Gospel is a prescription as necessary for a Christian Subject that would save his Life in time of Persecution as a Ship to a Man that would cross the Seas Afterwards he saith p. 89. That he is afraid that the Doctor calculated and fitted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for the use of a Popish Successor and to make us an easier Prey to the Bloody Papists This is a very Uncharitable Censure from a Brother and I am verily perswaded that if Mr. J. would speak the Truth betwixt God and his own Conscience he doth not believe that the Doctor fitted that Doctrine on the 30th of Jan. for the use of a Popish Successor but for the proper Design of the Day To shew as he speaks in his Sermon the great Difference betwixt the Principles and Practises of Christ and the Primitive Christians and the Principles and Practises of our New Reformers Had it been some New Notion never started before had it not been taught by all the Episcopal Divines of the English Reformation nay had it not been a plain Gospel-Notion taught and practised by Christ and his Apostles who to use our Authors Irreverent words in a Reverent manner turned the Church into a Shambles then he might have said that it was Calculated and Fitted by the Doctor but now I have made it appear how it was calculated and fitted to his Hands It was calculated and fitted by Bishop Latimer in the time of King Edw. 6. against the time of his Popish Successor Queen Mary and he suffered at a Stake to Exemplifie his Doctrine in the following Popish Persecution and so I am confident would the Doctor and the rest of his Thebaean Brethren however My. J. may please to slander them by the help of Gods Assistance do so too But let us see his pretented Reasons for this Uncharitable Censure Why else saith he is there all that Wrath against every little Pamphlet which opposes that Interest The Pamphlets cited by the Doctor in p. 29. of his Sermon are The Appeal from the City to the Country Plate Redivivus A Brief History of the Succession A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend shewing that the Bishops are not to be Judges c. Dialogue between Tutor and Pupil And these Pamphlets which the Dr. hath there shew'd to be Calculated and fitted against the True English Government and to be Impious and Treasonable Pieces he represents as written only in Opposition to the Popish Interest How saith he comes the History of the Succession to be an Impious and Treasonable Book Why I 'le tell him in the words of Dr. (‖) True and Exact History of the Succession p. 2. Br. It is an Impious Book for falsifying such Ancient Historians as William of Malmsbury Henry of Huntington Simeon Dunelm Ailredus Abbas Rivallensis and others whose Words if he had faithfully cited them would have been of no use to him for often in the Middle of the Sentences and of the Records which he hath cited he hath left out such Words and Matters as would have ruined the Design of his History He may see many Instances of this Charge in the Parallel at the End of the Doctors Book who concludes thus These are some of his many wilfull mistakes and indeed there is scarce one Instance in the Pamphlet that is ‑ not either fasly cited or falsly applyed I think it is plain Knavery and Impiety thus to falsifie and wrest good Authors and that it is proper English to call all those Impious Books which so pervert the Truth This Dr. Br. hath been a very Troublesom Man to Impious Falsifiers of Ancient Historians and Records and as one upon reading the Title Page of his Book against Mr. Petit said If this Charge be made good Mr. Petit may be ashamed to walk the Streets So say I if the words I have ciged out of his Answer to the Brief History of the Succession be true the Book is Impious and the Author a Knave But it is Mr. J's Interest that the Perverters and Wresters of Good Authors may not incur such severe Censures for however he hath (‖) Preface p. 29. declared that he hath been as Careful in his Citations as ever he was in telling Money and that he is ready to make them Good Yet I have made it appear That tho his Money is right as to the Tale yet it is deficient in the Intrinsick often wanting Purity and Weight But secondly It is a Treasonable Book because it asserts That the Descent of the Crown doth not purge all Defects whatsoever p. 17. And because p. 6 7. he manifestly Favours Popular Elections of Princes and the Deposition of them for the Breach of their Coronation Oaths although he could not but know That a King hath all the Rights of Soveraignty without Coronation (†) Calvins Case Cokes Reports part 7. and that it is not necessary though it be expedient for his own Honour and the Peoples Satisfaction that he should be Crown'd The Kings of England are Compleatly and Absolutely Kings before Coronation and many of them as Henry the 6th have lived many years uncrowned and others of them as Henry the 3d. and Richard the 1st were twice Crowned as we read of David that he was twice anointed by the People But there are Hereticks among Lawyers as well as Divines and they will wrest the Laws as the other do the Scriptures to their own Damnation And truly this Doctrine of Deposing Kings makes the King of England a Subject and the Three Estates his Soveraign And it