SECT. I.
The Proposition proved by Humane Au­thority, of Heathens.

IN Plato's time, Kings were, either Elective, [...], according to the Law and Custome of particular [Page 19] Nations, as, [...], in Car­thage. And as, at this day, in Po­lonia.

Or, they were, [...], Here­ditary, according to Primogeniture, as in Lacedemon and(a) [...] &c. Diog. Lacrt. Plato. l. 3. Mace­donia: for the Lacedemons and Macedonians, were not onely for Kingly Govern­ment, but also for the due and regular Succession of their Kings in the right (b) [...], &c. ibid. Line. To the same purpose, Aeli­an informs us, scil. That(c) [...]. Aelian. Hist. l. 6. c. 13. among the Grecians, their Kings reigned successively ac­cording to Birth-Right, and particularly Gelon in Sicilia, the Leuconian Kings in Bos­phorus, and the Cypselidae in Corinth. Though (as he re­ports) the Legal Succession of their Kings by Primogeniture, seldom ran farther in a direct lineal Descent than, [...], unto the third Ge­neration; by reason of frequent Insur­rections and bloudy Rebellions, in which too often some powerfull Ʋsurper or other mounted the Throne (even as [Page 20] Oliver Cromwell lately did here in this Our Kingdom) and cut off the Right Heir. Thus Might, over-coming Right, turned the Stream of Regal Government out of its proper Cha­nel, and forced it to run (at least for a while) a by-way.

Nicocles, the aforementioned Em­perour, strenuously defends his own just Title to the Crown, by virtue of his Birth-Right; when he assures the World, that he came to the Crown, not by Usurpation, nor by any ille­gal and sinister way, but honestly, [...], &c. Isocrat. Nicocl. Orat. 3. and justly, to wit, by Inheritance descended from his Progenitors down to his Father, and from his Father, immediately to Himself.

SECT. II.
The Propsition; That Succession to the Throne ought to be by Virtue of Primogeniture, and not of Grace, is farther proved by Di­vine Authority.

AS Humane, so also Divine Au­thority speaks the same Truth, scil.

That all Kings and their Lawfull Heirs, whether good or bad, vertu­ous or vitious, ought successively to Reign and Govern.

To this purpose, very pertinent are the Interrogatories, which Elihu put to Job, c. 34. v. 17, 18. Shall even he that hateth Right, Gover? And wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a King, Thou art wicked? and to Princes, Ye are ungodly?

For the right understanding of which Interrogatories, it must be premised, That through gross mistake Elihu rash­ly concluded, that pious Job had un­worthily repined at God's severe hand [Page 22]of Providence towards him; and there­fore to convince Job of his supposed errour, does Elihu expostulate with him, saying, Shall they, who are Haters of Righteousness and Justice, by virtue of their Right of Succession and Inheritance, Govern and Reign over their Subjects, and that by God's own appointment? And what? wilt not thou, O vain Man! suffer God him­self, the King of Heaven and Earth, to govern, act, and doe, what seemeth him best, with his Creatures? But thou wilt presume to censure thy Ma­ker, and say, He is not Just in his Dea­lings with Thee?

Surely! Reason teaches thee this Lesson, That if thou mayst not cen­sure nor condemn an Earthly Prince, who possibly may hate Right; much less mayst thou censure and condemn the most just One, even God, who can never doe any unrighteous thing.

So that Elihu makes a Comparison between God and a King. And he thus argues à Majore, to wit, That if Kings ought not to be Censured nor Controlled by their Subjects, but ought to Govern and Rule notwith­standing [Page 23]any supposed Irregularity of their Lives and Actions; Then much more ought Almighty God to Reign and Govern, according to his own Beneplacet, and no Man whatever, ought in the least to murmure at his Providences, though apparently ne­ver so thwart unto humane expecta­tion: For, Shall even he that hateth Right, govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just?

The point of Interrogation in v. 17.Drus. in Job. 34.17, 18. [...], Shall he? is altogether Affirma­tive: and implies, that he who hateth Right, shall, and ought, however to Govern.

But the point of Interrogation in v. 18. [...], nunquid? Is it fit, to say to a King, Thou art wicked? or, to Princes, Ye are ungodly? is wholly Ne­gative, and teaches all men this Loyal Lesson, scil. That, it is not fit, nor lawfull, for any Subjects, to say, their King is wicked; nor to revile and scan­dalize their Princes, by opprobriously affirming, that they want Grace, and are Ʋngodly, and that, therefore, they are unfit for Government.Drusius in loc. Non dicere convenit, non honestum, non par est: [Page 24]It is not honest, nor meet, nor allow­able, to say so to Kings, and Princes: For let them be never so bad, even Belials, Idolaters, as the word [...] which we translate Wicked, in the Hebrew does signifie; yet, for all that their Idolatry, they ought to Reign and Govern.

Yea, this Truth, scil. That Kings and their Lawfull Heirs by Right of Primogeniture ought successively to Reign, is farther evidenced by our Sa­viour's Answer unto Pontius Pilate.

St. Joh. 18.37. Pilate said to him, Art thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King: to this end was I born, &c.

In which Answer, our Blessed Sa­viour asserts two Great Truths,

• 1. That he himself was truly and indeed a King, as Pilate had said.
• 2. That He was King by Primoge­niture and Birth-Right, for, unto this end, to wit, That he might be a King, and might declare to all the World, the same Truth, Was He Born.

Thus the Holy Jesus rationally ur­ges and pleads his own Birth, as a sufficient Title to his Father's King­dom, [Page 25]inasmuch as his Father was a King, and He was his First-born.

Which Answer of Christ's, when Pilate rightly understood, to wit, that Jesus was indeed a King, but not of this World; and when he understood also, that, Jesus his being a King was no more prejudicial to Caesar's Crown and Dignity, than was that internal Empire which the Stoick Philosophers attributed to every Wise Man: Now, whenEx Jesu responso Pila­tus concepit Regnum, quod Jesus sibi tri­buerit, non ma­gìs imperio Romano obesse, quàm id quod Stoici Sapi­enti suo tribuunt, qui docent, solum Sapientem Regnare, veram for­titudinem patiendo maximè probari, &c. Grot. in S. Jo. 18. Pilate clearly understood Jesus his meaning, then He went im­mediately out of the Judgment-Hall unto the Jews, and professed publickly to them, That he found in Jesus no fault at all.

SECT. III.
The Proposition, proved by the Ʋnalte­rable Law of Inheritance by Primo­geniture.

THAT all Kings and their Law­full Heirs, whether good or bad, [Page 26]whether Beloved or Hated, ought suc­cessively to Reign, is fully proved by the Ancient and Unalterable Law of Inheritance.

Which Law was, and still is, groun­ded,

• 1. On God's exprss Command, and so it is a judicial Law of God.
• 2. On Natural Reason, and so it becomes a positive Law of Nature, ob­liging all Nations, at all times, to the Observation of it.

Which Law of Inheritance by Pri­mogeniture, we find recorded by Mo­ses, in Deut. 21. v. 15, 16, 17. and it runs thus,—

If a Man have two Wives, one Be­loved, The Law of Inheritance. and another Hated, and they have born him Children, both the Be­loved, and the Hated; and if the First-born Son be hers that was Hated, then it shall be, ☞ when he maketh his Sons to INHERIT that which he hath, that he may not make the Son of the Belo­ved, First-born, before the Son of the Hated, which is indeed the First-born: But he shall acknowledge the Son of the Hated for the First-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath, &c.

By this Law, it is undeniably evi­dent, that the First-born should ever be the Heir of his Father, whether the said First-born were Good or Bad, Be­loved or Hated.

And the Reason which God gives for that Law, is this, scil. v. 17.Deut. 21.17. Be­cause the First-born is the Beginning of his Fathers strength, and, therefore, the Right of the First-born is his, that is to say, the Right of Inheritance is his.

So that, this Law of Inheritance by Primogeniture is not onely a positive and judicial Law, made by God, bind­ing the people of the Jews; but it is also a Moral Law founded on Natural Reason: And therefore, is for ever Ob­ligatory, and at all times, Binds all Nations to observe and keep it.

For, if among the Jews, the First-born was therefore to Inherit, because he was the Beginning of his Father's strength:

Then, by the same force of Reason, ought All First-born Sons of all men whatever, to Inherit their Father's Substance, because, they all are the Beginning of their Father's strength:

And therefore,

The Right of Inheritance, is theirs. From which Concessions, we thus ar­gue, to wit,

That if Succession and Inheritance be established upon the First-born in private Families, because of his Pri­mogeniture;

Then by the same Law, the Right of Inheritance and of Succession unto the Crown, is for ever setled upon the First-born of Kings. For, the First-born of Kings are the Beginning of their Royal Father's strength: And therefore, the Right of the First-born, that is to say, the Right of Inheri­tance and of Succession to their Father's Throne, is Theirs.

And from this Moral Law of Inhe­ritance by Primogeniture, it came to pass, that not onely the Jews, but al­so, all Civilized Nations among the Heathens, did prefer their First born (a)Amplissimum verò dig­nitatis Gradum Primoge­nitus haereditario jure sibi vendicat, &c. Epist. Indi. Japan. p. 145. Sons to be their Heirs; and particular­ly, the First-born Sons of their Kings to succeed and inherit their Father's Crown and Digities; for Common and Na­tural [Page 29]Reason dictated this to be the First-born's Right.

And whenever (as sometimes) it did happen that some aspiring Dome­stick or Foreigner did attempt to put by the Right Heir from succeeding his Father, that then, War was im­mediately Commenced to defend the First-born's just Title to the Crown.

And it is no be noted,

That although oft-times God did use his own Prerogative, and did, among the Jews, set up and pull down Kings, at his pleasure, which no Creature, though nver so great, ought to doe.

Yet, this is to be observed, that after God had once setled the Succession of the Crown of Israel in King Da­vid's Family, and particularly on King Solomon's Issue by Primogeniture; That then it was High Treason for any to put by the Lawfull Heir and Successour, although the said Heir was an Idolater, and never so bad, as to, either Faith, or Manners.

Nor may we forget the Chronolo­ger's Observation, scil. Allen Script. Chronol. p. 154. That All who reigned in Judah after King Solomon, [Page 30]they all were the Right Heirs to the Crown, except onely Queen Athaliah, who was of the House of Omri, and of the Tribe of Issachar; She onely, by Usurpation, Fraud and Violence, step­ped up into the Throne that did not belong to her, and she paid dear for it, for, the Divine Vengeance soon over­took her, and rendred to her the just wages of her Treason, which was Death; for, 2 Chron. 23.15. they laid hold on her and slew her, and set up Joash (the Right Heir) and then, all the people rejoiced, and the City was quiet (v. 21) after that they had slain Athaliah (the Usurper) with the Sword; and had re­stored Joash, the Right Heir by Pri­mogeniture, unto the Crown.

And although, for the sins of Solo­mon, Almighty God did rend away from the House and Lineage of King Solomon, ten Tribes, and erected a di­stinct King over those said ten Tribes, to shew,

• 1. His own Justice against impeni­tent sinners.
• 2. To exert his own Prerogative, and to let the World know, that it is in his power alone to set up, and to Depose Kings,

Yet, God did not dis-inherit, for ever, the Right Heir of King Solo­mon;

For, although God did set up a New Kingdom, and a New Succession in Is­rael, for the Reasons above mentioned, Yet, it was onely for a certain term of years.

And by limiting the Succession in Israel to a term of years, the Allwise God did clearly hint to all men, this Truth, to wit,

That notwithstanding the Inter-Regnum's of Jeroboam, and of all the other Kings of Israel; that, however, still the Right of Inheritance, and of Succession to the Imperial Crown over all Israel, as well as over all Judah, still belonged to the Line and House of Solomon. And it so happened, that after God had sufficiently punished the House of Solomon for their Rebellions against his Divine Majesty; That then, according to his own Law of Inheri­tance, he restored the whole Kingdom back again to the Right Heir of the Line and House of King Solomon:

For,2 Kings 23.24. Josias the Right Heir of King Solomon by Primogeniture, Reigned [Page 32]over all Israel, as well as over all Ju­dah.

Nor may we pass over in silence this Remark, scil.

That whenever any Rebellious Sub­jects did depose and kill any King, whether in Judah, as did the Muti­nous Subjects destroy Amon King of Judah, 2 Kings 21.23. upon the pretence of his be­ing an Idolater: 1 Kings 16.9. Or, in Israel, as did Treacherous Zimri Murther his Lord Elah, King of Israel:

Now, whenever any did thus dis­loyally attempt to depose and kill their Lawfull Prince, and did endeavour to prevent the Right Heir from enjoying the Crown;

Then, did God, by his wise and just Providence, so order Matters, as that the said Treacherous Attempters were ever Prosecuted for Traitors, and were deservedly Executed for their Treason. And if any scrupulous person shall de­sire to be farther informed,☞ for what Reason, it is not Lawfull for any Peo­ple to Depose and Kill their Lawfull King, nor to Exclude the Right Heir by Primogeniture, from succeeding in the Throne, because of his Immorality, [Page 33]Tyranny, Idolatry, or becaused of any other pretended wickedness whatever:

The Reason is,

Because Kings are accountable onely unto God, for their Faith and Man­ners, for their Principles and Practi­ces, and not unto the People their Sub­jects: For, it is God, and not the Peo­ple, who sets up Hererditary Kings and Princes.

And therefore They are to give an Account of their Stewardship onely unto Him of whom they received it. pa Hence it is, That, although God may in his wrath Depose Kings for their Sins committed against Himself: Yet, the People may not Depose any King, for any Irregularities or Out­rages committed against Themselves, whether upon their Persons or their Estates.

For,☜ the King is therefore accoun­table unto God, because He is (though a King) Inferiour to God, being his Vicegerent. But the King is therefore unaccountable to his Subjects the Peop­ple; because, He is their Superiour, be­ing their King.

And it is ever adjudged a thing preposterous and absurd for the Head to be accountable unto the Inferiour Members, for its Government.

It is very true, That both Reason and Interest speaks it to be the Duty and Concern of the Head to Govern and Manage the whole Body well, re­guarly and judiciously, for fear of a se­vere check and punishment from an higher Hand, to wit, from the Superme Head and Governour of Heaven and Earth, and for fear the whole Body should miscarry, and be ruined tho­rough his ill Government.

But, however, if the Head will not doe his Duty, and Govern well, yet, the Inferiour Members may not take up Arms and Rebell, and, in their zeal for Reformation, cut off the Head, as a Delinquent: But in such a case,

It is the Inferiurs Duty humbly to kiss the Rod, partiently to submit to Divine Providence, and pray, saying, O Heavenly Father! Thy will, and not Ours, be done.

And this, by the way, is worthy every Man's observation, scil.

That, although God doth oft-times raise up certain Rebels to be as his scourges to punish irregular Princes; and although it be just in God so to doe: Yet, it is High Treason for those Rebels to exe­cute God's Decrees and Judgments up­on such their Lawfull Princes, unless they have (as had Jehu) as special War­rant immediately from God himself, so to doe; which Warrant, not Man since Christ's Advent ever had, or can have in the days of the Gospel.

