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
Pagan Princes as in Tiberius the Emperor who was so tormented with the sense of his own Sins that he could not but discover his own Confusion unto the Senate in a Remarkable Letter which began thus (‖) Quid scribam vobis P. C. aut quomodo scribam aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore dii me déaeque pejus perdant quam perire quotidie sentio si scio Adeo facinora atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant neque frustra praestantissimus sapientiae affirmari solitus est si recludantur tyrannorum mentes posse aspici laniatus et ictus quando ut corpora verberibus ita savitiâ libidine malis consultis animus dilaceretur Quippe Teberium non fortuna non solitudines protegebant quin tormenta pector is suasque ipse paenas fateretur Tacit. An. l. 6. c. 6. My Lords and Gentlemen If I know what or how to write or not to write to you at this time let all the Gods and Goddesses confound me with a worse Death than by which I feel my self perishing every day In such a manner saith the Historian did the Gods turn his Wickednesses into his own Punishment so that what Socrates said is very true That if the Breasts of Tyrants could be laid open we should see what slashes and gashes they suffer from their own Consciences and that the Body cannot suffer more from the Whip than their minds do from the sense of their Tyranny and Lusts And if Conscience be a Restraining Principle in Heathen Princes if they cannot without such Soul-Torments pervert Justice and violate their Oaths and the Laws it must needs much more be a powerful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People over whom he set them nay that he most commonly sends remarkable Judgements upon them or their Families for subverting the Laws and persecuting the True Religion Shall the Fear of Gods Anger and Judgements more than any other thing keep so many thousand Subjects from injuring their Soveraign and shall not the Fear of the same God and his Judgments keep the Soveraign from injuring of them Or shall the People take warning by the Judgments of God which in all Ages have remarkably fallen upon Rebels and shall not the Soveraign make as much use of the Remarkable Judgments which have fallen upon Tyrants This Principle gives equal Security both ways and therefore it may well pass for one Answer to the former Question That our Security consists in the Conscience of the Prince But in the third place As we have the Princes Conscience so we have his Honour for our Security For Princes like other Men are tender of their Honour and Good Name and are powerfully restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Subjects They are as loath as other Men to be exposed to the censure of Mankind or be recorded for Tyrants in the Annals of Time Though they may be desirous for their Honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests yet the same Principle of Honour will ordinarily make them ashamed to have them computed from their Massacres and Persecutions which will but get them the Surname of the Bloody or the Tyrant unto the End of the World Honour as Moralists observe is a Secondary or Civil Conscience and if so many Subjects will abstain from Rebellion merely to avoid the Odious Character of a Traitor why should we not presume That a Prince will abstain from Illegal Violence especially against a great Number of his People to avoid the Odious Name of Tyrant How Black do Pharaoh Achab and Jeroboam look in the Scriptures and Nero Domitian Decius Valerian Maximian Galerius Maximin and Julian in the Ecclesiastical Historians And a Prince that knows any thing of History must naturally abhor to be reckoned among such as these whose very Names are detested by all Mankind This is all the Security that most other People have or ever had for their Rights and Properties against their Princes but we the Inhabitants of this Fortunate Island have God be praised for it a further Security from our Laws to which every Man be he never so great is obnoxious besides the Prince himself For whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the prejudice of any other person must be subject to make Reparation by Law against which the King himself can protect no Man as long as the Courts of Justice are kept open so that there can be no Tyranny in England but the utmost Tyranny nor any Persecution but a most Exorbitant and Illegal Persecution which must presuppose that Justice is obstructed the Laws and Lawyers silenced the Courts of Judicature shut up and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword But to suppose this is plainly to suppose the utmost possibility which is next to an impossibility a possibility indeed in Theory but scarce to