Darcy which two were present at the Communication between the King and me I designed to talk with the Kings Majesty alone and at good leisure my trust was that I should have altered him from that purpose but they being present my Labour was in vain Acknowledging mine Offence with most grievous and sorrowful Heart The Duke of Northumberland said unto me That it became not me to say to the King as I did when I went about to disswade him from the said Will. From the Bishops who consented to the Will of King Edward he goes on to the Bishops who concurred in making the Statute of 13 Eliz. Chap. 1. which makes it High Treason during the Queens Life and forfeiture of Goods and Chattels after her Death to say That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient Force and Validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Government thereof This Act of Parliament is the Palladium of the Excluders but all the Arguments that can be taken from it are so well answered in the (m) The Great Point of Succession Discussed A True and Exact History of the Succession to which I refer the Reader two Answers to the Brief History of the Succession and the Power of Parliaments in the Case of Succession that Mr. J. had better not have mentioned it nor would he I suppose have done so but to take occasion to make an Invidious Paralled betwixt the Bishops of that time and the present Bishops of the Church For he presents us with a List of their Names and tell us That many of them were Confessors and that they were active and zealous for such Acts as these I know not what he means by such Acts as these for it cannot be proved from Sir Simon Dewes his (n) P. 140. Journal which he hath cited That they consented to this Act about limiting the Succession but for any thing we find there to the contrary they might be concluded in the Majority of the Lords But if it were certain they did all concur to that Act they had very good Reason for so doing because it was so highly conducive at that Season to secure the Queen whose Title was disputeable from being ejected or dispossessed of the Crown by the Queen of Scotland her Heirs But as the (o) 28 ch 7.34 ch 1. censured as unjust by Judge Jenkins Jenkins Rediv. p. 29. Statutes of Henry the 8th which impowered him to limit the Descent of this Imperial Crown had not the honour to be formally repealed but were virtually declared Null and Void from the beginning by the 3 Estates 1 Jacob. ch 1. in an Act of Recognition of King James his Immediate Lawful and Undoubted Right unto the Crown as the next Lineal Heir So this of Queen Elizabeths which is now left out of the Statute-Book received its deaths Wound thereby as being a Virtual Repealing of it or an Implicit Anti-Declaration That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Descent of the Crown when the Succession is clear and indisputable as God be thanked it now is From this Act of Queen Eliz. he passes on to the Paper of Reasons to prove the Queens Majesty bound him Conscience to proceed with severity in this Case of the late Queen of Scots He Fathers this Paper with great confidence upon the Bishops contrary to Sir Simons Opinion calling of it their Writing although I am confident that would he impartially speak what he thinks he must needs say that he doth not believe they had any hand in the thing For First It is uncertain where or by whom the Reasons were framed Sir Simon saith (*) P. 207. That most likely they were framed in the House of Commons (o) P. 215. and calls them their Reasons Secondly It is very probable they were framed by some private Person who speaks often in the singular Number as God I trust in time shall open her Eyes To those men I think God himself and his Angels will seem cruel and therefore Thirdly It is not probable that they should be presented unto the Queen if they were presented at all as Sir Simon doth but conjecture in the Name or as the Sense of the Bishops especially if we consider that the Paper is anonymous and many of the Reasons in it are the very same which the Papists urge for putting Heretick and the Scotizing Presbyterians of which there were (p) Vid. Bancrosts Dangerous Positions many in Queen Elizabeths time for putting Popish Princes to death I desire Mr. J. to read them again and then to tell me Whether he thinks in his Conscience the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish or Presbyterian Piece It is credible to believe that they could argue so falsly upon the Principles of the Jewish Theocracy to the like proceedings in Christian States If this way of arguing be true then the Queen was bound to burn many Popish Towns in her Kingdom and smite the Inhabitants with the Sword and to pull down all the Churches especially the Cathedrals because they had been polluted with Idols For my part I must declare that it cannot enter into my Heart to believe that those Bishops would liken themselves to Samuel the Queen to Saul and the Queen of Scots unto Agag or compare themselves to