And therefore,☜ it is Treason for any Subjects, upon the specious pretence of executing God's Decree and Ven­geance, to raise War, make Sedition, to Depose and Kill their Lawfull Prince.

Thus Absalom was guilty of High Treason, in making War, andi n rai­sing Sedition against his Father King David, and He Died for it: And yet, Absalom did onely execute God's De­cree of Judgment against King David his Father.

In like manner, God raised up Zim­ri to execute his Decree against the House of Baasha, and permitted Him to destroy his Master King Elah, the [Page 36]Son of Baasha; which Action of Zim­ri's killing his Master King Elah, is Condemned for an Act of High Trea­son, and was by the Loyal People pu­nished as such, 1 Kings 16.20. And no better was Shallum's killing Zacha­riah the King:

For although Shallum had done no other in killing his said Sovereign, King Zachariah, than what God afore­hand had decreed should be done to the House of Jehu for his and their Hypocrisie and Wickedness;

Yet, notwithstanding, Shallum's exe­cuting God's Decree, He was deser­vedly Condemned for a Traytor, and at length Vengeance seized upon him.

By these, and other Instances, which might be alledged, it is evident,

That Treason and Rebellion, although Commenced upon never so Religious a pretence, very seldom, if ever, went unpunished.

And therefore we Christians may pertinently urge in this case of Trea­son and Rebellion, what Christ alledged in that of Offences, Matth. 18.7. Woe to the World, because of Offences, [Page 37]for Offences will come; but Woe to them by whom the Offence cometh. So here, Woe to the World, because of Treasons and Rebellions: for Treasons and Re­bellions will happen, as long as Youth are not duely Catechised, and men are not better and more Loyally Princi­pled. But, Woe to those Men by whom Seditions, Treasons, and Rebellions do come: For, the Divine Nemesis will undoubtedly pursue, and over-take them, either in this World, or in that to come.

SECT. IV.
The Proposition proved by Reason, and the Common Sentiments of Re­ligion.

REason and Religion dictate it to be a thing absolutely sinfull and unlawfull for any Subjects whatever, High or Low (if they be Subjects) in Parliament or out of Parliament, to Depose their Lawfull Prince:

And that it is also unlawfull for any Subjects, The Bill of Exclusion un­lawfull. by a Bill of Exclusion, or by any other Means, to put by the Lawfull Heir from the Crown, for fear (as was lately pretended) He should alter Religion, and so bring many E­vils upon the Nation.

Now, that it is utterly unlawfull and sinfull for any Subjects to doe thus, Reason dictates;

Because, to preclude a Lawfull Heir from the Crown, for fear of future Evils which may happen in his Reign and Government, is truly,

1.Malitious. To suppose a fault in the Right Heir, before there is one; and to Act upon such a Supposal, savours of the height of Malice and Dis-ingenuity: In truth, so to doe, in our apprehen­sion, is no better than to Hang a Man first, and then to Try him afterward.

2.Atheistical. So to doe, is to trust more to Man's Policy, than to God's Wisedom; more to Man's Care, than to God's Pro­vidence, for the prevention of suture Evils.

The Holy Scriptures assure us, that [Page 39] the Heart of the King (and of his Right Heir) is in the hand of the Lord, Prov. 21.1. and as the Rivers of Water, he turneth it whither soever he will.

But this late Fanatical Doctrine, of Deposing Kings, and of Excluding the Right Heir from the Crown for want of Grace; and for fear of future Evils that may possibly be done by Him, speaks the contrary:

For this their Doctrine avouches for a Truth, that the Heart of the King, and of his Successour, is not in the hand of the Lord: Or, if it be, that then, God will not turn it so, as to doe any Good to the People.

And therefore, the People (especi­ally in Parliament) for the Good of the Common-wealth, ought to Usurp God's Prerogative, and take the Heart of the King and of his Lawfull Heir, into their own hands, and dispose of it, as they, the People, shall judge best.

Now, What is all this, but in effect, not onely to Depose and Dethrone an Earthly Prince, and his Lawfull Heir, but also to Depose and Dethrone Almigh­ty God himself?

Nay, What is it in plain English, but for the People to take the Reins of Government out of God's hand in­to their own, and to Rule the World according to their own exuberant fancies?

Nay, What is it at the best, but to doe an apparent Evil, that a Contin­gent Good may come on it?

Which Principle is Antichristian, and Condemned for such by Saint Paul, who assures us, That they who main­tain such an irreligious Tenet, scil. Let us doe Evil, Rom. 3.8. that Good may come; Their Damnation is just.

And here it is to be farther noted, That if it be (as has been proved to be) a sin for the Subjects upon any pretence whatever to Depose their King, and to Exclude his Lawfull Heir from the Throne for fear of any Evil that may happen through his ill Government;

Now, if this be a sin,

Then to be sure, much more is it a sin, for any Subjects to endeavour, That a Law might be made to Dis­inherit the Lawfull Heir of the [Page 41] Crown, upon the pretences aforesaid. For,

1. To make such a Law, is truly to make a Law directly to oppose and contradict the unalterable Law of In­heritance, which says that the Right Heir by Primogeniture, shall Inherit; and the other known Law of God, That He, who hateth Right, shall Go­vern.

And therefore, it was a notorious Sin, Opposite to God's Law of Inheritance. an Antichristian Act in the late Shaftsburian-Associators, to move for a Bill of Exclusion of his present Royal Highness James Duke of YORK from Succeeding in the Throne (notwith-standing his undoubted Right there­unto by Primogeniture) upon a pre­sumptive jealousie, that He would not be a Friend to the true Episcopal-Pro­testant Religion of the Church of Eng­land, as now, by Law, Established. For by this Attempt, they endeavour­ed to have set up a New Law of Man, against the Ancient Law of God, which Commands (as we have heard alrea­dy) that the Right Heir shall Govern, although he hate Righteousness, and although he be a Belial, an Idolater: [Page 42]And the Law of God is so far, from either Deposing a Lawfull King, or Pre­cluding the Right Heir, as that, it will not suffer any Subjects whatever to say, Their King is Wicked, or that, their Princes are Ʋngodly.

2.The Cause of Civil Wars and Sedition. To make a Law for the Exclu­sion of the Lawfull Heir from the Crown, is to establish Sedition and Faction by Law. And it is not onely to cause, but also to perpetuate an In­testine and Civil War by Law; as our present most Wise and most Gratious King prudently and too truly urged in his late Declaration, giving that for one Reason, why neither in Honour nor in Conscience could He give his Royal Fiat unto that unnatural and irreligious Bill of Exclusion.

For, if such a Bill should pass into a Law, then there must inevitably fol­low a Bloudy, Civil War:

Which can please none but them, who delight in Bloud, and love to sish in troubled waters.

And which will be worse,

The said War will, in all likelihood, continue untill the longest Sword shall [Page 43]have carried all before it. And who knows, but that Might may once a­gain overcome Right, as it did at Wor­cester Fight, and in the late Cruel Re­bellion?

Now, Reason assures us,

That upon passing the Bill of Ex­clusion into a Law, there most certain­ly will follow a Civil War; and that because,

There will be in the Kingdom, two Opposite, irreconcilable Abettors for the Crown, and their Adherers; such as,

• 1. The Right Heir, by Primogeni­ture, Excluded and his Party.
• 2. The Ʋsurper intruded, and his Confederates.

And both sides will plead a just Ti­tle to the Crown.

The Lawfull Heir, Excluded, will urge (and that most truly) his Right thereunto by virtue of his Primogeni­ture, according to the Law of God, of Natural Reason, and of Magna Charta:

And therefore to be sure, He will Fight, and that undauntedly, for the Crown.

On the other hand, the Ʋsurper will plead, and that not without Rea­son, his Title to the Crown, by virtue of the New Law of the Nation, to wit, the New Statute of Exclusion, which has setled the Royal Diadem upon his Head, and therefore He will not easily part with it.

Wherefore, no man need doubt but that the Ʋsurper will fight, and that stoutly, to keep what by Law he has got.

Thus any Man (that has but half an eye) may (if he will) plainly see, That, if the Bill of Exclusion should pass into a Law (as the Anti-Yorkists so hotly desired) that then War and Sedition will be established and conti­nued by Law.

And now, suppose this should ever happen to be (which God forbid:) Then the Great Query, and Case of Conscience will be, scil.

Qu. What Party or Side ought the Pious and Dutifull Subject to take and follow?

Ans. To deal plainly and faithfully in this Case, where Conscience and Re­ligion, I mean Christianity, are so deeply concerned;

We humbly conceive it to be the honest Subject's Duty in this case, ra­ther to Obey God and his Law, and so, to fight, More Romano, Couragi­ously for the Right and Lawfull Heir by Primogeniture unjustly Excluded: This we ought to doe, rather than to Obey Man and his New Law of Ex­clusion, and so, to engage for the Ʋsur­per, who Reigns and Governs not by Divine, but onely by Humane, Law and Appointment.

And we will Appeal to Conscience and Reason, Whether it be not safer to follow God and his Law, which can­not err, than Man who may err, and his Law of Exclusion, which does grosly err in the very Sanction of it; in that it manifestly opposes the above-men­tioned Law of God, which Commands, That the Right Heir by Primogeni­ture should Reign and Govern, al­though He hateth Right.

Object. If it be (as it is, by all Anti-Yorkists and Common wealths Men) ob­jected, That the Law of the Realm is above the King, for that the Law made him King; And therefore (say they) the Law has a power to Depose the King, and to take away that Regal Authority which it gave him: As that Great (but to our thinking, Fac­tious) LawyerIpse autem Rex non de­bet esse sub ho­mine, sed sub Deo, & sub Lege, quia Lex facit Re­gem. Non est enim Rex, ubi dominatur Vo­lumas, & non Lex, &c. Bract. l. 1. c. 8. Bracton argues: And as is so often quoted from him, and seditiously urged by the Authour of Julian Apostate, p. 83.

And the very same Argument was pleaded by all the late Regicides, par­ticularly by that Grand Regicide, Bradshaw the Lawyer, who had the Impudence to sit as Judge upon the Bench, and to pronounce that Diabo­lical Sentence of Condemnation upon his own Dread Sovereign, King Charles the First of Blessed Memory; and he palliated over his and their Horrid Treason with this colour of argument, to wit,

That the Law was above the King.

Ans. It is hoped, that all the Gen­tlemen of the Long-Robe will go on (as they already have worthily begun) to repair the Honour of their Noble Order, and that none of them will any more advise or plead for Treason, nor ever again deceive and seduce the silly, ignorant People with their speci­ous and fallacious Arguments: But that they (who have been disloyal) will suffer themselves, and their Youth to be better Disciplined in the Doc­trine of the Church of England: The neglect of which, has too apparently caused some of that Honourable and most necessary Function, and their Cli­ents, so grosly to err in point of Obe­dience.

But, as for the above mentioned Ob­jection, it is already pithily Answered, by the King's Learned Sergeants at Law in Hilary-Term 1683, in their truly Loyal Motto,

A DEO REX, A REGE LEX,

God made the King, the King made the Law.

And therefore, very false and Anti­scriptural are the forementioned Posi­tions, scil.

• 1. That, the Law made the King.
• 2. That, the Law is above the King.

For, although, the Law of God in­deed is above all Kings, and if they wilfully transgress the same, they are all accountable unto God, and unto God onely for the same;

Yet, in this Kingdom of England, no Statute-Law is, or can be, above the King.

And that because,

It was the King who first gave Life and Being to the Law of the Land:

The King by his Royal Assent made the Law (Salvâ Regiâ Praerogativâ) to be what it is, to wit, a Law.

But the Law of the Land did not make the King to be what he is, to wit, a King:

For, the King was King before the Law;

And so, he became the principal efficient Cause of the Law.

And therefore, the King was before the Law, inasmuch as the Cause is ever before the Effect.

And it is to be noted,

That although the Law may (by Repeal, or other ways) be abolished, and dye,

Yet, in England the King never does, nor can, dye, as long as there is alive any Lawfull Heir by Primogeniture, though never so Remote.

Object. But most, if not all the Anti-Yorkists, did, and still do urge, in favour of their Bill of Exclusion, the Statute of 13 Qu: Eliz. c. 1.

When a Law was made, to this pur­pose, scil. That it should be High-Treason for any to affirm the Right in Succession of the Crown to be in some o­ther than the Queen: Or to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance and Gover­nance thereof. Whosoever shall, during the Queens Life, by book, or work writ­ten, or printed, expresly affirm (before the same be established by Parliament) that any one particular person is, or [Page 50]ought to be Heir and Successour to the Queen, except the same be the natural issue of her body, &c. shall for the first offence be a whole year Imprisoned, and forfeit half his Goods; and for the se­cond offence shall incur the penalty of Praemunire. Polt. Qu. El. 13. c. 1.

This is the Act, and these are the words of that Act, which the Authour of Julian the Apostate, and all the Factious Associatours have so stiffly pleaded, in Justification of their Bill of Exclusion.

Ans. But, a little to undeceive the deluded People; and to tell the Truth, as far as we apprehend it;

First, There was an Occasion, if not a Necessity, for such an Act in Queen Elizabeth's days; but there is none in these of ours.

And the Reason for it is this, scil.

Because in Her days, many, both Papists and Fanaticks, disputed Queen Elizabeth's Right and Title to the Crown:

Nor was it certainly known, who by Birth and Primogeniture was the [Page 51]Lawfull Heir of the Crown, after Queen Elizabeth's Decease, in case she should dye without Issue of her own Body.

And therefore an Act passed, Decla­ring two things, scil.

1. That Queen Elizabeth was by Birth and Primogeniture, the Lawfull Heir of the Crown.

2. That, whomsoever the said Queen and the Laws of the Realm should de­clare to be by Descent and Primogeni­ture her Lawfull Heir and Successour, That then, He or She so declared, should be acknowledged and owned for the Right Heir of the Crown; it being declared (as was said before) that He or She was the Right and proper Heir by virtue of Birth, Des­cent, and Primogeniture.

So that, the aforementioned Act of Queen Elizabeth does confirm the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, to be onely by Lawfull Descent and Primogeni­ture.

Secondly, But farther, If the mea­ning of that Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. were otherwise, than we apprehend it to be, Yet, it is well known, that,

That Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. is Obsoleted, and out of Date, and was made onely for Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and therefore is of no force or validity in these our days;

And that because, in this our day, the Right Heir to the Crown by Des­cent, and Primogeniture, is well known:

For, if he were not well known, then, pray, what need is there of a Bill of Exclusion to barr and preclude the Right Heir from succeeding in the Throne; and that onely, as is pre­tended, for fear the supposed Right Heir, when once got into the Throne, should not Govern well?

From these Arguings, it is evident, That the above-mentioned Act of Queen Elizabeth is out of Date, and does no ways affect these our times, in which there is (at least there need be) no dispute, who, at present, is the Right Heir by Primogeniture.

