SInce it is become one of the great Masterpieces of our Incendiaries, to magnifie the Power of the People, to break open the Cabinet of State, to push forward the heady and ra­ging Multitude, with fictitious De­vices; and to promote that Diabo­lical Dialect, of Speaking evil of Dignities; I shall this day make it my business, to undeceive such as have been misled by those false Fires.

[Page 2] Exod. 22 28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor speak evil of the Ruler of thy People, saith Moses. Eccles. 10. 20. Curse not the King, no not in thy thought, saith Solomon. And a greater than Solomon was obedient to Caesar. Two of the Twelve Apostles bear record, that there cannot be a surer note of a Schismatick, than to despise Dominion, and to cast Dirt in the face of our Natural Lord.

It is not only the Voice of our Law, but we likewise have the unanimous Astipulation, and Suf­frages, of the Laws of God, Nature, and all Na­tions; That a KING (being Deo secundus, soloque Deo minor,) can do no wrong; that is, no wrong for which he can be accountable to any but God, being only his (and not the Peoples) Vicegerent. And that I may evince this (I hope) beyond con­tradiction, I have made choice of Holy Davids Case, as being the most apposite (to the best of my Judgment) of any that I could meet withal.

What St. Hierom hath observed in the front of many of the Psalms, (which he probably had out of Origen, with whose Volumes his Juvenile Stu­dies abounded; and Origen confesseth, that he had it by Tradition from the Jew his Master;) is un­doubtedly true: viz. Titulum Psalmi esse Clavem, That the Key of each Psalm is the Title. Which, if we do consult, it directeth us to the Second Book of Samuel, the 12th Chapter, where we find the Prophet Nathan, in his Message from God to Da­vid; reproving him for his Sin in the matter of Ʋriah. Whereupon the relenting Prince (being [Page 3] filled with the aggravating Circumstances of so great a Crime) presently falleth into that Pious Confession, in the 13th Verse of that Chapter; I have sinned against the Lord.

And, as if that had been too small a Pennance, upon second thoughts (which are always presu­med, to be the most sound and searching) he com­poseth this Psalm; sighing out his Miserere mei Deus, Have mercy upon me, O God: for against thee only have I sinned.

In doing right to this Text, I shall omit the Glosses of some later Expositors, especially those of the Geneva-Faction; and that I may the more exactly shew you, what was the Judgment of the Primitive Christians in this weighty Point of Al­legiance; I shall cite the Councils, and Fathers, as being the surest Witnesses in this Particular: and having been approved by the Universal Church of Christ, no good Man can have the least occasion to doubt of their Fidelity. And to these Testimonies, I shall add the Judgment of the immortal Hugo Grotius, to whose Books, and Memory, for his O­pinion in this Point, all the Princes of Christendom do owe Protection.

And that these things may be the more per­ceptible, I shall move in this most easie, and natural Method. Wherein I shall shew,

• 1. That the Defection of Nature is so u­niversal, that even Kings can plead no Immunity from it, no Priviledge against it.
• [Page 4] 2. That althô the Depravity of Nature be general; yet it is the Sacred Pri­viledge of Kings only for their Of­fences, to be exempted from all Hu­mane Jurisdiction.
• 3. That such are the Impetuosities of the Vulgar, that notwithstanding this Sacred Reserve, Majesty it self can scarce any where be inviolable.
• 4. That since the Persons, and Power of Kings are esteemed Sacred, both by the Laws of God, Nature, and all Nations; I shall exhort all Men, that they be to the utmost of their Power careful, not to violate so great a Priviledge.

1. That the Defection of Nature is so universal, that even Kings can plead no Immunity from it, no Priviledge against it. The Empire of Sin, after the Fall of Man, was so general, that no Man can be excluded, that will not deny himself to be A­dam's Off-spring. And thus we have the great Apostle of the Gentiles asserting, that in Adam all died: And Holy David confessing, In sin was I conceived, and in iniquity did my Mother bring me forth. But it is needlefs to insist upon Parti­culars, when as the Wise Man hath included all in his Parenthesis, 1 King 8. 46. There is no Man that sinneth not.

[Page 5] The Nature of this Proposition is such, as you hear it is universally granted: therefore needeth it no further Proof. Neither will any one be so simple as to go about to exclude Princes from it, till that day approach, when both They and We (Mor­tality being laid aside) shall be equally exempted. Till then both Gratitude and Interest, oblige us to cover the Faults of our Superiours. And therefore I shall proceed to shew,

2. That althô the Depravity of Nature be ge­neral; yet it is the Sacred Priviledge of Kings only, for their offences, to be exempted from all Humane Jurisdiction. In the former Proposition we have seen, that they by whom the Actions of Men are weighed, and upon whom Proemium & Poena, the two Hinges of all Law do turn; are not able so far to smother the Embryon of Original De­pravity, but that it will (in spight of the utmost care and vigilance) burst from the Seed to the Fruit, into actual Impiety and Transgression. But yet for all this are they not in the least liable to the Censure of any Man; No Tribunal under Heaven hath power to take cognizance of them, or call them into question. The Prophet in our Text, tho a King, confesseth his Transgression: but it is with Reserve of Justice unto none, but to him, whom alone he owned Superiour; and therefore he crieth, Against thee only have I sinned.

