A SERMON Preached before the KING At WHITE-HALL, June the 25th. 1682.  
By SAMUEL FULLER, D. D. chancellor of the Church of Lincoln, and Chaplain in ordinary to His Majesty.  
Published by His Majesty's Special Command.  
LONDON, Printed by M. Flesher, for Jacob Tonson, at the Judge's Head in Chancery-lane. 1682.   

A SERMON Preached before the KING.  Matth. xxij. 21, 22. They say unto him, Cesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto caesar, the things that are Cesar's, and unto God, the things that are God's. When they heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way. 
THE Pharisees being incensed by the Parable our Saviour used in the beginning of this Chapter, consult together for opportunities of advantage and revenge; and knowing him to be a free Speaker, who would not conceal his thoughts for fear of Men, they endeavour to surprise his Sincerity with an ensnaring Question concerning Cesar's Tribute: and to do this more effectually, they sent some of their own Disciples with the Herodians, the Followers of Herod, as the Syriack reads it, such as adhered to his Authority as Roman governor, to make their Question more insidious, and his Answer more difficult: for by this artifice he was endangered by whatsoever he said, either to fall under the displeasure of one of the Parties or to give advantage to both; for if he asserted Tribute was to be paid, he was sure to provoke the Pharisees, the most eminent Sect of the Jewish Religion, who believed the Roman Government an Usurpation, and if he denied it, which in all likelihood they more especially hoped and desired, they were both ready to lay aside their mutual differences, and to accuse him jointly to the Roman Governours, for we find that the Pharisees could pretend loyalty to caesar, when it was of use to serve their malice against our Saviour, and therefore this was afterwards their plea with Pilate, Thou art no friend to caesar, 
Joh. 19. 12.  if thou let this man go.  
Thus instructed, the Messengers of their malice went to our Saviour, and supposing him subject to their own and the frailties of those that sent them, they address with fawning and flattery, bespeak him in an humble style with reverence and respect, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth; thou affectest not the favour of caesar nor Herod, nor Pontius Pilate, nor any of their Deputies; nor canst be deterred by any Authority whatsoever from declaring what thou knowest to be our duty: Is it lawful to give tribute to caesar, or no?  
But our Saviour's Knowledge was not to be imposed on by fair words, nor his Integrity to be corrupted by flattery, he perceives their wickedness and therefore first as an instance of his sincerity lets them know he understood the malice and design of their question; and in a very familiar rebuk declares the opinion he had of them and their enquiry, why tempt you me ye Hypocrites?  
But secondly, lest by his plainness he might expose himself too much, he gives an instance of his Prudence by so tempering the matter of his Answer, that neither side could find that occasion of offence and quarrel they sought by this Question, but both leave him silent and astonished at the wisdom of his Reply: When they heard these words, they marveled, and left him and went their way.  
They that owned and asserted the Roman Government had no pretence of being dissatisfied with that Answer which was so punctual in favour of the Rights of the Emperor, nor could they who believed it an usurpation be reasonably offended because he gives his resolution with so much respect to their own practise and concessions:  
The coin you own and use, the Image and Signature you confess to be Cesar's, by both you aclowledge his Supremacy, and therefore ought not to dispute what is his due as Supreme; for since coining is the undoubted prerogative of the chief Magistrate, since this is your currant Money, has its impression, name, and value from caesar, you have by this owned his investiture in the Government, by this he appears to be the public Protector of your civil Commerce, and therefore ought to have a portion of that coin for his tribute as the just price of your wealth and common safety; this is the beloved Image of caesar that serves your Trade and traffic, and gives you trust and authority amongst your fellow Subjects, and why should it not be an instrument of justice to your Prince as well as gain to you? Peruse the Inscription, inquire into the Date and Story, and you will find it an ancient record of the Roman Conquest, and your Submission, and it cannot be reasonable to question that Authority now, which you have so long owned and submitted to: These are the natural enlargements of the several topics comprehended in our Saviour's short Argument, {αβγδ}, render therefore unto caesar, the things that are Cesar's, for your own Concessions have determined the case.  
But he leaves them not thus, but adds, {αβγδ}, and to God the things that are God's. He is not content onely to satisfy the curiosity of the Inquirers as to Cesar's deuce, but out of his abundant goodness he enlarges his advice to other obligations, and reflects upon their neglect and contempt of greater duties; one of his chief ends of his coming was to instruct and do good, which that he might accomplish with the best advantage, he takes and improves every opportunity; when a particular occasion is offered, of delivering some lesser truth, he adds the advice of a greater; where enquiry is made of some special duty, he delivers his answer in such general rules which may serve in larger and more difficult circumstances than the Enquirer proposed: as he lived not for himself alone, but for us also, so he is not content by a prudent answer to have consulted his own temporal safety, till also upon that particular occasion he had declared something that might conduce to the eternal salvation of those that heard him, even of those that by this enquiry endeavoured to destroy him: sapientissimo responso& motae seditionis& violatae 
Grot. in loc.  religionis calumnian in insidiosissima quaestione effugit.  
He knew how necessary honour and esteem were to make a Prophet successful, and therefore he keeps himself within the strict measures of prudence, that he might neither provoke the Government, nor distaste the People: had he consented to their temptation to Sedition, and uttered mutinous words against caesar, he might soon have been restrained from his liberty of instructing, or at best, if he had escaped the censure of the Magistrate, he must necessary have brought suspicion and reproach upon his Office and Doctrine, for Men are generally disposed to distrust the Discourses of a seditious Teacher, and to suspect the most evident Truth delivered with anger and design; and therefore our Saviour uses all the Arts of a watchful Instructor, creates no prejudices by heats and indiscretions, but teaches with that calm and unaffected plainness, that his Doctrines, besides the authority of their native evidence, gained opinion from the manifest innocence and sincerity of the Deliverer.  
And our Saviour's Answer may be considered,  
First, As to the prudence and appositeness of the form and phrase.  
Secondly, As to the truth of the subject Matter.  
And our Saviour's prudent choice of such a Reply which might most reasonably avoid the malice and design of the Inquirers, may be a direction to all his Followers to temper their Zeal with prudence, and to avoid all those Indiscretions, that may expose Religion to reproach, or themselves to unnecessary suffering. And had this been well considered, some mens names had been wanting in the Protestant as well as other Martyrologies; our Dissenters had not so vainly flattered themselves under the Penalties and inconveniences of a rash and chosen folly, nor so unreasonably born up against the just authority of their Superiors, with the confidence of a future reward for those scruples, and that disobedience, which are the vain effects of stubbornness and inconsideration: for he that has commanded his Disciples to be as wise as Serpents as well as innocent as Doves, and has in his own practise united innocence and discretion, has left no foundation for such idle expectations to his Followers, but as he has recommended the example of his Patience to the imitation of those whom Providence shall call to the fiery trial, so he has left the example of his Prudence to direct us in avoiding suffering, when it may consist with the sincerity of faith, and the just obligations of a Christian Profession.  