And therefore, it cannot be igno­rance; but, as we fear, right down Prejudice, not to call it Malice, in them, who are knowing in the Law, to urge, from that Act of Queen Eli­zabeth's, a Lawfulness to hinder, by a Bill of Exclusion, the Right Heir from Inheriting the Imperial Crown of England, which is his undoubted Right by virtue of his lineal Descent and Primogeniture.

It will not be impertinent, here to add the Observation of some judicious Men:

How that, God never blessed, either that Family, or that People, which have unnaturally dis-inherited the Right Heir.

And it has been observed by many, That, although the Law of this Our Kingdom does permit Parents to cut off the Entails of their Estates, from their Eldest Sons, when prodigal and vitious, or otherwise:

Yet, it has been observed,

That those Families which have taken that Liberty which the Law of the Land has given them, and there­fore, [Page 54]have dis-inherited the Right Heir. That they never prospered or conti­nued long, but by some evil Accident or other, they have been blasted in their Estates, or Reputations, and in few years have dwindled away into nothing.

And as thus the Curse and Wrath of God has pursued private Families, which have dis-inherited the Right Heirs to their Estates;

So, much more exemplarily has the Wrath of Almighty God visited in a direfull manner those Nations and Peo­ple, which have Rebelliously Deposed their Lawfull Kings, and have Dis-inherited the Right Heirs to the Crown.

And We, the Inhabitants of Great Britain, have had wofull experience of this Truth.

For, who does not Remember those sad Judgments which afflicted this Our Nation, upon the Deposition and Mur­ther of the late Pious Martyr King Charles the First, and upon the Ex­clusion of the Right Heir to the Crown, even our present Dread Sovereign, King Charles the Second?

And what? Shall we ever yield a­gain to them, who Plot to bring down the same, or worse, Judgments upon us, by Excluding the next Right Heir to the Crown?

God forbid! But rather, seeing We of this Nation are made whole, and do enjoy Our privileges and immunities, our peace and quietness; Let us there­fore, Sin no more, by our Rebellion and Sedition, Lest a worse thing come unto us.

For, that wholesome Advice, which Christ gave to the Impotent Man in the Gospel, is very applicable unto En­gland—

Behold, thou art made whole, Sin no more (by Deposing, or Precluding the Right Heir) lest a worse thing come unto thee.

SECT. I.
The Duty of Obedience to Superiours, whether Morally Good or Bad, proved by the Law of Nature and of Natural Reason.

NAtural Reason dictates, this Truth, to wit, That if a King has a Right to Command and Govern, then the Subjects have an indispensable Ob­ligation upon them to Obey; for Pre­cept and Obedience are naturally con­comitant.

And as Father and Son, so, Prince and People are Relatu secundum esse, not onely Relatives, but also Essential [Page 58]Relatives, Aristot. Polit. l. 1. c. 8. whose very Essence as such, consists in a mutual Relation of the one unto the other;

So that, as no man can be said to be a Father, who has no Son; so, no man can be said to be a King, who has no Subjects:

And as all Sons are either Dutifull, or Undutifull;

So, all Subjects are either Obedient, or Disobedient.

And as it is a Breach of the Law of Nature, for a Son to be undutifull; So, it is a Breach of the same Law, for a Subject to be disobedient.

For, as the non-performance of the Father's Lawfull Commands, renders the Son undutifull;

So the non-performance of the King's Lawfull Injunctions, speaks the Subject Rebellious:

And whoever denies Obedience to his King, does in effect deny him to be King.

And this is to be noted,

That by the Law of Nature, All Children are strictly obliged to Obey their Parents whether they be Christi­ans or Infidels, Good or Bad:

For in the point of Filial Obedience, no Child ought to Dispute the Faith and Religion, the Morality or Immo­rality of his Parents.

All that he is to consider, is that near, that essential Relation in which they stand unto him, to wit, that they are his Natural Parents;

And therefore, without farther dis­pute, They are to be obeyed.

And as thus the Son,

So also the Subject in point of Obe­dience to his Prince, is not to dispute nor question the Virtues or the Vices, the Religion or Principles of his Prince;

But solely to consider, that essential and indissoluble Relation, in which his Prince stands unto him, to wit, That He is his Natural and Lawfull Prince;

And therefore, must of Necessity be Obeyed.

And we may argue farther,

That the Law of Nature and of sound Reason Dictates,

1. That all good Order ought to be kept.

2. That Order cannot be preserved, if Inferiours shall Rebell and Resist the Commands of their Superiours.

3. That all Disorder and Rebellion threatens ruine to the Whole.

Which Mischief to prevent,

The Law of Nature obliges every Being, within its own proper Sphear, to contribute its utmost endeavours towards the preservation of the whole.

These things being granted to be according to the Laws of Nature and Natural Reason;

It cannot, now, but wound the Heart of any understanding Man, whether Christian or Heathen, to see the Heel rise up and kick against the Head, to see Subjects Plot and Rebell against their Natural and Lawfull King, especially, seeing, all Rebellion is (as has been proved) no other, than waging open War against Nature her self: Nature having Constituted all things in a most harmonious Order, placing one Being before another, and strictly Commanding every Being to keep its own Station, and to act one­ly within its own Circuit, and not to move excentrically.

And in truth, wonderfull is the ex­cellent Governance of Nature; For, where there are Millions of Individu­als of the same Species, there Nature ever makes One to move First; and all the rest, to move orderly and suc­cessively.

And this Natural Law of Regulari­ty, and of Priority and Posteriority, is duly observed by all Moveables, whe­ther

1. All Things Inanimate, such as the Elementary Particles, when they move Ascendent or Descendent, they All observe the Natural Laws of Mo­tion, particularly, of Priority and Po­steriority, and do All move Regularly one after the other, to prevent Confu­sion.

Natural Philosophy assures us,

That whenever there does happen the least Disorder and Irregularity a­mong the Inferiour parts of Nature, that then to prevent a general Revolt and Fraction;

The Supreme Nature is Necessitated [Page 62]to act severely, and by force to reduce the Rebellious Particles into their Right Order.

And thus, sometimes, the Supreme Nature causes things to act and move quite contrary to their particular Na­tural Inclinations.

Thus; Water, sometimes is forced to ascend, contrary to its Natural Ten­dency.

And Air to descend, contrary to its Natural Propensity.

And all this is done to prevent (as was hinted before) a greater Rebelli­on and Rupture, and to preserve the safety of the Ʋniverse.

2. The Laws of Nature and Good Order are also duely observed by things Animate, although they be Ir­rational:

For they have their Superiours and Inferiours.

Yea, Gerson. the very Beasts of the field, are said to Observe the Natural Law of Primogeniture: And in their Motions to put the Eldest foremost: And when this Order is broke, by some Rebelli­ous and Disorderly Juniours, then [Page 63]commonly, there happens among them a fierce Combate.

Thus, as the Poet notes, there is Rex Gregis, a King among the Herds of Cattel, and the Flocks of Sheep:

And it is well known, that the Li­on is commonly called the King of Beasts.

Nay, not onely Beasts, but also In­sects, such as Bees, have their King;

And Bees have not onely a King, but Virgil in the praise of them, says,

That the Bees are more Observant and Obedient to their King, than ever were the Egyptians, Parthians, or Medes to their King.

And therefore a Bee in the Gothick Language isMinsheu. Bi-eju, quasi penes unum, which signifies a Company, incorpora­ted, under one Head.

The Bees have their Laws of Go­vernment which they punctually ob­serve.

And one of their chiefest Laws, is, That all the Subjects of their Common­wealth, should carefully and dutifully, in their fixed courses, wait upon, and guard their King, at home and a­broad:

And therefore, they will never move without a word of Command, nor fly in swarms without their King; but most Loyally wait his Royal Plea­sure; and whilst His Majesty is sola­cing himself in his Palace, they, like so many Life-Guard Men, most duti­fully hover about, and attend the Door. And it has been observed, That, if, through too long Attendance, they have grown faint and weary in their Service;

Yet, they will rather humbly fall down Dead at the foot of their King, than desert their Station, and hazard His Majesty's safety.

And if any Enemies, such as Wasps and Hornets, shall at any time assault their King's Dominions; They all una­nimously take up Arms in defence of their King, and will fight on his be­half, to the last Breath.

And which is most remarkable, ‘—Rege incolumi, mens omnibus una est.’ Whilst their King is safe, nothing can afflict them; but they are all cheer­full and unanimous; the most critical eye cannot discern the least Discord a­mong them.

But on the other hand,

Their King once (unhappily) lost, they are all in a tumult, their Govern­ment is dissolved, and every one does what he pleases, for their Laws expire with their King:

So that, they all, by stealth and plunder, get what they can. And like so many unruly Banditi, they seldom give over pillaging, untill they have either lost their lives, or luckily listed themselves in the Service of some other Neighbouring Prince.

For, such is the Nature of a Bee, as that he can never live quietly, with­out a King.

By these instances, it is sufficiently demonstrated,

That all Beings whatever are Obe­dient to their Superiours, and do keep good Order: And that Most, if not All Living Creatures, which are gui­ded onely by the Light of Nature, do not onely prefer Monarchy above all Governments, but also injoin strict O­bedience thereunto, according to the Laws of Nature.

And what? Shall onely Man (of all the Creation, except Devils) walk dis­orderly, and be found Rebellious and disobedient unto God, and unto his Natural Prince, contrary to the Law of Nature and sound Reason?

For shame! Let it never be said, That Man, the Glory of the Creation, is in a Conspiracy with the Fallen An­gels, against God and the King.

SECT. II.
The Duty of Obedience to Superiours, whether Morally good or bad, Chri­stians or Heathens, proved by Au­thority of Divine Reason and Scrip­ture.

NOT onely the Law of Nature, but also the Law of God, and Divine Authority Command Loyalty and Obedience to be shewn unto all Kings, whether Heathens or Christi­ans, Good or Bad;

And declare also, That it is the Sub­jects Duty not onely to Obey them, but also, heartily to pray for their pro­sperity.

Thus the Patriarch Jacob did not onely doe humble Reverence and Ho­nour unto King Pharaoh an Heathen, but also gave him his BENEDIC­TION: for, Jacob Blessed Pharaoh, Gen. 47.7. [...], that is,Munster. Drus. Ains. in Loc. Jacob saluted him, with Prayer for his Welfare, and with Thanks for his Bounty.

And the Holy Prophets, who of all men were most free from Courtship [Page 68]and Flattery, they, especially the Pro­phet Daniel, did Honour and Wor­ship, even Heathen-Kings, and fre­quently saluted them with this Pathe­tical Option,

Which is all one with,

In like manner St. Paul did Honour Noble Festus the Roman Governour, and King Agrippa, who were no Christi­ans.

And the same Apostle exhorts Ti­tus, Bishop of Crete, Tit. 3.1. to put All Men in mind of being subject to Principalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates (whe­ther Christians or Heathens, good or bad) and to be ready to every good work.

And in Hebr. 13.17. the Jews are Commanded to obey all that had Rule over them: Which Rulers over them in the State, were the Roman Emperours [Page 69]and Deputies, who were, at that time, inveterate Enemies to Christianity.

Our Blessed Saviour himself Com­mands all Men (Christians especially) to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as well as to God, what is God's: And the Law of God and of Man tells us, that Honour and Obedience is Caesar's due, therefore it must be paid.

And St. Paul, writing to the New­converted Romans at Rome, charges them to be subject to Caesar, and the Higher Powers; And he gives this Reason for the necessity of their Obe­dience, to wit, Because there is no power but of God; and that,Rom. 13.1, 2. Whosoever resisteth the Powers, resisteth the Ordi­nance of God; and he that risisteth, shall receive to himself Damnation.

And the very same pious Doctrine of Loyalty does St. Peter teach, 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your selves to every Or­dinance of Man, for the Lord's sake, whe­ther it be to the King as Supreme, or to Governours, as unto them, which are sent by him.

And v. 18. St. Peter adds, as the Whole Duty of Man, this Injunction,

Thereby (according to Beaufrons) plainly intimating unto us this excel­lent Truth, scil.

‘That if we will not peaceably submit to every Ordinance of the King,Beaufrons, c. 8. p. 89. as to things Lawfull, but be­come Mutinous and Rebellious; then, notwithstanding our high pro­fession of Religion, and of fearing God, we neither, Fear God, nor Honour the King: for as God is ever to be Feared, so the King is ever to be Honoured.’

Unto these Instances of Holy Writ, pleading for Obedience to Kings, and to the Supreme Magistrates, we may add that Loyal Decree, which the Reu­benites, and Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manasseh made: For they all were so zealous for Obedience unto Joshua their Supreme Magistrate, as that they Decreed, Josh. 1.18. That whosoever Dis­obeyed Joshuah's Commands, and would not hearken unto his words, in all that he commanded, he should be put to Death.

The Prophet Samuel terms Rebelli­on no better than Witchcraft: 1 Sam. 15.23. So that, [Page 71]according to him, Whosoever Rebells, has forsaken God, and is gone over, Volunteer, to the Devil, and is carry­ing on his works of Darkness.

Nor may we pass over in silence, that smart check which the Heathen Sanballat gave (though most unde­servedly) unto Loyal Nehemiah, say­ing, What is this thing that ye doe? Nehem. 2.19. Will ye Rebell against the King? Will ye Rebell? that is to say, in the Negative; No, surely! ye will not of­fer to Rebell against the King: For, your Jewish Religion (which ye say is the onely true Religion in the World) teaches you otherwise, and instructs you better, to wit,

That although the King be, in your opinion, no other than an uncircum­cised Heathen, and (as you believe) an Idolater,

Yet, for all this, ye ought (accor­ding to your own Religion) not to Re­bell against him.

From these Proofs in Canonical Scriptures, we may rationally argue, and conclude with the truly Loyal Archbishop Laud, and others of the Church of England, scil.

‘That all the Commands of a King, Heyl. in Vit. Archb. Laud. p. 310. which are not, upon the first Infe­rence and Illation, contrary to some clear passage of the Word of God, or to some evident Sun-beam of the Law of Nature, are precisely to be obeyed.’

SECT. III.
The Proposition; That All Lawfull Kings, whether Mo­rally good or bad, ought to be obey­ed, proved by the Authority and Practice of honest Heathens.

HItherto we have heard the Di­vine Oracles amply declaring the Subjects Duty peaceably to Obey their Lawfull Kings, and their Succes­sours, whether Papists or Protestants, Heathens or Christians, Good or Bad. The very same Truth and Duty, we find urged, and confirmed by the Au­thority and Practice of mere Heathens, who were guided onely by the glim­mering [Page 73] Light of their Natural Reason, even such as they, did not onely teach, but also practise Loyalty and Obedience to their Lawfull Princes.

Hesiod discoursing on the Benefits of Kingly Government, tells his Rea­der, that ‘— [...],Hesiod. The­og. &c.’ unto the King the People do all, most dutifully, look, waiting for his Word of Command; They being fully assured, that, seeing their prosperity is his hap­piness; He, therefore, will order all things right, according to the Rules of Justice.

