the support of the Ministry it may be enquired how good men and good subjects may and ought to defend these things And it will be sufficient to observe that the defence here undertaken is that of a subject towards his Soveraign And all subjects of the Realm are as such obliged both with respect to the duties of obedience and peace in their capacities to oppose all persons who would injuriously violate what is enjoyed by the Crown and established by the law since such persons may justly be suspected of designs to subvert the Government and undermine the publick welfare and do act disorderly and against authority 7. And some thing which at first view may seem an abatement of the authority of the church is rather such a way of regulating the exercise of its power as under Religious Princes is for the Churches advantage Of this nature I conceive that constitution 25 H. 8.19 that no new Canons shal be enacted promulged or executed without the Royal assent and licence to enact promulge and execute the same For hereby the Clergy give such security to the King against all jealousy of renewed Ecclesiastical usurpations that thereupon the Church may under the Kings favour and with assurance of greater safety and protection practise upon its established constitutions which are so good that we have great cause to bless God for them And hereupon it may also be hoped that what shall be further needful may be superadded by the Royal Licence and become more effectual to its end by the confirmation of that authority 8. But because what I have now discoursed dependeth upon a fair How the words of publick acknowledgments must be interpreted but natural and genuine interpretation of these words of the Oath of Supremacy it may be further enquired how we may safely and prudently interpret the forms of publick acknowledgments where the bare Grammatical construction may be possibly capable of different senses Grot. de J. B. P. l. 2. c. 13. n. 3 5 c. 16. n. 12. l. 3. c. 1. n. 19. Sanders de oblig Juram Pral 2. n. 8. Now though a forced laxe sene by an evasion to avoid the design of the law or constitution be justly and must necessarily be rejected yet a rigid interpretation to strain the words and force them to an harsh and unlawful sense as is too oft done by discontented persons is also to be discarded where there is another construction or meaning of which the words by natural interpretation are capable which is agreeable to truth and justice and secures the intention of our Superiours For besides that Christian charity and equity will incline to this sense the politick rules of Government will require Governours to draw up publick acknowledgments in such phrases that they cannot by a fair construction naturally admit a lower sense than is designed For otherwise such forms of words would be useless and not attain their end and this consideration alone is sufficient to vindicate and acquit the form of words in this Oath of supremacy from such censures as have inconsiderately dropt from the Pen of a learned person 9. But those general words of this Oath of supremacy Qu. Eliz. Inj. 1. Can. 1. 1603. and the Canonical subscription and words of like general force in the Queens Injunctions and our Canons whereby all foreign Jurisdiction and obedience thereto is renounced have manifestly a more particular respect to the Bishop and Church of Rome For the design of that Statute which enjoins the disclaiming all
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
from all these and governing the Church Cyp. Ep. 27. 73. Aug. in Joh. Tract 50. But this power as the ancient Church did acknowledge the other Apostles did also enjoy and were actually possessed of as appears Mat. 18.18 Jo. 20.21 22 23. Ans 2. How vastly different is this power from the temporal Dominion over the Kingdoms of the World of which there is not any world here spoken by our Lord And surely any man who considereth the doctrine and lives of the Apostles cannot imagine that every one or any one of them was intended and designed of God to be the Soveraign Potentate and grand Emperour of the World It is therefore a just complaint against the Romish party that ex clavibus cudunt enses Conf. Helvet c. 14. lanceas sceptra coronas out of the Keys they forge Swords and Spears Scepters and Crowns and usurp temporal Dominion equal with or superiour unto Kings notwithstanding that our Saviour expresly rejected from his Apostles such Dominion as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised Mat. 20.25 26. 9. But Pasce oves meas Feed my sheep Jo. 21.16 is a place chiefly insisted upon And if no more was hence inferred than a spiritual and Apostolical authority in S. Peter this is readily granted and asserted and the other Apostles enjoyed the like But Bellarmine will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 14 15 16. Layman Theolog. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. c. 6. to be a Charter of Soveraignty and to enclude governing and commanding as a King doth And he and others also infer the extent of S. Peters power over all Apostles and Kings because they are Christs Sheep To which I Ans 1. Not S. Peter only but all Bishops and Elders are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or have a Pastoral care over the Flock Ambr. de dign Sacerd c. 2. Ignat. Ep. ad Philad ad Rom. Eus Hist Ecc. l. 8. c. 25. Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 And among all Ecclesiastical Writers beginning from Ignatius and downwards the Bishops and chief Officers of the Church have been acknowledged to be Pastors Now if this Office of Pastor doth not necessarily enclude a Soveraign or supreme Government then no such can be asserted to s. Peter or his pretended Successor from this Text if it doth then must this be ascribed to every Bishop which will necessarily overthrow the Popes Vniversal claim Ans 2. Government over the Sheep of Christ is also too narrow a compass for an Vniversal Monarchy 10. Ans 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Metaphor from Shepherds is thence sometimes used for to take care and feed and at other times for to rule and govern and oft for both Now though the Officers of Christ have a pastor al authority over his Flock yet these words Joh. 21.15 16 17. were principally directed to S. Peter as supposing in him this authority and requiring his duty of care and feeding and not as conveying to him a peculiar authority and Dominion because this is enjoined upon him as an evidence of his love to Christ and because among the three Precepts to take care of the Sheep of Christ and his Lambs two of them are there expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be understood only of feeding Ans 4. Civil Governours also are to be as Shepherds over their Flock with particular respect to rule and Government The Government of God is sometimes expressed by his being the Shepherd of Israel and a Prince whom Homer stiles the Pastor of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Philo and other Writers oft mentioned by a like name Phil. de Agricult de Joseph quod omnis probus liber And a civil pastoral power over all their people is yielded to them Num. 27.17 Is 44.28 which is expressed in the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 5.2 Ch. 7.7 Ps 78.71 72. But every one must use their power according to their office Ecclesiastical Officers are to use the spiritual authority but temporal Soveraignty is reserved to Princes Ans 5. The pastoral office of the guides of the Church doth extend it self even to Kings with respect to the conduct of their Souls but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Soveraignty A Prince may be ruled by a Physician concerning his health or be led by a guide at Land or a Pilot at Sea and not lose his Soveraignty over these Subjects And the Kings of the House of David were the chief Rulers over the Realm though the Priests were to offer Sacrifice for Prince and People to direct them in Religion and to judge in case of Leprosy and such like SECT IV. Other arguments for the pretences of Papal Authority answered and refuted 1. Annal. Ecclesian 57. n. 28 29 30. The support which Baronius affords for the Popes Supremacy is that Christ himself is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek being both King and Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7. and that from him the regal and sacerdotal authority are together conferred upon his Church first upon the Apostles and then upon their Successors which he further undertakes to prove because our Saviour declared to his Disciples Jo. 20. As my father sent me so send I you and did establish in his Church a Royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2. Ibid. n. 31 32. And though the Cardinal will not allow that this authority in the Church doth make void the political power yet he doth assert that this Regal Ecclesiastical Authority must be superiour thereunto The Priesthood of Melchisedek 2. But concerning the Melchisedekian Priesthood Sect. 4 he did not consider these two things 1. That the making the supremacy of power to be conjunct with the Priesthood doth destroy the peculiarity of power challenged by the Bishop of Rome for thence it must be inferred that they who equally partake of Priesthood with the Bishop of Rome must have an equal supreme authority with him 2. That one thing which the Apostle did most especially insist on concerning the Priesthood of Melchisedek is that the Priest or High Priest of that Order must not derive or receive his Priesthood from any Predecessor nor leave it to any Successor but must abide a Priest for ever through that whole dispensation under which he is Priest Heb. 7.3 8 16 17 21 23 24 28. And therefore the Melchisedekian Priesthood is no more transferred from Christ to any other person in the Church then his proper mediatory office is Beyerl de Episc Rom. And they who say that this Priesthood of Christ cannot indeed be enjoyed by any as successor to him but only as his Vicar do not so avoid the force of this argument For it remains certain that no such pretended Vicar can partake of this Priesthood because in him it must be received from a Predecessor viz. in that Vicarship and Priesthood and be left to
a Successor which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood 3. Of the Apostolical Mission When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him 1. These words enclude a fulness of Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority or the power of the Keys which was given to all the Apostles 2. But they do not make the Apostles equal in dignity or dominion with Christ himself in being Saviour and head of the Church or Lord over and Judge of the quick and the dead 3. Even Christ himself when he was upon Earth being as man under the law was not only obliged to practise the duties of the first table and the other Commandments of the second table but even to the observance of the fifth Commandment al 's 4. And the Office of the Ministry And those persons who in general defence of Ecclesiastical Supremacy urge that they who are Officers of Christ and furnished with his authority ought not to be in subjection to secular rulers but superiour to them to whom Christs authority is superiour may consider 1. That Parents and Husbands have authority from God and from Christ and yet are under Kings and Princes 2. The superiority of any Officer of Christ must not be measured by the height of Soveraignty which Christ himself hath which would make the servant even every Deacon equal with his Lord and by the like pretence every petty Constable must have equal authority with the King but by the constitution of his office and the power thereby conveyed to him For neither God in governing the World nor Christ in governing the Church ever gave to any other an authority equal to what he possesseth 3. Christ came not to overturn the Government of God his father in the World which hath established the supreme temporal power yea his mediatory Kingdom and administration is in subjection to the Father and our Saviours Doctrine yieldeth that authority to Princes that it earnestly presseth a general and necessary subjection for Conscience sake to their Government 5. And as to what Baronius urgeth The Royal Priesthood from the Royal Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.9 it may be observed 1. That that expression hath not respect to a peculiar sacerdotal office in the Church but to the dignity of the Christian Church in general as is manifest from the place it self Salian an 2544. n. 347. Estius in loc and acknowledged by their own Writers 2. If this Text did express any peculiar power in Ecclesiastical Officers it must have particular respect to those Eastern Churches to whom that Epistle was written 1 Pet. 1.1 and 3. It is well observed by Bishop Andrews that even that Royal Priesthood v. 9. is commanded to be subject to every ordinance of man Ch. 4. S. 2. n. 3. and to the King as supreme v. 13. as I above observed 6. And while some say Of the Plea of expediency for the Churches good it is expedient for the Churches good that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be superiour to the temporal otherwise its welfare and good is not sufficiently provided for this Plea might appear more plausible 1. If there could be no ignorance heresy pride or ill designs in any who have the title of chief Officers in the Church which no man can believe who reads the Lives of the Popes written by their own Authors 2. If Kings and Princes must never be expected to be nursing Fathers to the Church and to take care of it 3. If the great design of Christianity was to take care that Christians must never follow their Saviour in bearing the Cross and that this Religion did not aim at the promoting true faith and holiness meekness and peace but at outward splendor dominion and power in the World according to that notion the Jews had of a Messias And this is not only a weak but a presumptuous way of reasoning to controul and affront the Gospel of Christ and to dare to tell him how he ought to have established his Kingdom to other purposes than he hath done 7. And after all this S. Peters Authority not peculiar to Rome there is nothing more unreasonable than for the Church of Rome to monopolize unto its self alone that authority which was committed to S. Peter