IMPRIMATUR  
Liber cui Titulus, Christian Loyalty, etc.  
Ex Aed. Lamb. Julii 10. 1678. Geo. Thorp, Rev. in Christo Patri & Dom. Domino Guliel. Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Domesticis.   

Christian Loyalty: OR, A DISCOURSE, Wherein is Asserted that just Royal Authority and Eminency, which in this Church and Realm of England, is yielded to the KING.  
Especially concerning Supremacy in CAUSES ECCLESIASTICAL.  
Together with The disclaiming all Foreign Jurisdiction; And the unlawfulness of Subjects TAKING ARMS Against the KING.  
By WILLIAM FALKNER, Preacher at S. Nicholas, in Lyn Regis.  
LONDON, Printed by J. M. for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops-Head in St Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXIX.   

To the MOST REVEREND FATHER in GOD, WILLIAM By DIVINE PROVIDENCE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Primate of all ENGLAND and Metropolitan; And one of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, etc.  
May it please your Grace,  
I Have in the following Discourse, undertaken a Vindication of those public Loyal Declarations of this Church and Kingdom, which are of great concernment, not only in the Civil Government, but also in the Christian Religion: and I hope your Grace will therefore not account it improper that this should be presented unto yourself. For the chief things I have taken upon me to defend, are such special Branches of the Doctrine of our Church, that in this part and Age of the World, they are in a manner peculiar to it, and to them who with it have herein embraced the true Reformed profession. But both the Roman Church, and divers other different Sects and parties, among their other Errors and Heresies, entertain such disloyal Positions as are of dangerous importance unto Government, wherein (besides some other things) there is too near a Conjunction between them.  
And these things are of so great consequence in Christianity, that the main Foundations of Righteousness, Peace, and Obedience are thereby established, all which necessary duties are much insisted on by our Saviour's Doctrine. And therein the regular and orderly behaviour of inferior Relations, is particularly enjoined, for the gaining reputation to our Religion; because a temper fitted for Christian subjection, supposeth Pride, Passion, and Perverseness to be subdued; and that in the fear of God, an Humble, Meek, and peaceable Spirit is introduced, which are things wherein our Saviour hath given us his Example.  
And the principal matter of this Discourse concerning the King's Supremacy in all Causes, and the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms, is of the greater concernment, because the contrary ill Principles which many have imbibed, have been very pernicious to several parts of the World, for many hundred years past. Which hurtful Positions have prevailed the more among men, by their being covered over with plausible pretences: as if those of the former sort were needful, to assert the just interest and honour of the Christian Church; and those of the latter sort, to provide for the safety of the Commonwealth, and of every Mans own propriety. All which would represent the secular Authority, which was ordained by divine wisdom for the good of Mankind, to be a thing exceeding hurtful and mischievous to the World.  
Wherefore since men are much led by the consideration of their interests, that what I propose may be the more successful and effectual; I have showed that Obedience, and peaceable subjection to Governors without resistance, is not only a duty, which is enough to persuade all good men to practise it, but that it is the common advantage of the World, as the whole duty of Man is, both to Rulers and to Subjects. And that Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical, is not prejudicial to the Christian Church, I have only expressed more covertly and succinctly; because though this may be considered by some men, there is another interest, to wit, that of the boundless ambition and avarice of the Romish Court and Church, which chief instigates their opposition hereunto: and I must confess that the truth I defend, doth not gratify this interest. But that tendeth best to promote the advantages of the Church in the World, when the goodness of our Religion, and its preserving all just rights of Superiors as well as others, doth so recommend it to the World, as may gain to it the good opinion of all men, the favour of Princes, and the blessing of God.  
And though I am conscious to myself, that by reason of the greatness and copiousness of the subject I have taken in hand, there may be several defects in my performances, notwithstanding my diligent endeavours; yet I presume humbly to tender them to your Grace, in confidence that your Candour, and readiness to give a favourable acceptance to well designed, and not unuseful undertake, and to make charitable allowances for their imperfections, doth bear an equal proportion with other parts of your great worth, by reason of which you possess your great dignity with a general satisfaction to good men, and the Friends of Truth and Peace. And that you may long and happily continue here to the benefit of the Church, and may see the Church itself in Prosperity, and true Piety flourishing, all the days of your Life, is the desire and Prayer of him,  
Who Honoureth your Grace With humble and dutiful Reverence, William Falkner.   

TO THE READER.  
THE Government and Constitution of this Realm requiring a solemn acknowledgement to be made, by all who bear any office therein, concerning the Regal Power and Dignity; and the different parties using their several methods and pretences, to oppose the matters of these public Declarations; I have endeavoured in the following Discourse, to give a true and clear account of these things, in order to the removing those mistakes or doubts, which may either perplex any persons, or tempt them to neglect their duty. And I have oft thought, that those things which are publicly professed in this Church and Realm, by these particular acknowledgements, which are made by so many persons, are very useful to be discoursed of; both because these things themselves were selected as being of great concernment, by the grave and prudent consideration of public Authority, and the due compliance with them includeth the practising Obedience, and following the things which make for Peace; and also because the unjust oppositions made against these things, are either managed by ill designs, or at least have a tendency to promote ill effects in Church and State. And the truth which in this Discourse I undertake to maintain, doth also speak much the Integrity and Simplicity of the Christian Religion; that it is not a Worldly contrivance, or a way laid to entitle any Professors thereof to claim, or to enable them to usurp upon, or oppose the temporal Power and Authority; as hath been shamefully done in the Church of Rome, and not a little by other sorts of men: a considerable part of the Popish Usurpations being founded, in their unjust encroaching upon the Rights of Sovereignty.  
And they who have observed the State of the World, cannot be unsensible, what Horrid and Mischievous 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 myself to be more able to discourse of such a subject as this, every way suitably to, and worthy of itself. 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 Candour 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 likelihood, 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 rendering unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, 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 lieth a far greater necessity, of keeping and valuing the Communion of the Church, of devoutly attending Gods public 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 ways of Goodness, Uprightness, Truth and Peace.  
Lyn Regis June 21. 1678.   

THE CONTENTS.  

THE First BOOK.  

Chap. I. THE King's 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 public 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 superior 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 reflections upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate.  
Chap. IU. Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical, proved from reason, and the Doctrine of Christ.  
Sect. 1. The evidence hereof from the nature of Sovereign 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 Emperors 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, 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 allege. 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 Arms against the King.  

Chap. I. THE public Forms of Declaration, against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Arms, considered.  
Sect. 1. Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience, and its disclaiming the Pope's 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 Arms upon any pretence whatsoever against the King. Sect. 3. Of the traitorous Position of taking Arms by the King's 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 Arms against the Sovereign Power.  
Sect. 1. The preservation of Peace, and common Rights, will not allow Arms to be taken in a Kingdom, against the Sovereign. Sect. 2. The Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured, without allowing them to take Arms 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 Arms against their Sovereign. Sect. 4. The Plea that Self-defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature, considered: and of the end of Sovereign Power: with a representation of the pretence, that Sovereign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people, and the inference thence deduced, examined. Sect. 5. The Divine Original of Sovereign Power asserted.  
Chap. III. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms 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 Arms 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. IU. 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 reflection 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 nonresistance.  
Sect. 1. Resistance by force against the Sovereign Prince is not only sinful in particular private persons, but also in the whole body of the people, and in subordinate and inferior Magistrates, and Governors. 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 King's 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 public 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 Sovereign 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 riveted 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 control, and with the less likelihood 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 itself 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. They either beyond due bounds exalt it so high, as not to reserve that respect which belongeth to God, and Christian institutions, which is done by some few; or else depress it so low, as to divest it directly of its authority in causes Ecclesiastical, if not to erect and acknowledge some other power, Papal or popular, as rival, or paramount thereunto. And therefore it is a work worthy the care and industry, of one who loveth truth and goodness, to endeavour the healing such a Fountain of deadly evil, which hath diffused itself into so many several streams and Channels. And I hearty and humbly beseech the Almighty God, and Governor of all the Earth, that he will guide and assist my undertaking, and dispose the hearts of all men to a right understanding of truth, and a serious performance of their duty.  
4. Now for the preservation of the peace and Government of Kingdoms, these two things are especially necessary. 1. That there be an acknowledgement of the Rulers just authority in his Dominions, against all false pretenders, and those who would undermine it, or encroach upon it. 2. 
And are asserted in this Realm.  That there be due care for maintaining that fidelity in the subjects, which is suitable hereunto. And both these things are so far provided for, in the Constitutions of our Church and Kingdom, that the Royal Authority is therein fully acknowledged and asserted; and all Ecclesiastical persons (and together with them civil and military Officers, besides divers other subjects of this Realm) are required to yield to the King that authority and duty, which consisteth chief in these two things. 1. The asserting in the King the Supremacy of Government in all causes, against the claim of any Foreign pretenders, or any others, and their engaging to maintain all those Royalties, which belong to the Crown. 2. That such a faithful Allegiance be performed to him, as disclaimeth all right and power, whether by pretended Papal Excommunication or otherwise, to set free any of his subjects, from their duty of Loyalty and obedience, and particularly declareth it unlawful, upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against him. And of the matter of our public acknowledgements, which relate to these two heads, I shall discourse concerning the former head in this Book, and the latter in the second Book.  
5. The Supremacy of Government in the King of England, over this Realm, 
In our Statute Laws.  and all other his Dominions, which is his just and undoubted right, is plainly declared in our most solemn public Constitutions, both Civil and Ecclesiastical. It was asserted in our Laws, in the time of King Richard the Second, 
16 Ric. 2.5.  that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God, in all things touching the Regalty of the same Crown, and to none other. And in the time of King Henry the Eighth, 
24 Hen. 8.12.  it was declared in Parliament, that this Realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accounted in the world, governed by one supreme Head and King, having the dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same; unto whom a body politic— of spiritualty and temporalty, be bounden and ought to bear next to God, a natural and humble obedience. And it is usual for the Lords and Commons jointly, even in the framing Acts of Parliament, to mention the King under the stile of Our Sovereign Lord the King, which is obvious in our Statutes. By out Laws also since the Reformation, the usurpations which had encroached upon his Supremacy are discarded, the ancient right of Jurisdiction restored to the Crown, 
1 Eliz. 1.  and the Oath of Supremacy established, wherein this Royal Authority is solemnly owned, acknowledged, and declared, and which is taken by all the Clergy of England, and many others.  
6. 
The Oath of Supremacy.  The Oath of Supremacy containeth in it three things.  
1. The asserting the King's Highness to be the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and all other his Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal. 2. A disowning and renouncing all foreign Jurisdiction and authority, within this Realm. 3. An engaging true allegiance to the King and his Successors, and a defence of the Jurisdictions and pre-eminencies of the Crown. The lawfulness, fitness, and reasonableness of which things, as they are expressed in that Oath, I am the more inclined carefully to consider, 
Weights and Measures, Ch. 20.  because a very learned man too readily and unadvisedly, expressed his dissatisfaction, concerning some clauses thereof. But as the two first things contained therein, will be the chief matter of my discourse; so under the first nothing else need be much enquired after, save the supremacy of the King in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes.  
7. For, that the King's Majesty is in general the chief Governor of this Realm, is as evident, as that this is the Kingdom of England; and it is as needless a thing to say any thing in proof thereof, as to go about to prove the Sun to be risen at Noonday. For there is an actual, constant, visible exercise of this Government, in such an ample manner, as to extend itself to all persons whomsoever in the Realm; and this authority is very plainly acknowledged and confirmed, throughout the whole body of our English laws, and the Constitution of the Kingdom. And the Title of our present Sovereign is manifestly undoubted, by clear succession and descent, not only from the Kings since the Conquest, but from those before it. For Margaret the Heiress of the Saxon Kings, was about the time of the Conquest, married to Malcom King of Scotland, from whence our Sovereign is descended: and thereby, 
M. Paris an. 1067.  as M. Paris expressed it, Regum Angliae nobilitas ad reges devoluta est Scotorum.  
8. 
And Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  This Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, is frequently asserted in the Constitutions of our Church. It is owned and declared in the Book of Articles. 
Art. 37.  And the Canons of our Church not only acknowledge this Supremacy, 
Can. 1.  but also enjoin Ministers frequently to teach the same. 
Can. 36.  And they moreover require subscription thereunto, according to the purport of the Oath of Supremacy, from all persons who come to be ordained, or to be admitted to any living or employment in the Church; 
Can. 2.  and denounce Excommunication ipso facto, against all impugners thereof in causes Ecclesiastical.   

SECT. II.  
The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into, with particular respect to causes Ecclesiastical.  
Sect. 2 1. To prevent the inconveniency which ariseth from misunderstanding, it is needful to consider, what is meant by the phrase of supreme Governor, 
Of Supreme Government.  which will easily be discerned, if we first consider, what is understood by Governing. Now as Governing e●cludes a power of superiority over the persons governed, and an obligation upon them unto obedience; so the chief and special works of secular Government are frequently expressed in the Holy Scripture; by judging, and doing judgement and justice, 1 Kin. 10.9. Jer. 22.15. (hence the ancient rulers of Israel, were called their Judges) by being as a Shepherd unto the people, Num. 27.17. and also by giving praise to them that do well, and executing wrath on them who do evil, Rom. 13.3, 4. 1 Pet. 2.14. 
Phil. de praem. & poens. p. 918. & de Vit. Mos. l. 2.  And Philo accounteth the authority of Government, to be a power of commanding and prohibiting. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which encludeth an authoritative power over the persons of others, and being the life of, and giving execution to the law. The sense of which, and especially of the Scripture expressions is, That the Governing power includeth an authority, to take care of the Community, and of what is just and right, and to command and encourage well-doing: and when occasion requires, to take an account of the actions and causes of inferiors, acquitting or punishing them, according to their merit, and opposing all injurious and evil doers. And he who hath a right to do all this, towards all other persons in his Dominions, without being governed by, subject to, or accountable before, any other superior authority upon earth, is a Supreme Governor.  
2. But it is neither necessary, nor most suitable to supremacy of Government, that the rules by which the Governor proceedeth, should be altogether at his own will and pleasure. But it is sufficient that these rules be such, as he either judgeth to be good, and therefore chooseth of himself; or else freely accepteth and consenteth to them, if they be form to his hands, or proposed by others. For it is no abatement of the high Sovereignty of the Glorious God over the world, that all his government and executing judgement, is ordered according to the natural and eternal rules and measures of goodness and justice, and not by any such arbitrary will, which excludeth all respect thereto. And man hath not a less but a greater government over himself, when he guideth himself by the rules of reason; nor is it therefore any diminution of the power of a Governor, when the exercise thereof is, and aught to be managed by rules of common equity. Yea, the Kings of Judah enjoyed a complete Supremacy, though they were to govern according to the law of Moses; and so much more may Christian Kings do, while they maintain a Religious respect to the positive laws of Christianity. And there are some Kingdoms, where without any disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince, they are governed by the fixed rules of the civil law; and others where other laws, established by their Predecessors, are standing rules. And if in the last place we consider, that when great Emperors yielded to their conquered and tributary Principalities, at their Petition and desire, the privilege of being governed by their own former laws (as was done to Judaea, by their Persian, 
Josep. Ant. l. 11. c. 4. etc. 8. lib. 12. c. 2. etc. 3. lib. 14. c. 17.  Grecian, Egyptian, Syrian, and Roman Governors, under whose Dominion they were) this was no giving the Supremacy of Government out of their own hands; much less can it be a Plea against the Supremacy of Government, in a free natural Prince; where the consent of his Subjects in Parliament, is always taken in, for the forming and enacting any new law, which he establisheth at their request and Petition.  
3. And as such a model of framing laws, is very well consistent with the Supremacy of the Prince; so it is a great privilege to the subjects of such a Realm, which they cannot but be sensible of, and which will make their subjection more cheerful and free. And it further encludeth this advantage to the Government itself, that there is like to be greater care of obedience to those laws, where the people are not only obliged thereto from the duty of submission, and the fear of penalties, but have also given their own consent and agreement, to their being and constitution. 
St. de Marlbridge, St. de Bigamis St. quo Warranto, & passim.  To this purpose the things established by our laws, are called things agreed and assented to, and concordata; and very often they are declared to be enacted by the King's Majesty, with the advice and assent of the Lords and Commons; but always it is acknowledged, that neither, nor both Houses of Parliament, have any legislative power without the King; and whosoever shall assert the contrary, is by a late statute declared to be under a Praemunire. 
13 Car. 2.1.   
4. And it is plainly evident, 
Supremacy is a right of governing, not of performing all particular offices.  that the supreme government in all things or causes, is quite of a different nature, from the right of performing the actions or offices of all persons, who are under this government (which, for the most part, are inconsistent with the dignity of Supremacy) though some have been willing to confound these things, and thereby hinder themselves and others, from a right understanding of them. 
De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7.  And Cardinal Bellarmine himself, spent his strength and courage in fight in the dark, when he somewhat largely insists on this argument, That secular Princes have not a supreme Government with respect to the Church, because they cannot perform the offices of other Governors of the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; and argues, they may not baptise and consecrate, non sunt igitur Reges supremi Ecclesiae Magistratus. But no man need be to seek for the true sense of supremacy, as it is acknowledged in this Church and Realm, who doth consider duly those very words, both in the Oath of Supremacy, and the Canonical subscription, That the King is supreme Governor, as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal. Wherefore  
5. Obs. 1. In temporal things or causes, there are some rights of power and authority, 
Some authority besides the supreme, by peculiar divine institution, both in spiritual and temporal things.  which are wholly derived from the King; as the Commanding an Army or Navy, and the governing any place or County in his Dominion: but there are others which depend upon divine institution, which institution must be reverenced, and the rules thereof attended unto by all sorts of men; such is the authority and right of the Husband over his Wife, in the state of marriage appointed of God. And in Ecclesiastical matters, there are some things in our ancient laws, reserved as peculiar to the Ecclesiastical power, not without good reason, and yet much by the favour of the sovereign authority; as the power of proving wills and testaments, 
21 Hen. 8.5.22 & 23 Car. 2.  and granting administrations, concerning which our late Statutes have made some additional provisions; but there are other matters of Ecclesiastical authority, which entirely flow from the institutions of Christ, as the right of consecrating, ordaining, and the whole power of the Keys doth. Now the asserting the supremacy of Government, is never designed in any wise to violate, either these divine or Christian institutions, or to assert it lawful for any Prince to invade that authority and right, which is made peculiar thereby, whether in matters temporal or spiritual. 
Grot. de Imp. S. m. cap. 2. n. 1. Abbot. de suprem. pot. Reg. prael. 2. n. 2. Mas. de Min. Angl. l. 3. c. 5. n. 2. & l. 4. c. 1. Ecclesiastical and civil rights asserted.  Wherefore there was just cause for understanding men, to tax the vanity and inconsiderateness of those men, who will understand nothing else by the King's Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, but this, that he may assume to himself the performance of all proper Ecclesiastical actions.  
6. Obs. 2. Since the asserting the King's Supremacy in things temporal, doth not exclude the subject from a real propriety in his own estate, nor declare it lawful for a Prince, when he pleaseth, to alienate his subjects possessions and inheritance; the owning his supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical, must not be so far strained, as to acknowledge that the revenue of the Church may be alienated at the pleasure of the Civil power. For besides, that in our English laws, this hath the same legal security that all other properties have, 
Magn. Char. c. 1.  and with a priority and precedence thereto; it is but reasonable, that that possession which beareth a respect to God, should be as inviolable as the rights of any men. And that revenue which is set apart for the support of the service of God, and of those administrations which tend to men's eternal felicity, ought not to be less secured, than what concerneth their temporal welfare.  
7. Obs. 3. 
Things good and evil cannot be altered, but must be established by authority.  The Sovereign power is so supreme in things temporal, as that whatsoever is good or evil by the law of nature, or the command of God, cannot be altered thereby (viz. so as to make theft and murder good, or justice, chastity and speaking truth evil). And in things Ecclesiastical, all matters of faith, worship and order, which Christ hath determined in his Church, must remain equally unmoveable and unalterable, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical. And in temporal affairs, what authority the God of nature hath planted in any other persons, still remaineth entire notwithstanding the Royal Government over them; thus for instance, the power, right, and authority of Parents, is still acknowledged such, as that it is neither derived from the regal authority, nor can be forbidden by it. And this power, which both the laws of nature and of Christianity establish, hath been universally owned throughout the world; and it is observed by Philo, 
Phil. de Leg. ad Caium.  that when Tiberius, the Son of Drusus, a minor, was left Copartner with Caligula, in the right of the Empire, by the will of Tiberius the deceased Emperor; Caligula by this subtle and wicked method, brought him to be so under his immediate government, as to have opportunity to destroy him, Sect. 3 by taking him to be his adopted Son. And as the paternal power must be preserved, so likewise whatsoever officers, or order of men, Christ hath committed his authority unto in his Church, this authority doth fully still remain and reside in them; and as it is not derived from any temporal power, neither may it be taken away or abolished thereby. But the supreme civil government, hath in all these things a right and authority, 
V Thorndike, Right of the Church. Ch. 4. p. 168.  of enjoining to every one the performance of their duty, and also of determining many particularities, which have relation to these general heads, and to punish irregular exorbitances and miscarriages.   

SECT. III.  
The declaration of this sense by public authority, observed.  
1. Though these things might of themselves seem clear enough, we have yet further two authentic expositions of this supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, confirmed by the greatest authority of this Church, and Realm. The former with a particular respect to the Oath of Supremacy, was at first published in the Queen's Injunctions. There the Queen disclaiming all authority, of ministering divine offices in the Church, 
In the Admonition to simple peopled deceived by malicious.  as that which cannot by any equity of words or good sense, be intended by the Oath; doth declare, that no other duty or allegiance, is meant or intended by the Oath, nor any other authority challenged therein, than what was challenged by K. Hen. 8. and K. Edw. 6. and which is, and was due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm (the more particular explication of which, followeth in these words) that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and rule, over all manner of persons, born within these her Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what estate, either Ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall have, or aught to have any superiority over them. And then it follows, and if any person shall accept the same Oath, with this interpretation, sense and meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such person in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects.  
2. But this explication received a more solemn and ample public Sanction, by a statute law, not long after the publication of these Injunctions. 
5 Eliz. 1.  Therein it was enacted, that the Oath of Supremacy, should be taken and expounded, in such form, as is set forth in an admonition, annexed to the Queen's Injunctions, in the first year of her Reign; that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, none other authority, than that was challenged and lately used, by the noble King Henry the Eighth, and King Edward the Sixth, as in the same admonition it plainly may appear.  
3. The other publicly acknowledged exposition, of the sense of this Supremacy, is in the Articles of the Church of England, agreed on in the Convocation, and confirmed or established by a legal Sanction. 
13 Eliz. 12. Artic. 37.  Therein are these words, Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty, the chief Government, by which title, we understand the minds of some slanderous folk to be offended, we give not our Princes the ministering of God's word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always, to all godly Princes in holy Scripture, by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees, committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.  
4. And when Bishop Usher in his Speech at the sentencing some Recusants, in the Castle Chamber at Du●lin explained the King's Supremacy, according to this article of our Church; 
At the end of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge.  King James so approved his explication thereof, that he returned him particular thanks for the same, which is printed with his speech. And the Bishop therein plainly asserted, that God had established two distinct powers on earth; the one of the Keys, committed to the Church; and the other of the Sword, which is committed to the civil Magistrate and by which the King governeth. And therewith he declareth, that as the spiritual Rulers, have not only respect to the first table, but to the second; so the Magistrates power, hath not only respect to the second table, but also to the first.  
5. From all this we have this plain sense, That the King is supreme Governor (that is under God, say the Injunctions, and with the civil sword say the Articles) as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; that is, he hath the Sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born in these Dominions, of what estate soever, either Ecclesiastical or temporal, say the Injunctions, and to the same purpose the Articles. Only here we must observe, that the King's being supreme Governor in all things and causes, is one and the same thing, with his having the chief Government over the persons of all his subjects with respect to their places, actions, and employments; and therefore is well explained thereby. For it must necessarily be the same thing, to have the command or oversight of any Officer, subject, or servant, about his business; and to have a command or oversight concerning the business in which he is to be employed: and the same is to be said concerning the power of examining their cases, or punishing neglects and offences.  
6. And from hence we may take an account, 
Of supreme head of the Church of England. Def. of Apol. Part 6. Ch. 11. div. 1.  of the true sense of that title, used by King Henr. 8. and King Edw. 6. of supreme head of the Church of England. This stile was much misunderstood by divers Foreigners, seemed not pleasing to Bishop , and some others of our own Church, was well and wisely changed by our Governors, and hath been out of date for above sixscore years past. And though this title was first given to King Hen. 8. 
Tit. Of this civil Magistrate.  by a Convocation and Parliament of the Roman Communion, it was used all King Edward's days, and then owned even in the book of Articles. And the true intended sense, from the expressions above mentioned, appeareth manifestly to be this, to acknowledge the King to be head or chief Governor, even in Ecclesiastical things, of that number of Christians, or that part of the Catholic Church, who reside in these Realms, and are subjects to his Crown, even as Saul by being anointed King, 
Wh. Treat. 8. ch. 1. div. 4. Bishop Saund. Episcop. not prejud. to reg. p. 130, 131. Mas. de Min. Anglic. l. 3. c. 4.  was made head of the tribes of Israel, 1 Sam. 15.17. And according to this sense, the use of this title, was allowed and justified by very worthy men, such as Bishop Whitgift, Bishop Saunderson, Mr Mason, and others. And to this end and purpose, it is the just right of the King of England, to own himself the supreme Governor of the Church of England, which was a stile sometime used, by our pious and gracious King Charles the First, 
Declar. before 39 Articles.  in his public Declaration about Ecclesiastical things, but with due respect to the Ecclesiastical Officers.  
7. In the ancient Church, it was not unusual for him, who had the chief preeminence over a Province, or a considerable part of the Christian Church, to be owned as their head: 
Can. Apost. 34.  whence in the ancient Collection or Code called the Canons of the Apostles, the chief Bishop in every Nation, was required to be esteemed by the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as their head. And that Bishops may be called heads of their Churches, is asserted by Gregorius de Valentia, from that expression of Scripture lately mentioned concerning Saul; 
Tom. 4. Disp. 1. qu. 8. punct. 4.  which yet must more directly and immediately prove, that title to be applicable to a Sovereign Prince. And as the name of head, is only taken for a chief and governing member, the Author of the Annotations upon the Epistles, under S. Hierom's name, was not afraid of this expression, 
In 1 Cor. 12.  Sacerdos caput Ecclesiae, the Priest is the head of the Church.  
8. And though that Statute, whereby the title of supreme head of the Church of England, was yielded to King Hen. 8. 
26 Hen. 8.1.  doth assert the King's power to correct and amend, by spiritual authority and Jurisdiction; yet that this was intended only objectively, concerning his government in spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes, or his seeing these things be done by Ecclesiastical Officers; and was only so claimed and used, we have further plain evidence, both concerning the time of King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. Under the Reign of King Hen. 8. by his particular command, for the acquainting his subjects with such truths, as they ought to profess, was published a Book, called, The Institution of a Christian man, which was subscribed by twenty one Bishops, and divers others of the Clergy, and the Professors of Civil and Canon law; and in the dedication thereof to the King, 
Of the Sacr. of Orders. f. 39  by them all, is given to him this title of Supreme head in Earth, immediately under Christ, of the Church of England. In this Book, besides very many other things to the same purpose, it is asserted, That Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the new testament, that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes (which is called potestas gladii, the power of the sword) there should also be continually in the Church militant, certain other Ministers or Officers, which should have special power, authority, and commission under Christ, to preach and teach the word of God,— to dispense and administer the Sacraments,— to lose and absolve,— to bind and to excommunicate,— to order and consecrate others in the same room, order and office. 
f. 40.  And again, This said power and administration, in some places is called claves, sive potestas clavium, that is to say, the Keys, or the power of the Keys, whereby is signified a certain limited office, restrained unto the execution of a special function or ministration. 
f. 41.  And yet further we have therein this very clear passage, That this office, this power and authority, was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles, unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops, whom they did elect, call and admit thereto, by their prayer and imposition of their hands.  
9 And concerning the office and power of Kings, the Doctrine and positions then received were such as these, which are in that Book expressed. 
f. 49.  That God constituted and ordained, the authority of Christian 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.  Unto them of right and by God's 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 King's power, within his Realms and Dominions, is the highest power under God, to whom all men within the same Realms and Dominions, by God's law own 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 Edward's 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 King's Supremacy, Sect. 4 as it was declared in the Admonition, annexed to the Queen's 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 Patriarches, he who was the chief Governor 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 completely form, sustained the office both of a Prince and a Priest; whence Philo in his description of a complete Governor, maketh the Priesthood to reside in him, as than 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, Phoebíque sacerdos. The Pagan Emperors 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, etc. 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 Emperor's, 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 public inscriptions, which are urged to this purpose by Baronius and Selden. But as these inscriptions were probably ordered by others, and not by these Christian Emperors themselves; so we have this evidence, that none of these Emperors affected, or ordinarily used this title, if they did at all own it, not only in that Gratian openly declared against it, but also, 1. In that none of them used it in any of their public edicts, as was done usually by the Pagan Emperors. 2. Nor so far as can be collected from the various medals stamped in their times, did they make use thereof as the Pagan Emperors had done, in any of their Coins, which Mr Selden acknowledgeth. 
Seld. ibid.  3. It is mentioned by Sozomen, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 1.  as one of the notes of julian's forsaking Christianity, that he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Pontifex.  
4. But when God eminently revealing his will by Moses, had form a more public, 
Ecclesiastical and civil power, separated in the old Testament.  ample, and visible establishment of a Church in the World, under the Jewish dispensation, than was before it, he then divided the Kingly authority and the Priesthood, into distinct hands. And nothing is more manifest, than that under Judaisme, the Priesthood was fixed in the Family of Aaron, Ex. 28.1. ch. 40.15. And when Corah, who was of the chief Family of the Levites, which had the charge of the most holy things, (Num. 16.1. compared with Num. 4.4. etc.) and his Company, undertook presumptuously to invade this office, they were punished with severe, dreadful, and miraculous judgements, in that the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up the Company of Corah, Num. 16.32, 33. and the fire that came out from the Lord, consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense, 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 3. Phil. de vit. Mos. l. 3. p. 693.  v. 35. and as the ancient Jewish Writers tell us, there was not any member of these men remaining, which could receive a Burial; and from hence the Jews received a strict admonition, that no man whosoever, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near, to offer incense before the Lord, v. 40. And this peculiar privilege of the Family of Aaron, was further confirmed, by the miracle of Aaron's rod blossoming, Num. 17. 1.-10.  
5. And that the King and chief ruler among the Jews, being not of the line of Aaron, might not intermeddle with the execution of this Priestly Office, is manifest, besides the general rules of the law, from other special instances. For when Saul undertook to offer Sacrifice, 
1 Sam. 13.9, 13, 14.  he was sharply rebuked by Samuel, and thereupon God denounced this heavy judgement against him, that his Kingdom must not continue. And when Vzziah attempted to offer incense, he was smitten with leprosy for this transgression, 
Ant. Jud. l. 9 c. 11.  2 Chr. 26.16, 22. to which Josephus addeth other testimonies of the divine displeasure against him, and telleth us that this judgement upon Vzziah, was inflicted on one of their solemn Feast days; which, if it was so, might render it the more remarkable.  
And the reason why God fixed the Priesthood in the Family of Aaron, and not in Moses, and the successive Governors; was not chief, 
Ant. l. 3. c. 10.  as Josephus representeth Moses to speak, from the worth and desert of Aaron: But it tended much to excite the greater reverence and awe, towards the majesty of God, and an higher veneration for the offices of Religion, that no person, no not the highest among men, might perform these sacred offices, of approaching to God by offering Sacrifices and Oblations, save only those persons, whom God had particularly set apart for that purpose. And withal the Priest blessing in the name of the Lord, and especially Aaron's putting the sins of the people upon the head of the live-Goat, Leu. 16.21, 22. which included the applying Gods pardon to them, and other Priestly performances, which were not mere actions of natural Religion, but depended upon God's institution, could not be performed, but by an especial and peculiar authority derived from God to that intent, or in the language of the Apostle, Heb. 5.3. No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.  
7. And in the state of Christianity, 
And under the Gospel.  as Christ hath established the Officers of his Church, so there seemeth rather more reason, for the peculiar distinct institution of these Officers, under the Christian Church, than under the Jewsih. For while the Jewish Priests chief acted for men towards God, in Sacrifices and Oblations, the Christian Officers do in more things than they did, act from God and in his name towards men; which in the nature of the thing, doth more especially require an authority, peculiarly received from God. For who can deprive any person, of the communion of that Society which Christ hath founded, or receive and restore them unto it, but by the authority which he hath appointed? Or how can any persons consecrate Symbols, and dispense them, as sealing the Covenant of grace, and exhibiting from Christ, the blessings and benefits thereof to the due receivers; unless they be those, who have received Commission from him to this purpose? Or who can pronounce absolution in Christ's name (which is also implicitly included, in the administration of the Sacraments, and other ministerial Offices) unless he hath given them such particular authority? And the same may be said of solemn Ecclesiastical benedictions, with imposition of hands, and particularly of the ordination of such Officers in the Christian Church, who are to be invested with this authority.  
8. And that this Ecclesiastical authority under the Gospel should be committed to peculiar Officers, and not fixed in them who have the civil power, is that which the wisdom of our Saviour hath appointed, who did not call secular rulers to be his Apostles. This was partly requisite, because there are different qualifications, to fit persons for secular government, and for presiding in the Church; and because the Christian Church being called to take up the Cross, should not be destitute of its guides in a time of persecution, when it may need them most. But this also maketh the communion of the Church itself, as it is a peculiar Christian Society, and its dependence on the grace of God, and its relation to him, to be the more visible and remarkable, by the distinct Officers and authority, constituted to dispense the mysteries of his grace. And it tendeth also to conciliate an higher honour and veneration, for the particular institutions of God and our Saviour, in the new Covenant, in that the administration of them, is the proper designed work, of such peculiar officers of his appointment. And therefore if any would make the Ecclesiastical offices, to be an authority appendent or annexed unto the civil, he undertakes to unite those things which are in Synesius his phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Synes. Ep. 57  such as cannot be knit or woven into one another.  
9 But it is to be observed, 
Ecclesiastical Officers not excluded from all civil Government.  that though these offices be so distinct, that none ought to perform the Ecclesiastical ministrations, but they who are ordained thereto, and that no Ecclesiastical person hath any civil power, by mere virtue of his Ecclesiastical office; and though the intermeddling with such matters of civil affairs, as in the nature of them are unsuitable to the Clergy, are reasonably prohibited by the ancient Canons: yet it would be against all reason to imagine, that all civil Government because civil and political, is inconsistent with the state of an Ecclesiastical person, since he is a part also of the civil Society, or the body politic. In the Jewish state, 
Syn. Ep. 121.  in some extraordinary cases, that was very true which Synesius observed, that the chief secular power was in the Priest; so it was under the government of Eli, in the days of the Maccabees, and the succeeding times, when Aristobulus is observed by S Hierome, 
Hier. in Dan. 9  to be the first who there joined the royal authority and Diadem, with the Priesthood. But even under the reign of David, the Levites; and in the time of Jehosophat, 
Deut. 17. v. 8. 12.  the Priests and Levites are plainly according to the law declared to have been appointed, for Judges and Officers of the Realm, 1 Chr. 26. 29-32. 2 Chr. 19.8. and many other expressions of the Old Testament, are interpreted by Mr Thorndike to import the same, 
Of Religious Assembl. c. 2.  concerning other times of the Jewish Government. And in the time of Christianity, I suppose no man will doubt, but that according to the Command of the Apostle, those who are Officers in the Church, aught to take care of the Government of their own Families, which is a civil affair and authority. And whilst the Church was under Pagan Princes, 
V Const. Apostol. l. 2. c. 46. Ch. 5. Sect. 6.  it was usual for the Officers thereof to sit in judgement, to decide all matters of controversy among Christians: which was according to the direction of our Saviour, Mat. 18.17. and of this Apostle, 1 Cor. 6. as I shall in another place take notice. And the making peace and deciding differences, was thought a work so well becoming such persons, and was so usually practised by them, about S. Augustine's time, 
Aug. de Oper. Monach. c. 29. Posid. de Vit. Aug. c. 19  that he mentions these things as those, the hearing and determining of which, took up a considerable portion of his time. And nothing is more manifest, than that divers Imperial Edicts of pious Princes, did peculiarly reserve the cognisance of most causes relating to the Clergy, besides others, 
Sozom. l. 1. c. 9 Cod. l. 1. Tit. 4. leg. 7, 8. Novel. 83, & 86, & 123.  to the hearing and decision of the Bishop. And as Ecclesastical Officers are members of the Community, and subjects to their Prince, it is very allowable, that they should so far as they can, be every way useful unto both, and thereby also to the Churches good.  
10. But this distinct constitution of the Church and its Offices, 
A distinct Ecclesiastical power, no prejudice to the civil.  is no diminution of the civil authority and its supremacy, but rather an enlargement thereof, and an advancement of its dignity. For the whole state of the Christian Church, is founded in the superabundant grace, and favour of God towards man; and the Ecclesiastical authority of its Officers, being the ministry of reconciliation, is quite of a different nature from secular power, being wholly superadded over and above it, and without any infringement thereof. 
Right of the Church, ch. 4. p. 168. Review ch. 1. p. 13. Didocl. Alt. Dam. cap. 1. p. 15.  And hereupon the whole power of the Church, is by some Writers termed a cumulative, and not a privative power, as taking nothing from the civil; and the same terms are used, concerning the right of the secular power, in matters Ecclesiastical, as being without any abatement of the proper spiritual power. Yea, the whole civil authority towards all subjects whatsoever, doth not only still remain entire to the secular Ruler, but he also receiveth this accession thereunto, from the constitution of Christianity, that the object of his government is so far enlarged thereby, that he hath a right of inspection and care, even of those matters, which the grace of God, or the Gospel dispensation hath established. And this doth also so much the more exalt his honour and dignity, in that not only all subjects, in their general capacity as such, Sect. 5 are obliged to submit themselves to their Kings and Princes; but that even those Officers of the Church, which in their Realms are established, by the peculiar appointment of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, are also included under this duty, and are not the less subjects, notwithstanding their relation to the Church. To which I may add, that there are peculiar arguments, for honour and reverence unto Rulers, which the doctrine of the Christian Church affordeth.   

SECT. V  
A particular account of this Supremacy, in some chief matters Ecclesiastical, with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto.  
To give a more particular account of Supremacy, in some chief matters Ecclesiastical, we may observe, 1. 
The Prince's care about the power of the Keys.  That though the power of the Keys, in admitting any person into, rejecting him from, or guideing him in the Communion of the Church, as a Society founded by Christ; and the dispensing Christian mysteries, can be exercised by none, but the particular Officers of Christ's Church, to whom it is committed; yet the Prince may command them to mind and do their duty therein, and if need so require, punish their neglect. Indeed it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical power to determine rules, for the due exercise of the power of the Keys; and the ordering such rules is part of that power, which hath been frequently exercised in very many Canons of several Councils. But the sovereign power hath a right to take care, that these rules of Government be practised and observed. 
Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 3. Nou. 6. & 123.  And the establishing laws of this nature, was very frequent, both in the Empire, and in other Christian Kingdoms: and those of Justinian have been especially taken notice of to this purpose. And though the late Canonists do broadly censure him, as intermeddling too far in Church affairs; yet Baronius himself is here so modest, 
Annal. Eccles. An. 528. n. 1.  as to allow low that there is much in this particular to be said in his excuse; and the late learned Archbishop of Paris, 
P. de Marc●, de Concord. Sacerd. & Imp. l. 2. cap. 10.  hath sufficiently showed, that the more ancient Bishops, Patriarches and Councils, did applaud and honour these his Constitutions in things Ecclesiastical.  
2. 
And the worship of God.  2. Touching the worship of God, since the divine establishment of the public Christian service, is contained in the Gospel, no authority upon earth hath any right to prohibit this. And those Christians, who rightly worship God, in the true Catholic Communion, according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church, have a right to hold such assemblies for the Christian worship, as appear useful for the Churches good, though this should be against the interdict of the civil power. As this is well and largely asserted by Mr Thorndike, 
Right of the Church, Ch. 1. p. 4. etc.  so was it practised by the Christians under their Persecutions, and even by the Catholic Bishops under the Arian Emperors. But the Sovereign Ruler hath a right to promote this public worship, and to establish it by a civil Sanction, to protect the Church therein, and to punish those who neglect it, and in this sense Princes are, as Amalarius styled Ludvicus Pius, 
Amal. Pras. lib. de Eccles. Offic.  Rectores totius Religionis Christianae, quantum ad homines pertinet; Governors in what relates to the Religion and worship of Christianity. And the civil Ruler hath also a right to oppose those, who are guilty of schisms and occasion unchristian divisions, in the public worship of God, and in so doing S. Austin undertakes to warrant him, as well he may, from the doctrine of the Apostle. That he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, 
Aug. Ep. 164.  and they that resist receive to themselves damnation, that he is a terror to evil works, and a revenger to execute wrath on him who doth evil: tota igitur quaestio est (saith he) utrum nihil mali sit sohisma; the only thing to be enquired into in this case is, whether there be no evil in the sin of Schism. And though the method and rule of the public worship itself, is to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Officers, to whose immediate care the Church is committed; yet the secular power hath a right to see that this be done, to establish such orders of worship by their Sanctions, to provide for their due observance, 
Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 10.  and that they may be performed without disturbance. And such things as these were established by the Imperial law.  
3. 
And the doctrine of Christianity.  3. Concerning the Christian doctrine and profession, though no authority hath any right to oppose any part of the Christian truth; Princes may and aught to take care of the true profession thereof in their Dominions, and to suppress such dangerous errors as are manifestly contrary thereunto; 
Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. & G. Novel. 132.  as was done by the pious Emperors in the ancient Church, against Arianism, Donatism, Manicheisme, and other Heresies. But in cases of difficulty, for the deciding or ending of controversies, about matters of faith, the disquisition and Resolution of the spiritual guides ought to take place and to be embraced; because they are by their office Pastors and Teachers, and their joint and regular determinations of great moment for the Church's peace; and also because the Church as a Christian Society (and therefore the guides and Officers thereof, in the first place) is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 16. Cod. ubi sup. Novel 131.  Upon this account were many ancient Councils convened, and even the first general Council of Nice. And accordingly hath the doctrine established in the four first general Councils, been constantly received in the Christian Church: hence also both the Imperial law, and the Canonical decrees, 
Dist. 15. c. sicut, etc. Sancta.  reverence the doctrine of these Councils, tanquam sacras scripturas, and a very high respect is given to them in our English laws. And the Arian Emperors who lived after the Council of Nice. could not by their Imperial power, null its decision of doctrine, after its plenary establishment and confirmation. 
V Ch. 5. Sect. 1, 2, 3.  But in such cases the Catholic Christian Emperors, did by their authority establish the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. And as it is no abatement of the Royal Supremacy in civil matters, that when controversies are determined by able Judges, and sometimes by a consultation of many of those Sages, their determinations should be established by the royal power; no more is the like proceeding in matters of Religion, any diminution of the royal power, when the regular determinations of Catholic Councils are owned thereby: but this method of proceeding doth in both the cases mentioned, evidence that the royal power is exercised with due Christian care, for the best attaining the designed end. But in matters of truth which are plain and manifest, from the holy Scriptures themselves, and the primitive Christian Doctrine, or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith; the secular Governor so far as is necessary, may proceed upon the evidence thereof to his own understanding.  
4. 
Supremacy concerning order, decency, and peace in the Church.  4. In establishing rules and Constitutions for order, decency, and peace, it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers, who are Guides and Overseers of the Church, to consult, advise, and take care thereof, and this was a great part of the business of many ancient Councils, and the Canons thereof. But yet this is with such dependence upon the regal power, as I cannot better express, than in the words of our late Sovereign King Charles the First If saith he, any difference (in the Church of England) arise about the external policy, 
Decl. before 39 Articl.  concerning Injunctions, Canons, or other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad Seal so to do, and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land. But in such an extraordinary case, as that in the primitive times was, when the civil power will not own the Church, the Ecclesiastical Governors by their own authority, may establish necessary rules of order, as was then done. But since the external Sanction of such things, doth flow from the general nature of power and authority; wheresoever the temporal power will take that care of the Church which it ought, it hath a right to give its establishment to such Constitutions; and the Ecclesiastical Officers as subjects, are bound to apply themselves thereto, for the obtaining it. And as the Canons of Councils were usually confirmed by pious Princes, so the Constitutions of the Imperial law, did require the Canons to be observed as laws. 
Nou. 6. & 131. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 2. l. 6, 12. And the Calling of Councils.   
5. 5. The calling of Councils, so far as is needful for the preservation of the peace and order of the Church, may be performed as the former, by Ecclesiastical Officers, where the civil disowneth the Church. But this being no particular exercise of the power of the Keys, but only of a general authority, doth peculiarly belong to the Prince or supreme governor, 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, etc. The King's just authority in matters Ecclesiastical opposed.  is sufficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca.  
6. But against these just rights of the Prince's 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 incline 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 Governor; 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. Sesse. 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. 6●. 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 show that all members of the Christian Church, are nevertheless subjects or the Realm, and that the nature of civil Sovereignty, 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 Governors have interposed in many cases Ecclesiastical. And the great advantages, from Christian Religion being established, and Gentilism opposed, by the Laws and Constitutions of Constantine, and other worthy Christian Emperors, 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 Sovereign Princes, in things Ecclesiastical, must be owned only as a privilege, 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 authority 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 God's laws with his privileges, and indulging any person to disobey them. 3. That Christian Princes would be in a very unsafe condition, whilst 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 Pope's 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 Church's wilfare, to be equal to that for his own life. 4. That whilst any persons do think it meet, that Princes should act under the Pope, as his deputy, in the affairs of Religion, to whom they own 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 acknowledgement 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 enforcing this argument, show, 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 Sovereign powers, and not by any peculiar privilege; and 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. Dau. 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 Absalon, 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 Solomon, 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 King's 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 God's altar, that he might die, not allowing as Philo noteth, 
Phil. de l●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 salomon's 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 Solomon to Benajah to slay him there, seemeth warranted by the law , 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 Sovereignty 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 sovereignty, is in the Scripture styled 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 Governor, 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 Solomon. 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 Solomon, 2 Chr. 8.15. of Hezekiah, 2 Chr. 29.21, 24, 27. and of Josiah, 2 Chr. 35.10, 16. The courses of the Priest's attendance on their service, was ordered by David, 1 Chr. 24.3. by Solomon, 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, since the High Priests themselves, were manifestly under the Royal authority. For this being God's 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 King's Sovereignty 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 King's 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 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 Solomon, 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, etc.  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 settled Governor, 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 public 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 God's 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 another's care, and taxed for another's negligence, which is not God's 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 show 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 Sovereignty, which they then enjoyed.  
2. With respect to the former head, first Bellarmine will have David, 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7.  Solomon 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 expressly 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 public 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 God's 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 David's 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, 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 King's 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 Unction. Ibid. c. 6. n. 6.  And all this they found upon the virtue of the holy Unction, 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 privilege 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 t'him any Ecclesiastical, or sacerdotal superiority, over the High Priest himself, since every successive High Priest was to be anointed with this holy oil, whilst 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 oil 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 enquiry.  
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 Governors of a Realm have, even concerning those things; since in his office he undertakes, 
De Creatione Principis.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the care and oversight of private, public 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 not 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. count. Apion. l. 2.  was in the hands of the Priest, Josephus frameth his description, of the constitution of the Jewish Commonwealth, 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 whilst 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 itself to those who live under Christianity.  
7. I shall now show, 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 ourselves 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 sovereignty 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 showed.  
8. A learned man of our own Kingdom, who owneth the Sovereign 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 difference of Judaisme 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 
Epilogue. 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 sovereign, 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 Catholic Councils, or by the universal practice of Christians abroad, any particular Christian Kingdom, and the Sovereign 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 solemnising 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 Prince's 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 Unity 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 man's 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 Church's Unity, 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 God's 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 Sovereign 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 salomon's Temple was consecrated, the consecration thereof was mainly performed by Solomon 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 parts, 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. Solomon 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 God's acceptance, and that it might be useful to the designed end, and the good of Israel. And thus much might be done by a private person, who dedicated an offering unto God, though he was in no secular or sacerdotal office; as we have the like example and practice in the Prayer those persons were to make, who presented their first-fruits, and the third years tith, Deut. 26. 3-10, 12-15. and this might be more fitly done by Solomon, because he was an inspired person. And Solomon also as King commanded a great festivity, and a joyful solemnity to be then observed; 
Eus. de Vit. Const. ubi sup.  and the like did Constantine at Jerusalem, at the time . 2. There was the acceptance of this temple, and taking possession thereof in God's name and for his service, and the setting it apart thereto, upon account of God's authority, by them who were his Officers in the Church; and this was then to be done by the Priests, to whose office it did belong, to sanctify the most holy things, 1 Chr. 23.13. And this was partly done, by their bringing in the Ark, and other holy things into the temple, 2 Chr. 5.5, 7. and partly by the solemn sacrifices which they offered, whereby the temple is said to be dedicated, 1 Kin. 8.63. as the tabernacle was purified or dedicated, by the blood of the Sacrifices, as both the Apostle, Heb. 9.21, 22, 23. and Josephus do declare. 3. 
Jos. Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 10.  Here was Gods owning this his possession, and his House and Temple, and this was done by the glory of God filling the house, immediately upon the Ark being brought into it; 1 Kin. 8.10, 11. and by the fire coming down from heaven, upon the Sacrifices, 2 Chr. 7.1, 2, 3. as had been before done, at the dedication of the tabernacle: and hence God declared, that he hallowed this house, 1 Kin. 9.3, 7. And all these things, which were not performed by Solomon, were the chief parts of the dedication; and therefore this instance from Solomon, will not prove Princes to have had any peculiar Ecclesiastical authority, in the Jewish Church, above what they may enjoy in the Christian.  
13. In the last place I shall consider the suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29.  that the Church in the time of the Old Testament, might be under the temporal Government, because it then was more external, and enjoyed temporal promises chief, whereas it is otherwise under the New Testament. Now though it is hard to discern, any strength or force, in this way of discoursing; especially because all Religion as such, hath a respect to God, and to things spiritual, and also because Kings under the Old Testament were not Governors of the promises, which God made to his Church for the future, but of its present polity: yet I shall return hereto these considerations, which I suppose will be sufficient. 1. That those things of the Gospel which are of a pure spiritual nature, as the dispensing heavenly grace and pardon of sin, the taking men into an inward relation unto God and Christ, and the bestowing on them eternal life, so far as these things are considered separately and distinctly, from all visible and external dispensations, are not claimed to be under the government of any civil power, and this is all that his consideration can amount unto. 2. That the persons admitted into the Christian Church, and the Officers thereof, have still under the Gospel visible beings; and their actions of life, their public service and profession, with several divine institutions, and other things relating to the order of the Church, are still things external, and therefore capable of being under the inspection of authority, which is managed by men concerning things visible and external.    

CHAP. III.  
No Synedrial power among the Jews, was superior or equal to the Regal.  