That some of our Moderns might evade this plain sence of the Text, they have invented one, which as they think will do the business. Namely, [Page 6] that David sinned in a double respect; One, as a King: Another, as a Private Person. (If these be not the Notions of Forty Eight let the World judge.) As he was a Private Person (say they) he was offen­sive to his Neighbour, as well as to God, having been injurious to Ʋriah.

To which I answer: Davids Repentance here, was either Feigned or Sincere; Feigned it could not be, as appears by the circumstances; neither will they suppose it. And if Sincere, how cometh it to pass, that in his Confession, he hath no respect to his injured Neighbour? But here lieth the bottom of the business; If they could juggle the World into a belief, that David sinned as a Private Person, then the unavoidable consequence would be; That he must be obnoxious to that Law, which he had offended: and no Man is ignorant, that the punishment of that Sin whereof David was guil­ty, was Death, by the Mosaical Statute. What is this, but to seek a pretence for Regicide?

That David was injurious to Ʋriah, I do fairly and readily grant. But, that he was a Private Per­son, neither They, nor all the World will ever be able to convince me, it being not only absurd, but impossible. To say, that such a one is a King, and a Private Person too, is a flat contradiction, which can never be reconciled: for wherever the one is, it is impossible for the other to be there also, at one and the same time.

But whether David were Private, or no, this was not the thing they aimed at; which was, that he might be liable to Terrestrial Punishment: and [Page 7] then, whatsoever looked (tho never so ill) like an Argument, must be brought to maintain it.

Thus do Men become the Patrons of Error, and render themselves contemptible to all discerning Persons. David was no Private Person after he was Anointed: this was nothing therefore, but a distinction they had invented, and fitted for their purpose: and either it (as I have shewed) or our Logic must be false, Let them shew us one Ex­ample, and it shall be enough, of any Law, either Divine, or Humane, of any Civilized Nation in the World that owneth it: but this they cannot, be­ing only ingaged to their own crazed Heads for it.

David was a King, and as such, was (as other Kings) above the Law. Kings have Power to dis­pence with the Law at their pleasure: Neither is there the severest Punishment the Law can inflict, but it is in the Power of the King to remit it; of this David could not be ignorant: nay, he seems to imply as much here; and by how much the more he knew himself exempted from the Mosaical Law, by so much the more earnest here he seemeth to be with God for a Pardon, to whose greater Tri­bunal only he could be accountable. And of this his Earnestness, the Original is a sufficient witness, wherein the Pronoun is twice repeated; [...] Against thee, thee only have I sinned.

But I hast to be more particular, wherein I shall undertake to prove, That

For Subjects to question the Actions (tho Offen­sive) or the Authority of their Princes, is a thing [Page 8] that is most clearly Repugnant to Primitive Cu­stom: Inconsistent with the nature of the Kingly Office: And Diametrically opposite to the Liberty of the Subject.

1. It is Repugnant to Primitive Custom. That which Men call Religion, will in no wise allow the Prerogatives of Kings to be called in question. Thus the thing was amongst the Hebrews: when they requested for a King to rule over them, like as other Nations had, the Prophet answereth them, that they should have a King; and that their King should take their Wives and Children, their Ser­vants and Cattel, for his use and service; as you may read at large Sam. 1. 8. But that which is ve­ry observable, is, that the Prophet in the whole description of that their King, who we know was none of the best, never so much as setteth the least bound or limitation to his Power, maketh no obser­vations of the extent of his Authority. Whereas, if either this, or any other of the Precedent, or Succeeding Authors of the Old Testament, had but made any cases of Resistance or Restraint; I make no question, but the Antimonarchical Spirits of these Times would have been diligent in the search, and discovery of them. But so far was this from the business of Samuel, and the rest of the Prophets; that they enjoyn Obedience (even to the worst of Kings) tho it be not only to the ha­zard of Goods, but Life. And we do find it twice pronounced (to make the Obligation greater) con­cerning one of the most Insolent, and Unjust, of all their Kings; Who can lift up his hands against [Page 9] Gods Anointed, and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 24. 7. & 25. 9. That Golden Sentence of the Psalmist therefore must of necessi­ty have a like Relation to all Rulers; Psal. 105. 15. Touch not mine Anointed. And as the Law, so the Gospel, runneth high concerning Majesty. Our Saviour prohibiteth us from doing any man Injury or In­justice: but much more must we pay that Reve­rence, and Respect to Caesar, which himself paid, and commanded us to do the like. You will never find him controverting the Actions of Caesar, or his Delegates; but willingly submitting to what­soever they imposed: as you may clearly see in the Case of Tribute, wherein he proved to St. Peter, that such as were Freeborn were not liable to Tax­ation: Nevertheless (saith he) lest we be trouble­som, go thou to the Sea, and taking up a Fish, in his mouth thou shalt find a piece of Money, that give them for thee and me.

