they be evil not onely for Fear but also for Conscience-sake c. Our Saviour Christ himself and his Apostles received many and divers injuries of the unfaithfull and wicked men in Authority yet we never reade that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority we reade oft that they patiently suffered all troubles vexations slanders pangs and pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistence They knew that the Authority of the Powers was God's Ordinance and therefore both in their Words and Deeds they taught ever Obedience to it and never taught nor did the contrary c. We may not obey King Magistrates or any other though they be our own Fathers if they would Command us to doe any thing contrary to God's Commandments Ibid. p. 74. In such a case we ought to say with the Apostle We must rather obey God than Man But nevertheless in that case we may not in any-wise withstand violently or Rebell against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or any of his Officers But we must in such cases patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries p. 75. referring the judgment of our Cause onely to God And elsewhere our Church says What shall Subjects doe then Serm. against Rebellion 1 Part. shall they obey valiant stout wise and good Princes and condemn disobey and rebell against Children being their Princes or against undiscreet and evil Governours God forbid For what a Perillous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the judgment which Prince is Wise and Godly and his Government good and which is otherwise as though the Foot must judge of the Head And enterprize very heinous and must needs breed Rebellion Serm. against Wilfull Rebellion 1st Part. p. 279. This is you see the Pious and Loyal Doctrine of the Protestant Church of England which she received from Christ and his Apostles and from the Primitive Christians concerning the Subjects absolute Obedience to Kings and All in Authority whether Good or Evil. And the said Loyal Doctrine was ever preached and practised by the Protestants in England we mean those who owned the King's Supremacy in opposition unto Popery and Fanaticism for there never was nor are any other * Beausrons c. 1. Protestants in the World but such who protest for and defend the King's Supremacy This Doctrine of absolute Obedience was practised as well as preached by the Bishops Martyred in Queen Mary's days and by the most Reverend Jo. Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury and by the most Reverend William Laud late Archbishop of Canterbury who suffered Death by the late Rebels for nothing more than for maintaining this Primitive Doctrine of absolute Obedience to the King And since it has been urged upon the Peoples practice by several Learned Men of this our Church particularly by Dr. Faulkner in his Christian Loyalty And by the Right Reverend Seth Lord Bishop of Sarum in his most Learned Sermon before the King on Nov. 5.1661 against Resistence of Lawfull Powers Some of his Lordships words are these If harsh Administration of Power will exempt Men from Obedience p. 60. at that time when Claudius or Nero was Roman Emperour why should the Holy Ghost move St. Paul to write to the Romans scil Rom. 13.2 They that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation And p. 67. that other pretence scil That after a Lawfull Sovereign is established Ibid. p. 67 68. the Power still remains in the People in the dissused Body of them or their Representatives to alter the Government as they please it is in respect of Policy and Government what the sin against the Holy Ghost is to Religion it destroys the foundations of the peace and safety of men and makes that to be the Artifice of Man which is the Ordinance of God How much God abhorred this pretence will appear in the case of Corah and his Company The Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in his Letter to the late Lord Russel has these expressions to wit That the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the Resistence of Authority That though our Religion be established by Law yet in the same Law which establishes our Religion it is declared That it is not Lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. Besides that there is a particular Law declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King and that ties the hands of Subjects though the Law of Nature and the General Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty which I believe they do not because the Government and Peace of Humane Society could not well subsist upon those Terms As thus these abovementioned Persons so indeed all the learned Men of the Church of England who have wrote any thing largely of the Subjects Duty towards their Prince have unanimously declared contrary to the Factious Authour of Julian the Apostate scil That all Lawfull Kings and their Lawfull Heirs by Primogeniture of what Religion or Manners soever Good or Bad they be ought successively to Reign and Govern and to be honoured and obeyed by all their Subjects either Actively by chearfully doing whatever they shall Command or Passively by humbly and peaceably submitting to whatever punishment their said Princes shall think fit to inflict upon them for not obeying their Royal Commands Actively And if any Prince should after he is seated in the Throne prove Tyrannical we may not Rebell nor plot his Deposition But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazian Orat 1. c. Our onely Remedy is what was Nazianzen's and the Christians in the Reign of Julian the Apostate to wit Prayers Fastings and Tears This was the practice of the Primitive Christians and ever has been the Profession and Practice of the Protestant Church of England And therefore whoever lives in Rebellion against his Lawfull Prince and dies in and for the same without publick and hearty Repentance Acknowledgment and Confession to God and to Man of that his Rebellion or secret plotting of Rebellion Neither does such a man live nor any true way can he be said to dye in Communion with the Protestant Church of England But as he lived So he dies either a Popish or a Fanatick Recusant And No Protestant And thus died most of the late Fanatical Associatours and Rebels inasmuch as most of them died without the least expression of their sorrow and penitence for and without humble and publick Confession of their Horrible Plot and Treason for which they were Condemned As appears by their own Papers given to the Sheriffs and Published by Authority And here it will be requisite that we as far as we are able undeceive the people and tell the Naked Truth to wit That the abovementioned Persons abused the World and imposed upon the ignorant people a notorious falsity when at their Executions they declared they died Protestants and in
killing his said Sovereign King Zachariah than what God aforehand had decreed should be done to the House of Jehu for his and their Hypocrisie and Wickedness Yet notwithstanding Shallum's executing God's Decree He was deservedly Condemned for a Traytor and at length Vengeance seized upon him By these and other Instances which might be alledged it is evident That Treason and Rebellion although Commenced upon never so Religious a pretence very seldom if ever went unpunished And therefore we Christians may pertinently urge in this case of Treason and Rebellion what Christ alledged in that of Offences Matth. 18.7 Woe to the World because of Offences for Offences will come but Woe to them by whom the Offence cometh So here Woe to the World because of Treasons and Rebellions for Treasons and Rebellions will happen as long as Youth are not duely Catechised and men are not better and more Loyally Principled But Woe to those Men by whom Seditions Treasons and Rebellions do come For the Divine Nemesis will undoubtedly pursue and over-take them either in this World or in that to come SECT IV. The Proposition proved by Reason and the Common Sentiments of Religion REason and Religion dictate it to be a thing absolutely sinfull and unlawfull for any Subjects whatever High or Low if they be Subjects in Parliament or out of Parliament to Depose their Lawfull Prince And that it is also unlawfull for any Subjects The Bill of Exclusion unlawfull by a Bill of Exclusion or by any other Means to put by the Lawfull Heir from the Crown for fear as was lately pretended He should alter Religion and so bring many Evils upon the Nation Now that it is utterly unlawfull and sinfull for any Subjects to doe thus Reason dictates Because to preclude a Lawfull Heir from the Crown for fear of future Evils which may happen in his Reign and Government is truly 1. Malitious To suppose a fault in the Right Heir before there is one and to Act upon such a Supposal savours of the height of Malice and Dis-ingenuity In truth so to doe in our apprehension is no better than to Hang a Man first and then to Try him afterward 2. Atheistical So to doe is to trust more to Man's Policy than to God's Wisedom more to Man's Care than to God's Providence for the prevention of suture Evils The Holy Scriptures assure us that the Heart of the King and of his Right Heir is in the hand of the Lord Prov. 21.1 and as the Rivers of Water he turneth it whither soever he will But this late Fanatical Doctrine of Deposing Kings and of Excluding the Right Heir from the Crown for want of Grace and for fear of future Evils that may possibly be done by Him speaks the contrary For this their Doctrine avouches for a Truth that the Heart of the King and of his Successour is not in the hand of the Lord Or if it be that then God will not turn it so as to doe any Good to the People And therefore the People especially in Parliament for the Good of the Common-wealth ought to Usurp God's Prerogative and take the Heart of the King and of his Lawfull Heir into their own hands and dispose of it as they the People shall judge best Now What is all this but in effect not onely to Depose and Dethrone an Earthly Prince and his Lawfull Heir but also to Depose and Dethrone Almighty God himself Nay What is it in plain English but for the People to take the Reins of Government out of God's hand into their own and to Rule the World according to their own exuberant fancies Nay What is it at the best but to doe an apparent Evil that a Contingent Good may come on it Which Principle is Antichristian and Condemned for such by Saint Paul who assures us That they who maintain such an irreligious Tenet scil Let us doe Evil Rom. 3.8 that Good may come Their Damnation is just And here it is to be farther noted That if it be as has been proved to be a sin for the Subjects upon any pretence whatever to Depose their King and to Exclude his Lawfull Heir from the Throne for fear of any Evil that may happen through his ill Government Now if this be a sin Then to be sure much more is it a sin for any Subjects to endeavour That a Law might be made to Disinherit the Lawfull Heir of the Crown upon the pretences aforesaid For 1. To make such a Law is truly to make a Law directly to oppose and contradict the unalterable Law of Inheritance which says that the Right Heir by Primogeniture shall Inherit and the other known Law of God That He who hateth Right shall Govern And therefore it was a notorious Sin Opposite to God's Law of Inheritance an Antichristian Act in the late Shaftsburian-Associators to move for a Bill of Exclusion of his present Royal Highness James Duke of YORK from Succeeding in the Throne notwith-standing his undoubted Right thereunto by Primogeniture upon a presumptive jealousie that He would not be a Friend to the true Episcopal-Protestant Religion of the Church of England as now by Law Established For by this Attempt they endeavoured to have set up a New Law of Man against the Ancient Law of God which Commands as we have heard already that the Right Heir shall Govern although he hate Righteousness and although he be a Belial an Idolater And the Law of God is so far from either Deposing a Lawfull King or Precluding the Right Heir as that it will not suffer any Subjects whatever to say Their King is Wicked or that their Princes are Vngodly 2. The Cause of Civil Wars and Sedition To make a Law for the Exclusion of the Lawfull Heir from the Crown is to establish Sedition and Faction by Law And it is not onely to cause but also to perpetuate an Intestine and Civil War by Law as our present most Wise and most Gratious King prudently and too truly urged in his late Declaration giving that for one Reason why neither in Honour nor in Conscience could He give his Royal Fiat unto that unnatural and irreligious Bill of Exclusion For if such a Bill should pass into a Law then there must inevitably follow a Bloudy Civil War Which can please none but them who delight in Bloud and love to sish in troubled waters And which will be worse The said War will in all likelihood continue untill the longest Sword shall have carried all before it And who knows but that Might may once again overcome Right as it did at Worcester Fight and in the late Cruel Rebellion Now Reason assures us That upon passing the Bill of Exclusion into a Law there most certainly will follow a Civil War and that because There will be in the Kingdom two Opposite irreconcilable Abettors for the Crown and their Adherers such as 1. The Right Heir by Primogeniture Excluded and his
