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
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
own those Rebels for the people of the Lord charge Moses and Aaron as being guilty of their blood and again gather themselves together against them v. 41 42. And as S. Austin conceives sutably to the tumultuous violence of their Spirits they came with a resolution of putting them to death Aug. de mirabil S. Scriptur l. 1. c. 30. saith he Totus populus contra Moysem Aaron ut sanguinis reos consurrexit eosque in eorundem ultionem occidere voluit And all these transactions are the more to be admired because they presently succeeded after that sad threatning and the Plague therewith that their Carcases should fall in the Wilderness and not enter into the Land of Canaan Num. 14.29 30 37. which judgment was denounced against them in part because they would forsake Moses and chuse them another Captain to return to Egypt Num. 14.4 Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 13. and did then as Jo sephus expresseth it revile and conspire against Moses and Aaron And if under so excellent a Governour who had so highly obliged Israel and done so much good for them there were such dangerous consequences from the people or men of a popular strain exercising a power of judging concerning a Case fit to warrant a forcible resistance this must needs be a destructive principle if allowed under the best Government in the World This gave birth to so bad an undertaking as that of Corah which was an enterprise to heinous Sanhedrin c. 11. that besides the severe censures of the Scripture the Jewish Talmud reckons up the managers thereof amongst them who shall have no portion in the life to come 7. And in the time of David The other instance I shall give is in the Government of David He was peculiarly chosen of God to rule Israel and known so to be he was a man after Gods own heart and in his Government over Israel he fed or ruled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them according to the integrity of his heart and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands Ps 78.72 He was also so potent and victorious over all his Enemies and by reason hereof Israel in his time was so renowned that Maimonides saith their Consistories would not receive Proselytes in his Reign because they supposed it was the fare of his power Maim in Inure Biah which induced them to pretend respect to the worship of the God of Israel Yet Absalom by a popular carriage and infinuating words soon perswaded the people they were greatly injured under the Government of David and that no justice could be had 2 Sam. 15.3 4. Josep Ant. l 7. c. 8. And Josephus declares he complained much of the Kings Officers that there were no good Counsellers about him And hereupon almost all the Kingdom of Israel join themselves with Absalom again2t David 2 Sam. 15.12 13 14. Ch. 16.18 Ch. 18.6 and their Elders with them Ch. 17.15 8. And though this wicked attempt of Absalom was defeated and no less than twenty thousand men slain therein in one day yet while the people in their discontent and passion took to themselves a liberty to take Armes as they thought fit it is remarkably observable that no sooner was this rebellion after Absalom over but upon some hot words between the men of Judah and the men of Israel concerning the manner of their performing their duty to the King 2 Sam. 20 2. every man of Israel went up from David and followed Sheba in a new Rebellion And though Davids Conquests had been very great over many Nations which some of the ancient Greek Historians gave an account of as was observed by Eusebius for Eupolemus neither the splendour of his Kingdom nor the sense of their duty Eus Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. 30. nor the bitter effects of their former Conspiracy nor the Kings Kindness in receiving them again into his favour could contain them under the bond of obedience and in the paths of Peace 9. Now all this will manifest how extremely unsetled any Government in the World must be and therein the authority of executing justice preserving peace and conserving all rights and properties if it be once admitted that Subjects when they shall judge it a Case of necessity for the preservation of the common good may take Armes against their Soveraign And therefore for the Securing peace and righteousness and the common rights and interests of all men it must be acknowledged that the supreme Governour hath such an authority that it is not lawful to take up Armes against him 10. The sense of Grotius concerning Subjects taking Arms. Besides these instances I shall add the judgment of the learned Grotius after his long and more mature consideration of things That worthy man in his Book de Jure Belli pacis and in another Discourse written in his younger time did make use of some unmeet expressions and notions and unsound arguments too much tending to infringe the Authority of Kings and to allow a power in the people in some Cases of making War against them But though he did not expresly retract and alter those things yet in his Writings which he published after a greater experience of the World he wrote at another rate and falls in directly with what I have not asserted Grot. in Mat. 26.52 Thus in his Commentaries upon S. Matthew he saith If it be once admitted that private persons being injuriously dealt with by the Magistrate may make forcible resistance all places would be full of tumults there would be no force or authority of Laws or Judicatures since there is no man who is not enclined to favour himself 11. And in his Votum pro pace Vot pro Pac. ad Art 16. after he had passionately complained of Armes being taken upon the pretext of Religion he goes on Ego vero non tantum subditos ab armis arceo c. But I do not only forbid Subjects from taking Armes but desire that Kings who have that power given to them would use it as feldom as may be Ibid. After this Grotius relateth at large and with approbation the proceedings of the University of Oxford about Paraeus upon the Romans with his allowance also of this their determination Subditos nullo modo vi armis Regi vel Principi suo resistere debere nec illis arma vel offensiva vel defensiva in cansa Religionis vel alia re quà cunque contra Regem vel Principem saum capessere debere That Subjects ought by no means to resist their King or Prince by force nor ought they to take either offensive or defensive Armes against their King or Prince Ibid. for the cause of Religion or for any other thing whatsoever And then asserting the generall rule of S. Paul even against the Cases excepted by Paraeus that whosoever resisteth the power receiveth to himself damnation he addeth If so many Exceptions of Paraeux i. e. underminings of S.
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
Apostle commands subjection and against whom he condemns all resistance Now this is commonly acknowledged to have been written under the Reign of Nero who was a man of excessive intemperance and lust and prodigious cruelty even to that height as to cast off natural affection to his nearest relations In his time Suetonius tells us Suet. in Ner. n. 16. punishments were inflicted upon the Christians and according to Tacitus Tac. Annal l. 15. Tertul. Apol c. 6. in Scorpiac c. 15. poenis quaesitissimis by the most exquisite pains and he is noted by Tertullian to be the first of the Roman Emperours who undertook fiercely to persecute Christianity and under him S. Peter and S. Paul and divers other Christians were cruelly put to death And yet in this Case and under that Emperour whom the Roman Spirit would not endure without taking Armes against him and whom their Senate declared to be an Enemy Suet. in Ner. n. 49. Tacit. Hist l. 1. Aur. Vict. in Ner. and to be punished more majorum by an infamous Death S. Paul would not allow the Christians to resist and take Armes against this higher power And this was the Christian temper and Spirit that they kept themselves free from all those tumults and Seditions which other persons in the Empire were many times engaged in Tert. ad Scap. c. 2. And this is that which gave Tertullian occasion to say nunquam Albiniani vel Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani 5. And since the Church of Rome was founded in the beginning of the Government of Claudius and S. Paul was put to Death in the end of Nero's time who was the next Successor to Claudius in the Empire this Epistle to the Romans must be written in one of their Reigns Indeed Illyricus Illyr Chronol in Act. Apost Dr. Hammonds Annot on the Title of the Ep. to Rom. and Dr Hammond sometimes think it to have been written under Claudius And those expressions in this Epistle which intimate that S. Paul before the writing thereof had never been at Rome with this Christian Church may possibly seem to encline to the same sense Ch. 1 10.-13.-15 and Ch. 15.19 -22 23. But it was certainly written many years after the Conversion of the Romans Ch. 15.23 And if it should be supposed to have been sent to them under Claudius even he was not much a better man than Nero. For Claudius was a debauched and vicious person and barbarously cruel to which purpose amongst other expressions Suetonius saith of him Suet. in Claud. 33 34. that he was libidinis profusissimae and also saevum sanguinarium natura fuisse apparuit And even he was so great an Enemy to the right worship of the only true God that under the name of Jews he banished also Christians from Rome Act. 18.2 6. Rutherf of Civ Policy Qu. 33. The New Testament gives respect to the Emperour above the Senate But because there are some who say that these expressions of the Apostle have no particular mention of Nero or any Emperour and therefore may as well have respect to the Roman Senate To obviate this exception it may be observed that wheresoever in the New Testament there is any notice taken of or any respect given to the Roman power this is done with a principal and primary respect to the Emperour and subordinately to others as his Officers This is manifest in the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles The taxing or enrolling at the Birth of our Saviour was by the Decree of Augustus and the tribute money had Caesars Image and Inscription to whom Christ commanded the Jews to render what was his S. Pauls appeal was made unto Caesar and S. Peters commanding submission was directed to the King as supreme and to Governours as unto them who are sent by him So that the Spirit of God speaketh much in favour of Monarchical power though then Pagan but gives no encouragement to the notion of them who would embrace a popular Soveraignty 7. Now these words of S. Paul are so full that I shall not need to add any further evidences of Scripture in this particular But when S. Peter and S. Jude 2 Pet. 2.10 Jude 8. so highly condemn the despising Dominions and speaking evil of dignities as sins against which God will chiefly execute judgment it is evident à majori that their doctrine cannot give allowance to that forcible resistance whereby the greatest contempt of dignities is expressed and which runs higher than to speak evil especially when S. Jude speaks particularly against them who perish in the gain-saying of Core or in the practises of Sedition And S. Peter also proposeth the example of Christ as that which he himself intended should be an example to all Christians who when in well-doing he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously 1 Pet. 2.19.20 21 22 23. 8. Having now shewed Christianity doth not infringe Soveraignty that the Christian Doctrine doth fully provide for the safety and security of Princes it is matter of wonder that any men should have the considence to make Christianity a foundation for the highest resistance against Princes to depose them from their Crowns and forbid Subjects to yield them obedience and this Authority the Pope claims upon a Christian title Bellarm. in Resp ad Apol. pro Juram fidelit in init Bellarmine affirms it to be a thing agreed upon by their Lawyers and Divines that the Pope may by right depose heretical Princes and set free their Subjects from obedience to them for cum hac conditione reges terrae ad Ecclesiam admittuntur c. upon this condition the Kings of the Earth are admitted unto the Church that they shall subject their Scepters unto Christ and that they should protect and not destroy Religion which if they will not do he who is over the whole Church in the place of Christ vice Christi hath a right to separate them from the Communion of the faithful and to forbid their Subjects from giving them obedience Indeed all persons by their Baptism are engaged to yield up themselves to be Subjects to Christ But how can the baptism of Princes include a condition that they must yield their Scepters to be disposed of by any Officer of the Christian Church when they are baptized into that Doctrine which makes so great provision for the security of Kings and against all manner of resistance This would make Christianity to be prejudicial to the authority of Governours to assert which is contrary to the nature of its doctrine And the Holy Spirit seemeth to have taken special care to prevent this claim in any person of the Romish Church in that whosoever resisteth the power c. being particularly directed to that Church must deny all power to any person therein to oppose the authority of Rulers under the peril of damnation 9.
