The remonstrance from the Reverend Father in God, Francis Lord Bishop of Ely, and several others, the most eminent divines of the Church of England, against the proceedings of the P: O. and the lords spiritual and temporal, that invited him. Being an adress [sic], from the pulpit to the King, in fifteen sermons; denouncing damnation, &c. to the abdicators of God's annoynted, and abettors of this rebellion.

The Power of Kings from GOD. A SERMON Preach'd, at Sarum, By Paul Lathom, Prebendary there.

Prov. 8. 15.

By Me Kings Reign.

KIngs have their Authority deriv'd immediately from God, whic•• Authority is not confer'd on Them, as a Trust by the People. Let us consider first what Titles the Scriptures give to King They are called the Ministers of God, therefore not of men, Rom. 1, 4. 6. The Powers that be, are said to be Ordained of God, therefore not of Men. v. i for the question concerning St. John's Baptism, wa•• it from Heaven? or of Men? seems to put this upon an Issue; Besides they are call'd Elohim, Earthly Gods, Psal: 82, 6. And what Peopl•• can make there own Gods, without Palpable Idolatry.

When God first Subjected his own People, Israel to the Government of Kings, the People had nothing to do in conferring the Power Mos•••• was made their Ruler immediately by God so Ioshuah and the Iudge•• for so long the Theocracy did continue visable among them. When th•• People desir'd a King with formality, God is not angry with them simp•••• for desiring a King; for he foretold their having a King, and gave hi•• directions for his Government, Deut. 17 but for some irregularities their manner of desiring him, But how was he chosen? not by the Peo∣ple, but by Lot. 1, Sam: 10, 20, 21. the determination whereof from the Lord, Prov: 16. 33. no hand of the People in choosing him David was made King by God's immediate 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sam: 16. 1. H••

the Theocracy seems to end. Afterward the Government did descend by Succession And Those that pretend directions from the Scripture in every thing, will be at a loss where to finde directions there for the Peo∣ple to take away or Confer Power upon their Prince.

We Challenge any man from Prophane Histories, to shew Us any Footsteps of such beginings of Monarchy, when the People did intrust this Power to their King? If they acknowledge that their History fails them, let not also reason fail them; Let not Loyalty fail Them; let not Con∣science fail them let them have somhing more than bold Surmises, or else not attempt to build a Supposition of such dangerous consequence, upon the meer strength of imagination.

If therefore they Persist and Urge Us to shew, how Monarchy first came to Subject men to Obedience, I think the History of the Bible will give US light enough. That Patriarchal Government, or the Ruling of the Father or eldest of the Family over the Rest, was the first form of Government in the World, I think is generaly own'd; Now when the Families increased, the Subjects multiplied, and by insensible degrees the Patriarchal Government seems to have setled into that Government of the Reguli, or small Kings, which was upon the matter the same; when Ioshuah Conquered the land of Canaan, which is less in extent than the Kingdom of England alone, he found and Subdued 31 Kings, Iosh: 12, 24. And it seems this was the least Jurisdiction of their Reguli. For after him Iudg: 1. 7. Ad••••ibezek when he was Conquer'd, doth own that he kept 70 Reguli in Barbarous Servitude under him. And some Hundreds of years after the King of Syria (no great Prince) had 32 Kings at once in his Army, 1 Reg. 20. 1. so that it seems their Territories and power were then surely but an inconsiderable alteration of External Govern∣ment, and that which by degrees introduced greater Monarchy's.

If We further proceed to take a view of all the ways, whereby Prin∣ces ascend to the Throne, it will appear they are but few; and that in none of those the People confer the power on the King; first by D••scent or Succession, as in England: Now who can say that the People herecon∣fe•• the Power? If they ple••d that at the Kings Coronation the consent of the People is demanded; it is evident that the King is King to all intents and purposes before his Coronation, Besides neither are all the People Sommon'd, nor any considerable part of them appear at a Coro∣nation: And if then thereshould be any su••ly Sheba, that should re∣ject his Prince, that would not hinder the Coronation, so that this is but barely a thing of course and doth not deside the King's Power from

the People at all. Secondly those that attain a Crown by conquest, no man can say They expect or receive the explicit consent of the People, tho' a tacit consequential consent may be argued in their yeilding him a forc'd obedience, Thirdly Those that Surprise a Throne by Fraud, tho' they may impose upon the People so as to gain a formal consent. Yet is there no real consent in those that are thus bewitch'd or cajol'd, Fourth∣ly, there are some that come to a Crown by Elcteion: And here our Male-contents think they are secure, that They derive their Power from the People. But we must consider the great difference that is betwixt Designing the person, and conferring the Power; The former is from those that choose Him, the latter by no meanes, the Dean and Chapiter of a Cathedral, by the Kings leave) choose a Bishop (Sede vacante) this choice designs the person, but doth not confer the Power, which is after∣wards given him in his consecration The Aldermen and Commons of a City, do yearly choose their Mayor; this choice doth indeed designe the person, but not confer the power, which descends by virtue of the Kings Charter, So when the seven Electors choose an Emperour of Ger∣many, or those that usually choose a King in Poland, they only design the person; his Power is not from them, but immediatly from God. And now, whether the Power of Kings be so immediatly subordinate to God and depending upon Him, that no Earthly: ower whatsoever can call them to account for the Administration of their Government, and dis∣charge of their Trust?

