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-Club-Law I Know not what any Excluder can reply to this but either to say That an Act of Parliament which tends to the Disinherison of the Crown is nevertheless valid or that an Act of Exclusion hath no tendency thereunto To assert the former would be a Contradiction to the most Eminent Lawyers Antient and Modern and many Declarations in Parliament and would also suppose that an Act for destroying the Monarchy it self c. would be valid And to assert the latter is virtually to say That an Act for Disinheriting the next Heir doth not tend to the disinherison of the Crown which would be difficult to maintain because the same Power that puts by One Heir may put by Ten either altogether or Successively and so Adieu to the Royal Family and the Hereditary Succession which may be laid aside in part or in whole when the King and Parliament shall please But to return to this Fundamental-Law of the Monarchy which seems to invalidate all Acts of Parliam that tend to the Disinherison or Destruction of the Crown and particularly all those which limit and bind the Succession It was by this Law that the (s) 35 H. 8. ch 1.1 Eliz. ch 3. Act of Parliament which Impâ—â—vered King Henry the 8th to dispose of the Crown by his Last Will and Testament to what person or persons soever he pleased proved Ineffectual to the House of Suffolk to which he bequeathed it after the death of Queen Elizabeth which made a
can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person is to give him what his Justice would abhor a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men which Consideration I suppose as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion made the great Man above cited say For my part I think there is more of Popery in this Bill than there can possibly be in the Nation without it for none but Papists and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion But some Men will say Why should not Protestants Disinherit Popish as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes To which the Answer is easie by another Question Why should not Protestants Depose Popish as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings I am not Conscious to my self that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing as I have done from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths (z) Preface p. 19. shameful Sophistry and the Conscientious Regard that Honest Protestants have unto them deceitful Prejudice which he saith is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual and Possible Heirs But he is very much and I fear very Wilfully mistaken For the Faith and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession or to speak yet more Otherwise thus Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown plainly our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs and is to be made good and performed unto them and every one of them when by the Providence of God they shall come to be actual according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession and thus for Example to use his own Instance The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs and Successors i. e. To the Kings Future Heirs and Successors upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by vertue of that Grant when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence who determines the days of Kings become an Actual Heir or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Vndoubted Succession according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown which is (b) Coke Littleton fol. 1.6 The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion of which none is the Author but God alone And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ and the Royal Shield carryes this Motto Dieu mon droit Nay Queen Elizabeth who through the Dubiousness of her Title courted the People so much yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands printed 1585. speaks as it became such a Soveraign Princess in this manner Although Kings and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings and in that Respect not bound to yield Account or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign and though among the most Ancient and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England and other Dominions which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God and thereby God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birthright and Proximity of Blood From this Principle many good Men who are as Wise and as Learned as any of the Excluders infer this Conclusion That it would be Vsurpation without a manifest Revelation from God to Alienate the Crown from this Family to which he only hath given it or to preclude any Person of it much more the next Heir whether Apparent or Presumptive from succeeding thereunto This Argument is not so slight as perhaps Mr. J. will make it for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family then it is very reasonable to conclude That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery would be Opposition to the Will of God This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family but most of all the next Heir upon the Line from the absolute Right or Birthright which God alone hath given him would be also to oppose the Will of God All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the (c) Third Part. p. 63 64 Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of England and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the (d) Ib. p. 97 98. House of Commons and it is above a Week since and I am confident they will still own them without being ashamed of them and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man than he is to follow as he speaks their New Light Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession are own'd by the Three Estates of Scotland and would I am confident be owned by them were they to meet again I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament Entituled An Act acknowledging and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland August 13. 1681. THe Estates of Parliament considering That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty recognise acknowledge and Declare That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right and the Nature of the Monarchy as well as by the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually Reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law Duty and Allegiance to obey the
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