comparing several places in that Book will necessitate the interpreting those expressions to extend only to this case which allow the people under the fiercest and highest tyranny to resist provided they exceed not the bounds of mere defence without any attempts of invading or revenging But then withal he will not allow in this case or any other the taking Armes against the Soveraign Power but saith a Prince by such an undertaking as this loseth his Royal Authority and is no longer King se omni dominatu principatu exuit atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desinit Cont. Monarchomachos l. 6. c. 23. And Grotius also agreeing with Barclay whom he here cites granteth that the People may in such a case as this resist by force De Jur. Bel. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. si Rexvere hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur And he also proceedeth upon the like foundation that this is not to resist a Soveraign King but him who ceaseth to be such consistere simul non possunt volunt as imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem populi totitus profitatur eo ipso abdicat regnum 6. Now the design of these learned men is thus far herein to be much approved that they though it necessary to take care that whilst the Right and Authority of Princes was asserted the safety of the people and the common good should still be provided for Yet because I conceive these answers to leave things too loosely and afford over-much occasion for unquiet spirits to lay hold on I shall endeavour to speak a little more closely to this matter Wherefore I assert 1. That there is a great difference between the discoursing of such things as mere notional suppositions and the considering them as matters of practice and reality In the former way there may be suppositions made of things which actually are not never were nor are ever like to be and there may also be supposed such evidence as is clear and beyond all possibility of mistake when there is no such thing in reality And only upon the yielding such suppositions I shall grant the answer given to be true Thus the River Thames may be granted to be hurtful and pernicious upon supposition that it should overflow and drown the whole Kingdom but though such a thing may be imagined in speculation men of common understanding cannot much fear any such actual danger Now the taking Armes is not a notion but a matter of fact and therefore the reason and ground of such undertakeings must be from things as they actually and really are in the World 7. I assert Secondly That if we consider this as a Case of practice which is that to which our publick acknowledgments also must be referred this pretence is no sufficient Plea for Subjects to take Armes upon these two reasons 1. From the unreasonableness of the thing supposed and the great unlikelyhood of its ever being true though it may be so pretended For such a thing probably never was actually in the World and Grotius acknowledgeth Grot. ubi sup that this can scarce seem possible to happen in a King who is compos mentis towards his whole Dominions Adv. Monarchomach l. 3. to c. 16. Indeed Barclay gives instance in Nero whom Aurelius Victor relateth to have talked of destroying Rome and the Senate with Fire and Sword and placeing his residence elsewhere Sueton. in Calig n. 30. 49. and much to the same purpose is declared concerning Caligula Now though these were Monsters of men and it may be hoped that no Princes like to them will ever live under Christianity especially yet these expressions had not respect to the whole Empire but only to Rome and furious speeches even of such men whose actions spake them savagely cruel might probably vent much more than would ever be enterprised and attempted And it seemeth considerable that S. Pauls Prohibition against resistance was written to the Romans within a few years after the end of Caligula his Reign and about the entrance of Nero and therefore was a firm rule and binding obligation even under their Government 8. I know it is not simply impossible that such a Case should be in act If Antiochus had been really King of Judea while he resolved to destroy all persons of the whole Nation of the Jews who observed the Law of Moses this had been a Case of somewhat like nature and upon this Foundation Barclay also goes Ibid. l. 6. c. 24. to justify the Wars of the Maccabees of which I have given another account But though it be not utterly impossible yet there is as much or more reason for those Children who maintain and support their Parents by their industry to fear the these Parents do design to poyson them because there have been some unnatural and Saturnine Parents than that Subjects should fear any such design of their Prince against his whole Realm And such Children might with as much justice attempt the murdering of these Parents upon such suspicions which would be horrid and inhumane and Subjects upon the mentioned pretence take Armes against their King both having equal appearance of self-preservation and being defensive and both being impious and opposite to Righteouseness and Christianity 9. 2. The other reason is from the dangerous effects and great mischief that hath been and still may be in the World by proceeding upon such pretences For he who doth observe that Moses who was so great a deliverer of Israel was charged by them in their murmurings as one who intended to ruine and destroy them and that this was done not only once but frequently Ex. 16.3 Ex. 17.3 Numb 16.13 14. and that they spake to like purpose concerning God himself Num. 14.2 Numb 21.5 Deut. 1.27 may discern that upon small or no occasions the suspicions of discontented spirits carried on by plausible insinuations will easily pretend to certain evidence of the design of ruining the people in the best Governours to the neglect of their duty and the disturbance of peace and quiet It is manifest both in our own and other Nations that much Christian blood hath been shed by giving way to such false surmises against truth and Christian Charity And it is to be expected that male-contented persons if they have any ill enterprises will shell them over with the fairest pretences they can take up as a disguise for themselves Duct Dubit b. 3. c. 3. rule 3. n. 15. and a way to inveigle others But as Bishop Taylor asserting the unlawfulness of resistance well observed such wild Cases as this of a King endeavouring to destory his Kingdom are not to be pretended against that which Religion and natural reason hath established 10. But I come now to consider the other part of this Question Of a Prince or Soveraign power undertaking to cut off a considerable number of Subjects if a Soveraign
these which are in that Book expressed f. 49. That God constituted and ordained the authority of Christen Kings and Princes to be the most high and supreme above all other powers and offices in the regiment and governance of his people f. 50. Vnto them of right and by Gods commandment it belongeth principally to defend the faith of Christ and his Religion and to abolish all abuses heresies and idolatries Notwithstanding we may not think that it doth appertain unto the office of Kings and Princes to preach and teach to administer the Sacraments to absolve to excommunicate and such other things belonging to the office and administration of Bishops and Priests but we must think and believe that God hath made Christian Kings to be as the chief heads and over-lookers over the said Priests and Bishops to cause them to administer their office and power committed unto them purely and sincerely and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof to cause them to supply and repair the same again 10. And for the time of King Edward it is manifest from the Book of Ordination that the offices of Bishop Priest and Deacon the power of remitting and retaining sins and the Pastoral authority in the Church was accounted by ordination to be committed to those persons only who receive such ordination And in his time the royal authority and dignity is described K. Edw. Inj. 1. and asserted in his Injunctions in the very same words whereby it is declared in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and no otherwise Qu. Elizab. Injunct 1. and almost in the same phrases which are made use of in our Canons Can. 1. 1603. i. e. that the Kings power within his Realms and Dominions is the highest power under God to whom all men within the same Realms and Dominions by Gods law owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other powers and potentates upon earth 11. Now these things do clearly manifest that the spiritual authority of the Clergy was both in King Hen. and King Edwards reign owned to be really distinct from the secular authority and was not swallowed up into it And this I have the rather taken notice of because it gives us a clearer prospect into the plain sense of the interpretation of the Kings Supremacy Sect. 4 as it was declared in the Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions unto which the explication of the statute and Articles do refer And what is herein observed from the Institution of a Christian man is the more considerable because that Book was then designed by the King and Bishops as a guide to direct the Bishops and Preachers what they should teach the people committed to their spiritual charge as is very often expressed throughout the whole Book almost in every leaf of a great part thereof SECT IV. The spiritual authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy 1. The wisdom and goodness of God is eminently conspicuous both in founding his Church and establishing an Ecclesiastical Society and authority and also in ordering a civil polity in the world And these two things were well observed by Justinian to be high instances of the great goodness and bounty of God towards men Maxima inter homines dona Dei sunt a superna collata clementia Novel 6. sacerdotium imperium And these two being both of them from God do not if rightly understood clash with but are useful and helpful to one another 2. Of old the same person oft King and Priest Whilst God was worshipped only in some particular Families of the holy Patriarchs he who was the chief Governour of those Societies was also in the place of a Priest to that Family whence Noah Abraham and Job offered Sacrifice And in those ancient times in some principalities the same person was King and Priest as Melchisedec was both King of Salem and Priest of the most high God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hebrew is the ordinary word to express a Priest Phil. de vit Mos l. 3. p. 681. doth also signify a Prince And Moses himself before the Jewish Government was compleatly formed sustained the office both of a Prince and a Priest whence Philo in his description of a compleat Governour maketh the Priesthood to reside in him as then it was in Moses 3. And from the traditions of the ancient times the general custom of divers Pagan Nations might have its original who in several distant parts of the world conjoined in the same person the royal authority and the Priesthood This was done saith Clemens Alexandrinus by those who were the wisest of them Cl. Alex. Str. l. 7. p. 720. Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 1. Aelian Var. Hist l. 14. c. 34. and is particularly averred by Diodorus Siculus concerning the ancient Ethiopians and of the Egyptians also by Aelianus as also by Plato in Politic. and by Synesius Ep. 121. And that Jethro Moses his Father in Law was both King and Priest is expressed by Ezekielus a Poet of Jewish Extraction in some Verses mentioned by Eusebius Eus Pr. Evang. l. c. 28. Cont. Ap. l. 1. That the same usage did sometimes take place among the Tyrians of old appears from Josephus and in the time of Aeneas his travels Virg. Aeneid 3. after the destruction of Troy at Delos there was saith Virgil Rex idem hominum PhoebÃque sacerdos The Pagan Emperours at Rome had likewise the Office of Pontifex Maximus and used this title in several Edicts as part of their stile of dignity of which we have a plain instance in Eusebius Hist Eccl. l. 8. c. 29. concerning Galerius Maximinus and Constantius This was also ordinarily impressed upon their coins where sometimes the proper imperial title was stamped on the one side and that of Pontifex Maximus on the other as appears in that Medal exhibited to this purpose M. Freh Tr. de Numism censûs Xenoph. de Inst Cyr. l. 2 3 8. by Marquardus Freherus And that Cyrus the King of Persia did himself both Sacrifice and annex his Prayers therewith is observed by Xenophon And there are several learned men who assert that this title of Pontifex Maximus was retained Bar. An. 312. n. 94 95 97 c. and an 383. n. 6. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 10. à p. 329. ad 344. as an ordinary part of the Imperial stile even by the first Christian Emperours until the time of Gratian who according to the testimony of Zosimus is said to have rejected it as unsuitable to Christianity And it is certain that this title was given to some of them and even to Gratian himself as well and as oft as to any other in some few publick inscriptions which are urged to this purpose by Baronius and Selden But as these inscriptions were probably ordered by others and not by these
David 1 Kin. 1.26 and that David was his Lord v. 11 27. and David owned himself to be his Lord v. 33. and gave him command concerning the inaugurating of Salomon v. 32 33 34. which Nathan observed Schickard de Jur. Reg. Heb. c. 4. Theor 13. Carpzov in Schick ibid. v. 38. And the testimony of the Jewish Rabbins Maimonides and R. Bechai have been by others observed who from the example of Nathan 1 Kin. 1.23 declare that a Prophet is to stand before the King and to do reverence to him with his face to the Earth 7. Idolatry c. Concerning other general and necessary matters of Religion it is so plain from the History of the Scriptures that idolatry witchcraft and other such gross pollutions were punished and suppressed by the authority of the good Kings that it is needless to refer to particular places When Micah and the Danites had an House of Gods it is particularly observed that in those days there was no King in Israel Jud. 17.5 6. ch 18.1 which words do plainly intimate that if there had been then a King or setled Governour it should have been his care to prohibit and root out such transgressions against God and S. Aug. asserteth Aug. Epist ad Bonifac that other Kings ought to serve God as hezekiah did who destroyed the Groves and Temples of Idols And that Josiah the King was to destroy the Altar of Bethel was foretold 1 Kin. 13.2 8. Now though most of these things with many others of like nature have been frequently observed by other Writers yet I thought it necessary somewhat particularly to take notice of them in the management of this argument especially because of the opposition I must meet with and encounter in the following Chapter 9. But lest any should say Their governing herein was approved of God that all these things were indeed matters of fact but undertaken without right it must be further considered that the exercise of this royal authority in things Ecclesiastical was approved and commended by God himself and therefore was no unjust usurpation Thus for instance Asa's care of reforming Religion and establishing it tbroughout all Judah is declared to be that which was right in the eyes of the Lord 2 Chr. 14 2-5 and those pious acts of Hezekiah and Josiah for the suppressing false worship and establishing true Religion had an high and signal commendation from God himself 2 Kin. 18.3 4 5 6. and ch 23.1 2 -25. And where there were defects in the purity of the publick worship even this was charged as a blemish in the government of the Kings who then reigned as upon Asa Jehosaphat Joash Amaziah and others 1 Kin. 15.4 ch 22.43 2 Kin. 12.3 ch 14.4 And from hence it appears according to what hath been declared in our Church Can. 1.1640 that the care of Gods Church is so committed to Kings in the Scripture that they are commended when the Church keepeth the right way and taxed when it runs amiss and therefore her Government belongeth in chief unto Kings for otherwise one man would be commended for anothers care and taxed for anothers negligence which is not Gods way SECT II. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Sect. 2 1. That the force of this argument might be avoided divers methods are made use of the chief of which I shall consider And those which in this Section I shall take notice of are reducible to two ranks Under the former I shall examine those pretences which are made to evidence that the Jewish Kings ordering things about Religion was an extraordinary case and by an extraordinary power and Commission and therefore must not be made a pattern for other times Under the second I shall consider such Pleas as would make a shew of proof that there is such a difference between the Gospel state and the Mosaical dispensation in this particular that thereupon Princes are not capable now of the like Soveraignty which they then enjoyed 2. With respect to the former head first Bellarmine will have David Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. Salomon and Josiah to have acted in matters of Religion as Prophets not as Kings and if this speak to the purpose the like must be supposed concerning all other Kings They governed as Kings not as Prophets in things Ecclesiastical who commanded about Religion And yet the Scriptures expresly call these orders the commandment of the King 2 Chr. 29.24 ch 30.6 ch 31.13 ch 35.10 16. and elsewhere and sometimes the commandment of the King and his Princes 2 Chr. 29.30 ch 30.12 Nor is there any pretence for affixing the prophetical office unto all the Kings of Judah who gave commands about Religion it being certain that neither Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah nor divers others of them were themselves Prophets but did as occasion required consult others as the Prophets of God De Concordia Sa. Imp. l. 2. c. 4. n. 5. And this is so far acknowledged by P. de Marca that thereupon he justly rejecteth this Plea as insufficient though he confesseth it to be usual 3. They had no extraordinary Commission herein V. Bishop Bilson of Christian subj Par. 2. p. 198. But others say the Kings of the Family of Israel might do what they did warrantably concerning Religion by a special command of God made known by a Prophet and this might make their undertaking herein necessary Now that Prophets did advise and direct in some of these cases is granted but still the authority which established such directions by a publick Sanction was the royal power But if any pretend that the Kings received their authority herein by an extraordinary commission from a Prophet he ought to give proof of this which he can never do but that there can be no place for any such conjecture will appear because 1. It is not likely that Gods Prophets should constantly require the Kings to intermeddle in any thing that was ordinarily unsuitable for their office to undertake and it is also injurious to the wisdom of God to think that he should make the care of Religion the duty of all the Kings of the stock of David only by an extraordinary message to every one of them 2. It is manifest that many things concerning Religion were well undertaken by the Kings of Judah without so much as the special direction of a Prophet Such were Davids first intentions to build a temple which God approved Hezekiahs order for the general Passover in the second month which is declared to be done by the consultation of the King and his Princes 2 Chr. 30.2 and Josiah's reformation was in a good measure effected before he advised with the Prophetess Huldah 4. Cun. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 14. Marca de Conc. l. 2. c. 4. n. 4 5. But there is another Plea made use of by Cunaeus