I reflect not on the forward zeal of the Primitive Martyrs, who were under the conduct and direction of extraordinary influence; I question not the raptures of that Spirit which inflamed Saint Paul with a desire of being dissolved, nor the wisdom of that grace which enabled those virtuous Hero's, he speaks of, to endure tortures, not accepting deliverance; nor the ecstasies of the blessed Ignatius, when he prayed against the prayers and endeavours of his Friends, lest they should rescue him from the glories of his desired Martyrdom: {αβγδ} 
Ep. Ig. ad Rom.  {αβγδ} when he longed to be a prey to the greedy Lions, and passionately wished that in this he might be like his Master Christ, that nothing of his Body might be seen on Earth, but that it might be wholly devoured, and no part of it left behind, to be the occasion of sorrow or solemnity, {αβγδ}, such and the like instances of Christian gallantry, which we read everywhere in the undoubted Epistles of that blessed Martyr, are justified by the extraordinary influences of that Spirit which assisted him with a courage agreeable to the unhappy circumstances of Primitive Christianity.  
But under the guidance of an ordinary Providence we ought to keep our stations in the regular methods of duty, neither wishing, nor running into those dangers we may prudently avoid; unaccountable Ecstasies, the effects of an extraordinary Call, are not onely forgiven, but rewarded; but rash Zeal has neither promise nor foundation: for it is an unreasonable contradiction, and can never be the ground of a wise hope to expect to be honoured by our Saviour in Heaven before his Father, for those Actions by which we have dishonoured him on Earth before Men, and brought unnecessary Reproaches upon Religion. For the Promise is not made to suffering in general, but to such Afflictions onely, which though we neither deserve by our faults, nor choose by our follies, meet or overtake us in the ways of obedience, and therefore Saint Peter has excluded all other pretending Sufferers from the comfort and glories of Martyrdom. If you be reproached 
1 Pet. 4. 15.  for the name of Christ, happy are you, but let none of you suffer as a murderer, as a thief, as an evil doer, or as a busy-body in other mens matters: which Text, had it been well considered by all the pretended Followers of that great Apostle, Traitors and assassinates had not been accounted in the number of the Saint of Christendom, nor transmitted with so fair a Character in some Romish Martyrologies to the dishonour of Christian Religion.  
2. Our Saviour's answer may be considered as to the truth of the subject Matter, and then it contains a doctrinal Truth that we are to obey, as well as an example of Prudence that we are to imitate; for as our Saviour is essentially the eternal Word, so are the words of his mouth to endure, when Heaven and Earth shall pass away; his Discourses were not like those of frail and mortal Men, particular and temporary, to serve onely present interest and special circumstance, but of universal consequence, and to remain a Law for ever; what he said to his Disciples, he said to all, Watch; and what he says here to the Pharisees and Herodians, he says to all Subjects and Men, Render unto caesar the things that are Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's.  
Which words may be considered as containing two distinct Commands, and then they afford us two large theme of discourse, one comprehending all the Duties of Subjects, whether Obedience, Tribute, Prayers, Assistance, or any other of the Parts and Offices of Loyalty; the other in a large acception comprising that, and the whole duty of Man, but in a more special and proper sense, the particular obligations of Religion, that duty we owe to God in distinction from the Laws of Justice, Temperance and Charity.  
But I shall rather consider the two Commands of the Text jointly in relation to one another, and the design of our Saviour's answer; and from both thus considered, infer this general Proposition: That God's and Cesar's deuce neither do, nor can contradict one another; that is, no Pretences of Religion can make voided our just obligations to the Supreme Magistrate, nor any human authority dispense with our duty to God Almighty: in which there are two parts; but the first being the more principal design of our Saviour in this place, shall be the subject of this present discourse.  
A Proposition that would need neither proof nor defence, had not the opinions and practices of some Christians rendered it doubtful and suspicious; and indeed we have reason to complain, that some unhappy Zealots of that name have done the blessed Jesus that dishonour and reproach which the Jews could not effect by their cunning and artifice; having by their Doctrines publicly represented him to be, what the others did but tempt him to appear an enemy unto Caesar; and that by three things:  
1. By pretending from the Laws of Christianity Arguments against the Lawfulness and Authority of the Magistrate's Office.  
2. By mis-interpreting some of the Obligations of Christian Religion, to make voided the subjects Duty and Obedience.  
3. By asserting an Ecclesiastical Supremacy, erected by our Saviour, with authority to correct and depose Princes, absolve Subjects, and dispose of Temporal Dominions.  
These three destructive Propositions to Government are severally asserted by Christians of different persuasions, and contended for as truths delivered in the body of the Christian Doctrine: But as directly against the words, as the design of our Saviour in this Text; for he that has required us to give caesar his deuce, has owned the Right of the Magistrate's authority, and the necessity of the subjects duty, and has left no place for the two first pretences; and he that has united Cesar's and God's deuce as things agreeing and consistent, and left both within their ancient limits and boundaries, cannot be supposed by any new Ecclesiastical Supremacy to have contradicted the Magistrate's Authority, or to have given countenance to any Doctrine of that nature.  
And indeed to any man that considers the many necessities and benefits of Government, and the great use and advantage of the Magistrate's Office; it cannot but seem a very ridiculous undertaking to pretend to argue against them from any topic whatsoever, but more especially to fetch those Arguments from Christianity, a Law exactly framed to promote and establish the temporal happiness of men.  
And yet some great pretenders to Reason, and zealous asserters of the Excellency and Perfection of the Christian Institution, have been so unjust to their own pretences, as to endeavour to demonstrate the Magistrate's authority repugnant to the Laws of Christian Religion: But in this they do not perfectly agree amongst themselves, for some wholly reject the Magistrate's Power, as entirely unlawful, neither to be undertaken nor executed by a Christian under the pain of damnation; others more moderately allowing the pre-eminence, legislature, judicial proceeding in all civil and some criminal causes, deny only coactive Power, capital punishment, and the use of Arms to the Christian Magistrate: And here again they are subdivided, some making the exercise of these Powers a direct and formal sin in any one that professes the Christian Religion, others only a defect and imperfection which ought to be reformed and amended, as he improves and grows in the Christian Spirit.  
And thus far Brennius has proceeded in the two Epistles, printed before his Works, to mitigate this harsh and unacceptable opinion: For after he had asserted that a due execution of the Magistrate's Office, according to the rules of Equity and Justice, might be a laudable virtue in an Infidel, and had upon that put himself the question how it could be then unlawful to a Christian, he softens his answer by asserting some Laws of Perfection that oblige the Christian, to which the Infidel is not bound, against which the offence is not properly a sin, but only a defect and imperfection; and then applying it to the Case, he puts again the Question, whether if a Christian undertake the Magistrate's office, he may exercise coactive power; to which he coldly answers, Excusatur in eo ac toleratur utpote adhuc infirmo, tam diu donec in Christo majores acceperit vires, he is forgiven and excused till more perfectly instructed and better assisted. But is not this to lessen the honour, use, and necessity of the Magistrate's office? is not this to make Christianity alter the nature of things? to change Dignity into defect, Laudable into Imperfect, useful into bare tolerable, and Necessary into unlawful?  
Whatsoever this Opinion says, it seems to pretend something inconsistent with the temper and laws of Christian Religion, as will appear by two Arguments.  
