Answer to the Preface.
IT has been the extream Felicity of this Author, to give such a pregnant Title to his Book, as does alone in effect answer Julian: For as we learn from the beginning of this Preface, Jovian proves that the Empire was Elective; secondly, Jovian proves the Christians to have bin quiet and peaceable under Julian; thirdly, proves the Antiochians Zeal to have been Abusiveness; and fourthly, proves, that Julian's Army in Persia were Christians. But how if [Page 100] Jovian proves not any one of these Particulars, but directly the contrary?
For, first, the Election of Jovian, after Constantine's Family was extinct, does by no means prove, that that Family did not inherit the Empire; but it proves the contrary, if the Historians say, that the Army elected Jovian, and on the other side say, that the Army and Senate proclaimed and recognized the Sons of Constantine to be the Emperors of the Romans, but never talk of their electing them.
Neither does Procopius prove that Family not to be extinct in Julian: For pretended Kindred, and much more impudently pretended Kindred,
Note: Constantianam praetendenti necessitudinem. Ammian.
[...]. Themist. Orat. 9. p. 206.
[...], &c. Ibid. p. 194.
is not Kindred. An House in Cilicia, from which Procopius descended, was not the Flavian House; no more than a Man, who lived all his Life in the quality of an Ʋnder-Writer, or Clerk, was a great Man, and of the Blood; or than a sorry Pen-and-Inkhorn-Fellow, as Themistius describes him, can be said to make a great [Page 101] Figure in the Times of Constantius and Julian. I thought very innocently, a Man might be allowed to say, That the Line Male of the House of York ended in Richard the Third, without telling the World a long impertinent Story of Simnel, and Perkin Warbeck; but now I see, that upon such an occasion, unless a Man writes the Memoirs of such Impostors, and Vagabond Landlopers, he shall be represented by our Author as an Impostor himself. However, I regard it the less, because I had not more diversion in reading heretofore the Tragi-Comedy of this Impostor, than I have now in our Author's management of him: To see Julian's Cousin Procopius, standing by himself at the bottom of a Genealogy,See the Genealogy in Jovian, p. 41. just like a Cipher, without Father, without Mother, and without Descent; where the Noble Algernon's Cousin might as well have stood, if the Herald had so pleased. But after all, if this famous Procopius must needs be brought into Play, he is clearly on my side: For his setting up for Emperor, under pretence of being of the Constantine Family, is a strong Proof, that the Empire was look'd upon as Hereditary; as Perkin Warbeck's Imposture did suppose the Kingdom to be so here.
[Page 102]Neither, lastly, does the passing by of Varronianus, the Infant-Son of Jovian, signify any thing; when Edgar Atheling was set aside thrice, and several other Saxon Princes were put by for their Minority. Whereas on the other hand, Valentinian being made Emperor at four Years old, is a greater Argument that the Empire was Hereditary, than the setting aside Ten at that Age, is to prove the contrary.
Secondly; Jovian's quiet Behaviour is no proof that Valentinian, as much a Confessor as he, behaved himself quietly, when he struck the Priest; nor that all the other Christians behaved themselves quietly under Julian, when they did not; particularly the generous and zealous Caesareans, Invect. 1. p. 91. [...]. as St. Gregory calls them, who destroyed the Temple of Julian's great Goddess Fortune in his Reign, and made her unfortunate in a fortunate Time. For which Julian was enraged at that whole City,Sozom. l. 5. c. 4. [...]. and gave his own Heathens there a severe Reprimand, for not hazarding themselves to defend their Goddess; but they durst not, for the Christians in that City were too many for them. Now on the other hand, how if Jovian himself was as generous, and as zealous a Christian, as any of them? For tho he had [Page 103] laid down his Commission, and was cashiered for not sacrificing, and obeying the Commandment of the wicked King; yet Julian, in his Expedition for Persia, Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 19. by Necessity of the approaching War, had him amongst his Commanders, as Socrates's Words are. I have been often puzled, to imagine what that Necessity should be, and have sometimes been inclined to think that Julian stood in need of him for his Conduct, to command some part of his Army, who indeed, for his Abilities, was fittest to have commanded in chief. But that cannot be, for the great Jovian was but a Pike-man in that Expedition, [...]. and was not entrusted with any Command, so much as that of a Sergeant, and was no more than a common Foot-Souldier, when he was chosen Emperor. And therefore Julian could not be without him, nor leave him behind him, upon some other account; and whether that were, lest in his absence he should go and live at Caesarea, which was close by Nazianzum, where old Gregory dwelt, or upon what other account, I desire to be informed by our Author.
