Defense of the People of England, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
HAving proved ſufficiently that the Kings of the Jews were ſubject to the ſame Laws that the people were; That there are no exceptions made in Scripture; That 'tis a moſt falſe aſſertion, grounded upon no reaſon, nor warranted by any Authority, to ſay, That Kings may do what they liſt with Impunity; That God has exempted them from all humane Juriſdiction, and reſerved them to his own Tribunal only: Let us now conſider, whether the Goſpel preach up any ſuch Doctrine, and enjoyn that blind obedience which the Law was ſo far from doing, that it commanded the contrary; let us conſider whether or no the Goſpel, that Heavenly Promulgation, as it were, of Chriſtian Liberty, reduce us to a condition of Slavery to Kings and Tyrants, from whoſe im… rule even the old Law, that Miſtreſs of Slavery, … the people of God, when it obtained. Your …ent you take from the perſon of Chriſt himself. But, alas! who does not know that he put … into the condition, not of a private perſon only, but even of a ſervant, that we might be made free? Nor is this to be underſtood of ſome internal ſpiritual liberty only; how inconſiſtent elſe would that Song of his Mothers be with the deſign of his coming into the world, He hath ſcattered the proud in the imagination of their heart, he hath put down the mighty from their ſeat, and hath exalted the humble and meek? How ill ſuited to their occaſion would theſe expreſſions be, if the coming of Chriſt rather eſtabliſhed and ſtrengthened a Tyrannical Government, and made a blind ſubjection the duty of all Chriſtians? Himſelf having been born and lived and died under a Tyrannical Government, has thereby purchaſed Liberty for us. As he gives us his Grace to ſubmit patiently to a condition of Slavery, if there be a neceſſity of it; ſo if by any honeſt ways and means we can rid our ſelves, and obtain our Liberty, he is ſo far from reſtraining us, that he encourageth us ſo to do. Hence it is that St. Paul not only of an Evangelical, but a Civil Liberty, ſays thus, 1 Cor. 7. 21. Art thou called being a ſervant, care not for it; but if thou maiſt be made free, uſe it rather; you are bought with a price, be not ye ſervants of men. So that you are very impertinent in endeavouring to argue us into Slavery by the example of our Saviour; who by ſubmitting to ſuch a condition himſelf, has confirmed even our Civil Liberties. He took upon him indeed in our ſtead the form of a ſervant, but he always retained his purpoſe of being a deliverer; and thence it was that he taught us a quite other notion of the right of Kings, than this that you endeavour to make good: You, I ſay, that preach up not Kingſhip, but Tyranny, and that in a Commonwealth; by enjoyning not a neceſſary only, but a Religious ſubjection to whatever Tyrant gets into the Chair, whether he come to it by Succeſſion, or by Conqueſt, or chance, or any how. And now He turn your own weapons againſt you, and oppoſe you, as … to do, with your own Authorities. When the Collectors of the Tribute-money came to Chriſt for Tribute in Galilee, he asked Peter, Mat. 17. Of whom the Kings of the earth took cuſtom or tribute, of their own …dren, or of ſtrangers? Peter ſaith unto him, Of ſtrangers; … ſaith unto him, then are the children free; notwithstanding leſt we ſhould offend them. &c give unto them for thee and for me Expoſitors differ upon this place whom …is Tribute was paid to; ſome ſay it was … to the Prieſts, for the uſe of the Sanctuary; others that it was paid to the Emperour. I am of opinion that it was the Revenue of the Sanctuary, but paid to Herad, who perverted the Inſtitution of it, and took it to himſelf. Joſephus mentions divers ſorts of Tribute which he and his Sons exacted, all which A…ppa afterwards remitted. And this very Tribute, though ſmall in it ſelf, yet being accompanied with many more, was a heavy burden; the Jews, even the pooreſt of them, in the time of their Commonwealth paid a …; ſo that it was ſome conſiderable oppreſſion that our Saviour ſpoke of; and from hence he took occaſion to Tax Herod's Injuſtice, under whoſe Government, and within whoſe Juriſdiction he then was; in that, whereas the Kings of the Earth (who a…ct uſually the Title of Fathers of their Country) do not uſe to oppreſs their own Children, that is, their own natural born Subjects with heavy and unreaſonable Exactions, but lay ſuch burdens upon ſtrangers and conquer'd enemies; he, quite contrary, oppr…ſſed not ſtrangers, but his own people. But let what will be here meant by Children, either natural born Subjects, or the Children of God, and thoſe the Elect only, or Chriſtians in general, as St. Auguſtine underſtands the place; this is certain, that if Peter was a child, and therefore free, then by conſequence we are ſo too, by our Saviour's own Teſtimony, either as Engliſhmen, or as Chriſtans; and that conſequently it is not the right of Kings to exact heavy Tributes from their own Countrymen, and thoſe freeborn Subjects. Chriſt himſelf profeſſeth, that he paid not this Tribute as a thing that was due, but that he might not bring trouble upon himſelf by offending thoſe that demanded it. The work that he came into this World to do, was quite of another Nature. But if our Saviour deny, that it is the Right of Kings to burden their Free-born Subjects with grievous Exactions, he would certainly muchleſs allow it to be their Right to Spoil, Maſſacre, and Torture their own Countrymen, and thoſe Chriſtians too. He diſcourſed after ſuch a manner of the Right of Kings, that thoſe that he ſpoke to ſuſpected his Principles, as laying too great a reſtraint upon Sovereignty, and not allowing the Licenſe that Tyrants aſſume to themſelves to be the Rights of Kings. It was not for nothing that the Phariſees put ſuch Queſtions to him, tempting him; and that at the ſame time they told him, that he regarded not the Perſon of any Man; nor was it for nothing that he was angry when ſuch Queſtions were propoſed to him, Matth. 22. If one ſhould endeavour to enſuare you with little Queſtions, and catch at your Anſwers, to ground an Accuſation againſt you upon your own Principles concerning the Right of Kings, and all this under a Monarchy, would you be angry with him? You'd have but very little reaſon. 'Tis evident, That our Saviours Principles concerning Government, were not agreeable to the Hamour of Princes. His Anſwer too implies as much; by which he rather turn'd them away, than inſtructed them. He asked for the Tribute-money. Whoſe Image and Superſcription is it, ſays he? They tell him it was Caeſar's. Give then to Caeſar, ſays he, the things that are Caeſar's; and to God, the things that are God's. And how comes it to paſs, that the People ſhould not have given to them the things that are theirs? Render to all men their dues, ſays St. Paul, Rom. 13. So that Caeſar muſt not ingroſs all to himſelf. Our Liberty is not Caeſar's; 'tis a Bleſſing we have received from God himſelf; 'tis what we are born to; to lay this down at Caeſar's feet, which we derive not from him, which we are not beholden to him for, were an unworthy Action, and a degrading of our very Nature. If one ſhould conſider attentively the Countenance of a Man, and enquire after whoſe Image ſo noble a Creature were framed; would not any one that heard him, preſently make anſwer, That he was made after the Image of God himſelf? Being therefore peculiarly God's own, and conſequently things that