THE PREROGATIVE OF Primogeniture: SHOWING, That the Right of SUCCESSION TO AN Hereditary Crown, DEPENDS Not upon Grace, Religion, etc. But Only upon Birthright and Primogeniture; AND That the Chief Cause of all, or most, Rebellions in Christendom, is a Fanatical Belief, That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace.  
By DAVID JENNER, B. D. Prebendary of Sarum, and Rector of Great Warley in Essex.  
LONDON, Printed for J. Hindmarsh, Bookseller to His Royal Highness, at the Black Bull in Cornhill. 1685.   

TO THE Most Royal and Highborn PRINCE, JAMES, DUKE of YORK AND ALBANY, EARL of ULSTER, LORD High Admiral of ENGLAND, IRELAND, And all Foreign Plantations, Constable of Dover-Castle, Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports, Governor of Portsmouth, etc.  
Most Royal Sir,  
YOUR Unparallelled Magnanimity, and other Your most Eminent Virtues and Excellencies, are so well known to the Christian World, as that Envy itself cannot obscure them.  
And whatever English Man does, or shall hereafter, audaciously presume, to deny You his hearty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Euge, is, and ever will be, unworthy, any longer to be an Inhabitant of Great Britain,  
Whose present Peace and Prosperity (next unto Almighty God's overruling Providence, and unto Our most Gracious King's Wise Conduct of Affairs) is Owing unto Your Highness' Matchless Valour and Prudence,  
The which You have most signally demonstrated in Vanquishing the King's and the Nation's Enemies Abroad,  
And in being highly instrumental in Suppressing them at Home:  
So that, if Fabius Maximus Deserved the Thanks of the whole Roman-Senate, for his prudent Management of their Republic Concerns,  
Then, infinitely more, has Your Royal Highness Merited, not only the Thanks of Our English Senate, but over and above, even Statues and Shrines of Gold, Gratefully to be erected, in perpetual Memory of Your most Glorious Achievements.  
But, Ah, ungrateful England! That, after Your most Illustrious Highness had Jeoparded Your Royal Person in many desperate and bloody Battles, at Sea, and at Land, only for the Honour and Welfare of this Your Native Country, whose Safety You oft times most Generously preferred before Your Own,  
You should, at last, be so basely and so inhumanely requited,  
As to have an  and Unnatural Bill of Exclusion from Your Undoubted Birthright, pass against You, through the Prevalency of the Anti-Protestant and Factious Associatours, in the late House of Commons, who, (overpowering the Loyal Party in the said House) Voted, Sabbati 6. die Novembris 1680, and on Sabbati (a day, when, surely! those Fanatical Persons thought the Holy Jesus was again gone out of this World, down into the Grave as to his Body, and Descended into Hell as to his Soul, doing Penance there for Mankind,  
And so, would not, on a Saturday, be present, upon Earth, to eye and behold their disloyal and disingenuous Actions, and therefore, They became Rampant, and did what they pleased in spite of God and the King; And being a Majority, they Voted, Nemine Contradicente, Sabbati) 26 die Martii 1681.  
Your Royal Highness' Exclusion from the Imperial Crown of England and Ireland, etc.  
Printed by the Order of Wi. Williams, Speaker.  
A Vote, steeped in so much Gall and Vinegar, and attended with so much Disloyalty and Ingratitude, As might justly have set All Your Noble and Heroic Passions on fire;  
But, God be praised!  
In imitation of the Captain of our Salvation,  
You have perfectly Conquered Yourself.  
Which personal Victory, according to, not only the Stoical, but also, Christian, Philosophy, is more Memorable, than All your other most Famous Conquests. And Caesar like, nay, rather Jesus like, You have forgot Nothing, but to be Revengeful, upon Your inveterate Enemies.  
Which is Your Immortal Glory.  
And one thing, I most humbly suggest to Your Princely and most Christian Consideration, as an undeniable Truth,  
Scil. That Those Your Enemies, who have, or still do, endeavour Your Royal Highness' Exclusion, (Contrary to the Divine and Natural Law of Your Birthright and Primogeniture) neither were, nor are, Protestants, nor any true Sons of the Church of England as now established by Law,  
But they were, and are, only a Company of Perjured Pseudo-Protestants,  
Who under the specious pretence of being Vogued Protestants, did, and still do, carry on their Diabolical Faction and Treasonable Association.  
For, in England, only He is a Protestant, 
Beaufrons, c. 1.  who hearty believes, and as hearty protests for, and courageously defends,  
The King's Supremacy,  
And who (Christianlike) Cordially declares for the Succession of the King's Lawful Heir according to Primogeniture, whether He be Papist or Protestant, whether Morally Good or Bad;  
For, This is the constant and professed Doctrine of the Apostolical-Protestant Church of England,  
As (I humbly conceive) is sufficiently proved in the following Treatise,  
The which does truly blush to approach Your Royal and most Illustrious Presence, in its mean Dress and Country Garb.  
But, forasmuch as it is the lively Draught of a most Loyal Heart towards His Majesty, and of a most Faithful and Devoted one, towards Your Highness;  
The Author, therefore, most humbly begs Your Candid Acceptance of it;  
Assuring Your Highness,  
That, He has no other Ambition in Publishing the same, than, where he lives to be instrumental in educating and instructing the People in the true Principles of Primitive Piety and Loyalty,  
And, whilst He lives, be serviceable (according to his Capacity) unto God, the King, and the Church;  
And to let the World know, that He is,  
Your Royal Highness 's Most Dutiful, most Humble and Devoted Servant, David Jenner.   

THE CONTENTS  

CHAP. I. 

THE Necessity of Government Page 1.    
CHAP. II. 

Monarchy the best Form of Government p. 6.    
CHAP. III. 

That all Kings, and their Lawful Heirs, aught by Right of Primogeniture, to Reign and Govern Successively, whether they be Morally Good or Bad, whether Infidels or Christians, Papists or Protestants p. 18. 

SECT. I. 

The Proposition proved by Humane Authority, of Heathens ibid.    
SECT. II. The Proposition; 

That Succession to the Throne ought to be by Primogeniture, and not by Grace, proved by Divine Authority p. 21.    
SECT. III. 

The Proposition proved by the Unalterable Law of Inheritance by Primogeniture p. 25.    
SECT. iv 

The Proposition proved by Reason and the Common Sentiments of Religion p. 37.  
The Bill of Exclusion of the Duke of York, proved to be unlawful and sinful p. 38.  
Atheistical and Factious ibid.  
Opposite to the known Law of God. p. 41.  
The Cause of perpetual Civil Wars and Sedition p. 42.  
The chief Pleas and Arguments for it, Answered p. 43, 44, etc.        
CHAP. IU. 

That all Subjects ought Actively to obey their Lawful Prince, in all things which be not Positively against some known Law of God, although, their said Prince be an Heathen, Idolater and Apostate, or never so Morally vicious. p. 56. 

SECT. I. 

The Duty of Obedience to Superiors, whetheh Morally Good or Bad, proved by the Law of Nature an of Natural Reason p. 57    
SECT. II. 

The Duty of Obedience to Superiors, whether Christians or Heathens, Good or Bad, proved by Authority of Divine Reason and Scripture p. 67.    
SECT. III. 

The Proposition; That all Lawful Kings, whether Morally Good or Bad, aught to be obeyed, proved by the Authority and Practise of honest Heathens p. 72.    
SECT. iv 

That all Lawful Kings ought Actively to be obeyed, in all things which are not against some positive Law of God, although the said Kings be Heathens, Idolaters and Apostates, or never so vicious, proved by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Christians p. 82.    
SECT. V 

Modern Authors for Obedience to Princes: Of two sorts. 

1. Some Conditionally: as All Recusants p. 104.  
2. Some Absolutely; as All Protestants p. 110.          
CHAP. V. 

The Doctrine and Practice of Deposing Kings, and of Excluding the Right Heir by Primogeniture, from succeeding in the Throne, for his want of Grace, or for being an Heretic, Idolater, Tyrannical or Wicked, is grounded, 

1. Upon Popery p. 122.  
2. Upon Fanaticism p. 135.      
CHAP. VI 

A Parallel; or a brief and true Account of some Plots and Treasons of Papists and fanatics, against the Kings and Queens of England, since the Reformation and Abrenunciation of Popery p. 155.  
The Popish Bygot's Covenant p. 163.  
The fanatics Scotch and English Covenant p. 165.    
CHAP. VII. 

The chief Cause of Rebellion among Christians, is a Belief of that false Position, to wit, That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace p. 172.  
SECT. I. 

Arguments proving, That, Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace p. 178.    
SECT. II. 

The evil Effects and Consequences of this Position, That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace, Are such as these, 

I. CONVENTICLES p. 185.  
II. REBELLION p. 187  
III. A Confirming Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity, and Denial of Christ p. 191.          

ERRATA.  
PAg. 35. and many other places, for only, read only. p. 105. l. 11. without the Pope's Laws, r. without the Pope's leave. p. 89. in Margin, r. in Secessùs abdito. p. 149. l. 7. or, r. of. p. 179. l. 17. r. or for Idolatry. In the Epist, Ded. ult. p. l. 6. add to.   

THE PREROGATIVE OF PRIMOGENITURE.  

CHAP. I.  
The Necessity of Government.  
GOvernment bears date with, if not before, the Creation; and runs parallel with Time, if not with Eternity; And is in many respects more necessary than Life or Being itself:  
For it is not necessary, that any particular finite Being's should always Exist; But it is absolutely necessary, they should always be Governed, whilst they do Exist.  
The World, although made for Man, did, and still can, subsist well enough without him; But not without his Obedience.  
And therefore, as Orpheus aptly named Harmony the Life of Music, so Plato not improperly styled Order and Government the Life of the Universe: For Government, tanquam Anima, even as a Soul, Animates all parts of the World with a Political Life, and causes every Individual to answer the end of its Existency, which is the Conservation of the Whole, although it be with the loss of its own particular, natural Life: For, in this Case, the Public Good is ever to be preferred, before a Private. And it is better, not to be at all, than not to be useful.  
Were it not for Government, there would be neither Being nor Wellbeing: for, every thing would take up Arms under pretence of Self-preservation, and then, the Conclusion can be nothing else but Confusion: for, according to the Jewish Proverb, 
Grot. de Jur. Bell. l. 1. c. 4.  Nisi potestas publica esset, alter alterum vivum deglutiret, etc. Unless there were public Government, One would become a prey to the Other; even as the 
(a) Genus beminum agreste, sine legibus, sine imperio, liberum atque solutum, etc. ibid.  Aborigines in the East, and the Mohegians in the West, Indies, who, having no Laws nor Government, eat and devour one another alive: And 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  St. chrysostom, writing on the Necessity and Benefit of Government, informs us to the same purpose, scil. That where there is no Government, there men soon lose the exercise of their Reason, and become more savage and cruel, than the irrational Brutes, and not only snarl and by't like Dogs, but even devour each other, like rapacious Birds, and ravenous Beasts of prey: And it is most certain, that there never happened any Evil, either in Heaven among the Angels, or on Earth among Men, but upon the Breach of Law and good Government.  
The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate, to Govern, primarily and emphatically signifies to Bind, and to Heal a wound by Binding it up tied and close after the manner of Surgeons: And Codurcus, applying the proper signification of the said word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto Government, tells his Reader, 
Codurc. in Job. 34. v. 17, 18.  Quòd Imperium, Jura, Leges sint velut Vincula Reipublicae, etc. That Government, Laws, and Statutes, are the sure Bands and Ligaments of the World in general, and of every Kingdom in particular, which knit and firmly tie all parts together, and so prevent a Rupture; for, Sine imperio & Magistratu solvuntur omnes Civilis Societatis Compages, etc. Without Government there can be no Civil Society, but all things must unavoidably run into Anarchy and Confusion, which, certainly, can please none of Mankind, but only Timon of Athens the Man-Hater, and such who delight to sport and fish in troubled waters.  
Kings and Governors, are very appositely in Hebrew termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heads; Because, they, as Heads, do Govern and Order all the inferior Members of the several Bodies-politic: And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Kings are like the great Jice and Beams of the Building, or chief Corner-stones of the House, which keep up, and support, the whole Fabric; and therefore are they most elegantly styled, Clavi Reipublicae, the main Pins and Studs of the Commonwealth: All which sufficiently speaks the indispensable Necessity of Government in general.  
And as to the Original, or first Author of Government, it is no other than Almighty God, the Supreme Monarch and Governor of the whole World, visible and invisible?  
Wherefore, whoever Resists Government, is truly said, in Holy Writ, to Resist God himself: And he that will turn a perfect Libertine, and would live without Government, must turn a perfect Atheist, and must live without God in the World.   

CHAP. II.  
Monarchy the best Form of Government.  
THE Moral Philosopher discoursing on the various sorts of Government, gives the Precedency unto Monarchy, as being Divino Imperio quàm simillima, most like the Government of the Alwise God, which is the first and the best of all.  
Eupolemus, in his Book de Judaeae Regibus, makes 
(a) Deut. 33.5. Moses was King in Jesurun. Maimon. in Loc.  Moses to be an absolute Monarch over the Jews, and that he was accountable unto none for his Actions, but only unto God, as the Sacred Scriptures in many instances do prove: and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and that he, even Moses, was the first of the Wise men, who studied, promulged, and practised, the Right Rules and Laws of Monarchical, Military, and Ecclesiastic Government: and it is added in Moses his Encomium, that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 346.  etc. He was an inspired Prophet, an experienced Politician, a judicious Legislatour, a prudent and valiant Soldier, a profound Philosopher: And therefore of all men then living, he was most eminently and singularly qualified for managing and swaying the Regal Sceptre.  
And Numenius the Pythagorean Philosopher is of opinion, That Plato, who wrote excellently for Monarchy, and the other Grecians, especially the Lacedæmonians and Macedonians, who ever preferred Monarchy before all other Forms of Government, borrowed all, or most, of their Arguments for so doing from King Moses:  
And therefore the same Author tells us, that in truth Plato was no other than Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
Clem. Alex. Strom. l. ●.  etc. speaking in the Greek Dialect.  
And Miltiades the Athenian Emperor, is said to have learned from 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. p. 348.  Moses's Writings, his great Policy, by which he so prosperously governed his Civil and Military Affairs, and more particularly his Warlike Stratagems, by which he subtly over-came Dates the Persian General: And Clement Alexandrinus notes farther, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that Plato being instructed by Moses as to the Right way of Government, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. found fault with Minos' and Lycurgus' Polity. But, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. He highly commended Moses' Polity and Institution of Monarchy, in which there was but One to Decree and Command, and but One to be Pleased and Obeyed.  
Caesar Octavianus Augustus, after the Murder of Julius Caesar, consulting with those two Great States Men, Agrippa and Maecenas, what Form of Government was best to be erected, as being most suitable to the Genius of the Roman People:  
The aforementioned Politicians differed in their Sentiments,  
For Agrippa, being a stiff Commonwealth's Man, declared for DEMOCRACY, alleging that the Legislative Power was in the People.  
But Maecenas (a true King's Man) advised for Monarchy:  
And he enforced his Advice with this argument, scil. Because the Romans at first derived their Religion, their Laws and Manner of their first from of Government (which was Monarchical) from the Grecians, who (before their intestine Rebellions and Seditions) were Originally for Monarchy; And He observed, That, exquo Monarchiae renunciârant, quo quiescerent, nunquam invenêre, etc. Ever since, the Grecian People had (through the prevalency of a Common wealth-Faction) thrown off Monarchy, they could never acquiesce in any other kind of Government, But, like the 
* Nova rerum facies subinde apparuit, caedésque horrendae perpetratae sunt, dum hi Oligarchiae, illi Democratiae partes tuerentur, etc. Hoel. Element. Hist. l. 4. §. 2.  Moon, were often changing their Aspect and Face of Government, which changes bred bad blood, corrupted their Commonwealth's Body, and could no other way be cured, but by opening the Veins with the point of the Sword in the heat of Mutual Contests, and Civil Broils, and Bloody Wars, which Wars never ended, until Monarchy was restored in the Persons of King Philip and Alexander the Great.  
In like manner, says Maecenas, Principio Imperium penes Reges erat, 
Ibid.  donec Ambitio & Seditionis aestus alias vivendi Rationes excogitaverint, etc. The Romans were from the Beginning governed by Kings, until the Pride and Ambition of some Popular-Republicans raised a direful and bloody Sedition, and Rebelliously and Tumultuously Deposed their Kings, and by Fraud and Violence expelling Monarchy, they introduced Democracy, Oligarchy, and sometimes Aristocracy.  
But it so fell out, that when they had unhinged the Primitive, Monarchical Government, They, like the Rebellious Grecians, were never satisfied; but with every puff and blast of popular fancy, altered their new Model of Government: For within the space of 134 years, they had 37 sorts of Government in Rome: Thus argued Maecenas, and from the premises, he concluded, that Monarchy was the most proper Form of Government, for all Mankind, but especially for the Romans. Whereupon, 
Ibid. §. 5.  Caesar sententiam ejus amplexus, IMPERATORIS Titulum accepit, etc. Octavius Caesar adhered to Maecenas his Advice, and forthwith took upon him, the Illustrious Title of EMPEROR: and under his prudent Conduct of public Affairs, the Roman Empire flourished exceedingly, even to Admiration.  
And we Christians may, 
☜  by the way, add this Note, to wit, That when Monarchy was restored and firmly settled under Augustus Caesar, that then, and not before, happened to be The Fullness of Time, in which Christ Jesus the Great King of Heaven and Earth came into the World, and manifested his Glory: and He, not only Confirmed Caesar in his Earthly Throne, but also to prevent all Rebellion and Disobedience against his Caesarean Power and Majesty, Christ himself paid Tribute to Caesar, and charged all others to do the like.  
Nicocles, or rather Isocrates, 
Isocrat. Nicocl. Ora. 3.  personating the Emperor Nicocles, writes an whole Oration in the praise of Monarchy, in Opposition to Oligarchy and Democracy:  
And arguing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. from the Necessity of Monarchy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. from the Antiquity and long Continuance of it in all peaceable Ages, He concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Monarchy to be the best of all Polities whatever.  
And he farther proves his said Position by the following Arguments.  
1. Because, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Monarchy, for the most part, prefers to places of Honour, Trust, and Government, such as are most Deserving; Whereas in Democracy, there is little regard had of a Man's Merit, either as to his Honourable Birth and Descent, or as to his acquired Virtues, Prowess and Learning: But with the Democraticks, the chief qualification, is, Riches and Popularity; for if a man be of Potency to carry on a particular Faction, than He, being the People's Darling, shall be promoted, though he be otherwise a very Ignoramus as to State-Affairs.  
2. Because Monarchy is 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  the mildest, the justest, and most equitable Form of Government, impartially distributing justice to every Man: An honest and peaceable Man, may, in all probability, expect justice to be done him sooner in this Form of Government, than in any other; for it is easier to please, and to obtain the favour of one single person, as in Monarchy, than to gain the placet of a various, clashing Multitude, as in Democracy.  
3. In Monarchy 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  the King has none to Emulate or Envy, for he is Supreme, and therefore above all ambition: All is his own, and for him to envy the prosperity of his Subjects, would be to envy his own happiness.  
Whereas in 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Oligarchy and Democracy there are commonly great Emulations and Ambitions one aspiring to over-top the other; and ofttimes through heats 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  and animosities, the public Weal is neglected, and every one drives on his own private Interest, and seeks to save himself, to the ruin of the Commonwealth. Wherefore upon these Considerations Nicocles rationally urged that no Form of Government could better secure the Commonwealth from Intestine Broils, and from Foreign Invasions, than that of Monarchy, which could, at pleasure Muster up Forces, wage 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  War, and carry it on vigorously, to the effecting its desired ends. And to confirm this his Opinion, he brings instances of several Commonwealths, especially that of the Carthaginians, who, in time of War, for the better success of their Affairs, did invest some single person, such as Hannibal, with Kingly 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Power, during their Wars.  
And he instances also in that of the City of Athens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which of all Cities (after their Rebellion) most hated Monarchy, yet, even Athens constituted some single person Generalissimo, and entrusted him with a Regal Authority; and at last when their Republic Affairs flew, malis Avibus, upon the wings of ill-luck, They chose Solon for their King: But, he being as great an Hater of Monarchy, as was Timon of Mankind, Refused their proffer.  
4. In Monarchy (says Nicocles) State-businesses may more privately be deliberated and consulted upon, and therefore without discovery may more successfully be managed to the Terror of the Enemy, and to the great advantage of the Kingdom, than in Democracy; where, by one or other, the Secrets of State are frequently discovered, and their Consultations, Votes and Resolves are made known, before they are ripened, or before they can be put into Execution; which has proved very fatal and detrimental to many Republics.  
And here, by the way, we may note, that by some Wise men, it has been thought no part of National Prudence or State-Policy in our late House of Commons here in England, to Order every day their own Debates, Votes and Resolves to be publicly Printed: for by so doing, They fomented the several Factions in the Nation, and exasperated the Disaffected people against the King and his Government, and more particularly against his Royal Highness the Duke of York: And which was worst of all, they (by their printed Votes) discovered and revealed, not only their own, but also the King's, Secrets and Counsels, unto his Foes, as well as his Friends.  
5. Nicocles (arguing as an innocent Heathen) draws an Argument to prove the Excellency of Monarchy above all other Forms of Government, from the Regimen of the Gods themselves: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
For, the very Gods, whilst they were in a Free Commonwealth, could not agree how to govern the World, but did bitterly clash and wrangle among themselves: So that, at last, Necessity forced Them to choose a King, who should be Supreme, and Monarch over all the other Gods: And the Lot fell upon Jupiter, who was immediately proclaimed Supreme Monarch over all the rest: And when this was done, than the World was peaceably Governed, and all things prospered as well as Heart could wish.  
Wherefore, as Nicolces of old did, so we at present may, rationally conclude, That of all the Forms of Government, Monarchy deserves the Supremacy.   

