WE hold the Affirmative, that the King is only and immediately dependent from Almighty God, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and independent in his Sovereignty and Power, from the Community in what Notion soever you conceive it, ei­ther as a diffusive, collective, representative, or vertual Body.

The Jesuit and Puritan to depress Kings aver, that all Power is originally, radically, and formally inherent in the People or Community, and from thence is derived to the King. In the explaining of this Proposition, there is amongst those who lay this Foundation for the building of their Babel a great Latitude of Diversity. Lately I read in one, who is the Author of the Tract concerning Schism and Schismaticks, pag. 29. We have believed him that hath told us, that in Christ Iesus there is neither high nor low, and that in giving Honour, eve­ry man should be ready to prefer another before himself: which saying cuts off all claim certainly of Superiority by [Page 10] Title of Christianity, except men think that these things were spoken only to poor and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this Herauldry of Secundùm sub & supra, all this comes from Composition and Agreement amongst themselves. I have given you his words, I should be glad to be mi­staken, and crave him Mercy. But as I conceive him, this Position is worse than any I know of the Jesuits, or more moderate Sectaries; both of them acknow­ledge a Necessity of Government is taught by Nature and Grace, and that the Distinction of Superiority and Inferiority is the dictate of common Reason and Re­ligion: Otherwise neither Nature nor Religion may avoid Confusion or Destruction. God who is the God of Order and not of Confusion, is the Author of this Herauldry, of Secundum sub & supra, in the whole Universe, in Church, in State. Hath not God in the moral Law taught it, Honora Patrem, &c. Honour thy Father, &c? Do not St. Paul and St. Peter Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. 14. v. command this as the Will of God? And did not our Saviour practise it, and his Apostles after him, and after them all the Christian Church? You must take away humane Society in Church and State, if you take away this Herauldry of Superiority and Inferiority. Sure I am, the Jesuits do hold that Government is ex jure naturae, by the Law of Nature. I hope our Sectaries think no worse in this point than the Jesuits.

I return to the Jesuit and Puritan, who are very like-in this Tenet; but give me Leave to say, for as bad as the Jesuit is, in my conceiving the Puritan is worse. Let us make a parallel. 1. First, the Jesuit says, that all Power civil, is radically and originally seated in the Community or Multitude, God having made it the Primum subjectum, the first Subject in [Page 11] which it is seated. The Puritan joyneth hands here with the Jesuit. 2. Next, both of them say, it is from the Multitude by way of Collation and Donati­on to one, as in Monarchy, to some as in Aristocracy, to many as in Democracy; so that immediately it is from the People, and mediately from God, and not so much by Collation, as by Approbation. How the Jesuit and Puritan walk along in an unequal pace, See Bel­larmine, l. de Laicis, cap. 6. Suarez. Defens. Doctrinae Orthod. contra Sectam Anglicanam, l. 3. 3. Thirdly, that the People may change Monarchy into Aristocra­cy or Democracy, or an Aristocracy into a Monarchy, or Democracy, or è contrae▪ which way you will; for ought I know, they differ not in this neither. 4. But some of our new State-Divines, do hold that this Pow­er is derived to the King from the People, Cumulativè or Communicativè, non Privativè, by way of Commu­nication or Cumulation, but not by way of Privation; that is, howsoever the People communicate this Sove­reignty to the King by trust, yet they denude not themselves of this Sovereignty. To make it plain, it is in their Opinion no otherwise than as when the King of England appoints a Lieutenant, Deputy, or High Commissioner of Ireland or Scotland, he denudes not himself of his Royal Power, but delegates them with Power and Trust for his Service. If this be their mind, (for I cannot conjecture at any other, and if they have any other Sense, I wish they would make it plain) the King is in a poor case, by such a derived Power: for then as the King of England giving to his Deputy or Deputies that power only cumulativè, he cannot by Reason or Law, seeing Potior est delegantis quam delegati authoritas, that the Principal his Autho­rity is more excellent than he delegate's, nor can he [Page 12] be debarred from that right the Law of Nations giveth him, Anticipatione, concursu or evocatione, by procogniti­on, his own proper entire Right, or Evocation, to de­termine or judge in any thing that concerneth that His Kingdom. If they authorize the People so, let any that hath common Sense judge in what Condition these new-state-divines do put Kings. 4. They aver (which maketh me the more inclinable to conceive that to be their mind, which before we have expres­sed) that the same Sovereign Power is, (Howsoever derived from the Community to the King) in the people suppletivè, that is, that if the King be deficient in necessary Duties of Government for the good of the Church and State, the People by their innate power, may do and supply it. This our Rabbies have not on­ly taught but practised here and elsewhere in his Ma­jesties Dominions; yet in my poor reading I have not found any Jesuit (although I confess by Deduction out of their Principles this Consequent may be expres­sed) so roundly and right down to say it. It is true that Bellarmine saith in his Recognitions lib. 3. q. de Laicis: populus nunquam ita suam potestatem in regem transfert, quin illam sibi in habitu retineat: ut in certis ca­sibus etiam actu recipere possit: that the People do never so transfer their power into the King, but that they retain it to themselves habitually: that in some certain Cases they may resume it. I find a Tenet bad enough, impious enough, sacrilegious enough, but he doth not say, that this power is transferred only cumulatively: Nor doth he talk of any Suppletivè, actual supply: Only he telleth of an habitual retaining in the People: and that upon some cases they may resume it, not in every ordinary case; nor can they do it. It is true, Bellarmine expres­seth not the case or Cases, He knew it to be difficult, [Page 13] or would have it, it is like, to be a reserved case for the Pope of Rome, when it pleaseth him to determine or define it. But if we may guess at his mind by his Bro­ther Jesuit Suarez, read him lib. 3. defens. orthod. fid. c. 3. §. 2 and three. and there he telleth you, that he will have it definite and constant in Law, and that ex­tant and evident: vel antiquis & certis instrumentis, vel immutabili consuetudine, either by ancient and faithful Records of Law, or by unchangeable and not inter­rupted Custom. If this cannot be produced, the on­ly case he assigns is, Si Rex sua potestate in manifestam civitatis perniciem abutatur, If the King evidently, ap­parently abuse his Power and Sovereignty to the total Destruction of his Kingdom, (let none cavil that we English Civitas the whole Kingdom) comprehending King and Kingdom, for they that have but the Terms of Policy, know that Civitas is the whole Kingdom and State, with the King; and Civis the true Latin word for a Subject. He giveth his Reason why in such a case this is lawful, quia potest populus naturali po­testate ad se defendendum uti, quia hac se nunquam priva­vit: because the People may use that power of self­defence with which nature hath endowed them, for they did not divest themselves of this power, nor was it transferred upon the King.

The Result of Suarez's mind is, that if there be not Authentical uncontrolable Records, or immemorial and not interrupted Customs, to determine the Cases, the Judges, the way of Procedure, the Bounds and Ex­tent, Quos ultra citraque, How far and no fart [...]er; there is no case lawful or imaginable, but in the abuse of Sovereignty to the total Destruction of King and Kingdom, which case as we think howsoever imagina­ble, yet in facto esse, it is impossible; as we will shew [Page 14] after in the last Question that this is not warrantable By Gods Institution, nor doth the Charter of Nature entitle us to this Right of self-defence, in this Case to make away, nay, to resist a King. And observe how warily the Jesuit qualifies his case. First it must not be a feared or conjectured case of Ruine and Destru­ction to King and Kingdom, but manifest and clear as the Sun-shine. Next, That not any case of Injustice, Oppression or Tyranny, doth warrant them to do or act this, but a manifest actual overthrowing of the whole Kingdom, King and all Subjects. Gerson and others of the Parisian Doctors, qualifie the case thus: 1. That it is necessary, that he intend and Attempt the total overthrow and Destruction of the Kingdom. 2. Next, that a jealousie or conjectural Evidence is not sufficient, I must be manifest, as evident as it were written with a Ray of the Sun. 2. To these two must be added invincible and insuperable Ob [...]i­macy, which cannot by humble Reverence, Depreca­tion, Supplication, or any other means else, which becometh a Subject to use in all Reverence, Prudence, and Submission to a Prince be amended: Let God and good men judge, if our case this day be so circum­stanced and qualified. Thirdly it is worth our noting, that he speaks not of resuming Sovereignty to the Peo­ple as to it's proper owner, by which this Resistance or Censure is to be done: but of a natural Power of self-defence, of which the People and Community were never denuded nor divested. That this is the Jesuits mind, appeareth yet more clearly by what fol­loweth: for saith he, it is not lawful to the People, to restrain or limit the Power which they have once tra [...]mit­ted and committed to the King, Quia Lex justitiae non per­mittit, quae docet Legitima pacta non esse rescindend [...], & [Page 15] donationem semel absolute factam revocari non posse, neque in totum, ne▪ ex parte, & maxime quando onerosa sunt; The very Law of Common Equity alloweth not that Con­tracts, and Covenants should be repealed; and what is once transferred by Donation, may not by the same Law be made void either in whole or in part, nay not when the Condition is to the Prejudice of the Donor. He adds more, That Laws made by a Prince cannot be repealed or made void by the People or Community, without the tacite or express Consent and Allowance of the Prince. No, he adds more, that a Prince doth not pendere à populo in sua potestate, etiamsi ab ipso eam acceperit, quia poterit pendere in fieri, & non postea pendere in conservari: Doth not depend from the People in his Sovereignty and power, although he had it from them; because saith he, while he was a making, or to be made King, it was of them, but to continue to be so, it is not from them. Let me add, with this of Suarez, ano­ther passage of Bellarmine, where he contradicts that he speaketh, which before we cited Becognit. lib. 3. q. de laicis. The Passage you have in his Tract against Padre Paulo, where he grants that a People or Com­munity may have some power of approving or reject­ing of a Preacher over them while he is a chusing, or to be instituted, but not after he is chosen or ap­pointed: He proveth this thus: Quemadmodum, saith he, exercitus poterat approbare, aut reprobare personam quae in Imperatorem proponeretur; ubi tamen Imperator fa­ctus esset, illum judicare non poter at; neque in illum ullam habe [...] potestatem. As of old amongst the Romans, when the Armies or Souldiers did choose the Emperour, The Army might accept or reject him that was to be created Emperour, but being made Emperour and invested in the Empire, the Army was no more his Iudge, neither had [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16] any Coercive or Coactive Power above him. Whilst the Cardinal was not [...], wedded to the Conclusions of the Roman Sea, Truth and Honesty fell from his Pen. These things I observe not to plead for Jesuits, the bane of Christian Peace, nor that I think that there is more Honesty in them, than in a Puritan, but only to put our Sectaries in mind that howsoever their Tenets by Deductions and Consequences are tant' amount as theirs, yet they are more wary and prudent than in their Expressions, for I never see how their Communicative and Suppletive, by the most benign Sense can suffer so favourable an Interpretation, as the Jesuits Tenets do. Besides our Sectaries have to con­sider, by how much more they deteriorate and depress Kings, committing or appropriating so extravagant a Power transcendent above them, to the Community or people, who are the weakest in Judgment, the most instable in their Resolutions and Conclusions, ready to cry to day Hosanna, and to Morrow Crucifige; ready to cry to Gideon now Reign thou and thy Son for ever over us, and incontinent joyn with Sichem, and his base Son Abimelech: kill his seventy Sons all of them, but Iotham who iniraculously by Gods Providence es­caped: who in Scripture are compared to the raging of the Sea, for their Violence and Impetuosity; and ever casting up dirt, for their Corruption: than doth the Jesuit who will not admit people shall do it, till the Pope take notice of it, as competent Judge by di­vine Appointment or made umpire by arbitrement. For sure I am, that the most solid and learned of the Roman Church do hold, that Subjects cannot by any be loosed from the Oath of Allegiance till the Pope do it. Again, I pray you to consider what Encourage­ment it is for Kings and Monarchs to become Nurse-fathers [Page 17] of the Reformed Church, when by our print­ing and practices we abase them so far as to make them the basest extract can be derived from the Com­munity; and that they are deposable and dethronable by the People, upon any exigent they judge fitting. Will not any understanding Prince, chuse rather to submit and subject his Crown to the Popes Mitre, than to the Fury and Violence of an untamed Beast? Where Piety should be, reason and Judgment may be, and if all be deficient, yet wrath may be sooner in one, in him appeased, than in a bellua multorum capitum. His Avarice or Ambition sooner satisfied than is ima­ginable, of that insatiable Beast of the Community.

Fifthly, Our Gamaliels hold, that as this Sovereign Power is originally, formally, radically, inherent in the People, so it is Reductive by way of Reduction theirs, that is, in case of total Defailance of a King and his Posterity, or in case a King by just demerit, exci­dat jure suo, forfeit his Right, This Right reverts and returns to the Community again. And in this, for ought I know, both Jesuit and Puritan conspire, on­ly the Jesuit sworn to maintain the exorbitant Pride and Power of Pope, reserveth the Interest extravagant of the Pope. And as Papelings do it in ordine ad Spir­tualia; So Presbyterians come well nigh it, who will have the King, but Custos and Vindex, and most put in Execution what the Presbytery or Assembly deter­mines in Gods Case and Cause: otherwise you know what they may do, Excommunicate &c. and what follows upon that you know by joyning the Law and the Gospel. Mat. 18. It is Christs Com­mand, that an Excommunicate shall be unto thee as an Heathen or Publican: and the Tenor of the Law runs, Deut. 17. A Stranger shall in no wise reign over thee.

[Page 18] Because we are sure that our Adversaries in the Ro­man Church will the next day either strengthen their Tenet, asserting it by the Testimony of our men, such as they will have us to own without all reason, or then that they disclaim this part of the Tenet, by which such extravagant Power is given to the People, which the Pope may do at Leisure and Pleasure; for neither he nor any Council of theirs hath as yet deter­mined it to be de fide; and turn it home as a true Brood of reformed Religion, which I most fear, and with good Reason; for when the Jesuits were of late in this our Blessed Kings Reign charged by a Church­man that their Doctrine was seditious, and treache­rous concerning Kings; a Jesuit in Spain was bold to answer, that the same Tenets were preached and printed by ours, and practised, before a Jesuit was, or ever they did print, gave a Paper with warrand of the Books, as Goodman, &c. and it is well known here, what was professed and protested by Father Knot in his Epistle Dedicatory to our Gracious Sovereign be­fore his Book, entituled Christianity maintained about the time of the Stirs and Distempers in Scotland. Be­cause I say, our Enemies are so malicious and subtle to take all possible Advantages to wrong us, and our good Cause, I aver confidently, that those and the like Tenets were never taught nor believed by the sound Protestants of the Reformed Churches; but our Sectaries learned them of their Bouchier, De justâ abdi­catione, Hen. 3. Rossaeus peregrinus his de justa reip. in principem potestate. Hottoman his Francogallia, his de jure regn. Gal. Mariana and others. And for my part I probably conjecture by the Terms they use that they have borrowed their first main Tenet of the Sorbonists, and others of that kind; who to oppose the Pope his [Page 19] Infallibility in Judgment, his unlimited Power, and to subject him to a Council, did dispute themselves al­most out of breath, to prove that potestas spiritualis sum­ma, was by Christ first and immediately given unitati, or communitati fidelium: that so the power might never perish, the Truth might be ever preserved, and that howsoever for the time it was virtually in the Pope, yet he had it only from the Community of the faithful communicatively, and in case of Defailance, in them it was suppletive; and in case that the power of the Church was abused to Heresie or Tyranny, the Pope was deposable (not only censurable) by a Council. This Question was acutely disputed before, about, and after the Councel of Constance. In the like manner to vindicate the Sovereignty of Kings, from subordinati­on or subjection to the Sea of Rome in temporalibus, they made the Community of the people, the prime, first, proper, and immediate subject of all civil Power, intending at this time only to vindicate Princes from the sacrilegious and violent Invasion of the Pope of Rome, who most impiously and tyrannically usurped upon them; as Gregory Nazianzen says, it may well be that [...], like to a Cooper to right a bowed or crooked stick, will bend it too much to the other side, to rectifie it, so these men to right Princes from the Tyranny of the Pope of Rome, run upon the other extreme, for the time not considering it; as the Fathers to shun the Scylla of Manicheism who imposed an inevitable Fate and Necessity upon all the voluntary actions of man to vindicate mans Will, and Freedom from inevitable Necessity, and to assert to it it's native Liberty; they did run so far to the other extreme, that they ascribed too much to the na­tural Power and Strength of mans free will, and so [Page 20] seemed in heat of Dispute to derogate too much from the Necessity of Grace to our doing good. Of which Expressions the Pelagians afterward did make use against the Orthodox.

Some there be, who do maintain these Parisians and others, that howsoever they did think Kings and So­vereignty were from the People by their Consent, yet that power was immediately from God. The main­tainers of this Opinion I honour much for their Learn­ing and other excellent parts. But give me leave to say it, I do not see how it can be maintained, though I intend as much as any man to construe all men in the best Sense. Do not all of them distinguish inter po­testatem Civilem & Ecclesiasticam, betwixt Civil and Ecclesiastical power; that Kings and Emperours have their Civil power at first by Donation from the Peo­ple; but Church-men may be chosen or deputed for sacred Orders or Functions by men, but the Donation or Collation of the Power is from God? Do they not hold that in fieri, Kings are dependent from People, but not in facto? While they are instituted, but not after that they are invested with that Power deri­ved from the Community? Do they not maintain that they are immediately from God but in Regard of Approbation? That, in some, in this point, they hold the Kings Power, his Constitution in fieri, is by the Peoples Donation transferring their innate inhe­rent Right upon him; which being immediately by God approved of, they depend no more in conservari, upon the People; their Words are, Ita quod in possi­dendo illo (scilicet Impèrio) nullum recognoscit superiorem praeter Deum: that it is so, that a King in possessing his Empire and Sovereignty acknowledeth no Superi­our but God: which in effect is no more, than when [Page 21] any man by Industry or Donation acquireth a Right or Propriety, if he come well by it, he is righteous possessour of it, by Gods Confirmation and Approba­tion: yet do they hold too, that the people and Com­munity may propter crimen civile & politicum destituere principem, for a civil Enormity against the Common­wealth depose and dethrone a King. And notwith­standing, they maintain that the Pope may not, can­not for any civil Crime or Transgression, no nor for any Spiritual either depose a King, nisi de per accidens, but accidentally; for they hold that the Pope cannot depose sententialiter, legally, judicially, and orderly, a King or Emperour, although he may excommunicate sententialiter, legally, and by his own innate Power, as they say; & finaliter or consecutive, and by way of Consequence, by his Sentence of Excommunication compel or move those that have power to depose him: and so accidentally, occasionally, and by way of Con­sequence only he does depose, not properly by himself or any Power innate and inherent in him. And on the other side, they hold that the Emperour de per ac­cidens, accidentally may depose the Pope; for if the Pope abuse his power and place, to the Damage of the Empire and Commonwealth, the Emperour may for­feit his temporal estate, confiscate his Goods, and what else he holdeth as the Vassal of the Empire, and by this means, that those that have Power over the Pope, (which in their Sense is an Oecumenical, a ge­neral Council) to depose and degrade the Pope. So equally keep they the Scales betwixt the Emperour, Kings, and Pope.

To demonstrate these Truths by their Grounds and Testimony, it appears evidently; first, that when they distinguish betwixt secular and sacred power, sacred [Page 22] they acknowledge supernatural, and immediately by Donation from God: but secular to be natural, hu­mane, and ordinary, by Donation from the Commu­nity. Next that they acknowledge God to have no immediate hand in collating secular Power, but by way of Approbation. Thirdly, that they allow the people Authority and Sovereignty not only to censure but to depose Princes, as doth also Marsilius monand. Patav. ad Ludovic. IV. part, 1. c. 12. When he hath acknowledged that Moses, Ioshua, Saul, David, and such had immediate Institution from God Almighty, for other Kings and Governours, their Right he saith, Provenit immediatè ex arbitrio humanae mentis, it is im­mediately from the free Election and Concession of man. Iacobus Almayn in his Tract, De suprema Pot. Eccles. & Laica, q. 2. c. 1. saith expresly, in sola appro­batione divina fundatur quaecunque potestas jurisdictionis Civilis & Laica, all secular Power and Jurisdiction is founded in the sole Approbation of God: and that you mistake him not, he telleth you immediately be­fore, that for the Collation of the power it is not, but Aliquibus titulis creatis mediantibus, by some Right or Title ordinary, Scilicet vel titulo successionis, vel hae­reditate, vel venditione, vel donatione, vel aliqua permu­tatione; either by the Right of Succession, or the Right of Inheritance, or by Alienation, or by Dona­tion, or by some way of exchange. See him more fully, cap. 5. ibidem. where he giveth you the three ways, which all the Sorbonists conceive to compleat all the manner, how man may be said to have any thing immediately from God. Let me refer you again to another Passage of Marsilius Patavinus de Translati­one Imperii cap. 6. Answering that Objection for the Popes power above Emperours and Kings, that the [Page 23] Pope Zacharias deposed Childerick and enthroned Pipin' saith, Sed Admonius in gestis Francorum scribit, & ve­rius, Pipinum per Francos legitime in regem electum, & per regni proceres elevatum: per Banifacium quoque Rhe­mensem Archiepiscopum inunctum Suissione, in Monasterio Sancti Medardi. Childericus qui tunc sub nomìne Regis in deliciis marcescebat & ocio, fuit in Monachum tonsura­tus. Vnde nen illum Zacharias deposuit, sed deponentibus, ut quidam aiunt, consensit. Nam talis depositio Regis, & alterius institutio, propter rationabilem causam non ad E­piscopum tantummodo, neque ad clericorum aliquem aut clericorum collegium pertinet, sed ad Vniversitatem civium inhabitantium regionem, vel nobilium, vel ipsorum valenti­orem multitudinem. The Result of all is this, Pope Zacharias did not chuse Pipin King of France, nor un­ [...]ing Childerick, but the Commonalty and Peers of France did both: and Boniface Arch-bishop of Rhemes anointed him at Soisson, in the Abbey of St. Medard. The Pope had no Authority in the one or other, but a naked Consent, for the deposing of such a King as Childerick, who was a stupid and naughty man, li­ving beastly in his Pleasures; nor the chusing of ano­ther, as Pipin doth not, for most considerable Reasons, belong either to any Bishop, Church-man, or Cor­poration of Clergy, but only to the whole Commu­nity of the Subjects, or to the Nobles, or to the great­er and better part of the whole. You see here Mar­silius speaketh the Language of the Doctors of Sorbon. For you will read their Distinction in answering the very same Objection, that Zacharias the Pope, both in the Deposition of the one, and Constitution of the other, had a hand consensivè, not authoritativè, by [...]a naked Assent, not by authoritative interposing, or Right in this Act.

[Page 24] To shut up all this, I refer you to one place, by viewing of which you shall have explicitly three, Ia­cobus Almayn, Iohannes de Parisiis, and Ockam, all of them Doctors of Paris, and breathing the same thing, with the Patavin Doctor Marsilius. Almayn hath it, who writ for Ockam, and in the words alledgeth Io­hannes de Paris verbatim de Supr. Pot. Eccles. & Laic. q. 2. c. 5. where with Ockam he grants that the Pope for Heresie may depose a King, and the people for transgressing against the Commonwealth. But that you may conceive all aright, he saith, Non licet Papae nec propter civile, nec propter spirituale crimen deponere, ni­si de per accidens. Et non pertinet ad Papam sententíaliter deponere Imperatorem, licet spectet sententialiter excommuni­care, & finaliter per censuram Excommunicationis eos qui habent Authoritatem deponendi cogere ut illum deponant. Et sic de per accidens deponit solummodo & non directè. The Sense is, It is not proper nor lawful to a Pope to depose an Emperour, either for any civil or spiritual Crime, for Errors in Policy or Religion, but only ac­cidentally. The Pope may sentence the Emperour with Excommunication, but not with Deposition, and so upon the bye, may move the people or the mul­titude who have Authority over him to dethrone him. And this is done by the Pope not properly but improperly, not effectively, but consecutively. The like he subjoyns concerning the Emperours power over the Pope; that if the Pope abuse the power he hath, to the Disturbance and Hurt of the civil State, the Empe­rour may forfeit his State, confiscate his Goods, and so indirectly make, move and force those who have power above the Pope, which in their Opinion is the whole Church, or the Representative which is an oecumeni­cal Council, to depose the Pope, and institute another. [Page 25] To these I might add Gerson and others, I refer you to Gerson's Considerations, and amongst these that you will read the seventh.

I have insisted on this, especially for two Reasons; the one is, that you may see these Tenets came not into the World with Luther and Calvin, but were long before there was any Word of a Reformer. Io­annes de Parisiis lived and taught at Paris, in King Phi­lip sirnamed Pulcher, and Boniface the eighth's time, about the year of our Lord, 1296. Willielme Ockam an English born, and Regius Professor in Paris, who writ his Dialogue at the Request of King Philip, and after his Death fled to the Emperour Lewis the fourth, died as some think about 1320. Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris, lived in the time of the Coun­cil of Constance, and died about 1420. And Almayn the first and chief Professor in Sorbon, who took upon him the Defence of Willielme Ockam, if you will be­lieve Flaccius Illyricus, wrote Anno 1512. a book against Cajetan, for the Power of a Council above the Pope, which was printed Coloniae 1514. All these were pri­or to Luther or Calvin. Our Rabbies then have drawn these Doctrines out of their polluted Cisterns.

The other Reason is, because some too charitably, and to the prejudice of Verity, interpret the Authors above cited and their Kinsmen.

If any man will take and hold them to the better Sense, I will not be contentious, though I profess I cannot see it, yet will it appear otherwise that those are not the Tenets of the reformed, Catholick Church, but the Foppery of Popery. See Thomas Aquinas 1. de regim. princ. c. 6. where he saith, Si ad jus multitudi­nis pertineat sibi providere de rege, non injustè ab eadem Rex institutus potest destitui, si potestate regni tyrannicè [Page 26] abutatur: in which Passage you have, that people may make Kings, unmake them in case of Tyranny. This Book is suspected and for many just and preg­nant Reasons not to be Thomas Aquinas's, and there­fore I refer you to the genuine Thomas, 1, 2. q. 90. art. 3. & q. 97. art. 3. & 22 ae. q. 10. art. 10. And if I be mistaken of his Sense, blame one of his acutest Scho­lars who avers it; Suarez. l. 3. defens. orth. fid. adv. Sect. Angliae, ca. 2. And long before Thomas Aquinàs Pope Zachary taught the French this Doctrine, as you may read Avent. l. 3. Annal. Boiariae. Princeps, saith he, Populo cujus beneficio possidet, obnoxius est: Quaecun­que n. habet, potentiam, honorem, divitias, gloriam, dignit a­ [...]em à populo accipit, plebi accepta referat necesse est. Re­gem plebs constituit, eundem & destituere potest. He pra­ctised this about the middle of the eighth Age, and for ought I know is the first Divine or Pope of Rome, either that said so, or writ so. Some charitably plead for him, and shew how averse he was from giving his Consent: that at first he writ to disswade them from wronging Childerick, who had his Right from God, and writ thus to wash his hands in Innocency. I will not take pains to vindicate him, I leave that Labour to the Popes parasites: yet it is worth our noting, that when Pipin and his Complices were about this Treason, to rob Childerick of his Crown, although all things were in him that might perswade to such a Course, Childerick being but a weak King, a silly man, drowned and buried in ease and pleasures; childless, nor any near to him: yet at this time, notwithstand­ing of all those Circumstances, the like whereof, ne­ver, I think, occurred before, so odious a Crime it was to depose and set a King by his Throne, though al [...]o all France had almost conspired with him; yet [Page 27] fearing that the whole Christian World would cry fie upon them for such an Impiety, they had Recourse to the Pope, that by a specious shew of his Holiness, and the Authority of that holy Church, this great Impiety and Treason might be countenanced and go current. This President was made a leading case in after Ages, both for popish and popular Usurpation to intrude, nay, to invade upon the Sacred Right of Sacred Kings. Nay, our Puritans have from hence learned to colour and lustre their ugly Treasons and Seditions with the Cloak of Religion and Righteousness. With the in­timating of another Opinion of some who make regal Power resident in the People, and from thence derived to the King, I will close this Chapter. Some do hold, that all Sovereign power is primarily and naturally in the (universitate civium) multitude, from it derived to the King immediately, and mediately from God. Who intending the Good, Peace and Safety of Man­kind, which cannot be obtained without preservation of Order, hath commanded, and by an inviolable Or­dinance and Institution, appointed all to submit and subject themselves to the Laws of Society, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake: not only whilst they enjoy Peace, Plenty, Justice, and Protecti­on by the Benefit of Governours, but also whilst they do suffer under some Inconveniences or acciden­tal Abuses. The Reason of which Obligation they make to be this, because we cannot enjoy nor reap the sweet Fruits of established Government, unless by compact we submit our selves to some possible and ac­cidental Inconveniences, from which grounds they extract these Consequences and Consectanes.

1. First, That after a people have by Contract, Compact, or Covenant divested themselves of that [Page 28] Power which was primarily and natively in them they cannot without manifest violation and breach of inviolable divine Ordinance, and without Breach of publick Faith, resume that Authority which they have placed in a King; that being united in one, it may be enabled sufficiently to protect all, and to exert and exercise all necessary acts of Government.

2. The second is, that it were high Sin to trench upon Sovereign Authority, to rob it of its Essentials and native Constitutions.

3. Thirdly, this ordinance of God is not [...] but [...], not without just and urgent Reasons.

1. First, for if that the primary and native Power which is in all and every one, were not united entire­ly and sovereignly in one, it could not have Strength enough to protect all and every one, and to do all Acts and parts of necessary Government.

2. Next, this Ordinance of God is necessary to pre­vent those fatal and too too ordinary Divisions, which attend Multitudes, or many endued with equal Power; where almost every one, upon real or fancied Injuries, undertaketh to right himself. The Authors of this Opinion add, That although before positive Constitution this is not absolutely unjust, yet Reason informeth us, that it must be fit by some Condition and Agreement to part with this native Right entirely, for a greater good which will ensue; and to prevent greater Evils, which without this cannot be avoided; and to restrain our selves from being our own Judges.

3. Thirdly, that either to resume any part of this Power of which the people have totally divested them­selves, or to entrench, usurp upon, or limit it, con­trary to its Nature, is not only to disable Sovereignty from Government and Protection, but also to loosen [Page 29] [...]he Sinews of all Society, no less than of Government, by receding from that Compact which subtle, discon­ [...]ented and disaffected men, for their own private ends, perswade others they might have made more to their own Advantage.

I was sometime in Love with this Opinion, nor do I much condemn it, for it enableth Sovereign Autho­rity of a King with an entire and sufficient Power: it maketh the Person and Office of the King sacred and inviolable: it determineth that it is Sacriledge to de­nude or divest the King of any part of sacred Royal­ty, and that the attempt or practise of any in this kind is a bad president, nay, a warrant for the Vio­lation of all Contracts howsoever just, upon any pre­tence whatsoever advantagious; it reserveth Kings to the Tribunal of God only; it preventeth by the law of Nature the Appointment of God, all Seditions and Trea­sons, declaring vim civium in Regem semper injustam; all Opposition by force, resisting of Kings by Arms, whither in a defensive or offensive way, to be against God and unlawful.

How fair soever this Opinion be, yet I dare not to aver it, nor maintain it: for I can never see where holy Scripture, or reverend and pious Antiquity hath seated this Sovereignty in the multitude, or universi­tate civium, originally or radically, tanquam in subjecto primo, as in its first Subject: Scripture and Fathers speak it clearly, frequently, that Sovereignty refers to God, as to its immediate Author and Donor; but that it is underivedly, primarily, and natively in the Community, from thence transferred to the Prince, Ne [...] quidem Lucilianum, not one syllable. I wish from Scripture or Fathers they would make it appear, that after the Peoples Constitution, there is a superve­nient [Page 30] accessory Ordinance to secure the Prince his Person and Function. I leave this, and come to prove by Scripture,

WHen we say that Kings are constituted imme­diately by God, and that Sovereignty is by immediate Donation and Collation from God, and not from the People, conceive us not to mean so grosly, that this is by any special Ordinance sent from Heaven by the Ministry of Angels or Prophets. The Observator if he conceive there is no other way but this, whereby the Original of Royalty may be referred to God as the immediate Donor, he will grant that there were but some few such, as Moses, Saul, David &c. But if he know not that some thing may imme­diately proceed from God, and be his proper work, without a Revelation or Manifestation extraordinary from Heaven, he is as empty a Divine, as I fear in the end he'll prove a Politician. I hope he will grant, that howsoever the Designation of a person to, Con­secration for a sacred Function be by the Church and man, yet the power of preaching, administrating the Sacraments, binding and loosing of Sins is immediate­ly from Christ. To say this Power were derived from any other is not only unsound, but blasphemous. This Power in its nature is divine, spiritual, and super­natural; and consequently cannot be but from such an [Page 31] efficient. The designation of the Person to an holy Function is from man or men, but the collation of the Power is immediately from God and Christ, and yet this is not by any special Ordinance sent from Hea­ven by the Ministry of Angels and Prophets.

That the Apostles are of God and Christ's immedi­ate Constitution, none doth deny. That Matthias was one, Who will controvert? That he was design­ed by men is clear, Acts 1. Two were set apart, the Decision was by Lots, and yet, I pray you, was not Matthias an Apostle by immediate Constitution from Christ? But where read you, where find you any spe­cial Ordinance sent from Heaven by the Ministery of An­gels or Prophets.

To come to Natural things. If the Observator be­lieve with the most part of Divines, that the Soul of man is by Creation and Infusion, not by propagation and traduction, although Man and Nature begetteth the Body, disposeth and prepareth it as a fit matter to be conjoyned with the Soul, that the Father may well be said to have begotten the Son, yet will he acknowledge, that the Soul is immediately from God, and believe it to be so without any special Ordinance sent from Heaven.

It were good for our Adversaries to consider, that as the Schools (see Iac. Almayn de Suprema potestate temporali, quaest. 2. c. 1. & alibi. See Gerson, Ioannes Parisiensis, and others; and see St. Austin, in re, in ef­fect saying the same, although not in School-terms, in many places, as namely, de corrept. & grat. c. 14. De Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 33. & l. 5. c. 21. & passim. And to the very same purpose, see Suarez, lib. 3. contr. Angl. Sect. err. c. 2. although in his Application he er­reth foully) do teach us, A thing may be said to be im­mediately from God three wayes.

[Page 32] 1. The first is, when it is so solely from God, as it is from no other, and presupposeth no thing ordinary, humane, or created, previous or antecedent before the ob­taining of it. Such was the Power Moses and Ioshua, Saul and David had. Such were the Apostles, all of them were by God and Christ immediately institu­ted, constituted, designed to, and invested with Power from above.

2. The second way that any thing is said to be im­mediately from God, is, when the collation of the Pow­er, and investing of the Person in, and with such Power, is from God, as the immediate Author and Donor, al­though there be presupposed or interposed, aliquod signum creatum, some previous or antecedent Act hu­mane or created. The Power Apostolical in Matthias, and appointing him to be an Apostle, was immediate­ly from Christ, although some humane Acts did pre­cede, and were interposed before his Constitution, as that the Apostles put two apart, and did cast lots. Neither of these two acts severally, nor both joyntly, had either vertually or formally in them that efficacy or efficiency to collate upon him the Apostolical Pow­er and Preeminence. A world of Instances may be made in this kind. A man baptized, by Baptism ob­taineth Remission of Sins, and the Grace of Regene­ration; yet none is so weak as to say, that the immer­sion in, or aspersion of Water effecteth or produceth these excellent Effects of Remission of Sins, and Re­generation. Lewis the twelfth, King of Fraence, au­thorized the Parliament of Paris, when one of their number di [...]d, or was removed, to make choice of an­other in his place: yet none will deny, that the Au­thority and Power of a Judge and Senator is imme­diately collated upon the Person chosen by and from [Page 33] the King of France. A King giveth to a well-deserv­ing Servant the Favour to name any man fitted for Honour to be a Lord, Baron, or Earl, after the Ser­vant to whom the Trust is committed hath designed the Person or man, he is made a Lord, Baron, or Earl. Who is so stupid to aver, that the Honour of a Lord, Baron, or Earl is from the Servant, a fellow-subject immediately? And who dare to deny the Honour is from the King, the Fountain of all Honour? This is easily discerned, for when the act interposed and pre­supposed to the Production and working of such an Effect, is such that of its own Nature it hath no natu­ral Contingency with the effect produced, but what it hath by some Resemblance or Constitution. We must run to an higher and more eminent Cause of such a Work and Effect; of which see more, infra, c. 13. where we prove that the interposing of an humane Act in the Constitution of a King, as Election, Succession, or Conquest, impedeth not the constitution and making of a King to be immediately from God.

3. The third way is, When titulo creato mediante, a mans Right to any thing he hath power of by some ordi­nary humane Right or Title intervening, by which he is invested with a just and full Right to that is collated upon him, and the Approbation or Confirmation of this Right is immediately from God: so that the possessour in possessing what he hath just Right, recognosceth or acknowledgeth in the right of Propriety no Superiour but Almighty God.

Now to apply this, for the first way, we maintain not that Sovereignty is in a King immediately from God, by extraordinary Revelation, without any hu­mane Act or Sign created intervening, This was pe­culiar only to some few.

[Page 34] The second way, we hold that all Kings really so, are immediately from God: for although some Signum creatum, some humane and created act, as Election, Succession, Conquest, or what else in that kind is ima­ginable and possible interveneth, to the Designation of the Person, yet the real Constitution, the Collation of So­vereignty and Royalty is immediately from God; for the Act or Condition presupposed or interposed contain­eth not in it that power to collate Royal and Sovereign Power: only by Gods appointment it is inseparably joyned with it, or infallibly followeth after it, so that it referreth to God as the proper donor and immediate Author. As in Baptism, if there be nothing repugnant in the Suscipient, the baptized hath from God imme­diately Remission of Sins, and Grace of Regenerrtion. Or as in Sacred Orders, the Designation of the person is from men and an humane Act; but the Endowment with supernatural power to act, do and exercise super­natural Acts, is immediately from God and Christ Matthias his person was designed by the Apostles, but Christ only made him truly and really an Apostle. Just so in the Constitution of Kings, Election, Succession, Conquest, or what else, is only Potestas designativa per­sonae; but the power of Royalty and Sovereignty is primarily, formally, and immediately from God.

That we may conceive things aright in this case, we must distinguish three things. 1. First, The Sovereign­ty or Royal Power, which is forma quaedam, the speci­fick and formal Essence constitutive of a King. 2. Next▪ The Person of the King, which is Subjectum, the seat or that wherein this Sovereignty is inherent. 3. Third­ly, The Conjunction of the Sovereignty with the Person, or the Application of Royal Power and Sovereignty to the Person.

[Page 35] The first, that is, Regal Power and Sovereignty is immediately from God and Christ.

The second, that is, the individual Person taken absolutely in its specifick and individual Essence and Existence, is from its natural Causes constituent: But qua talis, considered as a King and such a one, that is, as Supreme and Sovereign, the Deputation or Desig­nation of such an individual person for such a Power, is by Election, Succession, Conquest, or any other lawful way by which God in his Providence doth manifest it.

The third, that is, the joyning of the Authority to the Person, is immediately from God and Christ. Election, Succession, or Conquest, may be said in some Sense remotely and improperly to make or constitute a King, although they are not the proper efficient and con­stituent cause of that Power.

To say in the third Sense, that Sovereignty in the King is immediately from God by Approbation or Con­firmation only, it is too flat an Expression, and doth not sort well with the magnifick Expressions of Holy Scripture: as, By me Kings reign, Prov. 8. 15. The Powers that are, are ordained of God, Rom. 13. 2. I have said ye are Gods, Psal. 82. 8. All Power is given from above, John. 19. God hath spoken it once, twice have I heard it, all Power belongeth unto the Lord, Psal. 62. 11. According to this Opinion, the Sense of those and other such places must be, Kings have their pow­er from below, from the People, by Contract are or­dained of men, and only established by God, and con­sequently we must change the Phrase, The People have said you are Gods, your Power is from below: and Saint Paul's ordained of God, is no better than con­firmed or approved of God. Nor is the Title or Right [Page 36] of a King better, as related to God, than the Title of what any man possesseth titulo humano orcato, by hu­mane Right, by Contract, or otherwise in Rents, Moneys, Revenues, or what else is ordinary in the Commerce and Society civil of men.

In brief, our Sense is, The Royal Power and Sove­reignty of the King is from God primarily, formally, immediately; The Designation or Deputation of the Per­son, is by Election, Succession, Conquest, &c. as Matthias was designed by the Apostles setting of him apart, and the falling of the Lord upon him, but the Apostolical Power and Preeminence was immedi­ately and solely from Christ. The power of the High-priest-hood in Zadok was from God; the Designation of the Person was from Solomon, a pregnant proof and Illustration of this appeareth in Iephtah, Judg. 4. 5, 6, 7. The Elders of Gilead, and people by Covenant and Contract bring him home, agree he be Judge and Go­vernour: and yet notwithstanding, 1 Sam. 12. 11. The sending of Iephtah is no less given to God solely, than the immediate and extraordinary sending of Ie­rubbaal, Bedan, and Samuel. A Father begetteth the Child, but God infuseth the Soul. A Woman by her Choice and Consent designeth her Husband, but the marital Power and Dominion is only from God; for how can she confer or transfer that power which was never fixed in her, nay by God and Nature she is to be ruled by her Husband. It is more then than mani­fest, that an humane Act may design the Person of a King, and that the Power is conferred by God alone.

There is in true Judgement a main Difference be­twixt Potestas deputativa & designativa personae Re­giae, and Potestas collative potestatis Regiae; betwixt [Page 37] Applicativum personae ad authoritatem & potestatem, and applicativum authoritatis ad personam Regis. The first may be done by an humane Act, as a mans hand may apply a Faggot to the fire; but the other, in our case, is proper to God, as the Fire only can make the Faggot burn. It appeareth then clearly, that Power may and doth come from God alone, and immediately without extraordinary Revelation by the Voice of God, of Angel, or Prophet.

The Sense and Terms of our Tenet thus cleared, we come in the next place to our Proofs, from the Holy Scriptures in the first place. God in Scripture, by frequent, pregnant, and multivarious Expressions, hath so vindicated to himself the making and consti­tuting of Kings, that he declareth fully that he will have none to share with him in this Work, for he hath told us, that Kings and their Sovereignty are by God, of God, from God: that they are Gods: The Chil­dren of the most High: His Servants: His Ministers: His publick Ministers and Deputies [...]: That their Throne, their Crown, their Sword, their Scep­ter, their Iudgment are Gods, &c. and hath expressed it in abstracto, abstractly; of their Royalty, their Pow­er; and in concreto of themselves with a Connotation of their Persons; to intimate, that they, and all in them, their Power, their Function, their Charge, their Person, are of divine extract: a Constitution of the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; and conse­quently to teach us, that the Sovereign Authority of the King, and the Person of the King, both of them are sacred, inviolable: God in his Omniscience and Prescience did foresee, that the Sons of Adam would be like to their Father in Transgression, that nothing will content them but to be like God; and before they [Page 38] fail, they will justle him out of his Right, run upon the Guiltiness of divine Vsurpation, challenging to themselves the Prerogative of the Almighty, Pope and People, Anti-christ-like, exalting themselves above all that is called God. The Iesuit this day pleased for the Pope, the Puritan for the People, that he or they have underived Majesty by which they may enthrone or dethrone, make or unmake Kings at their plea­sure.

We begin first with the Law. In which as God by himself prescribed the Essentials, Substantials, and Ceremonials of Piety and his Worship; gave order for Justice and Piety: so he commanded the appoint­ing and constituting of the King, to be reserved as a priviledged case, a proper Prerogative for himself: Deut. 17. 14, 15. &c. When thou shalt say, I will set a King over me, like as all the Nations about me, Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy▪ God shall chuse. A Law sufficient to prove our Con­clusion, that the King and his Power are originally and immediately from God, dependent from him alone, and independent from all others. The Power and Sovereignty is expressed in the words, Set over thee: This Thee is collective, and includeth all and every one; so Scripture knew not this new state-devi­sed principle, That Rex est singulis major, universis mi­nor, above every one severally, but subordinate, to all joyntly. The person is expressed in concreto, in the Words, Whom the Lord thy God shall chuse. Neither is it to be slightly passed by, that so peremptorily, emphatically, and authoritatively it is right-down said, Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, &c. Which peremptory Precepts dischargeth the People all and every one, diffusively, collectively, representatively, [Page 39] or in what capacity else is imaginable in them to intend, attempt, or practise the appointing of a King, but to leave it entirely and totally to Almighty God.

Here we must take off some shifts which Iesuits, Puritans, and others make to elude this and other Texts of this kind. 1. The first is, That this was a priviledged case of the Iewish King: So Suarez. lib. 3. c. 2. defens. orthod. Fid. cont. Sect. Angl. So Soto, l. 4. de Instit. q. 2. art. 1. So Navarrus, cap. Novit. Notab. 3. num. 33. & 147. and many more, as Abulensis and others: The Sectary averreth the same. Both of them strengthen their Argument by these Maxims: Exem­pla specialia non valent ad inferendum regulam universa­lem: imo solent esse exceptiones à Regula. To the same purpose they adduce that Maxim of the Iurists; Valet Argumentum à speciali ad inferendam regulam universa­lem: or, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. The Sum and Sense is, that extraordinary, singular, special, and priviledged cases, are not firm and valid antece­dents to infer a general, ordinary, and ruled case: that if we cannot make it appear that all Kings are from God by immediate Constitution, the priviledged case of the Iews will infer no necessary Conclusion. Sua­rez in the place above cited, goeth a little further, affirming that God amongst the Jews did reserve, as peculiar to himself, the election onely of the King, but that His Constitution, or the collation of Royal Power, was from the People properly, immediately: and that because the words run in the Text, Deut. 17. 14, 15. that the People shall set him King over them, and him only whom the Lord they God shall chuse. Bellarmine saith just the same.

To remove this first shift, we deny both the one and the other. We deny first, that it was a proper case [Page 40] for the Jews to have their Kings immediately consti­tuted and appointed by God. The Scripture is for us, that all Kings, all Sovereign Powers are immedi­ately from God.

Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign, saith a King, and the wisest of Kings, and a King who had good reason to say so; for, if the People had right to constitute or make a King, it had not been King Solomon but King Adonijah. Adonijah durst say to King Solomon's Mother, Thou knowest that the Kingdome was mine, and that all Is­rael set their faces on me that I should reign: 1 Kin. 2. 15. Solomon saith not of himself singularly, That he reign­ed by God, but indefinitely universally, By me Kings, that is, all Kings reign. The first two words, Per me, By me, contain in them the Donor, the Author, the Efficient, the Constituent of Kings and Sovereignty. Possibly you will say, this By me, is spoken of Wis­dom, it is true; but that Wisdom is to be taken [...], not for an Accident or Quality, but for something subsistent personally. And this Solomon's [...] Chochmach, in the sense of the most Learned, both Ancient and Modern, is St. Iohn's [...]: Ioh. 1. 1. Saint Iohn's Word, Christ the Son of God, the bright­ness of his Glory, and the express image of his Person: Heb. 1. 2. The Text demonstrateth it: for his Wis­dom by which Kings reign, is that Wisdom [...] is the right reading, for the Original word is [...] Kanan possedit; nor will the Greek reading [...] bring home the Arrains conclusi­on) which the Lord possessed in the beginning of his way, before his Works of old: vers. 22. Which was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the Earth was, v. 3. The Wisdom by which Kings reign, is the same that was created of all things. Kings are [Page 41] from God the Father, but by the Son; as from the Father, by the Son, all Spiritual blessing in heaven­ly things come to us, so the greatest of Temporal Blessings, By him we have Kings, the best Blessing here, for without them neither Godliness nor Honesty, 1 Tim. 2. 2. This Per is Christ's Preposition. It is worth your notice taking, that Solomon saith not, By the People Kings reign; had it been so, you know who had been King and not Solomon: Nor he saith not, By the High-Priest Kings reign: you know he was engaged in Adonijah's Treason, no: He saith not, By Israel, nor by Abiathar, nor by Zadoc, nor by Da­vid, nor by Nathan, Kings reign; But there is a Per me, which is exclusive of all, and to whom onely it is proper and peculiar, to make Kings, and to make Kings reign. Solomon excludes Pope and People, State and Presbytery. He vindicates the creation of Kings no less to Christ than the creation of things. This [...]er me, by me, imparts not a naked Permission, as if Kings, by importunity of People, were given way to, as some blasphemous mouths and Pens have said and written: and that Monarchy of all Governments is the least acceptable to God, and to People most incon­venient. Ignorants, or malicious, or both they are, who dare to say so. Monarchy was the first Govern­ment God ordained in the World, and is yet found­ed in paterno. Why, if it be otherwise, was it promi­sed to Ahraham, as the highest pitch and reach of Temporal Blessings, that Kings should come of him? Why doth God, Ezech. 16. upbraiding the multitude of the People, reckon in the last place, as the highest of his Favours Temporal, That they prospered into a Kingdom? Why doth St. Peter urge obedience to the King, because that is the Will of God? 2 Pet. [Page 42] 11. 15. Why doth St. Paul say, that he is tibi in bo­num, for thy good, and for my good, and for the good of all. Saint Paul's [...], Higher Power, is nothing else but St. Peter's [...], the King that is Supreme. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hay­mo, and others interpret it, and the Government then when Saint Paul writ that Epistle was Monarchical. They be a cursed brood, who do maintain, that this per me Reges regnant, This, By me Kings reign, is a per me iratum, by me in anger to punish a stiff­necked and rebellious People. The Queen of Sheba knew it was per me propitium, By me in Mercy, and was better taught, and sounder in this point of Divinity, than the great Gamaliels amongst our Sectaries, for she saith to Solomon: Because the Lord thy God, Loved Israel to establish them for ever; therefore made he thee King over them, to do judgment and justice, 1 Chron. 9. 8. This per me implieth then, that they are of Gods ma­king, and in mercy Kings are given to us. This per me, by me, implieth, Kings are God's and Christ's De­rivatives, and that God and Christ are their Institu­tives, from God the Father, by the Son their Commis­sion, their Power; their Sovereignty; for this cause St. Paul calleth them [...], which word is very pregnant, and signifieth an Ordinance by high Authority not revocable, nor repealable. In which sense it is usually read in classical Authors Sacred and Prophane. So Sinesius useth the word in Epist. ad▪ Theoph. So Aristotle in his Problems. Sect. 28. 50. Lucilius Epigr. 2. So Appian▪ in 2. and Plutarch in Marcello useth, [...], for established Decrees of Sovereignty. The word from which it is derived is so used, Acts 28. Stephanus a Learned Grae­cian is of that mind, that in this very place, Rom. 13. 2. it signifieth so much.

[Page 43] The Emphasis of this per me is not yet fully ex­plained. That wonder of Piety and Learning, Doctor Andrews Late Bishop of Winchester, hath well observ­ed, that the Original is [...], Bi, in me: and yet beareth well, in me, and per me: the Preposition [...] Beth signi­fying both: So that the meaning is, Kings are first in him▪ and so come forth from him, as that they are in him. He parallels it a little with that passage in the Gospel, My Father in me, and I in him. Christ in them, as his Deputies: They in Christ as their Au­thor and Authoriser, he by their Persons, then by his Power.

The other two words of the Text, Kings Reign, contain in them the Charter, the Donation. Kings, is in the number of many, in the plural number. Solo­mon, although the wisest of men and Kings, and King of Israel, knew not this time what our new Doctors know, that it was a priviledged case, for the Kings of Israel to Reign by immediate Constitution or Ele­ction from God, from Christ. Solomon speaks it in­definitely. In the Schools it is a currant Maxim, that Indefinita propositio aequipollet universali, an indefinite proposition is equivalent to an universal, except they can shew where in Holy Writ it is limited, it is re­strained. It lieth on them to prove it, for affirmanti incumbit probatio, He who affirms is bound to prove it: Logick and Law both of them require it. The Iurist saith, Vbi Lex non distinguit, nemo distinguere de­bet: where the Law it self distinguisheth not, we are not to distinguish. Solomon then saith universally of all Kings, By me Kings reign: that is, that their Right, their Power, their Sovereignty is immediately from God by Christ.

[Page 44] I am glad that in this Text we met with Reges, Kings, in terminis terminantibus, in express terms. Nor is it to be slightly passed by, that you have it, in con­creto, the King with his Sovereignty: He saith not▪ Per me Regia potestas, by me Royalty, Sovereignty, but Per me Reges, by me Kings, to intimate that Royalty is sacred, and the Person invested with this Royalty too. Solomon for all his Wisdom reached not the Subtilty of this Age, to distinguish betwixt the King, his Per­sonal Will and Condition, and Royal Power, abstract­ly considered in it self. If you will have it plainly, These Rabbies have found out a Distinction, with which the Spirit of God was not acquainted.

The word Regnant, They reign, hath its own force▪ that not onely their Commission is by immediate De­rivation from God, and so they may say, He it is that hath made us, and not we our selves: Gratia Dei sumus quod sumus, By Gods Grace we are what we are, and so justly do write themselves, every one of them, King by the Grace of God; and so their Title is rightly from God, and their actual Reigning is of him too. They are not onely Reges, Kings by him in actu signato, as invested with this Power from above, but they Reign by him in actu exercito, their Commands are by him. The actual exercise of their Power is to be con­sidered as God's Power exerted by them His Depu­ties. If you please to take it larger yet: To, regnare in fieri, in facto, in conservari. To reign, to have a right to it, by Institution and Constitution, to exercise this Power by Commission, to have it longer or shorter time, all is Per me, By me, and no other: Dat & aufert Regna, He giveth and taketh away Crowns at his pleasure. The Law teacheth us, ejusdem est destituere, cujus & instituere, none can unmake a King, but he on­ly [Page 45] who can make him. Let the Law plead for it self, stand not for it; Sure I am it is good Divinity. In Iob, c. 26. 7. We read with St. Hierome, (and that without wronging the Original in the sense) Reges [...]ollocat in Solio in perpetuum, He placeth Kings in the Throne for ever. And again, c. 13. 18. Solvit Baltheum Regum. He taketh them from their Throne: or as it [...]s Psal. 89. 44. He casteth down their Crown to the ground. The result of all is, what can you conceive of a King, in abstracto or concreto, in his Person, or in his Sovereignty, of his Power habitual or actual, of his Right, or the Exercise of it; of his making, his continuing, his un-kinging? all is per me, from God immediately by Christ: and this in Solomon's expres­sion is verified of all Kings whatsoever.

