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.
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
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
Side and that we ought to obey Governours although they be wicked and wrong-doers Afterwards it proves from the Example of David The we may not withstand nor in any wise hurt an (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. ad D. Morley p. 80. Anointed King mark the Reason again which is Gods Lieutenant Vicegerent and Highest Minister in that Country where he is King He durst not once lay Hands upon Gods High Officer the King whom he did know to be a Person reserved and kept only to Gods Punishment A General Rule and Lesson to all Subjects in the World not to withstand their Liege Lord and King nor to take a Sword by their private Authority against their King Gods Anointed who only beareth the Sword by Gods Authority for the Maintenance c. Who only by Gods Law hath the Use of the Sword at his Command It is an intolerable Madness Ignorance and Wickedness for Subjects to make any murmuring rebellion resistance or withstanding Commotion or Insurrection against their Soveraign Lord. We may not in any wise withstand violently or rebel against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or his Officers but we must in such case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God Here we have Line upon Line and Precept upon Precept for Passive Obedience Here we are taught that we must suffer all sorts of Wrongs and Injuries from our Soveraign without Resistance and withstanding of him and in this Realm I am sure the Soveraign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws But to go on with this next best Book to the Bible In the second part of the Homily against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by Flight and hiding himself from the Kings Sight Shall not we being good Men as we are Rise and Rebel against a Prince hated of God and Gods Enemy and likely to be Hurtful and Pernicious to the Common-wealth Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so Vnkind a Prince nothing considering or regarding our True Faithful and Painful Service or the Safeguard of our Posterity Shall we not Rise and Rebel against our known mortal and deadly Enemy that seeketh our Lives No saith Godly David What shall we do then to an Evil to an Vnkind Prince an Enemy to us hated of God hurtful to the Commonwealth c. Lay no Violent hand upon him saith Good David but let him live until God appoint and work his End If King David would make these Answers as by his Deeds and Words recorded in the Holy Scriptures indeed he doth make unto all such Demands concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes Vnkind Princes Cruel Princes Princes that be to their good Subjects mortal Enemies Princes that are out of Gods Favour and so Hurtful or like to be Hurtful to the Commonwealth what Answer And now to use out Unanswerable Authors (‖) P. 111. own words I have been the more Copious in these Citations to shew that this is the stunding Doctrine of the Church of England to which all Orders of the Clergy have subscribed and Mr. J. among the rest The Church of England long since (†) P. 89. calculated and fitted this Doctrine for the use of a Popish Successor And if the Doctor hath been ill taught by his Mother the Blame is to be laid upon her and he is to be excused It is She that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a (‖) P. 81. Parasite Sycophant and Murderer Poor Man He sucked it in his Mothers Milk it was bred in his Bone and I fear it will never go out of his Flesh Nay to see what a sad Fate attends some Men he had the Misfortune to be bred in Oxford where Passive Obedience hath long been the Doctrine of the Malignant place as appears by Mr. (†) In the Preface to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons Gillespic one of Mr. J.'s Old Masters who called Preces Lachrymae the New Oxford Divinity which however is somewhat less Offensive than the Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears Nay so determined was the Doctor by his unhappy Stars to imbibe that Slavish Principle that he was bred in the very same College where the Immortal Sanderson drew up the Vniversities Vnanswerable Reasons against the Covenant out of which Mr. J. hath (‖) Preface p. 3. taken the most witty Allusion in his Book where speaking of Passive Obedience without a Law to require it he saith It is like one of the marvellous Accidents of Transubstantiation which makes a Shift to subsist when it hath lost its Subject which is the very same Illustration that the (‖) Judicium Acad. Oxon. de faedere p. 66. Rex vel in propriâ suâ personâ coram corporaliter adest vel absens praesentiam suam supplet per delegatos quosdam sive commissionarios suos magni sigilli autoritate ad hoc deputatos quaevis alia praesentia realis aenigmatis instar est transubstantiationis monstro haud absimilis spectrum scilicet phantasma University made use of to set forth the monstrous Absurdity of pretending the Kings Authority and Presence where he was neither in Person nor by his Commissioner I think it not amiss to put Mr. J. in mind of his vain Distinction lest his Superviser should teach him to reply That the Imperial Laws above cited regard the Politick and not the natural Person of the Soveraign But to prevent him from flying to this miserable shift I must tell him That in the (†) Coke in Calvins Case p. 439. Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers the Father and the Son to cover their Treason invented this damnable Opinion That Homage and Allegiance was due to the King more upon the account of his Politick Capacity than his Natural Person Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That if the King did not demean himself by Reason in the Right of his Crown his Lieges were bound by Oath to remove him 2. That when the King could not be reformed by Sute of Law that ought to be done by the Sword 3. That his Lieges be bound to Govern in Aid of him and in Default of him And which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the Reign of Ed. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le Spencer and the other in Ann. 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1. If I should produce no more Authorities but these already cited it were enough to shew the Concurrence of the Church and Church-men with the Three Estates of this Realm as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience but because I have undertaken the Doctors Vindication I will shew what brave Men before him have defended this Bloody Doctrine that so if he cannot be Justified he may at least be Excused I begin with
