The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3, Discourse 2 (3 of 4)

The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3 · Discourse 2 (3 of 4)

p. 1043. They muſt be ſubiected to, not reſiſted, becauſe Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil, v. 3. Now is this a reaſon why Subiects ſhould not reſiſt tyrannicall oppreſſing Princes, Magiſtrats, or their Inſtruments, who are only a terror to good works, not to evill? who dossPſal. 140. 1. Io. 60. Prov 1. 16. Mich. 2. 13. c. 3. 23. 1…. 3.Ps 140Prov 1:16Mic 2:13 evill and only evill continually, even with both hands? doubtleſſe not. We muſt not reſiſt Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evill; Ergo, we muſt not reſiſt Rulers, who are a terror to good works, not to evill, as our Oppoſites conclude hence, is to argue poi… blank againſt the Apoſtle; Ergo, we may and muſt p. 105reſiſt them to our powers, leſt we be ttRom. 1. 31. 32. 1 Tim. 5. 22 2 Iohn 10. 11. Rev. 18 4.Rom 1:31Rom 1:321 Tim 5:22Rev 18:4partakers of their ſinnes and puniſhments, and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths ſubverſion, is a more proper inference.

Fourthly, the Apoſtle ſubjoynes this argument againſt reſiſtance. Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power? doe that which is good, and thou ſhalt have praiſe of the ſame, Verſ. 3. That power is not to bee reſiſted, which wee need not be afraid of, and of whom we ſhall have prayſe whiles we doe that which is good: But this onelyonly can bee intended of a lawfull power juſtly executed; not of Tyrants, or their ill Miniſters bent with force of armes to ruine Religion, Lawes, Liberties,; who onelyonly terrifie, diſgrace, diſcountenance thoſe that are good; applaud, advance none but thoſe who are evill, and as Micah writes, Chap. 3. 2. 3. Love the evill and hate the good, and pluck off their skin from off them, and their fleſh from off their bones, &c. Therefore this inhibition of reſiſtance extends onelyonly to lawfull Magiſtrates, not to ungodly oppreſſing Tyrants.

Fiftly, he is not to be reſiſted, but obeyed; becauſe he is the Miniſter of God to thee for good, Verſ. 4. But is this true of Tyrants? of ungodly Magiſtrates bent to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and deſtroy their people? True ofuuSee Suetonius, Eutropius, Zonaras, Grimſton and others in their lives. Caligula, of Nero, who wiſhed all the Romans had but one necke, that he might cut them all off at one ſtroke; and purpoſely fired Rome to conſume it, beholding the flames as a moſt delightfull ſpectacle? Are ſuch the Miniſters of God for our good here intended? or not rather,xxSee Seneca de Clem. l. 1. Hoſea 13. 11.Hos 13:11 the very Peſts, Judgements, Scourges, Wolves, Cut-throats, deſtroyers of mankind, and direct Antinodes to all things that are good? If theſe be not within the Apoſtles definition, they are without his inhibition; which extends onelyonly to ſuch, who are the Miniſters of God to us for good: and implies a lawfulneſſe of reſiſting thoſe who are the Devils Miniſters to us for evill, rather then Gods for good.

Sixtly, He ſubjoynes this further reaſon of obedience and not reſiſtance, Verſ. 5. But if thou doſt that which is evill be afraid; for he beareth not the Sword in vaine; for hee is the Miniſter of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evill; which no wayes ſuites with a Tyrant bent to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties: For he ſecures all evill men, eſpecially thoſe who are inſtrumentall to advance his cruelty, and oppreſſions; gives liberty to all manner of wickedneſſes, Proclaimes impunity to his ill inſtruments, knowing that of the Poet to be true; yyLucan. d. Bello Civili. l. 8. p. 141.Libertas ſcelerum eſt quae Regna inviſa tuetur, &c. He beareth the ſword not onelyonly in vaine, in reference to any good end, for the promoting of Gods glory and the publike good; but likewiſe draweth it forth, and uſeth it directly againſt both;zzSee Fox Acts and Monuments throughout. And is ſo farre from being a Miniſter of God, or revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill, that he is the very Miniſter of the Devill, aaApolog. c. 5. and Seneca devita beaia, c. 24.Tertullian, Nihil niſi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum. This reaſon then extends onelyonly to righteous Governours, in their execution of juſtice upon wicked malefactors wherein they muſt not be reſiſted; Not to bloody, graceleſſe, lawleſſe Tyrants and their inſtruments, who by the rule of contraries may and ought to be reſiſted in their cruelties, oppreſſions, impieties.

Seventhly, the Apoſtle hereupon concludes, Verſ. 5. Wherefore you muſt of neceſſity be ſubject not onelyonly for wrath, but alſo for conſcience ſake. This concluſion as the word, Wherefore, demonſtrates, being inferred from the premiſed reaſons, extending onelyonly to page missing p. 108extends to all civill Magiſtrates, as well inferiour and ſubordinate, as ſuperiour, (and many ſticke not to ſtraine it even to Eccleſiaſticall ones) So Origen, Ambroſe, Hierome, Remigius, Theodulus, Chryſoſtome, Theodoret, Primaſius, Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Haymo, Aquinas, Anſelm, Lyra, Bruno, Gorran, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Toſtatus, Luther, Calvin, Eraſmus, Melanchthon, Gualther, Muſculus, Bucer, Hemingius, Ferus, Fayus, Soto, Alexander Aleſius, Peter Martyr, Pareus, Beza, Piſcator, Zuinglius, Tollet, Willet, Wilſon, Nacclantus, Snecanus, Vignerius, Wenerichius, Winckelman, Eſtius, Faber, Cornelius a Lapide, Salmeron, Catharinus, Guilliandus, Adam Sasbout with ſundry others. This then being irrefragable, hereby it is moſt apparent; Firſt, that no reſiſtance of the higher powers is here prohibited, but onelyonly in the due and legall execution of their offices: For if any inferiour Officers illegally indeavour to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and unrightly governe the people, they may lawfully be reſiſted by them: For example, if a Maior, Juſtice of Peace, Conſtable or other officer; extravagating from the common courſe of Law and Juſtice; ſhall with force of armes in a riotous manner aſſault any private man, or the whole Citie or Village where he lives, to beate, wound, kill, plunder, diſpoſſeſſe the inhabitants of their houſes, goods, franchiſes, or aſſault them on the highway ſide, to take away their purſes; in theſe and ſuch like caſes, both in point of Law and conſcience he may not onelyonly be forcibly reſiſted, but repulſed, apprehended, battered, if not lawfully ſlaine by the people, and proceeded againſt as a delinquent: The reaſon is, becauſe theſe illegall unjuſt actions, are not onelyonly beſides, without their Commiſſions, but directly contrary to their offices, and the Lawes, which never gave them authority to act ſuch injuſtice: yet they are higher Powers ordained of God, within this Text, and no way to be reſiſted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law. If then theſe inferiour Officers may be thus forcibly reſiſted, repulſed, notwithſtanding this Text, in ſuch caſes as theſe; then by the ſelfe ſame reaſon Kings and Emperours may bee thus reſiſted too; ſince the Text extends indifferently to them both. Let then the objectors take their choyce; either affirme, that no inferiour lawfull Officers whatſoever, may be forcibly reſiſted, by the people, or repulſed, arraigned cenſured for their miſdemeanour, by vertue of this Text; which would bring an abſolute Tyranny, Anarchy and confuſion preſently into the world, and make every Conſtable as great a Tyrant, Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks; or elſe confeſſe, that this Text condemnes not ſuch reſiſtance, even of Kings and Princes, when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and ruine the republike; ſince it makes no diſtinction at all betweene the ones power and the others; but equally enjoynes ſubjection, prohibits reſiſtance unto both; and that onelyonly in juſt adminiſtration of their ſeverall authorities, not in the arbitrary unjuſt proſecutions of their wils and luſts.

Secondly, it followes, that the Kings Souldiers, Cavaliers and Forces now raiſed againſt Law, and armed onelyonly with illegall Commiſſions voyd in Law, as I have proved; are none of the high powers ordained of God, nor lawfull Rulers or Magiſtrates within the meaning of this Scripture; and ſo the forcible reſiſting of them, and of the Kings illegall commands and deſignes executed by them, is no reſiſtance of the higher powers here prohibited.

Thirdly, that the Houſes of Parliament being in truth the higheſt powers ordained of God in this Realme, and their juſt legall Ordinances, Votes, Forces, for the p. 109neceſſary defence of Lawes, Liberties, Religion, againſt the Kings ill Counſellors, and Malignant Popiſh Forces, neither may, nor ought in conſcience to be reſiſted by the King himſelfe, or any of his Subjects, Souldiers, under the perill of that damnation mentioned in this Chapter.

