now plainly seen Therefore no marvail why God fought against them They were Hypocrites and under the Cloke of the Gospel would have debarred the Queens Highness of her Right but God would not so Cloke them Religion and so shewed their Hatred to her and how they held her in the lowest degree of Contempt If a Man should set his Wit to give such an Account of the Behaviour of the Protestants towards Queens Mary picking up such Stories as these and concealing their Loyalty in setting her upon the Throne and their Meek and Passive Behaviour under her Persecution he might make just such another Fallacious Book as that of Mr. Js. who hath gleaned 3 or 4 Particular Stories out of the Histories of the Apostate upon which he hath put false Colours and suppressed and concealed as much as he could the Loyalty and Passive Obedience of his Subject and what he could not conceal he hath and I verily believe against his own Conscience resolved into a wrong Cause In the 7th Chapter about Julian's death I omitted one good Argument to prove he was not Treacherously killed by a Christian taken from this Expression in his last (i) Amm. Mar. l. 25. c. 3 Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 148. Speech Sempiternum veneror Numen quod non clan destinis insidiis nee longá morborum asperitate nee damnatorum fine sed in medio cursu florentium gloriarum hunc merui clarum e mundo digressum I bless the Eternal Deity saith he that I do not dye by secret treachery c. which very Expression seems to prove that he himself did not in the least suspect that he was struck by a Roman much less a Christian Hand as Mr. J. designs his Reader should believe I might also have observed that Mr. J. is the first Writer of the Church of England whose Genius hath led him to follow the Example of (k) His verbis Nobilis Historicus Sozomenus l. 6. c. 2. Militem si quis forte Julianum Imperatorem occidisset uti eo tempore quidam accusabant Jure cum laude fecisse ait Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 142. Mariana whom Ruteford the Author of Lex Rex accounted an approved Author in citing of Sozomen for Justifying as he saith the Murder of Julian by one of his own Soldiers But as I have observed Soz. did neither justifie nor commend but only extenuat the Crime for which he hath been severely censured by other (l) Sozomenum mendacii arguit Gregorius Magnus stupiditatis incredibils Baronius Ibid. Authors but Mr. J. let him pass without Rebuke though I confess he hath called the Fact a Traiterous Assassination but with what appearance of Integrity let the Impartial Reader judge In the beginning of his Preface he makes a mighty Flourish and in very fallacious Rhetoric against the Loyal Addressers for being contrary to themselves promising to maintain his Majesty and the Religion established with their Lives and Fortunes and a Popish Successor too But though common Readers cannot yet others can look through this Malicious Fallacy for it was not the Popish Successor as popish but the Succession which they promised to maintain and not the Person who shall succeed in his endeavours to overthrow the Protestant Religion there they will desert him as the Suffolk-Protestants did Queen Mary but in all other things they will serve a Popish Successor with their Lives and Fortunes as the Christians did a Pagan and particulary Julian so that he may keep the Horns of Mahomets Angels which were half Fire and half Snow as an Emblem for such Protestants who can sight against the Person of their Prince in Defence of his Authority and who are wont to qualisie their professed Zeal for him with such Cooling Considerations as do perfectly extinguish it as Snow doth Fire Then he goes on to tell us that A Popish Successor will be an Heavy Judgment But then saith he reflecting upon the Addressers Did ever Men pray for a Judgment and make it their Humble Request that they might be sure of it But did any of the Loyal Addressers Pray or Desire that the next Successor might be a Papist or is Mr. J. or any of the Excluders sure that he that is next will succeed to the Crown Nay do not the Truly Loyal Party pray and endeavour to make him a Good Protestant and were they not in Parliament for making of Good Laws for our Security against him And hath not the Author of Julian very much Forehead to say of so considerable a part of the Nation That if they be Protestants yet he thinks them men weary of their Religion who are Undone for a Prince a Great Part of whose Religion is to Persecute and Extirpate theirs But doth he not know That they Love the King and pray for his Preservation and wish that he may live for ever Does he not know that they wish him a Numerous Posterity and that there were a Succession of many Young Princes between him and the Collateral Heir And have they not at least as good Reasons to declare for the Succession as the Excluders have to declare against it who by an Act of Exclusion would likely bring as great a Plague and as Heavy a Judgment upon the Nation as a Popish Prince will do But yet so bent is this Man to Exclusion that he tacitly commends King Edward for Impeaching the Succession of his Sister Mary by the most Vnauthoritative and Vnjust Act that a good Prince could be guilty of Every body knows saith he that King Edward the Sixth to prevent his Popish Sister from Succeeding bequeathed his Kingdom by Will to the Lady Jane and every body knows who put the young Prince upon it and I wish too many of those who were for perswading shall I say or forcing his Majesty to Exclude his only Brother be not such Self-designing Protestants as they And I need not adds he say what Bishops were concerned nor how far they were concerned in that Business This you must know is a Reflection on the Bishops for voting against the Bill of Exclusion but how little this Story makes against them you shall hear from Archbishop Crammer who indeed was more concerned in that Business than our Author is willing the World should know I am saith he in his Letter to the Queen constrained most lamentably and with most penitent and sorrowful Heart to ask Mercy and Pardon for my Hainous Folly and Offence in consenting and following the Testament and last Will of our Sovereign Lord King Edward your Graces Brother which Will God he knoweth I never liked nor never any thing grieved me so much as that your Graces Brother did and if by any means it had been in me to have letted the making of that Will I would have done it and what I said therein as well to his Counsel as himself divers of your Majesties Counsel can report but none so well as the Marquis of Northampton the L.