Nay, so far was Christ satisfied of the Power of the Roman Emperour, that he suffered Death up­on the Sentence of Pilate the Governour; not because he wanted Power to make Resistance, as Porphyrius, Julian, and some others, did vainly affirm against the Primitive Christians: but be­cause he would not in the least seem to make any Exception from that General Rule of Obedience to Superiours, that he had laid down; for otherwise, (as he said) he could pray to his Father, who could send him more than Twelve Legions of Angels, to be his Assistants, and to rescue their Sovereign Lord, and Creatour, from the violence of that hour.

[Page 10] Thus also we find the Disciples treading in their Masters steps, St. Peter, and St. Paul,those two great Doctors of the Circumcision and Uncircum­cision asserting this Royal Prerogative; Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of Man, (saith Peter, whatsoever some of his Successours have to say to the contrary) 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King, as Supream, or unto Gover­nours substituted by him, for the punishment of Wickedness and Vice, and for the praise of them that do well: for so is the will of God, that in well­doing ye may put to silence the Ignorance of foolishmen.

Answerably hereunto S. Paul clearly evinceth the necessity of Obedience to Supream Powers; telling us, that such are ordained of God; for which very reason (saith he) Rom. 13. ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for Conscience sake; for he that resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. But notwithstanding all this, our Enemies keep rubbing up the old Sore, and in defiance of all our Persuasions, and good Councils to the contrary, they will understand St. Paul, better than he un­derstood himself. Just in another Case, like to Andreas Althamerus, who having taken up an O­pinion prejudicial to Obedience, and Good Works; and being not able to reconcile it with the Doctrine of St. James, doth fairly therefore give St. James the Lio, in a Book printed, since Mr. Calvins Re­duction of Geneva, at Strasbourg. So they tell us, that they are willing to Obey Powers, could they have such Powers as the Apostle meant of, [Page 11] when he writ this Epistle. Wherein, alas, they are miserably mistaken, for the Apostle writ this Epi­stle to his Romish Converts, when they were un­der the Government of a Cruel Heathen Empe­rour. Thus easily can Mens Fancies lead them to assert they know not what: Both They and We have the greatest cause to bless God, that we are not under such a Power as then was.

And that which claimeth the next degree of our Assent, after our Saviours Doctrine, and the Apostles, is the Suffrage of the Universal Church, together with the Practice of Primitive Christianity, the best (if not only) Interpreter of the New Testament. He that consulteth these, will find them unanimously asserting the Proposition we have now in hand. And what good Laws were made for securing the Royal Rights of Kings, I shall refer the more, Intelligent to read in the Universal Code, wherein you have the Four General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; with the Five Primitive Synods, of Ancyra, Neocesaria, Gangres, Antioch, and Laodicea; all which have been all along re­ceived, and approved, by the Universal Church of Christ.

And as this was the Opinion of the whole Ca­tholick Church, so doth it still remain, (and long may it do so;) there being no one Church in the known World asserting otherwise; nor any sound, and sober Member of any Church, as far as I was ever able to learn: Except a few deluded Crea­tures in the Church of Rome, and a handful of Zealous Fools in the Reformed Churches, who [Page 12] have made themselves ridiculous, and contemptible, in the Eyes of all thinking, and judicious Persons; by asserting that, which the uninterrupted Opi­nion, and Universal Practice of the Christian Church for Fifteen Hundred years, and upwards, hath flatly contradicted. And whether the Judg­ments of a few, and those (it may be) for the most part Ignorant; or the Opinions of Thousands, who (for their great Piety and exemplary Loyalty) are of precious Memory; be in a Case of so great moment as this, to be preferred, he must have abjured his Reason, that cannot easily distin­guish.

However it be, we need go no further to learn Loyalty, than our own Church. All the Laws of this Realm, both Sacred, and Civil, do teach us what it is. The Oath of Fidelity, (which I sup­pose) most Men have taken, is sufficiently plain, and obligatory; to which I remit you. And let any Man consult that, together with his own In­terest, and Safety, and then let him be Disloyal, if he can.

