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of Henry the 8th which impowered him to limit the Descent of this Imperial Crown had not the honour to be formally repealed but were virtually declared Null and Void from the beginning by the 3 Estates 1 Jacob.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
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
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
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
now plainly seen Therefore no marvail why God fought against them They were Hypocrites and under the Cloke of the Gospel would have debarred the Queens Highness of her Right but God would not so Cloke them Religion and so shewed their Hatred to her and how they held her in the lowest degree of Contempt If a Man should set his Wit to give such an Account of the Behaviour of the Protestants towards Queens Mary picking up such Stories as these and concealing their Loyalty in setting her upon the Throne and their Meek and Passive Behaviour under her Persecution he might make just such another Fallacious Book as that of Mr. Js. who hath gleaned 3 or 4 Particular Stories out of the Histories of the Apostate upon which he hath put false Colours and suppressed and concealed as much as he could the Loyalty and Passive Obedience of his Subject and what he could not conceal he hath and I verily believe against his own Conscience resolved into a wrong Cause In the 7th Chapter about Julian's death I omitted one good Argument to prove he was not Treacherously killed by a Christian taken from this Expression in his last (i) Amm. Mar. l. 25. c. 3 Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 148. Speech Sempiternum veneror Numen quod non clan destinis insidiis nee longá morborum asperitate nee damnatorum fine sed in medio cursu florentium gloriarum hunc merui clarum e mundo digressum I bless the Eternal Deity saith he that I do not dye by secret treachery c. which very Expression seems to prove that he himself did not in the least suspect that he was struck by a Roman much less a Christian Hand as Mr. J. designs his Reader should believe I might also have observed that Mr. J. is the first Writer of the Church of England whose Genius hath led him to follow the Example of (k) His verbis Nobilis Historicus Sozomenus l. 6. c. 2. Militem si quis forte Julianum Imperatorem occidisset uti eo tempore quidam accusabant Jure cum laude fecisse ait Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 142. Mariana whom Ruteford the Author of Lex Rex accounted an approved Author in citing of Sozomen for Justifying as he saith the Murder of Julian by one of his own Soldiers But as I have observed Soz. did neither justifie nor commend but only extenuat the Crime for which he hath been severely censured by other (l) Sozomenum mendacii arguit Gregorius Magnus stupiditatis incredibils Baronius Ibid. Authors but Mr. J. let him pass without Rebuke though I confess he hath called the Fact a Traiterous Assassination but with what appearance of Integrity let the Impartial Reader judge In the beginning of his Preface he makes a mighty Flourish and in very fallacious Rhetoric against the Loyal Addressers for being contrary to themselves promising to maintain his Majesty and the Religion established with their Lives and Fortunes and a Popish Successor too But though common Readers cannot yet others can look through this Malicious Fallacy for it was not the Popish Successor as popish but the Succession which they promised to maintain and not the Person who shall succeed in his endeavours to overthrow the Protestant Religion there they will desert him as the Suffolk-Protestants did Queen Mary but in all other things they will serve a Popish Successor with their Lives and Fortunes as the Christians did a Pagan and particulary Julian so that he may keep the Horns of Mahomets Angels which were half Fire and half Snow as an Emblem for such Protestants who can sight against the Person of their Prince in Defence of his Authority and who are wont to qualisie their professed Zeal for him with such Cooling Considerations as do perfectly extinguish it as Snow doth Fire Then he goes on to tell us that A Popish Successor will be an Heavy Judgment But then saith he reflecting upon the Addressers Did ever Men pray for a Judgment and make it their Humble Request that they might be sure of it But did any of the Loyal Addressers Pray or Desire that the next Successor might be a Papist or is Mr. J. or any of the Excluders sure that he that is next will succeed to the Crown Nay do not the Truly Loyal Party pray and endeavour to make him a Good Protestant and were they not in Parliament for making of Good Laws for our Security against him And hath not the Author of Julian very much Forehead to say of so considerable a part of the Nation That if they be Protestants yet he thinks them men weary of their Religion who are Undone for a Prince a Great Part of whose Religion is to Persecute and Extirpate theirs But doth he not know That they Love the King and pray for his Preservation and wish that he may live for ever Does he not know that they wish him a Numerous Posterity and that there were a Succession of many Young Princes between him and the Collateral Heir And have they not at least as good Reasons to declare for the Succession as the Excluders have to declare against it who by an Act of Exclusion would likely bring as great a Plague and as Heavy a Judgment upon the Nation as a Popish Prince will do But yet so bent is this Man to Exclusion that he tacitly commends King Edward for Impeaching the Succession of his Sister Mary by the most Vnauthoritative and Vnjust Act that a good Prince could be guilty of Every body knows saith he that King Edward the Sixth to prevent his Popish Sister from Succeeding bequeathed his Kingdom by Will to the Lady Jane and every body knows who put the young Prince upon it and I wish too many of those who were for perswading shall I say or forcing his Majesty to Exclude his only Brother be not such Self-designing Protestants as they And I need not adds he say what Bishops were concerned nor how far they were concerned in that Business This you must know is a Reflection on the Bishops for voting against the Bill of Exclusion but how little this Story makes against them you shall hear from Archbishop Crammer who indeed was more concerned in that Business than our Author is willing the World should know I am saith he in his Letter to the Queen constrained most lamentably and with most penitent and sorrowful Heart to ask Mercy and Pardon for my Hainous Folly and Offence in consenting and following the Testament and last Will of our Sovereign Lord King Edward your Graces Brother which Will God he knoweth I never liked nor never any thing grieved me so much as that your Graces Brother did and if by any means it had been in me to have letted the making of that Will I would have done it and what I said therein as well to his Counsel as himself divers of your Majesties Counsel can report but none so well as the Marquis of Northampton the L.