SECT. I.  
The exorbitant power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on, with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself.  
Sect. 1 1. THere are divers both Jewish and Christian Writers, and some of them men of great worth, who entertain a notion, which if it were true, would evacuate the force of the argument, made use of in the former Chapter. 
De J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. Sch. de Jur. Reg. Hebr. c. 1. Theor. 2.  Even Grotius will not allow the Government over the House of Israel, to have been perfectly Monarchical: and Schickard asserteth it to have been mixedly Aristocratical, and these with divers other persons, 
Dangerous and false pretences of the Synedrial power being chief.  assert the Royal Government of the Family of Jacob, to be under the Synedrial authority. Now if what I shall say in opposition hereto, may seem overlong and tedious to some Readers, I hope the usefulness thereof for vindicating royal authority, and discovering usual and considerable mistakes, 
B. 1. C. 3.  will be a sufficient Apology. And although the rights of Christian Princes, do not directly depend upon the political constitution of the Jews, or the Family of Jacob, but are founded in the laws of nature, of nations, and of Christianity: yet it is in general a great advantage and honour to the royal government, that God himself established a pattern thereof, in the House of David, as well as the authority of the civil power about matters of Religion, may be hence also inferred. And both Romish Writers and others of an Antimonarchical strain, 
Salm. Defen. Reg. c. 2. p. 49.  or as Salmasius calleth them, Hildebrandinae & Enthusiasticae doctrinae auctores; in managing their designs, have frequent recourse to this Plea of the Jewish Synedrial power, against the right of Kings.  
2. 
Annal. Eccles. an. 57 n. 36.  Thus Baronius declareth, Apud Hebraeos Lex divinitùs data monstravit, etc. The law which God gave the Hebrews, did show, that the chief government was to be in the hands of Priests, and although they at length began to have Kings, yet (saith he) even those Kings were subject to the High Priest, who as he pleased was moderator in that great Council of 72. Elders, which was called the Sanhedrin, whose office and charge it was to judge concerning the law, concerning the King, and concerning a Prophet. In which words, besides other mistakes, he asserteth as that which would best serve the interest of his party, that the Sanhedrim was a Court governed by the High Priest, whereas according to the constant description of the Jewish Writers, 
V Seld. de Sign. l. 2. c. 15. n. 14.  the High Priest was neither ordinarily precedent thereof, nor necessarily a member of it, though at some times he might be both.  
3. And for an instance of the latter sort of men, who are for popular supremacy, Junius Brutus maketh use of this argument, Synedrium Hierosolymitanum, etc. 
Vindic. contra Tyrant. Qu. 3. p. 96.  The Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, seemeth to have been of so great authority, that they could judge the King, in like manner as the King could judge other persons. And not long after he saith, In this Kingdom there were Officers of the Realm, rege superiores, I say (saith he) in this Kingdom, which was established and ordained, not by Plato, or Aristotle, but by God himself, the supreme founder of all Monarchy.  
4. And it is very manifest, 
The pretended power of the Sanhedrin.  that the greater part of the Jewish Rabbinical Writers, and from them divers Christians, some of them so judicious, that it is strange they should be so much imposed upon, by Fables and Romances, do assert that the Sanhedrim, or Senate of seventy one persons, had such a power over the Kings of Judah, as to call them to account, and punish them. And they also assert, that according to the original establishment, of the Jewish laws and polity, the chief causes of moment, both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature, were exempt from the King's jurisdiction, and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance. 
Grot. & Schick. ubi supra.  To this purpose Grotius declareth, aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta, I think there were some cases of judgement reserved from the King, which remained in the Sanhedrim of seventy men (i. e. besides the Nasi or precedent) Schickard goes farther, and says, sine senatus magni assensu, Rex in gravioribus causis nihil poterat decernere; that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters, without the assent of this great Senate. And our Author de Synedriis, 
De Synedr. l. 3. c. 9 n. 1.  among other things, discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio magno propriis, ut nec à Regibus aut impediri, aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt; in which words he fetters and confines the King's power, but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large.  
5. 
Carpzov. in Schick. c. 2. p. 142.  But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions, that they have no better a foundation, than a tradition delivered by some of the Jewish Rabbins, 
This a fabulous tradition of the Rabbins.  against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular, there lie these exceptions. 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power, were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority, before the captivity; but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years, and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time, and therefore can give no testimony upon their own knowledge; and writing one from another, with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered, the number of them who are produced, can add nothing to their testimony. But both divine and humane writers, who are of an ancienter date, do sufficiently contradict this position, as I hope to make plain. He therefore who can believe, that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders, because divers of late, but neither Scripture nor ancient Writers do assert it; and he who can persuade himself, that our Saviour made the Bishop of Rome, the Universal Monarch of the whole World, and gave him a plenitude of all temporal and spiritual power; because many Writers of that Communion do now assert this, while what is inconsistent therewith was declared by Christ, his Apostles, and the ancient Christian Church; such men have understandings of a fit fize and suitable disposition, to receive these Rabbinical traditions, concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy; which are also things fit for their purpose.  
6. 
Gemar. Sanhed. Cocc. c. 2. Sect. 10.  Secondly, It is evident, that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Nation, were forward to extol it, even beyond the bounds of truth, of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud, of the number of the Horses for salomon's own Stables, which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty millions, accounting a thousand thousand to a Million. Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory, for a considerable time, 
Sed. Olam zut. in fin.  before the reign of Aristobulus, and under the Roman Government, and some continuance thereof remained, towards five hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, as their Chronicle informs us, which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers. And it is very probable, that the pressures and sufferings, which the Jews sustained under the Roman Emperors. or Kings, might prejudice them against Monarchical Government.  
7. Thirdly, There are other Rabbinical and Talmudical Writers of good note, who will by no means be persuaded to embrace this tradition, which disparageth the Royal power. 
Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr. l. 3. c. 9 n. 3. Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20.  To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara, and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rabath, and others, are cited by Mr Selden, and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius, who assert, that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King. And that the highest authority is in the King, who standeth in God's place, is asserted by R. Abarbanel, 
Carpzov. in Schick. p. 165. Their pretended power over the person of the King refuted.  whose words are in Carpzov.  
8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use, I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power, which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim, over the person of the King. They deal with the royal authority, as the Jews did with our Saviour, who gave him the title of the King of the Jews, but yet scourged him, and treated him with great indignity. For these Writers do assert, that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim; only by the great Sanhedrim at Jernsalem, saith Schickard, 
De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7.  and he acknowledgeth, that even this appeared to him, valde paradoxum, a thing far from truth, and very unlikely, until his own apprehensions were moulded into a compliance with the Jewish Writers. But Mr Selden addeth, 
De Syn. l. 2. c. 9 n. 5.  that according to the testimony of the Rabbins, he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three, which was the Government of every particular City. And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging, enumerated by Maimonides, 
Ibid. c. 13. n. 8.  and mentioned from him by Selden, the three last are; if the King multiply Wives, if he multiply Horses, and if he multiply silver and gold. Now these things are so strange in themselves, reducing the King to the same circumstances, with every common and petty offender, that how this can consist with the majesty and sovereignty of a Prince, is utterly unconceivable: and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies, must also persuade himself to believe, against the plainest evidence, that David and those who sat upon his throne, were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah, but were all of them subjects, under the common and ordinary government, and authority of that Commonwealth.  
9 
Schickard de Jur. Reg. ubi sup.  And this absurd assertion, hath put those Christian Writers who close with it, upon unreasonable shifts, for the defence thereof. And for the reconciling this with the dignity of a King, many of them make this their last refuge, that this scourging amongst the Jews, 
Grot. de Jur. Bel. & pac. ubi sup.  was without any note of infamy or disgrace; and was voluntarily to be submitted to by their Kings, as an act of penance, and not of force. But this answer stands chargeable with a twofold miscarriage. 1. With a contradiction to the design of them who urge it, and a giving up their cause: for if there be nothing in it of disgrace, it cannot be inflicted as a censure, and the public punishment of a fault; and if it be undertaken only of voluntary choice, and not of force, then is it not the result of the sentence, of a superior Synedrial authority. 2. This would also conclude, that many considerable offenders, who were to be punished with scourging (as by the custom of the Jews, according to the cases mentioned by Maimonides, 
Maimon. n. 134, 135, 156.  he that curseth his neighbour in the name of Jehovah, he that is guilty of perjury, and he that commits whoredom; and by the law of God the unfree woman who played the whore, being betrothed, Leu. 19.20.) were free from all penalty and disgrace, though the divine law, Deut. 25.3. peculiarly mentions this punishment as infamous. Wherefore these traditions are so absurd, that Petitus justly affirmed, 
Petit. Diatribe de Jure pr. c. 2.  istam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animo tantum conceperunt, nulli principes eo jure regnarunt; that no King of Judah with this manacled authority, ever reigned any where else but in the fancies and pens of these Jewish Writers, and their followers.  
10. Now a position so strange in itself, and which puts men of learning upon such difficult service, and hard shifts to bear it up, had need bring with it very clear evidence, if it expect to be entertained. But in this case, 
Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 9 n. 2.  Mr Selden who is forward enough to embrace the notions of the Rabbins, after he had represented what is usually said, was so far in doubt of the truth, that he saith, hac in re nihil omnino definimus. 
Schick. ubi sup.  And Schickard who largely asserteth this synedrial power, confesseth that he could not meet with any one instance, of its having ever been reduced to practice. And those who have ventured, either at instances or arguments, have greatly miscarried therein.  
11. Two instances by some have been produced, only to show that Kings have been cited before the Jewish Sanhedrim. The one of Herod the King, 
An. 31. n. 1●.  mentioned by Baronius: but it is strange to see, how pitifully he mistakes the case, or else imposeth upon his Reader. For it is plain from Josephus, whence he hath this story, that Herod was then no King of Judea, nor was he cited by the Sanhedrim, but by Hyrcanus, 
Ant. Jud. l. 14. c. 17.  who was then King by the Roman authority. And it is much that the Cardinal should not consider, that if Herod after he was King of Judea by the Roman right, was under the Jurisdiction of the standing Jewish Synedrial authority, the consequence must be, that the Jews than were Governors over the Romans and their power, but were in no subjection to them; which, besides the credit of History herein concerned, he who acknowledgeth Christ crucified, cannot admit.  
12. Another instance is mentioned of Jannaeus the King, who is said to have been cited by the Sanhedrim, upon account of a servant of his being charged with murder. This instance in his second thoughts, 
Schick. append. in Carpzov. p. 152, 153.  Schickard preferreth to the former. Now if this had been true concerning Jannaeus, it would be of no great moment, since he lived under the lapsed state of the Jews, and had the name, but not the authority and dignity of a King. But this story is manifestly fictitious, is styled by Salmasius nugae & fabulae Rabbinicae, is not at all mentioned by Josephus, 
Defence. Reg. c. 2. p. 49.  or any good Historian, and also brings in the Angel Gabriel to bear a part in it, by coming then into the Senate, and destroying all the assessors thereof. And this story is taken out of the Gemara, where the whole Section is evidently vain and frivolous, 
Gemar. in Sanhed. c. 2. Sect. 1.  as amongst other things may appear, from the way of its arguing in this matter, which I shall presently take notice of. Besides this I shall add, that so much as hath any truth in this relation, is very probably a kind of fabulous representation of the former instance of Herod, under different names and circumstances. For both of them are said to be cited, upon occasion of some persons being put to death, both the stories say, that upon their appearance the whole Court, (whether properly the Sanhedrim, or Hyrcanus his Judges called by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) spoke not a word against them, save only one bold man, and that thereupon all the rest besides this man were after put to death. And this man is called Sameas or Shammai, in the one story, and Simeon in the other, which I conceive to be one and the same name in a different Dialect; 
Grot. in Mat. 16.17. Drus. Praet. in Joh. 21.15. Hor. Hebr. in Joh. 11.1. & in Luk. 16.20.  even as Johannes, Johanan and Jonah in likelihood are, the vulgar latin expressing Ionas by Johannes, Joh. 21.15. And so are Lazarus and Eleazar, and many others, whence the  Version instead of Lazarus, constantly useth Eleazar, Luk. 16. and Joh. 11. and that they are one and the same name, hath been clearly evinced. To which I add, submitting these conjectures to the judgements of others, that the name of Jannaeus or Jannas, might possibly be made use of, in this Talmudical relation, from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the Hebrew and Chaldee, for one injurious and oppressive.  
13. How extreme vainly they argue in this particular, will appear from that noted instance of the Talmud. 
Sanh. c. 2. Sect. 2.  The Mishneh had declared, that the King neither judgeth, nor is judged, which it manifestly expresseth concerning the Kings of the line of David; nor doth it intent to deny them the authority of judging, because the same Treatise affirms, 
C. 7. Sect. 3.  capital punishments by the sword, to be inflicted by the King, but that they did not usually in person sit in any Court or Consistory. 
Gemara ubi sup.  But the Gemara here, being a Comment which contradicteth the Text, telleth us that this sentence, The King doth not judge nor is judged, doth not belong to the Kings of the House of David, for they did both judge and were judged. And the proof it produceth that they were judged, is from Jer. 21.12. O house of David, thus saith the Lord, execute judgement in the morning, declaring hereupon, that they could not judge, unless they could be summoned to receive judgement from others. Which is such a ridiculous pretence of proof, against the evidence of common sense, which would serve as well to prove Parents to be subject to their Children, Masters to their servants, 
Schick. de Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 9 n. 2.  and their great Sanhedrim to another Consistory, as to the purpose they produce it. And yet this testimony and tradition of the Gemara, though very irrational, is made use of very much, by them who depress the royal authority among the Jews, and advance the Synedrial.   

SECT. II.  
The determination of many weighty cases claimed to the Sanhedrim, as exempt from the royal power, examined and refuted.  
1. The fautors of this Synedrial sovereignty, who would make the regal authority to truckle under it, do under that polity, exempt the decision of the most material cases of right, from the King's Judicature. And they do also debar him of all authority to undertake arbitrary wars, appoint inferior officers and judges, or to have any interest in enacting laws and constitutions, 
Canin. Disquis. in Loc. N. Test. c. 7.  which Caninius doth roundly and plainly express, telling us, that the Sanhedrim bella decernebant,— resque omnes publicas administrabant. And so there is neither civil nor military supreme authority, Sect. 2 not more than Ecclesiastical reserved for the King.  
2. But I shall undertake to prove, that the eminent power by many placed in the Sanhedrim, by divesting the Jewish Kings thereof, was certainly not seated in any such Synedrial power, in the flourishing times of the Jewish Monarchy, or before the Captivity of Babylon; but was fixed in their Kings, both as to cases of judiciary decision, and of authoritative consultation and constitution. And if either the traditions of the Jewish Writers mentioned in the former Section, or those which I shall now discourse of, had any good foundation, I should readily then grant, the consequence hence urged by P. de Marca to be true; 
De Conc. Sac. & Imp. l. 2. c. 5. n. ult. & Proleg. p. 25.  that they do not deserve well at the hands of Christian Princes, who would measure their authority and dignity, from the exercise of royal power under the times of the Old Testament.  
3. Several judiciary cases claimed as peculiar to the Synedrial power, are enumerated by our Author de Synedriis, 
De Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Sanh. c. 1. n. 5.  out of which I shall single out those three chief Cases, which are in the first place mentioned by the Talmud, concerning a Tribe, a false Prophet, and the High Priest. And these I the rather fix upon, 
De Jur. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3.  because the learned Grotius made choice of these, as special instances of cases, peculiarly belonging to that Court, and not subject to the King; saith he, quaedam cognitionum genera regi videntur non permissa, ut de tribu, pontifice, & propheta. And according to the sense of Grotius, Selden speaks of these three cases, 
De Syn. I. 3. c. 9 n. 1.  that they are adeo Synedrio magno propria & peculiaria, ut ne regi quidem ipsi permitterentur. And the first of these concerneth things temporal of great moment, and the other two cases Ecclesiastical.  
4. 
The judgement of a tribe.  This judgement concerning a tribe, is by some declared to be, when the greater part of a tribe, or the whole, becometh guilty of Apostasy or idolatry. 
Coch. not. ad Sanh. c. 1. n. 21. Grot. de Imper. c. 11. n. 15. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 4. n. 3, 4.  But Mr Selden though he acknowledgeth this to be the sense of divers Jewish Writers, yet his opinion is, that all other cases whatsoever concerning a tribe, were only determinable by this great Sanhedrim, which he thinks is not to be doubted. And the consequence of this seemeth plain, that if the whole or major part of any tribe, became factious or guilty of rebellion, as most of them were both after Absalon, and after Sheba, the King had then no authority to reduce them. But that these things are empty dreams, and wholly void of truth, will be manifest from these following instances.  
5. When the two tribes and half desired an inheritance on the other side Jordan, they spoke of this to Moses, Eleazar, and the Princes of the Congregation, Num. 32.2. but the power of determination was in Moses, who commanded Eleazar and the Princes concerning them, v. 28. and he gave them that land, v. 33. Jos. 14.3. and so also Josephus declareth. 
Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 7.  The dividing the land of Canaan amongst the other tribes, was of great concern to the whole tribes, and was begun by Eleazar, Joshua, and the heads of the Children of Israel, Jos. 14.1. but by the authority of Joshua, whom God appointed to divide it, ch. 13.6, 7. and the main part of this division was made, not by the Sanhedrim of seventy one, but by three men out of every tribe, Jos. 18.4, 5. who acted by Joshua's command, v. 4, 8. and he cast lots for their divisions, and is said to have divided the land, v. 10. and also in Josephus. 
Antiq. l. 5. c. 1.  When the two tribes and half were suspected of apostasy, in building another Altar, Phinehas and ten other Princes with him (and not any great Sanhedrim) had the hearing of it, and did clear them, Jos. 22.13, 14, 30, 31, 32. In the time of Rehoboam, when the tribes of Israel demanded greater liberty, than they had had under Solomon, 1 Kin. 12.1, 3, 4. here was no set Sanhedrim, which must determine concerning them, but the King himself was to resolve them, either according to the counsel of the old men, or the young, as himself pleased, v. 6.— 14. And in Hezekiahs' time, when both the two tribes under the King of Judah, and the ten tribes under the King of Israel, were fallen to idolatry, Hezekiah by his royal authority reform Judah, and in his piety persuaded Israel; and in these cases was no appearance of a Synedrial power.  
6. 
Of a Prophet. Cun. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 12. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 6. n. 1.  The judgement of a false prophet, is frequently claimed as peculiar to the Synedrial power, that is, according to Selden, the judging him who shall speak any thing in the name of a false God, or shall speak falsely in the name of the true God. But had the trial of a true or false Prophet, been peculiar to them, it is not so probable that Asa would have been obeyed, in committing the Seer to Prison; this being then a case coram non judice, and against their laws, and superior authority. Nor is it likely, that it would be made the matter of great commendation of Hezekiah, that he put not Micab the Prophet to death, if the limit of his royal power could not extend itself, to the case of a Prophet, Jer. 26.18, 19 See also Jer. 26.21, 22, 23.  
7. 
Gr. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. & in Jer. 26. in Jer. 28. & in Mat. 5.22.  Yet the learned Grotius and other Writers, think they have found some evidence, for the exemption of a Prophet from the royal power, in the words of Zedekiah to the Princes concerning Jeremy, Jer. 38.5. he is in your hands, for the King is not he that can do any thing against you. But herein he follows the steps of Brutus, 
J. Brut. Vind. qu. 3. p. 96, 97. Barclai. adv. Antimonarch. l. 4. c. 12.  whose great mistake was sufficiently detected by Barclay. And these words have no other sense, than that Zedekiah in his present straits, must yield to this their desire, as David was sometimes necessitated unto a compliance with the Children of Zerviah, who he saith were too strong for him. But we may wonder that so judicious a man, should in this matter, overlook many plain expressions, in that very Chapter, which beyond all contradiction evince the supreme authority of King Zedekiah, in determining this very case of Jeremy, v. 4. The Princes said to the King, we beseech thee, let this man be put to death. And when Zedekiah had yielded him into their hands, and they had cast him into the dungeon, Ebedmelech makes his suit to the King for Jeremy, and the King order his being taken thence, v. 8, 9, 10. And the King swore to Jeremy, v. 16. I will not put thee to death, nor will I give thee into the hands of these men, that seek thy life. 
Bertr. de Rep. Jud. c. 11. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 6. n. 4. etc. 9 n. 1.  And yet this one mistaken expression above mentioned, against the scope of the whole Chapter, was made use of also by Bertram, Selden, and many English Writers in our late sad times, for the abridging of the royal power.  
8. The words of our Saviour are also urged, Luk. 13.33. It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem. The sense of which words is, that Jerusalem was so far degenerated, that he who came from God, and in his name, should no where meet with so much opposition, enmity, and violence, as in that place, where there ought to be the readiest acceptance. But that our Saviour should design, 
Drus. Praet. ad Luc. 13.33. Grot. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15.  as many Writers would infer, that no Prophet could be condemned to die, by any but the Jewish Sanhedrim, would also have been contrary to the History of John's being beheaded by Herod, and to what Jesus had frequently foretold of himself, that he should be crucified; which was a kind of death never inflicted by the Jewish law, but by the Roman.  
9 
Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 8. n. 1. Of the High Priest.  The judgement of the high priest, claimed as peculiar to the Sanhedrim, is by some restrained to capital causes only. Yet the judgement concerning any of the priesthood, whether there was any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or blemish, 
Middoth. c. 5. Sect. 3. Joma. in Hor. Heb. in Mat. Chorogr. c. 31.  which rendered them unfit for their office, was also claimed to the great Sanhedrim. But had this case truly been, as is pretended, exempt from the regal power, the sentence of Saul against Ahimelech, and his Sons, 1 Sam. 22. 13-18. must have been accounted null and insignificant, being pronounced by one who had no authority over him; whereas at that time Ahimelech freely acknowledgeth his subjection to Saul, as I above observed. Nor can this Synedrial power consist, with salomon's undertaking to depose Abiathar, or his declaring it as a favour that he did not put him to death, 1 Kin. 2.26, 27.  
10. And as to the admitting the priests to minister in their office, this seemeth anciently to have belonged to the high Priests authority, from 1 Sam. 2.36. but upon account of moral defilements, and some other extraordinary cases, there are instances of the Priests being rejected from their ministration, by the authority of the Prince, and secular governor. And thus it was ordered by Josiah. concerning them who had been Priests of the high places, 2 Kin. 23.9. and by Nehemiah, concerning them who could not make out their Genealogy, and right of succession, Neh. 7.65. From all this it is manifest, that all these three cases have been misrepresented, and that it is a bad description of the Kingdom of Judah, which placeth all these things, without the limits of the Royal authority.  
11. But there are also several other constitutions, and determinations of authority, which by these Writers are appropriated to the Synedrial power; as the making of arbitrary wars, the establishing and ordering inferior judicatures, and the constituting laws. 
Of making War.  And to debar the King of all power in these matters, and reserve them as peculiar to the Sanhedrin, is in effect to affirm, that neither the Royal Crown and Sceptre, nor the power of the Sword, did belong unto the King.  
12. 
Sanh. c. 1. Sect. 5. Coch. ibid. n. 23. Buxt. Lex. Ch. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 12. n. 1, 2. Schick. de jur. Reg. H. b. c. 5. Theor. 17.  That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arbitrary war, or War of choice, (whereby they understand all War, besides what God commanded them against the seven Nations of Canaan) might never be undertaken by the King, but only by the authority of the Sanhedrin, is generally asserted by these Jewish Writers, and their followers. Insomuch that Schickard, producing Maimonides to the same purpose, saith, Rex arma finitimis illaturus, necessariò prius deliberabat cum magno senatu, citra cujus consensum miles non exibat. Yet nothing can be more plain, than that the war against the Ammonites, for the defence of Jabesh-Gilead, was particularly resolved upon by Saul, upon his present hearing of the case, 1 Sam. 11.5, 6, 7, 12. to which Josephus agreeth. 
Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 5, 6.  And the Wars against the Children of Ammon in David's time, whereby they were destroyed, were by the determination of David, 2 Sam. 10.6, 7. ch. 11.1. And lest any should surmise, that this great Court was in such Cases present with the King, as the Soul is with the body, from which, though no man can see it, all strength and life is derived; I shall add that famous instance of Jehosaphat. When he was with the King of Israel, out of his Kingdom, he upon a sudden resolved on, and undertook in League with Ahab, a voluntary War against Syria, 1 Kin. 22.3, 4. and for his proceeding therein, desired no instructions from any Council in Judea, nor from any other man under Heaven; but only concerning the event he enquired of a Prophet of the Lord in Israel, v. 5.  
13. He who would have any further instances in this 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 Absalon, 
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 Absalon 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. 
Inferior 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 inferior Courts of Judicature, among the Tribes of Israel, is claimed also as peculiar to this Sanhedrim. And that the Judges of inferior Courts must be made Rabbis, 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 Absalon, 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 Create. 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 choose others who shall partake in the rule and Government; that is as he expresseth it, that the lesser causes he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commit them to inferior 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 achievements, 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 reflections 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 Sovereignty 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, 
Defence. 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, yet sometimes in this particular he plainly misrepresenteth the laws of Moses, as is done in some expressions of this very Chapter now mentioned.  
3. The Israelites also had Courts of Judicature and Judges, in their several Precincts, commanded by the law, as is necessary in every Kingdom and orderly Government, 
Both in its supreme power.  and they had one chief court to receive appeals from the inferior, enjoined, Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. But all these in the time of the Royal Government, and all matters of justice whatsoever, were under the authority of the King, ordered by him, and dependent upon him. 
Gemar. in Sanh. c. 2. Sect. 6.  Even the Talmud declareth, that all that is contained in that Parashah of the law, which treateth concerning the King, is under the Government of the King; which Parashah or Section beginneth, Deut. 16.18. and endeth Deut. 21.10. and so taketh in this whole seventeenth Chapter. But we have much better evidence hereof, both in what I have above observed, of the King's power concerning matters of judicature, and in that God chargeth upon the King, the care of executing justice, Jer. 21.12. ch. 22.2, 3, 4, 15, 16. See also 2 Kin. 15.6.  
4. But this Rabbinical Sanhedrim (whose name being of a Greek extraction from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may somewhat intimate the time of its production) consisting only of Rabbis or such students in the law, who received ordination, it is reasonably concluded by Mr Thorndike, 
Of Religious Assembl. c. 3.  that it could not be such in the flourishing times of their Kingdom, when no doubt Princes and noble persons enjoyed places of dignity and authority. 
And precise number of judges.  And whereas these Rabbinical Courts of Judicature, consisted of three persons only in lesser places, of twenty three in greater Cities, and the supreme Court precisely of seventy one, it is highly probable, that this model so far as respects the number, was not the ancient usage in Israel; there being no account of any such Courts given, either by Josephus, or Philo. 
Ant. l. 4. c. 8.  Yea Josephus declares that which is sufficiently contrary hereto; that in every City, the Government was to be managed by seven men, with two Levites, which he mentioneth as the direction of Moses; but this is not reconcileable with the Rabbinical notions, notwithstanding all the endeavours of some learned men to that purpose. And when we read of a Court of ten Elders at Bethlehem, Ruth 4.2. and of seventy seven Elders at Succoth, which was a City of the Gadites, Jud. 8.14. it is manifest that in those times, they had not the same number of Judges and Rulers, which the latter times did direct, but very different, 
Perpetual Gou. of Chr. Church. ch. 4. p. 21.  as is from hence observed by Bishop Bilson.  
5. I know it hath been an opinion, commonly received without much examination, that this great Court had its original in the Wilderness, when the seventy Elders were taken unto Moses his assistance in the Government, Num. 11. which Mr Selden accounts a matter so clear, 
De Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 12.  that he receiveth it with nihil certius est. But he who shall consider, that all the evidence that those 70. Elders were such a Sanhedrin, as I have above discoursed of, doth depend upon the tradition of a very distant age, and that there is no certainty, that the 70. Elders mentioned in the Book of Numbers, were one Court, and not Officers in distinct limits; as also that the History of the Book of Judges, and of the time of Samuel, 
1 Sam. 7.16.  who was himself chief Judge of Israel, and in his own person held his assizes in Circuit, (twice in the year, as Josephus tells us) give sufficient evidence, 
Ant. l. 6. c. 3.  that there was no such supreme Court in being all those times, which he judged Israel, and that in the following times, the authority claimed to them, was enjoyed by the Kings, as I have evinced; I say, he who considers all this, may very well question, if not deny its so early original. And the Jewish traditions concerning the continuance of this Court, 
Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 23. p. 661, etc.  and the series of succession of its precedents, hath no show of probability. They ordinarily account from Moses till the Kings of Israel, that the several Judges of Israel, were the successive heads of the Sanhedrim; and yet there is no mention of any such Court, in all the History of the Judges, and many things therein show them to have judged Israel as single persons, or a kind of Monarches: and had there been such a settled great Court of Judicature with them, that people had not been left upon the death of the Judge, in such confusion and Anarchy, that every man did what was right in his own eyes. And the Jewish Writers produce different Catalogues, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Precedent of the Sanhedrin, 
Ibid. n. ●, 5.  which speaketh them to be at great uncertainty concerning it. And many of them will have David, and some other Kings to have been Precedents of this Court, which is contrary to another of their own traditions . But these uncertain and groundless Fables, are rejected by divers learned men; and even Selden himself acknowledgeth, 
Ibid. n. 6. p. 674.  that what the Jewish Writers deliver, is successio intuenti haud satis commoda. And not only Petavius and Pererius, have disowned the Constitution of this Samhedrim to be from Moses, but Carpzovius lately, 
Carpz. in Schickard. p. 11, p. 16. & passim.  and Conringius de Republica Hebraica, and Fipschmuthius de rege eligendo & deponendo, as they are by him cited, will not allow it to precede the Captivity.  
6. There is also another conceit, 
Of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin. Bertr. de Rep. Hebr. c. 11. L'emp. in Bertr. ibid. & in Middoth. c. 5. Sect. 3. Mos. & Aar. l. 5. c. 1.  which hath taken place with many, as Junius and Tremellius, in Deut. 17. Bertram, and L'Empereur, our English Author of Jewish Antiquities, and others; that God appointed two Synedrial Consistories among the Jews, the one civil, the other Ecclesiastical. Now if all that is designed by this notion of a distinct Ecclesiastical power, was no more than that the Priests as God's Officers, were by divine authority empowered to judge and determine, of what related to the regular purity of the Temple worship, and of the Rules of Ceremonial. cleannesses and uncleanness, and such like things, still acknowledging that they were subjects to the Royal Government, all this is to be granted and asserted; and some intimations there are in the Jewish Writers, of a Council or Consistory of Priests. 
V Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26.3.  But since the authority pleaded for, in the management of this notion, is a proper supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastioal, so that both these pretended Consistories, are styled by Bertram, summa & suprema judicia, 
Bertram. ibid.  this (which is also improved by some, in favour of the highest sort of Presbyterian Consistories, and against the supremacy of the King, in matters of the Church) is necessary to be rejected; concerning which it will be sufficient to note two things.  
7. First, That this hath no foundation in the Jewish Writers, according to whom it is not to be doubted, but that in the declining time of their state, they had only one Great Sanhedrin, which took cognisance both of chief, civil, and Ecclesiastical causes. And the asserting of two such properly distinct Synedrial Courts, is justly exploded by Grotius, 
Gr. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 5. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26. v. 3.  Selden, Dr Lightfoot, and others well acquainted with Jewish learning. And what number soever they had of particular Consistories, the Royal power hath been sufficiently proved supreme, as well in causes Ecclesiastical as Civil.  
8. Secondly, The pretended proofs from Scripture, upon which they who embrace this conceit do build, are very weak. Some persons would find an evidence for a divine appointment, of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of 71. in Exod. 24.1. where God said unto Moses, 
Jus divin. Regim. Eccl. Part. 2. ch. 12.  Come up thou and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel, unto the Lord; and worship ye afar off. And yet here is nothing at all mentioned concerning any Consistory, or power of Government; nor is it usual to account seventy four persons to be but seventy one.  
9 Others as L'empereur and Rutherford, 
L'emp. in Annot. in Bertr. & in Comment. in Middoth. ubi supra. Rutherf. Diu. Right of Ch. Gou. ch. 23. p. 505.  insist on Deut. 17.8.— 12. where a Court of Appeals in difficult cases is established, and the Law declares, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy between thy gates; then thou shalt arise, and go to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and (which Particle some render or) unto the Judge. Now all the force of argument from this place, for two distinct Consistories, is, that here is mention both of the Priests, and of the Judge. But this Text gives sufficient intimation, that here is only one chief Court designed; and that with particular respect to matters of civil cognisance; which might consist of Ecclesiastical or secular persons, or rather of both. 
Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 8.  Josephus tells us there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same Assembly, the High Priest, the Prophet, and the Company of Elders meeting together. And the Law of Moses did also expressly require, concerning one and the same case, Deut. 19.16, 17. If a false witness rise up against any man, to testify against him that which is wrong, Then both the men between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the Priests, and the Judges which shall be in those days, and the Judges shall make diligent inquisition. And how the Priest might sometimes be particularly concerned, in the enquiry about civil Cases, and matters of trespass and injury, may be observed from 1 Kin. 8.31, 32.  
10. Another place frequently alleged, for this Ecclesiastical Sanhedrim, distinct from the civil, is the constitution of Jehosaphat, 2 Chr. 19. 8.-11. which is ordinarily called, the restoring the Synedrial Government. 
Grot. de Imp. c. 11. n. 15. Joseph. Antiq. l. 9 c. 1.  But Grotius doth with considerable probability deny, that two Courts were here appointed, and Josephus whom he cited, seemeth to be of the same mind. And I think it sufficient to add, that since two distinct Courts do not appear enjoined by the Law of Moses, and since David and Jehosaphat did differently model their Courts of Judicature, in compliance with the end and design of the Law of Moses, 1 Chr. 26. 29-32. 2 Chr. 19. 8-11. it is not to be doubted, but this modelling was performed, by their own prudence and Royal authority. But that here was no such Sanhedrim erected, as is pretended, is the more manifest, because I have given plain evidence, that both before and after Jehosophats time, the power claimed at peculiar to them, was exercised by the King. Nor could the act of Jehosophat give any Court an original sanction, as from the Law of Moses, nor ought it to be imagined, that he invested them with any power paramount to the Royal, by which they were constituted.  
11. And now again I think it not unmeet to apologise for the length of this discourse, concerning the Synedrial power, which is much larger than I could have desired it to have been. And yet considering how great the mistakes of very many Christian Writers are, in this particular, and to what ill purposes this error hath been by some abused, both for the subverting the Royal, and Ecclesiastical Government; I thought it useful to add this Chapter in this place, and to say so much therein, as would be sufficient with impartial men, for the refuting overgrown mistakes. And this I have done the rather, 
P. de Marc. Proleg. p. 23, 24, 25.  because one of the most ingenuous Romanists lately, though he mention other Pleas, doth insist on this as a chief one, against the admitting that Royal Supremacy asserted in the Church of England, to be proved from the Authority of Princes under the Old Testament, because, he tells us, the King then in all difficult Cases, must depend on this great Sanhedrin. And this he there insists upon with particular opposition to the Anglobritanni, or the positions concerning the due authority of Princes, which are asserted in the Church of England.    

CHAP. IU.  
Arguments for Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical, from the nature of Sovereignty, and the doctrine of Christianity: with an enquiry how far Princes who are not of the Church, may claim and use this authority.  

SECT. I.  
The evidence hereof from the nature of Sovereign power.  
Sect. I 1. IN considering the nature of civil Government, 
Princes as God's Ministers must take care of his honour and Religion.  we may in the first place reflect upon the original thereof. It is derived from and appointed by God, who as Creator and Lord of all, hath the highest right to rule and govern the whole World. Hence the Apostle calleth Government, an Ordinance of God, and Rulers his Ministers, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3. who are also styled Children of the most high, Ps. 82.6. And that this is a divine institution, was constantly acknowledged by the ancient Christians, notwithstanding their persecution from the civil powers, as is manifest from many expressions to that purpose, 
B. I. C. 4 Tertul. Apol. c. 36. & add Scap. c. 2. Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Tertullian. Dionysius Alexandrinus, and others, of which thing I shall discourse more in another place. Wherefore Rulers ought to take care of the service of God in the World: for if any servant be empowered to govern other servants, in his Master's Family, and to oversee his affairs, can it be supposed, that he ought only to keep these servants from abusing one another and not to take care of the interest of his Master, who employs him, whether his business be done or no, and whether they express due respect to him, or vilify and despise him? And if a Prince appointeth any inferior Governor, is it not expected that this man in his place should take care, to maintain the honour and sovereignty of his Prince, as well as the interests of particular men?  
2. 
This needful and reasonable.  And since it is manifest by the experience of the World, that the duties to God are not duly performed by all men of their own accord, nor with the sole help of the spiritual guides; and since the authority of the civil power hath a like influence, upon discountenancing or reclaiming offenders in matters of Religion, and in common honesty; it cannot be less necessary that those whom God entrusts with secular authority, should take care of his worship, honour, and service, than of other things; unless it could be presumed that the acknowledging and honouring humane authority, and being just, is more a duty to man, and more his interest, than the acknowledging and honouring of God is. But God being above all, and the common father of mankind, upon whom we all depend, and unto whom we are most engaged, it justly seemed strangely unreasonable to Philo the Jew, 
Phil. de Temul. p. 259. & de profug. p. 462.  that it should be thought needful that care be used, to secure the performance of honour and duty, to other Parents and Governors, and that no such regard should be had to God. And it was esteemed an high absurdity by S. Austin, 
S. Augustin. conr. Gaud. Ep. l. 2. c. 11.  that offences against men should be punished and corrected, but not those against God. And this was so much the general sense of mankind, 
De Benef. l. 3. c. 6.  that Seneca could aver, Violatarum religionum aliubi atque aliubi diversa poena est, sed uhique aliqua; that there were different punishments in several places, but every where some for them who violate Religion. And even our holy Saviour in his prophetic zeal, thought fit by a scourge, twice to drive out them who polluted the temple, who would not undertake to divide inheritances, or to pass a judicial sentence upon the Adulteress. And all Governors as they have received greater accessions of honour from God, than others have, are obliged thereby the more to honour him, and promote his service.  
3. 
Religion of great use to the good of Mankind. De Charit. p. 717. De Decalogo, pag. 751.  It being general acknowledged, that the secular authority is to take care, that justice, honesty, peace and virtue be established and preserved in the World, even from hence we may infer the necessity of its care about matters of Religion; the exercise of which, is the best and surest principle, of all honesty, justice and virtue. Religion as Philo observed, rendereth the men who embrace it sober, just, and faithful, whilst the contrary spirit prevaileth in them who reject piety, as the same Author observeth. 
De Charit. Foid.  And he who considers, how mightily the Christian doctrine enjoineth righteousness, meekness, peace, love, and all goodness; and how it enforceth the practice of all these by a lively sense of God, and a belief of his dreadful threaten, and excellent and glorious promises, must confess that these practices and exercises are powerfully promoted, by the embracing and establishing the true Christian Religion. Indeed there are many who profess, but do not practise this holy Religion; but in them who embrace the true principles thereof, as the primitive Christians generally did, its defenders could with confidence appeal even unto their Enemies (as Tertullian and Origen do) whether Christians were not hereby more free, 
Tert. ad Scapulam. c. 2. Orig. cont. Celf. l. 3. p. 128, 129.  than other sorts of men were, from Sedition against Princes, from all acts of wrong and injury against men, and profaneness and impiety against God.  
4. And even they who persecuted Christianity. have acknowledged, that upon the strictest enquiry, they discovered that men therein obliged themselves, by sacred vows, not to the committing any kind of wickedness, but against it; ne furta, 
Plin. Ep l. 10. Ep. 97.  ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, etc. Indeed a right principle of Religion is much more effectual, for the promoting honesty and righteousness, than all outward penalities, as laying a powerful restraint, upon all ways of unrighteousness, even when no eye of man can observe. Now can it be thought reasonable, that the Rulers charge should be, to take care of these ends now mentioned, and should be constituted of God to that purpose, and yet should be obliged to have no care of those things, without which these ends can never be secured? To assert this, would be to cast a high reflection, upon the wisdom and Government of God.  
5. We may also now compare the paternal and oeconomical Government, with the Regal. These are so near of Kin, that it is not only acknowledged by Protestants, but even by the Jews, as we may see in Philo, 
Ph. de Decal. p. 767. Catech. de Decal. Precept. Royal Government and paternal compared.  and by Papists, as is declared in the Catechism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, that in the fifth commandment of the Decalogue, the Royal Authority is included under the name of the paternal. Now the Governor of a Family hath such an authority, as extendeth itself to the things of Religion, in that he is to take care of the welfare and good of his Family. For there is great good included in the nature of Religion; which brings inward quiet, peace, and satisfaction of mind, by subduing violent passions, and inordinate appetites, and by eyeing God's providence in all things, with submissiveness to him, and dependence upon him; and it also brings very high advantages, as it is the way to enjoy God's blessing here, and eternal happiness hereafter, and therefore there cannot be any exercise of a true Fatherly love, where it doth not dispose the person, to a care of so great a concernment as Religion is. And accordingly the Apostle commands Parents, to bring up their Children, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. and God declared his great approbation of Abraham, in that he would command his Children, and his Household after him, and they would keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgement, Gen. 18.19. or that they would so entertain the principles of true Religion, that this should be a foundation of righteousness and well-doing.  
6. And there are the same reasons, 
V Sacr. Imp. ad Conc. Eph. in Tom. 1. Con. Eph. c. 32.  to engage the Royal power to take care of Religion, because all civil powers are to intent the good of their inferiors, 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 Emperors, 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; God's Ordinance hereby placing others in that authority, which Adam and Noah had, 
Phil. de create. princip. p. 727.  over their multiplied and enlarged Progeny. Hence Princes are fitly styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the common Parents of Cities and Kingdoms, their political and civil being having a dependence 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, than would abraham's commanding his Children and Household, have been , 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, aught 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 Household, 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 Soldiers of his own Household, 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 Usurpations, 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 Prince's 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 Caesar's. 
Christianity establisheth Regal Supremacy.  And also in that the Christian Doctrine doth peculiarly enjoin fidelity and obedience, in all all inferior relations towards their superiors, 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 baptised 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 than 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 Governors; 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 Governors 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 Emperor commanding for truth, brings judgement 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 God's 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. chrysostom, 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. count. 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 Emperor as being next to God, and inferior to none besides him. 
Hom. 2. ad Antioch.  And S. chrysostom 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 Caesar's 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 die,— I appeal unto Caesar: he doth thereby acknowledge the Emperor 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 superior 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 superior, but as to one who was superior to the Precedent 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 superior, 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 acknowledgement of superiority over him.  
10. Thirdly, Besides, that all appeals are owned by Civilians and Canonists, as an application from an inferior judge, to a superior judge: this particular liberty of appealing to the Roman Emperor, was a privilege 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 Governor thereof. For this appeal was founded upon that Roman law, which condemned that inferior 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 Precedent 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 Governors; and therefore if these places will prove any thing, of the Prince's power in matters Ecclesiastical, they must fix it in Pagan Princes, as well as in Christian. 
Diu. right of Ch. Gou. 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 Governor of the Church.  
2. And it must be confessed, that it is a very sad and heavy calamity to the Church when those sovereign powers who are not of the true Religion, will intermeddle in the affairs of the Church, without the fear of God, and due respect to the Rules of Religion. Such was the case of the Jewish Church. under the Roman power, which undertook to dispose of the High Priesthood in Jewry, against both the letter of the law, and the design of it. But no Governors 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 Emperors had, to oppose the Deity of the Son of God. against the Gospel. But though it be very , 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 Spalleto 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  exercise of their authority.  
3. I think it a very plain and clear truth, 
All Sovereign 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 Sovereignty. 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 persuasions. 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 Nabuchadnezzar 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 judgement 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 Nabuchadnezzar, 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 Emperors to be censured, who acted any thing on the behalf of Christian Religion, as Tiberius threatened them, who at their peril should accuse Christians, for their Religion; and other public 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 Emperor, 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 Catholic Bishops, they apply themselves to Constantine the Emperor. 
Opt. count. 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 than Bishop of Rome, with three Bishops of Gallia, to judge thereof, 
Eus. Hist. l. 10. c. 5.  and they by virtue of his delegation examined the case, and adjudged it against the Donatists.  
8. But they being still unquiet, and this hearing being ineffectual, for procuring the peace of the Church, he order this to be further examined by the Council of Arles, which he summoned, and enjoins the parties concerned to attend that Council, 
Eus. ubi sup.  as his own Letters in Eusebius do declare. 
Bar. An. 314. n. 53.  And Baronius who fixeth the Baptism of Constantine ten years after this Council, yet asserteth him to have been present in it; which by the way is sufficient to discover how little the presence of Constantine in the Council of Nice, can prove him to have been then baptised, as Baronius would thence infer; who was not there to give suffrage or vote, for the deciding questions of faith, but to observe their proceed and preserve unity; and where indeed even Heathen Philosophers were sometimes present, 
An. 125. n. 45.  which Baronius himself admitteth. And after all this, the Donatists being condemned at Arles, but still dissatisfied and turbulent, though Constantine was unwilling to have judged a Canonical case, concerning Bishops, in his own person, yet at last he undertook the hearing the Case of Caecilianus himself, and justified him. And the accusations the Donatists brought against Felix, who was one of them who ordained Cecilian, 
Aug. Ep. 166.  was by the Emperor's command and appointment, heard by Helianus, who declared him innocent.  
9 Touching Arianism, and the dispute concerning the time of the observation of Easter, Constantine endeavoured to compose and end them, 
Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 4, 5. Soz. l. 1. c. 15. Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 2. c. 62.  by sending Hosius Bishop of Corduba, both to Alexandria, and into the East, or towards Asia to that purpose. And after this by his Authority, he called that famous Council of Nice, to decide these Controversies; of which I shall add more in the next Chapter. And when they had determined these things, and the Case of the Meletians and others, Constantine enjoined the burning of all the Books of Arius, 
Socr. l. 1. c. 6.  and upon pain of death required every Copy of them to be given up, and not to be concealed. But afterwards being deceived by Arius and his Complices, he was very favourable unto him. And many other things passed under his cognisance, relating to Arius, and his Confederates and Opposers.  
10. He also published his Edicts against the Donatists, Novatians, Valentinians, 
Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 5. leg. 1. Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 62, 63. Sozom. l. 2. c. 30.  Marcionists and other Sects, forbidding their Assemblies, either private or public, and commanding their ordinary meeting places to be pulled down, or taken from them. And Eusebius observes, de Vit. Const. l. 1. c. 37. & l. 4. c. 27. how for the procuring the peace of the Church, he frequently assembled Councils, and confirmed their Canons and Constitutions.  
11. And when he summoned the Council of Tyre, he expressed such words of authority as these, recorded by Eusebius, and from him admitted by Baronius. If, saith he, any one shall, as I suppose they will not, 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 42. Bar. an. 334. n. 8, 9  withst and our mandate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and will not be present, there shall forthwith be sent one by us, who shall by the royal authority eject, (or banish) him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and shall let him know, that it doth not become him to resist the appointments of the Emperor, which are published for the defence of the truth. And Athanasius otherwise unwilling, 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 20, 21, 22.  as Socrates informs us, did come to that Council, for fear of the Emperor's displeasure. But when the proceed of that Council against him, were very injurious and irregular, for which the Emperor afterwards sharply reproved them, Athanasius himself a man of a great and courageous spirit, and no way inclinable to any unworthy compliances, earnestly desired to have his case heard, and examined by the Emperor himself, who though at first unwilling, did undertake to hear it.  
12. He also promulged divers laws, for the advancement of Christianity and piety; by them prohibiting idolatrous sacrifices, Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 2. c. 44. & lib. 4. c. 23. and taking care for the erecting Christian Churches, ibid. l. 2. c. 44, 45. Socr. l. 1. c. 12. and enjoining the reverend observation both of the Lords day, and of other fasting and festival days of the Christian Church, Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 18, 23. And all these things were looked upon by the Christians of that age, as no acts of an intruding and usurping power, but were attended with great approbation and acclamations: and the pious Bishops were ready and forward to examine cases according to his order, for the Church's peace, or to meet in Councils, according to his appointment. But where the Emperor through mistake did go beyond his bounds, the pious and Catholic Bishops were then careful, to preserve the true Catholic rules of Order and Unity, as appeared in that notable instance, when he commanded Arius to be received into Communion, of which hereafter.  
13. Indeed Constantine did all this time believe, and own the doctrine of Christianity; 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 61.  but was not till toward the end of his life solemnly admitted into the number of the Catechumen, when he first received imposition of hands, according to the discipline of the Church. And therefore when he owned himself to be constituted of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ib. c. 24.  he meant thereby that he had the oversight and government, and was to take care of those persons who were without the Church. 
Ib. l. 1. c. 37.  And the like general sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be admitted, where Eusebius declares, that Constantine behaved himself towards the Church of God, as one who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a general Governor thereof. But whilst he was yet unbaptised, being not a perfect member of the visible Church, it would be very incongruous to assert, that he could derive his authority in causes Ecclesiastical, from his relation to that Church, whereof he was but a Candidate. And no authority of Government in the Christian Church, can be conveyed by Christianity, antecedently to the Baptismal admission.   

SECT. iv  
An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great, with respect to the fuller clearing this matter.  
1. But because much of this depends upon the right fixing the time of Constantine's Baptism, it will be no digression to take a true account thereof, which our later Romish Writers do much misrepresent. Sect. 4 Now Eusebius, the Chronicon of S. Hierome, 
De Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 61, 62.  and divers ancient Writers of good credit, inform us, that he received his Baptism at Nicomedia, 
Socr. l. 2. c. ult.  but a very short time before his death (and Constantius also his Son was baptised at the end of his life and reign). But Baronius, Binius, Durantus, 
Bar. an. 324. n. 29. etc. Bin. in Vit. Silu. Pol. de Bapt. Constant. Durant. de Rit. l. 1. c. 19 n. 8.  and before them Cardinal Poole, in a particular Tract, and many other Popish Writers, out of respect to the Romish See, will have his Baptism to be administered divers years before, at Rome by Silvester; some of them boldly charging Eusebius, with a design of forgery and falsehood in this relation.  
2. But he who shall consider, 
Constantine not baptised at Rome by Silvester.  how much Eusebius conversed with Constantine himself, and how remarkable a thing his baptism must needs be, after the continued series of Pagan Emperors, and also how many particularities are expressed by Eusebius, both concerning words and actions of Constantine, at that time and place, which had relation to his baptism; will think it unlikely that his account should be an imposture. 
Socr. l. 1. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And he who shall further observe that Nicomedia was no obscure place, but a populous City, in which was an Imperial Palace, where Constantine sometimes resided, and there died; and that all this was related to be done, in a time of so much remark, as then was the fifty days from Easter to Whitsuntide, and when many Bishops were called thither, to be present at this solemn action; if all this was as Baronius and Binius pretend, a designed forgery of Eusebius, there was great want of cunning in the contrivement. And he must be a man arrived at a strange height both of impudence and folly, who would attempt the obtruding such a cheat upon the World, which could not but be generally contradicted in that age. I suppose that no man of common sense can persuade himself, that if he would undertake to write, that our late gracious Sovereign, King Charles the First, was put to death at Dublin, or Edinburgh, in 1660. (which is a parallel to what these men fancy of Eusebius) that ever he should be believed.  
3. And yet it is much more incredible, that if this had been such a palpable imposture, that both Socrates, 
Socr. l. 1. c. 26. Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 32. Soz. l. 2. c. 32. Evagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 41.  Theodoret, Sozomen, Evagrius, and divers other Historians since them, should agree with Eusebius herein, and that none of these, nor any other genuine ancient Writer, should make discovery of his error, who yet mention many things concerning Constantine, not expressed in Eusebius. And besides what might be learned by general fame, and particular writings, 
Socr. l. 1. c. 7.  Socrates had himself opportunity of receiving intelligence, concerning divers things done in Constantine's reign, from some persons of good credit, who lived till his time, and one who was present in the Council of Nice.  
4. Besides this, S. Ambrose, 
Ambr. in fun. Theod.  who lived at the end of that Age, and in Italy not far from Rome, where Constantine is pretended to have been baptised, about thirteen years before his death; gives a plain testimony, that his baptism was at the end and close of his life. For speaking of Constantine, he saith, Cui baptismi gratia in ultimis constituto, omnia peccata dimisit; which expressions have puzzled Baronius, nor can they be referred, as he and Binius would have them, to any time of sickness but his last.  
5. And that Synod held at Ariminum in Italy, in the reign of Constantius, consisting of the Western Bishops, which held the Faith of Nice, declared their resolution in their Synodical Epistle to Constantius, which is extant in Athanasius, Socrates, 
Athan. de Synod. Socr. l. 2: c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. l. 2. c. 19  Sozomen and Theodoret, not to innovate any thing in that Faith, which Constantine with all accurateness and strictness of examination did publish, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose memory deserved to be famous after his death, 
Soz. l. 4. c. 17.  and who after his baptism (to wit, into this faith) was taken from among men, and went into peace. 
Ubi supra.  But Baronius and Binius to avoid this testimony, undertake to correct this Epistle, and instead of Constantine read Constans, pretending that it is so read in Athanasius; to which, because this testimony is considerable, I shall return two things. 1. That it is indeed true, that the latin translation of Athanasius, hath Constans, but the Greek in Athanasius readeth it Constantine; and it is very unreasonable, that the original Greek of four several Authors, should be corrected, only from the different reading of one latin translation of much later date, and possibly altered with design. 2. That the words mentioned in that Epistle, cannot be applied to any other Emperor, but only to Constantine the Great, of whom they were discoursing. 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 6.  In his time and much under his care, the faith of Nice was published and promulged, which is oft expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he himself declared, concerning his care about it at Nice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which words of his, the Synod at Ariminum did probably allude unto.  
6. Now against all this great evidence, they who oppose it, do not produce the authority of any one ancient genuine Catholic Writer. But they bring forth such spurious stuff, as the acts of Silvester, and Liberius, which are manifestly fabulous: insomuch that Baronius acknowledgeth, 
An. 315. n. 12, 13, 14, 17.  iis complura veritati manifeste adversantia inesse, perspicuo demonstratur, with other words of like severe censure. They also urge a pretended Preface, to a Council at Rome under Silvester, which speaketh of Constantine being baptised by Silvester. But they have not these words, from any Copy of such a Council itself, but from a Writing of an uncertain Author, entitled, Epilogus brevis, etc. of which Binius confesseth, 
Not. in Conc. Rom. 2. sub Silvest.  hujus Epilogi initium de mendacio suspectum redditur; that the beginning of this writing is under a suspicion of being false. They also have recourse unto Zosimus, a Greek Historian; but from him th● produce nothing, of the baptism of Constantine, but he telleth a manifestly false and slanderous story, of the occasion of Constantine's first resolution of embracing Christianity; and both the acts of Silvester, and the words of the Preface  do incline to the same thing. But Zosimus being a bitter Enemy to Christianity, is declared by Baronius, when he writes concerning things of the Christian Religion, 
An. 306. n. 18. & an. 313. n. 15. & passim.  to be an evident depraver of truth, manifestus proditor veritatis, & in Constantinum iniquissimus, with other expressions of like nature. And the pretence that the Font is yet to be seen at Rome, in which Constantine was baptised, being against such great evidence, deserves no more assent, than the most fabulous stories, concerning such religious relics, as do serve only to impose upon the credulous vulgar.  
7. But that argument which they seem to be most earnest in is, that if Constantine was baptised at Nicomedia, where Eusebius a chief Ringleader of the Arians was then Bishop, this would cast an high aspersion upon that good Emperor, who must, say they, then be concluded to die in the Arian, and not in the Catholic Communion Now it might be sufficient to say, that by this same argument, they might as well prove all the Nicene Council, to be Arians, as this good Emperor; since they sat, and no doubt received the Communion at Nice, where Theognis was Bishop; who was the constant Companion and Confederate with Eusebius, in managing the Arian designs. But I shall further add two things. 1. That it might be possible, that his baptism was not received from the hands of this Eusebius, 
De Vit. Cons. l. 4. c. 61, 62.  Eusebius Pamphilius declaring, that there were divers Bishops at that time called to Nicomedia, and Gelasius who was a famous Bishop of Palestine in that Century, declaring, that he was not baptised by an Arian, but by one who embraced the Catholic faith, as his words in Photius, cited by Scaliger, do plainly express. 
Scalig. in Euseb. Chron. p. 251.  2. That if it should be admitted, that he was baptised by this Eusebius, as is indeed expressed in the Chronicon of S. Hierome, and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, published by Scaliger, with the Chronicon of Eusebius; yet this will by no means charge him with Arianisme. For 1. This Eusebius of Nicomedia, had then subscribed the faith of Nice; and though he and Theognis were once deposed by that Council, yet upon their professed submission to the faith thereof, they were again restored and received, as S. Hierome acquaints us: 
Hier. adv. Lucif.  and the form of their submission is extant in Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 10. and Sozom. l. 2. c. 15. And though this submission of his, was as Theodoret tells us, 
Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 19  out of an ill design, this is no way to be imputed to the Emperor. 2. The faith of the Council of Nice was then publicly established, and the Fathers at Ariminum , do sufficiently intimate his being baptised into it. 3. He then appeared a manifest friend, to the Catholic Bishops, who held to the Council of Nice, in that at the time of his death at Nicomedia, he designed to recall Athanasius from his banishment, though Eusebius of Nicomedia persuaded the contrary, 
Theod. ibid. c. 32. Athan. Apol. 2. ex lit. Const. filii.  as Theodoret (with whom Athanasius himself agrees) doth acquaint us. 4. Nicomedia was not the place he intended for his Baptism, but Jordan; but his sickness of which he died surprising him here, left him no liberty to choose any other place.  
8. I shall now only add, that according to this evidence, all the actions of Constantine, expressed in the former Section, were performed before his baptism. But if any shall embrace the contrary opinion, which I reject as false and groundless, many of those actions will still be previous thereto. And therefore this Prince's authority and duty, to take care of things Ecclesiastical, was not the effect of his undertaking Christianity, but was contained in the general authority of his imperial Sovereignty. Yet I doubt not but this fiction of Constantine's being baptised at Rome, and the other of his Donation, are two Twins, being both of them the spurious and illegitimate offspring, of a luxuriant fancy, impregnated by a Romancing Incubus. And the large form of his Donation, not that in Balsamon, but in Binius, 
Bin. Tom. 1. p. 296.  expresseth the Baptism of Constantine by Silvester. But this Donation is now justly rejected as a manifest forgery, by their own learnedest Writers, as Morinus, and P. de Marca, 
De Concord. l. 3. c. 12. n. 3, 5.  the latter of which supposeth some of the Popes themselves, about the eighth Century, to be accessary to the framing and obtruding this imposture.    