For the ſecond, Queſt. 2.Whether the Roman Emperor in Pauls time was the higheſt Soveraign power in the Roman State, or not? It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other aaDoctor Ferne, Appeale to thy conſcience; The neceſſity of ſubjection.oppoſites, that he was, as a thing paſt doubt, the Senate and people (as they ſay) having reſigned up their power to the Emperour. But this no doubt is a groſſe errour, (which I have largely refuted in the Appendix, and therefore ſhall be the briefer here) derived from ſome civill Lawyers; who out of Juſtinian. Digeſt. lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Inſtit. Tit. 2. falſly affirme, that Lege Regia; by the regall Law the Senate and people tranſferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperour. For firſt the Senate and people (as Albericus Gentilis well obſerves) did not by this Law give the Emperour all power and command to diſpoſe of them, or the lands and revenues of the Empire, as he pleaſed; but onelyonly to governe them according to their Lawes, as men; not to ſlay and alienate them as beaſts. Thus reaſon dictates, ſo the words of the Law ſound.ccAlci. l. 3. de V. ſ. l. 35. & de P…. Divines are deceived, Lawyers flatter, who perſwade, that all things are lawfull to Princes, and that their power is higheſt and free. It is ridiculous to affirme, that abſolute power over the ſubjects belongs to Popes; which belongs not to the Emperours themſelves over the Italians, from whom they derive it. Imagine therefore that the Emperour had a power never ſo free, yet it is not of dominion, but of adminiſtration.ddL. 7. de Don. l. 1. quae res, p. 1. da. ob. non. poſ. l. 8. qui mo piſo l. 17. pro. Empt. And he who hath but a free adminiſtration hath not the power of donation.^e A gardian is then reputed in ſtead of a Lord, cum tutelam adminiſtrat, non cum pupillum ſpoliat; when he rightly adminiſters his tutelage, not when he ſpoyles his pupill. So Gentilis. If then the Emperours had onelyonly a free legall adminiſtration, not an abſolute dominion; granted them by the people, then this ſoveraigne power ſtill reſided in the Senate and people, as Juſtinian Digeſt. lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origine Juris, will ſufficiently manifeſt: Secondly, ffCommon-weale, l. 2. c. 5. p. 221.John Bodin a learned Civilian clearely proves: That the Roman Emperors were at the firſt; nothing elſe but Princes of the Commonweale, The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE, and THE SENATE: So that this Common-wealth was then to have beene called a Principality; although that Seneca ſpeaking in the perſon of Nero his Scholler, ſaith. I am the onelyonly man amongſt living men, elect and choſen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth: I am the Arbitratour of life and death; I am able of my pleaſure to diſpoſe of the ſtate and quality of every man. True it is, that he tooke upon him this Soveraigne authority, by force wreſted from the people and Senate of Rome, (therefore not freely given him by any Law) but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT, the State being but a very principalitie WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY. In which caſe, THERE IS NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFULL to proceede againſt a Tyrant by way of juſtice, if ſo men may prevaile againſt him: or elſe by way of fact,ggSucionius, Zona…as, Grimſton, Eutropius, Sab…llicus, Op…neerus, and others in his life. and OPEN FORCE, if they may not otherwiſe have reaſon; As the Senate did in the firſt caſe againſt NERO: and in the other againſt Maximinus. So Bodin, who directly reſolves, that even in Nero his raigne when this Epiſtle was written, the higheſt ſoveraigne power was not in the Emperour, but in the Senate and people: who notwithſtanding this objected Text, had no doubt a lawfull Right, not onelyonly to reſiſt Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force, but likewiſe judicially to arraigne p. 110and condemne him even to death, as they did, for his publike crimes. Now that the Soveraigne higheſt Power remained in the Senate and people notwithſtanding this Lex Regia, Marius Salamonius (an incomparable learned Roman Civilian) hath largely proved in his ſix Bookes De principatu (purpoſely written to refute the contrary common error) where he writes, Firſt, that the Roman Emperors were created and conſtituted onelyonly by the Senat and people; and that the Creature ſhould be ſuperiour to the Creator, the child to the parent, is abſurd. Secondly, that the Emperours were but the Senates and peoples publike ſervants; therefore they were their Lords; and not inferiour, but ſuperiour to their ſervants. Thirdly, that they were ſubordinate and inferiour to the Lawes made by the Senate and people; and bound by all their Lawes, but ſuch as the Senate and people did by ſpeciall Acts exempt them from. Fourthly, that the people and Senate did by ſpeciall Lawes create, limit, hhMarius Salamonius de Principatu, l. 6. p. 122. to 126.enlarge or abridge their Emperours power and juriſdiction, as they ſaw cauſe, giving ſometimes more or leſſe juriſdiction to one Emperour then another: which they could not juſtly doe, were they not the higheſt Soveraigne power. Finally he proves it by the very Lex Regia it ſelfe; which becauſe rare and unknowne to moſt, I ſhall here recite, to informe and reforme our ignorant Court Doctors, Lawyers, with Salamonius his obſervations from it. Lex Regia, was not onelyonly one ſingle Law: There was not one Law for all Emperours, but it was revived for every Emperour, yet not with the ſame conditions. The braſſe Table which yet hangeth in the Lateran Church, proves that the Royall Law was accuſtomed to be altered in every Princes reigne AT THE PLEASVRE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE; for it is part of the Royall Law of the Empire of Veſpatian, that it ſhould be altered: which had beene voyd, if from the beginning of the Empire a perpetuall Law had beene made for all ſucceſſors; the words of the Law are theſe.

;Faeduſve cum quibus volet facere, ita ut licuit Divo Auguſto, Tyber. Julio Caeſari Aug. Tyherioque Claudio, Julio Caeſari Aug. Germanico.

Vtique eum Senatum habere, relationem facere, remittere Senatus conſulta, per relationem, diſceſſionemque facere liceat, ut licuit Divo Auguſto, Tiberio, Julio Caeſari Auguſto, Tyberio, Claudio Caeſari Auguſto Germanico.

Vtique quum ex voluntate, auctoritateue, juſſu, mandatione ejus, praeſenteve eo Senatus habebitur, omnium rerum jus perinde habeatur, ſervetur, ac ſi…e lege Senatus edictus eſſet, habereturque.

Vtique Coſſ. Magistratus poteſtatem, imperium, curationemve cuivis rei petenti Senatui populoque Romano commendaverit, quibuſve ſuff…agationem ſuam dederit, promiſerit, eorum Comitiis quibuſque extra ordinem, ratio habeatur.

Vtique ei fines pomaerii proferre, procurare, cume Rep. cenſebit eſſe, liceat; uti licuit Tiberio, Claudio Caeſari, Auguſto Germanico.

Vtique quaecunque ex uſu Reip. majeſtate divinar: humanar: publicar: privatarumque rerum eſſe cenſebit, ea agere, facere jus, poteſtaſque ſit, ita uti Divo Aug. Tyberioque, Julio Caeſari Aug. Tyberioque Claudio Aug. Germanico fuit.

Vtique quibus legibus, Plebiſve ſcitis ſcriptum fuit, ne Divus Auguſtus Tyberiuſve, Jul. Caeſ. Aug. Tyberiuſve, Claudius Caeſ. Aug. Germanicus tenerentur; his Legibus Plebiſque ſcitis Imp. Aug. Veſpatianus ſolutus ſit; quaeque ex quaque Lege, Rogatione Divum Aug. Tyberiumve, Iul. Caeſarem Aug. Tyberiumve, Claudium Caeſ. Aug. Germanicum facere p. 111oportuerat, ea omnia Imperatori Caeſari Veſpatiano Aug. facere liceat.

Vtique quae ante hanc legem rogatam, acta, geſta, decreta, imperata, ab Imp. Caeſare Veſpatiano Auguſto, juſſù, mandatuve ejus a quoque ſunt, ea perinde juſta rata ſint, ac ſi populi plebiſve juſſù acta eſſent. Sanctio. Si quis hujuſce legis ergo adverſus leges, rogationes, plebiſve ſcita, ſenatuſue conſulta fecit, feceritve, ſive quod cum ex lege, rogatione, plebiſve ſcito, ſenatuſve conſulto facere oportebit, non fecerit, hujus legis ergo, id ei ne fraudi eſto, neve quid ob eam rem populo dari debeto, neve de ea re cui, actioneve judicato eſto, neve quis de ea re apud eum agi ſinito.

This Law firſt ſhewes, that there was not one royall Law made for all Emperors, but that for every ſeverall Emperour ſeverall Lawes were neceſſary, containing the conditions whereupon the Principalitie was collated by the Roman people: For to Veſpatian, it appeares power was granted, of enlarging or ſetling the bounds, as it was granted to Germanicus, but not to other Princes. And in the laſt Chapter but one, which ſaith: And by thoſe things which by any Law, &c. it is lawfull to doe; a larger power is given to Veſpatian then to the forenamed Emperours; and that they ought to doe ſome things, which Veſpatian ought not to doe by Law. Likewiſe by theſe words; Vtique quibus legibus, &c. ſolutus ſit: it appeares that Veſpatian was not freed from all Lawes, nor yet the Emperour before him. Likewiſe out of the Chapter where it ſaith, Ex uſu Reip. Majeſtate, &c. it is evident that not an abſolute free adminiſtration of things was committed to the Emperours, but onelyonly ſuch as was uſefull, that is, which ſhould be for the profit and honour of the republike: whence is inferred, that thoſe things which were not for the benefit and honour of the Commonweale, Emperors had no right nor power to doe. And in the laſt Chapter is perſpicuouſly ſet downe THAT SUPERIOUR POWER OF THE PEOPLE, GREATER THEN THE PRINCIPALITY IT SELFE. How then doth Vlpian ſay, the Prince is looſed from Lawes? he ſaith not from all Lawes: verily that he was exempt from many is no doubt, &c. (yet it was by a ſpeciall clauſe in the Lex Regia.) This and much more Salamonius. All which conſidered, will infallibly evidence, the Roman Senate and People to be the higheſt power in Pauls time, not the Emperour; who even at this day (asiiCommonweale l. 2 c. 5. Bodin proves) is inferiour to the Germane States, who are the Soveraigne power: when King Henry the fourth of France, Anno 1600. uſed this ſpeech to the Duke of Savoy; kkGenerall Hiſtory of France, p. 965.If the King of France would be ambitious of any thing greater then his Crowne, it might be an Empire, but not in the eſtate that it is now, the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice; the ſoveraingty (writes the Hiſtorian in the Margin) remaining in the States of the Empire.

All that is objected againſt the premiſes, is that paſſage of Tertullian,Object. much inſiſted on: Colimus ergo & Imperatorē ſic,llAd Scapulam, lib. p. 163. Objected by, The neceſſity of Subjection, and others. quomodo & nobis licet, & ipſi expedit, ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM; & quicquid eſt à Deo conſecutum, SOLO DEO MINOREM. Hoc et ipſe volet: Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST, DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic & ipſis Diis major eſt, dum & ipſi in poteſte ſunt ejus, &c.

To which I anſwer,Anſw. that theſe words onelyonly prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the higheſt Officer and Magiſtrate under God, of any one particular perſon; not that he was the Soveraigne higheſt power above the Senate and people collectively conſidered: And the occaſion of theſe words will diſcover the Authors intention p. 112to be no other: which was this. The Chriſtians in that age were perſecuted and put to death by Scapula Preſident of Carthage, to whommmRhenani Annot. Ibid. Tertullian writes this Booke, becauſe they refuſed to adore the Emperour for a God, to ſweare by his Genius, and to obſerve his ſolemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner; as is evident by the words preceding this paſſage: Sic & circa Majeſtatem Imperatoris infamamur, &c. and by ſundry notable paſſages in his Apologeticus. In anſwer to which accuſation Tertullian reaſons in the Chriſtians behalfe; that though they adored not the Emperour as a God; yet they reverenced him as a man next under God; as one onelyonly leſſe then God; as one greater then all others, whiles leſſe onelyonly then the true God, and greater then the Idol Gods themſelves, who were in the Emperours power, &c. Here was no other thing in queſtion; but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God? not, whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greateſt higheſt Soveraigne power? And the anſwer being, that he was but a man next under God, above any other particular officer in the Roman State; is no proofe at all, that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively conſidered, or of greater Soveraigne power then they; which the premiſes clearely diſprove. Adde; that this Father in his Apologie thus cenſures the Pagan Romans for their groſſe flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods, appliable to our preſent times; Siquidem majore formidine & callidiore timiditate Caeſarem obſervatis, quam ipſum de Olympo Jovem, &c. adeo & in iſto irreligioſi erga dees veſtros deprehendimini, cum plus timoris, humano Domino dicatis; citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos, quam per unum genium Caeſaris pejeratur. Then he addes, Intereſt hominis Deo cedere; ſatis habeat appellari Imperator: grande & hoc nomen eſt, quod a Deo tradetur: negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit; niſi homo ſit, non eſt imperator. Hominem ſe eſſe etiam triumphans in illo ſublimiſſimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ci a tergo, Reſpice poſt te; hominem memento te. Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta ſe gloria coruſcare, ut illi admonitio conditionis ſuae ſit neceſſaria. Major eſt qui revocatur ne ſe deum exiſtimet. Auguſtus imperii formator, ne Dominum quidem dici ſe volebat: et hoc enim Dei eſt cognomen. Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum, ſed more communi, ſed quando non cogor, ut Dominum Dei vice dicam. Concluding thus: Nullum bonum ſub exceptione perſonarum adminiſtramus, &c. lidem ſumus Imperatoribus qui & vicinis noſtris. Male enim velle, male facere, male dicere, male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur, Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem, id nec in quenquam: quod in neminem, eo forſitan magis nec in ipſum qui per deum tantus eſt, &c. From which it is evident, that the Chriſtians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet, and deemed they might not reſiſt them onelyonly in ſuch caſes where they might reſiſt no others, and ſo by conſequence lawfully reſiſt them, where it was lawfull for them to reſiſt other private men who did injuriouſly aſſault them.

