we desire to be found like did resist Antiochus's Sacrilege even as we by the Grace of God may resist you 1 Maccab. 1.43 to ver 29 of chap. 2. See the place What have you seen done by us like that passage that you are pleased to say Lucifer uses me ill Mattathias kill'd with the Sword not only the King's Officer but him also of his own Nation whom he saw rather obedient to the King's Laws than to God's whereas I for resisting you and your party with words am judged by you to be guilty of Contumelies If you had been in the hands of that same Mattathias who was zealous for God or in the hands of Phinees to whom God bears record by Moses in the Book of Numbers and should have gone about to live after the manner of Heathens without doubt they would have killed you with the Sword I tell you over again they would have slain you with the Sword. And I because I wound with words that Soul of yours which is imbrued with the Blood of Christians am reckoned contumelious Why Emperor do not you revenge your self of me why do not you please to defend your self from ill usage and to be avenged of a beggarly Fellow In short I challenge all the World to shew me such a Book again written by any Man concerning his Sovereign Prince while he was alive much less sent to him for a Present And therefore I do not wonder that Constantius could not believe that he himself sent it tho it were brought in his Name as appears by this Letter of Florentius a great Officer at Court to Lucifer There was one presented a Book in your Name to our Lord and Emperor he has commanded it to be brought to your Sanctity and desires to know whether that Book was sent by you You ought therefore to write the certain Truth and so send back the Book that it may again be offered to his Eternity To which Letter Lucifer returns this Answer These are to inform your Religious Prudence that the Bearer of that Book whom your Honour mentions to have come to the Emperor in my Name was sent by me Athanasius hearing of this Book sent to Constantius desires Lucifer to send him a Copy of it in these words We have advice that your Sanctity has written to Constantius the Emperor and we wonder more and more that living in the midst as it were of Scorpions you notwithstanding use your freedom of mind that by Admonition or Instruction or Correction you may bring those that are in Error to the light of the Truth It is my request therefore and the request of all the Confessors that are with me that you would please to send us a Copy of it that they may all understand the greatness of your Soul and the confidence and boldness of your Faith not only by hearsay but from your own Writings Which accordingly he did send him And now this Book is in good hands for the great Athanasius who has been misled by flying report to think well of it when he comes to examine it and finds it so contrary to the Evangelical Doctrine of Passive Obedience and to the Primitive Practice of nè verbo quidem reluctamur which was not to resist so much as with a word speaking and of so different a stamp from some of his own smooth and soft Sayings to Constantius can do no less then anathematize it or write a Book against it And yet never trust me more if he and all his Confessors do not applaud and magnify it beyond all that I have said of the Homilies We have received your Letter and the Books of your most wise and religious Soul in which we have plainly seen the Picture of an Apostle the Boldness of a Prophet the magistery of Truth the Doctrin of the true Faith c. You truly answer your Name for you have brought the Light of Truth and set it upon a Candlestick that it may give light to all You seem to be the true Temple of our Saviour who dwelling in you speaks these things himself by you Believe me Lucifer you alone did not say these things but the Holy-Ghost with you How came you to remember Scripture at that rate How came you to understand the sence and meaning of it so perfectly if the Holy-Ghost had not assisted you in it Well having gotten such an infallible Interpreter of Scripture as we cannot meet with every day if his Voucher say true let us see what he says concerning that Passage of Titus 3.1 with which Constantius had rubb'd him up for his Behaviour towards him and had said that it was the Office of a Bishop according to St. Paul To put Men in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates to be ready to every good Work to speak evil of no Man c. The Apostle says he admonishes us to be subject in good Works not in evil c. I add further That the Apostle spoke of those Princes and Magistrates who as yet had not believed in the only Son of God that they by our Humility and Meekness and suffering long under Adversity and all possible Obedience in things fitting might be won over to Christianity But if you because you are Emperour feigning your self to be one of us shall force us to forsake God and imbrace Idolatry what must we quietly submit to you for fear of seeming to neglect the Apostles Precepts Does not he tell you as plainly as ever Plowden did that the case was alter'd Now suppose this Lucifer had afterwards died in a Ditch as he did not but in his own See and in the Communion of the Catholick Church or suppose he had afterwards been a Schismatick as he was not but only some of his Friends who too far espoused his severe Opinion against re-admitting the Arian Clergy into the Communion of the Church yet this would not have affected his Book especially since the great Athanasius who before now has been ballanced against the whole World has laid his hand upon it and given it his Blessing and made it his own by undertaking so largely for it But as I said before I have no further Use to make of these Fathers Writings which I have here cited than only to shew that they run in quite another strain than the Apologies of the Fathers who lived before the Establishment of Christianity and that they are a compleat Answer to Constantius the Apostate Tho I could name other excellent Uses which might be made of them particularly by those who think themselves concern'd to stuff out their Sermons with Dissenters Sayings For here they might have them in abundance and by Clusters without the trouble of gleaning them in Sermons which were made in the Heat of a flaming unnatural War when bloody things were done as well as said on both sides and here likewise they might have such as might be repeated