the Man of God her Majesty to Achab and the Queen of Scots to Benhadad or parallel her Case with that of Jesabel and Athaliah Or propose unto her Majesty the Example of Solomon who spared not his own natural yea and his elder Brother Adonijah for Suspition and likelyhood of Treason for a Marriage purposed only but put him to death for the same and that speedily without course of Judgment Or lastly Argue from Deut. 13.6 If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother c. In citing of which it is evident upon whom our Author did reflect I would fain know of him if he approve of this way of arguing or no if he do not why should be think the Reason of those learned Prelates so much weaker than his own But if he do may be please to consult Dr. Hickes his Peculium Dei where he will be better informed But besides this inconclusive way of arguing from the Laws and Examples of the Jewish Theocracy there is in those Reasons a Passage about Constantinus Magnus which is not consistent with the Learning and Integrity of those Fathers It is this That C.M. caused Licinius to be put to death being not his Subject but his Fellow-Emperor for that the said Licinius laboured to subvert the Christian Religion which is not true for Licinius had rendred himself and his Purple to Constantine upon condition of Life and so was become a private Person and he caused him to be put to death for new Attempts against his Promise after he became his Subject as I have shewed p. 43. If the
express it by a Word which might more properly be employed to describe the throwing of the Javelin which afterwards stuck in his Liver Oh but it was Julian and in that Age those were accounted the best Prayers and Tears which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor and contributed most to his Destruction This is a very pretty Declamation and would almost perswade a man to think that the Christians in Julians Time had Army-Chaplains among them and that they prayed to the Lord of Hosts for his Destruction in Field-Conventicles with Javelins in their Hands and Swords by their Sides The Nightly Squadrons and lying upon the Ground doth much countenance this Notion and if the unwary Readers of Julian be carried into such Mistakes by the Authors Artillery-Metaphors as some I know have been is he not to Answer to God for it Especially considering that after so many false and groundless Charges upon those Christians in general At length he (‖) P. 95. represents them as Rebels in their Hearts and saith That they made use of other Ingredients besides Prayers and Tears in their Composition against a Persecutor I shall hereafter shew the Falseness of that Charge and now proceed to examine the Justice of this How doth it appear that the Christians in Julians Time prayed for his Destruction The Charge is General like all other general Charges ought to be proved from a great Number of Particulars especially since the Society so charged is little less than the Catholik Church Doth any Author say in general That the Christians prayed for the death of Julian or can he furnish us with so many particular Instances in different places as may by the Laws of Induction serve to ground such a General Charge upon But instead of that he presents us but with two Instances which really are but one even the Example of Old Gregory and his Church at Nazianzum for the We in Young (†) Invect 1. p. 123. Gregory relates to the Christians of that City of whom he being one speaks in the Plural Number We called for the Sword and the Plagues of Egypt and We besought him to judge his own Cause c. And then speaking more particularly of himself These saith he were my mental and verbal Prayers unto God But what is the Practise of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches and Cities of the Empire Is this without more Examples sufficient to prove that the rest of the Churches in the Roman Empire did publickly strike the Villain for so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with their Joynt Prayers and Supplications or that other Bishops generally speaking privately Fasted and Watched and Prayed for his Destruction and taught their People so to do Would the singular Practise of one English Bishop and of his People following his Example be a sufficient Ground for a General Charge upon the whole Church of England If it would not how much less can the Example of one Bishop or Church in the Roman Empire signifie any thing to prove the General Practise of the rest But yet in our Authors Logick one Instance is ground enough for a Lawful Induction It must be their Prayers and their Tears and they followed Hezekiahs Example and they darted these Prayers But we need not wonder at his making an Induction from one Particular when he calls the few Months of Julians Reign an Age p. 55. In that Age saith he the best Prayers and Tears were those which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor I do not question but that the Christians generally prayed for the Deliverance