If then the Roman Emperors were not the higheſt Soveraigne power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epiſtle, but the Roman Senate and State, as I have cleared: and if the Parliament, not the King, be the ſupremeſt Soveraigne power in our Realme, as I have abundantly manifeſted; then this objected Text (ſo much inſiſted on by our oppoſites) could no wayes extend to the Roman Senate, State, or our Engliſh Parliament, who are the very higher powers themſelves, and proves moſt fatall and deſtructive to their cauſe of any other, even by their owne Argument, which I ſhall thus doubly diſcharge upon them.

Firſt, that power which is the higheſt and moſt ſoveraigne Authority in any State p. 113or kingdome by the Apoſtles and our Antagoniſts owne doctrine, even in point of conſcience, neither may, nor ought in what caſe ſoever (ſay our oppoſites) to be forcibly reſiſted, either in their perſons, ordinances, commands, inſtruments, offices, or Armed Souldiers, by any inferiour powers, perſons or ſubjects whatſoever, eſpecially when their proceedings are juſt and legall, under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation. But the Senate among the Romans, not the Emperour; and the Parliament in England, not the King, really were and are the higher Powers and moſt ſoveraigne Authority. Therefore by the Apoſtles own Doctrine even in point of conſcience, they neither may nor ought to be diſobeyed or forcibly reſiſted in any caſe whatſoever, either in their Perſons, Ordinances, Commands, Inſtruments, Officers, or Armed Souldiers, by the King himſelfe, his Counſellors, Armies, Cavaliers, or by any inferiour powers, perſons, or Subjects whatſoever, eſpecially when their proceedings are juſt and legall, (as hitherto they have beene) under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation. I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beſhrew themſelves that ever they medled with this Text, and made ſuch a halter to ſtrangle their owne treacherous cauſe, and thoſe who have taken up armes in its defence.

Secondly, that Power which is ſimply higheſt and ſupreame in any State, may lawfully with good conſcience take up Armes to reſiſt or ſuppreſſe any other power, that ſhall take up armes to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the Republike, or the juſt Rights and Priviledges of the Subject, or of this higher power. This is our oppoſites owne argumentation. Therefore the Parliament being in verity the higheſt ſupreame Power in our State, may lawfully with good conſcience take up Armes to reſiſt or ſuppreſſe his Majeſties Malignant, Popiſh Forces, or any other power which already hath, or hereafter ſhall be raiſed to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the Republike, juſt Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, or the Subjects; and every man with ſafe conſcience may chearefully ſerve in ſuch a warre, upon the Parliaments encouragement or command, without guilt of treaſon, or rebellion either in Law or Conſcience.

For the third Queſtion;Queſt. 3. Whether Tyrants or unjuſt oppreſſing Magiſtrates, as they are ſuch, be within the intendment of this Text, and not to be reſiſted in any caſe? I have fully cleared this before from the occaſion, ſcope and arguments uſed in this Chapter; that they are not within the compaſſe of this Text; as they are ſuch, and may be reſiſted in their Tyranny and oppreſſions notwithſtanding this inhibition; I ſhall not repeat, but onelyonly fortifie this Poſition with ſome new reaſons and authorities.

Firſt then, that which is not the ordinance of God, but rather of the Devill, and the meere ſinne and enormity of the Governour himſelfe, not of the Government, is not within the intention of this Text, and may lawfully bee reſiſted without any violation of it. But Tyrants and unjuſt oppreſſing Magiſtrates as they are ſuch, arennSee Mich. 3. 1. to 5. Iſay 3. 4, 5. Zeph. 3, 3. Ezech. 45. 8, 9.Mic 3:1–5Isa 3:4Isa 3:5Zeph 3:3Ezek 45:8Ezek 45:9 not Gods ordinance, but rather the Devills, and their Tyranny and oppreſſion is onelyonly the ſinne and enormity of the Governours themſelves, not of the government; A truth granted by all men: Therefore they are not within the compaſſe of this Text, and may lawfully be reſiſted without any violation of it.

Secondly, that which is no point of the Magiſtrates lawfull power ordained of God, but diametrally repugnant to it, cannot be within the meaning of this Text, p. 114and may lawfully be reſiſted; but the tyranny, oppreſſion, rapine, and violence of lawleſſe Kings and Magiſtrates are ſuch, as all muſt and doe acknowledge. Ergo, they are not within the verge and compaſſe of this Text, and may lawfully bee reſiſted.

Thirdly, all powers intended in the Text, are not only ordained, but ordered of God, that is,ooIn Rom. 13. Col 1266. Willet. on Rom. 13. queſt. 6. p. 583.Rom 13 Paraeus with others obſerve) they are circumſcribed & bounded with certain Rules or Lawes of juſtice and honeſty, within which they muſt containe themſelves, elſe they exorbitate from Gods ordinance when they paſſe beyond theſe limits, and become none of Gods; This the Greeke word foreign, (which Arias Montanus and others render, ordinatae, and the Margin of our Engliſh Bibles, are ordered of God;) doth ſufficiently warrant being coupled with the ſubſequent limitations; For rulers are not a terrour to good workes, but to evill, &c. they are Gods Miniſters attending continually on this very thing. Now the Tyranny and oppreſſion of Kings and other Rulers, are meere exorbitances, arbitrary illegall actions, exceeding the bounds of juſtice and honeſty preſcribed by the Lawes of God and men. Therefore not within the limits of this Text, and reſiſtible.

Fourthly, it is generally accorded by all Commentators, that though the lawfull power of Princes or other Magiſtrates degenerating unto Tyrants, be of God, and not to be reſiſted; yet the Tyranny it ſelfe, and abuſe of this power is of Satan, not of God, and the vice of the perſons onelyonly, not of the Power it ſelfe; whence they conclude, that Tyrants are not within the meaning of this Scripture. So Origen, Paraeus, Willet, with moſt others on this Text; and Zuinglius moſt expreſly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complaines, that many Tyrants, cheate, ſteale, rob, ſlay, plunder, and attempt any thing againſt their ſubjects to oppreſſe them; aſſuming a pretext and vayle of their malice from this Text of Paul. Yea Dominicus Soto, Cajetan, Pererius, and other Popiſh commentators on this place obſerve; that Paul addes this Epithet, of higher or excelling powers (omitted by him in other parallel Texts) of purpoſe to exclude Tyrants, who are no excelling Lords, nor lawfull Powers; reigning oft times by Gods permiſſion for the peoples puniſhment; not by his ordination for their good: and blame Bueer for ſaying, that Tyrants power is from God, as if he were ths author of ſinne and Tyranny.

This then fully anſwers that abſurd errour of DoctorppSect. 2. Ferne, wherein all his force is placed: That the Power in Pauls dayes which he here prohibits to reſiſt, were ſubverters of that which was good; and the Roman Emperors Tyrants: where he ſottiſhly confounds the tyranny, luſts, and vices of the Emperors perſons, which were deteſtable, with their power it ſelfe, which was good and commendable; as if the Imperiall power it ſelfe was ill, becauſe Nero was ill, and was qqGrimſton, Suetenius, Eutropius, Zonaras, Volaterranus, Speed and others in his life.therefore juſtly condemned to death by the Roman Senate, as a publike enemy to the Roman State, though they approved and continued his juſt Imperiall principality, which laſted in ſucceſſion for many hundred yeares after his cenſure, death. To which I ſhall onelyonly adde; that though Nero himſelfe were a Tyrant, yet the Roman Senate, and all their Inferiour Offices were not Tyrants; many of them, no doubt, being juſt and upright Magiſtrates. The Precept therefore being thus in the generall, and the plurall number, Let every ſoule be ſubject unto the higher powers; nor perſonall; let them be ſubject to Nero; or ſpeciall, to the Roman Emperour (whom Paul no doubt would haverrAs he doth Phil. 4. 22. Act. 25. v. 10, 11, 12. c. 26. 32. c. 28. 19. See Matth 22. 17. 2…. Luk. 2. 1. c. 23. 2. Acts 11. 28. c. 17. 7.Phil 4:22Acts 25:10Acts 25:11Acts 25:12Matt 22:17Matt 22:2Luke 2:1Acts 11:28 ſpecified, had he ſpecially intended them, as our oppoſites fondly dreame;) we may ſafely conclude, that the Apoſtle intended it onelyonly of lawfull powers and Magiſtrates, not of Nero p. 115or other Tyrants: And writ this to Chriſtians onelyonly, to whom he dedicates this Epiſtle, witneſſe Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God, called to be Saints, &c. not to Pagan Romans, as the Doctor dreames, to whom he writes not; much leſſe to the Roman Senate, who were then the ſoveraigne power; and therefore could bee ſubject to no other but themſelves. Precepts of obedience to children and Servants, concerne not parents and maſters as ſuch, in point of ſubmiſſion or obedience.

For the fourth Quere:Queſt. 4. Whether Kings and Kingdomes be Gods ordinance; or an inſtitution Jure divino, not a humane ordinance, inſtituted Jure humano? or, how farre divine or humane? Is a neceſſary conſiderable queſtion grounded on this Text, and very needfull to be diſcuſſed to cleare the preſent controverſie.

Some of our oppoſites are ſo intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy, as they confidently ssDoctor Ferne, Sect. 2. 3 Appeale to the Conſcience, p. 11. …0 15. The neceſſitie of ſubjection. Chriſtus Dei, p. 11. 12. with others.determine; hat the efficient cauſe of royall Monarchicall power is onelyonly God; not the people. That Kings receive no power or regall Authority from the people, but from God alone; That the power of Kings is not a humane, but a divine power, of which God onelyonly is the efficient cauſe. That the people doe not make the King, but God properly and abſolutely; this power, right and authority he hath from God. That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of truſt, but from God, from whom he hath his kingdome and power, ſo that by Idolatry and oppreſſion, he breakes not the truſt repoſed in him by his Subjects, becauſe the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE, but God onelyonly, &c. For proofe whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reigne, Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and ſetteth up Kings, Dan. 4. 17. 25. The moſt high ruleth in the kingdome of men, and giveth it to whomſoever he will; and ſetteth up over it the baſeſt of men, with Hoſ. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 1. Jer. 27. 5, 6, 7. Iſay 45. 1, 2. and other Texts.

To anſwer this queſtion diſtinctly,Anſw. and diſſipate theſe groſſe erroneous Paradoxes; we muſt diſtinguiſh:

Firſt, betweene, Government it ſelfe in generall, and kingly or other kindes of government, in ſpeciall, (as our oppoſites diſtinguiſh betweene, a Sabbath, and the Sabbath; the firſt they ſay is morall and of divine inſtitution, the later not.)

Secondly, betweene the Regall power of Kings, the perſons inveſted with this power, the manner of obtaining, and the adminiſtration of their power.

