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
Rome gain any just right of Patriarchal Authority over this Realm This Realm not made subject to Rome by the Conversion of the Saxons after the coming of Austin into England and all that can be pretended to that purpose is either by pleading that the English were converted by Austin who was sent hither by Pope Gregory or that there was a great honour respect and subjection for many years yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island Both these pretences I shall examine 6. Now it is acknowledged that this Austin was instrumental for the converting very many of the Saxons to Christianity Yet here I observe three things 1. That they who Convert Foreign Nations do not thereby make those Nations and Churches to be perpetually subject to those Foreign Churches from whence they came For this would make Christianity to enclude a servitude in the profession of it and worldly Dominion in the preaching it Had this been a rule in the Primitive Times this Island and a greater part of the Christian Church all over the World must have yielded subjection to the Bishop of Jerusalem many Cities and Regions being first instructed in the Christian Doctrine and converted thereto by the dispersed Members of that Church and amongst others Antioch it self Act. 11.19 22 26. and even Rome also was partaker of their spiritual things Rom. 15.27 And yet these Christians being made subject to Christ and not to Jerusalem Hieron Ep. 61. n. 15. Conc. Nic. c. 7. the Bishop of Jerusalem for some hundred years was no Patriarch even till the Council of Chalcedon nor Metropolitan but was under the Bishop of Cesarea only he had a peculiar honour reserved to him by the Council of Nice Bed Hist l. 5. c. 20. And if this had been a rule for later times then Frisia Zealand and other Belgick Provinces must have been subject to the Church of England since under God they owed their Conversion to Wilfrid an English Bishop Cone Carth. gr c. 103 120 121. Indeed some Canons have given Bishops Authority to govern such places as they should convert but this tended only to give those persons the deserved honour of being the Bishops of those places which they had reduced from heresy or infidelity where any other had not a previous right thereto but not to make that Church or Kingdom subject to a remote Foreign Soveraignty All that could be hence inferred is that it was reasonable that Austin should be Bishop in England but not that Gregory should be Patriarch over it though he also deserved to be greatly honoured for being so instrumental to the Conversion of the English 7. I observe Secondly That when Austin came into this Island it was inhabited by four distinct sorts of Nations or people the Britans the Scots the Picts and the English with which without being curious about words I enclude also the Sexons and others who accompanied them out of Germany That the Britans were ancient Christians before the coming of Austin needeth no further proof Bed Hist l. 1. c. 13. Bed Hist l. 3. c. 4. Chronol Sax. And such were also the Scots over whom Palladius was an eminent Bishop almost two hundred years before Austin The Picts also in their Northern quarters towards forty years before the coming of Austin were Converted by Columba or Columbanus who came out of Ireland and the Southern Picts before that time by Ninias a British Bishop Now what pretence can be made that they who converted or presided in the three former Nations should neither have an authority over the whole Island nor a liberty left to govern themselves and yet the conversion of the last should swallow up the liberties of all the former three and convey a Patriarchal right over the whole Island yea though this last Nation or people were possessors of those limits which were within the ancient British Dioceses 8. I observe Thirdly That the Conversion of the English and Saxons was not performed only by Austin or his Successors or any other appointed by him or sent from Rome but a very considerable part of this work was effected by other persons who observed the rites of the British Church Bed Hist l. 3. c. 1 3. Amongst many things worthy observation the Kingdom of the Northumbrians after defection from Christianity which Paulinus taught them wee instructed therein and Converted Sporsw Hist l. 1. p. 14. by Aidanus a Scotchman who observed the ancient Rites of that Church and was made Bishop among the Northumbrians of whom it is related that in seven days he converted and baptized fifteen thousand The Mercians also and Middle Angles received their Conversion by Finanus a Scotchman Bed Hist l. 3. c. 21 25. who was Successor to Aidanus in his Bishoprick among the Northumibrians and is observed by Beda to have been a strict opposer of the introduced Romish Rites And this good work was carried on by others of the ancient British and Scotch Church 9. And Finanus above-mentioned did baptize Sighercht King of the East-Sexons and others of his Company who were converted to Christianity among the Northumbrians Bed ibid. c. 22. After which Cedda and another Presbyter of the Middle-Angles was sent for to instruct the Kingdom of the East-Saxons in the Christian Faith and by them they wee Converted after the defection of that Kingdom from their formerly professed Christianity And this Cedda was made Bishop of the East-Saxons by Finanus and two other Bishops with him and at that time observed the ancient British Rites but after the death of Sinanus when Colman Finanus his Successor deserted his bishoprick among the Northumbrians and went into Scotland Ibid. c. 26. rather than he would relinquish the ancient practises and usage of his Church Cedda was then brought over to comply with the Rites brought in by Austin All which will evidence that what was done by Austin could not bring England into a subjction to the Bishop of Rome unless he admit divers equals and rivals in his claim And a reflexion upon what hath been now observed will evidence that to found a constant Ecclesiastical superiority and subjection upon such pretences as these would bring in an unavoidable confusion sinto the Church and it would have overthrown in all the ancient Patriarchates in which no such rule was observed 10. Nor by the power the Pope once here exercised I shall now consider that subjection which was yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island And it is acknowledged that the Roman Bishop was for many years highly esteemed in this Realm and consulted with and many things after the Conquest were decided by his determination And also that he did receive great sums of money from hence not only from the Clergy in disms first-fruits and other payments but also Peter-pence were paid by the Laity also not as a tributary acknowledgment of the subjection of the Realm Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p.
794. as some Romanists would have it but this was granted as an Eleemosynary pension for maintaining an English School at Rome And it must also be acknowledged that the Pope did sometimes since the Conquest exercise a great authority here disposing frequently by his provision of spiritual preferments confirming or nulling the Election of Metropolitans Pyn in Edward 1. an 30. p. 985 986. an 32. p. 1040. and some other Bishops and receiving Appeals And in those days there are some instances in our Records that the Kings Writ against persons excommunicated by the Archbishop was sometimes superseded upon their alledging that they prosecuted Appeals to the Apostolical See 11. But this submission in different persons had not always the same principle being sometimes yielded out of an high measure of voluntary respect and kindness and sometimes more was given to the Pope than otherwise would have been because the circumstances of Princes oft made their courting the Popes favour in former times to be thought by them to be a piece of needful policy And much also was done from the superstition and misapprehension of those Ages in many persons who supposed him to have that right of governing these Churches as S. Peters successor which he is now sufficiently evidenced not to have had Now what is done out of courtesy and by leave or out of some emergent necessity may at other times be otherwise ordered and no Christians are obliged to continue in practising upon superstitious mistakes more than they are obliged to live in errour and superstition And mere possession upon an unjust claim can give no good title to the Government of a Church but when the injustice thereof is made manifest it may be rejected and abolished Conc. Eph. c. 8. as the ancient Canons especially that Canon of the Council of Ephesus which speaks particularly of the Patriarchal Authority enjoin that no Bishop shall invade any Church which was not from the beginning under his Predecessors and if he should compel it to be under him he must restore its Jurisdiction again 12. Yet that exercise and possession of authority which the Pope here enjoyed was not so constant and undisturbed but that it was many times by the Kings and States of the Realm and even by the Bishops at some times complained of and opposed as injurious and the true rights and liberties of this Church and Kingdom were oft demanded and insisted upon Of which among very many instances I shall take notice of so many as are sufficient Before the Conquest I find not that the Pope exercised or claimed any governing authority distinct from counsel and advice in this Realm and therefore there was no need of any opposition to be made agianst it Indeed when Wilfrid Bishop of York who was twice censured in England G. Malmsbur de Gestis Pontific l. 3. f. 150. did both times make his application to Rome his Case was there heard and considered in a Synod and such examination and consideration of the Case even of the Bishop of Rome as Cornelius and others was sometimes had in other ancient Churches But for the decision of the Case the Pope requires it either to be ended by an English Council or to be determined by a more general Council And when Wilfrid at his first return from Rome brings the Popes Letters in favour of him King Egfrid put him in Prison and at his second return from Rome Ib. f. 152. King Alfrid who succeeded Egfrid in the Kingdom a Prince highly commended for hispiety learning and valour declared that it was against all reason to communicate with a man who had been twice condemned by English Councils notwithstanding any writing whatsoever from the Pope Nor were these things only sudden words but when the Pope had done all he could Wilfrid was not thereby restored or as Malmsburiensis expresseth it Malms de gest pont l. 1. init f. 111. Ib. f. 124. non tamen rem obtinuit After the Conquest it was declared by W. Rufus to be a custom of the Kingdom which had been established in the reign of his Father that no Pope should be appealed unto without the Kings Licence consuetudo regni mei est à patre meo instituta ut nullus praeter licentiam regis appelletur Papa Anselm Epist l. 3. Ep. 40. Paschali And Anselme acquainted the Pope that this King William the Second would not have the Bishop of Rome received or appealed unto in England without his command Nor would he allow Anselme then Archbishop of Canterbury to send Letters to him or receive any from him or to obey his Decrees He further tells the Pope that the generality of the Kingdom and even the Bishops of his own Province sided with the King and that when Anselme asked the Kings leave to go to Rome he was highly offended at this request and required that no such leave be afterward asked and that he appeal not to the Apostolical See and that when Anselme went to Rome without his leave he seised the Revenue of his Bishoprick M. Paris in Henr. 2. an 1164. And amongst the liberties and customs sworn to at the Parliament at Clarendon one was against appeales to Rome and receiving Decrees from thence 13. Ex lib. Assis Lord Cokes Reports in Cawdreys Case In the Reign of King Edward the First a subject of this Realm brought a Bull of Excommunication against another subject from Rome and this was adjudged Treason by the Common law of England and divers other instances are brought by Sir Edward Coke wherein the Excommunication and Absolution of the Pope or his Legate was declared null or invalid Pryn in Edw. 1. An. 20. p. 454. And much of the usurped power which the Pope here practised and claimed was rejected as a great grievance in the Statute of Provisors An. 25 Edw. 3. concerning his making provision for and collating to Dignities and Benefices against the method of free Elections and they who should apply themselves to Rome for this purpose became thereby liable to severe penalties And appeals to Rome in certain Cases and the procuring thereupon Processes Bulls and Excommunications from thence was by the Parliament in the Reign of King Richard the Second 16 Ric. 5. taxed and complained of as that which did apparently hinder the determining causes and the effectual execution of justice in England and tended to the destruction of the Kings Soveraignty Crown and Regalty And all those who should bring from Rome such Processes Excommunications Bulls or other Instruments both themselves and all their Fauthors were then by the Statute of Praemunire put out of the Kings Protection their Lands and Goods forfeited and their Bodies to be attached And this Statute continued in force and unrepealed as that former also notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Pope and his Adherents even an hundred and fifty years before the Protestant Reformation And this is sufficient to shew
Supremacy according to this article of our Church At the end of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge King James so approved his explication thereof that he returned him particular thanks for the same which is printed with his speech And the Bishop therein plainly asserted that God had established two distinct powers on earth the one of the Keys committed to the Church and the other of the Sword which is committed to the civil Magistrate and by which the King governeth And therewith he declareth that as the spiritual Rulers have not only respect to the first table but to the second so the Magistrates power hath not only respect to the second table but also to the first 5. From all this we have this plain sense That the King is supreme Governour that is under God say the Injunctions and with the civil sword say the Articles as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal that is he hath the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born in these Dominions of what estate soever either Ecclesiastical or temporal say the Injunctions and to the same purpose the Articles Only here we must observe that the King 's being supreme Governour in all things and causes is one and the same thing with his having the chief Government over the persons of all his subjects with respect to their places actions and employments and therefore is well explained thereby For it must necessarily be the same thing to have the command or oversight of any Officer subject or servant about his business and to have a command or over-sight concerning the business in which he is to be employed and the same is to be said concerning the power of examining their cases or punishing neglects and offences 6. And from hence we may take an account Of supreme head of the Church of England Def. of Apol Part 6. Ch. 11. div 1. of the true sense of that title used by King Henr. 8. and King Edw. 6. of supreme head of the Church of England This stile was much misunderstood by divers Foreigners seemed not pleasing to Bishop Juel and some others of our own Church was well and wisely changed by our Governours and hath been out of date for above sixscore years past And though this title was first given to King Hen. 8. Tit. Of this civil Magistrate by a Convocation and Parliament of the Roman Communion it was used all King Edwards days and then owned even in the book of Articles And the true intended sense from the expressions above mentioned appeareth manifestly to be this to acknowledge the King to be head or chief Governour even in Ecclesiastical things of that number of Christians or that part of the Catholick Church who reside in these Realms and are subjects to his Crown even as Saul by being anointed King Wh. Treat 8. ch 1. div 4. Bishop Saund. Episcop not prejud to reg p. 130 131. Mas de Min. Anglic l. 3. c. 4. was made head of the tribes of Israel 1 Sam. 15.17 And according to this sense the use of this title was allowed and justified by very worthy men such as Bishop Whitgift Bishop Saunderson Mr Mason and others And to this end and purpose it is the just right of the King of England to own himself the supreme Governour of the Church of England which was a stile sometime used by our pious and gracious King Charles the First Declar. before 39. Articles in his publick Declaration about Ecclesiastical things but with due respect to the Ecclesiastical Officers 7. In the ancient Church it was not unusual for him who had the chief preeminence over a Province or a considerable part of the Christian Church to be owned as their head Can. Apost 34. whence in the ancient Collection or Code called the Canons of the Apostles the chief Bishop in every Nation was required to be esteemed by the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head And that Bishops may be called heads of their Churches is asserted by Gregorius de Valentia from that expression of Scripture lately mentioned concerning Saul Tom. 4. Disp 1. qu. 8. punct 4. which yet must more directly and immediately prove that title to be applicable to a Sovereign Prince And as the name of head is only taken for a chief and governing member the Author of the Annotations upon the Epistles under S. Hierom's name was not afraid of this expression In 1 Cor. 12. Sacerdos caput Ecclesiae the Priest is the head of the Church 8. And though that Statute whereby the title of supreme head of the Church of England was yielded to King Hen. 8. 26 Hen. 8.1 doth assert the Kings power to correct and amend by spiritual authority and Jurisdiction yet that this was intended only objectively concerning his government in spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes or his seeing these things be done by Ecclesiastical Officers and was only so claimed and used we have further plain evidence both concerning the time of King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. Under the Reign of King Hen. 8. by his particular command for the acquainting his subjects with such truths as they ought to profess was published a Book called The Institution of a Christian man which was subscribed by twenty one Bishops and divers others of the Clergy and the Professors of Civil and Canon law and in the dedication thereof to the King Of the Sacr. of Orders f. 39. by them all is given to him this title of Supreme head in Earth immediately under Christ of the Church of England In this Book besides very many other things to the same purpose it is asserted That Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the new testament that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes which is called potestas gladii the power of the sword there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other Ministers or Officers which should have special power authority and commission under Christ to preach and teach the word of God to dispense and administer the Sacraments to loose and absolve to bind and to excommunicate to order and consecrate others in the same room order and office f. 40. And again This said power and administration in some places is called claves sive potestas clavium that is to say the Keys or the power of the Keys whereby is signified a certain limited office restrained unto the execution of a special function or ministration f. 41. And yet further we have therein this very clear passage That this office this power and authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain persons only that is to say unto Priests or Bishops whom they did elect call and admit thereto by their prayer and imposition of their hands 9. And concerning the office and power of Kings the Doctrine and positions then received were such as
