Supremacy according to this article of our Church At the end of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge King James so approved his explication thereof that he returned him particular thanks for the same which is printed with his speech And the Bishop therein plainly asserted that God had established two distinct powers on earth the one of the Keys committed to the Church and the other of the Sword which is committed to the civil Magistrate and by which the King governeth And therewith he declareth that as the spiritual Rulers have not only respect to the first table but to the second so the Magistrates power hath not only respect to the second table but also to the first 5. From all this we have this plain sense That the King is supreme Governour that is under God say the Injunctions and with the civil sword say the Articles as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal that is he hath the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born in these Dominions of what estate soever either Ecclesiastical or temporal say the Injunctions and to the same purpose the Articles Only here we must observe that the King 's being supreme Governour in all things and causes is one and the same thing with his having the chief Government over the persons of all his subjects with respect to their places actions and employments and therefore is well explained thereby For it must necessarily be the same thing to have the command or oversight of any Officer subject or servant about his business and to have a command or over-sight concerning the business in which he is to be employed and the same is to be said concerning the power of examining their cases or punishing neglects and offences 6. And from hence we may take an account Of supreme head of the Church of England Def. of Apol Part 6. Ch. 11. div 1. of the true sense of that title used by King Henr. 8. and King Edw. 6. of supreme head of the Church of England This stile was much misunderstood by divers Foreigners seemed not pleasing to Bishop Juel and some others of our own Church was well and wisely changed by our Governours and hath been out of date for above sixscore years past And though this title was first given to King Hen. 8. Tit. Of this civil Magistrate by a Convocation and Parliament of the Roman Communion it was used all King Edwards days and then owned even in the book of Articles And the true intended sense from the expressions above mentioned appeareth manifestly to be this to acknowledge the King to be head or chief Governour even in Ecclesiastical things of that number of Christians or that part of the Catholick Church who reside in these Realms and are subjects to his Crown even as Saul by being anointed King Wh. Treat 8. ch 1. div 4. Bishop Saund. Episcop not prejud to reg p. 130 131. Mas de Min. Anglic l. 3. c. 4. was made head of the tribes of Israel 1 Sam. 15.17 And according to this sense the use of this title was allowed and justified by very worthy men such as Bishop Whitgift Bishop Saunderson Mr Mason and others And to this end and purpose it is the just right of the King of England to own himself the supreme Governour of the Church of England which was a stile sometime used by our pious and gracious King Charles the First Declar. before 39. Articles in his publick Declaration about Ecclesiastical things but with due respect to the Ecclesiastical Officers 7. In the ancient Church it was not unusual for him who had the chief preeminence over a Province or a considerable part of the Christian Church to be owned as their head Can. Apost 34. whence in the ancient Collection or Code called the Canons of the Apostles the chief Bishop in every Nation was required to be esteemed by the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head And that Bishops may be called heads of their Churches is asserted by Gregorius de Valentia from that expression of Scripture lately mentioned concerning Saul Tom. 4. Disp 1. qu. 8. punct 4. which yet must more directly and immediately prove that title to be applicable to a Sovereign Prince And as the name of head is only taken for a chief and governing member the Author of the Annotations upon the Epistles under S. Hierom's name was not afraid of this expression In 1 Cor. 12. Sacerdos caput Ecclesiae the Priest is the head of the Church 8. And though that Statute whereby the title of supreme head of the Church of England was yielded to King Hen. 8. 26 Hen. 8.1 doth assert the Kings power to correct and amend by spiritual authority and Jurisdiction yet that this was intended only objectively concerning his government in spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes or his seeing these things be done by Ecclesiastical Officers and was only so claimed and used we have further plain evidence both concerning the time of King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. Under the Reign of King Hen. 8. by his particular command for the acquainting his subjects with such truths as they ought to profess was published a Book called The Institution of a Christian man which was subscribed by twenty one Bishops and divers others of the Clergy and the Professors of Civil and Canon law and in the dedication thereof to the King Of the Sacr. of Orders f. 39. by them all is given to him this title of Supreme head in Earth immediately under Christ of the Church of England In this Book besides very many other things to the same purpose it is asserted That Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the new testament that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes which is called potestas gladii the power of the sword there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other Ministers or Officers which should have special power authority and commission under Christ to preach and teach the word of God to dispense and administer the Sacraments to loose and absolve to bind and to excommunicate to order and consecrate others in the same room order and office f. 40. And again This said power and administration in some places is called claves sive potestas clavium that is to say the Keys or the power of the Keys whereby is signified a certain limited office restrained unto the execution of a special function or ministration f. 41. And yet further we have therein this very clear passage That this office this power and authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain persons only that is to say unto Priests or Bishops whom they did elect call and admit thereto by their prayer and imposition of their hands 9. And concerning the office and power of Kings the Doctrine and positions then received were such as
Officers not excluded from all civil Government that though these offices be so distinct that none ought to perform the Ecclesiastical ministrations but they who are ordained thereto and that no Ecclesiastical person hath any civil power by mere vertue of his Ecclesiastical office and though the intermedling with such matters of civil affairs as in the nature of them are unsuitable to the Clergy are reasonably prohibited by the ancient Canons yet it would be against all reason to imagine that all civil Government because civil and political is inconsistent with the state of an Ecclesiastical person since he is a part also of the civil Society or the body politick In the Jewish state Syn. Ep. 121. in some extraordinary cases that was very true which Synesius observed that the chief secular power was in the Priest so it was under the government of Eli in the days of the Maccabees and the succeeding times when Aristobulus is observed by S Hierome Hier. in Dan. 9. to be the first who there joined the royal authority and Diadem with the Priesthood But even under the reign of David the Levites and in the time of Jehosophat Deut. 17. v. 8 -12 the Priests and Levites are plainly according to the law declared to have been appointed for Judges and Officers of the Realm 1 Chr. 26 29-32 2 Chr. 19.8 and many other expressions of the Old Testament are interpreted by Mr Thorndike to import the same Of Religious Assembl c. 2. concerning other times of the Jewish Government And in the time of Christianity I suppose no man will doubt but that according to the Command of the Apostle those who are Officers in the Church ought to take care of the Government of their own Families which is a civil affair and authority And whilest the Church was under Pagan Princes V. Const Apostol l. 2. c. 46. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. it was usual for the Officers thereof to sit in judgment to decide all matters of controversy among Christians which was according to the direction of our Saviour Mat. 18.17 and of this Apostle 1 Cor. 6. as I shall in another place take notice And the making peace and deciding differences was thought a work so well becoming such persons and was so usually practised by them about S. Austins time Aug. de Oper. Monach c. 29. Posid de Vit. Aug. c. 19. that he mentions these things as those the hearing and determining of which took up a considerable portion of his time And nothing is more manifest than that divers Imperial Edicts of pious Princes did peculiarly reserve the cognisance of most causes relating to the Clergy besides others Sozom. l. 1. c. 9. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 4. leg 7 8. Novel 83 86 123. to the hearing and decision of the Bishop And as Ecclesastical Officers are members of the Community and subjects to their Prince it is very allowable that they should so far as they can be every way useful unto both and thereby also to the Churches good 10. But this distinct constitution of the Church and its Offices A distinct Ecclesiastical power no prejudice to the civil is no diminution of the civil authority and its supremacy but rather an enlargement thereof and an advancement of its dignity For the whole state of the Christian Church is founded in the superabundant grace and favour of God towards man and the Ecclesiastical authority of its Officers being the ministry of reconciliation is quite of a different nature from secular power being wholly superadded over and above it and without any infringment thereof Right of the Church ch 4. p. 168. Review ch 1. p. 13. Didocl Alt. Dam. cap. 1. p. 15. And hereupon the whole power of the Church is by some Writers termed a cumulative and not a privative power as taking nothing from the civil and the same terms are used concerning the right of the secular power in matters Ecclesiastical as being without any abatement of the proper spiritual power Yea the whole civil authority towards all subjects whatsoever doth not only still remain intire to the secular Ruler but he also receiveth this accession thereunto from the constitution of Christianity that the object of his government is so far enlarged thereby that he hath a right of inspection and care even of those matters which the grace of God or the Gospel dispensation hath established And this doth also so much the more exalt his honour and dignity in that not only all subjects in their general capacity as such Sect. 5 are obliged to submit themselves to their Kings and Princes but that even those Officers of the Church which in their Realms are established by the peculiar appointment of Jesus Christ the King of Kings are also included under this duty and are not the less subjects notwithstanding their relation to the Church To which I may add that there are peculiar arguments for honour and reverence unto Rulers which the doctrine of the Christian Church affordeth SECT V. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto To give a more particular account of Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical we may observe 1. The Princes care about the power of the Keys That though the power of the Keys in admitting any person into rejecting him from or guideing him in the Communion of the Church as a Society founded by Christ and the dispensing Christian mysteries can be exercised by none but the particular Officers of Christs Church to whom it is committed yet the Prince may command them to mind and do their duty therein and if need so require punish their neglect Indeed it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical power to determine rules for the due exercise of the power of the Keys and the ordering such rules is part of that power which hath been frequently exercised in very many Canons of several Councils But the soveraign power hath a right to take care that these rules of Government be practised and observed Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 3. Nov. 6. 123. And the establishing laws of this nature was very frequent both in the Empire and in other Christian Kingdoms and those of Justinian have been especially taken notice of to this purpose And though the late Canonists do broadly censure him as intermedling too far in Church affairs yet Baronius himself is here so modest Annal. Eccles An. 528. n. 1. as to allow low that there is much in this particular to be said in his excuse and the late learned Archbishop of Paris P. de Marcâ— de Concord Sacerd Imp. l. 2. cap. 10. hath sufficiently shewed that the more ancient Bishops Patriarchs and Councils did applaud and honour these his Constitutions in things Ecclesiastical 2. And the worship of God 2. Touching the worship of God since the divine establishment of the publick Christian service is
after he saith In this Kingdom there were Officers of the Realm rege superiores I say saith he in this Kingdom which was established and ordained not by Plato or Aristotle but by God himself the supreme founder of all Monarchy 4. And it is very manifest The pretended power of the Sanhedrin that the greater part of the Jewish Rabbinical Writers and from them divers Christians some of them so judicious that it is strange they should be so much imposed upon by Fables and Romances do assert that the Sanhedrim or Senate of seventy one persons had such a power over the Kings of Judah as to call them to account and punish them And they also assert that according to the original establishment of the Jewish laws and polity the chief causes of moment both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature were exempt from the Kings jurisdiction and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance Grot. Schick ubi supra To this purpose Grotius declareth aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta I think there were some cases of judgment reserved from the King which remained in the Sanhedrim of seventy men i. e. besides the Nasi or president Schickard goes farther and sayes sine senatus magni assensu Rex in gravioribus causis nihil poterat decernere that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters without the assent of this great Senate And our Author de Synedriis De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 1. among other things discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio magno propriis ut nec à Regibus aut impediri aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt in which words he fetters and confines the Kings power but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large 5. Carpzov in Schick c. 2. p. 142. But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions that they have no better a foundation than a tradition delivered by some of the Jewish Rabbins This a fabulous tradition of the Rabbins against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular there lie these exceptions 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority before the captivity but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time and therefore can give no testimony upon their own knowledge and writing one from another with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered the number of them who are produced can add nothing to their testimony But both divine and humane writers who are of an ancienter date do sufficiently contradict this position as I hope to make plain He therefore who can believe that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders because divers of late but neither Scripture nor ancient Writers do assert it and he who can perswade himself that our Saviour made the Bishop of Rome the Vniversal Monarch of the whole World and gave him a plenitude of all temporal and spiritual power because many Writers of that Communion do now assert this while what is inconsistent therewith was declared by Christ his Apostles and the ancient Christian Church such men have understandings of a fit fize and sutable disposition to receive these Rabbinical traditions concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy which are also things fit for their purpose 6. Gemar Sanhed Cocc c. 2. Sect. 10. Secondly It is evident that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Nation were forward to extol it even beyond the bounds of truth of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud of the number of the Horses for Salomons own Stables which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty millions accounting a thousand thousand to a Million Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory for a considerable time Sed. Olam zut in fin before the reign of Aristobulus and under the Roman Government and some continuance thereof remained towards five hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem as their Chronicle informs us which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers And it is very probable that the pressures and sufferings which the Jews sustained under the Roman Emperours or Kings might prejudice them against Monarchical Government 7. Thirdly There are other Rabbinical and Talmudical Writers of good note who will by no means be perswaded to embrace this tradition which disparageth the Royal power Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rabba and others are cited by Mr Selden and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius who assert that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King And that the highest authority is in the King who standeth in Gods place is asserted by R. Abarbanel Carpzov in Schick p. 165. Their pretended power over the person of the King refuted whose words are in Carpzov 8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim over the person of the King They deal with the royal authority as the Jews did with our Saviour who gave him the title of the King of the Jews but yet scourged him and treated him with great indignity For these Writers do assert that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim only by the great Sanhedrim at Jernsalem saith Schickard De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7. and he acknowledgeth that even this appeared to him valde paradoxum a thing far from truth and very unlikely until his own apprehensions were moulded into a complyance with the Jewish Writers But Mr Selden addeth De Syn. l. 2. c. 9. n. 5. that according to the testimony of the Rabbins he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three which was the Government of every particular City And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging enumerated by Maimonides Ibid. c. 13. n. 8. and mentioned from him by Selden the three last are if the King multiply Wives if he multiply Horses and if he multiply silver and gold Now these things are so strange in themselves reducing the King to the same circumstances with every common and petty offender that how this can consist with the majesty and soveraignty of a Prince is utterly unconceiveable and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies must also perswade himself to believe against the plainest evidence that David and those who sat upon his throne were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah but were all of them subjects under the common and ordinary government and authority of that Common-wealth 9. Schickard de Jur.