Thirdly, of Gods manner of inſtituting and ordaining things; which is twofold, immediately by himſelfe, mediately by others. And theſe inſtitutions of both kinds are either univerſall, extending to all places, Nations; or particular, concerning ſome Countries, and Nations onelyonly, and not others; Perpetuall for ever, or temporall onelyonly for ſome ſet time: Immutable, not capable of the leaſt alteration; or mutable, and that either at the pleaſure of God onelyonly; or at the will of men, when they ſhall ſee juſt cauſe, either in part or in whole.

Fourthly, in what ſeverall ſenſes things may be ſaid to be of God. Firſt, in reſpect of his owne immediate inſtitution. Secondly, of his generall or ſpeciall commands. Thirdly, of his generall or ſpeciall diſpoſing providence, without any ſpeciall inſtitution or command. Fourthly, of his approbation of, aſſent unto, and bleſſing on the meere inſtitutions of men. Fiftly, of his permiſſion onelyonly.

To apply theſe diſtinctions to the preſent occaſion.

Firſt, it is cleare, that power and government in generall are Gods owne inſtitution; who as he hath appointed (in the great fabricke of the world a ttGen. 1. 16. 18. 28. 29 30. Jer. 31. 35, 36. Pſal. 136. 8, 9.Gen 1:16Gen 1:18Gen 1:28Gen 1:29Jer 31:35Jer 31:36Ps 136:8Ps 136:9certaine conſtant p. 116forme of government and ſubordination of one creature to another) ſo he hath for the good of mankinde, appointed that there ſhould be ſome forme of government or other among men in the world; which in reſpect of families hee hath ſpecially and univerſally decreed,uuGen. 3. 16. Exod. 20. 12. Epheſ. 6. 1, 2. 5. c. 5. 22. 24. Col. 3. 23. to 25. c. 4. 1, 2. 1 Tim. 6. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2. 18. c. 3. 1, 2, 3.Gen 3:16Exod 20:12Eph 6:1Eph 6:2Eph 6:5Col 3:23–251 Tim 6:11 Tim 6:21 Pet 2:18 as that the wife ſhould be ſubject to the husband, the children to the parents, the ſervants to their maſters; but in regard of Commonweales, or Nations, hee hath left it arbitrary and indefinite, leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect ſuch a publike politike forme of government, as themſelves ſhould judge moſt expedient for their publike good, and that mutable (ſince all humane things are ſo) as they ſhould ſee juſt occaſion, not preſcribing any ſempiternall, immutable forme of government to any particular Nations, Regions, much leſſe to all the world.

Secondly, government in generall being thus of God, but the kindes of it thus left arbitrary to mens inſtitution and free election; the particular governments inſtituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives, the preſervation of humane ſociety, and advancement of Gods glory, may be truely ſaid in ſome ſenſe to be of God, though inſtituted, invented by men. Not becauſe God himſelfe did immediately ordain or preſcribe them by ſpeciall command to all, or any one people: or becauſe God himſelf did immediately ordaine or preſcribe them by ſpeciall command to this, all, or any one people: but becauſe hee by his generall or ſpeciall providence did direct this Nation to make choyſe of ſuch a government, or gave them wiſedome to invent and ſettle it, as moſt commodious for their republike, till they ſhould ſee cauſe to alter it: or becauſe he bleſſed and approved it, when invented and received by them.

Thirdly, Kingly powers, Kingdomes, Kings (the things now in queſtion) are, and may be ſaid to be of God, and ordained of God, in no other manner or ſenſe, then all other particular Governments or Magiſtrates are. For this Text of the Romans, ſpeaking onelyonly of the higher powers, the powers that are, and of Rulers; as doth that place of Titus 3. 1. And the Text of Prov. 8. 15, 16. (ſo much relied on by the objectors) extending as well to all ſubordinate Rulers as Kings; witneſſe the ſubſequent words, By me Kings reigne, and Princes decree juſtice: by me Princes rule AND NOBLES, yea ALL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH; (that is, all Magiſtrates whatſoever) it cannot but be yeelded; that all and every lawfull kinde of government, all lawfull Rulers and Magiſtrates of what fort ſoever are of Gods ordination, and his ordinance, as farre forth as Monarchies are; and what is truely affirmable of the one, is of the other too.

Theſe generalls thus premiſed as indubitable; I ſay firſt of all: That Monarchy or regall power is not of God, nor yet Gods ordinance by way of immediate divine inſtitution or ſpeciall command from Gods owne free motion, as our oppoſites affirme it.

For firſt, God himſelf never immediately inſtituted a royall Monarchicall government in any Nation whatſoever, no not among his owne people; whoſe government was at firſtyyJoſepbus Antiq. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. Carolus Sigonius de Repub. Hecraeorum. l. 7. c. 5. Paternall and Patriarchicall; next Ariſtocraticall; then Regall; not by Gods immediate institution and voluntary deſignation; but by the peoples earneſt importunity, contrary to the good liking of God and Samuel, as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8, and 9, and 10, and 11. Hoſ. 8. 4. and the Appendix.

Secondly,zzAriſtot. Polyt. l. 3. & 5. Polib. Hiſt. l. 6. Juſt. in Hiſt. l. 1. Caſſanaeus Catalog. Gloriae Mundi pars, 5. Conſid. 1. Philochius Archilacus de Somnio Viridarii, c. 171. Forteſcue c. 9. 13. 15. Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour, part. 1. c. 2, 3, 4, 5. All Politicians, and Hiſtorians grant, that the originall crection of all Monarechies was either by the peoples free conſent and ordination; or by Tyranny and uſurpation; or p. 117be conqeſt; none by divine inſtitution or ſpeciall command from God: And it muſt needs be ſo, becauſe moſt aaGen. 14. 1 Sam. 8. 5. Seldens Titles of Honour, part 1. c. 1. 2. See the Appendix.Gen 141 Sam 8:5kingdomes were primitively erected, either among Pagan Nations and States, who knew not God nor his Word, or among Christian States ſince ſpeciall commands and Revelations from heaven ceaſed: which if our oppoſites deny; I ſhall deſire them to inſtance in any one Monarchy in the world, inſtituted immediately by God himſelfe, or by ſpeciall command from his owne free motion: Till this be done, all their aſſeverations will be accounted fabulous.

Thirdly, if Regall power be Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate inſtitution and command; then this inſtitution of Regall Monarchy, with the ſeverall Prerogatives, and boundaries of it, would appeare in ſome Text of Scripture, and this government would be ſpecially and perpetually preſcribed either to all, or ſome particular Nations by God himſelfe. But this inſtitution, with the generall Prerogatives and bounds of Regall Authority, are no where extant in Scripture, neither this forme of government therein preſcribed, but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular, for ought any man can demonſtrate. Thoſe Texts which concerne the Kings of the Iſraelites in point of ſoveraignty, and Prerogative, being judiciall onelyonly, and peculiar to that Nation, nor morall, or extending unto others. Therefore it is not Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate inſtitution, or command.

Fourthly, if it were of divine ordination in this ſenſe; then the Regall power and authority of all Kings and Monarchs in the world ſhould bee equall, yea the very ſame; and there ſhould be no different kinde of Kings; as the divine authority of all Miniſters (being of Gods owne inſtitution by one and the ſame commiſſion) is one and the ſame: But the regall power and juriſdiction of all Kings and Monarchies in the world is not equall nor the ſame; for ſome have farre greater authority then others; there are many different ſorts of Kings in the world, ſome onelyonly annuall, others for life, others hereditary, others at will, depoſible at the peoples pleaſures when ever they offended, (Such were the Kings of the bbProcop. Vand. l. 1.Vandalls in Africk, of the ccAmmon. l. 2. c. 2. l. 4. c. 25. Hugo Grotius de Jure Belli. l. 1. c. 3. c. 58. 72.Gothes in Spaine; cum ipſos deponerent populi quoties diſplicuiſſent: ſuch the Kings of the Heruli (Procopius, Gothicorum) Of the Lombards, Paulus Warnafredi, l. 4. & 6. Of the Burgundians, Ammianus, 11. lib. 28. Of the Moldavians, Laonichus Chalcocandylas; the King of Agadis among the Africans, Joannis Leo, lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Jazyges (in excerptis Dionis) with ſundry others hereafter mentioned.) Some elective, others ſucceſſive, ſome conditionall, others abſolute, as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix. Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors ſenſe.

Fiftly, If Kings were of divine ordination in this ſenſe, then their kingdomes and people upon their Elections, Inſtitutions and Coronations could not juſtly preſcribe any conditions, oathes or covenants to them, upon promiſe of performance whereof they onelyonly accept of them to be their Kings, refuſing elſe to admit them to reigne over them; and ſuch conditions, oathes, covenants, would be meere nullities, ſince men have no power at all to detract from Gods owne divine inſtitutions, or to annex any conditions or reſtrictions to them. But our Antagoniſts themſelves dare not averre, that Kingdomes and Nations upon their Kings Coronations, Inſtitutions and elections may not lawfully preſcribe conditions, oathes, and limitations to them, upon promiſe of performance whereof they onelyonly ſubmitted p. 118to them as their Soveraignes, it being the received practiſe of our owne, of all or moſt other Kingdomes whatſoever,eeSee Part 1. p. 51 to 76. Edi…. 2. eſpecially elective ones, and confirmed by divine Authority, 2 Chron. 10. 1. to 19. Therefore they are not of divine inſtitution in the objected ſenſe.

Sixthly, AllffBracton l. 3. c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 5. 17. See here, p. 5. & part 1. p. 88. Lawyers and moſt Orthodox Divines determine, that Kings have no other juſt or lawfull royall Authority, but that which the Lawes and cuſtomes of their Kingdomes allot them, and that the Law onelyonly makes them Kings, from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and ceaſe to be Kings. Their Royall authority therefore is of humane inſtitution properly, not Divine; from their people, who both elect, conſtitute them Kings, and give them all their regall Authority by humane Lawes enacted, not from God as the onelyonly efficient cauſe.

Seventhly, All Kingdomes, Monarchies, Policies, are mutable and variable in themſelves, while they continue ſuch; yea, temporary and alterable into other formes of Government by publicke conſent, if there be juſt cauſe; without any immediate command or alteration made by God himſele, or his divine authority: There being no poſitive Law of God confining any Nation, (whoſe humane earthly condition is ſtill variable) to a Monarchicall or any other conſtant forme of government only, much leſſe for perpetuity without variation. Therefore, they are not of divine inſtitution in this ſenſe.

Eightly, St. Peter expreſſely defines Kings and Monarchies, in reſpect of their inſtitution, to be humane creatures, or inſtitutions, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your ſelves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords ſake; whether it be to the King, as ſupreame, &c. And they are common to Pagans who know not God, as well as to Chriſtians. Therefore, they are not ſimply divine, but humane Ordinances.

Ninethly, Our Antigoniſts will yeeld, that other formes of Government, whether Ariſtocraticall, Oligarchicall, Democraticall, or mixt of all three, are not abſolutely and immediately of divine inſtitution; nor yet Dukes, Principalities, with other inferior Rulers, though the Apoſtle in this Text makes them all equally Gods Ordinance, and Divine. Therefore Monarchy, Kings and Kingdomes are not ſo.

