annitentibus sed praecipuè Eroco Alamannorum rege auxilii gratiâ Constantium comitato Imperium capit And if he was first Elected by his Father then Admitted by the Army which had Power to reject him and last of all Confirmed by (†) De Mort Pers Galerius as Lact. tells us where was his Hereditary Descent But in the 3d. place so far is this passage of Eumenius from being a full and pregnant Proof of the Hereditary Nature of the Empire or that Constantine was born unto it as our Author (‖) P. 20. speaks that he was born 14 years before his Father Constantius was made Caesar For (†) De vit Const l. 1. c. 5. Ed. Val. Eusebius saith That he reigned more than 30 years and was above 60 years old when he died and by consequence he was at least 30 years old when he came to the Crown in the year of our Lord 306. But his Father Constantius Chlorus was made Caesar by Dioclesian and Maximian in the (‖) Vid. Baluz in Lact. de Mort. Pers p. 13. Ed. Oxon. Year 293. by which Account Constantine must have been full 14 years old before his Father was made Caesar and about 29 before he was made Augustus which was about a year before he died Eumenius could not but know this and therefore his Complement of Nascendo Imperium meruisti signifies no more than his getting the Empire by occasion of being the (†) Which was a mighty Advantage according to that of Nazar in his Paneg. to Constantin Tuos Constantine maxime tuos liberos ac deinceps nepotes tecum optat Roma ut tanto a pluribus petantur quanto ad majora nascuntur Son of an Emperor Imperatoris filius tanti Imperatoris as he afterwards speaks If our Author had pleased he might as well have proved Constantius to have been heir to the Empire from that Passage to Constantine Patrem tuum ipsum vetus illa Imperatoriae domus praerogativa provexit This Latine might have been turned into plausible English for our Authors purpose but he well knew that Claudius was succeeded by Four or Five elected Emperors of different Families before Constantius was chosen Emperor and that the Posterity of a Brother most of all the youngest to an Emperor elected from a private man can derive no Title to the Crown Yet Eumenius derives the Succession both of Constantius and (‖) Post duos familiae tuae tertius Imperatir Constantine from Claudius but our Author cunningly took no notice of that because it proves that the Panegyrist had no design to give either of them any proper Hereditary Title but only to declare the Honour and Advantages they both had by being descended of such high Blood But suppose Constantine had been born after his Father Constantius was made Emperor yet his Birth and Primo-geniture could Entitle him to no more than his Fathers Share of the Empire which Euseb calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to qualifie him for this for when this (†) In which Constantius his taking of Massilia is the last Exploit for which the Panegyrist commends him Vid. Lactant. de Mort. Pers p. 57. Ed. Oxon. Panegyrick was made he had no more Eumenius himself tells us he was Nominated and Recommended by his Father chosen by the Army after his Fathers death and confirmed by the following Suffrage of the Senate which would have given any of his Brothers nay any other man as good a Right to the Empire as he himself had After the Authority of Eusebius he serves us with another out of Julian but to as little purpose Julian saith he in his Panegyrick to the Empress Eusebia saith That Constantius married her to have Heirs for his great Lordship of almost all the World And then he adds He having none Julian himself was the sole and undoubted Heir for in him the Family was afterwards extinct Our Author I see delights much in Panegyricks but he was very unlucky in citing this which proves the Succession of Julian although (‖) P. 20. he was the Nephew of Constantine and had the same Royal Blood flowing in his Veins to have been purely Arbitrary and Elective For as I said before (†) Eâdem annitente Caesar à Constantio dictus est horum igitur in se beneficiorum gratias hâc oratione refert Petavius in Orat. III. Jul. Vid. p. Orat. 218 220 224 225 229. Julian wrote this Oration in praise of the Empress out of meer Gratitude to her because she had perswaded the Emperor against his Inclinations to create him Caesar and accordingly he often (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 217. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 218. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 220. To which agrees that of Zosim l. 3. p. 711. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of Zonaras t. 3. p. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. P. 224 225 229. acknowledges in it That next under God he had received all he had from the Free Choice and Generosity of his Majesty which expression with the rest in the Margent are very repugnant to the nature of an Hereditary Lineal Succession but very proper for an Elected Candidate to use Besides in the words which he cites Julian saith not That (‖) Orat. 3. p. 203. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constantius married her to have Heirs for his great Lordship of almost all the World but that He being Lord of almost all the World made choice of her to bring him Sons in the plural Number who might be Heirs of Honour and Power This is a general Expression and it may be presumed that Julian expressed himself in general words on purpose because the Sons succeeding their Fathers in the Roman Empire was so Arbitrary and Uncertain though in the general they could not sail to be Heirs of Honour and Power But had the Expression been as particular as our trusty Author hath falsely rendered it yet the word Heirs is to be taken in the sense it then had for chosen or constituted Heirs or Successors and not for Heirs by Entail in which case purely Elected Emperors as (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 11. Invect p. 118. l. 1. Jovian the Successor of Julian are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heirs of the Empire and accordingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by the Latine Translator Quos haeredes relinqueret whom he might make or create Heirs So that the true Sense of Julians Compliment is this That Constantius being Lord of almost all the World married Eusebia to bring him Sons whom he might make Heirs of Honour or if our Author please to have it so of his Honour and Power Before I go farther I cannot but observe what a Trick he hath used to prevent his Readers from enquiring who succeeded Julian or to forestall their Objection against the Hereditary Succession in case they should by chance or enquiry come to understand That first (‖) Amm. Marcell l. 25. c. 15.
1 Tim. 3.3 Tit. 1.7 Striker but on the contrary that (z) 2 Tim. 2.24 the Servant of the Lord must not strive but be Gentle unto all men apt to teach and Patient This special Rule about the Patient and Meek Behaviour of Clergy-men we find enlarged in the 9th of the Apostolical Canons in these words If any Bishop or Presbyter or Deacon beat any Believer or Unbeliever that doth him wrong we command that he be deposed because our Lord hath in no wise taught us so to do but on the contrary when he was stricken he did not strike again when he was reviled he reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not And Balsamon and Zonar on this Canon both say That a Clergy-man rather than strike another ought to him that smiteth him on the one Cheek to turn the other also And as the Church does straitly forbid Clergy-men to strike so did she also severely forbid both Clergy men and Lay-men to affront an Emperor or Ruler the former under the penalty of being deposed and the latter of being excluded from the Holy Communion as may be seen in the 84th Apostolical Canon which makes it still more Incredible that such an Holy Bishop as young Gregory describes his Father to be should suffer his Zeal so outragiously to transport him beyond all the Rules of common Decency and Duty to resolve upon kicking the Emperor against the Example of Christ the reiterated Precepts of the Apostle and the Canons and Censures of the Church Among other Examples which I have brought towards the latter end of the 5th Chapter to shew that there was nothing Singular or Extraordinary in the Behaviour of Valentinian Publia c. towards Julian as our Author would make his Reader believe I beg leave to add one more of a (a) Johannes dictus in martyrologio Usuardi Adonis Notkeri et in vetere Romano die 7 Setp. Valenius in Annotat ad cap. 5. lib. 8. Hist Eccl. Eusebii Christian of great Rank and Quality in Nicomedia who as Eusebius the Relater of the Story saith being acted by a Divine Zeal and a flaming Faith pulled down the Imperial Edict for destroying the Churches in Nicomedia from the Pillar upon which it was fixed in the most resorted place of all the City and tore it in pieces as a most Wicked and Vngodly Order although two of the Emperors Dioclesian and Galerius were then in the Town For this Contempts not of the Authority but of the Tyranny of the Emperors he was seized and tortured to death had the Honour to be the Proto-martyr of the Dioclesian Persecution Now according to Mr. J. had any of the christian Subjects of Julian like stout Champions of Christ served him in this manner it must not have been put upon the score of their Zeal to suffer for Christ but have been represented as an Effect of their special Hatred and Contempt of him as an Apostate and a Persecutor against Law But much more if any Christian City had forcibly opposed any of his Officers or Captains as the (b) Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. People of Constantinople in a Violent Insurrection opposed Hermogenes one of the Captains of Constantius whose House they set on Fire and dragged him about the Streets till be was dead or if any Discontented Ambitious Man had by chance Rebelled against Julian under the Masque of Religion as (c) Baron An. 350. n. 1. Am. 353. n. 5. Magnentius did against Constants and Constantius Mr. J. according to his way of arguing would have turned the matter into a general Conclusion That the same Men who would quietly have submitted under a Nero and Dioclesian do nevertheless resist an Apostate and a Persecutor against Law and pursue him like a Midnight Robber But God be praised the Banner of the Cross was never display'd agianst the Apostate by any of his Christian Subjects nor did they raise any Seditions against him having recovered