A SERMON Preached before the KING AT WHITEHALL, Jan. 30. 1674/ 5. At the Anniversary Commemoration of the MARTYRDOM of King Charles I. By George straddling, D. D. Dean of Chichester, and one of His Majesty's Chaplains in Ordinary. Printed by His Majesty's special Command. LONDON, Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard, and the White Hart in Westminster-Hall. 1675. St. Joh. 19 15. the latter part of the Verse. — Pilate saith unto them, Shall I Crucify your King? The chief Priests answered, We have no King but Caesar. IT is a great and common fault of mankind to be overcurious in finding out the reasons of God's Providence, every one presuming to sound that bottomless Deep with his own scant line and plummet. Sin and punishment are so nearly related, that when the Lord has marked any one with some signal Judgement, we presently raise hue and cry against him and are ready to fall upon him as one singled out for destruction, thinking that warrant enough to condemn whom God has smitten, and to make him the executioner of our rash and unadvised sentences. Who did sin; this man, or his Parents, that he was born blind? Joh. 9 2. was once the question of Christ's Disciples; and the best of us are apt enough to make too particular applications to persons, to measure the heinousness of their offences by the greatness of their visible sufferings. Thus the Barbarians seeing a Viper fastened to St. Paul's hand, Act. 28. 4. immediately vote him no less than a murderer; the uncharitable error too of some, in the case of those Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their Sacrifices. St. Luke 13. 1. Luk. 13. 1. If such conclusions as these should pass for good, we should inevitably condemn the generation of God's Children, who commonly have a double portion of temporal afflictions; Every judgement on the holiest person should then be construed a Reprobation; He that escapes the lash here, should then be the Son, and he that smarts under it, the Bastard; and by this argument we should conclude, that God loves the Tents of Robbers more than the place where his honour dwelleth, as oft as he spares their Dens and fires his own Temple. I need not tell you how severe some of late have been in their reflections not only on private but public persons, even to the branding of Gods own Vicegerents and particularly our late Sovereign, whose greatest Crime 'twas to have been Unhappy. Their words as well as actions have sufficiently expressed their Charity to Him on this account, nothing having been more familiar with them than to make his sufferings an argument of Gods rejecting Him, and a Plea for all those affronts they should offer to his Person or Dignity. The Mene Tekel was legible to every Passer by; Each one, though never so unlearned, could decipher the bloody characters, and pronounce the fatal sentence; God hath forsaken him, persecute and take him, for there is none to deliver him, Psal. 71. 9 was the language of our modern Sons of Belial against this our David; not considering that Princes have their failings as well as other men, That no condition whatsoever is exempt from a Divine Judgement, No Laurel of proof against God's Thunderbolts, nor any Crown a sufficient fence against an Almighty stroke; That God is pleased sometimes to exercise his Sovereign power and Empire over the Great ones of the Earth, to teach their Sceptres to bow to his; v. Psal. 106. 32. That the Best of Kings may be the unhappiest here, and be punished sometimes not so much for their own as for their subjects faults; or, if for their own, only to brighten their graces, and to give them an advantage of purchasing to themselves more glorious Crowns in Heaven than they wear here on Earth. There is enough in this Chapter to secure this truth, where we may behold The King of Kings, in whom there was no Guile, no sin but what of ours He took upon Him, suffering the contradiction of sinners, made the very scorn of men and the outcast of the People: And after such an example it can be no strange thing to see his Deputy so ill treated, who as innocent as he was, was not impeccable, and yet so innocent and virtuous too, that all the Records of History can scarce furnish us with so excellent a Prince nor perhaps with so unfortunate, as if God had raised him up like another St. Paul to show how great things he should suffer as well as do for Him; Act. 9 16. One whose Afflictions were great as Himself, and only less than his Saviour's, but withal so like that 'tis hard to distinguish them; Each of them undergoing the Pageantry of a Judicial trial, delivered up out of envy to the rage and malice of an incensed Rout and the Power of a corrupt Judge. And yet as corrupt as our Saviour's was, he was still a Judge, as Lawful a one as the Roman Power could make him; whereas Ours here had neither the Authority of a Pilate, nor yet the Innocence or Compassion. 'Twas Pilat's sad fate to contest with an enraged multitude, whom 'twas unsafe to displease, and as dangerous to humour. On the one hand, violently to oppose them, was to resist a torrent, to draw upon himself the hatred of a whole Nation, and perhaps Caesar's too; and on the other, to gratify them, was to make himself his own Enemy by casting the Innocent; so that Pilate could neither well absolve Christ, nor yet Condemn him. In this sad straight see how uneasy he is under the apprehension of his own guilt and the People's fury, the former the much heavier load of the two, which he uses all possible arts to shift off. 1. By endeavouring to clear our Saviour's Innocence, the Judge himself becoming his Advocate and Jury too, passing his Verdict of not guilty, I find in Him no fault at all. Joh. 18. 38. 2. By exposing Him all in blood as a spectacle of misery to excite their pity and Compassion, Behold your King. c. 19 14. 3. By seeking to divert their rage on one who did really deserve it, as being both a Traitor and a Murderer; c. 18. 40. and when all this would not do, 4. He produceth his last and strongest argument to deter them from so horrid and impious an attempt, namely, That He whose blood they so much thirsted for, was not only an innocent Man, but a King; and, which was more, Their King; The offering violence to such a person, being in his apprehension so unparallelled a crime, that no precedent could warrant it; so that Pilate himself is startled at the very thought of it, and in a just indignation of being made the instrument of so foul a Treason breaks forth into this Pathetical question in the Text, Shall I Crucify your King? Which whether he did really take him for, or only spoke it by way of jeer and derision, yet from the very supposition we may argue, How sacred the Person of a King was held to be in the judgement of a Heathen and him none of the best, and of the worst of Jews too by the answer they make him, owning his reason for good upon supposition, That Christ had been their King, We have no King but Caesar: As if they should have said, True indeed, were this man a King, much more, Our King, we could have no tolerable Plea or Excuse for those our proceed against him; But here is Error Personae, Thou mistakest the Person, Caesar, not this man, is Our King, and therefore take heed what thou dost, lest thou make Caesar thine Enemy by setting up a Competitor against him. The Division. From the words thus explained we may clearly infer this general Conclusion, That Every Natural and Lawful Prince ought to be sacred, supreme, and consequently Inviolable, and that 1. By the Confession of Heathens and of Jews; and that this was their Judgement, I shall endeavour in the first place to make out distinctly unto you. 2. And in the second, I shall show you, how vile these Jews were, how false to their God and to themselves too, in owning Caesar for their King, and disowning Christ. 