Chartres Epist 65. By what right saith he to the Donatists do you keep possession of the Lands belonging to the Churches is it by Divine or Human Right The Divine Right is contained in the Scriptures and the Human in the Laws of Kings whereupon you perceive that whatsoever a Man possesseth he possesseth it by an Human Right but as to a Divine Right the Earth is the Lords and the Fulness thereof 'T is by Human Right that any one faith this Land is mine this House is mine this Slave is mine Take away the Right of the Emperor and who dares say this Land is mine this House is mine this Slave is mine Neither do thou say what have you to do with the King yea what hast thou to do with this Possession Don't say that thy Possessions are thine for thou hast renounced Human Right by which onely one possesseth whatsoever he has for if these things were established by a Divine Law it would not be in the Power of the Judges in some cases to judge according to the Rigor of the Laws and in other cases more favorably Nay Sir to reside onely under any Government makes a Man subject to the said Government ipso facto for otherwise a Stranger could not be justly punisht for being guilty of high Treason against a Prince whose Subject he is not I have said thus much to remove a delusion some put upon themselves in this matter for want of due Consideration imagining that they may lawfully enjoy their Estates without owning the Authority of those that Govern the State and that they satisfie their Consciences by refusing to pray for them when indeed they do own their Authority by having recourse to those Laws and Magistrates who secure the Enjoyment of their possessions the Magistrates who Execute the Laws having no other Authority but what is derived from those that Actually Govern the State Is it not strange Sir to see Men for the preserving the possession of their Goods to perswade themselves that by their not praying for him whom they look upon to be an Usurper they have done enough to satisfie their Conscience It is every whit as much a Duty to pay tribute to the Higher Powers and a Duty to which Conscience Obligeth us as St. Paul expresseth it in the 13th of the Epist to the Romans Ver. 3 4 5 6. as it is to pray for them for neither can the Peace of a Nation be kept without Arms nor Arms maintain'd without Salaries nor Salaries of Souldiers without Tribute Thus Tacitus Explains the Justice of Tributes If therefore you do not believe the Authority to be Lawful why can you pay Tribute which is exacted to maintain this unlawful Authority Is not this to imitate the Conscience of the Jews whom Our Saviour reproves for having denied the Power and Authority of Cesar at the same time when they acknowledged that they paid Tribute to Him You will say we are Active in praying for an unlawful Authority but we are onely passive in paying Tribute because that Authority forces us thereto by ways we cannot oppose as wanting power so to do See here a subtle peice of Divinity according to these Principles when St. Paul orders us to pay Tribute to those to whom Tribute is due he doth not command Subjects to be Active in paying Tribute but onely to be Passive by suffering it to be taken from them by force What is the meaning of a Tribute save onely a contribution that is raised to maintain the Authority that governs us Is it not therefore as positive an act of the Subject as the Honour he renders to whom Honour is due But besides if this answer be satisfactory it hath this little inconvenience that it furnisheth the Jews with an answer to our Saviour's Argument The Pharisees were reduced to silence because they did not conceive it to be a sufficient justification of themselves to say to our Saviour Caesar forceth the Tribute from us we are only passive in paying it Had they been acquainted with this distinction they would have stopt our Saviour's mouth without doubt the Pharisees were not in any condition to make resistance which obliged them to pay Tribute but the action of paying Tribute to him whose Authority they disowned was sufficient to condemn them which accordingly also put them to silence Our Saviour is still the same Judge he was formerly with respect to the Jews The Maxime of Jesus Christ is that we must own him for our lawful Sovereign to whom we pay tribute and who is possest of the Publick Authority as appears by the Stamp of Current Money I know that some may take an occasion to raise a Dispute here because the learned Dr. Hammond when explains those words of the xiii of the Epistle to the Romans Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers he understands it of Sovereigns that are rightly established and constituted and of Supream Governours legally placed in that Kingdom Whence it follows that we are not bound to pay tribute to those who have none of this Character Conscience only obliging us to day Tribute to such who being lawfully constituted may and ought to be consider'd as God's Ministers But I desire you to consider First That according to