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.
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
Gentleman as was reported put this Dilemma in the House of Commons which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory or Valid or they were not If not then Acts of Parliament which impeach the Succession are without any more ado Null and Void in Law but if they were by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded and King James admitted to the Crown contrary to many Statutes against him notwithstanding all which the (t) Jacob. I. High Court of Parliament declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend unto his Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Royal Blood Here His Succession is owned for Lawful and Vndoubted against the foresaid Acts Lawful not by any Statute but contrary to Statutes by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions as tending to the Disinberison and Prejudice of the Crown For as the Most Learned and Loyal (u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons a Bill of Exclusion if it should pass would change the Essence of the Monarchy and make the Crown Elective or as another (x) Author of the Power of Parliaments p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective For by the same Reason that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences and so consequently by such Exclusions Elect whom they please The next Reason which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful is the Oath of Supremacy which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion or other and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House By this Oath every one who takes it swears to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And I appeal to every Honest and Loyal English-man whether it be not one of the most undoubted transcendent and Essential Rights Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs and united to the Imperial Crown of England that they succeed unto the Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood Secondly I desire to know Whether by Lawful Successors is not to be understood such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Common-Law of England and if so how any Man who is within the Obligation of this Oath can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which deprives the next Heir and in him virtually the whole Royal Family of the Chief Priviledge and Preheminence which belongs unto him by the Common-Law of this Realm Or how any Man who hath taken this Oath which is so apparently designed for the Preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of the Royal Family can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death according to the Common Right of Hereditary Succession which by common-Common-Law belongs unto Him and is annexed to the Crown What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors in general must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order of Hereditary Succession when it shall come to their turn to succeed I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it Some indeed have said with our Author that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion which is a meer Shift and proves nothing because it proves too much For according to this Answer we might dispense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King if any should hereafter turn such because the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are Protestant Oaths and are not to be understood according to them in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion Secondly Though they are Protestant Oaths yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants but as lawful and rightful King and Heirs according to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom and therefore Moderate Papists will take the Oath of Supremacy as well as of Allegiance as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of (y) 35 H. 8. ch 1. § 11. H. 8. which they could not do were they made to the King and his Heirs as Protestants But Thirdly As they are Protestant Oaths they bind us the more Emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Vsurpation of the Pope who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings and of Excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession Witness Henry the 4th and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs and Successors when their Rights shall fall I have joyned the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Successors and Him and them to defend to the utmost of our Power And I here protest to all the World That when I took these Oaths I understood the Words Heirs and Successors for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordinary Course of Hereditary Succession And I appeal to the Conscience of every Honest Protestant if he did not understand them so Other Excluders I have heard maintain that the King and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Exclusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part theoreof And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth but by the Person or Persons to whom and for whose behoof it was made To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament
can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person is to give him what his Justice would abhor a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men which Consideration I suppose as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion made the great Man above cited say For my part I think there is more of Popery in this Bill than there can possibly be in the Nation without it for none but Papists and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion But some Men will say Why should not Protestants Disinherit Popish as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes To which the Answer is easie by another Question Why should not Protestants Depose Popish as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings I am not Conscious to my self that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing as I have done from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths (z) Preface p. 19. shameful Sophistry and the Conscientious Regard that Honest Protestants have unto them deceitful Prejudice which he saith is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual and Possible Heirs But he is very much and I fear very Wilfully mistaken For the Faith and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession or to speak yet more Otherwise thus Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown plainly our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs and is to be made good and performed unto them and every one of them when by the Providence of God they shall come to be actual according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession and thus for Example to use his own Instance The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs and Successors i. e. To the Kings Future Heirs and Successors upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by vertue of that Grant when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence who determines the days of Kings become an Actual Heir or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Vndoubted Succession according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown which is (b) Coke Littleton fol. 1.6 The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion of which none is the Author but God alone And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ and the Royal Shield carryes this Motto Dieu mon droit Nay Queen Elizabeth who through the Dubiousness of her Title courted the People so much yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands printed 1585. speaks as it became such a Soveraign Princess in this manner Although Kings and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings and in that Respect not bound to yield Account or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign and though among the most Ancient and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England and other Dominions which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God and thereby God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birthright and Proximity of Blood From this Principle many good Men who are as Wise and as Learned as any of the Excluders infer this Conclusion That it would be Vsurpation without a manifest Revelation from God to Alienate the Crown from this Family to which he only hath given it or to preclude any Person of it much more the next Heir whether Apparent or Presumptive from succeeding thereunto This Argument is not so slight as perhaps Mr. J. will make it for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family then it is very reasonable to conclude That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery would be Opposition to the Will of God This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family but most of all the next Heir upon the Line from the absolute Right or Birthright which God alone hath given him would be also to oppose the Will of God All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the (c) Third Part. p. 63 64 Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of England and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the (d) Ib. p. 97 98. House of Commons and it is above a Week since and I am confident they will still own them without being ashamed of them and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man than he is to follow as he speaks their New Light Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession are own'd by the Three Estates of Scotland and would I am confident be owned by them were they to meet again I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament Entituled An Act acknowledging and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland August 13. 1681. THe Estates of Parliament considering That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty recognise acknowledge and Declare That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right and the Nature of the Monarchy as well as by the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually Reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law Duty and Allegiance to obey the