Religion giving this for an Instance That he caused his whole Army in one of his Expeditions to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and would not allow any Souldier to stay with him who would not put himself into that good Posture and Preparation for Death 'T is true he dealt hardly with several Orthodox Bishops and opprest them contrary to Law or Equity particularly Athanasius and the other banish'd Bishops and I must grant this to be true for their sakes For otherwise there never was such a sort of Passive Subjects in the World and they would be ten times worse than this Author has made Constantius and even as they are I desire this Gentleman and Mr. Long to take notice that I disclaim them and do by no means propound them as Examples but shall set down their Words as matter of Fact only And with this necessary Proviso that the Sayings of their own Holy Fathers may not be treacherously turn'd upon me as Mr. Long knows one of Sozomen's has been I come to the 2 d Thing That this Author has not given a true Character of the Fathers under Constantius He tells us Pag. 17. The Conduct of all the Fathers that lived under Constantius was such that all the Cruelties which that Apostate Emperour could inflict did not extort the least mis-becoming Expression from them And Pag. 37. All their heavy Grievances did not make them remonstrate to the Decrees of their Emperour they did not make their Pressures just by impatiently submitting to them In short a discovery of the Passive Obedience of these Fathers was the glorious end of his Book as that Obedience he else-where tells us is the glorious End of Religion and had it not been for this Constantius had never been made an Apostate There were about half a dozen Orthodox Bishops who suffered Banishment for I will not reckon Pope Liberius nor Hosius into the number as our Author does because they both subscribed Heresie Of all these there are but three that I know of whose Writings have come down to us and they are St. Hillary Lucifer Calaritanus and Athanasius some of whose Expressions I shall here set down and leave it to our Author to justify that they were not misbecoming I shall begin with St. Hillary who has a little Book intituled Contra Constantium Augustum written in the Emperour's life-time notwithstanding the false Title which is now clap'd upon it for it was written a Year before Constantius's Death as appears by the Book it self wherein he calls Constantius Antichrist tells him He is the cruelest and wickedest of all Men for he was such a Persecutor as deprived those that fell of Pardon and Forgiveness and those that stuck to their Religion of the Honour of Martyrdom But your Father the Devil says St. Hillary taught you this way of persecuting And presently after he accosts him thus Thou ravening Wolf we see thy Sheeps clothing Constantius had said he would have no words used in matters of Faith which were not found in Scripture which made him reject the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but says Hillary I will shew the decietful Subtilty of your Diabolical Contrivance And not long after Know says he that you are an Enemy to God's Religion and to the Memories of Holy Men I suppose he means the Nicene Fathers and are the Rebellious Heir of your Father's Piety If any Man pleases to peruse that Book he will find much more of the same strain together with St. Hillary's Reasons for using such Language after his milder and gentler Writings had done no good for as he thought Silence his Duty before so now as he tells us he thought it his Duty to break Silence and I leave the World to judg whether he does not speak out The next is Lucifer Calaritanus of whom St. Jerome gives this account Lucifer Calaritanus was a Man of wonderful Constancy and of a Mind prepared for Martyrdom he writ a Book against Constantius and sent it him to read and not long after he returned to Calaris in Julian 's Reign and died in Valentinian's There is no one Book of Lucifer which bears that Title but all his little Tracts being directed to Constantius and written against him St. Jerome calls them all one Book and so does Florentius and Lucifer himself whereas Athanasius calls them Books which Variety is usual amongst the Antients as Jerome calls Gregory's two Invectives a Book against Julian Lucifer's Books in defence of Athanasius and his other Tracts have very severe and wounding Expressions in them but the Book De Regibus Apostaticis and the other De non parcendo delinquentibus in Deum tell us before-hand what we are to expect from them and proclaim themselves afar off I shall give the Reader but a taste of them and because Mr. Long says I only weed the Fathers I shall desire him to put those few Books into English which is the best way of convincing the World that I pick out nothing but the worst Thus therefore he speaks to Constantius Emperour when you saw your self worsted on all sides by the Servants of God you said you had suffered and do suffer despiteful Vsage from us contrary to the Admonitions of Holy Scripture c. If ever any one of the Worshippers of God spared Apostates let what you say