Neither did any of the Ancient Fathers recede one jot from the Apostolical Doctrine, and Pra­ctice. It is the greatest wickedness in the World, to resist the Supream Power, saith Clemens in his Constitutions. Tertul. ad Sca­pul. & in A po­logeticis sae­pissimè. And tho you blast our Fame ( saith Tertullian speaking to the Romans) by saying, we are Injurions to Majesty, yet can you find no such Man amongst us; for tho we have filled not only the Country, but the Court, yet are we averse to Rebellion. Our Saviour hath taught us, and [Page 13] St. Peter hath taught us ( saith Nazianzen against Julian) Nazianz. O­rat. 1. adversus Julian.not to resist Lawful Authority, ( meaning the Emperour,) but rather to suffer; it is lawful for us to flee, our Saviour hath permitted it, so did St. Athanasius, so did St. Cyprian; neither have we any other Remedy left us, but Prayers and Tears. And when an Emperour offered Vio­lence to some of the Christians, what Pious Ad­vice doth Ambrose, writing to Auxentius) give them: Ambros. lib. 5. Orat in Aux­entium.Beware ( saith he) of any weapons, but your Tears; with these you may, but with any o­ther you may not resist.

And that which will be the glory of the Chri­stian World, to the end of the World, as it will likewise be the shame of those that contrived, and acted that Tragedy, an-indelible Example of Chri­stian Patience, is that of the Theban Legion; which consisted of near Seven Thousand Christian Souldiers, who being in the Field, and having their Swords drawn in their hands, and of sufficient Power to defend themselves, and rout the Forces of the Emperour; yet suffered themselves quietly and calmly to be Martyred, rather than to o­bey the severe and unmanly Edict of Maximi­an.

I might give Examples in every Century down to these very Times, and I might have done it without going far from home. It is not long since the whole Church of England was Martyred in the Cause of her Sovereign Lord. Let those who were the Designers, and the Actors of that Un­evangelical Zeal, live unparallel'd, and die un­pitied! [Page 14] But I shall content my self, and (I hope) satisfie every Honest man, and modest Christian, with that which St. Chrysostom hath said upon the words of St. Paul, Rom. 13. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, whosoever ye be, tho an Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, or whoever else, you must needs be subject; for, if Christ and his Apostles (saith he) thought it requisite to be subject to Pa­gan, how much more requisite then must it needs be, to be subject to Christian Princes.?

Besides the Fathers, I promised you the Judg­ment of the Immortal Grotius, who hath been miserably misunderstood by some in this Point: no man ever yet having asserted, and defended the Prerogatives of Kings, with such strength of An­tiquity, such sober, solid, and substantial Argu­ments, as that Learned Man hath done. And his Observation (amongst many others of great worth) is this; Grot. de jur. ‘That the Gospel is a more exact Rule, and a more pure Institution than ever yet ap­peared in the World, Belli, &c. lib. 1. cb. 4. fusissimè; & in Annotat. and consequently doth re­quire a more perfect and intire Patience, Sacris passim. and O­bedience; and therefore we cannot without great Sin, and the highest Injury to our Blessed Lord, and his Gospel, recede from that exact Obedi­ence which he hath enjoyned, and whereof he hath made himself our Example. And how he behaved himself, the Apostle is the most credible witness, who telleth us, that 1 pet. 2. 21, 22, 23. he did no Sin, nei­ther was Guile found in his mouth; that when he was reviled, he reviled not again; that when he suffered he threatned not, but committed [Page 15] himself to him that judgeth righteously, in all things leaving us his Example, that we should tread in his steps.’ Thus Grotius.

And as the Law of Moses, the Gospel, and the Laws and Practice of all Christian Nations; so the Law of Nature, and all Civilized (tho not Chri­stian) Nations, do assert this Truth: whereof Plato's Books of his Common Wealth are an am­ple Testimony. And in the Twelve Tables (which are believed to be of Grecian extract, Greece ha­ving furnished all the Heathen World with Laws, as it is probably supposed,) which contain the Fundamentals of the Old Roman Law, Crimen lae­sae Majestatis is the first, as being a guilt of the highest nature.

Hitherto we have seen what Primitive Custom hath for this Assertion. It appears by what hath been spoken, that we must be so far from question­ing the Royal Prerogatives, that we are obliged both by the Law of God, Nature, and all Nations, to vindicate them though it be with peril of life. And if our Superiours should Command us any thing (as God forbid they should) contrary to any of these Laws, you hear what is enjoyned us; We must lay our hands upon our Mouths, and suffer with that Meekness which becometh our Profes­sion, remembring the Examples of our Saviour and the Primitive Christians, whereof I have given you a full (and I hope satisfactory) account. However, I am assured that I have spoken the Judgment of the best, and purest Ages of Christi­anity; [Page 16] neither can any thing be sound in contra­diction to this Doctrine in all the whole Life, Acti­ons, or Sufferings of Christ; nor in the constant and unerring Practice of the Primitive Christians; nor in any of the Writings of the Apostles, or Apo­stolick Men. I proceed therefore to shew,

2. That for Subjects to question the Actions (tho offensive) or Authority of their Princes, is inconsistent with the nature of the Kingly Office. The Scepter is put into their hands by God Al­mighty alone: and with that the Power he giveth them is so great, as that he maketh them capable of being accountable to none, but Himself only; Thus he saith, By me Kings Reign. Of this Power King Solomons Sentence is very absolute, Who shall say to a King, what dost thou? and of the unquestionableness, and uncontroulableness of his Authority, he further addeth, The wrath of a King is as the roaring of a Lion; who shall stir him up?

