Christian Emperours themselves so we have this evidence that none of these Emperours affected or ordinarily used this title if they did at all own it not only in that Gratian openly declared against it but also 1. In that none of them used it in any of their publick edicts as was done usually by the Pagan Emperours 2. Nor so far as can be collected from the various medals stamped in their times did they make use thereof as the Pagan Emperours had done in any of their Coins which Mr Selden acknowledgeth Seld. ibid. 3. It is mentioned by Sozomen Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. as one of the notes of Julians forsaking Christianity that he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Pontifex 4. But when God eminently revealing his will by Moses had formed a more publick Ecclesiastical and civil power separated in the old Testament ample and visible establishment of a Church in the World under the Jewish dispensation than was before it he then divided the Kingly authority and the Priesthood into distinct hands And nothing is more manifest than that under Judaism the Priesthood was fixed in the Family of Aaron Ex. 28.1 ch 40.15 And when Corah who was of the chief Family of the Levites which had the charge of the most holy things Num. 16.1 compared with Num. 4.4 c. and his Company undertook presumptuously to invade this office they were punished with severe dreadful and miraculous judgments in that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the Company of Corah Num. 16.32 33. and the fire that came out from the Lord consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 3. Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 693. v. 35. and as the ancient Jewish Writers tell us there was not any member of these men remaining which could receive a Burial and from hence the Jews received a strict admonition that no man whosoever who was not of the seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense before the Lord v. 40. And this peculiar priviledge of the Family of Aaron was further confirmed by the miracle of Aarons rod blossoming Num. 17 1.-10 5. And that the King and chief ruler among the Jews being not of the line of Aaron might not intermeddle with the execution of this Priestly Office is manifest besides the general rules of the law from other special instances For when Saul undertook to offer Sacrifice 1 Sam. 13.9 13 14. he was sharply rebuked by Samuel and thereupon God denounced this heavy judgment against him that his Kingdom must not continue And when Vzziah attempted to offer incense he was smitten with leprosy for this transgression Ant. Jud. l. 9. c. 11. 2 Chr. 26.16 22. to which Josephus addeth other testimonies of the divine displeasure against him and telleth us that this judgment upon Vzziah was inflicted on one of their solemn Feast days which if it was so might render it the more remarkable And the reason why God fixed the Priesthood in the Family of Aaron and not in Moses and the successive Governours was not chiefly Ant. l. 3. c. 10. as Josephus representeth Moses to speak from the worth and desert of Aaron But it tended much to excite the greater reverence and awe towards the majesty of God and an higher veneration for the offices of Religion that no person no not the highest among men might perform these sacred offices of approaching to God by offering Sacrifices and Oblations save only those persons whom God had particularly set apart for that purpose And withall the Priest blessing in the name of the Lord and especially Aarons putting the sins of the people upon the head of the live-Goat Lev. 16.21 22. which included the applying Gods pardon to them and other Priestly performances which were not mere actions of natural Religion but depended upon Gods institution could not be performed but by an especial and peculiar authority derived from God to that intent or in the language of the Apostle Heb. 5.3 No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron 7. And in the state of Christianity And under the Gospel as Christ hath established the Officers of his Church so there seemeth rather more reason for the peculiar distinct institution of these Officers under the Christian Church than under the Jewsih For while the Jewish Priests chiefly acted for men towards God in Sacrifices and Oblations the Christian Officers do in more things than they did act from God and in his name towards men which in the nature of the thing doth more especially require an authority peculiarly received from God For who can deprive any person of the communion of that Society which Christ hath founded or receive and restore them unto it but by the authority which he hath appointed Or how can any persons consecrate Symbols and dispense them as sealing the Covenant of grace and exhibiting from Christ the blessings and benefits thereof to the due receivers unless they be those who have received Commission from him to this purpose Or who can pronounce absolution in Christs name which is also implicitely included in the administration of the Sacraments and other ministerial Offices unless he hath given them such particular authority And the same may be said of solemn Ecclesiastical benedictions with imposition of hands and particularly of the ordination of such Officers in the Christian Church who are to be invested with this authority 8. And that this Ecclesiastical authority under the Gospel should be committed to peculiar Officers and not fixed in them who have the civil power is that which the wisdom of our Saviour hath appointed who did not call secular rulers to be his Apostles This was partly requisite because there are different qualifications to fit persons for secular government and for presiding in the Church and because the Christian Church being called to take up the Cross should not be destitute of its guides in a time of persecution when it may need them most But this also maketh the communion of the Church it self as it is a peculiar Christian Society and its dependance on the grace of God and its relation to him to be the more visible and remarkable by the distinct Officers and authority constituted to dispense the mysteries of his grace And it tendeth also to conciliate an higher honour and veneration for the particular institutions of God and our Saviour in the new Covenant in that the administration of them is the proper designed work of such peculiar officers of his appointment And therefore if any would make the Ecclesiastical offices to be an authority appendent or annexed unto the civil he undertakes to unite those things which are in Synesius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 57. such as cannot be knit or woven into one another 9. But it is to be observed Ecclesiastical
Officers not excluded from all civil Government that though these offices be so distinct that none ought to perform the Ecclesiastical ministrations but they who are ordained thereto and that no Ecclesiastical person hath any civil power by mere vertue of his Ecclesiastical office and though the intermedling with such matters of civil affairs as in the nature of them are unsuitable to the Clergy are reasonably prohibited by the ancient Canons yet it would be against all reason to imagine that all civil Government because civil and political is inconsistent with the state of an Ecclesiastical person since he is a part also of the civil Society or the body politick In the Jewish state Syn. Ep. 121. in some extraordinary cases that was very true which Synesius observed that the chief secular power was in the Priest so it was under the government of Eli in the days of the Maccabees and the succeeding times when Aristobulus is observed by S Hierome Hier. in Dan. 9. to be the first who there joined the royal authority and Diadem with the Priesthood But even under the reign of David the Levites and in the time of Jehosophat Deut. 17. v. 8 -12 the Priests and Levites are plainly according to the law declared to have been appointed for Judges and Officers of the Realm 1 Chr. 26 29-32 2 Chr. 19.8 and many other expressions of the Old Testament are interpreted by Mr Thorndike to import the same Of Religious Assembl c. 2. concerning other times of the Jewish Government And in the time of Christianity I suppose no man will doubt but that according to the Command of the Apostle those who are Officers in the Church ought to take care of the Government of their own Families which is a civil affair and authority And whilest the Church was under Pagan Princes V. Const Apostol l. 2. c. 46. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. it was usual for the Officers thereof to sit in judgment to decide all matters of controversy among Christians which was according to the direction of our Saviour Mat. 18.17 and of this Apostle 1 Cor. 6. as I shall in another place take notice And the making peace and deciding differences was thought a work so well becoming such persons and was so usually practised by them about S. Austins time Aug. de Oper. Monach c. 29. Posid de Vit. Aug. c. 19. that he mentions these things as those the hearing and determining of which took up a considerable portion of his time And nothing is more manifest than that divers Imperial Edicts of pious Princes did peculiarly reserve the cognisance of most causes relating to the Clergy besides others Sozom. l. 1. c. 9. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 4. leg 7 8. Novel 83 86 123. to the hearing and decision of the Bishop And as Ecclesastical Officers are members of the Community and subjects to their Prince it is very allowable that they should so far as they can be every way useful unto both and thereby also to the Churches good 10. But this distinct constitution of the Church and its Offices A distinct Ecclesiastical power no prejudice to the civil is no diminution of the civil authority and its supremacy but rather an enlargement thereof and an advancement of its dignity For the whole state of the Christian Church is founded in the superabundant grace and favour of God towards man and the Ecclesiastical authority of its Officers being the ministry of reconciliation is quite of a different nature from secular power being wholly superadded over and above it and without any infringment thereof Right of the Church ch 4. p. 168. Review ch 1. p. 13. Didocl Alt. Dam. cap. 1. p. 15. And hereupon the whole power of the Church is by some Writers termed a cumulative and not a privative power as taking nothing from the civil and the same terms are used concerning the right of the secular power in matters Ecclesiastical as being without any abatement of the proper spiritual power Yea the whole civil authority towards all subjects whatsoever doth not only still remain intire to the secular Ruler but he also receiveth this accession thereunto from the constitution of Christianity that the object of his government is so far enlarged thereby that he hath a right of inspection and care even of those matters which the grace of God or the Gospel dispensation hath established And this doth also so much the more exalt his honour and dignity in that not only all subjects in their general capacity as such Sect. 5 are obliged to submit themselves to their Kings and Princes but that even those Officers of the Church which in their Realms are established by the peculiar appointment of Jesus Christ the King of Kings are also included under this duty and are not the less subjects notwithstanding their relation to the Church To which I may add that there are peculiar arguments for honour and reverence unto Rulers which the doctrine of the Christian Church affordeth SECT V. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto To give a more particular account of Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical we may observe 1. The Princes care about the power of the Keys That though the power of the Keys in admitting any person into rejecting him from or guideing him in the Communion of the Church as a Society founded by Christ and the dispensing Christian mysteries can be exercised by none but the particular Officers of Christs Church to whom it is committed yet the Prince may command them to mind and do their duty therein and if need so require punish their neglect Indeed it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical power to determine rules for the due exercise of the power of the Keys and the ordering such rules is part of that power which hath been frequently exercised in very many Canons of several Councils But the soveraign power hath a right to take care that these rules of Government be practised and observed Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 3. Nov. 6. 123. And the establishing laws of this nature was very frequent both in the Empire and in other Christian Kingdoms and those of Justinian have been especially taken notice of to this purpose And though the late Canonists do broadly censure him as intermedling too far in Church affairs yet Baronius himself is here so modest Annal. Eccles An. 528. n. 1. as to allow low that there is much in this particular to be said in his excuse and the late learned Archbishop of Paris P. de Marcâ— de Concord Sacerd Imp. l. 2. cap. 10. hath sufficiently shewed that the more ancient Bishops Patriarchs and Councils did applaud and honour these his Constitutions in things Ecclesiastical 2. And the worship of God 2. Touching the worship of God since the divine establishment of the publick Christian service is
good of Israel And thus much might be done by a private person who dedicated an offering unto God though he was in no secular or sacerdotal office as we have the like example and practice in the Prayer those persons were to make who presented their first-fruits and the third years tith Deut. 26 3-10 12-15 and this might be more fitly done by Solomon because he was an inspired person And Solomon also as King commanded a great festivity and a joyful solemnity to be then observed Eus de Vit. Const ubi sup and the like did Constantine at Jerusalem at the time above-mentioned 2. There was the acceptance of this temple and taking possession thereof in Gods name and for his service and the setting it apart thereto upon account of Gods authority by them who were his Officers in the Church and this was then to be done by the Priests to whose office it did belong to sanctify the most holy things 1 Chr. 23.13 And this was partly done by their bringing in the Ark and other holy things into the temple 2 Chr. 5.5 7. and partly by the solemn sacrifices which they offered whereby the temple is said to be dedicated 1 Kin. 8.63 as the tabernacle was purified or dedicated by the blood of the Sacrifices as both the Apostle Heb. 9.21 22 23. and Josephus do declare 3. Jos Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. Here was Gods owning this his possession and his House and Temple and this was done by the glory of God filling the house immediately upon the Ark being brought into it 1 Kin. 8.10 11. and by the fire coming down from heaven upon the Sacrifices 2 Chr. 7.1 2 3. as had been before done at the dedication of the tabernacle and hence God declared that he hallowed this house 1 Kin. 9.3 7. And all these things which were not performed by Salomon were the chief parts of the dedication and therefore this instance from Salomon will not prove Princes to have had any peculiar Ecclesiastical authority in the Jewish Church above what they may enjoy in the Christian 13. In the last place I shall consider the suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Church in the time of the Old Testament might be under the temporal Government because it then was more external and enjoyed temporal promises chiefly whereas it is otherwise under the New Testament Now though it is hard to discern any strength or force in this way of discoursing especially because all Religion as such hath a respect to God and to things spiritual and also because Kings under the Old Testament were not Governours of the promises which God made to his Church for the future but of its present polity yet I shall return hereto these considerations which I suppose will be sufficient 1. That those things of the Gospel which are of a pure spiritual nature as the dispensing heavenly grace and pardon of sin the taking men into an inward relation unto God and Christ and the bestowing on them eternal life so far as these things are considered separately and distinctly from all visible and external dispensations are not claimed to be under the government of any civil power and this is all that his consideration can amount unto 2. That the persons admitted into the Christian Church and the Officers thereof have still under the Gospel visible beings and their actions of life their publick service and profession with several divine institutions and other things relating to the order of the Church are still things external and therefore capable of being under the inspection of authority which is managed by men concerning things visible and external CHAP. III. No Synedrial power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal SECT I. The exorbitant power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 1 1. THere are divers both Jewish and Christian Writers and some of them men of great worth who entertain a notion which if it were true would evacuate the force of the argument made use of in the former Chapter De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. Sch. de Jur. Reg. Hebr. c. 1. Theor. 2. Even Grotius will not allow the Government over the House of Israel to have been perfectly Monarchical and Schickard asserteth it to have been mixtly Aristocratical and these with divers other persons Dangerous and false pretences of the Synedrial power being chief assert the Royal Government of the Family of Jacob to be under the Synedrial authority Now if what I shall say in opposition hereto may seem over-long and tedious to some Readers I hope the usefulness thereof for vindicating royal authority and discovering usual and considerable mistakes B. 1. C. 3. will be a sufficient Apology And although the rights of Christian Princes do not directly depend upon the political constitution of the Jews or the Family of Jacob but are founded in the laws of nature of nations and of Christianity yet it is in general a great advantage and honour to the royal government that God himself established a pattern thereof in the House of David as well as the authority of the civil power about matters of Religion may be hence also inferred And both Romish Writers and others of an Antimonarchical strain Salm. Defen Reg. c. 2. p. 49. or as Salmasius calleth them Hildebrandinae Enthusiasticae doctrinae auctores in managing their designs have frequent recourse to this Plea of the Jewish Synedrial power against the right of Kings 2. Annal. Eccles an 57. n. 36. Thus Baronius declareth Apud Hebraeos Lex divinitùs data monstravit c. The law which God gave the Hebrews did shew that the chief government was to be in the hands of Priests and although they at length began to have Kings yet saith he even those Kings were subject to the High Priest who as he pleased was moderator in that great Council of 72. Elders which was called the Sanhedrin whose office and charge it was to judge concerning the law concerning the King and concerning a Prophet In which words besides other mistakes he asserteth as that which would best serve the interest of his party that the Sanhedrim was a Court governed by the High Priest whereas according to the constant description of the Jewish Writers V. Seld. de Syne l. 2. c. 15. n. 14. the High Priest was neither ordinarily president thereof nor necessarily a member of it though at some times he might be both 3. And for an instance of the latter sort of men who are for popular supremacy Junius Brutus maketh use of this argument Synedrium Hierosolymitanum c. Vindic. contra Tyran Qu. 3. p. 96. The Sanhedrim of Jerusalem seemeth to have been of so great authority that they could judge the King in like manner as the King could judge other persons And not long