be reduced into Practice for in such a Violent Undertaking all Good Men would withdraw from the Service and Assistance of the King and the Bad durst not serve him because if he died or repented of his Undertaking they must be answerable for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service Indeed were our Kings Immortal or would they not like other Men grow weary and repent of their Unjust Practises then Men who had no Religion but their Interest would willingly by Instruments of their Tyranny but seeing they may repent and must die like other Men no Man that would be safe will venture to serve them against the Law no Rational Man will venture into such a Sea of Troubles where there is no Haven This Consideration would help very much to quiet the Minds of Men would their Fears but let their Reason have its perfect work It would help them in a great measure to see that a Popish Successor notwithstanding all the dismal Characters of him would not be able especially on the sudden to outrage his Protestant Subjects for as long as the Laws were open he could not hurt them and to shut them up and obstruct or pervert Justice would for the former Reasons prove an exceeding difficult and almost impracticable Undertaking because all his Good Subjects and all the Bad too that tendred their own safety would desert him nay Foreiners upon this Account would make a difficulty to serve him because he could not protect them against his own Laws Wherefore a Popish Prince though he were never so Blood-thirsty and had never so little regard to Humanity and his Coronation-Oath would be infinitely puzled to persecute his Protestant Subjects He must be supposed to obstruct Justice and govern Arbitrarily by the Sword which as I have shew'd would be almost an Impossibility because it would be so exceeding difficult for him to get sufficient Numbers of Men to assist him in such a
Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign and therefore (†) Quod dicitur subjectionem dominis deberi etiam duris idem ad reges quoque referendum nam quod sequitur ei fundamento superstructum non minus subditorum quà m servorum officium est De Jure l. 1. c. 4 6. Grotius after St. August applyes that place in 1 Pet. 2.19 which concerns the Passive Behaviour of Servants unto their Masters under the Roman Government unto all Subjects Servants be Subject to your Masters with all Fear not only to the Good and Gentle but also to the Froward (‖) Quod autem dixi de domino hoc intelligite de potestatibus regibus ominibus culminibus hujus seculi aliquando enim potestates bonae sunt timent Deum aliquando non timent Deum Julianus extitit infidelis Imperator nonne extitit Apostata Iniquus Idololatra milites Christiani servierunt Imperatori infideli c. In Ps 1â—4 Vid. Sam. Bochart Ep. ad D. Morley p. 77 78 79. for this is thank-worthy or acceptable to God If a Man for Couscience-sake towards God endure grief suffering wrongfully For what Glory is it if when you are buffeted for your Faults ye shall take it patiently But if when you do well and suffer for it this is acceptable with God For even hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his Steps For Real and Compleat Soveraigns whether Arbitrary or Limited canâ—â—y under nothing but Moral Restraint and Obligations not to Injure their Subjects for if they were under the (†) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech to the Regicides p. 13 14. Coaction of another Power or under Legal Perils or Penalties they could not be Real and Compleat Soveraigns And therefore our Old Lawyer Bracton who so often declares the King to be next unto God doth also declare That when he acts Illegally not as Gods Minister but as the Minister of the Devil as our (‖) P. 84. Author well observes yet he is not to be contravened or resisted Locus erit supplicationi quod Rex factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis sufficit ei ad poenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multo fortiùs contra factum suum venire l. 2. c. 7. If the Reader please to consult that Chapter he will find by many Expressions that the King hath no other but a Moral Obligation to observe the Laws Sic beata Dei genitrix virgo Maria quae singulari privilegio supra Legem fuit pro ostendendo tamen humilitatis exemplo legalibus subdi non refugit institutis But then if he will be a Tyrant and act Illegally it is sufficient for his Punishment that he hath God for his Avenger for no Man must dispute against what he doth much less oppose or resist it The King is bound in Justice and Equity and for Example sake to observe his Laws but if he will lay aside all Conscience and the Fear of God his only Superior the Rights of Soveraignty secure the (‖) Nec praetereundum quod Samuel