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
Reader please to consult this Anonymous Paper at large he will find it Presbyterian and Scottish from one end to the other and a Brat so unlike the Bishops upon whom the true Author hath fathered it that a man may almost safely swear that it was none of Theirs Indeed there is one Good Argument in it why the Queens Subjects might have been urgent with her Majesty to put the Queen of Scots to death and that is this That she sought the Life of the Queen and endeavoured to disinherit and destroy her These Attempts put her perfectly out of the Queens Protection and though for this Reason she might lawfully be excluded out of the World yet still the question remains Whether she could be excluded from the Crown To be excluded out of the World and from the Crown are things of a disparat Nature and the former may and sometimes ought to be done when the latter neither can nor ought As for Example among the Jews it was the Birthright of the (q) Selden de Successionibus c. 5. only Son to succeed to his Fathers whole Estate or when there were more of the eldest to have a double share and though they ought to have been put to death by the Hebrew Laws for Smiting or Cursing their Father yet could they not be disinherited or excluded from the Succession which shews our Authors great Fallacy in which he Triumphs in arguing as it were a fortiori from the Exclusion of the Heir of the Crown out of the World unto the Exclusion of him from the Crown They saith he of the Bishops were Excluders with a witness for they were for excluding the next Heir not only from the Succession but out of the World And again A Bill of Exclusion is perfect Courtship to these Reasons Let those therefore that have run down 3 successive Houses of Commons for that Bill turn their Fury and Reproaches with more Justice upon these old Excluders But all these fine Words are nothing to the purpose for these Old Excluders were not Excluders from the Succession which spoyls the parity of the Instance and to let him see that it doth so he may assure himself That the same Loyal Men who run down 3 Houses of Commons for the Bill to Exclude his R.H. from the Succession would nevertheless upon sufficient Proof that he sought the Life of his dear Brother to whom hitherto he hath shewed himself the most Obedient of his Subjects be willing to do him Justice and exclude him out of the World Furthermore to let Mr. J. see what a great difference there is between these two Exclusions I must remind him that in case Queen Elizabeth had died between the Sentence of Mary Queen of Scots and her Execution that the Descent of the Crown would have purged Her of all Crimes and that ' she would have had the same Right unto it which the Parliament declared her Son James afterwards had upon Queen Elizabeths death But yet though the Descent of the Crown purges all Defects and would bring back the greatest Malefactor of an Heir not only from a Prison but from the Scaffold and from the Block to the Throne yet our Author with unparallelled Considence (r) Preface p. 19. challenges all that were against impeaching the Succession To give him but one Reason to prove a Bill of Exclusion to be Unlawful which they will own to be a Reason a Week after and not be ashamed of it and he doth solemnly promise to joyn with them in renouncing these Old Reformers and thereafter will follow their New Guides and New Lights I never in all my Life read any thing so bold from a Man of Mr. Js. mediocrity who here challenges the House of Lords the 3 Estates of Scotland the University of Cambridge one of the Secretaries of State the Loyal Addressers and several other Persons of Note whom he ought to believe are at least as wise and learned and as good Protestants as himself First The House of Lords who were the first that in his Phrase run down the House of Commons for the Bill of Exclusion upon which his Majesty sent the House this Message That He was confirmed in his Opinion against that Bill by the Judgment of the House of Lords who rejected it and may not one presume that many of them rejected it because they thought it disagreeable to the Lex Legum or great standing Law of this Inheritable Kingdom That nothing is to be consented to in Parliament which tends to the disinherison of the Crown whereunto they are sworn This is the great Rule by which all Acts of Parliament are to be framed and if any of them transgress it they are as null and void from the beginning as Marriage with a person who hath a natural Impediment or Imperfection By this Supream Inviolable Law an Act of Parliament for dissolving the Monarchy or for debarring the King of the Service of his Subjects or for giving the Crown unto a Forainer or for making it Homageable to a Superiour Power or for dividing the Monarchy into Copartnership unto two Heirs or for Excluding the whole Royal Family as many of the Excluders grant would all be Null and Void from the beginning and so I verily believe most of them think that an Act for Excluding the next Heir would be so too which made them so zealous to back it with an Act for an Association which the Author of the Power of Parliaments ingeniously calls a Club-Law I Know not what any Excluder can reply to this but either to say That an Act of Parliament which tends to the Disinherison of the Crown is nevertheless valid or that an Act of Exclusion hath no tendency thereunto To assert the former would be a Contradiction to the most Eminent Lawyers Antient and Modern and many Declarations in Parliament and would also suppose that an Act for destroying the Monarchy it self c. would be valid And to assert the latter is virtually to say That an Act for Disinheriting the next Heir doth not tend to the disinherison of the Crown which would be difficult to maintain because the same Power that puts by One Heir may put by Ten either altogether or Successively and so Adieu to the Royal Family and the Hereditary Succession which may be laid aside in part or in whole when the King and Parliament shall please But to return to this Fundamental-Law of the Monarchy which seems to invalidate all Acts of Parliam that tend to the Disinherison or Destruction of the Crown and particularly all those which limit and bind the Succession It was by this Law that the (s) 35 H. 8. ch 1.1 Eliz. ch 3. Act of Parliament which Impâ—â—vered King Henry the 8th to dispose of the Crown by his Last Will and Testament to what person or persons soever he pleased proved Ineffectual to the House of Suffolk to which he bequeathed it after the death of Queen Elizabeth which made a