c. (b) Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem c. Opta l. 3. and so Saint Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Rom. 13.1 That the Christians honoured and worshipped the Emperour who was then an Heathen as a man second to God and less onely than God And Justin Martyr Apologizing for the Primitive Christians who were accused of Sedition and Disobedience against the Emperour and his Government assures the Emperour Antoninus Pius that the aforesaid Accusation was very false and a mere Calumny cast upon the Christians For he challeng'd the whole World to prove that ever any true Christian was either Seditious in Words or Factious and Rebellious in Actions And therefore (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Just Mart. Apol. 2. if nothing of that nature could be proved against them it was unreasonable upon surmises and false reports to punish the Innocent And Justin farther pleads That the Christians were so far from opposing their Emperour or his Government as that their Religion obliged them to assist and to fight for Him and to endeavour to out-doe all others his Subjects who were not of the Christian Religion in promoting His and his Empires safety and prosperity And this they did out of dread and fear of the true God who hated all Evil Doers (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Just Mart. Apol. 2. particularly such as were Seditious Traytours and Malitious b Murtherers of their Lawfull Prince All which Disturbers of the Publick peace the Christians God would severely punish either in this life or in that to come And the said Emperour Antoninus Pius was so well satisfied with the Dutifull and Loyal Behaviour of the Christians as that he openly declared That He verily believed the said Christians did according to their Religion abhor to plot any thing against the Roman Emperour or his Government and that they would chuse to dye rather than offend either their God or their King And therefore He wrote Letters unto the Governours and Deputies of Asia and other places prohibiting them to prosecute the Christians any more upon the account of their Religion And to the same effect wrote Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Philosophus unto the Roman Senate advising the said Senate not to persecute the Christians but rather to esteem them their Friends For says he the Christians (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Just Mart. Apol. 2. casting themselves down on the ground prayed fervently not onely for him the Emperour but also for all his Army And by the prevalency of their prayers He and all his Host were miraculously delivered from a dreadfull Famine and Drought under which they laboured And the Christians God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he knew not by their Intercession did not onely free Him and his Army from their imminent danger but also gave him a complete Victory over his and the Senate's Enemies by striking them down dead under foot with Fire and Hail-stones from Heaven Athenagoras in his Embassy for the (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athenag Legat. p. 4. Christians Appeals unto the Emperour Aurelius Antoninus Himself to justifie the Christians as to their Obedience unto his Royal Person his Noble Family his Laws and Imperial Government for he knew full well that the Christian Religion taught them to believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That all Kings had their Authority from above and therefore were to be obeyed Nay he knew that the Christians did not onely honour and obey him Aurelius Antoninus the Father but they also Revered and Honoured Aurelius Commodus the Son and Right Heir of the Crown and therefore they prayed jointly for the prosperity and happiness of both (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Father and Son Yea the Christians prayed that the said Emperour's Son and his Son 's Lawfull Heirs might succeed in the Throne for says he that was a most just and righteous thing and that his and their Kingdom might grow greater and greater and (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athenag Legat. pro Christ p. 40. that all things might happen to His and His Heirs content and that they poor Christians might lead under Him and his Successours a sober and quiet life seeing they all did cheerfully observe his Commands Theophilus Antiochenus putting a difference between God and the King expresses himself to this effect scil God we Adore the King we Honour and Obey as a Man set over us by (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Antioch ad Autol. God and by so doing we fulfill the Will of God Tatianus the Assyrian adviseth all Christians to be Obedient to their King And says he if the King requires of his Subjects Tribute and Custome they must pay it if he Commands (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Tatian contr Graec. their Obedience and Service they must yield it But if he Commands things absolutely unlawfull such as to deny the true God then they must chuse rather humbly and meekly to suffer Death it self than actively to obey his unjust Command Tertullian writes as did Justin Martyr that the Primitive Christians lived so exactly innocent and inossensively towards all in Authority as that their Enemies could find no fault in (a) Iâ—… potestâ—… scelusâ— in caâ—… sed 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 ratio operaâ—… sequiâ—… Terâ—… advâ—… them except that of their Religion And therefore although they were persecuted even to Death yet it was not for any Disobedience to their Emperour and Governours nor for any Moral wickedness and vice found in them but onely for the Name of Christian St. Cyprian most earnestly exhorts all the Clergy and Layity Cypâ—… Deâ—… nunâ—… dutifully to obey the Emperour and by no means upon the account of Religion Oppression or of any other pretence whatever to raise any Tumults or Sedition or to make any Resistence no not in case they were by the Emperour and his Judges Sentenced to dye for their Religion And for their Pattern and Exemplar they should take Him their Diocesan who preached and practised nothing more than Piety towards God Loyalty towards the Emperour and peace and quietness to the Commonwealth and (b) 〈◊〉 muâ—… abâ—… stitâ—… tunâ—… suliâ—… ginâ—… unâ—… abâ—… perâ—… per Christianorum Laicorum Episcoporum Nomine Mandâ—… dicturi quod ad horam Dominus dici voluerit Vos autem proâ—… quam de mandatis Dominicis à me semper accepistis secuâ—… me tractante saepissimè didicistis quietem tranquillitaâ—… nè quisquam vestrum aliquem tumultum de fratribus moveat Epist 83. § 2. was ready to dye onely he patiently waited the Emperour's Pleasure and Order for his Martyrdom Irenaeus discoursing on the Original of Kingly Government in opposition to the Gnosticks and Valentinians who affirmed that all Civil Magistracy was of the Devil 's and not of God's Institution He tells his Reader that Cujus jussu
(a) Ita nihil mali contra Imperatorem faciebat Nicomedensis Patricius qui Edictum publicè propositum concerpsit Melancth in Dan. c. 6. p. 101. Edict although the said Edict was possibly not so good as the generality of Reformers would have had it For that passionate and rash Action was no other than Rebellion against the Emperour's Person and Authority And the man might as Lawfully have torn into pieces the Emperour's Person as his Edict And in truth the countenancing such a Rebellious Action does very much encourage disaffected men unto a General Rebellion For if it be Lawfull for One private man then is it Lawfull for every man to Rebell and in like manner to tear the King's Proclamations Laws and Edicts into pieces Which to affirm or to doe is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel and to the Profession and Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians Unto the above-mentioned Foreign Writers we will add The late and present Covenanters and Fanatical Associatours of both Scotland and England Whose Disloyal and Factious Tenents and Positions the Famous and Loyal Vniversity of Oxford have Sum'd up and have printed them with the Authours of them and have by a Vote of their Congregation on July 24. 1683 Decreed That their said Fanatical and Seditious Positions and Doctrines Oxfords Decree and the Books containing them be publickly Burnt by the hand of their Vniversity-Marshall in the Court of their Schools Some of which Seditious Positions were these that follow 1. That if Lawfull Governours become Tyrants or Govern otherwise than by the Laws of God and Man they ought to do they forfeit the Right they had unto their Government Lex Rex Jo Milton Jo. Goodwin Rich. Baxter H. C. And we will add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliàs Jo. Blackbdell 2. That the Sovereignty of England is in the Three Estates scil King Lords and Commons The King has but a co-ordinate Power and may be over-ruled by the other two Lex Rex Hunton of limited and mixed power Rich. Baxter H. C. And note that they took this false Doctrine from Calvin Beza and the rest abovementioned 3. That Proximity of Bloud and Birth-Right give no Title to Rule or Government and that it is Lawfull to preclude the next Heir from his Right and Succession to the Crown Lex Rex Doleman Julian Apostate and we may add the Votes of the late Associatours against the present Duke of York's Succession to the Crown of England 4. That it is Lawfull for the Subjects without the Consent and against the Command of the Supreme Magistrate to enter into Leagues Covenants Associations for defence of themselves and their Religion Solemn League and Covenant and the late Association 5. That the Presbyterian Government is the Sceptre of Christ's Kingdom to which Kings as well as others are bound to submit And the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs asserted by the Church of England is injurious to Christ the sole King and Head of his Church Altare Damascenum Cartwright Travers add Presbyt General Assembly in Scotaland 1592. Jam. Guthry's first Speech to the Parliament in Scotland 6. That wicked Kings and Tyrants ought to be put to death and if the Judges and Inferiour Magistrates will not doe their Office the power of the Sword devolves to the People if the major part of the people refuse to exercise this power then the Ministers may excommunicate such a King after which it is Lawfull for any of the Subjects to kill him as the people did Athaliah and Jehu Jezabell Buchanan Knox Goodman Gilby 7. That King Charles the First was Lawfully put to death and his Murtherers were the Blessed