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-Statute-Laws of every Empire which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Soveraign are so too and I desire to know whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws But to return to the Homily it further teacheth us That the High Powers are set in Authority by God that they are Gods Lieutenants Gods Presidents Gods Judges ordained of God himself And if these Presidents
Gentleman as was reported put this Dilemma in the House of Commons which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory or Valid or they were not If not then Acts of Parliament which impeach the Succession are without any more ado Null and Void in Law but if they were by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded and King James admitted to the Crown contrary to many Statutes against him notwithstanding all which the (t) Jacob. I. High Court of Parliament declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend unto his Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Royal Blood Here His Succession is owned for Lawful and Vndoubted against the foresaid Acts Lawful not by any Statute but contrary to Statutes by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions as tending to the Disinberison and Prejudice of the Crown For as the Most Learned and Loyal (u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons a Bill of Exclusion if it should pass would change the Essence of the Monarchy and make the Crown Elective or as another (x) Author of the Power of Parliaments p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective For by the same Reason that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences and so consequently by such Exclusions Elect whom they please The next Reason which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful is the Oath of Supremacy which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion or other and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House By this Oath every one who takes it swears to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And I appeal to every Honest and Loyal English-man whether it be not one of the most undoubted transcendent and Essential Rights Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs and united to the Imperial Crown of England that they succeed unto the Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood Secondly I desire to know Whether by Lawful Successors is not to be understood such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the common-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-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
of the Subject By the Rights of the Soveraign I understand those Prerogatives and Pre-Eminences of Power and Greatness which are involved in the formal Conception of Soveraignty and are inseparably annexed to the Soveraign whether it be the People as in Democracies or a few of the Chief as in Aristocracies or one single Person as in Monarchies For there are certain Essential Rights of Soveraignty or Supremacy which equally belong to Soveraigns of all Sorts as to have Sense belongs to all Sorts of Animals and which without destroying the very Notion of a Soveraign you cannot abstract from him no more than roundness from a Circle or Sphaere For they (†) Ad nullum pertinent nisi ad coronam dignitatem regiam nec à coronâ separari poterunt cum faciant ipsam coronam Bract. l. 2. c. 24. constitute the Essential difference between Supremacy and Subjection so that whosoever hath them is a Compleat Sovereign and whosoever wants them or any of them is a Subject or at least an Incompleat Soveraign and in all Perfect and Regular Governments these Essential Rights of Soveraignty equally belong to the Supream Power whether Princes or States by the Common and Statute Laws thereof Such as these in the First place is to be (†) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God For if there be any Power to which Princes or States are accountable within their Dominions let their Names sound never so big they are not Soveraign but Subject Soveraignty as the very Notion implyes being such a Preheminent Jurisdiction as makes all other persons within the Lines of it accountable unto it but it or the person or persons invested with it accountable to none Secondly To have the (‖) Ibid. p. 90. Sole Power Disposal of the Sword for to suppose that another hath a Right to bear the Sword besides the Soveraign is to suppose that the Soveraign hath an Equal which is a Contradiction to the Notion of Soveraignty and that in the same Government there may be two Soveraign Powers Thirdly To be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power for if in any Government there were a Power which had Authority to compel or punish the Soveraign for this Reason he would not be Soveraign but a Subject to that Power Fourthly Not to (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 41 87. Ib. 140 141. Dr. Faulkners Christ Loyalty v. 2. ch 2. be resisted or withstood by Force upon any pretence whatsoever for otherwise the Soveraign would be controulable by Force which is inconsistent with the Majesty and Dignity of the Soveraign Power and supposes that Subjects have a Right to Judge when they may resist or withstand their Soveraign which is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Societies than patiently submitting to the Abuse of the Soveraign Power Lastly To have the Legislative Power or the Power that makes any form of Words a Law The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the Exercise of this Power which may be confined to Bills and Writings prepared by others but still it is the Soveraign Authority who gives Life and Soul to the dead Letter of them and all Princes or States which want this Authority let their Names and Titles be never so great are not compleat Soveraigns but Subjects because upon this supposition they have not Power to make Laws to bind others but others have Power to make Laws to bind them Now the Laws by which these and other Essentials of Soveraignty are established may be called the Imperial Laws or the Common Laws of Soveraignty and Christianity which our (†) P. 92. Author well observes destroys no mans Natural or Civil Rights doth not destroy these Essential Rights of Soveraignty but confirms them unto the Legal Soveraign in every Government commanding his Subjects to observe them and particularly the Imperial Law of of not resisting not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Wherefore in answer to his (‖) P. 81. Question By what Law we must dye in Illegal Persecution I answer By the Imperial Laws in every Government and by the Laws of the Gospel which as I shall hereafter shew establish those Laws In all perfect Governments and particularly in the English all these Rights legally belong to the Soveraign who is the King especially to be accountable to none but God to have the sole Power and Disposal of the Sword and to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and from Resistance by Force It is by these Common Laws of Soveraignty that the Gospell requires Passive Obedience which is but another name for Non-resistance these Laws are in Eternal Force against the Subjects in defence of the Soveraign (†) Sa. Boch ep p. 61. be he good or evil just or unjust Christian or Pagan be what he will no Subject or (‖) Ib. p. 54 55. number of Subjects can lift up his Hand against his Soveraign be Guiltless by these Laws (†) P. 84. Where there is no Law indeed there is no Transgression But for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Soveraign or to defend themselves by Force against him or his Forces is against the Common Laws of Soveraignty and by consequence (‖) Ib. p. 86 87. Passive Obedience even unto death becomes a duty in Soveraign Governments by vertue of those Laws By the help of this Distinction between the Imperial Laws which ascertain the Rights of the Soveraign and the political which are made to secure the Rights of the Subject the heedful Reader may easily solve all that Mr. J. hath written by the help of Mr. H. his Superviser against Dr. Hickes For he hath as himself (‖) P. 92. confesseth reduced all the Strength and Force of what he hath written against him in opposition to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience into 5 Propositions every one of which I shall here I hope effectually evacuate by adding a few Words which may enable a common Capacity to see how he hath perplexed the Truth The Propositions 1. Christianity destroys no Mans Natural or Civil Rights but confirms them and by consequence it destroys not the forementioned Rights of the Soveraign but confirms them 2. All Men have both a Natural and Civil Right and property in their Lives till they have forfeited them by the Laws of their Country i. e. by the Political Laws which are made to defend the Rights of the Subject but in case the Soveraign will tyrannically take away a Subjects Life against the Political Laws the Subject is bound by the Laws Imperial or Common Laws of Soveraignty not to resist him or defend his Life against him by Force 3. When the Laws of God and our Country interfere and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian then we are to lay down our Lives for Christs Sake So far is very true because every man is bound
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.
Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Queens Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm To all this I may add the common Stile of both Houses in Parliament Our Gracious Soveraign and our Dread Soveraign Lord the King Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De tournes de Viscontes You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithfull to our Soveraign Lord Edward Hence by (†) Sheringham Kings Suprem c. 4. Common Law many Prerogatives belong to the King by vertue of his Soveraignty He cannot give any Man the Stile or Title of Dominus because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus He can hold Land of no Man because he can have no Superior and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord whereby his Heir became a Ward the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land because as Glanvil saith L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus Superiorem The reason is given by Bracton l. 2. c. 37. And as (†) C. 22. Stanford shews in his Exposition of the Kings Prerogative By the Common Law there lyeth no Action or Writ against the King but when he seizeth his Subjects Lands or Goods having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath and this Petition is called A Petition of Right Having now shew'd that the Realm of England is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign Subject unto none but God it must needs follow that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Soveraignty belonging unto him as to be unaccountable to any Humane Power to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power to be irresistable and unopposeable or not to have his Forces repelled by Force A Stranger that hath read what I have written to shew that he is a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign must needs presume that these and all other Essential Rights of Soveraignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Soveraignty or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown to acknowledge the King for Supream over all Persons to say he hath no Superior but God that he is Subject to him alone and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customes of this Realm For first To say that he is the only Supream Governour within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none but God must needs imply that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribunal but that of Heaven whose Vicegerant he is If there were any Power in his Kingdoms that could call him to account for Maladministration for that very Reason he would not be a Compleat Soveraign but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior and not he It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction that he must be Unaccountable for from whom shall any person or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from him as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms and from whom then shall any Man or state of Men derive Authority of Judging or Trying him It can be from none but himself But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Jurisdiction is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Nature if that be true which the (†) Cokes Inst part 4. p. 14. Suprema Jurisdictio potestas Regia etsi Princeps velit se sâ—pâ—rari non possunt sunt enim ipsa forma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente rege ab eo abdicari non possunt Cavedo Pract. Observ p. 2. Decis 40. n. 8. Lords and Commons declared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the Disinherison of the King and his Crown This Phrase of the Disinherison of the King and the Crown in other (‖) Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. c. 5. Acts of Parliament is called The Destruction of the Kings Soveraignty his Crown his Regality and things that tend thereunto things that are openly against the Kings Crown in Derogation of his Regality So that if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Soveraignty it would be of no more Force than an Act to make another King Co-partner with him in the Supream Power or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Foreign Prince But 2dly To say that the King is the only Supream Governour instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction must needs imply that he alone hath the Power of the Sword for were the Power of the Sword in any else he could not be furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Besides the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him and the Military in any other Person or State the English Realm would have two Soveraigns one Civil and another Military which is most absurd to think Therefore by the Common Laws of Soveraignty the Power of the Sword like all other Temporal Power must be derived and deducted from him as Supream Head and Governour of this Realm and indeed his Soveraignty would be an empty insignificant nothing were the Scepter in his Hand and the Sword in any others And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg consuet regni Anglae supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King Regiam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam sed legibus The Kings Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms but with Laws with Arms in the first place without which his Laws would be little worth So saith Fletal 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura Et materialem gladium qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum So saith Bracton in the beginning of his first Book In rege qui rectè regit necessaria sunt duo haec Arma videlicet Leges c. And if the Sword be originally in the Kings Hand and none can bear it without Authority
derived from him it must needs follow from hence that he must be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and that no Man can lawfully resist him or his Forces because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword except for private Defence but by Commission from him I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies or who hath Authority for example to make him a Captain or as much as a Drummer of a Company if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative and therefore how a man can either give or receive such unauthoritative Commissions or oppose or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them without sin I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer and Mr. J. as a Divine to resolve It is true what he (‖) P. 84. saith That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants but then the Question which he puts to the Doctor upon it is Fallacious in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts in the Soveraign which carry no Obligation at all can oblige men to Obedience I answer for the Doctor If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty No! He ought rather to suffer himself but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose I answer That it is the Christian the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign till legal Remedy can be had because to oppose or resist him and his Forces by Force is unauthoritative and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm But because we live in an Age wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons who are deaf to all Reason and Common Law which is nothing but Common Reason when it is urged in defence of the Crown I will now shew that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty which I have been discoursing of are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm First then He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects or obnoxious to their Coercive Power 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and be it hereby declared that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared without excepting any manner of Cases or Pretences to the contrary That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And (†) 3 Inst p. 9. Coke upon the place saith That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King If any levy War saith he to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation of their own Heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority (‖) Sheringhams Kings Suprem c. 3. In the 7th year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged and force of Armour to belong to him And saith (†) Jenkinsius Redivivus p. 19. Judge Jenkins All Jurisdictions do and of right ought to belong to the King all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King the Power of War only belongs to the King it belongs to the King to Defend his People and to provide Arms and Force (‖) 13 Car. 2.1 Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm or without And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the Vndoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot or ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive or Defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successor Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Amplitude the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them Surely this is too Light for the Parliament and is just such another piece of Drollery as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder Bating that Dedication there was never any thing like this Passive Aâ—â— of Parliament for wheedling the People out of their Lives Alas Alas This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles and enough to tempt and invite Cruelty into the World For let a Prince be either a Papist or an Atheist and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act and then what hinders but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates and Heresie together and the other as many to see what Faces and Grimmaces they will make According to this Act the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist or the Extravagant Vnaccountable Humours of a Wretch and hang at their Girdles as Souls do at the Popes Is it not a sad thing to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament to leave us nothing to defend our selves but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears But yet so Wise as Legislators so Religious as Christians and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament that they made this Declaration the second time as it may be seen 13 14 Car. 2. cap. 3. And by all these Statutes cited it appears That the King is Accountable to none but God That the Sword is solely his and theirs to whom He commits it That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power nor ought any way to be resisted by Force Indeed our Author (‖) P.