next immediate and Lawful Heir either Male or Female upon which the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolved And that no Difference in Religion nor no Law or Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the Right of Succession and Lineal Descent of the Crown to the Nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the Degrees aforesaid nor can stop or hinder them in the Full Free and Actual Administration of the Government according to the Laws of this Kingdom Like as our Soveraign Lord To this Declaration of the Three Estates in Scotland I shall and the Judgment of the Vice-Chancelor Heads of Houses Doctors and other Learned and Loyal Members of the Vniversity of Cambridge in their (e) Gazett n. 1653. Address to His Majesty at New-Market Sept. 18. 1681. wherein they declare That they will still believe and maintain that our Kings derive not their Titles from the People but from God that to Him only they are Accountable that it belongs not to Subjects either to Create or Censure but to Honour and Obey their Soveraign who comes to be so by a Fundamental Hereditary Right of Succession which no Religion no Law no Fault or Forfeiture can Alter or Diminish These Learned Men indeed have not so plainly given their Reasons for their Opinion but by the Hints which they have given of them we may perceive that they are the same which I have insisted upon and I believe they will still own them and never be ashamed thereof But Mr. J. it seems hath learnt another Lesson since he left the Vniversity A Good Wit upon the Fret and the great Advantage of having such a Conducter as Mr. H. have made him do Wonders against the Succession and bless the World with a New Discovery That (f) Preface p. 12. the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion to the great Reproach of all the Bishops who it may be had not preferred some Great Men in their own Opinion according to their fancied Deserts But alas All these Fathers Sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus Theologus had but one Beard and what they said was not determining as Casuists but as Orators declaiming against Constantius for choosing or making of Julian Caesar which is nothing to a Bill of Exclusion or the Merits of Lineal Hereditary Succession of which the Father or the Fathers had no more Notion than of Guns and Printing or of a Senate consisting of 2 Houses and 3 Estates But Mr. J. hath shewn how much of the Serpent he hath in him in Writing with so much Guile and Venom especially against the Succession and Passive Obedience and in Winding and Turning the Words of Good Authors from their Genuine Sense to his own Purposes as that Famous Passage of Gregory 2 Invect p. 123. where the Father saith That they were destitute of all Humane Aid and had no other Armour nor Wall nor Defence left them but their Hope in God This Place as I have shewn p. 152. Bishop Montague understood of Free and Voluntary Passive Obedience and so did the learned (g) Scutum Regium l. 3. p. 143. Num ductoribus vobis opus est at habâ—tis Jovianum Valentinianum Valentem qui postea sunt Imperii gubernaculis potiti denique Artemium sub ipso Constantino artis militaris peritiâ celebrem vobis interea idem animus eadem mens quae Gregorio Nazianzeno De his Juliani temporibus loquens Nobis quibus nulla alia arma nec muri nec presidia c. Dr. Hakewell as every Man needs must who understands the History of those Times But Mr. J. with what Ingenuity let others judge hath (h) P. 94. cited the Words to signifie forced Passive Obedience such as that of the Papists hath been of late in England who undoubtedly are Passive for no other Reason but because they want sufficient Numbers and Strength But as all Sophistical Writers are apt to do so Mr. J. hath contradicted himself as to this and other Particulars An in the 26th page of his Preface where he shews out of Sozom. That Julians Army were Christians and in the 8th page of his Book out of Nazianzen That there were more than 7000 of them i. e. an indefinite great Number who did not bow the knee to Baal but repulsed Julian as a brave strong Wall does a sorry Engine that is plaid against it Now if Julians Army were Christians and above 7000 of them repulsed Julian with their Passive Valour as a strong Wall does a sorry Engine was it not a great Contradiction and great Disingenuity in Mr. J. to represent them as Few and Defenceless and their Passive Obedience as performed by them upon mere Necessity and Force It is usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers to set forth the Constancy of the Martyrs and Confessors by the Metaphor of a Pillar or Wall Thus the Christians of Lyons and Vienna in their (i) Euseb l. 5. c. 1. Epistle in which they give an Account of their Sufferings say That the Grace of God did fight in them against the Devil and fortifie the Weak and set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Firm Pillars among them who by their Patience and Constancy drew all the Assaults of the Devil upon themselves This I have observed for the sake of the Common Readers of Julian some of which to my knowledge understood that Phrase of Repelling Julian as a brave strong Wall in the Sense wherein Mr. J. perhaps designed they should take it for Active and not for Passive Resistance which puts me in mind of Hugh Peters who preached up Rebellion on those Words Heb. 12.4 Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood But to Instance in another of his Contradictions p. 21. he cites Eusebius for saying That Constantius Chlorus past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine Where by that Phrase past over he would have his Reader or else it is nothing to the purpose understand Entailed And yet p. 1. he cites the same Author again for saying that Constantine at his death gave to his Eldest Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be rendred his Grandfathers share and not that part which came by his Ancestors as our Author doth But now if Constantius Chlorus Entailed or Past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine M. how could he give it at his death to his Eldest Son Constantine the second I desire to know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. who is Fitter to Resolve the Question If a Man can succeed to the same Estate both as Heir by Testament and Entail The Admirers of Julian whereof some pretend to be great Masters of Reason might with half an Eye purged of Bad Humours have discerned these and all other Inconsistencies which I have observed in this following Answer but by some of them who took so much Pains to Recommend and Disperse the Book
preferred his base (‖) Vid. Pomp. Laet. Zosim l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Son Crispus Caesar if he had lived or his Nephew Dalmatius before his own Children or a Stranger before them all If he might have done so as according to the Laws and Custom of the Empire he might then let them tell me where is their Hereditary Empire and the Lineal Succession of the House of Chlorus to the Imperial Crown Lastly let me ask them If the Three Caesars designed by Constantine (†) Feliciano Titiano Coss commenced Augusti like our Princes His Coss Constantinus Aug. ad Caelestia Regna ablatus est xi Cal. Jun. Et ipso anno nuncupati sunt tres Augusti Constantinus Constantius Constans v. id Septemb. Ida. Fast Consular From whence it is evident that Constantinus M. died the 20th of May but his Three sons were not declared Augusti till the 8th of September following and in the mean time as Candidates for the Empire rather than Emperors they stiled themselves Caesars as is evident from Constantine Juniors Letter in favour of Athanasius dated the 25th or the Calends of July next after his Fathers death wherein he stiles himself Caesar ib. in the moment of their Fathers death or whether they were not formally made so by the Suffrage of the Legions and whether the Suffrage of the Legions and the unanimous Consent of the Senate according to the Custom of the Empire would not have made any Strangers as rightful Emperors as they When they have considered of an Answer to these Questions I hope they will find that there is nothing more plain than that the Empire was not Hereditary which I undertook to prove After the death of Constantine the Empire remained not long Tripartite for Constantine his eldest Son being killed in a Battel with the (‖) Cedrenus Pomp. Laet. Zonaras Souldiers of Constans it was reduced to the two surviving Brothers whereof (†) Zosim l. 2. Constans the youngest being killed in a Battel agianst the Rebel Magnentius in the 14th year of his Reign the whole devolved upon Constantius who of his (*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz l. Invect p. 62. goodness made his Cozen-German Gallus elder Brother to Julian Caesar and not long after deposed him from the (‖) Edicto Gallum dignitate privavit Pomp. Laet. Caesarship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 498 500. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zon. l. 3. p. 18. Vid. Philostorg Hist Ecc. l. 3. p. 492. and put him to death for his Disobedience (†) Vid. Amm. Marcell l. 14. c. 2 7 9 11. Onerosus bonis omnibus Caesar Ausurus hostilia in auctorem suae felicitatis Ferociens ut Leo cadaveribus pastus Ablatis regiis monumentis Caesarem tunicâ texit communi and Murder of Domitian and Montius After the death of Gallus he made his Brother Julian Caesar and gave him his Sister Helena to Wife Having made him Caesar he sent him into Gaul where he was very successful against the Enemies of the Empire and having got the hearts of the Army by Donatives and other Arts they proclaimed him (‖) Zosim l 3. p. 711. Am. Marcell l. 20. Zonar l. 3. p. 08. Socrates l. 2. c. 47. l. 3. c. 1. Imperator Augustus Zosom l. 5. 1. and put the Diadem upon him (†) Amm. Marcell l. 22. and afterwards swore Allegiance to him upon which Contantius returns from the Persian Expedition and marches against him with his Army designing to reduce him but dies in his March in Cilicia (‖) Amm. Marcell l. 21. saith it was reported That Constantius at his death nominated Julian his Successor in the Empire and made him his Heir leaving him in the Possession of the Empire in which after his Majesties death he was perpectly confirmed by the consent of (*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim l. 3. Vid. Zonar l. 3. p. 21. his Army (†) L. 3. Zosimus tells us That Constantius after the death of Gallus deliberated whether he should create a new Caesar or take a Partner to the Empire after the Example of former Emperors but not knowing any whom he durst trust in the Augustusship with himself he was very uncertain what he should do till Eusebia the Empress perswaded him by many Arguments to constitute Julian Caesar After the Death of Gallus Ammianus Marcellinus saith That many of the Courtiers were (†) Caveri debere Caesaris nomen replicantes gesta sub Gallo against his making of Julian Caesar but that the Empress openly opposed them all saying That the Emperor (‖) Ommibusque memerans anteponi debere â—ropinquum ought to prefer his Kinsman before a Stranger And Julian was so sensible of the Empresses Kindness that he afterwards wrote an (†) Orat. 3. p. 217. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And p. 218. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oration in her praise to express his Gratitude unto her in which he owns all that he had to the Emperors free Bounty and Generosity and accordingly (‖) Tom. 3. p. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zonaras tells us That Constantius sent this Message to him after he had Usurped the Empire that he ought to remember how much he was indebted to his Kindness Not only for making of him Caesar but that he had bred him up from a Child From all which it is plain First That Constantius had the liberty after the death of Gallus whether he would choose any Caesar or no. 2. That he might by the Laws and Customs of the Empire have created any other man Caesar as well as Julian 3. That after he had freely chosen him he might freely have deposed him from the Caesarship as he did his Brother Gallus as (†) In Syriâ Augusti vehiculum irascentis per spatium mille passâ—um fere pedes Antegressus est Galerius purpuratus Am. Marc. l. 14. Vid. Bapt. Egn. Galerius was afraid Dioclesian would have deposed him and as Adrian designed to depose (‖) Hic tamen valetudinis adeo â—â—serae fuit ut Adrianum statim adoptionis paeniteret potuerâ—to eum amovere à familiâ Imperaâ—oriâ quum saepe de aliis cogitaret siforte vixisset Spart in Elio Vero. Ceionius Commodus otherwise called Aelius Verus because he was a Weak and Vnhealthy man Nay the (†) Zonar Loc cit Zosim l. 3. p. 711. Historians agree That Constantius commanded Julian after he rebelled to put off the Habit of Caesar and betake himself to a private condition All which things how agreeable they are with the Birthright of Julian and the notion of an Hereditary Empire I leave to the meanest Capacity to judge This very Contradiction is plainly discernable in our Authors First and Second Chapters notwithstanding all the Art and Fallacies he hath used to disguise the Cheat from vulgar Readers There we have Made Julian Caesar Would never have made Julian Caesar the making
