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
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
Rabble who in Riots Tumults and Insurrections for which they would never want Pretences were Resistance in any case allowed are able to do more mischief in a Week than ever any Tyrant yet did in a Year Indeed the Strokes of a Tyrant like those of Thunder make a great Noise and all places ring with it and it puts the World in great affright but yet alone and unresisted a Tyrant cannot spill so much Blood especially in a Limited Empire as would be shed by Resistance in a Defensive War for the Rage of the worst of Tyrants generally wrecks it self upon particular persons or parties of Men but in Civil War which is worse than any Tyranny all must suffer without distinction and however it may be called Defensive and at first be so designed yet it will certainly degenerate into Offensive and Rapin Bloodshed and Devastations will be the ordinary Concomitants thereof The late Rebellion among us was called by the Raisâ—rs of it and I believe verily intended by some of them for a War merely Defensive but it soon proved Offensive the Managers of it being forced in their own defence to seek Advantages to set upon the King as he did to set upon them Indeed when the Defensive Party is very much the stronger then the War if the Defenders please may be merely Defensive but when the Party Offensive is as strong or stronger than they then they cannot defend themselves without taking the Advantage of Offence Besides if we consider the Passions of Men set in Military Opposition one against another the Notion of a Defensive War like many Notions in Geometry though it may be true in the Theory ' yet it will be impossible in the Practise and therefore I cannot but admire the Wisdom as well as the Goodness of God in forbidding us to Resist or Defend our selves by Force against the Soveraign and his Forces because Defence doth so naturally degenerate into Offence These things considered I desire Mr. J. the fierce and almost blasphemous Opposer of Passive Obedience to consider Whether as he saith He (†) Pref. p. 11. hath honestly pursued the End of our Saviours Coming into the World which was not to destroy mens Lives but to save them For had our Saviour allowed Subjects under the pretence of defending themselves and their Religion to resist their Soveraign he had come indeed to destroy Mens Lives and as he said in another sense Not to send Peace on Earch but a Sword He had then indeed set Subjects at variance against their Soveraign and made the World for Rebels the worst of Banditi by the Gospel which had then been a Doctrine of War and not of Peace But this was not consistent with his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and the Care which he had for Government and the Peace and Well-fare of Mankind Though Tyranny be ill yet he knew Resistance was worse and therefore he hath commanded us to lay down our Lives for our Religion but not to take up the Sword in defence of it contrary to the Imperial Law For all that draw or use the Sword without Authority from the Soveraign whose right it is to bear it he hath left obnoxious to the Sword of Justice and to incur the Punishment of death Put up thy Sword into its place saith he to Peter for all that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword Wherefore let Mr. J. talk never so much against a Popish Successor and let him have what Characters men please to give him nay let them suppose him to be a Complicate Tyrant and as Gregory saith of Julian to be Pharaoh Achab Hieroboam and Nebuchadnezzar all in one nay let the Spirit of Galerius Maximin and Maxentius come upon him yet I am sure it will cost fewer Lives and less Desolation to let him alone than to resist him but if it would not I had rather die a Martyr than a Rebel this is my Resolution by the Grace of God I can be content to be barbarously murdered I know to whom I must pay my Passive Obedience to my God and to my King the Laws of God and the Imperial Laws of the Land require it of me For though (†) P. 80. God approves our Religion and would have all the World to embrace it and hold it fast yet he doth not approve of Resistance that 's no part of Christian Liberty and he would have none embrace that And though (‖) Ibid. Protestancy is so far from being Criminal by the Laws of our Country that it is Death to turn Papist as it was to turn Idolater among the Jews yet Passive Obedience is part of the Established Protestant Religion as it was of the Jewish and the Laws of our Country God be praised for it make it Capital to resist Therefore I resolve by Gods Assistance neither to turn Papist nor Resist But if I cannot escape I will suffer according to the Gospel and the Church of England and Mr. J. hath the Liberty to despise the Gospel and the Church and to resist his supposed Tyrant if he will He may preach and practise Resistance but I am resolved to preach and practise Passive Obedience after the Example of the Jewish Prophets and Martyrs who suffered against Law and in my most Melancholy Prospect of things I can comfort my self with the hopes of a Reward for dying at a Stake which he shall never have for dying in the Field But for fear I should move the Indignation of Mr. J. too much by shewing the utter Inconveniences of Resisting and how it is a Remedy against Tyranny worse than the Disease I will endeavour to temper him with a few Words out of his next best Book to the Bible in the First Part of the Homily against Disobedience What shall Subjects do then Shall