have done in such a case but since it is not the only Expedient but such an one as is very disputable and dangerous too he was methinks too bold with their Beards in asserting That they would have set aside an Hundred such Titles to secure their Religion when other probable Means more agreeable to the Constitution of the Government were offered for the Security thereof In such a case the Fathers might have professed their Zeal for the Christian Religion and yet like our Loyal Addressers have made it their humble Request to the Emperor not to have passed the Bill of Exclusion that is but one among other Expedients and a man may be free in the Choice of means without being Guelph and Gibeline at once I am sure there is no such Contrariety in such Addresses as for a Minister of our Church to write such a Book as Julian to be Lamb without and Wolf within to wear the Churches Livery and yet in secret to list himself with her Enemies to pretend a mighty concern for Religion and yet to slander the Primitive Christians and scoff at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience this indeed is to be contrary to his Profession and to be Guelph and Gibeline at once CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian HAving shew'd in the First Chapter the Falseness of his First Principle That the Roman Empire was Hereditary I proceed in this to lay open all his other Shams and Falsifications by which to use his own words (†) P. 68. he hath glossed away all his Duty as a Christian Subject and broken all the measures by which all the Ancient Suffering Christians went in former Persecutions For first after he hath most artificially aggravated the Behaviour of the Christians against Julian and made it look like very Criminal and Barbarous then he undertakes to Apologize for them telling us That truly (‖) P. 68. their Case differed very much from that of the First Christians and that they were in quite other Circumstances (†) P. 71. The sum of all which is this That the first Christians suffered according to the Law of their Country whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrary to Law it being manifest that Julian oppressed them in a very illegal way He did not fairly Enact Sanguinary Laws but he put them to death upon Shams and pretended Crimes of Treason and Sacrilege c. And this their Suffering against Law he brings to justifie their seeming Misbehaviour and Barbarous Usage of him which after he had magnified to the height in Expressions not becoming a Divine p. 66. then he adds But for the Name of Christians he had better have fallen among Barbarians I shall not examine the Merits of their Behaviour towards Julian till I have proved that they were not illegally persecuted by him because this being once proved it must needs follow That if they broke the Primitive Measures of Christian Subjection and Obedience they are to be blamed for it and cannot signifie any thing as a Precedent for us to follow in case which God forbid we should be persecuted contrary to Law He tells us That (†) P. 66. they so treated this Emperor that one would have taken them to be the Apostates and most falsly and plainly (‖) P. 94 95. suggests like a Jesuit That they would have rebelled but that they wanted Strength What saith he would they have a few defenceless Christians do when they had lost their Strength Have they never heard a West-Country-man say Chud eat Cheese and chad it Nay he hath done his best to make it probable that Julian was killed by a Christian It is easie to guess whether all this tends His Reflections on the Behaviour of these Christians are to draw on his Reader and prepare his mind for what he hath said upon Passive Obedience and therefore to spoil the Precedency of their Behaviour in their Words Actions and Devotions and to shew to what little purpose he hath written 6 Chapters about it I shall here shew that Julian did persecute them legally because all his Orders and Decrees how unjust soever were legal and in particular that Juventinus and Maximus who he saith were put to death upon shams were notwithstanding legally put to death because they were put to death by the Sentence and Command of the Emperor who was an Absolute Soveraign who govern'd by Despotic or Regal Power and whose very Pleasure was a Law He may as well say That a Man who dyes in England legislatively by virtue of a Bill of Attainder enacted into a Law dyes illegally whereas by the English Constitution the King and Parliament or the King with the Consent of the Parliament are legal Masters of every mans Life and Fortune and can put to death whom they please In like manner what the King and Parliament or to speak in the words of Learned Chancelor (†) De laud. Leg. Angl. ch 9. Fortescue what the Regal and Political Power can in conjunction do here the Regal or Imperial Power could do alone in the Roman Empire where as Dan. speaks of Nebuchad For the Majesty that God gave the Emperor