A further proof both to fortifie what is said, and to bring home our main Conclusion, we adduce from Rom. 13. 1. [...]. For the Powers that be, are ordained of God. Beza [...]rendreth the words, Quaecunque autem sunt potestates sunt à Deo ordinatae. The old Interpreter, nearer to the Original turneth it thus: Quae autem sunt à Deo ordi­natae. I am very inclinable to think that those words relate onely, at least principally, to Sovereignty, and that Monarchical. I do not deny but that by analogy and accommodation they may be accommodated to all Power whatsoever. The Reasons enforcing me are; First, because they are [...], expresly called [...], High, or Eminent Powers. 2dly, if we will admit St. Peter to interpret St. Paul, we will find S. Paul's [...], are S. Peter's [...]: The Kings that are Supreme, 1 Pet. 11. 13. 3. Thirdly, the Apostle St. Paul adding, Ordained of God, or under God, cannot so properly be understood of Subordinate Pow­er, [Page 46] for that is not by immediate Derivation from God but immediately from the higher Power, or the King [...] that is Supreme, and mediately from God: which made Saint Peter call them [...], Governours, and such as are sent by the King, who i [...] Supream. 1. Pet. 11. 14. Fourthly, many Learned in­terpreters conceive the Words so, as Saint Chrysostom [...] Ambrosius, or Hilarius Diaconus, or whom else you will, under the name of Ambrosius, Haymo, and other [...] &c. Lastly, When St. Paul writ this Epistle, th [...] Government at Rome was Monarchical, Nero the [...] reigned.

This thus established, Let us observe in the nex [...] place, that the Apostle speaketh Vniversally that all Su­preme, Monarchical and Royal Power is ordianed o [...] God immediately. Beza sticks not to render the words into a Proposition universal affirmative. Quae­cunque autem sunt potestates, sunt à Deo ordinatae. The Apostles own Expression is full enough, pregnant [...] enough. The Relative [...], must in good Grammar [...] referred to the antecedent [...]: joyn th [...] words cited with the words immediately preceeding [...], for there is no power but of God: and then you shall have this Conclusion by undenible Consequence, naturally resulting from the Premises There is no supreme or Royal Power but from God alone: and consequently, he is the sole Donot, and Sovereignty relates to him as to its immediate Au­thor. Do not our Sectaries reason thus from the Pas­sage, Gal, 2. 16. [...], Knowing that a [...] is not justified by Works, but by Faith alone; that this [...], is the equivalent of an exclusive: and so con­clude, that we are justified by Faith alone? Why then [Page 47] will they refuse that this passage, [...], is a perfect exclusive, and is tant' a mount, as that no Su­preme power is by man or other means, but from God alone. If they shake the Force of this Argument, their strong hold for Justification is overthrown. We observed before, how that in the next verse, those higher Powers are called [...], the esta­blished unrepealable Ordinance of God. And so pre­sumptuous are we now a-days, as to repeal Gods most irrevocable decrees. No wonder we are so insolent, seeing we presume to mend the Creed and Magni­ficat.

Now joyn Saint Paul and Solomon together, and you have that Sovereign Power, is, [...], and [...]; it is by God, from God, under God, and God's Appointment irrevocable, or­dinance irrepealable. The three last are the Apostles; the first is Solomon's, for the Septuagint read the words, [...]. This variety and plurality of Expressions how Sovereignty is of God and Gods, the Spirit of God hath used, that none presume sacrilegiously to usurp upon God his Prero­gative, who hath reserved this peculiarly for himself, that all Kings upon Earth should be his immediate Creatures, and Deputies by his own Letters Patent authorized.

Our Adversaries have been much puzled with this Text; if they give us a new Bible, it is like enough either this Text will be left out, or we will have a Gloss upon it to destroy the original Text. It hath so tortured them, that I cannot tell you how many ways they have coyned to themselves to elude it. I have observed five main ones, which I purpose by by Gods Grace to examine and refute, quaests. 5. now [Page 48] I content my self to take off one, in which they please themselves much. They say, the Apostle speaketh abstractly, not concretely of the power it felf, not of the person cloathed and invested with the Power; it is an ignorant shift. Barcley in his Book de Regno, (who hath deserved well of all Christian Monarchs) hath learnedly and truly observed, that Saint Paul writing to the Romans, did keep the Roman usual Diction in this, with whom it was customable and ordinary by Potestates, powers in the Abstract, to express the per­sons authorized with this power. He refers his Rea­der to classical and good Authors, as to Pliny, lib. 29. c. 4. Iuvenal. Suet. in Claudio. c. 21. Modest. lib. 27. de Pignorib. Vlpian. lib. 17. SS. penult. de Aedil. edict. Tertullian contr. gent.

I content my self with the Dialect of Canaan in Scripture; in which frequently Expressions in the Ab­stract, express existents in the Concrete: Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers. By Thrones, Dominions, Principalities and Powers, un­controvertedly Angels are meant; that the Expressi­ons are abstract is clear as the Sun-shine. To say An­gels were created in abstracto, is to send us to search after Platonick Idea's.

This instance it may be is too sublime, let us see then if we can hit upon one nearer us, and more fit­ting for the Purpose in hand. I pray them to cast their Eyes upon St. Peter, 2. Epist. 2. 10. where gi­ving a Character of the man with whom we have to do, he saith, That they despise Government, are presump­tuous, self-willed, and not afraid to speak ill of Dignities. The fellow of this you have, Iud. 8. These filthy [Page 49] Dreamers defile the Flesh, despise Dominion, and speak ill of Dignities. In which Passages the words in abstracto, Government, Dominion, Dignities, without any Doubt do express the persons of Governours, Lords, and Kings. It is worth your notice taking, to consi­der how zealous St. Peter and St. Iude were for the ho­nour and due of Sovereignty, the ray of Divine Maje­sty upon Earth, that they speak so passionately and bitterly against such as professed themselves Christians, and did speak Evil of Cajus, Caligula, Nero, monsters of men: O with what a zeal would they be inflamed, if living now a days they did see what we see, and hear what we hear! the pretended Levites expressing their Zeal to God, Religion, Church and State, by railing against the Lords anointed, the best of Kings in the World.

The Fathers do use the word so too, St. Austin epist. 48. saith, Potestas humana saepe est divinae potestati inimi­ca: humane power is too often, contrary to the Pow­er of God Almighty. The holy Father was not so bad a Divine, as to think that Potestas in abstracto, that Go­vernment which is Gods own Ordinance can be in Opposition or Enmity with God: St. Austin then in­fallibly by the word Potestas, Power, meant him or them who are authorized with power from above.

If this doth not content our Adversaries, I would entreat them to look upon St. Paul's Text, and I hope they will find that St. Paul meant by being subject to higher powers, to be subject to him who is invested with the Power. Doth not he term them v. 3. [...], Rulers? Higher Powers, then, and Rulers are with saint Paul equivalent terms. Doth he not after call them [...], and [...], the Ministers immediate, and peculiar Servants of God? v. 6. and [Page 50] even Nero himself is Gods Minister for thy Good. Doth he not say v. 4. That he beareth not the Sword in vain? which is non-sense if you conceive it of higher Powers in abstracto. The like may be said of paying Tribute, &c.

God did fore-see by his eternal Omniscience how apt man was to coin Distinctions to deceive himself, and to wrong Gods Ordinance, that mercifully to us, he hath expressed in Scripture, that both Sovereignty and the person cloathed with Sovereignty, are of him, by him, and from him immediately; and this, that both the one and the other may be reverenced by us as sacred and inviolable. The Apostle speaketh in ab­stracto, Be subject to the Higher Powers: The Powers that are, are ordained of God. He that resisteth, &c. Again, the Spirit of God by Solomon saith, In concreto, with the Connotation of the Subject, By me Kings reign. I have said you are Gods, &c. What shall we judge then of this new-coyned Distinction, to make a Difference betwixt the King and his Authority; betwixt his perso­nal Will, and his Royal and Authoritative Will? to pur­sue his Person with a Cannon-bullet at Edge-hill, and to preserve his Authority at London, or elsewhere▪ These Fig-tree Leaves will not cover our Rebellion and Treason in the day of our Accounts before the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. Remember his strait Charge, Touch not mine anointed, and do my Pro­phet no harm.

THE Scripture hath not delivered any truth more purposely, more apertly, more frequently than this. The Spirit of God knew well, that if the Sacred Sovereignty of Kings be not preserv­ed, Religion, Justice, and Peace cannot be maintained. This is the reason St. Paul gives to perswade us to pray for Kings, That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. It is observ­able, that Solomon, Prov. 8. speaketh first of the esta­blishment of Government, before he speaks of the Works of Creation: to intimate, it is better not to be at all, than to be without Government. For the same reason God fixed Government in the Person of Adam, before Evah or any else came into the World; and how Government shall be, and we enjoy the happy fruits of it, it is not conceivable, except we preserve to the King his Sacred Sovereignty inviola­bly. This, I say, made God in Scripture non obiter, raro, & accidenter, not in a passing way, occasionally, or rarely, or accidentally, to command this Duty of Loyalty and Obedience to Kings, Sacred in their Fun­ctions, in their Persons. Almighty God hath in com­manding this Duty in holy Writ, kept the same course, he kept in setting down Essentials and Fun­damentals of Faith and Worship. If any be pleased to be at the pains to observe it, I doubt if they will find any thing so peremptorily and frequently com­manded, and with so much reason urged. The Lord [Page 52] knew how averse corrupt man is to give to the Lords Anointed his due; without the special Grace of God, or an over-ruling strong Providence People cannot be kept in Subjection. David magnifieth it, as one of the highest and most powerful of Gods blessings towards him, that he delivered him from the strivings of his People: Psal. 18. 43. and as ingenuously he acknowledgeth, that it is God alone who subdueth his People under him: Psal. 144. 2. God account­eth Rebellion against them Rebellion against himself: and ordinarily in Scripture you have God and the King inseparably joyned, and the Duties to both en­joyned, 1 Pet. 2. 17. Fear God, Honour the King. Prov. 24. 21. My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change. This is purposely done, not onely to intimate the greatness of the Sin of Disobedience, Disloyalty, and Rebellion, but also to express the near Alliance Kings have with God; and the strait conjunction betwixt them and God, that nothing intervenes to divide or sever them, which God hath put together let none put asunder.

We have proved that God in the Law hath reserv­ed to himself, as his own right, the Constitution of Kings: We have proved sufficiently that this was not a priviledged case of Gods People under the Law, be­cause Solomon indefinitely, and consequently univer­sally averreth, That all Kings reign by God in Christ. Because Saint Paul hath delivered the same truth, That there is no Supreme Power but from God alone, and so from him alone, that he admitteth no Corrival to share with him. Thus you have three Arguments for our purpose. We come now to the fourth:

[Page 53] Which is this: Scripture right down teacheth us, that all Kings whatsoever have their Free-hold from Almighty God alone. Of Pharaoh King of Egypt it is said, Exod. 9. 7. I have raised thee up. Elisha from God designed, anointed and constituted Hazael King over Syria, 2 King. 8. 13. Here you see that the Kings of Egypt and Syria are no less of Gods making than the Kings of Israel. Are not Pharaoh, Abimelech, Hiram, Hazael, Hadad, no less honoured with the compellation of Kings, than David, Saul, or Ezekiah? Be they what they will, Gods creatures they are, and of his making onely.

Ier. 29. 9. God doth honour Nebuchadnezzar, by naming him his servant: His servant, conceive it [...], by way of excellency: The same compel­lation it is, which God giveth to David, a King ac­cording to his own heart. Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon, my Servant.

If what we have said cannot suffice, let them turn over to Isai. 45. 1, 2. Thus saith the Lord to his Anoint­ed, 'to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue Nations before him; and I will loose the loyns of Kings, to open before him the two leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut, I will go before thee, and will make the crooked places strait, I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut asunder the bars of Iron. And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret pla­ces, that thou mayest know that I the Lord which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. A proof able enough to stop the Devils mouth. What Cyrus was is well known, he hath Iosiah's honour, to be named well nigh an hundred years before he was born, and named by his individual Name; he is dignified with the Roy­al compellation of the Lords Anointed: his Honour, [Page 54] his work, and all is from God, and that immediately. How much might be said, if we pleased to insist to prove our point? But leaving this, I come to our fifth Argument, which is,

That in the Book of God we are told, Dominus dat & aufert regna: that there be no Kingdom but of his giving, no Kings but of his making, no King unking'd but by his doing. We ended our last Argument with Cyrus, we begun the proof of this with him too. Esdr. 1. 2. It is recorded by the Holy Spirit, Thus saith Cyrus of Persia, the Lord of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdomes of the Earth, and he hath charged me to build him an House at Ierusalem which is in Iudah. You read the same 2 Chron. 36. 22, 23. I am very inclinable to believe that Cyrus knew this charge from the Prophecy of Isaiah, 44. 28. He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Ierusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy foundation shal [...] be laid. And again, cap. 45. 13. I have raised him u [...] in righteousness, and I will direct all his wayes, he shall build my City, and let go my Captives, not for price nor r [...]ward, saith the Lord of Hosts. If this will not recti­fie the perverse rebellious Tenet of Puritan and Jesuit, I despair of doing it. I know they will tell me, it is an extraordinary case; this is their ordinary poor shift, that serveth them in many cases; if they would consider it aright, they might see how careful God has been by extraordinary Works and Manifestations, and reiterated Precepts and Practices ordinary, to right their extravagant and extraordinary Tenets and Humours. If they can be satisfied, we refer them to D [...]n. 2. 19, 20, 21. And Daniel will teach them in the judgment of God, that to give and remove Kings and Kingdoms, is the sole and properly peculiar work of God.

[Page 55] When God had revealed to Daniel Nebuchadnez­zar's Dream, with the Interpretation of it, he thank­eth God, and saith, vers. 20. Blessed be the Name of God for ever and ever, for Wisdom and Might are his. vers. 21. And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings. Again, vers. 37. He saith, Thou, O King, art a King of Kings, for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom, Power, Strength and Glory. vers. 20. and 21. He ascribeth the setting up and removing of Kings, no less to God, than Wisdom infinite, and Omnipotency, which are Divine Attributes incommunicable. And vers. 37. He vindicates this as proper and peculiar to the God of Heaven, that Earth and earthly men can have no part in it. Daniel in whom was the spirit of the holy Gods, Daniel whom no secrets troubled, Daniel in whom was wisdom like the wisdom of Gods, reached not this high point, to know that in the People was an unde­rived Majesty to be derived to Kings in what propor­tion they please, by a fiduciary trust. View the fourth Chapter of Daniel's Prophecy, and there you will find it in four-squared Letters; Nebuchadnezzar for a time is un-kinged: how, I pray you? By the Watcher, by the Holy One, one sent by him from Heaven, commanded by him to hew down the tree, to cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, scatter his fruit, vers. 13. 14. And to what purpose is this? That Nebuchadnezzar and all living may know, that the most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men, vers. 17. All this is the Decree of the most High. vers. 24. And Nebuchadnezzar was driven from men, to live and eat with beasts, till he should know that the most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he [Page 56] will, vers. 25. It was told to the proud King, swel­ling in Pride in his Palace, that the Kingdom was de­parted from him, the Messenger was a Voice from Heaven, vers. 31. After his Repentance, and acknowledging this Truth, that Dominus dat & aufert regna; that God giveth and taketh away Kingdoms, his Kingdom was established unto him, his Counsellors and Lords sought unto him, and excellent Majesty was added unto him. Whosoever is not over-ruled with the Spi­rit of Errour, and readeth and considereth these Passa­ges aright, must confess the Truth we maintain. God open our eyes to see it, and give us hearts to believe [...], that Loyalty & Royalty may have their Place and Right!

The same Truth is delivered to us again Dan. 5. 5. A hand from Heaven, (a miracle it is to confirm this Truth) writeth upon the Plaster of the Wall, that Belshazzar the King and his Nobles may inquire after it. That God had taken the C [...]own from him. He did not acknowledge, that he did hold his Crown of the King of Heaven; to this Ingratitude, he added Sacri­ledge, and prophaned the Golden and Silver Vessels of the Temple. For these sins his Crown was taken from him. So horrible a Sin is Sacriledge, and in Kings especially, that it will throw them into Con­tempt, cast their Crowns into the dust, and bring greater Judgments in the world to come if they re­pent not. Nor can this Repentance be sound and sa­ving without Restitution. Here that rule of the Holy Father holds good, Non dimittetur peccatum ni restitua­tur ablatum. Daniel reading and interpreting this miraculous Writ, recalleth to Belshazzar's Memory Gods dealing with his Father, v. 18. O thou King, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a King­dom, and Majesty, and Glory, and Honour, (what more [Page 57] can any conceive in a King, than is here expressed?) And for the Majesty he gave him &c. v. 19. (mark it well, it is not said, that the People gave it) he swel­led in Pride, was unkinged for a time, till he acknow­ledged that the most high God ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and that he appointed over it whomsoever he will. v. 21. After this Daniel bringeth home his Application to Belshazzar, prudently checking him, that he had not made right use of that befell before his Father, but had trode in the same way of Pride, and added to his Fathers Sin the prophaning of Sacred things, that for this cause he and his are extirpated Root and Branch. The writing was Mene, Mene, Tekel, Vpharsin. The Sense is, he was found Light in Gods-Ballance, his Kingdom was numbred and fi­nished, and divided or given to the Medes and Persi­ans, Who in executing this Vengeance against an in­grate and sacrilegious King, were nothing else, but the Instruments, the Axe and Rod of God, as you may read, Isaiah 45. and 44. 28. and Ier. 51. 11. Isaiah 13. 17.

In the Passages adduced consider: First, who is the Author? (I mean not the Principal, for without con­troversie it is the holy Spirit) Daniel a man eminent and excellent in Court, Credit and Preferment. But this is not so considerable, consider him therefore as one of the Prophets, of most rare Endowments, for Wisdom and extraordinary Revelations. Secondly, Next reflect your Thoughts a little, how this Truth is manifested. It is from Heaven, but how I pray you? By Dreams; By Voice; by a crying Voice; by Writ; from whom? from the most high God: from the holy one: from the Watcher: from the God of Heaven: to whom? To Nebuchadnezzar the Emperour of the [Page 58] Assyrians, and Babylonians, to Belshazzar his Son; and all the way miraculous. The Dream is forgotten, to Daniel it is miraculously revealed, with no less won­der interpreted: It is written miraculously, Interpret­ed and read as wonderfully: and all this in the wise Dispensation of God, that Kings and all may acknow­ledge that Kings and Kingdoms are of God. Before this Truth be not known to Kings and all, he will reveal it extraordinarily, miraculously, by Dreams, by Voices, by Cries, by Writings from Heaven; and that all may take notice of it, the Dream is forgotten, Magicians are sought to; because they cannot find it out, Death is decreed against them, yet God will not have it to go unknown, to his Servant he reveals it, all the Empire take notice of it, all admire it. To confirm it yet more, the King must live like a Beast, till he believe, he confess, he profess this Truth; This Truth is not once spoken, but twice, it is seen, it is heard: The Babylonians had forgotten it; Belshaz­zar had slighted it, neglected it. When he, his Counsellors, his Lords are feasting, carrowsing, a fin­ger from Heaven writes it, None can read it, Daniel, is sought, he reads it, interprets it, that all may take Notice of it. The Father for not acknowledging this Truth, but sacrificing to himself, of a King is made a Beast, but Repentance restores him. The Son hath harder measure, He is dethroned, rooted out for ever. And a way is made; that Cyrus in his succeeding to the Empire, may acknowledge that his Kingdom was of God, which he did truly, as we told before. Where can you shew any Truth of this kind, in Scripture so revealed, so manifested, by such miraculous, extra­ordinary, and admirable ways? I think it is hard to hit upon a parallel to it. God knew well before, [Page 59] How apt we are to rob Kings of their due Right and Honour, nay, rather how prone, corrupt man is to intrude upon God and invade his Right.

If any will be pleased to consider seriously Daniel's Prophecies, What are they but Predictions that all Em­pires, Kingdoms, Majesty, Royalty and Sovereignty are of Gods immediate Donation? They are not dis­posed of by the composed Contracts of men, but by the immediate hand and work of God. All Ancients and Moderns for the most part acknowledge here in Daniel to be the clearest, the most distinct Prophecies, Predictions, of the four great Empires. If you will cast your Eyes upon the historical part of Daniel's Book there is no Truth, which is so much treated, spoken of, as this Truth, as that Kings and Kingdoms are de­pendent from God alone, and Independent from all others. It may be, because Daniel was a great Cour­tier, as Ioseph was with Pharaoh, that he might not be judged a time-server, a temporizer, a complier to vindicate him from Court-flattery, God did so many ways, so miraculous ways demonstrate this Truth, confirm this Truth, that Sovereignty, Royal Majesty, come from Heaven, from God immediately.

What Prophet almost hath not a hint, an Expressi­on of this? Isay is plentiful in this; as you may see, in Nebuchadnezzar, in Cyrus &c. and all Neighbour Princes: Ieremy taught it to the Iews to his own Dis­advantage. The Prophet Hosea, or rather God him­self by the Prophet with one Breath, in one Verse, in few words, with a dedi, and an abstuli, hath ex­pressed, hath confirmed this Doctrine. c. 13. 11. I gave them a King in my Anger, and took him away in my Wrath. I gave him, I took him away; what can you require more? I pray give me Leave to observe one [Page 60] thing in the words, besides our main purpose for which we cited it. He saith, dedi eis regem in ira mea: I gave them a King in my Anger; This King in the judgment of some was Saul: according to the mind of others, this King was Ieroboam, it skilleth not whether the one or the other. Both of them were wicked. Yet it is said, Dedi, I gave him, and as I gave him, so abstuli; I took him away: None giveth but He, None can take away but He. God will admit none to do either the one or the other but himself. It is observable too, that in giving a bad King, it is only said in ira mea, I gave him in my Anger; but in taking away a bad King, it is said, abstuli in furore meo, I took him away in my wrath: what difference is be­twixt ira and furor, anger and wrath, all do know. What doth this intimate to us then, but, to have a bad King is a chastisement Irati Dei, of an angry God, who is placable; But to have no King at all, it is a work of Vengeance, a token a prognostick of an Implacable God, at least hardly placable.

If you account Iob for a Prophet, or [...], it skilleth not much which way you term him. He saith, Reges collocat in solio, in perpetuum; and again, Balthe­um regum dissolvit: the places you have cited before. What he speaketh for Sovereignty, you shall hear, qq. 4 & 5. For Solomon his Suffrage you had before. What he saith of the heart of Kings, &c. Of not re­sisting Kings, you shall hear it in its proper place, That a King, there is no rising up against him: what in the Book of Ecclesiastes, he speaketh of his absolute Sovereignty, you shall find it in its proper place. E're long, you shall by Gods grace hear David speak for himself.

[Page 61] And because we said before, that no truth almost in Scripture is more apertly and frequently delivered, than the Sovereignty of Kings, their creation by God immediately, the Historical part is plentiful in this kind. In Genesis, it is promised to Abraham, that Kings shall come of him. There it is fixed by Prophe­cy in the Tribe of Iudah, with Iudiciaria and Le­gislativa potestas, with the Scepter and Law-giver. In the Law it is fore-told, his Duty is prescribed. Mo­ses dying, prayeth for one onely to rule the People after his death. In Iehoshuah his Book, you have as compleat as absolute a Monarch as we plead for, as by express Scripture, in its own place, we shall clear by Gods grace. In the Book of Iudges, the Sophetim, the Judges are Monarchs, and not once, but oftener there it is told us, that all Evil was in the Land for want of a King. In the Books of Samuel, you have not on­ly the Institutions of Kings, but Ius Regum expressed. To name the Books of Kings and Chronicles is ridicu­lous. In the Books of Ezra, &c. Look upon Cyrus, Darius, &c. As for the New Testament, See how Christ taught it, practised it, and his Apostles after him: to point at this is not necessary. If our strait­laced Brethren would be pleased to cast an eye upon Apocrypha, I refer them to Ecclesiasticus, cap. 6. 1, 2, &c. Hear ye Kings, &c. Give ear, you that rule the People, and glory in the multitude of Nations, for Power is given you of the Lord, and Sovereignty from the High­est, &c. Yet fearing this Passage will not be current enough among our Sectaries, I point at two passages of David, till we hear him speak more fully: The one is, Psal. 21. 3. Thou settest a Crown of pure Gold upon his head. The other is, Psal. 84. 44. Thou hast made his Glory to cease, and cast his Throne down to the ground.

[Page 62] I do confess ingenuously, it is a great wonder t [...] me, how any man that readeth the Scripture atten­tively, doth not heartily, and without scruple ac­knowledge, that Kings and Sovereignty are indepen­dent from all, and onely derived from God; and that this truth is not onely verified of the Kings of the Iews, but all Kings whatsoever. Which truth, we are hopeful, we have confirmed clearly, yet will pro­ceed to add more reasons, and to remove some more of their poor evasions.

THis other shift of Suarez and Bellarmine, in the Title of the Chapter expressed, is as poor a one as the other; nor can it hold when it is examined by Scripture and Reason. Both the Iesuits and the Puritans, their Disciples, build this quirk upon the naked perverted letter of the Text, that Deut. 17. [Page 63] [...]4, 15. it is said of the People, that they set the King [...]ver them; and upon Gods part it is said, Him shalt [...]hou set over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse. Ergo, say they, the Constitution is the Peoples, the Election of the Person is Gods. It is a lame Conse­quence; for the words Constitues super te, Thou shalt set over thee, are not to be understood of Constituti­on by collating, or transferring from them to the King, Majesty and Sovereignty: but of Consti­tution by way of Approbation, or of accepting of him as King, acknowledging him as a King, reve­rencing and obeying him as King, whom God hath both designed and constituted by himself King. In this Sense, we grant a Constitues super te, a setting over thee: and because this is the last act in constituting a King, that puts that in fieri in facto esse, quasi ultima dispositio inducens formam, as the last Dis­position which induceth the form in the matter, by a synecdochical and tropical Speech it is so usually spo­ken. Nor is it unusual to the Spirit of God in Scrip­ture to speak this way, for it is said, 1 Cor. 6. The Saints judge the World: Now it is certain, that the Judgment of the Saints is only by approving or con­senting to Christs Judgment, which is his only autho­ritativ [...], properly; and their act in that great Judg­ment at the last day, is only to approve or consent ra­ther to the righteous Judgment of their Lord: yet Scripture standeth not to say, The Saints shall judge the World. To judge by Authority is only proper to God the Father, by the Son, to whom the Father hath given all Judgment; and this leaveth no place, no Power to the Saints to dissent. The like holdeth in the Instance proposed.

[Page 64] That this is to be conceived so (which is our sixth Argument, to confirm that Kings and their Sovereign­ty are immediately from God) is more than apparent, that Almighty God in Scripture vindicateth to himsel [...] all the Acts, real and imaginable, which are necessary for the making of Kings. If the Iesuit make much of the Letter of the Text, Deut. 17. where it's said, The Lord should chuse the King, and the People set the King over them; Let us consider how the Practice interprets the Letter of the Law, it is an infallible Maxim with Jurists, Praxis optimus Legis interpres, Practice is the best Commentary of Law: and it is no less a ruled case, that the first president is a ruling case to all fol­lowing in that kind. Come then, take the first In­stance in Saul, the first elected and constituted King by the Tenor of this Law. In the practice the Phrase is varied and turned over, the Election is given to the People, the Constitution to God: 1 Sam. 12. 13. Behold the King (saith Samuel) whom you have chosen and desired, and behold the Lord hath set a King over you. This Election of the People can be no other but their Admittance or Acceptance of the King, whom God had chosen and constituted; as the words, Whom you have desired, imply. Scripture telleth us, that Saul's Election and Constitution was, 1 Sam. 9. 17. when God said to Samuel, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of, the same shall reign over my people; and when Samuel took a Viol of Oyl, powred it upon his head, kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be Captain over his Inheritance? 1. Sam. 10. 1. Where you have Samuel as Priest and Prophet anointing, doing Reverence and Obeisance to him, and ascribing to God that he did appoint him Su­preme and Sovereign over his Inheritance. The same [Page 65] again is totally given to God, 1 Sam, 12. 13. The Lord hath set a King over you. The Expression and Phrase is the same with that you have of Christ and his Kingdom, Psal. 2. 6. I have set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion. I am confident none will be so sa­crilegiously impudent, as to give to Church, to man or Angel, Creature or Creatures, any share in any act of constituting Christ King over his Church, and for his Church, and in order to it, over all the Kingdoms of the World.

By what is said of this first practice it is more than evident, that God in that Law of making Kings Deut. 17. did vindicate as proper and peculiar to himself, the Designation of the person of the King, and the invest­ing of him in royal Power and Sovereignty. The Peo­ple then were only to admit and accept of their King by God so designed and constituted, and to yield all Reverence, Obedience, and maintenance necessary. It was not arbitrary to them to admit or reject Saul so designed, so constituted by God himself immediate­ly; reject him they could not. Yet God in his wise prudent Dispensation of all things, judged it expedi­ent to complete and consummmate this Work by the Acceptation, Consent, and Approbation of the people, Vt suaviori modo, that by the smoother way he might thus encourage Saul to the undergoing of this hard Charge, and make his People the more heartily, with­out grumbling or scruple, Reverence and obey him. As by his Providence he doth all things powerfully, so he disposeth of all [...], for the good of man in a sweet and mild way. This Admittance possibly add­ed something to the Solemnity of Saul's investing, but nothing to the essential or real Constitution: as the Intimation of a Law, (which in Laws I think hath more [Page 66] Interest than this Admittance here) it hath no Influ­ence upon a Law made by supreme Power, yet it is useful, it Puts the Subjects in mala fide, makes them inexcusable if they contravene. Or this Admittance was and is as the Imperialists say, truly of the Popes Confirmation of the elected Emperour, good ad pom­pam, but not requisite ad necessitatem. Or if you will speak with the Romanists, that the confirmation is of the Pope once elected, is ad solennitatem, not ad neces­sitatem, for the Solemnity, not simply necessary. Or to come more near and with more certainty and truth; it is like the Coronation of an hereditary King, which is only for solemnity, not for Necessity: for before that Ceremony and Solemnity his Title is as good as af­ter it; and any act of royal Power and Jurisdiction done before his Coronation is as valid as any done as af­ter his Coronation. Or if you will, it is like the En­thronization of a Bishop, or installing of a Canon o [...] Prebend in a Cathedral Church.

Scripture maketh this Good plentifully elsewhere; for it punctually ascribeth all Acts, essentially constitutive of Kings, immediately to God. In one full word, the making of a King is given to God, 1 Kings 3. 7. And now, O Lord my God, thou hast made thy Servant King instead of David my Father. The providing of a King is given to God, 1 Sam. 16. 1. I have provided me a King. The King in a proper and peculiar way is called Gods King, Psal. 18. 50. Great deliverance giveth he to his King. God exalteth them, Psal. 89. 19. I have exalted one chosen out of the People. Not the People, but God findeth Kings out, ibid. vers. 20. I have found David my Servant. Neither Priest, nor Prophet, nor People, really anoin [...] Kings, God anointeth them, ibid. vers. 20. With mine ho­ly Oyl have I anointed him. That we conceive them [Page 67] not to have their Prerogative from Pope or People, Priest or Prophet, not they but God adopteth them, ibid. vers. 27. I will make him my first-born, That he may cry unto him, Thou art my Father, my God, vers. 26. To shew their nearer and straiter Alliance, they are taken in societatem nominis, numinis, potestatis; into a communion of his Majesty, his Name, Power, it is said, Psal. 82. 6. I have said, ye are Gods. To shew their Generation, their Procreation, their Derivation; there is a dixi to this too, I have said ye are all of you the Children of the most High; not terrae filii, Cadmus off­spring, sprung out of the Earth.

Kings then are not made, provided, chosen, found, exalted, anointed, adopted, by Saints, by People, by Pope, by Presbytery, by any diffusive, collective, re­presentative, virtual Body of the Community; but by and of God alone: for their Power, their Sovereignty they are dii [...] Elohim; the manner of Propaga­tion, Derivation, Communication, is by Filiation, by Adoption, they are filii Excelsi, the Sons of the most High, and for eminency above all, they are the first born; this is the Language of Canaan, it is the Language of Ashdod to say, that a King is minor universis, singulis major. Scripture Reason speak the contrary; primogenitus, the first-born is not above every Brother severally; but if there were thousands, millions, numberless numbers, he is above all in Dignity, in Precedency, in Power. It is statuted by God in the beginning of the World, that the younger Brother, and Brethren all of them, sub te erit appetitus ejus & tu dominaberis illius; Vnto thee, or subject unto thee, shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Gen. 4. 7.

To return a little to the Practice of the Law, in constituting David King; you find it was not the dif­fusive, [Page 68] the collective Body of Israel, that found David, chose him, exalted him, anointed him, &c. It was God alone; it was not the Elders of Bethlehem, his own City, neither they nor the other knew of it, 1 Sam. 16. 4. Nor were the Saints sharers in this work with God, they knew nothing of it, Psal. 89. 19. Nay, not Samuel the Prophet, had it been he, it had not been King David but King Eliab. It is worthy of our labour to take notice, how the anointing of Kings is wholly attributed to God in Scripture, and other Kings, besides the Kings of Iudea, are called The Lords Anointed. Which is more than evident by what is before expressed: the phrase of Scripture is very emphatical; They are anointed with his holy Oyl: the Act is his, He anoints: The holy Oyl is his, He anoints with his Oyl: this Oyl is sacred too; it is not every Oyl, but his Oyl, and his sacred Oyl. Sa­cred Oyl it is, which how it can be so denominated, and come from the People, as its first subject and Seat, its Origine and Source, is not conceivable in Reason. Sacred it is in three respects. First, from a sacred Fountain, a sacred Efficient, from God himself. 2. Next, for its sacred Influence upon the Person, it makes the Person of the King Sacred. 3. For its influence upon the Charge, the Function, his Power, his Authority is Sacred too. And both the Person and the Charge are Supreme, which is most fitly re­sembled in the Sacramental Ceremony of Oyl, put Oyl in whatsoever Liquor you will it swimmeth above in the surface.

Now all this is so intirely and solely given to God, that neither Priest nor People, Pope nor Presbytery have any part in it, Psal. 89. 20. With mine holy Oyl have I anointed him. God finds the Oyl and the hand [Page 69] to do it. You will say, Samuel's hand did it. The Principle of the Law will take away this Scruple; Quod quis facit per alium, facit per se: What one doth by another, he doth that by himself. Samuel was onely the Delegate, God was the Principal and Delegant; and in reason the Act must be re­ferred to the Principal. The Oyl was God's too, not from the Apothecaries shop, nor the Priest's Vial, this Oyl descended from the Holy Ghost, who is no less the true Olive than Christ is the true Vine. Yet I pray you mistake it not, to account it of the holy Oyl of Gratia gratum faciens, Saving Grace, as some Fana­ticks and Fantasticks fondly imagine: this is a sacred Oyl, to make the Person and Function Sacred, as we have said.

Our seventh Argument to prove that Sovereignty in a King is immediately from God, and not from the dif­fusive, collective, representative, or virtual Body of the Community, is that all Royal Ensigns and Acts of Kings are ascribed to God. If Kings were the De­rivatives of the People and Community, in whom is that fansied, underived Majesty? how comes it to pass that the holy Spirit hath not in any place or syl­lable of Scripture intimated it? and how cometh it to pass, that in such a particular way and enumerati­on all are given to God? 1. Their Crown is of God, by putting it on their head. Isai 62. 3. The Royal Dia­dem is in the hand of the Lord. Psal. 21. 3. Thou puttest a Crown of pure Gold upon his head. Hence it was that the Emperour's Coin of old was printed with an hand coming out of Heaven, and putting it on their head. The very Heathen did term them [...], as having and holding their Crowns from God: Their Sword is God's, and he girdeth them with it. David [Page 70] Professeth so much, Psal. 18. 39. For thou hast girded me with strength (the Sword is the Emblem of strength) unto the Battel. See Iudges 7. 17. 3. Their Scepter is the Scepter of God, Exod. 4. 20. and 17. 9. The He­brew word Sebet signifieth no less Scepter than Rod. It is a miraculous one too: We read onely of two miraculous Rods, Moses's and Aaron's. By Moses's rod what wonders were wrought in Egypt, and what a Miracle was it that the rod of Aaron budded, and none else of the twelve Tribes? and for what purpose was it that God made both the one and the other miraculous? Was it not to manifest to the World, that the Sovereign Power of a King, as Moses was King of Ieshurun, and high Sacred Power of the High Priest, and the Tribe of Levi, were not by Derivation, by Translation, by Communication from the People, but immediately, independently from God himself? He is well nigh out of his Wits, that will make any thing miraculous the Work and Effect of the Multi­tude. 4. Their judgment is the judgment of the Lord, 2 Chron. 19. 6. Again, 5. Their Throne is the Throne of God, 1 Chron. 19. 21.

The ancient Fathers and Councels used the same diction; they called 1. Their Writings, sacri apices. 2. Their Presence, sacra vestigia. 3. Their Majesty, sacra Majestas. 4. Their Words, their Commands, divalis jussio. The Law speaketh the same Language; and whatsoever goods belonged to them, they are called res sacrae. See Brissonius his Lexicon lib. 7. in the Sacras.

Being that in Holy Scripture, in reverend Antiqui­ty, and in the Law, all their Ensigns, all their Royal Acts, their Persons, their Right, their Goods, are de­nominated Sacred, and given to God himself: how [Page 71] can our new Statists, against the expressions of the Holy Spirit, of the Holy Fathers, and of Jurists, ho­nour Kings no better, but to call them Derivatives of the People? Is this to ennoble them? No truly, it disgraces Kings, it maketh them the basest Extract of the basest of Rational Creatures, the Multitude, the Community. It is certainly untrue, if it be not blasphemous against God and the King, to fix, as in its first seat and receptacle, an underived Majesty in the Community, where there is not one of a thousand an intelligent and knowing man. It is certainly high Treason against God and the King.

A world of Reasons to prove that Kings are inde­pendent from all, and solely dependent from God, may be brought from Scripture; but because we in­tend brevity, and haste to other things, we point at some few to be considered and enlarged by the judici­ous Reader himself.

As first, to whom can it be more proper to give the Rule over men, than to him who is the onely King truly and properly of the whole World?

2. Next, God is the immediate Author of all Rule and Power that is amongst all his Creatures above or below, why then should we seclude him from being the immediate Author of Government of Empire amongst men.

3. Thirdly, Man in the state of Innocency, in his first Creation received Dominion and Empire over all the Creatures below, Gen. 1. 28. Replenish the Earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. Again, after the Fall, Gen. 9. 2. The fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the Earth, and upon every Fowl of the [Page 72] Air, upon all that moveth upon the Earth, and upon all the Fishes of the Sea, into your hand are they delivered. Can we be so stupid, as to acknowledge the domini­on over all the Creatures below, is given to man im­mediately from God, and to deny that the most noble and excellent Government, by which man hath Pow­er and Empire over men is not from God, by his In­stitution and Constitution, but by the Compact and Contract, the Composition and Constitution of men?

4. Fourthly, To demonstrate their immediate de­rivation from God: that their Power is immediately from him, is more than apparent by this reason. They who exercise the Judgment of God, must needs have their Power to judge from God: But so it is that Kings by themselves and their Deputies exercise the Judgments of God. The Proposition is sure, and is both confirmed and illustrated by considering how that Church-men are rightly said to have received their Ministerial Power from God and Christ, because God by them reconciles the World to himself, and saves mankind, 2 Cor. 5. 17, 18, 19, 20. 1 Tim. 4. 16. How is it imaginable that they can be said to judge in God's place, and not receive the Power from God? The assumption is as evident by express words of Scripture; see Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Let no man stumble at this, that Moses in the one place, and Iosaphat in the other, speak to subordinate Judges un­der them; this weakeneth no wayes our Argument, for it is a ruled Case in Law, Quod quis fa [...]cit per alium, faci [...] per se; all Judgments of inferiour Judges are in the Name, Authority, and by the Power of the Su­preme; and are but communicatively and derivatively from the Sovereign Power.

[Page 73] 5. Fifthly, Not onely their Power is of God, their Iudiciaria potestas, but the very Execution of it. They are the Ministers of God in the execution of their Charge and Power; ergo, their Charge and Power is immediately from God. All the testimonies of Scripture wherein they are called Gods confirm the Antecedent, and especially those where the Supreme Governour is called, the Servant, the Minister, the Angel, the Publick Servant of God: Doth not this Argument hold in the Ministry? Doctors and Preachers of the Church discharging their Charge are called the Ambassadours, the Legates, the Ministers of God; and from hence we conclude necessarily, that the Ministry is from God and Christ. The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 13. 4, 5, 6. calleth the Supreme Ma­gistrate thrice, [...], and [...], and preg­nantly expresseth, that the King in the execution of his Charge is doing Service to God, vers. 4. He is the Minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the Sword in vain. Again, He is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Again, vers. 6. For they are Gods Ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. The Greek [...], is well ren­dred attending continually, and is in its nature Active, and so looketh to the execution of his Charge pro­perly. In the Book of Wisd. cap. 6. 5. The Author attributeth to God [...], to Kings and Rulers, the Ministery onely; [...]. There can be no Argument better to prove, that both their Sovereign Power and execution of it is from God, than that properly and primarily God Almigh­ty is King, and all Kings related to him are onely equivocally so; for he is Rex regum, & Dominus domi­nantium, [Page 74] 1 Tim. 6. 15. Revel. 1. 5. & 21. 27. & 19▪ 20. & 17. 14. He is King of Kings, and Lords of Lords, [...], truly so; Kings upon Earth, are only such, [...], more in Resemblance than Reality, and betwixt the one and the other, the Kings of Heaven, and Kings on Earth, no more proportion than is betwixt Heaven and Earth, a thing finite and infinite: For this cause Scripture, Mark 10. 41. speak­eth no better of Kings and Princes on Earth, than that they are [...], not so much truly men that have Empire and Rule, as such that appear to be so; from whence then shall we derive Sovereignty and Royalty but from that true Royalty and Sovereignty in God alone.

6. Sixthly, the Power and Grace by which they are inabled for so high a Charge and Employment is only from Almighty God, then by necessary Conse­quence, the Charge must be solely and only from him. The Connexion is natural, for in right Reason, to whom can it be due to give a Charge of this Con­cernment properly, but only to him who is able to give the Endowments, and hability for that Charge▪ Now that the Endowment is from God immediately▪ the sacramental Ceremony of anointing sheweth it▪ and that exactly they are called the Lords Anointed. We need not use symbolical Arguments, seeing the Schools allow them no convincing force, the Holy Spirit hath given it to us in plain and natural Terms right down. Of Ot [...]niel the first Judge after Ioshua, it is said, Iudges 3. 10. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel. The like you have spoken of Saul, after that he was anointed and ap­pointed King of Israel, 1 Sam. 10. & 11. and else­where. The same is said of David, 1 Sam. 17. Very [Page 75] knowing men in Divinity interpret the Passage Prov. 20. 12. The hearing Ear, and the seeing Eye, the Lord hath made even both of them: that the Facility to rule well, and the Grace to obey Rulers, both of them are of God immediately: by the hearing Ear understand­ing the actual Obedience of the Subject; and by the seeing eye, the actual Government and Empire of the Sovereign: the interpretation is according to the ana­logy of sacred and divine Truth. If any be contenti­ous to hold it is not the native Sense of the Text, we will not contest or contend unnecessarily, seeing we have plain places to the same Purpose. David profes­seth and acknowledgeth, that the Subjection of his People to him, was the immediate Work of God, Psal. 144. 2. The like see 1 Sam. 10. 26. when Saul was constituted King, some despised him, but those whose hearts God had touched, followed and reverenced him.

7. Seventhly, where Sovereign power is, as in Kings, there is Authority and Majesty, a ray of divine Glory. But this cannot be found in people, they can­not be the subject of it, whether you consider them joyntly or singly. If you consider them singly, it can­not be, for this is not to be found in every individu­al; and according to our Antimonarchical Sectaries, all by native Right are equally equal born with a like Freedom. If it be not in the People considered singly, it cannot be derived from them, being considered joyntly, for all the Contribution in this compact and Contract which they fancie to be humane Compositi­on, and voluntary Constitution, is only by a Surren­der of the native Right, every individual hath in himself, from whence then can this Majesty and Au­thority be derived? Again, where the Obligation is [Page 76] amongst equals by Compact and Contract, Violation of the Faith plighted in the Contract cannot in proper Terms be called Disobedience or Contempt of Autho­rity; it is no more but a receding from, and Violati­on of that which was promised, as it may be in States or Cantons confederate. Nature, Reason, Conscience; Scripture teach, that Disobedience to sovereign Pow­er is not only Violation of Truth, Breach of Covenant, but also high Disobedience and Contempt. That this Authority is in Princes, it is evident by sense, by Ex­perience, by Scripture, by the Confession of the Hea­then. The passage we did alledge before proveth this, 1 Sam. 10. 26. To that Passage, add that cap. 11. that when Saul hewed a Yoke of Oxen in pieces, and intimated, that whosoever came not forth after him, so it should be done as to his Oxen: such was the Au­thority, that the Text saith, The Fear of the Lord fell on the People, and they came out with one Consent, 1 Sam. 11. 7. This is well expressed by Iob, cap. 12. vers. 18. He looseth the Bond of Kings, and girdeth their Loins with a Girdle: By the first Expression, He looseth the Bond of Kings, Iob meaneth, that when God is to cast off Kings, and to throw their Honour in the dust, He looseth their Authority, and bringeth them and it in Contempt. By the other Phrase, and girdeth their Loyns with a Girdle, Iob intimateth, that when he is to preserve Kings and their Rights, that he strength­neth them with Authority, and maketh people reve­rence them. That this is the meaning, you may con­ceive it by what he saith, v. 21. He poureth Contempt upon Princes, and weakneth the Strength of the Mighty. By this Authority and Majesty Solomon invested in Royalty, dissipated Adonijah and all his treacherous Complices.

[Page 77] The Heathen have observed, that in Princes there [...], something divine, above the reach of man, which cannot be derived from them. If we may be­lieve prophane Story, this Majesty was so eminent in Alexander the Great, that it was a Terrour to his Enemies, a Power strong enough to compose seditious Counsels and Attempts, a powerful Load-stone to draw the Counsels of his most experienced Com­manders to imbrace and obey his Counsels, his Com­mands. Some Stories write, that this Majesty was resplendent upon great Exigents in the Eyes of Scipio. What was that which kept Pharaoh from lifting up his hand against Moses, who charged him so boldly with his Sins, denounced and brought so terrible, so great Plagues upon him? What was [...] I pray you, but this Authority and Majesty resplendent in him, which was a curb to the Tyranny of his Malice and Power? When Moses did speak face to face with God in the Mount, and when he came down that his Face shined, so that the People could not behold it till it was covered with a Veil, what else was it but this re­solendent Glory of Majesty? Exod. 34. What else was it that repressed the Fury of the People enraged against Gideon for destroying their Idol, but this Ma­jesty? Iudg. 6. And as by Gods Ordinance we set that the Fear and Terrour of man is upon all the Creatures living below, Gen. 9. So what else can this Fear and Reverence which is innate in the Hearts of all Subjects towards their Sovereigns be, but the Or­dinance unrepealable of God, and the natural Effect of that Majesty in Princes, with which they are en­dowed from above.

8. Eighthly, this seemeth or rather is an Argu­ment unanswerable to prove sovereign Power to be in­dependently [Page 78] and immediately from above; That So­vereign Power is armed with P [...]estus vitae & necis, Pow­er of Life and Death, which cannot flow or issue from man, for no man hath it; None can lay claim to it, but the living God, the Author of Life, who killeth and giveth Life again. That Sovereign Power hath this power is so certain as it cannot be denied: Gen. 9. in the restoring of the World after the Flood, 1. First, God reiterates the Blessing of increasing and multiply­ing v. 1. The same which in his Bounty he bestow­ed on Adam and Evah, Gen. 1. 28. 2. Next he esta­blisheth mans Sovereignty over the Creatures here be­neath, v. 2, 3. 3. Thirdly, he establisheth the civil Government, v. 5, 6. where first he challengeth the Power to himself in one main thing explicitly, in the punishing or shedding of mans Blood to Death, but implicitly in all Government; for the parts of Govern­ment being all homogeneous of one kind, we must re­fer all to one Origine, which is God. The words are, v. 5. Surely the Blood of your Lives will I require: at the hand of every Beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, and at the hand of every mans Brother will I require the Life of man. In which words clearly it is told, the Right is Gods primarily properly, thrice in the words God vindicates it, I will require it, I will require it, I will require it. Lest any should think that God is to do it immediately by his own hand, and not other­wise, v. 6. it is added, Who so sheddeth mans Blood, by man shall his Blood be shed again: for in the Image of God made he man. Here is the Institution of Sovereignty; and here the Sovereign is invested as Gods Deputy, to pu­nish the Slayer of man by Death. I hope none will con­ceive it so, that any man whatsoever may do this, and is invested with this Power. This were a mighty dis­order [Page 79] and Confusion. Nothing can be more pernicious to mankind, and opposite to God and his Ordinance, who is the God of Order and not of Confusion. The words in the original are [...] Schophe [...]k dam haadam, baadam damo jischaphek. It is well rendered in our English Bibles, Who so sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his Blood be shed. The old Translation is imperfect, Quicunque effuderit homin [...], sangui [...]m, fundetur sanguis illius. We will grant to Bellarmine, that the Sense is not corrupted in this Translation, but will never yield that it is not imper­fect, for the main and cardinal word, Baadam, per ho­minem, by the Cardinal's Leave, is omitted: Let the Cardinal say what he will, whom you may look up­on [...]. 2. de verb. Dei, cap. 12. Nor do we think that the Interpretation we have from the Septuagint is full enough▪ which is, [...] ▪ Qui effuderit sanguinem ho­minis, pro sanguine hominis ejus eff [...]ndetur. Psal. 2. And with Reverence we dissent too from Arias Montanus, and▪ Pagnin's Translations, Effundens sanguinem ho­minis, in homine sanguis ejus effundetur: my Reasons, with humble Submission to better Judgment, and Reverence to so great men, are 1. First, Baadam in ho­mine, or per hominem, cannot in Grammar be added to the Subject or Antecedent, Effundens sanguinem, but must belong to the predicate or consequent, sanguis ejus effundetur; and so the compleat and perfect Sense is, Effundens sanguinem hominis, per hominem sanguis ejus effundetur: just as our Bibles english it, Who so shed­deth mans Blood, by man shall his Blood be shed. The Reason of this, because in the original the accent Za­kephkathon, which maketh, as the Grammarians say, in­cisum majus, a Distinction is put above the word Haa­dam, [Page 80] so that Baadam is to be joyned to the next: the like reading you may find in the very verse immedi­ately preceding. Next, this [...] both in Baadam signi­fieth no less per than in, by than in; and by is the Preposition which expresseth the instrumental Cause; and consequently it importeth one Gods Instrument, who is authorized from him. 3. Thirdly, the Iews in their Thargum, their Chaldee Paraphrase or Transla­tion turn the words so; that they understand this Baadam, by man, of the Judge, who from God is au­thorized with Power. Vnkelos turneth it thus▪ Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis, eum testibus, five [...] testes, jux [...]a sententiam judicum, sanguis ejus effundetur. Iona­than giveth the Sense thus; Qui effuderit sang [...]inem hominis per testes, condemnabu [...] eum Iudices ad [...]necem; & qui effuderit absque testibus, Dominus mundi [...] vin­dictam ab eo sumet in die. Iudicii. Both of them agree in this, that the reading is thus, Who so sheddeth the bloud of man, by man shall his bloud be shed; and both of them conceive it so, that this Baadam, this Per hominem, this by man, is not every man, but the Judge authori­zed from God, or both from God and his Sovereign. 4. Fourthly, to say, Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis in homine, sanguis ejus effundetur, He that sheddeth the bloud of man in man, his bloud shall be shed, is nei­ther so good, nor so perfect and full a sense, as Qui­cunque effuderit sanguinem hominis, per hominem sanguis ejus effundetur, Who so sheddeth man's bloud, by man shall his bloud be shed. 5. Fifthly and lastly, if you value not the Testimony or Paraphrase of Vnkelos and Ionathan, (although Franciscus Xymenius and other Learned men, judge the Paraphrase of the Thargum upon the Law true and faithful) take an Argument for it uncontroulable, that is our Saviour's, Matth. 26. [Page 81] v. 52. All they that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword. Saint Austin telleth us, that the New Testa­ment is veiled in the Old, and Vetus Testamentum re­velatur in Novo, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. A better Commentary of God's Speeches and Words we cannot have, than [...], and [...], than the Son, the Word of God, and that Word which is God. In Christ's Speech, shall perish by the Sword, in the Phrase and Dialect of Scripture we can understand nothing else but the Sovereign Power that beareth the Sword. Let the Apostle inter­pret the Master: Saint Paul, Rom. 13. 1. He com­mandeth Subjection and Obedience to Superior Pow­ers, [...]: and v. 6. He telleth you, He beareth not the Sword in vain.

The words thus cleared, we sum up our Argument thus. God onely hath the Power of man's Life. No man hath Power over his own Life. Whoso taketh away the Life of man, in God's Justice and Ordinance his Life is to be taken away again. This principally and properly belongeth to God, v. 5. I will require, &c. but God hath given this to some Deputies: This Pow­er is not given to every one, as the terrour of an ill Conscience made Cain say, Whosoever findeth me shall kill me. This were to destroy mankind, and make God the God of Disorder and Confusion. Some man it is then by Distinction and Excellency who is God's Deputy, and then this can be none else but he in whom is Sovereign Power, and this Power is from none else but from God Almighty: And if this power over Life be from God, why not all Sovereign Pow­er? seeing it is homogeneous, and as Iurists say, in in­divisibili posita, a thing indivisible in its nature, that cannot be distracted, put away, nor impaired; as a [Page 82] Crown, take any part from it, is no more a Crown. When God gave this Order, the World knew well enough what this Baadam, by man was; neither be­fore this time, nor at this time, knew the World any kind of Government but Monarchical: And this Mo­narch was Noah.

