or supreme governour if he will make use thereof as hath been declared by the chief persons of this Church Can. 1. 1640. And the ancient right and exercise of the authority of Kings in summoning provincial or national Councils De Conc. Sac. Imp. l. 6. c. 18 19 22 23 24 c. The Kings just authority in matters Ecclesiastical opposed is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca 6. But against these just rights of the Princes power there are various oppositions Such are the claims of the Romish Bishops universal Supremacy either in all affairs or at least in all things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as also the pretence for the necessity of general liberty and exemption from all authority in matters of Conscience and Religion Ch. 6. 8. which things I shall so far as is needful in due place particularly consider 7. The Writers of the Romish Church do 1. V. l. 2. Decretal Tit. de Jud. c. At si clerici c. Clerici Tit. de foro comp c si diligenti Bellar. de Cler. c. 28. Generally assert and some other parties also encline the same way that the state of the Church and all Ecclesiastical affairs are exempt from the civil power and not under the inspection and government thereof and that the Clergy as such are not subjects to the secular Governour and that they are not accountable before him no not so much say divers of them as in criminal causes nor yet in civil Layman l. 4. Tr. 9. c. 2 4 5. seq 2. Not only the Canonists but many others also do found this Ecclesiastical immunity upon a proper divine right which is also asserted by some of the Romish Biships Innoc. 3. in Conc. Lateran Leo 10. in Bul. Reform in Conc. Later 5. Ses 9. Azor. Tom. 1. l. 5. c. 12. Laym ubi sup c. 8. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 5. p. 4. Bannes in 2. secundae qu. 6â— Art 1. Dub. 2. in such Councils as they call General And some of their Writers run so high as Layman Theol. Moral l. 1. Tr. 4. cap. 13. and divers others by him there cited as to assert that no civil or secular laws do lay any obligation directly upon the Clergy as having no authority over them But if I shall shew that all members of the Christian Church are nevertheless subjects or the Realm and that the nature of civil Soveraignty doth directly include a right to givern them and an obligation to take care of the affairs of the Church this will sufficiently refute these contrary positions 8. But these Writers are sensible that in the general practice of the Christian World almost in all ages thereof secular Governours have interposed in many cases Ecclesiastical And the great advantages from Christian Religion being established and Gentilisme opposed by the Laws and Constitutions of Constantine and other worthy Christian Emperours are so visible that they cannot be denied and therefore the Romanists do acknowledge that the Princes care of the Church affairs is of great use I. Zecch de principe l. 2. cap. 5. and that he is as Laelius Zecchius expresseth it Ecclesiae brachium Religionis propugnaculum the arm and defence of the Church and the fortress of Religion Greg. de Valentia ubi supra Laym l. 4. tr 9. c. 10. P. de Marca de Concord l. 1. cap. 12. in Prolegom p. 28. Yet that all this may be consistent with the former positions we have another device set on foot which acknowledgeth that this useful power of Soveraign Princes in things Ecclesiastical must be owned only as a priviledge granted them by the Bishop of Rome and that they must act therein as by his favour and as his deputies and by the right of protecting the Church which he committeth to them 9. Now though this pretence will fall with the former if it be manifested that the nature end and constitution of civil government as established by God is to be extended to matters Ecclesiastical yet concerning this pretence I shall here further note these things 1. That they must cast reflections upon the wise and good God who asserting the great usefulness of the civil Ruler interposing in matters Ecclesiastical will not grant that the wisdom and goodness of God should be as ready to allow the Church this advantage as the prudence of the Pope 2. That if this anthority in matters Ecclesiastical be against the rules of the divine law which God hath established for the honour and freedom of his Church the Bishop of Rome dealeth ill with the Church touching its freedoms by giving them away and makes very bold with God by daring to confront Gods laws with his priviledges and indulging any person to disobey them 3. That Christian Princes would be in a very unsafe condition whilest they act any thing about the affairs of the Church if they have no better foundation to bear them up than the pretence of the Popes power to dispense with the laws of God Surely had Justinian thought Novel 58. that his care of the Church had been so ventuous and hazardous an enterprise it would have cooled the heat of his zeal that he would never have professed his care for the Churches wilfare to be equal to that for his own life 4. That whilest any persons do think it meet that Princes should act under the Pope as his deputy in the affairs of Religion to whom they owe no subjection and from whom they receive no ruling authority it must certainly be much more reasonable that they should act under God and as his Deputies whose Vice-gerents