of Julian Caesar He would not have made Julian Caesar The Nature of Julian's Elective Succession and the Manner in which Nazianzen hath expressed himself about it obliged our Author so to speak For Naz. in the (‖) Invect 1. p. 50. Place which he cites useth the most emphatical word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express how Constantius made or created Julian Caesar for as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make or ordain a Clergy-man so in Ecclesiastical Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make create or constitute a King as the Greeks called a Caesar and so it is used by the Septuagint for the making of Saul Ishbosheth Kings because they were Kings purely by (‖) 2 Sam. 8. 22.2 Sam. 2.9 Vid. 1 Sam. 12.1 Is 7.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schol. Election And because Julian was made Caesar as they were made Kings purely by Election therefore Naz. ascribes it wholly to the (†) p. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invect p. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 65. Goodness Bounty of his Elector and last of all makes it as free an Act in him to bestow the Caesarship upon Julian as it was in (‖) p. 66. Alexander the Great to give King Porus his Life and Kingdom after he had conquered him If then Constantius made or created Julian Caesar as our Author is forced to confess where was his Birthright Therefore to prevent this cross Question in the Mind of his Reader he tells him in the (†) P. 27. Margent That a Romaen Caesar was somewhat like the Prince of Wales or the King of the Romans That he was more than somewhat like the King of the Romans we will grant him but this somewhat like will appear to be a very piteous somewhat if Caesar be compared with the Prince of Wales For First The Caesarship only made a man a (†) Spartianus in Celonio Commodo Maximianus atque Constantius Caesares dicti sunt qaasi quidam Principum filii viri designati Augustae Majestatis haeredes Candidate and Expectant of the Empire or some part of it 2. It was conferred upon many as well as upon one for Antoninus Pius left two and Constantine four Caesars and in this case they might be all equal Expectants of the Empire either in common Caâ—sabon in locum Ut essent Caesares velut Candidati quidam Imperii designati ejus Haeredes or in several Jurisdictions 3. After the Emperor had freely conferred this Honour upon any man he might as freely without any regard to Birth or Birthright devest him of again as Constantius did Gallus and as (‖) Misit ad milites literas quibus jussit ut abregaretur nomen Caesaris Alexandro Lamprid Vid. Herod l. 5. Heliogabalus designed to do to his Brother Alexander Probus to his Son (†) Pater si vixisset abregare saepius cogitavit filio Caesaris nomen conferre Constantio Pomp. Laet. in Carino Carinus (*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim l. 3. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 711. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zonar t. 3. p. 18. and Constantius himself to Julian a little before he usurped the Empire 4. The Emperor had free Power to confer this Dignity upon whom he would and to give it to Strangers as Nerva did to Trajan and Maximian Hercideus to Constantius (†) Valentiniano Principi percunctanti quemnam ad Imperii consortium assumeret Dagalaiphus respondet fidentiùs Si tuos amas Imperator optime habes fratrem â—si rempub quaere quem vestigas Amm. Marcell l. 26. postponing their own Blood 5. It gave no proper Right or Title but only a bare Recommendation to the Augustusship and it was in the Power of the Army and Senate whether or no they would choose the person recommended by that Character if there was but one or how many of the Number when there were more These things being evident from Matter of Fact I desire the Author or rather his Superviser the Lawyer to tell me in which of these Particulars Caesar and the Prince of Wales are alike Can the King of England make any man or any but one man Prince of Wales can he confer that Dignity upon many at once can he devest the Prince of it after he has once invested him in it Is it any thing more than a mere state of Honour and greater Liberty or Emancipation Doth it give the Prince any new Right or Expectation to the Crown or is he to be chosen unto it by any Army or Senate after his Fathers death I protest when I consider these things it almost tempts me to believe That these Men like many others are for an Elective and Republican sort of Monarchy and that they heartily wish that Caesar and the Prince of Wales were not only somewhat but altogether alike I hope I have made it as clear to any Impartial Reader that the Roman was an Elective as that the English is an Hereditary Monarchy fixed in one Family and Lineally descending in proximity of Blood and yet as if the Right and Title of Julian were of the same nature with that of his R. H. to the Brittish Throne Saith