have done in such a case but since it is not the only Expedient but such an one as is very disputable and dangerous too he was methinks too bold with their Beards in asserting That they would have set aside an Hundred such Titles to secure their Religion when other probable Means more agreeable to the Constitution of the Government were offered for the Security thereof In such a case the Fathers might have professed their Zeal for the Christian Religion and yet like our Loyal Addressers have made it their humble Request to the Emperor not to have passed the Bill of Exclusion that is but one among other Expedients and a man may be free in the Choice of means without being Guelph and Gibeline at once I am sure there is no such Contrariety in such Addresses as for a Minister of our Church to write such a Book as Julian to be Lamb without and Wolf within to wear the Churches Livery and yet in secret to list himself with her Enemies to pretend a mighty concern for Religion and yet to slander the Primitive Christians and scoff at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience this indeed is to be contrary to his Profession and to be Guelph and Gibeline at once CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian HAving shew'd in the First Chapter the Falseness of his First Principle That the Roman Empire was Hereditary I proceed in this to lay open all his other Shams and Falsifications by which to use his own words (†) P. 68. he hath glossed away all his Duty as a Christian Subject and broken all the measures by which all the Ancient Suffering Christians went in former Persecutions For first after he hath most artificially aggravated the Behaviour of the Christians against Julian and made it look like very Criminal and Barbarous then he undertakes to Apologize for them telling us That truly (‖) P. 68. their Case differed very much from that of the First Christians and that they were in quite other Circumstances (†) P. 71. The sum of all which is this That the first Christians suffered according to the Law of their Country whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrary to Law it being manifest that Julian oppressed them in a very illegal way He did not fairly Enact Sanguinary Laws but he put them to death upon Shams and pretended Crimes of Treason and Sacrilege c. And this their Suffering against Law he brings to justifie their seeming Misbehaviour and Barbarous Usage of him which after he had magnified to the height in Expressions not becoming a Divine p. 66. then he adds But for the Name of Christians he had better have fallen among Barbarians I shall not examine the Merits of their Behaviour towards Julian till I have proved that they were not illegally persecuted by him because this being once proved it must needs follow That if they broke the Primitive Measures of Christian Subjection and Obedience they are to be blamed for it and cannot signifie any thing as a Precedent for us to follow in case which God forbid we should be persecuted contrary to Law He tells us That (†) P. 66. they so treated this Emperor that one would have taken them to be the Apostates and most falsly and plainly (‖) P. 94 95. suggests like a Jesuit That they would have rebelled but that they wanted Strength What saith he would they have a few defenceless Christians do when they had lost their Strength Have they never heard a West-Country-man say Chud eat Cheese and chad it Nay he hath done his best to make it probable that Julian was killed by a Christian It is easie to guess whether all this tends His Reflections on the Behaviour of these Christians are to draw on his Reader and prepare his mind for what he hath said upon Passive Obedience and therefore to spoil the Precedency of their Behaviour in their Words Actions and Devotions and to shew to what little purpose he hath written 6 Chapters about it I shall here shew that Julian did persecute them legally because all his Orders and Decrees how unjust soever were legal and in particular that Juventinus and Maximus who he saith were put to death upon shams were notwithstanding legally put to death because they were put to death by the Sentence and Command of the Emperor who was an Absolute Soveraign who govern'd by Despotic or Regal Power and whose very Pleasure was a Law He may as well say That a Man who dyes in England legislatively by virtue of a Bill of Attainder enacted into a Law dyes illegally whereas by the English Constitution the King and Parliament or the King with the Consent of the Parliament are legal Masters of every mans Life and Fortune and can put to death whom they please In like manner what the King and Parliament or to speak in the words of Learned Chancelor (†) De laud. Leg. Angl. ch 9. Fortescue what the Regal and Political Power can in conjunction do here the Regal or Imperial Power could do alone in the Roman Empire where as Dan. speaks of Nebuchad For the Majesty that God gave the Emperor all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down This is most amply and elegantly set down by (‖) L. 53. Dio who tells us That all Power Civil and Ecclesiastical was in the Emperor the Consular Proconsular Censorian Tribunitian and Pontifical and that he had all this Power and Authority not by Force and Usurpation but by Law the Senate and People consenting thereunto That therefore all things were done according to the Pleasure of the Emperors as in Kingdoms and that though they were not called Kings and Dictators yet they had the Regal Dictatorian Power that by virtue of these Offices they had Power of raising Armies and Money of making War and Peace of making deposing and killing Senators and in a word of (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting any man to death as an expiratory Sacrifice without Tryal who they thought injured them never so little in Word or Deed. Furthermore he saith That they were (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above the Laws and free from all Legal Necessity and might do any thing having all things belonging to Absolute Regal Authority but only the Name of King This is the Sum of what Dio saith of the Imperial Leviathan to which the Civil Law agrees which tells us That (†) L. 1. T. 3. 31. T. 4. Princeps legibus solutus 4 Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpâ—te cum lege Regiâ populus ei in eum omne suum Imperium potestatem consâ—rat Quodcunque igitur Imperator c. Vid. I. L. 1 2. the Emperor was above Law that whatsoever pleased him had the nature of a Law because by
Revenge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do one Injury for another His Soveraign injures him against the second and he will therefore injure his Soveraign against the first Table of Civil Government He will sin against the Laws Imperial because his Prince sins against the Political Well let him do so at his Peril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Senses he may be legally Hanged for it in this World and without Repentance will be Damned for it in that which is to come But in the third place The General Reason assigned for Not-resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent doth imply That to resist him is to resist God who hath made him Soveraign and set him above all Coercion and Force If the Nature of Soveraignty and of a Crown Imperial did not require that he should not be violently resisted yet the Honour of God whose Image and Substitute he is would require the Subject not to do so lest he should seem to resist God The King saith †C. 21. Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor in regard of the Nature of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity he is like unto God who is Lord over all whose Image he beareth and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And ‖ De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5. Vegetius saith That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved because he is a Corporeal God I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers to shew how the King is the Minister and Image of God but I have since found them all with far many more in Archbishop Vshers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince To which I refer the Reader Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfections Finch lib. 2. del Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham Roy est le test delâ—bien public immediate desoubs deiu c. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God over all Persons and in all Causes And therefore because he represents the Person of God and bears his Image the Law attributeth unto him a Similitudinary Manner a Shadow of Divine Excellencies namely Soveraignty Majesty Infiniteness Perpetuity Perfection Truth Justice Now to assert that Soveraign Princes are the Vicegerents and Images of God is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty he judgeth among the Gods I have said ye are Gods and all of you the Children of the most High Accordingly saith Jesus Joh. 10.34 Is it not written in your Law of Princes I said ye are God If he called them Gods of whom the Word of God there speaks say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God These Earthly †Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò precipuè convenire quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum nomen ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18 1 Sam. 2.25 Ps 82.6 proinde Solomon Ps 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Apostolus Solomonis typo adumbratum sed sensus typicus literalem non excludit imo supponit Itaque etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines Eaphantus ejusdem sectâ—e Quod Deo quidem inest inest regi ut sibi ipse imperet unde vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli autem subjiciatur Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 84 85. Gods these Vicegerents and Images of the Almighty Soveraign these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them If they do wrong if they tyrannize it over their Subjects he will punish them and turn their Hearts if he see fit But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him they must not take up Defensive Arms against them because they are in Gods stead for whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God In that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection or to shew that a Subject to a perfect Soverain ought not to resist Thus have I branched the General Reason for Non-resistance into three and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited as well as the Arbitrary Soveraign and I know not what can be replyed to them but either to deny that the Soveraign is Gods Vicegerent and doth 〈◊〉 derive his Authority from him or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoyned by the Law of Nature But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible and contradict the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Christians the Acts or Parliament Book of Homilies and the Liturgy especially in the ‖ Thy chosen Servant Our King and Governour that he knowing whose Minister he is And that we and all his Subjects duly considering whose Authority he hath Collect of the Communion-Service for the King and therefore I will suppose that my Brother J. dare not do it and before he asserts the Latter I desire him to consult Dr. Falkners Christian Loyalty a Book which ought to be read by every English Subject I shewed him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist or stand against the Soveraign although he be Wicked or a Wrong-Doer And now I will shew that the Principle into which I have resolved it is plainly taught in the First There our Late Soveraign King James is called the Gift of God there the Authority of Kings their making of Laws Judgment and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man but of God This is also asserted by Old (†) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 3. Chancellor Fortescue in these words All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God for as the Apostle saith All Power is from the Lord God wherefore the Laws that are made by Man which thereunto have received Power from the Lord are also Ordained of God And if all Laws of Men be the Laws and Ordinances of God then I suppose the Common and Statute-Laws of every Empire which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Soveraign are so too and I desire to know whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws But to return to the Homily it further teacheth us That the High Powers are set in Authority by God that they are Gods Lieutenants Gods Presidents Gods Judges ordained of God himself And if these Presidents
Gentleman as was reported put this Dilemma in the House of Commons which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory or Valid or they were not If not then Acts of Parliament which impeach the Succession are without any more ado Null and Void in Law but if they were by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded and King James admitted to the Crown contrary to many Statutes against him notwithstanding all which the (t) Jacob. I. High Court of Parliament declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend unto his Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Royal Blood Here His Succession is owned for Lawful and Vndoubted against the foresaid Acts Lawful not by any Statute but contrary to Statutes by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions as tending to the Disinberison and Prejudice of the Crown For as the Most Learned and Loyal (u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons a Bill of Exclusion if it should pass would change the Essence of the Monarchy and make the Crown Elective or as another (x) Author of the Power of Parliaments p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective For by the same Reason that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences and so consequently by such Exclusions Elect whom they please The next Reason which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful is the Oath of Supremacy which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion or other and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House By this Oath every one who takes it swears to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And I appeal to every Honest and Loyal English-man whether it be not one of the most undoubted transcendent and Essential Rights Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs and united to the Imperial Crown of England that they succeed unto the Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood Secondly I desire to know Whether by Lawful Successors is not to be understood such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Common-Law of England and if so how any Man who is within the Obligation of this Oath can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which deprives the next Heir and in him virtually the whole Royal Family of the Chief Priviledge and Preheminence which belongs unto him by the Common-Law of this Realm Or how any Man who hath taken this Oath which is so apparently designed for the Preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of the Royal Family can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death according to the Common Right of Hereditary Succession which by Common-Law belongs unto Him and is annexed to the Crown What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors in general must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order of Hereditary Succession when it shall come to their turn to succeed I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it Some indeed have said with our Author that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion which is a meer Shift and proves nothing because it proves too much For according to this Answer we might dispense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King if any should hereafter turn such because the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are Protestant Oaths and are not to be understood according to them in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion Secondly Though they are Protestant Oaths yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants but as lawful and rightful King and Heirs according to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom and therefore Moderate Papists will take the Oath of Supremacy as well as of Allegiance as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of (y) 35 H. 8. ch 1. § 11. H. 8. which they could not do were they made to the King and his Heirs as Protestants But Thirdly As they are Protestant Oaths they bind us the more Emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Vsurpation of the Pope who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings and of Excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession Witness Henry the 4th and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs and Successors when their Rights shall fall I have joyned the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Successors and Him and them to defend to the utmost of our Power And I here protest to all the World That when I took these Oaths I understood the Words Heirs and Successors for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordinary Course of Hereditary Succession And I appeal to the Conscience of every Honest Protestant if he did not understand them so Other Excluders I have heard maintain that the King and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Exclusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part theoreof And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth but by the Person or Persons to whom and for whose behoof it was made To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament
the Lex Regia the People had surrendered unto him all their Authority and Power Whatsoever therefore the Emperor appointed by Letters or knowingly decreed or declared in his Interlocutories or commanded by an Edict was a Law and his Laws in distinction to the Senatus consulâ—â— c. were called Constitutions and they were either General or only (‖) Plane ex his quaedam sunt personales nec ad exemplum trahuntur c. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophe Personal which were not to be drawn into precedent or example as his Indulgences to his Favourites his Acts of Grace to Criminals or his (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph Punishing as he pleased those that were in his Displeasure all these were personal Constitutions for the (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Emperor was absolute Lord of his Subjects Lives and Estates It was by this Plenitude of Absolute Legal Power that Constantine the Great put to death his Father-in-Law Maximian his Wife Fausta his eldest Son Crispus and Licinius after he became his Subject and Prisonâ—â— By virtue of the same Power it was that Constantius put to death Dalmatius Caesar and Gallus Julians eldest Brother and therefore it is matter of Wonder to me that Mr. J. should lay down this groundless Assertion That Julian the Emperor persecuted the Christians and put Juventinus and Maximus to death contrary to Law He might have been better instructed by the Apostate in one of his (†) Orat. 1. ad Constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. l. 2. Orations cited by himself in which he tells Constantius That he lived more like a Subject than an Emperor who had Power over the Laws Methinks also his Superviser who should be well versed in the Fathers of our English Law might have taught him better out of Chancelor (‖) De Laud. Leg. Angl. c. 9. Fortescue who stating the Difference betwixt a purely Regal and Political Government explains the former from the Civil Law which saith The Prince his Pleasure hath the Force of Law Wherefore he was also much by the Cushion in his First Chapter where he asserts That all the Outrages which the Heathens committed against the Christians by the toleration and connivence of Julian were not only without but against Law for Julians Connivence or Approbation of things against Law or secret Direction to do them was a sufficient declaration of his Pleasure and had the Force of Law Therefore (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. p. 504. Philostorg saith that the Heathens in so doing fulfilled his Pleasure who as (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. c. 15. Zos observes however he did blame them in words which was very (*) Once the Alexandrians Soz. l. 3. c. 3. l. 5. c. 9. seldom yet underhand and indeed he exhorted them to do what they did and (†) Theod. l. 3. c. 6. made the most cruel and impious Heathens Officers both in the Army and over the Cities and Provinces whom he left to their own Discretion to treat the Christians as they pleased and when the Christians sent their Representatives to complain (‖) Soz. l. 5. c. 3. Vid. l. 5. c. 9. Naz. 1. Invect p. 92. he refused to admit them or if he admitted them he was only to tell them That (†) Socr. l. 3. c. 14. they were bound by their Religion to suffer Injuries (‖) L. 7. 503. Philostorgius saith He exceedingly rejoyced when he heard of the Christians Sufferings all which were sufficient significations of his Pleasure in this Particular that the Heathens should outrage the Christians any former Law or Edict whatsoever notwithstanding Accordingly (†) Invect l. p. 74. Gregory calls his Will in this particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unwritten Law For saith he the Emperor dividing his Power into two Parts Perswasion and Force Perswasion which is the Gentler Method he took into his own Hands and Force as being the more Inhumane he left to the People (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. not by any Publick Edict but by Toleration and Connivence declaring his Pleasure which is an Vnwritten Law But our Author as indeed he hath an excellent Talent that way quite misrepresents the Case (‖) P. 12. The Heathens saith he did not stay for Laws and Edicts to warrant such Proceedings but as soon as they knew how Julian was affected they took that for their Cue to act these Tragedies upon the Christians They knew it would please the Emperor and that was an Vnwritten Law How then did they act against Law if the Pleasure of the Emperor so directing was an Unwritten Law They acted according to his Pleasure which as Gregory observes was published unto them by his Words and Actions as plainly as by any (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invect l. p. 92. Edict and (‖) Ib. the Pleasure of the Emperor saith the Father upon the cruel Reprimand which Julian gave to the Governour of Gaza is an Vnwritten Law defended with Power and much stronger than Written Ones not supported by Authority Such sayings as these to his Governours (‖) Invect p. 92. What great matter is it if one Heathen kill ten Christians were sufficient Indications and Directions of his Royal Pleasure to make it have the force of Law and give it the nature of a Personal Constitution by virtue of the Lex Regia otherwise called (†) Lex Imperii solemnibus juris Imperatorem solvit l. Ex imperfecto C. de testamentis Lex Imperii which exempted the Emperor from Formalities of Law and Justice and gave him Authority above all written Laws I have now I hope sufficiently proved the falseness of our Authors Second Principle that his Julian persecuted contrary to Law And I have taken so much pains to confute it not that it is necessary to do so to defend the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which as I shall hereafter shew would be best defended upon this Assertion but to let the Admirers of Julian see how he hath imposed upon them in falsely representing the Christians like Barbarians in their Behaviour towards their Emperor and then in justifying of it by this Sham That Julian persecuted contrary to Law If any of them have taken the pains to read this Answer thus far I hope they will make a Pause to argue to this purpose from what I have written in this Chapter Either the Behaviour of the Christians was really as Barbarous and Exorbitant against Julian as Mr. J. hath represented it or it was not if it were then they must bear the Blame of it having no such Warrant for it as he told us they had but if it really were not then he hath done neither like a Scholar nor a Christian to exaggerate and misrepresent it with a design to deceive the World I am afraid The best Friends Mr. J. hath cannot keep him from being Obnoxious to one of these two Consequences and
Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Queens Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm To all this I may add the common Stile of both Houses in Parliament Our Gracious Soveraign and our Dread Soveraign Lord the King Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De tournes de Viscontes You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithfull to our Soveraign Lord Edward Hence by (†) Sheringham Kings Suprem c. 4. Common Law many Prerogatives belong to the King by vertue of his Soveraignty He cannot give any Man the Stile or Title of Dominus because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus He can hold Land of no Man because he can have no Superior and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord whereby his Heir became a Ward the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land because as Glanvil saith L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus Superiorem The reason is given by Bracton l. 2. c. 37. And as (†) C. 22. Stanford shews in his Exposition of the Kings Prerogative By the Common Law there lyeth no Action or Writ against the King but when he seizeth his Subjects Lands or Goods having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath and this Petition is called A Petition of Right Having now shew'd that the Realm of England is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign Subject unto none but God it must needs follow that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Soveraignty belonging unto him as to be unaccountable to any Humane Power to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power to be irresistable and unopposeable or not to have his Forces repelled by Force A Stranger that hath read what I have written to shew that he is a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign must needs presume that these and all other Essential Rights of Soveraignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Soveraignty or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown to acknowledge the King for Supream over all Persons to say he hath no Superior but God that he is Subject to him alone and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customes of this Realm For first To say that he is the only Supream Governour within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none but God must needs imply that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribunal but that of Heaven whose Vicegerant he is If there were any Power in his Kingdoms that could call him to account for Maladministration for that very Reason he would not be a Compleat Soveraign but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior and not he It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction that he must be Unaccountable for from whom shall any person or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from him as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms and from whom then shall any Man or state of Men derive Authority of Judging or Trying him It can be from none but himself But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Jurisdiction is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Nature if that be true which the (†) Cokes Inst part 4. p. 14. Suprema Jurisdictio potestas Regia etsi Princeps velit se sâ—pâ—rari non possunt sunt enim ipsa forma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente rege ab eo abdicari non possunt Cavedo Pract. Observ p. 2. Decis 40. n. 8. Lords