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
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
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
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
received justice only from the King and his Courts and not to revenge themselves or be Judges in their own Cases doth more especially condemn the entring into War it self which is an undertaking founded upon a direct contrary proceeding And thus far we have a sufficient censure in our English Laws upon that War against the King which those who have pleaded for the lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms do account the most plausible instance for their purpose which our Chronicles can furnish them with And it is needless to go about to prove that many other Conspiracies and Rebellions have been justly condemned and punished according to their demerit 17. And whereas unchristian and evil actions Some pretences shortly reflected on may oft be carried on under some fair colours and appearances all such pretences for taking Armes against the King are in this acknowledgment disclaimed the truth of which will be justified in the following Chapters And I shall here only shortly reflect upon some few of those pretences which are commonly made 18. Some have accounted the defence of Religion to be a sufficient Warrant for taking Armes But if the Christian Religion giveth a right to him who professeth it to defend himself and his profession against his Superiours by Armes then must not our Religion be a taking up the Cross but the Sword and it would then be perfectly unlike the Religion of the Primitive Christians and Martyrs and would be no longer a following of Christ our Lord and Saviour 19. Others have asserted the defaults and miscarriages of Superiours Jun. Brut. Vindic. Qu. 1. 3. to be a forfeiture of their Power and Dominion even as a tenure may be forfeited upon the non-performance of the conditions upon which it is held But though God may justly as a punishment of Offenders deprive them of what good they here possess he hath not made inferiours the Judges of their Superiours nor can any such forfeiture devolve on them And he who considers the great viciousness and cruelty of Saul of Tiberius and of Nero under whose Reigns the Holy Scripture presseth the duty of Allegiance will thence discern that the making such a pretence as this is contrary to true Religion and Christianity 20. By many the defending of the rights freedoms and liberties of the Subject hath been esteemed the most specious pretence of all the rest But whereas there are other better wayes to preserve these rights which are most violated by Wars and intestine Tumults and Broils it cannot easily be thought probable that he may be a judge and avenger of his own cause by force against his superiour who may not be so against his equal And since the tenderness of Davids Conscience was such that notwithstanding the many undeserved injuries he sustained he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lords anointed and Peters drawing his Sword to defend his Master was severely rebuked of which things more hereafter the management of this objection must proceed from a Spirit contrary to that of pious David and to the doctrine also of our Lord and Master SECT III. Of the traiterous Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or against those who are commissionated by him 1. The other clause in the forementioned Declaration or acknowledgment is intended against another particular pretence of taking Armes and is this That I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Armes by his the Kings authority Sect. 3 against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him The Position or assertion here rejected is thus expressed in the Oath to be taken by the Lord Lieutenants and Souldiers 14 Car. 2.3 That Arms may be taken by the Kings Authority viz. though the King never own them or give any Commission for them yea though they be against his own person or against those which are Commissionated by him And this Position Taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person disclaimed exposing the sacred person of the King to the highest danger and being against the safety of his Life and Crown is justly declared to be traiterous and it standeth chargeable with these enormities 2. First It is so unreasonable as to be against the common sense of Mankind Would it not look strange and be accounted a prodigious thing to see a Company of Children or Servants beat and abuse the person of their Father or Master dispossess him by violence and possibly at last to confine and murder him and yet to expect that all men should believe they did this for the preservation of his Right and Government and in obedience to his Authority yea though he plainly declared and protested against these things as being heinously injurious and unnatural And it is no less unaccountable to pretend the Kings Authority Judic Univers Oxon de foedere p. 66. for taking Armes against his person This is as it hath been expressed a like contradiction in sense reason and polity as Transubstantiation is in Religion both which must suppose such a presence as is impossible to be there and is contrary to the plainest evidence This pretence of the Kings Authority against his person was hatched under the Romish Territories and made use of in the Holy League of France In the Guisian attempts against Henry the Third Hist of Civil Wars of France l. 5. an 1588. it hath been related as a matter of wonder to the common sense of men that they should besiege the Loure where the King was and yet this should pass under the disguise of obeying the King and defending the King and Country That the name of the King doth denote the royal person who governeth is the general apprehension of Mankind And it is vainly pretended that all the proceedings of justice being always in the Kings name and by his