the Lord liveth that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress even as I sware unto thee that by the Lord God of Israel assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead even so will I certainly do this day 4. That which is made a qualification of one that shall dwell in Gods holy hill is not unlawful but to swear to his hurt and not to change that is to take a promissory Oath and not to change though it be to his dammage is made a qualification of one that shall dwell in Gods holy hill Psal. 15. 4. Ergo Some promissory Oaths are lawful The third Proposition That to swear to a King or Governour is lawful is proved 1. From approved examples which prove either a duty or at least lawfulness of the thing That which hath been practised by holy men without reproof is lawful But swearing to Kings and Governours Allegiance and Obedience hath been practised by holy men Ergo The minor is proved by instances of the people to David 2 Sam. 5. 3. So all the elders came to the king to Hebron and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anointed David king over Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. Then came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anointed David king over Israel according to the word of the Lord by Samuel A Covenant before the Lord was an Oath but the people of Israel a holy people made a covenant before the Lord with David their king therefore they entred into an Oath of Allegiance and due Obedience The other is more plain 2 King 11. 4. And in the seventh year Jehojada sent and fet the rulers over hundreds with the captains and the guard and brought them to him in the house of the Lord and made a covenant with them and took an Oath of them in the house of the Lord and shewed them the kings son vers. 17. And Jehojada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people that they should be the Lords people between the king also and the people 2 Chron. 23. 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the hosue of God and he said unto them Behold the kings son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David vers. 6. Then Jehojada made a covenant between him and all the people and between the king that they should be the Lords people These are express examples of swearing Allegiance to Kings which is consonant to what our Lord Christ teacheth that we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesars as to God the things that are Gods Matth. 22. 21. Besides we finde David swearing to Saul 1 Sam. 24. 22. the people conceiving themselves bound by Sauls adjuration 1 Sam 14. 24 28. Shimei was bound by the Oath which Solomon imposed on him where Solomon speaks thus to him Why hast thou not kept the Oath of the Lord and the commandment that I have charged thee with Abrahams servant sware obedience to Abraham and counted himself bound to keep it Gen. 24. 2 3. Then arose Ezra and made the chief Priests the Levites and all Israel to swear that they should do according to this word and they sware Ezra 10. 5. Nehemiah made them swear by God saying ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons nor take their daughters unto your sons or for your selves Nehem. 13. 25. 2. From Gods dealing with Zedekiah that kept not the Oath made to the King of Babylon Ezek. 17. 18 19. where God doth not except against the Oath but the breaking of it calling it his Oath which he had despised and his covenant that he had broken whence I argue That which God calls his Oath the despising of which he avengeth may be lawfully taken But an Oath of subjection even to the King of Babylon God calls his Oath the despising of which he avengeth therefore some Oath of subjection to a King may be lawfull 3. From the words of Solomon Eccles. 8. 2. I counsel thee to keep the kings commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God The Oath of God seemeth to be an Oath by God to the king being made the reason of keeping the kings commandment as the Oath of Shemei 1 King 2. 43. is termed the Oath of the Lord Zedechiah's Oath to the King of Babylon Gods Oath and Covenant Ezek. 17. 19. Prov. 2. 17. the wives covenant with her husband is called the covenant of her God whence I argue That which is Gods Oath and is urged as the reason of keeping the Kings command is lawful But an Oath of subjection to a King is Gods Oath and urged as the reason of keeping his commandment as the Text shews therefore it is lawful If by the Oath of God be meant not a particular Oath to a King but the general Oath or Covenant to obey God which seems not so likely because it is the special reason of keeping the Kings Commandment yet thus also the argument holds If it be lawful to make a general Oath to God of keeping his Laws and this be one of Gods Laws to keep the Kings commandment and that the particular Oath of subjection to the King is comprehended in the general Oath of keeping Gods commands a particular Oath of obedience to the King is not unlawful 4. That is lawful which is of necessary use for the Publique good But some swearing to a King or other Governors is of necessary use for the publique good therefore it is lawful The major is confirmed in proving the major of the fifth argument of the first proposition The minor is proved by experience even Jehojada and David conceived so and the reason is because the common peace and good government cannot be kept but by good correspondence between Prince and people therefore if mutual Oaths tend thereto as often they do they are of necessary use for the publique good The grand objection is from the words of our Saviour Math. 5. 