or supreme governour if he will make use thereof as hath been declared by the chief persons of this Church Can. 1. 1640. And the ancient right and exercise of the authority of Kings in summoning provincial or national Councils De Conc. Sac. Imp. l. 6. c. 18 19 22 23 24 c. The Kings just authority in matters Ecclesiastical opposed is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca 6. But against these just rights of the Princes power there are various oppositions Such are the claims of the Romish Bishops universal Supremacy either in all affairs or at least in all things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as also the pretence for the necessity of general liberty and exemption from all authority in matters of Conscience and Religion Ch. 6. 8. which things I shall so far as is needful in due place particularly consider 7. The Writers of the Romish Church do 1. V. l. 2. Decretal Tit. de Jud. c. At si clerici c. Clerici Tit. de foro comp c si diligenti Bellar. de Cler. c. 28. Generally assert and some other parties also encline the same way that the state of the Church and all Ecclesiastical affairs are exempt from the civil power and not under the inspection and government thereof and that the Clergy as such are not subjects to the secular Governour and that they are not accountable before him no not so much say divers of them as in criminal causes nor yet in civil Layman l. 4. Tr. 9. c. 2 4 5. seq 2. Not only the Canonists but many others also do found this Ecclesiastical immunity upon a proper divine right which is also asserted by some of the Romish Biships Innoc. 3. in Conc. Lateran Leo 10. in Bul. Reform in Conc. Later 5. Ses 9. Azor. Tom. 1. l. 5. c. 12. Laym ubi sup c. 8. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. p. 4. Bannes in 2. secundae qu. 6â— Art 1. Dub. 2. in such Councils as they call General And some of their Writers run so high as Layman Theol. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. cap. 13. and divers others by him there cited as to assert that no civil or secular laws do lay any obligation directly upon the Clergy as having no authority over them But if I shall shew that all members of the Christian Church are nevertheless subjects or the Realm and that the nature of civil Soveraignty doth directly include a right to givern them and an obligation to take care of the affairs of the Church this will sufficiently refute these contrary positions 8. But these Writers are sensible that in the general practice of the Christian World almost in all ages thereof secular Governours have interposed in many cases Ecclesiastical And the great advantages from Christian Religion being established and Gentilisme opposed by the Laws and Constitutions of Constantine and other worthy Christian Emperours are so visible that they cannot be denied and therefore the Romanists do acknowledge that the Princes care of the Church affairs is of great use I. Zecch de principe l. 2. cap. 5. and that he is as Laelius Zecchius expresseth it Ecclesiae brachium Religionis propugnaculum the arm and defence of the Church and the fortress of Religion Greg. de Valentia ubi supra Laym l. 4. tr 9. c. 10. P. de Marca de Concord l. 1. cap. 12. in Prolegom p. 28. Yet that all this may be consistent with the former positions we have another device set on foot which acknowledgeth that this useful power of Soveraign Princes in things Ecclesiastical must be owned only as a priviledge granted them by the Bishop of Rome and that they must act therein as by his favour and as his deputies and by the right of protecting the Church which he committeth to them 9. Now though this pretence will fall with the former if it be manifested that the nature end and constitution of civil government as established by God is to be extended to matters Ecclesiastical yet concerning this pretence I shall here further note these things 1. That they must cast reflections upon the wise and good God who asserting the great usefulness of the civil Ruler interposing in matters Ecclesiastical will not grant that the wisdom and goodness of God should be as ready to allow the Church this advantage as the prudence of the Pope 2. That if this anthority in matters Ecclesiastical be against the rules of the divine law which God hath established for the honour and freedom of his Church the Bishop of Rome dealeth ill with the Church touching its freedoms by giving them away and makes very bold with God by daring to confront Gods laws with his priviledges and indulging any person to disobey them 3. That Christian Princes would be in a very unsafe condition whilest they act any thing about the affairs of the Church if they have no better foundation to bear them up than the pretence of the Popes power to dispense with the laws of God Surely had Justinian thought Novel 58. that his care of the Church had been so ventuous and hazardous an enterprise it would have cooled the heat of his zeal that he would never have professed his care for the Churches wilfare to be equal to that for his own life 4. That whilest any persons do think it meet that Princes should act under the Pope as his deputy in the affairs of Religion to whom they owe no subjection and from whom they receive no ruling authority it must certainly be much more reasonable that they should act under God and as his Deputies whose Vice-gerents they certainly are and from whom I shall now design to prove them to have authority in matters Ecclesiastical B. 1. C. 2. CHAP. II. The Royal Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered SECT I. Their supreme authority over things and persons sacred manifested 1. Kings in the Old Testament governed about things of the Church Art 37. THE inference which may be made from the authority of the Kings under the Old Testament is an argument to which our Church hath a great respect in asserting the Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical In her Articles she declareth this acknowledgment of Royal Supremacy to be a yielding that only prerogative unto our Kings which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture Can. 2. by God himself And in her Canons she threatneth excommunication against them who shall affirm that the King hath not the same authority in causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 1 that the godly Kings had among the Jews Wherefore I shall for the inforcing this argument shew 1. That the Kings of Judah had and exercised a supreme power of Government in things belonging to the Church 2. That they did this by such a right as is common to all other Soveraign powers and not by any peculiar priviledge and
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.
plead for it this inspection of such secular persons cannot be regular or expedient 6. Evagr. l. 2. c. 18. In this Council those of the party of Dioscorus and Eutyches whom this Council rejected Leon. Ep. 69. were censured with the approbation of the Emperour And Leo in an Epistle to Marcianus after the end of this Council acknowledged that it was he chiefly who effected the extirpation of heresy thereby vestro praecipue opere est effectum c. Evagr. l. 2. c. 4. Ibid. c. 18. The restoring them who were censured by Dioscorus and his party was also done with the Emperours consent And at the Emperours desire were the Canons of that Council made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. Conc. Chalc. Action 3. And after this Council was ended both Valentinian and Marcian jointly Sacra Marcian in fin Conc. Chalc. and again Marcian singly publish their Imperial Edict for the establishing the faith and doctrine which was declared in this Council and signifying to all their subjects that whosoever shall oppose this their decree shall not remain in any Ecclesiastical preferment and if he be of the Militia he shall be cashiered with other penalties for other persons 8. And whereas after the death of Marcianus the Eutychian party favoured by Anatolius of Constantinople desired to make new stirs and projected in their thoughts to have a new Council called that these matters might be again canvased and debated Leo still Bishop of Rome Leon. Ep. 73 74 75. makes his supplication to the Emperour Leo entreating him not to suffer any new disquisition of that truth concerning the humanity of our Saviour which had been so fully determined in the Council of Chalcedon 9. Some of these matters relating to this Council I have the more particularly mentioned because they not only shew the supreme authority of the Emperour about matters Ecclesiastical to have been owned and complyed with by a general Council but even by that Council whose number of Bishops did almost equal the number of all the three former general Councils joined together And also because this doth shew the same to have been sufficiently acknowledged by the then Romish Bishop even by Leo who was a man of great courage boldness and activeness and far enough from being charged with any pusillanimity and lowness of spirit 10. And besides other things there is observable from this short account concerning these Councils What power the four first general Councils gave to Princes in Ecclesiastical cases 1. That all the Fathers of these several general Councils acknowledged the authority of the Emperours to take care of the Church and Religion and to command Bishops with respect thereto in that they readily obeyed their commands in meeting together at the time and place appointed by the Imperial authority to consider of matters of Faith and Religion 2. That they acknowledged that these Councils when met were in the first and chief place to discuss those matters of faith or order for which they were summoned by the Emperour appeareth from them all And that at the time of their assembling they shewed so great respect to the Emperour that in expectation of his presence they deferred the opening the Council till they heard from him and in obedience to his pleasure and by his authority the Seat of the General Council was removed from one place to another is particularly evident in the fourth Council 11. Thirdly That they thought themselves obliged when they should be required so to do to give an account of the manner of their proceedings in these general Councils unto the Emperour And that though they were in Council and about matters Ecclesiastical they were still subject to the Emperours laws and his coercive authority as is manifest from the third general Council 4 That they though matters Ecclesiastical and the decisions of the Church a fit subject to receive the civil Sanction and establishment of the secular power And that they esteemed such a Sanction to be of great moment to add weight to their Constitutions doth appear from them all and particularly from the second and third general Councils 12. I omit all large discourse of other Councils which might easily be performed and many things also in these Councils which might be worthy observation But whosoever will read the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sixth General Council to the Emperour Justinian and their first Canon Conc. Trull can 1. will discern them to have the same reverence for their Prince which these former Councils had And amongst Provincial Councils Conc. Mogunt an 813. in praef ad Imp. that of Mentz did acknowledge Charles the Great to be verae Religionis Rector and Defensor Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae and Sanctae Ecclesiae Rector And the Council of Merida in Spain Conc. Emer in Praefat. In fin Conc. Ecclesiastica disponere to order matters Ecclesiastical but also that he did sapientia divinitus concessa regere Ecclesiastica govern matters Ecclesiastical SECT IV. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered 1. There are some things which have the appearance of arguments to prove that the ancient Christian Bishops did not own the Supremacy of Princes in matters Ecclesiastical And the reflecting upon these may be of good use to give us a right understanding of that Supremacy which hath been acknowledged in the Christian Church To which purpose I shall here consider two Objections concerning the Arian Controversies 2. The Case of Arius Obj. 1. When Constantine the Emperour upon the Oath and subscription of Arius to the Faith asserted in the Council of Nice Sect. 4 did again and again give his commands to Athanasius Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 26 27. gr Athanas in Apol. Sec. with Menaces annexed that he should receive Arius again unto the Church of Alexandria Athanasius refused to do this notwithstanding these Precepts of the Emperour And the Catholick Bishops justified him and refused communion with them who took part with Arius which seemeth to disown the supreme Government of the Emperour in Causes Ecclesiastical 3. Ans First The exercise of the Keys is not to be guided by the pleasure of a Prince as its rule That the sentence of Excommunication and Absolution being a proper exercise of the power of the Keys the Ecclesiastical Officers are the immediate and peculiar Judges in these Cases And if any person shall assert that they are always obliged in these things to do whatsoever the Emperour should give them in command though he himself should be imposed upon by the sleight of others or otherwise be mistaken this would tend to disown the subject of this enquiry concerning the Emperours power or to deny that there are such Causes or matters Ecclesiastical that the Rules of Religion and Christianity ought to be the guide and measure of them 4. Secondly The Case of Arius had been largely heard and adjudged by the highest Ecclesiastical audience of
a General Council by the Emperours command where he was anathematized and condemned of Heresy and notwithstanding some appearance of repentance Hieron adv Lucifer Baron an 327. n. 3. as S. Hierome declares was sentenced no more to come to Alexandria that is as Baronius rightly explaineth it not to be received in his former place in that Church Now it was not in the power of any single Bishop whomsoever to rescind the judgment or reverse the sentence of a General Council or indeed to take a new cognisance of what had been thereby determined And to acknowledge the Emperour to have a power of immediate judging and determining concerning the censures of the Church especially if against the Sentence of a General Council cannot be consistent with the Ecclesiastical authority and the power of the Keys committed to the Ecclesiastical Officers and in the most eminent and highest manner resident in Oecumenical Councils And therefore Athanasius could not obey that command of the Emperour procured by the subtilty of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party without an exorbitant usurping and invading an authority which was superiour to him and undermining the unity of the Catholick Church Weights and measures Ch. 6. as is observed by Mr Thorndike in justification of Athanasius 5. And a Case much of like nature with this was considered in the third general Council of Ephesus who rejected them from their Communion who in a separate Conventicle from the General Council undertook to censure Cyril of Alexandria who presided in that Council and Memnon of Ephesus and were also fautors of Nestorius Concerning these Bishops that Council gave this instruction to their delegates whom they sent to the Emperour that if he should insist upon these persons being restored to their Communion they declare that so much as can be is to be done to express obedience to the Emperour Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 19. Sanctioni Augusti pro viribus obediendum este and that if these persons shall join with the Council in rejecting the Heresy of Nestorius and deposing him and submitting themselves shall heartily embrace Vnity with them they may be admitted again to their Communion But if these delegate Bishops in this Case should admit them upon any other terms than these which the Council it self upon considering and debating the Case had determined they are there told Arianisme and all false doctrine to be rejected though favoured by Princes that they themselves would incur the censure of the Council 6. Obj. 2. Athanasius in the time of Constantius S. Basil of Valens and S. Ambrose of Valentinian the younger and divers Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours put in their exceptions against the Emperours judging in matters of Faith as not being a competent judge in that Case nor would they be therein determined by him And when Constantius had banished many Catholick Bishops for withstanding Arianisme and used severe punishments towards others and threatned Hosius Bishop of Corduba Athanas ad solitar vit agentes who drew up the form of the Nicene Creed he in an Epistle to Constantius adviseth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not put they self upon things Ecclesiastical nor do thou give commands to us concerning such things but rather learn these things from us God hath put into thy hand the Kingdom he hath committed unto us the things of the Church And when S. Ambrose was commanded in the Emperours name Ambr. Ep. 33. ad Marcellinam to yield up the possession of his Church to be delivered to the Arians he refused so to do in a matter of Gods right declaring ea quae divina sunt Imperatoris potestati non esse subjecta that those things which are Gods are not in subjection to the Emperour 7. Ans First Since the Christian profession is a taking up the Cross all those who embrace it must undertake to hold fast the truth of the Christian faith though this should be against the command and will of any Prince or Ruler whosoever and must be followers of him who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession Martyr Polycarpi Tertul. Apol c. 27. This was the practice of the Apostles of S. Polycarp and divers Christian Martyrs to profess the Christian doctrine when they were commanded to disown or abjure it And as they must hold fast Christianity notwithstanding the Prohibitions or threats of Diocletian or Julian so must they keep close to the Catholick doctrine notwithstanding the command of any Arian Emperour to the contrary And it is no more a derogation from the Royal authority to say that it hath no right to command against truth or duty in Religion than to declare that it hath no right to command against honesty or chastity in the Common-wealth The Princes Supremacy in these matters is under God and Christ to establish what is according to the Rules of our Religion and the good of Mankind The deciding questions of faith and guiding in it more proper to Bishops thanings but can have no authority to oppose or undermine the doctrines of our Saviour 8. Secondly That as this Case hath respect to the truth of the Christian doctrine it is certain that not the Emperour but these Catholick Bishops themselves were the most proper and fit judges in this matter of faith especially having the evidence of Scripture the consent of the ancient Apostolical men and the confirmation of the Synod of Nice The deciding and determining matters of faith peculiarly and chiefly belongeth to the Pastors of the Church and is a matter for their judgment In Athanas ubi sup cognisance and discussion By them as Hosius said above even Princes are to be taught and should receive the doctrines of Religion But the Christian Bishops are not to receive any thing as a doctrine of Christianity from the Command of any Prince in the World but herein they and all other Christians must be guided only by what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles for the knowledge of which the consent of the Catholick Church doth in many things give very great light 9. How much honour and respect in this particular the ancient Emperours did give to the office and judgment of the Bishops of the Church we may understand from Theodosius the Second Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. When he sent a secular person to be present by his authority at the Ephesine Council he particularly declared that for him to have any thing to do in their Synodical decisions of the Questions of faith would be a nefarious thing And it is truly observed by Baronius Baron an 325. n. 73. that Constantine and other Christian Emperours who were themselves present in ancient Councils did not interpose in giving votes or suffrages in decisions of faith or inflicting of censures as concurring to the spiritual effect but only did consent to and ratify these determinations of the Councils by their secular authority And these