And when King Jupiter was De­throned by the Rebellious Titanes, then the Loyal Party mustered up their Forces, and humbly tendering their Services to him their King, They all unanimously entred into a solemn Vow, that they would fight his Cause, and never sheath their Swords, untill ‘ [...], &c.’ [Page 74]they had vanquished all his Enemies, and had restored him to his Imperial Crown and Dignity.

Theocritus enlarging himself on the Praise and high Commendations of King Ptolemaeus, says, He was [...], the most happy of all men, not onely in that He (be­ing King) ‘— [...],Theocr. &c.’ was the care and charge of the Su­preme God:

But also he was happy, in that ‘— [...],’ All his Subjects were Obedient and Con­formable to his Government, and were not factious and tumultuous, nor gi­ven to Seditious Talk, nor to Idleness. ‘— [...],’ But every man kept his own Station, and peaceably followed his own busi­ness.

And at last, he religiously concludes his Panegyrick on the said King with this pathetical Epiphonema,

Phocylides in his Admonitory Poem, ‘— [...],’ Cautions all men, especially Subjects, that are under an Oath of Obedience, punctually to keep their Faith and Al­legiance: And that, Because,

It is Remarkable, That

Fabius Maximus, after he had been Consul five times, became Obedient to his Son Suessa, who was promoted to that high Office. And when some jea­lousie arose, that He had contemned the Authority of his said Son, for that, upon his first approach into his Son's [Page 76]Presence, He did not bow the Knee, nor did him that Honour and lowly Reverence which was due to his Con­sulary Dignity. Fabius presently cor­rected the mistake, assuring his Son the Consul, that He did not forbear to give him due Honour and Worship, out of contempt,Non ego, inquit, Fili, summum im­perium tuum Contempsi, sed experiri volui, an scires Con­sulem agere: necignoro quid Patriae vene­rationi debea­tur, verùm publica insti­tuta privatâ pietate po­tiora judico. Valer. Max. l. 2. c. 2. §. 4. but onely to try, whether He so young, knew how to maintain the Magnificency and Gran­deur of a Consul, or did rightly under­stand how to treat Him, not as his Natural Father, but as his most duti­full Subject; for, he did openly declare, That the Publick Honour and Venera­tion due to the Supreme Magistrate, ought ever to precede all private Duty to Parents.

The Senate of Rome, to shew their Abhorrency of the treacherous Assassi­nation committed on the Person of their Emperour Julius Caesar, in pub­lico luctu, did most solemnly bewail that horrid and execrable Fact, in a publick Lamentation: And, Damnati Omnes, Condemned to Death all the Plotters and Actors thereof: And al­though the said Regicides fled from Justice, yet the vengeance of God pur­sued [Page 77]them all; So that, not any one of them died a Natural Death; ButAlius alio casu periit— pars naufra­gio, pars prae­lio, nonnulli semet eodem illo pugione, quo Caesarem violaverant, interemerunt, &c. Sueton. Vit. Jul. Caes. §. 84. some of them perished at Sea, o­thers were slain in Battel: Some casu­ally knocked on the head, and others killed themselves, with the very same Dagger with which they had woun­ded Coesar.

And Aemilius Probus gives us ano­ther Remarkable Instance of the Di­vine Hand punishing Treachery and Disloyalty in the Person, and Compli­ces, of Mithrobarzanes, who persidi­ously revolting from Datames his Law­full Prince unto the Pisidians, who were at that time Datames his open Enemies, was, at last, upon a right un­derstanding of his perfidiousness, furi­ously assaulted by bothProdito­res perculit, & hostes pro­fligavit, & quod ad suam perniciem fue­rat cogitatum id ad suam salutem convertit: quo neque acutius ullius Imperatoris cogitatum, ne que celerius factum usquam legimus. Cornel. Nep. Datam. p. 132. Parties, and miserably destroyed; by whose Death, Datames was freed from the Traytor, and from his Enemies the Pisidians.

It is recorded by Quintus Curtius for the everlasting praise of the Grecians, that it was their natural wont, to Ho­nour and Obey their Kings. Nam haud facilè dic­tu est, praeter ingenitam illi genti erga Reges suos venerationem, quantum hujus utique Regis vel admirationi dediti fue­rint, vel charitate fla­graverint, &c. Quint. Curt. l. 3. And when Alexander their King was (beyond ex­pectation) recovered from a desperate sickness, occasio­ned by a fall into the River Cydnus, All his Loyal Sub­jects (especially his Souldi­ers) were so over-joyed at the good news thereof, as that they presently made their humble Addresses to His Majesty, heartily Congratulating His happy Recovery. And as a farther ex­pression of their Loyalty, and of their great joy for their King's safety, they did also multiply their Thanks and their Bounty to Philip the King's Phy­sician, for his Faithfulness to the King, and for his great Care, and Cure, of Him. Nor may we forget Isocrates his high Eulogium's of the said Grecians.

How that, they always preferred the Publick Good of the Kingdom be­fore their private Interest, and that they did not desire so much to be Rich and Great, as to be Honest and Use­full [Page 79]to the Common-wealth: And that they did not covet to leave any bet­ter Patrimony to their Children, than that of Honour, Loyalty, and Renown. Nay, they never contended [...], &c. Dionys. Halicar. in Vit. Isocr. one with another, but when they strove, who should be most serviceable to his King and Countrey. And so faithfull were they to their Prince, and to all men, as that their bare word was of more value, than other mens Oaths, in after-ages.

And Nicocles pressing the Subjects Duty to Obey their Prince, draws his Argument à Commodo, from the great Benefits they all would most certainly reap thereby: for then, they would abound in Wealth and Riches, and would enjoy peace and quietness at home, and would become a Terrour to their Ene­mies, and be the Envy and Emulation of their Neigh­bours abroad. And as(b) [...], &c. Isocr. Ni. the Kingdom of the Persi­ans, [Page 80]so that of Nicocles's would flourish and prosper more by the Subjects Love and Obedience towards their Prince, than by any prowess of Arms, or by any other politick Contrivances what­ever.

For, as Diogenes Synopeus (a man generally morose, and averse from Mo­narchy) [...],Diog. Laert. Vit. Diog. &c. said, that the Life and Essence of Civil Polity, consisted in Honour and Good Order; for so does [...] signifie in Diogenes his sense.

And Tacitus, to the same purpose, urges the Necessity of the Subjects O­bedience to theirPereunte obsequio im­perium etiam intercidit, & si ubi impera­tur, queri sin­gulis liceat. Tacit. Hist. l. 1. Prince, be­cause, otherwise, there would soon be a Dissolution of all Good Order, and of the whole Frame of Govern­ment.

Now, one way to preserve the Go­vernment established, and to continue the present peace and welfare of the Kingdom, (as Nicocles adviseth) is, not onely to obey the King, but also to obey and to honour All that are in Authority under him; for whoever [Page 81] (a) [...]. envies and maligns the King's Friends and Prime Ministers of State, do malign the King Him­self, and do really strike at him thorough their sides: Whereas, were they truly Loyal, they would Love and Honour those, whom their King Lo­ved and Honoured.

And whereas many drank the King's Health, and talked big of their Loyalty, and highly applauded their King.— But yet, says Nicocles, true Loyalty (b) [...], &c. Isocr. Nicocl. consists more in Works, than in Words; more in Obedience, than in Talk.

SECT IV.
The Proposition; That all Subjects ought actively to Obey their Natural and Lawfull King, in all things which be not positively a­gainst some known Law of God, al­though their said Prince, be an Hea­then, an Idolater, and Apostate, or never so Morally vitious, proved by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Christians.

THE Doctrine and Duty of O­beying All Lawfull Kings, whe­ther Heathens or Christians, Good or Bad, in all things that are not posi­tively Evil, was constantly taught, and conscientiously practised by the Primitive Christians, both Clergy and Layity.

Ignatius, the second Writer after the Apostles, declares, that All Kings are to be honoured, because they repre­sent God the King of Kings: And as in Heaven none is Greater than God, so [Page 83]on Earth, none [...], &c. Ign. Epist. Smyrn. is Greater than the King.

So says also Tertullian, Colimus Im­peratorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo Minorem, &c.Cùm su­per Imperato­rem non sit nisi solus De­us, qui fecit Imperatorem, &c. Opta. l. 3. and so Saint Chrysost. [...]. Chrysost. in Rom. 13.1. That the Christians honoured and worship­ped the Emperour (who was then an Heathen) as a man second to God, and less onely than God.

And Justin Martyr Apologizing for the Primitive Christians, who were accused of Sedition and Disobedience against the Emperour, and his Govern­ment, assures the Emperour Antoninus Pius, that the aforesaid Accusation was very false, and a mere Calumny cast up­on the Christians: For, he challeng'd the whole World, to prove, that ever any true Christian was either Sedi­tious in Words, or Factious and Re­bellious in Actions.

And therefore [...], &c. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. if nothing of that nature could be proved against them, it was unreasonable upon sur­mises and false reports to punish the Innocent.

And Justin farther pleads,

That the Christians were so far from opposing their Emperour or his Go­vernment, as that their Religion ob­liged them to assist and to fight for Him, and to endeavour to out-doe all others his Subjects, (who were not of the Christian Religion) in promoting His and his Empires safety and prospe­rity: And this they did, out of dread and fear of the true God, who hated all Evil Doers, [...], &c. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. particularly such as were Seditious Traytours, and Malitious (b) Murtherers of their Lawfull Prince: All which Disturbers of the Publick peace, the Christians God would severe­ly punish either in this life, or in that to come.

And the said Emperour Antoninus Pius was so well satisfied with the Dutifull and Loyal Behaviour of the Christians, as that he openly declared, That He verily believed the said Chri­stians did (according to their Religion) abhor to plot any thing against the Roman Emperour, or his Government, and that they would chuse to dye, ra­ther than offend either their God, or their King; And therefore He wrote Letters unto the Governours and Depu­ties of Asia, and other places, prohibi­ting them, to prosecute the Christians any more upon the account of their Religion.

And to the same effect wrote Mar­cus Aurelius Antoninus Philosophus un­to the Roman Senate, advising the said Senate not to persecute the Christi­ans, but rather to esteem them their Friends. For, says he, the Christians [...], &c. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. casting themselves down on the ground, prayed fervently, not onely for him the Em­perour, but also for all his Army: And by the prevalency of their prayers, He and all his Host [Page 86]were miraculously delivered from a dreadfull Famine and Drought under which they laboured: And the Chri­stians God, [...], whom he knew not, by their Intercession, did not one­ly free Him and his Army from their imminent danger, but also gave him a complete Victory over his and the Senate's Enemies, by striking them down dead, under foot, with Fire and Hail-stones from Heaven.

Athenagoras in his Em­bassy for the(a) [...], &c. Athe­nag. Legat. p. 4. Christians, Appeals unto the Empe­rour Aurelius Antoninus Himself, to justifie the Christians as to their Obe­dience unto his Royal Per­son, his Noble Family, his Laws and Imperial Go­vernment; for he knew full well that the Christian Religion taught them to believe, [...], &c. That all Kings had their Au­thority from above, and therefore were to be obeyed: Nay, he knew that the Christians did not onely ho­nour and obey him Aurelius Antoni­nus the Father; but they also Reve­red [Page 87]and Honoured Aurelius Commodus the Son and Right Heir of the Crown, and therefore they prayed jointly for the prosperity and happiness of both [...]. ibid. Father and Son:

Yea, the Christians prayed, that the said Emperour's Son, and his Son's Lawfull Heirs might succeed in the Throne (for, says he, that was a most just and righteous thing) and that his and their Kingdom might grow grea­ter and greater, and [...]. Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. p. 40. that all things might happen to His and His Heirs content, and that they (poor Christi­ans) might lead under Him, and his Successours, a sober and quiet life, see­ing they all did cheerfully observe his Commands.

Theophilus Antiochenus putting a dif­ference between God and the King, ex­presses himself to this effect, scil.

God we Adore, the King we Ho­nour and Obey as a Man set over us [Page 88]by [...]. Theoph. Antioch. ad Autol. God, and by so doing, we ful­fill the Will of God.

Tatianus the Assyrian adviseth all Chri­stians to be Obedient to their King. And (says he) if the King requires of his Subjects Tribute and Custome, they must pay it; if he Commands [...], &c. Tatian. contr. Graec. their Obedience and Service, they must yield it: But if he Commands things absolutely unlawfull, such as to deny the true God, then they must chuse rather humbly and meekly to suffer Death it self, than actively to obey his unjust Command.

Tertullian writes (as did Justin Mar­tyr) that the Primitive Christians li­ved so exactly innocent and inossen­sively, towards all in Authority, as that their Enemies could find no fault [Page 89]inI [...] potest [...] scelus [...] in ca [...] sed [...] quod [...] ratio opera [...] sequi [...] Ter [...] adv [...] them, except that of their Re­ligion: And therefore although they were persecuted even to Death, yet it was not for any Disobedience to their Emperour, and Governours, nor for any Moral wickedness and vice found in them, but onely for the Name of Christian.

St. Cyprian most earnestly exhorts all the Clergy and Layity, Cyp [...] De [...] nun [...] dutifully to obey the Emperour, and by no means, upon the account of Religion, Oppres­sion, or of any other pretence what­ever, to raise any Tumults or Sediti­on, or to make any Resistence, no, not in case they were by the Empe­rour and his Judges Sentenced to dye for their Religion. And for their Pat­tern and Exemplar, they should take Him their Diocesan, who preached and practised nothing more than Piety to­wards God, Loyalty towards the Em­perour, and peace and quietness to the Commonwealth, and [...] mu [...] ab [...] stit [...] tun [...] suli [...] gin [...] un [...] ab [...] per [...] per Christianorum Laicorum & Episcoporum Nomine Mand [...] dicturi quod ad horam Dominus dici voluerit: Vos autem pro [...] quam de mandatis Dominicis à me semper accepistis, & secu [...] me tractante, saepissimè didicistis, quietem & tranquillita [...] nè quisquam vestrum aliquem tumultum de fratribus moveat, Epist. 83. § 2. was ready to [Page 90]dye, onely he patiently waited the Emperour's Pleasure and Order for his Martyrdom.

Irenaeus discoursing on the Original of Kingly Government, in opposition to the Gnosticks and Valentinians, who affirmed, that all Civil Magistracy was of the Devil's, and not of God's Insti­tution:

He tells his Reader, that,

Cujus jussu Homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & Reges constituuntur.