84. doth freely acknowledge that according to the known Laws of England a Popish Prince when he is Lawfully possest of the Crown will be Inviolable and Vnaccountable as to his own Person and ought by no means to have any Violence offered to him This is something but it is not all 't is the Truth but not the Whole Truth For I have shewn by the known Laws of this Land that the People can make no Military or Forcible Resistance against the King they must not rise up against Him and his Armies in their own Defence the Laws have fettered and manacled them with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience they must not lift up their Hands against their Soveraign to oppose him or his Forces for they have no Right to the Sword but what he gives them except for private Defence no body without his Authority can Array them and by these Laws there are no Cases excepted no not the Case of a Popish Successor which makes our Authors Heart ake for not excepting of which in his Bow-Sermon he is so angry at Dr. Hickes But the Dr. as (†) P. 90. Ignorant as he hath made him in the English Historians was it seems better versed in the English Antiquities and Customs and in the Old Lawyers and Common and statute-Statute-Laws of the Land than to make any Exception or Distinction where the Law makes none according to that Old Maxim Vbi lex non distinguit ibi non est distinguendum And besides the Dr. remembred what his Uncharitable Brother Mr. J. had forgot That according to the Act of Uniformity he had subscribed declared and acknowledged That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that he did abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him It was apparently the Design of the Three Estates in this Act to secure the Nation of such Ministers as would preach up the Doctrine of Non-resistance without distinction and whether the Doctor that hath so preached it or Mr. J. that hath so maliciously opposed it is more Conformable to the Act and True to his Oath let the World judge He granted as I observed before that the Person of the King is Inviolable and free from Violence but then as if he had granted too much he seems to retract it in part again For (†) P. 88. saith he with the Noble Peer whom he calls a Worthy Person one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in Massacring a Nation And p. 85. How far men may endeavour notwithstanding the Kings Person is Inviolable to save themselves when Princes will be the Executioners of their own Cruelty without breach of their Allegiance If they have a mind they may ask Ask of whom of Harry Nevil or Mr. H. or of which of the Heretick Lawyers Which of the discontented Enemies of the Prerogative will oblige the World with this New Discovery Or if Mr. J. knew it why did he hide his Talent and put the World to the trouble of Asking But I am afraid because he did not it is something he durst not tell some State-Mystery that his Great Assertor of Laws and Religion now with God told him was not safe to speak some Platâ—-Redivivus-Doctrine likely something that depended upon this Atheistical as well as Illegal Principle in England That all Power is Radically in the People and that the King is their Minister and not the Minister of God Whatever it was I will stand no longer guessing But having shewed that Passive Obedience is required in all Perfect and Regular Governments by the Common Laws of Soveraignty and more particular in this Realm by the Imperial Laws thereof I will proceed to enquire how far the Church and Ancient Churchmen have agreed with the Three Estates for I find that our Author makes much use of Ecclesiastical Authority particularly of our Reformers and of the Book of Homilies when they favour him but how far he will value them when they are against him especially in this Controversie between him and the Doctor about Passive Obedience I will not undertake to tell I will begin with the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christen Man set forth by King Henry the 8th with the Advise of his Reforming Clergy who were the Compilers of it such as Cramner and other Martyrs who on the Fifth Commandment write thus Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty Truth Love and Obedience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be ne for any cause they may Conspire against his Person ne do any thing towards the Hinderance or Hurt thereof nor of his Estate And afterwards they prove this out of Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist the Ordinance of God shall get to themselves Damnation And upon the Sixth Commandment No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for any cause whatsoever it be nor against any other saving for Lawful Defence without their Princes License And although Princes which be the Supream Heads of their Realms do otherwise than they ought to do yet God hath assigned no Iudges over them in this World but will have the Iudgment of them reserved to himself and will punish them when he seeth his time So much for the Authority of Cramner Ridley Redman c. From whence I pass to the Book of Homilies which p. 104. he hath recommended to every Bodies Reading as one of the best Books that he know in the World next the Bible In the second part of the Sermon of Obedience Subjects are bound to obey them as Gods Ministers although they be Evil not only for Fear but also for Conscience sake and here Good People let us all mark diligently That it is not lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the Superior Powers For St. Pauls words be plain That whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation Our Saviour Christ himself and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the Vnfaithful and Wicked Men in Authority yet we never read that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority We read oft that they patiently suffered all Troubles Vexations Slanders Pangs and Pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistance Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore mark the Reason it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them although they abuse their Power And yet Mr. J. in contradiction to this Book which he hath recommended as the best Book next to the Bible †Preface p. 8. saith That this Doctrine is Intolerable and contrary both to the Gospel and the Law of the Land But this Homily further tells us That the Vocation and Calling of Gods People is to be patient and of the suffering
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
for had he told the Story with that plainness that it became an Honest Writer the Guilt of Manslaughter would have spoiled the Grace of the Story as it is told by him to justifie Resistance and the Resistance of a Pursuivant and of a Pursuivant unto Blood These Pursuivants it seems are plaguy Officers but let them look to 't if any of them come to Arrest the Body of Mr. J. and do it not with all Exactness of Law at his own peril be it he knows what to do and he may safely trust to his Neck Verse and then the poor mistaken Pursuivants Blood shall be upon his own head But suppose the Law gave a Man leave to kill an Officer in a False Arrest to defend his Liberty would Mr. J. take the advantage of the Law Will he do or omit the doing of every thing that the Law allows him Will he make the Law the compleat and adequate Rule to walk by If so he may do or omit the doing of many things for which he shall be damned He may abuse his Father Mother Sister Brother Wife Children Neighbours nay and his Prince too to a mighty degree and yet be safe within the Limits of the Law He may write Seditious Books burlesque the Doctrine of the Cross slander the Ancient Christians falsifie good Authors and injure those that never did him hurt and yet transgress no Humane Law For the Law hath the Civil and not the Christian Capacity of the Man for its Object therefore it only Commands or Forbids things the not doing or doing of which do visibly tend to the destruction of the Peace Order and Welfare of the Common wealth and he that is so little a Christian as to teach the People how far they may be troublesome and vexatious to their Superiours without transgressing the Law doth teach them how to use their Liberty for a Cloack of Maliciousness and a sure and easie way to Hell But Mr. J. saith That any man may see that his Discourse of the Pursuivant doth not descend to such Petty Matters as False Arrests though a mans Liberty is not to be despised To what then did that Story tend Well you may know his Meaning by his Mumping it is to let the People understand how tender the Laws are of their Lives and what a particular Care they have taken of all those who are put upon an inevitable necessity of defending themselves against the Assaults of Violent and Evil-disposed Persons But the Laws are more tender of our Soveraigns Honour as he is Gods Minister than of his Subjects Lives and therefore have forbid us to defend our selves in private Defence against his Person or in publick Insurrections against his Forces though he be never so violent or evil-disposed because he is answerable to none but God But if by Inevitable necessity of defending themselves he understands sudden and private defence against an Assassin sent by the Kings Order as his Malice seems to suggest then it is nothing to his purpose because the Kings Law which is his most Authoritative Command allows us as I suppose that Benefit and if it do it doth not in the least contradict the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which allows a Man to Resist or use the Sword to defend his Life when the Laws from which I except all Laws Destructive of the Kings Crown and Regality authorize him so to do But in truth this last is a Case which though Malicious Men may suggest yet ought not at all to be supposed or taken into consideration for a Popish Prince as I argued before will either let the Law have its free Course or else he will obstruct it If he let the Law have its Free Course then the most wicked Man will not dare to serve him in Private Assassinations against Law because he cannot protect them against it but if he Obstruct it then he must Govern solely by an Army and so publick Violence will supersede this private way of Assassination and many other Cases which Men do a great deal of hurt to talk of and suppose For as the talking of Spirits and Goblins do mightily influence the Imaginations of Children and make them fancy them to be in the Room So all this Noise of a Popish Successor and the presuming and supposing of what Cruelties he will do makes the People take it for granted not only that his R. Hs. is a Real Papist but that he is bigotted into the worst Principles of Popery into a Bloody Persecuting Humour so that he will do nothing but assassinate his Protestant Subjects were he once upon the Throne But whoever thus represent him as they act contrary to all Rules of Candour and Christian Charity So they contradict the Belief of many as good Protestants as themselves who have the Honour to know Him and his Temper better than these sort of Men do and withal they do Infinite Disservice to the Protestant Religion whilst they dispose Well-meaning People to such Ill Practises as were they agreeable to their Principles would give his R. H. very Just Occasion to entertain as bad Thoughts of Protestant Subjects as They have of a Popish Prince The CONCLVSION HAving discoursed of the Laws by which Passive Obedience is due from the Subjects to the Soveraign and also shew'd the Reasons into which those Laws are resolved and having also shewn for the further Satisfaction of the Reader That notwithstanding the Doctrine of Non-resistance the People of this Nation have all the Security against Tyranny or Illegal Oppression that Subjects can or ought to have I think I cannot more profitably entertain the Serious Reader in this last Sheet than in setting before his Eyes a True Landskip of Persecution which the Author of Julian and many other Late Writers have partially represented with a Design to enrage the People concealing from them one main part which ought to have been put in the Scene of Persecution to give them a True and Just Idea thereof They have indeed most accurately painted the Jailes and Fetters and Dungeons and Gibbets and Flames and all other Instruments of Torment to provoke them beyond the Measures of Christian Patience but they have said nothing of Faith Hope and the Love of God and of the Special Assistances which he gives in times of Persecution because the Consideration of these Things would at the same time have spoiled their Design by quieting the Minds of their Readers and qualifying their Fears and letting them see that Persecution really was not so Terrible and Intolerable as they represented it to be Wherefore as they have set forth the Tyranny of Persecution as Greeks I shall now set it forth as a Christian Writer shewing from the Scriptures and other Ecclesiastical Acts and Monuments of Persecution that it is a Condition which Christians may endure with Comfort and Satisfaction nay in which they may delight and rejoyce if they look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith who