CHAP. III.  
That all Kings and their Lawful Heirs ought, by Right of Primogeniture, to Reign and Govern Successively, whether they be Morally Good or Bad, whether Infidels or Christians, Papists or Protestants.  
THAT Succession to the Imperial Throne ought to be by Virtue of Primogeniture, and not of Grace, will be the Task of the following Sections to prove.  

SECT. I.  
The Proposition proved by Humane Authority, of Heathens.  
IN Plato's time, Kings were, either Elective, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Law and Custom of particular Nations, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Carthage. And as, at this day, in Polonia.  
Or, they were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hereditary, according to Primogeniture, as in Lacedaemon and 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Diog. Lacrt. Plato. l. 3.  Macedonia: for the Lacedaemon's and Macedonians, were not only for Kingly Government, but also for the due and regular Succession of their Kings in the right 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ibid.  Line. To the same purpose, Aelian informs us, scil. That 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aelian. Hist. l. 6. c. 13.  among the Grecians, their Kings reigned successively according to Birthright, and particularly Gelon in Sicilia, the Leuconian Kings in Bosphorus, and the Cypselidae in Corinth. Though (as he reports) the Legal Succession of their Kings by Primogeniture, seldom ran farther in a direct lineal Descent than, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto the third Generation; by reason of frequent Insurrections and bloody Rebellions, in which too often some powerful Usurper or other mounted the Throne (even as Oliver Cromwell lately did here in this Our Kingdom) and cut off the Right Heir. Thus Might, overcoming Right, turned the Stream of Regal Government out of its proper Channel, and forced it to run (at least for a while) a by-way.  
Nicocles, the aforementioned Emperor, strenuously defends his own just Title to the Crown, by virtue of his Birthright; when he assures the World, that he came to the Crown, not by Usurpation, nor by any illegal and sinister way, but honestly, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Isocrat. Nicocl. Orat. 3.  and justly, to wit, by Inheritance descended from his Progenitors down to his Father, and from his Father, immediately to Himself.   

SECT. II.  
The Propsition; That Succession to the Throne ought to be by Virtue of Primogeniture, and not of Grace, is farther proved by Divine Authority.  
AS Humane, so also Divine Authority speaks the same Truth, scil.  
That all Kings and their Lawful Heirs, whether good or bad, virtuous or vicious, ought successively to Reign and Govern.  
To this purpose, very pertinent are the Interrogatories, which Elihu put to Job, c. 34. v. 17, 18. Shall even he that hateth Right, Gover? And wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a King, Thou art wicked? and to Princes, Ye are ungodly?  
For the right understanding of which Interrogatories, it must be premised, That through gross mistake Elihu rashly concluded, that pious Job had unworthily repined at God's severe hand of Providence towards him; and therefore to convince Job of his supposed error, does Elihu expostulate with him, saying, Shall they, who are Haters of Righteousness and Justice, by virtue of their Right of Succession and Inheritance, Govern and Reign over their Subjects, and that by God's own appointment? And what? wilt not thou, O vain Man! suffer God himself, the King of Heaven and Earth, to govern, act, and do, what seemeth him best, with his Creatures? But thou wilt presume to censure thy Maker, and say, He is not Just in his Deal with Thee?  
Surely! Reason teaches thee this Lesson, That if thou mayst not censure nor condemn an Earthly Prince, who possibly may hate Right; much less mayst thou censure and condemn the most just One, even God, who can never do any unrighteous thing.  
So that Elihu makes a Comparison between God and a King. And he thus argues à Majore, to wit, That if Kings ought not to be Censured nor Controlled by their Subjects, but aught to Govern and Rule notwithstanding any supposed Irregularity of their Lives and Actions; Then much more ought Almighty God to Reign and Govern, according to his own Beneplacet, and no Man whatever, aught in the least to murmur at his Providences, though apparently never so thwart unto humane expectation: For, Shall even he that hateth Right, govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just?  
The point of Interrogation in v. 17. 
Drus. in Job. 34.17, 18.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Shall he? is altogether Affirmative: and implies, that he who hateth Right, shall, and aught, however to Govern.  
But the point of Interrogation in v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nunquid? Is it fit, to say to a King, Thou art wicked? or, to Princes, Ye are ungodly? is wholly Negative, and teaches all men this Loyal Lesson, scil. That, it is not fit, nor lawful, for any Subjects, to say, their King is wicked; nor to revile and scandalise their Princes, by opprobriously affirming, that they want Grace, and are , and that, therefore, they are unfit for Government. 
Drusius in loc.  Non dicere convenit, non honestum, non par est: It is not honest, nor meet, nor allowable, to say so to Kings, and Princes: For let them be never so bad, even Belials, Idolaters, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Wicked, in the Hebrew does signify; yet, for all that their Idolatry, they ought to Reign and Govern.  
Yea, this Truth, scil. That Kings and their Lawful Heirs by Right of Primogeniture ought successively to Reign, is farther evidenced by our Saviour's Answer unto Pontius Pilate.  
St. Joh. 18.37. Pilate said to him, Art thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King: to this end was I born, etc.  
In which Answer, our Blessed Saviour asserts two Great Truths, 

1. That he himself was truly and indeed a King, as Pilate had said.  
2. That He was King by Primogeniture and Birthright, for, unto this end, to wit, That he might be a King, and might declare to all the World, the same Truth, Was He Born.    
Thus the Holy Jesus rationally urges and pleads his own Birth, as a sufficient Title to his Father's Kingdom, inasmuch as his Father was a King, and He was his Firstborn.  
Which Answer of Christ's, when Pilate rightly understood, to wit, that Jesus was indeed a King, but not of this World; and when he understood also, that, Jesus his being a King was no more prejudicial to Caesar's Crown and Dignity, than was that internal Empire which the Stoic Philosophers attributed to every Wise Man: Now, when 
(a) Ex Jesu responso Pilatus concepit Regnum, quod Jesus sibi tribuerit, non magìs imperio Romano obesse, quàm id quod Stoici Sapienti suo tribuunt, qui docent, solum Sapientem Regnare, veram fortitudinem patiendo maximè probari, etc. Grot. in S. Jo. 18.  Pilate clearly understood Jesus his meaning, than He went immediately out of the Judgment-Hall unto the Jews, and professed publicly to them, That he found in Jesus no fault at all.   

SECT. III.  
The Proposition, proved by the Unalterable Law of Inheritance by Primogeniture.  
THAT all Kings and their Lawful Heirs, whether good or bad, whether Beloved or Hated, ought successively to Reign, is fully proved by the Ancient and Unalterable Law of Inheritance.  
Which Law was, and still is, grounded, 

1. On God's exprss Command, and so it is a judicial Law of God.  
2. On Natural Reason, and so it becomes a positive Law of Nature, obliging all Nations, at all times, to the Observation of it.    
Which Law of Inheritance by Primogeniture, we find recorded by Moses, in Deut. 21. v. 15, 16, 17. and it runs thus,—  
If a Man have two Wives, one Beloved, 
The Law of Inheritance.  and another Hated, and they have born him Children, both the Beloved, and the Hated; and if the Firstborn Son be hers that was Hated, than it shall be, 
☞  when he maketh his Sons to INHERIT that which he hath, that he may not make the Son of the Beloved, Firstborn, before the Son of the Hated, which is indeed the Firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the Son of the Hated for the Firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath, etc.  
By this Law, it is undeniably evident, that the Firstborn should ever be the Heir of his Father, whether the said Firstborn were Good or Bad, Beloved or Hated.  
And the Reason which God gives for that Law, is this, scil. v. 17. 
Deut. 21.17.  Because the Firstborn is the Beginning of his Father's strength, and, therefore, the Right of the Firstborn is his, that is to say, the Right of Inheritance is his.  
So that, this Law of Inheritance by Primogeniture is not only a positive and judicial Law, made by God, binding the people of the Jews; but it is also a Moral Law founded on Natural Reason: And therefore, is for ever Obligatory, and at all times, Binds all Nations to observe and keep it.  
For, if among the Jews, the Firstborn was therefore to Inherit, because he was the Beginning of his Father's strength:  
Then, by the same force of Reason, ought All Firstborn Sons of all men whatever, to Inherit their Father's Substance, because, they all are the Beginning of their Father's strength:  
And therefore,  
The Right of Inheritance, is theirs. From which Concessions, we thus argue, to wit,  
That if Succession and Inheritance be established upon the Firstborn in private Families, because of his Primogeniture;  
Then by the same Law, the Right of Inheritance and of Succession unto the Crown, is for ever settled upon the Firstborn of Kings. For, the Firstborn of Kings are the Beginning of their Royal Father's strength: And therefore, the Right of the Firstborn, that is to say, the Right of Inheritance and of Succession to their Father's Throne, is Theirs.  
And from this Moral Law of Inheritance by Primogeniture, it came to pass, that not only the Jews, but also, all Civilised Nations among the Heathens, did prefer their First born 
(a) Amplissimum verò dignitatis Gradum Primogenitus haereditario jure sibi vendicat, etc. Epist. Indi. Japan. p. 145.  Sons to be their Heirs; and particularly, the Firstborn Sons of their Kings to succeed and inherit their Father's Crown and Digities; for Common and Natural Reason dictated this to be the First-born's Right.  
And whenever (as sometimes) it did happen that some aspiring Domestic or Foreigner did attempt to put by the Right Heir from succeeding his Father, that then, War was immediately Commenced to defend the First-born's just Title to the Crown.  
And it is not be noted,  
That although ofttimes God did use his own Prerogative, and did, among the Jews, set up and pull down Kings, at his pleasure, which no Creature, though nver so great, aught to do.  
Yet, this is to be observed, that after God had once settled the Succession of the Crown of Israel in King David's Family, and particularly on King Solomon's Issue by Primogeniture; That then it was High Treason for any to put by the Lawful Heir and Successor, although the said Heir was an Idolater, and never so bad, as to, either Faith, or Manners.  
Nor may we forget the Chronologer's Observation, scil. 
Allen Script. Chronol. p. 154.  That All who reigned in Judah after King Solomon, they all were the Right Heirs to the Crown, except only Queen Athaliah, who was of the House of Omri, and of the Tribe of Issachar; She only, by Usurpation, Fraud and Violence, stepped up into the Throne that did not belong to her, and she paid dear for it, for, the Divine Vengeance soon overtook her, and rendered to her the just wages of her Treason, which was Death; for, 2 Chron. 23.15. they laid hold on her and slew her, and set up Joash (the Right Heir) and then, all the people rejoiced, and the City was quiet (v. 21) after that they had slain Athaliah (the Usurper) with the Sword; and had restored Joash, the Right Heir by Primogeniture, unto the Crown.  
And although, for the sins of Solomon, Almighty God did rend away from the House and Lineage of King Solomon, ten Tribes, and erected a distinct King over those said ten Tribes, to show, 

1. His own Justice against impenitent sinners.  
2. To exert his own Prerogative, and to let the World know, that it is in his power alone to set up, and to Depose Kings,    
Yet, God did not disinherit, for ever, the Right Heir of King Solomon;  
For, although God did set up a New Kingdom, and a New Succession in Israel, for the Reasons above mentioned, Yet, it was only for a certain term of years.  
And by limiting the Succession in Israel to a term of years, the Allwise God did clearly hint to all men, this Truth, to wit,  
That notwithstanding the Interregnum's of Jeroboam, and of all the other Kings of Israel; that, however, still the Right of Inheritance, and of Succession to the Imperial Crown over all Israel, as well as over all Judah, still belonged to the Line and House of Solomon. And it so happened, that after God had sufficiently punished the House of Solomon for their Rebellions against his Divine Majesty; That then, according to his own Law of Inheritance, he restored the whole Kingdom back again to the Right Heir of the Line and House of King Solomon:  
For, 
2 Kings 23.24.  Josias the Right Heir of King Solomon by Primogeniture, Reigned over all Israel, as well as over all Judah.  
Nor may we pass over in silence this Remark, scil.  
That whenever any Rebellious Subjects did depose and kill any King, whether in Judah, as did the Mutinous Subjects destroy Amon King of Judah, 
2 Kings 21.23.  upon the pretence of his being an Idolater: 
1 Kings 16.9.  Or, in Israel, as did Treacherous Zimri Murder his Lord Elah, King of Israel:  
Now, whenever any did thus disloyally attempt to depose and kill their Lawful Prince, and did endeavour to prevent the Right Heir from enjoying the Crown;  
Then, did God, by his wise and just Providence, so order Matters, as that the said Treacherous Attempters were ever Prosecuted for Traitors, and were deservedly Executed for their Treason. And if any scrupulous person shall desire to be farther informed, 
☞  for what Reason, it is not Lawful for any People to Depose and Kill their Lawful King, nor to Exclude the Right Heir by Primogeniture, from succeeding in the Throne, because of his Immorality, Tyranny, Idolatry, or becaused of any other pretended wickedness whatever:  
The Reason is,  
Because Kings are accountable only unto God, for their Faith and Manners, for their Principles and Practices, and not unto the People their Subjects: For, it is God, and not the People, who sets up Hererditary Kings and Princes.  
And therefore They are to give an Account of their Stewardship only unto Him of whom they received it. pa Hence it is, That, although God may in his wrath Depose Kings for their Sins committed against Himself: Yet, the People may not Depose any King, for any Irregularities or Outrages committed against Themselves, whether upon their Persons or their Estates.  
For, 
☜  the King is therefore accountable unto God, because He is (though a King) Inferior to God, being his Vicegerent. But the King is therefore unaccountable to his Subjects the Peopple; because, He is their Superior, being their King.  
And it is ever adjudged a thing preposterous and absurd for the Head to be accountable unto the Inferior Members, for its Government.  
It is very true, That both Reason and Interest speaks it to be the Duty and Concern of the Head to Govern and Manage the whole Body well, reguarly and judiciously, for fear of a severe check and punishment from an higher Hand, to wit, from the Superme Head and Governor of Heaven and Earth, and for fear the whole Body should miscarry, and be ruined through his ill Government.  
But, however, if the Head will not do his Duty, and Govern well, yet, the Inferior Members may not take up Arms and Rebel, and, in their zeal for Reformation, cut off the Head, as a Delinquent: But in such a case,  
It is the Inferiurs Duty humbly to kiss the Rod, partiently to submit to Divine Providence, and pray, saying, O Heavenly Father! Thy will, and not Ours, be done.  
And this, by the way, is worthy every Man's observation, scil.  
That, although God doth ofttimes raise up certain Rebels to be as his scourges to punish irregular Princes; and although it be just in God so to do: Yet, it is High Treason for those Rebels to execute God's Decrees and Judgements upon such their Lawful Princes, unless they have (as had Jehu) as special Warrant immediately from God himself, so to do; which Warrant, not Man since Christ's Advent ever had, or can have in the days of the Gospel.  
And therefore, 
☜  it is Treason for any Subjects, upon the specious pretence of executing God's Decree and Vengeance, to raise War, make Sedition, to Depose and Kill their Lawful Prince.  
Thus Absalon was guilty of High Treason, in making War, andi n raising Sedition against his Father King David, and He Died for it: And yet, Absalon did only execute God's Decree of Judgement against King David his Father.  
In like manner, God raised up Zimri to execute his Decree against the House of Baasha, and permitted Him to destroy his Master King Elah, the Son of Baasha; which Action of Zimri's kill his Master King Elah, is Condemned for an Act of High Treason, and was by the Loyal People punished as such, 1 Kings 16.20. And no better was Shallum's killing Zachariah the King:  
For although Shallum had done no other in killing his said Sovereign, King Zachariah, than what God aforehand had decreed should be done to the House of Jehu for his and their Hypocrisy and Wickedness;  
Yet, notwithstanding, Shallum's executing God's Decree, He was deservedly Condemned for a Traitor, and at length Vengeance seized upon him.  
By these, and other Instances, which might be alleged, it is evident,  
That Treason and Rebellion, although Commenced upon never so Religious a pretence, very seldom, if ever, went unpunished.  
And therefore we Christians may pertinently urge in this case of Treason and Rebellion, what Christ alleged in that of Offences, Matth. 18.7. Woe to the World, because of Offences, for Offences will come; but Woe to them by whom the Offence cometh. So here, Woe to the World, because of Treasons and Rebellions: for Treasons and Rebellions will happen, as long as Youth are not duly Catechised, and men are not better and more Loyally Principled. But, Woe to those Men by whom Seditions, Treasons, and Rebellions do come: For, the Divine Nemesis will undoubtedly pursue, and overtake them, either in this World, or in that to come.   

SECT. iv  
The Proposition proved by Reason, and the Common Sentiments of Religion.  
REason and Religion dictate it to be a thing absolutely sinful and unlawful for any Subjects whatever, High or Low (if they be Subjects) in Parliament or out of Parliament, to Depose their Lawful Prince:  
And that it is also unlawful for any Subjects, 
The Bill of Exclusion unlawful.  by a Bill of Exclusion, or by any other Means, to put by the Lawful Heir from the Crown, for fear (as was lately pretended) He should alter Religion, and so bring many Evils upon the Nation.  
Now, that it is utterly unlawful and sinful for any Subjects to do thus, Reason dictates;  
Because, to preclude a Lawful Heir from the Crown, for fear of future Evils which may happen in his Reign and Government, is truly,  
1. 
Malicious.  To suppose a fault in the Right Heir, before there is one; and to Act upon such a Supposal, savours of the height of Malice and Dis-ingenuity: In truth, so to do, in our apprehension, is no better than to Hang a Man first, and then to Try him afterward.  
2. 
Atheistical.  So to do, is to trust more to Man's Policy, than to God's Wisdom; more to Man's Care, than to God's Providence, for the prevention of suture Evils.  
The Holy Scriptures assure us, that the Heart of the King (and of his Right Heir) is in the hand of the Lord, 
Prov. 21.1.  and as the Rivers of Water, he turneth it whither soever he will.  
But this late Fanatical Doctrine, of Deposing Kings, and of Excluding the Right Heir from the Crown for want of Grace; and for fear of future Evils that may possibly be done by Him, speaks the contrary:  
For this their Doctrine avouches for a Truth, that the Heart of the King, and of his Successor, is not in the hand of the Lord: Or, if it be, that then, God will not turn it so, as to do any Good to the People.  
And therefore, the People (especially in Parliament) for the Good of the Commonwealth, aught to Usurp God's Prerogative, and take the Heart of the King and of his Lawful Heir, into their own hands, and dispose of it, as they, the People, shall judge best.  
Now, What is all this, but in effect, not only to Depose and Dethrone an Earthly Prince, and his Lawful Heir, but also to Depose and Dethrone Almighty God himself?  
Nay, What is it in plain English, but for the People to take the Reins of Government out of God's hand into their own, and to Rule the World according to their own exuberant fancies?  
Nay, What is it at the best, but to do an apparent Evil, that a Contingent Good may come on it?  
Which Principle is Antichristian, and Condemned for such by Saint Paul, who assures us, That they who maintain such an irreligious Tenet, scil. Let us do Evil, 
Rom. 3.8.  that Good may come; Their Damnation is just.  
And here it is to be farther noted, That if it be (as has been proved to be) a sin for the Subjects upon any pretence whatever to Depose their King, and to Exclude his Lawful Heir from the Throne for fear of any Evil that may happen through his ill Government;  
Now, if this be a sin,  
Then to be sure, much more is it a sin, for any Subjects to endeavour, That a Law might be made to Disinherit the Lawful Heir of the Crown, upon the pretences aforesaid. For,  
1. To make such a Law, is truly to make a Law directly to oppose and contradict the unalterable Law of Inheritance, which says that the Right Heir by Primogeniture, shall Inherit; and the other known Law of God, That He, who hateth Right, shall Govern.  
And therefore, it was a notorious Sin, 
Opposite to God's Law of Inheritance.  an Antichristian Act in the late Shaftsburian-Associators, to move for a Bill of Exclusion of his present Royal Highness James Duke of YORK from Succeeding in the Throne (notwithstanding his undoubted Right thereunto by Primogeniture) upon a presumptive jealousy, that He would not be a Friend to the true Episcopal-Protestant Religion of the Church of England, as now, by Law, Established. For by this Attempt, they endeavoured to have set up a New Law of Man, against the Ancient Law of God, which Commands (as we have heard already) that the Right Heir shall Govern, although he hate Righteousness, and although he be a Belial, an Idolater: And the Law of God is so far, from either Deposing a Lawful King, or Precluding the Right Heir, as that, it will not suffer any Subjects whatever to say, Their King is Wicked, or that, their Princes are .  
2. 
The Cause of Civil Wars and Sedition.  To make a Law for the Exclusion of the Lawful Heir from the Crown, is to establish Sedition and Faction by Law. And it is not only to cause, but also to perpetuate an Intestine and Civil War by Law; as our present most Wise and most Gracious King prudently and too truly urged in his late Declaration, giving that for one Reason, why neither in Honour nor in Conscience could He give his Royal Fiat unto that unnatural and irreligious Bill of Exclusion.  
For, if such a Bill should pass into a Law, than there must inevitably follow a Bloody, Civil War:  
Which can please none but them, who delight in Blood, and love to sish in troubled waters.  
And which will be worse,  
The said War will, in all likelihood, continue until the longest Sword shall have carried all before it. And who knows, but that Might may once again overcome Right, as it did at Worcester Fight, and in the late Cruel Rebellion?  
Now, Reason assures us,  
That upon passing the Bill of Exclusion into a Law, there most certainly will follow a Civil War; and that because,  
There will be in the Kingdom, two Opposite, irreconcilable Abettors for the Crown, and their Adherers; such as, 