jussus Israelitis jus regium edisserere 1 Sam. 8 9. Hoc inquit est juris regii qui regnabit super vos Filios vestros tollet imponet curribus suis c. Ait haec esse juris regii non quod coram Deo justa sint nec enim David Uriae uxorem neâ— Achab Nabato vineam eripere potuerunt sine crimine sed quia hujusmodi scelera reges tam impunè perpetrant quà m si essent maximè licita ideò additur populum ita oppressum Deum imploraturum quia contra vim regis nulla sunt humana remedia Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 87. Tyrant as well as the Good King from Resistance Si autem Princeps vel Rex vel alius qui superiorem non habueâ—it nisi dominum contra ipsum non habebitur remedium per assisam immo tantùm locus â—rit supplicationi uâ— factum suum corrigat emendet quod si non fecerit sufficiet ei pro paena quod Dominum expectet ultorem If it be the King or any other Duke c. who hath no Superior but God that shall Illegally disseize there shall be 〈◊〉 Remedy against him by Assize only there shall be place for Petition that he would correct or amend what he hath done amiss which if he refuse to do it is sufficient for his Punishment that he may expect God for his Avenger This Moral Obligation which the King hath to observe the Laws is further increased by his Coronation-Oath as Bracton observes l. 3. de Action c. 9. But then as in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King but what they are bound to perform unsworn So the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People but what in Justice and Equity he is bound to perform unsworn Ad hoc saith Bracton electus creatâ—â— est ut justitiam faciet universis c. and Separare aâ—tem debet Rex cum sit Dei Vicarius jus ab injuria aequum ab iniquo c. But then if he will perverâ— the great End for which God made him King if he will not Act as it becomes Gods Vicar if he will obstruct or pervert the Laws and govern Tyrannically yet still there is left no Remedy to his Subjects By the Law but Moral Perswasion for the Laws Imperial of this Realm have declared him to be a (†) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech p. 12 13 14. Free Unconditional and Independent Soveraign and exempted him from all Coaction and Force Nay to shew that the Kings of England were in this respect as perfect Soveraigns as the Caesars he applyes unto them those Memorable Sayings of Valentinian the Younger and Alexander Severus (†) Majus Imperio est submittere legibus principatum Bract. l. 3. de Act. c. 9. l. 4. c de Leg. Const It really is a greater thing than the Empire for the Prince to submit to the Laws And (‖) Nihil tam proprium est Imperii quà m legibus vivere Bract. ib. l. 3. c. de Test There is nothing more proper for the Empire than that the Emperor should live according to Law To which â—f he pleased he might have added that set down so often in the (*) Instit quibus modis Testam infirm 8. Secundum hoc Divi Severus Antoninus saepissime rescripserunt licèt enim inquiunt legibus soluti sumus attamen legibus vivimus Rescripts of Severus and Antoninus Although we be loosed from the Laws yet we live by the Laws Indeed our Kings differ from the Caesars in this thâ—â— as the same (†) Lib. 1. c. 2. De Laud. Leg Ang. c. 9. Bracton and ‖ Fortescue long since observed That they are
limited in the Exercise of their Legislative Power not being able to make or repeal Laws without the consent of the Three Estates But still if they will turn Tyrants neither fearing God nor the Censures of Good Men they are by the Law of the English Empire as free from Punishment Compulsion or Resistance as the Caesars were But Secondly The foresaid Generall Reason of not resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vice-gerent doth imply that he hath all his Power from God This is very Ancient Divinity as appears from what Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar c. 2.37 Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory and from what he said to his Grandson Belshazzar c. 5.18 19. The Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down Accordingly it is written of Cyrus the Heathen Emperor Isa 45.1 Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose Right Hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him And 2 Chron. 