prove the Roman Empire to have been Hereditary doth sufficiently declare it to be his own Sense that there can be no Parallel between the case of Julian and a Popish Successor but upon that supposition and that otherwise there can be no good arguing from Non-Election or Preterition to Exclusion and from no Right and Title to Birth-right or Inheritance which is the constitutive difference between an Elective and Hereditary Crown The Nature of Birthright and Inheritance which is not founded on the Statutes but upon the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is an Hereditary Monarchy makes it debateable whether an Act of Exclusion would be Valid or Invalid And upon supposition that it would be Valid there are many Arguments which makes it disputable whether it would be safe or unsafe expedient or unexpedient and whether the Mischiefs it would bring upon us would not be as great as those which it would prevent But in the case of Julian there was no such matters for debate and therefore the sense which Nazianzen had of his Succession is nothing to us who are under another sort of Government and in other Circumstances the Consideration of which makes many Sincere and Honest Protestants who dread Popery and a Popish Successor as much as our Author zealous for the Lineal Succession and this distinction between the Succession and a Popish Successor makes it no Contradiction in the Addressers and particularly in his and Shr. Beth's Friends of Rippon to beseech his Majesty not to agree to the Bill of Exclusion and yet to be ready to hazard their Lives and Fortunes and spend that last Drop of their Blood in Defence of his Majesty and the Religion established by Law It is one thing to be for the Succession and another to be for a Popish Successor as it is one thing to be for the Monarchy and another thing to be for a Popish Monarch and there are many for the Former who as heartily pray to God to prevent the Latter as for their daily Bread But our Author who is an excellent Artist in Fallacies so words it in the beginning of his Preface as to induce his Reader to think that those who address to his Majesty to preserve the Lineal Succession do make it their humble Request to him that they may be sure of a Popish Successor as if they had consulted Gadbury or the Fates and were sure that his R.H. whom he means by the Popish Successor without an Act of Exclusion should certainly come to the Crown Nay so far are all those who are so tender of the Succession from having any tenderness for a Popish Successor that they dread him like the Plague and therefore would have had Provisional Laws made to bind up such an one and put him under very close legal Confinement in case he should be King But nothing would serve the other Protestants but an Act of Exclusion backed with another for an Association to which I am confident that Nazianzen himself had he then sat on the Spiritual Bench would never have said Content And truly to make the case of Julian and his R. H. exactly parallel we must not only suppose that the Succession to the Empire was Hereditary but that Constantine the Great had been murdered after a long Rebellion by the Aerians his Son Constantius miraculously preserved and restored and the ruined Church restored with him that from the time of his Restauration the Aerians resumed their old practises against the Church and the Monarchy and underhand helped Julian after he had left the Communion of the Church to get an Indulgence for themselves and the Pagans that the Church was almost ruined and the Empire much weakned by this Indulgence and other Contingences and that however the Aerians and Pagans were opposite in other things yet they agreed in conspiring against the Established Christian Religion even in the Senate where they always voted alike We must also suppose that the Aerians were generally Commonwealths-men that they were a very busie and dangerous interest of men against the Government that they took all Advantages against it especially when the Peoples minds were distracted by the discovery of a Pagan Plot upon Julians Apostacy that then they represented the Orthodox Christians especially the Bishops and the Clergy for Pagans and Half-Pagans that the Emperor had promised the discontented Senate which now I must suppose like our Parliament to pass any Acts for the Security of the Christian Religion which were consistent with the Succession that the Western Empire was satisfied with the Emperors Declaration and had made it Treason to call the Succession into Question that the Monarchy was weakly supported 〈◊〉 that Julian was but two years younger than the Emperor and not of so healthful a Constitution that the Empress might dye and the Emperor marry again that Julians own Children the next Heirs after him were firm Christians that in case he should come to the Crown he would find an Empty Exchequer and a poor Revenue that the Senate would never Supply him but upon their own Terms that he could not persecute without almost insuperable Difficulties that an Act for Dis-inheriting of him would be a very dangerous Precedent and of dangerous Consequence especially since the Western Empire had declared for the Succession that it would signifie nothing without an Act for Association and that an Act for Association would legalize a standing Army and entail War upon the two Empires and end in Arbitrary Government These and many more things besides the Hereditary Succession