Const c. 2 3. the sence of which is explained and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon in a genuine Canon received into the Code of the Vniversal Church but disgusted by the Roman Church Which Canon doth assert the priviledge and authority of the Romish Church Conc. Chalc. c. 28. to have had its original from the Constitution of the Fathers out of respect to the Imperial City and therefore they upon the same account give to Constantinople which was the Seat of the Eastern Empire a right of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges and dignity of See with that of Rome and to be next to it in order Conc. in Trul. c. 36. The same also is established in the sixth general Council 4. But since there is an high pretence to a divine right according to the doctrine of Christ generally made by the Romanists for the Universal Supreme Spiritual Power of the Pope and by many of them for the temporal also these pretensions must be discussed and examined And though the latter be the more extravagant and exhorbitant yet they being both false and some of the same Foundations being made use of to support them both I shall consider them together Now it is highly improbable that he whose doctrine establisheth the temporal power as Gods ordinance and requires subjection from all persons to the same should wholly devest Kings of their Supremacy and appoint their authority to be altogether under the disposal of another to wit the Bishop of Rome But my design being to defend the Royal Supremacy and not only to oppose the Roman I shall assert that no Officers of the Christian Church ever were or are invested with any such superiority over Princes and if none then not they at Rome 5. Some testimonies of Scripture What Scriptures the Popes themselves have used for their universal supreme claim Extrav Com. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam produced for the asserting a general Supremacy of the Pope both temporal and spiritual are so extremely fond and frivolous that I should account it a piece of vanity to take notice of them had they not been urged by the Popes themselves who challenge a title to infallibility Such is that of Boniface the Eighth proving that S. Peter and the Church had the power of the temporal Sword because our Saviour said to him Put up thy Sword into the sheath therein using these words thy Sword and that when the Disciples said to our Lord here are two Swords he answered it is enough Luk. 22.18 non nimis esse sed satis and also urging those words of the Apostle The spiritual man judgeth all things Surely such instances as these and divers of like nature give evidence enough that God never designed the whole Christian Church should be so sottish and void of all understanding as to be guided by the dictates of such men as infallible 6. Bonif. 8. ibid. Joh. 22. in Extrav c. Super gentes Some of the Popes have also made use of those words of Jeremy Jer. 1.10 I have set thee this day over the Nations and over the Kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to build and to plant But 1. What authority can these words give to the Pope when they respect not the time of Christianity nor speak of any ordinary authority in the Jewish Church Innoc. 3. in Decretal l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. in which Jeremy was no High Priest but they only express a prophetical Commission to him an inspired man to declare the pleasure of God from his mouth concerning the Kingdoms of the World as is manifest from v. 5 9. 2. How strangely different was the spirit and temper of Jeremy towards Kings from that of the Roman Bishop notwithstandiug this his Commission When he speaketh of the disposal of many Kingdoms into Nebuchadnezzars hands he useth not the Roman stile as coveying the title unto him himself but speaketh on this manner Thus saith the Lord I have made the earth and I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 27.4 5 6. And when he spake to Zedekiah he treated him not as his Vasal but his words are Jer. 27.20 O my Lord the King Let my supplication I pray thee be accepted before thee So far was that mournful Prophet from being the Vniversal Monarch of the World 7. Other arguments from Scripture examined But the arguments most insisted on by the Romish Writers are more plausible though insufficient and unconcluding For S. Peters singular supremacy they produce Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church Ans 1. That S. Hilary the Commentaries in S. Ambrose Gr Nyssen Cyrillus Alexandrinus S. Aug. and Chrysostome understand this rock of the faith of S. Peters Confession Barrad de Conc. Evang Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 23. Chamier Tom. 2. Pans l. 11. c. 3 4. is acknowledged by Barradius the Jesuit besides others observed in Chamier to the same purpose as the Liturgy of S. James Basil of Seleucia Theodoret and Epiphanius And divers Fathers are in the same place noted to understand this rock of Christ himself which sense is favoured much from Is 28.16 1 Pet. 2.4 7. Ans 2. As the Church of God is oft resembled to a building and called the house of God S. Peter according to the expression of divers Catholick Writers V. Dr Hammonds Annot on Mat. 10. b. may be herein owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word ordinarily signifies a Rock or a Stone a prime stone of the foundation united to Christ the chief Corner-stone and so were also the rest of the Apostles Eph. 2.20 Rev. 21.14 But to assert him to be the rock distinct from the whole building and which beareth the whole together with the foundation it self would be to exclude him from being any member of Christs Church and to own him as supporting Christ himself who is called the foundation and the chief Corner-stone And though S. Peter had a kind of priority of order yet all the Apostles had the same office and were with him equally partakers both of honour and of power or in S. Cyprians Phrase Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. they were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis This place therefore gives S. Peter a spiritual eminency in the Church but with the rest of the Apostles but it nothing at all concerneth any temporal power in him nor any exclusion of Princes from supreme Government 8. It is also pleaded that Christ Mat. 16.19 promised S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Ans 1. The Keys being an Embleme of Authority this Text doth treat of a very high and great spiritual power of receiving men into the Church of Christ and the several ranks and orders thereof and unto the participation of Christian priviledges and of excluding
from all these and governing the Church Cyp. Ep. 27. 73. Aug. in Joh. Tract 50. But this power as the ancient Church did acknowledge the other Apostles did also enjoy and were actually possessed of as appears Mat. 18.18 Jo. 20.21 22 23. Ans 2. How vastly different is this power from the temporal Dominion over the Kingdoms of the World of which there is not any world here spoken by our Lord And surely any man who considereth the doctrine and lives of the Apostles cannot imagine that every one or any one of them was intended and designed of God to be the Soveraign Potentate and grand Emperour of the World It is therefore a just complaint against the Romish party that ex clavibus cudunt enses Conf. Helvet c. 14. lanceas sceptra coronas out of the Keys they forge Swords and Spears Scepters and Crowns and usurp temporal Dominion equal with or superiour unto Kings notwithstanding that our Saviour expresly rejected from his Apostles such Dominion as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised Mat. 20.25 26. 9. But Pasce oves meas Feed my sheep Jo. 21.16 is a place chiefly insisted upon And if no more was hence inferred than a spiritual and Apostolical authority in S. Peter this is readily granted and asserted and the other Apostles enjoyed the like But Bellarmine will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 14 15 16. Layman Theolog. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. c. 6. to be a Charter of Soveraignty and to enclude governing and commanding as a King doth And he and others also infer the extent of S. Peters power over all Apostles and Kings because they are Christs Sheep To which I Ans 1. Not S. Peter only but all Bishops and Elders are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or have a Pastoral care over the Flock Ambr. de dign Sacerd c. 2. Ignat. Ep. ad Philad ad Rom. Eus Hist Ecc. l. 8. c. 25. Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 And among all Ecclesiastical Writers beginning from Ignatius and downwards the Bishops and chief Officers of the Church have been acknowledged to be Pastors Now if this Office of Pastor doth not necessarily enclude a Soveraign or supreme Government then no such can be asserted to s. Peter or his pretended Successor from this Text if it doth then must this be ascribed to every Bishop which will necessarily overthrow the Popes Vniversal claim Ans 2. Government over the Sheep of Christ is also too narrow a compass for an Vniversal Monarchy 10. Ans 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Metaphor from Shepherds is thence sometimes used for to take care and feed and at other times for to rule and govern and oft for both Now though the Officers of Christ have a pastor al authority over his Flock yet these words Joh. 21.15 16 17. were principally directed to S. Peter as supposing in him this authority and requiring his duty of care and feeding and not as conveying to him a peculiar authority and Dominion because this is enjoined upon him as an evidence of his love to Christ and because among the three Precepts to take care of the Sheep of Christ and his Lambs two of them are there expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be understood only of feeding Ans 4. Civil Governours also are to be as Shepherds over their Flock with particular respect to rule and Government The Government of God is sometimes expressed by his being the Shepherd of Israel and a Prince whom Homer stiles the Pastor of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Philo and other Writers oft mentioned by a like name Phil. de Agricult de Joseph quod omnis probus liber And a civil pastoral power over all their people is yielded to them Num. 27.17 Is 44.28 which is expressed in the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 5.2 Ch. 7.7 Ps 78.71 72. But every one must use their power according to their office Ecclesiastical Officers are to use the spiritual authority but temporal Soveraignty is reserved to Princes Ans 5. The pastoral office of the guides of the Church doth extend it self even to Kings with respect to the conduct of their Souls but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Soveraignty A Prince may be ruled by a Physician concerning his health or be led by a guide at Land or a Pilot at Sea and not lose his Soveraignty over these Subjects And the Kings of the House of David were the chief Rulers over the Realm though the Priests were to offer Sacrifice for Prince and People to direct them in Religion and to judge in case of Leprosy and such like SECT IV. Other arguments for the pretences of Papal Authority answered and refuted 1. Annal. Ecclesian 57. n. 28 29 30. The support which Baronius affords for the Popes Supremacy is that Christ himself is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek being both King and Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7. and that from him the regal and sacerdotal authority are together conferred upon his Church first upon the Apostles and then upon their Successors which he further undertakes to prove because our Saviour declared to his Disciples Jo. 20. As my father sent me so send I you and did establish in his Church a Royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2. Ibid. n. 31 32. And though the Cardinal will not allow that this authority in the Church doth make void the political power yet he doth assert that this Regal Ecclesiastical Authority must be superiour thereunto The Priesthood of Melchisedek 2. But concerning the Melchisedekian Priesthood Sect. 4 he did not consider these two things 1. That the making the supremacy of power to be conjunct with the Priesthood doth destroy the peculiarity of power challenged by the Bishop of Rome for thence it must be inferred that they who equally partake of Priesthood with the Bishop of Rome must have an equal supreme authority with him 2. That one thing which the Apostle did most especially insist on concerning the Priesthood of Melchisedek is that the Priest or High Priest of that Order must not derive or receive his Priesthood from any Predecessor nor leave it to any Successor but must abide a Priest for ever through that whole dispensation under which he is Priest Heb. 7.3 8 16 17 21 23 24 28. And therefore the Melchisedekian Priesthood is no more transferred from Christ to any other person in the Church then his proper mediatory office is Beyerl de Episc Rom. And they who say that this Priesthood of Christ cannot indeed be enjoyed by any as successor to him but only as his Vicar do not so avoid the force of this argument For it remains certain that no such pretended Vicar can partake of this Priesthood because in him it must be received from a Predecessor viz. in that Vicarship and Priesthood and be left to