First, Because the rights of Government, and authority of Magistrates are founded in the primary necessities and inclinations of human nature.  
Second, Because Christianity has by several Laws of her own, confirmed and established the Magistrates authority.  
1. It is agreed by all, that human Nature does as well need as incline us to Society, although it be under dispute whether Love or Fear be the principle of this necessity and inclination; and it is as generally granted that all society infers Order, and all Order supposes the duties of Inferiors and Superiors, and the necessity of some coactive power to secure the relation and dependence of the several parts of this Community. For they are propositions equally true and evident, that Society is necessary, and that human Societies cannot be preserved in virtue, peace, and happiness, without the influences of Government, and Authority of Magistrates, and the truth of both stands alike demonstrated, from the inclinations of Nature, the conclusions of Reason, and the universal practise of Mankind:  
And therefore it will be a ridiculous opinion to affirm the Magistrate's office unlawful, because 'tis an office as necessary to the being of Society, as that is to the happiness of Man; for there cannot be a more unworthy reflection upon the wisdom and goodness of God, than to say he has so ill contrived the World, that the temporal happiness of Mankind cannot be preserved, unless some Men endanger their Eternal to secure it.  
And what Nature has so universally concluded useful and necessary, cannot be rendered unlawful by any Revelation whatsoever; for where the circumstances, necessities and inclinations of Nature remain as they were, the same supplies will be always reasonable which Nature directs to; and it will be to attribute injustice to God, to suppose him in any circumstance to forbid the provision, where he has not changed the necessity.  
But it is much more unreasonable, to pretend this alteration from the Doctrines of Christian Religion, because a Law so exactly composed for the satisfaction and perfection of human Nature, a Law that has in all things consulted the temporal peace and happiness of Men, and prescribed the most perfect measures of equity and obedience to secure them, a Law delivered by so merciful a Legislator, that he himself assumed humanity, that he might with a sense and feeling of our infirmities relieve and pitty us agreeably to the necessities and inclinations of our Natures, consider this, and there cannot be a more absurd contradiction to the equity of this Law, and the mercy of its Legislator, than to say that Christianity has subverted the foundations of Government, and made the miseries of Anarchy necessary to all that embrace it.  
Had Christian Religion made a through reformation in the World, and perfectly subdued the Passions and Inclinations of Men to an exact obedience to the Laws of Temperance, Justice, and Charity, there had been no more need of Magistrates on Earth than in Heaven itself; but since the temporal Circumstances of the World are much the same they were, and Christendom as well as other Parts inhabited with good and bad, since there, appetite prevails as well as in other Countries, and Christians as well as Infidels are angry and covetous, hate and desire, discontented with what they have, and greedy of more, subject to the temptations of the World and Flesh, apt to forget the considerations of Eternity, inclined to be lead by temporal Hopes and Fears, and still conducted by the influences of Grace in ways and methods agreeable to a reasonable Nature, there will be always the necessity of a coactive Power to set bounds to Appetite and Passion, to make Men virtuous and peaceable, and to defend those that are so, from those that are not.  
Now since these are the circumstances in which Christ left us, and in all these a Magistrate is a necessary and useful Instrument of public benefit, and to be publicly beneficial will be always praise-worthy, it cannot without the greatest contradiction to sense and reason be either a sin or imperfection for a Christian to execute the Magistrate's Office.  
2. Christianity has by several Laws of her own confirmed and established the Magistrate's Authority, and therefore is most unreasonably traduced for condemning it; that Religion that has asserted the Magistrate's power to be from God, and ordained by God, that has styled and owned him the Officer and Minister of God; that has acknowledged the use and benefit of that Office to be in general for our good, and in particular for the terror of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, and has therefore enjoined us to pay him tribute because he is God's Minister, attending continually on this very thing: that Religion that hath peremptorily required a universal subjection, Let every Soul be subject, and that not outward, and hypocritical, but hearty and sincere, not only for wrath, but Conscience-sake; that Religion that hath commanded us to obey upon the best principles and most lasting considerations, with a regard to his Authority that has constituted these powers, and required our submission, Submit yourselves to 
1 Pet. 2. 13.  every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake; that Religion that has threatened to every Resister Eternal damnation, and has given it as a note of heretics, that they are Traitors, despise Dominions, and speak evil of Dignities, cannot without the greatest contradiction be supposed to disapprove of the Magistrate's authority.  
Can any greater character be given of any power, than to derive its original from God Almighty? can any stronger Argument be urged for any duty, than to require it for God's sake? can any Obedience be more real and perfect, than that which has its foundation in the heart and conscience? holy Scripture would certainly never have taken such care of the Magistrate's honour and the Subjects duty, had it supposed the Magistrate's power unlawful and Antichristian.  
That Religion that has made Kings and Princes the especial Subjects of the public offices of the Church: I exhort that first of all Supplication, 
1 Tim. 2. 1, 2.  Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for Kings and all in authority, and that not that they may resign their powers, but that they may so rule and govern us, that under them we may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all godliness and honesty; that Religion that has made Peace and Piety her principal commands, and has owned both to be preserved by the influences of good Government, and has commanded us to pray for our Governours upon that account, cannot be supposed to have disallowed Christians so necessary an instrument of their Eternal as well as Temporal happiness: That Religion that has owned an Oath the end of all Strife, and yet forbidden all Oaths in private converse, must be necessary supposed to allow juridical Process, and the Magistrates authority.  
And yet, against all this Demonstration, it is pretended that the Magistrate's office is repugnant and inconsistent with some of the most principal obligations of Christian Religion, and those are particularly the great and necessary duties of Humility and Charity: To the first, the Eminence, superioority, and pomp of Magistrates seems repugnant, to the other judicial Process and capital Penalties.  
And to justify the first pretence, they city Text and our Saviour's own opinion in the case, for being requested by his Disciples to rebuk the pride of the Sons of Zebedee, he takes occasion of reflecting on the power of Princes, and gives a command to his followers in direct opposition to the Authority assumed and exercised by them: Ye know that 
Matth. 20. 25, 26.  the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise Authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you.  
This Text has been frequently abused, and to different purposes, sometimes it is alleged by the Defenders of the gifted Brotherhood, to prove against the office Ministerial in general, agreeably to the spirit and style of Corah and his complices, Ye take too much upon you, since all the Congregation is holy: Sometimes it is urged by the Patrons of the equality of the Gospel-Ministry, to reproach the dignity and superiority of the office Episcopal, sometimes by the leveling Spirit to make voided the just rights and authority of the Civil Magistrate, but to as little purpose pretended by the latter as either of the former, as will appear by three Arguments.  
First, Because in this place where our Saviour is said to prohibit, he has owned and supposed a superiority amongst Christians, and therefore what is here in St. Matthew, {αβγδ}, whosoever will be great, is 
v. 26.  in St. Luke {αβγδ}, he that is great, 
Luke 22. 26.  he that is chief amongst you, implying a lawful greatness and superiority amongst Christians, as well as those of other Religions, so it be tempered and exercised with meekness and moderation.  
