A PARADOX.  
THAT DESIGN UPON RELIGION, Was not the cause of STATE Misgovernment: But an effect of it.  
LONDON, Printed for T. W. 1644.   

A PARADOX.  
That design upon Religion, was not the cau●● of State misgovernment, but an effect of it.  
HOw much the English Nation for many years has groaned under the oppression of Illegal government, the meanest of understanding among all the people cannot be ignorant. The particular grievances are too well known, and too many to be recited in a short Discourse: but whether those illegal actions of them that sat at the Helm in England proceeded from mere injustice, and temporal ambition, or had a further end, as relating to Popery, and jesuitical continuance, is made a great question. Some suppose the latter; and think that so great a violation of Laws tended not only to deprive the people of their just liberty, but to make them Papists as well as Slaves. And indeed there are great inducements to that supposition, considering the many intercourses between Rome and the English Court of late years, the particulars of which are fully expressed in some rational discourses, which I will not here meddle with at all. But let it be granted that there might be a concurrence of wicked designs upon this unhappy Nation: yet it is my opinion that Popery was not the first intended, and chief end of our Rulers; but rather subservient to tyranny, or (as they called it) Absolute Monarchy. Nor can I think that the jesuits taught our Statesmen to be unjust: but the unjustice of those Statesmen taught the jesuits to hope for their ends; and that the waters would be at last enough troubled for them to fish in. As we shall see the ancient Popes (though then the State of England was of their Religion, and there was nothing for them to seek further in that kind) did always take advantage for their temporal ends upon such times, and in the reigns of seduced Princes advance their revenues and civil power. Such Princes have therefore been most enslaved by Popes, and their Thrones shaken by Papal thunderbolts, because their Thrones were not so firmly established in justice as they should have been. Then when there could be no aim at all at changing of Religion, when there were no jesuits in the world to tempt or plot; this very Kingdom (for foreign instances are not so proper) had seduced Princes and wicked Statesmen, who acted the same parts that we have lately seen, who laboured to overthrow Parliaments, and utterly subvert the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom; nor could they have taken greater pains to have brought in a new Religion, than they did to gain an unlawful power: by those unhappy actions instead of strengthening their estates, they much weakened them, and made themselves liable to the Pope's temporal encroachments, and no doubt had they been of a different Religion, from the Pope, the same injustice had made them more liable to his Spiritual undermine; and his pretence had been fairer for Religion, though his end were not, which was only power and revenue. For whosoever knows history, can tell what were the great causes from time to time of the Pope's anger against any Kingdom, and provoked his excommunications and other censures, namely, denying of his power, and stopping his revenue; not contradicting the tenants of his Religion, unless in the case only as that might cause the former. To keep a Town, which he claimed from him, has been called in plain terms, Heresy, and the parties excommunicated in as great fury as if they had denied an Article of the Creed. Henry the eight, though he retained that Religion, yet for denying the Papal power, and revenue, was as great an Heretic as Queen Elizabeth. And the King of Spain in this age for detaining the Kingdom of Naples from him, is at certain times accursed in as solemn manner, as Arrius or the greatest Heretic would be if he were living. So that we see it could not be matter of Religion, that caused either the Pope's encroachments, or the injustice of those Princes: but they were therefore more subject to the Pope's injuries, because they had lost that shield that should have been their defence against him, the strength of right government in a Parliamentary way; by which Edward the first was able to resist him in those things, which King john and others could not do. And as this Kingdom by bad government was made more liable to those encroachments in temporal cases; so may it be in Spiritual matters, when those fences are broken down, by which (next under God) the Church is established and defended: for if they can take away all privileges of Parliament, and all lawful power of resistance from the representative Body of the Kingdom, where is the strength upon earth that should defend our established Religion? but whether our Rulers of late times; together with their injustice and oppression of the people did intent to change Religion, or not, I think we need not much trouble ourselves to consider: Though they had no design upon Popery at all, yet were they enough guilty in robbing the People of those Laws and Liberties which were their due, and a guard to whatsoever else they possessed. Therefore let a State look first upon that cause which is nearest and most visible. If we see thiefs breaking of our house, we do not stay, and make it a long dispute within ourselves, what kind of goods they intent to steal, or what they would leave behind; but presently apprehend, and cause them to be punished as felons for breaking of the house. And indeed such disputes do sometimes so amuse the People, that whilst they look farther off at things which they cannot so well, perchance, and clearly discern, they lose the sight or consideration of that, which is near at hand, and easy to discern, and which is of concernment and