is a Treasonable Doctrine in the same sense that the Act of Uniformity declares the Position of taking up Arms by the Kings Authority against his Person a Traiterous Position because it tends to Treason And if a man should write a Book to prove it it would be a Treasonable or Traiterous Book For the same Reason the Book of which he saith my Lord Hollis is the Author is an Impious and Treasonable Book Impious because it abounds with Falsifications of Records as the Authors of the Rights of the Bishops and the Grand Question have proved and Treasonable because it asserts this Traiterous Position that the King is one of the three Estates The belief of this very Position made Mr. Baxter as he himself declares a Rebel and I question not but it made thousands more besides him and never did man disgrace the Memory of a Peer more than Julian hath done that of my Lord in reporting him to be the Author of the Book For he being a man Learned in the Laws could not assert this Position but against his Conscience and with an Ill Intent which makes Mr. J. answerable to the Heir for the Scandal he hath fixed upon his dead Father who is not able to Justifie himself The Dialogue between the Tutor and Pupil is also a Wicked and Treasonable Piece because it misrepresents the English Government as if there were a Reciprocal Contract betwixt the
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
can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person is to give him what his Justice would abhor a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men which Consideration I suppose as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion made the great Man above cited say For my part I think there is more of Popery in this Bill than there can possibly be in the Nation without it for none but Papists and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion But some Men will say Why should not Protestants Disinherit Popish as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes To which the Answer is easie by another Question Why should not Protestants Depose Popish as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings I am not Conscious to my self that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing as I have done from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths (z) Preface p. 19. shameful Sophistry and the Conscientious Regard that Honest Protestants have unto them deceitful Prejudice which he saith is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual and Possible Heirs But he is very much and I fear very Wilfully mistaken For the Faith and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession or to speak yet more Otherwise thus Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown plainly our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs and is to be made good and performed unto them and every one of them when by the Providence of God they shall come to be actual according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession and thus for Example to use his own Instance The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs and Successors i. e. To the Kings Future Heirs and Successors upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by vertue of that Grant when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence who determines the days of Kings become an Actual Heir or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Vndoubted Succession according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown which is (b) Coke Littleton fol. 1.6 The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion of which none is the Author but God alone And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ and the Royal Shield carryes this Motto Dieu mon droit Nay Queen Elizabeth who through the Dubiousness of her Title courted the People so much yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands printed 1585. speaks as it became such a Soveraign Princess in this manner Although Kings and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings and in that Respect not bound to yield Account or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign and though among the most Ancient and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England and other Dominions which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God and thereby God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birthright and Proximity of Blood From this Principle many good Men who are as Wise and as Learned as any of the Excluders infer this Conclusion That it would be Vsurpation without a manifest Revelation from God to Alienate the Crown from this Family to which he only hath given it or to preclude any Person of it much more the next Heir whether Apparent or Presumptive from succeeding thereunto This Argument is not so slight as perhaps Mr. J. will make it for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family then it is very reasonable to conclude That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery would be Opposition to the Will of God This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family but most of all the next Heir upon the Line from the absolute Right or Birthright which God alone hath given him