and Commons declared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the Disinherison of the King and his Crown This Phrase of the Disinherison of the King and the Crown in other (‖) Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. c. 5. Acts of Parliament is called The Destruction of the Kings Soveraignty his Crown his Regality and things that tend thereunto things that are openly against the Kings Crown in Derogation of his Regality So that if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Soveraignty it would be of no more Force than an Act to make another King Co-partner with him in the Supream Power or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Foreign Prince But 2dly To say that the King is the only Supream Governour instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction must needs imply that he alone hath the Power of the Sword for were the Power of the Sword in any else he could not be furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Besides the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him and the Military in any other Person or State the English Realm would have two Soveraigns one Civil and another Military which is most absurd to think Therefore by the Common Laws of Soveraignty the Power of the Sword like all other Temporal Power must be derived and deducted from him as Supream Head and Governour of this Realm and indeed his Soveraignty would be an empty insignificant nothing were the Scepter in his Hand and the Sword in any others And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg consuet regni Anglae supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King Regiam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam sed legibus The Kings Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms but with Laws with Arms in the first place without which his Laws would be little worth So saith Fletal 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura Et materialem gladium qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum So saith Bracton in the beginning of his first Book In rege qui rectè regit necessaria sunt duo haec Arma videlicet Leges c. And if the Sword be originally in the Kings Hand and none can bear it without Authority
derived from him it must needs follow from hence that he must be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and that no Man can lawfully resist him or his Forces because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword except for private Defence but by Commission from him I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies or who hath Authority for example to make him a Captain or as much as a Drummer of a Company if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative and therefore how a man can either give or receive such unauthoritative Commissions or oppose or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them without sin I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer and Mr. J. as a Divine to resolve It is true what he (‖) P. 84. saith That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants but then the Question which he puts to the Doctor upon it is Fallacious in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts in the Soveraign which carry no Obligation at all can oblige men to Obedience I answer for the Doctor If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty No! He ought rather to suffer himself but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose I answer That it is the Christian the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign till legal Remedy can be had because to oppose or resist him and his Forces by Force is unauthoritative and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm But because we live in an Age wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons who are deaf to all Reason and Common Law which is nothing but Common Reason when it is urged in defence of the Crown I will now shew that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty which I have been discoursing of are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm First then He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects or obnoxious to their Coercive Power 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and be it hereby declared that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared without excepting any manner of Cases or Pretences to the contrary That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And (†) 3 Inst p. 9. Coke upon the place saith That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King If any levy War saith he to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation of their own Heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority (‖) Sheringhams Kings Suprem c. 3. In the 7th year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged and force of Armour to belong to him And saith (†) Jenkinsius Redivivus p. 19. Judge Jenkins All Jurisdictions do and of right ought to belong to the King all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King the Power of War only belongs to the King it belongs to the King to Defend his People and to provide Arms and Force (‖) 13 Car. 2.1 Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm or without And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the Vndoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot or ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive or Defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successor Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Amplitude the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them Surely this is too Light for the Parliament and is just such another piece of Drollery as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder Bating that Dedication there was never any thing like this Passive Aâ—â— of Parliament for wheedling the People out of their Lives Alas Alas This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles and enough to tempt and invite Cruelty into the World For let a Prince be either a Papist or an Atheist and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act and then what hinders but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates and Heresie together and the other as many to see what Faces and Grimmaces they will make According to this Act the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist or the Extravagant Vnaccountable Humours of a Wretch and hang at their Girdles as Souls do at the Popes Is it not a sad thing to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament to leave us nothing to defend our selves but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears But yet so Wise as Legislators so Religious as Christians and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament that they made this Declaration the second time as it may be seen 13 14 Car. 2. cap. 3. And by all these Statutes cited it appears That the King is Accountable to none but God That the Sword is solely his and theirs to whom He commits it That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power nor ought any way to be resisted by Force Indeed our Author (‖) P.
of the Subject By the Rights of the Soveraign I understand those Prerogatives and Pre-Eminences of Power and Greatness which are involved in the formal Conception of Soveraignty and are inseparably annexed to the Soveraign whether it be the People as in Democracies or a few of the Chief as in Aristocracies or one single Person as in Monarchies For there are certain Essential Rights of Soveraignty or Supremacy which equally belong to Soveraigns of all Sorts as to have Sense belongs to all Sorts of Animals and which without destroying the very Notion of a Soveraign you cannot abstract from him no more than roundness from a Circle or Sphaere For they (†) Ad nullum pertinent nisi ad coronam dignitatem regiam nec à coronâ separari poterunt cum faciant ipsam coronam Bract. l. 2. c. 24. constitute the Essential difference between Supremacy and Subjection so that whosoever hath them is a Compleat Sovereign and whosoever wants them or any of them is a Subject or at least an Incompleat Soveraign and in all Perfect and Regular Governments these Essential Rights of Soveraignty equally belong to the Supream Power whether Princes or States by the Common and Statute Laws thereof Such as these in the First place is to be (†) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God For if there be any Power to which Princes or States are accountable within their Dominions let their Names sound never so big they are not Soveraign but Subject Soveraignty as the very Notion implyes being such a Preheminent Jurisdiction as makes all other persons within the Lines of it accountable unto it but it or the person or persons invested with it accountable to none Secondly To have the (‖) Ibid. p. 90. Sole Power Disposal of the Sword for to suppose that another hath a Right to bear the Sword besides the Soveraign is to suppose that the Soveraign hath an Equal which is a Contradiction to the Notion of Soveraignty and that in the same Government there may be two Soveraign Powers Thirdly To be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power for if in any Government there were a Power which had Authority to compel or punish the Soveraign for this Reason he would not be Soveraign but a