are to be given to him; we are intirely free by Nature, and cannot without the greateſt Sacrilege imaginable be reduced into a Condition of Slavery to any Man, eſpecially to a wicked, unjuſt, cruel Tyrant. Our Saviour does not take upon him to determine what things are God's, and what Caeſar's; he leaves that as he found it. If the piece of Money which they ſhewed him, was the same that was paid to God, as in Veſpatian's time it was, then our Saviour is ſo far from having put an end to the Controverſy, that he has but entangl'd it, and made it more perplext than it was before; for 'tis impoſſible the ſame thing ſhould be given both to God, and to Caeſar. But, you ſay, he intimates to them what things were Caeſar's; to wit, that piece … Money becauſe it bore the Emperor's Stamp; and what of all that? How does this advantage your Cauſe? You get not the Emperor, or to your ſelf, a Penny by this Concluſion. Either Chriſt allowed nonothing at all to be Caeſar's, but that piece of Money that he then had in his hand, and thereby aſſerted the Peoples Intereſt in every thing elſe; or elſe, if (as you would have us underſtand him) he affirms all Money that has the Emperor's ſtamp upon it, to be the Emperor's own. He contradicts himſelf, and gives the Magiſtrate a property in every Man's Eſtate, when as he himſelf paid his Tribute-money with a Proteſtation, that it was more than what either Peter, or himſelf was bound to do. The ground you rely on, is very weak; for Money bears the Prince's Image, not as a token of its being his, but of its being good Metal, and that none may preſume to Counterfeit it. If the writing Princes Names, or ſetting their Stamps upon a thing, veſt the property of it in them, 'twere a good ready way for them to invade all Property. Or rather, if whatever Subjects have, be abſolutely at their Prince's diſpoſal, which is your Aſſertion, that piece of Money was not Caeſar's, becauſe his Image was ſtampt on it, but becauſe of Right it belonged to him before 'twas coyn'd. So that nothing can be more manifeſt, than that our Saviour in this place never intended to teach our Duty to Magiſtrates (he would have ſpoke more plainly, if he had) but to reprehend the Malice and Wickedneſs of the hypocritical Phariſees. When they told him that Herod laid wait to kill him; did he return an humble, ſubmiſſive Anſwer? Go, tell that Fox, ſays he, &c. intimating, that Kings have no other Right to deſtroy their Subjects, than Foxes have to devour the things they prey upon. Say you, He ſuffered Death under a Tyrant. How could he poſſibly under any other? But from hence you conclude, that he aſſerted it to be the Right of Kings to commit Murder, and act Injuſtice. You'd make an excellent Moraliſt. But our Saviour, tho he became a Servant, not to make us ſo, but that we might be free; yet carried he himſelf ſo with Relation to the Magiſtracy, as not to aſcribe any more to them then their due. Now, let us come at laſt to enquire what his Doctrine was upon this Subject. The Sons of Z…bedee were ambitious of Honour and Power in the Kingdom of Chriſt, which they perſuaded themſelves he would ſhortly ſet up in the World; he reproves them ſo, as withal to let all Chriſtians know what Form of Civil Government he deſires they ſhould ſettle amongſt themſelves. Ye know, ſays he, that the Princes of the Gentiles exerciſe dominion over them; and they that are great, exerciſe authority upon them; but it ſhall not be ſo among you; but whoſover will be great among you, let him be your Miniſter; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your ſervant. Unleſs you'd been diſtracted, you could never have imagined that this place makes for you: and yet you urge it, and think it furniſhes you with an Argument to prove that our Kings are abſolute Lords and Maſters over us and ours. May it be our fortune to have to do with ſuch Enemies in War, as will fall blind-fold and naked into our Camp inſtead of their own: as you conſtantly do, who alledge that for your ſelf, that of all things in the World makes moſt againſt you. The Iſraelites aſked God for a King, ſuch a King as other Nations round about them had. God diſſuaded them by many Arguments, which our Saviour here gives us an Epitomy of; You know that the Princes of the Gentiles exerciſe Dominion over them. But yet, becauſe the Iſraelites perſiſted in their deſire of a King, God gave them one, tho in his Wrath. Our Saviour, leſt Chriſtians ſhould deſire a King, ſuch a one at leaſt, as might Rule as, he ſays, the Princes of the Gentiles did, prevents them with an Injunction to the contrary; but it ſhall not be ſo among you. What can be ſaid plainer than this? That ſtately, imperious Sway and Dominion that Kings uſe to exerciſe, ſhall not be amongſt you; what ſpecious Titles ſoever they may aſſume to themſelves, as that of Benefactors, or the like. But he that will be great amongſt you, (and who is greater than the Prince?) let him be your Servant. So that the Lawyer, whoever he be, that you are ſo ſmart upon, was not ſo much out of the way, but had our Saviour's own Authority to back him, when he ſaid that Chriſtian Princes were indeed no other than the Peoples Servants; 'tis very certain that all good Magiſtrates are ſo. Inſomuch that Chriſtians either muſt have no King at all, or if they have, that King muſt be the People's Servant. Abſolute Lordſhip and Chriſtianity are inconſiſtent. Moſes himſelf, by whoſe Miniſtry that ſeviler Oeconomy of the old Law was inſtituted, did not exerciſe an Arbitrary, Haughty Power and Authority, but bore the burden of the People, and carried them in his Boſom, as a Nurſing Father does a ſucking Child, Numb. 11. and what is that of a Nurſing Father, but a Miniſterial Imployment? Plato would not have the Magiſtrates called Lords, but Servants and Helpers of the People; nor the People Servants, but Maintainers of their Magiſtrates, becauſe they give Meat, Drink, and Wages to their Kings themſelves. Ariſtotle calls the Magiſtrates, Keepers and Miniſters of the Laws. Plato, Miniſters and ſervants. The Apoſtle calls them Miniſters of God; but they are Miniſters and Servants of the People, and of the Laws, nevertheleſs for all that; the Laws and the Magiſtrates were both created for the good of the People: And yet this is it, that you call the Opinion of the Fanatick-Maſtiffs in England. I ſhould not have thought the People of England were Maſtiff dogs, if ſuch a Mungril-Cur as thou art, did not bark at them ſo Curriſhly; the Maſter, if it ſhall pleaſe ye, of St. I upus *Lupus in Latin, ſignifies a Wolf., St. Wolf, it ſeems complains, that the Maſtiffs are mad (Fanaticks). Germanus heretofore, whoſe Colleague that Lupus of Triers was, depoſed our Inceſtuous King Vortigerne by his own Authority. And therefore St. Lupus deſpiſes thee, the Maſter not of St. Lupus, (a Holy Wolf) but of ſome hunger-ſtarv'd, thieving, little Wolf or other, as being more contemptible than that Maſter of Vipers, of whom Martial makes mention, who haſt by Relation, a barking She-wolf at home too, that domineers over thee moſt wretchedly; at whoſe Inſtigations, as I am informed, thou haſt wrote this ſtuff. And therefore it is the leſs wonder that thou ſhouldſt endeavour to obtrude an Abſolute Regal Government upon others, who haſt been accuſtomed to bear a Female Rule ſo ſervilely at home thy ſelf. Be therefore, in the Name of God, the Maſter of a Wolf, leſt a She-wolf be thy Miſtreſs; be a Wolf thy ſelf, be a Monſter made up of a Man, and