Dr. Hammonds confession St. Paul's design was to oppose the Doctrine of the Gnosticks who believed that a Heathen could have no lawful Authority over Christians and made the Liberty of the Gospel to consist in this Maxime according as Dr. Hammond explains himself on the 8 verse of St. Judes Epistle 2dly That the Apostle St. Paul doth not give any Right nor impose any necessity upon every Christian to oppose his Judgment to the Sentiment and Determination of the State about the Right of the Sovereign that is placed on the Throne but that he hath wholly left it to the Estates to determine who are their true and lawful Sovereigns And that he hath imposed a necessity upon Believers to pay tribute to all those that are owned to be such as a thing that is their due forasmuch as they are the Ministers of God For if we conceive the thing otherwise St. Paul must have engaged the Christians to examine the Title of such as are invested with the Government for to judge whether it were lawful or no and this even after that the State had owned them as lawful The Roman Senate having Originally had the Right of naming the Emperors as we see by the several Elections they have made as well as by those which it hath approved when the Armies had prevented its choice and by this means the Christians would have been dispensed with from paying tribute to all those who had invaded the Empire or who had not obtained the Approbation of the Senate for their Election made by the Army or else would be obliged to perform without any regard to conscience an act whereof the Apostle would have Conscience to be the Principle as being founded upon
Gospel Whence it appears clearly that a Christian as such is obliged to offer up unto God publick Prayers for those that are invested with the Sovereign Authority and that this is a Duty of the Church in general And here I desire you to observe two things the one is that the Apostle St. Paul makes no distinction betwixt the lawful Emperors and Usurpers the other that he grounds the necessity of these Prayers upon a principle of gratitude and acknowledgment to the Government in general whosoever they be that administer it forasmuch as we are beholden to them for the peaceable life we enjoy in the exercise of our Religion and a virtuous Life This being thus stated a Christian can have no further scruple in this point but only about the question of matter of Fact viz. who those be that are in actual possession of the Sovereign Authority But this is a question which may no less easily be decided by the Rules of the Gospel in a word every Christian is obliged to acknowledge him for his lawful Prince to whom he payeth tribute This is the Doctrine of our Saviour Jesus Christ Mark xii and Luke xx the words of the Gospel are as follows And the Chief Priests and the Scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him but they feared the People for they perceived that he had spoken this Parable against them And they watched him and sent forth Spies which should feign themselves Just Men that they might catch him in his words and so might deliver him unto the Power and Authority of the Governor And they asked him saying Master we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly neither acceptest thou the Person of any but teachest the way of God in Truth Is it lawful for us to give Tribute to Caesar or no But he perceiving their craftiness said unto them why tempt ye me shew me a penny whose Image and Superscription hath it They answered and said Caesars And he said unto them Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesars and unto God the things that be God's And they could not take hold of his words before the people but marvelling at his answer held their peace For the better understanding of this answer of our Saviour I shall again make use of an Annotation of the learned Dr. Hammond upon the 22 Chap. of St. Matthew where he explains what the Herodians were and what gave occasion to our Saviour to make this answer Of the Jew some part says he acknowledged and adhered to the Cesarean or Roman Authority some part lookt upon it as an Usurpation and of this generally were the Pharisees This difference or controversie was thus occasioned About one hundred and fifty years before the birth of Christ the Government of Judea came into the hands of the Zelots or Maccabees among them Judas Maccabaeus being in fear of Antiochus entered into a League with the Romans which continued about ninety years Then Hircanus and Aristobulus the Sons of Alexander falling into contention for the Kingdom and the younger Brother Aristobulus getting possession of it Hircanus applied himself to the Romans for redress and by Antipater's mediation besought Pompey being then near to come with an Army to his relief Pompey did so and thereupon befieged Jerusalem Hircanus's Party within soon delivered it up and Aristobulus's party retired into that part where the Temple stood and Pompey storm'd the Temple and took it and so the City came into the Romans