Secondly, The superiority of Princes is no more inconsistent with Christian humility and the doctrine of the Text alleged, than Paternal Dominion, from whence it took its original, or the Authority of Husbands and Masters, which are all severally owned and asserted in the New Testament, but more especially by St. Paul, who was an eminent Follower of Christ, in his humility as well as other virtues: Children are to be kept in subjection, {αβγδ}, with all gravity, 
1 Tim. 3. 4. 1 Tim. 2. 11.  Wives are to live in silence, {αβγδ}, with all subjection; Servants are to be obedient 
Eph 6. 6.  to their Masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart as unto Christ; And since none of these are allowed to pled the consequences of Christian Humility against the commands of their domestic Superiors, neither ought the Subject against the higher Powers.  
Thirdly, The consequence of this Argument as it is urged by the Objectors, would make our Saviour's own Authority over his Apostles, unjust and Antichristian, and this consideration ought to be of particular force in interpreting this place, because our Saviour has proposed his own practise for the pattern and example of that Humility he requires of his Followers, For the Son of Man came not to 
V. 28.  be ministered unto but to minister; and therefore since the most perfect in all things is the rule and measure of Rectitude to the lesser degrees, no consequence can be deduced from Christian Humility to oblige us, which will not obtain and take place in the original and most perfect example of Christian Humility; since therefore our great Master at that time that he delivered this Doctrine, and recommended it by his own practise, owned and exercised an authority over his Disciples, Ye call me Lord and Master, and ye say well, for 
John 13. 13.  so I am; we ought not to conclude from the consequences of Christian Humility against the authority of Princes, least we make an Argument against our Saviour's own authority.  
2. But Secondly it is pretended that Juridical proceedings and Capital punishments, without which, neither the princes authority, nor the Subjects rights, can be secured, are directly repugnant to the obligations of Christian Charity.  
1. Juridical proceedings, for by the Law of Christian Charity, we are commanded to forgive all injuries, which are the very subject-matter of legal process; injuries to the Body, To him that striketh thee on the right 
mat. 5. 39.  cheek, turn the other; injuries in property, to him that taketh thy coat, give him thy cloak 
mat. 5. 40, 41.  also; injuries in Liberty, with him that compelleth thee to go one mile, go twain; and all this we have asserted by our Saviour himself, when he published and stated the just bounds of the Christian Law.  
But our Saviour's words may be more reasonably interpnted, more agreeably to the Analogy of Scripture, and the nature of true Charity, if we consider the prohibition under these limitations.  
1. If we suppose him to forbid, not public justice and legal procedure, but private returns of injury, and forcible recovery of right without Law and Authority; and this seems very consonant to the purport and design of the Text, for it instances in such prejudices of our right which are usually done by force and private insolence, and therefore may be properly interpnted to prohibit returns of the like nature; and such are, indeed against Christian Charity, because generally attended with partiality, malice and revenge; and this may be allowed for one good interpretation of the prohibition, notwithstanding {αβγδ}, a forensick word is used in the fortieth verse, and in that sense rendered by our Translators, because that word is sometimes in good authors applied to signify any sort of contention as well as legal, and therefore may be reasonably so interpnted in this place, both in conformity to the other instances of the Text, and to Saint Luke's reading, who uses {αβγδ} instead of {αβγδ}.  
2. If we suppose him to forbid not legal process in general, but a litigious disposition to contend even at Law itself, for every trifle, and this Grotius collects from the nature of the instances in the Text objected; and this indeed is not onely against Christian Charity, but also the peace and interest of Society, and therefore all good Governments discourage and forbid it.  
3. If we suppose him to forbid only malice and revenge in all prosecutions of right and returns of injury, for it is not onely possible, but our duty to demand justice without desire of revenge; and to seek recompense by Law, and yet forgive injuries; but he that goeth to Law with malice and hatred to the person that has wronged him, unhallows his proceedings, though never so legal: The same Argument that is urged in the New Testament to persuade Christians to forgive, 
Heb. 10. 30. Deut. 32. 35.  because vengeance is God's, and he will repay it, was also delivered to the Jews in the Old, when yet there were Magistrates, Punishments, Laws and Courts of Judicature erected and approved by God himself; and therefore there may be Proceedings at Law now, amongst the Christians, as well as formerly amongst the Jews without revenge.  
4. If we suppose him in some cases to have limited and forbidden the customary and usual returns of injury amongst the Jews, even by legal and public process, such was their cruel way of retaliation of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, by which no recompense was made to the injured, but onely a misery inflicted on the Injurer; this way of satisfaction seems repealed by our Saviour, and repugnant to Christian Charity, because it gratifies so much the natural desire of revenge, and so much resembles it.  
Secondly, Capital Punishments are not repugnant to Christian Charity.  
1. Because Christian Charity must be guided and distinguished by the Rules of Justice and Prudence; by the Laws of Charity we are bound to love universally, but not equally; to hate no body, yet not to exercise the same degrees of affection to every one; for as there are particular obligations, qualifications and endearments in the objects of our love, so the measures of our Charity may and ought to be distinguished accordingly; and therefore although the Magistrate be by duty bound to have a common Charity for all his Subjects, yet he not onely may, but must prefer the good of the Innocent before that of the Profligate, and the public Welfare before the Safety of any single Man; and in all his particular acts of Charity to behave himself, that he be neither unjust to the whole, nor any part of the Community.  
2. Because Christian Charity cannot offend where it observes the best rule and most perfect example of Charity. Now God himself, who is Love, in his own judical Laws delivered to the Jews, made many Crimes capital, and by a more ancient Sanction has made murder eternally so, He that sheddeth 
Gen. 9. 16.  Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be  shed; and if there be but one instance of capital Penalty consistent with Christian Charity, the Argument objected will be insufficient, especially since there is so much reason to believe there may be many, the Magistrate in these being the Minister of divine Wrath, and excusable both by the Authority he bears, and the Example he imitates.  
3. Christian Charity cannot oblige us to act in smaller instances, against the greater rules of Charity; Shall Charity to a part hazard the interest of the whole? shall the Gangreend Member be spared to the ruin of the Man? shall pity to a few Malefactours oblige the Magistrate to expose the lives of the rest of his Subjects to the uncharitable mercy of unpunished Profligates? Must he take care to forgive and deliver him that deserves to die, and not those rather that are ready to be slain by him that he forgives? Must he spare the life of a capital Sinner for fear he should go to Hell too soon, and teach thousands by his impunity to commit those crimes which led thither? Must the Government be Charitable to the Subjects and unjust to itself? Must the Magistrate in pity forgive the murderer, and with cruelty entail upon himself and Family the guilt and curses of unrevenged blood? Christian Charity as it begins so it takes its measures at home, and therefore no Magistrate can be bound by the Laws of Charity to contradict the necessary rules and ends of Government, for since he is appointed by God a terror for evil doers, he must neglect no Penalty, no not Capital, if necessary, to promote Piety and deter Wickedness, for as he bears the Sword, so he must not bear it in vain, lest whilst by his Charity he endeavours to establish a mildred and merciful Government, he render it most cruel to the Souls of his Subjects. Tam omnibus ignoscere crudelitas est quam nullo; It is as great cruelty to forgive every one as to forgive none.  