can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person is to give him what his Justice would abhor a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men which Consideration I suppose as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion made the great Man above cited say For my part I think there is more of Popery in this Bill than there can possibly be in the Nation without it for none but Papists and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion But some Men will say Why should not Protestants Disinherit Popish as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes To which the Answer is easie by another Question Why should not Protestants Depose Popish as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings I am not Conscious to my self that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing as I have done from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths (z) Preface p. 19. shameful Sophistry and the Conscientious Regard that Honest Protestants have unto them deceitful Prejudice which he saith is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual and Possible Heirs But he is very much and I fear very Wilfully mistaken For the Faith and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession or to speak yet more Otherwise thus Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown plainly our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs and is to be made good and performed unto them and every one of them when by the Providence of God they shall come to be actual according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession and thus for Example to use his own Instance The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs and Successors i. e. To the Kings Future Heirs and Successors upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by vertue of that Grant when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence who determines the days of Kings become an Actual Heir or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Vndoubted Succession according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown which is (b) Coke Littleton fol. 1.6 The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion of which none is the Author but God alone And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ and the Royal Shield carryes this Motto Dieu mon droit Nay Queen Elizabeth who through the Dubiousness of her Title courted the People so much yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands printed 1585. speaks as it became such a Soveraign Princess in this manner Although Kings and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings and in that Respect not bound to yield Account or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign and though among the most Ancient and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England and other Dominions which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God and thereby God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birthright and Proximity of Blood From this Principle many good Men who are as Wise and as Learned as any of the Excluders infer this Conclusion That it would be Vsurpation without a manifest Revelation from God to Alienate the Crown from this Family to which he only hath given it or to preclude any Person of it much more the next Heir whether Apparent or Presumptive from succeeding thereunto This Argument is not so slight as perhaps Mr. J. will make it for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family then it is very reasonable to conclude That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery would be Opposition to the Will of God This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family but most of all the next Heir upon the Line from the absolute Right or Birthright which God alone hath given him would be also to oppose the Will of God All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the (c) Third Part. p. 63 64 Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of England and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the (d) Ib. p. 97 98. House of Commons and it is above a Week since and I am confident they will still own them without being ashamed of them and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man than he is to follow as he speaks their New Light Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession are own'd by the Three Estates of Scotland and would I am confident be owned by them were they to meet again I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament Entituled An Act acknowledging and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland August 13. 1681. THe Estates of Parliament considering That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty recognise acknowledge and Declare That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right and the Nature of the Monarchy as well as by the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually Reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law Duty and Allegiance to obey the
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
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