they obey Valiant Stout Wise and Good Princes and Contemn Disobey and Rebel against Children being their Princes or against Indiscreet and Evil Governours God forbid For first What a Perillous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the Judgment which Prince is Wise and Godly and his Government Good and which is otherwise as though the Foot must judge of the Head an Enterprise very hainous and must needs breed Rebellion For who else be they that are most inclined to Rebellion but such Haughty Spirits from whom springeth such foul ruin of Realms Is not Rebellion the greatest of all Mischiefs And who are most ready to the greatest Mischiefs but the worst Men What an unworthy matter were it then to make the Naughtiest Subjects and most inclined to Rebellion and all Evil Judges over the Princes over the Government and over their Counsellers to determine which of them be Good and Tolerable and which be Evil and so Intolerable that they must needs be removed by Rebels being ever ready as the Naughtiest Subjects soonest to Rebel But whereas indeed a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of
Pagan Princes as in Tiberius the Emperor who was so tormented with the sense of his own Sins that he could not but discover his own Confusion unto the Senate in a Remarkable Letter which began thus (‖) Quid scribam vobis P. C. aut quomodo scribam aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore dii me déaeque pejus perdant quam perire quotidie sentio si scio Adeo facinora atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant neque frustra praestantissimus sapientiae affirmari solitus est si recludantur tyrannorum mentes posse aspici laniatus et ictus quando ut corpora verberibus ita savitiâ libidine malis consultis animus dilaceretur Quippe Teberium non fortuna non solitudines protegebant quin tormenta pector is suasque ipse paenas fateretur Tacit. An. l. 6. c. 6. My Lords and Gentlemen If I know what or how to write or not to write to you at this time let all the Gods and Goddesses confound me with a worse Death than by which I feel my self perishing every day In such a manner saith the Historian did the Gods turn his Wickednesses into his own Punishment so that what Socrates said is very true That if the Breasts of Tyrants could be laid open we should see what slashes and gashes they suffer from their own Consciences and that the Body cannot suffer more from the Whip than their minds do from the sense of their Tyranny and Lusts And if Conscience be a Restraining Principle in Heathen Princes if they cannot without such Soul-Torments pervert Justice and violate their Oaths and the Laws it must needs much more be a powerful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People over whom he set them nay that he most commonly sends remarkable Judgements upon them or their Families for subverting the Laws and persecuting the True Religion Shall the Fear of Gods Anger and Judgements more than any other thing keep so many thousand Subjects from injuring their Soveraign and shall not the Fear of the same God and his Judgments keep the Soveraign from injuring of them Or shall the People take warning by the Judgments of God which in all Ages have remarkably fallen upon Rebels and shall not the Soveraign make as much use of the Remarkable Judgments which have fallen upon Tyrants This Principle gives equal Security both ways and therefore it may well pass for one Answer to the former Question That our Security consists in the Conscience of the Prince But in the third place As we have the Princes Conscience so we have his Honour for our Security For Princes like other Men are tender of their Honour and Good Name and are powerfully restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Subjects They are as loath as other Men to be exposed to the censure of Mankind or be recorded for Tyrants in the Annals of Time Though they may be desirous for their Honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests yet the same Principle of Honour will ordinarily make them ashamed to have them computed from their Massacres and Persecutions which will but get them the Surname of the Bloody or the Tyrant unto the End of the World Honour as Moralists observe is a Secondary or Civil Conscience and if so many Subjects will abstain from Rebellion merely to avoid the Odious Character of a Traitor why should we not presume That a Prince will abstain from Illegal Violence especially against a great Number of his People to avoid the Odious Name of Tyrant How Black do Pharaoh Achab and Jeroboam look in the Scriptures and Nero Domitian Decius Valerian Maximian Galerius Maximin and Julian in the Ecclesiastical Historians And a Prince that knows any thing of History must naturally abhor to be reckoned among such as these whose very Names are detested by all Mankind This is all the Security that most other People have or ever had for their Rights and Properties against their Princes but we the Inhabitants of this Fortunate Island have God be praised for it a further Security from our Laws to which every Man be he never so great is obnoxious besides the Prince himself For whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the prejudice of any other person must be subject to make Reparation by Law against which the King himself can protect no Man as long as the Courts of Justice are kept open so that there can be no Tyranny in England but the utmost Tyranny nor any Persecution but a most Exorbitant and Illegal Persecution which must presuppose that Justice is obstructed the Laws