2. The second sort of those who would make Christ an enemy to caesar, are such as own the lawfulness of the Magistrate's authority and yet set up Christian-liberty and tender Conscience against the lawful commands of their superiors, and would by misinterpreting some of the obligations of Christian Religion, make voided that authority which they own to be confirmed and established by Christian Religion; they aclowledge St. Peter's command, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake, and yet think themselves safe in disobeying the lawful impositions of Government with a pretence of doing it for the Lord's sake; they own St. Paul's authority and the truth of his Doctrine, that whosoever resists shall receive damnation, and yet dare not apply the necessary consequence of the Text for the security of the Government, by affirming it unlawful to take up Arms against their Prince upon any pretence whatsoever.  
But is not this to make Christian Religion contradict itself in its most peremptory and evident commands? for it will be to no purpose by express Doctrines from thence, to urge the rights of the Magistrate's authority, and the necessity of the Subjects duty, if by the consequence of the same Religion both may be superseded and avoided by the persuasions, opinions, doubts and mistakes of every Conscience; and Christianity will be unreasonably proposed as the most exact law for the peace and obedience of Man, whilst Principles so apt to disturb and ruin Government, are pretended for it; and therefore it will be easy to determine in such a case, since there is no other choice left us but either conclude for the Authority of Government against all such pretences, or to affirm that our Saviour has delivered a body of inconsistent Doctrines; And indeed most Men that have taken up this Principle, have in the manage of it betrayed so much willfulness and obstinacy under all their pleas of Conscience and Tenderness, that it is evident they rather choose it as an Argument to gratify their Pride in some cases, than from a conviction of its force and strength in all; and this appears by the great partiality they express to the consequences of this pretence, when others pled it against them where they are in power to command, or command them what they have a mind to obey, and therefore those very men could once with confidence, by virtue of an Usurped Power, determine indifferrent rites in Religion, that cannot now allow it to the just Authority of their lawful superiors, and could quietly obey those that forbade kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that now refuse obedience to that Church that commands it: And yet Christian Liberty is their Plea, which does by as direct a consequence conclude against themselves, as their Governours, and is as apt to infer the Negative as the Affirmative Precept unlawful.  
The same Contradiction they practise in other cases, for the Principle pretended would also conclude against the Political Laws of State, and the domestic Orders of Families, were they not resolved to be partial, and to allow its consequences only where they have an inclination to dissent and disobey. The power to Parents and Masters they grant to others and exercise themselves, and never permit that pretence of Liberty to their Children and Servants, which they pled against the commands of Government: The Magistrate must not determine the Ceremonies of public Devotion, and yet they may, the circumstances of Family Duty, the Time, the Place, the Psalm, the Chapter, the Repetition, and all the Rites of their domestic Offices are bounded and stated, and none allowed to dispute them, only the liberty of Impertinence is preserved as the undoubted privilege of the Master of the Family, which he tyrannically imposes on the affections of his dependants, and requires Amens as sudden and extempore as his effusions.  
But this is to make Humour the rule of Conscience, and to set up our own Wills against the evident Commands of holy Scripture; for since God has enjoined every one to obey the Magistrate, no Man ought to disobey him, who has not very good assurance of God's allowance or command to do it; the usual pretences of Liberty, Scruple, Tenderness, and Conscience are so often mistaken for Prejudice, Perverseness, Passion, and Interest, that they more frequently increase the guilt of the disobedience than excuse it; but would Men consider more the Authority that Princes represent, that they have their original from God, are his Deputies and Vicegerents upon Earth, his Ministers for our good, and the revengers of his wrath upon evil doers, that they command by virtue of a power delegated from him, and are to be obeyed by virtue of his Command, given to us, they would not so easily satisfy themselves with every trifling excuse for a disobedience to a human Law: did they believe Cesar's Rights established by Divine Authority, they would not by such idle pretences of Religion be unjust to caesar, upon presumption of paying God his due; but in a regular conformity to the Laws of God and Man, serve and obey God for his own sake, and caesar for God's sake.  
3. The third sort of those that would make Christ an enemy to caesar, are those who pretend an Ecclesiastical Supremacy erected by our Saviour, and settled in a visible Head, with authority to correct and depose Princes, to absolve Subjects, and dispose of temporal Dominions: But is it not great injustice to our Lord and Master, who was so careful of Cesar's Rights, when he was upon Earth, and with so much strictness enjoined his Followers to observe them; to pretend, when he is gone to Heaven, a grant of them all into the Churches hands? has he not particularly in this Text both united and stated God's and Cesar's deuce? and by that taught us that they neither interfere, nor contradict one another? was not his whole life one continued exercise of meekness and submission? was there one act by which he assumed a supremacy to himself, or signified an intended supremacy after his departure? did not the Apostles also after him enjoin the strictest subjection in every Christian( not excepting themselves, nor their Successors) to those that bore the Sword; that is, to the Civil, as the higher powers? Nay, did not St. Peter, even when supposed in the Chair of Rome, assert this Temporal Supremacy; Submit yourselves 
1 Pet. 2. 13.  to every ordinance of man, to the King as supreme? did not the Apostle understand the Rights of the See? could he be ignorant of, or deceived in so fundamental an Article as his own and his Successors supremacy? or did he onely mean to compliment Princes till some fitter opportunity of publishing it? to say he erred, will bring in question the authority of the Chair, for that that erred in the original, will scarce become infallible in the succession; to say he counterfeited and concealed the truth, will be an impardonable reproach upon an Apostle and Minister of Truth; and therefore it will be most reasonable to conclude from such commands of the blessed Apostles, for the Civil Magistrate's supremacy against all the pretences of a Spiritual supremacy, lest we lay the foundation of invalidating the authority of all their inspired Writings, by making the Infallible Inspirer in some to contradict himself.  
But this Papal Supremacy has been variously managed, and differently asserted, for some denying the Bishop of Rome all authority in Matters temporal, do yet assert him to be by Divine Right Christ's Vicar, and the Supreme Pastor of the catholic Church, with a spiritual empire over all Christians, as well as Subjects; and this has been formerly and of late years the opinion of some learned Men of the Roman communion, but generally distasteful to the Court of Rome, and in Bellarmin's Language, Non tam sententia quam haeresis. Others denying all direct Power in Temporals, have yet reserved him such an indirect Power in order to Spiritual Good, and the preservation of the Rights of Holy Church, that may suffice to serve and gratify the utmost pretences of the Roman Chair; and therefore I cannot but wonder at Sixtus the Fifth's Quarrel with Bellarmin's controversy for this Distinction: for altho' he pretends to limit and reserve in expression, yet in reality and by consequence he gives the same absolute and unlimited Supremacy they contend for.  
But since this is not enough there are others who speak more plainly, such as Baronius, and most of the Canonists, who without mincing or shuffling, assert a Supreme universal direct Temporal Power by Divine Right over the whole World, and whatsoever private persons may think or dispute, this last Opinion has gained the Reputation, and is most agreeable to the public Claims of the Court of Rome, as is evident from the several Decretals, Bulls, Constitutions, and Rescripts relating to this Matter.  