to submit to the Penalties of the Government under which he lives But then what follows is false This is the only case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience namely when the Politica Laws are against a Man because the Gospel requires our submission to the Imperial as well as the Political Laws but by the Imperial Laws in every perfect Government the Subjects are absolutely forbidden to bear the Sword against the Soveraign or to resist him upon any pretence whatsoever and therefore are bound to suffer death wrongfully rather than resist 4. That the killing of a Man contrary to Law is Murder And if the Soveraign kill a Man contrary to Law he is guilty of Murder but must answer for it to God only 5. That every Man is bound to prevent Murder as far as the Law allows But the Imperial or Prerogative Law allows no Man to prevent his own Murder by rising up against or resisting his Soveraign and therefore the last words are false And ought not to submit to be murdered if he can help it unless by help it he means help it by Prayers and Tears I hope I have already sufficiently enervated the Strength and Force of our Authors Arguments against Passive Obedience or Non-resistance and now after his Example I shall reduce the Strength and Force of what I have hitherto said into these following Propositions I. Every Man but more especially a Christian is bound to submit to the Laws of the Government under which he lives II. The Government consists in the Imperial as well as the Political Laws III. The Imperial Laws of every Government forbid resisting the Soveraign and by consequence require Non-resistance IV. Non-resistance is the same thing with Passive Obedience and by consequence Passive Obedience is required by the Imperial Laws of every Government V. Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of any Government require of its Subjects if it be not contrary to Gods Laws they are bound to perform it VI. Passive Obedience or patient Suffering of Injuries from the Soveraign is not forbid by Gods Laws and therefore Subjects are bound to perform it where it is required by the Imperial Laws And now I shall desire these Men who of late have thundred so much with Julian against the Thebean Legion to consider well what I have said in general about the Common Laws of Soveraignty when they have digested it well they will be convinced how fallaciously the Author of that Pamphlet hath dealt with them in suppressing this Notion and making them believe That there were no Laws belonging to Government but those which I call Political Laws But as I have shewed there are two Tables belonging to every perfect and regular Government one which concerns the Majesty of the Soveraign Gods Vicegerent which I may call the first Table and another which concerns the Good and Safety of the People which may be called the second Table and these two together are the Compleat and Adequate Rule of Civil Obedience and Subjection and Passive Obedience or the Patient bearing of the greatest Injuries when it is not a Duty by This is very often so by That When the Laws are against us then it is our Duty by the second Table and when the Soveraign is against us contrary to the Laws of the second Table then it is our Duty by the Laws of the first which absolutely forbid us to bear the Sword against him or to repel his Forces by Force Wherefore to answer our Authors (†) P. 87. Question I am confident Dr. Hicks was very serious and in earnest when he taught and preached up Passive Obedience for Evangelical in this case It may be seen by the Drs. Sermon and other of his Pieces that he doth not write rashly and I have reason to presume that he asserted Passive Obedience upon the same bottom that I now defend it He is far from having Men to prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence for he would rather have them to abscond or fly but if they can or will do neither in times of Illegal Persecution he thinks there remains nothing for them to do but patiently to submit to unavoidable Death He had no reason to distinguish betwixt suffering according to and contrary to Law because he knew that neither the Laws of God nor Man allow any Subject the Benefit of forcible defence against the illegal Violence of his Soveraign but that by the Laws Imperial he ought to dye rather than resist And if this (‖) P. 87. was too light for the Pulpit and just such another Piece of Drollery as that in the Dedication to Oliver Cromwel before Killing no Murder I protest I know not what it is to be serious in the Pulpit nor what Apostolical Divinity is The Gospel from one end to the other is full of this kind of Drollery and for my own I seriously protest I had rather be Passive were it possible under a Thousand deaths in an Illegal Persecution than be guilty of such Scurrility not to say Blasphemy against the Doctrine of the Cross Our Author in this and such like Reflections writes more like an Apostate from the Christian Religion than a Minister of it and if any thing in this Answer may contribute to make him sensible of his Sin and bring him to the Humiliation and Repentance of his Elder Brother Ecebolius I shall think my pains well spent But to bring this general Discourse about the Common Laws of Soveraignty to our own Case I shall now proceed to shew That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it is a Compleat Imperial and Independent Soveraign to whom the foresaid Rights of Soveraignty do inseparably belong The English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty and (‖) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech to the Regicides p. 12 13. Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign (†) Cooks Instit p. 4. c. 74. Thus by the whole Parliament 24 H. 8. c. 12. it was resolved and so declared That by sundry Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that his Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by one Supream Head and King having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same So 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of this Kingdom is affirmed to be an Imperial Crown in these words In great Derogation of your Imperial Crown and Authority Royal. So 27 H. 8. c. 24. Most Ancient Prerogatives and Authorities appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So 1 Eliz. c. 2. Restoring and Vniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Ancient Jurisdictions c. So 1 Jacob. cap. 1. A more Famous and Greater Vnion of two Mighty Famous and Ancient Kingdoms under one Imperial Crown And before the Conquest King (†) Rot. Parl. 1 E 4. parte 6. at large in Cokes Inst part 4 p. 359.
Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Queens Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm To all this I may add the common Stile of both Houses in Parliament Our Gracious Soveraign and our Dread Soveraign Lord the King Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De tournes de Viscontes You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithfull to our Soveraign Lord Edward Hence by (†) Sheringham Kings Suprem c. 4. Common Law many Prerogatives belong to the King by vertue of his Soveraignty He cannot give any Man the Stile or Title of Dominus because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus He can hold Land of no Man because he can have no Superior and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord whereby his Heir became a Ward the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land because as Glanvil saith L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus Superiorem The reason is given by Bracton l. 2. c. 37. And as (†) C. 22. Stanford shews in his Exposition of the Kings Prerogative By the Common Law there lyeth no Action or Writ against the King but when he seizeth his Subjects Lands or Goods having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath and this Petition is called A Petition of Right Having now shew'd that the Realm of England is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign Subject unto none but God it must needs follow that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Soveraignty belonging unto him as to be unaccountable to any Humane Power to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power to be irresistable and unopposeable or not to have his Forces repelled by Force A Stranger that hath read what I have written to shew that he is a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign must needs presume that these and all other Essential Rights of Soveraignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Soveraignty or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown to acknowledge the King for Supream over all Persons to say he hath no Superior but God that he is Subject to him alone and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customes of this Realm For first To say that he is the only Supream Governour within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none but God must needs imply that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribunal but that of Heaven whose Vicegerant he is If there were any Power in his Kingdoms that could call him to account for Maladministration for that very Reason he would not be a Compleat Soveraign but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior and not he It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction that he must be Unaccountable for from whom shall any person or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from him as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms and from whom then shall any Man or state of Men derive Authority of Judging or Trying him It can be from none but himself But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Jurisdiction is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Nature if that be true which the (†) Cokes Inst part 4. p. 14. Suprema Jurisdictio potestas Regia etsi Princeps velit se sâ—pâ—rari non possunt sunt enim ipsa forma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente rege ab eo abdicari non possunt Cavedo Pract. Observ p. 2. Decis 40. n. 8. Lords and Commons declared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the Disinherison of the King and his Crown This Phrase of the Disinherison of the King and the Crown in other (‖) Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. c. 5. Acts of Parliament is called The Destruction of the Kings Soveraignty his Crown his Regality and things that tend thereunto things that are openly against the Kings Crown in Derogation of his Regality So that if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Soveraignty it would be of no more Force than an Act to make another King Co-partner with him in the Supream Power or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Foreign Prince But 2dly To say that the King is the only Supream Governour instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction must needs imply that he alone hath the Power of the Sword for were the Power of the Sword in any else he could not be furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Besides the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him and the Military in any other Person or State the English Realm would have two Soveraigns one Civil and another Military which is most absurd to think Therefore by the Common Laws of Soveraignty the Power of the Sword like all other Temporal Power must be derived and deducted from him as Supream Head and Governour of this Realm and indeed his Soveraignty would be an empty insignificant nothing were the Scepter in his Hand and the Sword in any others And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg consuet regni Anglae supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King Regiam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam sed legibus The Kings Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms but with Laws with Arms in the first place without which his Laws would be little worth So saith Fletal 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura Et materialem gladium qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum So saith Bracton in the beginning of his first Book In rege qui rectè regit necessaria sunt duo haec Arma videlicet Leges c. And if the Sword be originally in the Kings Hand and none can bear it without Authority