Thirdly; Jovian's being libelled and abused by none but the Heathens of Antioch, for making a dishonourable Peace [Page 104] with the Persians, which Reproach the Christians always wiped off from him, and justly laid it upon Julian's Rashness, or for his being a Christian, (which is undeniably true, as Baronius has already proved it in Jovian's Life, and as I could further prove, if it were worth the while) does by no means prove, that the Christians of Antioch abused him as well as Julian, and consequently would have abused any Body. Whereas it is evident, both from the Misopogon it self, and from the express Testimony of Theodoret, that the Instances of the Antiochian Christians Hatred to Julian, did proceed purely from the height of their Christianity, and their fervent Love to Christ. It is too much in reason to tell Men a Story, and to find them Ears too; but I will do it for once, as to this Story of Theodoret. The Words were these:Lib. 3. c. 22. ‘That the Antiochians, who had received their Christianity from the greatest Pair of Apostles, Peter and Paul, and had a warm Affection for the Lord and Saviour of all, did always abominate Julian, who ought never to be remembred; you have his own Word for it: For, for this reason he wrote a Book against them, and called them the Beard-haters.’ Now the same Men, that [Page 105] derived their Christianity from the chiefest Apostles, and had a great Love for our Saviour, were the Men that could not endure Julian, and against whom, for that reason, he writ his Misopogon. So that, according to Theodoret, that Book was caused by their Hatred to Julian, and their Hatred to Julian was caused by their Love to Christ, and their Love to Christ proceeded from their pure and primitive Christianity. And let our Author find any new ways of shuffling, to call this Zeal Scurrility, if he can.
And, fourthly, Jovian is so far from proving Julian's Army in Persia to be all Christians, or almost all Christians, (as my divided Answerers say) or Christians at all, that it is demonstrable from his Election, that they were Heathens; for he therefore refused the Empire, because they were Heathens. He refused it at first,Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 22. when he was chosen by the Army, in the absence of the Commanders; and afterwards, when the Commanders had agreed to the Army's Choice, and had set him upon a high Stage, and given him all the Titles of Majesty, calling him Caesar and Augustus; still he refused it, not fearing the Princes nor Souldiers altering their Minds for the worse, but told them plainly, [Page 106] ‘I cannot,Theod. lib. 4. cap. 1. being a Christian as I am, take the Government of such Men, nor be the Emperor over Julian's Army, which is principled in a wicked Religion; for such Men, being left destitute of God's Providence, will become an easy Prey and Sport to our Enemies. The Souldiers having heard these Words, cried out with one Voice: O King, let not that Doubt trouble you, neither do you decline the Government of us, as a wicked Government; for you shall reign over Christians, and Men bred up in the true Religion: For the elder amongst us were bred under Constantine, and the rest under Constantius; and the Reign of this Man, who is now dead, has been short, and not sufficient to establish Heathenism in the Minds of those that have been seduced.’ Now this is a Demonstration, that Julian's Army were profest Heathens: for it is Nonsence to say, that Jovian, who was so well acquainted with the Army, and was all along with it in that Expedition, did not know what Religion the Army profest. Or I would fain know what Danger he was in, for declaring against Heathenism in a Christian Army; that Theodoret should say, ‘This brave Man, using his [Page 107] accustomed Boldness, [...], (that is, says our Author, p. 105. confessing Christ boldly in the midst of his Enemies, in apparent Danger of Torture or Death) not fearing the Princes or Armies Alteration for the worse, said, I cannot, being a Christian, take upon me the Government of such Men.’ It may indeed be demanded, why the Army, knowing his Religion as well as he knew theirs, should nevertheless chuse him for their Emperor? But all the Ecclesiastical Historians furnish us with this ready Answer, That the Army was in miserable Straits and Perplexity, and had been all lost, without a Man of his matchless Courage and Conduct to head them: And then their own Declaration shews, that they were Heathens only upon liking, and had not been long enough to contract an Aversion to that Religion, in which they were bred.