Tenthly, The very Text it ſelfe ſeemes to intimate, that Royalties and higher powers are not of God, by way of originall or immediate inſtitution, or command: for the Apoſtle ſaith not; that all powers whatſoever were originally inſtituted and ordained by God himſelfe; but, There is no power but of God; The powers that be, are (not were at firſt) ordained (or rather, ordered) of God: that is; where powers and Governments are once erected by men, through Gods generall or ſpeciall providence, there God approves and orders them for the good of men.

2. If Monarchies, and Kings themſelves be not of divine inſtitution, and Gods ordinance in the former ſenſe, as is moſt apparent: & Ariſtotle, Plato, all Politicians grant; Then they are ſo onelyonly in ſome other ſenſe, in what I ſhall truely informe you.

Firſt, They are of God, and his Ordinance, by way of imitation, as derived from Gods owne forme of Government, which is Monarchicall; Whence he is called, ggPſal. 86. 10 Deut. 32. 39. Iſa. 37. 16. c. 44 6. 1. Cor. 8 4. Epheſ. 4. 6.Ps 86:10Deut 32:39Isa 37:161 Cor 8:4Eph 4:6The only God, God alone, hh1 Tim. 6. 15 6. 15. Rom. 17. 14. c. 19. 16. Deut. 10. 17.1 Tim 6:15Deut 10:17the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

Secondly, By way of approbation; HeiiDeut. 17. 14. 15, 16. 1 Sam. 8. 22. 2 Sam. 7. 12.Deut 17:14Deut 17:15Deut 17:161 Sam 8:222 Sam 7:12 approves and allowes this kinde of Government where it is received, as well as other formes.

Thirdly, by way of direction, he gives divers generall kk2 Sam. 23. 3, 4. 1 King 11 11. 38 2 Chro. 9, 8. Prov. 31. 42 Sam 23:32 Sam 23:41 Kgs 11:111 Kgs 11:382 Chr 9:8Prov 31:4rules and directions to p. 119Kings (and to other Rulers and Magiſtrates alſo as well as them) in his ſacred word how they ought to demeane themſelves, towards him and their Subjects; and likewiſell1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Pet 2. 13, 14. Rom. 13. 1 to 7. Tit 3. 1.1 Tim 2:11 Tim 2:21 Pet 2:131 Pet 2:14Rom 13:1–7Titus 3:1 to Subjects, how they ſhould carry themſelves towards their Kings; and all other Rulers and Governours temporall or ſpirituall: in which ſenſe they may be properly ſaid, to be ordered and ordained too, of God.

Fourthly, By way of ſpeciall providence and incitation; God excites and moves ſome people to make choyce of Kings, and Monarchicall formes of Government, rather than others; and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others, yea his providence mightily rules and ſwayes in the changes, the elections, actions, counſels, affaires of Monarchies, Kingdomes, Kings, States, to order them for his own glory, the Kings, the Subjects good or ill, in wayes of Juſtice or Mercy; as is evident by Dan. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. Hoſ. 13. 11. Jer. 27. 5, 6, 7. Iſa. 45. 1, 2, 3. c. 10. 5. to 20. Pſal. 110. 5. Pſal. 113. 7, 8. Job 12. 18. to 25. Dan. 5. 26. 28. The genuine drift of all theſe Texts.

Fifthly, Kings may be ſaid to be of God and his Ordinance, becauſe they, (and ſo all other Rulers, Judges, Magiſtrates as well as they, in reſpect of their repreſentation and the true end of Government) are ſaid to be Gods; to be Gods Miniſters and Vicegerents; to ſit upon Gods Throne, and ought to reigne, to judge for God, and to rule Gods people according to Gods Word, with ſuch juſtice, equity, integrity as God himſelfe would Governe them. Exod. 22. 28. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Rom. 13. 4, 5. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Pſal. 78. 72, 73, 74 2 Sam. 5. 2. Prov. 8. 15, 18. Pſal. 82. 1. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Iſa. 32. 1. c. 9. 7. c. 16. 5. Deut. 1. 17.

Sixthly, Ill Kings, and Tyrants, may be ſaid to be of God, by way of permiſſion, and of Ordination too, in reference to the peoples puniſhment, Job 34. 30. Hoſ. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 8. 18. In theſe regards (common to all other Governours and lawfull Governments, as well as Kings and Monarchies) Kings and Kingly Authority, are and may be ſaid to be of God, and Gods Ordinance; yet not immediately, or properly in the firſt acception, here refuted, but ſo as that ſtill they are really the inſtitutions and ordinances of men, of humane, not divine right, and authority.

As for the objected Scriptures to prove Kings jure Divino, Object.as Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reigne, &c. Ergo, they are of immediate divine inſtitution, and have all their authority from God, not from the people, and may in no caſe be reſiſted, cenſured, depoſed, or put to death for any miſdemeanours; the conſequences thence inferred.

I anſwer,Anſw. Firſt, That this Text ſpeakes onelyonly of the promotion or Reigne of Kings;mm2 Chro. 9. 8. Iſa. 32. 2 c. 16. 5.2 Chr 9:8Isa 32:2 not of the erections and power of Monarchies; and ſo doe Daniel 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. c. 5. 26. 28. with the other objected Scriptures.

Secondly, If it be meant of the rule of Kings; then true it is, that good Kings Reigne by Gods direction, according to his word, executing juſtice, and judgement, as he enjoynes them; But then it is not true of wicked Kings and Tyrants, who though they Reigne by Gods Providence or permiſſion, yet they rule not by his word and will as he preſcribes them.

Thirdly, If it be meant of the meanes and manner of Kings comming to their Kingdomes, as I conceive it is, and the Texts of Daniel perſwade:

True it is: firſt, That ſome Kings Reigned and came to the Crowne by Gods immediate p. 120nomination and deſignation, as Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Jehu, and Hazael did: But that all, or moſt did heretofore, or now doe ſo, eſpecially in Pagan Kingdomes, is a notorious falſhood.

Secondly, it is true, That moſt lawfull Kings in hereditary or elective Kingdomes, come to their Crownes, and Reigne; though not by Gods immediate nomination, yet by his ordinary or ſpeciall providence, (though it be untrue of Vſurpers, and Tyrants who come to Reigne by Treaſon, Murther, or other unlawfull meanes; and ſo by GodsllSee Doctor Willet, Paraeus, and others on Rom. 13.Rom 13 permiſſion onelyonly, rather than his providence: and then the ſenſe of the place is but this; That Kings receive their Crownes, and Reigne by Gods generall, or more ſpeciall providence: Which I thinke is the full and proper ſenſe of the place. In this ſenſe C. Plinius Secundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyrio to the Emperour Trajan, a Pagan, Rhetorizeth thus of him: Quid enim praeſtabilius eſt, aut pulchrius munus Deorum, quam caſtus & ſanctus & Diis ſimillimus Princeps? Ac ſi adhuc dubium fuiſſet ſorte caſuque Rectores terris, an aliquo numine darentur, Principem tamen noſtrum liqueret DIVINITUS CONSTITUTUM. Non enim occulta poteſtate fatorum, ſed ab Jove ipſo, coram ac palam repertus, electus eſt, &c. Which**Apologeticus. Tertullian thus ſeconds, ſpeaking even of the Roman Pagan Emperours. Inde eſt Imperator, unde & homo antequam Imperator; inde Poteſtas ei, unde & ſpiritus: Per Deum tantus eſt: So Irenaeus, Cujus juſſu homines naſcuntur, hujus juſſu & Reges conſtituuntur. And Diodorus Siculus of the AEgyptians; Exiſtimant non SINE DIVINA QUADAM PROVIDENTIA, perveniſſe ad ſummam de omnibus Poteſtatem: So the mmPorphyr.Eſſes, hold this opinion, Non obtingit cuiquam Imperium ſine Dei cura ſpeciali: So nnApud Caſſiodorwn.Vitigis, Omnis provectus, maxime Regius, ad Divinitatis munera referendus eſt: and Clemens ooApoſtol. conſtit. l. 7. c. 17.Romanus, too. Regem timeto, ſciens Domini eſſe electionem. Which Grotius de Jure Belli, l. 1. c. 3. ſect. 8. confirmes with other Authorities; all concurring in this, That Kings and Emperours are ſuch onelyonly by the ſelfe-ſame PROVIDENCE OF GOD, by which they were men before they were Emperours; which gives them no greater Prerogative in reſpect of irreſiſtibility in unjuſt exorbitant actions, then their being men, by the ſelfe-ſame providence of God, gave them before they were Emperours, as Tertullians words moſt clearely prove.

But what priviledge this alone ſhould yeeld to Kings, more than to any other Magiſtrates, Men or Beaſts, for my part I cannot yet diſcerne. For doth not the ſame Text ſay of Nobles, Princes, Judges, as well as of Kings, Prov. 8. 15, 16. By me Princes (put as contradiſtinct to Kings) decree juſtice; By me Princes Rule AND NOBLES, YEA ALL JUDGES OF THE EARTH? Doth not David ſay of all kinde of Promotions whatſoever, Pſal. 113. 7, 8. The Lord raiſeth the poore out of the duſt, and lifeteth the needy out of the dunghill; that he may ſet him with Princes, even with the Princes of his people? And Pſal. 75. 5, 6. Promotion commeth neither from the Eaſt, nor from the South; but God is the Judge; he putteth downe one and ſetteth up another? Nay, doth not Chriſt informe usppMat. 10. 29 30. Luk. 12. 6, 7Matt 10:29Luke 12:6Luke 12:7 That the very haires of our head are all numbred? That two ſparrowes are ſold for a farthing, and yet one of them ſhall not fall on the ground without our Fathers providence? Yea doth not every man, yea every Bird, Beaſt, Fiſh, Raven, and living creature whatſoever, (as the ScriptureqqPſal. 105. 27. to 32. Pſal. 145. 14, 15, 16. Pſal. 17. 27, 28.Ps 105:27–32Ps 145:14Ps 145:15Ps 145:16Ps 17:27Ps 17:28 expreſſely reſolves) receive, enjoy their Lives, Honours, Offices, Eſtates, food, rayment, being, preſervation, by Gods generall and ſpeciall providence, as well as Kings their Crownes, Honours, Lives, Eſtates?