3. To complete my discourse, I shall give you the sense of Christ, his Apostles and primitive Doctors as to matter of subjection to Sovereign Princes; and so close up all with some application to our present Occasion. I begin with the first thing in the proposed order; namely, the judgement of Heathens as to the sacredness of the persons of Kings, employed in this Question, Shall I Crucify your King? The first Part. 1. Of the judgement of Heathens. A strange thing this, to a Pilate, as indeed to all Heathens, with whom Monarchy was a sacred thing, as having a Divine, at least, a Natural Original. That they derived it from Jupiter is clear from their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and those high Titles they gave Kings of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so frequent among them. That 'twas founded in Nature, Seneca tells us: Nature, says he, did first invent a King. His instance is in Bees, and he observes it also in other Creatures. Natura commenta est Regem; quod & ex aliis animalibus licet cognoscere & ex apibus, lib. 1. de Clementiâ, c. 19 And indeed what was the first man, in the design of his Creation, but an Universal Monarch? Polyarchy came in with Sin and the Curse, and Commonwealths are but Puny States to Monarchy. This is plainly confessed by Tully who reckons it inter Notiora, Omnes Antiquae Gentes Regibus quondam paruerunt. Cicero lib. 3. de legibus, initio. among the most certain known truths, That all Nations of old were subject to Kings. * Justin. lib. 1. c. 1. Justin says the very same thing, and Tacitus particularly affirms this to have been the ancient Roman Covernment, in the very first words of his Annals. * Tacit. Annal. 1. But besides the unanimous consent and inclination of all Nations to this form of Government, It's having been exercised by Fathers of Families in the first Ages of the World for at least three thousand years, strongly confirms it. That Noah had this power we may collect from Gen. 9 25. Gen. 9 25. And Abraham is therefore styled A mighty Prince, c. 23. 6. 23. 6. though his Principality extended not beyond the limits of his own Family, as being therein Absolute and . We do not read any where that Adam in his many hundred years' Monarchy ever asked his Subjects Consent; His Dominion was as absolute over his Own as over the other Creatures, his Will a Law, and all his Dictates, Oracles. Such a successive unlimited Monarchy as God did at first Constitute; so was He pleased still to continue in the Firstborn. Cain had it upon this account and that by Gods own appointment, Gen. 4. 7. Gen. 4. 7. From whence it succeeded in Jacob's Family, Gen. 49. 3. 49. 3. Reuben thou art my firstborn— The Excellency of Dignity and the Excellency of Power (of Honour and Authority) that is. The Supremacy of both. This lasted all along in the Patriarches line; He that begat, commanded; He that gave life might take it away; All power then remained in the Father's hand, as all Law did in his breast. Jus vitae & necis, derived from Nature, belonged to him by the right of nature; and to have resisted a Father's command then, had been a crime of the deepest dye. and when the Roman Manlius slew his Victorious Son with his own hand, he acted by the Authority of a Father as well as of a Magistrate. Which paternal power continued among the Romans till Justinian took it away, so that before his time 'twas still in force, though Christianity forbade the use of it. A second thing consequent to the former, was high honour and Reverence, which natural reason as well as God's Law taught men to pay unto Parents; Honour thy Father, being a Law written in the heart of man as well as engraven in stone, and which we therefore find given by Heathens to their natural Parents in as high a degree as ever it was by Jews or Christians. Now these two things, Supremacy and Honour, invested in natural Parents and owned as their due, were by the free and voluntary act of the People afterward transferred on the Political, when many Families became united into one Kingdom, and the very Title passed along with the Power. Hence are Princes styled Patres Patriae, and, as such, retained the same Prerogative, and the same at least if not a greater Reverence. For they were absolute, their Empire knew no bounds in the early ages of the World, known by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein, Arbitria Principum pro legibus erant; Justin. lib. 1. c. 1. Their rule wholly Despotical, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just and legal, though absolute and unaccountable. Aristot. lib. 3. pol. cap. 10. Such a Government the Eastern People lived long under and enjoyed a great measure of happiness by it; and therefore to speak in Tacitus language, Addicte admodum regnabantur, they were most devoutly obedient, no more questioning their Prince's wisdom than their Gods. Heathens knew no such thing as a Prior primo, their Reason could not conceive how any one could be supreme and yet have another above him, nor find a Circle in Covernment less absurd than one in Logic, as that which in their judgement would infallibly beget an infinite progress. This was the Poet's notion of a King, Martial. lib. 2. Epig. 17. Qui Rex est, Regem, Maxim, non habeat. Otherwise he should be a King and no King. And therefore 'tis very observable, that in all forms of Government there was still Supremacy, a potestas Regia, absolute and above Laws, even in the Roman Commonwealth after the expulsion of their Kings, inherent in the Person of the Supreme Magistrate pro tempore, such as were the Dictator and the Tribunes of the People, without which it had been impossible for them to preserve peace and order among men. This rendered them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, safe and unquestionable. 'Tis true indeed that there were different sorts of Kings among Heathens according to the different Qualifications of Regal power in several Kingdoms. Some, though restrained by Laws, were yet truly Monarches, not responsible, as supreme, though not absolute. Others had the Name and Title of Kings, being in effect but more specious and glorious Subjects, as was Theseus to the People, and the Spartan Kings to the Ephori. Cornelius Nepos styles these latter, Cornel. Nepos in Agesilao. Nomine magis quam Imperio Reges, Titular Kings, who, exceeding the bounds of their Commission, were some of them sentenced and Executed too by the Lacedæmonians. But the Question here is of Kings not restrained and fettered by conditional compacts and agreements, but such, as for the most part, were left free and unbound. To cite them to any Tribunal, was a thing no Heathen Subjects ever did, or indeed thought fit to do. * Lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph. Jud. Antiq. lib. 15. c. 4. Herodotus tells us, that Cambyses consulting his Senate, whether he might lawfully Marry his Sister, was answered, That they found no such Law as gave a Brother power to take his Sister to Wife: But that indeed they met with one which gave their Emperor free liberty to do what he pleased. When Herod was cited to appear before M. Anthony to answer for the murder of Aristobulus, Anthony said openly, That 'twas not fit a King should be questioned for what he did as King. I remember that Tully being to defend King Deiotarus before Caesar, gins his Oration from the strangeness and novelty of the thing, telling him, that 'twas so unusual a thing for a King to be accused, that before that time 'twas never heard of. Ita est inusitatum Regem capitis reum esse, ut ante hoc tempus non sit auditum. Cic. Orat. pro Deiotaro. So sacred were the Persons, so unquestionable the Authority of Sovereign Princes over their subjects, that whereas 'twas held Parricide to affront natural Parents, to abuse These was in Heathens account no less than sacrilege. No defects in Government could render them obnoxious to Justice, nor any crimes, though never so enormous, dethrone them. They were Tuti Imperii Majestate, Their Majesty was their Protection, and their Character, their sanctuary; They were above the reach of those Laws which Themselves made; (Above the Censure and Penalties of them, not their Guidance and Direction;) and since they could dispense with others for the breach of them, then much more surely with Themselves who were the Authors of them. Nemo unquam Principi leges scripsit; Plin. Panegyr. And, A Te exigetur Ratio, nos excusabit Obsequium, says Pliny. Tibi summum rerum judicium Dii cedêre, nobis obsequii gloria relicta est, M. Terent. apud Tacit. Annal. lib. 6. No Law could punish nor any call Kings to account but the Gods, who as they gave them the highest Empire here, so did they leave their subjects nothing but the glory of obeying them. This was Pliny's and Tacitus his Divinity, and much sounder no doubt than what some Christians have of late taught us, who will needs Principes in ordinem redigere as Buchanan phrases it (like a Pedant, as he was) Reduce Princes to good order, by placing Tutors and Guardians over them to correct them for those imaginary faults which their own fancy mostly creates and then heightens into Crimes. De jure Regni apud Scotos. Edit. Edinburgi 8. 