Constantius De Episc Presbyt and other succeeding Emperours which may be seen in the Code of Theodosius 11. And for the Judicatures of Christian Bishops who therein tryed civil causes under the time of christian Emperours no man in reason can think but this must be done by favour and a delegated authority And it is manifest from the Imperial law that this was a priviledge granted unto them out of respect to the honour of Christianity God l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 7 8. Nov. 83. 123. it being therein enacted that whatsoever persons shall please by their own consent to have their Cases tryed and adjudged by the Bishop they shall have liberty so to doe 12. Obs 3. That the Canons were never intended to disclaim the Supremacy of Princes over the Clergy is manifest because in them is allowed the application to the secular authority against such bishops as will not submit to the determination of the Ecclesiastical This was done by a Carthaginian Synod Conc. Carth. gr c. 53. Conc. Trull c. 2. against Cresconius a Bishop of that Province as is manifest from the Greek Copy of the African Code which was the Copy confirmed in the sixth general Council And this particular Case is approved in the Comments of the Greek Scholiasts and is also referred unto in the Nomocanon of Photius Nomocan Tit. 9. c. 8. as giving direction when one Bishop may prosecute another before a secular ruler And it may be further observed that the Canons from the 37th to the 61st of that Greek Code were taken out of the third Council of Carthage this fifty third Canon to which this action is there annexed or according to Justellus his code the forty eighth is the thirty eighth Canon of that Council wherein a particular Canon for the priviledge of the Clergy was established And the Canons prohibited applications to the secular power against any of the Clergy almost in the same manner as they forbad the application to a general Council against a Bishop Conc. constant c. 6. which was condemned unless the other methods by the Bishops of the Province should prove ineffectual CHAP. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the Supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome SECT I. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 1 1. THE Royal Supremacy will be further vindicated by resuting the pretences which are vainly made by others to the whole or any part of the just Soveraignty of Princes wherein I must chiefly consider the claims of Foreign Jurisdiction Foreign Jurisdiction disclaimed which are rejected and disowned in the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath it is declared that no Foreign Prince Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore all such Authority is disclaimed and renounced 2. But thereby it is not intended that no Foreign Bishop Priest or Deacon shall be owned in this Realm to have that preeminence of Order in the Catholick Church The just auâ—â—â—ty of Church Officers asserted unto which they have been duly received nor that their power of order for the performing Ecclesiastical Offices is invalid and null if they come into this Realm But this is no power of Government and Jurisdiction within this Kingdom by a Foreign Authority which is herein rejected Neither is it hereby meant that if the Ecclesiastical Governours of any Foreign Church do within their Jurisdiction duly admit any person into the Church or do clave non errante excommunicate or absolve any that the Christians in this Realm have no obligation upon them from the authority of such proceedings to embrace or avoid Ecclesiastical Society with such persons For thiswould be contrary to the Article of our Church which asserteth Article 33. that that person which is rightly cut off from the Vnity of the Church and Excommunicate ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican until he be openly reconciled by penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto Can. Apost 12. Conc. antioch c. 6. And the ancient Canons of the Church did determine that he who was excommunicated by his own Bishop might not be received by another 3. But the obligation which in this Case lyeth upon us and all the members of the Catholick Church is not from any Jurisdiction or Superiority which we acknowledge any such Foreign Officers of the Church to have over us because this obligation equally lies upon all Catholick Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as well as upon ordinary and private Christians And it would bring in an unaccountable confusion to assert that every Bishop under the Patriarch of Alexandria should have a superiority over all the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Roman Constantinopolitan and other free Churches throughout the World not excepting the Alexandrian it self and at the same time to assert that every Bishop in any of these other Churches hath upon the same account superiority over him and all other Bishops and Churches But this duty is incumbent upon us from the nature of our Christianity and Christian Vnity For Christ having made his Church to be one Body who ever undertakes Christianity is thereby obliged to own Communion with this Church and all the regular Members thereof and to disown Communion with those who are rightly cut off therefrom and he having appointed Officers in his Church hath accordin gto their Offices given them authority to exercise the power of the Keys in his name in the Churches committed to them And hereupon Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais having excommunicated Andronicus and others Svness Epist 58. by vertue of his Sentence pronounced against them did require the Churches all over the Earth that they should not receive them into Communion 4. But this Oath tending according to the design of that Statute by which it was established to restore to the Crown its ancient Jurisdiction that authority which ischiefly rejected thereby is such as invaded or opposed the Royalty of the King and particularly that which claimeth any supreme cognisance of Ecclesiastical affairs as if they were not under the care of the temporal power or that pretendeth to any other authority above or against the just rights of the Crown And suh is the arrogance of the See of Rome which assumes to it self a claim of supreme authority in matters Ecclesiastical and even in temporal also which many of its followers defend as belonging thereto upon account of its spiritual authority Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6. Thus Bellarmine declareth that if the management of temporal affairs appeareth prejudicial to spiritual ends potestas spiritualis potest debet coercere temporalem the spiritual power may and ought to restrain the temporal by all ways and means which shall seem needful to that purpose And Boetius Epo
should be under their government and shall order the affairs of his Realm in complyance with them and subjection to them Now all such acts are utterly void and wholly unobligatory because 1. No just right of Supremacy or any part of Royalty can be gained by possession upon an unjust title against the right owner upon a sure title this being a parallel Case to a Thief being possessed of an honest mans goods Addit to Hen. 3. an 10. f. 70. An. 10 Ed. 1. p. 279. An. 12 Ed. 1. p. 318. An. 17 Ed. 1. p. 391. c. And therefore though some Kings of England as Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. did until they could without danger free themselves pay to the Pope an annuus census of a thousand marks as appears from the Records of the Tower published by Mr Pryn yet this is only an evidence of the oppressive injuries which this Crown sustained by the intolerable exactions of the Pope 2. No Soveraign King unless by voluntary relinquishing his whole authority to the next Heir can transfer his Royal Supremacy to any other person whomsoever partly because the divine constitution having placed Supremacy in the chief secular Governours God expecteth from them a due care of managing of this power for the good of his people and for the advancing his own service and glory nor can any act of theirs make the duty which God still requires from them to become void no more than a Father or Husband can discharge themselves from the duties of those Relations while the Relations themselves continue Partly also because the constitutions of the Realm oblige all the subjects thereof to maintain the Royalties of the Crown and to perform Faith and true Allegiance not only to the King in being but also to his Heirs and Successors And partly because it is a great and special priviledge of a free born people that they cannot according to the condition of slaves have the chief and principal Dominion over them translated from one to another according to the pleasure of any person whomsoever though it be their own natural Prince which is both his and their great security and advantage CHAP. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England SECT I. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 1 1. THE title of Patriarch Of Patriarchal Authority was not in the beginning of the Church fixed as peculiar to the Bishops of those Churches which for many Ages have been so called This stile was not oft used in the first Centuries and when it grew into use was yielded to other famous Bishops by Socrates Socr. Hist l. 5. c. 8. who did not preside in any of those Churches which have been commonly accounted Patriarchal And this title also in an inferiour degree was of late by Duarenus allowed to the Bishop of Aquileia Canterbury and others Duaren de Benef. l. 1. c. 9. The Bishops of Rome themselves seem not to have much affected or used this stile but they were ordinarily owned to be Patriarchs not only in the Ecclesiastical account but in the Imperial law B. 1. C. 7. And as this is a title of special honour given to some Sees so it encluded an Ecclesiastical authority extended to divers Provinces and over several Metropolitans 2. Now though the Romish Bishops pretence to an Vniversal Soveraignty be very vain and unjust yet if he have but a patriarchal right as some have demanded for him over all the Western Churches this will entitle him to an authority in this Realm which is a member of them Hereby he would be chief spiritual judge to receive appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical from the Metropolitical Jurisdiction and to have the highest constant and fixed power of censure and absolution besides what concerneth the Consecration of Archbishops or Metropolitans by his act or consent and a chief authority with respect to Synods And though a true Patriarchal right be of the same nature with the Archiepiscopal which ought to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Crown yet if any such authority be placed in any Foreigner it would impair the just dignity of the Prince as I shall hereafter evidence But that no foreign Bishop or Patriarch ought to have any such authority in this Realm will appear manifest by the proving three assertions which I shall perform in this Chapter 3. Assert 1. The ancient Christian Churches were never all of them under the Patriarchal Bishops viz. of Rome Many free Churches not anciently under any Patriarch Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem But there were anciently divers free Churches or Dioceses which word was several times of old used for the larger limits of many Provinces independent on any superiour Patriarch For that all the Patriarchates and other ancient great Dioceses or Eparchyes were only within the limits of the Roman Empire is manifest because the extent and bounds of their particular Churches was ordered and fixed according to the division of the Imperial Provinces And therefore besides the greater Armenia which was a Christian Kingdom and no part of the Empire in the time of Constantine and both before and after him all the Christians who lived under the Barbarous Nations are reckoned as distinct from the Patriarchal and other head Dioceses or Churches by the second General Council Conc. Const c. 2. 4. And whereas until 450. years after Christ The Pontick Thracian and Asian Churches there were only three Patriarchal Sees erected at Rome Alexandria and Antioch not only the Churches in the remote parts of Asia and Africa and others without the Empire but those of the Pontick Thracian and Asian Dioceses or Eparchies which were in the heart of the Empire were in subjection to none of those Patriarchs but were all that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governed by themselves as appears from the second general Council Conc. Const ib. But when the patriarchal limits and authority of the Church of Constantinople was established the Churches of those three regions now mentioned which as Theodoret acquaints us Theod. Hist l. 5. c. 28. contained twenty eight Provinces or Metropolitical Jurisdictions were made subject to the Bishop of Constantinople by the authority of the fourth general Council Conc. Chalc. c. 28. But besides these there were also other particular Churches free from all Patriarchal Jurisdiction of which I shall give some instances 5. The Province of Cyprus in the Eastern Church The Cyprian Church when the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a superiority over it and a right of ordaining therein had its liberty and freedom defended and secured against him by the third General Council Indeed this Canon of the Council of Ephesus did chiefly provide Conc. Eph. c. 8. that no Cyprian Bishops should receive their ordination from the Bishop of Antioch or from any other than the Bishops of their own Island Yet to put a stop to
evidence in my third assertion And therefore I shall omit the considering the Church of Bulgaria and of the Asia Iberia which by Balsamon are owned to have been in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals in Conc. Const c. 2. Novel 131. the former according to the Constitution of Justinian and the latter by a Synod of Antioch appointing that that Church which was before under the Patriarch of Antioch should be free and head of it self 11. And concerning the Western Church it may be observed that whereas a prime patriarchal right is expressed by the Council of Chalcedon and the same may be collected from the Council of Ephesus in the place above-mentioned concerning the Cyprian Church to be this that the Metropolitans under him Conc. Chalc. c. 28. who have liberty to ordain the Bishops of their Provinces should be ordained by the Patriarch it is no difficulty to prove and is granted by P. de Marca Ubi sup l. 1. c. 7. that the chief part of the Western Church even all out of the Vrbicarian Diocese which took in only some part of Italy did never thus anciently depend on the Bishop of Rome for Ordination 12. And touching the Eastern Church the limits of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have been above observed The Territories of Alexandria were by the Council of Nice declared to be Egypt Conc. Nic. Can. 6. V. Praef. and Conc. Antioch Conc. Chalc. Actions 7. Libya and Pentapolis Antioch had once under it Coelosyria Phoenicia Palaestine Arabia Mesopotamia Cilicia and Isauria but when the Church of Jerusalem was made Patriarchal it was agreed in the Council of Chalcedon that all the three Palaestines should be reserved to its Jurisdiction 13. And such few expressions in some ancient Authors as speak of the Bishop of Rome presiding in the West or being the Patriarch of the West are not sufficient to prove the whole Western Church to have been subject to him Conc. Const c. 2. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. Hieron Ep. 61. c. 15. but only some part thereof For the Bishop of Antioch is oft said both by Councils and other Writers to govern the East and yet the whole Eastern Church as distinguished from the Western never was under his Jurisdiction SECT II. No Patriarch ever had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority in this Island 1. The second Assertion which I shall make good is that the Churches of this Island had that ancient liberty and freedom that no Patriarch had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority over them The Eastern Patriarchs never pretended to any nor had the Romish Bishop any right to challenge it 2. For since this Island received Christianity Britain received Christianity before Rome some years before any Church was founded at Rome it could not then have any dependance upon the Church of Rome Besides what many other Writers express concerning Joseph of Arimathea preaching the Gospel here Bar. An. 35. n. 5. even Baronius from a Manuscript in the Vatican gives a relation of his coming into France and thence into England upon the dispersion after the death of S. Steven and this must be divers years before S. Peters coming to Rome Antiq. Brit. p. 1 2 3. Mason de Min. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Usser de Prim. Ec. Br. And there want not Authors to assert that S. Simon S. Philip and other Apostles and Apostolical men did declare the doctrine of Christ in this Island as hath been observed by those who purposely give us an account of the original of Christianity here Sect. 2 But concerning the early Conversion of the Britans it will be sufficient to observe the testimony of Gildas who was himself a Britan Gild. de Excid Brit. who tells us that here the Precepts of Christ were made known tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris in the latter end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar Baron An. 44. n. 25. Now the second year of Claudius when according to the general account S. Peter first preached Christianity at Rome must be about five years after the death of Tiberius Caligula wanting but little more than a month of four years Wherefore with respect to the first planting of the Church one Sister Church cannot claim superiority over another especially not over the Elder 3. Nor were there ever any Canons of the ancient Church which subjected these Realms to the See of Rome but the fixed rights of the free Churches were secured in the three first General Councils in those Canons I have above mentioned Conc. Nic. c. 6. Const c. 2. Eph. c. 8. And the Council of Ephesus is very zealous against the invaders of these priviledges as being a thing in which the liberties of all Churches are concerned and by which the intent of the sacerdotal function is perverted 4. That these Churches did preserve and retain their liberties Britannick liberty preserved till Austin the Monk Bed Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 4. until the time that Austin the Monk came into England is manifest in that both in the Southern and Northern parts of this Island as also in Ireland they celebrated Easter and observed some other rites differently from the Rules and Canons of the other Western Churches and particularly of the Roman and therefore were not governed by them Indeed they celebrated Easter upon the Lords day as was noted by the Emperour Constantine Euseb de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 18. Bed Hist Eccl. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. l. 3. c. 4. at the time of the Council of Nice but they fixed on this day by a different rule from that of other Churches And when Austin required them to submit themselves to the Romish Church and to change these their different rites they would not hearken to him herein but both Britans and Scots long observed their former usages and some of their Clergy and Monks who lived within the English limits Bedae Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 20. l. 3. c. 26. Bishop Spotsw Hist of Sc. l. 1. p. 18. H. Huntingd. Hist l. 3. and Colman Bishop of the Northumbrians rather left their places than they would forsake the customs of their own Church Yea they disowned Communion with him as invading the Liberties of their Churches and the Scotch Bishops would not so much as eat in the House where Austins Company was as is related in a Letter of Laurentius who succeeded Austin at Canterbury recorded in H. Huntingdon And the plain Declaration of the Abbot and Monks of Bangor who were the most eminent Society of the British Church consisting of thousands did fully disclaim and protest against all right of subjection to the Bishop of Rome as is expressed in their protestation made to Austin and exhibited in the British tongue by Sir Hen. Spelman Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 108 109. wherein they own no subjection to any above their own Archbishop as a superiour Ecclesiastical Officer 5. Nor did the Bishop of