CHAP. V.  

B. I.C.5.  An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church, concerning the authority of Emperors and Princes in matters of Religion.  

SECT. 1.  
Of the general exercise of this Supremacy; and of its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice.  
1. IT is acknowledged, that the truths either of Christian doctrine, or of natural reason, do not principally depend upon the consent of men. It is not to be decided by the voice of the World, whether the only true God, and he alone, aught to be worshipped; nor did it depend upon the vote of the Jewish Priesthood or Sanhedrim, whether Jesus was the true Messiah. And upon this account, the Gentile Deities were deservedly derided by Tertullian, 
sertul. Ap. cap. 5.  who had no other title thereto, than by the vote of the Senate; nisi homini placuerit Deus non erit.  
2. But yet none can be expected, Sect. 1 to give a better and more sure account of the doctrines, and duties of Christianity than those who have been the professors, and practisers of that Religion, in the purer times thereof. And therefore there is such a just respect and reverence due to the primitive Christian Church, and the assistance of the divine grace which guided and influenced it, that that which was generally received therein, hath thereby a very great and considerable testimony of its being a truth, especially where there are also other great arguments, and evidences to evince the same. And in such things, it may well be allowed, 
Dr. Hammond of Heresy. Sect. 14.  according to Dr Hammond, among the pie credibilia, that a truly general Council shall not err. And even those persons who have no due regard, either to antiquity, or the authority of the Christian guides, will manifest their great pride, if they will reject and contradict the general sense of the Church, unless it be upon very clear and manifest evidence to the contrary. But such who pretend, as the Romish Church doth, a reverence and high veneration for Tradition, are thereby the more concerned not to disclaim what hath been ordinarily and plainly delivered, in the ancient Church.  
3. Now to give an account of the sense of the particular Fathers in this place, would be a more long and tedious work than would be needful. And indeed the minds of many of them may sufficiently be discerned, by their plain expressions mentioned in several parts of this discourse. Nor will I insist upon those commonly observed, and very expressive say, concerning Supremacy in general; as that of Tertullian (Imperatores) in Dei solius potestate sunt, 
Apol. c. 30. & 33. cont. Parm. l. 3.  à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi; and majestatem Caesaris Deo soli subjicio; and that of Optatus, super Imperatorem non esse nisi Deum qui fecit Imperatorem, which very plainly assert, that the Emperor was under none, but only God himself. But I shall apply myself to such things, as will include the more general, and public acknowledgement of the Christian Church: and shall then answer what may be objected in this particular.  
4. The actual exercise of Government in the ancient Christian Realms, is somewhat considerable to this purpose. That the Christian Emperors did exercise authority in matters Ecclesiastical, is manifest from the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Roman Emperors, 
Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.  which are yet to be seen in the Codex and the Novellae Justiniani. Wherein among other things, there are laws establishing the Catholic faith, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 
Novel. 6. & 123. & passim.  so as not to allow any to contend against it; as also concerning the manner of Ordinations, Excommunications, and Absolutions; and the duty of the Clergy. even of Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarches. And in these and other particulars, the Nomocanon of Photius doth designedly show, 
Phot. Nomoc. Tit. 1. etc.  how the Imperial law doth provide for various Cases, concerning which the Canons of the Church also had taken care.  
5. The Laws of like nature are also yet extant, of the Kings of France, 
Kings anciently governed in things Ecclesiastical.  and other Realms abroad. And in our own Kingdom the Ecclesiastical laws of Ina, Alfred, Edgar, Canutus, and Edward the Confessor, may be seen in Sir H. Spelman. 
Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1.  The Laws made and executed by Christian Emperors against Arians, Nestorians, Manichees, and others guilty of Heresy or Schism, were very many; and the proceed by the Imperial law against the Donatists was in divers places defended by S. Austin. And that all the godly Emperors of old, 
Aug. Ep. 50.162, 164, 166. De correct. Donatist. & passim.  even from the beginning of the Emperor's professing Christianity, did take such care of the Church; that the affairs thereof, and the matters of Religion, were very much ordered by their authority, 
Socr. Procem. l. 5. Hist. Eccl.  is plainly declared by Socrates. And this is a thing so manifest to all who look into the History and Records of those Times, that it is as needless to go about to prove this, as it would be to prove them to have been Christian Emperors.  
6. But that which will give the most evident Declaration of the sense of the Christian Church, is the considering how this authority of Christian Princes, hath been acknowledged and complied with by Councils, and by those especially, which were the first general or Ecumenical Councils. For whilst the opinion of some particular fathers, may possibly be thought not sufficient, to give a satisfactory account, of the general sense of the Christian Church in those days; and whereas the proof produced from the Imperial laws, and the constant exercise of the Emperor's authority in affairs of Religion, may possibly fall under a suspicion of undue encroachment or may be pretended by some, to be executed by an authority dependent upon, and derived from some Ecclesiastical Officers; no such exceptions can lie against the concurrent testimony and acknowledgement of the chief general Councils, in the flourishing times of Christianity. And I suppose that no man will deny, that the assembling of Ecumenical Councils, and the matters therein transacted, were properly things Ecclesiastical.  
7. And here I shall begin with the first Council of Nice, 
This Supremacy owned by the Council of Nice.  concerning whicn I shall need to say the less, because many things mentioned in the third Section of the foregoing Chapter, do sufficiently manifest the Supremacy, exercised by Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, in whose Reign that Council sat. That this general Council was called by the Command of Constantine the Emperor is expressly declared by Eusebius, with whom Socrates, 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 6.  Theodoret and other ancient Historians do agree. But the later Romish Writers would persuade the World, that it was assembled by the authority of the Romish Bishop. 
Bin. in Not. in Cone. Nicen. Not. a.  So Binius, Authoritate Silvestri Romani Pontificis, & By the authority of Silvester Bishop of Rome, this holy Synod was summoned, and was gathered together by the consent, help, and Counsel of Constan tine the Emperor. And Baronius likewise declares, that no man may doubt, 
Baron. an. 325. n. 13.  but that the authority of Silvester was in this case interposed. But in truth they produce nothing, that can justly be accounted any evidence hereof.  
8. But that it may appear past all doubt, by whose authority this Council was convened, we have a twofold testimony beyond all exception. Constantine himself, who was able to give an account of his own actions, in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, 
Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 6.  which is extant in Socrates, declares that it was he who called this Council. 
Ibid.  And the Synodical Epistle, which was written by the Council of Nice to Alexandria, which may be seen in Socrates and Theodoret, 
Theod. Hist. l. r. c. 9  doth attest the same; and therein the Fathers of Nice themselves, who could not but know who summoned that Council, declare that it was gathered together, by the grace of God, and by the Religious Emperor Constantine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who called us together out of divers Provinces and Cities.  
9 That the most eminent Bishops, from the several quarters of the Empire, did with much readiness, repair to this Council, according to the Emperor's command, is particularly attested by Eusebius, 
Euseb. ubi sup. c. 6, 7.  and other Historians. Yet it is not to be doubted, that if they had received summons and command from a person, whom they knew to be inferior and not superior to them, as a Presbyter or Deacon, they would never have yielded general obedience to him, but would have rebuked and repressed his insolence; and therefore this their obedience to the Emperor, was an acknowledgement of his authority and supremacy. And this is the more remarkable, because these Nicene Bishops were persons of the highest worth and esteem, of any in the Christian Church, which appears from the general fame, and deserved honour, which this Council hath obtained, in all succeeding ages unto this day.  
10. And the chief occasion of calling the Council, was by reason of the evil opinions of Arius, and the difference about the day for observing Easter; which things the Emperor considering, 
Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. gr.  though this the only effectual way for the redressing them, and thereupon directed this Council, particularly to consult about them, which was accordingly done. And whilst this Council was sitting, the Emperor who was present with them, used very great care and diligence, 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 3. cap. 12, 13.  for the suppressing unnecessary occasions of discord and quarrel, and for the promoting the desired concord thereof.  
11. And when this Council was ended, Constantine enjoined the observation of what was established thereby, to take place in all, even in the most remote Provinces of his Empire. 
Eus. ib. c. 18.  He also gave his Imperial Sanction, to the Decrees of this Council, confirming them by his Imperial Seal, 
Eus. ibid. c. 22.  which Eusebius expresseth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And both the Nicene Creed and its Canons are confirmed in the Civil Law, in the Codex and Authentica.   

SECT. II.  
This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople, and the third at Ephesus.  
1. That the second general Council at Constantinople, was summoned by the Emperor (viz. Theodosius) is declared, both by Socrates and Sozomen. 
Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7. The Council of Constantinople.  But Baronius, though he had a little before cited the express testimony of Socrates, against his assertion, would have us believe, that it was called by the authority of Damasus, and produceth some small appearances of argument for the proof thereof; 
Bar. an. 381. n. 19, 20.  and tells us, there is an ancient Manuscript in the Vatican, and some other Libraries, which declareth so much. 
Bin. Not. in Conc. Const. not. f.  And Binius making use of the same Plea, is so earnest and fierce, that he saith, Nemo nisi pertinax haereticus, asseveret hoc Concilium ab Imp. indictum fuisse, Let no man unless he be an obstinate Heretic, assert that this Council was summoned by the Emperor. Sect. 2  
2. Yet all this is a plain instance, whereby we may clearly see, how little credit is to be given to the specious pretence of Vatican Manuscripts, or to the confident assertions of such Writers, or their little forced Arguments. For there is only one Epistle of this General Council, 
Epist. Synod. ad Theod. in Bin. & Bar. an. 381. n. 37.  produced both by Binius and Baronius in Latin; and in this Epistle themselves declare again and again, unto Theodosius the Emperor, that they were convened by his authority. They tell him in one of their expressions, Mandato tuae pietatis Constantinopoli convenimus, and in another, Literis quibus nos convocasti, Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es. So that they assembled by the Letters and Mandate of the Emperor, which they accounted an honour to the Church, who were no obstinate Heretics.  
3. And indeed though the calling of General Councils, be now with some eagerness claimed, by many of the Romish Writers, as a prerogative of the Pope; yet the late Archbishop of Paris hath acknowledged, 
De Concord. l. 6. c. 28. n. 12.  that the first who pretended any right hereunto, was Pope Nicholas about the year 865. And he hath sufficiently evidenced, as others also have done, that those Decretal Epistles, which are said to be of a more early date, 
Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.  and express any such authority to be in the Pope, are certainly spurious and supposititious.  
4. And in this second Council, it is manifest, that during part of their Session, the Emperor Theodosius was present in the Council, 
Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 9  as is affirmed in a Synodical Epistle, from Constantinople to Damasus, written by many of the same Fathers, at another Council, the year following, which is to be seen in Theodoret. And the choice of the Bishop of Constantinople, which was part of the business that Council was to undertake, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 8.  was there determined by the Emperor himself, who requiring the Bishop's present, to give him a Catalogue of such persons, as they thought fit to nominate, he reserved to himself the election of one out of this number, and fixed upon the name of Nectarius, who was the last in that Catalogue, who thereupon was made Bishop of Constantinople.  
5. When this Council was ending, in their Synodal Epistle to the Emperor, 
Ep. Synodal, ubi supra.  they give him an account of what they have done, sent him a Copy thereof, and pray him that by his Letters, he would confirm the Decrees of that Council, and that by his commands they may be of force, ratum esse jubeas, confirmesque concilii decretum: and that he would strengthen the things which they had decreed and concluded, by his sentence and seal. 
Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Sozom. l. 7. c. 9  And after this in confirmation of the determinations of this Council, the Emperor added his suffrage and consent to what they had done, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And he also established a law, that all the Christian Churches should be committed to them only, who confess the same divine nature, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  
6. That the third General Council of Ephesus, 
The Council of Ephesus.  was summoned by the authority of the Emperor, Theodosius the younger, is attested both by Socrates, and Evagrius. 
Socr. l. 7. c. 33. Evagr. l. 1. c. 3.  And though they who espouse the interest of the Romish Bishop, do here likewise plead for its being convened by his authority; there are so many Synodical Epistles of this Council, taken notice of both by Binius and Baronius, wherein they assert themselves to be assembled by the command of the Emperor, that he that hath either honesty or a face, may well be ashamed to assert the contrary. And indeed touching the calling this Council, and the exercising of the Imperial supremacy concerning it, I shall not need to take notice of any thing further, than what is related, and asserted for truth by Baronius and Binius.  
7. They writ themselves to be met together by the Emperor's Authority, 
Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 17. Edit. Peit.  in their Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople, and in their Encyclick Epistle, and in their Epistle to the Emperor. And in their Epistle to Celestine then Bishop of Rome, they tell him (not that they were convened by his authority, but) that they were met together, according to the will of our Saviour, and the Sanction of the most pious Emperors (viz. Theodosius the Second, and Valentinian) at the day of Pentecost. And they go on to tell him that this was the day, which the Decree of the Emperor, by which they were called together, did fix for their first Session, with several other expressions to the same sense. 
Baron. an. 431. n. 10.  And Celestine himself, in an Epistle to Theodosius, which Baronius hath published, telleth the Emperor, that he did afford his presence by those Deputies he sent, huic Synodo quam esse jussistis, to this Synod which you have commanded to be held.  
8. And the Emperor first sent Candidianus a Count, and afterward others, to be present in this Synod, not that he should give any vote in matters of faith, but to take care of the peaceable and orderly proceeding of the Synod. 
Baron. ib. n. 45, 46.  And also to provide, that no other business should be propounded, till those things chief designed were determined. And also that he should not suffer any persons of that Council, who were summoned thither by the Emperor, to departed thence, till the Council had finished what was before them: all which things are manifest, from the letter of the Emperor himself to this purpose, directed to the Council itself.  
9 And when Candidianus did misrepresent the actings and proceed of the Synod unto the Emperor; thereupon not only Nestorius who was deposed by this Council, but even Cyrillus also who was Patriarch of Alexandria, 
Ibid. n. 128, 129.  and Precedent of this Ecumenical Council, and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, and a man of principal note and reputation in that Council, were by the Emperors, authority, through misinformation, committed to prison. The Emperor also declared against their management of what was before them, and tells them with sharpness, 
Conc. Eph. Tom. 3. c. 17.  Our Majesty cannot esteem such things as valid and lawful, yea it doth Decree, that all such things which in a disorderly manner have hitherto been acted, shall be accounted as void and altogether null.  
10. In this case the Council did not exclaim, or contend against the Emperor's authority, as having nothing to do over Bishops, or members of a general Council, or their proceed therein; 
Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 10. Baron. an. 431. n. 147. etc.  but they apply themselves to the Emperor, to entreat him to take a true and just account of what they had acted. And according to the Emperor's command, they send delegates or Deputies to Constantinople, to acquaint him with the true state of things; and thereby they gave him full satisfaction. And after they had finished their decisions, 
Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 8. & 14.  they make their application to the Emperor, that he would undertake to confirm them, and give his consent unto them, ut vim suam integre obtineant, that they might be of full force.   

SECT. III.  
Of the same being acknowledged in the Council of Chalcedon, and some others.  
The fourth General Council was called, 
The Council of Chalcedon.  upon occasion of the spreading of the Heresy of Eutyches. When this Heresy began to be propagated, Leo then Bishop of Rome, 
Leo. Ep. 9  addressed himself to Theodosius the second than Emperor, by way of Supplication, that he would command a general Council to be called in Italy. But the Emperor fixed upon Ephesus for the place of a general Council, Sect. 3 and expected the presence of Leo there; 
Baron. an. 449. n. 23. Praeamb. Epist. in Synod. Chalc. Leo. Epist. 12, 13.17.  and the Imperial Edict, whereby he summoned this Ephesin Council, is extant. But Leo in two Epistles to Theodosius, and one to Pulcheria the Empress, excuseth his personal absence, partly from the shortness of the time of his notice, and chief from the necessity of his not being so far from his own Church, in a time of such public danger (from the Hunns). And he declareth, that he had sent those Deputies, who should supply his presence there; which he tells the Emperor he did, as an expression of obedience to his command, ut Clementiae vestrae statutis aliquatenus pareatur.  
2. But when this Ephesine Council was packed, by the interest of the faction of Dioscorus, and managed in favour of Eutyches, and their decisions were contrary to the truth of the Christian doctrine; Leo both singly, and with a Roman Synod, 
Leon. Epist. 24, 25.  writeth to Theodosius, that he would command all things to be in the same state they were in before this decision, until a more general Council could be called. And he desireth by way of Petition to the Emperor, that that Council might be called in Italy; 
Epist. 23. & 33.  and reneweth this his supplication, both directly to the Emperor Theodosius, and by the Clergy of Constantinople to whom he writeth, that they would use their interest with the Emperor to this purpose.  
3. But Theodosius dying in the mean time, and Marcianus succeeding in the Eastern part of the Empire, Leo still continued his desire, that the place for a general Council might be appointed in Italy, 
Lcon. Ep. 49, & 50.  but that it might be at present deferred, because of the great calamities, which some parts of the Empire sustained, by the incursions of the Hunns. But the Emperor would not admit of any longer delay, and thought fit to fix upon a place remote from Italy, for the Council to meet, by his Imperial Summons: or as Victor, the African Bishop, 
Victor, Tunun. in Chron.  expresseth it, imperiali authoritate denunciavit. And Leo, so soon as the Emperor's pleasure herein was signified to him, appointed his Legates, to supply his presence in that Council.  
4. And this fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, was first appointed to meet at Nice, 
Evagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 2.  as is observed by Evagrius, and the same thing is expressly contained in the Edict, by which the Emperor did convene them, 
Praeamb. Epist. in Syn. Chalc.  which is yet extant, wherein also Marcianus declares his resolution, of being present with them at Nice, at the time appointed for their assembling. 
Baron. 451.9.  But when the troubles of the Empire hindered the Emperor from removing so far from Constantinople, 
Bar. ibid. n. 31.  the Bishops who were convened at Nice at the time appointed waited several days for the Emperor's coming, and after Letters dispatched unto him, the seat of this Council was by his Order removed to Chalcedon, a City nearer to Constantinople, where Marcianus was present with them. 
V Praeamb. Epist. ubi sup.  And he wrote two several Letters to them, requiring them to make this removal, which they accordingly obeyed.  
5. And that this Council of Chalcedon did assemble and sit by virtue of this Imperial summons and authority, 
Conc. Chalced, Action. 1. etc.  is declared by themselves divers times, in almost every action of that Council. And in the time of its Session, the Imperial supremacy was so much acknowledged, that there were ordinarily present in the Council, some eminent persons of secular authority, who were to have an inspection into, and to take care about the orderly proceed thereof, not intermeddling to vote in matters of faith. These are oft mentioned in the several actions of that Council, by the honourable title of Gloriosissimi judices. and amplissimus Senatus, and their names and offices in the Empire are expressed in the beginning of that Council. 
Action. I.  And they sometimes proposed questions to be discussed, or a method for their proceed, and sometimes declared their sense of things. But this I suppose was only done here (as the like also in the third general Council) to provide a remedy, against the inconveniencies which might happen from the Bishops of the adverse parties, being prone without cause to complain of the proceed of the Catholic Bishops; and to design crossness and opposition against them: and unless such an extraordinary case may plead for it, this inspection of such secular persons, cannot be regular or expedient.  
6. 
Evagr. l. 2. c. 18.  In this Council those of the party of Dioscorus and Eutyches, whom this Council rejected, 
Leon. Ep. 69.  were censured with the approbation of the Emperor. And Leo in an Epistle to Marcianus, after the end of this Council, acknowledged, that it was he chief who effected the extirpation of heresy thereby, vestro praecipue opere est effectum etc. 
Evagr. l. 2. c. 4. Ibid. c. 18.  The restoring them who were censured by Dioscorus and his party was also done with the Emperor's consent. And at the Emperor's desire were the Canons of that Council made, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
7. 
Conc. Chalc. Action. 3.  And after this Council was ended, both Valentinian and Marcian jointly, 
Sacra Marcian. in fin. Conc. Chalc.  and again Marcian singly, publish their Imperial Edict, for the establishing the faith and doctrine, which was declared in this Council, and signifying to all their subjects, that whosoever shall oppose this their decree, shall not remain in any Ecclesiastical preferment; and if he be of the Militia he shall be cashiered, with other penalties for other persons.  
8. And whereas after the death of Marcianus, the Eutychian party favoured by Anatolius of Constantinople, desired to make new stirs, and projected in their thoughts, to have a new Council called, that these matters might be again canvased and debated; Leo still Bishop of Rome, 
Leon. Ep. 73, 74, 75.  makes his supplication to the Emperor Leo, entreating him not to suffer any new disquisition of that truth, concerning the humanity of our Saviour, which had been so fully determined in the Council of Chalcedon.  
9 Some of these matters relating to this Council I have the more particularly mentioned, because they not only show the supreme authority of the Emperor, about matters Ecclesiastical, to have been owned and complied with by a general Council; but even by that Council, whose number of Bishops did almost equal the number of all the three former general Councils joined together. And also because this doth show the same to have been sufficiently acknowledged, by the than Romish Bishop, even by Leo, who was a man of great courage, boldness and activeness, and far enough from being charged with any pusillanimity, and lowness of spirit.  
10. And besides other things, there is observable from this short account, concerning these Councils, 
What power the four first general Councils gave to Princes in Ecclesiastical cases.  1. That all the Fathers of these several general Councils, acknowledged the authority of the Emperors to take care of the Church and Religion, and to command Bishops with respect thereto; in that they readily obeyed their commands, in meeting together at the time and place appointed by the Imperial authority, to consider of matters of Faith and Religion. 2. That they acknowledged that these Councils when met, were in the first and chief place to discuss those matters of faith or order, for which they were summoned by the Emperor, appeareth from them all. And that at the time of their assembling, they shown so great respect to the Emperor, that in expectation of his presence, they deferred the opening the Council, till they heard from him; and in obedience to his pleasure, and by his authority, the Seat of the General Council was removed from one place to another, is particularly evident in the fourth Council.  
11. Thirdly, That they thought themselves obliged, when they should be required so to do, to give an account of the manner of their proceed, in these general Councils, unto the Emperor. And that though they were in Council, and about matters Ecclesiastical, they were still subject to the Emperor's laws, and his coercive authority, as is manifest from the third general Council. 4 That they though matters Ecclesiastical and the decisions of the Church, a fit subject to receive the civil Sanction, and establishment of the secular power. And that they esteemed such a Sanction to be of great moment, to add weight to their Constitutions, doth appear from them all; and particularly from the second and third general Councils.  
12. I omit all large discourse of other Councils, which might easily be performed, and many things also in these Councils which might be worthy observation. But whosoever will read the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sixth General Council, to the Emperor Justinian, and their first Canon, 
Conc. Trull. can. 1.  will discern them to have the same reverence for their Prince, which these former Councils had. And amongst Provincial Councils, 
Conc. Mogunt. an. 813. in praef. ad Imp.  that of Mentz did acknowledge Charles the Great, to be verae Religionis Rector, and Defensor Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, and Sanctae Ecclesiae Rector. And the Council of Merida in Spain, 
Conc. Emer. in Praefat. In fin. Conc.  Ecclesiastica disponere, to order matters Ecclesiastical, but also that he did, sapientia divinitus concessa, regere Ecclesiastica, govern matters Ecclesiastical.   

SECT. iv  
Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius, and Arianism, considered.  
1. There are some things which have the appearance of arguments, to prove that the ancient Christian Bishops did not own the Supremacy of Princes, in matters Ecclesiastical. And the reflecting upon these may be of good use, to give us a right understanding of that Supremacy, which hath been acknowledged in the Christian Church. To which purpose, I shall here consider two Objections concerning the Arian Controversies.  
2. 
The Case of Arius.  Obj. 1. When Constantine the Emperor, upon the Oath and subscription of Arius, to the Faith asserted in the Council of Nice, Sect. 4 did again and again give his commands to Athanasius, 
Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 26, 27. gr. Athanas. in Apol. Sec.  with Menaces annexed, that he should receive Arius again unto the Church of Alexandria, Athanasius refused to do this, notwithstanding these Precepts of the Emperor. And the Catholic Bishops justified him, and refused communion with them who took part with Arius, which seemeth to disown the supreme Government of the Emperor, in Causes Ecclesiastical.  
3. Ans. First, 
The exercise of the Keys is not to be guided by the pleasure of a Prince as its rule.  That the sentence of Excommunication and Absolution being a proper exercise of the power of the Keys, the Ecclesiastical Officers are the immediate and peculiar Judges in these Cases. And if any person shall assert, that they are always obliged in these things, to do whatsoever the Emperor should give them in command, though he himself should be imposed upon by the sleight of others, or otherwise be mistaken; this would tend to disown the subject of this enquiry, concerning the Emperor's power, or to deny that there are such Causes or matters Ecclesiastical, that the Rules of Religion and Christianity ought to be the guide and measure of them.  
4. Secondly, The Case of Arius had been largely heard and adjudged, by the highest Ecclesiastical audience of a General Council, by the Emperor's command, where he was anathematised, and condemned of Heresy, and notwithstanding some appearance of repentance, 
Hieron. adv. Lucifer. Baron. an. 327. n. 3.  as S. Hierome declares, was sentenced no more to come to Alexandria; that is, as Baronius rightly explaineth it, not to be received in his former place in that Church. Now it was not in the power of any single Bishop whomsoever, to rescind the judgement, or reverse the sentence of a General Council, or indeed to take a new cognisance, of what had been thereby determined. And to acknowledge the Emperor to have a power of immediate judging, and determining concerning the censures of the Church, especially if against the Sentence of a General Council, cannot be consistent with the Ecclesiastical authority, and the power of the Keys, committed to the Ecclesiastical Officers, and in the most eminent and highest manner resident in Ecumenical Councils. And therefore Athanasius could not obey that command of the Emperor, procured by the subtlety of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party, without an exorbitant usurping and invading an authority, which was superior to him, and undermining the unity of the Catholic Church, 
Weights and measures, Ch. 6.  as is observed by Mr Thorndike in justification of Athanasius.  
5. And a Case much of like nature with this, was considered in the third general Council of Ephesus, who rejected them from their Communion, who in a separate Conventicle from the General Council, undertook to censure Cyril of Alexandria, who presided in that Council, and Memnon of Ephesus, and were also fautors of Nestorius. Concerning these Bishops, that Council gave this instruction to their delegates, whom they sent to the Emperor; that if he should insist upon these persons being restored to their Communion, they declare that so much as can be, is to be done, to express obedience to the Emperor; 
Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 19  Sanctioni Augusti pro viribus obediendum este; and that if these persons shall join with the Council in rejecting the Heresy of Nestorius, and deposing him; and submitting themselves, shall hearty embrace Unity with them, they may be admitted again to their Communion. But if these delegate Bishops in this Case, should admit them upon any other terms than these, which the Council itself upon considering and debating the Case had determined, they are there told, 
Arianisme and all false doctrine to be rejected, though favoured by Princes.  that they themselves would incur the censure of the Council.  
6. Obj. 2. Athanasius in the time of Constantius, S. Basil of Valens, and S. Ambrose of Valentinian the younger, and divers Catholic Bishops under the Arian Emperors, put in their exceptions against the Emperor's judging in matters of Faith, as not being a competent judge in that Case; nor would they be therein determined by him. And when Constantius had banished many Catholic Bishops, for withstanding Arianism, and used severe punishments towards others, and threatened Hosius Bishop of Corduba, 
Athanas. ad solitar. vit. agentes.  who drew up the form of the Nicene Creed, he in an Epistle to Constantius, adviseth him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not put they self upon things Ecclesiastical, nor do thou give commands to us concerning such things, but rather learn these things from us; God hath put into thy hand the Kingdom, he hath committed unto us the things of the Church. And when S. Ambrose was commanded in the Emperor's name, 
Ambr. Ep. 33. ad Marcellinam.  to yield up the possession of his Church to be delivered to the Arians, he refused so to do, in a matter of God's right, declaring ea quae divina sunt Imperatoris potestati non esse subjecta, that those things which are Gods, are not in subjection to the Emperor.  
7. Ans. First, Since the Christian profession is a taking up the Cross, all those who embrace it, must undertake to hold fast the truth of the Christian faith, though this should be against the command and will of any Prince or Ruler whosoever, and must be followers of him, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession. 
Martyr. Polycarpi. Tertul. Apol. c. 27.  This was the practice of the Apostles, of S. Polycarp and divers Christian Martyrs, to profess the Christian doctrine, when they were commanded to disown or abjure it. And as they must hold fast Christianity, notwithstanding the Prohibitions or threats of Diocletian or Julian, so must they keep close to the Catholic doctrine, notwithstanding the command of any Arian Emperor to the contrary. And it is no more a derogation from the Royal authority, to say that it hath no right to command, against truth or duty in Religion; than to declare that it hath no right to command, against honesty or chastity in the Commonwealth. The Prince's Supremacy in these matters is under God and Christ, to establish what is according to the Rules of our Religion, and the good of Mankind, 
The deciding questions of faith and guiding in it, more proper to Bishop's thanings.  but can have no authority to oppose or undermine the doctrines of our Saviour.  
8. Secondly, That as this Case hath respect to the truth of the Christian doctrine, it is certain, that not the Emperor, but these Catholic Bishops themselves, were the most proper and fit judges in this matter of faith; especially having the evidence of Scripture, the consent of the ancient Apostolical men, and the confirmation of the Synod of Nice. The deciding and determining matters of faith, peculiarly and chief belongeth to the Pastors of the Church, and is a matter for their judgement, 
In Athanas. ubi sup.  cognisance and discussion. By them, as Hosius said above, even Princes are to be taught, and should receive the doctrines of Religion. But the Christian Bishops are not to receive any thing, as a doctrine of Christianity, from the Command of any Prince in the World; but herein they and all other Christians, must be guided only by what was delivered by Christ, and his Apostles; for the knowledge of which, the consent of the Catholic Church, doth in many things give very great light.  
9 How much honour and respect in this particular, the ancient Emperors did give to the office and judgement of the Bishops of the Church, we may understand from Theodosius the Second. 
Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32.  When he sent a secular person to be present by his authority at the Ephesine Council, he particularly declared, that for him to have any thing to do, in their Synodical decisions of the Questions of faith, would be a nefarious thing. And it is truly observed by Baronius, 
Baron. an. 325. n. 73.  that Constantine and other Christian Emperors, who were themselves present in ancient Councils, did not interpose in giving votes or suffrages, in decisions of faith, or inflicting of censures, as concurring to the spiritual effect; but only did consent to, and ratify these determinations of the Councils, by their secular authority. And these things, which are under the proper and peculiar administration and cognisance of Ecclesiastical Officers, are sometimes in a restrained sense styled 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 employed by him in many things relating to the Church: 
Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32.  But also Theodosius , 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 proceed 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 emperor declares, that as he had a care concerning the Commonwealth, so his chief care was concerning such things, as pertained to Piety and Religion. So that the Prince's 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 included (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 superior to the will and command of the Emperor, or any man upon Earth; and it was fit that S. Ambrose should acquaint the Emperor with this, Sect. 5 which he ought to take notice of. But if the emperor 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 Catholic Bishops, by the Edict of Arian Emperors, 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 patiented and peaceable temper of mind, which was very remarkable in the carriage of Eusebius Samosatensis, under Valens the Emperor, 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 catholic 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. chrysostom.  
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 Latin Edition of Bishop Usher, 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 Usher 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 Emperors, 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 Emperor, 
Of S. Martin and Maximus. Sulp. in vit. Martini. c. 23.  one of the King's 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, aught 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, shows 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 shown 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 Usurper, who had then wickedly murdered Gratian the Emperor, 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 foretell the ruin 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 Panegyric upon Maximus.  
6. 
Ambr. Ep. 27.  When S. Ambrose was sent as an Ambassador 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 River. 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 judgement, when he had 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 spoke 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. chrysostom, do express the Ecclesiastical authority, to have an higher excellency than the temporal; which Gr. Nazianz. declareth, by comparing his Episcopal dignity, with the perfect 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 Christ's 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. chrysostom 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. chrysostom, nor S. Ambrose, ever intended by such expressions as are , to discharge the Clergy from the obligations to obedience, and humble reverence to Kings and Emperors, is manifest, 
Chrys. in Rom. 13.  from S. Chrysostom's declaring, that even Apostles, Evangelists, and all persons whosoever, aught 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 itself gives some allowance to these proceed. 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, etc.  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 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 superior 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 Governors; 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 choose 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 Sovereignty, 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 ofttimes decided, by a judicial or consistorial sentence, there appeareth a necessity of adding a further answer. Wherefore,  
5. Obs. 2. 
Those judicial proceed were by the permission of their Sovereign.  That all those judicial proceed, to which this objection doth refer, were undertaken by virtue 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 proceed, amongst the Christians.  
7. Secondly, A little before the time when the Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides those , 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. etc.  as Mr Selden shows, 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. ●4.  was the phrase which Verus and Antoninus used, when they intended to grant privileges 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 privileges or immunities in the Clergy, from the temporal Judicatories, were established by the Emperor's 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. ●. 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 Emperor, 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 Spalleto, 
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 preceding 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 privileges, 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 privileges in the Clergy, as will appear manifest to them who will compare these Canons, with the Edicts of privilege, granted by Constantine, Constantius, 
De Episc. & Presbyt.  and other succeeding Emperors, which may be seen in the Code of Theodosius.  
11. And for the Judicatures of Christian Bishops, who therein tried civil causes, under the time of christian Emperors; no man in reason can think, but this must be done by favour, and a delegated authority. And it is manifest from the Imperial law, that this was a privilege granted unto them, out of respect to the honour of Christianity: 
God. l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 7, 8. Nou. 83. & 123.  it being therein enacted, that whatsoever persons shall please by their own consent, to have their Cases tried and adjudged by the Bishop, they shall have liberty so to do.  
12. Obs. 3. That the Canons were never intended, to disclaim the Supremacy of Princes over the Clergy, is manifest, because in them is allowed the application to the secular authority, against such bishops, as will not submit to the determination of the Ecclesiastical. This was done by a Carthaginian Synod, 
Conc. Carth. gr. c. 53. Conc. Trull. c. 2.  against Cresconius a Bishop of that Province, as is manifest from the Greek Copy of the African Code; which was the Copy confirmed in the sixth general Council. And this particular Case is approved in the Comments of the Greek Scholiasts, and is also referred unto in the Nomocanon of Photius, 
Nomocan. Tit. 9 c. 8.  as giving direction when one Bishop may prosecute another, before a secular ruler. And it may be further observed, that the Canons from the 37th to the 61st of that Greek Code, were taken out of the third Council of Carthage (this fifty third Canon, to which this action is there annexed, or according to Justellus his code, the forty eighth, is the thirty eighth Canon of that Council) wherein a particular Canon, for the privilege of the Clergy was established. And the Canons prohibited applications to the secular power against any of the Clergy, almost in the same manner as they forbade the application to a general Council against a Bishop, 
Conc. constant. c. 6.  which was condemned, unless the other methods by the Bishops of the Province should prove ineffectual.    

CHAP. VI  
Of the renouncing all Foreign Jurisdiction and Authority; and particularly the Supreme Power of the Bishop of Rome.  

SECT. I.  
The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered.  
Sect. 1 1. THE Royal Supremacy will be further vindicated, by refuting the pretences, which are vainly made by others, to the whole or any part of the just Sovereignty of Princes; wherein I must chief consider the claims of Foreign Jurisdiction, 
Foreign Jurisdiction disclaimed.  which are rejected and disowned in the Oath of Supremacy. In which Oath it is declared, that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or aught to have, any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preeminence or Authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm, and therefore all such Authority is disclaimed and renounced.  
2. But thereby it is not intended, that no Foreign Bishop, Priest or Deacon, shall be owned in this Realm, to have that preeminence of Order, in the Catholic Church, 
The just au●●●ty of Church Officers asserted.  unto which they have been duly received; nor that their power of order, for the performing Ecclesiastical Offices, is invalid and null, if they come into this Realm. But this is no power of Government and Jurisdiction, within this Kingdom by a Foreign Authority; which is herein rejected. Neither is it hereby meant, that if the Ecclesiastical Governors of any Foreign Church, do within their Jurisdiction, duly admit any person into the Church or do, clavae non errante, excommunicate or absolve any, that the Christians in this Realm have no obligation upon them, from the authority of such proceed, to embrace or avoid Ecclesiastical Society with such persons. For thiswould be contrary to the Article of our Church, which asserteth, 
Article 33.  that that person which is rightly cut off from the Unity of the Church and Excommunicate, aught to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church, by a Judge that hath authority thereunto. 
Can. Apost. 12. Conc. antioch. c. 6.  And the ancient Canons of the Church did determine, that he who was excommunicated by his own Bishop, might not be received by another.  
3. But the obligation which in this Case lieth upon us, and all the members of the Catholic Church, is not from any Jurisdiction or Superiority, which we acknowledge any such Foreign Officers of the Church to have over us; because this obligation equally lies upon all Catholic Bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarches, as well as upon ordinary and private Christians. And it would bring in an unaccountable confusion to assert, that every Bishop under the Patriarch of Alexandria, should have a superiority over all the Bishops and Patriarches, of the Roman, Constantinopolitan, and other free Churches throughout the World, not excepting the Alexandrian itself; and at the same time to assert that every Bishop in any of these other Churches, hath upon the same account superiority over him, and all other Bishops and Churches. But this duty is incumbent upon us, from the nature of our Christianity and Christian Unity. For Christ having made his Church to be one Body, who ever undertakes Christianity, is thereby obliged to own Communion with this Church, and all the regular Members thereof, and to disown Communion with those who are rightly cut off therefrom: and he having appointed Officers in his Church, hath accordin gto their Offices, given them authority to exercise the power of the Keys in his name, in the Churches committed to them. And hereupon Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais, having excommunicated Andronicus and others, 
Suness. Epist. 58.  by virtue of his Sentence pronounced against them, did require the Churches all over the Earth, that they should not receive them into Communion.  
4. But this Oath tending according to the design of that Statute, by which it was established, to restore to the Crown its ancient Jurisdiction; that authority which ischiefly rejected thereby, is such as invaded or opposed the Royalty of the King; and particularly that which claimeth any supreme cognisance of Ecclesiastical affairs, as if they were not under the care of the temporal power, or that pretendeth to any other authority above, or against the just rights of the Crown. And suh is the arrogance of the See of Rome, which assumes to itself a claim of supreme authority in matters Ecclesiastical, and even in temporal also; which many of its followers defend as belonging thereto, upon account of its spiritual authority. 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6.  Thus Bellarmine declareth, that if the management of temporal affairs, appeareth prejudicial to spiritual ends, potestas spiritualis potest & debet coercere temporalem; the spiritual power may and aught to restrain the temporal, by all ways and means, which shall seem needful to that purpose. And Boetius Epo. tells us, 
Quaestion. Heroicar. l. 2. c. 5. n. 105.  that the Roman bishop virtute potestatis merè spiritualis, by virtue of his mere spiritual power, doth sometimes deprive had Kings of their Kingdoms. But the falsehood and injustice of this claim will be discovered, by detecting the fraud and vanity of the Pleas, made use of to support the Popish power, of which in the following Sections.  
5. But a learned man hath given intimation of some suspicion, 
Weights and Meas. Ch. 20. Of a general Council.  that by these words of this Oath of Supremacy, the authority of a general Council of the Western Churches, may seem to be disclaimed. And it must be granted, that the determination of a truly regular general Council, either of all the Western Churches or of the whole; especially if it should establish a due reformation of the corrupt part of the Church, and a right order and unity throughout Christendom, would be obligatory upon us, not only from the real goodness of the design, but from the authority of the Council, or the obligation that lies on the members, or several parts of the Christian Church, to be guided by the directions and rules, established by the united consent and authority of the Pastors Yet 1. since such a Council neither is in being, nor in any likelihood thereof, that which is not, hath no Authority or Jurisdiction. 2. This Church and Realm being a considerable branch of the Catholic Church, the authority of such a Council, or of the Christian Church therei, is no more foreign to us, who ought to bear a part therein, than the soul is to a chief member of the body, or than the laws of nature, and rules of civility may be esteemed foreign things, which have as considerable residence here as any where else. 3. The Oath itself is so expressed, as if it purposely designed not to exclude the authority of a General Council, which properly is neither a Prince, a Person, a State, or Potentate. 4. As this Oath disowneth all foreign authority encroaching upon the Crown; so if any Council how general soever, should abridge or violate the Royal Authority, all faithful subjects are so far bound, by the authority of God, to disclaim it. 5. Though the determinations of a Council be never so excellent, if any Princes by their laws reject or prohibit them, as the Arian Princes dealt with the Council of Nice, Christians in such places are bound to embrace them, upon no other terms, than they do their common Christianity; that is, in bearing the Cross, and undergoing unavoidable penalties, and thereby acknowledging the right, and due extent of the authority of the civil power.  
6. The last part in the Oath of Supremacy, 
The Oath of Supremacy engageth a defence of privileges and authorities united to the Crown.  engageth Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors; and also a defence of all Jurisdictions, privileges, preeminencies and authorities, granted and belonging to the King, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Now the only appearing difficulty here, is concerning the last clause; for if when the great encroachments of the Pope were discarded, some thing might be overdone, 
27 H. 8. 28. 37 H. 8.4. 1 Ed. 6.14.  in annexing things to the Crown (as in fixing in the Crown those great Revenues given to Religious uses, when in many places there then was, and yet is wanting a competent provision for the support of the Ministry) it may be enquired, how good men and good subjects, may and aught to defend these things. And it will be sufficient to observe, that the defence here undertaken, is that of a subject towards his Sovereign. And all subjects of the Realm are, as such, obliged both with respect to the duties of obedience and peace, in their capacities to oppose all persons who would injuriously violate what is enjoyed by the Crown, and established by the law, since such persons may justly be suspected of designs to subvert the Government, and undermine the public welfare; and do act disorderly and against authority.  
7. And some thing which at first view may seem an abatement of the authority of the church, is rather such a way of regulating the exercise of its power, as under Religious Princes is for the Church's advantage. Of this nature I conceive that constitution, 
25 H. 8.19.  that no new Canons shall be enacted, promulged, or executed, without the Royal assent and licence, to enact, promulge, and execute the same. For hereby the Clergy give such security to the King, against all jealousy of renewed Ecclesiastical usurpations, that thereupon the Church may under the King's favour, and with assurance of greater safety and protection, practise upon its established constitutions; which are so good, that we have great cause to bless God for them. And hereupon it may also be hoped, that what shall be further needful, may be superadded by the Royal Licence, and become more effectual to its end, by the confirmation of that authority.  
8. But because what I have now discoursed, dependeth upon a fair, 
How the words of public acknowledgements must be interpreted.  but natural and genuine interpretation of these words of the Oath of Supremacy, it may be further enquired, how we may safely and prudently interpret the forms of public acknowledgements, where the bare Grammatical construction may be possibly capable of different senses. 
Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 2. c. 13. n. 3, 5, etc. 16. n. 12. & l. 3. c. 1. n. 19 Sanders. de oblige. Juram. Pral. 2. n. 8.  Now though a forced lax seen, by an evasion to avoid the design of the law or constitution, be justly, and must necessarily be rejected; yet a rigid interpretation to strain the words, and force them to an harsh and unlawful sense, (as is too oft done by discontented persons) is also to be discarded, where there is another construction or meaning of which the words by natural interpretation are capable, which is agreeable to truth and justice, and secures the intention of our Superiors. For besides that Christian charity and equity will incline to this sense, the politic rules of Government will require Governors, to draw up public acknowledgements in such phrases, that they cannot by a fair construction, naturally admit a lower sense than is designed. For otherwise such forms of words would be useless, and not attain their end: and this consideration alone is sufficient to vindicate and acquit the form of words, in this Oath of supremacy, from such censures as have inconsiderately dropped from the Pen of a learned person.  
9 But those general words of this Oath of supremacy, 
Qu. Eliz. Inj. 1. Can. 1. 1603.  and the Canonical subscription, and words of like general force in the Queen's Injunctions, and our Canons, whereby all foreign Jurisdiction and obedience thereto is renounced; have manifestly a more particular respect to the Bishop and Church of Rome. For the design of that Statute, which enjoins the disclaiming all foreign Jurisdiction by Oath, 
1 Eliz. 1. Article 37.  is to restore that Jurisdiction to the Crown, which had been usurped by the Pope; and our Articles do assert, that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England; and the Injunctions of King Edward did also declare, 
K. Edw. Inj. 1.  that no manner of obedience and subjection, within these Realms and Dominions, is due to him. And the truth of this I shall undertake to manifest, after I have first given some account of the claim he makes.   

SECT. II.  
The high claims of Papal Supremacy declared.  
Sect. 2 1. Against the supreme Government of Princes, there is an high and imperious demand made, of an Universal Monarchy, for the Romish Bishop; and of an exemption from the secular Government, for all Ecclesiastical things and persons. And this is pleaded for and defended by divers of their Writers.  
2. 
Various assertions of Romish Writers concerning the Pope's Supremacy. Earcl. de potest. Papae, c. 3. & adversus Monarchomach. l. 4. c. 4. & l. 5. c. 8.  Yet among those who embrace the Romish Communion, there have been and are considerable persons, who have maintained, that the Pope as Pope, and by divine right hath no temporal power, and in temporal things hath no authority over Kings. And yet even these men acknowledge the Bishop of Rome, as Christ's Vicar, and the Universal and supreme Pastor, to be endowed with a spiritual power and Empire, over all Christian Kings and Monarches. But some of them do expressly grant to Princes, an authority in causes Ecclesiastical, so far as is necessary for the preservation of the temporal Republic.  
3. This opinion was not only embraced by Joh. Major, Jacobus Almain, and some others more anciently, but is also at large declared and defended by Barclay de potestate Papae, Blackwel in his Examination, Barns in his Catholico-Romanus Pacisicus, and divers others. But this assertion is not only distasteful to the Romish Court, but even Bellarmine accounted it to be rather an Heresy than an opinion. 
De Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 1.   
4. Many others there are, who deny the Pope to have any direct temporal power, but yet grant him as much as he can desire, nder the terms of indirectè, & in ordine ad spiritualia. For since by this phrase is meant, in order to the advancement, or preservation of the See and interest of the Romish church, and those of its Communion; these persons grant as much indirectly, as any other do directly: even as if any person should aver, that Alexander had no direct right to any other Kingdoms or Countries, but in order to the advancement of his Crown, or enlargement of his Government, his claim was valid; these give him as large a title, as any other persons can do. This method doth Eellarmine in his Controversies embrace, with many others whom he mentions, and he calls this the common opinion; in explaining of which, he gives the Pope this ample and extensive power, that he hath in order to spiritual good, 
Bell. ibid.  the supreme authority of disposing of the temporal things of all Christians Yea he asserts, that he can depose Kings, and transfer Kingdoms, not as an ordinary judge, but as a supreme spiritual Prince: and that he cannot ordinarily either establish temporal laws, or make them void as Pope; but that he can do this if the Kings themselves will not do it, in ordine ad salutem animarum.  
5. Yet because he who talked at this rate, spoke with some reserves, and seeming limitations of expression rather than of sense; and chief because by considerable argument, against the Popes direct temporal power, he had indeed taken away the direct support for this indirect power, we are informed by Barclay, 
Barcl. de Potest. Pap. c. 13. p. 101. etc. 40. p. 329.  that Sixtus the fifth had a design, and almost accomplished it, by a public censure to abolish all Bellarmine's Controversies, because in this particular he did not comply far enough with his ambition. 
Acts and Monum. Co. 8. n. 8.  And it hath been observed, both by Blackwell, and Bishop Montague, that Carerius in his Book de Potestate Rom. Pontificis, making it his drift to refute Bellanmine and his notion, yet inscribes it, adversus politicos, & nostri temporis haereticos.  
6. But there are many Canonists, and others, of whom Baronius was one, who asserted the Pope to have a supreme universal temporal power, by divine right, over all the World, & tam jurisdictionis quam proprietatis, 
M. Becan. de Justit. & Jure, c. 3. q. 7. Blackw. Exam. n. 20.  as Becanus expresseth their sense. Many who maintain this opinion, are mentioned by Bellarmine, and others by Blackwell, who observes that both Rodericus Sancius and Carerius do call this the common opinion of Divines.  
7. 
Universal temporal supremacy challenged by the Court of Rome.  But however any private persons of the Romish Communion, may think in their studies, or dispute in their Writings, the public claim of the Court of Rome hath been for an universal direct temporal power, 
●●atina in Greg. 7. Baron.  as is fully evident from these among other instances. When Gregory the seventh undertook to transfer the Imperial Crown from Henry the fourth to Rodolphus, he found'st the right of his disposal thereof upon the gift of Christ to S. Peter, and his pretended Successors at Rome, saying, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho.  
8. 
Extr. Coml. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam. Mart. Polon. an. 1301.  The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth, asserted both the spiritual and Temporal power to belong to S. Peter, and the Church, with respect to which Martinus Polonus declared, se dominum spiritualem & temporalem in universo mundo asserebat. And in his Oration, in confirming Albertus to be King of the Romans, lately published by Baluzius; 
Baluz. in Addit. ad Marc. de Conc. l. 2. c. 3.  he affirmed, that as the Moon hath no light, but what it receiveth from the Sun; so there is no earthly power which hath any thing, but what it deriveth from the Ecclesiastical power; and all powers, saith he, are from Christ, and from us as the Vicar of Christ. And he there declareth, that Christ hath given his Vicar that power, that he hath the right of constituting an Emperor, and of translating the Empire, with much more to that purpose. And his high contests with Philip the French King, upon the like claim, were very notorious, which occasioned the earnest Declaration of the Estates of France against him.  
9 And in that large Rescript of Alexander the Sixth, to Ferdinand and Isabel, 
7. Decretal. l. 1. Tit. 9 C. ●.  King and Queen of Castille and Arragon, and to their Heirs and Successors. for ever; he undertakes to give to them all the American land unpossessed of any other Christian Prince, and all Islands, and all parts of the Continent, which either already are, or hereafter shall be discovered, as things which were granted to him in S. Peter, and in his power to dispose, authoritate omnipotentis Dei, ac vicariatus Jesu Christi; upon account of the authority of God, and the Vicarship of Christ; with other such like words. And when Bellarmine in his Books de Romano Pontifice, had given such a sense of this grant, as if it signified no more, than to empower them to send Preachers thither, and to protect converted Christians, and to do such like Offices; 
In lib. Recognit.  he afterwards found reason to retract what he had there said, and acknowledged that when he wrote that, he had not seen that rescript itself; but only followed the opinion of Cajetan, and some others.  
10. The Bull also of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth declareth, that Christ had constituted him a Prince, over all Nations, and over all Kingdoms. And the Bull of Sixtus the Fifth, against Henry the third of France, asserteth him to have obtained a supreme power, delivered to him by divine institution, over all Kings and Princes of the whole Earth, and over all people, Nations and Countries. But these usurpations upon Royal Authority, were so distasteful to a considerable part of the Romish Communion, 
De Benef. l. 1. c. 4.  that Duarenus with respect to his own age, tells us, that he thinks there is no sober and learned man, who can approve thereof.  
II. And the proud and stately behaviour, and deportment of this Bishop, 
The Pope's behaviour towards Princes.  towards Emperors and Kings, when they are admitted into his presence, is suitable hereunto, which by their own Ceremonialist we have thus described. 
Saer. Cerem. l. 3. Sect. 1. c. 2.  Romanus Pontifex nemini omnino mortalium reverentiam facit, etc. The Roman Bishop doth no reverence to any mortal man, either by rising up openly, or by bowing his head, or by uncovering it; but after the Roman Emperor, or other great Kings, have kissed his foot, and his hand as he sitteth, he doth a little rise towards them to receive them to kiss his mouth. And again, Omnes mortales, etc. 
Ibid. c. 3.  All mortal men of whatsoever dignity and pre-eminence they be, when they first come into the Pope's presence, must thrice at distant spaces, bow their knee before him, and must kiss his feet.  
12. I forbear to mention, what our Histories manifest, of the haughty, insolent, and imperious carriage of the Pope, towards our English Kings, especially King Henry the Second, and King John. But that proud and arrogant speech, of Gratian the Pope's Legate, to Henry the Second, Nos de tali curia sumus, quae consuevit imperare Imperatoribus & regibus; we belong to that Court, whose custom it is to command (or rule over) Emperor's and Kings, was so hugely pleasing to Baronius, 
Baron. an. 1196. n. 11.  that he thought fit to record it in great letters, and in the margin to note, Gratiani responsio digna legato, that it was such an answer of Gratian, as was fit for the Pope's Legate to make. And what Luciferian insolency appeared in that Speech of Innocent the Fourth, concerning Henry the Third, Nun Rex Anglorum vasallus noster est, 
Mat. Paris. an. 1253.  & ut plus dicam mancipium? Is not the King of England our Vasal, and that I may say more our slave? And that this was no unusual stile at Rome, appeareth from ancient Records in the Tower, 
pryn's Addit. to History of K. John, f. 18. & f. 28.  which declare the Pope both in his Council at Rome, and in his Letter to the Barons and Commonalty of England, to have called King John his Vasal.  
13. And waving many other things, I shall only add, that immediately before the framing the Oath of Supremacy, Queen elizabeth coming to the Crown, signified her Inauguration to Paul the Fourth then Pope, by Edward Carne, who was then at Rome, as an Ambassador from Queen Mary: 
Hist. Conc. Trident. l. 5. p. 333, 334. an. 1558.  the Pope proudly returns his answer, That the Kingdom of England was a see of the Apostolical See, and that it was intolerable boldness in her, to assume the name of Queen, or the Government of the Kingdom, without his approbation; and therefore he propounded to her, to renounce her pretended right to this Realm, and to leave it to his dispose. From these things it may appear, what great cause there was, for this Crown to take care, that all the subjects thereof, who are in any chief places of trust and employment, do disown such foreign claims, which would undermine the very foundations of Regal Authority. And the mere recital of such things as these, are such palpable evidences of impudent arrogancy, despising Dominions, and opposing the humble, meek, and peaceable design of the Christian Religion, and even the principles of humane reason and polity; that this alone may be sufficient with all understanding and good men, to raise in them an abhorrence of, and indignation against such intolerable ambition.   

