derived from him it must needs follow from hence that he must be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and that no Man can lawfully resist him or his Forces because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword except for private Defence but by Commission from him I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies or who hath Authority for example to make him a Captain or as much as a Drummer of a Company if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative and therefore how a man can either give or receive such unauthoritative Commissions or oppose or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them without sin I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer and Mr. J. as a Divine to resolve It is true what he (‖) P. 84. saith That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants but then the Question which he puts to the Doctor upon it is Fallacious in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts in the Soveraign which carry no Obligation at all can oblige men to Obedience I answer for the Doctor If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty No! He ought rather to suffer himself but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose I answer That it is the Christian the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign till legal Remedy can be had because to oppose or resist him and his Forces by Force is unauthoritative and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm But because we live in an Age wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons who are deaf to all Reason and Common Law which is nothing but Common Reason when it is urged in defence of the Crown I will now shew that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty which I have been discoursing of are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm First then He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects or obnoxious to their Coercive Power 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and be it hereby declared that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared without excepting any manner of Cases or Pretences to the contrary That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And (†) 3 Inst p. 9. Coke upon the place saith That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King If any levy War saith he to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation of their own Heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority (‖) Sheringhams Kings Suprem c. 3. In the 7th year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged and force of Armour to belong to him And saith (†) Jenkinsius Redivivus p. 19. Judge Jenkins All Jurisdictions do and of right ought to belong to the King all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King the Power of War only belongs to the King it belongs to the King to Defend his People and to provide Arms and Force (‖) 13 Car. 2.1 Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm or without And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the Vndoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot or ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive or Defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successor Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Amplitude the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them Surely this is too Light for the Parliament and is just such another piece of Drollery as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder Bating that Dedication there was never any thing like this Passive Aâ—â— of Parliament for wheedling the People out of their Lives Alas Alas This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles and enough to tempt and invite Cruelty into the World For let a Prince be either a Papist or an Atheist and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act and then what hinders but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates and Heresie together and the other as many to see what Faces and Grimmaces they will make According to this Act the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist or the Extravagant Vnaccountable Humours of a Wretch and hang at their Girdles as Souls do at the Popes Is it not a sad thing to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament to leave us nothing to defend our selves but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears But yet so Wise as Legislators so Religious as Christians and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament that they made this Declaration the second time as it may be seen 13 14 Car. 2. cap. 3. And by all these Statutes cited it appears That the King is Accountable to none but God That the Sword is solely his and theirs to whom He commits it That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power nor ought any way to be resisted by Force Indeed our Author (‖) P.
Revenge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do one Injury for another His Soveraign injures him against the second and he will therefore injure his Soveraign against the first Table of Civil Government He will sin against the Laws Imperial because his Prince sins against the Political Well let him do so at his Peril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Senses he may be legally Hanged for it in this World and without Repentance will be Damned for it in that which is to come But in the third place The General Reason assigned for Not-resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent doth imply That to resist him is to resist God who hath made him Soveraign and set him above all Coercion and Force If the Nature of Soveraignty and of a Crown Imperial did not require that he should not be violently resisted yet the Honour of God whose Image and Substitute he is would require the Subject not to do so lest he should seem to resist God The King saith †C. 21. Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor in regard of the Nature of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity he is like unto God who is Lord over all whose Image he beareth and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And ‖ De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5. Vegetius saith That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved because he is a Corporeal God I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers to shew how the King is the Minister and Image of God but I have since found them all with far many more in Archbishop Vshers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince To which I refer the Reader Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfections Finch lib. 2. del Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham Roy est le test delâ—bien public immediate desoubs deiu c. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God over all Persons and in all Causes And therefore because he represents the Person of God and bears his Image the Law attributeth unto him a Similitudinary Manner a Shadow of Divine Excellencies namely Soveraignty Majesty Infiniteness Perpetuity Perfection Truth Justice Now to assert that Soveraign Princes are the Vicegerents and Images of God is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty he judgeth among the Gods I have said ye are Gods and all of you the Children of the most High Accordingly saith Jesus Joh. 10.34 Is it not written in your Law of Princes I said ye are God If he called them Gods of whom the Word of God there speaks say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God These Earthly †Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò precipuè convenire quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum nomen ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18 1 Sam. 2.25 Ps 82.6 proinde Solomon Ps 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Apostolus Solomonis typo adumbratum sed sensus typicus literalem non excludit imo supponit Itaque etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines Eaphantus ejusdem sectâ—e Quod Deo quidem inest inest regi ut sibi ipse imperet unde vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli autem subjiciatur Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 84 85. Gods these Vicegerents and Images of the Almighty Soveraign these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them If they do wrong if they tyrannize it over their Subjects he will punish them and turn their Hearts if he see fit But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him they must not take up Defensive Arms against them because they are in Gods stead for whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God In that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection or to shew that a Subject to a perfect Soverain ought not to resist Thus have I branched the General Reason for Non-resistance into three and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited as well as the Arbitrary Soveraign and I know not what can be replyed to them but either to deny that the Soveraign is Gods Vicegerent and doth 〈◊〉 derive his Authority from him or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoyned by the Law of Nature But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible and contradict the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Christians the Acts or Parliament Book of Homilies and the Liturgy especially in the ‖ Thy chosen Servant Our King and Governour that he knowing whose Minister he is And that we and all his Subjects duly considering whose Authority he hath Collect of the Communion-Service for the King and therefore I will suppose that my Brother J. dare not do it and before he asserts the Latter I desire him to consult Dr. Falkners Christian Loyalty a Book which ought to be read by every English Subject I shewed him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist or stand against the Soveraign although he be Wicked or a Wrong-Doer And now I will shew that the Principle into which I have resolved it is plainly taught in the First There our Late Soveraign King James is called the Gift of God there the Authority of Kings their making of Laws Judgment and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man but of God This is also asserted by Old (†) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 3. Chancellor Fortescue in these words All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God for as the Apostle saith All Power is from the Lord God wherefore the Laws that are made by Man which thereunto have received Power from the Lord are also Ordained of God And if all Laws of Men be the Laws and Ordinances of God then I suppose the Common and statute-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
and Lieutenants of God will transgress the Bounds within which they ought to act we must not forcibly resist or repulse them but give place to their Wrath and suffer according to the Will of God committing our Souls to him in well doing as unto a Faithful Creator to him that judgeth righteously Like the Masters under the Roman Government they are bound to do that which is Just and Equal and Legal unto their Subjects as knowing they have a Master in Heaven but if they forget their Duty to their Master to whom alone they are acconntable their Subjects like the Servants from whom the Law took all Power of violent Resistance must only withstand them with Supplications and Tears This is all the Gospel allows or could indeed in Reason allow because there must somewhere be fixed and acknowledged such a Soveraign Authority which none have Power to resist or against which none have Power of taking Arms but had the Gospel allowed Resistance against the Soveraign it had unhinged all Government by putting the Sword into private Mens Hands This Praecept saith (†) In Math. 26.52 Grotius of putting up the Sword belongeth to all Christians who are called unto punishment upon the Account of Religion for it is the Pleasure of God when that necessity lyes upon us that we should testifie our Patience and commit our Souls unto our Creator and what can be more just than that we should lay down our Lives for his Honour from whom we received them This St. Pet. hath taught us in his Masters Name Ep. 1. c. 4.16 19. And if it be once admitted saith he that private men when they are injured by the Magistrate may forcibly resist him all places would be full of Tumults and there would be no Force or Authority of Laws and Judicatures because all men are apt to favour themselves Wherefore Reason compels us to confess that Oppression is to be endured lest too much Liberty follow upon the contrary and the Examples of the Ancient Christians teach us That any Violence is to be endured which the Supream Power lays upon us upon the account of our Religion◠For they are in a great Error who think that the Christians before the time of Constantine abstained from Resistance because they wanted sufficient Strength And if they did not abstain for that reason before the time of Constantine I appeal to our Author Whether they did abstain for that reason after his time and what Account he will give to God or Man for slandering the Christian Subjects of (‖) Ita sub Juliano licèt impio Apostatâ merebant Christiani milites nec quisquam illi vim fecit quo nihil fuisset faciliùs cum fere totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 53. Julian in saying What would you have a few defenceless Christians do have you never heard a West-Country-Man say Chud eat more Cheese if chad it But to return from this digression unto (†) Vot pro pace ad Act 16. vid. Dr. Falk p. 373. Grotius In his Latter and Wiser years he approved of the University of Oxfords Determination against Paraeus upon the Romans Subditos nullo modo c. That Subjects ought by no means to (‖) Quinta lex est Prov. 30.