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
1. Con. Eph. c. 32. to engage the Royal power to take care of Religion because all civil powers are to intend the good of their inferiours according to the doctrine of S. Paul Rom. 13.4 And the instances of David Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah Constantine Theodosius and many other pious Kings and Emperours do manifest that they are capable of procuring very great good to their Subjects by their pious care about the matters of Religion And no doubt S. Austin might with good reason be confident Cont. Ep. Gaudent l. 2. c. 17. in Epist 50. that the Laws of Christian Princes about Religion had been the occasion of bringing many to Salvation by Jesus Christ 7. And the Royal Government is much of the same nature with the paternal enlarged in the extent thereof over several Families but not restrained in the nature of it and in the most excellent and useful part of its authority Gods Ordinance hereby placing others in that authority which Adam and Noah had Phil. de creat princip p. 727. over their multiplyed and enlarged Progeny Hence Princes are fitly stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Parents of Cities and Kingdoms their political and civil being having a dependance also upon them who were called Patres patriae 8. And the consideration of the paternal power will remove the objections which some men make use of against the authority of Princes in matters of Religion For if Religion must be so far left free as not to be commanded and enjoined by any humane civil power then would Abrahams commanding his Children and Houshold have been blameable he being in his Sphere a secular Ruler as well as a Prince is Or if it be pretended that grown men who are come to years of understanding and have undertaken the profession of true Religion ought to be so far left to their own choice as not to be under the Government of any civil power with respect to Religion this also is refuted by the instance of Abraham's commanding his Houshold which was so large V. Salian An. M. 2118. n. 13. an 2138. that many years before this time of the destruction of Sodom when God gave Abraham this commendation he could arm three hundred and eighteen Souldiers of his own Houshold Gen. 14.14 and all his numerous Family had been Circumcised And since Abraham continued under the blessing of God it is very probable that his Family was further enlarged before the time of this commendation of him 9. To all this I shall add that he who doth soberly consider what sad disturbances and commotions in divers Kingdoms have been the product of the corruptions and errors in the Christian Religion both upon the account of the Papal Vsurpations under the pretence of spiritual power and by reason of the disloyal positions and tumultuous practices of other Sects and their frequent Rebellions shall need no other argument to convince him that the Princes exercise of Government about the affairs of Religion is greatly necessary for the securing his own authority the peace of his Kingdoms and the property of his subjects SECT II. The same established by the Christian Doctrine 1. That the Gospel Doctrine never intended to destroy or diminish the right of secular powers is granted by some of chief note amongst the Romanists Christus saith P. de Marca cum Evangelium suum institueret De Concord in proleg p. 25. regum dignitatem non laesit And this is not only manifest from the tendency of those great Christian duties of humility meekness peace and righteousness but also from the many particular injunctions of subjection to Rulers and from our blessed Saviour his commanding to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars Christianity establisheth Regal Supremacy And also in that the Christian Doctrine doth peculiarly enjoin fidelity and obedience in all all inferiour relations towards their superiours that by the practice of this duty Christianity may be adorned and recommended in the World even to those who did oppose or reject it Tit. 2.9 10. 1 Pet. 2.12 13 14 15. ch 3.1 2. 2. And with some prospect to Christianity the Kings of the Earth are called upon to serve the Lord Ps 2.10 11. and are foretold to be nursing Fathers Is 49.23 Sect. 2 And both this and their undertaking Christianity and being baptized into it doth require them in their places and by their interest and authority to take care of the honour of God of his Church and Religion And S. Austin well declares Conr. Cresc l. 3. c. 51. that Kings then serve God in their Kingdoms when they therein command what things are good and prohibit evil non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae ad divinant Religionem as well concerning Religion as humane affairs 3. And lest any should think that the establishing the Kingdom of Christ according to the Gospel Doctrine should give any exemption to the subjects thereof from any part of that duty which was incumbent upon them towards other Kings and Governours S. Peter speaking to Christians under the Titles of a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood and a holy Nation In Resp ad Bellarm. Apol. c. 3. doth yet as Bishop Andrews observed particularly enjoin upon these persons submission to the King as supreme and to the Governours sent by him 1 Pet. 2.9 13 14. And the business of the civil power is there declared to be so general as to be for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well and to the same purpose writeth S. Paul Rom. 13.3 4. So that he who would exclude matters Ecclesiastical or concerns of Religion from their government and care under the New Testament must undertake to assert that the performances of Religion contain nothing in them of well doing and that the neglecting contemning or opposing it is no part of evil doing which are such blasphemous assertions as no man can embrace unless he be sunk into Atheism and so really owneth no Religion at all Aug. Epist 160. And S. Aug. from Rom. 13.2 infers that he who contemns the Emperour commanding for truth brings judgment upon himself 4. 1 Tim. 2.12 And when the Apostle requireth that Prayers be made for Kings and all in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty which includeth both Righteousness and Sobriety he thereby expresseth the right administration of Government to be advantageous to these ends Now as it is manifest that Rulers should not only not oppose Peace but establish it and not only not prostitute honesty and sobriety but defend and enjoin the practice of them so the Apostle mentioneth godliness as that which they should advance equally and in like manner with peace and honesty Nor can we suppose that the Christian Prayers were only designed that Kings and Rulers with respect to these particulars mentioned should do no hurt but since Gods
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
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
that the Popes usurped power was not so quietly and freely submitted to in this Realm as thereby to give him any right to govern here SECT III. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates 1. The bounds of Patriarchal Authority altered The third Assertion is That the Patriarchal rights especially those of Rome do not now stand on the same terms as they did in the ancient Church nor can the present Roman Bishop claim subjection in all those limits which of right were under the ancient and Catholick Bishops of Rome No man can reasonably think that the bounds of the Patriarchal Sees were unalterable unless they had been of a divine or Apostolical Authority But that they were never looked upon as such in the Catholick Church may besides other testimonies appear in that the General Councils undertook to erect Patriarchates and to divide the limits of others as they saw cause Sect. 3 Thus the dignity and honour of a Patriarch was given to the Bishop of Constantinople Conc. Const c. 3. in the second General Council and his Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction were fixed in the fourth and in the same the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided and part thereof allotted to the Bishop of Jerusalem who then received Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. But I shall only consider four things which may so alter the state of Patriarchal Jurisdictions that every one of them besides what is abovesaid is a bar against all claim of authority in the Bishop of Rome to these Churches and Realms 2. First from the different territories 1. From the different bounds of free Kingdoms and Dominions of Soveraign Kings and Princes For the doctrine and design of Christianity did not intend to undermine and enervate but to establish and secure the right of Kings and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free Kingdoms to devest themselves of sufficient means to preserve their own security and peace and the necessary administration of justice Nor can the former acts of any Councils or Bishops wheresoever any such were give away the rights of Kings and Realms But a Foreign Bishop who is under no Allegiance to this Crown and hath no particular obligation to seek the good of this Kingdom Mischiefs from Foreign Jurisdiction may probably oft incline to designs either of his own ambition or the interests of other Princes against the true welfare of this Realm as hath sufficiently been done in the Court of Rome And if such an one hath power to cite before him any person whomsoever of this Realm either to his Patriarchal Seat or his Legate and hath the authority without all redress or appeal save to an Oecumenical Council which probably will never be had to inflict so severe a sentence as Excommunication truly is he would hereby have a considerable awe and curb upon many of the subjects of the Realm that they would be wary of opposing or provoking him And if Canonical obedience were due to him from all the Clergy and filial reverence from the laiety such a person being the Kings Enemy may have greater opportunity of indirect managing his ill projects than is consistent with the safety of the Realm or with the innocency and goodness of the Christian Religion to promote 3. The exercise of a foreign authority when managed by haughty and ambitious spirits hath been of such ill consequence to Kings and Emperours that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his Crown to the Popes Legate Henry the Third Emperour of Germany Mart. Polon in Greg. Sept. p. 361. was compelled to stand at the Popes Gate barefoot several dayes n frost and snow to beg for absolution and Frederick the First to submit to Pope Alexander treading upon his neck And other instances there are of like nature of the despising Dominions and Dignities being the effects of Interdicts and Romish Excommunications Towards the whole Kingdom St. 25 Hen. 8.21 it becomes a method of exhausting its treasure by tedious and expensive prosecution of appeals and many other ways which were not without cause publickly complained of in this Kingdom Antiq. Brit. p. 178. insomuch that the yearly revenue of the Court of Rome out of this Kingdom was in the time of Henry the Third found to be greater than the revenue of the King And it is an high derogation from the Soveraignty of a King as well as a prejudice to the subjects where justice cannot be effectually administred and Cases of right determined by any authority within his own Dominions And with respect to the Clergy Pryn An. 24 25 Edw. 1. p. 689 c. the Foreign Jurisdiction sometimes brought them into great straits as did that Bull of Boniface the Eighth which put them to avoid his Excommunication upon contesting with the King and thereby brought them under the Kings displeasure and into very great grievances as appears from the Records of that time 4. And as upon these accounts it appears reasonable and necessary that the Dominions of Soveraign Princes should be free from any Foreign Ecclesiastical superiority so there are many things which may be observed to this purpose in the ancient state of the Church The Government of Dioceses Provinces and Patriarchates hath been acknowledged to have been ordered within the Empire and according to the distinct limits of the Provinces thereof Conc. Const c. 3. Chalc. c. 28. Conc. Chalc. c. 17. Trul. c 38. The Sees of Rome and Constantinople enjoyed the greatest Ecclesiastical priviledges because they were the Imperial Cities The Canons also of Oecumenical Councils enjoined that if any City receive new priviledges of honour by the Imperial authority the Ecclesiastical Constitutions for the honour of its See shall be regulated thereby And whereas the Slavonian Churches were first Converted to Christianity by them who were of the Eastern or Greek Church and embraced their Rites when Bohemia and some other branches of the Slavonian Nations were made members of the German Empire they thereupon became subject to the Government of the Western Church Thus also when the Bishop of Arles had an eminent authority in the ancient Gallia Comâ— Hist n 18. upon that City being divided from those Dominions and becoming subject to the Goths who then Commanded Italy and Spain he exercised no longer any Jurisdiction there but had his authority changed to be Delegate over the Spanish Territories but when this City was again reduced to the French Government he no longer exercised his authority in the Dominions of Spain 5. Yet it must be acknowledged that in practice the Dominions of several Soveraign Princes have been subject to a Foreign Patriarch which was not their duty But this was undertaken either upon presumption that because of the excellency and simplicity of the Christian Religion there could be no fear of prejudice from
authority of men the substance of which I have in another discourse taken notice of But this will be more apparently manifest from another position which I shall now reflect upon 2. It is asserted by them that if a Minister shall speak treason in his Pulpit by way of doctrine the Church only is to try whether it be treason indeed Ibid. Ch. 24. p. 551 552. The like Plea was used by A. Melvil a chief Modeller of the Scotish Presbytery in his own Case 1584. and he may decline the civil judg and appeal to a Synod This is not only affirmed by Mr Rutherford but this position was in an exceeding strange manner espoused by the General Assembly of the Kirk who contested with King James concerning it upon this occasion Mr D. Blake having in his Sermon at S. Andrews declared that the King had discovered the treachery of his heart That all Kings are the Devils Bearnes That the Queen of England Queen Elizabeth was an Atheist with many more dangerous assertions and being cited by the Kings authority to answer these things he alledged that he could not in this case be judged by the King till the Church had taken the first cognition thereof Spotsw Hist of Sc. l. 6. p. 330. And the Kirk-Commissioners enter a Declinator and Protestation against the Kings proceedings and would not consent that any punishment should be inflicted upon Mr Blake because there was no tryal before a proper judge and declared that if he should submit his doctrine to be tryed by the Council the liberty of the Church and the spiritual Government of the House of God Hist of Sc. l. 6. an 1596. would be quite subverted A full and particular account of this whole matter is expressed by Bishop Spotswood and this contest was so great and famous and the disturbances ensuing thereupon so notorious that they were thought fit to be signified to the States General of the united Provinces Adr. Damman in Praest Viror Epist p. 49. c. by their Agent then sent into Scotland in the entrance of 1597. But such positions and undertakings as these are calculated for a Meridian equal in Elevation with the Italian 3. One thing insisted on for this exemption of the Church and its Officers from the Civil Authority is that the Officers of the Church act by Authority from Christ and therefore are not to be in immediate subjection to Kings and Princes Chap. 6. Sect. 4. But this hath been particularly answered above 4. But they further argue Christs Royal Authority not invaded by Princes governing in causes Ecclesiasticale that it is the Royalty of Christ to Govern his Church in matters of Religion and if the Civil Rulers do intermeddle herein they thereby invade Christs Kingly Government To which I answer 1. That this way of arguing put into other language would amount to thus much That because Christ is the King of his Church or of all Christians yea and of all the earth therefore Christians and the whole World ought not to be subject to any other King or Ruler but to Christ And this would serve the design of the highest Fifth Monarchy men if it had any weight in it 2. It is a gross falshood that no act that Christ doth as King may be performed by any other King There are some great things in the Kingly power of Christ which are wholly incommunicable in the nature of them to any other human person whomsoever being founded on his Mediatory Office Such are his giving the Sanction to the Laws and Precepts of the Gospel to become the rule of the Christian Religion his Soveraign dispensing divine grace upon account of his own merits his pronouncing the final sentence of Absolution and Condemnation and his having by a peculiar right an Vniversal authority over all the World all power in heaven and earth being committed to him And all such things as these are as far disclaimed from Kings as from other men But there are other acts of Christs Government of his Church where some thing of like nature ought to be performed by others though in a different manner thus Christ ruleth Christians and so may all Christian Kings do Christ doth protect his Church and so ought all Soveraign Powers to do Christ by his Authority encourageth the pious and devout and discountenanceth the negligent and so ought all Rulers as well as all other good men to do by theirs 3. If governing others with respect to Religion were peculiar to Christ himself and his Royal Authority the authority of Ecclesiastical Officers would by this method become void also for Christ hath not conveyed the peculiarities of his Royal Authority to them But as they in their places have authority from Christ so the civil power is in subordination to him who is King of Kings and is confirmed by him 5. There have been also other very pernicious principles which undermine the whole foundation of the Royal Supremacy both in matters civil and Ecclesiastical In our late dreadful times of Civil War the whole management of things against the King and the undertaking to alter and order publick affairs without him was a manifest and practical disowning the Kings Supremacy Popular Supremacy disclaimed Some persons then who would be thought men of sense did assert that though the King was owned to be supreme Governour yet the supremest Soveraign power was in the people Others declared that the title of Supreme Governour was an honourary title given to the King to please him instead of fuller power And in the Issue July 17. 1649. by a pretended Act it was called Treason to say that the Commons assembled in Parliament were not the supreme authority of the Nation But there were also some who then affirmed the whole body of the people to be superiour to the Parliament and that they might call them to an account 6. But because I hope these positions are now forsaken and because much in the following Book is designed against the dangerous effect of them in taking Arms I shall content my self here to observe three things First that those who would disprove the Royal Supremacy because of some actions which have been undertaken by some of the people or by any in their name against their Kings or even to the deposing of them do first stand bound to prove all these actions to be regular and justifiable or else it is no better argument than they might make use of against the authority of God from the disobedience of men 7. Secondly The asserting supremacy of Government in the body of the people is a position big with nonsense and irreligion 'T is nonsense like a whole Army being General since Supremacy of Government in the whole body of the people can be over no body unless something could be supreme over it self whereas if there be no higher power than what is in the whole body of the people this must be a state of