SECT. III.  
Such claims can have no foundation from the Fathers, and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture, which they allege.  
1. Every rational man might well expect, that so vast a claim, both of Ecclesiastical and temporal power, aught to be supported with some very considerable evidence, which in this case can be no other, but a manifest divine constitution. For since the very being of the Church of God, depends upon his founding it, and the very being of its Officers, upon Gods appointing them; there can be no other ground for any Ecclesiastical Officer, to claim upon a Christian account, a supremacy of rule over the World, unless he can produce the institution of God to this purpose.  
2. 
Some reflections on the sense of the ancient Church concerning this Supremacy.  And therefore it would be needless, as it might also be tedious, to examine those expressions of the Fathers, wherein they spoke with respect and honour to the See of Rome: for such expressions if they had been never so plain, could not found any original divine right. And it would be no difficulty, if it had been needful, to evidence by examining them, Sect. 3 that they were far from asserting that Supremacy, which is challenged.  
3. But instead of this, I shall observe, that the greatest Authority of the Christian Church, hath sufficiently disclaimed all such Supreme Universal Authority, and Government of the Romish Church. For that famous Canon of the Council of Nice, 
Conc. Nic. Can. 6.  doth plainly give the same power and authority, to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and the other Eparchies, or chief Dioceses, within their limits, which it gives to the Bishop of Rome, and makes them stand on even ground with one another; which could not be done, if the authority of the one was in subjection to the other, and the authority of the other without subjection to any. The second General Council also determined to the same purpose: 
Conc. Const. c. 2, 3.  the sense of which is explained and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon, in a genuine Canon received into the Code of the Universal Church, but disgusted by the Roman Church. Which Canon doth assert the privilege and authority of the Romish Church, 
Conc. Chalc. c. 28.  to have had its original from the Constitution of the Fathers, out of respect to the Imperial City: and therefore they upon the same account give to Constantinople, which was the Seat of the Eastern Empire, a right of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges and dignity of See with that of Rome, and to be next to it in order. 
Conc. in Trul. c. 36.  The same also is established in the sixth general Council.  
4. But since there is an high pretence to a divine right, according to the doctrine of Christ, generally made by the Romanists, for the Universal Supreme Spiritual Power of the Pope; and by many of them for the temporal also; these pretensions must be discussed and examined. And though the latter be the more extravagant and exorbitant, yet they being both false, and some of the same Foundations being made use of, to support them both, I shall consider them together. Now it is highly improbable, that he whose doctrine establisheth the temporal power as God's ordinance, and requires subjection from all persons to the same; should wholly divest Kings of their Supremacy, and appoint their authority to be altogether under the disposal of another, to wit, the Bishop of Rome. But my design being to defend the Royal Supremacy, and not only to oppose the Roman, I shall assert, that no Officers of the Christian Church ever were, or are invested with any such superiority over Princes, and if none, than not they at Rome.  
5. Some testimonies of Scripture, 
What Scriptures the Popes themselves have used for their universal supreme claim. Extrav. Com. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam Sanctam.  produced for the asserting a general Supremacy of the Pope, both temporal and spiritual, are so extremely fond and frivolous, that I should account it a piece of vanity to take notice of them, had they not been urged by the Popes themselves, who challenge a title to infallibility. Such is that of Boniface the Eighth, proving that S. Peter and the Church had the power of the temporal Sword, because our Saviour said to him, Put up thy Sword into the sheath, therein using these words, thy Sword? and that when the Disciples said to our Lord, here are two Swords, he answered it is enough, Luk. 22.18. non nimis esse, sed satis; and also urging those words of the Apostle, The spiritual man judgeth all things. Surely such instances as these, and divers of like nature, give evidence enough, that God never designed the whole Christian Church should be so sottish, and void of all understanding, as to be guided by the dictates of such men as infallible.  
6. 
Bonif. 8. ibid. Joh. 22. in Extrav. c. Super gentes.  Some of the Popes have also made use of those words of Jeremy, Jer. 1.10. I have set thee this day over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down; and to build, and to plant. But 1. What authority can these words give to the Pope, when they respect not the time of Christianity, nor speak of any ordinary authority in the Jewish Church, 
Innoc. 3. in Decretal. l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6.  in which Jeremy was no High Priest? but they only express a prophetical Commission to him an inspired man, to declare the pleasure of God from his mouth, concerning the Kingdoms of the World, as is manifest from v. 5, & 9 2. How strangely different was the spirit and temper of Jeremy towards Kings, from that of the Roman Bishop, notwithstandiug this his Commission? When he speaketh of the disposal of many Kingdoms, into Nebuchadnezars hands; he useth not the Roman stile, as coveying the title unto him himself, but speaketh on this manner; Thus saith the Lord, I have made the earth,— and I have given all these lands into the hands of Nabuchadnezzar, Jer. 27.4, 5, 6. And when he spoke to Zedekiah, he treated him not as his Vasal, but his words are, Jer. 27.20. O my Lord the King, Let my supplication, I pray thee, be accepted before thee. So far was that mournful Prophet, from being the Universal Monarch of the World.  
7. 
Other arguments from Scripture examined.  But the arguments most insisted on by the Romish Writers are more plausible, though insufficient, and unconcluding. For S. Peter's singular supremacy, they produce Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. Ans. 1. That S. Hilary, the Commentaries in S. Ambrose, Gr Nyssen, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, S. Aug. and chrysostom understand this rock of the faith of S. Peter's Confession, 
Barrad. de Conc. Evang. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 23. Chamier. Tom. 2. Pan's. l. 11. c. 3, 4.  is acknowledged by Barradius the Jesuit; besides others observed in Chamier to the same purpose, as the Liturgy of S. James, Basil of Seleucia, Theodoret and Epiphanius. And divers Fathers are in the same place noted to understand this rock of Christ himself: which sense is favoured much from Is. 28.16. 1 Pet. 2.4, 7. Ans. 2. As the Church of God is oft resembled to a building, and called the house of God, S. Peter according to the expression of divers Catholic Writers, 
V Dr Hammonds Annot. on Mat. 10. b.  may be herein owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which word ordinarily signifies a Rock or a Stone) a prime stone of the foundation, united to Christ the chief Cornerstone: and so were also the rest of the Apostles, Eph. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. But to assert him to be the rock distinct from the whole building, and which beareth the whole, together with the foundation itself, would be to exclude him from being any member of Christ's Church, and to own him as supporting Christ himself, who is called the foundation, and the chief Cornerstone. And though S. Peter had a kind of priority of order, yet all the Apostles had the same office, and were with him equally partakers both of honour and of power; or in S. Cyprians Phrase, 
Cyp. de Unit. Eccl.  they were pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. This place therefore gives S. Peter a spiritual eminency in the Church, but with the rest of the Apostles: but it nothing at all concerneth any temporal power in him, nor any exclusion of Princes from supreme Government.  
8. It is also pleaded, that Christ Mat. 16.19. promised S. Peter, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, etc. Ans. 1. The Keys being an Emblem of Authority, this Text doth treat of a very high and great spiritual power, of receiving men into the Church of Christ, and the several ranks and orders thereof, and unto the participation of Christian privileges, and of excluding from all these, and governing the Church. 
Cyp. Ep. 27. & 73. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 50.  But this power as the ancient Church did acknowledge, the other Apostles did also enjoy, and were actually possessed of, as appears Mat. 18.18. Jo. 20.21, 22, 23. Ans. 2. How vastly different is this power from the temporal Dominion over the Kingdoms of the World, of which there is not any world here spoken by our Lord? And surely any man who considereth the doctrine and lives of the Apostles, cannot imagine that every one, or any one of them, was intended and designed of God to be the Sovereign Potentate, and grand Emperor 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, Sceptres and Crowns, and usurp temporal Dominion, equal with, or superior unto Kings, notwithstanding that our Saviour expressly 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 chief 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 Sovereignty, and to include governing and commanding as a King doth. And he and others also infer the extent of S. Peter's power, over all Apostles and Kings, because they are Christ's 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. & add 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 include a Sovereign or supreme Government, than 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 Pope's Universal claim. Ans. 2. Government over the Sheep of Christ, is also too narrow a compass for an Universal 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 all 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 Governors 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 styles, 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 Sovereignty is reserved to Princes. Ans. 5. The pastoral office of the guides of the Church, doth extend itself even to Kings, with respect to the conduct of their Souls, but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Sovereignty. 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 Sovereignty 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 Pope's 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 superior 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, than his proper mediatory office is. 
Beyerl. de Episc. Rom.  And they who say, that this Priesthood of Christ, cannot indeed be enjoyed by any as successor to him, but only as his Vicar, do not so avoid the force of this argument: For it remains certain, that no such pretended Vicar can partake of this Priesthood, because in him it must be received from a Predecessor (viz. in that Vicarship, and Priesthood) and be left to a Successor, which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood.  
3. 
Of the Apostolical Mission.  When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him: 1. These words include a fullness 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 als.  
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 superior to them, to whom Christ's authority is superior; 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 Sovereignty, 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 Saviour's 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 itself, 
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 superior 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 splendour, dominion and power in the World, according to that notion the Jews had of a Messiah. And this is not only a weak, but a presumptuous way of reasoning, to control 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. Peter's Authority not peculiar to Rome.  there is nothing more unreasonable, than for the Church of Rome, to monopolise 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 Bythinia, 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 Pontic 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 allege, that it became feudatory to the See of Rome, by King john's 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 choose to observe in General, that this Case is the same, as if any seditious persons or Usurpers, 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 should be under their government, and shall order the affairs of his Realm in compliance with them, and subjection to them. Now all such acts are utterly void and wholly unobligatory, because 1. No just right of Supremacy or any part of Royalty, can be gained by possession upon an unjust title, against the right owner upon a sure title: this being a parallel Case to a Thief, being possessed of an honest man's goods. 
Addit. to Hen. 3. an. 10. f. 70. An. 10 Ed. 1. p. 279. An. 12 Ed. 1. p. 318. An. 17 Ed. 1. p. 391. etc.  And therefore though some Kings of England, as Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. did, until they could without danger free themselves, pay to the Pope an annuus census of a thousand marks, as appears from the Records of the Tower published by Mr Pryn; yet this is only an evidence of the oppressive injuries, which this Crown sustained, by the intolerable exactions of the Pope. 2. No Sovereign King, (unless by voluntary relinquishing his whole authority to the next Heir) can transfer his Royal Supremacy to any other person whomsoever: partly because the divine constitution having placed Supremacy, in the chief secular Governors, God expecteth from them a due care, of managing of this power, for the good of his people, and for the advancing his own service and glory: nor can any act of theirs, make the duty which God still requires from them, to become void; no more than a Father or Husband can discharge themselves, from the duties of those Relations, while the Relations themselves continue. Partly also because the constitutions of the Realm, oblige all the subjects thereof, to maintain the Royalties of the Crown; and to perform Faith and true Allegiance, not only to the King in being but also to his Heirs and Successors. And partly because it is a great and special privilege of a free born people, that they cannot according to the condition of slaves have the chief and principal Dominion over them, translated from one to another, according to the pleasure of any person whomsoever, though it be their own natural Prince: which is both his and their great security and advantage.    

CHAP. VII.  
The Romish Bishop hath no right to any Patriarchal Authority, over the Church of England.  

SECT. I.  
The whole Christian Church was never under the Patriarchal Sees.  
Sect. 1 1. THE title of Patriarch, 
Of Patriarchal Authority.  was not in the beginning of the Church, fixed as peculiar to the Bishops of those Churches, which for many Ages have been so called. This stile was not oft used in the first Centuries, and when it grew into use, was yielded to other famous Bishops, by Socrates, 
Socr. Hist. l. 5. c. 8.  who did not preside in any of those Churches, which have been commonly accounted Patriarchal. And this title also in an inferior degree, was of late by Duarenus allowed to the Bishop of Aquileia, Canterbury, and others. 
Duaren. de Benef. l. 1. c. 9  The Bishops of Rome themselves seem not to have much affected, or used this stile: but they were ordinarily owned to be Patriarches, not only in the Ecclesiastical account, but in the Imperial law. 
B. 1. C. 7.  And as this is a title of special honour, given to some Sees; so it encluded an Ecclesiastical authority, extended to divers Provinces, and over several Metropolitans.  
2. Now though the Romish Bishops pretence to an Universal Sovereignty, be very vain and unjust; yet if he have but a patriarchal right, as some have demanded for him, over all the Western Churches, this will entitle him to an authority in this Realm, which is a member of them. Hereby he would be chief spiritual judge, to receive appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical, from the Metropolitical Jurisdiction, and to have the highest, constant, and fixed power of censure and absolution: besides what concerneth the Consecration of Archbishops, or Metropolitans, by his act or consent, and a chief authority with respect to Synods. And though a true Patriarchal right, be of the same nature with the Archiepiscopal, which ought to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Crown, yet if any such authority be placed in any Foreigner, it would impair the just dignity of the Prince, as I shall hereafter evidence. But that no foreign Bishop or Patriarch, aught to have any such authority in this Realm, will appear manifest, by the proving three assertions, which I shall perform in this Chapter.  
3. Assert. 1. The ancient Christian Churches, were never all of them under the Patriarchal Bishops; viz. of Rome, 
Many free Churches not anciently under any Patriarch.  Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. But there were anciently divers free Churches, or Dioceses (which word was several times of old used, for the larger limits of many Provinces) independent on any superior Patriarch. For that all the Patriarchates, and other ancient great Dioceses or Eparchyes, were only within the limits of the Roman Empire, is manifest, because the extent and bounds of their particular Churches, was ordered and fixed, according to the division of the Imperial Provinces. And therefore besides the greater Armenia, which was a Christian Kingdom and no part of the Empire, in the time of Constantine, and both before and after him; all the Christians who lived under the Barbarous Nations, are reckoned as distinct from the Patriarchal, and other head Dioceses or Churches, by the second General Council. 
Conc. Const. c. 2.   
4. And whereas until 450. years after Christ, 
The Pontic, Thracian, and Asian Churches.  there were only three Patriarchal Sees erected, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; not only the Churches in the remote parts of Asia, and Africa, and others without the Empire: but those of the Pontic, Thracian, and Asian Dioceses or Eparchies, which were in the heart of the Empire, were in subjection to none of those Patriarches, but were all that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, governed by themselves, as appears from the second general Council. 
Conc. Const. ib.  But when the patriarchal limits, and authority of the Church of Constantinople was established; the Churches of those three regions now mentioned, which as Theodoret acquaints us, 
Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 28.  contained twenty eight Provinces, or Metropolitical Jurisdictions, were made subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, by the authority of the fourth general Council. 
Conc. Chalc. c. 28.  But besides these, there were also other particular Churches, free from all Patriarchal Jurisdiction, of which I shall give some instances.  
5. The Province of Cyprus in the Eastern Church, 
The Cyprian Church.  when the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a superiority over it, and a right of ordaining therein, had its liberty and freedom defended, and secured against him, by the third General Council. Indeed this Canon of the Council of Ephesus did chief provide, 
Conc. Eph. c. 8.  that no Cyprian Bishops should receive their ordination, from the Bishop of Antioch, or from any other than the Bishops of their own Island. Yet to put a stop to those evasions, which some have endeavoured to make, in this Case, as if in other things besides Ordination, they might be subject to the Bishop of Antioch, he who duly weighteth this Canon will discern, that it plainly enough condemns the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch, as an invading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another distinct Eparchy or Province, which was not heretofore and from the beginning, under the authority of him, or of those who did precede him. 
Conc. in Trul. c. 39  And when the sixth General Council did confirm this Canon of Ephesus, concerning the Liberties of the Cyprian Churches, they do own the privileges, given to the Metropolitan of Cyprus in his Territories, to be equal to those, which the Bishop of Constantinople enjoyeth in his. To which may be added, that in the Synod of Antioch, in the Reign of Constantius, among the several Provinces belonging to that Patriarch, which therein assembled, there is no mention at all of Cyprus.  
6. Also the West African Churches, 
The African Churches.  taking in all Numidia, Mauritania, and the other ample Territories of the Carthaginian Jurisdiction, were never under any of the Patriarches. These limits were never claimed to any of the Eastern Patriarchates, and are sufficiently excluded from thence, by the Canons of Nice, 
Nic. Conc. c. 6.  Constantinople, and Chalcedon, which fix the bounds of those Churches. 
Const. c. 2. Chalc. c. 28.  But when the Bishop of Rome claimed a power; to receive appeals from those Churches, in the case of an African Presbyter, who was therein censured; and pretended a Canon of the Council of Nice, to give him that authority: the African Fathers, after they had diligently sought for the most perfect Copies of the Nicene Canons, from Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, besides what they had before in Latin, did detect the fraud, and falsehood of the claim of the Bishop of Rome, and rejected his demand. To this purpose the sum of their proceed may be viewed, not only in particular Writers, but also in the Greek Copy of the African Code, which was received in the sixth general Council, partly in the beginning and partly in the conclusion thereof.  
7. But whereas it is pretended by several Romish Writers, that these African Fathers did in the end of this contest, yield this authority to the Bishop of Rome; even this is very far from truth. Indeed they were resolved to submit, if there was any Canon of Nice which enjoined that submission: but after this demand concerning appeals, was made by Pope Zosimus, and canvased in the time of his Successor Bonifacius, the African Fathers writ to Coelestin who succeeded him, 
Ad finem Conc. Carth. Gr.  both asserting their own liberty of Governing their own Church, and requiring him not to receive any into Communion, whom they had rejected from it. And whereas in the beginning of this contest with Zosimus, there was a Canon made in the Council of Milevis, declaring, 
Conc. Milev. 2. Can. 22.  that those who should make appeals beyond the Seas, (or to Rome) should be uncapable of being received into Communion, by any in Africa: 
Cod. Afric, c. 27.  after this dispute was more fully debated and considered, they were so far from retracting this Canon, that they caused it to be put into the African, or Carthaginian Code, 
Conc. Carth. gr. c. 31.  which was compiled and confirmed, about the end of this disquisition, and therein this Canon remains as a standing rule.  
8. But because it hath been observed by Zonaras, 
Zonar. in Conc. Sard. c. 5.  and by very many since, that what the Bishop of Rome falsely urged as a Canon of Nice, was to be found among the Canons of Sardica: concerning that I shall note two things. First, 
Of the Canon of Sardica.  That he who considers, that Zosimus would herein have falsified the Council of Nice; that neither he nor they who managed this contest under him, or after him, did urge the authority of the Council of Sardica, to those African Bishops; and that those Bishops after all their enquiry, did declare to the Bishop of Rome, 
Epist. ad Coelestin. ubi sup.  that they had never read in any Synod of the Fathers, that any such authority was granted to him; may be apt to suspect, that possibly there hath been no very fair dealing about this Council of Sardica; or at least must conclude, that they at Rome were sensible, that Africa was not subject to the authority of that Council.  
9 Secondly, That in this Council of Sardica, 
Cham. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 7. Marc. de Conc. l. 7. c. 3. n. 6.  as Chamier observed, and P. de Marca owneth, here were no proper appeals to Rome asserted, that the case under complaint might be there determined; but only that the Bishop of Rome might order a revising of the sentence, which had been pronounced against any Bishop, upon his application to him. And the state of the Church, and the occasion of this Constitution was this. 
Socr. l. 2. c. 5, 6, 7, 16, 18. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5, 10, 11.  Arianisme greatly prevailing in the East, the Arian Bishops there sentenced, and deposed divers Catholic Bishops, as particularly they had done to Athanasius in a Synod of Antioch, who yet was received at Sardica. Now that the faith of Nice might not by such methods be suppressed, and the Communion of the Catholic Church be thereby confounded; the Orthodox Bishops at Sardica, who thought themselves not bound to disclaim Communion with all whom the Arian Heretical Bishops should reject, allowed the Bishop who had been censured, a liberty to have his Case re-examined. And they committed this as a trust to the Bishop of Rome, for the preserving the Catholic Communion, that he should appoint Bishops about that Province, sending others also to join with them, to judge of that Case: which trust the succeeding Bishops of Rome made ill use of, for the inordinate advancement of that See. But this Canon gave not the Bishop of Rome an Universal superiority, in the right of his Church; 
Sozom. l. 7. c. 9 Marca de Conc. l. 1. c. 3. n. 9  but dealt with him, as the second General Council did with several eminent Bishops of the Eastern Churches, who were appointed as Capita communionis that the rest of the Church might communicate with them, with whom they held Communion. Nor could the Western Bishops convey any authority over the Eastern Church, which was here chief concerned.  
10 Now as these Cyprian and African Churches, as well as those in these Islands, had an Independent Ecclesiastical authority, of the same nature with the Patriarchal, but not honoured with that title; so I might discourse further of other somewhat like instances, both in the East and the West: but I think that would be needless, especially because the Patriarchal bounds, and the limits of other free Churches, ought not now to be fixed in all places, upon the same terms, on which they stood in the ancient Church, as I shall evidence in my third assertion. And therefore I shall omit the considering the Church of Bulgaria, and of the Asia, Iberia which by Balsamon are owned to have been in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Balls. in Conc. Const. c. 2. Novel. 131.  the former according to the Constitution of Justinian; and the latter by a Synod of Antioch, appointing that that Church which was before under the Patriarch of Antioch, should be free and head of itself.  
11. And concerning the Western Church, it may be observed, that whereas a prime patriarchal right is expressed by the Council of Chalcedon, (and the same may be collected from the Council of Ephesus, in the place , concerning the Cyprian Church) to be this; that the Metropolitans under him, 
Conc. Chalc. c. 28.  who have liberty to ordain the Bishops of their Provinces, should be ordained by the Patriarch: it is no difficulty to prove, and is granted by P. de Marca, 
Ubi sup. l. 1. c. 7.  that the chief part of the Western Church, even all out of the Vrbicarian Diocese, which took in only some part of Italy, did never thus anciently depend on the Bishop of Rome for Ordination.  
12. And touching the Eastern Church, the limits of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, have been above observed. The Territories of Alexandria were by the Council of Nice declared to be Egypt, 
Conc. Nic. Can. 6. V. Praef. and Conc. Antioch. Conc. Chalc. Actions 7.  Libya, and Pentapolis. Antioch had once under it Coelosyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Cilicia and Isauria: but when the Church of Jerusalem was made Patriarchal, it was agreed in the Council of Chalcedon, that all the three Palaestines should be reserved to its Jurisdiction.  
13. And such few expressions in some ancient Authors, as speak of the Bishop of Rome presiding in the West, or being the Patriarch of the West, are not sufficient to prove the whole Western Church, to have been subject to him, 
Conc. Const. c. 2. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. Hieron. Ep. 61. c. 15.  but only some part thereof. For the Bishop of Antioch is oft said, both by Councils, and other Writers, to govern the East; and yet the whole Eastern Church as distinguished from the Western, never was under his Jurisdiction.   

SECT. II.  
No Patriarch ever had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority in this Island.  
1. The second Assertion, which I shall make good, is, that the Churches of this Island had that ancient liberty and freedom, that no Patriarch had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority over them. The Eastern Patriarches never pretended to any, nor had the Romish Bishop any right to challenge it.  
2. For since this Island received Christianity, 
Britain received Christianity before Rome.  some years before any Church was founded at Rome, it could not then have any dependence upon the Church of Rome. Besides what many other Writers express, concerning Joseph of Arimathea, preaching the Gospel here; 
Bar. An. 35. n. 5.  even Baronius from a Manuscript in the Vatican, gives a relation of his coming into France, and thence into England, upon the dispersion after the death of S. Steven: and this must be divers years before S. Peter's coming to Rome. 
Antiq. Brit. p. 1, 2, 3. Mason. de Min. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Usser. de Prim. Ec. Br.  And there want not Authors to assert, that S. Simon, S. Philip, and other Apostles and Apostolical men, did declare the doctrine of Christ in this Island, as hath been observed by those, who purposely give us an account of the original of Christianity here. Sect. 2 But concerning the early Conversion of the Britan's, it will be sufficient to observe the testimony of Gildas, who was himself a Britain, 
Gild. de Excid. Brit.  who tells us, that here the Precepts of Christ were made known, tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris; in the latter end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. 
Baron. An. 44. n. 25.  Now the second year of Claudius, when according to the general account S. Peter first preached Christianity at Rome, must be about five years after the death of Tiberius: Caligula wanting but little more than a month of four years. Wherefore with respect to the first planting of the Church, one Sister Church cannot claim superiority over another, especially not over the Elder.  
3. Nor were there ever any Canons of the ancient Church, which subjected these Realms to the See of Rome: but the fixed rights of the free Churches were secured in the three first General Councils, in those Canons I have above mentioned. 
Conc. Nic. c. 6. Const. c. 2. Eph. c. 8.  And the Council of Ephesus is very zealous, against the invaders of these privileges, as being a thing in which the liberties of all Churches are concerned, and by which the intent of the sacerdotal function is perverted.  
4. That these Churches did preserve and retain their liberties, 
Britannic liberty preserved till Austin the Monk. Bed. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 4.  until the time that Austin the Monk came into England, is manifest, in that both in the Southern and Northern parts of this Island (as also in Ireland) they celebrated Easter, and observed some other rites, differently from the Rules and Canons of the other Western Churches, and particularly of the Roman; and therefore were not governed by them. Indeed they celebrated Easter upon the Lord's day, as was noted by the Emperor Constantine, 
Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. Bed. Hist. Eccl. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. & l. 3. c. 4.  at the time of the Council of Nice: but they fixed on this day by a different rule, from that of other Churches. And when Austin required them, to submit themselves to the Romish Church, and to change these their different rites, they would not hearken to him herein, but both Britan's and Scots long observed their former usages; and some of their Clergy and Monks who lived within the English limits, 
Bedae Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 20. & l. 3. c. 26. Bishop Spotsw. Hist. of Sc. l. 1. p. 18. H. Huntingd. Hist. l. 3.  and Colman Bishop of the Northumbrians, rather left their places, than they would forsake the customs of their own Church. Yea they disowned Communion with him, as invading the Liberties of their Churches, and the Scotch Bishops would not so much as eat in the House where Augustine's Company was, as is related in a Letter of Laurentius, who succeeded Austin at Canterbury, recorded in H. Huntingdon. And the plain Declaration of the Abbot and Monks of Bangor, who were the most eminent Society of the British Church, consisting of thousands, did fully disclaim, and protest against all right of subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as is expressed in their protestation made to Austin, and exhibited in the British tongue by Sir Hen. Spelman, 
Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 108, 109.  wherein they own no subjection to any, above their own Archbishop, as a superior Ecclesiastical Officer.  
5. Nor did the Bishop of Rome gain any just right of Patriarchal Authority over this Realm, 
This Realm not made subject to Rome by the Conversion of the Saxons.  after the coming of Austin into England, and all that can be pretended to that purpose is, either by pleading that the English were converted by Austin, who was sent hither by Pope Gregory or that there was a great honour, respect, and subjection, for many years yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island. Both these pretences I shall examine.  
6. Now it is acknowledged, that this Austin was instrumental for the converting very many of the Saxons to Christianity. Yet here I observe three things. 1. That they who Convert Foreign Nations, do not thereby make those Nations and Churches, to be perpetually subject to those Foreign Churches, from whence they came. For this would make Christianity to include a servitude in the profession of it, and worldly Dominion in the preaching it. Had this been a rule in the Primitive Times, this Island and a greater part of the Christian Church all over the World, must have yielded subjection to the Bishop of Jerusalem, many Cities and Regions being first instructed in the Christian Doctrine, and converted thereto, by the dispersed Members of that Church; and amongst others Antioch itself, Act. 11.19, 22, 26. and even Rome also was partaker of their spiritual things, Rom. 15.27. And yet these Christians being made subject to Christ, and not to Jerusalem; 
Hieron. Ep. 61. n. 15. Conc. Nic. c. 7.  the Bishop of Jerusalem for some hundred years, was no Patriarch, even till the Council of Chalcedon; nor Metropolitan, but was under the Bishop of Caesarea: only he had a peculiar honour reserved to him by the Council of Nice. 
Bed. Hist. l. 5. c. 20.  And if this had been a rule for later times, then Frisia, Zealand, and other Belgic Provinces, must have been subject to the Church of England, since under God they owed their Conversion to Wilfrid an English Bishop. 
Cone. Carth. gr. c. 103, 120, 121.  Indeed some Canons have given Bishops Authority, to govern such places as they should convert: but this tended only to give those persons, the deserved honour, of being the Bishops of those places which they had reduced from heresy or infidelity, where any other had not a previous right thereto; but not to make that Church or Kingdom subject to a remote Foreign Sovereignty. All that could be hence inferred is, that it was reasonable that Austin should be Bishop in England, but not that Gregory should be Patriarch over it; though he also deserved to be greatly honoured, for being so instrumental to the Conversion of the English.  
7. I observe, Secondly, That when Austin came into this Island, it was inhabited by four distinct sorts of Nations, or people, the Britan's, the Scots, the Picts, and the English (with which, without being curious about words, I include also the Sexons, and others who accompanied them out of Germany) That the Britan's were ancient Christians, before the coming of Austin, needeth no further proof. 
Bed. Hist. l. 1. c. 13. Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. Chronol. Sax.  And such were also the Scots, over whom Palladius was an eminent Bishop, almost two hundred years before Austin. The Picts also in their Northern quarters, towards forty years before the coming of Austin, were Converted by Columba or Columbanus, who came out of Ireland; and the Southern Picts before that time by Ninias a British Bishop. Now what pretence can be made, that they who converted or presided in the three former Nations, should neither have an authority over the whole Island, nor a liberty left to govern themselves; and yet the conversion of the last should swallow up the liberties of all the former three, and convey a Patriarchal right over the whole Island; yea though this last Nation or people, were possessors of those limits, which were within the ancient British Dioceses?  
8. I observe, Thirdly, That the Conversion of the English and Saxons was not performed only by Austin or his Successors, or any other appointed by him, or sent from Rome; but a very considerable part of this work was effected by other persons, who observed the rites of the British Church. 
Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 1, 3.  Amongst many things worthy observation, the Kingdom of the Northumbrians, after defection from Christianity which Paulinus taught them, we instructed therein and Converted, 
Sporsw. Hist. l. 1. p. 14.  by Aidanus a Scotchman, who observed the ancient Rites of that Church, and was made Bishop among the Northumbrians, of whom it is related, that in seven days he converted and baptised fifteen thousand. The Mercians also, and Middle Angles, received their Conversion by Finanus a Scotchman, 
Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 21, 25.  who was Successor to Aidanus in his Bishopric among the Northumibrians: and is observed by Beda, to have been a strict opposer of the introduced Romish Rites. And this good work was carried on by others, of the ancient British and Scotch Church.  
9 And Finanus , did baptise Sighercht, King of the East-Sexons, and others of his Company, who were converted to Christianity, among the Northumbrians. 
Bed. ibid. c. 22.  After which Cedda and another Presbyter of the Middle-Angles, was sent for, to instruct the Kingdom of the East-Saxons in the Christian Faith, and by them they we Converted, after the defection of that Kingdom from their formerly professed Christianity. And this Cedda was made Bishop of the East-Saxons by Finanus, and two other Bishops with him; and at that time observed the ancient British Rites; but after the death of Sinanus, when Colman Finanus his Successor, deserted his bishopric among the Northumbrians, and went into Scotland, 
Ibid. c. 26.  rather than he would relinquish the ancient practices and usage of his Church, Cedda was then brought over, to comply with the Rites brought in by Austin. All which will evidence, that what was done by Austin, could not bring England into a subjction to the Bishop of Rome, unless he admit divers equals, and rivals in his claim. And a reflection upon what hath been now observed will evidence, that to found a constant Ecclesiastical superiority and subjection upon such pretences as these, would bring in an unavoidable confusion sinto the Church; and it would have overthrown in all the ancient Patriarchates, in which no such rule was observed.  
10. 
Nor by the power the Pope once here exercised.  I shall now consider that subjection, which was yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island. And it is acknowledged, that the Roman Bishop was for many years highly esteemed in this Realm, and consulted with, and many things after the Conquest, were decided by his determination. And also that he did receive great sums of money from hence, not only from the Clergy, in disms, first-fruits, and other payments, but also Peter-pences were paid by the Laity also; not as a tributary acknowledgement of the subjection of the Realm, 
Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 794.  as some Romanists would have it; but this was granted as an Eleemosynary pension, for maintaining an English School at Rome. And it must also be acknowledged, that the Pope did sometimes since the Conquest, exercise a great authority here, disposing frequently by his provision of spiritual preferments, confirming or nulling the Election of Metropolitans, 
Piniero in Edward 1. an. 30. p. 985, 986. & an. 32. p. 1040.  and some other Bishops, and receiving Appeals. And in those days, there are some instances in our Records, that the Kings Writ against persons excommunicated by the Archbishop, was sometimes superseded, upon their alleging, that they prosecuted Appeals to the Apostolical See.  
11. But this submission in different persons, had not always the same principle; being sometimes yielded out of an high measure of voluntary respect and kindness; and sometimes more was given to the Pope, than otherwise would have been, because the circumstances of Princes oft made their courting the Pope's favour, in former times, to be thought by them to be a piece of needful policy. And much also was done, from the superstition and misapprehension of those Ages, in many persons, who supposed him to have that right of governing these Churches, as S. Peter's successor, which he is now sufficiently evidenced not to have had. Now what is done out of courtesy and by leave, or out of some emergent necessity, may at other times be otherwise ordered; and no Christians are obliged to continue in practising upon superstitious mistakes, more than they are obliged to live in error and superstition. And mere possession upon an unjust claim, can give no good title to the Government of a Church; but when the injustice thereof is made manifest, it may be rejected and abolished: 
Conc. Eph. c. 8.  as the ancient Canons, especially that Canon of the Council of Ephesus, which speaks particularly of the Patriarchal Authority, enjoin, that no Bishop shall invade any Church, which was not from the beginning under his Predecessors, and if he should compel it to be under him, he must restore its Jurisdiction again.  
12. Yet that exercise and possession of authority, which the Pope here enjoyed, was not so constant and undisturbed, but that it was many times by the Kings and States of the Realm, and even by the Bishops at some times, complained of and opposed, as injurious; and the true rights and liberties of this Church and Kingdom, were oft demanded and insisted upon. Of which, among very many instances, I shall take notice of so many, as are sufficient. Before the Conquest, I find not that the Pope exercised, or claimed any governing authority, distinct from counsel and advice, in this Realm; and therefore there was no need of any opposition to be made agianst it. Indeed when Wilfrid Bishop of York, who was twice censured in England, 
G. Malmsbur. de Gestis Pontific. l. 3. f. 150.  did both times make his application to Rome, his Case was there heard and considered in a Synod (and such examination and consideration of the Case even of the Bishop of Rome, as Cornelius and others, was sometimes had in other ancient Churches.) But for the decision of the Case, the Pope requires it, either to be ended by an English Council, or to be determined by a more general Council. And when Wilfrid at his first return from Rome brings the Pope's Letters in favour of him, King Egfrid put him in Prison: and at his second return from Rome, 
Ib. f. 152.  King Alfrid, who succeeded Egfrid in the Kingdom, a Prince highly commended for hispiety, learning and valour, declared that it was against all reason to communicate with a man who had been twice condemned by English Councils, notwithstanding any writing whatsoever from the Pope. Nor were these things only sudden words, but when the Pope had done all he could, Wilfrid was not thereby restored; or as Malmsburiensis expresseth it, 
Malms. de gest. pont. l. 1. init. f. 111. Ib. f. 124.  non tamen rem obtinuit. After the Conquest it was declared by W. Rufus, to be a custom of the Kingdom, which had been established in the reign of his Father, that no Pope should be appealed unto, without the King's Licence; consuetudo regni mei est, à patre meo instituta, ut nullus praeter licentiam regis appelletur Papa. 
Anselm. Epist. l. 3. Ep. 40. Paschali.  And Anselme acquainted the Pope that this King William the Second, would not have the Bishop of Rome received or appealed unto in England, without his command. Nor would he allow Anselme then Archbishop of Canterbury, to send Letters to him, or receive any from him, or to obey his Decrees. He further tells the Pope, that the generality of the Kingdom, and even the Bishops of his own Province, sided with the King; and that when Anselme asked the Kings leave to go to Rome, he was highly offended at this request, and required that no such leave be afterward asked, and that he appeal not to the Apostolical See; and that when Anselme went to Rome without his leave, he seized the Revenue of his Bishopric. 
M. Paris. in Henr. 2. an. 1164.  And amongst the liberties and customs sworn to at the Parliament at Clarendon, one was against appeals to Rome, and receiving Decrees from thence.  
13. 
Ex lib. Assis. Lord Coke Reports in Cawdreys' Case.  In the Reign of King Edward the First, a subject of this Realm brought a Bull of Excommunication against another subject from Rome, and this was adjudged Treason by the Common law of England; and divers other instances are brought by Sir Edward Coke, wherein the Excommunication and Absolution of the Pope or his Legate, was declared null or invalid. 
Pryn in Edw. 1. An. 20. p. 454.  And much of the usurped power, which the Pope here practised and claimed, was rejected as a great grievance, in the Statute of Provisors, 
An. 25 Edw. 3.  concerning his making provision for, and collating to Dignities and Benefices, against the method of free Elections; and they who should apply themselves to Rome for this purpose, became thereby liable to severe penalties. And appeals to Rome in certain Cases, and the procuring thereupon Processes, Bulls, and Excommunications from thence, was by the Parliament in the Reign of King Richard the Second, 
16 Ric. 5.  taxed and complained of, as that which did apparently hinder the determining causes, and the effectual execution of justice in England, and tended to the destruction of the King's Sovereignty Crown and Regalty. And all those who should bring from Rome, such Processes, Excommunications, Bulls, or other Instruments; both themselves and all their Fauthors, were then by the Statute of Praemunire, put out of the King's Protection, their Lands and Goods forfeited, and their Bodies to be attached. And this Statute continued in force, and unrepealed (as that former also) notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Pope and his Adherents, even an hundred and fifty years before the Protestant Reformation. And this is sufficient to show, that the Pope's 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Sovereign Kings and Princes. For the doctrine and design of Christianity, did not intent to undermine and enervate, but to establish and secure the right of Kings: and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free Kingdoms, to divest 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 Ecumenical 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 King's 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 Emperors, that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his Crown to the Pope's Legate; Henry the Third Emperor of Germany, 
Mart. Polon. in Greg. Sept. p. 361.  was compelled to stand at the Pope's Gate barefoot several days 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 publicly 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 Sovereignty of a King, as well as a prejudice to the subjects, where justice cannot be effectually administered, 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, etc.  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 King's 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 Sovereign 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 privileges, because they were the Imperial Cities. The Canons also of Ecumenical Councils enjoined, that if any City receive new privileges 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 Germane 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; 
Com●. 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 Sovereign 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 its Ecclesiastical Governors; or else because those Princes did not sufficiently understand, or thought it not advisable to claim and exercise, their own right of Sovereignty, even in Ecclesiastical matters. And it must also be granted, 
Conc. Chalc. c. 28.  that if any part of the Roman Provinces, and consequently of the Christian Churches therein, were by Wars brought under the power of barbarous Nations, the Canons required that their Ecclesiastical Government should be ordered, as it was before. But this was not so much a claiming dominion over them, by their former Patriarch; as his exercising Christian Charity towards them, in assisting those afflicted parts of the Church.  
6. But it may possibly be objected, that if every Sovereign Prince's Dominions may claim a freedom from Foreign Ecclesiastical Supremacy, how shall Christian Unity be preserved? Ans. In the same manner as in the Primitive times, wherein whilst many of the Nations of Europe had not yet embraced Christianity, there were within the Empire many head and independent Churches, as I have above manifested. But the Christian Unity did then consist, 
Theod. Hist. l. 3. c. 8.  partly in their embracing the same faith, and giving the same worship to God, as the Fathers at Sardica declared; partly in their holding communion with, and receiving one another in all parts of the World as Brethren, which is by Tertullian discoursing hereof, 
De Praescr. c. 20.  expressed by communicatio pacis, appellatio fraternitatis, contesseratio hospitalitatis; and partly also in that as need required, they held correspondence with each other, and in chief matters of order and Government, they observed the same Canonical Rules, and after the first Ecumenical Councils, they generally submitted to their Canons. And they constantly acknowledged all acts of Government, in the true Catholic Officers of a particular Church, in receiving or rejecting members to be of force in the whole Catholic Church: wherein no excommunicated person would be received in any part of it, 
Can. Ap. 12. Nic. 5. Chalc. 13. Antioch. 6, 7.  nor any suspected persons without dimissory or commendatory Letters. And they also owned all dividing from, or communicating with a particular Church, to have respect to the whole Catholic Church, of which that particular was a member; 
Cyp. de Unit. Eccles.  because as S. Cyprian declares, Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur.  
7. Secondly, 
2. From the dangerons abuse of pretended Apostolical Power.  The right of Patriarchal claim is altered from what it once was, by the Romish Bishops abusing and perverting the pretence of Apostolical authority, and challenging such an Universal Supremacy, as encludeth a power of disposing Kingdoms, deposing Kings, and dissolveing the bonds of subject's obedience. And besides these general positions, he not only challenged this Kingdom as feudatory, but undertook to discharge all English Subjects from their Allegiance to Queen Elizabeth; but in the following Book I shall speak more to the things contained under this head. But he who acts against the safety of the Realm, 
V Conc. Turon. 1510.  and the rights of the Crown, whatsoever his dignity is in the Church, may be rejected as a common Enemy; even as Abiathar the High Priest when he became an abetter of Sedition, was justly deposed by Solomon. That man who will give liberty of free access to his House, for his Friend or his Physician, will not think it reasonable to do the same to him, who without all right claims a power, to turn him out of his own estate, and to dispose of it as the chief Lord.  
8. 
3. From pernicious and false doctrine.  Thirdly, From the corrupt doctrines, which he propagates with that earnestness, as to reject all others who will not embrace them. Now because there is no authority above, or against God and his truth, there lieth the same obligation upon all good Christians in this Case, to reject and disown his superiority; as there doth to hold and maintain the true Catholic Christian doctrine, which he will not allow, against the gross corruptions which have invaded it. Thus in the time of Constantius, when the present possessors of the Patriarchdom, were favourers of Arianism, it was the honour of many Catholic Bishops, and other Christians, that they kept close to the Catholic doctrine, even in opposition to those Patriarches. And the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus declared, 
Conc. Eph. c. 1.  that if any Metropolitan had forsaken, or should forsake and oppose the true doctrine, which the Council did profess, he should have no authority over others in his province: and this was determined with a particular respect to the Case of Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, whose Heresy was then also favoured by John Patriarch of Antioch.  
9 Indeed upon pretence of personal crimes, concerning life and manners, no inferior was allowed by the Canons, to deny his subjection to his Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, until a Council had judged thereof. But if the Case be such, that he with open face asserts manifest Heresy, or false doctrine, which hath been so declared by approved Councils, the disowning all Communion with him, 
Syn. prim. & Sec. c. 15.  and subjection to him, even before a Council, is commended by some Canons, as a practice which deserves honour. And it must be so, where subjection must include embracing corruptions.  
10. But the various, false, 
Conc. Trid. passim.  and Corrupt doctrines of the Church of Rome, are openly asserted, under anathemas against all who shall oppose them. And these present erroneous doctrines of the Roman Church, according to the definitions of the Council of Trent, are by the Bull of Pius the Fourth, declared to be the true Catholic faith, 
Bul. Pii 4. superform. Juram. prof. fid.  extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, out of which no man can be saved, And an assent unto all these doctrines, is enjoined in that Bull to be declared upon Oath, by all persons who have any dignity or cure of souls; 
Sept. Decret. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 2.  which is extended by a following Constitution to all who take Academical degrees in any faculty, and to all Professors and Readers in public Schools.  
11. Now one thing in this Bull, enjoined to be thus necessarily professed and believed, is, that the Roman Church is omnium Ecclesiarum mater & magistra; the mother of all Churches, and hath authority over them: but this is plainly contrary to the determination of Ecumenical Councils, which I have above produced, who do make the authority of other Churches, equal with the Roman. Many other things are manifestly contrary to the doctrine of Christ himself, and his Apostles, as their Transubstantiation, the allowing the Communion in one kind, against the express institution of Christ; the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, for the quick and the dead; and many more of like nature. 
Eulla in Coena. c. 2.  And yet the Pope not only excommunicates all those as Heretics, who do oppose these doctrines, but also all those who do appeal to any future Council. Wherefore as much as it is the duty of any Church or Christian, to own God's authority and embrace his truth, so much it must be their duty, to reject the Romish authority, which opposeth and withstandeth them.  
12. Fourthly, From the sin of pursuing Schism, with which the Romish Bishop and Church do stand chargeable. 
4. From Schism.  No Christian Bishop can have any authority, against the Unity of the Christian Church, and against that authority, whereby that Unity is established. And therefore all Christians are obliged to avoid sinful divisions and Schisms, though the names of Paul, or Apollo's, or Cephas, may be pretended to head them. And it was the fault of S. Barnabas to comply with, and be led by S. Peter himself, in a groundless withdrawing from the Church of Antioch. And it could not be the duty of any Catholic Christians, who lived within the Dioceses of the Donatist Bishops, to submit to them, and thereby not hold the Catholic Communion. 
Cyp. Ep. 52. ad Anton.  For as S. Cyprian said, he who doth not keep the Unity of the Spirit, and the conjunction of peace, and separateth himself from the bond of the Church, and the Society of its Priests, Episcopi nec potestatem potest habere, nec honorem; can neither have the honour; nor the power of a Bishop. And he who submits to, or complyeth with, the manager of a Schism, in his prosecution thereof, doth involve himself in the same crime.  
13. 
Gr. de Valent. Tom. 3. disp. 3. qu. 15. Punct. 2. Bannes in 2. ●ae. qu. 1. Art. 10. p. 83, 84. & qu. 39 Art. 1.  Now that the Bishop of Rome himself may be a Schismatic, in separating from the Unity of the Church, is acknowledged by their own Writers. And he is actually guilty of Schism, in rejecting Communion with a great part, and with the best and purest part of the Catholic Church, and requiring them to be accounted Heretics. And his Schism hath such aggravations as these. 1. In the ill design of upholding corrupt doctrines, and practices of that Church, without due reformation. 2 From his high uncharitableness, in not allowing salvation to other Christian Churches, besides the Roman. 3. From his great usurpation, excommunicating all who do not yield obedience to him, and the free Churches who reform themselves, (although their power of holding Synods includeth a right to reform themselves) and all who appeal from him to a general Council, who are subjected to excommunication, 
Jac. de Graf. Decis. Aur. l. 4. c. 18. n. 55.  as some, who writ upon the bull in coena domini, tell us, for accounting a general Council superior to the Pope.  
14. Wherefore the Bishop of Rome as things now stand, hath no just right to a Patriarchal Power, in any part whatsoever of the Christian Church, having forfeited this by the corrupt doctrines and interests, and by the Schism, which are there managed. And he is excluded from Foreign Sovereign Prince's Dominions, by the Supremacy of their Crown, and by his undue claims, inconsistent with their regalities. But if he would become truly Catholic, both as to Christian Unity and doctrine, and therein give due honour to secular authority, he might then claim a Patriarchal right, so far as the present civil power of Rome reacheth, but no further, unless by the leave and pleasure of other Princes and Churches. And he might then expect, and would receive, an high honour, all over the Christian World, upon account of the ancient prime Patriarchal See.    

CHAP. VIII.  

B. 1. C. 8.  Some pretences of other parties, against the Supremacy of Princes in Causes Ecclesiastical, refuted.  

SECT. I.  
Of Liberty of Conscience, and Toleration.  
AGainst the Authority of the Civil Power in matters of Religion, there are some who undertake such a Patronage of Liberty of Conscience, as thereby to infer a necessity of Toleration. And what is urged upon this Topick, hath either respect to Conscience itself, or else the peace of the Christian World; and so either pretendeth, that it is the proper right of Conscience, to be free from subjection to any men in matters Ecclesiastical, and the affairs of Religion; or else, that the yielding this liberty to every man is a principle of peace, 
The consequences from the Pleas for General liberty of Conscience.  and would tend greatly to the quiet of the World.  
2. the chief force of what is said upon the first pretence, lieth in this kind of reasoning, which some account plausible, to wit, That every man hath a Conscience, or capacity of discerning what is his duty in matters of Religion, and that what he thus discerns to be his duty he ought to practise, and no man ought to hinder or restrain him: and the consequence of this is, that concerning the affairs of Religion, he ought to be under no Government, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. But the vanity and fallaciousness of this way of arguing, will sufficiently appear, by improving the same to a further purpose, to which it is altogether as well adapted, concerning matters of common right. For it may be said here that man is a Creature endued with principles of Conscience, and capacities to discern what is just and honest, and what he discerneth to be so, he ought to pursue, and should be permitted so to do; and therefore according to the former method of argumentation, he must in civil affairs be under no Government, and no judge ought to question him. Now the result of all this, and what it would tend to prove is, that man is such a Creature, who ought not to be a subject, or under Government; and from hence it would follow, that all the Precepts of subjection and obedience in the Gospel, and the whole establishment which God hath made, of Civil and Ecclesiastical power and authority, are all of them opposite to the nature of man, and to the rights and privileges of his being. And now would it not hearty grieve any pious and understanding man, to see by what pitiful pretences men undertake to argue, against the institution and authority of God?  
3. 
Men may not safely be left to the sole conduct of themselves and their Consciences.  But they who make use of such arguments about matters of Religion, will be ready to say concerning things civil, that though men have Consciences to guide them, yet they may sometimes mistake the due measures of justice and right, and sometimes an inordinate pursuing their own interest, or gratifying some evil temper of mind, may make men act contrary to what they know to be right; and by such means other men's properties would be injured, if there were not a civil judge to interpose, and laws established for the securing these properties. And all this is indeed truth: but then these two things are also to be observed. 1. That hereby it is granted, that even in those things wherein men ought to be directed by the rules of Conscience, they are still under the Government of their Superiors, who may take care that they therein act not contrary to the true grounds of Conscience, which in this Case is justice and right. 2. That in matters of Religion also it is manifest that very many are prone to run into mistakes, more than about other things, and to be too much hurried by pride, prejudice, passion, or by following erroneous guides. And is it reasonable, to think it agreeable to the will of God, and the Christian Doctrine, that it should be necessary to preserve the civil interests of men, whether Princes or Subjects; but that such liberty must be granted, that the sacred Majesty of God may be affronted, the truths of the Gospel opposed, the Unity of the Church broken by Schism, the power of Religion undermined by vain fancies; and the reputation of the Christian Religion stained, and the eternal happiness of many thousands be thereby hazarded, and all this not thought so considerable as to provide against it? Or as S. Austin said, 
Aug. Ep. 50. An fidem non servare levius est animam Deo, quàm foeminam viro?  is it a lighter and more inconsiderable thing, for the soul of man not to be faithful to God, than for a Woman not to be faithful to her Husband? Wherefore since it is as easy for men of understanding, to discern the duty of man, in the main things of Religion, and the Rules of decency, as in civil matters; it is very requisite, that with allowance of reasonable liberty to them who are soberly inquisitive about truth, there should be a restraint upon men by Laws and Government, from following every inordinate inclination of their own minds, though they miscall it by the name of Conscience; that so Piety, Order, and Peace may be secured.  
4. But though I would be as charitable to all who err in matters of Religion, as may consist with a due consideration of things, yet I cannot account all that to be Conscience, which is by some men in the World so called. 
Conscience doth not always really guide where its name is pretended.  For those proper dictates of Conscience, which in this case ought to command obedience, must proceed upon such convictive evidence of truth and duty, which no error and mistake can bring along with it, with that clearness which truth doth; and this aught to be followed by every pious man, whatever difficulties may assault him herein; but passions and disordered affections ought to be governed and restrained; and the Laws and Commands of Superiors ought to be obeyed, where there is no such evidence to be opposed against them, as I have mentioned. But let any person who understandeth the state of the World, consider, whether it be not an apparent sad truth, and matter of real lamentation, that the chief and most earnest men who close with erring and dividing parties amongst us, do this either out of some fond affection to a weak argument, which they are highly pleased with; or because they are resolved to hold fast some things as certain principles, which have no evidence of truth; or that they follow willingly and of choice the opinion of some other persons whom they admire; or have a great prejudice against those, whom they account an opposite party; or are not willing to be subject, and to be guided by their Superiors, in things relating to order. And I hearty wish it were not so plain a truth as it is, that such men are rarely willing to consider seriously and impartially, of what is said against their error, and do not make so much scruple of Conscience as they ought, of breaking those numerous and plain Precepts, which enjoin obedience, humility, and the keeping the Peace and Unity of the Church.  
5. Now in men who thus proceed, 
True liberty of Conscience opposed by them who plead for it in words.  it is very plain that their dissent is founded in the voluntary inclination, and evil indisposition of their wills. And if any such persons shall say, that their Consciences oblige them to entertain these inclinations, they must give others leave to see, that they only substitute the name of Conscience, to be a Plea for an unaccountable and bad temper of mind. And indeed those persons are great opposers of the just and necessary Liberty of Conscience, who will bind it up to comply with their own inclinations, and what pleaseth them, but will not give it the liberty of impartial consideration, that thereby it might guide them by its  dictates.  
6. 
God hath not left men's Consciences at liberty to neglect peace and obedience.  But because I intent here to discourse no further of liberty of Conscience, than to show that the pretence thereof, ought not to be any bar against the exercise of government and authority, in the regular establishing of Religion, and order in the Church: I shall only add, that I suppose no man will be so presumptuously bold, as to assert, that this Plea of liberty should be a privilege to men, against the authority of God, and his Laws and Precepts. And then I cannot understand, what pretence can be made from hence, against the necessity of practising those duties, which the Commands of God have enjoined, of following peace, maintaining order, and in things lawful being subject to superiors; especially since God hath particularly in this Case required us, to be subject for Conscience sake, and that not as in a matter left at liberty, but where he hath declared a necessity upon Conscience. Rom. 13.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you most needs be subject for Conscience sake.  
7. But there are some who say, 
Toleration pretended to be a method for peace.  that a general liberty for all men to profess what they please, or think fit in Religion, if it be not necessary from the nature of Conscience, yet is the most excellent expedient for the general peace of the World. This liberty hath been pretended by them who engage in several Sects, to be a principal means to promote the Unity of the Church; which must be by a like method, as the compactness and united strength of a building may be procured, by providing that all the parts of it, may without difficulty fall from one another. But this general liberty in Religion is also proposed, 
Humane Reason, p. 78.  as the best requisite to hinder civil and foreign Wars, by a late Writer. He tells us, that all Wars of late Ages, have been either really for Religion, or at least that hath been one of the chief pretences, and therefore as conducing to peace, he requires the embracing this Position, 
P. 79.  That every man ought quietly to enjoy his own Religion. And in another place he says, there cannot certainly in the World be found out, 
P. 11, 12.  so mild and so peaceable a doctrine, as that which permits a difference in beliefs.  
8. But since he that observes the World must acknowledge, that many Wars have been occasioned, upon the sole pretence of civil rights, and secular interests; that there may be a provision for this Case as well as for the former, it will not be unmeet to accompany this Position of his, with another which is much of like nature with it, and equally peaceable. And this is, That all men ought to suffer each other, without any disturbance or complaint, to take and enjoy whatsoever goods, persons, and possessions, they shall please to possess themselves of. And if this principle with the former, were entertained by all men (as it never was, nor can be) there would then be no Wars, nor contests in the World, neither concerning matters of Religion, nor any other rights. And then we should have a quiet World, but with little regard to Religion, Righteousness, Chastity and Virtue, and without all Order, Government, and civil Societies, the Earth being then overgrown with the height of Barbarism, far surpassing the wildness of the Native Indians.  
9 
No Peace can be from thence expected.  But against the former method here proposed, for the procuring peace, I shall observe further two things. 1. That there are so many things necessary for the making this proposal practicable, that even that may well make any man despair of its effect. For first, care must be taken, that there be no such pious men in the World, who will think that God's honour ought to be maintained, and the true Religion defended and secured, by the authority of Governors: and yet either the peaceable principle must be forsaken, or else thereupon these men must enjoy the liberty of their opinion, as well as others, Secondly, there must be security given, that there shall be no such furious men in the World, who will at any time vent notions in Religion, which may tend to undermine authority and Government, to make men's minds fierce and cruel, or to evacuate obedience; nor yet that there be any such eager and earnest men, who will be forward to use what power they can gain, for the establishing their own opinions. Thirdly, as this proposal can never become useful for peace, until all men be brought to be of the opinion of the proposer, which is as unlike as any thing can be; so even then there must be some provision made, that the practice of this proposal, be not the ready way to hinder the effect thereof. For the practice of this general liberty for all opinions in Religion, doth according to common experience ordinarily beget, instead of peace, discords, oppositions, disturbances, confusions, and other ill effects; which make all men of consideration see the hurt, and danger of such licentious liberty, and the necessity of Order and Government. Fourthly, And there must be no men so far Christians and conscientious, as to acknowledge that there are any doctrines of Faith, duties of Christian worship, or institutions of Christ, so necessary and sacred; that the opposers or contemners of them, aught to be checked and withstood. And though he be so bold as to assert, 
P. 68, 69.  that we ought not to teach, that any errors in belief overthrow the hope of salvation, and speaks of the hopeful estate of persons, whatsoever doctrines they embrace, 
P. 70, 71.  in the whole compass of Religions; which large expressions must include those Jews, who in our Saviour's time asserted him to be a blasphemer and not the Christ: yet thanks be to God, there are many who will believe those words of our Lord to the Jews, Job. 8.24. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. And from this and many other expressions in the Scripture, of the great danger of unbelief, will conclude, that under the clear promulgation of the Gospel, it is necessary to Salvation, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and Saviour of the World, and to profess and obey his doctrine.  
10. I observe, 2. That the best way to promote the peace of the World, 
Peace best promoted by uniform establishing true Religion and worship.  is by endeavouring that true Christianity in doctrine and practice, be with one accord, and with a spirit of Unity, embraced among men. For first the nature of Christianity is such, that so far as it really prevaileth, it must be a strong bond of peace, since it makes men tender of wronging any by word or deed, and enjoins a necessity of making satisfaction for injuries; a readiness to forgive enemies; with a care of reverence, fidelity, and obedience to superiors, and of gentleness, humility, patience and charity towards all men. 
De duodeeim. abus. seculi. cap. 7.  On this account it was thought one of the great disorders amongst men, that there should be Christianus contentiosus, a Christian given to contention. And though there are great miscarriages in this particular, among many who profess this Religion, but do not live according to it; yet it is apparent, that the spreading of Christianity in the World, did greatly amend and reform it, 
Eus. de Dem. Evang. l. 9 c. 17. De laud. Const. p. 486, 487.  and as Eusebius long since noted, did advantage the peace thereof; and it will mightily promote this effect, in all them who hearty practise it. Secondly, Unity in Religion hath a natural force to excite friendliness, whence even Jews, Mahometans, and all Sects are more kind to one another, than to others; and Philo accounteth concord in the worship of God, 
Phil. de Charit. p. 717.  to be the greatest cement of love; and joseph's Brethren thought it a considerable argument to engage his favour, because they were the servants of the God of his Father. 
Gen. 50.17.  Thirdly, The quiet of the World having chief dependence upon God, it may be justly feared that where the care of true Religion is neglected, the flourishing and peaceable state of Kingdoms should not long continue. This was frequently observable in the times of the Judges, and the Kings of Israel and Judah: See Judg. 5.8.1 Kin. 11.4, 
Gild. de Exc. Brit. Mar. Par. an. 1067. P. 5.  14, 23. And remarkable decay of piety was observed, to precede the two great Conquests of this Realm, by Foreign Armies.   