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rex in quem nemo insurgit i. e. in quem subditorum nemo debet insurgere Alioquin enim multi insurgunt sed id faciunt praeter jus et fas ut Rex hic vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alkum quia in eum nemo insurgit Ita palladem alibi observo fuisse vocatam à Phaenicibus Ela alkuma Deam in quam nemo insurgit et Laeotiae urbem illi sacram Gaecâ flexione Alalcomenas quae parva cum esset et in plano extructa semper tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intacta et inviolata mansit quia ob deae reverentiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab omni v◠omnes abstinebant Pausan Eaeot Strab. l. 9. Ib. p. 41. resist their Soveraign by force nor ought they to take either Offensive or Defensive Arms against him for the Cause of Religion or any other whatsoever Here is the University of Oxon teaching the very Doctrine of the Bow-string and Grotius approving of it and furthermore affirming That if Paraeus or Mr. J's Exceptions were admitted against St. Paul That no Government could be any longer safe than while those who have such Sentiments want Strength It was upon this Principle that the Prophets and other Saints in great numbers patiently suffered under the Idolatrous Kings of Israel who as Mr. J. might have remembred persecuted against Law And in like manner our blessed Saviour who had so great a regard for Government and for the Good of Mankind for which Government was ordain'd absolutely forbids Subjects to resist their Soveraign and because he foresaw that the pretence of Religion would of all others be the most Popular and Specious therefore took he such Care to have himself proposed for an Example of Patience and Suffering unto his Disciples and to assure them that if they suffered with him they should also Reign with him Indeed there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non-resistance but it is an Incovenience which cannot be prevented unless we should remove the Center upon which Government is fixed and admit the Inconvenience of Resisting the Soveraign which would be (†) Cùm probaverim hactenus summum principem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a solo Deo pendere solum hoc addo pro mantissâ quod si liceret inragem ideo insurgere quia malus est et potestate suâ abutitur Non tamen id expedire populo esse consultiùs ut ab iis remediis abstineat quae plerumque morbo ipso pejora sunt quibusque adeo vulnus exasperatur potiùs quà m sanatur Ea mala toleranda sunt quae sine magná pernicie non possunt emendari praestat unius hominis scelera esse impunita quà m innumeros insontes certo exitio exponere quod ab illis ferè fit qui in reges quid moliuntur Neque enim expectandum est ut citati judicio se sistant et plebeiorum instar unius aut alterius victoris Imperio se submittant quin copias conscribi oportet et multorum saepe praeliorum aliae subeundae an t quam possint cogi in ordinem Unde magna strages sequitur et provinciarum devastatio quod Britannia vestra vel me tacente clamat Itaque multo satius est Dei judicio rem committere et converti ad preces lachrymas quae vera Christianorum arma sunt quà m ad ea remedia confugere quae sunt violentiora Sam. Bochart 10.140 141. ten times worse than it For if the Former make a Land obnoxious now and then unto a Tyrant the Latter would make it perpetually obnoxious to the Rage and Fury of the deluded
the Lex Regia the People had surrendered unto him all their Authority and Power Whatsoever therefore the Emperor appointed by Letters or knowingly decreed or declared in his Interlocutories or commanded by an Edict was a Law and his Laws in distinction to the Senatus consulâ—â— c. were called Constitutions and they were either General or only (‖) Plane ex his quaedam sunt personales nec ad exemplum trahuntur c. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophe Personal which were not to be drawn into precedent or example as his Indulgences to his Favourites his Acts of Grace to Criminals or his (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph Punishing as he pleased those that were in his Displeasure all these were personal Constitutions for the (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Emperor was absolute Lord of his Subjects Lives and Estates It was by this Plenitude of Absolute Legal Power that Constantine the Great put to death his Father-in-Law Maximian his Wife Fausta his eldest Son Crispus and Licinius after he became his Subject and Prisonâ—â— By virtue of the same Power it was that Constantius put to death Dalmatius Caesar and Gallus Julians eldest Brother and therefore it is matter of Wonder to me that Mr. J. should lay down this groundless Assertion That Julian the Emperor persecuted the Christians and put Juventinus and Maximus to death contrary to Law He might have been better instructed by the Apostate in one of his (†) Orat. 1. ad Constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. l. 2. Orations cited by himself in which he tells Constantius That he lived more like a Subject than an Emperor who had Power over the Laws Methinks also his Superviser who should be well versed in the Fathers of our English Law might have taught him better out of Chancelor (‖) De Laud. Leg. Angl. c. 9. Fortescue who stating the Difference betwixt a purely Regal and Political Government explains the former from the Civil Law which saith The Prince his Pleasure hath the Force of Law Wherefore he was also much by the Cushion in his First Chapter where he asserts That all the Outrages which the Heathens committed against the Christians by the toleration and connivence of Julian were not only without but against Law for Julians Connivence or Approbation of things against Law or secret Direction to do them was a sufficient declaration of his Pleasure and had the Force of Law Therefore (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. p. 504. Philostorg saith that the Heathens in so doing fulfilled his Pleasure who as (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. c. 15. Zos observes however he did blame them in words which was very (*) Once the Alexandrians Soz. l. 3. c. 3. l. 5. c. 9. seldom yet underhand and indeed he exhorted them to do what they did and (†) Theod. l. 3. c. 6. made the most cruel and impious Heathens Officers both in the Army and over the Cities and Provinces whom he left to their own Discretion to treat the Christians as they pleased and when the Christians sent their Representatives to complain (‖) Soz. l. 5. c. 3. Vid. l. 5. c. 9. Naz. 1. Invect p. 92. he refused to admit them or if he admitted them he was only to tell them That (†) Socr. l. 3. c. 14. they were bound by their Religion to suffer Injuries (‖) L. 7. 