a Wolf; whatever thou art, the Engliſh Maſtiffs will but make a laughing-ſtock of thee. But I am not now at leiſure to hunt for Wolves, and will put an end therefore to this Digreſſion. You that but a while ago wrote a Book againſt all manner of ſuperiority in the Church, now call St. Peter the Prince of the Apoſtles. How inconſtant you are in your Principles! But what ſays Peter? Submit your ſelves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's ſake, whether it be to the King as Supream, or to Governours, as unto them that are ſent by him, for the puniſhment of evil doers, and the praiſe of them that do well: for ſo is the will of God, &c. This Epiſtle Peter wrote, not only to private Perſons, but thoſe Strangers ſcatter'd and diſpers'd through Aſia; who in thoſe places where they ſojourned, had no other right, than that the Laws of Hoſpitality intituled them to. Do you think ſuch mens caſe to be the ſame with that of Natives, Free-born Subjects, Nobility, Senates, Aſſemblies of Eſtates, Parliaments? Nay, is not the caſe far different of private Perſons, tho' in their own Countrey, and Senators, Magiſtrates, without whom, Kings themſelves cannot poſſibly ſubſiſt? But let us ſuppoſe that St. Peter had directed his Epiſtle to the Natural born Subjects, and thoſe not private perſons neither; ſuppoſe he had writ to the Senate of Rome, What then? No Law that is grounded upon a reaſon, expreſly ſet down in the Law it ſelf, obligeth further than the reaſon of it extends. Be ſubject, ſays he, foreign: That is, according to the genuine ſenſe and import of the word, be ſubordinate, or legally ſubject. For the law, Ariſtotle ſays, is order. Submit for the Lord's ſake. Why ſo? Becauſe a King is an Officer appointed by God for the puniſhment of evil doers, and the praiſe of them that do well. For ſo is the will of God: To wit, That we ſhould ſubmit and yield Obedience to ſuch as are here deſcribed. There is not a word ſpoken of any other. You ſee the ground of this Precept, and how well'tis laid. The Apoſtle adds in the 16th v. as Free; therefore not as Slaves. What now, if Princes pervert the deſign of Magiſtracy, and uſe the power that is put into their Hands, to the ruin and deſtruction of good men; and the praiſe and encouragement of evil doers? Muſt we all be condemn'd to perpetual Slavery, not private perſons only, but our Nobility, all our inferior Magiſtrates; our very Parliament it ſelf? Is not temporal Government call'd a humane Ordinance? How comes it to paſs then, that mankind ſhould have power to appoint and conſtitute, what may be good and profitable for one another; and want power to reſtrain or ſuppreſs things that are univerſally miſchievious and deſtructive? That Prince, you ſay, whom St. Peter enjoyns Subjection to, was Nero the Tyrant: And from thence you infer, that it is our Duty to ſubmit and yield Obedience to ſuch But it is not certain that this Epiſtle was writ in Ner…'s Reign: 'Tis as likely to have been writ in Claudius his time. And they that are commanded to ſubmit, were private Perſons and Strangers; they were no Conſuls, no Magiſtrates: 'Twas not the Roman Senate, that St. Peter directed his Epiſtle to. Now let us hear what uſe you make of St. Paul, (for you take a freedom with the Apoſtles, I find, that you will not allow us to take with Princes, you make St. Peter the chief of them to day, and to morrow put another in his place). St. Paul in his 13th Chap. to the Romans, has theſe words. Let every ſoul be ſubject unto the higher Powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. I confeſs, he writes this to the Romans, not to Strangers diſpers'd, as Peter did; but yet he writes to private perſons, and thoſe of the meaner rank, And yet he gives us a true, and a clear account of the reaſon, the Original, and the deſign of Government; and ſhows us the true and proper ground of our Obedience, that it's far from impoſing a neceſſity upon us of being Slaves Let every Soul, ſays he; that is, let every man ſubmit. Chryſoſthome tells us, that St. Paul's deſign in this Diſcourſe, was to make it appear, that our Saviour did not go about to introduce principles inconſiſtent with the Civil Government, but ſuch as ſtrengthned it, and ſettled it upon the ſureſt Foundations.He never intended then by ſetting Nero, or any other Tyrant out of the reach of all Laws, to enſlave mankind under his luſt and cruelty. He intended too ſays the ſame Author, to diſſwade from unneceſſary and cauſeleſs Wars. But he does not condemn a War taken up againſt a Tyrant, a boſom Enemy of his own Countrey, and conſequently the moſt dangerous that may be. 'Twas commonly ſaid in thoſe days, that the Doctrine of the Apoſtles was ſeditious, themſelves perſons that endeavour'd to ſhake the ſe…l…d …aws and Government of the world; that this was what they aim'd at in all they ſaid and did. The Apoſtle in this Chapter ſtops the mouths of ſuch gain ſayers: …o that the Apoſtles did not write in defence of Tyrants, as you do; but they aſſerted ſuch things as made them ſuſpected to be enemies to the Government they liv'd under, things that ſtood in need of being explained and interpreted, and having another ſenſe put upon them, than was generally receiv'd. St. Chryſoſtme has now taught us what the Apoſtle's deſign was in this Diſcourſe; let us now examine his words. Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher powers. He tells us not what thoſe Higher Powers are, nor who they are; for he never intended to overthrow all Governments, and the ſeveral Conſtitutions of Nations, and ſubject all to ſome one man's will. Every good Emperour acknowledged that the Laws of the Empire, and the Authority of the Senate was above himſelf; and the ſame principle and notion of Government has obtained all along in Civiliz'd Nations. Pindar, as he is cited by Herodotus, calls the Law foreign, King over all. Orpheus in his Hymns calls it the King both of Gods and Men. And he gives the reaſon why it is ſo; Becauſe, ſays he, 'tis that that ſits at the helm of all humane affairs. Plato in his Book de Legibus, calls it foreign: that that ought to have the greateſt ſway in the Commonwealth. In his Epiſtles he commends that Form of Government, in which the Law is made Lord and Maſter, and no ſcope given to any Man to tyrannize over the Laws. Ariſtotle is of the ſame Opinion in his Politicks; and ſo is Cicero in his Book De Legibus, That the Laws ought to Govern the Magiſtrates, as they do the people. The Law therefore having always been accounted the higheſt Power on Earth, by the judgment of the moſt Learned and wiſe men that ever were, and by the Conſtitutions of the beſt ordered States, and it being very certain that the Doctrine of the Goſpel is neither contrary to reaſon nor the Law of Nations, that man is truly and properly ſubject to the higher Powers, that obeys the Law, and the Magiſtrates, ſo far as they govern according to Law. So that St. Paul does not only command the people, but Princes themſelves to be in ſubjection: who are not above the Laws, but bound by them: For there is no power but of God: that is, no form; no lawful Conſtitution of any Government. The moſt ancient Laws that are known to us, were formerly aſcribed to God as their Author. For the Law, ſays Cicero in his Philipp. is no other than a rule of well grounded reaſon, derived from God himſelf, enjoyning whatever is juſt and right, and forbidding the contrary. So that the inſtitution of Magiſtracy is Jure Divino, and