Vid. Jul. Ep. ad S. P. Q. Athen. that he sent him into Gaul that he had such Success there against the Barbarians that the Army declared him Augustus that the Emperor died in his March against him and that after his death his Souldiers submitted unto him But yet our Fallacious Author represents the matter as if he had been Emperor by particular Designation from God like David or Constantine and then cries out Yet the Fathers had the conscience to set aside such a Title as this But Julian was not made Caesar by particular Order from God but by the free Choice of Constantius to whom he owned the Honour of the Caesarship It was he that set him upon the next step to the Empire when he might have set another upon it he by doing that which he was free not to have done was the occasion of his coming so easily to the Empire Julian had no antecedent Right to the Caesarship or the Government of Gaul but he owed both to the Generosity of Constantius And this is the true Ground of all the Rhetorical Interrogatories of Gregory and of Constantius his bewailing and repenting at his death for doing what he had done for him because he was free to have done otherwise indeed as free as Henry the 7th or his eldest Son Prince Arthur had he lived would have been to have made his Brother Henry who was designed for a Churchman Archbishop of Canterbury or York This our Author knew very well and this the very Expressions which he brings out of Nazianzen imply but yet lest the vulgar Reader should discern the Fallacy he keeps a great Jingling with Foreclosing ande Excluding Julian which words as all terms of Privation connote the Habit insensibly carry the understanding of the unwary Reader to think of some antecedent Birthright which Julian had to his Cosens Throne whereas strictly speaking he had no more right unto it than the Superviser of his Book to the Judges place in Ireland from which in his abusive sense of the words he was Excluded and Foreclosed And I would fain ask our Author who hath so artificially disguised the Nature of the Imperial Succession whether at the time of writing he was not conscious to himself of this Fallacy which he is guilty of in calling the Non-Election or Preterition of Julian by the name of Exclusion and if he were not whether he be not convinced of his Mistake now If he be not then I desire him to tell me whether Julian after the death of Constantius could by vertue of Birthright have challenged the Roman Empire as Henry of Lancaster did the English mutatis mutandis in these words (‖) Great point of succession p. 15. I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Realm of England with all the Members and the Appurtenances as I am descended by right line of the Blood coming from the Good Lord King Henry the Third and through that Right which God of his Grace hath sent me Or whether the Senate of Rome could have made such a Recognition of Julians Right as the Parliament made to King (†) Great Point of Succession p. 23. James at his first coming to the Crown We being thereunto bound both by the Laws of God and Man do with unspeakable Joy recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England c. did by inherent Birth-right lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to your Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm and thereunto we do humbly submit and oblige our selves our Heirs and Successors for ever If these things could not have been applyed to Julian upon the death of his Cousen Constantius then I hope Mr. J. will grant me that his Arguings from the Authority of Nazianzen are fraudulent and inconclusive and that for all he can make of that single fathers Poetical Exclamations to the Ghost of Constantius the English Succession may be unalterable there being so wide a difference between the Roman and English Monarchy That being Elective and This Hereditary That being Casual Arbitrary Uncertain and most Irregular in its descent and this being fixed to one House in a lineal Descent according to Proximity of Blood But still after all this we are pressed with the Authority of Eusebius who as our Author tells us saith That the Empire was entailed by the Edict of Nature which saith he I think is the most sure and Divine Settlement that can be But Eusebius neither hath said nor could say so nor any thing equivalent thereunto for there was no such thing as Entail nor any notion of it among the Romans neither as to the Empire nor the Estates of Private Men the Emperors as well as their Subjects had always liberty to (†) Inst l. 2. Tit. 13. disinherit their next Relations and make who they would their Heirs and if a man chanced to die (‖) Inst l. 3. Tit. 2. Intestate they had Rules whereby the Estate was divided among his Posterity or if he had none the (†) Ib. Tit. 3. Collateral Kindred were his Heirs at Law Let us therefore consider the Passages of Eusebius wherein our Author triumphs before the Victory and first it is true That in his first (†) De vit Const l. 1. c. 9. edit Val. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quotation Eusebius saith that the Throne of the Empire descended upon Constantine from his Father but then agreeably to the report of all other Authors he implies but two Lines above his 2d Quotation (‖) De vit Const l. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dispositis deinde ex arbitrio rebus suis as Val. renders it that it was by the Order and Disposal of his Father which is inconsistent with an Entail and I would fain know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. how Constantius his part of the Empire came to be entailed upon his eldest Son when h ehad many by the Edict and Law of Nature and Maximians part of it was not so entailed upon his only Son Maxentius who was casually chosen to the Crown What hindered the Law of Nature to take place in the behalf of Maxentius the Resignation or death of his Father how came he not to have the benefit of it if the Law and Edict of Nature in his Quotations of Eusebius signifie a (‖) According to that Definition Jus naturale est dictatum rectae rationis indicans actui alicui ex ejus convenientiâ aut disconvenientiâ cum ipsâ naturâ rationali inesse moralem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem ac consequenter ab auctore naturae Deo talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi Grot. de Jure l. 1.10 Prime Indispensable Law of Nature as he would have his Reader to believe What else doth he mean by the (†) P. 21. most sure and divine Settlement that can be and by
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
the Lex Regia the People had surrendered unto him all their Authority and Power Whatsoever therefore the Emperor appointed by Letters or knowingly decreed or declared in his Interlocutories or commanded by an Edict was a Law and his Laws in distinction to the Senatus consulâ—â— c. were called Constitutions and they were either General or only (‖) Plane ex his quaedam sunt personales nec ad exemplum trahuntur c. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophe Personal which were not to be drawn into precedent or example as his Indulgences to his Favourites his Acts of Grace to Criminals or his (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph Punishing as he pleased those that were in his Displeasure all these were personal Constitutions for the (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Emperor was absolute Lord of his Subjects Lives and Estates It was by this Plenitude of Absolute Legal Power that Constantine the Great put to death his father-in-Father-in-Law Maximian his Wife Fausta his eldest Son Crispus and Licinius after he became his Subject and Prisonâ—â— By virtue of the same Power it was that Constantius put to death Dalmatius Caesar and Gallus Julians eldest Brother and therefore it is matter of Wonder to me that Mr. J. should lay down this groundless Assertion That Julian the Emperor persecuted the Christians and put Juventinus and Maximus to death contrary to Law He might have been better instructed by the Apostate in one of his (†) Orat. 1. ad Constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. l. 2. Orations cited by himself in which he tells Constantius That he lived more like a Subject than an Emperor who had Power over the Laws Methinks also his Superviser who should be well versed in the Fathers of our English Law might have taught him better out of Chancelor (‖) De Laud. Leg. Angl. c. 9. Fortescue who stating the Difference betwixt a purely Regal and Political Government explains the former from the Civil Law which saith The Prince his Pleasure hath the Force of Law Wherefore he was also much by the Cushion in his First Chapter where he asserts That all the Outrages which the Heathens committed against the Christians by the toleration and connivence of Julian were not only without but against Law for Julians Connivence or Approbation of things against Law or secret Direction to do them was a sufficient declaration of his Pleasure and had the Force of Law Therefore (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. p. 504. Philostorg saith that the Heathens in so doing fulfilled his Pleasure who as (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. c. 15. Zos observes however he did blame them in words which was very (*) Once the Alexandrians Soz. l. 3. c. 3. l. 5. c. 9. seldom yet underhand and indeed he exhorted them to do what they did and (†) Theod. l. 3. c. 6. made the most cruel and impious Heathens Officers both in the Army and over the Cities and Provinces whom he left to their own Discretion to treat the Christians as they pleased and when the Christians sent their Representatives to complain (‖) Soz. l. 5. c. 3. Vid. l. 5. c. 9. Naz. 1. Invect p. 92. he refused to admit them or if he admitted them he was only to tell them That (†) Socr. l. 3. c. 14. they were bound by their Religion to suffer Injuries (‖) L. 7. 