SECT. II.  
Of some other rigid and dangerous principles, against the supremacy of Princes.  
1. 
Of the rigid Presbyterians.  There are some of the rigid Presbyterians, especially those of the Scotish way, who though they allow the King some authority, both in matters Ecclesiastical, and over Ecclesiastical persons, do yet in terminis reject the Kings being supreme Governor, Sect. 2 
Rutherf. of Ch. Gou. Ch. 23. p. 508. Henderson's second Paper to the King.  in all causes Ecclesiastical and civil; and withal do plainly misrepresent the sense thereof. But that those of this way, do in a dangerous manner, oppose the just supremacy of Princes, in things Ecclesiastical, may be partly manifest from their general position, That the institution of God hath so provided for all things, pertaining to Religion, that there is no room left for any appointments of order, by the 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 judge 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 Barns, That the Queen of England (Queen Elizabeth) was an Atheist, with many more dangerous assertions: and being cited by the King's authority to answer these things, he alleged 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 King's proceed; and would not consent that any punishment should be inflicted upon Mr Blake, because there was no trial before a proper judge; and declared, that if he should submit his doctrine to be tried 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 State's General of the united Provinces, 
Adr. Damman. in Praest. Viror. Epist. p. 49. etc.  by their Agent then sent into Scotland, in the entrance of 1597. But such positions and undertake 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, 
Christ's 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 Christ's 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 falsehood, 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 Sovereign 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 Universal 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 Christ's Government of his Church, where some thing of like nature, aught 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 Sovereign 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 public affairs without him, was a manifest and practical disowning the King's 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 Governor, yet the supremest Sovereign power was in the people. Others declared that the title of Supreme Governor, was an honorary 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 superior 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 myself 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. 'Tis 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 itself: whereas if there be no higher power than what is in the whole body of the people, this must be a state of Anarchy, where there is no superior 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 superior authority, there can be no authority upon Earth superior 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 Sovereign; and hearty 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 Emperor, 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 precedent 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 style 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 superiors. 
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 Emperors, 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 Emperors 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 Ecumenical 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 compliance with Nestorius, they gave them both the title of Most Religious. And the like was done before the sentencing Dioscorus, and other Bishops who complied 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 virtues, 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 honorary titles is allowed and defended, both by Romish and Protestant Writers. And those persons who would appear backward, in yielding to the supreme Governor 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 superiors, 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.  hearty to pray for God's blessing on the person, and Government of their Sovereign; 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 Governor in all Causes Civil and Ecclesiastical; quoniam de secularibus sancta illi manet cura, & Ecclesiastica per divinam gratiam recte disponit ment intentâ, sit illi opitulatrix ineffabilis omnipotentis Dei gratia, quae se quaerentibus manet propinqua. But because it is an high piece of Hypocrisy and dissembling with God, to pray to him for the good of any person, whose good and happiness is not really desired; therefore the divine Precept to pray for Kings, and the Christian practice answerable thereto, was well urged as a sufficient evidence by Tertullian, 
Apol. c. 31.  to prove Christians to be true and real Friends and no Flatterers of Princes and Emperors, wheresoever the true spirit of Christianity is embraced.  
7. 
Of obedience to the laws of our Governors.  Corol. 4. The chief and principal duty required, is the practice of obedience to the laws of our superiors. Even in lesser Societies, a Father or Master whose authority is of an inferior nature, hath a power of commanding, without which there can be no order in Families. And it is the general acknowledgement of the World, 
Arist. Eth. l. 10. c. 9 Politic. l. 6.  that the welfare of humane Society, of which Government taketh care, cannot be obtained without establishing laws and public Rules: and there is no Kingdom or Country in the World under any civil Government, where laws have not been established, and an authority to enjoin them acknowledged. And obedience to such laws is plainly enjoined upon all Christians, since they are obliged to be subject to the higher powers, and to submit themselves to every ordinance of man. But that this duty of obedience may be the better declared, I shall take notice of three pretensions which are made use of, for the undermining it. Wherefore I shall observe,  
8. First, That passive obedience (as some call it) or a submitting to penalties, is in things which may lawfully be done, no sufficient discharge of Conscience, or performance of duty, unto the laws of superiors. 
The necessity of Active Obedience.  And here Active obedience only, deserves the name of obedience, and is necessary to be performed. This is evident from these three things. 1. From the general end and design of all Government, which a true Christian subjection must comply with: and this is to restrain disorders and evils, and to promote what is good and useful in the World. Now this end is obtained by the practising wholesome Rules, but is not at all effected by the mere bearing penalties. For by the suspending active obedience, the order of the World would be turned into confusion: since as Clemens Romanus urgeth in this Case, As the serviceableness of an Army, 
Cl. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 49, 50.  dependeth much upon its being under Command, and the usefulness of the members of our bodies appeareth, from their being ready to perform the motions, about which they are employed; so the good estate of the weal public is procured, by men's careful observing and attending to useful and profitable Rules and directions. 2. From other parallel instances. It is against the nature of Religion to imagine, that wicked men and evil Angels who despise Gods laws, and reject his Precepts, are to be esteemed as blameless and Well-doers, merely because they bear the punishment and misery, which God inflicts. And surely no reasonable man can think, that if a servant be idle, careless, and unfaithful; by being only beaten for his fault, without any amendment of his carriage, he becomes thereby faithful and innocent: or that if a Child be disobedient to his Parents, and stubborn, he hath sufficiently discharged all that duty, which God or Man requireth from him, by being corrected. And the pretence of general performing obedience to Governors, by bare submitting to penalties, but neglecting in things lawful to practise what is enjoined, is as opposite as these former instances, to the Rules both of Reason and Religion. 3. From the Sanction of punishment towards them who do evil, and are disobedient. For God who is so just that he will not condemn the righteous, nor punish the innocent, hath committed to Rulers the power of the sword, to execute punishment on the disorderly and disobedient: which he would never have done, if the neglect of active obedience to laws, which is the cause for which punishments are inflicted, were not in itself a fault. 
Prov. 20.2.  But whoso provoketh him (a King) to anger, sinneth against his own Soul.  
9 Secondly, Nor are subjects disobliged from obeying the laws of their superiors, by their entertaining doubts or scruples concerning the lawfulness of them. But because what I have written elsewhere, is sufficient for the proof of this, I shall chief refer the Reader thither, and shall only add, 1. That if we consider doubts in themselves, 
Doubts do not discharge from obedience.  since here is no certain evidence concerning the unlawfulness of the things commanded; if these doubts and scruples proceed from a regular and uniform cautiousness of Conscience, there is as much reason (if not much more, because of the plainness of the commands of obedience) to scruple or doubt of the lawfulness of disobeying, as of the lawfulness of obeying. And so the consideration of doubts and scruples, taken singly and alone, can be no pretence against the performing obedience, when even these very things ought to have as strong a force, against the neglecting obedience. 2. If we consider the duty and state of subjection, it will thence appear, that it was well asserted by S. Austin, 
Cont. Faust. l. 22. c. 75.  that subjects may and aught to obey their Prince's Commands, where they are certain that what he Commands, is not against the Command of God; and even where they are not certain that it is so. And indeed if an uncertain doubt did but make it safe not to perform obedience, this would bring very great confusion and disorder into the World, and would teach it the ready way, which many would listen unto, how children might safely disobey their Parents, and servants their Masters, as well as subjects their Governors. But since next to the obeying God, we own obedience to our superiors, even by the command of God: no man can warrantably disobey them, but where he knows he hath in that Case, the Command or Authority of God to the contrary.  
10. Thirdly, Whereas many persons are prone in general to account them, who are least studious to comply with the authority of men, (though they be their Governors) in matters of Religion, to be men of the greatest Conscience and integrity, who do not affect the things of this World, nor aim at their own interest therein: even this is a perfect misunderstanding, and a gross mistake. For 1. Since the due performance of obedience in things lawful is a duty, 
Performing obedience is a part of integrity and good Conscience.  there is more integrity and good Conscience in the peaceable practising it, than in the neglecting it. This may receive greater clearness by comparing it with the parallel Case of obedience to Parents. Now that person who shall forsake or disobey Father or Mother, in a necessary Case of Religion, acteth as one truly pious: but he who will be disobedient to his Parents in things lawful, is far from showing himself thereby to be the better man, or the better Christian; in that he may seem not to consult his own interest in the World, by venturing to displease or provoke his Parents, and to lose those advantages and favours, he might by a dutiful carriage receive from them. Notwithstanding such empty pretences to plead for disobedience, we must acknowledge the truth of what Hierocles asserted, 
Hier. in Pythag. p. 53.  even from the principles of equity and reason, that Parents are not where else to be disobeyed, but where themselves are not obedient to the divine Precepts. And the duty to Princes is of a like nature.  
11. 2. They who seem to disregard their own interest, in some things in the World, and not to desire the favour of their superiors, do not deserve to be accounted the better or the wiser men; unless this be done in the necessary discharge of duty to God, and the keeping firm to the truth of Religion. In those Cases forsaking Houses, and Lands, and Life, becomes a needful duty, but it is not so at other times. 
Cont. Cells. l. 8. p. 420.  Origen tells us, that the Christians of his Age were not so far besides themselves, and void of reason, as to displease and provoke Princes, further than this was the effect of their observing the laws of God. 
Aug. de Haeres. c. 69. Cont. Gaud. Epist. l. 2. c. 15.  And the Schism of the Donatists, and especially the Circumcelliones, who were furious and outrageous persons among them, hath been never the better esteemed in the Christian Church; because they not only withstood the laws of the Christian Emperors against it, but were very prodigal in casting away their own lives, to gain reputation to their party. That man who will spend or throw away his Estate, in a contention with his equal, where it would better become him to live in peace, is to be censured, not applauded: and to do the like in contending with his superior, is the worse of the two; because the common good, the peace of the Church and the duty of subjection, are herein concerned. And he who hath undervaluing thoughts of the approbation, favour and respect of Governors, in the performance of his duty, cannot well have high thoughts of the institution and ordinance of God, which appointed them for the praise of them that do well. Rom. 13.3. 1 Pet. 2.14.  
12. 3. That man only acts as becomes a truly conscientious man, and a good Christian, who is careful to avoid all sinful dispositions, without undue affecting to please himself, or to oppose the ways of peace, or to seek applause from any sort of men, in the neglect of his duty. And indeed the being in vogue and reputation, with a particular company of men, is to some persons a more prevailing temptation than the proposal of gain or public honour; of which we have a plain example, even amongst the Apostles of our Saviour. When they had arrived so far, as that they could part with all their possessions, and be content to undergo scorn and contempt, from the generality of their Nation, for their Master's sake; they were so prone to affect the reputation of being the greatest in their own Society, that they needed the watchful eye, and frequent rebukes of their Saviour, 
Luk. 9.46, 47, 48. ch. 22.24, 25, 26. Mar. 10.44.  to check and curb this evil temper. And besides this there are those who make use of the interest of a party, as a method of gain also, as is easily observed.  
13. Wherefore the performing active obedience in lawful things, to the Precepts of Superiors, is a duty which must not be neglected, by him who would keep a good Conscience, since according to the will of God, we must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for Conscience sake.    

Christian Loyalty. The Second Book. Of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms against the King.  

CHAP. I.  
The public Forms of Declaration, against the lawfulness of resisting the King by Arms, considered.  

SECT. I.  
Of the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience, and its disclaiming the Pope's power of deposing the King, or licensing his Subjects to offer any violence to his Person, State, or Government.  
1. THE preservation of Civil Governors, and the Peace of Kingdoms, is of so great concernment, that the wisdom of Lawgivers hath justly taken especial care thereof. 
B. 2. C. 1.  And Tumults, Conspiracies and civil Wars, are usually attended with the highest mischiefs; the violation of things Sacred, the banishing of natural affection, and therewith Christian love, meekness, mercy, and the duties of subjection; and the practising murder, rapine, violence and lewdness. And besides what every man may himself personally suffer, in such Calamities; the dismal spectacles which his eyes may behold, the tragical relations which his ears must hear, and the perplexing fears which may assault his mind; in the lively sense of them, are effectual and astonishing convictions, of the dreadfulness of tumultuous and treasonable Conspiracies, beyond all that can be expressed concerning them.  
2. But though the Christian Religion doth firmly oblige men to peace, obedience, and due submission; there are many persons who own that name, and yet entertain positions, wholly inconsistent with the Precepts of that Religion, and the safety of Princes and their Kingdoms. And therefore it is but reasonable, that those who are admitted into any Office in the Church, and are to teach and instruct others; and they who receive any Government in the State, and have the power of commanding others, Sect. 1 should testify their loyalty, and their detestation of such positions, as undermine the security of Kings and Kingdoms. And to this purpose is established in this Realm, a twofold acknowledgement; the one more particular against Romish Conspiracies, and the other more general.  
3. The former is contained in the Oath of Obedience or Allegiance, 
3 Jac. 4. The Oath of Allegiance, against the Pope's deposing power.  which all the Clergy, and other principal subjects of this Realm do constantly take. And therein it is declared, that the Pope hath no power to depose the King, or to dispose of his Dominions, to absolve his Subjects from their Obedience, or to Licence them to bear Arms against, or offer violence to his Person or Government; whether he proceed by Declaration, Sentence, Excommunication, or any otherwise.  
4. And indeed there was very great reason, to use needful circumspection, 
This power of the Pope to depose Kings, assorted in the Church of Rome.  against the pretence of this Papal power of deposing Kings, which had appeared with so great boldness in the World, and done so much mischief in it. And this pretence is not only managed, as an intrigue of the policy of the Court of Rome, but is engrafted into the doctrine of the Romish Church. 
Conc. Lat. c. de haeret. an. 1215.  In the General Council (as they at Rome esteem it) at the Lateran, under Innocent the Third, it was declared, that if any temporal Lord did not purge his land from Heresy, he should be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and Bishops, and if he make not satisfaction within a year, the Pope shall pronounce his subjects absolved from their fealty, and shall give his Country to Catholics to possess it without any contradiction. And this Constitution doth not only respect such temporal Lords, 
Sheldon's Reasons for lawfulness of Oath of Allegiance.  who have some inferior Dominions, without Sovereign dignity, as some of the more loyally inclined Romanists would interpret it: but it also concerneth Sovereign Princes, as these words thereof will evince; eadem lege servata circa eos, qui non habent dominos Principales.  
5. 
In Concil. Lugdun. an. 1245.  And in another reputed General Council, Innocent the Fourth did actually pronounce this sentence, against Frederick the Second than Emperor; That as Christ's Vicar, and by virtue of his having said to S. Peter, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, he did declare and denounce the Emperor, for his sins. to be by God deprived of all honour and dignity, adding, & nihilominus sententiando privamus. And thereupon he proceeds to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of fealty, and by his Apostolical Authority to Command them, that they yield him no obedience, help, or counsel, as Emperor, and Decrees that all who shall do otherwise, shall be ipso facto excommunicate. And this proceeding and sentence, 
Sext. Decr. l. 2. Tit. 14. c. 2.  And this proceeding and sentence, which was related by M. Paris, and from him by Binius, in his account of this Council, was also taken into the Decrees of the Canon Law.  
6. And though Santarellus, and some few others, may have spoken more broadly and expressly, and have been more taken notice of, by the public censures of France; yet he who shall consult the generality of the Romish Writers, which are most in vogue amongst themselves, will find them for some hundred years past, to be asserters of these dangerous positions. So much do the Romish Doctrines tend to the undermining the Rights and Authority of Princes. 
Bellarm. adv. Barclainm, de Potest. Pap.  Cardinal Bellarmine produceth the testimony, of towards fourscore of their Writers, beginning from Gregory the Seventh, and Aquinas, for the asserting the Pope's temporal power, and almost all of them do indeed plainly own his power of deposing Kings. And a further account is to the same purpose given, by Cardinal Perron. 
In the Jesuits Loyalty.  The same spirit hath been since propagated; and in England the Treatises lately written by that sort of men, against the lawfulness of taking the Oath of Allegiance, because it disclaimeth this deposing power of the Pope, are open to public view: and the first of those Treatises undertaketh to prove, the acknowledging this deposing power, to be a branch of the doctrine of the Romish Church.  
7. 
These Papal practices mischievous to the World. Platin. in Vit. Greg. 7.  Nor are these only words and opinions, but things which have been in many Ages pernicious to the World. Since Gregory the Seventh, for six hundred years past, the Roman Bishop hath frequently by his Sentence and Excommunication, undertaken to depose Kings and Emperors, to stir up Subjects to take Arms against their Sovereigns, and even Children against their own Fathers; as was done against the Emperor Henry the Fourth; and thereby dreadful Wars have been oft occasioned in many Countries, and especially in the Empire. And with respect to England, some years before King John was forced to yield his Crown to Pandulphus, the Pope's Legate; the Pope undertook by his sentence to depose him from being King, and to order that another person should succeed him, being chosen by the Pope; 
M. Par. an. 1212.  as M. Paris expresseth it, Sententialiter definivit, ut Rex Anglorum Johannes à solio regni deponeretur, & alius Papâ procurante succederet. And of later times the Bull of Pius the Fifth against Queen Elizabeth, did presume to deprive her of her Title to her Kingdom, and to Command her Subjects not to obey her. And in her Reign, other Bulls and Breves were sent into England, to the same purpose; and also to declare all persons, who were not of the Romish Communion, to be excluded from the succession to the Crown. These things together with several treasonable attempts of the Romish party (which were the reducing this doctrine into practice) and particularly the Gunpowder-Treason, made it needful to provide the Oath of Allegiance, wherein this dangerous pretended power of the Pope is renounced. 
In Bellarm. Resp. ad Apolog. pro Jur. Fidelitatis.  And since the forming that Oath, Paul the Fifth sent over his Breves, (and Card. Bellarmine his Letters) declaring that this Oath could not be taken, Salva fide Catholica, with the preservation of the Catholic Faith, and the Salvation of their own Souls.  
8. Now this pretended power of the Pope, if it had any real foundation, must bear itself either upon his peculiar eminency and superiority over Princes, even with respect to things temporal; or upon the force and virtue of the mere spiritual power of Excommunication; or from the occasion thereof, the pretended crimes of Heresy, Apostasy, or Infidelity, and their being so adjudged. 
The Pope hath no superiority over Princes, whereby he may deprive them of their Dominions.  The first of these is that which the Popes themselves do much insist upon; as appears from their own Instruments, Grants, and Bulls, relating to the deposing Kings, and the disposing of Kingdoms and Countries. And it may be observed, that the claim of the deposing power, upon account of a Sovereign Dominion, to give and take away Kingdoms, doth lay the rights of Kings at the mercy and pleasure of the Pope; as other Officers and Dependants are at the pleasure of the King in his Kingdom. 
Greg. 7. l. 8. Episc. 21 c. 15. q. 7. c. alius.  And then it must be also granted, that the Pope may deprive them, without respect to any such Case Ecclesiastical, as Heresy, Excommunication, or spiritual punishment of sin; and such a power was claimed by some Popes.  
9 But having in the former Book, as I hope, sufficiently proved the Supremacy of Kings in their Dominions, and disproved the superiority of the Pope over them, it may be thence inferred, that no deposing power can possibly belong to him upon this pretence: which also will receive further confirmation, from many things in the following Chapters of this Book. Only I shall here take notice, that as some other Scriptures are produced for this deposing power, which at first sight appear to signify no such thing, as the instance of Jehoiada who only acted the part of a faithful subject to Joash, 
Bishop Montague's Acts and Monum. ch. 6. n. 26, 27. Gr. de Valent. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. Qu. 12. punct. 2. V & Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 7.  against a cruel Usurper; and doth not certainly appear to have been the High Priest; so there is a peculiar Wiredrawn nicety, which some make use of, to prove this deposing power from those words of our Saviour, Joh. 21.16. Feed my Sheep. Hence they argue, that it belongs to the office of a Pastor to drive away Wolves; and therefore the chief Pastor may depose such Princes, who are hurtful to the Church. And this same argument may also prove, that all Pastors have the power of the Sword, and of making resistance, and of killing and destroying men's lives, and exercising such Authority as the Kings of the Gentiles did. But to this which will admit of many answers, it may be sufficient to say. 1. That it is a great vanity to found an argument, upon the straining a metaphorical expression, which only proves that they want better proofs. As if all Christians from the same text might be concluded to be Fools, because Sheep are silly Creatures: and that it is not fit that Christian Kingdoms should defend themselves by Arms, against an invading Enemy, because it agrees not with the nature of Sheep, to fight with Foxes or Wolves. 2. And it is no part of the peculiar authority of a Shepherd, to drive away of Wolf; which any Man, or Dog either, may warrantably do, as well as the Shepherd.  
10. 
Gr. de Val. ubi supra. C. 15. qu. 7. c. nos sanctorum, etc. Juratos.  But it is pretended also, that those who are Excommunicated because of Heresy, (or as some add for any other cause) do thereby lose their Dominion, and Authority over their Subjects. And this is asserted and declared by Gregory the Seventh, and Vrbane the Second. Now though the having disproved the authority of the Bishop of Rome, to extend to this Kingdom, doth sufficiently manifest, that he hath no more power to Excommunicate any Prince, or Subject of England (having no Jurisdiction here) than a Bishop in England hath, to Excommunicate any Prince or Subject in Italy: yet I shall here take notice of some things further concerning Excommunication, and also concerning Heresy. Concerning Excommunication I shall observe,  
II. 
Excommunication doth not forfeit temporal rights.  First, That it is contrary to the nature of Excommunication, though in the highest degree, that any person and especially a Sovereign Prince, should thereby lose those temporal rights, which are not founded in their relation to the Church. Indeed in Christian Kingdoms there are ordinarily some temporal penalties, and abatement of legal privileges, inflicted upon the persons excommunicate: but this is not the natural effect of that sentence, but is added thereto by the civil Government and Sovereignty, under which such persons do live. And therefore no such thing can take place with respect to Sovereign Princes, who have no temporal superior, to annex this as a penalty. Excommunication is a separating an Offender from the Christian Society of the Church, not a casting him out of the World; it removes him as Tertullian expresseth it, 
Tertul. Ap. c. 39  à communicatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti Commercii; from communicating in Prayer, Christian Assemblies, and all holy Commerce. But that temporal rights are not thereby lost or forfeited, is acknowledged by some considerable Writers of the Romish Church; 
Blackw. his Examination. 1607. n. 39  as Richeome and Soto, who are cited with approbation by Blackwell.  
12. This may be further manifest from the words of our Saviour; wherein he expresseth the state and condition of a person Excommunicate, Mat. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man, and a Publican. Now supposing here that a Christian Prince were Excommunicated; to be as an Heathen man is no more, than to be as the Roman Governors were, to whom S. Paul and S. Peter enjoin obedience, and to be as Tiberius himself was, towards whom our Saviour commands the performance of duty. The Publicans who received the Roman Tribute, were so hateful to the Jews, that they would not eat with them; 
Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 5. 46.  they were accounted oppressive exactors, as the Jewish Rabbins declare, and the words of S. John Baptist intimate, Luk. 3.12, 13. And indeed they had so general a reputation of injustice even amongst the Romans, that it was thought a remarkable commendation of the Father of Vespasian, 
Suet. in Vesp. n. 1.  in the public Inscription upon the Statues erected in honour of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was an honest Publican. But yet with respect to the civil rights of tribute which they demanded, our Saviour requires and commands to render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, Mat. 22.21.  
13. 
Prince's may not be Excommunicated as others may.  Secondly, I observe that Sovereign Princes, are not liable to the Sentence of Excommunication, in the same manner with Christian Subjects. Though Princes must be under the care and conduct of Ecclesiastical Pastors and Guides, yet the duties of that relation must be discharged, with a reverend respect to the state of subjection. And the different Case of a Prince and a subject, with respect to Excommunication, may be discerned by distinct reflecting on the causes, the effects, the end, and the manner of proceeding in Excommunication. If we consider the causes or occasions of Excommunication; a Sovereign is capable of losing, and forfeiting his relation to the Society of the Christian Church, as well as other persons; 
Right of the Church. Ch. 4. p. 236.  because as Mr Thorndike observeth, he as well as others comes into the Communion of the Church, upon the terms and conditions of Christianity; and a failure in the condition must make the effect void. Such was the Case of Julian, who being an Apostate, and no longer embracing Christianity, had no more any right to be accounted a Christian. The effect of Excommunication is such, that it sometimes prohibits converse among private persons; except in such relations, as do not depend upon the Society of the Church, and therefore remain entire, notwithstanding the separation from that Society; as of Parents and Children, Husband and Wife, Master and Servant. And upon this account, 
Davenant. Determ. 48.  no subject can by virtue of Excommunication, be prohibited converse with, and discharge of all duty and respect to his Sovereign; because this is that which he oweth him by the bond of Allegiance, and the laws of nature, humane Society and civil polity.  
14. And the end of all Ecclesiastical power, being for the good of the Church and of Mankind, it being an authority for edification and not for destruction; in all the acts thereof due caution ought to be used, in avoiding the unnecessary exasperating those who are in chief authority, against the Officers of the Church, which oft occasioneth lamentable discords and contentions. 
V Barcl. de potest. Papae, c. 9 etc. 26.  And because the good of the Church consists chief in the advancement of Piety, and Religious obedience, of which one branch is, the honouring and obeying superiors and Governors; upon account of Christian piety all just care must be taken, that no acts of Ecclesiastical authority, do render Sovereign Princes the more disrespected, and disesteemed of their Subjects. And upon this account also it is needful, that all Ecclesiastical Officers do carefully avoid the suspicion, of undermining the secular rights of Princes, which hath been inordinately done in the Romish Church, under the pretence of the power of the Keys, and of binding and losing.  
15. And lastly and chief, The manner of proceeding in the Sentence of Excommunication, being ordinarily by a judicial process, and a public Judicial sentence; and there being no Ecclesiastical Court or Person, who hath any superior power or authority over a Sovereign Prince, to Command or Summon his appearing before them, to answer to what shall be objected against him; I cannot see how, unless by his own consent, he should become subject to such Judicial proceed. The Bishop of Rome did indeed presume to summon Kings before him; but this was an high act of his Usurpation. Whereas according to the groundwork now laid, a Sovereign Prince cannot by any coactive Ecclesiastical Power, become subject to such a sentence, and the open and outward proceed therein. But still Princes as well as any other persons, must submit themselves to the power of the Keys, in undertaking the rules of repentance; so far as they are needful for procuring the favour of God, and obtaining the benefit of the Keys by Absolution; as was in a great part done, in that memorable Case of Theodosius, 
Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 17. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 24.  upon the sharp rebuke of S. Ambrose. And though all Christians upon manifest evidence, may in some Cases see cause to disown a Sovereign Prince (as was done in Julian) from being any longer a Member of the Christian Society; yet in such Cases this Membership ceaseth, and is forfeited by his own act, and not properly by a Judicial sentence, and formal Process. 
Gr. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp. 3. Qu. 15. Punct. 3.  And some of the Romish Writers go much this way in giving an account, how the Bishop of Rome whom they suppose to be superior to all men on Earth may be reason of Heresy or such Crimes, be deprived of Christian Communion.  
16. 
Heresy doth not deprive men of all temporal rights. Valent. T. 3. Disp. 1. Qu. 10. P. 8. & qu. 11. P. 3. & qu. 12. p. 2.  Concerning Heresy, it might be sufficient in this Case to observe, that those who in Communion with the Church of England, embrace that true Christian Doctrine, which was taught in the Primitive and Apostolical Church, are as far from being concerned in the crime and guilt of Heresy, as loyal Subjects are, from being chargeable with Rebellion. But that assertion which some Romish Writers embrace, that Heretics are ipso facto, deprived of all temporal rights, 
Layman. The Mor. l. 2. Tr. 2. c. 16.  and superiority, (etiam ante judicis sententiam, say some) is necessary to be rejected. For this is a position that would ruin the Peace of the World, when it would put every party upon seizing the possessions of all, whom they account Heretics, as having a just right so to do. And this is certainly false, because temporal Dominion is not originally founded, in the entertaining the true Doctrine of Religion, or the Faith of Christianity, since S. Paul required subjection to the Pagan Rulers, as being ordained of God, Rom. 13.1,— 7. Had this been true, the Scribes and Pharisees, who were guilty of Heresy, could not have sat in Moses Seat, nor ought Constantius and Valens to have been acknowledged, as they always were by the Christian Church, for Sovereign Princes.  
17. That damnable doctrine and position, 
Suar. in Reg. Brit. l. 6. c. 6. Vide Arnaldi Oration. count. Jesuitas in Cur. Parlam. Sixt. 5. in Orat. in Consist. Rom. Comolet. in Arnald. Orat. ubi sup.  which is abjured in the Oath of Allegiance, as impious and heretical; That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever, is owned and asserted, even, with respect to the murdering them by several Popish Doctors, and by some of them as a thing most highly meritorious. Among whom also the murdering of Princes is approved, if they be only thought remiss, and not zealous in carrying on the interest of the Romish Church: and on this account, the horrid murder of Hen. 3. and Hen. 4. of France, hath been applauded and commended by divers of them. But the wickedness of all such assertions and practices, will be abhorred by all loyal and Christian Spirits, and will I hope be plainly manifested, from the following part of this discourse.  
18. And whereas this Doctrine and Position is abjured as Heretical, 
Of Heretical Doctrines.  the phrase Heretical, must be here taken in a proper and strict sense. But when the Scriptures or ancient Fathers speak of Heresy, or Heretical Doctrines strictly and properly they thereby understand such Positions, which under the profession of Christianity, do so far oppose and undermine the true Christian Doctrine, as to bring those who maintain and practise these things, to the ways of destruction. Thus those Doctrines were by S. Peter esteemed damnable Heresies, which were proposed by false Teachers, and were pernicious and destructive, both to them, and to those who followed them, 
Ignat. ad Trallian.  2 Pet. 2.1, 2, 3. Ignatius also describeth Heresy to be a strange Herb, no Christian food, which joineth the name of Christ with corrupt doctrines (quae & inquinatis implicat Jesum Christum, in the Latin published by Bishop Usher, by which the Medicean Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is certainly amiss, and concerning which, both Vossius and P. Junius add their different conjectures, may be corrected: for that Copy out of which this Latin was translated, seemeth to have read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.) as they who give a deadly poison with wine and honey, which may please and yet kill. And Tertullian accounted such assertions to be Heresy, as undermine the Faith, 
Tert. de Prescript. c. 2, 5.  and lead to eternal death; and where the Teachers of them, though they profess the name of Christ, do corrupt his Doctrine, and are Adulteri Evangelizatores. In like manner S. Austin owneth him to be an Heretic, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 18. c. 51.  who under the Christian name resisteth the Christian Doctrine, and persisteth in maintaining dogmata pestifera & mortifera; pestilent and deadly opinions. And when Aquinas treated of Heresy, 
22ae. q. 11. a. 2. o.  he declared that the import thereof is, the corruption of the Christian Faith. Nor would it be difficult to add a numerous Company of approved Writers to the same purpose.  
19 
Doctrines allowing Subjects or others to depose or murder Princes, are Heretical.  Now since the Pope's depriving power hath been disproved, this Position here abjured is not only false, but according to this notion of Heresy, it is properly an Heretical Position. For this justifieth the highest disobedience and resistance of Superiors, though the Apostle declares that such shall receive to themselves damnation. This gives liberty to the greatest acts of unrighteousness towards Princes, and consequently towards their Subjects, and the whole Community, although the doctrine of Christianity declares, that the unrighteous cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. It also gives way to the wicked practices of murder, 
The like Position in the Arrest of the Parl. of Paris against chastel, was condemned as heretical. And on these accounts in Greg. 7. Plerisque Episcopis pestifera haeresis visa est. Aventin. Annal. Boior. l. 5.  and breaking the peace and order of the World, under most heinous aggravations, though all this be severely decried and condemned in the Christian Doctrine. And it allows of the most signal instances of perfideiousness, notwithstanding the obligations in this Case to fidelity, from the divine Precepts; the reverence of an Oath; the respect to God's Ordinance, by which Rulers are established; and the interest of the common good. And after all this to aver that any thing of Christ's institution and appointment, doth give a Warrant to, and approbation of these impieties, is a Position both heretical and blasphemous, concerning the Government of our Saviour. Now not only those assertions which directly contradict the Articles of our Creed, but those also which oppose the necessary Rules and Precepts of a holy life, which are a considerable part of the Christian Faith and Doctrine, have generally been esteemed heretical doctrines in the Church of God. Thus those assertions of Simon Magus, 
Epiph. Haer. 21, 25, 26.  the Gnostics and the Nicolaitans, whereby they gave allowance to impure and unclean practices, have ever been reckoned among their heretical doctrines. 
Ibid. Haer. 47. & 61.  Such also were accounted the Positions condemning Marriage, by the Encratitae and Apotactici, and the rejecting all proper possessions and Dominion by the latter of them; with many other things of like sort.  
20. But some may incline to think, that wicked assertions contrary to the Faith and Doctrine of Christianity, ought not to be accounted heretical, unless they be so adjudged and declared by a Catholic Council. Now here I acknowledge, that with respect to external penalties to be inflicted on Heretics, such Rules have oft times been reasonably observed. And it must also be granted, that in what Church soever truth and a zeal for Religion is maintained, it may well be expected, that spurious and dangerous Doctrines which openly spring up therein, will be there detested and condemned, and the authoritative sentence of lawful Councils ought to be reverenced. But it cannot be, that in the inward nature of the thing, the being of an heretical doctrine must depend on such a Declaration. Had this been true, the first Broachers and secret Spreaders of all Heresies, how impious soever they were, could not be forthwith chargeable with Heretical doctrine. And if the Catholic Bishops were either wanting to their duties; or by any extraordinary emergency were in an incapacity of meeting in Council; or else were over-voted in the Council, as it happened in the Synod of Ephesus concerning Eutyches, and in many other Heretical Conventions; this would excuse from Heresy the Teachers of the most wicked doctrines, though they propagated them and persisted in them to their lives end. And if the determination of an Ecumenical Council should be thought necessary, to the asserting any doctrine to be Heretical; then could there be no Heresies in the first three hundred years after Christ, unless it should be in opposition to the things declared in that Council, Acts 15. if that should be supposed general. Then also Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others of the Fathers were unadvised, in their undertaking to write against Heresies, which there never had been any such things. And then it must be asserted also that Arius was falsely accused of Heresy, before the meeting of the Council of Nice. And what in its nature is not Heresy, cannot be truly so adjudged.  
21. 
Practices of difloyalty condemned by Councils.  Yet the substance of this Position here rejected and abjured, hath been also censured and condemned by Christian Councils. In the beginning of the Primitive Church, it cannot reasonably be expected that such things should be condemned by Councils, because no such positions were then defended, nor any such wicked undertake against Princes than practised, by the Professors of Christianity. But after that disloyal and treacherous practices were entertained, they were earnestly censured and condemned by divers Councils. In the fourth Council of Toledo it was declared, 
Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 74.  that whosoever should violate their Oaths, made for the preservation of the King, or should attempt his death, or the deposing him from his Kingdom, qualibet conjuratione aut study, by any Covenant or design whatsoever, should be Anathema from the presence of God, and have no Society with his Church. 
Conc. Tolet. 5. c. 2.  And much to the same purpose was declared in the fifth and other following Councils of Toledo. And in a Synod of all England, in which also the Pope's Legates were present, 
In Conc. Calcuthens. an. 787. c. 12. in Spelm.  a like dreadful Curse is denounced against them who shall violate the Majesty of Princes, and also that they who shall consent to such a sacrilege, as to take away the life of the King, shall perish with an everlasting Curse, and being Companions with Judas, shall be burnt with eternal fire. And in the Council of Constance, 
Conc. Constant. Sess. 15.  that assertion, that an ill governing Prince may lawfully or meritoriously be killed, by his subject or Vasal, was condemned as erroneous in faith and manners, and rejected as heretical, scandalous. etc.  
22. It is confessed indeed, that there is no particular clause in these Councils now produced, for condemning these treasonable acts, in this special Case of the Pope's pretended deprivation: But yet the former Councils take in all Cases without exception, and no such Papal power was ever pretended to in those days. And though the Council of Constance hath a reservation, of a dangerous aspect, concerning the sentence of a judge: yet since the Pope is in truth no judge to depose Princes, the pretence hereof can no more mend the matter; than the censure of the High Priest against our Saviour, 
Apud Brixinam Hildebrandum Haereseoscondemnam. Avent. l. 5. p. 460. Urspergens. ad ann. 1080. & 1085.  could vindicate Judas for betraying him, or the Jews for Crucifying him. Yet still it is easy to produce several Councils who since the appearance of this haughty Papal claim of deposing Princes, have with particular respect thereto, declared against this impious doctrine, which is detested by them who take the Oath of Allegiance. When this Papal Usurpation was first put in practice, by Greg. 7. against Henry 4. Emperor, there were Councils at Mentz, Ticinum, and Brixia, and others after them, who still condemned all those who in that Case acted against the Emperor. And the consideration of the Pope's pretence, was also included in that general Declaration in our own Church, 
Can. 1. 1640.  against Subjects bearing Arms against their King, upon any pretence whatsoever. And these Councils though disallowed at Rome, were in this respect truly Catholic, because they held to the Rules and Foundations of the true and Primitive Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  
23. But it is unreasonable to demand, 
This Heretical Position entertained by the Pope and his Adherents.  that for the declaring this to be Heresy, we should produce the determination of the present Church of Rome, against this detestable Position, since the Pope and the main part of the Romish church, are the persons who stand chargeable with maintaining, either the whole, or at least a considerable part, of this heretical position here abjured. For in this Position, That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may he deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever; the two main branches do concern the deposing and the murdering of Princes deprived or Excommunicated by the Pope. Touching the former, the deposing of them, the very forms of the Papal sentence which I have above mentioned, 
Supra n. 5, & 7.  not only allow but require and command that such Princes be deposed, and that their Subjects do renounce all fealty and Allegiance to them. 
Aventin. Ann. Boior. l. 5. p. 460. Epist. Leodiens. advers. Paschal. 2.  And by the Pope, his Conclave, and their Adherents, it hath been accounted a crime deserving Excommunication and Death also, for Subjects to defend their Sovereign whom the Pope had sentenced, as was long since complained of, by some of them who maintained their Allegiance to the Emperor, Hen. 4. and were therefore by the Pope devoted to destruction.  
24. Yet it is certain, that there have been and are divers persons, and the chief part of some Countries of the Romish Communion, who own not, but oppose that part of this assertion, which concerneth the deposing of Princes. 
Le Merc. Franc. an. 1609.  But several Writings of this sort of men, as of Barclay de potestate Papae, and others of the like temper, have undergone a public censure at Rome; and their opinions are herein looked on with so ill an eye, that at Rome they are thought not to be altogether found in the Roman Faith.  
25. And touching the depriving such Princes of their lives; 
Bell. Resp. ad p. 66. Apolog. pro juram. fidelit.  when Cardinal Bellarmine had asserted, that it was not the Pope's method, to promote any thing against their lives, he explains himself, that he meant this with respect to private assassinates, and not to what might happen in the raising open Wars. But yet concerning the more secret attempts of Parricide against such Princes: 
C. 23. q. 5. Excommunicatorum.  1. Their Canons declare, that they are not accounted Murderers, who in a zeal to the Catholic Church, do kill some who are Excommunicate. 2. The horrid act of James Clement, who murdered Henry the Third of France, was applauded by Sixtus the Fifth, in the Roman Consistory. 3. 
Le Mercure Francois. an. 1609. f. 376.  The arrest of the Parliament of Paris against John chastel, who attempted the murder of Henry the Fourth, and wounded him, was censured at Rome by a public Edict, Nou. 9 1609. 4. When Parry undertook to kill Queen Elizabeth, 
Eliz. Annal. Christian. Subjection. Part. 3. p. 503, 504.  his intention was not only promoted by the Pope's Nuncio's, and other persons in Venice and France; but desiring for his full satisfaction, to understand the Pope's approbation, by a Letter from Cardinal di Como, which was read at his Arraignment, and owned by him, he was assured, that the Pope himself highly praised and favoured his undertaking, as may appear from the Letter itself in Bishop Bilson, dated Januar. 30. 1584. And to these, other things of like nature, and of later time might be added, which will show that at least at some times such things as these have been encouraged at Rome.  
26. Yet it may be observed, that such Positions as this expressed in this Oath, 
But it was declared to be damnable Heresy by S. Peter.  were in general accounted and declared damnable Heresies, by one who is owned to have had both Apostolical and Episcopal Authority at Rome, even by S. Peter himself. When he had foretold the coming in and spreading of damnable Heresies, 2 Pet. 2.1, 2. and declared the destruction that should come upon those who received them, v. 1, 3, 4, 9 he than tells us in some particulars who they are whom God will thus punish, v. 10. chief them who walk after the flesh, in the lusts of uncleanness, and despise Government; presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Now the walking in the lusts of uncleanness, was the practical embracing the impure and heretical doctrines of Simon Magus, the Gnostics, and others like them. And since Government and Dignities do very properly express Civil, as well as Ecclesiastical, or any other power; and the temper of those who are prone to despise Civil Government, is fitly described by their being presumptuous and self-willed; and S. Judas in the parallel place, Judas 8, 11. speaks of their perishing in the gainsaying of Core; these words may reasonably be thought, to have a great respect to Civil Authority. And if we further consider, that among those ancient Heretics, some under a pretence of liberty, so far opposed Dominion, that they despised their Masters, and would not obey them; the allowing of which S. Paul condemns, as a great opposition to the doctrine of Christ. 1 Tim. 6.1, 2, 3, 4. and that there is some intimation of the same spirit, towards Kings and other Governors, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 16. and that at last this proceeded so far, that they taught that the Government of the World had its original not from God, but from the evil spirit (which Position Irenaeus confutes) this may well persuade and manifest, 
Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 5. c. 24. Tertul. adv. Valent. c. 22.  that the Apostle had in this place an eye to these things. And then this sense must be comprehended nder these words, that those assertions which eminently include the despising, disobeying, and speaking evil of civil Government and Authority (as the declaring it lawful to depose, or murder a Sovereign doth) are damnable Heresies.  
27. I only add, that pertinaciousness, which is included in the description of an Heretic, having respect to the temper of the person, who embraceth Heretical Doctrine, is not needful (though it be also in this Case sufficiently evident) to prove a Position to be Heretical.  
28. 
Of absolveing from the Oath of Allegiance.  I shall not insist particularly on that clause in the Oath of Allegiance, That neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve from that Oath; because this must stand and fall with the deposing power. For the absolving Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, must be presumed to be to this end, that such persons should be no longer obliged to acknowledge the Authority, or perform the duty, which is therein expressed and contained: and the best of their own Writers do found the Pope's Authority of dischargeing Subjects from such Oaths and Duties, upon the effect of his deposing or depriveing power. And it must be granted, that if the Pope cannot depose a Prince, as is sufficiently evinced that he cannot; then Princes have a right of governing, notwithstanding all the Pope can do, and his Subjects are then bound by the divine law, to perform Allegiance, though they should never have taken any special Oath to that purpose. But if the Prince could be indeed deposed by the Pope, and consequently hath no longer a right of governing; I acknowledge that any other man as well as the Pope, may pronounce the duties and obligation of subjection to cease, Sect. 2 towards him who is no longer their Ruler and Governor.   