Things depending on another, are governed by that on which they depend: this is undeniable. Thus the Lives, and Liberties of Subjects, do de­pend upon the good, or evil Will of their Prince. And thus much Pilate could alledge to our Blessed Saviour, that he had power to condemn him, and that he had power to release him; whereupon our Saviour replied, without any denial, or refusal of the Power, that he had no power at all, but what was given him from above; that is, that Power wherewith he was invested, and which he then ex­ercised, under the Roman Caesar, was not only by [Page 17] the permission, but also by the Order, and Institu­tion of God.

Were it so, that the Actions of Kings, or their Authority, could be swayed, or byassed, by any other Terrestrial Power whatsoever, except their own: how Proteus-like would Government be? How would the Laws of Mercy, and Justice, which are so essential to the Being of a Government, that it cannot subsist without them, be either wrested, or quite antiquated, by the Prevalency of a Party? Admit but this, and then we should soon be sensible of the Prophets complaint, Justice is gone away backward; having instead of Law, Rule, and Order, nothing but Noise, Distraction, and Confusion. Which brings me to shew.

3. That for Subjects to question the Actions, or Authority of their Prince, is diametrally oppo­site to the Liberty of the Subject. We are sub­jected unto lawful Earthly Powers, That under them we may lead godly, and peaceable lives, saith the Great Apostle. And that (according to the Prophet) Every man might fit under his own Vine, and that none might make him afraid. The enjoyment of our Lives, and our Liberties too, as well in Sacred, as Secular things, next under God, we have from the Prudence of our Prince.

That our Lives have not hitherto been made a Prey to our Enemies, it is, because his Sacred Ma­jesty maintaineth, and defendeth them. That our Liberties, both in Religion, and State, have not long since perished away in our bosoms, it is, be­cause we have a King to actuate, and enliven them. [Page 18] In a word, That the Allies of Rome, or Geneva, have not long ere this extirpated the best Reform­ed Church in Europe, the Church of England; it is, because his Sacred Majesty, and his Predecessors, (and long may He, and His Successors be equally prosperous,) have hitherto dispelled all those abo­minable Mists, of Schism, Sacriledge, and Idola­try, which they raised amongst us.

Hitherto I have shewed you, That a KING is the Greatest of all Earthly Blessings, the De­fence of our Lives, the Bulwark of our Liberties. Surely I need not long stand to recommend it to you. How many Hundreds yet alive, have not long since seen our tumultuous World; wherein tho Religion, and Liberty were the Pretence, yet Prophanity, Atheism, and Slavery were the Event? Wherein our greatest Enjoyment was the blessed Hotchpotch of Democracy: and the [...] of our Devotion (instead of our pure, and Primitive Li­turgy) was exercised in an halting Directory, not only destructive of, and contradictory to, all An­tiquity, but also to it Self. And the wholsom Laws of our Gracious and Natural Sovereign, abrogated together with Himself, to make way for worse. And that which Crown'd the Happiness, we had Reformation thrown amongst us with a Sword in its hand, to let us see how basely we had abused the Power of the Sword, in taking it from him, who alone (by the Law of God, Nature, and Na­tions,) did justly challenge it.

[Page 19] The abrogation of Civil Power makes every Man Sui juris: so that take away the Supreme Power, which is indeed the Life of all Laws, and then all manner of Sins will be venial. Heresie and Schism, Murder, Conspiracy and Rebellion, the blackest Impieties, these will never be boggled at. For indeed, that many Men abstain from the Commission of these Sins, it is not because they are so much afraid of the Justice of God; as of the Severity of the King, who swayeth the Sword of Justice, as Gods only Vicegerent. And thus, at the long run, should we be brought into the lamen­table condition of the wretched Hebrews, of whom we find this Melancholy Complaint registred by the Prophet no less than four times together: that Judg. 17. 6. & 18. 1. & 19. 1. & 21. ult. in those days there was no King in Israel, but every Man did that which was right in his own Eyes. Which seasonably brings me to my Third Propositi­on, namely to shew,

3. That such are the Impetuosities of the Vulgar, that notwithstanding this Sacred Reserve, Majesty it self can scarce any where be inviolable. Altho God Almighty hath made so good security for his Anointed; tho their Crowns be established by the firm and perpetual Decrees of all Laws, both Di­vine and Humane: yet there are a sort of Men in the World, and the very Pest they are of all Or­der and Society, the great Principles of whose Re­ligion, are to vilifie and blaspheme Magistracy, and to trample upon and contemn all that is Sacred and Venerable; purchasing to themselves the Applause of the Popularity by wild Ʋtopian Notions, where­with [Page 20] they do easily prevail upon, and seduce the giddy Multitude.