of us be true And in another place Pray shew but one of the Worshippers of God that ever spared the Adversaries of his Religion And then he reads him his own Doom out of Deut. 13.1 If there rise among you a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreams saying Let us go after other Gods for the Orthodox always charged the Arians with Idolatry that Prophet or Dreamer of Dreams shall be put to death you see what you are commanded to suffer And again Hear what God has ordained by Moses is to be done with you for perswading me to revolt from God Deut. 13.6 If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother or thy Son c. entice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other Gods thou shalt surely kill him c. Here it is commanded that you shall be put to death for inviting me to forsake God. He ignorantly says Lucifer uses me contumeliously or will you deny that you have invited us to Idolatry If you think fit to deny it the Expositions of the Bishops of your Sect those Fellow-Blasphemers of yours shall convict you c. Do not you perceive what Darkness of Errour you have run into Do not you see which way you may perish And to avoid Prolixity I will set down but this one passage more Let us see what they did who remembred that none was to be feared but God in the time when your fellow-Tyrant Antiochus was a Persecutor of our Religion but first you are to know what he whom you are like ordained for so you will be able to understand that those Servants of God whom
For he was not set upon in an illegal manner but apprehended by lawful Officers who had a Warrant from the Sanhedrin the supream Court of Judicature the Lords Spiritual and Temporal amongst the Jews and were aided by the Roman Guards for fear of a Rescue or as the Chief Priests and Elders exprest it lest there should be an uproar among the People and in opposition to this Authority St. Peter drew his Sword and wounded Malchus a Servant or Officer of the High-Priest's Mat. 26.51 Dr. Hammond there says He was the chief Officer or Foreman of them that had the Warrant to apprehend our Saviour So that if ever Sword was wrongfully drawn and in Opposition to lawful Authority St. Peter's was and therefore was deservedly charm'd into the Sheath again This being so we cannot admit one Syllable of our Author's Inferences I should now confute his Answers to my five Propositions but every ordinary Reader will be able from what I have already said to do it himself I quoted Bracton to prove that the Prerogative is bounded by Law and made no further use of his words but I should have been ashamed of such an Inference as our Author makes when from these words of his own citing Rex habet Superiorem Deum item Legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones He infers that there is no more Power allowed to the Law then there is to the Earls and Barons who can only morally oblige the King's Conscience when he is perswaded their Counsels are just What their Power is in Bracton I need not say for Bracton is an Author sufficiently known and what it is in the Mirror that very ancient law-Law-book need not be told the World but any Man may as well infer from this Passage that there is no more Power allowed to God than to the Earls and Barons which absurd Inference is enough to shew the Weakness and Folly of his In the next place he tells me that I have forgot the Service of the Church if I do not constantly thank God for the Example of the Thebaean Legion I do thank God for this that the Service of our Church is purged from such Fopperies and Legendary Stories or else I would never have declared my Assent and Consent to it But when I thank God for the marvellous Confirmation which the seven Sleepers have given us of the last Resurrection I shall then remember to do as much for the Example of the Thebaean Legion For tho I admitted it as a Case to be argued upon as I would any feigned Case of John-a-Nokes and John-a-Stiles and shewed that it was not our Case yet when it is obtruded as matter of Religion and Devotion I must take the boldness to call it a Fable And I have very good reason to believe it to be so when Eusebius the very Father Fox of the Primitive Church who lived in Maximian's Persecution and wrote many Years after has not one word of it nor any of the voluminous Fathers of the fourth Century but Eucherius who lived about a hundred and fourty Years after the thing is said to be done is the first Author who is quoted for it So that Maximian not only cut off this feigned Army of Martyrs but buried them under ground for 140 Years and then they rose up again as the Pied Pipers Children did in a far Country And our Author easily confirms me in the belief that it is a Romance when he here tells us that Eucherius made that brave resolute Speech to the Emperour for many a true word is said by mistake As for our Author's Performance I leave that to the Judgment of the World and so he might have done my Comparison of Popery and Paganism without endeavouring to slur what he cannot answer But tho I have forgiven him all his Abuses of me yet I cannot his reviling the Homilies when he calls what they say against Popery the old Elizabeth-way of railing And I hope all they that have subscribed the Homilies as godly and wholsom Doctrine and fit for these times will never endure them to be run down by pretended Church-of England-Men and Vipers in her Bosom both as unseasonable and ungodly as what is now out of fashion and as what according to them ought never to have been in And thus I have answered what I thought material in this Author and have consulted the Reader 's Ease as well as my own in passing over the rest of his Book of which I must needs say that I never saw so great a number of Falsifications in so small