For my part, I never read of any other profest Christians in Julian's Army in Persia, besides Jovian and Valens, (for I can assure our Author, that Valentinian was not there, unless he march'd like an Elephant, with his Castle on his Back, for he was then in Prison for striking the Priest) except we should likewise add him, whom Libanius and Sozomen talk of. [Page 108] But when Jovian had thus resolutely declared himself, the Army likewise declared themselves Christians, and gave him a very good Reason, why he should not distrust their sudden Conversion. They were such Christians, as we have in great plenty at the end of every one of the Primitive Persecutions, who turn'd Heathens to save themselves, and when the Danger was over, immediatly return'd to the Church again. Which was the worse in these Christians, I mean Jovian's Christians, and Julian's Heathens, because,Chronic. An. 365. Blanda Persecutio illiciens magis quàm impellens ad sacrificandum. as St. Jerome observes, ‘Julian's Persecution was a winning Persecution, rather leading, than driving Men to Heathenism.’ However, this is less to be wondred at in an Army, when we have seen the same Unsteadiness and Volubility in Universities, Clergy, and Convocations, who, to the reproach of this Nation, without so much as Julian's Persecution, or Jovian's Declaration, have been Papists or Protestants, as their Princes were inclined; and have made more haste to turn to and fro, than these Souldiers did.
This plain Matter of Fact, which I have therefore set down the more at large, does evidently shew the Falshood of that [Page 109] Assertion, That Julian's Army in Persia was for the most part Christian. It may be my Answerers fell into this Mistake, if it be not wilful, by jumbling together the Beginning and latter End of Julian's Reign. For our Author might easily see, that Gregory mentions the Remnant of more than Seven Thousand, Invect. 1. p. 75. which had not bowed the Knee to Baal, before Julian had made any Edict against the Christians in any kind, so much as to call them Galileans; before he had ensnared them with his Donative, and used many other Arts of corrupting them, or made his Edict of cashiering the Christians. And it is intolerable false Reasoning, to conclude, that the State of Affairs in the end of Julian's Reign, was the same that it was in the beginning: For, as Gregory observes, in the beginning of Julian's Reign, Christianity was the establish'd and prevailing Religion; and therefore for Julian to attempt to alter and disturb it, was no other thing than to shake the Roman Empire,Ibid. p. 80. and to hazard the whole Commonwealth; and that afterwards the Empire was actually filled with Sedition, Confusion, and Fighting, on that account.
But now let us take a view of the Face of Things in the latter end of his [Page 110] Reign, at which time he had set the Jews on work to repair their Temple at Jerusalem; but Fire came out from the Foundation, in such a wonderful violent manner, as killed many of them, and forced them all to desist. ‘These Things did not happen,Chrysost. adversus Judaeos. Orat. 3. says St. Chrysostom, in the Reign of godly Emperors, but at a time when we were in a miserable low Condition; when we all went in danger of our Lives, when the common Freedom of Mankind was taken from us, when Paganism flourish'd; when the Christians either hid themselves in their Houses, or were fled into the Wilderness, and were not to be seen in publick, then these Things happened, that no manner of impudent Pretence might be left the Jews, and that they might not be able to say, that the Christians came upon them, and put a stop to the Work.’ No, alas! they were not in a condition to disturb any Body, if they had had never so much mind to it. Impudence it self cannot say, that the Christians were able to hinder the Jews in this Work. That is the Father's reasoning in this place.
You have seen already, what Strength of Numbers the Christians had, in Julian's [Page 111] Army: And as for what Force of Arms and Ammunition they had out of the Army, appears fully by Julian's Edict, a considerable time before,Julian Ep. ad Bostrens. wherein he charges all the Christian Laity in the Empire, not to be persuaded by their Bishops to take up Stones, and disobey the Magistrate. Truly, a very dangerous Magazine! Can any thing be more plainly said, to shew that the Christians were disarmed, and naked, and defenceless, even to contempt? And that they might well complain, with Gregory, that they had neither Arms nor Ammunition, nor Wall, nor Weapon, In. 2. p. 123. nor any Defence left them, but their Hope in God, as being deprived and retrench'd of all humane Aid: That is, as our Author explains this Passage, p. 178. They had Walls, and Weapons, and humane Aid; and they had them not: Not that they wanted Strength and Numbers, but by the Principles of their suffering Religion they could not use them. Now they never had them to use, contrary to the Principles of their Religion; why then does Gregory say, they had them not left? It seems they once had them, in the same Sence in which they now wanted them. Did ever any Man complain that he wanted Bread, meaning, that he had a Peck-Loaf [Page 112] standing by him, but wanted a Stomach, or inward Principle of eating? If a thousand Transcribers interpret Authors at this rate, I shall beg all their Pardons. As for that indefinite Speech of St. Austin, In Psal. 124. that Christian Souldiers served under Julian, it is very true, if they did so in any part of his Reign, or if to the number of two served under him; and therefore proves nothing in this matter: For Christiani Milites is either Units, or Tens, or Tens of Millions. And when our Author tells me how many they were, and when they served under him, I will give him a further Answer.