all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down This is most amply and elegantly set down by (‖) L. 53. Dio who tells us That all Power Civil and Ecclesiastical was in the Emperor the Consular Proconsular Censorian Tribunitian and Pontifical and that he had all this Power and Authority not by Force and Usurpation but by Law the Senate and People consenting thereunto That therefore all things were done according to the Pleasure of the Emperors as in Kingdoms and that though they were not called Kings and Dictators yet they had the Regal Dictatorian Power that by virtue of these Offices they had Power of raising Armies and Money of making War and Peace of making deposing and killing Senators and in a word of (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting any man to death as an expiratory Sacrifice without Tryal who they thought injured them never so little in Word or Deed. Furthermore he saith That they were (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above the Laws and free from all Legal Necessity and might do any thing having all things belonging to Absolute Regal Authority but only the Name of King This is the Sum of what Dio saith of the Imperial Leviathan to which the Civil Law agrees which tells us That (†) L. 1. T. 3. 31. T. 4. Princeps legibus solutus 4 Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpâ—te cum lege Regiâ populus ei in eum omne suum Imperium potestatem consâ—rat Quodcunque igitur Imperator c. Vid. I. L. 1 2. the Emperor was above Law that whatsoever pleased him had the nature of a Law because by
Edgar stiled himself in his Charter Basileus Imperator Dominus and his Son St. Edward in a Charter which he made to the Abbot of Ramsey which my Lord Cook saith he had stiled himself Ego Edwardus totius Albionis Dei moderante Gubernatione Basileus Thus much may serve to shew that the Realm of England is a Perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat Imperial Soveraign Where for the Readers satisfaction I must observe That the Regal Estate is then Imperial when the King is Supream in his Dominions next under God and hath full perfect and entire Jurisdiction from God alone and all others within his Dominions by emanation from him Now this Perfection and Fulness of Imperial Power which makes an Imperial Soveraign is of two sorts such as is limited by the Laws of God and Nature only or such as is limited by the Laws of God and Nature and Civil Laws and Pactions too The Power in both sorts of Soveraigns is Imperial i. e. full perfect absolute and entire but the Exercise of it is differently bounded and regulated one by the Laws of God and Nature and the other by Humane Positive Laws and the latter Limitation doth no more destroy the Fulness and Perfection and Supremacy of the Power than the former because the Soveraign who is under Political Limitations as to the Exercise of his Power hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely fully and entirely in himself as he that is only under the limitation of Divine and Natural Laws Thus the Learned (‖) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 9. Rex Angliae Principatu nedum regali sed politico suo populo dominatur Regnum sic institui ut lex non liberè valeat populum tyrannide gubernare quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politicâ cohibetur Chancellor Fortescue grants the King of England to have Regal or Imperial Power although it be under the Restraint and Regulation of the Power Political as to the Exercise thereof And as a Fountain which hath Channels or Pipes made for it within which its Waters are bounded in their passage and through which they are to flow is nevertheless as perfect a Fountain and hath its Waters as fully and entirely within it self as any other Fountain whose Waters flow from it at liberty without any such Regulation So a King whose Imperial Power is limited by Humane Constitutions in the Exercise of it is nevertheless as Compleat a Soveraign and hath the Soveraign Power as fully and entirely within himself as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority as he will To be Arbitrary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign than to be free in the course of its Waters is of the Essence of a Fountain but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct for Example is as perfect in its Kind and generally more beneficial and useful to Mankind than a Free-flowing Spring So limited Soveraigns are as perfect and essential Soveraigns as the purely Arbitrary or Despotic and generally more Beneficial and Salutary to the World All that I have hitherto said may be better understood by distinguishing between the Being and Essence of Imperial or Soveraign Power and the Exercise and Emanation thereof As to the Being and Essence of it it is in as full perfection in the Limited as in the Arbitrary Soveraign though the Law confines and limits him in the Exercise thereof but to be confined in the