derived from him it must needs follow from hence that he must be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and that no Man can lawfully resist him or his Forces because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword except for private Defence but by Commission from him I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies or who hath Authority for example to make him a Captain or as much as a Drummer of a Company if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative and therefore how a man can either give or receive such unauthoritative Commissions or oppose or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them without sin I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer and Mr. J. as a Divine to resolve It is true what he (‖) P. 84. saith That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants but then the Question which he puts to the Doctor upon it is Fallacious in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts in the Soveraign which carry no Obligation at all can oblige men to Obedience I answer for the Doctor If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty No! He ought rather to suffer himself but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose I answer That it is the Christian the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign till legal Remedy can be had because to oppose or resist him and his Forces by Force is unauthoritative and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm But because we live in an Age wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons who are deaf to all Reason and Common Law which is nothing but Common Reason when it is urged in defence of the Crown I will now shew that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty which I have been discoursing of are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm First then He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects or obnoxious to their Coercive Power 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and be it hereby declared that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared without excepting any manner of Cases or Pretences to the contrary That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And (†) 3 Inst p. 9. Coke upon the place saith That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King If any levy War saith he to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation of their own Heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority (‖) Sheringhams Kings Suprem c. 3. In the 7th year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged and force of Armour to belong to him And saith (†) Jenkinsius Redivivus p. 19. Judge Jenkins All Jurisdictions do and of right ought to belong to the King all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King the Power of War only belongs to the King it belongs to the King to Defend his People and to provide Arms and Force (‖) 13 Car. 2.1 Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm or without And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the Vndoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot or ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive or Defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successor Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Amplitude the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them Surely this is too Light for the Parliament and is just such another piece of Drollery as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder Bating that Dedication there was never any thing like this Passive Aâ—â— of Parliament for wheedling the People out of their Lives Alas Alas This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles and enough to tempt and invite Cruelty into the World For let a Prince be either a Papist or an Atheist and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act and then what hinders but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates and Heresie together and the other as many to see what Faces and Grimmaces they will make According to this Act the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist or the Extravagant Vnaccountable Humours of a Wretch and hang at their Girdles as Souls do at the Popes Is it not a sad thing to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament to leave us nothing to defend our selves but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears But yet so Wise as Legislators so Religious as Christians and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament that they made this Declaration the second time as it may be seen 13 14 Car. 2. cap. 3. And by all these Statutes cited it appears That the King is Accountable to none but God That the Sword is solely his and theirs to whom He commits it That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power nor ought any way to be resisted by Force Indeed our Author (‖) P.
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
Darcy which two were present at the Communication between the King and me I designed to talk with the Kings Majesty alone and at good leisure my trust was that I should have altered him from that purpose but they being present my Labour was in vain Acknowledging mine Offence with most grievous and sorrowful Heart The Duke of Northumberland said unto me That it became not me to say to the King as I did when I went about to disswade him from the said Will. From the Bishops who consented to the Will of King Edward he goes on to the Bishops who concurred in making the Statute of 13 Eliz. Chap. 1. which makes it High Treason during the Queens Life and forfeiture of Goods and Chattels after her Death to say That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient Force and Validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Government thereof This Act of Parliament is the Palladium of the Excluders but all the Arguments that can be taken from it are so well answered in the (m) The Great Point of Succession Discussed A True and Exact History of the Succession to which I refer the Reader two Answers to the Brief History of the Succession and the Power of Parliaments in the Case of Succession that Mr. J. had better not have mentioned it nor would he I suppose have done so but to take occasion to make an Invidious Paralled betwixt the Bishops of that time and the present Bishops of the Church For he presents us with a List of their Names and tell us That many of them were Confessors and that they were active and zealous for such Acts as these I know not what he means by such Acts as these for it cannot be proved from Sir Simon Dewes his (n) P. 140. Journal which he hath cited That they consented to this Act about limiting the Succession but for any thing we find there to the contrary they might be concluded in the Majority of the Lords But if it were certain they did all concur to that Act they had very good Reason for so doing because it was so highly conducive at that Season to secure the Queen whose Title was disputeable from being ejected or dispossessed of the Crown by the Queen of Scotland her Heirs But as the (o) 28 ch 7.34 ch 1. censured as unjust by Judge Jenkins Jenkins Rediv. p. 29. Statutes of Henry the 8th which impowered him to limit the Descent of this Imperial Crown had not the honour to be formally repealed but were virtually declared Null and Void from the beginning by the 3 Estates 1 Jacob. ch 1. in an Act of Recognition of King James his Immediate Lawful and Undoubted Right unto the Crown as the next Lineal Heir So this of Queen Elizabeths which is now left out of the Statute-Book received its deaths Wound thereby as being a Virtual Repealing of it or an Implicit Anti-Declaration That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Descent of the Crown when the Succession is clear and indisputable as God be thanked it now is From