The next Thing he touches upon in his Preface, is, That the Roman Empire was not entailed, (he should have said, unless it were entailed by the Law of Nature, or else he uses Eusebius very uncivilly) from whence he concludes, That it was either great Ignorance, or great Deceitfulness in me, to assert it to be Hereditary. I desire to know which of the two it was in Bishop Bilson, who asserted it almost an hundred Years before I did, in these Words: ‘The Roman Empire it self,Christ. Subject. Oxon. 1585. p. 515 from Constantine the Great, and before, till the Time of Otho the Third, [Page 113] that is, seven hundred Years, and upwards, went by Succession, save where the 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 [Page 114] 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, [...], as the Law of the same Empire says. 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, [...]. [Page 115] 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,Vit. Const. lib. 1. that the Throne descended to him from his Father, as a Patrimony. Socrates says,Lib. 1. cap 1. [...]. that he was declared King in his Father's stead, the very Word which is used to describe the Jewish Succession.Pan. 8. Successorem legitimum, neque enim erat dubium, quin ei competeret haereditas quem primum Imperatori filium fata dedissent. 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 [Page 116] 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.
Epist. 13.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.
[...] Themist. p. 277.2. 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 [Page 117] 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,Lib. 22. ad init. 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 [Page 118] 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, Themist. pag. 274. [...]. 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 [Page 119] 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 [Page 120] 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,Primo Mar. Parl. 2. c. 2. 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, —Apud Ambros. Ep. 11. 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 [Page 121] 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, Concio in Obit. Theod. quàm 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,Lib. 1. cap. 4. 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,Dedicat. Histor. that God would transmit Theodosius's Kingdom to his Children's Children. To which Prince, Cyrill, Archbishop of Alexandria, says, ‘The Queen,De rectâ fide ad Theod. glorious [Page 122] 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.
[Page 123]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,Pan. 8. 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 13th of Elizabeth, and half a dozen Acts of Parliament more; or [Page 124] 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, [Page 125] Decius, p. 37. and others in other places of our Author. And yet Julian durst not then own himself a Pagan,Ut (que) omnes, nullo impediente, ad suum favorem alliceret, inhaerere cultui Christiano fingebat, &c. Lib. 21. tho he had been so for ten Years; but, as Ammianus confesses, went to Church a long time after, to curry Favour with the Christians, and to avoid Impediments. It seems he was afraid, even then, that the Christians would put a Spoke in his Cart, and was so apprehensive of meeting with some dangerous Rubs from them, that he slavishly dissembled his Religion.
The next thing in the Preface, worth observing, is, our Author's taking offence at my general way of speaking concerning the Behavior of the Christians under Julian, that I say they, and their, when only particular Persons are mentioned.
I answer; Where I have made a general Inference from the Behaviour of particular Persons, either those Persons were Fathers themselves, who by common Construction are Representatives, and deliver to us the Sence of the Church; or else the Thing which is done by them, is commended and applauded by the Fathers, which is the same thing as if they had done it themselves. But a great part of the Instances which I give, are the [Page 126] general and publick Acts of great Numbers in the Church, a Congregation, a City, or the like; not to mention what was done by the whole Church. And therefore these Instances ought not to be levell'd with those which our Author produces in Queen Mary's Days, of Things which were done but not owned, and which, as we use to say, No-Body did: For our Author might have had the Reward of Twenty Marks, and Thanks, if he could have inform'd who it was that hang'd up the Cat. And as for Wyat's Rebellion, it was upon account of the Spanish Match, and Religion was only pretended, as our Author's own Quotation from Mr. Bradford does acknowledg.