the end of it is, that Mankind might live under certain Laws, and be govern'd by them; but what particular form of Government each Nation would live under, and what Perſons ſhould be entruſted with the Magiſtracy, without doubt was left to the choice of each Nation. Hence St. Peter calls Kings and Deputies, Humane Ordinances. And H…ſea in the 8th Chapter of his Propheſy, They have ſet up Kings, but not by me; they have made Princes, and I knew it not. For in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews, where upon matters of great and weighty Importance, they could have acceſs to God himſelf, and conſult with him; they could not chuſe a King themſelves by Law, but were to refer the matter to him. Other Nations have received no ſuch Command. Sometimes the very Form of Government, if it be amiſs, or at leſt thoſe Perſons that have the Power in their hands, are not of God, but of Men, or of the Devil, Luke 4. All this power will I give unto thee, for it is delivered unto me, and I give it to whom I will. Hence the Devil is called the Prince of this World; and in the 12th of the Revelations, the Dragon gave to the Beaſt his Power, and his Throne, and great Authority. So that we muſt not underſtand St. Paul, as if he ſpoke of all ſorts of Magiſtrates in general, but of lawful Magiſtrates; and ſo they are deſcribed in what follows. We muſt alſo underſtand him of the Powers themſelves; not of thoſe Men always, in whoſe hands they are lodged. St. Chryſoſtome ſpeaks very well, and clearly upon this occaſion. What? ſays he, is every Prince then appointed by God to be ſo? I ſay no ſuch thing, ſays he. St. Paul ſpeaks not of the Perſon of the Magiſtrate, but of the Magiſtracy it ſelf. He does not ſay, there is no Prince but who is of God. He ſays there is no Power but of God. Thus far St. Chryſoſtome; for what Powers are, are ordained of God. So that St. Paul ſpeaks only of a lawful Magiſtracy. For what is Evil and amiſs, cannot be ſaid to be ordain'd, becauſe 'tis diſorderly; order and diſorder cannot conſiſt together in the ſame Subject. The Apoſtle ſays, The Powers that be; and you interpret his words as if he had ſaid, The Powers that now be; that you may prove that the Romans ought in Conſcience to obey Nero, who you take for granted was then Emperor. I'm very well content you ſhould read the words ſo, and draw that Concluſion from them. The Conſequence will be, that Engliſh Men ought to yield Obedience to the preſent Government, as 'tis now eſtabliſht according to a new Model; becauſe you muſt needs acknowledge that it is the preſent Government, and ordain'd of God, as much at leaſt as Nero's was. And leſt you ſhould object that Nero came to the Empire by a Lawful Succeſſion, it's apparent from the Roman Hiſtory that both he and Tiberius got into the Chair by the Tricks and Artifices of their Mothers, and had no right at all to the Succeſſion. So that you are inconſiſtent with your ſelf, and retract from your own Principles, in affirming that the Romans owed Subjection to the Government that then was; and yet denying that Engliſhmen owe Subjection to the Government that now is. But 'tis no wonder to hear you contradict your ſelf. There are no two things in the World more directly oppoſite and contrary to one another, than you are to your ſelf. But what will become of you, poor Wretch? You have quite …done the young King with your Witiciſms, and ruin'd his Fortunes utterly; for according to your own Doctrine you muſt needs confeſs, that this present Government in England, is ordain'd of God, and that all Engliſhmen are bound in Conſcience to ſubmit to it. …ake notice all ye Criticks and Tex…ries. Do not you preſume to meddie with this Text. Thus Salmaſius corrects that Paſſage in the Epiſtle to the Romans: He has made a diſcovery, that the Words ought not to be read, The Powers that are; but, The Powers that now are: And all this to prove, that all Men owed Subjection and Obedience to Nero the Tyrant, whom he ſupp ſed to have been then Emperor. This Epiſtle, which you ſay was writ in Nero's time, was writ in his Predeceſſor's time, who was an honeſt well-meaning Man: And this Learned Men evince by undeniable Arguments. But beſides, the five firſt years of Nero's Reign were without Exception. So that this thread-bare Argument, which ſo many Men have at their Tongue's end, and have been deceived by, to wit, that Tyrants are to be obeyed, becauſe St. Paul injoyns a Subjection to Nero; is evident to have been but a cunning Invention of ſome ignorant Parſon. He that reſiſts the Powers, to wit, a lawful Power, reſiſts the Ordnance of God. Kings themſelves come under the Penalty of this Law, when they reſiſt the Senate, and act contrary to the Laws But do they reſiſt the Ordinance of God, that reſiſt an unlawful Power, or a Perſon that goes about to overthrow and deſtroy a lawful one? No Man living in his right wits can maintain ſuch an Aſſertion. The words immediately after make it as clear as the Sun, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks only of a lawful Power; for he gives us in them a Definition of Magiſtrates, and thereby explains to us, who are the Perſons thus authoriz'd, and upon what account we are to yield Obedience, leſt we ſhould be apt. to miſtake, and ground extravagant Notions upon his Diſcourſe. The Magiſtrates, ſays he, are not a Terror to good Works, but to evil; Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power? Do that which is good, and thou ſhalt have praiſe of the ſame: For he is the Miniſter of God to thee for good. He beareth not the Sword in vain; for he is the Miniſter of God, a Revenger to execute Wrath upon him that doth Evil. What honeſt Man would not willingly ſubmit to ſuch a Magiſtracy as is here deſcribed? And that not only to avoid W…ath, and for fear of Puniſhment, but for Conſcience ſake. Without Magiſtrates, and ſome Form or other of Civil Government, no Commonwealth, no Humane Society can ſubſiſt; there were no-living in the World. But whatever Power enables a Man, or whatſoever Magiſtrate takes upon him to act contrary to what St. Paul makes the Duty of thoſe that are in Authority; neither is that Power, nor that Magiſtrate ordain'd of God. And conſequently to ſuch a Magiſtracy no Subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the People forbidden to reſiſt ſuch Authority, for in ſo doing they do not reſiſt the Power, nor the Magiſtracy, as they are here excellently well deſcribed; but they reſiſt a Robber, a Tyrant, an Enemy; who if he may notwithſtanding in ſome ſenſe be called a Magiſtrate, upon this account only, becauſe he has Power in his hands, which perhaps God may have inveſted him with for our puniſhment; by the ſame reaſon the Devil may be called a Magiſtrate. This is moſt certain, that there can be but one true Definition of one and the ſame thing. So that if St. Paul in this place define what a Magiſtrate is, which he certainly does, and that accurately well; He cannot poſſibly define a Tyrant, the moſt contrary thing imaginable, in the ſame words. Hence I infer, that he commands us to ſubmit to ſuch Magiſtrates only as he himſelf defines and deſcribes, and not to Tyrants, which are quite other things. For this Cauſe you pay Tribute alſo. He gives a Reaſon, together with a Command. Hence St. Chryſoſtome; Why do we pay Tribute to Princes? ſays he, Do we not thereby reward them for the care they take of our Safety? We ſhould not have paid them any Tribute, if we had not been convinc'd, That