Exercise doth not destroy the Being nor diminish the perfection of Soveraign Power for then the Power of God himself could not be Soveraign because there are certain immutable Rules of Truth and Justice within which it is necessarily limited and confined But God is nevertheless a perfect Imperial Soveraign over the Universe though the Exercise of his Government over his Creatures be limited by the Eternal Laws of Truth and Equity It is true that this Limitation of Almighty God is Intrinsecal and proceeds from the perfection of his Righteous and Holy Nature but yet it shews that the most perfect and absolute Imperial Power may without a Contradiction be confined within bounds and limited in the actual Exercise thereof and that such moderation and limitation of Power Absolute and Imperial doth only qualifie and temper and not destroy the Essence thereof And therefore Cook in Caudreys Case saith That by the Ancient Laws of this Realm England is an Absolute Empire and Monarchy and that the King is furnished with Plenary and Entire Power Prerogative and Jurisdiction and is Supream Governour over all Persons within this Realm And if any man will but attend well to his own Thoughts he will find no Inconsistency between the Fulness of Soveraign or Imperial Power in the Root and Essence of it and a legal limitation of the Use and Exercise thereof And from hence it comes to pass That the King of England though he be limited in the Vse and Exercise of his Power yet he is as much the Fountain of all Power and Jurisdiction within his Dominions as if he were Arbitrary He hath none to share with him in the Soveraignty but all Power and Authority is derived from him like Light from the Sun in Him alone it is Radically and Originally placed He hath no Sharers or Co-partners in the Soveraignty none Co-ordinate with him in Government no Equal nor Superior but only God to whom alone he is Subject Hence saith (†) Lib. 1. c. 8. Bracton who wrote in the Reign of Henry the Third Omnis quidem sub rege ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub Deo non est inferior sibi subjectis non parem habet in regno suo And afterwards Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub Homine sed sub Deo And then to shew that he is a Soveraign doubly limited in the Use of his Power by the Laws of God and the Civil Laws of his Kingdom he adds Et sub Lege quia Lex facit Regâ—m In the same place he calls him Vicarius Dei and saith Vices gerit Jesu Christi and nothing greater could be said of Caesar or the most Despotic Soveraign that ever was So the Statute of Praemunire 26 R. 2 c. 5. declares That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately Subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown And in 25 H. 8. c. 21 the Parliament directing their Declaration to the King enacted and declared That this your Graces Realm recognizing no Superiour under God but only your Grace hath been and is free from Subjection c. And in 24. H. 8. c. 12. after the words before cited it follows unto whom a Body Politick been bounden and owen to bear next unto God a Natural and Humble Obedience He being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Preheminence Authority c. So 2 Ed. 6. c. 2. Seing that all
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
to submit to the Penalties of the Government under which he lives But then what follows is false This is the only case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience namely when the Politica Laws are against a Man because the Gospel requires our submission to the Imperial as well as the Political Laws but by the Imperial Laws in every perfect Government the Subjects are absolutely forbidden to bear the Sword against the Soveraign or to resist him upon any pretence whatsoever and therefore are bound to suffer death wrongfully rather than resist 4. That the killing of a Man contrary to Law is Murder And if the Soveraign kill a Man contrary to Law he is guilty of Murder but must answer for it to God only 5. That every Man is bound to prevent Murder as far as the Law allows But the Imperial or Prerogative Law allows no Man to prevent his own Murder by rising up against or resisting his Soveraign and therefore the last words are false And ought not to submit to be murdered if he can help it unless by help it he means help it by Prayers and Tears I hope I have already sufficiently enervated the Strength and Force of our Authors Arguments against Passive Obedience or Non-resistance and now after his Example I shall reduce the Strength and Force of what I have hitherto said into these following Propositions I. Every Man but more especially a Christian is bound to submit to the Laws of the Government under which he lives II. The Government consists in the Imperial as well as the Political Laws III. The Imperial Laws of every Government forbid resisting the Soveraign and by consequence require Non-resistance IV. Non-resistance is the same thing with Passive Obedience and by consequence Passive Obedience is required by the Imperial Laws of every Government V. Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of any Government require of its Subjects if it be not contrary to Gods Laws they are bound to perform it VI. Passive Obedience or patient Suffering of Injuries from the Soveraign is not forbid by Gods Laws and therefore Subjects are bound to perform it where it is required by the Imperial Laws And now I shall desire these Men who of late have thundred so much with Julian against the Thebean Legion to consider well what I have said in general about the Common Laws of Soveraignty when they have digested it well they will be convinced how fallaciously the Author of that Pamphlet hath dealt with them in suppressing this Notion and making them believe That there were no Laws belonging to Government but those which I call Political Laws But as I have shewed there are two Tables belonging to every perfect and regular Government one which concerns the Majesty of the Soveraign Gods Vicegerent which I may call the first Table and another which concerns the Good and Safety of the People which may be called the second Table and these two together are the Compleat and Adequate Rule of Civil Obedience and Subjection and Passive Obedience or the Patient bearing of the greatest Injuries when it is not a Duty by This is very often so by That When the Laws are against us then it is our Duty by the second Table and when the Soveraign is against us contrary to the Laws of the second Table then it is our Duty by the Laws of the first which absolutely forbid us to bear the Sword against him or to repel his Forces by Force Wherefore to answer our Authors (†) P. 87. Question I am confident Dr. Hicks was very serious and in earnest when he taught and preached up Passive Obedience for Evangelical in this case It may be seen by the Drs. Sermon and other of his Pieces that he doth not write rashly and I have reason to presume that he asserted Passive Obedience upon the same bottom that I now defend it He is far from having Men to prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence for he would rather have them to abscond or fly but if they can or will do neither in times of Illegal Persecution he thinks there remains nothing for them to do but patiently to submit to unavoidable Death He had no reason to distinguish betwixt suffering according to and contrary to Law because he knew that neither the Laws of God nor Man allow any Subject the Benefit of forcible defence against the illegal Violence of his Soveraign but that by the Laws Imperial he ought to dye rather than resist And if this (‖) P. 87. was too light for the Pulpit and just such another Piece of Drollery as that in the Dedication to Oliver Cromwel before Killing no Murder I protest I know not what it is to be serious in the Pulpit nor what Apostolical Divinity is The Gospel from one end to the other is full of this kind of Drollery and for my own I seriously protest I had rather be Passive were it possible under a Thousand deaths in an Illegal Persecution than be guilty of such Scurrility not to say Blasphemy against the Doctrine of the Cross Our Author in this and such like Reflections writes more like an Apostate from the Christian Religion than a Minister of it and if any thing in this Answer may contribute to make him sensible of his Sin and bring him to the Humiliation and Repentance of his Elder Brother Ecebolius I shall think my pains well spent But to bring this general Discourse about the Common Laws of Soveraignty to our own Case I shall now proceed to shew That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it is a Compleat Imperial and Independent Soveraign to whom the foresaid Rights of Soveraignty do inseparably belong The English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty and (‖) Sir Orl. Bridgmans Speech to the Regicides p. 12 13. Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign (†) Cooks Instit p. 4. c. 74. Thus by the whole Parliament 24 H. 8. c. 12. it was resolved and so declared That by sundry Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that his Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by one Supream Head and King having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same So 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of this Kingdom is affirmed to be an Imperial Crown in these words In great Derogation of your Imperial Crown and Authority Royal. So 27 H. 8. c. 24. Most Ancient Prerogatives and Authorities appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So 1 Eliz. c. 2. Restoring and Vniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Ancient Jurisdictions c. So 1 Jacob. cap. 1. A more Famous and Greater Vnion of two Mighty Famous and Ancient Kingdoms under one Imperial Crown And before the Conquest King (†) Rot. Parl. 1 E 4. parte 6. at large in Cokes Inst part 4 p. 359.
Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Queens Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm To all this I may add the common Stile of both Houses in Parliament Our Gracious Soveraign and our Dread Soveraign Lord the King Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De tournes de Viscontes You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithfull to our Soveraign Lord Edward Hence by (†) Sheringham Kings Suprem c. 4. Common Law many Prerogatives belong to the King by vertue of his Soveraignty He cannot give any Man the Stile or Title of Dominus because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus He can hold Land of no Man because he can have no Superior and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord whereby his Heir became a Ward the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land because as Glanvil saith L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus Superiorem The reason is given by Bracton l. 2. c. 37. And as (†) C. 22. Stanford shews in his Exposition of the Kings Prerogative By the Common Law there lyeth no Action or Writ against the King but when he seizeth his Subjects Lands or Goods having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath and this Petition is called A Petition of Right Having now shew'd that the Realm of England is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and the King a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign Subject unto none but God it must needs follow that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Soveraignty belonging unto him as to be unaccountable to any Humane Power to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power to be irresistable and unopposeable or not to have his Forces repelled by Force A Stranger that hath read what I have written to shew that he is a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign must needs presume that these and all other Essential Rights of Soveraignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Soveraignty or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown to acknowledge the King for Supream over all Persons to say he hath no Superior but God that he is Subject to him alone and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customes of this Realm For first To say that he is the only Supream Governour within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none but God must needs imply that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribunal but that of Heaven whose Vicegerant he is If there were any Power in his Kingdoms that could call him to account for Maladministration for that very Reason he would not be a Compleat Soveraign but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior and not he It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction that he must be Unaccountable for from whom shall any person or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from him as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms and from whom then shall any Man or state of Men derive Authority of Judging or Trying him It can be from none but himself But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Jurisdiction is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Nature if that be true which the (†) Cokes Inst part 4. p. 14. Suprema Jurisdictio potestas Regia etsi Princeps velit se sâ—pâ—rari non possunt sunt enim ipsa forma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente rege ab eo abdicari non possunt Cavedo Pract. Observ p. 2. Decis 40. n. 8. Lords and Commons declared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the Disinherison of the King and his Crown This Phrase of the Disinherison of the King and the Crown in other (‖) Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. c. 5. Acts of Parliament is called The Destruction of the Kings Soveraignty his Crown his Regality and things that tend thereunto things that are openly against the Kings Crown in Derogation of his Regality So that if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Soveraignty it would be of no more Force than an Act to make another King Co-partner with him in the Supream Power or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Foreign Prince But 2dly To say that the King is the only Supream Governour instituted and furnished with plenary whole and entire Power and Jurisdiction must needs imply that he alone hath the Power of the Sword for were the Power of the Sword in any else he could not be furnished with plenary whole and entire Power Besides the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him and the Military in any other Person or State the English Realm would have two Soveraigns one Civil and another Military which is most absurd to think Therefore by the Common Laws of Soveraignty the Power of the Sword like all other Temporal Power must be derived and deducted from him as Supream Head and Governour of this Realm and indeed his Soveraignty would be an empty insignificant nothing were the Scepter in his Hand and the Sword in any others And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg consuet regni Anglae supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King Regiam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam sed legibus The Kings Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms but with Laws with Arms in the first place without which his Laws would be little worth So saith Fletal 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura Et materialem gladium qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum So saith Bracton in the beginning of his first Book In rege qui rectè regit necessaria sunt duo haec Arma videlicet Leges c. And if the Sword be originally in the Kings Hand and none can bear it without Authority
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