p. 121And is not the providence, yea are not the very ooPſa. 307. Pſal 92. 11, 12. Act. 12. 7. to 18. Heb. 1. 14.Ps 92:11Ps 92:12Acts 12:7–18Heb 1:14Angels of God, who are all miniſtring ſpirits, ſent forth to miniſter to them who ſhal be heirs of ſalvation, as vigilant over every pious Chriſtian (though never ſo mean & deſpicable) as over the greateſt Monarch in the world? If ſo, as all men muſt neceſſarily acknowledge (there being ppRom. 2. 1. Acts 10 34. 1 Pet 1. 17. Deut. …0 17. Iob 34. 1…, 20. 2 Chron, 19. 7. Gal. 2. 6. Epheſ. 69 Col. 3. 25.Rom 2:1Acts 10:341 Pet 1:17Job 34:1Job 34:20Gal 2:6Col 3:25no reſpect at all of perſons with God, who accepts not the perſons of Princes, regards the rich no more then the poor, for they are all the work of his hands) then kings reigning by the Providence of God, can of it ſelf no more exempt them from reſiſtance, cenſures, deprivations, for their deteſtable publike crimes, then it exempts any other Nobles, Princes, Iudges, Magiſtrates, Chriſtians, or the meaneſt ſubiects whatſoever; which I ſhall make good by one more unanſwerable demonſtration. There is not one of our Antagoniſts but will acknowledge, that Prieſts under the Law, and all Ministers under the Goſpell, if rightly qualified, are not made only ſuch by Gods ſpeciall Providence, but likewiſe by Divine inſtitution from God himſelf; Nay, Tollet, qqQueſt. 4 on Rom. 13. p. 580. See Caſſanaeus, Catalogus Gloriae Mundi, pars 4. Conſid. 1. to 8.Rom 13Willet, and many others on this very Text of the Romanes, make a difference between the civill and Eccleſiaſticall Regiment and Powers: for the firſt (ſay they) is ſo from God, that yet the institution thereof may be deviſed and altered by man, and therefore Peter calls it, the Ordinance of man; but the ſpirituall Power is immediatelly instituted by God, and no wayes alterable or determinable by man: And therefore the Apoſtle ſaith Epheſ. 4. 11. He gave ſome to be Apoſtles, ſome Prophets, ſome Evangelists, &c. So that by their determination, Miniſters are more Gods Ordinance, and more jure Divino, then Kings; yea but few years ſince they all profeſſed themſelves to be as much, if not more, Gods anointed, then Kings; and ſome of our**Archbiſhop Laud and Neel, in the High Commiſsion and Starchamber. Archest Prelates made publike challenges in the open Court, That if they could not prove their Lordly Epiſcopacy to be Iure Divino, they would preſently burn their Rochets, and lay down their Biſhopricks; though they never made good their promiſes: & to doubt, whether the Pope and his ſupreme Authoritie be iure Divino by Chriſts own immediate institution, deſerves a fagot in the Roman Church: Yet notwithſtanding all this Divine Right and inſtitution, our Oppoſites will grant, That if Popes, Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Prieſts, Miniſters preach falſe Hereticall doctrines, oppreſſe, wound, ſlay, rob, plunder the people committed by God to their cares; or attempt with force to ſubvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or commit any capitall offences, they may not onelyonly with ſafe conſcience be reſisted, repulſed by their people, but likewiſe apprehended, arraigned, deprived, condemned, executed, by Lay Iudges, as infinite examples in our Hiſtories manifeſt, and the example of Abiathar the High Priest, 1 Kings 2. 26, 27 And if ſo, then why not Kings as well as they, or other temporall Magiſtrates, notwithſtanding any of the obiected Texts? Either therefore our Oppoſites muſt grant all Biſhops, Prieſts, Miniſters, yea, all other Magiſtrates whatſoever, as irreſiſtable, uncenſurable, undeprivable, uncondemnable, for any crimes whatſoever, as they ſay kings are, which they dare not do; or elſe make Kings as reſiſtable, cenſurable, deprivable, and lyable to all kindes of puniſhments, (by their whole Kingdoms conſent in Parliament) as far forth as they, notwithſtanding all the former Objections, which quite ſubverts their cauſe.

Thirdly, Kings and Kingdoms are not ſo Gods Ordinance, as that they ſhould be univerſall over all the world, and no other Government admitted; or ſo as any one Nation whatſoever ſhould be eternally tyed to a Monarchiall Government, without any power to alter it into an Ariſtocracy, or other form, upon any occaſion; or ſo as unalterably to continue the Soveraign power in one family alone, as not to be able p. 122to transfer it to another, when the whole State ſhall ſee juſt cauſe: Hereditary Kingdoms being but Offices of publike truſt for the peoples good and ſafety, as well as elective; moſt of them were elective at firſt, and**Foxius de Rege, &c. p. 17. Grotius de iure Belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 10. made hereditary onelyonly either by violent uſurpation, or the peoples voluntary aſſents and inſtitution, and not by any immediate divine Authority, and ſo alterable by their joynt aſſents, asssExplan. Artic. 42. Zuinglius, ttDe Iure Reg. apud Scotos.Buchanon, vvDe Rege & Regis Inſtit. l 1. c. 4. to 8.Mariana obſerve, and the Hiſtories of moſt Kingdoms, the experience of all ages evidence. Which truths being generally confeſſed by allxxArist Polit. l. 3. & 5. Polyb. Hiſt l. 6. Gen. Haeſt. of France, Spain, Hungary, Bohemia, England. Grotius de iure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. n. 7 Covaru. Quaest. Illuſtr. T. 2. 396, n. 2. 4. Vaſquries Contr. Illuſtr. 59. n. 8. 61. n. 22 100. n. 29. Hookers Eccleſ. Pol: l. 1. ſee. 10. p. 69. 70, 71. Polititians, Hiſtorians, Statiſts; by many judicious Divines, contradicted by no one text of Scripture that I have met with which our Oppoſites have objected hitherto, they will finde all Monarchies upon the matter, to be meer humane Inſtitutions, alterable ſtill by that humane Power which did at firſt erect them, and ſubordinate ſtill thereto, as the Creature to its Creator; and to be Gods Ordinance onelyonly in regard of ſpeciall providence, and the like, as other inferiour Magiſtrates, Rulers are, who may be juſtly reſiſted, altered, removed, cenſured, notwithſtanding the objected Text. From which whiles ſome men earneſtly preſſe, that every ſoul by Gods own Ordinance, ought to be ſubject to ſome publike civill power, (whichyySee Scripture and reaſon pleaded for defenſive Arms, p 30, 31, 32. others ſafely deny, fince the Patriarks, the firſt families of moſt Nations and Countries were not ſo, and all Nations, all people before ſetled publike governments, were erected, which in many places are not very ancient; ſince thoſe whoſe Parents are dead, and are not by them ſubjected to a Government, are naturally free; and none bound to part with their freedom to any other, unleſſe they ſee a neceſſitie, a great advantage, and that upon ſuch terms and conditions as they deem meet,) they involve even Kings and Emperours themſelves by Gods own Ordinance, in a ſubiection to a ſuperiour earthly civill power, to wit, to their Laws, Parliaments, Kingdoms, (which I have proved Paramount them, collectively conſidered) according to the common proverbezzSeneca Grotius de Iure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. ſect. 6. p. 84. Omne ſub Regno graviore Regnum eſt; and that ofaaEccles. 5. 8.Eccl 5:8 Solomon (concerning oppreſſing Kings and Judges) He that is higher then the Higheſt conſiders, and there be higher then they: And ſo make kings not onelyonly reſiſtble by their whole Kingdoms the ſupreme Soveraign power, but likewiſe ſubiect to their Realms ſuperiour commands, and uncapable to reſiſt their lawfull power and Forces even in point of Conſcience, by vertue of this very Text. And ſo much for the fourth Queſtion.

For the fifth and laſt,bbSee Paraeus, willet, Tollet, Soto, Marloras, and others on this Text. What kinde of reſiſtance of the Higher powers is here prohibited? I anſwer briefly, That reſiſtance is here forbidden, which is contrary to ſubiection or obedience, as the words, Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher Powers, coupled with the enſuing reaſon, Whoſoever therefore reſiſteth (that is, diſobeyeth, or is not ſubiect to) the Power, reſiſteth the Ordinance of God; and they that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. Queſt. 5.In the Greek there are two diſtinct words uſed, foreign, the Latine, Engliſh, French, Dutch uſe them both as one, without diſtinction: The firſt word ſignifies properly diſordered, counter-ordered, or ordered againſt, (as Paraeus, Willet, and others obſerve) and it is thus uſed by the Apoſtle, 2 Theſſ. 3. 6, 7, 11; or diſobedient, 1 Tim. 1. 9. The later word ſignifieth properly to reſiſt, withſtand, or oppoſe; in which ſence it is uſed, Matth. 5. 39. Luke 21. 1, 5. Act. 6. 10. Rom. 9. 19. Gal. 2. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 1. Hebr. 12. 4. Iam. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. 9. and applied indifferently both to a ſpirituall, corporall, and verball reſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, the Devill, or men: Since then the Apoſtle in this Text uſeth the Hebrew phraſe Soul, not Man, Let every Soul be ſubject to the Higher Powers; becauſe p. 123(as Haymo, Tollet, Willet, Soto, and moſt other Interpreters obſerve) weccIudg 5. 2. 9. 1 Cor. 2. 3. 12. 1 Cor. 9. 17. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Philem 14. 1 Chron. 29. 6. 9 14. 1 Tim. 6. 18. Exod. 35. 21, 22. 29. 1 Chron. 28, 9. Pſal. 100. 3.Judg 5:2Judg 5:91 Cor 2:31 Cor 2:121 Cor 9:171 Pet 5:2Phlm 1:141 Chr 29:61 Chr 29:91 Tim 6:18Exod 35:21Exod 35:22Exod 35:291 Chr 28:9Ps 100:3 ought willingly and cheerfully to ſubmit to the higher Powers, not only with our bodies, but ſoules and ſpirits too: I may hence cleerly inferre, that the reſiſtance of the higher Power hee prohibited as contrary to this ſubjection, is not only that which is corporall and violent by force of armes, as the Objectors gloſſe it; but that likewiſe which is verball, mentall, ſpirituall in the ſoule it ſelfe without the body, and no more then a meer paſſive reſiſtance, or not obeying: For not to doe what the higher Powers enjoyn, is in verity actually to reſiſt, to withſtand them; as not to doe the will, not to yeeld obedience to the motions, dictates of the Holy Ghoſt or devill is really to reſiſt them, even in Scripture phraſe: Yea, corporall reſiſtance or oppoſition by way of force is only an higher degree of reſiſtance, but not the onelyonly or proper reſiſtance here prohibited, which relates principally to the Soule and Spirit. For as corporall forced obedience againſt a mans will which ſtill holdsdd2 Cor. 9. 7.2 Cor 9:7 out, is no true obedience in the eſteem of God or men: and as the very eſſence, life of all outward obedience conſisteth eeSee (c) beſo. 2 Cor. 9. 13. 7. Rom. 12. 8. 11.2 Cor 9:132 Cor 9:7Rom 12:8Rom 12:11principally in the cheerfull ſubmiſſion or activity of the ſoule or will: So a forced corporall reſiſtance againſt the mind or conſcience, is in a manner no reſiſtance; and the very malignity, quinteſſence of all inward or outward reſiſtance, diſobedience, reſts only in the mind, ſoule, will; and is here principally forbidden, as is evident by the 5. verſe; Wherefore ye muſt needs be ſubject, not onelyonly for wrath (which relates only to the body, which mens wrath can only harm in caſe of diſobedience, Mat. 10. 28.) but alſo FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, which principally, if not wholly relates unto the ſoule, of which the conſcience is a chief-overruling part. This then being altogether irrefragable, gives our Antagoniſts, with Dr. Fern, an eternall overthrow, and unavoidably demonſtrates the reſiſtance of the Higher Powers here preſcribed, to be only of iuſt lawfull powers in their iuſt commands or puniſhments, which we muſt neither corporally, verbally, nor ſo much as mentally reſiſt, but readily ſubmit too with our very ſoules, as well as bodies: not of Tyrants or ungodly Rulers uniuſt oppreſſions, Forces, proceedings to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, which all our Oppoſites, all Divines whatſoever grant, we are bound in conſcience paſſively to reſiſt, and diſobey; yea, with our Tongues to ggLevit. 19. 17. Mat. 14. 4. Pſal. 139, 21. 22 Pro. 29. 27. Pſ. 11. 5.Lev 19:17Matt 14:4Ps 139:21Ps 139:22Prov 29:27Ps 11:5reprehend, and our Souls and ſpirits to oppoſe, deteſt, abhorre, hate in the very higheſt degree of oppoſition, notwithſtanding this inhibition: And therefore by like reaſon are no wayes prohibited, but authorized by it, even forcibly to reſiſt to our utmoſt power, have we meanes and opportunity ſo to doe, as the Parliament now hath: That power and proceedings which Chriſtians may lawfully with good conſcience, yea and are bound to reſiſt with all their ſouls, minds, tongues, they juſtly may and muſt likewiſe reſiſt with all their corporall might and ſtrength; eſpecially if they have good opportunity, publike encouragements, and meanes to do it, as Deut. 6. 12. 1 Pet. 5. 9. Iude 3. 4. Phil. 1. 27, 28. 1 Cor. 16. 13. compared together, and with the premiſed Scriptures, fully evidence. But Chriſtians may lawfully with good conſcience, yea muſt reſiſt with all their ſouls, minds, tongues, the fore-named violent proceedings of kings, Oppreſſors, ill Counſellors and Cavaleers, and no wayes ſubmit unto them with their ſouls, minds, tongues, leſt thereby they ſhould approve and be partakers, with promoters of their execrable deſignes; therefore they may and muſt with ſafe conſcience reſiſt them with all their corporall might and ſtrength, having now opportunity, a Parliamentary publike command and ſufficient p. 92meanes to execute it. And thus have I now at laſt not onelyonly moſt clearly wreſted this ſword out of the hands of our great oppoſite Goliahs, but likewiſe cut off their heads, and ſo routed all their forces with it, as I truſt they ſhall never be able to make head againe.