1. The Right Heir, by Primogeniture, Excluded and his Party.  
2. The Usurper intruded, and his Confederates.    
And both sides will plead a just Title to the Crown.  
The Lawful Heir, Excluded, will urge (and that most truly) his Right thereunto by virtue of his Primogeniture, according to the Law of God, of Natural Reason, and of Magna Charta:  
And therefore to be sure, He will Fight, and that undauntedly, for the Crown.  
On the other hand, the Usurper will plead, and that not without Reason, his Title to the Crown, by virtue of the New Law of the Nation, to wit, the New Statute of Exclusion, which has settled the Royal Diadem upon his Head, and therefore He will not easily part with it.  
Wherefore, no man need doubt but that the Usurper will fight, and that stoutly, to keep what by Law he has got.  
Thus any Man (that has but half an eye) may (if he will) plainly see, That, if the Bill of Exclusion should pass into a Law (as the Anti-Yorkists so hotly desired) that then War and Sedition will be established and continued by Law.  
And now, suppose this should ever happen to be (which God forbidden:) Then the Great Query, and Case of Conscience will be, scil.  
Qu. What Party or Side ought the Pious and Dutiful Subject to take and follow?  
Ans. To deal plainly and faithfully in this Case, where Conscience and Religion, I mean Christianity, are so deeply concerned;  
We humbly conceive it to be the honest Subject's Duty in this case, rather to Obey God and his Law, and so, to fight, More Romano, Courageously for the Right and Lawful Heir by Primogeniture unjustly Excluded: This we ought to do, rather than to Obey Man and his New Law of Exclusion, and so, to engage for the Usurper, who Reigns and Governs not by Divine, but only by Humane, Law and Appointment.  
And we will Appeal to Conscience and Reason, Whether it be not safer to follow God and his Law, which cannot err, than Man who may err, and his Law of Exclusion, which does grossly err in the very Sanction of it; in that it manifestly opposes the  Law of God, which Commands, That the Right Heir by Primogeniture should Reign and Govern, although He hateth Right.  
Object. If it be (as it is, by all Anti-Yorkists and Common wealth's Men) objected, That the Law of the Realm is above the King, for that the Law made him King; And therefore (say they) the Law has a power to Depose the King, and to take away that Regal Authority which it gave him: As that Great (but to our thinking, Factious) Lawyer 
(a) Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo, & sub Lege, quia Lex facit Regem. Non est enim Rex, ubi dominatur Volumas, & non Lex, etc. Bract. l. 1. c. 8.  Bracton argues: And as is so often quoted from him, and seditiously urged by the Author of Julian Apostate, p. 83.  
And the very same Argument was pleaded by all the late Regicides, particularly by that Grand Regicide, Bradshaw the Lawyer, who had the Impudence to sit as Judge upon the Bench, and to pronounce that Diabolical Sentence of Condemnation upon his own Dread Sovereign, King Charles the First of Blessed Memory; and he palliated over his and their Horrid Treason with this colour of argument, to wit,  
That the Law was above the King.  
Ans. It is hoped, that all the Gentlemen of the Long-Robe will go on (as they already have worthily begun) to repair the Honour of their Noble Order, and that none of them will any more advise or plead for Treason, nor ever again deceive and seduce the silly, ignorant People with their specious and fallacious Arguments: But that they (who have been disloyal) will suffer themselves, and their Youth to be better Disciplined in the Doctrine of the Church of England: The neglect of which, has too apparently caused some of that Honourable and most necessary Function, and their Clients, so grossly to err in point of Obedience.  
But, as for the above mentioned Objection, it is already pithily Answered, by the King's Learned Sergeants at Law in Hilary-Term 1683, in their truly Loyal Motto,  
A DEO REX, A REGE LEX,  
God made the King, the King made the Law.  
And therefore, very false and Antiscriptural are the forementioned Positions, scil. 

1. That, the Law made the King.  
2. That, the Law is above the King.    
For, although, the Law of God indeed is above all Kings, and if they wilfully transgress the same, they are all accountable unto God, and unto God only for the same;  
Yet, in this Kingdom of England, no Statute-Law is, or can be, above the King.  
And that because,  
It was the King who first gave Life and Being to the Law of the Land:  
The King by his Royal Assent made the Law (Saluâ Regiâ Praerogatiuâ) to be what it is, to wit, a Law.  
But the Law of the Land did not make the King to be what he is, to wit, a King:  
For, the King was King before the Law;  
And so, he became the principal efficient Cause of the Law.  
And therefore, the King was before the Law, inasmuch as the Cause is ever before the Effect.  
And it is to be noted,  
That although the Law may (by Repeal, or other ways) be abolished, and die,  
Yet, in England the King never does, nor can, die, as long as there is alive any Lawful Heir by Primogeniture, though never so Remote.  
Object. But most, if not all the Anti-Yorkists, did, and still do urge, in favour of their Bill of Exclusion, the Statute of 13 Qu: Eliz. c. 1.  
When a Law was made, to this purpose, scil. That it should be High-Treason for any to affirm the Right in Succession of the Crown to be in some other than the Queen: Or to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance and Governance thereof. Whosoever shall, during the Queen's Life, by book, or work written, or printed, expressly affirm (before the same be established by Parliament) that any one particular person is, or aught to be Heir and Successor to the Queen, except the same be the natural issue of her body, etc. shall for the first offence be a whole year Imprisoned, and forfeit half his Goods; and for the second offence shall incur the penalty of Praemunire. Polt. Qu. El. 13. c. 1.  
This is the Act, and these are the words of that Act, which the Author of Julian the Apostate, and all the Factious Associatours have so stiffly pleaded, in Justification of their Bill of Exclusion.  
Ans. But, a little to undeceive the deluded People; and to tell the Truth, as far as we apprehend it;  
First, There was an Occasion, if not a Necessity, for such an Act in Queen Elizabeth's days; but there is none in these of ours.  
And the Reason for it is this, scil.  
Because in Her days, many, both Papists and fanatics, disputed Queen Elizabeth's Right and Title to the Crown:  
Nor was it certainly known, who by Birth and Primogeniture was the Lawful Heir of the Crown, after Queen Elizabeth's Decease, in case she should die without Issue of her own Body.  
And therefore an Act passed, Declaring two things, scil.  
1. That Queen Elizabeth was by Birth and Primogeniture, the Lawful Heir of the Crown.  
2. That, whomsoever the said Queen and the Laws of the Realm should declare to be by Descent and Primogeniture her Lawful Heir and Successor, That then, He or She so declared, should be acknowledged and owned for the Right Heir of the Crown; it being declared (as was said before) that He or She was the Right and proper Heir by virtue of Birth, Descent, and Primogeniture.  
So that, the aforementioned Act of Queen Elizabeth does confirm the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, to be only by Lawful Descent and Primogeniture.  
Secondly, But farther, If the meaning of that Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. were otherwise, than we apprehend it to be, Yet, it is well known, that,  
That Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. is Obsoleted, and out of Date, and was made only for Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and therefore is of no force or validity in these our days;  
And that because, in this our day, the Right Heir to the Crown by Descent, and Primogeniture, is well known:  
For, if he were not well known, then, pray, what need is there of a Bill of Exclusion to bar and preclude the Right Heir from succeeding in the Throne; and that only, as is pretended, for fear the supposed Right Heir, when once got into the Throne, should not Govern well?  
From these Arguings, it is evident, That the  Act of Queen Elizabeth is out of Date, and does no ways affect these our times, in which there is (at least there need be) no dispute, who, at present, is the Right Heir by Primogeniture.  
And therefore, it cannot be ignorance; but, as we fear, right down Prejudice, not to call it Malice, in them, who are knowing in the Law, to urge, from that Act of Queen Elizabeth's, a Lawfulness to hinder, by a Bill of Exclusion, the Right Heir from Inheriting the Imperial Crown of England, which is his undoubted Right by virtue of his lineal Descent and Primogeniture.  
It will not be impertinent, here to add the Observation of some judicious Men:  
How that, God never blessed, either that Family, or that People, which have unnaturally disinherited the Right Heir.  
And it has been observed by many, That, although the Law of this Our Kingdom does permit Parents to cut off the Entails of their Estates, from their Eldest Sons, when prodigal and vicious, or otherwise:  
Yet, it has been observed,  
That those Families which have taken that Liberty which the Law of the Land has given them, and therefore, have disinherited the Right Heir. That they never prospered or continued long, but by some evil Accident or other, they have been blasted in their Estates, or Reputations, and in few years have dwindled away into nothing.  
And as thus the Curse and Wrath of God has pursued private Families, which have disinherited the Right Heirs to their Estates;  
So, much more exemplarily has the Wrath of Almighty God visited in a direful manner those Nations and People, which have Rebelliously Deposed their Lawful Kings, and have Disinherited the Right Heirs to the Crown.  
And We, the Inhabitants of Great Britain, have had woeful experience of this Truth.  
For, who does not Remember those sad Judgements which afflicted this Our Nation, upon the Deposition and Murder of the late Pious Martyr King Charles the First, and upon the Exclusion of the Right Heir to the Crown, even our present Dread Sovereign, King Charles the Second?  
And what? Shall we ever yield again to them, who Plot to bring down the same, or worse, Judgements upon us, by Excluding the next Right Heir to the Crown?  
God forbidden! But rather, seeing We of this Nation are made whole, and do enjoy Our privileges and immunities, our peace and quietness; Let us therefore, Sin no more, by our Rebellion and Sedition, Lest a worse thing come unto us.  
For, that wholesome Advice, which Christ gave to the Impotent Man in the Gospel, is very applicable unto England—  
Behold, thou art made whole, Sin no more (by Deposing, or Precluding the Right Heir) lest a worse thing come unto thee.    

CHAP. IU.  
That all Subjects ought actively to Obey their Natural and Lawful Prince, in all things which be not positively against some known Law of God, although their said Prince be an Heathen, an Idolater, and Apostate, or never so Morally vicious.  
THE Proposition, we shall endeavour to prove,  
1. By the Law of Nature, and of Natural Reason, which enacts,  
That the Inferior shall ever be Obsequious and Obedient to his Superior.  
2. By the Authority of Sacred Scripture and Divine Reason, which Anathematizes all Rebellion, and the Authors of it.  
3. By the Authority and Practice, 

1. Of honest, Loyal Heathens.  
2. Of Christians, 

Both Primitive and Modern.      

SECT. I.  
The Duty of Obedience to Superiors, whether Morally Good or Bad, proved by the Law of Nature and of Natural Reason.  
NAtural Reason dictates, this Truth, to wit, That if a King has a Right to Command and Govern, than the Subjects have an indispensable Obligation upon them to Obey; for Precept and Obedience are naturally concomitant.  
And as Father and Son, so, Prince and People are Relatu secundum esse, not only Relatives, but also Essential Relatives, 
Aristot. Polit. l. 1. c. 8.  whose very Essence as such, consists in a mutual Relation of the one unto the other;  
So that, as no man can be said to be a Father, who has no Son; so, no man can be said to be a King, who has no Subjects:  
And as all Sons are either Dutiful, or Undutiful;  
So, all Subjects are either Obedient, or Disobedient.  
And as it is a Breach of the Law of Nature, for a Son to be undutiful; So, it is a Breach of the same Law, for a Subject to be disobedient.  
For, as the non-performance of the Father's Lawful Commands, renders the Son undutiful;  
So the non-performance of the King's Lawful Injunctions, speaks the Subject Rebellious:  
And whoever denies Obedience to his King, does in effect deny him to be King.  
And this is to be noted,  
That by the Law of Nature, All Children are strictly obliged to Obey their Parents whether they be Christians or Infidels, Good or Bad:  
For in the point of Filial Obedience, no Child ought to Dispute the Faith and Religion, the Morality or Immorality of his Parents.  
All that he is to consider, is that near, that essential Relation in which they stand unto him, to wit, that they are his Natural Parents;  
And therefore, without farther dispute, They are to be obeyed.  
And as thus the Son,  
So also the Subject in point of Obedience to his Prince, is not to dispute nor question the Virtues or the Vices, the Religion or Principles of his Prince;  
But solely to consider, that essential and indissoluble Relation, in which his Prince stands unto him, to wit, That He is his Natural and Lawful Prince;  
And therefore, must of Necessity be Obeyed.  
And we may argue farther,  
That the Law of Nature and of sound Reason Dictates,  
1. That all good Order ought to be kept.  
2. That Order cannot be preserved, if Inferiors shall Rebel and Resist the Commands of their Superiors.  
3. That all Disorder and Rebellion threatens ruin to the Whole.  
Which Mischief to prevent,  
The Law of Nature obliges every Being, within its own proper Sphere, to contribute its utmost endeavours towards the preservation of the whole.  
These things being granted to be according to the Laws of Nature and Natural Reason;  
It cannot, now, but wound the Heart of any understanding Man, whether Christian or Heathen, to see the Heel rise up and kick against the Head, to see Subjects Plot and Rebel against their Natural and Lawful King, especially, seeing, all Rebellion is (as has been proved) no other, than waging open War against Nature herself: Nature having Constituted all things in a most harmonious Order, placing one Being before another, and strictly Commanding every Being to keep its own Station, and to act only within its own Circuit, and not to move excentrically.  
And in truth, wonderful is the excellent Governance of Nature; For, where there are Millions of Individuals of the same Species, there Nature ever makes One to move First; and all the rest, to move orderly and successively.  
And this Natural Law of Regularity, and of Priority and Posteriority, is duly observed by all Movables, whether  Animate, or Inanimate. 
1. All Things Inanimate, such as the Elementary Particles, when they move Ascendent or Descendent, they All observe the Natural Laws of Motion, particularly, of Priority and Posteriority, and do All move Regularly one after the other, to prevent Confusion.  
Natural Philosophy assures us,  
That whenever there does happen the least Disorder and Irregularity among the Inferior parts of Nature, that then to prevent a general Revolt and Fraction;  
The Supreme Nature is Necessitated to act severely, and by force to reduce the Rebellious Particles into their Right Order.  
And thus, sometimes, the Supreme Nature causes things to act and move quite contrary to their particular Natural Inclinations.  
Thus; Water, sometimes is forced to ascend, contrary to its Natural Tendency.  
And Air to descend, contrary to its Natural Propensity.  
And all this is done to prevent (as was hinted before) a greater Rebellion and Rupture, and to preserve the safety of the Universe.  
2. The Laws of Nature and Good Order are also duly observed by things Animate, although they be Irrational:  
For they have their Superiors and Inferiors.  
Yea, 
Gerson.  the very Beasts of the field, are said to Observe the Natural Law of Primogeniture: And in their Motions to put the Eldest foremost: And when this Order is broke, by some Rebellious and Disorderly Juniours, then commonly, there happens among them a fierce Combat.  
Thus, as the Poet notes, there is Rex Gregis, a King among the Herds of , and the Flocks of Sheep:  
And it is well known, that the Lion is commonly called the King of Beasts.  
Nay, not only Beasts, but also Infects, such as Bees, have their King;  
And Bees have not only a King, but Virgil in the praise of them, says, 
— Regem non sic Aegyptus, 
Virg. Georg. 4.  & ingens Lydia, nec populi Parthorum aut Medus Hydaspes  
Observant, etc.  That the Bees are more Observant and Obedient to their King, than ever were the Egyptians, Parthians, or Medes to their King.  
And therefore a Bee in the Gothick Language is 
* Minsheu.  Bi-eju, quasi penes unum, which signifies a Company, incorporated, under one Head.  
The Bees have their Laws of Government which they punctually observe.  
And one of their chiefest Laws, is, That all the Subjects of their Commonwealth, should carefully and dutifully, in their fixed courses, wait upon, and guard their King, at home and abroad:  
And therefore, they will never move without a word of Command, nor fly in swarms without their King; but most Loyally wait his Royal Pleasure; and whilst His Majesty is solacing himself in his Palace, they, like so many Lifeguard Men, most dutifully hover about, and attend the Door. And it has been observed, That, if, through too long Attendance, they have grown faint and weary in their Service;  
Yet, they will rather humbly fall down Dead at the foot of their King, than desert their Station, and hazard His Majesty's safety.  
And if any Enemies, such as Wasps and Hornets, shall at any time assault their King's Dominions; They all unanimously take up Arms in defence of their King, and will fight on his behalf, to the last Breath.  
And which is most remarkable, — Rege incolumi, mens omnibus una est. Whilst their King is safe, nothing can afflict them; but they are all cheerful and unanimous; the most critical eye cannot discern the least Discord among them.  
But on the other hand, 
— Rege  
Amisso, rupêre fidem, 
Virg. ibid.  etc.  Their King once (unhappily) lost, they are all in a tumult, their Government is dissolved, and every one does what he pleases, for their Laws expire with their King:  
So that, they all, by stealth and plunder, get what they can. And like so many unruly Banditi, they seldom give over pillaging, until they have either lost their lives, or luckily listed themselves in the Service of some other Neighbouring Prince.  
For, such is the Nature of a Bee, as that he can never live quietly, without a King.  
By these instances, it is sufficiently demonstrated,  
That all Being's whatever are Obedient to their Superiors, and do keep good Order: And that Most, if not All Living Creatures, which are guided only by the Light of Nature, do not only prefer Monarchy above all Governments, but also enjoin strict Obedience thereunto, according to the Laws of Nature.  
And what? Shall only Man (of all the Creation, except Devils) walk disorderly, and be found Rebellious and disobedient unto God, and unto his Natural Prince, contrary to the Law of Nature and sound Reason?  
For shame! Let it never be said, That Man, the Glory of the Creation, is in a Conspiracy with the Fallen Angels, against God and the King.   

SECT. II.  
The Duty of Obedience to Superiors, whether Morally good or bad, Christians or Heathens, proved by Authority of Divine Reason and Scripture.  
NOT only the Law of Nature, but also the Law of God, and Divine Authority Command Loyalty and Obedience to be shown unto all Kings, whether Heathens or Christians, Good or Bad;  
And declare also, That it is the Subjects Duty not only to Obey them, but also, hearty to pray for their prosperity.  
Thus the Patriarch Jacob did not only do humble Reverence and Honour unto King Pharaoh an Heathen, but also gave him his BENEDICTION: for, Jacob Blessed Pharaoh, 
Gen. 47.7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 
Munster. Drus. Ains. in Loc.  Jacob saluted him, with Prayer for his Welfare, and with Thanks for his Bounty.  
And the Holy Prophets, who of all men were most free from Courtship and Flattery, they, especially the Prophet Daniel, did Honour and Worship, even Heathen-Kings, and frequently saluted them with this Pathetical Option, 
VIV AT REX,  
O King, Live for ever!   
Which is all one with,  God save the King. 
In like manner St. Paul did Honour Noble Festus the Roman Governor, and King Agrippa, who were no Christians.  
And the same Apostle exhorts Titus, Bishop of Crete, 
Tit. 3.1.  to put All Men in mind of being subject to Principalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates (whether Christians or Heathens, good or bad) and to be ready to every good work.  
And in Hebr. 13.17. the Jews are Commanded to obey all that had Rule over them: Which Rulers over them in the State, were the Roman Emperors and Deputies, who were, at that time, inveterate Enemies to Christianity.  
Our Blessed Saviour himself Commands all Men (Christians especially) to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as well as to God, what is God's: And the Law of God and of Man tells us, that Honour and Obedience is Caesar's due, therefore it must be paid.  
And St. Paul, writing to the New-converted Romans at Rome, charges them to be subject to Caesar, and the Higher Powers; And he gives this Reason for the necessity of their Obedience, to wit, Because there is no power but of God; and that, 
Rom. 13.1, 2.  Whosoever resisteth the Powers, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and he that risisteth, shall receive to himself Damnation.  
And the very same pious Doctrine of Loyalty does St. Peter teach, 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man, for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as Supreme, or to Governors, as unto them, which are sent by him.  
And v. 18. St. Peter adds, as the Whole Duty of Man, this Injunction,  Fear God, Honour the King. 
Thereby (according to Beaufrons) plainly intimating unto us this excellent Truth, scil.  
That if we will not peaceably submit to every Ordinance of the King, 
* Beaufrons, c. 8. p. 89.  as to things Lawful, but become Mutinous and Rebellious; then, notwithstanding our high profession of Religion, and of fearing God, we neither, Fear God, nor Honour the King: for as God is ever to be Feared, so the King is ever to be Honoured.  
Unto these Instances of Holy Writ, pleading for Obedience to Kings, and to the Supreme Magistrates, we may add that Loyal Decree, which the Reubenites, and Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manasseh made: For they all were so zealous for Obedience unto Joshua their Supreme Magistrate, as that they Decreed, 
Josh. 1.18.  That whosoever Disobeyed Joshuahs Commands, and would not hearken unto his words, in all that he commanded, he should be put to Death.  
The Prophet Samuel terms Rebellion no better than Witchcraft: 
1 Sam. 15.23.  So that, according to him, Whosoever Rebels, has forsaken God, and is gone over, Volunteer, to the Devil, and is carrying on his works of Darkness.  
Nor may we pass over in silence, that smart check which the Heathen Sanballat gave (though most undeservedly) unto Loyal Nehemiah, saying, What is this thing that ye do? 
Nehem. 2.19.  Will ye Rebel against the King? Will ye Rebel? that is to say, in the Negative; No, surely! ye will not offer to Rebel against the King: For, your Jewish Religion (which ye say is the only true Religion in the World) teaches you otherwise, and instructs you better, to wit,  
That although the King be, in your opinion, no other than an uncircumcised Heathen, and (as you believe) an Idolater,  
Yet, for all this, ye ought (according to your own Religion) not to Rebel against him.  
From these Proofs in Canonical Scriptures, we may rationally argue, and conclude with the truly Loyal Archbishop Laud, and others of the Church of England, scil.  
That all the Commands of a King, 
Heyl. in Vit. Archb. Laud. p. 310.  which are not, upon the first Inference and Illation, contrary to some clear passage of the Word of God, or to some evident Sunbeam of the Law of Nature, are precisely to be obeyed.   