503. Philostorgius saith He exceedingly rejoyced when he heard of the Christians Sufferings all which were sufficient significations of his Pleasure in this Particular that the Heathens should outrage the Christians any former Law or Edict whatsoever notwithstanding Accordingly (†) Invect l. p. 74. Gregory calls his Will in this particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unwritten Law For saith he the Emperor dividing his Power into two Parts Perswasion and Force Perswasion which is the Gentler Method he took into his own Hands and Force as being the more Inhumane he left to the People (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. not by any Publick Edict but by Toleration and Connivence declaring his Pleasure which is an Vnwritten Law But our Author as indeed he hath an excellent Talent that way quite misrepresents the Case (‖) P. 12. The Heathens saith he did not stay for Laws and Edicts to warrant such Proceedings but as soon as they knew how Julian was affected they took that for their Cue to act these Tragedies upon the Christians They knew it would please the Emperor and that was an Vnwritten Law How then did they act against Law if the Pleasure of the Emperor so directing was an Unwritten Law They acted according to his Pleasure which as Gregory observes was published unto them by his Words and Actions as plainly as by any (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invect l. p. 92. Edict and (‖) Ib. the Pleasure of the Emperor saith the Father upon the cruel Reprimand which Julian gave to the Governour of Gaza is an Vnwritten Law defended with Power and much stronger than Written Ones not supported by Authority Such sayings as these to his Governours (‖) Invect p. 92. What great matter is it if one Heathen kill ten Christians were sufficient Indications and Directions of his Royal Pleasure to make it have the force of Law and give it the nature of a Personal Constitution by virtue of the Lex Regia otherwise called (†) Lex Imperii solemnibus juris Imperatorem solvit l. Ex imperfecto C. de testamentis Lex Imperii which exempted the Emperor from Formalities of Law and Justice and gave him Authority above all written Laws I have now I hope sufficiently proved the falseness of our Authors Second Principle that his Julian persecuted contrary to Law And I have taken so much pains to confute it not that it is necessary to do so to defend the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which as I shall hereafter shew would be best defended upon this Assertion but to let the Admirers of Julian see how he hath imposed upon them in falsely representing the Christians like Barbarians in their Behaviour towards their Emperor and then in justifying of it by this Sham That Julian persecuted contrary to Law If any of them have taken the pains to read this Answer thus far I hope they will make a Pause to argue to this purpose from what I have written in this Chapter Either the Behaviour of the Christians was really as Barbarous and Exorbitant against Julian as Mr. J. hath represented it or it was not if it were then they must bear the Blame of it having no such Warrant for it as he told us they had but if it really were not then he hath done neither like a Scholar nor a Christian to exaggerate and misrepresent it with a design to deceive the World I am afraid The best Friends Mr. J. hath cannot keep him from being Obnoxious to one of these two Consequences and
them in Prison or lastly to give him the benefit of Theodoret such as they said to the Emperor himself That which they said at Table among other Souldiers by way of Discourse was this They bewailed the Sadness of the Times they lived in and blessed the former days They said it was not worth the while to live to see the Holy Laws trodden under foot the Lord of all put to open shame and to behold all places so full of the Nidor and Smoke of profane Sacrifices that a man could not breath in pure Air. When they were in Prison they exceedingly rejoyced and said They had no further need of Money or Fine Cloathes To the Tempters whom Julian sent to tempt them with hopes of greater Honours and the Example of other Officers who had lapsed they answered thus We are resolved for this Reason to stand out manfully that we may offer up our selves as it were Sacrifices to expiate for their Fall For if we do not dye now we shall dye we are certain shortly after and it is better to dye for the King of Angels than in the Service of such a Wicked Man it is better to lay down our Lives for an Heavenly Kingdom than for an Earthly one which we tread under foot for if a man dye in the Emperors Service he can receive no Reward for his Valour nay perhaps he may not get a Grave but be left to be devoured by Dogs but if we dye for the King of Angels we shall be sure to receive Glorious Bodies and to have Crowns and Rewards greater than our Sufferings can deserve Wherefore let us take up Spiritual Weapons we have no need of Darts and Arrows and other Bodily Armour our Tongues by which we are to confess Christ are sufficient Arms for us and out of our Mouths shall we shoot Arrows against the Devils Head These are the Sayings of these two Captains in St. Chrysost but they sounded so like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius in the Thebaean Legion that our Author durst not recite them lest his Readers should find out such a Famous Instance of Passive Obedience among the Commanders of Julians own Army who were so willing to be put to death by him contrary to Law What they said to the Tyrants Face was this We have been educated in the True Religion we have always been Obedient to the Laws which were made by Constantine and his Sons and now we cannot but lament to see all things filled with Abominations and even Meat and Drink defiled with Impure Sacrifices This we have bewailed in private with Tears and now lament in your presence This is all they said to Julians Face and now all that our Author can get by it to use his own petulant Phrase he may put in his Eye (†) L. 3. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret commends their Zeal and put this Confession wholly upon that Score As for the Souldiers who were trepanned to Sacrifice by Julian this is the short of the Story Julian on a certain day called his Army unto him to receive Donatives according to their Quality and places The Ceremony was ordered as in the time of the Pagan Emperors The Emperor sat in great State there was Gold set before him on one hand and Frankincense on the other and the Souldiers were told that according to Ancient Custom they were to cast a bit of this into the Fire Vid. Sozom lib. 5. c. 17. before they received any of that The (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. p. 85. whole Army were ensnared some it is likely through love of the Gold but many of them as it afterwards appeared through mere Ignorance and Simplicity and the specious pretence of Ancient Custom For when the Solemnity was done the Souldiers went to their Quarters where they eat together and as some of them (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. looking up to Heaven and signing themselves with the Sign of the Cross gave thanks unto Christ One among the rest asked them how they could call upon Christ after they had denyed him How replyed they half-dead with the Question how have we denyed Christ Insomuch replyed the other as you have Sacrificed Frankincense which is in effect to deny Christ Upon this immediately rising from the Table they became like distracted Men and being heated with Zeal and Indignation they ran about the Market-place crying out and saying We are Christians we are Christians in our Hearts we declare it to all men and before all men unto God to whom we live and for whom we will dye O Saviour Christ we have not betrayed thee we have not denyed the Faith for however we have offended thee with our Hands we are upright in our Hearts the Emperor deceived us and we are not tainted with his Gold we renounce this ungodly Act we will wash it off with our Blood And then running to the Emperor and throwing down their Gold cryed out Sir we have not received Gifts from you but our own Death and Damnation you called us not to Honour us by them but to mark us with Disgrace Now do us who are your Souldiers the Favour as to kill us for Christ to whom alone we are Subject as we are polluted so let us be purged by Fire reduce us into Ashes as we did the Frankincense cut off our Hands which we stretched out in offering of it and our Feet which carried us to the place and give our Gold to others who have not repented of that they have already received Christ is sufficient for us whom we prefer above all things in the World Having said this to the Emperor they informed others of the Cheat he had put upon them and exhorted them to make Satisfaction to their Saviours Honour with their Blood The Emperor was very mad at them but would no kill them because they should not be counted Martyrs but banished them If the Thebaean Legion was an Example of Passive Obedience much more were these Souldiers of Julian who behaved themselves with such Exemplary Modesty and Submission towards an Apostate Emperor who dealt so basely with his Army and persecuted the greater part of his Subjects as Mr. J. saith not only without but against Law One would think upon Mr. J's Principles that they should rather have mutined and formed themselves into a Posture of Resistance against such a Lawless Tyrant but instead of that they speak unto him like Apostles and desire to be killed for the Sake of Christ Mr. J. knew this very well which made him only refer unto the Story which he knew not one of an hundred among his Readers would nor one in ten could examine I am confident neither of his Supervisers neither he who is now with God nor he who is still among Men knew the Truth of these Stories if they did they were very ill-advised not to blot out the Reference which hath caused me to bring them upon the Stage