As God onely made Man, so God onely constituted and made Kings: And he gives a very good Reason, wherefore God made Kings, and Insti­tuted the Secular Powers, and Com­manded strict Obedience to be ren­der'd to them, to wit,

Because, when Man fell and Apo­statized fromQuoniam enim absistens à Deo homo, in tantum ef­ferabit, ut eti­am consanguineum Hostem sibi putaret, & omni inquietudine, & homi­cidio, & avaritiâ sine timore versaretur, imposuit illi Deus humanum timorem ut potestati hominum subjecti, & lege eorum astricti, aliquid assequantur justitiae, & moderentur ad invicem in manifesto positum gla­dium timentes, &c. ad utilitatem ergò Gentilium, terrenum regnum positum est à Deo; sed non à Diabolo, qui nunquam omninò quietus est, imò qui nec ipsas quidem Gentes vult in tranquillo agere, &c. Irenae. l. 5. c. 24. God, He and his Po­sterity grew outrageous and ungoverna­ble: [Page 91]And therefore to prevent farther disorders among Men, God wisely Or­dained Kings and Governours, who by strict Laws of Morality, Justice and Equity should restrain, and reclaim Apostatized Mankind, and as God's Vice­gerents, should reward Vertue, and pu­nish Vice: Thus, says Irenaeus, God was the first Authour of all Order and Government, and not the Devil, who was the first Incendiary of all Sedition and Rebellion: And that God set Kings over the Gentiles for their good and profit, to govern them, to protect and defend them from all Injuries, Tyran­ny and Oppressions.

Clement Alexandrinus, urging from Scripture many necessary Duties up­on his Scholars, when he treats of Government, Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 3. [...].

He briefly tells them their great Duty of Obedience to the Secular Pow­ers, in our Saviour's words, Give un­to Caesar the things that are Cae­sar's.

Celsus the Heathen, that he might, with greater colour of Reason, oppose the spreading of the Gospel of Christ,

Does object, That (according to Christ's own saying) Christians can­not be Obedient to Emperours and Kings, nor to any in Civil Authority: And that because, Christ (says He) has taught them this Factious Lesson, scil.

That they cannot (and therefore, ought not) serve two Masters, such as, God and the King: For, says Christ, they will love the one, and hate the o­ther, &c.

And therefore from thence does Celsus plead (though very falsly) that Christianity lays(a) [...], &c. Orig. contr. Cels. l. 8. a foundation for Resistence of the Civil Powers, and for Rebellion against their Lawfull Princes, inasmuch as (according to their Lord and Master Christ's words) St. Matth. 6.24. No man can serve two Masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else, he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

To this long Harangue and Objec­tion, Origen replies, [...], &c. that [Page 93]the above-mentioned words of Christ do not in the least countenance Re­bellion:

For, says Origen,

Although there be many Gods and many Lords, yet there is but one, [...], God of Gods, who is, [...], King of Kings, and all the other Gods and Kings are Subordinate to him the Supreme.

And therefore, to obey lawfull Kings on Earth, is to obey God in Heaven, for the King is God, that is, God's Vicegerent and Representative upon Earth;

So that, in the point of Obedience, God and the King are but One Master, onely the one is Invisible, the other Visible; the one God by Essence, the other God by Deputation and Of­fice:

And as God and the King are One Master, so they both are carefully and duely to be Worshipped and Reveren­ced; onely the One with Divine, the Other with, Civil, Honour and Obe­dience.

And,Orig. contr. [...]. l. 8. [...], &c.

As we are always to pray unto God, so we are always to pray to him, for the King, that God would bless and prosper Him in his Govern­ment.

Origen pressed due Obedience unto Heathen Kings in all things Lawfull: But if any thing Ʋnlawfull was Com­manded, then he advised all Christi­ans, not to obey Actively by doing what was Commanded; but Passively, by suffering patiently whatever should be inflicted upon them.

And because Origen was of opinion, That it was a sin, for any Christian to fight under the Banner of an Heathen Prince; Therefore it was, that He dis­suaded the Christians from going into the Wars, and from fighting under their Lawfull Emperour, which was Origen's great failing, and gave Cel­sus occasion to Revile the Christi­ans, and to Stigmatize them, as Stubborn, Disobedient and Sediti­ous:

However, although Origen was a­gainst the Christians fighting under an Heathenish Banner;

Yet He himself did, and advised all Christians, to pray [...], &c. ibid. p. 427. for the Em­perour's safety and success in all his Lawfull Wars and Enterprises.

Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration to Julian the Collector of the Emperour's Tribute, exhorts all people to keep their own Station, and not to walk disorderly, for God is a God of Order and Peace:

And therefore, says he,

[...], &c.

That it is not Lawfull for Subjects to Censure their Governours, nor to pre­scribe Laws and Rules to their Legis­latours: [...], &c.

But every man ought to be content with his own condition, and ought to live and act peaceably in his own pri­vate sphere, although possibly he may deserve to be promoted higher:

And thus, as he would not have the Layity to Usurp the Jurisdiction and [Page 96]Office of the Bishops and Priests, lest they should make a Schism and Faction in the Church:

So neither, would he have the Sub­jects to entrench upon the Prerogative of their Superiours, lest they should cause Sedition and Rebellion in the State.

And therefore, upon the whole, he concludes, that all Christians ought to imitate their Lord and Head, Jesus Christ, who render'd to God what was God's, and to Caesar what was Caesar's, such as,Naz. ad Ju­lian. Orat. 9. [...], &c. Tribute, Fear, Honour and Obedience.

And when the said Gregory Nazian­zen was accused by the Arians, [...], &c. for a Factious, Troublesome and Seditious person: Gregory cleared himself of that Scandal and foul Aspersion, by appealing to his own Doctrine and known Conversation, He having ever been,Gregor. Presb. Vit. Naz. [...], a constant promoter of Obedience to the Govern­ment, and of peace in the Common­wealth.

And although, this Holy Father, Greg. Nazianzen, wrote very Satyri­cally [Page 97]against Julian the Apostate. And, as we humbly conceive, he did too unworthily (if not too unchristian­like) inveigh against the said Julian for his Apostacy, especially consider­ing,Vir caete­ra egregii a­nimi, regendi­que imperii callentissimus. Lodovic. Vives, in Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 21. He had been Emperour, and a very Learned one:

Yet this is to be noted, that whilst Julian was living, and was the un­doubted Right Heir to the Throne, no body opposed his Succession, not­withstanding many Enormities com­mitted by him, before he was Crown­ed Emperour: And all the time that Julian Reigned, the aforesaid Gregory Nazianzen lived quietly and peaceably under his Government, and never wrote one syllable (as we know of) against him: But on the contrary, Gregory did, upon all occasions, shew the said Julian (when living) due Honour and Reverence: Greg. Naz. Orat. 9. And when Gregory Nazi­anzen had occasion to reflect upon Julian's miscarriages, He did modest­ly Vail all over, with a [...], Let us Bury them in silence.

Though, it is too true, and must be acknowledged (in our opinion) as a great fault in so good a Man, as was Gregory Nazianzen, That after Julian the Apostate was dead, he did too un­dutifully, not to say, too inhumanely, expose His Dread Sovereign's Naked­ness to the whole World,Orat. 3. [...], &c. in worse Language than ever Michael the Arch-Angel brought against the Devil, when he disputed about the Body of Moses. Jud. Ep. v. 9.

But yet, this is to be said for Gre­gory (as was hinted before) that he wrote his Invective against Julian, not as an Orator whilst Julian was Living; but, rather, as a Passionate Historian, after he was Dead.

St. Augustine pleading for Obedience to Kings and Emperours, Answers the Grand Question, scil.

Quest. Whether a Christian may Lawfully obey an Heathen Emperour, and may harmlesly Fight under his Banner?

Ans. He determines the Controver­sie in the Affirmative, contrary to Ori­gen; [Page 99]and declares, That it is the Chri­stian Souldiers bounden Duty to Obey his Lawfull Prince, although he be an Heathen, and to fight faithfully and couragiously under his Command; yea, this the Christian ought to doe, although the Grounds and Occasion of the said War be probably unjust onC [...]m ergò Vir justus, si fortè sub Rege homine etiam sacrilego militet, rectè possit, illo jubente bellare civicae pacis ordinem servans; Cui quod jubetur. vel non esse contra Dei praeceptum certum est, vel utrum sit, certum non est, it a ut reum Regem faciat iniquit as impe­randi, innocentem autem Militem ostendat ordo imperandi. Aug. contr. Faust. Manich. l. 21. c. 75. the King's side.

And his Reason for it is this, scil. Because, God will punish the King or Emperour for Commencing an unjust War, but He will amply reward the innocent and dutifull Souldier for his hearty and sincere Obedience unto his Lord the King.

And elsewhere St. Augustine adds, Rex semper Honorandus, si non prop­ter se, attamen propter Ordinem, &c. St. Aug. quaest. 35. Vet. & Nor. Test. That a King is always to be Honour­ed, if not for his own personal Ex­cellencies, yet, for his Kingly Order and Dignity.

And in his most Incomparable Book, de Civ. Dei, He informs the People, That although Nero was a Tyrant and the worst of men as to his Personal Immoralities; Cujus fuit tanta Luxu­ries ut nihil ab eo putaretur virile me­tuendum, &c.

Yet, because Divine Providence Talibus ta­men dominan­di potestas non datur, nisi summi Dei Providentiâ, &c. Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 19. had raised up the said Nero, and made him to be Caesar, their King and Go­vernour, therefore the People ought to Obey Him.

And St. Augustine glancing on the Question, scil. Whether Dominion be founded onely in Grace?

He says, that in Heaven it is so; for no man can inherit a Throne of Glory, but onely He that is truly Gra­tious and Holy.

But on Earth, it is not so; for, Regnum Terrenum, Ibid. c. 21. & piis & impiis, sicut ei placet, cui nihil injustè pla­cet.

God disposes of these Earthly King­doms to Good and Bad, according to his own pleasure, for Reasons best known to himself.

And therefore the Subjects are ob­liged in Duty to obey Nero, as well [Page 101]asQui Reg­num dedit Au­gusto, ipse & Neroni, qui Vespasianis, vel Patri, vel Filio, suavis­simis Impera­toribus, ipse & Dimitiano crudelissimo, & qui Constantino Christiano, ipse & Apostatae Juliano. Aug. Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 21. Augustus; Cruel Domitian, as well as Kind and Mercifull Vespasian; the Apostate and Idolatrous Julian, as well as the Pious and Orthodox Con­stantine; for the one as well as the o­ther, is God's Vicegerent, and the Sub­jects Lawfull Prince and Sovereign.

Optatus the Famous Bishop of Mile­vis taught the same Doctrine of Loy­alty and Obedience, declaring, that all Kings are to be obeyed:

And although Kings should some­times Command things which are in themselves unlawfull to be Comman­ded, yet it may be Lawfull for the Subjects in many cases, actively to per­form the said unlawfull Commands of their said Kings.

For thus,

The pious Jews, when perempto­rily Commanded by Antiochus to sur­render up their Bibles to be burnt by the Officers, They (though with great grief of heart) readily obeyed.

And the aforesaid Optatus blames very much the Emperour for impo­sing so ungodly a Command, but he highlyFeccatum imperantis & minantis, non populi, cum do­lore & tremore secundantis, &c. Optat. l. 7. applauds the Obedience of the said dutifull and Loyal Jews.

It is most certain, that the Popes of Rome, before they became Rebellious to the Secular Powers, humbly and peaceably obeyed their Emperours, and that not onely in things Law­full, or Indifferent, nor onely in things Secular and Civil, but also in things that have seemed, in the Popes own judgment, to be in their own Nature, unlawfull; and, which is more, the Pope of Rome, has obeyed the Empe­rour, in things Spiritual and Ecclesia­stical, as well as Temporal.

As for Instance,

When Mauritius the Emperour had made a Decree, that no Souldiers should be admitted into any Monaste­ry, and sent the said Edict unto Pope Gregory, surnamed the Great, to be forthwith published by Him and his Clergy.

The said Pope obeyed the Empe­rour's Commands, and immediately caused the same to be dispersed throughout all his Di [...]cese and Ec­clesiastick Dominions; And the said Pope Gregory gave this Reason for his so doing, to wit,

Gregor. Magn. l. 2. Epist. 61. Quia erat Subjectus ejus Jussioni­bus, &c.

Because He (though Pope) ought to be subject and obedient unto the Emperour's Commands, though in his own judgment, He conceived the said Edict to be in it self unlawfull, and prejudicial unto many persons,Heyl. in Vit. Laud. p. 311. as well in reference to their Spiritual, as their Temporal Benefit.

SECT. V.
Modern Authours for Obedience to Princes: Of two sorts. • 1. Some Conditionally; as All Recu­sants. , and • 2. Some Absolutely; as All Prote­stants. 

SECT. I.
This wicked Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Murthering Kings, and of Precluding their Lawfull Heirs, for being Hereticks, &c. is grounded on Popery.

THE truth of the Assertion is so well known,Dr. Lloyd's Serm. Nov. 5. 1679. as, ‘That there is no Kingdom in our Euro­paean [Page 123]paean World, but the Pope hath gi­ven it away upon the Account of Religion; No Countrey,King James's Works, p. 503. but he has made an Aceldama upon the ac­count of Religion. And many Kings hath he kill'd merely for Re­ligion.’

This we will confirm and prove by the Authority of the most Eminent and most Authentick of their own Writers,

Such as,

Thomas Aquinas, who says,Nullo me­do permittit Ecclesia, quod Infideles ac­quirant Domi­nium super fi­deles, vel qua­litercun (que) eis praeficiantur in aliquo officio, &c.— That Infidels or Ʋnbelieving Princes are not to be suffered to Govern and Reign over Believers. And that if there be any such Infidels and unbe­lieving Princes Potest ta­men justè per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, auc­toritatem Dei habentis, tale jus Dominii, vel praelationis tolli; then the Church has Power and Authority to Depose and Remove them from their Govern­ment; and the Church ought to doe it; and that becauseQuia Infideles merito sua infi­delitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, &c. Tho. Aquin. 22a. quast. 10. art. 10. conclus. p. 22. a King's Infidelity forfeits his Right of Dominion and Ju­risdiction over Believers.

And by, Infidelis, and Infidel, Aqui­nas plainly tells us, that he means An Heretick.

For in his sense,

An Heretick Haeresis est infidelita­tis species ad cos pertinens qui fidem Christi pro­fessi sunt, & ejus dogmata corrumpunt, &c. ibid. quaest. 11. art. 1. con­clus. p. 23. is no Jew, Turk, or Pagan, who absolutely denies Christ and Christianity. But according to Aquinas, An Heretick is a Christian, that is, one who professes that he Be­lieves in Christ, and hopes for Salva­tion onely by Him, But, he purloins, perverts, and corrupts the Doctrine of Christ.

Now such an Heretick, whether Prince or Peasant, is not to be tole­rated, but after the second Admoni­tion he is to be Excommunicated, and Delivered up to the Secular Qui post secundam cor­reptionem in suo errore ob­stinati perma­nent. non mo­do Excommu­nicationis sen­tentiae, sed e­tiam Secula­ribus princi­pibus exter­minandi tra­dendi sunt, & per mortem à Mundo excludi meruerunt, &c. ibid. Powers to be put to Death; and the Church does Command all other Foreign Prin­ces to give their Assistence towards the Deposition, and destroying such an Heretical Prince, that so, this lower World might the sooner be rid of him.