Authority when many of them are not particularly known to his person must require the forming such a legal Idea or Notion of the King as is distinct from his person but this supposeth the Soveraign Authority to be in his Royal person under whom and from whom other Ministers of Justice do execute their several Offices As when any man intrusts another to manage any part of his business and affairs in his name and by his Authority this doth not make the man who commits the trust to become an Idea or Notion distinct from himself or his person 3. Secondly This strained perverting of plain sense in this particular is not only against the security of the King but may upon the same foundation become fatal to the lives of the subjects Manual concerning some priviledges of Parl. p. 16 17 and p. 60. For whereas some who managed this conceit did assert in plain words that even the Statutes which condemned treason against the King had respect to the King in this Novel Idea as intending thereby the Laws and the Kings Courts of Justice it is easy to discern that any subjects who
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
Grotius in his Book De Jure Belli pacis should assert that men at the first did join themselves together in Civil Society non Dei praecepto sed sponte not by any command of God but of their own choice and that hence civil power hath its original which Peter therefore calls an humane ordinance and that it is also called an Ordinance of God because God approved the wholesome institution of men And upon this Principle he thinks it may be questioned whether the people ever intended to excluded themselves from a power of taking Armes in all Cases And therefore without all distinction of Cases he there is not willing to condemn their resisting their Governour But I think it needful to do him so much right as to observe that this was not his constant and fixed sense and judgment For concerning the original of Authority he in another place declares this to be the doctrine of S. Paul Grot. in Rom. 13.1 that there are now no Empires but where God gives to them his authority even as a King gives Authority to his Presidents and he also affirms that in all Governments the Authority is received from God non minus quà m si reges illi per Prophei as uncti essent as much as if those Kings had been anointed by Prophets 10. And when S. Peter requires submission to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake Grot. in 1 Pet. 2.13 Grotius in his Annotations thinks him to intend ordinationem istam quae inter homines in terra agentes locum habet that ordinance which hath place amongst men which Exposition hath this advantage of the other that according to it a good account may be given of the Apostles argument or motive injoining submission for the Lords sake For this must infer that those men who govern in the World do not act only by an humane right since if Government were not by Gods authority and constitution obedience to it could not bear a respect to God himself And touching the unlawfulness of forcible resistance of Governours besides the plain and full expressions I have above produced from Grotius Sect. 1 he in another Treatise asserts that violent defence which is lawful against an equal is unlawful against a superiour Gr. de Imp. Sum. Pot. Cap. 3. n. 6. and he judgeth that the law of nature will not allow this no not for self-preservation But saith he this is more plainly demonstrated from the written law of God for when Christ said he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword he expresly disallows that defence which is made by force against the most unjust but publick violence diserte improbat eam defensionem quae vi fiat contra vim injustissimam sed publicam 11. Now it may be a just prejudice against this assertion Vnreasonable inferences from this unsound foundation V. Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 91. De Jure Magistr c. 6. of Soveraignty being derived from the people that according to these various Proposals it may become dangerous to the settlement of the World But withal their way of arguing who pretend that the people who make the Prince have therefore a power reserved to themselves greater than his is a kind of contradiction to it self as if they who give up their power should by that means have the greater power and they who receive authority should thereby have the less This is such a fond argument as would prove all servants by contract to be superiour of their Masters because by their contract they made them their Masters or that those Countries who became subject and tributary to the Roman Empire or any other had a superiority over that Empire because their becoming subject to it was hat which made its Dominion so large and eminent And concerning that supposition that possibly the people might not intend to deprive themselves of all power of resistance with respect to this Kingdom V. Ch. 1. it is evident from the plain expressions of our Statute Laws above produced that the Subjects did intend to reject all power of resistance And yet they who enter into any relation by their own contract do stand obliged from the nature of that relation and the Laws that God hath established concerning it and not only from their own intention Thus the contracting to become a Wife or a Servant intending to be so to a kind and courteous man doth not hinder the continuance of the bond in these relations and the obligation to the duties thereof though this man contrary to their expectation may prove ill-natured and froward And what I have discoursed in the beginning of this Chapter will evidence that even they who will assert Soveraignty to be of a mere humane original must acknowledge that the rejecting of all forcible resistance against it is necessary to the peace and welfare of the World and therefore this must be intended by the wiser part of Mankind Sect. 5 SECT V. The Divine original of Soveraign