and Lawyers silenced the Courts of Judicature shut up and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword But to suppose this is plainly to suppose the utmost possibility which is next to an impossibility a possibility indeed in Theory but scarce to be reduced into Practice for in such a Violent Undertaking all Good Men would withdraw from the Service and Assistance of the King and the Bad durst not serve him because if he died or repented of his Undertaking they must be answerable for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service Indeed were our Kings Immortal or would they not like other Men grow weary and repent of their Unjust Practises then Men who had no Religion but their Interest would willingly by Instruments of their Tyranny but seeing they may repent and must die like other Men no Man that would be safe will venture to serve them against the Law no Rational Man will venture into such a Sea of Troubles where there is no Haven This Consideration would help very much to quiet the Minds of Men would their Fears but let their Reason have its perfect work It would help them in a great measure to see that a Popish Successor notwithstanding all the dismal Characters of him would not be able especially on the sudden to outrage his Protestant Subjects for as long as the Laws were open he could not hurt them and to shut them up and obstruct or pervert Justice would for the former Reasons prove an exceeding difficult and almost impracticable Undertaking because all his Good Subjects and all the Bad too that tendred their own safety would desert him nay Foreiners upon this Account would make a difficulty to serve him because he could not protect them against his own Laws Wherefore a Popish Prince though he were never so Blood-thirsty and had never so little regard to Humanity and his Coronation-Oath would be infinitely puzled to persecute his Protestant Subjects He must be supposed to obstruct Justice and govern Arbitrarily by the Sword which as I have shew'd would be almost an Impossibility because it would be so exceeding difficult for him to get sufficient Numbers of Men to assist him in such a
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
therefore in the next place let us enquire Whether the Christians did behave themselves so like Apostates and Barbarians against their Lawful Emperor as he hath endeavoured to make the World believe they did Surely if the Passages be examined which he hath produced it will appear that some of them are Dubious others False some Laudable many of them Innocent and those few that are Blameable or that he would have to be so Excusable in a great measure and having nothing Singular in them which have not been done to other Emperors before CHAP. III. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in Words I Shall begin with their Behaviour towards him in Words as it is set down in his Third Chapter where all along he most unjustly charges what was said but by one or a few Christians upon the whole Number altho the Examples which he hath brought are nothing in proportion to the whole Eastern Empire much less to the Western in which perhaps not one Instance of that which he calls Barbarous Behaviour towards Julian can be produced At his rate of arguing from one or a few Examples to the whole Church a man may prove out of the Scriptures that the Christians were a very untoward People for there as he is pleased to phrase it A man may almost lose himself in the great variety of Instances which may be given of their great and manifold Miscarriages if what some particular Men or Churches did amiss might be charged upon the whole Body of Christians and be called theirs Thus saith he of the Christians in general They sufficiently requited him for calling them Galilaeans for they named him Idolianus instead of Julianus and Pisaeus and Adonaeus from his worshipping of Jupiter and Adonis and Bull-burner from the great number of them which he sacrificed One would think as he hath represented the matter that all the Christians used thus to Nickname Julian and yet if we consult that place of Nazianzen which he cites for it in the Margent we shall find that it was not the general Practise of the Christians so to call the Apostate in requital but of some of one sort (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. 1. Invect p. 87 88. For saith the Father if the Christians had a mind to give new Names they might find many base ones very fit and applicable to him for what should hinder us jearing of him as he doth us to call him Idolianus and Pisaeus and Adonaeus and Bull-Burner as some of the merry and facetious men among us have taken the liberty to call him But yet though they were but the Facetious and some of the Facetious Christians too who called Julian by those Names yet our trusty Author makes no Bones of charging the matter upon them in General They saith he requited him for calling them Galilaeans for they named him Idolianus c. But this is not the only Instance where Mr. J. hath plaid the Jesuit with good Authors and what sair dealing is to be expected from a man who imposes upon his Reader in the very (†) P. 1. first Citation with which he begins his Book Constantine the Great saith he Famous for being the first Christian Emperor divided the whole Empire at his death amongst his three Sons as a Father doth his Estate among his Children that part which came by his Ancestors the West he gave to the eldest This indeed sounds somewhat like an Entailed Inheritance whereas had he truly and entirely rendred the