Instruments of God's glory in their generation Jo. Milton Jo. Goodwin Jo. Owen and we will add John Blackbdell aliàs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By these and the like Instances which may be brought it is proved to a very Demonstration That the wicked Doctrine and Practice of Resisting Lawfull Kings and of Deposing and Killing them and of Excluding their Right Heirs from Succeeding in their Thrones for ill Government Heresie or want of Grace is Grounded on Fanaticism And was never preached nor practised by any Episcopal Protestants but onely by the Papists and Fanaticks who ever denied The King's Supremacy The English Churche's Episcopacy CHAP. VI. A Paralle or A Brief and True Account of some Plots and Treasons of Papists and Fanaticks against the Kings and Queens of England since the Reformation and Abrenunciation of Popery EVER since the Abrenunciation of the Pope's Jurisdiction in England the Papists and Fanaticks have gone hand in hand in plotting and raising Sedition and Rebellion against our Kings and Queens upon the Pretence of Religion As for instance The Papists having Sir Francis Bygott for their General raised War against King Henry the Eighth for his being a Protestant and for Marrying a Lutheran The Fanaticks having Sir Thomas Wyat for their Commander made War against Queen Mary for her being a Papist and for Marrying a Papist The Papists Humfrey Arundell being their chief Captain Rebelled at Excester in Devonshire upon the account of Religion in King Edward the Sixth's Reign exclaiming bitterly against Protestantism The Fanaticks Robert Kett being their chief Leader made War and Rebelled at Norwich in Norfolk against the same King Edw. the Sixth under the pretence of Religion exclaiming Loudly against Popery The Papists plotted several times but were not able to effect the Deposition and Death of Queen Elizabeth a Protestant The Fanaticks plotted and effected the Deposition and Expulsion of Mary Queen of Scotland a Papist The Papists plotted the Alteration of the Protestant Religion that they might introduce Popery in Queen Elizabeth's Reign The Fanaticks in her Reign plotted the Alteration of the established Protestant Religion Some as Cartwright Travers c. that they might bring in their Genevan-Discipline Others as Hacket Barrow Brown Coppinger Penry Thacker c. that they might usher in their Libertinism Enthusiasm and Donatism The Papists plotted to alter Religion and to destroy King James by Gunpowder and other ways The Fanaticks particularly George Brook Henry Brook Lord Cobham Lord Gray of Wilton c. joyning in Conspiracy with the two Popish Priests Watson and Clark plotted to destroy King James to alter Religion to subvert the State and to procure Foreign Invasion The Papists in Ireland upon the account of Religion openly Rebelled against King Charles the First and most barbarously Massacred thousands of his Protestant Subjects thereby endeavouring to bring in Popery The Fanaticks in England and Scotland upon the account of Religion openly Rebelled against the same King Charles the First and caused a bloudy Civil War in which thousands of the King 's Loyal Subjects were Butchered and Murthered they hoping thereby to extirpate the established Protestant Religion and to bring in their Genevan Presbytery or Belgick Consusion The Papists in France Murthered King Henry the Third and King Henry the Fourth of that
Kingdom and in Print justified the said Murthers The Fanaticks in Scotland Murthered King James the Fifth And the Fanaticks in England most inhumanely Murthered in the open sight of Heaven and Earth King Charles the First and in Print they justified the said horrid Murther to be a Lawfull and Meritorious Act. The Papists of Lombardy Banished their Lawfull Prince Frederick Barbarossa the Emperour and at last betrayed him to the Sultan of Egypt The Fanaticks of England by Vote of their Rump-Parliament Banished their Natural Prince King Charles the Second and all the Royal Family and did what they could to have betrayed Him into the hands of his Foreign and Domestick Enemies Since the King 's happy Restauration the Fanaticks have out-done the Papists as to their Number of Plots We hear but of three Popish Plots and onely two of them fully proved The Papists Plots were 1. The Burning of London for which Hubbard a Papist of Roan was Executed 2. Oates his Popish Plot for which Edward Coleman and several others suffered Death 3. The Meal-Tub Plot for which Mrs. Celliers a Papist was imprisoned and fined Whereas the Fanaticks Plots have been Many more since the King's Restauration such as 1. Venner's Plot for which he and several others were Executed 2. The Disbanded Officers of Oliver's Army and others plotted the Burning of London before 1666 and Killing the King for which seven or eight of them were hang'd and quartered at Tyburn 3. Tong 's and other Fanaticks Plot in 1662 to Murther the King and the Duke of York c. was proved against Him and his Confederates at Old-Baily London for which They were Executed 4. Mason's Northern-Plot in 62 and 63. for which about twenty suffered Death in Yorkshire and elsewhere 5. Rathbone Tucker c. in 1666 their Plot to have kill'd the King and to have deposed the Bishops and to have altered Religion 6. Colledge's Plot to have seized on the King at Oxford and with his Protestant-Flail to have Murthered the King's leige-Leige-Subjects for which he died by the hand of Justice 1681. 7. Shaftsbury's Rumbold's c. Plot at Rye-House in Hertfordshire to have Murthered the King and the Duke of York for which Captain Walcot and others were Executed 1683. and Sir Thomas Armstrong and Holloway were Executed for the same Plot 1684. We cannot but note that The Papists in their Plot would have killed the King but have saved the Duke of York the Right Heir to the Crown The Fanaticks in their Plots would have Murthered both the King and his Right Heir the Duke of York The Papists had their Jesuits Whitebread Gavan Hartcourt c. to promote their Plot. The Fanaticks had their Priests Lob Ferguson Casteers c. who encouraged their Plot. The Papists engaged several of the Nobility in their Plot against the King if Oates Bedloe and others may be credited The Fanaticks engaged many if not as many of the discontented Nobility in their Plot if Keeling Rumsey and the Condemned persons Confession may be believed In Oates his Popish Plot Were six Lords Impeached in Parliament and none fled for it Such as The Earl of Powis Viscount Stafford who was Executed Lord Petre. Lord Arundell of Wardour Lord Bellasis In Keeling's Fanatick Plot were accused to be eight Noble Men Such as The Earl of Shaftsbury who fled and died in Holland The Earl of Essex who destroyed himself in the Tower The Duke of Monmouth who submitted Ford Lord Gray who fled William Lord Russell who was Executed Lord Howard of Escrick a Witness Lord Melvin who fled Brandon Lord Gerard Bailed And be pleased to Note that All the Papists both Nobles and others denied the Popish Plot to the last but acknowledged the Treason upon the Hypothesis Oates his Plot were true The Fanaticks both Noble Men and others confessed Keeling's Plot but denied the Treason attending it although the Plot was true And which of the two whether Papist or Fanatick lived and died the better Christian we will leave to the World to judge And here we may not impertinently add Two Solemn Leagues Oaths and Covenants one made against the King by the Papists the other made against the King by the Fanaticks And in both they pretend Loyalty and Obedience to the King Zeal for Religion and Good-will to the Common-wealth The Solemn Oath and Covenant of the Papists in Conspiracy against King Henry the Fighth To wit YE shall not enter into this out Pilgrimage of Grace for the Commyn-welthe The Popish Bygot's Covenant Speed's Hist H. 8. c. 21. p. 787. but only for the Love that you doe vere unto Almighty mighty Godde his Faith and to Holy Churche Militant the maintenance thereof to the preservation of the King's Person his Issew to the purifying of the Nobilitie and to expulse all Vilayne Blode and Evil Councellers against the Commyn-welthe from his Grace and the Privie Counsell of the same and that ye shall not enter into oure said Pilgrimage for no particular profite to your self nor to doe no displeasure to no privey person but by Councell for the Commyn-welthe ner Slee ner Murder for no envye but in your herts put away all fear and dread and take afore you the Crosse of Criste and in your herts his Faith the Restitution of the Churche the Suvpression of these Herytyks and their Opynyons by all the holle Contents of this Book The Fanaticks Solemn League and Covenant against King Charles the First To wit YE doe swear The Fanaticks Scotch and English Covenant That ye shall sincerely really and constantly thorough the Grace of God endeavour in your several places and callings Full. Hist ch 1. lib. 11. c. 21. p. 201. The REFORMATION of RELIGION in England and Ireland as it is Reformed in Scotland That ye shall without respect of persons endeavour the extirpation of Popery Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishaps Deans their Chancellours and Commistiaries and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on the Hierarchy That ye shall with the same sincerity reality and constancy in your several Vocations endeavour with your Estates and Lives mutually to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Parliaments and the due Liverties of the Kingdom and to Preserve and Defend the King's Majesty his Person and Authority That the World may bear witness with your Consciences of your Loyalty and that ye have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty's just Power and Greatness That ye shall also with all faith-fulness endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants or evil Instruments by hindring the REFORMATION dividing the King from his People that they may be brought to Tryal and receive condign punishment That ye shall assist and defend what ye can all those that enter into this Blessed League and Covenant That ye profess and declare before God and the World your unfeigned desire to be humbled for your sins and for the sins of the
