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 [Page 2]consent unto, B. 1. C. 1. do concern matters of so high importance; that both the being, and the purity and perfection of a Church, doth very much depend upon the consideration thereof; to wit, the order and way of its worship, the due honour it gives to the King and Secular Authority, the truth of its doctrine, and the right and regular or­dination of its Ministry. That the publick worship of God in our Church is free from all just exception, and agreeable to the rules of Christianity, and the best and pri­mitive patterns, I have given some account in a former Treatise: And in this discourse, I shall treat of that Authority and Dignity, which is justly yielded and ascribed to the supreme civil power.

2. Loyal Prin­ciples use­ful to the world. And if a general right understanding of this matter could every where be ob­tained, together with a practice suitable thereunto, it would greatly contribute to the advancement and honour of Christia­nity, and the peace of the world. The great miscarriages and irregular practices, by not yielding to Soveraign Princes their due Authority, hath strangely appeared in the enormous Usurpations of the Romish Church, and the frequent distractions of the Empire and other Kingdoms, which have been thence derived. For the Roman Bishop, who still claimeth even where he [Page 3]possesseth not, Sect. 1 by his exorbitant encroach­ment upon the Royalty of Kings, especi­ally in matters Ecclesiastical, and there­upon in Civil also; did advance himself un­to the highest step of his undue Papal ex­altation. And he thereby also more firm­ly fixed, and rivetted his usurpation over other Christian Bishops, and put himself into a capacity of propagating his corrupt doctrines, without probable appearance of any considerable check or controul, and with the less likelyhood of redress and re­formation. And from the like cause have proceeded divers exorbitancies, in opinion and practice, concerning the Church and its Government, in another sort of men. And the want of Conscientious observance of the duties of subjection, hath too often manifested it self in the world, by the sad effects of open tumult and rebellion, all which hath highly tended to the scandal of Religion.

3. It seemeth also considerable, that almost all Sects, and erring parties about matters of Religion, (and many of them to very ill purposes) do nourish false con­ceptions and mistaken opinions, concern­ing the civil power. 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 [Page 4]by some few; or else depress it so low, as to devest 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 it self into so many several streams and Channels. And I heartily and humbly beseech the Almighty God, and Governour 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 acknowledgment of the Rulers just authority in his Dominions, against all false pretenders, and those who would undermine it, or incroach 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 [Page 5]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 chiefly 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 publick acknowledgments, 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 publick 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 [Page 6]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 politick — 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 Soveraign Lord the King, which is obvious in our Statutes. By out Laws also since the Reformation, the usur­pations which had incroached 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 Kings Highness to be the only supreme Governour 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 enclined 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 Kings Majesty is in ge­neral the chief Governour 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 Noon-day. For there is an actual, constant, visible exercise of this Government, in [Page 8]such an ample manner, as to extend it self 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 Soveraign 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 Soveraign 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 Governour, 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 judg­ment 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. & poen. 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 [Page 10]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 inferiours, 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 superiour authority upon earth, is a Su­preme Governour.

2. But it is neither necessary, nor most suitable to supremacy of Government, that the rules by which the Governour 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 chuseth of him­self; or else freely accepteth and consent­eth to them, if they be formed to his hands, or proposed by others. For it is no abatement of the high Soveraignty of the Glorious God over the world, that all his government and executing judgment, is ordered according to the natural and [Page 11]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 Governour, when the exercise thereof is, and ought to be managed by rules of com­mon equity. Yea, the Kings of Judah en­joyed a compleat 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 Emperours yielded to their conquered and tributary Principalities, at their Petition and desire, the priviledge of being governed by their own former laws (as was done to Judaea, by their Persian, Josep. Ant. l. 11. c. 4. &c. 8. lib. 12. c. 2. &c. 3. lib. 14. c. 17. Grecian, Egyptian, Syrian, and Roman Governours, under whose Dominion they were) this was no giving the Supremacy of Government out of their own hands; [Page 12]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 priviledge 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 it self, 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 Kings 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 [Page 13]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 fighting 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 Governours of the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; and argues, they may not baptize 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 Governour, 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 soveraign 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 intirely 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 [Page 15]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 Kings 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 Kings 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 mens 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 Soveraign 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 ac­knowledgment of Royal Supremacy in cau­ses Ecclesiastical. And in temporal affairs, what authority the God of nature hath planted in any other persons, still remain­eth intire 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 Emperour; Caligula by this subtile and wicked method, brought him to be so un­der his immediate government, as to have [Page 17]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 publick authority, observed.

1. Though these things might of them­selves seem clear enough, we have yet fur­ther two authentick 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 Queens Injunctions. [Page 18]There the Queen disclaiming all authority, of ministring 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 Soveraignty 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 ought 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 publick 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 [Page 19]is set forth in an admonition, annexed to the Queens 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 publickly 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 Queens Majesty, the chief Go­vernment, by which title, we understand the minds of some slanderous folk to be offended, we give not our Princes the mi­nistring of Gods 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 alway, 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 Ʋsher in his Speech at the sentencing some Recusants, in the Castle Chamber at Du [...]lin explained the Kings Supremacy, according to this article of our Church; At the end of his An­swer to the Jesuits Challenge. King James so approved his explication thereof, that he returned him particular thanks for the same, which is printed with his speech. And the Bishop therein plainly asserted, that God had established two distinct powers on earth; the one of the Keys, committed to the Church; and the other of the Sword, which is committed to the civil Magistrate and by which the King governeth. And there­with he declareth, that as the spiritual Ru­lers, have not only respect to the first ta­ble, but to the second; so the Magistrates power, hath not only respect to the second table, but also to the first.

5. From all this we have this plain sense, That the King is supreme Governour (that is under God, say the Injunctions, and with the civil sword say the Articles) as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; that is, he hath the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born in these Dominions, of what estate soever, either Ecclesiastical or tem­poral, say the Injunctions, and to the same purpose the Articles. Only here we must observe, that the King's being supreme Go­vernour [Page 21]in all things and causes, is one and the same thing, with his having the chief Government over the persons of all his subjects with respect to their places, actions, and employments; and therefore is well explained thereby. For it must ne­cessarily be the same thing, to have the command or oversight of any Officer, sub­ject, or servant, about his business; and to have a command or over-sight concerning the business in which he is to be employ­ed: and the same is to be said concerning the power of examining their cases, or pu­nishing neglects and offences.

6. And from hence we may take an ac­count, Of supreme head of the Church of England. Def. of A­pol. Part 6. Ch. 11. div. 1. of the true sense of that title, used by King Henr. 8. and King Edw. 6. of su­preme head of the Church of England. This stile was much misunderstood by divers Foreigners, seemed not pleasing to Bishop Juel, and some others of our own Church, was well and wisely changed by our Go­vernours, and hath been out of date for above sixscore years past. And though this title was first given to King Hen. 8. Tit. Of this civil Ma­gistrate. by a Convocation and Parliament of the Ro­man Communion, it was used all King Ed­wards days, and then owned even in the book of Articles. And the true intended sense, from the expressions above mention­ed, appeareth manifestly to be this, to ac­knowledge [Page 22]the King to be head or chief Governour, even in Ecclesiastical things, of that number of Christians, or that part of the Catholick Church, who reside in these Realms, and are subjects to his Crown, even as Saul by being anointed King, Wh. Treat. 8. ch. 1. div. 4. Bishop Saund. E­piscop. not prejud. to reg. p. 130, 131. Mas. de Min. Ang­lic. l. 3. c. 4. was made head of the tribes of Israel, 1 Sam. 15.17. And according to this sense, the use of this title, was allowed and justified by very worthy men, such as Bishop Whit­gift, Bishop Saunderson, M ^r Mason, and others. And to this end and purpose, it is the just right of the King of England, to own himself the supreme Governour of the Church of England, which was a stile some­time used, by our pious and gracious King Charles the First, Declar. be­fore 39. Articles. in his publick Declara­tion about Ecclesiastical things, but with due respect to the Ecclesiastical Offi­cers.

7. In the ancient Church, it was not unusual for him, who had the chief pre­eminence over a Province, or a consider­able part of the Christian Church, to be owned as their head: Can. Apost. 34. whence in the anci­ent Collection or Code called the Canons of the Apostles, the chief Bishop in every Nation, was required to be esteemed by the rest [...], as their head. And that Bishops may be called heads of their Churches, is asserted by Gregorius de Va­lentia, [Page 23]from that expression of Scripture lately mentioned concerning Saul; Tom. 4. Disp. 1. qu. 8. punct. 4. which yet must more directly and immediately prove, that title to be applicable to a So­vereign Prince. And as the name of head, is only taken for a chief and governing member, the Author of the Annotations upon the Epistles, under S. Hierom's name, was not afraid of this expression, In 1 Cor. 12. Sacerdos caput Ecclesiae, the Priest is the head of the Church.

8. And though that Statute, whereby the title of supreme head of the Church of England, was yielded to King Hen. 8. 26 Hen. 8.1. doth assert the Kings power to correct and amend, by spiritual authority and Juris­diction; yet that this was intended only objectively, concerning his government in spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes, or his seeing these things be done by Ecclesiastical Officers; and was only so claimed and used, we have further plain evidence, both concerning the time of King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. Under the Reign of King Hen. 8. by his particu­lar command, for the acquainting his sub­jects with such truths, as they ought to profess, was published a Book, called, The Institution of a Christian man, which was subscribed by twenty one Bishops, and divers others of the Clergy, and the Pro­fessors [Page 24]of Civil and Canon law; and in the dedication thereof to the King, Of the Sacr. of Orders. f. 39. by them all, is given to him this title of Su­preme head in Earth, immediately under Christ, of the Church of England. In this Book, besides very many other things to the same purpose, it is asserted, That Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the new testament, that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes (which is called potestas gladii, the power of the sword) there should also be continually in the Church militant, certain other Ministers or Offi­cers, which should have special power, authority, and commission under Christ, to preach and teach the word of God, — to dispense and administer the Sacra­ments, — to loose and absolve, — to bind and to excommunicate, — to order and consecrate others in the same room, order and office. f. 40. And again, This said power and administration, in some places is called claves, sive potestas clavium, that is to say, the Keys, or the power of the Keys, whereby is signified a certain limi­ted office, restrained unto the execution of a special function or ministration. f. 41. And yet further we have therein this very clear passage, That this office, this power and authority, was committed and gi­ven [Page 25]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 Chri­sten Kings and Princes, to be the most high and supreme, above all other powers and offices, in the regiment and gover­nance of his people. f. 50. Ʋnto them of right and by Gods commandment it belongeth, principally to defend the faith of Christ and his Religion, — and to abolish all abuses, heresies and idolatries. Notwith­standing we may not think, that it doth appertain unto the office of Kings and Princes, to preach and teach, to admini­ster the Sacraments, to absolve, to ex­communicate, and such other things, be­longing to the office and administration of Bishops and Priests: but we must think and believe, that God hath made Chri­stian Kings to be as the chief heads and over-lookers, over the said Priests and Bishops, to cause them to administer their office and power committed unto them purely and sincerely; and in case they [Page 26]shall be negligent in any part thereof, to cause them to supply and repair the same again.

10. And for the time of King Edward, it is manifest from the Book of Ordinati­on, that the offices of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, the power of remitting and re­taining sins, and the Pastoral authority in the Church, was accounted by ordina­tion to be committed to those persons on­ly, who receive such ordination. And in his time, the royal authority and dignity is described, K. Edw. Inj. 1. and asserted in his Injuncti­ons, in the very same words, whereby it is declared in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and no otherwise; Qu. Elizab. Injunct. 1. and almost in the same phrases which are made use of in our Canons: Can. 1. 1603. i. e. that the Kings pow­er, within his Realms and Dominions, is the highest power under God, to whom all men within the same Realms and Domi­nions, by Gods law owe most loyalty and obedience, afore and above all other pow­ers and potentates upon earth.

11. Now these things do clearly mani­fest, that the spiritual authority of the Clergy, was both in King Hen. and King Edwards reign, owned to be really di­stinct from the secular authority, and was not swallowed up into it. And this I have the rather taken notice of, because it gives [Page 27]us a clearer prospect into the plain sense of the interpretation of the Kings Supremacy, Sect. 4 as it was declared in the Admonition, an­nexed to the Queens Injunctions, unto which the explication of the statute, and Articles do refer. And what is herein ob­served, from the Institution of a Christian man, is the more considerable, because that Book was then designed by the King and Bishops, as a guide to direct the Bi­shops and Preachers, what they should teach the people committed to their spiri­tual charge, as is very often expressed throughout the whole Book, almost in every leaf of a great part thereof.

SECT. IV.
The spiritual authority of the Ecclesiasti­cal Officers, is of a distinct nature from the secular power, and is no way pre­judicial to Royal Supremacy.

1. The wisdom and goodness of God is eminently conspicuous, both in founding his Church, and establishing an Ecclesiasti­cal Society and authority, and also in or­dering a civil polity in the world. And these two things were well observed by Ju­stinian, to be high instances of the great goodness and bounty of God towards men; [Page 28] Maxima inter homines dona Dei sunt, a superna collata clementia, Novel. 6. sacerdotium & imperium. And these two being both of them from God, do not, if rightly un­derstood, clash with, but are useful and helpful to one another.

2. Of old the same person oft King and Priest. Whilst God was worshipped only in some particular Families, of the holy Patri­archs, he who was the chief Governour of those Societies, was also in the place of a Priest to that Family, whence Noah, Abraham and Job offered Sacrifice. And in those ancient times, in some principali­ties, the same person was King and Priest; as Melchisedec was both King of Salem, and Priest of the most high God; and [...] which in the Hebrew is the ordinary word to express a Priest, Phil. de vit. Mos. l. 3. p. 681. doth also signify a Prince. And Moses himself before the Jewish Go­vernment was compleatly formed, sustained the office both of a Prince and a Priest; whence Philo in his description of a com­pleat Governour, maketh the Priest­hood to reside in him, as then it was in Moses.

3. And from the traditions of the anci­ent times, the general custom of divers Pagan Nations might have its original, who in several distant parts of the world, conjoined in the same person the royal au­thority, and the Priesthood. This was [Page 29]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 Emperours at Rome, had likewise the Office of Pontifex Maximus, and used this title in several Edicts, as part of their stile of dignity, of which we have a plain instance in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 29. concerning Galerius Maximinus, and Constantius. This was also ordinarily impressed upon their coins, where sometimes the proper imperial title was stamped on the one side, and that of Pontifex Maximus on the other, as ap­pears in that Medal exhibited to this pur­pose, M. Freh. Tr. de Nu­mism. cen­sûs. Xenoph. de Inst. Cyr. l. 2, 3, 8. by Marquardus Freherus. And that Cyrus the King of Persia, did himself both Sacrifice, and annex his Prayers therewith, is observed by Xenophon. And there are [Page 30]several learned men who assert, that this title of Pontifex Maximus was retained, Bar. An. 312. n. 94, 95, 97, &c. and an. 383. n. 6. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 10. à p. 329. ad 344. as an ordinary part of the Imperial stile, even by the first Christian Emperours, un­til the time of Gratian, who, according to the testimony of Zosimus, is said to have rejected it, as unsuitable to Christianity. And it is certain, that this title was given to some of them, and even to Gratian him­self as well, and as oft as to any other, in some few publick inscriptions, which are urged to this purpose by Baronius and Selden. But as these inscriptions were pro­bably ordered by others, and not by these Christian Emperours themselves; so we have this evidence, that none of these Emperours affected, or ordinarily used this title, if they did at all own it, not only in that Gratian openly declared against it, but also, 1. In that none of them used it in any of their publick edicts, as was done usually by the Pagan Emperours. 2. Nor so far as can be collected from the various medals stamped in their times, did they make use thereof as the Pagan Empe­rours had done, in any of their Coins, which M ^r Selden acknowledgeth. Seld. ibid. 3. It is mentioned by Sozomen, Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. as one of the notes of Julians forsaking Christianity, that he called himself [...], or the Pon­tifex.

4. But when God eminently revealing his will by Moses, had formed a more pub­lick, Ecclesiasti­cal and ci­vil power, separated in the old Testament. ample, and visible establishment of a Church in the World, under the Jewish dispensation, than was before it, he then divided the Kingly authority and the Priesthood, into distinct hands. And no­thing is more manifest, than that under Judaism, the Priesthood was fixed in the Family of Aaron, Ex. 28.1. ch. 40.15. And when Corah, who was of the chief Family of the Levites, which had the charge of the most holy things, ( Num. 16.1. compared with Num. 4.4. &c.) and his Company, undertook presumptuously to invade this office, they were punished with severe, dreadful, and miraculous judg­ments, in that the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up the Company of Corah, Num. 16.32, 33. and the fire that came out from the Lord, consumed the two hun­dred and fifty men that offered incense, Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 4. c. 3. Phil. de vit. Mos. l. 3. p. 693. v. 35. and as the ancient Jewish Writers tell us, there was not any member of these men remaining, which could receive a Bu­rial; and from hence the Jews received a strict admonition, that no man whosoever, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near, to offer incense before the Lord, v. 40. And this peculiar priviledge of the Family of Aaron, was further confirmed, [Page 32]by the miracle of Aarons rod blossoming, Num. 17.1.-10.

5. And that the King and chief ruler among the Jews, being not of the line of Aaron, might not intermeddle with the execution of this Priestly Office, is mani­fest, besides the general rules of the law, from other special instances. For when Saul undertook to offer Sacrifice, 1 Sam. 13.9, 13, 14. he was sharply rebuked by Samuel, and thereupon God denounced this heavy judgment against him, that his Kingdom must not continue. And when Ʋzziah attempted to offer incense, he was smitten with le­prosy for this transgression, Ant. Jud. l. 9. c. 11. 2 Chr. 26.16, 22. to which Josephus addeth other testi­monies of the divine displeasure against him, and telleth us that this judgment up­on Ʋzziah, was inflicted on one of their solemn Feast days; which, if it was so, might render it the more remarkable.

And the reason why God fixed the Priesthood in the Family of Aaron, and not in Moses, and the successive Gover­nours; was not chiefly, Ant. l. 3. c. 10. as Josephus repre­senteth Moses to speak, from the worth and desert of Aaron: But it tended much to excite the greater reverence and awe, towards the majesty of God, and an high­er veneration for the offices of Religion, that no person, no not the highest among [Page 33]men, might perform these sacred offices, of approaching to God by offering Sacrifices and Oblations, save only those persons, whom God had particularly set apart for that purpose. And withall the Priest blessing in the name of the Lord, and espe­cially Aarons putting the sins of the peo­ple upon the head of the live-Goat, Lev. 16.21, 22. which included the applying Gods pardon to them, and other Priestly performances, which were not mere acti­ons of natural Religion, but depended up­on Gods institution, could not be per­formed, but by an especial and peculiar authority derived from God to that intent, or in the language of the Apostle, Heb. 5.3. No man taketh this honour to him­self, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

7. And in the state of Christianity, And under the Gospel. as Christ hath established the Officers of his Church, so there seemeth rather more rea­son, for the peculiar distinct institution of these Officers, under the Christian Church, than under the Jewsih. For while the Jewish Priests chiefly acted for men towards God, in Sacrifices and Oblations, the Christian Officers do in more things than they did, act from God and in his name towards men; which in the nature of the thing, doth more especially require [Page 34]an authority, peculiarly received from God. For who can deprive any person, of the communion of that Society which Christ hath founded, or receive and re­store them unto it, but by the authority which he hath appointed? Or how can any persons consecrate Symbols, and dis­pense them, as sealing the Covenant of grace, and exhibiting from Christ, the blessings and benefits thereof to the due re­ceivers; unless they be those, who have received Commission from him to this pur­pose? Or who can pronounce absolution in Christs name (which is also implicitely included, in the administration of the Sa­craments, and other ministerial Offices) un­less he hath given them such particular au­thority? And the same may be said of so­lemn Ecclesiastical benedictions, with im­position of hands, and particularly of the ordination of such Officers in the Christi­an Church, who are to be invested with this authority.

8. And that this Ecclesiastical authority under the Gospel should be committed to peculiar Officers, and not fixed in them who have the civil power, is that which the wisdom of our Saviour hath appoin­ted, who did not call secular rulers to be his Apostles. This was partly requisite, be­cause there are different qualifications, to [Page 35]fit persons for secular government, and for presiding in the Church; and because the Christian Church being called to take up the Cross, should not be destitute of its guides in a time of persecution, when it may need them most. But this also maketh the communion of the Church it self, as it is a peculiar Christian Society, and its dependance on the grace of God, and its relation to him, to be the more visible and remarkable, by the distinct Officers and authority, constituted to dispense the my­steries of his grace. And it tendeth also to conciliate an higher honour and venerati­on, for the particular institutions of God and our Saviour, in the new Covenant, in that the administration of them, is the proper designed work, of such peculiar officers of his appointment. And there­fore if any would make the Ecclesiastical offices, to be an authority appendent or annexed unto the civil, he undertakes to unite those things which are in Synesius his phrase, [...], Synes. Ep. 57. such as cannot be knit or woven into one another.

9. But it is to be observed, Ecclesiasti­cal Officers not exclu­ded from all civil Govern­ment. that though these offices be so distinct, that none ought to perform the Ecclesiastical ministrati­ons, but they who are ordained thereto, and that no Ecclesiastical person hath any civil power, by mere vertue of his Ec­clesiastical [Page 36]office; and though the inter­medling with such matters of civil affairs, as in the nature of them are unsuitable to the Clergy, are reasonably prohibited by the ancient Canons: yet it would be against all reason to imagine, that all civil Government because civil and political, is inconsistent with the state of an Ecclesiasti­cal person, since he is a part also of the ci­vil Society, or the body politick. In the Jewish state, Syn. Ep. 121. in some extraordinary cases, that was very true which Synesius obser­ved, that the chief secular power was in the Priest; so it was under the govern­ment of Eli, in the days of the Maccabees, and the succeeding times, when Aristobu­lus is observed by S Hierome, Hier. in Dan. 9. to be the first who there joined the royal authority and Diadem, with the Priesthood. But even under the reign of David, the Le­vites; and in the time of Jehosophat, Deut. 17. v. 8.-12. the Priests and Levites are plainly according to the law declared to have been appoin­ted, for Judges and Officers of the Realm, 1 Chr. 26.29-32. 2 Chr. 19.8. and many other expressions of the Old Testament, are interpreted by M ^r 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 [Page 37]of the Apostle, those who are Offi­cers in the Church, ought to take care of the Government of their own Families, which is a civil affair and authority. And whilest the Church was under Pagan Prin­ces, V. Const. Apostol. l. 2. c. 46. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. it was usual for the Officers thereof to sit in judgment, to decide all matters of controversy among Christians: which was according to the direction of our Saviour, Mat. 18.17. and of this Apostle, 1 Cor. 6. as I shall in another place take notice. And the making peace and deciding differen­ces, was thought a work so well becoming such persons, and was so usually practised by them, about S. Austins time, Aug. de Oper. Mo­nach. c. 29. Posid. de Vit. Aug. c. 19. that he mentions these things as those, the hearing and determining of which, took up a considerable portion of his time. And no­thing is more manifest, than that divers Imperial Edicts of pious Princes, did pecu­liarly reserve the cognisance of most causes relating to the Clergy, besides others, Sozom. l. 1. c. 9. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 4. leg. 7, 8. Novel. 83, & 86, & 123. to the hearing and decision of the Bishop. And as Ecclesastical Officers are members of the Community, and subjects to their Prince, it is very allowable, that they should so far as they can, be every way useful unto both, and thereby also to the Churches good.

10. But this distinct constitution of the Church and its Offices, A distinct Ecclesiasti­cal power, no prejudice to the civil. is no diminution [Page 38]of the civil authority and its supremacy, but rather an enlargement thereof, and an advancement of its dignity. For the whole state of the Christian Church, is founded in the superabundant grace, and favour of God towards man; and the Ec­clesiastical authority of its Officers, being the ministry of reconciliation, is quite of a different nature from secular power, be­ing wholly superadded over and above it, and without any infringment thereof. Right of the Church, ch. 4. p. 168. Review ch. 1. p. 13. Didocl. Alt. Dam. cap. 1. p. 15. And hereupon the whole power of the Church, is by some Writers termed a cumulative, and not a privative power, as taking no­thing from the civil; and the same terms are used, concerning the right of the se­cular power, in matters Ecclesiastical, as be­ing without any abatement of the proper spiritual power. Yea, the whole civil au­thority towards all subjects whatsoever, doth not only still remain intire to the secular Ruler, but he also receiveth this accession thereunto, from the constitution of Christianity, that the object of his go­vernment is so far enlarged thereby, that he hath a right of inspection and care, even of those matters, which the grace of God, or the Gospel dispensation hath established. And this doth also so much the more exalt his honour and dignity, in that not only all subjects, in their general capacity as [Page 39]such, Sect. 5 are obliged to submit themselves to their Kings and Princes; but that even those Officers of the Church, which in their Realms are established, by the pecu­liar appointment of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, are also included under this du­ty, and are not the less subjects, notwith­standing their relation to the Church. To which I may add, that there are peculiar arguments, for honour and reverence unto Rulers, which the doctrine of the Christi­an Church affordeth.

SECT. V.
A particular account of this Supremacy, in some chief matters Ecclesiastical, with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto.

To give a more particular account of Supremacy, in some chief matters Ecclesi­astical, we may observe, 1. The Princes care about the power of the Keys. That though the power of the Keys, in admitting any person into, rejecting him from, or guide­ing him in the Communion of the Church, as a Society founded by Christ; and the dispensing Christian mysteries, can be ex­ercised by none, but the particular Officers of Christs Church, to whom it is com­mitted; yet the Prince may command [Page 40]them to mind and do their duty therein, and if need so require, punish their neg­lect. Indeed it belongeth to the Ecclesi­astical power to determine rules, for the due exercise of the power of the Keys; and the ordering such rules is part of that pow­er, which hath been frequently exercised in very many Canons of several Councils. But the soveraign power hath a right to take care, that these rules of Government be practised and observed. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 3. Nov. 6. & 123. And the esta­blishing laws of this nature, was very fre­quent, both in the Empire, and in other Christian Kingdoms: and those of Justini­an have been especially taken notice of to this purpose. And though the late Cano­nists do broadly censure him, as inter­medling too far in Church affairs; yet Ba­ronius himself is here so modest, Annal. Ec­cles. An. 528. n. 1. as to al­low low that there is much in this particular to be said in his excuse; and the late learned Archbishop of Paris, P. de Mar­c [...], de Con­cord. Sa­cerd. & Imp. l. 2. cap. 10. hath sufficiently shewed, that the more ancient Bishops, Pa­triarchs and Councils, did applaud and honour these his Constitutions in things Ecclesiastical.

2. And the worship of God. 2. Touching the worship of God, since the divine establishment of the pub­lick Christian service, is contained in the Gospel, no authority upon earth hath any right to prohibit this. And those Christi­ans, [Page 41]who rightly worship God, in the true Catholick Communion, according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church, have a right to hold such assemblies for the Chri­stian worship, as appear useful for the Churches good, though this should be a­gainst the interdict of the civil power. As this is well and largely asserted by M ^r Thorndike, Right of the Church, Ch. 1. p. 4. &c. so was it practised by the Christians under their Persecutions, and even by the Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours. But the Sovereign Ru­ler hath a right to promote this publick worship, and to establish it by a civil San­ction, to protect the Church therein, and to punish those who neglect it, and in this sense Princes are, as Amalarius stiled Lud­vicus Pius, Amal. Pras. lib. de Eccles. Offic. Rectores totius Religionis Christianae, quantum ad homines perti­net; Governours in what relates to the Religion and worship of Christianity. And the civil Ruler hath also a right to oppose those, who are guilty of schismes and oc­casion unchristian divisions, in the pub­lick worship of God, and in so doing S. Austin undertakes to warrant him, as well he may, from the doctrine of the Apostle. That he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, Aug. Ep. 164. and they that resist re­ceive to themselves damnation, that he is a terrour to evil works, and a revenger [Page 42]to execute wrath on him who doth evil: tota igitur quaestio est (saith he) utrum nihil mali sit sohisma; the only thing to be enquired into in this case is, whether there be no evil in the sin of Schism. And though the method and rule of the publick worship it self, is to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Officers, to whose immediate care the Church is committed; yet the secular power hath a right to see that this be done, to establish such orders of worship by their Sanctions, to provide for their due observance, Cod. l. 1. Tit. 3. l. 10. and that they may be perform­ed without disturbance. And such things as these were established by the Imperial law.