place it would not have favoured that Design For Eusebius saith That Constantius the Great (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Vit. Const l. 4. c. 52. when he had gotten the whole World into his Power he divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony amongst his three Sons as being the most Beloved of his Heirs That Part which came by his Father he gave to the Eldest There is some difference betwixt saying That Constantine divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony and as a Father divides his Estate and very much betwixt saying simply That he divided it among his Sons and that he divided it among his Sons as the best beloved of his Heirs It was not for the Interest of a man that asserted the Roman Empire to be Hereditary to let his Reader know that Constantine had other Heirs in View besides his Sons this would have given them to understand That he might have passed by his Sons and given the Empire to them or made these Co-partners with those So it was for his Interest to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which came by his Ancestors as if the West-part of the Empire which Constantine received from his Father had Lineally devolved upon him through many Hereditary Descents But to return to the Nicknames which the pleasanter sort of Christians gave unto Julian what Injury did they do him thereby There was nothing more common among the Pagan Emperors than to surname themselves from their Gods Dioclesian assumed the Surname of Jovius and Maximian of Herculeus and if some of the Wits among the Christians sportingly did the same thing for Julian that other Emperors did for themselves what Precept of the Christian Religion did they transgress thereby But these were (†) P. 32. Instances of their Hatred and Contempt of Julian perhaps they were so but not of the Man nor of the Emperor but of the Apostate and Idolater whom the Christian Religion would have allowed a Confessor to have called so to his very face And be it known unto Mr. J. that many of those who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion would think it rather their Duty than any Breach of it to tell not only a Popish Prince but a Popish King to his Face did he openly profess the Popish Religion that he was an Idolater a Bread-worshipper a Goddess-worshipper a Creature-worshipper an Image-worshipper a Wafer-worshipper c. which would be a far greater contempt of him than to Nickname him from his Popish-Idols and mock him with them behind his back But let us suppose that these merry Gentlemen did transgress the duty of Christians in playing upon the Name of Julian yet there was nothing of tendency to Rebellion in it nothing specifick that can tempt a man to think that they did it because he persecuted the Christians contrary to Law Our blessed Lord called Herod Fox and St. Paul called Nero Lyon and had Mr. J. found these Names for his Julian in the Writings of the Christians he would in all probability have told us that they looked upon him as a Wild Beast whom every man had a right to slay St. Cyprian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom calls the Emperor Decius Antichrist and in his Epist to Antonianus he calls him Tyrant and Raging Tyrant and Lucianus the Presbyter in his (†) Cyprian Epist Oxon. edit p. 47. Epist to Celerinus calls him the Great Snake and forerunner of Antichrist which are
of supernatural courage with which God was wont to inspire those whom he called to suffer for his Holy Name And therefore St. Peter prayed for it Acts 4.29 Lord saith he behold their Threatnings and grant unto thy Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that with all boldness we may speak thy Word This inspired Courage is most evident in very Young and very Old People as also in Women who have little Natural Courage as (†) L. 5. c. 1. Eusebius observes in the Martyrdom of Young Blandina and old Pothius and many others as of Young ‖ De Mart. Palaest c. 4. Apphianus and †C. 7. ib. Theodosia the Virgin to whom I refer the Reader in his History of the Palaestine Martyrs Now the Persons thus inspired with Zeal and Courage used ordinarily to shew it in the Freedom of their Speech before Kings and Governours especially before those whom they knew to be spiteful Enemies of their Religion and Blasphemers of God Thus one of the Seven Brethren in the ‖ 2 Mach. ch 7. Macchabees called Antiochus Fury another told him He despised his Laws a third bid him remember that though he was a King yet he was Corruptible a fourth called him Godless Man and of all other most Wicked and the rest threatned him with the Judgments of God The three Jews in Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar very bluntly that they cared not to answer him in the matter of the Image but if his Decree was so God was able to deliver them but if he will not say they like true Confessors be it known unto thee we will not serve thy Gods nor worship the Golden Image that thou hast set up When Numerianus or Decius for my †Philostorg l. 7. p. 506. Author knows not which of the two it was would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Worship Babylas the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch shut the Door against him telling him that he would not suffer him who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheepfold of Christ Domninus was Famous among the Christians of Palaes tine for this singular Freedom of Speech and is celebrated for it by Eusebius in the 7th Chapter of his History of the Palaestine Martyrs and in Justin the