a Volume in my whole Life whereby I perceive that the design of these Men is not in the least the Service of Truth but their business is to impose upon the World to blind and inslave Men at once just as the Philistines did by Sampson they put out his Eyes and then made him grind in a Mill. And therefore the just Suspicions which I otherways have that this Author is a known Papist are not at all removed by his pretending to be of our Church for he that will write an hundred Untruths will certainly write one more AN ANSWER TO JOVIAN Answer to the Preface IT has been the extream Felicity of this Author to give such a pregnant Title to his Book as does alone in effect answer Julian For as we learn from the beginning of this Preface Jovian proves that the Empire was Elective secondly Jovian proves the Christians to have bin quiet and peaceable under Julian thirdly proves the Antiochians Zeal to have been Abusiveness and fourthly proves that Julian's Army in Persia were Christians But how if Jovian proves not any one of these Particulars but directly the contrary For first the Election of Jovian after Constantine's Family was extinct does by no means prove that that Family did not inherit the Empire but it proves the contrary if the Historians say that the Army elected Jovian and on the other side say that the Army and Senate proclaimed and recognized the Sons of Constantine to be the Emperors of the Romans but never talk of their electing them Neither does Procopius prove that Family not to be extinct in Julian For pretended Kindred and much more impudently pretended Kindred is not Kindred An House in Cilicia from which Procopius descended was not the Flavian House no more than a Man who lived all his Life in the quality of an Vnder-Writer or Clerk was a great Man and of the Blood or than a sorry Pen-and-Inkhorn-Fellow as Themistius describes him can be said to make a great Figure in the Times of Constantius and Julian I thought very innocently a Man might be allowed to say That the Line Male of the House of York ended in Richard the Third without telling the World a long impertinent Story of Simnel and Perkin Warbeck but now I see that upon such an occasion unless a Man writes the Memoirs of such Impostors
and Vagabond Landlopers he shall be represented by our Author as an Impostor himself However I regard it the less because I had not more diversion in reading heretofore the Tragi-Comedy of this Impostor than I have now in our Author's management of him To see Julian's Cousin Procopius standing by himself at the bottom of a Genealogy just like a Cipher without Father without Mother and without Descent where the Noble Algernon's Cousin might as well have stood if the Herald had so pleased But after all if this famous Procopius must needs be brought into Play he is clearly on my side For his setting up for Emperor under pretence of being of the Constantine Family is a strong Proof that the Empire was look'd upon as Hereditary as Perkin Warbeck's Imposture did suppose the Kingdom to be so here Neither lastly does the passing by of Varronianus the Infant-Son of Jovian signify any thing when Edgar Atheling was set aside thrice and several other Saxon Princes were put by for their Minority Whereas on the other hand Valentinian being made Emperor at four Years old is a greater Argument that the Empire was Hereditary than the setting aside Ten at that Age is to prove the contrary Secondly Jovian's quiet Behaviour is no proof that Valentinian as much a Confessor as he behaved himself quietly when he struck the Priest nor that all the other Christians behaved themselves quietly under Julian when they did not particularly the generous and zealous Caesareans as St. Gregory calls them who destroyed the Temple of Julian's great Goddess Fortune in his Reign and made her unfortunate in a fortunate Time. For which Julian was enraged at that whole City and gave his own Heathens there a severe Reprimand for not hazarding themselves to defend their Goddess but they durst not for the Christians in that City were too many for them Now on the other hand how if Jovian himself was as generous and as zealous a Christian as any of them For tho he had laid down his Commission and was cashiered for not sacrificing and obeying the Commandment of the wicked King yet Julian in his Expedition for Persia by Necessity of the approaching War had him amongst his Commanders as Socrates's Words are I have been often puzled to imagine what that Necessity should be and have sometimes been inclined to think that Julian stood in need of him for his Conduct to command some part of his Army who indeed for his Abilities was fittest to have commanded in chief But that cannot be for the great Jovian was but a Pike-man in that Expedition and was not entrusted with any Command so much as that of a Sergeant and was no more than a common Foot-Souldier when he was chosen Emperor And therefore Julian could not be without him nor leave him behind him upon some other account and whether that were lest in his absence he should go and live at Caesarea which was close by Nazianzum where old Gregory dwelt or upon what other account I desire to be informed by our Author Thirdly Jovian's being libelled and abused by none but the Heathens of Antioch for making a dishonourable Peace with the Persians which Reproach the Christians always wiped off from him and justly laid it upon Julian's Rashness or for his being a Christian which is undeniably true as Baronius has already proved it in Jovian's Life and as I could further prove if it were worth the while does by no means prove that the Christians of Antioch abused him as well as Julian and consequently would have abused any Body Whereas it is evident both from the Misopogon it self and from