they certainly are and from whom I shall now design to prove them to have authority in matters Ecclesiastical B. 1. C. 2. CHAP. II. The Royal Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered SECT I. Their supreme authority over things and persons sacred manifested 1. Kings in the Old Testament governed about things of the Church Art 37. THE inference which may be made from the authority of the Kings under the Old Testament is an argument to which our Church hath a great respect in asserting the Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical In her Articles she declareth this acknowledgment of Royal Supremacy to be a yielding that only prerogative unto our Kings which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture Can. 2. by God himself And in her Canons she threatneth excommunication against them who shall affirm that the King hath not the same authority in causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 1 that the godly Kings had among the Jews Wherefore I shall for the inforcing this argument shew 1. That the Kings of Judah had and exercised a supreme power of Government in things belonging to the Church 2. That they did this by such a right as is common to all other Soveraign powers and not by any peculiar priviledge and
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
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
especially being next Successor to the Kingdom by Gods peculiar appointment might upon Principles of Prudence entertain a considerable retinue about him for the upholding his own honour and fame for his safeguard against private assaults and outrages and as an useful method to prevent his being surprized by Saul unawares of whose motions these men could give him sufficient intelligence And this might also be done by Gods direction Samuel being present with David in the time of his flight as both the Scripture and Josephus observe Ant. l. 6. c. 14. 1 Sam. 19 18-22 and the Prophet Gad also who gave him advice 1 Sam. 22.5 But it is also further to be considered that when David left the Coast of Israel and went into the land of the Philistines he took his six hundred men with him 1 Sam. 27.2 and greatly encreased his numbers there 1 Chr. 12. v 1-23 when yet there was no design of taking Armes against Achish in whose Kingdom he abode for his own safety But all this was done in part for the ends abovementioned and also in an especial manner that these faithful and valiant men might be serviceable to him and his interest when the way should be open for his succeeding in the Kingdom of Israel And the encrease of Davids Companies and the constant resort to him was the method which Gods providence made use of in bringing him to sit upon the Throne of Israel And whereas these men are called helpers of David and helpers of the War 1 Chr. 12.1.22 it is manifest they were so against the Geshurites and Amalekites 1 Sam. 28.8 Ch. 30.17 and against the house of Saul after his death 2 Sam. 2.8 17. Ch. 3.1 and the Jebusites 2 Chr. 11.4 c. and other Enemies with whom David made war but they could not be helpers in the War against Saul with whom David never waged war 4. Ans 2. As this is the true account of Davids retaining such numbers about him so we have further evidence that he never designed them for any War against Saul For whilest Saul himself was under a great consternation and fear of David as Josephus saith Jos ibid. p. 195. and the holy Scriptures intimate and David with his six hundred men was by Gods assistance able to vanquish the Army of the Philistines who had Invaded Israel and Besieged one of Sauls strong Towns 1 Sam. 23.5 13. and with his encreased number to subdue the Host of the Amalekites 1 Sam. 30.17 it is hereby manifest that it was not his inability but his Conscience of his duty that kept him from his ever using his strength against the Army of Saul And yet there are great appearances of proof that Davids valiant Men who vanquished these other Armies Vers Syr. Arab. in 1 Chr. 12.1 had he been willing would have been forward enough to have engaged against Saul as is expressly declared in the Syriack and Arabick versions 5. De jur Magistr jbidem A Second thing urged is That Abigail commended David for his fighting the Battels of the Lord. And not only Junius Brutus and such others Jun. Brut. Vind. Qu. 2. but Grotius also in the first Editions of the Book above mentioned Grot. ubi sup sine Annot. An. 1625. will have the Wars of the Lord to be understood not concerning his former Battels which he had fought against the Philistines but of his present gathering Forces in Judah 1 Sam. 25.28 But to interpret this of Davids gathering of Forces against Saul is a wonderfully strange and unreasonable interpretation because 1. Daivd his fighting the Battels of the Lord was no acts of force against Saul David never fought any Battel at all against the Armies of Saul 2. Nor is it imaginable that when Abigail declared what peace David might afterward have in not revenging himself on Nabal by shedding blood and disswades him from it lest afterward it should be grief unto him 1 Sam. 25.26 31. for which advice David blessed God who sent Abigail and was sensible that it kept him from doing evil that she should at the same time applaud his shedding blood to avenge himself against Saul 