Power asserted 1. Soveraignty and rule proved to be the constitution of God By rational evidence That Government and its Authority is originally the constitution of God may receive considerable proof from rational evidence supposing Creation and Providence to be acknowledged For since God is the Lord of the whole Earth he hath a right to govern it and it is in his power to appoint Rulers and Magistrates and to command subjection to them and whosoever besides God shall undertake to confer a power to rule the World as if it were originally derived from themselves do thereby put themselves upon the disposing of Gods right It was owned by the Ancient Poets as Homer and Hesiod Hom. Il. ae Hes Theogon in init Synes de Regno that Kings are from God In Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hesiod saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Synesius observed that it was said by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Royalty was a good thing from God among men And in the Book of Wisdom Wisd 6.4 5. both the Authority of Kings is asserted to be from God and that themselves also are Gods Ministers 2. And it may well seem a strange thing that God who not only gave a being to all other parts of his Creation but framed them in an excellent and beautiful order and made the Sun to rule by Day and gave Man dominion over other lower parts of his Creation should leave Mankind only which is so excellent a being without taking any order for that useful and regular publick Society which is both suitable and beneficial to humane nature And it is yet far more unlikely that he who is the God of Order should for the peace and good of lesser Societies in private Families ordain the Authority of Parents over their Children and the Headship of the Husband over the Wife and yet should leave the more general and publick state of Mankind which is of greatest concernment in an
Christian Emperours themselves so we have this evidence that none of these Emperours affected or ordinarily used this title if they did at all own it not only in that Gratian openly declared against it but also 1. In that none of them used it in any of their publick edicts as was done usually by the Pagan Emperours 2. Nor so far as can be collected from the various medals stamped in their times did they make use thereof as the Pagan Emperours had done in any of their Coins which Mr Selden acknowledgeth Seld. ibid. 3. It is mentioned by Sozomen Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. as one of the notes of Julians forsaking Christianity that he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Pontifex 4. But when God eminently revealing his will by Moses had formed a more publick Ecclesiastical and civil power separated in the old Testament ample and visible establishment of a Church in the World under the Jewish dispensation than was before it he then divided the Kingly authority and the Priesthood into distinct hands And nothing is more manifest than that under Judaism the Priesthood was fixed in the Family of Aaron Ex. 28.1 ch 40.15 And when Corah who was of the chief Family of the Levites which had the charge of the most holy things Num. 16.1 compared with Num. 4.4 c. and his Company undertook presumptuously to invade this office they were punished with severe dreadful and miraculous judgments in that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the Company of Corah Num. 16.32 33. and the fire that came out from the Lord consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 3. Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 693. v. 35. and as the ancient Jewish Writers tell us there was not any member of these men remaining which could receive a Burial and from hence the Jews received a strict admonition that no man whosoever who was not of the seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense before the Lord v. 40. And this peculiar priviledge of the Family of Aaron was further confirmed by the miracle of Aarons rod blossoming Num. 17 1.-10 5. And that the King and chief ruler among the Jews being not of the line of Aaron might not intermeddle with the execution of this Priestly Office is manifest besides the general rules of the law from other special instances For when Saul undertook to offer Sacrifice 1 Sam. 13.9 13 14. he was sharply rebuked by Samuel and thereupon God denounced this heavy judgment against him that his Kingdom must not continue And when Vzziah attempted to offer incense he was smitten with leprosy for this transgression Ant. Jud. l. 9. c. 11. 2 Chr. 26.16 22. to which Josephus addeth other testimonies of the divine displeasure against him and telleth us that this judgment upon Vzziah was inflicted on one of their solemn Feast days which if it was so might render it the more remarkable And the reason why God fixed the Priesthood in the Family of Aaron and not in Moses and the successive Governours was not chiefly Ant. l. 3. c. 10. as Josephus representeth Moses to speak from the worth and desert of Aaron But it tended much to excite the greater reverence and awe towards the majesty of God and an higher veneration for the offices of Religion that no person no not the highest among men might perform these sacred offices of approaching to God by offering Sacrifices and Oblations save only those persons whom God had particularly set apart for that purpose And withall the Priest blessing in the name of the Lord and especially Aarons putting the sins of the people upon the head of the live-Goat Lev. 16.21 22. which included the applying Gods pardon to them and other Priestly performances which were not mere actions of natural Religion but depended upon Gods institution could not be performed but by an especial and peculiar authority derived from God to that intent or in the language of the Apostle Heb. 5.3 No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron 7. And in the state of Christianity And under