I shall overlook the rest, till I come to his Discourse about the Bill of Exclusion; where, in the first place, we meet with a subtil Defence for the Addressers: For it was not the Popish Successor, as Popish, but the Succession, which they promised to maintain. I like the Distinction very well, only our Author applies it by the halves; for I wonder he does not say, that they made this Promise too, not as Protestants, but as Addressers. But it seems, the Suffolk-Protestants did [Page 127] thus maintain the Succession of Queen Mary. They did so, but the Case was very different; for then there was no possibility of a Bill of Exclusion: Q. Mary, by virtue of an Act of Parliament, was actually Queen; and yet they gave her no assistance, but upon her Promise to maintain the established Protestant Religion: Which Promise was so well and truly performed, that we may well be excused from trusting any Popish Prince, as those poor Men did, who afterwards had the Opportunity of seeing their Error, from the Vantage-Ground of a Pillory, and by the Fire-Light in Smithfield.
As for Archbishop Cranmer's disclaiming and recanting his being concern'd in setting up King Edward's Will against an Act of Parliament; it manifestly makes for me, and shews what authority Cranmer ascribed to an Act of Parliament, which gave Queen Mary all her Title, after he himself had been the greatest Instrument of rendring her Illegitimate, by causing her Mother's Marriage to be declared null and void from the beginning. Tho I might well have taken no notice of it, because our Author is pleased to do the same by Bishop Ridley's Sermon at Paul's-Cross, where he put by the appointed [Page 128] Preacher, only to have an Opportunity of telling the People, what Reason they had to put by Queen Mary. Would that brave Martyr have been against a Bill of Exclusion, who was so zealous for Exclusion without a Bill?
Presently after, we have Objections thick and threefold, against the Bishops Reasons in Q▪ Elizabeth's time, recorded by Sir Sim. D'Ewes. He will not allow the Bishops by any means to be the Authors of them, that so he may take the greater Liberty in vilifying, and speaking his pleasure of them: Just as p. 236. he dissembles his Knowledg of a Book to be my Lord Hollis's, which, to my knowledg, he knew to be his as well as I, only that he might the more safely persist in calling it Impious and Treasonable. And because he appeals to me, whether I think the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish or Presbyterian Piece? I answer; 1. That I do verily believe they did pen that Piece; and further, that there were few others in those Days, who were able to pen so learned a Piece. And, 2. I will join issue with him when he pleases, that it is neither a Popish nor Presbyterian Piece, but worthy of the zealous Prelates of [Page 129] that Age, and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Homilies, to which all the Clergy of England have subscribed; which is more than can be said of Dr. Hickes's Peculium Dei.
First, There is no ground in the World to suspect, but these Arguments were part of the Reasons presented to the Queen in Parliament, because the Title says they were, and it is manifest that they are all in the same strain, and of a piece; and further, Sir Simonds says, that then, which was above fifty Years ago, there were written Copies of them remaining in many hands; at which time it was very easy, if they had been forged, to have discovered it. 2dly; This Paper of Reasons ought not to be called Anonymous; for in the Body of it, the Bishops are named as the Authors of it, whereby the certain Authors of a Book are better known, than by a Title or Inscription. 3dly; There is nothing in those Reasons, but what was fit for Bishops in Parliament to urge; I say, in Parliament, where there was full Authority to have enacted all their Conclusions; but had been very improper to urge to a Judg at an Assizes: which very different Cases I am afraid the Peculium doth not distinguish. In [Page 130] short, those Reasons are foully misrepresented by this Author, and rendred as only fit to proceed from a Scotizing Presbyterian.
Suppose now I should do the same by Jovian, and with more Justice say, it was a Book written by the Priests in Newgate; as not believing that a Book, which manifestly carries on Coleman's Design, and is made up of the very Doctrine of his Declaration for dissolving the Parliament, could come from a Minister of London. This would not be well taken; therefore our Author must pardon me, if it raises my Indignation, to have a Bench of as Reverend Bishops as ever were in the World, treated in the same manner. And I do again renew my Promise, that if he will please to print the Reasons of that Parliament at large, as I desired the Reader to peruse them at large, and add a Confutation of the Bishops Arguments, it shall not want an Answer.
Is it a Popish Piece, because it was for having a Law to put an Idolater to Death? Why then our Homilies are Popish too, for commending the Christian Iconoclast Emperors, who punished Image-worshippers, and Image-maintainers with Death. Or a Presbyterian Piece? Truly that is [Page 131] very notably guessed. What? because it talks of Godly Bishops, where it says, ‘We see not how we can be accounted Godly Bishops, or faithful Subjects, if in common Peril we should not cry and give warning?’ A Scotizing Presbyterian would as soon have talkt of black Swans.