Subject to that Power Fourthly Not to (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 41 87. Ib. 140 141. Dr. Faulkners Christ Loyalty v. 2. ch 2. be resisted or withstood by Force upon any pretence whatsoever for otherwise the Soveraign would be controulable by Force which is inconsistent with the Majesty and Dignity of the Soveraign Power and supposes that Subjects have a Right to Judge when they may resist or withstand their Soveraign which is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Societies than patiently submitting to the Abuse of the Soveraign Power Lastly To have the Legislative Power or the Power that makes any form of Words a Law The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the Exercise of this Power which may be confined to Bills and Writings prepared by others but still it is the Soveraign Authority who gives Life and Soul to the dead Letter of them and all Princes or States which want this Authority let their Names and Titles be never so great are not compleat Soveraigns but Subjects because upon this supposition they have not Power to make Laws to bind others but others have Power to make Laws to bind them Now the Laws by which these and other Essentials of Soveraignty are established may be called the Imperial Laws or the Common Laws of Soveraignty and Christianity which our (†) P. 92. Author well observes destroys no mans Natural or Civil Rights doth not destroy these Essential Rights of Soveraignty but confirms them unto the Legal Soveraign in every Government commanding his Subjects to observe them and particularly the Imperial Law of of not resisting not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Wherefore in answer to his (‖) P. 81. Question By what Law we must dye in Illegal Persecution I answer By the Imperial Laws in every Government and by the Laws of the Gospel which as I shall hereafter shew establish those Laws In all perfect Governments and particularly in the English all these Rights legally belong to the Soveraign who is the King especially to be accountable to none but God to have the sole Power and Disposal of the Sword and to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and from Resistance by Force It is by these Common Laws of Soveraignty that the Gospell requires Passive Obedience which is but another name for Non-resistance these Laws are in Eternal Force against the Subjects in defence of the Soveraign (†) Sa. Boch ep p. 61. be he good or evil just or unjust Christian or Pagan be what he will no Subject or (‖) Ib. p. 54 55. number of Subjects can lift up his Hand against his Soveraign be Guiltless by these Laws (†) P. 84. Where there is no Law indeed there is no Transgression But for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Soveraign or to defend themselves by Force against him or his Forces is against the Common Laws of Soveraignty and by consequence (‖) Ib. p. 86 87. Passive Obedience even unto death becomes a duty in Soveraign Governments by vertue of those Laws By the help of this Distinction between the Imperial Laws which ascertain the Rights of the Soveraign and the political which are made to secure the Rights of the Subject the heedful Reader may easily solve all that Mr. J. hath written by the help of Mr. H. his Superviser against Dr. Hickes For he hath as himself (‖) P. 92. confesseth reduced all the Strength and Force of what he hath written against him in opposition to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience into 5 Propositions every one of which I shall here I hope effectually evacuate by adding a few Words which may enable a common Capacity to see how he hath perplexed the Truth The Propositions 1. Christianity destroys no Mans Natural or Civil Rights but confirms them and by consequence it destroys not the forementioned Rights of the Soveraign but confirms them 2. All Men have both a Natural and Civil Right and property in their Lives till they have forfeited them by the Laws of their Country i. e. by the Political Laws which are made to defend the Rights of the Subject but in case the Soveraign will tyrannically take away a Subjects Life against the Political Laws the Subject is bound by the Laws Imperial or Common Laws of Soveraignty not to resist him or defend his Life against him by Force 3. When the Laws of God and our Country interfere and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian then we are to lay down our Lives for Christs Sake So far is very true because every man is bound
84. doth freely acknowledge that according to the known Laws of England a Popish Prince when he is Lawfully possest of the Crown will be Inviolable and Vnaccountable as to his own Person and ought by no means to have any Violence offered to him This is something but it is not all 't is the Truth but not the Whole Truth For I have shewn by the known Laws of this Land that the People can make no Military or Forcible Resistance against the King they must not rise up against Him and his Armies in their own Defence the Laws have fettered and manacled them with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience they must not lift up their Hands against their Soveraign to oppose him or his Forces for they have no Right to the Sword but what he gives them except for private Defence no body without his Authority can Array them and by these Laws there are no Cases excepted no not the Case of a Popish Successor which makes our Authors Heart ake for not excepting of which in his Bow-Sermon he is so angry at Dr. Hickes But the Dr. as (†) P. 90. Ignorant as he hath made him in the English Historians was it seems better versed in the English Antiquities and Customs and in the Old Lawyers and Common and Statute-Laws of the Land than to make any Exception or Distinction where the Law makes none according to that Old Maxim Vbi lex non distinguit ibi non est distinguendum And besides the Dr. remembred what his Uncharitable Brother Mr. J. had forgot That according to the Act of Uniformity he had subscribed declared and acknowledged That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that he did abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him It was apparently the Design of the Three Estates in this Act to secure the Nation of such Ministers as would preach up the Doctrine of Non-resistance without distinction and whether the Doctor that hath so preached it or Mr. J. that hath so maliciously opposed it is more Conformable to the Act and True to his Oath let the World judge He granted as I observed before that the Person of the King is Inviolable and free from Violence but then as if he had granted too much he seems to retract it in part again For (†) P. 88. saith he with the Noble Peer whom he calls a Worthy Person one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in Massacring a Nation And p. 85. How far men may endeavour notwithstanding the Kings Person is Inviolable to save themselves when Princes will be the Executioners of their own Cruelty without breach of their Allegiance If they have a mind they may ask Ask of whom of Harry Nevil or Mr. H. or of which of the Heretick Lawyers Which of the discontented Enemies of the Prerogative will oblige the World with this New Discovery Or if Mr. J. knew it why did he hide his Talent and put the World to the trouble of Asking But I am afraid because he did not it is something he durst not tell some State-Mystery that his Great Assertor of Laws and Religion now with God told him was not safe to speak some Platâ—-Redivivus-Doctrine likely something that depended upon this Atheistical as well as Illegal Principle in England That all Power is Radically in the People and that the King is their Minister and not the Minister of God Whatever it was I will stand no longer guessing But having shewed that Passive Obedience is required in all Perfect and Regular Governments by the Common Laws of Soveraignty and more particular in this Realm by the Imperial Laws thereof I will proceed to enquire how far the Church and Ancient Churchmen have agreed with the Three Estates for I find that our Author makes much use of Ecclesiastical Authority particularly of our Reformers and of the Book of Homilies when they favour him but how far he will value them when they are against him especially in this Controversie between him and the Doctor about Passive Obedience I will not undertake to tell I will begin with the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christen Man set forth by King Henry the 8th with the Advise of his Reforming Clergy who were the Compilers of it such as Cramner and other Martyrs who on the Fifth Commandment write thus Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty Truth Love and Obedience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be ne for any cause they may Conspire against his Person ne do any thing towards the Hinderance or Hurt thereof nor of his Estate And afterwards they prove this out of Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist the Ordinance of God shall get to themselves Damnation And upon the Sixth Commandment No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for any cause whatsoever it be nor against any other saving for Lawful Defence without their Princes License And although Princes which be the Supream Heads of their Realms do otherwise than they ought to do yet God hath assigned no Iudges over