503. Philostorgius saith He exceedingly rejoyced when he heard of the Christians Sufferings all which were sufficient significations of his Pleasure in this Particular that the Heathens should outrage the Christians any former Law or Edict whatsoever notwithstanding Accordingly (†) Invect l. p. 74. Gregory calls his Will in this particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unwritten Law For saith he the Emperor dividing his Power into two Parts Perswasion and Force Perswasion which is the Gentler Method he took into his own Hands and Force as being the more Inhumane he left to the People (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. not by any Publick Edict but by Toleration and Connivence declaring his Pleasure which is an Vnwritten Law But our Author as indeed he hath an excellent Talent that way quite misrepresents the Case (‖) P. 12. The Heathens saith he did not stay for Laws and Edicts to warrant such Proceedings but as soon as they knew how Julian was affected they took that for their Cue to act these Tragedies upon the Christians They knew it would please the Emperor and that was an Vnwritten Law How then did they act against Law if the Pleasure of the Emperor so directing was an Unwritten Law They acted according to his Pleasure which as Gregory observes was published unto them by his Words and Actions as plainly as by any (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invect l. p. 92. Edict and (‖) Ib. the Pleasure of the Emperor saith the Father upon the cruel Reprimand which Julian gave to the Governour of Gaza is an Vnwritten Law defended with Power and much stronger than Written Ones not supported by Authority Such sayings as these to his Governours (‖) Invect p. 92. What great matter is it if one Heathen kill ten Christians were sufficient Indications and Directions of his Royal Pleasure to make it have the force of Law and give it the nature of a Personal Constitution by virtue of the Lex Regia otherwise called (†) Lex Imperii solemnibus juris Imperatorem solvit l. Ex imperfecto C. de testamentis Lex Imperii which exempted the Emperor from Formalities of Law and Justice and gave him Authority above all written Laws I have now I hope sufficiently proved the falseness of our Authors Second Principle that his Julian persecuted contrary to Law And I have taken so much pains to confute it not that it is necessary to do so to defend the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which as I shall hereafter shew would be best defended upon this Assertion but to let the Admirers of Julian see how he hath imposed upon them in falsely representing the Christians like Barbarians in their Behaviour towards their Emperor and then in justifying of it by this Sham That Julian persecuted contrary to Law If any of them have taken the pains to read this Answer thus far I hope they will make a Pause to argue to this purpose from what I have written in this Chapter Either the Behaviour of the Christians was really as Barbarous and Exorbitant against Julian as Mr. J. hath represented it or it was not if it were then they must bear the Blame of it having no such Warrant for it as he told us they had but if it really were not then he hath done neither like a Scholar nor a Christian to exaggerate and misrepresent it with a design to deceive the World I am afraid The best Friends Mr. J. hath cannot keep him from being Obnoxious to one of these two Consequences and
of the Subject By the Rights of the Soveraign I understand those Prerogatives and Pre-Eminences of Power and Greatness which are involved in the formal Conception of Soveraignty and are inseparably annexed to the Soveraign whether it be the People as in Democracies or a few of the Chief as in Aristocracies or one single Person as in Monarchies For there are certain Essential Rights of Soveraignty or Supremacy which equally belong to Soveraigns of all Sorts as to have Sense belongs to all Sorts of Animals and which without destroying the very Notion of a Soveraign you cannot abstract from him no more than roundness from a Circle or Sphaere For they (†) Ad nullum pertinent nisi ad coronam dignitatem regiam nec à coronâ separari poterunt cum faciant ipsam coronam Bract. l. 2. c. 24. constitute the Essential difference between Supremacy and Subjection so that whosoever hath them is a Compleat Sovereign and whosoever wants them or any of them is a Subject or at least an Incompleat Soveraign and in all Perfect and Regular Governments these Essential Rights of Soveraignty equally belong to the Supream Power whether Princes or States by the Common and Statute Laws thereof Such as these in the First place is to be (†) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God For if there be any Power to which Princes or States are accountable within their Dominions let their Names sound never so big they are not Soveraign but Subject Soveraignty as the very Notion implyes being such a Preheminent Jurisdiction as makes all other persons within the Lines of it accountable unto it but it or the person or persons invested with it accountable to none Secondly To have the (‖) Ibid. p. 90. Sole Power Disposal of the Sword for to suppose that another hath a Right to bear the Sword besides the Soveraign is to suppose that the Soveraign hath an Equal which is a Contradiction to the Notion of Soveraignty and that in the same Government there may be two Soveraign Powers Thirdly To be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power for if in any Government there were a Power which had Authority to compel or punish the Soveraign for this Reason he would not be Soveraign but a Subject to that Power Fourthly Not to (‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 41 87. Ib. 140 141. Dr. Faulkners Christ Loyalty v. 2. ch 2. be resisted or withstood by Force upon any pretence whatsoever for otherwise the Soveraign would be controulable by Force which is inconsistent with the Majesty and Dignity of the Soveraign Power and supposes that Subjects have a Right to Judge when they may resist or withstand their Soveraign which is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Societies than patiently submitting to the Abuse of the Soveraign Power Lastly To have the Legislative Power or the Power that makes any form of Words a Law The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the Exercise of this Power which may be confined to Bills and Writings prepared by others but still it is the Soveraign Authority who gives Life and Soul to the dead Letter of them and all Princes or States which want this Authority let their Names and Titles be never so great are not compleat Soveraigns but Subjects because upon this supposition they have not Power to make Laws to bind others but others have Power to make Laws to bind them Now the Laws by which these and other Essentials of Soveraignty are established may be called the Imperial Laws or the Common Laws of Soveraignty and Christianity which our (†) P. 92. Author well observes destroys no mans