3. And the doctrine of Christiani­ty. 3. Concerning the Christian do­ctrine and profession, though no authority hath any right to oppose any part of the Christian truth; Princes may and ought to take care of the true profession thereof in their Dominions, and to suppress such dangerous errors as are manifestly contrary thereunto; Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. & G. Novel. 132. as was done by the pious Em­perours in the ancient Church, against Ari­anisme, Donatisme, Manicheisme, and other Heresies. But in cases of difficulty, for the deciding or ending of controversies, about matters of faith, the disquisition and Resolution of the spiritual guides ought to take place and to be embraced; be­cause [Page 43]they are by their office Pastors and Teachers, and their joint and regular de­terminations of great moment for the Churches peace; and also because the Church as a Christian Society (and there­fore the guides and Officers thereof, in the first place) is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 16. Cod. ubi sup. Novel 131. Upon this account were many ancient Councils convened, and even the first general Council of Nice. And accordingly hath the doctrine esta­blished in the four first general Councils, been constantly received in the Christian Church: hence also both the Imperial law, and the Canonical decrees, Dist. 15. c. sicut, &c. Sancta. reverence the doctrine of these Councils, tanquam sacras scripturas, and a very high respect is given to them in our English laws. And the Arian Emperours who lived after the Council of Nice. could not by their Impe­rial power, null its decision of doctrine, after its plenary establishment and confir­mation. V. Ch. 5. Sect. 1, 2, 3. But in such cases the Catholick Christian Emperours, did by their autho­rity establish the decisions of the Oecume­nical Councils. And as it is no abatement of the Royal Supremacy in civil matters, that when controversies are determined by able Judges, and sometimes by a con­sultation of many of those Sages, their de­terminations should be established by the [Page 44]royal power; no more is the like pro­ceeding in matters of Religion, any dimi­nution of the royal power, when the re­gular determinations of Catholick Coun­cils are owned thereby: but this method of proceeding doth in both the cases men­tioned, evidence that the royal power is exercised with due Christian care, for the best attaining the designed end. But in matters of truth which are plain and ma­nifest, from the holy Scriptures them­selves, and the primitive Christian Do­ctrine, or the Declarations of approved Councils agreeing therewith; the secular Governour so far as is necessary, may pro­ceed upon the evidence thereof to his own understanding.

4. Supremacy concerning order, de­cency, and peace in the Church. 4. In establishing rules and Constitu­tions for order, decency, and peace, it belongeth to the Ecclesiastical Officers, who are Guides and Overseers of the Church, to consult, advise, and take care thereof, and this was a great part of the business of many ancient Councils, and the Canons thereof. But yet this is with such dependance upon the regal power, as I cannot better express, than in the words of our late So­veraign King Charles the First If saith he, any difference (in the Church of England) arise about the external policy, Decl. before 39. Articl. concern­ing Injunctions, Canons, or other Consti­tutions [Page 45]whatsoever thereto belonging, the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad Seal so to do, and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land. But in such an extraordinary case, as that in the primitive times was, when the civil power will not own the Church, the Ecclesiastical Governours by their own authority, may establish neces­sary rules of order, as was then done. But since the external Sanction of such things, doth flow from the general nature of power and authority; wheresoever the temporal power will take that care of the Church which it ought, it hath a right to give its establishment to such Constitutions; and the Ecclesiastical Officers as subjects, are bound to apply themselves thereto, for the obtaining it. And as the Canons of Councils were usually confirmed by pious Princes, so the Constitutions of the Impe­rial law, did require the Canons to be ob­served as laws. Nov. 6. & 131. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 2. l. 6, 12. And the Calling of Councils.

5. 5. The calling of Councils, so far as is needful for the preservation of the peace and order of the Church, may be performed as the former, by Ecclesiastical Officers, where the civil disowneth the [Page 46]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 gover­nour, if he will make use thereof, as hath been declared by the chief persons of this Church. Can. 1. 1640. And the ancient right and exer­cise of the authority of Kings, in summon­ing provincial or national Councils, De Conc. Sac. & Imp. l. 6. c. 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, &c. The Kings just autho­rity in mat­ters Eccle­siastical op­posed. is suf­ficiently observed and asserted by P. de Marca.

6. But against these just rights of the Princes power, there are various opposi­tions. Such are the claims of the Romish Bishops universal Supremacy, either in all affairs, or at least in all things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical; as also the pretence for the necessity of general liberty, and exempti­on from all authority in matters of Consci­ence and Religion, Ch. 6. & 8. which things I shall so far as is needful, in due place particularly consider.

7. The Writers of the Romish Church, do 1. V. l. 2. De­cretal. Tit. de Jud. c. At si cleri­ci. c. Cle­rici. Tit. de foro comp. c si diligenti. Bellar. de Cler. c. 28. Generally assert (and some other parties also encline the same way) that the state of the Church, and all Ecclesiastical affairs, are exempt from the civil power, and not under the inspection and govern­ment thereof; and that the Clergy as such, are not subjects to the secular Governour; and that they are not accountable before [Page 47]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, 2 which is also asserted by some of the Romish Bi­ships, Innoc. 3. in Conc. La­teran. Leo 10. in Bul. Re­form. in Conc. La­ter. 5. Ses. 9. Azor. Tom. 1. l. 5. c. 12. Laym. ubi sup. c. 8. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp. 9. qu. 5. p. 4. Bannes in 2. secundae qu. 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 shew that all members of the Chri­stian Church, are nevertheless subjects or the Realm, and that the nature of civil Soveraignty, doth directly include a right to givern them, and an obligation to take care of the affairs of the Church, this will sufficiently refute these contrary posi­tions.

8. But these Writers are sensible, that in the general practice of the Christian World, almost in all ages thereof, secular Governours have interposed in many cases Ecclesiastical. And the great advantages, from Christian Religion being established, and Gentilisme opposed, by the Laws and Constitutions of Constantine, and other worthy Christian Emperours, are so visi­ble, that they cannot be denied; and [Page 48]therefore the Romanists do acknowledge, that the Princes care of the Church affairs, is of great use, I. Zecch. de princi­pe l. 2. cap. 5. and that he is as Laelius Zec­chius expresseth it, Ecclesiae brachium, & Religionis propugnaculum; the arm and defence of the Church, and the fortress of Religion. Greg. de Valentia ubi supra. Laym. l. 4. tr. 9. c. 10. P. de Mar­ca de Con­cord. l. 1. cap. 12. & in Pro­legom. p. 28. Yet that all this may be consi­stent with the former positions, we have another device set on foot, which acknow­ledgeth, that this useful power of Sove­raign Princes, in things Ecclesiastical, must be owned only as a priviledge, granted them by the Bishop of Rome, and that they must act therein as by his favour, and as his deputies, and by the right of protecting the Church which he committeth to them.

9. Now though this pretence will fall with the former, if it be manifested that the nature, end and constitution of civil government, as established by God, is to be extended to matters Ecclesiastical; yet concerning this pretence, I shall here fur­ther note these things. 1. That they must cast reflections upon the wise and good God, who asserting the great usefulness of the civil Ruler interposing in matters Ec­clesiastical, will not grant that the wisdom and goodness of God, should be as ready to allow the Church this advantage, as the prudence of the Pope. 2. That if this an­thority [Page 49]in matters Ecclesiastical, be against the rules of the divine law, which God hath established, for the honour and free­dom of his Church; the Bishop of Rome dealeth ill with the Church, touching its freedoms, by giving them away, and makes very bold with God, by daring to confront Gods laws with his priviledges, and indulging any person to disobey them. 3. That Christian Princes would be in a very unsafe condition, whilest they act any thing about the affairs of the Church, if they have no better foundation to bear them up, than the pretence of the Popes power to dispense with the laws of God. Surely had Justinian thought, Novel. 58. that his care of the Church had been so ventuous and hazardous an enterprise, it would have cooled the heat of his zeal, that he would never have professed, his care for the Churches wilfare, to be equal to that for his own life. 4. That whilest any per­sons do think it meet, that Princes should act under the Pope, as his deputy, in the affairs of Religion, to whom they owe no subjection, and from whom they receive no ruling authority; it must certainly be much more reasonable that they should act under God, and as his Deputies, whose Vice-gerents they certainly are, and from whom I shall now design to prove them, [Page 50]to have authority in matters Ecclesia­stical. B. 1. C. 2.

SECT. I.
Their supreme authority over things and persons sacred, manifested.

1. Kings in the Old Te­stament go­verned a­bout things of the Church. Art. 37. THE inference which may be made, from the authority of the Kings, under the Old Testament, is an argument to which our Church hath a great respect, in asserting the Royal Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical. In her Articles she decla­reth, this acknowledgment of Royal Su­premacy, to be a yielding that only pre­rogative unto our Kings, which we see to have been given always to all godly Prin­ces in holy Scripture, Can. 2. by God himself And in her Canons she threatneth excommuni­cation, against them who shall affirm, that the King hath not the same authority in [Page 51]causes Ecclesiastical, Sect. 1 that the godly Kings had among the Jews. Wherefore I shall for the inforcing this argument, shew, 1. That the Kings of Judah had, and ex­ercised a supreme power of Government, in things belonging to the Church. 2. That they did this by such a right, as is common to all other Soveraign powers, and not by any peculiar priviledge; and 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 Ʋz­zah 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 [Page 52]second temple, and there was nothing more sacred than this, R. Dav. Kimchi in Hagg. 1.8. in the peculiar Oe­conomy of the Jewish dispensation. Yet whereas the Ark was sometimes separated from the tabernacle, and the temple, it is evident that it was David the King, who ordered and appointed the removing of the ark of God, from Kiriathjearim to the House of Obededom, and from thence to the tent, which he had pitched for it in Zion, 2 Sam. 6.1, 2, 10, 12. 2 Chr. 1.4. and when he fled from Absalom, by his command to Zadok and Abiathar, the chief Priests, the Ark of God which did accompany him, was carried back again to Jerusalem, 2 Sam. 15.25, 29. And it was at the command of King Salomon, that the Ark was brought from Zion, and placed in the temple, which he had built, 2 Chr. 6.11. 1 Kin. 8.1, 4. And when amongst other corruptions in Religion, the Ark was removed from the holy of holies, it was again replaced there, by the autho­rity of King Josiah, 2 Chr. 35.3. So that the Kings of Israel and Judah took care of this holy thing, Salian. M. 2544. n. 431. which as Salianus expresseth it, was nobilissima pars sanctua­rii, quasi thronus Dei, & locus unde ora­cula fundebantur.

3. The Temple. The holy temple was the house of God, and it with the Altar, were in an [Page 53]especial manner dedicated unto God, and yet the Kings authority had to do with it, and the affairs thereof. The Laws of God required, that the presumptuous and wilful murderer, should be taken from Gods altar, that he might die, not al­lowing as Philo noteth, Phil. de 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 Salo­mons authority, Joab was commanded from the bornes of the altar. 1 Kin 2.30. and when he refused to come from thence, this his carriage considered, the command of Salomon to Benajah to slay him there, seemeth warranted by the law above-mentioned, and is vindicated even by Salianus, and Cornelius à Lapide. Salian. an. 3022. n. 21. A Lapide in 3 Reg. 2.31. The cleansing and purging the temple from all defilement, was performed by the command­ment of Hezekiah, 2 Chr. 25.3, 5, 15. and the like was again done, in the refor­mation undertaken by Josiah, 2 Kin. 23.4, 6, 7. The repairs also of the temple, and the manner of disposing of the trea­sures thereof to that purpose, are taken care of by the order and command of Joash, 2 Chr. 24.4, 8, 11, 12, 14. and by the commandment of Hezekiah, were Cham­bers prepared, within the limits of the tem­ple building, for the receiving of offer­ings, [Page 54]and tithes and things dedicated, 2 Chr. 31.11, 13.

4. The Priests and Le­vites. The Kings had a manifest Soveraign­ty over the Priests, who were the chief officers of the temple service, yea even with respect to their service, in the wor­ship of God. After the Priesthood was established in the Family of Aaron, Aaron himself though high Priest and elder Bro­ther, Abarbinel in Ex. 30. Phil. de praem. & poenis. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 2. n. 2, 3. acknowledged Moses to be his Lord, who had the secular soveraignty, is in the Scripture stiled a King in Jesurun, and is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers to have had a royal authority, Ex. 32.22. Num. 12.11. And though Moses enjoyed a singular dignity, in being a divine Le­gislator, yet that this title was given, and was due to Moses, as chief civil Gover­nour, is manifest, because Ahimelech also the High Priest, giveth unto Saul the same title, owning him to be his his Lord, and himself to be his servant, 1 Sam. 22.12, 15. And David speaking to Zadok the Priest, taketh to himself this title of being his Lord, 1 Kin. 1.33. and gives him a command to anoint Salomon. And it was very usual for the Kings, by their authority to command the Priests, even with respect to their temple service, and to have such commands observed, as appears in the reign of Salomon, 2 Chr. 8.15. of Heze­kiah, [Page 55]2 Chr. 29.21, 24, 27. and of Josi­ah, 2 Chr. 35.10, 16. The courses of the Priests attendance on their service, was ordered by David, 1 Chr. 24.3. by Sa­lomon, 2 Chr. 8.14. and by Hezekiah, 2 Chr. 31.2. And by the authority of Hezekiah and his Princes, the great Pass­over in the second month was obser­ved, 2 Chr. 30.2, 3, 4, 5. which was ac­ceptable to God, v. 12, 20.

5. Gr. de Va­lent. Tom. 4. disp. 9. qu. 5. punct. 4. Layman. The. Mor. Lib. 4. Tr. 9. c. 8. n. 2. Wherefore that argument which some Romanists make use of, to prove that Princes have no authority over Eccle­siastical persons, because God under the Old Testament took the Levites to be his, and he gave them unto Aaron and his Sons, Num. 3.9, 12. and Num. 8.11. — 19. and therefore, say they, they were under subjection to no secular power, nor to any other save only to Aaron and his Successors; is a very weak inference, sinc the High Priests themselves, were mani­festly under the Royal authority. For this being Gods Ordinance, and his people be­ing under its government, it can be no way incongruous, that what is his, should be under the inspection of that which hath his authority. And that the Levites were under the Government of the Kings, is ob­vious from the holy Scriptures, 1 Chr. 15.4, —11, 12— ch. 16.4. 2 Chr. 29.30. and from many other places. E 4 6. The

6. The Kings Soveraignty over the Pro­phets, is also very evident. The Pro­phets. For though the Prophets when they delivered their message from God, and in his name, might require obedience, even from Kings, unto the God, of Israel; yet that themselves as subjects of the Realm, were under the Kings authority, is sufficiently testified, by the instance of the Prophet Nathan, be­sides what I shall superadd in the following Chapter. For Nathan acknowledged him­self the servant of David, 1 Kin. 1.26. and that David was his Lord, v. 11, 27. and David owned himself to be his Lord, v. 33. and gave him command concerning the inaugurating of Salomon, v. 32, 33, 34. which Nathan observed, Schickard de Jur. Reg. Heb. c. 4. The­or. 13. Carpzov. in Schick. ibid. v. 38. And the testimony of the Jewish Rabbins, Mai­monides and R. Bechai, have been by others observed, who from the example of Nathan, 1 Kin. 1.23. declare, that a Prophet is to stand before the King, and to do reverence to him, with his face to the Earth.

7. Idolatry, &c. Concerning other general and neces­sary matters of Religion, it is so plain from the History of the Scriptures, that idolatry, witchcraft, and other such gross pollutions, were punished and suppressed, by the authority of the good Kings, that it is needless to refer to particular places. [Page 57]When Micah and the Danites had an House of Gods, it is particularly obser­ved, that in those days there was no King in Israel, Jud. 17.5, 6. ch. 18.1. which words do plainly intimate, that if there had been then a King, or setled Gover­nour, it should have been his care to pro­hibit, and root out such transgressions against God; and S. Aug. asserteth, Aug. Epist. ad Boni­fac. that other Kings ought to serve God as heze­kiah did, who destroyed the Groves and Temples of Idols. And that Josiah the King was to destroy the Altar of Bethel, was foretold, 1 Kin. 13.2.

8. Now though most of these things, with many others of like nature, have been frequently observed by other Wri­ters, yet I thought it necessary, somewhat particularly to take notice of them, in the management of this argument, especially because of the opposition I must meet with, and encounter in the following Chapter.

9. But lest any should say, Their go­verning herein was approved of God. that all these things were indeed matters of fact, but undertaken without right, it must be fur­ther considered, that the exercise of this royal authority in things Ecclesiastical, was approved and commended by God himself, and therefore was no unjust usurpation. Thus for instance, Asa's care of reforming [Page 58]Religion, and establishing it tbroughout all Judah, is declared to be that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, 2 Chr. 14.2-5. and those pious acts of Hezekiah, and Josiah, for the suppressing false wor­ship, and establishing true Religion, had an high and signal commendation from God himself, 2 Kin. 18.3, 4, 5, 6. and ch. 23.1, 2,-25. And where there were defects in the purity of the publick wor­ship, even this was charged as a blemish, in the government of the Kings who then reigned, as upon Asa, Jehosaphat, Joash, Amaziah, and others, 1 Kin. 15.4. ch. 22.43. 2 Kin. 12.3. ch. 14.4. And from hence it appears, according to what hath been declared in our Church, Can. 1.1640. that the care of Gods Church is so committed to Kings in the Scripture, that they are commended when the Church keepeth the right way, and taxed when it runs amiss: and therefore her Government belongeth in chief unto Kings; for otherwise one man would be commended for anothers care, and taxed for anothers negligence, which is not Gods way.

SECT. II.
The various Pleas, against Christian Kings having the same authority about Religion, which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament, refuted.

Sect. 2 1. That the force of this argument might be avoided, divers methods are made use of, the chief of which, I shall consider. And those which in this Section I shall take notice of, are reducible to two ranks. Under the former, I shall examine those pretences which are made, to evi­dence that the Jewish Kings ordering things about Religion, was an extraordinary case, and by an extraordinary power and Commission, and therefore must not be made a pattern for other times. Under the second I shall consider such Pleas as would make a shew of proof, that there is such a difference between the Gospel state, and the Mosaical dispensation in this particu­lar, that thereupon Princes are not capable now, of the like Soveraignty, which they then enjoyed.

2. With respect to the former head, first Bellarmine will have David, Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. Salomon and Josiah, to have acted in matters of Religion, as Prophets, not as Kings; and [Page 60]if this speak to the purpose, the like must be supposed concerning all other Kings, They go­verned as Kings, not as Prophets, in things Ecclesiasti­cal. who commanded about Religion. And yet the Scriptures expresly call these or­ders, the commandment of the King, 2 Chr. 29.24. ch. 30.6. ch. 31.13. ch. 35.10, 16. and elsewhere; and sometimes, the commandment of the King, and his Princes, 2 Chr. 29.30. ch. 30.12. Nor is there any pretence, for affixing the pro­phetical office, unto all the Kings of Ju­dah, who gave commands about Religion, it being certain that neither Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, nor divers others of them, were themselves Prophets, but did as occasion required, consult others as the Prophets of God. De Con­cordia Sa. & Imp. l. 2. c. 4. n. 5. And this is so far ac­knowledged by P. de Marca, that there­upon he justly rejecteth this Plea as in­sufficient, though he confesseth it to be usual.

3. They had no extraordi­nary Com­mission herein. V. Bishop Bilson of Christian subj. Par. 2. p. 198. But others say, the Kings of the Fa­mily of Israel might do what they did warrantably concerning Religion, by a special command of God, made known by a Prophet, and this might make their un­dertaking herein necessary. Now that Prophets did advise, and direct in some of these cases is granted, but still the au­thority which established such directions, by a publick Sanction, was the royal power. [Page 61]But if any pretend, that the Kings recei­ved their authority herein, by an extra­ordinary commission from a Prophet, he ought to give proof of this, which he can never do; but that there can be no place for any such conjecture, will appear, be­cause 1. It is not likely that Gods Pro­phets should constantly require the Kings, to intermeddle in any thing, that was or­dinarily unsuitable for their office to un­dertake: and it is also injurious to the wisdom of God to think, that he should make the care of Religion, the duty of all the Kings of the stock of David, only by an extraordinary message to every one of them. 2. It is manifest that many things concerning Religion, were well underta­ken by the Kings of Judah, without so much as the special direction of a Prophet. Such were Davids first intentions to build a temple, which God approved, Hezeki­ahs order for the general Passover in the second month, which is declared to be done, by the consultation of the King and his Princes, 2 Chr. 30.2. and Josiah's re­formation was in a good measure effected, before he advised with the Prophetess Huldah.

4. Cun. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 14. Marca de Conc. l. 2. c. 4. n. 4, 5. But there is another Plea made use of by Cunaeus, and another learned man who evidently followeth him. They assert [Page 62]the right of Kings under the Old Testa­ment, to intermeddle in matters Ecclesia­stical; and that they had then such a su­pereminent authority, that according to Maimonides, even the High Priest was to stand in the Kings presence, and that no other person (no not the Priest) might sit within the court of the temple, save only the King. Their au­thority not from any sacerdotal Ʋnction. Ibid. c. 6. n. 6. And all this they found upon the vertue of the holy Ʋnction, or his be­ing anointed with the holy Oil; hence P. de Marca asserteth, that he acted Pri­vilegio Regii Sacerdotii, as having ob­tained by his Unction, the priviledge of a royal Priesthood, Cun. ibid. and hereupon Cunaeus thinketh, that David might wear the Priestly Ephod, and thereby consult the Ʋrim and Thummim. But this also is a very weak pretence, partly because the royal anointing, was only designed to be the anointing such a person to be King, as is expressed, 1 Sam. 15.1. 2 Sam. 3.39. 1 Kin. 1.34. and in many other places; and partly because such an anointed King had no right to perform the Priestly acti­ons, as is plain from the great guilt of Saul in sacrificing. And much less could this give thim any Ecclesiastical, or sacerdotal superiority, over the High Priest himself, since every successive High Priest was to be anointed with this holy oyl, whilest most [Page 63]of the Kings even of the Family of David, were probably not at all anointed, as I shall observe in another place; and whe­ther that holy oyl of the Tabernacle, Abarb. de Unctione in Exod. 30. Schick. de Jur. Reg. c. 1. The­or. 4. was made use of in the usual anointing of the King, though it be asserted by the Jew­ish Writers, as Shickard hath observed, may yet possibly admit of a further en­quity.

5. And I must further observe, Or any spe­cial law of Moses. that there was not any particular law of God, under the Old Testament, as some would pretend, which gave any special authority to their Kings in matters Ecclesiastical, and therefore they proceeded only upon the general and common right, which chief Governours of a Realm have, even con­cerning those things; since in his office he undertakes, De Crea­tione Prin­cipis. [...], the care and oversight of private, publick and sacred things, as Philo ex­presseth it. Indeed the Israelites had parti­cular laws, which inflicted the punishment of death upon Idolatry, Witchcraft, blas­phemy, and other such like vices, Ex. 22.18, 20. Levit. 24.15, 16. Deut. 17.2-5. but it could no otherwise belong to the King, to execute these laws, than as a judiciary authority in these cases, Mr. Thorn­dike Right of the Church. ch. 1. p. 10. was included in his general royal power. Had all matters of Religion been in their own [Page 64]nature reserved, and exempted from the royal Government, it would then have belonged, to the Jurisdiction of Ecclesi­astical persons only, to have executed those laws; especially since the punishment of death, was sometimes inflicted by Pro­phets, 1 Sam. 15.33. 1 Kin. 18.40. 2 Kinse. 10, 12. And that the death of a Malefactor, was sometimes the issue of the sentence of the Priest, is intimated in Deut. 17.12. and seemeth also observed by Clemens Romanus. Epist. ad Cor. p. 54. And with an eye to the declining state of the Jewish Govern­ment, under the Maccabees and down­wards, when the chief execution of all laws, Joseph. cont. Api­on. l. 2. was in the hands of the Priest, Jose­phus frameth his description, of the con­stitution of the Jewish Common-wealth, as committing the chief secular power to the Priests, and making them both [...], and [...], the judges of all cases, and the punishers of all offenders. But it is manifest, that whilest the royal authority flourished, the laws against Witchcraft, Idolatry, and such like vices, were put in execution thereby, 1 Sam. 28.9. 2 Kin. 23.24. 2 Chron. 34.4, 5.

6. And there is no particular constitu­tion in all the law of Moses, which doth assert any singular supremacy (more than what is generally included in the Regal [Page 65]authority) of the Kings of the Children of Israel, over their Priests, and in the temple, and about the worship of God. Indeed Cunaeus doth offer an instance, of a particular positive law of Moses, Cun. ubi supra. to this purpose, Deut. 17.18, 19, 20. where God required, that the King should write a copy of the law, and that this should be with him, and that he should read therein, all the days of his life, that he might fear the Lord, to keep all the words of this law, and these statutes to do them. But there is nothing in this law, which makes the care of Religion, more the duty of the Hebrew Kings than of the Christi­an; since these also, are to acquaint them­selves with the doctrines of Christianity, to fear God, and to do his will, but neither of them might exercise that spiritual pow­er, which belongeth to the distinct Officers of the Church. It may indeed be said, that Kings cannot rightly fear and serve God, unless they make use of their authority to promote Religious piety, even in all sorts of their subjects, and this was truly asserted by S. Austin; Aug. Ep. 50. but then this can be of no peculiar concernment, to the kings of the Old Testament, but will equally extend it self to those who live under Christia­nity.

7. I shall now shew, that whatsoever is [Page 66]pretended from the peculiar state of the Gospel, Reverence to Princes more fully required in the Gospel, than in the Law. to debar Christian Kings from that authority, which certainly did belong to the royal Government, under the Old Testament, is of no force. And this will easily be admitted by them who consider, that the Precepts for honouring the King, being subject to the higher Powers, and sub­mitting our selves to the King as supreme, are more plainly expressed, and universally enjoined, under the New Testament, than ever they were under the Old. But that there is any direct prohibition in the Gos­pel, against the soveraignty of the Royal power, in matters of the Church, is not so much as pretended; and that the do­ctrine of Christianity doth assert this au­thority, shall be hereafter shewed.