and the other Apostles For it is not at all to be doubted but the Apostles committed a chief presidential and Governing authority in their several limits to other Churches besides the Roman Basil Ep. 55. Cyp. Epist 69. Firmil in Cyp. Ep. 75. The ancient Fathers frequently express the Bishops of the Christian Church in general to be the Apostles Successors S. Cyprian and Firmilian assert all Bishops to succeed the Apostles even ordinatione vicaria as placed in their stead and possessed of that power which was from them fixed in the Church Hier. ad Marcellam Aug. in Ps 44. Amongst us saith S. Hierome the Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles and for or instead of the Apostles are appointed Bishops saith S. Austin Tertullian declares that to his time Cathedrae Apostolorum the Cathedral Sees placed by the Apostles themselves did still continue their presidency in the Apostolical Churches of which he mentions many by name and Rome as one of them 8. And as there is no evidence that S. Peter who also presided at Antioch left all his authority peculiarly to Rome so there is sufficient evidence that S. Peter who was commanded to feed the Sheep of Christ did yield this authority to the Elders or Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed the flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And hereby he either committed that pastoral authority which he received from Christ unto the Bishops of those free Churches of the Ephesine Thracian and Pontick Dioceses to whom he wrote and which afterward were placed under the Patriarch of Constantinople or at least he acknowledged this authority in them And therefore so far as concerneth a divine right these Eastern Churches in the Territories of Constantinople have fully as fair a Plea hereby for deriving a pastoral authority from S. Peter or having it particularly confirmed by him as they at Rome ever had 9. But with respect to England This Realm not feudatory Bellarm. in Apol. pro Resp ad Jac. Reg. c. 3. in Respons ad Bel. Ap. c. 3. divers Romish Writers alledge that it became feudatory to the See of Rome by King Johns resigning his Crown to Pandulphus the Popes Legate to which thing objected and misrepresented by Bellarmine divers things are returned in Answer by Bishop Andrews But waving such particular answers as might be given I shall chuse to observe in General that this Case is the same as if any seditious persons or Vsurpers should by fraud or force reduce the King to straits and difficulties and should then by like methods gain a promise from him that he
should be under their government and shall order the affairs of his Realm in complyance with them and subjection to them Now all such acts are utterly void and wholly unobligatory because 1. No just right of Supremacy or any part of Royalty can be gained by possession upon an unjust title against the right owner upon a sure title this being a parallel Case to a Thief being possessed of an honest mans goods Addit to Hen. 3. an 10. f. 70. An. 10 Ed. 1. p. 279. An. 12 Ed. 1. p. 318. An. 17 Ed. 1. p. 391. c. And therefore though some Kings of England as Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. did until they could without danger free themselves pay to the Pope an annuus census of a thousand marks as appears from the Records of the Tower published by Mr Pryn yet this is only an evidence of the oppressive injuries which this Crown sustained by the intolerable exactions of the Pope 2. No Soveraign King unless by voluntary relinquishing his whole authority to the next Heir can transfer his Royal Supremacy to any other person whomsoever partly because the divine constitution having placed Supremacy in the chief secular Governours God expecteth from them a due care of managing of this power for the good of his people and for the advancing his own service and glory nor can any act of theirs make the duty which God still requires from them to become void no more than a Father or Husband can discharge themselves from the duties of those Relations while the Relations themselves continue Partly also because the constitutions of the Realm oblige all the subjects thereof to maintain the Royalties of the Crown and to perform Faith and true Allegiance not only to the King in being but also to his Heirs and Successors And partly because it is a great and special priviledge of a free born people that they cannot according to the condition of slaves have the chief and principal Dominion over them translated from one to another according to the pleasure of any person whomsoever though it be their own natural Prince which is both his and their great security and advantage CHAP. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England SECT I. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 1 1. THE title of Patriarch Of Patriarchal Authority was not in the beginning of the Church fixed as peculiar to the Bishops of those Churches which for many Ages have been so called This stile was not oft used in the first Centuries and when it grew into use was yielded to other famous Bishops by Socrates Socr. Hist l. 5. c. 8. who did not preside in any of those Churches which have been commonly accounted Patriarchal And this title also in an inferiour degree was of late by Duarenus allowed to the Bishop of Aquileia Canterbury and others Duaren de Benef. l. 1. c. 9. The Bishops of Rome themselves seem not to have much affected or used this stile but they were ordinarily owned to be Patriarchs not only in the Ecclesiastical account but in the Imperial law B. 1. C. 7. And as this is a title of special honour given to some Sees so it encluded an Ecclesiastical authority extended to divers Provinces and over several Metropolitans 2. Now though the Romish Bishops pretence to an Vniversal Soveraignty be very vain and unjust yet if he have but a patriarchal right as some have demanded for him over all the Western Churches this will entitle him to an authority in this Realm which is a member of them Hereby he would be chief spiritual judge to receive appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical from the Metropolitical Jurisdiction and to have the highest constant and fixed power of censure and absolution besides what concerneth the Consecration of Archbishops or Metropolitans by his act or consent and a chief authority with respect to Synods And though a true Patriarchal right be of the same nature with the Archiepiscopal which ought to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Crown yet if any such authority be placed in any Foreigner it would impair the just dignity of the Prince as I shall hereafter evidence But that no foreign Bishop or Patriarch ought to have any such authority in this Realm will appear manifest by the proving three assertions which I shall perform in this Chapter 3. Assert 1. The ancient Christian Churches were never all of them under the Patriarchal Bishops viz. of Rome Many free Churches not anciently under any Patriarch Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem But there were anciently divers free Churches or Dioceses which word was several times of old used for the larger limits of many Provinces independent on any superiour Patriarch For that all the Patriarchates and other ancient great Dioceses or Eparchyes were only within the limits of the Roman Empire is manifest because the extent and bounds of their particular Churches was ordered and fixed according to the division of the Imperial Provinces And therefore besides the greater Armenia which was a Christian Kingdom and no part of the Empire in the time of Constantine and both before and after him all the Christians who lived under the Barbarous Nations are reckoned as distinct from the Patriarchal and other head Dioceses or Churches by the second General Council Conc. Const c. 2. 4. And whereas until 450. years after Christ The Pontick Thracian and Asian Churches there were only three Patriarchal Sees erected at Rome Alexandria and Antioch not only the Churches in the remote parts of Asia and Africa and others without the Empire but those of the Pontick Thracian and Asian Dioceses or Eparchies which were in the heart of the Empire were in subjection to none of those Patriarchs but were all that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governed by themselves as appears from the second general Council Conc. Const ib. But when the patriarchal limits and authority of the Church of Constantinople was established the Churches of those three regions now mentioned which as Theodoret acquaints us Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 28. contained twenty eight Provinces or Metropolitical Jurisdictions were made subject to the Bishop of Constantinople by the authority of the fourth general Council Conc. Chalc. c. 28. But besides these there were also other particular Churches free from all Patriarchal Jurisdiction of which I shall give some instances 5. The Province of Cyprus in the Eastern Church The Cyprian Church when the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a superiority over it and a right of ordaining therein had its liberty and freedom defended and secured against him by the third General Council Indeed this Canon of the Council of Ephesus did chiefly provide Conc. Eph. c. 8. that no Cyprian Bishops should receive their ordination from the Bishop of Antioch or from any other than the Bishops of their own Island Yet to put a stop to
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
thereby to be the better man or the better Christian in that he may seem not to consult his own interest in the World by venturing to displease or provoke his Parents and to lose those advantages and favours he might by a dutiful carriage receive from them Notwithstanding such empty pretences to plead for disobedience we must acknowledge the truth of what Hierocles asserted Hier. in Pythag. p. 53. even from the principles of equity and reason that Parents are no where else to be disobeyed but where themselves are not obedient to the divine Precepts And the duty to Princes is of a like nature 11. 2. They who seem to disregard their own interest in some things in the World and not to desire the favour of their superiours do not deserve to be accounted the better or the wiser men unless this be done in the necessary discharge of duty to God and the keeping firm to the truth of Religion In those Cases forsaking Houses and Lands and Life becomes a needful duty but it is not so at other times Cont. Cels l. 8. p. 420. Origen tells us that the Christians of his Age were not so far besides themselves and void of reason as to displease and provoke Princes further than this was the effect of their observing the laws of God Aug. de Haeres c. 69. Cont. Gaud. Epist l. 2. c. 15. And the Schism of the Donatists and especially the Circumcelliones who were furious and outragious persons among them hath been never the better esteemed in the Christian Church because they not only withstood the laws of the Christian Emperours against it but were very prodigal in casting away their own lives to gain reputation to their party That man who will spend or throw away his Estate in a contention with his equal where it would better become him to live in peace is to be censured not applauded and to do the like in contending with his superiour is the worse of the two because the common good the peace of the Church and the duty of subjection are herein concerned And he who hath undervaluing thoughts of the approbation favour and respect of Governours in the performance of his duty cannot well have high thoughts of the institution and ordinance of God which appointed them for the praise of them that do well Rom. 13.3 1 Pet. 2.14 12. 3. That man only acts as becomes a truly conscientious man and a good Christian who is careful to avoid all sinful dispositions without undue affecting to please himself or to oppose the wayes of peace or to seek applause from any sort of men in the neglect of his duty And indeed the being in vogue and reputation with a particular company of men is to some persons a more prevailing temptation than the proposal of gain or publick honour of which we have a plain example even amongst the Apostles of our Saviour When they had arrived so far as that they could part with all their possessions and be content to undergo scorn and contempt from the generality of their Nation for their Masters sake they were so prone to affect the reputation of being the greatest in their own Society that they needed the watchful eye and frequent rebukes of their Saviour Luk. 9.46 47 48. ch 22.24 25 26. Mar. 10.44 to check and curb this evil temper And besides this there are those who make use of the interest of a party as a method of gain also as is easily observed 13. Wherefore the performing active obedience in lawful things to the Precepts of Superiours is a duty which must not be neglected by him who would keep a good Conscience since according to the will of God we must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake Christian Loyalty The Second Book Of the Vnlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King CHAP. I. The publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered SECT I. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government 1. THE preservation of Civil Governours and the Peace of Kingdoms is of so great concernment that the wisdom of Lawgivers hath justly taken especial care thereof B. 2. C. 1. And Tumults Conspiracies and civil Wars are usually attended with the highest mischiefs the violation of things Sacred the banishing of natural affection and therewith Christian love meekness mercy and the duties of subjection and the practising murder rapine violence and lewdness And besides what every man may himself personally suffer in such Calamities the dismal spectacles which his eyes may behold the tragical relations which his ears must hear and the perplexing fears which may assault his mind in the lively sense of them are effectual and astonishing convictions of the dreadfulness of tumultuous and treasonable Conspiracies beyond all that can be expressed concerning them 2. But though the Christian Religion doth firmly oblige men to peace obedience and due submission there are many persons who own that name and yet entertain positions wholly inconsistent with the Precepts of that Religion and the safety of Princes and their Kingdoms And therefore it is but reasonable that those who are admitted into any Office in the Church and are to teach and instruct others and they who receive any Government in the State and have the power of commanding others Sect. 1 should testify their loyalty and their detestation of such positions as undermine the security of Kings and Kingdoms And to this purpose is established in this Realm a twofold acknowledgment the one more particular against Romish Conspiracies and the other more general 3. The former is contained in the Oath of Obedience or Allegiance 3 Jac. 4. The Oath of Allegiance against the Popes deposing power which all the Clergy and other principal subjects of this Realm do constantly take And therein it is declared that the Pope hath no power to depose the King or to dispose of his Dominions to absolve his Subjects from their Obedience or to Licence them to bear Arms against or offer violence to his Person or Government whether he proceed by Declaration Sentence Excommunication or any otherwise 4. And indeed there was very great reason to use needful circumspection This power of the Pope to depose Kings assorted in the Church of Rome against the pretence of this Papal power of deposing Kings which had appeared with so great boldness in the World and done so much mischief in it And this pretence is not only managed as an intrigue of the policy of the Court of Rome but is engraffed into the doctrine of the Romish Church Conc. Lat. c. de haeret an 1215. In the General Council as they at Rome esteem it at the Laterane under Innocent the Third it was declared that if any temporal Lord did not purge