Natural or Civil Rights doth not destroy these Essential Rights of Soveraignty but confirms them unto the Legal Soveraign in every Government commanding his Subjects to observe them and particularly the Imperial Law of of not resisting not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Wherefore in answer to his (‖) P. 81. Question By what Law we must dye in Illegal Persecution I answer By the Imperial Laws in every Government and by the Laws of the Gospel which as I shall hereafter shew establish those Laws In all perfect Governments and particularly in the English all these Rights legally belong to the Soveraign who is the King especially to be accountable to none but God to have the sole Power and Disposal of the Sword and to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and from Resistance by Force It is by these Common Laws of Soveraignty that the Gospell requires Passive Obedience which is but another name for Non-resistance these Laws are in Eternal Force against the Subjects in defence of the Soveraign (†) Sa. Boch ep p. 61. be he good or evil just or unjust Christian or Pagan be what he will no Subject or (‖) Ib. p. 54 55. number of Subjects can lift up his Hand against his Soveraign be Guiltless by these Laws (†) P. 84. Where there is no Law indeed there is no Transgression But for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Soveraign or to defend themselves by Force against him or his Forces is against the Common Laws of Soveraignty and by consequence (‖) Ib. p. 86 87. Passive Obedience even unto death becomes a duty in Soveraign Governments by vertue of those Laws By the help of this Distinction between the Imperial Laws which ascertain the Rights of the Soveraign and the political which are made to secure the Rights of the Subject the heedful Reader may easily solve all that Mr. J. hath written by the help of Mr. H. his Superviser against Dr. Hickes For he hath as himself (‖) P. 92. confesseth reduced all the Strength and Force of what he hath written against him in opposition to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience into 5 Propositions every one of which I shall here I hope effectually evacuate by adding a few Words which may enable a common Capacity to see how he hath perplexed the Truth The Propositions 1. Christianity destroys no Mans Natural or Civil Rights but confirms them and by consequence it destroys not the forementioned Rights of the Soveraign but confirms them 2. All Men have both a Natural and Civil Right and property in their Lives till they have forfeited them by the Laws of their Country i. e. by the Political Laws which are made to defend the Rights of the Subject but in case the Soveraign will tyrannically take away a Subjects Life against the Political Laws the Subject is bound by the Laws Imperial or Common Laws of Soveraignty not to resist him or defend his Life against him by Force 3. When the Laws of God and our Country interfere and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian then we are to lay down our Lives for Christs Sake So far is very true because every man is bound
limited in the Exercise of their Legislative Power not being able to make or repeal Laws without the consent of the Three Estates But still if they will turn Tyrants neither fearing God nor the Censures of Good Men they are by the Law of the English Empire as free from Punishment Compulsion or Resistance as the Caesars were But Secondly The foresaid Generall Reason of not resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vice-gerent doth imply that he hath all his Power from God This is very Ancient Divinity as appears from what Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar c. 2.37 Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory and from what he said to his Grandson Belshazzar c. 5.18 19. The Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down Accordingly it is written of Cyrus the Heathen Emperor Isa 45.1 Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose Right Hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him And 2 Chron. 36.23 Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia all the Kingdoms of the Earth hath the Lord God given me So Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings Reign and Princes decree Justice by me Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And God declared by Jeremy c. 27.5 6. I have made the Earth and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these Lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar my Servant Now if according to these Express Texts the Soveraign have all his Power from God he must by consequence have the Power of the Sword from him as St. Paul particularly observes He beareth not the Sword in vain for he is the Minister of God And if he have the Power of the Sword from him it must needs follow (‖) Praeterea cum in regno gladii jus nulli competat praeterquam ipsi regi aut iis quibus a rege id concessum est peto quo jure quis audeâ—t in summum animadvertere utrum jure concesso an usurpato Si concesso dixerit rursus petam a quo concesso Utrum a principe vel ab aliquo alio praeter principem Si a principe respondeat hoc ipso â—rit ridiculus quia non est credibile principem ulli indulgere jus gladio in seipsum utendi Quantamcunque in alium transferat princeps potestatem semper manet Superior Sam Bochart Ep p. 90 91. That the People have no Right to bear it neither for Offence nor Defence or Resistance without Commission from him He may indeed abuse this as well as any other Branch of his Power he may bear the Sword not for the Defence but for the Offence and Destruction of his Subjects but if he do they have no Authority to Resist him they cannot without sinful Usurpation oppose their Swords to his as it was written by the Apostle in the time of a (†) Jam nequis haec dici putet de bonis duntaxat regibus cogitandum est Petrum Paulum vel sub Claudio vel sub Nerone scripsisse quorum ille vecors fuit hic monstrum hominis quibus tamen Christianos jubent esse subditos non solum metu paenae sed â—b conscientiam propter Deum Nec multo meliorem fuisse Tiberium cui Christus reddi voluit ea quae â—rant Caesaris Ib. p â—2 Wicked Tyrant He that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to to themselves Damnation And how can a Man be guiltless that draws and uses his Sword without Authority from him to whom the jus gladii belongs much more if he useth it against him who only hath the Authority of the Sword This very Consideration made Grotius condemn all violent defence against unjust Force from Publick Authority Contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam De Imp. c. 3. n. 6. Our Blessed Saviour never intended to diminish or destroy the Rights of Soveraignty but on the contrary was very tender of them commanding his Disciples to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesars and this was said by him with