JOVIAN OR AN ANSWER TO JULIAN THE APOSTATE BY A Minister of LONDON LONDON Printed by Sam Roycroft for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops Head in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXIII THE PREFACE THere are many Remarkable Particulars in the Life of Jovian and so very disagreeable to the chief Assertions which I have found in Julian the Apostate that I have been Invited by them to call this Answer to that Book by his August Name For first He was chosen Emperor next after Julian although he was nothing Akin to him while (a) P. 74 75 76. Procopius a Great Man and one of the Blood was Alive in the Way and at the Head of a Great Army which shews that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary as the Author of Julian hath with great Confidence asserted in his 2d Chapter He also left behind him a little Son called (b) Amm. Marcell l. 25. c. 10. Zonar T. 3. Eutrop. l. 10. In fine Varronianus whom he had made Consul with himself a little before his death and the Empire had it been Hereditary must have descended upon him without Choice but after a short Interregnum which is (c) Cook in Calvins Case inconsistent with a Lineal Succession the Army unanimously chose Valentinian without taking notice of young Varronianus who yet was as fit for the Empire as Valentinian Junior the Son of Valentinian (d) Amm. Marc. l. 30. c. 10. Zonar Tom. 3. Zosim hist l. 4. Aurel. vict Epit. whom the Souldiers chose Emperor after his Fathers death heing but 4 years old and afterwards saluted him Augustus while he was carried in his Cradle about the Camp But secondly Jovian was a (e) Socrat. Hist Ecc. l. 3. c. 22. Theodoret Hist Ecc. l 4. C. 1. Confessor of the Chistian Religion in the Reign of Julian who chose rather to quit his Preferments than to Sacrifice as Valens Valentinian and other Great Captains likewise did quietly and peaceably behaving themselves while Julian did so outrage the Church which shews that either he did not Illegally Persecute his Christian Subjects as Mr. J. saith he did or else that they thought in their Duty as Christians quietly to submit even to an Apostate Emperor when he persecuted contrary to Law Thirdly Though he was so Zealous and Orthodox a (f) Theodor. l. 4. c. 1 2. Socrat. l. 3. c. 24. Sozom l. 6. c. 3 4. Christian and so great a Blessing to the Church yet as I have (g) P. 103. shewn he was worse treated by the Antiochians than Julian himself which proves that it was the evil Humour of that People to abuse every one who did displease them which the Apostate did by his Morose Philosophical Humour and by setting too low a Price upon the Market-Provisions upon which account purely and not upon the score of Religion as Mr. J. would make us believe it was that they Lampooned and Burlesqued him as I have shewn at large in the 3d. Chapter Fourthly When Jovian was Elected Emperor by the Souldiers of Julian (h) P. 171. g they cryed out with one common Voice That they were all Christians which shews how absurd it is to ascribe their Passive Behaviour under the Apostate to want of Strength and Numbers as our Author hath done more like a Jesuit than a Protestant Writer against the consent of so many Pious and learned Protestants who have commended unto us the Christian Subjects of Julian as most perfect Examples of Passive Obedience for practising the Doctrine of Non-resistance when they were so much tempted and so able to resist To this purpose (i) In his Book of Christian Subjection part 3. p. 123. printed at London 1586. saith Bishop Bilson The Christian Souldiers under Julian as St. Augustine saith served their Temporal Lord though and Idolater and Apostate not for lack of Force to resist but for respect of their Everlasting Lord in Heaven Otherwise the Christian Souldiers had Julian in his Voyage against the Persians far from Home and from Help and might have done with him what they would and yet they chose rather to spend their Lives for him than to lift up their hands against him and the Christian World stirred not in his absence against him but with patience endured his Oppression and with silence expected his Return The same Observation is made more at large by the Learned Dr. Hakewell in his (k) L. 3. c. 3. Num vobis vires desunt At teste Sozomeno l. 5. c. 14. Tanta erat ecrum multitudo ut magistratus cujusque civitatis aegrè eorum calculum subducere in tabulas referre potucrint in ipso exercitu tantus numerus ut cùm post Juliani mortem Jovianu◠Christianus ad Imperium raptus Imperare recusâssèt milites porte omnes acri voce velut ex composito se quoque Christum colere acola marent Num ductoribus vobis opus est habetis Jovianum Valen tinianum Valentem Avtemium Scutum Regium to whose words in the Margent I refer the Reader as likewise by that Prodigy of Learning (l) Ita sub Juliano licèt impio Apostatâ merebant Christiani milites nec quisquam illi vim fecit quo nihil fuit faciliùs cum ferè totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit p. 53. Sam. Bochart who in his Epistle To Dr. Morley saith That the Christian Souldiers served under Julian though an Impious Apostate neither did any of them offer Violence unto him which had been very easie for them to do seeing it did appear after his death at the Election of Jovian that almost the whole Army were Christians I have added these Authorities under this last Particular which invited me to call this Book Jovian because I forgot them while I was writing the 8th Chapter as indeed I found upon a Review that I have omitted some other material Observations which I beg leave of the Readers Patience here to supply First then whereas I have (m) P. 61. asserted That there was no such thing as Entail nor any Notion of it among the Romans I think it necessary here to add That this limited way of Hereditary Succession unto one Line is grounded wholly upon the (n) Molinae ad Consuct par tit des Fiefs n. 5. Feudal Laws which had nothing common at all with the old Roman or Civil Laws but were received from the Customs of the Barbarous Nations which invaded the Empire and after settled in it and particularly of the Germans from whom the Italians and the French received them and we from the Normans at the Conquest Hence according to Littleton and (o) L. 1. c. 2 9 13 18. Cook upon him Entailing is derived from the French word tailler scindere and feodum talliatum or an Estate entailed is according to them Haereditas in quandam certitudinem limitata or plainer as in (p) Gloss v. Feodúm Spelman Feodum talliatum est quod ita talliatur
Reader please to consult this Anonymous Paper at large he will find it Presbyterian and Scottish from one end to the other and a Brat so unlike the Bishops upon whom the true Author hath fathered it that a man may almost safely swear that it was none of Theirs Indeed there is one Good Argument in it why the Queens Subjects might have been urgent with her Majesty to put the Queen of Scots to death and that is this That she sought the Life of the Queen and endeavoured to disinherit and destroy her These Attempts put her perfectly out of the Queens Protection and though for this Reason she might lawfully be excluded out of the World yet still the question remains Whether she could be excluded from the Crown To be excluded out of the World and from the Crown are things of a disparat Nature and the former may and sometimes ought to be done when the latter neither can nor ought As for Example among the Jews it was the Birthright of the (q) Selden de Successionibus c. 5. only Son to succeed to his Fathers whole Estate or when there were more of the eldest to have a double share and though they ought to have been put to death by the Hebrew Laws for Smiting or Cursing their Father yet could they not be disinherited or excluded from the Succession which shews our Authors great Fallacy in which he Triumphs in arguing as it were a fortiori from the Exclusion of the Heir of the Crown out of the World unto the Exclusion of him from the Crown They saith he of the Bishops were Excluders with a witness for they were for excluding the next Heir not only from the Succession but out of the World And again A Bill of Exclusion is perfect Courtship to these Reasons Let those therefore that have run down 3 successive Houses of Commons for that Bill turn their Fury and Reproaches with more Justice upon these old Excluders But all these fine Words are nothing to the purpose for these Old Excluders were not Excluders from the Succession which spoyls the parity of the Instance and to let him see that it doth so he may assure himself That the same Loyal Men who run down 3 Houses of Commons for the Bill to Exclude his R.H. from the Succession would nevertheless upon sufficient Proof that he sought the Life of his dear Brother to whom hitherto he hath shewed himself the most Obedient of his Subjects be willing to do him Justice and exclude him out of the World Furthermore to let Mr. J. see what a great difference there is between these two Exclusions I must remind him that in case Queen Elizabeth had died between the Sentence of Mary Queen of Scots and her Execution that the Descent of the Crown would have purged Her of all Crimes and that ' she would have had the same Right unto it which the Parliament declared her Son James afterwards had upon Queen Elizabeths death But yet though the Descent of the Crown purges all Defects and would bring back the greatest Malefactor of an Heir not only from a Prison but from the Scaffold and from the Block to the Throne yet our Author with unparallelled Considence (r) Preface p. 19. challenges all that were against impeaching the Succession To give him but one Reason to prove a Bill of Exclusion to be Unlawful which they will own to be a Reason a Week after and not be ashamed of it and he doth solemnly promise to joyn with them in renouncing these Old Reformers and thereafter will follow their New Guides and New Lights I never in all my Life read any thing so bold from a Man of Mr. Js. mediocrity who here challenges the House of Lords the 3 Estates of Scotland the University of Cambridge one of the Secretaries of State the Loyal Addressers and several other Persons of Note whom he ought to believe are at least as wise and learned and as good Protestants as himself First The House of Lords who were the first that in his Phrase run down the House of Commons for the Bill of Exclusion upon which his Majesty sent the House this Message That He was confirmed in his Opinion against that Bill by the Judgment of the House of Lords who rejected it and may not one presume that many of them rejected it because they thought it disagreeable to the Lex Legum or great standing Law of this Inheritable Kingdom That nothing is to be consented to in Parliament which tends to the disinherison of the Crown whereunto they are sworn This is the great Rule by which all Acts of Parliament are to be framed and if any of them transgress it they are as null and void from the beginning as Marriage with a person who hath a natural Impediment or Imperfection By this Supream Inviolable Law an Act of Parliament for dissolving the Monarchy or for debarring the King of the Service of his Subjects or for giving the Crown unto a Forainer or for making it Homageable to a Superiour Power or for dividing the Monarchy into Copartnership unto two Heirs or for Excluding the whole Royal Family as many of the Excluders grant would all be Null and Void from the beginning and so I verily believe most of them think that an Act for Excluding the next Heir would be so too which made them so zealous to back it with an Act for an Association which the Author of the Power of Parliaments ingeniously calls a Club-Law I Know not what any Excluder can reply to this but either to say That an Act of Parliament which tends to the Disinherison of the Crown is nevertheless valid or that an Act of Exclusion hath no tendency thereunto To assert the former would be a Contradiction to the most Eminent Lawyers Antient and Modern and many Declarations in Parliament and would also suppose that an Act for destroying the Monarchy it self c. would be valid And to assert the latter is virtually to say That an Act for Disinheriting the next Heir doth not tend to the disinherison of the Crown which would be difficult to maintain because the same Power that puts by One Heir may put by Ten either altogether or Successively and so Adieu to the Royal Family and the Hereditary Succession which may be laid aside in part or in whole when the King and Parliament shall please But to return to this Fundamental-Law of the Monarchy which seems to invalidate all Acts of Parliam that tend to the Disinherison or Destruction of the Crown and particularly all those which limit and bind the Succession It was by this Law that the (s) 35 H. 8. ch 1.1 Eliz. ch 3. Act of Parliament which Impâ—â—vered King Henry the 8th to dispose of the Crown by his Last Will and Testament to what person or persons soever he pleased proved Ineffectual to the House of Suffolk to which he bequeathed it after the death of Queen Elizabeth which made a