it was good for us to live under a Government. So that I muſt here repeat what I have ſaid already, That ſince Subjection is not abſolutely enjoined, but upon a particular Reaſon, that reaſon muſt be the rule of our Subjection; where that reaſon holds, we are Rebels if we ſubmit not; where it holds not, we are Cowards and Slaves if we do. But, ſay you, the Engliſh are far from being Freemen; for they are wicked and flagitious. I will not reckon up here the Vices of the French, tho they live under a Kingly Government; neither will I excuſe my own Countrey-men too far; but this I may ſafely ſay, Whatever Vices they have, they have learnt them under a Kingly Government; as the Iſraelites learnt a great deal of Wickedneſs in Egypt: And as they, when they were brought into the Wilderneſs, and lived under the immediate Government of God himſelf, could hardly reform; juſt ſo 'tis with us: But there are good hopes of many amongſt us; that I may not here celebrate thoſe men amongſt us, that are eminent for their Piety and Virtue, and Love of the Truth; of which ſort I perſuade my ſelf we have as great a number, as where you think there are moſt ſuch. But they have laid a heavy yoke upon the Engliſh Nation: What if they have, upon thoſe of them that endeavoured to lay a heavy yoke upon all the reſt? Upon thoſe that have deſerved to be put under the hatches? As for the reſt, I queſtion not but they are very well content to be at the Expence of maintaining their own Liberty, the Publick Treaſury being exhauſted by the Civil Wars. Now he betakes himſelf to the Fabulous Rabbins again: He aſſerts frequently, that Kings are bound by no Laws; and yet he proves. That a cording to the ſenſe of the Rabbins, a King may be guilty of Treaſon, by ſuffering an Invaſion upon the Rights of his Crown So Kings are bound by Laws, and they are not bound by them; they may be Criminals, and yet they may not be ſo. This man contradicts himſelf ſo perpetually, that Contradiction and he ſeem to be of ki… to one another You ſay that God himſelf put many Kingdoms under the yoke of Nebuchadnezz…r, King of Babylon. I confeſs he did ſo for a time, Jer 27. 7 but do you make appear if you can, that he put the Engliſh Nation into a condition of Slavery to Charles Stuart for a minute. I confeſs he ſuffered them to be enſlaved by him for ſome time; but I never yet heard that himſelf appointed it ſo to be Or if you will have it ſo that God ſhall be ſaid to put a Nation under Slavery when a Tyrant prevails; why may he not as well be ſaid to deliver them from his Tyranny, when the People prevail and get the upper hand? Shall his Tyranny be ſaid to be of God, and not our Liberty? There is no evil in the City, that the Lord hath not done, Amos 3. So that Famine, Peſtilence, Sedition, War, all of them are of God; and is it therefore unlawful for a People afflicted with any of theſe Plagues, to endeavour to get rid of them? Certainly they would do their utmoſt, tho they know them to be ſent by God, unleſs himſelf miraculouſly from Heaven ſhould command the contrary: And why may they not by the ſame reaſon rid themſelves of a Tyrant, if they are ſtonger than he? Why ſhould we ſuppoſe his weakneſs to be appointed by God for the ruin and deſtruction of the Commonwealth, rather than the Power and Strength of all the People, for the good of the State? … be it from all Commonwealths, from all Societies of free-born men to maintain not only ſuch pernicious, but ſuch ſtupid and ſenſeleſs Principles; Principles that ſubvert all Civil Society, that to gratitie a few Tyrants, level all Mankind with Brutes; and by ſetting Princes out of the reach of humane Laws, give them an equal power over both. I paſs by thoſe fooliſh Dilemma's that you now make, which that you might take occaſion to propoſe, you feign ſome or other to aſſert that, that ſuperlative power of Princes is derived from the people; though for my own part I do not at all doubt but that all the power that any Magiſtrates have, is ſo. Hence Cicero in his Orat. pro Flacco, Our wiſe and holy Anceſtors, ſays he, appointed thoſe things to obtain for Laws, that the people Enacted. And hence it is that Lucius Craſſus, an Excellent Roman Orator, and at that time Preſident of the Senate, when in a Controverſie betwixt them and the common people, he aſſerted their rights, I beſeech you, ſays he, ſuffer not us to live in ſubjejection to any, but your ſelves, to the entire body, of whom we can and ought to ſubmit. For though the Roman Senate Govern'd the people, the people themſelves had appointed them to be their Governours, and had put that power into their hands. We read the term of Majeſty more frequently applied to the people of Rome, than to their Kings. Tully in Orat. pro Plancio, It is the condition of all free people, (ſays he) and eſpecially of this people, the Lord of all Nations, by their Votes to give or take away, to or from any, as themſelves ſee cauſe. '…is the duty of the Magiſtrates patiently to ſubmit to what the body of the people Enact. Thoſe that are not ambitious of Honour, have the leſs obligation upon them to Court the people; thoſe that affect Preferment, muſt not be weary of entreating them. Should I ſcruple to call a King the ſervant of his people, when I hear the Roman Senate, that reign'd over ſo many Kings, profeſs themſelves to be but the peoples ſervants? You'l object perhaps, and ſay, that all this is very true in a popular State; but the caſe was altered afterwards, when the Regal Law transferred all the people's right into Auguſtus and his Succeſſors. But what think you then of Tiberius, whom your ſelf confeſs to have been a very great Tyrant, as he certainly was; Suetonius ſays of him, that when he was once called Lord or Maſter, though after the Enacting of that Lex Regia, he deſired the perſon that gave him that appellation, to forbear abuſing him. How does this ſound in your ears? a Tyrant thinks one of his Subjects abuſes him in calling him Lord. The ſame Emperour in one of his Speeches to the Senate, I have ſaid, ſays he, frequently heretofore, and now I ſay it again, that a good Prince whom you have inveſted with ſo great power, as I am entruſted with, ought to ſerve the Senate, and the body of the people, and ſometimes even particular perſons; nor do I repent of having ſaid ſo: I confeſs that you have been good and juſt, and indulgent Maſters to me, and that you are yet ſo. You may ſay that he diſſembled in all this, as he was a great Proficient in the art of Hypocriſie; but that's all one. No man endeavours to appear otherwiſe than he ought to be. Hence T…itus tells us, that it was the cuſtom in Rome for the Emperours in the Circus, to worſhip the people; and that both Nero and other Emperours practiſed it. Claudian in his Panegyrick upon Honorius mentions the ſame cuſtom. By which ſort of Adoration what could poſſibly be meant, but that the Emperours of Rome, even after the Enacting of the Lex R…gia, confeſſed the whole body of the people to be their Superiors? But I find, as I ſuſpected at firſt, and ſo I told ye, that you have ſpent more time and pains in turning over Gloſſaries, and Criticiſing upon Texts, and propagating ſuch like Laborious trifles, than in reading ſound Authors ſo as to improve your knowledg by them. For had you been never ſo little verſed in the Writings of Learned men in former ages, you would not have accounted an opinion new, and the product of ſome Enthuſiaſtick heads, which has been aſſerted and maintained