Martyr's first Apology we read of one Lucius who standing by at the condemnation of Ptolemaeus a Christian boldly spoke to the President thus What reason hast thou O Vrbioius to condemn a man merely for the Name of Christian who is neither Whoremonger nor Adulterer nor Murderer nor Thief nor Robber nor is guilty of any one Crime let me tell thee thy Sentence is very unworthy of the Emperour who is called Pious and of his Son surnamed Philosopher and of the Senate which is styled the Holy It would be endless to enumerate all the Examples of the Confessorian Parrhesia or Liberty of Speech there are Examples of it in most Persecutions but these may suffice to let Mr. J's Admirers see how Fallaciously he hath dealt with them in representing the Free Speeches of the Berean Noble-Man and Maris the Bishop unto Julian as singular Instances of Contempt whereas such Freedom was of ordinary practise in former Persecutions among Christian Cofessors a sort of men I fear for whom he hath but little Veneration or Respect But more particularly as to Maris Bishop of Chalcedon if there be any thing singular or unjustifiable in that Dialogue of his with Julian it may fairly be laid at his own Door who was a most violent Arrian guilty of many blameworthy Practises which are not to be put upon the general Account (†) Gelas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. c. 2. Acta Metroph apud Phot. Cod. 256. He was one of the 18 Bishops in the Nicene Council that defended Arrius and his Doctrine (‖) Socrat. l. 1. c. c. 27 31 35. he was one of Athanasius his most bitter Enemies (*) Socrat. l. 2. c. 12. he is reckoned among the Arrianizers that ordained Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople after Eusebius died in opposition to Paulus elected by the Orthodox (†) Id. lib. c. 2. 41. He is called an Acasian and subscribed the Confession of the Council of Arimini in a Council of 50 Bishops at Constantinople where they abrogated the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (‖) Sosom l. 4. c. 24. He was one that witnessed against Athanasius in the Council of Tyre attesting the Charge against him of breaking the Chalice c. in a Parish Church of Maraeotis and afterwards before (*) Sosom l. 2. c. 25. the Emperor Constantine (†) Ib. c. 28. He was one of the Bishops sent by the Council of Tyre into Aegypt to enquire into the matter where (‖) L. 2. c. 25. Sozom. saith they managed the Enquiry partially but (*) Lib. 1. c. 30. Theodoret plainly accuses him and his Companions of framing a Lye against him forgeing false Acts and reviving the old confuted Slanders against him Lastly the (†) Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. Fathers of the Council of Sardica in their Synodical Epistle reckon him among the False Accusers of Athanasius Marcellus and Asclepas though they do not depose him with the rest of his Arrian Accomplices all which shew that he was a Man of Heterodox Opinions and Irregular Practises whose Example ought not to be cited as a Precedent to conclude any thing in general upon the Christians or Bishops of his Time In the Conclusion of the Chapter he tells us That it would be endless to reckon up the Sayings of Juventinus and Maximus in their Anniversary Sermon of St. Chrysost of those Souldiers that were trepanned into Sacrificing by Julian and of many others who did not spare him in the least One would wonder how this man should come to be so learned in all that was said against Julian (‖) De Juliano Testimonia before Julians Works Vituperationem autem apud Gregorium Nazianz. Steletenticis 11. ac Cyrill Meminit Chrysostomus contra Judaeos Hom. 3. in S.S. Juventinum Maximum in S. Babylani Item Hieron in 3. cap. Habacuc August vide civitate Dei cap. 25. but that Petavius in 4 lines hath directed him to all that ever was written against him out of which he hath taken all that was for his purpose and notwithstanding he tells his Reader that he must be satisfied with a Tast yet he hath served him up with his whole Store For the Sayings of Juvent and Max. and of those Souldiers whom Julian had trepanned to sacrifice are so far from making for him that they are very much against him or else we may be sure had they been to his purpose they had not been suppressed As for the former they are such as they said at Table such as they said when they were cast into Prison for what they had said at Table such as they said to those whom Julian under-hand sent to tempt
the worst Prince that hitherto hath been both Rebels are unmeet Ministers and Rebellion an unfit and unwholesome Medicine to reform any small Lacks in a Prince or to cure any little Grief in a Government such lewd Remedies being far worse than any other Maladies and Disorders that can be in the Body of a Commonwealth I appeal to the Late Rebellion which the Rebels called a Defensive War to verifie this Doctrine for there was more Blood shed in it in one Battel than in all the Tyrannies and Persecutions of the Nation since the Conquest and in the two Kingdoms there hath been more Christian Blood shed in Rebellions since the Reformation by pretended Undertakers of Defensive War than throughout the whole Roman Empire in nine of the first ten Famous Persecutions There is scarce any other Kingdom in the World wherein it may not be shewed by woful example how disadvantagious and prejudicial it would be to the Commonwealth that it should be Lawful for the People to take up Arms for Defence of their Liberties and Religion Civil Wars would be the constant Effect of such an Exorbitant Power because there would