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
prove the Roman Empire to have been Hereditary doth sufficiently declare it to be his own Sense that there can be no Parallel between the case of Julian and a Popish Successor but upon that supposition and that otherwise there can be no good arguing from Non-Election or Preterition to Exclusion and from no Right and Title to Birth-right or Inheritance which is the constitutive difference between an Elective and Hereditary Crown The Nature of Birthright and Inheritance which is not founded on the Statutes but upon the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is an Hereditary Monarchy makes it debateable whether an Act of Exclusion would be Valid or Invalid And upon supposition that it would be Valid there are many Arguments which makes it disputable whether it would be safe or unsafe expedient or unexpedient and whether the Mischiefs it would bring upon us would not be as great as those which it would prevent But in the case of Julian there was no such matters for debate and therefore the sense which Nazianzen had of his Succession is nothing to us who are under another sort of Government and in other Circumstances the Consideration of which makes many Sincere and Honest Protestants who dread Popery and a Popish Successor as much as our Author zealous for the Lineal Succession and this distinction between the Succession and a Popish Successor makes it no Contradiction in the Addressers and particularly in his and Shr. Beth's Friends of Rippon to beseech his Majesty not to agree to the Bill of Exclusion and yet to be ready to hazard their Lives and Fortunes and spend that last Drop of their Blood in Defence of his Majesty and the Religion established by Law It is one thing to be for the Succession and another to be for a Popish Successor as it is one thing to be for the Monarchy and another thing to be for a Popish Monarch and there are many for the Former who as heartily pray to God to prevent the Latter as for their daily Bread But our Author who is an excellent Artist in Fallacies so words it in the beginning of his Preface as to induce his Reader to think that those who address to his Majesty to preserve the Lineal Succession do make it their humble Request to him that they may be sure of a Popish Successor as if they had consulted Gadbury or the Fates and were sure that his R.H. whom he means by the Popish Successor without an Act of Exclusion should certainly come to the Crown Nay so far are all those who are so tender of the Succession from having any tenderness for a Popish Successor that they dread him like the Plague and therefore would have had Provisional Laws made to bind up such an one and put him under very close legal Confinement in case he should be King But nothing would serve the other Protestants but an Act of Exclusion backed with another for an Association to which I am confident that Nazianzen himself had he then sat on the Spiritual Bench would never have said Content And truly to make the case of Julian and his R. H. exactly parallel we must not only suppose that the Succession to the Empire was Hereditary but that Constantine the Great had been murdered after a long Rebellion by the Aerians his Son Constantius miraculously preserved and restored and the ruined Church restored with him that from the time of his Restauration the Aerians resumed their old practises against the Church and the Monarchy and underhand helped Julian after he had left the Communion of the Church to get an Indulgence for themselves and the Pagans that the Church was almost ruined and the Empire much weakned by this Indulgence and other Contingences and that however the Aerians and Pagans were opposite in other things yet they agreed in conspiring against the Established Christian Religion even in the Senate where they always voted alike We must also suppose that the Aerians were generally Commonwealths-men that they were a very busie and dangerous interest of men against the Government that they took all Advantages against it especially when the Peoples minds were distracted by the discovery of a Pagan Plot upon Julians Apostacy that then they represented the Orthodox Christians especially the Bishops and the Clergy for Pagans and Half-Pagans that the Emperor had promised the discontented Senate which now I must suppose like our Parliament to pass any Acts for the Security of the Christian Religion which were consistent with the Succession that the Western Empire was satisfied with the Emperors Declaration and had made it Treason to call the Succession into Question that the Monarchy was weakly supported 〈◊〉 that Julian was but two years younger than the Emperor and not of so healthful a Constitution that the Empress might dye and the Emperor marry again that Julians own Children the next Heirs after him were firm Christians that in case he should come to the Crown he would find an Empty Exchequer and a poor Revenue that the Senate would never Supply him but upon their own Terms that he could not persecute without almost insuperable Difficulties that an Act for Dis-inheriting of him would be a very dangerous Precedent and of dangerous Consequence especially since the Western Empire had declared for the Succession that it would signifie nothing without an Act for Association and that an Act for Association would legalize a standing Army and entail War upon the two Empires and end in Arbitrary Government These and many more things besides the Hereditary Succession to the Roman Empire must be supposed to make the Parallel exact between Julian and his R. H. and to make a good Consequence from Nazianzens sense about Julians Succession in that Scheme of Affairs to the sense he probably would have had of it in such a Scheme as ours I am sure there is no Consequence from one to the other although his Expostulations with the Soul of Constantius should not pass for mere Rhetorick and if they must not I desire Mr. J. to say if they will not prove the Invocation of Saints If they must be understood as Rhetorick then they are as indeed they are poor Sham Arguments to prove either the Invocation of Saints or That the Fathers would have set aside an 100 such Titles as that of the Heir of England to secure their Religion but if they must not be so understood then do they not equally prove both Indeed were an Act of Exclusion the only way of securing our Religion were it certain that the Popish Successor so presumed must if he were not excluded succeed or were the exclusion of him not the most disputable way of securing our Religion and very hurtful to the Monarchy or were it not as the Excluders would back it with an Act for Association attended with as pernicious inconveniences as it would prevent then indeed our Author might have better presumed to determine what the Fathers would
have done in such a case but since it is not the only Expedient but such an one as is very disputable and dangerous too he was methinks too bold with their Beards in asserting That they would have set aside an Hundred such Titles to secure their Religion when other probable Means more agreeable to the Constitution of the Government were offered for the Security thereof In such a case the Fathers might have professed their Zeal for the Christian Religion and yet like our Loyal Addressers have made it their humble Request to the Emperor not to have passed the Bill of Exclusion that is but one among other Expedients and a man may be free in the Choice of means without being Guelph and Gibeline at once I am sure there is no such Contrariety in such Addresses as for a Minister of our Church to write such a Book as Julian to be Lamb without and Wolf within to wear the Churches Livery and yet in secret to list himself with her Enemies to pretend a mighty concern for Religion and yet to slander the Primitive Christians and scoff at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience this indeed is to be contrary to his Profession and to be Guelph and Gibeline at once CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian HAving shew'd in the First Chapter the Falseness of his First Principle That the Roman Empire was Hereditary I proceed in this to lay open all his other Shams and Falsifications by which to use his own words (†) P. 68. he hath glossed away all his Duty as a Christian Subject and broken all the measures by which all the Ancient Suffering Christians went in former Persecutions For first after he hath most artificially aggravated the Behaviour of the Christians against Julian and made it look like very Criminal and Barbarous then he undertakes to Apologize for them telling us That truly (‖) P. 68. their Case differed very much from that of the First Christians and that they were in quite other Circumstances (†) P. 71. The sum of all which is this That the first Christians suffered according to the Law of their Country whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrary to Law it being manifest that Julian oppressed them in a very illegal way He did not fairly Enact Sanguinary Laws but he put them to death upon Shams and pretended Crimes of Treason and Sacrilege c. And this their Suffering against Law he brings to justifie their seeming Misbehaviour and Barbarous Usage of him which after he had magnified to the height in Expressions not becoming a Divine p. 66. then he adds But for the Name of Christians he had better have fallen among Barbarians I shall not examine the Merits of their Behaviour towards Julian till I have proved that they were not illegally persecuted by him because this being once proved it must needs follow That if they broke the Primitive Measures of Christian Subjection and Obedience they are to be blamed for it and cannot signifie any thing as a Precedent for us to follow in case which God forbid we should be persecuted contrary to Law He tells us That (†) P. 66. they so treated this Emperor that one would have taken them to be the Apostates and most falsly and plainly (‖) P. 94 95. suggests like a Jesuit That they would have rebelled but that they wanted Strength What saith he would they have a few defenceless Christians do when they had lost their Strength Have they never heard a West-Country-man say Chud eat Cheese and chad it Nay he hath done his best to make it probable that Julian was killed by a Christian It is easie to guess whether all this tends His Reflections on the Behaviour of these Christians are to draw on his Reader and prepare his mind for what he hath said upon Passive Obedience and therefore to spoil the Precedency of their Behaviour in their Words Actions and Devotions and to shew to what little purpose he hath written 6 Chapters about it I shall here shew that Julian did persecute them legally because all his Orders and Decrees how unjust soever were legal and in particular that Juventinus