1581. p. 6. By what has been said it appears, That as Kingly Government was first founded in jure paterno; so that Kings themselves were as absolute and in their Dominions as Fathers were in their Families for some thousands of years; A thing ever acknowledged by Heathens, and never disputed them but by Christians. Bell. Jagurth. Impune quidvis facere, Id est Regem esse, was Salust's definition of a Sovereign Prince, and all Heathens admitted it; who were so far from thinking it fit to punish him in his person, that 'twas Treasonable with them to attempt it in Effigy. I need not tell you how much the Roman Laws provide for the security of their Emperors, and to this purpose I might cite many of them. But I forbear, and shall only add a little touching that reverence and honour Heathens gave their Kings; for the most part indeed too much, being superstitious in this point even to excess. For I find it held unlawful, by the Eastern People especially, for private men to gaze too much on their Prince, and unsafe to venture into his presence unsent for. And therefore we see Esther durst not appear before Ahasuerus till he held out his Golden Sceptre to her. Esther 5. 2. What esteem Heathen subjects had for their King; we learn from Artabanus a Persian speaking thus for himself and the rest of his Country men; Apud Xenophont. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We own it as the chiefest of those many good Laws among us to honour and adore our Prince as the lively pourtraicture of the great Preserver of all things. An Expression not much differing from that of St. Peter, 1 Pet. 2. 17. Fear God, Honour the King. I might here present you with those lofty Titles of Eternity and Divinity so frequently by the Romans bestowed upon their Emperors and the like, more proper for Gods than Men; I might tell you how to abuse their very statues was Sacrilege; How they swore by the lives of their Princes (as Joseph did by Pharaoh's, Gen. 42. 16.) Gen. 42. 16. per Genium Imperatoris, in Tertullian. Apologet. c. 32. Such Reverence did Heathens pay unto them as to so many Earthly Gods, from whom they saw they derived the inestimable benefits of Peace, plenty and Protection; The main ground of all the Heathenish Idolatry. No marvel then if Pilate (who being a Judge 'tis presumed could not be ignorant of these things as having been bred and trained up under the Roman discipline, and so well acquainted with its Laws and Customs) comparing the affronts and indignities these Jews were now offering to one whom he supposed their King, with that high respect and honour he knew all other Nations, and especially the Roman, expressed towards theirs, is here so much scandalised at the manner of their Proceed. 'Twas a new thing to him to see a King brought before him by his own subjects to receive his sentence. Joh. 18. 31. Take ye him and judge him according to your Law, says he, not Ours; We have no such Law whereby to judge, much less to put a Prince to death. This he charges them home with, and they to prevent the suspicion of so soul a crime, deny Christ to be their King, but by owning Caesar to be so, profess as much Loyalty and Obedience to him as Pilate himself could pretend to, which brings in the second point of the first part of the Text, namely the Judgement of the Jews as to the sacredness of King's persons and their Exemption from Force or Judicial Trial. 2. Of the judgement of Jews. 2. That Kings derived their Authority from God and not from the People; and therefore could be responsible to none but God for what they did, is a Truth clearly delivered by the Prophets; He removeth and setteth up Kings, says Daniel, c. 2. 21. Dan. 2. 21. He placeth them on their Thrones, says Job, c. 36. 7. Job 36. 7. By Him they reign and by Him they decree Justice, Prov. 8. 15. Prov. 8. 15. Psal. 89. 20. 2 Chron. 9 8. Prov. 21. 1. Psal. 21. 3. 82. 6. Their Diadem, their Anointing their Sceptre, their Throne, all are said to be from God. As their Hearts are in his hand; so the same hand sets their Crowns fast upon their Heads. Dixi, Dii estis, is God's language to Them, not the People's, For then the Dixi should have been changed into a Diximus; nor should the style be, By me King's reign, but by Us, according to the modern Divinity. Consider we a little how the first Jewish Kings were elected, and we shall find that the People had little or nothing to do in their choice. They indeed desired a King but God gave him as He had long before designed him. Act. 13. 21. Nor do we find that the Jewish Kings ever stood much upon their Confirmation by the People, but as those that knew their way to the Throne ascended its steps without the People's aid. 'Tis true indeed, The People are said to have made Saul a King in Gilgal; 1 Sam. 11. 15. But their making him there, was no more than their approving him. They did only add to the Pomp and Ceremony, not to the essence of the Constitution. For Saul was both named and confirmed King and had executed his Office before this solemnity, as appears from 1 Sam. chapters 10. & 11. 1 Sam. cap. 10, 11. The People could pretend no interest here, God having left them nothing to do but to admit and accept him. The same is as true of David too; Psa. 78. 71, 72. God chose him and took him away from the Sheepfolds, that he might feed Jacob his people and Israel his Inheritance; Nay God himself owns the Institution, Psal. 89. 20. 89. 20. I have exalted one chosen out of the People; The Exaltation was Gods, and the choice not Of but Out of the People. And as He did exalt; so did He anoint him with his own holy Oil, an Emblem of his Sovereignty. A character not only proper to Him, but to all his Successors, ● Sam. 10. 27. (Royal Birth being equal to Royal Unction) to whom in token of subjection, the People paid homage and gave gifts, admitted their Images on their Coins, and began their Aera from their Reign; All marks of that sovereign Authority Kings had over them, and which was never disputed. For whatever the rebellious practices of some were (As there will be Rebels while there be Kings, and never greater store of such than among the Jews, whom the Prophets frequently style A Rebellious Nation) yet the opinion of the best and soberest part of them was ever Orthodox as to matter of subjection to their Natural Princes, whatever they thought of Foreign ones, whom they looked upon as Usurpers. This then being granted (as needs it must) That their Kings were supreme, as holding their Sceptres only from God; It will necessarily follow that they were accountable to none but Him. And this is further demonstrable from the Jus Regni mentioned 1 Sam. 8. 1 Sam. 8. where all the Acts of a Tyrannical King are at large described, but such as the People could not choose but submit to. 'Twas not a Law given for a Prince to Command, but for the People to obey by. It did by no means excuse him from sinning, but it did sufficiently disable them from punishing him. And therefore 'tis said, when the solemnity of this Inauguration was over, v. 10. That Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the People that asked of him a King. He spoke not to the King, but addressed himself to the People and declared their Duty (For his duty was well known, it having been taught him by Moses many Ages before, Deut. 17.) Deut. 17. And the close of all is this, since there is no help in man, they must only cry unto the Lord, 1 Sam. 8. 18. 1 Sam. 8. 