Two great questions determined by the principles of reason & divinity I. whether the right to succession in hæreditary kingdoms, be eternal and unalterable? Neg. : II. whether some certain politick reasons may not be sufficient grounds of divorce? Affirm.

CHAP. III.

Whether the Case of Princes Marriages be the same with private Mens; And whether they are not sometimes Extraordinarily Indulged and Dispenced with by God?

IF the Case, I in the last Chapter put, were a Prin∣ces, no doubt but that would Aggravate it with Circumstances, as peculiar to Princes as is their Char∣racter and Authority; For a Prince being not only an Hus∣band but a Soveraign, such Principles would be more than doubly Pernicious, because they are directed against a Person, who is not only in a twofold Capacity, and there∣fore doubly Injured, but likewise, because imagining or believing the Destruction of a Prince to be Lawful, is it self an higher Crime than the same belief concerning a private man; because His Right in his Wife as His Subject is more immediate from God and Absolute, than as he is Her Husband; the Right of Dominion being greater than that of Propriety and Use. Besides, the endan∣gering such a Person is not Confined to His own Detri∣ment, but involves all his Subjects in it, as those whose Welfare depends on their Head and Protector; and either the utter Ruin, or extreme Danger of the whole Nation attends His Destruction, especially in the Case of being morally certain after His Death, to be both Spiritually and Temporally enthralled: And therefore, such a Case would so much the more warrant a Divorce, as the breach of a far greater Obligation is more notorious, and of more dangerous Consequence, and less capable of De∣lay, and a stronger and more necessitating Reason to put her away, supposing the Wife to be so Principled as to give just Occasion of such fear and necessity. 'Tis possible, I consess, that one Externally of such or such a Profession

may not be so in Heart, or may not be seasoned with those Doctrines which the Presidents of that Religion judg too apparently startling to Communicate to some of their Disciples: but nothing there is but may be sus∣spected and feared from some mens Importunity, Cunning, Boldness and Impudence. But I will not Insist upon this supposed Case any longer, which under all these Ag∣gravations must needs imply the Lawfulness of Divorce, which I think I can infer Allowable in a Case more mode∣rate, and of less evil Aspect. For I will imagine the Consort not so dangerously disposed and affected, nor to Design any such thing; but that the Prince having no Heir of his Body, to Succeed, to be In∣structed in such a Religion and Principles, as will in∣cline Him to procure the Peoples real good, and that such a destructive and dangerous Religion naturally falls in with him who is the presumtive Heir, as they call it, that is the next of Blood or Kin for want of a nigher; and that this Princess or Queen never had, nor, morally speak∣ing, ever can have, and bring forth an Heir to be so In∣structed and Succeed; and this Conjecture for the Future, grounded on the time past; because she had none then when it was more probable and natural, and without such an Heir so much danger and destruction imminent; the Case thus Stated, I say, prevention of Mischief, which could not give the People Authority to Depose a Prince, because though they may be Injured by Him, yet they never can have Authority to vindicate themselves against Him; will however give a Prince, who has a full Authority over all, Power and Warrant to Divorce a Wife, as be∣ing unavoidably and necessarily forced thereto, though not by Her self, or own Principles, yet so accidentally, as is inse∣parable from Her Marriage; and this necessity is unavoida∣ble, because 'tis absurd, that a Prince should suffer His People to incur such great danger and destruction know∣ingly, upon any pretence whatsoever, and therefore is not to be supposed: For the Christian Maxim of not doing Evil that Good may come of it, would be mis-appli'd here; for, a private Interest or good standing in Competition

with the publick, ceases to be a real Right if inconsistent with the publick, inasmuch as every Subject doth implicitly and tacitly relinquish His Right, Possession and Pretentions to every thing which cannot consist with the Common Good; and then to make void such a Right, is not to do Evil, and so the necessity remains unavoidable; but still with this Proviso and not else, That the Prince may pro∣ceed thus, if He believe the probability and certainty of such a destructive Religion's coming in, if He Die without other Heir than He has already; Or that, if it do come in, He believes it as Dangerous and Destructive as others do: else His Conscience is bound, and He Obliged to follow it. In the last place, to strengthen the belief of this Maxim, on which the stress of the Dispute depends, that what was once a Mans full and undoubted Right and Propriety, if it ever after prove utterly inconsistent with the publick Good, finally ceases to be His Right or Pro∣priety; and that to deprive him of the Possession of that thing, is not an Injury, nor doing Evil that Good may come of it, I will in short, endeavour to make out, by shewing, That God doth Himself Dispence in such Cases, with Princes forc't Actions. I might insist on a tacit Consent of every Subject to this purpose, because Government is not Fixed and setled without such a Consent, but shall rather conclude with the strongest Proof, the Authority of Scripture.