would be also to oppose the Will of God All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the (c) Third Part. p. 63 64 Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of England and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the (d) Ib. p. 97 98. House of Commons and it is above a Week since and I am confident they will still own them without being ashamed of them and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man than he is to follow as he speaks their New Light Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession are own'd by the Three Estates of Scotland and would I am confident be owned by them were they to meet again I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament Entituled An Act acknowledging and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland August 13. 1681. THe Estates of Parliament considering That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty recognise acknowledge and Declare That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right and the Nature of the Monarchy as well as by the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually Reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law Duty and Allegiance to obey the
Vid. Jul. Ep. ad S. P. Q. Athen. that he sent him into Gaul that he had such Success there against the Barbarians that the Army declared him Augustus that the Emperor died in his March against him and that after his death his Souldiers submitted unto him But yet our Fallacious Author represents the matter as if he had been Emperor by particular Designation from God like David or Constantine and then cries out Yet the Fathers had the conscience to set aside such a Title as this But Julian was not made Caesar by particular Order from God but by the free Choice of Constantius to whom he owned the Honour of the Caesarship It was he that set him upon the next step to the Empire when he might have set another upon it he by doing that which he was free not to have done was the occasion of his coming so easily to the Empire Julian had no antecedent Right to the Caesarship or the Government of Gaul but he owed both to the Generosity of Constantius And this is the true Ground of all the Rhetorical Interrogatories of Gregory and of Constantius his bewailing and repenting at his death for doing what he had done for him because he was free to have done otherwise indeed as free as Henry the 7th or his eldest Son Prince Arthur had he lived would have been to have made his Brother Henry who was designed for a Churchman Archbishop of Canterbury or York This our Author knew very well and this the very Expressions which he brings out of Nazianzen imply but yet lest the vulgar Reader should discern the Fallacy he keeps a great Jingling with Foreclosing ande Excluding Julian which words as all terms of Privation connote the Habit insensibly carry the understanding of the unwary Reader to think of some antecedent Birthright which Julian had to his Cosens Throne whereas strictly speaking he had no more right unto it than the Superviser of his Book to the Judges place in Ireland from which in his abusive sense of the words he was Excluded and Foreclosed And I would fain ask our Author who hath so artificially disguised the Nature of the Imperial Succession whether at the time of writing he was not conscious to himself of this Fallacy which he is guilty of in calling the Non-Election or Preterition of Julian by the name of Exclusion and if he were not whether he be not convinced of his Mistake now If he be not then I desire him to tell me whether Julian after the death of Constantius could by vertue of Birthright have challenged the Roman Empire as Henry of Lancaster did the English mutatis mutandis in these words (‖) Great point of succession p. 15. I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Realm of England with all the Members and the Appurtenances as I am descended by right line of the Blood coming from the Good Lord King Henry the Third and through that Right which God of his Grace hath sent me Or whether the Senate of Rome could have made such a Recognition of Julians Right as the Parliament made to King (†) Great Point of Succession p. 23. James at his first coming to the Crown We being thereunto bound both by the Laws of God and Man do with unspeakable Joy recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England c. did by inherent Birth-right lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to your Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm and thereunto we do humbly submit and oblige our selves our Heirs and Successors for ever If these things could not have been applyed to Julian upon the death of his Cousen Constantius then I hope Mr. J. will grant me that his Arguings from the Authority of Nazianzen are fraudulent and inconclusive and that for all he can make of that single fathers Poetical Exclamations to the Ghost of Constantius the English Succession may be unalterable there being so wide a difference between the Roman and English Monarchy That being Elective and This Hereditary That being Casual Arbitrary Uncertain and most Irregular in its descent and this being fixed to one House in a lineal Descent according to Proximity of Blood But