that the Popes usurped power was not so quietly and freely submitted to in this Realm as thereby to give him any right to govern here SECT III. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates 1. The bounds of Patriarchal Authority altered The third Assertion is That the Patriarchal rights especially those of Rome do not now stand on the same terms as they did in the ancient Church nor can the present Roman Bishop claim subjection in all those limits which of right were under the ancient and Catholick Bishops of Rome No man can reasonably think that the bounds of the Patriarchal Sees were unalterable unless they had been of a divine or Apostolical Authority But that they were never looked upon as such in the Catholick Church may besides other testimonies appear in that the General Councils undertook to erect Patriarchates and to divide the limits of others as they saw cause Sect. 3 Thus the dignity and honour of a Patriarch was given to the Bishop of Constantinople Conc. Const c. 3. in the second General Council and his Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction were fixed in the fourth and in the same the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided and part thereof allotted to the Bishop of Jerusalem who then received Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. But I shall only consider four things which may so alter the state of Patriarchal Jurisdictions that every one of them besides what is abovesaid is a bar against all claim of authority in the Bishop of Rome to these Churches and Realms 2. First from the different territories 1. From the different bounds of free Kingdoms and Dominions of Soveraign Kings and Princes For the doctrine and design of Christianity did not intend to undermine and enervate but to establish and secure the right of Kings and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free Kingdoms to devest themselves of sufficient means to preserve their own security and peace and the necessary administration of justice Nor can the former acts of any Councils or Bishops wheresoever any such were give away the rights of Kings and Realms But a Foreign Bishop who is under no Allegiance to this Crown and hath no particular obligation to seek the good of this Kingdom Mischiefs from Foreign Jurisdiction may probably oft incline to designs either of his own ambition or the interests of other Princes against the true welfare of this Realm as hath sufficiently been done in the Court of Rome And if such an one hath power to cite before him any person whomsoever of this Realm either to his Patriarchal Seat or his Legate and hath the authority without all redress or appeal save to an Oecumenical Council which probably will never be had to inflict so severe a sentence as Excommunication truly is he would hereby have a considerable awe and curb upon many of the subjects of the Realm that they would be wary of opposing or provoking him And if Canonical obedience were due to him from all the Clergy and filial reverence from the laiety such a person being the Kings Enemy may have greater opportunity of indirect managing his ill projects than is consistent with the safety of the Realm or with the innocency and goodness of the Christian Religion to promote 3. The exercise of a foreign authority when managed by haughty and ambitious spirits hath been of such ill consequence to Kings and Emperours that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his Crown to the Popes Legate Henry the Third Emperour of Germany Mart. Polon in Greg. Sept. p. 361. was compelled to stand at the Popes Gate barefoot several dayes n frost and snow to beg for absolution and Frederick the First to submit to Pope Alexander treading upon his neck And other instances there are of like nature of the despising Dominions and Dignities being the effects of Interdicts and Romish Excommunications Towards the whole Kingdom St. 25 Hen. 8.21 it becomes a method of exhausting its treasure by tedious and expensive prosecution of appeals and many other ways which were not without cause publickly complained of in this Kingdom Antiq. Brit. p. 178. insomuch that the yearly revenue of the Court of Rome out of this Kingdom was in the time of Henry the Third found to be greater than the revenue of the King And it is an high derogation from the Soveraignty of a King as well as a prejudice to the subjects where justice cannot be effectually administred and Cases of right determined by any authority within his own Dominions And with respect to the Clergy Pryn An. 24 25 Edw. 1. p. 689 c. the Foreign Jurisdiction sometimes brought them into great straits as did that Bull of Boniface the Eighth which put them to avoid his Excommunication upon contesting with the King and thereby brought them under the Kings displeasure and into very great grievances as appears from the Records of that time 4. And as upon these accounts it appears reasonable and necessary that the Dominions of Soveraign Princes should be free from any Foreign Ecclesiastical superiority so there are many things which may be observed to this purpose in the ancient state of the Church The Government of Dioceses Provinces and Patriarchates hath been acknowledged to have been ordered within the Empire and according to the distinct limits of the Provinces thereof Conc. Const c. 3. Chalc. c. 28. Conc. Chalc. c. 17. Trul. c 38. The Sees of Rome and Constantinople enjoyed the greatest Ecclesiastical priviledges because they were the Imperial Cities The Canons also of Oecumenical Councils enjoined that if any City receive new priviledges of honour by the Imperial authority the Ecclesiastical Constitutions for the honour of its See shall be regulated thereby And whereas the Slavonian Churches were first Converted to Christianity by them who were of the Eastern or Greek Church and embraced their Rites when Bohemia and some other branches of the Slavonian Nations were made members of the German Empire they thereupon became subject to the Government of the Western Church Thus also when the Bishop of Arles had an eminent authority in the ancient Gallia Comâ— Hist n 18. upon that City being divided from those Dominions and becoming subject to the Goths who then Commanded Italy and Spain he exercised no longer any Jurisdiction there but had his authority changed to be Delegate over the Spanish Territories but when this City was again reduced to the French Government he no longer exercised his authority in the Dominions of Spain 5. Yet it must be acknowledged that in practice the Dominions of several Soveraign Princes have been subject to a Foreign Patriarch which was not their duty But this was undertaken either upon presumption that because of the excellency and simplicity of the Christian Religion there could be no fear of prejudice from
Conspiracies have been frequently contrived against the Safety and Welfare of Princes and their Kingdoms as the consequent of the wicked Positions which I have undertaken to refute But all these attempts which are Pernicious and Destructive to Humane Society will I hope sufficiently appear by the following Discourse to be perfectly opposite to the Christian Doctrine also and severely condemned by it Wherefore the things treated of in this Book are of such a nature that they are of great concernment for the good Order Peace and Settlement of the World the security of Kings and Kingdoms and the vindicating the Innocency of the Christian Religion Upon this Account I could wish my self to be more able to discourse of such a subject as this every way suitably to and worthy of it self But as I have herein used diligent care and consideration so I can freely say I have every where endeavoured impartially to discover and faithfully to express the truth and have never used any unworthy Artifices to evade or obscure it And therefore if the sober and judicious Reader shall in any thing of less moment as I hope he will not in matters of great moment discern any mistake I shall presume upon his Candor and Charity In the manner of handling things I have avoided nothing which I apprehended to be a difficulty or considerable matter of objection but in the return of Answers and the use of Arguments to confirm what I assert I have oft purposely omitted many things in themselves not inconsiderable for the shunning needless prolixity and have waved several things taken notice of by others for this cause sometimes because I was not willing to lay any stress upon such things as seemed to me not to be of sufficient strength On this account for instance in discoursing of the Supremacy of Princes over Ecclesiastical Officers I did not insist on our Saviour and S. Peter paying Tribute Mat. 17.24 27. For though many ancient Writers speak of this as paid to Caesar and some expressions in the Evangelist seem to favour this sense yet I suppose there is rather greater likelyhood that this had respect to the annual oblation unto God himself which the Jews paid for the service of the Temple to which St Hilary and some other Ancients refer it Yet in rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesars I still reserve unto God the things that are Gods acknowledging the primary necessity of embracing the true Worship of God and the Doctrine and practice of Christianity and that all Christians ought to bear an high reverence to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ under the Gospel and to that Authority and those Officers which he hath peculiarly established therein But there is a very great miscarriage among men that there are those who look upon many weighty things in Christianity as if they were merely secular Constitutions and were no further necessary to be observed than for the securing men from outward penalties These men do not observe and consider that there lyeth a far greater necessity of keeping and valuing the Communion of the Church of devoutly attending Gods publick worship and orderly performing its Offices with other things of like nature from the Precepts and Institutions of Christ and from the Divine Sanctions than from the countenance or establishment of any civil Law or secular Authority whatsoever The lively sense and consideration of this was that which so wonderfully promoted and preserved both Piety and Unity in the Primitive Church when it had no encouragement from the Temporal Power But there must be no opposition made between Fearing God and Honouring the King but a careful discharge of both and these Precepts which God hath joined together let no man separate And now I shall only entreat that Reader who is inclined to have different apprehensions from the main things I assert to be so just to his own reason and Conscience as impartially to consider and embrace the evidence of Truth which is the more necessary because truths of this nature are no mere matters of speculation but are such Rules to direct our practice which they who are unwilling to entertain act neither charitably to themselves nor accountably to God And he who is the Father of Spirits direct the hearts of all men into the wayes of Goodness Uprightness Truth and Peace Lyn Regis June 21. 1678. THE CONTENTS THE First BOOK Chap. I. THE Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared Sect. 1. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England Sect. 2. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to Causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 3. The Declaration of this sense by publick Authority observed Sect. 4. The spiritual Authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the Secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy Sect. 5. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto Chap. II. The Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered Sect. 1. Their supreme Authority over things and persons sacred manifested Sect. 2. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same Authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Chap. III. No Synedrial Power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal Sect. 1. The Exorbitant Power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 2. The determination of many weighty Cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the Royal Power examined and refuted Sect. 3. Of the Antiquity of the Synedrial Power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate Chap. IV. Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical proved from reason and the Doctrine of Christ Sect. 1. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign Power Sect. 2. The same established by the Christian Doctrine Sect. 3. What Authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church Sect. 4. An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great with respect to the fuller clearing this matter Chap. V. An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the Authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion Sect. 1. Of the General Exercise of this Supremacy and its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice Sect. 2. This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople and the third at Ephesus Sect. 3. The same acknowledged in the Council of Chalcedon and others Sect. 4. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered Sect. 5. Other Objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their Authority Sect. 6. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the Causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance
contained in the Gospel no authority upon earth hath any right to prohibit this And those Christians who rightly worship God in the true Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such assemblies for the Christian worship as appear useful for the Churches good though this should be against the interdict of the civil power As this is well and largely asserted by Mr Thorndike Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 4. c. so was it practised by the Christians under their Persecutions and even by the Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours But the Sovereign Ruler hath a right to promote this publick worship and to establish it by a civil Sanction to protect the Church therein and to punish those who neglect it and in this sense Princes are as Amalarius stiled Ludvicus Pius Amal. Pras lib. de Eccles Offic. Rectores totius Religionis Christianae quantum ad homines pertinet Governours in what relates to the Religion and worship of Christianity And the civil Ruler hath also a right to oppose those who are guilty of schismes and occasion unchristian divisions in the publick worship of God and in so doing S. Austin undertakes to warrant him as well he may from the doctrine of the Apostle That he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Aug. Ep. 164. and they that resist receive to themselves damnation that he is a terrour to evil works and a revenger to execute wrath on him who doth evil tota igitur quaestio est saith he utrum nihil mali sit sohisma the only thing to be enquired into in this case is whether there be no evil in the sin of Schism And though the method and rule of the publick worship it self is to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Officers to whose immediate care the Church is committed yet the secular power hath a right to see that this be done to establish such orders of worship by their Sanctions to provide for their due observance Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 10. and that they may be performed without disturbance And such things as these were established by the Imperial law 3. And the doctrine of Christianity 3. Concerning the Christian doctrine and profession though no authority hath any right to oppose any part of the Christian truth Princes may and ought to take care of the true profession thereof in their Dominions and to suppress such dangerous errors as are manifestly contrary thereunto Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. G. Novel 132. as was done by the pious Emperours in the ancient Church against Arianisme Donatisme Manicheisme and other Heresies But in cases of difficulty for the deciding or ending of controversies about matters of faith the disquisition and Resolution of the spiritual guides ought to take place and to be embraced because they are by their office Pastors and Teachers and their joint and regular determinations of great moment for the Churches peace and also because the Church as a Christian Society and therefore the guides and Officers thereof in the first place is the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim. 3.15 Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 16. Cod. ubi sup Novel 131. Upon this account were many ancient Councils convened and even the first general Council of Nice And accordingly hath the doctrine established in the four first general Councils been constantly received in the Christian Church hence also both the Imperial law and the Canonical decrees Dist 15. c. sicut c. Sancta reverence the doctrine of these Councils tanquam sacras scripturas and a very high respect is given to them in our English laws And the Arian Emperours who lived after the Council of Nice could not by their Imperial power null its decision of doctrine after its plenary establishment and confirmation V. Ch. 5. Sect. 1 2 3. But in such cases the Catholick Christian Emperours did by their authority establish the decisions of the Oecumenical Councils And as it is no abatement of the Royal Supremacy in civil matters that when controversies are determined by able Judges and sometimes by a consultation of many of those Sages their determinations should be established by the royal power no more is the like proceeding in matters of Religion any diminution of the royal power when the regular determinations of Catholick Councils are owned thereby but this method of proceeding doth in both the cases mentioned evidence that the royal power is exercised with due Christian care for the best attaining the designed end But in matters of truth which are plain and manifest from the holy Scriptures themselves and the primitive Christian Doctrine or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith the secular Governour so far as is necessary may proceed upon the evidence thereof to his own understanding 4. Supremacy concerning order decency and peace in the Church 4. In establishing rules and Constitutions for order decency and peace it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers who are Guides and Overseers of the Church to consult advise and take care thereof and this was a great part of the business of many ancient Councils and the Canons thereof But yet this is with such dependance upon the regal power as I cannot better express than in the words of our late Soveraign King Charles the First If saith he any difference in the Church of England arise about the external policy Decl. before 39. Articl concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them having first obtained leave under our broad Seal so to do and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land But in such an extraordinary case as that in the primitive times was when the civil power will not own the Church the Ecclesiastical Governours by their own authority may establish necessary rules of order as was then done But since the external Sanction of such things doth flow from the general nature of power and authority wheresoever the temporal power will take that care of the Church which it ought it hath a right to give its establishment to such Constitutions and the Ecclesiastical Officers as subjects are bound to apply themselves thereto for the obtaining it And as the Canons of Councils were usually confirmed by pious Princes so the Constitutions of the Imperial law did require the Canons to be observed as laws Nov. 6. 131. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 2. l. 6 12. And the Calling of Councils 5. 5. The calling of Councils so far as is needful for the preservation of the peace and order of the Church may be performed as the former by Ecclesiastical Officers where the civil disowneth the Church But this being no particular exercise of the power of the Keys but only of a general authority doth peculiarly belong to the Prince