from all these and governing the Church Cyp. Ep. 27. 73. Aug. in Joh. Tract 50. But this power as the ancient Church did acknowledge the other Apostles did also enjoy and were actually possessed of as appears Mat. 18.18 Jo. 20.21 22 23. Ans 2. How vastly different is this power from the temporal Dominion over the Kingdoms of the World of which there is not any world here spoken by our Lord And surely any man who considereth the doctrine and lives of the Apostles cannot imagine that every one or any one of them was intended and designed of God to be the Soveraign Potentate and grand Emperour of the World It is therefore a just complaint against the Romish party that ex clavibus cudunt enses Conf. Helvet c. 14. lanceas sceptra coronas out of the Keys they forge Swords and Spears Scepters and Crowns and usurp temporal Dominion equal with or superiour unto Kings notwithstanding that our Saviour expresly rejected from his Apostles such Dominion as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised Mat. 20.25 26. 9. But Pasce oves meas Feed my sheep Jo. 21.16 is a place chiefly insisted upon And if no more was hence inferred than a spiritual and Apostolical authority in S. Peter this is readily granted and asserted and the other Apostles enjoyed the like But Bellarmine will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 14 15 16. Layman Theolog. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. c. 6. to be a Charter of Soveraignty and to enclude governing and commanding as a King doth And he and others also infer the extent of S. Peters power over all Apostles and Kings because they are Christs Sheep To which I Ans 1. Not S. Peter only but all Bishops and Elders are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or have a Pastoral care over the Flock Ambr. de dign Sacerd c. 2. Ignat. Ep. ad Philad ad Rom. Eus Hist Ecc. l. 8. c. 25. Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 And among all Ecclesiastical Writers beginning from Ignatius and downwards the Bishops and chief Officers of the Church have been acknowledged to be Pastors Now if this Office of Pastor doth not necessarily enclude a Soveraign or supreme Government then no such can be asserted to s. Peter or his pretended Successor from this Text if it doth then must this be ascribed to every Bishop which will necessarily overthrow the Popes Vniversal claim Ans 2. Government over the Sheep of Christ is also too narrow a compass for an Vniversal Monarchy 10. Ans 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Metaphor from Shepherds is thence sometimes used for to take care and feed and at other times for to rule and govern and oft for both Now though the Officers of Christ have a pastor al authority over his Flock yet these words Joh. 21.15 16 17. were principally directed to S. Peter as supposing in him this authority and requiring his duty of care and feeding and not as conveying to him a peculiar authority and Dominion because this is enjoined upon him as an evidence of his love to Christ and because among the three Precepts to take care of the Sheep of Christ and his Lambs two of them are there expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be understood only of feeding Ans 4. Civil Governours also are to be as Shepherds over their Flock with particular respect to rule and Government The Government of God is sometimes expressed by his being the Shepherd of Israel and a Prince whom Homer stiles the Pastor of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Philo and other Writers oft mentioned by a like name Phil. de Agricult de Joseph quod omnis probus liber And a civil pastoral power over all their people is yielded to them Num. 27.17 Is 44.28 which is expressed in the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 5.2 Ch. 7.7 Ps 78.71 72. But every one must use their power according to their office Ecclesiastical Officers are to use the spiritual authority but temporal Soveraignty is reserved to Princes Ans 5. The pastoral office of the guides of the Church doth extend it self even to Kings with respect to the conduct of their Souls but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Soveraignty A Prince may be ruled by a Physician concerning his health or be led by a guide at Land or a Pilot at Sea and not lose his Soveraignty over these Subjects And the Kings of the House of David were the chief Rulers over the Realm though the Priests were to offer Sacrifice for Prince and People to direct them in Religion and to judge in case of Leprosy and such like SECT IV. Other arguments for the pretences of Papal Authority answered and refuted 1. Annal. Ecclesian 57. n. 28 29 30. The support which Baronius affords for the Popes Supremacy is that Christ himself is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek being both King and Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7. and that from him the regal and sacerdotal authority are together conferred upon his Church first upon the Apostles and then upon their Successors which he further undertakes to prove because our Saviour declared to his Disciples Jo. 20. As my father sent me so send I you and did establish in his Church a Royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2. Ibid. n. 31 32. And though the Cardinal will not allow that this authority in the Church doth make void the political power yet he doth assert that this Regal Ecclesiastical Authority must be superiour thereunto The Priesthood of Melchisedek 2. But concerning the Melchisedekian Priesthood Sect. 4 he did not consider these two things 1. That the making the supremacy of power to be conjunct with the Priesthood doth destroy the peculiarity of power challenged by the Bishop of Rome for thence it must be inferred that they who equally partake of Priesthood with the Bishop of Rome must have an equal supreme authority with him 2. That one thing which the Apostle did most especially insist on concerning the Priesthood of Melchisedek is that the Priest or High Priest of that Order must not derive or receive his Priesthood from any Predecessor nor leave it to any Successor but must abide a Priest for ever through that whole dispensation under which he is Priest Heb. 7.3 8 16 17 21 23 24 28. And therefore the Melchisedekian Priesthood is no more transferred from Christ to any other person in the Church then his proper mediatory office is Beyerl de Episc Rom. And they who say that this Priesthood of Christ cannot indeed be enjoyed by any as successor to him but only as his Vicar do not so avoid the force of this argument For it remains certain that no such pretended Vicar can partake of this Priesthood because in him it must be received from a Predecessor viz. in that Vicarship and Priesthood and be left to
a Successor which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood 3. Of the Apostolical Mission When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him 1. These words enclude a fulness of Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority or the power of the Keys which was given to all the Apostles 2. But they do not make the Apostles equal in dignity or dominion with Christ himself in being Saviour and head of the Church or Lord over and Judge of the quick and the dead 3. Even Christ himself when he was upon Earth being as man under the law was not only obliged to practise the duties of the first table and the other Commandments of the second table but even to the observance of the fifth Commandment al 's 4. And the Office of the Ministry And those persons who in general defence of Ecclesiastical Supremacy urge that they who are Officers of Christ and furnished with his authority ought not to be in subjection to secular rulers but superiour to them to whom Christs authority is superiour may consider 1. That Parents and Husbands have authority from God and from Christ and yet are under Kings and Princes 2. The superiority of any Officer of Christ must not be measured by the height of Soveraignty which Christ himself hath which would make the servant even every Deacon equal with his Lord and by the like pretence every petty Constable must have equal authority with the King but by the constitution of his office and the power thereby conveyed to him For neither God in governing the World nor Christ in governing the Church ever gave to any other an authority equal to what he possesseth 3. Christ came not to overturn the Government of God his father in the World which hath established the supreme temporal power yea his mediatory Kingdom and administration is in subjection to the Father and our Saviours Doctrine yieldeth that authority to Princes that it earnestly presseth a general and necessary subjection for Conscience sake to their Government 5. And as to what Baronius urgeth The Royal Priesthood from the Royal Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.9 it may be observed 1. That that expression hath not respect to a peculiar sacerdotal office in the Church but to the dignity of the Christian Church in general as is manifest from the place it self Salian an 2544. n. 347. Estius in loc and acknowledged by their own Writers 2. If this Text did express any peculiar power in Ecclesiastical Officers it must have particular respect to those Eastern Churches to whom that Epistle was written 1 Pet. 1.1 and 3. It is well observed by Bishop Andrews that even that Royal Priesthood v. 9. is commanded to be subject to every ordinance of man Ch. 4. S. 2. n. 3. and to the King as supreme v. 13. as I above observed 6. And while some say Of the Plea of expediency for the Churches good it is expedient for the Churches good that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be superiour to the temporal otherwise its welfare and good is not sufficiently provided for this Plea might appear more plausible 1. If there could be no ignorance heresy pride or ill designs in any who have the title of chief Officers in the Church which no man can believe who reads