still after all this we are pressed with the Authority of Eusebius who as our Author tells us saith That the Empire was entailed by the Edict of Nature which saith he I think is the most sure and Divine Settlement that can be But Eusebius neither hath said nor could say so nor any thing equivalent thereunto for there was no such thing as Entail nor any notion of it among the Romans neither as to the Empire nor the Estates of Private Men the Emperors as well as their Subjects had always liberty to (†) Inst l. 2. Tit. 13. disinherit their next Relations and make who they would their Heirs and if a man chanced to die (‖) Inst l. 3. Tit. 2. Intestate they had Rules whereby the Estate was divided among his Posterity or if he had none the (†) Ib. Tit. 3. Collateral Kindred were his Heirs at Law Let us therefore consider the Passages of Eusebius wherein our Author triumphs before the Victory and first it is true That in his first (†) De vit Const l. 1. c. 9. edit Val. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quotation Eusebius saith that the Throne of the Empire descended upon Constantine from his Father but then agreeably to the report of all other Authors he implies but two Lines above his 2d Quotation (‖) De vit Const l. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dispositis deinde ex arbitrio rebus suis as Val. renders it that it was by the Order and Disposal of his Father which is inconsistent with an Entail and I would fain know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. how Constantius his part of the Empire came to be entailed upon his eldest Son when h ehad many by the Edict and Law of Nature and Maximians part of it was not so entailed upon his only Son Maxentius who was casually chosen to the Crown What hindered the Law of Nature to take place in the behalf of Maxentius the Resignation or death of his Father how came he not to have the benefit of it if the Law and Edict of Nature in his Quotations of Eusebius signifie a (‖) According to that Definition Jus naturale est dictatum rectae rationis indicans actui alicui ex ejus convenientiâ aut disconvenientiâ cum ipsâ naturâ rationali inesse moralem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem ac consequenter ab auctore naturae Deo talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi Grot. de Jure l. 1.10 Prime Indispensable Law of Nature as he would have his Reader to believe What else doth he mean by the (†) P. 21. most sure and divine Settlement that can be and by
Edgar stiled himself in his Charter Basileus Imperator Dominus and his Son St. Edward in a Charter which he made to the Abbot of Ramsey which my Lord Cook saith he had stiled himself Ego Edwardus totius Albionis Dei moderante Gubernatione Basileus Thus much may serve to shew that the Realm of England is a Perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat Imperial Soveraign Where for the Readers satisfaction I must observe That the Regal Estate is then Imperial when the King is Supream in his Dominions next under God and hath full perfect and entire Jurisdiction from God alone and all others within his Dominions by emanation from him Now this Perfection and Fulness of Imperial Power which makes an Imperial Soveraign is of two sorts such as is limited by the Laws of God and Nature only or such as is limited by the Laws of God and Nature and Civil Laws and Pactions too The Power in both sorts of Soveraigns is Imperial i. e. full perfect absolute and entire but the Exercise of it is differently bounded and regulated one by the Laws of God and Nature and the other by Humane Positive Laws and the latter Limitation doth no more destroy the Fulness and Perfection and Supremacy of the Power than the former because the Soveraign who is under Political Limitations as to the Exercise of his Power hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely fully and entirely in himself as he that is only under the limitation of Divine and Natural Laws Thus the Learned (‖) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 9. Rex Angliae Principatu nedum regali sed politico suo populo dominatur Regnum sic institui ut lex non liberè valeat populum tyrannide gubernare quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politicâ cohibetur Chancellor Fortescue grants the King of England to have Regal or Imperial Power although it be under the Restraint and Regulation of the Power Political as to the Exercise thereof And as a Fountain which hath Channels or Pipes made for it within which its Waters are bounded in their passage and through which they are to flow is nevertheless as perfect a Fountain and hath its Waters as fully and entirely within it self as any other Fountain whose Waters flow from it at liberty without any such Regulation So a King whose Imperial Power is limited by Humane Constitutions in the Exercise of it is nevertheless as Compleat a Soveraign and hath the Soveraign Power as fully and entirely within himself as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority as he will To be Arbitrary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign than to be free in the course of its Waters is of the Essence of a Fountain but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct for Example is as