9. Ninthly, As their Judiciary and Sovereign Pow­er in actu signato, the Execution and Exercise of Roy­al Power in actu exercito, is given to God Almighty, as to its first and proper Origine and Source; so all the Acts done by Kings are ascribed to God, and we find them the immediate Instruments by whom God worketh here the greatest works of Justice, when he is to punish men, and the greatest works of Mercy when he is to bless them. That both for the one and the other, they are called his Servants; His axe, his rod; and the works they do, to be such as he hath prepared of old. In the work of Justice, punishing his People, look upon Nebuchadnezzar. See wh [...] God fore-telleth by Isaiah, by Ieremy: In the works of Mercy extraordinary, look upon Cyrus: and for the Actions both of the one and the other, consider Scripture, and consider if they be not particularly and immediately given to God in all their parts, their acts as if they were nothing but dead and lifeless Instru­ments. See the places above-cited, which before we have named, and for brevities sake we now omit. To this Argument may be added the immediate work­ing God hath upon their Hearts, their Counsels; that their heart is in the hand of the Lord, as a Boat in the Rivers of Waters; how God sendeth them in their Expeditions, their Wars; maketh them in his day▪ his appointed day, to set their face against Ierusalem or otherwise; casteth his hook in their nostrils to [Page 83] bring them back with shame. To this Argument may be referred, that when God is to bless a People, he sendeth them good Kings, the Sons of Nobles; when he is to scourge them, naughty Kings, weak chil­dren, &c. The Testimonies of Scripture for all these are infinite, many, and obvious, which we remit to the Reader's memory, or dilligent search.

10. Tenthly, Nor is to be passed by, that the So­vereign immense Majesty of God is expressed by stiling and denominating him King, and his Supreme glory is represented by sitting on a glorious Throne. See Isaiah, see Daniel, and the Prophets. Let us beware then that we make not God a Derivative too of the People, and a Creature of mens making.

11. Eleventhly, In the Scripture we read that one­ly three kinds of men were anointed, Kings, Priests, Prophets: Let any give an instance of a fourth besides those three. It is granted of all, that Priests and Pro­phets have Sacred Charges, and are Sacred Perso [...]s of God's immediate making and Constitution; why then shall not Kings have the same Prerogative, to be immediately from God, Sacred in themselves, Sa­cred in their Charge, by Divine Ordinance and Ap­pointment?

12. Lastly, To close up this first part of our Proof from Scripture, it is a strong Reason to perswade So­vereignty, Authority, and Majesty to be from God immediately, and independently from any others, in what consideration soever, that the irreverence, dis­obedience, contempt, rebellion, or any wrong what­soever offered to their Persons, to their Authority, is wrong and contempt offered to God himself. See 1 Sam. 8. This made David say, Who can touch the Lords Anointed and be innocent? This made the Apo­stle [Page 84] say, Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever resisteth the Power, re­sisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist receive to themselves damnation. The like Phrase to the first you have of the Sacred Ministry in the Apostles, 1 Thess. 4. 8. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man but God. When the People murmured against Moses and Aaron, in the Law you have, They murmure not against you but me. The like you have in Samuel. The re­sult of all is, That as the Sacred Ministry is by Colla­tion immediately or independently from God, al­though the designation of the Person may be by men and the Church; so Kings may be personally designed and deputed to Royalty and Sovereignty, by Election, Succession, Conquest, or any other lawful possible way; but their Sovereignty and Power is by Donation and Collation immediately and solely from God, and re­fers to him as the only Donor and Author. Again, as the Person and Function of such as are lawfully in­vested with Sacred Power, and in Sacred Orders, is Inviolable and Sacred, so are the Persons and Sove­reignty of Kings.

Our order proposed in the beginning of this Trea­tise, chargeth us now to produce our Proofs from Re­verend Antiquity. But I must beg leave of the Chri­stian Reader, to discover the weakness and wicked­ness of a new-devised trick of our Sectaries, That the King is God's, but not Christ's Vicegerent.

WHereas hitherto by express Scripture, and by Arguments from thence by necessary conse­quence deduced, we have proved, That Kings and their Sovereignty are immediately depen­dent from God, and dependent from no other: Con­ceive it not so, that hereby we seclude Christ, and him considered, not onely [...] ▪ personally, as the Second Person in the Trinity, but also [...], in his Capacity, as God-man, the Saviour and Re­deemer of the World.

Our Sectaries have found out a quirk, or trick ra­ther, of late, to hold and argue, That Kings are Gods, not Christ's Lieutenants upon Earth. Their purpose is the same in substance with the Romanists, although they differ in something; for the Romanists and Puri­tans both of them erect in every Kingdom another So­vereign, not onely besides the true Sovereign, but also above. In this they agree, and are like Sampson's Foxes, who have their Tails knit together, and do carry this Fire-brand to consume Church and State. In one other they differ extremely, for the Romanist and Iesuit will have it to be the Pope, the Puri­tan and Sectaries fix this Sovereignty in the Pres­bytery.

We believe, with warrant of Scripture and sound Antiquity, that all Crowns and Scepters, Kings and States, are dependent from Christ the Son of God, [Page 86] as he is [...], God and man, the Saviour of the World, and Head of the Church.

We intend not at this time to discuss that curious Question, Whether or not by Hereditary Right Christ was born King of the Iews: We are speaking at this time of Christs Kingdom, as the Head of the Church, in order to all the Kingdoms of the World. The Kingdom we speak of is not what was due to him, as the Son of David, but as he was the Saviour and Redeemer of David and all the World. The right to which he had by Hypostatical Vnion, and his perfect Merit and plenteous Redemption. Some very Learned men do hold, that Christ was not entitled to this Kingdom till his Re­surrection, and that then he had Ius quaesitum, as the Jurists speak. There is not much danger to hold this or deny it, but with reverence to their great Parts, and humble submission to better Reasons, I dissent from them, and do think, however it may be granted, that then he came to exercise it fully and perfectly; or if you will, that a new Title and Right did ac­crue to him, that what he had before by Hypostatical Vnion onely, now he had it by another supervenient Right of Merit, and so had it duplioi Titulo, as Saint Bernard saith of him in another case: yet for any thing I could yet see, I am of the mind from the first instant and moment of his Incarnation, as God-man, the Head of his Church, By the grace of Hypostatical Vnion he was King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. It cannot be denied, that while he was in the form and state of a Servant, in statu [...], in the state of Humi­liation, as by the no less mysterious than admirable and wise Oeconomy of God, the Glory of his Deity did not conspicuously and ordinarily shine thorow the veil of his Flesh, no more did this Majesty and Glory [Page 87] of his Sovereignty and Kingdom shine forth to the Eyes of men. God in his unsearchable Wisdom ha­ving appointed, that the Kingdom of God should not come with observation, and that the Iews might be re­ctified in their judgment, who did not expect a spiri­tual King and Deliverer, but a Messiah, to reign tem­porally over them, and by him to enjoy all external Plenty, Peace and Happiness. Nevertheless, such was the merciful and bountiful dispensation of God in this cloudy and dark Oeconomy, that sometimes thorow the thick and dark cloud of his Flesh and Infirmity, some little rayes of his immense Majesty did appear, as in his miraculous Operations; even so in the same manner, at many times, and by many acts, his Sove­reignty was manifested; and that he was truly King, it was evidenced. At his Birth, The Wise men who came from the East worshipped him in his Swadling­clouts: They are in Scripture, and by the constant not interrupted course of the Church to this day com­mended for it. In his Ministry, he entred Ierusalem in Royal Pomp: His Disciples and a great multitude did him obeysance, gave him Royal Honour: and when the Iews grumbled at it, he told them that it was not onely just but necessary; That if they and the People did hold their Peace, the Stones would pro­claim him King, and do him Royal Homage. In his Arraignment, when he is to lay down his Soul for his Sheep, he avouched himself, before Pilate, a King. Pi­late demands the Question, Art thou a King? Pilate understood not any Kingdom in his Question but a temporal one; a Spiritual Kingdom in his conception was a meer Notion, Fancy, Chimaera: Christ without dissimulation, equivocation, or mental reservation, ad mentem interrogantis answereth, he was a King. Matth. [Page 88] 27. 11. Mark. 15. 2. He had it written upon his Cross. Buried, He had his Grave sealed as a King.

These things thus premised, we come to prove that Kings are Christs Vicegerents and Lieutenants upon the face of the Earth, 1. Our first proof is, the place we insisted much in before, Prov. 8. 15. by what is said, it is more than apparent, that By me Kings reign, hath this Sense, By me Wisdom, the Son of God, the Word that was made Flesh, Kings reign: you may find many Reasons by reviewing the most learned and most pious Bishops Sermons, Dr. Andrews, whose Memory shall ever be in everlasting Benediction. 1. First Prov. 30. 4. This Wisdom is called the Son of God. 2. Next this preposition Per, By, it is the proper and peculiar preposition of Christ. 3. Thirdly, it is not very congruous that as by Christ we have all Blessings spiritual in heavenly things, so by him we have Kings his Derivatives constituted, the best and most eminent of temporal Blessings. 4. Fourthly, Christ he is Wisdom, and by him all Blessings issuing from Mercy; Kingdoms subsist more by Wisdom than by Power; why shall we not then from this Wisdom establish Kings and their Sovereignty? The proper Work of Wisdom is ordinare, to order, and to esta­blish Order; Why then shall not all Monarchy refer its Origine to this Wisdom? 5. Lastly, the original word, [...] Bi, is both in me, & per me, in me and by me, to intimate, as we said before, that Kings are first in him, and so come forth from him; and yet come so forth from him, that they are in him; Christ in them as his Deputies; They in him as their Author and Authoris [...]r; He by their Persons; They by his Power.

[Page 89] 2. Our second Proof we bring from that Scripture averreth that Christ is not only King of his Church, but in Order to his Church, King over all the Kings and Kingdoms of the Earth. Christs Kingdom over his Church. Psal. 11. 6. 15. in these words expressed I have set my King upon my holy Hill Sion. Over the whole World, in these Words, v. 8. I shall give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy Possession: which is not to be scant­led by conceiving it only of the calling of the Gentiles to the Communion of his Church, but also of his So­vereignty over all the Earth and Kings of the Earth. This Ordinance is by Appointment, and a decree irre­pealable. v. 7. I will declare the Decree. The words, I shall give thee, demonstrate that this potestas is not aeterna & interna, that eternal Power which is insepara­ble from him as God, but data & externa, a given and bestowed Power, which is not conceivable in Christ, but [...], as man, or God-man, our Saviour and Redeemer.

3. A third Proof may be this, that as this was fore­told by Prophecy, so in the Fullness of time it was really effected and accomplished. Matth. 28. 18. Our Saviour saith; All Power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth. The word Given, sheweth this Power is fi­xed in that Capacity by which he is our Saviour, all Power in Heaven and Earth, universally is expressed, all Power, and by Distribution exegetically amplified, all Power in Heaven and Earth, which will not ad­mit nor permit, that we exclude Sovereignty in Kings. Vbi Lex non distinguit, nemo distinguere debet. Let our Adversaries shew where Kings and their Crowns are exempted or excepted from this, all Power in Earth.

[Page 90] 4. Fourthly the Apostle St. Paul, Heb. 1. 5. telleth us that God hath appointed the Son, by whom he hath spoken to us in the last days, Heir of all things. If this Inheritance be not over Kings, we are infinitely mista­ken; and if Kings refer not their Right to him as Do­nor, they have no just Title.

5. Fifthly, The Scripture to take away all Cavils, hath given us this Truth in terminis terminantibus, in plain and express Terms, Revel. 1. 2. Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the first begotten of the dead is, The Prince of the Kings of the Earth. that again, cap. 11. 27. He ruleth them with a Rod of Iron. That this is meant appliable at least to Kings, see and read it. Psal. 11. 9. Revel. 19. 12. On his head you have many Crowns, an Embleme of his Sovereignty over all Kings, and that all are his Deputies, his Substitutes. To what is said, add that of St. Paul. 1 Tim. 6. 15. He is the only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That The [...] is a note of Excellency. Revel. 17. 14. The Lamb he is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, Revel, 19. 16. And he hath on his vesture and on his Thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Observe the words attentively, How characteristically this Power is given to the Lamb, to Iesus, to the faith­ful Witness; That it is written on his Thigh on his Ve­sture; which qualifie this Power as his Due, as he is the Head and Saviour of his Church. It is worth your notice taking, that this name is written upon his Thigh, that we may learn two things; the one is, That this Power is fixed in Christ-man; The other is, That all Kings are De femore Christi, from him by Ge­neration.

Reason pleadeth for this Truth; 1. First, what is more suitable and convenient, than that all Kings of [Page 91] all Ages, should issue from him, who is Rex saeculo­rum, A King whose Kingdom endureth throughout all Ages? It is the highest Dignity of Crowns to hold of this Crown.

2. Next, is it not prophesied by Isaiah, that Kings shall be the Nurse-fathers of his Church, Reges erunt nutritii tui? Is it not fit then that they hold their Crowns of Christ? Is it not fit, that Kings be taught so much, that with the more Alacrity and Zeal, they may advance the good of Christs Kingdom?

3. Thirdly, our Divines do acknowledge, that by men in sacred Orders Christ doth rule his Church me­diately, in those things which primely concern Sal­vation: And that by Kings, their Scepter and Power, he doth protect and preserve his Church, and what concerns the external Government in Order and De­cency. How then can it be denied, that Kings in this latter Sense, are no less the immediate Vicegerents of Christ, than Bishops Priests, and Deacons, in the for­mer? Look upon the Interpretations are given by the best and most able of our Divines upon 1 Cor. 15. 28.

4. Fourthly, what is the reason that all Christian Emperours and Kings glory in the Sign of the Cross, and place it upon the Top of their Sacred Crowns? It is not only by this Symbolum Christianismi this ancient badge of Christianity, to witness that they are Christi­ans, and not ashamed of the Cross of Christ, but also to acknowledge, that they have received and hold their Crowns of him. Much more might be said to this purpose, but for brevities sake, and judging what is said to be sufficient to prove all Kings to be Christ's Vicegerents, we spare with more Reasons to transgress upon the Patience of the understanding Reader.

[Page 92] Some have shunned to speak thus, that Kings are Christ's Vicegerents upon Earth, fearing that because of the Popes unjust Challenge to be Christs universal Vicar upon Earth, it should usher in a Subordination of the Crown to the Mi [...]re. They scruple without just cause. What need we to be afraid to speak with Scripture? It is high Presumption in the Pope to challenge to himself the Title or Right of Christs universal vicar upon Earth, by divine Right. There is no colour almost or shew of Reason for it either in Scripture, or reverend Antiqui­ty. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, hath no more by Divine Right (what he may have by positive Eccle­siastical Right, it is not pertinent for us now to exa­mine and discuss) no higher Priviledge (except it be in extent) than the meanest Bishop in the World in his Diocess. Doth not St. Hierom say, Omnis Episco­pus sive Romae fuerit, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Tanis, ejusdem est meri­ti, ejusdem Sacerdotii. The learned and holy Father compareth, with the three great Patriarchs (priviledg­ed at that time by Ecclesiastical Canons above [...] all others, with the Patriarchs of Antioch, and the Hono­rary Patriarch of Ierusalem) three of the meanest Bi­shops next adjacent to them, the Bishops of Eugubi­um, Rhegium, and Tanais, and averreth that by divine Right they had [...] equal Right, equal Pow­er. Nor doth that hold better, that the Pope would make his transcendent and extravagant Jurisdiction over all, to be grounded upon a fancied Eminency in St. Peter, above his fellow Apostles, ordinarie in him, extraordinarie in them, personal and temporarie in them; but so fixed in Peter's Person that it is transmissible to his Successor, and he forsooth, whether God will or not, must be the Pope of Rome. This Paradox is [Page 93] against Scripture, sacred Antiquity, and sound Reason. It is not fit now to prove it, only to satisfie the judicious Reader, I content my self with the Suffrage of that Holy Father and Martyr S. Cyprian, who de unit. Eccles. or singular, Prelator saith; Hoc utique erant caeteri Apostoli, quod erat Petrus, pari consortio prae­diti & honoris & potestatis. He knew not these Diffe­rences these Novators have coyned and forged up­on the Anvil of their own Hearts: His Judgment was, all the Apostles no less than Peter, were endow­ed in Order to their Apostolical Charge, with the same Endowment of Power, and Priviledges of Ho­nour. Would God, both sides in this and other Con­troversies, would submit to the Judgment and Deter­mination of the holy Fathers!

I wave the accurate discussing of these points, they require more time, and a more fit place. To what is said I add, that although we would give to the Pope of Rome, to be Christ's immediate universal Vicar in spiritualibus, in spiritual things, there is no Danger, and so to shun this Inconvenience, we need not be so shie, as to forbear to call Kings Christs Vicegerents, Christs Lieutenants. For if we should grant the Antecedent, the Pope is Christs universal Vicar upon Earth (which is certainly as false as Falshood it self) it is an [...] a lame Consequence, to make this inference, Ergo all Kings Crowns are subordinated and subjected to the Pope and his Mitre. Their own Authors, who advance his Power as high as Lucifer, do acknowledge that all power that was in Christ, Secundum quod ho­mo, as he was man, was not collated upon St. Peter. They confess moreover, that all the Power that was in St. Peter, was not by him transmitted to his spurious and usurping Successor. They all with one Mouth [Page 94] profess, that potestas Excellentiae quae in solo homine Chri­sto fuit, that Power of Excellency, which is solely pe­culiar to, and personal in Christ, was not communi­cated to St. Peter. They clear and prove it by specifi­cation of instances: Saint Peter, say they, could not confer the Effect and Efficacy of the Sacrament with­out the Sacrament it self; nor could he institute Sa­craments of himself, or in his own name, or others than Christ himself did institute. Do they not all of them give and grant that Saint Peter did not trans­mit the Power of doing Miracles to all his Successors? So then, although it were granted that the Pope were Christ's Vicar universal, it will not necessarily follow, that in this, that Christ is King of Kings, the Pope is his first immediate and universal Vicegerent.

I wish the Pope, who claimeth so near alliance and contingency to Christ, would learn of Christ to be meek and humble in heart, and so not onely should he find rest to his own Soul, but a great deal of more rest and quiet should be both in Church and State. It is very considerable, that in Scripture it is recorded, that whilst our Saviour was Minister Circumcisionis, the Mi­nister of Circumcision, he both practised and taught that it was God's Ordinance, that the Mitre submit to the Crown; and the Shepherd's Crook to the Scep­ter: Scarce well come into the World, when he taught this by his Practice, flying from Herod's Persecution to Egypt, who might have commanded Legions of Angels against him to destroy him (if it had not been that it was fitter he should teach us true Obedience) as at his Word, they published his Birth to Shepherds, and sung that glorious Anthem, Gloria in Excel [...]is. Some, it is probable, may judge this to be the Act and Fact rather of Ioseph and Mary than of Christ, and [Page 95] that they out of their Fear and Weakness not able to do better, did flee Herod and his malicious intent. If any think so, let him consider, that he hath not learned as yet that all Christ's Actions and Passions are full of Mysteries, and nothing acted or suffered by him, in which there was not an over-ruling wonder­ful Providence of God in Mercy and Wisdom: and withal let him consider, that all his Acts and Suffer­ings are our Instructions. But leaving this, Did he not in his Ministry teach and practise it? Teach it, when he commanded to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars; when he convinced the Iews, who would gladly have shaken off Caesar, and his Right, arguing that they were by God's Law bound to pay Caesar Tribute, because he was their King, and this he proved by their Coin, (which with all sound know­ing Politicians is inter jura Majestatis) which was printed with Caesar's Face and Superscription. Again, in his Death, Did not our Saviour Christ acknow­ledge Pilate's Power (that is the Roman, of which he was Deputy) to be from above? Did he not rebuke Peter, who with his Sword would have in a Defensive way saved him from those bloudy Persecutors? Did he not tell him, He that killeth by the Sword, shall pe­rish by the Sword? that is, Peter, although thou think thou hast a good cause, that thou wilt defend me, and by resisting open force, preserve me thy Master, thy Saviour; deceive not thy self, it is not lawful by Arms, in the best Cause, for my Cause, for my Life, to resist Lawful Authority; if thou kill in my Defence, thou art worthy to suffer Death by the Sword, by him that beareth the Sword not in vain. When Peter over-reached himself in this distempered zeal, cut off Malchus his Ear, Christ, before that Offence should [Page 96] have been done by any of his, in his company, for his Cause, will be at the pains to cure this wound mira­culously. Would God, Pope and Papeling, Jesuit and Sectary, Puritan and Presbyterian, would fix their hearts upon these Practices of Christ, by a singular Wisdom of God so clearly and fully recorded, practi­sed in Christ's Nativity, Childhood, practised and taught in his Ministry, practised and taught when he was a dying, when he was looking Death in the face, at which time the most sinful man will neither dissemble nor temporize. I doubt much if in any act of Christ, during his coming into the World, and his going home again to his Father, you can instance any to parallel this; to exceed it, sure I am you cannot. And what, I pray you, can the Pope challenge more than to be Minister Evangelii, a Minister of the Gospel, as our Lord was, Circumcisionis, of the Circumcision? He shall never be accounted with me the true Vicar of Christ, who teacheth contrary to Christ, and practi­seth contrary to his Practices: Me thinketh he looketh more like, and hath nearer alliance with the man mentioned 2 Thes. 2. Who exalteth himself above every thing is called God. It is very considerable likewise, that in the Apostolical Creed, which is so full, so brief, and nothing in it but what is necessary to be believed to Salvation, that I say in this short Creed, Pontius Pilate (whose memory is accursed) by the Spirit of God which ruled his Church in setting this down, is recorded. It is not for his Honour certainly, but for our good and edification, that there it is said, Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, that we may learn, if we expect Salvation by Faith in Christ, we must submit to Authority, by obedience to what they com­mand, if it be lawful; and submitting humbly, and [Page 97] suffering, if Authority urge that which is unlawful, and against God. And that this we are bound to, al­though the Magistrate be as opposite to Christianity as a Heathen, and the Cause for which we suffer be for Christ and his Church. We will never help Christ nor his Church by Arms against Authority, or Religion by Rebellion. If our Sectaries give us a new Creed, it will concern them near, with the expunging of Christs descent to Hell, and the Communion of Saints, to raze out this, He suffered under Pontius Pilate. If their Practices be so contradictory to Christ's, they cannot but conse­quutivè, by consequence, be destructory of the Christi­an Faith; where the Reward of those are to be expect­ed you know too well. It were better for you not on­ly to expunge Christ's Descent into Hell, but to an­nihilate Hell it self, which by a close Committee you may resolve upon, if your omnipotent power can be able to do it: I mean, your fansied coordinate power, which you have of late erected against Sovereignty fixed in the Lord's Anointed, as in the Church you have erected Altar against Altar. God open your Eyes to see your monstrous Sins and Errours, and to give to you and to us all true Repentance, that the fearful vengeance of God overtake us not, and in the World to come be forced by sensible, eternal, and horrible pains, to acknowledge the Truths which now we reject, al­though plainly in Scripture declared, in the most Au­thentick Apostolical Creed determined, and by the current and not interrupted suffrage of the Fathers, above seven hundred years believed. Lord have mer­cy upon us, and turn his Wrath and fearful Indigna­tion from us. I dare not to express what I fear▪ when I look upon these outrages committed against Sacred Truth; How God and his Word are abused, His San­ctuary [Page 98] defiled, His Ordinances repealed, Mischief fra­med by the Law, Sacred Persons violated, and the Lords Anointed fearfully rebelled against. My reso­lution is to dissolve unto Tears and Prayers, and with my Master say daily, say hourly, Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.

The weakness of this Assertion, that Kings are not Christ's Vicegerents, we have as we hope sufficiently proved: It is high time now to discover the wicked­ness of it. The purpose they have by this and the like Assertions, is to reserve the managing of all Religious Affairs in their largest latitude to themselves; vindi­cating it as peculiar and proper, quarto modo, to their Conventicles, Presbyteries, and Assemblies. This So­vereignty they make so Sovereign and Independent, that all Kings and Sovereigns whatsoever must submit to it. This Sovereignty Ecclesiastical may restrain and constrain the King at pleasure. It may repeal his Laws; correct his Statutes; reverse his Judgments. It may establish its own, urge Obedience, Cite, Con­vent, and Censure in case of Disobedience: And if they be not of Power to execute what they decree, they may call for or command the help and assistance of the People, in whom is that underived Majesty; and to this purpose may promise, covenant, swear to stand to the maintenance of their Fancies against all whatsoever, and to defend each another, contra omnes mortales, with their Goods, Lands, Fortunes, Honours▪ Lives, to admit no divisive motion (which is real, and to be such, if the Authority of this Church de­clare it such) whatsoever, to suppress whatsoever is contrary to the good intended in this Covenant and association, if it be in their power; so that this Sove­reign maketh every man armatum magistratum, to be [Page 99] armed with Power, and the way left to himself; for ought we know it may be Ravilliac's way, or Guido Faux's way.

Surely here is a Despotical Sovereignty, and more than ever was challenged by any, the Turk or King of Spain without Europe: This is to tyrannize over mens Souls, for no man must be suffered to live or enjoy any Freedom, or Life there, who dissenteth in the least point of their voluminous Greed from them; and if he assist not with his Monies, his Arms, his Hands, to the loss of his Life, for his Religion, he is either Prelatical or Papistical, and for his affection to the States, (a word incompatible with Monarchy, and of highest Treason) he is at best a Malignant. At pleasure of this Sovereignty every man must give the Quota this Sovereignty prescribeth, the Twentieth, the Tenth, the Fifth part, &c. must give loan of what moneys they have by them, or upon Bank, for the good Cause, upon security of the Publick Faith, (a non ens, which is like, if God prevent it not, to ruine the Reformed Orthodox Catholick Faith, and moral Faith and Truth amongst men) or what other they speci­fie and ordain: What a vast Sovereignty is this? the ex­tent of it is immense; for nothing shall be without the Sphere of this Power, which hath no motion but ec­centrick; no Person without the verge of this Scep­ter. And good reason for all this, for this is God and Christ's Institution; this Sovereignty is the ind [...]vi­dual companion of the Gospel, the holy discipline, the disci­pline of Christ, half the Kingdom of Christ, the undoub [...]ed Note of the Church, the eternal Counsel of God, it is [...] Scepter of the Son of God. You see the Effect of it, wh [...]a [...] happy, what a glorious Reformation it hath brought with it, the like was never seen since the Apostles dayes: this [Page 100] Reformation will pull down Antichrist from his Throne, the hearing of the beginning of it, how it enlarges it self now to be sworn too in England, will make the Pope of Rome and his Cardinals knees smite one against another. Quid verba audiam cum facta non videam? Judge of the Tree by its Fruits, as our Master hath taught us, and we will find all their good words; are, as Jurists say, Protestatio contraria facto, solemn Protestations, li­beral Promises (you know whose custom this is) but slack Performances: Would to God that had been all [...] no, a world of mischiefs have followed upon it, and, it is to be feared, that what is past is but [...], the beginnings of troubles. The most glorious Church amongst the Reformed, the staff and strength of Re­formed Religion is broken in shivers, where all things are lawful except to serve God; and all Sects, all Schisms allowed, except the Orthodox Truth and Or­dinances of God. This Reformation is written in Letters of Bloud, acted with the greatest Cruelty, against not onely Innocent, but Deserving men, with Calumnies, Rapine, Robbery, Cruelty, that Father, Mother, and young ones, if they have not been starved with hunger and cold, have been exposed to extream­est indigency, contempt, and mockery. I dare to say, no Persecution that ever was, can parallel this Persecu­tion, for Impiety, Injustice and Cruelty. What heart bleedeth not to see these Kingdoms, happy before, to the Envy of other Kingdoms and States, to be the mocking-stock of the World; that the Canaanite and Perizzite rejoyceth to look upon our Misery, to see the Desolation standing in the Holy place, and those King­doms, of late the desire of all the Earth, turned into an Akeldama; and no other fruit of this glorious Re­formation, but to kill Christians for Christ's sake, [Page 101] and to plunder for Religions sake? Lord forgive them, for Christ's sake, and remove our Sins, and those fearful Judgments: and I beg pardon of the Reader for this Digression or Regret, which I have poured out with a sad heart, and wish them no worse than speedy Repentance.

For all we have said of this Antichristian Sovereign­ty, whereby the Puritan and Factious would exalt the Presbytery and Representative Body above all that is called God; Let no man imagine that we ran to the other Extreme, to privilege a King from the direction and just Power of the Church; or that we would en­courage him, or set him on, like Vzziah, to intrude upon Sacred actions, proper to Ecclesiastical Persons, Ex vi ordinis, In direction by the Word, administration of the Sacraments: binding and loosing, in interiori foro conscientiae, or, in exteriori, by the Spiritual Censures an­nexed to the Keys. Sure I am, no pious or knowing King (as blessed be God our Sovereign is) will by right of his Crown, which he holdeth immediately of Christ, usurp upon this; but on the contrary, as a Son of the Church, will submit to the Church his Mother, or rather Christ in Church-men reconci­ling him to God. Elsewhere (by Gods Grace, if God give us Life and Leisure) in a several Treatise by it self, we intend to lay open this point. In sum, briefly we say, that men in Sacred Orders, In rebus purè spiritualibus, in things meerly and intrinsecally of themselves Spiritual, have from Christ immediately a directive and authoritative Power, in order to all whatso­ever, although ministerial onely, as related to Christ: But this giveth them no Coercive Civil Power over a Prince, either per se, or per accidens, either primarie or secundarie; either principaliter or consecutive, direct [...] [Page 102] or indirectè, simple or absolute, that either the one way or the other, directly or indirectly, absolutely or respe­ctively by it self, or in ordine ad spiritualia, any or many in sacred orders, Pope or Presbytery, can convent, cite, censure, in case of Defailance, Supply, and in case of not obeying what God in Scripture hath com­manded, to covenant, associate, swear, and take Sa­crament upon it, to resist him, oppose him, and force him to submit to the Scepter of Christ. This Power over man God Almighty useth not, much less hath he given it to man: Psal. 110. His People are a willing People. Suadenda non cogenda religio, nihil minùs Religi­onis quàm Religionem cogere. Nor doth that spiritu­al Power which entirely we give to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, rob the King, as he is the nursing Fa­ther of the Church, of the power Christ hath endow­ed him with, as a Christian King, in externa guberna­tione Ecclesiae. We must not look on Kings as on others of the Flock of Christ, although we may neither preach, nor administer the Sacraments, nor bind, nor loose, nor give sacred Orders, nor excommunicate, these are things only proper to Priests, Primi & secundi ordinis, of the first and second Order and Degree: Yet the exercise of these things freely within his Kingdom, what concerneth the decent and orderly doing of all, and what concerns externum hominem, by coactive Power, or externam gubernationem Ecclesiae, the exter­nal Government of the Church, in appointing the use of things, arbitrary and indifferent, and what else is of this strain, are so due to the Prerogative of the Crown, as that we must not rob him of it; nor may the Priest without highest Rebellion against God in­trench or usurp upon the King. A King in the State and Church is a mixed Person, not simply Civil, but [Page 103] Sacred too: They are not only Professores fidei, Profes­sors of the Truth, that they have in the Capacity of a Christian: but they are also Propugnatores fidei, Defen­ders of the Faith; which is proper to them in the Ca­pacity of a King. What is the meaning of that, that in Scripture they are honoured with more than the Stile of a Son of the Church; they are called by Isaiah, or rather God himself, The Nurse-fathers of the Church? This is not to be so scantled, as if there were no more Influence from Kings upon the Church, but by Ho­nour and Riches; other great men may and have done the like; it is meant by some Influence from their Crown, their Sword, their Scepter. What meaneth that Charge, Psal. 2. 10, 11, 12. Be wise, O ye Kings, serve the Lord with Fear, kiss the Son left he be angry, and ye perish from the way; When his Wrath is kindled but a little? I will believe Saint Austin more than all the glorious pretended Reformers of this happy Re­formation, or Deformation rather, writing to Boni­face. Quomodo enim (saith he) Reges Domino serviunt, nisi ea quae contra jussa Domini fiunt religiosâ severitate pro­hibendo atque plectendo? Aliter n. servit quà homo est, aliter quà etiam Rex est. Quia homo est, ei servit fide­liter vivendo: quia vero etiam Rex est servit leges justa praecipientes, & contraria prohibentes convenienti vig [...]re sanciendo. Sicut servivit Ezechias, Lucos, & templa ido­lorum, & excelsa quae contra praecepta Dei fuerunt constru­cta destruendo. Sicut servivit Iosias talia & ipse facien­do. Sicut servivit Rex Ninivitarum universam civitatem ad placandum Dominum compellando. Sicut servivit Da­rius, idolum frangendum in potestatem Danieli dando▪ & inimicos ejus Leonibus inferendo. Sicut servivit Nebu­chadnezzar, de quo jam diximus omnes in regno suo positos à Blasphemando Deo legi terribili prohibende. In hoc ergo [Page 104] serviunt Domino Reges in quantum Reges, cum ea faciunt ad serviendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi Reges. The Passage is plain, and hath more for the Right of Kings than Iesuit or Puritan will allow them; who will have them to be Ministri and Executores, their Servants to put in Execution what they ordain and command.

To make Pope or Presbytery, as the immediate Vicegerents of Christ, and to authorize them with a coactive, or a coercive Power, to confirm their Orders, to force him to repeal his own Laws, and in case of Defailance or Refusal, after Remonstrance is made, or Supplication as they call it, although possibly present­ed on the point of a Sword or Pike, to stir up people against the Lords anointed, to Sedition, to Rebellion, howsoever they deceive the simpler sort, to make them believe they dye Martyrs, is truly the Disgrace of Re­ligion, the highest of Treasons against God and man, and to make poor People die Traytors to both.

If you make two Sovereigns in one Kingdom, Inde­pendent one from another, there is no more Peace or Qui­et to be expected, than was in Rebecca's Womb, whilst Iacob and Esau did strive for the Prerogative of the first born.

Nay, if you make the Sovereign and Supreme mana­ging of Religion and religious Affairs to depend upon, and properly belong either to any foreign power with­out the Kingdom, as to the Pope; or to any Power do­mestick within it, as to the Presbytery or Assembly, you commit and entrust to their managing the greatest and highest Affairs of Kingdom and State: and if you take from the King the Regiment in Religion, you take from him that, which in its own nature is the mainest, the [Page 105] chiefest, and most excellent thing in Government, as may appear by what is subjoyned.

Religion is the Base and Bottom, on which all the Steadiness and Happiness of King and Kingdom are seated. Religio & Timor Dei solus est, qui custodit ho­minum inter se societatem: It is Religion and the Fear of God alone, which preserveth all Society, and con­sequently King and Kingdom: Lactant. de Ira Dei, c. 12. Religion is the Base, and it is the Cement too of all other Societies; besides this, Plutarch saith, that Religion is [...], that which bindeth all Societies together, and giveth Strength to all Laws, Religion, it hath a mighty Influ­ence upon Laws, it worketh hearty, sincere, and com­pleat Obedience. Religion rightly ordered maketh the Prince rule well, and people yield true, real, and per­fect Obedience: This made Aristotle say, Polit. l. 7. c. 8. [...]. The first care in Po­licy should be that of Religion and things divine. Re­ligion rightly ordered, is the Preserver, Nurse, and Defence of the Quiet of King and State. I say Religion rightly order'd, for Superstition is a mad and madding thing: Seneca ep. 24. Superstitio error insanus est. Tris­megistus saith, apud Lactant. Institut. lib. 11. c. 16. [...], Piety and the fear of God is the safety and only Defence of all things. Religion in Sum is the only thing to make private and publick Affairs to prosper. Which thing being infallibly true, it must necessarily follow, that Religion is the most important of all Affairs of State and Kingdom. How can it then subsist and consist with Reason that the King shall have no more hand or Power in Religion, than to execute at the Command of Pope or Presbytery? To do it or do worse?

[Page 106] Christ did never institute such a Sovereignty in Ec­clesiastical persons, either Pope or Sectaries, Indepen­dent from King and Sovereign, with which they are invested with Power from Christ, from above imme­diately. If it were so, the Pope or Presbytery were in better Condition than the King. The Ecclesiastical Sovereignty hath the Souls in subjection, under no less Sanction, than with Assurance of Salvation eternal, in case of Obedience, and Damnation eternal, in case of Disobedience, and both of them to be extended both to Soul and Body. Religion is seated in the Soul, and is a mighty Ruler there: the civil Sovereignty holdeth only a dead Dominion over the Bodies. That Sovereignty which hath the Soul in Subjection, the Conscience at his Devotion, must over-rule Royal Ci­vil Sovereignty, and shall be able at any time so to limit, weaken, lessen, yea disable it, that it shall be no more fearful abroad, nor glorious and powerful at home with it's Subjects than the spiritual Sovereignty shall permit. It is most true and consonant to our purpose, that Cicero saith, Orat. in Verr. 5. Omnes Re­ligione moventur, men are naturally swayed that way Religion hangeth; we may see it in the furious Su­perstition of those Distempers. It is not verified this day in our eyes, that a multitude vana Religione capta, melius vatibus quam ducibus paret suis, misled with an erroneous Religion, will obey and follow mad Priests sooner than their lawful and religious Prince: they will part with what is dearest to them, to advance their Designs, their Desires; they will throw away their Ear-rings to cast their molten Calves; they will not spare to sacrifice their Children with the King of Edom, or to cut themselves with Knives like to the Priests of Baal. People thus madded, and set on edge by mad [Page 107] Sectaries and Sheba's, Circumcellion-like will act all Mischief, spare neither Crown nor Mitre, Ephod [...] nor Diadem, things sacred or civil; fancying strongly with themselves that they fight the Lord's Battels, for Religion, for Liberty, and dying in Rebellion as men raging in a Feaver to dream they die Martyrs, when they die Traytors to God and to his anointed.

Diodorus Sicul. lib. 6. cap. 10. relateth a Story very apposite to this Purpose, that the Priests of Iupiter in the Island Meroe compassed with the River Nilus, by this Sovereignty kept the People of Aethiopia in so super­stitious Obedience, so absolute and blind Dependance upon them, that at Pleasure, they commanded the killing of the King by their own Subjects, none of them daring to deny or delay to put in Execution what the Priests commanded: this continued long, till Ergamenes a wise King of Aethiopia, sensible of this damnable and impious extravagant Sovereignty, wait­ing his Opportunity, secretly surprized them all, Priests and Profession. We need not refer you to the G [...]erman Writers, and Italian, that you may see what Mischiefs the Popes unjust Challenge of Sovereignty above Emperours, hath wrought in the World, nor to Ioseph. lib. 2. de bell. Iud. ca. 12. or to Florus his Slave, Ennus by name, who pretending an immediate Dependency from God wrought so much Disturbance to Rome in power, Flor. lib. 3. cap. 16. Nor need I refer you to the Turkish Annals to learn, what mischief upon this ground Shacoen Lis wrought: or to Leo to read what mischief Elmahel with the people of Morocco, wrought against Abraham their native King. See Leo lib. 2. and if you will lib. 3. where you have the Story, how upon this ground Chenim Mannal made the King of Fess to quit to him the Kingdom of To [...]osma: Hea­thenish, Turkish, Jewish, Christian stories witness [Page 108] that where a Sovereignty religious, independent is erected within a Kingdom, or without it, the tempo­ral and civil must submit. We need not, I say, refer you to these Stories, Jewish, Ethnish or Turkish, we may see the doleful Effects, this Tenet with it's pra­ctice hath brought upon these Kingdoms. The Ca­lamities which the Authors and Abettors of these Para­doxes have brought upon us, and the present Distem­per and Distress we are cast into, if they surpass not, certainly in their due Proportion, are equal to those we have recorded in authentick Story, were set on Foot betwixt Gregory the seventh, and Henry the fourth; betwixt Innocent the fourth, and Frederick; betwixt Boniface the eighth, and Philip King of France. The Puritan and Presbytery by their independent Ec­clesiastical Sovereignty will act as much Mischief e're it be long, if God in mercy stop not the Current of their Fury and Malice; as in many Ages past, the Pope of Rome hath done by his unjust and usurped Tyran­ny over and above Kings. It feareth me, the Trage­dies of Munster and this time shall never be forgot­ten.

Let the Christian Reader, whose Affection is right, and whose judgment is not perverted, judge how hap­py was our case when Gods Ordinance had place; had Power, Prince and Priest had their sacred due right, what Plenty, Peace, what Happiness King and King­doms did enjoy and rejoyce in. And on the other part, let him reflect his Thoughts, and consider how since this Sovereignty Ecclesiastical hath been elsewhere erected, maintained; how here a Sovereignty civil, co-ordinate, collateral to royal Sovereignty is set up. And withal let the judicious Reader see how both the one and the other do concur to the Destruction of [Page 109] Episcopacy, to the lessening certainly, if not the total overthrowing of Monarchy; but differ extreamly in this Sovereignty Ecclesiastical, for in one Kingdom the Presbytery, the Assembly is so Sovereign, so indepen­dent in Ecclesiastical and spiritual things, that it gi­veth Laws, Orders to the Sovereign Prince and Parli­ament, and demandeth as due a [...] a Confirma­tion of them, civil Sanction, and Execution upon Re­fractories and Delinquents. In the other, the co-or­dinate Power erected, over-ruleth, controuleth, and at Pleasure directeth what they in their infallible Judg­ment and answerable Jurisdiction, judge Orthodox in Faith, right for the Worship, and orderly for Ca­nons of Government.

The last medleth in spiritualibus, in things meerly spiritual and ecclesiastical, in ordine ad civilia, in order to the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdoms. The other hath so enlarged its Jurisdiction and Sovereign­ty ecclesiastical, that it trencheth upon and medleth with things meerly civil, but in ordine ad spiritualia as related to Religion and the Church. Both the one and the other are of equal Extent, for this in ordine ad civi­lia, on the one part, and in ordine ad spiritualia on the other, are such relative and respective Terms and Distinctions as can admit, and authorise Church-men to do, act, and meddle in matters of State of highest Con­cernment; and Lay-men again, to do the like in things most spiritual, and by divine Right, reserved for men in sacred Orders. So long as such Tenets are maintained, & with Practices accordingly strengthened, we cannot ex­pect God's Blessing on Church or State. To both the one and the other God may justly say, Quis haec requisivit à vo­bis? Who hath required these things of your hands? and where God's Ordinance is not, and his own Ordi­nance is infringed, that men intrude upon that is not [Page 110] their Right, or usurp upon sacred Right, his Blessing is not to be expected. Again, we aver confidently, till this Babel be beat down, there will never be peace nor Quiet in Church or Kingdom, nor shall private men enjoy the Fruits of their Labours in Peace.

If this co-ordinate, usurped, and new-fancied So­vereignty usurp so much upon God and the Churches Right, we shall become a mocking stock to the Roman Church: If the other independent, ecclesiastical Sove­reignty obtain, it is not to be doubted but that Im­munity Ecclesiastical of sacred Persons and their Goods shall not only be established, but also raised to a high­er Strain and Pitch than Romanists do claim it. This I say cannot but undoubtedly follow upon their Prin­ciples and Practices, if there were not some hope, that those Creatures whom God never made, and Christ never instituted, Lay Elders I mean, oppose not and retard the Course, who are invested with sacred power, to determine Truth in Controversies and Mysteries of highest Concernment in Councels; to establish Canons; to prescribe a Form of Worship, a Catechism; to have the power of the Keys in all censures Ecclesiastical: in sum, in all things Ecclesiastical to have no less power, no less a Voice not only deliberativè but decisivè than Priests or Ministers as they are pleased to call them; these Lay Elders are debarred from nothing, but only publick Preaching, and Administration of the Sacraments, Bap­tism, and the Eucharist; it is expected if the indepen­dent Ministery, another Head of this Hydra become the prevalent part, they will justle the Presbyterian out of this, and restore all the Laity, who in their Divinity are no less the Lords anointed than Prince, Priest, or Pro­phet. There is some hope, I say that these Lay Elders, a non ens in Scripture, and never known to Antiquity, will curb them, that they shall not have way for such [Page 111] a vast Immunity, finding already by sad and feeling Experience what a measure of Patience is required to bear their Insolency, and what Prudence is neces­sary to disappoint their ambitious and pragmatical ends.

There is enough said to lay open the weakness and wickedness of this Antichristian tenet, that Kings are God's, but not Christ's Vicegerents. They cry out much against the Pope, to whom they do better service than they are aware of, (I pray God they were as real and true Enemies to Popery, as moderate and Orthodox Protestants are, whom the Pope feareth more than them, and with just reason) and seeing I have not much hope that what is said will work much upon them, let me tell them that in their Tenet and Pra­ctice they are worse than the good Popes were, and I dare say, all to Gregory the Great (hear it from his mouth, and startle not at it, he was a better Christi­an than any of your Sect or Sectaries) thus he wri­teth, Lib. 3. Epist. 61. to Maurice the Emperour, Do­minus meus fuisti, quando adhuc Dominus omnium non eras: Ecce pro me respondebit Christus, dicens, Ego te de notario countem excubitorum; de comite Caesaerem; de Cae­sare Imperatorem feci. Sacerdotes meos manui tue com­misi, & tu à servitio meo milites tuos substrahis: Ego quidem jussioni vestrae subjectus legem vestram per divers as terrarum partes transmitti feci. Et quia lex ipsa omnipo­tenti Deo minimè concordat; ecce per suggestionis meae pa­ginam Serenissimis Dominis nuntiavi; utrobique ergo quae debui exolvi, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo quod sensi minimè tacjii. And in another Epi­stle written to Theodor. Epist. 64. He saith, Valdè mihi durum videtur, ut ab ejus servitio milites suos substrahat, qui & ei omnia tribuit, & dominari non solum militibus, sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit. Maurice was no bad Em­perour, [Page 112] and Gregory certainly was a good Bishop; yet Maurice had commanded that none serving in his Wars, or any Officer whatsoever accountant unto him, should be admitted either to Sacred Orders, or a Religious Monastical Life, without his special War­rant. Reason may plead for the equity of this charge, because by the Bounty and Beneficence of Christian Emperours, men in sacred Orders, and Religious Per­sons, had admirable Priviledges, which might make his Armies weak by flying to sacred Orders and Reli­gious Life, and exempt Accountants from doing what was due in civil Justice, ex Indulto Imperatorum, not ex jure Divino, by the gratuite concession of Princes, and no direct Warrant from God or his Word. Whatever this was in it self which Maurice command­ed Gregory to keep, and to intimate to all his Suffragan Bishops, and to be published in all Churches within the verge of his Jurisdiction; certain it is, in St. Gre­gory's judgment it was unlawful and sinful, for he saith, Lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minimè concordat: and again, Valdè durum mihi videtur; yet what did he? He made this Ordinance of the Emperour's to be pub­lished throughout all his Churches; here is Obedience: and although it did belong properly and peculiarly to him as Bishop, to admit any qualified by God Almigh­ty to sacred Orders; He submits to the restraining Ordinance of Sovereign Authority, and I am confi­dent did not transgress. He pleadeth for no immu­nity to any sacred Person in sacred Orders; nay, he bringeth in Christ himself, saying, Sacerdotes meos ma­nui tuae commisi; I have committed to thy trust, to thy power, my Priests: and in this case which is Spi­ritual enough, and necessary enough for ought I can conceive, at least that part of it, of admitting of able [Page 113] men to sacred Orders, he humbly obeys; he pleads not that he was Christ's Vicegerent, and Maurice only Go [...]'s; he objects not Vzzia's attempt to sacrifice; he [...]onfesseth, or rather bringeth in Christ, speaking thus, He calls him not onely His Lord, but Dominus omnium, the Lord of all, without restraint; he averreth that not onely he had by God Dominion over Souldiers, but over all sacred Persons in sacred Functions: Ei om­nia tribuit, & dominari non solùm militibus sed etiam sa­cerdotibus concessit. He knew no remedy else but per suggestionis paginam, by humble supplication, submiss admonition, to tell the Emperour it was not right; he professed his obedience, and that not by compulsion, an extorted, a coacted one, Quod debui exolvi, Impera­ [...]ori obedientiam praebui; as he was bound, he obeyed; and for his humble Remonstrance, he speaketh no less rightly than modestly, Et pro Deo quod sensi minimè ta­cui: He knew no more lay upon him than in humi­lity and submiss freedom with Reverence to tell and admonish what he thought fit. The poor man knew not that as Christ's Vicegerent, in Christ's Kingdom, he was to oppose, to supplicate, petition, and if there were not a recalling, a repealing of the Imperial Edict, that they might excite the People to covenant, swear, and at last to present a Petition upon the point of a Pike, by right as he was Christ's Vicegerent. This holy man knew not this Divinity, it was never heard of in his age, nor any since the World began, it sprang not up till many Ages after, that that malicious one did sow Popple among the good Wheat of Christ's Field; for a thousand years after Christ, the indepen­dent Sovereignty Ecclesiastical of the Pope was never known in the Christian Church. The Presbyterian Sovereignty not [...]till fifteen hundred and above were [Page 114] run out. The Parochian Pope, or independent So­vereign in every Parish, Christ's Vicegerent, except Almighty God right in mercy what is disjoynted in Church and State, is like to put the Presbyterian and Pope out of doors.

I may add a world of Testimonies of the Fathers, who expresly call Kings Christs Vicegerents upon Earth. Athanasius in the Sermon of the Blessed Virgin (ex­plaining that of the Psalm, Et regnabit in domo Ia­cob, in aeternum, & regni ejus non erit finis: And he shall reign in the House of Iacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end) saith, [...]. Christ therefore re­ceiving the Throne of David, hath translated it, and hath given it to the Sacred Kings of Christians. In St. Athanasius his mind Christian Kings are Christ's Vice­gerents, and sit Deputies upon his Throne.

Take the Suffrage of many together, all the Fa­thers of the Councel of Arminium, writing to Con­stantius, [...] (which Relative [...] referreth to the Ante­cedent Iesus Christ) [...] ▪ The sense is, By Christ thou reignest, and hast domi­nion over all the World.

Liberius speaketh thus to Constantius the Emperour▪ [...]. All know that Constantius was an Arrian, a great Persecutor of the Orthodox▪ who maintained the Deity of Christ. Liberius wri­ting [Page 115] to him, admonisheth him not to fight against Christ, who had given him the Empire, nor to be so unthankful unto him, as to be impious against him.

Seeing then that Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason stand for this Truth, that Kings are Christ's Vicege­rents upon Earth, let us not be deceived with the no less fond, than new devised distinction of our Nova­tors and Sectaries, who by differencing betwixt God's Vicegerents upon Earth, and Christ's Vicegerents upon Earth, intend nothing else but to throw down-Crowns and Royal Diadems, and lay them at the foot of Pres­bytery and Assembly, and to set up a Tribunal of their own, a Sovereignty Ecclesiastical to domineer over all Powers else whatsoever. I wish they would here re­member that passage which otherwise and in another case they pervert and abuse sufficiently, Matth. 20. 25, 26. Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are Great exercise Authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you. Or that of St. Bernard to Eugenius the Pope, Indicitur ministerium, interdicitur ministerium. Let any who will duly consider what enormous, extravagant Sovereignty hath been acted by the Presbytery, how much the intrinsecal right of Sovereignty hath been restrained and lessened, and it feareth me, you will hardly find so much acted by all the Popes since Hildebrand's time, as by them in this short space. I leave this, and come in the next place to prove by the Testimony of Fathers, that Kings are not the Derivatives of the People.

THE Holy Fathers and Martyrs in the prior and purer Age of the Church knew no other Do­ctrine; they spake no other Language.

We begin with Clemens Romanus, Constit. l. 7. c. 17. [...] ▪ Fear or honour the King, knowing that He is ordained or constituted by the Lord. It may be it will be told us, this is a spurious Clemens, and not the genu­ine that was Bishop of Rome; and if we alledge Igna­tius, it is to be feared he'll fare no better, for a great Scholar but no great Divine hath very now rejected all we have of him. I will therefore give some Te­stimonies from such against whom this exception ly­eth not.

See Irenaeus, lib. 5. advers. haeres. c. 20. where at large he proveth, That Kingdoms are not of the De­vil, but that all Kings relate to God as to their first and immediate Origine, Donor, Author; adduceth some of the pregnant Testimonies of Scripture which we have alledged before, giveth the Devil a Lye, who durst to challenge to himself the right to dispose of all King­doms, Luke 4. 6. Our new Anti-monarchical Statists had need to consider this, and whose Children they make the People, to whom they gave the Right and [Page 117] Power to dispose of Kings and Kingdoms at pleasure. S. Irenaeus is so zealous, so fervent of God and the King's Right and Prerogative, that he will not admit the good and Heavenly Angels to this Honour; nor will he admit that Saint Paul's [...], Rom. 13. 1, 2. Higher Powers, are Angelical, but that the A­postle meant it de his (a clear and full commentary to St. Peter's [...], 1 Ep. 2. 14.) quae secun­dum homines sunt potestates, of Humane and Royal So­vereignty. To this add, that the Father in the place alledged, armeth Kings with entire Sovereignty, and that necessarily to restrain the corruption of man: where he also expresseth the infinite good cometh to mankind by Government; and leaveth Sovereigns de­linquents to the Iudgment and Tribunal of God. All these Points you will find by the Father, where, amongst other things to our purpose, he saith most appositely and pregnantly, Cujus enim jussu nascuntur homines; hujus jussu & Reges constituuntur, apti his qui in illo tempore ab ipsis regnantur. Quidam enim illo­rum ad correctionem & utilitatem subjectorum dantur, & conservationem Iustitiae: Quidam autem ad timorem, poe­nam & increpationem; quidam autem ad illusionem & con­tumeliam, & superbiam, quemadmodum & digni sunt Dei [...]us [...]o judicio, &c. This place is certa sedes dogmatis & sententiae Patris, a proper place from which we may draw warrantably the Fathers Tenet, concerning the Author and Donor of Sovereignty. Here the Holy Father is proving, That the Devil is not the Author of Kings and Sovereign Power, He referreth all to God the immediate Author and Origine of Royalty. If the Church of Christ at this time, and he with it, had believed with our [...], opposers of Monar­chy, That all Power was radically, primarily, and [Page 118] independently inherent in People, and from them de­rived to Kings, this was a fit place to express it; and we see he knew no more, but Cujus jussu nascuntur ho­mines, hujus jussu & reges constituuntur, &c. and it is worthy of our notice taking, that God maketh and sendeth Kings, as in his wise Providence he thinketh for the Punishment of our Sins, or in his Mercy and Bounty to bless us when we walk in his ways.