this Act of Queen Eliz. he passes on to the Paper of Reasons to prove the Queens Majesty bound him Conscience to proceed with severity in this Case of the late Queen of Scots He Fathers this Paper with great confidence upon the Bishops contrary to Sir Simons Opinion calling of it their Writing although I am confident that would he impartially speak what he thinks he must needs say that he doth not believe they had any hand in the thing For First It is uncertain where or by whom the Reasons were framed Sir Simon saith (*) P. 207. That most likely they were framed in the House of Commons (o) P. 215. and calls them their Reasons Secondly It is very probable they were framed by some private Person who speaks often in the singular Number as God I trust in time shall open her Eyes To those men I think God himself and his Angels will seem cruel and therefore Thirdly It is not probable that they should be presented unto the Queen if they were presented at all as Sir Simon doth but conjecture in the Name or as the Sense of the Bishops especially if we consider that the Paper is anonymous and many of the Reasons in it are the very same which the Papists urge for putting Heretick and the Scotizing Presbyterians of which there were (p) Vid. Bancrosts Dangerous Positions many in Queen Elizabeths time for putting Popish Princes to death I desire Mr. J. to read them again and then to tell me Whether he thinks in his Conscience the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish or Presbyterian Piece It is credible to believe that they could argue so falsly upon the Principles of the Jewish Theocracy to the like proceedings in Christian States If this way of arguing be true then the Queen was bound to burn many Popish Towns in her Kingdom and smite the Inhabitants with the Sword and to pull down all the Churches especially the Cathedrals because they had been polluted with Idols For my part I must declare that it cannot enter into my Heart to believe that those Bishops would liken themselves to Samuel the Queen to Saul and the Queen of Scots unto Agag or compare themselves to the Man of God her Majesty to Achab and the Queen of Scots to Benhadad or parallel her Case with that of Jesabel and Athaliah Or propose unto her Majesty the Example of Solomon who spared not his own natural yea and his elder Brother Adonijah for Suspition and likelyhood of Treason for a Marriage purposed only but put him to death for the same and that speedily without course of Judgment Or lastly Argue from Deut. 13.6 If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother c. In citing of which it is evident upon whom our Author did reflect I would fain know of him if he approve of this way of arguing or no if he do not why should be think the Reason of those learned Prelates so much weaker than his own But if he do may be please to consult Dr. Hickes his Peculium Dei where he will be better informed But besides this inconclusive way of arguing from the Laws and Examples of the Jewish Theocracy there is in those Reasons a Passage about Constantinus Magnus which is not consistent with the Learning and Integrity of those Fathers It is this That C.M. caused Licinius to be put to death being not his Subject but his Fellow-Emperor for that the said Licinius laboured to subvert the Christian Religion which is not true for Licinius had rendred himself and his Purple to Constantine upon condition of Life and so was become a private Person and he caused him to be put to death for new Attempts against his Promise after he became his Subject as I have shewed p. 43. If the
Gentleman as was reported put this Dilemma in the House of Commons which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory or Valid or they were not If not then Acts of Parliament which impeach the Succession are without any more ado Null and Void in Law but if they were by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded and King James admitted to the Crown contrary to many Statutes against him notwithstanding all which the (t) Jacob. I. High Court of Parliament declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend unto his Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Royal Blood Here His Succession is owned for Lawful and Vndoubted against the foresaid Acts Lawful not by any Statute but contrary to Statutes by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions as tending to the Disinberison and Prejudice of the Crown For as the Most Learned and Loyal (u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons a Bill of Exclusion if it should pass would change the Essence of the Monarchy and make the Crown Elective or as another (x) Author of the Power of Parliaments p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective For by the same Reason that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences and so consequently by such Exclusions Elect whom they please The next Reason which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful is the Oath of Supremacy which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion or other and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House By this Oath every one who takes it swears to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And I appeal to every Honest and Loyal English-man whether it be not one of the most undoubted transcendent and Essential Rights Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs and united to the Imperial Crown of England that they succeed unto the Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood Secondly I desire to know Whether by Lawful Successors is not to be understood such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Common-Law of England and if so how any Man who is within the Obligation of this Oath can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which deprives the next Heir and in him virtually the whole Royal Family of the Chief Priviledge and Preheminence which belongs unto him by the Common-Law of this Realm Or how any Man who hath taken this Oath which is so apparently designed for the Preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of the Royal Family can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death according to the Common Right of Hereditary Succession which by Common-Law belongs unto Him and is annexed to the Crown What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors in general must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order of Hereditary Succession when it shall come to their turn to succeed I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it Some indeed have said with our Author that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion which is a meer Shift and proves nothing because it proves too much For according to this Answer we might dispense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King if any should hereafter turn such because the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are Protestant Oaths and are not to be understood according to them in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion Secondly Though they are Protestant Oaths yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants but as lawful and rightful King and Heirs according