SECT. III.  
The Proposition; That All Lawful Kings, whether Morally good or bad, aught to be obeyed, proved by the Authority and Practice of honest Heathens.  
HItherto we have heard the Divine Oracles amply declaring the Subject's Duty peaceably to Obey their Lawful Kings, and their Successors, whether Papists or Protestants, Heathens or Christians, Good or Bad. The very same Truth and Duty, we find urged, and confirmed by the Authority and Practice of mere Heathens, who were guided only by the glimmering Light of their Natural Reason, even such as they, did not only teach, but also practise Loyalty and Obedience to their Lawful Princes.  
Hesiod discoursing on the Benefits of Kingly Government, tells his Reader, that — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hesiod. Theog.  etc. unto the King the People do all, most dutifully, look, waiting for his Word of Command; They being fully assured, that, seeing their prosperity is his happiness; He, therefore, will order all things right, according to the Rules of Justice.  
And when King Jupiter was Dethroned by the Rebellious Titanes, than the Loyal Party mustered up their Forces, and humbly tendering their Services to him their King, They all unanimously entered into a solemn Vow, that they would fight his Cause, and never sheathe their Swords, until 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. they had vanquished all his Enemies, and had restored him to his Imperial Crown and Dignity.  
Theocritus enlarging himself on the Praise and high Commendations of King Ptolemaeus, says, He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most happy of all men, not only in that He (being King) — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theocr.  etc. was the care and charge of the Supreme God:  
But also he was happy, in that — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All his Subjects were Obedient and Conformable to his Government, and were not factious and tumultuous, nor given to Seditious Talk, nor to Idleness. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But every man kept his own Station, and peaceably followed his own business.  
And at last, he religiously concludes his Panegyric on the said King with this pathetical Epiphonema, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theocr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 17.   
God save King Ptolemy.   
Phocylides in his Admonitory Poem, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cautions all men, especially Subjects, that are under an Oath of Obedience, punctually to keep their Faith and Allegiance: And that, Because, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
God hates a perjured person.   
It is Remarkable, That  
Fabius Maximus, after he had been Consul five times, became Obedient to his Son Suessa, who was promoted to that high Office. And when some jealousy arose, that He had contemned the Authority of his said Son, for that, upon his first approach into his Son's Presence, He did not bow the Knee, nor did him that Honour and lowly Reverence which was due to his Consulary Dignity. Fabius presently corrected the mistake, assuring his Son the Consul, that He did not forbear to give him due Honour and Worship, out of contempt, 
(a) Non ego, inquit, Fili, summum imperium tuum Contempsi, sed experiri volui, an scires Consulem agere: necignoro quid Patriae venerationi debeatur, verùm publica instituta privatâ pietate potiora judico. Valer. Max. l. 2. c. 2. §. 4.  but only to try, whether He so young, knew how to maintain the Magnificency and Grandeur of a Consul, or did rightly understand how to treat Him, not as his Natural Father, but as his most dutiful Subject; for, he did openly declare, That the Public Honour and Veneration due to the Supreme Magistrate, ought ever to precede all private Duty to Parents.  
The Senate of Rome, to show their Abhorrency of the treacherous Assassination committed on the Person of their Emperor Julius Caesar, in publico luctu, did most solemnly bewail that horrid and execrable Fact, in a public Lamentation: And, Damnati Omnes, Condemned to Death all the Plotters and Actors thereof: And although the said Regicides fled from Justice, yet the vengeance of God pursued them all; So that, not any one of them died a Natural Death; But 
(a) Alius alio casu periit— pars naufragio, pars praelio, nonnulli semet eodem illo pugione, quo Caesarem violaverant, interemerunt, etc. Sueton. Vit. Jul. Caes. §. 84.  some of them perished at Sea, others were slain in Battle: Some casually knocked on the head, and others killed themselves, with the very same Dagger with which they had wounded Caesar.  
And Aemilius Probus gives us another Remarkable Instance of the Divine Hand punishing Treachery and Disloyalty in the Person, and Complices, of Mithrobarzanes, who perfidiously revolting from Datames his Lawful Prince unto the Pisidians, who were at that time Datames his open Enemies, was, at last, upon a right understanding of his perfidiousness, furiously assaulted by both 
(b) Proditores perculit, & hosts profligavit, & quod ad suam perniciem fuerat cogitatum id ad suam salutem convertit: quo neque acutius ullius Imperatoris cogitatum, ne que celerius factum usquam legimus. Cornel. Nep. Datam. p. 132.  Parties, and miserably destroyed; by whose Death, Datames was freed from the Traitor, and from his Enemies the Pisidians.  
It is recorded by Quintus Curtius for the everlasting praise of the Grecians, that it was their natural wont, to Honour and Obey their Kings. 
(a) Nam haud facilè dictu est, praeter ingenitam illi genti erga Reges suos venerationem, quantum hujus utique Regis vel admirationi dediti fuerint, vel charitate flagraverint, etc. Quint. Curt. l. 3.  And when Alexander their King was (beyond expectation) recovered from a desperate sickness, occasioned by a fall into the River Cydnus, All his Loyal Subjects (especially his Soldiers) were so overjoyed at the good news thereof, as that they presently made their humble Addresses to His Majesty, hearty Congratulating His happy Recovery. And as a farther expression of their Loyalty, and of their great joy for their King's safety, they did also multiply their Thanks and their Bounty to Philip the King's Physician, for his Faithfulness to the King, and for his great Care, and Cure, of Him. Nor may we forget Isocrates his high Eulogium's of the said Grecians.  
How that, they always preferred the Public Good of the Kingdom before their private Interest, and that they did not desire so much to be Rich and Great, as to be Honest and Useful to the Commonwealth: And that they did not covet to leave any better Patrimony to their Children, than that of Honour, Loyalty, and Renown. Nay, they never contended 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Dionys. Halicar. in Vit. Isocr.  one with another, but when they strove, who should be most serviceable to his King and Country. And so faithful were they to their Prince, and to all men, as that their bare word was of more value, than other men's Oaths, in after-ages.  
And Nicocles pressing the Subject's Duty to Obey their Prince, draws his Argument à Commodo, from the great Benefits they all would most certainly reap thereby: for then, they would abound in Wealth and Riches, and would enjoy peace and quietness at home, and would become a Terror to their Enemies, and be the Envy and Emulation of their Neighbours abroad. And as 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Isocr. Ni.  the Kingdom of the Persians, so that of Nicocles would flourish and prosper more by the Subjects Love and Obedience towards their Prince, than by any prowess of Arms, or by any other politic Contrivances whatever.  
For, as Diogenes Synopeus (a man generally morose, and averse from Monarchy) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Diog. Laert. Vit. Diog.  etc. said, that the Life and Essence of Civil Polity, consisted in Honour and Good Order; for so does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify in Diogenes his sense.  
And Tacitus, to the same purpose, urges the Necessity of the Subjects Obedience to their 
(a) Pereunte obsequio imperium etiam intercidit, & si ubi imperatur, queri singulis liceat. Tacit. Hist. l. 1.  Prince, because, otherwise, there would soon be a Dissolution of all Good Order, and of the whole Frame of Government.  
Now, one way to preserve the Government established, and to continue the present peace and welfare of the Kingdom, (as Nicocles adviseth) is, not only to obey the King, but also to obey and to honour All that are in Authority under him; for whoever 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  envies and maligns the King's Friends and Prime Ministers of State, do malign the King Himself, and do really strike at him through their sides: Whereas, were they truly Loyal, they would Love and Honour those, whom their King Loved and Honoured.  
And whereas many drank the King's Health, and talked big of their Loyalty, and highly applauded their King.— But yet, says Nicocles, true Loyalty 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Isocr. Nicocl.  consists more in Works, than in Words; more in Obedience, than in Talk.   

SECT IU.  
The Proposition; That all Subjects ought actively to Obey their Natural and Lawful King, in all things which be not positively against some known Law of God, although their said Prince, be an Heathen, an Idolater, and Apostate, or never so Morally vicious, proved by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Christians.  
THE Doctrine and Duty of Obeying All Lawful Kings, whether Heathens or Christians, Good or Bad, in all things that are not positively Evil, was constantly taught, and conscientiously practised by the Primitive Christians, both Clergy and Laity.  
Ignatius, the second Writer after the Apostles, declares, that All Kings are to be honoured, because they represent God the King of Kings: And as in Heaven none is Greater than God, so on Earth, none 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ign. Epist. Smyrn.  is Greater than the King.  
So says also Tertullian, Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo Minorem, etc. 
(b) Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem, etc. Opta. l. 3. and so Saint Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Rom. 13.1.  That the Christians honoured and worshipped the Emperor (who was then an Heathen) as a man second to God, and less only than God.  
And Justin Martyr Apologizing for the Primitive Christians, who were accused of Sedition and Disobedience against the Emperor, and his Government, assures the Emperor Antoninus Pius, that the aforesaid Accusation was very false, and a mere Calumny cast upon the Christians: For, he challenged the whole World, to prove, that ever any true Christian was either Seditious in Words, or Factious and Rebellious in Actions.  
And therefore 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Just. Mart. Apol. 2.  if nothing of that nature could be proved against them, it was unreasonable upon surmises and false reports to punish the Innocent.  
And Justin farther pleads,  
That the Christians were so far from opposing their Emperor or his Government, as that their Religion obliged them to assist and to fight for Him, and to endeavour to outdo all others his Subjects, (who were not of the Christian Religion) in promoting His and his Empire's safety and prosperity: And this they did, out of dread and fear of the true God, who hated all Evil Doers, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Just. Mart. Apol. 2.  particularly such as were Seditious Traitors, and Malicious (b) Murderers of their Lawful Prince: All which Disturbers of the Public peace, the Christians God would severely punish either in this life, or in that to come.  
And the said Emperor Antoninus Pius was so well satisfied with the Dutiful and Loyal Behaviour of the Christians, as that he openly declared, That He verily believed the said Christians did (according to their Religion) abhor to plot any thing against the Roman Emperor, or his Government, and that they would choose to die, rather than offend either their God, or their King; And therefore He wrote Letters unto the Governors and Deputies of Asia, and other places, prohibiting them, to prosecute the Christians any more upon the account of their Religion.  
And to the same effect wrote Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Philosophus unto the Roman Senate, advising the said Senate not to persecute the Christians, but rather to esteem them their Friends. For, says he, the Christians 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Just. Mart. Apol. 2.  casting themselves down on the ground, prayed fervently, not only for him the Emperor, but also for all his Army: And by the prevalency of their prayers, He and all his Host were miraculously delivered from a dreadful Famine and Drought under which they laboured: And the Christians God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom he knew not, by their Intercession, did not only free Him and his Army from their imminent danger, but also gave him a complete Victory over his and the Senate's Enemies, by striking them down dead, under foot, with Fire and Hailstones from Heaven.  
Athenagoras in his Embassy for the 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Athenag. Legat. p. 4.  Christians, Appeals unto the Emperor Aurelius Antoninus Himself, to justify the Christians as to their Obedience unto his Royal Person, his Noble Family, his Laws and Imperial Government; for he knew full well that the Christian Religion taught them to believe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That all Kings had their Authority from above, and therefore were to be obeyed: Nay, he knew that the Christians did not only honour and obey him Aurelius Antoninus the Father; but they also Revered and Honoured Aurelius Commodus the Son and Right Heir of the Crown, and therefore they prayed jointly for the prosperity and happiness of both 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  Father and Son:  
Yea, the Christians prayed, that the said Emperor's Son, and his Son's Lawful Heirs might succeed in the Throne (for, says he, that was a most just and righteous thing) and that his and their Kingdom might grow greater and greater, and 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. p. 40.  that all things might happen to His and His Heirs content, and that they (poor Christians) might lead under Him, and his Successors, a sober and quiet life, seeing they all did cheerfully observe his Commands.  
Theophilus Antiochenus putting a difference between God and the King, expresses himself to this effect, scil.  
God we Adore, the King we Honour and Obey as a Man set over us by 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph. Antioch. ad Autol.  God, and by so doing, we fulfil the Will of God.  
Tatianus the Assyrian adviseth all Christians to be Obedient to their King. And (says he) if the King requires of his Subjects Tribute and Custom, they must pay it; if he Commands 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Tatian. contr. Graec.  their Obedience and Service, they must yield it: But if he Commands things absolutely unlawful, such as to deny the true God, than they must choose rather humbly and meekly to suffer Death itself, than actively to obey his unjust Command.  
Tertullian writes (as did Justin Martyr) that the Primitive Christians lived so exactly innocent and inossensively, towards all in Authority, as that their Enemies could find no fault in 
(a) I●… potest●… scelus● in ca●… sed 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 ratio opera●… sequi●… Ter●… adv●…  them, except that of their Religion: And therefore although they were persecuted even to Death, yet it was not for any Disobedience to their Emperor, and Governors, nor for any Moral wickedness and vice found in them, but only for the Name of Christian.  
St. Cyprian most earnestly exhorts all the Clergy and Laity, 
Cyp●… De●… nun●…  dutifully to obey the Emperor, and by no means, upon the account of Religion, Oppression, or of any other pretence whatever, to raise any Tumults or Sedition, or to make any Resistance, no, not in case they were by the Emperor and his Judges Sentenced to die for their Religion. And for their Pattern and Exemplar, they should take Him their Diocesan, who preached and practised nothing more than Piety towards God, Loyalty towards the Emperor, and peace and quietness to the Commonwealth, and 
(b) 〈◊〉 mu●… ab●… stit●… tun●… suli●… gin●… un●… ab●… per●… per Christianorum Laicorum & Episcoporum Nomine Mand●… dicturi quod ad horam Dominus dici voluerit: Vos autem pro●… quam de mandatis Dominicis à me semper accepistis, & secu●… me tractante, saepissimè didicistis, quietem & tranquillita●… nè quisquam vestrum aliquem tumultum de fratribus moveat, Epist. 83. § 2.  was ready to die, only he patiently waited the Emperor's Pleasure and Order for his Martyrdom.  
Irenaeus discoursing on the Original of Kingly Government, in opposition to the Gnostics and Valentinians, who affirmed, that all Civil Magistracy was of the Devil's, and not of God's Institution:  
He tells his Reader, that,  
Cujus jussu Homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & Reges constituuntur.  
As God only made Man, so God only constituted and made Kings: And he gives a very good Reason, wherefore God made Kings, and Instituted the Secular Powers, and Commanded strict Obedience to be rendered to them, to wit,  
Because, when Man fell and Apostatised from 
(a) Quoniam enim absistens à Deo homo, in tantum efferabit, ut etiam consanguineum Hostem sibi putaret, & omni inquietudine, & homicidio, & avaritiâ sine timore versaretur, imposuit illi Deus humanum timorem ut potestati hominum subjecti, & lege eorum astricti, aliquid assequantur justitiae, & moderentur ad invicem in manifesto positum gladium timentes, etc. ad utilitatem ergò Gentilium, terrenum regnum positum est à Deo; sed non à Diabolo, qui nunquam omninò quietus est, imò qui nec ipsas quidem Gentes vult in tranquillo agere, etc. Irenae. l. 5. c. 24.  God, He and his Posterity grew outrageous and ungovernable: And therefore to prevent farther disorders among Men, God wisely Ordained Kings and Governors, who by strict Laws of Morality, Justice and Equity should restrain, and reclaim Apostatised Mankind, and as God's Vicegerents, should reward Virtue, and punish Vice: Thus, says Irenaeus, God was the first Author of all Order and Government, and not the Devil, who was the first Incendiary of all Sedition and Rebellion: And that God set Kings over the Gentiles for their good and profit, to govern them, to protect and defend them from all Injuries, Tyranny and Oppressions.  
Clement Alexandrinus, urging from Scripture many necessary Duties upon his Scholars, when he treats of Government, 
Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
He briefly tells them their great Duty of Obedience to the Secular Powers, in our Saviour's words, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.  
Celsus the Heathen, that he might, with greater colour of Reason, oppose the spreading of the Gospel of Christ,  
Does object, That (according to Christ's own saying) Christians cannot be Obedient to Emperors and Kings, nor to any in Civil Authority: And that because, Christ (says He) has taught them this Factious Lesson, scil.  
That they cannot (and therefore, ought not) serve two Masters, such as, God and the King: For, says Christ, they will love the one, and hate the other, etc.  
And therefore from thence does Celsus plead (though very falsely) that Christianity lays 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Orig. contr. Cells. l. 8.  a foundation for Resistance of the Civil Powers, and for Rebellion against their Lawful Princes, inasmuch as (according to their Lord and Master Christ's words) St. Matth. 6.24. No man can serve two Masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else, he will hold to the one, and despise the other.  
To this long Harangue and Objection, Origen replies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that the  words of Christ do not in the least countenance Rebellion:  
For, says Origen,  
Although there be many Gods and many Lords, yet there is but one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of Gods, who is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, King of Kings, and all the other Gods and Kings are Subordinate to him the Supreme.  
And therefore, to obey lawful Kings on Earth, is to obey God in Heaven, for the King is God, that is, God's Vicegerent and Representative upon Earth;  
So that, in the point of Obedience, God and the King are but One Master, only the one is Invisible, the other Visible; the one God by Essence, the other God by Deputation and Office:  
And as God and the King are One Master, so they both are carefully and duly to be Worshipped and Reverenced; only the One with Divine, the Other with, Civil, Honour and Obedience.  
And, 
Orig. contr. 〈◊〉. l. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
As we are always to pray unto God, so we are always to pray to him, for the King, that God would bless and prosper Him in his Government.  
Origen pressed due Obedience unto Heathen Kings in all things Lawful: But if any thing Unlawful was Commanded, than he advised all Christians, not to obey Actively by doing what was Commanded; but Passively, by suffering patiently whatever should be inflicted upon them.  
And because Origen was of opinion, That it was a sin, for any Christian to fight under the Banner of an Heathen Prince; Therefore it was, that He dissuaded the Christians from going into the Wars, and from fight under their Lawful Emperor, which was Origen's great failing, and gave Celsus occasion to Revile the Christians, and to Stigmatize them, as Stubborn, Disobedient and Seditious:  
However, although Origen was against the Christians fight under an Heathenish Banner;  
Yet He himself did, and advised all Christians, to pray 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ibid. p. 427.  for the Emperor's safety and success in all his Lawful Wars and Enterprises.  
Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration to Julian the Collector of the Emperor's Tribute, exhorts all people to keep their own Station, and not to walk disorderly, for God is a God of Order and Peace:  
And therefore, says he,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
That it is not Lawful for Subjects to Censure their Governors, nor to prescribe Laws and Rules to their Legislatours: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
But every man ought to be content with his own condition, and aught to live and act peaceably in his own private sphere, although possibly he may deserve to be promoted higher:  
And thus, as he would not have the Laity to Usurp the Jurisdiction and Office of the Bishops and Priests, lest they should make a Schism and Faction in the Church:  
So neither, would he have the Subjects to entrench upon the Prerogative of their Superiors, lest they should cause Sedition and Rebellion in the State.  
And therefore, upon the whole, he concludes, that all Christians ought to imitate their Lord and Head, Jesus Christ, who rendered to God what was God's, and to Caesar what was Caesar's, such as, 
Naz. ad Julian. Orat. 9  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Tribute, Fear, Honour and Obedience.  
And when the said Gregory Nazianzen was accused by the Arians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for a Factious, Troublesome and Seditious person: Gregory cleared himself of that Scandal and foul Aspersion, by appealing to his own Doctrine and known Conversation, He having ever been, 
Gregor. Presb. Vit. Naz.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a constant promoter of Obedience to the Government, and of peace in the Commonwealth.  
And although, this Holy Father, Greg. Nazianzen, wrote very Satirically against Julian the Apostate. And, as we humbly conceive, he did too unworthily (if not too unchristianlike) inveigh against the said Julian for his Apostasy, especially considering, 
(a) Vir caetera egregii animi, regendique imperii callentissimus. Lodovic. Vives, in Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 21.  He had been Emperor, and a very Learned one:  
Yet this is to be noted, that whilst Julian was living, and was the undoubted Right Heir to the Throne, no body opposed his Succession, notwithstanding many Enormities committed by him, before he was Crowned Emperor: And all the time that Julian Reigned, the aforesaid Gregory Nazianzen lived quietly and peaceably under his Government, and never wrote one syllable (as we know of) against him: But on the contrary, Gregory did, upon all occasions, show the said Julian (when living) due Honour and Reverence: 
Greg. Naz. Orat. 9  And when Gregory Nazianzen had occasion to reflect upon Julian's miscarriages, He did modestly Veil all over, with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let us Bury them in silence.  
Though, it is too true, and must be acknowledged (in our opinion) as a great fault in so good a Man, as was Gregory Nazianzen, That after Julian the Apostate was dead, he did too undutifully, not to say, too inhumanely, expose His Dread Sovereign's Nakedness to the whole World, 
Orat. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. in worse Language than ever Michael the Archangel brought against the Devil, when he disputed about the Body of Moses. 
Jud. Ep. v. 9   
But yet, this is to be said for Gregory (as was hinted before) that he wrote his Invective against Julian, not as an Orator whilst Julian was Living; but, rather, as a Passionate Historian, after he was Dead.  
St. Augustine pleading for Obedience to Kings and Emperors, Answers the Grand Question, scil.  
Quest. Whether a Christian may Lawfully obey an Heathen Emperor, and may harmlessly Fight under his Banner?  
Ans. He determines the Controversy in the Affirmative, contrary to Origen; and declares, That it is the Christian Soldiers bounden Duty to Obey his Lawful Prince, although he be an Heathen, and to fight faithfully and courageously under his Command; yea, this the Christian ought to do, although the Grounds and Occasion of the said War be probably unjust on 
(a) C●m ergò Vir justus, si fortè sub Rege homine etiam sacrilego militet, rectè possit, illo jubente bellare civicae pacis ordinem servans; Cui quod jubetur. vel non esse contra Dei praeceptum certum est, vel utrum sit, certum non est, it a ut reum Regem faciat iniquit as imperandi, innocentem autem Militem ostendat ordo imperandi. Aug. contr. Faust. Manich. l. 21. c. 75.  the King's side.  
And his Reason for it is this, scil. Because, God will punish the King or Emperor for Commencing an unjust War, but He will amply reward the innocent and dutiful Soldier for his hearty and sincere Obedience unto his Lord the King.  
And elsewhere St. Augustine adds, Rex semper Honorandus, si non propter se, attamen propter Ordinem, etc. 
St. Aug. quaest. 35. Vet. & Nor. Test.  That a King is always to be Honoured, if not for his own personal Excellencies, yet, for his Kingly Order and Dignity.  
And in his most Incomparable Book, the Civ. Dei, He informs the People, That although Nero was a Tyrant and the worst of men as to his Personal Immoralities; Cujus fuit tanta Luxuries ut nihil ab eo putaretur virile metuendum, etc.  
Yet, because Divine Providence 
* Talibus tamen dominandi potestas non datur, nisi summi Dei Providentiâ, etc. Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 19  had raised up the said Nero, and made him to be Caesar, their King and Governor, therefore the People ought to Obey Him.  
And St. Augustine glancing on the Question, scil. Whether Dominion be founded only in Grace?  
He says, that in Heaven it is so; for no man can inherit a Throne of Glory, but only He that is truly Gracious and Holy.  
But on Earth, it is not so; for, Regnum Terrenum, 
Ibid. c. 21.  & piis & impiis, sicut ei placet, cui nihil injustè placet.  
God disposes of these Earthly Kingdoms to Good and Bad, according to his own pleasure, for Reasons best known to himself.  
And therefore the Subjects are obliged in Duty to obey Nero, as well as 
(a) Qui Regnum dedit Augusto, ipse & Neroni, qui Vespasianis, vel Patri, vel Filio, suavissimis Imperatoribus, ipse & Dimitiano crudelissimo, & qui Constantino Christiano, ipse & Apostatae Juliano. Aug. Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 21.  Augustus; Cruel Domitian, as well as Kind and Merciful Vespasian; the Apostate and Idolatrous Julian, as well as the Pious and Orthodox Constantine; for the one as well as the other, is God's Vicegerent, and the Subjects Lawful Prince and Sovereign.  
Optatus the Famous Bishop of Milevis taught the same Doctrine of Loyalty and Obedience, declaring, that all Kings are to be obeyed:  
And although Kings should sometimes Command things which are in themselves unlawful to be Commanded, yet it may be Lawful for the Subjects in many cases, actively to perform the said unlawful Commands of their said Kings.  
For thus,  
The pious Jews, when peremptorily Commanded by Antiochus to surrender up their Bibles to be burnt by the Officers, They (though with great grief of heart) readily obeyed.  
And the aforesaid Optatus blames very much the Emperor for imposing so ungodly a Command, but he highly 
(a) Feccatum imperantis & minantis, non populi, cum dolore & tremore secundantis, etc. Optat. l. 7.  applauds the Obedience of the said dutiful and Loyal Jews.  
It is most certain, that the Popes of Rome, before they became Rebellious to the Secular Powers, humbly and peaceably obeyed their Emperors, and that not only in things Lawful, or Indifferent, nor only in things Secular and Civil, but also in things that have seemed, in the Pope's own judgement, to be in their own Nature, unlawful; and, which is more, the Pope of Rome, has obeyed the Emperor, in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as well as Temporal.  
As for Instance,  
When Mauritius the Emperor had made a Decree, that no Soldiers should be admitted into any Monastery, and sent the said Edict unto Pope Gregory, surnamed the Great, to be forthwith published by Him and his Clergy.  
The said Pope obeyed the Emperor's Commands, and immediately caused the same to be dispersed throughout all his Di●cese and Ecclesiastic Dominions; And the said Pope Gregory gave this Reason for his so doing, to wit,  