his land from Heresy he should be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and Bishops and if he make not satisfaction within a year the Pope shall pronounce his subjects absolved from their fealty and shall give his Country to Catholicks to possess it without any contradiction And this Constitution doth not only respect such temporal Lords Sheldon's Reasons for lawfulness of Oath of Allegiance who have some inferiour Dominions without Soveraign dignity as some of the more loyally inclined Romanists would interpret it but it also concerneth Soveraign Princes as these words thereof will evince eadem lege servata circa eos qui non habent dominos Principales 5. In Concil Lugdun an 1245. And in another reputed General Council Innocent the Fourth did actually pronounce this sentence against Frederick the Second then Emperour That as Christs Vicar and by vertue of his having said to S. Peter whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven he did declare and denounce the Emperour for his sins to be by God deprived of all honour and dignity adding nihilominus sententiando privamus And thereupon he proceeds to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of fealty and by his Apostolical Authority to Command them that they yield him no obedience help or counsel as Emperour and Decrees that all who shall do otherwise shall be ipso facto excommunicate And this proceeding and sentence Sext. Decr. l. 2. Tit. 14. c. 2. And this proceeding and sentence which was related by M. Paris and from him by Binius in his account of this Council was also taken into the Decrees of the Canon Law 6. And though Santarellus and some few others may have spoken more broadly and expresly and have been more taken notice of by the publick censures of France yet he who shall consult the generality of the Romish Writers which are most in vogue amongst themselves will find them for some hundred years past to be asserters of these dangerous positions So much do the Romish Doctrines tend to the undermining the Rights and Authority of Princes Bellarm. adv Barclainm de Potest Pap. Cardinal Bellarmine produceth the testimony of towards fourscore of their Writers beginning from Gregory the Seventh and Aquinas for the asserting the Popes temporal power and almost all of them do indeed plainly own his power of deposing Kings And a further account is to the same purpose given by Cardinal Perron In the Jesuits Loyalty The same spirit hath been since propagated and in England the Treatises lately written by that sort of men against the lawfulness of taking the Oath of Allegiance because it disclaimeth this deposing power of the Pope are open to publick view and the first of those Treatises undertaketh to prove the acknowledging this deposing power to be a branch of the doctrine of the Romish Church 7. These Papal practises mischievous to the World Platin. in Vit. Greg. 7. Nor are these only words and opinions but things which have been in many Ages pernicious to the World Since Gregory the Seventh for six hundred years past the Roman Bishop hath frequently by his Sentence and Excommunication undertaken to depose Kings and Emperours to stir up Subjects to take Arms against their Soveraigns and even Children against their own Fathers as was done against the Emperour Henry the Fourth and thereby dreadful Wars have been oft occasioned in many Countries and especially in the Empire And with respect to England some years before King John was forced to yield his Crown to Pandulphus the Popes Legate the Pope undertook by his sentence to depose him from being King and to order that another person should succeed him being chosen by the Pope M. Par. an 1212. as M. Paris expresseth it Sententialiter definivit ut Rex Anglorum Johannes à solio regni deponeretur alius Papâ procurante succederet And of later times the Bull of Pius the Fifth against Queen Elizabeth did presume to deprive her of her Title to her Kingdom and to Command her Subjects not to obey her And in her Reign other Bulls and Breves were sent into England to the same purpose and also to declare all persons who were not of the Romish Communion to be excluded from the succession to the Crown These things together with several treasonable attempts of the Romish party which were the reducing this doctrine into practice and particularly the Gunpowder-Treason made it needful to provide the Oath of Allegiance wherein this dangerous pretended power of the Pope is renounced In Bellarm. Resp ad Apolog. pro Jur. Fidelitatis And since the forming that Oath Paul the Fifth sent over his Breves and Card. Bellarmine his Letters declaring that this Oath could not be taken Salva fide Catholica with the preservation of the Catholick Faith and the Salvation of their own Souls 8. Now this pretended power of the Pope if it had any real foundation must bear it self either upon his peculiar eminency and superiority over Princes even with respect to things temporal or upon the force and vertue of the meer spiritual power of Excommunication or from the occasion thereof the pretended crimes of Heresy Apostasie or Infidelity and their being so adjudged The Pope hath no superiority over Princes whereby he may deprive them of their Dominions The first of these is that which the Popes themselves do much insist upon as appears from their own Instruments Grants and Bulls relating to the deposing Kings and the disposing of Kingdoms and Countries And it may be observed that the claim of the deposing power upon account of a Soveraign Dominion to give and take away Kingdoms doth lay the rights of Kings at the mercy and pleasure of the Pope as other Officers and Dependents are at the pleasure of the King in his Kingdom Greg. 7. l. 8. Episc 21 c. 15. q. 7. c. alius And then it must be also granted that the Pope may deprive them without respect to any such Case Ecclesiastical as Heresy Excommunication or spiritual punishment of sin and such a power was claimed by some Popes 9. But having in the former Book as I hope sufficiently proved the Supremacy of Kings in their Dominions and disproved the superiority of the Pope over them it may be thence inferred that no deposing power can possibly belong to him upon this pretence which also will receive further confirmation from many things in the following Chapters of this Book Only I shall here take notice that as some other Scriptures are produced for this deposing power which at first sight appear to signify no such thing as the instance of Jehoiada who only acted the part of a faithful subject to Joash Bishop Montagues Acts and Monum ch 6. n. 26 27. Gr. de Valent Tom. 3. Disp 1. Qu. 12. punct 2. V. Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 7. against a cruel Usurper and doth not certainly appear to have been the High
taken that no acts of Ecclesiastical authority do render Soveraign Princes the more disrespected and disesteemed of their Subjects And upon this account also it is needful that all Ecclesiastical Officers do carefully avoid the suspicion of undermining the secular rights of Princes which hath been inordinately done in the Romish Church under the pretence of the power of the Keyes and of binding and loosing 15. And lastly and chiefly The manner of proceeding in the Sentence of Excommunication being ordinarily by a judicial process and a publick Judicial sentence and there being no Ecclesiastical Court or Person who hath any superiour power or authority over a Soveraign Prince to Command or Summon his appearing before them to answer to what shall be objected against him I cannot see how unless by his own consent he should become subject to such Judicial proceedings The Bishop of Rome did indeed presume to summon Kings before him but this was an high act of his Vsurpation Whereas according to the groundwork now laid a Soveraign Prince cannot by any coactive Ecclesiastical Power become subject to such a sentence and the open and outward proceedings therein But still Princes as well as any other persons must submit themselves to the power of the Keyes in undertaking the rules of repentance so far as they are needful for procuring the favour of God and obtaining the benefit of the Keyes by Absolution as was in a great part done in that memorable Case of Theodosius Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 17. Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 24. upon the sharp rebuke of S. Ambrose And though all Christians upon manifest evidence may in some Cases see cause to disown a Soveraign Prince as was done in Julian from being any longer a Member of the Christian Society yet in such Cases this Membership ceaseth and is forfeited by his own act and not properly by a Judicial sentence and formal Process Gr. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp 3. Qu. 15. Punct 3. And some of the Romish Writers go much this way in giving an account how the Bishop of Rome whom they suppose to be superiour to all men on Earth may be reason of Heresy or such Crimes be deprived of Christian Communion 16. Heresy doth not deprive men of all temporal rights Valent. T. 3. Disp 1. Qu. 10. P. 8. qu. 11. P. 3. qu. 12. p. 2. Concerning Heresy it might be sufficient in this Case to observe that those who in Communion with the Church of England embrace that true Christian Doctrine which was taught in the Primitive and Apostolical Church are as far from being concerned in the crime and guilt of Heresy as loyal Subjects are from being chargeable with Rebellion But that assertion which some Romish Writers embrace that Hereticks are ipso facto deprived of all temporal rights Layman The Mor. l. 2. Tr. 2. c. 16. and superiority etiam ante judicis sententiam say some is necessary to be rejected For this is a position that would ruine the Peace of the World when it would put every party upon seising the possessions of all whom they account Hereticks as having a just right so to do And this is certainly false because temporal Dominion is not originally founded in the entertaining the true Doctrine of Religion or the Faith of Christianity since S. Paul required subjection to the Pagan Rulers as being ordained of God Rom. 13.1 7. Had this been true the Scribes and Pharisees who were guilty of Heresy could not have sat in Moses Seat nor ought Constantius and Valens to have been acknowledged as they always were by the Christian Church for Soveraign Princes 17. That damnable doctrine and position Suar. in Reg. Brit. l. 6. c. 6. Vide Arnaldi Oration cont Jesuitas in Cur. Parlam Sixt. 5. in Orat. in Consist Rom. Comolet in Arnald Orat ubi sup which is abjured in the Oath of Allegiance as impious and heretical That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever is owned and asserted even with respect to the murdering them by several Popish Doctors and by some of them as a thing most highly meritorious Among whom also the murdering of Princes is approved if they be only thought remiss and not zealous in carrying on the interest of the Romish Church and on this account the horrid murther of Hen. 3. and Hen. 4. of France hath been applauded and commended by divers of them But the wickedness of all such assertions and practises will be abhorred by all loyal and Christian Spirits and will I hope be plainly manifested from the following part of this discourse 18. And whereas this Doctrine and Position is abjured as Heretical Of Heretical Doctrines the phrase Heretical must be here taken in a proper and strict sense But when the Scriptures or ancient Fathers speak of Heresy or Heretical Doctrines strictly and properly they thereby understand such Positions which under the profession of Christianity do so far oppose and undermine the true Christian Doctrine as to bring those who maintain and practise these things to the wayes of destruction Thus those Doctrines were by S. Peter esteemed damnable Heresies which were proposed by false Teachers and were pernicious and destructive both to them and to those who followed them Ignat. ad Trallian 2 Pet. 2.1 2 3. Ignatius also describeth Heresy to be a strange Herb no Christian food which joineth the name of Christ with corrupt doctrines quae inquinatis implicat Jesum Christum in the Latin published by Bishop Vsher by which the Medicean Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is certainly amiss and concerning which both Vossius and P. Junius add their different conjectures may be corrected for that Copy out of which this Latin was translated seemeth to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as they who give a deadly poyson with wine and honey which may please and yet kill And Tertullian accounted such assertions to be Heresy as undermine the Faith Tert. de Praescript c. 2 5. and lead to eternal death and where the Teachers of them though they profess the name of Christ do corrupt his Doctrine and are Adulteri Evangelizatores In like manner S. Austin owneth him to be an Heretick Aug. de Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. who under the Christian name resisteth the Christian Doctrine and persisteth in maintaining dogmata pestifera mortifera pestilent and deadly opinions And when Aquinas treated of Heresy 22ae q. 11. a. 2. o. he declared that the import thereof is the corruption of the Christian Faith Nor would it be difficult to add a numerous Company of approved Writers to the same purpose 19. Doctrines allowing Subjects or others to depose or murther Princes are Heretical Now since the Popes depriving power hath been disproved this Position here abjured is not only false but according to this notion of Heresy it is