SECT. II.  
Of the unlawfulness of taking Arms, upon any pretence whatsoever, against the King.  
1. The more general acknowledgement, for the preservation of the King's safety is, That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King. And that I do abhor that traitorous position, of taking Arms b his Authority against his person, or against those that are commissionated by him. this profession is required by the Act. of Uniformity to be made by all the Clergy, and the same thing in sense, is enjoined upon all civil and military Officers. And here I shall distinctly consider the several clauses; which are all to be interpreted, with respect to the end and design of them, which is the preservation and just security, of the King's person and government, and the due performance of the Subjects Loyalty. 
Of the unlawfulness upon any pretence to take Arms against the King.   
2. The first clause, that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King, is the chief and principal part of this acknowledgement: which in the due latitude of its sense, doth include what is more particularly expressed in the following words. And the sense of this is nothing more, than what the Church of England, and the eminent members thereof, hath constantly acknowledged. Our Homilies teach, 
Hom. of Obedience. Part. 2.  that it is not lawful for inferiors and subjects in any Case, to stand against and resist the superior power. 
Can. 1. Concerning Regal Power.  And in the Canons 1640. it was declared, that for subjects to bear Arms against their Kings, offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, is at the least to resist the powers, which are ordained of God: and though they do not invade, but only resist, S. Paul tells them plainly, they shall receive to themselves damnation. And to the same sense the University of Oxford hereafter mentioned.  
3. This clause of acknowledgement, being framed and enjoined by an English Parliament, not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian proceed in this Nation, and tendered to English Subjects, and relating particularly to the King, not indefinitely to any King; can bear no other rational construction, than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their natural Sovereign, the King of England. And therefore, though the like attempts against any other Kings, who enjoy Sovereign Authority are equally  in their Subjects; yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms, amongst any other Nations, against him who hath the title of King, if he doth not therewith enjoy that right of supreme government, which our Kings have and exercise. And therefore in such a Constitution of government as the Lacedaemonian was, 
Plut. in Pausan.  in which Pausanias had the title of a King under the Ephori, but with as much distance from Royal Power and Supremacy, as was in the military Imperator, or General among the Romans, from the Dignity of an Emperor; we are not concerned to determine any thing concerning their Rights. 
Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 22.  The like condition of the Kings of Tabrobana, is mentioned by Pliny; and others have given somewhat a like account concerning some other places. But against a Sovereign Prince, all open Hostility, and secret treachery in his Subjects, is Universally to be esteemed utterly unlawful.  
4. And it might be wished, 
Violence hath too  been offered to Princes.  that there had never been in England, or elsewhere, any such treacherous and disloyal actions, or assertions (from which the true Friends of the Church of England have been free) as should render it exceeding needful, to make use of the greatest care and caution, for the preservation of the persons of Princes. But alas! the wretched practices against our late Dread Sovereign, are equally manifest and horrid: and the too forward proneness of vicious men to entertain rebellious designs, both under Paganism, Judaisme, Mahometanism, and Christianity, might afford matter enough for multiplied Tragedies. I shall forbear many instances which might be given, both in our own and many other Kingdoms, and shall only reflect on that temper and spirit, which hath prevailed in Rome and Scotland.  
5. 
De Civ. Dei, l. 3. c. 15.  In the first rise of the Roman Power, it was observed by S. Austin, that of their Kings which reigned before the Consuls, there were only two, Numa Pompilius, and Ancus Martius, who died of any Disease, if so much may be affirmed of both them. 
Suet. in Calig. n. 58. Claudio n. 44. Ner. n. 49. Galb. n. 19 Othon. n. 11. Vitell. n. 17.  And Suctonius who writeth the lives of the twelve first Caesar's, showeth, that besides Julius Caesar, and Domitian, no less than six of them who immediately succeeded one another, even all from Tiberius to Vespasian, had their Deaths procured either by secret treachery or open assaults: and that there were suspicions concerning, and frequent Conspiracies against others of them. And of later times, omitting many other instances, and the Rebellions in other Countries which was the fruit of the doctrine, propagated from Rome since Greg. 7. I shall only add, 
Extrav. Joh. Tit. 12. c. 1.  that though Ancona be under the government of the Pope's Officers, and lies near the Gates of Rome, the Inhabitants thereof are complained of, in one of the Summaries of their Canon Law to this purpose, soliti sunt rectores interficere, it is usual with them to kill their Governors. And it hath been observed, that the Scots in the succession of somewhat above an hundred Princes, have killed betwixt thirty and forty of them.  
6. And hence it may appear, that that Genius and temper which hath too much prevailed in Rome and Scotland, was such as disposed them to show no very great respect unto Princes: and this may possibly have had some influence upon the Conclave in the one, and the Kirk in the other. And indeed where bad notions or inclinations get a through entrance, they are apt to propagate, and are not easily rooted out. Thus S Hierome observes, 
Hier. Prooem. in lib. 2. Comment. ad Galat.  that Galatia which too readily embraced corrupt doctrines in the Apostles times, notwithstanding S. Paul's Epistle to them, continued to be a place prone to Heresy unto his time. And the Church of corinth was so apt to fall into Divisions and Schisms, that notwithstanding the Apostles severe rebukes of them for that sin, they were soon after his Death, 
Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor.  strangely overrun with it again, to the great disparagement of their Christian profession.  
7. Of the undutiful carriage of the Kirk of Scotland, I gave a considerable, and known instance, in the former Book. And that they at Rome do cast high disrespects, and create great danger to Princes, may be discerned both by the former Book, and by the foregoing Section.  
8. 
Positions of Fanaticism and Jesuicism disloyal.  And besides these matters of Jact and practise, it hath been manifest, that many wild, extravagant, and disloyal Positions, which are dangerous and destructive to Government and humane Society, have been asserted by men of a Fanatic strain and temper; of some of which, I shall have occasion to take more particular notice, in the progress of this discourse. 
De Jur. Mag. in Subd. qu. 6. Junius Brut. Vind. Qu. 2. Rutherf. of Civil Policy. Qu. 9, 31, 32, etc.  Some of them assert, that the people in general may take the Power and Government into their own hands, and deprive and punish their governor's when they see cause; others grant this power only to the persons who are the people's representatives, others fix the same in inferior Officers, with respect to the supreme governor. And others have run on so far, as to yield this pwoer to the meanest part of the people, as was asserted by an Anonymous Scotchman, about the time of the Galloway Rebellion, that in the right of self defence, the concourse of the Nobles, or the Primores Regni, is no way of absolute necessity.  
9 And amongst the Papists, they who are of the Jesuitical strain, do not only embrace those notions of the Pope's deposing power, to the great prejudice of Sovereign Prince's Authority and safety: but they also run into the highest strain of Fanaticism, in violating the majesty of Kings, and subjecting them and their authority to the people. 
De Rege l. 1. c. 6.  Thus Mariana when the Prince is accounted by the people to pervert his government, alloweth to them the liberty of public resistance by open War: and also the use of Private violence, commending the treasonable Murder of Hen. 3. of France, by James Clement; and allows very man to set himself against such a Prince, whom he calls a Tyrant, saying, 
Ibid. c. 3.  tanquam fera omnium telis peti debet. He also (such are the wicked and wretched principles of these Jesuits!) approveth the use in this Case of deceit and fraud, yea and of poison, by poisoning his Seat or . But that we may think there is something of Conscience remaining in such a spirit as this: he condemns, 
Ibid. c. 7.  and declares against the giving such a person poison, in his meat and drink, for this doughty reason, because it is, saith he, against humanity, that he should be put upon contributing to his own Death, by any act of his own, which he would here do, by taking this poison in his food. But sure this man's reason was as far from him as Conscience, when he wrote these things, in his not discerning, that there was altogether as much done, in contributing to his own death, by putting on his poisoned .  
10. 
●ess. de Just. & jure, l. 2. c. 9 ●ub. 4. Becan. de jure & Just. ad Qu. 64. D. Thom. qu. 4.  And Lessius and M. Becanus, two other Jesuits, in this particular agree almost word for word with one another, in asserting these Positions. that a Prince who hath a just title, becomes a Tyrant with respect to the administration of his Government, when he designs in his Government, and aims at his private advantage, and not the public good, and burdens the commonwealth with unjust exactions, sells the offices and places of Judges; and makes Laws to his own advantage, and not the public. That when this Tyranny is no longer fit to be born, this Prince is first to be deposed, or to be declared an enemy by the Commonwealth, or the chief Estates of the Kingdom, or by any other who hath authority, and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince, and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his person and life. That so long as he remaineth a Prince (that is, till such acts be done as are now mentioned) he may not be killed by private persons, unless it be for their necessary self defence. And Lessius saith, in another place, 
Dubit. 8.  for the further clearing his sense in this particular, that for the necessary defending a man's own life, or securing himself from being maimed, it is lawful to kill him who sets upon him himself, or procures another to do it. And this, saith he, must be owned allowable against any superiors whatsoever, even that a Vasal may in this Case kill his King: unless it be likely that civil Wars may follow for discord about succession. And in such an high strain of treason and Unchristian disloyalty, is the Jesuits Casuistical Divinity! But against the falsehood and wickedness of these assertions, it is needful to declare, and defend the true and peaceable principles of Reason and Christianity; and against the dangerous effects which such positions tend to promote, it is necessary that public laws provide due security for the person of the King, to which purpose the general acknowledgement of the unlawfulness of taking up Arms against him, 
The Laws of England condemnall Waragainst the King.  is of very good use.  
11. Our English Laws providing for the safety both of King and Subjects, and the preservation of their just Rights, do declare it universally unlawful to make or levy any War against the King, And upon this account it must also be as much against reason, and Christianity (yea more, both because of the greater duty to superiors, and the concern of the general good) to invade that Right and Royalty, which the Law secures to the King, as to deny to Subjects that property, right and safety, which the Law provides for them. I confess the consideration of our Law in matters of doubtfulness, difficulty, or profound disquisition, would be an unfit undertaking for my profession, and especially for a man of no deeper study in the Law than myself. But I am persuaded, that if no men had made use of subtle Artifices, and designed methods, to obscure plain things, there would have been no want of evidence, even to any ordinary understanding in this particular, to direct them to the honest practices of their duty in loyal obedience. And indeed it would be an high reflection on the Laws of our Realm, if such things as these, should be acknowledged to be matters of such a perplexed intricacy, that honest and indifferent minds, who stand obliged to the practice of peace and loyalty, should not without consulting skilful Lawyers, be able to understand the general rule of their duty, and to whom they ought to yield obedience and submission.  
12. Besides the words of this public Declaration and acknowledgement, against lawfulness of taking Arms, which yet might be accounted sufficient; in the Statutes in the time of King Edw. the third, 
●t Edw. 3.2.  it is declared, without allowance of any case or pretence to the contrary, to be treason, if any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere. 
13 Car. 2.1.  And since the restauration of his present Majesty, it is also in general terms declared treason, to levy War against the King, within the Realm or without. And to cut off all pretences, either from the nature of the War as defensive only, or from the authority of a Parliament, or of the Lrods, or commons, we have in two several Statutes this Declaration, 
13 Car. 2.6.  that both, or either Houses of Parliament, cannot, nor lawfully may, raise or levy any War, offensive or defensive, 
14 Car. 2.3.  against his Majesty, his Heirs and lawful Successors. In which Statutes also, the sole supreme Command and Government of the Militia, is declared by the Law of England, ever to be the undoubted right of his Majesty and his Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England.  
13. And from the Declaration and evidence of these Laws, that Plea which hath been made, from the Authority of Grotius, becomes wholly void. 
Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13.  That learned man indeed did assert, that if the supreme Government be part in the people or Senate, and part in the King: if the King invade what is not his right, he may be opposed with just force, because he hath not so far any Supremacy. And this he thinks must take place, though it be said, that the power of War is in the King; for that, saith he, is only to be understood of Foreign War, when whosoever hath any pat in the supreme power, cannot but have a right to defend that part. But these words seem very strange and inconsiderate, from so intelligent a person, if they be intended, as they seem to be, concerning one simple and unmixed supremacy. For to assert two capacities where each hath authority to make War with the other, is not to found one only regular Government, but to erect two distinct Governments, each of which have a supreme power of judging and of execution. Indeed in such a mixed and divided Government, as is in the Germane Empire, it is allowed by the Constitutions and Capitulations of the Empire, that the several Principalities, or rather the Princes and Governors thereof, have a power of taking Arms, if their rights be invaded by the Emperor: but then these Princes in their own territories, enjoy a right of peculiar Sovereignty. But if the whole of this notion of Grotius be taken together, it will according to his judgement conclude, that the people of England, Lords, Commons, or both jointly, have no part in the supreme power; because these public Laws declare, that they have no power of making so much as a defensive War, against the King.  
14. And if we look into the Records of the former Ages, we may thence discern, that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm, had under any pretence an Authority to bear Arms against the King. To which purpose it may be sufficient to consider the Conclusion of the Baron's Wars, in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the Third. Very many of the Peers and chief Barons of the Realm, undertook to make War with the King, under the Conduct of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester, 
M. Par. An. 1264.  whom M. Paris calls Baronum Capitaneum, and after several Battles had been fought, the King's person was seized and taken at Lewis. And not long after this, 
Idem, an. 1265.  the King Summons a Parliament at Winchester, in which all those who acted under, or with Simon de Montfort are disinherited: 
Sir W. Raleigh Priu. of Parl. p. 31.  which act of disinheriting is reported to have been confirmed, in a following Parliament at Westminster. But in order to the settling the State of the Realm upon more mild and gentle terms, by agreement between the King and the Barons, a Plenipotentiary Power was delegated and committed to twelve Peers, that they might establish what they thought fit and convenient, concerning them who thus stood disinherited.  
15. These twelve published their determination, 
An. 51 H. 3. Dict. de Kenilw. c. 2.  which had the force of a Law, under the name of Dictum de Kenilworth. In which it was concluded, that they who had been engaged in Arms against the King, unless the King had pardoned them, should pay the revenue of their lands for five years. And they who had no Lands, were to give their own Oath, and to find other Sureties for their peaceable behaviour; and also make such satisfaction, and undergo such penance as the Church should appoint. 
Ibid. c. 9  And that they who were Tenants should lose their right in their Farms, 
C. 11.  saving the right of their Lords. And that they who by their persuasion did instigate any to fight against the King, should forfeit the profit of their Lands for two years; with many other provisions for particular Cases. And they also determined, that if any persons should refuse these terms (which were proposed as a favourable mitigation of strict justice) they should be de exhaeredatis, 
C. 29.  and have no power of recovering their Estates. But some persons and particularly Simon de Montfort himself, 
C. 21.  was excluded from these terms of favour, and left to the ordinary proceed of justice, in manus Regis. Now those practices and enterprises which were so publicly censured, condemned and punished, by our Parliaments, and proceed of justice, must needs be accounted by them unlawful actings.  
16. In the year following. An. 52 Hen. 3. the Statute of Marlbridge mentions it, 
St. Marlbridge, c. 1.  as a great and heavy mischief and evil, that in the time of the late troubles in England, many Peers and others, refused to receive justice from the King and his Court, as they ought to have done (which is more expressly contained in the Original Latin, than in the common English Translation, justitiam indignati fuerint recipere, per Dominum Regem & curiam suam, prout debuerunt & consueverunt) and did undertake to vindicate their own causes of themselves. Now to declare that all Peers, and all other persons, aught to have 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 entering into War itself, 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 Arms against the King, are in this acknowledgement 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 Arms. But if the Christian Religion giveth a right to him who professeth it, to defend himself and his profession, against his Superiors by Arms; 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 Superiors, 
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 inferiors the Judges of their Superiors, 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 ways 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 superior, who may not be so against his equal. And since the tenderness of David's Conscience was such, that notwithstanding the many undeserved injuries he sustained, he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lords anointed; and Peter's 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 traitorous Position of taking Arms by the King's Authority, against his person, or against those who are commissionated by him.  
1. The other clause in the forementioned Declaration or acknowledgement, is intended against another particular pretence of taking Arms: and is this, That I do abhor that traitorous Position, of taking Arms 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 Soldiers. 
14 Car. 2.3.  That Arms may be taken by the King's 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 King's 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 traitorous; 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 King's Authority, 
Judic. Univers. Oxon. de foedere, p. 66.  for taking Arms 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 King's 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 Louvre 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 proceed of justice, being always in the King's 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 Sovereign 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 entrusts 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 privileges 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 King's Courts of Justice: it is easy to discern, that any subjects, who shall stand in the way of such an ill-designing party of men, or shall displease them, may easily be charged with treason, and thereby be cut off, upon pretence of opposing the Laws and Government when the very discharge of honesty and integrity may be so accounted.  
4. Thirdly, They who made use of this Position, did give the World sufficient proof, that it was only a designed pretence, to serve a present turn. For when in our late sad commotions, they used the Plea of the King's Authority, in acting against his person, before they had murdered his person; they then laid aside also all pretence of reverend regard to the King's Authority, and by several Acts as they were called, 
Acts May 19 1649. and of Treason, July 17. 1649.  declare the supreme authority of England to be in the Commons, not at all regarding this Ideal Authority of the King; which if they had been true to their own notion, must have been acknowledged still remaining. And they than required the Engagement to be taken, to be true and faithful, (not to the King's Laws and Government, according to their own Idea, but) to the Commonwealth of England, without King, etc. Which is evidence enough, that those men intended as much to act against, and oppose the true Regal dignity and authority, as the person of that excellent Prince: and that this distinction was not only void of truth and justice in itself, but of honesty and good meaning also, in these contriving men, who were the maintainers of it.  
5. The last part of this Clause of the acknowledgement, 
Taking Arms against them who are Commissionated by the King unlawful.  hath respect to them who are commissionated by the King: the sense of which must be measured from the intent and tendency thereof, which is to secure the King's safety, and Government, and to maintain the Subjects true allegiance and fidelity. And therefore I doubt not to aver, that the use of quirks and niceties, 
Manual. p. 102.  in supposing some extraordinary Cases, which are inconsistent with these duties, and which we may well presume or hope may never be in act, ought not to be considered in making this acknowledgement. Wherefore to supppose that the person of any King of England, should be violently surprised and seized by any seditious, and ill-designing men (which I trust will never come to pass) and they should by force or fraud, extort Commissions from him, against his loyal Subjects and Friends: this acknowledgement concerning the ordinary duty of Subjects, doth not take in such extraordinary fictions of imaginary Cases, which are not fit to be supposed; but they who are the King's regular Officers, aught to resist such evil men who offer violence to his person, for the good both of the King and Kingdom.  
6. And also that Case which some put, of the King granting a Commission, against the legal power which he hath committed to a Sheriff, or against any other Commission, which himself hath given, and doth continue to other Officers; is such an unreasonable and undutiful supposition of cross Commissions, which no good subject ought to make, or to consider in this acknowledgement. Only in such an extraordinary Case, where any persons whosoever in any Office or Commission, shall become Authors or Abetters of Sedition or Robellion, and oppose the King's Authority and Government, it is reasonable to be expected that the King will grant Commissions to suppress and reduce them. And since no Office or Commission, either can, or is intended to warrant any man to act against his Loyalty and Allegiance; such revolting Officers ought to be opposed by them, who are impowered and commanded by their Prince so to do, nor is it to be supposed, that this acknowledgement doth at all assert the contrary. But the true sense of this clause is, that it is a traitorous design. and therefore to be abhorred, for the King's Subjects, without any command from their Prince, to take Arms against those, who act by virtue, and in pursuance of his Commission, regularly granted to them. And that these words of this acknowledgement, may be reasonably taken in this fair and just sense, is evident from the result of what I have above discoursed, 
B. 1. Ch. 6. Sect. 1.  concerning the sense and interpretation of such public Declarations.  
7. And it was reasonable for the avoiding evasions, that this acknowledgement, condemning the taking Arms against them who are Commissionated by the King, should be declared in such general terms. If only taking Arms against the King's person, should be disclaimed in a strict sense, than the fight the King's Armies, destroying his Subjects, resisting his Government, and those who are invested with his Authority, which are the usual methods of the most open and daring Enemies, would not be provided against. But these are the highest oppositions against the King, which the most disloyal Subjects can ordinarily make, by taking up Arms; who cannot probably act immediately against his person, unless they can first vanquish those loyal subjects, who are his strength and defence. 
Fourth Sermon before King Edw. 6.  Bishop Latimer tells us, that when he was in the Tower, a Lord who had been engaged in Rebellion, told him, If I had seen my Sovereign Lord in the Field against us, I would have lighted from my Horse, and taken my Sword by the point, and yielded it into his hands. To whom the Bishop replied, It hath been the cast of all Traitors, to pretend nothing against the King's person: subjects may not resist any Magistrate, nor do any thing contrary to the Kings Law. And the Imperial Law declares, that all and every of them, are Rebels or Traitors, who in any wise publicly or secretly, 
Extravag. Henr. 7. Tit. 2.  do the works of Rebellion, against our honour, or their fealty, and do enterprise any thing against the welfare of our Empire, contra nos seu officiales nostros, in iis quae ad commissum eis officium pertinent, rebellando, by rebelling (or taking Arms) against us, or our Officers, in those things which belong to the office committed to them.    

CHAP. II.  
The Laws of Nature and of general Equity, and the right grounds of humane polity, do condemn all subjects taking Arms against the Sovereign power.  

SECT. I.  
The preservation of peace and common rights, will not allow Arms to be taken in a Kingdom, against the Sovereign Prince and Governor.  
Sect. 1 1. THose Laws do carry along with them the strongest obligation, which are not only established by a positive constitution, but are also enforced by the common and necessary Rules of justice, truth, righteousness, and order. 
Rules of common equity are against Subjects taking Arms. Bishop Ferne Episcop. and Presbyter. considered.  For here is a joint tye from the Bond of obedience to Superiors, of Religion to God, and of the general Principles of equity and reason. Of this nature is the duty of nonresistance against Sovereign Rulers, which our Laws establish. And the doctrine of our Church doth so far assert this, that it was truly affirmed by a reverend person, 
B. 2. C. 2.  That since the Reformation, it is now again current Episcopal doctrine, as it was always Apostolical, That Subjects ought not to resist, nor can be disobliged of their obedience to their Sovereign, upon any pretence whatsoever. And that this is founded upon the necessary Principles of equity, and the Laws of nature and of civil Society, I shall now manifest.  
2. And I lay this down as an undeniable Principle, 
Otherwise justice and peace cannot be secured by Government.  that in every civil Government, such an authority must be acknowledged in the supreme Governor, as is necessary for the administering justice, securing property, and the preserving of order, peace, and quiet. For without this the benefit of Government and civil Society is lost; and amongst such men, where honesty and good Conscience do not greatly prevail, we should live as amongst Wolves, in constant danger of having our rights or lives surprised. And where there are not such advantages from Authority, according to the known expression among the Jews, 
Pirk. Au. cap. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man would swallow up his Brother alive. But if it be allowed lawful, for Subjects or inferiors upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against their Rulers and Sovereign Governors, neither justice nor peace can be sufficiently provided for, by the authority of that Government.  
3. For if it be allowed lawful, for Subjects in any Case to take Arms against their Sovereign, this must include a right in them of judging whether their present Case be such, in which they may lawfully resist or no. 
Subjects no fit Judges of their Superiors.  Otherwise they must either have a general power of resistance and taking Arms, without distinction of any Cases; to assert which, would be all one as to declare them to be no Subjects, or under no Government: or else they must resist in no Case at all. But to assert, that the people or inferiors, are of right Judges of the Cases, in which they may resist their Superiors, is as much as to say, they are bound to subjection only so far as themselves shall think it fit; and that they may claim an authority over their Governors, and pass judgement upon them, and deprive them of their dignity, authority and life itself, whensoever they shall think it requisite and needful. But this cannot be otherwise than a foundation of great and general confusion in the World. And as the general proceed of justice are stopped, whilst there is any open violent opposition to that power which should administer it; so the particular decisions thereof must needs prove ineffectual, where the execution of them may be refisted by force, in any notable Case, concerning a popular person.  
4. And besides this, the judgements of the common sort of men are so apt to be imposed upon, and are many times so partially affected, and linked to that which they esteem their own interest, that even under the best Government, they are frequently prone to conceive themselves greatly injured, when they are not; and to make grievous complaints and out-cries against their Superiors, without just cause. It is truly said in our Homilies, 
Hom. against Rebel. Part 1.  Some Subjects or other mislike even the best Government, and wish a change. And it is rightly asserted by Philo, 
Phil. de Vit. Mos. l. 1.  that even plenty and prosperity sometimes dispose the generality of men, to be insolent against their Superiors, and their established Laws. And where the persons who promote these discontents are popular men, dissatisfactions and unquietness of temper oft spreadeth more than can well be imagined: 
Discontented minds are apt to be unquiet under the best Government.  the minds of many men being inclined to pity and believe them, who complain of injury or hard measure; and in these circumstances to join with them, as acting their common interest. And how unsafe all Government would be, and how unfixed and tumultuous a state, the World is like to be in, if Subjects were in any Case, and upon any pretence allowed to take Arms, will appear by considering some remarkable instances, where (besides what our own Nation may afford us) I shall mention two from the Holy Scriptures, as known and certain accounts of matters of fact.  
5. The first instance is concerning the Government of Moses. 
They were so under Moses.  He was faithful in all God's House, a man of singular integrity and meekness, and a great friend to Israel. His conduct over the Israelites was accompanied with various miracles, and admirable and extraordinary deliverances and preservations, which they received under him. While he guided Israel, the dreadful presence of God on Mount Sinai was manifested to them, and a constant visible Symbol of his presence was continued amongst them. And the fame and honour of Moses was so great, that even the Gentile Historians, in some after Ages, 
Joseph. count. Apion. l. 1. Eus. pr. Eu. l. 9 c. 26.  took considerable notice thereof, as hath been observed by Josephus, Eusebius, and other ancient Writers. And at that time God had also signally testified his choosing Aaron and his Family, to the Priesthood, both by his especial Command to Moses concerning them, and by the Fire, which in the presence of all the people, came from before the Lord, upon the Altar and Burnt-Offering, at the first time of Aaron's Ministration, Leu. 9.24. Yet in this Case, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, pretended themselves grievously wronged, and appeared to plead the Religious rights of the whole Congregation, that they were all holy as well as Aaron, Num. 16.3. and to defend their civil privileges against Moses. Him as the Scripture intimateth, and Josephus particularly expresseth, 
Jos. Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 2.  they accused of tyranny, and charged him with a design of destroying, and ruining the Congregation of Israel, Num. 16.13. and that this was so apparent, that unless men's eyes were put out, they could not but see it, v. 14. And these unjust and unreasonable out-cries were so taking, that presently two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation, took part with these men, Num. 16.2. and not long after, the whole body of the Israelites were gathered against Moses and Aaron, v. 19 And as Josephus represents it, 
Ibid.  they were taught by Corah, that it became them to inflict punishment upon such persons, who secretly designed their destruction, that so they might not suffer the utmost violence from them.  
6. And it is wonderful to observe, how far these bold and confident Speeches and popular pretences, did prevail, even after God had manifested his abhorrence of them, by the dreadful judgement of the earth opening its mouth, and swallowing up Corah and his Company, Num. 16.32, 33. and by the fire from the Lord, consuming the 250 men who offered incense, v. 35. For notwithstanding this, all the body of the Israelites, the very next day, justify the Plea of Corah, 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 (suitably to the tumultuous violence of their Spirits) they came with a resolution of putting them to death; 
Aug. de mirabil. S. Scripture. 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 threatening (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 judgement was denounced against them in part, because they would forsake Moses, and choose 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 Governor, 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 Absalon by a popular carriage and infinuating words, soon persuaded 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 King's Officers, that there were no good Counsellors about him. And hereupon almost all the Kingdom of Israel join themselves with Absalon 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 Absalon 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 Arms as they thought fit; it is remarkably observable, that no sooner was this rebellion after Absalon 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 David's 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 King's 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 unsettled 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 Arms against their Sovereign. And therefore for the Securing peace and righteousness, and the common rights and interests of all men, it must be acknowledged, that the supreme Governor hath such an authority, that it is not lawful to take up Arms against him.  
10. 
The sense of Grotius concerning Subjects taking Arms.  Besides these instances, I shall add the judgement 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 expressly 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 inclined to favour himself.  
11. And in his Votum pro pace, 
Vot. pro Pac. ad Art. 16.  after he had passionately complained, of Arms being taken upon the pretext of Religion, he goes on, Ego vero— non tantum subditos ab armis arceo etc. But I do not only forbid Subjects from taking Arms, 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 proceed 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 quàcunque, 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 Arms, against their King or Prince, 
Ibid.  for the cause of Religion, or for any other thing whatsoever. And then asserting the general 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. undermine of S. Paul's rule be admitted, dico nullum imperium diutins in tuto fore, quàm 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 Arms 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 King's Royalty; according to the Laws of this Realm, that none may take Arms 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 King's 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 Superiors which are the greatest, and on which all inferior rights have dependence, 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 Arms 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 Arms against their Sovereign, 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 gainsaying and resistance to his Government, and thereby receive protection from the injurious deal of others: so God's 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 Governor, or cast him off) as one man may; speak falsely 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 Governors' men live under, 
The security for the Subject's 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 Arms, 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 chief insist upon.  
3. 
From the Laws.  they have the security of good and wholesome 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 administered to every man, 
Cic. de office. l. 3. & de leg. l. 4.  is reasonably declared by Cicero. And it is a great privilege 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 public 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 Emperor 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 passed 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 administering justice, and appointing Judges and Officers in his Kingdom, may design to destroy his Subjects rights and property, and thereby the fruitful enclosures of their civil interests may be laid waist, 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 show, that there is much more cause of jealous fears, of Subjects losing their legal rights, by granting, than by denying them liberty to take Arms, But I here desire the Reader impartially to consider, that there are as great improbabilities, of any such Case as is proposed ever happening, under any Prince who hath a just right to the Crown, as things of this World can admit: and if any such should possibly happen, the second consideration which I shall propose for the Subjects security, will show a way of help and redress therein.  
5. How little foundation there is, for nourishing the jealousies expressed in this supposition, may in part be discerned by looking backwards. And in turning over the Annal and Chronicles of many Ages, no such thing doth appear to have been undertaken by any English Monarch, to enervate and make void the force of all laws, and the rights founded upon them. And the most that was ever done to this purpose, was by them who under a pretence of liberty, did take Arms against the King, or forcibly prosecuted an opposition to his Government and Authority: when great numbers were illegally deprived of their Lives or Estates, sequestered, decimated, and suffered many other injuries.  
6. But if we look forward, no such supposition can be admitted, but it must require a Concurrence of all these strange things. 1. That all the subordinate Rulers and Ministers of justice in the Realm, must conspire against their Consciences, the Law, and their Oaths, either out of choice or fear, to pervert justice, and to cast off all pious sense of God thereby, and all care of their own Souls. 2. That such a Prince must have no respect, either to God, or to his own interest and honour abroad, or safety at home; which under God consisteth in the flourishing estate, and good affection of his Subjects. For where Laws are in any high measure violated, and prostituted by the Governors, and general injuries thereby sustained by the Subjects; since Mankind is not only led by respect to duty, but also to advantage, 
Aurel. Vict. in Nerone. Suet. in Nerone, n. 47. Tacit. Hist. l. 1.  such Subjects may be backward in defending that Prince against those who oppose him; which was the Case in which Nero was generally forsaken by his Roman Subjects, and put upon destroying himself, to avoid that shameful death, to which he was sentenced by the Senate. Yea such a Prince hath great reason to stand in fear to his own Confidents and instruments; for since they must be men of no Conscience and fidelity towards God, it may well be expected, according to the determination of Constantius the Elder, 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 1. c. 11.  that they will also prove unfaithful to their Prince, if they can thereby propose a way to advance or better themselves. And such instruments may see cause to nourish fears, that where injustice, violence, and cruelty, are frequently exercised, they may upon slight occasions, expect a time when their turn to suffer their part will be the next: and this was the occasion of the Death of Commodus the Roman Emperor, 
Herodian. l. 1.  who was first poisoned, and then strangled, by the contrivance of some who had been his great Favourites, that they might secure their own live which they discovered were suddenly like to be taken away. And from this it may appear, that there was just reason for that observation of Xenophon, 
Xenop. de Regn. p. 911.  that tyrannical Governors are under greater terrors, and have more reason of fears at all times, than men ordinarily have in War, because they have not only reason to be afraid of their professed Enemies, but of those whom they account their friends and defence. And Hieronymus Osorius observeth not without reason, 
Osor. de Reg. Instit. l. 8.  that in such persons the stings and frequent lashes of their own Consciences, and some inward, though unwilling dread of God, besides other fears and jealousies, make their state sad and miserable. Wherefore though Usurpers having no right, may account in their best and safest contrivance, to lay their foundation in force and violence, until they think themselves otherwise secure, this is so greatly opposite to the interest of a rightful Prince, that if he be a person of any reason in the World, he must needs reject it. 3. It must also be supposed, that all those who act as instruments in such oppressions, must be devoid not only of the sense of God and good Conscience, but also of humane cautionsness. For if such an imaginary Prince shall have his Conscience awakened to repentance, or shall consult his own honour, or else shall end his days, (as his breath is in his Nostrils) all such persons are then accountable to the strict judgement of the Law, and being Enemies to the public good, have little reason to expect favour.  
7. 
The security of Subjects from Gods governing the World.  The other ground of subjects security though they may not take Arms against their Sovereign, is from God being the Judge and Governor of the World. Shall it be thought a sufficient restraint, to the exorbitancy of a Father's power over his Children, that if he becomes unnatural, the earthly judge can both vindicate them and punish him, though Children be not allowed, when they think fit, to beat and kill their Father? and shall not the judgement and authority of God over Princes be thought valuable and considerable, though he is more righteous and more able to help the oppressed, than any Judge upon Earth? And the judgements of God have been especially remarkable in the World, against such Princes, as have either designed the subverting the Laws of common righteousness, or have set themselves in defiance against the true Religion and worship of God. 
Socr. l. 3. c. 21. gr. Theodor. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 6. c. 1, 2. Naz. Orat. 4, & 21.  The Ecclesiastical Historians, and Fathers who writ of the Death of Julian, which was in the second year of his Reign, in his Expedition against the Persians, do all agree that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or divine vengeance ordered his Death; and that he who did effect it, whether Man, Angel, or Devil (for by several Writers it hath been referred to all of these) was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one subservient to the divine pleasure. And some of these Writers say, that himself dying did express so much, 
Hieron. ad Heliodor. c. 8.  and S. Hierome declareth, Christum sensit in Media, quem primum in Gallia denegârat.  
8. When the horrid impieties against the God of Israel, and dreadful cruelties against the Jews, of Antiochus Epiphanes a puissant Prince, had increased to a strange height, he was at last upon a defeat given to his enterprises, struck even to death with inward terror, and the affrighting perplexities of his own Conscience. And he than could not but acknowledge, that his own injustice and cruelty, and his profaning the Temple, 
1 Mac. 6.8.— 13.  were the causes which brought upon him this sad trouble and sorrow: adding with respect thereunto, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and behold I perish by great grief in a strange Land. So also Naboth's injuries were revenged upon Ahab, 
2 Kin. Ch. 21, & 22. 2 Sam. 21.1, 2, etc.  and the Gibeonites upon Saul. And to take notice only of some of the last persecutors of Christianity, in whom irreligious defiance of the true God and his Religion, and inhuman eruelty towards men did meet together: The severe judgements which befell Decius and Valerianus, who were the Authors of the two last persecutions before Diocletian, are observed by Constantine, that the former was vanquished and slain in Scythia, 
Constant. Orat. ad Sanct. Coet. c. 24.  with great shame and dishonour to himself and the Roman power; and the latter was taken Captive by the persians, and there flayed, and then being salted or dried, was preserved among them as a Trophy.  
9 When Diocletian, Maximianus Herculius, and Galerius Maximianus, not only raised a cruel persecution against the Christians, but arrived to that height of contempt against Christ, and opposition of is Religion; that they erected Pillars, with inscriptions concerning their Reign, nomine Christianorum deleto, 
Baron. an. 304. n. 8.  and superstitione Christi ubique deleta, the name of Christians being extinct by them, and the superstition or Religion of Christ utterly destroyed; the two former of them finding themselves defeated, by the success and increase of the Christian Religion, in a short time being overcome with grief and anguish, 
Eus. Hist. l. 8. c. 29. Baron. an. 316. n. 2. Eus. ibid. etc. 25 gr.  deserted their Imperial dignity. And Diocletian after many years of retired sorrow and discontent, was strucken with an extraordinary loathsome and miserable Disease, attended with blindness. And Maximianus Herculius ended his own days by the shameful Death of an Halter.  
10. Galerius Maximianus was smitten with such noisome Ulcers, and multitude of Worms, in all parts of his Body, as rendered him a dreadful spectacle and loathsome unto all. 
Eus. Hist. l. 8. c. 28, 29. & de vit. Const. l. 1. c. 50. Oros. l. 7. c. 28.  Of whom Eusebius tells us, that he therein acknowledged the stroke of God's vengeance; and Orosius reports, that after many Physicians had been put to Death, because they afforded the Emperor no relief, he was at last told by some of them, Iram Dei esse poenam suam, & ideo à medicis non posse curari; that since the wrath of God had inflicted this punishment upon him, Physicians could give him no cure. To these I shall only add the instance of Maximinus, who was an Emperor of the same spirit and temper per with the former; was Contemporary with Galerius Maximianus for some time, but survived him a few years. He is noted by Eusebius to have been one of the worst Enemies to Christianity, 
Eus. Hist. l. 9 c. 10, 11. gr. De Vit. Const. l. 1. c. 51, 52.  and also to have been charged with tyranny, by the public Edicts of the other Emperors. And he was so smitten by the hand of God, that he became blasted, his Visage changed, and his whole body parched and dried up, like a Sceleton, or an Image: and he who made a Law that the eyes of Christians should be pulled out, and executed it upon multitudes of Men, Women, and Children, his own Eyes also fell out of his Head, and himself was made sensible, that it was the stroke of God's hand. And these sensible tokens of divine justice wrought a mighty change in the Roman Empire, for the safety and advantage of them who piously served God.  
11. And it ought to be a check to the passions of the greatest men, and a support to the state of the meanest, that God not only executeth judgement in another World; but doth govern this, and when he sees it meet, will stand up to avenge the injured, and punish the evil doers. Wherefore it was a pious admonition to the Emperor Frederick the First, by his Uncle, 
Otho Frising. Epist. ad Frider. Oenobarb.  Otho Frisingensis, who tells him, that Kings are reserved only to the scrutiny and judgement of God; and then adds, that according to the Apostle, it is a fearful thing for every man, to fall into the hands of the living God, and particularly for Princes, who have none other above them, whom they must fear, And it is a good and loyal resolution for a subject to take up, if ever he should live under an unjust Prince, that he will embrace the temper of David's Spirit, in his words concerning Saul; 
1 Sam. 26.10, 11.  The Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or be shall descend into the Battle and perish; the Lord forbidden that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lords anointed: provided that such expressions be not used, as an imprecation of evil, but as an acknowledgement of God's Sovereignty, and a patiented committing himself to him, still keeping to the practice of that Christian Rule, Pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, Mat. 5.44   

SECT. III.  
The condition of Subjects would not be the better, but the worse, if it were lawful for them to take Arms against their Prince.  
Sect. 3 1. That the putting into the hands of Subjects and authority of taking Arms, 
A liberty of taking Arms hurtful to subjects.  would be a disadvantage to themselves, and prejudicial to the common interest of Mankind, I shall evidence by four Considerations.  
Cons. 1. 
1. By the frequent miseries of Civil Wars.  From the great mischief their lives and rights, and future interest must be exposed unto, by frequent Civil Wars, the natural effect of Subjects taking Arms, Let search be made into the Annals of the World, whether the properties of Subjects, and the flourishing Estate of Kingdoms, have not been much better preserved by peaceable obedience and subjection, than by the fomenting Civil Wars and Insurrections. The Conspiracies of Absalon, Sheba, and others such like, were not the honour or advantage of them who were engaged in them. And while such commotions continue, little security can be promised either of men's Lives or Estates, further than the strength of a Fortress, or the secrec of an hiding place will extend. And if in the result the conspiring party should prevail, and fix themselves in the supreme Government, the admitting this Position of the Lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms, will be apt to put other unquiet and ambitious spirits, upon following their example, and endeavouring under the fair pretences of Religion or liberty, or doing justice, to undermine such prevailers; and by this means the Commonwealth is like to be exposed to the saddest Calamities, and to be brought to ruin and destruction.  
2. Of this I shall give a known instance, concerning the Kingdom of Israel, towards the end of the Kingdom. 
2 Kin. 15.  Then the practice of taking Arms against the King, who was possessed of the Throne, was very frequent, insomuch that in the space of little more than thirty years, four of them were assaulted by force, overcome and slain; and two of them in one year, 
Salian. An. m. 3264. n. 1.  which Salianus observed as an ill omen, giving indication of the fall of that State and Government; Tres hoc anno in Israele Reges, magnum collabentis Reipublicae argumentum. During this time there was usurpation upon usurpation in that Kingdom, and every one of the succeeding Usurpers had this Character, that he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. And such Calamities than befell that Kingdom, that during this time, in a chief seat of these Wars, 
2 Kin. 15.16.  all the Women with Child were ripped up: and this Kingdom being greatly weakened by its home divisions, was in that compass of time, twice invaded by Foreign Enemies; at the first time it was forced to pay a very great composition, 2 Kin. 15.19, 20. and at the second time a great part of the Kingdom was lost, and the Inhabitants carried Captive, v. 29. And in the Reign of Hoshea who was the last of these Conspirators, the Kingdom of Israel became first tributary to Assyria; and soon after in his Reign, was the utter Captivity and ruin of the ten Tribes, and the total subversion of that Kingdom: 
Josep. Ant. l. 9 c. 14.  and this as Josephus accounts it, was the end of those Israelites, a Kingdom divided against itself being brought to desolation. So that if peace, safety, and prosperity, be  to a people, the violent resistance of superiors must be hurtful to them.  
3. And if we reflect on the ordinary effects of such undertake, for some few instances, where the people did by Arms assert themselves into liberty, from injurious oppressions (which things our English constitution doth excellently, and effectually provide against) divers instances may be given, where divine providence hath wrought deliverances, for them who discharged the duties of obedience; and many others of great devastation and ruin, which hath been the consequent of such enterprises. And the tragical relations which have attended Rebellious takeing Arms in the ancient Empires, and more lately in the Eastern and Western Empires, in Germany, France, England, and other Countries, might fill Volumes with a sad account of heavy Calamities, cruel Sufferings, and wicked practices.  
4. 
2. By Authority becoming thereby ineffectual of its necessary ends.  Cons. 2. It is the necessary continual interest of Subjects, that so great a power be in their Sovereign, that none in his Realm may withstand his authority. This is consequent upon what was proved in the first Section. And if any Prince should allow his Subjects, when they think it necessary to take Arms against him, (which it cannot be his wisdom to do) the Subjects would have a greater loss than gain thereby. For instead of gaining that, which silenceth their suspicious fears of their Prince's power, whose interest it is to defend and preserve them; they lose the constant advantages of his Government; since justice cannot be in all Cases so effectually administered, nor peace so surely preserved. And upon this very account, they have much more cause for frequent fears of suffering greater evils, from the mischievous designs of usurping spirits, 
Theodor. Metochit. Hist. Rom. à Jul. Caes.  who coming like empty and hungry flies upon a sore, (to which they have sometimes been compared) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They will grievously torture. Now it is highly imprudent, to seek a remedy for a possible inconvenience, which may be otherwise prevented, by procuring a more certain mischief. As if all the strong men in a Nation should have their sinews cut, lest they should hurt the weak, whom the Laws descend; though thereby the Realm be left without any men of might to oppose its Enemies.  
5. Cons. 3. It is chief to be observed, 
3. Because there must still at last be owned a power that may not be resisted.  that unless all things be in utter confusion and Anarchy, it is not possible but that there must be acknowledged such an authority, which none have power of resisting; but this can not where be so well placed, for the subjects interest, as in their Sovereign Prince, and supreme Governor. Wherefore to give place at present to fiction and imagination, concerning any possible forms of Government; it is all one to assert, that there must somewhere be fixed such an authority, against which none hath power of taking Arms, and to assert that there must be in one or other some chief authority, which hath the highest command of the strength and Military force of a Nation. For whosoever hath this authority, all the military power ought to be subject to him, and none hath any right of commanding it against him. But unless it be admitted, that this commanding power is placed in some person or persons, the Military power must be under no Governor, nor can Subjects know whom to obey with respect to Peace and War. Now this power of the Militia, 
Ch. 1. Sect. 2. n. 12.  must either be placed in the King (as our Laws  declare it is in this Realm) or else either ordinarily, or in some certain Cases, in some other single person, or Senate and Company of men, or in the whole body of the people, or in so great a number as will repute themselves to include the whole. And the allowing this power to any of these last mentioned, is liable to as great or greater danger than the first.  
6. 
This is more dangerous to the people, to be in any other than their Sovereign.  To place any such power over the Military Force of a Nation, in any person or persons, who are n ot the ordinary supreme Governor, is a thing can scarce be supposed; because the giving them this authority, is the giving them power to execute supremacy of Government, when they think it fit. But if such a supposition be made, this must needs cause constant jealousies, between the oridinary supreme Governor and them, and thereby that Nation and Government must be under much unsettlement. And there is greater danger of this power being exorbitantly abused, by such persons who may be tempted to affect their own further advancement; than there can be in him who is already supreme, and whose interest it is to preserve the liberties of his people.  
7. If a Senate supposed to have this power, should become Patrons of injustice, and opposers of known legal rights; and the same Company of men have also authority of making laws, and raising moneys, it is not easy to know how far the ill consequences of this may extend. For than they are put into the fullest capacity of oppressing innocent persons, and depriving them of Estate, Liberty, or Life, and of serving private interests of themselves or a party, and even of establishing iniquity by a law. And he that thinks that no such thing may be supposed, that the major part of such a Senate may be either so form, or overwitted, or over awed, as to comply with unjust attempts, is a stranger to the proceed in England, from 1640. till 1660.  
8. If it should be supposed, that the chief power of the Sword, and of commanding the military force, should be in the whole body of the people, or the major part of them, this must include the greatest inconvenience of all the other. Now though this supposition, amongst other things wherewith it is chargeable, is impossible, because the whole body of the people of a great and populous Kingdom, cannot meet together, or consult and advise with one another, and therefore can give no commands; yet in our late distracted times, there were some who embraced this assertion. 
Gangr. Part. 1. p. 33.  In England several Pamphlets from them, who allowed the Parliament to have power to levy War against the King, did declare that the Parliament having their power from the people, the people might call them to an account. And Mr Rutherford also allowed, 
Ruth. of Civil Poli●r, Qu. 19 p. 152.  they gave to Commissioners of Parliament, when they abuse it, and may resist them, and denude them of their fiduciary power; as the King may be denuded of that same power by the three Estates. To such extravagant excesses have men's ungoverned heats, and passions hurried them! But this supposition is a foundation of confusion, and is not consistent with the people having any Governors over them to command them, and thereupon would lay aside God's Ordinance of Rule and Government. It is also so opposite to Peace, that it is the direct way to put the multitude upon insurrections, and would turn the World into a disorderly Wilderness. And it is dangerous to the state of the World, and to all good subjects, both because it is unpeaceable; and because there can be no security given, that the major part of the body of a people, who are easily imposed upon at some times, shall not incline to any ill design, as they evidently did in the instances of Corah and Absalon, besides others nearer home; and also because rash and ill actions, when managed by the body of the people, are so much the worse, because they are usually attended with violence and fury, like the overflowing of Waters.  
9 Wherefore since there must some where be placed such a supreme power, as hath the highest right to command the force of a Nation, and by consequence none can command it, or any part of it against that power; this from what I have discoursed, cannot with so much safety to the people of this Realm, be fixed any where else as in the King, according to the excellent constitution of our Laws and Government. For as Royal Government is free from that heady disorder, which attends popular motions; so the rule of its exercise is those laws, which are not established without the consent of the people. 
Plat. in Politic. vers. fin.  Upon this account Plato when he had viewed the various species of Government, declared that that which was best of all was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Monarchy coupled with Laws.  
10. 
4. From the insufficiency of the pretended security against these evils.  Cons. 4. If it were granted, that people had power to take Arms, but not in any other Case, save in the highest oppressions, and utmost extremities; this restriction with respect to the Case, would be of very little use, for the Peace of the World, and the avoiding the inconveniencies and mischiefs above expressed. For the instances in the first Section, and the experience of this Kingdom, and many others, testify how apt many people are, to be decoyed into gross mistakes in this Case, and to be abused and misled by fair speeches of discontented and aspiring men; and to draw up such heavy charges against excellent Governors, as to conclude their ruin and destruction to be designed, where there is not the least intention for their hurt. And besides that gross falsehoods may easily pass with the credulous vulgar undetected, it is an easy thing to persuade many of them, Sect. 4 when the ill actions of any men, living under the Government are mnanifested, to account these to be the faults of the Rulers, who did not prevent or restrain them: whereas it is no doubt a great truth which was asserted by Bishop Saunderson, 
Sanders. de oblige. Consc. prael. 10. n. 7.  that in the best constituted Commonwealths, there are Gravamina non pauca, not a few things amiss, which the utmnost care and industry of Rulers, and the severity of the Laws, is not sufficient wholly to prevent or cure.   

SECT. iv  
The Plea, that self-defence is enjoined by the Law of nature, considered: and of the end of Sovereign power: with a representation of the petence, that Sovereign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people, and the inference thence deduced examined.  
1. 
Of self-defence, and self-preservation.  It is certain that prudence and the Laws of God and Man, oblige every man to take just and due care of his own preservation: but yet there have been some who under the specious appearance of pleading for self-defence, have run into strange exorbitances, against the authority of Government. It hath been said, that self preservation is the first principle and prime law of nature; and thence it must be inferred, that its obligation is so great in all Cases, that all other Laws of Nature and Equity must give place thereto. And with respect to resisting a Sovereign Prince by Arms, 
Of Civil Policy, Qu. 9 p. 59  Mr Rutherford asserteth, that no community can without sin, alienate this power of self-defence. But though he speaks of the community, his argument must have as much force concerning any private person, viz. that as man hath nopower from God to murder his Brother; so hath he no power to suffer himself or his Brother to be murdered. And the consequence of this must be, that all men are bound to take Arms against their Sovereign, who shall judge any person to be in danger of losing his life without just cause. The strange positions of Lessius and Becanus, in allowing the killing a King in self defence, I have above produced: and amongst the Romish Doctors, who are very generally prone to embrace disloyal principles, 
Dom. Soto, de Justit. & Jur. l. 1. Qu. 1. Art. 2. & Q. 5. Art. 3. & Q. 6. Art. 4.  Dom. Soto in this particular, is as exorbitant, as any I have met with. He in several places gives such a description of a Tyrant, in the administration of Government, as discontented persons may easily apply to the most worthy Prince; that is, that he makes Laws, and orders affairs for his own private, and not the public good. 
Id. ibid. l. 5. qu. 1. Art. 3.  And he declares, that such a person who hath a right title to govern, may not be killed by a private person, until a public sentence be declared against him, and then any man may be made the Executioner. But then he adds, Besides this, if he forcibly set upon a free subject, either to kill him, or to take away his goods, potest civis ille vim vi repellendo, eum interimere; that subject in repelling force by force may kill him.  
2. Now this disorderly and unruly management of self defence, would fill the World with tumults, and subvert the foundations of its Peace and Government; since by this means, the power of the sword would be put into every private man's hand, to use it against his Governors, when he shall think it fit for his own interest. But that the falsehood, as well as the danger of this pretence may be manifest, I shall return an answer thereto in three heads. 1. That it is notoriously false, that men are obliged by the law of nature, in all Cases to defend their own lives, and outward interests by force. And it is a sufficient prejudice against this, that he who will maintain it, must acknowledge that all those who died Martyrs for the Christian Religion, did violate the Laws of nature, in not resisting their Persecutors; and that all malefactors ought to fight for their lives, rather than to submit themselves to justice. 
The prime laws of nature to rational beings, are the rules of good Conscience.  2. That the prime law, which the nature and being of man, who is a rational Creature, and capable of happiness, doth oblige him to observe, is, that he ought to take care of his own welfare and chief good, and to endeavour after true perfection. And because this is chief procured by well doing, therefore to be pious and sober, loyal and peaceable, just and good, whereby purity of heart, and integrity and peace of Conscience is preserved, and a good name here, and a blessed state hereafter obtained; these are the things which our nature and being, and our Religion also, oblige us principally to design, and all outward interests of this life must be placed in subordination to them. And sure no Christian will believe, that our Saviour by his Religion, did subvert the prime laws of our nature and being, when he required his Disciples to take up the Cross, to be ready to lose their lives for his sake, and to forsake all and follow him. 3. That self defence is then only lawful to be managed by force, when this may be done by lawful means, and without transgressing any necessary duty to God or Man. It is therefore justly allowed so far as it necessary, against private violence and assaults, being then warrantable by the Rules of right reason and good Conscience which are the laws of our nature. But to allow a right of self-defence to every man, by taking Arms against his superior, is as much as to say that no man is bound to own the Ordinance of God in the World, or to submit himself and his interest to be governed by any civil power.  
3. It is also urged, 
Rutherf. ubi sup. Qu. 25. Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 110. etc.  that in the Constitution of Government, Princes are appointed for this end, to wit, the good of the people; and therefore the people's good is to be pursued, though against the person or Government of the Prince: and they most comply with the great end of Government, who will take care of the community. 
Armin. Disp. publs. Thes. 25. n. 10.  And therefore if a Prince do not promote the people's good, the end must be preferred before the means, and the good of the Commonwealth is otherwise to be provided for. 
Of the end of Government.  Anbs. 1. That though the good of the people be a great end of Government, yet it is not the sole end thereof. But as when a Prince appointeth a chief Officer of a Corporation, this is not only for the benefit of the members of that Society; but it is also intended, that they may be more useful to do the King service, and that the Commonwealth may receive benefit thereby: so in Sovereignty, there is a claim of God's authority in the World for his honour; and therefore out of Conscience and duty to God, there must be a subjection showed to Rulers as his Ministers, besides what the interest of the community will require. 2. If Government were wholly intended with respect to the good of subjects, I have proved in the former Sections, that order, peace, and justice cannot be thereby established among men, unless it be acknowledged that none may resist the Ruler's Authority. 3. To lay down such Rules, that men are no longer obliged to observe any constitution intended for a further end, than as the parties concerned shall judge it to conduce to that end, is dangerous and unsound. By this rule discontented persons might break the indissoluble bond of conjugal Relation, where they account it not to answer the end, by mutual helpfulness and comfort. 
Gemer. in Sanhedr. Cap. 2. Par. 11.  And when God forbade the King of Israel, to multiply Wives. lest his heart should turn away from God, Deut. 17.17. the Jewish Writers account Solomon justly , for his multiplying Wives, though he mightpresume there would be no danger of his forsaking God thereby.  
4. 
Of the original of Government being from the people. Sov. power of Parl. Part. 1. p. 35, 36. Ruth. Civ. Pol. Qu. 4. p. 10. & Qu. 19 p. 148. This asserted by many Papists.  But thee is another thing which hath been much insisted on, and will require a larger Examination, concerning the original of Sovereignty, and the deductions which may be made from thence. It was urged in our late unhappy times in England, that the Sovereign power was more in the people than in the King or Prince, who was originally created by them. And in Scotland it was asserted then, as a ground of taking Arms against the King, that Royal power was radically in the people, was communicated from them, and that they may take it again, if the conditions on which they gave it be violated: and that the people being the fountain power, are still superior to the King.  
5. 
V Bannes in 2. 2ae. Qu. 40. Art. 1. Dub. 2.  And it is ordinary with the Writers of the Romish Church, to make the people the original of the Princes Sovereign power, and many of them make use of this Assertion, as one way to show the excellency of the Pope above Princes. Thus Salmeron, 
Salm. Tom. 12. Tract. 63.  Civil power, saith he, is indeed from God, so far as he made the community free, and gave them light and power to set up Governors: and therefore secular power doth not so descend from Heaven, but that it rather ascends from the community, unto the King or other chief Magistrate. Dominicus Soto asserts, 
De Justit. & Jur. l. 4. Qu. 4. Art. 2.  Reges à suis Regnis potestatem recipiunt, Kings receive their power from their Kingdoms. 
Bell. de Laicis, c. 6.  Bellarmine asserteth indeed political powder and Government to be from God; but that he gave it immediately to the whole multitude, and they transfer it to one or more. 
Medin. in 1. 2ae. qu. 90. Art. 2.  And Medina declares, that Principes si legitimi sunt, habent authoritatem & jus Dominandi à Republica, lawful Princes have their authority and right of Governing from the Commonwealth.  
6. 
The ill consequences they hence deduce.  And from this very principle, the same sort of Writers do also grant and assert, the lawfulness of the people resisting their King by force, 
Bellarm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 19  in necessary Cases. Bellarmine allows that the political head may be deposed by the people, because he depends on them, and receives his power from them. 
Gr. de Val. T. 3. Qu. 1. Disp. 1. Punc. 7. div. 45.  Greg. de Valentia affirms, that the secular Prince having his power from the community over which he is, from hence it is, that he is above any parts of the community, but not above the whole community jointly considered, at least he is not so in all cases. Hence also Navarrus asserted, that the people did never so give over their power unto the King, but that they retain it to themselves in the habit, that in some certain Cases they may also receive it again in act. 
Mariana de Rege, & Reg. insist. l. 1. c. 6.  And Mariana affirms, that the Royal power having its birth from the Commonwealth, there is reserved in it, a power of deposing the King, and making War against him, and if it be necessary, destroying him with the Sword. And he adviseth as the safest course, that such an ill governing Prince should be declared a common Enemy, in a public convention, and then he allows it lawful for any private man to kill him: but if there can be no such public Assembly, if it be according to the common vote of the people, he commends the wicked attempts of such as would take away his life, as if such horrid enterprises were famous achievements.  
7. There are also other new Modellers, whose Positions founded upon the same bottom, of Princes having their power from the people, are very dangerous to Government. 
The like dangerous Positions of other extravagant Writers.  Such persons I mean as Mr Hobbs, and the Author of the Tractatus Theologico-politicus: for though these men seemingly yield a great Authority to the Prince, yet building upon a wrong and rotten foundation, they afford him no further security in his Government, than is the effect of his mere strength and power. The Tractatus Theologico-politicus owneth Dominion to be founded in men's resigning up their own rights to another by pacts. But besides other things, the admitting these two assertions in that Discourse, will be sufficient to manifest, the instability of any Government, where those Positions are embraced. For as he asserteth that naturally there is nothing unlawful, which any man can desire and obtain: so 1. he says, Pactum nullam vim habere posse, nisi ratione utilitatis, qua sublata pactum tollitur, & irritum manet: which is as much as to say, that Subjects are no further bound to submission, 
Tract. The-pol. Cap. 16. p. 254. p. 256. V p. 262.  than till they can propose to themselves an advantage by Rebellion. And since no rebellion was ever undertaken in the World, but upon the proposal of some advantage to the undertakers, those evil men must be justified, as having a right to do what they did, according to this pernicious Principle. 
Ib. p. 259. V p. 261, 257, 258.  2. It is there also asserted, Summis potestatibus hoc jus quicquid velint imperandi, etc. The right of commanding what they please, doth only so long belong to the supreme powers, as they indeed have the highest (or greatest) power; but if they lose that, they lose also the right of commanding all; and this right falls upon him or them, who gain the greatest power, and are able to keep it. Which words do make void all true and proper right of Princes, and leave them no other foundation to support their Government, but their present possession of power, which if any other person can possess himself of, he therewith hath the right also.  
8. And though Mr Hobbs sometimes hath over-large expressions concerning the power of Governors; yet he having before laid the same foundation for the original of political Government, doth also undermine the safety and stability of Governors and Government, 1 By asserting, 
Leviath. Cap. 14. p. 67, 68, 70.  That these pacts are so reciprocal, that they who yield up their right, do it for the receiving good thereby: and the end of pacts being the preservation of life, and of such things as conduce thereto, jus contra vim se defendendi necessariò retinetur, and any pact to give up the power of defending one's self against Death, Wounds, or Imprisonment, must be void, being against that self-preservation which is the end of these pacts. And these general Positions and grounds concerning pacts, will destroy either the nature, or at least the security of that power, which in words he otherwhere yields to Governors. 2. Because according to his frame and model, there can be no foundation laid, for these pacts becoming obligatory, further than the mere fear of external coactive power can enforce the observation of them. 
Ibid. c. 14. p. 67, 71. & Cap. 17. p. 83. & Cap. 18. p. 87.  For as he sometimes tells us, that these pacts do not oblige in their own nature, but from the fear of loss, and the punishment from a visible power: so since he asserts, that in the state or condition of liberty antecedently to these pacts, Justice, equity, or doing to others as they would they should do to them, Had no place, nor were men any ways obliged to observe them; it is impossible there should be any obligation introduced upon men (according to this method) to perform their pacts, save only from fear of external force. 
Tract. The. pol. p. 254.  For as the Tractator doth expressly allow fraud and deceit, in that imaginary state of liberty, the consequence of which will be that they may deal falsely in their pacts; so the Leviathan model must according to the principles there laid, allow the same. 
P. 71.  And though he sometimes speaks of the confirming these pacts by Oaths, and the fear of a Deity: yet this can add nothing to the obligation, upon the principles of the Leviathan: because the fear of God only obligeth men to do their duty, but doth not deny them the use of their liberty in other things. But as these Positions are framed upon such suppositions, as look upon man in his beginning, to stand without due respect to God, and the rules and notions of good and evil; so the dangerous aspect they have on peace and Government, doth speak the folly of them, and they will be sufficiently in this particular confuted, by asserting the divine original of Sovereignty.  
9 But it seemeth most strange, 
De Jur. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7.  that the Learned Grotius, in his Book, De Jure Belli & pacis, should assert, that men at the first did join themselves together in Civil Society, non Dei praecepto sed sponte, not by any command of God, but of their own choice; and that hence civil power hath its original, which Peter therefore calls an humane ordinance: and that it is also called an Ordinance of God, because God approved the wholesome institution of men. And upon this Principle he thinks it may be questioned, whether the people ever intended to excluded themselves, from a power of taking Arms in all Cases. And therefore without all distinction of Cases, he there is not willing to condemn their resisting their Governor. But I think it needful to do him so much right, as to observe that this was not his constant and fixed sense and judgement. For concerning the original of Authority, he in another place declares this to be the doctrine of S. Paul, 
Grot. in Rom. 13.1.  that there are now no Empires, but where God gives to them his authority, even as a King gives Authority to his Precedents: and he also affirms, that in all Governments, the Authority is received from God, non minus quàm si reges illi per Prophei as uncti essent, as much as if those Kings had been anointed by Prophets.  
10. And when S. Peter requires submission to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, 
Grot. in 1 Pet. 2.13.  Grotius in his Annotations, thinks him to intent, ordinationem istam quae inter homines in terra agentes locum habet, that ordinance which hath place amongst men: which Exposition hath this advantage of the other, that according to it, a good account may be given of the Apostles argument or motive, injoining submission for the Lords sake. For this must infer that those men who govern in the World, do not act only by an humane right; since if Government were not by God's authority and constitution, obedience to it could not bear a respect to God himself. And touching the unlawfulness of forcible resistance of Governors, besides the plain and full expressions I have above produced from Grotius, Sect. 1 he in another Treatise asserts, that violent defence which is lawful against an equal, is unlawful against a superior: 
Gr. de Imp. Sum. Pot. Cap. 3. n. 6.  and he judgeth that the law of nature will not allow this, no not for self-preservation. But saith he, this is more plainly demonstrated, from the written law of God: for when Christ said, he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword, he expressly disallows that defence which is made by force, against the most unjust but public violence; diserte improbat eam defensionem quae vi fiat, contra vim injustissimam sed publicam.  
11. Now it may be a just prejudice against this assertion, 
Unreasonable inferences from this unsound foundation. V Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 91. De Jure Magistr. c. 6.  of Sovereignty being derived from the people, that according to these various Proposals, it may become dangerous to the settlement of the World. But withal their way of arguing, who pretend that the people who make the Prince, have therefore a power reserved to themselves greater than his, is a kind of contradiction to itself; as if they who give up their power should by that means have the greater power, and they who receive authority should thereby have the less. This is such a fond argument, as would prove all servants by contract, to be superior of their Masters, because by their contract they made them their Masters; or that those Countries who became subject, and tributary to the Roman Empire, or any other, had a superiority over that Empire; because their becoming subject to it, was hat which made its Dominion so large and eminent. And concerning that supposition, that possibly the people might not intent, to deprive themselves of all power of resistance; with respect to this Kingdom, 
V Ch. 1.  it is evident from the plain expressions of our Statute Laws above produced, that the Subjects did intent to reject all power of resistance. And yet they who enter into any relation by their own contract, do stand obliged from the nature of that relation, and the Laws that God hath established concerning it, and not only from their own intention. Thus the contracting to become a Wife or a Servant, intending to be so to a kind and courteous man, doth not hinder the continuance of the bond in these relations, and the obligation to the duties thereof, though this man contrary to their expectation, may prove ill-natured and froward. And what I have discoursed in the beginning of this Chapter will evidence, that even they who will assert Sovereignty to be of a mere humane original, must acknowledge that the rejecting of all forcible resistance against it, is necessary to the peace and welfare of the World, and therefore this must be intended by the wiser part of Mankind. Sect. 5   