to the Roman Empire must be supposed to make the Parallel exact between Julian and his R. H. and to make a good Consequence from Nazianzens sense about Julians Succession in that Scheme of Affairs to the sense he probably would have had of it in such a Scheme as ours I am sure there is no Consequence from one to the other although his Expostulations with the Soul of Constantius should not pass for mere Rhetorick and if they must not I desire Mr. J. to say if they will not prove the Invocation of Saints If they must be understood as Rhetorick then they are as indeed they are poor Sham Arguments to prove either the Invocation of Saints or That the Fathers would have set aside an 100 such Titles as that of the Heir of England to secure their Religion but if they must not be so understood then do they not equally prove both Indeed were an Act of Exclusion the only way of securing our Religion were it certain that the Popish Successor so presumed must if he were not excluded succeed or were the exclusion of him not the most disputable way of securing our Religion and very hurtful to the Monarchy or were it not as the Excluders would back it with an Act for Association attended with as pernicious inconveniences as it would prevent then indeed our Author might have better presumed to determine what the Fathers would
derived from him it must needs follow from hence that he must be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and that no Man can lawfully resist him or his Forces because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword except for private Defence but by Commission from him I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies or who hath Authority for example to make him a Captain or as much as a Drummer of a Company if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative and therefore how a man can either give or receive such unauthoritative Commissions or oppose or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them without sin I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer and Mr. J. as a Divine to resolve It is true what he (‖) P. 84. saith That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants but then the Question which he puts to the Doctor upon it is Fallacious in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts in the Soveraign which carry no Obligation at all can oblige men to Obedience I answer for the Doctor If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty No! He ought rather to suffer himself but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose I answer That it is the Christian the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign till legal Remedy can be had because to oppose or resist him and his Forces by Force is unauthoritative and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm But because we live in an Age wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons who are deaf to all Reason and Common Law which is nothing but Common Reason when it is urged in defence of the Crown I will now shew that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty which I have been discoursing of are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm First then He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects or obnoxious to their Coercive Power 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and be it hereby declared that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared without excepting any manner of Cases or Pretences to the contrary That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And (†) 3 Inst p. 9. Coke upon the place saith That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King If any levy War saith he to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation of their own Heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority (‖) Sheringhams Kings Suprem c. 3. In the 7th year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged and force of Armour to belong to him And saith (†) Jenkinsius Redivivus p. 19. Judge Jenkins All Jurisdictions do and of right ought to belong to the King all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King the Power of War only belongs to the King it belongs to the King to Defend his People and to provide Arms and Force (‖) 13 Car. 2.1 Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm or without And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the Vndoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot or ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive or Defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successor Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Amplitude the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them Surely this is too Light for the Parliament and is just such another piece of Drollery as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder Bating that Dedication there was never any thing like this Passive Aâ—â— of Parliament for wheedling the People out of their Lives Alas Alas This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles and enough to tempt and invite Cruelty into the World For let a Prince be either a Papist or an Atheist and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act and then what hinders but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates and Heresie together and the other as many to see what Faces and Grimmaces they will make According to this Act the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist or the Extravagant Vnaccountable Humours of a Wretch and hang at their Girdles as Souls do at the Popes Is it not a sad thing to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament to leave us nothing to defend our selves but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears But yet so Wise as Legislators so Religious as Christians and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament that they made this Declaration the second time as it may be seen 13 14 Car. 2. cap. 3. And by all these Statutes cited it appears That the King is Accountable to none but God That the Sword is solely his and theirs to whom He commits it That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power nor ought any way to be resisted by Force Indeed our Author (‖) P.