express it by a Word which might more properly be employed to describe the throwing of the Javelin which afterwards stuck in his Liver Oh but it was Julian and in that Age those were accounted the best Prayers and Tears which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor and contributed most to his Destruction This is a very pretty Declamation and would almost perswade a man to think that the Christians in Julians Time had Army-Chaplains among them and that they prayed to the Lord of Hosts for his Destruction in Field-Conventicles with Javelins in their Hands and Swords by their Sides The Nightly Squadrons and lying upon the Ground doth much countenance this Notion and if the unwary Readers of Julian be carried into such Mistakes by the Authors Artillery-Metaphors as some I know have been is he not to Answer to God for it Especially considering that after so many false and groundless Charges upon those Christians in general At length he (‖) P. 95. represents them as Rebels in their Hearts and saith That they made use of other Ingredients besides Prayers and Tears in their Composition against a Persecutor I shall hereafter shew the Falseness of that Charge and now proceed to examine the Justice of this How doth it appear that the Christians in Julians Time prayed for his Destruction The Charge is General like all other general Charges ought to be proved from a great Number of Particulars especially since the Society so charged is little less than the Catholik Church Doth any Author say in general That the Christians prayed for the death of Julian or can he furnish us with so many particular Instances in different places as may by the Laws of Induction serve to ground such a General Charge upon But instead of that he presents us but with two Instances which really are but one even the Example of Old Gregory and his Church at Nazianzum for the We in Young (†) Invect 1. p. 123. Gregory relates to the Christians of that City of whom he being one speaks in the Plural Number We called for the Sword and the Plagues of Egypt and We besought him to judge his own Cause c. And then speaking more particularly of himself These saith he were my mental and verbal Prayers unto God But what is the Practise of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches and Cities of the Empire Is this without more Examples sufficient to prove that the rest of the Churches in the Roman Empire did publickly strike the Villain for so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with their Joynt Prayers and Supplications or that other Bishops generally speaking privately Fasted and Watched and Prayed for his Destruction and taught their People so to do Would the singular Practise of one English Bishop and of his People following his Example be a sufficient Ground for a General Charge upon the whole Church of England If it would not how much less can the Example of one Bishop or Church in the Roman Empire signifie any thing to prove the General Practise of the rest But yet in our Authors Logick one Instance is ground enough for a Lawful Induction It must be their Prayers and their Tears and they followed Hezekiahs Example and they darted these Prayers But we need not wonder at his making an Induction from one Particular when he calls the few Months of Julians Reign an Age p. 55. In that Age saith he the best Prayers and Tears were those which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor I do not question but that the Christians generally prayed for the Deliverance of the Church but then it is reasonable to believe that they generally pray'd for Julians Conversion at the same time Of this we can produce one Example though our Author (‖) P. 96. saith That he could not find so much as one single Wish among the Ancients for Julians Conversion but all for his downright Destruction If he could not it was his own Fault I fear the fault of his own willful Blindness for in the very next Chapter to that (†) P. 59. Sozom. l. 6. c. 1. which he hath cited out of Sozom to prove that a Christian killed Julian he might have read of Didymus whom the Historian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an (‖) Vid. Suicceri Thesaur in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orthodox Doctor of Alexandria (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. l. 6. who being in great Sorrow for the Apostacy of Julian Fasted and Prayed for his Repentance and for the sad Estate of the Church Now from this Example in our Authors way of arguing I might prove that the Christians prayed for Julians return from his Error and for the Deliverance of the Church by that way I am sure it is very agreeable to their Charity to think That all would pray for his Repentance that believed him capable of Repentance and that none absolutely prayed for his Destruction but such as thought him utterly uncapable of Repentance and that he had sinned the Sin unto death for which it was in vain to pray And indeed there was very good Reasons to presume that he was Irrecoverable and had the Malice of a Devil against Christ and the Christian Religion and good grounds upon that presumption to pray for his Destruction and after his death in that unnatural Apostacy to lodge him as our Author observes in Hell Now to make out this Hypothesis let us consider the Nature of his Apostacy his Devotedness to the Devil and his Spite to Christ and the Christians As for his Apostacy it was first occasioned by his (‖) Theod. l. 3. c. 3. Ambitious Thirst after the Empire which made him go about Greece to find out Conjurers and Fortune-Tellers of whom he might enquire if he should obtain his Desire At length he met with a Magician who promised him to tell him his Fortune and to that end led him into an Idoll-Temple where in the Adytum or inner Recesses he conjured up the Devil and there initiated him in the Diabolical Mysteries made him eat of the Sacrifice which was an Abomination to Christ This was after his Brother Gallus was made Caesar when (‖) Invect 1. p. 61. being left alone he had greater opportunities to converse with Astrologers and Magicians whereof there was great plenty in Asia and before this as (†) Ibid. Gregory saith he was a concealed Pagan using to dispute with his Brother Gallus in Defence of Paganism which he would own in company where he was safe This is very agreeable to (‖) L. 22. Et quanquam à rudimentis pueritiae primis inclinatior erat erga numinum cultum Marcellinus who saith that he was addicted to Paganism from a Child and yet to cover the matter he professed himself (†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 2. Naz. 1 Invect p. 59. Theod. l. 3. c. 2. a Zealous Christian going often to Church and letting himself be ordained a
with most exquisite Torments upon that Account (†) Euseb l. 4. c. 7. Minut. Felix Tertull. Apol. 2. 9. The grievous Crimes of Incest and Murder and of being publick Enemies of the Empire were laid to the charge of the whole (*) Divina Secta Tertul. Ap. 37. Sect and they were ordinarily put to death as certainly guilty of them without any further Process at Law This Tertullian complains of in his time when they were so Numerous as is shew'd in the last Chapter and in a Condition very able to resist and afterwards in the Dioclesian Persecution when they were yet more Numerous (‖) Lactant de Mort. persecut c. 14. Maximinus Caesar privately sired the Emperors Palace in Nicomedia and accused the Christians of the Houshold for doing of it which so enraged the Emperor that he caused them all to be put to death From hence it is plain that Julian though he was a Fox yet he was not the First who found out the way of putting the Christians to death upon Shams he was not the first that dressed up Accusations of Treason and Sacrilege against them and therefore as they did not so they had no reason to break the Measures of Passive Obedience by which the moâ— Ancient and Suffering Christians had gone in former times But 2dly Did the Heathens outrage the Christians in Julians Reign and did he underhand direct and encourage them to act such Tragedies upon them So they did in former Ages not only using great Cruelties unto the Living Christians by Stoning and Burning of them but also by digging up their Dead Bodies and Tearing and Mangling of them in Pieces against the most (‖) Inst l. 2. Tit. 1. De rerum divisione 9. Sacred Laws of the Roman Empire when as (†) Apol. 37. Quoties etiam praeteritis vebis suo jure nos inimicâ—m vulgus invadit lapidibus incendiis Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nee mortuis parcunt Christianis quin illos de requie sepulture de Asylo quodam mertis jam alios jam nec totos a vellant dissecent distrahant Quid tamen unquam denotastis de tam conspiratis de tam animatis ad mortem usque pro injuria repensatum quando vel una noâ— paucis faculis largitur ultionis posset operari si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret Tertullian saith they could have easily revenged themselves if they would It was utter Impunity and the Connivence of the Governours that made the Heathens in this Barbarous and Insolent manner insult it over the former Christians against the Laws of the Empire and therefore the same sort of Illegal Violence and Oppression could be no special reason to the Christians under Julian to alter their Behaviour or break the Gospel-Measures of Christian Patience in which their Predecessors had possessed their Souls No they followed their Example as they followed Christs and practised this Slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience even then when they saw the Execrable Heathens rip up their Fellow-Christians and tast their Livers and stuff their Bodies with Barley and throw them to be devoured by Swine or anoint them over with Oil and Honey to expose them to Bees Wasps and Hornets nay Sacrifice them upon their Altars unto the Devils whom they worshipped for Gods But in the 3d. place Did Julian as our Author saith persecute the Christians contrary to Law So did Former Emperors and Governours much more for as Tertullian observes If Christianity was a Crime they were tortured not like other Malefactors to confess but to deny it contrary to the End for which Torture not only in the Roman Empire but in all other Governments was used The common Reason why Torture was instituted was to force Stubborn Malefactors to confess the Crimes for which they were suspected and accused but clean contrary to this end they tortured (†) Christianum hominum omnium scelerum reum deorum Imperatorum legum morum naturae totius inimicum existimas cogis negare ut absolvas quem non pâ—tâ—ris absolvere nisi negaverit Praevaricaris in leges torquemur confitentes absolvimur negantes Hoc sum quod quaeris an sâ—m quid me torques confiteâ—r torques quid faceres sâ—â—negarem Christians to make them deny And could there be any thing more absurd or illegal than to Rack those Criminals who had already confessed the Charge and acquit those who denied it They accounted the Christians the worst of Malefactors publick Enemies of the Gods and the Emperor and yet when they had confessed the Crime they would torture them to retract their Confessions and then set them Free The Reason of these Partial Absurd and Unjust Proceedings against them was the same Father observes That they were punished for the (†) Non scelus aliquod in causa est sed nomen Name of Christian and therefore the Confessing or Denying of themselves to be Christians made them Guilty or Innocent of Murder and many other presumptive Crimes But if they persevered in their Confession then in the second place they were condemned forthwith as Murderers c. against one of the Laws of the 12 Tables and one of the Fundamental Laws not only of the Empire but of all Civil Governments (‖) Si certum est nos nocentissimos esse cur à vobis ipsis aliter tractamur quam pares nostri id est caeteri nocentes cum ejusdem nâ—xietatis eadem tractatio debet intervenire Quodcunque decimur cum alii dicuntur proprio ore mercenariâ advocatione ad innocentiae suae commendationem respondendi altercandi facultas patet quando nec liceat inoffensos inauditos damnari sed Christianis solis nihil permittitur loqui quid causam purget quod veritatem defendat quod judicem non faciat injustum In omnibus nos alitèr dispenitis quà m caeteros nocentes without being heard All other Malefactors had the liberty of defending their Lives and the benefit of Counsel but the Christians only were denyed the privilege of their Birthright being condemned in a most Arbitrary and Tyrannical manner to death for (†) Praesumptis non probatis criminibus de suâ solà confessione damnatur cum praesumatis de secleribus nostris ex nominis confessione Presumed Crimes of which there was made no Proof This made the Father who himself was bred a Lawyer expostulate with the Governours of the Empire about the Illegality of their Proceedings and tell them That if it was the same thing to be guilty of Murder and Incest and to be a publick Enemy of the Empire as to be a Christian then they should (‖) Quid de tabellâ recitatis illum Christianum cur non homicidam Indict every Christian of Murder and Incest by his proper Name and prove the Indictment against him and not presume that the Title of a Christian implyes all those Crimes I say he expostulates with them very warmly about