3. The order of the words v. 28 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast fought the Lords Battels and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a man or rather yet a man is risen up to pursue thee do most probably shew that this must refer to Battels fought before Saul did pursue David And it is well observed by Barclay Barcl adv Mouarchom l. 4. c. 19. that these words ought to be referred to the Wars David undertook against the Enemies of Israel and of Saul who when he became Sauls General had this charge given him 1 Sam. 18.17 Be valiant for me and fight the Lords Battels 4. These words v. 28. The Lord will certainly make my Lord a sure House because my Lord fighteth or hath fought the Battels of the Lord if they should be understood of his actings against Saul are directly contrary to the ground of Davids hope in Gods protection above-mentioned which was not from his acting by violence against Saul but from his patient submission and refusing to avenge himself 5. Grot. in 1 Sam. 17.47 In Cap. 25.28 Grotius elsewhere closeth with a quite different sense and saith those were called the Battels of the Lord which were against the Canaanites and such other people as God had devoted to destruction being populi damnati And this is indeed true but withal even other Wars undertaken by the will of God against publick Enemies to the Children of Israel and the God of Israel are comprehended under the Wars of God as may appear from 1 Chr. 5.22.2 Chr. 20.15 And Grotius also in the latter Editions of his Books De Jure belli pacis hath wholly struck out that which concerned this strange interpretation concerning the Battels of the Lord. 6. Dejur Magistr ibidem Jun. Erut ubi sup Ruth of Civ Pol. p. 344. The last thing insisted on is that David had thoughts of continuing in Keilah a place of strong defence 1 Sam. 23.7 10 11 12. and therefore his intention must have been to have kept it as a Garrison against the Forces of Saul Ans 1. Of his parpose for abiding in Keilah David did ordinarily reside in strong holds in the Wilderness sometimes in one and sometimes in another without any design to keep them as Garrisons against Sauls Army only making use of them as safe and convenient places to abide in for a time till he thought fit to remove 1 Sam. 23.14 19 29. 2. It was manifestly Davids aim by his having spies abroad to give him intelligence of Sauls motion and by his own frequent discamping to keep at such distances from Saul and to make such escapes that he should not find him out and herein Gods providence took particular care of him 1 Sam. 23.14 17 22 23 26. Ch. 26.1 4. Ch. 27.1.3
considered with other things which have affinity therewith from Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 6. Chap. VI. Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority and particularly the supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome Sect. 1. The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered Sect. 2. The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared Sect. 3. Such claims can have no Foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge Sect. 4. Other Arguments for the pretended Papal Authority answered and refuted Chap. VII The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority over the Church of England Sect. 1. The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees Sect. 2. No Patriarch ever had any just right to Patriarchal Authority in this Island Sect. 3. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates Chap. VIII Some pretences of other parties against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical refuted Sect. 1. Of Liberty of Conscience and Toleration Sect. 2. Of some other rigid and dangerous Principles against the Supremacy of Princes Chap. IX Corollaries concerning some duties of subjection The Second BOOK Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against the King Chap. I. THE publick Forms of Declaration against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Armes considered Sect. 1. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience and its disclaiming the Popes Power of deposing the King or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person State or Government Sect. 2. Of the unlawfulness of taking Armes upon any pretence whatsoever against the King Sect. 3. Of the traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or against those who are Commissionated by him Chap. II. The Laws of Nature and of General Equity and the right grounds of Humane Polity do condemn all Subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign Power Sect. 1. The preservation of Peace and common Rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Sect. 2. The Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince Sect. 3. The condition of Subjects would not be the better but the worse if it were lawful for them to take Armes against their Soveraign Sect. 4. The Plea that Self-defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature considered and of the end of Soveraign Power with a representation of the pretence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined Sect. 5. The Divine Original of Soveraign Power asserted Chap. III. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King under the time of the Old Testament Sect. 1. The need and usefulness of considering this Case Sect. 2. The general unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 3. Objections from the behaviour of David answered Sect. 4. Divers Objections from the Maccabees Zealots Jehu and others answered Chap. IV. The Rules and Precepts delivered by Christ and his Apostles concerning resistance and the practice of the Primitive Christians declared Sect. 1. The Doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself Sect. 2. Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance with a reflexion on contrary practices Sect. 3. The practice and sense of the Primitive Church concerning resistance Chap. V. Of the Extent of the Duty and obligation of non-resistance Sect. 1. Resistance by force against the Soveraign Prince is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 2. Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself reflected on and considered ERRATA PAge 64. line 8. read 2 Kin. 1.10 12. p. 71. l. 19. Marg. r. de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 40. p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 106. l. 3. Marg. r. n. 6. p. 107. l. 4. r. Frischmuthius p. 219. l. 14. r. Sword and p. 223. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 1. Marg. r. Comen p. 268. l. 25. r. Patriarchdoms Christian Loyalty The First BOOK Of Regal Supremacy especially in matters Ecclesiastical and the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction CHAP. I. The Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared SECT I. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England 1. THE things established in the Church of England which all Ecclesiastical persons are required to declare their consent unto B. 1. C. 1. do concern matters of so high importance that both the being and the purity and perfection of a Church doth very much depend upon the consideration thereof to wit the order and way of its worship the due honour it gives to the King and Secular Authority the truth of its doctrine and the right and regular ordination of its Ministry That the publick worship of God in our Church is free from all just exception and agreeable to the rules of Christianity and the best and primitive patterns I have given some account in a former Treatise And in this discourse I shall treat of that Authority and Dignity which is justly yielded and ascribed to the supreme civil power 2. Loyal Principles useful to the world And if a general right understanding of this matter could every where be obtained together with a practice suitable thereunto it would greatly contribute to the advancement and honour of Christianity and the peace of the world The great miscarriages and irregular practices by not yielding to Soveraign Princes their due Authority hath strangely appeared in the enormous Usurpations of the Romish Church and the frequent distractions of the Empire and other Kingdoms which have been thence derived For the Roman Bishop who still claimeth even where he possesseth not Sect. 1 by his exorbitant encroachment upon the Royalty of Kings especially in matters Ecclesiastical and thereupon in Civil also did advance himself unto the highest step of his undue Papal exaltation And he thereby also more firmly fixed and rivetted his usurpation over other Christian Bishops and put himself into a capacity of propagating his corrupt doctrines without probable appearance of any considerable check or controul and with the less likelyhood of redress and reformation And from the like cause have proceeded divers exorbitancies in opinion and practice concerning the Church and its Government in another sort of men And the want of Conscientious observance of the duties of subjection hath too often manifested it self in the world by the sad effects of open tumult and rebellion all which hath highly tended to the scandal of Religion 3. It seemeth also considerable that almost all Sects and erring parties about matters of Religion and many of them to very ill purposes do nourish false conceptions and mistaken opinions concerning the civil power
to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Anointed And behold as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulation 9. When the seventh Psalm was penned whose Title is concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite Chald. Par. Vers Vulg. Grot. Vatabl Munst in loc some ancient Versions expresly refer this to Saul the Son of Kish And many good Expositors do with much reason judge that when David was accused by Saul himself of lying in wait against him 1 Sam. 22.8 and by others of seeking his hurt Ch. 24.9 David in this Psalm under the Conduct of Gods Infallible Spirit declareth His Abhorrence of such things as being very wicked and deserving severe punishment in these words O Lord my God if I have done this if there be iniquity in my hands If I have rewarded evil to him that was at peace with me Yea I have delivered him that without cause was mine Enemy Let the Enemy persecute my Soul and take it c. v. 3 4 5. And even they who rather interpret the Title to relate to the words of Shimei must grant the like sense to be intended in these verses 10. And lest any should think He here acted not the Politician but observed the rules of Conscience Davids expressions and especially his killing the Amalekite