them in this World but will have the Iudgment of them reserved to himself and will punish them when he seeth his time So much for the Authority of Cramner Ridley Redman c. From whence I pass to the Book of Homilies which p. 104. he hath recommended to every Bodies Reading as one of the best Books that he know in the World next the Bible In the second part of the Sermon of Obedience Subjects are bound to obey them as Gods Ministers although they be Evil not only for Fear but also for Conscience sake and here Good People let us all mark diligently That it is not lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the Superior Powers For St. Pauls words be plain That whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation Our Saviour Christ himself and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the Vnfaithful and Wicked Men in Authority yet we never read that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority We read oft that they patiently suffered all Troubles Vexations Slanders Pangs and Pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistance Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore mark the Reason it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them although they abuse their Power And yet Mr. J. in contradiction to this Book which he hath recommended as the best Book next to the Bible †Preface p. 8. saith That this Doctrine is Intolerable and contrary both to the Gospel and the Law of the Land But this Homily further tells us That the Vocation and Calling of Gods People is to be patient and of the suffering
Side and that we ought to obey Governours although they be wicked and wrong-doers Afterwards it proves from the Example of David The we may not withstand nor in any wise hurt an (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. ad D. Morley p. 80. Anointed King mark the Reason again which is Gods Lieutenant Vicegerent and Highest Minister in that Country where he is King He durst not once lay Hands upon Gods High Officer the King whom he did know to be a Person reserved and kept only to Gods Punishment A General Rule and Lesson to all Subjects in the World not to withstand their Liege Lord and King nor to take a Sword by their private Authority against their King Gods Anointed who only beareth the Sword by Gods Authority for the Maintenance c. Who only by Gods Law hath the Use of the Sword at his Command It is an intolerable Madness Ignorance and Wickedness for Subjects to make any murmuring rebellion resistance or withstanding Commotion or Insurrection against their Soveraign Lord. We may not in any wise withstand violently or rebel against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or his Officers but we must in such case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God Here we have Line upon Line and Precept upon Precept for Passive Obedience Here we are taught that we must suffer all sorts of Wrongs and Injuries from our Soveraign without Resistance and withstanding of him and in this Realm I am sure the Soveraign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws But to go on with this next best Book to the Bible In the second part of the Homily against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by Flight and hiding himself from the Kings Sight Shall not we being good Men as we are Rise and Rebel against a Prince hated of God and Gods Enemy and likely to be Hurtful and Pernicious to the Common-wealth Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so Vnkind a Prince nothing considering or regarding our True Faithful and Painful Service or the Safeguard of our Posterity Shall we not Rise and Rebel against our known mortal and deadly Enemy that seeketh our Lives No saith Godly David What shall we do then to an Evil to an Vnkind Prince an Enemy to us hated of God hurtful to the Commonwealth c. Lay no Violent hand upon him saith Good David but let him live until God appoint and work his End If King David would make these Answers as by his Deeds and Words recorded in the Holy Scriptures indeed he doth make unto all such Demands concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes Vnkind Princes Cruel Princes Princes that be to their good Subjects mortal Enemies Princes that are out of Gods Favour and so Hurtful or like to be Hurtful to the Commonwealth what Answer And now to use out Unanswerable Authors (‖) P. 111. own words I have been the more Copious in these Citations to shew that this is the stunding Doctrine of the Church of England to which all Orders of the Clergy have subscribed and Mr. J. among the rest The Church of England long since (†) P. 89. calculated and fitted this Doctrine for the use of a Popish Successor And if the Doctor hath been ill taught by his Mother the Blame is to be laid upon her and he is to be excused It is She that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a (‖) P. 81. Parasite Sycophant and Murderer Poor Man He sucked it in his Mothers Milk it was bred in his Bone and I fear it will never go out of his Flesh Nay to see what a sad Fate attends some Men he had the Misfortune to be bred in Oxford where Passive Obedience hath long been the Doctrine of the Malignant place as appears by Mr. (†) In the Preface to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons Gillespic one of Mr. J.'s Old Masters who called Preces Lachrymae the New Oxford Divinity which however is somewhat less Offensive than the Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears Nay so determined was the Doctor by his unhappy Stars to imbibe that Slavish Principle that he was bred in the very same College where the Immortal Sanderson drew up the Vniversities Vnanswerable Reasons against the Covenant out of which Mr. J. hath (‖) Preface p. 3. taken the most witty Allusion in his Book where speaking of Passive Obedience without a Law to require it he saith It is like one of the marvellous Accidents of Transubstantiation which makes a Shift to subsist when it hath lost its Subject which is the very same Illustration that the (‖) Judicium Acad. Oxon. de faedere p. 66. Rex vel in propriâ suâ personâ coram corporaliter adest vel absens praesentiam suam supplet per delegatos quosdam sive commissionarios suos magni sigilli autoritate ad hoc deputatos quaevis alia praesentia realis aenigmatis instar est transubstantiationis monstro haud absimilis spectrum scilicet phantasma University made use of to set forth the monstrous Absurdity of pretending the Kings Authority and Presence where he was neither in Person nor by his Commissioner I think it not amiss to put Mr. J. in mind of his vain Distinction lest his Superviser should teach him to reply That the Imperial Laws above cited regard the Politick and not the natural Person of the Soveraign But to prevent him from flying to this miserable shift I must tell him That in the (†) Coke in Calvins Case p. 439. Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers the Father and the Son to cover their Treason invented this damnable Opinion That Homage and Allegiance was due to the King more upon the account of his Politick Capacity than his Natural Person Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That if the King did not demean himself by Reason in the Right of his Crown his Lieges were bound by Oath to remove him 2. That when the King could not be reformed by Sute of Law that ought to be done by the Sword 3. That his Lieges be bound to Govern in Aid of him and in Default of him And which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the Reign of Ed. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le Spencer and the other in Ann. 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1. If I should produce no more Authorities but these already cited it were enough to shew the Concurrence of the Church and Church-men with the Three Estates of this Realm as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience but because I have undertaken the Doctors Vindication I will shew what brave Men before him have defended this Bloody Doctrine that so if he cannot be Justified he may at least be Excused I begin with