a Successor which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood 3. Of the Apostolical Mission When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him 1. These words enclude a fulness of Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority or the power of the Keys which was given to all the Apostles 2. But they do not make the Apostles equal in dignity or dominion with Christ himself in being Saviour and head of the Church or Lord over and Judge of the quick and the dead 3. Even Christ himself when he was upon Earth being as man under the law was not only obliged to practise the duties of the first table and the other Commandments of the second table but even to the observance of the fifth Commandment al 's 4. And the Office of the Ministry And those persons who in general defence of Ecclesiastical Supremacy urge that they who are Officers of Christ and furnished with his authority ought not to be in subjection to secular rulers but superiour to them to whom Christs authority is superiour may consider 1. That Parents and Husbands have authority from God and from Christ and yet are under Kings and Princes 2. The superiority of any Officer of Christ must not be measured by the height of Soveraignty which Christ himself hath which would make the servant even every Deacon equal with his Lord and by the like pretence every petty Constable must have equal authority with the King but by the constitution of his office and the power thereby conveyed to him For neither God in governing the World nor Christ in governing the Church ever gave to any other an authority equal to what he possesseth 3. Christ came not to overturn the Government of God his father in the World which hath established the supreme temporal power yea his mediatory Kingdom and administration is in subjection to the Father and our Saviours Doctrine yieldeth that authority to Princes that it earnestly presseth a general and necessary subjection for Conscience sake to their Government 5. And as to what Baronius urgeth The Royal Priesthood from the Royal Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.9 it may be observed 1. That that expression hath not respect to a peculiar sacerdotal office in the Church but to the dignity of the Christian Church in general as is manifest from the place it self Salian an 2544. n. 347. Estius in loc and acknowledged by their own Writers 2. If this Text did express any peculiar power in Ecclesiastical Officers it must have particular respect to those Eastern Churches to whom that Epistle was written 1 Pet. 1.1 and 3. It is well observed by Bishop Andrews that even that Royal Priesthood v. 9. is commanded to be subject to every ordinance of man Ch. 4. S. 2. n. 3. and to the King as supreme v. 13. as I above observed 6. And while some say Of the Plea of expediency for the Churches good it is expedient for the Churches good that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be superiour to the temporal otherwise its welfare and good is not sufficiently provided for this Plea might appear more plausible 1. If there could be no ignorance heresy pride or ill designs in any who have the title of chief Officers in the Church which no man can believe who reads the Lives of the Popes written by their own Authors 2. If Kings and Princes must never be expected to be nursing Fathers to the Church and to take care of it 3. If the great design of Christianity was to take care that Christians must never follow their Saviour in bearing the Cross and that this Religion did not aim at the promoting true faith and holiness meekness and peace but at outward splendor dominion and power in the World according to that notion the Jews had of a Messias And this is not only a weak but a presumptuous way of reasoning to controul and affront the Gospel of Christ and to dare to tell him how he ought to have established his Kingdom to other purposes than he hath done 7. And after all this S. Peters Authority not peculiar to Rome there is nothing more unreasonable than for the Church of Rome to monopolize unto its self alone that authority which was committed to S. Peter and the other Apostles For it is not at all to be doubted but the Apostles committed a chief presidential and Governing authority in their several limits to other Churches besides the Roman Basil Ep. 55. Cyp. Epist 69. Firmil in Cyp. Ep. 75. The ancient Fathers frequently express the Bishops of the Christian Church in general to be the Apostles Successors S. Cyprian and Firmilian assert all Bishops to succeed the Apostles even ordinatione vicaria as placed in their stead and possessed of that power which was from them fixed in the Church Hier. ad Marcellam Aug. in Ps 44. Amongst us saith S. Hierome the Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles and for or instead of the Apostles are appointed Bishops saith S. Austin Tertullian declares that to his time Cathedrae Apostolorum the Cathedral Sees placed by the Apostles themselves did still continue their presidency in the Apostolical Churches of which he mentions many by name and Rome as one of them 8. And as there is no evidence that S. Peter who also presided at Antioch left all his authority peculiarly to Rome so there is sufficient evidence that S. Peter who was commanded to feed the Sheep of Christ did yield this authority to the Elders or Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed the flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And hereby he either committed that pastoral authority which he received from Christ unto the Bishops of those free Churches of the Ephesine Thracian and Pontick Dioceses to whom he wrote and which afterward were placed under the Patriarch of Constantinople or at least he acknowledged this authority in them And therefore so far as concerneth a divine right these Eastern Churches in the Territories of Constantinople have fully as fair a Plea hereby for deriving a pastoral authority from S. Peter or having it particularly confirmed by him as they at Rome ever had 9. But with respect to England This Realm not feudatory Bellarm. in Apol. pro Resp ad Jac. Reg. c. 3. in Respons ad Bel. Ap. c. 3. divers Romish Writers alledge that it became feudatory to the See of Rome by King Johns resigning his Crown to Pandulphus the Popes Legate to which thing objected and misrepresented by Bellarmine divers things are returned in Answer by Bishop Andrews But waving such particular answers as might be given I shall chuse to observe in General that this Case is the same as if any seditious persons or Vsurpers should by fraud or force reduce the King to straits and difficulties and should then by like methods gain a promise from him that he
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
O house of David thus saith the Lord execute judgment in the morning declaring hereupon that they could not judge unless they could be summoned to receive judgment from others Which is such a ridiculous pretence of proof against the evidence of common sense which would serve as well to prove Parents to be subject to their Children Masters to their servants Schick de Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 9. n. 2. and their great Sanhedrim to another Consistory as to the purpose they produce it And yet this testimony and tradition of the Gemara though very irrational is made use of very much by them who depress the royal authority among the Jews and advance the Synedrial SECT II. The determination of many weighty cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the royal power examined and refuted 1. The fautors of this Synedrial soveraignty who would make the regal authority to truckle under it do under that polity exempt the decision of the most material cases of right from the Kings Judicature And they do also debar him of all authority to undertake arbitrary wars appoint inferiour officers and judges or to have any interest in enacting laws and constitutions Canin Disquis in Loc. N. Test c. 7. which Caninius doth roundly and plainly express telling us that the Sanhedrim bella decernebant resque omnes publicas administrabant And so there is neither civil nor military supreme authority Sect. 2 no more than Ecclesiastical reserved for the King 2. But I shall undertake to prove that the eminent power by many placed in the Sanhedrim by devesting the Jewish Kings thereof was certainly not seated in any such Synedrial power in the flourishing times of the Jewish Monarchy or before the Captivity of Babylon but was fixed in their Kings both as to cases of judiciary decision and of authoritative consultation and constitution And if either the traditions of the Jewish Writers mentioned in the former Section or those which I shall now discourse of had any good foundation I should readily then grant the consequence hence urged by P. de Marca to be true De Conc. Sac. Imp. l. 2. c. 5. n. ult Proleg p. 25. that they do not deserve well at the hands of Christian Princes who would measure their authority and dignity from the exercise of royal power under the times of the Old Testament 3. Several judiciary cases claimed as peculiar to the Synedrial power are enumerated by our Author de Synedriis De Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Sanh c. 1. n. 5. out of which I shall single out those three chief Cases which are in the first place mentioned by the Talmud concerning a Tribe a false Prophet and the High Priest And these I the rather fix upon De Jur. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. because the learned Grotius made choice of these as special instances of cases peculiarly belonging to that Court and not subject to the King saith he quaedam cognitionum genera regi videntur non permissa ut de tribu pontifice propheta And according to the sense of Grotius Selden speaks of these three cases De Syn. I. 3. c. 9. n. 1. that they are adeo Synedrio magno propria peculiaria ut ne regi quidem ipsi permitterentur And the first of these concerneth things temporal of great moment and the other two cases Ecclesiastical 4. The judgment of a tribe This judgment concerning a tribe is by some declared to be when the greater part of a tribe or the whole becometh guilty of Apostasie or idolatry Coch. not ad Sanh c. 1. n. 21. Grot. de Imper. c. 11. n. 15. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 4. n. 3 4. But Mr Selden though he acknowledgeth this to be the sense of divers Jewish Writers yet his opinion is that all other cases whatsoever concerning a tribe were only determinable by this great Sanhedrim which he thinks is not to be doubted And the consequence of this seemeth plain that if the whole or major part of any tribe became factious or guilty of rebellion as most of them were both after Absalom and after Sheba the King had then no authority to reduce them But that these things are empty dreams and wholly void of truth will be manifest from these following instances 5. When the two tribes and half desired an inheritance on the other side Jordan they spake of this to Moses Eleazar and the Princes of the Congregation Num. 32.2 but the power of determination was in Moses who commanded Eleazar and the Princes concerning them v. 28. and he gave them that land v. 33. Jos 14.3 and so also Josephus declareth Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 7. The dividing the land of Canaan amongst the other tribes was of great concern to the whole tribes and was begun by Eleazar Joshua and the heads of the Children of Israel Jos 14.1 but by the authority of Joshua whom God appointed to divide it ch 13.6 7. and the main part of this division was made not by the Sanhedrim of seventy one but by three men out of every tribe Jos 18.4 5. who acted by Joshua's command v. 4 8. and he cast lots for their divisions and is said to have divided the land v. 10. and also in Josephus Antiq. l. 5. c. 1. When the two tribes and half were suspected of apostasie in building another Altar Phinehas and ten other Princes with him and not any great Sanhedrim had the hearing of it and did clear them Jos 22.13 14 30 31 32. In the time of Rehoboam when the tribes of Israel demanded greater liberty than they had had under Salomon 1 Kin. 12.1 3 4. here was no set Sanhedrim which must determine concerning them but the King himself was to resolve them either according to the counsel of the old men or the young as himself pleased v. 6. 14. And in Hezekiahs time when both the two tribes under the King of Judah and the ten tribes under the King of Israel were fallen to idolatry Hezekiah by his royal authority reformed Judah and in his piety perswaded Israel and in these cases was no appearance of a Synedrial power 6. Of a Prophet Cun. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 12. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 6. n. 1. The judgment of a false prophet is frequently claimed as peculiar to the Synedrial power that is according to Selden the judging him who shall speak any thing in the name of a false God or shall speak falsly in the name of the true God But had the tryal of a true or false Prophet been peculiar to them it is not so probable that Asa would have been obeyed in committing the Seer to Prison this being then a case coram non judice and against their laws and superiour authority Nor is it likely that it would be made the matter of great commendation of Hezekiah that he put not Micab
1. Con. Eph. c. 32. to engage the Royal power to take care of Religion because all civil powers are to intend the good of their inferiours according to the doctrine of S. Paul Rom. 13.4 And the instances of David Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah Constantine Theodosius and many other pious Kings and Emperours do manifest that they are capable of procuring very great good to their Subjects by their pious care about the matters of Religion And no doubt S. Austin might with good reason be confident Cont. Ep. Gaudent l. 2. c. 17. in Epist 50. that the Laws of Christian Princes about Religion had been the occasion of bringing many to Salvation by Jesus Christ 7. And the Royal Government is much of the same nature with the paternal enlarged in the extent thereof over several Families but not restrained in the nature of it and in the most excellent and useful part of its authority Gods Ordinance hereby placing others in that authority which Adam and Noah had Phil. de creat princip p. 727. over their multiplyed and enlarged Progeny Hence Princes are fitly stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Parents of Cities and Kingdoms their political and civil being having a dependance also upon them who were called Patres patriae 8. And the consideration of the paternal power will remove the objections which some men make use of against the authority of Princes in matters of Religion For if Religion must be so far left free as not to be commanded and enjoined by any humane civil power then would Abrahams commanding his Children and Houshold have been blameable he being in his Sphere a secular Ruler as well as a Prince is Or if it be pretended that grown men who are come to years of understanding and have undertaken the profession of true Religion ought to be so far left to their own choice as not to be under the Government of any civil power with respect to Religion this also is refuted by the instance of Abraham's commanding his Houshold which was so large V. Salian An. M. 2118. n. 13. an 2138. that many years before this time of the destruction of Sodom when God gave Abraham this commendation he could arm three hundred and eighteen Souldiers of his own Houshold Gen. 14.14 and all his numerous Family had been Circumcised And since Abraham continued under the blessing of God it is very probable that his Family was further enlarged before the time of this commendation of him 9. To all this I shall add that he who doth soberly consider what sad disturbances and commotions in divers Kingdoms have been the product of the corruptions and errors in the Christian Religion both upon the account of the Papal Vsurpations under the pretence of spiritual power and by reason of the disloyal positions and tumultuous practices of other Sects and their frequent Rebellions shall need no other argument to convince him that the Princes exercise of Government about the affairs of Religion is greatly necessary for the securing his own authority the peace of his Kingdoms and the property of his subjects SECT II. The same established by the Christian Doctrine 1. That the Gospel Doctrine never intended to destroy or diminish the right of secular powers is granted by some of chief note amongst the Romanists Christus saith P. de Marca cum Evangelium suum institueret De Concord in proleg p. 25. regum dignitatem non laesit And this is not only manifest from the tendency of those great Christian duties of humility meekness peace and righteousness but also from the many particular injunctions of subjection to Rulers and from our blessed Saviour his commanding to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars Christianity establisheth Regal Supremacy And also in that the Christian Doctrine doth peculiarly enjoin fidelity and obedience in all all inferiour relations towards their superiours that by the practice of this duty Christianity may be adorned and recommended in the World even to those who did oppose or reject it Tit. 2.9 10. 