8. A learned man of our own King­dom, who owneth the Soveraign power of Kings in matters of Religion, Right of the Church. Ch. 1. p. 8. Epilogue. B. 1. ch. 19. & B. 3. Ch. 33. and allow­eth the consequence hereof in general, from the government of the Jewish Church; doth seem to deny that the same right in matters of Religion, may be claim­ed by the Christian Kings, which was ex­ercised by the Jewish. Now that which is here demanded, is, that the general power of Ecclesiastical supremacy, is under both dispensations the same, in enjoining the observation of the divine laws, in establish­ing [Page 67]matters of expediency, for order sake, and in punishing transgressors. The differ­ence of Ju­daism and Christiani­ty consider­ed, with re­spect to su­premacy. But as to the particular subject matter of this au­thority, which cannot possibly be the same, in Judaisme and Christianity, there must of necessity appear a difference, in the ex­ercise of this supreme authority; many things being allowable under the law, which are not so under the Gospel. But it is here further pleaded, that the Kings un­der the Law, might be further interested in Ecclesiastical affairs, than the Gospel will admit, because the Church and state were not so much distinguished, under the legal Oeconomy, as under the Evangeli­cal; the Mosaical law being the founda­tion and rule, both of the Jewish Church, and of the political government. But in truth, the proper fixed Kingly authority in the Family of Israel, was not so much established, as only allowed by the Mo­saical law; and though there was a true royal power in Moses, and in the Judges, yet this was not fixed and determined to be the constant Government, by a particu­lar law. And the Priesthood under the law, was as fully distinct from the civil power, as the Church government under the Gos­pel is; neither of them deriving themselves from the civil, nor resolving themselves in­to it. But in both these dispensations, as [Page 68]the Ecclesiastical government was appoin­ted by them, so was the civil also in ge­neral established; yet so that the founda­tion which it hath in the laws of nature, is antecedent unto both. And if there be any difference, as to subjection of things and persons Ecclesiastical unto Princes, it might seem plausible, which yet is not to be insisted upon, that the Jewish Priest­hood might the rather pretend exemption, from the royal power, as being established before the fixed royal line.

9. Epil. B. 1. Ch. 20. Right of the Church. ubi supra. It is also urged and must be granted, that the Christian Church is of a larger ex­tent, than the limits of any single tempo­ral soveraign, whereas the Jewish Church and State were one and the same body, except the case of some Proselytes, such as Naaman was, among the Gentiles. And from hence it is to be acknowledged, that by the determination of Catholick Coun­cils, or by the universal practice of Chri­stians abroad, any particular Christian Kingdom, and the Soveraign thereof, may be obliged to entertain and establish, some things otherwise indifferent, in a compli­ance with these generally received usages, and thereby with respect to the peace, uni­ty, and honour of the Christian Church. Of this nature are some things relating to Canonical ordinations, the solemnizing [Page 69]of marriage, the observation of the Church festivals, and the rules for communicating with other parts of the Christian Church. Indeed no such rule as this could have any force in the Jewish Church, but yet this consideration cannot hinder, either the extent or exercise of the Princes authority, in the Christian Church, unless this power had consisted in a liberty to lay aside all rules, in matters adiaphorous relating to Religion, besides his own pleasure. Where­as it doth consist in such a right, as cannot be restrained or annulled, by any power upon earth, to establish by civil sanctions, what is useful about Religion. And his being obliged in Conscience, to admit and embrace such particular things, as conduce to the Ʋnity or welfare of the Christian Church, which is a duty every Christian oweth unto God; is no more prejudicial to his supremacy of Government in this very case, than a private mans being bound to admit, what general custom hath made a part of decency and civility, is prejudi­cial to, or inconsistent with, his right and power of governing and commanding his own actions.

10. Wherefore it remains, that the su­premacy of Christian Princes, notwith­standing these things objected, is the same in substance, with the Supremacy of the [Page 70]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 M ^r Thorndike intended, who expressing a difference in this matter, between the state of the law and the Gospel, referreth this sometimes Right of the Church. Ch. 1. p. 11. to the consideration of the Churches Ʋnity, or else 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, Review. p. 15. that it cannot be doubted, that Christian pow­ers attain the same right in matters of Religion, which the Kings of Gods anci­ent people always had, by the making Christianity the Religion of the State. And he also admits Right of the Church. Ch. 1. p. 9, 10, 11. Review ch. 1. p. 13, 14. the same power in matters Ecclesiastical, both in the Chri­stian state and in the Jewish, to flow from the nature of Soveraign power, and the necessary duty of this power being employ­ed to advance Religion.

11. Of the Con­secration of Churches. Another thing which may possibly deserve some consideration, is from the general usage and practice of the Church, concerning the dedication and consecra­tion of Churches. Some have thought, that when Salomons Temple was consecrated, the consecration thereof was mainly per­formed by Salomon himself, who was the [Page 71]King: this is urged by the Leviathan, Leviath. Ch. 40. Hospin. de Templ. l. 4. c. 2. and some men of learning, seem to favour this notion, speaking of him, Ipse dedica­tionis praecipuas obivit partes, that he himself discharged the chief part of the dedication. But the general practice of the Christian Church, hath been (so far as any account thereof can be discovered) to have their Churches dedicated, not by Princes undertaking to celebrate that so­lemnity, but by the Bishops of the Church. C. 1. q. 2. c. placuit, & de Con­secrat. dist. 1. Leon. Ep. 88. ad Germ. & Gal. Epis­cop. De Vit. Const. c. 40, 43, 44. And this is not only manifest from divers Canons mentioned by Gratian, and from the Epistles of Leo; but the practice of the Church herein is evident, in the time of Constantine the Great. For there is a par­ticular account given by Eusebius, in the life of Constantine, of the dedication of a famous Church in Jerusalem; to which he telleth us divers Bishops were assembled, and did bear their parts in that solemnity. And the same author acquainteth us, that in his reign, there were in divers Cities, [...], Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. conse­crations of those places of divine worship, which were then lately built, and the meet­ing of Bishops to that end.

12. But that this seeming difficulty may be cleared, it may be observed that there were three sort of things done, at the con­secration [Page 72]of the temple at Jerusalem. 1. Sa­lomon whom God had chosen to build his House, when he had finished it, yieldeth up his right and presenteth it to God, and by Prayer desireth Gods acceptance, and that it might be useful to the designed end, and the 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 above­mentioned. 2. There was the acceptance of this temple, and taking possession there­of in Gods name and for his service, and the setting it apart thereto, upon account of Gods authority, by them who were his Officers in the Church; and this was then to be done by the Priests, to whose office it did belong, to sanctify the most holy things, 1 Chr. 23.13. And this was partly done, by their bringing in the Ark, and other holy things into the temple, [Page 73]2 Chr. 5.5, 7. and partly by the solemn sacrifices which they offered, whereby the temple is said to be dedicated, 1 Kin. 8.63. as the tabernacle was purified or dedicated, by the blood of the Sacrifices, as both the Apostle, Heb. 9.21, 22, 23. and Josephus do declare. 3. Jos. Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. Here was Gods owning this his possession, and his House and Temple, and this was done by the glory of God filling the house, immedi­ately upon the Ark being brought into it; 1 Kin. 8.10, 11. and by the fire coming down from heaven, upon the Sacrifices, 2 Chr. 7.1, 2, 3. as had been before done, at the dedication of the tabernacle: and hence God declared, that he hallowed this house, 1 Kin. 9.3, 7. And all these things, which were not performed by Salomon, were the chief parts of the dedication; and therefore this instance from Salomon, will not prove Princes to have had any peculiar Ecclesiastical authority, in the Jewish Church, above what they may en­joy in the Christian.

13. In the last place I shall consider the suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine, Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Church in the time of the Old Testa­ment, might be under the temporal Go­vernment, because it then was more exter­nal, and enjoyed temporal promises chief­ly, whereas it is otherwise under the New [Page 74]Testament. Now though it is hard to discern, any strength or force, in this way of discoursing; especially because all Reli­gion as such, hath a respect to God, and to things spiritual, and also because Kings under the Old Testament were not Go­vernours of the promises, which God made to his Church for the future, but of its present polity: yet I shall return here­to these considerations, which I suppose will be sufficient. 1. That those things of the Gospel which are of a pure spiritual nature, as the dispensing heavenly grace and pardon of sin, the taking men into an inward relation unto God and Christ, and the bestowing on them eternal life, so far as these things are considered separately and distinctly, from all visible and external dispensations, are not claimed to be under the government of any civil power, and this is all that his consideration can amount unto. 2. That the persons admitted into the Christian Church, and the Officers thereof, have still under the Gospel visible beings; and their actions of life, their pub­lick service and profession, with several di­vine institutions, and other things relating to the order of the Church, are still things external, and therefore capable of being under the inspection of authority, which is managed by men concerning things visi­ble and external.

SECT. I.
The exorbitant power claimed to the Jew­ish Sanhedrim reflected on, with a re­futation of its pretended superiority over the King himself.

Sect. 1 1. THere are divers both Jewish and Christian Writers, and some of them men of great worth, who entertain a notion, which if it were true, would eva­cuate the force of the argument, made use of in the former Chapter. De J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. Sch. de Jur. Reg. Hebr. c. 1. Theor. 2. Even Grotius will not allow the Government over the House of Israel, to have been perfectly Monarchical: and Schickard asserteth it to have been mixtly Aristocratical, and these with divers other persons, Dangerous and false pretences of the Syne­drial pow­er being chief. assert the Royal Government of the Family of Jacob, to be under the Synedrial authority. Now if what I shall say in opposition hereto, may seem over-long and tedious to some Readers, I hope the usefulness thereof for vindicating royal authority, and disco­vering [Page 76]usual and considerable mistakes, B. 1. C. 3. will be a sufficient Apology. And although the rights of Christian Princes, do not direct­ly depend upon the political constitution of the Jews, or the Family of Jacob, but are founded in the laws of nature, of na­tions, and of Christianity: yet it is in general a great advantage and honour to the royal government, that God himself established a pattern thereof, in the House of David, as well as the authority of the civil power about matters of Religion, may be hence also inferred. And both Ro­mish Writers and others of an Antimonar­chical strain, Salm. De­fen. Reg. c. 2. p. 49. or as Salmasius calleth them, Hildebrandinae & Enthusiasticae doctri­nae auctores; in managing their designs, have frequent recourse to this Plea of the Jewish Synedrial power, against the right of Kings.

2. Annal. Ec­cles. an. 57. n. 36. Thus Baronius declareth, Apud He­braeos Lex divinitùs data monstravit, &c. The law which God gave the He­brews, did shew, that the chief govern­ment was to be in the hands of Priests, and although they at length began to have Kings, yet (saith he) even those Kings were subject to the High Priest, who as he pleased was moderator in that great Council of 72. Elders, which was called the Sanhedrin, whose office and charge it [Page 77]was to judge concerning the law, concern­ing the King, and concerning a Prophet. In which words, besides other mistakes, he asserteth as that which would best serve the interest of his party, that the Sanhedrim was a Court governed by the High Priest, whereas according to the constant descrip­tion of the Jewish Writers, V. Seld. de Syne. l. 2. c. 15. n. 14. the High Priest was neither ordinarily president thereof, nor necessarily a member of it, though at some times he might be both.

3. And for an instance of the latter sort of men, who are for popular supremacy, Junius Brutus maketh use of this argu­ment, Synedrium Hierosolymitanum, &c. Vindic. contra Ty­ran. Qu. 3. p. 96. The Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, seemeth to have been of so great authority, that they could judge the King, in like manner as the King could judge other persons. And not long 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 [Page 78]Fables and Romances, do assert that the Sanhedrim, or Senate of seventy one per­sons, had such a power over the Kings of Judah, as to call them to account, and pu­nish them. And they also assert, that ac­cording to the original establishment, of the Jewish laws and polity, the chief cau­ses of moment, both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature, were exempt from the Kings jurisdiction, and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance. Grot. & Schick. ubi supra. To this purpose Grotius declareth, aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta, I think there were some cases of judgment reserved from the King, which remained in the Sanhedrim of se­venty men ( i. e. besides the Nasi or pre­sident) Schickard goes farther, and sayes, sine senatus magni assensu, Rex in gravi­oribus causis nihil poterat decernere; that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters, without the assent of this great Senate. And our Au­thor de Synedriis, De Synedr. l. 3. c. 9. n. 1. among other things, discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio mag­no propriis, ut nec à Regibus aut impe­diri, aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt; in which words he fetters and confines the Kings power, but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large.

5. Carpzov. in Schick. c. 2. p. 142. But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions, that they have no [Page 79]better a foundation, than a tradition de­livered by some of the Jewish Rabbins, This a fa­bulous tra­dition of the Rabbins. against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular, there lie these exceptions. 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power, were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority, be­fore the captivity; but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years, and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time, and therefore can give no testi­mony upon their own knowledge; and writing one from another, with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered, the number of them who are produced, can add nothing to their testi­mony. But both divine and humane wri­ters, who are of an ancienter date, do sufficiently contradict this position, as I hope to make plain. He therefore who can believe, that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders, because divers of late, but neither Scrip­ture nor ancient Writers do assert it; and he who can perswade himself, that our Sa­viour made the Bishop of Rome, the Ʋni­versal 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 [Page 80]by Christ, his Apostles, and the anci­ent Christian Church; such men have un­derstandings of a fit fize and sutable dispo­sition, to receive these Rabbinical tradi­tions, concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy; which are also things fit for their purpose.

6. Gemar. Sanhed. Cocc. c. 2. Sect. 10. Secondly, It is evident, that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Na­tion, were forward to extol it, even be­yond the bounds of truth, of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud, of the number of the Horses for Salomons own Stables, which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty mil­lions, accounting a thousand thousand to a Million. Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory, for a consider­able time, Sed. Olam zut. in fin. before the reign of Aristobulus, and under the Roman Government, and some continuance thereof remained, to­wards five hundred years after the destru­ction of Jerusalem, as their Chronicle in­forms us, which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers. And it is very probable, that the pressures and sufferings, which the Jews sustained un­der the Roman Emperours. or Kings, might prejudice them against Monarchical Go­vernment.

7. Thirdly, There are other Rabbini­cal [Page 81]and Talmudical Writers of good note, who will by no means be perswaded to embrace this tradition, which disparageth the Royal power. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr. l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara, and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rab­ba, and others, are cited by M ^r Selden, and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius, who assert, that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King. And that the highest authority is in the King, who standeth in Gods place, is asserted by R. Abarbanel, Carpzov. in Schick. p. 165. Their pre­tended power over the person of the King refuted. whose words are in Carp­zov.

8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use, I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power, which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim, over the person of the King. They deal with the royal authority, as the Jews did with our Saviour, who gave him the title of the King of the Jews, but yet scourged him, and treated him with great indignity. For these Writers do as­sert, that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim; only by the great San­hedrim at Jernsalem, saith Schickard, De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7. and he acknowledgeth, that even this ap­peared to him, valde paradoxum, a thing far from truth, and very unlikely, until his own apprehensions were moulded into [Page 82]a complyance with the Jewish Writers. But M ^r Selden addeth, De Syn. l. 2. c. 9. n. 5. that according to the testimony of the Rabbins, he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three, which was the Government of every particular City. And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging, enu­merated by Maimonides, Ibid. c. 13. n. 8. and mentioned from him by Selden, the three last are; if the King multiply Wives, if he multiply Horses, and if he multiply silver and gold. Now these things are so strange in them­selves, reducing the King to the same cir­cumstances, with every common and petty offender, that how this can consist with the majesty and soveraignty of a Prince, is utterly unconceiveable: and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies, must al­so perswade himself to believe, against the plainest evidence, that David and those who sat upon his throne, were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah, but were all of them subjects, under the common and ordinary govern­ment, and authority of that 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 [Page 83]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 publick 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 superiour 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 whoredome; and by the law of God the unfree woman who played the whore, be­ing betrothed, Lev. 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 [Page 84]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 it self, 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. M ^r 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 shew 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 [Page 85]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 then were Governours 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 sti­led by Salmasius nugae & fabulae Rabbi­nicae, is not at all mentioned by Josephus, Defens. 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 [Page 86]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 [...]) spake 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 likelyhood are, the vulgar latin expressing Jonas by Johannes, Joh. 21.15. And so are Lazarus and Eleazar, and many others, whence the Ethiopick 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 [Page 87]which I add, submitting these conjectures to the judgments 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 extream 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 intend 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 judgment in the morn­ing, declaring hereupon, that they could not judge, unless they could be summoned to receive judgment from others. Which [Page 88]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 sove­raignty, 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 Kings Ju­dicature. And they do also debar him of all authority to undertake arbitrary wars, appoint inferiour 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,—res (que) om­nes publicas administrabant. And so there [Page 89]is neither civil nor military supreme au­thority, Sect. 2 no 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 devesting 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 [Page 90]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 judg­ment of a tribe. This judgment concerning a tribe, is by some declared to be, when the greater part of a tribe, or the whole, becometh guilty of Apostasie 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 M ^r 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 Absalom, and after Sheba, the King had then no autho­rity to reduce them. But that these things are empty dreams, and wholly void of [Page 91]truth, will be manifest from these follow­ing instances.

5. When the two tribes and half desi­red an inheritance on the other side Jor­dan, they spake 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 apostasie, 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 [Page 92]of Israel demanded greater liberty, than they had had under Salomon, 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 reformed Judah, and in his piety perswaded 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 judgment 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 falsly in the name of the true God. But had the tryal 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 superiour 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 [Page 93]it self, 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 complyance 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 be seech 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 orders his being taken thence, v. 8, 9, 10. And the [Page 94] King sware 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. &c. 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 dy, by any but the Jewish Sanhedrim, would also have been contrary to the History of Johns 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 judgment of the high priest, claimed as peculiar to the Sanhedrim, is by some restrained to capital causes only. [Page 95]Yet the judgment 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 rendred 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 Salomons 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 governour. 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 [Page 96]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 inferiour 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 Scepter, 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, [Page 97]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 Davids 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, [Page 98]18, 19, 20. and of Josiah against Pha­raoh Nechoh, 2 Chr. 35.20, 21, 22. Where as those Wars are related to be un­dertaken, by the choice of these two Kings of Judah; so the Kings against whom they Warred, sent Embassies for Peace, not to any Sanhedrim, but to them. To this I add, that if this notion had any thing of truth in it, it might possibly be emproved far, toward the justifying the rebellion of Absalom, Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 5. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 15. n. 4. Schic. de Jur. R. c. 1. Th. 2. against his own Father. For if the power of War was in this Court, it is altogether unlikely, that David in his sud­den flight from his Royal City, should have them with him; but it is much more likely, if there was then any such Court, it did remain with Absalom in Jerusalem, where only that Court could regularly fit, according to the Jewish Canons; especially if that be admitted for truth, Ch. Par. in Ps. 140. v. 10. which is de­clared by the Chaldee Paraphrast, that Ahitophel the chief Conspirator, was the head of the Sanhedrim.

14. Inferiour Courts. Sanh. ubi sup. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinq in Chal. Par. in Thren. c. 5. v. 14. The right of appointing inferiour Courts of Judicature, among the Tribes of Israel, is claimed also as peculiar to this Sanhedrim. And that the Judges of infe­riour Courts must be made Rabbies, and receive imposition of hands from this great Court, is declared by Quinquarboreus. But as we have undeniable evidence, that [Page 99]in the military Government, divers Cap­tains and Generals were appointed by David, and Benajah by Solomon; so al­so David established 2700. Levites, to be rulers over the two Tribes and half, 1 Chr. 26.32. And as the holy Scriptures gives us an account of the Officers, and Judges in his time, over the other Tribes, Antiq. Jud. l. 7. c. 11. Josephus informs us that six thousand of the Levites were made Judges by David. And if Judges in the Land had not usually been established by the King, there had been no colour for that plausible pretence of Absalom, against his Father, by telling the men of Israel their matters were good and right, but there was no man deputed of the King to hear them, 2 Sam. 15.3. Nor can any thing be more clear than that Jehosaphat set judges in the land through­out all the Cities of Judah, City by City, 2 Chr. 19.5. and also a chief court in Je­rusalem, v. 8.-11. but that this was no such Sanhedrim, as the Rabbins mention, I shall hereafter manifest. And that the an­cient Jewish Writers, did acknowledge it a right of the King, to appoint judges and judicatures, will appear from Philo, Phil. de Creat. Princip. who discoursing of a Prince, with a special re­spect to the Jewish Government, directs him to write the Book of the Law with his own hand, and to read therein, and [Page 100]also [...], to chuse others who shall partake in the rule and Government; that is as he expresseth it, that the lesser causes he should [...], commit them to inferi­our Rulers.

15. Of making Laws. Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinquarb. ubi sup. De Syned. l. 2. c. 9. n. 7. Carpz. in Schickard. c. 1. The­or. 2. p. 15. The authority of making any new Laws or Constitutions, is also pretended to be peculiar to the Synedrial power. And consequently their Kings must be de­nied to have any interest in the legisla­tion, since these Rabbinical Writers do generally affirm, that the King might have no place in the Sanhedrim, nor any share in its authority, as hath been observed a­mong others by Selden and Carpzovius. But whereas the chief things reported to us, concerning the Reign of the Kings of Judah, consist either in their care of Reli­gion, or their military atchievements, we have an instance of a standing milita­ry law or statute, for dividing the Spoil; which was established by David, 1 Sam. 30.24, 25. And I have in the former Chapter evidenced, their establishing Or­ders in matters Ecclesiastical; such were the division made by David of the Priests and Levites for their attendance on the service of God, Ant. l. 7. c. 11. and others of like nature; and Josephus tells us that this division was observed as long as the Temple and its [Page 101]worship stood. Sect. 3 To which we may also adjoin, the particular Laws or Constituti­ons, made by Josiah and Nehemiah, con­cerning some of the Priests abovemen­tioned.

SECT. III.
Of the antiquity of the Synedrial power among the Jews, with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ec­clesiastical Senate.

1. From what hath been discoursed, it is sufficiently evident, that whatsoever Courts of Judicature, or Officers there were in Judah, none of them under the Jewish Monarchy, ever did vie for Sove­raignty with it; but were in subjection to it. There was no such authority, De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. as is chal­lenged by Schickard to the Sanhedrin; who calleth it Synedrium magnum regiae majestatis compar; or by Grotius, Grot. in Mat. 5.22. who in the reign of the Kings, owneth Senatûs authoritatem regiae velut parem, in which expressions is asserted its equal, or coordi­nate power with the Kings which Selden also allows. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p 667. Yet for giving further evi­dence to the truth of what I have above expressed, I shall assert,

2. That this chief Synedrial Govern­ment among the Jews, The Origi­nal of the great San­hedrin was since the Captivity. was of a later ex­tract than the time of the captivity, and had its first original, since the decay of the true Royal power. There was indeed all along the Mosaical dispensation an High Priest, whom the Law of Moses obliged the Judge or King, in arduous and weigh­ty matters, (and in such only) to consult, and by him to ask counsel of God. And they had also Elders and men of wisdom, and with some of these the Laws of equity and prudence would direct the King to ad­vise. And thus much may not improbably be the sense of those words of Josephus, proposing this Rule for the King; Joseph. Ant. l. 4. c. 8. [...], not to act without the High Priest, and the consent of the Senators. Yet Salmasius thinketh that these words of Josephus, Defens. Regia. c. 2. p. 47. are suitable only to those Princes, who ruled about the end of the Jewish state; and unless they be taken in the sense. I have mentioned, they are cer­tainly no rule, either founded on the law, or agreeable to the government of the House of David. And indeed Josephus who saw and felt the calamities, which the Jews sustained under the Roman Kings, was no friend to Monarchy, and though he be far from the Rabbinical strain, yet [Page 103]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 inferiour, 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 Kings 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 [Page 104]from [...], may somewhat intimate the time of its production) consisting only of Rabbies or such students in the law, who received ordination, it is reasonably concluded by M ^r 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 [Page 105]Judges and Rulers, which the latter times did direct, but very different, Perpetual Gov. 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 M ^r 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. [Page 106]And the Jewish traditions con­cerning the continuance of this Court, Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 23. p. 661, &c. and the series of succession of its presidents, hath no shew 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 shew them to have judged Israel as single per­sons, or a kind of Monarchs: and had there been such a setled 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 President 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 Presidents of this Court, which is contrary to another of their own traditions above-mentioned. 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 [Page 107]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 Gods 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. cleanness 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 stiled by Bertram, summa & suprema judicia, Bertram. ibid. this [Page 108](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, D ^r 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 [Page 109]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. Div. Right of Ch. Gov. ch. 23. p. 505. insist on Deut. 17.8.—12. where a Court of Appeales in difficult cases is esta­blished, and the Law declares, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judg­ment, 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 [Page 110]the Law of Moses did also expresly 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 alledged, 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 complyance 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 [Page 111]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 apologize 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 errour 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 over-grown 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 [Page 112]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.

SECT. I.
The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign power.

Sect. I 1. IN considering the nature of civil Government, Princes as Gods 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 stiled 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 [Page 114]is manifest from many expressions to that purpose, B. I. C. 4 Tertul. A­pol. c. 36. & ad 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 Masters 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 inferiour Go­vernour, is it not expected that this man in his place should take care, to maintain the honour and soveraignty 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 intrusts with secular authority, should take care [Page 115]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 Go­vernours, 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 at (que) aliubi diversa poe­na est, sed uhi (que) 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 prophetick 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. [Page 116]And all Governours 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 generall acknowledged, that the secular authority is to take care, that justice, honesty, peace and vertue 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 ver­tue. Religion as Philo observed, rendreth 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 threatnings, 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 [Page 117]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, &c. 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 reflexi­on, upon the wisdom and Government of God.

5. We may also now compare the pa­ternal [Page 118]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. Praecept. 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 Governour of a Family hath such an authority, as extend­eth it self 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 eying Gods providence in all things, with sub­missiveness to him, and dependance upon him; and it also brings very high advan­tages, as it is the way to enjoy Gods 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 [Page 119]of Abraham, in that he would command his Children, and his Houshold after him, and they would keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, 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 intend the good of their inferiours, ac­cording to the doctrine of S. Paul, Rom. 13.4. And the instances of David, Jeho­saphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constantine, Theodosius, and many other pious Kings and Emperours, do manifest, that they are capable of procuring very great good to their Subjects, by their pious care about the matters of Religion. And no doubt S. Austin might with good reason be confi­dent, Cont. Ep. Gaudent. l. 2. c. 17. & in Epist 50. that the Laws of Christian Princes about Religion, had been the occasion of bringing many to Salvation by Jesus Christ.

7. And the Royal Government is much of the same nature with the paternal, en­larged in the extent thereof over several Families; but not restrained in the nature of it, and in the most excellent and useful part of its authority; Gods Ordinance [Page 120]hereby placing others in that authority, which Adam and Noah had, Phil. de creat. prin­cip. p. 727. over their multiplyed and enlarged Progeny. Hence Princes are fitly stiled, [...], the common Parents of Cities and Kingdoms, their political and civil being having a de­pendance also upon them, who were cal­led, Patres patriae.

8. And the consideration of the pater­nal power, will remove the objections, which some men make use of, against the authority of Princes in matters of Religi­on. For if Religion must be so far left free, as not to be commanded and enjoined, by any humane civil power, then would Abrahams commanding his Children and Houshold, have been blameable, he being in his Sphere a secular Ruler, as well as a Prince is. Or if it be pretended, that grown men who are come to years of un­derstanding, and have undertaken the profession of true Religion, ought to be so far left to their own choice as not to be under the Government of any civil power, with respect to Religion; this al­so is refuted by the instance of Abraham's commanding his Houshold, which was so large, V. Salian. An. M. 2118. n. 13. & an. 2138. that many years before this time of the destruction of Sodom when God gave Abraham this commendation, he could arm three hundred and eighteen Souldiers [Page 121]of his own Houshold, Gen. 14.14. and all his numerous Family had been Circum­cised. And since Abraham continued un­der the blessing of God, it is very proba­ble that his Family was further enlarged, before the time of this commendation of him.

9. To all this I shall add, that he who doth soberly consider, what sad disturban­ces and commotions in divers Kingdoms have been the product of the corruptions, and errors in the Christian Religion; both upon the account of the Papal Ʋsurpati­ons, under the pretence of spiritual power, and by reason of the disloyal positions, and tumultuous practices of other Sects, and their frequent Rebellions; shall need no other argument to convince him, that the Princes exercise of Government about the affairs of Religion, is greatly necessary for the securing his own authority, the peace of his Kingdoms, and the property of his subjects.