and Maximus who he saith were put to death upon shams were notwithstanding legally put to death because they were put to death by the Sentence and Command of the Emperor who was an Absolute Soveraign who govern'd by Despotic or Regal Power and whose very Pleasure was a Law He may as well say That a Man who dyes in England legislatively by virtue of a Bill of Attainder enacted into a Law dyes illegally whereas by the English Constitution the King and Parliament or the King with the Consent of the Parliament are legal Masters of every mans Life and Fortune and can put to death whom they please In like manner what the King and Parliament or to speak in the words of Learned Chancelor (†) De laud. Leg. Angl. ch 9. Fortescue what the Regal and Political Power can in conjunction do here the Regal or Imperial Power could do alone in the Roman Empire where as Dan. speaks of Nebuchad For the Majesty that God gave the Emperor all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down This is most amply and elegantly set down by (‖) L. 53. Dio who tells us That all Power Civil and Ecclesiastical was in the Emperor the Consular Proconsular Censorian Tribunitian and Pontifical and that he had all this Power and Authority not by Force and Usurpation but by Law the Senate and People consenting thereunto That therefore all things were done according to the Pleasure of the Emperors as in Kingdoms and that though they were not called Kings and Dictators yet they had the Regal Dictatorian Power that by virtue of these Offices they had Power of raising Armies and Money of making War and Peace of making deposing and killing Senators and in a word of (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting any man to death as an expiratory Sacrifice without Tryal who they thought injured them never so little in Word or Deed. Furthermore he saith That they were (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above the Laws and free from all Legal Necessity and might do any thing having all things belonging to Absolute Regal Authority but only the Name of King This is the Sum of what Dio saith of the Imperial Leviathan to which the Civil Law agrees which tells us That (†) L. 1. T. 3. 31. T. 4. Princeps legibus solutus 4 Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpâ—te cum lege Regiâ populus ei in eum omne suum Imperium potestatem consâ—rat Quodcunque igitur Imperator c. Vid. I. L. 1 2. the Emperor was above Law that whatsoever pleased him had the nature of a Law because by
of supernatural courage with which God was wont to inspire those whom he called to suffer for his Holy Name And therefore St. Peter prayed for it Acts 4.29 Lord saith he behold their Threatnings and grant unto thy Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that with all boldness we may speak thy Word This inspired Courage is most evident in very Young and very Old People as also in Women who have little Natural Courage as (†) L. 5. c. 1. Eusebius observes in the Martyrdom of Young Blandina and old Pothius and many others as of Young ‖ De Mart. Palaest c. 4. Apphianus and †C. 7. ib. Theodosia the Virgin to whom I refer the Reader in his History of the Palaestine Martyrs Now the Persons thus inspired with Zeal and Courage used ordinarily to shew it in the Freedom of their Speech before Kings and Governours especially before those whom they knew to be spiteful Enemies of their Religion and Blasphemers of God Thus one of the Seven Brethren in the ‖ 2 Mach. ch 7. Macchabees called Antiochus Fury another told him He despised his Laws a third bid him remember that though he was a King yet he was Corruptible a fourth called him Godless Man and of all other most Wicked and the rest threatned him with the Judgments of God The three Jews in Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar very bluntly that they cared not to answer him in the matter of the Image but if his Decree was so God was able to deliver them but if he will not say they like true Confessors be it known unto thee we will not serve thy Gods nor worship the Golden Image that thou hast set up When Numerianus or Decius for my †Philostorg l. 7. p. 506. Author knows not which of the two it was would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Worship Babylas the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch shut the Door against him telling him that he would not suffer him who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheepfold of Christ Domninus was Famous among the Christians of Palaes tine for this singular Freedom of Speech and is celebrated for it by Eusebius in the 7th Chapter of his History of the Palaestine Martyrs and in Justin the Martyr's first Apology we read of one Lucius who standing by at the condemnation of Ptolemaeus a Christian boldly spoke to the President thus What reason hast thou O Vrbioius to condemn a man merely for the Name of Christian who is neither Whoremonger nor Adulterer nor Murderer nor Thief nor Robber nor is guilty of any one Crime let me tell thee thy Sentence is very unworthy of the Emperour who is called Pious and of his Son surnamed Philosopher and of the Senate which is styled the Holy It would be endless to enumerate all the Examples of the Confessorian Parrhesia or Liberty of Speech there are Examples of it in most Persecutions but these may suffice to let Mr. J's Admirers see how Fallaciously he hath dealt with them in representing the Free Speeches of the Berean Noble-Man and Maris the Bishop unto Julian as singular Instances of Contempt whereas such Freedom was of ordinary practise in former Persecutions among Christian Cofessors a sort of men I fear for whom he hath but little Veneration or Respect But more particularly as to Maris Bishop of Chalcedon if there be any thing singular or unjustifiable in that Dialogue of his with Julian it may fairly be laid at his own Door who was a most violent Arrian guilty of many blameworthy Practises which are not to be put upon the general Account (†) Gelas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. c. 2. Acta Metroph apud Phot. Cod. 256. He was one of the 18 Bishops in the Nicene Council that defended Arrius and his Doctrine (‖) Socrat. l. 1. c. c. 27 31 35. he was one of Athanasius his most bitter Enemies (*) Socrat. l. 2. c. 12. he is reckoned among the Arrianizers that ordained Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople after Eusebius died in opposition to Paulus elected by the Orthodox (†) Id. lib. c. 2. 41. He is called an Acasian and subscribed the Confession of the Council of Arimini in a Council of 50 Bishops at Constantinople where they abrogated the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (‖) Sosom l. 4. c. 24. He was one that witnessed against Athanasius in the Council of Tyre attesting the Charge against him of breaking the Chalice c. in a Parish Church of Maraeotis and afterwards before (*) Sosom l. 2. c. 25. the Emperor Constantine (†) Ib. c. 28. He was one of the Bishops sent by the Council of Tyre into Aegypt to enquire into the matter where (‖) L. 2. c. 25. Sozom. saith they managed the Enquiry partially but (*) Lib. 1. c. 30. Theodoret plainly accuses him and his Companions of framing a Lye against him forgeing false Acts and reviving the old confuted Slanders against him Lastly the (†) Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. Fathers of the Council of Sardica in their Synodical Epistle reckon him among the False Accusers of Athanasius Marcellus and Asclepas though they do not depose him with the rest of his Arrian Accomplices all which shew that he was a Man of Heterodox Opinions and Irregular Practises whose Example ought not to be cited as a Precedent to conclude any thing in general upon the Christians or Bishops of his Time In the Conclusion of the Chapter he tells us That it would be endless to reckon up the Sayings of Juventinus and Maximus in their Anniversary Sermon of St. Chrysost of those Souldiers that were trepanned into Sacrificing by Julian and of many others who did not spare him in the least One would wonder how this man should come to be so learned in all that was said against Julian (‖) De Juliano Testimonia before Julians Works Vituperationem autem apud Gregorium Nazianz. Steletenticis 11. ac Cyrill Meminit Chrysostomus contra Judaeos Hom. 3. in S.S. Juventinum Maximum in S. Babylani Item Hieron in 3. cap. Habacuc August vide civitate Dei cap. 25. but that Petavius in 4 lines hath directed him to all that ever was written against him out of which he hath taken all that was for his purpose and notwithstanding he tells his Reader that he must be satisfied with a Tast yet he hath served him up with his whole Store For the Sayings of Juvent and Max. and of those Souldiers whom Julian had trepanned to sacrifice are so far from making for him that they are very much against him or else we may be sure had they been to his purpose they had not been suppressed As for the former they are such as they said at Table such as they said when they were cast into Prison for what they had said at Table such as they said to those whom Julian under-hand sent to tempt
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
Side and that we ought to obey Governours although they be wicked and wrong-doers Afterwards it proves from the Example of David The we may not withstand nor in any wise hurt an (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. ad D. Morley p. 80. Anointed King mark the Reason again which is Gods Lieutenant Vicegerent and Highest Minister in that Country where he is King He durst not once lay Hands upon Gods High Officer the King whom he did know to be a Person reserved and kept only to Gods Punishment A General Rule and Lesson to all Subjects in the World not to withstand their Liege Lord and King nor to take a Sword by their private Authority against their King Gods Anointed who only beareth the Sword by Gods Authority for the Maintenance c. Who only by Gods Law hath the Use of the Sword at his Command It is an intolerable Madness Ignorance and Wickedness for Subjects to make any murmuring rebellion resistance or withstanding Commotion or Insurrection against their Soveraign Lord. We may not in any wise withstand violently or rebel against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or his Officers but we must in such case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God Here we have Line upon Line and Precept upon Precept for Passive Obedience Here we are taught that we must suffer all sorts of Wrongs and Injuries from our Soveraign without Resistance and withstanding of him and in this Realm I am sure the Soveraign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws But to go on with this next best Book to the Bible In the second part of the Homily against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by Flight and hiding himself from the Kings Sight Shall not we being good Men as we are Rise and Rebel against a Prince hated of God and Gods Enemy and likely to be Hurtful and Pernicious to the Common-wealth Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so Vnkind a Prince nothing considering or regarding our True Faithful and Painful Service or the Safeguard of our Posterity Shall we not Rise and Rebel against our known mortal and deadly Enemy that seeketh our Lives No saith Godly David What shall we do then to an Evil to an Vnkind Prince an Enemy to us hated of God hurtful to the Commonwealth c. Lay no Violent hand upon him saith Good David but let him live until God appoint and work his End If King David would make these Answers as by his Deeds and Words recorded in the Holy Scriptures indeed he doth make unto all such Demands concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes Vnkind Princes Cruel Princes Princes that be to their good Subjects mortal Enemies Princes that are out of Gods Favour and so Hurtful or like to be Hurtful to the Commonwealth what Answer And now to use