of the Church but then it is reasonable to believe that they generally pray'd for Julians Conversion at the same time Of this we can produce one Example though our Author (‖) P. 96. saith That he could not find so much as one single Wish among the Ancients for Julians Conversion but all for his downright Destruction If he could not it was his own Fault I fear the fault of his own willful Blindness for in the very next Chapter to that (†) P. 59. Sozom. l. 6. c. 1. which he hath cited out of Sozom to prove that a Christian killed Julian he might have read of Didymus whom the Historian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an (‖) Vid. Suicceri Thesaur in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orthodox Doctor of Alexandria (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. l. 6. who being in great Sorrow for the Apostacy of Julian Fasted and Prayed for his Repentance and for the sad Estate of the Church Now from this Example in our Authors way of arguing I might prove that the Christians prayed for Julians return from his Error and for the Deliverance of the Church by that way I am sure it is very agreeable to their Charity to think That all would pray for his Repentance that believed him capable of Repentance and that none absolutely prayed for his Destruction but such as thought him utterly uncapable of Repentance and that he had sinned the Sin unto death for which it was in vain to pray And indeed there was very good Reasons to presume that he was Irrecoverable and had the Malice of a Devil against Christ and the Christian Religion and good grounds upon that presumption to pray for his Destruction and after his death in that unnatural Apostacy to lodge him as our Author observes in Hell Now to make out this Hypothesis let us consider the Nature of his Apostacy his Devotedness to the Devil and his Spite to Christ and the Christians As for his Apostacy it was first occasioned by his (‖) Theod. l. 3. c. 3. Ambitious Thirst after the Empire which made him go about Greece to find out Conjurers and Fortune-Tellers of whom he might enquire if he should obtain his Desire At length he met with a Magician who promised him to tell him his Fortune and to that end led him into an Idoll-Temple where in the Adytum or inner Recesses he conjured up the Devil and there initiated him in the Diabolical Mysteries made him eat of the Sacrifice which was an Abomination to Christ This was after his Brother Gallus was made Caesar when (‖) Invect 1. p. 61. being left alone he had greater opportunities to converse with Astrologers and Magicians whereof there was great plenty in Asia and before this as (†) Ibid. Gregory saith he was a concealed Pagan using to dispute with his Brother Gallus in Defence of Paganism which he would own in company where he was safe This is very agreeable to (‖) L. 22. Et quanquam à rudimentis pueritiae primis inclinatior erat erga numinum cultum Marcellinus who saith that he was addicted to Paganism from a Child and yet to cover the matter he professed himself (†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 2. Naz. 1 Invect p. 59. Theod. l. 3. c. 2. a Zealous Christian going often to Church and letting himself be ordained a
Bishop Bilson as I find him speaking in his Book of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and Vnchristian Rebellion written against the Papists in Queen Elizabeths Time and printed 1586. There p. 256. Theoph. saith Our Saviour foreteaching his Disciples that they should be brought before Kings and Rulers and put to death and hated of all men for his Names sake addeth not as you would have it and he that first rebelleth but he that Endureth to the End shall be saved And again Nor with Violence restrain them but in patience possess your Souls p. 260. Deliverance if you would have obtain it by Prayer and expect it in Peace those be Weapons for Christians p. 262. The Subject hath no refuge against his Soveraign but only to God by Prayer and Patience p. 278. Your Spanish Inquisitions and French Massacres where you murdered Men Women and Children by thousands and ten thousands against the very Grounds of all Equity Piety and Humanity without convicting accusing or calling them before any Judge to hear what was misliked in them are able to set Grave and Good Men at their Wits end and to make them justly doubt since you refuse the course of all Divine and Humane Laws with them whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such Barbarous Blood-suckers yet we stand not on that if the Laws of the Land where they converse do not permit them to Guard their Lives when they are assaulted against Law or if they take Arms as you do to Depose Princes we will never excuse them from Rebellion p. 279. For my part I must confess except the Laws of those Realms do permit the People to stand on their Right if the Prince would offer that Wrong I dare not allow their Arms. This is his determination in case of a Massacre which is the Extremity of Tyranny and