1 Pet. 2.12 13 14 15. ch 3.1 2. 2. And with some prospect to Christianity the Kings of the Earth are called upon to serve the Lord Ps 2.10 11. and are foretold to be nursing Fathers Is 49.23 Sect. 2 And both this and their undertaking Christianity and being baptized into it doth require them in their places and by their interest and authority to take care of the honour of God of his Church and Religion And S. Austin well declares Conr. Cresc l. 3. c. 51. that Kings then serve God in their Kingdoms when they therein command what things are good and prohibit evil non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae ad divinant Religionem as well concerning Religion as humane affairs 3. And lest any should think that the establishing the Kingdom of Christ according to the Gospel Doctrine should give any exemption to the subjects thereof from any part of that duty which was incumbent upon them towards other Kings and Governours S. Peter speaking to Christians under the Titles of a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood and a holy Nation In Resp ad Bellarm. Apol. c. 3. doth yet as Bishop Andrews observed particularly enjoin upon these persons submission to the King as supreme and to the Governours sent by him 1 Pet. 2.9 13 14. And the business of the civil power is there declared to be so general as to be for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well and to the same purpose writeth S. Paul Rom. 13.3 4. So that he who would exclude matters Ecclesiastical or concerns of Religion from their government and care under the New Testament must undertake to assert that the performances of Religion contain nothing in them of well doing and that the neglecting contemning or opposing it is no part of evil doing which are such blasphemous assertions as no man can embrace unless he be sunk into Atheism and so really owneth no Religion at all Aug. Epist 160. And S. Aug. from Rom. 13.2 infers that he who contemns the Emperour commanding for truth brings judgment upon himself 4. 1 Tim. 2.12 And when the Apostle requireth that Prayers be made for Kings and all in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty which includeth both Righteousness and Sobriety he thereby expresseth the right administration of Government to be advantageous to these ends Now as it is manifest that Rulers should not only not oppose Peace but establish it and not only not prostitute honesty and sobriety but defend and enjoin the practice of them so the Apostle mentioneth godliness as that which they should advance equally and in like manner with peace and honesty Nor can we suppose that the Christian Prayers were only designed that Kings and Rulers with respect to these particulars mentioned should do no hurt but since Gods
Ordinance of Government is a useful institution that Christian Prayer which suiteth the Christian doctrine can desire no less than that this institution should attain its end and become every way effectual for the doing good And many Christian Princes have signally advanced both the doctrine and practice of Godliness and Religion Ecclesiastical persons subject to Princes 5. And that Ecclesiastical persons as well as others are included under the duty of yielding obedience and subjection to this authority doth appear from that general Precept Rom. 13.1 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Where as the expression is universal and unlimited so the Comments of S. Chrysostome Theodoret In Loc. Theophylact and Oecumenius S. Bernard Ep. ad Senonens Archiep. Est in loc Gr. de Valent Tom. 4. Disp 9. qu. 5. punct 4. Bell. de Rom Pont. l. 2. c. 29. do plainly declare all Ecclesiastical persons and Officers of what degree soever even Apostles and Evangelists to be concerned therein But this sense of these words though urged also by S. Bernard is not embraced by the present Romish Writers but their exceptions made use of to elude this testimony are of no great force For while they tell us that these words do as much if not more require subjection to the Ecclesiastical power as to the temporal those who thus interpret are by S. Aug. censured Aug. cont Ep. Parm. l. 1. c. 7. to be sane imperitissimi And that the Apostle doth directly discourse here of obedience to the civil and temporal Rulers appears evidently from his mentioning their bearing the sword v. 4. and receiving tribute v. 6. 6. And the pretence that this command doth only oblige them who are properly subjects but not those Ecclesiastical persons who are pretended not to be subject but superior to the secular power doth proceed upon such a Notion which was wholly unknown to the ancient times of Christianity For it was then usual to hear such expressions as these Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem we reverence the Emperour as being next to God and inferior to none besides him Hom. 2. ad Antioch And S. Chrysostome owned Theodosius as the head over all men upon Earth i. e. in his Dominions And according to this perverse Exposition there is no more evidence from the Apostles doctrine concerning any Christians in general being subject to Princes than concerning Ecclesiastical Officers because his doctrine must then be owned only to declare that those who are in subjection ought to be subject but not to determine whether any Christians were to be esteemed subjects to the Pagan Rulers or no. 7. But though the Apostles were ready to declare all needful truth even before Princes and Consistories we never find them when they were accused before Magistrates to plead against their power of judicature or that they had no authority over them but they defended themselves and their doctrine before them And when S. Paul declared Act. 25.10 11. S. Paul's appeal considered I stand at Caesars Judgment-seat where I ought to be judged if I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dy I appeal unto Caesar he doth thereby acknowledge the Emperour to have such a power over him who was a great Ecclesiastical Officer as to take cognisance of his acting whether he did any thing worthy of death or of civil punishment 8. But against this instance Bellarmine who in his Controversies did yield De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Apostle did appeal to Caesar as to his superiour in civil causes afterwards retracts this and declares that the clergy being Ministers of the King of Kings are exempt de jure from the power not only of Christian but of Pagan Kings and therefore asserteth that S. Paul appealed unto Caesar In Libr. Recognit not as to his superiour but as to one who was superiour to the President of Judea and to the Jews 9. But such shifts are first contrary to the sense of the ancient Church concerning this case as may be observed from the words of Athanasius who being accused before Constantius telleth him if I had been accused before any other Athan. Apol ad Constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would have appealed unto your piety even as the Apostle did appeal unto Caesar but from thee to whom should I appeal but to the father of him who said I am the truth which words declare this appeal to be as to a superiour and the highest on Earth who is only under God Secondly this perverteth the Apostles sense and contradicteth his words who declared in his appealing where he ought to be judged if he had done any thing worthy of death which is a plain acknowledgment of superiority over him 10. Thirdly Besides that all appeals are owned by Civilians and Canonists as an application from an inferiour judge to a superiour judge this particular liberty of appealing to the Roman Emperour was a priviledge granted only to them who were free Citizens of Rome and the Apostle could not claim this but by owning himself a Citizen of Rome and therefore a subject to the chief Governour thereof For this appeal was founded upon that Roman law which condemned that inferiour Judge as deeply criminal who should punish any Citizen of Rome thus appealing To this purpose Jul. Paul Sentent l. 5. Tit. 28. n. 1. Julius Paulus saith Lege Julia de vi publica damnatur qui aliqua potestate praeditus civem Romanum antea ad populum nunc ad Imperatorem appellantem necarit necarive jusserit torserit verberaverit condemnaverit in vincula publica duci jusserit And accordingly upon this appeal S. Paul declared that no man no not Festus himself the President of Judea who otherwise was enclinable to have done it might deliver him to the Jews Act. 25.11 SECT III. What authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church 1. It may be said that what is declared by S. Peter and by S. Paul to the Romans and also his appeal did immediately respect Heathen Governours and therefore if these places will prove any thing of the Princes power in matters Ecclesiastical they must fix it in Pagan Princes as well as in Christian Div. right of Ch. Gov. ch 26. And this is the principal thing objected against the argument from S. Paul's appeal by Mr. Rutherford who tells us that this would own the Great Turk to be Supreme Governour of the Church 2. And it must be confessed that it is a very sad and heavy calamity to the Church when those soveraign powers who are not of the true Religion will intermeddle in the affairs of the Church without the fear of God and due respect to the Rules of Religion Such was the case of the Jewish Church under the Roman power
which undertook to dispose of the High Priesthood in Jewry against both the letter of the law and the design of it But no Governours whosoever they be whether of the Church or Strangers from it have any right to do such things no more than Jeroboam had to set up the worship of the ten Tribes of Israel contrary to the Law or than the Arian Emperours had to oppose the Deity of the Son of God against the Gospel But though it be very desireable that all parts of the Christian Church should be under Christian and pious Princes yet where other powers do take care Sect. 3 that the Christian Church and Ministers do observe the true Christian Rules Spalat Ostensio Error Fr. Suar. c. 3. n. 23. as the Archbishop of Spalato tells us was done in that part of his Province which was under the Turk this so far as it is regularly performed is an advantage to the Christian Religion and no blameable exercise of their authority 3. I think it a very plain and clear truth All Soveraign powers ought to profess and promote true Religion that Kings and Princes are invested with an authority to govern in matters of Religion not as originally arising from their Christianity but from their general right of Dominion and Soveraignty Nor will there be any difficulty in this assertion if we consider that this power of governing about Religion encludeth only a right of establishing by their authority what is truly unblameable orderly useful and necessary with respect to Religion and of enquiring into the practices of their subjects thereupon in order to approbation or punishment but gives no authority against truth or goodness 4. And though some persons by popular expressions declaim against this position De Minist angl l. 3. c. 4. yet the substance of it hath been yielded by men of various perswasions Mr Mason in his defence of the Ministry of England asserteth That they who are Heathens have the same office and authority of the higher power that the Christian Magistrate hath but want the right exercise of it in matters Ecclesiastical Our English Presbyterians have asserted that Heathen Magistrates may be nursing Fathers Jas div Reg. Eccl. c. 9. S. 1. may protect the Church and Religion and order many things in a ploitical way about Religion may not extirpate or persecute the Church may help her in reforming and may not hinder her Spalatens ubi sup And Spalatensis asserteth that the power of the Prince in the external things of the Church is so necessarily connected by divine natural and positive right with the Royal power ut infidelis etiam princeps tali si velit sciat legitime uti possit potestate that even an infidel Prince may use that power if he understand his duty and be willing to perform it And this assertion is approved even by Didoclavius or Mr Caldwood Altar Dam. c. 1. fin Didoclavius being the Anagram of Caldivodius one of the most eager of the Scotish Presbyterians And Rivet very rightly averreth In Decal ad quint. praec In infideli principe non est defectus potestatis sed voluntatis tantùm that an infidel Prince doth not want authority but will and inclination to advance the true Religion 5. Surely it is past doubt that where ever true Religion and Christianity is declared and manifested in the World it is the duty of all men to receive and embrace it because as they are Gods Creatures they ought to obey and honour him and submit to his Laws and believe his Revelations and thereupon every supreme Magistrate ought to advance the name of Christ and the true doctrine and Religion And if a Pagan Prince upon understanding the truth shall use his authority for its advancement this power is justly exercised in such Causes Ecclesiastical I presume no Christian will deny that Nebuchadnezzar did well in making a strict Law Dan. 3.29 that none should speak amiss against the God of Israel and Darius also in making a Decree that men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel Dan. 6.26 and Cyrus Darius and Artaxerxes in giving order for the rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem restoring its Vessels and furnishing it with Sacrifices and executing judgment on the opposers hereof with respect to which thing good Ezra blessed God who had put such a thing into the heart of Artaxerxes And that other Princes in like circumstances should follow the steps of Nebuchadnezzar Darius and the King of Niniveh who proclaimed a strict fast and commanded his people to cry mightily unto God Aug. Ep. 50. Tertul. Apol c. 5. is justly asserted by S. Aug. in his Epistle to Bonifacius 6. Nor are those Heathen Emperours to be censured who acted any thing on the behalf of Christian Religion as Tiberius threatned them who at their peril should accuse Christians for their Religion and other publick rescripts there were of Adrianus Eus Hist Eccl. l. 4.9 Antoninus ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aurelius Tertul. Ap. c. 5. and Galienus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were in the favour of Christians And it is a known and famous case concerning Paulus Samosatenus who for Heresy was deposed by the Christian Bishops in the Council of Antioch and Domnus appointed to succeed him Eus Hist l. 7. c. 24. But Paulus refusing to leave his possession the Orthodox Christians appeal to Aurelianus a Pagan Emperour who referring the case to be heard by the Bishops of Italy and about Rome ordered the Church to be given to him for whom they should determine and by his authority was Paulus ejected and neither his interposing nor their appeal unto him hath been ever thought culpable nor yet Paulus his being dispossessed Constantine before his baptism exercised authority in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the secular power 7. But above all others the acting of Constantine the Great before the time of his Baptism seemeth very considerable to evidence what power hath been exercised in things Ecclesiastical with the general approbation of Christians by one not yet admitted into the Christian Church Of which I shall give some particular instances to which more may be added beginning with what hath relation to the peace and concord of the Church Africa in a short time gave birth to the Schism of Donatus and of Meletius and the Heresy of Arius The Donatists separated themselves from the Church upon some exceptions they made against the Ordination of Caecilianus and being condemned by the African Catholick Bishops they apply themselves to Constantine the Emperour Opt. cont Parm. l. 1. But he being not versed in things of that nature as Optatus tells us did not or as S. Austin several times saith Aug. Ep. 162. 166. durst not undertake the judging of the case himself but by his authority he appointed Melchiades then Bishop of Rome with three Bishops of Gallia to judge