* Gregor. Magn. l. 2. Epist. 61.  Quia erat Subjectus ejus Jussionibus, etc.  
Because He (though Pope) ought to be subject and obedient unto the Emperor's Commands, though in his own judgement, He conceived the said Edict to be in itself unlawful, and prejudicial unto many persons, 
Heyl. in Vit. Laud. p. 311.  as well in reference to their Spiritual, as their Temporal Benefit.   

SECT. V  
Modern Authors for Obedience to Princes: Of two sorts. 

1. Some Conditionally; as All Recusants.  
2. Some Absolutely; as All Protestants.    

I. Modern Authors, who are for Conditional Obedience.  
AMong our Modern Writers, we find none, who deny the King's Supremacy, and by so doing, Declare themselves to be Recusants and No Protestants.  
Among such Modern Authors, we find none that are for Absolute Obedience to Princes, whether Good or Bad, Papists or Protestants: For, All the Recusant and Anti-Protestant Writers, such as the Papists, and the Classical, and the Congregational Authors, according to their several Principles, are only for Obedience to Princes and the Civil Magistracy, with a Condition and Limitation.  
Thus the Papists 
* Tho. Aquinas Sum. 22 a. quaest. 10. a. 1. R. Bellarm. Praefat. in Barcl.  strongly urge Obedience to Kings:  
But it is only in Temporals, and that too, with Submission to the Pope's Supremacy.  
But if a King shall meddle with matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastic, without the Pope's Laws, the said King shall be Excommunicated, and all his Subjects discharged from their Allegiance, and from paying Homage and Obedience to him their King.  
In like manner Calvin and all the Classical Divines, commonly called Presbyterians, writ much for Obedience to Kings, and to All in Authority;  
But it is with a Jesuitical Proviso, to wit, That their Kings and Governors be Godly: And it is also with submission to their Presbyterian Classis, and Consistorian Power, which they set above the King, especially in matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastic.  
And not unlike, do the Congregational Divines, commonly called Independents, talk much for, and preach up, Obedience to the Civil Magistrates. But it is with the same forementioned Proviso, scil.  
That their Magistrates be endued with Grace, and do Govern the People according to God's Word, and with a submission to their Independent Cougregational-Churche's Power and Censures.  
As is plainly, and sufficiently proved in a late Book, entitled BEAUFRONS,  
Chap. 2. Presbyterians, No Protestants.  
Chap. 3. Independents, No Protestant's.  
Chap. 6. p. 56, 57 Impossible for Papists and Dissenters, whilst they are true to their own Principles, to be Obedient and Good Subjects to the King.  
Unto which Book and Chapters, above mentioned, we refer the Reader.  
And by the way, we cannot but Advise all young Men, especially the young Divine, whether in the University or elsewhere, to be very cautious how he reads, and understands, and follows the Modern Authors, especially Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Rolloc, Polanus, Frederick Baldwin, Cursellaeus, etc. Hugo Grotius, de jure Belli & Pa. For they, and others of their Party, together with the Papists and Jesuists, plead and argue stiffly for Obedience unto the King and the Secular Powers; but yet, they All have their several Mental Reservations, and cunningly distinguish 
* Rolloc. and Fred. Baldw. n Rom. 13.1.  between the King's Person and his Power; and in the close of their arguings, they All declare it to be Lawful for the Subjects to Resist the King and the Civil Magistrates, even with force of Arms, in Defence of the true Religion, and in the Suppression of Tyranny and Oppression: Thus Grotius himself 
(a) Si Rex reipsa etiam tradere regnum aut subjieere moliatur, quin ei Resisti in hoc possit non dubito, aliud est enim imperium, aliud habendi modus, qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus. Grot. de jur. Bel. & Pa. l. 1. c. 4. § 10.  asserts.  
This they all affirm to be Lawful, contrary to Primitive Christianity, and directly contrary to the sound and Loyal Doctrine and Pratice of the Protestant Church of England:  
And therefore, it will be of little source and validity to bring the Testimony of Modern Writers to confirm the Doctrine of Obedience to Princes, both Good and Bad, Papists and Protestants, unless it be that of the Episcopal Protestants, who own and plead for the King's Supremacy,  
And therefore are the Only Protestants in the World.  
However, to gratify the Reader, we will present him with a few Say of some of the Anti-Protestant Modern Writers, as to the point of Obedience to all in Authority.  
Jo. Calvin in his French Comment and Sermons on Job, 
Jo. Calvin, Serm. 131. on Job. 34.  c. 34. v. 17, 18. has these words, as they are Translated by Arthur Godling, out of French, into English, to wit,  
We must Obey and Honour all in Authority, because they are not set up by chance, or haphazard, but by God and his Providence.  
And if God sets over us a Tyrant, it is for the punishment of sin, and it is the Duty of all men meekly to bear their punishment, and to take it as a Scourge of God; and if we Resist, we strive not against Mortal Men, but against the Heavenly Judge, p. 675.  
To the same purpose writes Peter 
(a) Dua sunt subjectiones, una Politic● & Civilis, cui subjiciuntur omnes homines: qui si quid offenderint in Leges, expectant à justis Magistratibus carcerem, mulctam pecuniariam, exilia, mortes, & externas poenas, etc. Pet. Mart. loc. Com. de Magistrate. p. 1018. § 10.  Martyr, how that all men ought to be Obedient to the Civil Powers; and if any offend, than it is the Magistrate's Duty to punish the Offenders, according to the Merit of their Delinquency.  
And, speaking against the Pope's Supremacy, he adds—  
That a King 
(b) Quamvis Rex possit removere inutilem ac noxium Episcopum, non tamen Episcopus potest vicissim Regem, si peccaverit, dejicere, & ibid. § 12.  has power to Depose a wicked Bishop: But no Bishop whatever has power to Depose a King, although wicked.  
And Polanus is of opinion,  
That all Hereditary Monarches ought to Reign and 
(a) Si absolutam Monarchiam habet, est in fide ejus perstandum, etiamsi Tyrannus evasit, etiamsi nihil minus praestet quàm quod ex officio erat Regum & Principum, & Polan Syntag. l. 10. c. 62.  Govern, although they should be Tyrants, and that the People ought to persevere on in their Allegiance and Obedience to them.   

II. Modern Authors, who are for Absolute Obedience to Princes, whether Morally Good or Bad, Orthodox or Erroneous, Papists or Protestants.  
Gerhard treating on the Question,  
Q Whether, He ought to Reign and Govern, who has Apostatised from the true Religion?  
A. Answers in the Affirmative:  
And positively asserts, That 
(b) Si jure Successionis juxta Leges sundamentales & pacta conventa, ad eum pertinent Imperii Fasces qui à verâ Religione alienus est, tum propter Religionis diversitatem non est privandus suo jure, quia Religio & Ecclesia non abolet Politias ac jura Politica, etc. Gerhard de Magistratu Pol. Sect. 106.  He to whom the Crown belongs by Right of Succession, aught to Reign and Govern, notwithstanding his Apostasy and Alenation from the true Religion; And that, because Diversity of Religion deprives no man of his Right.  
To this Foreign Author, we will add the Judgement of the Church of England, as now Established, and as it is delivered to us in Her Homily of Obedience, Second Part.  
The words of the Homily are these:  Scil. 

Hom of Obedience, 2d Part. p. 72.  All Subjects are bound to obey them (that is, Kings and Magistrates) as God's Ministers, yea, although they be evil, not only for Fear, but also for Conscience-sake, etc. Our Saviour Christ himself, and his Apostles, received many and divers injuries of the unfaithful, and wicked men in Authority; yet we never read, that they, or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority; we read oft, that they patiently suffered all troubles, vexations, slanders, pangs and pains, and Death itself obediently without Tumult or Resistance. They knew, that the Authority of the Powers, was God's Ordinance, and therefore, both in their Words and Deeds, they taught ever Obedience to it, and never taught, nor did, the contrary, etc.  
We may not obey King, Magistrates, or any other (though they be our own Fathers) if they would Command us to do any thing contrary to God's Commandments. 
Ibid. p. 74.  In such a case, we ought to say with the Apostle, We must rather obey God than Man. But nevertheless in that case we may not in any-wise withstand violently, or Rebel against Rulers, or make any Insurrection, Sedition, or Tumults, either by force of Arms, or otherwise, against the Anointed of the Lord, or any of his Officers: But we must in such cases patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries, 
p. 75.  referring the judgement of our Cause only to God.  
And elsewhere, our Church says—  
What shall Subjects do then? 
Serm. against Rebellion, 1 Part.  shall they obey valiant, stout, wise and good Princes, and condemn, disobey, and rebel against Children, being their Princes, or against undiscreet, and evil Governors?  
God forbidden!  
For what a Perilous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the judgement, which Prince is Wise, and Godly, and his Government good, and which is otherwise? as though, the Foot must judge of the Head: And enterprise very heinous, and must needs breed Rebellion. Serm. against Wilful Rebellion, 1st Part. p. 279.  
This is, you see, the Pious and Loyal Doctrine of the Protestant Church of England, which she received from Christ and his Apostles, and from the Primitive Christians, concerning the Subjects absolute Obedience to Kings, and All in Authority, whether Good or Evil.  
And the said Loyal Doctrine was ever preached and practised by the Protestants in England, we mean those, who owned the King's Supremacy in opposition unto Popery and Fanaticism; for there never was, nor are, any other 
* Beausrons, c. 1.  Protestants in the World, but such, who protest for, and defend the King's Supremacy.  
This Doctrine of absolute Obedience was practised, as well as preached, by the Bishop's Martyred in Queen Mary's days, and by the most Reverend Jo. Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury, and by the most Reverend William Laud late Archbishop of Canterbury, who suffered Death by the late Rebels, for nothing more, than for maintaining this Primitive Doctrine of absolute Obedience to the King. And since, it has been urged upon the People's practice by several Learned Men of this our Church; particularly, by Dr. Faulkner in his Christian Loyalty. And by the Right Reverend Seth, Lord Bishop of Sarum, in his most Learned Sermon before the King on Nou. 5.1661. against Resistance of Lawful Powers.  
Some of his Lordship's words are these—  
If harsh Administration of Power will exempt Men from Obedience; 
p. 60.  at that time, when Claudius, or Nero was Roman Emperor, why should the Holy Ghost move St. Paul to write to the Romans, scil. 
Rom. 13.2.  They that resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation?  
And p. 67. that other pretence, scil. That after a Lawful Sovereign is established, 
Ibid. p. 67, 68  the Power still remains in the People (in the dissused Body of them, or their Representatives) to alter the Government, as they please; it is in respect of Policy, and Government, what the sin against the Holy Ghost is to Religion, it destroys the foundations of the peace, and safety of men, and makes that to be the Artifice of Man, which is the Ordinance of God: How much God abhorred this pretence, will appear in the case of Corah, and his Company.  
The Reverend Dr. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, in his Letter to the late Lord Russel, has these expressions, to wit,  
That the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the Resistance of Authority.  
That though our Religion be established by Law, yet in the same Law which establishes our Religion, it is declared,  
That it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms, etc.  
Besides that, there is a particular Law declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King; and that ties the hands of Subjects, though the Law of Nature and the General Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty, which I believe they do not, because the Government and Peace of Humane Society could not well subsist upon those Terms.  
As thus these abovementioned Persons, so indeed, all the learned Men of the Church of England, who have wrote any thing largely of the Subjects Duty towards their Prince, have unanimously declared contrary to the Factious Author of Julian the Apostate, scil. That all Lawful Kings and their Lawful Heirs by Primogeniture, of what Religion, or Manners soever, Good or Bad, they be, ought successively to Reign and Govern, and to be honoured and obeyed by all their Subjects, either Actively, by cheerfully doing whatever they shall Command; or Passively, by humbly and peaceably submitting to whatever punishment, their said Princes shall think fit to inflict upon them, for not obeying their Royal Commands Actively. And if any Prince should (after he is seated in the Throne) prove Tyrannical, we may not Rebel, nor plot his Deposition; But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Nazian. Orat. 1.  etc. Our only Remedy is, what was Nazianzen's and the Christians, in the Reign of Julian the Apostate, to wit, Prayers, Fast and Tears.  
This was the practice of the Primitive Christians, and ever has been the Profession and Practice of the Protestant Church of England:  
And therefore, whoever lives in Rebellion against his Lawful Prince, and dies in and for the same without public and hearty Repentance, Acknowledgement and Confession to God and to Man, of that his Rebellion, or secret plotting of Rebellion; Neither does such a man live, nor any true way, can he be said, to die, in Communion with the Protestant Church of England;  
But as he lived, So he dies either a Popish or a Fanatic Recusant, And No Protestant.  
And thus died most of the late Fanatical Associatours and Rebels, inasmuch as most of them died, without the least expression of their sorrow and penitence for, and without humble and public Confession of, their Horrible Plot and Treason for which they were Condemned. As appears by their own Papers given to the Sheriffs, and Published by Authority.  
And here it will be requisite, that we (as far as we are able) undeceive the people, and tell the Naked Truth, to wit,  
That the abovementioned Persons abused the World, and imposed upon the ignorant people, a notorious falsity, when at their Executions they declared, they died Protestants, and in Communion with the present Church of England:  
For, no Rebel whatever, whilst he impenitently continues such, is, nor can be, a Protestant:  
For every wilful and obstinate Rebel and Plotter against the King, does indeed deny the King's Supremacy.  
And whoever denies the King's Supremacy, is No Protestant;  
And therefore, being No Protestant, he ought not to be admitted into Communion and Fellowship with the Protestant Church of England, until such a person shall openly repent of his Anti-Protestant Disobedience to the Church's Canons and Orders, and of his Rebellion and Treason against the King.  
And (as we humbly conceive) those Divines and Ministers did not act Canonically (though we believe, Charitably) in administering the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper unto Persons Condemned for High Treason, in plotting the Murder of the King and of his Royal Highness, without their public Confession of that their heinous Sin and Treason.  
Their not Confessing that their Gild, when clearly proved against them, did apparently argue, not only their Malice, but also the Continuance of their Malice to the very last Gasp, against the King and the Duke.  
And therefore to admit such unto the Sacrament, was to harden them, and others of their Party, in their Wickedness and Malice against the King, the Duke, and the established Government in Church and State, and was a palpable Breach of the Statute, and of the Rubric,  
Which says,  
That if any person be an open and notorious Evil Liver (as surely are all Wilful Rebels!) 
The Order for Administr. of the Lord's Supper, Pref.  or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by Word and Deed (as surely Traitors have done to the King their Neighbour, by plotting his Death!)  
The Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table until he have openly declared himself to have truly repent.  
The same Order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth Malice and Hatred to reign— not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord's Table, until he know them to be Reconciled— And if one party shall remain still in his Frowardness and Malice— The Minister shall not admit him that is Obstinate.     