SECT. II.
The same established by the Christian Doctrine.

1. That the Gospel Doctrine never in­tended to destroy, or diminish the right of secular powers, is granted by some of chief note amongst the Romanists, Christus (saith P. de Marca) cum Evangelium suum institueret, De Con­cord. in proleg. p. 25. regum dignitatem non laesit. And this is not only manifest, from the tendency of those great Christian du­ties of humility, meekness, peace and righteousness; but also from the many par­ticular injunctions of subjection to Rulers, and from our blessed Saviour his command­ing to give unto Caesar, the things that are Caesars. Christiani­ty establish­eth Regal Supremacy. And also in that the Christian Doctrine doth peculiarly enjoin fidelity and obedience, in all all inferiour relations towards their superiours, that by the pra­ctice of this duty, Christianity may be adorned and recommended in the World, even to those who did oppose or reject it. Tit. 2.9, 10. 1 Pet. 2.12, 13, 14, 15. ch. 3.1, 2.

2. And with some prospect to Christia­nity, the Kings of the Earth are called up­on, to serve the Lord, Ps. 2.10, 11. and [Page 123]are foretold to be nursing Fathers, Is. 49.23. Sect. 2 And both this and their undertaking Christianity, and being baptized into it, doth require them in their places, and by their interest and authority, to take care of the honour of God, of his Church and Religion. And S. Austin well declares, Conr. Cresc. l. 3. c. 51. that Kings then serve God in their Kingdoms, when they therein command what things are good, and prohibit evil; non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verum etiam quae ad divinant Religio­nem, as well concerning Religion as hu­mane affairs.

3. And lest any should think, that the establishing the Kingdom of Christ accord­ing to the Gospel Doctrine, should give any exemption to the subjects thereof, from any part of that duty, which was incum­bent upon them towards other Kings and Governours; S. Peter speaking to Christi­ans, under the Titles of a chosen Genera­tion, a Royal Priesthood, and a holy Na­tion, In Resp. ad Bellarm. Apol. c. 3. doth yet (as Bishop Andrews ob­served) particularly enjoin upon these per­sons, submission to the King as supreme, and to the Governours sent by him, 1 Pet. 2.9, 13, 14. And the business of the civil power is there declared to be so general, as to be for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, and [Page 124]to the same purpose writeth S. Paul, Rom. 13.3, 4. So that he who would exclude matters Ecclesiastical, or concerns of Re­ligion from their government and care, under the New Testament, must undertake to assert, that the performances of Reli­gion contain nothing in them of well do­ing, and that the neglecting, contemning, or opposing it, is no part of evil doing: which are such blasphemous assertions, as no man can embrace, unless he be sunk in­to Atheism, and so really owneth no Re­ligion at all. Aug. Epist. 160. And S. Aug. from Rom. 13.2. infers, that he who contemns the Em­perour commanding for truth, brings judg­ment upon himself.

4. 1 Tim. 2.12. And when the Apostle requireth, that Prayers be made for Kings, and all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, (which includeth both Righte­ousness and Sobriety) he thereby expres­seth the right administration of Govern­ment to be advantageous to these ends. Now as it is manifest that Rulers should not only not oppose Peace, but establish it; and not only not prostitute honesty and sobriety, but defend and enjoin the practice of them; so the Apostle mention­eth godliness, as that which they should advance equally, and in like manner with [Page 125]peace and honesty. Nor can we suppose that the Christian Prayers were only de­signed, that Kings and Rulers with respect to these particulars mentioned, should do no hurt: but since Gods Ordinance of Go­vernment is a useful institution, that Chri­stian Prayer which suiteth the Christian doctrine, can desire no less, than that this institution should attain its end, and be­come every way effectual for the doing good. And many Christian Princes have signally advanced, both the doctrine and practice of Godliness and Religion. Ecclesiasti­cal persons subject to Princes.

5. And that Ecclesiastical persons as well as others, are included under the duty of yielding obedience, and subjection to this authority, doth appear from that ge­neral Precept, Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Where as the expression is universal and unlimited, so the Comments of S. Chrysostome, Theo­doret, In Loc. Theophylact, and Oecumenius, S. Bernard. Ep. ad Se­nonens. Archiep. Est. in loc. Gr. de Va­lent. Tom. 4. Disp. 9. qu. 5. punct. 4. Bell. de Rom Pont. l. 2. c. 29. do plainly declare all Ecclesiastical persons and Officers, of what degree soever, even Apostles and Evangelists, to be concerned therein. But this sense of these words, though urged also by S. Bernard, is not embraced by the present Romish Writers: but their exceptions made use of to elude this testimony, are of no great force. For while they tell us, that these words do as [Page 126]much (if not more) require subjection to the Ecclesiastical power, as to the tempo­ral, those who thus interpret, are by S. Aug. censured, Aug. cont. Ep. Parm. l. 1. c. 7. to be sane imperitissimi. And that the Apostle doth directly dis­course here, of obedience to the civil and temporal Rulers, appears evidently from his mentioning their bearing the sword, v. 4. and receiving tribute, v. 6.

6. And the pretence, that this command doth only oblige them who are properly subjects, but not those Ecclesiastical per­sons, who are pretended not to be subject, but superior to the secular power, doth proceed upon such a Notion, which was wholly unknown to the ancient times of Christianity. For it was then usual to hear such expressions as these, Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. Colimus Impera­torem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem: we reverence the Em­perour as being next to God, and infe­rior to none besides him. Hom. 2. ad Antioch. And S. Chryso­stome owned Theodosius as the head over all men upon Earth, i. e. in his Domini­ons. And according to this perverse Expo­sition, there is no more evidence from the Apostles doctrine, concerning any Chri­stians in general being subject to Princes, than concerning Ecclesiastical Officers; because his doctrine must then be owned only to declare, that those who are in sub­jection [Page 127]ought to be subject, but not to determine whether any Christians were to be esteemed subjects to the Pagan Rulers or no.

7. But though the Apostles were ready to declare all needful truth, even before Princes and Consistories, we never find them when they were accused before Ma­gistrates, to plead against their power of judicature, or that they had no authority over them; but they defended themselves and their doctrine before them. And when S. Paul declared, Act. 25.10, 11. S. Paul's appeal con­sidered. I stand at Caesars Judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to dy, — I appeal unto Caesar: he doth thereby acknowledge the Empe­rour to have such a power over him, who was a great Ecclesiastical Officer, as to take cognisance of his acting, whether he did any thing worthy of death, or of civil punishment.

8. But against this instance, Bellarmine who in his Controversies did yield, De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 29. that the Apostle did appeal to Caesar, as to his superiour in civil causes, afterwards retracts this and declares, that the clergy being Ministers of the King of Kings, are exempt de jure from the power, not only of Chri­stian, but of Pagan Kings; and there­fore [Page 128]asserteth that S. Paul appealed unto Caesar, In Libr. Recognit. not as to his superiour, but as to one who was superiour to the President of Judea, and to the Jews.

9. But such shifts are, first, contrary to the sense of the ancient Church, concern­ing this case; as may be observed from the words of Athanasius, who being accused before Constantius, telleth him; if I had been accused before any other, Athan. A­pol. ad Constant. [...], I would have appealed unto your piety, even as the Apostle did appeal unto Caesar, — but from thee to whom should I appeal, but to the father of him, who said, I am the truth; which words declare this appeal to be as to a su­periour, and the highest on Earth, who is only under God. Secondly, this per­verteth the Apostles sense, and contradict­eth his words, who declared in his appeal­ing, where he ought to be judged, if he had done any thing worthy of death; which is a plain acknowledgment of supe­riority over him.

10. Thirdly, Besides, that all appeals are owned by Civilians and Canonists, as an application from an inferiour judge, to a superiour judge: this particular liberty of appealing to the Roman Emperour, was a priviledge granted only to them who were free Citizens of Rome: and the [Page 129]Apostle could not claim this, but by own­ing himself a Citizen of Rome, and there­fore a subject to the chief Governour thereof. For this appeal was founded up­on that Roman law, which condemned that inferiour Judge as deeply criminal, who should punish any Citizen of Rome thus appealing. To this purpose, Jul. Paul. Sentent. l. 5. Tit. 28. n. 1. Julius Pau­lus saith, Lege Julia de vi publica dam­natur, qui aliqua potestate praeditus, ci­vem Romanum, antea ad populum, nunc ad Imperatorem appellantem, necarit, ne­carive jusserit, torserit, verberaverit, condemnaverit, in vincula publica duci jusserit. And accordingly upon this ap­peal, S. Paul declared, that no man (no not Festus himself, the President of Judea, who otherwise was enclinable to have done it) might deliver him to the Jews, Act. 25.11.

SECT. III.
What authority such Princes have in mat­ters Ecclesiastical, who are not members of the Church.

1. It may be said, that what is declared by S. Peter, and by S. Paul to the Romans, and also his appeal, did immediately re­spect Heathen Governours; and therefore [Page 130]if these places will prove any thing, of the Princes power in matters Ecclesiastical, they must fix it in Pagan Princes, as well as in Christian. Div. right of Ch. Gov. ch. 26. And this is the principal thing objected against the argument from S. Paul's appeal, by M ^r. Rutherford; who tells us, that this would own the Great Turk. to be Supreme Governour of the Church.

2. And it must be confessed, that it is a very sad and heavy calamity to the Church when those soveraign powers who are not of the true Religion, will intermeddle in the affairs of the Church, without the fear of God, and due respect to the Rules of Religion. Such was the case of the Jew­ish Church. under the Roman power, which undertook to dispose of the High Priesthood in Jewry, against both the let­ter of the law, and the design of it. But no Governours whosoever they be, whe­ther of the Church, or Strangers from it, have any right to do such things, no more than Jeroboam had, to set up the worship of the ten Tribes of Israel, contrary to the Law; or than the Arian Emperours had, to oppose the Deity of the Son of God. against the Gospel. But though it be very desireable, that all parts of the Chri­stian Church should be under Christian and pious Princes, yet where other pow­ers [Page 131]do take care, Sect. 3 that the Christian Church and Ministers do observe the true Christi­an Rules, Spalat. Ostensio. Error. Fr. Suar. c. 3. n. 23. as the Archbishop of Spalato tells us was done in that part of his Pro­vince, which was under the Turk; this so far as it is regularly performed, is an advantage to the Christian Religion, and no blameable exercise of their autho­rity.

3. I think it a very plain and clear truth, All Sove­raign pow­ers ought to profess and promote true Religion. that Kings and Princes are invested with an authority, to govern in matters of Religion, not as originally arising from their Christianity, but from their gene­ral right of Dominion and Soveraignty. Nor will there be any difficulty in this as­sertion, if we consider that this power of governing about Religion, encludeth only a right of establishing by their authority, what is truly unblameable, orderly, useful and necessary, with respect to Religion, and of enquiring into the practices of their sub­jects thereupon, in order to approbation or punishment; but gives no authority against truth or goodness.

4. And though some persons by popu­lar expressions declaim against this positi­on, De Minist. angl. l. 3. c. 4. yet the substance of it hath been yield­ed by men of various perswasions. M ^r Ma­son in his defence of the Ministry of Eng­land asserteth, That they who are Hea­thens, [Page 132]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 M ^r 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 [Page 133]ever true Religion and Christianity is de­clared, and manifested in the World, it is the duty of all men to receive and em­brace it, because as they are Gods Crea­tures, they ought to obey and honour him, and submit to his Laws and believe his Re­velations; and thereupon every supreme Magistrate ought to advance the name of Christ, and the true doctrine and Religion. And if a Pagan Prince upon understand­ing the truth, shall use his authority for its advancement, this power is justly ex­ercised in such Causes Ecclesiastical. I pre­sume no Christian will deny, that Nebu­chadnezzar did well in making a strict Law, Dan. 3.29. that none should speak amiss against the God of Israel, and Darius also in ma­king a Decree, that men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, Dan. 6.26. and Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, in giving order for the rebuilding the temple at Je­rusalem, restoring its Vessels, and furnish­ing it with Sacrifices, and executing judg­ment on the opposers hereof; with respect to which thing, good Ezra blessed God, who had put such a thing into the heart of Artaxerxes. And that other Princes in like circumstances, should follow the steps of Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and the King of Niniveh, who proclaimed a strict fast, and commanded his people to cry [Page 134]mightily unto God, Aug. Ep. 50. Tertul. A­pol. c. 5. is justly asserted by S. Aug. in his Epistle to Bonifacius.

6. Nor are those Heathen Emperours to be censured, who acted any thing on the behalf of Christian Religion, as Tibe­rius threatned them, who at their peril should accuse Christians, for their Reli­gion; and other publick rescripts there were, of Adrianus, Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 4.9. Antoninus ibid. c. [...]. Aurelius, Tertul. Ap. c. 5. and Galienus, Eus. Hist. l. 7. c. [...]. which were in the favour of Christi­ans. And it is a known and famous case concerning Paulus Samosatenus, who for Heresy, was deposed by the Christian Bishops, in the Council of Antioch, and Domnus appointed to succeed him. Eus. Hist. l. 7. c. 24. But Paulus refusing to leave his possession, the Orthodox Christians appeal to Aurelianus, a Pagan Emperour, who referring the case to be heard by the Bishops of Italy, and about Rome; ordered the Church to be given to him, for whom they should de­termine, and by his authority was Paulus ejected; and neither his interposing, nor their appeal unto him, hath been ever thought culpable, nor yet Paulus his be­ing dispossessed, Constan­tine before his baptism exercised authority in things Ec­clesiastical. [...], by the secular power.

7. But above all others, the acting of Constantine the Great, before the time [Page 135]of his Baptism, seemeth very considera­ble, to evidence what power hath been exercised in things Ecclesiastical with the general approbation of Christians, by one not yet admitted into the Christian Church. Of which I shall give some par­ticular instances, to which more may be added, beginning with what hath relation to the peace and concord of the Church, Afri­ca in a short time gave birth to the Schism of Donatus and of Meletius, and the He­resy of Arius. The Donatists separated themselves from the Church, upon some exceptions they made against the Ordina­tion of Caecilianus, and being condemned by the African Catholick Bishops, they apply themselves to Constantine the Em­perour. Opt. cont. Parm. l. 1. But he being not versed in things of that nature, as Optatus tells us, did not (or as S. Austin several times saith, Aug. Ep. 162. & 166. durst not) undertake the judging of the case himself, but by his authority, he appoin­ted Melchiades then Bishop of Rome, with three Bishops of Gallia, to judge thereof, Eus. Hist. l. 10. c. 5. and they by vertue 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 orders this to be further examin'd by the Coun­cil [Page 136]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 baptized, as Baronius would thence infer; who was not there to give suffrage or vote, for the deciding questions of faith, but to observe their proceedings 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 Emperours command and appointment, heard by Helianus, who declared him innocent.

9. Touching Arianism, and the dispute concerning the time of the observation of [Page 137] 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 pub­lick, 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 Emperour, 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 Emperours displeasure. But when the proceedings of that Council against him, were very injurious and irre­gular, for which the Emperour afterwards sharply reproved them, Athanasius him­self a man of a great and couragious spirit, and no way inclinable to any unworthy compliances, earnestly desired to have his case heard, and examined by the Emperour 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. [Page 139] c. 23. and taking care for the erecting Christian Churches, ibid. l. 2. c. 44, 45. Socr. l. 1. c. 12. and enjoining the reve­rent 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 Churches peace, or to meet in Coun­cils, according to his appointment. But where the Emperour through mistake did go beyond his bounds, the pious and Ca­tholick Bishops were then careful, to pre­serve the true Catholick 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 Catechumens, when he first re­ceived imposition of hands, according to the discipline of the Church. And there­fore when he owned himself to be consti­tuted [Page 140]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 Governour thereof. But whilest he was yet unbaptized, 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 Constan­tines Baptism, it will be no digression to take a true account thereof, which our la­ter [Page 141]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 baptized at the end of his life and reign). But Baronius, Binius, Duran­tus, Bar. an. 324. n. 29. &c. Bin. in Vit. Silv. 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 administred divers years before, at Rome by Silvester; some of them boldly charging Eusebius, with a design of forgery and falshood in this relation.

2. But he who shall consider, Constan­tine not baptized 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 Emperours, 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; [Page 142]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 Whitsontide, 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 perswade himself, that if he would undertake to write, that our late gracious Soveraign, 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 errour, who yet men­tion many things concerning Constantine, not expressed in Eusebius. And besides [Page 143]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 Constantines 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 baptized, 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, [...], [Page 144] 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 latine 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 latine translation of much later date, and possi­bly altered with design. 2. That the words mentioned in that Epistle, cannot be applyed to any other Emperour, 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 Ca­tholick 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 baptized by Sil­vester. But they have not these words, from any Copy of such a Council it self, but from a Writing of an uncertain Au­thor, intituled, Epilogus brevis, &c. 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 Constantines first resolution of embracing Christianity; and both the acts of Silvester, and the words of the Preface above-mentioned do encline to the same thing. But Zosimus be­ing a bitter Enemy to Christianity, is de­clared [Page 146]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 baptized, being against such great evidence, deserves no more assent, than the most fabulous stories, concerning such religious reliques, as do serve only to impose upon the credulous vulgar.

7. But that argument which they seem to be most earnest in is, that if Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia, where Euse­bius a chief Ringleader of the Arians was then Bishop, this would cast an high asper­sion upon that good Emperour, who must, say they, then be concluded to dye in the Arian, and not in the Catholick Commu­nion Now it might be sufficient to say, that by this same argument, they might as well prove all the Nicene Council, to be Arians, as this good Emperour; since they sate, and no doubt received the Com­munion at Nice, where Theognis was Bi­shop; who was the constant Companion and Confederate with Eusebius, in mana­ging the Arian designs. But I shall further add two things. 1. That it might be pos­sible, [Page 147]that his baptism was not received from the hands of this Eusebius, De Vit. Cons. l. 4. c. 61, 62. Eusebius Pamphilius declaring, that there were di­vers Bishops at that time called to Nico­media, and Gelasius who was a famous Bi­shop of Palestine in that Century, decla­ring, that he was not baptized by an Ari­an, but by one who embraced the Catho­lick faith, as his words in Photius, cited by Scaliger, do plainly express. Scalig. in Euseb. Chron. p. 251. 2. That if it should be admitted, that he was bap­tized by this Eusebius, as is indeed ex­pressed in the Chronicon of S. Hierome, and in the [...], published by Scaliger, with the Chronicon of Eusebi­us; yet this will by no means charge him with Arianisme. For 1. This Eusebius of Nicomedia, had then subscribed the faith of Nice; and though he and Theog­nis were once deposed by that Council, yet upon their professed submission to the faith thereof, they were again restored and received, as S. Hierome acquaints us: Hier. adv. Lucif. and the form of their submission is extant in Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 10. and Sozom. l. 2. c. 15. And though this submission of his, was as Theodoret tells us, Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 19. out of an ill design, this is no way to be imputed to the Emperour. 2. The faith of the Council of Nice was then publickly esta­blished, and the Fathers at Ariminum [Page 148]above-mentioned, do sufficiently intimate his being baptized into it. 3. He then ap­peared a manifest friend, to the Catholick Bishops, who held to the Council of Nice, in that at the time of his death at Nicome­dia, he designed to recal Athanasius from his banishment, though Eusebius of Nico­media perswaded the contrary, Theod. ibid. c. 32. Athan. A­pol. 2. ex lit. Const. filii. as Theo­doret (with whom Athanasius himself agrees) doth acquaint us. 4. Nicomedia was not the place he intended for his Bap­tism, but Jordan; but his sickness of which he died surprizing him here, left him no liberty to choose any other place.

8. I shall now only add, that according to this evidence, all the actions of Constan­tine, expressed in the former Section, were performed before his baptism. But if any shall embrace the contrary opinion, which I reject as false and groundless, many of those actions will still be previous thereto. And therefore this Princes authority and duty, to take care of things Ecclesiastical, was not the effect of his undertaking Christianity, but was contained in the general authority of his imperial Sove­raignty. Yet I doubt not but this fiction of Constantines being baptized at Rome, and the other of his Donation, are two Twins, being both of them the spurious [Page 149]and illegitimate off-spring, of a luxuriant fancy, impregnated by a Romancing In­cubus. And the large form of his Dona­tion, not that in Balsamon, but in Bini­us, Bin. Tom. 1. p. 296. expresseth the Baptism of Constantine by Silvester. But this Donation is now justly rejected as a manifest forgery, by their own learnedest Writers, as Morinus, and P. de Marca, De Con­cord. l. 3. c. 12. n. 3, 5. the latter of which sup­poseth some of the Popes themselves, about the eighth Century, to be accessory to the framing and obtruding this imposture.

SECT. 1.
Of the general exercise of this Supremacy; and of its being allowed by the Fa­thers of the first General Council of Nice.

1. IT is acknowledged, that the truths either of Christian doctrine, or of natural reason, do not principally depend upon the consent of men. It is not to be decided by the voice of the World, whe­ther the only true God, and he alone, ought to be worshipped; nor did it de­pend upon the vote of the Jewish Priest­hood or Sanhedrim, whether Jesus was the true Messias. And upon this account, the Gentile Deities were deservedly deri­ded by Tertullian, sertul. Ap. cap. 5. who had no other title thereto, than by the vote of the Senate; nisi homini placuerit Deus non erit.

2. But yet none can be expected, Sect. 1 to give a better and more sure account of the doctrines, and duties of Christianity than those who have been the professors, and practisers of that Religion, in the pu­rer times thereof. And therefore there is such a just respect and reverence due to the primitive Christian Church, and the assistance of the divine grace which gui­ded and influenced it, that that which was generally received therein, hath thereby a very great and considerable testimony of its being a truth, especially where there are also other great arguments, and eviden­ces to evince the same. And in such things, it may well be allowed, Dr. Ham­mond of Heresy. Sect. 14. according to D ^r Hammond, among the pie credibilia, that a truly general Council shall not err. And even those persons who have no due re­gard, either to antiquity, or the autho­rity of the Christian guides, will mani­fest their great pride, if they will reject and contradict the general sense of the Church, unless it be upon very clear and manifest evidence to the contrary. But such who pretend, as the Romish Church doth, a reverence and high veneration for Tradition, are thereby the more concern­ed not to disclaim what hath been ordi­narily and plainly delivered, in the anci­ent Church.

3. Now to give an account of the sense of the particular Fathers in this place, would be a more long and tedious work than would be needful. And indeed the minds of many of them may sufficiently be discerned, by their plain expressions men­tioned in several parts of this discourse. Nor will I insist upon those commonly ob­served, and very expressive sayings, con­cerning Supremacy in general; as that of Tertullian (Imperatores) in Dei solius potestate sunt, Apol. c. 30. & 33. cont. Parm. l. 3. à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi; and majestatem Caesaris Deo soli subjicio; and that of Optatus, super Imperatorem non esse nisi Deum qui fecit Imperatorem, which very plainly assert, that the Emperour was under none, but only God himself. But I shall apply my self to such things, as will enclude the more general, and publick acknowledg­ment 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 Emperours 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, &c. which are yet to be seen in the Codex and the Novellae Ju­stiniani. [Page 153]Wherein among other things, there are laws establishing the Catholick 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 Patri­archs. And in these and other particulars, the Nomocanon of Photius doth designed­ly shew, Phot. No­moc. Tit. 1. &c. 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 Emperours against Arians, Nestorians, Manichees, and others guilty of Heresy or Schism, were very many; and the pro­ceedings by the Imperial law against the Donatists was in divers places defended by S. Austin. And that all the godly Em­perours of old, Aug. Ep. 50.162, 164, 166. De cor­rect. Do­natist. & passim. even from the beginning of the Emperours professing Christianity, did take such care of the Church; that the affairs thereof, and the matters of Re­ligion, [Page 154]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 Em­perours.

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 complyed with by Councils, and by those especially, which were the first general or Oecumenical Councils. For whilest 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 Emperors 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 ac­knowledgment of the chief general Coun­cils, in the flourishing times of Christia­nity. [Page 155]And I suppose that no man will de­ny, that the assembling of Oecumenical 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 Emperour, in whose Reign that Council sate. That this general Coun­cil was called by the Command of Con­stantine the Emperour is expresly 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 perswade 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 Emperour. 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 Emperour 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 Emperors 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 inferiour and not superiour to them, as a Presbyter or Deacon, they would ne­ver have yielded general obedience to him, but would have rebuked and repressed his [Page 157] insolence; and therefore this their obedi­ence to the Emperour, was an acknow­ledgment 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 Emperour 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 whilest this Council was sitting, the Emperour 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 [Page 158]Council, confirming them by his Imperial Seal, Eus. ibid. c. 22. which Eusebius expresseth, [...]. And both the Nicene Creed and its Canons are confirmed in the Civil Law, in the Codex and Authentica.

SECT. II.
This Supremacy owned in the second Ge­neral Council at Constantinople, and the third at Ephesus.

1. That the second general Council at Constantinople, was summoned by the Em­perour (viz. Theodosius) is declared, both by Socrates and Sozomen. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7. The Council of Con­stantino­ple. But Baronius, though he had a little before cited the ex­press testimony of Socrates, against his as­sertion, would have us believe, that it was called by the authority of Damasus, and produceth some small appearances of argu­ment for the proof thereof; Bar. an. 381. n. 19, 20. and tells us, there is an ancient Manuscript in the Va­tican, and some other Libraries, which de­clareth so much. Bin. Not. in Conc. Const. not. f. And Binius making use of the same Plea, is so earnest and fierce, that he saith, Nemo nisi pertinax haereti­cus, asseveret hoc Concilium ab Imp. in­dictum fuisse, Let no man unless he be an obstinate Heretick, assert that this [Page 159]Council was summoned by the Empe­rour. Sect. 2

2. Yet all this is a plain instance, where­by we may clearly see, how little credit is to be given to the specious pretence of Vatican Manuscripts, or to the confi­dent assertions of such Writers, or their little forced Arguments. For there is only one Epistle of this General Council, Epist. Sy­nod. ad Theod. in Bin. & Bar. an. 381. n. 37. pro­duced both by Binius and Baronius in Latine; and in this Epistle themselves de­clare again and again, unto Theodosius the Emperour, that they were convened by his authority. They tell him in one of their expressions, Mandato tuae pietatis Constantinopoli convenimus, and in ano­ther, Literis quibus nos convocasti, Ec­clesiam honore prosecutus es. So that they assembled by the Letters and Mandate of the Emperour, which they accounted an honour to the Church, who were no ob­stinate Hereticks.

3. And indeed though the calling of General Councils, be now with some ea­gerness claimed, by many of the Romish Writers, as a prerogative of the Pope; yet the late Archbishop of Paris hath acknow­ledged, De Con­cord. l. 6. c. 28. n. 12. that the first who pretended any right hereunto, was Pope Nicholas about the year 865. And he hath sufficiently evi­denced, as others also have done, that [Page 160]those Decretal Epistles, which are said to be of a more early date, Ibid. l. 3. c. 5. and express any such authority to be in the Pope, are cer­tainly spurious and supposititious.

4. And in this second Council, it is ma­nifest, that during part of their Session, the Emperour Theodosius was present in the Council, Theod. Hist. Ec­cles. l. 5. c. 9. as is affirmed in a Synodical Epi­stle, from Constantinople to Damasus, written by many of the same Fathers, at another Council, the year following, which is to be seen in Theodoret. And the choice of the Bishop of Constantinople, which was part of the business that Council was to undertake, Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 8. was there determined by the Emperour himself, who requiring the Bishops present, to give him a Catalogue of such persons, as they thought fit to no­minate, he reserved to himself the electi­on of one out of this number, and fixed upon the name of Nectarius, who was the last in that Catalogue, who thereupon was made Bishop of Constantinople.