difference of Judaism and Christianity considered with respect to supremacy But as to the particular subject matter of this authority which cannot possibly be the same in Judaisme and Christianity there must of necessity appear a difference in the exercise of this supreme authority many things being allowable under the law which are not so under the Gospel But it is here further pleaded that the Kings under the Law might be further interested in Ecclesiastical affairs than the Gospel will admit because the Church and state were not so much distinguished under the legal Oeconomy as under the Evangelical the Mosaical law being the foundation and rule both of the Jewish Church and of the political government But in truth the proper fixed Kingly authority in the Family of Israel was not so much established as only allowed by the Mosaical law and though there was a true royal power in Moses and in the Judges yet this was not fixed and determined to be the constant Government by a particular law And the Priesthood under the law was as fully distinct from the civil power as the Church government under the Gospel is neither of them deriving themselves from the civil nor resolving themselves into it But in both these dispensations as the Ecclesiastical government was appointed by them so was the civil also in general established yet so that the foundation which it hath in the laws of nature is antecedent unto both And if there be any difference as to subjection of things and persons Ecclesiastical unto Princes it might seem plausible which yet is not to be insisted upon that the Jewish Priesthood might the rather pretend exemption from the royal power as being established before the fixed royal line 9. Epil B. 1. Ch. 20. Right of the Church ubi supra It is also urged and must be granted that the Christian Church is of a larger extent than the limits of any single temporal soveraign whereas the Jewish Church and State were one and the same body except the case of some Proselytes such as Naaman was among the Gentiles And from hence it is to be acknowledged that by the determination of Catholick Councils or by the universal practice of Christians abroad any particular Christian Kingdom and the Soveraign thereof may be obliged to entertain and establish some things otherwise indifferent in a compliance with these generally received usages and thereby with respect to the peace unity and honour of the Christian Church Of this nature are some things relating to Canonical ordinations the solemnizing of marriage the observation of the Church festivals and the rules for communicating with other parts of the Christian Church Indeed no such rule as this could have any force in the Jewish Church but yet this consideration cannot hinder either the extent or exercise of the Princes authority in the Christian Church unless this power had consisted in a liberty to lay aside all rules in matters adiaphorous relating to Religion besides his own pleasure Whereas it doth consist in such a right as cannot be restrained or annulled by any power upon earth to establish by civil sanctions what is useful about Religion And his being obliged in Conscience to admit and embrace such particular things as conduce to the Vnity or welfare of the Christian Church which is a duty every Christian oweth unto God is no more prejudicial to his supremacy of Government in this very case than a private mans being bound to admit what general custom hath made a part of decency and civility is prejudicial to or inconsistent with his right and power of governing and commanding his own actions 10. Wherefore it remains that the supremacy of Christian Princes notwithstanding these things objected is the same in substance with the Supremacy of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion but in some particularities there must be a difference in the way of its exercise And this may possibly be all that Mr Thorndike intended who expressing a difference in this matter between the state of the law and the Gospel referreth this sometimes a Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 11. to the consideration of the Churches Vnity or else b Review Ch. 1. p. 11. as a stop to Erastus Yet he plainly asserteth from the consideration that the Apocalypse foretelleth the conversion of the Empire to Christianity c Review p. 15. that it cannot be doubted that Christian powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient people always had by the making Christianity the Religion of the State And he also admits d Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 9 10 11. Review ch 1. p. 13 14. the same power in matters Ecclesiastical both in the Christian state and in the Jewish to flow from the nature of Soveraign power and the necessary duty of this power being employed to advance Religion 11. Of the Consecration of Churches Another thing which may possibly deserve some consideration is from the general usage and practice of the Church concerning the dedication and consecration of Churches Some have thought that when Salomons Temple was consecrated the consecration thereof was mainly performed by Salomon himself who was the King this is urged by the Leviathan Leviath Ch. 40. Hospin de Templ l. 4. c. 2. and some men of learning seem to favour this notion speaking of him Ipse dedicationis praecipuas obivit partes that he himself discharged the chief part of the dedication But the general practice of the Christian Church hath been so far as any account thereof can be discovered to have their Churches dedicated not by Princes undertaking to celebrate that solemnity but by the Bishops of the Church C. 1. q. 2. c. placuit de Consecrat dist 1. Leon. Ep. 88. ad Germ. Gal. Episcop De Vit. Const c. 40 43 44. And this is not only manifest from divers Canons mentioned by Gratian and from the Epistles of Leo but the practice of the Church herein is evident in the time of Constantine the Great For there is a particular account given by Eusebius in the life of Constantine of the dedication of a famous Church in Jerusalem to which he telleth us divers Bishops were assembled and did bear their parts in that solemnity And the same author acquainteth us that in his reign there were in divers Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. consecrations of those places of divine worship which were then lately built and the meeting of Bishops to that end 12. But that this seeming difficulty may be cleared it may be observed that there were three sort of things done at the consecration of the temple at Jerusalem 1. Salomon whom God had chosen to build his House when he had finished it yieldeth up his right and presenteth it to God and by Prayer desireth Gods acceptance and that it might be useful to the designed end and the
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
was baptized being against such great evidence deserves no more assent than the most fabulous stories concerning such religious reliques as do serve only to impose upon the credulous vulgar 7. But that argument which they seem to be most earnest in is that if Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia where Eusebius a chief Ringleader of the Arians was then Bishop this would cast an high aspersion upon that good Emperour who must say they then be concluded to dye in the Arian and not in the Catholick Communion Now it might be sufficient to say that by this same argument they might as well prove all the Nicene Council to be Arians as this good Emperour since they sate and no doubt received the Communion at Nice where Theognis was Bishop who was the constant Companion and Confederate with Eusebius in managing the Arian designs But I shall further add two things 1. That it might be possible that his baptism was not received from the hands of this Eusebius De Vit. Cons l. 4. c. 61 62. Eusebius Pamphilius declaring that there were divers Bishops at that time called to Nicomedia and Gelasius who was a famous Bishop of Palestine in that Century declaring that he was not baptized by an Arian but by one who embraced the Catholick faith as his words in Photius cited by Scaliger do plainly express Scalig. in Euseb Chron. p. 251. 2. That if it should be admitted that he was baptized by this Eusebius as is indeed expressed in the Chronicon of S. Hierome and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 published by Scaliger with the Chronicon of Eusebius yet this will by no means charge him with Arianisme For 1. This Eusebius of Nicomedia had then subscribed the faith of Nice and though he and Theognis were once deposed by that Council yet upon their professed submission to the faith thereof they were again restored and received as S. Hierome acquaints us Hier. adv Lucif and the form of their submission is extant in Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 10. and Sozom. l. 2. c. 15. And though this submission of his was as Theodoret tells us Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 19. out of an ill design this is no way to be imputed to the Emperour 2. The faith of the Council of Nice was then publickly established and the Fathers at Ariminum above-mentioned do sufficiently intimate his being baptized into it 3. He then appeared a manifest friend to the Catholick Bishops who held to the Council of Nice in that at the time of his death at Nicomedia he designed to recal Athanasius from his banishment though Eusebius of Nicomedia perswaded the contrary Theod. ibid. c. 32. Athan. Apol 2. ex lit Const filii as Theodoret with whom Athanasius himself agrees doth acquaint us 4. Nicomedia was not the place he intended for his Baptism but Jordan but his sickness of which he died surprizing him here left him no liberty to choose any other place 8. I shall now only add that according to this evidence all the actions of Constantine expressed in the former Section were performed before his baptism But if any shall embrace the contrary opinion which I reject as false and groundless many of those actions will still be previous thereto And therefore this Princes authority and duty to take care of things Ecclesiastical was not the effect of his undertaking Christianity but was contained in the general authority of his imperial Soveraignty Yet I doubt not but this fiction of Constantines being baptized at Rome and the other of his Donation are two Twins being both of them the spurious and illegitimate off-spring of a luxuriant fancy impregnated by a Romancing Incubus And the large form of his Donation not that in Balsamon but in Binius Bin. Tom. 1. p. 296. expresseth the Baptism of Constantine by Silvester But this Donation is now justly rejected as a manifest forgery by their own learnedest Writers as Morinus and P. de Marca De Concord l. 3. c. 12. n. 3 5. the latter of which supposeth some of the Popes themselves about the eighth Century to be accessory to the framing and obtruding this imposture CHAP. V. B. I.C.5 An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion SECT 1. Of the general exercise of this Supremacy and of its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice 1. IT is acknowledged that the truths either of Christian doctrine or of natural reason do not principally depend upon the consent of men It is not to be decided by the voice of the World whether the only true God and he alone ought to be worshipped nor did it depend upon the vote of the Jewish Priesthood or Sanhedrim whether Jesus was the true Messias And upon this account the Gentile Deities were deservedly derided by Tertullian sertul Ap. cap. 5. who had no other title thereto than by the vote of the Senate nisi homini placuerit Deus non erit 2. But yet none can be expected Sect. 1 to give a better and more sure account of the doctrines and duties of Christianity than those who have been the professors and practisers of that Religion in the purer times thereof And therefore there is such a just respect and reverence due to the primitive Christian Church and the assistance of the divine grace which guided and influenced it that that which was generally received therein hath thereby a very great and considerable testimony of its being a truth especially where there are also other great arguments and evidences to evince the same And in such things it may well be allowed Dr. Hammond of Heresy Sect. 14. according to Dr Hammond among the pie credibilia that a truly general Council shall not err And even those persons who have no due regard either to antiquity or the authority of the Christian guides will manifest their great pride if they will reject and contradict the general sense of the Church unless it be upon very clear and manifest evidence to the contrary But such who pretend as the Romish Church doth a reverence and high veneration for Tradition are thereby the more concerned not to disclaim what hath been ordinarily and plainly delivered in the ancient Church 3. Now to give an account of the sense of the particular Fathers in this place would be a more long and tedious work than would be needful And indeed the minds of many of them may sufficiently be discerned by their plain expressions mentioned in several parts of this discourse Nor will I insist upon those commonly observed and very expressive sayings concerning Supremacy in general as that of Tertullian Imperatores in Dei solius potestate sunt Apol. c. 30. 33. cont Parm. l. 3. à quo sunt secundi post quem primi and majestatem Caesaris Deo soli subjicio and that of Optatus super Imperatorem
promoting the desired concord thereof 11. And when this Council was ended Constantine enjoined the observation of what was established thereby to take place in all even in the most remote Provinces of his Empire Eus ib. c. 18. He also gave his Imperial Sanction to the Decrees of this Council confirming them by his Imperial Seal Eus ibid. c. 22. which Eusebius expresseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And both the Nicene Creed and its Canons are confirmed in the Civil Law in the Codex and Authentica SECT II. This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople and the third at Ephesus 1. That the second general Council at Constantinople was summoned by the Emperour viz. Theodosius is declared both by Socrates and Sozomen Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7. The Council of Constantinople But Baronius though he had a little before cited the express testimony of Socrates against his assertion would have us believe that it was called by the authority of Damasus and produceth some small appearances of argument for the proof thereof Bar. an 381. n. 19 20. and tells us there is an ancient Manuscript in the Vatican and some other Libraries which declareth so much Bin. Not. in Conc. Const not f. And Binius making use of the same Plea is so earnest and fierce that he saith Nemo nisi pertinax haereticus asseveret hoc Concilium ab Imp. indictum fuisse Let no man unless he be an obstinate Heretick assert that this Council was summoned by the Emperour Sect. 2 2. Yet all this is a plain instance whereby we may clearly see how little credit is to be given to the specious pretence of Vatican Manuscripts or to the confident assertions of such Writers or their little forced Arguments For there is only one Epistle of this General Council Epist Synod ad Theod. in Bin. Bar. an 381. n. 37. produced both by Binius and Baronius in Latine and in this Epistle themselves declare again and again unto Theodosius the Emperour that they were convened by his authority They tell him in one of their expressions Mandato tuae pietatis Constantinopoli convenimus and in another Literis quibus nos convocasti Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es So that they assembled by the Letters and Mandate of the Emperour which they accounted an honour to the Church who were no obstinate Hereticks 3. And indeed though the calling of General Councils be now with some eagerness claimed by many of the Romish Writers as a prerogative of the Pope yet the late Archbishop of Paris hath acknowledged De Concord l. 6. c. 28. n. 12. that the first who pretended any right hereunto was Pope Nicholas about the year 865. And he hath sufficiently evidenced as others also have done that those Decretal Epistles which are said to be of a more early date Ibid. l. 3. c. 5. and express any such authority to be in the Pope are certainly spurious and supposititious 4. And in this second Council it is manifest that during part of their Session the Emperour Theodosius was present in the Council Theod. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 9. as is affirmed in a Synodical Epistle from Constantinople to Damasus written by many of the same Fathers at another Council the year following which is to be seen in Theodoret. And the choice of the Bishop of Constantinople which was part of the business that Council was to undertake Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 8. was there determined by the Emperour himself who requiring the Bishops present to give him a Catalogue of such persons as they thought fit to nominate he reserved to himself the election of one out of this number and fixed upon the name of Nectarius who was the last in that Catalogue who thereupon was made Bishop of Constantinople 5. When this Council was ending in their Synodal Epistle to the Emperour Ep. Synodal ubi supra they give him an account of what they have done sent him a Copy thereof and pray him that by his Letters he would confirm the Decrees of that Council and that by his commands they may be of force ratum esse jubeas confirmesque concilii decretum and that he would strengthen the things which they had decreed and concluded by his sentence and seal Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Sozom. l. 7. c. 9. And after this in confirmation of the determinations of this Council the Emperour added his suffrage and consent to what they had done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he also established a law that all the Christian Churches should be committed to them only who confess the same divine nature of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost 6. That the third General Council of Ephesus The Council of Ephesus was summoned by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger is attested both by Socrates and Evagrius Socr. l. 7. c. 33. Evagr. l. 1. c. 3. And though they who espouse the interest of the Romish Bishop do here likewise plead for its being convened by his authority there are so many Synodical Epistles of this Council taken notice of both by Binius and Baronius wherein they assert themselves to be assembled by the command of the Emperor that he that hath either honesty or a face may well be ashamed to assert the contrary And indeed touching the calling this Council and the exercising of the Imperial supremacy concerning it I shall not need to take notice of any thing further than what is related and asserted for truth by Baronius and Binius 7. They write themselves to be met together by the Emperours Authority Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 17. Edit Peit in their Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople and in their Encyclick Epistle and in their Epistle to the Emperour And in their Epistle to Coelestine then Bishop of Rome they tell him not that they were convened by his authority but that they were met together according to the will of our Saviour and the Sanction of the most pious Emperours viz. Theodosius the Second and Valentinian at the day of Pentecost And they go on to tell him that this was the day which the Decree of the Emperour by which they were called together did fix for their first Session with several other expressions to the same sense Baron an 431. n. 10. And Coelestine himself in an Epistle to Theodosius which Baronius hath published telleth the Emperour that he did afford his presence by those Deputies he sent huic Synodo quam esse jussistis to this Synod which you have commanded to be held 8. And the Emperour first sent Candidianus a Count and afterward others to be present in this Synod not that he should give any vote in matters of faith but to take care of the peaceable and orderly proceeding of the Synod Baron ib. n. 45 46. And also to provide that no other business should be propounded till