the express Testimony of Theodoret that the Instances of the Antiochian Christians Hatred to Julian did proceed purely from the height of their Christianity and their fervent Love to Christ It is too much in reason to tell Men a Story and to find them Ears too but I will do it for once as to this Story of Theodoret. The Words were these That the Antiochians who had received their Christianity from the greatest Pair of Apostles Peter and Paul and had a warm Affection for the Lord and Saviour of all did always abominate Julian who ought never to be remembred you have his own Word for it For for this reason he wrote a Book against them and called them the Beard-haters Now the same Men that derived their Christianity from the chiefest Apostles and had a great Love for our Saviour were the Men that could not endure Julian and against whom for that reason he writ his Misopogon So that according to Theodoret that Book was caused by their Hatred to Julian and their Hatred to Julian was caused by their Love to Christ and their Love to Christ proceeded from their pure and primitive Christianity And let our Author find any new ways of shuffling to call this Zeal Scurrility if he can And fourthly Jovian is so far from proving Julian's Army in Persia to be all Christians or almost all Christians as my divided Answerers say or Christians at all that it is demonstrable from his Election that they were Heathens for he therefore refused the Empire because they were Heathens He refused it at first when he was chosen by the Army in the absence of the Commanders and afterwards when the Commanders had agreed to the Army's Choice and had set him upon a high Stage and given him all the Titles of Majesty calling him Caesar and Augustus still he refused it not fearing the Princes nor Souldiers altering their Minds for the worse but told them plainly I cannot being a Christian as I am take the Government of such Men nor be the Emperor over Julian's Army which is principled in a wicked Religion for such Men being left destitute of God's Providence will become an easy Prey and Sport to our Enemies The Souldiers having heard these Words cried out with one Voice O King let not that Doubt trouble you neither do you decline the Government of us as a wicked Government for you shall reign over Christians and Men bred up in the true Religion For the elder amongst us were bred under Constantine and the rest under Constantius and the Reign of this Man who is now dead has been short and not sufficient to establish Heathenism in the Minds of those that have been seduced Now this is a Demonstration that Julian's Army were profest Heathens for it is Nonsence to say that Jovian who was so well acquainted with the Army and was all along with it in that Expedition did not know what Religion the Army profest Or I would fain know what Danger he was in for declaring against Heathenism in a Christian Army that Theodoret should say This brave Man using his accustomed Boldness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is says our Author p. 105. confessing Christ boldly in the midst of his Enemies in apparent Danger of Torture or Death not fearing the Princes or Armies
Christians and to avoid Impediments It seems he was afraid even then that the Christians would put a Spoke in his Cart and was so apprehensive of meeting with some dangerous Rubs from them that he slavishly dissembled his Religion The next thing in the Preface worth observing is our Author 's taking offence at my general way of speaking concerning the Behavior of the Christians under Julian that I say they and their when only particular Persons are mentioned I answer Where I have made a general Inference from the Behaviour of particular Persons either those Persons were Fathers themselves who by common Construction are Representatives and deliver to us the Sence of the Church or else the Thing which is done by them is commended and applauded by the Fathers which is the same thing as if they had done it themselves But a great part of the Instances which I give are the general and publick Acts of great Numbers in the Church a Congregation a City or the like not to mention what was done by the whole Church And therefore these Instances ought not to be levell'd with those which our Author produces in Queen Mary's Days of Things which were done but not owned and which as we use to say No-Body did For our Author might have had the Reward of Twenty Marks and Thanks if he could have inform'd who it was that hang'd up the Cat. And as for Wyat's Rebellion it was upon account of the Spanish Match and Religion was only pretended as our Author 's own Quotation from Mr. Bradford does acknowledg I shall overlook the rest till I come to his Discourse about the Bill of Exclusion where in the first place we meet with a subtil Defence for the Addressers For it was not the Popish Successor as Popish but the Succession which they promised to maintain I like the Distinction very well only our Author applies it by the halves for I wonder he does not say that they made this Promise too not as Protestants but as Addressers But it seems the Suffolk-Protestants did thus maintain the Succession of Queen Mary They did so but the Case was very different for then there was no possibility of a Bill of Exclusion Q. Mary by virtue of an Act of Parliament was actually Queen and yet they gave her no assistance but upon her Promise to maintain the established Protestant Religion Which Promise was so well and truly performed that we may well be excused from trusting any Popish Prince as those poor Men did who afterwards had the Opportunity of seeing their Error from the Vantage-Ground of a Pillory and by the Fire-Light in Smithfield As for Archbishop Cranmer's disclaiming and recanting his being