it is agreeable not only to the Scripture but to the Practise of the Primitive Christians who against Equity Humanity and the Common Law of all Civil Governments endured many Tyrannical Massacres when they were able to resist And Bishop Jewel whom I should have set first in his Defence of the Apology p. 15. saith unto Harding We teach the people at St. Paul doth to be Subject to the Higher Powers not only for Fear but also for Conscience We teach them that whos◠striketh with the Sword by private Authority shall perish with the Sword If the Prince happen to be wicked or cruel or burdensom we teach them to say with St. Ambrose Arma nostra sunt preces lachrymae Tears and Prayers be our Weapons He reckons this Bishop among the Worthies p. 14. of Preface but according to him he must have been but a Quack in Divinity for he was for the old Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears The Peole of England it seems were taught in his time as the Doctor taught the Citizens of London in his Bow-Sermon and therefore Passive Obedience was either Heterodox Divinity then or else it is none now Nay it was taught by the Martyrs themselves in Queen Maries days for Bradford in his Letter saith Howbeit never for any thing resist or rise up against the Magistrates And Bishop Latimer in King Edward the Sixths days taught it very plainly in his 4th Sermon before the King in his Familiar Homespun Stile When I was travailed in the Tower saith he my Lord Darsy was telling me of the Faithful Service that he had done the Kings Majesty that dead is And had I seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field said he and had I seen his Grace come against us I would have lighted from my Horse and taken my Sword by the Point and yielded it into his Graces Hands Mary quod I but in the mean season you played not the part of a Faithful Subject in holding with the People in a Commotion and Disturbance It hath been the Cast of all Traytors to pretend nothing against the Kings Person they never pretend the matter to the King but to others Subjects may not resist any Magistrates nor ought to do nothing contrary to the Kings Laws I could produce much more to the same purpose out of Archbishop Sandys his Sermons Dr. Willet upon Rom. 13. Dr. Hakewels Scutum Regium Dr. Boys his Postils Dean Nowell on the 5th Com. Dr. Owen in his Antiparaeus Mr. Perkins on the 5th Com. the Little Book called Deus Rex not to mention Bishop Sanderson and other latter Divines but I have said enough to Justifie Dr. Hickes or Condemn the Church of England and her Reformers and the most Famous Divines that She hath bred Let Mr. J. look to it either the Dr. hath done well or else they are all in the same Condemnation with him And that he may know what a severe Censure he deserves for opposing this Evangelical Principle which the Dr. preached up I refer him to Erasmus in Luc. 22.36 especially to these words Mihi nulla haeresis videtur perniciosior nulla blasphemia secleratior quam si quis philistinorum exemplo Evangelici agri puteos qui a Christo venam habent aqua vivae scatentis in vitam aeternam terrâ oppleta sensum spiritualem vertat in carnalem doctrinam caelestem depravet in terrenam ac sacro-sancta Christi dogmata detorqueat imò corumpat idque reclamantibus omnibus ejus praeceptis reclamante totâ ipsius vitâ reclamante doctrinâ Apostolicâ refragantibus tot martyrum millibus repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus I do not accuse him of Heresie Blasphemy or perverting the Truths of the Gospel but if Erasmus do it I cannot help it he must get off as well as he can Having now I hope shewn that Passive Obedience is required of all Subjects by the Common Laws of Soveraignty and in particular of the English by the Laws Imperial belonging to this Crown I might here conclude this Chapter but that having undertaken the Defence of the Doctor I am obliged to answer some particular Passages which cannot well be answered but apart by themselves In the 80th p. he cites this Passage out of the Doctors Sermon Neither doth the Gospel prescribe any Remedy but Flight against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate allowing of no other Mean when we cannot escape betwixt denying and dying for the Faith To this he Replyes What the Gospel Prescribes is one thing what it Allows is another There are ten ten thousand things allowed by the Gospel not one of which is prescribed by it But what is this to the purpose the Doctor speaks there of the only Gospel-Expedient or Remedy against Persecution which is Flight He asserts that the Gospel allows of no other Mean against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate and if it allow no other then certainly it prescribes That The Physitian that allows but of one only Medicine against the Plague doth certainly prescribe it to the Patient And to make no more words about the matter Flight by the
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