power and Hircanus was restored to the High Priesthood and Kingdom of Judea but so as to hold as he obtained it under the Romans protection which they did those of them that were of Hircanus's party by consent and not by force by a choice which the Factions among themselves put them upon and by way of dedition and so Josephus plainly saith of the Jews that they had made a dedition of themselves Mean while they of Aristobulus's party lookt upon the Romans as Usurpers and forcible Possessors and thus it continued till our Saviour's time and at this time some of each party Pharisees on one side and Herodians i. e. followers of Herod on the other came unto Christ meaning to insnare him in whatsoever he said and to take advantage either to inflame the Pharisees which were the most eminent among the Jews if he should say that tribute was to be paid or to bring him into danger of Herod and the Roman party if he should say 't was not to be paid And though Christ's answer be punctually in favour of the Roman Emperor especially to those that took the Tribute to be his right yet in prudence he thought fit to give such an answer as might best avoid the opposite danger After these things here alledged you see that nothing can be more natural than to form this Argument Every Christian is obliged to acknowledge him for his lawful Sovereign to whom he pays Tribute This is the express Doctrine of St. Paul therefore every Christian is bound to pray for those that are in Possession of the Government as for their true Sovereigns There are but two ways to elude the force of its Argument for either we must maintain that our Saviour argued like a Sophister in going about to perswade the Jews to own him for their lawful Prince to whom they were forced to pay Tribute in case it be true that people may pay Tribute to a Prince whom they ought not to acknowledge for their lawful Sovereign or else we must maintain that St. Paul hath engaged Christians in sin by commanding them to pray universally for those to whom they pay Tribute though it may be such men are in possession of power and receive Tribute for whom they ought not to pray This consequence is evident and necessary if it be true that the paying of tribute be neither a lawful mark of their Sovereignty nor a lawful Foundation to pray for them But you 'll say the conclusion of your Argument will lead us to confound a lawful Government with that which is unlawful an Usurper with a rightful Sovereign At this rate of arguing tho' we are convinced in our Consciences that such a one is an Usurper and such a one our lawful Prince we are forced according to your Argument to pray for the Usurper and against our lawful Prince That is to say according to your sense we are charged by St Paul to commit immoral acts and are obliged to sin against God that we may be obedient to St. Paul And this is enough say you to discover the Sophistry of your Argument Why this is the very point where I would fain have you The Principle I oppose is that it appertains to the Church to judge of the Title of those who are in possession of the Government whether it be a rightful Title or not whereas I maintain on the contrary that it doth not in the least belong to the Church to pronounce concerning the Title of those
an Emanation of the Authority of God himself I comprize here in a few words the force of St. Paul's reasoning St. Paul commands Christians to pray for the Soveraign Powers of the State where they live he orders them to pay the Tributes that are necessary to maintain their Domination and to exercise their Authority He grounds both these duties upon the obligation that lies upon us to wish all possible good to those who are the Conservators of the Society in which we live and to contribute to the Safety and Security the Church enjoys under their Protection so that he supposeth that these two duties with regard to the Sovereign Powers are inseparable If you cannot in good Conscience pray for the Sovereign Powers which the Body of the State owns for such then neither can you in good Conscience pay them any tribute and on the contrary if you can in good conscience pay them tribute which is design'd to maintain their Domination you may with as good a Conscience pray for their prosperity But this I suppose is enough Sir as to the first Article of the Question you have proposed to me I have by the by touch'd upon the second which I am now willing to examin more carefully because I perceive that Examples often have as great an influence upon the Spirits of men as the strongest and most decisive Arguments To be assured how the Primitive Christians behav'd themselves who could not but be acquainted with the Practice of the Apostles and their Successors we need only to take notice of the Terms of their Liturgies which the learned Dr. Hammond hath quoted in his Annotations on the Second Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy ' Of these four sorts of prayer 't is affirm'd by St Chrysostome that they were in his time all used