When Gregory the Seventh undertook to transfer the Imperial Crown from Henry the Fourth to Rodolphus, he founded his right of Disposal upon the Gift of Christ to St. Peter and his Successors at Rome. The Rescript of Alexander the Sixth, to Ferdinand and Isabella of Portugal, pretends to give to them, their Heirs and Successors, all the American Lands that were then unpossessed by other Christian Princes, or should be afterwards discovered, Authoritate omnipotentis Dei& Vicariatus Jesu Christi, by the Authority of the Omnipotent God, and the Vicarship of Christ. The Bulls of pus the Fifth, against Queen Elizabeth, and of Sixtus the Fifth against Henry the Third of France, do both claim a Supreme Power by Divine Institution over all Kings and Princes of the World, and over all People, Nations, and Countries; so that whatsoever are their pretences at first of quarreling Temporal Princes, they all ultimately resolve into this universal, absolute, supreme, and unaccountable Power.  
Against all these Pretences as they more or less prejudice and usurp the just Rights of the Civil Magistrate, I shall argue in Four Propositions.  
1. By proving that these Pretences are inconsistent with that Supremacy that belongs to Christian Princes in Right of their Crowns, in all Causes, and over all Persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical within their own Dominions.  
2. That the Spiritual Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is neither sufficient as to Extent or Power for such a Pretence.  
3. That the pretended Title of Christ's Vicar were it true, doth neither Infer nor Imply Temporal Jurisdiction.  
4. That Spiritual Power in its greatest Latitude, without direct Temporal, will not suffice to justify the Claim.  
First, That these Pretences are inconsistent, &c. For since all Power that is entire and perfect, must have sufficient Authority to execute that duty, and defend that charge, which falls within its care and cognizance; it necessary follows that no Affairs nor Persons can be exempt from his Jurisdiction, who is Invested with the Right of Government, more especially not the Affairs of Religion; because they do not only make up a great part of the Interests of Mankind, but have also such a necessary Power extent and influence on all other Causes, and over all Persons whatsoever, that no Government can secure itself from ruin and disturbance which has not a Conduct and Superiority in these. For as Religion is the best and most excellent Principle of Political Happiness under good manage; so it is very liable to abuse and apt to serve Malice and Design; for hither the Seditious and malcontented flee to Arm themselves and their abettors with offensive and defensive Weapons, Principles of Resistance and Disobedience: And therefore no Proposition does more directly tend to disturb the Peace, and subvert the Interests of Society, than that, that affirms the Affairs of Religion to be under the Influence and Authority of a Spiritual Supreme, distinct from the Government: For since it is the most Fundamental and necessary Right of Government, for every Prince to prescribe the measures of Peace and Obedience within his own Dominions, it will be always unreasonable for any other Power by right of spiritual Jurisdiction to interpose by limiting, suspending, or disannulling their Obligation, and therefore the Romish Subjects of the English Crown do vainly pretend Exemption from our Legal Tests, and the Public service of our Church, by virtue of a Foreign Authority which has forbid them, contrary to the Laws of their Supreme, as well as ours, who has established them as Rules to secure the Peace and Allegiance of his Subjects; and indeed the most moderate asserters of the Papal Supremacy, do destroy one entire part of the Government, by exempting the Consciences of Subjects in all Matters Spiritual, where the Papal Edicts forbid Obedience, as truly as the more fierce by extending the Rights of that Power to Deposing Princes, and Absolving Subjects, do subvert the whole.  
And therefore a Supremacy in Spiritual Matters and the Affairs of Religion, was in all Ages allowed to Temporal Princes, as their undoubted and inseparable Prerogative; and this not only the Heathen, but also the Jewish Kings exercised, which is so evident a Pattern for Christian Princes, that our Church has adjudged those to Excommunication, that shall deny the Supreme Civil Power: Now the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical 
Can. 2.  which the Kings of Judea had, and of their practise the Old Testament is a sufficient Record; by which it evidently appears they interposed both in Regulating the Ceremonies, and Correcting the Officers of Religion: For as David ordered the Court of the Levites, and the Solemnities of the Public Service to Solomon, Deposed Abiathar from the Priesthood; and therefore when the Jews had afterwards relapsed to Idolatry, and corrupted their Worship with Pagan Rites, Hezekiah and Josiah succeeding, undertook two public Reformations, and by pulling down of Idols, burning of Groves, removing Idolatrous Priests and Ceremonies, restored the purity of the Jewish Worship, and the Religion of the God of Israel: And upon the Reason of this Argument, the Canons of Sixteen hundred and 
Can. 1.  forty have Established the Supremacy of Christian Princes. The Care of Religion is so committed to Kings in Holy Scripture, that they are commended when the Church takes the right way, and taxed when she goes amiss; and therefore her Government belongs in Chief to Kings, or else one man would be commended for another's Care, and taxed for another's Negligence, which is not God's way, as the Canon argues.  
And it is ridiculous to suppose this Ancient right of Princes diminished by Christian Religion, which has altered nothing of the Rights and Properties of public or private Persons, but left the states and conditions of Men as they were, and consequently the same Power Supreme, that was so formerly, and therefore the Ecclesiastical Supremacy was never pretended in the Church, till Luxury and Ambition brought it in; but in the best and more primitive Ages of Christianity, the Civil Power was always esteemed Supreme, and the Spiritual exercised with Subordination and Submission to that; and of this it is a sufficient proof that the four first General Councils, to which the Catholic Church has given great honour, and the Laws of England a particular difference, were 
1 Eliz. c. ●.§. 36.  all convened by Imperial Edict, and their Decrees confirmed by Imperial Sanction.  
2. The Spiritual Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome, is neither sufficient as to extent or power for this pretence: For since he claims his Universal Dominion over all Princes, in right of his Spiritual Authority, to censure and Excommunicate; if this latter be proved particular limited, and defective, the other founded in that must be so too, and it is but reasonable to inquire into the foundation and limits of that power, from whence are deduced Consequences so mischievous and prejudicial to the Peace and Interest of Christendom; and yet all this depends upon the bare supposal of his being Universal Pastor, for there is no demonstration yet produced, either to prove Christ did constitute such an Officer, or that St. Peter was he; or that it was to descend to a Successor, or that the Chair of Succession was to be at Rome.  
For suppose all the privileges of St. Peter as great as the Romanists pretend, they are such as are in common with him ascribed to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church: Was the Church said to be built on him? it was but on him as one part of the Foundation, for it was also supported by the rest of the Prophets and Apostles; Jesus Christ being the chief corner ston: Had he the power of the 
Eph. 2. 20.  Keys given him by Christ? so had also the rest of the Apostles. Was he commanded to feed Christs Sheep? so are the Bishops of 
St. John 20. 23.  the Church, and by St. Peter too; Feed the Flock of Christ which is among you, and have 
● Pet. 5. 2.  the oversight thereof. And when this is said, there will remain but little demonstration to prove the Supremacy of St. Peter, and yet less to establish the Universal Authority of the Roman Church.  