Pauls rule be admitted dico nullum imperium diutins in tuto fore quà m donec talia sentientibus vires defuerint I affirm that no Government can be any longer safe than whilst those who have such sentiments want strength And from hence it is manifest that Grotius in his elder time did disallow all Subjects taking Armes against their King and accounted it wholly inconsistent with the peace safety and Government of the World 12. The Royal Authority a legal right as well as the Subjects property And since it is part of the Kings Royalty according to the Laws of this Realm that none may take Armes against him Sect. 2 all Subjects who expect to enjoy their own legal rights are obliged to maintain this right of the King by that great rule of Righteousness and Religion as ye would that men should do unto you do ye also unto them likewise Luk. 6.31 And this also is included in the Oath of Supremacy wherein Subjects swear to maintain all Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm V. Sanders de obligat Consc Prael 10. And it is against all pretence of Reason that the rights of Superiours which are the greatest and on which all inferiour rights have dependance should be least regarded as if it were fit that the interest of a Child or Servant should be preserved and not those of a Father or a Master SECT II. Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince 1. It must here be considered as an objection and seeming difficulty that since it is greatly necessary to the good of the World that the just properties of subjects be defended if it be once granted that they may in no Case take Armes against their Soveraign how can these properties be secured may they not then be exposed to irreparable injuries and the utmost pressures and if a Prince will exercise an unlimited power where is there help and redress Now in answer to this I premise that the principal care which must be taken for providing for the preservation of the rights of subjects is not on that part which concerns the defending them against their Prince but rather against the violence of other injurious persons which is done by the great Authority of Government and the due execution thereof For as in a Family the main thing designed in the Government thereof is not that Children may be secured from receiving any injury from their Father The Authority of Rulers is the defence of the people and their jecurity but rather that for their own quiet and good order at home and their honour and safety abroad they submit without gain-saying and resistance to his Government and thereby receive protection from the injurious dealings of others so Gods providence for preventing the greatest dangers of violence of men one towards another hath established the Authority of Rulers as a defence against them Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9. And therefore such such persons who say a people cannot so readily destroy themselves viz. if they have no Governour or cast him off as one man may speak falsly and rashly against the wisdom of God and his Ordinance and against the common sense of the World as if Rulers were not Ministers of God for good to men and as if it would be better for the World to be without them whom all Nations have found necessary and consequently without peace order and justice 2. And as the Governours men live under The security for the Subjects rights are their defence from the violence and injuries which may be sustained from other men so there is great security for Subjects without their taking Armes that their rights and properties shall not be violated by their Prince which I shall manifest with a particular respect to our English Government Now amongst the ground of this security the Principles of Conscience which lay a great and moral obligation upon the greatest persons in the World not to be injurious to the meanest and the watchful providence of God who unless it be for the punishment of the grievous sins of a people doth not suffer them to be afflicted and oppressed are considerations which are not in this Case to be over-looked But there are two thins which I shall chiefly insist upon 3. From the Laws they have the security of good and wholsome Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And that Laws were originally established that right and justice might thereby be impartially administred to every man Cic. de Offic l. 3. de leg l. 4. is reasonably declared by Cicero And it is a great priviledge in this Realm that both civil rights and matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick moneys raised but by consent of the Commons by their representatives And somewhat a like form for the Enacting Laws was resolved on a most Excellent method Cod. l. 1. Tit. 16. leg 8. by the Emperour Theodosius And since no design can be managed to defeat legal rights but the instruments therein must be private persons every one of these may be called to an account and suffer their deserved punishment by the justice of the Law And this is a like security to that which may be had against the meanest Subject in the Realm if he be the stronger man or get an advantage whereby he is able to do another a mischief And it is here worthy to be noted that whereas many plausible notions and pretences when they are reduced into practice fall short of accomplishing what was expected by their proposal in the Theory the benefit of the protection which Subjects enjoy from the Law is such that for divers Ages past in many hundred years the general rights and properties of the people of England legally established have thereby been excellently preserved And the like may be asserted concerning many other parts of the World and therefore they who will dispute against this provision must dispute also against the evidence of sense and of a long continued experience 4. But because jealous and suspicious minds may possibly suppose that at one time or other a Prince having the authority of administring justice and appointing Judges and Officers in his Kingdom may design to destroy his Subjects rights and property and thereby the fruitful inclosures of their civil interests may be laid wast and all respect to Laws utterly laid aside I shall take these suspicious jealousies into consideration And here we must all grant Naz. Orat. 19. that the state of this present World is such that at the best it is not above all instability uncertainty and danger And I shall in the next Section shew that there is much more cause of jealous fears of Subjects losing their legal rights by
Laws of a Government condemn innocent persons who dye Martyrs they may not take Armes either out of great averseness to some good or lawful thing which they embrace or out of favour and kindness to their Enemies and yet where this is done according to the publick laws under which they live it is unquestionably no sufficient Plea to take Armes Of this nature were the Persecutions and all the sufferings of the Christians under the Pagan and Heretical Emperours when the Laws of the Empire were against Christianity and the true profession thereof And from the History of the Book of Esther it seemeth clear that when at Hamans Request Ahasuerus had granted that all the Jews should be destroyed they had no resolution of defending their lives by Armes till they had liberty to that purpose granted by Ahasuerus And the obtaining this libery was part of the benefit they received by the interecession of Esther and the advice of Mordecai Grot. in Esth 8.11 Esth 8.11 Ch. 9.2 And though Grotius thinks that they might have done this by the right of laws of nature yet the Constitution of the Persian Monarchy placing so large a power of life and death in their Kings of which the hanging Haman v. Dan. 6.24 Esth 7.8 10. and the casting Daniels Accusers into the Lions Den is sufficient evidence no resistance could have been made but against the authority of the Laws and Government under which they lived And there is so great an agreement between the condition of these Jews and of the Primitive Christians under their persecutions that if the laws of nature would have allowed these Jews to resist it must also have been lawful for the Christians to have done the same which is contrary to their general Profession and universal practice or else it must be said that the Christians were prohibited this by such a peculiar Christian-Law as is contrary to the Law of Nature which would be a great slander and calumny upon our Religion 16. Upon this account the Novatians were to be blamed Socr. Hist l. 2. c. 38. gr who when the Souldiers of Constantius the Arian Emperour were by his Command sent to force them to become Arians they took Armes in defence of their Profession of Religion especially because the secular laws of the Empire concerning Religion were directed by the particular Edicts of the Emperour who was then a fierce Arian And in such cases though men were able against the Laws and Government to defend their Bodies by resistance they might better defend their Souls and their Religion by suffering as Christians otherwise the spirit of a Jewish Zealot of whom there were great numbers in Jewry among the unbelieving Jews after our Saviours death must be preferred before that of a Christian Martyr Yet where the Laws of any Realm condemn any persons though underservedly they may flee or use any lawful means of escape but not take Armes for their own defence But with respect to such proceedings as these The advantage of the English Laws our English Government gives us this advantage above what divers ancient and modern nations had that the true Religion is established by our Laws and that no Law can be repealed or altered to the prejudice of English Subjects by the pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers For a Soveraign Power against law and right to resolve to ruine great numbers of Subjects is so inhuman and unlikely that it ought not to be supposed against our ordinary duty and the representatives of the Commons of England 17. The only thing which in this case can farther be proposed is whether if a supreme Governour should according to his own pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subject Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by taking Armes And it is to be heedfully considered that this Question is much notional and speculative and is of small concernment to practice because notwithstanding suspicions and jealousies which may be unreasonably fomented there hath never been in this Kingdome or in most others if not all any such enterprise by the true Soveraign Prince against peaceable and innocent Subjects during our Histories for many hundred years And it is hard to find any such instance of a lawful Prince undertaking to ruine a great part of his People against the plain declarations of the established Laws of the Realm 18. Had Antiochus Epiphanes been the true Soveraign of the Jews his attempting to destroy all those who would observe Circumcision and the Worship of the true God which the Political Laws in Judea established by God and unrepealeable by Antiochus did enjoin them to perform this had then been much to this purpose But he was none of their lawful King but an Enemy and yet died under the dismal lashes of a tormenting Conscience for these and such like wicked actions as I above shewed Jos An. l. 12. c. 6. Liv. Dec. 5. l. 5. And when he invaded Judea he was as a Lion bereaved of his Prey being forced to return from his designed attempts upon Egypt Justin l. 34. by the resolute denunciation of Popilius the Embassadour from Rome The Paris Massacre was also of somewhat a like kind with respect to the greatest numbers who were therein murdered For though I acknowledge the practice of some of them being in Armes about that time was not defensible and towards them this might possibly be intended as an Artifice and stratagem of War or else perhaps it had never been yet that so great numbers as about an hundred thousand should in cold blood be-cruelly assassinated and murdered and most of them manifestly innocent persons without ever being judicially accused Tryed Convicted or Condemned by the Law was such a piece of barbarous savage Cruelty as can scarce be paralleled as some have noted under Mahometanism 19. But if ever any such strange Case as is proposed should really happen in the World I confess it would have its great difficulties De. J.B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Grotius thinks that in this utmost extremity the use of such defence as a last refuge ultimo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the care of the common good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto enclude a disclaiming the governing those persons as subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King And then the expressions of our publick Declaration and acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Christian subjection and Vnchrist Rebel Part. 3. p. 519. edit 1585. But Bishop Bilson speaking of such Popish Cruelties as that I lately mentioned saith they are able to set grave men and good men at their wits end and make them justly
Conspiracies have been frequently contrived against the Safety and Welfare of Princes and their Kingdoms as the consequent of the wicked Positions which I have undertaken to refute But all these attempts which are Pernicious and Destructive to Humane Society will I hope sufficiently appear by the following Discourse to be perfectly opposite to the Christian Doctrine also and severely condemned by it Wherefore the things treated of in this Book are of such a nature that they are of great concernment for the good Order Peace and Settlement of the World the security of Kings and Kingdoms and the vindicating the Innocency of the Christian Religion Upon this Account I could wish my self to be more able to discourse of such a subject as this every way suitably to and worthy of it self But as I have herein used diligent care and consideration so I can freely say I have every where endeavoured impartially to discover and faithfully to express the truth and have never used any unworthy Artifices to evade or obscure it And therefore if the sober and judicious Reader shall in any thing of less moment as I hope he will not in matters of great moment discern any mistake I shall presume upon his Candor and Charity In the manner of handling things I have avoided nothing which I apprehended to be a difficulty or considerable matter of objection but in the return of Answers and the use of Arguments to confirm what I assert I have oft purposely omitted many things in themselves not inconsiderable for the shunning needless prolixity and have waved several things taken notice of by others for this cause sometimes because I was not willing to lay any stress upon such things as seemed to me not to be of sufficient strength On this account for instance in discoursing of the Supremacy of Princes over Ecclesiastical Officers I did not insist on our Saviour and S. Peter paying Tribute Mat. 17.24 27. For though many ancient Writers speak of this as paid to Caesar and some expressions in the Evangelist seem to favour this sense yet I suppose there is rather greater likelyhood that this had respect to the annual oblation unto God himself which the Jews paid for the service of the Temple to which St Hilary and some other Ancients refer it Yet in rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesars I still reserve unto God the things that are Gods acknowledging the primary necessity of embracing the true Worship of God and the Doctrine and practice of Christianity and that all Christians ought to bear an high reverence to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ under the Gospel and to that Authority and those Officers which he hath peculiarly established therein But there is a very great miscarriage among men that there are those who look upon many weighty things in Christianity as if they were merely secular Constitutions and were no further necessary to be observed than for the securing men from outward penalties These men do not observe and consider that there lyeth a far greater necessity of keeping and valuing the Communion of the Church of devoutly attending Gods publick worship and orderly performing its Offices with other things of like nature from the Precepts and Institutions of Christ and from the Divine Sanctions than from the countenance or establishment of any civil Law or secular Authority whatsoever The lively sense and consideration of this was that which so wonderfully promoted and preserved both Piety and Unity in the Primitive Church when it had no encouragement from the Temporal Power But there must be no opposition made between Fearing God and Honouring the King but a careful discharge of both and these Precepts which God hath joined together let no man separate And now I shall only entreat that Reader who is inclined to have different apprehensions from the main things I assert to be so just to his own reason and Conscience as impartially to consider and embrace the evidence of Truth which is the more necessary because truths of this nature are no mere matters of speculation but are such Rules to direct our practice which they who are unwilling to entertain act neither charitably to themselves nor accountably to God And he who is the Father of Spirits direct the hearts of all men into the wayes of Goodness Uprightness Truth and Peace Lyn Regis June 21. 1678. THE CONTENTS THE First BOOK Chap. I. THE Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared Sect. 1. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England Sect. 2. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to Causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 3. The Declaration of this sense by publick Authority observed Sect. 4. The spiritual Authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the Secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy Sect. 5. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto Chap. II. The Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered Sect. 1. Their supreme Authority over things and persons sacred manifested Sect. 2. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same Authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Chap. III. No Synedrial Power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal Sect. 1. The Exorbitant Power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 2. The determination of many weighty Cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the Royal Power examined and refuted Sect. 3. Of the Antiquity of the Synedrial Power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate Chap. IV. Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical proved from reason and the Doctrine of Christ Sect. 1. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign Power Sect. 2. The same established by the Christian Doctrine Sect. 3. What Authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church Sect. 4. An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great with respect to the fuller clearing this matter Chap. V. An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the Authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion Sect. 1. Of the General Exercise of this Supremacy and its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice Sect. 2. This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople and the third at Ephesus Sect. 3. The same acknowledged in the Council of Chalcedon and others Sect. 4. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered Sect. 5. Other Objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their Authority Sect. 6. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the Causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance
that whatsoever difference is pretended between them and Christian Princes is of no force to exclude the latter from enjoying the like authority 2. The Ark. Concerning the first I shall design to omit many things but to observe so much as is needful under these several branches First concerning the Ark of the Covenant This was in a peculiar manner sacred and none might carry it but the Priests or Levites of the Family of Kohath and Vzzah died for touching it and the men of Bethshemesh for looking into it It contained the two tables of the Covenant which were the writing of God Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2395 2397 2398. Lempereur in Middoth c. 4. Sect. 5. was placed in the holy of holies the top of it was the mercy-seat and thereupon the Cloud which was the Symbol of divine presence the peculiar Shecinah so much magnified by the Jewish Writers and the Ark and this divine presence were two of the five eminent things wanting in the second temple and there was nothing more sacred than this R. Dav. Kimchi in Hagg. 1.8 in the peculiar Oeconomy of the Jewish dispensation Yet whereas the Ark was sometimes separated from the tabernacle and the temple it is evident that it was David the King who ordered and appointed the removing of the ark of God from Kiriathjearim to the House of Obededom and from thence to the tent which he had pitched for it in Zion 2 Sam. 6.1 2 10 12. 2 Chr. 1.4 and when he fled from Absalom by his command to Zadok and Abiathar the chief Priests the Ark of God which did accompany him was carried back again to Jerusalem 2 Sam. 15.25 29. And it was at the command of King Salomon that the Ark was brought from Zion and placed in the temple which he had built 2 Chr. 6.11 1 Kin. 8.1 4. And when amongst other corruptions in Religion the Ark was removed from the holy of holies it was again replaced there by the authority of King Josiah 2 Chr. 35.3 So that the Kings of Israel and Judah took care of this holy thing Salian M. 2544. n. 431. which as Salianus expresseth it was nobilissima pars sanctuarii quasi thronus Dei locus unde oracula fundebantur 3. The Temple The holy temple was the house of God and it with the Altar were in an especial manner dedicated unto God and yet the Kings authority had to do with it and the affairs thereof The Laws of God required that the presumptuous and wilful murderer should be taken from Gods altar that he might die not allowing as Philo noteth Phil. de lâ—g special that the temple which was Gods holy place should be a refuge for those unholy persons who are enemies unto God Whereupon by Salomons authority Joab was commanded from the bornes of the altar 1 Kin 2.30 and when he refused to come from thence this his carriage considered the command of Salomon to Benajah to slay him there seemeth warranted by the law above-mentioned and is vindicated even by Salianus and Cornelius à Lapide Salian an 3022. n. 21. A Lapide in 3 Reg. 2.31 The cleansing and purging the temple from all defilement was performed by the commandment of Hezekiah 2 Chr. 25.3 5 15. and the like was again done in the reformation undertaken by Josiah 2 Kin. 23.4 6 7. The repairs also of the temple and the manner of disposing of the treasures thereof to that purpose are taken care of by the order and command of Joash 2 Chr. 24.4 8 11 12 14. and by the commandment of Hezekiah were Chambers prepared within the limits of the temple building for the receiving of offerings and tithes and things dedicated 2 Chr. 31.11 13. 4. The Priests and Levites The Kings had a manifest Soveraignty over the Priests who were the chief officers of the temple service yea even with respect to their service in the worship of God After the Priesthood was established in the Family of Aaron Aaron himself though high Priest and elder Brother Abarbinel in Ex. 30. Phil. de praem poenis Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 2. n. 2 3. acknowledged Moses to be his Lord who had the secular soveraignty is in the Scripture stiled a King in Jesurun and is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers to have had a royal authority Ex. 32.22 Num. 12.11 And though Moses enjoyed a singular dignity in being a divine Legislator yet that this title was given and was due to Moses as chief civil Governour is manifest because Ahimelech also the High Priest giveth unto Saul the same title owning him to be his his Lord and himself to be his servant 1 Sam. 22.12 15. And David speaking to Zadok the Priest taketh to himself this title of being his Lord 1 Kin. 1.33 and gives him a command to anoint Salomon And it was very usual for the Kings by their authority to command the Priests even with respect to their temple service and to have such commands observed as appears in the reign of Salomon 2 Chr. 8.15 of Hezekiah 2 Chr. 29.21 24 27. and of Josiah 2 Chr. 35.10 16. The courses of the Priests attendance on their service was ordered by David 1 Chr. 24.3 by Salomon 2 Chr. 8.14 and by Hezekiah 2 Chr. 31.2 And by the authority of Hezekiah and his Princes the great Passover in the second month was observed 2 Chr. 30.2 3 4 5. which was acceptable to God v. 12 20. 5. Gr. de Valent Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. punct 4. Layman The. Mor. Lib. 4. Tr. 9. c. 8. n. 2. Wherefore that argument which some Romanists make use of to prove that Princes have no authority over Ecclesiastical persons because God under the Old Testament took the Levites to be his and he gave them unto Aaron and his Sons Num. 3.9 12. and Num. 8.11 19. and therefore say they they were under subjection to no secular power nor to any other save only to Aaron and his Successors is a very weak inference sinc the High Priests themselves were manifestly under the Royal authority For this being Gods Ordinance and his people being under its government it can be no way incongruous that what is his should be under the inspection of that which hath his authority And that the Levites were under the Government of the Kings is obvious from the holy Scriptures 1 Chr. 15.4 11 12 ch 16.4 2 Chr. 29.30 and from many other places E 4 6. The 6. The Kings Soveraignty over the Prophets is also very evident The Prophets For though the Prophets when they delivered their message from God and in his name might require obedience even from Kings unto the God of Israel yet that themselves as subjects of the Realm were under the Kings authority is sufficiently testified by the instance of the Prophet Nathan besides what I shall superadd in the following Chapter For Nathan acknowledged himself the servant of
and another learned man who evidently followeth him They assert the right of Kings under the Old Testament to intermeddle in matters Ecclesiastical and that they had then such a supereminent authority that according to Maimonides even the High Priest was to stand in the Kings presence and that no other person no not the Priest might sit within the court of the temple save only the King Their authority not from any sacerdotal Vnction Ibid. c. 6. n. 6. And all this they found upon the vertue of the holy Vnction or his being anointed with the holy Oil hence P. de Marca asserteth that he acted Privilegio Regii Sacerdotii as having obtained by his Unction the priviledge of a royal Priesthood Cun. ibid. and hereupon Cunaeus thinketh that David might wear the Priestly Ephod and thereby consult the Vrim and Thummim But this also is a very weak pretence partly because the royal anointing was only designed to be the anointing such a person to be King as is expressed 1 Sam. 15.1 2 Sam. 3.39 1 Kin. 1.34 and in many other places and partly because such an anointed King had no right to perform the Priestly actions as is plain from the great guilt of Saul in sacrificing And much less could this give thim any Ecclesiastical or sacerdotal superiority over the High Priest himself since every successive High Priest was to be anointed with this holy oyl whilest most of the Kings even of the Family of David were probably not at all anointed as I shall observe in another place and whether that holy oyl of the Tabernacle Abarb. de Unctione in Exod. 30. Schick de Jur. Reg. c. 1. Theor 4. was made use of in the usual anointing of the King though it be asserted by the Jewish Writers as Shickard hath observed may yet possibly admit of a further enquity 5. And I must further observe Or any special law of Moses that there was not any particular law of God under the Old Testament as some would pretend which gave any special authority to their Kings in matters Ecclesiastical and therefore they proceeded only upon the general and common right which chief Governours of a Realm have even concerning those things since in his office he undertakes De Creatione Principis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the care and oversight of private publick and sacred things as Philo expresseth it Indeed the Israelites had particular laws which inflicted the punishment of death upon Idolatry Witchcraft blasphemy and other such like vices Ex. 22.18 20. Levit. 24.15 16. Deut. 17 2-5 but it could no otherwise belong to the King to execute these laws than as a judiciary authority in these cases Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church ch 1. p. 10. was included in his general royal power Had all matters of Religion been in their own nature reserved and exempted from the royal Government it would then have belonged to the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical persons only to have executed those laws especially since the punishment of death was sometimes inflicted by Prophets 1 Sam. 15.33 1 Kin. 18.40 2 Kinse 10 12. And that the death of a Malefactor was sometimes the issue of the sentence of the Priest is intimated in Deut. 17.12 and seemeth also observed by Clemens Romanus Epist ad Cor. p. 54. And with an eye to the declining state of the Jewish Government under the Maccabees and downwards when the chief execution of all laws Joseph cont Apion l. 2. was in the hands of the Priest Josephus frameth his description of the constitution of the Jewish Common-wealth as committing the chief secular power to the Priests and making them both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judges of all cases and the punishers of all offenders But it is manifest that whilest the royal authority flourished the laws against Witchcraft Idolatry and such like vices were put in execution thereby 1 Sam. 28.9 2 Kin. 23.24 2 Chron. 34.4 5. 6. And there is no particular constitution in all the law of Moses which doth assert any singular supremacy more than what is generally included in the Regal authority of the Kings of the Children of Israel over their Priests and in the temple and about the worship of God Indeed Cunaeus doth offer an instance of a particular positive law of Moses Cun. ubi supra to this purpose Deut. 17.18 19 20. where God required that the King should write a copy of the law and that this should be with him and that he should read therein all the days of his life that he might fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them But there is nothing in this law which makes the care of Religion more the duty of the Hebrew Kings than of the Christian since these also are to acquaint themselves with the doctrines of Christianity to fear God and to do his will but neither of them might exercise that spiritual power which belongeth to the distinct Officers of the Church It may indeed be said that Kings cannot rightly fear and serve God unless they make use of their authority to promote Religious piety even in all sorts of their subjects and this was truly asserted by S. Austin Aug. Ep. 50. but then this can be of no peculiar concernment to the kings of the Old Testament but will equally extend it self to those who live under Christianity 7. I shall now shew that whatsoever is pretended from the peculiar state of the Gospel Reverence to Princes more fully required in the Gospel than in the Law to debar Christian Kings from that authority which certainly did belong to the royal Government under the Old Testament is of no force And this will easily be admitted by them who consider that the Precepts for honouring the King being subject to the higher Powers and submitting our selves to the King as supreme are more plainly expressed and universally enjoined under the New Testament than ever they were under the Old But that there is any direct prohibition in the Gospel against the soveraignty of the Royal power in matters of the Church is not so much as pretended and that the doctrine of Christianity doth assert this authority shall be hereafter shewed 8. A learned man of our own Kingdom who owneth the Soveraign power of Kings in matters of Religion Right of the Church Ch. 1. p. 8. Epilogue B. 1. ch 19. B. 3. Ch. 33. and alloweth the consequence hereof in general from the government of the Jewish Church doth seem to deny that the same right in matters of Religion may be claimed by the Christian Kings which was exercised by the Jewish Now that which is here demanded is that the general power of Ecclesiastical supremacy is under both dispensations the same in enjoining the observation of the divine laws in establishing matters of expediency for order sake and in punishing transgressors The
matter may have recourse besides other cases to the voluntary Wars of Amaziah against Joash 2 Chr. 25.17 18 19 20. and of Josiah against Pharaoh Nechoh 2 Chr. 35.20 21 22. Where as those Wars are related to be undertaken by the choice of these two Kings of Judah so the Kings against whom they Warred sent Embassies for Peace not to any Sanhedrim but to them To this I add that if this notion had any thing of truth in it it might possibly be emproved far toward the justifying the rebellion of Absalom Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 5. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 15. n. 4. Schic de Jur. R. c. 1. Th. 2. against his own Father For if the power of War was in this Court it is altogether unlikely that David in his sudden flight from his Royal City should have them with him but it is much more likely if there was then any such Court it did remain with Absalom in Jerusalem where only that Court could regularly fit according to the Jewish Canons especially if that be admitted for truth Ch. Par. in Ps 140. v. 10. which is declared by the Chaldee Paraphrast that Ahitophel the chief Conspirator was the head of the Sanhedrim 14. Inferiour Courts Sanh ubi sup Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinq in Chal. Par. in Thren c. 5. v. 14. The right of appointing inferiour Courts of Judicature among the Tribes of Israel is claimed also as peculiar to this Sanhedrim And that the Judges of inferiour Courts must be made Rabbies and receive imposition of hands from this great Court is declared by Quinquarboreus But as we have undeniable evidence that in the military Government divers Captains and Generals were appointed by David and Benajah by Solomon so also David established 2700. Levites to be rulers over the two Tribes and half 1 Chr. 26.32 And as the holy Scriptures gives us an account of the Officers and Judges in his time over the other Tribes Antiq. Jud. l. 7. c. 11. Josephus informs us that six thousand of the Levites were made Judges by David And if Judges in the Land had not usually been established by the King there had been no colour for that plausible pretence of Absalom against his Father by telling the men of Israel their matters were good and right but there was no man deputed of the King to hear them 2 Sam. 15.3 Nor can any thing be more clear than that Jehosaphat set judges in the land throughout all the Cities of Judah City by City 2 Chr. 19.5 and also a chief court in Jerusalem v. 8 -11 but that this was no such Sanhedrim as the Rabbins mention I shall hereafter manifest And that the ancient Jewish Writers did acknowledge it a right of the King to appoint judges and judicatures will appear from Philo Phil. de Creat Princip who discoursing of a Prince with a special respect to the Jewish Government directs him to write the Book of the Law with his own hand and to read therein and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse others who shall partake in the rule and Government that is as he expresseth it that the lesser causes he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commit them to inferiour Rulers 15. Of making Laws Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinquarb ubi sup De Syned l. 2. c. 9. n. 7. Carpz in Schickard c. 1. Theor 2. p. 15. The authority of making any new Laws or Constitutions is also pretended to be peculiar to the Synedrial power And consequently their Kings must be denied to have any interest in the legislation since these Rabbinical Writers do generally affirm that the King might have no place in the Sanhedrim nor any share in its authority as hath been observed among others by Selden and Carpzovius But whereas the chief things reported to us concerning the Reign of the Kings of Judah consist either in their care of Religion or their military atchievements we have an instance of a standing military law or statute for dividing the Spoil which was established by David 1 Sam. 30.24 25. And I have in the former Chapter evidenced their establishing Orders in matters Ecclesiastical such were the division made by David of the Priests and Levites for their attendance on the service of God Ant. l. 7. c. 11. and others of like nature and Josephus tells us that this division was observed as long as the Temple and its worship stood Sect. 3 To which we may also adjoin the particular Laws or Constitutions made by Josiah and Nehemiah concerning some of the Priests abovementioned SECT III. Of the antiquity of the Synedrial power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate 1. From what hath been discoursed it is sufficiently evident that whatsoever Courts of Judicature or Officers there were in Judah none of them under the Jewish Monarchy ever did vie for Soveraignty with it but were in subjection to it There was no such authority De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. as is challenged by Schickard to the Sanhedrin who calleth it Synedrium magnum regiae majestatis compar or by Grotius Grot. in Mat. 5.22 who in the reign of the Kings owneth Senatûs authoritatem regiae velut parem in which expressions is asserted its equal or coordinate power with the Kings which Selden also allows Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p 667. Yet for giving further evidence to the truth of what I have above expressed I shall assert 2. That this chief Synedrial Government among the Jews The Original of the great Sanhedrin was since the Captivity was of a later extract than the time of the captivity and had its first original since the decay of the true Royal power There was indeed all along the Mosaical dispensation an High Priest whom the Law of Moses obliged the Judge or King in arduous and weighty matters and in such only to consult and by him to ask counsel of God And they had also Elders and men of wisdom and with some of these the Laws of equity and prudence would direct the King to advise And thus much may not improbably be the sense of those words of Josephus proposing this Rule for the King Joseph Ant. l. 4. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to act without the High Priest and the consent of the Senators Yet Salmasius thinketh that these words of Josephus Defens Regia c. 2. p. 47. are suitable only to those Princes who ruled about the end of the Jewish state and unless they be taken in the sense I have mentioned they are certainly no rule either founded on the law or agreeable to the government of the House of David And indeed Josephus who saw and felt the calamities which the Jews sustained under the Roman Kings was no friend to Monarchy and though he be far from the Rabbinical strain
Ordinance of Government is a useful institution that Christian Prayer which suiteth the Christian doctrine can desire no less than that this institution should attain its end and become every way effectual for the doing good And many Christian Princes have signally advanced both the doctrine and practice of Godliness and Religion Ecclesiastical persons subject to Princes 5. And that Ecclesiastical persons as well as others are included under the duty of yielding obedience and subjection to this authority doth appear from that general Precept Rom. 13.1 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Where as the expression is universal and unlimited so the Comments of S. Chrysostome Theodoret In Loc. Theophylact and Oecumenius S. Bernard Ep. ad Senonens Archiep. Est in loc Gr. de Valent Tom. 4. Disp 9. qu. 5. punct 4. Bell. de Rom Pont. l. 2. c. 29. do plainly declare all Ecclesiastical persons and Officers of what degree soever even Apostles and Evangelists to be concerned therein But this sense of these words though urged also by S. Bernard is not embraced by the present Romish Writers but their exceptions made use of to elude this testimony are of no great force For while they tell us that these words do as much if not more require subjection to the Ecclesiastical power as to the temporal those who thus interpret are by S. Aug. censured Aug. cont Ep. Parm. l. 1. c. 7. to be sane imperitissimi And that the Apostle doth directly discourse here of obedience to the civil and temporal Rulers appears evidently from his mentioning their bearing the sword v. 4. and receiving tribute v. 6. 6. And the pretence that this command doth only oblige them who are properly subjects but not those Ecclesiastical persons who are pretended not to be subject but superior to the secular power doth proceed upon such a Notion which was wholly unknown to the ancient times of Christianity For it was then usual to hear such expressions as these Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem we reverence the Emperour as being next to God and inferior to none besides him Hom. 2. ad Antioch And S. Chrysostome owned Theodosius as the head over all men upon Earth i. e. in his Dominions And according to this perverse Exposition there is no more evidence from the Apostles doctrine concerning any Christians in general being subject to Princes than concerning Ecclesiastical Officers because his doctrine must then be owned only to declare that those who are in subjection ought to be subject but not to determine whether any Christians were to be esteemed subjects to the Pagan Rulers or no. 7. But though the Apostles were ready to declare all needful truth even before Princes and Consistories we never find them when they were accused before Magistrates to plead against their power of judicature or that they had no authority over them but they defended themselves and their doctrine before them And when S. Paul declared Act. 25.10 11. S. Paul's appeal considered I stand at Caesars Judgment-seat where I ought to be judged if I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dy I appeal unto Caesar he doth thereby acknowledge the Emperour to have such a power over him who was a great Ecclesiastical Officer as to take cognisance of his acting whether he did any thing worthy of death or of civil punishment 8. But against this instance Bellarmine who in his Controversies did yield De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Apostle did appeal to Caesar as to his superiour in civil causes afterwards retracts this and declares that the clergy being Ministers of the King of Kings are exempt de jure from the power not only of Christian but of Pagan Kings and therefore asserteth that S. Paul appealed unto Caesar In Libr. Recognit not as to his superiour but as to one who was superiour to the President of Judea and to the Jews 9. But such shifts are first contrary to the sense of the ancient Church concerning this case as may be observed from the words of Athanasius who being accused before Constantius telleth him if I had been accused before any other Athan. Apol ad Constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would have appealed unto your piety even as the Apostle did appeal unto Caesar but from thee to whom should I appeal but to the father of him who said I am the truth which words declare this appeal to be as to a superiour and the highest on Earth who is only under God Secondly this perverteth the Apostles sense and contradicteth his words who declared in his appealing where he ought to be judged if he had done any thing worthy of death which is a plain acknowledgment of superiority over him 10. Thirdly Besides that all appeals are owned by Civilians and Canonists as an application from an inferiour judge to a superiour judge this particular liberty of appealing to the Roman Emperour was a priviledge granted only to them who were free Citizens of Rome and the Apostle could not claim this but by owning himself a Citizen of Rome and therefore a subject to the chief Governour thereof For this appeal was founded upon that Roman law which condemned that inferiour Judge as deeply criminal who should punish any Citizen of Rome thus appealing To this purpose Jul. Paul Sentent l. 5. Tit. 28. n. 1. Julius Paulus saith Lege Julia de vi publica damnatur qui aliqua potestate praeditus civem Romanum antea ad populum nunc ad Imperatorem appellantem necarit necarive jusserit torserit verberaverit condemnaverit in vincula publica duci jusserit And accordingly upon this appeal S. Paul declared that no man no not Festus himself the President of Judea who otherwise was enclinable to have done it might deliver him to the Jews Act. 25.11 SECT III. What authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church 1. It may be said that what is declared by S. Peter and by S. Paul to the Romans and also his appeal did immediately respect Heathen Governours and therefore if these places will prove any thing of the Princes power in matters Ecclesiastical they must fix it in Pagan Princes as well as in Christian Div. right of Ch. Gov. ch 26. And this is the principal thing objected against the argument from S. Paul's appeal by Mr. Rutherford who tells us that this would own the Great Turk to be Supreme Governour of the Church 2. And it must be confessed that it is a very sad and heavy calamity to the Church when those soveraign powers who are not of the true Religion will intermeddle in the affairs of the Church without the fear of God and due respect to the Rules of Religion Such was the case of the Jewish Church under the Roman power
things which are under the proper and peculiar administration and cognisance of Ecclesiastical Officers are sometimes in a restrained sense stiled Ecclesiastical things which as such all secular powers are prohibited to intermeddle with And in this sense with particular respect to matters of saith as falling under Ecclesiastical decision not only Hosius above disallowed Constantius his undertaking things Ecclesiastical who yet himself obeyed the summons of Constantine to appear in the Council of Nice and some others and was imployed by him in many things relating to the Church Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. But also Theodosius above-mentioned declares it unlawful for any but Bishops negotiis Ecclesiasticis sese immiscere to intermeddle in Ecclesiastical business But that the Phrase of things Ecclesiastical is there understood only in the restrained sense now mentioned is manifest because in that very rescript of Theodosius to the Ephesine Council he committeth this authority to the Count he sent thither to take care of the orderly and peaceable proceedings of the Council and to hinder any person whomsoever from departing from the Synod or any other Ecclesiastical cause from being discussed till those for which they were called were determined And in the same Epistle also the emperour declares that as he had a care concerning the Common-wealth so his chief care was concerning such things as pertained to Piety and Religion So that the Princes power and authority about things Ecclesiastical as that Phrase is taken in a large sense for things relating to the Church and Religion was not in that rescript denied 10. V. Ambr. in Auxent ad Marcellin theod Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 13. And touching the Case of Ambrose It had certainly been a thing unaccountable and unwarrantable for him by any act of his own to have delivered up the possession of his Church Since this had encluded what Theodoret saith he thought himself obliged to refuse his own consent to give up his people to the conduct of the Arians And indeed the interest of God and his Church and his truth were superiour to the will and command of the Emperour or any man upon Earth and it was fit that S. Ambrose should acquaint the Emperour with this Sect. 5 which he ought to take notice of But if the emperour should not observe his duty to God S. Ambrose must not neglect his still behaving himself to his Prince as becomes a good subject But when any Catholick Bishops by the Edict of Arian Emperours were commanded into banishment they not only obeyed of which there are numerous examples but though it a Christian duty to submit themselves with a patient and peaceable temper of mind which was very remarkable in the carriage of Eusebius Samosatensis under Valens the Emperour which was much commended by Theodoret Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 13. SECT V. Other objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their authority It is further objected that divers ancient catholick Writers even before the Aspiring height of the Romish Bishop have used such expressions as speak their preferring the authority of the Ecclesiastical power to the secular and their esteeming it to be the more eminent To this purpose some passages are produced by Baronius Baron an 57. n. 31 32. from Ignatius Sulpitius in the life of S. Martin Gr. Nazianzene S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome 2. What is cited as from Ignatius directeth first to honour God and then the Bishop and after him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the common Greek Copies read it the King But it is sufficient to observe that all this is only an addition of the Interpolator of Ignatius V. Ign. Ep. ad Smyrn and is not any part of his genuine Epistles as is evident from the Latine Edition of Bishop Vsher and the Greek of Vossius neither of which have any thing of this nature in them And yet though this addition might be made as Bishop Vsher conjectureth Usser dissert de Ing. c. 6. about the sixth Century it was designed to suit the age of Ignatius and that which the foregoing words intimate to be the intended sense may well be allowed That Christians were bound to have an higher regard to the directions and instructions of Christianity and the conduct of their Bishops and spiritual guides in the Christian Religion than to the commands even of Kings or Emperours who were opposers of that holy Religion and Enemies to the truth 3. But from Sulpitius in the life of S. Martin he urgeth that S. Martin being entertained at the table of Maximus the Emperour Of S. Martin and Maximus Sulp. in vit Martini c. 23. one of the Kings attendants brought him a Cup which the King commands him to give to the Bishop S. Martin then Bishop of Turenne desiring that he might receive the Cup from his hands But S. Martin when he had drunk gives the Cup to his Presbyter who was with him thinking that neither the King nor any other who were with him ought to be preferred before him And Baronius declareth he would have done the same had he been only a Deacon whom he had with him 4. But this story as it is here related shews much of the Spirit of Baronius towards Kings who would not it seems allow them being of the laity to have so much honour and respect shewed unto them as must be given to a Deacon And if the spirit of S. Martin was such as the Cardinal in this particular doth represent it it would need an Apology if the Case would bear it or indeed it would rather deserve a censure 5. But the truth is that Maximus was a Rebel and an Vsurper who had then wickedly murthered Gratian the Emperour and invaded the Territories of Valentinian and for this cause S. Martin though often requested for a long time refused to come to his Table and avoided all converse with him more than any other Bishop in those parts did and did also foretel the ruine of Maximus Sulp. ibid. Baron an 386. n. 20 21. Marcel Com. Chron. in init Socr. l. 5. c. 14. as Sulpitius relateth and Baronius elsewhere taketh notice of And Marcellinus in his Chronicon and also Socrates Theodoret and Sozomen in their Histories divers times when they speak of him give him the stile of Maximus the Tyrant And Symmachus a Roman Senator was found guilty of Treason by Theodosius for publishing an Oration as an Encomium or Panegyrick upon Maximus 6. Ambr. Ep. 27. When S. Ambrose was sent as an Ambassadour from Valentinian to Maximus he not only refused the salutation of a kiss from him but withdrew himself from those Bishops who communicated with him An. 383. n. 19 20. Rab. Maur. lib. de Rever c. 3. Yea Baronius himself mentions his Government as being a tyranny and Rabanus Maurus taketh special notice of this Maximus as being a person who did not escape the divine judgment when he had