34 35 36 37. But I say unto you Swear not all neither by heaven for it is Gods throne nor by the earth for it is his footstool neither by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great king Neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou canst not make one hair white or black But let your communication be yea yea nay nay for whatsover is more then these cometh of evil and of the Apostles Jam. 5. 12. But above all things my brethren swear not neither by heaven neither by the earth neither by any other Oath but let your yea be yea and your nay nay lest ye fall into condemnation which words do seem expresly and fully to forbid any swearing at all excluding some sorts of Oaths by name and the rest by General terms with prescription that our
If holy men afore the Law under the Law in Gospel times have put promissory Oaths on others then they are not altogether unlawful This is proved by the same reason by which the like consequence is proved before in proving the fourth argument of the former proposition But holy men afore the Law as Abraham Gen. 24. 2. 3. under the Law as Moses Deut. 29. 14. Jonathan 1 Sam. 20. 17. Asa and the people of Israel 2 Chron. 15. 12 13 14 15. Ezra Ezra 10. 5. in Gospel times Paul 1 Thes. 5. 27. adjuring the Thessalonians by the Lord that that Epistle be read to all the holy brethren have put promissory Oaths on others Ergo 3. That which godly men have practised and still counted as well done that is lawful But some promissory Oaths godly men have practised and still counted as well done Ergo The major is probable and in this case considering the persons and the holy Ghosts recording as he hath done certain The minor is proved by instances of David Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will perform it that I will keep thy righteous judgements 1 Sam. 20. 42. And Jonathan said to David Go in peace forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord saying The Lord be between me and thee and between my seed and thy seed for ever Nehem. 10. 29. They clave to their brethren their nobles and entred into a curse and into an Oath to walk in Gods Law 1 King 1. 29 30. And the king sware and said As the Lord liveth that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress even as I sware unto thee that by the Lord God of Israel assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me and he shall reproof is lawful for in all these times and by such men moved as they were by Gods spirit even in their holy speeches and writings it would not have been done had it been sinful But some swearing hath been the practise of the godly before under the law and in the times of the Gospel as is proved by instances as of Abraham that lift up his hand to the most high God Gen. 14. 22. of Isaac Gen. 26. 31. of Jacob Gen. 31. 53. under the law of the people of Israel Josh. 9. 19. 20. of David and Jonathan 1 Sam. 20. 3. 42. David to Saul 1 Sam. 24. 22. of Urijah 2 Sam. 11. 11. of Ittai 2 Sam. 15. 21. of David 1 Kings 1. 29 30. 2. 8. of Solomon Vers. 23. of Elijah 1 Kings 17. 1. of Michajah 1 King 22. 14. of Elisha 2 King 2. 4. 6. and 3. 14. and 5. 16. and the woman of Shunem 2 King 4. 30. in the times of the Gospel of Paul 2 Cor. 1. 18. using this Oath As God is true vers. 23. I call God to record upon my soul and 11. 31. and 12. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 31. this is a form of swearing By your rejoycing which I have in Christ Jesus it being in Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is a particle of swearing not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which are prepositions noting the means or instrument of the effect of the Angel Revel. 10. 6. who sware by him that liveth for ever The like are Rom. 1. 9. 9. 1. Gal. 1. 20. Philip 1. 8. Ergo 5. That which hath a necessary use for the benefit of humane society is not unlawful But some swearing hath a necessary use for the benefit of humane society Ergo The major is plain it agreeing with the law of nature and nations which is of necessary use for the benefit of humane society which lawes God the author of nature hath imprinted in all and indeed hath made all his laws for men one towards another subservient thereto The minor is plain from the words of the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 6. 16. An Oath to men is an end of all strife which is a necessary use for humane benefit 6. That which hath been counted by all nations as a Sacred thing a principal part of the acknowledgment and worship of God is not unlawful of it self But so hath some swearing been counted Ergo The minor is proved by Gods own words Deut. 10. 20. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou cleave and swear by his name The second That promissory Oaths may be lawful is thus proved 1. That is not altogether of it self evil or unlawful which God makes a bond of the soul to be kept and performed to the Lord But some promissory Oaths God makes a bond of the soul to be kept and performed to the Lord Ergo Some promissory Oaths may be lawful The major is proved because that which is altogether unlawful cannot binde the soul to God nor is to be kept and performed to the Lord The minor is proved from Numb. 30. 2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an Oath to binde his soul with a bond he shall not break or profane his word he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth Matth. 5. 33. Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths where a promissory Oath is made a bond to binde the soul with to be kept and performed to the Lord 2. If holy men afore the Law under the Law in Gospel times have put promissory Oaths on others then they are not altogether unlawful This is proved by the same reason by which the like consequence is proved before in proving the fourth argument of the former proposition But holy men afore the Law as Abraham Gen. 24. 2. 3. under the Law as Moses Deut. 29. 14. Jonathan 1 Sam. 20. 17. Asa and the people of Israel 2 Chron. 15. 12 13 14 15. Ezra Ezra 10. 5. in Gospel times Paul 1 Thes. 5. 27. adjuring the Thessalonians by the Lord that that Epistle be read to all the holy brethren have put promissory Oaths on others Ergo 3 That which godly men have practised and still counted as well done that is lawful But some promissory Oaths godly men have practised and still counted as well done Ergo The major is probable and in this case considering the persons and the holy Ghosts recording as he hath done certain The minor is proved by instances of David Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will perform it that I will keep thy righteous judgements 1 Sam. 20. 42. And Jonathan said to David Go in peace forasomuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord saying The Lord be between me and thee and between my seed and thy seed for ever Nehem. 10. 29. They clave to their brethren their nobles and entred into a curse and into an Oath to walk in Gods Law 1 King 1. 29 30. And the king sware and said As
communication be yea yea nay nay and determination that what is more then these cometh of evil or the evil one which made some of the Ancients and later godly persons conclude all Oaths of any sort prohibited now to Christians though they were not to the Jews But the reasons foregiven are so cogent to the contrary that we must of necessity finde out a limitation of the speeches as we do and rightly for the next words of our Saviour following vers. 38 39 40 41 42. which are as full in shew for not resisting of evil but offering our selves to receive further injury and permitting more dammage and profuse vain casting away our estates contrary to the law of nature in our necessary defence to that necessary moderate providence which belongs to every man that due respect which each is to have to the rules of mercy bounty and our own imployment and family so that without good caution we shall make Christs precept in stead of being useful to become pernicious That we may then consider how to understand our Lords precept about swearing we are to take this as certain that Christs precept forbids somewhat which the Pharisaical teachers allowed though they forbad perjury now one thing seems to be forbidden by our Lord Christ to wit the making of such distinction of Oaths as the Pharisees did and accordingly used them which seems to have consisted in two things 1. In conceiving they might use Oaths by some creatures as if in such use there were no relation to God and so no profaning of his name or taking it in vain The reason of this seems to be Christs and James his instances onely in such sorts of Oaths as were by creatures and the refutation of their conceit by shewing that all referred to God as the Oath by the heaven was by God sith it was his throne by the earth sith it is his footstool by Jerusalem sith it was his city by the head sith he makes the hair white or black 2. That some of these Oaths made them debtors to perform what they sware and not other which appears from Christs own charge upon them Matth. 23. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. where he terms them fools and blinde guides for such decision concluding that all those Oaths had respect to God and did binde And accordingly Christ is not to be understood as forbidding simply all Oaths but such differencing of Oaths in their meaning and obligation as the Pharisees and other Jews either superstitiously or otherwise erroneously used yet I do not conceive this is all For the words Swear not at all neither by heaven nor earth nor any other Oath but prescribing yea yea nay nay censuring more to be from evil or the evil one seems to forbid all Oaths in some cases or manner which some conceive as if he forbad a promissory Oath universally or a vow with an Oath But these opinions stand not with the second Proposition before proved nor do I finde any thing in the text leading to them And therefore I conceive that the prohibition is of that frequent vain light profane unnecessary customary passionate swearing or in secular matters of no importance without any dread of an Oath or consideration of the holiness of God upon a provocation to anger as David 1 Sam. 25. 21. or deceifully as those Psal. 24. 