the Gospel as Christ hath established the Officers of his Church so there seemeth rather more reason for the peculiar distinct institution of these Officers under the Christian Church than under the Jewsih For while the Jewish Priests chiefly acted for men towards God in Sacrifices and Oblations the Christian Officers do in more things than they did act from God and in his name towards men which in the nature of the thing doth more especially require an authority peculiarly received from God For who can deprive any person of the communion of that Society which Christ hath founded or receive and restore them unto it but by the authority which he hath appointed Or how can any persons consecrate Symbols and dispense them as sealing the Covenant of grace and exhibiting from Christ the blessings and benefits thereof to the due receivers unless they be those who have received Commission from him to this purpose Or who can pronounce absolution in Christs name which is also implicitely included in the administration of the Sacraments and other ministerial Offices unless he hath given them such particular authority And the same may be said of solemn Ecclesiastical benedictions with imposition of hands and particularly of the ordination of such Officers in the Christian Church who are to be invested with this authority 8. And that this Ecclesiastical authority under the Gospel should be committed to peculiar Officers and not fixed in them who have the civil power is that which the wisdom of our Saviour hath appointed who did not call secular rulers to be his Apostles This was partly requisite because there are different qualifications to fit persons for secular government and for presiding in the Church and because the Christian Church being called to take up the Cross should not be destitute of its guides in a time of persecution when it may need them most But this also maketh the communion of the Church it self as it is a peculiar Christian Society and its dependance on the grace of God and its relation to him to be the more visible and remarkable by the distinct Officers and authority constituted to dispense the mysteries of his grace And it tendeth also to conciliate an higher honour and veneration for the particular institutions of God and our Saviour in the new Covenant in that the administration of them is the proper designed work of such peculiar officers of his appointment And therefore if any would make the Ecclesiastical offices to be an authority appendent or annexed unto the civil he undertakes to unite those things which are in Synesius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 57. such as cannot be knit or woven into one another 9. But it is to be observed Ecclesiastical
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
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
Priest so there is a peculiar Wire-drawn nicety which some make use of to prove this deposing power from those words of our Saviour Joh. 21.16 Feed my Sheep Hence they argue that it belongs to the office of a Pastor to drive away Wolves and therefore the chief Pastor may depose such Princes who are hurtful to the Church And this same argument may also prove that all Pastors have the power of the Sword and of making resistance and of killing and destroying mens lives and exercising such Authority as the Kings of the Gentiles did But to this which will admit of many answers it may be sufficient to say 1. That it is a great vanity to found an argument upon the straining a metaphorical expression which only proves that they want better proofs As if all Christians from the same text might be concluded to be Fools because Sheep are silly Creatures and that it is not fit that Christian Kingdoms should defend themselves by Arms against an invading Enemy because it agrees not with the nature of Sheep to fight with Foxes or Wolves 2. And it is no part of the peculiar authority of a Shepherd to drive away of Wolf which any Man or Dog either may warrantably do as well as the Shepherd 10. Gr. de Val. ubi supra C. 15. qu. 7. c. nos sanctorum c. Juratos But it is pretended also that those who are Excommunicated because of Heresy or as some add for any other cause do thereby lose their Dominion and Authority over their Subjects And this is asserted and declared by Gregory the Seventh and Vrbane the Second Now though the having disproved the authority of the Bishop of Rome to extend to this Kingdom doth sufficiently manifest that he hath no more power to Excommunicate any Prince or Subject of England having no Jurisdiction here than a Bishop in England hath to Excommunicate any Prince or Subject in Italy yet I shall here take notice of some things further concerning Excommunication and also concerning Heresy Concerning Excommunication I shall observe II. Excommunication doth not forfeit temporal rights First That it is contrary to the nature of Excommunication though in the highest degree that any person and especially a Soveraign Prince should thereby lose those temporal rights which are not founded in their relation to the Church Indeed in Christian Kingdoms there are ordinarily some temporal penalties and abatement of legal priviledges inflicted upon the persons excommunicate but this is not the natural effect of that sentence but is added thereto by the civil Government and Soveraignty under which such persons do live And therefore no such thing can take place with respect to Soveraign Princes who have no temporal superiour to annex this as a penalty Excommunication is a separating an Offender from the Christian Society of the Church not a casting him out of the World it removes him as Tertullian expresseth it Tertul. Ap. c. 39. à communicatione orationis conventus omnis sancti Commercii from communicating in Prayer Christian Assemblies and all holy Commerce But that temporal rights are not thereby lost or forfeited is acknowledged by some considerable Writers of the Romish Church Blackw his Examination 1607. n. 39. as Richeome and Soto who are cited with approbation by Blackwell 12. This may be further manifest from the words of our Saviour wherein he expresseth the state and condition of a person Excommunicate Mat. 18.17 Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican Now supposing here that a Christian Prince were Excommunicated to be as an Heathen man is no more than to be as the Roman Governours were to whom S. Paul and S. Peter enjoin obedience and to be as Tiberius himself was towards whom our Saviour commands the performance of duty The Publicans who received the Roman Tribute were so hateful to the Jews that they would not eat with them Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 5. 