he (‖) P. 22. The Fathers and yet he mentions but one had the Conscienoe to set aside such a Title as this and 100 more such to secure their Religion If they had not they had been very much to blame and I dare boldly affirm That all the Fathers of our Church would set aside Ten Thousand such Titles to secure theirs I mean 10000 such Titles as Julian or Constantine either had by Birth for upon supposition that God interposed and declared them Emperors that Declaration must pass as it did in Saul's Case for an Elelection and proves that they were not Heirs of Hereditary Monarchies for then it had been needless for God to interpose For what need God for example have declared Constantine Emperor if he must necessarily have succeded his Father as Sons of Hereditary Monarchs do it had been sufficient for him to let him survive him if he would have had him succeed As for that Passage in Eusebius l. 8. c. 13. where after he tells us That Constantine was declared Supream Emperor and Augustus by the Army then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and long before this by God himself the Supream Emperor of all This Expression if it be not purely (†) Such as that in Pliny's Panegyric to Trajan Principem tamen nestrum liqueret divinitùs constitutum A Jove ipso coram ac palam repertus Quem tandem exorata terris numina dedissent c. And that of Eumen to Constantine Nobis praecipue te principem dii creaverunt Grat. Act. Const Aug. Panegyrical then to expound Eusebius by himself it relates to the special Providence which presided over Constantine and was visible in
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
next immediate and Lawful Heir either Male or Female upon which the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolved And that no Difference in Religion nor no Law or Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the Right of Succession and Lineal Descent of the Crown to the Nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the Degrees aforesaid nor can stop or hinder them in the Full Free and Actual Administration of the Government according to the Laws of this Kingdom Like as our Soveraign Lord To this Declaration of the Three Estates in Scotland I shall and the Judgment of the Vice-Chancelor Heads of Houses Doctors and other Learned and Loyal Members of the Vniversity of Cambridge in their (e) Gazett n. 1653. Address to His Majesty at New-Market Sept. 18. 1681. wherein they declare That they will still believe and maintain that our Kings derive not their Titles from the People but from God that to Him only they are Accountable that it belongs not to Subjects either to Create or Censure but to Honour and Obey their Soveraign who comes to be so by a Fundamental Hereditary Right of Succession which no Religion no Law no Fault or Forfeiture can Alter or Diminish These Learned Men indeed have not so plainly given their Reasons for their Opinion but by the Hints which they have given of them we may perceive that they are the same which I have insisted upon and I believe they will still own them and never be ashamed thereof But Mr. J. it seems hath learnt another Lesson since he left the Vniversity A Good Wit upon the Fret and the great Advantage of having such a Conducter as Mr. H. have made him do Wonders against the Succession and bless the World with a New Discovery That (f) Preface p. 12. the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion to the great Reproach of all the Bishops who it may be had not preferred some Great Men in their own Opinion according to their fancied Deserts But alas All these Fathers Sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus Theologus had but one Beard and what they said was not determining as Casuists but as Orators declaiming against Constantius for choosing or making of Julian Caesar which is nothing to a Bill of Exclusion or the Merits of Lineal Hereditary Succession of which the Father or the Fathers had no more Notion than of Guns and Printing or of a Senate consisting of 2 Houses and 3 Estates But Mr. J. hath shewn how much of the Serpent he hath in him in Writing with so much Guile and Venom especially against the Succession and Passive Obedience and in Winding and Turning the Words of Good Authors from their Genuine Sense to his own Purposes as that Famous Passage of Gregory 2 Invect p. 123. where the Father saith That they were destitute of all Humane Aid and had no other Armour nor Wall nor Defence left them but their Hope in God This Place as I have shewn p. 152. Bishop Montague understood of Free and Voluntary Passive Obedience and so did the learned (g) Scutum Regium l. 3. p. 143. Num ductoribus vobis opus est at habâ—tis Jovianum Valentinianum Valentem qui postea sunt Imperii gubernaculis potiti denique Artemium sub ipso Constantino artis militaris peritiâ celebrem vobis interea idem animus eadem mens quae Gregorio Nazianzeno De his Juliani temporibus loquens Nobis quibus nulla