respect to Tiberius who was a Man excessive in Cruelty Drunkenness and Lust It was said indeed upon the account of paying Tribute but holds as well to all the Rights of Soveraignty and particularly as to this of being the Master of the Sword and therefore when St. Peter drew his Sword in his Masters Defence against the Officers of the Cruel Sanhedrim he sharply rebuked him saying Put up thy Sword for he that useth the Sword shall perish by the Sword This very Text was ever understood by the Primitive Christians as an absolute Prohibition to use any Violence against the Soveraign and was applyed by Maunitius the Commander of the Thebaean Legion when he charged his Souldiers in Christs Name not to Resist under the Specious Pretext of Self-Defence And truly if the Christian Religion had given a Right to the Professors of it to defend themselves and it against the Illegal Violence of the Soveraign it had not been a taking up of the Cross but of the Sword not Evangelical as our Author speaks of Passive Obedience but Mahumetan and truly one who knew no more of the Gospel than what he might learn of it out of Julian would never imagine that Jesus had said If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me And whosoever shall lose his Life for my sake and the Gospels the same shall save it And every one that forsaketh Houses or Brethren or Sisters or Father or Mother or Wife or Children or Lands for my Names sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit Everlasting Life Or that his Beloved Disciple the Prophet of the New Testament had said of the Martyrs of the (†) Dr. Mores Apocalypsis Apocalypseos c. 13.10 c. 14.12 13. Protestant Religion Here is the Patience and Faith of the Saints Here is the Patience of the Saints Blessed are the Dead or the Martyrs that die in the Lord. But the Author of Julian it seems will shew no Faith nor Patience but in a Legal Persecution he will not die a Martyr but when the Laws are against him but if his Soveraign attack him against Law i. e. against the Laws which are made for the Defence of the Subject he will be even with him he will without Authority take up Defensive Arms against him contrary to the Laws which are made for the Defence and Honour of the Soveraign and so commit as Damnable a Sin one way as his Prince doth the other This is plainly as Max. Tyrius speaks of Private
Gentleman as was reported put this Dilemma in the House of Commons which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory or Valid or they were not If not then Acts of Parliament which impeach the Succession are without any more ado Null and Void in Law but if they were by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded and King James admitted to the Crown contrary to many Statutes against him notwithstanding all which the (t) Jacob. I. High Court of Parliament declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend unto his Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Royal Blood Here His Succession is owned for Lawful and Vndoubted against the foresaid Acts Lawful not by any Statute but contrary to Statutes by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions as tending to the Disinberison and Prejudice of the Crown For as the Most Learned and Loyal (u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons a Bill of Exclusion if it should pass would change the Essence of the Monarchy and make the Crown Elective or as another (x) Author of the Power of Parliaments p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective For by the same Reason that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences and so consequently by such Exclusions Elect whom they please The next Reason which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful is the Oath of Supremacy which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion or other and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House By this Oath every one who takes it swears to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And I appeal to every Honest and Loyal English-man whether it be not one of the most undoubted transcendent and Essential Rights Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs and united to the Imperial Crown of England that they succeed unto the Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood Secondly I desire to know Whether by Lawful Successors is not to be understood such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Common-Law of England and if so how any Man who is within the Obligation of this Oath can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which deprives the next Heir and in him virtually the whole Royal Family of the Chief Priviledge and Preheminence which belongs unto him by the Common-Law of this Realm Or how any Man who hath taken this Oath which is so apparently designed for the Preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of the Royal Family can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death according to the Common Right of Hereditary Succession which by Common-Law belongs unto Him and is annexed to the Crown What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors in general must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order of Hereditary Succession when it shall come to their turn to succeed I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it Some indeed have said with our Author that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion which is a meer Shift and proves nothing because it proves too much For according to this Answer we might dispense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King if any should hereafter turn such because the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are Protestant Oaths and are not to be understood according to them in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion Secondly Though they are Protestant Oaths yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants but as lawful and rightful King and Heirs according to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom and therefore Moderate Papists will take the Oath of Supremacy as well as of Allegiance as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of (y) 35 H. 8. ch 1. § 11. H. 8. which they could not do were they made to the King and his Heirs as Protestants But Thirdly As they are Protestant Oaths they bind us the more Emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Vsurpation of the Pope who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings and of Excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession Witness Henry the 4th and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs and Successors when their Rights shall fall I have joyned the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Successors and Him and them to defend to the utmost of our Power And I here protest to all the World That when I took these Oaths I understood the Words Heirs and Successors for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordinary Course of Hereditary Succession And I appeal to the Conscience of every Honest Protestant if he did not understand them so Other Excluders I have heard maintain that the King and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Exclusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part theoreof And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth but by the Person or Persons to whom and for whose behoof it was made To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament
have done in such a case but since it is not the only Expedient but such an one as is very disputable and dangerous too he was methinks too bold with their Beards in asserting That they would have set aside an Hundred such Titles to secure their Religion when other probable Means more agreeable to the Constitution of the Government were offered for the Security thereof In such a case the Fathers might have professed their Zeal for the Christian Religion and yet like our Loyal Addressers have made it their humble Request to the Emperor not to have passed the Bill of Exclusion that is but one among other Expedients and a man may be free in the Choice of means without being Guelph and Gibeline at once I am sure there is no such Contrariety in such Addresses as for a Minister of our Church to write such a Book as Julian to be Lamb without and Wolf within to wear the Churches Livery and yet in secret to list himself with her Enemies to pretend a mighty concern for Religion and yet to slander the Primitive Christians and scoff at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience this indeed is to be contrary to his Profession and to be Guelph and Gibeline at once CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian HAving shew'd in the First Chapter the Falseness of his First Principle That the Roman Empire was Hereditary I proceed in this to lay open all his other Shams and Falsifications by which to use his own words (†) P. 68. he hath glossed away all his Duty as a Christian Subject and broken all the measures by which all the Ancient Suffering Christians went in former Persecutions For first after he hath most artificially aggravated the Behaviour of the Christians against Julian and made it look like very Criminal and Barbarous then he undertakes to Apologize for them telling us That truly (‖) P. 68. their Case differed very much from that of the First Christians and that they were in quite other Circumstances (†) P. 71. The sum of all which is this That the first Christians suffered according to the Law of their Country whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrary to Law it being manifest that Julian oppressed them in a very illegal way He did not fairly Enact Sanguinary Laws but he put them to death upon Shams and pretended Crimes of Treason and Sacrilege c. And this their Suffering against Law he brings to justifie their seeming Misbehaviour and Barbarous Usage of him which after he had magnified to the height in Expressions not becoming a Divine p. 66. then he adds But for the Name of Christians he had better have fallen among Barbarians I shall not examine the Merits of their Behaviour towards Julian till I have proved that they were not illegally persecuted by him because this being once proved it must needs follow That if they broke the Primitive Measures of Christian Subjection and Obedience they are to be blamed for it and cannot signifie any thing as a Precedent for us to follow in case which God forbid we should be persecuted contrary to Law He tells us That (†) P. 66. they so treated this Emperor that one would have taken them to be the Apostates and most falsly and plainly (‖) P. 94 95. suggests like a Jesuit That they would have rebelled but that they wanted Strength What saith he would they have a few defenceless Christians do when they had lost their Strength Have they never heard a West-Country-man say Chud eat Cheese and chad it Nay he hath done his best to make it probable that Julian was killed by a Christian It is easie to guess whether all this tends His Reflections on the Behaviour of these Christians are to draw on his Reader and prepare his mind for what he hath said upon Passive Obedience and therefore to spoil the Precedency of their Behaviour in their Words Actions and Devotions and to shew to what little purpose he hath written 6 Chapters about it I shall here shew that Julian did persecute them legally because all his Orders and Decrees how unjust soever were legal and in particular that Juventinus and Maximus who he saith were put to death upon shams were notwithstanding legally put to death because they were put to death by the Sentence and Command of the Emperor who was an Absolute Soveraign who govern'd by Despotic or Regal Power and whose very Pleasure was a Law He may as well say That a Man who dyes in England legislatively by virtue of a Bill of Attainder enacted into a Law dyes illegally whereas by the English Constitution the King and Parliament or the King with the Consent of the Parliament are legal Masters of every mans Life and Fortune and can put to death whom they please In like manner what the King and Parliament or to speak in the words of Learned Chancelor (†) De laud. Leg. Angl. ch 9. Fortescue what the Regal and Political Power can in conjunction do here the Regal or Imperial Power could do alone in the Roman Empire where as Dan. speaks of Nebuchad For the Majesty that God gave the Emperor all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down This is most amply and elegantly set down by (‖) L. 53. Dio who tells us That all Power Civil and Ecclesiastical was in the Emperor the Consular Proconsular Censorian Tribunitian and Pontifical and that he had all this Power and Authority not by Force and Usurpation but by Law the Senate and People consenting thereunto That therefore all things were done according to the Pleasure of the Emperors as in Kingdoms and that though they were not called Kings and Dictators yet they had the Regal Dictatorian Power that by virtue of these Offices they had Power of raising Armies and Money of making War and Peace of making deposing and killing Senators and in a word of (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting any man to death as an expiratory Sacrifice without Tryal who they thought injured them never so little in Word or Deed. Furthermore he saith That they were (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above the Laws and free from all Legal Necessity and might do any thing having all things belonging to Absolute Regal Authority but only the Name of King This is the Sum of what Dio saith of the Imperial Leviathan to which the Civil Law agrees which tells us That (†) L. 1. T. 3. 31. T. 4. Princeps legibus solutus 4 Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpâ—te cum lege Regiâ populus ei in eum omne suum Imperium potestatem consâ—rat Quodcunque igitur Imperator c. Vid. I. L. 1 2. the Emperor was above Law that whatsoever pleased him had the nature of a Law because by