18. From whence it appears, that although what a King should do were never so wicked, yet that he might do it with safety and impunity. Which is the express doctrine of the Old Testament. Job. 34. 18. Job 34. 18. Is it fit to say to a King, Thou art wicked? Or to Princes, Ye are Ungodly? 'Twas not so it seems in Job's days, nor in Solomon's neither; Eccles. 8. 2, 3. I counsel thee to keep the King's Commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God; For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: and v. 4. v. 4. Where the word of a King is, there is Power, and who may say unto him, What dost thou? No man without danger to his life and soul too, Prov. 20. 2. whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul. He pulls down the Kings, and God's anger upon his head. King's indeed have long hands, but the Almighty's are much longer and heavier, who will be sure to punish the breach of that Oath the subject makes to his Prince, and those affronts that are put upon his Vicegerent; He, who says expressly to Samuel, 1 Sam. 8. 7. They have not rejected Thee but Me, will interpret such injuries as done unto himself. How dangerous a thing it was for the Jews to disobey an inferior Authority, we learn from Deut. 17. 12. Deut. 17. 12. The man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest, that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die; where we see that to disobey the sentence given by the Judge and interpreted by the Priest, was present death by the Law of Moses: much more, to resist the commands of the Sovereign Prince, and that by the Testimony and consent of the People themselves, Joshuah 1. 18. Jos. 1. 18. Whosoever he be that doth Rebel against thy Commandment and will not hearken to thy words in all that thou commandest him, shall be put to death. Here is no exception of Persons, the Law being general and comprehensive. I might enforce this argument by all those Titles wherewith Kings are dignified in the Old Testament, 2 Sam. 21. 17. Lament. 4. 20. 2 Sam. 14. 19 1 Sam. 15. 20. Of the lights of Israel, The breath of their Nostrils, The Angels of God, and The Heads of the People; All which speak them supreme and inviolable. I might also tell you what care God took, to secure them from any violent attempts by restraining men's hearts as well as tongues, by forbidding them not only publicly to revile, Exod. 22. ●…. Eccles. 10. 20. but so much as to curse them in thought, lest a bird of the air (An Angel of God) might tell the matter; much less might the hand be lifted up against them, For who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless? says David, 1 Sam. 26. 9 1 Sam. 26. 9 If any might have done it, then He to be sure, as next heir to the Crown, declared so by God himself, and already Anointed to it, and who might now have made way for himself to it by dispatching Saul who was then in his hand; and Necessity and Providence (our late great Pleas and Pretences) might seem to have led him to it: But so far was David from doing him any hurt himself, that he would not suffer those whose fingers itched to be doing, and who came with a dixit Dominus in their mouths, to injure him in the least; would not give way to his own Passion or his Soldier's solicitation. The only use he makes of it is the trial of his Patience and the means of his Peace. David might as easily have cut off Saul's head as his garment; but his Coat only shall be the worse for it, not his Person. Like Aaron's precious Ointment he descends only to the skirts of his Clothing; nor should his garment have been maimed for a revenge, but only for a monument of his Innocency. And yet as not well secured of that, the least rent of that garment tears his heart worse, 2 Sam. 25. 5. 2 Sam. 25. 5. Now what was it that so becalmed and smoothed his own and his Follower's Passion but the Holy Oil that was on Saul's head? Timuit Oleum, says Optatus; Saul was the Lords Anointed, That was charm enough to tie up David's hand. Nor do we find that the Jewish Nation did ever pretend to bring any of their most extravagant Kings into order either by way of force or Justice, but left them to stand or fall to their own Master, whenever they did such things as were punishable by the Law of Moses. Exod. 22. 20. By which Law though every Idolater was to die without mercy, yet where do we find that Manasses (An Idolater and a cruel Tyrant to boot) was ever punished for it by the People? Or where do we learn that Elias (A man of a fiery spirit, and zealous for his God) did call down fire from Heaven to consume a wicked Ahab as he did his Captains of fifties and their Bands? When David had committed Adultery (which was mortal too by the Law of Moses, Levit. 20. 10.) Levit. 20. 10. Nathan brings no Authority from the People to punish, he only threatens him from God, citys him to his Tribunal, and David himself well knew he was to stand at no other bar, Psal. 51. 4. his Tibi soli peccavi, secures him from man's; and St. Ambrose's Comment on these words puts it out of Question, Rex erat; He was a King, and that was his Protection. Rex utique erat, nullis Ipse legibus tenebatur, quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum. St. Ambr. Apolog. David. c. 10. But though the People had no Authority over their Prince, had not the High Priest? Jesuits indeed say so, but without any ground at all. For they cannot show us any one single act of Jurisdiction exercised by the High Priest over the King, whereas we can of the Kings over him; 1 King. 2. 26, 27. of a Solomon on an Abiathar. 2 Chron. 26. That which they urge here of Azariah's thrusting out Uzziah out of the Temple, is nothing to the purpose. That was no act of violence against him for burning Incense to the Lord, and so seizing on the Priest's Office, as is pretended, much less any depriving him of his Regal Authority (which he enjoyed while he lived.) Jud. Antiq. lib. 9 c. 11. See 2 Chron. 26. 20. But, as Josephus informs us, an Advice or Admonition to him to departed hastily out of the Temple, God having smitten him with Leprosy, and all Lepers being to dwell without the Camp, according to the Levitical Law, Levit. 13. 46. Levit. 13. 46. 2 King. 11. Nor is that other instance of Jehoiadas slaying Athalia, any whit more pertinent. For Jehoiada, (who had for some years secured Joas in the Temple from the fury of that Usurpress) being Uncle and Protector to Joas in his minority, did, with the consent of the chief of the Realm, only declare him King, who was so before, as by Right of succession, so by Gods own special appointment, 2 Chron. 23. 3. 2 Chron. 23. 3. Nor did he cause Athalia to be slain, till Joas had been seated on his Royal Throne, v. 11. v. 11. so that 'twas not so much His as Joas' Act, in whose name and by whose Authority He caused it to be done. Here then was no act of the High Priests Jurisdiction over the King; nor can it be made appear that ever the Sanhedrim (The Highest Court of Judicature among the Jews, and who had Authority to punish False Prophets with death) Deut. 13. 5. did ever pretend a power of punishing Princes so. After the Babylonish Captivity indeed nothing was done without their Authority. Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib. 14. c. 17. Then we read that Herod was cited to appear before them to answer for some misdemeanours he had committed, He being but a private Person, his Father Antipater alive, and Hyrcanus then reigning. To. 1. Annal. ad An. Christi 31. num. 10. Exercitat. lib. 13. c. 5. So false is it what Baronius confidently affirms, That all Kings were obnoxious to the Judgement of the Sanhedrim, as Casaubon shows. Only this must be confessed, That Kingly power, toward the end of the Jewish Monarchy, was much restrained by the Senare; so that what Aristotle says of the Kingdom of Lacedaemonia, is applicable to that of Judaea in those times, Ar. Pol. lib. 3. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Kings could not do all then as once they could when their Power was Absolute, and when by the judgement of the best Jewish Doctors, it was utterly unlawful to call them to an Account; witness that saying of theirs, cited out of their Talmud, Rex nec judicat nec judicatur; which as it was false as to the former part of it (as 'tis evident from 1 Sam. 8. 