And there is nothing vented, tho never so ex­travagant and phrenetical, but some will counte­nance it. The most Lunatic Fancies being once broached, do not long want Abettors. And hence there are several Objections raised, to strengthen this Antimonarchical Fabrick.

1. They object, Regem esse infra non supra Ecclesiam. This Objection is equally asserted, both by the Romish and Reformed Party: the one endeavouring hereby to magnifie the Power of him who treadeth upon the Necks of Kings, tho he was anciently wont, and still his Duty is the same, to embrace their Feet: the other hereby striving to vindicate the Supream Power of Classes and Sy­nods. And the Answer of the one, will be the suf­ficient conviction of either.

But first, it will be necessary to ask, Whether by the Church, they mean the Catholic, or some part of it only?

If they mean the Catholic Church, then we must needs confess, that no King is above, but within it: seeing it never yet was, nor never can be under the Power of any Earthly Monarch. When they have said what they can for the Popes Supremacy, we believe, that the Catholic Church oweth Fealty to none, but only to Him who right­ly is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, the Lord Jesus Christ. Neither can it be supposed to have any Visible Head, except in a Council truly [Page 21] General, and that Headship can only remain Protempore Concilii.

But if by the word Church be meant any part only of the Catholic, as in particular the Church of England: then we own no Head but the King alone; and so here will be no work for the Super­intendent and his Classis. And if they demand our Reason, for this we remit them to the Canons of our Church, which tell us, That the Kings of England claim no more Power in Ecclesiastical Matters, than the Pious Kings of Israel, and the Religious Christian Princes (even the Roman Em­perours, for some of the first Centuries) anciently had. And till they can shew us a more warran­table Pattern, than the universal Christian Practice of Fifteen Hundred years, and more; they must give us leave to prosecute our Allegiance. Taking this First for granted, they proceed without our al­lowance, or shew of Reason.

2. To say, that a King must Servire Ecclesiae; which Phrase several Ancient and Pious Authors have used, and to which we assent, if we may have leave to understand it as the Ancients did. But if they go about by this Phrase, to subject a King to the slavish humors of his People, we must take leave to dissent, Servire Ecclesiae, according to the mind of such Authors as use it, is no more than Necessitatibus Ecclesiae consulere, and in this sence the greatest Monarch will not refuse it: this is all that St. Augustine meaneth by it; witness himself, Serviunt enim qui imperant, officio consulendi, & [Page 22] providendi Misericordia. This is all that the Pa­gan Authors mean, when they render Imperium, Servitutem. Thus therefore, if they will allow us to interpret we are agreed: but if they will not, we must needs say, they are very bad Ety­mologists, in striving to frame such Sences, with which Antiquity is utterly unacquainted.

3. They allow a Power, (if the King do not in their sence, Servire Ecclesiae) to Subordinate Ma­gistrates, to correct the Miscarriages of Princes. A most unjust and unequal Priviledge! What is meant by Subordinate Magistrates, we suppose to be such Persons as have received Authority from the King; let them act in what capacity soever, either in Church, or State. And these Inferiour Powers are approved of God: 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. yet so, as the Apostle seem­eth to make our Obedience to the King, and those Inferiour Powers, two different things; to the King we are so far enjoyned Obedience, that we cannot possibly fail in it, without being absolutely guilty of Sin; to the Inferiour Magistrate, we are obliged, so far as his Commands are the same with the Kings, or not destructive of, or prejudicial to them; which if they be, the same Obligation is upon us not to obey, but to appeal to the Greater, viz. the King.

It is beyond all Controversie with me, and I hope with all good Men; that tho Inferiour Magi­strates, with respect to Private Persons, be Publick, yet with respect to the King they are Private Per­sons. And as it is in the Power of Inferiour Magi­strates, [Page 23] to take cognizance of, and punish the Of­fences of Private Persons, so doubtless is it in the Power of the King, to take cognizance of, and punish the Offences of Inferiour Magistrates; with respect to whom, they are no more than Private Persons, (as I have already shewed,) and so liable to be by him punished, for their Miscarriages, as Private. For further sa­ti [...]faction in this point of the Authority of Supreme, and Subordi­nate Magi­strates; I shall refer the more Curious, to mine Annota­tions upon the Church-Cate­chism (in the Fifth Com­mandment,) now under the hands of the Amanuensis; and will ( Bono cum Deo) be ere long ready for the Press.It would certainly be no small Paradox, to say, That the King, having the Supream Power in these Kingdoms, (and long may He, and His Lawful Successors, enjoy and exercise it,) might not invest such Persons as he should think fit, with Inferiour Magistracy, and punish them for the A­buse, or Neglect of the Exercise of the Power he hath given them; or degrade, and devest them of their Authority.