Vid. Jul. Ep. ad S. P. Q. Athen. that he sent him into Gaul that he had such Success there against the Barbarians that the Army declared him Augustus that the Emperor died in his March against him and that after his death his Souldiers submitted unto him But yet our Fallacious Author represents the matter as if he had been Emperor by particular Designation from God like David or Constantine and then cries out Yet the Fathers had the conscience to set aside such a Title as this But Julian was not made Caesar by particular Order from God but by the free Choice of Constantius to whom he owned the Honour of the Caesarship It was he that set him upon the next step to the Empire when he might have set another upon it he by doing that which he was free not to have done was the occasion of his coming so easily to the Empire Julian had no antecedent Right to the Caesarship or the Government of Gaul but he owed both to the Generosity of Constantius And this is the true Ground of all the Rhetorical Interrogatories of Gregory and of Constantius his bewailing and repenting at his death for doing what he had done for him because he was free to have done otherwise indeed as free as Henry the 7th or his eldest Son Prince Arthur had he lived would have been to have made his Brother Henry who was designed for a Churchman Archbishop of Canterbury or York This our Author knew very well and this the very Expressions which he brings out of Nazianzen imply but yet lest the vulgar Reader should discern the Fallacy he keeps a great Jingling with Foreclosing ande Excluding Julian which words as all terms of Privation connote the Habit insensibly carry the understanding of the unwary Reader to think of some antecedent Birthright which Julian had to his Cosens Throne whereas strictly speaking he had no more right unto it than the Superviser of his Book to the Judges place in Ireland from which in his abusive sense of the words he was Excluded and Foreclosed And I would fain ask our Author who hath so artificially disguised the Nature of the Imperial Succession whether at the time of writing he was not conscious to himself of this Fallacy which he is guilty of in calling the Non-Election or Preterition of Julian by the name of Exclusion and if he were not whether he be not convinced of his Mistake now If he be not then I desire him to tell me whether Julian after the death of Constantius could by vertue of Birthright have challenged the Roman Empire as Henry of Lancaster did the English mutatis mutandis in these words (‖) Great point of succession p. 15. I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Realm of England with all the Members and the Appurtenances as I am descended by right line of the Blood coming from the Good Lord King Henry the Third and through that Right which God of his Grace hath sent me Or whether the Senate of Rome could have made such a Recognition of Julians Right as the Parliament made to King (†) Great Point of Succession p. 23. James at his first coming to the Crown We being thereunto bound both by the Laws of God and Man do with unspeakable Joy recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England c. did by inherent Birth-right lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to your Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm and thereunto we do humbly submit and oblige our selves our Heirs and Successors for ever If these things could not have been applyed to Julian upon the death of his Cousen Constantius then I hope Mr. J. will grant me that his Arguings from the Authority of Nazianzen are fraudulent and inconclusive and that for all he can make of that single fathers Poetical Exclamations to the Ghost of Constantius the English Succession may be unalterable there being so wide a difference between the Roman and English Monarchy That being Elective and This Hereditary That being Casual Arbitrary Uncertain and most Irregular in its descent and this being fixed to one House in a lineal Descent according to Proximity of Blood But still after all this we are pressed with the Authority of Eusebius who as our Author tells us saith That the Empire was entailed by the Edict of Nature which saith he I think is the most sure and Divine Settlement that can be But Eusebius neither hath said nor could say so nor any thing equivalent thereunto for there was no such thing as Entail nor any notion of it among the Romans neither as to the Empire nor the Estates of Private Men the Emperors as well as their Subjects had always liberty to (†) Inst l. 2. Tit. 13. disinherit their next Relations and make who they would their Heirs and if a man chanced to die (‖) Inst l. 3. Tit. 2. Intestate they had Rules whereby the Estate was divided among his Posterity or if he had none the (†) Ib. Tit. 3. Collateral Kindred were his Heirs at Law Let us therefore consider the Passages of Eusebius wherein our Author triumphs before the Victory and first it is true That in his first (†) De vit Const l. 1. c. 9. edit Val. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quotation Eusebius saith that the Throne of the Empire descended upon Constantine from his Father but then agreeably to the report of all other Authors he implies but two Lines above his 2d Quotation (‖) De vit Const l. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dispositis deinde ex arbitrio rebus suis as Val. renders it that it was by the Order and Disposal of his Father which is inconsistent with an Entail and I would fain know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. how Constantius his part of the Empire came to be entailed upon his eldest Son when h ehad many by the Edict and Law of Nature and Maximians part of it was not so entailed upon his only Son Maxentius who was casually chosen to the Crown What hindered the Law of Nature to take place in the behalf of Maxentius the Resignation or death of his Father how came he not to have the benefit of it if the Law and Edict of Nature in his Quotations of Eusebius signifie a (‖) According to that Definition Jus naturale est dictatum rectae rationis indicans actui alicui ex ejus convenientiâ aut disconvenientiâ cum ipsâ naturâ rationali inesse moralem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem ac consequenter ab auctore naturae Deo talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi Grot. de Jure l. 1.10 Prime Indispensable Law of Nature as he would have his Reader to believe What else doth he mean by the (†) P. 21. most sure and divine Settlement that can be and by
their Religion His R. H. is much obliged to him for his New Titles His Majesty for the Honour he hath done his only Brother and Viceroy in his other Kingdom and the other half of the Brittish Bishops for being represented as a Company of Fawning Spanels upon and Apostate and the utter Enemy of their Religion This is a Doubty Hero to attack a King and a Prince nay his own natural King and Prince with Fourteen Bishops at a time Every one knows he alludes to the Letter which the Bishops of Scotland sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury to let his Grace and their Brethren in England know how much they were beholden to his R. H. for his Protection of them against the Churches sworn Enemies and I can see no ground for the Justice of his foul Reflection upon them for this Action unless Justice and Gratitude be Crimes If a Visier should do very kind Offices for the Christian Bishops and Religion in any one of his Masters Provinces would it be Fawning upon him for them to write to the Patriarch of Constantinople to acquaint him with it and desire him to give him Thanks Or to make the Parallel more exact Suppose that in the Western Empire there had been of old a Bloody Aerian Faction who held Episcopacy to be an Antichristian Usurpation and who had bound themselves in a Solemn League and Covenant to Extirpate the Apostolical Function and in pursuance of that Design had Rebelled against Constantine and by the help of their Brethren in the Eastern Empire had conquered him and then put him to death That 12 years after it pleased God to Restore his Son Constantius after which the Aerian Faction began again to assemble in Armed Meetings which ended in a formed Rebellion that after this Rebellion Constantius was perswaded to give them an Indulgence by the Benefit of which they grew strong and insolent till at length they presumed to beat and murder the Orthodox Clergy wheresoever they met them and more especially sought opportunity to Murder the Bishops many of which for Fear of them durst not live in their Diocesses that they came to be so bold as to Face and Skirmish the Emperors Souldiers in Parties that they assaulted the Patriarch of Rome in the midst of the City and afterwards murdered him on the Road in a most Barbarous manner and within 6 Weeks after his Murder universally rebelled that after this Rebellion was over Constantius sent Julian a Prince who for his Excellencies had been the Darling of the People before he was suspected of Paganism to govern the Western Empire where he declared he would uphold the Church as it was established both against Paganism and Aerianism that accordingly he cheerfully procured a Law to prevent both the Pagans Aerians from having any share in the Government Civil Military or Ecclesiastical that besides all this he was most Exemplary Respectful to the Bishops and Episcopal Clergy and frequently renewed his Promises to them of upholding the Established Religion Last of all that all his Servants and Attendants were Orthodox Christians that he kept two or three Orthodox and learned Presbyters in his Family to Catechise Preach and and Administer the Holy Eucharist and do all other Spiritual Offices among them as occasion did require All this being supposed let Mr. J. tell me if it would have been Fawning or Justice Gratitude and Prudence in the Western Bishops to send an Account of this most Generous and perhaps Surprising Goodness of Julian to the Orthodox Church and Clergy notwithstanding the general suspitions that went abroad of his being a Pagan to the Patriarch of Constantinople to desire him when Caesar returned to the Court to give him Humble thanks Nay I would desire Mr. J. to tell me whether upon this Supposition it would not have been great Impudence and Malice in a Private Presbyter so to censure the Western Bishops and miscal the just Civility which they shew'd to Julian Fawning upon an Apostate although his Apostacy was never yet proved and a mortal Enemy to their Religion to which he had been so great a Friend CHAP. V. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in their Devotions and first of their Psalms FRom the Behaviour of the Christians in their Actions towards Julian he proceeds to their Devotions and Prayers where from one or two Examples he still draws a General Conclusion endeavouring to make what was done but by one man or once upon some special Occasion so appear as if it had been the General Practise of the Christians of the Roman Empire i. e. of almost the whole Catholic Church These Passages saith he which we have hitherto related were in common Conversation where the Christians might chance not to have their Religion about them but when they go to Church and enter upon Holy Ground or whenever they make their Addresses to God in Prayers and Praises there one may expect to see the Flights of their Self-denying and Suffering Religion There one may justly expect they should lay aside all their Animosity against Julian though he were their Enemy and for that Reason pray the harder for him yes s◠they do the wrong way they cannot sing a Psalm but they make his Confusion the Burden of it One would think after such a General Charge he should have brought at least an Hundred Instances to prove it but in all his Search he hath found but Two and the First of them which he sets off with so much shew is nothing to his Purpose because the Original words in the (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebrew and (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek which ours and all the Provincial Languages render by Confound from the vulgar Latine signifie Confusion as it is put for Shame as we say in our Language Such a man was much confounded that is much Abashed and Ashamed or as the French ordinarily say Vous me donnez de la Confusion you make me Ashamed So Psal 35.4 Let them be (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confounded and (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put to shame that seek after my Soul might be rendred let them be put to shame and blushing that seek after my Soul So Psal 40.14 Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my Soul to destroy it might be rendred Let them be (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ashamed and (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blush c. The Words signifie that shame of Mind and confusion of Face with which a man is affected who is become sensible of his Error or Misdoing and so the Christians of Ant. in Praying after Davids Example and in the sense of his Words for the Confusion of the Pagans prayed not for their Destruction but for their Conversion especially upon that Solemn Occasion when the Bones of the Martyrs had silenced Apollo the God of Julian in the Praise of whose Divinity he had written an (‖) Orat.
King and the People and as if the Parliament ought whether or no the King pleased to sit till all Grievances were redressed and Petitions answered contrary to the standing Maximm of the English Government Rex est Principium Caput finis Parliamenti He also censures the Doctor for saying That the Brief History of the Succession was but a New Dress of Dolemans Title to the Crown If saith he he had read the Ancient Historians of England instead of Dissenters Sayings he would likewise have found it possible to write an History of the Succession without borrowing from Doleman But the possibility of the Thing is another matter the Doctor asserted that it was Doleman all over Doleman in a New Dress and whether it is not true he refers himself to the True and Exact History of the Succession and to the Apostate Protestant where it is shewn not only how much that Author but Mr. H. too if they be not the same Man have Trucked and Traded with the Jesuit as much as the Collection of Speeches c. the Treatise of the Broken Succession or Bradshaw himself ever did I refer him also to the Apostat Protestant for an Answer to his childish Reflection upon the Dr. about the Dissenters Sayings there he may see how well versed the Doctor is in the Fanatical Originals how his Sermon was made before the first of those Books was printed and I will further assure him that if he please to come to the Doctors Study he shall find set in an odd Corner many of the Famous both Ancient and Modern Fanatical Treatises There he shall see Junius Brutus Lex Rex Prynn◠Soveraign Power of Parliaments Naphthali Jus Populi Vindicatum Miltons Apology Plato Redivious with very many others and Julian the Apostate among the