Tertullian speaketh in the same Idiome, writing ad Scapulam, he saith, Christianus nullius est hostis, nedum Imperatoris: quem sciens à Deo constitui, necesse est ut & ipsum diligat, revereatur & honoret, & salvum velit cu [...]toto imperio, quousque saeculum stabit tamdiu etiam stabit▪ Colimus ergo Imperatorem sic quomodo & nobis licet & ip­si expedit, ut hominem à Deo secundum, & quicquid est [...] Deo constitutum, solo Deo minorem. Hoc & ipse volet, [...] e [...]im omnibus major est dum solo vero Deo minor est. The sense of it is, A Christian is Enemy to none, much less to King and Emperour, whom he knoweth to be of Gods Con­stitution, and so is necessarily bound to love, reverence, and honour him, to whom with his Empire he wisheth all Safety; for when that perisheth, it is like the World will be at an end: We honour the Emperour therefore so much as we are allowed by Gods Law, and as much as is expe­dient for him, as the man who is next to God himself: (Tertullian had not learned in those times that the Emperour or King was Vniversis minor) and whatso­ever he was reduplicativè, by Reduplication as Empe­rour, He was such a one by Gods Donation and Collati­on, and was and is inferiour to none, to any, or many, but to God alone. This Divinity of the ancient Church is point blank opposite to the Divinity of these latter times.

[Page 119] Turn to him again in his Apologetick, against the Gentiles, cap. 30. where he saith, Nos enim pro salute aeterna Deum vocamus aeternum, Deum verum, Deum vi­vum; quam & ipsi Imperatores propitium sibi propter cae­teros mallent. Sciunt quis illis dederit Imperium; Sciunt qui homines, qui & animas: Sentiunt enim Deum esse so­lum, in cujus solius sunt potestate, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi ante omnes.—Inde est Imperator, unde & ho­mo antequam Imperator, inde potestas illi, unde & Spiri­tus. What can be more emphatically spoken? God, in Tertullians Divinity, is no less immediate Author and Creator of Sovereignty, than of the Soul of man. In Preeminence they are next to God, above all; their Authority subordinate too, co-ordinate with none. Rex qua Rex reduplicativè, a King as King essentially hath no Constituent but only the King of Heaven. Kings are solely and entirely reserved to the Judgment, to the Tribunal of Almighty God. It feareth me, if Tertullian were living now a-days, he would be tra­duced as a Court-parasite.

Optatus Bishop of Milivis was of the same Faith. He writeth [...] lib. 3. contr. Parmen. Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fert Imperatorem: Quot verba, tot ar­gumenta; a short, a most powerful Expression. There is none above the Emperour, the King, but God alone; not any, not many; not the diffusive, the collective, the Representative, the virtual Body; the reason is in natural reason strong, Almighty God only hath made him Emperour, made him King.

Athanasius his Suffrage and Testimony you have before, cap. 5. and with him you have Hosius in epist. ad Solit. vit. agent. writing and averring constantly, confidently, to Constantius an Arrian Emperour, [...]; God hath given to thee the [Page 120] Kingdom, the Sovereignty. If you will have Athana­sius alone, take his Testimony from his own Mouth, in his Apology to Constantius; [...]; But thanks to the Lord who gave to thee the Empire.

Saint Chrysostom lived and died in the same Faith. You may read him Tom. 6. according to Sir Henry Savil's Edition, Orat. 40. Orat. 2. to the People of Antioch: There at that time he was Presbyter, when by a tumultuary uproar the Statues of Theodosius were broke, and reproachfully-abused. The holy man after a most passionate and plentiful Regret, expresseth the Riot thus; [...], that it was a wound so open that no hand could cure it. Then exhorteth all with Iob to sit upon the dung-hill, to mourn that they were left to themselves to fall into so high a Transgression: O! what Expressions? what Exclamations? what Regrets had been by that holy Father, if he had seen what we see to day, and heard what we hear! He subjoyneth [...]. He the Empe­rour, who is so reproachfully abused, hath none upon Earth comparable to him in honour. He is the head, nay, if any thing be imaginable that can be higher than the Head, he is apex, vertex, the Top of the Head, the Crown, and that not of one, every one, any or many, but [...] of all upon Earth.

Saint Hierom homologates and confirms what they say commenting upon Dan. 2. upon these words, He changeth Times and Seasons, &c. Non ergo miremur, saith he, si quando cernimus, & regibus reges, & regnis regna [Page 121] succedere, quae Dei gubernantur, & mutantur, & finiun­tur arbitrio, causasque singulorum novit ille, qui conditor omnium est, & saepè malos reges patitur suscitari, ut mali malos puniant. Saint Hierom' s mind is fully this, that Kings and Kingdoms have their Constitution, Change, and destitution by the sole royal Pleasure of God. And that in all, he is no less the Author than he is Creator of all. Finally, that not only good Kings are of God's making, but bad Kings too, and that to punish our Sins.

No man hath spoken more home than Saint Augu­stine, look upon him l. 4. de Civit. Dei, c. 33. Deus ille felicitatis Author, quia solus verus deus est, ipse dat regna terrena bonis & malis. Neque hoc temerè, quasi fortuitò, quia deus est, non fortunà, sed pro rerum ordine & tempo­re, occulto nobis, notissimo sibi. In which Passage St. Austin vindicates the making of Kings absolutely to God, by a reason unanswerable, Quia solus verus deus est; because he alone is the true God. The meaning is, you may as well deny him to be the only true God, as rob him of this Prerogative of making Kings; and in his Sense, he or they that assume this power to themselves, intrude sacrilegiously upon God's Right. He amplifieth this, shewing Kings are not casual by hap-hazard, but causal, God in his wise and unsearch­able Providence sending bad or good Kings according to the Exigence of time and the people, to bless or punish. He resolves all in a docta ignorantia, a myste­rious way, that howsoever we cannot reach the way nor find the reason, why it is so, yet is well known to God, to which we are religiously to submit, and not curiously and presumptuously to enquire.

Turn to him again, l. 5. de Civ. Dei, c. 21. Non tribuamus dandi regni atque imperii potestatem nisi vero [Page 122] Deo—ille igitur unus verus Deus qui nec judicio nec adju­torio deserit genus humanum; quando velit & quantum vo­luit Romanis regnum dedit: qui dedit Assyriis, vel etiam Persis; Qui Mario, ipse Caio Caesari; Qui Augusto, ipse &▪ Neroni; Qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suavissimis Imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo; & ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano ipse Apo­statae Iuliano.—Hoc planè Deus unus verus regit & gu­bernat ut placet. A Passage able to stop the Devil's Mouth: observe in it first, that Saint Augustine will not admit that Kings and Kingdoms are derived from Pope, Presbytery, or People, but of him alone who i [...] Deus verus unus, the true and only God. 2. Next, that he will admit no more search, but to be content with his placet, Will to give it to whom he will, an [...] in what Extent for Power and Time he will. Third­ly, in Saint Austin's mind this is not only verified of the Iewish Kings, but of the Assyrian, Persian, Roman, and all others besides. Fourthly, Saint Austin knew not this new devised quirk of potestas in abstracto, & [...]oncreto, of Power abstractly considered from the Per­son in which it is fixed, but in concreto, he averreth that both the Power and Person invested with the Power are of God. Fifthly, it is worth our notice taking, that the holy Father specifieth only Empire and Monarchy. Sixthly, the Extent is most observable, this Conclusion or Maxim of Saint Austin's holds well, of all Kings whatsoever they be, Heathen, or Jewish, or Christian; if Christian, bad or good, sound in the Faith or Hereticks; if Heathen, whether good moral men or Persecutors. See and consider, how wisely and fitly he makes a [...] a coupling together; 1. of Marius and Caius Caesar. 2. Of Augustus and Nero, Flavius the Father, and Titus the Son with Domitian. [Page 123] 3. Of Constantine the sound Christian; and Iulian the Apostate. Seventhly, lastly, it [...] [...]ost observable that he will have all of all sorts to be entirely given to God, Non tribuamus nisi vero Deo dandi regni atque im­perii potestatem. This non nisi vero Deo, admits no sha­rer no copartner. He is not content to say it once, but resumeth it again, and with an Emphasis, a great­er Strength of Expression, Haec planè Deus unus verus re­git, gubernat ut placet. It is unus verus Deus, and the way of bestowing ut placet. This holy Father is most plen­tiful for this Truth, for Brevities sake, I refer you to his 2. Tom. Epist. 54. ad Maced. and to his 6. Tractat. upon St. Iohn's Gospel, Tom. 9. & passim.

The ancient Popes and Bishops of Rome, lived and died in this Faith. See Anastasius Epist. unic. ad Ana­stas. Imperat. Liberius's Testimony is above cited. Sym­machus, writing to Anastasius the Emperour, saith, Me­mento te hominem esse, ut possis rectè uti concessa tibi divi­nitus potestate, Remember (saith the holy Bishop) that thou art but a man, that thou mayst use aright that power which God hath given thee. Leo in his Epistle to Leo the Emperour, which in the Tomes of the Councels is 73. Magnum erg [...] vobis est ut diademati ve­stro de manu Domini addatur corona fidei, & de hostibus Ecclesiae triumphetis, &c. Leo knew no better, but that his temporal Diadem was no less set upon his Head by the hand of God immediately, than the Crown of Faith, and that God made him to triumph over the Enemies of the Church; yet because a cavelling Spi­rit, such as our Sectaries are inspired with, may cloud this Passage by an amphibolous Construction, I gave you a plain one Epist. 13. writing to Pulcheria the Em­press, where he saith, Sicuti Spiritu sancto didicistis, illi per omnia potestatem vestram subjicitis, cujus munere [Page 124] & protectione regnatis. Saint Leo knew not that there was any co-ordinate Power with the Emperour, He knew he was solely and immediately subordinate to God, to whom he ought of due to submit and subject himself, and that with good reason, because by his immediate Gift and Collation he had the Empire, and by his Power was protected in his Government. The holy Bishop raiseth this so high, as to intimate it is a Doctrine taught by the Holy Spirit; let the World and good men judge then, what Spirit teacheth the different or contrary Doctrine. Stephanus the sixth writing to Basilius the Emperour, saith, that He car­ried the Image of Christ himself upon Earth, vide Baron. Tom. 10. Anno 885. n. 11. It is like enough the Church then did not stand to call Emperours Christ's Vicegerents. In brief, in sum, Was it not the usual Benediction the holy Popes of Rome used, writing to Emperours and Kings, to wish to them Grace, all Health and Happiness, In eo per quem Reges regnant, in God, and by God, by whom Kings onely reign?

It were easie for us to adduce numbers of Councels to prove this truth. The Councel of Toledo, Tolet. 6. c. 14. Nefas est in dubium ejus deducere potestatem, cui omnium gubernatio supremo constat delegata judicio: It is an impious thing and unlawful, to call in question his Power, to whom to rule over all is by Divine Judg­ment and Decree collated. Amongst the Councels of Paris you have one, which after that it hath produ­ced many Testimonies of Scripture, and namely some of those we cited above, to prove the immediate con­stitution of Kings by Almighty God, concludeth thus; Constat ergo quia non actu, non voto, neque brachio forti­tudinis humanae, sed virtute, imò occulto judicio dispositio­nis divinae regnum confertur terrenum. This expression [Page 125] is worthy to be set in Letters of Gold: the Fathers there met together will not have the coming at King­doms to be from any act humane, any desire or endeavour humane, any Power humane; but from the Power of God, and the wise, the secret disposing of God in his over-ruling Providence.

If it could add any thing to what is said, we might have a cloud of Witnesses of Humane and Heathen Writers, who have been more consonant to sound Divinity in this Tenet than Puritan or Jesuit, or our new Sectaries. They never imagined Majesty to be of so low a Birth as to be begotten of any thing below; see Ovid. Fast. lib. 5. Homer calls all Kings [...]. Iupiter is little enough in his conceit to be their Nurse-father. Plautus termeth all Kings Huma­nos Ioves. Plutarch not unlike Saint Paul in this, cal­leth the King, [...] not [...], the Minister of God, not the Servant of the People. Elsewhere he is called [...], the living Image of God upon Earth; the image of his Power, his Wis­dom, his Sovereignty; Dio lib. 33. of a King speaketh thus; [...]. Dio knew no subordination to any or many, he did think a King was [...]: and that over himself, and all, and controulable by no Law; that he was not to be called to an account by men.

Because I value not these Testimonies at that rate, as to sway the Judgment, where better Proofs are not from Holy Scripture and Church, leaving them, and having sufficiently, by Authority Sacred and Ecclesiastical, proved our Conclusion, and over­thrown the Principle of Jesuit and Puritan, I come [Page 126] to see whether Reason pleadeth more for them or for us.

THE Jesuit doth willingly acknowledge, that Government, in thesi, in genere, in its abstract and generical conception is de jure Divino, de jure Naturae, is by God's establishment, and by the ne­cessary and uncontroulable dictate of Nature, howso­ever it is as true, that they hold [...], in specie, that the specification of the Government, or restraint to Monarchy, Aristocracie, Democracie, or a mixed Government of these, if it be imaginable or possible, is [...], by humane constitution. Some in these distempered Times have gone a little more wide in Errour than the Jesuit, averring that a difference of Superiour and Inferiour is an Herauldry unknown to Nature and the Gospel, solely and simply introdu­ced by the constitution and composition of man. We will therefore by God's Grace prove, that Govern­ment is de jure Naturae, necessary by God's established Ordinance; in debate of which, we are confident it will appear, that Sovereign Authority, whether it be [Page 127] fixed in one, as in Monarchy; or some few of the better sort, as in Aristocracy; or in many, as in Democracy; is derived from God immediately, and referreth to him as its proper efficient and consti­tuent.

That God is the Author of all Government amongst his Creatures, and especially of the Government of mankind, appeareth by reason. 1. The same who is the Author of all Creatures in their Being and Exi­stence, must be the Author of their Subsistence and Preservation in that Being and Existence. It is an in­fallible Maxim in the Schools, in Nature, in Scrip­ture; Qui dat esse, dat & conservare: He that giveth Being is the same that preserveth the Being. Creation [...] begun Conservation, and Conservation is a conti­nued Creation: we assume, Things made existent by Creation, cannot subsist and have continuance, but by Order, by Government; from whence naturally it followeth, God must be the Author of this Order and Government, and consequently hath not left it arbitrary to man by composition and consent to do it. Authority strengtheneth this reason. Saint Augustine writing against Faustus, saith, Aeternâ lege juberi, ut ordo naturalis conservetur; It is not arbitrary (in St. Austin's mind) to man whether Government or not; for what is [...], by Humane Consti­tution, if we will believe the Prince of Philosophers, is arbitrary; but in his judgment jubetur, it is jussum, a commanded, a necessary thing; and that aeternâ lege, by an inevitable irrepealable Ordinance, which no­thing temporary can make void. But what is this I pray you? the holy Father telleth you, Vt ordo natu­ [...]alis conservetur, that the Order God in nature hath established be preserved and conserved. If this come [Page 128] not home enough, take it with a full Commentary from Anselme, who lived long after him, and in whose days this Tenet lived in Vigor: upon 1 Cor. 15. he saith, Omnibus notum sit nullum principum, nullámque potestatem & virtutem, sive coelestium, sive terrestrium, per se habuisse aliquid principatus, vel potestatis, aut virtutis, sed ab illo à quo sunt omnia, non sol [...]m ut sint, sed etiam ut ordinata sint: Be it known to all men, saith the holy man, that none invested with Sovereignty, Do­minion, or Power, hath either Principality, or Do­minion, or Power by himself, but solely from him by whom they have not only their Being in Nature, but also to be so order'd for their better Being and Preserva­tion by Order. If Saint Austin's first Passage above ci­ted be not clear enough, full enough, hear him speak for himself, Lib. 3. Confess. cap. 8. Generale pactum est societatis humanae obedire regibus suis: It is a natural, a general, a universal Compact, Covenant of humane Society to obey their Kings. In the Fathers Dialect, Generale pactum is the dictate of Nature, and he that disclaimeth Ius naturae, the dictate of Nature, to be Ius divinum, the Law and Ordinance of God, hath made a Divorce [...]betwixt himself, and Nature, and Reason, and sound Divinity. It is observable, that he saith this Generale pactum, this Ordinance of Nature is obedire Regibus suis, to obey their Kings: I beg the Favour that our Sectaries will shew as much for Ari­stocracy or Democracy, or any other imaginable Spece of Government.

The Strength of this Argument is more seen, if you consider this; If God Almighty be not as much the Author of the order of the Government of mankind, as he is the Creator of man and mankind; then Al­mighty God hath not perfected his good Work entire­ly [Page 129] to, or towards man and mankind, and hath left man in a worse Condition than all other his Creatures in the Vniverse besides. The Consequence is necessa­ry; for it was not sufficient nor conformable to the Wisdom and Goodness of God to make man the little World, the Abridgment of the Perfections of all Crea­tures, except he provided by his Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, how he should be continued and preserved in Being and Happiness: but this without Order and Government is neither imaginable, nor really possible. These two are indivisibly, inseparably given to God in Scripture. He is [...], and [...]; the Creator of all things, and Vpholder of all things: Heb. 1. 2, 3. As all things are [...], of him, so all things are [...] by him: Rom. 11. vers. ult. Gen. 2. 1. Thus the Hea­ven and the Earth were perfected, and all the host of them. Perfecti sunt coeli & terra, & omnes exercitus eorum, saith the old Interpreter. This, that all the Creatures were very good, Gen. 1. 31. and that all were perfected, Gen. 2. 1. importeth not only that all in the Bounty of God were created in their specific and individual Na­tures good in themselves, but also that by the Decree and Ordinance of God were established to continue and to be preserved thus. But no Subsistence, no Continuance without Order and Government, reason, Sense, Experience, evidence it, confirm it Nor is Authority wanting; Greg. Nazianzen Orat. de moderat [...] [...] disput. serv. saith, [...], Order, Government, is the Mother, the Nurse, the Establisher of all things; Saint Paul, Philip 2. 5. [...]ntimateth, that without order the Sted [...]astness of Faith cannot be; He rejoyced to behold their order, and [Page 130] the Stedfastness of Faith. First, order; then Stedfast­ness of Faith; without order, then no Stedfastness in Faith, and consequently no Faith. To return to our point, that the Establishment of Order and Govern­ment is no less the immediate Work of God than the Creation of all. See Psal. 148. where the Psalmist exhorting or exciting all the Creatures to serve God; giveth the Reason, vers. 6, 7. For he commanded and they were created. He hath also established them for ever, He hath made a Decree that shall not pass.

Do we not see all the Creatures established in a Sub­ordination one to another? See we not in the lifeless and senseless Creatures that the inferiour giveth a Ta­cite Reverence, and silent Obedience to the Superiour? See we not upon the other part, that the superiour Creature hath a powerful and effectual Influence upon the Inferiour to its Good and Being, without which it could neither subsist, nor act what is fitting and con­venient to its Nature? In this Subordination, do we not see that from the lowest we ascend to a Superiour, from one Superiour to another, till at last we come to One Supream, which receiveth nothing to better it from any Inferiour at all, but only due Reverence and Obe­dience, and notwithstanding hath a powerful and be­nign Influence upon all beneath it? From whence I pray you, is this, but from the sacred and inviolable God of Nature? The impartial may judge how much this pleadeth for the Excellency of Monarchy; and how like it is to that Order God hath established in the Vniverse. Look up to Heaven, consider those blessed and happy Angels in the Heavens; is there not there this established Order, with this Subordination, and probably is consummated at last in an excellent one, supereminent to all? For this I will not contentiously [Page 131] contend, Order and Superiority with Inferiority, I am confident no intelligent moderate Divine will deny. How can it then be conceived, that God hath left it to the simple Consent and Composition of man, to make and establish a herauldry of Sub and Supra, of one above another, which neither Nature nor the Gos­pel doth warrant? To leave it thus arbitrary, that upon this presupposed Principle, mankind may be without Government at all; which Paradox cannot be maintained, seeing without Order (which natu­rally and intrinsecally includeth in it a Priority and Posteriority, a Superiority and Inferiority, a Sub and Supra) neither Being nor happy Being can be preserved; which Happiness is more requisite for man, by that he is a rational Creature, and more necessary for us here, than for the intellectual Spirits of Angels in Heaven, who have the Presence and Direction of Almighty God, in whose Presence they stand, and whose Com­mands they expect and perform.

Nor is it probable to my poor thinking, that when God Almighty in the Government of all things under the Cope of Heaven, (I mean bodily) hath made the Superiour to have by his established Ordinance a na­tive inherent Superiority, with a powerful and benign Influence upon its [...]nferiour, which is no ways derived from the Inferiour by Communication, in what pro­portion it will, and resumable upon such Exigents as the inferiour listeth, hath left to the multitude the Community, the Collective, the representative or virtual Body, to derive from it self, and communicate Sovereignty, whether in one, or few, or more in that mea­sure and Proportion pleaseth them, which they may resume at Pleasure, at least in such exigent Cases, which sometimes really may be, but oftner are fancyed to be [Page 132] such: because upon these Grounds presupposed, Re­verence and Obedience cannot but be uncertain, and the Sovereign disabled from giving and Communica­ting that Influence which is necessary for the Preserva­tion of all and every Inferiour.

I humbly entreat those who are contrary minded, to consider seriously, how Almighty God in the Cre­ation of man, before the Woman was made of him, and for him, and before he had any Child or Subject to govern, fixed Authority and Power for Govern­ment in the person of Adam. This to aver, that Go­vernment was fixed in a Governour before he had over whom he was to bear rule, is no Paradox in Philoso­phy, (if I pleased to insist philosophically to clear it) nor a more strange thing to consider, than when a Posthumus, one born after the death of his Father, by right inheriteth his Fathers Honour and Revenues. Is it not very considerable that God did not make Evah of the Earth as he did Adam, but made her of the man; and declareth too, made her for man? It is more than probable then, God in his Wisdom did not think it fit (that he was able to do it I hope none dare to deny) to make two independents, and liked best of all Governments of Mankind, The Sovereignty of one, and that with that Extent, that both Wife and Po­sterity should submit and subject themselves to him. If Adam had not fallen, Divines doubt not but Go­vernment had been. Government without Subordinati­on is not conceivable, nor Subordination without the re­al Relations of Superiority and Inferiority. It is not to be controverted, if Adam had never fallen, Aristocracy or Democracy, or mixed Government had never been existent or apparent in the world. What spece of Go­vernment had been then, I pray you tell me it? Et eris mihi [Page 133] magnus Apollo; If then in statu instituto, in the State of Innocency and Perfection God Almighty did esta­blish Government, and fix it in Adam before his wife was created, or a subject born, is it not by this evident that God judged it in his Wisdom, better that neither Woman nor Posterity should be, than that one should not be to rule all? The Argument concludes à minori ad majus, from the less to the more; if it was neces­sary in the state of innocency to establish it thus by Gods own Decree, how much more in statu p [...]ccati, in our decayed and corrupted state by Sin? And yet more to assure us, that this Sovereignty was not per­sonally fixed in Adam, nor that it was lost by Adam's Fall, or that the state of Sin requireth as more conve­nient for it, another spece of Government by more than one; after the Fall it is declared transmissible from Adam to the first-born, Gen. 4. Sub te erit appe­titus ejus, & dominaberis ei. Let any man judge then whether or not with reason it can be said, that this esta­blishment of Sub and Supra, Subject and Sovereign, be the onely constitution of man. And withal by the way, let any indifferent man judge what may be said for Monarchy, its excellency and conveniency above other species of Government; of which anon, Quest. 2. Yet for all this let none misconstrue me, as though I condemn Aristocracy and Democracy as unlawful Go­vernments. I am certainly assured, that when the Apostle said, The Powers that be are ordained of God, Rom. 13. 2. and the emphasis, the force of the word [...], which is authoritativè, (as we told before) he recalleth us to the first order and establishment of Almighty God mentioned in Scripture. And by this we may be led on to consider how Monarchia funda­tur in paterno jure, how Monarchy is founded in pa­ternal Sovereignty; and the best way to find out jura [Page 134] Majestatis, the Sovereign's Prerogative, is to consider well what in Scripture, what in Nature, we find to be the true and natural right of a Father; onely probably, because of mans corruption and untoward­ness by reason of Sin, it is like God hath allowed more to Sovereign Power to enable and secure it.

Again, To enlarge our selves a little more to clear this Point, seeing it is possible, nay, not onely possi­bly, but actually it hath fallen out so, that because of mens sins, and by Gods Judgments following Sin, a multitude may be divided from their natural Sove­reign, be dispersed by a War, a Persecution, or some other necessity imaginable, and yet meet in a strange Land, or some Territory not inhabited; this case pre­supposed, I demand, Whether or not this Populus in­conditus would not condescend presently and necessa­rily to some Sovereign Power to govern and protect them? who can deny it? Again, if all these were descended from one, or sprung up from one root, and their common Father were with them, would Nature, Equity and Humanity necessitate them to sub­mit to him; and that from him it should be heredi­tarily transmitted to his first-born, and so forward? who doubteth of this? Well: I change the case, take them not onely as inconditus populus, a disordered People, (which is conceivable where a Head is) but as [...], without one common Ruler; that is, when they are a farrago Naetionum, and diversarum fa­miliarum, a confused mixture of more Nations, more Families, when they have not one common Father. If they condescend that one shall have Sovereign Pow­er over all, and so by consent shall be surrogated in the place of the common Father, and that this Sove­reignty shall be transmitted to his eldest Son, and so forth. From whence is this Power? Necessity for­ceth [Page 135] them to a Government, (without it they can have neither Society, nor Safety, nor Peace, nor Hap­piness) but all their part is onely to design or declare the man, which is onely potestas designativa, potestas deputativa, but the Power is onely from Almighty God the potestas collativa, the Authority, the Sovereignty is of God, from God, God's. The reason is evident, the Sub­stitute must have it by the same hand, by the same means he had it, in whose place he was substituted. By what is said he cometh in the place of a common Father, and the Father's right is immediately from God, and of God. I am ashamed to resume again that the Apostle saith, [...], the eminent Powers that be, are [...], the Ordinan­ces, the authoritative Establishments of God, no less than the Authority of a Father above his Son, or of a Wife above her Husband, is of God, and from God immediately, and do not refer to the Wife or Children, as their immediate Donor and Author. God hath spoken once, twice have I heard it, that Power be­longeth to the Lord: Psal. 62. 11. If you love to hear St. Chrysostom speak, read his words in a proper place upon Rom. 13. where he saith, [...]&c. [...] [Page 136] The sum and sense of all is this: Because paritie in Honour and Power always worketh War and Contention, God to prevent this Mischief, hath ordained many kinds of Powers, and as many kinds of Subjections, as the man to have Power over his Wife, a Father to have Pow­er over the Son, a King to rule, and Subjects to obey: And this is not only apparent amongst men, but also in the very body of every man, where some members are superiour to other in Worth and Power, to com­mand the Inferiour: This established Order hath place amongst irrational Creatures; as Bees and Cranes do follow one, Flocks and Herds do the same. In the Sea this is to be seen, where many Fishes do follow one as King, war with him against others, and go following him to places far distant from home. Anar­chy, the want of Order and Government, is altoge­ther and always evil, the Mother and Cause of all Confusion and Mischief.

The Result of all is, Government is necessary, as for the Subsistence of all Creatures, so especially for the good and comfortable Society of men. This is not left arbitrary to men, but is by the inviolable Or­dinance of God established. Now if it fall forth so, that a multitude disordered, dispersed by any unavoid­able Necessity, be without Government, nature over­ruled by Gods inviolable Ordinance forceth them to submit and subject to some to govern them, and to have Sovereignty over them, whether they resolve upon one, upon some few, or many: The Designation of the person, or persons, is from this disordered rout, but it is [Page 137] God who investeth them with the Sovereign Power.

We clear it thus: as, Posito generationis fundamento, when a Father begetteth a Child, consequitur ex ordi­natione divina & institutione, vel naturali, vel morali sub­jectio filii ad patrem; it is necessary by the inevitable Ordinance of Almighty God, that the Son begotten be subject to the Father: So it is by moral divine Institution, that when any People have deputed and designed the Person or Persons of the Government, or Governours; the Collation and Donation of this Pow­er and Sovereignty is from God effectivè, effectually; and from the Community but consecutivè, because con­sequitur ad electionem populi, ex divina & ordinatione & collatione, it followeth and is inseparably conjoyned by God and his Appointment. Take the like; A wo­man marriageable in her own Power maketh choice of a man to be her Husband, her Choice and Consent giveth not to him marital Power, but this Right and Prerogative of the Husband is from Almighty God; for who dare say that in the woman is primarily and radically marital Power?

Consider yet a little more; the King elected to be a Sovereign to such a headless, a disordered Multitude as we presuppose, is surrogated in the place of a com­mon Father to the whole Community over which he is to bear rule. The Scripture expresseth him so, Exod. 20. Command. 5. Honora patrem, Honour thy Father. The Heathen conceived it so; See Aristotel. Ethic. lib. 8. c. 10. and Polit. lib. 1. c. 2. Homer. Odys. 1. from which two Consequents unavoidable are deduced. 1. First, as the natural Father (suppose that Adam were living, had he not just Title to the Monarchy of the World?) receiveth not any paternal Right, Power, or Authority, from his Posterity, or those are come of his Loyns; but hath this from God [Page 138] and the ordinance of Nature, which is jus divinum (as we have said) no more can the Father surrogated▪ in the place and power of the natural Father he said to receive his Right, his Power, his Sovereignty from the Community. 2. The second Consequent and Con­sequence is, that according to the maxim of the Law, Surrogatus gaudet privilegiis ejus cui surrogatur; and Qu [...] succedit in locum succedit in jus, the Person surro­gated hath all the Power, the Priviledge, the Person had Right to, in whose place he is surrogated. When a man hath no Son by Nature or Issue of his own, a Son adopted is entituled to all the Right, Power, Revenue, was transmissible to a Son begotten of his own Body. A base born Son legitimated, is invested with all the Right, Title, Honour, Inheritance, was due to a lawful begotten Son. The reason is evident is pregnant, both the one and the other, the adopted Son, and the base Son legitimated are surrogated into the place of the lawful and natural begotten Son. Why then, I pray you, shall not, should not the sur­rogated Father by Election enjoy the Priviledges and Rights of the Father natural? Methinks more, for the warrant of the two latter cannot be raised to any high­er Constitution than humane Appointment, but the other of the surrogated Father floweth and followeth the inviolable and unrepealable Ordinance of Almigh­ty God. For my part a King designed in such case, ought, should enjoy his paternal Right, no less than Melchisedeck or Abraham. I am the more powerfully inclined to this Opinion; that I see in holy Writ, that it pleased God in his Wisdom and Justice to transfer the Right of the first born, to the younger, the surrogated was not one whit lessened in his Prero­gative and Power, but had fully entirely what was due [Page 139] to the first born, in whose place he was surrogated. Consider this in Iudah, when Reubens Right of Pri­mogeniture was forfeited, and he with his Posterity in­vested with it, and surrogated in his place. See, read and consider the Royal Prerogatives by the Spirit of Prophecy bestowed upon Iudah, Gen. 49. of which by Gods Grace more largely, Quaest. 4. The like may be seen in David, whom God preferred to Eliab his elder Brother.

It is a ruled case in Law, Modus acquirendi non tollit jus possidendi; the way by which we come to have jus quaesitum (as Jurists term it) the Right to any thing, (provided it be lawful, otherwise that Maxim is of undoubted Truth, Quod ab initio non valuit progressis temporis convalescere non potest, long Possession cannot secure an injust Title; it is not my purpose now to enter upon Vsucapio, or Ius proscriptionis) is not pre­judiced by the way by which we obtain it. Iacob had no less Right to the Birth-right, having it by a just Title, than Esau. The Jurists give the reason of this, Quomodocun (que) res est acquisita, possessio est de jure gentium, if a man come at any thing by a legal Title, by the Law of Nations, that is, by the Law of common Equity, the Possession or Apprehension is entire and valid. Now apply all this, when a People disorder­ed are without Government, and destitute of a Go­vernour, to whom by a Title and Right of Nature it is due, condescend to design or chuse one for their Ruler, why shall he not, should he not enjoy, inhe­rit the Right of the deficient Proprietor? and seeing the Right Proprietor had this Right by God, by Na­ture; how can it be, but howsoever the Designation of the Person is from the disordered Community, yet the Collation of the Power is from God immedi­ately, [Page 140] and from his sacred and inviolable Ordinance? And what can be said against modus acquirendi, the way by which such a one elected obtaineth this right? for seeing God doth not now send Samuels or Elishas to anoint or declare Kings, we are in his ordinary Providence to conceive the Designa­tion or Election of the Person, is the manifestati­on of God's Will, voluntas signi, as the School speak­eth; just so, as when the Church designeth one to sacred Orders.

In few words take all with you. God who made all things is the Author of Order, by which all things are preserved; without Order there can be no Being, but all must either turn to Annihilation, or to a con­fused Chaos. God in Scripture is no less the God of Order than the Creator of all things. In Heaven a­mongst the Angels we see it established. Amongst all Creatures betwixt the cope of Heaven and the center of the Earth it is, a sweet subordination, a sweet harmo­ny is seen; the Inferiour giving a tacite reverence, a due obedience to its Superiour, the Superiour having an over-ruling Power, with a benign influence upon all Inferiours to it. Can we then dream to ourselves, that God did leave man without this mean of subsistence, that it was Arbitrary to him to appoint and specifie either no Government at all, or what kind or spece of Government he pleased? Plato in his Republick can tell such a man, that he that can think he may subsist without a Governour, must either be God, or something worse than nothing. Hath God provided so for all Creatures in Heaven and Earth, that he hath established a Government amongst all, and that con­form to every one's nature, and hath he left man, in some respects the most excellent and perfect of all [Page 141] Creatures, the Abridgment of the whole World, the Mi­crocosme, without this established order? Do we not see that before the Woman came into the World, or a Child was born, God fixed Government in the per­son of Adam? Did he not secure it, that it should be transmitted to the first born, that Government amongst mortal men should be immortal? and seeing Sin with much more Misery and Mischief hath brought into the World, that men should sometimes be driven from their natural and proper Father, King and Sove­reign, that for their Subsistence in Happiness and plen­ty, and Protection from Evil and Mischief, they are forced to chuse one or more, and to surrogate him or them in his place, to whom by God and Nature it was due to bear rule over them; that he or they coming in the place and power of the natural Father or King, have his or their Sovereignty, not by a voluntary Consent, but by a necessary act; and that the Power is not by Derivation from the Community, but by im­mediate Donation from Almighty God.

IF there were no more to disprove this popular Te­net, That Sovereignty in a King is by Derivation from the Community, this is more than enough, that it is built upon a false Ground, for it presupposeth and taketh as granted, that in the Community, whether col­lective [Page 142] of all Individuals, or virtual and representative by some in place of all, there is inherent a Potestas acti­va rectiva, a ruling active Power, which is most false. If we will trust Philosophy, Natura nalli dat virtutem sine actu: & cujus est potentia ejus est actus. Aristot. de sornn. & vigil. Potentia sine actu otiosa est & inutilis▪ And the Light of Nature teacheth, that Deus & natu­ra nihil faciunt frustra: God and Nature hath not be­stowed upon any thing in the Universe, a Power which is idle and to no purpose, as certainly that Power must be, which is never actuated. But now this Power of actual ruling was never acted by the Community, it was never seen nor exercised by them. The collective or di [...]usive body comprehends with [...] its Verge, all and every individual. Now how is it imaginable, that in all the People in gross, in com­mune, this Potestus activa reg [...]minis, or Potestas activi re­gi [...]ninis, this power of actuating Government is sea [...]ed as in its prime, principal, and most proper Seat and Subject? Government intrinsecally, essentially, includes in it a specifick Distinction of regentes and recti, some to be Governours, and some to be governed. If all and every one hath this Power above-mentioned, where then are those that are to be ruled and governed?

If they would speak rationally, there can no other Power be conceived to be inherent in the Community naturally and properly, but only potestas passiva reg [...]mi­nis, a Capacity or Susceptibility to be governed by one or by more. This Capacity in the Community is at­tended with an appetitus naturalis, and necessarius ad regimen, a natural, necessary, and vehement Inclination and Desire to submit to Government, by which it is to be stated into an happier and safer Posture and Con­dition. Just so, as Materia prima & vaga appetit for­mam [Page 143] quâ actuatur & perficitur; as the first matter (of which natural Philosophy speaketh) hath a Desire to be united to some Form, by which receiving a parti­cular Determination to a specifick and individual En­tity it is actuated and perfected: or as Debilior se [...]s appetit naturaliter sexum nobiliorem quo perficitur. This Capacity in the Community, being natural and com­mon to all, and having from it issuing out a vehement desire to actual Government, obliges all Ex vi natur [...] subesse imperio, by the Law and Dictate of Nature to submit to actual Government; which Desire or Pro­pension, if you reflect upon it, praescindendo à communi, as it is in every individual and particular Person of this Body, is not meerly and properly voluntary: because, howsoever Nature dictates, that Government is neces­sary, for the maintenance of the Society, for Happi­ness, for Safety and Protection; yet every singular and individual person, by Corruption and self-love hath naturalem repugnantiam, a natural Averseness and Re­pugnancy to submit to any. Singuli r [...]g [...]um in pectore ger [...]mus; the lowest Bramble willingly will not submit to the tallest Cedar: for this Cause Saint Hierom [...]aith, [...]ex nolentibus pr [...]est. It is despair to attain at Go­vernment that makes the greatest and most part to submit to Government; and that they see and feel, that without Government none can enjoy Society or Safety, this forceth that natural Repugnancy, which is severally and singularly in every one to give way to that universal, natural and necessary Propension of Nature to Government.

This appetitus [...] salis and naturalis, this vehe­ment necessary Propension and desire to Government is not unlike to that act of the understanding by which it assenteth to the first Principles of undeniable, of un­controulable [Page 144] Truth, which are evident ex vi termino­rum, by evident Appearance in the essential Connexi­on of the Terms; or is not unlike to that first act of mans Will by which necessarily fertur in summum bo­num, it is carried to it's chief good: both of these in sound Philosophy, are not actus liberi, free acts of the Understanding and Will, but necessarii, such as cannot otherwise be: just so this Consent and Submission to Government, which is the brood of that natural Pro­pension to Government, for the Reasons above speci­fied, is not liber, not so free, as it may chuse or reject, but in some kind it is necessarius, elicited by Force, Constraint or Necessity, that all and every one are ne­cessitated to it by that Necessity of Obedience Nature hath layed upon them: from what is said rationally and by necessary Consequence it followeth that this Consent in the Community, and every individual is not purè activus, purely and simply active, but hath more Alliance with a consensus passivus, a necessary ne­cessitated Consent: from this then it is more than appa­rent, that by that our new Statists call the voluntary Consent of the People, nothing is bestowed upon him or them in whom the Sovereignty is fixed; nor can the Community be a Donor of any Right or Power but in Submission and Subjection. It will puzzle infi­nitely our New-state-Philosophy to make any thing in it's kind passive really active, and collative of positive Acts and Effects; except that as they have changed Faith, so they will overturn true Reason: from hence it will follow necessarily, that by Government esta­blished, the People and Community are stated in a more perfect, a more happy Condition. Solomon knew it well, Prov. 11. 14. V [...]i non est gubernator po­pulus corruit, where there is no Governour the people [Page 145] perisheth. It is not once but often repeated in the Book of the Judges, when Idolatry, Rapine and Rapt abounded, In diebus illis non erit Rex in Israele, in those dayes there was no King in Israel. Saint Paul homologates this Doctrine, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. intimating that there can neither Peace nor quiet, godliness nor honesty be where Kings are not. This natural propen­sion, necessitated by these considerations, over-ruleth and overcometh the natural repugnancy that is in every individual, in every singular one. Again, this being the Dictate of Nature, it cannot but refer to God, as to its immediate Author, for God is the Author of Nature.

Nature hath taught natural men this truth, more shame it is for us, who would be thought Christians, to be ignorant of it, or to oppose it. Aristotle saith, lib. 1. Polit. c. 1. & 2. that Man is by Nature [...], made and ordained for Society. Plato in his fancied Republick telleth us, that he must be God and not man, that can imagine to have that All-sufficien­cy to live without Society, and Society without Go­vernment is not conceivable, is not imaginable. The same Aristotle saith, that Civitas est de natura; that Government is not Arbitrary, but necessary, by the over-ruling command of Nature.

In brief, the result of all this Argument is, that Pow­er to rule or act the Sovereign, is not naturally inherent in the Community, the collective or diffusive Body; all the People have is a capacity to be governed, with a ve­hement desire to be stated in a condition of Peace and Safety, which cannot be effected without an union with an actual Government in some, to which the Com­munity submitteth and subjecteth passively more than actively, every individual having within him by in­bred [Page 146] corruption an actual repugnancy to submit to any, is necessitated to admit of Government by force of that natural inclination to preserve himself in Peace, Plenty, and Safety; this being most true in it self, and verified by the experience and inward testimony of every one who hath not shaken off natural reason; How can it be made appear that this Sovereignty, this actual Power to rule, is derived, transferred from the Community all collectively▪ considered, or every one diffusively considered, or from a representative body, Feoffees of trust from them? A Countrey Clown can tell you, Nemo potest dare quod non habet; It is impos­sible to give to another that we have not our selves: and Jurists do tell us, Nemo potest transferre in alium quod non habet in [...]se.

What may be judged of their Extravagancies by what is said, is more than apparent. How dare they be so impertinent, so impudent to say, that in the People there is an underived Majesty? It is right down contradictory to Scripture, Dan. 2. 37. & 5. 18. It is said, God giveth Kingdom, Power, Strength, Glory and Majesty. More absurd is that, that they with brazen­face affirm, this Majesty in a King is derived onely cumulativè, communicativè, so that the People are not devested of it, but that in certis casibus, in some cases (which if they be not real, People shall fansie them at pleasure) this same Sovereignty and Majesty is resu­mable. An old Philosopher would laugh at him who would presume to say, that a matter passive actuated and perfected by Union with a Form, could at plea­sure shake off that specifick and individual Form, and marry it self to another: they may with as good rea­son say, that a Husband hath Marital Power from his Wife, and to gratifie that Sex, with which they are [Page 147] very prevalent, they may endow every Wife with that Power to resume her Freedom, and to marry to another at pleasure.

A third reason against this Paradox in State and Di­vinity is this, there is no warrant in Scripture, nor doth Nature teach, that God hath fixed all Govern­ment, Sovereignty and Majesty, in the Community, as in its prime and proper subject. The fittest opportunity to evidence this Right and Prerogative of the People, was certainly when Saul was anointed and appointed the first King of Israel. Till this time God did retain the Government in his own hands, and actuated it by the hands of Moses, Ioshua, &c. as his Viceroyes and Deputies: the Text of Scripture is plain in this, 1 Sam. 8. 7. God saith to Samuel, They have not re­jected thee but me. Again, 1 Sam. 10. 18. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I brought Israel out of Egypt, and delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and of them that oppressed you. Verse 19. And you have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of your adversities and tribulations; and ye have said unto him, nay, but set a King over us. Again, 1 Sam. 12. 12. And when you saw that Nahash the King of the Children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, nay, but a King shall reign over us, when the Lord your God was your King. To these passages joyn Gideon's words, Iudges 8. 23. When they offered the Kingdom here­ditary to him and his Posterity, he replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my Son rule over you. The Lord shall rule over you. These places prove clearly a [...], God's ruling of this People by his substitu­ted Deputies. When this extraordinary way, and peculiar to this People onely, was to cease, and a King to be established over them like to the Kings of other Nations, it was most opportune and high time to de­clare [Page 148] this Native inherent right of the People, in whom is this National and fancied underived Majesty, and to leave them by their right to transfer their right upon him whom they judged most fitting and able to be King. But here Ne mu Lucilianum, not one syllable for it, not the least insinuation: Nay, you have point blank the contrary, a virtual destructory of this ima­gined and conceited Right; as at large before we have expressed and cleared: for Scripture vindicateth to God, as proper and peculiar to himself, the De­signation of the Person of Saul, and the collation and bestowing of Royal Sovereignty. It is worth your notice, that Scripture recordeth, that after he was de­signed and declared King. The Spirit of God came upon him: which without wronging the letter of the Text, may be interpreted of God's Grace enabling him for the charge. The very Heathen did acknowledge, that in Kings there was [...], something from above be­stowed above the ordinary stream of Endowments incident to man, which how it may subsist with a de­rivation of all their Majesty and Power from the multitude, let them judge who have not made a Di­vorce betwixt themselves and sound Reason and Judgement.

By no means let us neglect to observe, that God when he designed Saul to be King, collated upon him Royalty, he left no other act to his People but to ad­mit him, which was not left to their voluntary de­termination to admit or reject him at pleasure. Nor is that to be over-leap't, that God would not allow them by compact and contract to make their own conditions, to limit and enlarge their King at pleasure; but gave himself to the subject jus Regis, the Law of the King, to which the Subjects were to submit in [Page 149] the hardest case. He prescribed Lex imperandi, a Law and Rule to Kings to rule and reign by, Deut. 17. But at the admittance of Saul, he giveth Legem paren­di, the Subject a Law of Obedience and Patience, 1 Sam. 8. which is so peremptory in the extremest acts of Tyranny and Oppression, that no other Reme­dy is left but Prayers and Tears, Patience, and cry­ing to the Lord in the day of Trouble and Oppres­sion. Of this by God's Grace more hereafter, qq. 3, 4, 5.

A fourth Argument against this popular Errour and Deceit is this; if all Sovereignty and Supreme Power were originally inherent in the People, and from thence derived to the King; then undoubtedly De­mocracie were the best of all Governments. The rea­son is pregnant; that spece and kind of Government which cometh nearest to its original, must be sound­er and more perfect; but, Democracie, which is the Government of many, cometh nearer to the multitude than Aristocracie, where some few of the better sort, or than Monarchy, where one hath the Supremacy and Government. The nearer to the Fountain the Stream runneth more pure and clear. This Argument cannot well be taken off; and it is a strong Argument changing the terms in the assump­tion for Monarchy; it proyeth the excellency of Mo­narchy above all Governments, because it approach­eth nearest to the Government of God, and God him­self who is the Author of all Government; as the Ar­gument before is made, the Conclusion is most false; because, howsoever all Writers of Politicks in many things concerning Policy, differ as much amongst themselves as Clocks, or our Sectaries, yet all unani­mously accord and agree in this, that of all Govern­ment, [Page 150] Democracie and popular Government is the worst; and do prefer Aristocracie to it by many stages; which likewise enforceth our Argument for the excellency of Monarchy; for the farther you re­cede from Monarchy, as in Democracie, the worse the Government is; and the nearer you approach to it, as in Aristocracy, the Government is the better. Some have a nearer approach to one than many, and ma­ny are at a greater distance with one than some few: which things duely considered and rightly pressed, will bring home the Conclusion, that Formalis & completa gubernandi ratio est in Monarchia: the proper, specifick, formal, and complete essence of Government is in the Sovereignty of one. Review and consi­der all Politicians whom you will, they will grant, that Suprema potestas est in indivisibili posua, [...]upremacy and Sovereignty is an indivisible and undivided Entity; How can you share it then amongst more or many? Nay, this forceth them to make Aristocracie, which is the Government of more than one, and Democracie, which is of many; that they must be considered as unum analogi [...], one by analogy, not univocally and pro­per [...]y so; judgd then of the force of our Argument.

For any reason I yet appr [...]end or can guess at, if Sovereignty were primtively fixed in a multitude, and from thence derived to any or many, I cannot judge but that Democracie is the onely spece of Go­vernment warranted by Divine Institution; and that all other kinds of Government are unlawful, and their Acts sinful; or if any should attempt to change Democracie into Monarchy, it were an high impiety: which things how they may be admitted, let our new State-Divines consider and declare. Sure I am Saint Austin was of the opinion, that a corrupted De­mocracie, [Page 151] without sin, might be changed into Mo­narchy; See him, lib. 1. de liber. arbitr. c. 6. where he saith, Si depravatus populus rem privatam Reip. prae­ferat atque habeat vaenale suffragium; corruptusque ab [...]is qui honores amant, regnum in se factiosis conscelera­tisque committat; nonne item rectè si quis tunc extite­rit vir bonus qui plurimum possit, adimat huic populo potestatem dandi honores, & in paucorum bonorum vel etiam unius redigat arbitrium? Euod. Et ita rectè. Saint Austin and Euodius agree in this, that if they who bear Rule in Democracie do corrupt Justice, and put the Government into corrupt mens hands, and such as are factious, a good powerful man upon such an exigent, may mould the Government into an A­ristocracie or Monarchy. Good Saint Austin, for all his Learning and Piety, knew not the Jesuit and Puritans ground; that all Sovereignty and Suprema­cy, all Majesty underived was in the multitude, and that in their Power it is to change the Government to what guise they will; he knew not that this was to rob the People of their native and proper Right, when one man should reduce Democracie, without the consent of the People, to Monarchy or Aristocracie; nor knew he that it was an unjust and Sacrilegi­ous intrusion upon God's Right in the People to do it without their Act, their Consent, their Compact. To this you may add another Testimony of that Fa­ther, which virtually implieth the same, you may read it, lib. 9. de. Civ. Dei, c. 21. where, speaking of the declination of the Government of Rome from the second Carthage War, and the restoring of Rome to her glory by Augustus coming to the Empire, he saith, Hoc toto tempore usque ad Caesarem Augustum, qui vide­tur non adhuc vel ipsorum opinione gloriosum, sed contenti­osum [Page 152] & exitiosum, & planè jam enervem ac languidam libertatem omnimodo extorsisse Romanis, & ad regale ar­bitrium revocasse cuncta, & quasi morbidâ vetustate col­lapsum veluti instaurasse ac renovasse Rempublicam. The Passage is very considerable. The purpose of the Ho­ly Father is to take off that foul aspersion which the Heathen put upon Christ and Christian Religion, that all mischief came into the World since they were heard of. He proveth by the Roman story, that greater mischief before was upon the Romans, and that from the second Carthaginian War the Roman Grandeur was in its declination and decaying, and at and about the coming of Christ in the World was restored again to its Magnificence and Splendour, by the happy▪ Monarchy and Empire of Augustus Caesar: which happy change Saint Austin commends, he con­demns it not: and so do the Heathen Writers: which the Father could never have done if he had been of the mind, that no man cometh rightly by Sove­reignty but by derivation from the People. It is not onely Saint Austin's, but other holy Fathers observa­tion, that God in his wise Providence disposed so of the Government of the World, as to put the best and greatest part of the World under the Monarchy of one, that thus he might facilitate the progress of the Go­spel throughout the World. It is foretold in Scrip­ture, that Kings shall be the Nurse-fathers of the Church, our Opposites cannot shew the like of Ari­stocracies and Democracies, nor this day do we see it, or in Ancient storie find it recorded. It is most like, Foelicitas temporalis, Happiness temporal, under Au­gustus, the sweetest of Emperours, came into the World, with Foelicitas aeterna and spiritualis, with eter­nal happiness, when our King and Saviour came into the World. Of this more. q. 2.

[Page 153] Our fifth Argument to prove, that Sovereignty in a King is not from the Community or multitude, is this, If this Sovereignty be natively inherent in the Multitude, it must be proper to every individual of the Community; if it be so, and must be so ac­cording to their Tenet, which is enforced by that other as groundless and false State-maxim, which they hold and maintain, that Quisque nascitur liber, every one is born a Free-man in the Forrest; then it will necessarily follow, that the Generation and Po­sterity of those who have first contracted with their elected King, are not bound to that covenant, but upon their Native Right and Liberty may start aside, appoint another King, and that without breach of covenant, or any just Title in the King of their Fa­thers to force or reduce them to his obedience: an ex­cellent way devised to preserve King and Kingdom in Peace and Safety. Might not the Posterity of Io­shua, and the Elders living in his time, who con­tracted with the Gibeonites to incorporate them, al­though in a serving condition, have made void their Fore-fathers covenant? And if this be true, How com­eth it to pass that the Progeny of Ionadab did hold themselves bound to keep the prescript and strict Rule of their Father? The Rechabites, it seemeth, had not learned this point of Native Liberty.

ALthough we would give to our Sectaries, (which we will never grant) that all Sovereignty in a King is derived from the people immediately; yet we deny, and with good reason, that it is not by Communication, so that they may at pleasure, or up­on some necessary exigent in certain cases resume it, so that habitually they retain it, and are not totally divested of it; but in some case of Defail­ance, suppletivè they may exercise, it and supply th [...] Defects of Government in the King, Erecting Ta­bles, authorizing Parliaments, appointing close Commii­tees, making and sealing, subscribing and swearing Cove­nants, &c.

Their ground is, because all Sovereignty is by vo­luntary Consent and Compact derived from the Peo­ple to the King. This we have sufficiently disproved: to strengthen this, they equivocate in a Maxim, Con­stituens constituto potior est, the constituent is above the constituted in Dignity and Power. If they knew any thing in Law, or were ruled by Reason, they could know that there be two sorts of Constitutions; 1. The one is, when Constitutio ab initio est voluntatis, & ejus effectus perpetuo pendet à voluntate constituentis; when the Constitution is voluntary at first flowing from the [Page 155] free elicite act of the Will, and whose Effect and Force dependeth ever from the Liberty and free Will of the Constituent; as when a King maketh a Viceroy or Judge durante beneplacito, enduring Pleasure; or when a man maketh a Legacy and leaveth so much to such a one after his death, he may make it void to morrow, if Death prevent him not, except he hath appended the last Codicil, as Lawyers speak; in such like things Voluntas hominis est ambulatoria, a man's Will is not denuded of it's Liberty to re [...]ile or change; the Will of man being, as Philosophers speak, Domi­na sui actûs, Mistress and Queen of all her elicite and commanded Acts. It is a ruled Case in Law, Nulla obligatio consistere potest, quae à voluntate promittentis sta­tum accipit: No Obligation can absolutely tye where all its Strength dependeth merely upon the free Will of him that promiseth. 2. The other Constitution is, Quae ab initio est voluntatis, posteà verò effectum habet ne­cessitatis; which at the first is by the free Elect and commanded Act of the Will, but afterward is attend­ed with an Effect of Necessity, that maketh it irrepeal­able, irrevocable: as when a man maketh over the Right of his proper Goods to another, this is at first a voluntary Action, but the Donor having denuded himself of jus proprietatis, of his entire Right, and the Donee hath jus possessionis, hath apprehended Possessi­on, this act is firm and stable, whether the way of making over be titulo lucrativo, or titulo onerosa, free­ly done by gift, or for money, and as good in Ex­change, or any other way lawful, this act is no ways revocable, although it be made to the Disadvantage of the Donor. If any should attempt to resume this again, it were an Act against common Equity; Scrip­ture pleadeth for this Truth, Psal. 15. 4. He shall [Page 154] [...] [Page 155] [...] [Page 156] dwell in the Mountain of the Lord, who [...] sweareth to his hurt and changeth not. Ananias and Sapphira might without Sin have kept their Goods which they conse­crated to God and his Church, if they had not inter­posed the act of devoting or consecrating them; but this done, to detain but a part of it, (and it may be for some exigent case of Necessity they preconceived) it was high Sacriledge, and they payed dear for it, Acts. 5. There can be no civil Commerce, no Truth or Faith in dealing, in bargaining, if you open this back door, than when a man hath contracted, cove­nanted to his Disadvantage, he may resume it, and put himself in statu quo. If it were granted that Roy­alty in a King were by Contract betwixt him and his People, and resumable by the People upon the Appear­ance of Disadvantage, it cannot stand but in all in­feriour Contracts of less Concernment the like should hold.