For that was so unknown to Antiquity, that three of the four first General Councils, do by Cannons allow and confirm the like privileges to the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and jerusalem, within their own liberties, which belong to the Church of Rome, within hers, as will appear 
6 Can. Nic. 7. Can. 3 Can. Const. 28 Can. Chalced.  by the several Canons of those Councils relating to that matter: and notwithstanding the great difficulties that arise from the various readings of some of these Canons, or which have been invented by persons interested in the Usurpation of Churches to obscure them; yet two things are very evident from them to our present purpose.  
1. That the Roman Church has no Universal Jurisdiction over all Christian Churches, the Catholic Church having in general Council stated and confirmed the like independent privileges, as proper to other Churches, and not subject to her Authority.  
2. That the Church of Rome has not so much as an honorary precedence by Divine right, but only Ecclesiastical Constitution: and therefore, as the Fathers of Constantinople and Chalcedon, do resolve the honour of the Roman Chair into the dignity of the Imperial City, so upon the like account they decree a precedence to the Constantinopolitan Throne, because that City was become the Seat of the Eastern Empire.  
I shall not now dispute how much of her ancient honour the Roman Church has lost, the Catholic reason of her precedence being totally ceased by the remove of the Empire, but rather conclude from what has been said, the truth of the first part of our Proposition, That the Papal spiritual Supremacy is not universal, but limited within a proper Patriarchat; and therefore the power claimed as a Consequent of that, must be particular and determined.  
But the Bishop of Rome's power of Deposing, even within his own Districts, will be further questionable if he has no right of Excommunicating Princes; for if Princes be not liable to such Church Censures, the whole Fabric of the Papal Monarchy falls for want of a Foundation, and this Assertion is not without pretence of Reason to justify it.  
1. Because Excommunication seems to imply something repugnant with the subjects necessary and indispensible Obligations to Princes, as a consequent of Excommunication; the Conversation of the Excommunicate is to be avoided, and all civil Offices from the Neighbourhood are under penalties forbidden and suspended, and for the Church to inflict her Censures with such Consequences upon the Supreme Magistrate, would be to pretend by her Authority to contradict the natural Allegiance of Subjects, and those Rights the Prince had from God independently on Religion. The method of Excommunication is to led the sinner by shane and disgraces to Repentance, a Method as unsuitable to the Majesty of Princes, as the Nature of their Office, and the Ends of Government; for if Reputation and famed be necessary to preserve their Authority, and make the Government prosperous, nothing can be more unreasonable than disgraceful Penalties, which render them both weak and contemptible: If those Princes are most feared, and best obeied, who are most Venerable and best esteemed; nothing can be more to the prejudice of virtue and Religion, than to put that Authority under Disgrace, which was Instituted for the Terror of Evil Doers, and the Praise of them that do well. If all Subjects are required, and that by the Laws of Holy Writ, not to imagine Evil of their Prince in their hearts, what can be more improper than to censure them to the state of the Excommunicate, whom by the Law of the Apostle, we are to treat and value as a Heathen and Publican: And the ill usage that Robert of France had, when under Ecclesiastical Censure, is a standing Record in Story of the undecency of such proceedings against Christian Princes.  
2. Because the issue of Ecclesiastical Censures in Foro externo depends so much upon the leave and authority of the Civil Magistrate, that it will be as injust as ridiculous to execute them upon the supreme Magistrate, from whom they derive that Force and Efficacy: What can bar any from the Conversation of others, but Temporal power? What can banish men from public Assemblies, but Civil Force? And where will these be had against the chief Magistrate, 
Vid. Bishop tail. dust. Dub. Book 3. cap. 4.  but from himself? And it will be very unreasonable to interdict him public Assemblies, without whose Authority the Church can neither interdict nor assemble publicly.  
But since this may seem a nice and difficult Point, I shall offer no more in order to the Resolution of it in general, but by saying, that all Apostolical Censures, recorded in Holy Scripture, were exercised amongst Christians before they were under the Authority of a Christian Magistrate; and that they ought to be used with great regard and respect to the Power of the Civil Magistrate, when it becomes Christian; for since Christ has asserted, that his Kingdom is not of this World, no pretence of Spiritual power ought to be exercised to the prejudice and diminishing of that Authority, which the Magistrate Originally had, before he submitted to the Christian Faith.  
But setting aside the controversy in general, whether the Ecclesiastical Authority extends to the power of Excommunicating Princes; It is certain in particular, that this Papal Pretence was always questioned within these Dominions,, and was denied before those Statutes which restored the Ancient Supremacy of the Kings of England: For it was a Report of the Judges in Edward the Third's time, that no Excommunication under the Papal Bulls was of force to the disabling any man within this Kingdom; and that he, that pleaded such Authority tho' it concerned only the censure of a private Subject, was liable to the King's Justice; and from that Sir Edward cook argues well in his Reports in Cawdry's Case, that if Excommunication, being the extreme and final issue of all Suits in the Roman Court, be not allowable here; it necessary follows that no svit for any Cause tho' spiritual, arising within this Realm ought to be determined by the Bishops of Rome, according to an undoubted Maxim of Law, Frustra expectatur Eventus cujus effectus nullus sequitur.  
3. That the pretended title of Christ's Vicar were it true, doth neither infer nor imply temporal Jurisdiction, for in the fullest and most ample Acception, as Bellarmin confesses, it can signify no more than a Deputation of that Power which Christ had when he was upon Earth; and therefore whosoever shall by virtue of that Title assume any power which he then neither claimed nor exercised, hath both forfeited and contradicted his pretence: And that our Saviour had no Temporal Dominion in his state of Humiliation, is evident both from his practise and Declaration, he never pretended any; nay more, he affirmed he had none, for when Pilate asked him, Whether he were a King? Tho' he gives no absolute denial that he was none, yet he peremptorily asserts, That his Kingdom was not of this World. And when he was moved to divide an Inheritance betwixt two Brethren, he not only refuses the Motion, but says, in a Phrase, usual in Scripture, of denying by Interrogation, that it was a matter in which he had nothing to do; Who has 
Luk. 2. 14.  made me a Judge or Divider betwixt you?  
But how unlike to this practise are the Claims of his pretended Vicar? For as if he had received a Deputation from Christ's Divine Nature, and had represented the Glories of his Exaltation, he assumes a despotic Dominion over the Lives and Properties of Men, and a power of disposing the Kingdoms of the Earth to whom he pleaseth.  
4. Spiritual Power in its greatest Latitude, without direct Temporal, will not suffice to justify the Claim; for what Right has Power purely Spiritual to interpose in Temporal Matters? Or whence can it have force to resist and defeat what shall pretend to oppose it? Must Kings tamely yield their Crowns at the Demand of a Spiritual Supreme? are they so easily affrighted from their Thrones? Or is there Reason they should be at the glittering of a Spiritual sword? Temporal and spiritual Power are wholly distinguished as to act, object, and design, and neither contain nor include one another; for as the Exercise of spiritual Offices cannot be assumed by virtue of a temporal Authority, so neither can temporal Dominion be taken away by spiritual Censures, without temporal Force; and therefore till the abettors of this Ecclesiastical Supremacy, shall produce Scripture which commands Princes to resign when fallen under Church Censures, they ought not to pretend a power of Deposing by virtue of a spiritual Authority. Had God who is Supreme Lord of all Property and Dominion, made Crowns forfeitable to his Church by heresy and ill Government, there might have been some pretence for the Churche's calling in the Assistance of her Temporal Friends to Instate her in the Possessions of God's Forfeitures.  