by the greateſt Philoſophers, and moſt famous Politicians in the world. You endeavour to expoſe one Martin, who you tell us was a Taylor, and one William a Tanner; but if they are ſuch as you deſcribe them, I think they and you may very well go together; though they themſelves would be able to inſtruct you, and unfold thoſe myſterious Riddles that you propoſe: as, Whether or no they that in a Monarchy would have the King but a ſervant to the Commonwealth, will ſay the ſame thing of the whole body of the people in a popular State? And whether all the people ſerve in a Democracy, or only ſome part or other ſerve the reſt? And when they have been an Oedipus to you, by my conſent you ſhall be a Sphinx to them in good earneſt, and throw your ſelf headlong from ſome precip…ce or other, and break your neck; for elſe I'm afraid you'l never have done with your Riddles and Fooleries. You ask, Whether or no, when St. Paul names Kings, he meant the people? I confeſs St. Paul commands us to pray for Kings, but he had commanded us to pray for the people before, verſ. 1. But there are ſome for all that, both among Kings and common people, that we are forbidden to pray for; and if a man muſt not ſo much as be prayed for, may he not be puniſhed? What ſhould hinder? But, when Paul wrote this Epiſtle, he that reigned was the moſt profligate perſon in the world. That's falſe. For Lodovicus Capellus makes it evident, that this Epiſtle likewiſe was writ in Claudius his time. When St. Paul has occaſion to ſpeak of Nero, he calls him not a King but a Lion, that is, a wild, ſavage beaſt, from whoſe Jaws he is glad he was delivered, 2 Tim. 4. So that it is for Kings, not for beaſts that we are to pray, that under them we may live a quiet and a peaceable life, in all godlineſs and honeſty. Kings and their Intereſt are not the things here intended to be advanced and ſecured; 'tis the publick peace, Godlineſs and honeſty, whoſe eſtabliſhment we are commanded to endeavour after, and to pray for. But is there any people in the world that would not chuſe rather to live an honeſt and a careful life though never free from War and troubles, in the defence of themſelves and their Families, whether againſt Tyrants or Enemies, (for I make no difference) than under the power of a Tyrant or an enemy to ſpin out a life equally troubleſome, accompanied with Slavery and Ignominy? that the latter is the more deſirable of the two, I'le prove by a Teſtimony of your own, not becauſe I think your authority worth quoting, but that all men may obſerve how double-tongu'd you are, and how Mercenary your Pen is: Who would not rather, ſay you, bear with thoſe diſſentions that through the emulation of great men often happen in an Ariſtocratical Government, than live under the Tyrannical Government of one, where nothing but certain miſery and ruin is to be look'd for? The people of Rome prefer'd their Commonwealth, though never ſo much ſhatter'd with Civil broils, before the intollerable yoke of their Emperours. When a people to avoid ſedition, ſubmits to a Monarchy, and finds by experience, that that is the worſe evil of the two, they often deſire to return to their former Government again. Theſe are your own words, and more you have to this purpoſe in that Diſcourſe concerning Biſhops, which under a feigned name you wrote againſt Petavius the J…ſuit; though your ſelf are more a J…ſuit than he, …ay worſe than any of that Crew. We have already heard the ſenſe of the Scripture upon this Subject; and it has been worth our … to take ſome pains to find it out. But perhaps it will not be ſo to enquire into the Judgments of the Fathers, and ranſack their Volumes; for if they aſſert any thing which is not warranted by the word of God, we may ſafely reject their authority, be it never ſo great; and particularly that expreſſion that you alledg out of Irenaeus, that God in his Providence orders it ſo, that ſuch Kings reign as are ſuitable to, and proper for the people they are to Govern, all Circumſtances conſidered. That expreſſion, I ſay, is directly contrary to Scripture. For though God himſelf declared openly that it was better for his own people to be Governed by Judges than by Kings, yet he left it to them, to change that form of Government for a worſe, if they would themſelves. And we read frequently, that when the body of the people has been good, they have had a wicked King, and contrariwiſe that a good King has ſometimes reign'd when the people have been wicked. So that wiſe and prudent men are to conſider and ſee what is profitable and fit for the people in general; for it is very certain that the ſame form of Government is not equally convenient for all Nations, nor for the ſame Nation at all times; but ſometimes one, ſometimes another may be more proper, according as the induſtry and valour of the people may increaſe or decay. But if you deprive the people of this liberty of ſetting up what Government they like beſt among themſelves, you take that from them, in which the life of all Civil Liberty conſiſts. Then you tell us of Juſtin Martyr, of his humble and ſubmiſſive behaviour to the Antonini, thoſe beſt of Emperours; as if any body would not do the like to Princes of ſuch moderation as they were. How much worſe Chriſtians are we in theſe days, than they were? They were content to live under Prince of another Religion. Alas! They were private perſons, and infinitely inferior to the contrary party in ſtrength and number. But now Papiſts will not endure a proteſtant Prince, nor Proteſtants one that is Popiſh. You do well and diſcreetly, in ſhowing your ſelf to be neither Papiſt nor Proteſtant. And you are very liberal in your conceſſions; for now you confeſs that all ſorts of Chriſtians agree in thrt very thing, that you alone take upon you with ſo much impudence and wickedneſs, to cry down and oppoſe. And how unlike thoſe Fathers that you commend, do ye ſhow your ſelf? They wrote Apologies for the Chriſtians to Heathen Princes; you in defence of a wicked Popiſh King, againſt Chriſtians and Proteſtants. Then you entertain us with a number of impertinent quotations out of Athenagoras and Tertullian: Things that we have already heard out of the Writings of the Apoſtles, much more clearly and intelligibly expreſt. But Tertullian was quite of a different opinion from yours, of a King's being a Lord and Maſter over his Subjects: Which you either knew not, or wickedly deſſembled. For he, though he were a Chriſtian, and directed his diſcourſe to a Heathen Emperor, had the confidence to tell him, that an Emperor ought not to be called Lord. Auguſtus himſelf, ſays …e, that formed this Empire, refus'd this appellation: 'Tis a Title proper to God only. Not but that the Title of Lord and Maſter may in ſome ſenſe be aſcribed to the Emperor: But there is a peculiar ſenſe of that word, which is proper to God only; and in that ſenſe, I will not aſcribe it to the Emperor. I am the Emperor's free-man. God alone is my Lord and Maſter. And the ſame Author, in the ſame Diſcourſe; how inconſiſtent, ſays he, are thoſe two Appellations, Father of his Countrey, and Lord and Maſter? And now I wiſh you much jo… ▪ of Tertullian's authority, whom it had been a great deal better you had let alone. But Tertullian calls them Parricides that ſlew Domitian. And he does well, for ſo they were, his Wife and Servants conſpir'd againſt him. And they ſet one Parthenius and Stephanus, who were accus'd for concealing part of the publick Treaſure, to make him