weight enough, though nothing else were put into the scale. Besides, consider this, That our Religion, like a most precious Pearl, and more in value then all the other goods, is contained within this House, whose walls are thus broken down: perchance those Thiefs which break them, look not for this Pearl, nor think of it, but some other goods; yet when the walls are broken, another Thief, who better understands the value of that Pearl, may come with more ease, and rob us of it: It was far easier for the jesuites and the Church of Rome to rob us of the true Religion in England, when the just power of Parliaments, by which (under God) it was established and defended, was so far trodden down; though perchance those Thiefs which break them, look not for this Pearl, nor think of it, but some other goods; yet when the walls are broken, another Thief, who better understands the value of that Pearl, may come with more ease, and rob us of it: It was far easier for the jesuites and the Church of Rome to rob us of the true Religion in England, when the just power of Parliaments, by which (under God) it was established and defended, was so far trodden down; though perchance those Statesmen, who trod it down, had no design of letting in the Church of Rome to supplant the Truth, but only to exercise their own robbery upon men's Estates. But to persuade the truth of this Paradox, I do not see any reason why I should believe, that those great men, who for many years have sitten at the Helm in England, and given so ill counsel to our Sovereign, were in the generality Papists, or that way intended; but only tainted with the same injustice and ambition that others were in former times, laboured to bring the People into slavery, that they might oppress at their pleasure, and stand above the reach of any Law.  
Whosoever hath observed how the Sabbath was kept of late years at White-Hall, what businesses of Monopolies and other Oppressions were transacted in the afternoon, what kind of Sermons in the forenoon, about State and Prerogative, were preached before the King; he must needs believe that none of these men had any design upon Religion at all, neither indeed was there any reason wherefore to attain those unjust ends, they should desire a change of Religion: for if we consider what Religion will best serve to advance Tyranny in the Kingdom of England, and look into History for examples of that kind (for History hath been counted the best glass through which Prudence can look, when she makes her judgements upon humane actions) we shall find that Popery could not do it so well as that Protestant doctrine which hath been taught at Court these thirty years; and not only preached, but printed to the public view by Authority, even to this last year 1644. Consider what Principles they maintain, and against whom they writ: Their Adversaries, whom they choose to deal withal, are all the modern Authors of greatest Learning and Reason, and of all Religions; whom in their writings they style jesuites, and Puritans; under the latter of which names all the Reformed Churches of Europe are intended, except only the Prelatical Clergy of England, to whom, it seems, in the point of flattery to Princes, both Papist and Puritan, with all Lawyers and Political Authors are quite opposite: But before we express their Tenants in particular, look into the English Chronicles, and you will find (as we said before) that direct Popery did not so much advance Tyranny, as our late Prelacy. When the Bishops of England had another Head, which was the Pope, you may observe, that in matters of State they went many times very justly, and according to the interest of the whole Commonwealth: in the times of seduced Kings, they many times sided with the Parliament, and opposed the illegal desires of the Prince: many of them gave good advice to Kings, and did excellent offices in reconciling them to their people, and keeping them in the right way. I could give many instances, especially in three Reigns, which indeed had the most need of such endeavours. But in these latter times, our Protestant Bishops were wholly byassed at the King's side, and mere servants to the Prerogative, against all Interests of the Commonwealth: they never in Parliament gave Vote contrary to any of the King's desires, how prejudicial soever it were to the Kingdom in general, insomuch as the King counted them a sure part of his strength in the Lord's House, to all purposes: and when their voices in Parliament were lately to be taken away, it was a common speech of the Courtiers, That His Majesty was much weakened by losing six and twenty voices. But consider now what they have preached and printed concerning Monarchy, and you will wonder, that rational men in any Kingdom, to flatter Princes, should make all Mankind else of so base a consideration, as if Princes (as one says) differed from other men in kind and nature, no less than a Shepherd from his Sheep, or other Herdsman from his Cattles. I will instance, for brevity and clearness, in one of them, who speaks the pith of all the rest in a large Book printed at Oxford this present year 1644. and dedicated to the marquis of Ormond; the Book is entitled, Sacrosancta Regum Majestas; where that Author undertakes to vindicate the Power and Majesty of Kings against all Puritanical and jesuitical grounds and Principles, as he calls them. Those Puritanical and jesuitical Tenants are all Discourses, that have been written in this Kingdom for defence of the true and lawful liberties of men, or by any Political Author in Europe of note, since Monarchies have been well and Civilly constituted for the behoose of Mankind. Among all those Puritanical and jesuitical Tenants which this Author is angry with, and labours cagerly to confute, I will name a few:  