fall with the deposing power For the absolving Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance must be presumed to be to this end that such persons should be no longer obliged to acknowledge the Authority or perform the duty which is therein expressed and contained and the best of their own Writers do found the Popes Authority of dischargeing Subjects from such Oaths and Duties upon the effect of his deposing or depriveing power And it must be granted that if the Pope cannot depose a Prince as is sufficiently evinced that he cannot then Princes have a right of governing notwithstanding all the Pope can do and his Subjects are then bound by the divine law to perform Allegiance though they should never have taken any special Oath to that purpose But if the Prince could be indeed deposed by the Pope and consequently hath no longer a right of governing I acknowledge that any other man as well as the Pope may pronounce the duties and obligation of subjection to cease Sect. 2 towards him who is no longer their Ruler and Governour SECT II. Of the Vnlawfulness of taking Arms upon any pretence whatsoever against the King 1. The more general acknowledgment for the preservation of the Kings safety is That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I do abhor that traiterous position of taking Arms b his Authority against his person or against those that are commissionated by him this profession is required by the Act. of Vniformity to be made by all the Clergy and the same thing in sense is enjoined upon all civil and military Officers And here I shall distinctly consider the several clauses which are all to be interpreted with respect to the end and design of them which is the preservation and just security of the Kings person and government and the due performance of the Subjects Loyalty Of the unlawfulness upon any pretence to take Armes against the King 2. The first clause that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King is the chief and principal part of this acknowledgment which in the due latitude of its sense doth include what is more particularly expressed in the following words And the sense of this is nothing more than what the Church of England and the eminent members thereof hath constantly acknowledged Our Homilies teach Hom. of Obedience Part. 2. that it is not lawful for inferiours and subjects in any Case to stand against and resist the superiour power Can. 1. Concerning Regal Power And in the Canons 1640. it was declared that for subjects to bear Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any pretence whatsoever is at the least to resist the powers which are ordained of God and though they do not invade but only resist S. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves damnation And to the same sense the Vniversity of Oxford hereafter mentioned 3. This clause of acknowledgment being framed and enjoined by an English Parliament not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian proceedings in this Nation and tendered to English Subjects and relating particularly to the King not indefinitely to any King can bear no other rational construction than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their natural Soveraign the King of England And therefore though the like attempts against any other Kings who enjoy Soveraign Authority are equally blameable in their Subjects yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms amongst any other Nations against him who hath the title of King if he doth not therewith enjoy that right of supreme government which our Kings have and exercise And therefore in such a Constitution of government as the Lacedemonian was Plut. in Pausan in which Pausanias had the title of a King under the Ephori but with as much distance from Royal Power and Supremacy as was in the military Imperator or General among the Romans from the Dignity of an Emperour we are not concerned to determine any thing concerning their Rights Plin. Nat. Hist l. 6. c. 22. The like condition of the Kings of Tabrobana is mentioned by Pliny and others have given somewhat a like account concerning some other places But against a Soveraign Prince all open Hostility and secret treachery in his Subjects is Universally to be esteemed utterly unlawful 4. And it might be wished Violence hath too ost been offered to Princes that there had never been in England or elsewhere any such treacherous and disloyal actions or assertions from which the true Friends of the Church of England have been free as should render it exceeding needful to make use of the greatest care and caution for the preservation of the persons of Princes But alas the wretched practises against our late Dread Soveraign are equally manifest and horrid and the too forward proneness of vicious men to entertain rebellious designs both under Paganism Judaism Mahometanism and Christianity might afford matter enough for multiplyed Tragedies I shall forbear many instances which might be given both in our own and many other Kingdoms and shall only reflect on that temper and spirit which hath prevailed in Rome and Scotland 5. De Civ Dei l. 3. c. 15. In the first rise of the Roman Power it was observed by S. Austin that of their Kings which reigned before the Consuls there were only two Numa Pompilius and Ancus Martius who died of any Disease if so much may be affirmed of both them Suet. in Calig n. 58. Claudio n. 44. Ner. n. 49. Galb n. 19. Othon n. 11. Vitell. n. 17. And Suctonius who writeth the lives of the twelve first Caesars sheweth that besides Julius Caesar and Domitian no less than six of them who immediately succeeded one another even all from Tiberius to Vespasian had their Deaths procured either by secret treachery or open assaults and that there were suspicions concerning and frequent Conspiracies against others of them And of later times omitting many other instances and the Rebellions in other Countries which was the fruit of the doctrine propagated from Rome since Greg. 7. I shall only add Extrav Joh. Tit. 12. c. 1. that though Ancona be under the government of the Popes Officers and lies near the Gates of Rome the Inhabitants thereof are complained of in one of the Summaries of their Canon Law to this purpose soliti sunt rectores interficere it is usual with them to kill their Governours And it hath been observed that the Scots in the succession of somewhat above an hundred Princes have killed betwixt thirty and forty of them 6. And hence it may appear that that Genius and temper which hath too much prevailed in Rome and Scotland was such as disposed them to shew no very great respect unto Princes and this may possibly have had some influence upon the Conclave in the one and the Kirk in the other And indeed
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
own those Rebels for the people of the Lord charge Moses and Aaron as being guilty of their blood and again gather themselves together against them v. 41 42. And as S. Austin conceives sutably to the tumultuous violence of their Spirits they came with a resolution of putting them to death Aug. de mirabil S. Scriptur l. 1. c. 30. saith he Totus populus contra Moysem Aaron ut sanguinis reos consurrexit eosque in eorundem ultionem occidere voluit And all these transactions are the more to be admired because they presently succeeded after that sad threatning and the Plague therewith that their Carcases should fall in the Wilderness and not enter into the Land of Canaan Num. 14.29 30 37. which judgment was denounced against them in part because they would forsake Moses and chuse them another Captain to return to Egypt Num. 14.4 Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 13. and did then as Jo sephus expresseth it revile and conspire against Moses and Aaron And if under so excellent a Governour who had so highly obliged Israel and done so much good for them there were such dangerous consequences from the people or men of a popular strain exercising a power of judging concerning a Case fit to warrant a forcible resistance this must needs be a destructive principle if allowed under the best Government in the World This gave birth to so bad an undertaking as that of Corah which was an enterprise to heinous Sanhedrin c. 11. that besides the severe censures of the Scripture the Jewish Talmud reckons up the managers thereof amongst them who shall have no portion in the life to come 7. And in the time of David The other instance I shall give is in the Government of David He was peculiarly chosen of God to rule Israel and known so to be he was a man after Gods own heart and in his Government over Israel he fed or ruled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them according to the integrity of his heart and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands Ps 78.72 He was also so potent and victorious over all his Enemies and by reason hereof Israel in his time was so renowned that Maimonides saith their Consistories would not receive Proselytes in his Reign because they supposed it was the fare of his power Maim in Inure Biah which induced them to pretend respect to the worship of the God of Israel Yet Absalom by a popular carriage and infinuating words soon perswaded the people they were greatly injured under the Government of David and that no justice could be had 2 Sam. 15.3 4. Josep Ant. l 7. c. 8. And Josephus declares he complained much of the Kings Officers that there were no good Counsellers about him And hereupon almost all the Kingdom of Israel join themselves with Absalom again2t David 2 Sam. 15.12 13 14. Ch. 16.18 Ch. 18.6 and their Elders with them Ch. 17.15 8. And though this wicked attempt of Absalom was defeated and no less than twenty thousand men slain therein in one day yet while the people in their discontent and passion took to themselves a liberty to take Armes as they thought fit it is remarkably observable that no sooner was this rebellion after Absalom over but upon some hot words between the men of Judah and the men of Israel concerning the manner of their performing their duty to the King 2 Sam. 20 2. every man of Israel went up from David and followed Sheba in a new Rebellion And though Davids Conquests had been very great over many Nations which some of the ancient Greek Historians gave an account of as was observed by Eusebius for Eupolemus neither the splendour of his Kingdom nor the sense of their duty Eus Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. 30. nor the bitter effects of their former Conspiracy nor the Kings Kindness in receiving them again into his favour could contain them under the bond of obedience and in the paths of Peace 9. Now all this will manifest how extremely unsetled any Government in the World must be and therein the authority of executing justice preserving peace and conserving all rights and properties if it be once admitted that Subjects when they shall judge it a Case of necessity for the preservation of the common good may take Armes against their Soveraign And therefore for the Securing peace and righteousness and the common rights and interests of all men it must be acknowledged that the supreme Governour hath such an authority that it is not lawful to take up Armes against him 10. The sense of Grotius concerning Subjects taking Arms. Besides these instances I shall add the judgment of the learned Grotius after his long and more mature consideration of things That worthy man in his Book de Jure Belli pacis and in another Discourse written in his younger time did make use of some unmeet expressions and notions and unsound arguments too much tending to infringe the Authority of Kings and to allow a power in the people in some Cases of making War against them But though he did not expresly retract and alter those things yet in his Writings which he published after a greater experience of the World he wrote at another rate and falls in directly with what I have not asserted Grot. in Mat. 26.52 Thus in his Commentaries upon S. Matthew he saith If it be once admitted that private persons being injuriously dealt with by the Magistrate may make forcible resistance all places would be full of tumults there would be no force or authority of Laws or Judicatures since there is no man who is not enclined to favour himself 11. And in his Votum pro pace Vot pro Pac. ad Art 16. after he had passionately complained of Armes being taken upon the pretext of Religion he goes on Ego vero non tantum subditos ab armis arceo c. But I do not only forbid Subjects from taking Armes but desire that Kings who have that power given to them would use it as feldom as may be Ibid. After this Grotius relateth at large and with approbation the proceedings of the University of Oxford about Paraeus upon the Romans with his allowance also of this their determination Subditos nullo modo vi armis Regi vel Principi suo resistere debere nec illis arma vel offensiva vel defensiva in cansa Religionis vel alia re quà cunque contra Regem vel Principem saum capessere debere That Subjects ought by no means to resist their King or Prince by force nor ought they to take either offensive or defensive Armes against their King or Prince Ibid. for the cause of Religion or for any other thing whatsoever And then asserting the generall rule of S. Paul even against the Cases excepted by Paraeus that whosoever resisteth the power receiveth to himself damnation he addeth If so many Exceptions of Paraeux i. e. underminings of S.