4. all who take Gods name in vain which I gather from the text 1. In that he prescribeth their yea yea nay nay to be in their speech or communication which seems to be meant of their familiar speech one with another in their answers to each other 2. Because James saying Let your yea be yea and your nay nay doth exlude inconstancy and lightness and prescribes such considerateness as that they need not unsay what they have said that to use the Apostles speech 2 Cor. 1. 18. Our words may not be yea and nay off and on but yea and Amen that is firm and ratified so as that deeds answer to words as becomes men that consider what they say and still say that taught the good knowledge of the Lord 2 Chron. 30. 1 2 5 22. Removed the high places and brake the images and cut down the groves and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it 2 King 18. 4. Appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites with the portion to be given to the Priests and the Levites 2. Chron. 31. 2 4. Josiah purged the land of Idols repaired the Lords house gathered all the people to hear the Law read and to make them to stand to the covenant he made before the Lord to walk after the Lord And in the doing of these things the Kings are said to do that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and to walk before the Lord with a perfect heart 2. On the contrary the not removing the high places and permitting Idols and neglecting the setting up of Gods true worship and service is charged upon some of the Kings as their sin 1 King 15. 14. and 22. 43. 2 King 14. 9. and 15. 4. 3. God gives a special charge to the King to have a copy of the Law and to read therein that he may learn to fear the Lord and to keep all the words of the Law Deut. 17. 18 19. and therefore when Jehojada crowned King Jehoash he gave him the testimony 2 King 11. 12. that he might be minded that he was as a King to know and to see to the keeping of the whole Law 4. The open practice of Idolatry is imputed to the want of a King in Israel Judg. 17. 5 6. and 18. 1. which proves that the King in Israel ought to restrain from Idolatry and not to permit every man to do what was right in his own eyes The maâ—or is manifest because the Office of the Kings of Israel was no ceremonial function as the Priests but moral and of perpetual use and therefore belongs to other Kings as well as the Kings of Israel nor doth the Gospel deprive them or any other of their State and Authority by their becoming Christians for then suppose King Agrippa had become a Christian he must have ceased to be a King and have had his Kingly power diminished but as the Apostle resolves concerning servants and persons of other conditions 1 Cor. 7. 24. Brethren let every man wherein he is called therein abide with God that is his Christian calling doth not bind him to leave the state and condition of life in which he was nor diminish his Authority which he had when he was called to be a Christian as not consisting with Christianity so is it true concerning Kings and other Magistrates they have greater obligation to God and the Lord Christ no less Authority and power as Kings by their Christianity but they may abide in their Office and exercise the lawful Authority they had before Perhaps
A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE OATH OF THE Kings Supremacy Wherein these six Propositions are asserted 1. That some Swearing is Lawful 2. That some promissory Oaths are Lawful 3. That a promissory Oath of Allegiance and due obedience to a King is Lawful 4. That the King is His Realm is the onely Supreme Governour over all persons 5. That the King is the Governour of the Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal 6. That the Jurisdictions Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities in that Oath may be assisted and defended By John Tombes B. D. Prov. 23. 21. My son fear thou the LORD and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change LONDON Printed by Henry Hills living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock To the Christian Readers BEing by special Providence brought hither upon some occasions of mine own and finding many persons of different perswasions scrupling the taking of the oath of Supremacy now beginning to be urged by reason of their unacquaintance with it through the long disuse of it by various conferences I convinced sundry of them that the end and matter of the oath was not such as they imagined Whereupon some persons tender of the publique peace and the liberties of those doubting persons who still remained unsatisfied earnestly pressed me to draw up something in writing tending to the elucidation of this doubt which I was unwilling to do being absent from mine own Books and Collections and hoping to have staid here less time then I am now necessitated to do yet the instant pressure hath drawn from me this writing though short and indigested it being conceived useful in this juncture of time wherein if I be offered on the sacrifice and service of your faith I joy and rejoyce with you all as being studious not how to have dominion over your faith but to be a helper of your joy For which and I crave your prayers who am London Oct. 13. 