84. doth freely acknowledge that according to the known Laws of England a Popish Prince when he is Lawfully possest of the Crown will be Inviolable and Vnaccountable as to his own Person and ought by no means to have any Violence offered to him This is something but it is not all 't is the Truth but not the Whole Truth For I have shewn by the known Laws of this Land that the People can make no Military or Forcible Resistance against the King they must not rise up against Him and his Armies in their own Defence the Laws have fettered and manacled them with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience they must not lift up their Hands against their Soveraign to oppose him or his Forces for they have no Right to the Sword but what he gives them except for private Defence no body without his Authority can Array them and by these Laws there are no Cases excepted no not the Case of a Popish Successor which makes our Authors Heart ake for not excepting of which in his Bow-Sermon he is so angry at Dr. Hickes But the Dr. as (†) P. 90. Ignorant as he hath made him in the English Historians was it seems better versed in the English Antiquities and Customs and in the Old Lawyers and Common and Statute-Laws of the Land than to make any Exception or Distinction where the Law makes none according to that Old Maxim Vbi lex non distinguit ibi non est distinguendum And besides the Dr. remembred what his Uncharitable Brother Mr. J. had forgot That according to the Act of Uniformity he had subscribed declared and acknowledged That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that he did abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him It was apparently the Design of the Three Estates in this Act to secure the Nation of such Ministers as would preach up the Doctrine of Non-resistance without distinction and whether the Doctor that hath so preached it or Mr. J. that hath so maliciously opposed it is more Conformable to the Act and True to his Oath let the World judge He granted as I observed before that the Person of the King is Inviolable and free from Violence but then as if he had granted too much he seems to retract it in part again For (†) P. 88. saith he with the Noble Peer whom he calls a Worthy Person one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in Massacring a Nation And p. 85. How far men may endeavour notwithstanding the Kings Person is Inviolable to save themselves when Princes will be the Executioners of their own Cruelty without breach of their Allegiance If they have a mind they may ask Ask of whom of Harry Nevil or Mr. H. or of which of the Heretick Lawyers Which of the discontented Enemies of the Prerogative will oblige the World with this New Discovery Or if Mr. J. knew it why did he hide his Talent and put the World to the trouble of Asking But I am afraid because he did not it is something he durst not tell some State-Mystery that his Great Assertor of Laws and Religion now with God told him was not safe to speak some Platâ—-Redivivus-Doctrine likely something that depended upon this Atheistical as well as Illegal Principle in England That all Power is Radically in the People and that the King is their Minister and not the Minister of God Whatever it was I will stand no longer guessing But having shewed that Passive Obedience is required in all Perfect and Regular Governments by the Common Laws of Soveraignty and more particular in this Realm by the Imperial Laws thereof I will proceed to enquire how far the Church and Ancient Churchmen have agreed with the Three Estates for I find that our Author makes much use of Ecclesiastical Authority particularly of our Reformers and of the Book of Homilies when they favour him but how far he will value them when they are against him especially in this Controversie between him and the Doctor about Passive Obedience I will not undertake to tell I will begin with the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christen Man set forth by King Henry the 8th with the Advise of his Reforming Clergy who were the Compilers of it such as Cramner and other Martyrs who on the Fifth Commandment write thus Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty Truth Love and Obedience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be ne for any cause they may Conspire against his Person ne do any thing towards the Hinderance or Hurt thereof nor of his Estate And afterwards they prove this out of Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist the Ordinance of God shall get to themselves Damnation And upon the Sixth Commandment No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for any cause whatsoever it be nor against any other saving for Lawful Defence without their Princes License And although Princes which be the Supream Heads of their Realms