that they shall have no open contests with one another but if any differences arise they shall end them amongst themselves or else bring them unto him all this is no disowning the supremacy of a superiour government And when S. Paul to the like purpose enjoined Christians in general not to go to law before the Pagan Judicatures Aquinas truly observeth Aquin. in 1 Cor. 6. that this was consistent with the subjection of Christians to Kings and Governours since the Religion of Christians did not allow them to refuse to appear before Pagan Magistrates when summoned or to submit to teir decision of right and justice but only required that they should not voluntarily chuse this way of determination But it is against no duty of subjection to make a private end of all or any matters of difference and complaint whether it be for the love of peace or the honour of Religion 4. Grot. in 1 Cor. 6. And Grotius not only observeth how heinous a thing the Jews accounted it that the Gentiles should take notice of quarrels amongst them which they would make use of to the disparagement of their Religion but he also recommends even under the Christian Government and Soveraignty the ordinary composing of differences by friendly Arbitrators Nor is it any infringement of supremacy where such Rules are observed concerning those special members of the Christian Church the whole body of the clergy And the Ecclesiastical Canons which were to this purpose were accounted by the third Council of Carthage Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 9. to be of like nature with the directions of S. Paul to the Corinthians as respecting such Cases where they were at liberty ad eligendos judices to make choice of such as should judge their Case But because there is sufficient evidence that such matters were not always determined by private Arbitrators but were oft-times decided by a judicial or consistorial sentence there appeareth a necessity of adding a further answer Wherefore 5. Obs 2. Those judicial proceedings were by the permission of their Soveraign That all those judicial proceedings to which this objection doth refer were undertaken by vertue of a special grant or act of grace and favour from the supreme temporal power and therefore in no derogation from it but by the consent and authority thereof Of this I shall give sufficient proof with respect to all the particulars mentioned 6. For First When our Saviour gave that Precept Mat. 18 the Nation of the Jews were indeed under the Romish power Ant. Jud. l. 14. c. 17. l. 16. c. 10. but yet they had a liberty to determine matters in Consistories of their own The truth of this is evident from the History of the New Testament and Josephus acquaints us that there were divers Imperial rescripts in the time of Julius Caesar and soon after his death which impowered them to live after their own laws both in Judea and in other parts of the Empire Now the Jewish Government and their Customs about that time allowed the different Sects among them to decide such matters of difference as arose among themselves De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 12. gr according to the Rules of their own discipline as is manifest from what Josephus relateth to this purpose concerning the discipline and judicial decisions of the Essens which as Grotius well observeth Grot. in Mat. 18. is sufficient to give allowance to the like proceedings amongst the Christians 7. Secondly A little before the time when the Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians besides those above-mentioned there was among others published that memorable Edict of Claudius Ant. Jud. l. 19. c. 4. whereby he gave liberty to the Jews all over his Empire that none forbidding them they might observe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their own proper laws and the caustoms of their Country V. Seld de Syn. l. 2. c. 5. n. 1. Now it was one of their known Rules in that age and time that wheresoever any considerable number of them should reside they should have a lesser Sanhedrim And this rule their Rabbins accounted obligatory Ibid. cap. 7. n. 5. 9. De Syn. l. 1. c. 8. p. 224. c. as Mr Selden shews not only in Judea but in what place soever they should inhabit for the determining of matters not criminal 8. And in another place he gives sufficient proof that in those times the Christians were comprehended under the name of the Jews and it is truly observed by Pamelius that Judaica superstitio Pam. in tertul Apol n. â—4 was the phrase which Verus and Antoninus used when they intended to grant priviledges to them of the Christian Religion And this was because Christianity was first planted in Judea and entertained and propagated by those who were of the Jewish Nation and its followers acknowledged and owned the law and the Prophets Indeed it must be presumed that in the time of open persecution of Christianity this licence of savour was withdrawn and in that Case the Christians did either lay aside all contentions among themselves and reduced the peaceable rules of their Religion into a general practice or else they voluntarily yielded to the arbitrement of other Christians 9. Canons about the immunity of the Clergy were established by the favour of Princes Thirdly Those Canons of the Church which asserted any priviledges or immunities in the Clergy from the temporal Judicatories were established by the Emperours consent who gave his confirmation unto themm and therefore encluded no derogation from his power Those things which are contained nder the name of decretal Epistles V. Gratian. ubi supra of ancient Bishops of Rome Conc. const c. â— Conc. Chalc. c. 9. before Constantine concerning the freedom of the Clergy from the secular power are of so very bad credit as not to deserve any consideration That the four first General Councils in which are some Canons relating to this matter were called and confirmed by the Emperour hath been proved And that Provincial Councils were called by the same authority hath been observed by instancing in very many of them by the Archbishop of Spalato Spalatens de Repub. Eccl. l. 6. c 5. Grot. de Imp. Sum. potest c. 7. n. 3. and by Grotius And if there was any Canon of this nature which was not confirmed by Imperial authority or the substance of it contained in a preceeding Imperial Law or Grant it was not brought into practice 10. And it is further observable that most of these Canons did but provide for the well and orderly managing those priviledges which the Imperial law had before granted to the Church For before the genuine Canons of any Councils concerning this matter the Imperial law had already established the substance of those priviledges in the Clergy as will appear manifest to them who will compare these Canons with the Edicts of priviledge granted by Constantine
Anarchy where there is no superiour or supreme It includes Irreligion because Religion establisheth the Government of a people to be the ordinance of God and whereas Government must be by the exercise of a superiour authority there can be no authority upon Earth superiour to the supreme 8. Thirdly Supremacy cannot be asserted in a Parliament without doing violence to plain evidence For as loyal English Parliaments have constantly acknowledged supremacy in the King so it is manifest that the Parliament regularly is under the Government of the King For he Summons and gives birth to it by his Writ continues it at his pleasure and hath the authority of adjourning proroguing or dissolving it as he sees cause CHAP. IX Corollaries from the foregoing discourse concerning some duties of subjection THE Royal Supremacy being asserted it will hence follow 1. Corol. 1. Of submission and solemn professing the Kings Right That Subjects ought to own and acknowledge this just authority and supremacy of their Soveraign and heartily to manifest an humble peaceable and faithful submission thereunto This is that which the Rules of the Christian Religion do enjoin and they who are averse from the performance hereof do as much as in them lies enervate this authority and render it unmeet to attain its ends for which God did appoint it even the peace and good of the World And for the more effectual promoting of this faithful subjection the sacred bond of an Oath of homage and fidelity B. 1. C 9. is approved by God himself Eccl. 8.2 and hath been made use of by the general wisdom of the World The ancient practice of such Oaths is manifest under the Jewish Government Jud. 11.10 2 Kin. 11.17 as also under the Chaldean Empire Ezek 17.19 and under the Persian and Roman Empires Joseph Ant. l. 11. c. 8. l. 17. c. 3. Herodian l. 2. Bar. an 169. n. 9. And that the primitive Christians even in the time of persecution did by their Oaths assure their allegiance to those Princes seemeth well observed by Baronius from Tertullian Apol. c. 32. where discoursing of that fidelity and honour which the Christians had for the Emperour upon that occasion saith Sed juramus 2. Of speaking reverently Corol. 2. Subjects ought also to speak of their Princes with reverence and expressions of honour For all authority whether of Father Master or other Ruler deriving suitable degrees of honour upon the person the greatest and chief civil honour doth of right belong to him who in his Dominions is possessor of the highest authority upon earth And the ordinary using outward expressions and titles of honour is in this Case the more needful and reasonable because this hath a considerable influence upon the disposing men to obedience and because Government it self becomes most useful where it is entertained with due reverence Wherefore the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 optimus or most excellent which was the usual stile of honour which both Jews and Romans gave to the president of Judea Act. 23.26 ch 24.3 was readily made use of to Festus by S. Paul Act. 26.25 And when Priests and Rulers were none of the best men the holy Scriptures stile the Priest the Angel or Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Mal. 2.7 and the Ruler the Minister of God Rom. 13.4 and of such they use that expression Ps 82.6 I said Ye are Gods 3. And the primitive Christians were forward by such means to promote and secure the due honour of superiours Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which purpose Dionysius Bishop of Alex andria when he was a Confessor and exposed himself to be banished for the Christian profession did yield to Valerian and Galienus persecuting Emperours the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most pious Athan. Ap. ad Const Testim Eccl. Alexand in Athanas Eus Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 5. Both Athanasius himself and the Alexandrian Church which held to him called Constantius the Arian Most Religious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when Constantine wrote to some of the Prefects of the Empire he gave to them in two Rescripts mentioned by Eusebius the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your sanctity And that the ancient Churches did readily give to the Emperours their usual Imperial titles and did ordinarily treat them with such a stile as Sanctissimi Pientissimi Religiosissimi is not only manifest from particular Writers but is abundantly apparent from the Synodical Epistles of Provincial and even of Oecumenical Councils 4. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. c. 10. To. 4. c. 17. And as the like expressions of honour were frequently and usually given to the Christian Bishops so when the Council of Ephesus were about to denounce the sentence of deposition against Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople for his Heresy and when they wrote to Celestine against John Bishop of Antioch as being an Enemy to the true Faith in complyance with Nestorius they gave them both the title of Most Religious And the like was done before the sentencing Dioscorus and other Bishops who complyed with Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. Evagr. Hist l. 2. c. 18. Wherefore such expressions as these were intended as titles of honour given to them upon account of their office and without respect to their personal vertues and in that sense are to be understood Mas de Min. Angl. l. 3. c. 5. n. 3. ibid. Baron Bin. 5. The use of such expressions of honourary titles is allowed and defended both by Romish and Protestant Writers And those persons who would appear backward in yielding to the supreme Governour his just stile of eminency and supremacy are wanting in giving him the honour which God enjoins and cannot easily be acquitted from the guilt of scandal in encouraging the bad temper of some and adding to the ignorance of others in that particular And they who are desirous to expose the persons actions or constitutions of their superiours may take warning by the actings of Ham towards his Father Noah which entailed a Curse upon his posterity 6. Corol. 3. it is also the duty of subjects Of praying for Kings heartily to pray for Gods blessing on the person and Government of their Soveraign because therein both Church and State and private interests also are so much concerned This was enjoined by S. Paul as a matter of principal concernment 1 Tim. 2.1 2. and was performed in the early times of Christianity Tert. Apol c. 30. Conc. Emer in Praef. And the Council of Merida did more particularly pray for their King Recessuinthus because he was Governour in all Causes Civil and Ecclesiastical quoniam de secularibus sancta illi manet cura Ecclesiastica per divinam gratiam recte disponit mente intentâ sit illi opitulatrix ineffabilis omnipotentis Dei gratia quae se quaerentibus manet propinqua But because it is an high piece of
received justice only from the King and his Courts and not to revenge themselves or be Judges in their own Cases doth more especially condemn the entring into War it self which is an undertaking founded upon a direct contrary proceeding And thus far we have a sufficient censure in our English Laws upon that War against the King which those who have pleaded for the lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms do account the most plausible instance for their purpose which our Chronicles can furnish them with And it is needless to go about to prove that many other Conspiracies and Rebellions have been justly condemned and punished according to their demerit 17. And whereas unchristian and evil actions Some pretences shortly reflected on may oft be carried on under some fair colours and appearances all such pretences for taking Armes against the King are in this acknowledgment disclaimed the truth of which will be justified in the following Chapters And I shall here only shortly reflect upon some few of those pretences which are commonly made 18. Some have accounted the defence of Religion to be a sufficient Warrant for taking Armes But if the Christian Religion giveth a right to him who professeth it to defend himself and his profession against his Superiours by Armes then must not our Religion be a taking up the Cross but the Sword and it would then be perfectly unlike the Religion of the Primitive Christians and Martyrs and would be no longer a following of Christ our Lord and Saviour 19. Others have asserted the defaults and miscarriages of Superiours Jun. Brut. Vindic. Qu. 1. 3. to be a forfeiture of their Power and Dominion even as a tenure may be forfeited upon the non-performance of the conditions upon which it is held But though God may justly as a punishment of Offenders deprive them of what good they here possess he hath not made inferiours the Judges of their Superiours nor can any such forfeiture devolve on them And he who considers the great viciousness and cruelty of Saul of Tiberius and of Nero under whose Reigns the Holy Scripture presseth the duty of Allegiance will thence discern that the making such a pretence as this is contrary to true Religion and Christianity 20. By many the defending of the rights freedoms and liberties of the Subject hath been esteemed the most specious pretence of all the rest But whereas there are other better wayes to preserve these rights which are most violated by Wars and intestine Tumults and Broils it cannot easily be thought probable that he may be a judge and avenger of his own cause by force against his superiour who may not be so against his equal And since the tenderness of Davids Conscience was such that notwithstanding the many undeserved injuries he sustained he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lords anointed and Peters drawing his Sword to defend his Master was severely rebuked of which things more hereafter the management of this objection must proceed from a Spirit contrary to that of pious David and to the doctrine also of our Lord and Master SECT III. Of the traiterous Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or against those who are commissionated by him 1. The other clause in the forementioned Declaration or acknowledgment is intended against another particular pretence of taking Armes and is this That I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Armes by his the Kings authority Sect. 3 against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him The Position or assertion here rejected is thus expressed in the Oath to be taken by the Lord Lieutenants and Souldiers 14 Car. 2.3 That Arms may be taken by the Kings Authority viz. though the King never own them or give any Commission for them yea though they be against his own person or against those which are Commissionated by him And this Position Taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person disclaimed exposing the sacred person of the King to the highest danger and being against the safety of his Life and Crown is justly declared to be traiterous and it standeth chargeable with these enormities 2. First It is so unreasonable as to be against the common sense of Mankind Would it not look strange and be accounted a prodigious thing to see a Company of Children or Servants beat and abuse the person of their Father or Master dispossess him by violence and possibly at last to confine and murder him and yet to expect that all men should believe they did this for the preservation of his Right and Government and in obedience to his Authority yea though he plainly declared and protested against these things as being heinously injurious and unnatural And it is no less unaccountable to pretend the Kings Authority Judic Univers Oxon de foedere p. 66. for taking Armes against his person This is as it hath been expressed a like contradiction in sense reason and polity as Transubstantiation is in Religion both which must suppose such a presence as is impossible to be there and is contrary to the plainest evidence This pretence of the Kings Authority against his person was hatched under the Romish Territories and made use of in the Holy League of France In the Guisian attempts against Henry the Third Hist of Civil Wars of France l. 5. an 1588. it hath been related as a matter of wonder to the common sense of men that they should besiege the Loure where the King was and yet this should pass under the disguise of obeying the King and defending the King and Country That the name of the King doth denote the royal person who governeth is the general apprehension of Mankind And it is vainly pretended that all the proceedings of justice being always in the Kings name and by his Authority when many of them are not particularly known to his person must require the forming such a legal Idea or Notion of the King as is distinct from his person but this supposeth the Soveraign Authority to be in his Royal person under whom and from whom other Ministers of Justice do execute their several Offices As when any man intrusts another to manage any part of his business and affairs in his name and by his Authority this doth not make the man who commits the trust to become an Idea or Notion distinct from himself or his person 3. Secondly This strained perverting of plain sense in this particular is not only against the security of the King but may upon the same foundation become fatal to the lives of the subjects Manual concerning some priviledges of Parl. p. 16 17 and p. 60. For whereas some who managed this conceit did assert in plain words that even the Statutes which condemned treason against the King had respect to the King in this Novel Idea as intending thereby the Laws and the Kings Courts of Justice it is easy to discern that any subjects who