things which are under the proper and peculiar administration and cognisance of Ecclesiastical Officers are sometimes in a restrained sense stiled Ecclesiastical things which as such all secular powers are prohibited to intermeddle with And in this sense with particular respect to matters of saith as falling under Ecclesiastical decision not only Hosius above disallowed Constantius his undertaking things Ecclesiastical who yet himself obeyed the summons of Constantine to appear in the Council of Nice and some others and was imployed by him in many things relating to the Church Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. But also Theodosius above-mentioned declares it unlawful for any but Bishops negotiis Ecclesiasticis sese immiscere to intermeddle in Ecclesiastical business But that the Phrase of things Ecclesiastical is there understood only in the restrained sense now mentioned is manifest because in that very rescript of Theodosius to the Ephesine Council he committeth this authority to the Count he sent thither to take care of the orderly and peaceable proceedings of the Council and to hinder any person whomsoever from departing from the Synod or any other Ecclesiastical cause from being discussed till those for which they were called were determined And in the same Epistle also the emperour declares that as he had a care concerning the Common-wealth so his chief care was concerning such things as pertained to Piety and Religion So that the Princes power and authority about things Ecclesiastical as that Phrase is taken in a large sense for things relating to the Church and Religion was not in that rescript denied 10. V. Ambr. in Auxent ad Marcellin theod Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 13. And touching the Case of Ambrose It had certainly been a thing unaccountable and unwarrantable for him by any act of his own to have delivered up the possession of his Church Since this had encluded what Theodoret saith he thought himself obliged to refuse his own consent to give up his people to the conduct of the Arians And indeed the interest of God and his Church and his truth were superiour to the will and command of the Emperour or any man upon Earth and it was fit that S. Ambrose should acquaint the Emperour with this Sect. 5 which he ought to take notice of But if the emperour should not observe his duty to God S. Ambrose must not neglect his still behaving himself to his Prince as becomes a good subject But when any Catholick Bishops by the Edict of Arian Emperours were commanded into banishment they not only obeyed of which there are numerous examples but though it a Christian duty to submit themselves with a patient and peaceable temper of mind which was very remarkable in the carriage of Eusebius Samosatensis under Valens the Emperour which was much commended by Theodoret Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 13. SECT V. Other objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their authority It is further objected that divers ancient catholick Writers even before the Aspiring height of the Romish Bishop have used such expressions as speak their preferring the authority of the Ecclesiastical power to the secular and their esteeming it to be the more eminent To this purpose some passages are produced by Baronius Baron an 57. n. 31 32. from Ignatius Sulpitius in the life of S. Martin Gr. Nazianzene S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome 2. What is cited as from Ignatius directeth first to honour God and then the Bishop and after him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the common Greek Copies read it the King But it is sufficient to observe that all this is only an addition of the Interpolator of Ignatius V. Ign. Ep. ad Smyrn and is not any part of his genuine Epistles as is evident from the Latine Edition of Bishop Vsher and the Greek of Vossius neither of which have any thing of this nature in them And yet though this addition might be made as Bishop Vsher conjectureth Usser dissert de Ing. c. 6. about the sixth Century it was designed to suit the age of Ignatius and that which the foregoing words intimate to be the intended sense may well be allowed That Christians were bound to have an higher regard to the directions and instructions of Christianity and the conduct of their Bishops and spiritual guides in the Christian Religion than to the commands even of Kings or Emperours who were opposers of that holy Religion and Enemies to the truth 3. But from Sulpitius in the life of S. Martin he urgeth that S. Martin being entertained at the table of Maximus the Emperour Of S. Martin and Maximus Sulp. in vit Martini c. 23. one of the Kings attendants brought him a Cup which the King commands him to give to the Bishop S. Martin then Bishop of Turenne desiring that he might receive the Cup from his hands But S. Martin when he had drunk gives the Cup to his Presbyter who was with him thinking that neither the King nor any other who were with him ought to be preferred before him And Baronius declareth he would have done the same had he been only a Deacon whom he had with him 4. But this story as it is here related shews much of the Spirit of Baronius towards Kings who would not it seems allow them being of the laity to have so much honour and respect shewed unto them as must be given to a Deacon And if the spirit of S. Martin was such as the Cardinal in this particular doth represent it it would need an Apology if the Case would bear it or indeed it would rather deserve a censure 5. But the truth is that Maximus was a Rebel and an Vsurper who had then wickedly murthered Gratian the Emperour and invaded the Territories of Valentinian and for this cause S. Martin though often requested for a long time refused to come to his Table and avoided all converse with him more than any other Bishop in those parts did and did also foretel the ruine of Maximus Sulp. ibid. Baron an 386. n. 20 21. Marcel Com. Chron. in init Socr. l. 5. c. 14. as Sulpitius relateth and Baronius elsewhere taketh notice of And Marcellinus in his Chronicon and also Socrates Theodoret and Sozomen in their Histories divers times when they speak of him give him the stile of Maximus the Tyrant And Symmachus a Roman Senator was found guilty of Treason by Theodosius for publishing an Oration as an Encomium or Panegyrick upon Maximus 6. Ambr. Ep. 27. When S. Ambrose was sent as an Ambassadour from Valentinian to Maximus he not only refused the salutation of a kiss from him but withdrew himself from those Bishops who communicated with him An. 383. n. 19 20. Rab. Maur. lib. de Rever c. 3. Yea Baronius himself mentions his Government as being a tyranny and Rabanus Maurus taketh special notice of this Maximus as being a person who did not escape the divine judgment when he had
those who in that Case acted against the Emperour And the consideration of the Popes pretence was also included in that general Declaration in our own Church Can. 1. 1640. against Subjects bearing Arms against their King upon any pretence whatsoever And these Councils though disallowed at Rome were in this respect truly Catholick because they held to the Rules and Foundations of the true and Primitive Doctrine of the Catholick Church 23. But it is unreasonable to demand This Heretical Position entertained by the Pope and his Adherents that for the declaring this to be Heresy we should produce the determination of the present Church of Rome against this detestable Position since the Pope and the main part of the Romish church are the persons who stand chargeable with maintaining either the whole or at least a considerable part of this heretical position here abjured For in this Position That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may he deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever the two main branches do concern the deposing and the murthering of Princes deprived or Excommunicated by the Pope Touching the former the deposing of them the very forms of the Papal sentence which I have above mentioned Supra n. 5 7. not only allow but require and command that such Princes be deposed and that their Subjects do renounce all fealty and Allegiance to them Aventin Ann. Boior l. 5. p. 460. Epist Leodiens advers Paschal 2. And by the Pope his Conclave and their Adherents it hath been accounted a crime deserving Excommunication and Death also for Subjects to defend their Soveraign whom the Pope had sentenced as was long since complained of by some of them who maintained their Allegiance to the Emperour Hen. 4. and were therefore by the Pope devoted to destruction 24. Yet it is certain that there have been and are divers persons and the chief part of some Countries of the Romish Communion who own not but oppose that part of this assertion which concerneth the deposing of Princes Le Merc. Franc. an 1609. But several Writings of this sort of men as of Barclay de potestate Papae and others of the like temper have undergone a publick censure at Rome and their opinions are herein looked on with so ill an eye that at Rome they are thought not to be altogether found in the Roman Faith 25. And touching the depriving such Princes of their lives Bell. Resp ad p. 66. Apolog. pro juram fidelit when Cardinal Bellarmine had asserted that it was not the Popes method to promote any thing against their lives he explains himself that he meant this with respect to private assassinates and not to what might happen in the raising open Wars But yet concerning the more secret attempts of Parricide against such Princes C. 23. q. 5. Excommunicatorum 1. Their Canons declare that they are not accounted Murderers who in a zeal to the Catholick Church do kill some who are Excommunicate 2. The horrid act of James Clement who murthered Henry the Third of France was applauded by Sixtus the Fifth in the Roman Consistory 3. Le Mercure Francois an 1609. f. 376. The arrest of the Parliament of Paris against John Chastell who attempted the murder of Henry the Fourth and wounded him was censured at Rome by a publick Edict Nov. 9. 1609. 4. When Parry undertook to kill Queen Elizabeth Eliz. Annal Christian Subjection Part. 3. p. 503 504. his intention was not only promoted by the Popes Nuncio's and other persons in Venice and France but desiring for his full satisfaction to understand the Popes approbation by a Letter from Cardinal di Como which was read at his Arraignment and owned by him he was assured that the Pope himself highly praised and favoured his undertaking as may appear from the Letter it self in Bishop Bilson dated Januar. 30. 1584. And to these other things of like nature and of later time might be added which will shew that at least at some times such things as these have been encouraged at Rome 26. Yet it may be observed that such Positions as this expressed in this Oath But it was declared to be damnable Heresy by S. Peter were in general accounted and declared damnable Heresies by one who is owned to have had both Apostolical and Episcopal Authority at Rome even by S. Peter himself When he had foretold the comeing in and spreading of damnable Heresies 2 Pet. 2.1 2. and declared the destruction that should come upon those who received them v. 1 3 4 9. he then tells us in some particulars who they are whom God will thus punish v. 10. chiefly them who walk after the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness and despise Government presumptuous are they self-willed they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities Now the walking in the lusts of uncleanness was the practical embracing the impure and heretical doctrines of Simon Magus the Gnosticks and others like them And since Government and Dignities do very properly express Civil as well as Ecclesiastical or any other power and the temper of those who are prone to despise Civil Government is fitly described by their being presumptuous and self-willed and S. Jude in the parallel place Jude 8 11. speaks of their perishing in the gainsaying of Core these words may reasonably be thought to have a great respect to Civil Authority And if we further consider that among those ancient Hereticks some under a pretence of liberty so far opposed Dominion that they despised their Masters and would not obey them the allowing of which S. Paul condemns as a great opposition to the doctrine of Christ 1 Tim. 6.1 2 3 4. and that there is some intimation of the same spirit towards Kings and other Governours 1 Pet. 2.13 14 16. and that at last this proceeded so far that they taught that the Government of the World had its original not from God but from the evil spirit which Position Irenaeus confutes this may well perswade and manifest Iren. adv Haeres l. 5. c. 24. Tertul. adv Valent c. 22. that the Apostle had in this palce an eye to these things And then this sense must be comprehended nder these words that those assertions which eminently include the despising disobeying and speaking evil of civil Government and Authority as the declaring it lawful to depose or murder a Soveraign doth are damnable Heresies 27. I only add that pertinaciousness which is included in the description of an Heretick having respect to the temper of the person who embraceth Heretical Doctrine is not needful though it be also in this Case sufficiently evident to prove a Position to be Heretical 28. Of absolveing from the Oath of Allegiance I shall not insist particularly on that clause in the Oath of Allegiance That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve from that Oath because this must stand and