Yet before I wholly take my leave of this Text to gratifie our Prelaticall Clergy, I ſhall for a parting blow adde this one obſervation more, That all our (iiSee Toſtatus, Caictan, Cornelius a Lapide. Soto Eſtrus, with moſt Popiſh Commentators, & Dr. Willet on this Text, Bellarm. de Clericis, and the Canoniſts, de exemptionibus, & Immunit. Clericorum. Popiſh Clermen her…tofore (and many of them till this day) notwithſtanding the univerſality of this Text, Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher Powers, &c. not only pretended themſelves to be of right exempted from the juriſdiction cenſures, taxes of Emperours, Kings, and a… Civill Magistrates,) Which priviledges ſome of our late Prelates began to revive, as the late caſes of Mr. Shervill, the Maior of Arundel, and ſome others evidence, cenſured for puniſhing drunken Prieſts) but likewiſe held it lawfull to cenſure, excommunicate, depoſe even Emperours and Kings themſelves, and interdict their Kingdomes; witneſſe not only the kkBp. Bilſons …ue Difference &c. par. 3. p. 369. to 376. Io. VVhites Defence of the way c. 6. p. 14. to 22.Popes excommunications of many Emperours and Kings, by apparant uſurpation and injury; but of ſundry Prelates excommunications of their own Soveraigns as of right and putting them to open penances; as K. Suintilla, Sancho, Ramir in Spain, and others elſwhere, of which you may read divers preſidents in my Appendix: The Hiſtory ofmmTheod. Eccleſ. hiſt l. 5. c. 17, 18. Sozom. l 7. c. c. 34. St. Ambroſe his excommunicating the Emperour Theodoſius for the bloody murther of thoſe of Theſſalonica, is ſo commonly known, that I need not ſpend time to recite it, nor yet thennSee Math. VVeſtm. Math. Paris, Hoved …n Polychron. Fab. Caxton, Polidor, Virigit, Holmſh. Slow, Grafton, Speed, Daniel in the Lives of Hen 2. K. Iohn and Hen. 3. excommunications and cenſures of our King Iohn, or Henry the 2. and 3. Suano King of Denmark (as Saxo-Grammaticus records) was not onelyonly ſharply reprehended, but excommunicated in a moſt bold and ſolemn manner by one of his Biſhops for his uncleanneſſe, and murthering ſome eminent perſons, of whom he was jealous, whiles they were at their devotions in the Church. llPag. 62. Ge. hiſt. of Spain.This Biſhop inſtead of meeting this King when he came to enter into the Church, with accuſtomed veneration, clad in his Pontificalibus, with his Croſier S…affe kept him from entring ſo much as within the Court thereof; calling him not by the name of a King, which he ſuppreſſed, but a ſhedder of mans blood; and not content to chide him, he fixed the point of his Staffe in his breſt, preferring the publike ſcandall of Religion before private ſociety, not being ignorant, that the Offices of familiarity were one thing, the rights of Prieſthood another thing, that the wickedneſſes of Lords as well as ſervants ought to be revenged, nor are Noble-mens crimes to be more partially cenſured, then ignoble ones: And not content thus to repulſe him, he added an execration therunto and denounced a ſentence of damnation againſt him in his preſence, ſo as he left it doubtfull, whether he repulſed him more valiantly with his hand, or voyce. Hereupon the King conſidering this Act to proceed from zeale and publike ſeverity againſt wickedneſſe, and being confounded with the bluſh of his guilty conſcience, forbad any to reſiſt his violence, and patiently underwent, heard both his repulſe and reprehention; After which, this King laying aſide his royall Robes, put on old courſe apparell, deſiring rather to teſtifie his ſorrow by the deformity of his habit, then his contempt by the ſplendor of it. And ſtruck with ſo ſad a ſentence of the Biſhop, he would not indure to carry about the ornaments of Royall Magnificence; but caſting away the enſignes of Regall Majeſty, he put on ſack-cloth the badge of penitence; putting off his power likewiſe together with his veſtment, and of a ſacrilegious Tyrant, became a faithfull reverencer of holy things. For p. 93returning bare-foot to the Church-porch, he caſt himſelfe proſtrate in the entrance thereof, and humbly kiſſed the ground, ſuppreſsing the griefe which is wont moſt ſharply to be inflicted from contempt, with ſhamefac'tneſſe and moderation, redeeming the fault of his bloody reigne with ſhame and penitence: After which confeſſing his fault, and craving pardon with teares of the Biſhop, he was abſolved, and then putting on his Royall Robes, admitted into the Church, and brought up to the Altar, to the exceeding joy of the people, who applauding the kings humiliation and modeſty; plus poenitentia pium, quam imperto ſcoeleſt…m … confeſſus: A memorable ſtory of a zealous ſtout Prelate, and of a pen…tent ſubmiſsive wild Prince: I ſhall only adde to this ſome few domeſtick preſident… of our Welch KingsppS…elm Concil tom p. 381 38. … aodw n. Ca…al of …iſh. Edit. 2 2. p. 328. Teudur king of Brecknock, for his periury and murther of Elgisti… another King of that Countrey, was ſolemnly excommunicated by Gurcan the 10. Biſhop of Landaffe and his Clergy, in a Synod aſſembled for this purpoſe, by uncovering the Altars, caſting the Croſſes and Reliques on the ground, and depriving him … Chriſtian communion, Whereupon Toudur unable to undergoe this malediction and rigorous iuſtice, with a contrite heart, and many teares powred forth, craved pardon of his crimes, and ſubmitted himſelfe to the penance impoſed on him according to his quality and greatneſſe.qqSpelm Concil. p. 382, 383. King Clotri ſlaying Iuguallaun treacherouſly, contrary to his League and Oath, Berthgwin the 14. Biſhop of Landaffe, hearing thereof, aſſembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe, and ſolemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom, by uncovering the Altars, caſting down the Croſſes on the earth, and depriving the Countrey both of Baptiſme and the Euch…riſt. Whereupon the King unable to endure ſo great an excommunication, with great deiection ſubmitted himſelfe to the Biſhop, and leaving his Kingdom, went on pilgrimage into forraign parts for a long ſpace; after which returning, by the interceſſion of king Morcant, he obtained abſolution from the Biſhop, to whoſe enioyned penance he ſubmitted himſelf, conferring divers Lands upon the Church. And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Biſhop, King Gurcan, for living inceſtuouſly with his Mother-in-law was ſolemnly excommunicated in form aforeſaid; whereupon he craved pardon, reſolved to put away his Mother-in-law, promiſed ſatisfaction by K. Iudhail his Interceſſor; upon which he was abſolved, upon promiſe of amendment of life, with faſting, prayer and almes; after which he beſtowed divers Lands on the Church, rrSpelm. Con… p. 383, 384. Godw. Catal. of Biſh. p. 523.Houell king of Gleuiſſig, contrary to his Oath & League, trecherouſly circumverring and ſlaying Gallun, hereupon Cerenlyir the 18. Biſhop of Landaffe, calling a Synod, ſolemnly excommunicated him by laying all the croſſes on the ground, overturning the Bells, taking the Reliques from the Altar and caſting them on the ground depriving him of all Chriſtian communion, under which excommunication he remained almoſt a whole yeers ſpace; After which, this king came bare-foot to the Biſhop, imploring his abſolution from this ſentence with many teares, which he obtained after publke penance enoyned. Not long after the ſame Biſhop and his Clergy in another Synod, for the like crime, in the ſelf-ſame former excommunicated Ili ſonne of Conblus, till he came bare-footed with teares and prayed abſolution; which upon performance of enjoyned penance, promiſe of future reformation, with prayers, faſting, almes, and the ſetling of ſome Lands on the Church, was granted him by the Biſhop. SossSpcim. Concil. p. 305, 385. Loumarch ſon of Cargnocaun, was in a full Synod excommunicated by Gulfrid the 20. Biſhop of this See, for violating the patrimony of the Church; and king p. 126Brochuail, with his family convented before a Synode, threatned Excommunication, enjoyned Penance and ſatisfaction by the Synode, for ſome injuries offered to to Ciueilliauc the two and twentieth Biſhop of Landaffe.**Goduin. Cata. log. of Biſtr. p 527. Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Ioſeph the eigth and twentieth Biſhop of Landaffe, for treacherouſly putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them; After which he was again publikely excommunicated in a Synode, for violating the Sanctuarie of the Church of Landaffe, and hurting ſome of this Biſhops ſervants; and not abſolved till he made his ſubmiſſion, and did his Penance, and gave ſome lands to the Church for ſatisfaction of theſe offence. Thus uuSpelmanim. Concil. Tau. 1. p. 626, 627. Goduin. Edit. 2. p. 528.Calgucam King of Morganauc, and his whole family were ſolemnly excommunicated by Her…wald the nine and twentieth Biſhop of Landaffe in a Synod of all his Clergy, onelyonly becauſe one of the Kings followers being drunk, laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Biſhops Phyſitian and Kinſman on Chriſtmas day, Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Croſſes and Reliques were caſt to the ground, the Bells overturned, the Church doors ſtopped up with thorns, ſo as they continued without a Paſtor and Divine Service day and night for a long ſeaſon, till the King (though innocent) ſubmitted himſelf to the Biſhop; and to obtain his abſolution, gave Henringuinna to him and his Succeſſors for ever, free from all ſecular and royall ſervices, in the preſence of all the Clergie and people. So xxMat. Paris. H…ſt. p. 551, 715 Goduin. catalo. p. 537. 547.Richard the tenth Biſhop of Bangor, excommunicated David ap Lhewelin, Prince of Wales, for detaining his brother Griffith priſoner, contrarie to his Oath, repairing to him upon the Biſhops word for his ſafe return, who never left vexing him, till he had delivered him up to to the King of Englands hands. Many ſuch preſidents of Prelates cenſuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Storie, which for brevity I pretermit; onelyonly' I ſhall inform you, that yyAntiqu. Eccleſ. Bul. p. 245. See Walſingh. Hiſt. Angl p. 238. to 144.Iohn Stratford Archbiſhop of Canterbury, in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3, conteſting with this King, and excommunicating divers of his followers, and all the infringers of the Churches Liberties, preſumed to write thus unto his Soveraign; There are two things by which the world is principally governed, The ſacred Pontificall authority, and the royall power, of which the Prieſthood is by ſo much the more weighty, ponderous, and ſublim…, by how much they are to give an account of kings themſelves at the Divine audit: And therefore the kings Majeſty ought to know, that you ought to depend on their judgement, not they to be regulated according to your will. For who doubteth that the prieſts of Christ are accounted the FATHERS AND MASTERS of Kings, Princes, and all faithfull Chriſtians? Is it not known to be apart of miſerable madneſſe, if the ſon ſhould endeavour to ſubjugate the Father, the ſervant the master to himſelf? The Canonicall authority of Scriptures testifieth, that diver. Pontiffs have excommunicated, ſome of them Kings, others Emperours: And if you require ſomewhat in ſpeciall of the perſons of Princes; Saint Innocent ſmote the Emperour Archadius with the ſword of excommunication, becauſe he conſented that Saint John Chryſoſtom ſhould be violently expelled from his See. Likewiſe Saint Ambroſe Archbiſhop of Millain, for afault which ſeemednot ſo hainous to other priests, excommunicated the Emperour Theodoſius the great: From which ſentence, having first given condigne ſatisfation, he afterwards deſerved to be abſolved; and many ſuch like examples may be alleaged, both more certain for time, and nearer for place. Therefore no Biſhops whatſoever neither may nor ought to be puniſhed by the ſecular Power, if they chance to offend through humane frailtie: For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honour the Priests of God, and defend them with greatest reverence, in imitation p. 127of the Pious Prince of most happy memory, Conſtantine, ſaying, when the cauſe of Priests was brought before him, You cannot be iudged by any, to wit, of the ſecular judges, who are reſerved to the iudgement of God alone; according to the aſſertion of the Apostle (very ill applied) ſaying, The ſpirituall man is iudged of no man, 1 Corinth. 2. 15. (Not meant of Biſhops or Clergie-men, but Saints alone, endued with Gods Spirit, not of judging in courts of iuſtice, but of diſcerning ſpirituall things, and their own ſpirituall Eſtates, as the Context reſolves:) Thus and much more this Prelate, who notwithſtanding this text of the Romanes, pleads an exemption of all Biſhops and Prieſts from the kings ſecular power, by Divine Authority, and arrogates to Prieſt and Prelates, a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themſelves, to excommunicate and cenſure them for their offences. And to deſcend to later times, even ſince the the Reformation of Religion here, Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum, and Biſhop of Oxfort, even in his Book intituled, The ſupremacy of Christian Princes over all perſons thorowout their Dominions, in all cauſes ſo well Eccleſiasticall as ſpirituall, printed at London, 1573. p. 1095. writes thus; But who denies this (M. Saunders) that a godly Biſhop may upon great and urgent occaſion, if it ſhall be neceſſary to edifie Gods Church, and there be no other remedy, flee to this last cenſure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING? Making it a thing not queſtionable by our Prelates and Clergie, that they may in ſuch a caſe lawfully excommunicate the King himſelf: And Doctor Bilſon Biſhop of Winchester, in his True difference between Chriſtian ſubiection and unchriſtian Rebellion, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her ſelf, printed at Oxford, 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants, That Emperours, Kings and Princes, may in ſome caſes be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Biſhops; and grants, That with Hereticks and Apoſtates, be THEY PRINCES or private men, no Chriſtian Paſtor nor people may Communicate: Neither finde I any Biſhop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion, but all of them readily ſubſcribe hereto. If then not onelyonly the ill Counſellors and Inſtruments of Kings, but Kings and Emperours themſelves, may thus not onelyonly be lawfully, iuſtly reſiſted, but actually ſmitten and excommunicated by their Biſhops and Clergy, with the ſpirituall ſword, for their notorious crimes and wickedneſſes, notwithſtanding this inhibition; (which **Theod. Eccleſ. Hiſt. 1. 4. c. 5, 6.Valentinian the Emperour confeſſed; and therefore deſired, that ſuch a Biſhop ſhould be choſen and elected in Millain after Auxentius, as he himſelf might really and cordially ſubmit to him and his reprehenſions, ſince he muſt ſometimes needs erre as a man, as to the medicine of ſouls; as he did to Ambroſe, when he was elected Biſhop there;) why they may not likewiſe be reſiſted by their Laity in the precedent caſes with the temporall ſword, and ſubjected unto the cenſures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, tranſcends my ſhallow apprehenſion to conceive, there being as great, if not greater, or the very ſelf-ſame reaſon for the lawfulneſſe of the one, as of the other. And till our Oppoſites ſhall produce a ſubſtantiall difference between theſe caſes, or diſclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulneſſe of excommunicating Kings and Emperours, they muſt give me and others liberty to conceive, they have quite loſt and yeelded up the cauſe they now contend for, notwithſtanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their ſtrength at firſt, Object. 10.but now of their ruine.