I. THat a King is greater than any particular man; but less in value then the whole body of his People.  
II. That a King receives his Crown from God, but not immediately, for it is by the hands of his People.  
III. That the power of Kings is different in several Kingdoms; and their Prerogatives according to the Laws of those Realms in which they reign.  
iv That the Body representative of a whole Kingdom, where there is such, may and aught to restrain the King from impious actions, which tend to the ruin of the Kingdom.  
V That People may live without a King, but a King cannot be conceived without People.  
VI That Kings were ordained for the People, and not the People made for Kings.  
These are some of those puritannical and jesuitical Tenants & the chief, which he condemns so many writers for maintaining, such as Bourchier, Rossaeus, Buchanan, Suarez, Tho. Aquinas, Ocham, Bellarmine, Marsilius, Almontus, and many more, whom he there names against himself. But the Bishop, with the help only of Scripture, and some places of the Fathers, interpreted and managed by his own reason, is able to encounter them all; and hath drawn these Positions quite contrary to the former. Take them in his own words truly set down, and the places quoted.  
I. The King is better than all the people put together: and when David's people say, Thou art better than a thousand of us; that is (saith he) in sound meaning, better than all of us. p. 169.  
II. The interposing of an humane act in the constitution of a King, doth not hinder his Sovereignty to be immediately from God: That though he gain the Crown by Election or Conquest, yet he hath it from none but God, and that not mediately, but immediately, p. 122.  
III. That it is a poor and ignorant shift of Lawyers to wrong the sacred Prerogative of Kings, when they acknowledge no more for the Royal Prerogative, than what the Municipal Law of the Kingdom hath allowed to is, p. 144.  
iv In abuse of Sovereignty to the ruin of the Kingdom, the Character of Nature doth not entitle us to so much self defence, as in this case to resist the King, p. 9 And in the first page he saith, That it is not lawful, in any case or cause, for the Subject, or Subjects, in what notion soever imaginable, singly or jointly, collectively or representatively, to oppose the sacred Authority of the King by force or arms, or to resist him in a defensive or offensive War.  
V That saying, That a People may be without a King, but not a King without a People, is very deceitful; for (saith he) God fixed Government in one, and appointed a Governor, before that ever there were People to be governed, p. 178. And in pag. 84. he saith, That God fised Monarchy in Adam, before he had any child; which shows, that God liked best of Monarchy, and that Kings were before People.  
VI That salus Regis is to be preferred before salus Populi; for it hath the prerogative like to the first Table, and salus Populi as the second, p. 170.  
These are the Positions which he boldly sets down contrary to the first. But will you hear others as good as these, in his own words, and without any straining or hiding any part of the sense, but plainly set down.  
I. That Sovereign power is not originally and radically in the people, nor by way of reduction, as in case of total defailance of a King and his posterity; the right cannot revert to the Community again, p. 11.  
II. It is a foolish new-coined distinction, to make a difference between a King's person, and his authority; between his personal will, and his authoritative will, p. 32.  
III. To derive Kings from the people, is a great disgrace to Kings; for it maketh them the basest extract of the basest of rational creatures, the Community, p. 45.  
iv It is a foolish fancy to make any coordinate power in any persons to the Sovereignty of a King, p. 62.  
V How different soever Monarchies are in the world, yet there are some prime, radical, and essential constitutives of Monarchy belonging to all Kings, which are three:  

1. They are Potestas suprema, subordinate to none but God, they admit of no coordinate or collateral power.  
2. Perpetua potestas, he cannot fall from his Sovereignty while he lives.  
3. Potestas legibus soluta, and as they say, from any humane coactive, or coercive power or censure, p. 140.   
VI When any King, or his ancestor hath been cheated out of his sacred rights and Prerogatives by fraud or force, he may at any sit opportunity afterward resume them, p. 144.  