46. they were accounted oppressive exactors as the Jewish Rabbins declare and the words of S. John Baptist intimate Luk. 3.12 13. And indeed they had so general a reputation of injustice even amongst the Romans that it was thought a remarkable commendation of the Father of Vespasian Suet. in Vesp n. 1. in the publick Inscription upon the Statues erected in honour of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was an honest Publican But yet with respect to the civil rights of tribute which they demanded our Saviour requires and commands to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars Mat. 22.21 13. Princes may not be Excommunicated as others may Secondly I observe that Soveraign Princes are not liable to the Sentence of Excommunication in the same manner with Christian Subjects Though Princes must be under the care and conduct of Ecclesiastical Pastors and Guides yet the duties of that relation must be discharged with a reverent respect to the state of subjection And the different Case of a Prince and a subject with respect to Excommunication may be discerned by distinct reflecting on the causes the effects the end and the manner of proceeding in Excommunication If we consider the causes or occasions of Excommunication a Soveraign is capable of losing and forfeiting his relation to the Society of the Christian Church as well as other persons Right of the Church Ch. 4. p. 236. because as Mr Thorndike observeth he as well as others comes into the Communion of the Church upon the terms and conditions of Christianity and a failure in the condition must make the effect void Such was the Case of Julian who being an Apostate and no longer embracing Christianity had no more any right to be accounted a Christian The effect of Excommunication is such that it sometimes prohibits converse among private persons except in such relations as do not depend upon the Society of the Church and therefore remain intire notwithstanding the separation from that Society as of Parents and Children Husband and Wife Master and Servant And upon this account Davenant Determ 48. no subject can by vertue of Excommunication be prohibited converse with and discharge of all duty and respect to his Soveraign because this is that which he oweth him by the bond of Allegiance and the laws of nature humane Society and civil polity 14. And the end of all Ecclesiastical power being for the good of the Church and of Mankind it being an authority for edification and not for destruction in all the acts thereof due caution ought to be used in avoiding the unnecessary exasperating those who are in chief authority against the Officers of the Church which oft occasioneth lamentable discords and contentions V. Barcl de potest Papae c. 9. c. 26. And because the good of the Church consists chiefly in the advancement of Piety and Religious obedience of which one branch is the honouring and obeying superiours and Governours upon account of Christian piety all just care must be
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
Sam. 12.11 and signified this to Barak by a Prophetess and to Gideon by an Angel by this means the Soveraign power so far as concerned the undertaking committed to them was placed in them 6. But it may be further objected The right of Zealots examined that it is declared by very good Authors and men well acquainted with the Jewish State and their Writers that in some cases especially against the practicers of Idolatry private persons out of a zeal for God and Religion might make use of the power of the Sword jure zelotarum following the example of Phinehas Grot. de J. B. P. L 2. c. 20. n. 9. Seld. de Jur. nat Gent. l. 4. c. 3 4 5. de Syned l. 2. c. 14. n. 3. Dr. Ham. Tract of Zealots Right of Ch. Ch. 5. And they who embrace this Notion do not confine this to private cases as if any of the Jews might lawfully kill an Idolater as other persons may do him who makes an actual assault against their King or is an aggressor to design their murder But Grotius Selden Dr Hammond and Mr Thorndike Seem to allow the undertaking of the Maccabees to be grounded upon this right of Zealots And then it must be granted that it might also be lawful for other private persons to take Armes in like cases And there are such instances as these produced to prove this right of Zealots in Phinehas killing Zimri and Cozbi Elijah slaying Baals Priests and calling fire from Heaven on the Captains of the Fifties our Saviours driving the money-Changers out of the Temple and such like besides the actings of the Maccabees Now it might be sufficient to say that if the right of Zealots should be allowed provided it extended it self only to private cases which is as much as any probability of proof can reach the duties of Subjection and the Authority of Government might still possibly remain inviolable But because I am further prone to think that the grounds and instances upon which this whole notion is built are mistaken I shall offer to the Readers consideration these three things with respect thereto 7. First that it must needs be a great disorder in Government and a foundation of much disturbance and evil if every earnest spirited man were allowed in