5. 1 Sam. 8 5. where the People desire a King that might judge them like all the Nations, and what kind of Kings those were I have already shown you) so was it most true as to the latter branch of it, That He was not to be judged of any. A piece of Divinity so generally owned and approved by the Jews, that it became a Proverbial saying with them, Nulla creatura judicat Regem, sed Deus Benedictus. That this was the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, made good by the example of Holy men, and avowed by the ablest and soundest Jewish Doctors, These Chief Priests here could not be ignorant of, as men who had been trained up in the Schools of the Prophets and in all likelihood well versed in their own Histories and Practices. And therefore to avoid the force of pilate's argument, they own his Reason but deny his supposition, That Christ was their King, We have no King but Caesar. My second general Part. The second Part. 'Twas impossible in so few words to express more flattery, shall I say, Blasphemy or Folly. Here is hypocrisy in the height, in owning Caesar for their King. He was so indeed, but sore against their wills; See Deut. 17. 15. one whom Conquest had forced upon them, and whom they mortally hated as an Usurper, an Enemy to their Religion and Customs. Nor was it possible for them to love him, while they held it no better than a sinful Vassalage to stoop to a Heathen Sceptre; A fancy Judas Gaulonites and Saducus had put into their heads. Thus they how their knee to Caesar as they did to Christ, with a Hail King of the Jews; proclaiming him with their mouths but not with their hearts, Aut Caesar aut nullus, Caesar must be their King. And why not Christ? was it not because there was no King in Zion? did not these men look for a Messiah? And was not this the proper time to expect him, when according to jacob's Prophecy, Gen. 49. 10. the Sceptre was departed from Juda? Had not malice and envy blinded their eyes, they might easily have known him by all those marks their Prophets gave them of the Messiah, and which were so visible on him. Nor was it long before that themselves would have made him their King, that they followed him in Triumph into Jerusalem with Hosannas to this Son of David as loud as now their Crucifiges; Joh. 6. 15. and is the note so soon changed? How much better , a Heathen, than they who both owned him here for their King, and a little after proclaimed him such by a public Inscription on his Cross? Yet Nolumus hunc, is their language, and by rejecting Christ what did they but renounce all hope of a deliverer? This was their extreme Folly and they soon smarted for it, when Christ's light yoke was turned into an iron one that galled their necks to purpose; when the seditious practices of the furious Zealots lured the Roman Eagles to their Carcases, according to the literal meaning of our Lord's prediction, Matth. 24. 28. Matth. 24. 28. Thus for their refusing Christ and choosing Caesar for their Lord, 'twas just with God to plague them by that Caesar; That they who rejected the mild Empire of a Lamb, should have a devouring Stork set over them, and the Venient Romani, once their Fear, should at last prove their judgement. Joh. 11. 48. But besides this, there is a great absurdity in their answer here to Pilate, an opposition employed between Christ and Caesar. They say Christ is not their King because Caesar is. The Anabaptist and the Jew are here so cross, that 'tis strange one Amsterdam should hold them both. The one says, Christ is our King, and therefore not Caesar; The other, Caesar is our King, and therefore not Christ; as if these two, Christ and Caesar were incompatible. 'Twas this mistake that raised all the Plots against our Saviour; This, that awakened Herod's jealousy, and provoked his rage, when he heard of a King of the Jews. But his fears were as needless, as they were pernicious; since He, who gave all Earthly Monarches their Crowns, did not come with any design to pluck them off their heads. The not well understanding a due subordination between Christ's and Caesar's Kingdom, is that which has spilt so much blood in the World. There may be danger in contrariety, but in diversity there is none. 'Twas a blasphemous inconsequence then in these Chief Priests, Caesar is our King, therefore not Christ; whereas they should rather have argued thus, Yea, rather Caesar, because Christ, it being not necessary that Religion and Policy should clash, nor at all impossible to Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar 's, and yet not deny God the things that are God's. We have had, and still have such loud cries as these among us too; Of some, who will have no King but Him that wears the Triple Crown, all the rest must hold theirs precariously from Him. Of others, who are for a King Jesus, owning Him indeed for their King, but in as bad a sense as these here disclaimed him. The difference between these two is not very great. The One would have blown up their King, and the Other did actually cut off his head. Their Impiety was much alike, but not their Modesty: The former being content to contrive his destruction in a Cave, while the other had the impudence to murder him on a Scaffold. A third sort of People we have seen too; who were for a Monarch with these Jews, but one of their own setting up: For any thing rather than the True One; For a Traitor and a Murderer; a Barrabas instead of a Christus Domini, a Bramble for a Cedar. The Chief Priests of those times were mainly for such a one (If they were Priests at all, for 'tis questionable whether many of them were; nay, 'tis certain that some of them were not, and that All of them were at best but Jeroboam's Priests, of the meanest of the People). We know whom these men would once have had for their King, Jeroboam was to be the Man, One for all Religions but the right one; As good a Priest himself as they that would have set him up, who carried a Sword in one hand, and a Censer in the other; One that set up his Calves in opposition to the God of Israel, when he saw he was not for his turn; A Phocas who by the murder of his Lord aspired to the Diadem, and he missed it narrowly, the Power he had already got into his hands, but God would not suffer him to enjoy the Title, and not long after stripped him and his ridiculous Successor of all their Theatrical Pomp, making them give way to the True Caesar. And blessed be God that we can truly say what these Jews here spoke falsely, We have Caesar for our King. Let us then give him those things that belong unto Him, that which our Religion commands us to pay Him. And what that is, is to be our third and last Enquiry. The Third Part. The Doctrine and Practice of Christ, his Apostles and Primitive Fathers. That all Magistracy is from God, we learn from Rom. 13. 1. The Powers that be, are ordained of God; and that all degrees and orders of men are from Him, is as evident. For God never designed such a Parity as some men dream of. A thing, as contrary to Nature, so to all Reason and Religion. What is commonly said, That all men are born Equal, that Innocence knew no Superior but God, and that subjection came in with sin; is speciously, but very falsely alleged. That Slavery came in with sin, I grant, not Civil subjection. As there was at first a plain distinction and inequality between Father and Son; so the different gifts of men imply it; some being born with such Heroic Spirits, as if designed by God to govern others, whose stronger abilities of body than of mind, seem to have fitted them only for subjection. This the Philosopher seems to make the ground of all Civil Government, Polit. 