and Lieutenants of God will transgress the Bounds within which they ought to act we must not forcibly resist or repulse them but give place to their Wrath and suffer according to the Will of God committing our Souls to him in well doing as unto a Faithful Creator to him that judgeth righteously Like the Masters under the Roman Government they are bound to do that which is Just and Equal and Legal unto their Subjects as knowing they have a Master in Heaven but if they forget their Duty to their Master to whom alone they are acconntable their Subjects like the Servants from whom the Law took all Power of violent Resistance must only withstand them with Supplications and Tears This is all the Gospel allows or could indeed in Reason allow because there must somewhere be fixed and acknowledged such a Soveraign Authority which none have Power to resist or against which none have Power of taking Arms but had the Gospel allowed Resistance against the Soveraign it had unhinged all Government by putting the Sword into private Mens Hands This Praecept saith (†) In Math. 26.52 Grotius of putting up the Sword belongeth to all Christians who are called unto punishment upon the Account of Religion for it is the Pleasure of God when that necessity lyes upon us that we should testifie our Patience and commit our Souls unto our Creator and what can be more just than that we should lay down our Lives for his Honour from whom we received them This St. Pet. hath taught us in his Masters Name Ep. 1. c. 4.16 19. And if it be once admitted saith he that private men when they are injured by the Magistrate may forcibly resist him all places would be full of Tumults and there would be no Force or Authority of Laws and Judicatures because all men are apt to favour themselves Wherefore Reason compels us to confess that Oppression is to be endured lest too much Liberty follow upon the contrary and the Examples of the Ancient Christians teach us That any Violence is to be endured which the Supream Power lays upon us upon the account of our Religion◠For they are in a great Error who think that the Christians before the time of Constantine abstained from Resistance because they wanted sufficient Strength And if they did not abstain for that reason before the time of Constantine I appeal to our Author Whether they did abstain for that reason after his time and what Account he will give to God or Man for slandering the Christian Subjects of (‖) Ita sub Juliano licèt impio Apostatâ merebant Christiani milites nec quisquam illi vim fecit quo nihil fuisset faciliùs cum fere totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 53. Julian in saying What would you have a few defenceless Christians do have you never heard a West-Country-Man say Chud eat more Cheese if chad it But to return from this digression unto (†) Vot pro pace ad Act 16. vid. Dr. Falk p. 373. Grotius In his Latter and Wiser years he approved of the University of Oxfords Determination against Paraeus upon the Romans Subditos nullo modo c. That Subjects ought by no means to (‖) Quinta lex est Prov. 30.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rex in quem nemo insurgit i. e. in quem subditorum nemo debet insurgere Alioquin enim multi insurgunt sed id faciunt praeter jus et fas ut Rex hic vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alkum quia in eum nemo insurgit Ita palladem alibi observo fuisse vocatam à Phaenicibus Ela alkuma Deam in quam nemo insurgit et Laeotiae urbem illi sacram Gaecâ flexione Alalcomenas quae parva cum esset et in plano extructa semper tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intacta et inviolata mansit quia ob deae reverentiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab omni v◠omnes abstinebant Pausan Eaeot Strab. l. 9. Ib. p. 41. resist their Soveraign by force nor ought they to take either Offensive or Defensive Arms against him for the Cause of Religion or any other whatsoever Here is the University of Oxon teaching the very Doctrine of the Bow-string and Grotius approving of it and furthermore affirming That if Paraeus or Mr. J's Exceptions were admitted against St. Paul That no Government could be any longer safe than while those who have such Sentiments want Strength It was upon this Principle that the Prophets and other Saints in great numbers patiently suffered under the Idolatrous Kings of Israel who as Mr. J. might have remembred persecuted against Law And in like manner our blessed Saviour who had so great a regard for Government and for the Good of Mankind for which Government was ordain'd absolutely forbids Subjects to resist their Soveraign and because he foresaw that the pretence of Religion would of all others be the most Popular and Specious therefore took he such Care to have himself proposed for an Example of Patience and Suffering unto his Disciples and to assure them that if they suffered with him they should also Reign with him Indeed there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non-resistance but it is an Incovenience which cannot be prevented unless we should remove the Center upon which Government is fixed and admit the Inconvenience of Resisting the Soveraign which would be (†) Cùm probaverim hactenus summum principem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a solo Deo pendere solum hoc addo pro mantissâ quod si liceret inragem ideo insurgere quia malus est et potestate suâ abutitur Non tamen id expedire populo esse consultiùs ut ab iis remediis abstineat quae plerumque morbo ipso pejora sunt quibusque adeo vulnus exasperatur potiùs quà m sanatur Ea mala toleranda sunt quae sine magná pernicie non possunt emendari praestat unius hominis scelera esse impunita quà m innumeros insontes certo exitio exponere quod ab illis ferè fit qui in reges quid moliuntur Neque enim expectandum est ut citati judicio se sistant et plebeiorum instar unius aut alterius victoris Imperio se submittant quin copias conscribi oportet et multorum saepe praeliorum aliae subeundae an t quam possint cogi in ordinem Unde magna strages sequitur et provinciarum devastatio quod Britannia vestra vel me tacente clamat Itaque multo satius est Dei judicio rem committere et converti ad preces lachrymas quae vera Christianorum arma sunt quà m ad ea remedia confugere quae sunt violentiora Sam. Bochart 10.140 141. ten times worse than it For if the Former make a Land obnoxious now and then unto a Tyrant the Latter would make it perpetually obnoxious to the Rage and Fury of the deluded
therefore in the next place let us enquire Whether the Christians did behave themselves so like Apostates and Barbarians against their Lawful Emperor as he hath endeavoured to make the World believe they did Surely if the Passages be examined which he hath produced it will appear that some of them are Dubious others False some Laudable many of them Innocent and those few that are Blameable or that he would have to be so Excusable in a great measure and having nothing Singular in them which have not been done to other Emperors before CHAP. III. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in Words I Shall begin with their Behaviour towards him in Words as it is set down in his Third Chapter where all along he most unjustly charges what was said but by one or a few Christians upon the whole Number altho the Examples which he hath brought are nothing in proportion to the whole Eastern Empire much less to the Western in which perhaps not one Instance of that which he calls Barbarous Behaviour towards Julian can be produced At his rate of arguing from one or a few Examples to the whole Church a man may prove out of the Scriptures that the Christians were a very untoward People for there as he is pleased to phrase it A man may almost lose himself in the great variety of Instances which may be given of their great and manifold Miscarriages if what some particular Men or Churches did amiss might be charged upon the whole Body of Christians and be called theirs Thus saith he of the Christians in general They sufficiently requited him for calling them Galilaeans for they named him Idolianus instead of Julianus and Pisaeus and Adonaeus from his worshipping of Jupiter and Adonis and Bull-burner from the great number of them which he sacrificed One would think as he hath represented the matter that all the Christians used thus to Nickname Julian and yet if we consult that place of Nazianzen which he cites for it in the Margent we shall find that it was not the general Practise of the Christians so to call the Apostate in requital but of some of one sort (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. 1. Invect p. 87 88. For saith the Father if the Christians had a mind to give new Names they might find many base ones very fit and applicable to him for what should hinder us jearing of him as he doth us to call him Idolianus and Pisaeus and Adonaeus and Bull-Burner as some of the merry and facetious men among us have taken the liberty to call him But yet though they were but the Facetious and some of the Facetious Christians too who called Julian by those Names yet our trusty Author makes no Bones of charging the matter upon them in General They saith he requited him for calling them Galilaeans for they named him Idolianus c. But this is not the only Instance where Mr. J. hath plaid the Jesuit with good Authors and what sair dealing is to be expected from a man who imposes upon his Reader in the very (†) P. 1. first Citation with which he begins his Book Constantine the Great saith he Famous for being the first Christian Emperor divided the whole Empire at his death amongst his three Sons as a Father doth his Estate among his Children that part which came by his Ancestors the West he gave to the eldest This indeed sounds somewhat like an Entailed Inheritance whereas had he truly and entirely rendred the place it would not have favoured that Design For Eusebius saith That Constantius the Great (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Vit. Const l. 4. c. 52. when he had gotten the whole World into his Power he divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony amongst his three Sons as being the most Beloved of his Heirs That Part which came by his Father he gave to the Eldest There is some difference betwixt saying That Constantine divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony and as a Father divides his Estate and very much betwixt saying simply That he divided it among his Sons and that he divided it among his Sons as the best beloved of his Heirs It was not for the Interest of a man that asserted the Roman Empire to be Hereditary to let his Reader