But since she not only wants Force to make her Claim effectual, but also Right to make it just, she ought to avoid all such unreasonable pretences; for the Church can never be said to have a power to do that, which she cannot do justly, much less to do that, which directly contradicts the Ends and Designs of all Ecclesiastical and spiritual Authority, for that always ought to be exercised with intention of Charity, and in order to spiritual Good; and therefore whensoever it is managed for secular Ends, to serve the Malice and Ambition of him that Executes upon the Temporal Rights of the person censured, by transgressing the Uses, it exceeds the Bounds and Measures of its own Authority, and it will be hard to demonstrate, notwithstanding the witty Attempts that have been made to abuse the Text, from the Commission of Pasce Oves, to S. Peter, his own& Successor's power of killing Wolves; as some are pleased to compliment, those they call heretics; or of exercising civil force for the Temporal safety and defence of the Catholic Flock.  
For this is to Invade the Magistrate's Authority, and to take that Sword out of his hand, which God has given him for the Terror of evil Doers: This is to confounded those Powers which God has distinguished and limited, and instituted, for several Ends and different Purposes; and if it may be lawful for the Church by an Ordine ad spiritualia, where she has no other Authority, to invade the Magistrate's Rights, I doubt not but the civil Magistrate may by the like pretence of an Ordine ad temporalia, Usurp upon the Churche's power, and when the Pretence of Right prevails upon both sides, the difference must be infinite, and the controversy indeterminable.  
But it is to little purpose to spend more time in further prosecuting the unreasonableness of the Papal Supremacy, since the mutual contradictions of those that defend it, have done it to our hands. For since Bellarmine, as he pretends, has demonstrated, that Spiritual Supremacy, cannot infer direct Power in Matters Temporal, and the Canonists with the like Demonstration, affirm indirect Power repugnant to the Consequences of pure Spiritual: It will be reasonable to conclude, that the Bishop of Rome has neither, till they shall agree amongst themselves which side has the better of the Demonstration.  
And from what has been said, it is obvious to conclude, that those men have but little sense of the Honour of Christian Religion, that abuse its Name, and pervert its Obligations, to justify Sedition and Rebellion; who with great Pretences and Zeal for Christianity, forsake her in her more principal Commands of meekness, patience, and submission, and defend the Doctrine of Resistance and Disobedience, from those Holy Scriptures that have forbidden them, under the penalty of Damnation. That the Spiritual Power is never more abused and contradicted, than when it is managed for Secular Ends, to serve the Pride and Ambition of Ecclesiastics, upon the Rights and Authority of the Civil Magistrate, which have as evident Divine Institution as the other can pretend to.  
That those men do unreasonably appropriate the Title of Catholic, who have renounced the most Catholic Doctrine of Obedience, and taught Subjects from the Consequences of Christian Religion, to Resist, Depose, and murder Princes.  
That those men do as little deserve the Character of Reformed, who have forsaken our Reformation in its Principal and Fundamental Doctrine of the King's Supremacy, and renounced the Protestant Church of England, in all her Principles of Christian Loyalty; who amid all their Clamours against the Papal Authority set up a Popular Supremacy of their own, as repugnant to Christian Religion, and the Rights of Princes, as the other can be, who assume by League and Covenant a Power to reform an established Religion, against Law and Authority, and by Association, a Pretence to resist the Rights of undoubted Inheritance against Natural and Sworn Allegiance; who while with Justice they complain of the Cruelty of Popish Zeal, make use of the worst Principles, of the worst Sects of that Religion, to serve their Cause and Party, and can allow both the Innocence and Merit of the most horrid Crimes that promote such Ends and Purposes: And indeed all the Enemies of the Church of England, how distant soever in other Points, are perfectly united in the Doctrines of Disobedience; for though they prosecute them upon different Principles, yet they all agree in one Conclusion against the express Commands of Holy Scripture, that it is lawful to resist the Higher Powers; and as there is no Point in which they more exactly agree amongst themselves, so there is none in which they more perfectly differ from us.  
For as the Church of England had the Honour to be at first Reformed, with the Consent and Authority of the Supreme Magistrate; so she has always preserved an entire Duty and Gratitude to that Power that Reformed her, and has so evidently declared and asserted an absolute Submission to the Higher Powers; that I doubt not, but I may with truth affirm, that it is as impossible for a true Son of the Church of England to be Disloyal in any Circumstances, as for those that Dissent from Her by the Consequence of their Principles, not to be so in some; for since they all assert a Supremacy distinct from the Government, either Papal or Popular, they will be always at liberty in some Circumstances to Resist or Disobey, as this Supreme shall determine them: and the Government can never be secure of their Obedience, whilst it is in their own power to judge when this Supreme has Right to do so.  
2. From hence it necessary follows, that it is the Duty, Obligation, and Interest of Christian Princes by the Authority of their Laws, and the Influence of their Lives and Examples, to promote the Honour and Success of Christian Religion, and to do that Excellent Institution-Right amongst men, which has so evidently asserted their Rights and Authority, to see that all their Subjects render unto that good God his deuce, who has by express Commands taken such Care of theirs, to provide that the Laws, Offices, and Ministry, which our Blessed Saviour has Delivered, Appointed, and Constituted, may be had in due Reverence and Esteem, for what can be more the Interest of Christian Princes, than that those Laws should be sincerely obeyed, of which the Duty of Subjects is one principal part, and that those Offices should be revered and Celebrated; in which Supplications and Intercessions are continually made for Kings, and All in Authority; than that those Ministers should be secured from Contempt and Ignominy, who have received as one part of their Ministry, the Doctrine of Submission to the Higher Powers: And indeed what can be a more reasonable Object of their Care, than the Honour of the Great God of Heaven and Earth, whose Ministers they are, and whose Authority they represent; for this is not only a just Expression of their Gratitude to him that has called them to so great a Trust, but the best Method of securing the Interest and Honour of their Office in this World, and the Reward of it in the next,  
3, Lastly, By as direct Consequence it appears to be our general Duty and Interest, to hearty embrace and practise that Excellent Religion which has reconciled all our Hopes and Interests, by uniting our Obedience to God and Man, that we may neither dishonour Christianity by Invading the Rights of our Neighbors, or disturbing the Peace of Society, under pretences of Religion, nor betray our Consciences by a profane neglect of our Allegiance to God Almighty, to serve our Temporal Interest; but by a Regular Discharge of all our Duties to God, caesar, and our neighbour, may secure both the Blessings of this and the other World; and pass thorough the mutable and imperfect state of Temporal, to the infinite and immutable Joys of Eternal Happiness. To which God of his Mercy bring us for the Merits of Jesus Christ; To whom with the Father and blessed Spirit, be all Honour, Glory, and Adoration, both now and ever. Amen.  
FINIS.