concern'd in setting up King Edward's Will against an Act of Parliament it manifestly makes for me and shews what authority Cranmer ascribed to an Act of Parliament which gave Queen Mary all her Title after he himself had been the greatest Instrument of rendring her Illegitimate by causing her Mother's Marriage to be declared null and void from the beginning Tho I might well have taken no notice of it because our Author is pleased to do the same by Bishop Ridley's Sermon at Paul's-Cross where he put by the appointed Preacher only to have an Opportunity of telling the People what Reason they had to put by Queen Mary Would that brave Martyr have been against a Bill of Exclusion who was so zealous for Exclusion without a Bill Presently after we have Objections thick and threefold against the Bishops Reasons in Q Elizabeth's time recorded by Sir Sim. D'Ewes He will not allow the Bishops by any means to be the Authors of them that so he may take the greater Liberty in vilifying and speaking his pleasure of them Just as p. 236. he dissembles his Knowledg of a Book to be my Lord Hollis's which to my knowledg he knew to be his as well as I only that he might the more safely persist in calling it Impious and Treasonable And because he appeals to me whether I think the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish or Presbyterian Piece I answer 1. That I do verily believe they did pen that Piece and further that there were few others in those Days who were able to pen so learned a Piece And 2. I will join issue with him when he pleases that it is neither a Popish nor Presbyterian Piece but worthy of the zealous Prelates of that Age and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Homilies to which all the Clergy of England have subscribed which is more than can be said of Dr. Hickes's Peculium Dei. First There is no ground in the World to suspect but these Arguments were part of the Reasons presented to the Queen in Parliament because the Title says they were and it is manifest that they are all in the same strain and of a piece and further Sir Simonds says that then which was above fifty Years ago there were written Copies of them remaining in many hands at which time it was very easy if they had been forged to have discovered it 2dly This Paper of Reasons ought not to be called Anonymous for in the Body of it the Bishops are named as the Authors of it whereby the certain Authors of a Book are better known than by a Title or Inscription 3dly There is nothing in those Reasons but what was fit for Bishops in Parliament to urge I say in Parliament where there was full Authority to have enacted all their Conclusions but had been very improper to urge to a Judg at an Assizes which very different Cases I am afraid the Peculium doth not distinguish In short those Reasons are foully misrepresented by this Author and rendred as only fit to proceed from a Scotizing Presbyterian Suppose now I should do the same by Jovian and with more Justice say it was a Book written by the Priests in Newgate as not believing that a Book which manifestly carries on Coleman's Design and is made up of the very Doctrine of his Declaration for dissolving the Parliament could come from a Minister of London This would not be well taken therefore our Author must pardon me if it raises my Indignation to have a Bench of as Reverend Bishops as ever were in the World treated in the same manner And I do again renew my Promise that if he will please to print the Reasons of that Parliament at large as I desired the Reader to peruse them at large and add a Confutation of the Bishops Arguments it shall not want an Answer Is it a Popish Piece because it was for having a Law to put an Idolater to Death Why then our Homilies are Popish too for commending the Christian Iconoclast Emperors who punished Image-worshippers and Image-maintainers with Death Or a Presbyterian Piece Truly that is very notably guessed What because it talks of Godly Bishops where it says We see not how we can be accounted Godly Bishops or faithful Subjects if in
Notion of Soveraignty which is a Notion indeed any farther than it is supported by the Law of the Land. And therefore if any Man would know for certain what the King's Prerogatives are he must not take his Information from Notions of Sovereignty which are as various as the Faces of the Moon but from the Law of the Land where he shall find them granted or belonging united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Amongst which this is not the least That the King can do no Wrong The King is God's Lieutenant and is not able to do an unjust Thing These are the Words of the Law says Judg Jenkins Consequently he cannot overthrow the Laws nor is he able to authorize any Forces to destroy his Liege Subjects for this would be the highest Wrong and Injustice And therefore Forces so employed act of their own Heads and upon their own wicked Heads let their own Mischief fall And yet our Author is pleased to call such Wretches so employed the Soveraign's Forces and his Armies p. 203 221 against which we must not upon pain of Damnation defend our selves I appeal to all the Lawyers of England whether the Law will own any Number of Men to be authorized by the King in outraging and destroying his Liege People or whether it be not a great Aggravation of their Crime to pretend a Commission from the King to warrant such illegal and destructive Violence But this Author who is resolved to be an Advocate for Bloodshed and Oppression will shelter an Association of Murtherers under his common Laws of Soveraignty and if they ravage and destroy in the King's Name which doubles the Crime will make that their Protection And lastly which is the great Cheat that runs through this whole Discourse to make