Is there any act more freely done, than when a wo­man not subject to paternal Authority, of perfect Age, under no Guardian, maketh Choice of an Husband, and as she fancyeth? And I pray you, may she after­ward shake him off at Pleasure? God forbid. By Mo­ses Law, we know the Husband for Jealousie or Dis­content might have given to his Wife a Bill of Di­vorcement; that the Woman had the like Power we read it not. In Gods case which most nearly con­cerneth himself in the case of Idolatry, the Husband was bound to dilate, accuse, and witness against his Wife; the Father against the Children: but there is no Charge to the Wife to accuse or witness against the Husband, or the Children against the Father; a clear Evidence how God Almighty would have the Inferi­our in Reverence, Duty, and Obedience, to carry to­wards [Page 157] the Superiour, that if Idolatry against God otherwise could not be made appear, God would have no Remonstrance this way. God chused rather to suffer in his own Cause, than that lawful Authority should be wronged: Deut. 13. The tye betwixt King and People, Prince and Subject is greater, is stricter than any betwixt man and Wife, Father and Son.

If our Adversaries will believe Iurists, they were of a contrary Opinion, and did not imagine, that the People transferring all their Right upon the Prince, did habitually or in any case retain it or any part of it, that in case of male-administration, they might supply it, and in any Exigent resume it, or make over the Right to whom they would, over-lording their Prince, but that they were totally and irrevocably in­vested with all power conceivable to be in the People. Although this Opinion hath not the Truth of all the Kings Right in it divinely enough, yet is it a safer Opinion than that of late days hath been taken up and maintained. Vlpian a renowned Jurist, L. 1. ad Sc. Tupil. saith, Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege Regia, quae de ejus imperio lata est, popu­lus ei & in eum omne suum & imperium & potestatem conferat. Vlpian knew no better, but that The legisla­tive Power was in the Prince, and that because the King is entirely invested with all the Power and Empire was in the People. It is probable, he reflecteth upon the De­mocratical Government which was before the Empire, and so determineth, that what Sovereignty was in the Democracy, was with its full Extent as entirely and properly in the Prince. Vlpian reserveth no Power to the People, for the saith expresly, Populus ei & in eum omne suum Imperium & potestatem confert; which ground laid, it is absurd to say, that in any [Page 158] case, or upon any Exigent, the people or Communi­nity, diffusive, collective, or representative, can re­estate themselves into that Sovereignty, so entirely ir­reversibly made over. Ex ore duum & trium: Take another witness (for in Law, Singularis testis nullus) and a great one too; Bartolus ad L. Hostes. 24. F. de eapt. & post. saith, Tertio modo indicitur bellum publicum, quando indicitur à populo Ramano, vel ab Imperatore, in quem translata est omnis jurisdictio populi Romani. Barto­lus knew not any Power was reserved in any Case or Exigent to the People; and if you consider him well upon the place cited, the Militia and Iura belli belong to the Prince. To these two add Seneca, who knew no mixed government, but only three Speces, Monar­chy, Aristocracy, and Democracy; Epist. 4. he wri­teth thus: Interdum populus est quem timere [...] interdum si ea civitatis disciplina est, ut plurima per Se­natum transigantur, gratiosi in ea timentur viri▪ interdu [...] singuli, quibus potestas populi & in populum data est. Se­neca who knew not Monarchy to be from God imm [...] ­diately, knew so much, that coming from the People, the King was so invested with the Power of the People▪ and Power over the People, that the People were totally divested of that Power, and in no case no exigent had any Power over or above the Prince.

If what is said be not sufficient, let us remember the Story of Valentinian the Emperour, when by the Army he was declared Emperour; they earnestly begged [...] him to joyn Valens his Brother with him in the Em­pire; His answer was, ut me ad imperandum eligereti [...] in vestra situm erat potestate, O milites: at postquam me elegistis, quod petitis in meo est arbitrio, non vestro. Vo­bis tanquam subditis competit parere, mihi quae agend [...] sunt cogitare. O Souldiers, before you did make choic [...] [Page 159] of me to be Emperour, it was in your Power; but the Choice being made, that which you now desire is in my Power, not in yours. It is your part and Du­ty as Subjects to obey, it is in my Power to determine upon what is fit for the Government.

If all we have said cannot work upon our new Sta­tists to forsake their Errour, we pray them to consider, whether or not this ground laid, will not authorize the Corporations and Shires, upon male-administrati­on of the Trust committed to their Commissioners in the House of Commons, or upon Jealousies and Fears, to resume and make void that Trust committed to them, and warrant them in case of Defailance to do better for themselves and Country. Sure I am, Bu­chanan one of their greatest Authors holds, that if a Parliament determine in a matter of Law, it can esta­blish nothing but a [...] a preparatory precogniti­on, and that the Influence of a legislative Power is not, till it be approved and admitted by the Community. The Observator fearing this Tenet of Buchana, may make void the Orders of the House, leaving here his Master, and averreth, That the Right of the Gentry and Commonalty is entirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons, and will have their Orders irrevocable. A wonder it is that they are so favourable in their own case, and so unjust and unequal in the Kings case: for if it were granted, which is most false, that all Pow­er in the King were by Trust devolved upon him from the People, what is the Reason of the Difference that he shall not have that Right as entirely, as irrevocable as the Commissioners of Counties and Corporations? Reason pleadeth more for this in the King than them, for otherwise neither Sovereignty nor the person of the Sovereign can be secured, nor any act of Govern­ment [Page 160] certain, but mutable at the pleasure of an erring and inconstant Multitude. If any will seriously consi­der, they will find that what they take from the King they give to their Feoffees of Trust, to Tables, to Par­liaments. These in case of Necessity have an arbitrary Power; the Prince in no case can have it, exercise it. Those have the entire right of the Community devol­ved upon them, and the people are totally divested of their native Right; the King hath his only in a fi­duciary way, some part is habitually reserved, that in some Cases the People may resume it, may practise it. So in their Church it is not lawful to a Clergy­man to meddle in secular Businesses; Their Clergy (if they be worthy of name) may, do meddle in all Treaties of Peace, Councils of War, in Commissions for reversing fundamental Laws of Church and State in other Kingdoms. This their practise is Protestatio contra factum, it giveth a Lye to their Profession. I think verily in after ages it shall scarce be believed that amongst Christians, and such as would be accounted the best of Christians, such Paradoxes could be main­tained, and such monstrous Practises acted, with such sacrilegious robbing of Prince and Priest of their sa­cred Right. It is high time for Prince and Priest to strengthen one another, and neither of them to think that by making the other à publici odii victima, a Sa­crifice to malignant Malice, to preserve himself. It is high time for the People to consider, how by such Do­ctrine and Practises they are plunged in such a bottom­less Gulf of Miseries, of Calamities, that none but dex­tera excelsi, the right hand of the Lord can rescue, can deliver them: How an arbitrary, tyrannical, civil Power is put upon them, and established in the wrong hand, that they dare not pretend to Liberty of Person, [Page 161] or propriety of Goods: How such a Tyrannical An­tichristian Hierarchy of some few Patriarchs, Lords over their Consciences, make them run into Rebelli­on, and kill both Body and Soul. If these things, these most fearful of all Judgments, cannot awake us, it is like we are given over to destruction, more for the Terrour and Example of others, than that we can expect to see the Glory and Mercy of God return again upon this Church and State. Lord of his mer­cy make us turn to him timely by Repentance, that he may turn to us in mercy, make his Face shine upon us, that we may be saved. To return to our purpose:

In fine, Let us still give it to them, that Sovereign­ty is in a King by Derivation from the People, and the Conveyance is by Contract or Covenant. But then I demand, how can this Contract be made void? It must be made void either by mutual consent, or by a le­gal Sentence and Iudgment. That a Contract may be made void mutuo contrahentium assensu, by a mutual accord and consent of the Parties Contracters in Law it holds; the ground is, Quibus modis contrahitur con­tractus iisdem dissolvitur, and the main thing and bind­ing force in a Contract is the consent of both. The refiling of one Party Contractor is not sufficient to void the Contract. Necessarily then it is required, that both King and People consent to make the Con­tract void: (whether a King may do this or not, you shall hear more in the following questions.) The Peo­ple alone cannot do it. This contract as yet is not made void by Royal consent; if it be, you must make it appear authenticis Tabulis, upon evident and writ­ten Records. I confess, e're I put you to these pains, I desire you first to produce Tabulas contractûs, this [Page 162] Contract, which in Law must be evident and faithful; and when you do it in any of his Majesties Kingdoms, you shall have me to plead for your pretended Right. Well then, I hope you will not say you have his Maje­sties Royal Assent; although good and wise men re­grate, that by real deeds out of zeal to Peace, and more than fatherly indulgence, he hath indulged to your Favours, which lessen his Prerogative, and which without intrusion upon his Sacred Right you cannot enjoy, if Scripture be either the Law or Umpire to determine in this case. Seeing, I say, His Majesties consent to void this Contract cannot be alledged, or made appear; (and the Law determines, that De non apparentibus & non existentibus eadem ratio, or Quod non apparet, in jure non est) you must have a legal Sen­tence. A Legal Sentence cannot be had without a com­petent Iudge. Who is this Judge? For my part I know none but Almighty God, the King of Kings. If you say, that the Judge is the diffusive Body, or the Col­lective, or the representative (which I see not how it can be conceived without the Head the King, yet at this time I yield it to you in your own notion) and virtual Body; I oppose, that cannot be; are they not all Subjects? Are they not all under his Protecti­on? Have they not all sworn, or should swear, Alle­giance and Supremacy? How then can they be ima­gined in any other capacity than of a Subject? How in any other notion, relation, or consideration, but as the other Party Contractor in this imaginary, noti­onal, and fancied Contract? How can it with Law, with Justice, with Reason subsist, that you shall be in your own Cause, in your own Case, in a matter of so high a Concernment, Judge, Witness, and Party? The highest that any as yet have gone, is to fancy a coordinate Power with the Sovereignty of a King, which [Page 163] in effect is a very bull, and is as much as to say, Su­preme and not Supreme; Sovereign and not Sovereign; King and no King. I deny not but that it may be pro­ved, if that your Practice may interpret your Power, that you have run farther, and reach higher in your Sovereignty than any King, any Monarch in Europe, except you speak of the King of Spain's Power over all his Dominions without Europe. Never any of them claimed more but paternum Imperium, but with grief we see this new Doctrine hath erected Despoticum & herile Imperium. I say, the most you have claimed to your representative Body (and that maimed too) is a coordinate Power; which in Law, in Reason, runneth upon equal, upon coequal terms, Now in Law Par in parem non habet Imperium, an Equal can­not Lord or Judge over an Equal, much less an In­feriour may usurp it above a Superiour. Amongst many other reasons why our Lord, Ioh. 8. would not sentence the Adultress that was taken, [...], this is not an unprobable one, that although he knew her guilty, as God, and as Man, gratiâ visionis, yet he would not act the Judge and Witness. Omnis Christi actio nostra instructio. Learn of him to be meek and humble, nay, just too; and challenge not to be Judg­es, Accusers, and Witnesses in your own cause: Impe­rial Law, and Ecclesiastical, both condemn it: nay, the very Light of Nature made Africanus disclaim to be against the Defendant, Judge, Accuser, and Wit­ness. The Casuits, when they dispute and resolve the Case how a Judge shall proceed in Judgment, when to his private knowledge he knoweth contrary to that is like to be adduced, and the Judge tyed to determine secundum allegata & probata, that in such a case he may (if another competent Judge may be found) exuere personam publicam, personam Iudicis, and [Page 164] witness for Truth, that Justice be not prejudiced. Fie for shame, that Iesuits, Romanists, and Casuists, al­they hold many of our puritanical Principles, yet are not so impudent, as our Puritans and Sectaries.

To hasten to more Proofs of the Truth we maintain, give me leave to tell you, that I think, or fancy at least, that this Opinion that Sovereignty is seated in the Community, every individual having its share, which by Derivation from all and every one, is con­centred in the Person of the King, is not unlike that Dream of Democritus and other Philosophers, who fan­cyed to themselves, that the whole Vniverse was com­posed and diversified by a casual Concourse, of what, I know not, fantastical and imaginary Atomes.

THis Tenet, that a King hath his Sovereign Pow­er, communicativè not privativè from the peo­ple, that he is so invested with it, that the People have it habitually, suppletively, and may resume it in some exigent cases, giveth nothing to the King but only an empty and void Title, which is not only resumable at peoples Pleasure, but so coarctated and bounded with Limits and Conditions of their own devising, that simul & semel, at the same Instant and [Page 165] Moment he both receiveth Empire and Sovereignty, and layeth down the Power to rule and determine in matters which concern either the private or publick good. At the same Instant (without prejudice or de­rogating from the honour of Royalty, be it spoken) a King becometh a Monster, an Hermaphrodite, composed of a Sovereign and a Subordinate, of a King and a Sub­ject.

Again, by this they hold, I see not how they can difference a King from a Magistrate, which with all understanding and knowing Politicians, are distin­guished by their different specifick Entity and Being. Nay, a Magistrate is stated into a safer and better Con­dition than a King, for the Magistrate is to exercise Judgment and Jurisdiction by known Statute and cu­stom Law; the King is censurable, deposable at the Pleasure of the Multitude, as they fancy him to have transgressed. The Magistrate cannot be censured, be punished, but by Law; the meanest, the basest of Subjects, may arrest, cite, convene the King before the undèrived Majesty of the Community, he may be judged by the arbitrary Law that is in the Closet of their Hearts, and that not only for real Misdemeanour, for real male-administration, but upon fansied, apprehend­ed Fears and Jealousies, and these not evident by any apparent Act or Attempt, but intended. If this be not to seat themselves upon the Tribunal of God, who hath reserved as peculiar to himself, to judge and dis­cover mens Hearts and Intentions, I know not what else can be it, except it be that those Seraphical Do­ctors make so bold with Almighty God to unfold the Secrets of Predestination, and to define who are the Elect, who the Reprobate. Any man that hath no­thing left but common Sense will chuse rather to live [Page 166] the most private and obscure Life, than to expose and oppose himself with an idle nominal Title of Honour, to the most corrupt and corrupted Judgments and Affections of an ignorant, injust, and indiscreet Mul­titude. I pray you, when neither the true Grandeur and Splendour of Majesty, nor the sacred Power of Empire, nor the highest Pitch of Reverence and Obedi­ence due to so sacred a Function, and so sacred a per­son can shelter and protect him, who can be so de­mented, as not only to embrace an empty Title, Ixi­ons cloud, but run the hazzard of total Ruine and per­petual Disgrace?

I know what will be answered, good Kings are in no Danger; this Terrour is only a Terrour, a Curb to bad Kings. The contrary this day appears, and ordi­narily the best of Kings are most in danger. Who knoweth not how ambitious, factious, and discon­tented Spirits, are most ingenious and solicite, where no real and just Challenge can be made against a good King, by specious and spurious Pretexts to incense and inflame with Fury the erring and deceived Multitude, who loath things present and at hand, and promise to themselves foolishly greater and better things by a Change. Not unlike to a man sick of a burning and raging Fever, imagineth this or that Bed he lyeth in is the cause of his Pain; change him to another Bed, in his Fancy he expects to recover Health, yet is dis­appointed, and putteth himself in a worse Condition. It is easie for subtle and crafty Spirits to make people apprehend so, because of the present sense of some lit­tle Pressures or Incommodities in the Government: Which is unavoidable here, because we are not to ex­pect to enjoy a Plato's Republick, or a More's Vtopia, an Eutopia indeed, that were Heaven upon Earth: that [Page 167] is, there is no Government no where so compleatly perfect, that it wanteth altogether its Incommodities, and none so imperfect which hath not with it it's own Commodities. I may say of the most perfect and best ordered Government, what the Fathers said against the Pelagians, Omnis nostra perfectio imperfecta perfectio; there is none so happy that hath not with the greatest Commodities some Incommodities, and so we may say with the Comick, aut haec cum illis habenda, aut illa cum istis admittenda; We must resolve to endure some Incon­veniencies in the best Government, rather than disturb and destroy Government, and lose the excellent and sweet Fruits we have by it. Hence they press upon the weaker and less Understanding, but more nume­rous People, the present seen and felt Inconveniences, and possess them with Fears and Jealousies of more and greater ensuing dangers (Fraus in parvis, saith Li­vie, sibi fidem praestruit, ut cum operae-precium est magnâ cum mercede fallat) that they ought not to lie under these Burdens, and to be nakedly exposed to more imminent Dangers, lest unprovided they be taken up and destroyed. When these Male-contents have laid this Foundation, then they raise the work by liberal undertaking, and like the Devil their Father promise to the gulled people, Matth. 4. Omnia haec tibi dabo: to deliver them from all their Pressures, incumbent Burthens, and imminent fansied Dangers. The Peo­ple by their big words and promises conceive great Hopes, cry up those Achitophels, those Absalons, those Shebaes, as the only Worthies, upon whom should be devolved the whole Trust and Care of State and King­dom, of Reformation of State, of Church. To en­tertain these false Hopes, which are but false Concep­tions, Molaas, they personate such as had no private [Page 168] ends, were only publick Souls, resolved to spend themselves, nay offer themselves a Sacrifice for the People; they speak as smooth as Absalon. and will be thought to desire nothing but Piety and Purity in the Church, and Justice, Peace, Liberty, and plenty in the State.

When the multitude are thus bewitched, then they advance the Work, they desire the Assistance of the numerous and popular part to bring this glorious Re­formation to effect; pretending the Glory of God, the Purity of Religion, the Liberty of the Persons, and the Propriety of the Goods of the Subjects. The poor people follow Absalon in his Treason, usurping the Crown, pretending he is about to offer a great Sacrifice to God, but intended to pull the Crown from his Fathers head.

Nemo repentè fuit turpissimus, when they have thus gained the popular Affection, and are Masters of their Hearts and Lives; They strike not first at Royalty, but express their Zeal and Courage in accusing the great States-men, of purpose to leave the good Prince naked and destitute of all Good Counsel, and by fierce accu­sing of them, and charging them with all the Evils they fancy in the Government, to flow from the In­fluence their Counsels and Courses have upon Sove­reignty, they prove themselves innocent to the World. They hope, having set them by their places, they shall make place for themselves, to make King and Govern­ment at their own Devotion: and before they fail in this, another Government they will erect. They set on the furious multitude against men, not only inno­cent, but well deserving, making the people believe that they are the Authors and Abettors of all Evil and Mischief, whether real or fancyed, present; and that [Page 169] these are the only Rubs stand up betwixt them and an happy Government. If they can make no relevant Endictment, no legal proof against them, before some of them be not gone, new Laws, new Presi­dents shall be made never to be a leading case hereaf­ter; and others shall suffer first as Papistical, but if that appear not, then as Praelatical, but if this cannot be charged upon them, (a high Crime truly to be ac­counted a maintainer of that Order, Christ hath esta­blished to preserve his Church) they are Incendiaries in State, Malignants in Church, disaffected to the true Protestant (which what it is but negatively we could never yet know, for ten of them cannot agree upon a positive Faith) Religion. And such, say the Achitophels of this time, are the close Enemies of Church, of State, of Religion, &c. and so much the more dangerous because they carry their malignant Purposes, Designs, and Courses so closely, that no Proofs can be made against them.

The People thus engaged, thus by Fury enraged, cry out, crucifie them, crucifie them: are made guilty, and run so far upon the score, as they cannot be taken off again.

If it fall forth so, that these Worthies miss their ends, and others succeed in the places of the displaced; then they cry out, the malignant Party prevaileth still. The Pilots are changed, not the Tempest. There is no Remedy, Power must do it, the Kingdom must put it self in a Posture of Defence; Salus Populi, the Safety of all, of Religion, of Liberty, of Property, and what is dear to us, calleth for it; for it is extremus ne­cessitatis casus, it hath come to the last Push. But I pray you who are the competent Judges to determine, that our case is such? None else but those Worthies, [Page 170] those who are animated with a publick Soul, who are dead to private ends, have no more life, but what is to be spent for the Publick, for the safety of it; who have already, as good Patriots, layed their Lives, their Honours, their Fortunes at the stake. There must then be a Power in some hands (God knoweth the worst, and that have least right) to command men, raise Arms, seize all Ammunition, command what Supplies of money is necessary, for so great, so glorious a Refor­mation, to rectifie what is amiss, to right what is dis­joynted in Church and State, to repell the dangers incumbent and imminent, otherwise they are not sufficiently enabled, for the great Work, the preser­vation of the King and Kingdom, Church and State, Law and Liberty, and what else is really or imaginably dear to us.

In end an Arbitrary Government, that terrour of all popular terrours, is introduced, is practised; true So­vereignty and Royalty is wrested from the true Sove­reign, and the thing we fear most, is placed in a wrong, a worse, an unlawful hand. The Effects are more bitter, the Charge is infinitely above all we or our Predecessors did complain of in many past Ages; the pressures are intended and multiplied, and total ruine to the Kingdom is threatned: onely this difference is observable, that where before with a less bountiful Duty, Religion and Royalty, Justice and Peace might have been maintained, nothing could be obtained to strengthen Sovereignty; but now we are become so lavish, so prodigal, we give twenty, ten, five parts of our Goods, our Revenues, spare not our Jewels, our Ear-rings, to make up a molten Calf; so apt, so prone is our corrupt Nature to a wicked course. And whereas before we were like Rachel, in the streets, in [Page 171] our shops, crying, we are undone with Subsidies, Mo­nopolies, &c. saying with Micah, we are robbed of our Silver, which either we made or were to make our god: now in pressures voluntarily undergone, which infinitely transcend all pressures before seen or felt, we are as speechless as the unworthy Servant in the Gospel. In this we are not unlike to little chil­dren, who, when they fall of themselves, and hurt themselves pitifully, cry not at all, but if any touch them, and they fall, wth little or no hurt, they cry out bitterly.

You see then how easie it is upon this ground main­tained by our Sectaries, our Adversaries, to disquiet State and Kingdom, to unking Kings at pleasure. And that it is so, would to God the Lecture is read to us this time in the deplorable state of this King­dom, did not with much grief and sorrow make it ap­pear to the least-seeing Eye, and did not cry it aloud in the deafest Ear.

That the best of Kings, most pious and just in them­selves, and of sweetest temper, are liable to these mis­chiefs, this black day of ours confirmeth it; by-gone Stories evidence it. Was there ever a meeker, a mild­er Governour upon Earth, than Moses the meekest of men, sensible of no injury done against himself, zealous of wrongs done to God, and quick enough when Aaron was wronged? Was there ever a greater Trea­son hatched and set on foot against any than him? Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, with two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation, lead the People to Sedition, then to Rebellion, telling him in his Face, he and the Tribe of Levi took too much upon them. God, to vindicate Sacred Sovereignty, did interpose by a miraculous way, never heard of before, that the [Page 170] [...] [Page 171] [...] [Page 172] Heads are swallowed up living, in Body and Soul, into Hell; a fearful Example, the first Rebellion we read of, and so exemplarily punished, that Optatus Bishop of Milevis, writing against Parmenian, observeth, that the like is not to be found, to be read again in Scrip­ture. To Moses add David, not onely a man, but a King according to God's heart, and one as apt and inclinable to pardon offences committed against his Person, that the like you find not, except it be the Example we have this day before our Eyes; yet what Treasons were intended, acted, and attempted against him, Scripture doth plentifully record. Zedekiah was not one of the worst Kings of Iudah, yet was he so over-ruled, or over-awed rather by his Lords and Councellours, that he confesseth of himself, The King was not he that could withstand them, that he was for­ced to deliver up Ieremiah, the Servant and Prophet of God, into the hands of their Power and Malice. Many more may be adduced. Augustus, the sweetest of Heathen and Roman Emperours, Titus, the love and delight of mankind, were tossed and beaten with the same Tempests. It is infallibly then certain, that the best of Kings cannot be secured, where this Tenet of our Adversaries is maintained, especially when Di­vines do preach it as a Truth revealed from Heaven, to aver that Rebellion is obedience; nay, a necessary Duty which God commandeth; and Jurists and Law­yers hold, it is consonant to Justice, the established and practised Laws and Customs of the Land; the Divine secureth their Consciences, and the Jurist their Estates and Persons, that they are put out of all fear of Evil here, or in the Life to come. They will find at last, that those blind Guides, with their People misled, will fall in the ditch. God have mercy upon [Page 173] the poor multitude who are deceived; the Decei­vers have need of great Repentance before they can have mercy with God, or should find it with the King.

What a fearful thing it is to put Princes, and the best of Princes, most usually under this Tyranny, that the People may lord over them, needeth no other con­firmation, but to consider a multitude in its nature, which is either the cruellest or tamest of Beasts. Quod non audent singuli, audent universi. Livie telleth us, that this is the natural temper and constitution of a multitude; Vt serviat humiliter, aut dominetur superb [...] Libertatem quae media est, nec spernere modicè, nec habere sciunt. Et non fermè desunt irarum ministri indulgentes, qui avidos atque intemperantes plebeiorum animos ad san­guinem & caedes irritant. We need not English it, the Expression is full in what we have said.

In sum, by these new-devised State-principles, no Kingdom, no State, can be long in quiet, in peace; no Kings, no Governours can be secured; by these Maxims we may change Kings and Governours as often as Moons, learn the Policy of the Goths, and practise it too, that if we be not successful in War, or have not a plentiful Year, or be troubled and in­fested with any Tempest more than ordinary, all may be laid upon the misfortune, demerit, or mis-govern­ment of the King, and he, Ionas-like, thrown into the Sea, to appease the Tempest, another enthroned, to live and reign no longer than we please. A goodly Tenure for a Kiug.

Another Argument I bring against this Paradox, which is this: by this Principle, if it hold good, all Title to a Kingdom by right of Conquest is made void; for this cannot be said to be derived from the Com­munity [Page 174] by contract and voluntary consent. Notwithstand­ing Scripture is clear and full for the lawful Title of a Sovereign by Conquest. Otherwise we must deny Da­vid's Title over Aram, and other Neighbour conterra­neous Kingdoms to Israel. God, by his Prophet Ie­remy, commanded submission, subjection, and obedi­ence to Nebuchadnezzar, and enjoyned them to pray for him, and for Peace to his Government; I hope none will deny his Right to be just, and that by no other Title than Conquest. Our Saviour did submit to Caesar's Government over the Iews, paid Tribute, and by his Ius Regale, his Royal Preroga­tive of Coin, proved Caesar's just Title, that he silen­ced the Iews, as much at that time miscarried, that by their Native Liberty, and God's special Fa­vour, they were not to submit to any stranger, as we are now adayes upon our fancied Conceits. The Jesuits will not deny that Conquest by War is Iustus modus acquirendi Imperium, a right way to come by a Crown, if the War be justly waged, and grounded upon a good cause: for proof, see Bellarmin. de translat. Imper. and Suarez, in his Book, which we have often cited in this little Treatise.

It is easie to bring a great many more Arguments to destroy this erroneous Tenet, pernicious to man­kind it self; onely because we are weary of it, give me leave in the Close to shew you, that it is morbus complicatus; a Disease, a Distemper made up of the confluence of many together; and that it hath involv­ed within, or adherent to, and coherent with it, a great many Absurdities, contrary to Truth in Sacred Scripture revealed, to sound Reason and Policy. I shall onely point at them, and leave the enlarging of them to the judicious Reader.

1. First, it is absurd to say and maintain in true Philosophy, that the Community is primum subjectum, the first Seat and Subject in which Sovereignty is im­mediately fixed. How can it be said so, seeing in them it was never found, never actuated, never ex­ercised? Vana est potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum.

2. Next, this Principle presupposeth the most ex­cellent of Creatures, Men, to be like Cadmus off-spring, de terrâ nati, sprung out of the Earth; Iuvenes aquilo­ne creati; or which is worse, in origine, like to the most imperfect of living Creatures, Animalia de putre­dine orta; Creatures coming from Corruption it self: which Paradoxes how well they sute with the Excel­lency of humane Condition, and which is more, with the Goodness and Wisdom of God in the Creation of all: and lastly, how consonant to sacred Truth in Scripture revealed: if these be well considered, then I am hopeful our new Statists will forsake their Er­rour.

3. Thirdly, this Tenet of our Sectaries presupposeth that all men coming into the World, are Iure or pri­vilegio naturae, by the Right and Priviledge of Nature originally born equal, independent one from another, with­out desparity or Difference one from another. This is con­tradictory to the word of God, that teacheth God did fix Government in Adam, before the Woman was made, or Children begotten by him. Is not every one that cometh into the World begotten of a Fa­ther? Is he not thus by the Law of God and Nature to submit and subject himself in Reverence and Obe­dience to his Father? Is he not then so far from ha­ving original Power inherent in himself, that he hath not his own Original being in the Capacity of Nature, but [Page 176] from his Father? How then can he be freed from Sub­jection to his Father? And if his Father be subject to another, is he not by the same Law subject to his Fa­ther's Superiour? Who can make this Subordination void, except he will ranverse the Ordinance of God and Nature? Where then is the Truth of this decei­ving Maxim which worketh so much mischief, Quis­que nascitur liber, every man is born a free-man in the Forrest? Are they not subordinate, subject to their pre-existent Father, and to his Superiour too, if he have any? Is not the Female Sex by the Ordinance of God and Nature inferiour and subordinate to the male? Doth not Nature teach, that the Wife by the Law of Nature is subject to the Husband; If you will believe Aristotle in his Politicks, he telleth you that a man of weak Understanding is subject to him who is more in­telligent and prudent, and (if I forget not) that he is naturâ servus.

4. Fourthly, this ground presupposeth Anarchy, to be de facto pre-existent, really, and actually before Order and Government. Christians must believe, that as God created all things in numero, pondere, & mensurâ, in a compleat Perfection of all things, every Creature having its own intrinsecal Weight and Worth, not only in it's own due Proportion and mea­sure, but in a measure orderly disposed for it's Accord and Being, with the Universe; and must believe ac­cordingly that he hath disposed of all things in that Order which establisheth an unrepealable Government, by which [...], the whole Universe, and every spece and individual in the Universe is preserved and continued in it's happy natural Being. Who then can be so stupid to think that God Almighty sends man in the World destitute of this Order and Govern­ment, [Page 177] which is necessary for the happy Being of the Abridgment of the World, for whom it was made in a secondary respect? If the whole world without this Order could not but return to a confused Chaos and Mass, and from thence to an Annihilation, what other can be the Condition of Mankind without order esta­blished to preserve it? See Chrysostom's Testimony up­on Rom. 13. cited above. If they will speak philoso­phically, they must confess Habitus est naturâ prior pri­vatione, the Habit in nature is presupposed to be exi­stent before the Privation; How come we then from our new-state-Philosophers to hear, that Anarchy was in Nature, was in the world before Government?

6. Fifthly, by the same Ground, by Consequence it will as necessarily follow, that Ius paternum & jus ma­ritale, the lawful Authority of a Father over his Chil­dren, and a Husband over his Wife, are derived from the Children and Wife, and that Children and Wife in some cases may resume their Power derived from them, and their native Liberty. If any aver so, he is Flagris dignus, to be cudgelled, not to be an­swered.

6. Sixthly, this Tenet if it be not blasphemous, it is certainly sacrilegious; for to say that Power is ra­dically, originally, fundamentally inherent in the Community, or as the observator saith, that in the people is an underived Majesty, robbeth God and Christ of his Glory. Scripture declareth them to be the im­mediate Authors of all Sovereignty, Glory, and Maje­sty, as we proved above. Doth not Scripture express the immense Sovereignty of God and Christ over the World and Church, by the Compellation of King? If you will have Kings then to be the Derivatives of the People, take heed you make not God and Christ the [Page 178] Derivatives of Derivatives, which any pious mind will be loth to think.

7. Seventhly, when the King's Right is made to be such, that the same Sovereign Power is habitually re­tained in the People, and the Power in some cases is re­sumable, How can you make the King's Title complete? Law is against it, when the Donor is dans & retinens, as Jurists speak, giving a right, yet retaining it; he ma­keth not over a full and entire Right: nor can the Donee lay just claim to it. It is a maxim without Exception among them, Nulla obligatio consistere potest quae à voluntate promittentis statum accipit; the Donor is not tyed to make his Bond and Gift good, if at pleasure he may resume it, as we spoke before.

8. Lastly, leaving many Absurdities more untouch­ed, in the last place we place it, which in our Judg­ment moveth us most to abhor it, that you which be­lieve this Tenet, must either give us new Bibles, or find out new Commentaries to the Bible; for what you say is right down opposite, and contradictory to all the Bibles we have as yet seen: our Bibles say, Dixi dii estis, I have said, (that is, God himself) ye are Gods; & filii Excelsi omnes, and all of you are Chil­dren of the most high: your Bibles (or some as au­thentick as ours) must say, Diximus dii estis, & filii terrae omnes; we the People have said, ye are Gods, and all of you sprung from us, from the Earth. We may say no more with Scripture, Dominus dat & au­fert regna; the Lord giveth and changeth Crowns and Kingdoms: but it is the People that do it. It must no more be thought upon, [...], it must be [...]; that the Powers that be are ordained of God; nay, they are ordained of the People. David was far mistaken, who said, [Page 179] Power belongeth unto the Lord. For Christ's Potestas da­ta de super, saying, that Power is from above, and by Donation from above, we must have it changed unto a Potestas data de subter, that all Power is given from below: infinite more of this kind may be adduced. Let me intreat our Brethren to consider, how sacrile­gious a thing it is to rob God of his Glory; who hath said, My Glory I will not give to another; how tender he is of his divine Prerogative, to be King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, not only by his Power over-ruling them, but also effective, endowing them with Royalty from above; how dishonourable a thing it is to place it in so wrong a hand, so base a prime Subject; how they disgrace Kings and Sovereignty, referring them to so base an origine; how they put them in so ticklish and lubrick Condition, that better being any thing than a King; how by this mean they secure neither their Persons nor Functions, nor either can be truly or appellatively sacred; how they open a door to all disquiet in State, in Church, to all Sedi­tion and Rebellion; how they lead People on a way destructory to themselves, nay to humane Society, and consequently any Being at all; how, finally, they serve the Prince of Disorder, and run head-long and head-strong to Perdition; from which, good Lord, deliver both them and us.

IF any will look upon Scripture with ordinary Ob­servation and Judgment, it will appear, that when people have presumed by themselves to set up a King of their own, neither he nor they have been hap­py in that work. There is reason enough for it; how can a Blessing be expected, when and where God and Christ are robbed of their Right, and the People pre­sumptuously usurp, and sacrilegiously intrude upon them.

The first King the people of Israel had, after that they were formed into a politick Body, is Moses; who Deut. 33. is termed King of Ieshurun. To speak tru­ly, the Government then and till Saul's days was [...], God retaining the Government in his own hands, and actuating it by his Deputies and Vice-Roys. The People had no hand in making him King. He was far from them when God sent him to be King over Israel. That his Right was just, his Govern­ment successful, none will deny. The next named King is Abimelech, the base Son of Gideon, and as base­ly created King too. Israel did offer an hereditary Ti­tle of the Crown to Gideon, after that he had vindica­ted them from the Tyranny and Oppression of the Midianites. He did refuse it; he knew that was not the right way of purchase, nor Gods appointed time come: Iudg. 8. 22. After his Death the Bastard is made King, the first King we read of in Scripture, who was the Creature of the People: Iudg. 9.

[Page 181] Consider how this Work is hatched, perfected, and what is the end of it. He sets the work on foot by his alliance the men of Sichem, to do for their own Bloud and Brood. He useth an Argument that was strong enough in those dayes, better that he one and alone should reign over them, than the seventy Sons of Ierubbaal. It seemeth that the World was not then so much out of love with Monarchy, nor doat­ed so much upon Aristocracy, as we do now in this declining Age. A special mean to enable Abimelech for the Crown, and to effect this unlawful Royalty, they agree to enrich him with Sacrilege, by spoiling their God's Temple, and taking out of it threescore and ten pieces of Silver. To make all sure, a Cove­nant is made, it is sworn too; They were so much in love with this new Covenant, that they called their God Baal Berith, the Lord of the Covenant; They will have God to own the Covenant, or then they Idoled the Covenant so much, that they would renounce God, if he would not be Baal Berith, the God of the Covenant.

What followeth upon all this? Abimelech enriched by Sacriledge, strengthened by his Alliance the Siche­mites, they bound to him, not onely by the Bonds of Nature, but by a tye of a Sacred Covenant, a Vow interposed, all Israel over-awed come to his side; and the first Act of their Power and goodness is Mur­ther, they murther the seventy lawful Sons of Ierub­baal; the engaged in mischief knew there was no safety, but to take away the right Stock, root and branch. Yet God miraculously preserved Iotham, not onely to denounce Gods vengeance against them both, the men of Sichem and Abimelech, the contrivers of this mischievous Plot, but to see it executed. You [Page 182] see then, the first popular King (I mean of the Peo­ples making) beginneth his work (I mean his pur­chase of the Crown) with Sacriledge, a Cove­nant and cruel Murther, and innocent shedding of bloud.

Look upon the Success. He is made, he is constitu­ted King, with an uniform, an universal consent: an universal and uniform Consent is no sure Argu­ment, that the course so established is warrantable, and approved by Almighty God. Look upon more yet, Abimeleeh becometh strong, flourisheth, reigned over Israel three years: Iudg. 9. 22. well near Antichrists time of endurance, he Kings it royally, successfully▪ Judge not then of a course by a speedy, a universal, a successful success, to conclude, it is Gods work, and marvellous in our eyes. It is hard to work great Works but with great Time, our Nature is averse from that, the Devil and the World do contribute their Wisdom and Power to impede a good Work. It is not so in bad courses; Moses could scarce disci­pline the People of Israel in the space of forty years, in the School of the Wilderness, to obey God, but in forty dayes they were able enough to erect Idolatry and practise it. The Apostle Saint Paul wondereth that the Galatians were so quickly turned from the truth of the Gospel. But to reclaim them from their Errours, was as toilsome and longsome pains and tra­vels, as a woman hath to bring forth a child.

Although Vengeance be delayed, it will come at last: it cometh with leaden feet, but hath iron hands. Iotham's curse (who for ought we read, was the one­ly man durst speak against the course) will come at [...] [Page 183] and devoureth Sichem, and a fire cometh out from Si­chem and destroyeth Abimelech. The first stroke of Vengeance is upon the first Covenanters and Associ­ates: By the means and strength of the Sichemites, Abimelech is made King over Israel. The first divisive motion is there; the Text saith, God sent an evil spirit betwixt the men of Sichem and Abimelech, and the men of Sichem dealt treacherously with him: v. 23. The first who gave him the Kingdom, sware and covenanted with him, are the first Traytors, or rather the scourge of God to begin his Mischief.

But how, I pray you, goeth this work on? you have Covenant after Covenant. The first Oath was unlawful, now treacherously they sware another Oath against him. What is the Solemnity? They keep a solemn Festival; (Religion must ever be a stalking horse) They go to the House of their God, they seal a new Covenant, a new Association; they not onely unking him, but also excommunicate him too: v. 27. No Covenants, no Associations, seal them, strengthen them with Oaths as many as you will, with Sacra­ments too, making Sacramenta pietatis vincula iniquita­tis, the seals of Piety, the Bonds of Iniquity, they will neither bind sure, nor make unlawful pacts or compacts lasting. Read and consider Psal. 11. Psal. 83.

The story is worthy your looking on. Come on then. Zabul, Abimelech's Governour at Sichem is over­awed, he must comply with the second Covenant. Abimelech advanceth with his Forces towards Sichem, killeth them that sallied out, mans the Gates, enters the City, kills all in the City, except such as flee to the Tower: they escape not, all of them are consu­med with fire. You see then how the first Authors [...]

[Page 184] When he hath done Vengeance upon them, he blocks up Thebez; God having done Vengeance by him upon the Faction, he taketh Vengeance upon Abimelech, kills him by the hand of a Woman, a dis­honourable end, for a King, a Souldier, and that by a piece of a Milstone which crushed his Skull. To shun Ignominy, he calls to his Armour-bearer to kill him by his Sword, that it be not said hereafter, that he died by the hand of a Woman.

This is the first King we read of in Scripture that was the Creature of the People: How he atchieved it, how he managed it, and what end both he and they had, is enough to make us fall out of love with po­pular Kings, the Donatives of the People.

To this same purpose some bring the Example of Ieroboam, who hold that Ieroboam was King only by Gods Permission, and not by his Commission over the ten Tribes; and that to punish Solomon in his Posteri­ty for his Uncleanness and Idolatry. Many things might be said Pro and Con; we purpose not to dispute the point accurately. The Reasons which incline some learned men to hold this Opinion, amongst others, are these: That there is no anointing bestow­ed on Ieroboam at his Entry to the Kingdom. The symbolical Ceremony of his Entry is expressed, by renting of a Garment in twelve pieces; he taketh ten of them to himself, Scripture mentioneth not the gi­ving of them. The People grieved, pitch upon Iero­boam; either by him to get redress of their Grievances, or otherwise, if that be refused, to assume him to be their King.

Consider how the Change is effected: There is a specious shew made of a glorious Reformation, of ea­sing the Subjects of many great Pressures, with which [Page 185] they were overburthened in Solomon's Reign: by heavy Impositions laid upon them to build the Temple, Solo­mon's Palaces, and to entertain the Magnificence of his Court, never so rich as in Solomon's Reign, and never more grudging complaining. These Pretences were no less specious and real, than the specious and spuri­rious Pretences of our glorious Reformers, and zealous Patriots to day: great Promises are made, great Hopes of better things are conceived, but behold the Is­sue.

God in his secret but just Providence left Rhehoboam to the power of bad Counsellors, he refuseth Redress of Grievances, the ten Tribes revolt, enthrone Ierobo­am and made him King. To bring all to a wished end, the People and their new King begin at Religi­on. Religion must ever be pretended, whatever be the work, whatever be the Intention. How is Reli­gion entreated? By King and People it is subordina­ted to Policy. Religion is made as Hangings for the House. New Calves, new Altars, new Feasts are ere­cted and instituted: with a specious Protestation and Profession, that God may be more frequently, more fervently served; and the People with more ease to at­tend, to frequent the Service. To this purpose, the Calves are erected at Dan and Bethel. The way of serving God before established was too too trouble­some; the true cause was, the King feared if Gods Ordinance were kept, and the ten Tribes should go to Ierusalem to keep the solemn Feasts, do God service according to his Prescript; true Religion preserved would reduce the ten Tribes, to their due Obedience to the house of David. New devices in State, in Go­vernment, necessitate the Authors and Abettors to new devices in Religion.

[Page 186] That this work may have no Rubbs, the old Priests must be gone; the Tribe of Levi must be rooted out Root and Branch: It cannot be, but the old Levites will cross the new established Government. The ba­sest of the people, Tinkers, Coblers, Coachmen, Me­chanicks, &c. become Ieroboam's and his new Subjects Priests.

This done, he and they take as much Authority over and above their God, as before they did over and above their King: A Calf must be their God.

What is the Success? Here is a thorow Reformation in Church and State, all is unanimously agreed upon by King and People. Consider the Consequents: They make to themselves a King to remedy their Grievances; the King maketh them cast-aways. They banish from them the true Levites, they place in their stead the Scum and Dross of the vulgar. By him and his Successors all the erroneous Religions amongst their Neighbours are admitted and received; any Religion is allowed except the only true one. But what? Is not the King by this made glorious at home, and ter­rible abroad? No: no such thing. He is made the Re­proach of all Kings; his Motto for ever is, Ieroboam that made Israel sin. This is all his Excellency we read of in Scripture, this is the Horn of his Exaltation. How fare the People? free-born people, under a law­ful and just King of their own, setting up a King of themselves, wrought and effected at last their own, their Kings, their States utter Extirpation, and of free-born Subjects become the Slaves of strange Kings and Kingdoms.

This Story duely considered, is able to rectifie the Errours of this time, if mens minds be not fore-stalled with damnable Prejudice. It layeth open to us, that [Page 187] Kings when they are Peoples Donatives are not Succes­ful; and discovereth, how popular Reformations (so much now in this Distempered Age cryed up) are not Gods Ordinance, and most unhappy in the end: howsoever for a time, when God is to punish a Nati­on, they may have some seeming Success, and some lasting Durance; God in his Wisdom giving way to them to punish our Sins, and to try our Constancy in his Truth. Both the one and the other Story prove, that these Courses when they prevail are the worst of Judgments. If you joyn them, and be pleased to pa­rallel them with our times, you will find a full [...], remonstrance and resemblance with us in many fit Resemblances; my Prayer to God is to give us all Repentance, and that speedily, lest the like or worse befall us, when we shall have neither Opportunity nor Place, nor Power to help it, and too late acknow­ledge our Errour.

All Divines do rightly hold, that Omnis Christi actio nostra instructio, never was any thing acted by Christ, which hath not in it something to instruct us in Chri­stian Knowledge and Duty. That Christ was truly a King born, we proved it before; The wise men did him royal Homage while he was in his swadling-cloaths; he entered Ierusalem in royal Pomp and Magnificence; When his Disciples honoured him by the name of King, he did not refuse it; when the Iews were offended at it, he told them it was not just, but also necessary; and if all should fail in that Duty, the Stones would proclaim him King, and do him Homage; he avouched it before Pilate, when he was looking Death in the Face; by a special Direction of Gods Providence it was written upon the Cross, The Altar where he offered that propitiatory and expiatory [Page 188] Sacrifice; His Grave was sealed as Kings Tombs use to be: from the Cradle to his Cross, from his Mothers Womb, till he is buried, in all the times of his Life, his Royalty and Kingdom is manifested. Notwith­standing of all, when the people would have made him a King, he disclaimed it, he would have none of it. When by commission and trust he might have been Ar­biter, umpire betwixt two brethren differing about the moitie of their inheritance, he refused it. Many rea­sons for it, but without all controversie this is one, to teach all Christians, that Sovereignty cannot be deri­ved from the people, from the Communitie: He would have none of that dignity from them, he chose rather to want it, than to have it from a wrong hand.

It is evident by what we have said, that sacred Truth, as revealed to us in Scripture, as understood by the Fathers and Martyrs of the Primitive Church, and sound Reason, doth plead for the truth we main­tain, That Sovereignty and Royalty in a King, is by im­mediate dependency, derivation, and collation, from God and Christ, who are Kings of Kings, and Lords of Lords; and it is not onely a simple Errour▪ but pernicious, sacrilegious, and derogatory to the Honour of God and Christ, to make it to be derived and transferred from the underived Majesty of the People; and that in such a measure, by such a tenor, that they have it in what portion, what proportion they will bestow it, with no more certainty and security than to be Tenants at will, to be enthroned, dethroned, kinged, unkinged at their pleasure. Having said enough (although but little in regard of what may be said) to establish the positive part, [...], we come now to take off [...], their pretend­ed grounds and principles, upon which they build [Page 189] [...]his their Babel. And these onely in this question, which have nearest alliance and contingency with this [...]irst Question; the rest we will take off in discussing [...]nd debating the subsequent Questions, as they are most proper and homogeneous to them, and every one in [...]ts proper place.

THE Jesuit is so learned, that he knoweth and acknowledgeth that an Humane Act may be interposed, and the Effect wrought, produ­ced, may be the immediate Work of God; the igno­rance of the Sectary, and weak Christians stumble at it; for nothing is more frequent in the mouthes of the vulgar and less knowing sort; where hath God manifested from Heaven, that such or such a one is [Page 190] King? and the Observator himself conceiveth the sens [...] of our Tenet, that the King is immediately of Gods ap­pointment and constitution, cannot in any other Notion be verified, except we can shew a particular Revelati­on for every King invested with Sovereignty by a Re­velation from Heaven. It feareth me he will take [...] ill, if we marshal him with the vulgar and less-kno [...]ing sort; and yet without Disparagement to his oth [...] Abilities, we must conceive him to be a small Intelli­gent in Divinity, if he conceive that no Power can [...] in man by Gods immediate working, except he [...] shew him a Revelation from Heaven, by the Ministe [...] of Angels, or some extraordinary Prophet.

In stating the Question, we cleared this point suffi­ciently to an understanding man; yet give me leav [...] for the better Satisfaction of the weaker coctam repone [...] cramben, to resume and repeat some of that we hav [...] said, with some Additions and Illustrations.

It is not to be denied but in the ordinary Cons [...]tution of Kings, some humane act interveneth, and [...] interposed; as Election, Succession, Conquest, & [...] yet this may very well subsist, with the immedia [...] Collation of royal Power from God: to make th [...] plain, consider that a thing is said to be immediate [...] from God two ways. First, when it is done by Go [...] sine quocunque signo creato, & sine quacunque dispositio [...] praeveniente; that no created Sign or previous Dispo [...]tion interveneth or precedeth the work done; Th [...] nothing is immediately said to be from God, b [...] what is by immediate Manifestation from himself, [...] by the extraordinary Ministery of Angel or Prophet as [...] Moses was made Captain over Israel, Saul and D [...]vid were made Kings of Israel. 2. Next, when Go [...] worketh or effecteth the work, yet so as some Dispo­sition, [Page 191] sign or created act is previous and antecedent to, or coherent with the work effected. By Baptism the baptized obtaineth Remission of Sins and Reno­vation of Nature; This Effect is immediately wrought by God himself: The reason is evident, because As­persion of, or Immersion in water of their own nature cannot take away the Stain and Guilt of Sin, nor state the baptized in the state of Adoption and Regenerati­on. The School expresseth it barbarously, yet preg­nantly enough; Deus concurrit ad, God is concurrent and operateth with his Ordinance, and by his Influ­ence supervenient of his Grace and Power, effecteth that which Baptism in its nature abstractly cannot pro­duce: So as remission of sin, and regeneration conse­quitur ad Baptismum, followeth with, and is conjoi­ned with Baptism. The School giveth us the way to discern it when it is so; and that is whensoever Sig­num creatum, the interposed act or previous disposition hath no natural contingency with the effect, the work wrought must be produced by some supervenient ex­trinsecal more eminent agent, which is God. School­men do confess that the Sacraments do not confer grace Vi naturali, Physicâ & inhaerente, by their natural, in­trinsecal, and inherent Power; but Vi morali, superna­turali, & superveniente extrinsecâ, but by some extrinse­cal supervenient Power.

The like you may observe in sacred Orders; it is confessed amongst all understanding and sound Di­vines, that by Admission into sacred Orders the ad­mitted receiveth a supernatural Power in supernatural things, for supernatural ends. This is not done with­out the interposing of an humane Act, the Imposition of the Bishops hands, and yet it is most certain, this is not done by the Bishops act, it is the Power of [Page 192] God concurring and cooperating with his own Ordi­nance.

In moral things you may see the like, a man marry­ing a woman, becoming her head and Lord, there precedeth this Power and Right, a created hu­mane Act, the voluntary Consent of the Woman; yet it cannot be said, that her Consent endoweth or investeth the man with this marital Right; it floweth from, and followeth immediately the inviolable Ordi­nance of Almighty God: and this tye is so strict, so perpetual by the same Ordinance, that it cannot be made void but by God himself; No man can put asun­der, whom God hath joyned together.

This holds in the Constitutions of Kings. Some humane act, as Election, Succession, or Conquest is interposed, but none of them hath any natural Contin­gency with Sovereignty and Majesty, that by their in­trinsecal Power they can collate it, produce it, work it, or effect it. The Collation must necessarily then be immediately from God; and the same way as in sacred Orders. This was the Sense of the ancient Church, who ordinarily institute a Parallel, betwixt Prince and Priest; that as the Priest hath his sacred pow­er spiritual immediately from God, so the Prince hath his sacred Sovereign temporal power independently from any other, and solely dependent from God. Hear them speak it in their own words: Hosius spoke so to Constantius the Emperour; [...]. Vide Athanas. epist. ad Solit. vit. agent. The [Page 193] Sense is, Hosius acknowledgeth that Kings and Empe­rours have [...], Sovereignty and Royalty, as inde­pendently, as immediately from God, as Bishops and Priests have the trust which is peculiar to them ex vi ordinis: and averreth, that it is no less Intrusion upon God surreptitiously to invade the Kings Right, his Prerogative, than for any not called to the Ministery, to intrude upon the sacred Function and Charge of Bishop or Priest. The Passage is excellent: 1. Kings are Kings, quà Kings reduplicativè, immediately from God, and by his Donation of Power. 2. As Priests have a Power incommunicable to any besides, so Kings have their Sovereignty incommunicable to Subjects, or any else. 3. That to rob, or surreptitiously to steal from Kings their sacred Prerogative, is sacrilegious Usurpation, presumptuous Intrusion upon God him­self; no less, if no more, than for a Lay-man to in­trude upon the holy Function and Charge of Bishop or Priest. Neither Athanasius nor Hosius, nor any Fa­ther else understood, but that Princes had their Pow­er as immediately from God as Church-men in sacred Orders.

To the Greek Fathers joyn the Latin. Saint Au­stin de Civit. Dei, lib. 4. cap. 33. saith, Solus verus De­us dat regna terrena bonis & malis, &c. neque hoc temere, neque fortunâ. Sed pro rerum ordine ac tempore, occulto nobis, notissimo sibi. It is the only true God, none else, man nor Angel, that giveth Kingdoms: and that not only to good, but to bad Kings; And this is not done casually by hap-hazzard, but in Wisdom conform to the Exigency of the time, of men living in the time. How it cometh that sometimes bad men are Kings, sometimes good men, it is of his Wisdom, in a secret Dispensation most evidently known to him­self, [Page 194] hid to us; but for all this, always just. I wish our Sectaries would hear and believe this Lecture of Saint Austin's; certain I am, the holy and learned Father knew they came not to their Crowns, but by some interposed act of Election, Succession, Con­quest, &c. notwithstanding, he will have all their Sovereignty, Majesty and Power solely from God.