4. If the Inferiour Magistrates be Negligent, then the Pastors, and People, have solemn leave to Depose (nay Martyr) Kings, to defend themselves (in such Unchristian Actions) with the Power of the Sword, if their Lives and Consciences (as they do most preposterously term it) cannot be other­wise safe from the Tyranny of Kings. A most Antichristian Principle, and such as might defile the very mouth of Beelzebub to pronounce it! Hor­resco referens. This, and much more such horrid Stuff, may be found in the Commentaries of Pa­reus, upon the 13th Chapter to the Romans. Neither could it ever have been better confuted, than it was by King JAMES of Blessed Memory, and the Loyal University of Oxford, who gave [Page 24] Order, That the Commentaries of Pareus should be hurnt (as they well deserved) in Public, by the hands of the Common Hangman. And for the utter extirpation of such Seditious, Impious, and Antimonarchical Doctrines, it was decreed by the Oxonian University, in a full Convocation, June the 5th, 1622. That every Person that was to be honoured with a Degree, in any Faculty what­soever, should before Admission Swear, (in an Oath framed for that very purpose) to alienate such Principles: As may be seen at large in the Decree, and Oath.

5. According to these Infernal Principles (in the late Times of Distraction) this was usually their (most Illogical) Assertion; That it was lawful to fight against the Kings Person, with his Power; and that the King might be killed in his Personal, or Private Capacity, (as they called it,) and yet his Power never the worse for it, his Authority not suffering. A strange Metaphysical Notion! And so likewise, that St. Paul speaking of Kings, Rom. 13.mean­eth the Kingly Office, not his Person; with much more of this Nature. Thus do they make the King a meer Platonical Idea, a Quality, not a Personal Subsistence: As if the King of England were nothing but CAROLƲS REX written in Court-hand, without either Flesh or Blood. If it be so, to what purpose are those significant So­lemnities used at the Coronations? Why are they Crown'd, Inthroned, Inoyled? but to shew their Personal, and Imperial Power and Supremacy: in [Page 25] Military, Judiciary, and Religious Matters. That the Kings Authority may be where his Person is not (if this be their meaning) is most true; but, that his Person may be where his Authority is not, is most false: And a King without Personal Autho­rity, is a Contradiction, and no King. How dull were the Primitive Christians, that could not be­think themselves of this Distinction! what Blood and Martyrdom might it have saved? But let these faint Chimera's vanish.

6. They say, that if we ascribe so much Power to the King, Religion cannot be safe, but that he may alter it at his Pleasure. And so He may: Neither is the Power of Kings in any thing more visible, than in establishing such Modes of Public Worship, as they think fit. This is sufficiently asserted, and maintained by the most Political Au­thors that hitherto I have met withal. Were not the Religious Rites in Judea altered, according to the Genius of the Prince? Thus we find the Rites of Ahaz altered by his Son Ezechias, which Manasses his Nephew again restored, but by Jo­sias they were again abolished. Thus, if they demand, why in the Reign of Queen Mary the Romish Religion, and in the Reign of Queen Eliza­beth the Reformed Religion, prevailed? there can be no other Reason be given, but that (next under God) it was Ex Reginarum Arbitrio.

It is an Old (and unanswerable) Maxim, Qualis Rex, Talis Lex. And if every Magistrate must [Page 26] be devested of his Power, because it is possible He may abuse it, then should we have no Power at all, at least no Exercise of Power, there being the same Reason to fear every Man alike, because the Axiom ( Nemo est qui falli neque at) includeth all. But why our King may not be intrusted with the same Power (seeing he cannot well use it worse) wherewith they durst intrust their Protector, is a Paradox to me.

Or, suppose this should fall out (which always doth not) that a King should alter the received Re­ligion; yet may we have sufficient comfort, if we consider, that the Hearts of all Men are in the hand of the Lord, but more especially are the Prov. 21. 1. Hearts of Kings in his Power, and as the Rivers of water, he can turn them as he pleaseth. It is Gods work (you hear) to sway the Inclinations of Kings, let us then beware how we meddle in it. His Power is so unspeakable, that he can equally effect his Will, as well by Evil, as by Good Kings.

Sometimes Prosperity, and sometimes Adver­sity is more profitable for the Church. And if the Prince be Pious, then the Truth flourisheth under him: and if he be Ungodly, it will be Evil for the Church, but worse for him, whose Condemna­tion shall One day be augmented, answerably to the greatness of his Charge. And in the mean time, Rebellion will be so far from being agreea­ble, that it will every way be contradictory to a Christian Profession. Well said Saint Augustine, [Page 27] August. ad­sus Crescon. l. 3 ch. 51. Reges cum in errore sunt,pro ipso errore leges con­tra veritatem ferunt; cum in veritate sunt, simi­liter contra errorem pro ipsa veritate decernunt; ita & legibus malis probantur boni, & legibus bo­nis emendantur mali. But I hast to my Fourth and Last Proposition, namely,