the Lives of the Popes written by their own Authors 2. If Kings and Princes must never be expected to be nursing Fathers to the Church and to take care of it 3. If the great design of Christianity was to take care that Christians must never follow their Saviour in bearing the Cross and that this Religion did not aim at the promoting true faith and holiness meekness and peace but at outward splendor dominion and power in the World according to that notion the Jews had of a Messias And this is not only a weak but a presumptuous way of reasoning to controul and affront the Gospel of Christ and to dare to tell him how he ought to have established his Kingdom to other purposes than he hath done 7. And after all this S. Peters Authority not peculiar to Rome there is nothing more unreasonable than for the Church of Rome to monopolize unto its self alone that authority which was committed to S. Peter and the other Apostles For it is not at all to be doubted but the Apostles committed a chief presidential and Governing authority in their several limits to other Churches besides the Roman Basil Ep. 55. Cyp. Epist 69. Firmil in Cyp. Ep. 75. The ancient Fathers frequently express the Bishops of the Christian Church in general to be the Apostles Successors S. Cyprian and Firmilian assert all Bishops to succeed the Apostles even ordinatione vicaria as placed in their stead and possessed of that power which was from them fixed in the Church Hier. ad Marcellam Aug. in Ps 44. Amongst us saith S. Hierome the Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles and for or instead of the Apostles are appointed Bishops saith S. Austin Tertullian declares that to his time Cathedrae Apostolorum the Cathedral Sees placed by the Apostles themselves did still continue their presidency in the Apostolical Churches of which he mentions many by name and Rome as one of them 8. And as there is no evidence that S. Peter who also presided at Antioch left all his authority peculiarly to Rome so there is sufficient evidence that S. Peter who was commanded to feed the Sheep of Christ did yield this authority to the Elders or Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed the flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And hereby he either committed that pastoral authority which he received from Christ unto the Bishops of those free Churches of the Ephesine Thracian and Pontick Dioceses to whom he wrote and which afterward were placed under the Patriarch of Constantinople or at least he acknowledged this authority in them And therefore so far as concerneth a divine right these Eastern Churches in the Territories of Constantinople have fully as fair a Plea hereby for deriving a pastoral authority from S. Peter or having it particularly confirmed by him as they at Rome ever had 9. But with respect to England This Realm not feudatory Bellarm. in Apol. pro Resp ad Jac. Reg. c. 3. in Respons ad Bel. Ap. c. 3. divers Romish Writers alledge that it became feudatory to the See of Rome by King Johns resigning his Crown to Pandulphus the Popes Legate to which thing objected and misrepresented by Bellarmine divers things are returned in Answer by Bishop Andrews But waving such particular answers as might be given I shall chuse to observe in General that this Case is the same as if any seditious persons or Vsurpers should by fraud or force reduce the King to straits and difficulties and should then by like methods gain a promise from him that he
considered with other things which have affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. Chap. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome Sect. 1. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 2. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 3. Such claims can have no Foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge Sect. 4. Other Arguments for the pretended Papal Authority answered and refuted Chap. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England Sect. 1. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 2. No Patriarch ever had any just right to Patriarchal Authority in this Island Sect. 3. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates Chap. VIII Some pretences of other parties against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical refuted Sect. 1. Of Liberty of Conscience and Toleration Sect. 2. Of some other rigid and dangerous Principles against the Supremacy of Princes Chap. IX Corollaries concerning some duties of subjection The Second BOOK Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King Chap. I. THE publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered Sect. 1. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes Power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government Sect. 2. Of the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon any pretence whatsoever against the King Sect. 3. Of the traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or against those who are Commissionated by him Chap. II. The Laws of Nature and of General Equity and the right grounds of Humane Polity do condemn all Subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign Power Sect. 1. The preservation of Peace and common Rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Sect. 2. The Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince Sect. 3. The condition of Subjects would not be the better but the worse if it were lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign Sect. 4. The Plea that Self-defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature considered and of the end of Soveraign Power with a representation of the pretence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined Sect. 5. The Divine Original of Soveraign Power asserted Chap. III. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament Sect. 1. The need and usefulness of considering this Case Sect. 2. The general unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 3. Objections from the behaviour of David answered Sect. 4. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered Chap. IV. The Rules and Precepts delivered by Christ and his Apostles concerning resistance and the practice of the Primitive Christians declared Sect. 1. The Doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself Sect. 2. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practices Sect. 3. The practice and sense of the Primitive Church concerning resistance Chap. V. Of the Extent of the Duty and obligation of non-resistance Sect. 1. Resistance by force against the Soveraign Prince is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 2. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected on and considered ERRATA PAge 64. line 8. read 2 Kin. 1.10 12. p. 71. l. 19. Marg. r. de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 40. p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 106. l. 3. Marg. r. n. 6. p. 107. l. 4. r. Frischmuthius p. 219. l. 14. r. Sword and p. 223. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 1. Marg. r. Comen p. 268. l. 25. r. Patriarchdoms Christian Loyalty The First BOOK Of Regal Supremacy especially in matters Ecclesiastical and the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction CHAP. I. The Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared SECT I. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England 1. THE things established in the Church of England which all Ecclesiastical persons are required to declare their consent unto B. 1. C. 1. do concern matters of so high importance that both the being and the purity and perfection of a Church doth very much depend upon the consideration thereof to wit the order and way of its worship the due honour it gives to the King and Secular Authority the truth of its doctrine and the right and regular ordination of its Ministry That the publick worship of God in our Church is free from all just exception and agreeable to the rules of Christianity and the best and primitive patterns I have given some account in a former Treatise And in this discourse I shall treat of that Authority and Dignity which is justly yielded and ascribed to the supreme civil power 2. Loyal Principles useful to the world And if a general right understanding of this matter could every where be obtained together with a practice suitable thereunto it would greatly contribute to the advancement and honour of Christianity and the peace of the world The great miscarriages and irregular practices by not yielding to Soveraign Princes their due Authority hath strangely appeared in the enormous Usurpations of the Romish Church and the frequent distractions of the Empire and other Kingdoms which have been thence derived For the Roman Bishop who still claimeth even where he possesseth not Sect. 1 by his exorbitant encroachment upon the Royalty of Kings especially in matters Ecclesiastical and thereupon in Civil also did advance himself unto the highest step of his undue Papal exaltation And he thereby also more firmly fixed and rivetted his usurpation over other Christian Bishops and put himself into a capacity of propagating his corrupt doctrines without probable appearance of any considerable check or controul and with the less likelyhood of redress and reformation And from the like cause have proceeded divers exorbitancies in opinion and practice concerning the Church and its Government in another sort of men And the want of Conscientious observance of the duties of subjection hath too often manifested it self in the world by the sad effects of open tumult and rebellion all which hath highly tended to the scandal of Religion 3. It seemeth also considerable that almost all Sects and erring parties about matters of Religion and many of them to very ill purposes do nourish false conceptions and mistaken opinions concerning the civil power
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
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
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.