never want Turbulent and Ambitious Spirits to make the Populace Jealous of their Soveraign and by consequence ready upon the first Alarm to rise up in defence of their Rights Had the People of this and the Neighbouring Nation had such a Power of Resistance granted unto them this Island had been made a Theater of War almost ever since his Majesties Happy Restauration nay in all appearance there had been more Blood shed in the Land these 4 last years of our Fears and Jealousies than can without Resistance be shed in a Persecution of 20 years long Nay let us imagine a Popish Prince as bigotted in Religion and as sanguinary in his Temper as may be now Reigning over us yet he could not likely cause so much Ruin Bloodshed and Desolation in his whole Reign as a War between him and his Resisting Subjects would cause in one Year Wherefore it is plain that it is the Interest even of the People themselves that so great a Power should be in the Soveraign that none should withstand him or rise up against him and that nothing can be more pernicious to the Commonwealth in any Government than that the Subjects should have a Power of taking up Arms to defend their Liberties and Religion Chap. XII Wherein is shewed That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience we are Secure enough of our Lives Properties and Religion ALL that I have hitherto said of Passive Obedience hath been to satisfie the Reasons of the Thinking and Sober Part of Men and now I proceed to propose some Considerations which may serve as a sufficient Answer to that Hasty Question which timourous and suspicious men are apt to make against this Doctrine saying Where then is our Security How can we be Safe from the utmost Tyranny and Oppression of our Soveraign if we may not be allowed to Resist To which I answer That I have already shewn that the Remedy of Resistance is as bad or worse than the Disease of Tyranny and Persecution and I furthermore add that upon supposition there were some Cases allowed wherein we might take up Defensive Arms against the Soveraign what Security could the Soveraign have upon desisting from Tyranny and Persecution that this Defensive Army would lay down their Arms Might they not say that he was not to be trusted having once broke his Coronation-Oath and that it was necessary for them to keep up in Arms to prevent a second Persecution Nay might they not serve him as the Army served our Late Blessed Soveraign and if they went about to do so who durst question them for what they did Perhaps you will reply that another Army is to be raised to reduce this to their former Obedience But how difficult would it be for an Oppressed Prince and People to raise an Army against another Conquering Army or if they did what dismal Consequences far worse than any Tyranny would follow thereupon Besides the Ruines and Devastations during the War Slavery and Arbitrary Government would naturally be the Event of it For if the first Army prevailed then the Injured Prince as well as the People whom they pretended to defend must be Subject to their Discretion but if the King and his new Army raised to reduce them prevailed what then will become of our Liberties and Religion which the first Army rose up to defend But perhaps you will object That you would have this Defensive Army under the Conduct of sworn Trustees for the People That they should be Disbanded as soon as they have reduced the Tyrannizing Prince But who shall see that these Trustees shall perform their Trust How can you be Secure they will not break their Oaths Or if they be Faithful to their Trust how can you be secure the Defensive Army will be disbanded by them Remember what hapned between Cromwels Army and the House But still you will object that to prevent these Inconveniences you would have the Government in more Hands than one you would not have one man only entrusted with it Well let it be so Let us suppose that the Three Estates in Parliament were our Governours yet I can object as strongly against this Either they will agree together or disagree If they agree how can you be secure they will not divide the Land among them 〈◊〉 in a short time govern us as Arbitrarily as the Sâ—â—â—ate of Venice under which the People really are what we call Slaves But if they disagree as is most probable having the Passions of Men Ambition Covetousness and Emulations then their Government will become uncertain and odious and the most popular amongst them will take an Opportunity to set up himself and when he hath mastered his Companions he must secure his Usurpation by Force and then his Pleasure must be our Law All these Inconveniences would apparently attend the new Model for the Association to back the Exclusion of the next Heir For either the Heads of it would agree or disagree If they continued to agree then the preposterous Heir after he was made King and his People also must be subject to their Discretion But if they should disagree as most probably they would then as fast as they fell out among themselves or grew discontented their Security would oblige them to revolt unto the Secluded Heir and help him to get possession of the Crown And in what a Miserable Condition would this Nation be during such a Civil War no Tyranny in all probability could be so Destructive and whether the Popish Prince or the Opposing Army at last prevailed we must be subject to their Sword In a word there neither is nor can be any absolute Security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government And therefore in the second place it may be a sufficient