much of the Primitive and Genuine Temper of Christianity from which many of them by reason of the great heats between the Arrians and Orthodox had a little degenerated in his Predecessors Reign But in his time they behaved themselves with Exemplary Patience under the highest Provocations for laying aside their Mutual Animosities they prayed together as our (d) Preface p. 28. Author observes and like true Champions of Christ despised the Power and Threatnings of the Tyrant being ready in the Apostles passive Sense of the words to resist him unto Blood But what if any of them had risen up in Rebellion against him or Stirs and Seditions had hapned in some of the great Cities upon the Account of Religion Would the Exorbitant Practises of some according to our Authors way of arguing have been a sufficient ground for a General Imputation upon all the Christian of the Empire Would the Behaviour of some particular Persons or Companies have justified such general Phrases as are wont to be expressed with they and their If this be good Logique then the Stirs and Tumults at Paul's Cross in Queen Mary's days may be yet authorized by Mr. J. upon all the Protestants of London and the Rebellion of Wyat and his Adherents upon all the Protestants of the Nation as their General Act. He may make another Book and tell the People in his deceitful way of writing that they threw Stones and Daggers at (e) Mr. Bourn Speed in Q. Mary Fox Acts in Q. M. Dr. Burnets Hist Reform Par. 2. p. 245. some and discharged Pistols at (f) Dr. Pendleton Speed Ib. other Priests who were sent by the Qu. and Counsel to preach unto them that they taught a (g) Id. ib. Maid to speak Seditious Speeches against the Queen in a Wall so that the People believed it was the Voice of an Angel that they put a Cope upon a Cat shaved her Crown and tied something like a Waser between her Forelegs and then in derision of Popery hanged her upon a Gallows at Cheap-Cross In a word that they rose up agianst her in Defence of their (h) The Rebellion of Sir Turmas Wyat was upon the Account of Religion as is plain our of Fox who faith That the Queens Marriage was very ill taken of the People and of many of the Nobility who for this and for Religion made a Rebellion and that Sir Thomas Wyat the Chief said That the Queen by her Marriage would bring Servitude upon the Realm and establish the Popish Religion So faith Mr. Bradford of them in his Exhortation to the Professors of the Gospel in England Now for the Victory given to the Queen if men had any Godly Wit they might see many things in it First God hath done it to win her heart to the Gospel Again he hath done it because they that went against her put their Trust in Horses and Power of Men and because in their doing they fought not the Propagation of Gods Gospel which thing is
his Preservation and more particularly to some Divine Indications by which he was miraculously delivered from the Snares of Dioclesian and Galerian This Eusebius takes notice of in the 20th Chapter of the First Book of his Life where he saith That the Emperors envying and fearing the Courage and Wisdom of Constantine waited for all opportunities to do him mischief but that the young Prince discovering their Treacherous Practises again and again by (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secret Signs from God saved himself like the Great Prophet Moses by flight and that God cooperated with him in all his Vndertakings forecasting that he should be present to succeed his Father in the Empire Accordingly (‖) Eum Pater â—antea Caesarem fecerat Coelesti Nuntio admonitus quum aegrotaret ut primum Constantinum successorem faceret qui esset à Tyranâ—â—â— Romanum Imperium liber aturus militibus Dâ—i opem laturuâ— Pomponius Laetus saith That Constantius by the Admonition of an Angel when he first fell sick made him Caesar before his Arrival understanding that he was the Man whom God had designed for the Deliverer of the Empire Now if God had saved Julian by such miraculous Signs and afterwards sent an Angel to Constantius to bid him choose him Caesar because he had designed him for his Successor and Nazianzen had known so much he would never have expostulated with the Ghost of Constantius about the Choice nor blamed him as he did for leaving his Empire and the Royal Priesthood of the Christians to an Enemy of Christ Indeed Julian had the Vanity to pretend to a Divine Commission for usurping the Empire to justifie his Rebellion against Constantius For in his Apologetical Epistle to the Senate and People of Athens he tells them that when the Souldiers first attempted to make him Emperor He (‖) p. 521 522. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See also Julians Vision of the Publick Genius Amm. Marcell l. 20. prayed unto Jupiter to give him a Sign if he would have him accept the Empire which the God presently did admonishing him not to resist the Good Will of the Army And in his (†) Ep. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist to his wicked Uncle Julian he saith That he assumed the Empire upon the Command of the Gods who charged him as he valued his own Safety to obey them He also pretended to have the Death of Constantius revealed unto him by a Divine (‖) Zosim l. 3. p. 711. Amm. Marcel l. 22. Vision and it was also reported of him that as he made his Entrance into a City of Gaul a (†) Socrat. Hist â—c l. 2. c. 1. Crown which was hung up between two Pillars fell exactly upon his Head which the Spectators looked upon as an Omen that he should be Emperor And upon the account of these and other signs to which he pretended he looked upon himself as made Emperor by Jupiter and therefore in all his Pictures which were drawn for publick places he caused Jupiter to be (‖) Zosim l. 5. p. 117. ed. Val. drawn as appearing from Heaven and reaching unto him the Imperial Crown and Scepter which explains the special meaning he had in that Passage cited by our Author out of his Epist to the Jews wherein he tells them That he had freed them from Taxes and Troubles that enjoying Peace and Quietness by his Favour they might pray for him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the best God and Creator of all things who had vouchsafed to crown him with his unspotted Right Hand For Julian acknowledged one chief Eternal God Maker of all Things visible and invisible as he professeth in his Panegyrical Oration in praise of his Admired God the Sun which he owns to be the Creature of the invisible Sun or Supream Deity to whom in Platonical Terms he gives the (†) Orat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sempiternum numen In orat extrema ad Amicos Amm. Marc. l. 25. Attributes of the only true God This I take to be the Special Meaning of that Passage if it have a Special Emphatical Meaning but I hope our Author would not have his Reader ascribe the lying Signs which the Pagan Gods who were Devils shewed unto this Magician if they shewed any at all unto the True God Methinks it was very odd in a Protestant Minister after he had cited a Passage in Eusebius to shew that God had declared Constantine Emperor to produce another out of Julian to shew that he had made him so too I hope he makes a difference between the Miracles and Miraculous Signs which God (‖) Eusâ—b Vit. Const l. 1. c. 28. Zon. t. 3. p. 3. Philostorg H. Ecc. l. 1. c. 6. wrought for Constantine among which we may reckon that Vision of the Cross and the Signs which Julian saith Jupiter gave unto him If he do not he is but like some of the Admirers of his Julian but if he do why did he cite the Apostates Authority to prove that he was crowned by God I am confident none of those who have so thundered of late with the Thebaean Legion could be guilty of such Prevarication as this But then if that Saying of his Julian have no Special Meaning in it it is to be taken like many other Expressions which occur in Authors in a general and metaphorical signification only for Julians coming to the Empire by the Providence of God by which he disposes of Crowns and Kingdoms and thus that most emphatical Recognition which Dionysius made of Valerianus and Galienus'es Right to the Empire is to be understood when he said in the Name of the Christians (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. c. 11. Hiâ—t Ecc. We worship that one God the Creator of all things who hath given the Empire to Valerianus and Galienus the Emperors most beloved of God As also that of Athanasius to Constantius although in English it sounds thus (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Apol. ad Const O Almighty Lord Eternal King the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ thou by thy Word hast given the Empire to thy Servant Constantius How would our Author have triumphed if he had found but one fuch Passage as either of those about Julian in any Christian Writer and yet they amount to no more than solemn acknowledgments of Gods Providence in disposing the Empire to the aforesaid Emperors according to that of (†) L. 5. c. 4. Irenaeus Cujus enim jussu homines nascuntur hujus jussu reges constituuntur That Kings are made by his Appointment by whose Appointment men are born And so indeed Julian came to be Emperor by Gods Providential Appointment and no otherwise for it was merely by Gods Providential Appointment that Constantius resolved to choose a Caesar when he might have taken unto him a Co-partner in the Empire that Eusebia pressed him to make Julian Caesar after he resolved to choose one (‖)
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
Revenge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do one Injury for another His Soveraign injures him against the second and he will therefore injure his Soveraign against the first Table of Civil Government He will sin against the Laws Imperial because his Prince sins against the Political Well let him do so at his Peril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Senses he may be legally Hanged for it in this World and without Repentance will be Damned for it in that which is to come But in the third place The General Reason assigned for Not-resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vicegerent doth imply That to resist him is to resist God who hath made him Soveraign and set him above all Coercion and Force If the Nature of Soveraignty and of a Crown Imperial did not require that he should not be violently resisted yet the Honour of God whose Image and Substitute he is would require the Subject not to do so lest he should seem to resist God The King saith †C. 21. Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor in regard of the Nature of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity he is like unto God who is Lord over all whose Image he beareth and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And ‖ De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5. Vegetius saith That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved because he is a Corporeal God I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers to shew how the King is the Minister and Image of God but I have since found them all with far many more in Archbishop Vshers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince To which I refer the Reader Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfections Finch lib. 2. del Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham Roy est le test delâ—bien public immediate desoubs deiu c. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God over all Persons and in all Causes And therefore because he represents the Person of God and bears his Image the Law attributeth unto him a Similitudinary Manner a Shadow of Divine Excellencies namely Soveraignty Majesty Infiniteness Perpetuity Perfection Truth Justice Now to assert that Soveraign Princes are the Vicegerents and Images of God is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty he judgeth among the Gods I have said ye are Gods and all of you the Children of the most High Accordingly saith Jesus Joh. 10.34 Is it not written in your Law of Princes I said ye are God If he called them Gods of whom the Word of God there speaks say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God These Earthly †Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò precipuè convenire quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum nomen ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18 1 Sam. 2.25 Ps 82.6 proinde Solomon Ps 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Apostolus Solomonis typo adumbratum sed sensus typicus literalem non excludit imo supponit Itaque etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines Eaphantus ejusdem sectâ—e Quod Deo quidem inest inest regi ut sibi ipse imperet unde vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli autem subjiciatur Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 84 85. Gods these Vicegerents and Images of the Almighty Soveraign these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them If they do wrong if they tyrannize it over their Subjects he will punish them and turn their Hearts if he see fit But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him they must not take up Defensive Arms against them because they are in Gods stead for whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God In that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection or to shew that a Subject to a perfect Soverain ought not to resist Thus have I branched the General Reason for Non-resistance into three and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited as well as the Arbitrary Soveraign and I know not what can be replyed to them but either to deny that the Soveraign is Gods Vicegerent and doth 〈◊〉 derive his Authority from him or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoyned by the Law of Nature But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible and contradict the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Christians the Acts or Parliament Book of Homilies and the Liturgy especially in the ‖ Thy chosen Servant Our King and Governour that he knowing whose Minister he is And that we and all his Subjects duly considering whose Authority he hath Collect of the Communion-Service for the King and therefore I will suppose that my Brother J. dare not do it and before he asserts the Latter I desire him to consult Dr. Falkners Christian Loyalty a Book which ought to be read by every English Subject I shewed him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist or stand against the Soveraign although he be Wicked or a Wrong-Doer And now I will shew that the Principle into which I have resolved it is plainly taught in the First There our Late Soveraign King James is called the Gift of God there the Authority of Kings their making of Laws Judgment and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man but of God This is also asserted by Old (†) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 3. Chancellor Fortescue in these words All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God for as the Apostle saith All Power is from the Lord God wherefore the Laws that are made by Man which thereunto have received Power from the Lord are also Ordained of God And if all Laws of Men be the Laws and Ordinances of God then I suppose the Common and Statute-Laws of every Empire which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Soveraign are so too and I desire to know whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws But to return to the Homily it further teacheth us That the High Powers are set in Authority by God that they are Gods Lieutenants Gods Presidents Gods Judges ordained of God himself And if these Presidents