Side and that we ought to obey Governours although they be wicked and wrong-doers Afterwards it proves from the Example of David The we may not withstand nor in any wise hurt an (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. ad D. Morley p. 80. Anointed King mark the Reason again which is Gods Lieutenant Vicegerent and Highest Minister in that Country where he is King He durst not once lay Hands upon Gods High Officer the King whom he did know to be a Person reserved and kept only to Gods Punishment A General Rule and Lesson to all Subjects in the World not to withstand their Liege Lord and King nor to take a Sword by their private Authority against their King Gods Anointed who only beareth the Sword by Gods Authority for the Maintenance c. Who only by Gods Law hath the Use of the Sword at his Command It is an intolerable Madness Ignorance and Wickedness for Subjects to make any murmuring rebellion resistance or withstanding Commotion or Insurrection against their Soveraign Lord. We may not in any wise withstand violently or rebel against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or his Officers but we must in such case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God Here we have Line upon Line and Precept upon Precept for Passive Obedience Here we are taught that we must suffer all sorts of Wrongs and Injuries from our Soveraign without Resistance and withstanding of him and in this Realm I am sure the Soveraign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws But to go on with this next best Book to the Bible In the second part of the Homily against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by Flight and hiding himself from the Kings Sight Shall not we being good Men as we are Rise and Rebel against a Prince hated of God and Gods Enemy and likely to be Hurtful and Pernicious to the Common-wealth Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so Vnkind a Prince nothing considering or regarding our True Faithful and Painful Service or the Safeguard of our Posterity Shall we not Rise and Rebel against our known mortal and deadly Enemy that seeketh our Lives No saith Godly David What shall we do then to an Evil to an Vnkind Prince an Enemy to us hated of God hurtful to the Commonwealth c. Lay no Violent hand upon him saith Good David but let him live until God appoint and work his End If King David would make these Answers as by his Deeds and Words recorded in the Holy Scriptures indeed he doth make unto all such Demands concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes Vnkind Princes Cruel Princes Princes that be to their good Subjects mortal Enemies Princes that are out of Gods Favour and so Hurtful or like to be Hurtful to the Commonwealth what Answer And now to use out Unanswerable Authors (‖) P. 111. own words I have been the more Copious in these Citations to shew that this is the stunding Doctrine of the Church of England to which all Orders of the Clergy have subscribed and Mr. J. among the rest The Church of England long since (†) P. 89. calculated and fitted this Doctrine for the use of a Popish Successor And if the Doctor hath been ill taught by his Mother the Blame is to be laid upon her and he is to be excused It is She that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a (‖) P. 81. Parasite Sycophant and Murderer Poor Man He sucked it in his Mothers Milk it was bred in his Bone and I fear it will never go out of his Flesh Nay to see what a sad Fate attends some Men he had the Misfortune to be bred in Oxford where Passive Obedience hath long been the Doctrine of the Malignant place as appears by Mr. (†) In the Preface to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons Gillespic one of Mr. J.'s Old Masters who called Preces Lachrymae the New Oxford Divinity which however is somewhat less Offensive than the Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears Nay so determined was the Doctor by his unhappy Stars to imbibe that Slavish Principle that he was bred in the very same College where the Immortal Sanderson drew up the Vniversities Vnanswerable Reasons against the Covenant out of which Mr. J. hath (‖) Preface p. 3. taken the most witty Allusion in his Book where speaking of Passive Obedience without a Law to require it he saith It is like one of the marvellous Accidents of Transubstantiation which makes a Shift to subsist when it hath lost its Subject which is the very same Illustration that the (‖) Judicium Acad. Oxon. de faedere p. 66. Rex vel in propriâ suâ personâ coram corporaliter adest vel absens praesentiam suam supplet per delegatos quosdam sive commissionarios suos magni sigilli autoritate ad hoc deputatos quaevis alia praesentia realis aenigmatis instar est transubstantiationis monstro haud absimilis spectrum scilicet phantasma University made use of to set forth the monstrous Absurdity of pretending the Kings Authority and Presence where he was neither in Person nor by his Commissioner I think it not amiss to put Mr. J. in mind of his vain Distinction lest his Superviser should teach him to reply That the Imperial Laws above cited regard the Politick and not the natural Person of the Soveraign But to prevent him from flying to this miserable shift I must tell him That in the (†) Coke in Calvins Case p. 439. Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers the Father and the Son to cover their Treason invented this damnable Opinion That Homage and Allegiance was due to the King more upon the account of his Politick Capacity than his Natural Person Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That if the King did not demean himself by Reason in the Right of his Crown his Lieges were bound by Oath to remove him 2. That when the King could not be reformed by Sute of Law that ought to be done by the Sword 3. That his Lieges be bound to Govern in Aid of him and in Default of him And which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the Reign of Ed. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le Spencer and the other in Ann. 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1. If I should produce no more Authorities but these already cited it were enough to shew the Concurrence of the Church and Church-men with the Three Estates of this Realm as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience but because I have undertaken the Doctors Vindication I will shew what brave Men before him have defended this Bloody Doctrine that so if he cannot be Justified he may at least be Excused I begin with
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