alia arma nec muri nec presidia c. Dr. Hakewell as every Man needs must who understands the History of those Times But Mr. J. with what Ingenuity let others judge hath (h) P. 94. cited the Words to signifie forced Passive Obedience such as that of the Papists hath been of late in England who undoubtedly are Passive for no other Reason but because they want sufficient Numbers and Strength But as all Sophistical Writers are apt to do so Mr. J. hath contradicted himself as to this and other Particulars An in the 26th page of his Preface where he shews out of Sozom. That Julians Army were Christians and in the 8th page of his Book out of Nazianzen That there were more than 7000 of them i. e. an indefinite great Number who did not bow the knee to Baal but repulsed Julian as a brave strong Wall does a sorry Engine that is plaid against it Now if Julians Army were Christians and above 7000 of them repulsed Julian with their Passive Valour as a strong Wall does a sorry Engine was it not a great Contradiction and great Disingenuity in Mr. J. to represent them as Few and Defenceless and their Passive Obedience as performed by them upon mere Necessity and Force It is usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers to set forth the Constancy of the Martyrs and Confessors by the Metaphor of a Pillar or Wall Thus the Christians of Lyons and Vienna in their (i) Euseb l. 5. c. 1. Epistle in which they give an Account of their Sufferings say That the Grace of God did fight in them against the Devil and fortifie the Weak and set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Firm Pillars among them who by their Patience and Constancy drew all the Assaults of the Devil upon themselves This I have observed for the sake of the Common Readers of Julian some of which to my knowledge understood that Phrase of Repelling Julian as a brave strong Wall in the Sense wherein Mr. J. perhaps designed they should take it for Active and not for Passive Resistance which puts me in mind of Hugh Peters who preached up Rebellion on those Words Heb. 12.4 Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood But to Instance in another of his Contradictions p. 21. he cites Eusebius for saying That Constantius Chlorus past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine Where by that Phrase past over he would have his Reader or else it is nothing to the purpose understand Entailed And yet p. 1. he cites the same Author again for saying that Constantine at his death gave to his Eldest Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be rendred his Grandfathers share and not that part which came by his Ancestors as our Author doth But now if Constantius Chlorus Entailed or Past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine M. how could he give it at his death to his Eldest Son Constantine the second I desire to know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. who is Fitter to Resolve the Question If a Man can succeed to the same Estate both as Heir by Testament and Entail The Admirers of Julian whereof some pretend to be great Masters of Reason might with half an Eye purged of Bad Humours have discerned these and all other Inconsistencies which I have observed in this following Answer but by some of them who took so much Pains to Recommend and Disperse the Book
he jearingly said That (‖) Ep. 43. ad Ecebolum he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they might go with greater ease into the Kingdom of Heaven Lastly he went about to reform Paganism according to the Excellent Rules and Institutions of Christian Discipline striving to bring it as near as he could in resemblance to those Methods and Constitutions of the Church by which he had observed Christianity had so prevailed in the World For this reason Gregory calls him the Christians (†) 1 Invect p. 102. Ape because he set up (‖) Ib. Vid. Jul. Fragm Orationis p. 528. Ep. 49. ad Arsac apud Soz. l. 5. c. 16. Vid. Jacob. Gotofredi Julianum Orat. 2. Schools and Liturgies and Hospitals and Monasteries the use of Commendatory Epistles and Excommunication and took special care for advancing the Honour and Reputation and reforming the Lives of the Pagan Clergy as the most effectual Means of drawing the People into the Temples Last of all in the Persian Expedition he wrote against the Christian Religion in Seven Books which Cyrill of Alexandria hath confuted in ten And these Generals without descending to (‖) 1 Invect p. 87 88 89. Particular Instances are enough to make it a violent Presumption That Julian had a Diabolical Malice against Christ and that he was one of those irrecoverable Apostates who had trodden under foot the Son of God and counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified and unholy Thing and who had done despite unto the Spirit of Grace He had hardened his Heart against Divine Miracles like (†) 2 Invect p. 110. Pharaoh and therefore it is no wonder if some of them called