Pauls rule be admitted dico nullum imperium diutins in tuto fore quà m donec talia sentientibus vires defuerint I affirm that no Government can be any longer safe than whilst those who have such sentiments want strength And from hence it is manifest that Grotius in his elder time did disallow all Subjects taking Armes against their King and accounted it wholly inconsistent with the peace safety and Government of the World 12. The Royal Authority a legal right as well as the Subjects property And since it is part of the Kings Royalty according to the Laws of this Realm that none may take Armes against him Sect. 2 all Subjects who expect to enjoy their own legal rights are obliged to maintain this right of the King by that great rule of Righteousness and Religion as ye would that men should do unto you do ye also unto them likewise Luk. 6.31 And this also is included in the Oath of Supremacy wherein Subjects swear to maintain all Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm V. Sanders de obligat Consc Prael 10. And it is against all pretence of Reason that the rights of Superiours which are the greatest and on which all inferiour rights have dependance should be least regarded as if it were fit that the interest of a Child or Servant should be preserved and not those of a Father or a Master SECT II. Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince 1. It must here be considered as an objection and seeming difficulty that since it is greatly necessary to the good of the World that the just properties of subjects be defended if it be once granted that they may in no Case take Armes against their Soveraign how can these properties be secured may they not then be exposed to irreparable injuries and the utmost pressures and if a Prince will exercise an unlimited power where is there help and redress Now in answer to this I premise that the principal care which must be taken for providing for the preservation of the rights of subjects is not on that part which concerns the defending them against their Prince but rather against the violence of other injurious persons which is done by the great Authority of Government and the due execution thereof For as in a Family the main thing designed in the Government thereof is not that Children may be secured from receiving any injury from their Father The Authority of Rulers is the defence of the people and their jecurity but rather that for their own quiet and good order at home and their honour and safety abroad they submit without gain-saying and resistance to his Government and thereby receive protection from the injurious dealings of others so Gods providence for preventing the greatest dangers of violence of men one towards another hath established the Authority of Rulers as a defence against them Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9. And therefore such such persons who say a people cannot so readily destroy themselves viz. if they have no Governour or cast him off as one man may speak falsly and rashly against the wisdom of God and his Ordinance and against the common sense of the World as if Rulers were not Ministers of God for good to men and as if it would be better for the World to be without them whom all Nations have found necessary and consequently without peace order and justice 2. And as the Governours men live under The security for the Subjects rights are their defence from the violence and injuries which may be sustained from other men so there is great security for Subjects without their taking Armes that their rights and properties shall not be violated by their Prince which I shall manifest with a particular respect to our English Government Now amongst the ground of this security the Principles of Conscience which lay a great and moral obligation upon the greatest persons in the World not to be injurious to the meanest and the watchful providence of God who unless it be for the punishment of the grievous sins of a people doth not suffer them to be afflicted and oppressed are considerations which are not in this Case to be over-looked But there are two thins which I shall chiefly insist upon 3. From the Laws they have the security of good and wholsome Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And that Laws were originally established that right and justice might thereby be impartially administred to every man Cic. de Offic l. 3. de leg l. 4. is reasonably declared by Cicero And it is a great priviledge in this Realm that both civil rights and matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick moneys raised but by consent of the Commons by their representatives And somewhat a like form for the Enacting Laws was resolved on a most Excellent method Cod. l. 1. Tit. 16. leg 8. by the Emperour Theodosius And since no design can be managed to defeat legal rights but the instruments therein must be private persons every one of these may be called to an account and suffer their deserved punishment by the justice of the Law And this is a like security to that which may be had against the meanest Subject in the Realm if he be the stronger man or get an advantage whereby he is able to do another a mischief And it is here worthy to be noted that whereas many plausible notions and pretences when they are reduced into practice fall short of accomplishing what was expected by their proposal in the Theory the benefit of the protection which Subjects enjoy from the Law is such that for divers Ages past in many hundred years the general rights and properties of the people of England legally established have thereby been excellently preserved And the like may be asserted concerning many other parts of the World and therefore they who will dispute against this provision must dispute also against the evidence of sense and of a long continued experience 4. But because jealous and suspicious minds may possibly suppose that at one time or other a Prince having the authority of administring justice and appointing Judges and Officers in his Kingdom may design to destroy his Subjects rights and property and thereby the fruitful inclosures of their civil interests may be laid wast and all respect to Laws utterly laid aside I shall take these suspicious jealousies into consideration And here we must all grant Naz. Orat. 19. that the state of this present World is such that at the best it is not above all instability uncertainty and danger And I shall in the next Section shew that there is much more cause of jealous fears of Subjects losing their legal rights by
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
unsetled ungoverned confusion It would be also a reflexion upon the goodness of God to imagine that it was not his will that justice should be administred and viciousness punished among men that peace should not be preserved and goodness encouraged in the World and it would be a disparagement to his wisdom to conceive that he should appoint all these things to be done whilst he committeth no power or authority to any person or order of men to take care of them 3. By the testimony of the Scriptures But the express testimonies of the holy Scripture put this matter out of doubt There Governours as having Gods Authority are stiled Gods and Children of the most high Ps 82.6 And besides the Government of Israel which was evidently established by Gods appointment which was the reason why David so much reverenced Saul as being the Lords anointed we are told Pr. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice by me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And God declared by Jeremy Jer. 27.5 6. I have made the Earth and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant Cyrus also was called the Lords Shepherd Is 44.28 Princes being oft stiled Shepherds because their Office and Government is thereby much resembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Basil and the Hebrew word for a Shepherd is sometimes rendred in the Chaldee Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Governour he was also called the Lords anointed Is 45.1 And Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God setteth up Kings Dan. 2.21 and that the God of Heaven had given him a Kingdom v. 37. S. Paul also declares that there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 And he stileth the power the ordinance of God v. 2. and the Ruler the Minister of God v. 4. 4. By the sense of the ancient Church The ancient Christian Church even when they were under persecution by the Roman Emperours did yet constantly acknowledge their Authority to be from God Tert. ad Sâ—â—p c. 2. Apol. c. 30. Adv. Hares l. 5. c. 24. Tertullian declares that the Christian knows that the Emperour is constituted by his God And saith he from thence is the Emperour from whence is the man from thence is his power from whence is his spirit And the same sense is expressed by Irenaeus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 11. gr And Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius acknowledged that it was God who gave the Empire to Valerian and Galienus The same truth is asserted by S. Aug. de Civ Dei l 5. c. 21. by Epiphanius Haeres 40. and by divers other Christian Writers Bell. in Lib. Recogn de laicis insomuch that when Bellarmine sought for the testimonies of ancient Writers to prove Dominion to be of humane original he could meet with no Theological Writer of the Christian Church who favoured his opinion amongst the Fathers and therefore takes up with Aquinas And Paulus Orosius affirms Oros HIst l. 2. c. 1. Vell. in 4. Tom. Aug. ad 22 Qu. Dc Concord l. 2. c. 2. n. 1 2 3. that all Power and Government is of god is that which they who have not read the Scriptures do think and they who have read them do know And some of the Romish Church speak to this purpose as Vellosillus and especially P. de Marca 5. And now let any equal Reader consider whether the evidence of reason Scripture and the ancient Fathers will agree with that reproachful Position of Hildebrand or Greg. 7. Greg. 7. Epist l. 8. Ep. 21. against God and his Vice-gerents That Kings had their beginning from them who affected rule by the instigation of the Devil But they all tend to confirm what hath been asserted in our church Can. 1. 1640. That the most high and sacred order of Kings is of divine right being the ordinance of God himself founded in the prime laws of nature and clearly established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments 6. And the nature of the Rulers power And from the nature of this Authority will further speaks its Constitution to be from God He is to judge the people but God being the judge of all the earth all acts of judgment are declared to be not for men but for the Lord 2 Chr. 19.6 and therefore must be performed by an Authority derived from him And the punishment inflicted by Governours is an act of vengeance or revenging and therefore as vengeance or revenging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is claimed by God himself as peculiarly belonging to him Rom. 12.19 vengeance is mine so the Ruler as the Minister of God is made an Executor of Vengeance or a Revenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.4 which must be by Gods Authority derived to him And since the Ruler who bears the Sword hath an Authority of Life and Death this could not be derived to him from the community since no man hath such a Dominion over his own Life as to have a power to take away his Life Lessius de Just Jur. l. 2. c. 4. dub 10. M. Becan de Jur. c. 4. q. 1. as hath been truly asserted by Schoolmen and others and therefore cannot transfer such a power to any other person And therefore this Authority of Governours must be received from God who is Lord of life and death 7. Objections answered Having proved the Authority of Governours to be of a divine extract I shall now shew that the various pretences for founding it in the consent of men are of very little weight From the Election of some Princes It is confessed that there are elective Kingdoms and Empires in the World and that where there hath been a vacancy of a Governour and none could claim a right of succession Princes have oft been chosen by the people In this Case several Roman Emperours were Elected by their Army and received by the Senate and thus were Gideon Jephtha and other Judges established in Israel But such a liberty of choice in the people in these circumstances carries no opposition to the Authority being from God For the entring into a conjugal Society is by a free choice even so far of choice that many persons if they please may live in celibate and single life whilest men cannot live without Government and yet Matrimony and the Husbands Authority is by divine appointment And Members of a Corporation do usually chuse their chief Magistrate but thought they determine upon the person it is not they but the Princes Charter and Grant that gives him his Authority 8. And they who tell us M. Salamon de princip that Soveraign Authority cannot be a proper divine institution because then its rights would be wholly unalterable and the same in all the Governments in the World do
rely upon a meer fallacy From the different rights of Regality For this Topick would with equal force and evidence prove the paternal right not to be founded in the laws of nature or the institution of God because the authority of the Father and the priviledges of Children are not the same in different parts of the World The Rules of inheriting by the right of devolution in some part of the Low-Countries Goâ—osred not ad Dig. l. 1. Tit. 6. n. 1. de jure Capp de vor Jephthae Instit l. 1. Tit. 9. and of Gavelkind and some other tenures in England do vary from the more general usage And in many places of the World the Father had Jus vitae neeis and Cappellus asserteth him to have had that power of life and death among the Jews The Institutions of Justinian expresly testify that that right of power which the Roman Fathers had over their Children was that which was proper to the Citizens of Rome and it is there added no other men have that power over their Children which we have Nor will it prove Matrimony to be no institution of God because the priviledges of the Wife are esteemed greater in England than in other Countries and are not the same at the Death of the Husband in the Province of York and the City of London with the other parts of the Kingdom But the truth is in those States or Relations which are fixed by divine institution there are some things so necessary and essential that they cannot be separated from them such are in the Conjugal Relation the Headship of the Husband the ordinary inseparableness of that Society till Death and the performance of Conjugal Duties and such are in the supreme Government the necessary care of justice and the common good and even of matters of Religion and the having a power fitted to these ends and which in pursuance of them may not by inferiours be forcibly resisted But in many other particular things the priviledges of inseriour relations and the dignities and rights of superiours may be greater or less according to what is concluded by their mutual consent 9. The Solemnity of Coronation From the Rites of Coronation when the people acknowledge their King and the King again gives the people assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws and govern them according to those Laws is far from intending to express the Kings Authority to be derived from the people by a contract as some have weakly argued For the King is actually King by his right of inheritance and succession upon the Death of his Predecessor antecedently to this Solemnity as our Law-Books do generally acknowledge and Henry the Sixth Reigned divers years in England before he was Crowned Du May 's Estate of the Empire Diâ—l 2. vers fin Extrav Com. l. 5. Tit. 10. c. 4. And even in Elective Principalities the rights of Soveraignty are invested in the person elected thereto before the Coronation both in the Empire it self and other Dominions But the intent of this Solemnity is that as the Rites of Inauguration in other Magistrates tend to make such impressions in the people as may beget a reverence towards them so the Prince his appearing with splendour to his people doth both excite them to and give them opportunity for publick acknowledgments and expressions of affection and honour towards him and joyful acclamations To this purpose Henry the Third was twice Crowned once in the first year of his Reign Mat. Par. an 1216. where M. Paris treateth De prima Coronatione Regis Henrici and again in his twentieth year as is manifest in the preamble of the Statute of Merton Fullers Hist an 1194. and Richard the First was observed also to have been twice Crowned In like manner David notwithstanding his right by Divine appointment besides his being anointed by Samuel was twice anointed by the people Sed. Olam Rab. c. 13. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 6. And both the Jewish Chronicle and Josephus declare that Saul also was anointed a second time And the kind expressions of the Prince and the assurance that he gives his people that he will govern them by their laws and maintain their Religion and Rights is designed to banish and expel all jealous fears from them and to encrease their affection to him and make their obedience and submission the more ready and chearful by their having security from their Princes reputation honour and integrity that he will intend the preservation of the great things which conduce to their welfare 10. It hath also been objected From the Civil Law Digest l. 1. Tit. 4. n. 1. quod Principi that besides the like expressions in other Law-Books the Civil Law declares Lege Regia quae de ejus Principis imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem confert which words declare that by that Law which was made concerning the Empire of the Prince the people yield to him all their authority and power It also asserteth that Nations were divided and Kingdoms established by the Jus gentium or the Law of Nations Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 5. Ex hoc jurc Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 4. Manumiss Justin Inst l. 1. Tit. 3. and also that liberty is the natural state and servitude is introduced by the Law of Nations Now though it might be said against the force of any such allegations which seem to oppose this truth that the right of God and of his constitution and authority is not to be determined by any humane writings especially if they speak against the Scripture and rational evidence Yet I further observe 1. That the first expression hath respect to the political sanction or establishment of the Civil Government of the Roman Empire and even with respect to the peculiar priviledges of the Emperour himself as having a legislative power in his own breast to which purpose that very law declares Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote lege regia quae de ejus imperio c. Novel 73. Novel 85. passim And though these political sanctions be a proper consideration for humane Laws to take notice of yet this hinders not but that there may be a superiour divine constitution of Soveraignty and secular power which also is oft asserted in the Civil Law 2. The following expression doth speak of the like political sanction and doth further acknowledge and assert the bounds and limits of the several Kingdoms and Nations to be established by the Law of Nations jure gentium discretae gentes regna condita 3. That liberty which in the last clause above-cited is declared to be the natural state and the servitude which is there said to be introduced do not respect freedom from Government and Laws but from vasallage which is evident because in the Digests this servitude is said to be discharged by
manumission which still leaves the person under civil Government Ubi supra and in the Institutions the freedom which is opposed thereto is bounded by that which is prohibited by law And besides this freedom of the outward condition Ciceron Paradox 5. Cicero doth well and wisely account that man to have attained a true and proper freedom of mind who obeys and reverenceth the Laws not so much for fear as because he judgeth it useful and good so to do 11. Now if Government be the Constitution of God to make forcible opposition against it must either be in design to have Gods authority subject to them who so act or at least that themselves may not be subject unto it both which are unreasonable and include a resisting the ordinance of God But of the divine law in this particular I shall speak in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament SECT I. The need and usefulness of considering this Case 1. The reason why the state of the Old Testament is here particularly considered THE enquiry into the times of the Old Testament is of the greater import because it would be a considerable testimony that neither the Rules of common equity nor the true foundations of humane polity do condemn all forcible resistance against the Soveraign Power if this was allowed to Subjects under the Jewish constitution which was very much ordained by the wisdom of God himself Concerning the Jewish Constitution Lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. the learned Grotius doth in his Book De Jure belli pacis assert that in ordinary Cases of injury they were not allowed to make resistance and therefore he expoundeth what Samuel spake of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the right or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. to intend that in such things as the King was there declared to undertake Sect. 1 the people had non resistendi obligationem an obligation upon them to make no resistance Ibid. n. 7. But yet he afterward asserteth that in great and weighty Cases either of manifest civil injury as in what David sustained from Saul or of violence offered to their Religion and whole Nation as was done by Antiochus when the Maccabees withstood him it was lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign But he proposeth it as a Question of greater difficulty whether Christians may be allowed to do the like and here he recommends the duty of Christian Patience and bearing the Cross from the example of Christ himself and the Primitive Church 2. And Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue Epil Part. 2. Ch. 32. from the instance of the Maccabees doth allow the lawfulness of subjects taking Armes under the Jewish State for the defence of their Religion and very plainly asserteth the same in his Treatise of the right of the Church in a Christian State Right of Church Ch. 5. p. 306. c. But in both those places he declareth the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon the same account under Christianity because of the difference of the spirit rules and conditions of the Law and the Gospel But yet in this last mentioned Book there are some expressions which will make it manifest that that learned man was not so fixed in this Position concerning the Jewish Government but that he sometimes much inclined to and plainly embraced the contrary assertion For speaking of that Government which the Jews entred into under Ezra and Nehemiah he declared that this was allowed by the Grant and Commission of the King of Persia and saith Right of Ch. Ch. 4. p. 229. It is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renewed by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them 3. But that which will make this enquiry into the times of the Old Testament The Gospel makes no new model for the rights of all political Societies the more necessary is this because so far as I can discern it is an assertion which cannot be maintained or defended That there is in this particular any such difference between the State of the Old Testament and the New as that it should be lawful for Subjects before the coming of Christ and particularly for the Jews to defend their Liberties or Religion by War against their Soveraign but it is now become unlawful for all Subjects under Christianity by the peculiar Precepts of the Gospel For though it is manifest that the spirit of the Law and the Gospel do very much differ and that meekness and peace are more peculiarly recommended in the Gospel by the Precepts and by the example of Christ both to Rulers and Subjects yet I see not how Christianity doth alter the model and frame of humane political Societies so as to debase Subjects or deprive them of any rights or freedoms which they did before enjoy It is indeed truly observed by S. Chrysostome Chrys Hom. 3. de Dav. Saul that David in his actings towards Saul had not all those arguments for subjection which Christians now have haveing never seen nor heard of the great example of Christ Crucified and his doctrine of patience and suffering But though these are high motives to the performance of our duty they do not lay a new foundation for common rights nor do they establish any such new Rules as thereby to determine the unlawfulness of all Wars in the defence of just rights if they be managed by a warrantable authority 4. And they who insist upon the Gospel Precepts of taking up the Cross as if that did put such a difference between the legal State and the Evangelical that thereupon upon it is now become unlawful for Subjects to take Armes especially for the defence of Religion do also proceed upon a mistaken ground For though this Precept and the profession of Christianity doth require great meekness and patience and a firm and stedfast resolution under all difficulties to pursue and maintain the Faith and practice of the Gospel it doth not deprive such persons of a power and right to make War even in the defence of Religion who antecedently to Christianity were invested with such a right And he who will assert this must grant it unlawful for any Soveraign Prince to defend his free profession of the Christian Religion which is one of his just rights against an external force which would impose a contrary Religion upon him Eus Eccl. Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr as was done in the Christian Kingdom of Armenia which then had a Soveraign Prince against the fury of Maximinus who would have forced them to embrace the Pagan Idolatry 5. And whereas in the New Testament we have clear Declarations that the higher Powers are the Ordinance
any designs laid by any of the Apostles for destroying the Elders of the Jews or turning Caesar out of his Dominions by these attempts And though this defence proceeded no further than to cut off an ear our Lord not only disliked it but his action in forthwith healing the ear by a miracle may seem to intimate that he thought fit to take upon himself to make restitution and to repair the injury done by the rash action of one of his followers C. 23. Qu. 8. in Capite Thus Gratian observed that when Peter took the material Sword to defend his Master from the injury of the Jews he then received this check 8. 4. To St. Peter and therefore to his Successours Fourthly if we consider the Person who here drew the Sword which St. John declares to be Simon Peter it may well be wondred that any sort of men should believe that Christ gave this Apostle and others by vertue of succession from him a power to authorize subjects to take Arms against their Princes in a case where they shall judge the Church and Religion concerned and to deprive them of their Crowns and Dominions when himself in person was not allowed though he was then an Apostle to make such resistance as hath been declared From this instance Gratian concludes Ibidem that no bishop nor any of the Clergy whosoever have any power either by their own authority or by the authority of the Pope of Rome to take Armes and then they can have as little authority to commissionate others to take them Nor can this be evaded by saying that St. Peter was not as yet possessed with the supreme soveraign Authority For as it no where appears that he ever received any such thing so if our Saviour had ever intended to convery to him the supreme power of the Temporal sword he would never have used particularly to him so general a threatning against the use of it And therefore some Romish Writers have put themselves upon undertaking another method and that is by a very bad attempt to defend or applaud this action of St. Peter which our Lord rebuked Bar. An. 34. n. 67. Baronius when he gives us the relation of it doth it without any manner of censure but not without an Encomium declaring quid generoso accensus amoris ardore fortiter gesserit In Concord Evang Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 17. And Barradius proposing the question whether St. Peter did amiss in this action resolves it as most probable that he did not verosimilius puto saith he non peccasse And Stella saith Stell in Luc. 22. St. Peter did not sin herein and he compares this action with the zeal of Phinebas whereby he obtained the High-Priesthood and so sith he did St. Peter 9. Severalreasons why St. Peter was rebuked And there are some who would evade the argument from these words of our Saviour by saying that our Lord did prohibit St. Peter's using the Sword for his defence only because he did now intend to law down his life according to his Fathers will But it must be observed that our Saviour lays down three several grounds upon which he checks this act of his Apostle and commands him to put up his Sword and we must not so assert the validity of any one of them as to deny or enervate the force of the others 1. From the sin and unwarrantableness of such actions where persons act out of their own sphere and what they have not authority to undertake and this is that I have now discoursed of in v. 52. 2. Because he himself knew how he could sufficiently procure his own defence by lawful means whereas this action was neither a necessary nor a proper undertaking for that purpose Had the Holy Jesus intended to have his person rescued out of the hands of the Jews he could have effected this by Legions of Angels who are under no obligation of subjection to men v. 53. But Gods Providence can never be so at a loss as to need the help of any unlawful means 3. Because the thing St. Peter aimed at to hinder his Master from suffering was no good design but savoured somewhat of the same spirit by which he had formerly rebuked his Lord when he spake of his being killed Mat. 16.22 For the Scriptures must be fulfilled v. 54. and the Cup saith our Saviour which my Father gives me to drink shall I not drink it Joh. 18.11 And every one of these are parts of Christs Doctrine and the first as much as the other and is that also which our blessed Lord thought fit to mention before the other 10. With respect to this Text Mauritius This Text anciently used to their purpose Eucher Lugdunens Epist ad Sylv. who commanded the Thebaean Legion which being all Christians yielded themselves to Martyrdom under Maximianus told them how much he feared lest they being in Armes should have resisted the Emperour under the colour of defnce when this was forbidden by Christ who by the command of his own mouth would have that Sword which his Apostle had drawn to be put up And St. Austin who sometimes extenuated St. Peters fault as proceeding from his love Aug. de Agon Christ c. 29 30. and not from any cruel disposition that he did a more peacare sed non saevitia in his Books against Faustus gives this account of the sense hereof The Lord did with sufficient threatning check the fact of Peter saying Put up the Sword Contr. Faust l. 22. c. 70. in Epist 48. for he that useth the Sword shall fall by the Sword but he useth the Sword who when no Superiour and lawful Power doth either command or allow useth Armes against the blood of another And from this Text also Gratian inferreth this general rule Grat. Decubi sup that every one who besides him or without his authority who useth the lawful power who beareth not the Sword in vain and to whom every Soul ought to be subject I say every one who without such authority takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword 11. Assemb Annot. in Luk. 22.51 And even the Annotations under the name of the Assemblies Annotations do interpret these words to condemn Subjects taking the Sword especially against their Superiours Neither Peter say they nor any other private person or persons might take up the Sword to defend the cause of Christ 1. Becaue the Jus gladii belongeth not to any private person but to publick authority Rom. 13.4 much less to Ministers 2. Because they who smite with the Sword shall perish with the Sword Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6. And Grotius de Imperio asserteth that when Christ said He that taketh the Sword shall perish by the Sword he doth expresly condemn that defence which is made by violence against unjust force from publick authority contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam To which I shall subjoin the
