Right-Lines failed or Sedition disturbed the Heir Where he likewise matches it with the Hereditary Kingdoms of England France Spain Scotland and others And further I desire to know at what time afterwards the Empire began to be Hereditary if it were not so in Constantine's Family where there was an uninterrupted Succession of Five from Herculeus Maximianus to Julian But besides such an Instance of uninterrupted Succession which is a great Rarity in Kingdoms that are undoubtedly Hereditary which tho it be matter of Fact is no Proof of Right the express Testimony of Eusebius is so full and convincing that it descended from Father to Son like any other Patrimony that I needed not to have added other Proofs for I see that alone cannot be answered I was not in the least concern'd to prove that the Empire descended in a right Line from the twelve Caesars down to Constantine and therefore our Author needed not to have writ his long impertinent History of broken Succession which I confess I did slight when I heard of it but not so much as now I see it For who would go to use such a deceitful Medium as a History of broken Succession to prove an Empire to be Elective I am sure if our Author consider that Argument better he will not abide by it Without thinking my self bound therefore to follow him in his Knight-Errantry quite through a Succession of three hundred Years which in the first Constitution of it was Hereditary as he confesses and quotes Dio for it p. 9. and was propagated by Adoption in the Julian Family to the Emperor Nero and afterwards when it was broken was often pieced again by Adoption which still shews the Nature of it to be Hereditary I shall prove with all the Clearness and Brevity I can that the Empire was hereditary in Constantine's Family both as to matter of Fact and matter of Right First They were not elected either by the Senate or the Army who only declared recognized or proclaimed the new King to be Emperor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Vita Const lib. 1. cap. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 68. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 69. 2dly During that Family there was no Interregnum At Chlorus Death Eusebius says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vit. Const lib. 1. c. 16. And afterwards says there was not an Interregnum no not for a minute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3dly They were either Testamentary Heirs or Heirs at Law to the Empire all lawful and undoubted Heirs Const Chlorus as the adopted Son of Maximian Constantine as eldest Son to his Father Constantine's Sons as Testamentary Heirs and Julian as Heir at Law. I shall in a few Words clear the Titles of Constantine and his Sons and especially of Julian which is the only one that I needed to insist upon First Of Constantine Eusebius says that the Throne descended to him from his Father as a Patrimony Socrates says that he was declared King in his Father's stead the very Word which is used to describe the Jewish Succession Eumenius says he was his Father's lawful Successor and undoubted Heir Secondly Constantine being possest of the whole Roman World which indeed was too large for the Government of one single Person wisely divided it amongst his three Sons and made them Heirs by Testament Theod. Socrat. Ruffin He left them Heirs he made them Heirs he wrote them Heirs And accordingly St. Ambrose calls Constantius who survived the others and had it entire again the Heir of his Fathers Dignity Thirdly Julian was Heir at Law He had the Empire by Blood and Birth it fell to him by ordinary Right And if Jovian had been elected Emperor while Julian was living he had been injured and should have had Wrong done to him as I shall make appear by these following Testimonies 1. Julian was lawfully possest of the Empire after Constantius's Death but not before for tho he were chosen Emperor by the Army in Constantius's Life-time yet that Choice only made him an Usurper So Ruffinus tells us lib. 1. cap. 27. Post quem scil Constantium Julianus praesumptum priùs deinde ut legitimum solus obtinuit Principatum 2. This lawful Title was a Title by Birth and Blood. So Themistius a Senator and the Governor of Constantinople in his Speech to Jovian speaking of the Constantine Family and Julian especially tells him You having received the Empire meaning by Election have maintained it better than they who received it in a way of Succession by Birth and Blood. And this I doubt not is what Ammian Marcell means by ordinario jure where he says That when Julian had news of Constantius's Death he and his whole Army after him marched merrily for Constantinople for they saw that the Empire which they were going to take away by force with the apprehension of the utmost Hazards was now unexpectedly granted in the ordinary way of Right That is by Constantius's Death it was Julian's of course For as for that Flam that Constantius named Julian his Successor with his last Breath it is so ridiculous a Falshood that the meanest Sutler in Julian's Army was not silly enough to believe it when it was so notorious that Constantius was coming to advance him the other way 3. This ordinary Right by Birth as he was the sole Heir of the Constantian Family was so just a Title that if Jovian had been elected Emperor while Julian was alive he had been injured by it and should have had Wrong done him So the same Themistius in the same place where he tells Jovian That the Empire was before owing to him for his