the heat of his zeal to put himself into the place of a Magistrate and to execute judgment of death upon whomsoever he accounted an offender against God and his Religion I acknowledge that in the declining time of the Jewish Government many actions were undertaken only under the pretence of such a zeal which were in truth acts of fury and they were so far from being warrantable that they did abundantly manifest the dangerousness of admitting such pretences Grot. Ham. ubi sup in Act. 7.57 Both Grotius and Dr Hammond account the stoning of St. Steven and the conspiracy of more than forty Jews not to eat or drink till they had slain Paul to be done by the spirit of the Zealots which were things riotous and outragious which may not be justified nor may the like be tolerated under any Government Dr. Ham. in Mat. 10. c. And by the prevalency of this sort of men who were called Zealots there was very much cruelty exercised in Judea many of their Nobles and chief persons were slain Jos de Bel. Jud. l. 6. c. 1. and by Josephus they are accounted to have contributed much to occasion the destruction of Jerusalem But these practices were not regular or guided by any accountable rules but were greatly exorbitant And if private persons taking the Sword and killing those who depraved Religious Worship had been a thing lawful and commendable in the Jewish State upon this right of Zealots It may well be wondred that none of the Prophets did ever put the people upon vindicating their Religion by this Method under those had Kings of Israel or Judah in whose days the worshipping of Baal was openly practised 8. Secondly several worthy actions pretended to be undertaken by the right of Zealots were warranted according to the ordinary rules of Government by other sufficient Authority though a zeal for the Honour of God made the persons more forward and active Such I suppose was the action of Phinehas Numb 25.7 8. in pursuance of Moses his sentence of judgment v. 5. as also the War undertaken by Mattathias and his Sons and Mattathias his killing the Jew who in obedience to the command of Antiochus openly sacrificed according to the manner of the Heathen 1 Mac. 2.23 24 25. For by the same right whereby he might take Armes for his Country and Religion against Antiochus he might also act against those who took part with Antiochus against them 9. Thirdly In the Jewish Common-wealth which was peculiarly ordered by God some Prophets and men extraordinarily inspir'd not other zealous men at large were empowered by Gods Authority to do some extraordinary actions which otherwise had not been warrantable and it is be this special authority of God not by their own zeal only that such things were allowable To this Head may be reduced Samuels and Elijahs sacrificing though they were not Priests Samuels anointing Saul and David and the young Prophet who was sent by Elisha his anointing Jehu 2 Kin. 9.3 6. And of this nature were the actions of Elijah above-mentioned Samuel hewing Agag in pieces and our Saviours driving out of the Temple them who sold Sheep L'Empereur in Midd. c. 2. sect 3. in sciagraphia Templ Oxen and Doves and over-throwing the Tables of the Mony-changers Joh. 2.14.17 Mar. 11.15 For though these things were only done in the remote parts of the utmost Court and with respect to the Sacrifices and Offerings of the Temple they were a profanation of the Temple being managed by the undertakers in that place as a Trade And of this nature was Moses his killing the Egyptian as appears Act. 7.24 25. 10. The instance of Athaliah Of Athaliah being rejected from being Queen over Judah and slain by the direction of Jehoiadah is frequently urged by diverse Romish writers Bell. de Rom. p. l. 5. c. 8. to prove the Superiority of the Jewish High Priest over the Prince and it is also urged more generally by some others to shew that the People did warrantable deprive her of Princely power But Jehoiadah J. Brut. Qu. 2. Ruth Civ Pol. Qu. 28. p. 264. as a good Subject acted by the Authority of Joash the true and rightful King against her who was a plain Vsurper And that Jehoiadah was not the High Priest may appear somewhat probable because he is not mentioned in the Catalogue of the High Priests in the Chronicles Ant. Jud. l. 10. c. 11. Of Jehu conspiring against Joram 1 Chr. 6 11-15 nor in that of Josephus 11. Whereas Jehu took Arms against Joram and slew him 2 Kin. 9.24 and cut off Ahabs House for which God commended him 2 Kin. 10.30 this
be much more dreadful and calamitious to Mankind whereas the embodying of small numbers are the less to be feared because the more easy to be suppressed 4. The next pretence is that subordinate Governours being also Gods Officers may defend the properties of the Subjects and the exercise of true Religion Brut. Vind. qu. 2. p. 56. qu. 3. p. 93. edit 1589. De sur Mag. Qu. 6. even by taking Armes against their King This hath been asserted by such Writers as Junius Brutus the Anonymous discourse de jure Magistratuum in subditos others in England in our late intestine Broils Ruth Qu. 20. 