Symmachus the Pope writing to Anastasius the Em­perour, speaketh thus; Tu defer Deo in nobis, & nos de­feremus Deo in te: which words formally and explicit­ly imply, that Royalty in Kings is to be reverenced and obeyed, as in Gods immediate Vicegerents upon Earth, as God is to be obeyed in Church-men his im­mediate Vicegerents in the work, and supernatural Acts and Effects of the Gospel. To this Patriarch add the Suffrage of another great one, Cyril of Alexandria, lib. 11. in Ioh. cap 13. where amongst other things to this purpose he saith, Et homines quidam à Deo ac­cipiunt ut aliis possint dominari.

Review again that excellent Passage of the Council of Paris, lib. 2. cap. 5. Constat ergo, quia non actum, non voto, neque brachio fortitudinis humanae, sed virtute i [...] occulto judicio dispensationis divinae regimen confertur terre­num. It is in the opinion of these Fathers in this Council assembled, that no act humane whatsoever, which is interposed in the Constitution of a King, maketh him King, but only virtus, & occultum judi­cium dispensationis divinae, the Power, the secret and incomprehensible Judgment of God, in his unsearch­able Dispensation.

Review the Passage: 1 Sam. 12. v. 11. And the Lord sent Ierubbaal and Bedan, and Iephtah, and Sa­muel, &c. Here you see the sending of Iephtah to be Judge, is no less given to God. than the sending of [Page 195] Gideon and Samuel, whose calling was by extraordi­nary Revelation. Compare this Passage wit [...] Iudges 11. There you will find that Iephtah came to be Judge, by a Covenant made betwixt him and the Gi­leadites: Here you have an interposed Act▪ and a great one, that seemeth to serve much for your purpose; you have a Covenant, a Compact. Yet notwith­standing the Lord to shew this Act, this Compact, this Covenant contributed nothing to make him Judge; the Lord himself in authorizing him as Judge, vindicateth it no less to himself, than when extraor­dinarily he authorized Gideon and Samuel: 1. Sam. 12. v. 11. a place, an Argument unanswerable: which bringeth home two Conclusions; the one, that the Authority and Power is from God; the other, that whatsoever act intervening, if it were a Covenant, it contributeth nothing to Authority, cannot weaken it, cannot repeal it.

By Scripture then and Antiquity it is clear, that the interposed act humane whatsoever it be, whether Ele­ction, Succession, Conquest, or any other lawful way, doth not collate the Power, but design or declare the person, and letteth not the Power to be of immediate Collation from Almighty God; as when the Church designeth or declareth a man for a sacred Function, it is God only who bestoweth the supernatural Power, Faculty, and Ability. Or it is in some case like to that, when our King sendeth the honourable Order of the Garter to a Duke or Prince abroad by the hand of a Gentleman, the Gentleman intimateth it to the person honoured, but the bestowing or collating of the honour is from the power of the King, the sole and proper Fountain of that Honour.

[Page 196] Let this suffice to remove their first scruple: we come next to examine that which both Jesuit and Pu­ritan make much of, that is, A private and individu­al Person, may make away his own native and proper Liberty, and enslave himself to a Lord and Master; from hence they conclude, Ergo, a Community or Multitude may surrender their own native Liberty to one or more to rule over them: See Bellarmine pres­sing this Argument, lib. de Laicis, cap. 6. and Suarez, lib. 3. defens. Doctr. Orthod. cont. Sect. Anglic. If we would grant all this, yet this much we will gain, that as a singular Person, when he hath made away his Li­berty to another, he cannot resume it, no, although he hath made his bargain in a hard condition, dis­advantageous to himself; then although we give that their consequence is good, which we will never grant, it will by as necessary consequence follow, that when the People have devested themselves of that Pow­er naturally inherent in them, and invested one or more with it, they cannot resume it, no, not though they have made it to their own disadvantage.

It may be they will tell us, Argumentum à simili in dissimili non concludit, that an Argument built upon a Similitude concludeth not in the point of Dissimili­tude. We will yield to them this with both our hands, and upon the same ground we rejoyn, that there is a wide disparity and difference betwixt the two. 1. First, because it is certain, Nemo nascitur naturâ servus, None by Nature cometh in the World in the condition of a Slave. Nature in this is equally Indulgent to all. But on the other side, it is as true, Nemo nascitur liber ab Imperio, No man is born in that condition to be free from Government, but with his natural Being cometh into the World subject to some. [Page 197] Every man is born subject to his Father, of whom immediately he hath his Existence in Nature, and if his Father be the subject of another, he is born a Sub­ject to his Father's Superiour. 2. Next, there is ano­ther great difference; Every man by Nature hath an immunity and liberty from despotical and herile Empire, and in this may say, Possum facere de meo quod volo, I have this privilege by the Law of God and Nature, that I am enslaved to none: and consequently, with­out his own voluntary act, making away this native and natural liberty, he cannot be devested of it; and in his bargain and covenant, may more and less en­slave himself: but on the other side, God and Na­ture have laid a necessity upon all men coming into the World subesse imperio, to be subject to Govern­ment. Again, because this Government, this Empire, this Sovereignty cannot protect us sufficiently, to make us enjoy the sweet fruits of happy Government, Peace, Righteousness, Plenty, Godliness and Honesty, except it be entirely endowed with Sovereign Power to act its Du­ties, preserve it self, protect us: Almighty God, as he investeth the Sovereign with entire Sovereignty, so hath he set the bounds of it, defined it; otherwise, such is the corruption and natural repugnancy of every one to it, that forthwith it should be rent in pieces.

It is accidental to any to render himself a Slave; it is occasioned either by Force, as when one is taken by an Enemy, he is Mancipium, Servus: or otherwise some extreme necessity and indigency forceth one to enslave himself, to sell his Liberty, to redeem him from Debt, Death, or any ignominious and intolerable condition, to state himself in a more tolerable one. In brief, it is some supervenient necessity that forceth man to [Page 198] make away his native and natural Liberty à servitute: but subesse imperio, to submit and subject to lawful Government, congruous to the condition of man, and necessary and convenient for the happy Being of man, is natural, is necessary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and Nature.

This answer to their second Sophism cleareth the sense of their Maxim, so much cryed up, and so much abused, Quisque nascitur liber, every one is born a free man; that we need not insist much upon it: yet to make the general sense of the Maxim appear, and to discover their adulterate and bastard sense; we say, it is most true, that Quisque nascitur liber à servitute, Every man is born a free man from slavery; but Nul­lus nascitur liber ab imperio, none is born exempted from the subjection of lawful Government, without a subordination and subjection to a Superiour: Christ, as man, was not exempted from this: It is recorded in Scripture, Luke 11. 51. [...]. He did subject himself to Ioseph, his putative Father, and Mary his true Mother: the word in the original is the same which the Apostle useth, Rom. 13. 1. commanding obedience and subjection to Higher Powers.

It were very fit our opposites would consider what Power the Father had over the Children, by the Law of God and Nature; that to redeem himself from Debt, from any distressed state and condition, he might have enslaved his Children begotten of his Bo­dy. If this Power was not by the right of Nature, by the warrant of God, I can see no other, for it could not be by a mutual and voluntary act of Father and Children.

[Page 199] To shut up all in few words, give me leave to put you in mind, that the Stoicks observe three Notions of servitus, of Service and Subjection. 1. The one is, when a man, contrary to native and natural Liberty, is made a Slave to a Lord or Master: this they call servitutem [...], when a man hath power to com­mand, use, dispose another man's Person, as his other Goods, at pleasure: for this cause the Scripture stand­eth not to call a Servant his Master's Money. 2. The other is, when a man's Person is confined or commit­ted, that he is deprived of living at liberty as he lists; as Criminals or Debtors; this kind of servitude they call [...], when the liberty of going where we will, or doing what is lawful at pleasure, is taken from us. 3. The third is, a Servitude, as they call it, [...], consisting in Subordination: in the first sense, every man is born free: in the second sense, some onely by misdemeanour or misgovernment are restrained from the liberties of free Subjects: In the third sense, no man is born free, but subject to his Father, and to his Father's Father, his Father's Sove­reign; so that all are born tyed to Obeisance and Du­ty of Allegiance; and seeing Christ fulfilled so all righteousness, that he subjected and submitted himself to his Parents, and to Caesar too, we must deny to be Christians, if we deny that we are born under the tye of Allegiance. Of these three enough, we haste to consider some more of their Popular Maxims and Sophisms. [Page 198] [...] [Page 199] [...]

ROssaeus and Brutus, and after them the Observator have abused this Maxim infinitely to the great abuse and wronging of Sovereignty, and to ad­vance the Subject above the King, the disorderly rout of the multitude above the Lord's anointed. The Observator enunciates it thus, Quod efficit tale est magis tale, that which maketh any thing such or such, is in it self much more such or such; he assumes, but the People make the King, give him all the Power and Ma­jesty he hath: Ergo, the people are above the King, &c. Aristotle pronounceth the maxim thus, Propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale. Rossaeus, Brutus, Bouchier, and others give us it thus, Constituens constituto potior, the Constituent is more ex­cellent than the constituted: but the People are Con­stituents of Royalty: Ergo, &c. Howsoever they dif­fer in the Expression, they agree in the Sense: let us examine it.

It were fitter to reserve this to our fourth Question, but seeing the Observator maketh it his first Ground, we resolve to shew the weakness of it here. We pre­mise this, although we would grant their major, their Maxim, in the greatest and most vast Latitude of their Conception, the Argument concludes not against us; for the Assumption is as false as Falshood it self: we [Page 201] have proved that the people in no notion imaginable, whether diffusively or collectively, or representatively taken, are either the Efficients, or Constituents, or Donors, or Authors Sovereignty or Sovereigns: we might therefore without hurt to the Cause we maintain, grant their Maejor, their Maxim. Yet that we may undeceive the simpler sort, we will a little scan the Truth and proper Sense of the maxim and major.

It is no less truly than usually spoken, Qui versatur generalibus, versatur dolosè: there is no readier a way to deceive the ignorant and little knowing people than by abusing general Maxims, which are current, ex­tending their Force farther than they can reach. If Commons, and almost all, even of better place and understanding, were not too violently zealous for, and impatient of Instrusion upon, or Violation of their supposed Rights and Liberties, and were not by the Corruption of Nature too too apt and facile to enter­tain Suggestions which are plausible to their Fancy and Humour; and withal were not wanting to themselves in Moderation, they could neither trust nor magnifie so much such specious, deluding, and deceiving So­phisms, nor would they so madly and closely adhere to their Masters and Teachers of such Doctrines, as to be inflamed with Fury, to become mad in Impiety and Rebellion, with such Impetuosity, that they cease not, till they become their own Instruments, to ruine themselves totally, and to bring upon themselves the imaginary and groundless Evils that they most fear from others.

Philosophy teacheth us, that all such general Max­ims must be bounded and limited with their own true Limitations and Qualifications, otherwise they con­clude [Page 202] not necessarily, firmly. I learned of Aristotle in the School, that this maxim, Propter quod unumquodque est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale: requireth necessarily, before it bring home the Conclusion, two Conditions. 1. The t'one is, Vt utrique insit, that what you are to conclude, be both of them in the efficient and effect. 2. The t'other is, Vt recipiat majus & minus, that that is really in both, and predicated of both, have such a Latitude, that it hath a Capacity of more and less. Without these Limitations the Maxim will con­clude too much, which in right Logick is the equiva­lent of that, to conclude nothing.

Seeing we intend a popular way, that the shallow­est may understand it, let us prove what we say by Instances to the contrary, by examples to the contrary. It is against Sense and Experience to conclude, This maketh such a thing such, Ergo, it self is much more such: for by the same way I reason, What maketh any thing drunk, that is much more drunk: but Wine maketh a man drunk: Ergo, Wine is much more drunk. This concludes not, the reason is, because a man may be drunk, but Drunkenness is neither inhe­rent in Wine, nor accident to Wine. This is taken off then by that Limitation, V [...]rique non inest. Again, Scintilla ignis ab ictu silicis, a little Spark of Fire from a Flint-stone falling into a Magazine of Powder, put­teth the whole Magazine into a Fire, and that the Town or Castle; will it follow hence, Ergo, that lit­tle Spark of Fire from the Flint is a greater Fire than when a whole City is a Fire? I know to this may be answered, a greater Fire it is when the Castle is in Fire, but no more Fire; the Difference being only in degrees of Extension, not of Intension, as Philosophers speak: next, that the scintil from the Flint-stone is [Page 203] magis tale, more so, than the City inflamed, or the Castle incensed, because it is so effectivè & formaliter, both formally in it self, and effectively the cause of the other; the other set on fire by it, is only formaliter, formally so; because this is not so easily intelligible by every ordinary Reader, I speak more plain.

The Parliament cannot like these Maxims of the Observators, and if they see and judge right, they must make an Order against them, and this especially; for by this Ground it will follow inevitably and necessari­ly, that the Counties and Corporations of England may make void all their Commissions given to the Knights and Burgesses of the house of Commons, and send others in their place. Nay, more will follow, that they cannot make orders and Laws, but that the Counties and Corporations may make much more, undo what they do, repeal what they establish, establish and en­act the contrary. Frame the Argument; The Constitu­ent is better and higher in place and dignity than the constituted; but the Counties and Corporations are the Constituents of the Knights of Shires, and Burges­ses in the House of Commons; Ergo, they may void their Commissions; Ergo, they may change the Com­missioners, send others in their place; Ergo, they may repeal their Orders, establish other Laws contrary and contradictory to theirs, &c. and many more Absurdi­ties may be inferred from hence. This made Buchanan ingeniously maintain, that Orders and Laws in Par­liament were only [...], Precognitions, till the whole People gave their Consent, and had their Influ­ence authoritativè, upon the Statutes and Acts of Parli­ament. By this you may know where he put the Le­gislative Power, in the Community; and this is with more shew of reason than the Observator's Tenet, who [Page 204] holdeth that the Legislative Power is in the Parliament; and yet Buchanan is more justifiable for this reason; because, where Majesty is, there is Legislative Power, but according to the Observator's mind, in the People is the underived Majesty; let him then come home to the Scotish Tenet, and make it an Article of their new Covenant, or new Creed, (if they will) that the Le­gislative Power is in the People, and the Parliaments Orders and Statutes are only preparatory precognitions: I know the Observator thinks to salve all this, that the whole Power of the Gentry and Commons is entirely transferred from the collective Body to the representative, the Parliament. To this we answer two things: 1. The first is, ye and your Brother-assistants the Scots are not of one mind, for in the beginning of the Scot­tish Troubles, when the Subjects there were prefer­ring Petitions, by their Declarations and Protestations, they put all the Power in the collective Body, and kept their distinct Tables. 2. Next, speak ingeniously and candidly, Observator, shew us the reason of the Diffe­rence of the Disparity, why the whole entire Power of the Community (if any they have) should not be totally and entirely derived from the People to the King, when they devest themselves of their underived Ma­jesty, and invest the King with it, no less than the whole entire Power of the whole Kingdom is devolved upon the two Houses, and that irrevocably too, to hold in the King, as in your Knights and Burgesses: you are not able to shew it, but what with one hand you take unjustly from the King, with another, but a wrong hand, you ascribe to the Parliament. It is like in times succeeding and after-ages our wise Kings will learn to know what is their Power, Place and Preroga­tive, by that the Parliament hath assumed to them, [Page 205] but we are hopeful they will never exercise it with such Cruelty and Tyranny. I many times think upon it, that as the extravagant Ambition and Usurpation of the Pope of Rome, robbing Kings of their sacred Right, and assuming to himself such superlative Tran­scendent Power for himself and his See, both in Spiri­tuals and Temporals, hath wakened Christian Kings to consider better of their sacred Prerogative; and by what he unlawfully and antichristianly assumed to himself, in temporalibus, to know what Trust God Almighty hath given to his Vicegerents, his Kings; so I am hopeful, if God hath mercy reserved for these Kingdoms and Church, right Bounds and Limits will be set to Subjects, which will produce happier and sweeter Fruits of Government, than we see or feel from these corrival, co-equal, co-ordinate, fansied Pow­ers; and Sovereignty and Royalty be better rooted, which God of his Mercy grant for the good of his Church, the happy estate of the Kingdom, and honour and right of our King.

If what is said be not enough to shew the Weakness of these popular Sophisms, I come nearer to the Ob­servator, and put it home in a case, where I dare pro­mise he will say it is Sophistry: By this way of reasoning I will prove; there is no better way for the Observator to improve his Wealth, than to make over the Right of all he hath to me: the Argument will hold good, Quod ef­ficit tale, est magis tale; he that maketh me rich, by giving me all his goods moveable and immovable, maketh him­self richer; but the Observator by giving of all his goods (my assumption should have been hypothetical, for posi­tively I know the Gentleman will not do it) to me, ma­keth me rich, Ergo, he maketh himself more rich. This Logick, I conceive, is not so powerful as to cheat him out of his natural, rational Faculty, and so cheat him [Page 206] out of all his Lands, Chattels, and Revenues: yet it may be by an order of the House, that in some case this Logick may serve to good purpose, that the People giving the twentieth, the tenth, the fifth part, or the Moity of their Moneys and Reve­nues, and all their Plate, to strengthen the Parlia­ment, to advance the good Cause, to cherish (if we will speak truly) and foment this present Rebellion, it will not lessen their Wealth, but enrich them more; be­cause quod efficit tale, est magis tale, it maketh some rich, and consequently the Donors much more rich. Cer­tainly, if this Logick hold, it must be in great request, for if this Logick do it not, few can see how the Pub­lick Faith can be kept; Divinity and Church-rents (if you sacrilegiously rob God, which God forbid) will not do it; it must be some Sophism like this, some Sophism in this kind, that must answer for Publick Faith, refund the Moneys borrowed from just Creditors, and repay the wise Undertakers, qui spem pretio emerunt, who have brought their Hogs to a good Market.

To apply this shortly in few words; If I remem­ber rightly this Maxim, quod efficit tale est magis tale, I learned in the University, to be understood, de prin­cipio formali effectivo, of such an Agent as is formally such in it self, as is the Effect produced; Next, that it is such as is effective and productive of it self, as when the Fire heateth cold Water, it is hot formally in it self, and maketh Water hot likewise. By which it is necessary, that the Quality inherent in the Effect, be formally inherent in the Agent; for this reason it is, that Wine cannot be said to be drunk, because drunkenness is no wayes inherent in Wine, nor can Wine be capable of it; and this made Aristotle quali­fie his Maxim, quod efficit tale est magis tale, modò utri­que insit. And this insit utrique, that it be in both, [Page 207] maketh that the Maxim holds not in such Agents who operate by donation, for he that is the Donor denudeth himself of the Right and Power of that he giveth to the Donee. So here this condition faileth too. And consequently, if the Right of the King were trans­ferred by Derivation and Donation from the People, the Donation devests them totally of it, except the King have it by way of loan, which to my thinking never any yet spoke. Next, it is required, that there be a Latitude, and that that is effected be capable of a Latitude of more and less, as when (as I said before) Fire heateth Water, the heat of the Fire is more than the heat of the Water. Lastly, some add too, that the Maxim must be understood ante effectum productum. Now all the Argument falleth to the ground, for So­vereignty never was, nor can be in the Community; Sovereignty hath power of Life and Death, which none hath over himself, and the Community conceived without Government, all as equal, endowed with Na­tures and native Liberty, of that Community, can have not power over the Life of another; and so your Ma­xim may be turned home again upon your self, for if the People be not tales, such by Nature, as have such Power, they cannot constituere tales, make such, that is, Kings endowed with such Power; But sure it is, (as it is said) they have not power of Life and Death, to take away their own Life, or anothers: Ergo it must be from God, the living God, the God of Life.

Seeing you make so good Use of your Logick, give me leave to practise Logick upon a more sure Maxim, which is this, omnis effectus est in efficiente vel eminenter, vel formaliter, whatever is in the Effect that must be in the Efficient, either formally, or in a more eminent and superlative way; But there is something in a King, which is not in People, either eminently or formally: [Page 208] Ergo, the People are not the Efficient and constituent of a King. The minor and the assumption is clear, The King hath the Power to take away the Life of man, which is not in the People, whether you take them severally and singly, for no man hath Power, or may kill himself: or whether you take them joyntly, for if none hath power over his own Life, much less over his Neighbour's; and your grounds besides pre­suppose, that all men are equal amongst themselves. That the Sovereign hath this Power, who is so mad as to deny it? Gen. 9. Rom. 14. He bears not the Sword in vain.

Lastly, this Maxim, quod efficit tale, est magis tale; constituens constituto potior, holdeth well with our tenet. Thus, he that maketh Kings, and endoweth them with Power, is much more a King himself, and hath much more Power: But God and Christ make Kings, Ergo. The Assumption is clear, for God is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to him all Power belongeth; here then, utrique inest; and for the other recipit magis & minus, it is certain; for the Power of all Kings up­on Earth, that ever was, are, or shall be, have no more measure and proportion to his Power, than a drop of Water to the Ocean; his Power is like the light of the Sun; their Powers but a borrowed Light, like to that in the Moon and Stars. The King's Power re­lated to God is not univocal, it is onely equivocal or analogical; and that to be doubted of too; for Phi­losophy telleth us, finiti ad infinitum nulla datur propor­tio. It is more than apparent then, that this Maxim is onely abused by the Deceivers of this Time, to make themselves and the People both of them miserable. And the Maxim will conclude, that the Sheba's and Shimei's, these Authors and Incendiaries of Rebellion are more miserable, and shall receive (if not in this [Page 209] Life, yet in that is to come) without extraordinary repentance, a greater condemnation, for they kill both Body and Soul. They make the simpler sort of People miserable, by setting them on upon rebellion against God and his Anointed, to the destruction of State, Soul and Body, temporally and eternally, to the reproach and disgrace of Christian, Catholick, Re­formed Religion; and infallibly by necessity of con­sequents, and necessity of consequence, they make themselves most miserable; for, quod efficit tale, ipsum est magis tale.

OUR Sectaries have borrowed, as we told you before, their great Ordinance of battery against Sovereignty, from the Jesuits Magazine, any who is read in them knoweth well enough how they [Page 210] triumph in those Arguments, crying out till they be hoarse again:

1. First, Neither Scripture nor Nature teacheth that Monarchy, Aristocracie, and Democracie, or any other ima­ginable spece and kind of Government, is the necessary Go­vernment of Humane kind and society; but that the speci­fication and determination is Arbitrary, and of the consti­tution of man. To this same purpose is that other, Neither the Law of God nor Nature demonstrate, why this man more than the other, he than a third; why these more than those, should have the Sovereign Power.

2. Another great piece of Battery is that, that there is such a multiplicity of variety and differences of Kings, and Royal Power in the Kings of the World; (look, say they, upon Spain, France, Britain, &c.) that this must necessarily argue, Kings are of Peoples making; and their Power is in that portion and proportion, as it pleaseth the People to entrust them.

3. The third is, All Humane Societies are perfect Republicks, and as they have in them originally a Power to appoint their Government and Governours, so they have a Power to preserve themselves, and in case of mis-govern­ment, they may resume their Natural, Native, and Original Power, rectifie by themselves what is amiss; otherwise it must be that God and Nature have left them remediless. The first two we will handle in this Chapter, the last in the ensuing.

To answer the Jesuit first in gross to all; however he be wary enough in all his courses, yet in pressing these Arguments against Monarchy, to prove that Mo­narchy is by Humane Institution and Constitution, and not by immediate collation from God, he is not so prudent: for mutatis mutandis, with a little change, losing nothing of their force; these Arguments [...] [Page 211] retorted, and turned home upon the Jesuit, will bring home the Conclusion, that the Pope is not of Divine Institution, hath not infallible and universal Jurisdiction, but is somewhere and by some censura­ble, in case of mis-government.

First, I pray you, is it demonstrable by the letter of Scripture, or by necessary and evident Consequences and Consequents deducible, that the Pope of Rome ought and should be Universal Monarch of the Chri­stian Militant Church, Christ's Vicar in the External Government in the Church, the true Successour to the ordinary Power and Place of Saint Peter, and secured from all Errour in Points of Faith, Worship, and Man­ners? That ever Saint Peter himself had so much, neither Scripture nor Antiquity speak for it; nay, they speak the contrary. And if it were granted to Saint Peter, where have we warrant in Scripture or sound Antiquity, that the Pope of Rome and none else is the true and lawful Successour of St. Peter? We will allow them, that if by Antiquity they can make it appear that it is so, we will yield what they demand. But as they frame the Argument against us, they must give us this in Scripture, [...], in express terms, or [...], by immutable and pregnant conse­quence. If Scripture plead not so much for the Pope, it is more than certain, that Nature is as mute as a Fish in it. Who ever dreamed that Nature dictates, that for the good and happy preservation of the Church, there must be one Universal, Authorita­tive, Infallible Head, and this man to be the Pope of Rome?

Next, let them shew to us, where in Scripture, or otherwise, by irrefragable Demonstration, it can be made appear, that Gregory the fifteenth, or Vrban the [Page 212] eighth, or any else, should be Pope more than any other.

Again, let us give to Bellarmine his Tenet, which he maintains, lib. 5. de Pontifice Romano, where he endeavours to prove, That the Pope is authorized with an indirect Power over and above Kings, in order to Spiritual things; That the Church is a per­fect Republick, which God hath not left destitute to provide for its safety and preservation: If Bellarmine will extract from hence this Consequence, Ergo the Pope, the Head of the Church, in case of Tyranny, Heresie, or Apostacy, for the good of the Church, may censure, punish, dethrone a King; Why may we not more formally, more powerfully conclude against Bel­larmine thus, The Catholick Church diffusively or collectively taken, is a perfect Republick, which God hath not left destitute of Power or means to provide for her Safety, in case of Danger and Deficiency: Ergo in case of male-administration by the Pope, in case of Deficiency, (which are possibly incident to the Pope, and consistent with his infallibility ex Cathedra) The Community of Christians may supply his Defects, rectifie his Disorders; and why not excathedrate him too? Otherwise God hath left his Church remediless. The Romanists must acknowledge the strength of the Argument to be alike pressing on the one hand, no less than the other, or then they must fore-goe these ratiocinations. More of this in the next ensu­ing Chapter.

Having premised this general Answer, let us now answer to every one of them apart. And to the first Argument, which is framed thus; Neither the Law of God or Nature determines, that Monarchy is the Government, or Aristocracy the Government, or De­mocracy [Page 213] the Government; or why one more than another, and some few more than many should have the Supremacy: Ergo the donation of the Power, the collation of Supremacy, is by Derivation from the People to the Governour or Governours. To the first Argument, I say, I answer thus, It is an inconse­quence; because although I would grant all the an­tecedent, and that the specification of the Govern­ment, the People designing (if ever any People were so really, to be free of all Government, because it is imaginable, let us grant it as real) either one to have the Sovereignty over them, as in Monarchy; or some few of the better sort, as in Aristocracie; or many, as in Democracie; it will not follow, Ergo Sovereignty in one, few, or many, is by derivation and donation from them: Because their act in this is onely Designa­tio Personae, or Personarum, to appoint one Person, or more, or many Persons to be Governour or Gover­nours for the Government: The collation of the Power, Consequitur ad designationem, ex donatione & ordinatione divinâ; followeth upon this designation and deputation of the Person or Persons, from the im­mediate donation and ordination of God. As when such and such men are designed to Holy Orders and Functions, the Designation of the Person and Persons is the work and act of the Church; but the collation of the Power is the proper, peculiar, and immediate Work and act of God, as all knowing Divines do willingly acknowledge. To reason à potestate designa­tiva & deputativa personae & personarum, from the Pow­er which designeth and deputeth a Person or Persons for a Charge; ad potestatem collativam authoritatis, to the power of collating or giving the Power it self, is the Sophism and caption, which the School calleth à [Page 214] figura dictionis, where there is a [...], a proposing in the Antecedent in one kind, and a concluding in the Consequent in another and different kind. A Woman may design the Person of the Man who is to be her Husband; but marital Right and Power is collated by God immediately, and issueth ne­cessarily from his Ordination.

That other Sophism maketh no better Paralogism, although Suarez taketh it for a Demonstration un­answerable. The force of the Argument briefly is this; If Sovereignty in a King were immediately from God, then Power Royal could not chuse but be Uniform in all Kings, but this holdeth not; for there is such a latitude of Variety, that some Kings have more, some less, with a great deal of difference in the Point and Power of Sovereignty. Before we answer this, I entreat the Christian Reader to consider, that we maintain not, we plead not at this time for a De­spotical Sovereignty, which is Dominium herile, an abso­lute Power, such as the Great Turk this day exerci­ses over his Subjects, or the King of Spain hath over, and in all his Territories without Europe: We main­tain onely Regiam potestatem quae fundatur in paterna, such Royal Paternal Sovereignty, as (blessed be God) we and our Ancestors have lived long and happily under. This, as it hath its Royal Prerogatives in­herent naturally in the Crown, and inseparable from it; so it trencheth not upon the Liberty of the Per­son, or the Propriety of the Goods of the Subject, but in and by the lawful and just Acts of Jurisdicti­on. Next, I desire the Courteous and Judicious Rea­der to remember, that when we plead for the Sove­reignty of Kings, we understand such onely who are truly and really Kings, not Titulo tenus, by compella­tion [Page 215] onely, as were the Lacedaemonian Kings, Executors only of the Decrees and Pleasure of the Ephori which was truly an Aristocracy, no Monarchy.

Then, the Argument is this; that which is of that Condition and Temper that it may be enlarged or straitned; that which actually and experimentally is found various and different, it cannot be such by any Constitution of nature, or Institution from God: But Monarchy is such, Ergo. Here Suarez cryeth out, Clarum est indicium hujus veritatis, quòd haec Regia potestas non sit aequalis in omnibus regibus, neque cum iisdem proprie­tatibus durationis, perpetuitatis, successionis, & similibus.

The major of this Syllogism, or Sophism rather, must be some way better qualified, otherwise it will conclude nothing, or too much, which is the equiva­lent in the rules of Right and sound reasoning to that, to conclude nothing. In the same manner I reason, every man hath not a little measure of Knowledge, Reason, Discourse, &c. but some are more, some are less knowing men; some more, some less rational, &c. Ergo, Knowledge, Reason, Discourse, &c. are not natural to man. The Consequence is lame; because to Reason, ab actu exercito ad actum signatum, or con­trarywise, will not always hold; or to reason à poten­tia secunda ad primam vel è contra: from the Difference in the Exercise, to conclude a Difference or Disparity in the first Capacity, is inconsequent. To be rational in the first Capacity and natural Power, is essential to all men, and equal in all; but in the use, the Exercise of the rational Faculty, there is a vast Disparity, because of a great Latitude in different actual Ability. Nature admits a great Variety in the use and exercise of her natural Powers, that all are not alike fitted and ena­bled for the second Acts. In the first Capacity nature [Page 216] is so just, so equal, so indulgent to all, that the native first radical power being of it self, in indivisibili, is equal in all; no less, in homine tenuissimi sensûs, in the least knowing man, than in him who in Sharpness of Wit approacheth nearest to Angelical and Noetical Spi­rits.

Take another Instance; the face of man is not much above a Span in Length or Breath, yet what an im­mense Variety is there in the faces of men? Naturalists and Moralists do hold, and not without great shew of Reason, that from the first to the last man, every in­dividual hath his own proper peculiar face. Can Sua­rez or any other from this Variety in the antecedent, bring home this Conclusion in the Consequent, Ergo a face is not natural to man, but something casual, or accidental? The Result is, we must pitch upon some things natural, which are uniform in all, and which yet admit, in the multivarious Wisdom of God, and large work of nature, some room and place of Variety, which Variety doth neither abolish nor destroy the Es­sentials. We will find the like in Monarchy, that all of them are uniform in their Essentials; and acciden­tal Varieties do not prove them to be of humane Com­position or Constitution.

If Instances in things natural do not the Business, let me entreat the Iesuit and Puritan to look upon moral things, where they will find the like. Vltio scelerum, that gross enormous Crimes are to be punished with a condign proportioned Punishment, is the Ordinance of God, of Nature, and common Equity. This Truth is undenyable. Is there not a great Variety and Diffe­rence in the measure and manner of the Punishment, in different Kingdoms and Nations? Theft somewhere is punished by Death, somewhere by Restitution; and [Page 217] that of Restitution, somewhere twofold, somewhere threefold, some fourfold, &c. somewhere it is punish­ed by Slavery, somewhere one way, somewhere ano­ther way. Infinite Instances of this kind might be ad­duced. Can you from hence conclude, that the Pu­nishment of Theft is not an inviolable Order and Or­dinance of Almighty God and common Equity? But that it hath all its Entity and Being by influence from humane Appointment? A Country Clown would jeer you for this.

We deny not but Gods Works are uniform in their Essentials, it a ut nec augeri nec minui possunt, that if you take the least part of the Essentials (if Essentials may truly be said to have parts) from them, they perish; yet this may well subsist with some more, some less power in the actuating or exercising of this natural uniform Power. No understanding Iesuit will deny, but acknowledge that Episcopacy with all its essential Power is immediately from God, and of his Instituti­on; and yet may it not be, that in actu exercito, in the exercise of this Power some Bishops may have more, some less power in actuating that which they are not restrained from, but may do ex vi ordinis, by their sa­cred native Power? A Bishop ex vi ordinis, by his in­herent Power of Consecration, may ordain every where in the World, as many Priests, as many Dea­cons as he will; yet may he not be restrained, that he shall not do it without his own Diocess? May he not by the same Power ordain a Priest without a Title or Cure? and yet may he not be restrained by positive Consent and Constitution, that he shall not do it? Is not the case possible and probable, that Bishops of one particular Church may be more restrained than Bishops of another particular Church? Can Suarez or any other [Page 218] than conclude from this Variety in the Exercise of Epis­copacy, that Episcopacy with it's radical Power is not immediately from God and Christ? He hath more Learning and Candor than will allow him to be so absurd.

The Sectary feeleth no hurt by this Stroke: Well, let us come home to him. I demand of the Sectary, whether or not a Minister made (I dare not say, a Priest in sacred Orders, or ordained by Imposition of hands, this Christian Practice is Antichristianism now a-days) hath not all the Power naturally inherent in him, that any other Minister whosoever, or wheresoever else? I am confident none of them will deny it: Again, may he not be restrained to do no Ministerial act, as to Baptize, Preach, &c. but within his own Parish, unless he be otherwise licensed? No moderate Sectary (if any such be) doth deny this. Come on: In some cases of Jurisdiction (I fear the Term offends the Ears and Stomach of the Precisian) in some cases of Disci­pline, I say, of which by Gods Law, and his calling (excuse me to keep their own Diction) he hath full Power within his Charge, may he not be so restrained that some reserved cases (this Phrase I fear be offensive) that some points of Discipline be reserved as peculiar for the Classis, the Presbytery? and that their Judg­ment is only to be executed by the Parish Pope? This is a known case amongst them. Again, may there not be some points of Discipline, and Doctrine too, reserved as proper and peculiar for a Provincial? And again, some of that high Strain and Concernment, that they cannot be cognosced or determined, but by a general Assembly of such a monstrous Composition, a Tragelaphus, such as never Christ instituted, nor Christian Church knew? All this holds with their Te­nets, [Page 219] their Practices. Further I demand, may it not be that in particular National Churches, as the Church of Germany, the Church of France, the Church of Scotland are, in these cases reserved respectively as we expressed before, that there may be a great Variety and Difference? Now notwithstanding of all those Restraints, by which Ministers so evidently and actu­ally differ in the exercise and actuating of their Mini­sterial Charge and Function: The Sectary that under­stands himself aright, will be very loath to have the Conclusion brought home, that the Ministerial Power is all by humane Institution, by humane Composition, Contract, or that his Calling is humane only, con­ventional only, pactional only. As he answer­eth for himself, I hope he will furnish us an Answer how to take off this Argument so much triumphed in both by him and his spurious Father the Jesuit.

I take the Observator to be a Lay Gentleman, and it may be, as the times are, he careth not much for the one way of Episcopacy, nor the other way of Presby­tery, nor the third of Independency, nor any other way imaginary or imaginable in the Church; we must therefore some other way satisfie him. Then let me entreat him to consider what Variety and Difference is found in oeconomical Government, if he will look up­on the exercise either of marital or paternal Power: View it, if in different Kingdoms, in diverse Nations he find not and acknowledge a great immense Varie­ty: or will he look upon both at home, not almost one Family uniform and alike with another: and that according to the various Temper of Fathers and Hus­bands, their different Abilities, some being more in­dulgent, some more rigorous, some keeping the equal mean: Some being more intelligent, knowing, and [Page 220] prudent; some of less Knowledge, Prudence, and Government. The Observator will find some wives like Sarah, with Reverence and Submission calling their Husbands Lord; some Michols lording over their Husbands; some Fathers like Eli too too indulgent to their Children: others like Iob happily and piously breeding his Children, and sacrificing for them when they are feasting. In brief, look upon the oeconomy of all Families within your Knowledge, and you shall find that in Government not one looks like another. Doth it then from hence follow necessarily, that pater­nal or marital Authority is not from God and Nature, but appointed at the pleasure and Constitution of men?

The result of all is this: That seeing in things na­tural, things moral, things ecclesiastical and spiritual, and in things oeconomical, this accidental and super­venient Variety in their exercise, destroyeth not the true Essence and inseparable Essentials of the things themselves, but naturally they are uniform and equal­ly the same: So in the different Monarchies of the World, the Disparity and Difference of the exercising of monarchical power, which is accidental, maketh them not specifically and essentially different and di­verse. What these prime, radical, essential Constitutives of Monarchy are, it will be proper to express, quaest. 4. We content our selves with three, which are agreed upon to be in all Speces of Sovereign Power, whether Aristocratical, Democratical, or Monarchical. The 1. First is, that it is Potestas suprema, that it is subordi­nate to none but Almighty God; dicit negationem supe­rioris in terris, it admitteth no coordinate, collateral, coe­qual, or corrival Power. 2. Next, it is Perpetua potestas, a perpetual Power; He cannot fall from his Sovereign­ty, [Page 221] but whilst he lives he is the Lords Anointed. 3. Thirdly, the Power of all Monarchs, and of every Monarch, is Legibus soluta, subject to no over-ruling Power of man. Conceive it not so, that Kings are free from the direction of, and obligation to the Law of God, Nature, and common Equity; but from Coercion humane, or any humane coactive Power, to punish, cen­sure, or dethrone them. The Hebrews call these, and what particulars come within their verge, Majus Impe­rium; the Greeks [...], and [...]; and where those are equal in all Monarchy, no acci­dental variety can change the nature of Monarchy in all and every one of them.

As for other particulars virtually and naturally in­cluded in these three, howsoever in actu signato, in their first capacity, they be propriè propriissimè, radically and properly in Sovereignty and in Monarchies; yet in actu exercito, in the exercise of them, they may be entrusted to the Subject, Ita ut non defluat radix supre­mae potestatis, so that they have it onely by Delegation and Trust, communicativè, by communication; not privativè, not so that these Delegates are invested so with it, as the King is totally divested. Who can deny but Iudiciaria potestas, the Power to judge in all Causes, Criminal, Civil, which concern the Subjects and Kingdom, is inherent essentially in the Crown and Scepter of the King, and the King, to ease his bur­then, and that Justice may the more readily and ea­sily be done, intrusteth his Judges with it? And here, is not the Trust less and more, as it pleaseth the King to give it? Is it not different in some onely for such and such Cases and Causes, in others, for some others different? And doth there not lie to the King extre­ma appellatio, the last Appeal? or if that be not, to [Page 222] make Justice more expedite, is there not the equiva­lent reserved, that the Party hurt may by Petition and humble Remonstrance, make his Case and Cause evi­dent to the King, that he in his Sovereignty may re­dress what is wrong, and punish the Judge abusing his Trust? By which it is more than apparent, that this and the like Restraints, the King putteth upon the exercise of his Native Power, is onely ad minuendam solicitudinem, not ad minuendam Majestatem, to facili­tate his Charge, and not to denude or disrobe himself of that Sacred Right and Prerogative God hath given to him, as his Vicegerent upon Earth.

Again, it is not slightly to be passed by, that there be many Kings, many times too indulgent Fathers to their People and Subjects, who give away too much of their Sacred Right, which, when Subjects have come at, being more than they should, zealous of their Liberty, will not part with it again, but detain it sacrilegiously. If a man could be allowed to speak truth in this distempered Age, it may be said without sin against God, or crime of laese-majesty against King or People, that where Monarchy has been too much straitened, and weakened by loss of its natural and native Prerogative, it hath been done by imprudent, at least inconsiderate acts of too good Princes, and of voluntary concession: and in the end, as they prove derogatory to Sovereignty, so they prove destructive to the Peace and Protection, the Liberty and Propriety of the Subject. Review all the Grants of Princes in this kind, and you shall find upon Authentick Re­cord, that they be meer Concessions of grace. If as much could be shewn upon as faithful and unquestion­able Record, to prove our King a pactional, and con­ventional Prince, your Plea should be more specious [Page 223] in the Eyes of the World. And if you could by au­thentick Evidence make it appear, that such bounds and limits are put to Sovereignty, as it is more than manifest that what you claim is by acts of voluntary Humanity, you should do somewhat which probably would take the People more; but I must tell you withal, you totally destroy Monarchy, and must say right down our gracious Sovereign is no Monarch, which is against Reason, Sense, all Records extant, and the universal testimony of all knowing men in other Kingdoms and States. It is great Discourtesie to change Princes acts of grace bestowed upon Subjects, into acts of Duty and Debt; nor is it a ready way to obtain more grace, to prove unthankful, and not ac­knowledge prior graces received. Lawyers and Jurists do tell you, that from actus humanitatis & voluntatis, from acts of Courtesie and voluntary Concession you may not reason to conclude actum necessitatis, an act of Necessity and Debt; this is a Paralogism in Law.

Lastly, Is it not more than known, that People are so corruptly disposed against, and opposed to Govern­ment, that they are ready to slip the collar, and to shake off, at least to weaken the yoke of Government? From hence it issueth, that subtil men wait opportunities to cheat good and weak Princes out of their Rights and Prerogatives. And is it not seen, that wise and able Princes being plunged into inevitable and unavoidable Difficulties, to obtain Subsidies and Assistance of their Subjects, to extricate themselves out of such La­byrinths, are forced to suffer their Rights to be wrest­ed out of their hands, and to make sale of them? Both Statutes and Stories witness this truth plentifully. The truth is, they are ill made away, and a great deal [Page 224] worse kept away. Necessity may be some excuse for parting with them, but it is Sacrilege in Subjects to detain them. It cannot subsist with the Rules of good Policy and Government, to trench so upon the Prero­gative of the King, as to disable him from doing his Charge, to protect and govern his Subjects in Peace and Safety. An impotent King is the same with no King: where in the Book of Iudges it is so oft repeated, when Idolatry, rapine, Blood and Oppression abound­ed, that in those dayes there was no King in Israel; none is so blockish to conceive that God's People lived under an Anarchy: but the Phrase importeth two things; first, that they wanted the most excellent of Govern­ments, they had no King, no Monarchy; next that the then Government was so weak and weakened, that it could neither repress, nor censure disorders of the highest Enormity: and that whole Book is a full Commentary that Aristocracy is defective to effect or work the proper Works and Effects of perfect Go­vernment; for you shall find universally in the whole Book, that while the People were governed by the Sanhedrim, the Princes of the Tribes, and Fathers of the People, &c. the People went a whoring after other gods; then God, to punish them, delivered them into the hands of their Enemies; then they cryed to the Lord in the day of their distress, and then the Lord raised up to them a Sophet, a Judge, a Deliverer, who, under God, as his Viceroy, had Iura Belli & Pacis; Sovereign Power in War and Peace: a very observable thing to prove the excellency of Monarchy, and the weakness and defects of Aristocracy, whose mis-government could not be rectified but by placing the Sovereignty in one: Read and consider the whole Book, and you will find it true what we say: To [Page 225] give you one for all, referring the rest to your own search and trial, read the second Chapter of that Book, which, in the opinion of the most Learned, is a brief summary of the whole state and condition of that Peo­ple, from the first time of that story to Saul and David's dayes, and particularly read what you have Vers. 17, 18. They would not hearken unto their Iudges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them, they turned quickly out of the way which their Fathers walked in, obeying the Command­ments of the Lord; but they did not so. And when the Lord raised them up Iudges, then the Lord was with the Iudge, and delivered them out of the hand of their Ene­mies all the dayes of the Iudge. And see what follow­eth, Vers. 19. And it came to pass when the Iudge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than their Fathers, in following other gods, &c. They ceased not from their own doings, and from their stubborn way. To conceive these words right, you must ob­serve, that the word, Iudges, verse 17. and the same word, verse 18. is not used in the same sense; the reason is evident; for of the first Judges, vers. 17. it is expresly said, The People did not hearken to them, but they went a whoring after other gods, &c. These Judges were the ordinary Judges, the Sanhedrim, the Princes of the twelve Tribes, the Fathers of Families, &c. The Judges mentioned, vers. 18 & 19. are the Judg­es extraordinarily raised by God, Othniel, Ehud, &c. So the word raised imports: Again, these Judges be­came Judges after their going a whoring, and after their misery and slavery for Sin. Thirdly, of these Judges it is said, that not onely they delivered the Israelites from their bondage, but that during their dayes, the People continued in the right service of God. Fourth­ly, [Page 226] that after their Death they ceased not from their doings, and from their stubborn way: which things are far different from the Condition of the Judges mentioned vers. 17. Lastly, it is not to be passed by, that emphatically it is said, that God was with the Iudges whom he raised up, more blessing Monarchy than Ari­stocracy, because more warranted and liked by God than any other Government whatsoever: Observe it well, that under the Iudges, the Aristocracy, the peo­ple went a whoring; and when the Judge, raised up by God, died, and the Government returned again to be Aristocratical, the Text saith, that they ceased not from their doings, and from their stubborn way. Add to this, that Abimelech knew it to be a powerful Argu­ment to perswade them to make him King, that Mo­narchy was better than Aristocracy, It was better one reign over them than seventy. Forget not withal, that in all the Disorders mentioned in the last part of the Book the Reason is not given for want of Government, but want of a King in Israel: of this more, Quaest. 2. To return to our purpose by what we have alledged it is clear, that Sovereignty weakened in Monarchy or Aristocracy cannot do it's work, and is in the next place and Condition to Anarchy and Confusion. When Zedekiah was over-lorded by his Nobles, he could neither save himself nor his People, nor Prophet and Servant of God Ieremiah: nor could David punish Ioab when he was over-awed by that Power he him­self had put in his hands. To weaken the head is to distemper the whole Body: wherefore I doubt not to affirm but if any good Prince or his royal Ancestors have been, or are cheated out of their sacred Right by Fraud or Force, he may at the fittest Opportunity, when God in his wise Providence offereth the occasion, [Page 227] resume it. Much more lawful it is for Kings to do this, when Subjects have used or abused rather such Concessions of Grace to the hurt of Sovereignty, and the good of the Subject. Let us never seed our selves in a foolish Paradise, to think the Subject can be secu­red, where the sacred Prerogative of the King is in­jured. Contractatio rei alienae what a Sin it is the Law decides, determines: Contractaetio rei alienae & sacrae, what a Sin it is Scripture telleth us; it is Sacriledge, and Intrusion upon Almighty God himself, no less than when a Kings Ambassadour is violated by a Fo­reign Prince. Our Saviour hath taught us, it is not fit to cast Pearls and precious Stones, you know to whom; I have a better Opinion and Esteem of all the Kings Subjects. It is a poor and ignorant shift that some Pettifoggers, Smatterers in the Law, use to wrong the sacred Prerogative of Kings, acknowledg­ing no more for the royal Prerogative, nor what, they say, the Law municipal of the Kingdom hath determi­ned. I do not speak this to reproach intelligent Ju­rists, and reverend Judges, whose places and parts I reverence as much as any, accounting the knowledge of that Science next to Divinity, and far more excel­lent and useful than all others besides. I acknowledge none have written more divinely almost, nor ratio­nally, in maintenance of the sacred Right and Person of Kings, than some excellent and eminent in the Knowledge of the Law; as Bodin, Barcklay, Blackwood, [...]nd others, to whose Travels in this Subject we owe much: but for these other S [...]ioli, they cannot distin­guish betwixt a Statute declarative, and a Statute con­s [...]tutive. What is found in the Statutes of the King­dom concerning the Prerogative they only declare Pre­rogative to the Subject, and add a Sanction penal, in [Page 228] case of Violation, they do not determine it, God Al­mighty hath by himself declared it. We would laugh at him in the School of Divinity, who would but mutter that the Decalogue was not a Law till God wrote it with his own Finger in two Tables in mount Sinai, gave it to Moses, and Moses intimated it to the people. What is morally natural in it, is Lex naturae: the Dictate of Nature, by the finger of Nature writ­ten in the minds and Hearts of all; and what is positi­vum morale, positively moral, was from the Beginning so, known and practised by the Church from Adam to Moses; when David commanded what share of the Spoil those should have, who were the reserve to pre­serve the Stuff, Scripture calleth this Ordinance a Law made by David to last for ever; yet we know this was God's Ordinance before the Law. The very like is in Statutes and Acts of Parliament declaring the royal Prerogative of a King, that the Subject may the better know it, be put in malâ fide, if he violate it, and know what Judgment he is to expect.

Lastly, to shut up all this Discourse, let us intreat the impartial Reader to cast his Eyes upon all Story domestick and Foreign, and especially domestick, and if they find not the worst Bargains ever Subjects made, was at any Rate to purchase a possession of the sacred Rights of Kings; sometimes it hath been no better than occidisti, possedisti; it hath been purchased with a great deal of Blood. The Market hath been made by Sedition, Rebellion, Rapine, Murder, plundering God and man, and sometimes regained again to its right Owner, but at as dear a Rate and Price. It is in Morals as in Naturals, Omne corpus quiescit in suo loco, an Element without its place hath never Rest, nor the World good by it's Operation and Influence, till [Page 229] it be replaced and seated in it's right Locality. God hath commanded not a date but a reddite, not a giving unto Caesar of his Right, but a rendring, not only as due, but if it be with-holden or with-drawn to restore him it. The Stories of these Kingdoms have too ma­ny real Proofs of this Truth, I forbear to cite them, or to refer you to them, I wish of these days, and others like them, that they be never known nor read of here­after: ‘Excidat illa dies, &c.’

But seeing I treat of this purpose divinely, give me leave to speak Gods Truth to you, as becometh Gods Servant and a good Subject, Till those Kingdoms be purged of Sacriledge so highly committed against God, by wronging his Anointed, and his Church, and both of them restored to their sacred Right, we need not expect true and solid Peace, nor the true and effectu­al Blessings of God. Let us fancy to our selves this or that Accommodation for Peace, if God be wronged in his Anointed and Church, we add only Fewel or Oyl to the Fire. Almighty and merciful God, the God of all Spirits, put it in the Hearts of all Christians and Subjects, to honour him, and in him, and for him, his Anointed and Church, rendering to God what is God's, and to the King what is the Kings; that there may be a Blessing in these Kingdoms, in our Ierusalem, there may be Peace within her Walls, and Prosperity within her Gates, that the Crown which he hath put upon the head of his Anointed our Sovereign may flourish with him and his Seed for ever, and we and our Posterity may live in Godliness and Honesty under him and them till the coming of our Lord, when he, they, and we shall receive that immortal Crown of eternal Glory, which the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, [Page 230] and chief Bishops of our Souls hath laid up for all them that fear him. Amen.

THE Jesuit and Puritan, although they differ in their Expressions, agree well in the Sense, and intend both of them one Conclusion. How this Argument [...] may be retorted upon the Jesuit against his Numen terrenum, the Pope, we told in the preceding Chapter; only now let the Jesuit give me leave to ask him how a Republick is conceiv­able, is imaginable without a Governour or Gover­nours, and People governed? How can a Society be imagined without Order? and how Order without Priority and Posteriority? When the Jesuit then saith, that every Society of men is a perfect Republick, and every perfect Republick must have within it self as much Power as may preserve it self from Ruine, and right what is amiss, he must necessarily by this Socie­ty of men, and Republick mentioned in the Premisses understand only the Community of the People and [Page 231] Subject, in an abstracted Notion, from the Sovereign Governour or Governours; otherwise concludes no­thing at all to purpose. And here let me intreat the Jesuit or Puritan to tell me where ever he read the word Civitas or Republick ascribed to a multitude, a disorderly rout, where there is no Governour. It is alike to conceive a politick Body without a Govern­our, as to conceive the natural Body without a Head. We pardon the Jesuit and Puritan to give us new Tenets in Policy, seeing they are so bold with God and his Church, to give us new Tenets in Di­vinity.

Again, it is worth our observing, that when our Adversaries come to shew where this Republick is, where this Superintendent Power is seated, they differ and vary infinitely. It is no wonder to hear the Builders of Babel speak with different Tongues, we are hopeful God in his mercy will scatter them upon the Earth, and cast down this Babel. The Jesuits, all, for ought I know, do ascribe this to the Community; The Sectaries do differ infinitely, some warrant any one Subject, any individual Person, to make away a King in this case; and that such a work is no less to be rewarded, than when one killeth a ravenous Wolf. Some will have it in the whole Community with the Jesuit. Some will have it in the Collective Body, but how? not met together by the Warrant or Writ of Sovereign Authority, but when necessity (which is often fancied and imaginary) of reforming State and Church, calleth them together. Some will have the Power in the Nobles and Peers of the Land. Some in the three States, assembled by the Kings Writ. Some in the inferiour Judges. In sum, every one fancieth it to himself, as he resolveth to Idol or serve corruptly [Page 232] the humour and state of the People where he liveth. When these Classical Authors agree in one, they will make us think their Tenets [...]ounder, and their courses more warrantable, which I never hope to see, because this Spirit of Discord God hath put as a Judgment up­on all Masters of Errours.

I dispute not whether this Power be in the Com­munity, or in the Collective Body, or in the Peers and Nobles, or in the inferiour Judges, or in the Parlia­ment, or where else you can imagine it, for I know no where it is to punish or curb Sovereignty, but in Almighty God; Onely I demand of the Jesuit and Sectary, that seeing wheresoever they put it, they make it the last remedy, the onely remedy to supply all De­fect, to redress all Wrongs, to set aright whatever is dis-joynted in Church or State; The Subject of this superintending Power must be secured from errour in Iudg­ment, from errour in Practice: and how happy are we now, that in these late dayes we have a Pope in Tempo­ralibus, who is no less assisted and endowed with the gift and grace of Infallibility, than the Pope of Rome determining ex Cathedra. He is too much in love with a Community, or with Nobles, or with Parlia­ments, or with inferiour Judges, &c. who thinketh or judgeth that they, or any of them are secured from Er­rour in the reformation of State or Church.