Father's Vertue but at Constantine's Death he deferred to take the Debt that he might not be thought to usurp upon the last of the Constantine Succession and was reserved till now so as to receive his Father's Debt without doing wrong to any Body It seems Julian had been wronged if he had been put by his Succcession therefore he had a Right to it and the setting him aside had been a proper Exclusion And yet Gregory and Basil who did not wear one Beard and Constantius on his Death-Bed thought the whole Christian World much more wronged in that he was not set aside Q. E. D. To answer Forty of our Author's trifling Objections at once such as Whether the Law of Nature be for Primogeniture and Gavelkind too c. I affirm First That there never was a Succession in the World that was not alterable and which might not be directed and governed either by the Prince or People or as it is here by both The Jewish Succession which was establish'd by God himself in the Line of David was not so establish'd as to exclude the Peoples Governance and Disposal of it A clear Instance you have of this 2 Chron. 36.1 and 2 Kings 23.30 Then the People of the Land took Jehoahaz the Son of Josiah and made him King in
his Father's stead in Jerusalem Jehoahaz was the younger Brother and yet the People of the Land excluded his elder Brother to make him King. And tho he were the younger Brother by about two Years the Scripture approves the Title and Birth-right which the People of the Land gave him for it allows and records him to be the First-born 1 Chron. 3.15 And the Sons of Josiah were the First-born Johanan the second Jehojakim c. This Johanan is the same with Jehoahaz as all Commentators are agreed such variety of Names being very usual in Scripture for the same Person 2dly That the Government of the Succession in the Roman Empire was in the hands of the Emperor which is the reason that Gregory blames Constantius alone and neither Souldiery nor Senate for Julian's succeeding to the Crown And 3dly That in all Hereditary Kingdoms the Succession has been variously ordered and disposed upon occasion and that justly by those who had the Government of it And therefore Chlorus might do as was most fit to give his Empire to his eldest Son alone and yet Constantine do as well to divide his larger Empire amongst his three Sons Both which ways of inheriting according to the Fathers were still by Divine Right We have a plain Instance of this likewise in the Articles of Philip and Mary's Marriage in the united Kingdoms of those two Princes I shall add by way of Supererrogation that the Empire after Jovian's untimely and sudden Death went on again in a way of Hereditary Succession first in Valentinian's and afterwards in Theodosius's Family Gratian and Valentinian the younger succeeded Valentinian as his lawful Heirs So Symmachus Praefect of Rome expresses it Eum Religionis statum petimus qui divo parenti vestro culminis servavit Imperium qui fortunato Principi legitimos suffecit Haeredes One of them was Emperor when he was a Child but it was all one for that For as St. Ambrose says by Theodosius's young Sons Arcadius and Honorius who likewise succeeded their Father Nec moveat aetas Imperatoris perfecta aetas No-body is to mind their Age for an Emperor is always at Age. The Descent of the Imperial Crown took away all Defects And St. Ambrose exhorts the People and Army to pay the same Duty to these Minors as they would to Theodosius himself or rather more and tells them what Sacrilege it would be to violate their Rights Plus debetis defuncto quà m debuistis viventi Etenim si in liberis privatorum non sine gravi scelere minorum jura temerantur quanto magis in filiis Imperatoris In a word if the Empire were not Hereditary in that period of it which my Discourse led me to speak of and for a long time after the Christians as well as Heathens have not only imposed upon the World but which is far worse have mocked God in their Prayers Firmicus prays the great Sun and Stars together with the most High God to make the Government of Constantine and his Sons perpetual and grant says he that they may reign over our Posterity and the Posterity of our Posterity in a continued Series of infinite Ages Sozomen prays that God would transmit Theodosius's Kingdom to his Children's Children To which Prince Cyrill Archbishop of Alexandria says The Queen glorious in having Children by you gives hope of Perpetuity to the Empire Now from any one of these Expressions it is plain that the Empire was not Elective For every one knows that the present King's Children in an Elective Kingdom are farthest off from succeeding Whoever succeeds they shall not for fear they should alter the Constitution of the Kingdom and make it Hereditary It is indeed otherwise in the Empire of Germany but there is a peculiar Reason for it None but the House of Austria which has so large Hereditary Dominions and Countries and so scituate as to be a Bulwark against the Turk being capable of defending and preserving that Empire After all to shew how much our Author is mistaken in thinking the Stress of my Argument lies upon this Assertion That the Empire was Hereditary in Julian's time which nevertheless I desire him to confute if he can in fourscore Pages more I do assure him that the Conclusions which are drawn from his own Premises will serve my Turn as well Our Author says pag. 51. That the Caesarship only made a Man Candidate and Expectant of the Empire or as he expresses himself afterwards it was a Recommendation to the