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
subject either to kill him or to take away his goods potest civis ille vim vi repellendo eum interimere that subject in repelling force by force may kill him 2. Now this disorderly and unruly management of self defence would fill the World with tumults and subvert the foundations of its Peace and Government since by this means the power of the sword would be put into every private mans hand to use it against his Governours when he shall think it fit for his own interest But that the falshood as well as the danger of this pretence may be manifest I shall return an answer thereto in three heads 1. That it is notoriously false that men are obliged by the law of nature in all Cases to defend their own lives and outward interests by force And it is a sufficient prejudice against this that he who will maintain it must acknowledge that all those who died Martyrs for the Christian Religion did violate the Laws of nature in not resisting their Persecutors and that all malefactors ought to fight for their lives rather than to submit themselves to justice The prime laws of nature to rational beings are the rules of good Conscience 2. That the prime law which the nature and being of man who is a rational Creature and capable of happiness doth oblige him to observe is that he ought to take care of his own welfare and chief good and to endeavour after true perfection And because this is chiefly procured by well doing therefore to be pious and sober loyal and peaceable just and good whereby purity of heart and integrity and peace of Conscience is preserved and a good name here and a blessed state hereafter obtained these are the things which our nature and being and our Religion also oblige us principally to design and all outward interests of this life must be placed in subordination to them And sure no Christian will believe that our Saviour by his Religion did subvert the prime laws of our nature and being when he required his Disciples to take up the Cross to be ready to lose their lives for his sake and to forsake all and follow him 3. That self defence is then only lawful to be managed by force when this may be done by lawful means and without transgressing any necessary duty to God or Man It is therefore justly allowed so far as it necessary against private violence and assaults being then warrantable by the Rules of right reason and good Conscience which are the laws of our nature But to allow a right of self-defence to every man by taking Armes against his superiour is as much as to say that no man is bound to own the Ordinance of God in the World or to submit himself and his interest to be governed by any civil power 3. It is also urged Rutherf ubi sup Qu. 25. Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 110. c. that in the Constitution of Government Princes are appointed for this end to wit the good of the people and therefore the peoples good is to be pursued though against the person or Government of the Prince and they most comply with the great end of Government who will take care of the community Armin. Disp publ Thes 25. n. 10. And therefore if a Prince do not promote the peoples good the end must be preferred before the means and the good of the Common-wealth is otherwise to be provided for Of the end of Government Anbs 1. That though the good of the people be a great end of Government yet it is not the sole end thereof But as when a Prince appointeth a chief Officer of a Corporation this is not only for the benefit of the members of that Society but it is also intended that they may be more useful to do the King service and that the Common-wealth may receive benefit thereby so in Soveraignty there is a claim of Gods authority in the World for his honour and therefore out of Conscience and duty to God there must be a subjection shewed to Rulers as his Ministers besides what the interest of the community will require 2. If Government were wholly intended with respect to the good of subjects I have proved in the former Sections that order peace and justice cannot be thereby established among men unless it be acknowledged that none may resist the Rulers Authority 3. To lay down such Rules that men are no longer obliged to observe any constitution intended for a further end than as the parties concerned shall judge it to conduce to that end is dangerous and unsound By this rule discontented persons might break the indissoluble bond of conjugal Relation where they account it not to answer the end by mutual helpfulness and comfort Gemer in Sanhedr Cap. 2. Par. 11. And when God forbad the King of Israel to multiply Wives lest his heart should turn away from God Deut. 17.17 the Jewish Writers account Salomon justly blameable for his multiplying Wives though he mightpresume there would be no danger of his forsaking God thereby 4. Of the original of Government being from the people Sov power of Parl. Part. 1. p. 35 36. Ruth Civ Pol. Qu. 4. p. 10. Qu. 19. p. 148. This asserted by many Papists But thee is another thing which hath been much insisted on and will require a larger Examination concerning the original of Soveraignty and the deductions which may be made from thence It was urged in our late unhappy times in England that the Soveraign power was more in the people than in the King or Prince who was originally created by them And in Scotland it was asserted then as a ground of taking Arms against the King that Royal power was radically in the people was communicated from them and that they may take it again if the conditions on which they gave it be violated and that the people being the fountain power are still superiour to the King 5. V. Bannes in 2. 2ae Qu. 40. Art 1. Dub. 2. And it is ordinary with the Writers of the Romish Church to make the people the original of the Princes Soveraign power and many of them make use of this Assertion as one way to shew the excellency of the Pope above Princes Thus Salmeron Salm. Tom. 12. Tract 63. Civil power saith he is indeed from God so far as he made the community free and gave them light and power to set up Governours and therefore secular power doth not so descend from Heaven but that it rather ascends from the community unto the King or other chief Magistrate Dominicus Soto asserts De Justit Jur. l. 4. Qu. 4. Art 2. Reges à suis Regnis potestatem recipiunt Kings receive their power from their Kingdoms Bell. de Laicis c. 6. Bellarmine asserteth indeed political powder and Government to be from God but that he gave it immediately to the whole multitude and they transfer it to
one or more Medin in 1. 2ae qu. 90. Art 2. And Medina declares that Principes si legitimi sunt habent authoritatem jus Dominandi à Republica lawful Princes have their authority and right of Governing from the Common-wealth 6. The ill consequences they hence deduce And from this very principle the same sort of Writers do also grant and assert the lawfulness of the people resisting their King by force Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 19. in necessary Cases Bellarmine allows that the political head may be deposed by the people because he depends on them and receives his power from them Gr. de Val. T. 3. Qu. 1. Disp 1. Punc 7. div 45. Greg. de Valentia affirms that the secular Prince having his power from the community over which he is from hence it is that he is above any parts of the community but not above the whole community jointly considered at least he is not so in all cases Hence also Navarrus asserted that the people did never so give over their power unto the King but that they retain it to themselves in the habit that in some certain Cases they may also receive it again in act Mariana de Rege Reg. insist l. 1. c. 6. And Mariana affirms that the Royal power having its birth from the Common-wealth there is reserved in it a power of deposing the King and making War against him and if it be necessary destroying him with the Sword And he adviseth as the safest course that such an ill governing Prince should be declared a common Enemy in a publick convention and then he allows it lawful for any private man to kill him but if there can be no such publick Assembly if it be according to the common vote of the people he commends the wicked attempts of such as would take away his life as if such horrid enterprises were famous atchievements 7. There are also other new Modellers whose Positions founded upon the same bottom of Princes having their power from the people are very dangerous to Government The like dangerous Positions of other extravagant Writers Such persons I mean as Mr Hobbs and the Author of the Tractatus Theologico-politicus for though these men seemingly yield a great Authority to the Prince yet building upon a wrong and rotten foundation they afford him no further security in his Government than is the effect of his mere strength and power The Tractatus Theologico-politicus owneth Dominion to be founded in mens resigning up their own rights to another by pacts But besides other things the admitting these two assertions in that Discourse will be sufficient to manifest the instability of any Government where those Positions are embraced For as he asserteth that naturally there is nothing unlawful which any man can desire and obtain so 1. he sayes Pactum nullam vim habere posse nisi ratione utilitatis qua sublata pactum tollitur irritum manet which is as much as to say that Subjects are no further bound to submission Tract The-pol Cap. 16. p. 254. p. 256. V. p. 262. than till they can propose to themselves an advantage by Rebellion And since no rebellion was ever undertaken in the World but upon the proposal of some advantage to the undertakers those evil men must be justified as having a right to do what they did according to this pernicious Principle Ib. p. 259. V. p. 261 257 258. 2. It is there also asserted Summis potestatibus hoc jus quicquid velint imperandi c. The right of commanding what they please doth only so long belong to the supreme powers as they indeed have the highest or greatest power but if they lose that they lose also the right of commanding all and this right falls upon him or them who gain the greatest power and are able to keep it Which words do make void all true and proper right of Princes and leave them no other foundation to support their Government but their present possession of power which if any other person can possess himself of he therewith hath the right also 8. And though Mr Hobbs sometimes hath over-large expressions concerning the power of Governours yet he having before laid the same foundation for the original of political Government doth also undermine the safety and stability of Governours and Government 1 By asserting Leviath Cap. 14. p. 67 68 70. That these pacts are so reciprocal that they who yield up their right do it for the receiving good thereby and the end of pacts being the preservation of life and of such things as conduce thereto jus contra vim se defendendi necessariò retinetur and any pact to give up the power of defending ones self against Death Wounds or Imprisonment must be void being against that self-preservation which is the end of these pacts And these general Positions and grounds concerning pacts will destroy either the nature or at least the security of that power which in words he otherwhere yields to Governours 2. Because according to his frame and model there can be no foundation laid for these pacts becoming obligatory further than the mere fear of external coactive power can enforce the observation of them Ibid. c. 14. p. 67 71. Cap. 17. p. 83. Cap. 18. p. 87. For as he sometimes tells us that these pacts do not oblige in their own nature but from the fear of loss and the punishment from a visible power so since he asserts that in the state or condition of liberty antecedently to these pacts Justice equity or doing to others as they would they should do to them Had no place nor were men any ways obliged to observe them it is impossible there should be any obligation introduced upon men according to this method to perform their pacts save only from fear of external force Tract The. -pol p. 254. For as the Tractator doth expresly allow fraud and deceit in that imaginary state of liberty the consequence of which will be that they may deal falsly in their pacts so the Leviathan model must according to the principles there laid allow the same P. 71. And though he sometimes speaks of the confirming these pacts by Oaths and the fear of a Deity yet this can add nothing to the obligation upon the principles of the Leviathan because the fear of God only obligeth men to do their duty but doth not deny them the use of their liberty in other things But as these Positions are framed upon such suppositions as look upon man in his begining to stand without due respect to God and the rules and notions of good and evil so the dangerous aspect they have on peace and Government doth speak the folly of them and they will be sufficiently in this particular confuted by asserting the divine original of Soveraignty 9. But it seemeth most strange De Jur. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. that the Learned