perfect in its Kind and generally more beneficial and useful to Mankind than a Free-flowing Spring So limited Soveraigns are as perfect and essential Soveraigns as the purely Arbitrary or Despotic and generally more Beneficial and Salutary to the World All that I have hitherto said may be better understood by distinguishing between the Being and Essence of Imperial or Soveraign Power and the Exercise and Emanation thereof As to the Being and Essence of it it is in as full perfection in the Limited as in the Arbitrary Soveraign though the Law confines and limits him in the Exercise thereof but to be confined in the Exercise doth not destroy the Being nor diminish the perfection of Soveraign Power for then the Power of God himself could not be Soveraign because there are certain immutable Rules of Truth and Justice within which it is necessarily limited and confined But God is nevertheless a perfect Imperial Soveraign over the Universe though the Exercise of his Government over his Creatures be limited by the Eternal Laws of Truth and Equity It is true that this Limitation of Almighty God is Intrinsecal and proceeds from the perfection of his Righteous and Holy Nature but yet it shews that the most perfect and absolute Imperial Power may without a Contradiction be confined within bounds and limited in the actual Exercise thereof and that such moderation and limitation of Power Absolute and Imperial doth only qualifie and temper and not destroy the Essence thereof And therefore Cook in Caudreys Case saith That by the Ancient Laws of this Realm England is an Absolute Empire and Monarchy and that the King is furnished with Plenary and Entire Power Prerogative and Jurisdiction and is Supream Governour over all Persons within this Realm And if any man will but attend well to his own Thoughts he will find no Inconsistency between the Fulness of Soveraign or Imperial Power in the Root and Essence of it and a legal limitation of the Use and Exercise thereof And from hence it comes to pass That the King of England though he be limited in the Vse and Exercise of his Power yet he is as much the Fountain of all Power and Jurisdiction within his Dominions as if he were Arbitrary He hath none to share with him in the Soveraignty but all Power and Authority is derived from him like Light from the Sun in Him alone it is Radically and Originally placed He hath no Sharers or Co-partners in the Soveraignty none Co-ordinate with him in Government no Equal nor Superior but only God to whom alone he is Subject Hence saith (†) Lib. 1. c. 8. Bracton who wrote in the Reign of Henry the Third Omnis quidem sub rege ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub Deo non est inferior sibi subjectis non parem habet in regno suo And afterwards Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub Homine sed sub Deo And then to shew that he is a Soveraign doubly limited in the Use of his Power by the Laws of God and the Civil Laws of his Kingdom he adds Et sub Lege quia Lex facit Regâ—m In the same place he calls him Vicarius Dei and saith Vices gerit Jesu Christi and nothing greater could be said of Caesar or the most Despotic Soveraign that ever was So the Statute of Praemunire 26 R. 2 c. 5. declares That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately Subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown And in 25 H. 8. c. 21 the Parliament directing their Declaration to the King enacted and declared That this your Graces Realm recognizing no Superiour under God but only your Grace hath been and is free from Subjection c. And in 24. H. 8. c. 12. after the words before cited it follows unto whom a Body Politick been bounden and owen to bear next unto God a Natural and Humble Obedience He being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Preheminence Authority c. So 2 Ed. 6. c. 2. Seing that all
to submit to the Penalties of the Government under which he lives But then what follows is false This is the only case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience namely when the Politica Laws are against a Man because the Gospel requires our submission to the Imperial as well as the Political Laws but by the Imperial Laws in every perfect Government the Subjects are absolutely forbidden to bear the Sword against the Soveraign or to resist him upon any pretence whatsoever and therefore are bound to suffer death wrongfully rather than resist 4. That the killing of a Man contrary to Law is Murder And if the Soveraign kill a Man contrary to Law he is guilty of Murder but must answer for it to God only 5. That every Man is bound to prevent Murder as far as the Law allows But the Imperial or Prerogative Law allows no Man to prevent his own Murder by rising up against or resisting his Soveraign and therefore the last words are false And ought not to submit to be murdered if he can help it unless by help it he means help it by Prayers and Tears I hope I have already sufficiently enervated the Strength and Force of our Authors Arguments against Passive Obedience or Non-resistance and now after his Example I shall reduce the Strength and Force of what I have hitherto said into these following Propositions I. Every Man but more especially a Christian is bound to submit to the Laws of the Government under which he lives II. The Government consists in the Imperial as well as the Political Laws III. The Imperial Laws of every Government forbid resisting the Soveraign and by consequence require Non-resistance IV. Non-resistance is the same thing with Passive Obedience and by consequence Passive Obedience is required by the Imperial Laws of every Government V. Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of any Government require of its Subjects if it be not contrary to Gods Laws they are bound to perform it VI. Passive Obedience or patient Suffering of Injuries from the Soveraign is not forbid by Gods Laws and therefore Subjects are bound to perform it where it is required by the Imperial Laws And now I shall desire these Men who of late have thundred so much with Julian against the Thebean Legion to consider well what I have said in general about the Common Laws of Soveraignty when they have digested it well they will be convinced how fallaciously the Author of that Pamphlet hath dealt with them in suppressing this Notion and making them believe That there were no Laws belonging to Government but those which I call Political Laws But as I have shewed there are two Tables belonging to every perfect and regular Government one which concerns the Majesty of the Soveraign Gods Vicegerent which I may call the first Table and another which concerns the Good and Safety of the People which may be called the second Table and these two together are the Compleat and Adequate Rule of Civil Obedience and Subjection and Passive Obedience or the Patient bearing of the greatest Injuries when it is not a Duty by This is very often so by That When the Laws are against us then it is our Duty by the second Table and when the Soveraign is against us contrary to the Laws of the second Table then it is our Duty by the Laws of the first which absolutely forbid us to bear the Sword against him or to repel his Forces by Force Wherefore to answer our Authors (†) P. 87. Question I am confident Dr. Hicks was very serious and in earnest when he taught and preached up Passive Obedience for Evangelical in this case It may be seen by the Drs. Sermon and other of his Pieces that he doth not write rashly and I have reason to presume that he asserted Passive Obedience upon the same bottom that I now defend it He is far from having Men to prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence for he would rather have them to abscond or fly but if they can or will do neither in times of Illegal Persecution he thinks there remains nothing for them to do but patiently to submit to unavoidable Death He had no reason to distinguish betwixt suffering according to and contrary to Law because he knew that neither the Laws of God nor Man allow any Subject the Benefit of forcible defence against the illegal Violence of his Soveraign but that by the Laws Imperial he ought to dye rather than resist And if this (‖) P. 87. was too light for the Pulpit and just such another Piece of Drollery as that in the Dedication to Oliver Cromwel before Killing no Murder I protest I know not what it is to be serious in the Pulpit nor what Apostolical Divinity is The Gospel from one end to the other is full of this kind of Drollery and for my own I seriously protest I had rather be Passive were it possible under a Thousand deaths in an Illegal Persecution than be guilty of such Scurrility not to say Blasphemy against the Doctrine of the Cross Our Author in this and such like Reflections writes more like an Apostate from the Christian Religion than a Minister of it and if any thing in this Answer may contribute to make him sensible of his Sin and bring him to the Humiliation and Repentance of his Elder Brother Ecebolius I shall think my pains well spent But to bring this general Discourse about the Common Laws of Soveraignty to our own Case I shall now proceed to shew That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it is a Compleat Imperial and Independent Soveraign to whom the foresaid Rights of Soveraignty do inseparably belong The English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty and (‖) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech to the Regicides p. 12 13. Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign (†) Cooks Instit p. 4. c. 74. Thus by the whole Parliament 24 H. 8. c. 12. it was resolved and so declared That by sundry Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that his Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by one Supream Head and King having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same So 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of this Kingdom is affirmed to be an Imperial Crown in these words In great Derogation of your Imperial Crown and Authority Royal. So 27 H. 8. c. 24. Most Ancient Prerogatives and Authorities appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So 1 Eliz. c. 2. Restoring and Vniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Ancient Jurisdictions c. So 1 Jacob. cap. 1. A more Famous and Greater Vnion of two Mighty Famous and Ancient Kingdoms under one Imperial Crown And before the Conquest King (†) Rot. Parl. 1 E 4. parte 6. at large in Cokes Inst part 4 p. 359.