The Apostles had a Power given them by our Savi∣our, That what soever they did bind on Earth should be Bound in Heaven, and whatsoever they did loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven; and whosoever Sins they did Remit they were Remitted, and whosoever Sins they did Retain, they were Retained. Which Apo∣stolical Power of Loosing and Binding, Remitting and Re∣taining, the Learned observe, and Expound to be the power of admitting into the Number and Fellowship of the Faithful, upon Repentance, and Exclusion or Banish∣ment from it for Sins Scandalous, and putting them into a state of unworthyness, to partake of the Christian Mysteries, and be reputed a Member of Christ; and this is called Ex∣communication; from which too, upon unfeigned Repen∣tance,

they had Authority to Release; now this Power is commonly called the Power of the Keyes, is an ordi∣nary jurisdiction derived from the Apostles to their Succes∣sors, who exercise such an Authority to this day. Now, This jurisdiction seems to derive from the abovementioned Texts, on which 'tis grounded, so universal an extent, as if no one whatsoever, not Princes themselves, were exempt from it, the words Whatsoever and Whomsoever being Univer∣sal; and in common Speech Excluding none, but com∣prehending all. And some men, namely the Romanists, who catched at the least outward appearance or countenance from Scripture for erecting the Popes Unlimited Power, sup∣pose these places of Scripture to confer on Church Go∣vernours a Jurisdiction, Authority, and Right of Govern∣ment over Princes Themselves, so as to Censure, and Actually Excommunicate them; because 'tis said, That Whatsoever they did bind on Earth, should be bound in Heaven: But neither in the Apostles practise nor examples of Antiquity can we find ever such an Authority to have been exercised over Princes, though no doubt, occasion might often e∣nough occur. And Conformably to this, the best Reformed Church, (I mean That of England) Teaches, That 'tis not Lawful to Excommunicate Princes; that is, denounce them to be No Members of Christ and his Church. For, al∣though this Power is for Edification, and not for Destruction; and no doubt every Christian Prince, like every other Pri∣vate Christian, is intrusted to the care of some Spiritual Pa∣stor or Pastors to Instruct him, and give Account for his Soul, if it be lost through their default; and therefore they might seem to have Power of using all means for His Salvation as they may for others, and this of Excom∣munication being such, they might therefore Excommunicate Him; (I mean not from the Visible Company of the Faithful, for that they cannot, but from Participation of the Mysteries and Ordinances of our Religion, and from being a Member of Christ's Invisible Church); But this neither they did nor we do, on this Supposition, and Maxim in Divinity, that Princes are, and ought to be Exempt from common and ordinary Rules, which others

are Subject to, if so be the Obliging a Prince to those Rules, would be occasion of Dammage and Danger to the Common-Wealth, as subjecting him to Church-Censures, tho never so deservedly, would necessarily be; for it would look as if he had a Superiour on Earth, though real∣ly it were only a Superiours Delegate; and subject Him to be despised and slighted by some, who would value themselves above him, as not so near to Gods Favour and Commnunion as themselves; it would occasion dis∣cord between the Prince and the Church, and hazard the taking away all just Authority, nay, the expulsion of Chri∣stianity it self: and therefore rather than endanger the publick Peace and Tranquillity, the Prince should be Ex∣empt from an Ordinance and Institution of Christ Himself, which in Reason doth touch Him as well as any else; Will it not then follow, that rather than manifestly ha∣zard the both Spiritual and Temporal good of His People, a Divorce, being the only remedy, may as well be war∣ranted; and He as well freed from the dangerous Tye of Marriage in such a Case, as from Excommunication it self? Nay, we find God himself Dispensing with an Eter∣nal and Natural Law for the sake of the Publick Spiritual Good. God Dispensed with the Natural Law of doing no Murther, and that within the near Relation of Fa∣ther and Son, and commanded Abraham to flay Isaac, that He might thus give a rare Example of his Faith for all the Church of God afterwards to imitate, both Jewes and Christians: and David in extremity of Hunger was In∣dulged, and that not immediatly by God, but by the prudential rational deduction of Ahimelech the Priest, that a Case of necessity did sufficiently Dispense, was Indulged, I say eating the Shew-bread against a positive Law, that none but the Priests alone should eat it, and yet did not do Evil, in eating the forbidden Bread, that Good might come of it, the preservation of his Life; and that was all the good it did, because his Life, at that time not being King, had no other Influence on the publick Good, than as afterwards he was to be King.

I Conclude therefore, that if not only the publick

good cannot be procured, but the greatest and highest Mis∣chiefs be prevented without the Divorce of a Person whose Marriage hinders the only remedy and prevention of those great Mischiefs, introduction of Idolatry, Supersti∣tion, and Defection from the true Religion; that a per∣petual Separation of that Person from the Prince is made necessary to the avoiding those Mischiefs, and because those Mischiefs must and ought to be, and may law∣fully, by this way of Separation be Avoided; (Christi∣anity it self, for the prevention of like Mischiefs dispen∣sing with Him in another as solemn an Ordinance of Reli∣gion,) this Separation so necessitated shall not leave any Tye or Obligation on the Prince which is inconsistent with perpetual necessary, not accidental Separation, and such a Tye is Marriage, but that the Prince is thus dis-ingaged sin∣gle and free to pursue the averting those dreadful, de∣structive, and otherwise certain Mischiefs which would Ensue to the ruine of the greatest Publick Good, both Spiritual and Temporal; the procurement of which cannot be prejudiced by any private Interest or Right, for that ceases to be so, when it stands in competition with the Publick; but dispenseth with the Annulling that Right and Propriety, by a prudential, rational, and true Inference from an unavoidable Necessity.