for the Plagues of Egypt upon him He reproached the Living God like Senaccherib and that made some of them (‖) 2 Invect p. 123. like Hezekiah Beseech God to bow down his Ear and hear and to open his Eyes and see how Julian reproached the Son of God and thereupon to say O Lord our God we beseech thee to save us out of his hand that all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know that thou art the Lord God and that Jesus whom Julian doth so reproach is thy Son and Christ (†) 1 Invect p. 93. Gregory saith That he designed worse things against the Christians than Dioclesian Maximian or Maximin ever did and that he was (‖) 2 Invect p. 100 111. Jeroboam Pharaoh Achab and Nebuchadnezzar all in one Jeroboam in Apostacy Pharaoh in hardness of Heart Achab in Cruelty and Nebuchadnezzar in Sacrilege and therefore it is not to be wondred That the Christians who had such good reason to despair of the Conversion of such a Complicate Tyrant pray'd for his Destruction because there was no other apparent way of delivering the Church And if it should please God for our Sins to Plague the Church with such a Spiteful Enemy of Christ and suffer a Popish Julian indeed to reign over us I here declare That I should believe him uncapable of Repentance and upon that Supposition should be tempted to pray for his Destruction as the only means of delivering the Church I hope this Declaration is not (‖) P. 89. calculated or fitted on purpose for the Vse and Encouragement of a Popish Successor but on the other hand I must also declare that I would do nothing but pray against him I would draw forth no Squadrons against him but such as Old Gregory did against Julian Squadrons of Prayers and Tears I would dye rather than resist him or those that were put in Authority under him and if this make a Man (†) P. 81. a Parasite Sycophant and Murderer the Christian Subjects of Julian were such and I must be so unto my Lives End For when their (‖) 2 Invect p. 123 124. Montague in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non quod non possent sed quod nollent abunde enim vires suppetebant ad comprimendum tyrannum ut docet etiam Augustinus noster indicat cum adeo diffusas propâ—gatas res Christianorum dicat cùm tam altas egisse radices ut non nisi subverso simul Imperio de medio tolli posse viderentur sed patientiam dedicerant illi Scholâ Christi cum verbo tum exemplo commendatam non Caelum Terras commiscere c. Hope in God was their only Armour Wall and Defence as being altogether deprived and cut short of Humane Assistance then they betook themselves to God who hears Prayer and is able to repel the Threats of Tyrants This the Father spoke as shall hereafter be shew'd not that they could not but that as Disciples of Christ they were fettered and manacled with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience and would not resist But yet this Protestant Bellarmine had the Conscience (†) P. 51 94. twice to wrest this Passage to the contrary sense as if the Christian Subjects of Julian betook themselves unto their Prayers because they could do nothing else CHAP. VII Of Julians Death IN this Jesuitical Masque he goes on to the next Chapter where in pursuance of his Design he hath used his utmost Art to insinuate that the Christians conspired the Death of Julian and that accordingly he was struck with a Javelin thrown by a Christian Souldiers Hand What else can be his Meaning and Design in relating the Story of the Schoolmaster of Antioch who told Libanius when Julian was ready for his March to Persia where he was Slain that the Carpenters Son was making a Coffin And of his Deaths being revealed on the same Day and in the same Hour to Julian the Syrian Monk although he was more than 20 days Journey off the Place Why did he not give us the Story of (†) Sozom. l. 6. c. 2. Julians intimate and familiar Acquaintance to whom his Death was revealed a day or two before it hapned in a very remarkable Vision Why did he not also tell us how (‖) Ibid. it was proclaimed the very same Hour in which he died by Caelestial Horsemen to Dydimus at Alexandria and to a certain Judge at (†) Zonar L. 3. p. 24. Antioch an Heathen who as he was watching by Night about the Praetorium saw a Range of Stars in the Heavens formed into these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Day is Julian slain in Persia No this would not serve his Design so well for to have discovered the Commonness of these Revelations to Pagans as well as Christians would have left no room to insinuate a Christian Conspiracy and besides it would have too much confirmed the Report of his falling by the stroke of a (‖) Theodor. l. 3. c. 25. good or (*) Callistus apud Socrat l. 3. c. 21. bad Angel which yet is no more strange than that the Angel of the Lord should smite Herod because he did not give Glory to God Indeed there are various Reports among the Historians how he came
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.