And that Aquinas, in the foremen­tioned places, is to be understood of Heretical Kings, as well as of their Subjects, is evident, in that his Argu­ment runs chiefly against them, who have Right to Govern jure humane; But, says he, because they are turned Hereticks, therefore jure Divino, they ought not to Reign, but to be, not one­ly Excommunicated, but also, put to Death. For,Aquin 22 a. quaest. 11. art. 2. resp. 3. Quicunque resistit Aucto­ritati Romanae Ecclesiae, Haeresim in­currit; quae quidem Auctoritas princi­paliter residet in Summo Pontifice, &c. Whoever Resists the Authority of the Church of Rome, that is to say, the Authority of the Pope and his Supre­macy (as do all Protestant Princes) he is an Heretick; and being an Here­tick, he ought to be destroyed and killed.

And although a King excommuni­cated should, in the Popish sense, repent, and return to the Church of Rome, yet, he is to be admittedIdeo ulte­rius redeun­tes, recipiun­tur quidem ad poenitenti­am, non tamen ut liberentur à Sententia Mortis. Aquia. 22 a. qu. 11. art. 4. conclus. onely unto Penitence, and not to be absolved from the sentence of Death passed upon him.

All Heretical Kings are by Aquinas, accounted no other than Tyrants, and therefore, says he, the People may Lawfully fight against them, and be no ways guilty Et ideo perturbatio Tyranni Re­giminis non habet rationem Seditionis. ibid. 22 a. qu. 42. art. 2. 3 m. p. 80. of Sedition and Treason.

The Council of Trent Decreed all Emperours Si quem Clericorum, vel Laicorum quacunque is dignitate, e­tiam Imperi­ali, aut Rega­ll, praefulgeat, in tantum malorum omnium Radix, cupiditas occupaverit, ut alicujus Ecclesiae—Bona, census ac jura etiam feudalia, &c. quacunque arte, aut quocunque quaesito colore in proprios usus convertere—iis Ana­themati tam diu subjaceat, &c. Sess. 22. c. 11. and Kings (as well as others) to be Excommunicated, who shall, upon any account whatever, sell and alienate any Church-Lands, Goods or Chattels, without the Pope's leave.

And if any person, great or small, King or Subject, shall be found guilty of Contumacy against any Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Judge, then the said Judge may,Sit (que) erga judicem Con­tumacia; tunc reos etiam A­nathematis mucrone, arbi­trio suo, praeter alios poenas fe­vire poterit, &c. at his pleasure, not onely Excommunicate such an offender, but also decree him to be punished any other ways, as the said Judge shall think fit. And if the said excommu­nicated [Page 127]person (though a King, for it is,Concil. Trid­sess. 25. e. 3. Quicunque post legitimas admoni­tiones non resipuerit, &c. Whosoever) shall after legal Admonition continue obstinate, he shall be punished as an Heretick, that is, with Death. Con­tra eum, tanquam de Haeresi suspectum, procedi possit. ibid.

Bonaventure declares it for an un­doubted Truth, that the Supreme PowerJam verò possunt Sacer­dotes & Pon­tifices ex cau­sa amovere Reges, & de­ponere Impe­ratores, sicut saepiùs accidit, & visum est, quando scili­cet eorum ma­litia hoc exi­git, & Rei­publicae necessitas sic requirit: Summus verò Pontifex penes quem in terris prima residet Auctoritas, non à Rege, non à Principe seculari, non ab homine judicatur, sed solius Dei judicio reservatur. Bonavent. lib. de eccles. Hierarch. c. 1. on Earth is in the Pope, and that (as he already has often done, so a­gain) he may Remove Kings, and Depose Emperours, for their Wicked­nesses, and that the Pope is accounta­ble for so dling, unto no Earthly Power whatever, whether Regal, Im­perial or otehrwise, but onely unto God.

Cardinal Bellarmine assures his Rea­der, That the Popes of Rome have power not onely to Excommunicate, but also to Depose and Sentence to Death, Heretical and ungodly Kings, [Page 128]and to give awayPosse à Romano Pon­tifice Princi­pes Christia­nos excommu­nicari, & principaetu pri­vari, eorúm­que subditos ab obe [...]ieutia eorum absolvi, &c. Bellarm. de potest. sum. Pontif. praef. p. 6. their Crowns and Lands unto others that are Godly and Catholick, and to absolve their Subjects from all Duty and Allegiance to them; and to confirm the truth of what he asserts, he quotes the Autho­rity and Judgment of Pope Gregory the 7th, of Cajetan, Pet. Ancharanus, Syl­vester Prieras, Astensis, and many o­thers, for the same. And he highly applauds and justifies the Pope's ex­communicating Hen, 8th, King of En­gland for Heresie; which Heresie, was onely King Henry's Renouncing the Pope's Supremacy, and Defending his own.

The Horrid practice of Assassinating and Murthering Lawfull Kings for want of Grace, and for Heresie, is amply ju­stified and highly commended as a me­ritorious Act, by Pope Sixtus Quintus in his large Oration made to the Car­dinals in Consistory at Rome on Septemb. 11. 1589. upon the Murther and Death of Henry the Third, King of France, who was most barbarously Assassina­ted and Stab'd to Death, in the midst of his Army, by JAQƲES CLEMENT a Popish-Dominican Fryar.

Some of the said Pope's own words are as follow in the Margin.

In which you will find Pope Six­tus Hoc, de quo nunc ver­ba facimus, & quod his diebus nostris evenit, verè insigne, memo­rabile, & pe­nè incredibile opus est, nec sine Dei Op. Max. particu­lari providen­tia, perpetra­tum: Occidit Monachus Regem, non pictum Quintus so far from disclaiming against the Monk for that execrable Murther committed upon the afore­said King's Person, as that, he rather in high strains of Rhetorick wonder­fully applauds the said Hellish Fact, and styles it a most famous, memorable, and well-nigh incredible Act, yea, a work done not without the particular Providence and disposition of Almigh­ty God; A Fryar has kill'd a King. And for fear his Auditours should think he told them a Romance, he repeats it again, saying, I assure you, A Monk has kill'd a King, not a King aut fictum in char­ta, aut parie­te; sed Re­gem Franco­rum in medio exercitûs sui, milite & cu­stodiâ septum. painted in Paper, or pictured upon a Wall, not a Jack of Lent, but a real, living King, even the French King in the midst of his Army, whilst encompassed about with his Guard. And although All Monks by their Holy Order and Pro­fession Iste Mo­nachus prae­liis ac pugnis non erat assue­factus, & à sanguine, vitae suae inslituto, ita abhorrens, ut nec ex vena incisione fusum cruorem forsan ferre potuerit. were forbid to shed bloud, [Page 130]yet it was commendable in this Monk. And farther, the Pope acquaints the Cardinals with what InstrumentEtiam cum Cultello ad hoc propo­situm praepa­rato, non in vagina condi­to (unde po­terat esse probabilis excusatio) sed nudo, ac in Manicâ abscondito, quem si invenissent, mox fuisset in crucem actus. the Monk effected his bloudy design, to wit, with a Knife, which he had cunningly hid in his Sleeve for that purpose.

But that which seems most inhu­mane in this Pope, was his Denying the aforesaid Murthered King, Christian Burial, and his Holiness pleaded Sa­cred Scripture for hisDe perso­na ergo Regis [...]autum ista cum dolore diximus, cujus infaustus finis eximit quoque ipsum ab iis officiis, quae solet haec sancta sedes Imperatoribus & Regibus post mor­ [...]em exhibere: quae pro isto libentèr fecissemus, nisi id fieri, in hoc casu, Sacrae Scripturae vetarent. warrant.

After all this Barbarity, any one in pity and charity would have thought, that although the said Pope denied the Massacred King Honourable and Chri­stian Burial, yet he would not have denied him his own, and all compassi­onate mens Prayers for His Majesty's Souls deliverance, if not from Purga­tory, yet from Hell; But such was [Page 131]his implacable malice against the said King, as that he did not onely decree, thatDecrevi­mus pro ipso Rege non esse celebrandas exequias. no funeral Rites should be performed for him,

But also, thatIntelligi­mus praedic­tum Regem ex hac vita sine poeniten­tia, seu impoe­nitentem excessisse, nimirum in Consortio Haereticorum—at que pro tali peccato, seu pro Homine sic peccante, noluit Apostolus, ut post mortem ora­remus. Sixt. Quint. Pont. Max. Serm. Romae Consist. Sept. 11. 1589. no prayers should be made for him after his Death, he dying in his Heresie, was excluded from all Grace and Mercy hereafter.

Jodocus Lorichius assures us also, That it is the constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome, scil.

That the Pope has power not onely to Excommunicate, but also to Depose and Remove all Emperours, Papa ha­bet dominium seu imperium temporale in omnes homines quantaecunque eminentiae ac dignitatis sint: ita ut Imperatores, Reges, & his Inferiores, si Religioni & justitiae Christianae adversentur, non solùm excommunicare, sed & ab officiis removere ac deponere possit, &c. Jod. Lorich. Flagell. Papa. p. 443. Kings, and Secular Magistrates that are Irre­ligious and Heretical.

And if such Emperours, Kings and Princes, so excommunicated and de­posed, shall resist the Pope's Authori­ty, and endeavour to continue them­selves in their Thrones, then the Pope [Page 132] Si autem nolint, potest ipsemet Papa conscribere ex­ercitum, & Rebelles pro viribus subjugare, ibid. has power to raise an Army, and by force to subdue the said Rebellious Kings and Princes.

And the said Lorichius nominates several Emperours and Princes that have been Excommunicated and De­posed by several Popes.

For instance,

Leo Isauricus the Emperour excom­municated by Pope Gregory the Se­cond.

Childeric, King of France, Deposed by Pope Zacharias, and his Kingdom given away to Pipin.

Henry the Emperour was Deposed by Pope Gregory the 7th.

Frederic the Emperour was Depo­sed by Innocent the 4th.

Otto the Emperour was Deposed by Pope Innocent the 3d.

And as for the rest of Emperours and Kings deposed by the Popes, Lorichius refers his Reader to Baronius his An­nals, and to Bellarmine, de Pont. Sum. l. 5. c. 8.

And we will refer our Reader to the Histories and Lives of

• Hen. 8.
• Edw. 6.
• Qu. Eliz.
• K. James,

Who were all Excom­municated by the Pope, though, God bethanked, they were all strong e­nough to keep them­selves in their thrones.

Suarez, who is an Antesignanus a­mong the Jesuits, declares in several places of his Book, intituled Defensio Fidei,

That the Pope has power to deposePost sen­tentiam la­tam omninò privatur reg­no, ita ut non possit justo ti­tulo illud pos­sidere, ergo ex tunc poterit tanquam omnioò Tyrannum tractari, & con­sequenter à quacunque privata persona poterit intersici. Suarez. defens. fid. l. 6. c. 4. any Heretical King, and that when any King is deposed by the Pope, then any private person may law­fully kill such an Heretical King.

Lessius and Filliucius jointly affirm, That any private man may for the propagation of Religion kill any King, or other man, who shall oppose the Growth of true Religion; though, as [Page 134]the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph well ob­serves, Lesstus says, Talis Lessius, de jur. & just. l. 2. c. 9. dub. 8. sect. 47. in Repub­lica benè constituta, ut Homicida plecte­retur, &c. Few men will attempt to doe it, for fear, they should be hanged for their pains.

And very confidently Father Cam­pian declares, That all the Jesuits throughout the whole World, are en­ter'd into a solemn League and Vow, to make away and destroy all Heretical Kings in any manner whatsoever, nor will they despair of effecting it,Camp. in Ep. ad Concil. Reg. Angl. p. 22.as long as there shall be one Jesuit remaining in the World.

We might produce Paulus de pala­tio, and many other Writers of the Roman Church to the same purpose; But these are sufficient to prove our Assertion, to wit,

That the Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Killing Lawfull Kings, and of precluding their Lawfull Heirs from reigning, for their Heresie, or for want of Grace, or for their Moral Wickedness, is grounded and first founded

Upon Popery,

And was preached and practised first of all by the Popes, and Papists of the Church of Rome.

SECT. II.
The Doctrine and Practice of Resisting Lawfull Kings, and of Deposing and Killing them, and of Excluding their Right Heirs, for want of Grace, or for ill Government, or for being Ido­laters, or for being of a different Re­ligion from themselves, is also groun­ded on Fanaticism.

BY Fanaticks, Rodolph Gualter means all those who Deny the King's Su­premacy, and set up some other power above the King, which may controll him in matters Ecclesiastick and Ci­vil, although they be not Papists in profession.

And these Fanaticks De Christi Ecclesia Isai­as vaticinans, Reges ejus nu­tritios & Re­ginas nutrices fore pollicetur: sunt haec obser­vanda non so­lùm propter Anabaptistas, & horum similes Fanaticos homines, qui omnem cùm Politicum tum Ecclesiasticum ordinem è medio sublatum vo­lunt: verum etiam propter Pontifices, &c. qui in Ecclesia omnem pote­statem ad se transtulerunt, & nefas esse clamant, ut Reges atque Prin­cipes quicquam in illa constituant, aut ad reformandum cultum Dei ma­num admoveant. Rod. Gualter. in Div. Luc. Homil. 177. p. 468. And again he says, Fateor tamen hujus mali culpam non minima ex parte, in Phanaticis quibusdam haerere, qui religionis & libertatis Chri­stianae praetextu abutuntur, ut Ordinem politicum turbent & indignum esse dicunt, Hominem Christianum (pura Regem) gladio armatum esse, quo alios suae professionis homines coerceat. ibid. Hom. 195. p. 515. are not onely Anabaptists and Quakers, but they are also the Classical Divines, commonly called Presbyterians, and the Congregational Divines, aliàs, In­dependents.

All which, do deny the King's Su­premacy; and do set up another power above that of the Kings,

Such as, the Consistorian Power a­mong the Presbyterians:

And the Congregational-Church Pow­er among the Independents.

These are the men,What is meant by Fanatick, and what by Fanaticism. we mean, by Fanaticks; and their Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Destroying Kings, for their, supposed, Tyranny, Ido­latry, or want of Grace, and of Preclu­ding [Page 137]their Right Heirs, for any such Reason,

Is the Sum of what we mean, by Fanaticism.

And because, These men pretend to be against Popery,

But yet do deny the King's Supre­macy, and do maintain the Popish Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Killing Kings, and of Debarring their Lawfull Heirs from Reigning, for their Tyranny, Heresie, and want of Grace,

We therefore call them Fanatical-Recusants, and not Protestants.

Of this Number of Anti-Protestants we cannot but reckon these that follow:

John Calvin, who in his Sermon 131, on Job 34. writ in French, has these words, as they are Translated into English by Arth. Gilding, Anno Dom. 1573.

