any designs laid by any of the Apostles for destroying the Elders of the Jews or turning Caesar out of his Dominions by these attempts And though this defence proceeded no further than to cut off an ear our Lord not only disliked it but his action in forthwith healing the ear by a miracle may seem to intimate that he thought fit to take upon himself to make restitution and to repair the injury done by the rash action of one of his followers C. 23. Qu. 8. in Capite Thus Gratian observed that when Peter took the material Sword to defend his Master from the injury of the Jews he then received this check 8. 4. To St. Peter and therefore to his Successours Fourthly if we consider the Person who here drew the Sword which St. John declares to be Simon Peter it may well be wondred that any sort of men should believe that Christ gave this Apostle and others by vertue of succession from him a power to authorize subjects to take Arms against their Princes in a case where they shall judge the Church and Religion concerned and to deprive them of their Crowns and Dominions when himself in person was not allowed though he was then an Apostle to make such resistance as hath been declared From this instance Gratian concludes Ibidem that no bishop nor any of the Clergy whosoever have any power either by their own authority or by the authority of the Pope of Rome to take Armes and then they can have as little authority to commissionate others to take them Nor can this be evaded by saying that St. Peter was not as yet possessed with the supreme soveraign Authority For as it no where appears that he ever received any such thing so if our Saviour had ever intended to convery to him the supreme power of the Temporal sword he would never have used particularly to him so general a threatning against the use of it And therefore some Romish Writers have put themselves upon undertaking another method and that is by a very bad attempt to defend or applaud this action of St. Peter which our Lord rebuked Bar. An. 34. n. 67. Baronius when he gives us the relation of it doth it without any manner of censure but not without an Encomium declaring quid generoso accensus amoris ardore fortiter gesserit In Concord Evang Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 17. And Barradius proposing the question whether St. Peter did amiss in this action resolves it as most probable that he did not verosimilius puto saith he non peccasse And Stella saith Stell in Luc. 22. St. Peter did not sin herein and he compares this action with the zeal of Phinebas whereby he obtained the High-Priesthood and so sith he did St. Peter 9. Severalreasons why St. Peter was rebuked And there are some who would evade the argument from these words of our Saviour by saying that our Lord did prohibit St. Peter's using the Sword for his defence only because he did now intend to law down his life according to his Fathers will But it must be observed that our Saviour lays down three several grounds upon which he checks this act of his Apostle and commands him to put up his Sword and we must not so assert the validity of any one of them as to deny or enervate the force of the others 1. From the sin and unwarrantableness of such actions where persons act out of their own sphere and what they have not authority to undertake and this is that I have now discoursed of in v. 52. 2. Because he himself knew how he could sufficiently procure his own defence by lawful means whereas this action was neither a necessary nor a proper undertaking for that purpose Had the Holy Jesus intended to have his person rescued out of the hands of the Jews he could have effected this by Legions of Angels who are under no obligation of subjection to men v. 53. But Gods Providence can never be so at a loss as to need the help of any unlawful means 3. Because the thing St. Peter aimed at to hinder his Master from suffering was no good design but savoured somewhat of the same spirit by which he had formerly rebuked his Lord when he spake of his being killed Mat. 16.22 For the Scriptures must be fulfilled v. 54. and the Cup saith our Saviour which my Father gives me to drink shall I not drink it Joh. 18.11 And every one of these are parts of Christs Doctrine and the first as much as the other and is that also which our blessed Lord thought fit to mention before the other 10. With respect to this Text Mauritius This Text anciently used to their purpose Eucher Lugdunens Epist ad Sylv. who commanded the Thebaean Legion which being all Christians yielded themselves to Martyrdom under Maximianus told them how much he feared lest they being in Armes should have resisted the Emperour under the colour of defnce when this was forbidden by Christ who by the command of his own mouth would have that Sword which his Apostle had drawn to be put up And St. Austin who sometimes extenuated St. Peters fault as proceeding from his love Aug. de Agon Christ c. 29 30. and not from any cruel disposition that he did a more peacare sed non saevitia in his Books against Faustus gives this account of the sense hereof The Lord did with sufficient threatning check the fact of Peter saying Put up the Sword Contr. Faust l. 22. c. 70. in Epist 48. for he that useth the Sword shall fall by the Sword but he useth the Sword who when no Superiour and lawful Power doth either command or allow useth Armes against the blood of another And from this Text also Gratian inferreth this general rule Grat. Decubi sup that every one who besides him or without his authority who useth the lawful power who beareth not the Sword in vain and to whom every Soul ought to be subject I say every one who without such authority takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword 11. Assemb Annot. in Luk. 22.51 And even the Annotations under the name of the Assemblies Annotations do interpret these words to condemn Subjects taking the Sword especially against their Superiours Neither Peter say they nor any other private person or persons might take up the Sword to defend the cause of Christ 1. Becaue the Jus gladii belongeth not to any private person but to publick authority Rom. 13.4 much less to Ministers 2. Because they who smite with the Sword shall perish with the Sword Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6. And Grotius de Imperio asserteth that when Christ said He that taketh the Sword shall perish by the Sword he doth expresly condemn that defence which is made by violence against unjust force from publick authority contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam To which I shall subjoin the
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.