But on the other side, if the Multitude, the Peers, the Judges, the Parliaments, are liable to Errour, and many times actually do err; when they err in this glorious work of Reformation of Church and State, doth not the perfect condition of a perfect Republick require, that there be some authorized with a superin­tendent Power, to rectifie their Errours, and to punish their misdemeanours? otherwise God hath left Church [Page 233] and State remediless; they must name this Remedy, and by all appearance this must be the Sovereign again; and so Impius ambulat in circuitu.

If they will say, that to eschew such a ridiculous regress and circle betwixt King and People, and Peo­ple and King, and to shun Ne detur progressus in infini­tum, that if the Community or Parliament err, the remedy is to be left to the Wisdom and Justice of God; Why will not the Sectary acknowledge that it is as fit, when the Sovereign transgresseth against the right Rules of Government, that People and Subjects submit in Patience, and wait till God send a Remedy, either rectifying or removing the bad Go­vernour?

Where ever you place this Superintending Power a­bove a King, I care not much, for it is but an Idea; by this same Power they who are authorized with it by God and Natures Right, may call a King to ac­count, censure, and punish him for any errour or mis­demeanour whatsoever, for any one act of injustice: Why might not the People of Israel, or Peers, or San­hedrim, &c. have convented David before them, judg­ed, and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba, and his murther of Vriah? The Romanists, and great­est part of Antimonarchical new Statists, do acknow­ledge no case lawful, but either in Heresie, or in Apo­stasie, or in Tyranny; the first two the Romanists would have it to the Popes Power, and at his Discretion; the last, of Tyranny, all of them do qualifie thus, Vt sit universalis, manifesta, & cum obstinatione: that it be in such Tyranny onely which is intended, endeavour­ed, attempted for the whole and total destruction of the Publick, which cannot fall into the thoughts and at­tempts of any but a mad man. What is recorded in story [Page 234] of Nero his wish in this kind, may be rather judged the expression of a transported Passion than a fixed Reso­lution. Next, this case must be evident, and clear as the Sun-shine at Noon-day. Thirdly, it must be joyned with such pervicacy and obstinacy, that it is insepara­ble and invincible by any ordinary humble Remon­strance and Supplication to the contrary. Although we give it, that it were lawful in a case so qualified, for the Community or any else, to resume their Pow­er, and use it to remedy themselves, and to rectifie what is amiss, which we cannot grant; we are very confident, that all the Wit of the Opposites cannot make it appear, that their case is such at this time. Upon their grounds we see not how by sound reason, not onely in such case as is expressed onely, but also in every case of male-administration whatever it be, they who have this pretended and fancied Power, may not use and exercise this superintendent and transcend­ently extravagant Power.

I pray you, if this Superintending Power in the Peo­ple, Peers, or Parliament, &c. resumable in the exigent of great necessity, be the onely means and last remedy allowed, and so necessary that without it neither Church nor State can be preserved in their integrity; how cometh it to pass that we have neither Precept nor Practice for it in Holy Writ? Deus & Natura non desunt in necessariis; God and Nature are not deficient in things primely necessary. Nothing can be con­ceived more necessary for State and Church than such a Remedy. If then we cannot hit upon express and clear warrant by Precept or Practice in Scripture, for a matter of so high and necessary concernment, who can be so stupid in a Pythagorean way, to believe this upon an [...], upon your Rabbies bare assertion, or [Page 235] trust it upon an Anabaptistical Enthusiasm. There is nothing more certain, than that there is not any thing in Scripture tending that way. If it be, our Adver­saries are bound to produce it; for affirmanti incumbit probatio, He that affirms it to be so, is bound to make his proof appear.

Next, this tenet argues too great a confidence of our selves, as if to be left to our own natural Provi­dence, were the onely sufficient, competent and per­fect means of Safety and Redress of Church and State. We hereby presume upon our own strength, that by our selves we are able to rectifie and preserve both Church and State. It is Arrogancy too, for hereby we are puffed up with an overweening con­ceit of our own Piety and Integrity, as if our Judg­ment were so sound, as that it cannot be darkened or corrupted, and our Affections so orderly, as they can­not over-rule us in a wrong course, to do against that is pious and just. I was ever in opinion till now, that [...], to be secured from Sin, was the onely propriety of God, and that it is antichristian in the Pope to lay claim to an absolute Infallibility. But this new Policy will find the like in the Parliament, the collective Body or Community.

Thirdly, consider attentively and impartially what you hold, and you will find it resolve into Infidelity and Impatience; Infidelity, that we do not trust that God is able to do it; Impatience, that we will not wait patiently till he do it. The Heathen are nearer to Christianity in this, than our glorious Reformers. Tacitus saith, Quomodo sterilitatem, aut nimios imbres, & caetera naturae mal [...], ita luxum vel avaritiam domi­nantium tolerate; vitia erunt donec homines, sed neque haec continua, & meliorum interventu pensantur. The safest [Page 236] way, in the wise Historian's judgment, is to endure the Tempests of ill Government patiently, as we do other Tempests falling from Heaven; while men are, faults will be, but will not be alwayes last­ing; and better things will come with compensation of our losses.

Fourthly, It is much better for us, that God hath reserved this as a peculiar case to himself to punish Sovereigns, and to rectifie their Errours. But for us on the other part to usurp upon his Right, it is no less than intrusion upon his Divine Prerogative, and carri­eth along with it Morbum complicatum, a number of Sins against many of his most glorious Attributes. 1. It wrongeth God in his glorious Wisdom, that he hath not prepared such a Remedy for us in this case; nay, it putteth foolishness upon him, that in this case he hath commanded Patience, and so left us totally remediless. 2. It wrongeth God in his glorious Power, by making him weak, that by no other means he could set aright what is disjoynted in Church and State. 3. It wrongeth his Holiness; who for the ne­cessary support of Church and State by these means, is necessitated for effecting the Work most concerneth him and his Glory, to have and use the help of sinful men, nay, even of their Sins. 4. To what is said, add this, that this Principle of theirs dishonoureth Christian Religion; it turneth Religion into Rebel­lion, Faith into Faction, and Christian obedience into disloyal Treason. Nothing is more powerful to deter Kings from coming to the profession of Reformed Ca­tholick Religion, than to hold, that such a Superin­tendent Power is in People or Parliament, to censure and unking Christian Kings.

Fifthly, Christian obedience and Sobriety teacheth us to leave all Evils in Church and State to be redres­sed by those means God himself hath appointed, and when the ordinate means do it not, or do to the con­trary, we are to keep our selves pure, possess our selves with Patience, and refer the Remedy to God, who hath reserved this to himself: We ought not to justle God out of his Right. Before we have said, that Scripture affords no warrant by Precept or Practice to the Community, the collective or representative Body to do it; But now we add, for them to do it, by opposing or resisting Sovereignty, is in Scripture ex­presly forbidden: Romans 13. 2. Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Of this more Quaest. 5. We must therefore closely adhere to what God hath commanded, not turning to the left hand, to obey unlawful things commanded by the Sovereign; nor to the right hand, with violence to resist lawful Authority. Let all Subjects remember, that in the day of their Accounts the charge will be to all singly or joynt­ly considered, Who hath required these things at your hands? Who hath made you Judges and Executers of matters of so high concernment? And though it be pretended and possibly intended too, that the work so done shall make much for the glory of God, the good of the Church, the liberty and happiness of the Subject, it will not take us off. We must not do evil that good may come of it, Rom. 3. 8. To do God a piece of good service against his Will manifested, is not to acquit our selves as his humble servants, but to prove us his arro­gant and proud Masters. He is most glorified when his voice is obeyed: 1 Sam. 15. 22. God standeth not in need of wicked man, nor of his sinful wayes. It was a [Page 238] pious Intention Vzza had, when he put out his hand to save the Ark from falling: yet because it was above his Charge, God did strike him presently dead, 2 Sam. 6. 6. 1 Chron. 13. 10. It is not enough for these Reformers to be assured in their Consciences, that the work they intend and are about, tends to a good, religious, and pious effect: but they must have a sufficient Warrant from written Truth, that they are warranted and called to this work.

Sixthly, as it is against Piety, it is against Pru­dence and the good of Policy: Prudence doth not al­low us to lose what real Good we have in present Possession, for any future good which we have only in uncertain Expectation. By this projected Course of our New-Statist-Divines we loose a good Conscience, fall in actual Disobedience and Rebellion against the Lord, and his Anointed. We refuse Gods Tryal, and with an unwarrantable, indiscreet, and unseasonable Zeal for Religion, and our temporary Good, come contrary to God and his Commandments. We ante­vert, nay, shake off the Glory that God expecteth by our Tryals, and cannot, dare not, expect Gods Bles­sing to our Endeavours. If the Root be evil the Fruit can be no better. Who may expect a Blessing to a sinful and rebellious Course? Doth he allow us to do wrong and seek an Opportunity to do Good? God acteth no Evil, but only permitteth it, and that be­cause he is able to work Good out of Evil; which is as inseparably proper to God alone as the immensity of his Power: it is infinitely a superlative Presumption for us to presume upon the like. We cannot expect any Blessing without a promise; and have no Interest in the Promise, but when our Acts and Works pre­suppose Obedience to his Precepts. By such a Course [Page 239] as you prescribe, we make the precept of God of none Effect. Our excuse in this case will prove no better than the Pharisees who taught their Disciples, doing things unlawful, to say Corban, God shall have Profit by it, in the good we shall do to Church and State. When we come to Judgment our Works shall witness against us, and our good Intentions will not save us; you know it is commonly and truly said, Hell is full of good Intentions, and Heaven of good works.

Seventhly, if we look upon the practice recorded in Scripture, when Gods people were delivered from Bon­dage or Captivity, or when Grievances in Church and State were rectified and reformed, God never gave warrant to the Community or to the Sanhedrim, but did it by his own high hand, or authorized a So­vereign, and put it in his Heart and Power to do it. Look upon the Bondage of Aegypt which lasted 250 years, God did not use or authorize the People to de­liver themselves by a strong hand, but sent and autho­rized Moses, Exod. 3. 10. Come now saith the Lord, and. I will send thee; a calling he had, Authority from God he had, and it proved successful. Some pious and learned men are of the Opinion, that when Moses rescued the Israelite, and killed the Aegyptian, he did offer himself a Protector and Deliverer to his Nation, but that for his unwarrantable Intention and Attempt, he was forced to flee, and with forty years Penance and Repentance wash away that Guiltiness. As I dare not condemn them confidently, yet I trust such is their Charity, to allow me in Modesty to dissent from them. First, because I hold it a good rule, not rashly to con­demn the extraordinary Acts of the Saints, when they are not evidently in Scripture condemned; it is Saint Austin's Rule. Next, because of Saint Stephen's Testi­mony, [Page 240] who, Acts 7. expresseth so much, that this was a praeludium, an Evidence that God was to send him to be their Deliverer. I am certainly assured that God did not think it a fit way by Moses and the People of Israel's Sword to work his Deliverance. But forty years after sent Moses cloathed with his immediate Commission, to command Pharaoh his Vicegerent to let his people go; and authorized Moses his Vice-Roy over his own People, that so the Peoples obedience to his Servant Moses, and to the word delivered in his Name, might be without check or wrong of Consci­ence in regard of their Allegiance. It is very observa­ble and conducible to our Purpose, that God did not deliver his people by the wisdom of Moses, or strength of the People, or any act that way of theirs, but did with an high hand by his own immediate Might and Power. God thereby declaring to us, that before he would authorize his own People to do it, which had been a bad president for ever for Rebellion, he would rather put himself to pains to work extraordinary and wonderful Miracles.

So in the Book of the Iudges, when the people were delivered over into the hands of their Enemies, because of their Sins. He never warranted and authorized the ordinary Judges or Community to be their Deliverers, but the Text saith expresly, that when they groaned under their Oppression, and repented of their Sins, God raised up a Iudge. Is not this a real proof, God will not have inferiour Judges, or the Community, to rectifie what is amiss, but we must in patience wait till he provide lawful means, some Sovereign power immediately sent by himself to do it? in which course in his ordinary Providence he will never be deficient, although the extraordinary way be ceased, if we [Page 241] will repent us truly of our Sins, and wait in patience for the Salvation of our God. Is it not worth your Labour to observe when the gracious Deliverance came to Israel from the Captivity of Babylon, which lasted seventy years, that his people had no hand, no part in it, not to contribute the least Auxiliary help, but God effected it by the hand of Cyrus his Anointed, immediately and totally? Appeareth it not clearly by this, how careful God hath been in his Providence, that People may not right themselves by their own doing, not when they are under greatest Pressures, highest Oppressions? For what were the Kings of Ba­bylon, but to speak in our Adversaries diction, Tyranni cum titulo? Who acquired Sovereignty over them by Conquest, their Consent being [...], volun­tarily, involuntarily.

Lastly, for these popular Reformations lately so much cryed up, as the best, the most divine, the most warrantable, methinks are most unwarrantably magni­fied. It is not to be denied, but people are much ta­ken with such Doctrines, and are very ambitious to be Reformers of Church and State: And subtle factio [...]s Spirits have great Advantages to work on the People and their weak Understandings, for there can be no Government either in Church or State, so eminently perfect, where something might not be wished to be amended. No Government is so commodious, which is not attended with some Incommodities; that as the Comick saith, aut haec cum illis habenda, aut illa cum his amittenda sunt: from those Inconveniences in Govern­ment, crafty and discontented men take occasion to press upon the weaker sort (which is most numerous) the present Inconveniences, shew them their Interest, how in Conscience they are bound, and by God war­ranted [Page 242] to put to their hand, promise them not only a share in the glorious Work of Reformation, but also to free them from all Errours and Pressures, to mould and frame such an Vtopia in the State, and such a Para­dise of the Church, that shall not want any thing but Christ to come and reign actually and personally amongst them, which they expect, as I hear, and have defined the time. When people are deceived thus and transported, these Achitophels, Absaloms, and Sheba's desire the Assistance of the people to bring this happy Change about. They obtain it, engage their Souls by Oaths, Covenants, and Perjury, and engage them so much in Treason and Rebellion, that Life, State, For­tune, and Honour lie at the Stake; come off they can­not. By which means they get into their hands sur­reptitiously an arbitrary Power, the thing they most feared, most abhorred, and practise it too. And al­though the people are made to believe, that they all and the whole, are interressed, yet really and truly some few domineer. They command what Supplies they will, of Men, Arms, and Monies; seize all Forts, press all Horses, &c. and that in that way, in that quantity, they think necessary, which must be obey­ed; otherwise they are not sufficiently enabled to bring about such a great Work, Reformation of Church and State, and Preservation of the people. This is the way by which these Principles find easie Admittance upon popular Affections, but cunning Sub­tilty doth so abuse them, that they are cheated out of their Wits, and follow Courses destructive to them­selves, and bring upon them the Evils they most fear­ed. It is not reason that will right these deceived and abused Fools, [...] must be [...], Misery will be the first competent In­structor [Page 243] to undeceive them. The Doctrine and Rea­sons we first bring to the contrary of this Tenet, we know assuredly they will not relish them, but the con­trary use will be made, to incense a mad people and make them more mad: yet Truth forceth us to speak; for Vbi resipuerint, when they come to their Wits, they will curse their Gamaliels, and forsake their Princi­ples.

First then, I demand of those who so magnifie po­pular Reformations, as the only best, most perfect and absolute Remedies of what is amiss in Church or State; who that hath read Scripture, or by Experience hath remarked the Temper and Constitution of the Multi­tude, can believe that Almighty God hath committed such a Trust to them? Is there one of a thousand, if you trust Iob or Solomon, amongst them of understand­ing? Was ever any act done by them but in a tumul­tuary way? And is not their Reformation attended with Fury and Violence, Impiety against God, sacred Persons, sacred Places, sacred Things? Have not these mis-called Reformations been acted, prosecuted with open and crying Injustice, not only against innocent but well deserving men?

Secondly, I desire them to shew me in Scripture, or in Ecclesiastical and authentick Story any popular Re­formations of Church or State, happy and successful: what they alledge in this last Age, are the Instances controverted; and till they give instances extra proposi­tum, not questioned, by their Favour they only beg the Question. When God established both Policy and Church, after the Deliverance of his People from the House of Bondage, he would not do it, but by Moses▪ his Sovereign Viceroy, King of Ieshurun, Deut. 33. Ioshua did the like: Ios. 24. The Judges raised by [Page 244] God as they delivered the people from their Slavery, so they rectified what was amiss in Church and State. What Desolations were there in Church and State in Saul's Reign? Both State and Church in the Solem­nity and Sincerity of the Worship in the days of Da­vid came to their Zenith, to their highest Perfection a [...]d Beauty: Read you, I pray you, of any doing in it but by David the King, with the Advice and Dire­ction of some Church-men? Afterwards when it was corrupted, who made the Reformation? None but he who was King or Sovereign: as Ioash, 2 Chron. 24. Ezechias, 2 Chron. 29, 30, 31. Iosias, 2 Chron. 34. 35. Ezra, Esd.

To make Covenants against King or Sovereign, pre­tending or intending, if you will so, the Reformation of Religion, where read you it? The first Covenant of a people formed into a politick Body, is that you read Exod. 34. Had either the Community, the col­lective or representative Body any other hand in it than to obey, as Moses King of Ioshurun commanded? Io­shua made another, Iosh. 24. consider the place, and see if either Tables or Parliament framed it, urged it. You have another, 2 Chron. 15. but it is done and pressed by the royal Authority of Asa the King. You have another, 2 Chron. 34. but it is the Act of Iosiah the King. The like you read of Esdra, Esd. 10. If any object the Covenant of Iehojada in the Non-age of Ioash; Let them be pleased to remember that this was the High Priests act, not as High Priest, but as Governour to the King. By the same Power he did it, by which he dethroned Athaliah, armed the Sub­jects, and enthroned Ioash. Shew me one Covenant in the book of God, which was made without the King, except it be a Covenant with Hell and Death; [Page 245] or as Iudas covenanted with the Iews to sell and be­tray his Master. Or such a Covenant as the Prophet Hosea speaketh of, Chap. 10. vers. 3, 4. For now they shall say, we have no King, because we feared not the Lord; what then should a King do unto us? They have spoken words, swearing falsely, in making a Covenant; thus Iudgment springeth up as Hemlock in the furrows of the field.

Lastly▪ Reflect upon Popular acts invading Sove­reignty, and attempting Reformation, and you will find them as sinful, as little successful, as Kings of Popular Election. It is recorded in Exodus, that Mo­ses the Sovereign of the People of Israel being absent forty dayes in the Mountain with God; the People, notwithstanding that they had lately sworn a lawful Covenant, forced Aaron to make them Gods, a molt­en Calf, and forsake the true and living God: Ex­od. 11. Here you have a glorious popular Reformation in Religion. Take another Reformation in the State, and see if it be better. The People of Israel living un­der the happy Government of David, by the suggesti­ons of Absalom and his fellow-Traytors, possessed a Prejudice of David and his Government, that Justice was not done, and the State might be better ordered, assemble without Warrant of the King (a Treason if any thing else, if we look on Scripture) to Absalom, under pretence of a Vow, shake off David, and ac­knowledge themselves Subjects to Absalom the Tray­tor, the Usurper: 1 Sam. 15. The ten Tribes after the death of Solomon supplicate Reboboam for a Redress of their Grievances; not answered to their mind, re­bel against Rehoboam: To strengthen their Kingdom and Policy, they set up a new Religion, make new Priests of their own. Their Religion is the same [Page 246] their Fathers attempted in the Wilderness, Exod. 32. and this is the second glorious Reformation of Calves­worship: what was the issue, I pray you? it pursued them to their utter extirpation. What can be said o [...] that abominable act of the Iews, who to save them­selves condemned Christ? Are not Communities subject to dangerous Inclinations from private Incitements? Are not their Representatives subject to mis-leading Factions, and ambitions of private ends? They are too much transported with the love of a popular estate, who can so over-rule their Understandings, as to force themselves to think, that Communities, or their Representative bodies, are not molested or trans­ported with corrupt judgments and affections for private ends.

To conclude, Seeing then to establish the People to be the last and best Remedy to rectifie all Errours in State, in Church, establisheth so many Absurdities and Paradoxes, and hath no warrant by Scripture, sound Reason, or Experience, we can neither believe it, nor approve it: for to aver and affirm that a Com­munity diffusive, collective, or representative, is a perfect Republick to preserve it self, and to right what is amiss, abstracting the notion of a Republick, from the Sovereign Governour or Governours, is a notion not imaginable, nor ever used by any who ever wrote or spoke right in Policy. It secureth the multitude from Errour both in matters concerning Church and State: There is neither Precept nor Practice in Holy Writ to warrant that the multitude have such a super­intendent Power above their Sovereign. Nay, Scrip­ture commandeth us the contrary, not to assume this Power, or to resist the Higher Powers, under no less pain than Damnation. This Maxim resolves into in­fidelity, [Page 247] that we trust not God can do it, or will do it; and into Impatience, that we will not wait patiently till he do it. Christian obedience and Sobriety teacheth us to reserve the rectifying of the Sovereign, and his Errours in Government, to God himself. We must not serve God against his Will, nor without an ex­press Warrant for our doing so. By doing, as our new Statists warrant us, we run into Rebellion, and lose a good Conscience in dutiful obedience and hum­ble submission, and prejudice God of that glory he expects by our tryals. We must not do evil that good may come of it, nor upon pretences of good intenti­ons and good effects to follow upon such courses, prove our selves to be proud Masters, and forsake to be Gods humble Servants. In all Deliverances God bestowed upon his own People, in his wonderful Pro­vidence he effected them, either by his own immedi­ate hand, or by some other hands, not permitting or allowing to his People any share in the work, fore­seeing how we would make it, if it had been other­wise, a bad president for rebellious courses. Popular Reformations are neither warrantable nor successful. The multitude are most of all unfitted for preserving Church or State. In Scripture we have no Reforma­tions recorded, but only such as have been acted by the authority of the Sovereign. Many popular tumul­tuary courses we find attempted and effected by the People, to the hurt and ruine of Church and Com­monwealth. Wherefore let every one, and all of Sub­jects, be subject to Superiour Powers, in obedience to that is good, and in Patience suffering what is evil, waiting patiently till God in his appointed time send relief, and deliver his Church and us from pressing and oppressing Evils.

THis vulgar Maxim, Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto, was one of the Laws of the XII Tables. It was made for a Democracy, and hath in it a good and warrantable sense, if it be rightly taken in its proper meaning: But as it is abused and perverted by our Miso-monarchical Statists and Sectaries, it hath been the Mother of much mischief.

The Sectaries who abuse it, understand it so large­ly, at least make the People conceive so, that all Go­vernment and Superiority in Governours and Superi­ours, is primely, nay, only for the Subjects and Inferi­our's good. This holds not; for some Government and Governours are by God and Nature appointed for the mutual and inseparable good of the Governour and Governed, of the Superiour and Inferiour, as in maritali regimine▪ & in paterno, as in the marital and fatherly Government. Some Governments are prime­ly, principally, and properly for the good of the Supe­riour and Governour, as in herili dominio, in the Go­vernment of a Lord and Servant; where the good and benefit of the Servant is but secondary and consecu­tively intended; it is not the principal end, but the external and adventitious; as the gain that cometh to a Physician by his Practice, is not the proper internal and principal end of his Art, Science, and Practice, but [Page 249] consequitur ad medicinam, it followeth and attendeth his Skill and Practice.

What can our Adversaries say of a Title acquired to a Kingdom by lawful Conquest? That such a Title is good, and a King may be lawful King by Conquest meerly, without the consent of the People, is so evi­dent in Scripture as it cannot be denied. In this case, the good and benefit of the Conquerour is the prime thing and principal. The Conquerour may dispose of it at pleasure for his own good, as Solomon did give Cabul to Hiram.

Moreover, according to the Jesuit's and Puritan's grounds, as a man may render himself totally under the Power of a Master, without any conditions or li­mitations, or bounds whatsoever; why may not the Body of a People do the like, to have Peace and Safe­ty, surrender themselves fully into the Power of a King? May not a Lord of many great Mannors and Lands (if the Laws of the Countrey do not forbid it) admit no man to live and gain by living within his Territories and Countreys, but upon condition of a full surrender of himself, his Posterity, and all belong­ing to him, into his Lords power? Doth not Taci­tus tell us, that anciently amongst the Germans every Head of the Family was Father, King, and Priest; and that all the Tenants of his Territories had no more corn for meat, no more number of Flocks, no more for use of cloaths, than it pleased their Lord to allow them? Suam quisque familiam, suo penates regis; fru­menti modum dominus, aut pecoris, aut vestis colono injun­git, & servus hactenus patet.

May not a disorderly multitude, without order and government, or any subordination at all (this is im­possible, but let us take it as probable, because imagi­nable) [Page 250] conceiving Safety and Good to themselves, to­tally surrender themselves into the power of one to rule over them hereditarily? Or may not a people in a formed and framed politick Body, upon the Receit of a great Benefit, as Deliverance by one from a migh­ty Oppression, surrender themselves thus totally to their Deliverer and his Successors? It is not improba­ble, that the Israelites did offer some such Condition to Gideon and his Posterity, for the great Deliverance they had from the Midianites by his Sword, Iudges 8. Did not the Campani in this way, if we may trust Li­vie, subject themselves totally to the people of Rome? Populum Campanum, saith he in the words of their chief Heads, Vrbemque Capuam, agros, delubra deûm, divina, humanaque omnia in vestram P. C. ditionem dedi­mus. O noble Senators, we surrender and give up unto your Dition and Power, the people of Campania, our City Capua, our Lands, the Temples of our Gods, and what divine and humane things are ours. By what is said, it is more than apparent, that this, Sa­lus populi suprema lex esto, Let the Good and Safety of the People be the supreme Law: is not an universal Di­ctate of Nature, a paramont Law, which is universally verified of all Government and Governours.

This Speech is as much abused, when by these new Statists it is applied to Monarchy. I most heartily grant that the Preservation of the Peace and Safety of Subjects and People is the prime end in the Constituti­on of all Government, but it is not the sole and adae­quate end. The complete, adaequate, and perfect end of Government in Monarchy, is Salus Regis & Populi, the Safety of King and People. Notwithstanding the Safe­ty and Good of the people may be called the prime and principal end in the Constitution of Monarchical Govern­ment, [Page 251] because it is most agreeable with the joynt Interest of King and People. It is a word exceeding well be­seeming a King, to say, Salus Populi suprema lex esto, let the Safety of the People be the Paramont Law. There is no Doubt that the King ought to proportion all his Laws to this end, this is just, this is necessary, this is honourable, this is advantageous to the King: who that is wise, will not provide as much as he is able, for the Good, Safety, Plenty, and Peace of those, in whose happiness is his Glory, and in whose Destru­ction his own is involved? And on the other hand it becometh Subjects well to say, Salus Regis suprema lex esto, and to proportion all their Obedience, Endea­vours, and Actions for the Safety, Honour, Power, Happiness, and Glory of their King. It is impossible the Subject can have Peace or Safety where the Sove­reign and his Prerogative are weakened so that he can­not command and protect.

To reason from the one part of the end of Monar­chical Government, the Safety, and the Good of the Subjects, to the Destruction or weakening of the other part of the end, of the power of Sovereignty, and the royal Prerogative, is the Sophism which the School calleth à divisis. Nor can we imagine a possible or pro­bable Existence of the good and right of the Subject, without a pre-existence of the entire Sovereignty and Prerogative in the King: this is easily demonstrable, if we consider what was the prime end of the Institution or Constitution of Kings. By uniform and universal Consent it is acknowledged to be for this purpose primely to preserve people in Peace, Plenty, and Safe­ty. If the King then be not authorised and furnished with sufficient power to work this effect, how can the People expect it? By the Suffrage of our anti-mo­narchical [Page 252] opposites it is granted, that the Multitude and People were at first necessitated to submit them­selves unius imperio, to the Government of one King, and to commit themselves, their Lives, their Laws, their Fortunes, to his Trust and Power; because they knew such was their Weakness, that they had not Wisdom enough to rule themselves, to foresee, and prevent Dangers, nor Power enough to protect them from wrong of the more powerful either living amongst them, or nearly adjoyned to them. And for this cause in their Opinion accorded that for Honour and Power he should be sufficiently enabled to act and per­fect all these acts of Government, and to effect and produce those ends, his own and their Happiness: nor doubted they to entrust him with Majesty (the word▪ Majesty speaketh two things, summum honorem & sum­mam potestatem, supremest Honour, and supremest Power) being assured that his Interest was so involved in theirs, that he could not chuse but most earnestly and carefully endeavour this end: by which premisses▪ (which are their own) it is most certain, that Salus Populi, the Safety of the People, issueth from Salus Regis, the Safety of the King, no less than the Life of the natural Body from the Soul that enliveneth it: notwithstanding we think they should speak more di­vinely, if with the dialect of holy Scripture they would say, that Almighty God knowing that no Society of mankind could be, nor Happiness in that Society with­out Government, ordained for this, and that Govern­ment should be, and the Governours entirely endow­ed and enabled with Power and Honour to do it; and that conformable to his own Government, at first he in Paradise fixed this Government in the person of one Adam, and provided for the Continuance and Succes­ [...]on [Page 253] of it, that it should be transmitted to the first­ [...]orn in defailance of the Father. God knew it well, [...]hat it was better not to be at all, than to be without Government: and that weak Government is the [...]quivalent of Anarchy and no Government. Saint Paul knew not how Quiet, Peace, Godliness, or Honesty, [...]ould be without Government. I do think our Puri­ [...]ans are not so much in love with School-tenets, as to [...]old, that Quovis modo esse, nay, Poenale esse is better quàm non esse; seeing Scripture hath spoken the con­trary, that it is better never to have been born, better that a mill-stone were put about their neck and cast into the Sea, than to be in a poenal condition, and that some shall seek to dye for ease, but shall not find it. Heathen Politicians tell us, Tyrannis potior Anarchiâ, Tyranny is better than no Government.

Scripture is plain and powerful enough for this truth, that no safety can be to mankind, without the safety of Sovereignty, and of the Prerogative of Go­vernour and Government, Exod. 20. It is the first Precept of the second Table, Honor a patrem, &c. Honour thy Father; where, by Father is principally (accord­ing to the Commentaries of Ancient and Modern Divines) meant the King: then followeth, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, &c. To intimate to us, that neither Life, nor Chastity, nor Goods, nor Honour, nor Fame, nor any thing else can be preserved, except the King have his Right.

The expressions of Scripture are admirably empha­tical to import, that in the King and his strength is all our Safety, our Life, our Happiness. The King is called, Lament. 4. 20. The breath of our nostrils; this place, it seemeth, alludeth to that, Gen. 11. 7. He is [Page 254] called, the Head of his Subjects, 2. Sam. 21. 17. He i [...] the light of his People, 2 Sam. vers. 2. He is their Shep­herd and Pastour, Psal. 78. 71. The Heathen call Kings [...], They are the Nurse-fathers of the Church, Isai. 49. 23. and 40. 26. The King is the Head-stone of the corner, Psal. 118. 23. The same in the State, that Christ is in the Church, Isai 28. 16. 1 Pet. 11. 6. The Greek word [...] implieth as much, that he is the very bottom and foundation upon which the publick good of the whole State, and the private good of every one is founded and built. Excellent expressions they be, diametrally opposed to the Divi­nity and Policy of this miserable Age. The King is the breath of our nostrils, then no Life without him; He is our Head, then all Life, Sense, and Perfection in him, all Motion from him, and the influence of his Government; he is our Light, nothing then but E­gyptiacal darkness and blindness without him, with­out his Government; he is our Shepherd, then no maintenance, no entertainment without him; he is the Corner-stone, then nothing but he can tye man­kind together in a peaceable and comfortable Society; nay, he is the Foundation, the Corner-stone, and Head­stone of the Corner, upon whom all is built and ground­ed, in whom all are conjoyned, and by whom all are protected. Turn it over again; take away the King, you take away our Life, our breath; weaken him, we faint, we pant; hurt the Head, you distemper all the Body; weaken the Head, and you feeble both hand and foot, and all parts and members of the Body; smite the Shepherd and the Flock will be scattered; if the foundations be destroyed, what can the Righteous do? If the corner­stone be pulled out, the side-walls and whole Fabrick must fall; if the Head-corner-stone be removed, there [Page 255] is no protection against the Tempest, but Rain and storm will spoil the whole Building.

Saint Paul hath a short, but a most pithy expression of the good issueth from the Supreme Power upon all, Rom. 13. 3. Tibi in bonum, he is the Minister of God to thee for good: this Indefinite Tibi, to thee, implieth as much as the Minister of God by his immediate Or­dinance and Ordination, is for thy good whosoever tho [...] be; be thou Nobleman, be thou Gentleman, be thou Citizen, be thou Countrey-man, be thou Church-man, be thou Lay-man, he is for the good of all, of the whole Politick Body joyntly, and he is for the good of every individual and particular Person singly; for our good from God they are sent, for our good to us they come. If Kings were not, we should be as the Fishes of the Sea, the greater destroying the smaller, or as the Beasts of the Forest, the strong destroying the weaker, Hab. 1. 14. Saint Chrysostom explaining these words, 1 Tim. 2. 2. [...]. Where the Apo­stle saith, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, that is to say, saith the holy Father, Our Security subsists in their Safety.

It is worthy your notice taking, that in the Book of Iudges, where it is recorded, that all disorder was in the Church and State, the reason is so often given and repeated, Because in those dayes there was no King in Israel; you read it cap. 17. 6. & 18. 1. & 19. 1. & 21. 25. Which words import not simply, that there was no Government in those dayes, none can be so stupid to imagine it, but the Spirit of God inti­mateth two things to us: 1. The one is, that they wanted Monarchy, the most excellent of Governments. 2. The other is, that the Government then Aristocra­tical [Page 254] [...] [Page 255] [...] [Page 256] was so weakened, that in Church and State no­thing was sound, the grossest Enormities did abound, and there was no strength in Authority to right it: Review the story, There was no King this time, and consequently, there was all mischief this time, and therefore a fit time to shake off the old, and bring in a new Religion. Micah and his old doting Mother will have a Religion of their own, an Idol of their own, a trencher-Chaplain of their own, there is nothing to let it. No matter for sacred Orders, if a Levite may be had it is better, otherwise it skilleth not much. The reason is given in the Text, In diebus illis, &c. in those ill dayes there was no King in Israel. I wish we were so happy that these Times of ours had no re­semblance with that time. Well, but it is no great matter for Religion, if every man can enjoy his Liber­ty, his Honour, his Peace, live in Safety, what is Reli­gion to us? If this be Religion, these Times want not Professours too too many. It will not rest here, although every man have liberty, or licence rather in Anarchy, to have and to profess what Religion he will, the same Scripture telleth us, where no King is, Rapine and Spoil will be; where no King is, plundering will be good Justice; every man's Lands, Revenues and Chat­tels may be fortiter occupantis, the stronger may disseize the weaker; you shall have the Tribe of Dan to spoil too. Nor is this all, The men of Gibeah will abuse the Levite's Wife, nay, do it avowedly, abuse her to death; it is no great danger to act and do what mischief you will, where no King is. No man's Soul, Wife, Life, or Goods can be secured, where no King is. Idols may be erected, Murder may be acted and allowed, Men rob­bed of their Goods, and all this good Service, for the glory of God and the good Cause. Consider again, how [Page 257] universal these Mischiefs are, you have a Micah a pri­vate man, Gibeah a City, Dan a Tribe, all out of or­der and course. Religion is defaced, Justice is abused, Honesty and Civil moral Conversation is shaken off; Dishonesty, Impiety, Uncleanness are avowed. Again consider, Micah was at Mount Ephraim, in the midst of the Land, Gibeah was at one end of the Countrey, and Dan at the other, so that these Mischiefs were not confined to one corner, but were spred over all the Land. And seeing Scripture repeats it, let us repeat it too, all these Disorders, all these Mischiefs were, because in those dayes there was no King in Israel. Turn it over a­gain, No better way to keep Religion sincere and incor­rupt, mens Lives and Wives, Honour, Goods and Possessi­ons in Safety; to secure them from Murder, Abuse, Oppression, than by Kings. No doubt, Priests there were then, but either they would not serve at all, or then the Priests were over-awed by the disorderly and sinful multitude, Hos. 4. or did prescribe their Text, give them Commentaries, taught them what to say, what to preach. No doubt, in those dayes Judges they had, but Justice was not done, or if done, at pleasure; otherwise Judges were posted and signed with a nigrum theta, marked to be stoned by a rascally multitude. Though Priests be in the Church, and Judges be in the Land, they are not able to guard the Publick or Private from wrong; wherefore it is most consonant with Scripture to say, Salus Regis suprema Populi salus, the Safety of the King, and his Divine Royal Prerogative, is the safest Sanctuary for the Peo­ple. Vbi non est gubernator populus corruet, so readeth St. Hierom Solomon's words. I refer my self in this to the Consciences and Experience of the King's Subjects, what hath been the security or comfort they have had [Page 258] in Person, State, or Goods, since the Lords Anointed, the best of Kings, hath been wronged. O if they durst speak! O if they would speak!

The Prophet Hoseah, cap. 3. 4. threatneth as the greatest of Judgments in this world, That the children of Israel shall be many dayes without a King. Listen I pray you, to what followeth, and without a Prince, that is, there shall be no Nobility; and what more? and without a Sacrifice; that is, there shall be no Re­ligion, no true Priest. The same Prophet, cap. 10. 3. sheweth they shall have no King, because they feared not the Lord. The Prophet Ieremy, Lam. 11. 9. la­menteth first, that their Kings were captives; then, that they had no Nobility, for their Princes were captives too; then, the Law is no more; Justice is gone with the King; and then, the Prophets find no Vision from the Lord; Religion is gone too. Will not all this lead us to better thoughts, a better esteem of Salus Regis, of the Safety of the King, the preferring of his Divine Right, and Royal Prerogative? It may be our Zea­lots account those Prophets no better than Court Pa­rasites.

Cyprian, or some other ancient Author masked un­der his Name, summeth up shortly but pithily the hap­piness of People in a King, de 12 abusionib. Saeculi, cap. 9. in fine. Est pax populorum, tutamen patriae, im­m [...]nitas plebis, munimentum gentis, cura languorum, gau­dium hominum, temperies aeris, serenitas maris, terrae foe­ [...]unditas, solatium pauperum, &c. The words are plain enough, they need no interpretation.

What mean they then who magnifie this Maxim, Salus Populi suprema Lex esto, Let the Safety of the People be the Supreme Law, to call it in a narrow sense, abstracting à salute R [...]gis, from the safety of the [Page 259] King, The transcendent [...] of all Politicks; the Para­mont Law that giveth Law to all Laws whatsoever, that the Law of Prerogative it self is subservient to this Law, and were it not conducing thereunto, it were not necessary nor expedient? Some more superlatively excessive com­mendations the Observator and others gives unto this Maxim; which how they cohere with what we have brought from Scripture, and said by its warrant, I humbly submit to the intelligent, to the impartial Reader; and come to consider the no less lame, than extravagant consequences the Observator deduceth from this mis-understood and abused Maxim. They be four, which when we look upon them inwardly, are such as never Saint of God, nor sound Politician thought of before; we shall follow him in his or­der.

The first Consequence that he knits with this Ante­cedent, The Safety of the People is the Supreme Law, is an, Ergo, The King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his Subjects to all happiness. Certainly, there is more in the Conclusion than is vertually in­cluded in the Premisses; for when Salus Populi, the Safety of the People, to which the King is tied, to conclude omnis foelicitas populi, all happiness of the Peo­ple, and with that large extent, to all and every one, may well be answered with a non sequitur, that the Consequence is lame: the reason is clear, Salus populi may subsist without Foelicitas Populi, Foelicitas dicit quid ma­jus; the Safety of the People may subsist without the Felicity of the People, for Felicity of the People is the Safety of the People, and somewhat more. I demand of the Observator and his Complices, who ever heard that either by the Law of God, Nature, or common Equity, the King is bound to promote all and every of [Page 260] his Subjects to all Happiness? God is not so rigorous a Task-master: nor is the notion of the word [protect] ei­ther in it's native or used Sense, to which the King is bound, so large, as to tye him to promote all and every Subject to all happiness. It is not imaginable, the tenderest-hearted Father or Mother can do this to their best beloved Child, nor doth God or Nature re­quire it. Doth the Observator by such Consequences intend to make a Kings charge intolerable, God injust to impose it, a King unable to do it, and resolves to condemn all Kings who do not so provide for the Hap­piness of all and every one of his Subjects in the high­est measure? Who will deny but every King is bound to level all his Actions, Intentions, and Endeavours, for the Peace, Plenty, and Safety of his Subjects in common? But to put this Burthen on the King which neither he nor his Fathers were able to bear, is too hard a measure. We may expect this from his Goodness and Bounty, we cannot charge it upon him as necessa­ry, and incumbent to him of Duty.

Are not all and every one of Subjects by Duty and Oath tyed to Salus Regis, to provide for his Safety, Honour, Wealth, and Power? Are not we sworn to it in the Oath of Allegiance, to assist and defend all Priviledges, Preeminences, and Rights belonging to His Highness, his Heirs, and Successors, or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm? If all have not ta­ken this Oath, all born in his Majesties Dominions are bound to it; of all it may be actually exacted: and the Statute 5. Eliz. cap. 1. ordains that all Barons, Knights, Citizens, Burgesses elected for the Parliament, who shall not take the Oath of Allegiance made 1. Eliz. at their Entry in the Parliament House, shall have no Voice in Parliament, but be construed, as if they had never [Page 261] been elected, and suffer such Pains and Penalties, as if they had presumed to sit in Parliament without Election, Re­turn, or Authority. By this Oath mentioned in the Statute, they are bound to bear Faith and true Allegi­ance to the Queens Highness, her Heirs, and lawful Suc­cessors, and to their Power assist and defend all Iurisdicti­ons, Priviledges, Preeminences, and Authorities, belong­ging to the Queens Highness, her Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm: or likewise by their Oath, 3. Iac. being bound to defend him and his lawful Successors to the uttermost of their Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his Person, Crown and Dig­nity, by reason of any Sentence or Declaration flowing from the Pope, or otherwise, and to their best Endeavour to dis­cover and make known to his Majesty, his Heirs, and Suc­cessors all Treasons, and trayterous Conspiracies, which they shall know, or hear to be against him or any of them. Here you see all Subjects and every one to the uttermost of their Power, are bound to assist and defend the Kings Right and Prerogative, and that none can enter the Houses of Parliament till actually they swear it: will it therefore from hence follow, that all and every one of his Majesties Subjects, at least such as have entered the Houses of Parliament, all and every one of them are for-sworn, who have intended or attempted any thing besides, or who intending or doing it hath not raised him to the highest degree and pitch of Honour, Glory and Power? In this case I am hopeful the Ob­servator, like Iudah, will be more favourable to himself and his Patrons, than he is in the other to his Sove­reign: Who, before these new Statists, that ever wrote the Charge of a King, bound him to promote all and every one of his Subjects to all kind and highest Degree [Page 262] of political and temporal Happiness? Is it in the Pow­er of the most puissant Monarch upon Earth to advance all his Subjects capable and deserving men to the highest pitch of Happiness and Honour? Parcius ista viris, &c.

To shut up all that concerneth this first absurd Con­sequence drawn from this abused Maxim, I intreat the Observator to remember that Almighty God did never judge it fit to entrust the People with their own Safe­ty; but in a subordinate way, hath committed this Trust to his Anointed, his Vicegerent upon Earth: from whence issueth this Consequence, that Salus Regis est salus populi, The Safety of the King is the Safety of the People: as Salus Animae is salus Corporis, the Safe­ty of the Soul is the Safety of the Body. The Fathers judged it so; see Iustin Martyr quaest. & resp. ad Orthod. q. 138. [...]. This holy Father knew no other case of a King­dom, than that the King is the Soul, and the Subjects the Body. Let the Observator judge then, where the Safety is most considerable: and learn from Salust, Animi imperio, corporis servitio utimur; or from Tacitus, Nempe iis, that is, Imperatoribus, dii Imperium dedere, nobis obsequii gloria relicta est. And the Heathen will learn him to acknowledge, that the Honour and Safe­ty of the King, his Glory, and entire Prerogative is the Transcendent [...] of all Politicks, the paramont Law, that giveth Law to all Laws concerning private men, their Lives, Estate, and Honour; and that all Subjects are to promote the Sovereign Right and Pre­rogative to the utmost of their Power, as the publick Soul of the Kingdom, and the Breath of their No­strils.

The second Corollary, which the Observator dedu­ceth out of this Principle, Salus populi suprema lex esto, is, that it were strange if the people subjecting themselves to command should aim at any thing but their own Good in the first and last place. This Consequence presupposeth two Errors, the one is, that the people are the imme­diate Authors and Donors of Sovereignty, which we have already refuted: the other is, that the Convey­ance of Sovereignty is by Trust, and that in that Por­tion and proportion the people please, the error of which we will by God's grace discover in our third Question. To take this off briefly, I ask of the Obser­vator, that seeing God hath ordained Rule and Subje­ction, and directeth mankind to their greatest Conve­nience by Government; and seeing God and Nature teach, and all do acknowledge that the Good, Plenty, Peace, and Safety of the people cannot be effected or at­tained to, except the King be proportioned to so high a degree of Honour, Wealth, and Power, that as Father he may protect all, administrate Iustice, secure from Op­pression and Sedition at home, and from Invasion abroad; and have Main tenance proportionable to these ends, whether or not in Order of Nature, in the first place it is necessary that this Power, Honour, and Maintenance be secured to the King, without which we cannot expect Safety, Peace, or Good to the Subject? Ex­cept we have made a Divorce betwixt our selves and Reason, we must grant this Truth. If you will trust Saint Chrysostom, hear him speak it upon Rom. 13. up­on these words, He is the Minister of God for good unto thee, [...]. In which words two things are [Page 264] expressed; first, that the King is immediately sent from God; the other is, that he is sent for our Good; no Safety then for us without him, and for both Respects we are to honour him, for all Good which we have by our Industry is by Influence from his Government, and he is a co-worker with us, and auxiliary in it. If this be not enough, turn to him, upon the words, Not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake; where he saith, that the King is, [...]. He is the procurer of Peace, and Base and bottom of all politick economy. Innumerable good things come by Princes Government to the Society of men; which if you take away, there can be no Cities, no Right to Lands or Revenues, no House and Family can subsist, no Commerce and Trade can be had, all shall be over­turned, the stronger devouring the weaker. To St. Chrysostom's Suffrage joyn St. Augustine tom. 9. tract. 6. in Ioh. Tolle jura Imperatorum & quis audet dicere, mea est illa villa, aut meus est ille servus, aut domus baec mea est? and a little after, Per jura Regum possidentur posses­siones: the result is this, if you take away the Right of Kings, none dare say, the Lands are mine, this Ser­vant is mine, or I have Right to this House. It is by the right of Kings that all our Rights and Possessi­ons are secured. It is more than manifest then, that the Right of King and Subject, the Safety of King and Subject, are naturally conjoyned, and so intimately involved the one in the other, that in the moral Notion [Page 265] they may be esteemed identically the same, no less than Soul and Body make up one identical, personal Sub­sistence; or at least, se mutuò ponunt & tollunt, destroy the Kings Right and Good, and with the same Act, the same blow, you destroy the Subjects too. If you provide not for the Safety of the King, you cannot possibly secure the Safety of the People. What God hath conjoyned, let none put asunder. Let it never then again be spoken or heard by Christians, that the good of the Subject is the Alpha and Omega in Government, and demandeth by right the first and last place.

The third Consequence is this, That the King look­ing upon the whole State, reflecting upon what Graces he hath granted or may grant to his People, he cannot merit of it, and what he hath granted, if it be for the good of his. People, it hath proceeded but from his meer Duty. Well, by the Observator we see the King is placed in no better condition than a Servant, nay, an unprofitable Servant, for when he has done all he can do, he was onely done his Duty. By these means, Grace is not a fit compellation for Kings; Acts of Iustice he may do, but no Acts of Grace. O misera Regum sors! On the other part, the People are stated in that sub­lime condition, that they may supererogate with their Prince, by doing many Acts of Bounty, Favour, and Grace. By this Assertion, a Prince is disabled from doing any courtesie to his Subjects. Before this mise­rable distempered Age, was it ever heard, but that it was the greatest happiness of a King, that he was able, and his greatest glory, to oblige his People by Acts of Grace, Bounty, and Courtesie? But now the World is so turn'd topsie turvy, that when he has done all he is able, he hath onely discharged the duty of a faithful and trusty Servant. Turn the Tables, and then see [Page 266] what you will judge of the throw, Do not all we Sub­jects owe Duty to the King? Are we not tied to ad­vance his Honour? Yet upon extraordinary Services we believe we can deserve well both of King and Countrey. Will you not, Observator, allow the King the like measure? This Conceit is a popular Deceit, and not virtually onely, but also really, destroys the ground of Beneficence in a King, and the duty of Gra­titude in a Subject. By this it appeareth, that it is a naked, nay, an hypocritical Complement, when both Houses in Parliament, after Graces granted, present their humble thanks, and heartily acknowledge His Majesties gracious Favours. Must not the like hold be­twixt a Father and his Family? And shall we by these grounds be constrained to acknowledge all the Acts of a Father to his Family, to be no better than Acts of meer Justice and Duty? In the Dialect of Scripture, and Heathen Writers, Homer. Odyss. 9. Kings are Fathers. And yet the Observator standeth not to say, That the Father is more worthy than the Son in Na­ture, and the Son is wholly a Debtor to the Father, and can by no merit transcend his Duty, nor challenge any thing as due from his Father, for the Father doth all his Offi­ces meritoriously, freely, and unexpectedly. We will not be at pains now to examine this, onely I demand, if this hold according to his Judgment in a Father of a Family, how comes it to pass that it holds not in Pa­tre Patriae, in the Father of the Kingdom? The obli­gation to Pater Patriae, to the Father of the Kingdom, is stronger, is straighter, than to Pater Familiae, to our natural Father. And the School doth teach us, and all Divines besides, for ought I know, that we are bound to love the King appreciativè, by esteem, more than our selves, although we cannot do it intensivè, [Page 267] with the same intension, and degree of affection. David's Subjects said to him, Thou shalt not go forth with us to battel, for thou art better than a thousand of us; that is, in sound meaning, than all of us. The Observator hath a quirk or trick rather for this, that the King is not a Father to his People taken universally but singly. Nothing could be said more absurdly. I pray you, is not the Father of many Sons no less Fa­ther universally to all than to every one? Is not the King bound no less to protect all his Subjects univer­sally, than to protect every one severally, singly? Are not all bound no less universally than singly, to honour the King's sacred Person, obey his sacred Commands, and contribute to the maintenance of his Honour, Wealth, and Power, to assist and defend him in all Difficulties? If you will not acknowledge a subjection upon all universally, how can you tye the King to a protection of all universally? In Philosophy this is most absurd, for hereby you make tot civitates in regno, quot subditos, as many Kingdoms as there be particular and single Subjects; because the King and every Sub­ject make up a perfect City or Kingdom. If it were not more absurd in Divinity, and contrary to God's Ordinance, we would not plead much nor press much the Absurdities of Philosophy. Saul and David in the holy diction of Scripture are called Heads and Captains of all the Tribes and People of God. Let never these consequences be more heard.

4. The fourth consequence is as impious and absurd as the other three; which is this, That a Prince ought not to account it a strength and profit to him, which is a loss and wasting to the People, (I agree to this with all my heart, but that which followeth I cannot relish) nor ought he to think that perisheth to him which is grant­ed [Page 268] to the People. This is most false: Hath not the King his own Right from Almighty God? Can he make it away without betraying Gods Right, and the Trust he hath put upon him, he being God's Vice­gerent onely and Feoffee in trust? How can the Sub­ject be free of Sacrilegious guiltiness to take it from him, if lavishly or inconsiderately he will make it away? This is not onely robbing of Sovereignty of its due, but Divine usurpation, and intrusion upon Almigh­ty God. What one hath by trust from another, he can­not intitle another to it, till he have warrant from him who hath given the Trust. That the King hath some right incommunicable to the Subject, is so ma­nifest, that he that will deny it, must deny Scripture. Our Lord and Master in the Gospel hath commanded to Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, as unto God the things that are Gods. This word [...], Ren­der, imports something peculiar; nay, it hath more in it, that if we will detain it, if we have assumed it, or would assume it, that by Christs Precept we are to restore him to his Right again. This the word Ren­der intimates and commands, and consequently the King cannot part with it; and if the Subject hath usurped upon this Right, it is high Sacrilege to de­tain it. In this sense Kings, their Persons, their Charge, their Right, their Authority, their Prerogative, are by Scripture, by Fathers, by Jurists, called Sacred; be­cause by Gods sacred Ordinance they are inherent in their Crowns, inseparably adherent to their Scepters, which if he grant away, he is no more King, than the Body is a living Creature after the separation of the Soul; and the Robbers and Cheaters of Kings out of these Rights are Regicides. Nor are these Prerogatives onely for the Excellency, Preheminency, and Honour [Page 269] of the King above his Subjects, but also to enable him for actuating his high Charge to Gods Glory and the Subjects good. These, as we shall by Gods Grace speak, Quaest. 4. are as the Lawyers speak, In indivisibili posita, quae distrahi non possunt, alienari non possunt minui non possunt; that are so indivisible in themselves, and naturally and intrinsecally inherent in the Crown, in his Sovereignty and Supremacy, that they cannot be made away, or so communicated to the Subject, ut defluat radix supremae potestatis, to divest himself of them, ad minuendam Majestatem, to lessen Sovereign Majesty, although by Trust and delegate Power the Ex­ecution may be entrusted to others, ad minuendam soli­citudinem, to ease him of unsupportable burthen. These are fitly resembled by the Royal Crown, from which if you take away the least part, you spoil it so in its nature and shape, that it is no more a Crown; as King Iames of blessed Memory, and others have well expressed.

By what is said, I refer it to the Judgment of any that hath reason or common sense, whether or not it be true, that a King cannot make away to the Subject any of his Right without disadvantage; for by what we have said, it is more than apparent, that he hath a Right personally inherent in himself and his Successors, as a depositum, a trust from God, which he cannot part with, without betraying the Trust God hath com­mitted to him, with which the Subject cannot med­dle, without Sacrilege in the highest kind; and which cannot be done, without disabling Sovereignty from doing that Service to God and his People, with which he hath charged him.