away. If the Senate, and the people of Rome had proceeded againſt him, according to the cuſtom of their Anceſtors, had given Judgment of Death againſt him, as they did once againſt Nero, and had made ſearch for him to put him to Death; do ye think Tertullian would have called them Parricides? If he had, he would have deſerv'd to be hang'd, as you do. I give the ſame anſwer to your quotation out of Origen, that I have given already, to what you have cited out of Irenaeus. Athanaſius indeed ſays, that Kings are not accountable before humane Tribunals. But I wonder who told Athanaſius this? I do not hear that he produceth any authority from Scripture, to confirm this aſſertion. And I'le rather believe Kings and Emperors themselves, who deny that they themſelves have any ſuch Priviledg, than I will Athanaſius. Then you quote Ambroſius, who after he had been a Proconſul, and after that became a Catechumen, at laſt got into a Biſhoprick: But for his authority, I ſay, that his Interpretation of thoſe words of David, againſt thee only have I ſinued, is both ignorant and adulatory. He was willing all others ſhould be enthrall'd to the Emperor, that he might enthral the Emperor to himſelf. We all know with what a Pap…l pride and arrogancy he treated Theodoſius the Emperor, how he took upon him to declare him guilty of that … at Theſſ…lonica, and to forbid him coming into the Church; how miſerably raw in Divinity; and unacquainted with the Doctrine of the Gospel, he ſhewed himſelf upon that occaſion; When the Emperor fell down at his feet, he commanded him to get him out of the Porch. At laſt, when he was received again into the Communion of the Church, and had offered, becauſe he continued ſtanding near to the …, the Magiſterial Pielate commanded him out of the ra…s; O Emperor, ſays he theſe inner places are for the Prieſts only, 'tis not lawful for others to come within them! Does this ſound like the behaviour of a Miniſter of the Goſpel, or like that of a Jewiſh High-Priest? And yet, this man, ſuch as we hear he was, would have the Emperor ride other people that himſelf might ride him, which is a common trick of almoſt all Eccleſſiasticks.. With words to this purpoſe, he put back the Emperor as inferior to himſelf: You r…over men, ſaid he, that are partakers of the ſame Nature, and Fellow-servants with your ſelf: For there is one only Lord and King over all, to wit, the Creator of all. This is very pretty! This piece of truth, which the craft and flattery of Clergy-men has all along endeavoured to ſuppreſs and obſcure, was then brought to light by the furious paſſion, or to ſpeak more mildly, by the ignorant indiscr…t zeal of one of them. After you have diſpla…'d Ambroſe his ignorance, you ſhow your own, or rather, vent a Hereſie, in affirming point blank, That under the old Teſtament, there was no ſuch thing as forgiveneſs of ſins upon the account of Chriſt's ſufferings, ſince David confeſs'd his tranſgreſſion, ſaying, Againſt thee only have I ſinned, P. 68. 'Tis the Orthodox tenet, that there never was any remiſſion of ſins, but by the blood of the Lamb that was ſlain from the beginning of the world. I know not whoſe Diſciple you are, that ſet up for a broacher of new Hereſies: but certain I am, that that great Divine's Diſciple whom you are ſo angry with, did not miſtake himſelf, when he ſaid that any one of David's Subjects might have ſaid, againſt thee only have I ſinned, as properly, and with as much right, as David himſelf. Then you quote St. Auguſtine, and produce a company of Hipponenſian Divines. What you alledg out of St. Auſtin, makes not at all againſt us. We confeſs that, as the Prophet Daniel has it, it's God that changeth times, ſets up one Kingdom, and pulls down another; we only deſire to have it allow'd us, that he makes uſe of men as his Inſtruments. If God alone gave a Kingdom to King Charles, God alone has taken it from him again, and given it to the Parliament, and to the People. If therefore our Allegiance was due to King Charles, becauſe God had given him a Kingdom; for the ſame reaſon it is now due to the preſent Magiſtracy. For your ſelf confeſs, that God has given our Magiſtra es ſuch power as he uſeth to give to wicked Princes, for the puniſhment of the Nation. And the conſequence of this will be, that according to your own opinion, our preſent Magiſtrates being rais'd and appointed by God, cannot lawfully be depoſed by any, but God himſelf. Thus you overthrow the opinion you pretend to maintain, which is a thing very frequent with …; Your Apology for the King, carries it's deaths-wound in it. You have attained to ſuch a prodigious degree of Madneſs and Stupidity, as to prove it unlawful upon any account whatſoever, to lift up ones finger againſt Magiſtrates, and with the very next breath, to affirm that it's the duty of their Sujects to riſe up in Rebellion againſt them. You tell us that St. Jerom calls Ismael that ſlew Gedalia, a Parricide or Traytor: And it is very true, that he was ſo: For Gedalia was Deputy Governour of Judaea, a good man, and ſlain by Ismael without any cauſe. The ſame Author in his Comment upon the Book of Eccleſiaſtes, ſays, that Solomon's command to keep the King's Commandment, is the ſame with St. Paul's Doctrine, upon the ſame ſubject; And deſerves commendation for having made a more moderate Conſtruction of that Text, than moſt of his Contemporaries. You ſay you will forbear enquiring into the Sentiments of Learned Men that lived ſince St. Auguſtine's time; but to ſhew that you had rather diſpence with a lie, than not quote any Author that you think makes for you, in the very next period but one, you produce the Authorities of Iſidore, Gregory, and Otho, Spaniſh and Dutch Authors, that liv'd in the moſt barbarous and ignorant ages of all; whoſe Authorities, if you knew how much we deſpiſe, you would not have told a lye to have quoted them. But would you know the reaſon why he dares not come ſo low as to the preſent times? Why he does as it were hide himſelf, and diſapear, when he comes towards our own times? The reaſon is, Becauſe he knows full well, that as many Eminent Divines as there are of the Reformed Church, ſo many Adverſaries he would have to encounter. Let him take up the Cudgels, if he thinks fit; he will quickly find himſelf run down with innumerable Authorities out of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, Paraeus, and the reſt. I could oppoſe you with Teſtimonies out of Divines that have flouriſhed even in Leyden. Though that famous Univerſity and Renowned Commonwealth, which has been as it were a Sanctuary for Liberty, thoſe Fountains and Streams of all Polite Learning, have not yet been able to waſh away that ſlaviſh ruſt that ſticks to you, and infuſe a little humanity into you. Finding your ſelf deſtitute of any aſſiſtance or help from Orthodox Proteſtant Divines, you have the impudence to betake your ſelf to the Sorboniſts, whoſe Colledge you know is devoted to the Romiſh Religion, and conſequently but of very weak authority amongſt Proteſtants. We are willing to deliver ſo wicked an aſſertor of Tyranny as you, to be drown'd in the Sorbon, as being aſham'd to own ſo deſpicable a ſlave, as you ſhow your ſelf to be, by maintaining that the whole body of a Nation is not equal in power to the moſt slothful, degenerate Prince that may be. You labour in vain to lay that upon the Pope, which all free Nations, and all Orthodox Divines own and aſſert. But the Pope and his Clergy, when they