rest CHAP. XI Wherein are further considered the Reasons for Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance and wherein it is shewn that Resistance would be a Greater Mischief than Passive Obedience I Have shewed in the Precedent Chapter how the Common Laws of Soveraignty and more particularly the Laws Imperial of this Realm and the Doctrine of the Church of England do condemn all Resistance and Force against the Soveraign and I think it will not be Superfluous to my Design in this Undertaking to weigh and consider a little further the Reasons which the Acts and Authors above cited assign for this Doctrine and the most General and that which comprehends all the rest is this That the Soveraign hath neither Superior nor Equal upon Earth but is next unto God whose Anointed and Vicegerent he is By the Sovergain must be always understood the Real and Compleat Soveraign because there are many seeming Soveraigns which are not really Such As for Example The Kings of Sparta exercised the Soveraign Power but they were not Real Soveraigns because they were accountable for their Mis-government to the Ephori who were chosen for that purpose by the People And therefore neither the Kings who were Subject to the Ephori nor the Ephori who were appointed by the People but the People themselves was the real Soveraign next under God The Kings had only the Exercise of the Soveraign Power but not the Soveraign Power it self that was Radically and Originally in the People and derivatively in the Kings who were no more than Ministers and Trustees of the People whom they could call to an Account by Judges of their own Appointment So in the Government of Venice though there be but one Duke yet because the Supream Power is not invested in him but in the Senate that State is not really Monarchical but Aristocratical and the Duke is not a Real but only a Titular or Umbratical Soveraign the very Creature of the Senate which is his Superior and the true Soveraign next under God So in the Cantons of Suitzerland though the Administration of the Government be in the Magistrates and so make it look like an Aristocracy yet in reality it is a Democracy because they derive their Power from the People and are to give an Account of the Exercise of it to them or those whom they appoint On the other hand in the English Government though the House of Commons bears the Shew of a Democracy and the Peers look like an Aristocracy among us yet our Government is a perfect Monarchy because the Supream Power is as I have proved neither in the one nor in the other nor in both together but solely in the Person of the King I was the more willing to make this Observation that when I speak of Soveraign Princes I may not be maliciously traduced as if I spoke of them exclusively of other Soveraigns as if Monarchy were of Sole Divine Right For want of this Distinction other Writers have had this invidious Imputation laid upon them But this Reason of not Resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent and only 〈◊〉 Subject to him is a Common Reason of Passive Obedience to all Soveraigns as well as unto Kings and unto Kings as well as unto any other Soveraigns The forecited Acts and Authors render no other Reason but this which indeed is vertually many other Reasons for if the Government of Men as well as of Angels be from God then it must follow First That upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Soveraign Authority he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis or Essential Rights of Soveraignty according to that Maxim Qui dat esse dat omnia pertinentia ad esse He that gives the Essense gives also the Properties belonging to the Essense Wherefore as an Architect who makes a Piece of Timber a Cube or a Sphere gives it all the Properties of a Cube or a Sphere So God when he makes any Man a Soveraign he gives him all the Essential Rights of Soveraignty one of which is to be free from Resistance or Forcible Repulse For if any man or number of men under him had lawful Power to take up Defensive Arms or use Defensive Force against the Soveraign and his Forces he could not for this Reason be Soveraign because he would be Subject unto a Controllable Power For according to this Supposition his Subjects would have a Power of Judging of his Actions whether they were Just or Injurious Lawful or Unlawful and when they might make a War Defensive and when not which is in effect to destroy Soveraignty and make the Soveraign Inferior to the People And therefore to cut off all pretenses of Resistance in the English Government the Three Estates as I have proved before have declared against all Defensive as well as Offensive War it being impossible for the Soveraignty to consist with the Liberty of that Pretense Just as among the Romans it was inconsistent with the Soveraign Unaccountable Power which the Masters by Law had over the Slaves for them to have a Liberty of Rising up against them under the pretence of Self-defence In all Soveraign Governments