Augustus-ship Tho by the way Candidate or Expectant is not the English of Spartianus's Latine which he there quotes for designed or appointed Heirs of the Imperial Majesty are more than Candidates and Eumenius who understood the Roman Empire and Language better than any modern Man opposes those two Words to one another Sacrum illud palatium non Candidatus Imperii sed designatus intrasti However to take the Character of a Caesar at the very lowest he was recommended to the Empire and stood fairest for it And because the Empire had generally gone that way he might plead Custom tho not a strict Right and at the least was next to the Chair Nevertheless the Christians were for setting aside one that had these Pretensions to the Empire of the Roman World meerly because he was not of their Religion they would not have a Heathen to reign over them Now I did not go to ask their Opinion concerning the 13 th of Elizabeth and half a dozen Acts of Parliament more or whether our King and Parliament have not equal power to exclude a Popish Successor as Constantius had to degrade a Pagan Caesar Of which I never doubted nor dare our Author deny it But my Enquiry was Whether Paganism was a sufficient Bar to hinder a Man from an Empire and whether it unqualified him from reigning over Christians And their Answer was as I have faithfully reported it that it was a great Sin in those who could prevent such a Person 's coming to the Crown if they did not do it And whether an Act of Parliament cannot govern the Norman Entail we will never ask the Fathers To conclude if my Comparison of Popery and Paganism hold true which this Author has been pleased to grace and fortify with his Approbation then the Case of Conscience is thus resolved by the Fathers That it is not only just to prevent a Popish Successor but that it is a very great Sin in those who can legally prevent him unless they do it Again If Julian's Title were not a Right of Inheritance but lay in the Choice of the Legions then Julian was already lawful Emperor while he was in France as well as Gordianus Philip Decius p. 37. and others in other places of our Author And yet Julian durst not then own himself a Pagan tho he had been so for ten Years but as Ammianus confesses went to Church a long time after to curry Favour with the
Liege People of England contrary to the Political Laws that is the Common and Statute-Laws which declare the Fundamental Propriety that the People of England have in their Lives Liberties and Estates those Forces may not be resisted for they who in their own Defence do resist them with Arms may be legally hanged for it in this World and without Repentance will be damned for it in that which is to come And yet this Author pag. 274. asserts That the Laws of all Governments allow every Man to defend his Life against an illegal Assassin and he that doth not so when he can dies not like a Martyr but a Fool. Now Forces thus employed are no other than illegal Assassins But it may be the Damnableness of resisting lies in resisting them with Arms No it is not that for our Author in the same place says Contra Sicarium quilibet homo est miles Any Man is a lawful Souldier against a Cut-Throat that is may use a Sword against him and not only a Switch Neither is it their being called the King's or Sovereign's Forces which makes them irresistible for p. 280 he allows that a Man may defend himself against an Assassin sent by the King's Order because says he the King's Law which is his most Authoritative Command allows us as I suppose that Benefit And therefore it remains that the Damnableness of resisting them lies in this that they are Forces and murther in Troops So that tho any Man is a lawful Souldier against a Cut-Throat yet no Man is a lawful Souldier against Cut-Throats and indeed this last Particular is the only Thing wherein our Author has not been pleased to answer himself Now in opposition to our Author I hold That if the Sovereign cannot authorize one single Person to do an Act of illegal Violence much less can he authorize Forces or great Numbers of Men to do such illegal Acts And that there is just the same Reason Law and Conscience a thousand times over to resist a thousand Murtherers that there is to resist one His Conclusions I confess are very terrible to Flesh and Blood but I take comfort when I look back upon the Principles from whence he infers them which are absurdly false and so far from supporting that Battery which he raises upon them that they fall with their own Weakness Rottenness and Incoherency His Principles are an unlimited boundless Soveraign Power two Tables of Laws which break one another some Preambles of Statutes which he stifles and will not suffer to speak out and a false Pretence of the Soveraign's Honour First He begins with the Notion of a Soveraign p. 200. by which all the World may see that he no more understands what an English Soveraign is than I know what Prester John is Does not every Body know that the very same Titles of Power and Office have a several Notion in several Countries As to compare great Things with small a Constable in England is conceived under another Notion than a Constable in France And so tho an Assyrian King were conceived under the Notion of Absoluteness whom he would he slew and whom he would he made alive whom he would he set up and whom he would he pulled down and his Will did all Yet this is quite contrary to the Notion of an English King as Bracton tells us Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Voluntas