the (†) Suspecta sit vobis ista perversitas ne qua vis lateat in occulto quae vos adversus formam adversus naturam Judicandi contra ipsas quoque leges ministret Nisi enim fallor leges malos erui jubent non abscondi confessos damnari praescribunt non absolvi hoc senatus consulta hoc principum mandata definiunt Hoc Imperium cujus ministri estis civilis non tyrannica dominatio est Illegality of their Proceedings against the Christians and I have put his Expressions in the Margent on purpose that our Author and his Admirers may consider them and thereby be convinced that the Primitive Christians did practise the Slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience in that Sense wherein (‖) Preface p. 8. he saith It is not Evangelical but Mahumetan and the very Turkish Doctrine of the Bow-string as it is taught and prescribed both without and against Law For the Bow-String in Turkey is not more Unjust Tyrannical and Destructive than this way of proceeding against the Christians was which the Apologist tells the Judges was against the Constitution of the Empire the Acts of the Senate and the Mandates of the Emperors and this plainly implyes That Severus who then was Emperor had made no such Orders for their proceeding against the Christians For if they had proceeded so against them in Obedience to his Pleasure there had been no ground for such a particular and smart Charge upon them nor indeed for writing his Apology to any but the Emperor himself to shew him the Injustice of such Laws But the Father wrote his Apology to the Governours and Judges of the Roman Empire to whose care the Emperor had left the Civil Administration being wholly taken up himself in Wars and besides he was a great (‖) Ad Scapulam 4. Ipse etiam Severus christianorum memor fuit nam proculum Christianum qui eum per oleum aliquando curaverat requisivit in palatio suo habuit usque ad mortem ejus clarissimas faeminas clarissimos viros sciens hujus sectae esse non modo non laesit verum et testimonio exornavit populo furenti in nos palam restitit Favourer of the Christians as the same Author tells us and therefore the Persecution under him as it seems to me ought rather to be ascribed to his Governours or perhaps to Plantianus his great Favourite who was an Enemy to the Christians and had the ascendent so much over him that he durst accuse the Empress before him and as (†) Xiph. lib. 21 p. 413 414. Dio observes was more Emperor than He. But what the Christians suffered now contrary to Law was but a Flea-biting as it were to what was done against them in the Reign of Galerius Maximianus who Tyrannized contrary to Law For though as I have shewed in the Second Chapter the Emperor had absolute Power over his Subjects Lives and Estates as to do what he pleased to particular Persons or Parties of Men yet he had no Right to Enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a (‖) Hoc Imperium cujus ministri estis civilis non tyrannica dominatio est Tert. loc cit Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government wherein the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is where the Subjects are the Princes Family and all that they have is his by Law In this sort of Government all the Subjects or the whole People are formal Slaves by Law and it differs almost as much from an absolute Civil Monarchy as an absolute Civil Monarchy doth from a limited Civil Monarchy because the Subjects in such a Government are born their Princes Slaves and not to Liberty and Freehold as in Civil Governments they are where though the Prince be absolute and have Power over the Lives and Fortunes of his Subjects yet his personal Orders by which he touches this or that or these or those men are not (†) Quae nec ad exemplum trahuntur Inst l. 1. Tit. 2. drawn into precedent nor affect his other Subjects not (‖) Personam non transgreditur Ib. going further than the person or persons about whom they are made The Exercise of this Power which Absolute Princes have in Civil Monarchies is not counted Ordinary but Extraordinary nor so much Legal as Supra legal but in Tyrannical Governments where the Subjects are the Princes Personal Estate this Despotick Power is the Ordinary Law and the Subjects are Perfect and Actual Slaves Now Galerius as (‖) De Mort. Persecut 21. Adeptus igitur maximam potestatem ad vexandum orbem animum intendit Nam post devictas Persas quorum hic ritus hic mos est ut regibus suis in servitium se addicant reges populo suo tanquam familiâ utantur hunc morem nefarius homo in Romanam terram voluit inducere quem ex illo tempore victoriae sine pudore laudabat Et quia id aperté jubere non poterat sic agebat ut ipse libertatem hominibus auferret Vid. Euseb l. 8. c. 14. Lactantius tells us after he had conquered the Persians attempted to introduce the Slavish Persian Government which he used to commed into the Roman Empire because he had not Power to Enact such an Alteration yet he treated his Subjects in the Persian manner as if they had been born his Slaves He tortured and crucified the most Honourable and Gallant Men every where like Malefactors and Slaves he ravished the most (†) Matres-familias ingentes ac nobiles in Gynaecaeum rapiebantur Ibid. Noble Matrons and took them from their own Husbands to put them in his Seraglio His Ordinary Recreations were to see Men devoured by huge Bears which he kept for the purpose and to laugh at the tearing of their Limbs and he never Supped without Killing a Man The Islands Prisons and the Quarries he esteemed but light Punishments nay Beheadding it self was accounted a Favour and Burning Crucifying and being devoured by Wild Beasts were the easiest deaths which he did Inflict As for his Domesticks the Lance was their ordinary Reprimand In a word †he dissolved the Laws (‖) Eloquentia extincta causidici sublati Juris Consulti aut relegati aut necati Literae autem inter malas artâ— habitae qui eas nâ—verant pro inimicis hostibusque protriti execrati Licentia rerum omnium solutis legibus assumpâ—â— judicibus datâ— Judices Militares humanitatis literarum rudes sine adsessoribus in provincias immissi Ib. forbid all Pleading banished or killed the Lawyers and instead of Learned Men made his rude Souldiers who were utterly ignorant of Law and Learning sole Judges over the Provinces and gave them Power to do what they pleased To conclude (‖) Ibd. c. 23. He made all Mens Estates be surveyed and the Number of
their Cattel Vines and Timber-trees be taken and had all Cities Villages and Families numbred by the Pole nay for fear any man should conceal any thing he had he most illegally ordred Servants to be tortured against their Masters and Wives against their Husbands and if no discovery came that way he ordred all sorts of men to be tortured in person to discover the utmost Penny they were worth And lest any man under the pretence of being a Beggar should escape Tax-free against all the Laws of the Empire and of Humanity he caused all the Beggars every where to be seized and to be put aboard on little Vessels and sunk into the Sea In short he filled the Provinces with Lamentation and Mourning and used his Subjects as if they had been his Captives in War and had the Sultan of Persia conquered the Empire he could not have used them worse If ever Government was changed from Civil into Tyrannical if ever Free People were enslaved Laws and Lawyers suppressed and Lust and the Sword tyrannized against Law it was in the Eastern Empire under the Reign of Galerius but yet the Christians among whom were (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 8. c. 4. very many disbanded Officers and Souldiers though so highly provoked above the rest of his Subjects were so far from resisting that according to the Writers who describe the Tenth Persecution they let themselves be led like Lambs to the Slaughter and rejoyced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name of Christ (‖) Ib. c. 6. Euseb saith That both Men and Women leapt into the Fire with a Divine Alacrity which cannot be expressed and that no (†) Ib. c. 10. Eloquence was able to set forth their Courage and Fortitude in their Torments And (‖) Hist Sacr. l. 2. c. 47. Sulp. Severus tells us That the Christians were the more desirous of Martyrdom than the Ambitious Clergy-men were of Bishopricks in his Time And truly so it did appear by the Thebaean Legion with which some men of late have so much disturbed the Christian Spirit of Mr. J. And poor Man I am afraid this account of the Galerian which was one of the most Bloody Acts of the Dioclesian Persecution may yet disturb him more For then the Christians were persecuted at a time when they could not want the Help nor likely the Sollicitations of their oppressed Heathen Fellow-Subjects then if ever they might have taken up Arms under the Fine Pretence of defending their Liberties and the Laws but there was not one word of that among them No poor Wretches they were manacled and fettered with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience which Christ and his Apostles had taught them The Christian prevailed above the Greek Principles in their Consciences And the Tyrant knew he was secure in their Numbers even from his Greek Subjects among whom it was not only an allowed Principle to kill a Tyrant but also counted a Meritorious Work Had the Greeks been then the Prevailing Number the Monster had likely been served like Nero but the Empire was become Christian and Passive and his Security consisted in that Wherefore to conclude this Chapter seeing the Former Christians especially those under Galerius were Persecuted Oppressed and Enslaved not only as Christians but as Subjects too contrary to all Law Illegal Persecution could be no specifick Reason for the Christian Subjects and Souldiers of Julian to resist him No! they were not so Jesuited and Presbyterianized from the Gospel Simplicity as it appears it was all one to them as well