King and the People and as if the Parliament ought whether or no the King pleased to sit till all Grievances were redressed and Petitions answered contrary to the standing Maximm of the English Government Rex est Principium Caput finis Parliamenti He also censures the Doctor for saying That the Brief History of the Succession was but a New Dress of Dolemans Title to the Crown If saith he he had read the Ancient Historians of England instead of Dissenters Sayings he would likewise have found it possible to write an History of the Succession without borrowing from Doleman But the possibility of the Thing is another matter the Doctor asserted that it was Doleman all over Doleman in a New Dress and whether it is not true he refers himself to the True and Exact History of the Succession and to the Apostate Protestant where it is shewn not only how much that Author but Mr. H. too if they be not the same Man have Trucked and Traded with the Jesuit as much as the Collection of Speeches c. the Treatise of the Broken Succession or Bradshaw himself ever did I refer him also to the Apostat Protestant for an Answer to his childish Reflection upon the Dr. about the Dissenters Sayings there he may see how well versed the Doctor is in the Fanatical Originals how his Sermon was made before the first of those Books was printed and I will further assure him that if he please to come to the Doctors Study he shall find set in an odd Corner many of the Famous both Ancient and Modern Fanatical Treatises There he shall see Junius Brutus Lex Rex Prynn◠Soveraign Power of Parliaments Naphthali Jus Populi Vindicatum Miltons Apology Plato Redivious with very many others and Julian the Apostate among the rest CHAP. XI Wherein are further considered the Reasons for Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance and wherein it is shewn that Resistance would be a Greater Mischief than Passive Obedience I Have shewed in the Precedent Chapter how the Common Laws of Soveraignty and more particularly the Laws Imperial of this Realm and the Doctrine of the Church of England do condemn all Resistance and Force against the Soveraign and I think it will not be Superfluous to my Design in this Undertaking to weigh and consider a little further the Reasons which the Acts and Authors above cited assign for this Doctrine and the most General and that which comprehends all the rest is this That the Soveraign hath neither Superior nor Equal upon Earth but is next unto God whose Anointed and Vicegerent he is By the Sovergain must be always understood the Real and Compleat Soveraign because there are many seeming Soveraigns which are not really Such As for Example The Kings of Sparta exercised the Soveraign Power but they were not Real Soveraigns because they were accountable for their Mis-government to the Ephori who were chosen for that purpose by the People And therefore neither the Kings who were Subject to the Ephori nor the Ephori who were appointed by the People but the People themselves was the real Soveraign next under God The Kings had only the Exercise of the Soveraign Power but not the Soveraign Power it self that was Radically and Originally in the People and derivatively in the Kings who were no more than Ministers and Trustees of the People whom they could call to an Account by Judges of their own Appointment So in the Government of Venice though there be but one Duke yet because the Supream Power is not invested in him but in the Senate that State is not really Monarchical but Aristocratical and the Duke is not a Real but only a Titular or Umbratical Soveraign the very Creature of the Senate which is his Superior and the true Soveraign next under God So in the Cantons of Suitzerland though the Administration of the Government be in the Magistrates and so make it look like an Aristocracy yet in reality it is a Democracy because they derive their Power from the People and are to give an Account of the Exercise of it to them or those whom they appoint On the other hand in the English Government though the House of Commons bears the Shew of a Democracy and the Peers look like an Aristocracy among us yet our Government is a perfect Monarchy because the Supream Power is as I have proved neither in the one nor in the other nor in both together but solely in the Person of the King I was the more willing to make this Observation that when I speak of Soveraign Princes I may not be maliciously traduced as if I spoke of them exclusively of other Soveraigns as if Monarchy were of Sole Divine Right For want of this Distinction other Writers have had this invidious Imputation laid upon them But this Reason of not Resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent and only 〈◊〉 Subject to him is a Common Reason of Passive Obedience to all Soveraigns as well as unto Kings and unto Kings as well as unto any other Soveraigns The forecited Acts and Authors render no other Reason but this which indeed is vertually many other Reasons for if the Government of Men as well as of Angels be from God then it must follow First That upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Soveraign Authority he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis or Essential Rights of Soveraignty according to that Maxim Qui dat esse dat omnia pertinentia ad esse He that gives the Essense gives also the Properties belonging to the Essense Wherefore as an Architect who makes a Piece of Timber a Cube or a Sphere gives it all the Properties of a Cube or a Sphere So God when he makes any Man a Soveraign he gives him all the Essential Rights of Soveraignty one of which is to be free from Resistance or Forcible Repulse For if any man or number of men under him had lawful Power to take up Defensive Arms or use Defensive Force against the Soveraign and his Forces he could not for this Reason be Soveraign because he would be Subject unto a Controllable Power For according to this Supposition his Subjects would have a Power of Judging of his Actions whether they were Just or Injurious Lawful or Unlawful and when they might make a War Defensive and when not which is in effect to destroy Soveraignty and make the Soveraign Inferior to the People And therefore to cut off all pretenses of Resistance in the English Government the Three Estates as I have proved before have declared against all Defensive as well as Offensive War it being impossible for the Soveraignty to consist with the Liberty of that Pretense Just as among the Romans it was inconsistent with the Soveraign Unaccountable Power which the Masters by Law had over the Slaves for them to have a Liberty of Rising up against them under the pretence of Self-defence In all Soveraign Governments