1660. Your brother and servant in Christ John Tombes The OATH of SUPREMACY as it is in the Statute 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queens Highness is the only supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other her Highness Dominions and Countreys as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal and that no forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Iurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Queens Highness her Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness her Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God and by the Contents of this Book The Proviso in the Statute of 5. Eliz. Cap. 1. PRovided also That the Oath expressed in the said Act made in the said first year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Majesties Injunctions published in the first year of her Majesties Reign That is to say to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority than that was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear The Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions THe Queens Majesty being informed that in certain places of this Realm sundry of her native Subjects being called to Ecclesiastical ministery in the Church be by sinister perswasion and perverse construction induced to finde some scruple in the form of an othe which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for the recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty which certainly neither was ever ment ne by any equity of words or good sence can be thereof gathered Would that all her lovyng Subjects should understand that nothing was is or shall be ment or intended by the same othe to have any other duty allegiance or bonde required by the same othe then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble kynges of famous memory kyng Henry the viii Her Majesties father or kyng Edward the sixth Her Majesties brother And further Her Majesty forbyddeth all manner Her subjects to give ear or credit to suche perverse and maliciouse persons which most sinifferly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects how by the words of the sayde othe it may be collected the kings or Queens of this Realm possessours of the Crowne may challenge aucthority and power of ministrie of divine offices in the Churche wherein Her said subjectes be much abused by such evyl disposed persons For certainly her Majesty neither doth ne ever wyll challenge any other aucthority than that was challenged and lately used by the sayde noble kinges of famous memorye king Henry the eight and kynge Edward the sixt which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crowne of this Realm That is under God to have the soverainty and rule over all maner persons born within these Her Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be so as no other forrain power shall or ought to have any superioritie over them And if anye person that hath conceived anye other sence of the fourm of the sayde othe shall accept the same othe with this interpretation sence or meaning Her Majestie is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects and shall acquit them of all maner penalties conteyned in the said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same othe The 37. Article professed in the Church of England The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in his Realm of England and other his Dominions unto whom the chief government of all Estates of this Realm whether they he Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appetain and is not nor ought to be subject to any forrain jurisdiction where we attribute to the Kings Majesty the chief government by which titles we understand the mindes of some standerous folks to be offended we give not to our Prince the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also sometime set forth by Elizabeth our late Queen do most plainly testifie but that onely Prerogative which we see to have been given to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil sword
it will be said The Kings of Israel were types of Christ and therefore their Power and Authority did cease in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical when Christ was come 1. But to the contrary this is said without proof and so is rejected as easily as it is alledged 2. It is true Christ is often termed David and it is said he shall sit on Davids throne Luk. 1. 32 33. But this power of reforming Religion was not appropriate to David or the race of the Kings of Judah but belonged also to the Kings of Israel who were not types of Christ who are charged with the permission or promoting of Idolatry as their sin as on Jeroboam Ahab c. and Jehu is in some measure rewarded for the partial Reformation he made 2 King 10. 28 29 30. and therefore it belonged not to the Kings of Israel to reform Religion onely as types of Christ but even as Kings 2. This is proved and the Proposition it self That is to be ascribed to the King which was with approbation ascribed to Kings out of the Church But the Government in things and Causes spiritual or belonging to Religion is ascribed with approbation to Kings out of the Church Ergo The major is proved because what of this kind is with approbation ascribed to Kings out of the Church is to be taken as belonging to Kings as Kings and not as typical Kings or Rulers The minor is proved by instances The first of Cyrus King of Persia of whom we read that the Lord stirred up his spirit to make a Proclamation for building of Gods house 2. Chron. 