1. And indeed without such an Inequality there could be None. For every man standing in a Ring or Circle, where the roundness takes away all distinction, none can be before or after another; Every single person shall then be a Monarch and a Subject, as 'twas in that Cyclopedian Anarchy described by Euripides, which the Levelling Doctrine does inevitably introduce, as against all reason, so against the very interest of the Designers themselves. Against Reason, as a thing utterly impracticable; To reduce all men to the same pitch of Government being as unreasonable a Tyranny as was that of Procrustes, who would fit all Bodies to one bed. Against the interest of the Designers too, who would have all equal indeed besides themselves; and I may add, Against Religion; For Christ allows no such thing, and those Higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul clearly imply a distinction. And who those Higher Powers were, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same Verse declare, The Powers then in being, which can be understood of none but the Roman Emperors. These were then the Highest Powers on Earth; To these St. Peter commands subjection as to the Supreme, 1 Pet. 2. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 13. These, as our Lord tells us, did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 20. 25. 2 Cor. 1. 24. that is, as the words import, exercise such an absolute and supreme authority over men, as Masters have over their Servants, and Lords over their Vassals. And so far was Christ from disputing them this their just Authority, Matth. 17. 27. that He not only paid them Tribute in token of his own subjection (though not without the expense of a Miracle) but expressly commands all his to do so; 22. 21. Render unto Caesar, the word there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Restore to Him his due, as if it were not so much a Gift as a Debt. Thus did our Lord, and thus did his Apostles teach us; Nor do we find that any of the Primitive Fathers taught otherwise than to own Kings as supreme, and depending only upon God. 'Tis a known saying that of Tertullian, Ad Scapulam. Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum & solo Deo minorem; and that of Optatus to the like purpose; Adversus Parmen. lib. 3. Supra Imperatorem non est nisi Deus qui fecit Imperatorem. I should be infinite, if I should cite Fathers to this purpose, and I think it needless, it being impossible for any to produced one single passage out of the Ancient Fathers to the contrary. That which some object out of 1 Pet. 2. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 13. That Kings are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Ordinance of Man; signifies no more than this, That Kingly Government, as all other, is exercised by men, and designed for the good of humane society; not that it is not of a Divine Institution: For the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there recalls us to God as to its Author, and in the very same Verse we find it raised to a divine workmanship, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake. Who as he is called the Ordinance of man by St. Peter; so is he expressly styled the Ordinance of God, by St. Paul, Rom. 13. 2. But than secondly, May not the Priest now under the Gospel claim a Superiority over Princes? St. Peter says nothing to countenance that claim, (he strongly implies the contrary in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 1 Pet. 2. 13. but his pretended Successor will by all means have it so, 2 Thess. 2. 4. He who exalteth himself above all that is called God, to whose Mitre all Crowns must veil, and that by virtue of a Dabo tibi Claves, which Keys he can easily turn into a Sword as oft as he finds occasion to employ it against Sovereign Princes, and then any pretence shall warrant the use of it. Moses, says Aquinas, Comment. in 1 Pet. 2. 9 Exod. 19 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9 styles the Jews a Priestly Kingdom, Exod. 19 6. And St. Peter us Christians a Kingly Priesthood, 1 Pet. 2. 9 and from thence he strongly concludes, that as Judaisme did stand through the King's superiority over Priests: (which is more by the buy than what Bellarmine and his Associates will grant him) so Christianity through the Priest's superiority over Kings. An argument much like that once made use of to prove the Pope to be above the Emperor, because 'tis said, Gen. 1. 16. That God made a Greater light to rule the day, and a lesser to rule the night. But to this I shall oppose St. Paul's practice● and precept. His practice we have clear, Acts 25. 11. Acts 25. 10, 11. where he appeals to Caesar as to the highest Judge on Earth, where he says he ought to be judged; and that, as 'tis very observable, in a matter of spiritual concern, as it will plainly appear, by comparing v. 19 here with the sixth Verse of Chap. 23. v. 19 Chap. 23. 6. where he tells us that Of the hope and Resurrection of the dead he was called in question. This was his practice; and he did no more than what he commands all men to do, to be subject to the Higher Power, that is, to that very Roman Emperor to whom he appeals, and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every Soul includes all, whether Apostle, Evangelist or Prophet, in the Judgement of far better and more Authentic Interpreters than any of the Romanists, a Hom. 23. in Rom. St. Chrysostom, b In locum. Si omnis Anima, etiam vestra. Quis vos excepit ab Universitate? Qui tentat excipere, conatur decipere. Bernard. ad Henr. Senones f. 1. Ep. 42. Greg. M. lib. 2. Epist. ad Mauritium 72. Et ad Theodoric. Reg. Fancorum lib. 9 Epist. 53. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius and even St. Bernard too. To which I shall add the practice of Gregory the Great, himself a Pope, but much more mannerly than his successors, whose humble Addresses to Mauritius the Emperor, whom he styles his Lord, as also to Theodoric King of the Franks whom he beseeches to call a Synod, plainly show, how little he then dreamt of standing in competition with his Prince. A submission his Successors can no more relish now than his disclaiming the Universal Monarchy. And we know what a quarrel there was like to have been in this latter age between Paul 5. and the Republic of Venice, partly upon this account, that They would not suffer some * Non possunt Clerici à Judice saeculari judicari, etiamsi leges civiles non servant. Bell. de Clericis, lib. 1. c. 38. Rebellio Clerici adversus Principem, non est crimen laesae Majestatis, quia Principi non est subditus. Em. Sa Aphor. Tit. Clericus. Religious Persons to have leave to violate all the Laws of God and of that State. And here 'tis strange to see how lovingly Jesuits and Sectaries agree together to dethrone and murder the Lords Anointed: How like Sampson's Foxes they carry fire in their tails while their heads seem to point divers ways. Nemo tam prope tam proculque— Their Principles and practices much alike. That the Prince was made for the People; a In Rebuspublicis Temporalibus si Rex degeneret in Tyrannum, licet caput sit regni, tamen à populo potest deponi & eligi alius. Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. c. 19 & Recogn. lib. de laicis sect. Addo experientiam; Laudat Navarrum qui non dubitat affirmare, Nunquam Populum ita potestatem suam in Regem transfer, quin illam sibi in habitu retineat, ut in certis quibusdam casibus etiam actu recipere possit. That the People can never so far transferr their power over to a King but that they retain the habit of it still within themselves, and may in some cases actually reassume it; b Potestas immediate est tanquam in subjecto in totâ multitudine, & si causa legitima adsit, potest multitudo mutare regnum in Aristocratiam, aut Democratiam, & è contra, ut Romae factum legimus. Bell. de Laicis lib. 3. c. 6. That when Kings transgress Laws they become obnoxious to the Penalties of them, and may be c Verum principem, qui Tyrannus est ratione administrationis, non posse à privatis interimi quamdiu manet Princeps— primùm à Republ. vel Comitiis Regni, vel alio habente authoritatem, esse deponendum, ut in ipsius Personam liceat quicquam attentare. Lessius. lib. 2. de Justit. & Jure c. 9 dubio 4. deposed and killed by the People; That we are to distinguish between their Persons and their Authority, and may with a safe Conscience oppose the former, though not the latter; And, to sum up all in one, That d Dominatio Temporalis & superioritas in subditos per sententiam Papae potest omnino adimi Haereticis. Greg. de Valent. To. 3. disp. in Thomam. Dis. 1. qu. 12. p. 2. Dominion is founded in Grace, Bad Kings have no right to their Crown●…▪ nor bad men to any of God's Creatures. All these doctrines are delivered by the Jesuits either expressly or at least implicitly; and since they first give the premises, whereof such rebellious conclusions are the clear and natural issues, 'tis easy to see to whom our late Pamphleteers are beholding for their Destructive Principles, and that they have whet those Swords, wherewith they have cut off the head of their Prince, at the forges of these Philistines. But we have not so learned Christ. He never taught us to distinguish between the Person and Authority of a Prince, no more than St. Paul did when he bade us be subject to the Higher Powers. A nicety coined by Rebellious heads, but which never came into that of this Holy Apostle, who only conformed himself to the Roman style, with whom 'twas ordinary to call Persons Potestates in the Abstract. An Fidenatum Gabiorumve esse Potestas. Juv. Sat. 10. v. Ephes. 