SECT. V  
The Divine original of Sovereign Power asserted.  
1. 
Sovereignty and rule proved to be the constitution of God. By rational evidence.  That Government and its Authority is originally the constitution of God, may receive considerable proof from rational evidence, supposing Creation and Providence to be acknowledged. For since God is the Lord of the whole Earth, he hath a right to govern it, and it is in his power to appoint Rulers and Magistrates, and to command subjection to them: and whosoever besides God, shall undertake to confer a power to rule the World, as if it were originally derived from themselves, do thereby put themselves upon the disposing of God's right. It was owned by the Ancient Poets, as Homer, and Hesiod, 
Hom. Il. ae. Hes. Theogon. in init. Synes. de Regno.  that Kings are from God. In Homer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Hesiod saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Synesius observed, that it was said by Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Royalty was a good thing from God among men. And in the Book of Wisdom, 
Wisd. 6.4, 5.  both the Authority of Kings is asserted to be from God, and that themselves also are Gods Ministers.  
2. And it may well seem a strange thing, that God who not only gave a being to all other parts of his Creation, but framed them in an excellent and beautiful order, and made the Sun to rule by Day, and gave Man dominion over other lower parts of his Creation, should leave Mankind only, which is so excellent a being, without taking any order for that useful and regular public Society, which is both suitable and beneficial to humane nature. And it is yet far more unlikely, that he who is the God of Order, should for the peace and good of lesser Societies in private Families, ordain the Authority of Parents over their Children, and the Headship of the Husband over the Wife, and yet should leave the more general and public state of Mankind, which is of greatest concernment, in an unsettled ungoverned confusion. It would be also a reflection upon the goodness of God to imagine, that it was not his will that justice should be administered, and viciousness punished among men; that peace should not be preserved, and goodness encouraged in the World: and it would be a disparagement to his wisdom to conceive, that he should appoint all these things to be done, whilst he committeth no power or authority to any person, or order of men to take care of them.  
3. 
By the testimony of the Scriptures.  But the express testimonies of the holy Scripture, put this matter out of doubt. There Governors as having God's Authority, are styled Gods, and Children of the most high, Ps. 82.6. And besides the Government of Israel, which was evidently established by God's appointment, which was the reason why David so much reverenced Saul, as being the Lords anointed: we are told, Pr. 8.15, 16. By me King's reign, and Princes decree justice: by me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth. And God declared by Jeremy, Jer. 27.5, 6. I have made the Earth,— and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me: and now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nabuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon my servant. Cyrus also was called the Lords Shepherd, Is. 44.28. (Princes being oft styled Shepherds, because their Office and Government is thereby much resembled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Basil; and the Hebrew word for a Shepherd is sometimes rendered in the Chaldee Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Governor) he was also called the Lords anointed, Is. 45.1. And Daniel tells Nabuchadnezzar, that God setteth up Kings, Dan. 2.21. and that the God of Heaven had given him a Kingdom, v. 37. S. Paul also declares, that there is no power but of God, and the powers that be, are ordained of God, Rom. 13.1. And he styleth the power, the ordinance of God, v. 2. and the Ruler, the Minister of God, v. 4.  
4. 
By the sense of the ancient Church.  The ancient Christian Church, even when they were under persecution by the Roman Emperors, did yet constantly acknowledge their Authority to be from God. 
Tert. ad S●●p. c. 2. Apol. c. 30. Adu. Hares l. 5. c. 24.  Tertullian declares, that the Christian knows that the Emperor is constituted by his God. And, saith he, from thence is the Emperor, from whence is the man; from thence is his power from whence is his spirit. And the same sense is expressed by Irenaeus. 
Eus. Hist. l. 7. c. 11. gr.  And Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius, acknowledged, that it was God who gave the Empire to Valerian and Galienus. The same truth is asserted by S. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l 5. c. 21. by Epiphanius, Haeres. 40. and by divers other Christian Writers: 
Bell. in Lib. Recogn. de laicis.  insomuch that when Bellarmine sought for the testimonies of ancient Writers, to prove Dominion to be of humane original, he could meet with no Theological Writer of the Christian Church, who favoured his opinion amongst the Fathers, and therefore takes up with Aquinas. And Paulus Orosius affirms, 
Oros. HIst. l. 2. c. 1. Vell. in 4. Tom. Aug. ad 22 Qu. De Concord. l. 2. c. 2. n. 1, 2, 3.  that all Power and Government is of god, is that which they who have not read the Scriptures do think, and they who have read them do know. And some of the Romish Church speak to this purpose, as Vellosillus and especially P. de Marca.  
5. And now let any equal Reader consider, whether the evidence of reason, Scripture, and the ancient Fathers, will agree with that reproachful Position of Hildebrand, or Greg. 7. 
Greg. 7. Epist. l. 8. Ep. 21.  against God and his Vice-gerents, That Kings had their beginning, from them who affected rule by the instigation of the Devil. But they all tend to confirm what hath been asserted in our church; 
Can. 1. 1640.  That the most high and sacred order of Kings is of divine right, being the ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express Texts, both of the Old and New Testaments.  
6. And the nature of the Ruler's power, 
And from the nature of this Authority.  will further speaks its Constitution to be from God. He is to judge the people, but God being the judge of all the earth, all acts of judgement are declared to be, not for men but for the Lord, 2 Chr. 19.6. and therefore must be performed by an Authority derived from him. And the punishment inflicted by Governors, is an act of vengeance or revenging; and therefore as vengeance or revenging, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is claimed by God himself, as peculiarly belonging to him, Rom. 12.19. vengeance is mine; so the Ruler as the Minister of God is made an Executor of Vengeance, or a Revenger, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 13.4. which must be by God's Authority derived to him. And since the Ruler who bears the Sword, hath an Authority of Life and Death, this could not be derived to him from the community, since no man hath such a Dominion over his own Life, as to have a power to take away his Life, 
Lessius de Just. & Jur. l. 2. c. 4. dub. 10. M. Becan. de Jur. c. 4. q. 1.  as hath been truly asserted by Schoolmen and others, and therefore cannot transfer such a power to any other person: And therefore, this Authority of Governors must be received from God, who is Lord of life and death.  
7. Objections answered. Having proved the Authority of Governors to be of a divine extract, I shall now show, that the various pretences for founding it in the consent of men, are of very little weight. 
From the Election of some Princes.  It is confessed, that there are elective Kingdoms, and Empires in the World; and that where there hath been a vacancy of a Governor, and none could claim a right of succession, Princes have oft been chosen by the people. In this Case several Roman Emperors were Elected by their Army, and received by the Senate, and thus were Gideon, Jephtha, and other Judges established in Israel. But such a liberty of choice in the people in these circumstances, carries no opposition to the Authority being from God. For the entering into a conjugal Society, is by a free choice, (even so far of choice, that many persons if they please, may live in celibate and single life, whilst men cannot live without Government) and yet Matrimony, and the Husband's Authority is by divine appointment. And Members of a Corporation do usually choose their chief Magistrate, but thought they determine upon the person, it is not they, but the Prince's Charter and Grant, that gives him his Authority.  
8. And they who tell us, 
M. Solomon. de princip.  that Sovereign Authority cannot be a proper divine institution, because than its rights would be wholly unalterable, and the same in all the Governments in the World, do rely upon a mere 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 privileges 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; 
Go●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 tenors 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 expressly 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 privileges 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 inferiors be forcibly resisted. But in many other particular things, the privileges of inseriour relations, and the dignities and rights of superiors, 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 King's 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. Di●l. 2. vers. fin. Extrav. Com. l. 5. Tit. 10. c. 4.  And even in Elective Principalities, the rights of Sovereignty are invested in the person elected thereto, before the Coronation; both in the Empire itself, 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 public acknowledgements, 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: 
Fuller's 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 increase their affection to him, and make their obedience and submission the more ready and cheerful, by their having security from their Prince's reputation, honour, and integrity, that he will intent 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 privileges of the Emperor 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, etc. 
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 superior divine constitution, of Sovereignty 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 God's 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 Arms 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 Sovereign 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 spoke, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the right or manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8.11.— 18. to intent 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 Arms against their Sovereign. 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, 
Epilogue. Part. 2. Ch. 32.  from the instance of the Maccabees, doth allow the lawfulness of subjects, taking Arms 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. etc.  But in both those places, he declareth the unlawfulness of taking Arms 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 entered 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 enabled or obliged, to maintain themselves by force, in the profession and exercise of their Religion, against their Sovereign, 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 Sovereign; 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. chrysostom, 
Chrys. Hom. 3. de Dau. & Saul.  that David in his actings towards Saul, had not all those arguments for subjection, which Christians now have, having 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 Arms, 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 steadfast 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 Sovereign 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 Sovereign Prince, against the fury of Maximinus, who would have forced them to embrace the Pagan Idolatry.  
5. And whereas in the New Testament, we have clear Declarations, that the higher Powers are the Ordinance of God, and that they who resist them, shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. 13.1, 2. the sense of these truths was contained under the acknowledgement, which David made in the Old Testament, who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed, 
Hom. 1. de Dau. & Saul.  and be guiltless? For as S. chrysostom noted, when David declared Saul to be the Lords anointed, he did acknowledge him to have God's 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 God's Ordinance and appointment; and therefore he both did honour Saul, and aught 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 itself, 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 Sovereignty 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 Arms against their Sovereign. 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 Arms against their Prince, under the Old Testament, evidenced.  
Sect. 2 1. Because the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms 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 Verse. Vulg. Syr. Arab. Par. Chald. & Sept. Barclai. adv. Monarch. l. 2. p. 64.  the judgement 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 too 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, Defence. Reg. c. 2.  
2. Solomon persuading to that duty and reverence, which Subjects own 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 inferiors. And when David declared, Ps. 51.4. Against thee only have I sinned, 
Ambr. Apol. Dau. 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, chrysostom 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 superior 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 shows what apprehensions these Christian Writers had, of the nature of David's Regal Authority. And this hath so much evidence of truth, that when Murder and Adultery in inferior persons, was punished by the Judges of Israel, according to the Law of Moses; David's judgement 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 departed from his house, v. 10. whereby Amnon, Absalon, and Adonijah were cut off. And the Rebellion of Absalon, as a judgement which God inflicted, was part of the punishment of this sin, v. 11.  
3. When there were any corruptions in Religion publicly 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 lives, for the honour of God, and defence of Religion. But private persons were then reputed to have done their duty, when they sighed and mourned for the abominations of others, as they did who received the mark for their preservation, Ezek. 9.4. and kept themselves unspotted from them, as was done by the seven thousand in Israel who bowed not their knees to Baal, 1 Kin. 19.18. whom Origen, 
Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 11. Naz. Orat. 32.  and Nazianzen, according to the manifest sense of the Scriptures, account to have observed God's Testimonies, and to have been accepted of him.  
4. But the clearest evidence, 
The coninent loyalty of David.  against the lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms, under the Kingdom of Israel or Judah, is from the behaviour and spirit of David. The Government of Israel was peculiarly Theocratical, and the fundamental Law of their Kingdom was this, Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose, Deut. 17.15. Now God had rejected Saul and his Family, from continuing in the Government of the Kingdom of Israel, 1 Sam. 13.14. and Ch. 15.23, 26, 28. and David by God's appointment, was anointed of Samuel to succeed him, 1 Sam. 16.12, 13. and Saul himself knew that David was to the King after him, and that the Kingdom of Israel would be established in his hand, 1 Sam. 24.20. only the Kingdom was not taken from Saul during his life, Ch. 26.10 〈◊〉. And upon this account, no subject in the World can have a greater Plea, for defending himself by Force and Arms, than David had: in whose safety the common interest of the whole Realm of Israel, was in an especial and extraordinary manner included.  
5. Under these cicumstances, Saul unjustly persecuted David, who had done him no injury, but rewarded him good for evil, as himself acknowledged, 1 Sam. 24.9, 11, 17, 18. and his rage was so fierce, as to resolve to take away his life, Ch. 20.31, 33. and upon David's account, he cruelly slew fourscore and five of the Priests of the Lord in one day, 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 14.  (and Josephus saith, three hundred eighty five persons of the Priestly Family, were put to death by him) and in Nob the City of the Priests, he smote with the edge of the Sword, both Man, Woman, Infant, and Suckling; only Abiathar escaped, Ch. 22.18, 19 And Saul forced David from the place of God's worship, Ch. 26.19 So that Saul was guilty of a great opposition against God, and the violation of justice; and David's defence was that in which the Authority of God, and Religion, Righteousness, and the common good were concerned.  
6. In this Case, David who was not obliged to give up himself in a unjust violence, endeavoured to avoid this by prudent ways of escape, 
Hom. against Rebel. Part. 2.  or as our Homilies express it, to save himself, not by Rebellion, nor any resistance, but by flight, and hiding himself from the King's sight. And when God delivered Saul into David's hands, at two several times, 1 Sam. 24.10, 18. Ch. 26.12. the men who were with him, were forward to have taken away saul's life, and pleaded that God had administered an occasion for fulfilling his promise concerning David's succeeding Saul, Ch. 24.4, 10. Ch. 26.8. But that which prevailed with David to the contrary, was the sense of his duty, which God had enjoined him; 
Opt. count. Parm. l. 2.  obstabat, saith Optatus, divinorum memoria mandatorum. He represseth their inclinations, and declareth it to be a great evil and guilt, to stretch out an hand against the Lords anointed, Ch. 24.6, 10, 11. and Ch. 26.9, 11. And in those places, he used words of more than ordinary detestation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let evil be to me from the Lord, or according to our Fuller, in his Miscellanies, wickedness, 
Ful. Misc. l. 2. c. 2.  or a thing abominable from the Lord will be charged upon me, if I stretch forth my hand against the Lords anointed. When he had cut off the Skirt of saul's Robe, which might reflect some dishonour upon him, his heart smote him. And at last when the Amalekite, who was one of the Army of Israel under Saul, declared, that he did slay him, though at his own request, and when dangerously wounded, and ready to fall into his Enemy's hands; David revengeth the Death of Saul, by shedding the blood of that Amalekite, 2 Sam. 1.15, 16. wherein he gave an high testimony, of the great sense he had, of the unlawfulness of offering any violence and force, to a lawful King and Sovereign.  
7. Nor was this behaviour of David, 
De Dau. & Saul. Hom. 2.  from an unnecessary scrupulousness, or timorous fearfulness; but this was so commendable, that S. chrysostom proposeth this instance as a pattern for Christians to imitate, and declareth that David gained a greater honour hereby, and a greater Victory, (by having a full mastery over his passions) than by his remarkable Conquest over Goliath. And David was both a wise man, 
This was from no ungrounded fears, but from a clear and certain knowledge of his duty.  wiser than all the servants of Saul, 1 Sam. 18.30. and also of undaunted courage, and a Prophet, and therefore it is very unlikely, that he should be guided by mistaken scruples, in that he so oft considered, so earnestly expressed, and which was his present great interest to understand. But it is very observable, that about those very times, when he expressed his high abhorrence of stretching out his hand against Saul, he was under the extraordinary guidance of the Spirit of God, and then penned the fifty seventh, and fifty fourth Psalms, (and some others much about that time) as appears from the titles of those Psalms, compared with 1 Sam. 24.3.8. Ch. 26.1.  
8. And there have been men of good note, 
R. Kimch. in Munst. in Ps. 57 Gr. Nys. l. 2. de Inscr. Ps. c. 2, 6, 15, 16.  both among the Jewish Writers, and ancient Fathers, who think that those words Al-taschith, which are in the title of the fifty seventh Psalm, (and some others) and signify Destroy not, have respect to what David spoke, to hinder his men from destroying Saul, which is expressed in the Hebrew, and in several Copies of the Septuagint, 1 Sam. 26.9. by the same words, which are in the title of that Psalm. And if this be admitted, this Psalm must express, that David had the greater assurance, and confidence in God, for his own preservation and safety, by reason of his eminent fidelity to Saul; and that this was, by the guidance and inspiration of God's spirit which directed him herein. And the substance of this conjecture, is thus far certainly true, that David had from his loyal demeanour unto Saul, much inward joy and peace, and expectation of God's blessing upon himself, as he declareth, 1 Sam. 26.23, 24. in these full and express words, The Lord render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness: for the Lord delivered thee into my hand 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. Verse. Vulg. Grot. Vatabl. Munst. in loc.  some ancient Versions expressly 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 God's 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, etc. 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.  David's 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 gratify his own lust; and would have been a sin, at least as deeply died, 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 David's 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 David's Carriage reacheth not so far, as to condemn all taking Arms against a Sovereign 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 God's 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 God's 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 King's 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 Sovereign. 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 saul's 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 God's Command, than to express, in the first fixing a Governor 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 sense of the Jewish Phrases, doth give such Paraphrases of the Lords anointed as these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one who was by God advanced to the Kingdom, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one ordained of God; and in the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to anoint, is in 2 Sam. 3.39. rendered 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 chief 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 Solomon, 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 Arms against Saul, and undertook the defence of himself by force: and three things are alleged 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 saul's Court, 
David's six hundred men not intended to make War against Saul.  and the Armies of Israel, and being Son-in-law to the King; and especially being next Successor to the Kingdom, by God's 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 surprised by Saul unawares, of whose motions these men could give him sufficient intelligence. And this might also be done by God's 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 increased his numbers there, 1 Chr. 12. v 1-23. when yet there was no design of taking Arms 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 increase of David's 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. etc. 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 David's retaining such numbers about him, so we have further evidence, that he never designed them for any War against Saul. For whilst 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 God's assistance able to vanquish the Army of the Philistines, who had Invaded Israel, and Besieged one of saul's strong Towns, 1 Sam. 23.5, 13. and with his increased 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 David's 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 Arabic versions.  
5. 
De jur. Magistr. jbidem.  A Second thing urged is, That Abigail commended David, for his fight the Battles 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 Battles, which he had fought against the Philistines, but of his present gathering Forces in Judah, 1 Sam. 25.28. But to interpret this of David's gathering of Forces against Saul, is a wonderfully strange and unreasonable interpretation, because, 1. 
Daiud his fight the Battles of the Lord, was no acts of force against Saul.  David never fought any Battle 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 dissuades 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 Battles, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a man (or rather, yet a man) is risen up to pursue thee, do most probably show, that this must refer to Battles fought, before Saul did pursue David. And it is well observed by Barclay, 
Barcl. adv. Movarchom. 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 saul's General, had this charge given him; 
1 Sam. 18.17.  Be valiant for me and fight the Lords Battles. 4. These words, v. 28. The Lord will certainly make my Lord a sure House because my Lord fighteth, or hath fought the Battles of the Lord, if they should be understood of his actings against Saul, are directly contrary to the ground of David's hope in God's protection ; which was not from his acting by violence against Saul, but from his patiented 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 Battles 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 public 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 Battles 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 saul's 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 David's aim, by his having spies abroad, to give him intelligence of saul's 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 God's providence took particular care of him, 1 Sam. 23.14, 17, 22, 23, 26. Ch. 26.1, 4. Ch. 27.1.3. The truth of what appears concerning david's intention, relating to Keilah, is this, that David purposed to have made some stay in that place, which he had then rescued from their Besiegers the Philistines. But understanding that Saul intended to destroy that place, if they should harbour him and not seize on him, and that they for their own security would hinder his further escape, if he should continue there, and would lay hold on him, and deliver him up to Saul, he timely prevented this danger, by a speedy removal, Ch. 23. 7-12.   

SECT. iv  
Divers Objections from the Maccabees, Zealots, Jehu, and others answered.  
1. Among other Objections, I shall not need to take notice in this place, of the pretences for a constant power among the Jews, superior to the Regal. The Romanists indeed are sometimes forward to assert, the Priest to have been above the King, as Bellarmine affirms, 
Bellarm. do Offic. Princ. c. 4.  that after Moses, semper praepositus erat Pontifex Principi. And others besides those I have before mentioned, speak the like of the Synedrial power: insomuch that when Grotius did in his Book, de Imperio, assert some of the pretended Synedrial Authority, to have been in truth fixed in the King, saying, hoc ipsum Synedrii jus, regni tempore videtur fuisse penes Reges; Blondel in his Scholia upon that place, on the contrary asserts, 
Sch. ad Grot. de Imp. S. p. c. 10. n. 17.  that this Sanhedrim did judge the King, imo de Regibus Synedrium judicavit. And if either of these pretences were true, it must also be granted, that a superior authority may lawfully make use of force, towards an inferior power, when it be necessary so to do. 
B. 1. Ch. 3.  But these things are sufficiently refuted in the former Book, to which I remit the Reader, Sect. 4 and proceed to satisfy other Objections.  
2. Obj. 1. It is urged, 
Of the wars of the Maccabees.  that in the Jewish Church Arms might lawfully be taken, in the defence of their Religion against their Sovereign, from the instance of the Wars of the Maccabees. The Maccabees are generally commended, and very probably by the Apostle, Heb. 11.34, 35, 37. and by some of the Prophets. When Antiochus Epiphanes polluted the Temple, and did prostitute the Jewish Religion and Laws, and commanded the Jews to offer Sacrifice after the manner of the Heathen, Mattathias and his Sons being zealous for the Law, took up arms against him, 1 Mac. Ch. 1. and Ch. 2. which were chief managed, after the Father's Death, by Judas Maccabaeus. 
Brut. Vin●● Qu. 2. p. 61. Qu. 3. p. 199. Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Right of Church. ch. 5. p. 306.  This instance is produced by Junius Brutus, and Grotius, as a lawful War against their lawful Sovereign. And of this Case Mr Thornedike hath these words, It is manifest that the Arms which the Maccabees took up against Antiochus Epiphanes, their lawful Sovereign, are approved by God; not only as foretold by Daniel and Ezekiel, and other Prophets; but also because the Apostle manifestly commendeth their faith: on the other side it is manifest, that they justified their Arms upon the title of Religion. Now it is obvious, that as this Case stands thus represented, it is the very same in which the Primitive Christians refused to make resistance, and which Mr Thorndike will not allow under Christianity.  
3. Answ. Antiochus Epiphanes against whom the Maccabees fought, was no lawful Sovereign in Judea, 
Grot. ibid.  but an invader. This assertion is indeed rejected by Grotius, pretending that he had the right of succession from the Macedonian power: saith he, quòd quidem haec arma eo titulo defendunt, quasi Antiochus non Rex sed invasor fuerit, vanum puto. But though there is some difference amongst Historians, concerning the division of the Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander, I see no reason to doubt, of the account given by Josephus concerning Judea. He tells us that then Egypt, 
Jos. Ant. l. 12. c. 1. Cont. Apion. l. 1.  and also Judea, was under Ptolomaeus the Son of Lagus, (not Seleucus, from whom Antiochus Epiphanes did descend) who giving the Jews ample privileges, took of them an Oath of Fidelity to him and his Posterity; and that they were then under Ptolomaeus, he citys the Testimony also of Agatharcides Cnidius an ancient Historian, who wrote the Acts of the Successors of Alexander. 
Antiq. l. 12. c. 3.  And Judea continued under the Egyptian Ptolemy's above an hundred years, until Antiochus Magnus gained it by Conquest, but enjoyed it a little time, restoring it as part of the Portion of Cleopatra his Daughter, whom he gave in Marriage to Ptolomaeus Epiphanes. But this Ptolemy dying, Antiochus Epiphanes in the Minority of his son Ptolomaeus Philometor, overcame him, and being invited by a Seditious party, invadeth Judea, taketh Jerusalem, and exerciseth himself there in cruelty and impiety, Josep. l. 12. c. 6, 7. & Prol. de Bel. Jud. And under these circumstances Mattathias and his Son resisted him by War, Josep. Ant. l. 12. c. 8. de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 1, 2.  
4. Now a violent possession of what he had no just claim to, was far from being a Title of right. And therefore the Jews might very lawfully endeavour by Arms to recover their rights, their Country, and the liberty of Religious Worship, from the forceable violence of an open Enemy, and an invader, who had cruelly oppressed them about three years. Indeed he is sometime styled the King, being truly King of Syria, but by no right King of Judea; but other times in the Book of the Maccabees he and his Forces are styled Enemies, 1 Mac. 2.7, 9 Ch. 13.51. and the like in Josephus, who against Apion declareth, that Antiochus came as an Enemy, against them who were his Friends and Confederates, 
Cont. Apion. l. 2.  nos socios & amicos aggressus est, saith the Latin Translation, the ordinary Greek being there defective.  
5. 
The Wars of the Judges.  Of the same nature also were the Wars of Barak, against Jabin King of Canaan, of Gideon, against the Midianites, and of Othniel against Cushan Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia; and also the acting of Samson against the Philistines, and of Ehud against Eglon. For none of these Princes against whom these Judges took Arms, or towards whom they did acts of violence, had any just right of Superiority and Sovereignty over Israel, but they had injuriously invaded and oppressed them: and it is very usual with Scholastic Writers to give the instance of Eglon, 
D. Sot. de Just. & jure l. 5. Qu. 1. Art. 3.  for one who was Tyrannus titulo, or an Usurper, having no just Title. And besides this, since God reserved the disposal of the Government of Israel peculiarly in his own hand; 
Lessius de Just. l. 2. c. 9 dub. 4.  and he raised up and sent all these Judges, Jud. 3.9, 15. Ch. 4.6. Ch. 6.14. Ch. 13.25. 1 Sam. 12.11. and signified this to Barak by a Prophetess, and to Gideon by an Angel; by this means the Sovereign power, so far as concerned the undertaking committed to them, was placed in them.  
6. But it may be further objected, 
The right of Zealots examined.  that it is declared by very good Authors and men well acquainted with the Jewish State, and their Writers, that in some cases, especially against the practisers of Idolatry, private persons out of a zeal for God and Religion, might make use of the power of the Sword, jure zelotarum, following the example of Phinehas. 
Grot. de J. B. & P. L 2. c. 20. n. 9 Seld. de Jur. nat. & Gent. l. 4. c. 3, 4, 5. de Syned. l. 2. c. 14. n. 3. Dr. Ham. Tract of Zealots. Right of Ch. Ch. 5.  And they who embrace this Notion, do not confine this to private cases, as if any of the Jews might lawfully kill an Idolater, as other persons may do him who makes an actual assault against their King, or is an aggressor to design their murder: But Grotius, Selden, Dr Hammond, and Mr Thorndike, Seem to allow the undertaking of the Maccabees, to be grounded upon this right of Zealots. And then it must be granted, that it might also be lawful for other private persons to take Arms in like cases. And there are such instances as these produced, to prove this right of Zealots, in Phinehas killing Zimri and Cozbi, Elijah slaying Baal's Priests, and calling fire from Heaven on the Captains of the Fifties, our Saviour's driving the money-Changers out of the Temple, and such like, besides the actings of the Maccabees. Now it might be sufficient to say, that if the right of Zealots should be allowed, provided it extended itself only to private cases, which is as much as any probability of proof can reach, the duties of Subjection, and the Authority of Government, might still possibly remain inviolable. But because I am further prone to think that the grounds and instances upon which this whole notion is built are mistaken, I shall offer to the Readers consideration these three things with respect thereto.  
7. First, that it must needs be a great disorder in Government, and a foundation of much disturbance and evil, if every earnest spirited man were allowed, in the heat of his zeal, to put himself into the place of a Magistrate, and to execute judgement of death, upon whomsoever he accounted an offender against God and his Religion. I acknowledge that in the declining time of the Jewish Government many actions were undertaken, only under the pretence of such a zeal, which were in truth, acts of fury; and they were so far from being warrantable, that they did abundantly manifest the dangerousness of admitting such pretences. 
Grot. & Ham. ubi sup. & in Act. 7.57.  Both Grotius and Dr Hammond account the stoning of St. Steven, and the conspiracy of more than forty Jews, not to eat or drink till they had slain Paul, to be done by the spirit of the Zealots, which were things riotous and outrageous, which may not be justified, nor may the like be tolerated under any Government. 
Dr. Ham. in Mat. 10. c.  And by the prevalency of this sort of men who were called Zealots, there was very much cruelty exercised in Judea, many of their Nobles and chief persons were slain, 
Jos. de Bel. Jud. l. 6. c. 1.  and by Josephus they are accounted to have contributed much to occasion the destruction of Jerusalem. But these practices were not regular or guided by any accountable rules, but were greatly exorbitant. And if private persons taking the Sword, and killing those who depraved Religious Worship, had been a thing lawful and commendable in the Jewish State, upon this right of Zealots; It may well be wondered that none of the Prophets did ever put the people upon vindicating their Religion by this Method, under those had Kings of Israel or Judah, in whose days the worshipping of Baal was openly practised.  
8. Secondly, several worthy actions, pretended to be undertaken by the right of Zealots, were warranted, according to the ordinary rules of Government, by other sufficient Authority; though a zeal for the Honour of God, made the persons more forward and active. Such I suppose was the action of Phinehas, Numb. 25.7, 8. in pursuance of Moses his sentence of judgement, v. 5. as also the War undertaken by Mattathias and his Sons, and Mattathias his killing the Jew, who, in obedience to the command of Antiochus, openly sacrificed according to the manner of the Heathen, 1 Mac. 2.23, 24, 25. For by the same right whereby he might take Arms for his Country and Religion, against Antiochus, he might also act against those who took part with Antiochus against them.  
9 Thirdly, In the Jewish Commonwealth which was peculiarly ordered by God, some Prophets, and men extraordinarily inspired, not other zealous men at large, were empowered by God's Authority, to do some extraordinary actions, which otherwise had not been warrantable; and it is be this special authority of God, not by their own zeal only, that such things were allowable. To this Head may be reduced, samuel's and Elijahs sacrificing, though they were not Priests, samuel's anointing Saul, and David; and the young Prophet who was sent by Elisha, his anointing Jehu, 2 Kin. 9.3, 6. And of this nature were the actions of Elijah , Samuel hewing Agag in pieces, and our Saviour's driving out of the Temple them who sold Sheep, 
L'Empereur in Midd. c. 2. sect. 3. & in sciagraphia Templ.  Oxen and Doves, and over-throwing the Tables of the Money-changers, Joh. 2.14.17. Mar. 11.15. For though these things were only done in the remote parts of the utmost Court, and with respect to the Sacrifices and Offerings of the Temple; they were a profanation of the Temple, being managed by the undertakers in that place as a Trade. And of this nature was Moses his killing the Egyptian, as appears, Act. 7.24, 25.  
10. The instance of Athaliah, 
Of Athaliah.  being rejected from being Queen over Judah, and slain by the direction of Jehoiadah, is frequently urged by divers Romish writers, 
Bell. de Rom. p. l. 5. c. 8.  to prove the Superiority of the Jewish High Priest over the Prince: and it is also urged more generally by some others, to show that the People did warrantable deprive her of Princely power. But Jehoiadah, 
J. Brut. Qu. 2. Ruth. Civ. Pol. Qu. 28. p. 264.  as a good Subject, acted by the Authority of Joash, the true and rightful King, against her who was a plain Usurper. And that Jehoiadah was not the High Priest may appear somewhat probable, because he is not mentioned in the Catalogue of the High Priests in the Chronicles, 
Ant. Jud. l. 10. c. 11. Of Jehu conspiring against Joram.  1 Chr. 6. 11-15. nor in that of Josephus.  
11. Whereas Jehu took Arms against Joram, and slew him, 2 Kin. 9.24. and cut off Ahabs House, for which God commended him, 2 Kin. 10.30. this was no taking Arms against a Sovereign King, For God reserved to himself the right of disposing the Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Israel, and by his particular direction were Saul, and David and Jeroboam, made Kings. But none of Ahabs' Family, whose Son Joram was, ever had any such designation by God's appointment: but Jehu before he took Arms, was by the command of God anointed to be King, and commanded to cut off the House of Ahab, 1 Kin. 19.16. 2 Kin. 9.6, 7. So that Jehu his taking Arms, was by a true Regal Authority, against him who either never had a right to the Kingdom, or at least was now totally deprived thereof, by God's special Declaration. And this makes the Case of Jehu towards Joram, to differ much from that of David towards Saul.  
12. 
Of the people saving Jonathans' life.  It hath also been urged, That when Saul resolved that Jonathan should die, the people rescued him, as our Translation rendereth it, 1 Sam. 14.45. But the Septuagint express it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the people prayed or worshipped for Jonathan. And the true state of this affair was this. Saul desirous to prosecute his victory against the Philistines to the utmost, 
Rutherf. ibid. qu. 32. p. 348.  adjureth the people of Israel, that no man eat any food until the evening, and threatneth death to him who shall do otherwise, v. 24, 39 Jonathan who wonderfully gained that victory being absent, and not hearing this adjuration, tasted a little Honey, v. 27. Hereupon saul's vow or Oath being not performed, and God being offended therewith, and search made after the transgression, v. 37, 38. Jonathan was taken, whom Saul condemneth to die, for the expiation of this Transgression, v. 43,44. Now here Jonathans' life became due to God by a single vow, and not that of Cherem; and therefore his case did admit of Redemption according to the Law, Leu. 27.2. And upon this account it is said of the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they redeemed him, (which our Translation calls they rescued him) i. e. substituted with a general consent, and desire of the People, a Offering for the vow, which Josephus expresseth thus, they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Jose ph. Ant. l. 6. c. 7.  offered Offerings to God for the vow: which Offerings for a Vow, are usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint, as in Leu. 7.16. Deut. 12.6. And by this means was Jonathan rescued or delivered from Death, not by any Act of Hostile violence which the people offered to Saul, but by an Act of Religion which they performed unto God. 
B. 2. C. 4.  And since it was God who required the performance of the Vow, this Offering was the way to appease him, and thereby secure Jonathan, which the use of violence against Saul could never have done.  
13. 
Of Azariah withstanding Uzziah.  The instance of Azariah the Priest, and eighty other Priests, who being men of courage, withstand Vzziah the King, when he undertook to Offer Incense, 2 Chr 163 17, 18, 19, 20. is by some persons both Romanists and others insisted upon. But their proceed were not managed with weapons of War, but with sharp reproofs and admonitions. And whereas it is said in our Translation, v. 20. they thrust him out; the Heb ewe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may properly be rendered they hastened him, and no more can be proved from it; and it is so expressed in this Text, by the best Copies of the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by several other Translations: and the same word is used for hastening, but without any offering violence, Est. 6.14. Josephus also expresseth this action of the Priests to this purpose, 
Ant. l. 9.11.  that they requared or charged him to go out of the City, being smitten with Leprosy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is nothing like making War.  
14. Some other things have been objected, but of so little weight or appearance of evidence, that it is needless to mention or refute them, or to add any thing more, for the vindicating that part of Sovereignty to the Kings under the Old Testament, that it was not then lawful for subjects to take Arms against them.    

CHAP. IU.  
The Rules and Precepts delivered by Christ, and his Apostles, concerning Resistance, and the Practice of the primitive Christians declared.  

SECT. I.  
The Doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself.  
1. 
The Rights of Princes upheld by Christianity.  FRom the foregoing Chapters, which have showed, that nonresistance of Subjects against their Sovereign, is a duty according to the principles of common equity, and which did take place in the political Constitutions, under the time of the Old Testament; we might make a reasonable inference, that the same must abide and continue a duty under the times of Christianity: For our Saviour intended to promote and establish righteousness, goodness and peace; and therefore would never give liberty to violate the great duties of Subjection, by which violation the peace of the World would be much disturbed, the duties of meekness banished, and the practice of humility and obedience rejected, which are so much aimed at in his Doctrine, 
Sect. I.  which commands his Followers to take up the Cross.  
2. That he took care of the preservation of the just Royalty and Right of Princes, and did not intent to debase, lessen or diminish that Sovereignty and Authority, which they had a right before to enjoy, is well observed by Grotius, 
Gr. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 4.  to be included in those words of his, Mat. 22.21. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and from other expressions of the Scripture, which can have no less import. And this Text will appear the more considerable, if we take notice, that it was Tiberius who was then Caesar, when our Saviour delivered this Precept. 
From our Saviour's Precept in the time of Tiberius.  For Tiberius was a man, whose cruelty even to his nearest Relations, and his drunkenness rendered him infamous; and his Lusts were so excessive, that Suetonius saith, 
Suet. in Tib. n. 44.  vix ut referri audiríve, nedum credit fas est, it is scarce to be allowed that this should be related, heard or believed. He was so far from being a friend to the Jews, that he would not allow them the exercise of their Religion at Rome, 
Ibid. n. 36. Jos. de Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 14. gr. Ant. Jud. l. 18. c. 4.5.  inflicted on them great penalties, and dispersed the youth of Judea into other less noble Provinces. Under his Government, to the great offence of the Jews, the Images of Caesar were brought into Jerusalem by Pilate, and the Treasures of the Temple in their Corban were taken out. And in his time also, was the Jewish Sanhedrim deprived of their Power, of inflicting capital punishments, Joh. 18.31. And his Government was so far from defending, and maintaining the true Christian Religion, that under it, and by the sentence of his Precedent, the Holy Jesus was crucified, and St. James killed with the Sword: And yet out Saviour in his days required the rights of Sovereignty 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 Practise 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 Soldiers, 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 Superiors 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 risen up against his Governors, 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 Governor.  
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 man's 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 public 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, etc. 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 Messiah, 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 forbade any such thing, and checks St. Peter's 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 threaten, 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 show, 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 Arms; 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 Governors 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 Soldiers, Luke 22.52.) who were allowed to exercise some governing power, under the Romans. And the time when these Soldiers 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 Saviour's 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 man's thoughts, that there were any designs laid, by any of the Apostles, for destroying the Elders of the Jews, or turning Caesar out of his Dominions, by these attempts. And though this defence proceeded no further than to cut off an ear, our Lord not only disliked it, but his action in forthwith healing the ear by a miracle, may seem to intimate, that he thought fit to take upon himself to make restitution, and to repair the injury done, by the rash action of one of his followers. 
C. 23. Qu. 8. in Capite.  Thus Gratian observed, that when Peter took the material Sword to defend his Master from the injury of the Jews, he then received this check.  
8. 
4. To St. Peter and therefore to his Successors.  Fourthly, if we consider the Person who here drew the Sword, which St. John declares to be Simon Peter, it may well be wondered, that any sort of men should believe, that Christ gave this Apostle, and others by virtue of succession from him, a power to authorise subjects, to take Arms against their Princes, in a case where they shall judge the Church and Religion concerned; and to deprive them of their Crowns and Dominions; when himself in person was not allowed, though he was then an Apostle, to make such resistance as hath been declared. From this instance Gratian concludes, 
Ibidem.  that no bishop, nor any of the Clergy whosoever, have any power, either by their own authority, or by the authority of the Pope of Rome, to take Arms: and then they can have as little authority to commissionate others to take them. Nor can this be evaded by saying, that St. Peter was not as yet possessed with the supreme sovereign Authority; For as it no where appears, that he ever received any such thing; so if our Saviour had ever intended to convery to him the supreme power of the Temporal sword, he would never have used particularly to him, so general a threatening against the use of it. And therefore some Romish Writers have put themselves upon undertaking another method, and that is by a very bad attempt, to defend or applaud this action of St. Peter, which our Lord rebuked. 
Bar. An. 34. n. 67.  Baronius when he gives us the relation of it, doth it without any manner of censure, but not without an Encomium, declaring, quid generoso accensus amoris ardore, fortiter gesserit. 
In Concord. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 17.  And Barradius proposing the question, whether St. Peter did amiss in this action, resolves it as most probable, that he did not; verosimilius puto, saith he, non peccasse. And Stella saith, 
Stell. in Luc. 22.  St. Peter did not sin herein, and he compares this action with the zeal of Phinebas, whereby he obtained the High-Priesthood; and so, sigh he, did St. Peter.  
9 
Severalreasons why St. Peter was rebuked.  And there are some who would evade the argument, from these words of our Saviour, by saying that our Lord did prohibit St. Peter's using the Sword for his defence, only because he did now intent to law down his life, according to his Fathers will. But it must be observed, that our Saviour lays down three several grounds, upon which he checks this act of his Apostle, and commands him to put up his Sword; and we must not so assert the validity of any one of them, as to deny or enervate the force of the others. 1. From the sin and unwarrantableness of such actions, where persons act out of their own sphere, and what they have not authority to undertake; and this is that I have now discoursed of in v. 52. 2. Because he himself knew, how he could sufficiently procure his own defence, by lawful means, whereas this action was neither a necessary, nor a proper undertaking for that purpose. Had the Holy Jesus intended, to have his person rescued out of the hands of the Jews, he could have effected this by Legions of Angels, who are under no obligation of subjection to men, v. 53. But God's Providence can never be so at a loss as to need the help of any unlawful means. 3. Because the thing St. Peter aimed at, to hinder his Master from suffering, was no good design, but savoured somewhat of the same spirit, by which he had formerly rebuked his Lord, when he spoke of his being killed, Mat. 16.22. For the Scriptures must be fulfilled, v. 54. and the Cup (saith our Saviour) which my Father gives me to drink, shall I not drink it? Joh. 18.11. And every one of these are parts of Christ's Doctrine, and the first as much as the other, and is that also which our blessed Lord thought fit to mention before the other.  
10. With respect to this Text, Mauritius, 
This Text anciently used to their purpose. Eucher. Lugdunens'. Epist. ad Sylu.  who commanded the Thebaean Legion, which being all Christians, yielded themselves to Martyrdom, under Maximianus, told them how much he feared, lest they being in Arms, should have resisted the Emperor, under the colour of defnce, when this was forbidden by Christ, who by the command of his own mouth, would have that Sword which his Apostle had drawn, to be put up. And St. Austin who sometimes extenuated St. Peter's fault, as proceeding from his love, 
Aug. de Agon. Christ c. 29, 30.  and not from any cruel disposition, that he did, a more peacare sed non saevitia, in his Books against Faustus, gives this account of the sense hereof. The Lord did with sufficient threatening check the fact of Peter, saying, Put up the Sword, 
Contr. Faust. l. 22. c. 70. & in Epist. 48.  for he that useth the Sword shall fall by the Sword; but he useth the Sword, who, when no Superior and lawful Power doth either command or allow, useth Arms against the blood of another. And from this Text also Gratian inferreth this general rule, 
Grat. Decubis sup.  that every one who besides him, or without his authority, who useth the lawful power, who beareth not the Sword in vain, and to whom every Soul ought to be subject, I say every one who without such authority takes the Sword, shall perish by the Sword.  
11. 
Assemb. Annot. in Luk. 22.51.  And even the Annotations under the name of the Assemblies Annotations, do interpret these words to condemn Subjects taking the Sword, especially against their Superiors. Neither Peter, say they, nor any other private person or persons, might take up the Sword, to defend the cause of Christ. 1. Becave the Jus gladii belongeth not to any private person, but to public authority, Rom. 13.4. much less to Ministers. 2. Because they who smite with the Sword, shall perish with the Sword. 
Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6.  And Grotius de Imperio, asserteth, that when Christ said, He that taketh the Sword shall perish by the Sword, he doth expressly condemn that defence, which is made by violence, against unjust force from public authority, contra vim injustissimam, sed publico nomine illatam. To which I shall subjoin the Paraphrase of Dr Hammond, All that draw and use the Sword, without authority from those which bear the Sword, shall fall themselves by it, incur the punishment of death.  
12. 
Grot. in Mat. 26.52. & de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 3.  Indeed Grotius doth sometimes interpret this Text to this purpose, as if it intended to declare, that God would punish them who are bloody, as the jews who came against our Saviour, though S. Peter let them alone; and this sense is embraced by some other Writers, even of the ancients. But since these words were spoken by Christ, soon after his Disciples had asked, shall we smite with the Sword? and immediately upon the act of Peter, the natural and direct sense of them must relate thereto. And it is a forced interpretation, to carry them off from the occasion, on which they were spoken, 
Orig. in Mat. Tract. 35. Tert. de Patient. c. 3.  and to which they were applied by other ancient Writers, besides them abovenamed, and to account them only to contain a threatening against the actions of the Jews. And even Grotius upon S. Matthew, 
Grot. ibid.  doth from these words conclude, that Christians ought to lay down their lives, in the profession of Christianity, without resistance, and objecting the natural right of self defence, he tells us we must distinguish between the using that right, against thiefs and private persons, against whom it may be used by the authority of the laws; and the designing any violence against the rule and command of the sovereign power.  
13. Our Saviour indeed advised his Disciples, Luk. 22.36. He that hath no Sword, let him sell his Garment and buy one: which words were spoken the same night with the other abovementioned, and before he went out to the Mount of Olives, v. 39 And hereby he gave liberty to his Disciples, to use the Sword for their self-defence, against private violence and Robbers, who were at that time as Josephus relates, very numerous. But that no Christians might think themselves to have any liberty granted, of resisting authority, he gave this sharp rebuke to S. Peter, after he was come into the Mount of Olives. And against all those who would from these expressions of Christ, or any other, plead for the lawfulness of resisting a Sovereign power, 
Erasm. in Luc. 22.36.  the words of Erasmus are very argumentative, as well as earnest and vehement. Nulla haeresis perniciostor, saith he, reclamantibus Christi praeceptis, reclamante tota ipsius vita, reclamante doctrina Apostolica, refragantibus tot Martyrum millibus, repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus. There is no Heresy more pernicious, the Precepts of Christ decrying this, the whole life of Christ being opposite to it, the Apostolical doctrine testifying against it; it being also rejected by so many thousands of Martyrs, and contradicted by the ancient Interpreters.   