to be the actions of a Politician for the better securing his own Government though this be sufficiently refuted in what I have said above I further add 1. That he had plainly declared the Sin and Guiltiness of disloyal Acts of violence at such times when mere Policy if considered as abstract from Duty might have prompted him to free himself from a potent deadly irreconcilable Enemy and thereby to gain the Possession of the Crown 2. That if David had shed the blood of the Amalekite without respect unto justice and only to strike an awe into others whilst he believed he did not deserve death this had been a designedly contrived wilful murder to gratifie his own lust and would have been a sin at least as deeply dyed as the Murder of Vriah which yet with its attendants is accounted the singular stain and blemish in the Life of David 1 Kin. 15.5 And therefore Davids Deportment in things towards Saul was Gr. Nys ubi sup c. 17. as Gr. Nyssen expresseth it because he judged it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an unlawful and unjust thing to have done otherwise and what he said and did was in the fear of God SECT III. Objections from the behaviour of David answered 1. It may be first objected Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Ruth of Civ Pol. Qu. 31. Qu. 10. that Davids Carriage reacheth not so far as to condemn all taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince but only such force where assaults are made or violence offered unto his Person and towards such a Person too who was particularly anointed by Gods especial Command Ans 1. The words of David do indeed directly condemn hostile Acts against the Person of the King But his proceeding upon this ground because Saul was the Lords anointed or one appointed by Gods Authority and invested with his Power David not only repressed violence against the person of Saul but reverenced his authority must also condemn acts of violence against his Power and Authority derived from God 2. Forcible opposing the Kings strength doth naturally tend to expose his Person also to violence for if his strength be subdued what defence remains for his Person against the fury of his Enemies or the rage of Assailants we may learn from the History of our Civil Wars and our late good Soveraign But David whose heart smote him for cutting off the lap of Saul's Garment whereby he might fall under some appearance of dishonour or disgrace would much more avoid what might bring him into real danger And it is very considerable that when David had the opportunity of coming upon Saul and his Army when God had cast them all into a deep sleep he not only spared Sauls Person but did not offer any violence to any single man in the whole Army 1 Sam. 26.7 8 12 16. 2. And 3. there could be nothing more contained under the Rite of anointing by Gods Command than to express in the first fixing a Governour or Government that this was appointed and approved by God Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 7. To which purpose Josephus who was well acquainted with the sence of the Jewish Phrases doth give such Paraphrases of the Lords anointed as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who was by God advanced to the Kingdome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one ordained of God and in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to anoint is in 2 Sam. 3.39 rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to constitute And it was not so much the use of any outward anointing by a Prophet or any other as the Authority ordained of God which was chiefly to be considered in them who were acknowledged to be the Lords Anointed Enxt. Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schickard de J. R. Heb. c. 1. Theor. 4. Abarb. in Ex. 30. de Unct. c. 8. For Cyrus was called the Lords Anointed though no such Unction was used among the Persians Isai 45.1 And in the Kingdom of Judah Maimonides and other Jewish Writers tell us that no King was anointed who was the Son of a King and came to the Crown by manifest and undoubted Succession and yet these Kings such as Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah were nevertheless to be honoured Only Salomon Joash and Jehoahaz were anointed because of some different claims of succession or interruption of the true right but not by any special divine command But all other Power and Authority as well as that of Saul is ordained of God Rom. 13.1 2. 3. But the chief thing here objected is De jure Magis in subdit qu. 6. that there are appearances of evidence that David did take up Armes against Saul and undertook the defence of himself by force and three things are alledged in proof hereof Grot. ubi sup Quò nisi ad vim arcendam si inferretur The first thing produced is that David was Captain over four hundred men 1 Sam. 22.2 and then over six hundred Ch. 23.13 and a far greater number came to him to Ziklag who were called helpers of the War 〈◊〉 Chr. 12.1 And Mr Rutherford again and again saith Ruth of Civ Pol. Qu. 32. that these Armed men who came to Ziklag came to help David against Saul but the Scripture saith not so Ans 1. David having been a person of chief eminency both in Sauls Court Davids six hundred men not intended to make War against Saul and the Armies of Israel and being Son-in-law to the King and