36. J. Sleid. Com. l. 22. an 1550. and Rutherford of Civil Policy And Sleidan in his Commentaries reports that the same was declared in the Magdeburgh Confession And for the supporting of this assertion it is urged that all Governours even subordinate as well as supreme are in the use of their power to serve God and do justice and defend the innocent and do act by Gods Authority As also that if any person in Ecclesiastical power how high soever he be shall oppose the Christian Doctrine his subordinate Clergy lawfully may and ought to withstand him And that saying of Trajan In Vit. Trajan mentioned by Dion Cassius is usually noted to this purpose who delivering the Sword to an inferiour Commander bad him use this for him if he should govern well but against him if he governed or commanded ill 5. Subordinaâ—t Governours may not resist the supreme But such Positions would undermine the peace of the World and lay Foundations for great disturbances and thereby the Commands of God would be broken with the greater force and violence if those who are invested with some part of the Kings Authority should account themselves thereby impowered to make use thereof against him And if this were admitted the state of Kingdoms must be in danger whensoever inferiour Governours shall be imposed upon by the subtilty of others or puffed up by ambition But this is as far from truth as from peace though Corah had 250 Princes who joynen with him and Absalom was assisted by the Elders of Israel besides Ahitophâ—l the great Counsellour of State this did not justifie their Treasonable Conspiracies And though David was a great Officer at Court General of the Army of Israel and the anointed Successour to the Crown by Gods special appointment and no subordinate Ruler in other Dominions could have so much to plead for himself in this case as David had yet it was not lawful for him to stretch out his hand against Saul And in the account of the Thebean Legion above mentioned Mauritius was a great Officer and Commander of the Roman Army and then in Arms at the head of his Legion and yet according to the Primitive Christian principles professed a detestation of making resistance And therefore this pretence is justly rejected De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 6. de Imper. c. 3. with some vehemency by Grotius as being against Scripture reason and the sense of Antiquity 6. Indeed all persons in Authority are bound to do justice but this must only be in their Sphere and according to the proportion of their power but they cannot be allowed to set themselves over their Superiours to usurp upon their Authority or to deny Subjection unto them And with respect to their Soveraign Officers both by Charter and Commission have their Authority depending upon him and are as much his Subjects as other men are and besides the common bonds of Subjection do all with us take the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance Now as a Servant may not put himself into the place of a Ruler or Judge over his Master to force him to what he thinks equal no more may an inferiour ruler do to his Prince To this purpose it is observed by Sleidan Sleidan Comment l. 17. An. 1546. that the Elector of Saxony who was then the chief person against the Emperour in the German Wars under Charles the fifth did openly declare that if Charles the fifth was owned to be Caesar or a proper Soveraign with respect to those great Princes of the Empire it must then be granted cum eo belligerari non licere that it was not lawful to make War with him And whereas subordinate Rulers are to be submitted unto and reverâ—â—â—d in the regular use of their Authority â—â—â—et if they shall oppose the Superiour â—â—â—â—r they are to be deserted and the acting against them in discharge of duty to the Soveraign is no disobedience Thus S. Austin Aug. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 6. ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite consider the orders steps and degrees of human affairs If the Curator command one thing and the Proconsul another must not the greater power be obeyed and so also where the Proconsul commands one thing and the Emperour the contrary And St. Peter in commanding submission to inferiour Governours makes use of these bounds of Subjection as unto them who are sent by him i. e. the King 7. Disparity between secular and Ecclesiastical Governours The objection from the comparing the case of Ecclesiastical and Civil Rulers is of no weight because of the great disparity that is between them The withstanding an Heretical Bishop who would impose corrupt Doctrines upon the Church if this be certain and manifest may lawfully be undertaken not only by the inferiour Clergy but by other Christians and herein they only do their own business of keeping the Faith holding to the truth and rejecting what is contrary thereto Cyp. Epist 68. And S. Cyprian when Basilides and Martialis Spanish bishops had closed with Pagan Idolatry accounted that ordinary Christians ought to separate themselves from such guides And though in our age too many causelessly reject communion with those Officers whom Christ hath set over them which is a sin of no low degree yet it must be acknowledged that there may be just causes for such withdrawing from Communion in obedience to the Christian Doctrine But it can never be lawful for private Christians to usurp to themselves Episcopal power which would be unaccountable and Sacrilegious Aug. ubi sup And if a Soveraign power should command any to embrace Heresie or reject the true Religion or to become unjust to others to refuse such evil practices is their duty they owe to God who is the Supreme Governour and so far they act in their own Sphere but if they take Arms they then take to themselves the power of the publick Sword which is the Soveraigns right and are thereby guilty of invading what is not their own Besides this there is no Ecclesiastical Officer whosoever but his Authority is inferiour to the Authority of the Vniversal Church of which he is a member and this principally takes in the Apostolical and Primitive Church and all Christians are bound to hold to the doctrine and unity of this Church against any