which undertook to dispose of the High Priesthood in Jewry against both the letter of the law and the design of it But no Governours whosoever they be whether of the Church or Strangers from it have any right to do such things no more than Jeroboam had to set up the worship of the ten Tribes of Israel contrary to the Law or than the Arian Emperours had to oppose the Deity of the Son of God against the Gospel But though it be very desireable that all parts of the Christian Church should be under Christian and pious Princes yet where other powers do take care Sect. 3 that the Christian Church and Ministers do observe the true Christian Rules Spalat Ostensio Error Fr. Suar. c. 3. n. 23. as the Archbishop of Spalato tells us was done in that part of his Province which was under the Turk this so far as it is regularly performed is an advantage to the Christian Religion and no blameable exercise of their authority 3. I think it a very plain and clear truth All Soveraign powers ought to profess and promote true Religion that Kings and Princes are invested with an authority to govern in matters of Religion not as originally arising from their Christianity but from their general right of Dominion and Soveraignty Nor will there be any difficulty in this assertion if we consider that this power of governing about Religion encludeth only a right of establishing by their authority what is truly unblameable orderly useful and necessary with respect to Religion and of enquiring into the practices of their subjects thereupon in order to approbation or punishment but gives no authority against truth or goodness 4. And though some persons by popular expressions declaim against this position De Minist angl l. 3. c. 4. yet the substance of it hath been yielded by men of various perswasions Mr Mason in his defence of the Ministry of England asserteth That they who are Heathens have the same office and authority of the higher power that the Christian Magistrate hath but want the right exercise of it in matters Ecclesiastical Our English Presbyterians have asserted that Heathen Magistrates may be nursing Fathers Jas div Reg. Eccl. c. 9. S. 1. may protect the Church and Religion and order many things in a ploitical way about Religion may not extirpate or persecute the Church may help her in reforming and may not hinder her Spalatens ubi sup And Spalatensis asserteth that the power of the Prince in the external things of the Church is so necessarily connected by divine natural and positive right with the Royal power ut infidelis etiam princeps tali si velit sciat legitime uti possit potestate that even an infidel Prince may use that power if he understand his duty and be willing to perform it And this assertion is approved even by Didoclavius or Mr Caldwood Altar Dam. c. 1. fin Didoclavius being the Anagram of Caldivodius one of the most eager of the Scotish Presbyterians And Rivet very rightly averreth In Decal ad quint. praec In infideli principe non est defectus potestatis sed voluntatis tantùm that an infidel Prince doth not want authority but will and inclination to advance the true Religion 5. Surely it is past doubt that where ever true Religion and Christianity is declared and manifested in the World it is the duty of all men to receive and embrace it because as they are Gods Creatures they ought to obey and honour him and submit to his Laws and believe his Revelations and thereupon every supreme Magistrate ought to advance the name of Christ and the true doctrine and Religion And if a Pagan Prince upon understanding the truth shall use his authority for its advancement this power is justly exercised in such Causes Ecclesiastical I presume no Christian will deny that Nebuchadnezzar did well in making a strict Law Dan. 3.29 that none should speak amiss against the God of Israel and Darius also in making a Decree that men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel Dan. 6.26 and Cyrus Darius and Artaxerxes in giving order for the rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem restoring its Vessels and furnishing it with Sacrifices and executing judgment on the opposers hereof with respect to which thing good Ezra blessed God who had put such a thing into the heart of Artaxerxes And that other Princes in like circumstances should follow the steps of Nebuchadnezzar Darius and the King of Niniveh who proclaimed a strict fast and commanded his people to cry mightily unto God Aug. Ep. 50. Tertul. Apol c. 5. is justly asserted by S. Aug. in his Epistle to Bonifacius 6. Nor are those Heathen Emperours to be censured who acted any thing on the behalf of Christian Religion as Tiberius threatned them who at their peril should accuse Christians for their Religion and other publick rescripts there were of Adrianus Eus Hist Eccl. l. 4.9 Antoninus ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aurelius Tertul. Ap. c. 5. and Galienus Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were in the favour of Christians And it is a known and famous case concerning Paulus Samosatenus who for Heresy was deposed by the Christian Bishops in the Council of Antioch and Domnus appointed to succeed him Eus Hist l. 7. c. 24. But Paulus refusing to leave his possession the Orthodox Christians appeal to Aurelianus a Pagan Emperour who referring the case to be heard by the Bishops of Italy and about Rome ordered the Church to be given to him for whom they should determine and by his authority was Paulus ejected and neither his interposing nor their appeal unto him hath been ever thought culpable nor yet Paulus his being dispossessed Constantine before his baptism exercised authority in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the secular power 7. But above all others the acting of Constantine the Great before the time of his Baptism seemeth very considerable to evidence what power hath been exercised in things Ecclesiastical with the general approbation of Christians by one not yet admitted into the Christian Church Of which I shall give some particular instances to which more may be added beginning with what hath relation to the peace and concord of the Church Africa in a short time gave birth to the Schism of Donatus and of Meletius and the Heresy of Arius The Donatists separated themselves from the Church upon some exceptions they made against the Ordination of Caecilianus and being condemned by the African Catholick Bishops they apply themselves to Constantine the Emperour Opt. cont Parm. l. 1. But he being not versed in things of that nature as Optatus tells us did not or as S. Austin several times saith Aug. Ep. 162. 166. durst not undertake the judging of the case himself but by his authority he appointed Melchiades then Bishop of Rome with three Bishops of Gallia to judge
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
insolently exalted himself against and cruelly murdered his own Lord and Master And if S. Martin being once brought to his Table would not upon this account drink to him or to any other with him who were partakers or might be presumed favourers of his insurrection this spake him a zealous friend to justice and the right of Princes and one who earnestly detested Usurpation and Rebellion 7. The places produced from Nazianzen Naz. orat 17. Ambr. de dign Sacerdot c. 2. S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome do express the Ecclesiastical authority to have an higher excellency than the temporal which Gr. Nazianz. declareth by comparing his Episcopal dignity with the prefect of his City but the other two by preferring the Ecclesiastical authority in some Excellencies to the Royal. And indeed there are very great Excellencies do attend the Ecclesiastical Ministry even in some respects above those which belong unto the secular and it becomes every good Christian who hath a value for the Gospel Grace highly to esteem this Ministry but its worth and excellency doth not at all prove its superiority of Government in the state of the World 8. The Ecclesiastical Ministry hath such excellencies as these The excellency of the Christian Ministry That the persons towards whom it is exercised are not only men or members of an humane Society but are advanced to be Christians or persons admitted into the body of Christs Church and that the constitution of this Ministry was established by the dispensation of that admirable grace and love of God which was manifested to the World by our Lord and Saviour and that the design of it hath more immediate respect to the souls of men and their salvation as also that heavenly and spiritual mysteries and blessings are dispensed thereby And some of these things are those to which S. Chrysostome had peculiar respect Chrys in Esai Hom. 4. 5. as his words do particularly declare 9. Excellency and supremacy of Government are different things But that such excellencies attending this ministration doth not place the Ecclesiastical Officers above the condition of being subjects to Princes may appear by proposing a like way of arguing in another case Every truly pious man doth rightly govern his own heart and life and thereby is not only a man and a visible Christian but is a true and real Christian and member of Christ whose practice is according to his profession And his chief care is about such excellent things as the divine life and the salvation of his Soul which he attaineth effectually and this man doth receive the grace of the Gospel to the highest and most advantageous purposes and is not only dignified with the honourable titles of a King a Priest and a Son of God but doth receive those great benefits which are included under these high expressions And these are spiritual excellencies of a more sublime nature than the bare enjoying either civil or Ecclesiastical Offices 10. But if every good man because of these excellencies which attend his state should be concluded to have a greater dignity of authority and Government in the World invested in him than is in Kings and Princes and that therefore he is not nor ought not to be subject unto them then must the Christian Religion not only bring confusion into the World but also make void its own Precepts of obedience subjection and humility and must also make men and the World the worse by taking them off from performing the duties of their relations 11. And that neither S. Chrysostome nor S. Ambrose ever intended by such expressions as are above-mentioned to discharge the Clergy from the obligations to obedience and humble reverence to Kings and Emperours is manifest Chrys in Rom. 13. from S. Chrysostomes declaring that even Apostles Evangelists and all persons whosoever ought to be subject to the civil power and from the dutiful behaviour of S. Ambrose to Valentinian of which I shall give some account in the following Book SECT VI. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance considered with some other things which have some affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. 1. There are divers ancient Canons which require the causes which concern the Clergy especially among themselves to be examined by the Bishop or the Bishops of the Province or if it be needful by a greater Synod but not to be brought before the Courts of the secular power Some such Canons are referred to by Photius Phot. Nomoc Tit. 9. c. 1. c. 11. qu. 1. Barcl de Pot. Pap. c. 32. Conc. Agath c. 23. Conc. Matisc 1. c. 5. Conc. Antioch c. 11 12. and others are produced by Gratian and divers of them are enquired into by Barclay To this purpose tend some Canons of the Second and fourth General Councils and others of the Provincial Councils both in Africa Asia and Europe But it may be presumed that these Canons of the Church would not have thus determined unless the Church had judged such cases and persons not to be under the Supremacy and Government of the secular authority And which may seem to add strength to this Objection even the civil law it self gives some allowance to these proceedings Sect. 6 2. And it may be further added Secular causes were anciently determined in the Ecclesiastical Judicatures Mat. 18.17 that when our Saviour established his Church there is some appearance of his giving the whole body or Society of Christians a kind of immunity from the supremacy of the secular power in that in Cases of trespass and injury which are civil matters he directs the proceeding concerning them to be brought before the Church 1 Cor. 6. 1 c. And S. Paul enjoins Christians not to go to law before the civil Pagan Judicatures which things carry an appearance of a diminution of the secular Supremacy towards the members of the Christian Church And the usual Trials of the civil causes of Christians by Ecclesiastical Judges both before and after the Empire was Christian is manifest not only from the Apostolical Constitutions Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Gr. Nys in Vit. Gr. Thaum Aug. Cons l. 6. c. 3. Amb. Ep. ad Marcellum Ep. 24. and S. Aug. which I above produced but also from what Gregory Nyssen relateth concerning Gregorius Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocesarea and from the practice of S. Ambrose an account of which we have both from S. Austin and from himself 3. But for answer hereunto and for a right understanding of all this I shall think it sufficient to observe three things Obs 1. That those rules were established out of a true Christian and peaceable design This sometime by peaceable arbitration and to prevent scandal and thereupon had no ill aspect upon secular authority If a father of a numerous Progeny or a Master of a great Family consulting the honour reputation and peace of his Family enjoin them
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
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
where bad notions or inclinations get a through entrance they are apt to propagate and are not easily rooted out Thus S Hierome observes Hier. Prooem in lib. 2. Comment ad Galat. that Galatia which too readily embraced corrupt doctrines in the Apostles times notwithstanding S. Pauls Epistle to them continued to be a place prone to Heresy unto his time And the Church of corinth was so apt to fall into Divisions and Schisms that notwithstanding the Apostles severe rebukes of them for that sin they were soon after his Death Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. strangely over-run with it again to the great disparagement of their Christian profession 7. Of the undutiful carriage of the Kirk of Scotland I gave a considerable and known instance in the former Book And that they at Rome do cast high disrespects and create great danger to Princes may be discerned both by the former Book and by the foregoing Section 8. Positions of Fanaticism and Jesuicism disloyal And besides these matters of Jact and practise it hath been manifest that many wild extravagant and disloyal Positions which are dangerous and destructive to Government and humane Society have been asserted by men of a Fanatick strain and temper of some of which I shall have occasion to take more particular notice in the progress of this discourse De Jur. Mag. in Subd qu. 6. Junius Brut. Vind. Qu. 2. Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9 31 32 c. Some of them assert that the people in general may take the Power and Government into their own hands and deprive and punish their governours when they see cause others grant this power only to the persons who are the peoples representatives others fix the same in inferiour Officers with respect to the supreme governour And others have run on so far as to yield this pwoer to the meanest part of the people as was asserted by an Anonymous Scotchman about the time of the Galloway Rebellion that in the right of self defence the concourse of the Nobles or the Primores Regni is no way of absolute necessity 9. And amongst the Papists they who are of the Jesuitical strain do not only embrace those notions of the Popes deposing power to the great prejudice of Soveraign Princes Authority and safety but they also run into the highest strain of Fanaticism in violating the majesty of Kings and subjecting them and their authority to the people De Rege l. 1. c. 6. Thus Mariana when the Prince is accounted by the people to pervert his government alloweth to them the liberty of publick resistance by open War and also the use of Private violence commending the treasonable Murther of Hen. 3. of France by James Clement and allows very man to set himself against such a Prince whom he calls a Tyrant saying Ibid. c. 3. tanquam fera omnium telis peti debet He also such are the wicked and wretched principles of these Jesuits approveth the use in this Case of deceit and fraud yea and of poyson by poysoning his Seat or Cloaths But that we may think there is something of Conscience remaining in such a spirit as this he condemns Ibid. c. 7. and declares against the giving such a person poyson in his meat and drink for this doughty reason because it is saith he against humanity that he should be put upon contributing to his own Death by any act of his own which he would here do by taking this poyson in his food But sure this mans reason was as far from him as Conscience when he wrote these things in his not discerning that there was altogether as much done in contributing to his own death by putting on his poysoned Cloaths 10. â—ess de Just Iure l. 2. c. 9. â—ub 4. Becan de jure Just ad Qu. 64. D. Thom. qu. 4. And Lessius and M. Becanus two other Jesuits in this particular agree almost word for word with one another in asserting these Positions that a Prince who hath a just title becomes a Tyrant with respect to the administration of his Government when he designs in his Government and aims at his private advantage and not the publick good and burdens the common-wealth with unjust exactions sells the offices and places of Judges and makes Laws to his own advantage and not the publick That when this Tyranny is no longer fit to be born this Prince is first to be deposed or to be declared an enemy by the Common-wealth or the chief Estates of the Kingdom or by any other who hath authority and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his person and life That so long as he remaineth a Prince that is till such acts be done as are now mentioned he may not be killed by private persons unless it be for their necessary self defence And Lessius saith in another place Dubit 8. for the further clearing his sense in this particular that for the necessary defending a mans own life or securing himself from being maimed it is lawful to kill him who sets upon him himself or procures another to do it And this saith he must be owned allowable against any superiours whatsoever even that a Vasal may in this Case kill his King unless it be likely that civil Wars may follow for discord about succession And in such an high strain of treason and Unchristian disloyalty is the Jesuits Casuistical Divinity But against the falshood and wickedness of these assertions it is needful to declare and defend the true and peaceable principles of Reason and Christianity and against the dangerous effects which such positions tend to promote it is necessary that publick laws provide due security for the person of the King to which purpose the general acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of taking up Armes against him The Laws of England condemnall Waragainst the King is of very good use 11. Our English Laws providing for the safety both of King and Subjects and the preservation of their just Rights do declare it universally unlawful to make or levy any War against the King And upon this account it must also be as much against reason and Christianity yea more both because of the greater duty to superiours and the concern of the general good to invade that Right and Royalty which the Law secures to the King as to deny to Subjects that property right and safety which the Law provides for them I confess the consideration of our Law in matters of doubtfulness difficulty or profound disquisition would be an unfit undertaking for my profession and especially for a man of no deeper study in the Law than my self But I am perswaded that if no men had made use of subtil Artifices and designed methods to obscure plain things there would have been no want of evidence even to any ordinary understanding in this particular to direct them to the honest practises