to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Anointed And behold as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulation 9. When the seventh Psalm was penned whose Title is concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite Chald. Par. Vers Vulg. Grot. Vatabl Munst in loc some ancient Versions expresly refer this to Saul the Son of Kish And many good Expositors do with much reason judge that when David was accused by Saul himself of lying in wait against him 1 Sam. 22.8 and by others of seeking his hurt Ch. 24.9 David in this Psalm under the Conduct of Gods Infallible Spirit declareth His Abhorrence of such things as being very wicked and deserving severe punishment in these words O Lord my God if I have done this if there be iniquity in my hands If I have rewarded evil to him that was at peace with me Yea I have delivered him that without cause was mine Enemy Let the Enemy persecute my Soul and take it c. v. 3 4 5. And even they who rather interpret the Title to relate to the words of Shimei must grant the like sense to be intended in these verses 10. And lest any should think He here acted not the Politician but observed the rules of Conscience Davids expressions and especially his killing the Amalekite to be the actions of a Politician for the better securing his own Government though this be sufficiently refuted in what I have said above I further add 1. That he had plainly declared the Sin and Guiltiness of disloyal Acts of violence at such times when mere Policy if considered as abstract from Duty might have prompted him to free himself from a potent deadly irreconcilable Enemy and thereby to gain the Possession of the Crown 2. That if David had shed the blood of the Amalekite without respect unto justice and only to strike an awe into others whilst he believed he did not deserve death this had been a designedly contrived wilful murder to gratifie his own lust and would have been a sin at least as deeply dyed as the Murder of Vriah which yet with its attendants is accounted the singular stain and blemish in the Life of David 1 Kin. 15.5 And therefore Davids Deportment in things towards Saul was Gr. Nys ubi sup c. 17. as Gr. Nyssen expresseth it because he judged it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an unlawful and unjust thing to have done otherwise and what he said and did was in the fear of God SECT III. Objections from the behaviour of David answered 1. It may be first objected Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Ruth of Civ Pol. Qu. 31. Qu. 10. that Davids Carriage reacheth not so far as to condemn all taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince but only such force where assaults are made or violence offered unto his Person and towards such a Person too who was particularly anointed by Gods especial Command Ans 1. The words of David do indeed directly condemn hostile Acts against the Person of the King But his proceeding upon this ground because Saul was the Lords anointed or one appointed by Gods Authority and invested with his Power David not only repressed violence against the person of Saul but reverenced his authority must also condemn acts of violence against his Power and Authority derived from God 2. Forcible opposing the Kings strength doth naturally tend to expose his Person also to violence for if his strength be subdued what defence remains for his Person against the fury of his Enemies or the rage of Assailants we may learn from the History of our Civil Wars and our late good Soveraign But David whose heart smote him for cutting off the lap of Saul's Garment whereby he might fall under some appearance of dishonour or disgrace would much more avoid what might bring him into real danger And it is very considerable that when David had the opportunity of coming upon Saul and his Army when God had cast them all into a deep sleep he not only spared Sauls Person but did not offer any violence to any single man in the whole Army 1 Sam. 26.7 8 12 16. 2. And 3. there could be nothing more contained under the Rite of anointing by Gods Command than to express in the first fixing a Governour or Government that this was appointed and approved by God Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 7. To which purpose Josephus who was well acquainted with the sence of the Jewish Phrases doth give such Paraphrases of the Lords anointed as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who was by God advanced to the Kingdome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one ordained of God and in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to anoint is in 2 Sam. 3.39 rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to constitute And it was not so much the use of any outward anointing by a Prophet or any other as the Authority ordained of God which was chiefly to be considered in them who were acknowledged to be the Lords Anointed Enxt. Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schickard de J. R. Heb. c. 1. Theor. 4. Abarb. in Ex. 30. de Unct. c. 8. For Cyrus was called the Lords Anointed though no such Unction was used among the Persians Isai 45.1 And in the Kingdom of Judah Maimonides and other Jewish Writers tell us that no King was anointed who was the Son of a King and came to the Crown by manifest and undoubted Succession and yet these Kings such as Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah were nevertheless to be honoured Only Salomon Joash and Jehoahaz were anointed because of some different claims of succession or interruption of the true right but not by any special divine command But all other Power and Authority as well as that of Saul is ordained of God Rom. 13.1 2. 3. But the chief thing here objected is De jure Magis in subdit qu. 6. that there are appearances of evidence that David did take up Armes against Saul and undertook the defence of himself by force and three things are alledged in proof hereof Grot. ubi sup Quò nisi ad vim arcendam si inferretur The first thing produced is that David was Captain over four hundred men 1 Sam. 22.2 and then over six hundred Ch. 23.13 and a far greater number came to him to Ziklag who were called helpers of the War 〈◊〉 Chr. 12.1 And Mr Rutherford again and again saith Ruth of Civ Pol. Qu. 32. that these Armed men who came to Ziklag came to help David against Saul but the Scripture saith not so Ans 1. David having been a person of chief eminency both in Sauls Court Davids six hundred men not intended to make War against Saul and the Armies of Israel and being Son-in-law to the King and
The truth of what appears concerning Davids intention relating to Keilah is this that David purposed to have made some stay in that place which he had then rescued from their Besiegers the Philistines But understanding that Saul intended to destroy that place if they should harbour him and not seize on him and that they for their own security would hinder his further escape if he should continue there and would lay hold on him and deliver him up to Saul he timely prevented this danger by a speedy removal Ch. 23 7-12 SECT IV. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered 1. Among other Objections I shall not need to take notice in this place of the pretences for a constant power among the Jews superiour to the Regal The Romanists indeed are sometimes forward to assert the Priest to have been above the King as Bellarmine affirms Bellarm. do Offic. Princ. c. 4. that after Moses semper praepositus erat Pontifex Principi And others besides those I have before mentioned speak the like of the Synedrial power insomuch that when Grotius did in his Book de Imperio assert some of the pretended Synedrial Authority to have been in truth fixed in the King saying hoc ipsum Synedrii jus regni tempore videtur fuisse penes Reges Blondel in his Scholia upon that place on the contrary asserts Sch. ad Grot. de Imp. S. p. c. 10. n. 17. that this Sanhedrim did judge the King imo de Regibus Synedrium judicavit And if either of these pretences were true it must also be granted that a superiour authority may lawfully make use of force towards an inferiour power when it be necessary so to do B. 1. Ch. 3. But these things are sufficiently refuted in the former Book to which I remit the Reader Sect. 4 and proceed to satisfy other Objections 2. Obj. 1. It is urged Of the wars of the Maccabees that in the Jewish Church Armes might lawfully be taken in the defence of their Religion against their Soveraign from the instance of the Wars of the Maccabees The Maccabees are generally commended and very probably by the Apostle Heb. 11.34 35 37. and by some of the Prophets When Antiochus Epiphanes polluted the Temple and did prostitute the Jewish Religion and Laws and commanded the Jews to offer Sacrifice after the manner of the Heathen Mattathias and his Sons being zealous for the Law took up armes against him 1 Mac. Ch. 1. and Ch. 2. which were chiefly managed after the Fathers Death by Judas Maccabaeus Brut. Vinâ—â— Qu. 2. p. 61. Qu. 3. p. 199. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Right of Church ch 5. p. 306. This instance is produced by Junius Brutus and Grotius as a lawful War against their lawful Soveraign And of this Case Mr Thornedike hath these words It is manifest that the Armes which the Maccabees took up against Antiochus Epiphanes their lawful Soveraign are approved by God not only as foretold by Daniel and Ezekiel and other Prophets but also because the Apostle manifestly commendeth their faith on the other side it is manifest that they justified their Armes upon the title of Religion Now it is obvious that as this Case stands thus represented it is the very same in which the Primitive Christians refused to make resistance and which Mr Thorndike will not allow under Christianity 3. Answ Antiochus Epiphanes against whom the Maccabees fought was no lawful Soveraign in Judea Grot. ibid. but an invader This assertion is indeed rejected by Grotius pretending that he had the right of succession from the Macedonian power saith he quòd quidem haec arma eo titulo defendunt quasi Antiochus non Rex sed invasor fuerit vanum puto But though there is some difference amongst Historians concerning the division of the Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander I see no reason to doubt of the account given by Josephus concerning Judea He tells us that then Egypt Jos Ant. l. 12. c. 1. Cont. Apion l. 1. and also Judea was under Ptolomaeus the Son of Lagus not Seleucus from whom Antiochus Epiphanes did descend who giving the Jews ample priviledges took of them an Oath of Fidelity to him and his Posterity and that they were then under Ptolomaeus he cites the Testimony also of Agatharcides Cnidius an ancient Historian who wrote the Acts of the Successors of Alexander Antiq. l. 12. c. 3. And Judea continued under the Egyptian Ptolomyes above an hundred years until Antiochus Magnus gained it by Conquest but enjoyed it a little time restoring it as part of the Portion of Cleopatra his Daughter whom he gave in Marriage to Ptolomaeus Epiphanes But this Ptolomy dying Antiochus Epiphanes in the Minority of his son Ptolomaeus Philometor overcame him and being invited by a Seditious party invadeth Judea taketh Jerusalem and exerciseth himself there in cruelty and impiety Josep l. 12. c. 6 7. Prol. de Bel. Jud. And under these circumstances Mattathias and his Son resisted him by War Josep Ant. l. 12. c. 8. de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 1 2. 4. Now a violent possession of what he had no just claim to was far from being a Title of right And therefore the Jews might very lawfully endeavour by Arms to recover their rights their Country and the liberty of Religious Worship from the forceable violence of an open Enemy and an invader who had cruelly oppressed them about three years Indeed he is sometime stiled the King being truly King of Syria but by no right King of Judea but other times in the Book of the Maccabees he and his Forces are stiled Enemies 1 Mac. 2.7 9. Ch. 13.51 and the like in Josephus who against Apion declareth that Antiochus came as an Enemy against them who were his Friends and Confederates Cont. Apion l. 2. nos socios amicos aggressus est saith the Latine Translation the ordinary Greek being there defective 5. The Wars of the Judges Of the same nature also were the Wars of Barak against Jabin King of Canaan of Gideon against the Midianites and of Othniel against Cushan Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia and also the acting of Sampson against the Philistines and of Ehud against Eglon. For none of these Princes against whom these Judges took Armes or towards whom they did acts of violence had any just right of Superiority and Soveraignty over Israel but they had injuriously invaded and oppressed them and it is very usual with Scholastick Writers to give the instance of Eglon D. Sot de Just jure l. 5. Qu. 1. Art 3. for one who was Tyrannus titulo or an Usurper having no just Title And besides this since God reserved the disposal of the Government of Israel peculiarly in his own hand Lessius de Just l. 2. c. 9. dub 4. and he raised up and sent all these Judges Jud. 3.9 15. Ch. 4.6 Ch. 6.14 Ch. 13.25 1