do otherwise than they ought to do yet God hath assigned no Iudges over them in this World but will have the Iudgment of them reserved to himself and will punish them when he seeth his time So much for the Authority of Cramner Ridley Redman c. From whence I pass to the Book of Homilies which p. 104. he hath recommended to every Bodies Reading as one of the best Books that he know in the World next the Bible In the second part of the Sermon of Obedience Subjects are bound to obey them as Gods Ministers although they be Evil not only for Fear but also for Conscience sake and here Good People let us all mark diligently That it is not lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the Superior Powers For St. Pauls words be plain That whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation Our Saviour Christ himself and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the Vnfaithful and Wicked Men in Authority yet we never read that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority We read oft that they patiently suffered all Troubles Vexations Slanders Pangs and Pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistance Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore mark the Reason it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them although they abuse their Power And yet Mr. J. in contradiction to this Book which he hath recommended as the best Book next to the Bible †Preface p. 8. saith That this Doctrine is Intolerable and contrary both to the Gospel and the Law of the Land But this Homily further tells us That the Vocation and Calling of Gods People is to be patient and of the suffering
Gospel is a prescription as necessary for a Christian Subject that would save his Life in time of Persecution as a Ship to a Man that would cross the Seas Afterwards he saith p. 89. That he is afraid that the Doctor calculated and fitted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for the use of a Popish Successor and to make us an easier Prey to the Bloody Papists This is a very Uncharitable Censure from a Brother and I am verily perswaded that if Mr. J. would speak the Truth betwixt God and his own Conscience he doth not believe that the Doctor fitted that Doctrine on the 30th of Jan. for the use of a Popish Successor but for the proper Design of the Day To shew as he speaks in his Sermon the great Difference betwixt the Principles and Practises of Christ and the Primitive Christians and the Principles and Practises of our New Reformers Had it been some New Notion never started before had it not been taught by all the Episcopal Divines of the English Reformation nay had it not been a plain Gospel-Notion taught and practised by Christ and his Apostles who to use our Authors Irreverent words in a Reverent manner turned the Church into a Shambles then he might have said that it was Calculated and Fitted by the Doctor but now I have made it appear how it was calculated and fitted to his Hands It was calculated and fitted by Bishop Latimer in the time of King Edw. 6. against the time of his Popish Successor Queen Mary and he suffered at a Stake to Exemplifie his Doctrine in the following Popish Persecution and so I am confident would the Doctor and the rest of his Thebaean Brethren however My. J. may please to slander them by the help of Gods Assistance do so too But let us see his pretented Reasons for this Uncharitable Censure Why else saith he is there all that Wrath against every little Pamphlet which opposes that Interest The Pamphlets cited by the Doctor in p. 29. of his Sermon are The Appeal from the City to the Country Plate Redivivus A Brief History of the Succession A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend shewing that the Bishops are not to be Judges c. Dialogue between Tutor and Pupil And these Pamphlets which the Dr. hath there shew'd to be Calculated and fitted against the True English Government and to be Impious and Treasonable Pieces he represents as written only in Opposition to the Popish Interest How saith he comes the History of the Succession to be an Impious and Treasonable Book Why I 'le tell him in the words of Dr. (‖) True and Exact History of the Succession p. 2. Br. It is an Impious Book for falsifying such Ancient Historians as William of Malmsbury Henry of Huntington Simeon Dunelm Ailredus Abbas Rivallensis and others whose Words if he had faithfully cited them would have been of no use to him for often in the Middle of the Sentences and of the Records which he hath cited he hath left out such Words and Matters as would have ruined the Design of his History He may see many Instances of this Charge in the Parallel at the End of the Doctors Book who concludes thus These are some of his many wilfull mistakes and indeed there is scarce one Instance in the Pamphlet