manumission which still leaves the person under civil Government Ubi supra and in the Institutions the freedom which is opposed thereto is bounded by that which is prohibited by law And besides this freedom of the outward condition Ciceron Paradox 5. Cicero doth well and wisely account that man to have attained a true and proper freedom of mind who obeys and reverenceth the Laws not so much for fear as because he judgeth it useful and good so to do 11. Now if Government be the Constitution of God to make forcible opposition against it must either be in design to have Gods authority subject to them who so act or at least that themselves may not be subject unto it both which are unreasonable and include a resisting the ordinance of God But of the divine law in this particular I shall speak in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament SECT I. The need and usefulness of considering this Case 1. The reason why the state of the Old Testament is here particularly considered THE enquiry into the times of the Old Testament is of the greater import because it would be a considerable testimony that neither the Rules of common equity nor the true foundations of humane polity do condemn all forcible resistance against the Soveraign Power if this was allowed to Subjects under the Jewish constitution which was very much ordained by the wisdom of God himself Concerning the Jewish Constitution Lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. the learned Grotius doth in his Book De Jure belli pacis assert that in ordinary Cases of injury they were not allowed to make resistance and therefore he expoundeth what Samuel spake of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the right or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. to intend that in such things as the King was there declared to undertake Sect. 1 the people had non resistendi obligationem an obligation upon them to make no resistance Ibid. n. 7. But yet he afterward asserteth that in great and weighty Cases either of manifest civil injury as in what David sustained from Saul or of violence offered to their Religion and whole Nation as was done by Antiochus when the Maccabees withstood him it was lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign But he proposeth it as a Question of greater difficulty whether Christians may be allowed to do the like and here he recommends the duty of Christian Patience and bearing the Cross from the example of Christ himself and the Primitive Church 2. And Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue Epil Part. 2. Ch. 32. from the instance of the Maccabees doth allow the lawfulness of subjects taking Armes under the Jewish State for the defence of their Religion and very plainly asserteth the same in his Treatise of the right of the Church in a Christian State Right of Church Ch. 5. p. 306. c. But in both those places he declareth the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon the same account under Christianity because of the difference of the spirit rules and conditions of the Law and the Gospel But yet in this last mentioned Book there are some expressions which will make it manifest that that learned man was not so fixed in this Position concerning the Jewish Government but that he sometimes much inclined to and plainly embraced the contrary assertion For speaking of that Government which the Jews entred into under Ezra and Nehemiah he declared that this was allowed by the Grant and Commission of the King of Persia and saith Right of Ch. Ch. 4. p. 229. It is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renewed by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them 3. But that which will make this enquiry into the times of the Old Testament The Gospel makes no new model for the rights of all political Societies the more necessary is this because so far as I can discern it is an assertion which cannot be maintained or defended That there is in this particular any such difference between the State of the Old Testament and the New as that it should be lawful for Subjects before the coming of Christ and particularly for the Jews to defend their Liberties or Religion by War against their Soveraign but it is now become unlawful for all Subjects under Christianity by the peculiar Precepts of the Gospel For though it is manifest that the spirit of the Law and the Gospel do very much differ and that meekness and peace are more peculiarly recommended in the Gospel by the Precepts and by the example of Christ both to Rulers and Subjects yet I see not how Christianity doth alter the model and frame of humane political Societies so as to debase Subjects or deprive them of any rights or freedoms which they did before enjoy It is indeed truly observed by S. Chrysostome Chrys Hom. 3. de Dav. Saul that David in his actings towards Saul had not all those arguments for subjection which Christians now have haveing never seen nor heard of the great example of Christ Crucified and his doctrine of patience and suffering But though these are high motives to the performance of our duty they do not lay a new foundation for common rights nor do they establish any such new Rules as thereby to determine the unlawfulness of all Wars in the defence of just rights if they be managed by a warrantable authority 4. And they who insist upon the Gospel Precepts of taking up the Cross as if that did put such a difference between the legal State and the Evangelical that thereupon upon it is now become unlawful for Subjects to take Armes especially for the defence of Religion do also proceed upon a mistaken ground For though this Precept and the profession of Christianity doth require great meekness and patience and a firm and stedfast resolution under all difficulties to pursue and maintain the Faith and practice of the Gospel it doth not deprive such persons of a power and right to make War even in the defence of Religion who antecedently to Christianity were invested with such a right And he who will assert this must grant it unlawful for any Soveraign Prince to defend his free profession of the Christian Religion which is one of his just rights against an external force which would impose a contrary Religion upon him Eus Eccl. Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr as was done in the Christian Kingdom of Armenia which then had a Soveraign Prince against the fury of Maximinus who would have forced them to embrace the Pagan Idolatry 5. And whereas in the New Testament we have clear Declarations that the higher Powers are the Ordinance
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
any designs laid by any of the Apostles for destroying the Elders of the Jews or turning Caesar out of his Dominions by these attempts And though this defence proceeded no further than to cut off an ear our Lord not only disliked it but his action in forthwith healing the ear by a miracle may seem to intimate that he thought fit to take upon himself to make restitution and to repair the injury done by the rash action of one of his followers C. 23. Qu. 8. in Capite Thus Gratian observed that when Peter took the material Sword to defend his Master from the injury of the Jews he then received this check 8. 4. To St. Peter and therefore to his Successours Fourthly if we consider the Person who here drew the Sword which St. John declares to be Simon Peter it may well be wondred that any sort of men should believe that Christ gave this Apostle and others by vertue of succession from him a power to authorize subjects to take Arms against their Princes in a case where they shall judge the Church and Religion concerned and to deprive them of their Crowns and Dominions when himself in person was not allowed though he was then an Apostle to make such resistance as hath been declared From this instance Gratian concludes Ibidem that no bishop nor any of the Clergy whosoever have any power either by their own authority or by the authority of the Pope of Rome to take Armes and then they can have as little authority to commissionate others to take them Nor can this be evaded by saying that St. Peter was not as yet possessed with the supreme soveraign Authority For as it no where appears that he ever received any such thing so if our Saviour had ever intended to convery to him the supreme power of the Temporal sword he would never have used particularly to him so general a threatning against the use of it And therefore some Romish Writers have put themselves upon undertaking another method and that is by a very bad attempt to defend or applaud this action of St. Peter which our Lord rebuked Bar. An. 34. n. 67. Baronius when he gives us the relation of it doth it without any manner of censure but not without an Encomium declaring quid generoso accensus amoris ardore fortiter gesserit In Concord Evang Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 17. And Barradius proposing the question whether St. Peter did amiss in this action resolves it as most probable that he did not verosimilius puto saith he non peccasse And Stella saith Stell in Luc. 22. St. Peter did not sin herein and he compares this action with the zeal of Phinebas whereby he obtained the High-Priesthood and so sith he did St. Peter 9. Severalreasons why St. Peter was rebuked And there are some who would evade the argument from these words of our Saviour by saying that our Lord did prohibit St. Peter's using the Sword for his defence only because he did now intend to law down his life according to his Fathers will But it must be observed that our Saviour lays down three several grounds upon which he checks this act of his Apostle and commands him to put up his Sword and we must not so assert the validity of any one of them as to deny or enervate the force of the others 1. From the sin and unwarrantableness of such actions where persons act out of their own sphere and what they have not authority to undertake and this is that I have now discoursed of in v. 52. 