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
Rabble who in Riots Tumults and Insurrections for which they would never want Pretences were Resistance in any case allowed are able to do more mischief in a Week than ever any Tyrant yet did in a Year Indeed the Strokes of a Tyrant like those of Thunder make a great Noise and all places ring with it and it puts the World in great affright but yet alone and unresisted a Tyrant cannot spill so much Blood especially in a Limited Empire as would be shed by Resistance in a Defensive War for the Rage of the worst of Tyrants generally wrecks it self upon particular persons or parties of Men but in Civil War which is worse than any Tyranny all must suffer without distinction and however it may be called Defensive and at first be so designed yet it will certainly degenerate into Offensive and Rapin Bloodshed and Devastations will be the ordinary Concomitants thereof The late Rebellion among us was called by the Raisâ—rs of it and I believe verily intended by some of them for a War merely Defensive but it soon proved Offensive the Managers of it being forced in their own defence to seek Advantages to set upon the King as he did to set upon them Indeed when the Defensive Party is very much the stronger then the War if the Defenders please may be merely Defensive but when the Party Offensive is as strong or stronger than they then they cannot defend themselves without taking the Advantage of Offence Besides if we consider the Passions of Men set in Military Opposition one against another the Notion of a Defensive War like many Notions in Geometry though it may be true in the Theory ' yet it will be impossible in the Practise and therefore I cannot but admire the Wisdom as well as the Goodness of God in forbidding us to Resist or Defend our selves by Force against the Soveraign and his Forces because Defence doth so naturally degenerate into Offence These things considered I desire Mr. J. the fierce and almost blasphemous Opposer of Passive Obedience to consider Whether as he saith He (†) Pref. p. 11. hath honestly pursued the End of our Saviours Coming into the World which was not to destroy mens Lives but to save them For had our Saviour allowed Subjects under the pretence of defending themselves and their Religion to resist their Soveraign he had come indeed to destroy Mens Lives and as he said in another sense Not to send Peace on Earch but a Sword He had then indeed set Subjects at variance against their Soveraign and made the World for Rebels the worst of Banditi by the Gospel which had then been a Doctrine of War and not of Peace But this was not consistent with his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and the Care which he had for Government and the Peace and Well-fare of Mankind Though Tyranny be ill yet he knew Resistance was worse and therefore he hath commanded us to lay down our Lives for our Religion but not to take up the Sword in defence of it contrary to the Imperial Law For all that draw or use the Sword without Authority from the Soveraign whose right it is to bear it he hath left obnoxious to the Sword of Justice and to incur the Punishment of death Put up thy Sword into its place saith he to Peter for all that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword Wherefore let Mr. J. talk never so much against a Popish Successor and let him have what Characters men please to give him nay let them suppose him to be a Complicate Tyrant and as Gregory saith of Julian to be Pharaoh Achab Hieroboam and Nebuchadnezzar all in one nay let the Spirit of Galerius Maximin and Maxentius come upon him yet I am sure it will cost fewer Lives and less Desolation to let him alone than to resist him but if it would not I had rather die a Martyr than a Rebel this is my Resolution by the Grace of God I can be content to be barbarously murdered I know to whom I must pay my Passive Obedience to my God and to my King the Laws of God and the Imperial Laws of the Land require it of me For though (†) P. 80. God approves our Religion and would have all the World to embrace it and hold it fast yet he doth not approve of Resistance that 's no part of Christian Liberty and he would have none embrace that And though (‖) Ibid. Protestancy is so far from being Criminal by the Laws of our Country that it is Death to turn Papist as it was to turn Idolater among the Jews yet Passive Obedience is part of the Established Protestant Religion as it was of the Jewish and the Laws of our Country God be praised for it make it Capital to resist Therefore I resolve by Gods Assistance neither to turn Papist nor Resist But if I cannot escape I will suffer according to the Gospel and the Church of England and Mr. J. hath the Liberty to despise the Gospel and the Church and to resist his supposed Tyrant if he will He may preach and practise Resistance but I am resolved to preach and practise Passive Obedience after the Example of the Jewish Prophets and Martyrs who suffered against Law and in my most Melancholy Prospect of things I can comfort my self with the hopes of a Reward for dying at a Stake which he shall never have for dying in the Field But for fear I should move the Indignation of Mr. J. too much by shewing the utter Inconveniences of Resisting and how it is a Remedy against Tyranny worse than the Disease I will endeavour to temper him with a few Words out of his next best Book to the Bible in the First Part of the Homily against Disobedience What shall Subjects do then Shall they obey Valiant Stout Wise and Good Princes and Contemn Disobey and Rebel against Children being their Princes or against Indiscreet and Evil Governours God forbid For first What a Perillous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the Judgment which Prince is Wise and Godly and his Government Good and which is otherwise as though the Foot must judge of the Head an Enterprise very hainous and must needs breed Rebellion For who else be they that are most inclined to Rebellion but such Haughty Spirits from whom springeth such foul ruin of Realms Is not Rebellion the greatest of all Mischiefs And who are most ready to the greatest Mischiefs but the worst Men What an unworthy matter were it then to make the Naughtiest Subjects and most inclined to Rebellion and all Evil Judges over the Princes over the Government and over their Counsellers to determine which of them be Good and Tolerable and which be Evil and so Intolerable that they must needs be removed by Rebels being ever ready as the Naughtiest Subjects soonest to Rebel But whereas indeed a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of
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