foreign Jurisdiction by Oath 1 Eliz. 1. Article 37. is to restore that Jurisdiction to the Crown which had been usurped by the Pope and our Articles do assert that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England and the Injunctions of King Edward did also declare K. Edw. Inj. 1. that no manner of obedience and subjection within these Realms and Dominions is due to him And the truth of this I shall undertake to manifest after I have first given some account of the claim he makes SECT II. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 2 1. Against the supreme Government of Princes there is an high and imperious demand made of an Vniversal Monarchy for the Romish Bishop and of an exemption from the secular Government fot all Ecclesiastical things and persons And this is pleaded for and defended by divers of their Writers 2. Various assertions of Romish Writers concerning the Popes Supremacy Earcl de potest Papae c. 3. adversus Monarchomach l. 4. c. 4. l. 5. c. 8. Yet among those who embrace the Romish Communion there have been and are considerable persons who have maintained that the Pope as Pope and by divine right hath no temporal power and in temporal things hath no authority over Kings And yet even these men acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar and the Universal and supreme Pastor to be endowed with a spiritual power and Empire over all Christian Kings and Monarchs But some of them do expresly grant to Princes an authority in causes Ecclesiastical so far as is necessary for the preservation of the temporal Republick 3. This opinion was not only embraced by Joh. Major Jacobus Almain and some others more anciently but is also at large declared and defended by Barclay de potestate Papae Blackwel in his Examination Barnes in his Catholico-Romanus Pacisicus and divers others But this assertion is not only distastful to the Romish Court but even Bellarmine accounted it to be rather an Heresy than an opinion De Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. 4. Many others there are who deny the Pope to have any direct temporal power but yet grant him as much as he can desire nder the terms of indirectè in ordine ad spiritualia For since by this phrase is meant in order to the advancement or preservation of the See and interest of the Romish church and those of its Communion these persons grant as much indirectly as any other do directly even as if any person should aver that Alexander had no direct right to any other Kingdoms or Countries but in order to the advancement of his Crown or enlargement of his Government his claim was valid these give him as large a title as any other persons can do This method doth Eellarmine in his Controversies embrace with many others whom he mentions and he calls this the common opinion in explaining of which he gives the Pope this ample and extensive power that he hath in order to spiritual good Bell. ibid. the supreme authority of disposing of the temporal things of all Christians Yea he asserts that he can depose Kings and transfer Kingdoms not as an ordinary judge but as a supreme spiritual Prince and that he cannot ordinarily either establish temporal laws or make them void as Pope but that he can do this if the Kings themselves will not do it in ordine ad salutem animarum 5. Yet because he who talked at this rate spake with some reserves and seeming limitations of expression rather than of sense and chiefly because by considerable argument against the Popes direct temporal power he had indeed taken away the direct support for this indirect power we are informed by Barclay Barcl de Potest Pap. c. 13. p. 101. c. 40. p. 329. that Sixtus the fifth had a design and almost accomplished it by a publick censure to abolish all Bellarmines Controversies because in this particular he did not comply far enough with his ambition Acts and Monum Co. 8. n. 8. And it hath been observed both by Blackwell and Bishop Mountague that Carerius in his Book de Potestate Rom. Pontificis making it his drift to refute Bellanmine and his notion yet inscribes it adversus politicos nostri temporis haereticos 6. But there are many Canonists and others of whom Baronius was one who asserted the Pope to have a supreme universal temporal power by divine right over all the World tam jurisdictionis quam proprietatis M. Becan de Justit Jure c. 3. q. 7. Blackw Exam. n. 20. as Becanus expresseth their sense Many who maintain this opinion are mentioned by Bellarmine and others by Blackwell who observes that both Rodericus Sancius and Carerius do call this the common opinion of Divines 7. Vniversal temporal supremacy challenged by the Court of Rome But however any private persons of the Romish Communion may think in their studies or dispute in their Writings the publick claim of the Court of Rome hath been for an universal direct temporal power â—â—atina in Greg. 7. Baron as is fully evident from these among other instances When Gregory the seventh undertook to transfer the Imperial Crown from Henry the fourth to Rodolphus he founds the right of his disposal thereof upon the gift of Christ to S. Peter and his pretended Successors at Rome saying Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho 8. Extr. Coml l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam Mart. Polon an 1301. The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth asserted both the spiritual and Temporal power to belong to S. Peter and the Church with respect to which Martinus Polonus declared se dominum spiritualem temporalem in universo mundo asserebat And in his Oration in confirming Albertus to be King of the Romans lately published by Baluzius Baluz in Addit ad Marc. de Conc. l. 2. c. 3. he affirmed that as the Moon hath no light but what it receiveth from the Sun so there is no earthly power which hath any thing but what it deriveth from the Ecclesiastical power and all powers saith he are from Christ and from us as the Vicar of Christ And he there declareth that Christ hath given his Vicar that power that he hath the right of constituting an Emperour and of translating the Empire with much more to that purpose And his high contests with Philip the French King upon the like claim were very notorious which occasioned the earnest Declaration of the Estates of France against him 9. And in that large Rescript of Alexander the Sixth to Ferdinand and Isabella 7. Decretal l. 1. Tit. 9. C. â— King and Queen of Castile and Arragon and to their Heirs and Successors for ever he undertakes to give to them all the American land unpossessed of any other Christian Prince and all Islands and all parts of the Continent which either already are or hereafter shall
be discovered as things which were granted to him in S. Peter and in his power to dispose authoritate omnipotentis Dei ac vicariatus Jesu Christi upon account of the authority of God and the Vicarship of Christ with other such like words And when Bellarmine in his Books de Romano Pontifice had given such a sense of this grant as if it signified no more than to empower them to send Preachers thither and to protect converted Christians and to do such like Offices In lib. Recognit he afterwards found reason to retract what he had there said and acknowledged that when he wrote that he had not seen that rescript it self but only followed the opinion of Cajetan and some others 10. The Bull also of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth declareth that Christ had constituted him a Prince over all Nations and over all Kingdoms And the Bull of Sixtus the Fifth against Henry the third of France asserteth him to have obtained a supreme power delivered to him by divine institution over all Kings and Princes of the whole Earth and over all people Nations and Countries But these usurpations upon Royal Authority were so distastful to a considerable part of the Romish Communion De Benef. l. 1. c. 4. that Duarenus with respect to his own age tells us that he thinks there is no sober and learned man who can approve thereof II. And the proud and stately behaviour and deportment of this Bishop The Popes behaviour towards Princes towards Emperours and Kings when they are admitted into his presence is suitable hereunto which by their own Ceremonialist we have thus described Saer Cerem l. 3. Sect. 1. c. 2. Romanus Pontifex nemini omnino mortalium reverentiam facit c. The Roman Bishop doth no reverence to any mortal man either by rising up openly or by bowing his head or by uncovering it but after the Roman Emperour or other great Kings have kissed his foot and his hand as he sitteth he doth a little rise towards them to receive them to kiss his mouth And again Omnes mortales c. Ibid. c. 3. All mortal men of whatsoever dignity and pre-eminence they be when they first come into the Popes presence must thrice at distant spaces bow their knee before him and must kiss his feet 12. I forbear to mention what our Histories manifest of the haughty insolent and imperious carriage of the Pope towards our English Kings especially King Henry the Second and King John But that proud and arrogant speech of Gratian the Popes Legate to Henry the Second Nos de tali curia sumus quae consuevit imperare Imperatoribus regibus we belong to that Court whose custom it is to command or rule over Emperours and Kings was so hugely pleasing to Baronius Baron an 1196. n. 11. that he thought fit to record it in great letters and in the margent to note Gratiani responsio digna legato that it was such an answer of Gratian as was fit for the Popes Legate to make And what Luciferian insolency appeared in that Speech of Innocent the Fourth concerning Henry the Third Nonne Rex Anglorum vasallus noster est Mat. Paris an 1253. ut plus dicam mancipium Is not the King of England our Vasal and that I may say more our slave And that this was no unusual stile at Rome appeareth from ancient Records in the Tower Pryns Addit to History of K. John f. 18. f. 28. which declare the Pope both in his Council at Rome and in his Letter to the Barons and Commonalty of England to have called King John his Vasal 13. And waving many other things I shall only add that immediately before the framing the Oath of Supremacy Queen elizabeth coming to the Crown signified her Inauguration to Paul the Fourth then Pope by Edward Carne who was then at Rome as an Ambassadour from Queen Mary Hist Conc. Trident. l. 5. p. 333 334. an 1558. the Pope proudly returns his answer That the Kingdom of England was a see of the Apostolical See and that it was intolerable boldness in her to assume the name of Queen or the Government of the Kingdom without his approbation and therefore he propounded to her to renounce her pretended right to this Realm and to leave it to his dispose From these things it may appear what great cause there was for this Crown to take care that all the subjects thereof who are in any chief places of trust and employment do disown such foreign claims which would undermine the very foundations of Regal Authority And the meer recital of such things as these are such palpable evidences of impudent arrogancy despising Dominions and opposing the humble meek and peaceable design of the Christian Religion and even the principles of humane reason and polity that this alone may be sufficient with all understanding and good men to raise in them an abhorrence of and indignation against such intolerable ambition SECT III. Such claims can have no foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge 1. Every rational man might well expect that so vast a claim both of Ecclesiastical and temporal power ought to be supported with some very considerable evidence which in this case can be no other but a manifest divine constitution For since the very being of the Church of God depends upon his founding it and the very being of its Officers upon Gods appointing them there can be no other ground for any Ecclesiastical Officer to claim upon a Christian account a supremacy of rule over the World unless he can produce the institution of God to this purpose 2. Some reflections on the sense of the ancient Church concerning this Supremacy And therefore it would be needless as it might also be tedious to examine those expressions of the Fathers wherein they spake with respect and honour to the See of Rome for such expressions if they had been never so plain could not found any original divine right And it would be no difficulty if it had been needful to evidence by examining them Sect. 3 that they were far from asserting that Supremacy which is challenged 3. But instead of this I shall observe that the greatest Authority of the Christian Church hath sufficiently disclaimed all such Supreme Vniversal Authority and Government of the Romish Church For that famous Canon of the Council of Nice Conc. Nic. Can. 6. doth plainly give the same power and authority to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and the other Eparchies or chief Dioceses within their limits which it gives to the Bishop of Rome and makes them stand on even ground with one another which could not be done if the authority of the one was in subjection to the other and the authority of the other without subjection to any The second General Council also determined to the same purpose Conc.
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
those evasions which some have endeavoured to make in this Case as if in other things besides Ordination they might be subject to the Bishop of Antioch he who duly weighteth this Canon will discern that it plainly enough condemns the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch as an invading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another distinct Eparchy or Province which was not heretofore and from the beginning under the authority of him or of those who did precede him Conc. in Trul. c. 39. And when the sixth General Council did confirm this Canon of Ephesus concerning the Liberties of the Cyprian Churches they do own the priviledges given to the Metropolitan of Cyprus in his Territories to be equal to those which the Bishop of Constantinople enjoyeth in his To which may be added that in the Synod of Antioch in the Reign of Constantius among the several Provinces belonging to that Patriarch which therein assembled there is no mention at all of Cyprus 6. Also the West African Churches The African Churches taking in all Numidia Mauritania and the other ample Territories of the Carthaginian Jurisdiction were never under any of the Patriarchs These limits were never claimed to any of the Eastern Patriarchates and are sufficiently excluded from thence by the Canons of Nice Nic. Conc. c. 6. Constantinople and Chalcedon which fix the bounds of those Churches Const c. 2. Chalc. c. 28. But when the Bishop of Rome claimed a power to receive appeals from those Churches in the case of an African Presbyter who was therein censured and pretended a Canon of the Council of Nice to give him that authority the African Fathers after they had diligently sought for the most perfect Copies of the Nicene Canons from Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch besides what they had before in Latine did detect the fraud and falshood of the claim of the Bishop of Rome and rejected his demand To this purpose the sum of their proceedings may be viewed not only in particular Writers but also in the Greek Copy of the African Code which was received in the sixth general Council partly in the beginning and partly in the conclusion thereof 7. But whereas it is pretended by several Romish Writers that these African Fathers did in the end of this contest yield this authority to the Bishop of Rome even this is very far from truth Indeed they were resolved to submit if there was any Canon of Nice which enjoined that submission but after this demand concerning appeals was made by Pope Zosimus and canvased in the time of his Successor Bonifacius the African Fathers write to Coelestin who succeeded him Ad finem Conc. Carth. Gr. both asserting their own liberty of Governing their own Church and requiring him not to receive any into Communion whom they had rejected from it And whereas in the beginning of this contest with Zosimus there was a Canon made in the Council of Milevis declaring Conc. Milev 2. Can. 22. that those who should make appeals beyond the Seas or to Rome should be uncapable of being received into Communion by any in Africa Cod. Afric c. 27. after this dispute was more fully debated and considered they were so far from retracting this Canon that they caused it to be put into the African or Carthaginian Code Conc. Carth. gr c. 31. which was compiled and confirmed about the end of this disquisition and therein this Canon remains as a standing rule 8. But because it hath been observed by Zonaras Zonar in Conc. Sard. c. 5. and by very many since that what the Bishop of Rome falsly urged as a Canon of Nice was to be found among the Canons of Sardica concerning that I shall note two things First Of the Canon of Sardica That he who considers that Zosimus would herein have falsified the Council of Nice that neither he nor they who managed this contest under him or after him did urge the authority of the Council of Sardica to those African Bishops and that those Bishops after all their enquiry did declare to the Bishop of Rome Epist ad Coelestin ubi sup that they had never read in any Synod of the Fathers that any such authority was granted to him may be apt to suspect that possibly there hath been no very fair dealing about this Council of Sardica or at least must conclude that they at Rome were sensible that Africa was not subject to the authority of that Council 9. Secondly That in this Council of Sardica Cham. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 7. Marc. de Conc. l. 7. c. 3. n. 6. as Chamier observed and P. de Marca owneth here were no proper appeals to Rome asserted that the case under complaint might be there determined but only that the Bishop of Rome might order a revising of the sentence which had been pronounced against any Bishop upon his application to him And the state of the Church and the occasion of this Constitution was this Socr. l. 2. c. 5 6 7 16 18. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5 10 11. Arianisme greatly prevailing in the East the Arian Bishops there sentenced and deposed divers Catholick Bishops as particularly they had done to Athanasius in a Synod of Antioch who yet was received at Sardica Now that the faith of Nice might not by such methods be suppressed and the Communion of the Catholick Church be thereby confounded the Orthodox Bishops at Sardica who thought themselves not bound to disclaim Communion with all whom the Arian Heretical Bishops should reject allowed the Bishop who had been censured a liberty to have his Case re-examined And they committed this as a trust to the Bishop of Rome for the preserving the Catholick Communion that he should appoint Bishops about that Province sending others also to join with them to judge of that Case which trust the succeeding Bishops of Rome made ill use of for the inordinate advancement of that See But this Canon gave not the Bishop of Rome an Vniversal superiority in the right of his Church Sozom. l. 7. c. 9. Marca de Conc. l. 1. c. 3. n. 9. but dealt with him as the second General Council did with several eminent Bishops of the Eastern Churches who were appointed as Capita communionis that the rest of the Church might communicate with them with whom they held Communion Nor could the Western Bishops convey any authority over the Eastern Church which was here chiefly concerned 10 Now as these Cyprian and African Churches as well as those in these Islands had an Independent Ecclesiastical authority of the same nature with the Patriarchal but not honoured with that title so I might discourse further of other somewhat like instances both in the East and the West but I think that would be needless especially because the Patriarchal bounds and the limits of other free Churches ought not now to be fixed in all places upon the same terms on which they stood in the ancient Church as I shall