Lest any mistake us, I resume what before I have said, That we maintain not that our King by this [Page 270] Right from Almighty God hath Dominium despoticu [...] or herile, we plead onely for paternum; that is, that [...] the Subject cannot without Sacrilege, Royal and Di­vine Usurpation, trench upon Sacred Prerogative of the King; no more can the King by any Right from Almighty God trench upon the Liberty of the Person, and the Propriety of the Goods of his Subjects, without presupposal of a lawful act of Iurisdiction: That is, if any or many of his Subjects transgress against him, his Laws, or common Equity, he may commit their Persons, take from them their Lives, seize upon their whole, or a part of their State, proportionable to the demerit of their Offence. Our Gracious Sovereign, blessed be God for it, will never wave that saying of Seneca's, Imperium unius, Proprietas singulorum: The Sacred Prerogative is the Kings, but it derogateth not from the Liberty and Property of the Subject: it must be entirely secured, that it may secure our Liberty and Property. How unequal and partial are we to think the King may prodigally waste away his Prerogative, and we may lawfully invade it, because no Grant made to his People perisheth to him, and yet upon the other part will maintain, that the King cannot trenoh upon our Liberty and Property without highest Tyranny and Op­pression? Medio tutissimus ibis. Hold both, practise both; Let the King have his, and the People their Right, and Peace shall be upon Israel. King and Peo­ple have their proper and peculiar, and yet several and distinct Rights. What Law? what Right? what Reason is it? that the King may, or should part with his sacred Right, and yet warrants the People to pre­serve their Rights, nay, to invade and challenge the King's Right? It feareth me, that high Sacrilege, rob­bing God his Anointed, and Holy Church, is not the [Page 271] least crying sin that hath brought upon us these Mi­series; and many good men fear, that Kings giving too much way to Harpyes to rob God and his Church, have made a furious multitude to invade the Sovereignty of Kings, to teach Kings to be more zealous and care­ful to preserve Christ and his Churches Rights.

Let us remember that God and true Policy have so inseparably united and conjoyned the Interest of King and People, that they be almost altogether the same; upon which necessarily it followeth, that the people ought not to account it a game or strength to them, which they obtain and acquire by a Loss and wast of his Prerogative; nor ought they to think that perish­ed to them, which is gained to him; and by which his Prerogative is strengthened, he more enabled to protect, and they the more secured in safety to enjoy Liberty and Propriety, with peace and plenty.

To reason à salute populi, from the Good and Gain of the people, to the weakning or destroying of Roy­alty and Sovereignty, is sophistical; it is that Sophism they call, à dicto secundum quid, or à limitato ad abso­lutum; to reason from one end of Government to the Destruction of the other, which is more excellent, and which effecteth and worketh the other, is totally to overthrow Royalty and Government. The compleat and adequate end of Monarchical Government, is as we have said, to preserve the Kings Prerogative en­tire, and the Liberty and Good of the Subject too. If any man reason after this Form, in the case betwixt the head and the body, the Wife and the Husband, he will soon discover the Fallacy of this Sophism. It is right, just, necessary, and honourable for a King to proportion his Laws and Government for the Good and Safety of his People; and on the other part, it [Page 272] is as just, as necessary for the people, to hold that Salus Regis suprema lex esto, the safety of the King, of his Sovereignty and Right, ought to be the paramont Law, without which no safety can be to the publick State, nor to any private mans well-being.

If such Sophisms as these were confined within School-walls, for the exercise of Wits, it were no great matter; but such abused Principles clogged with such paradoxal Consequences, have a mighty Influence upon the multitude, and will make them assume to themselves, or commit to their Representatives an ar­bitrary Power, which placed in a wrong hand, can­not chuse but produce monstrous Mischiefs. These Maxims with their absurd Consectaries embolden them, authorize them to pull his Crown from his Head, wrest his Sword out of his hands, seize his Ships, Forts, Magazines, Ammunitions and Revenues, if they apprehend it fit for their own good: It will make them break thorow all inferiour Laws, that no more shall we have or know for Law, but what it shall please them to unfold at pleasure out of the Closet of their Breasts. And if this power be in some few, or in many, who are back't by the greater part of the people, having a domineering power over the Judg­ment and Affections of the people, gulled with fair and false promises, and vain expectation of a glorious Reformation in Church and State: What person how innocent, how well-deserving soever, can be secured in the Liberty of his Person, and Propriety of Life and Goods? Shall it not be a sufficient and just warrant, to commit innocent men to Ieremiah's Dungeon, to prove them guilty at Leisure, because they are disaffected to the Good Cause? Shall it not be just to take from men, what Portion, what Moity of their State and Reve­nues [Page 273] they will, and sequestrate them for the publick, because they cannot confide in them; and the Good Cause must be maintained upon the Estates of Bishops, Malignants, and Delinquents? God forgive you. Remember there is a God in Heaven will call Ahab to an account for Naboth's Vineyard; repent in time and make Satisfaction, before the evil day come upon you. May they not by the same Grounds disarm whom they will, to weaken Gods Enemies? Those Ma­xims and Sophisms will make way to Rebellion, to murther the most innocent, the most deserving men. It will at last come at that, except God and Sove­reignty right it, that it will be a crime to have Wealth, and Treason to be faithful and loyal to King, Church, and State. This Maxim with the annexed Sophisms, is enough to destroy King and Kingdom, Church and State, and at last send the Authors, and those are set on by them packing to Hell: from which good Lord deliver them and all of us.

But what may be the proper, natural, and innocent sense of the words, Salus populi suprema lex esto? No doubt they have a good and just sense, if they be not [...]acked upon Tentures beyond their just Extent. It was, as we have said, and as it appeareth by Cicero de Legibus, one of the Laws of the twelve Tables, and [...] paramount Law too. But it is only tant' amount, as Salus publica suprema lex esto, let the publick Safety of [...] be the paramount Law. It is transcendent in this Respect, that Government first and principally regard­ [...]th the common Good and Safety of the whole; and [...] the next place it intendeth the private Good of eve­ [...]y private singular one subordinately. Conservatio spe­ [...]ei, est potior conservatione individui; the Preservation [...] the spece and whole, is intended more by Nature, [...] the preservation of any individual.

The word Populus in classical Authors and its ordi­nary use is more than [...]le [...]s; Plebs is [...], a derivative from many; but Populus is [...]; id est, à mul [...]pluribus. Plebs comprehends only the vulgar and baf [...]e [...] sort of the Society; but Po­pulus, omnes ordines hominum complect [...]tur, compre­hends in its extent all men in the Kingdom, of what Condition or Quality soever. SS. Plebi [...]scitum de jure [...]atural. apud. Iustinianum. Nicholaus Porretus ad 2. Epigramma Martial. in Corn [...]copia. By which it is ea­sily conceived, that in this Salus populi, in this Salus publica, Salus Regi [...] is necessarily involved.

The word Publicum, as Latin Authors well observe is a populo and [...], that it may sound the better in our Ears, we pronounce i [...] Publicum, [...] so that publick and popular in their origina [...] Sense are equivalent. Popular [...]s actiones in the Dicti­on of Law, are the same that [...] de popular. action. actio. P. L. [...] de [...]. P. and [...] sacra, if we will trust Fe­stus and Labeo, were those solemn Festivities [...] kept by all the People, Governour and governed, dif­ferent from those Solomnities which were peculiar [...] some Families only, as Fornical [...] and Pali [...]ia. [...] which it is manifest, that Sal [...] Regis in this Law [...] as well as Salus [...] and you are not by the one to exclude [...] other. V [...]pian the great, [...] But in that that is [...] he defineth the contrary way, that [...] is that that be longeth ad singul [...]um [...], to the singular an [...] peculiar good of every one sing [...]y, as [...] saith, L. i [...] de rer. dr [...]is. L. 1. P. [...]it. 8. Publi [...]. rer. nulli [...]s in ho [...] esse; contra quae su [...]it singalorum; and M. Terentiles [...] [Page 275] hath observed, Aliud esse. populi universi personarum, aliud singulorum, & quod populus est in sua P [...]t [...]state (un­derstand him to speak where Democracy is the supreme Government) singuli in illius. With what is said, see how it can subsist, that Salus populi is to be conceived of the safety of the Subject, without respect to, or con­sideration of the safety of the Governours. In Latine Authors the sense is this; Salus publica suprema lex est [...]. In Vlpian's Sense it is, Salus rei Romanae suprema lex es [...]o. The same is the signification of the Greek word [...], for where Iustinian, SS. Plebiscitum de jure n [...] ­turae gentium, explaineth the word Populus to contain in it all Orders and Conditions of men within the Empire; his Paraphrast useth the word [...], which cometh from the word [...] to bind together; that [...] is [...], a Chain or tye, and no tye to keep a Multitude together in one, without Govern­ment and Governours. I do not deny but the word [...] sometimes in Greek [...]ignifieth the meaner sort of [...] people, and Homer and others take [...] for an ordinary common man, to which they oppose [...], a King, and Nobleman: and the Latines sometime use the word, a popular man for [...] Plebeian man, or a man of low Condition. So Plau­t [...] Praestat divitem & popularem esse, quam nobilem & mendicum. Notwithstanding in its proper, first, and most used Sense, it comprehendeth all men and Con­ditions of [...], not excluding Governours more than Subjects; and so is to be taken in the Law of the 12 Tables, Salus populi suprema lex esto.

Let us come and examine Literam Legis, (as the Jurists speak) the Letter of the Law. Salus populi I find here is Lex, a Law; and Suprema Lex, the para­mont and trans [...]endent Law: then it cannot be racked further, nor wind up to a higher pitch, than to be a [Page 276] Law, and a supreme Law. The Substantive is Lex, the Law; the Epithet and Adjective is Suprema, the supreme Law. Then this Law of Salus populi, of the safety of the People, is only a Law which is supreme, and above all other Laws; it doth not trench upon the Prerogative of the Suprema potestas, upon Sove­reignty which giveth the Law. Transcendent it is above all Laws, but seeing it is only Lex, a Law, it is not transcendent above Rex, the Sovereign in a Monarchy. To interpret it thus, it giveth to the Law an heterogeneous Sense, and is de genere in genus, leaping from one kind to another. Do not our Ad­versaries acknowledge, that during the Democratical Government of the people of Rome; the people had Summam Majestatem, summam potestatem, and Legibus solutam; had the supreme Power, that Majestas was populi, the People were so much Master of the Law, that they might abrogare, derogare, obrogare, stop the Execution of any Law, take from it, add to it, or totally abrogate it at their pleasure? And will they be so unjust to force this upon us in a Monarchy, with a contrary Sense destructive of Sovereignty and Supre­macy in a King?

If we will be pleased to look more narrowly upon the true meaning of this Law, Salus populi suprema lex esto, it will be so far from putting a curb upon Sove­reignty. wheresoever it be fixed, in one, few, or ma­ny, and license the People to right Sovereignty upon real and fansied Exigents in Necessity, that upon the other part it will advance Sovereignty. It is most true that all Laws should be proportioned to the publick Good of the Sovereign and People; and so this Law is a transcendent Law, for it is found intrinsecally in all Laws, as the transcendent Affections, unum, verum, and bonum, are found intrinsecally in all and every [Page 277] Entity. But this is not that which is meant in Salus populi suprema lex esto; The meaning is, that the King­dom or State, not only possibly and probably, but really and existently may be such, that the Sovereign must exerce and exercise an arbitrary Power, not stand upon private mens Interest, or transgressing of Laws, made for the private good of Individuals; but for the Preservation of it self and the publick may break tho­row all Laws. This case may be, and sometimes is, as when sudden foreign Invasion, or strong home­bred Sedition threaten King and Kingdom, State and Republick with present and almost unavoidable Ru­ine. As you see in a natural Body, the Physician will rather cut off a gangrened Member, and the Patient re­solve to endure it, than that that Cancer corrupt and destroy the whole Body.

Look upon the Romans practice (which the Jurists say is Optimus legis interpres) and you will find this is the just Sense of the Law. Do not Livie and Dionysius Ha [...]icarn. tell us, that it was ordinary to the Romans, in case of extream danger, to chuse a Dictator, (the greatest Sanctuary they had in all Extremities) who according to his own Prudence, Arbitrement, and Discretion, was to command and do what he thought fit to be done, and to act for the Preservation of him­self and the State? His Commission runs at large; Vi­deat dictator ne quid detrimenti Respublica capiat; which Videat was not a charge given, for Discharge of which he was not accountable to any, but a full Sovereign intire Commission to rule in Peace and War, in Life and Death, over Persons and Estate, Goods and Ho­nour, without Controulment, Reluctation, or Con­tradiction; the rule being none else but Arbitrium boni viri. He was subordinate to none: none was co-ordinate with him; nor after the expiring of six Months was [Page 278] he accountable to Senate, Consuls, Tribunes, any, ma­ny, or all; nor controulable by Man, by Law, by Statute, by Custom, or what else in that kind is ima­ginable.

What can be more apparent then, than that this L [...]w was never made of purpose to warrant People in a real or fancied exigent of necessity, to rise against their Prince? but to allow to Sovereign Power, wheresoever fixed, a more transcendent Power in the case of extreme Danger and Difficulty. Nature teacheth, that in Ne­cessity this is equitable. If any attempt to wound the Head, Arms and Hands, Legs and Thighs will defend with the loss of themselves, before the Head be wound­ed. If a Canker be in Hand or Foot, before it Gan­grene the whole Body, we will condescend to the cut­ting of them off.

In this sense which we have explained, Salus populi suprema lex esto, is a Law that hath no Iniquity in it, but hath a good, just, and equitable Sense. Yet it is not to day onely, or yesterday, that this Maxim hath been abused to work much mischief. This mis-un­derstood Principle or Law put Christ to death. The Scribes and Pharisees, High-Priests and Sanhedrim a­vouched, It was necessary that one should dye for the Peo­ple; the High-Priest spoke it, not knowing how in a Prophetical sense it was necessary, but meaning that Salus populi required it; the whole Land, and all of them were in danger. And in this case, with the in­fluence of this Law, it was enough to alledge their au­thority and unanimous co [...]s [...]nt. They were not tied to proofs. They had a Law of which they were Inter­preters; or if not, they had a Legislative power, by which for Salus Populi Christ must dye. When Pilate found him innocent, their answer was sufficient, If he were not a Malefactor we would not have delivered him [Page 279] unto thee. Salus populi, or nothing else was the Law, the Paramount Law, the [...] of all Politicks, to which Pilate's Power delegate from the Romans was subser­vient. But what was the effect of this work, wrought by this Paramount Law? It wrought the utter extirpa­tion of them and their Posterity. The over-ruling voices of the High-Priests, Scribes, and Sanhedrim, for­ced Pilate to crucifie the God of Glory against his heart, his Conscience. This was high Injustice in him, he acknowledged Christ's Innocency, and knew that for Envy they delivered him up: Ioh. 19. 6. Matth. 27. 18. He knew besides, that without his Authority he could not be condemned. If we could or would seriously look upon this Example, and make right Use of it, it would deter us from making too much of such deceitful and deceiving Maxims, which in the end will lead us to our total destruction and overthrow.

It was this Salus populi, that made Saul to spare, against Gods command, Agag, and the Amalekites. It was this that seduced Zedekiah, made his Lords over-rule and over-awe him, and clap up Ieremiah in the Dungeon. It is a great mistake in which a great and Learned man in this Age doth gather, from the words of a King to his Nobles; Behold he is in your power, for what is the King that he can do any thing against you? That the Kings of Iudah by some Power equal to them or above them, might be counter-manded. The ex­pression is de facto, not de jure, intimating that the good King was so over-awed by his Lords, that he could not protect the Lords Servant, the Prophet Iere­miah, although he knew he was bound to it, and wil­ling too: When a good King is put in such a case, the state of King and Kingdom are in greatest dan­ger.

There is enough said to discover the grand Impo­stures of this abused Maxim, Salus populi suprema lex esto; for by what is said, it appeareth, 1. That it is not to be conceived in that large sense, as if all Go­vernours and Government were principally for the good of those are governed; it holds not in Marital, nor Despotical, nor in Royal Government by Con­quest. 2. Next it taketh as granted (in the sense of our Adversaries) that the compleat and adequate end of Government is Salus populi, which is an Errour, for it is Salus Regis & populi, and Salus Regis hath the first place, without which Salus populi cannot be. It hath the Prerogative like to the first Table, and Salus populi as the second. To destroy the Prerogative and Royal Power, is to bring ruine to our selves. 3. Thirdly, it is spoken in ordine ad alias Leges, non ad Regem, in order to other Laws, not to prove the King the Extract of the People, or that by them he is coerced; But that in case of extreme necessity the King for his own and the Kingdoms Safety may break thorow all other Laws, as he thinketh fit in his Dis­cretion to preserve himself and Kingdom. 4. Fourth­ly, in the sense our Adversaries use it, it cannot but disquiet King and Kingdom, upon real or fancied Fears and Jealousies. 5. Fifthly, misapplied and mis­understood, it hath been the Mother of much mischief. 6. Lastly, let every Subject and Christian within his Majesties Kingdoms consider and remember how he is bound by Nature and Grace to Salus Regis, to main­tain the Kings Right, Priviledges, and Prerogatives, besides that all of any Quality, and the better sort have taken an Oath to maintain it. With which how any can dispense, I profess I see not, I know not.

We need not spend much time or pains in taking off that other abused Principle, A King cannot be with­ [...]ut [Page 281] the People, but the People may be without a King, with its Consequence, Ergo, the People are more excellent than the King; for what is already said taketh away the strength of this Argument and Consequence; for if they will resolve their Antecedent thus, or frame their Argument thus, The People may be without a Go­vernour or Government, Ergo, &c. The Antecedent is most false, and so can bring home no Conclusion at all. We have proved already, better not to be at all, than to be without Government; and for this cause God fixed Government in one, and appointed a Govern­our, before ever there were People in the World to be governed. Cicero doth tell us this, lib. 3. de Legibus. Nihil porro tam aptum est ad Ius conditionemque Naturae, quam Imperium, sine quo nec domus ulla, nec civitas, nec ge [...]s, nec hominum universum genus stare, nec rerum natura omnis, nec ipse mundus potest. I know what the Secta­ry and Jesuit will rejoyn, the People may be under Aristocracie or Democracie in a happy condition, Er­go without Monarchy or a King. I do not blame Aristocracie or Democracie as unlawful Governments, God sorbid, for then all their acts of lawful Govern­ment could not chuse but be sinful; but that they are univocal species of Government with Monarchy, I can never be induced to believe, (as by Gods Grace we will demonstrate it, Quaest. 2.) Governments they are, but defective; If man had never fallen into Sin, Aristocracie had never been known, nor Democracie seen in the World, nor were they at first: It was the corruption of Monarchy produced them into the world. Monarchy by God in Scripture is much countenanced, magnified; of Aristocracie or Democracie you have not one Word in Holy Writ to commend them. That a People under Aristocracie or Democracie may have some tolerable subsistence, I deny it not, but that they [Page 282] can be in an happy condition I doubt of it; especially for the Church, whose condition can never be happy under any Government but Monarchy: for proof I appeal to all by-gone Ages in the Christian Church, and pray our Adversaries to shew us, where the Church is in Plenty and Honour, where Aristocracy is the Go­vernment. In Scripture it is prophecied, Ecce Reges erunt nutritii tui, That Kings shall be the Nurse-fathers of the Church, there is no word to that sense for any Government besides Monarchy. If they make use of this Argument to prefer Aristocracy or Democracy to Monarchy, there reasoning is not sure, and concludes not; no more than when I reason thus, a man may walk without Legs of bone and flesh, for he may walk on wooden Legs, if he hath lost his Natural Legs with the blow of a Canon, or by a Gangrene; or he may walk upon Crutches if he be a Cripple, Ergo, wooden legs and artificial, or Crutches, are better than the na­tural legs and feet man is born with.

In brief, no Society can subsist without Govern­ment, the best of Governments is Monarchy; and Peo­ple cannot be happy, except the King and Monarchy be proportioned to that height of Power, Honour, and Wealth, as He be able to secure Himself and Subjects from all Mischief, Iniquity, and Disorder; and the Good, Safety, and Happiness of the Subject is natural­ly and necessarily involved in the sacred Right and Prerogative of the King, That whosoever conceiveth that the Good of the People can subsist with lessening and weakening the Right of the King, is, as if he should imagine to see the Branches of a Tree bud, flourish, and bring forth Fruit, when they are broken o [...] from the root; or to see a River of running living Water divided from the Source and Fountain of living Wa­ter, or to apprehend that the Ray of the Sun can in­lighten, [Page 283] when it is separated from the Body of the Sun. Let never a King imagine his Happiness can subsist or consist without the Happiness, Peace, and Plenty of his Subjects; and let not us that are Subjects imagine that we can be happy, or preserve our Right, our Li­berty, our Property, if we account not the Lords An­ointed the breath of our Nostrils, and value his Right, His Prerogative, at a higher rate than our Lives. These are by God and Nature so involved mutually one in another, that without destruction to both they cannot be put asunder.

THere be a great many more of these new State-devised Principles, with which our Antimo­narchical Sectaries intoxicate the Vulgar; as that Protection and Subjection are of equal extent; That a mixture and temperature of the three proper Species of Government, is the best of Governments; (which, if it be not rightly understood, is a most dangerous Position, and in the sense many conceive it, it is not Tempera­mentum Regiminis, but Turbamentum) That Plus vi­dent oculi quàm oculus; That Rex est universis minor, sin­gulis major; That the Charter of Nature intitles us to our defence against Kings; That Rex est propter populum; That a King at his Coronation sweareth and covenanteth with his Subjects, which if he perform not, he is punishable, dethronable; That in a Monarchy, The Legislative Pow­er i [...] communicable to the Subject, and is not radically in [Page 284] Sovereignty in one, but in more; That Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari & approbari debet; and a great ma­ny more; all which, by Gods help, we shall examine in the subsequent Questions, as every one of them of­fereth it self in its own proper place. We now come shortly to point at the great Charge of the King, as we have before proved the Excellency of his Sacred Charge and Person.

What we have said of the Excellency of Kings, that they are the derivatives of God, from him by genera­tion, his first-born, God's upon Earth, &c. If it be rightly weighted, it will humble them in the presence of God, in their own esteem, and not suffer them to swell in Pride; it tieth them to a proportionable San­ctity and eminency in Holiness and Integrity, as far in degree above the Ordinary, as they are exalted in State and Honour above the Sons of men. Isocrates writing to Nicocles, saith to him, [...]. The sense is the same we have expressed already, the higher in Honour, they are tied to a higher perfection in Virtue. Saint Austin saith well, Tom. 8. enarrat. in Psal. 137. Quantò sublimitas altior est, tantò periculosior est. Ideoque Reges quantò sunt in majori sublimitate terrenâ, tanto magis humiliari Deo debent. Kings, as related to men, are Gods, in order to Almighty God they are frail and mortal men, Psal. 82. 6. They are gods on Earth, yet onely gods of the Earth; and are no less, if not more accountable to God than any other men whatsoever. He trieth their works, searcheth out their Counsels; and if they judge not aright, Horribly and speedily he will come upon them; a sharp judgment shall be to them that are in High places; Mercy will soon pardon the meanest, but mighty men shall be mightily tormented, (Wisd. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.) For [Page 285] he who is Lord over all shall fear no man's person, nei­ther shall he stand in awe of any man's Greatness, for he hath made small and great, and careth for all alike. No Difference there is betwixt a Prince and a Peasant except only in this, that as the Prince is higher than all, so his Crime and Sin is above all, and his Punishment will be proportioned to the like and an­swerable Height.

Princes being derived immediately from God, and with that honour to be the first-born Children of God, and Sons of the most high; what Measure of Holiness, what Degree of Righteousness is required in them, so highly advanced? They should be holy, as their heaven­ly Father is holy; They should be perfect, as their Fa­ther in Heaven is perfect: and this not only in their private Conversation as Christians, but also in their publick Government as Fathers of the Kingdom, and Nurse-fathers of the Church. Nothing addeth more to the Disgrace of a wicked man, than when we re­flect upon him, as descended from a noble and high Stem. Solomon saith, Prov. 16. 12. It is an Abomina­tion for Kings to commit Wickedness: and the fear of the Lord is the Glory of the King. No Foundation of a King so sure as Obedience to him that made the King. Nothing more dangerous in a King than Rebellion against God. Happy are Kings when they resolve with David, Psal. 85. 8. I will hearken what the Lord will say unto me.

But above all, Kings are bound to advance Piety and that both in their private and publick Devotions, and in their publick Government. They ought to be more frequent in their private Devotions than any else, and in the publick to be most reverent in their Gestures, that their practice in Piety, in Devotion, in private, in publick may be exemplary: [Page 286] ‘Regis ad exemplum totus componitur orbis.’ This Duty they owe to God as professores fidei, but they are bound to another, as propugnatores fidei, that is, to see that the Purity of Faith and Worship be preserved with that Solemnity and Decency of sacred Places, sacred Things, sacred Persons, sacred Gestures, as God hath prescribed, and the holy Catholick Church hath practised and allowed. The Preservati­on of the sacred Right and Prerogative royal is that secureth and preserveth the Right and Liberty of the Subject: and it is the maintaining and preserving of God's and holy Church's Right that preserveth Kings and their Crowns. Happy is the King who with Da­vid can say, Psal. 26. 8. Lord, I have loved the Habi­tation of thy House, and the place where thine Honour dwelleth: upon this he may with David confidently pray, vers. 9. Gather not my Soul with Sinners, nor my Life with bloody men. If the King's delight be in the Sanctuary of the Lord, although Trouble fall upon him, yet Help will come to him out of the Sanctuary, that will save both him and his Crown, Psal. 20. The highest Honour, the greatest Happiness that ever David attain­ed to, was to bring back again the Ark of God, to leave a great Treasure for building of the Temple, 1 Chron. 13. 15. 28. and to raise the Church, and establish the Worship and Order in it's height of Per­fection, 1 Chron. 24. 25, 26. when he finished this Work, he rejoyced more than ever. Then he said, Psal. 84. 10. A day in thy Courts is better than a thou­sand elsewhere: it was better be a door-keeper in the house of the Lord, than to dwell in the Tents of Wickedness. It was this that made God send to his King Deliverance out of his Troubles, Psal. 18. vers. ult. It was this that established his House and Kingdom for ever; it was [Page 287] this that crowned him with a Crown of pure Gold here, and of immortal Glory in Heaven.

Kings at their Coronation offer their Crowns, Scepters, and Swords to God at his Altar, and receive them from thence; the one Ceremony signifieth that their Sovereignty cometh to them immediately from God; the other signifieth that they offer all first for the Service of God: It is a Vow or Dedication of themselves and their Power for the Advancement of Gods Glory: To this add, that this is solemnly sworn by them, to maintain the Purity of the Faith, and Worship, and the Priviledges and Rights of holy Church; and lastly, all is sealed with the receiving of the Sacrament off the Altar: What then can free Kings from these Ties? And how fearful a thing is it, for them to be principal Actors, or accessary to bad Coun­sels and Courses, to give up a Church, or to wrong Christ and his Rights?

There be a great many that practise Machiavel's Po­liticks, affirming Princes are no more tyed to Church and Religion, than as both of them are subordinate and subservient to the politick Government, and good Temporal: These are truly Atheists, who, Ierob [...]am like, care not, at all for God nor Religion, who abuse them to their own private ends: they may for a short time flourish, but in the end God will root out them and their Posterity▪ and their Memory shall be had in Execration, as Pilate is remembred in the Creed, and Iudas recorded in the Gospel.

There be others who seem more moderate, whose Counsels are no less pernicious, because they seem to speak in a favourable and more specious way, like to the Devil, transforming himself into an Angel of Light: these advise Kings to maintain a Worship, an Order, a Church: but that it is not best to be too [Page 288] sumptuous and prodigal in the Maintenance, or en­dowing the Church richly; nor is it necessary pun­ctually, and precisely to adhere to all Gods Ordinan­ces; and in some cases, say they, a Prince at some Times, at some Exigences, may give way to the un­doing of some Ordinances of God and Christ, he may permit some of the Beauty and Solemnity of the Wor­ship to be eclipsed, devest the Church and Church­men of some Priviledges and Rights, which by imme­morial Possession they and their Pedecessors have enjoy­ed, and to which, besides Dedication and Consecration, the Church is by all positive Civil Law and Right en­tituled no less, (if not more) than Noblemen, Gen­tlemen, Corporations, or any Subject or Subjects whatsoever. These Counsels for a time may prevail, and the Church may be a little for a little time sup­pressed and depressed, but if God have Mercy in Store for that Kingdom, it will not continue long. These Achitophels tell Kings, that if Moses's ten Command­ments, the Apostles twelve Articles of the Creed, and the six Petitions of the Lord's Prayer be preserved, it skilleth not for other things, whether Bishop or no Bishop, whether good Christians preach and do mini­sterial Acts, or only men in sacred Orders, authorised by Consecration and Imposition of hands, whether any Solemnity in the publick Worship or not, whether in sacred Church consecrated, or in a private House or Barn, whether Christ have a Patrimony, or his Servants be allowed only a Competency at the Disore­tion of Lay-men, &c. These Counsels and Courses if they be not repented, forsaken, and the Church right­ed, will prove destructive to Kings, to their Crowns, to their Posterity, and to their Authors and Abettors. King Saul for ought we read, did not restrain nor pollute the Worship he found, nor took from their [Page 289] Priests what was their due, but it is manifest he did neglect God and his Church, his Worship, and his Servants, had less Esteem of God's Servants than of any of his Subjects besides, and yet this is punished with the Forfeiture of Crown and Kingdom to him and his Posterity, and God provideth a man, a King according to his Heart, to right the Church, to order the Service aright, which established his Kingdom and Crown for ever. The Church was the Alpha and Omega of his Government; he consecrated the begin­ning of his peaceable Reign with bringing home the Ark; he spent the most of his Reign in ordering and establishing the Service of God with it's Solemnity, and ended his Life and Reign exhorting Solomon to do the like, to build the Temple, and leaving by Le­gacy a great immense Treasure consecrated to this purpose.

If any will look upon these Counsellors, he will find that they have a mighty Zeal and Care of their own Honour and Wealth; how much they remit their Zeal towards God and his House, they intend it as much for themselves and what concerneth their pri­vate: they will not willingly dwell but in Houses of Cedar, and can see the Ark of God within Curtains; this maketh them that they can suffer the Church to be spoiled, if by her Spoils they or theirs can be en­riched; Christians they cannot be, whatsoever they profess, they are in a contrary, a contradictory way to Christ; of him it was said, The Zeal of thine House hath eaten me up; of them it is verified, that their Zeal hath eaten up the house of God. If these men can enjoy their own, make up a state upon the Ruines of the Church, or better a prior estate, they care not al­though Levites usurp upon Priests, Presbyters upon Bishops, and Christ and his Patrimony be both put [Page 290] out of the World: Ten shekels of Silver and a Sute of Apparel, Micah's allowance, Iudges 17. 10. is enough and too much for the best of God and Christ's Ser­vants: All in the end will prove Aurum Tholosanum, like the collop the Eagle brought from the Altar to feed her young ones, so much Fire came with it that it consumed the Nest and the young ones too.

When the Church of God is in this distress, it is not onely sin to be accessary to these Counsels and Courses, but such as may and are able to prevent these mischiefs and do it not, God will charge them with it. Some there be who profess that they like not the course against the Church, but for reason of State way must be given to the current of the stream, and a fit opportunity waited to right what was amiss; I will not search the hearts of such men, I leave them to him who trieth the reins, and knoweth our thoughts afar off: onely let me put them in mind, that sins of Omission, of necessary Duties are high sins in the ba­lance of the Sanctuary; Meroz is cursed that came not out to help the Lord: and Matth. 25. They are to be condemned in the last Day who fed not Christ when he was hungry, no less than those who robbed him of his Food. It is the highest Service to God, with the Church of Thyatira, not to deny the Faith, where Satan's seat is, where Antipas suf­ereth for the truth, Rev. 11. 13. If God hath endow­ed any with Wisdom, Power and Trust by Princes▪ and in such▪ time they withdraw their help from God and his Church, it is like they will call to him in the day of their trouble and God will not hear them. Remember, after the reducing of the People from the Captivity, the Prophets did charge the re-building of the House of God; the Princes of Iudah answered, The time is not come, the time wherein the Lord's House [Page 291] should be built. None was so impudent to come di­rectly contrary to this Charge, but they meant, we are poor, newly come out of Captivity, we have strong Enemies about us, we must wait a better opportunity, a more seasonable time: a jugling trick it is to cross good Works, and crush them substantially, by opposing them onely circumstantially: Notwithstanding all this the Prophet chargeth them, Is it time for you, O yee! (this compellation is very emphatical) to dwell in your cieled Houses, and this House lie waste? Read the Judg­ments, I cease to repeat it, I love not to apply it, and wish it be not the Judgment of our Times: See Hag. 1. vers. 1, 2, 3. & à vers. 6. ad vers. 12. Do not deceive your selves with that imposture, that you will wait upon an opportunity to right all that is disjoynted in Church, you are not to tempt God, to put him to extraordinary Providence, when he has put you in the ordinary way to serve him, and to prevent these mis­chiefs. Is it lawful and warrantable to you to do Evil, or give way to Evil, and to wait opportunity to do good afterward to salve all this? Or can you expect that God will honour you to make you fit in­struments to repair again what is wrong? Certain­ly, you neither deserve it, nor can lay any claim or in­terest to it.

If these men fear Covenants and Associations, I de­sire them to remember, that as in Scripture the first and happiest Covenant is the Covenant of Mercy and Grace, so in the next place we have in Holy Writ men­tioned A Covenant of Levi; which is the means ordi­nary God hath appointed to preserve the other. The Scripture telleth us, that it is an high impiety to corrupt the Covenant of Levi, Mal. 11. 8. Both the one and the other Covenant are Covenants of Salt, that is, of everlasting durance, from which it followeth necessa­rily [Page 292] that whatsoever Covenant destroyeth the Ordi­nance of God in the necessary Government of the Church, the Ordinances of the Worship and its So­lemnities, cannot be from God, from whence then it comes you may easily guess.

Of all impieties in this kind, there is no higher transgression, than if the Tribe of Levi, for some sub­sistence to themselves and theirs, and to gain popular applause and credit with the Faction, assure Kings they may give way to a popular current and flood, to suffer God's Ordinances to be destroyed, the Solemni­ty of the Worship defaced, till a better opportunity offer. I beg pardon to speak truth in humility and re­verence, and first to Kings, that although Church­men advise Kings upon such exigents, to do such un­warrantable Acts, yet it will not excuse them in the Day of their Accounts, no more than it excused Achab that had the warrant of Zedekiah, 1 Kings 22. 11. Nor did it excuse Pilate, who had the representative Body of Priests and State to warrant him they had a Law, and by their Law Christ was a Malefactor and worthy to dye. Next, let me tell the Tribe of Levi, who for their own good and popular applause, do comply with a popular Eaction, and set their brains on work to make specious shews of Reason, and inducements to perswade or warrant Kings, by permission and giving way, or by actual concurrence with their Authority, to permit and do Acts destructive to Christ's Ordinances, or deroga­tory to the Worship, are near to the sin of Apostacy, and another of an higher degree, which I fear to name. But of all Levites those are the most miserable, who, being advanced to the highest of Sacred Orders, ha­ving enriched themselves by the Patrimony of the Church, to keep their purchase, have abjured that Sa­cred Order as Antichristian, and yet make not restitu­tion [Page 293] of what they have purchased. I wonder how such mens Repentance could be admitted, for in such cases they cannot truly repent without Restitution; Non dimittetur peccatum nisi restituetur ablatum. These men come short of Iudas this Repentance, who was not onely contrite for betraying his Master, but resto­red the Money which unjustly he had purchased by his Villany. By the detention of their purchase, their Converts declare themselves Mercenary, and their Fa­thers by receiving them into their Communion, pub­lish to the World, they care not what they lose in truth, if they can deceive the People to make them think by such a goodly access their evil Cause is strengthened: I refer these Apostate Bishops to read the story of Ecebolus; I wish them not to be in like con­dition, and cease to apply the story. I thank God there is no rancour in my heart against them nor their Fathers Converters, my imprecations are no other, but to pray Almighty God to give them true Repentance and to forgive them.

The sum of what we have said is this, that neither King nor Kingdom can be happy, if Kings fear not God, and do not from this fear preserve the Right of God and his Church, protect and promote the Ordi­nances of God, and advance the Worship and its So­lermity. Nor will bad Counsellors excuse them in the Day of their Accounts, nor will the Counsellors escape just Judgment, and it is like God will make the same People a Rod to scourge them, whom they have followed and given way to, with the loss of a good conscience, and offence against God.

As Princes, the Sons of the most High, and Vice­gerents of Christ upon Earth, are bound to Piety in their personal carriage above other, and to procure and protect it in their publick Government, so they are [Page 294] bound in their private and publick Conversation and Government to be excellently righteous. The Deri­vative naturally resembleth its Primitive. God from whom they are by immediate Derivation, hath no plea­sure in wickedness, neither doth evil dwell with him, Psal. 5. 4. Kings hold their Scepters from Christ, The Scep­ter of Christ's Kingdom is a right Scepter. He loveth righteousness and hateth wickedness, Psal. 45. 6, 7. They are by generation from the Father, Psal. 89. They issue from the thigh of Christ, Rev. 17. 14. & 19. 14. They degenerate then if they be not righteous.

If Kings live and govern piously and justly, their Thrones shall be established, their Crowns secured, and their Posterity be blessed, Prov. 25. 5. By righteousness the Throne is established; The good of this will redound to the whole Kingdom, Prov. 29. 4. The King by Iudg­ment establisheth the Land, but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it. Foelix Respublica in qua qui imperat ti­met Deum. See God's charge to Kings, Ier. 22. 1, 2, 3. Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the op­pressed, &c. vers. 4. For if ye do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of this House Kings sitting upon the Throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he and his servants and his people. vers. 5. But if you will not hear these words, &c. vers. 7. I will prepare destroy­ers against thee, &c. David the King knew this, Psal. 33. 16. There is no King saved by the multitude of an host. How then? vers. 18. The eyes of the Lord are up­on them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy. He practised it, Psal. 61. 4. I will abide in thy Taber­nacle for ever, I will trust in the covert of thy wings. The meaning is, his constant purpose and practice should be holy and just, and to advance Piety and Righteous­ness: from this issueth that confidence he subjoyneth vers. 6. Thou wilt prolong the King's life, and his years [Page 295] as many Generations. vers. 7. He shall abide before God for ever, O prepare Mercy and Truth which may preserve him. See Psal. 72. wholly; Prov. 20. 8. & 29. 4, 14. & 16. 12, 13.

This Truth believed by Kings, that they are imme­diately sent from God, and Vicegerents upon Earth, is a ground of great Confidence in God in their great­est Troubles, which usually are great and frequent; for as the tallest Cedars they are exposed to the Vio­lence of greatest Tempests; their only way is to run to God for Protection and Deliverance. They may lay claim to it more than any. God is the Principal, they only Lieutenants and subordinate: more favour is al­lowed to them, greater Protection promised to them. Psal. 89. 26. He (that is the King) shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my Sal­vation. Also I will make him my first born. David, Psal. 44. 4. approacheth to God in this Confidence; Thou art my King, O God, command Deliverance for Jacob. A Subject claimeth Protection from the King as his Due, so may the King from his Lord and Master. So­lomon upon this ground that God had set him upon the Throne of David, begged Government and Judg­ment to go out and in before his People: 1 King. 3. The Lord did not refuse it, but in his Bounty supere­rogated what was fit for his more Magnificence. God hath a secret and unknown way in directing and gui­ding Princes, and no less admirable a way in guard­ing their Persons, and delivering them out of all their Troubles: Prov. 21. 1. The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord as the Rivers of Waters; He turneth it whithersoever he will. Psal. 18. vers. ult. Great Delive­rances giveth he to his King, and sheweth Mercy to his Anointed, &c. The Heathen have acknowledged in Kings some Heroici impetus, some strange and extraor­dinary [Page 296] Inspirations and Directions, seconded with as admirable Successes and Protection; that a [...] in them, something extraordinary above that God in his ordinary Providence by Direction or Protection vouch­safeth upon others. I refer you to read and meditate what you have written, 2 Kings 19. 25, 27. and Isai. 42. 1, 27. and you will doubt no more of this Truth. This day is this Truth fulfilled in our Ears; we have before our Eyes such a wonderful over-ruling Dire­ction and Protection of our Sovereign in this Rebelli­on, that we must acknowledge it is the Lords work, and marvellous in our Eyes, Psal. 118.

This Truth is a strong Motive to perswade Subjects to all Duty. First, to honour, reverence, and obey the King next to God, and above all others. The Fear of God and the King are immediately conjoyned and enjoyned together in Scripture: Prov. 24. 21, 22, 23. My Son, fear God and the King, &c. 1 Pet. 11. 17. Fear God, honour the King. See Tertullian to this purpose in the places we cited before: and Gregory Nazianzen. Orat. 20. which is a funeral Oration for Basil the great. The Moral Law hath mixt to the du­ty we owe to God in the first Table, placed in the first place, Honora patrem, Honour the King. What Divinity then can it be which this miserable unhappy Age hath invented and vented, that the Fear of God and the King are inconsistent; and the best Badge of a Christian is to oppose the just and lawful Demands and Commands of Kings? This is none of Christs, his Apostles, nor ancient Christians and Martyrs Do­ctrine. What Christian heart can be so hard as not to mourn for this, and cry out with that holy Martyr Polycarp, Good Lord, for what times hast thou reser­ved me?

[Page 297] Again, this Truth that Kings are Gods Vicegerents, sent by immediate Commission from him, tyed us to maintain our Kings in Honour, Wealth, and Power, proportioned to so high a Calling. This the word Honora patrem, honour thy Father naturally in the Di­ction and Dialect of the Scripture, imports, 1 Tim. 5. 17, 21. Almighty God, although his Immensity be attended with an [...] and [...], an able suf­ficiency and all Felicity, yet hath he sequestrated and set a-part some persons peculiarly for his sacred Service, some place for his publick Worship, and some Quota of our Revenues and Industry, that all men may ac­knowledge His Sovereignty, and their own Dependency from, and Subordination and Subjection to him; so it is the good will and pleasure of God, that all Subjects should in Testimony of their Subjection to Sovereign­ty, and in true Acknowledgment of their Suprema­cy, contribute some of their Means for the Mainte­nance and honour of the King: this is the Apostles Doctrine, Rom. 13. 6. For, for this Cause pay you Tri­bute also; for they are Gods Ministers, attending continu­ally upon this very thing. What can be more fully said? They are immediately from God, They are Gods Mi­nisters, for this Cause then we are bound to pay Tri­bute. And let the for in the Frontispiece of the verse make you reflect your eyes upon that which goeth be­fore, and you will find it is not an arbitrary Right they have to this, which is given upon them by a voluntary Compact or Grant, or extorted by Fear, the Apostle shew­eth this we do, not only for Wrath, (that is, for fear of Punishment, for in their Power it is to punish those who will not do this Duty) but for Conscience sake. This our Lord and Master both taught and practised, paying Tribute to Caesar, and commanding to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar's; due to him as Cae­sar, [Page 298] not by grant or compact from the People. And Reason it self evinceth, that this Maintenance should be proportioned to that high Degree and Measure, as may preserve his Glory and Majesty, that it be not les­sened or contemned, and as may sufficiently enable him to act and effect the happy works and Fruits of Royal Government to preserve all in Peace and Plenty. See to this purpose Iustin Martyr, Apolog. 2. and St. Chrysostom upon Rom. 13. passim.

This Doctrine, that Kings are immediately from God, and independent from all other Creatures what­soever, teacheth also, that it is high Rebellion against God to oppose or resist the King. This Consequence the Apostle thus deduceth, Rom. 13. vers. 1. The Pow­ers that be are ordained of God. vers. 2. Ergo, Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves Dam­nation. Pardon me to cite Chrysostom upon the words; [...]. He that obeyeth not the King, fighteth against God, (what do they then that come in Arms against him?) who by his Law hath established Obe­dience, and not Resistance: and the Apostle every where, always, and upon all Occasions, endeavoureth this mainly, that our Obedience to Kings is not arbi­trary, conditional, or by compact; but necessary, and imposed upon us by God. Holy Scripture is so care­ful we oppose not sacred Authority, that it hath for­bidden it in all it's kinds, all it's degrees. 1. We are not to think a bad Thought of them in our Hearts, Eccles. 10. 20. 2. The Tongue is not to speak Evil of them: Exod. 22. 28. Iud. 8. Consequently neither [Page 299] Pen nor Press are to write, or print, to their Disgrace and Disadvantage. 3. We are not with Iudas to lift up our heel. 4. David's Heart smote him when he smote Saul's Garment. 5. The hand cannot stretch out it self against the Lords Anointed, and the Actor be innocent. 6. It is to fight against God; for he that rebelleth against the King, rebelleth against God. He that blasphemeth the King, blasphemeth God: 1. Kings 21. The Prodigal in his Return acknowledg­eth, he sinned no less against Heaven than his Father. God hath taken them in Societatem nominis, in societa­tem numinis: Psal. 82. 6. 7. The greatness of the Sin may appear, that the greatest of Judgments fall upon Traytors and Rebels. Scripture is plentiful in Exam­ples of this kind, and all Story witnesseth for it. Re­member the Story of Rudolph Duke of Suevia, who sware Allegiance to Henry the fourth, by Pope Hilde­brand was loosed from his Oath, but miserably died he; and before his Death the right hand with which he sware, was cut off, and say he could to the Bishops, This is the hand was lifted up when I sware Allegi­ance to my Emperour, justly cut off for my Perjury and Rebellion, for which you are to answer, who put me upon this mischievous Course and Rebellion. See Aventine and others: infinite Examples may be al­ledged. If they escape the Judgment of men by their scarce warrantable Meekness and Clemency, God hath Executioners in store, and ready for them: He will revenge for his own Interest. If the King will not do Justice against a Traytor, God will make his own Friend do it, and if that fail, his own Breast, or both of them, This was Absalom's case: 2 Sam. 18. 14. Thy Confederates will do it, This was Sheba's case: 2 Sam. 20. 22. Before an Executioner be wanting, thy own hand shall do it; This was Achitophel's case [Page 300] who hanged himself: 2 Sam. 17. 23. And Zimri's case too, 1 Kings 16. 18. If no man will do it, Earth and Hell will do it; This was the case of Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and their Complices: Numb. 16. 23. This is the first Rebellion in Scripture, recorded against Prince and Priest. And take with you Optatus Bishop of Milevis's note upon it, no Sin in Scripture recorded hath a Judgment parallel to this. If all Creatures should fail to be Executioners, God will do it by his immediate hand from Heaven: Psalm 144. 8. To shut up this, God allowed no Sanctuary for Treason and Traytors, as is manifest in the case of Ioab, pulled from the Altar, and Justice done upon him.

Lastly, seeing the King is sacred in his Person, in his Power, in his Royal Christian Prerogative, it is high Sacriledge, and Intrusion upon God and the King, to rob him of any part of his Sacred Right. The ancient Church did judge so. Hosius writing to Constantius an Arrian Emperour, saith [...]. This Holy Father and the whole Church in his time did account it a Theft, and an Opposition to God and his Ordi­nance by Fraud or Force, to cheat or extort from a King any thing due to his [...], his Empire, his So­vereignty. It was not dreamed of then, that an Ex­cellency could be set up against a Majesty, or a Coordi­nate power erected with Sovereignty. In the happy time of the Christian Church this was the greatest Robbery, the highest Sacriledge, the most violent Intrusion up­on God and his Anointed.

The best and readiest way for all Happiness to a Kingdom, is when the King considereth that his Great­ness and Glory consisteth in the Happiness of his Sub­jects, and proportioneth all his Actions and Govern­ment [Page 301] to their Peace and Plenty; and the People on the [...]ther part when they level their Intentions, Actions, En­ [...]eavours and Obedience, to preserve his Sacred Person, His Sacred Right, and Royal Prerogative. Let none [...]ivide those things God hath conjoyned. When Peo­ple are thus affected, it will move Kings for the good of their People, with Saul, to be ready to sacri­fice Ionathan; or with Codrus, to dye himself for the Safety of his People; or with David, in great Judg­ments from God, to be powerful Intercessors with God to remove his Plagues, to say, Quid meruere oves? what have the poor sheep done? smite me and my Fathers house: 2 Sam. 24. Like to the good shepherd, to lay down his life for his sheep: Ioh. 10. And this will work [...]in the People such zeal and affection to their Sovereign, that they will be ready to lose Lands, Riches, Honour, Life, before their King suffer in Honour, in his Sacred Power, Sacred Right, and Sacred Person. If the Head [...]e well, the Body fareth the better, and when the Bo­dy is in good health and constitution, the Head is the better, less trouble, no pain: For proof of this, I refer you to that noble passage of Iustin Martyr, cited before, quaest. & respons. ad Orthod. q. 138. Read the whole passage, it is an expression in de propria, in a conve­nient and proper place.

In Sum, the Result of all is, that from this truth, that Kings are immediately from God and Christ, in­dependent from all others, there issueth a great many excellent and useful Corollaries: as first, That the ex­cellency of their Dignity is not a motive (if it be well weighed) to make them swell Lucifer-like in Pride, for the weight of their great and difficult Charge will force them of all men to be most humble. Officiis quis idoneus istis? Their Crowns are dependent from Christ and his Crown, and truly considered are onely [Page 302] Crowns of thorns: such as Dionysius said, an understand­ing man would not take up if it were lying at his feet. Secondly, as Kings are nearer to God than any Creatures in the low Universe, so are they tied to ap­proach nearest to him in Holiness and all Humane and Christian Perfection. Thirdly, they are bound to all care, endeavour, and zeal for Christ's Glory, his Truth, the Sincerity and Solemnity of his Worship, and that not onely as men and Christians, but as Kings and Fathers of the State, and Nurse-fathers of the Church. Fourthly, howsoever exempted from Humane Law and coercion, yet they are to live and reign according to the Law and Prescript of God and Christ, which if they transgress, they shall receive Punishment propor­tionable to their high Dignity, and according to their Demerit for betraying the high Trust put upon them. Fifthly, Although the Royal Right be not founded in saving holiness and sanctity, but is sacred in another respect, by a delegate Power and Trust, yet the way to secure their Crowns, their Posterity, in the Right transmissible from them, and to make their Kingdoms happy, is to live piously in Private and Publick Devo­tions, and to intend at first, and do it most in their Sacred Government. Sixthly, next to Almighty God, the highest Honour, Reverence, and Obedience is due to him. Seventhly, and Maintenance from their Sub­jects, proportioned to their high Dignity, and to ina­ble them to act and do what is necessary and expedi­ent for God's Glory, the good of the Church, and Peace, Plenty, and Protection of the Subject. Eighth­ly, to resist him, oppose him, in thought, word or deed, is Rebellion against God himself. Ninthly, it is high Sacrilege, and not onely Royal but Divine Usur­pation, to trench upon the Kings Sacred Right.

To shut up all that concerneth this first Question, I humbly beg pardon to intreat in all reverence my Lord the King to look upon a Speech of St. Augustine, worthy of the reading and meditation of all and the best of Christian Kings, he will find it, Tom. 5. lib. 5. de Civ. Dei, cap. 24. which verbatim is thus, Reges foelices eos dicimus, si justè imperant, si [...]inter linguas sublimiter hono­rantium, & obsequia nimis humiliter salutantium non ex­tollantur; sed se homines esse meminerint, suam potestatenm ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum Majestati ejus famu­lam faciant; si Deum timent, diligunt, colunt; si plus amant illud regnum ubi non timent habere consortes; si tardiùs vindicant, si facilè ignoscunt; si eandem vindictam pro necessitate regendae tuendae Reip. non pro saturandis ini­micitiarum odiis exerunt; si eandem veniam non ad impu­nitatem iniquitatis, sed ad spem correctionis indulgent; si quos asperè aliquando coguntur decernere, misericordiae leni­tate & beneficiorum largitate compensant; si luxuria tant [...] eis est castigatior, quanto possit esse liberior; si malunt cupi­ditatibus pravis quam quibuslibet gentibus imperare & si haec omnia faciant, non propter ardorem inanis gloriae, sed propter charitatem foelicitatis aeternae; si pro suis peccatis, humilitatis, & miserationis, & orationis sacrificium Deo suo vero immolare non negligunt. Tales Christianos principes di­cimus esse foelices interim spe, postea re ipsa futuros, cùm id quod expectamus evenerit. O golden expressions, worthy to be set in Letters of Gold, with most precious Stones and Diamonds, and then put upon all Royal Crowns! It is a short (but a thousand-fold better) expression of what we have said. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Xenophon in his fancied Cyropaedia had never the like; it is worth all they have said, all they have written on this subject, in this kind.

Let me add a word or two to our selves who are Subjects. Let us learn to give to the Lord's Anointed [Page 304] his due, if we will approve our selves good Christians, like to our Master, the Lord Iesus Christ, like to his Apo­stles, like to the ancient and holy Fathers and Martyrs of the Church. Let us never deceive our selves, like to the Iews, who claimed to be the Sons of Abraham, when they wrought the Works of their Father the Devil, Ioh. 8. Let us not shame our selves, and Reformed Ca­tholick Religion, by turning Religion into Rebellion, and Faith into Faction, and deter all Kings in the Chri­stian World to come to the Profession of Reformed Truth, and Communion of our Church. And that this may be done the more successfully, Let us all pray;

LOrd, hear our King in the day of trouble. The Name of the God of Jacob defend him. Send him help out of the Sanctuary, and strengthen him from Sion. Re­member all his Offerings, and accept his burnt Sacrifices. Give him according to his own Heart, and fulfil all his Councel, that we may rejoyce in thy Salvation. Teach us his Subjects to fear thee and the King, and not to meddle with them are given to change. Continue the Loyal in Re­v [...]rence, Obedience and Subjection. Reduce the Sons of Beli­al to their Obedience; make thy Spirit fall upon all, that we may say, thine are we, O King, and on thy side; that the Peace and Beauty of thy Sion may be restored, thine Anointed with his Sacred Right re-seated upon his Throne, the bleed­ing wounds of the Land may be bound up, the Peace of the Kingdom re-established [...] soever else is disjoynted may be set aright. Do it, do it, good Lord, not for us, or for our merits, but for thy Names sake; the All-sufficient merits of thy Son, and [...] of our Lord and Sa­viour IESVS CHRIST.

And let ever [...] good Christian, all loyal-hearted Sub­jects, who pray for the Peace of Sion, and building up of the walls of Ierusalem; say, Amen. Soli Deo Gloria.