‘Whereas God hath forbidden pri­vate persons to rail upon their Ru­lers, Jo. Calvin, Serm. 131. in Job. 34. p. 675. it is to make us to live in peace, and without trouble, and to [Page 138]yield some Reverence to the seat of Justice.—But if there be evil and wicked Governours, they must be sharply rebuked, according to their Deservings.—And we must pull down all Loftiness that lifteth up it self against our Lord Jesus Christ. Those then that will needs be spa­red, and have their Vices untouch­ed, because they be in Authority, must coin a new Gospel. Of which number, are the Kings in our days, which will needs be called Anoin­ted and Holy, and yet cannot a­bide to have their soars touched by any means, but would have liberty to pervert all things, &c.’

And in his Institutes, he speaks more plainly, and says,

‘That although it be not Lawfull for private menSi qui nunc sint populares Magistratus ad moderan­dam Regum libidinem con­stituti, &c. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 20. § 31. p. 331. to rise up against their King, yet where there are in­feriour Magistrates elected out of the people, or where there are three Orders or States, there the people ought by their Representatives, to moderate their King's ill Govern­ment, [Page 139]to punish his Vice and Tyran­ny, and to over-rule him, as the Ephori did the Lacedemonian Kings, and as the peoples Tribunes did the Roman Consuls, whom they Depo­sed, when they thought fit; and that they are Traytors to the Peo­ple and Common-wealth, if they do not oppose their Prince's Tyranny.’

Theodore Beza imitates his Master Calvin, and writes very unworthily and reproachfully ofCujusmodi vitia sunt, im­pietas, avari­tia, ambitio, crudelitas, lu­xus, libidi­nes, &c. Beza. de Confes. fid. c. 5. Kings, taxing them generally with Pride and Luxu­ry, with Cruelty and Covetousness, with Folly and Ignorance:

And therefore Beza says,

That Kings ought not to presede, nor to be present in Oecumenical or National Councils and Synods;

And thus, he clearly denies the King's Supremacy, by virtue of which, Constantine preseded in the first Nicene Council.

Beza's own words are,

Deinde res ipsa ostendit, Bez. Conf. fid. de Eccl. c. 5. periculosissi­mum esse Principum Auctoritate Concilia subjicere, multis de causis, &c.

And as for Diocesan Bishops, he did not onely utterly deny any such Or­der, but very provokingly, calls them, Porcorum & Asinorum armentum, no better than Hogs and Asses.

And after Beza had excluded Kings from Councils, Synods and Church Affairs, then he subjugates Kings and all Secular Magistrates to his Consistorian Orders and Discipline—Et vicissim nemo est, qui verbo Dei, ac proinde Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, non subjiciatur, &c.

Which Ecclesiastick Orders and Ca­nons he makes equivalent with the Word of God.

After all this, Beza goes on to in­form his Reader (as did Calvin, and he uses many of Calvin's own words) to wit,

That the Parliament States or Bur­gesses of the People may and ought to check and restrain wicked Kings, and [Page 141]severely to punishHic igi­tur quid erit constituendum? respondeo Su­perioribus Potestatibus cujus modi nunc sunt sep­tem viri in Romano im­perio, quos E­lectores vo­cant, & Reg­ni Status in omnibus ferè Monarchiis, hoc onus in­cumbere, ut furentes Tyrannos cohibeant: quod ni faciant, ipsos ut Patriae Prodi­tores, rationem suae perfidiae coram Domino reddituros: quod autem at­tinet ad privatos homines—tenere illos oportet, plurimum inter se differre, injuriam inferre & injuriam pati, &c. Beza Confess. fid. cap. 5. de Eccles. Edit. Genev. p. 171, 172. them; and if they do not, then they are Traytours to their Countrey. And although it be not lawfull for private men to oppose, correct or depose Kings when they govern ill, yet the aforesaid Inferiour Magistrates may, when their Kings are guilty of the above-mentioned vi­ces. And he makes the Septemviri, or Burgesses and States of the People to be the Superiour Powers above the King.

Amandus Polanus, Querying,

Whether the People do sin, in Con­venticling to hear the Word of God, contrary to the King's Edicts? An subdi­ti peccent con­tra interdic­tum Principis Convenien­tes ad audiendum Evangelium? R. Non peccant. He determines it in the Negative, scil. Non peccant; they do not sin.

And Querying again,

Whether it be Lawfull to Resist a Tyrannical King?

He Answers, scil. Si Rex sen Princeps Monarchiam habeat limi­tatam & ad­strictam cer­tis conditioni­bus, in quas juravit, seu quas se pro­misit servatu­rum, penes sta­tus aut Primo­res Regni seu Principatus est, coercere Regis seu Principis Tyrannidem & immanita­tem, &c.

That if a King has taken an Oath to govern by Law, but contrary to his Oath, He governs Tyrannically, then it is in the power of the States, the Lords and Princes of the King­dom to punish and correct such a Prince, and by force of Arms to sup­press his Tyranny.

Nay, He says farther,

That it is not onely Lawfull, but also Meritorious In Op­pressa Repub­lica, si quis Tyrannum Oc­cideret, huic tanquam de Civitate benè Merito, prae­mium decerni­tur. Amand. Polan. Syntag. Theol. l. 10. c. 72. p. 1247, 1248. for any private person to kill a Tyrannical King, who by his undue courses shall afflict and oppress the Common-wealth, and that the City ought amply to Reward the said Regicide.

Frederic Baldwin a Lutheran, and a Professour of Divinity at Witteberg, does very Fanatically distinguish be­tween the King's Person and his Office, and says, That the Honour and Obe­dience [Page 143]which the Subjects owe, is due to theIn obedi­entia, non is qui praest, sed officium respiciendum est. Non Personae Magistratum gerenti, sed officio, honor debetur. Frid. Baldv. Analys. in Rom. 13.1. King's Office, and not to his Person.

So that, Subjects may, according to this distinction, take up Arms and fight against the King's Person, and not against his Kingly Office. They may kill the King, as in England did the late Rebels, and yet preserve his Office, and set up another Person in his Office, that is, in his Throne.

And the said Baldwin, Querying,

Whether it be Lawfull for Subjects to Resist their King, in case he should prove Tyrannical?

He Answers,Quande subditi non omninò privae­ti sunt, sed in Inferiori Ma­gistratu con­stituti, illi Resistere pos­sunt Superiori Magistratui, si degenerat in Tyrannum—Nam & In­feriores Magistratus debent contra vim injustam subditorum vitam & bona defendere—ubi tamen & hoc notandum, inferiori Magistratui omnia prius tentanda, quàm ad Arma veniendum, ne videatur Rebel­lare, &c. Frider. Baldvin. in Ro. 13. v. 1. quaest. 3.

That in those Kingdoms, where there are Inferiour States and Magi­strates Representing the People, as in an House of Commons, there the Infe­riour [Page 144] Magistrates may lawfully oppose the said Tyrannical King or Supreme Magistrate; and may raise an Army against him, and may depose, and (if necessity require) kill him, as the Jews did Tyrannical Athaliah; if he will not yield to the demands of the said Inferiour Magistrates and Repre­sentatives of the People.

Peter Martyr destroys all his for­mer wholesome Doctrine of Obedience unto Kings and the Supreme Magi­strates, when he affirms,

That if the Superiour Powers shall suffer Vice and Idolatry to reign, then, as Atqui, su­perior pote­stas, inquiunt, fieri haec im­peravit, ad hoc, jam an­tea multis re­spondimus, nunc addatur, si eadem pote­stas, civitatem perdere, aut privilegia eripere, aut minuere conaretur, id nunquam ferrent, ad Arma potius conclamarent, &c. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. de Magistr. p. 1029. it was a virtue in the zealous Jews to oppose the Idolatrous Doings of the Heathen Kings and Emperours, by raising Tumults, Seditions and Wars against them, as did the Mac­chabees and others;

So, is it the Duty of all Christian Subjects to oppose, and by force of Arms to Suppress the Idolatry and Tyranny of Kings, and of the Higher Powers.

And Rob. Rolloc makes the same Fanatical Distinction between the Per­son and the Power of a King, as did Frider. Baldwin; and says, that the Subject is to shew ObedienceObedien­tia praestanda est, non tam Homini, quàm Potestati; quòd si Homini praestanda sit Obedientia, non aliâ ratione praestanda est quàm qua hac potestate armatus est à Deo, quare in obediendo non tam Per­sonas Hominum intueri debemus, quàm potestatem illam & Auctoritatem quam gerunt, &c. Rolloc. in Ro. 13. p. 357. ra­ther to the Power and Office of the King, than to the Person of the King.

Upon this Distinction (as was hin­ted before) did the late Presbyterian Rebels, both Scotch and English, ☜ raise War against King Charles the First, pretending they fought not against the King and his Authority, but against the Person of Charles Stuart, who was King, and his evil Counsellours.

And the Independents, when they had Murthered Him, said, That they had not killed the King, but the Man Charles Stuart, the last of English Ty­rants.

Stephanus Cursellaeus, as Fanatically as any, declares it to be his judgment, That it is an horrible sin and wick­edness, for any King or Supreme Magistrate to make Laws to force [Page 146]theirMalam esse omnem in causa fidei co­actionem mo­do evici: quis pius, & religi­osus Princeps vel Magistra­tus non horresceret ad ejus modi impietatem vel minimum quid con­forre? quòd si adeò malum & periculi plenum sit etiam ad veram Reli­gionem cogere, quantò magìs ad falsam? Cursellae. Instit. l. 7. c. 37. § 8. Subjects unto an Observation of their Ecclesiastick Rites and Cere­monies, and unto a Conformity with, and the Embracement of, their Reli­gion, although it be the true Religion.

And Curselloeus his argument is this, scil. Because (in his opinion) Princes cannot bind nor oblige the Consciences of men by any of their Laws.

The Conscience belongs onely unto God, and He onely is the Judge of it,

And therefore God onely can make Laws to oblige it.

Wherefore this our Authour, con­cludes, All those Princes to be Ʋsur­pers of God's Prerogative, who offer to make Laws, binding and obliging Mens Consciences, and that—Miserè perierint, ut sint in exem­plum cunctis Regibus & Magistratibus qui tale aliquid attentare praesumpserint; & terrorem iis incutiant; inde discentes, se Ultrices Dei manus non evasuros, si imperium in Con­scientias subditorum, quod sibi soli reservatum voluit, usurpaverint, &c. Cursel. ibid. they must expect the Revenging Hand of God to follow them for so doing.

And which is Anabaptistical and most Fanatical of all, is this, to wit,

That Curselloeus will not allow Chri­stian Kings so much as to Imprison, Mulct or Fine any Hereticks or Schis­maticks, upon the account of Reli­gion:

And his argument for it is this, scil. For fearFieri posse ut prae immo­dico Impios & Haereticos ex­terminandi zelo, Chri­stum ipsum, quemadmodum Saulus olim, in membris suis persequantur, vinciant, & trucident, &c. ibid. § 9. Kings should persecute, imprison, mulct and punish Christ himself, under the notion of Schism or Heresie, as did Saul, aliàs, Paul.

In the case of Idolatry, the said Cur­sellaeus confesses,

That if any Hereticks or Idolaters should set up their Idols, then, the King has powerNullam quidem sub­ditorum con­scientiis vim inferre prin­cipi est lici­tum — Sed tamen pote­statem habet aholendi idola &c. ibid. § 13. to take away and abolish the said Idols. But the King has no power to make any Law a­gainst Idolatry, which can affect and oblige the Conscience of the Idola­ter.

Thus Cursellaeus disarms all Chri­stian Princes, and leaves them, as also the Church and State, naked and fence­less against the turbulent Hereticks and Schismaticks, and opens the door to all Anarchy and Confusion, nay to all Sedition and Rebellion, and will not permit Kings by severeIta ergo debet obviam iri perturba­tioni Reipub­licae, ut nulla tamen consci­entiis eorum vis fiat, qui credunt officii sui alios (i. e. Reges & Ma­gistratus) monere de erroribus & abusibus qui obtinent in Ecclesia, & eos placidè emendare contendunt, quamvis enim contingat non rarò ut fallantur, & pro erroribus habeant quae veritati sunt consentanea, prae­stat tamen judicio Dei eos relinquere, quàm ullâ vi externâ coercere. Cursel. lib. 7. c. 37. § 19. Laws to suppress Rebels, if they should tumult and mutiny upon the account of Con­science.

For Hereticks and Schismaticks ne­ver Fight and Rebell, but out of a pre­tence of tenderness of Conscience.

Unto these, we may add those ex­pressions of Grotius, who in many ex­cellent Writings has out-done most men, but in the point of Resistence of Lawfull Kings for their supposed Ty­ranny, He (in our apprehension) mi­serably errs; And upon his Authority many of the late most eminent, and [Page 149]learned Rebels justified their taking up Arms against the late King Charles of Blessed Memory:

For Grotius declares, as before, scil. That if a King provesSi Rex reipsa etiam tradere reg­num aut sub­jicere molia­tur, quin ei resisti in hoc possit, non du­bito. Grot. de jur. Bell. l. 1. c. 4. § 10. Tyrannical, or if a King has taken an Oath to go­vern well according to the Laws of the Realm, and breaks that his Oath, then the Subjects are freed from all O­bedience to him their Prince, and may Lawfully Resist Him.

One thing farther is to be noted,

That Grotius makes Kings elected and chosen by the People, to be under, and accountable to, the People (which is a very false and Fanatical notion) and He saysQui prin­cipes sub po­pulo sunt, sive ab initio ta­lem acceperunt potestatem, si­ve postea ita convenit, ut Lacedaemone, si peccent in leges ac Rempublicam, non tantum vi repelli possunt, sed, si opus sit, puniri morte: quod Pausaniae Regi Lacedaemoniorum contigit. ibid. § 8. that all such Kings who are thus sub Populo, may be punished with Death if they offend and trans­gress against the Laws of the Common-wealth, and he instances in King Pau­sanias that was put to Death.

Philip Melancthon is hugely to blame, for justifying the zealous Bur­gess [Page 150]of Nicomedia in tearing into pieces, the Emperour's publickIta nihil mali contra Imperatorem faciebat Ni­comedensis Patricius, qui Edictum pub­licè propositum, concerpsit. Melancth. in Dan. c. 6. p. 101. E­dict, although the said Edict was, pos­sibly, not so good as the generality of Reformers would have had it.

For that passionate and rash Action was no other than Rebellion against the Emperour's Person and Authority: And the man might as Lawfully have torn into pieces the Emperour's Person, as his Edict. And, in truth, the coun­tenancing such a Rebellious Action, does very much encourage disaffected men unto a General Rebellion:

For, if it be Lawfull for One pri­vate man, then is it Lawfull for eve­ry man to Rebell, and in like manner to tear the King's Proclamations, Laws and Edicts into pieces;

Which to affirm, or to doe, is di­rectly contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and to the Profession and Prac­tice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians.

Unto the above-mentioned Foreign Writers, we will add,

The late, and present, Covenanters and Fanatical Associatours, of, both, Scotland, and England,

Whose Disloyal and Factious Te­nents, and Positions, the Famous and Loyal Ʋniversity of Oxford have Sum'd up, and have printed them with the Authours of them, and have by a Vote of their Congregation on July 24. 1683, Decreed,

That their said Fanatical and Sedi­tious Positions and Doctrines, Oxfords De­cree. and the Books containing them, be publickly Burnt by the hand of their Ʋniversity-Marshall in the Court of their Schools.