that whatsoever difference is pretended between them and Christian Princes is of no force to exclude the latter from enjoying the like authority 2. The Ark. Concerning the first I shall design to omit many things but to observe so much as is needful under these several branches First concerning the Ark of the Covenant This was in a peculiar manner sacred and none might carry it but the Priests or Levites of the Family of Kohath and Vzzah died for touching it and the men of Bethshemesh for looking into it It contained the two tables of the Covenant which were the writing of God Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2395 2397 2398. Lempereur in Middoth c. 4. Sect. 5. was placed in the holy of holies the top of it was the mercy-seat and thereupon the Cloud which was the Symbol of divine presence the peculiar Shecinah so much magnified by the Jewish Writers and the Ark and this divine presence were two of the five eminent things wanting in the second temple and there was nothing more sacred than this R. Dav. Kimchi in Hagg. 1.8 in the peculiar Oeconomy of the Jewish dispensation Yet whereas the Ark was sometimes separated from the tabernacle and the temple it is evident that it was David the King who ordered and appointed the removing of the ark of God from Kiriathjearim to the House of Obededom and from thence to the tent which he had pitched for it in Zion 2 Sam. 6.1 2 10 12. 2 Chr. 1.4 and when he fled from Absalom by his command to Zadok and Abiathar the chief Priests the Ark of God which did accompany him was carried back again to Jerusalem 2 Sam. 15.25 29. And it was at the command of King Salomon that the Ark was brought from Zion and placed in the temple which he had built 2 Chr. 6.11 1 Kin. 8.1 4. And when amongst other corruptions in Religion the Ark was removed from the holy of holies it was again replaced there by the authority of King Josiah 2 Chr. 35.3 So that the Kings of Israel and Judah took care of this holy thing Salian M. 2544. n. 431. which as Salianus expresseth it was nobilissima pars sanctuarii quasi thronus Dei locus unde oracula fundebantur 3. The Temple The holy temple was the house of God and it with the Altar were in an especial manner dedicated unto God and yet the Kings authority had to do with it and the affairs thereof The Laws of God required that the presumptuous and wilful murderer should be taken from Gods altar that he might die not allowing as Philo noteth Phil. de lâ—g special that the temple which was Gods holy place should be a refuge for those unholy persons who are enemies unto God Whereupon by Salomons authority Joab was commanded from the bornes of the altar 1 Kin 2.30 and when he refused to come from thence this his carriage considered the command of Salomon to Benajah to slay him there seemeth warranted by the law above-mentioned and is vindicated even by Salianus and Cornelius à Lapide Salian an 3022. n. 21. A Lapide in 3 Reg. 2.31 The cleansing and purging the temple from all defilement was performed by the commandment of Hezekiah 2 Chr. 25.3 5 15. and the like was again done in the reformation undertaken by Josiah 2 Kin. 23.4 6 7. The repairs also of the temple and the manner of disposing of the treasures thereof to that purpose are taken care of by the order and command of Joash 2 Chr. 24.4 8 11 12 14. and by the commandment of Hezekiah were Chambers prepared within the limits of the temple building for the receiving of offerings and tithes and things dedicated 2 Chr. 31.11 13. 4. The Priests and Levites The Kings had a manifest Soveraignty over the Priests who were the chief officers of the temple service yea even with respect to their service in the worship of God After the Priesthood was established in the Family of Aaron Aaron himself though high Priest and elder Brother Abarbinel in Ex. 30. Phil. de praem poenis Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 2. n. 2 3. acknowledged Moses to be his Lord who had the secular soveraignty is in the Scripture stiled a King in Jesurun and is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers to have had a royal authority Ex. 32.22 Num. 12.11 And though Moses enjoyed a singular dignity in being a divine Legislator yet that this title was given and was due to Moses as chief civil Governour is manifest because Ahimelech also the High Priest giveth unto Saul the same title owning him to be his his Lord and himself to be his servant 1 Sam. 22.12 15. And David speaking to Zadok the Priest taketh to himself this title of being his Lord 1 Kin. 1.33 and gives him a command to anoint Salomon And it was very usual for the Kings by their authority to command the Priests even with respect to their temple service and to have such commands observed as appears in the reign of Salomon 2 Chr. 8.15 of Hezekiah 2 Chr. 29.21 24 27. and of Josiah 2 Chr. 35.10 16. The courses of the Priests attendance on their service was ordered by David 1 Chr. 24.3 by Salomon 2 Chr. 8.14 and by Hezekiah 2 Chr. 31.2 And by the authority of Hezekiah and his Princes the great Passover in the second month was observed 2 Chr. 30.2 3 4 5. which was acceptable to God v. 12 20. 5. Gr. de Valent Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. punct 4. Layman The. Mor. Lib. 4. Tr. 9. c. 8. n. 2. Wherefore that argument which some Romanists make use of to prove that Princes have no authority over Ecclesiastical persons because God under the Old Testament took the Levites to be his and he gave them unto Aaron and his Sons Num. 3.9 12. and Num. 8.11 19. and therefore say they they were under subjection to no secular power nor to any other save only to Aaron and his Successors is a very weak inference sinc the High Priests themselves were manifestly under the Royal authority For this being Gods Ordinance and his people being under its government it can be no way incongruous that what is his should be under the inspection of that which hath his authority And that the Levites were under the Government of the Kings is obvious from the holy Scriptures 1 Chr. 15.4 11 12 ch 16.4 2 Chr. 29.30 and from many other places E 4 6. The 6. The Kings Soveraignty over the Prophets is also very evident The Prophets For though the Prophets when they delivered their message from God and in his name might require obedience even from Kings unto the God of Israel yet that themselves as subjects of the Realm were under the Kings authority is sufficiently testified by the instance of the Prophet Nathan besides what I shall superadd in the following Chapter For Nathan acknowledged himself the servant of