in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the daily Service 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this is sufficiently known to all the Priests or those that officiate Morning and Evening And so it appears by the Laturgies The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referring to the larger or lesser Collecta that in the Litany for deliverance from all the Evils there named and the other after in which the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we humbly beseech thee O Father is used which is for the averting of Evils The second to the Prayers for Mercy and other Wants The third to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church for Kings c. is inserted And the fourth to the Solemn Thanksgiving for all men and to the Hymns sung to the praise of God and it may be observed that the direction here of praying for Kings c. is agreeable to that of the Hebrews R. Chaninath in Pirche Aboth C. 3. S. 2. Pray for the Peace of the Kingdom for unless there be fear men will devour one another alive And so when Petronius came to set up Caligula's Image in the Temple they that would die rather than that should be done being asked then whether they would wage War with the Emperor answered no but on the other side twice a day they offered Sacrifice for the safety of the Emperor see Josephus and Jer. 29.7 Accordingly was the Christians practise as long as the Emperors continued Heathen praying in their Liturgies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Kings after when they were Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We pray thee for our most pions Kings Defenders of God or of the Faith of Christ as it is in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Power Victory Continuance Peace Health Safety The very things which they prayed for them when they were yet Gentiles saith Tertullian in Apoll. sine monitore precamur pro omnibus Imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam Imperium Securum domum tutam exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem populum probum orbem quietum we pray for a long life to our Emperors a secure Empire a safe House valiant Armies a faithful Senate a good People a quiet World This was after done for Arrian and heretical Kings as Constantius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Cyrillus Cat. 10. We beseech God for the common Peace of the Churches for the quiet of the World for our Kings their Souldiers and Auxiliaries Thus far the learned Doctor Accordingly I desire you to take notice First That this was a set Form in which nothing might be changed except only the name of him that was raised to the Throne 2dly That it doth not appear by any Record of the Church that the reading of these Prayers was ever suspended in any case whatsoever 3dly That there never arose any controversie in the Church about what Emperor they were to pray for the Church always acknowledging him to be Emperor who had that title in those places where it was settled 4thly That there never happened any Schism on this account during all the manifold Revolutions of the Empire 5thly That there never was a Canon of Council made to regulate the Penance that was to be imposed upon those that had prayed for an Usurper against a lawful Prince 6thly That it doth not appear that ever any Heathen Emperor persecuted the Christians of one Country for having prayed for him who had usurped the Empire in the places where they lived 7thly We do not find that ever any Christian in his Commentaries upon the Scripture hath taken notice that it was the Belief of the Church that they ought to make a distinction between an Usurper of the Empire and a lawful Emperor before they made Prayers for him Would you have some examples to evidence to you the Truth of these Observations Cassius in Syria revolted against Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher at the Sollicitation of Faustina the Emperor's own Wife and upon the News that was spread abroad that Marck Antonine was dead he usurped the Absolute Power that had been conferr'd upon him by the Army which was in Pannonia But this news of the Emperor's death being found to be a mistake he notwithstanding carried on his pretensions and made himself to be owned Emperor by the Provinces of Cilicia Syria Judea and Egypt Do you believe Sir that the Christians of those Provinces did continue to pray publickly for Mark Antonine and that they refused to pray for Cassius in their Publick Service if they had done so they must have exposed themselves to the Persecution of Cassius or if they did pray publickly for Cassius they must thereby have separated themselves from the Communion of those Christians who lived under the Empire of Mark Antonine But where do we read that Cassw persecuted them for not owning his Authority or that ever they were excommunicated by the other Christians for having prayed for Cassius who was an Usurper Do not imagin Sir that Tertullian doth oppose what I here assert when he saith in