The tenth xxDr. Fern Sect. 2. Appeal to thy Conſcience.Objection is this, that of 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14, 15, 16. Submit your ſelves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords ſake, whether it be to p. 96The King AS SVPREAME, or unto Governours, as unto them that are ſent by him (to wit, by God, not the King, as the diſtribution manifeſts, and Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4.) For the puniſhment of evill doers, and for the praiſe of them that doe well, &c. Feare God, Honour the King; wee muſt ſubmit to Kings and honour Kings, who are the ſupream Governours; therefore we may in no caſe forcibly reſiſt them or their Officers, though they degenerate into Tyrants.

To which I anſwer;Anſw. that this is a meerin conſequent; ſince the ſubmiſſion here injoyned is but to ſuch Kings, who are puniſhers of evill doers, and praiſers of thoſe that do well; which the Apoſtle makes the Ground and motive to ſubmiſſion; therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppreſſours, who doe quite contrary. We muſt ſubmit to Kings when they rule well and juſtly, is all the Apoſtle here affirms; Ergo wee muſt ſubmit to, and not reſiſt them in any their violent courſes to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties; is meet non-ſence both in Law, Divinity, and common Reaſon.

If any reply,Reply. as they doe, that the Apoſtle, verſ. 18, 19, 20. Bids ſervants … ſubject to their Maſters with all feare, not onelyonly to the good and gentle, but alſo to the froward: For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conſcience towards God endure griefe ſuffering wrongfully, &c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magiſtrates and Kings, as well as good.Anſw. I anſwer 1. That the Apoſtles ſpeaks it onelyonly of evill Maſters not Kings; of ſervants, not ſubjects; there being a great difference between ſervants, Apprentices, Villaines, and free borne ſubiects, as all men know, the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Maſter; the other onelyonly under the juſt, ſetled, legall Government of their Princes, according to the Lawes of the Realme: Secondly, this is meant onelyonly of private perſonall iniuries, and undue corrections of Maſters given to ſervants without iuſt cauſe, as verſ. 20. For what glory is it, if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults, &c. intimates: not of publike iniuries and oppreſſions of Magiſtrates, which indanger the whole Church and State. A Chriſtian ſervant or ſubiect muſt patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Maſter or King:**See Heb. 12. 10. Matth. 5. 39, 40.Heb 12:10Matt 5:39Matt 5:40 Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments, muſt patiently without reſiſtance ſuffer their kings and evill Inſtruments to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, Realms, (the proper deduction heen) is but a ridiculous concluſion.

Secondly, This Text enjoynes no more ſubjection to kings, then to any other Magiſtrates; as the words: Submit your ſelves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man; Or unto Governors, &c. prove paſt all contradiction; And verſ 6. which bids us, Honour the King; bids us firſt in direct tearmes, HONOVR ALL MEN; to wit, All Magistrates at leaſt, if not all men in generall, as ſuch: There is then no ſpeciall Prerogative of irreſiſtability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courſes, more then there is to any other Magiſtrate or perſon whatſoever; God giving no man any Authority to injure others without reſiſtance, eſpecially if they aſſault their perſons or invade their Eſtates to ruine them: Since then inferiour Officers, and other menmay be forc…bly reſiſted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the republike, as I hauehave proved, and our Antagoniſts muſt grant; by the ſelf-ſame reaſon kings may be reſiſted too, notwithſtanding any thing in this Text, which attributes no more irreſiſtability or authority to Kings, then unto other Magiſtrates.

p. 129Thirdly, Kings are here expreſly called; AN ORDINANCE OF MAN, not God; as I have formerly proved them to be. If ſo; I then appeal to the conſciences of our fierceſt Antagoniſts, whether they do beleeve in their conſciences, or date take their Oathes upon it; That ever any people or Nation in the world, or our Anceſtors at firſt, did appoint any Kings or Governours over them, to ſubvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or intend to give them ſuch an unlimited uncontroulable Soveraignty over them, as not to provide for their own ſafety, or not to take up Arms againſt them, for the neceſſary defence of their Laws, Liberties, Religion, Perſons, States, under pain of high Treaſon, or eternall damnation, in caſe they ſhould degenerate into Tyrants, and undertake any ſuch wicked deſtructive deſigne. If not (as none can without madneſſe and impudence averre the contrary, it being againſt all common ſence and reaſon, that any man or Nation ſhould ſo abſolutely, irreſiſtably inſlave themſelves and their Poſterities to the very luſts and exorbitancies of Tyrants, and ſuch a thing as no man, no Nation in their right ſences, were they at this day to erect a moſt abſolute Monarchie, would condeſcend to;) then clearly the Apoſtle here confirming onelyonly the Ordinances of men, and giving no Kings nor Rulers any other or greater power then men had formerly granted them (for that had been to alter, not approve their humane Ordinances) I ſhall infallibly thence inferre; That whole States, and Subjects, may with ſafe conſcience reſiſt the unjuſt violence of their Kings in the foreſaid caſes, becauſe they never gave them any authority irreſiſtably to act them, nor yet deveſted themſelves (much leſſe their poſterity whom they could not eternally inſlave) of the right, the power of reſiſting them in ſuch caſes; whom they might juſtly reſiſt before, whiles they were private men, and as to which illegall proceedings they continue private perſons ſtill, ſince they have no legall power given them by the people to authorize any ſuch exorbitances.