that is ‑ not either fasly cited or falsly applyed I think it is plain Knavery and Impiety thus to falsifie and wrest good Authors and that it is proper English to call all those Impious Books which so pervert the Truth This Dr. Br. hath been a very Troublesom Man to Impious Falsifiers of Ancient Historians and Records and as one upon reading the Title Page of his Book against Mr. Petit said If this Charge be made good Mr. Petit may be ashamed to walk the Streets So say I if the words I have ciged out of his Answer to the Brief History of the Succession be true the Book is Impious and the Author a Knave But it is Mr. J's Interest that the Perverters and Wresters of Good Authors may not incur such severe Censures for however he hath (‖) Preface p. 29. declared that he hath been as Careful in his Citations as ever he was in telling Money and that he is ready to make them Good Yet I have made it appear That tho his Money is right as to the Tale yet it is deficient in the Intrinsick often wanting Purity and Weight But secondly It is a Treasonable Book because it asserts That the Descent of the Crown doth not purge all Defects whatsoever p. 17. And because p. 6 7. he manifestly Favours Popular Elections of Princes and the Deposition of them for the Breach of their Coronation Oaths although he could not but know That a King hath all the Rights of Soveraignty without Coronation (†) Calvins Case Cokes Reports part 7. and that it is not necessary though it be expedient for his own Honour and the Peoples Satisfaction that he should be Crown'd The Kings of England are Compleatly and Absolutely Kings before Coronation and many of them as Henry the 6th have lived many years uncrowned and others of them as Henry the 3d. and Richard the 1st were twice Crowned as we read of David that he was twice anointed by the People But there are Hereticks among Lawyers as well as Divines and they will wrest the Laws as the other do the Scriptures to their own Damnation And truly this Doctrine of Deposing Kings makes the King of England a Subject and the Three Estates his Soveraign And it is a Treasonable Doctrine in the same sense that the Act of Uniformity declares the Position of taking up Arms by the Kings Authority against his Person a Traiterous Position because it tends to Treason And if a man should write a Book to prove it it would be a Treasonable or Traiterous Book For the same Reason the Book of which he saith my Lord Hollis is the Author is an Impious and Treasonable Book Impious because it abounds with Falsifications of Records as the Authors of the Rights of the Bishops and the Grand Question have proved and Treasonable because it asserts this Traiterous Position that the King is one of the three Estates The belief of this very Position made Mr. Baxter as he himself declares a Rebel and I question not but it made thousands more besides him and never did man disgrace the Memory of a Peer more than Julian hath done that of my Lord in reporting him to be the Author of the Book For he being a man Learned in the Laws could not assert this Position but against his Conscience and with an Ill Intent which makes Mr. J. answerable to the Heir for the Scandal he hath fixed upon his dead Father who is not able to Justifie himself The Dialogue between the Tutor and Pupil is also a Wicked and Treasonable Piece because it misrepresents the English Government as if there were a Reciprocal Contract betwixt the
Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign and therefore (†) Quod dicitur subjectionem dominis deberi etiam duris idem ad reges quoque referendum nam quod sequitur ei fundamento superstructum non minus subditorum quà m servorum officium est De Jure l. 1. c. 4 6. Grotius after St. August applyes that place in 1 Pet. 2.19 which concerns the Passive Behaviour of Servants unto their Masters under the Roman Government unto all Subjects Servants be Subject to your Masters with all Fear not only to the Good and Gentle but also to the Froward (‖) Quod autem dixi de domino hoc intelligite de potestatibus regibus ominibus culminibus hujus seculi aliquando enim potestates bonae sunt timent Deum aliquando non timent Deum Julianus extitit infidelis Imperator nonne extitit Apostata Iniquus Idololatra milites Christiani servierunt Imperatori infideli c. In Ps 1â—4 Vid. Sam. Bochart Ep. ad D. Morley p. 77 78 79. for this is thank-worthy or acceptable to God If a Man for Couscience-sake towards God endure grief suffering wrongfully For what Glory is it if when you are buffeted for your Faults ye shall take it patiently But if when you do well and suffer for it this is acceptable with God For even hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his Steps For Real and Compleat Soveraigns whether Arbitrary or Limited canâ—â—y under nothing but Moral Restraint and