Apostle commands subjection and against whom he condemns all resistance Now this is commonly acknowledged to have been written under the Reign of Nero who was a man of excessive intemperance and lust and prodigious cruelty even to that height as to cast off natural affection to his nearest relations In his time Suetonius tells us Suet. in Ner. n. 16. punishments were inflicted upon the Christians and according to Tacitus Tac. Annal l. 15. Tertul. Apol c. 6. in Scorpiac c. 15. poenis quaesitissimis by the most exquisite pains and he is noted by Tertullian to be the first of the Roman Emperours who undertook fiercely to persecute Christianity and under him S. Peter and S. Paul and divers other Christians were cruelly put to death And yet in this Case and under that Emperour whom the Roman Spirit would not endure without taking Armes against him and whom their Senate declared to be an Enemy Suet. in Ner. n. 49. Tacit. Hist l. 1. Aur. Vict. in Ner. and to be punished more majorum by an infamous Death S. Paul would not allow the Christians to resist and take Armes against this higher power And this was the Christian temper and Spirit that they kept themselves free from all those tumults and Seditions which other persons in the Empire were many times engaged in Tert. ad Scap. c. 2. And this is that which gave Tertullian occasion to say nunquam Albiniani vel Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani 5. And since the Church of Rome was founded in the beginning of the Government of Claudius and S. Paul was put to Death in the end of Nero's time who was the next Successor to Claudius in the Empire this Epistle to the Romans must be written in one of their Reigns Indeed Illyricus Illyr Chronol in Act. Apost Dr. Hammonds Annot on the Title of the Ep. to Rom. and Dr Hammond sometimes think it to have been written under Claudius And those expressions in this Epistle which intimate that S. Paul before the writing thereof had never been at Rome with this Christian Church may possibly seem to encline to the same sense Ch. 1 10.-13.-15 and Ch. 15.19 -22 23. But it was certainly written many years after the Conversion of the Romans Ch. 15.23 And if it should be supposed to have been sent to them under Claudius even he was not much a better man than Nero. For Claudius was a debauched and vicious person and barbarously cruel to which purpose amongst other expressions Suetonius saith of him Suet. in Claud. 33 34. that he was libidinis profusissimae and also saevum sanguinarium natura fuisse apparuit And even he was so great an Enemy to the right worship of the only true God that under the name of Jews he banished also Christians from Rome Act. 18.2 6. Rutherf of Civ Policy Qu. 33. The New Testament gives respect to the Emperour above the Senate But because there are some who say that these expressions of the Apostle have no particular mention of Nero or any Emperour and therefore may as well have respect to the Roman Senate To obviate this exception it may be observed that wheresoever in the New Testament there is any notice taken of or any respect given to the Roman power this is done with a principal and primary respect to the Emperour and subordinately to others as his Officers This is manifest in the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles The taxing or enrolling at the Birth of our Saviour was by the Decree of Augustus and the tribute money had Caesars Image and Inscription to whom Christ commanded the Jews to render what was his S. Pauls appeal was made unto Caesar and S. Peters commanding submission was directed to the King as supreme and to Governours as unto them who are sent by him So that the Spirit of God speaketh much in favour of Monarchical power though then Pagan but gives no encouragement to the notion of them who would embrace a popular Soveraignty 7. Now these words of S. Paul are so full that I shall not need to add any further evidences of Scripture in this particular But when S. Peter and S. Jude 2 Pet. 2.10 Jude 8. so highly condemn the despising Dominions and speaking evil of dignities as sins against which God will chiefly execute judgment it is evident à majori that their doctrine cannot give allowance to that forcible resistance whereby the greatest contempt of dignities is expressed and which runs higher than to speak evil especially when S. Jude speaks particularly against them who perish in the gain-saying of Core or in the practises of Sedition And S. Peter also proposeth the example of Christ as that which he himself intended should be an example to all Christians who when in well-doing he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously 1 Pet. 2.19.20 21 22 23. 8. Having now shewed Christianity doth not infringe Soveraignty that the Christian Doctrine doth fully provide for the safety and security of Princes it is matter of wonder that any men should have the considence to make Christianity a foundation for the highest resistance against Princes to depose them from their Crowns and forbid Subjects to yield them obedience and this Authority the Pope claims upon a Christian title Bellarm. in Resp ad Apol. pro Juram fidelit in init Bellarmine affirms it to be a thing agreed upon by their Lawyers and Divines that the Pope may by right depose heretical Princes and set free their Subjects from obedience to them for cum hac conditione reges terrae ad Ecclesiam admittuntur c. upon this condition the Kings of the Earth are admitted unto the Church that they shall subject their Scepters unto Christ and that they should protect and not destroy Religion which if they will not do he who is over the whole Church in the place of Christ vice Christi hath a right to separate them from the Communion of the faithful and to forbid their Subjects from giving them obedience Indeed all persons by their Baptism are engaged to yield up themselves to be Subjects to Christ But how can the baptism of Princes include a condition that they must yield their Scepters to be disposed of by any Officer of the Christian Church when they are baptized into that Doctrine which makes so great provision for the security of Kings and against all manner of resistance This would make Christianity to be prejudicial to the authority of Governours to assert which is contrary to the nature of its doctrine And the Holy Spirit seemeth to have taken special care to prevent this claim in any person of the Romish Church in that whosoever resisteth the power c. being particularly directed to that Church must deny all power to any person therein to oppose the authority of Rulers under the peril of damnation 9.
expressed Socr. l. 6. c. 6. by the appearance of an Army of Angels as a Guard about his Palace which so astonished them who were with Gainas that they gave over their attempt Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 24. And when the small Army of Theodosius was engaged against the formidable Forces of Eugenius who rebelled against him the Enemies Darts and Arrows are related to have been forced back upon themselves by the rising of a violent Wind. To these I shall adde that late relation concerning King James Sect. 3 whom when Agnes Sampson had undertaken to kill by Witchcraft Spotsw Hist of SC. B. 6. an 1509. her Familiar Spirit which She employed to effect it came to her and told her it could not perform it adding these words which She did not understand Il est Homme de Dieu He is a Man of God And though all these things deserve consideration the plain Rules of Conscience and Religion give the most full and unexceptionable testimony of the great displeasure of God against all actings of Treason and Sedition SECT III. The practice and sence of the Primitive Church concerning resistance 1. The loyal spirit of the Primitive Christians Above the examples of any other sort of men the spirit of the Primitive Christians deserves to be reverenced and regarded Whilest they lived under Pagan Emperours before the time of Constantine there was no such thing heard of as their undertaking to depose their Kings or Emperours nor no pretence of power in any Christian Bishop to absolve them from their allegiance And I think that for three hundred and forty years after Christ there can be no one instance given of any Christians making any forcible opposition by taking Armes against their Governours Con◠〈…〉 p 115 Origen in his time tells Ceâ—sâ—s that he could shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—o undertaking of Sedition among Christians who were not allowed to defend themselves against their Persecutors 2. Vnder heavy sufferings Yet the heavy sufferings of the Christians were then very great not only by reason of the several cruel deaths inflicted upon divers of them but also because of the great multitudes who died Martyrs in bearing the Cross and following the patience and meekness of Christ. Of which I shall give three instances from the several parts of the World in the end of the third and beginning of the fourth Centurie Eus Eccl. Hist l. 8. c. 9. Eusebius acquaints us that in the Dioclesian Persecution in Thebais which was none of the greatest Countries of Africa there were not only for some days but for some whole years together sometimes ten or twenty oft thirty other times about sixty and sometimes an hundred with their Wives and Children in one day slain by various Methods of cruel death And he himself had there seen some put to death by fire and others the same day by the Axe even so many that the Executioners were tired out and their Axes blunted Such instances speak the admirable patience hope and obedience of those holy men and the wonderful Power of God that preserved and propagated his Church notwithstanding so great oppositions 3. In Persia Sozomen tells us Sozom. l. 2. c. 10 13. that under Sapores his Reign there were sixteen thousand Martyrs of whom an account could be given by name and that besides them there were so great a multitude who died for the profession of Christ that they were more than could be numbred And in France the Thebaean Legion of almost seven thousand Christians being all armed and valiant men became Martyrs by the cruelty of Maximianus the Emperour when they refused to join in the Pagan worship the Emperour commanded twice that every tenth man should be put to death but after both these executions the remainder persisting in the same resolution were all commanded to be slain But they according to the counsel of Mauritius and Exuperius their Commanders tell the Emperour that they submitted their Bodies to his power that they could never be charged with cowardise or deserting his Wars but in this utmost peril where desperate circumstances might make men more resolute they would not take Armes against him yea said they though we have Armes in our hands we will not use them for resistance Ban. an 297. n. 10 11 12. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. de Imp. c. 3. n. 14. Cent. 4. c. 12. col 1420. tenemus Arma non resistemus This famous Story related by Eucherius and the Martyrology is thence insisted on by Baronius and Grotius as also from Crantzius and others And a like account is given by the Magdeburgenses from P. de Natalibus Simeon Metaphrastes and Vincentius 4. And the chief Guides of the Christian Church who lived under the Arian Princes and Julian the Apostate retained the same spirit and sense of their duty Among other slanders Bar. an 351. n. 34. with which Athanasius was charged he was accused before Constantius Athan. Apolog ad Const of conspiring with and stirring up Magnentius against him But Athanasius not only denyeth the fact and declareth how he had openly prayed for the success of Constantius but he utterly disclaimeth such things as not consistent with Christian Principles affirming that if there was any appearance of any such thing in him he would condemn himself to myriads of deaths And he entreats the Emperour that he would have no such suspicion against the Church as if any right Christian and especially a Bishop would advise or write any such thing And much more is in the same Apology in detestation of resistance though Constantius was an Arian and a Persecutor and Athanasius had in his Reign been ejected from Alexandria 5. Under Julian Naz. Orat. 4. Nazianzen declared that the Christians only arms fortress and defence was their hope in God And when under Valentinian the younger St. Ambr. Orat in Auxent Ambrose was required to yield up his Church to Auxentius he tells his people I shall not leave you willingly if I be compelled I know not how to withstand I can grieve I can weep I can groan aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere by other means I neither ought nor can resist And the language that he and the other sound Christians then used was Rogamus Auguste non pugnamus we ask O Emperour we fight not Id. in Epist 33. aâ— Marcellin and tradere basilicam non possum sed pugnare non debeo I cannot yield up the Church but I ought not to fight The result of all these testimonies is that when the authority laws and rules of Government they lived under did oppose the Christian Profession or the truth and purity of its Doctrine they thought it their duty patiently to suffer and not in opposition to those laws which were then established to take up Armes against their Governors But against the force of this Argument from the