Anarchy where there is no superiour or supreme It includes Irreligion because Religion establisheth the Government of a people to be the ordinance of God and whereas Government must be by the exercise of a superiour authority there can be no authority upon Earth superiour to the supreme 8. Thirdly Supremacy cannot be asserted in a Parliament without doing violence to plain evidence For as loyal English Parliaments have constantly acknowledged supremacy in the King so it is manifest that the Parliament regularly is under the Government of the King For he Summons and gives birth to it by his Writ continues it at his pleasure and hath the authority of adjourning proroguing or dissolving it as he sees cause CHAP. IX Corollaries from the foregoing discourse concerning some duties of subjection THE Royal Supremacy being asserted it will hence follow 1. Corol. 1. Of submission and solemn professing the Kings Right That Subjects ought to own and acknowledge this just authority and supremacy of their Soveraign and heartily to manifest an humble peaceable and faithful submission thereunto This is that which the Rules of the Christian Religion do enjoin and they who are averse from the performance hereof do as much as in them lies enervate this authority and render it unmeet to attain its ends for which God did appoint it even the peace and good of the World And for the more effectual promoting of this faithful subjection the sacred bond of an Oath of homage and fidelity B. 1. C 9. is approved by God himself Eccl. 8.2 and hath been made use of by the general wisdom of the World The ancient practice of such Oaths is manifest under the Jewish Government Jud. 11.10 2 Kin. 11.17 as also under the Chaldean Empire Ezek 17.19 and under the Persian and Roman Empires Joseph Ant. l. 11. c. 8. l. 17. c. 3. Herodian l. 2. Bar. an 169. n. 9. And that the primitive Christians even in the time of persecution did by their Oaths assure their allegiance to those Princes seemeth well observed by Baronius from Tertullian Apol. c. 32. where discoursing of that fidelity and honour which the Christians had for the Emperour upon that occasion saith Sed juramus 2. Of speaking reverently Corol. 2. Subjects ought also to speak of their Princes with reverence and expressions of honour For all authority whether of Father Master or other Ruler deriving suitable degrees of honour upon the person the greatest and chief civil honour doth of right belong to him who in his Dominions is possessor of the highest authority upon earth And the ordinary using outward expressions and titles of honour is in this Case the more needful and reasonable because this hath a considerable influence upon the disposing men to obedience and because Government it self becomes most useful where it is entertained with due reverence Wherefore the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 optimus or most excellent which was the usual stile of honour which both Jews and Romans gave to the president of Judea Act. 23.26 ch 24.3 was readily made use of to Festus by S. Paul Act. 26.25 And when Priests and Rulers were none of the best men the holy Scriptures stile the Priest the Angel or Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Mal. 2.7 and the Ruler the Minister of God Rom. 13.4 and of such they use that expression Ps 82.6 I said Ye are Gods 3. And the primitive Christians were forward by such means to promote and secure the due honour of superiours Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which purpose Dionysius Bishop of Alex andria when he was a Confessor and exposed himself to be banished for the Christian profession did yield to Valerian and Galienus persecuting Emperours the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most pious Athan. Ap. ad Const Testim Eccl. Alexand in Athanas Eus Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 5. Both Athanasius himself and the Alexandrian Church which held to him called Constantius the Arian Most Religious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when Constantine wrote to some of the Prefects of the Empire he gave to them in two Rescripts mentioned by Eusebius the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your sanctity And that the ancient Churches did readily give to the Emperours their usual Imperial titles and did ordinarily treat them with such a stile as Sanctissimi Pientissimi Religiosissimi is not only manifest from particular Writers but is abundantly apparent from the Synodical Epistles of Provincial and even of Oecumenical Councils 4. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. c. 10. To. 4. c. 17. And as the like expressions of honour were frequently and usually given to the Christian Bishops so when the Council of Ephesus were about to denounce the sentence of deposition against Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople for his Heresy and when they wrote to Celestine against John Bishop of Antioch as being an Enemy to the true Faith in complyance with Nestorius they gave them both the title of Most Religious And the like was done before the sentencing Dioscorus and other Bishops who complyed with Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. Evagr. Hist l. 2. c. 18. Wherefore such expressions as these were intended as titles of honour given to them upon account of their office and without respect to their personal vertues and in that sense are to be understood Mas de Min. Angl. l. 3. c. 5. n. 3. ibid. Baron Bin. 5. The use of such expressions of honourary titles is allowed and defended both by Romish and Protestant Writers And those persons who would appear backward in yielding to the supreme Governour his just stile of eminency and supremacy are wanting in giving him the honour which God enjoins and cannot easily be acquitted from the guilt of scandal in encouraging the bad temper of some and adding to the ignorance of others in that particular And they who are desirous to expose the persons actions or constitutions of their superiours may take warning by the actings of Ham towards his Father Noah which entailed a Curse upon his posterity 6. Corol. 3. it is also the duty of subjects Of praying for Kings heartily to pray for Gods blessing on the person and Government of their Soveraign because therein both Church and State and private interests also are so much concerned This was enjoined by S. Paul as a matter of principal concernment 1 Tim. 2.1 2. and was performed in the early times of Christianity Tert. Apol c. 30. Conc. Emer in Praef. And the Council of Merida did more particularly pray for their King Recessuinthus because he was Governour in all Causes Civil and Ecclesiastical quoniam de secularibus sancta illi manet cura Ecclesiastica per divinam gratiam recte disponit mente intentâ sit illi opitulatrix ineffabilis omnipotentis Dei gratia quae se quaerentibus manet propinqua But because it is an high piece of
properly an Heretical Position For this justifieth the highest disobedience and resistance of Superiours though the Apostle declares that such shall receive to themselves damnation This gives liberty to the greatest acts of unrighteousness towards Princes and consequently towards their Subjects and the whole Community although the doctrine of Christianity declares that the unrighteous cannot inherit the Kingdom of God It also gives way to the wicked practises of murder The like Position in the Arrest of the Parl. of Paris against Chastell was condemned as heretical And on these accounts in Greg. 7. Plerisque Episcopis pestifera haeresis visa est Aventin Annal. Boior l. 5. and breaking the peace and order of the World under most heinous aggravations though all this be severely decryed and condemned in the Christian Doctrine And it allows of the most signal instances of perfideiousness notwithstanding the obligations in this Case to fidelity from the divine Precepts the reverence of an Oath the respect to Gods Ordinance by which Rulers are established and the interest of the common good And after all this to aver that any thing of Christ's institution and appointment doth give a Warrant to and approbation of these impieties is a Position both heretical and blasphemous concerning the Government of our Saviour Now not only those assertions which directly contradict the Articles of our Creed but those also which oppose the necessary Rules and Precepts of a holy life which are a considerable part of the Christian Faith and Doctrine have generally been esteemed heretical doctrines in the Church of God Thus those assertions of Simon Magus Epiph. Haer. 21 25 26. the Gnosticks and the Nicolaitans whereby they gave allowance to impure and unclean practises have ever been reckoned among their heretical doctrines Ibid. Haer. 47. 61. Such also were accounted the Positions condemning Marriage by the Encratitae and Apotactici and the rejecting all proper possessions and Dominion by the latter of them with many other things of like sort 20. But some may incline to think that wicked assertions contrary to the Faith and Doctrine of Christianity ought not to be accounted heretical unless they be so adjudged and declared by a Catholick Council Now here I acknowledge that with respect to external penalties to be inflicted on Hereticks such Rules have oft times been reasonably observed And it must also be granted that in what Church soever truth and a zeal for Religion is maintained it may well be expected that spurious and dangerous Doctrines which openly spring up therein will be there detested and condemned and the authoritative sentence of lawful Councils ought to be reverenced But it cannot be that in the inward nature of the thing the being of an heretical doctrine must depend on such a Declaration Had this been true the first Broachers and secret Spreaders of all Heresies how impious soever they were could not be forthwith chargeable with Heretical doctrine And if the Catholick Bishops were either wanting to their duties or by any extraordinary emergency were in an incapacity of meeting in Council or else were over-voted in the Council as it happened in the Synod of Ephesus concerning Eutyches and in many other Heretical Conventions this would excuse from Heresy the Teachers of the most wicked doctrines though they propagated them and persisted in them to their lives end And if the determination of an Oecumenical Council should be thought necessary to the asserting any doctrine to be Heretical then could there be no Heresies in the first three hundred years after Christ unless it should be in opposition to the things declared in that Council Acts 15. if that should be supposed general Then also Irenaeus Tertullian and others of the Fathers were unadvised in their undertaking to write against Heresies which there never had been any such things And then it must be asserted also that Arius was falsly accused of Heresy before the meeting of the Council of Nice And what in its nature is not Heresy cannot be truly so adjudged 21. Practises of difloyalty condemned by Councils Yet the substance of this Position here rejected and abjured hath been also censured and condemned by Christian Councils In the beginning of the Primitive Church it cannot reasonably be expected that such things should be condemned by Councils because no such positions were then defended nor any such wicked undertakings against Princes than practised by the Professors of Christianity But after that disloyal and treacherous practises were entertained they were earnestly censured and condemned by divers Councils In the fourth Council of Toledo it was declared Conc. Tolet 4. c. 74. that whosoever should violate their Oaths made for the preservation of the King or should attempt his death or the deposing him from his Kingdom qualibet conjuratione aut studio by any Covenant or design whatsoever should be Anathema from the presence of God and have no Society with his Church Conc. Tolet 5. c. 2. And much to the same purpose was declared in the fifth and other following Councils of Toledo And in a Synod of all England in which also the Popes Legates were present In Conc. Calcuthens an 787. c. 12. in Spelm. a like dreadful Curse is denounced against them who shall violate the Majesty of Princes and also that they who shall consent to such a sacriledge as to take away the life of the King shall perish with an everlasting Curse and being Companions with Judas shall be burnt with eternal fire And in the Council of Constance Conc. Constant Sess 15. that assertion that an ill governing Prince may lawfully or meritoriously be killed by his subject or Vasal was condemned as erroneous in faith and manners and rejected as heretical scandalous c. 22. It is confessed indeed that there is no particular clause in these Councils now produced for condemning these treasonable acts in this special Case of the Popes pretended deprivation But yet the former Councils take in all Cases without exception and no such Papal power was ever pretended to in those days And though the Council of Constance hath a reservation of a dangerous aspect concerning the sentence of a judge yet since the Pope is in truth no judge to depose Princes the pretence hereof can no more mend the matter than the censure of the High Priest against our Saviour Apud Brixinam Hildebrandum Haereseoscondemnam Avent l. 5. p. 460. Urspergens ad ann 1080. 1085. could vindicate Judas for betraying him or the Jews for Crucifying him Yet still it is easy to produce several Councils who since the appearance of this haughty Papal claim of deposing Princes have with particular respect thereto declared against this impious doctrine which is detested by them who take the Oath of Allegiance When this Papal Usurpation was first put in practice by Greg. 7. against Henry 4. Emperour there were Councils at Mentz Ticinum and Brixia and others after them who still condemned all
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
subject either to kill him or to take away his goods potest civis ille vim vi repellendo eum interimere that subject in repelling force by force may kill him 2. Now this disorderly and unruly management of self defence would fill the World with tumults and subvert the foundations of its Peace and Government since by this means the power of the sword would be put into every private mans hand to use it against his Governours when he shall think it fit for his own interest But that the falshood as well as the danger of this pretence may be manifest I shall return an answer thereto in three heads 1. That it is notoriously false that men are obliged by the law of nature in all Cases to defend their own lives and outward interests by force And it is a sufficient prejudice against this that he who will maintain it must acknowledge that all those who died Martyrs for the Christian Religion did violate the Laws of nature in not resisting their Persecutors and that all malefactors ought to fight for their lives rather than to submit themselves to justice The prime laws of nature to rational beings are the rules of good Conscience 2. That the prime law which the nature and being of man who is a rational Creature and capable of happiness doth oblige him to observe is that he ought to take care of his own welfare and chief good and to endeavour after true perfection And because this is chiefly procured by well doing therefore to be pious and sober loyal and peaceable just and good whereby purity of heart and integrity and peace of Conscience is preserved and a good name here and a blessed state hereafter obtained these are the things which our nature and being and our Religion also oblige us principally to design and all outward interests of this life must be placed in subordination to them And sure no Christian will believe that our Saviour by his Religion did subvert the prime laws of our nature and being when he required his Disciples to take up the Cross to be ready to lose their lives for his sake and to forsake all and follow him 3. That self defence is then only lawful to be managed by force when this may be done by lawful means and without transgressing any necessary duty to God or Man It is therefore justly allowed so far as it necessary against private violence and assaults being then warrantable by the Rules of right reason and good Conscience which are the laws of our nature But to allow a right of self-defence to every man by taking Armes against his superiour is as much as to say that no man is bound to own the Ordinance of God in the World or to submit himself and his interest to be governed by any civil power 3. It is also urged Rutherf ubi sup Qu. 25. Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 110. c. that in the Constitution of Government Princes are appointed for this end to wit the good of the people and therefore the peoples good is to be pursued though against the person or Government of the Prince and they most comply with the great end of Government who will take care of the community Armin. Disp publ Thes 25. n. 10. And therefore if a Prince do not promote the peoples good the end must be preferred before the means and the good of the Common-wealth is otherwise to be provided for Of the end of Government Anbs 1. That though the good of the people be a great end of Government yet it is not the sole end thereof But as when a Prince appointeth a chief Officer of a Corporation this is not only for the benefit of the members of that Society but it is also intended that they may be more useful to do the King service and that the Common-wealth may receive benefit thereby so in Soveraignty there is a claim of Gods authority in the World for his honour and therefore out of Conscience and duty to God there must be a subjection shewed to Rulers as his Ministers besides what the interest of the community will require 2. If Government were wholly intended with respect to the good of subjects I have proved in the former Sections that order peace and justice cannot be thereby established among men unless it be acknowledged that none may resist the Rulers Authority 3. To lay down such Rules that men are no longer obliged to observe any constitution intended for a further end than as the parties concerned shall judge it to conduce to that end is dangerous and unsound By this rule discontented persons might break the indissoluble bond of conjugal Relation where they account it not to answer the end by mutual helpfulness and comfort Gemer in Sanhedr Cap. 2. Par. 11. And when God forbad the King of Israel to multiply Wives lest his heart should turn away from God Deut. 17.17 the Jewish Writers account Salomon justly blameable for his multiplying Wives though he mightpresume there would be no danger of his forsaking God thereby 4. Of the original of Government being from the people Sov power of Parl. Part. 1. p. 35 36. Ruth Civ Pol. Qu. 4. p. 10. Qu. 19. p. 148. This asserted by many Papists But thee is another thing which hath been much insisted on and will require a larger Examination concerning the original of Soveraignty and the deductions which may be made from thence It was urged in our late unhappy times in England that the Soveraign power was more in the people than in the King or Prince who was originally created by them And in Scotland it was asserted then as a ground of taking Arms against the King that Royal power was radically in the people was communicated from them and that they may take it again if the conditions on which they gave it be violated and that the people being the fountain power are still superiour to the King 5. V. Bannes in 2. 2ae Qu. 40. Art 1. Dub. 2. And it is ordinary with the Writers of the Romish Church to make the people the original of the Princes Soveraign power and many of them make use of this Assertion as one way to shew the excellency of the Pope above Princes Thus Salmeron Salm. Tom. 12. Tract 63. Civil power saith he is indeed from God so far as he made the community free and gave them light and power to set up Governours and therefore secular power doth not so descend from Heaven but that it rather ascends from the community unto the King or other chief Magistrate Dominicus Soto asserts De Justit Jur. l. 4. Qu. 4. Art 2. Reges à suis Regnis potestatem recipiunt Kings receive their power from their Kingdoms Bell. de Laicis c. 6. Bellarmine asserteth indeed political powder and Government to be from God but that he gave it immediately to the whole multitude and they transfer it to