King and the People and as if the Parliament ought whether or no the King pleased to sit till all Grievances were redressed and Petitions answered contrary to the standing Maximm of the English Government Rex est Principium Caput finis Parliamenti He also censures the Doctor for saying That the Brief History of the Succession was but a New Dress of Dolemans Title to the Crown If saith he he had read the Ancient Historians of England instead of Dissenters Sayings he would likewise have found it possible to write an History of the Succession without borrowing from Doleman But the possibility of the Thing is another matter the Doctor asserted that it was Doleman all over Doleman in a New Dress and whether it is not true he refers himself to the True and Exact History of the Succession and to the Apostate Protestant where it is shewn not only how much that Author but Mr. H. too if they be not the same Man have Trucked and Traded with the Jesuit as much as the Collection of Speeches c. the Treatise of the Broken Succession or Bradshaw himself ever did I refer him also to the Apostat Protestant for an Answer to his childish Reflection upon the Dr. about the Dissenters Sayings there he may see how well versed the Doctor is in the Fanatical Originals how his Sermon was made before the first of those Books was printed and I will further assure him that if he please to come to the Doctors Study he shall find set in an odd Corner many of the Famous both Ancient and Modern Fanatical Treatises There he shall see Junius Brutus Lex Rex Prynn◠Soveraign Power of Parliaments Naphthali Jus Populi Vindicatum Miltons Apology Plato Redivious with very many others and Julian the Apostate among the rest CHAP. XI Wherein are further considered the Reasons for Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance and wherein it is shewn that Resistance would be a Greater Mischief than Passive Obedience I Have shewed in the Precedent Chapter how the Common Laws of Soveraignty and more particularly the Laws Imperial of this Realm and the Doctrine of the Church of England do condemn all Resistance and Force against the Soveraign and I think it will not be Superfluous to my Design in this Undertaking to weigh and consider a little further the Reasons which the Acts and Authors above cited assign for this Doctrine and the most General and that which comprehends all the rest is this That the Soveraign hath neither Superior nor Equal upon Earth but is next unto God whose Anointed and Vicegerent he is By the Sovergain must be always understood the Real and Compleat Soveraign because there are many seeming Soveraigns which are not really Such As for Example The Kings of Sparta exercised the Soveraign Power but they were not Real Soveraigns because they were accountable for their Mis-government to the Ephori who were chosen for that purpose by the People And therefore neither the Kings who were Subject to the Ephori nor the Ephori who were appointed by the People but the People themselves was the real Soveraign next under God The Kings had only the Exercise of the Soveraign Power but not the Soveraign Power it self that was Radically and Originally in the People and derivatively in the Kings who were no more than Ministers and Trustees of the People whom they could call to an Account by Judges of their own Appointment So in the Government of Venice though there be but one Duke yet because the Supream Power is not invested in him but in the Senate that State is not really Monarchical but Aristocratical and the Duke is not a Real but only a Titular or Umbratical Soveraign the very Creature of the Senate which is his Superior and the true Soveraign next under God So in the Cantons of Suitzerland though the Administration of the Government be in the Magistrates and so make it look like an Aristocracy yet in reality it is a Democracy because they derive their Power from the People and are to give an Account of the Exercise of it to them or those whom they appoint On the other hand in the English Government though the House of Commons bears the Shew of a Democracy and the Peers look like an Aristocracy among us yet our Government is a perfect Monarchy because the Supream Power is as I have proved neither in the one nor in the other nor in both together but solely in the Person of the King I was the more willing to make this Observation that when I speak of Soveraign Princes I may not be maliciously traduced as if I spoke of them exclusively of other Soveraigns as if Monarchy were of Sole Divine Right For want of this Distinction other Writers have had this invidious Imputation laid upon them But this Reason of not Resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent and only 〈◊〉 Subject to him is a Common Reason of Passive Obedience to all Soveraigns as well as unto Kings and unto Kings as well as unto any other Soveraigns The forecited Acts and Authors render no other Reason but this which indeed is vertually many other Reasons for if the Government of Men as well as of Angels be from God then it must follow First That upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Soveraign Authority he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis or Essential Rights of Soveraignty according to that Maxim Qui dat esse dat omnia pertinentia ad esse He that gives the Essense gives also the Properties belonging to the Essense Wherefore as an Architect who makes a Piece of Timber a Cube or a Sphere gives it all the Properties of a Cube or a Sphere So God when he makes any Man a Soveraign he gives him all the Essential Rights of Soveraignty one of which is to be free from Resistance or Forcible Repulse For if any man or number of men under him had lawful Power to take up Defensive Arms or use Defensive Force against the Soveraign and his Forces he could not for this Reason be Soveraign because he would be Subject unto a Controllable Power For according to this Supposition his Subjects would have a Power of Judging of his Actions whether they were Just or Injurious Lawful or Unlawful and when they might make a War Defensive and when not which is in effect to destroy Soveraignty and make the Soveraign Inferior to the People And therefore to cut off all pretenses of Resistance in the English Government the Three Estates as I have proved before have declared against all Defensive as well as Offensive War it being impossible for the Soveraignty to consist with the Liberty of that Pretense Just as among the Romans it was inconsistent with the Soveraign Unaccountable Power which the Masters by Law had over the Slaves for them to have a Liberty of Rising up against them under the pretence of Self-defence In all Soveraign Governments