5. When this Council was ending, in their Synodal Epistle to the Emperour, Ep. Syno­dal, ubi supra. they give him an account of what they have done, sent him a Copy thereof, and pray him that by his Letters, he would confirm the Decrees of that Council, and that by his commands they may be of force, ratum esse jubeas, confirmes (que) concilii [Page 161]decretum: and that he would strengthen the things which they had decreed and concluded, by his sentence and seal. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Sozom. l. 7. c. 9. And after this in confirmation of the determi­nations of this Council, the Emperour ad­ded his suffrage and consent to what they had done, [...]. And he also established a law, that all the Christi­an Churches should be committed to them only, who confess the same divine nature, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

6. That the third General Council of Ephesus, The Council of Ephe­sus. was summoned by the authority of the Emperour, Theodosius the younger, is attested both by Socrates, and Evagrius. Socr. l. 7. c. 33. Evagr. l. 1. c. 3. And though they who espouse the inter­est of the Romish Bishop, do here like­wise plead for its being convened by his authority; there are so many Synodical Epistles of this Council, taken notice of both by Binius and Baronius, wherein they assert themselves to be assembled by the command of the Emperor, that he that hath either honesty or a face, may well be ashamed to assert the contrary. And in­deed touching the calling this Council, and the exercising of the Imperial supre­macy concerning it, I shall not need to take notice of any thing further, than what is related, and asserted for truth by Baronius and Binius.

7. They write themselves to be met to­gether by the Emperours Authority, Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 17. Edit. Peit. in their Epistle to the Clergy of Constantino­ple, and in their Encyclick Epistle, and in their Epistle to the Emperour. And in their Epistle to Coelestine then Bishop of Rome, they tell him (not that they were convened by his authority, but) that they were met together, according to the will of our Saviour, and the Sanction of the most pious Emperours (viz. Theodosius the Second, and Valentinian) at the day of Pentecost. And they go on to tell him that this was the day, which the Decree of the Emperour, by which they were called together, did fix for their first Session, with several other expressions to the same sense. Baron. an. 431. n. 10. And Coelestine himself, in an Epi­stle to Theodosius, which Baronius hath published, telleth the Emperour, that he did afford his presence by those Deputies he sent, huic Synodo quam esse jussistis, to this Synod which you have comman­ded to be held.

8. And the Emperour first sent Candi­dianus a Count, and afterward others, to be present in this Synod, not that he should give any vote in matters of faith, but to take care of the peaceable and orderly pro­ceeding of the Synod. Baron. ib. n. 45, 46. And also to pro­vide, that no other business should be pro­pounded, [Page 163]till those things chiefly designed were determined. And also that he should not suffer any persons of that Council, who were summoned thither by the Emperour, to depart thence, till the Council had fi­nished what was before them: all which things are manifest, from the letter of the Emperour himself to this purpose, direct­ed to the Council it self.

9. And when Candidianus did misre­present the actings and proceedings of the Synod unto the Emperour; thereupon not only Nestorius who was deposed by this Council, but even Cyrillus also who was Patriarch of Alexandria, Ibid. n. 128, 129. and President of this Oecumenical Council, and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, and a man of princi­pal note and reputation in that Council, were by the Emperours, authority, through mis-information, committed to prison. The Emperour 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 Emperours authority, as having nothing to do over [Page 164] Bishops, or members of a general Council, or their proceedings therein; Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 10. Baron. an. 431. n. 147. &c. but they apply themselves to the Emperour, to en­treat him to take a true and just account of what they had acted. And according to the Emperours 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 Emperour, 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 then Emperour, by way of Suppli­cation, that he would command a gene­ral Council to be called in Italy. But the [Page 165]Emperour 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 chiefly from the necessity of his not being so far from his own Church, in a time of such publick danger (from the Hunns). And he de­clareth, that he had sent those Deputies, who should supply his presence there; which he tells the Emperour 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 Em­perour, that that Council might be called in Italy; Epist. 23. & 33. and reneweth this his supplica­tion, [Page 166]both directly to the Emperour Theo­dosius, and by the Clergy of Constantino­ple to whom he writeth, that they would use their interest with the Emperour 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 Emperour 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 Em­perours pleasure herein was signified to him, appointed his Legates, to supply his presence in that Council.

4. And this fourth Oecumenical 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 expresly contained in the Edict, by which the Emperour 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 [Page 167]time appointed for their assembling. Baron. 451.9. But when the troubles of the Empire hin­dred the Emperour 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 Em­perours 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 vertue of this Im­perial summons and authority, Conc. Chalced, Action. 1. &c. 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 proceed­ings thereof, not intermedling 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 [Page 168]expressed in the beginning of that Coun­cil. Action. I. And they sometimes proposed questi­ons to be discussed, or a method for their proceedings, 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 proceedings of the Catholick 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 Emperour. And Leo in an Epistle to Marcianus, after the end of this Council, acknowledged, that it was he chiefly who effected the extirpation of heresy thereby, vestro praecipue opere est effectum &c. Evagr. l. 2. c. 4. Ibid. c. 18. The restoring them who were censured by Dioscorus and his party was also done with the Emperours con­sent. And at the Emperours desire were the Canons of that Council made, [...].

7. Conc. Chalc. Action. 3. And after this Council was ended, [Page 169]both Valentinian and Marcian jointly, Sacra Mar­cian. in fin. Conc. Chalc. and again Marcian singly, publish their Imperial Edict, for the establishing the faith and doctrine, which was declared in this Council, and signifying to all their subjects, that whosoever shall oppose this their decree, shall not remain in any Ec­clesiastical preferment; and if he be of the Militia he shall be cashiered, with other penalties for other persons.

8. And whereas after the death of Mar­cianus, the Eutychian party favoured by Anatolius of Constantinople, desired to make new stirs, and projected in their thoughts, to have a new Council called, that these matters might be again canva­sed and debated; Leo still Bishop of Rome, Leon. Ep. 73, 74, 75. makes his supplication to the Emperour Leo, entreating him not to suffer any new disquisition of that truth, concerning the humanity of our Saviour, which had been so fully determined in the Council of Chalcedon.

9. Some of these matters relating to this Council I have the more particularly men­tioned, because they not only shew the supreme authority of the Emperour, about matters Ecclesiastical, to have been owned and complyed with by a general Council; but even by that Council, whose number of Bishops did almost equal the number [Page 170]of all the three former general Councils joined together. And also because this doth shew the same to have been sufficient­ly acknowledged, by the then Romish Bi­shop, even by Leo, who was a man of great courage, boldness and activeness, and far enough from being charged with any pusillanimity, and lowness of spirit.

10. And besides other things, there is observable from this short account, con­cerning these Councils, What pow­er the four first general Councils gave to Princes in Ecclesiasti­cal cases. 1. That all the Fathers of these several general Councils, acknowledged the authority of the Em­perours to take care of the Church and Re­ligion, and to command Bishops with re­spect thereto; in that they readily obeyed their commands, in meeting together at the time and place appointed by the Im­perial authority, to consider of matters of Faith and Religion. 2. That they ac­knowledged that these Councils when met, were in the first and chief place to discuss those matters of faith or order, for which they were summoned by the Empe­rour, appeareth from them all. And that at the time of their assembling, they shew­ed so great respect to the Emperour, that in expectation of his presence, they defer­red the opening the Council, till they heard from him; and in obedience to his plea­sure, and by his authority, the Seat of [Page 171]the General Council was removed from one place to another, is particularly evi­dent in the fourth Council.

11. Thirdly, That they thought them­selves obliged, when they should be requi­red so to do, to give an account of the manner of their proceedings, in these general Councils, unto the Emperour. And that though they were in Council, and a­bout matters Ecclesiastical, they were still subject to the Emperours laws, and his coercive authority, as is manifest from the third general Council. 4 That they though matters Ecclesiastical and the de­cisions of the Church, a fit subject to re­ceive the civil Sanction, and establish­ment of the secular power. And that they esteemed such a Sanction to be of great moment, to add weight to their Constitu­tions, doth appear from them all; and par­ticularly from the second and third gene­ral Councils.

12. I omit all large discourse of other Councils, which might easily be perform­ed, and many things also in these Councils which might be worthy observation. But whosoever will read the [...] of the sixth General Council, to the Empe­rour Justinian, and their first Canon, Conc. Trull. can. 1. will discern them to have the same reverence for their Prince, which these former [Page 172]Councils had. And amongst Provincial Councils, Conc. Mo­gunt. an. 813. in praef. ad Imp. that of Mentz did acknowledge Charles the Great, to be verae Religionis Rector, and Defensor Sanctae Dei Eccle­siae, and Sanctae Ecclesiae Rector. And the Council of Merida in Spain, Conc. E­mer. in Praefat. In fin. Conc. Eccle­siastica disponere, to order matters Eccle­siastical, but also that he did, sapientia divinitus concessa, regere Ecclesiastica, govern matters Ecclesiastical.

SECT. IV.
Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius, and Arianism, considered.

1. There are some things which have the appearance of arguments, to prove that the ancient Christian Bishops did not own the Supremacy of Princes, in matters Ecclesiastical. And the reflecting upon these may be of good use, to give us a right understanding of that Supremacy, which hath been acknowledged in the Christian Church. To which purpose, I shall here consider two Objections con­cerning the Arian Controversies.

2. The Case of Arius. Obj. 1. When Constantine the Em­perour, upon the Oath and subscription of Arius, to the Faith asserted in the Coun­cil [Page 173]of Nice, Sect. 4 did again and again give his commands to Athanasius, Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 26, 27. gr. A­thanas. in Apol. Sec. with Menaces annexed, that he should receive Arius a­gain unto the Church of Alexandria, A­thanasius refused to do this, notwithstand­ing these Precepts of the Emperour. And the Catholick Bishops justified him, and refused communion with them who took part with Arius, which seemeth to disown the supreme Government of the Emperour, in Causes Ecclesiastical.

3. Ans. First, The exercise of the Keys is not to be guided by the pleasure of a Prince as its rule. That the sentence of Excommunication and Absolution being a proper exercise of the power of the Keys, the Ecclesiastical Officers are the immediate and peculiar Judges in these Cases. And if any person shall assert, that they are always obliged in these things, to do whatsoever the Emperour should give them in command, though he himself should be imposed upon by the sleight of others, or otherwise be mistaken; this would tend to disown the subject of this enquiry, concerning the Emperours pow­er, or to deny that there are such Causes or matters Ecclesiastical, that the Rules of Religion and Christianity ought to be the guide and measure of them.

4. Secondly, The Case of Arius had been largely heard and adjudged, by the highest Ecclesiastical audience of a Gene­ral [Page 174]Council, by the Emperours command, where he was anathematized, and con­demned of Heresy, and notwithstanding some appearance of repentance, Hieron. adv. Luci­fer. Baron. an. 327. n. 3. as S. Hie­rome declares, was sentenced no more to come to Alexandria; that is, as Baronius rightly explaineth it, not to be received in his former place in that Church. Now it was not in the power of any single Bi­shop whomsoever, to rescind the judg­ment, or reverse the sentence of a General Council, or indeed to take a new cogni­sance, of what had been thereby deter­mined. And to acknowledge the Empe­rour to have a power of immediate judg­ing, and determining concerning the cen­sures of the Church, especially if against the Sentence of a General Council, can­not be consistent with the Ecclesiastical authority, and the power of the Keys, com­mitted to the Ecclesiastical Officers, and in the most eminent and highest manner resident in Oecumenical Councils. And therefore Athanasius could not obey that command of the Emperour, procured by the subtilty of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party, without an exorbitant usurp­ing and invading an authority, which was superiour to him, and undermining the unity of the Catholick Church, Weights and mea­sures, Ch. 6. as is observed by M ^r Thorndike in justification of Athanasius.

5. And a Case much of like nature with this, was considered in the third general Council of Ephesus, who rejected them from their Communion, who in a separate Conventicle from the General Council, undertook to censure Cyril of Alexandria, who presided in that Council, and Mem­non of Ephesus, and were also fautors of Nestorius. Concerning these Bishops, that Council gave this instruction to their dele­gates, whom they sent to the Emperour; that if he should insist upon these persons being restored to their Communion, they declare that so much as can be, is to be done, to express obedience to the Empe­rour; Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 19. Sanctioni Augusti pro viribus obe­diendum este; and that if these persons shall join with the Council in rejecting the Heresy of Nestorius, and deposing him; and submitting themselves, shall heartily embrace Ʋnity with them, they may be admitted again to their Communion. But if these delegate Bishops in this Case, should admit them upon any other terms than these, which the Council it self upon con­sidering and debating the Case had de­termined, they are there told, Arianisme and all false do­ctrine to be rejected, though fa­voured by Princes. that they themselves would incur the censure of the Council.

6. Obj. 2. Athanasius in the time of Constantius, S. Basil of Valens, and S. [Page 176] Ambrose of Valentinian the younger, and divers Catholick Bishops under the Arian Emperours, put in their exceptions a­gainst the Emperours judging in matters of Faith, as not being a competent judge in that Case; nor would they be therein determined by him. And when Constan­tius had banished many Catholick Bishops, for withstanding Arianisme, and used se­vere punishments towards others, and threatned Hosius Bishop of Corduba, Athanas. ad solitar. vit. agen­tes. who drew up the form of the Nicene Creed, he in an Epistle to Constantius, adviseth him, [...], do not put they self upon things Ecclesiastical, nor do thou give commands to us con­cerning such things, but rather learn these things from us; God hath put into thy hand the Kingdom, he hath committed unto us the things of the Church. And when S. Ambrose was commanded in the Emperours name, Ambr. Ep. 33. ad Marcelli­nam. to yield up the possessi­on of his Church to be delivered to the Arians, he refused so to do, in a matter of Gods right, declaring ea quae divina sunt Imperatoris potestati non esse sub­jecta, that those things which are Gods, are not in subjection to the Emperour.

7. Ans. First, Since the Christian pro­fession is a taking up the Cross, all those who embrace it, must undertake to hold [Page 177]fast the truth of the Christian faith, though this should be against the com­mand and will of any Prince or Ruler whosoever, and must be followers of him, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession. Martyr. Polycarpi. Tertul. A­pol. c. 27. This was the practice of the Apostles, of S. Polycarp and divers Christian Martyrs, to profess the Christi­an doctrine, when they were commanded to disown or abjure it. And as they must hold fast Christianity, notwithstanding the Prohibitions or threats of Diocletian or Julian, so must they keep close to the Catholick doctrine, notwithstanding the command of any Arian Emperour to the contrary. And it is no more a derogation from the Royal authority, to say that it hath no right to command, against truth or duty in Religion; than to declare that it hath no right to command, against ho­nesty or chastity in the Common-wealth. The Princes Supremacy in these matters is under God and Christ, to establish what is according to the Rules of our Religion, and the good of Mankind, The deci­ding que­stions of faith and guiding in it, more proper to Bishops thanings. but can have no authority to oppose or undermine the do­ctrines of our Saviour.

8. Secondly, That as this Case hath re­spect to the truth of the Christian doctrine, it is certain, that not the Emperour, but these Catholick Bishops themselves, were [Page 178]the most proper and fit judges in this matter of faith; especially having the evi­dence of Scripture, the consent of the an­cient Apostolical men, and the confirma­tion of the Synod of Nice. The deciding and determining matters of faith, peculi­arly and chiefly belongeth to the Pastors of the Church, and is a matter for their judgment, In Atha­nas. ubi sup. cognisance and discussion. By them, as Hosius said above, even Princes are to be taught, and should receive the doctrines of Religion. But the Christian Bishops are not to receive any thing, as a doctrine of Christianity, from the Com­mand of any Prince in the World; but herein they and all other Christians, must be guided only by what was delivered by Christ, and his Apostles; for the know­ledge of which, the consent of the Catho­lick Church, doth in many things give very great light.

9. How much honour and respect in this particular, the ancient Emperours did give to the office and judgment of the Bi­shops of the Church, we may understand from Theodosius the Second. Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. When he sent a secular person to be present by his authority at the Ephesine Council, he par­ticularly declared, that for him to have any thing to do, in their Synodical deci­sions of the Questions of faith, would be a [Page 179] nefarious thing. And it is truly observed by Baronius, Baron. an. 325. n. 73. that Constantine and other Christian Emperours, who were them­selves present in ancient Councils, did not interpose in giving votes or suffrages, in decisions of faith, or inflicting of cen­sures, as concurring to the spiritual ef­fect; but only did consent to, and ratify these determinations of the Councils, by their secular authority. And these things, which are under the proper and peculiar administration and cognisance of Eccle­siastical Officers, are sometimes in a re­strained sense stiled Ecclesiastical things, which as such, all secular powers are pro­hibited to intermeddle with. And in this sense, with particular respect to matters of saith, as falling under Ecclesiastical de­cision, not only Hosius above, disallowed Constantius his undertaking things Eccle­siastical, who yet himself obeyed the sum­mons of Constantine to appear in the Council of Nice, and some others; and was imployed by him in many things rela­ting to the Church: Conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 32. But also Theodosius above-mentioned, declares it unlawful for any but Bishops, negotiis Ecclesiasticis se­se immiscere; to intermeddle in Ecclesi­astical business. But that the Phrase of things Ecclesiastical, is there understood only in the restrained sense now mention­ed, [Page 180]is manifest; because in that very re­script of Theodosius to the Ephesine Coun­cil, he committeth this authority to the Count he sent thither, to take care of the orderly and peaceable proceedings of the Council, and to hinder any person whom­soever from departing from the Synod, or any other Ecclesiastical cause from being discussed, till those for which they were called were determined. And in the same Epistle also, the emperour declares, that as he had a care concerning the Common­wealth, so his chief care was concerning such things, as pertained to Piety and Re­ligion. So that the Princes power and au­thority about things Ecclesiastical, as that Phrase is taken in a large sense, for things relating to the Church and Religion, was not in that rescript denied.

10. V. Ambr. in Auxent. & ad Mar­cellin. theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 13. And touching the Case of Ambrose, It had certainly been a thing unaccount­able, and unwarrantable for him, by any act of his own, to have delivered up the possession of his Church. Since this had en­cluded (what Theodoret saith he thought himself obliged to refuse) his own consent, to give up his people to the conduct of the Arians. And indeed the interest of God, and his Church and his truth, were superiour to the will and command of the Emperour, or any man upon Earth; and [Page 181]it was fit that S. Ambrose should acquaint the Emperour with this, Sect. 5 which he ought to take notice of. But if the emperour should not observe his duty to God, S. Am­brose must not neglect his, still behaving himself to his Prince as becomes a good subject. But when any Catholick Bishops, by the Edict of Arian Emperours, were commanded into banishment, they not on­ly obeyed, of which there are numerous examples; but though it a Christian du­ty to submit themselves, with a patient and peaceable temper of mind, which was very remarkable in the carriage of Eusebius Samosatensis, under Valens the Emperour, which was much commended by Theo­doret. Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 13.

SECT. V.
Other objections from the Fathers, con­cerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their authority.

It is further objected, that divers anci­ent catholick Writers, even before the Aspiring height of the Romish Bishop, have used such expressions, as speak their pre­ferring the authority of the Ecclesiastical power to the secular, and their esteeming it to be the more eminent. To this pur­pose [Page 182]some passages are produced by Baro­nius, Baron. an. 57. n. 31, 32. from Ignatius, Sulpitius, in the life of S. Martin, Gr. Nazianzene, S. Am­brose, and S. Chrysostome.

2. What is cited as from Ignatius, di­recteth first to honour God, and then the Bishop, and after him [...] (as the common Greek Copies read it) the King. But it is sufficient to observe, that all this is only an addition of the Interpolator of Ignatius, V. Ign. Ep. ad Smyrn. and is not any part of his ge­nuine Epistles; as is evident from the Latine Edition of Bishop Ʋsher, 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 Ʋsher conjectureth, Usser. dis­sert. de Ing. c. 6. about the sixth Century, it was designed to suit the age of Ignatius; and that which the foregoing words intimate, to be the intended sense, may well be allowed: That Christians were bound, to have an higher regard to the directions and instructions of Christi­anity, and the conduct of their Bishops, and spiritual guides in the Christian Re­ligion, than to the commands even of Kings or Emperours, who were opposers of that holy Religion, and Enemies to the truth.

3. But from Sulpitius in the life of S. Martin he urgeth, that S. Martin being [Page 183]entertained at the table of Maximus the Emperour, Of S. Mar­tin and Maximus. Sulp. in vit. Marti­ni. c. 23. one of the Kings attendants brought him a Cup, which the King com­mands him to give to the Bishop (S. Mar­tin then Bishop of Turenne) desiring that he might receive the Cup from his hands. But S. Martin when he had drunk, gives the Cup to his Presbyter, who was with him; thinking that neither the King, nor any other who were with him, ought to be preferred before him. And Baronius declareth he would have done the same, had he been only a Deacon, whom he had with him.

4. But this story as it is here related, shews much of the Spirit of Baronius to­wards Kings, who would not it seems al­low them, being of the laity, to have so much honour and respect shewed unto them, as must be given to a Deacon. And if the spirit of S. Martin was such, as the Cardinal in this particular doth represent it, it would need an Apology, if the Case would bear it, or indeed it would rather deserve a censure.

5. But the truth is, that Maximus was a Rebel, and an Ʋsurper, who had then wickedly murthered Gratian the Empe­rour, and invaded the Territories of Va­lentinian; and for this cause S. Martin though often requested, for a long time [Page 184]refused to come to his Table, and avoided all converse with him, more than any other Bishop in those parts did, and did also foretel the ruine of Maximus, Sulp. ibid. Baron. an. 386. n. 20, 21. Marcel. Com. Chron. in init. Socr. l. 5. c. 14. as Sul­pitius relateth, and Baronius elsewhere taketh notice of. And Marcellinus in his Chronicon, and also Socrates, Theodoret and Sozomen in their Histories, divers times when they speak of him, give him the stile of Maximus the Tyrant. And Sym­machus a Roman Senator, was found guilty of Treason by Theodosius, for pub­lishing an Oration, as an Encomium or Panegyrick upon Maximus.

6. Ambr. Ep. 27. When S. Ambrose was sent as an Am­bassadour from Valentinian to Maximus, he not only refused the salutation of a kiss from him, but withdrew himself from those Bishops, who communicated with him. An. 383. n. 19, 20. Rab. Maur. lib. de Re­ver. c. 3. Yea Baronius himself mentions his Government as being a tyranny; and Ra­banus Maurus taketh special notice of this Maximus, as being a person, who did not escape the divine judgment, when he had insolently exalted himself against, and cruelly murdered his own Lord and Ma­ster. And if S. Martin being once brought to his Table, would not upon this account drink to him, or to any other with him, who were partakers, or might be presumed favourers of his insurrection; this spake [Page 185]him a zealous friend to justice, and the right of Princes, and one who earnestly detested Usurpation and Rebellion.

7. The places produced from Nazian­zen, Naz. orat. 17. Ambr. de dign. Sa­cerdot. c. 2. S. Ambrose, and S. Chrysostome, do express the Ecclesiastical authority, to have an higher excellency than the tempo­ral; which Gr. Nazianz. declareth, by comparing his Episcopal dignity, with the prefect of his City, but the other two by preferring the Ecclesiastical authority, in some Excellencies, to the Royal. And in­deed there are very great Excellencies do attend the Ecclesiastical Ministry, even in some respects above those which belong unto the secular; and it becomes every good Christian, who hath a value for the Gospel Grace, highly to esteem this Mini­stry: but its worth and excellency doth not at all prove its superiority of Govern­ment, in the state of the World.

8. The Ecclesiastical Ministry hath such excellencies as these; The excel­lency of the Christian Ministry. That the persons towards whom it is exercised, are not on­ly men, or members of an humane Society; but are advanced to be Christians, or per­sons admitted into the body of Christs Church; and that the constitution of this Ministry was established, by the dispensa­tion of that admirable grace and love of God, which was manifested to the World [Page 186]by our Lord and Saviour; and that the design of it hath more immediate respect to the souls of men, and their salvation; as also that heavenly and spiritual myste­ries, and blessings are dispensed thereby. And some of these things are those to which S. Chrysostome had peculiar re­spect, Chrys. in Esai. Hom. 4. & 5. as his words do particularly de­clare.

9. Excellency, and supre­macy of Go­vernment are differ­ent things. But that such excellencies attending this ministration, doth not place the Ec­clesiastical Officers, above the condition of being subjects to Princes, may appear, by proposing a like way of arguing in another case. Every truly pious man doth rightly govern his own heart and life, and thereby is not only a man and a visible Christian, but is a true and real Christian, and member of Christ, whose practice is according to his profession. And his chief care is about such excellent things, as the divine life, and the salvation of his Soul, which he attaineth effectually; and this man doth receive the grace of the Gospel, to the highest and most advantageous pur­poses; and is not only dignified with the honourable titles of a King, a Priest, and a Son of God, but doth receive those great benefits, which are included under these high expressions. And these are spi­ritual excellencies of a more sublime na­ture, [Page 187]than the bare enjoying either civil or Ecclesiastical Offices.

10. But if every good man because of these excellencies, which attend his state, should be concluded to have a greater dignity of authority, and Government in the World, invested in him, than is in Kings and Princes, and that therefore he is not, nor ought not to be subject unto them; then must the Christian Religion not only bring confusion into the World, but also make void its own Precepts of obedi­ence, subjection, and humility, and must also make men and the World the worse, by taking them off, from performing the duties of their relations.

11. And that neither S. Chrysostome, nor S. Ambrose, ever intended by such expressions as are above-mentioned, to dis­charge the Clergy from the obligations to obedience, and humble reverence to Kings and Emperours, is manifest, Chrys. in Rom. 13. from S. Chry­sostomes declaring, that even Apostles, Evangelists, and all persons whosoever, ought to be subject to the civil power; and from the dutiful behaviour of S. Ambrose to Valentinian, of which I shall give some account in the following Book.

SECT. VI.
The Canons of the Church, concerning the exemption of the causes of the Cler­gy, from secular cognisance, considered; with some other things, which have some affinity therewith, from Mat. 18.17. and 1 Cor. 6.

1. There are divers ancient Canons, which require the causes which concern the Clergy, especially among themselves, to be examined by the Bishop, or the Bi­shops of the Province, or if it be need­ful, by a greater Synod, but not to be brought before the Courts of the secular power. Some such Canons are referred to by Photius, Phot. No­moc. Tit. 9. c. 1. c. 11. qu. 1. Barcl. de Pot. Pap. c. 32. Conc. A­gath. c. 23. Conc. Ma­tisc. 1. c. 5. Conc. An­tioch. c. 11, 12. and others are produced by Gratian, and divers of them are enquired into by Barclay. To this purpose tend some Canons of the Second and fourth General Councils, and others of the Pro­vincial Councils, both in Africa, Asia, and Europe. But it may be presumed, that these Canons of the Church would not have thus determined, unless the Church had judged such cases and persons, not to be under the Supremacy and Government of the secular authority. And which may seem to add strength to this Objection, [Page 189]even the civil law it self gives some allow­ance to these proceedings. Sect. 6

2. And it may be further added, Secular cau­ses were anciently determined in the Ec­clesiastical Judica­tures. Mat. 18.17. that when our Saviour established his Church, there is some appearance, of his giving the whole body or Society of Christians, a kind of immunity, from the supremacy of the secular power, in that in Cases of tres­pass and injury, which are civil matters, he directs the proceeding concerning them to be brought before the Church. 1 Cor. 6. 1, &c. And S. Paul enjoins Christians, not to go to law before the civil Pagan Judicatures; which things carry an appearance, of a diminu­tion of the secular Supremacy, towards the members of the Christian Church. And the usual Trials of the civil causes of Christians by Ecclesiastical Judges, both before and after the Empire was Christian, is manifest, not only from the Apostolical Constitutions, Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Gr. Nys. in Vit. Gr. Thaum. Aug. Cons. l. 6. c. 3. Amb. Ep. ad Marcel­lum. Ep. 24. and S. Aug. which I above produced; but also from what Gregory Nyssen relateth, concerning Gregorius Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocesarea, and from the practice of S. Ambrose, an ac­count of which we have, both from S. Austin, and from himself.