know that Constantine had other Heirs in View besides his Sons this would have given them to understand That he might have passed by his Sons and given the Empire to them or made these Co-partners with those So it was for his Interest to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which came by his Ancestors as if the West-part of the Empire which Constantine received from his Father had Lineally devolved upon him through many Hereditary Descents But to return to the Nicknames which the pleasanter sort of Christians gave unto Julian what Injury did they do him thereby There was nothing more common among the Pagan Emperors than to surname themselves from their Gods Dioclesian assumed the Surname of Jovius and Maximian of Herculeus and if some of the Wits among the Christians sportingly did the same thing for Julian that other Emperors did for themselves what Precept of the Christian Religion did they transgress thereby But these were (†) P. 32. Instances of their Hatred and Contempt of Julian perhaps they were so but not of the Man nor of the Emperor but of the Apostate and Idolater whom the Christian Religion would have allowed a Confessor to have called so to his very face And be it known unto Mr. J. that many of those who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion would think it rather their Duty than any Breach of it to tell not only a Popish Prince but a Popish King to his Face did he openly profess the Popish Religion that he was an Idolater a Bread-worshipper a Goddess-worshipper a Creature-worshipper an Image-worshipper a Wafer-worshipper c. which would be a far greater contempt of him than to Nickname him from his Popish-Idols and mock him with them behind his back But let us suppose that these merry Gentlemen did transgress the duty of Christians in playing upon the Name of Julian yet there was nothing of tendency to Rebellion in it nothing specifick that can tempt a man to think that they did it because he persecuted the Christians contrary to Law Our blessed Lord called Herod Fox and St. Paul called Nero Lyon and had Mr. J. found these Names for his Julian in the Writings of the Christians he would in all probability have told us that they looked upon him as a Wild Beast whom every man had a right to slay St. Cyprian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom calls the Emperor Decius Antichrist and in his Epist to Antonianus he calls him Tyrant and Raging Tyrant and Lucianus the Presbyter in his (†) Cyprian Epist Oxon. edit p. 47. Epist to Celerinus calls him the Great Snake and forerunner of Antichrist which are
as ill Names as any Mr. J. can shew that Julian received from the Christians of his Time The Proconsul in the Roman Empire was in every Province the next in Authority under the Emperor and yet Cyprian in the Reply which he sent unto Demetrianus Proconsul of Africa calls him Impious Mad Raging Blind Deaf and Brute and he tells him in the very beginning of it That he had long despised him who barked with his Sacrilegious Mouth and Impious Words against the one true God I do not justifie the Father for this contumelious way of speaking it seems to me not strictly consistent with that respect which he ought to an ordinary Judge or Subselliar Counsellor as the Learned Annotator in the Oxford Edition endeavours against the common opinion to make it probable Demetrianus was but notwithstanding his Conjectures to which I refer my Reader the common opinion still remains as probable and therefore may very well be preferred But of that very small number of Ancient Christians who were guilty of rude and undutiful Language to Princes none were comparable to Lucifer Câ—laritanus who in his Defence of Athanasius and Tract of Apostate Princes both written to Constantius calls his Majesty Persecutor Heretick Saul Ahab Murderer Apostate Impious Antichrist Lyar Executioner Enemy and Despiser of God and Destroyer of Gods Religion with many more most reproachful Names and Passages which I love not to recite What would Mr. J. have given to have found Julian treated at this contumelious rate in any Christian Writer especially in a Bishop of his time he would doubtless have gloried in the Discovery and it must not have been charged upon the peevish and morose Temper and monastick Manners of the Father but it must have been solved like his other Phaenomena by his new but friendly Hypothesis to Rebellion of reproaching and ruffling of Julian nay of pursuing him like a Midnight Thief or High-way-Robber because he persecuted them contrary to Law His next Instance which he produces of Julians reproachful usage among the Christians is the Antiochians wherein he hath not dealt fairly in representing the matter so as if the Christians of Antioch only were guilty of those abuses which provoked him to write his Misopogon against them For first it is plain That there were yet a considerable number of Heathens in Antiock from the Anniversary Rites of Adonis which hapned to be kept on the same day (†) Evenerat autem iisdem diebus annuo cursu completo Adonia veteri ritu celebrari Et visum est triste quod amplam urbem introcunti Imperatori nunc primum ululabiles undique planctus lugubres sonitus audiebantur Marcell l. 22. Vid. Liban Legat. ad Julianum p. 162. Edit Lut. 162. when Julian made his Entrance into the City and it seemed to many a sad Omen that the Emperor should then enter into it when so much howling and weeping and lamentation was heard Indeed it is difficult to guess what proportion the Heathens had to the Christians but if we may take measure from the City of (‖) Sozom. de caede Georgii Alexandrini l. 5. c. 9. Alexandria at that time they were enough to make head against them though 't is certain they were the lesser part Sozomen after he had said in general that the Antiochians reproached Julian and that he wrote his Misopogon against the Antiochians he immediately adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Christians that were there he treated as usually and studied to advance the Heathen Interest and Religion But Mr. J. without taking notice of the Heathens covertly lays the whole blame of Julians evil treatment upon the Christians of Antioch (†) Socrat. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. 18. Zosim l. 3. p. 713. Amm. Mare l. 22. Juliani Misopog when all the Writers lay it upon the Antiochians in general and assign the common Causes thereof These common Causes were first the great (‖) Socrat. Sozom. Marcel loc cit Misopog p. 90 108. Liban Legat. ad Jul. p. 155. scarcity and want of Provisions caused by one of Julians Edicts to lessen the market Prices which made the Victuallers and Heglars of all sorts keep up their Provisions which the Antiochians being a luxurious People were not able to endure Secondly his (†) Misopog p. 59 60 75 78 90. discountenancing of the Spectacula and Playes in which they so much delighted and affecting an austere Garb and strict sort of Life so disagreeable to their Effeminate Humour These were the Common Causes which set the Antiochians against him who at first (†) Urbi propinquans in speciem alicujus numinis votis excipitur publicas miratus voces multitudinis magnae salutare sidus illuxisse Eois partibus acclamantis Marcell l. 22. received him with the highest demonstration of Affection and Duty as if he had been some God But (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim l. 3 p â—13 being by nature Lovers of Theaters and plentiful and delicious Fare which he despised they soon began to hate him and from hating of him as soon proceeded to lampoon him being as (†) L. 3. c. 17. Socrates describes them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most invective People and given to Libelling This is the Matter of Fact in which both the Heathen and Christian Historians agree and from hence it is plain that the Heathens as well as Christians at Antioch were guilty of Burlesquing Julian as appears out of his Misopogon where for the most part he speaks of them in general but more particularly (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. ib. p. 164. p. 87. charges the whole City and all the Citizens without distinction for loving to make and hear Lampoons Indeed there are some particular Passages in it which relate to the Christians as that of chi and kappa which our Author seems to cite on purpose to make his Reader think they were all Christians but then there are others which as certainly relate to the Heathens as where he (‖) P. 97 98 99. chides them for not providing at least an Ox to sacrifice on the Solemn Festival of Apollo and for (†) P. 67. flocking unto him in the Temples and receiving of him in them with Theatrical Applause In another place he distinguisheth betwixt the Pagan and Christian part of the People I have saith he offended most I had almost said all of you the Senate the Wealthy and the People (‖) P. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For most of the People are grieved at me but especially all those who deny the Gods because they see me addicted to the Rites of our Ancestors And unless there were a considerable Number of Heathens among them it cannot be imagined that Libanius would have written an Apologitical Oration for them unto Julian wherein (†) P. 162. he tells him that when he was in Gaul they prayed in private meetings for him unto Jupiter that he might be Emperor From