to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom and therefore Moderate Papists will take the Oath of Supremacy as well as of Allegiance as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of (y) 35 H. 8. ch 1. § 11. H. 8. which they could not do were they made to the King and his Heirs as Protestants But Thirdly As they are Protestant Oaths they bind us the more Emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Vsurpation of the Pope who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings and of Excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession Witness Henry the 4th and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs and Successors when their Rights shall fall I have joyned the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Successors and Him and them to defend to the utmost of our Power And I here protest to all the World That when I took these Oaths I understood the Words Heirs and Successors for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordinary Course of Hereditary Succession And I appeal to the Conscience of every Honest Protestant if he did not understand them so Other Excluders I have heard maintain that the King and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Exclusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part theoreof And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth but by the Person or Persons to whom and for whose behoof it was made To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament
Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Queens Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm To all this I may add the common Stile of both Houses in Parliament Our Gracious Soveraign and our Dread Soveraign Lord the King Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De tournes de Viscontes You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithfull to our Soveraign Lord Edward Hence by (†) Sheringham Kings Suprem c. 4. Common Law many Prerogatives belong to the King by vertue of his Soveraignty He cannot give any Man the Stile or Title of Dominus because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus He can hold Land of no Man because he can have no Superior and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord whereby his Heir became a Ward the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land because as Glanvil saith L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus Superiorem The reason is given by Bracton l. 2. c. 37. And as (†) C. 22. Stanford shews in his Exposition of the Kings Prerogative By the Common Law there lyeth no Action or Writ against the King but when he seizeth his Subjects Lands or Goods having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath and this Petition is called A Petition of Right Having now shew'd that the Realm of England is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign Subject unto none but God it must needs follow that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Soveraignty belonging unto him as to be unaccountable to any Humane Power to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power to be irresistable and unopposeable or not to have his Forces repelled by Force A Stranger that hath read what I have written to shew that he is a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign must needs presume that these and all other Essential Rights of Soveraignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Soveraignty or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown to acknowledge the King for Supream over all Persons to say he hath no Superior but God that he is Subject to him alone and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customes of this Realm For first To say that he is the only Supream Governour within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none but God must needs imply that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribunal but that of Heaven whose Vicegerant he is If there were any Power in his Kingdoms that could call him to account for Maladministration for that very Reason he would not be a Compleat Soveraign but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior and not he It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction that he must be Unaccountable for from whom shall any person or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from him as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms and from whom then shall any Man or state of Men derive Authority of Judging or Trying him It can be from none but himself But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Jurisdiction is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Nature if that be true which the (†) Cokes Inst part 4. p. 14. Suprema Jurisdictio potestas Regia etsi Princeps velit se sâ—pâ—rari non possunt sunt enim ipsa forma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente rege ab eo abdicari non possunt Cavedo Pract. Observ p. 2. Decis 40. n. 8. Lords and Commons declared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the Disinherison of the King and his Crown This Phrase of the Disinherison of the King and the Crown in other (‖) Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. c. 5. Acts of Parliament is called The Destruction of the Kings Soveraignty his Crown his Regality and things that tend thereunto things that are openly against the Kings Crown in Derogation of his Regality So that if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Soveraignty it would be of no more Force than an Act to make another King Co-partner with him in the Supream Power or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Foreign Prince But 2dly To say that the King is the only Supream Governour instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction must needs imply that he alone hath the Power of the Sword for were the Power of the Sword in any else he could not be furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Besides the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him and the Military in any other Person or State the English Realm would have two Soveraigns one Civil and another Military which is most absurd to think Therefore by the Common Laws of Soveraignty the Power of the Sword like all other Temporal Power must be derived and deducted from him as Supream Head and Governour of this Realm and indeed his Soveraignty would be an empty insignificant nothing were the Scepter in his Hand and the Sword in any others And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg consuet regni Anglae supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King Regiam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam sed legibus The Kings Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms but with Laws with Arms in the first place without which his Laws would be little worth So saith Fletal 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura Et materialem gladium qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum So saith Bracton in the beginning of his first Book In rege qui rectè regit necessaria sunt duo haec Arma videlicet Leges c. And if the Sword be originally in the Kings Hand and none can bear it without Authority