out Unanswerable Authors (‖) P. 111. own words I have been the more Copious in these Citations to shew that this is the stunding Doctrine of the Church of England to which all Orders of the Clergy have subscribed and Mr. J. among the rest The Church of England long since (†) P. 89. calculated and fitted this Doctrine for the use of a Popish Successor And if the Doctor hath been ill taught by his Mother the Blame is to be laid upon her and he is to be excused It is She that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a (‖) P. 81. Parasite Sycophant and Murderer Poor Man He sucked it in his Mothers Milk it was bred in his Bone and I fear it will never go out of his Flesh Nay to see what a sad Fate attends some Men he had the Misfortune to be bred in Oxford where Passive Obedience hath long been the Doctrine of the Malignant place as appears by Mr. (†) In the Preface to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons Gillespic one of Mr. J.'s Old Masters who called Preces Lachrymae the New Oxford Divinity which however is somewhat less Offensive than the Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears Nay so determined was the Doctor by his unhappy Stars to imbibe that Slavish Principle that he was bred in the very same College where the Immortal Sanderson drew up the Vniversities Vnanswerable Reasons against the Covenant out of which Mr. J. hath (‖) Preface p. 3. taken the most witty Allusion in his Book where speaking of Passive Obedience without a Law to require it he saith It is like one of the marvellous Accidents of Transubstantiation which makes a Shift to subsist when it hath lost its Subject which is the very same Illustration that the (‖) Judicium Acad. Oxon. de faedere p. 66. Rex vel in propriâ suâ personâ coram corporaliter adest vel absens praesentiam suam supplet per delegatos quosdam sive commissionarios suos magni sigilli autoritate ad hoc deputatos quaevis alia praesentia realis aenigmatis instar est transubstantiationis monstro haud absimilis spectrum scilicet phantasma University made use of to set forth the monstrous Absurdity of pretending the Kings Authority and Presence where he was neither in Person nor by his Commissioner I think it not amiss to put Mr. J. in mind of his vain Distinction lest his Superviser should teach him to reply That the Imperial Laws above cited regard the Politick and not the natural Person of the Soveraign But to prevent him from flying to this miserable shift I must tell him That in the (†) Coke in Calvins Case p. 439. Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers the Father and the Son to cover their Treason invented this damnable Opinion That Homage and Allegiance was due to the King more upon the account of his Politick Capacity than his Natural Person Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That if the King did not demean himself by Reason in the Right of his Crown his Lieges were bound by Oath to remove him 2. That when the King could not be reformed by Sute of Law that ought to be done by the Sword 3. That his Lieges be bound to Govern in Aid of him and in Default of him And which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the Reign of Ed. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le Spencer and the other in Ann. 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1. If I should produce no more Authorities but these already cited it were enough to shew the Concurrence of the Church and Church-men with the Three Estates of this Realm as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience but because I have undertaken the Doctors Vindication I will shew what brave Men before him have defended this Bloody Doctrine that so if he cannot be Justified he may at least be Excused I begin with
Bishop Bilson as I find him speaking in his Book of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and Vnchristian Rebellion written against the Papists in Queen Elizabeths Time and printed 1586. There p. 256. Theoph. saith Our Saviour foreteaching his Disciples that they should be brought before Kings and Rulers and put to death and hated of all men for his Names sake addeth not as you would have it and he that first rebelleth but he that Endureth to the End shall be saved And again Nor with Violence restrain them but in patience possess your Souls p. 260. Deliverance if you would have obtain it by Prayer and expect it in Peace those be Weapons for Christians p. 262. The Subject hath no refuge against his Soveraign but only to God by Prayer and Patience p. 278. Your Spanish Inquisitions and French Massacres where you murdered Men Women and Children by thousands and ten thousands against the very Grounds of all Equity Piety and Humanity without convicting accusing or calling them before any Judge to hear what was misliked in them are able to set Grave and Good Men at their Wits end and to make them justly doubt since you refuse the course of all Divine and Humane Laws with them whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such Barbarous Blood-suckers yet we stand not on that if the Laws of the Land where they converse do not permit them to Guard their Lives when they are assaulted against Law or if they take Arms as you do to Depose Princes we will never excuse them from Rebellion p. 279. For my part I must confess except the Laws of those Realms do permit the People to stand on their Right if the Prince would offer that Wrong I dare not allow their Arms. This is his determination in case of a Massacre which is the Extremity of Tyranny and it is agreeable not only to the Scripture but to the Practise of the Primitive Christians who against Equity Humanity and the Common Law of all Civil Governments endured many Tyrannical Massacres when they were able to resist And Bishop Jewel whom I should have set first in his Defence of the Apology p. 15. saith unto Harding We teach the people at St. Paul doth to be Subject to the Higher Powers not only for Fear but also for Conscience We teach them that whos◠striketh with the Sword by private Authority shall perish with the Sword If the Prince happen to be wicked or cruel or burdensom we teach them to say with St. Ambrose Arma nostra sunt preces lachrymae Tears and Prayers be our Weapons He reckons this Bishop among the Worthies p. 14. of Preface but according to him he must have been but a Quack in Divinity for he was for the old Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears The Peole of England it seems were taught in his time as the Doctor taught the Citizens of London in his Bow-Sermon and therefore Passive Obedience was either Heterodox Divinity then or else it is none now Nay it was taught by the Martyrs themselves in Queen Maries days for Bradford in his Letter saith Howbeit never for any thing resist or rise up against the Magistrates And Bishop Latimer in King Edward the Sixths days taught it very plainly in his 4th Sermon before the King in his Familiar Homespun Stile When I was travailed in the Tower saith he my Lord Darsy was telling me of the Faithful Service that he had done the Kings Majesty that dead is And had I seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field said he and had I seen his Grace come against us I would have lighted from my Horse and taken my Sword by the Point and yielded it into his Graces Hands Mary quod I but in the mean season you played not the part of a Faithful Subject in holding with the People in a Commotion and Disturbance It hath been the Cast of all Traytors to pretend nothing against the Kings Person they never pretend the matter to the King but to others Subjects may not resist any Magistrates nor ought to do nothing contrary to the Kings Laws I could produce much more to the same purpose out of Archbishop Sandys his Sermons Dr. Willet upon Rom. 13. Dr. Hakewels Scutum Regium Dr. Boys his Postils Dean Nowell on the 5th Com. Dr. Owen in his Antiparaeus Mr. Perkins on the 5th Com. the Little Book called Deus Rex not to mention Bishop Sanderson and other latter Divines but I have said enough to Justifie Dr. Hickes or Condemn the Church of England and her Reformers and the most Famous Divines that She hath bred Let Mr. J. look to it either the Dr. hath done well or else they are all in the same Condemnation with him And that he may know what a severe Censure he deserves for opposing this Evangelical Principle which the Dr. preached up I refer him to Erasmus in Luc. 22.36 especially to these words Mihi nulla haeresis videtur perniciosior nulla blasphemia secleratior quam si quis philistinorum exemplo Evangelici agri puteos qui a Christo venam habent aqua vivae scatentis in vitam aeternam terrâ oppleta sensum spiritualem vertat in carnalem doctrinam caelestem depravet in terrenam ac sacro-sancta Christi dogmata detorqueat imò corumpat idque reclamantibus omnibus ejus praeceptis reclamante totâ ipsius vitâ reclamante doctrinâ Apostolicâ refragantibus tot martyrum millibus repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus I do not accuse him of Heresie Blasphemy or perverting the Truths of the Gospel but if Erasmus do it I cannot help it he must get off as well as he can Having now I hope shewn that Passive Obedience is required of all Subjects by the Common Laws of Soveraignty and in particular of the English by the Laws Imperial belonging to this Crown I might here conclude this Chapter but that having undertaken the Defence of the Doctor I am obliged to answer some particular Passages which cannot well be answered but apart by themselves In the 80th p. he cites this Passage out of the Doctors Sermon Neither doth the Gospel prescribe any Remedy but Flight against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate allowing of no other Mean when we cannot escape betwixt denying and dying for the Faith To this he Replyes What the Gospel Prescribes is one thing what it Allows is another There are ten ten thousand things allowed by the Gospel not one of which is prescribed by it But what is this to the purpose the Doctor speaks there of the only Gospel-Expedient or Remedy against Persecution which is Flight He asserts that the Gospel allows of no other Mean against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate and if it allow no other then certainly it prescribes That The Physitian that allows but of one only Medicine against the Plague doth certainly prescribe it to the Patient And to make no more words about the matter Flight by the
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
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
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