Some of which Seditious Positions were these that follow,

1. That if Lawfull Governours be­come Tyrants, or Govern otherwise than by the Laws of God and Man they ought to do, they forfeit the Right they had unto their Govern­ment, Lex Rex, Jo Milton, Jo. Good­win, Rich. Baxter, H. C. And we will [Page 152]add, [...], aliàs Jo. Blackbdell.

2. That the Sovereignty of England is in the Three Estates, scil. King, Lords and Commons. The King has but a co-ordinate Power, and may be over-ruled by the other two, Lex Rex, Hunton of limited and mixed power, Rich. Baxter, H. C. And note, that they took this false Doctrine from Calvin, Beza, and the rest abovemen­tioned.

3. That Proximity of Bloud and Birth-Right give no Title to Rule or Government, and that it is Lawfull to preclude the next Heir from his Right and Succession to the Crown, Lex Rex, Doleman, Julian Apostate; and we may add the Votes of the late Associatours against the present Duke of York's Succession to the Crown of England.

4. That it is Lawfull for the Sub­jects, without the Consent, and against the Command, of the Supreme Magi­strate, to enter into Leagues, Cove­nants, Associations, for defence of them­selves and their Religion, Solemn League and Covenant, and the late Association.

5. That the Presbyterian Govern­ment is the Sceptre of Christ's King­dom, to which Kings as well as others are bound to submit. And the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs as­serted by the Church of England, is injurious to Christ, the sole King and Head of his Church. Altare Damasce­num, Cartwright, Travers; add Pres­byt. General Assembly in Scotaland, 1592. Jam. Guthry's first Speech to the Par­liament in Scotland.

6. That wicked Kings and Tyrants ought to be put to death; and if the Judges and Inferiour Magistrates will not doe their Office, the power of the Sword devolves to the People; if the major part of the people refuse to ex­ercise this power, then the Ministers may excommunicate such a King; after which it is Lawfull for any of the Sub­jects to kill him, as the people did A­thaliah, and Jehu Jezabell; Buchanan, Knox, Goodman, Gilby.

7. That King Charles the First was Lawfully put to death, and his Mur­therers were the Blessed Instruments of God's glory in their generation. Jo. Milton, Jo. Goodwin, Jo. Owen; and [Page 154]we will add John Blackbdell, aliàs, [...].

By these and the like Instances, which may be brought, it is proved to a very Demonstration,

That the wicked Doctrine and Prac­tice of Resisting Lawfull Kings, and of Deposing and Killing them, and of Ex­cluding their Right Heirs from Suc­ceeding in their Thrones for ill Govern­ment, Heresie, or want of Grace, is Grounded on Fanaticism,

And was never preached nor prac­tised by any Episcopal Protestants, but onely by the Papists and Fanaticks, who ever denied,

• The King's Supremacy,
• The English Churche's Episcopacy.

SECT. I.
Arguments proving, That, Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace, are such as these, to wit;

1. BEcause it was Birth-Right, not Grace, which gave Heredita­ry Kings a just Title to their Crowns, and therefore, it was, That Infants have often times been Crowned Kings, before they have been capable of de­claring to the World, whether they had Grace, or no.

It was upon the account of Birth-Right, not Grace, that Jehoash, when but one year old was called King, 2 Kings 11.3.12.17. and when but seven years old He was Crowned, and the People solemnly swore Allegiance to Him their King.

And therefore, although Jehoash proved a wicked man, and a Tyrant, especially to his friend Jehoiada's Son.2 Chron. 24.21. Yet he did not lose nor forfeit his Right to Reign and Govern as King;

And the Reason for it was this, Because he did not lose his Primogeni­ture and Birth-Right.

For, as Gerson truly notes,

Dominium in subditos non amittitur, nisi amisso eo in quo fundatur.

As long as any Hereditary King re­tains his Primogeniture, on which his just Title to the Crown is grounded, so long, he is King, and ought to Go­vern.

And, forasmuch as it is impossible for any Prince to lose his Primogeni­ture (unless, as Nicodemus thought, he may be born again of his Mother.)

Therefore is it (in like manner) im­possible, He should, by any equity or justice, lose his Crown, or be Rightfully Deposed, for any defect whatever, whether, for, want of Grace, Idolatry, or Tyranny.

2. Heathen Kings and Princes had a Right to Reign and Govern,

And yet, they had not Grace, as we know of, in the Senses abovemen­tioned; Nay, many of them had not Common Humanity and Civility, but lived and acted contrary to Natural Reason and Morality.

And yet, God gave, even, them, Tem­poral Dominion, and placed some of [Page 180]them over his own people, the Jews, and Commanded the Jews to be obe­dient unto those said Heathen Princes, such as Nebuchadnezzar King of Assy­ria, Ahasuerus, Cyrus and Darius.

Yea, Christ himself confirmed Cae­sar's Title unto Temporal Dominion, although Caesar was then an Infidel, this Christ did, in that his Command, Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as well as, unto God, what is God's.

It is Bishop Davenant's note, wor­thy our Remembrance,Apud In­fideles & im­pios modus u­tendi hisce temporalibus sit plerunque injustus, Titulus tamen habendi potest esse justissimus. Dav. Deter. quaest. 30. scil.

That there is a great difference, be­tween the Right of Title to Govern­ment,

And the Right Mode of Governing, and of using that Title.

For, an Heathen may have a just Title to a Throne,

And yet, possibly, not govern well and justly.

However, that personal Act of his ill Government does not destroy his personal Right and Title to Govern.

3. The Apostles and Primitive Chri­stians, in cases of Right, and of Com­mon Equity and Justice, did frequent­ly Appeal unto Heathen and Unbe­lieving Magistrates; as for instance, St. Paul, Act. 25.11. Appello Caesarem, I Appeal unto Caesar.

And v. 12. Then Festus—answered, Hast thou Appealed unto Caesar? Ʋnto Caesar shalt thou go.

And from this very Appeal of Saint Paul's unto Augustus an Ʋnbeliever, does the Learned Geo. Carlton, Geo. Carl. Pref. to Ju­risd. c. 1. Regal. p. 23. argue and conclude, that, Temporal Domini­on is not founded in Grace.

4. God is well pleased with Heathen Princes, for making War, and for fighting for their Right, when by other Princes, they are oppressed, wrong'd and injured; and oft-times God gives success and victory to the Oppressed Princes, as he did to Eschol, Aner, Gen. 14.13, 14. Mamre, and Bera King of Sodom, by the hand of Abram, against Chedorlao­mer, King of Elam.

Ergo, Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace.

5. If no Man must Reign and Go­vern, but onely he, who has Grace, Then the People will never be assured, nor certainly know, who is their Law­full King, and who is the Right Heir to the Crown, and whom they are to obey;

For, the People cannot assuredly tell who has Grace, and who has not. There are Hypocrites, who pretend to have Grace, and yet truly have none; and there are many, who do not pub­lish their Grace, and yet have much.

Grace is invisibly resident in the heart, and none knows the Heart of Man, but onely God.

Thus this Position opens the door unto Rebellion: For no men will obey or own Him for their Prince, whom they do not know, whether He be their Prince or no; for if they should, then they may obey a Counterfeit, in­stead of their true and lawfull Prince, and so run themselves into a Prae­munire.

6. This Doctrine of preventing Kings from Reigning and Govern­ing for their want of Grace, can be [Page 183]invented by Christians for no other end, than to prevent all Passive Obedi­ence unto Kings that shall prove Ty­rannical, and to avoid going to Hea­ven in the fiery Chariot of Martyrdom: For, asCum Reges pro falsitate contra verita­tem constitu­unt malas le­ges probantur & coronantur benè creden­tes. Aug. E­pist. 50. St. Augustine writes, there will be no need of dying for Religion, if so be, wicked and ungodly Kings, who want Grace, may not be suffered to Reign, and by their evil Laws to try Believers faith whether sound or no, and in such cases to experiment their fear of God, rather than of Man; for, according to the Apostles, there is a time, when God is to be obeyed, rather than Man, and when we are to dye for Christ, and for the Faith. And that can be Lawfully done, onely then, when by the Supreme Authority, we are commanded, either to dye the Death, or to deny Christ and his Reli­gion.

In this case, we are to obey the Supreme Magistrate Passively, by dy­ing the Death; and not Actively, by doing what he Commands; Because, what he Commands is expresly against the known Law and Word of God.

From which premisses, we thus ar­gue, scil. That if it be (as in truth it is) a bounden Duty, and a noble Ver­tue, in us Christians, Passively to obey our Lawfull Princes, by humbly and meekly submitting our Necks (with­out all Resistence) unto the stroke of that Death which they shall be pleased to lay upon us;

And if it be (as most certainly it is) a Sin in this case, to Resist Our Princes,

Then from hence we may ratio­nally conclude,

That Our Princes, though, suppo­sed to be never so Wicked and Tyran­nical,

Yet, They have a Right to Com­mand us, and to Rule and Reign over us, and to doe with our Bodies (if we offend them) what they please; Otherwise, there can be no such thing as Martyrdom.

And therefore,

Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace.

SECT. II.
The Evil Effects and Consequences of this Position, That, Temporal Do­minion is founded in Grace, are such as these, • 1. COnventicles. , • 2. Rebellion. , and • 3. A Confirmation of Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity. 

I. Conventicles,

For, from a Belief that the King has not Grace,

And therefore, ought not to Reign;

From hence is it,

That the People do not look upon any Laws which the King shall make, to be valid, or any ways Binding their Consciences, especially, in matters of Religion, and of Church-Government;

And therefore, it is, that they, de­clining the established and publick Or­dinances of the Realm, do run into private and unlawfull Conventicles, which they (the ignorant, deluded people) deem to be more Holy than the other.

Nor do they believe, they do, in the least, sin by Conventicling, contrary to the King's Laws;

The Reason is, Because they are of full persuasion,

That it is no sin, to violate and break the Laws and Orders of a King, who (in their opinion) wants Grace.

And from hence also it is,

That the People (who are not better Catechised and instructed) do so fre­quently leave their own Parish-Chur­ches, and run abroad to the great Pro­fanation of the Lord's holy day, either unto Conventicles, or unto other Chur­ches;

And all is, Because they fansie, that their own Parish Minister wants Grace, at least, that he is not so Powerfull in his Preaching, nor so Holy (though he walks by the Rubrick) as is their Neighbour Minister.

Which is a very great errour, de­structive of all good Order and Con­formity in the Church; For the Mini­ster's Sacred Office, and not his Person, obliges the People to a constant At­tendance on his Ministery, especially, as long as he their Minister is Conforma­ble [Page 187]unto the Orders and Canons of the Church, both for Doctrine and Manners. And if any Parish-Minister be vitious in his Life (which is a great Scandal to the Gospel, and is a crying sin in a Man that is in Holy Orders, yet if any be so) then his Ordinary, upon com­plaint and proof, ought to punish him: And not the People, as too oft they do, by departing from his Ministery, Contrary to Christ's Rule,

Which Commanded Attendance on the Ministery of the Scribes and Pha­risees, although they were vitious and wicked:

And Christ gave this Reason for it, scil. Because They, (the Scribes and Pharisees) sate in Moses his Chair; Mat. 23.3. All therefore (says Christ) whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and doe: But do not ye after their works; for they say, and doe not.

II. REBELLION.

For, from a strong Belief of this Position, scil.

That, Temporal Dominion is foun­ded in Grace,

Have sprung most, if not all, the [Page 188] Seditions and Rebellions, made against Christian Princes, by either Papists or Fanaticks.

It is evident by History, That the Popes of Rome, never sent out their Bulls, nor ever stirred up Subjects unto Rebellion, against any Secular Princes whatever, but onely, against such, as were by them judged to be Hereticks, and void of Grace, And therefore, not fit to Govern:

Nor ever was there either King, Emperour, or any Supreme Magistrate Deposed or Murthered by the Papists,

But it was upon the account of the said Prince his want of Grace.

Hence arose the Spanish Invasion a­gainst Queen Elizabeth.

The Gun-powder Plot against King James.

And the Irish Rebellion against King Charles the First.

And Oates his Popish Plot against King Charles the Second.

All arose from a Belief, That the aforesaid Princes, were Hereticks, and void of Grace, and therefore had no just Right unto any Temporal Domi­nion.

In like manner,

All the, above-mentioned, Plots of the Fanaticks, took their Rise, from this One false Notion, scil.

That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace.

And because, they were of opinion, that the King and Governours were Wicked, Tyrannical, and void of Grace,

That therefore, they had no Right to Govern,

But it was Lawfull for the Subjects to depose and destroy them by force of Arms.

The Belief of this false Notion, made the Fanaticks (as was said be­fore) to wage War against King Charles the First, and at last to Murther him.

To Banish King Charles the Second, and afterward Rebelliously to Fight a­gainst him at Worcester.

This made Venner and his Confede­rates to draw the Sword against our present most Gratious King, under the Notion, that he wanted Grace, and was an Enemy to King Jesus.

This made Stephen Colledge at Ox­ford, with his Protestant Flail, William [Page 190]Hone and his Conspiratours at Rye-House with their Blunderbusses to Plot the Murther, both of our Dread So­vereign the King, and of the Illustri­ous Prince, James Duke of York:

Though, one of them, to wit, Hone, thought his Royal Highness to have had some, nay more, Grace, than His Majesty;

And therefore, Hone confessed, that at last, he was, for sparing the Duke, but for killing the King.

Though for ever blessed and praised be Almighty God, who wonderfully spared and delivered them, both, King and Duke, from the hands of their blou­dy Enemies;

And we hope, and pray, that He will ever deliver them.

And we farther pray, that the Peo­ple may be undeceived, and thorough­ly convinced of their aforesaid great errour: for untill they be convinced, the King has no Security from them, whether Papists or Fanaticks, of either his Crown or his Life:

For, although the King be truly ne­ver so Orthodox, Vertuous and Pious, [Page 191]Yet, upon the least failing, they will clamour and give out, that he is fallen from Grace, and therefore ought to be Deposed, and no longer, to have Do­minion over them; for, according to their Belief,

Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace.

III. A Confirmation of Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity.

For, this pernicious Doctrine,

That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace,

Discourages Heathen and Unbelie­ving Princes from believing in Christ, and from embracing Christianity,

Because, if they should become Chri­stians,

Then they are not sure to hold their Crowns long on their Heads, no, nor their Heads, long on their Shoulders,

For although they should not re­nounce Christianity, nor turn Hea­thens again,

Yet, if through natural infirmity, or prevalency of temptation, or excess of Passion, they should become vitious in their lives,

Or if, through contrary persuasion, they should not Believe, as the Papists and Fanaticks Believe,

Then they must be adjudged to have no Grace,

And therefore, to have no Right of Dominion over their Subjects,

But must be Deposed and Dethroned,

For,

Temporal Dominion is (say they) founded onely in Grace.