4. That since the Persons, and Powers of KINGS are esteemed Sacred, both by the Laws of God, Nature, and all Nations; to exhort all Men, that they be to the utmost of their Power careful not to violate so great a Priviledge. The Duty of Obedience to Kings, was a thing so well known, and so firmly believed in the Primitive Times, that the Christians then stood in need of no other Arguments to perswade them to it, but such as Christ and his Apostles left upon Record. And seeing that those who lived so near the Apo­stles Days, were so extraordinarily tenacious of this Duty: it raiseth Admiration in me, to consider, That some Men amongst us, who do (at least) pretend to as great Sanctity as ever any Primitive. Christian had, should go about to raise Arguments, to defend their Taking up of Arms against their Lawful (and Christian) Princes, from the same Sacred Scriptures, which the Ancients thought laid sufficient Obligation upon them (as I have largely shewed in the preceding Parts of this Dis­course) to obey even the worst of Heathen Pow­ers.

[Page 28] That both God, Nature, and Nations, have pri­viledged Kings, I have already fully shewed, and I trust so fully, as to render it (however to all good Men) indubitable; the Authorities that I have made use of, are such as are altogether un­questionable. For next to the Sacred Scriptures, which we all equally own, and adhere unto, I have urged only such General Councils, and Ancient Sy­nods, as have hitherto been approved by the whole Christian World. And for the Testimonies of the Fathers, or Others that I have used, they are from the best and most Authentic Editi­ons.

However therefore this Discourse may relish, it concerneth not me; seeing that I am assured, that I have all along Impartially spoken the Mind of the Catholic Church. And that to this very day, there hath not been a General Council, truly so named; or any other Ancient (tho not Oecume­nical) Synod, duly, and regularly called, and de­bating; or an Authentic Copy of any Father; that have delivered otherwise. If our Adversa­ries can produce the contrary, we challenge them in the Name of God to do it: if they cannot (which is I am certain much more easie,) then let their Brainsick Notions cease to be imposed upon the Vulgar Multitude; who are more apt to be taken with Flatteries of their Chimerical Greatness, and Supremacy; with Noise, and Impudence; than with any sober Reason, or sound Arguments.

[Page 29] But let Us, who have so good Authority for our Warrant, as the Voice, and Universal Practice of the Primitive Church, resolve (in spight of all Contradiction) to be ever Conscious of our Du­ty.

Methinks, the very consideration of our Interest, and Society, should put us in mind of Subjection: for what a Polity else should we make? what great­er Soloecism could we grant in Nature, than that the Head should give place to the Supremacy of the Foot? Tho it be true (as the Apostle observeth) that in the Body, no one Member can be without antoher; yet for the Inferiour to go about to usurp the Office, and Power of the Superiour, must needs make a Privation, and so leave some place unfilled; to which Philosophy will in no wise yield. There are not the most uncivilized of all People, but they have something of Subordination: how much more then ought we to do that, which not only Nature, but God, and the Law of Nations, have enjoyn­ed.

And if our Interest cannot draw us, let the Ex­amples of our Saviour, and the Primitive Christi­ans, persuade us; And if these be not sufficient to sway us, let the Eternal Rewards of Grace entice us; nay, since God Almighty hath made such Sa­cred Defences for Kings, let the Majesty of their Countenances dash our daring Fancies into due Al­legiance and Subjection.

[Page 30] A good Christian, and a good Subject, are Reci­procals; the one being not possible to be found without the other. And if we have love for our great Master, we can no way better manifest it, than by yielding a full Subjection to such Powers as he hath ordained to fill his Room, till Himself come, whose all Power truly is, and to whom all Authority doth rightly belong.

Let us therefore strive by Obedience to our Prince, to regain that Honour and Credit, which our Nation by Disobedience hath so lately lost. We may justly say, That (with our Royal Prophet) we are become the very Scorn and Derision of them that are round about us; but let us beseech God (with our Royal CHARLES the Martyr) not to lay that Innocent Blood unto our charge. And for the future, let us be active in repairing those Breaches of Loyalty, which the Father most right­ly claimed, for the Son. And let us not suffer our selves any more to be deluded, with the Vanities of those Men, who (under the empty Notions, and specious Titles of Christs Kingdom, Liberty, and Reformation,) Preached up nothing amongst us, but Hypocrisie, Rebellion, and Confusion.

Lastly, Let these miserable Calamities, under which we so lately groaned, be a further Incentive of Loyalty to us. Let us think of them, and I question not, they will be a means to make us Re­solve, to stand by our Prince with our Lives and our Fortunes. And to animate us in so indispensible a Duty, let us beg of God to continue us in the [Page 31] True Religion, which at this Day by Law we pro­fess; and then we need not to question, but the sence of our Duty, will add strength and perse­verance to our Loyalty. Which (that it may do) God of his great Mercy grant for Jesus Christ's sake: To whom with Thee, O Father, and Thee, O Blessed Spirit; Three Persons, but One Immutable GOD, be given of the Holy Catholic Church, all Power, Praise, and Glory, World without End, Amen, Amen.