CHAP. V.  
The Doctrine and Practice of Deposing Lawful Kings, and of Excluding the Right Heir by Primogeniture, from Succeeding in the Throne, for his want of Grace, or for being an Heretic, Idolater, Tyrannical or Wicked, is Grounded upon nothing but Popery and Fanaticism.  

SECT. I.  
This wicked Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Murdering Kings, and of Precluding their Lawful Heirs, for being Heretics, etc. is grounded on Popery.  
THE truth of the Assertion is so well known, 
Dr. Lloyd's Serm. Nou. 5. 1679.  as, That there is no Kingdom in our European paean World, but the Pope hath given it away upon the Account of Religion; No Country, 
King James' Works, p. 503.  but he has made an Aceldama upon the account of Religion. And many Kings hath he killed merely for Religion.  
This we will confirm and prove by the Authority of the most Eminent and most Authentic of their own Writers,  
Such as,  
Thomas Aquinas, who says, 
(a) Nullo medo permittit Ecclesia, quod Infideles acquirant Dominium super fideles, vel qualitercunque eis praeficiantur in aliquo officio, etc.—  That Infidels or unbelieving Princes are not to be suffered to Govern and Reign over Believers. And that if there be any such Infidels and unbelieving Princes 
(b) Potest tamen justè per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, auctoritatem Dei habentis, tale jus Dominii, vel praelationis tolli;  than the Church has Power and Authority to Depose and Remove them from their Government; and the Church ought to do it; and that because 
(c) Quia Infideles merito sua infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, etc. Tho. Aquin. 22a. quast. 10. art. 10. conclus. p. 22.  a King's Infidelity forfeits his Right of Dominion and Jurisdiction over Believers.  
And by, Infidelis, and Infidel, Aquinas plainly tells us, that he means An Heretic.  
For in his sense,  
An Heretic 
(a) Haeresis est infidelitatis species ad eos pertinens qui fidem Christi professi sunt, & ejus dogmata corrumpunt, etc. ibid. quaest. 11. art. 1. conclus. p. 23.  is no Jew, Turk, or Pagan, who absolutely denies Christ and Christianity. But according to Aquinas, An Heretic is a Christian, that is, one who professes that he Believes in Christ, and hopes for Salvation only by Him, But, he purloins, perverts, and corrupts the Doctrine of Christ.  
Now such an Heretic, whether Prince or Peasant, is not to be tolerated, but after the second Admonition he is to be Excommunicated, and Delivered up to the Secular 
(b) Qui post secundam correptionem in suo errore obstinati permanent. non modo Excommunicationis sententiae, sed etiam Secularibus principibus exterminandi tradendi sunt, & per mortem à Mundo excludi meruerunt, etc. ibid.  Powers to be put to Death; and the Church does Command all other Foreign Princes to give their Assistence towards the Deposition, and destroying such an Heretical Prince, that so, this lower World might the sooner be rid of him.  
And that Aquinas, in the forementioned places, is to be understood of Heretical Kings, as well as of their Subjects, is evident, in that his Argument runs chief against them, who have Right to Govern jure humane; But, says he, because they are turned Heretics, therefore jure Divino, they ought not to Reign, but to be, not only Excommunicated, but also, put to Death. For, 
Aquin 22 a. quaest. 11. art. 2. resp. 3.  Quicunque resistit Auctoritati Romanae Ecclesiae, Haeresim incurrit; quae quidem Auctoritas principaliter residet in Summo Pontifice, etc. Whoever Resists the Authority of the Church of Rome, that is to say, the Authority of the Pope and his Supremacy (as do all Protestant Princes) he is an Heretic; and being an Heretic, he ought to be destroyed and killed.  
And although a King excommunicated should, in the Popish sense, repent, and return to the Church of Rome, yet, he is to be admitted 
(a) Ideo ulterius redeuntes, recipiuntur quidem ad poenitentiam, non tamen ut liberentur à Sententia Mortis. Aquia. 22 a. qu. 11. art. 4. conclus.  only unto Penitence, and not to be absolved from the sentence of Death passed upon him.  
All Heretical Kings are by Aquinas, accounted no other than Tyrants, and therefore, says he, the People may Lawfully fight against them, and be no ways guilty 
(a) Et ideo perturbatio Tyranni Regiminis non habet rationem Seditionis. ibid. 22 a. qu. 42. art. 2. 3 m. p. 80.  of Sedition and Treason.  
The Council of Trent Decreed all Emperors 
(b) Si quem Clericorum, vel Laicorum quacunque is dignitate, etiam Imperiali, aut Regal, praefulgeat, in tantum malorum omnium Radix, cupiditas occupaverit, ut alicujus Ecclesiae— Bona, census ac jura etiam feudalia, etc. quacunque arte, aut quocunque quaesito colore in proprios usus convertere— iis Anathemati tam diu subjaceat, etc. Sess. 22. c. 11.  and Kings (as well as others) to be Excommunicated, who shall, upon any account whatever, sell and alienate any Church-Lands, Goods or Chattels, without the Pope's leave.  
And if any person, great or small, King or Subject, shall be found guilty of Contumacy against any Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Judge, than the said Judge may, 
(c) Sitque erga judicem Contumacia; tunc reos etiam Anathematis mucrone, arbitrio suo, praeter alios poenas fevire poterit, etc.  at his pleasure, not only Excommunicate such an offender, but also decree him to be punished any other ways, as the said Judge shall think fit. And if the said excommunicated person (though a King, for it is, 
Concil. Trid-sess. 25. e. 3.  Quicunque post legitimas admonitiones non resipuerit, etc. Whosoever) shall after legal Admonition continue obstinate, he shall be punished as an Heretic, that is, with Death. Contra eum, tanquam de Haeresi suspectum, procedi possit. ibid.  
Bonaventure declares it for an undoubted Truth, that the Supreme Power 
(a) Jam verò possunt Sacerdotes & Pontifices ex causa amovere Reges, & deponere Imperatores, sicut saepiùs accidit, & visum est, quando scilicet eorum malitia hoc exigit, & Reipublicae necessitas sic requirit: Summus verò Pontifex penes quem in terris prima residet Auctoritas, non à Rege, non à Principe seculari, non ab homine judicatur, sed solius Dei judicio reservatur. Bonavent. lib. de eccles. Hierarch. c. 1.  on Earth is in the Pope, and that (as he already has often done, so again) he may Remove Kings, and Depose Emperors, for their Wickednesses, and that the Pope is accountable for so dling, unto no Earthly Power whatever, whether Regal, Imperial or otehrwise, but only unto God.  
Cardinal Bellarmine assures his Reader, That the Popes of Rome have power not only to Excommunicate, but also to Depose and Sentence to Death, Heretical and ungodly Kings, and to give away 
(a) Posse à Romano Pontifice Principes Christianos excommunicari, & principaetu privari, eorúmque subditos ab obe●ieutia eorum absolvi, etc. Bellarm. de potest. sum. Pontif. praef. p. 6.  their Crowns and Lands unto others that are Godly and Catholic, and to absolve their Subjects from all Duty and Allegiance to them; and to confirm the truth of what he asserts, he quotes the Authority and Judgement of Pope Gregory the 7th, of Cajetan, Pet. Ancharanus, Sylvester Prieras, Astensis, and many others, for the same. And he highly applauds and justifies the Pope's excommunicating Hen, 8th, King of England for Heresy; which Heresy, was only King Henry's Renouncing the Pope's Supremacy, and Defending his own.  
The Horrid practice of Assassinating and Murdering Lawful Kings for want of Grace, and for Heresy, is amply justified and highly commended as a meritorious Act, by Pope Sixtus Quintus in his large Oration made to the Cardinals in Consistory at Rome on Septemb. 11. 1589. upon the Murder and Death of Henry the Third, King of France, who was most barbarously Assassinated and Stabbed to Death, in the midst of his Army, by JAQVES CLEMENT a Popish-Dominican Friar.  
Some of the said Pope's own words are as follow in the Margin.  
In which you will find Pope Sixtus 
(a) Hoc, de quo nunc verba facimus, & quoth his diebus nostris evenit, verè insigne, memorabile, & penè incredibile opus est, nec sine Dei Op. Max. particulari providentia, perpetratum: Occidit Monachus Regem, non pictum  Quintus so far from disclaiming against the Monk for that execrable Murder committed upon the aforesaid King's Person, as that, he rather in high strains of Rhetoric wonderfully applauds the said Hellish Fact, and styles it a most famous, memorable, and well-nigh incredible Act, yea, a work done not without the particular Providence and disposition of Almighty God; A Friar has killed a King. And for fear his Auditors should think he told them a Romance, he repeats it again, saying, I assure you, A Monk has killed a King, not a King 
(b) aut fictum in charta, aut pariete; sed Regem Francorum in medio exercitûs sui, milite & custodiâ septum.  painted in Paper, or pictured upon a Wall, not a Jack of Lent, but a real, living King, even the French King in the midst of his Army, whilst encompassed about with his Guard. And although All Monks by their Holy Order and Profession 
(c) Iste Monachus praeliis ac pugnis non erat assuefactus, & à sanguine, vitae suae inslituto, ita abhorrens, ut nec ex vena incisione fusum cruorem forsan ferre potuerit.  were forbid to shed blood, yet it was commendable in this Monk. And farther, the Pope acquaints the Cardinals with what Instrument 
(a) Etiam cum Cultello ad hoc propositum praeparato, non in vagina condito (unde poterat esse probabilis excusatio) sed nudo, ac in Manicâ abscondito, quem si invenissent, mox fuisset in crucem actus.  the Monk effected his bloody design, to wit, with a Knife, which he had cunningly hid in his Sleeve for that purpose.  
But that which seems most inhuman in this Pope, was his Denying the aforesaid Murdered King, Christian Burial, and his Holiness pleaded Sacred Scripture for his 
(b) De persona ergo Regis ●autum ista cum dolore diximus, cujus infaustus finis eximit quoque ipsum ab iis officiis, quae solet haec sancta sedes Imperatoribus & Regibus post mor●em exhibere: quae pro isto libentèr fecissemus, nisi id fieri, in hoc casu, Sacrae Scripturae vetarent.  warrant.  
After all this Barbarity, any one in pity and charity would have thought, that although the said Pope denied the Massacred King Honourable and Christian Burial, yet he would not have denied him his own, and all compassionate men's Prayers for His Majesty's Souls deliverance, if not from Purgatory, yet from Hell; But such was his implacable malice against the said King, as that he did not only decree, that 
(a) Decrevimus pro ipso Rege non esse celebrandas exequias.  no funeral Rites should be performed for him,  
But also, that 
(b) Intelligimus praedictum Regem ex hac vita sine poenitentia, seu impoenitentem excessisse, nimirum in Consortio Haereticorum— at que pro tali peccato, seu pro Homine sic peccante, noluit Apostolus, ut post mortem oraremus. Sixt. Quint. Pont. Max. Serm. Romae Consist. Sept. 11. 1589.  no prayers should be made for him after his Death, he dying in his Heresy, was excluded from all Grace and Mercy hereafter.  
Jodocus Lorichius assures us also, That it is the constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome, scil.  
That the Pope has power not only to Excommunicate, but also to Depose and Remove all Emperors, 
(c) Papa habet dominium seu imperium temporale in omnes homines quantaecunque eminentiae ac dignitatis sint: ita ut Imperatores, Reges, & his Inferiores, si Religioni & justitiae Christianae adversentur, non solùm excommunicare, sed & ab officiis removere ac deponere possit, etc. Jod. Lorich. Flagell. Papa. p. 443.  Kings, and Secular Magistrates that are Irreligious and Heretical.  
And if such Emperors, Kings and Princes, so excommunicated and deposed, shall resist the Pope's Authority, and endeavour to continue themselves in their Thrones, than the Pope 
(a) Si autem nolint, potest ipsemet Papa conscribere exercitum, & Rebels pro viribus subjugare, ibid.  has power to raise an Army, and by force to subdue the said Rebellious Kings and Princes.  
And the said Lorichius nominates several Emperors and Princes that have been Excommunicated and Deposed by several Popes.  
For instance,  
Leo Isauricus the Emperor excommunicated by Pope Gregory the Second.  
Childeric, King of France, Deposed by Pope Zacharias, and his Kingdom given away to Pipin.  
Henry the Emperor was Deposed by Pope Gregory the 7th.  
Frederic the Emperor was Deposed by Innocent the 4th.  
Otto the Emperor was Deposed by Pope Innocent the 3d.  
And as for the rest of Emperors and Kings deposed by the Popes, Lorichius refers his Reader to Baronius his Annals, and to Bellarmine, de Pont. Sum. l. 5. c. 8.  
And we will refer our Reader to the Histories and Lives of 

Hen. 8.  
Edw. 6.  
Qu. Eliz.  
K. James,   Who were all Excommunicated by the Pope, though, God bethanked, they were all strong enough to keep themselves in their thrones.  
Suarez, who is an Antesignanus among the Jesuits, declares in several places of his Book, entitled Defensio Fidei,  
That the Pope has power to depose 
(a) Post sententiam latam omninò privatur regno, ita ut non possit justo titulo illud possidere, ergo ex tunc poterit tanquam omnioò Tyrannum tractari, & consequenter à quacunque privata persona poterit intersici. Suarez. defence. fid. l. 6. c. 4.  any Heretical King, and that when any King is deposed by the Pope, than any private person may lawfully kill such an Heretical King.  
Lessius and Filliucius jointly affirm, That any private man may for the propagation of Religion kill any King, or other man, who shall oppose the Growth of true Religion; though, as the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph well observes, Lesstus says, Talis 
* Lessius, de jur. & just. l. 2. c. 9 dub. 8. sect. 47.  in Republica benè constituta, ut Homicida plecteretur, etc. Few men will attempt to do it, for fear, they should be hanged for their pains.  
And very confidently Father Campian declares, That all the Jesuits throughout the whole World, are entered into a solemn League and Vow, to make away and destroy all Heretical Kings in any manner whatsoever, nor will they despair of effecting it, 
Camp. in Ep. ad Concil. Reg. Angl. p. 22.  as long as there shall be one Jesuit remaining in the World.  
We might produce Paulus de palatio, and many other Writers of the Roman Church to the same purpose; But these are sufficient to prove our Assertion, to wit,  
That the Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Killing Lawful Kings, and of precluding their Lawful Heirs from reigning, for their Heresy, or for want of Grace, or for their Moral Wickedness, is grounded and first founded  
Upon Popery,  
And was preached and practised first of all by the Popes, and Papists of the Church of Rome.   