non Lex Where Will governs and not the Law the Notion of a King is lost Nay the Laws of King Edward confirmed by William the Conqueror and sworn to be kept by all succeeding Kings in their Coronation-Oath have these Words Rex autem quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum Domini regat ab injuriosis defendat c. Quod nisi fecerit nec nomen Regis in eo constabit verùm nomen Regis perdit These I hope are better Authorities in this Matter than Sam. Bochart our Author's French Oracle who like a Forreigner as he was fetch'd his Notions of our Government from the Motto of the King's Arms Dieu mon droit I need not trouble my self in examining our Author's Scheme of Soveraign Power or the Rights of the Soveraign which is full of Equivocation and Fallacy witness the last particular of it where he attributes to the Soveraign the whole Legislative Power Which methinks he might have left out as well as he has done another main Branch of the Soveraign Power which Writers of Government call Vniversale eminens Dominium or a Power of laying Taxes upon the Subject But therein our Author had Reason for if he had but mentioned that Right of Soveraignty every English-man who had ever read a Subsidy-Act or Money-Bill would immediatly have discovered the fraudulent Contrivance of that whole Discourse And because our Author writes as if he were better studied in the modern French Monarchy than in the ancient equal happy well-poised and never enough to be commended Constitution of this Kingdom as King Charles the First calls it I shall take this occasion to set down these few Words of that wise Prince concerning it There being three Kinds of Government amongst Men absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy and all these having their particular Conveniencies and Inconveniencies the Experience and Wisdom of your Ancestors haâ—h so moulded this out of a mixture of thâ—se as to give to this Kingdom as far as humane Prudence can provide the Conveniencies of all three without the Inconveniencies of any one But we have some little People risen up amongst us who with a Dash of their Pen will new-mould the Government endeavouring as much as in them is to dissolve this excellent Frame and to change it into an absolute Monarchy The establish'd Constitution does not agree with the new Models they have seen abroad nor with the new Notions they have got by the end and therefore tho it be the Product of the long Experience of the deepest Insight and of the united Wisdom of a whole Nation yet it must give place to new Inventions and submit to be regulated by an Epistle of a French Author The two Houses of Parliament which have a joint Authority in making Laws as the King expresly says In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons as also every Act that is made in the very enacting of it tells us shall by the new common Laws of Soveraignty only perform a Ministerial part of preparing Bills and Writings and finding a Form of Words for the Soveraign alone to enact And so likewise the Prerogatives of the King which are built upon the same Law of the Land upon which is built the Propriety and Liberty of the Subject and which is the most firm and stable Bottom in the World shall in this new and treacherous way be founded upon a floating
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
very agreeable to his Hypothesis for then the Regal or Imperial Power had been discharged of the Politick Clog and had governed all alone and the Notions of Sovereignty and Passive Obedience had been as clear as the Sun. But then in some other unlucky places the same Fortescue speaking of the self-same Thing says That those former Kings of England would have parted with their Law Politick and Regal too and would fain have changed them both for the Civil Law. It seems they were as weary of the one as of the other which could not possibly be help'd because they were all one And now I appeal to all the World whether here be any Foundation for a Table of Imperial Laws which can at pleasure destroy the Lives Liberties and Properties of the Subject And whether on the other side according to Fortescue the Safety and Security of the People be not the supream Law of a Regal and Politick Kingdom But because our Author is mighty troublesom with his Imperial Laws and Imperial Power and boundless Power and such like Terms of his own coining which is a Presumption at least that what he writes is not Law but his own Dreams which no Terms of English Law can express I shall tell him from these Passages of Fortescue That the greatest Power the King of England has is this that he can do no Wrong that he cannot authorize any Man or Number of Men to destroy his Subjects contrary to Law consequently that all such illegal destructive Acts tho attempted in his Name are inauthoritative and do neither bind any Man's Conscience nor tie any Man's Hands from using those Remedies which the Laws of God and Nature as well as the Common and Statute-Laws of the Land do allow to be used against all evil-disposed Persons I shall tell him likewise from these following Authorities and many more which might be produced that his Assertion of an absolute unbounded Power in the King which is limited only in the Exercise of it is perniciously false For the Law gives the King his Power and Dominion says Bracton We hold only what the Law holds saith Judg Jenkins The King's Prerogative and the Subjects Liberty are determined and bounded and admeasured by a written Law what they are We do not hold the King to have any more Power neither doth his Majesty claim any other but what the Law gives him Accordingly King Charles the First acknowledges that his Prerogatives are built upon the Law of the Land which in another place he declares are the justest Rule and Measure for them I shall add but one remarkable Passage more out of the King's Answer to both Houses concerning the Militia Feb. 28. 