36.23 Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia all the Kingdoms of the Earth hath the Lord God given me So Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings Reign and Princes decree Justice by me Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And God declared by Jeremy c. 27.5 6. I have made the Earth and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these Lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar my Servant Now if according to these Express Texts the Soveraign have all his Power from God he must by consequence have the Power of the Sword from him as St. Paul particularly observes He beareth not the Sword in vain for he is the Minister of God And if he have the Power of the Sword from him it must needs follow (‖) Praeterea cum in regno gladii jus nulli competat praeterquam ipsi regi aut iis quibus a rege id concessum est peto quo jure quis audeâ—t in summum animadvertere utrum jure concesso an usurpato Si concesso dixerit rursus petam a quo concesso Utrum a principe vel ab aliquo alio praeter principem Si a principe respondeat hoc ipso â—rit ridiculus quia non est credibile principem ulli indulgere jus gladio in seipsum utendi Quantamcunque in alium transferat princeps potestatem semper manet Superior Sam Bochart Ep p. 90 91. That the People have no Right to bear it neither for Offence nor Defence or Resistance without Commission from him He may indeed abuse this as well as any other Branch of his Power he may bear the Sword not for the Defence but for the Offence and Destruction of his Subjects but if he do they have no Authority to Resist him they cannot without sinful Usurpation oppose their Swords to his as it was written by the Apostle in the time of a (†) Jam nequis haec dici putet de bonis duntaxat regibus cogitandum est Petrum Paulum vel sub Claudio vel sub Nerone scripsisse quorum ille vecors fuit hic monstrum hominis quibus tamen Christianos jubent esse subditos non solum metu paenae sed â—b conscientiam propter Deum Nec multo meliorem fuisse Tiberium cui Christus reddi voluit ea quae â—rant Caesaris Ib. p â—2 Wicked Tyrant He that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to to themselves Damnation And how can a Man be guiltless that draws and uses his Sword without Authority from him to whom the jus gladii belongs much more if he useth it against him who only hath the Authority of the Sword This very Consideration made Grotius condemn all violent defence against unjust Force from Publick Authority Contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam De Imp. c. 3. n. 6. Our Blessed Saviour never intended to diminish or destroy the Rights of Soveraignty but on the contrary was very tender of them commanding his Disciples to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesars and this was said by him with respect to Tiberius who was a Man excessive in Cruelty Drunkenness and Lust It was said indeed upon the account of paying Tribute but holds as well to all the Rights of Soveraignty and particularly as to this of being the Master of the Sword and therefore when St. Peter drew his Sword in his Masters Defence against the Officers of the Cruel Sanhedrim he sharply rebuked him saying Put up thy Sword for he that useth the Sword shall perish by the Sword This very Text was ever understood by the Primitive Christians as an absolute Prohibition to use any Violence against the Soveraign and was applyed by Maunitius the Commander of the Thebaean Legion when he charged his Souldiers in Christs Name not to Resist under the Specious Pretext of Self-Defence And truly if the Christian Religion had given a Right to the Professors of it to defend themselves and it against the Illegal Violence of the Soveraign it had not been a taking up of the Cross but of the Sword not Evangelical as our Author speaks of Passive Obedience but Mahumetan and truly one who knew no more of the Gospel than what he might learn of it out of Julian would never imagine that Jesus had said If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me And whosoever shall lose his Life for my sake and the Gospels the same shall save it And every one that forsaketh Houses or Brethren or Sisters or Father or Mother or Wife or Children or Lands for my Names sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit Everlasting Life Or that his Beloved Disciple the Prophet of the New Testament had said of the Martyrs of the (†) Dr. Mores Apocalypsis Apocalypseos c. 13.10 c. 14.12 13. Protestant Religion Here is the Patience and Faith of the Saints Here is the Patience of the Saints Blessed are the Dead or the Martyrs that die in the Lord. But the Author of Julian it seems will shew no Faith nor Patience but in a Legal Persecution he will not die a Martyr but when the Laws are against him but if his Soveraign attack him against Law i. e. against the Laws which are made for the Defence of the Subject he will be even with him he will without Authority take up Defensive Arms against him contrary to the Laws which are made for the Defence and Honour of the Soveraign and so commit as Damnable a Sin one way as his Prince doth the other This is plainly as Max. Tyrius speaks of Private
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