3. But for answer hereunto, and for a right understanding of all this, I shall think it sufficient to observe three things.

Obs. 1. That those rules were esta­blished [Page 190]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 superiour government. And when S. Paul to the like purpose, en­joined Christians in general, not to go to law before the Pagan Judicatures; Aqui­nas truly observeth, Aquin. in 1 Cor. 6. that this was consi­stent with the subjection of Christians to Kings and Governours; since the Religion of Christians did not allow them to refuse to appear before Pagan Magistrates, when summoned, or to submit to teir decision of right and justice; but only required, that they should not voluntarily chuse this way of determination. But it is against no duty of subjection, to make a private end of all, or any matters of difference and complaint, whether it be for the love of peace, or the honour of Religion.

4. Grot. in 1 Cor. 6. And Grotius not only observeth, how heinous a thing the Jews accounted it, that the Gentiles should take notice of [Page 191] quarrels amongst them, which they would make use of to the disparagement of their Religion; but he also recommends, even under the Christian Government and So­veraignty, the ordinary composing of dif­ferences by friendly Arbitrators. Nor is it any infringement of supremacy, where such Rules are observed, concerning those special members of the Christian Church, the whole body of the clergy. And the Ecclesiastical Canons which were to this purpose, were accounted by the third Council of Carthage, Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 9. to be of like nature with the directions of S. Paul to the Corin­thians, as respecting such Cases, where they were at liberty, ad eligendos judi­ces, to make choice of such as should judge their Case. But because there is sufficient evidence, that such matters were not al­ways determined by private Arbitrators, but were oft-times decided, by a judicial or consistorial sentence, there appeareth a necessity of adding a further answer. Wherefore,

5. Obs. 2. Those judi­cial pro­ceedings were by the permission of their So­veraign. That all those judicial pro­ceedings, to which this objection doth re­fer, were undertaken by vertue of a spe­cial grant, or act of grace and favour, from the supreme temporal power, and therefore in no derogation from it, but by the con­sent and authority thereof. Of this I shall [Page 192]give sufficient proof, with respect to all the particulars mentioned.

6. For First, When our Saviour gave that Precept, Mat. 18 the Nation of the Jews were indeed under the Romish power, Ant. Jud. l. 14. c. 17. & l. 16. c. 10. but yet they had a liberty to determine matters in Consistories of their own. The truth of this is evident from the History of the New Testament, and Josephus acquaints us, that there were divers Imperial rescripts, in the time of Julius Caesar, and soon after his death, which impowered them to live after their own laws, both in Judea and in other parts of the Empire. Now the Jewish Government and their Cu­stoms about that time, allowed the dif­ferent Sects among them, to decide such matters of difference, as arose among themselves, De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 12. gr. according to the Rules of their own discipline, as is manifest, from what Josephus relateth to this purpose, concerning the discipline and judicial decisions of the Essens, which as Gro­tius well observeth, Grot. in Mat. 18. is sufficient to give allowance to the like proceedings, amongst the Christians.

7. Secondly, A little before the time when the Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides those above-men­tioned, there was among others published [Page 193]that memorable Edict of Claudius, Ant. Jud. l. 19. c. 4. where­by he gave liberty to the Jews all over his Empire, that none forbidding them, they might observe [...], and [...], their own proper laws, and the cau­stoms of their Country. V. Seld de Syn. l. 2. c. 5. n. 1. Now it was one of their known Rules in that age and time, that wheresoever any considerable number of them should reside, they should have a lesser Sanhedrim. And this rule their Rabbins accounted obligatory, Ibid. cap. 7. n. 5. & 9. De Syn. l. 1. c. 8. p. 224. &c. as Mr Sel­den shews, not only in Judea, but in what place soever they should inhabit, for the determining of matters not criminal.

8. And in another place, he gives suffi­cient proof, that in those times the Chri­stians were comprehended under the name of the Jews: and it is truly observed by Pamelius, that Judaica superstitio, Pam. in tertul. A­pol. n. [...]4. was the phrase which Verus and Antoni­nus used, when they intended to grant priviledges to them of the Christian Reli­gion. And this was because Christianity was first planted in Judea, and entertain­ed and propagated, by those who were of the Jewish Nation; and its followers ac­knowledged and owned the law and the Prophets. Indeed it must be presumed, that in the time of open persecution of Christianity, this licence of savour was withdrawn, and in that Case, the Christi­ans [Page 194]did either lay aside all contentions among themselves, and reduced the peace­able rules of their Religion into a general practice; or else they voluntarily yield­ed to the arbitrement of other Chri­stians.

9. Canons a­bout the im­munity of the Clergy, were esta­blished by the favour of Princes. Thirdly, Those Canons of the Church, which asserted any priviledges or immu­nities in the Clergy, from the temporal Judicatories, were established by the Em­perours consent, who gave his confirma­tion unto themm, and therefore encluded no derogation from his power. Those things which are contained nder the name of decretal Epistles, V. Gratian. ubi supra. of ancient Bishops of Rome, Conc. const. c. [...]. Conc. Chalc. c. 9. before Constantine, concerning the freedom of the Clergy from the secular power, are of so very bad credit, as not to deserve any consideration. That the four first General Councils, in which are some Canons relating to this matter, were called and confirmed by the Emperour, hath been proved. And that Provincial Councils were called by the same autho­rity, hath been observed, by instancing in very many of them, by the Archbishop of Spalato, Spalatens. de Repub. Eccl. l. 6. c 5. Grot. de Imp. Sum. potest. c. 7. n. 3. and by Grotius. And if there was any Canon of this nature, which was not confirmed by Imperial authority, or the substance of it contained in a preceed­ing Imperial Law or Grant, it was not brought into practice.

10. And it is further observable, that most of these Canons did but provide for the well and orderly managing those privi­ledges, which the Imperial law had be­fore granted to the Church. For before the genuine Canons of any Councils con­cerning this matter, the Imperial law had already established the substance of those priviledges in the Clergy, as will appear manifest to them who will compare these Canons, with the Edicts of priviledge, granted by Constantine, Constantius, De Episc. & Presbyt. and other succeeding Emperours, which may be seen in the Code of Theodosius.

11. And for the Judicatures of Chri­stian Bishops, who therein tryed civil causes, under the time of christian Em­perours; no man in reason can think, but this must be done by favour, and a dele­gated authority. And it is manifest from the Imperial law, that this was a privi­ledge granted unto them, out of respect to the honour of Christianity: God. l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 7, 8. Nov. 83. & 123. it being therein enacted, that whatsoever persons shall please by their own consent, to have their Cases tryed and adjudged by the Bishop, they shall have liberty so to doe.

12. Obs. 3. That the Canons were ne­ver intended, to disclaim the Supremacy of Princes over the Clergy, is manifest, [Page 196]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 37 ^th to the 61 ^st of that Greek Code, were taken out of the third Council of Carthage (this fifty third Ca­non, to which this action is there annexed, or according to Justellus his code, the forty eighth, is the thirty eighth Canon of that Council) wherein a particular Canon, for the priviledge of the Clergy was esta­blished. And the Canons prohibited appli­cations to the secular power against any of the Clergy, almost in the same manner as they forbad the application to a general Council against a Bishop, Conc. constant. c. 6. which was con­demned, unless the other methods by the Bishops of the Province should prove in­effectual.

SECT. I.
The latter part of the Oath of Supremacy considered.

Sect. 1 1. THE Royal Supremacy will be fur­ther vindicated, by resuting the pretences, which are vainly made by others, to the whole or any part of the just Soveraignty of Princes; wherein I must chiefly consider the claims of Foreign Jurisdiction, Foreign Jurisdicti­on dis­claimed. which are rejected and dis­owned in the Oath of Supremacy. In which Oath it is declared, that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to have, any Jurisdiction, Power, Superi­ority, Preeminence or Authority, Ecclesi­astical or Spiritual, within this Realm, and therefore all such Authority is dis­claimed and renounced.

2. But thereby it is not intended, that [Page 198]no Foreign Bishop, Priest or Deacon, shall be owned in this Realm, to have that pre­eminence of Order, in the Catholick 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 Governours of any Foreign Church, do within their Ju­risdiction, duly admit any person into the Church or do, clave non errante, excom­municate or absolve any, that the Christi­ans in this Realm have no obligation upon them, from the authority of such proceed­ings, to embrace or avoid Ecclesiastical Society with such persons. For thiswould be contrary to the Article of our Church, which asserteth, Article 33. that that person which is rightly cut off from the Ʋnity of the Church and Excommunicate, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faith­ful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church, by a Judge that hath authority thereunto. Can. A­post. 12. Conc. an­tioch. c. 6. And the anci­ent Canons of the Church did determine, that he who was excommunicated by his [Page 199]own Bishop, might not be received by another.

3. But the obligation which in this Case lyeth upon us, and all the members of the Catholick Church, is not from any Ju­risdiction or Superiority, which we ac­knowledge any such Foreign Officers of the Church to have over us; because this ob­ligation equally lies upon all Catholick Bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs, as well as upon ordinary and private Chri­stians. And it would bring in an unac­countable confusion to assert, that every Bishop under the Patriarch of Alexan­dria, should have a superiority over all the Bishops and Patriarchs, of the Roman, Constantinopolitan, and other free Church­es throughout the World, not excepting the Alexandrian it self; and at the same time to assert that every Bishop in any of these other Churches, hath upon the same account superiority over him, and all o­ther Bishops and Churches. But this duty is incumbent upon us, from the nature of our Christianity and Christian Ʋnity. 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: [Page 200]and he having appointed Officers in his Church, hath accordin gto their Offi­ces, given them authority to exercise the power of the Keys in his name, in the Churches committed to them. And here­upon Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais, ha­ving excommunicated Andronicus and o­thers, Svness. E­pist. 58. by vertue of his Sentence pronoun­ced against them, did require the Church­es all over the Earth, that they should not receive them into Communion.

4. But this Oath tending according to the design of that Statute, by which it was established, to restore to the Crown its an­cient Jurisdiction; that authority which ischiefly rejected thereby, is such as in­vaded or opposed the Royalty of the King; and particularly that which claimeth any supreme cognisance of Ecclesiastical affairs, as if they were not under the care of the temporal power, or that pretendeth to any other authority above, or against the just rights of the Crown. And suh is the arrogance of the See of Rome, which as­sumes to it self a claim of supreme autho­rity in matters Ecclesiastical, and even in temporal also; which many of its follow­ers defend as belonging thereto, upon account of its spiritual authority. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6. Thus Bellarmine declareth, that if the manage­ment of temporal affairs, appeareth pre­judicial [Page 201]to spiritual ends, potestas spiri­tualis potest & debet coercere tempora­lem; the spiritual power may and ought to restrain the temporal, by all ways and means, which shall seem needful to that purpose. And Boetius Epo. tells us, Quaestion. Heroicar. l. 2. c. 5. n. 105. that the Roman bishop virtute potestatis merè spiritualis, by vertue of his mere spiritual power, doth sometimes deprive had Kings of their Kingdoms. But the falshood and injustice of this claim will be discovered, by detecting the fraud and vanity of the Pleas, made use of to support the Popish power, of which in the following Secti­ons.

5. But a learned man hath given inti­mation of some suspicion, Weights and Meas. Ch. 20. Of a gene­ral Council. that by these words of this Oath of Supremacy, the au­thority of a general Council of the We­stern Churches, may seem to be disclaimed. And it must be granted, that the determi­nation of a truly regular general Council, either of all the Western Churches or of the whole; especially if it should establish a due reformation of the corrupt part of the Church, and a right order and unity throughout Christendome, would be ob­ligatory upon us, not only from the real goodness of the design, but from the au­thority of the Council, or the obligation that lies on the members, or several parts [Page 202]of the Christian Church, to be guided by the directions and rules, established by the united consent and authority of the Pastors Yet 1. since such a Council nei­ther is in being, nor in any likelyhood thereof, that which is not, hath no Au­thority or Jurisdiction. 2. This Church and Realm being a considerable branch of the Catholick Church, the authority of such a Council, or of the Christian Church therei, is no more foreign to us, who ought to bear a part therein, than the soul is to a chief member of the body, or than the laws of nature, and rules of civility may be esteemed foreign things, which have as considerable residence here as any where else. 3. The Oath it self is so ex­pressed, as if it purposely designed not to exclude the authority of a General Coun­cil, which properly is neither a Prince, a Person, a State, or Potentate. 4. As this Oath disowneth all foreign authority en­croaching upon the Crown; so if any Council how general soever, should abridge or violate the Royal Authority, all faith­ful subjects are so far bound, by the autho­rity of God, to disclaim it. 5. Though the determinations of a Council be never so excellent, if any Princes by their laws reject or prohibit them, as the Arian Princes dealt with the Council of Nice, [Page 203]Christians in such places are bound to em­brace them, upon no other terms, than they do their common Christianity; that is, in bearing the Cross, and undergoing unavoidable penalties, and thereby ac­knowledging the right, and due extent of the authority of the civil power.

6. The last part in the Oath of Supre­macy, The Oath of Supremacy engageth a defence of priviledges and autho­rities uni­ted to the Crown. engageth Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors; and also a de­fence of all Jurisdictions, priviledges, preeminencies and authorities, granted and belonging to the King, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Now the only appearing difficulty here, is concerning the last clause; for if when the great encroachments of the Pope were discarded, some thing might be overdone, 27 H. 8. 28. 37 H. 8.4. 1 Ed. 6.14. in annexing things to the Crown (as in fixing in the Crown those great Revenues given to Religious uses, when in many places there then was, and yet is wanting a competent provision for the support of the Ministry) it may be enquired, how good men and good sub­jects, may and ought to defend these things. And it will be sufficient to observe, that the defence here undertaken, is that of a subject towards his Soveraign. And all subjects of the Realm are, as such, obli­ged both with respect to the duties of obe­dience [Page 204]and peace, in their capacities to oppose all persons who would injuriously violate what is enjoyed by the Crown, and established by the law, since such persons may justly be suspected of designs to sub­vert the Government, and undermine the publick welfare; and do act disorderly and against authority.

7. And some thing which at first view may seem an abatement of the authority of the church, is rather such a way of re­gulating the exercise of its power, as un­der Religious Princes is for the Churches advantage. Of this nature I conceive that constitution, 25 H. 8.19. that no new Canons shal be enacted, promulged, or executed, without the Royal assent and licence, to enact, pro­mulge, and execute the same. For here­by the Clergy give such security to the King, against all jealousy of renewed Ec­clesiastical usurpations, that thereupon the Church may under the Kings favour, and with assurance of greater safety and protection, practise upon its established constitutions; which are so good, that we have great cause to bless God for them. And hereupon it may also be hoped, that what shall be further needful, may be su­peradded by the Royal Licence, and be­come more effectual to its end, by the con­firmation of that authority.

8. But because what I have now dis­coursed, dependeth upon a fair, How the words of publick ac­knowledg­ments must be interpre­ted. but na­tural and genuine interpretation of these words of the Oath of Supremacy, it may be further enquired, how we may safely and prudently interpret the forms of pub­lick acknowledgments, where the bare Grammatical construction may be possibly capable of different senses. Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 2. c. 13. n. 3, 5, &c. 16. n. 12. & l. 3. c. 1. n. 19. Sanders. de oblig. Ju­ram. Pral. 2. n. 8. Now though a forced laxe sene, by an evasion to avoid the design of the law or constituti­on, be justly, and must necessarily be re­jected; yet a rigid interpretation to strain the words, and force them to an harsh and unlawful sense, (as is too oft done by discontented persons) is also to be discarded, where there is another construction or meaning of which the words by natural interpretation are capa­ble, which is agreeable to truth and ju­stice, and secures the intention of our Superiours. For besides that Christian charity and equity will incline to this sense, the politick rules of Government will require Governours, to draw up pub­lick acknowledgments in such phrases, that they cannot by a fair construction, na­turally admit a lower sense than is design­ed. For otherwise such forms of words would be useless, and not attain their end: and this consideration alone is sufficient to [Page 206]vindicate and acquit the form of words, in this Oath of supremacy, from such cen­sures as have inconsiderately dropt from the Pen of a learned person.

9. But those general words of this Oath of supremacy, Qu. Eliz. Inj. 1. Can. 1. 1603. and the Canonical sub­scription, and words of like general force in the Queens Injunctions, and our Ca­nons, whereby all foreign Jurisdiction and obedience thereto is renounced; have manifestly a more particular respect to the Bishop and Church of Rome. For the design of that Statute, which enjoins the disclaiming all 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 Ʋniversal Monar­chy, for the Romish Bishop; and of an exemption from the secular Government, fot all Ecclesiastical things and persons. And this is pleaded for and defended by divers of their Writers.

2. Various as­sertions of Romish Writers concerning the Popes Supremacy. Earcl. de potest. Pa­pae, c. 3. & adversus Monar­chomach. l. 4. c. 4. & l. 5. c. 8. Yet among those who embrace the Romish Communion, there have been and are considerable persons, who have main­tained, that the Pope as Pope, and by di­vine right hath no temporal power, and in temporal things hath no authority over Kings. And yet even these men acknow­ledge the Bishop of Rome, as Christs Vi­car, and the Universal and supreme Pastor, to be endowed with a spiritual power and Empire, over all Christian Kings and Mo­narchs. But some of them do expresly grant to Princes, an authority in causes Ecclesiastical, so far as is necessary for the preservation of the temporal Repub­lick.

3. This opinion was not only embra­ced [Page 208]by Joh. Major, Jacobus Almain, and some others more anciently, but is also at large declared and defended by Barclay de potestate Papae, Blackwel in his Examina­tion, Barnes in his Catholico-Romanus Pacisicus, and divers others. But this as­sertion is not only distastful to the Romish Court, but even Bellarmine accounted it to be rather an Heresy than an opi­nion. De Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 1.

4. Many others there are, who deny the Pope to have any direct temporal pow­er, but yet grant him as much as he can desire, nder the terms of indirectè, & in ordine ad spiritualia. For since by this phrase is meant, in order to the ad­vancement, or preservation of the See and interest of the Romish church, and those of its Communion; these persons grant as much indirectly, as any other do directly: even as if any person should aver, that Alexander had no direct right to any other Kingdoms or Countries, but in order to the advancement of his Crown, or enlargement of his Government, his claim was valid; these give him as large a title, as any other persons can do. This method doth Eellarmine in his Contro­versies embrace, with many others whom he mentions, and he calls this the common opinion; in explaining of which, he gives [Page 209]the Pope this ample and extensive power, that he hath in order to spiritual good, Bell. ibid. the supreme authority of disposing of the temporal things of all Christians Yea he asserts, that he can depose Kings, and transfer Kingdoms, not as an ordinary judge, but as a supreme spiritual Prince: and that he cannot ordinarily either esta­blish temporal laws, or make them void as Pope; but that he can do this if the Kings themselves will not do it, in ordine ad salutem animarum.

5. Yet because he who talked at this rate, spake with some reserves, and seem­ing limitations of expression rather than of sense; and chiefly because by consider­able argument, against the Popes direct temporal power, he had indeed taken away the direct support for this indirect power, we are informed by Barclay, Barcl. de Potest. Pap. c. 13. p. 101. &c. 40. p. 329. that Sixtus the fifth had a design, and almost accom­plished it, by a publick censure to abolish all Bellarmines Controversies, because in this particular he did not comply far e­nough with his ambition. Acts and Monum. Co. 8. n. 8. And it hath been observed, both by Blackwell, and Bishop Mountague, that Carerius in his Book de Potestate Rom. Pontificis, making it his drift to refute Bellanmine and his notion, yet inscribes it, adversus politicos, & no­stri temporis haereticos.

6. But there are many Canonists, and others, of whom Baronius was one, who asserted the Pope to have a supreme uni­versal temporal power, by divine right, over all the World, & tam jurisdictionis quam proprietatis, M. Becan. de Justit. & Jure, c. 3. q. 7. Blackw. Exam. n. 20. as Becanus expresseth their sense. Many who maintain this opi­nion, are mentioned by Bellarmine, and others by Blackwell, who observes that both Rodericus Sancius and Carerius do call this the common opinion of Di­vines.

7. Ʋniversal temporal supremacy challenged by the Court of Rome. But however any private persons of the Romish Communion, may think in their studies, or dispute in their Writings, the publick claim of the Court of Rome hath been for an universal direct temporal power, [...]atina in Greg. 7. Baron. as is fully evident from these among other instances. When Gregory the seventh undertook to transfer the Imperial Crown from Henry the fourth to Rodolphus, he founds the right of his disposal thereof upon the gift of Christ to S. Peter, and his pretended Successors at Rome, saying, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Ro­dolpho.

8. Extr. Coml. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam San­ctam. Mart. Po­lon. an. 1301. The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth, asserted both the spiritual and Temporal power to belong to S. Peter, and the Church, with respect to which Marti­nus Polonus declared, se dominum spiri­tualem [Page 211]& temporalem in universo mundo asserebat. And in his Oration, in con­firming Albertus to be King of the Ro­mans, lately published by Baluzius; Baluz. in Addit. ad Marc. de Conc. l. 2. c. 3. he affirmed, that as the Moon hath no light, but what it receiveth from the Sun; so there is no earthly power which hath any thing, but what it deriveth from the Ec­clesiastical power; and all powers, saith he, are from Christ, and from us as the Vicar of Christ. And he there declareth, that Christ hath given his Vicar that power, that he hath the right of constituting an Emperour, and of translating the Empire, with much more to that purpose. And his high contests with Philip the French King, upon the like claim, were very no­torious, which occasioned the earnest De­claration of the Estates of France against him.

9. And in that large Rescript of Alex­ander the Sixth, to Ferdinand and Isa­bella, 7. Decre­tal. l. 1. Tit. 9. C. [...]. King and Queen of Castile and Ar­ragon, and to their Heirs and Successors. for ever; he undertakes to give to them all the American land unpossessed of any other Christian Prince, and all Islands, and all parts of the Continent, which ei­ther already are, or hereafter shall be dis­covered, as things which were granted to him in S. Peter, and in his power to dis­pose, [Page 212] authoritate omnipotentis Dei, ac vicariatus Jesu Christi; upon account of the authority of God, and the Vicar­ship of Christ; with other such like words. And when Bellarmine in his Books de Ro­mano Pontifice, had given such a sense of this grant, as if it signified no more, than to empower them to send Preachers thi­ther, and to protect converted Christians, and to do such like Offices; In lib. Re­cognit. he afterwards found reason to retract what he had there said, and acknowledged that when he wrote that, he had not seen that rescript it self; but only followed the opinion of Cajetan, and some others.

10. The Bull also of Pius Quintus a­gainst Queen Elizabeth declareth, that Christ had constituted him a Prince, over all Nations, and over all Kingdoms. And the Bull of Sixtus the Fifth, against Henry the third of France, asserteth him to have obtained a supreme power, delivered to him by divine institution, over all Kings and Princes of the whole Earth, and over all people, Nations and Countries. But these usurpations upon Royal Authority, were so distastful to a considerable part of the Romish Communion, De Benef. l. 1. c. 4. that Duarenus with respect to his own age, tells us, that he thinks there is no sober and learned man, who can approve thereof.

II. And the proud and stately behavi­our, and deportment of this Bishop, The Popes behaviour towards Princes. to­wards Emperours and Kings, when they are admitted into his presence, is suitable hereunto, which by their own Ceremo­nialist we have thus described. Saer. Ce­rem. l. 3. Sect. 1. c. 2. Romanus Pontifex nemini omnino mortalium reve­rentiam facit, &c. The Roman Bishop doth no reverence to any mortal man, either by rising up openly, or by bowing his head, or by uncovering it; but after the Roman Emperour, or other great Kings, have kissed his foot, and his hand as he sitteth, he doth a little rise towards them to re­ceive them to kiss his mouth. And again, Omnes mortales, &c. Ibid. c. 3. All mortal men of whatsoever dignity and pre-eminence they be, when they first come into the Popes presence, must thrice at distant spaces, bow their knee before him, and must kiss his feet.

12. I forbear to mention, what our Histories manifest, of the haughty, insolent, and imperious carriage of the Pope, to­wards our English Kings, especially King Henry the Second, and King John. But that proud and arrogant speech, of Gra­tian the Popes Legate, to Henry the Se­cond, Nos de tali curia sumus, quae con­suevit imperare Imperatoribus & regi­bus; we belong to that Court, whose cu­stom [Page 214]it is to command (or rule over) Emperours and Kings, was so hugely pleasing to Baronius, Baron. an. 1196. n. 11. that he thought fit to record it in great letters, and in the margent to note, Gratiani responsio digna legato, that it was such an answer of Gra­tian, as was fit for the Popes Legate to make. And what Luciferian insolency ap­peared in that Speech of Innocent the Fourth, concerning Henry the Third, Nonne Rex Anglorum vasallus noster est, Mat. Paris. an. 1253. & ut plus dicam mancipium? Is not the King of England our Vasal, and that I may say more our slave? And that this was no unusual stile at Rome, appeareth from ancient Records in the Tower, Pryns Ad­dit. to Hi­story of K. John, f. 18. & f. 28. which declare the Pope both in his Council at Rome, and in his Letter to the Barons and Commonalty of England, to have called King John his Vasal.

13. And waving many other things, I shall only add, that immediately before the framing the Oath of Supremacy, Queen elizabeth coming to the Crown, signified her Inauguration to Paul the Fourth then Pope, by Edward Carne, who was then at Rome, as an Ambassadour from Queen Mary: Hist. Conc. Trident. l. 5. p. 333, 334. an. 1558. the Pope proudly returns his an­swer, That the Kingdom of England was a see of the Apostolical See, and that it was intolerable boldness in her, to assume [Page 215]the name of Queen, or the Government of the Kingdom, without his approbation; and therefore he propounded to her, to renounce her pretended right to this Realm, and to leave it to his dispose. From these things it may appear, what great cause there was, for this Crown to take care, that all the subjects thereof, who are in any chief places of trust and em­ployment, do disown such foreign claims, which would undermine the very foun­dations of Regal Authority. And the meer recital of such things as these, are such palpable evidences of impudent arro­gancy, despising Dominions, and oppo­sing the humble, meek, and peaceable de­sign of the Christian Religion, and even the principles of humane reason and po­lity; that this alone may be sufficient with all understanding and good men, to raise in them an abhorrence of, and indig­nation against such intolerable ambi­tion.

SECT. III.
Such claims can have no foundation from the Fathers, and have none in the di­rect expressions of Scripture, which they alledge.

1. Every rational man might well ex­pect, that so vast a claim, both of Ecclesi­astical and temporal power, ought to be supported with some very considerable evi­dence, which in this case can be no other, but a manifest divine constitution. For since the very being of the Church of God, depends upon his founding it, and the very being of its Officers, upon Gods ap­pointing them; there can be no other ground for any Ecclesiastical Officer, to claim upon a Christian account, a supre­macy of rule over the World, unless he can produce the institution of God to this pur­pose.