Revenge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do one Injury for another His Soveraign injures him against the second and he will therefore injure his Soveraign against the first Table of Civil Government He will sin against the Laws Imperial because his Prince sins against the Political Well let him do so at his Peril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Senses he may be legally Hanged for it in this World and without Repentance will be Damned for it in that which is to come But in the third place The General Reason assigned for Not-resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent doth imply That to resist him is to resist God who hath made him Soveraign and set him above all Coercion and Force If the Nature of Soveraignty and of a Crown Imperial did not require that he should not be violently resisted yet the Honour of God whose Image and Substitute he is would require the Subject not to do so lest he should seem to resist God The King saith †C. 21. Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor in regard of the Nature of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity he is like unto God who is Lord over all whose Image he beareth and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And ‖ De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5. Vegetius saith That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved because he is a Corporeal God I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers to shew how the King is the Minister and Image of God but I have since found them all with far many more in Archbishop Vshers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince To which I refer the Reader Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfections Finch lib. 2. del Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham Roy est le test delâ—bien public immediate desoubs deiu c. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God over all Persons and in all Causes And therefore because he represents the Person of God and bears his Image the Law attributeth unto him a Similitudinary Manner a Shadow of Divine Excellencies namely Soveraignty Majesty Infiniteness Perpetuity Perfection Truth Justice Now to assert that Soveraign Princes are the Vicegerents and Images of God is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty he judgeth among the Gods I have said ye are Gods and all of you the Children of the most High Accordingly saith Jesus Joh. 10.34 Is it not written in your Law of Princes I said ye are God If he called them Gods of whom the Word of God there speaks say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God These Earthly †Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò precipuè convenire quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum nomen ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18 1 Sam. 2.25 Ps 82.6 proinde Solomon Ps 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Apostolus Solomonis typo adumbratum sed sensus typicus literalem non excludit imo supponit Itaque etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines Eaphantus ejusdem sectâ—e Quod Deo quidem inest inest regi ut sibi ipse imperet unde vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli autem subjiciatur Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 84 85. Gods these Vicegerents and Images of the Almighty Soveraign these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them If they do wrong if they tyrannize it over their Subjects he will punish them and turn their Hearts if he see fit But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him they must not take up Defensive Arms against them because they are in Gods stead for whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God In that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection or to shew that a Subject to a perfect Soverain ought not to resist Thus have I branched the General Reason for Non-resistance into three and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited as well as the Arbitrary Soveraign and I know not what can be replyed to them but either to deny that the Soveraign is Gods Vicegerent and doth 〈◊〉 derive his Authority from him or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoyned by the Law of Nature But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible and contradict the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Christians the Acts or Parliament Book of Homilies and the Liturgy especially in the ‖ Thy chosen Servant Our King and Governour that he knowing whose Minister he is And that we and all his Subjects duly considering whose Authority he hath Collect of the Communion-Service for the King and therefore I will suppose that my Brother J. dare not do it and before he asserts the Latter I desire him to consult Dr. Falkners Christian Loyalty a Book which ought to be read by every English Subject I shewed him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist or stand against the Soveraign although he be Wicked or a Wrong-Doer And now I will shew that the Principle into which I have resolved it is plainly taught in the First There our Late Soveraign King James is called the Gift of God there the Authority of Kings their making of Laws Judgment and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man but of God This is also asserted by Old (†) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 3. Chancellor Fortescue in these words All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God for as the Apostle saith All Power is from the Lord God wherefore the Laws that are made by Man which thereunto have received Power from the Lord are also Ordained of God And if all Laws of Men be the Laws and Ordinances of God then I suppose the Common and Statute-Laws of every Empire which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Soveraign are so too and I desire to know whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws But to return to the Homily it further teacheth us That the High Powers are set in Authority by God that they are Gods Lieutenants Gods Presidents Gods Judges ordained of God himself And if these Presidents
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