men who studied promulged and practised the Right Rules and Laws of Monarchical Military and Ecclesiastick Government and it is added in Moses his Encomium that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 346. c. He was an inspired Prophet an experienced Politician a judicious Legislatour a prudent and valiant Souldier a profound Philosopher And therefore of all men then living he was most eminently and singularly qualified for managing and swaying the Regal Sceptre And Numenius the Pythagorean Philosopher is of opinion That Plato who wrote excellently for Monarchy and the other Grecians especially the Lacedemonians and Macedonians who ever preferred Monarchy before all other Forms of Government borrowed all or most of their Arguments for so doing from King Moses And therefore the same Authour tells us that in truth Plato was no other than Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. ◠c. speaking in the Greek Dialect And Miltiades the Athenian Emperour is said to have learnt from * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 348. Moses's Writings his great Policy by which he so prosperously governed his Civil and Military Affairs and more particularly his War-like Strategems by which he subtily over-came Dates the Persian General And Clement Alexandrinus notes farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that Plato being instructed by Moses as to the Right way of Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. found fault with Minos's and Lycurgus's Polity But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He highly commended Moses's Polity and Institution of Monarchy in which there was but One to Decree and Command and but One to be Pleased and Obeyed Caesar Octavianus Augustus after the Murther of Julius Caesar consulting with those two Great States Men Agrippa and Maecenas what Form of Government was best to be erected as being most sutable to the Genius of the Roman People The aforementioned Politicians differ'd in their Sentiments For Agrippa being a stiff Common-wealths Man declared for DEMOCRACY alledging that the Legislative Power was in the People But Maecenas a true Kings Man advised for Monarchy And he enforced his Advice with this argument scil Because the Romans at first derived their Religion their Laws and Manner of their first from of Government which was Monarchical from the Grecians who before their intestine Rebellions and Seditions were Originally for Monarchy And He observed That exquo Monarchiae renunciârant quo quiescerent nunquam invenêre c. Ever since the Grecian People had through the prevalency of a Common wealth-Faction thrown off Monarchy they could never acquiesce in any other kind of Government But like the * Nova rerum facies subinde apparuit caedésque horrendae perpetratae sunt dum hi Oligarchiae illi Democratiae partes tuerentur c. Hoel Element Hist l. 4. §. 2. Moon were often changing their Aspect and Face of Government which changes bred bad bloud corrupted their Common-wealth's Body and could no other way be cured but by opening the Veins with the point of the Sword in the heat of Mutual Contests and Civil Broils and Bloudy Wars which Wars never ended untill Monarchy was restored in the Persons of King Philip and Alexander the Great In like manner says Maecenas Principio Imperium penes Reges erat Ibid. donec Ambitio Seditionis aestus alias vivendi Rationes excogitaverint c. The Romans were from the Beginning governed by Kings untill the Pride and Ambition of some Popular-Republicans raised a direfull and bloudy Sedition and Rebelliously and Tumultuously Deposed their Kings and by Fraud and Violence expelling Monarchy they introduced Democracy Oligarchy and sometimes Aristocracy But it so fell out that when they had unhinged the Primitive Monarchical Government They like the Rebellious Grecians were never satisfied but with every puff and blast of popular fancy altered their new Model of Government For within the space of 134 years they had 37 sorts of Government in Rome Thus argued Maecenas and from the premisses he concluded that Monarchy was the most proper Form of Government for all Mankind but especially for the Romans Whereupon Ibid. §. 5. Caesar sententiam ejus amplexus IMPERATORIS Titulum accepit c. Octavius Caesar adhered to Maecenas his Advice and forthwith took upon him the Illustrious Title of EMPEROVR and under his prudent Conduct of publick Affairs the Roman Empire flourished exceedingly even to Admiration And we Christians may ☜ by the way add this Note to wit That when Monarchy was restored and firmly setled under Augustus Caesar that then and not before happened to be The Fulness of Time in which Christ Jesus the Great King of Heaven and Earth came into the World and manifested his Glory and He not onely Confirmed Caesar in his Earthly Throne but also to prevent all Rebellion and Disobedience against his Caesarean Power and Majesty Christ himself paid Tribute to Caesar and charged all others to doe the like Nicocles or rather Isocrates Isocrat Nicocl Ora. 3. personating the Emperour Nicocles writes an whole Oration in the praise of Monarchy in Opposition to Oligarchy and Democracy And arguing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. from the Necessity of Monarchy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. from the Antiquity and long Continuance of it in all peaceable Ages He concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Monarchy to be the best of all Polities whatever And he farther proves his said Position by the following Arguments 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Monarchy for the most part prefers to places of Honour Trust and Government such as are most Deserving Whereas in Democracy there is little regard had of a Man's Merit either as to his Honourable Birth and Descent or as to his acquired Vertues Prowess and Learning But with the Democraticks the chief qualification is Riches and Popularity for if a man be of Potency to carry on a particular Faction then He being the People's Darling shall be promoted though he be otherwise a very Ignoramus as to State-Affairs 2. Because Monarchy is (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the mildest the justest and most equitable Form of Government impartially distributing justice to every Man An honest and peaceable Man may in all probability expect justice to be done him sooner in this Form of Government than in any other for it is easier to please and to obtain the favour of one single person as in Monarchy than to gain the placet of a various clashing Multitude as in Democracy 3. In Monarchy (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the King has none to Emulate or Envy for he is Supreme and therefore above all ambition All is his own and for him to envy the prosperity of his Subjects would be to envy his own happiness Whereas in (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Oligarchy and Democracy there are commonly great Emulations and Ambitions one aspiring to over-top the
Party 2. The Vsurper intruded and his Confederates And both sides will plead a just Title to the Crown The Lawfull Heir Excluded will urge and that most truly his Right thereunto by virtue of his Primogeniture according to the Law of God of Natural Reason and of Magna Charta And therefore to be sure He will Fight and that undauntedly for the Crown On the other hand the Vsurper will plead and that not without Reason his Title to the Crown by virtue of the New Law of the Nation to wit the New Statute of Exclusion which has setled the Royal Diadem upon his Head and therefore He will not easily part with it Wherefore no man need doubt but that the Vsurper will fight and that stoutly to keep what by Law he has got Thus any Man that has but half an eye may if he will plainly see That if the Bill of Exclusion should pass into a Law as the Anti-Yorkists so hotly desired that then War and Sedition will be established and continued by Law And now suppose this should ever happen to be which God forbid Then the Great Query and Case of Conscience will be scil Qu. What Party or Side ought the Pious and Dutifull Subject to take and follow Ans To deal plainly and faithfully in this Case where Conscience and Religion I mean Christianity are so deeply concerned We humbly conceive it to be the honest Subject's Duty in this case rather to Obey God and his Law and so to fight More Romano Couragiously for the Right and Lawfull Heir by Primogeniture unjustly Excluded This we ought to doe rather than to Obey Man and his New Law of Exclusion and so to engage for the Vsurper who Reigns and Governs not by Divine but onely by Humane Law and Appointment And we will Appeal to Conscience and Reason Whether it be not safer to follow God and his Law which cannot err than Man who may err and his Law of Exclusion which does grosly err in the very Sanction of it in that it manifestly opposes the above-mentioned Law of God which Commands That the Right Heir by Primogeniture should Reign and Govern although He hateth Right Object If it be as it is by all Anti-Yorkists and Common wealths Men objected That the Law of the Realm is above the King for that the Law made him King And therefore say they the Law has a power to Depose the King and to take away that Regal Authority which it gave him As that Great but to our thinking Factious Lawyer (a) Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo sub Lege quia Lex facit Regem Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Volumas non Lex c. Bract. l. 1. c. 8. Bracton argues And as is so often quoted from him and seditiously urged by the Authour of Julian Apostate p. 83. And the very same Argument was pleaded by all the late Regicides particularly by that Grand Regicide Bradshaw the Lawyer who had the Impudence to sit as Judge upon the Bench and to pronounce that Diabolical Sentence of Condemnation upon his own Dread Sovereign King Charles the First of Blessed Memory and he palliated over his and their Horrid Treason with this colour of argument to wit That the Law was above the King Ans It is hoped that all the Gentlemen of the Long-Robe will go on as they already have worthily begun to repair the Honour of their Noble Order and that none of them will any more advise or plead for Treason nor ever again deceive and seduce the silly ignorant People with their specious and fallacious Arguments But that they who have been disloyal will suffer themselves and their Youth to be better Disciplined in the Doctrine of the Church of England The neglect of which has too apparently caused some of that Honourable and most necessary Function and their Clients so grosly to err in point of Obedience But as for the above mentioned Objection it is already pithily Answered by the King 's Learned Sergeants at Law in Hilary-Term 1683 in their truly Loyal Motto A DEO REX A REGE LEX God made the King the King made the Law And therefore very false and Antiscriptural are the forementioned Positions scil 1. That the Law made the King 2. That the Law is above the King For although the Law of God indeed is above all Kings and if they wilfully transgress the same they are all accountable unto God and unto God onely for the same Yet in this Kingdom of England no Statute-Law is or can be above the King And that because It was the King who first gave Life and Being to the Law of the Land The King by his Royal Assent made the Law Salvâ Regiâ Praerogativâ to be what it is to wit a Law But the Law of the Land did not make the King to be what he is to wit a King For the King was King before the Law And so he became the principal efficient Cause of the Law And therefore the King was before the Law inasmuch as the Cause is ever before the Effect And it is to be noted That although the Law may by Repeal or other ways be abolished and dye Yet in England the King never does nor can dye as long as there is alive any Lawfull Heir by Primogeniture though never so Remote Object But most if not all the Anti-Yorkists did and still do urge in favour of their Bill of Exclusion the Statute of 13 Qu Eliz. c. 1. When a Law was made to this purpose scil That it should be High-Treason for any to affirm the Right in Succession of the Crown to be in some other than the Queen Or to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Governance thereof Whosoever shall during the Queens Life by book or work written or printed expresly affirm before the same be established by Parliament that any one particular person is or ought to be Heir and Successour to the Queen except the same be the natural issue of her body c. shall for the first offence be a whole year Imprisoned and forfeit half his Goods and for the second offence shall incur the penalty of Praemunire Polt Qu. El. 13. c. 1. This is the Act and these are the words of that Act which the Authour of Julian the Apostate and all the Factious Associatours have so stiffly pleaded in Justification of their Bill of Exclusion Ans But a little to undeceive the deluded People and to tell the Truth as far as we apprehend it First There was an Occasion if not a Necessity for such an Act in Queen Elizabeth's days but there is none in these of ours And the Reason for it is this scil Because in Her days many both Papists and Fanaticks disputed Queen Elizabeth's Right and Title to the Crown Nor was it certainly known who by Birth