2. Because he himself knew how he could sufficiently procure his own defence by lawful means whereas this action was neither a necessary nor a proper undertaking for that purpose Had the Holy Jesus intended to have his person rescued out of the hands of the Jews he could have effected this by Legions of Angels who are under no obligation of subjection to men v. 53. But Gods Providence can never be so at a loss as to need the help of any unlawful means 3. Because the thing St. Peter aimed at to hinder his Master from suffering was no good design but savoured somewhat of the same spirit by which he had formerly rebuked his Lord when he spake of his being killed Mat. 16.22 For the Scriptures must be fulfilled v. 54. and the Cup saith our Saviour which my Father gives me to drink shall I not drink it Joh. 18.11 And every one of these are parts of Christs Doctrine and the first as much as the other and is that also which our blessed Lord thought fit to mention before the other 10. With respect to this Text Mauritius This Text anciently used to their purpose Eucher Lugdunens Epist ad Sylv. who commanded the Thebaean Legion which being all Christians yielded themselves to Martyrdom under Maximianus told them how much he feared lest they being in Armes should have resisted the Emperour under the colour of defnce when this was forbidden by Christ who by the command of his own mouth would have that Sword which his Apostle had drawn to be put up And St. Austin who sometimes extenuated St. Peters fault as proceeding from his love Aug. de Agon Christ c. 29 30. and not from any cruel disposition that he did a more peacare sed non saevitia in his Books against Faustus gives this account of the sense hereof The Lord did with sufficient threatning check the fact of Peter saying Put up the Sword Contr. Faust l. 22. c. 70. in Epist 48. for he that useth the Sword shall fall by the Sword but he useth the Sword who when no Superiour and lawful Power doth either command or allow useth Armes against the blood of another And from this Text also Gratian inferreth this general rule Grat. Decubi sup that every one who besides him or without his authority who useth the lawful power who beareth not the Sword in vain and to whom every Soul ought to be subject I say every one who without such authority takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword 11. Assemb Annot. in Luk. 22.51 And even the Annotations under the name of the Assemblies Annotations do interpret these words to condemn Subjects taking the Sword especially against their Superiours Neither Peter say they nor any other private person or persons might take up the Sword to defend the cause of Christ 1. Becaue the Jus gladii belongeth not to any private person but to publick authority Rom. 13.4 much less to Ministers 2. Because they who smite with the Sword shall perish with the Sword Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6. And Grotius de Imperio asserteth that when Christ said He that taketh the Sword shall perish by the Sword he doth expresly condemn that defence which is made by violence against unjust force from publick authority contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam To which I shall subjoin the
Paraphrase of Dr Hammond All that draw and use the Sword without authority from those which bear the Sword shall fall themselves by it incur the punishment of death 12. Grot. in Mat. 26.52 de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 3. Indeed Grotius doth sometimes interpret this Text to this purpose as if it intended to declare that God would punish them who are bloody as the jews who came against our Saviour though S. Peter let them alone and this sense is imbraced by some other Writers even of the ancients But since these words were spoken by Christ soon after his Disciples had asked shall we smite with the Sword and immediately upon the act of Peter the natural and direct sense of them must relate thereto And it is a forced interpretation to carry them off from the occasion on which they were spoken Orig. in Mat. Tract 35. Tert. de Patient c. 3. and to which they were applyed by other ancient Writers besides them abovenamed and to account them only to contain a threatning against the actions of the Jews And even Grotius upon S. Matthew Grot. ibid. doth from these words conclude that Christians ought to lay down their lives in the profession of Christianity without resistance and objecting the natural right of self defence he tells us we must distinguish between the using that right against thieves and private persons against whom it may be used by the authority of the laws and the designing any violence against the rule and command of the soveraign power 13. Our Saviour indeed advised his Disciples Luk. 22.36 He that hath no Sword let him sell his Garment and buy one which words were spoken the same night with the other abovementioned and before he went out to the Mount of Olives v. 39. And hereby he gave liberty to his Disciples to use the Sword for their self-defence against private violence and Robbers who were at that time as Josephus relates very numerous But that no Christians might think themselves to have any liberty granted of resisting authority he gave this sharp rebuke to S. Peter after he was come into the Mount of Olives And against all those who would from these expressions of Christ or any other plead for the lawfulness of resisting a Soveraign power Erasm in Luc. 22.36 the words of Erasmus are very argumentative as well as earnest and vehement Nulla haeresis perniciostor saith he reclamantibus Christi praeceptis reclamante tota ipsius vita reclamante doctrina Apostolica refragantibus tot Martyrum millibus repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus There is no Heresy more pernicious the Precepts of Christ decrying this the whole life of Christ being opposite to it the Apostolical doctrine testifying against it it being also rejected by so many thousands of Martyrs and contradicted by the ancient Interpreters SECT II. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practises Sect. 2 1. The Apostolical Doctrine against resistance From the doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself I now descend to that which was declared by his Apostles which we shall find to keep an exact harmony with the former And here I shall chiefly consider that remarkable place Rom. 13.2 whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate resist doth enclude all practising out of a spirit of averseness opposition and contradiction and whatsoever is contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or being subject v. 1. as may appear by the use of this word Act. 18.6 And to this sense Grotius observes Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6 resistitur dupliciter aut contra imperium agendo aut vim vi reprimendo there are two wayes of resisting either by acting contrary to authority or by using force against it But the resistance by violence which is the highest manner of opposition is therefore principally condemned And such actions are declared to be a resisting the Ordinance of God and therefore highly sinful and to be so dangerous that they who are guilty thereof shall receive to themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgment or damnation 2. That it deserves punishment both from God and Man And I suppose it may be made manifest that the Apostle here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth both understand the judgment of man or punishment by the hand of justice by the Magistrate and also the judgment of God or the sentence of his condemnation This appears from the Apostles Conclusion which he maketh with a very forcible illative expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath i. e. outward humane punishment but also for Conscience sake or fear of the divine judgment v. 5. And that they who resist deserve heavy punishment by the temporal Sword is according to the Doctrine of Christ himself in the former Section and of Salomon Prov. 20.2 To this sense do Vatablus and Grotius most encline In loc in expounding this Text. And this sense must be encluded in the intention of the Apostle because this practice being declared evil in the former part of v. 2. it is added that Rulers are a terrour to the evil v. 3. and if thou do that which is evil be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vain v. 4. And in such Cases as these the sentence and punishment inflicted by the Magistrate is the more considerable and dreadful because he is herein appointed by God to act as from him and by his authority being the Minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil v. 4. But this word must also enclude the judgment of God and his condemnation For since this resistance is a sin and against the Ordinance of God v. 2. that person who puts himself upon breaking his Commands and opposing his Authority must thereby render himself guilty before God or in S. Chrysostom's expression concerning this Text he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in Ep. ad Rom. provoke God and must expect from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heavy judgment 3. And these assertions of the Apostle Resistance not allowed in persecution will appear the more considerable if some circumstances be observed 1. What condition of the Christian Church was then coming on when these Rules were delivered to the Christians It is very probable Baron an 58. n. 46. an 66. n. 9 10. that this Epistle was written some few years before the beginning of the persecution against the Christians under Nero. But the Holy Ghost who then foresaw and foretold the troubles which were shortly to come upon them by the Roman power though fit to give them these directions to be observed as their Rules in their approaching calamities 4. Nor against wicked Rulers Secondly who was then possessed of the highest power at Rome unto whom the