Paraphrase of Dr Hammond All that draw and use the Sword without authority from those which bear the Sword shall fall themselves by it incur the punishment of death 12. Grot. in Mat. 26.52 de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 3. Indeed Grotius doth sometimes interpret this Text to this purpose as if it intended to declare that God would punish them who are bloody as the jews who came against our Saviour though S. Peter let them alone and this sense is imbraced by some other Writers even of the ancients But since these words were spoken by Christ soon after his Disciples had asked shall we smite with the Sword and immediately upon the act of Peter the natural and direct sense of them must relate thereto And it is a forced interpretation to carry them off from the occasion on which they were spoken Orig. in Mat. Tract 35. Tert. de Patient c. 3. and to which they were applyed by other ancient Writers besides them abovenamed and to account them only to contain a threatning against the actions of the Jews And even Grotius upon S. Matthew Grot. ibid. doth from these words conclude that Christians ought to lay down their lives in the profession of Christianity without resistance and objecting the natural right of self defence he tells us we must distinguish between the using that right against thieves and private persons against whom it may be used by the authority of the laws and the designing any violence against the rule and command of the soveraign power 13. Our Saviour indeed advised his Disciples Luk. 22.36 He that hath no Sword let him sell his Garment and buy one which words were spoken the same night with the other abovementioned and before he went out to the Mount of Olives v. 39. And hereby he gave liberty to his Disciples to use the Sword for their self-defence against private violence and Robbers who were at that time as Josephus relates very numerous But that no Christians might think themselves to have any liberty granted of resisting authority he gave this sharp rebuke to S. Peter after he was come into the Mount of Olives And against all those who would from these expressions of Christ or any other plead for the lawfulness of resisting a Soveraign power Erasm in Luc. 22.36 the words of Erasmus are very argumentative as well as earnest and vehement Nulla haeresis perniciostor saith he reclamantibus Christi praeceptis reclamante tota ipsius vita reclamante doctrina Apostolica refragantibus tot Martyrum millibus repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus There is no Heresy more pernicious the Precepts of Christ decrying this the whole life of Christ being opposite to it the Apostolical doctrine testifying against it it being also rejected by so many thousands of Martyrs and contradicted by the ancient Interpreters SECT II. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practises Sect. 2 1. The Apostolical Doctrine against resistance From the doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself I now descend to that which was declared by his Apostles which we shall find to keep an exact harmony with the former And here I shall chiefly consider that remarkable place Rom. 13.2 whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate resist doth enclude all practising out of a spirit of averseness opposition and contradiction and whatsoever is contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or being subject v. 1. as may appear by the use of this word Act. 18.6 And to this sense Grotius observes Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6 resistitur dupliciter aut contra imperium agendo aut vim vi reprimendo there are two wayes of resisting either by acting contrary to authority or by using force against it But the resistance by violence which is the highest manner of opposition is therefore principally condemned And such actions are declared to be a resisting the Ordinance of God and therefore highly sinful and to be so dangerous that they who are guilty thereof shall receive to themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgment or damnation 2. That it deserves punishment both from God and Man And I suppose it may be made manifest that the Apostle here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth both understand the judgment of man or punishment by the hand of justice by the Magistrate and also the judgment of God or the sentence of his condemnation This appears from the Apostles Conclusion which he maketh with a very forcible illative expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath i. e. outward humane punishment but also for Conscience sake or fear of the divine judgment v. 5. And that they who resist deserve heavy punishment by the temporal Sword is according to the Doctrine of Christ himself in the former Section and of Salomon Prov. 20.2 To this sense do Vatablus and Grotius most encline In loc in expounding this Text. And this sense must be encluded in the intention of the Apostle because this practice being declared evil in the former part of v. 2. it is added that Rulers are a terrour to the evil v. 3. and if thou do that which is evil be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vain v. 4. And in such Cases as these the sentence and punishment inflicted by the Magistrate is the more considerable and dreadful because he is herein appointed by God to act as from him and by his authority being the Minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil v. 4. But this word must also enclude the judgment of God and his condemnation For since this resistance is a sin and against the Ordinance of God v. 2. that person who puts himself upon breaking his Commands and opposing his Authority must thereby render himself guilty before God or in S. Chrysostom's expression concerning this Text he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in Ep. ad Rom. provoke God and must expect from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heavy judgment 3. And these assertions of the Apostle Resistance not allowed in persecution will appear the more considerable if some circumstances be observed 1. What condition of the Christian Church was then coming on when these Rules were delivered to the Christians It is very probable Baron an 58. n. 46. an 66. n. 9 10. that this Epistle was written some few years before the beginning of the persecution against the Christians under Nero. But the Holy Ghost who then foresaw and foretold the troubles which were shortly to come upon them by the Roman power though fit to give them these directions to be observed as their Rules in their approaching calamities 4. Nor against wicked Rulers Secondly who was then possessed of the highest power at Rome unto whom the
comparing several places in that Book will necessitate the interpreting those expressions to extend only to this case which allow the people under the fiercest and highest tyranny to resist provided they exceed not the bounds of mere defence without any attempts of invading or revenging But then withal he will not allow in this case or any other the taking Armes against the Soveraign Power but saith a Prince by such an undertaking as this loseth his Royal Authority and is no longer King se omni dominatu principatu exuit atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desinit Cont. Monarchomachos l. 6. c. 23. And Grotius also agreeing with Barclay whom he here cites granteth that the People may in such a case as this resist by force De Jur. Bel. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. si Rexvere hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur And he also proceedeth upon the like foundation that this is not to resist a Soveraign King but him who ceaseth to be such consistere simul non possunt volunt as imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem populi totitus profitatur eo ipso abdicat regnum 6. Now the design of these learned men is thus far herein to be much approved that they though it necessary to take care that whilst the Right and Authority of Princes was asserted the safety of the people and the common good should still be provided for Yet because I conceive these answers to leave things too loosely and afford over-much occasion for unquiet spirits to lay hold on I shall endeavour to speak a little more closely to this matter Wherefore I assert 1. That there is a great difference between the discoursing of such things as mere notional suppositions and the considering them as matters of practice and reality In the former way there may be suppositions made of things which actually are not never were nor are ever like to be and there may also be supposed such evidence as is clear and beyond all possibility of mistake when there is no such thing in reality And only upon the yielding such suppositions I shall grant the answer given to be true Thus the River Thames may be granted to be hurtful and pernicious upon supposition that it should overflow and drown the whole Kingdom but though such a thing may be imagined in speculation men of common understanding cannot much fear any such actual danger Now the taking Armes is not a notion but a matter of fact and therefore the reason and ground of such undertakeings must be from things as they actually and really are in the World 7. I assert Secondly That if we consider this as a Case of practice which is that to which our publick acknowledgments also must be referred this pretence is no sufficient Plea for Subjects to take Armes upon these two reasons 1. From the unreasonableness of the thing supposed and the great unlikelyhood of its ever being true though it may be so pretended For such a thing probably never was actually in the World and Grotius acknowledgeth Grot. ubi sup that this can scarce seem possible to happen in a King who is compos mentis towards his whole Dominions Adv. Monarchomach l. 3. to c. 16. Indeed Barclay gives instance in Nero whom Aurelius Victor relateth to have talked of destroying Rome and the Senate with Fire and Sword and placeing his residence elsewhere Sueton. in Calig n. 30. 49. and much to the same purpose is declared concerning Caligula Now though these were Monsters of men and it may be hoped that no Princes like to them will ever live under Christianity especially yet these expressions had not respect to the whole Empire but only to Rome and furious speeches even of such men whose actions spake them savagely cruel might probably vent much more than would ever be enterprised and attempted And it seemeth considerable that S. Pauls Prohibition against resistance was written to the Romans within a few years after the end of Caligula his Reign and about the entrance of Nero and therefore was a firm rule and binding obligation even under their Government 8. I know it is not simply impossible that such a Case should be in act If Antiochus had been really King of Judea while he resolved to destroy all persons of the whole Nation of the Jews who observed the Law of Moses this had been a Case of somewhat like nature and upon this Foundation Barclay also goes Ibid. l. 6. c. 24. to justify the Wars of the Maccabees of which I have given another account But though it be not utterly impossible yet there is as much or more reason for those Children who maintain and support their Parents by their industry to fear the these Parents do design to poyson them because there have been some unnatural and Saturnine Parents than that Subjects should fear any such design of their Prince against his whole Realm And such Children might with as much justice attempt the murdering of these Parents upon such suspicions which would be horrid and inhumane and Subjects upon the mentioned pretence take Armes against their King both having equal appearance of self-preservation and being defensive and both being impious and opposite to Righteouseness and Christianity 9. 2. The other reason is from the dangerous effects and great mischief that hath been and still may be in the World by proceeding upon such pretences For he who doth observe that Moses who was so great a deliverer of Israel was charged by them in their murmurings as one who intended to ruine and destroy them and that this was done not only once but frequently Ex. 16.3 Ex. 17.3 Numb 16.13 14. and that they spake to like purpose concerning God himself Num. 14.2 Numb 21.5 Deut. 1.27 may discern that upon small or no occasions the suspicions of discontented spirits carried on by plausible insinuations will easily pretend to certain evidence of the design of ruining the people in the best Governours to the neglect of their duty and the disturbance of peace and quiet It is manifest both in our own and other Nations that much Christian blood hath been shed by giving way to such false surmises against truth and Christian Charity And it is to be expected that male-contented persons if they have any ill enterprises will shell them over with the fairest pretences they can take up as a disguise for themselves Duct Dubit b. 3. c. 3. rule 3. n. 15. and a way to inveigle others But as Bishop Taylor asserting the unlawfulness of resistance well observed such wild Cases as this of a King endeavouring to destory his Kingdom are not to be pretended against that which Religion and natural reason hath established 10. But I come now to consider the other part of this Question Of a Prince or Soveraign power undertaking to cut off a considerable number of Subjects if a Soveraign