and Primogeniture was the Lawfull Heir of the Crown after Queen Elizabeth's Decease in case she should dye without Issue of her own Body And therefore an Act passed Declaring two things scil 1. That Queen Elizabeth was by Birth and Primogeniture the Lawfull Heir of the Crown 2. That whomsoever the said Queen and the Laws of the Realm should declare to be by Descent and Primogeniture her Lawfull Heir and Successour That then He or She so declared should be acknowledged and owned for the Right Heir of the Crown it being declared as was said before that He or She was the Right and proper Heir by virtue of Birth Descent and Primogeniture So that the aforementioned Act of Queen Elizabeth does confirm the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Great Britain to be onely by Lawfull Descent and Primogeniture Secondly But farther If the meaning of that Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. were otherwise than we apprehend it to be Yet it is well known that That Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. is Obsoleted and out of Date and was made onely for Queen Elizabeth's Reign and therefore is of no force or validity in these our days And that because in this our day the Right Heir to the Crown by Descent and Primogeniture is well known For if he were not well known then pray what need is there of a Bill of Exclusion to barr and preclude the Right Heir from succeeding in the Throne and that onely as is pretended for fear the supposed Right Heir when once got into the Throne should not Govern well From these Arguings it is evident That the above-mentioned Act of Queen Elizabeth is out of Date and does no ways affect these our times in which there is at least there need be no dispute who at present is the Right Heir by Primogeniture And therefore it cannot be ignorance but as we fear right down Prejudice not to call it Malice in them who are knowing in the Law to urge from that Act of Queen Elizabeth's a Lawfulness to hinder by a Bill of Exclusion the Right Heir from Inheriting the Imperial Crown of England which is his undoubted Right by virtue of his lineal Descent and Primogeniture It will not be impertinent here to add the Observation of some judicious Men How that God never blessed either that Family or that People which have unnaturally dis-inherited the Right Heir And it has been observed by many That although the Law of this Our Kingdom does permit Parents to cut off the Entails of their Estates from their Eldest Sons when prodigal and vitious or otherwise Yet it has been observed That those Families which have taken that Liberty which the Law of the Land has given them and therefore have dis-inherited the Right Heir That they never prospered or continued long but by some evil Accident or other they have been blasted in their Estates or Reputations and in few years have dwindled away into nothing And as thus the Curse and Wrath of God has pursued private Families which have dis-inherited the Right Heirs to their Estates So much more exemplarily has the Wrath of Almighty God visited in a direfull manner those Nations and People which have Rebelliously Deposed their Lawfull Kings and have Dis-inherited the Right Heirs to the Crown And We the Inhabitants of Great Britain have had wofull experience of this Truth For who does not Remember those sad Judgments which afflicted this Our Nation upon the Deposition and Murther of the late Pious Martyr King Charles the First and upon the Exclusion of the Right Heir to the Crown even our present Dread Sovereign King Charles the Second And what Shall we ever yield again to them who Plot to bring down the same or worse Judgments upon us by Excluding the next Right Heir to the Crown God forbid But rather seeing We of this Nation are made whole and do enjoy Our privileges and immunities our peace and quietness Let us therefore Sin no more by our Rebellion and Sedition Lest a worse thing come unto us For that wholesome Advice which Christ gave to the Impotent Man in the Gospel is very applicable unto England Behold thou art made whole Sin no more by Deposing or Precluding the Right Heir lest a worse thing come unto thee CHAP. IV. That all Subjects ought actively to Obey their Natural and Lawfull Prince in all things which be not positively against some known Law of God although their said Prince be an Heathen an Idolater and Apostate or never so Morally vitious THE Proposition we shall endeavour to prove 1. By the Law of Nature and of Natural Reason which enacts That the Inferiour shall ever be Obsequious and Obedient to his Superiour 2. By the Authority of Sacred Scripture and Divine Reason which Anathematizes all Rebellion and the Authours of it 3. By the Authority and Practice 1. Of honest Loyal Heathens 2. Of Christians Both Primitive and Modern SECT I. The Duty of Obedience to Superiours whether Morally Good or Bad proved by the Law of Nature and of Natural Reason NAtural Reason dictates this Truth to wit That if a King has a Right to Command and Govern then the Subjects have an indispensable Obligation upon them to Obey for Precept and Obedience are naturally concomitant And as Father and Son so Prince and People are Relatu secundum esse not onely Relatives but also Essential Relatives Aristot Polit. l. 1. c. 8. whose very Essence as such consists in a mutual Relation of the one unto the other So that as no man can be said to be a Father who has no Son so no man can be said to be a King who has no Subjects And as all Sons are either Dutifull or Undutifull So all Subjects are either Obedient or Disobedient And as it is a Breach of the Law of Nature for a Son to be undutifull So it is a Breach of the same Law for a Subject to be disobedient For as the non-performance of the Father's Lawfull Commands renders the Son undutifull So the non-performance of the King 's Lawfull Injunctions speaks the Subject Rebellious And whoever denies Obedience to his King does in effect deny him to be King And this is to be noted That by the Law of Nature All Children are strictly obliged to Obey their Parents whether they be Christians or Infidels Good or Bad For in the point of Filial Obedience no Child ought to Dispute the Faith and Religion the Morality or Immorality of his Parents All that he is to consider is that near that essential Relation in which they stand unto him to wit that they are his Natural Parents And therefore without farther dispute They are to be obeyed And as thus the Son So also the Subject in point of Obedience to his Prince is not to dispute nor question the Virtues or the Vices the Religion or Principles of his Prince But solely to consider that essential and indissoluble Relation in which his Prince
of all men were most free from Courtship and Flattery they especially the Prophet Daniel did Honour and Worship even Heathen-Kings and frequently saluted them with this Pathetical Option VIV AT REX O King Live for ever Which is all one with God save the King In like manner St. Paul did Honour Noble Festus the Roman Governour and King Agrippa who were no Christians And the same Apostle exhorts Titus Bishop of Crete Tit. 3.1 to put All Men in mind of being subject to Principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates whether Christians or Heathens good or bad and to be ready to every good work And in Hebr. 13.17 the Jews are Commanded to obey all that had Rule over them Which Rulers over them in the State were the Roman Emperours and Deputies who were at that time inveterate Enemies to Christianity Our Blessed Saviour himself Commands all Men Christians especially to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's as well as to God what is God's And the Law of God and of Man tells us that Honour and Obedience is Caesar's due therefore it must be paid And St. Paul writing to the New-converted Romans at Rome charges them to be subject to Caesar and the Higher Powers And he gives this Reason for the necessity of their Obedience to wit Because there is no power but of God and that Rom. 13.1 2. Whosoever resisteth the Powers resisteth the Ordinance of God and he that risisteth shall receive to himself Damnation And the very same pious Doctrine of Loyalty does St. Peter teach 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or to Governours as unto them which are sent by him And v. 18. St. Peter adds as the Whole Duty of Man this Injunction Fear God Honour the King Thereby according to Beaufrons plainly intimating unto us this excellent Truth scil That if we will not peaceably submit to every Ordinance of the King * Beaufrons c. 8. p. 89. as to things Lawfull but become Mutinous and Rebellious then notwithstanding our high profession of Religion and of fearing God we neither Fear God nor Honour the King for as God is ever to be Feared so the King is ever to be Honoured Unto these Instances of Holy Writ pleading for Obedience to Kings and to the Supreme Magistrates we may add that Loyal Decree which the Reubenites and Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh made For they all were so zealous for Obedience unto Joshua their Supreme Magistrate as that they Decreed Josh 1.18 That whosoever Disobeyed Joshuah's Commands and would not hearken unto his words in all that he commanded he should be put to Death The Prophet Samuel terms Rebellion no better than Witchcraft 1 Sam. 15.23 So that according to him Whosoever Rebells has forsaken God and is gone over Volunteer to the Devil and is carrying on his works of Darkness Nor may we pass over in silence that smart check which the Heathen Sanballat gave though most undeservedly unto Loyal Nehemiah saying What is this thing that ye doe Nehem. 2.19 Will ye Rebell against the King Will ye Rebell that is to say in the Negative No surely ye will not offer to Rebell against the King For your Jewish Religion which ye say is the onely true Religion in the World teaches you otherwise and instructs you better to wit That although the King be in your opinion no other than an uncircumcised Heathen and as you believe an Idolater Yet for all this ye ought according to your own Religion not to Rebell against him From these Proofs in Canonical Scriptures we may rationally argue and conclude with the truly Loyal Archbishop Laud and others of the Church of England scil That all the Commands of a King Heyl. in Vit. Archb. Laud. p. 310. which are not upon the first Inference and Illation contrary to some clear passage of the Word of God or to some evident Sun-beam of the Law of Nature are precisely to be obeyed SECT III. The Proposition That All Lawfull Kings whether Morally good or bad ought to be obeyed proved by the Authority and Practice of honest Heathens HItherto we have heard the Divine Oracles amply declaring the Subjects Duty peaceably to Obey their Lawfull Kings and their Successours whether Papists or Protestants Heathens or Christians Good or Bad. The very same Truth and Duty we find urged and confirmed by the Authority and Practice of mere Heathens who were guided onely by the glimmering Light of their Natural Reason even such as they did not onely teach but also practise Loyalty and Obedience to their Lawfull Princes Hesiod discoursing on the Benefits of Kingly Government tells his Reader that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesiod Theog c. unto the King the People do all most dutifully look waiting for his Word of Command They being fully assured that seeing their prosperity is his happiness He therefore will order all things right according to the Rules of Justice And when King Jupiter was Dethroned by the Rebellious Titanes then the Loyal Party mustered up their Forces and humbly tendering their Services to him their King They all unanimously entred into a solemn Vow that they would fight his Cause and never sheath their Swords untill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. they had vanquished all his Enemies and had restored him to his Imperial Crown and Dignity Theocritus enlarging himself on the Praise and high Commendations of King Ptolemaeus says He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most happy of all men not onely in that He being King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theocr. c. was the care and charge of the Supreme God But also he was happy in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All his Subjects were Obedient and Conformable to his Government and were not factious and tumultuous nor given to Seditious Talk nor to Idleness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But every man kept his own Station and peaceably followed his own business And at last he religiously concludes his Panegyrick on the said King with this pathetical Epiphonema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theocr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 17. God save King Ptolemy Phocylides in his Admonitory Poem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cautions all men especially Subjects that are under an Oath of Obedience punctually to keep their Faith and Allegiance And that Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God hates a perjured person It is Remarkable That Fabius Maximus after he had been Consul five times became Obedient to his Son Suessa who was promoted to that high Office And when some jealousie arose that He had contemned the Authority of his said Son for that upon his first approach into his Son's Presence He did not bow the Knee nor did him that Honour and lowly Reverence which was due to his Consulary Dignity Fabius presently corrected the mistake assuring his Son the Consul that He did not forbear to give