them irresistible he shrouds and covers them under the Name of the Soveraign For it is plain that in his Answer to my five Propositions p. 204 205. and generally throughout the following Chapters by Sovereign he means such Forces of the Soveraign for he bears me witness p. 221. that I acknowledged even a Popish Soveraign to be inviolable as to his own Person I know that deceiving Men for their Good has heretofore been excused as a pious Fraud but I am sure that such foul Practice as this to ensnare Mens Consciences and to cheat them out of their Lives is an impious Fraud and as such I leave it with the Author of it and pass to the Second Thing His Distinction of Imperial and Political Laws Common Law we know and Statute-Law we know but who are ye I confess I have heretofore seen something not unlike that Distinction in Aesop where there was a Political Law or Compact fairly made betwixt the Lion the Fox and the Ass but while the Ass was proceeding by the Measures of that Law of a sudden the Imperial Lion-Law broke loose and tore him in pieces It concerns us therefore to examine upon what Foundation this dangerous Distinction is built and if it prove to be false and groundless the good People of England have little to thank this Gentleman for Pag. 210. we have these Words Thus the Learned Chancellor Fortescue grants the King of England to have Regal or Imperial Power altho it be under the Restraint and Regulation of the Power Political as to the Exercise thereof That Distinction in the last Clause is false as I shall shew anon From that perverted Passage of Chancellor Fortescue where he speaks of Regal and Politick Dominion I doubt not but our Author or some Body for him framed his new Distinction of Imperial and Political Laws and contrived them into two contradictious Tables by one of which the Subjects Rights and Properties are secured and established and are all overthrown by the other The Lord Chancellor Fortescue is the first English Lawyer that used the Terms of Regal and Politick Government which he owns to have borrowed from Thomas Aquinas in his Book de Regimine Principum dedicated to the King of Cyprus by which Phrase that old Schoolman exprest a mixed and limited Monarchy For any Man that pleases to read those Books will see that Aquinas understands by Regal Government an absolute Monarchy and by Politick Government such Governments as the Common-wealths of Rome and Athens and by Regal and Politick a King ruling by a Senate and prescribed Rules of Law. And that Chancellor Fortescue in his Dialogue with the Prince of Wales makes no other use of the Phrase than Thomas Aquinas did will sufficiently appear by setting down his Discourse at large wherein I desire the Reader 's Patience because I intend it as a Specimen of this Answerer's Faithfulness in quoting his Authors In which Discourse that great Lawyer sometimes calls this Government Regal and Politick sometimes a Politick Kingdom but what he means by it is best exprest in his own Words Chap. 9. You stand in doubt most worthy Prince whether it be better for you to give your Mind to the Study of the Laws of England or of the Civil Laws because they throughout the whole World are advanced in Glory and Renown above all other Humane Laws Let not this Scruple of Mind trouble you most noble Prince for the King of England cannot alter nor change the Laws of his Realm at his pleasure For why he governeth his People by Power not only Royal but also Politick If his Power over them were Royal only then he might change the Laws of his Realm and charge his Subjects with Tallage and other Burdens without their consent and such is the Dominion which the Civil Laws purport when they say The Prince's Pleasure hath the Force of a Law. But from this much differeth the Power of a King whose Government over his People is Politick For he can neither change the Laws without the consent of his Subjects nor yet charge them with strange Impositions against their Wills. Wherefore his People do frankly and freely enjoy their own Goods being ruled by such Laws as they themselves desire neither are they pilled by their own King or by any Body else Like Pleasure also and Freedom have the Subjects of a King ruling by Power Royal only so long as he falleth not into Tyranny Of such a King speaketh Aristotle in the 3 d Book of his Politicks saying That it is better for a City to be governed by a good King than by a good Law. But forasmuch as a King is not ever such a Man therefore St. Thomas in the Book which he wrote to the King of Cyprus of the Governance of Princes wisheth the State of a Realm to be such that it may not be in the King's Power at pleasure to oppress his People with Tyranny which Thing is accomplished only when the Power Royal is restrained by a Politick Law. Rejoyce therefore most worthy Prince and be glad that the Law of the Realm wherein you are to succeed is such for it shall exhibit and minister to