the worst Prince that hitherto hath been both Rebels are unmeet Ministers and Rebellion an unfit and unwholesome Medicine to reform any small Lacks in a Prince or to cure any little Grief in a Government such lewd Remedies being far worse than any other Maladies and Disorders that can be in the Body of a Commonwealth I appeal to the Late Rebellion which the Rebels called a Defensive War to verifie this Doctrine for there was more Blood shed in it in one Battel than in all the Tyrannies and Persecutions of the Nation since the Conquest and in the two Kingdoms there hath been more Christian Blood shed in Rebellions since the Reformation by pretended Undertakers of Defensive War than throughout the whole Roman Empire in nine of the first ten Famous Persecutions There is scarce any other Kingdom in the World wherein it may not be shewed by woful example how disadvantagious and prejudicial it would be to the Commonwealth that it should be Lawful for the People to take up Arms for Defence of their Liberties and Religion Civil Wars would be the constant Effect of such an Exorbitant Power because there would never want Turbulent and Ambitious Spirits to make the Populace Jealous of their Soveraign and by consequence ready upon the first Alarm to rise up in defence of their Rights Had the People of this and the Neighbouring Nation had such a Power of Resistance granted unto them this Island had been made a Theater of War almost ever since his Majesties Happy Restauration nay in all appearance there had been more Blood shed in the Land these 4 last years of our Fears and Jealousies than can without Resistance be shed in a Persecution of 20 years long Nay let us imagine a Popish Prince as bigotted in Religion and as sanguinary in his Temper as may be now Reigning over us yet he could not likely cause so much Ruin Bloodshed and Desolation in his whole Reign as a War between him and his Resisting Subjects would cause in one Year Wherefore it is plain that it is the Interest even of the People themselves that so great a Power should be in the Soveraign that none should withstand him or rise up against him and that nothing can be more pernicious to the Commonwealth in any Government than that the Subjects should have a Power of taking up Arms to defend their Liberties and Religion Chap. XII Wherein is shewed That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience we are Secure enough of our Lives Properties and Religion ALL that I have hitherto said of Passive Obedience hath been to satisfie the Reasons of the Thinking and Sober Part of Men and now I proceed to propose some Considerations which may serve as a sufficient Answer to that Hasty Question which timourous and suspicious men are apt to make against this Doctrine saying Where then is our Security How can we be Safe from the utmost Tyranny and Oppression of our Soveraign if we may not be allowed to Resist To which I answer That I have already shewn that the Remedy of Resistance is as bad or worse than the Disease of Tyranny and Persecution and I furthermore add that upon supposition there were some Cases allowed wherein we might take up Defensive Arms against the Soveraign what Security could the Soveraign have upon desisting from Tyranny and Persecution that this Defensive Army would lay down their Arms Might they not say that he was not to be trusted having once broke his Coronation-Oath and that it was necessary for them to keep up in Arms to prevent a second Persecution Nay might they not serve him as the Army served our Late Blessed Soveraign and if they went about to do so who durst question them for what they did Perhaps you will reply that another Army is to be raised to reduce this to their former Obedience But how difficult would it be for an Oppressed Prince and People to raise an Army against another Conquering Army or if they did what dismal Consequences far worse than any Tyranny would follow thereupon Besides the Ruines and Devastations during the War Slavery and Arbitrary Government would naturally be the Event of it For if the first Army prevailed then the Injured Prince as well as the People whom they pretended to defend must be Subject to their Discretion but if the King and his new Army raised to reduce them prevailed what then will become of our Liberties and Religion which the first Army rose up to defend But perhaps you will object That you would have this Defensive Army under the Conduct of sworn Trustees for the People That they should be Disbanded as soon as they have reduced the Tyrannizing Prince But who shall see that these Trustees shall perform their Trust How can you be Secure they will not break their Oaths Or if they be Faithful to their Trust how can you be secure the Defensive Army will be disbanded by them Remember what hapned between Cromwels Army and the House But still you will object that to prevent these Inconveniences you would have the Government in more Hands than one you would not have one man only entrusted with it Well let it be so Let us suppose that the Three Estates in Parliament were our Governours yet I can object as strongly against this Either they will agree together or disagree If they agree how can you be secure they will not divide the Land among them 〈◊〉 in a short time govern us as Arbitrarily as the Sâ—â—â—ate of Venice under which the People really are what we call Slaves But if they disagree as is most probable having the Passions of Men Ambition Covetousness and Emulations then their Government will become uncertain and odious and the most popular amongst them will take an Opportunity to set up himself and when he hath mastered his Companions he must secure his Usurpation by Force and then his Pleasure must be our Law All these Inconveniences would apparently attend the new Model for the Association to back the Exclusion of the next Heir For either the Heads of it would agree or disagree If they continued to agree then the preposterous Heir after he was made King and his People also must be subject to their Discretion But if they should disagree as most probably they would then as fast as they fell out among themselves or grew discontented their Security would oblige them to revolt unto the Secluded Heir and help him to get possession of the Crown And in what a Miserable Condition would this Nation be during such a Civil War no Tyranny in all probability could be so Destructive and whether the Popish Prince or the Opposing Army at last prevailed we must be subject to their Sword In a word there neither is nor can be any absolute Security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government And therefore in the second place it may be a sufficient
dangerous Attempt But upon supposition that he could find Means to maintain such a Tyrannical State I here assert from what I have written in the Doctors Vindication in the 10th and 11th Chapters That we ought as Christian Subjects patiently to endure such a Contralegal Persecution being forbid by the Imperial Laws of this Realm and by the Gospel which confirms the Imperial Laws of all Governments to rise up in Arms against the King or repel his Military Forces by Military Violence and Force Furthermore from this Consideration that there can be no Illegal Persecution in this Realm while the Law is kept open It may appear to every Impartial Reader how maliciously the Author of Julian traduced Dr. Hickes and his Sermon as if he had taught the People That they were to Suffer when they might be Protected by Laws There are very many Fallacious Passages in his Book to this purpose as where he talks of Throwing away our Lives and Prostituting our Lives and where he seems to assert this strongly against the Doctor That if a man be illegally assaulted in the way of Violence and Assassination he may use all Lawful Remedies to defend themselves But how doth the Doctors Sermon or the Notion of Passive Obedience any way contradict this Contra sicarium quilibet homo est miles The Laws of all Governments allow every Man to defend his Life against an Illegal Assassin and he that doth not so when he can dies not like a Martyr but a Fool. He that doth not use all Lawful Means and Remedies for his own Preservation is mightily to be blamed as altogether unworthy of such Protection as blessed be God we enjoy But the Doctrine of Passive Obedience as taught in general by the Doctor is not justly chargeable with any such odious Inferences as Mr. J. makes from it as only forbidding such Defence as a man makes against the Laws of his Country when he draws or uses the Sword against such persons or in such a manner to defend himself as the Law hath not permitted him to do In a word the Doctrine of Passive Obedience only condemns Illegal Resistance such Resistance as the Laws of every Soveraign Government forbid against the King his Army or Officers such Resistance more especially as is a Transgression of the Imperial Laws Those are the Laws which require Passive Obedience those are the Laws which the Doctor had a regard to in teaching that Doctrine And as Christianity doth not devest any People from their Rights and Priviledges so neither doth it devest the Soveraign of His. And if the Doctrine of Passive Obedience be not inconsistent with that Defence which the Law allows every Man to make against an Illegal Assassin much less is it inconsistent as he (†) Preface p. 8. maliciously asserts with that Civil Defence which every man is bound to make for himself before the Magistrate St. Paul saith he was not for Passive Obedience even when the Lawful Magistrate persecuted him if it were in an Vnlawful way but he stood upon his Birthright As he was a Roman and more-over That he ought not to be scourged Uncondemned But what is this Civil pleading to Forcible and Military Resistance What is the Defence which a Man makes with his Tongue before any Tribunal to the Defence which he makes with his Sword in the Field I appeal to the Conscience of Mr. J. as he will answer it to God whether he thinks That the Doctrine of Passive Obedience precludes any man from pleading his Civil Rights or whether the Doctor would contradict his own Doctrine if he should plead his Birthright as an English man or the 29th Chapter of Magna Charta before a Popish Prince or Judg If he thinks he would not then why would he shew so little common Honesty as to fasten such Invidious Consequences upon that Doctrine and the Doctor against his own Conscience and Belief To as little purpose hath he told us the Story of the Pursuivant of the High-Commission-Court who was sent by the Commissioners to Arrest the Body of a Man to bring him before them and in the striving was killed Whether this was Murder or not saith he out of (†) Rep. 12. p. p. 49. Coke was doubted And upon conference at the next Assizes it was resolved that the Arrest was Tortius i. e. wrongful or without Lawful Authority and by consequence that it was no Murder But then with his wonted Integrity he conceals the main Circumstance from the Common Reader which is implyed by Coke and expressed by (‖) Rep. 2. part p. 15. Brownlow viz. That is was found Homicide or Manslaughter which is a breach of the 6th Commandment and Murder in the Eyes of God For there are several degrees of Murder whereof some are more Grievous than others There is Murder Premeditate and Murder Vnpremeditate murdering of a Private Man and murdering of an Officer as an Officer in the execution of his Office The Vnpremeditate Murder of a private Man or of an Officer not in the Execution of his Office is a less grievous sort of Murder which our Law calls Manslaughter but the Premeditate Murder of a Private Man or of an †Officer not doing his Office (‖) See Crooks Rep. in Cooks Case Term Pasch in Banc. reg an 15 Caroli Regis as also the Vnpremeditate Murder of an Officer doing his Office as being more grievous sorts of Murder are in our Law especially called Murder and so the Difference between Manslaughter and Murder is only Gradual the Law allowing the benefit of Clergy to that but not to this Now the Pursuivant was a proper Officer of the High-Commission but because that Court could give no Power to arrest any Mans Body but only to cite him to appear before them as Ecclesiastical Courts do therefore the killing of their Pursuivant in making the Arrest was judged Manslaughter because it was Unpremeditate and he was not doing his Office but yet the Verdict for Manslaughter lays the Pursuivants Blood not upon his own but upon his Murderers Head He that killed him was a Murderer and was to answer for his Blood to God without Repentance and to the King with his own Life had he not read his Neck Verse And if Mr. J. think otherwise as he seems to do that an Homicide is not guilty of the Blood which he sheds then before the time of Henry the 8th no killing could be Murder because till then there was no distinction betwixt Manslaughter and Murder but all Homicides whatsoever were equal in the Eye of the Law and all Homicides had equally the Benefit of Clergy I am confident Mr. J. by his learned Conversation with Mr. H. could not but know all this and if he did why did he go about to wash the Guilty Man Clean of the Pursuivants Blood in saying only that the killing of him was not found Murder and that his Blood was upon his own Head But the Reason is apparent