such Modern Authours we find none that are for Absolute Obedience to Princes whether Good or Bad Papists or Protestants For All the Recusant and Anti-Protestant Writers such as the Papists and the Classical and the Congregational Authours according to their several Principles are onely for Obedience to Princes and the Civil Magistracy with a Condition and Limitation Thus the Papists * Tho. Aquinas Sum. 22 a. quaest 10. a. 1. R. Bellarm Praefat. in Barcl strongly urge Obedience to Kings But it is onely in Temporals and that too with Submission to the Pope's Supremacy But if a King shall meddle with matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastick without the Pope's Laws the said King shall be Excommunicated and all his Subjects discharged from their Allegiance and from paying Homage and Obedience to him their King In like manner Calvin and all the Classical Divines commonly called Presbyterians write much for Obedience to Kings and to All in Authority But it is with a Jesuitical Proviso to wit That their Kings and Governours be Godly And it is also with submission to their Presbyterian Classis and Consistorian Power which they set above the King especially in matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastick And not unlike do the Congregational Divines commonly called Independents talk much for and preach up Obedience to the Civil Magistrates But it is with the same forementioned Proviso scil That their Magistrates be endued with Grace and do Govern the People according to God's Word and with a submission to their Independent Cougregational-Churche's Power and Censures As is plainly and sufficiently proved in a late Book intituled BEAVFRONS Chap. 2. Presbyterians No Protestants Chap. 3. Independents No Protestants Chap. 6. p. 56 57. Impossible for Papists and Dissenters whilst they are true to their own Principles to be Obedient and Good Subjects to the King Unto which Book and Chapters above mentioned we refer the Reader And by the way we cannot but Advise all young Men especially the young Divine whether in the Vniversity or elsewhere to be very cautious how he reades and understands and follows the Modern Authours especially Calvin Beza Peter Martyr Rolloc Polanus Frederick Baldwin Cursellaeus c. Hugo Grotius de jure Belli Pa. For they and others of their Party together with the Papists and Jesuists plead and argue stiffly for Obedience unto the King and the Secular Powers but yet they All have their several Mental Reservations and cunningly distinguish * Rolloc and Fred. Baldw. n Rom. 13.1 between the King's Person and his Power and in the close of their arguings they All declare it to be Lawfull for the Subjects to Resist the King and the Civil Magistrates even with force of Arms in Defence of the true Religion and in the Suppression of Tyranny and Oppression Thus Grotius himself (a) Si Rex reipsa etiam tradere regnum aut subjieere moliatur quin ei Resisti in hoc possit non dubito aliud est enim imperium aliud habendi modus qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus Grot. de jur Bel. Pa. l. 1. c. 4. § 10. asserts This they all affirm to be Lawfull contrary to Primitive Christianity and directly contrary to the sound and Loyal Doctrine and Pratice of the Protestant Church of England And therefore it will be of little sorce and validity to bring the Testimony of Modern Writers to confirm the Doctrine of Obedience to Princes both Good and Bad Papists and Protestants unless it be that of the Episcopal Protestants who own and plead for the King's Supremacy And therefore are the Onely Protestants in the World However to gratifie the Reader we will present him with a few Sayings of some of the Anti-Protestant Modern Writers as to the point of Obedience to all in Authority Jo. Calvin in his French Comment and Sermons on Job Jo. Calvin Serm. 131. on Job 34. c. 34. v. 17 18. has these words as they are Translated by Arthur Godling out of French into English to wit We must Obey and Honour all in Authority because they are not set up by chance or hap-hazard but by God and his Providence And if God sets over us a Tyrant it is for the punishment of sin and it is the Duty of all men meekly to bear their punishment and to take it as a Scourge of God and if we Resist we strive not against Mortal Men but against the Heavenly Judge p. 675. To the same purpose writes Peter (a) Dua sunt subjectiones una Politic◠Civilis cui subjiciuntur omnes homines qui si quid offenderint in Leges expectant à justis Magistratibus carcerem mulctam pecuniariam exilia mortes externas poenas c. Pet. Mart. loc Com. de Magistrat p. 1018. § 10. Martyr how that all men ought to be Obedient to the Civil Powers and if any offend then it is the Magistrate's Duty to punish the Offenders according to the Merit of their Delinquency And speaking against the Pope's Supremacy he adds That a King (b) Quamvis Rex possit removere inutilem ac noxium Episcopum non tamen Episcopus potest vicissim Regem si peccaverit dejicere ibid. § 12. has power to Depose a wicked Bishop But no Bishop whatever has power to Depose a King although wicked And Polanus is of opinion That all Hereditary Monarchs ought to Reign and (a) Si absolutam Monarchiam habet est in fide ejus perstandum etiamsi Tyrannus evasit etiamsi nihil minus praestet quà m quod ex officio erat Regum Principum Polan Syntag. l. 10. c. 62. Govern although they should be Tyrants and that the People ought to persevere on in their Allegiance and Obedience to them II. Modern Authours who are for Absolute Obedience to Princes whether Morally Good or Bad Orthodox or Erroneous Papists or Protestants Gerhard treating on the Question Q Whether He ought to Reign and Govern who has Apostatized from the true Religion A. Answers in the Affirmative And positively asserts That (b) Si jure Successionis juxta Leges sundamentales pacta conventa ad eum pertinent Imperii Fasces qui à verâ Religione alienus est tum propter Religionis diversitatem non est privandus suo jure quia Religio Ecclesia non abolet Politias ac jura Politica c. Gerhard de Magistratu Pol. Sect. 106. He to whom the Crown belongs by Right of Succession ought to Reign and Govern notwithstanding his Apostacy and Alenation from the true Religion And that because Diversity of Religion deprives no man of his Right To this Foreign Authour we will add the Judgment of the Church of England as now Established and as it is delivered to us in Her Homily of Obedience Second Part. The words of the Homily are these Scil. Hom of Obedience 2d Part. p. 72. All Subjects are bound to obey them that is Kings and Magistrates as God's Ministers yea although
Communion with the present Church of England For no Rebel whatever whilst he impenitently continues such is nor can be a Protestant For every wilfull and obstinate Rebel and Plotter against the King does indeed deny the King's Supremacy And whoever denies the King's Supremacy is No Protestant And therefore being No Protestant he ought not to be admitted into Communion and Fellowship with the Protestant Church of England untill such a person shall openly repent of his Anti-Protestant Disobedience to the Church's Canons and Orders and of his Rebellion and Treason against the King And as we humbly conceive those Divines and Ministers did not act Canonically though we believe Charitably in administring the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper unto Persons Condemned for High Treason in plotting the Murther of the King and of his Royal Highness without their publick Confession of that their heinous Sin and Treason Their not Confessing that their Guilt when clearly proved against them did apparently argue not onely their Malice but also the Continuance of their Malice to the very last Gasp against the King and the Duke And therefore to admit such unto the Sacrament was to harden them and others of their Party in their Wickedness and Malice against the King the Duke and the established Government in Church and State and was a palpable Breach of the Statute and of the Rubrick Which says That if any person be an open and notorious Evil Liver as surely are all Wilfull Rebels The Order for Administr of the Lord's Supper Pref. or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by Word and Deed as surely Traytors have done to the King their Neighbour by plotting his Death The Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him and advertise him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table untill he have openly declared himself to have truly repented The same Order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth Malice and Hatred to reign not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord's Table untill he know them to be Reconciled And if one party shall remain still in his Frowardness and Malice The Minister shall not admit him that is Obstinate CHAP. V. The Doctrine and Practice of Deposing Lawfull Kings and of Excluding the Right Heir by Primogeniture from Succeeding in the Throne for his want of Grace or for being an Heretick Idolater Tyrannical or Wicked is Grounded upon nothing but Popery and Fanaticism SECT I. This wicked Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Murthering Kings and of Precluding their Lawfull Heirs for being Hereticks c. is grounded on Popery THE truth of the Assertion is so well known Dr. Lloyd's Serm. Nov. 5. 1679. as That there is no Kingdom in our Europaean paean World but the Pope hath given it away upon the Account of Religion No Countrey King James's Works p. 503. but he has made an Aceldama upon the account of Religion And many Kings hath he kill'd merely for Religion This we will confirm and prove by the Authority of the most Eminent and most Authentick of their own Writers Such as Thomas Aquinas who says (a) Nullo medo permittit Ecclesia quod Infideles acquirant Dominium super fideles vel qualitercunque eis praeficiantur in aliquo officio c. That Infidels or Vnbelieving Princes are not to be suffered to Govern and Reign over Believers And that if there be any such Infidels and unbelieving Princes (b) Potest tamen justè per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae auctoritatem Dei habentis tale jus Dominii vel praelationis tolli then the Church has Power and Authority to Depose and Remove them from their Government and the Church ought to doe it and that because (c) Quia Infideles merito sua infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles c. Tho. Aquin. 