tthat time no part of the Roman empire but was a Nation bordering upon the Empire who then had a distinct King of their own but acknowledged a subjection to the Persians Evag. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 7. and thereupon this Country was called Persarmenia But for divers years before and after this War they were not under the Roman power and Eusebius who relates this action Eus Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr declares they were friends and Confederates till by this undertaking of Maximinus they became his Enemies 16. I confess some years after the Reign of Constantine was ended This loyalt afterwards declined there were among the Christians some attempts and enterprises undertaken of another spirit and nature Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 2â— c. 12. gr By reason of the great opposition between the Arians and the Orthodox Christians there were in Constantinople and in other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequent seditions and tumults as Socrates expresseth it and these took place from about the year 340. Ibid. c. 134 then among other things Hermogenes the Emperours commander whom he sent to Constantinople to dispossess Paulus from being Bishop there was opposed with force the House in which he was being fired upon him and himself slain in the year 342. Not long after this also Baron aâ— 350. n. 1 2 4. began the more open and contrived rebellion of Magnentius and though this was undertaken out of ambition and unchristian disloyalty yet he carried on his designs under a pretence for Religion He first engaged against Constans the Emperour who was slain by him for which abominable Parricide Athan. Apol ad Constant Baron an 353. n. 5. Athanasius inveighed greatly against him and then managed a War against Constantius And this according to Baronius was the first time that the Banner of the Cross appeared in the Field on both sides one against another and this was indeed a Rebellious Insurrection against a Soveraign Prince But the true primitive and genuine spirit of Christianity was wholly averse from and unacquainted with such proceedings and when the Christian temper did in divers persons degenerate in this particular such exorbitant and evil practises were always contrary to the judgment of the chief guides and Bishops of the Church CHAP. V. Of the extent of the duty and obligation of non-resistance SECT I. Resistance by force is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 1 1. THere have been some who grant the unlawfulness of taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince to be a geneal rule for ordinary circumstances but yet they pretend there are some great and extraordinary cases in which it must admit of exceptions And the proposal of these Cases as they are by them managed is like the Pharisaical Corban an Engine and method to make void the duties of the fifth Commandment concerning obedience and submission to superiours Wherefore in this Chapter I shall undertake the defence of that assertion of Barclay G. Barcl cont Monarchomach l. 3. c. 16. p. 212. who proposeth the Question NullÃne casus c. may there no Cases fall out in which the people by their authority may take Armes against their King B. 2. C. 5. and his answer is Certainly none so long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat 2. The whole Community have no Authority to take Armes against their Soveraign Now the first Question and pretence hath respect to the whole body of the people Whether if the whole or principal part thereof do account themselves injured and oppressed by their Soveraign and judge it needful for their own defence and security and the common good to take Armes and make use of force against him this authority of the Community be not a sufficient Warrant for such resistance This is asserted by the seditious Positions of Mariana Marian. de Reg Reg. Institut l. 1. c. 6. who not only gives a large allowance to Common-wealths and the generality of the people to devest their Kings of their Government and take away their lives but he also grants the same liberty and power to any members of the Common-wealth if learned and grave men be consulted and where there is Publica vox Populi the common voice of the people inclining that way And this notion also though not in the same exorbitant degree is embraced by Bellarmine and many of the Jesuits and other men of disloyal Antimonarchical Spirits But because what I have said in the former Chapters is both of sufficient force and clear enough for the refuting hereof I shall only superadd these brief considerations 3. First That the agreement of the whole body of the people or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient authority to such an enterprise because the whole community are Subjects as well as the particular persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I above observed that our Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Armes against the King The same hath been also acknowledged by men of understanding in Foreign Countryes As Bodinus Bodin de Repub. l. 2. c. 5. concerning England and other places where the Kings have jura majestatis concludeth singulis civibus nec universis fas est summi Principis vitam famam aut fortunas in discrimen vocare it is not lawful for the Subjects either singly or all of them together to bring into danger the life honour or possessions of the Prince Secondly this would open a gap to great confusions since the body of the people are apt to be imposed upon and to be led by their passions as the experience of these latter Ages as well as the Cases of Corah and Absalom do testify And the same appears from the whole Congregation of Israel being forward to cast off Moses and to make them another Captain Numb 14. 2 4. Thirdly This liberty may as reasonably be given to a few private persons as to the whole people because in such enterprises of the people they are counselled by and are generally influenced and led according to the motions of a few private persons Fourothly The Laws of God against any evil actions and consequently against resistance do not become void by any great numbers joining together in practising what is contrary unto them When the primitive Christians were the chief part of the Roman Empire they durst not take up Armes against the Emperour out of the fear of God as hath been shewed No sin is to be esteemed the less but the greater when a multitude shall be actors in it If any violence be offered to a Father or Master this is not the more allowable if all his Children or Servants join in the Confederacy And when great multitudes engage in open insurrections the consequents thereof may
bishop or Officer whomsoever who departeth fromit whereas Soveraign Princes are subject to God alone and not to any other upon earth And therefore the comparison would be more equal between a secular Soveraign and the Catholick Church as to the Supremacy of their Authority under God alone 8. Of the words of Trajan The words of Trajan which some have urged seem to have been a popular and somewhat unadvised expression calculated for the obtaining the applause of the people somewhat like that of Marcus Antoninus to the Senate Xiphilin ex Dion who said to them we have so far nothing our own that the very House we dwell in is yours Or they may also be intimations of a strong confidence that he should never himself decline to evil wayes or put any of his Officers upon unworthy actions But the argument from these words is weak and inconsiderable and the determining the true sense of them is not material unless it could be proved that this saying of Trajan is that which all the World ought to observe as their rule rather than the Principles of equity the directiions of Scripture and the sense of the primitive Church SECT II. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected upon Sect. 2 1. Since some other Cases have been discoursed on by learned men I shall take such notice of them as is needful with particular respect to the Government of this Kingdom Wherefore it will be needless for me to enquire into those Cases mentioned by Grotius De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 8 14 15. of the lawfulness of taking Armes against such a Prince who hath no supreme power or who hath no just and warrantable right and title or who receiveth his Government upon express condition that in some special circumstances it shall be lawful to make resistance against him or relinquish obedience to him For such Princes as these are supposed to be have no compleat Soveraign right and the consideration of such things is of no concernment to our English Government 2. Ibid. n. 9. Another question hath been proposed concerning Princes who voluntarily and freely relinquish and lay aside their Crown and Government And there have been several instances of this nature as in the Emperour charles the Fifth Christina of Sweden of late Bambas of Spain which is expressed in one of the Councils of Toledo Conc. Tolet. 12. and in the space of two hundred years nine Saxon Kings have been observed to have done the like in England Fullers Ch. Hist l. 2. an 718. And if such persons should act against the setled Government of their respective Kingdomes after they are fixed in the next Heir in an hereditary Kingdom or in another King according to the constitution of elective Principalities the resisting any of them is not the taking Armes against the King but against him who now is a private person 3. Barcl cont Monarchom l. 3. c. 16. p. 213. The Question concerning a Prince who shall undertake to alienate his Kingdome or to give it up into the hands of another Soveraign Power against the mind of his Subjects hath been considered by Barclay Grot. ubi sup Grotius and before them both was reflected on by Bishop Bilson And I think them truly to assert Bils of Christian subject l. 3. p. 479. 520. that such an act of alienation or of acknowledged subjection especially if obtained by evil methods as was done in the case of King John is null and void and therefore can neither give any right of Soveraignty to another nor dispossess the Prince himself thereof as was said in the former Book But if any such Prince shall actually and forcibly undertake to bring his Subjects under a new supreme power who have no right thereto and shall deliver up his Kingdome to be thereby possessed Ibidem Grotius doubteth not but he may be resisted in this undertaking but then this resolution must proceed upon this ground that this action encludeth his devesting himself of his Soveraignty together with his injurious proceeding against those who were his Subjects Barcl ubi sup And Barclay who allows only two cases in which a Prince may be devested of his royal Dignity doth account this to be one of them But concerning this I think it chiefly necessary to adde that a disquisition of this nature hath much in it of the needless niceties of many disputes of the School-men wherein they contend about empty Notions and exercise themselves in speculations which are not like to be of concernment to Mankind For mens ordinary duties do not depend on such extraordinary unlikely and merely imaginary suppositions And therefore this case might well enough have been omitted were it not that some might account it a defect to take no notice of what other men thought fit to propose and possibly some may account such things to be of more weight than they really are 4. The last case which I shall take notice of as mentioned by these and other Writers is expressed in high words which yet are of no great weight when throughly examined to wit whether if a Soveraign Prince should actually undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom or any considerable part thereof they may not in these circumstances have liberty of defending themselves by taking Armes This Question is started and urged by Junius Brutus Vindic. cont Tyr. Qu. 3. p. 184. c. and insisted on by other subverters of Soveraign Power and is needful to be discoursed because here such men take sanctuary who would undermine the duties of submission It is not reasonable to imagine a King to undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom But good men ought to be cautious even of admitting any such uncharitable suppositions to enter into their hearts concerning their own Rulers whom God hath commanded them to honour and reverence and much more ought they to be wary that they do not account themselves to have ever the more liberty to evade Gods Commands and their ordinary duty of subjection and allegiance by the putting such general and more than extraordinary cases Wherefore I shall first take notice of what is proposed concerning the whole Dominions of a Prince or a whole Kingdom and then concerning any considerable part thereof 5. The suggestion of a Soveraign Prince out of mere will or passion undertaking to cut off or to ruine and destroy the whole Body of his People are expressions which make a great noise and have a terrible sound and dismal aspect but like a Spectrum though they may affright they have little of substance under them Adv. â—â—â— narch l. â— c. 〈◊〉 212. I acknowledge that this is the other only case in which Barclay esteemeth a Soveraign Prince of forfeit his right of Government and that thereupon it may be lawful to resist him l. 3. â—â— p 159. l. 6. c. 23. p. 503. c. 24. p. 513. And the
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
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