as to their Predecessors whether they were martyred Legally or Illegally or whether they were worried by a Natural or by an Apostate by an Unbaptized or Baptized Wolf When they could not have the Benefit of Law they could contentedly suffer against it as yet their only Remedy was that Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears none of the Fathers as yet was become an Antimonarchical Author they valued their Established Religion very much but they would not Fight for it they knew no Medium between Flying or Suffering nor as yet had invented and Distinctions to justifie the resisting of Lawful Princes but followed the Passive Examples of Former Times without making any Difference betwixt dying for their Religion with or without according to or contrary to Law CHAP. X. Wherein is defended the Doctrine of Passive Obedience against Law HAving premised so much about the Sufferings of the Ancient Christians both under Julian and other Tyrants before him It is time to proceed to the Justification of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience in its full Latitude against the Exceptions of our Author who distinguishes and in a very triumphant manner betwixt Suffering according to and contrary to Law and then upon the ground of this Unanswerable Distinction Dictator-like he condemns the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for Intollerable as it hath been taught and practised contrary to Law (†) Preface p. 8. There saith he meaning in Dr. Hickes Sermon it was I met with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which when it is taught without any regard to Laws and is prescribed without Law and against Law is not Evangelical but Mahumetan and the very Turkish Doctrine of the Bow-String And in his Ninth Chapter wherein he hath endeavoured to confute the Doctrine of Passive Obedience as it is so taught and practised all that he hath said is comprized in Prop. 3. p. 92. When the Laws of God saith he 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 This is the only Case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience namely when the Laws are against a Man and this was the case of the first Christians And in p. 75. saith he Men throw away their Lives and are certainly weary of them if they practise Passive Obedience against the Laws and the Truth of it is we justly deserve to be so used as the Thebaean Legion was and moreover to be loaded with the Curses of all Posterity if we suffer our selves to be brought into their Condition for that can never happen but by our own Treachery to our Religion in parting with those good Laws that protect it and in agreeing to such as shall destroy it I am very well satisfied that the Case of the Thebaean Legion or any other like it can never happen in Great Brittain we of these Kingdoms having such Security against Tyranny as no People ever had but upon supposition that it may happen I am very well assured that we ought patiently to suffer it or any other Condition like unto it though our sufferings would be against Law But to state this matter clearly and to the satisfaction of the Reader I must here beg leave to distinguish between the Laws in any Government which declare and ascertain the Rights of the Soveraign and those which secure the Rights
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
limited in the Exercise of their Legislative Power not being able to make or repeal Laws without the consent of the Three Estates But still if they will turn Tyrants neither fearing God nor the Censures of Good Men they are by the Law of the English Empire as free from Punishment Compulsion or Resistance as the Caesars were But Secondly The foresaid Generall Reason of not resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vice-gerent doth imply that he hath all his Power from God This is very Ancient Divinity as appears from what Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar c. 2.37 Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory and from what he said to his Grandson Belshazzar c. 5.18 19. The Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down Accordingly it is written of Cyrus the Heathen Emperor Isa 45.1 Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose Right Hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him And 2 Chron. 36.23 Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia all the Kingdoms of the Earth hath the Lord God given me So Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings Reign and Princes decree Justice by me Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And God declared by Jeremy c. 27.5 6. I have made the Earth and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these Lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar my Servant Now if according to these Express Texts the Soveraign have all his Power from God he must by consequence have the Power of the Sword from him as St. Paul particularly observes He beareth not the Sword in vain for he is the Minister of God And if he have the Power of the Sword from him it must needs follow (‖) Praeterea cum in regno gladii jus nulli competat praeterquam ipsi regi aut iis quibus a rege id concessum est peto quo jure quis audeâ—t in summum animadvertere utrum jure concesso an usurpato Si concesso dixerit rursus petam a quo concesso Utrum a principe vel ab aliquo alio praeter principem Si a principe respondeat hoc ipso â—rit ridiculus quia non est credibile principem ulli indulgere jus gladio in seipsum utendi Quantamcunque in alium transferat princeps potestatem semper manet Superior Sam Bochart Ep p. 90 91. That the People have no Right to bear it neither for Offence nor Defence or Resistance without Commission from him He may indeed abuse this as well as any other Branch of his Power he may bear the Sword not for the Defence but for the Offence and Destruction of his Subjects but if he do they have no Authority to Resist him they cannot without sinful Usurpation oppose their Swords to his as it was written by the Apostle in the time of a (†) Jam nequis haec dici putet de bonis duntaxat regibus cogitandum est Petrum Paulum vel sub Claudio vel sub Nerone scripsisse quorum ille vecors fuit hic monstrum hominis quibus tamen Christianos jubent esse subditos non solum metu paenae sed â—b conscientiam propter Deum Nec multo meliorem fuisse Tiberium cui Christus reddi voluit ea quae â—rant Caesaris Ib. p â—2 Wicked Tyrant He that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to to themselves Damnation And how can a Man be guiltless that draws and uses his Sword without Authority from him to whom the jus gladii belongs much more if he useth it against him who only hath the Authority of the Sword This very Consideration made Grotius condemn all violent defence against unjust Force from Publick Authority Contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam De Imp. c. 3. n. 6. Our Blessed Saviour never intended to diminish or destroy the Rights of Soveraignty but on the contrary was very tender of them commanding his Disciples to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesars and this was said by him with respect to Tiberius who was a Man excessive in Cruelty Drunkenness and Lust It was said indeed upon the account of paying Tribute but holds as well to all the Rights of Soveraignty and particularly as to this of being the Master of the Sword and therefore when St. Peter drew his Sword in his Masters Defence against the Officers of the Cruel Sanhedrim he sharply rebuked him saying Put up thy Sword for he that useth the Sword shall perish by the Sword This very Text was ever understood by the Primitive Christians as an absolute Prohibition to use any Violence against the Soveraign and was applyed by Maunitius the Commander of the Thebaean Legion when he charged his Souldiers in Christs Name not to Resist under the Specious Pretext of Self-Defence And truly if the Christian Religion had given a Right to the Professors of it to defend themselves and it against the Illegal Violence of the Soveraign it had not been a taking up of the Cross but of the Sword not Evangelical as our Author speaks of Passive Obedience but Mahumetan and truly one who knew no more of the Gospel than what he might learn of it out of Julian would never imagine that Jesus had said If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me And whosoever shall lose his Life for my sake and the Gospels the same shall save it And every one that forsaketh Houses or Brethren or Sisters or Father or Mother or Wife or Children or Lands for my Names sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit Everlasting Life Or that his Beloved Disciple the Prophet of the New Testament had said of the Martyrs of the (†) Dr. Mores Apocalypsis Apocalypseos c. 13.10 c. 14.12 13. Protestant Religion Here is the Patience and Faith of the Saints Here is the Patience of the Saints Blessed are the Dead or the Martyrs that die in the Lord. But the Author of Julian it seems will shew no Faith nor Patience but in a Legal Persecution he will not die a Martyr but when the Laws are against him but if his Soveraign attack him against Law i. e. against the Laws which are made for the Defence of the Subject he will be even with him he will without Authority take up Defensive Arms against him contrary to the Laws which are made for the Defence and Honour of the Soveraign and so commit as Damnable a Sin one way as his Prince doth the other This is plainly as Max. Tyrius speaks of Private