3. 10. And therefore v. 3. The same Persons are styled Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers in the Masculine, who v. 1. were entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers; to let us know, That every affront to their Persons is sin because of their Authority. But than secondly, That Dominion is founded in Grace, so that Subjects may be free to cast off the Royal yoke, in case a Prince will not, or they at least persuade themselves, He does not, submit his neck to Christ's, is the very Root of all Rebellion; A maxim, which not only turns Kings out of their Thrones, but all Men out of their Possessions, who have not the mark of their Election visible on their foreheads. A Doctrine, which has shed more blood than now runs in the veins of living Christians, and is that which in effect did Murder our late Sovereign. That Religion, Grace or Virtue gives Princes a Right to Govern, is as false as it is pernicious. Their Right to Govern is annexed to their Sovereignty, nor are their Persons Sacred in relation to their Divine or ●…ral endowments, but in regard of Empire. For Cyrus was Christus Domini as well as Josias, and Saul as well as David. Esa. 45. 1, 5. If Religion made Kings, than should there of old have been no true Kings but those of Juda, nor any now but those of Christendom. St. Augustine speaking of Saul, says, Non habebat innocentiam & tamen habebat sanctitatem. August. contra Lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 48. He had not Innocence but he had Holiness, not of Life, but of Unction. This made David so revere him when alive, and so severely punish him, when dead, by causing the Amalekite to be slain for but falsely reporting himself his Executioner. The errors or misdemeanours of Kings can no more disannul their Authority, than man's Unbelief can make void the faith of God. Rom. 3. 3. 'Tis not every sailing of the husband that can yield his Wife a just cause for a separation, she must Take him for better or for worse. The King is the Head of his Subjects, as the Husband is the Head of his Wife; 1 Sam. 15. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 3. He solemnly weds himself to his people at his Coronation, and his Oath there makes the match; But what if he break his Oath, shall his Perjury to God make him lose his just Authority over men? or release his Subjects of their duty? This is the Sectarian and Jesuitical doctrine; Buchanan and Emanuel Sa both assure us, Buchan. de jur. regni p. 53. in 8. Edenburg. 1581. Eman. Sa Aphor. Tit. Tyrannus. That in such a case 'tis lawful for any man to take away the Life of a Tyrant, that is, such a one as they fancy to be so. A piece of Divinity borrowed from Tully who had said the same thing many Ages before, but warranted by no Scripture or practice of any Primitive Christians. These all owned and submitted themselves to Tyrannical Princes. What was the Roman Emperor in St. Paul's time but such, and does He in the least question his Authority? Does he not call Him The Ordinance of God? Does he not preach subjection to Him and that not for fear but for Conscience? Did his Tyranny or wickedness wash off that holy oil wherewith God had anointed him above his fellows? And what his Infidelity and Cruelty to boot, could not do then, shall Heresy be able to do now? Can such faults dethrone Princes, not many of them perhaps would heretofore have sat fast on their Thrones. Constantius, Valens, Valentinianus, Arrians all, yet were never thought less Emperors for all that. Julian more, an Apostate, yet died a Prince. But, Vires deerant, Their Subjects then wanted power to call them to an account. Tertullian has furnished me with an answer; Apologet. c. 37. That Christians then filled all places, Towns, Camp and even the Court itself. Besides, The Theban Legion, who chose rather to be Martyrs than Rebels, are a pregnant instance to the contrary. Men that durst look any thing in the face but Majesty, That could stand before any Enemy but not before their Sovereign except to wait his Commands. Here only their courage failed them; They could suffer their own blood to be shed, but knew not our late art of Phlebotomy, of letting out their Prince's heart blood. That Arch-Rebel among us, Job. Goodwin. Anti-Caval. who with his brother Mariana the Jesuit has written a Book in defence of Regicide, not knowing what to say to so plain an Instance, betakes himself to this pretty Fanatical shift: That that honest liberty of King-killing was hid from some Primitive Christians for some special ends, which God hath since revealed to this latter age; That such an extraordinary patience and passive courage were necessary in those days, which are inconvenient in ours, wherein more plentiful light has made us see it expedient rather to be Assassins than Martyrs. 'Tis now the wicked's turn to suffer, and Antichrist cannot be destroyed except those Kings be, which yet the Scripture expressly tells us are the very Persons that shall pull him down, Rev. 17. 16. Revel. 17. 16. Thus are we, in a business of such high moment, to be guided by obscure fanatical conjectures rather than by those plain precepts of Loyalty and subjection the Scripture gives us, and the man of Sin cannot down without our sin too. This is the excellent and safe doctrine of Sectaries; This, their Christian liberty, to shake off that yoke to Princes which Christ has bound so fast to their necks, and is now become so great a part of his own. He who has commanded servants to obey even froward Masters, and Children harsh and unnatural Parents, 1 Pet. 2. 18. has enjoined subjects as strict an obedience to Tyrannical Princes. What Law is there for the servant to call his Master to an account, or the Child his Father? Or where have we any precept or example in Scripture for questioning Sovereign Princes? Will these Saints challenge to themselves a greater Authority than Christ ever took upon him? Where do we find that he exercised any Jurisdiction on the Powers then in being? He who refused to be made a Judge between private parties? Luk. 12. 14. Will these New Saints pretend to judge the World now, because God's Saints shall judge it hereafter? 1 Cor. 6. 2. Christ indeed tells his Apostles that Mat. 10. 18. They should be brought before Kings and Governors, but no where that Kings and Governors should be brought before Them to receive their doom; much less, before the People, or their Representatives either, since They can give These no greater a power than themselves had, nor such a power to be sure as they have once past away. That distinction of Singulis Major & Universis Minor, coined in the Consistory and Classis, we find not where in Scripture. There we hear of a King as Supreme, and of inferior Governors sent and empowered by Him, but nothing of their being above Him that sent them, put them all together. There we hear that the Highest Power is the Minister of God, not of the People; Rom. 13. 4. and his Minister to execute wrath on others, not to be liable to the terrible effects of another's wrath. There we are told, that God has put the Sword into his, not any others hand, That all besides Him do Take, usurp it, and shall therefore Perish with it, Matth. 26. 