22a quast 10. art 10. conclus p. 22. a King's Infidelity forfeits his Right of Dominion and Jurisdiction over Believers And by Infidelis and Infidel Aquinas plainly tells us that he means An Heretick For in his sense An Heretick (a) Haeresis est infidelitatis species ad cos pertinens qui fidem Christi professi sunt ejus dogmata corrumpunt c. ibid. quaest 11. art 1. conclus p. 23. is no Jew Turk or Pagan who absolutely denies Christ and Christianity But according to Aquinas An Heretick is a Christian that is one who professes that he Believes in Christ and hopes for Salvation onely by Him But he purloins perverts and corrupts the Doctrine of Christ Now such an Heretick whether Prince or Peasant is not to be tolerated but after the second Admonition he is to be Excommunicated and Delivered up to the Secular (b) Qui post secundam correptionem in suo errore obstinati permanent non modo Excommunicationis sententiae sed etiam Secularibus principibus exterminandi tradendi sunt per mortem à Mundo excludi meruerunt c. ibid. Powers to be put to Death and the Church does Command all other Foreign Princes to give their Assistence towards the Deposition and destroying such an Heretical Prince that so this lower World might the sooner be rid of him And that Aquinas in the forementioned places is to be understood of Heretical Kings as well as of their Subjects is evident in that his Argument runs chiefly against them who have Right to Govern jure humane But says he because they are turned Hereticks therefore jure Divino they ought not to Reign but to be not onely Excommunicated but also put to Death For Aquin 22 a. quaest 11. art 2. resp 3. Quicunque resistit Auctoritati Romanae Ecclesiae Haeresim incurrit quae quidem Auctoritas principaliter residet in Summo Pontifice c. Whoever Resists the Authority of the Church of Rome that is to say the Authority of the Pope and his Supremacy as do all Protestant Princes he is an Heretick and being an Heretick he ought to be destroyed and killed And although a King excommunicated should in the Popish sense repent and return to the Church of Rome yet he is to be admitted (a) Ideo ulterius redeuntes recipiuntur quidem ad poenitentiam non tamen ut liberentur à Sententia Mortis Aquia 22 a. qu. 11. art 4. conclus onely unto Penitence and not to be absolved from the sentence of Death passed upon him All Heretical Kings are by Aquinas accounted no other than Tyrants and therefore says he the People may Lawfully fight against them and be no ways guilty (a) Et ideo perturbatio Tyranni Regiminis non habet rationem Seditionis ibid. 22 a. qu. 42. art 2. 3 m. p. 80. of Sedition and Treason The Council of Trent Decreed all Emperours (b) Si quem Clericorum vel Laicorum quacunque is dignitate etiam Imperiali aut Regall praefulgeat in tantum malorum omnium Radix cupiditas occupaverit ut alicujus
has power not onely to Excommunicate but also to Depose and Remove all Emperours (c) Papa habet dominium seu imperium temporale in omnes homines quantaecunque eminentiae ac dignitatis sint ita ut Imperatores Reges his Inferiores si Religioni justitiae Christianae adversentur non solùm excommunicare sed ab officiis removere ac deponere possit c. Jod Lorich Flagell Papa p. 443. Kings and Secular Magistrates that are Irreligious and Heretical And if such Emperours Kings and Princes so excommunicated and deposed shall resist the Pope's Authority and endeavour to continue themselves in their Thrones then the Pope (a) Si autem nolint potest ipsemet Papa conscribere exercitum Rebelles pro viribus subjugare ibid. has power to raise an Army and by force to subdue the said Rebellious Kings and Princes And the said Lorichius nominates several Emperours and Princes that have been Excommunicated and Deposed by several Popes For instance Leo Isauricus the Emperour excommunicated by Pope Gregory the Second Childeric King of France Deposed by Pope Zacharias and his Kingdom given away to Pipin Henry the Emperour was Deposed by Pope Gregory the 7th Frederic the Emperour was Deposed by Innocent the 4th Otto the Emperour was Deposed by Pope Innocent the 3d. And as for the rest of Emperours and Kings deposed by the Popes Lorichius refers his Reader to Baronius his Annals and to Bellarmine de Pont. Sum. l. 5. c. 8. And we will refer our Reader to the Histories and Lives of Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Qu. Eliz. K. James Who were all Excommunicated by the Pope though God bethanked they were all strong enough to keep themselves in their thrones Suarez who is an Antesignanus among the Jesuits declares in several places of his Book intituled Defensio Fidei That the Pope has power to depose (a) Post sententiam latam omninò privatur regno ita ut non possit justo titulo illud possidere ergo ex tunc poterit tanquam omnioò Tyrannum tractari consequenter à quacunque privata persona poterit intersici Suarez defens fid l. 6. c. 4. any Heretical King and that when any King is deposed by the Pope then any private person may lawfully kill such an Heretical King Lessius and Filliucius jointly affirm That any private man may for the propagation of Religion kill any King or other man who shall oppose the Growth of true Religion though as the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph well observes Lesstus says Talis * Lessius de jur just l. 2. c. 9. dub 8. sect 47. in Republica benè constituta ut Homicida plecteretur c. Few men will attempt to doe it for fear they should be hanged for their pains And very confidently Father Campian declares That all the Jesuits throughout the whole World are enter'd into a solemn League and Vow to make away and destroy all Heretical Kings in any manner whatsoever nor will they despair of effecting it Camp in Ep. ad Concil Reg. Angl. p. 22. as long as there shall be one Jesuit remaining in the World We might produce Paulus de palatio and many other Writers of the Roman Church to the same purpose But these are sufficient to prove our Assertion to wit That the Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Killing Lawfull Kings and of precluding their Lawfull Heirs from reigning for their Heresie or for want of Grace or for their Moral Wickedness is grounded and first founded Upon Popery And was preached and practised first of all by the Popes and Papists of the Church of Rome SECT II. The Doctrine and Practice of Resisting Lawfull Kings and of Deposing and Killing them and of Excluding their Right Heirs for want of Grace or for ill Government or for being Idolaters or for being of a different Religion from themselves is also grounded on Fanaticism BY Fanaticks Rodolph Gualter means all those who Deny the King's Supremacy and set up some other power above the King which may controll him in matters Ecclesiastick and Civil although they be not Papists in profession And these Fanaticks (a) De Christi Ecclesia Isaias vaticinans Reges ejus nutritios Reginas nutrices fore pollicetur sunt haec observanda non solùm propter Anabaptistas horum similes Fanaticos homines qui omnem cùm Politicum tum Ecclesiasticum ordinem è medio sublatum volunt verum etiam propter Pontifices c. qui in Ecclesia omnem potestatem ad se transtulerunt nefas esse clamant ut Reges atque Principes quicquam in illa constituant aut ad reformandum cultum Dei manum admoveant Rod. Gualter in Div. Luc. Homil. 177. p. 468. And again he says Fateor tamen hujus mali culpam non minima ex parte in Phanaticis quibusdam haerere qui religionis libertatis Christianae praetextu abutuntur ut Ordinem politicum turbent indignum esse dicunt Hominem Christianum pura Regem gladio armatum esse quo alios suae professionis homines coerceat ibid. Hom. 195. p. 515. are not onely Anabaptists and Quakers but they are also the Classical Divines commonly called Presbyterians and the Congregational Divines aliàs Independents All which do deny the King's Supremacy and do set up another power above that of the Kings Such as the Consistorian Power among the Presbyterians And the Congregational-Church Power among the Independents These are the men What is meant by Fanatick and what by Fanaticism we mean by Fanaticks and their Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Destroying Kings for their supposed Tyranny Idolatry or want of Grace and of Precluding their Right Heirs for any such Reason Is the Sum of what we mean by Fanaticism And because These men pretend to be against Popery But yet do deny the King's Supremacy and do maintain the Popish Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Killing Kings and of Debarring their Lawfull Heirs from Reigning for their Tyranny Heresie and want of Grace We therefore call them Fanatical-Recusants and not Protestants Of this Number of Anti-Protestants we cannot but reckon these that follow John Calvin who in his Sermon 131 on Job 34. writ in French has these words as they are Translated into English by Arth. Gilding Anno Dom. 1573. Whereas God hath forbidden private persons to rail upon their Rulers Jo. Calvin Serm. 131. in Job 34. p. 675. it is to make us to live in peace and without trouble and to yield some Reverence to the seat of Justice But if there be evil and wicked Governours they must be sharply rebuked according to their Deservings And we must pull down all Loftiness that lifteth up it self against our Lord Jesus Christ Those then that will needs be spared and have their Vices untouched because they be in Authority must coin a new Gospel Of which number are the Kings in our days which will needs be called Anointed and Holy
civitatem perdere aut privilegia eripere aut minuere conaretur id nunquam ferrent ad Arma potius conclamarent c. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. de Magistr p. 1029. it was a virtue in the zealous Jews to oppose the Idolatrous Doings of the Heathen Kings and Emperours by raising Tumults Seditions and Wars against them as did the Macchabees and others So is it the Duty of all Christian Subjects to oppose and by force of Arms to Suppress the Idolatry and Tyranny of Kings and of the Higher Powers And Rob. Rolloc makes the same Fanatical Distinction between the Person and the Power of a King as did Frider. Baldwin and says that the Subject is to shew Obedience (a) Obedientia praestanda est non tam Homini quà m Potestati quòd si Homini praestanda sit Obedientia non aliâ ratione praestanda est quà m qua hac potestate armatus est à Deo quare in obediendo non tam Personas Hominum intueri debemus quà m potestatem illam Auctoritatem quam gerunt c. Rolloc in Ro. 13. p. 357. rather to the Power and Office of the King than to the Person of the King Upon this Distinction as was hinted before did the late Presbyterian Rebels both Scotch and English ☜ raise War against King Charles the First pretending they fought not against the King and his Authority but against the Person of Charles Stuart who was King and his evil Counsellours And the Independents when they had Murthered Him said That they had not killed the King but the Man Charles Stuart the last of English Tyrants Stephanus Cursellaeus as Fanatically as any declares it to be his judgment That it is an horrible sin and wickedness for any King or Supreme Magistrate to make Laws to force their (a) Malam esse omnem in causa fidei coactionem modo evici quis pius religiosus Princeps vel Magistratus non horresceret ad ejus modi impietatem vel minimum quid conforre quòd si adeò malum periculi plenum sit etiam ad veram Religionem cogere quantò magìs ad falsam Cursellae Instit l. 7. c. 37. § 8. Subjects unto an Observation of their Ecclesiastick Rites and Ceremonies and unto a Conformity with and the Embracement of their Religion although it be the true Religion And Curselloeus his argument is this scil Because in his opinion Princes cannot bind nor oblige the Consciences of men by any of their Laws The Conscience belongs onely unto God and He onely is the Judge of it And therefore God onely can make Laws to oblige it Wherefore this our Authour concludes All those Princes to be Vsurpers of God's Prerogative who offer to make Laws binding and obliging Mens Consciences and that (b) Miserè perierint ut sint in exemplum cunctis Regibus Magistratibus qui tale aliquid attentare praesumpserint terrorem iis incutiant inde discentes se Ultrices Dei manus