SECT. II.  
The Doctrine and Practice of Resisting Lawful Kings, and of Deposing and Killing them, and of Excluding their Right Heirs, for want of Grace, or for ill Government, or for being Idolaters, or for being of a different Religion from themselves, is also grounded on Fanaticism.  
BY fanatics, Rodolph Gualther means all those who Deny the King's Supremacy, and set up some other power above the King, which may control him in matters Ecclesiastic and Civil, although they be not Papists in profession.  
And these fanatics 
(a) De Christi Ecclesia Isaias vaticinans, Reges ejus nutritios & Reginas nutrices fore pollicetur: sunt haec observanda non solùm propter Anabaptistas', & horum similes Fanaticos homines, qui omnem cùm Politicum tum Ecclesiasticum ordinem è medio sublatum volunt: verum etiam propter Pontifices, etc. qui in Ecclesia omnem potestatem ad se transtulerunt, & nefas esse clamant, ut Reges atque Principes quicquam in illa constituant, aut ad reformandum cultum Dei manum admoveant. Rod. Gualther. in Diu. Luc. Homil. 177. p. 468. And again he says, Fateor tamen hujus mali culpam non minima ex parte, in Phanaticis quibusdam haerere, qui religionis & libertatis Christianae praetextu abutuntur, ut Ordinem politicum turbent & indignum esse dicunt, Hominem Christianum (pura Regem) gladio armatum esse, quo alios suae professionis homines coerceat. ibid. Hom. 195. p. 515.  are not only Anabaptists and Quakers, but they are also the Classical Divines, commonly called Presbyterians, and the Congregational Divines, alias, Independents.  
All which, do deny the King's Supremacy; and do set up another power above that of the Kings,  
Such as, the Consistorian Power among the Presbyterians:  
And the Congregational-Church Power among the Independents.  
These are the men, 
What is meant by Fanatic, and what by Fanaticism.  we mean, by fanatics; and their Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Destroying Kings, for their, supposed, Tyranny, Idolatry, or want of Grace, and of Precluding their Right Heirs, for any such Reason,  
Is the Sum of what we mean, by Fanaticism.  
And because, These men pretend to be against Popery,  
But yet do deny the King's Supremacy, and do maintain the Popish Doctrine and Practice of Deposing and Killing Kings, and of Debarring their Lawful Heirs from Reigning, for their Tyranny, Heresy, and want of Grace,  
We therefore call them Fanatical-Recusants, and not Protestant's.  
Of this Number of Anti-Protestants we cannot but reckon these that follow:  
John Calvin, who in his Sermon 131, on Job 34. writ in French, has these words, as they are Translated into English by Arth. Gilding, Anno Dom. 1573.  
Whereas God hath forbidden private persons to rail upon their Rulers, 
Jo. Calvin, Serm. 131. in Job. 34. p. 675.  it is to make us to live in peace, and without trouble, and to yield some Reverence to the seat of Justice.— But if there be evil and wicked Governors, they must be sharply rebuked, according to their Deservings.— And we must pull down all Loftiness that lifteth up itself against our Lord Jesus Christ. Those than that will needs be spared, and have their Vices untouched, because they be in Authority, must coin a new Gospel. Of which number, are the Kings in our days, which will needs be called Anointed and Holy, and yet cannot abide to have their soars touched by any means, but would have liberty to pervert all things, etc.  
And in his Institutes, he speaks more plainly, and says,  
That although it be not Lawful for private men 
* Si qui nunc sint populares Magistratus ad moderandam Regum libidinem constituti, etc. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 20. § 31. p. 331.  to rise up against their King, yet where there are inferior Magistrates elected out of the people, or where there are three Orders or States, there the people ought by their Representatives, to moderate their King's ill Government, to punish his Vice and Tyranny, and to overrule him, as the Ephori did the Lacedaemonian Kings, and as the people's Tribunes did the Roman Consuls, whom they Deposed, when they thought fit; and that they are Traitors to the People and Commonwealth, if they do not oppose their Prince's Tyranny.  
Theodore Beza imitates his Master Calvin, and writes very unworthily and reproachfully of 
(a) Cujusmodi vitia sunt, impietas, avaritia, ambitio, crudelitas, luxus, libidines, etc. Beza. de Confess. fid. c. 5.  Kings, taxing them generally with Pride and Luxury, with Cruelty and Covetousness, with Folly and Ignorance:  
And therefore Beza says,  
That Kings ought not to presede, nor to be present in Ecumenical or National Councils and Synods;  
And thus, he clearly denies the King's Supremacy, by virtue of which, Constantine preseded in the first Nicene Council.  
Beza's own words are,  
Deinde res ipsa ostendit, 
Bez. Conf. fid. de Eccl. c. 5.  periculosissimum esse Principum Auctoritate Concilia subjicere, multis de causis, etc.  
And as for Diocesan Bishops, he did not only utterly deny any such Order, but very provokingly, calls them, Porcorum & Asinorum armentum, no better than Hogs and Asses.  
And after Beza had excluded Kings from Councils, Synods and Church Affairs, than he subjugates Kings and all Secular Magistrates to his Consistorian Orders and Discipline— Et vicissim nemo est, qui verbo Dei, ac proinde Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, non subjiciatur, etc.  
Which Ecclesiastic Orders and Canons he makes equivalent with the Word of God.  
After all this, Beza goes on to inform his Reader (as did Calvin, and he uses many of Calvin's own words) to wit,  
That the Parliament States or Burgesses of the People may and aught to check and restrain wicked Kings, and severely to punish 
(a) Hic igitur quid erit constituendum? respondeo Superioribus Potestatibus cujus modi nunc sunt septem viri in Romano imperio, quos Electores vocant, & Regni Status in omnibus ferè Monarchiis, hoc onus incumbere, ut furentes Tyrannos cohibeant: quod ni faciant, ipsos ut Patriae Proditores, rationem suae perfidiae coram Domino reddituros: quod autem attinet ad privatos homines— tenere illos oportet, plurimum inter se differre, injuriam infer & injuriam pati, etc. Beza Confess. fid. cap. 5. de Eccles. Edit. Genev. p. 171, 172.  them; and if they do not, than they are Traitors to their Country. And although it be not lawful for private men to oppose, correct or depose Kings when they govern ill, yet the aforesaid Inferior Magistrates may, when their Kings are guilty of the  vices. And he makes the Septemviri, or Burgesses and States of the People to be the Superior Powers above the King.  
Amandus' Polanus, Querying,  
Whether the People do sin, in Conventicling to hear the Word of God, contrary to the King's Edicts? 
(b) An subditi peccent contra interdictum Principis Convenientes ad audiendum Evangelium? R. Non peccant.  He determines it in the Negative, scil. Non peccant; they do not sin.  
And Querying again,  
Whether it be Lawful to Resist a Tyrannical King?  
He Answers, scil. 
(a) Si Rex sen Princeps Monarchiam habeat limitatam & adstrictam certis conditionibus, in quas juravit, seu quas se promisit servaturum, penes status aut Primores Regni seu Principatus est, coercere Regis seu Principis Tyrannidem & immanitatem, etc.   
That if a King has taken an Oath to govern by Law, but contrary to his Oath, He governs Tyrannically, than it is in the power of the States, the Lords and Princes of the Kingdom to punish and correct such a Prince, and by force of Arms to suppress his Tyranny.  
Nay, He says farther,  
That it is not only Lawful, but also Meritorious 
(b) In Oppressa Republica, si quis Tyrannum Occideret, huic tanquam de Civitate benè Merito, praemium decernitur. Amand. Polan. Syntag. Theol. l. 10. c. 72. p. 1247, 1248.  for any private person to kill a Tyrannical King, who by his undue courses shall afflict and oppress the Commonwealth, and that the City ought amply to Reward the said Regicide.  
Frederic Baldwin a Lutheran, and a Professor of Divinity at Witteberg, does very Fanatically distinguish between the King's Person and his Office, and says, That the Honour and Obedience which the Subjects own, is due to the 
(a) In obedientia, non is qui praest, sed officium respiciendum est. Non Personae Magistratum gerenti, sed officio, honour debetur. Frid. Baldv. Analys. in Rom. 13.1.  King's Office, and not to his Person.  
So that, Subjects may, according to this distinction, take up Arms and fight against the King's Person, and not against his Kingly Office. They may kill the King, as in England did the late Rebels, and yet preserve his Office, and set up another Person in his Office, that is, in his Throne.  
And the said Baldwin, Querying,  
Whether it be Lawful for Subjects to Resist their King, in case he should prove Tyrannical?  
He Answers, 
(b) Quande subditi non omninò privaeti sunt, sed in Inferiori Magistratu constituti, illi Resistere possunt Superiori Magistratui, si degenerat in Tyrannum— Nam & Inferiores Magistratus debent contra vim injustam subditorum vitam & bona defendere— ubi tamen & hoc notandum, inferiori Magistratui omnia prius tentanda, quàm ad Arma veniendum, ne videatur Rebellare, etc. Frider. Baldvin. in Ro. 13. v. 1. quaest. 3.   
That in those Kingdoms, where there are Inferior States and Magistrates Representing the People, as in an House of Commons, there the Inferior Magistrates may lawfully oppose the said Tyrannical King or Supreme Magistrate; and may raise an Army against him, and may depose, and (if necessity require) kill him, as the Jews did Tyrannical Athaliah; if he will not yield to the demands of the said Inferior Magistrates and Representatives of the People.  
Peter Martyr destroys all his former wholesome Doctrine of Obedience unto Kings and the Supreme Magistrates, when he affirms,  
That if the Superior Powers shall suffer Vice and Idolatry to reign, then, as 
(a) Atqui, superior potestas, inquiunt, fieri haec imperavit, ad hoc, jam antea multis respondimus, nunc addatur, si eadem potestas, civitatem perdere, aut privilegia eripere, aut minuere conaretur, id nunquam ferrent, ad Arma potius conclamarent, etc. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. de Magistr. p. 1029.  it was a virtue in the zealous Jews to oppose the Idolatrous Do of the Heathen Kings and Emperors, by raising Tumults, Seditions and Wars against them, as did the Macchabees and others;  
So, is it the Duty of all Christian Subjects to oppose, and by force of Arms to Suppress the Idolatry and Tyranny of Kings, and of the Higher Powers.  
And Rob. Rolloc makes the same Fanatical Distinction between the Person and the Power of a King, as did Frider. Baldwin; and says, that the Subject is to show Obedience 
(a) Obedientia praestanda est, non tam Homini, quàm Potestati; quòd si Homini praestanda sit Obedientia, non aliâ ratione praestanda est quàm qua hac potestate armatus est à Deo, quare in obediendo non tam Personas Hominum intueri debemus, quàm potestatem illam & Auctoritatem quam gerunt, etc. Rolloc. in Ro. 13. p. 357.  rather to the Power and Office of the King, than to the Person of the King.  
Upon this Distinction (as was hinted before) did the late Presbyterian Rebels, both Scotch and English, 
☜  raise War against King Charles the First, pretending they fought not against the King and his Authority, but against the Person of Charles Stuart, who was King, and his evil Counselors.  
And the Independents, when they had Murdered Him, said, That they had not killed the King, but the Man Charles Stuart, the last of English Tyrants.  
Stephanus Cursellaeus, as Fanatically as any, declares it to be his judgement, That it is an horrible sin and wickedness, for any King or Supreme Magistrate to make Laws to force their 
(a) Malam esse omnem in causa fidei coactionem modo evici: quis pius, & religiosus Princeps vel Magistratus non horresceret ad ejus modi impietatem vel minimum quid conforre? quòd si adeò malum & periculi plenum sit etiam ad veram Religionem cogere, quantò magìs ad falsam? Cursellae. Instit. l. 7. c. 37. § 8.  Subjects unto an Observation of their Ecclesiastic Rites and Ceremonies, and unto a Conformity with, and the Embracement of, their Religion, although it be the true Religion.  
And Curselloeus his argument is this, scil. Because (in his opinion) Princes cannot bind nor oblige the Consciences of men by any of their Laws.  
The Conscience belongs only unto God, and He only is the Judge of it,  
And therefore God only can make Laws to oblige it.  
Wherefore this our Author, concludes, All those Princes to be Usurpers of God's Prerogative, who offer to make Laws, binding and obliging men's Consciences, and that 
(b)— Miserè perierint, ut sint in exemplum cunctis Regibus & Magistratibus qui tale aliquid attentare praesumpserint; & terrorem iis incutiant; inde discentes, se Ultrices Dei manus non evasuros, si imperium in Conscientias subditorum, quod sibi soli reservatum voluit, usurpaverint, etc. Cursel. ibid.  they must expect the Revenging Hand of God to follow them for so doing.  
And which is Anabaptistical and most Fanatical of all, is this, to wit,  
That Curselloeus will not allow Christian Kings so much as to Imprison, Mulct or Fine any Heretics or Schismatics, upon the account of Religion:  
And his argument for it is this, scil. For fear 
(a) Fieri posse ut prae immodico Impios & Haereticos exterminandi zelo, Christum ipsum, quemadmodum Saulus olim, in membris suis persequantur, vinciant, & trucident, etc. ibid. § 9  Kings should persecute, imprison, mulct and punish Christ himself, under the notion of Schism or Heresy, as did Saul, alias, Paul.  
In the case of Idolatry, the said Cursellaeus confesses,  
That if any Heretics or Idolaters should set up their Idols, then, the King has power 
(b) Nullam quidem subditorum conscientiis vim infer principi est licitum— Sed tamen potestatem habet aholendi idola etc. ibid. § 13.  to take away and abolish the said Idols. But the King has no power to make any Law against Idolatry, which can affect and oblige the Conscience of the Idolater.  
Thus Cursellaeus disarms all Christian Princes, and leaves them, as also the Church and State, naked and fenceless against the turbulent Heretics and Schismatics, and opens the door to all Anarchy and Confusion, nay to all Sedition and Rebellion, and will not permit Kings by severe 
(a) Ita ergo debet obviam iri perturbationi Reipublicae, ut nulla tamen conscientiis eorum vis fiat, qui credunt officii sui alios (i. e. Reges & Magistratus) monere de erroribus & abusibus qui obtinent in Ecclesia, & eos placidè emendare contendunt, quamvis enim contingat non rarò ut fallantur, & pro erroribus habeant quae veritati sunt consentanea, praestat tamen judicio Dei eos relinquere, quàm ullâ vi externâ coercere. Cursel. lib. 7. c. 37. § 19  Laws to suppress Rebels, if they should tumult and mutiny upon the account of Conscience.  
For Heretics and Schismatics never Fight and Rebel, but out of a pretence of tenderness of Conscience.  
Unto these, we may add those expressions of Grotius, who in many excellent Writings has outdone most men, but in the point of Resistance of Lawful Kings for their supposed Tyranny, He (in our apprehension) miserably errs; And upon his Authority many of the late most eminent, and learned Rebels justified their taking up Arms against the late King Charles of Blessed Memory:  
For Grotius declares, as before, scil. That if a King proves 
(a) Si Rex reipsa etiam tradere regnum aut subjicere moliatur, quin ei resisti in hoc possit, non dubito. Grot. de jur. Bell. l. 1. c. 4. § 10.  Tyrannical, or if a King has taken an Oath to govern well according to the Laws of the Realm, and breaks that his Oath, than the Subjects are freed from all Obedience to him their Prince, and may Lawfully Resist Him.  
One thing farther is to be noted,  
That Grotius makes Kings elected and chosen by the People, to be under, and accountable to, the People (which is a very false and Fanatical notion) and He says 
(b) Qui principes sub populo sunt, sive ab initio talem acceperunt potestatem, sive postea ita convenit, ut Lacedaemone, si peccent in leges ac Rempublicam, non tantum vi repelli possunt, sed, si opus sit, puniri morte: quod Pausaniae Regi Lacedaemoniorum contigit. ibid. § 8.  that all such Kings who are thus sub Populo, may be punished with Death if they offend and transgress against the Laws of the Commonwealth, and he instances in King Pausanias that was put to Death.  
Philip Melancthon is hugely to blame, for justifying the zealous Burgess of Nicomedia in tearing into pieces, the Emperour's public 
(a) Ita nihil mali contra Imperatorem faciebat Nicomedensis Patricius, qui Edictum publicè propositum, concerpsit. Melancth. in Dan. c. 6. p. 101.  Edict, although the said Edict was, possibly, not so good as the generality of Reformers would have had it.  
For that passionate and rash Action was no other than Rebellion against the Emperor's Person and Authority: And the man might as Lawfully have torn into pieces the Emperor's Person, as his Edict. And, in truth, the countenancing such a Rebellious Action, does very much encourage disaffected men unto a General Rebellion:  
For, if it be Lawful for One private man, then is it Lawful for every man to Rebel, and in like manner to tear the King's Proclamations, Laws and Edicts into pieces;  
Which to affirm, or to do, is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and to the Profession and Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians.  
Unto the  Foreign Writers, we will add,  
The late, and present, Covenanters and Fanatical Associatours, of, both, Scotland, and England,  
Whose Disloyal and Factious Tenants, and Positions, the Famous and Loyal University of Oxford have Summed up, and have printed them with the Authors of them, and have by a Vote of their Congregation on July 24. 1683, Decreed,  
That their said Fanatical and Seditious Positions and Doctrines, 
Oxford's Decree.  and the Books containing them, be publicly Burnt by the hand of their Vniversity-Marshall in the Court of their Schools.  
Some of which Seditious Positions were these that follow,  
1. That if Lawful Governors become Tyrants, or Govern otherwise than by the Laws of God and Man they ought to do, they forfeit the Right they had unto their Government, Lex Rex, Jo Milton, Jo. Goodwin, Rich. Baxter, H. C. And we will add, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alias Jo. Blackbdell.  
2. That the Sovereignty of England is in the Three Estates, scil. King, Lords and Commons. The King has but a  Power, and may be overruled by the other two, Lex Rex, Hunton of limited and mixed power, Rich. Baxter, H. C. And note, that they took this false Doctrine from Calvin, Beza, and the rest abovementioned.  
3. That Proximity of Blood and Birthright give no Title to Rule or Government, and that it is Lawful to preclude the next Heir from his Right and Succession to the Crown, Lex Rex, Doleman, Julian Apostate; and we may add the Votes of the late Associatours against the present Duke of York's Succession to the Crown of England.  
4. That it is Lawful for the Subjects, without the Consent, and against the Command, of the Supreme Magistrate, to enter into Leagues, Covenants, Associations, for defence of themselves and their Religion, Solemn League and Covenant, and the late Association.  
5. That the Presbyterian Government is the Sceptre of Christ's Kingdom, to which Kings as well as others are bound to submit. And the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs asserted by the Church of England, is injurious to Christ, the sole King and Head of his Church. Altar Damascenum, Cartwright, Travers; add Presbyt. General Assembly in Scotaland, 1592. Jam. Guthry's first Speech to the Parliament in Scotland.  
6. That wicked Kings and Tyrants ought to be put to death; and if the Judges and Inferior Magistrates will not do their Office, the power of the Sword devolves to the People; if the major part of the people refuse to exercise this power, than the Ministers may excommunicate such a King; after which it is Lawful for any of the Subjects to kill him, as the people did Athaliah, and Jehu Jezabell; Buchanan, Knox, Goodman, Gilby.  
7. That King Charles the First was Lawfully put to death, and his Murderers were the Blessed Instruments of God's glory in their generation. Jo. Milton, Jo. Goodwin, Jo. Owen; and we will add John Blackbdell, alias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
By these and the like Instances, which may be brought, it is proved to a very Demonstration,  
That the wicked Doctrine and Practice of Resisting Lawful Kings, and of Deposing and Killing them, and of Excluding their Right Heirs from Succeeding in their Thrones for ill Government, Heresy, or want of Grace, is Grounded on Fanaticism,  
And was never preached nor practised by any Episcopal Protestants, but only by the Papists and fanatics, who ever denied, 

The King's Supremacy,  
The English Church's Episcopacy.      

CHAP. VI  
A Paralle; or, A Brief and True Account of some Plots and Treasons of Papists and fanatics, against the Kings and Queens of England, since the Reformation, and Abrenunciation of Popery.  
EVER since the Abrenunciation of the Pope's Jurisdiction in England, the Papists and fanatics have gone hand in hand in plotting and raising Sedition and Rebellion against our Kings and Queens, upon the Pretence of Religion.  
As for instance,  
The Papists, having Sir Francis Bygott for their General, raised War against King Henry the Eighth for his being a Protestant, and for Marrying a Lutheran.  
The fanatics, having Sir Thomas Wyatt for their Commander, made War against Queen Mary, for her being a Papist, and for Marrying a Papist.  
The Papists, Humphrey Arundel being their chief Captain, Rebelled at Excester in Devonshire, upon the account of Religion, in King Edward the Sixth's Reign, exclaiming bitterly against Protestantism.  
The fanatics, Robert Kett being their chief Leader, made War, and Rebelled at Norwich in Norfolk, against the same King Edw. the Sixth, under the pretence of Religion, exclaiming Loudly against Popery.  
The Papists plotted several times (but were not able to effect) the Deposition and Death of Queen Elizabeth, a Protestant.  
The fanatics plotted (and effected) the Deposition and Expulsion of Mary Queen of Scotland, a Papist.  
The Papists plotted the Alteration of the Protestant Religion, that they might introduce Popery, in Queen Elizabeth's Reign.  
The fanatics, in her Reign, plotted the Alteration of the established Protestant Religion, Some, as Cartwright, Travers, etc. that they might bring in their Genevan-Discipline, Others, as Hacket, Barrow, Brown, Coppinger, Penry, Thacker, etc. that they might usher in their Libertinism, Enthusiasm and Donatism.  
The Papists plotted to alter Religion, and to destroy King James by Gunpowder, and other ways.  
The fanatics, particularly George Brook, Henry Brook, Lord Cobham, Lord Grace of Wilton, etc. joining in Conspiracy with the two Popish Priests, Watson and Clark, plotted to destroy King James, to alter Religion, to subvert the State, and to procure Foreign Invasion.  
The Papists, in Ireland, upon the account of Religion, openly Rebelled against King Charles the First, and most barbarously Massacred thousands of his Protestant Subjects, thereby endeavouring to bring in Popery.  
The fanatics in England and Scotland, upon the account of Religion, openly Rebelled against the same King Charles the First, and caused a bloody Civil War, in which thousands of the King's Loyal Subjects were Butchered and Murdered, they hoping thereby to extirpate the established Protestant Religion, and to bring in their Genevan Presbytery, or Belgic Consusion.  
The Papists in France Murdered King Henry the Third, and King Henry the Fourth of that Kingdom, and in Print justified the said Murders.  
The fanatics, in Scotland, Murdered King James the Fifth; And the fanatics in England most inhumanely Murdered, in the open sight of Heaven and Earth, King Charles the First, and in Print they justified the said horrid Murder to be a Lawful and Meritorious Act.  
The Papists of Lombardy Banished their Lawful Prince, Frederick Barbarossa the Emperor, and at last betrayed him to the Sultan of Egypt.  
The fanatics of England, by Vote of their Rump-Parliament, Banished their Natural Prince, King Charles the Second, and all the Royal Family, and did what they could to have betrayed Him into the hands of his Foreign and Domestic Enemies.  
Since the King's happy Restauration, the fanatics have outdone the Papists as to their Number of Plots.  
We hear but of three Popish Plots, and only two of them fully proved.  
The Papists Plots, were  
1. The Burning of London, for which Hubbard a Papist of Rouen was Executed.  
2. Oats his Popish Plot, for which Edward Coleman, and several others, suffered Death.  
3. The Meal-Tub Plot, for which Mrs. Celliers a Papist was imprisoned and fined.  
Whereas the fanatics Plots have been Many more, since the King's Restauration; such as, 

1. Venner's Plot, for which he and several others were Executed.  
2. The Disbanded Officers of Oliver's Army and others, plotted the Burning of London before 1666, and Killing the King, for which seven or eight of them were hanged and quartered at Tyburn.  
3. Tong's and other fanatics Plot in 1662., to Murder the King and the Duke of York, etc. was proved against Him and his Confederates at Old-Baily, London, for which They were Executed.  
4. Mason's Northern-Plot in 62, and 63. for which about twenty suffered Death in Yorkshire and elsewhere.  
5. Rathbone, Tucker, etc. in 1666, their Plot, to have killed the King, and to have deposed the Bishops, and to have altered Religion.  
6. Colledge's Plot, to have seized on the King at Oxford, and with his Protestant-Flail to have Murdered the King's Leige-Subjects; for which he died by the hand of Justice, 1681.  
7. Shaftsbury's, Rumbold's, etc. Plot, at Rye-House in Hertfordshire to have Murdered the King and the Duke of York; for which Captain Walcot and others, were Executed, 1683. and Sir Thomas Armstrong and Holloway were Executed for the same Plot, 1684.    
We cannot but note, that  
The Papists in their Plot would have killed the King, but have saved the Duke of York, the Right Heir to the Crown.  
The fanatics, in their Plots, would have Murdered both, the King and his Right Heir, the Duke of York.  
The Papists had their Jesuits, Whitebread, Gavan, Hartcourt, etc. to promote their Plot.  
The fanatics had their Priests, Job, Ferguson, Casteers, etc. who encouraged their Plot.  
The Papists engaged several of the Nobility in their Plot against the King, if Oats, Bedloe, and others may be credited.  
The fanatics engaged many (if not as many) of the discontented Nobility in their Plot, if Keeling, Rumsey, and the Condemned persons Confession, may be believed.  
In Oats his Popish Plot  
Were six Lords. Impeached in Parliament, and none fled for it.  
Such as  
The Earl of Powis.  
Viscount Stafford, who was Executed.  
Lord Petre.  
Lord Arundel of Wardour.  
Lord Bellasis.  
In Keeling's Fanatic Plot were accused to be, eight Noble Men:  
Such as  
The Earl of Shaftsbury, who fled, and died in Holland.  
The Earl of Essex, who destroyed himself in the Tower.  
The Duke of Monmouth, who submitted.  
Ford Lord Grace, who fled.  
William Lord Russell, who was Executed.  
Lord Howard of Escrick, a Witness.  
Lord Melvin, who fled.  
Brandon Lord Gerard, Bailed.  
And be pleased to Note, that  
All the Papists, both Nobles and others, denied the Popish Plot to the last, but acknowledged the Treason, upon the Hypothesis, Oats his Plot were true.  
The fanatics, both Noble Men and others, confessed Keeling's Plot, but denied the Treason, attending it, although the Plot was true.  
And which of the two, whether Papist or Fanatic, lived, and died, the better Christian, we will leave to the World to judge.  
And here we may, not impertinently, add Two Solemn Leagues, Oaths, and Covenants, one made against the King by the Papists, the other made against the King by the fanatics:  
And in both, they pretend Loyalty and Obedience to the King, Zeal for Religion, and  to the Commonwealth.  

The Solemn Oath and Covenant of the Papists in Conspiracy, against King Henry the Fighth.  
To wit,  
YE shall not enter into this out Pilgrimage of Grace for the Commyn-welthe, 
The Popish Bygot's Covenant.  
Speed's Hist. H. 8. c. 21. p. 787.  but only for the Love that you do vere unto Almighty mighty Godde, his Faith, and to Holy Church Militant, the maintenance thereof, to the preservation of the King's Person, his issue, to the purifying of the Nobility, and to expulse all Vilayne Blood, and Evil Councillors against the Commyn-welthe, from his Grace and the Privy Counsel of the same, and that ye shall not enter into our said Pilgrimage, for no particular profit to yourself, nor to do no displeasure to no privey person, but by Council for the Commyn-welthe, ne'er Slay, ne'er Murder for no envye, but in your hearts put away all fear and dread, and take afore you the Cross of Criste, and in your hearts his Faith, the Restitution of the Church, the Suupression of these Herytyks, and their opinions, by all the holle Contents of this Book.   