unsetled ungoverned confusion It would be also a reflexion upon the goodness of God to imagine that it was not his will that justice should be administred and viciousness punished among men that peace should not be preserved and goodness encouraged in the World and it would be a disparagement to his wisdom to conceive that he should appoint all these things to be done whilst he committeth no power or authority to any person or order of men to take care of them 3. By the testimony of the Scriptures But the express testimonies of the holy Scripture put this matter out of doubt There Governours as having Gods Authority are stiled Gods and Children of the most high Ps 82.6 And besides the Government of Israel which was evidently established by Gods appointment which was the reason why David so much reverenced Saul as being the Lords anointed we are told Pr. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice by me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And God declared by Jeremy Jer. 27.5 6. I have made the Earth and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant Cyrus also was called the Lords Shepherd Is 44.28 Princes being oft stiled Shepherds because their Office and Government is thereby much resembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Basil and the Hebrew word for a Shepherd is sometimes rendred in the Chaldee Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Governour he was also called the Lords anointed Is 45.1 And Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God setteth up Kings Dan. 2.21 and that the God of Heaven had given him a Kingdom v. 37. S. Paul also declares that there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 And he stileth the power the ordinance of God v. 2. and the Ruler the Minister of God v. 4. 4. By the sense of the ancient Church The ancient Christian Church even when they were under persecution by the Roman Emperours did yet constantly acknowledge their Authority to be from God Tert. ad Sâ—â—p c. 2. Apol. c. 30. Adv. Hares l. 5. c. 24. Tertullian declares that the Christian knows that the Emperour is constituted by his God And saith he from thence is the Emperour from whence is the man from thence is his power from whence is his spirit And the same sense is expressed by Irenaeus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 11. gr And Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius acknowledged that it was God who gave the Empire to Valerian and Galienus The same truth is asserted by S. Aug. de Civ Dei l 5. c. 21. by Epiphanius Haeres 40. and by divers other Christian Writers Bell. in Lib. Recogn de laicis insomuch that when Bellarmine sought for the testimonies of ancient Writers to prove Dominion to be of humane original he could meet with no Theological Writer of the Christian Church who favoured his opinion amongst the Fathers and therefore takes up with Aquinas And Paulus Orosius affirms Oros HIst l. 2. c. 1. Vell. in 4. Tom. Aug. ad 22 Qu. Dc Concord l. 2. c. 2. n. 1 2 3. that all Power and Government is of god is that which they who have not read the Scriptures do think and they who have read them do know And some of the Romish Church speak to this purpose as Vellosillus and especially P. de Marca 5. And now let any equal Reader consider whether the evidence of reason Scripture and the ancient Fathers will agree with that reproachful Position of Hildebrand or Greg. 7. Greg. 7. Epist l. 8. Ep. 21. against God and his Vice-gerents That Kings had their beginning from them who affected rule by the instigation of the Devil But they all tend to confirm what hath been asserted in our church Can. 1. 1640. That the most high and sacred order of Kings is of divine right being the ordinance of God himself founded in the prime laws of nature and clearly established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments 6. And the nature of the Rulers power And from the nature of this Authority will further speaks its Constitution to be from God He is to judge the people but God being the judge of all the earth all acts of judgment are declared to be not for men but for the Lord 2 Chr. 19.6 and therefore must be performed by an Authority derived from him And the punishment inflicted by Governours is an act of vengeance or revenging and therefore as vengeance or revenging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is claimed by God himself as peculiarly belonging to him Rom. 12.19 vengeance is mine so the Ruler as the Minister of God is made an Executor of Vengeance or a Revenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.4 which must be by Gods Authority derived to him And since the Ruler who bears the Sword hath an Authority of Life and Death this could not be derived to him from the community since no man hath such a Dominion over his own Life as to have a power to take away his Life Lessius de Just Jur. l. 2. c. 4. dub 10. M. Becan de Jur. c. 4. q. 1. as hath been truly asserted by Schoolmen and others and therefore cannot transfer such a power to any other person And therefore this Authority of Governours must be received from God who is Lord of life and death 7. Objections answered Having proved the Authority of Governours to be of a divine extract I shall now shew that the various pretences for founding it in the consent of men are of very little weight From the Election of some Princes It is confessed that there are elective Kingdoms and Empires in the World and that where there hath been a vacancy of a Governour and none could claim a right of succession Princes have oft been chosen by the people In this Case several Roman Emperours were Elected by their Army and received by the Senate and thus were Gideon Jephtha and other Judges established in Israel But such a liberty of choice in the people in these circumstances carries no opposition to the Authority being from God For the entring into a conjugal Society is by a free choice even so far of choice that many persons if they please may live in celibate and single life whilest men cannot live without Government and yet Matrimony and the Husbands Authority is by divine appointment And Members of a Corporation do usually chuse their chief Magistrate but thought they determine upon the person it is not they but the Princes Charter and Grant that gives him his Authority 8. And they who tell us M. Salamon de princip that Soveraign Authority cannot be a proper divine institution because then its rights would be wholly unalterable and the same in all the Governments in the World do
of God and that they who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13.1 2. the sense of these truths was contained under the acknowledgment which David made in the Old Testament who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed Hom. 1. de Dav. Saul and be guiltless For as S. Chrysostome noted when David declared Saul to be the Lords anointed he did acknowledge him to have Gods Authority and that to resist him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight against God or in the Apostles words to resist the Ordinance of God Aug. Quaest ex Vet. Test c. 35. And S. Austin observing that David called Saul the Lords anointed after the Lord had departed from him he adds that David was not ignorant divinam esse traditionem in officio ordinis Regalis that the royal office was Gods Ordinance and appointment and therefore he both did honour Saul and ought so to do 6. Some possibly may here urge that the Laws and Rules of right and all the Precepts of Religion amongst the Israelites were there established antecedently to the being of the Royal Authority among them and that these things standing by Divine Authority no King had any power to repeal or break them and on this account they might have liberty from the nature of their Constitution to defend these rights by the Sword though Christians have not But even this also will not alter the Case For throughout all the World the common Rules of right and justice have a divine stamp and are of as great Antiquity as the World it self and the nature of man and there is scarce any Kingdom in the World which hath continued without interruption of its succession and establishment so long as the doctrine of Christianity hath been in the World Tert. Ap. c. 4. Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 4. Orig. cont Cel. l. 1. l. 5. l. 8. which peculiarly is from God And however no prescription can be pleaded against the right of God and the Soveraignty of Christ no more than it could be pleaded for the establishment of the Pagan Idolatry in which Case the ancient Christians constantly asserted their duty to God and his Religion to be above that which they owed to the contrary Laws and Constitutions of humane Authority 7. Wherefore it will be of considerable moment clearly to prove that Subjects in the Church of Israel according to the will of God under the Old Testament were not allowed in any such Cases as have been pretended to take Armes against their Soveraign And if this was then unlawful it is now much more so under the dispensation of the Gospel SECT II. The general unlawfulness of Subjects takeing Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 2 1. Because the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King Kings under the Old Testament might not be resisted under the Old Testament will receive the fullest evidence from the behaviour of David towards Saul and those principles of duty whereby he was guided I shall pass by many other things with much brevity When Samuel declared the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner or as very many Translations render it and the word most frequently signifies V. Vers Vulg. Syr. Arab. Par. Chald. Sept. Barclai adv Monarch l. 2. p. 64. the judgment or right of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. and Ch. 10.25 many judicious men with great reason have accounted it to contain this sense that such was the right dignity and authority of their King that though the people might bear and sustain such injuries as are there mentioned Carpzov in Schick Th. 1. p. 1. Th. 7. p. 160. Grot. ubi sup in 1 Sam. 8.11 de Imp. c. 3. n. 6. they had no lawful power of redressing themselves by force but only must apply themselves to God This Grotius in his Annotat. upon that place thus expresseth si peccarent reges graviter in Dei legem ad Deum ultio pertinebat non ad singulos ac ne ad populum quidem And de Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra he saith Jus regis vocatur quia ita agenti nemini liceret vim ullam opponere And to the like sense Salmasius Defens Reg. c. 2. 2. Salomon perswading to that duty and reverence which Subjects owe to Princes Eccl. 8.2 3. declareth v. 4. where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou and speaks of the King against whom there is no rising up Prov. 30.31 which words give a fair intimation that the dignity of the King of Israel was such that no opposition or resistance might be made against him by inferiours And when David declared Ps 51.4 Against thee only have I sinned Ambr. Apol Dav. c. 10. S. Ambrose gives this sense thereof That David being King was not subject to the penalties of any humane Laws but the whole punishment of his sin was in the hands of God alone This is owned by Vega Veg. in Ps 4. Poenit. Conc. 2. to be the sense also of S. Hierome Austin Chrysostome and Cassiodorus and he himself gives this as a kind of Paraphrase upon that expression nullum alium praeter te unum in terra superiorem recognosco I acknowledge none other besides thee alone my superiour upon earth And this interpretation was received in the Christian Church as early as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and though other Expositions also have been given Strom. l. 4. p. 517. this shews what apprehensions these Christian Writers had of the nature of Davids Regal Authority And this hath so much evidence of truth that when Murder and Adultery in inferiour persons was punished by the Judges of Israel according to the Law of Moses Davids judgment must be according as God himself would pronounce and execute And though God so far pardoned David as to spare his life 2 Sam. 12.13 yet his Child must die v. 14. even by the hand of God v. 15 18 22. And God denounced against him that the Sword should not depart from his house v. 10. whereby Amnon Absalom and Adonijah were cut off And the Rebellion of Absalom as a judgment which God inflicted was part of the punishment of this sin v. 11. 3. When there were any corruptions in Religion publickly tolerated as the worshipping in high places and Groves the holy Scriptures lay the blame constantly upon the King and Prince whereas if the people and subjects had the power of defending their Religion and the purity thereof by the Sword the fault would have been equally chargeable upon them under the Government of their Kings For the same pious spirit which would engage a good Prince must also oblige a pious people to make use of their just power for the honour and service of God and if the Case had been lawful it would have been a kind of Martyrdom to hazard or lay down their
tells us Quaestion Heroicar l. 2. c. 5. n. 105. that the Roman bishop virtute potestatis merè spiritualis by vertue of his mere spiritual power doth sometimes deprive had Kings of their Kingdoms But the falshood and injustice of this claim will be discovered by detecting the fraud and vanity of the Pleas made use of to support the Popish power of which in the following Sections 5. But a learned man hath given intimation of some suspicion Weights and Meas Ch. 20. Of a general Council that by these words of this Oath of Supremacy the authority of a general Council of the Western Churches may seem to be disclaimed And it must be granted that the determination of a truly regular general Council either of all the Western Churches or of the whole especially if it should establish a due reformation of the corrupt part of the Church and a right order and unity throughout Christendome would be obligatory upon us not only from the real goodness of the design but from the authority of the Council or the obligation that lies on the members or several parts of the Christian Church to be guided by the directions and rules established by the united consent and authority of the Pastors Yet 1. since such a Council neither is in being nor in any likelyhood thereof that which is not hath no Authority or Jurisdiction 2. This Church and Realm being a considerable branch of the Catholick Church the authority of such a Council or of the Christian Church therei is no more foreign to us who ought to bear a part therein than the soul is to a chief member of the body or than the laws of nature and rules of civility may be esteemed foreign things which have as considerable residence here as any where else 3. The Oath it self is so expressed as if it purposely designed not to exclude the authority of a General Council which properly is neither a Prince a Person a State or Potentate 4. As this Oath disowneth all foreign authority encroaching upon the Crown so if any Council how general soever should abridge or violate the Royal Authority all faithful subjects are so far bound by the authority of God to disclaim it 5. Though the determinations of a Council be never so excellent if any Princes by their laws reject or prohibit them as the Arian Princes dealt with the Council of Nice Christians in such places are bound to embrace them upon no other terms than they do their common Christianity that is in bearing the Cross and undergoing unavoidable penalties and thereby acknowledging the right and due extent of the authority of the civil power 6. The last part in the Oath of Supremacy The Oath of Supremacy engageth a defence of priviledges and authorities united to the Crown engageth Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and also a defence of all Jurisdictions priviledges preeminencies and authorities granted and belonging to the King or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Now the only appearing difficulty here is concerning the last clause for if when the great encroachments of the Pope were discarded some thing might be overdone 27 H. 8. 28. 37 H. 8.4 1 Ed. 6.14 in annexing things to the Crown as in fixing in the Crown those great Revenues given to Religious uses when in many places there then was and yet is wanting a competent provision for the support of the Ministry it may be enquired how good men and good subjects may and ought to defend these things And it will be sufficient to observe that the defence here undertaken is that of a subject towards his Soveraign And all subjects of the Realm are as such obliged both with respect to the duties of obedience and peace in their capacities to oppose all persons who would injuriously violate what is enjoyed by the Crown and established by the law since such persons may justly be suspected of designs to subvert the Government and undermine the publick welfare and do act disorderly and against authority 7. And some thing which at first view may seem an abatement of the authority of the church is rather such a way of regulating the exercise of its power as under Religious Princes is for the Churches advantage Of this nature I conceive that constitution 25 H. 8.19 that no new Canons shal be enacted promulged or executed without the Royal assent and licence to enact promulge and execute the same For hereby the Clergy give such security to the King against all jealousy of renewed Ecclesiastical usurpations that thereupon the Church may under the Kings favour and with assurance of greater safety and protection practise upon its established constitutions which are so good that we have great cause to bless God for them And hereupon it may also be hoped that what shall be further needful may be superadded by the Royal Licence and become more effectual to its end by the confirmation of that authority 8. But because what I have now discoursed dependeth upon a fair How the words of publick acknowledgments must be interpreted but natural and genuine interpretation of these words of the Oath of Supremacy it may be further enquired how we may safely and prudently interpret the forms of publick acknowledgments where the bare Grammatical construction may be possibly capable of different senses Grot. de J. B. P. l. 2. c. 13. n. 3 5 c. 16. n. 12. l. 3. c. 1. n. 19. Sanders de oblig Juram Pral 2. n. 8. Now though a forced laxe sene by an evasion to avoid the design of the law or constitution be justly and must necessarily be rejected yet a rigid interpretation to strain the words and force them to an harsh and unlawful sense as is too oft done by discontented persons is also to be discarded where there is another construction or meaning of which the words by natural interpretation are capable which is agreeable to truth and justice and secures the intention of our Superiours For besides that Christian charity and equity will incline to this sense the politick rules of Government will require Governours to draw up publick acknowledgments in such phrases that they cannot by a fair construction naturally admit a lower sense than is designed For otherwise such forms of words would be useless and not attain their end and this consideration alone is sufficient to vindicate and acquit the form of words in this Oath of supremacy from such censures as have inconsiderately dropt from the Pen of a learned person 9. But those general words of this Oath of supremacy Qu. Eliz. Inj. 1. Can. 1. 1603. and the Canonical subscription and words of like general force in the Queens Injunctions and our Canons whereby all foreign Jurisdiction and obedience thereto is renounced have manifestly a more particular respect to the Bishop and Church of Rome For the design of that Statute which enjoins the disclaiming all