2. Some refle­ctions on the sense of the ancient Church con­cerning this Supremacy. And therefore it would be needless, as it might also be tedious, to examine those expressions of the Fathers, wherein they spake with respect and honour to the See of Rome: for such expressions if they had been never so plain, could not found any original divine right. And it would be no difficulty, if it had been needful, [Page 217]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 Ʋniversal Authority, and Government of the Romish Church. For that famous Canon of the Council of Nice, Conc. Nic. Can. 6. doth plainly give the same power and au­thority, to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and the other Eparchies, or chief Dioceses, within their limits, which it gives to the Bishop of Rome, and makes them stand on even ground with one ano­ther; which could not be done, if the authority of the one was in subjection to the other, and the authority of the other without subjection to any. The second General Council also determined to the same purpose: Conc. Const. c. 2, 3. the sence of which is ex­plained and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon, in a genuine Canon received into the Code of the Ʋniversal Church, but disgusted by the Roman Church. Which Canon doth assert the priviledge and authority of the Romish Church, Conc. Chalc. c. 28. to have had its original from the Constituti­on of the Fathers, out of respect to the Imperial City: and therefore they upon the same account give to Constantinople, [Page 218]which was the Seat of the Eastern Empire, a right of [...] equal priviledges and dignity of See with that of Rome, and to be next to it in order. Conc. in Trul. c. 36. The same also is established in the sixth general Council.

4. But since there is an high pretence to a divine right, according to the doctrine of Christ, generally made by the Roma­nists, for the Universal Supreme Spiritual Power of the Pope; and by many of them for the temporal also; these pretensions must be discussed and examined. And though the latter be the more extravagant and exhorbitant, yet they being both false, and some of the same Foundations being made use of, to support them both, I shall consider them together. Now it is highly improbable, that he whose doctrine esta­blisheth the temporal power as Gods ordi­nance, and requires subjection from all persons to the same; should wholly devest Kings of their Supremacy, and appoint their authority to be altogether under the disposal of another, to wit, the Bishop of Rome. But my design being to defend the Royal Supremacy, and not only to oppose the Roman, I shall assert, that no Officers of the Christian Church ever were, or are invested with any such superiority over Princes, and if none, then not they at Rome.

5. Some testimonies of Scripture, What Scrip­tures the Popes them­selves have used for their uni­versal su­preme claim. Extrav. Com. l. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. Unam San­ctam. pro­duced for the asserting a general Supre­macy of the Pope, both temporal and spi­ritual, are so extremely fond and frivo­lous, that I should account it a piece of vanity to take notice of them, had they not been urged by the Popes themselves, who challenge a title to infallibility. Such is that of Boniface the Eighth, proving that S. Peter and the Church had the pow­er of the temporal Sword, because our Sa­viour said to him, Put up thy Sword into the sheath, therein using these words, thy Sword? and that when the Disciples said to our Lord, here are two Swords, he answered it is enough, Luk. 22.18. non nimis esse, sed satis; and also urging those words of the Apostle, The spiritual man judgeth all things. Surely such instan­ces as these, and divers of like nature, give evidence enough, that God never designed the whole Christian Church should be so sottish, and void of all understanding, as to be guided by the dictates of such men as infallible.

6. Bonif. 8. ibid. Joh. 22. in Ex­trav. c. Su­per gentes. Some of the Popes have also made use of those words of Jeremy, Jer. 1.10. I have set thee this day over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down; and to build, and to plant. But 1. What authority can these words [Page 220]give to the Pope, when they respect not the time of Christianity, nor speak of any ordinary authority in the Jewish Church, Innoc. 3. in Decre­tal. l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. in which Jeremy was no High Priest? but they only express a prophetical Commission to him an inspired man, to declare the pleasure of God from his mouth, concern­ing the Kingdoms of the World, as is ma­nifest from v. 5, & 9. 2. How strangely different was the spirit and temper of Je­remy towards Kings, from that of the Ro­man Bishop, notwithstandiug this his Com­mission? When he speaketh of the dispo­sal of many Kingdoms, into Nebuchadnez­zars hands; he useth not the Roman stile, as coveying the title unto him himself, but speaketh on this manner; Thus saith the Lord, I have made the earth,— and I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 27.4, 5, 6. And when he spake to Zedekiah, he treated him not as his Vasal, but his words are, Jer. 27.20. O my Lord the King, Let my supplication, I pray thee, be ac­cepted before thee. So far was that mourn­ful Prophet, from being the Ʋniversal Monarch of the World.

7. Other argu­ments from Scripture examined. But the arguments most insisted on by the Romish Writers are more plausible, though insufficient, and unconcluding. For S. Peters singular supremacy, they [Page 221]produce Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. Ans. 1. That S. Hilary, the Commentaries in S. Ambrose, Gr Nyssen, Cyrillus Alex­andrinus, S. Aug. and Chrysostome under­stand this rock of the faith of S. Peters Confession, Barrad. de Conc. E­vang. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 23. Chamier. Tom. 2. Pans. l. 11. c. 3, 4. is acknowledged by Barradius the Jesuit; besides others observed in Cha­mier to the same purpose, as the Liturgy of S. James, Basil of Seleucia, Theodoret and Epiphanius. And divers Fathers are in the same place noted to understand this rock of Christ himself: which sense is fa­voured much from Is. 28.16. 1 Pet. 2.4, 7. Ans. 2. As the Church of God is oft resembled to a building, and called the house of God, S. Peter according to the ex­pression of divers Catholick Writers, V. D ^r Ham­monds An­not. on Mat. 10. b. may be herein owned to be [...] (which word ordinarily signifies a Rock or a Stone) a prime stone of the foundation, united to Christ the chief Corner-stone: and so were also the rest of the Apostles, Eph. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. But to assert him to be the rock distinct from the whole building, and which beareth the whole, together with the foundation it self, would be to ex­clude him from being any member of Christs Church, and to own him as support­ing Christ himself, who is called the foun­dation, and the chief Corner-stone. And [Page 222]though S. Peter had a kind of priority of order, yet all the Apostles had the same office, and were with him equally partakers both of honour and of power; or in S. Cyprians Phrase, Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. they were pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. This place therefore gives S. Peter a spiritual eminency in the Church, but with the rest of the Apostles: but it nothing at all con­cerneth any temporal power in him, nor any exclusion of Princes from supreme Government.

8. It is also pleaded, that Christ Mat. 16.19. promised S. Peter, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and said, Whatsoe­ver thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, &c. Ans. 1. The Keys being an Embleme of Authority, this Text doth treat of a very high and great spiri­tual power, of receiving men into the Church of Christ, and the several ranks and orders thereof, and unto the partici­pation of Christian priviledges, and of excluding from all these, and governing the Church. Cyp. Ep. 27. & 73. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 50. But this power as the ancient Church did acknowledge, the other Apo­stles did also enjoy, and were actually pos­sessed of, as appears Mat. 18.18. Jo. 20.21, 22, 23. Ans. 2. How vastly differ­ent is this power from the temporal Domi­nion over the Kingdoms of the World, of [Page 223]which there is not any world here spoken by our Lord? And surely any man who considereth the doctrine and lives of the Apostles, cannot imagine that every one, or any one of them, was intended and design­ed of God to be the Soveraign Potentate, and grand Emperour of the World. It is therefore a just complaint against the Ro­mish party, that ex clavibus cudunt enses, Conf. Hel­vet. c. 14. lanceas, sceptra & coronas; out of the Keys they forge Swords and Spears, Scep­ters and Crowns, and usurp temporal Do­minion, equal with, or superiour unto Kings, notwithstanding that our Saviour expresly rejected from his Apostles, such Dominion as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised. Mat. 20.25, 26.

9. But Pasce oves meas, Feed my sheep, Jo. 21.16. is a place chiefly insisted up­on. And if no more was hence inferred, than a spiritual and Apostolical authority in S. Peter, this is readily granted and as­serted, and the other Apostles enjoyed the like. But Bellarmine will have [...], Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 14, 15, 16. Layman. Theolog. Moral. l. 1. Tr. 4. c. 6. to be a Charter of Soveraignty, and to enclude governing and commanding as a King doth. And he and others also infer the extent of S. Peters power, over all Apostles and Kings, because they are Christs Sheep. To which I Ans. 1. Not S. Peter only, but all Bishops and Elders, are [Page 224]commanded [...], to feed, or have a Pastoral care over the Flock. Ambr. de dign. Sa­cerd. c. 2. Ignat. Ep. ad Philad. & ad Rom. Eus. Hist. Ecc. l. 8. c. 25. Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. And among all Ecclesiastical Writers, beginning from Ignatius and downwards, the Bishops and chief Officers of the Church, have been acknowledged to be Pastors. Now if this Office of Pastor, doth not necessarily enclude a Soveraign or supreme Government, then no such can be asserted to s. Peter, or his pretended Suc­cessor, from this Text: if it doth, then must this be ascribed to every Bishop, which will necessarily overthrow the Popes Ʋniversal claim. Ans. 2. Government over the Sheep of Christ, is also too narrow a compass for an Ʋniversal Monar­chy.

10. Ans. 3. [...] being a Metaphor from Shepherds, is thence sometimes used, for to take care and feed, and at other times for to rule and govern, and oft for both. Now though the Officers of Christ have a pastor al authority over his Flock: yet these words, Joh. 21.15, 16, 17. were principally directed to S. Peter, as suppo­sing in him this authority, and requiring his duty of care and feeding and not as conveying to him a peculiar authority and Dominion: because this is enjoined upon him as an evidence of his love to Christ; and because among the three Precepts, to [Page 225] take care of the Sheep of Christ and his Lambs, two of them are there expressed by [...], which must be understood only of feeding. Ans. 4. Civil Governours al­so are to be as Shepherds over their Flock, with particular respect to rule and Govern­ment. The Government of God is some­times expressed by his being the Shepherd of Israel: and a Prince, whom Homer stiles, the Pastor of the people, [...], is by Philo and other Writers, oft men­tioned by a like name. Phil. de Agricult. & de Jo­seph. & quod om­nis probus liber. And a civil pa­storal power over all their people, is yield­ed to them, Num. 27.17. Is. 44.28. which is expressed in the Septuagint, by [...], 2 Sam. 5.2. Ch. 7.7. Ps. 78.71, 72. But every one must use their power according to their office: Ecclesi­astical Officers are to use the spiritual au­thority, but temporal Soveraignty is re­served to Princes. Ans. 5. The pastoral office of the guides of the Church, doth extend it self even to Kings, with respect to the conduct of their Souls, but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Soveraignty. A Prince may be ruled by a Physician concerning his health, or be led by a guide at Land, or a Pilot at Sea, and not lose his Soveraignty over these Subjects. And the Kings of the House of David, were the chief Rulers over [Page 226]the Realm, though the Priests were to offer Sacrifice for Prince and People, to direct them in Religion, and to judge in case of Leprosy, and such like.

SECT. IV.
Other arguments for the pretences of Pa­pal Authority, answered and refu­ted.

1. Annal. Ec­clesian. 57. n. 28, 29, 30. The support which Baronius af­fords, for the Popes Supremacy, is that Christ himself is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedek, being both King and Priest, according to the Apostle, Heb. 7. and that from him the regal and sacerdo­tal authority, are together conferred up­on his Church, first upon the Apostles, and then upon their Successors: which he fur­ther undertakes to prove, because our Sa­viour declared to his Disciples, Jo. 20. As my father sent me, so send I you; and did establish in his Church a Royal Priest­hood, 1 Pet. 2. Ibid. n. 31, 32. And though the Cardinal will not allow, that this authority in the Church, doth make void the political power; yet he doth assert, that this Regal Ecclesiastical Authority, must be superi­our thereunto. The Priest­hood of Melchise­dek.

2. But concerning the Melchisedekian [Page 227]Priesthood, Sect. 4 he did not consider these two things. 1. That the making the supre­macy of power, to be conjunct with the Priesthood, doth destroy the peculiarity of power challenged by the Bishop of Rome, for thence it must be inferred, that they who equally partake of Priesthood with the Bishop of Rome, must have an equal supreme authority with him. 2. That one thing which the Apostle did most especi­ally insist on, concerning the Priesthood of Melchisedek, is, that the Priest or High Priest of that Order, must not derive or receive his Priesthood from any Prede­cessor, nor leave it to any Successor, but must abide a Priest for ever, through that whole dispensation, under which he is Priest, Heb. 7.3, 8, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28. And therefore the Melchisedekian Priesthood is no more transferred from Christ, to any other person in the Church, then his proper mediatory office is. Beyerl. de Episc. Rom. And they who say, that this Priesthood of Christ, cannot indeed be enjoyed by any as successor to him, but only as his Vicar, do not so avoid the force of this argu­ment: For it remains certain, that no such pretended Vicar can partake of this Priesthood, because in him it must be re­ceived from a Predecessor ( viz. in that Vicarship, and Priesthood) and be left to a [Page 228] Successor, which is so highly contrary to the nature of this Priesthood.

3. Of the Apo­stolical Mission. When Christ sent his Apostles as his father sent him: 1. These words enclude a fulness of Ecclesiastical and spiritual au­thority, or the power of the Keys, which was given to all the Apostles. 2. But they do not make the Apostles equal, in digni­ty or dominion, with Christ himself; in being Saviour and head of the Church; or Lord over, and Judge of the quick and the dead. 3. Even Christ himself when he was upon Earth, being as man under the law, was not only obliged to practise the duties of the first table, and the other Commandments of the second table, but even to the observance of the fifth Com­mandment 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 superiour to them, to whom Christs autho­rity is superiour; may consider, 1. That Parents and Husbands have authority from God, and from Christ, and yet are under Kings and Princes. 2. The supe­riority of any Officer of Christ, must not be measured by the height of Soveraignty, which Christ himself hath; which would [Page 229]make the servant, even every Deacon equal with his Lord (and by the like pre­tence, every petty Constable must have equal authority with the King) but by the constitution of his office, and the power thereby conveyed to him. For neither God in governing the World, nor Christ in governing the Church, ever gave to any other an authority equal to what he possesseth. 3. Christ came not to over­turn the Government of God his father in the World, which hath established the supreme temporal power: yea his media­tory Kingdom and administration, is in subjection to the Father, and our Saviours Doctrine yieldeth that authority to Prin­ces, that it earnestly presseth a general and necessary subjection, for Conscience sake, to their Government.

5. And as to what Baronius urgeth, The Royal Priesthood. from the Royal Priesthood, mentioned by S. Peter, 1 Pet. 2.9. it may be observed, 1. That that expression hath not respect to a peculiar sacerdotal office in the Church, but to the dignity of the Chri­stian Church in general; as is manifest from the place it self, Salian. an. 2544. n. 347. Estius in loc. and acknowledged by their own Writers. 2. If this Text did express any peculiar power in Ecclesi­astical Officers, it must have particular re­spect to those Eastern Churches, to whom [Page 230]that Epistle was written, 1 Pet. 1.1. and 3. It is well observed by Bishop Andrews, that even that Royal Priesthood, v. 9. is commanded to be subject to every ordi­nance of man, Ch. 4. S. 2. n. 3. and to the King as supreme, v. 13. as I above observed.

6. And while some say, Of the Plea of expedi­ency for the Churches good. it is expedient for the Churches good, that the Ecclesia­stical Authority should be superiour to the temporal; otherwise its welfare and good is not sufficiently provided for: this Plea might appear more plausible, 1. If there could be no ignorance, heresy, pride, or ill designs in any who have the title of chief Officers in the Church: which no man can believe, who reads the Lives of the Popes, written by their own Authors. 2. If Kings and Princes must never be ex­pected to be nursing Fathers to the Church, and to take care of it. 3. If the great design of Christianity was to take care, that Christians must never follow their Sa­viour in bearing the Cross; and that this Religion did not aim at the promoting true faith and holiness, meekness and peace, but at outward splendor, dominion and power in the World, according to that notion the Jews had of a Messias. And this is not only a weak, but a presumptu­ous way of reasoning, to controul and af­front the Gospel of Christ, and to dare [Page 231]to tell him, how he ought to have esta­blished his Kingdom, to other purposes than he hath done.

7. And after all this, S. Peters Authority not peculiar to Rome. there is nothing more unreasonable, than for the Church of Rome, to monopolize unto its self alone, that authority which was committed to S. Peter, and the other Apostles. For it is not at all to be doubted, but the Apostles committed a chief presidential and Govern­ing authority, in their several limits, to other Churches besides the Roman. Basil. Ep. 55. Cyp. Epist. 69. Firmil. in. Cyp. Ep. 75. The ancient Fathers frequently express the Bi­shops of the Christian Church in general, to be the Apostles Successors. S. Cyprian and Firmilian assert, all Bishops to suc­ceed the Apostles, even ordinatione vica­ria, as placed in their stead, and possessed of that power, which was from them fixed in the Church. Hier. ad Marcel­lam. Aug. in Ps. 44. Amongst us, saith S. Hie­rome, the Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles: and for, or instead of the Apo­stles are appointed Bishops, saith S. Austin. Tertullian declares, that to his time Cathe­drae Apostolorum the Cathedral Sees placed by the Apostles themselves, did still continue their presidency. in the Apostoli­cal Churches: of which he mentions many by name, and Rome as one of them.

8. And as there is no evidence that S. [Page 232] Peter, who also presided at Antioch, left all his authority peculiarly to Rome: so there is sufficient evidence that S. Peter. who was commanded to feed the Sheep of Christ, did yield this authority to the Elders or Bishops of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, that they should [...], feed the flock of God which was among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. And hereby he either committed that pastoral authority, which he received from Christ, unto the Bishops of those free Churches, of the E­phesine, Thracian and Pontick Dioceses, to whom he wrote, and which afterward were placed under the Patriarch of Con­stantinople: or at least he acknowledged this authority in them. And therefore so far as concerneth a divine right, these Eastern Churches in the Territories of Con­stantinople, have fully as fair a Plea here­by, for deriving a pastoral authority from S. Peter, or having it particularly con­firmed by him, as they at Rome ever had.

9. But with respect to England, This Realm not feuda­tory. Bellarm. in Apol. pro Resp. ad Jac. Reg. c. 3. in Re­spons. ad Bel. Ap. c. 3. divers Romish Writers alledge, that it became feudatory to the See of Rome, by King Johns resigning his Crown, to Pandulphus the Popes Legate: to which thing object­ed and misrepresented by Bellarmine, di­vers things are returned in Answer by Bi­shop [Page 233] Andrews. But waving such particu­lar answers as might be given, I shall chuse to observe in General, that this Case is the same, as if any seditious persons or Ʋsur­pers, 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 complyance with them, and sub­jection to them. Now all such acts are ut­terly void and wholly unobligatory, be­cause 1. No just right of Supremacy or any part of Royalty, can be gained by pos­session upon an unjust title, against the right owner upon a sure title: this being a parallel Case to a Thief, being possessed of an honest mans goods. Addit. to Hen. 3. an. 10. f. 70. An. 10 Ed. 1. p. 279. An. 12 Ed. 1. p. 318. An. 17 Ed. 1. p. 391. &c. And therefore though some Kings of England, as Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. did, until they could without danger free themselves, pay to the Pope an annuus census of a thousand marks, as appears from the Records of the Tower published by M ^r Pryn; yet this is only an evidence of the oppressive injuries, which this Crown sustained, by the intolerable exactions of the Pope. 2. No Soveraign King, (unless by voluntary relinquishing his whole authority to the next Heir) can transfer his Royal Supremacy to any other person whomsoever: partly because the [Page 234]divine constitution having placed Supre­macy, in the chief secular Governours, God expecteth from them a due care, of ma­naging of this power, for the good of his people, and for the advancing his own service and glory: nor can any act of theirs, make the duty which God still re­quires from them, to become void; no more than a Father or Husband can dis­charge themselves, from the duties of those Relations, while the Relations themselves continue. Partly also because the constitu­tions of the Realm, oblige all the subjects thereof, to maintain the Royalties of the Crown; and to perform Faith and true Allegiance, not only to the King in be­ing but also to his Heirs and Successors. And partly because it is a great and special priviledge of a free born people, that they cannot according to the condition of slaves have the chief and principal Dominion o­ver them, translated from one to another, according to the pleasure of any person whomsoever, though it be their own na­tural Prince: which is both his and their great security and advantage.

SECT. I.
The whole Christian Church was never un­der the Patriarchal Sees.

Sect. 1 1. THE title of Patriarch, Of Patri­archal Au­thority. was not in the beginning of the Church, fixed as peculiar to the Bishops of those Churches, which for many Ages have been so called. This stile was not oft used in the first Centuries, and when it grew into use, was yielded to other famous Bishops, by Socrates, Socr. Hist. l. 5. c. 8. who did not preside in any of those Churches, which have been com­monly accounted Patriarchal. And this title also in an inferiour degree, was of late by Duarenus allowed to the Bishop of Aquileia, Canterbury, and others. Duaren. de Benef. l. 1. c. 9. The Bishops of Rome themselves seem not to have much affected, or used this stile: but they were ordinarily owned to be Patri­archs, not only in the Ecclesiastical ac­count, [Page 236]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 Ʋniversal Soveraignty, be very vain and unjust; yet if he have but a patriarchal right, as some have deman­ded for him, over all the Western Church­es, this will entitle him to an authority in this Realm, which is a member of them. Hereby he would be chief spiritual judge, to receive appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical, from the Metropolitical Jurisdiction, and to have the highest, constant, and fixed power of censure and absolution: besides what concerneth the Consecration of Arch­bishops, or Metropolitans, by his act or consent, and a chief authority with respect to Synods. And though a true Patriar­chal right, be of the same nature with the Archiepiscopal, which ought to acknow­ledge the supreme authority of the Crown, yet if any such authority be placed in any Foreigner, it would impair the just dig­nity of the Prince, as I shall hereafter evi­dence. But that no foreign Bishop or Pa­triarch, ought to have any such authority in this Realm, will appear manifest, by the proving three assertions, which I shall perform in this Chapter.

3. Assert. 1. The ancient Christian Churches, were never all of them under the Patriarchal Bishops; viz. of Rome, Many free Churches not anci­ently under any Patri­arch. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. But there were anciently di­vers free Churches, or Dioceses (which word was several times of old used, for the larger limits of many Provinces) indepen­dent on any superiour Patriarch. For that all the Patriarchates, and other ancient great Dioceses or Eparchyes, were only within the limits of the Roman Empire, is manifest, because the extent and bounds of their particular Churches, was ordered and fixed, according to the division of the Imperial Provinces. And therefore be­sides the greater Armenia, which was a Christian Kingdom and no part of the Empire, in the time of Constantine, and both before and after him; all the Christi­ans who lived under the Barbarous Nati­ons, are reckoned as distinct from the Pa­triarchal, and other head Dioceses or Churches, by the second General Coun­cil. Conc. Const. c. 2.

4. And whereas until 450. years after Christ, The Pontick, Thracian, and Asian Churches. there were only three Patriarchal Sees erected, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; not only the Churches in the remote parts of Asia, and Africa, and others without the Empire: but those of [Page 238]the Pontick, Thracian, and Asian Dio­ceses or Eparchies, which were in the heart of the Empire, were in subjection to none of those Patriarchs, but were all that time [...], governed by them­selves, as appears from the second general Council. Conc. Const. ib. But when the patriarchal li­mits, and authority of the Church of Constantinople was established; the Churches of those three regions now men­tioned, which as Theodoret acquaints us, Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 28. contained twenty eight Provinces, or Me­tropolitical Jurisdictions, were made subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, by the authority of the fourth general Council. Conc. Chalc. c. 28. But besides these, there were also other particular Churches, free from all Patriarchal Jurisdiction, of which I shall give some instances.

5. The Province of Cyprus in the Ea­stern Church, The Cyprian Church. when the Patriarch of An­tioch claimed a superiority over it, and a right of ordaining therein, had its liberty and freedom defended, and secured a­gainst him, by the third General Council. Indeed this Canon of the Council of Ephe­sus did chiefly provide, Conc. Eph. c. 8. that no Cyprian Bishops should receive their ordination, from the Bishop of Antioch, or from any other than the Bishops of their own Island. Yet to put a stop to those evasions, which [Page 239]some have endeavoured to make, in this Case, as if in other things besides Ordina­tion, they might be subject to the Bishop of Antioch, he who duly weighteth this Canon will discern, that it plainly enough condemns the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch, as an invading [...], another distinct Eparchy or Province, which was not heretofore and from the beginning, under the authority of him, or of those who did precede him. Conc. in Trul. c. 39. And when the sixth General Council did confirm this Canon of Ephesus, concerning the Liber­ties of the Cyprian Churches, they do own the priviledges, given to the Metro­politan of Cyprus in his Territories, to be equal to those, which the Bishop of Con­stantinople enjoyeth in his. To which may be added, that in the Synod of Anti­och, in the Reign of Constantius, among the several Provinces belonging to that Patriarch, which therein assembled, there is no mention at all of Cyprus.

6. Also the West African Churches, The African Churches. ta­king in all Numidia, Mauritania, and the other ample Territories of the Carthagi­nian Jurisdiction, were never under any of the Patriarchs. These limits were ne­ver claimed to any of the Eastern Patriar­chates, and are sufficiently excluded from thence, by the Canons of Nice, Nic. Conc. c. 6. Constan­tinople, [Page 240]and Chalcedon, which fix the bounds of those Churches. Const. c. 2. Chalc. c. 28. But when the Bishop of Rome claimed a power; to re­ceive appeals from those Churches, in the case of an African Presbyter, who was therein censured; and pretended a Canon of the Council of Nice, to give him that authority: the African Fathers, after they had diligently sought for the most perfect Copies of the Nicene Canons, from Con­stantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, besides what they had before in Latine, did detect the fraud, and falshood of the claim of the Bishop of Rome, and rejected his demand. To this purpose the sum of their proceedings may be viewed, not on­ly in particular Writers, but also in the Greek Copy of the African Code, which was received in the sixth general Council, partly in the beginning and partly in the conclusion thereof.

7. But whereas it is pretended by seve­ral Romish Writers, that these African Fathers did in the end of this contest, yield this authority to the Bishop of Rome; even this is very far from truth. Indeed they were resolved to submit, if there was any Canon of Nice which enjoined that submission: but after this demand concerning appeals, was made by Pope Zosimus, and canvased in the time of his [Page 241]Successor Bonifacius, the African Fathers write to Coelestin who succeeded him, Ad finem Conc. Carth. Gr. both asserting their own liberty of Governing their own Church, and requiring him not to receive any into Communion, whom they had rejected from it. And whereas in the beginning of this contest with Zosimus, there was a Canon made in the Council of Milevis, declaring, Conc. Mi­lev. 2. Can. 22. that those who should make appeals beyond the Seas, (or to Rome) should be uncapable of being re­ceived into Communion, by any in Afri­ca: Cod. Afric, c. 27. after this dispute was more fully de­bated and considered, they were so far from retracting this Canon, that they cau­sed it to be put into the African, or Car­thaginian Code, Conc. Carth. gr. c. 31. which was compiled and confirmed, about the end of this disquisi­tion, and therein this Canon remains as a standing rule.

8. But because it hath been observed by Zonaras, Zonar. in Conc. Sard. c. 5. and by very many since, that what the Bishop of Rome falsly urged as a Canon of Nice, was to be found among the Canons of Sardica: concerning that I shall note two things. First, Of the Ca­non of Sar­dica. That he who considers, that Zosimus would herein have falsified the Council of Nice; that neither he nor they who managed this contest un­der him, or after him, did urge the autho­rity of the Council of Sardica, to those [Page 242]African Bishops; and that those Bishops after all their enquiry, did declare to the Bishop of Rome, Epist. ad Coelestin. ubi sup. that they had never read in any Synod of the Fathers, that any such authority was granted to him; may be apt to suspect, that possibly there hath been no very fair dealing about this Council of Sardica; or at least must conclude, that they at Rome were sensible, that Africa was not subject to the authority of that Council.