SECT. II.  
Of the Apostolical Doctrine against resistance: with a reflection on contrary practices.  
Sect. 2 1. 
The Apostolical Doctrine against resistance.  From the doctrine delivered by our Saviour himself, I now descend to that which was declared by his Apostles, which we shall find to keep an exact harmony with the former. And here I shall chief consider that remarkable place, Rom. 13.2. whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate resist, doth include all practising out of a spirit of averseness, opposition and contradiction, and whatsoever is contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or being subject, v. 1. as may appear by the use of this word, Act. 18.6. And to this sense Grotius observes, 
Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 6.  resistitur dupliciter aut contra imperium agendo, aut vim vi reprimendo, there are two ways of resisting; either by acting contrary to authority, or by using force against it. But the resistance by violence, which is the highest manner of opposition, is therefore principally condemned. And such actions are declared to be a resisting the Ordinance of God, and therefore highly sinful; and to be so dangerous, that they who are guilty thereof, shall receive to themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judgement or damnation.  
2. 
That it deserves punishment both from God and Man.  And I suppose it may be made manifest, that the Apostle here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth both understand the judgement of man, or punishment by the hand of justice by the Magistrate, and also the judgement of God, or the sentence of his condemnation. This appears from the Apostles Conclusion, which he maketh with a very forcible illative expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, i. e. outward humane punishment, but also for Conscience sake, or fear of the divine judgement, v. 5. And that they who resist, deserve heavy punishment by the temporal Sword, is according to the Doctrine of Christ himself in the former Section, and of Solomon, Prov. 20.2. To this sense do Vatablus and Grotius most incline, 
In loc.  in expounding this Text. And this sense must be included in the intention of the Apostle, because this practice being declared evil, in the former part of v. 2. it is added, that Rulers are a terror to the evil, v. 3. and if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the Sword in vain, v. 4. And in such Cases as these, the sentence and punishment inflicted by the Magistrate, is the more considerable and dreadful, because he is herein appointed by God, to act as from him, and by his authority, being the Minister of God, a Revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, v. 4. But this word must also include, the judgement of God and his condemnation. For since this resistance is a sin, and against the Ordinance of God, v. 2. that person who puts himself upon breaking his Commands, and opposing his Authority, must thereby render himself guilty before God; or in S. Chrysostom's expression concerning this Text, he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Chrys. in Ep. ad Rom.  provoke God, and must expect from him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heavy judgement.  
3. And these assertions of the Apostle, 
Resistance not allowed in persecution.  will appear the more considerable, if some circumstances be observed, 1. What condition of the Christian Church, was then coming on, when these Rules were delivered to the Christians. It is very probable, 
Baron. an. 58. n. 46. & an. 66. n. 9, 10.  that this Epistle was written, some few years before the beginning of the persecution against the Christians, under Nero. But the Holy Ghost, who then foresaw and foretold the troubles, which were shortly to come upon them by the Roman power, though fit to give them these directions, to be observed as their Rules, in their approaching calamities.  
4. 
Nor against wicked Rulers.  Secondly, who was then possessed of the highest power at Rome, unto whom the 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 Emperors, 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 Emperor, whom the Roman Spirit would not endure, without taking Arms 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 Arms 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 incline 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 Emperor above the Senate.  But because there are some who say, that these expressions of the Apostle, have no particular mention of Nero, or any Emperor; 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 Emperor, 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 Caesar's Image and Inscription, to whom Christ commanded the Jews to render what was his. S. Paul's appeal was made unto Caesar, and S. Peter's commanding submission was directed to the King as supreme, and to Governors 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 Sovereignty.  
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. Judas, 
2 Pet. 2.10. Judas 8.  so highly condemn the despising Dominions, and speaking evil of dignities, as sins against which God will chief execute judgement, 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. Judas speaks particularly against them, who perish in the gainsaying of Core, or in the practices 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 threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, 1 Pet. 2.19.20, 21, 22, 23.  
8. Having now showed, 
Christianity doth not infringe Sovereignty.  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 confidence, to make Christianity a foundation, for the highest resistance against Princes, to depose them from their Crowns, and forbidden 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, etc. upon this condition the Kings of the Earth are admitted unto the Church, that they shall subject their Sceptres 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 Sceptres to be disposed of by any Officer of the Christian Church, when they are baptised 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 Governors; 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, etc. 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 
Matters of fact are not here to be urged against Rules of duty.  But though the directions of our Religion be plain, History will acquaint us, that there have been many contrary Practices, as matters of fact. But these are no more to be urged against the rules of duty in this, than in other actions of disobedience, and swerving from God's Commandments. It was worthily said of Grotius, 
Gr. de Imp. c. 3. n. 8.  armorum in Reges sumptorum exempla,— qui non precario, sed proprio jure imperabant, laudari salva pietate non possunt, quemcunque tandem praetextum aut eventum habuerint. The Examples of Arms taken against Kings who governed, not by a precarious but by their own proper right, cannot be commended without violating piety, whatsoever pretence or success they had.  
10. But because some have pretended, 
Though attended with success.  that where such attempts have met with success, this success was a testimony of God's providence approving them, such Pleas are of a very dangerous and evil nature; especially because, 1. They are in some degree blasphemous; as if the holy God who hateth all evil, and hath given strict commands against it, were to be esteemed an approver of all that wickedness in the World, where he doth not either forcibly restrain, or immediately destroy the Offender. 2. This pretence is greatly opposite to the principles of Christianity, both in despising and abusing the patience and long-suffering of God; and in building upon such foundations as can bear no weight, unless men overlook and disregard the future account, and the rewards and punishments of another World.  
11. There have been some instances of the most pious and worthy Princes as well as other good men, meeting with many troubles and injuries in this life. Besides what was done in our own Age and Nation, which cannot be forgotten, nor yet remembered without indignation, it is observed by Baronius, 
Baron. Annal. Eccl. an. 383. n. 5, 6, 7.  that the Emperor Gratian, in that very year in which he had so vigorously endeavoured the subversion of Gentilism, and the advancement of Christianity, was forsaken of his own Army, and died by the hands, and under the scorn of Rebels. And in the Saxon Heptarchy in this Island, in a small compass of time in the seventh Century, seven Christian Kings are related to have ended their lives by violence; 
Full. Ch. Hist. l. 2. an. 642.  whereof four were the first Christian Kings in their Kingdoms, and the other restorers of Christianity. But that which may be truly inferred from such things is, that God doth suffer evil actions and injuries to be done, for some time in this World, and that Piety and Goodness hath a reward beyond this life.  
12. There are those also, who have had the better thoughts of rebellion's practices, 
Or a resolute temper in the Practisers.  because some persons who have been engaged in them died, as is reported of Cassius Cherea in Josephus, 
Jos. Ant. Jud. l. 19 c. 3.  without any sense of remorse, and with an undaunted courage, and obstinate resolution. But the measures of good and evil must be taken from the rules of Duty and Conscience, and the Will of God, and not from the temper and expressions of Offenders and Transgressors. It is too ease a thing to produce examples of the Practisers of the several sorts of sins, who have gone on therein without relenting; which speaks their case the more doleful, and themselves the more hardened. Such was the case of the generality of the Jews in their perverse opposition against the Holy Jesus, and of the Conspirators with Corah against Moses. And when Julian the Apostate from, 
Ammian. Marc. l. 25.  and great Enemy to Christianity, had received his deadly wound, Ammianus Marcellinus relates him to have spoken to this purpose to his Soldiers; that he was not grieved but rather rejoiced at the appearance of death; and that from his past life and actions he found nothing therein to repent of, or that was any trouble to his mind to reflect upon, non me gestorum poenitet, aut gravis flagitii recordatio stringit. And Maximus the Philosopher, 
Bar. Annal. an. 364. n. 16, 17.  who was the Instructor of Julian in Gentilism and its impieties, and the Incentive of all that opposition which Christianity met with under his Reign, as Baronius noteth, did in his defiance of Christianity endure exquisite punishments, with such an erect and resolute mind, as made his spirit to be admired, which Eunapius declared, with the flourishes of many oratorical expressions.  
13. 
Divine judgements against seditious persons.  But though the full declaration of the righteous Judgement of God, is reserved chief to the great day, yet his severe proceed in some special cases, have sufficiently testified his displeasure against the Actors of Sedition. Can any thing be more remarkable than that the Earth should swallow up Corah and his Company, immediately upon Moses his pronouncing that sentence upon them, and that the fire from the Lord should consume two hundred and fifty that offered incense, Numb. 16.30, 31, 35. and a dreadful Plague should presently destroy fourteen thousand and seven hundred of their Abetters? And that these sad judgements had a particular respect to their rebellion against Moses and his Government, as well as to their insolency against Aaron, is manifest from Psal. 106.16, 17. and Numb. 16.3, 13, 14. 
Suet. in Jul. n. 89.  And when Julius Caesar was slain in the Senate, the Roman Histories acquaint us, that scarce any of the Conspirators outlived him above three years, or died a natural death; and that some of them became their own Murderers, and slew themselves with the same weapons, with which they had assaulted Caesar. 
Val. Max. l. 1. c. 8.  And Valerius Maximus relates, that Cassius, who was one of them, being hotly engaged in the Philippian Army, Julius Caesar appeared before him with greatness and majesty; and in his imperial Habit, upon a swift Horse, and with a terrible Countenance, rushed upon him; at which apparition he being affrighted, and expressing his troubled reflections upon the death of Julius, turned his back upon his Enemies. And many other instances of this nature, are mentioned by Rabanus Maurus, 
Rab. Maur. de Reveren. c. 3.  and other Authors.  
14. 
Remarkable Providences in preserving Princes.  And Ecclesiastical Historians give us an account of strange Acts of Providence, for the preservation of many Princes against their Conspirators. As that the Army of Magnentius, when they designed acclamations to him as Caesar, who made an insurrection against Constantius, their voices against their own intention were so overruled, that instead of Magnentius, they named Constantius, and expressed honour to him. And soon after Magnentius being defeated, 
Soz. l. 4. c. 6.  made a present escape by flight, and then murdered first his Mother, and his Brother, and then himself. And the attempts of Gainas, who risen up against Arcadius, are related by Socrates to have been expressed, 
Socr. l. 6. c. 6.  by the appearance of an Army of Angels, as a Guard about his Palace, which so astonished them who were with Gainas, that they gave over their attempt. 
Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 24.  And when the small Army of Theodosius was engaged against the formidable Forces of Eugenius, who rebelled against him, the Enemy's Darts and Arrows are related to have been forced back upon themselves, by the rising of a violent Wind. To these I shall add that late relation concerning King James, Sect. 3 whom when Agnes Samson had undertaken to kill by Witchcraft, 
Spotsw. Hist. of SC. B. 6. an. 1509.  her Familiar Spirit which She employed to effect it, came to her and told her it could not perform it, adding these words which She did not understand, Il est Homme de Dieu, He is a Man of God. And though all these things deserve consideration, the plain Rules of Conscience and Religion give the most full and unexceptionable testimony of the great displeasure of God, against all actings of Treason and Sedition.   

SECT. III.  
The practice and sense of the Primitive Church concerning resistance.  
1. 
The loyal spirit of the Primitive Christians.  Above the examples of any other sort of men, the spirit of the Primitive Christians, deserves to be reverenced and regarded. Whilst they lived under Pagan Emperors, before the time of Constantine there was no such thing heard of, as their undertaking to depose their Kings or Emperors, nor no pretence of power in any Christian Bishop, to absolve them from their allegiance. And I think that for three hundred and forty years after Christ, there can be no one instance given of any Christians making any forcible opposition, by taking Arms against their Governors. 
Con● 〈…〉 p 115  Origen in his time tells Ce●s●s, that he could show 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●o undertaking of Sedition among Christians, who were not allowed to defend themselves against their Persecutors.  
2. 
Under heavy sufferings.  Yet the heavy sufferings of the Christians were then very great, not only by reason of the several cruel deaths inflicted upon divers of them; but also because of the great multitudes who died Martyrs, in bearing the Cross, and following the patience and meekness of Christ. Of which I shall give three instances, from the several parts of the World, in the end of the third, and beginning of the fourth Centurie. 
Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 8. c. 9  Eusebius acquaints us, that in the Dioclesian Persecution, in Thebais, which was none of the greatest Countries of Africa, there were not only for some days, but for some whole years together, sometimes ten or twenty, oft thirty, other times about sixty, and sometimes an hundred with their Wives and Children, in one day slain, by various Methods of cruel death. And he himself had there seen some put to death by fire, and others the same day by the Axe, even so many, that the Executioners were tired out, and their Axes blunted. Such instances speak the admirable patience, hope and obedience of those holy men, and the wonderful Power of God that preserved and propagated his Church notwithstanding so great oppositions.  
3. In Persia, Sozomen tells us, 
Sozom. l. 2. c. 10, 13.  that under Sapores his Reign, there were sixteen thousand Martyrs, of whom an account could be given by name, and that besides them there were so great a multitude, who died for the profession of Christ, that they were more than could be numbered. And in France the Thebaean Legion of almost seven thousand Christians, being all armed, and valiant men, became Martyrs, by the cruelty of Maximianus the Emperor, when they refused to join in the Pagan worship, the Emperor commanded twice that every tenth man should be put to death, but after both these executions, the remainder persisting in the same resolution, were all commanded to be slain. But they according to the counsel of Mauritius and Exuperius, their Commanders, tell the Emperor, that they submitted their Bodies to his power, that they could never be charged with cowardice or deserting his Wars, but in this utmost peril where desperate circumstances might make men more resolute, they would not take Arms against him, yea, said they, though we have Arms in our hands, we will not use them for resistance; 
Ban. an. 297. n. 10, 11, 12. Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. & de Imp. c. 3. n. 14. Cent. 4. c. 12. col. 1420.  tenemus Arma, & non resistemus. This famous Story related by Eucherius and the Martyrology, is thence insisted on by Baronius and Grotius, as also from Crantzius, and others. And a like account is given by the Magdeburgenses from P. de Natalibus, Simeon Metaphrastes, and Vincentius.  
4. And the chief Guides of the Christian Church, who lived under the Arian Princes, and Julian the Apostate, retained the same spirit and sense of their duty. Among other slanders, 
Bar. an. 351. n. 34.  with which Athanasius was charged, he was accused before Constantius, 
Athan. Apolog. ad Const.  of conspiring with, and stirring up Magnentius against him. But Athanasius not only denyeth the fact, and declareth how he had openly prayed for the success of Constantius; but he utterly disclaimeth such things, as not consistent with Christian Principles, affirming, that if there was any appearance of any such thing in him, he would condemn himself to myriads of deaths. And he entreats the Emperor, that he would have no such suspicion against the Church, as if any right Christian, and especially a Bishop, would advise or write any such thing. And much more is in the same Apology, in detestation of resistance, though Constantius was an Arian, and a Persecutor, and Athanasius had in his Reign been ejected from Alexandria.  
5. Under Julian, 
Naz. Orat. 4.  Nazianzen declared that the Christians only arms, fortress and defence, was their hope in God. And when under Valentinian the younger, St. 
Ambr. Orat. in Auxent.  Ambrose was required to yield up his Church to Auxentius, he tells his people, I shall not leave you willingly, if I be compelled, I know not how to withstand. I can grieve, I can weep, I can groan, aliter nec debeo, nec possum resistere, by other means I neither aught, nor can resist. And the language that he, and the other sound Christians then used, was, Rogamus, Auguste, non pugnamus, we ask, O Emperor, we fight not; 
Id. in Epist. 33. a● Marcellin.  and tradere basilicam non possum, sed pugnare non debeo, I cannot yield up the Church, but I ought not to fight. The result of all these testimonies is, that when the authority, laws, and rules of Government they lived under, did oppose the Christian Profession, or the truth and purity of its Doctrine; they thought it their duty patiently to suffer, and not in opposition to those laws which were then established to take up Arms against their Governors. But against the force of this Argument from the primitive practice, there are two Objections which must be answered.  
6 Obj. 1. 
The ancient Christians did not want strength.  Many do assert, that the reason why the Ancient Christians did not resist or depose their Emperors, was, because they wanted sufficient strength to carry on such an undertaking. To this purpose speaks Card. 
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 7.2. 2ae. qu. 12 art. 2. Azor. Instit. Mor. Part. 2. l. 10. c. 2. qu. 2.  Bellarmine, Quod Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem, & Diocletianum, & Julianum Apostatam, & similes, id fuit quia vires temporales deerant Christianis. And to the same purpose writ Aquinas, Azorius, and others. But if this had been a method which God had accounted fit for them to undertake, he who wrought so many miracles for the propagating Christianity, and enabled the Apostles, and other Christians to prevail against the power of Satan in the World; could have made the undertaking of a few Christians, to have been successful against the power of the Empire, as well as he did the Army of Gideon against the Midianites, and Jonathan and his armour-bearer against the Philistines. But that I may further detect the falsehood of this slander, invented to slain the Honour and Loyalty of the Primitive Martyrs; I shall note four things.  
7. First I note, That this suggestion doth cast an high disparagement upon the Precepts of Christianity. For this must speak the Apostles to dissemble, and deal hypocritically, when they command obedience even for the Lords sake, and forbidden resisting the Power, as incurring damnation, and opposing the Ordinance of God; if notwithstanding all this, they would allow the Christians to take Arms against their Rulers, whensoever they should have strength enough to carry on such an enterprise. What is this but to undermine the simplicity of the Gospel, and to suppose the Apostles, under a disguise, to pretend God and Religion, where they had really no regard to them, but to the carrying on a politic design, and a contrivance of craftiness? And upon this account, 
Blackwells Examine. Sect. 3.50, 51.  F. Blackwell-declared his great dislike of this suggestion on calumny. And certainly it is as much against the nature of our Holy Religion, to assert that the Precepts of Obedience, Subjection, and Meekness, should be restrained to those times, when they were in no capacity of doing many great actions, which are contrary to these virtues; as that the commands against fleshly lusts, and pride did only belong to that time, when Christianity was persecuted, and the Professors thereof were in a low and mean estate.  
8. Secondly I note, That this is contradictory to the Spirit and temper, which the ancient Writers declare, concerning the Christians of their time. For besides the frequent Profession they made, of their acknowledging the Governors they lived under, to be constituted by God, and that therefore it was their duty to be subject to them, and honour them: It is not possible that those Christians should forbear Resistance only for want of strength to effect it, who thought it their duty to pray for those Pagan Emperors that their Life and Government might be preserved. 
Tertul. Apol. c. 30.  So Tertullian declared under the persecution of Severus, Precantes sumus semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, etc. We ever pray for all Emperors, their long life, and the safety of their Empire. And Dionysius of Alexandria, 
Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 11. gr.  under the persecution of Valerian and Galienus, averteth that the Christians constantly prayed, that their Kingdom might remain unshaken. 
Aug. in Psal. 124.  And St. Austin saith, that though Julian was an Apostate, an Idolater, and a wicked man the Christian Soldiers were subject to him, their temporal Lord, out of respect to their eternal Lord.  
9 Thirdly I note, That there is no truth in that Plea, that the Christians in the Primitive Times, always wanted strength. For though at the first planting Christianity their numbers were small, yet they did in a short time increase, to great and vast multitudes. 
Apol. c. 37.  Tertullian would never have had the confidence, to make so plain a profession of the strength, and number of the Christians to the Roman Emperor and Senate, if it had not been truth. Saith he, if we would act the part of open Enemies, could we want Numbers or Armies?— we have filled your Cities, Isles, Castles, Camps, etc. for what War should we be unfit, though our numbers were unequal, who can so readily lay down our lives, if our Religion did not require us rather to die, than to draw our Swords to kill others? 
Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. etc. 5.  And among other expressions which he useth to Scapula, the Governor of the African Province, concerning the great multitude of Christians, he tells him, they were pars penè major Civitatis cujusque, almost the greatest part of every City. Had the numbers of Christians been small in St. Cyprian's time, 
Cypr. ad Demetrian.  he would never have written to the Proconsul of Africa, quamvis nimius & copiosus sit populus noster, that though the company of Christians were very great and numerous, yet they would not revenge themselves against the unjust violence of their Persecutors.  
10. But if any persons should groundlessly imagine, that these Christian Writers did either mistake their own numbers or were willing to represent them as more considerable than they really were, for the honour of their Profession, and to make them the more regarded by their Opposers; There can be no such Objection against the testimony of the Emperor Maximus. He was one of the fiercest enemies that Christianity ever had; 
Naz. Orat. 3.  who, as Nazianzen testified, was a greater Persecutor than either Diocletian or Maximianus, and yet in his Epistle to Sabinus, recorded by Eusebius, he speaks it to have been a thing, generally and universally known among men, that in the entrance of Diocletian, 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 9 c. 9 gr.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, almost all men had left the heathen worship, and had joined themselves to the Society of the Christians. And in the time of Julian, 
Theodor. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 1.  not only the greatest part of the Empire was Christian, but even of his Army also; who did so profess themselves, when they had chosen Jovian, to succeed him upon his death.  
11. Fourthly, I note also, That it was truly observed by Barclay, 
G. Barcl. de Potest. Papae, c. 8.  that Valentinian the younger, who was an Arian, might as easily have been resisted, and deposed by the Catholic Christians, as any King or Emperor whatsoever, if they would have undertaken any such thing. For the strength of the Eastern part of the Empire, was then in the hands of Theodosius, who was a zealous promoter of the true Faith; and the main part of the Western Empire was then overrun by Maximus, who continued his power for some years, was an Enemy to the Arians, 
Ambr. Epist. 33. ad Marcellin.  and expressed great respect for S. Ambrose. The Army also of Valentinian, whose residence was then at Milan, where S. Ambrose was Bishop, was so disaffected to the Emperor, that they declared as S. Ambrose informs us, that they would go over to those, to whom S. Ambrose should direct them, unless the Emperor would communicate with them, who embraced the true Faith. But in this Case Theodosius protected and assisted Valentinian, and S. Ambrose disclaimed all resistance against him, and espoused his interest to the utmost against Maximus.  
12. Against this instance Bellarmine allegeth, that it was not a fit Case for the Church to make use of her power towards Valentinian, 
Bellarm. de excus. Barclaii. c. 8.  because he was then but young, and what he acted was by the contrivance of his Mother Justina, who was an Arian; and there might be hopes, that he might afterwards be converted to the right Faith, as indeed he was. But this is but a very week exception. For if any Christian Bishop was entrusted with any superiority over the Crowns of Princes, in order to the Churches good, he would but ill discharge his duty, if he will suffer the Church to be harassed, and persecuted, all the time of their minority, when it was in him to help and prevent this, by the regular exercise of his power. Surely if there was any such authority, which God had placed over the temporal power of Princes, it would have been the most proper time, to have undertaken to rule them in those tender years, in which they are most apt to be imposed upon, and to be led aside by others. Had there been any superior authority, to chastise erring Sovereign Princes, by temporal punishments, it had been most reasonable to begin the exercise thereof in their younger years, that by their timely submission and repentance, the Church might have the greater advantage by their whole future life. And because he was then led by his Mother, it would have been then, if ever, seasonable to have let him understand, that he was bound with respect to the right of his Crown, to please the Bishop of Rome, rather than to be guided by her. But neither in this, nor in any other Case, for many hundred years before and after it, did ever the Romish Bishops, either claim or make use of such authority, though many of them in those ancient times, wanted not zeal, to undertake any thing, even Martyrdom, for the advancement of the Christian profession.  
13. Obj. 2. Some instances are urged, 
Blond. in Sch. ad Grot. de Imp. c. 3. n. 14.  to prove that the Primitive Christians in some Cases, did take Arms against the Sovereign power. When Grotius had urged this argument, from their general submission, without any forcible resistance: 
Primitive Christians vindicated from all appearance of Sedition.  the Scholia annexed in the Margin, under the name of blondel, mention two stories, within three hundred and forty years after Christ, and some others of an after date, as instances of resistance in those Christians. Now if all this were true, the primitive rule in this Case, is rather to be measured by the doctrine, and declared sense of the most eminent men in the Church, than by a few contrary practices. Even in those times there were some evil actions, committed by them who professed the doctrine of our Saviour; the Church was not then free from Heresies, Schisms, and other Crimes, which administered matter for Canonical censures. Yet from what appears, I see not but that the duty of peaceable submission was so universally practised by Christians, unto their secular Governors, for above three hundred years, that they cannot be taxed with any one instance of seditious insurrections.  
14. In the first instance there mentioned it is said, that the Christians by a forcible and perilous assault, did rescue Dionysius of Alexandria from those infidels, who carried him away, in the year 235. Now as I find nothing about that time, concerning any suffering of Dionysius, and because he was not Bishop of Alexandria, 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 35. gr.  till about the year 246. or the third year of Philippus the Emperor, as Eusebius testifieth; and also because what he suffered, was under the persecution of Decius, who began his Reign about 250. years after Christ, I must suppose the year to be misprinted. The story to which this hath respect, I suppose to be this, which is mentioned in Eusebius from one of Dionysius his own Letters. 
Ibid. c. 40. gr.  Before the open persecution of Decius broke forth, Dionysius was seized on, and carried out of Alexandria, and was kept under the Guard of some Soldiers. But a Country man who was going to spend all the night in jollity, banqueting and revelling, according to their custom at Weddings, hearing thereof, declares this to all the rest of the Guests. They with one consent arose, and violently ran to the place, where Dionysius was, and coming thither gave a great shout. The Soldiers flying, they entered the House, and forced him against his own desire and entreaty, to rise out of his bed; and takeing him by his hands and his feet, they drew and haled him out of the House, and set him upon a bare Asses back, and carried him away: and it seems probable that in the consequence, Dionysius had hereby an opportunity to make an escape. this action is by Baronius placed in the year 253. 
Annal. Eccl. an. 253. n. 100  which by an easy mistake might be altered into 235. But it is not manifest that here was any sighting at all; and which is most considerable, there is not any expression in this whole relation, which so much as intimates, that they who undertook this action were Christians. The perusal of the whole story, will persuade an indifferent Reader, that this was a wild exploit and frolic of a Company of rude spirited men in that place, 
Val. in Eus. l. 6. c. 40.  whom Valesius calleth rusticos & temulentos convivas, drunken Countrey-Companions. Nor is it probable, that the Christians of those times, would behave themselves after such a manner as this, either among themselves, or towards so eminent a Bishop And such a charge as this may not be fastened upon them, where there is no evidence at all for the proof thereof.  
15. 
Blond. ubi sup.  the second instance there given, is of the Armenians (i e. of the greater Armenia) whom when Maximinus the Emperor, would by force have turned from Christianity, they defended themselves by War against him in the year 310. and are commended for it. 
An. 311. n. 22, & 57  This action is also observed and related by Baronius, who placeth it in the years 311. and 312. but this was no War against their Sovereign, but against a Foreign Prince, who would have violently forced upon them a false Religion. 
Sozom. l. 2. c. 7.  For this Armenia was a tthat time no part of the Roman empire, but was a Nation bordering upon the Empire, who then had a distinct King of their own, but acknowledged a subjection to the Persians, 
Evag. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 7.  and thereupon this Country was called Persarmenia. But for divers years before and after this War, they were not under the Roman power; and Eusebius who relates this action, 
Eus. Hist. l. 9 c. 7. gr.  declares they were friends and Confederates, till by this undertaking of Maximinus, they became his Enemies.  
16. I confess some years after the Reign of Constantine was ended, 
This loyalt afterwards declined.  there were among the Christians some attempts and enterprises undertaken, of another spirit and nature. 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 2● c. 12. gr.  By reason of the great opposition between the Arians, and the Orthodox Christians; there were in Constantinople and in other places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, frequent seditions and tumults, as Socrates expresseth it; and these took place from about the year 340. 
Ibid. c. 134  then among other things, Hermogenes the Emperor's commander, whom he sent to Constantinople, to dispossess Paulus from being Bishop there, was opposed with force, the House in which he was, being fired upon him, and himself slain in the year 342. Not long after this also, 
Baron. a●. 350. n. 1, 2, 4.  began the more open and contrived rebellion of Magnentius, and though this was undertaken out of ambition and unchristian disloyalty, yet he carried on his designs under a pretence for Religion. He first engaged against Constans the Emperor, who was slain by him, for which abominable Parricide, 
Athan. Apol. ad Constant. Baron. an. 353. n. 5.  Athanasius inveighed greatly against him; and then managed a War against Constantius. And this according to Baronius, was the first time, that the Banner of the Cross appeared in the Field on both sides; one against another: and this was indeed a Rebellious Insurrection, against a Sovereign Prince. But the true primitive and genuine spirit of Christianity, was wholly averse from and unacquainted with such proceed: and when the Christian temper did in divers persons degenerate in this particular, such exorbitant and evil practices were always contrary to the judgement of the chief guides, and Bishops of the Church.    

CHAP. V.  
Of the extent of the duty, and obligation of nonresistance.  

SECT. I.  
Resistance by force is not only sinful in particular private persons, but also in the whole body of the people, and in subordinate and inferior Magistrates and Governors.  
Sect. 1 1. THere have been some, who grant the unlawfulness of taking Arms against a Sovereign Prince, to be a geneal rule for ordinary circumstances; but yet they pretend, there are some great and extraordinary cases, in which it must admit of exceptions. And the proposal of these Cases, as they are by them managed, is like the Pharisaical Corban, an Engine and method to make void the duties of the fifth Commandment, concerning obedience, and submission to superiors. Wherefore in this Chapter, I shall undertake the defence of that assertion of Barclay, 
G. Barcl. count. Monarchomach. l. 3. c. 16. p. 212.  who proposeth the Question, Nullíne casus, etc. may there no Cases fall out, in which the people by their authority may take Arms against their King? 
B. 2. C. 5.  and his answer is, Certainly none, so long as he is King, or unless, ipso jure Rex esse desinat.  
2. 
The whole Community have no Authority to take Arms against their Sovereign.  Now the first Question and pretence, hath respect to the whole body of the people. Whether if the whole or principal part thereof, do account themselves injured, and oppressed by their Sovereign, and judge it needful for their own defence and security, and the common good, to take Arms, and make use of force against him; this authority of the Community, be not a sufficient Warrant for such resistance. This is asserted by the seditious Positions of Mariana, 
Marian. de Reg & Reg. Institut. l. 1. c. 6.  who not only gives a large allowance to Commonwealths, and the generality of the people to divest their Kings of their Government, and take away their lives; but he also grants the same liberty and power, to any members of the Commonwealth, if learned and grave men be consulted, and where there is Publica vox Populi, the common voice of the people inclining that way. And this notion also though not in the same exorbitant degree, is embraced by Bellarmine, and many of the Jesuits, and other men of disloyal Antimonarchical Spirits. But because what I have said in the former Chapters, is both of sufficient force, and clear enough for the refuting hereof, I shall only superadd these brief considerations.  
3. First, That the agreement of the whole body of the people, or the chief and greater part thereof, can give no sufficient authority to such an enterprise; because the whole community are Subjects, as well as the particular persons thereof. And with especial respect to this Kingdom, I above observed, that our Laws declare it unlawful, for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly, to take Arms against the King. The same hath been also acknowledged, by men of understanding in Foreign Countries. As Bodinus, 
Bodin. de Repub. l. 2. c. 5.  concerning England, and other places where the Kings have jura majestatis, concludeth, singulis civibus nec universis fas est summi Principis vitam, famam aut fortunas in discrimen vocare; it is not lawful for the Subjects, either singly, or all of them together, to bring into danger the life, honour, or possessions of the Prince. Secondly, this would open a gap to great confusions, since the body of the people are apt to be imposed upon, and to be led by their passions, as the experience of these latter Ages, as well as the Cases of Corah and Absalon do testify. And the same appears from the whole Congregation of Israel, being forward to cast off Moses, and to make them another Captain, Numb. 14. 2, 4. Thirdly, This liberty may as reasonably be given to a few private persons, as to the whole people; because in such enterprises of the people, they are counselled by, and are generally influenced and led, according to the motions of a few private persons. Fourothly, The Laws of God against any evil actions, and consequently against resistance, do not become void, by any great numbers joining together, in practising what is contrary unto them. When the primitive Christians were the chief part of the Roman Empire, they durst not take up Arms against the Emperor, out of the fear of God, as hath been showed. No sin is to be esteemed the less but the greater when a multitude shall be actors in it. If any violence be offered to a Father or Master, this is not the more allowable if all his Children or Servants join in the Confederacy. And when great multitudes engage in open insurrections, the consequents thereof may be much more dreadful, and calamitious to Mankind: whereas the embodying of small numbers, are the less to be feared, because the more easy to be suppressed.  
4. The next pretence is, that subordinate Governors being also God's Officers, may defend the properties of the Subjects and the exercise of true Religion, 
Brut. Vind. qu. 2. p. 56. & qu. 3. p. 93. edit. 1589. De sur. Mag. Qu. 6.  even by taking Arms against their King. This hath been asserted by such Writers as Junius Brutus, the Anonymous discourse de jure Magistratuum in subditos, others in England in our late intestine Broils, 
Ruth. Qu. 20. & 36. J. Sleid. Com. l. 22. an. 1550.  and Rutherford, of Civil Policy. And Sleidan in his Commentaries reports, that the same was declared in the Magdeburgh Confession. And for the supporting of this assertion it is urged, that all Governors even subordinate as well as supreme, are in the use of their power to serve God, and do justice, and defend the innocent, and do act by God's Authority. As also, that if any person in Ecclesiastical power, how high soever he be, shall oppose the Christian Doctrine, his subordinate Clergy lawfully may, and aught to withstand him. And that saying of Trajan, 
In Vit. Trajan.  mentioned by Dion Cassius, is usually noted to this purpose, who delivering the Sword to an inferior Commander, bade him use this for him, if he should govern well; but against him, if he governed or commanded ill.  
5. 
Subordinant Governors may not resist the supreme.  But such Positions would undermine the peace of the World, and lay Foundations for great disturbances: and thereby the Commands of God would be broken, with the greater force and violence, if those who are invested with some part of the King's Authority, should account themselves thereby impowered, to make use thereof against him. And if this were admitted, the state of Kingdoms must be in danger, whensoever inferior Governors shall be imposed upon, by the subtlety of others, or puffed up by ambition. But this is as far from truth as from peace: though Corah had 250 Princes who joynen with him, and Absalon was assisted by the Elders of Israel, besides Ahitoph●l the great Counsellor of State; this did not justify their Treasonable Conspiracies. And though David was a great Officer at Court, General of the Army of Israel, and the anointed Successor to the Crown, by God's special appointment, and no subordinate Ruler in other Dominions, could have so much to plead for himself in this case, as David had; yet it was not lawful for him to stretch out his hand against Saul. And in the account of the Thebean Legion above mentioned, Mauritius was a great Officer and Commander of the Roman Army, and then in Arms at the head of his Legion, and yet according to the Primitive Christian principles, professed a detestation of making resistance. And therefore this pretence is justly rejected, 
De J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 6. & de Imper. c. 3.  with some vehemency by Grotius, as being against Scripture, reason and the sense of Antiquity.  
6. Indeed all persons in Authority are bound to do justice, but this must only be in their Sphere, and according to the proportion of their power: but they cannot be allowed to set themselves over their Superiors, to usurp upon their Authority, or to deny Subjection unto them. And with respect to their Sovereign, Officers both by Charter and Commission, have their Authority depending upon him, and are as much his Subjects as other men are; and besides the common bonds of Subjection, do all with us take the Oath of Supremacy, and Allegiance. Now as a Servant may not put himself into the place of a Ruler or Judge, over his Master, to force him to what he thinks equal; no more may an inferior ruler do to his Prince. To this purpose it is observed by Sleidan, 
Sleidan. Comment. l. 17. An. 1546.  that the Elector of Saxony, who was then the chief person against the Emperor, in the Germane Wars, under Charles the fifth, did openly declare, that if Charles the fifth was owned to be Caesar, or a proper Sovereign, with respect to those great Princes of the Empire, it must then be granted, cum eo belligerari non licere: that it was not lawful to make War with him. And whereas subordinate Rulers are to be submitted unto, and dramatic, in the regular use of their Authority ●●●et if they shall oppose the Superior ●●●●r, they are to be deserted and the acting against them, in discharge of duty to the Sovereign, is no disobedience. Thus S. Austin, 
Aug. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 6.  ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite; consider the orders, steps and degrees of human affairs. If the Curator command one thing, and the Proconsul another, must not the greater power be obeyed? and so also where the Proconsul commands one thing, and the Emperor the contrary. And St. Peter in commanding submission to inferior Governors, makes use of these bounds of Subjection, as unto them who are sent by him, i. e. the King.  
7. 
Disparity between secular and Ecclesiastical Governors.  The objection from the comparing the case of Ecclesiastical and Civil Rulers, is of no weight, because of the great disparity that is between them. The withstanding an Heretical Bishop, who would impose corrupt Doctrines upon the Church, if this be certain and manifest, may lawfully be undertaken, not only by the inferior Clergy, but by other Christians: and herein they only do their own business, of keeping the Faith, holding to the truth, and rejecting what is contrary thereto. 
Cyp. Epist. 68  And S. Cyprian when Basilides and Martialis Spanish bishops had closed with Pagan Idolatry, accounted that ordinary Christians ought to separate themselves from such guides. And though in our age, too many causelessly reject communion with those Officers whom Christ hath set over them, which is a sin of no low degree: yet it must be acknowledged, that there may be just causes for such withdrawing from Communion, in obedience to the Christian Doctrine. But it can never be lawful for private Christians, to usurp to themselves Episcopal power, which would be unaccountable and Sacrilegious. 
Aug. ubi sup.  And if a Sovereign power should command any to embrace Heresy, or reject the true Religion, or to become unjust to others; to refuse such evil practices, is their duty they own to God, who is the Supreme Governor, and so far they act in their own Sphere: but if they take Arms, they then take to themselves the power of the public Sword, which is the Sovereign's right, and are thereby guilty of invading what is not their own. Besides this, there is no Ecclesiastical Officer whosoever, but his Authority is inferior to the Authority of the Universal Church, of which he is a member; and this principally takes in the Apostolical and Primitive Church: and all Christians are bound to hold to the doctrine and unity of this Church, against any bishop or Officer whomsoever, who departeth fromit; whereas Sovereign Princes are subject to God alone, and not to any other upon earth. And therefore the comparison would be more equal between a secular Sovereign, and the Catholic Church, as to the Supremacy of their Authority under God alone.  
8. 
Of the words of Trajan.  The words of Trajan, which some have urged, seem to have been a popular, and somewhat unadvised expression, calculated for the obtaining the applause of the people; somewhat like that of Marcus Antoninus to the Senate, 
Xiphilin. ex Dion.  who said to them, we have so far nothing our own, that the very House we dwell in is yours. Or they may also be intimations of a strong confidence, that he should never himself decline to evil ways, or put any of his Officers upon unworthy actions. But the argument from these words is weak and inconsiderable, and the determining the true sense of them is not material, unless it could be proved, that this saying of Trajan, is that which all the World ought to observe as their rule, rather than the Principles of equity, the directiions of Scripture, and the sense of the primitive Church.   

SECT. II.  
Some Cases which have respect to the Prince himself, reflected upon.  
Sect. 2 1. Since some other Cases have been discoursed on by learned men, I shall take such notice of them as is needful, with particular respect to the Government of this Kingdom. Wherefore it will be needless for me to inquire into those Cases mentioned by Grotius, 
De J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 8, 14, 15.  of the lawfulness of taking Arms against such a Prince, who hath no supreme power, or who hath no just and warrantable right and title, or who receiveth his Government upon express condition, that in some special circumstances, it shall be lawful to make resistance against him, or relinquish obedience to him. For such Princes as these are supposed to be, have no complete Sovereign right, and the consideration of such things is of no concernment to our English Government.  
2. 
Ibid. n. 9  Another question hath been proposed concerning Princes, who voluntarily and freely relinquish, and lay aside their Crown and Government. And there have been several instances of this nature, as in the Emperor charles the Fifth, Christina of Sweden of late, Bambas of Spain, which is expressed in one of the Councils of Toledo; 
Conc. Tolet. 12.  and in the space of two hundred years; nine Saxon Kings have been observed to have done the like in England. 
Fuller's Ch. Hist. l. 2. an. 718.  And if such persons should act against the settled Government of their respective Kingdoms, after they are fixed in the next Heir, in an hereditary Kingdom, or in another King, according to the constitution of elective Principalities, the resisting any of them, is not the taking Arms against the King, but against him who now is a private person.  
3. 
Barcl. count. Monarchom. l. 3. c. 16. p. 213.  The Question concerning a Prince, who shall undertake to alienate his Kingdom, or to give it up into the hands of another Sovereign Power, against the mind of his Subjects, hath been considered by Barclay, 
Grot. ubi sup.  Grotius, and before them both was reflected on by Bishop Bilson. And I think them truly to assert, 
Bills. of Christian subject. l. 3. p. 479. & 520.  that such an act of alienation, or of acknowledged subjection, especially if obtained by evil methods, as was done in the case of King John, is null and void; and therefore can neither give any right of Sovereignty to another, nor dispossess the Prince himself thereof, as was said in the former Book. But if any such Prince shall actually, and forcibly undertake, to bring his Subjects under a new supreme power, who have no right thereto, and shall deliver up his Kingdom, to be thereby possessed, 
Ibidem.  Grotius doubteth not, but he may be resisted in this undertaking; but then this resolution must proceed upon this ground, that this action encludeth his divesting himself of his Sovereignty, together with his injurious proceeding against those, who were his Subjects. 
Barcl. ubi sup.  And Barclay who allows only two cases, in which a Prince may be devested of his royal Dignity, doth account this to be one of them. But concerning this I think it chief necessary to add, that a disquisition of this nature, hath much in it of the needless niceties of many disputes of the Schoolmen, wherein they contend about empty Notions, and exercise themselves in speculations, which are not like to be of concernment to Mankind. For men's ordinary duties do not depend on such extraordinary, unlikely, and merely imaginary suppositions. And therefore this case might well enough have been omitted, were it not that some might account it a defect, to take no notice of what other men thought fit to propose; and possibly some may account such things to be of more weight, than they really are.  
4. The last case which I shall take notice of, as mentioned by these and other Writers, is expressed in high words, which yet are of no great weight, when throughly examined; to wit, whether if a Sovereign Prince should actually undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom, or any considerable part thereof, they may not in these circumstances, have liberty of defending themselves by taking Arms. This Question is started and urged by Junius Brutus, 
Vindic. count. Tyr. Qu. 3. p. 184. etc.  and insisted on by other subverters of Sovereign Power; and is needful to be discoursed, because here such men take sanctuary who would undermine the duties of submission. 
It is not reasonable to imagine a King to undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom.  But good men ought to be cautious, even of admitting any such uncharitable suppositions to enter into their hearts, concerning their own Rulers, whom God hath commanded them to honour and reverence: and much more ought they to be wary, that they do not account themselves, to have ever the more liberty to evade God's Commands, and their ordinary duty of subjection and allegiance, by the putting such general and more than extraordinary cases. Wherefore I shall first take notice of what is proposed, concerning the whole Dominions of a Prince, or a whole Kingdom; and then concerning any considerable part thereof.  
5. The suggestion of a Sovereign Prince, out of mere will or passion, undertaking to cut off, or to ruin and destroy the whole Body of his People, are expressions which make a great noise, and have a terrible sound and dismal aspect; but like a Spectrum though they may affright, they have little of substance under them. 
Adu. ●●● narch. l. ● c. 〈◊〉 212.  I acknowledge that this is the other only case in which Barclay esteemeth a Sovereign Prince of forfeit his right of Government, and that thereupon it may be lawful to resist him. 
l. 3. ●●. p 159. l. 6. c. 23. p. 503. etc. 24. p. 513.  And the comparing several places in that Book, will necessitate the interpreting those expressions, to extend only to this case, which allow the people under the fiercest and highest tyranny to resist, provided they exceed not the bounds of mere defence, without any attempts of invading or revenging. But then withal he will not allow in this case or any other, the taking Arms against the Sovereign 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 citys, 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 Sovereign 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 overmuch 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 Arms is not a notion but a matter of fact; and therefore the reason and ground of such undertake, 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 public acknowledgements also must be referred, this pretence is no sufficient Plea for Subjects to take Arms; 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. 
Adu. 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 placing 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 spoke them savagely cruel, might probably vent much more, than would ever be enterprised and attempted. And it seemeth considerable, that S. Paul's 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 poison 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 inhuman; and Subjects upon the mentioned pretence, take Arms 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 murmur, as one who intended to ruin 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 spoke 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 Governors, 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, 
Dust. 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 destroy 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 Sovereign power undertaking to cut off a considerable number of Subjects.  if a Sovereign Power undertake to destroy any great or considerable part of the people. Such things in some Cases, have oft happened in the World: but herein the English constitution doth afford peculiar advantages, and securities to the Subjects of this Realm, above what is in many other Sovereignty's. But these Cases may be best judged of, by ranking them in several Orders, and by observing particular instances of fact, which have happened under other different Governments.  
11. Wherefore 1. Sovereign Powers have sometimes undertaken to destroy a part of the people, 
Where this is a proceeding according to the Laws and Rules of the Government, and upon great crimes.  upon account of some great or enormous crime charged upon them, and by virtue of such a public sentence, which may be called Judiciary and legal proceed. Amongst the Israelites when they had no King or Judge, the chief power was in the heads of the Tribes; in which time that horrid wickedness was committed by the men of Gibeah, upon the Levites Concubine, Judg. 19 But the Benjamites standing in defence of these wicked men, 
Antiquit. Jud. l. 5. c. 2.  that they might not suffer deserved justice, that whole Congregation of Israel set themselves against the Tribe of Benjamin, Ch. 20. And they bond themselves by Oath, saith Josephus, to act more fiercely against them, than their Fathers had done against the Canaanites. And when this whole Tribe, Men, Women and Children were utterly destroyed, except six hundred men, the same Author tells us, that both the Israelites, and these surviving Benjamites, acknowledge that this execution was just. 
Ibid.  And indeed those Benjamites, who undertook the defence of that heinous wicked action, did thereby entitle themselves to the guilt thereof: 
Ambr. Ep. 65. ad Syagr.  for S. Ambrose rightly declares, non minoris esse criminis tantum facinus defendisse, quam exercuisse; it is a matter of no less crime to defend so great a villainy, than to commit it. And about the same time, the Inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead were utterly destroyed by the Congregation of Israel, except four hundred Virgins, because they were so far Favourers of this wickedness of the Gibeathites, that they would not join with the rest of the Israelites to punish it. 
Oros. l. 7. c. 12.   
12. The Jews also after their Commonwealth was destroyed, and themselves dispersed in many places of the Empire, risen up in rebellion in Reign of Trajan and also of Adrain, when they were headed by the pretended Messiah called Barchocab, or the Son of a Star, with respect to that prophecy of the Star of Jacob, Numb. 24.17. (though the Jews found sufficient reason to call him Barcozib, the Son of a Lie) and proceeded with that fury, that they laid many places utterly waste, both about Egypt and Libya, 
Buxt. Lex. Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio. cit. à Scldeno.  and other Parts of Africa and Cyprus. And both the. Jewish Chronicle Tzemach David, and other Historians, account two hundred thousand, or a greater number, to have been then slain by them, about Alexandria, and the Parts of Egypt. 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 2, 6.  To prevent the like sad effects in Judea and Mesopotamia, where Orosius relates them to have been in Arms also, in the time of Trajan, the Emperor determined the destroying all the Jews there, as a stop to the Enthusiastic Fury of that people. And upon this account, great multitudes of the Jews were destroyed by him, and Adrian his successor, in several Countries; especially in and near Judea, in the Expedition of Qu. Lucius, and the taking the City Bitter. What the Jews themselves express, 
Buxt. Lex. Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  concerning the vast numbers who were then destroyed, is indeed utterly incredible; but Eusebius mentioneth infinite multitudes cut off, and Dion speaks of five hundred thousand slain by the Sword. All which was the sad effect of the seditious outrages of the Jewish Nation, when they might have otherwise enjoyed safety.  
13. To these I add the instance of Thessalonica, in the Reign of Theodosius the Emperor. 
Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 17.  When there had been a great tumultuous in surrection in that City, wherein some of the Magistrates were stoned to death; the Emperor highly incensed at the hearing thereof, gave sentence for the destroying the Inhabitants of that City, which was the Chief City of that part of the Roman Empire, 
Sozom. l. 7. c. 24.  under the Praefectus Illyriae. And accordingly seven thousand men were slain, even the innocent with the guilty, all cut off together as Corn by the Sickle. For which Fact, proceeding from great unadvised passion, that Emperor upon St. Ambrose's reproof, manifested great repentance.  
14. Now the destroying innocent persons can never be just, and the kill Infants among others, though allowed and sometimes enjoined, under the Mosaical Dispensation, is certainly so contrary to the Spirit of Christian meekness, that under the Gospel it may in no case be defended. Yet forasmuch as the Sovereign Power in Judea, 
The Subjects under the English Government have great advantages above many others.  and many other Eastern Nations, and also in the Roman Empire, as their Laws declare, had such an authority that the particular Rescripts and Edicts of the Emperors, were accounted law, and what they determined, was esteemed a legal decision or sentence, and a judicial way of proceeding: From these Considerations, I suppose it was not lawful for any of the persons in the instances , (though some of them were unjustly sentenced) to have taken Arms in their own defence. But they were in this case to commit themselves to him that judgeth righteously, as our Lord and Saviour hath jest us an example to do. For if it were lawful for persons condemned without just cause, to resist by force the proceed of a judicial Sentence pronounced by the greatest authority, according to the Constitution of that Government, than were they not in subjection to that Government and Authority. And they who were guilty of Capital Crimes, were upon account of their offences, so much the more obliged to submit themselves and their lives, either to the justice or mercy of their Sovereign, and not to add to their former crimes a continued resisting just Authority. But the excellent Constitution of our English Government hath this advantage among others, that it gives sufficient security to the English Subjects, that there is no way of judiciary and legal proceed, by the King himself or any other, against the life or property of any person, 
Magn. Chart. c. 30.  who lives peaceably and orderly, but according to the established Laws of the Land, and upon a fair trial of his case: Nor will our Laws allow any such general sentence, which may take in innocent persons.  
15. And secondly, there have also been cases in World, where a Sovereign Power hath engaged, in the destroying a great part of their Subjects, who were guilty of no real Crime, 
Where the Laws of a Government condemn innocent persons, who die Martyrs, they may not take Arms.  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 public laws under which they live, it is unquestionably no sufficient Plea to take Arms. Of this nature were the Persecutions, and all the sufferings of the Christians, under the Pagan and Heretical Emperors, 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 Arms, 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 daniel's Accusers into the Lion's 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 Soldiers of Constantius the Arian Emperor, were by his Command, sent to force them to become Arians, they took Arms 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 Emperor, 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 Saviour's 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 Arms for their own defence. But with respect to such proceed 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 Sovereign Power against law and right to resolve to ruin 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 Governor 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 Arms? 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 Kingdom (or in most others, if not all) any such enterprise, by the true Sovereign 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 ruin a great part of his People, against the plain declarations of the established Laws of the Realm.  
18. Had Antiochus Epiphanes been the true Sovereign 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 shown. 
Jos. An. l. 12. c. 6. Liv. Dec. 5. l. 5.  And when he invaded Judea, he was as a Lion bereft of his Prey, being forced to return from his designed attempts upon Egypt, 
Justin. l. 34.  by the resolute denunciation of Popilius the Ambassador 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 Arms 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, Tried, 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 include a disclaiming the governing those persons as subjects, and consequently of being their Prince or King. And then the expressions of our public Declaration and acknowledgement would still be secured, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms 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 wit's end; and make them justly doubt, since you refuse the course of all divine and humane laws with them, whether by the law of nature they may not defend themselves against such barbarous Bloodsuckers. And then he adds, Yet we stand not on that: if the laws of the land where they converse, do not permit them to guard their lives, when they are assaulted with unjust force against Law, or if they take Arms as you do to depose princes, we will never excuse them from Rebellion.  
20. But in truth the Case , ought not at all to be supposed, or taken into consideration, either with respect to this public acknowledgement, or any thing else. For there is greater hurt to be feared from the making such suppositions, than from the thing supposed; since it is much more likely, that such designs should be imagined, and believed to be true, when they are false (as they were in the unjust outcries against our late Gracious Sovereign) than that they should be certainly true. And every good man, yea every reasonable man may have as great confidence, that no such case will really happen, as can be had concerning the future state and condition of any thing in this World. 
The princes main interest is to preserve the just Rights of his Subjects.  For though it should be supposed that some princes may be tempted to think, that by such means they might carry on some present design which might please themselves, or some other persons who flatter them into it; yet this will appear to be against their grand interest. And the constant preservation of our Fundamental legal rights by our Kings, doth manifest that they well understood, how much their interest and their subjects were linked together: and withal the considering this, is of great use to quiet and satisfy the minds of subjects; and therefore I shall take some notice thereof.  
21. First with respect to Christianity, 
1. As to Christianity and the otherworld.  and the interest of another World. For though Princes bear not the Sword in vain, but may and must use severity, where it is necessary, against evil doers; yet the precepts of Righteousness, Meekness and Love, and the laws of Nature, and of Christianity, do as much oblige the greatest persons upon Earth, as other men. And since they have a righteous Lord and Governor in Heaven, thereupon the dying words of David, spoken by divine inspiration, are to them a necessary Rule, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God, 2 Sam. 23.3. And they are also as much concerned as others, in the threaten against the disobedience of these divine Precepts. And the Holy Scriptures speak much, of the sad estate of all persons whomsoever, who practise Oppression, Cruelty and Unmercifulness. And the future tortures in another World, of the greatest persons who were evil and injurious here, is also plainly expressed by Plato. 
Plat. in Gorg. fin. & de Repub. l. 10.  Indeed Christianity alloweth repentance; but that repentance which is available, in Cases of wrong and injury, must include a necessary care of restitution, and reparation.  
22. Secondly with respect to their honour and esteem. 
2. Their honour.  As a good name is useful to all men, so an high and honourable reputation of Princes, gains them that reverence and respect in the World, which is of great moment to themselves, and their Kingdoms. But whilst it is their honour to secure the welfare of their Subjects, the open violating their Rights will expose them to be accounted persons of no Fidelity and Integrity. And every man accounts his own interest to be maintained and upheld, in the establishing Righteousness and Justice, but when men calmly consider things, they account Injustice and Oppression to be injurious to the general state of Mankind. To this purpose any ordinary man who invaded what was another's right, was accounted by Philo to be, 
Phil. de Decal.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Common Enemy of humane Society. What was it that made this Kingdom so uneasy and weary, under those who commanded it, before his Majesty's Happy Restauration, but that the just Rights of his Majesty, and others, were then prostrated, and the Laws of the Realm, and the established Religion subverted? And the methods of unrighteousness are the more distasteful to all men, because he who is unjust to one, if he have opportunity, and can propose to himself an advantage thereby, is like to be so to another.  
23. Thirdly with respect to their safety. Solomon observed, 
3. Their safety.  Prov. 16.12. that the Throne is established by Righteousness. And it must needs be so because this with other acts of goodness, is the way to obtain the blessing of God, and also to engage the good affections, and hearts of the Subjects, which are the great security and defence of Princes. But where unrighteousness hath manifestly prevailed, though not in the highest degree, to contrive utter destruction, it hath oft been of fatal consequence. Cicero observed, 
Cic. de Offic. l. 2. prope fin.  that when in the Lacedaemonian Government, Rights were frequently invaded against Justice, this occasioned first the ruin of the Governors, and then of the Commonwealth, and brought great troubles also upon the neighbouring parts of Greece. And when the Cruelties, 
Suet. in Domit. n. 10, 11, 14.  Extortions and Impiety of Domitian, made him to be feared and hated of all, his own Friends and Intimates, and his nearest Relations, who knew not how to think themselves secure, were the persons who contrived and effected his Death.  
24. Fourthly, 
4. Their inward satisfaction.  with respect to the quiet peace and serenity of their own minds. How much inward perplexity attendeth the greatest men, who are most guilty of Cruelly and Oppression, especially when their Consciences are awakened, by the sense of any approaching dangers, is evident from the great terror and fearfulness, which surprised Caligula, Nero, and others of the like spirit. To this purpose the account given by Philip de Comines, 
Coming. l. 7. c. 2.  concerning Ferdinand and Alphonso, Kings of Naples and Sicily, is very remarkable. When Ferdinand through his Cruelty and Oppression, was hated at home, and could by no means procure Peace with the French, his mere grief for his miserable condition broke his heart, and ended his days. His Son Alphonso who equalled at least the miscarriages of his Father, though he seemed before to be a man of an high spirit, and great Courage, was now perpetually possessed with such amazement, that in the night in his sleep he ordinarily cried out of the approach of his Enemies, and thought that not only men, but even Trees and Stones, were the appearance of the French coming against him. In this his consternation, he resigned his Kingdom, fled from Naples into Sicily, and soon died. And though his Son Ferdinand was of a better temper, the Subjects being disgusted, by these former Kings, and not being hearty in his defence, he was overcome by his Enemies, lost his Kingdom, and a little after left the World.  
25. Thus severe punishments (from the dirae ultrices, 
Aurel. Vict. in Caracalla.  as Aurelius Victor noted, or rather) from the justice of the righteous God, oft attend and torment the greatest Potentates, for their unrighteous actions, and therefore the doing justice, which God particularly enjoins, must needs be their interest as well as their duty. And as all these things I have mentioned are useful considerations against all injuriousness, so are they of especial weight against the highest oppression and designs of ruin. And besides what I have here discoursed, 
Ch. 2. Sect. 2. n. 3, 4, etc.  I also refer the Reader to what I have said in a former Chapter, concerning the security which Subjects have of their interest and property, though they may not take Arms against their Sovereign. And these things may be sufficient to quell, and suppress uncharitable and unreasonable and unchristian jealousies, and suspicions, if they be impartially and calmly pondered.  
26. Wherefore since our Religion enjoins us to fear God, and honour the King, let no evil imaginations be entertained to hinder this duty. For as we by the mercy of God, live under a Prince of great Clemency and Justice, so there is little cause to fear, that any Sovereign who stands so much concer●●d from the most solemn obligations, and his own interest every way, to maintain and preserve the Laws, and the good of his people, should ever endeavour against these established Laws, to contrive the ruin of them: nor can there be any pretence that lesser inconveniencies should be a foundation for Warlike Insurrections. And let every Christian practice that Obedience and submission to Superiors, which the Rules of Equity, the nature of Civil Society, and especially the Laws of our Christian profession do require. But let that unruly and turbulent spirit be utterly rejected, unto which ungoverned passions provoke evil men. 
Joseph. Ant. l. 17. c. 3.  This was one part of the bad temper of the Pharisees, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such who had a special faculty of opposing and going counter unto Kings: but no such thing was in the Life or Doctrine of our Saviour, nor aught to be in any, who own themselves to be his Disciples.  
27. And now I shall conclude, with an humble and hearty Supplication to Almighty God, in which I entreat the Reader to join also. That he would bless and preserve our present Sovereign, and that he and his Successors may always Rule in Prosperity and Peace, and in a constant exercise of Piety, Justice and Mercy: That they may ever effectually maintain, and promote the true profession and practice of Religion, and the welfare of the Church of God: That these Kingdoms may flourish, and be under the continual blessing of God, and his Protection and Care, and that the Inhabitants thereof may faithfully serve him: And that no  Jealousies and Suspicions, or any evil Seeds of Discord, may take Root amongst us, and that our Holy Religion may never henceforth be evil spoken of, through any  practices of Rebellion, which are opposite to true Christian Loyalty. Amen.     
FINIS.