36. 22 23. Ezra 1. 1 2. in doing this he is called Gods shepherd Isa 44. 28. and anointed by God Isa. 45. 1. and the same was continued by Decrees of Darius Ezra 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12. and Artaxerxes Ezra 7. 13 21 23 26. now these things belonging to the building of Gods house furthering his service were spiritual things and therefore Government in spiritual things belonging to Religion is ascribed to Kings out of the Church To these may be added the Decree of Nebuchadnezzar against them that should speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego Dan. 3. 29. and of Darius Dan. 6. 26. That in every Dominion of his Kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel which are undoubtedly about spiritual Causes or Matters of Religion and the King of Nineveh his Proclamation by the Decree of the King and his nobles that all should fast covered with sackcloth and cry mightily to God Jonah 3. 7 8. which is approved by God in that he defer'd his judgement thereupon in all which Government in matters of Religion was exercised and approved 3. That which agrees to other Rulers besides Kings agrees much more to Kings But to Govern in Causes spiritual or things of Religion belongs to Governours below Kings therefore much more to Kings 4. The major is proved from the title given to the King 1 Pet. 2. 13. where he is called the Supreme or Excelling and of those that are in Authority or Excelling 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. the King is reckoned as chief therefore if inferiour Governours are to Govern in matters of Religion much more Kings Now that they are to do so appears by the practice of Nehemiah who being not King nor Priest but Governour under the King of Persia reformed the Priests excluding aliens from the Priests chambers giving the Levites their portion and chiefly by restraining the profanation of the Sabbath Nehem. 13. 9 10 15 22. reckoning it among the works for which he would have God remember him Jacob reforms his houshold by requiring them to put away the strange gods that were among them and bury them Gen. 35. 2 4. Parents are required to bring up their children in the nurture in Greek discipline or government and admonition of the Lord Ephes. 5. 4. Servants are to be obedient to their masters as to Christ Vers. 5. As the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart Vers. 6. With good will doing service as to the Lord and not to men therefore Parents and Masters have Government in matters of Religion much more the Father and Master of the Common-wealth having a more ample Authority 4. This is further confirmed in that the Apostle where he speaks of the Powers he saith without limitation that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil wilt thou not be afraid of the power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil Rom. 13. 3. 4. Kings and Governours sent by them are for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well without limitation and distinction of Civil and Spiritual things 1 Pet. 2. 14. Now where the Law doth not distinguish neither are we and therefore are to understand the Governing in the text to be in Religious things as well as Civil 5. Which is further confirmed from the Titles given to them they are termed gods Psal. 82. 1 6. John 10. 34 35. Ministers of God Rom. 13. 4. That judge not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 9. therefore they are to be ministers in a Political way and to judge in things of the Lord 6. Paul did not refuse to apologize for himself about the accusations of the Jews against him for his profession and preaching of Christian Religion but did justifie himself before Felix Festus and king Agrippa and appealed to Caesar Act. 23. 29. and 24. 5 6 8 10. and 25. 8 11 19 21 and 26. 2 3. therefore he denied not but acknowledged the Kings Government even in the things and Causes that concern Christian Religion and consequently we may in like manner acknowledge it 7. Paul exhorts us to pray and give thanks for Kings and all that are in authority or excellency that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. therefore he supposeth that Kings have some Government in matters of godliness as well as honesty and therefore are Governours In Causes Spiritual or of Religion 8. From the absurdities which follow if this be not granted 1. If the King be not Governour in Ecclesiastical things and Causes then his Kingly power is of no use in matters of Religion for if he have no Government in them he is to be a looker on and in effect a meer cipher in respect of such things But this is not to be said sith matters of Religion do as much concern him to Govern in as any causes all experience shewing that no Government can be well ordered without some regard had to Religion 2. All the actions which Kings have been commended for by godly persons were unjustifiable the pulling down of Idols restraining the importation and vending of Popes pardons and consecrated ware the causing the holy