Obligations not to Injure their Subjects for if they were under the (†) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech to the Regicides p. 13 14. Coaction of another Power or under Legal Perils or Penalties they could not be Real and Compleat Soveraigns And therefore our Old Lawyer Bracton who so often declares the King to be next unto God doth also declare That when he acts Illegally not as Gods Minister but as the Minister of the Devil as our (‖) P. 84. Author well observes yet he is not to be contravened or resisted Locus erit supplicationi quod Rex factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis sufficit ei ad poenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multo fortiùs contra factum suum venire l. 2. c. 7. If the Reader please to consult that Chapter he will find by many Expressions that the King hath no other but a Moral Obligation to observe the Laws Sic beata Dei genitrix virgo Maria quae singulari privilegio supra Legem fuit pro ostendendo tamen humilitatis exemplo legalibus subdi non refugit institutis But then if he will be a Tyrant and act Illegally it is sufficient for his Punishment that he hath God for his Avenger for no Man must dispute against what he doth much less oppose or resist it The King is bound in Justice and Equity and for Example sake to observe his Laws but if he will lay aside all Conscience and the Fear of God his only Superior the Rights of Soveraignty secure the (‖) Nec praetereundum quod Samuel jussus Israelitis jus regium edisserere 1 Sam. 8 9. Hoc inquit est juris regii qui regnabit super vos Filios vestros tollet imponet curribus suis c. Ait haec esse juris regii non quod coram Deo justa sint nec enim David Uriae uxorem neâ— Achab Nabato vineam eripere potuerunt sine crimine sed quia hujusmodi scelera reges tam impunè perpetrant quà m si essent maximè licita ideò additur populum ita oppressum Deum imploraturum quia contra vim regis nulla sunt humana remedia Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 87. Tyrant as well as the Good King from Resistance Si autem Princeps vel Rex vel alius qui superiorem non habueâ—it nisi dominum contra ipsum non habebitur remedium per assisam immo tantùm locus â—rit supplicationi uâ— factum suum corrigat emendet quod si non fecerit sufficiet ei pro paena quod Dominum expectet ultorem If it be the King or any other Duke c. who hath no Superior but God that shall Illegally disseize there shall be 〈◊〉 Remedy against him by Assize only there shall be place for Petition that he would correct or amend what he hath done amiss which if he refuse to do it is sufficient for his Punishment that he may expect God for his Avenger This Moral Obligation which the King hath to observe the Laws is further increased by his Coronation-Oath as Bracton observes l. 3. de Action c. 9. But then as in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King but what they are bound to perform unsworn So the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People but what in Justice and Equity he is bound to perform unsworn Ad hoc saith Bracton electus creatâ—â— est ut justitiam faciet universis c. and Separare aâ—tem debet Rex cum sit Dei Vicarius jus ab injuria aequum ab iniquo c. But then if he will perverâ— the great End for which God made him King if he will not Act as it becomes Gods Vicar if he will obstruct or pervert the Laws and govern Tyrannically yet still there is left no Remedy to his Subjects By the Law but Moral Perswasion for the Laws Imperial of this Realm have declared him to be a (†) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech p. 12 13 14. Free Unconditional and Independent Soveraign and exempted him from all Coaction and Force Nay to shew that the Kings of England were in this respect as perfect Soveraigns as the Caesars he applyes unto them those Memorable Sayings of Valentinian the Younger and Alexander Severus (†) Majus Imperio est submittere legibus principatum Bract. l. 3. de Act. c. 9. l. 4. c de Leg. Const It really is a greater thing than the Empire for the Prince to submit to the Laws And (‖) Nihil tam proprium est Imperii quà m legibus vivere Bract. ib. l. 3. c. de Test There is nothing more proper for the Empire than that the Emperor should live according to Law To which â—f he pleased he might have added that set down so often in the (*) Instit quibus modis Testam infirm 8. Secundum hoc Divi Severus Antoninus saepissime rescripserunt licèt enim inquiunt legibus soluti sumus attamen legibus vivimus Rescripts of Severus and Antoninus Although we be loosed from the Laws yet we live by the Laws Indeed our Kings differ from the Caesars in this thâ—â— as the same (†) Lib. 1. c. 2. De Laud. Leg Ang. c. 9. Bracton and ‖ Fortescue long since observed That they are
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