1641. And his Majesty is willing to grant every of them such Commissions as he hath done this Parliament to some Lords Lieutenants by your Advice but if that Power be not thought enough but that more shall be thought fit to be granted to these Persons named than by the Law is in the Crown it self his Majesty holds it reasonable that the same be by some Law first vested in him with Power to transfer it to these Persons which He will willingly do Now this is Demonstration if the Law be the Measure of the King's Power then he has no Power beyond the Bounds of the Law and whatsoever is pretended in the King's Name beyond those Bounds is void and carries no manner of Authority with it Whereas to say the King's Power is absolute and boundless is to say the Government is absolute and arbitrary and requires absolute and unlimited Subjection For it is Nonsence to say that boundless Power can be limited in the Exercise of it for boundless Power which has in it the whole Legislative Power can at pleasure make a Law to take away that Limitation and he that is limited only by his own pleasure is not limited at all And again that is not Power which cannot be exercised and therefore a Fountain full of boundless Power which cannot be brought into Act is a Fountain full of inauthoritative Authority or full of Emptifulness So much for our Author's Fountain Pipes and Channels We have his other Illustration of a boundless limited Power in these Words To be confined in the Exercise doth not destroy the Being nor diminish the Perfection of Sovereign Power for then the Power of God himself could not be Sovereign because there are certain immutable Rules of Truth and Justice within which it is necessarily limited and confined I answer As God exercises no Power which is inconsistent with Truth and Justice so he has no such Power in him in the Root or Being for it is all Imperfection and Weakness And that he neither exercises nor has any such Power is not to be imputed to any intrinsecal Limitation or Confinement but to the infinite and illimited Perfection of his Nature And if such a miscalled Power or Possibility of doing wickedly be found in the Creature it is because he is a Creature it proceeds from Finiteness and Defect And to shew our Author how much more Light there is in a few plain Words than in his Similitudes and Illustrations I say It is self-evident that a Man has no more Power in any kind than he can exercise A Man has no more natural Power than he can naturally exercise he has no more moral Power than he can morally exercise he has no more Civil or Legal Power than he can legally exercise For to say he has more Power than he can exercise is to say he can do more than he can do And therefore an Ocean of our Author 's boundless lawful Power of doing what cannot lawfully be done will not fill an Egg-shell and is such a New-nothing as even Children will despise Before I pass from this Distinction of Imperial and Political Laws I must say somewhat to a Heap of Authorities which we have p. 208 209. to prove that the Realm of England is an Empire that the Crown of it is an Imperial Crown and that one of the Saxon Kings stiled himself Basileus Imperator Dominus Well what of all that The Realm of England is an Empire has an Imperial Crown and is as independent upon any Foreign Realm as the Empire of Turkie therefore the Freemen of England are as very Slaves as any are in Turky and under Imperial or Bowstring Law. If that be your Consequence I will give you your whole Life's time to make it good But Edgar stiled himself Basileus Imperator Dominus And Carolus Rex signifies a great deal more than all those three Titles did I am ashamed to see Rolls of Parliament quoted for such poor Trifles for it is plain by all the Remains which we have of the Saxon Times by History by the Saxon Laws by King Alfred's Will in Asser Menevensis and by the Mirrour that the Saxon Kings were far from being absolute Emperors having no other Power than what
for going contrary to my Declaration and Acknowledgment ordered by the Act of Uniformity Wherein I have abhorred that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by the King's Authority against his Person or those that are commissionated by him Upon which he adds It was apparently the Design of the Three Estates in this Act to secure the Nation of such Ministers as would preach up the Doctrine of Non-resistance without distinction But if it were they are very much disappointed for our Author himself who is as good at Indistinction and Confusion in other Matters as any Man does not preach the Doctrine of Non-resistance without distinction but handles it with the Subtilty of a Schoolman For he grants p. 280 that one who is sent by the King's Order to assassinate or destroy his Subjects is not commissionated by the King for he may be resisted by the King's Law which is his most authoritative Command But great Numbers or Forces so employed may not be resisted So that his Doctrine is this That if twenty Men come one by one with the King's Order to do an illegal and destructive Act they are not commissionated and may be