VII. Seeing that the Puritans do say that if the Parliament do err, the remedy is to be left to the wisdom and justice of God; why will they not acknowledge that it is as fit, when the King transgresseth against the rules of government, that the people and subjects submit in patience, till it pleaseth God to send a remedy, p. 148.  
VIII. That the old received sentence, Salus populi, suprema lex, must be carefully understood in Monarchy, and that it is more consonant to Scripture to say, Salus Regis suprema populi salus; which thus he Englishes, The safety of the King, and his divine Royal Prerogative is the safest sanctuary for the people, p. 163.  
IX. What is the meaning of that sentence, Salus populi suprema lex, he tells us in these words; the meaning of it is that the Kingdom or State may not only probably and possibly, but really and existently be such, that the King must exercise an arbitrary power, not stand upon private men's interest, or transgressing of laws made for the private good of individuals; but for the preservation of himself and the public, may break through all laws. This case may be when sudden foreign invasion, or homebred sedition threaten King and Kingdom, p. 176.  
Of this nature are all the positions and principles, which this book contains; and not only this book, but all Treatises, which have (since this unhappy difference) been authorised at Oxford. Some of less art and learning, but as much honesty as this Author, express the same sense in plainer terms, and tell us, That the King is proprietary Lord of the whole Kingdom, and all men's estates are his. Another concerning his sacred authority, says, That if the King, like Nebuchadnezzer, should set up a golden Image to be adored, the whole Parliament, if they refuse that Idolatry, are bound to suffer death quietly, and not to resist the King. These barbarous positions can serve to no other end then to misled Princes from the ways of reason and moderation; and to make them lift up their hearts above their brethren, as the Scripture speaks, to make them esteem themselves so far above the rest of Mankind, as if whole Nations were made for their pleasure, and so subject to them, as the Beasts were to Adam: for so our Author would seem to make them, when, to overthrow (as we said before) that ever received, and undeniable saying, People were before Kings; he says that Adam was a King, before there were any other people. It must needs be therefore granted that his Subjects were Beasts, which is the same (without jesting) which this Author would have the people in every Monarchy to be: therefore cannot I imagine that so holy a thing as Religion was any way in the design of those English Clergymen, who wrote against the liberties of their Country, or of those Rulers who governed according to the prescript of that kind of writing; but only an intention of stretching the Prerogative Royal to such an unmeasurable greatness, as might secure and advance the temporal ends of them, which depended on it. But some may object against this Paradox, & say, Though it be granted that corrupt Statesmen had no aim at all at alteration of Religion; yet surely our greatest Clergymen had. For what else could make them of late years in point of doctrine approach so near to the Church of Rome, unless it were a desire of bringing both themselves and others by degrees to a conjunction with it? that they have so written, their books will show you; but if you would save a labour of searching whole volumes, you may find their chief sentences collected out of their own books, the pages and lines quoted by a Scottish Minister Mr. Robert Baily in a discourse of his called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Laudensium, which he sent to our last Parliament of England. The men, whose sentences he there recites, are the Archbishop Laud, Montague, Pocklington, Helyn, Shelford, and others; where you may see what fair approaches in many points of doctrine they make toward the Church of Rome, with what reverence they speak of her; and with what scorn they name the Protestant Churches and their Authors, under the stile of Puritans, but this proves not that their design was Religion, but rather temporal ends: for these very men have written bitterly against the Church of Rome, and most of them have professed that the Puritans did not so fare nor fundamentally descent from their opinions as the Papists did: But it is true that the Puritans did go more cross to their temporal ends, pomp and revenue, than the Papists would have done. So that extremity of hatred against the Puritan, though he were nearer to them in matter of Religion, caused them to make these approaches towards the Papist, as being not so great an enemy to their temporal promotion. So that we see Religion itself was no more the end of their exorbitant actions, than it was of injustice in the great Statesmen, who have laboured with the same disease in all ages and Religions, whensoever it hath pleased God by such instruments to punish the sins of any Nation.  
FINIS.