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
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
Const c. 2 3. the sence of which is explained and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon in a genuine Canon received into the Code of the Vniversal Church but disgusted by the Roman Church Which Canon doth assert the priviledge and authority of the Romish Church Conc. Chalc. c. 28. to have had its original from the Constitution of the Fathers out of respect to the Imperial City and therefore they upon the same account give to Constantinople which was the Seat of the Eastern Empire a right of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges and dignity of See with that of Rome and to be next to it in order Conc. in Trul. c. 36. The same also is established in the sixth general Council 4. But since there is an high pretence to a divine right according to the doctrine of Christ generally made by the Romanists for the Universal Supreme Spiritual Power of the Pope and by many of them for the temporal also these pretensions must be discussed and examined And though the latter be the more extravagant and exhorbitant yet they being both false and some of the same Foundations being made use of to support them both I shall consider them together Now it is highly improbable that he whose doctrine establisheth the temporal power as Gods ordinance and requires subjection from all persons to the same should wholly devest Kings of their Supremacy and appoint their authority to be altogether under the disposal of another to wit the Bishop of Rome But my design being to defend the Royal Supremacy and not only to oppose the Roman I shall assert that no Officers of the Christian Church ever were or are invested with any such superiority over Princes and if none then not they at Rome 5. Some testimonies of Scripture What Scriptures the Popes themselves have used for their universal supreme claim Extrav Com. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam produced for the asserting a general Supremacy of the Pope both temporal and spiritual are so extremely fond and frivolous that I should account it a piece of vanity to take notice of them had they not been urged by the Popes themselves who challenge a title to infallibility Such is that of Boniface the Eighth proving that S. Peter and the Church had the power of the temporal Sword because our Saviour said to him Put up thy Sword into the sheath therein using these words thy Sword and that when the Disciples said to our Lord here are two Swords he answered it is enough Luk. 22.18 non nimis esse sed satis and also urging those words of the Apostle The spiritual man judgeth all things Surely such instances as these and divers of like nature give evidence enough that God never designed the whole Christian Church should be so sottish and void of all understanding as to be guided by the dictates of such men as infallible 6. Bonif. 8. ibid. Joh. 22. in Extrav c. Super gentes Some of the Popes have also made use of those words of Jeremy Jer. 1.10 I have set thee this day over the Nations and over the Kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to build and to plant But 1. What authority can these words give to the Pope when they respect not the time of Christianity nor speak of any ordinary authority in the Jewish Church Innoc. 3. in Decretal l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. in which Jeremy was no High Priest but they only express a prophetical Commission to him an inspired man to declare the pleasure of God from his mouth concerning the Kingdoms of the World as is manifest from v. 5 9. 2. How strangely different was the spirit and temper of Jeremy towards Kings from that of the Roman Bishop notwithstandiug this his Commission When he speaketh of the disposal of many Kingdoms into Nebuchadnezzars hands he useth not the Roman stile as coveying the title unto him himself but speaketh on this manner Thus saith the Lord I have made the earth and I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 27.4 5 6. And when he spake to Zedekiah he treated him not as his Vasal but his words are Jer. 27.20 O my Lord the King Let my supplication I pray thee be accepted before thee So far was that mournful Prophet from being the Vniversal Monarch of the World 7. Other arguments from Scripture examined But the arguments most insisted on by the Romish Writers are more plausible though insufficient and unconcluding For S. Peters singular supremacy they produce Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church Ans 1. That S. Hilary the Commentaries in S. Ambrose Gr Nyssen Cyrillus Alexandrinus S. Aug. and Chrysostome understand this rock of the faith of S. Peters Confession Barrad de Conc. Evang Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 23. Chamier Tom. 2. Pans l. 11. c. 3 4. is acknowledged by Barradius the Jesuit besides others observed in Chamier to the same purpose as the Liturgy of S. James Basil of Seleucia Theodoret and Epiphanius And divers Fathers are in the same place noted to understand this rock of Christ himself which sense is favoured much from Is 28.16 1 Pet. 2.4 7. Ans 2. As the Church of God is oft resembled to a building and called the house of God S. Peter according to the expression of divers Catholick Writers V. Dr Hammonds Annot on Mat. 10. b. may be herein owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word ordinarily signifies a Rock or a Stone a prime stone of the foundation united to Christ the chief Corner-stone and so were also the rest of the Apostles Eph. 2.20 Rev. 21.14 But to assert him to be the rock distinct from the whole building and which beareth the whole together with the foundation it self would be to exclude him from being any member of Christs Church and to own him as supporting Christ himself who is called the foundation and the chief Corner-stone And though S. Peter had a kind of priority of order yet all the Apostles had the same office and were with him equally partakers both of honour and of power or in S. Cyprians Phrase Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. they were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis This place therefore gives S. Peter a spiritual eminency in the Church but with the rest of the Apostles but it nothing at all concerneth any temporal power in him nor any exclusion of Princes from supreme Government 8. It is also pleaded that Christ Mat. 16.19 promised S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Ans 1. The Keys being an Embleme of Authority this Text doth treat of a very high and great spiritual power of receiving men into the Church of Christ and the several ranks and orders thereof and unto the participation of Christian priviledges and of excluding
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