you and your People no small Security and Comfort With such Laws as saith St. Thomas should all Mankind have been governed if in Paradise they had not transgressed God's Commandment With such Laws also was the Synagogue ruled while it was under God only as King who adopted the same to him for a peculiar Kingdom but at the last when at their request they had a Man-King set over them they were then under Royal Laws only brought very low Chap. 10. Then the Prince thus said How cometh it to pass good Chancellor that one King may govern his People by Power Royal only and that another King can have no such Power Seeing both these Kings are in Dignity equal I cannot chuse but much muse and marvel why in Power they should thus differ Of which Difference in Authority over their Subjects the Chancellor in the next Chapter promises to shew the Reason which is grounded upon the different Originals of those Kingdoms And accordingly chap. 12. he shews that an Absolute Monarchy is founded in the forced Consent of a subdued and inslaved People and chap. 13. That a Kingdom of Politick Governance is founded in the voluntary Consent of the Community And after he has illustrated the first Institution of a Politick Kingdom by shewing how it resembles the Formation of a natural Body he thus proceeds in the 13 th Chapter Now you understand most noble Prince the Form of Institution of a Kingdom Politick whereby you may measure the Power which the King thereof may exercise over the Law and Subjects of the same For such a King is made and ordained for the Defence of the Law of his Subjects and of their Bodies and Goods whereunto he receiveth Power of his People so that he cannot govern his People by any other Power Wherefore to satisfy your Request in that you desire to be certified how it cometh to pass that in the Power of Kings there is so great diversity Surely in mine Opinion the diversity of the Institutions or first Ordinances of those Dignities which I have now declared is the only Cause of this foresaid Difference as of the Premises by the Discourse of Reason you may easily gather For thus the Kingdom of England out of Brute's Retinue of the Trojans which he brought out of the Coasts of Italy and Greece first grew to a Politick and Regal Dominion Thus also Scotland which sometime was subject to England as a Dukedom thereof was advanced to a Politick and Royal Kingdom Many other Kingdoms also had thus their first beginning not only of Regal but also of Politick Government Wherefore Diodorus Siculus in his second Book of ancient History thus writeth of the Egyptians The Egyptian Kings lived at first not after the licentious manner of other Rulers whose Will and Pleasure is instead of Law but as it had been private Persons they were bound by the Law neither did they think much at it being persuaded that by obeying the Laws they should be happy For by such Rulers as followed their own Lusts they thought many Things were done whereby they should incur divers Harms and Perils And in his fourth Book thus he writeth The Ethiopian King as soon as he is created he ordereth his Life according to the Laws and doth all things after the Manner and Custom of his Country assigning neither Reward nor Punishment to any Man other than the Law made by his Predecessors appointeth He reporteth much the same of the King of Saba in Arabia Faelix and of certain other Kings which in old Time reigned happily Chap. 14. To whom the Prince thus answered You have good Chancellor with the clear Light of your Declaration dispelled the Clouds wherewith my Mind was darkned so that I do most evidently see that no Nation did ever of their own voluntary Mind incorporate themselves into a Kingdom for any other Intent but only to the end that they might enjoy their Lives and Fortunes which they were afraid of losing with greater Security than before And of this Intent should such a Nation be utterly defrauded if then their King might spoil them of their Goods which before was lawful for no Man to do And yet should such a People be much more injured if they should afterwards be governed by foreign and strange Laws yea and such as they peradventure deadly hated and abhorred And most of all if by those Laws their Substance should be diminished for the Safeguard whereof as also for the Security of their Persons they of their own accord submitted themselves to the Governance of a King. No such Power for certain could proceed from the People themselves and yet unless it had been from the People themselves such a King could have had no Power at all over them Now on the other side I perceive it to stand much otherwise with a Kingdom which is incorporate by the King 's sole Power and Authority because such a Nation is subject to him upon no other Terms but that this Nation which was made his Kingdom by his Will and Pleasure should obey and be governed by his Laws which are nothing else but the same Will and Pleasure Neither have I yet good Chancellor forgotten that which in your Treatise of the Nature of the Law of Nature you have learnedly proved that the Power of these two Kings is equal while the Power of the one whereby he is at liberty to deal wrongfully is not by such Liberty augmented as to have Power to decay and die is not Power but because of the Privations which are added to it is rather to be called Impotency and Want of Power because as Boetius saith Power is not but to Good. So that to be able to do Evil which the King who rules Regally is more at liberty to do than the King that has a Politick Dominion over his People is rather a Diminution than an Increase of his Power For the Holy Spirits which are now established in Glory and cannot sin do in Power far excell and pass us who have a delight and pleasure to run headlong into all kind of Wickedness It is plain to any attentive Reader that throughout this long Discourse Fortescue speaks but of two sorts of Kingdoms an absolute Monarchy and a limited Monarchy the latter of which he sometimes calls a Politick Government and sometimes he calls the very same Regal and Politick to distinguish it more expresly from an Aristocracy or Democracy But I will prove this beyond contradiction by some other Passages in Fortescue where he tells us that some of the former Kings of England would fain have changed the Laws of England for the Civil Law and did all they could to shake off this Politick Yoke of the Law of England that they also might rule or rather rage over their Subjects in Regal wise only and for this end endeavoured with might and main to cast away their Politick Government This is what our Author would have and