The fanatics Solemn League and Covenant, against King Charles the First.  
To wit,  
YE do swear, 
The fanatics Scotch and English Covenant.  That ye shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the Grace of God, endeavour in your several places and callings, 
Full. Hist. ch. 1. lib. 11. c. 21. p. 201.  The REFORMATION of RELIGION in England and Ireland, as it is Reform in Scotland. That ye shall, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, that is, Church-Government by Archbishops, Bishaps, Deans, their Chancellors and Commistiaries, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers, depending on the Hierarchy; That ye shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy in your several Vocations, endeavour with your Estates and Lives mutually to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Parliaments, and the due Liverties of the Kingdom, and to Preserve and Defend the King's Majesty his Person and Authority, That the World may bear witness with your Consciences of your Loyalty, and that ye have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty's just Power and Greatness.  
That ye shall also with all faith-fulness endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries, Malignants, or evil Instruments by hindering the REFORMATION, dividing the King from his People, that they may be brought to Trial, and receive condign punishment.  
That ye shall assist, and defend what ye can, all those that enter into this Blessed League and Covenant.  
That ye profess and declare before God and the World, your unfeigned desire to be humbled for your sins, and for the sins of the Kingdom, and that it is your true and unfeigned purpose to amend your lives.  
And this Covenant ye make in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as ye shall answer it at the Great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen you by his holy Spirit to this end, and to bless your desires and proceed with success, as may be deliverance and safety to his People, and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under, or in danger of the Yoke of Antichristian Tyranny, to join in the same or like ASSOCIATION and Covenant, to the Glory of God, the Enlargement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the Peace and Tranquillity of Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths.  
So help you God.   
NOW, if any, , and unprejudiced, person, will but compare these two Covenants together, He may easily see, and conclude, that though, the one be larger than the other, yet. That the fanatics took the Platform of their Covenant from the Bygot Papists.  
Only the Papists in their Covenant, Swore to Maintain the Ancient Herarchy, and to preserve not only the King, but also his Heirs and Issue.  
Whereas, the fanatics, swore to extirpate All Hierarchy.  
And although they swore to preserve the King, yet, they did not swear to preserve his Lawful Heir, 
☞  and Issue; for, they do not make the least mention of them, in their Covenant.  
And it is to be noted farther,  
That although the fanatics, in their Covenant, swore to Preserve and Defend the King's Person and Authority,  
Yet, they swore to maintain him only, in his Just Power and Greatness,  
And they made themselves the Interpreters of what was the King's JUST Power and Greatness.  
And farther,  
The fanatics, in their Covenant, swore to Preserve and Defend the King's Person and Authority,  
Only, in Subserviency to the Rights and Privileges of Parliaments, and the Liberties of the People and Kingdom,  
All which, they, in their Covenant put before the Preservation of the King, his Person and Authority. 
☜   
Whereas the Truth is this, to wit, That neither the Rights and Privileges of Parliaments, nor the Liberties of the People, can possibly be preserved and maintained, Without the constant Preservation of the King his Person and Authority, his Heirs and Successors, in his, and their, full Rights and Royal Prerogatives.  
For,  
The King is the Life of the Kingdom; He alone, by his Prerogative, gives Life and Being to Parliaments, and with the Breath of his Mouth can, and does, Annihilate them, at his pleasure.  
He is the Spring and Fountain Head of all the People's Liberties; they are all the Results and Effects of his Donations, upon Condition of their Fealty and Loyalty to him;  
For in England, whatever Lands, Immunities and Privileges, the Subjects enjoy,  
They hold all, à Capite, from the King, and his Heirs.  
And therefore, to depose and destroy the King and his Heirs, or to infringe their ancient Rights and Prerogatives, is truly to destroy the Subjects just Title to their Liberties and Enfranchisements; All which Liberties depend upon their Allegiance to the King and his Lawful Heirs.  
But we will deseant no farther on these Rebellious Engagements and Covenants either of Papists or of fanatics.  
Only, we will take leave to add this, scil.  
That, if, according to 
* Beaufr. c. ●. p. 52.  Beaufrons, the Protestants, that is to say, the Episcopal Men of the Church of England, be (as, indeed, they are) like the Papists, in all, that is Good, in the Papists;  
Then, we may, on the other hand, avouch for a Truth, that the fanatics, are like the Papists, in all, or most, things, which are 
† Ibid. p. 46, to p. 51.  Bad, in the Papists.  
And therefore, if Beaufrons would have us to love the Papists for what they are like unto us,  
Then, Reason tells us,  
That we ought to Dissent from both, Papists and fanatics, in what, they are contrary to us, and ever to Abhor their Treasonable Practices of Covenanting against our Lawful Princes and their Heirs, upon pretence of Tyranny, Idolatry, want of Grace, or the like, for, He that hateth Righteousness, 
Job 34.17, 18.  shall (and ought to) Govern; nor is it Lawful to say unto a King, Thou art Wicked, nor unto Princes, Ye are .   

CHAP. VII.  
The chief Cause of Rebellion among Christians, is a Belief of that false Position, scil. That Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace; Maintained by the Papists and fanatics.  
REbellion among Heathens and irreligious Men, commonly arises from Pride and Ambition, from 
* Jam. 4.1.  Lust, Envy and Malice, from Discontents, Oppression and Tyranny.  
But Sedition and Rebellion among Religious Men, who profess Christianity, and pretend to tenderness of Conscience, to Grace and Holiness, ordinarily, yea, chief, if not wholly, arises from a persuasion, and firm belief of that very false Doctrine and Position, stiffly maintained both by Papists and fanatics, scil.  
Dominium Temporale Fundatur in Gratia.  
That, Temporal Dominion is Founded in Grace,  
And that only the Godly aught to Reign and Govern upon Earth.  
Before we proceed to disprove the aforesaid Position,  
It will be necessary to inform the weaker sort of men, what is generally meant by Grace; to wit,  
The Gifts and Graces of the Holy Ghost.  
Such as  
1. A Faith in Christ, a Belief of the Christian Religion: Without which Belief, every Man is an Infidel.  
2. All Moral Virtues, wrought in us, by the Holy Ghost concurring with our own endeavours, such as Sobriety, Prudence, Justice, Love, Meekness, etc. Sanctification and Holiness of Life and Manners; Without which every Man is Morally wicked.  
The fanatics, both Classical, Congregational and Anabaptists (to do them Right) by Grace, do commonly mean,  
A Conversion unto God, a firm Faith in Christ, Sanctification and Holiness of Life, and other Gifts and Graces of the Holy Ghost.  
And farther, By Grace they all mean, A firm Belief of the Truth of their own several ways of Church-Government, in opposition unto the Hierarchy.  
And whoever is not of their Way and Persuasion, is looked upon by them, as no better than an Heathen and Publican, or one , and wanting Grace.  
And therefore, if he, that is not of their way and persuasion, Be a King or Magistrate, and will not come over to them, and Declare that He has Grace, and is in the number of the Godly, if he will not do so, than He has no Right to Rule and Govern over them, nor to impose Laws upon their Consciences, but they may Lawfully Resist such a Prince or Magistrate; And that because, according to them,  
All Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace.  
The Papists, in like manner, by Grace mean not only a Faith in Jesus Christ, etc. But also, and primarily, a firm Belief of the Pope's Supremacy, and of the Church of Rome's Authority over all others, in the Christian World.  
And whoever denies the Pope's Supremacy, or denies the particular Church of Rome to be the Only Catholic Church of Christ, is an Heretic, and has no true Grace;  
And therefore if such an Heretic be an Emperor, King, or Supreme Magistrate, He ought not to Reign and Govern in any Christian Commonwealth, until he shall openly Repent and Return to the Church of Rome; for until that be done, He (though a King) is adjudged by them, no other, than a Graceless Heathen or Apostate, and therefore ought not to Govern; for, according to them,  
All Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace; that is, in a Faith in Jesus Christ, and in a Belief of the Pope's Supremacy.  
The first, that we read of, who professed and asserted this disloyal Doctrine  
Of Temporal Dominion being founded in Grace,  
Was Pope 
* Platin. in Vit. Hildebr. Davenant. determ. quaest. 30.  Hildebrand, Qui Satanam imitatus, se hujus Mundi Regna universa pro imperio auferre & dare jactitavit.  
Who, like Satan, pretended that all the Kingdoms of this World, were at his Dispose, and that he being Christ's Vieegerent, had full power to give or to take them away, as he should think sit.  
And thus, since him, the Popes of Rome have exercised that Lordly power, and have given and taken away many Crowns from Kings and Emperors, whom they have judged to be Heretical, and to have wanted Grace, and have disposed of them unto others, at their pleasure. As we have fully proved out of their own Writers, in chap. 5. sect. 1. p. 147. of this Treatise, to sect. 2.  
The first Anti-Papists, that we meet with, who affirmed, that,  
Temporal Dominion was founded in Grace,  
Were Wickliff, Huss, and the Waldenses, (si Monachis fas credere) if the Monks are to be credited, which (as Bishop Davenant notes) was their great error.  
But, as the same Author observes, although those Good men were of that opinion, yet their error and mistake was not so great, nor so gross, as that of the Papists:  
For, Huss and the Waldenses were absolutely against the Deposition of Princes for their Idolatry or want of Grace:  
And therefore they did assert,  
That if Providence had placed any Prince in the Throne, and if afterward, the said Prince should fall from Grace, become Idolatrous or Tyrannical, yet, said 
* Hussius de tali Rege deponendo nè cogitavit unquam. Dau. qu. 30.  they, it would not be Lawful for any Subjects, nor for any other power whatever, to depose such a Prince for his Apostasy, Tyranny, or departure from Grace.  

SECT. I.  
Arguments proving, That, Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace, are such as these, to wit;  
1. BEcause it was Birthright, not Grace, which gave Hereditary Kings a just Title to their Crowns, and therefore, it was, That Infants have often times been Crowned Kings, before they have been capable of declaring to the World, whether they had Grace, or no.  
It was upon the account of Birthright, not Grace, that Jehoash, when but one year old was called King, 
2 Kings 11.3.12.17.  and when but seven years old He was Crowned, and the People solemnly swore Allegiance to Him their King.  
And therefore, although Jehoash proved a wicked man, and a Tyrant, especially to his friend Jehoiadas Son. 
2 Chron. 24.21.  Yet he did not lose nor forfeit his Right to Reign and Govern as King;  
And the Reason for it was this, Because he did not lose his Primogeniture and Birthright.  
For, as Gerson truly notes,  
Dominium in subditos non amittitur, nisi amisso eo in quo fundatur.  
As long as any Hereditary King retains his Primogeniture, on which his just Title to the Crown is grounded, so long, he is King, and aught to Govern.  
And, forasmuch as it is impossible for any Prince to lose his Primogeniture (unless, as Nicodemus thought, he may be born again of his Mother.)  
Therefore is it (in like manner) impossible, He should, by any equity or justice, lose his Crown, or be Rightfully Deposed, for any defect whatever, whether, for, want of Grace, Idolatry, or Tyranny.  
2. Heathen Kings and Princes had a Right to Reign and Govern,  
And yet, they had not Grace, as we know of, in the Senses abovementioned; Nay, many of them had not Common Humanity and Civility, but lived and acted contrary to Natural Reason and Morality.  
And yet, God gave, even, them, Temporal Dominion, and placed some of them over his own people, the Jews, and Commanded the Jews to be obedient unto those said Heathen Princes, such as Nabuchadnezzar King of Assyria, Ahasuerus, Cyrus and Darius.  
Yea, Christ himself confirmed Caesar's Title unto Temporal Dominion, although Caesar was then an Infidel, this Christ did, in that his Command, Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as well as, unto God, what is God's.  
It is Bishop Davenant's note, worthy our Remembrance, 
(a) Apud Infideles & impios modus utendi hisce temporalibus sit plerunque injustus, Titulus tamen habendi potest esse justissimus. Dau. Deter. quaest. 30.  scil.  
That there is a great difference, between the Right of Title to Government,  
And the Right Mode of Governing, and of using that Title.  
For, an Heathen may have a just Title to a Throne,  
And yet, possibly, not govern well and justly.  
However, that personal Act of his ill Government does not destroy his personal Right and Title to Govern.  
3. The Apostles and Primitive Christians, in cases of Right, and of Common Equity and Justice, did frequently Appeal unto Heathen and Unbelieving Magistrates; as for instance, St. Paul, Act. 25.11. Appello Caesarem, I Appeal unto Caesar.  
And v. 12. Then Festus— answered, Hast thou Appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go.  
And from this very Appeal of Saint Paul's unto Augustus an unbeliever, does the Learned Geo. Carlton, 
Geo. Carl. Pref. to Jurisd. c. 1. Regal. p. 23.  argue and conclude, that, Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace.  
4. God is well pleased with Heathen Princes, for making War, and for fight for their Right, when by other Princes, they are oppressed, wronged and injured; and ofttimes God gives success and victory to the Oppressed Princes, as he did to Eschol, Aner, 
Gen. 14.13, 14.  Mamre, and Bera King of Sodom, by the hand of Abram, against Chedorlaomer, King of Elam.  
Ergo, Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace.  
5. If no Man must Reign and Govern, but only he, who has Grace, Then the People will never be assured, nor certainly know, who is their Lawful King, and who is the Right Heir to the Crown, and whom they are to obey;  
For, the People cannot assuredly tell who has Grace, and who has not. There are Hypocrites, who pretend to have Grace, and yet truly have none; and there are many, who do not publish their Grace, and yet have much.  
Grace is invisibly resident in the heart, and none knows the Heart of Man, but only God.  
Thus this Position opens the door unto Rebellion: For no men will obey or own Him for their Prince, whom they do not know, whether He be their Prince or no; for if they should, than they may obey a Counterfeit, instead of their true and lawful Prince, and so run themselves into a Praemunire.  
6. This Doctrine of preventing Kings from Reigning and Governing for their want of Grace, can be invented by Christians for no other end, than to prevent all Passive Obedience unto Kings that shall prove Tyrannical, and to avoid going to Heaven in the fiery Chariot of Martyrdom: For, as 
* Cum Reges pro falsitate contra veritatem constituunt malas leges probantur & coronantur benè credentes. Aug. Epist. 50.  St. Augustine writes, there will be no need of dying for Religion, if so be, wicked and ungodly Kings, who want Grace, may not be suffered to Reign, and by their evil Laws to try Believers faith whether sound or no, and in such cases to experiment their fear of God, rather than of Man; for, according to the Apostles, there is a time, when God is to be obeyed, rather than Man, and when we are to die for Christ, and for the Faith. And that can be Lawfully done, only then, when by the Supreme Authority, we are commanded, either to die the Death, or to deny Christ and his Religion.  
In this case, we are to obey the Supreme Magistrate Passively, by dying the Death; and not Actively, by doing what he Commands; Because, what he Commands is expressly against the known Law and Word of God.  
From which premises, we thus argue, scil. That if it be (as in truth it is) a bounden Duty, and a noble Virtue, in us Christians, Passively to obey our Lawful Princes, by humbly and meekly submitting our Necks (without all Resistance) unto the stroke of that Death which they shall be pleased to lay upon us;  
And if it be (as most certainly it is) a Sin in this case, to Resist Our Princes,  
Then from hence we may rationally conclude,  
That Our Princes, though, supposed to be never so Wicked and Tyrannical,  
Yet, They have a Right to Command us, and to Rule and Reign over us, and to do with our Bodies (if we offend them) what they please; Otherwise, there can be no such thing as Martyrdom.  
And therefore,  
Temporal Dominion is not founded in Grace.   

SECT. II.  
The Evil Effects and Consequences of this Position, That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace, are such as these, 

1. COnventicles.  
2. Rebellion.  
3. A Confirmation of Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity.    
I. Conventicles,  
For, from a Belief that the King has not Grace,  
And therefore, ought not to Reign;  
From hence is it,  
That the People do not look upon any Laws which the King shall make, to be valid, or any ways Binding their Consciences, especially, in matters of Religion, and of Church-Government;  
And therefore, it is, that they, declining the established and public Ordinances of the Realm, do run into private and unlawful Conventicles, which they (the ignorant, deluded people) deem to be more Holy than the other.  
Nor do they believe, they do, in the least, sin by Conventicling, contrary to the King's Laws;  
The Reason is, Because they are of full persuasion,  
That it is no sin, to violate and break the Laws and Orders of a King, who (in their opinion) wants Grace.  
And from hence also it is,  
That the People (who are not better Catechised and instructed) do so frequently leave their own Parish-Churches, and run abroad to the great Profanation of the Lord's holy day, either unto Conventicles, or unto other Churches;  
And all is, Because they fancy, that their own Parish Minister wants Grace, at least, that he is not so Powerful in his Preaching, nor so Holy (though he walks by the Rubric) as is their Neighbour Minister.  
Which is a very great error, destructive of all good Order and Conformity in the Church; For the Minister's Sacred Office, and not his Person, obliges the People to a constant Attendance on his Ministry, especially, as long as he their Minister is Conformable unto the Orders and Canons of the Church, both for Doctrine and Manners. And if any Parish-Minister be vicious in his Life (which is a great Scandal to the Gospel, and is a crying sin in a Man that is in Holy Orders, yet if any be so) than his Ordinary, upon complaint and proof, aught to punish him: And not the People, as too oft they do, by departing from his Ministry, Contrary to Christ's Rule,  
Which Commanded Attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees, although they were vicious and wicked:  
And Christ gave this Reason for it, scil. Because They, (the Scribes and Pharisees) sat in Moses his Chair; 
Mat. 23.3.  All therefore (says Christ) whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: But do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.  
II. REBELLION.  
For, from a strong Belief of this Position, scil.  
That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace,  
Have sprung most, if not all, the Seditions and Rebellions, made against Christian Princes, by either Papists or fanatics.  
It is evident by History, That the Popes of Rome, never sent out their Bulls, nor ever stirred up Subjects unto Rebellion, against any Secular Princes whatever, but only, against such, as were by them judged to be Heretics, and void of Grace, And therefore, not fit to Govern:  
Nor ever was there either King, Emperor, or any Supreme Magistrate Deposed or Murdered by the Papists,  
But it was upon the account of the said Prince his want of Grace.  
Hence arose the Spanish Invasion against Queen Elizabeth.  
The Gunpowder Plot against King James.  
And the Irish Rebellion against King Charles the First.  
And Oats his Popish Plot against King Charles the Second.  
All arose from a Belief, That the aforesaid Princes, were Heretics, and void of Grace, and therefore had no just Right unto any Temporal Dominion.  
In like manner,  
All the, , Plots of the fanatics, took their Rise, from this One false Notion, scil.  
That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace.  
And because, they were of opinion, that the King and Governors were Wicked, Tyrannical, and void of Grace,  
That therefore, they had no Right to Govern,  
But it was Lawful for the Subjects to depose and destroy them by force of Arms.  
The Belief of this false Notion, made the fanatics (as was said before) to wage War against King Charles the First, and at last to Murder him.  
To Banish King Charles the Second, and afterward Rebelliously to Fight against him at Worcester.  
This made Venner and his Confederates to draw the Sword against our present most Gracious King, under the Notion, that he wanted Grace, and was an Enemy to King Jesus.  
This made Stephen College at Oxford, with his Protestant Flail, William Hone and his Conspirators at Rye-House with their Blunderbusses to Plot the Murder, both of our Dread Sovereign the King, and of the Illustrious Prince, James Duke of York:  
Though, one of them, to wit, Hone, thought his Royal Highness to have had some, nay more, Grace, than His Majesty;  
And therefore, Hone confessed, that at last, he was, for sparing the Duke, but for killing the King.  
Though for ever blessed and praised be Almighty God, who wonderfully spared and delivered them, both, King and Duke, from the hands of their bloody Enemies;  
And we hope, and pray, that He will ever deliver them.  
And we farther pray, that the People may be undeceived, and thoroughly convinced of their aforesaid great error: for until they be convinced, the King has no Security from them, whether Papists or fanatics, of either his Crown or his Life:  
For, although the King be truly never so Orthodox, Virtuous and Pious, Yet, upon the least failing, they will clamour and give out, that he is fallen from Grace, and therefore aught to be Deposed, and no longer, to have Dominion over them; for, according to their Belief,  
Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace.  
III. A Confirmation of Heathen Kings and Princes in their Infidelity.  
For, this pernicious Doctrine,  
That, Temporal Dominion is founded in Grace,  
Discourages Heathen and Unbelieving Princes from believing in Christ, and from embracing Christianity,  
Because, if they should become Christians,  
Then they are not sure to hold their Crowns long on their Heads, no, nor their Heads, long on their Shoulders,  
For although they should not renounce Christianity, nor turn Heathens again,  
Yet, if through natural infirmity, or prevalency of temptation, or excess of Passion, they should become vicious in their lives,  
Or if, through contrary persuasion, they should not Believe, as the Papists and fanatics Believe,  
Then they must be adjudged to have no Grace,  
And therefore, to have no Right of Dominion over their Subjects,  
But must be Deposed and Dethroned,  
For,  
Temporal Dominion is (say they) founded only in Grace.  
FINIS.