resisted but if the same Number come together Rank and File with the same Order and upon the same Errand then they are commissionated and may not be resisted Is this preaching up the Doctrine of Non-resistance without distinction Or rather is it not making a silly Distinction without a difference Again in the same place he has Distinction upon Distinction in these Words The Doctrine of Passive Obedience allows a Man to resist or use the Sword to defend his Life when the Laws from which I except all Laws destructive of the King's Crown and Regality authorize him so to do This is preaching up and preaching down the same Doctrine in the same Breath upon a wicked Supposition that the Laws of the Land which protect the Subject are destructive of the King's Crown and Regality Now on the other hand all faithful Ministers of the Church of England preach Obedience to the Laws and Non-resistance of those who are commissionated by the King without distinction and without deceiving the People to their Destruction and telling them those are commissionated by the King whom the Law declares are not commissionated nor can be commissionated as no Man can be to destroy lawful Subjects Such illegal Commissions are declared by Magna Charta to be null and void and so we ought to account them as you may see by the following Words And for this our Gift and Grant of these Liberties and of others contained in our Charter of Liberties of our Forrest the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons Knights Freeholders and other our Subjects have given unto us the fifteenth part of all their Moveables And we have granted to them on the other part that neither we nor our Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties in this Charter contained shall be infringed or broken And if any thing be procured by any Person contrary to the Premises it shall be had of no force or effect So that what St. Paul says of an Idol may be fitly applied to a Commission contrary to Law For we know that an illegal Commission is nothing in the World. And accordingly we find in Acts of Grace that Men who act upon such Commissions do stand in as much need of Pardon as other Men and had the Benefit of the Act of Oblivion in the first place as you may see by the Particulars which are there pardoned First all and all manner of Treasons Misprisions of Treason Murthers Felonies Offences Crimes Contempts and Misdemeanours counselled commanded acted or done since the first of January in the Year of our Lord 1637 by any Person or Persons before the 24 th of June 1660 other than the Persons hereafter by Name excepted in such manner as they are hereafter excepted by virtue or colour of any Command Power Authority Commission or Warrant or Instructions from his late Majesty King Charles or his Majesty that now is or from any other Person or Persons deriving or pretending to derive Authority mediately or immediately of or from both Houses or either House of Parliament or of or from any Convention or Assembly called or reputed or taking on the Name of a Parliament c. be pardoned released indempnified discharged and put in utter Oblivion His fourth and last Principle upon which he builds his false Passive Obedience is a false Pretence of the Sovereign's Honour concerning which he says p. 279. The Laws are more tender of our Sovereign's Honour as he is God's Minister than of his Subjects Lives As if the King's Honour and his good Subjects Lives could ever stand in such a dangerous Competition that one of them must of necessity destroy the other and as if the Laws of England had provided that the Lives of the People of England should be sacrificed to the King's Honour Has our Author been abroad to fetch home pour ma Gloire and to render it into this English He might have had sounder and safer Notions at home out of Judg Jenkins whom he often quotes to no purpose Pag. 134. we have these Words The Gentleman says We do not swear meaning in the Oath of Supremacy that the King is above all Law nor above the Safety of his People Neither do we so swear says Judg Jenkins but his Majesty and we will swear to the contrary and have sworn and have made good and will by God's Grace make good our Oath to the World that the KING is not above the Law nor above the Safety of his People The Law and the Safety of the People are his Safety his Honour and his Strength And accordingly it has been always declared in Parliament to be the Honour and Glory of the Kings of England that they were Kings of Freemen and not of Slaves whereby they have been enabled to do greater Things and to make a larger Figure in the World than Princes of five times their Territories But this Author has pick'd up quite contrary Notions and thinks it a Dishonour to the King if the generous People which he governs be not Slaves to every Parcel of Criminals who against the King's Crown and Dignity shall wickedly destroy them in his Name I have now done with every Thing that looks like an Argument in this Discourse of Passive Obedience for as for the following Chapter there is nothing new in it he only chews the Cud upon his Notions of Sovereignty and rings Changes upon his Imperial and Political Laws And then in the 12 th Chapter after he has bound us hand and foot and prepared us for the Popish Knife he has the Face to tell us That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience we shall be secure enough of our Lives Properties and Religion under a Popish Successor For after he has given us the Security of God's Care