were in a low condition, and but of ſmall account in the world, were the firſt Authors of this pernicious abſurd Doctrine of yours; and when by preaching ſuch Doctrine they had gotten power into their own hands, they became the worſt of Tyrants themſelves. Yet they engaged all Princes to themſelves by the cloſeſt tye imaginable, perſwading the world, that was now beſotted with their Superſtition, that it was unlawful to Depoſe Princes though never ſo bad, unleſs the Pope diſpenſed with their Allegiance to them, by abſolving them from their Oaths. But you avoid Orthodox Writers, and endeavour to burden the truth with prejudice and calumny, by making the Pope the firſt aſſertor of what is a known and common received opinion amongſt them; which if you did not do it cunningly, you would make your ſelf appear to be neither. Papiſt nor Proteſtant, but a kind of a Mongrel Idumean Herodian. For as they of old adored one moſt inhumane bloody Tyrant for the M…ſſias, ſo you would have the world fall down and worſhip all. You boaſt that you have confirm'd your opinion by the Teſtimonies of the Fathers that flouriſhed in the four firſt Centuries; whoſe Writings only are Evangelical, and according to the truth of the Chriſtian Religion. This man is paſt all ſhame! how many things did they preach, how many things have they publiſhed, which Chriſt and his Apoſtles never taught? How many things are there in their Writings, in which all Proteſtant Divines differ from them? But what is that opinion that you have confirm'd by their Authorities? Why, that evil Princes are appointed by God. Allow that, as all other pernicious and deſtructive things are. What then? why, that therefore they have no Judge but God alone, that they are above all humane Laws, that there is no Law, written or unwritten, no Law of Nature, nor of God, to call them to account before their own ſubjects. But how comes that to paſs? Certain I am, that there is no Law againſt it: No Penal Law excepts Kings. And all reaſon and juſtice requires, that thoſe that offend, ſhould be puniſhed according to their deſerts, without reſpect of perſons. Nor have you hitherto produced any one Law, either written or unwritten, of God or of Nature, by which this is forbidden. What ſtands in the way then? why may not Kings be proceeded againſt? why, becauſe they are appointed by God, be they never ſo bad. I do not know whether I had beſt call you a …, or a Fool, or ignorant, unlearned Barbarian. You ſhow your ſelf a vile wretch, by propagating a Doctrine ſo deſtructive and pernicious; and y'are a Fool for backing it with ſuch ſilly arguments. God ſays in Iſa. 54. I have created the slayer to deſtroy. Then by your reaſon a murderer is above the Laws. Turn this topſie turvy, and conſider it as long as you will, you'l find the conſequence to be the ſame with your own. For the Pope is appointed by God, juſt as Tyrants are, and ſet up for the puniſhment of the Church, which I have already demonſtrated out of your own Writings; and yet, ſay you, Wal. Meſ. pag. 42. Becauſe he has raiſed his Primacy to an inſufferable height of power, ſo as that he has made it neither better nor worſe than plain down-right Tyranny, both he and his Biſhops may be put down more lawfully than they were at firſt ſet up. You tell us that the Pope and the Biſhops (though God in his wrath appointed them), may yet lawfully be rooted out of the Church, becauſe they are Tyrants; and yet you deny that 'tis lawful to depoſe a Tyrant in the Common wealth, and that for no other reaſon than becauſe God appointed him, though he did it in his anger. What ridiculous ſtuff this is! for whereas the Pope cannot hurt a man's Conſcience againſt his own will, for in the Conſciences of men it is that his Kingdom conſiſts, yet you are for depoſing him as a grievous Tyrant, in whoſe own power it is not, to be a Tyrant; and yet you maintain that a Tyrant properly and truly ſo called, a Tyrant that has all our Lives and Eſtates within his reach, without whoſe aſſiſtance the Pope himſelf could not exerciſe his Tyranny in the Church, ought for Conſcience ſake to be born withal and ſubmitted to. Theſe aſſertions compar'd with one another betray your Childiſhneſs to that degree, that no man can read your Books, but muſt of neceſſity take notice of your ignorance, raſhneſs, and incogitancy. But you alledg another reaſon, Humane affairs would be turn'd upſide down. They would ſo, and be chang'd for the better. Humane affairs would certainly be in a deplorable condition, if being once troubled and diſorder'd, there were a neceſſity of their continuing always ſo. I ſay, they would be chang'd for the better; for the Kings power would revert to the people, from whom it was firſt derived and conferred upon one of themſelves; and the power would be tranſferred from him that abuſed it, to them that were prejudiced and injured by the abuſe of it; than which nothing can be more juſt; for there could not well be an Umpire in ſuch a caſe; who would ſtand to the judgment of a Foreigner? all mankind would equally be ſubject to the Laws; there would be no gods of fleſh and blood. Which kind of Deities whoever goes about to ſet up in the world, they are equally injurious to Church and Commonwealth. Now I muſt turn your own weapons upon you again. You ſay, There can be no greater Hereſie than this, to ſet up one man in Chriſt's ſeat. Theſe two are infallible marks of Antichriſt, Infallibility in Spirituals, and Omnipotence in Temporals. Apparat. ad Prim pag. 171. Do you pretend that Kings are infallible? If you do not, why do you make them Omnipotent? And how comes it to paſs that an unlimited power in one man ſhould be accounted leſs deſtructive to Temporal things, than it is to Eccleſiaſtical? Or do you think that God takes no care at all of Civil affairs? If he takes none himſelf, I'm ſure he does not forbid us to take care which way they go. If he does take any care about them, certainly he would have the ſame reformation made in the Commonwealth, that he would have made in the Church; eſpecially it being obvious to every mans experience that Infallibility and Omnipotency being arrogated to one man, are equally miſchievous in both. God has not ſo modelled the Government of the World as to make it the duty of any Civil Community to ſubmit to the Cruelties of Tyrants, and yet to leave the Church at liberty to free themſelves from Slavery and Tyranny; nay, rather quite contrary, he has put no Arms into the Churches hand but thoſe of Patience and Innocence, Prayer and Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline; but the Commonwealth, all the Magiſtracy are by him entruſted with the preſervation and execution of the Laws, with the power of puniſhing and revenging; he has put the Sword into their hands. I cannot but ſmile at this mans prepoſterous whimſies; in Eccleſiaſticks he's Helvidius, Thraſeas, a perfect Tyrannicide. In Politicks no man more a Lackey and Slave to Tyrants than he. If his Doctrine hold, not we only that have depos'd our King, but the Proteſtants in general, who againſt the minds of their Princes have rejected the Pope, are all Rebels alike. But I've confounded him long enough with his own arguments. Such is the nature of the Beaſt: leſt his adverſary ſhould be unprovided, he himſelf furniſhes him with weapons. Never did any man give his Antagoniſt greater advantages againſt himſelf than he does. They that he has to do withal, will be ſooner weary of purſuing him, than he of flying.