52. Matth. 26. 52. Much more they who employ it to His destruction, who has the only right to use it. We are commanded there to Pray for Kings, not to murder them; 1 Tim. 2. 2. To lift up our hands to God For, not against them; To submit to the Worst, not to trample on the Best of them; To bind Kings in Chains, and then Behead them, is an honour peculiar to the Saints of this Age, not Christ's. Calling a King to an account was the Brat of Pope Hildebrand's brain. V Platin. in vitâ Greg. 7. Jesuits and Sectaries have broached and practised it. Our Calendar presents us with a Fifth of November, as well as a Thirtieth of January. No Gospel for this, but the Evangelium Armatum: It suits well with the Turkish Koran and the practice of Janissaries, to make and unmake their Emperor in a day. Christ bids his Followers cut off their right hand when it offends them, not their Sovereign's head, when they but fancy Him offensive. A Doctrine good Christians have ever abhorred, The worst of Jews we see were ashamed of; nay, the worst of Heathens too utterly disclaimed; And yet Christians, and they who would be thought the Best, nay, the only true Christians, have allowed, practised and maintained. Applic. But Christians of another make and temper than heretofore, till new lights were hung up; Christians who tell us, That a King may be arraigned, sentenced and put to death by his People when he fails of his duty, and themselves to be Judges of his failings. A Doctrine, which if in itself true (as it's most false) would prove here of no other use, but to condemn the Authors and Abettors of it, since 'twas most wrongly applied by them to One, in whom there were no such Usurpation, Tyranny, Wickedness, or Weakness, as was pretended. For 1. Here was as Lawful a King as God and Nature, Law and the Subject's Oaths, could render Him. Here was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a King Born, whom neither Addresses nor Election had made such. A King by Succession (the best Title now that any can have to a Crown) No Mushroom one, sprung up in a night, but the Son of Nobles, the blood of so many Royal Veins running in his; one owned for such even by those that crucified Him, in their Inscription of, Regum Ultimus. 2. A good, pious Christian and Protestant King. Too good for so ungrateful a People. A People whom He had even loaded and tired out with his gracious Concessions; that clothed them as Saul did Jerusalem, in Scarlet with other delights, 2 Sam. 1. 24. brought Peace and Plenty, Wealth and Propriety, Honour and Security, to the Nation, every man safely and quietly sitting under his own Vine and Figtree. A nursing Father also to the Church, under whose happy shelter and Protection it flourished to the admiration and envy of all round about us; A Church, which (as Augustus is said to have done to Rome) He changed from Brick to Marble, reforming its manners as much by His own Royal Example, as He did its Structure by His Bounty and Munificence. Well might He say with His Saviour, John 10. 32. Many good works have I shown you, for which of those works do ye stone me? Had He made His Will the Rule of His Government, and that Will revealed itself in twenty years of injustice; Had He worn a Table-Book in His Pocket with the Names of the Nobility marked in it for slaughter; Had He without any Trial at Law made His Pleasure pass for Sentence, and lopped off Senators heads as fast as Tarquin did Poppy's; Had He in His Oppressions of the People made them feel Times such as Tacitus describes, where no man durst be virtuous, lest he should be thought to upbraid his Prince, and where not only men's Words, but their Looks and Sighs were proscribed. In a word, Had He with Caligula, wished His Kingdom one head, that He might strike it off at a blow; The Rebellious Principles of his Adversaries might have given them some colourable pretence to cut off His, and He might then seem to have deserved that Title, which their Charity after His death bestowed upon Him, of Tyrannorum Maximus. But there was nothing of all this in the case; Here was an Innocent, Just, Virtuous and Religious King, in whom 'tis hard to say, which was most eminent, His Piety to God, or His Love to His subjects; to whom He lived a Father, and for whom He died a Martyr. 3. A Wise and Able King, whose endowments of mind were answerable to His Virtues, rendering Him worthy of that Sceptre He was born to. In uno hoc Caesare multi Marii. Those several perfections scattered in others, all concentred in this Excellent Prince. That Kings have larger hearts and abilities than ordinary men, we learn from 1 Sam. 10. 9 Sam. 10. 9 That this King had, His most implacable Enemies have, to their own shame, often acknowledged. These were His Qualities, these His Crimes, for which He deserved Death from those, who had no other reason to implead their Sovereign, than a certain Roman had to sue his fellow Citizen at Law, because he would not take that Dagger deep enough into his own bowels wherewith he strove to stab him. And now, Behold the man. Such a Person this day dying not like one of the Princes, but the vilest of Malefactors, murdered with all the Formalities of Justice and Devotion, by such as had no power at all over the life of the meanest of their fellow subjects; A virtuous, Religious Prince, Professing the same Protestant Religion and expressing the power of it, in his life and at his death, beyond the most conscientious of private men. The Common Shepherd led like a Sheep to the slaughter, after so many Declarations published and Professions made for his Safety and Honour, in cold blood, most barbarously Butchered on a Scaffold, by the hand of the Hangman, before that part of His Palace where He had so often appeared in State: What name shall we find for such a wickedness? A crime black as that Hell it came from, and which nothing can equal but the defence of it. A crime so infamous to the whole Nation, so scandalous to the Protestant Religion, of such dangerous consequence to all Sovereign Princes, and of such pernicious lasting effects to the Church and State we live in, that 'tis to be feared its Malignity may reach Posterity, and 'twere happy for us if the Example might die with its Authors. These indeed, some of them, have received the just recompense of their reward, and their Punishment has been signal as their Villainy. God has at last burnt those rods wherewith he scourged this his servant, and their Calamity did arise so suddenly, that Themselves scarce foresaw it. These Malignant Comets, having blazed a little while, quickly expired in a stench. Their Rise was sudden, and their Fall too. Children remember the beginning of their glory, and old men have lived to see an end of it. They are now the Hatred of all men, and shall no doubt hereafter be the hissing of all Nations. These Sons of Zeruiah too strong for their Prince, have not been found so for the Almighty. For what has been the effect of all their Policy but destruction to these Achitophel's and glory to our David? That stone which these Babel Builders refused, is now become the head of the Corner. God has set his Posterity Upon his Holy hill of Zion, and may it like that Zion never be removed, but stand fast for evermore. May the Sceptre never departed from this Jacob, nor Seed from his Loins, until Shilo come again. To conclude; Let us pay Him, who this day exchanged a Temporal for an Eternal Crown, that Reverence and Respect which is due to the memory of so glorious a Martyr. And the best way to do it will be to honour Him in Him, who is his second Self, the undoubted Heir of his Crown and Virtues, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lively Image and Superscription of this Great Caesar. And while we Render unto that Caesar's Son the honour due to Him, we shall at the same time Render unto God the things that be Gods, that honour and obedience we own Him, who has twisted the King's honour with his own, for, Fear God and honour the King, are inseparable; and They who so honour God in his Vicegerent, Himself will also honour, and make them Kings too hereafter, Which God, etc. Amen. ERRATUM. Pag. 4. line 34. for those read these.