9. Secondly, That in this Council of Sardica, Cham. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 7. Marc. de Conc. l. 7. c. 3. n. 6. as Chamier observed, and P. de Marca owneth, here were no proper ap­peals to Rome asserted, that the case under complaint might be there determined; but only that the Bishop of Rome might order a revising of the sentence, which had been pronounced against any Bishop, upon his application to him. And the state of the Church, and the occasion of this Constitution was this. Socr. l. 2. c. 5, 6, 7, 16, 18. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5, 10, 11. Arianisme greatly prevailing in the East, the Arian Bishops there sentenced, and deposed divers Ca­tholick Bishops, as particularly they had done to Athanasius in a Synod of Anti­och, who yet was received at Sardica. Now that the faith of Nice might not by such methods be suppressed, and the Com­munion of the Catholick Church be there­by confounded; the Orthodox Bishops at [Page 243] Sardica, who thought themselves not bound to disclaim Communion with all whom the Arian Heretical Bishops should reject, allowed the Bishop who had been censured, a liberty to have his Case re-ex­amined. And they committed this as a trust to the Bishop of Rome, for the pre­serving the Catholick Communion, that he should appoint Bishops about that Pro­vince, sending others also to join with them, to judge of that Case: which trust the succeeding Bishops of Rome made ill use of, for the inordinate advancement of that See. But this Canon gave not the Bi­shop of Rome an Ʋniversal superiority, in the right of his Church; Sozom. l. 7. c. 9. Marca de Conc. l. 1. c. 3. n. 9. but dealt with him, as the second General Council did with several eminent Bishops of the Eastern Churches, who were appointed as Capita communionis that the rest of the Church might communicate with them, with whom they held Communion. Nor could the Western Bishops convey any authority over the Eastern Church, which was here chiefly concerned.

10 Now as these Cyprian and African Churches, as well as those in these Islands, had an Independent Ecclesiastical autho­rity, of the same nature with the Patriar­chal, but not honoured with that title; so I might discourse further of other some­what [Page 244]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 [...], Bals. in Conc. Const. c. 2. Novel. 131. the former according to the Constitution of Justinian; and the latter by a Synod of Antioch, appoint­ing that that Church which was before un­der the Patriarch of Antioch, should be free and head of it self.

11. And concerning the Western Church, it may be observed, that whereas a prime patriarchal right is expressed by the Council of Chalcedon, (and the same may be collected from the Council of Ephesus, in the place above-mentioned, concerning the Cyprian Church) to be this; that the Metropolitans under him, Conc. Chalc. c. 28. who have li­berty to ordain the Bishops of their Pro­vinces, should be ordained by the Patri­arch: it is no difficulty to prove, and is granted by P. de Marca, Ubi sup. l. 1. c. 7. that the chief part of the Western Church, even all out of the Ʋrbicarian Diocese, which took in [Page 245]only some part of Italy, did never thus anciently depend on the Bishop of Rome for Ordination.

12. And touching the Eastern Church, the limits of the Patriarchate of Constan­tinople, have been above observed. The Territories of Alexandria were by the Council of Nice declared to be Egypt, Conc. Nic. Can. 6. V. Praef. and Conc. An­tioch. Conc. Chalc. Ac­tions 7. Libya, and Pentapolis. Antioch had once under it Coelosyria, Phoenicia, Palaestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Cilicia and Isau­ria: but when the Church of Jerusalem was made Patriarchal, it was agreed in the Council of Chalcedon, that all the three Palaestines should be reserved to its Juris­diction.

13. And such few expressions in some ancient Authors, as speak of the Bishop of Rome presiding in the West, or being the Patriarch of the West, are not sufficient to prove the whole Western Church, to have been subject to him, Conc. Const. c. 2. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. Hieron. Ep. 61. c. 15. but only some part thereof. For the Bishop of Antioch is oft said, both by Councils, and other Writers, to govern the East; and yet the whole Eastern Church as distinguished from the Western, never was under his Jurisdi­ction.

SECT. II.
No Patriarch ever had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority in this Island.

1. The second Assertion, which I shall make good, is, that the Churches of this Island had that ancient liberty and free­dom, that no Patriarch had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority over them. The Eastern Patriarchs never pretended to any, nor had the Romish Bishop any right to challenge it.

2. For since this Island received Chri­stianity, Britain re­ceived Christiani­ty before Rome. some years before any Church was founded at Rome, it could not then have any dependance upon the Church of Rome. Besides what many other Writers express, concerning Joseph of Arimathea, preaching the Gospel here; Bar. An. 35. n. 5. even Baroni­us from a Manuscript in the Vatican, gives a relation of his coming into France, and thence into England, upon the dispersion after the death of S. Steven: and this must be divers years before S. Peters coming to Rome. Antiq. Brit. p. 1, 2, 3. Mason. de Min. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Usser. de Prim. Ec. Br. And there want not Authors to assert, that S. Simon, S. Philip, and other Apostles and Apostolical men, did declare the doctrine of Christ in this Island, as hath been observed by those, who pur­posely [Page 247]give us an account of the original of Christianity here. Sect. 2 But concerning the early Conversion of the Britans, it will be sufficient to observe the testimony of Gildas, who was himself a Britan, Gild. de Excid. Brit. who tells us, that here the Precepts of Christ were made known, tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris; in the latter end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Baron. An. 44. n. 25. Now the second year of Claudius, when according to the general account S. Peter first preach­ed Christianity at Rome, must be about five years after the death of Tiberius: Ca­ligula wanting but little more than a month of four years. Wherefore with re­spect to the first planting of the Church, one Sister Church cannot claim superiority over another, especially not over the Elder.

3. Nor were there ever any Canons of the ancient Church, which subjected these Realms to the See of Rome: but the fixed rights of the free Churches were secured in the three first General Councils, in those Canons I have above mentioned. Conc. Nic. c. 6. Const. c. 2. Eph. c. 8. And the Council of Ephesus is very zealous, against the invaders of these priviledges, as being a thing in which the liberties of all Churches are concerned, and by which the intent of the sacerdotal function is perverted.

4. That these Churches did preserve and retain their liberties, Britannick liberty pre­served till Austin the Monk. Bed. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 4. until the time that Austin the Monk came into England, is manifest, in that both in the Southern and Northern parts of this Island (as also in Ireland) they celebrated Easter, and observed some other rites, differently from the Rules and Canons of the other Western Churches, and particularly of the Roman; and therefore were not governed by them. Indeed they celebrated Easter upon the Lords day, as was noted by the Emperour Constantine, Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. Bed. Hist. Eccl. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. & l. 3. c. 4. at the time of the Council of Nice: but they fixed on this day by a dif­ferent rule, from that of other Churches. And when Austin required them, to sub­mit themselves to the Romish Church, and to change these their different rites, they would not hearken to him herein, but both Britans and Scots long observed their former usages; and some of their Clergy and Monks who lived within the English limits, Bedae Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 20. & l. 3. c. 26. Bishop Spotsw. Hist. of Sc. l. 1. p. 18. H. Huntingd. Hist. l. 3. and Colman Bishop of the Northum­brians, rather left their places, than they would forsake the customs of their own Church. Yea they disowned Communion with him, as invading the Liberties of their Churches, and the Scotch Bishops would not so much as eat in the House where Austins Company was, as is related in a Letter of Laurentius, who succeeded Au­stin [Page 249]at Canterbury, recorded in H. Hun­tingdon. And the plain Declaration of the Abbot and Monks of Bangor, who were the most eminent Society of the Bri­tish Church, consisting of thousands, did fully disclaim, and protest against all right of subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as is expressed in their protestation made to Austin, and exhibited in the British tongue by Sir Hen. Spelman, Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 108, 109. wherein they own no subjection to any, above their own Archbishop, as a superiour Ecclesi­astical Officer.

5. Nor did the Bishop of 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 [Page 250]those Foreign Churches, from whence they came. For this would make Christi­anity to enclude a servitude in the pro­fession of it, and worldly Dominion in the preaching it. Had this been a rule in the Primitive Times, this Island and a greater part of the Christian Church all over the World, must have yielded subjection to the Bishop of Jerusalem, many Cities and Regions being first instructed in the Christian Doctrine, and converted there­to, by the dispersed Members of that Church; and amongst others Antioch it self, Act. 11.19, 22, 26. and even Rome also was partaker of their spiritual things, Rom. 15.27. And yet these Christians being made subject to Christ, and not to Jerusalem; Hieron. Ep. 61. n. 15. Conc. Nic. c. 7. the Bishop of Jerusalem for some hundred years, was no Patriarch, even till the Council of Chalcedon; nor Metropolitan, but was under the Bishop of Cesarea: only he had a peculiar ho­nour reserved to him by the Council of Nice. Bed. Hist. l. 5. c. 20. And if this had been a rule for later times, then Frisia, Zealand, and other Belgick Provinces, must have been subject to the Church of England, since under God they owed their Conversion to Wil­frid an English Bishop. Cone. Carth. gr. c. 103, 120, 121. Indeed some Ca­nons have given Bishops Authority, to go­vern such places as they should convert: [Page 251]but this tended only to give those persons, the deserved honour, of being the Bishops of those places which they had reduced from heresy or infidelity, where any other had not a previous right thereto; but not to make that Church or Kingdom subject to a remote Foreign Soveraignty. All that could be hence inferred is, that it was rea­sonable that Austin should be Bishop in England, but not that Gregory should be Patriarch over it; though he also deser­ved to be greatly honoured, for being so instrumental to the Conversion of the English.

7. I observe, Secondly, That when Au­stin came into this Island, it was inhabited by four distinct sorts of Nations, or peo­ple, the Britans, the Scots, the Picts, and the English (with which, without being curious about words, I enclude also the Sexons, and others who accompanied them out of Germany) That the Britans were ancient Christians, before the coming of Austin, needeth no further proof. Bed. Hist. l. 1. c. 13. Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. Chronol. Sax. And such were also the Scots, over whom Pal­ladius was an eminent Bishop, almost two hundred years before Austin. The Picts also in their Northern quarters, towards forty years before the coming of Austin, were Converted by Columba or Columba­nus, who came out of Ireland; and the [Page 252] Southern Picts before that time by Ninias a British Bishop. Now what pretence can be made, that they who converted or pre­sided in the three former Nations, should neither have an authority over the whole Island, nor a liberty left to govern them­selves; and yet the conversion of the last should swallow up the liberties of all the former three, and convey a Patriarchal right over the whole Island; yea though this last Nation or people, were possessors of those limits, which were within the an­cient British Dioceses?

8. I observe, Thirdly, That the Con­version of the English and Saxons was not performed only by Austin or his Suc­cessors, or any other appointed by him, or sent from Rome; but a very considerable part of this work was effected by other persons, who observed the rites of the Bri­tish Church. Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 1, 3. Amongst many things worthy observation, the Kingdom of the Northum­brians, after defection from Christianity which Paulinus taught them, wee in­structed therein and Converted, Sporsw. Hist. l. 1. p. 14. by Aida­nus a Scotchman, who observed the anci­ent Rites of that Church, and was made Bishop among the Northumbrians, of whom it is related, that in seven days he converted and baptized fifteen thousand. The Mercians also, and Middle Angles, [Page 253]received their Conversion by Finanus a Scotchman, Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 21, 25. who was Successor to Aida­nus in his Bishoprick among the Northumi­brians: and is observed by Beda, to have been a strict opposer of the introduced Romish Rites. And this good work was carried on by others, of the ancient Bri­tish and Scotch Church.

9. And Finanus above-mentioned, did baptize Sighercht, King of the East-Sex­ons, and others of his Company, who were converted to Christianity, among the Northumbrians. Bed. ibid. c. 22. After which Cedda and another Presbyter of the Middle-An­gles, was sent for, to instruct the Kingdom of the East-Saxons in the Christian Faith, and by them they wee Converted, after the defection of that Kingdom from their formerly professed Christianity. And this Cedda was made Bishop of the East-Sax­ons by Finanus, and two other Bishops with him; and at that time observed the ancient British Rites; but after the death of Sinanus, when Colman Finanus his Successor, deserted his bishoprick among the Northumbrians, and went into Scot­land, Ibid. c. 26. rather than he would relinquish the ancient practises and usage of his Church, Cedda was then brought over, to comply with the Rites brought in by Austin. All which will evidence, that what was done [Page 254]by Austin, could not bring England into a subjction to the Bishop of Rome, un­less he admit divers equals, and rivals in his claim. And a reflexion upon what hath been now observed will evidence, that to found a constant Ecclesiastical superiority and subjection upon such pretences as these, would bring in an unavoidable confusion sinto the Church; and it would have overthrown in all the ancient Patriar­chates, in which no such rule was ob­served.

10. Nor by the power the Pope once here exerci­sed. I shall now consider that subjection, which was yielded to the Bishop of Rome in this Island. And it is acknowledged, that the Roman Bishop was for many years highly esteemed in this Realm, and consul­ted with, and many things after the Con­quest, were decided by his determination. And also that he did receive great sums of money from hence, not only from the Clergy, in disms, first-fruits, and other payments, but also Peter-pence were paid by the Laity also; not as a tributary ac­knowledgment of the subjection of the Realm, Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 794. as some Romanists would have it; but this was granted as an Eleemosynary pension, for maintaining an English School at Rome. And it must also be acknowledg­ed, that the Pope did sometimes since the Conquest, exercise a great authority here, [Page 255]disposing frequently by his provision of spiritual preferments, confirming or nul­ling the Election of Metropolitans, Pyn in Edward 1. an. 30. p. 985, 986. & an. 32. p. 1040. and some other Bishops, and receiving Appeals. And in those days, there are some instances in our Records, that the Kings Writ a­gainst persons excommunicated by the Archbishop, was sometimes superseded, up­on their alledging, that they prosecuted Appeals to the Apostolical See.

11. But this submission in different per­sons, had not always the same principle; being sometimes yielded out of an high measure of voluntary respect and kindness; and sometimes more was given to the Pope, than otherwise would have been, because the circumstances of Princes oft made their courting the Popes favour, in former times, to be thought by them to be a piece of needful policy. And much also was done, from the superstition and misapprehension of those Ages, in many persons, who sup­posed him to have that right of govern­ing these Churches, as S. Peters successor, which he is now sufficiently evidenced not to have had. Now what is done out of courtesy and by leave, or out of some emergent necessity, may at other times be otherwise ordered; and no Christians are obliged to continue in practising upon su­perstitious mistakes, more than they are [Page 256]obliged to live in errour and superstition. And mere possession upon an unjust claim, can give no good title to the Government of a Church; but when the injustice thereof is made manifest, it may be reject­ed and abolished: Conc. Eph. c. 8. as the ancient Canons, especially that Canon of the Council of Ephesus, which speaks particularly of the Patriarchal Authority, enjoin, that no Bishop shall invade any Church, which was not from the beginning under his Pre­decessors, and if he should compel it to be under him, he must restore its Jurisdiction again.

12. Yet that exercise and possession of authority, which the Pope here enjoyed, was not so constant and undisturbed, but that it was many times by the Kings and States of the Realm, and even by the Bishops at some times, complained of and opposed, as injurious; and the true rights and liberties of this Church and King­dom, were oft demanded and insisted up­on. Of which, among very many instan­ces, I shall take notice of so many, as are sufficient. Before the Conquest, I find not that the Pope exercised, or claimed any governing authority, distinct from coun­sel and advice, in this Realm; and there­fore there was no need of any opposition to be made agianst it. Indeed when Wil­frid [Page 257]Bishop of York, who was twice cen­sured in England, G. Malms­bur. de Gestis Pon­tific. l. 3. f. 150. did both times make his application to Rome, his Case was there heard and considered in a Synod (and such examination and consideration of the Case even of the Bishop of Rome, as Cornelius and others, was sometimes had in other ancient Churches.) But for the decision of the Case, the Pope requires it, either to be ended by an English Council, or to be determined by a more general Council. And when Wilfrid at his first return from Rome brings the Popes Letters in favour of him, King Egfrid put him in Prison: and at his second return from Rome, Ib. f. 152. King Alfrid, who succeeded Egfrid in the Kingdom, a Prince highly commended for hispiety, learning and valour, declared that it was against all reason to communi­cate with a man who had been twice con­demned by English Councils, notwith­standing any writing whatsoever from the Pope. Nor were these things only sudden words, but when the Pope had done all he could, Wilfrid was not thereby restored; or as Malmsburiensis expresseth it, Malms. de gest. pont. l. 1. init. f. 111. Ib. f. 124. non tamen rem obtinuit. After the Conquest it was declared by W. Rufus, to be a cu­stom of the Kingdom, which had been established in the reign of his Father, that no Pope should be appealed unto, without [Page 258]the Kings Licence; consuetudo regni mei est, à patre meo instituta, ut nullus prae­ter licentiam regis appelletur Papa. Anselm. Epist. l. 3. Ep. 40. Paschali. And Anselme acquainted the Pope that this King William the Second, would not have the Bishop of Rome received or appealed unto in England, without his command. Nor would he allow Anselme then Archbishop of Canterbury, to send Letters to him, or receive any from him, or to obey his De­crees. He further tells the Pope, that the generality of the Kingdom, and even the Bishops of his own Province, sided with the King; and that when Anselme asked the Kings leave to go to Rome, he was highly offended at this request, and requi­red that no such leave be afterward asked, and that he appeal not to the Apostolical See; and that when Anselme went to Rome without his leave, he seised the Re­venue of his Bishoprick. M. Paris. in Henr. 2. an. 1164. And amongst the liberties and customs sworn to at the Par­liament at Clarendon, one was against ap­peales to Rome, and receiving Decrees from thence.

13. Ex lib. As­sis. Lord Cokes Re­ports in Cawdreys Case. In the Reign of King Edward the First, a subject of this Realm brought a Bull of Excommunication against another subject from Rome, and this was adjudged Treason by the Common law of England; and divers other instances are brought by [Page 259]Sir Edward Coke, wherein the Excom­munication and Absolution of the Pope or his Legate, was declared null or inva­lid. Pryn in Edw. 1. An. 20. p. 454. And much of the usurped power, which the Pope here practised and claimed, was rejected as a great grievance, in the Statute of Provisors, An. 25 Edw. 3. concerning his ma­king provision for, and collating to Dig­nities and Benefices, against the method of free Elections; and they who should apply themselves to Rome for this purpose, be­came thereby liable to severe penalties. And appeals to Rome in certain Cases, and the procuring thereupon Processes, Bulls, and Excommunications from thence, was by the Parliament in the Reign of King Richard the Second, 16 Ric. 5. taxed and complain­ed of, as that which did apparently hinder the determining causes, and the effectual execution of justice in England, and ten­ded to the destruction of the Kings Sove­raignty Crown and Regalty. And all those who should bring from Rome, such Pro­cesses, Excommunications, Bulls, or other Instruments; both themselves and all their Fauthors, were then by the Statute of Prae­munire, put out of the Kings Protection, their Lands and Goods forfeited, and their Bodies to be attached. And this Statute continued in force, and unrepealed (as that former also) notwithstanding all the en­deavours [Page 260]of the Pope and his Adherents, even an hundred and fifty years before the Protestant Reformation. And this is suf­ficient to shew, that the Popes usurped power, was not so quietly and freely sub­mitted to in this Realm, as thereby to give him any right to govern here.

SECT. III.
The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal, ought not to be determined by the an­cient bounds of their Patriarchates.

1. The bounds of Patriar­chal Au­thority al­tered. The third Assertion is, That the Pa­triarchal rights, especially those of Rome, do not now stand on the same terms, as they did in the ancient Church; nor can the present Roman Bishop claim subjection in all those limits, which of right were under the ancient and Catholick Bishops of Rome. No man can reasonably think, that the bounds of the Patriarchal Sees were unalterable, unless they had been of a divine or Apostolical Authority. But that they were never looked upon as such, in the Catholick Church, may besides o­ther testimonies appear, in that the Gene­ral Councils undertook to erect Patriar­chates, and to divide the limits of others, [Page 261]as they saw cause. Sect. 3 Thus the dignity and honour of a Patriarch was given to the Bishop of Constantinople, Conc. Const. c. 3. in the second General Council, and his Patriarchal li­mits and Jurisdiction were fixed in the fourth: and in the same, the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided, and part there­of allotted to the Bishop of Jerusalem who then received Patriarchal limits and Ju­risdiction. Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. But I shall only consider four things, which may so alter the state of Pa­triarchal Jurisdictions, that every one of them, besides what is abovesaid, is a bar against all claim of authority in the Bishop of Rome, to these Churches and Realms.

2. First from the different territories, 1. From the differ­ent bounds of free Kingdoms. and Dominions of Soveraign Kings and Princes. For the doctrine and design of Christianity, did not intend to undermine and enervate, but to establish and secure the right of Kings: and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free King­doms, to devest themselves of sufficient means to preserve their own security and peace, and the necessary administration of justice. Nor can the former acts of any Councils or Bishops wheresoever any such were, give away the rights of Kings and Realms. But a Foreign Bishop, who is un­der no Allegiance to this Crown, and [Page 262]hath no particular obligation to seek the good of this Kingdom, Mischiefs from Fo­reign Ju­risdiction. may probably oft incline to designs, either of his own ambi­tion, or the interests of other Princes, a­gainst the true welfare of this Realm, as hath sufficiently been done in the Court of Rome. And if such an one hath power, to cite before him any person whomsoever of this Realm, either to his Patriarchal Seat, or his Legate; and hath the au­thority without all redress or appeal (save to an Oecumenical Council, which proba­bly will never be had) to inflict so severe a sentence as Excommunication truly is; he would hereby have a considerable awe and curb, upon many of the subjects of the Realm, that they would be wary of opposing or provoking him. And if Ca­nonical obedience were due to him from all the Clergy, and filial reverence from the laiety; such a person being the Kings Enemy, may have greater opportunity of indirect managing his ill projects, than is consistent with the safety of the Realm, or with the innocency and goodness of the Christian Religion to promote.

3. The exercise of a foreign authority, when managed by haughty and ambitious spirits, hath been of such ill consequence to Kings and Emperours, that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his [Page 263]Crown to the Popes Legate; Henry the Third Emperour of Germany, Mart. Po­lon. in Greg. Sept. p. 361. was com­pelled to stand at the Popes Gate barefoot several dayes n frost and snow to beg for absolution; and Frederick the First to submit to Pope Alexander, treading upon his neck. And other instances there are of like nature, of the despising Dominions and Dignities, being the effects of Inter­dicts and Romish Excommunications. Towards the whole Kingdom, St. 25 Hen. 8.21. it becomes a method of exhausting its treasure, by tedious and expensive prosecution of ap­peals, and many other ways, which were not without cause publickly complained of in this Kingdom; Antiq. Brit. p. 178. insomuch that the yearly revenue of the Court of Rome, out of this Kingdom, was in the time of Henry the Third, found to be greater, than the revenue of the King. And it is an high derogation from the Soveraignty of a King, as well as a prejudice to the sub­jects, where justice cannot be effectually administred, and Cases of right determi­ned, by any authority within his own Do­minions. And with respect to the Clergy, Pryn An. 24, & 25 Edw. 1. p. 689, &c. the Foreign Jurisdiction sometimes brought them into great straits; as did that Bull of Boniface the Eighth, which put them to avoid his Excommunication, upon contest­ing with the King, and thereby brought [Page 264]them under the Kings displeasure, and into very great grievances, as appears from the Records of that time.

4. And as upon these accounts it appears reasonable and necessary, that the Domi­nions of Soveraign Princes, should be free from any Foreign Ecclesiastical superi­ority: so there are many things which may be observed to this purpose, in the anci­ent state of the Church. The Government of Dioceses, Provinces, and Patriarchates, hath been acknowledged to have been or­dered within the Empire, and according to the distinct limits of the Provinces thereof. Conc. Const. c. 3. Chalc. c. 28. Conc. Chalc. c. 17. Trul. c 38. The Sees of Rome and Constan­tinople, enjoyed the greatest Ecclesiastical priviledges, because they were the Impe­rial Cities. The Canons also of Oecume­nical Councils enjoined, that if any City receive new priviledges of honour, by the Imperial authority, the Ecclesiastical Con­stitutions for the honour of its See, shall be regulated thereby. And whereas the Slavonian Churches were first Converted to Christianity, by them who were of the Eastern or Greek Church, and embraced their Rites; when Bohemia and some other branches of the Slavonian Nations, were made members of the German Em­pire, they thereupon became subject to the Government of the Western Church. Thus [Page 265]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 Sove­raign Princes, have been subject to a Fo­reign Patriarch, which was not their du­ty. But this was undertaken, either upon presumption, that because of the excellency and simplicity of the Christian Religion, there could be no fear of prejudice, from its Ecclesiastical Governours; or else be­cause those Princes did not sufficiently un­derstand, or thought it not advisable to claim and exercise, their own right of So­veraignty, 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 [Page 266]should be ordered, as it was before. But this was no 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 Soveraign Princes 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 whilest 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 Ʋnity 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 Oecumenical Councils, [Page 267]they generally submitted to their Canons. And they constantly acknowledged all acts of Government, in the true Catholick Of­ficers of a particular Church, in receiving or rejecting members to be of force in the whole Catholick 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 Catholick 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 Ʋniversal Supre­macy, as encludeth a power of disposing Kingdoms, deposing Kings, and dissolve­ing the bonds of subjects 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 [Page 268]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 lyeth 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 Catholick 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 Arianisme, it was the honour of many Catholick Bishops, and other Christians, that they kept close to the Catholick doctrine, even in opposition to those Patriarchs. And the Oecumeni­cal Council of Ephesus declared, Conc. Eph. c. 1. that if [Page 269]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 inferiour 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 enclude em­bracing corruptions.

10. But the various, false, Conc. Trid. pas­sim. and Corrupt doctrines of the Church of Rome, are openly asserted, under Anathema's 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 [Page 270]the Fourth, declared to be the true Catho­lick 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 pub­lick 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 Oecumenical 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 Hereticks, who do oppose these doctrines, but also all [Page 271]those who do appeal to any future Coun­cil. Wherefore as much as it is the duty of any Church or Christian, to own Gods 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 Ʋnity 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 Apollos, 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 Ca­tholick Christians, who lived within the Dioceses of the Donatist Bishops, to sub­mit to them, and thereby not hold the Catholick Communion. Cyp. Ep. 52. ad An­ton. For as S. Cyprian said, he who doth not keep the Ʋnity 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 [Page 272]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 Schismatick, 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 Catholick Church, and requiring them to be accoun­ted Hereticks. And his Schism hath such aggravations as these. 1. In the ill design of upholding corrupt doctrines, and pra­ctises 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 write upon the bull in coena domini, tell us, for account­ing a general Council superior to the Pope.

14. Wherefore the Bishop of Rome as [Page 273]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 Soveraign Princes Dominions, by the Supremacy of their Crown, and by his un­due claims, inconsistent with their regali­ties. But if he would become truly Ca­tholick, both as to Christian Ʋnity 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.

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 it self, 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, lyeth in this kind of rea­soning, which some account plausible, to [Page 275]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 [Page 276]and authority, are all of them opposite to the nature of man, and to the rights and priviledges of his being. And now would it not heartily 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 mens 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 Superiours, 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 [Page 277]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 [Page 278]men by Laws and Government, from fol­lowing every inordinate inclination of their own minds, though they miscal 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 errour and mistake can bring along with it, with that clearness which truth doth; and this ought 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 Superiours 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 [Page 279]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 Superiours, in things relating to or­der. And I heartily 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 errour, 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 Ʋnity of the Church.