rely upon a meer fallacy From the different rights of Regality For this Topick would with equal force and evidence prove the paternal right not to be founded in the laws of nature or the institution of God because the authority of the Father and the priviledges of Children are not the same in different parts of the World The Rules of inheriting by the right of devolution in some part of the Low-Countries Goâ—osred not ad Dig. l. 1. Tit. 6. n. 1. de jure Capp de vor Jephthae Instit l. 1. Tit. 9. and of Gavelkind and some other tenures in England do vary from the more general usage And in many places of the World the Father had Jus vitae neeis and Cappellus asserteth him to have had that power of life and death among the Jews The Institutions of Justinian expresly testify that that right of power which the Roman Fathers had over their Children was that which was proper to the Citizens of Rome and it is there added no other men have that power over their Children which we have Nor will it prove Matrimony to be no institution of God because the priviledges of the Wife are esteemed greater in England than in other Countries and are not the same at the Death of the Husband in the Province of York and the City of London with the other parts of the Kingdom But the truth is in those States or Relations which are fixed by divine institution there are some things so necessary and essential that they cannot be separated from them such are in the Conjugal Relation the Headship of the Husband the ordinary inseparableness of that Society till Death and the performance of Conjugal Duties and such are in the supreme Government the necessary care of justice and the common good and even of matters of Religion and the having a power fitted to these ends and which in pursuance of them may not by inferiours be forcibly resisted But in many other particular things the priviledges of inseriour relations and the dignities and rights of superiours may be greater or less according to what is concluded by their mutual consent 9. The Solemnity of Coronation From the Rites of Coronation when the people acknowledge their King and the King again gives the people assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws and govern them according to those Laws is far from intending to express the Kings Authority to be derived from the people by a contract as some have weakly argued For the King is actually King by his right of inheritance and succession upon the Death of his Predecessor antecedently to this Solemnity as our Law-Books do generally acknowledge and Henry the Sixth Reigned divers years in England before he was Crowned Du May 's Estate of the Empire Diâ—l 2. vers fin Extrav Com. l. 5. Tit. 10. c. 4. And even in Elective Principalities the rights of Soveraignty are invested in the person elected thereto before the Coronation both in the Empire it self and other Dominions But the intent of this Solemnity is that as the Rites of Inauguration in other Magistrates tend to make such impressions in the people as may beget a reverence towards them so the Prince his appearing with splendour to his people doth both excite them to and give them opportunity for publick acknowledgments and expressions of affection and honour towards him and joyful acclamations To this purpose Henry the Third was twice Crowned once in the first year of his Reign Mat. Par. an 1216. where M. Paris treateth De prima Coronatione Regis Henrici and again in his twentieth year as is manifest in the preamble of the Statute of Merton Fullers Hist an 1194. and Richard the First was observed also to have been twice Crowned In like manner David notwithstanding his right by Divine appointment besides his being anointed by Samuel was twice anointed by the people Sed. Olam Rab. c. 13. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 6. And both the Jewish Chronicle and Josephus declare that Saul also was anointed a second time And the kind expressions of the Prince and the assurance that he gives his people that he will govern them by their laws and maintain their Religion and Rights is designed to banish and expel all jealous fears from them and to encrease their affection to him and make their obedience and submission the more ready and chearful by their having security from their Princes reputation honour and integrity that he will intend the preservation of the great things which conduce to their welfare 10. It hath also been objected From the Civil Law Digest l. 1. Tit. 4. n. 1. quod Principi that besides the like expressions in other Law-Books the Civil Law declares Lege Regia quae de ejus Principis imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem confert which words declare that by that Law which was made concerning the Empire of the Prince the people yield to him all their authority and power It also asserteth that Nations were divided and Kingdoms established by the Jus gentium or the Law of Nations Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 5. Ex hoc jurc Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 4. Manumiss Justin Inst l. 1. Tit. 3. and also that liberty is the natural state and servitude is introduced by the Law of Nations Now though it might be said against the force of any such allegations which seem to oppose this truth that the right of God and of his constitution and authority is not to be determined by any humane writings especially if they speak against the Scripture and rational evidence Yet I further observe 1. That the first expression hath respect to the political sanction or establishment of the Civil Government of the Roman Empire and even with respect to the peculiar priviledges of the Emperour himself as having a legislative power in his own breast to which purpose that very law declares Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote lege regia quae de ejus imperio c. Novel 73. Novel 85. passim And though these political sanctions be a proper consideration for humane Laws to take notice of yet this hinders not but that there may be a superiour divine constitution of Soveraignty and secular power which also is oft asserted in the Civil Law 2. The following expression doth speak of the like political sanction and doth further acknowledge and assert the bounds and limits of the several Kingdoms and Nations to be established by the Law of Nations jure gentium discretae gentes regna condita 3. That liberty which in the last clause above-cited is declared to be the natural state and the servitude which is there said to be introduced do not respect freedom from Government and Laws but from vasallage which is evident because in the Digests this servitude is said to be discharged by
manumission which still leaves the person under civil Government Ubi supra and in the Institutions the freedom which is opposed thereto is bounded by that which is prohibited by law And besides this freedom of the outward condition Ciceron Paradox 5. Cicero doth well and wisely account that man to have attained a true and proper freedom of mind who obeys and reverenceth the Laws not so much for fear as because he judgeth it useful and good so to do 11. Now if Government be the Constitution of God to make forcible opposition against it must either be in design to have Gods authority subject to them who so act or at least that themselves may not be subject unto it both which are unreasonable and include a resisting the ordinance of God But of the divine law in this particular I shall speak in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament SECT I. The need and usefulness of considering this Case 1. The reason why the state of the Old Testament is here particularly considered THE enquiry into the times of the Old Testament is of the greater import because it would be a considerable testimony that neither the Rules of common equity nor the true foundations of humane polity do condemn all forcible resistance against the Soveraign Power if this was allowed to Subjects under the Jewish constitution which was very much ordained by the wisdom of God himself Concerning the Jewish Constitution Lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. the learned Grotius doth in his Book De Jure belli pacis assert that in ordinary Cases of injury they were not allowed to make resistance and therefore he expoundeth what Samuel spake of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the right or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. to intend that in such things as the King was there declared to undertake Sect. 1 the people had non resistendi obligationem an obligation upon them to make no resistance Ibid. n. 7. But yet he afterward asserteth that in great and weighty Cases either of manifest civil injury as in what David sustained from Saul or of violence offered to their Religion and whole Nation as was done by Antiochus when the Maccabees withstood him it was lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign But he proposeth it as a Question of greater difficulty whether Christians may be allowed to do the like and here he recommends the duty of Christian Patience and bearing the Cross from the example of Christ himself and the Primitive Church 2. And Mr Thorndike in his Epilogue Epil Part. 2. Ch. 32. from the instance of the Maccabees doth allow the lawfulness of subjects taking Armes under the Jewish State for the defence of their Religion and very plainly asserteth the same in his Treatise of the right of the Church in a Christian State Right of Church Ch. 5. p. 306. c. But in both those places he declareth the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon the same account under Christianity because of the difference of the spirit rules and conditions of the Law and the Gospel But yet in this last mentioned Book there are some expressions which will make it manifest that that learned man was not so fixed in this Position concerning the Jewish Government but that he sometimes much inclined to and plainly embraced the contrary assertion For speaking of that Government which the Jews entred into under Ezra and Nehemiah he declared that this was allowed by the Grant and Commission of the King of Persia and saith Right of Ch. Ch. 4. p. 229. It is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renewed by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them 3. But that which will make this enquiry into the times of the Old Testament The Gospel makes no new model for the rights of all political Societies the more necessary is this because so far as I can discern it is an assertion which cannot be maintained or defended That there is in this particular any such difference between the State of the Old Testament and the New as that it should be lawful for Subjects before the coming of Christ and particularly for the Jews to defend their Liberties or Religion by War against their Soveraign but it is now become unlawful for all Subjects under Christianity by the peculiar Precepts of the Gospel For though it is manifest that the spirit of the Law and the Gospel do very much differ and that meekness and peace are more peculiarly recommended in the Gospel by the Precepts and by the example of Christ both to Rulers and Subjects yet I see not how Christianity doth alter the model and frame of humane political Societies so as to debase Subjects or deprive them of any rights or freedoms which they did before enjoy It is indeed truly observed by S. Chrysostome Chrys Hom. 3. de Dav. Saul that David in his actings towards Saul had not all those arguments for subjection which Christians now have haveing never seen nor heard of the great example of Christ Crucified and his doctrine of patience and suffering But though these are high motives to the performance of our duty they do not lay a new foundation for common rights nor do they establish any such new Rules as thereby to determine the unlawfulness of all Wars in the defence of just rights if they be managed by a warrantable authority 4. And they who insist upon the Gospel Precepts of taking up the Cross as if that did put such a difference between the legal State and the Evangelical that thereupon upon it is now become unlawful for Subjects to take Armes especially for the defence of Religion do also proceed upon a mistaken ground For though this Precept and the profession of Christianity doth require great meekness and patience and a firm and stedfast resolution under all difficulties to pursue and maintain the Faith and practice of the Gospel it doth not deprive such persons of a power and right to make War even in the defence of Religion who antecedently to Christianity were invested with such a right And he who will assert this must grant it unlawful for any Soveraign Prince to defend his free profession of the Christian Religion which is one of his just rights against an external force which would impose a contrary Religion upon him Eus Eccl. Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr as was done in the Christian Kingdom of Armenia which then had a Soveraign Prince against the fury of Maximinus who would have forced them to embrace the Pagan Idolatry 5. And whereas in the New Testament we have clear Declarations that the higher Powers are the Ordinance
President the Holy Jesus was crucified and St. James killed with the Sword And yet out Saviour in his days required the rights of Soveraignty to be preserved And this was commanded though the Jews were tributary to Caesar whose right over them was founded upon the Roman Conquest and the Submission which they had thereupon for many years yielded and the very tribute-money upon sight of which our Saviour gave this Precept is related by some Writers to have had upon it an Inscription expressing the years from the Roman Conquest over Judea and consequently of the Jews being subdued into Subjection whereas free Subjects towards their natural Prince Dr. Ham. Annot. on Mat. 22.20 have greater motives and obligations to honour and obedience 3. From the Reproof given to St. Peter But the clearest account of the Doctrine and Practice also of our Saviour against Subjects taking Arms may be had from what he declared to this purpose when himself was seized on by the Souldiers the night before he was crucified Where when Peter drew his Sword and smote a Servant of the High Priest and cut off his ear Jesus saith unto him Mat. 26.52 Put up again thy Sword into its place for all they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword By which words the making use of the Sword against the Authority of Superiours is sharply condemned Musc in Mat. 26. This is as Musculus said well locus not and us omnibus subditis a place to be marked by all Subjects and what Peter did saith he was therefore unlawful because the Power against which he made use of the Sword was ordered by the Command of their Rulers whereas the Magistrates Power though used against an innocent person may not forcibly be repelled by Subjects Thus also Aegidius Hunnius Peter saith he took the Sword of his own private pleasure and that unlawfully whilst he rose up against his Governours and fount with the Sword against their Ministers Aegid Hun. in Rom. 1 1. in Mat. 26. Par. 4. Petrus privato arbitrio saith he on the Epistle to the Romans rapuit Gladium quidem illegitime dum contra Magistratum suum in surgit contra ministros eorum Gladio dimicat To the same purpose also he speaketh upon 3. Mat. and Melancthon from this Text urgeth the unlawfulness of those persons taking the Sword Melancth Loc. Com. de Vindicta de Magistr Civ who have it not committed to them by the Law and their Governour 4. And the true and natural sense of these words is that as the Laws given to Noah and his Sons condemned homicide Gen. 9.6 Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed so as with some respect thereto our Saviour here condemns the making Resistance even for defence by a private person against publick Authority And as the rules of his Doctrine forbid and blame it as evil so this further censure he passeth upon it that it is an undertaking that deserveth death or to perish by the Sword And this hath a general respect to all private persons Munst in Loc. hoc dicitur saith Munster contra privatos quosque qui nullo jure permittuntur uti Gladio non autem contra Magistratum qui jussa Dei perficit c. And the circumstances of this case are very remarkable 5. 1. In a case in which Religion and Civil Rights were interested For first this was a cause wherein both Religion and civil Rights were greatly concerned For the Jews were now pursuing their design to put Jesus to death and never was there an higher violation of justice upon earth than in the contrivances managed and the cruelties exercised towards him And this was such an opposition of Religion that in the highest and most impudent manner they rejected and set at nought the Messias whom God had sent and bad defiance to the mighty evidence of his miracles and intended utterly to have extirpated his holy and divine Doctrine Yet he himself here took up the Cross and became an admirable Pattern of meekness and when his Disciples had proposed the Question Luke 22.29 Shall we smite with the Sword he severely forbad any such thing and checks St. Peters hasty use thereof before Christ had returned an Answer to their Question And Chr. Hom. 85. in Mat. as St. Chrysostom observes St. Peter who was reprehended even with sharp threatnings for what he had done did so no more And when our Lord declared that his Kingdom was not of this World he did thereby so much design to shew that he denied his Subjects who were private persons any power to fight for their Religion and that neither himself nor his Gospel gave them any authority to use the Sword that he addeth if my Kingdom were of this World then would my Subjects fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews John 18.36 Such therefore are the rules of the Christian Doctrine Fer. enarrat in Mat. 26. that when Ferus had propounded the case if Magistrates neglect their Duty and become injurious as was done with respect to our Lord and Master an privato Gladii arripiendi jus est whether a Subject may take Armes he justly answers it with an Absit or a Detestation of any such thing 6. 2. With respect to Officers commissionated The Persons who came to take Jesus were a Band of Men and Officers John 18.3 no supreme Governours themselves but only persons commissionated by them And they were not sent immediately by Caesar or by Herod or Pilate who then had under the Romans the chief Jurisdiction in Jewry but by the Chief Priests and Elders of the Jews some of whom did accompany the Souldiers Luke 22.52 who were allowed to exercise some governing power under the Romans And the time when these Souldiers were sent was in all probability after the chief Synedrial Power was taken away from the Jews that they might not judge any capital Causes or put any man to death by their authority John 18.31 and therefore from Annas and Caiaphas Jesus was brought to Pilate The Talmud saith that this Power was taken away forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem which must be three or four year before our Saviours passions Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hor. Heb. in Mat. 26.3 and about the time he did begin to preach Now though this stroke of St. Peter was not at any of the Chief Priests or Elders themselves but at an Officer of theirs and when their power was under its great decay and declination the Doctrine of Christ doth here condemn it 7. Thirdly 3. For mere defence if the intention of the person be considered this action was desensive or an endeavour to deliver his Master and with a kind of zeal for the preserving his safety as is sufficiently intimated in the following verses Mat. 26.53 54. And it cannot well enter into any mans thoughts that there were