The Accountableness of Princes to the People in their Representatives hath passed (too lately) for currant Doctrine in the days of imprisoning King Charles the first, &c. That Reason and Conscience may be satisfied of the falsness and dangerousness of such Assertions, I shall offer what fol∣lows, to prove that God Almighty is the only Ruler of Princes, and that to him only they owe their accounts, first in reason it is a contradiction, after We have own'd the King to be Supreme in all Causes, and over all Persons both Ecclesiastical and Civil, to affirm afterwards, that there is any other Power that hath Right to call him to an account, and conse∣quently is in that respect his superior. That We have own'd the King as Supreme, I suppose all men will confess, and the Apostle St. Peter calls him so, 1 Pet: 2, 13. And that his accountableness to any other on Earth, would render these persons that may demand his account (to nomine) Superiour to Him, is grounded upon that known maxim, Par in parem nou habet potestatem. If therefore the King be Supreme, and yet hath others on Earth that are Superiour to him, then is he Supreme, and

not Supreme, a palpable contradiction, both branches of which cannot be true. Now the Kings Supremacy, both the Law hath Setled, and e∣very Good Subject hath own'd, and therefore must disown the Suprema∣cy of the People, either Collectively, or in their Representative as a Spurious Offspring descended from Salus Populi, and Ʋniversis minor. Se∣condly, If We consult the Scriptures, when David had committed those two great sins of Adultery and Murther, either of which singly was ca∣pital by the Jewish laws, yet do we not find him call'd to account for them, but only by the great King of Kings, who takes the matter in∣to his own hands, sends his Prophet to him, Summons him before him∣self, as his Judge, brings him to Repentance, accepts his Confession, and Remits his Trespass, as to the Eternal punishment. And David appears very sensible of his being accountable to God only; when in his most pe∣nitent Confession he crys out against Thee, Thee! only have I Sinned, Psal. 51, 3. If therefore We own the Scriptures for our guid in all doubtfull and important points, here is an instance to guide Us in a matter of this great and weighty Moment.

Thirdly to hold a Power in the People to call the Prince to account for the Administration of his Government is most highly inconsistent with the law of nature, and all the Reason and Conscience immaginable: For it makes the People at once the complainants, the witnesses, the Jury and the Judge, For when we speak of the King, and the People, they are but two parties. If therefore the King must be impleaded, who must be the Complanants & Prosecutors? the People! who Witnesses? the People! who must be the Jury to enquire of matter of Fact? the People! who must be the Iudge, to determin he hath broken a Law, and be obnoxious to pun∣ishment•• the People! at last when Sentence is passed upon him, who must Execute it? still the People! a thing never heard of in any Judicial proceedings, even in the most Barbarous Nations: and that which must needs preclude the doing of Justice, when passion or interest in the Mo∣bile, would carry all things according to their own Lusts and Hu∣mours.

The Judgments of God, have dogg'd at the Heels, in all Ages, Those Subjects that have Risen up in Rebellion against their Lawfull King, and ••••ther Secretly, or openly, taken away their Lives Had Zimri peace who ••••w his master? &c. And how hath the Justice of God, become the a∣venger of Blood, and pursued Those, who had killed and taken possessi∣on, and boasted of their Wickedness, for several years together; and some of them desired it might be written on their Tombs, here li••sens

of the late Kings Iudges. This I hope will not be forgotten in This Generation, &c. That all men may hear and fear, and do no more so Presumptiously.

If Kings then have their Power from God, and are not accountable to any person or persons on Earth, then is it a great Sin, to Arraign the wisdom or Justice of his Majesties proceedings, in the Convention of men of unsanctified Hearts, unhallow'd lives and prophane Mouths. Too many now adays make it either a sign of Grace, or a token of Wisdom, or at least an argument of good affections to the publick, to Slander the Footsteps of God's Anointed; And as if they would investigate their Pedegrees, from Cora•• and his Complices, do proceed by Rising up a∣gainst Moses and Aaron, reproaching both Prince and Priest, as if They took too much upon them. If he that stept out of his rank, without allowance of his Officer, to fight an Enemy, though he kill'd him, was condemn'd for deserting his place, what censure can be great enough for Those that desert their Ranks and Stations, not to fight an Enemy (a Forreign Invader,) but to encounter their lawful Soveraign? If God Almighty be the only Ruler of Princes, and neither the People collective∣ly nor Representatively; have power to censure the actions of a King, then certainly the Individuals, or little knots of the Popul••cy, have much less power to censure his proceedings.

When Men presume to think that the King is the peoples creature, de∣riving his Power as a Trust from them; and when the fondness and no∣velty of the notion by degrees hath flatter'd them into a fix'd opinion of it, They will quickly implead his Authority, as a conditional and preca∣••ious thing, and upon the least distaste, will be tempted to meditate a re∣vocation of their trust; So that what does not jump with one mans in∣terest, tho it may advance anothers, the King must answer for; And what does not indulge the lusts of the foolish, though 'tis highly accep∣table to the Wise, the King must account for; so apt are Resty Men to clamour against the Settlements of their own security and happiness, and promote the steps of their own ruine and confusion. But when Men shall seriously consider that the Sword is put into His hand by God him∣self, and that he bears it not in vain, that he is a Revenger to execute wrath upon Him that doth evil Rom. 13. 1. This will oblige them to obe∣dience and loyalty to their earthly Soveraign, out of a principle of con∣science towards the King of Heaven; This will speak them at once both True Christians and Good Subjects. For pretended Sain••sh••p is con∣••••stent with Rebellion, but True Christianity will be always attended

with Loyalty. This will clear the Profession of Religion from the a••∣persion of ungovernableness; and set Us forward to that Kingdom, where He by whom Kings Reign, shall rule over all, and be all in all.

LONDON, Printed for Joanna Browne at the Gun at the West-End of St. Paul's.