non evasuros si imperium in Conscientias subditorum quod sibi soli reservatum voluit usurpaverint c. Cursel ibid. they must expect the Revenging Hand of God to follow them for so doing And which is Anabaptistical and most Fanatical of all is this to wit That Curselloeus will not allow Christian Kings so much as to Imprison Mulct or Fine any Hereticks or Schismaticks upon the account of Religion And his argument for it is this scil For fear (a) Fieri posse ut prae immodico Impios Haereticos exterminandi zelo Christum ipsum quemadmodum Saulus olim in membris suis persequantur vinciant trucident c. ibid. § 9. Kings should persecute imprison mulct and punish Christ himself under the notion of Schism or Heresie as did Saul aliàs Paul In the case of Idolatry the said Cursellaeus confesses That if any Hereticks or Idolaters should set up their Idols then the King has power (b) Nullam quidem subditorum conscientiis vim inferre principi est licitum Sed tamen potestatem habet aholendi idola c. ibid. § 13. to take away and abolish the said Idols But the King has no power to make any Law against Idolatry which can affect and oblige the Conscience of the Idolater Thus Cursellaeus disarms all Christian Princes and leaves them as also the Church and State naked and fenceless against the turbulent Hereticks and Schismaticks and opens the door to all Anarchy and Confusion nay to all Sedition and Rebellion and will not permit Kings by severe (a) Ita ergo debet obviam iri perturbationi Reipublicae ut nulla tamen conscientiis eorum vis fiat qui credunt officii sui alios i. e. Reges Magistratus monere de erroribus abusibus qui obtinent in Ecclesia eos placidè emendare contendunt quamvis enim contingat non rarò ut fallantur pro erroribus habeant quae veritati sunt consentanea praestat tamen judicio Dei eos relinquere quà m ullâ vi externâ coercere Cursel lib. 7. c. 37. § 19. Laws to suppress Rebels if they should tumult and mutiny upon the account of Conscience For Hereticks and Schismaticks never Fight and Rebell but out of a pretence of tenderness of Conscience Unto these we may add those expressions of Grotius who in many excellent Writings has out-done most men but in the point of Resistence of Lawfull Kings for their supposed Tyranny He in our apprehension miserably errs And upon his Authority many of the late most eminent and learned Rebels justified their taking up Arms against the late King Charles of Blessed Memory For Grotius declares as before scil That if a King proves (a) Si Rex reipsa etiam tradere regnum aut subjicere moliatur quin ei resisti in hoc possit non dubito Grot. de jur Bell. l. 1. c. 4. § 10. Tyrannical or if a King has taken an Oath to govern well according to the Laws of the Realm and breaks that his Oath then the Subjects are freed from all Obedience to him their Prince and may Lawfully Resist Him One thing farther is to be noted That Grotius makes Kings elected and chosen by the People to be under and accountable to the People which is a very false and Fanatical notion and He says (b) Qui principes sub populo sunt sive ab initio talem acceperunt potestatem sive postea ita convenit ut Lacedaemone si peccent in leges ac Rempublicam non tantum vi repelli possunt sed si opus sit puniri morte quod Pausaniae Regi Lacedaemoniorum contigit ibid. § 8. that all such Kings who are thus sub Populo may be punished with Death if they offend and transgress against the Laws of the Common-wealth and he instances in King Pausanias that was put to Death Philip Melancthon is hugely to blame for justifying the zealous Burgess of Nicomedia in tearing into pieces the Emperour 's publick
true and lawfull Prince and so run themselves into a Praemunire 6. This Doctrine of preventing Kings from Reigning and Governing for their want of Grace can be invented by Christians for no other end than to prevent all Passive Obedience unto Kings that shall prove Tyrannical and to avoid going to Heaven in the fiery Chariot of Martyrdom For as * Cum Reges pro falsitate contra veritatem constituunt malas leges probantur coronantur benè credentes Aug. Epist 50. St. Augustine writes there will be no need of dying for Religion if so be wicked and ungodly Kings who want Grace may not be suffered to Reign and by their evil Laws to try Believers faith whether sound or no and in such cases to experiment their fear of God rather than of Man for according to the Apostles there is a time when God is to be obeyed rather than Man and when we are to dye for Christ and for the Faith And that can be Lawfully done onely then when by the Supreme Authority we are commanded either to dye the Death or to deny Christ and his Religion In this case we are to obey the Supreme Magistrate Passively by dying the Death and not Actively by doing what he Commands Because what he Commands is expresly against the known Law and Word of God From which premisses we thus argue scil That if it be as in truth it is a bounden Duty and a noble Vertue in us Christians Passively to obey our Lawfull Princes by humbly and meekly submitting our Necks without all Resistence unto the stroke of that Death which they shall be pleased to lay upon us And if it be as most certainly it is a Sin in this case to Resist Our Princes Then from hence we may rationally conclude That Our Princes though supposed to be never so Wicked and Tyrannical Yet They have a Right to Command us and to Rule and Reign over us and to doe with our Bodies if we offend them what they please Otherwise there can be no such thing as Martyrdom And therefore Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace SECT II. The Evil Effects and Consequences of this Position That Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace are such as these 1. COnventicles 2. Rebellion 3. A Confirmation of Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity I. Conventicles For from a Belief that the King has not Grace And therefore ought not to Reign From hence is it That the People do not look upon any Laws which the King shall make to be valid or any ways Binding their Consciences especially in matters of Religion and of Church-Government And therefore it is that they declining the established and publick Ordinances of the Realm do run into private and unlawfull Conventicles which they the ignorant deluded people deem to be more Holy than the other Nor do they believe they do in the least sin by Conventicling contrary to the King's Laws The Reason is Because they are of full persuasion That it is no sin to violate and break the Laws and Orders of a King who in their opinion wants Grace And from hence also it is That the People who are not better Catechised and instructed do so frequently leave their own Parish-Churches and run abroad to the great Profanation of the Lord 's holy day either unto Conventicles or unto other Churches And all is Because they fansie that their own Parish Minister wants Grace at least that he is not so Powerfull in his Preaching nor so Holy though he walks by the Rubrick as is their Neighbour Minister Which is a very great errour destructive of all good Order and Conformity in the Church For the Minister's Sacred Office and not his Person obliges the People to a constant Attendance on his Ministery especially as long as he their Minister is Conformable unto the Orders and Canons of the Church both for Doctrine and Manners And if any Parish-Minister be vitious in his Life which is a great Scandal to the Gospel and is a crying sin in a Man that is in Holy Orders yet if any be so then his Ordinary upon complaint and proof ought to punish him And not the People as too oft they do by departing from his Ministery Contrary to Christ's Rule Which Commanded Attendance on the Ministery of the Scribes and Pharisees although they were vitious and wicked And Christ gave this Reason for it scil Because They the Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair Mat. 23.3 All therefore says Christ whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and doe But do not ye after their works for they say and doe not II. REBELLION For from a strong Belief of this Position scil That Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace Have sprung most if not all the Seditions and Rebellions made against Christian Princes by either Papists or Fanaticks It is evident by History That the Popes of Rome never sent out their Bulls nor ever stirred up Subjects unto Rebellion against any Secular Princes whatever but onely against such as were by them judged to be Hereticks and void of Grace And therefore not fit to Govern Nor ever was there either King Emperour or any Supreme Magistrate Deposed or Murthered by the Papists But it was upon the account of the said Prince his want of Grace Hence arose the Spanish Invasion against Queen Elizabeth The Gun-powder Plot against King James And the Irish Rebellion against King Charles the First And Oates his Popish Plot against King Charles the Second All arose from a Belief That the aforesaid Princes were Hereticks and void of Grace and therefore had no just Right unto any Temporal Dominion In like manner All the above-mentioned Plots of the Fanaticks took their Rise from this One false Notion scil That Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace And because they were of opinion that the King and Governours were Wicked Tyrannical and void of Grace That therefore they had no Right to Govern But it was Lawfull for the Subjects to depose and destroy them by force of Arms. The Belief of this false Notion made the Fanaticks as was said before to wage War against King Charles the First and at last to Murther him To Banish King Charles the Second and afterward Rebelliously to Fight against him at Worcester This made Venner and his Confederates to draw the Sword against our present most Gratious King under the Notion that he wanted Grace and was an Enemy to King Jesus This made Stephen Colledge at Oxford with his Protestant Flail William Hone and his Conspiratours at Rye-House with their Blunderbusses to Plot the Murther both of our Dread Sovereign the King and of the Illustrious Prince James Duke of York Though one of them to wit Hone thought his Royal Highness to have had some nay more Grace than His Majesty And therefore Hone confessed that at last he was for sparing the Duke but for killing the King Though for ever blessed and praised be Almighty God who wonderfully spared and delivered them both King and Duke from the hands of their bloudy Enemies And we hope and pray that He will ever deliver them And we farther pray that the People may be undeceived and thoroughly convinced of their aforesaid great errour for untill they be convinced the King has no Security from them whether Papists or Fanaticks of either his Crown or his Life For although the King be truly never so Orthodox Vertuous and Pious Yet upon the least failing they will clamour and give out that he is fallen from Grace and therefore ought to be Deposed and no longer to have Dominion over them for according to their Belief Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace III. A Confirmation of Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity For this pernicious Doctrine That Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace Discourages Heathen and Unbelieving Princes from believing in Christ and from embracing Christianity Because if they should become Christians Then they are not sure to hold their Crowns long on their Heads no nor their Heads long on their Shoulders For although they should not renounce Christianity nor turn Heathens again Yet if through natural infirmity or prevalency of temptation or excess of Passion they should become vitious in their lives Or if through contrary persuasion they should not Believe as the Papists and Fanaticks Believe Then they must be adjudged to have no Grace And therefore to have no Right of Dominion over their Subjects But must be Deposed and Dethroned For Temporal Dominion is say they founded onely in Grace FINIS