Revenge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do one Injury for another His Soveraign injures him against the second and he will therefore injure his Soveraign against the first Table of Civil Government He will sin against the Laws Imperial because his Prince sins against the Political Well let him do so at his Peril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Senses he may be legally Hanged for it in this World and without Repentance will be Damned for it in that which is to come But in the third place The General Reason assigned for Not-resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent doth imply That to resist him is to resist God who hath made him Soveraign and set him above all Coercion and Force If the Nature of Soveraignty and of a Crown Imperial did not require that he should not be violently resisted yet the Honour of God whose Image and Substitute he is would require the Subject not to do so lest he should seem to resist God The King saith †C. 21. Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor in regard of the Nature of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity he is like unto God who is Lord over all whose Image he beareth and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And ‖ De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5. Vegetius saith That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved because he is a Corporeal God I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers to shew how the King is the Minister and Image of God but I have since found them all with far many more in Archbishop Vshers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince To which I refer the Reader Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfections Finch lib. 2. del Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham Roy est le test delâ—bien public immediate desoubs deiu c. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God over all Persons and in all Causes And therefore because he represents the Person of God and bears his Image the Law attributeth unto him a Similitudinary Manner a Shadow of Divine Excellencies namely Soveraignty Majesty Infiniteness Perpetuity Perfection Truth Justice Now to assert that Soveraign Princes are the Vicegerents and Images of God is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty he judgeth among the Gods I have said ye are Gods and all of you the Children of the most High Accordingly saith Jesus Joh. 10.34 Is it not written in your Law of Princes I said ye are God If he called them Gods of whom the Word of God there speaks say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God These Earthly †Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò precipuè convenire quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum nomen ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18 1 Sam. 2.25 Ps 82.6 proinde Solomon Ps 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Apostolus Solomonis typo adumbratum sed sensus typicus literalem non excludit imo supponit Itaque etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines Eaphantus ejusdem sectâ—e Quod Deo quidem inest inest regi ut sibi ipse imperet unde vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli autem subjiciatur Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 84 85. Gods these Vicegerents and Images of the Almighty Soveraign these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them If they do wrong if they tyrannize it over their Subjects he will punish them and turn their Hearts if he see fit But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him they must not take up Defensive Arms against them because they are in Gods stead for whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God In that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection or to shew that a Subject to a perfect Soverain ought not to resist Thus have I branched the General Reason for Non-resistance into three and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited as well as the Arbitrary Soveraign and I know not what can be replyed to them but either to deny that the Soveraign is Gods Vicegerent and doth 〈◊〉 derive his Authority from him or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoyned by the Law of Nature But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible and contradict the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Christians the Acts or Parliament Book of Homilies and the Liturgy especially in the ‖ Thy chosen Servant Our King and Governour that he knowing whose Minister he is And that we and all his Subjects duly considering whose Authority he hath Collect of the Communion-Service for the King and therefore I will suppose that my Brother J. dare not do it and before he asserts the Latter I desire him to consult Dr. Falkners Christian Loyalty a Book which ought to be read by every English Subject I shewed him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist or stand against the Soveraign although he be Wicked or a Wrong-Doer And now I will shew that the Principle into which I have resolved it is plainly taught in the First There our Late Soveraign King James is called the Gift of God there the Authority of Kings their making of Laws Judgment and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man but of God This is also asserted by Old (†) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 3. Chancellor Fortescue in these words All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God for as the Apostle saith All Power is from the Lord God wherefore the Laws that are made by Man which thereunto have received Power from the Lord are also Ordained of God And if all Laws of Men be the Laws and Ordinances of God then I suppose the Common and Statute-Laws of every Empire which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Soveraign are so too and I desire to know whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws But to return to the Homily it further teacheth us That the High Powers are set in Authority by God that they are Gods Lieutenants Gods Presidents Gods Judges ordained of God himself And if these Presidents
Rabble who in Riots Tumults and Insurrections for which they would never want Pretences were Resistance in any case allowed are able to do more mischief in a Week than ever any Tyrant yet did in a Year Indeed the Strokes of a Tyrant like those of Thunder make a great Noise and all places ring with it and it puts the World in great affright but yet alone and unresisted a Tyrant cannot spill so much Blood especially in a Limited Empire as would be shed by Resistance in a Defensive War for the Rage of the worst of Tyrants generally wrecks it self upon particular persons or parties of Men but in Civil War which is worse than any Tyranny all must suffer without distinction and however it may be called Defensive and at first be so designed yet it will certainly degenerate into Offensive and Rapin Bloodshed and Devastations will be the ordinary Concomitants thereof The late Rebellion among us was called by the Raisâ—rs of it and I believe verily intended by some of them for a War merely Defensive but it soon proved Offensive the Managers of it being forced in their own defence to seek Advantages to set upon the King as he did to set upon them Indeed when the Defensive Party is very much the stronger then the War if the Defenders please may be merely Defensive but when the Party Offensive is as strong or stronger than they then they cannot defend themselves without taking the Advantage of Offence Besides if we consider the Passions of Men set in Military Opposition one against another the Notion of a Defensive War like many Notions in Geometry though it may be true in the Theory ' yet it will be impossible in the Practise and therefore I cannot but admire the Wisdom as well as the Goodness of God in forbidding us to Resist or Defend our selves by Force against the Soveraign and his Forces because Defence doth so naturally degenerate into Offence These things considered I desire Mr. J. the fierce and almost blasphemous Opposer of Passive Obedience to consider Whether as he saith He (†) Pref. p. 11. hath honestly pursued the End of our Saviours Coming into the World which was not to destroy mens Lives but to save them For had our Saviour allowed Subjects under the pretence of defending themselves and their Religion to resist their Soveraign he had come indeed to destroy Mens Lives and as he said in another sense Not to send Peace on Earch but a Sword He had then indeed set Subjects at variance against their Soveraign and made the World for Rebels the worst of Banditi by the Gospel which had then been a Doctrine of War and not of Peace But this was not consistent with his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and the Care which he had for Government and the Peace and Well-fare of Mankind Though Tyranny be ill yet he knew Resistance was worse and therefore he hath commanded us to lay down our Lives for our Religion but not to take up the Sword in defence of it contrary to the Imperial Law For all that draw or use the Sword without Authority from the Soveraign whose right it is to bear it he hath left obnoxious to the Sword of Justice and to incur the Punishment of death Put up thy Sword into its place saith he to Peter for all that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword Wherefore let Mr. J. talk never so much against a Popish Successor and let him have what Characters men please to give him nay let them suppose him to be a Complicate Tyrant and as Gregory saith of Julian to be Pharaoh Achab Hieroboam and Nebuchadnezzar all in one nay let the Spirit of Galerius Maximin and Maxentius come upon him yet I am sure it will cost fewer Lives and less Desolation to let him alone than to resist him but if it would not I had rather die a Martyr than a Rebel this is my Resolution by the Grace of God I can be content to be barbarously murdered I know to whom I must pay my Passive Obedience to my God and to my King the Laws of God and the Imperial Laws of the Land require it of me For though (†) P. 80. God approves our Religion and would have all the World to embrace it and hold it fast yet he doth not approve of Resistance that 's no part of Christian Liberty and he would have none embrace that And though (‖) Ibid. Protestancy is so far from being Criminal by the Laws of our Country that it is Death to turn Papist as it was to turn Idolater among the Jews yet Passive Obedience is part of the Established Protestant Religion as it was of the Jewish and the Laws of our Country God be praised for it make it Capital to resist Therefore I resolve by Gods Assistance neither to turn Papist nor Resist But if I cannot escape I will suffer according to the Gospel and the Church of England and Mr. J. hath the Liberty to despise the Gospel and the Church and to resist his supposed Tyrant if he will He may preach and practise Resistance but I am resolved to preach and practise Passive Obedience after the Example of the Jewish Prophets and Martyrs who suffered against Law and in my most Melancholy Prospect of things I can comfort my self with the hopes of a Reward for dying at a Stake which he shall never have for dying in the Field But for fear I should move the Indignation of Mr. J. too much by shewing the utter Inconveniences of Resisting and how it is a Remedy against Tyranny worse than the Disease I will endeavour to temper him with a few Words out of his next best Book to the Bible in the First Part of the Homily against Disobedience What shall Subjects do then Shall they obey Valiant Stout Wise and Good Princes and Contemn Disobey and Rebel against Children being their Princes or against Indiscreet and Evil Governours God forbid For first What a Perillous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the Judgment which Prince is Wise and Godly and his Government Good and which is otherwise as though the Foot must judge of the Head an Enterprise very hainous and must needs breed Rebellion For who else be they that are most inclined to Rebellion but such Haughty Spirits from whom springeth such foul ruin of Realms Is not Rebellion the greatest of all Mischiefs And who are most ready to the greatest Mischiefs but the worst Men What an unworthy matter were it then to make the Naughtiest Subjects and most inclined to Rebellion and all Evil Judges over the Princes over the Government and over their Counsellers to determine which of them be Good and Tolerable and which be Evil and so Intolerable that they must needs be removed by Rebels being ever ready as the Naughtiest Subjects soonest to Rebel But whereas indeed a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of