Well, but according to our Author, from excluding the next Heir to the Crown out of the World, there is no Consequence at all to excluding him from the Crown: I thought there had, but this it is not to be skilled in Jewish Learning: For, he says, a rebellious First-born amongst the Jews might be put to Death, but not disinherited. This is the prettiest Argument in the Book, if it were true; but it is like the rest, and notoriously false. For his own Selden, whom he quotes for such a Saying as Pax est bona, in the 24th Chap. of the very same Book, shews him several ways how the First-born, or only Son, or any Son might be disinherited, and defeated of his Succession. I see every Body has not a Petavius to direct him. However, a Man that could but read the English Translation of the Bible, might know that a Jewish Father had power to disinherit, [Page 132] because, Deut. 21.15. that Power is restrained in one particular Case. Grotius upon the place gives the reason of that Restraint; says he, The Father might for just cause transfer the Right of the First-born to a younger Brother; but the Law took away that Liberty from a Man who had two Wives together, where there was danger it might be done upon light and trifling Occasions. And truly the Case of an Hebrew Heir had been very hard, if it had been Neck or nothing; if he might by the Law have been put to Death for that, for which he might not be disinherited. Tho, by the way, the Rabbins say, That Law of putting a Son to Death was never practised, no more than that of Retaliation, an Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth.
He falsely and invidiously says: I challenge the House of Lords, the three Estates of Scotland,But how if the House of Lords did not think the Bill of Exclusion unlawful? &c. to give but one Reason to prove a Bill of Exclusion to be unlawful. I did not look so high, nor think of those great Persons, but of those whom I have often conversed with, and who, according to the Character I there gave of them, have furiously reproached three successive Houses of Commons upon account of that Bill: And I am afraid I shall have [Page 133] occasion to call upon them for their Reasons, even after this Author's performance. I always meant those Men who have misled too many, and too great Persons into a Belief, that a Bill of Exclusion is against both Law and Conscience; that it is such Injustice, as ought not to be done to save the World from perishing: And after they have asserted this, and laid it down for Gospel, are not able to say one wise Word in defence of it; and till they do, I am sure all the World will give me leave to follow them with this reasonable Demand.
I. His first Argument is, That an Act of Exclusion is void, because it tends to the Disherison of the Crown. This is so far from being true, that an Act of Parliament, which should deny the King and Parliament a Power of governing the Succession, would be a proper Act of Disherison of the Crown, because it would destroy one of the greatest Prerogatives of the Crown, and devest the King of such a Power as is part of his Crown, and which alone, in many Cases, can secure the whole to him. According to what Serjeant Manwood affirm'd in Parliament, 13 Eliz. ‘That as for the [Page 134] Authority of Parliament (in determining of the Crown) it could not in reasonable Construction be otherwise;Sir Sim. D'Ewes Journ. p. 165 for whosoever should deny that Authority, did deny the Queen to be Queen, and the Realm to be a Realm.’ The truth of it is, it tears up the very Foundations of our Government: For as Bishop Bilson has exprest it,Christ. Subject. p. 536. The Foundation of all the Laws of our Country is this, That what the Prince, and most Part of her Barons and Burgesses shall confirm, that shall stand for Good. But to come to the Point, this unalterable Norman Entail, whence is it? It was certainly made with hands, tho all the Roman Emperors had not the Art of making one. Now I assert, That the King in his Parliament, when ever he pleases to call one, has all the Power upon Earth, and full as much as ever was upon English Ground; and consequently can govern this Norman Entail, as shall be most for the Preservation of his Majesty's Sacred Person from Popish Plots, and of this Protestant Realm from the Hellish Power of Rome. And to deny this, were to disherit and disable the Crown,Journal, p. 164. and as Mr. Mounson, in the 13th of Eliz. expresses it, were an horrible Saying.
[Page 135]As an Appendix to this first Argument, first, he asks a shrewd Question, If the Acts of Hen. VIII. about Succession were valid, by what Authority was the House of Suffolk excluded, and King James admitted to the Crown, contrary to many Statutes against him? If our Author will shew me but one of those many Statutes whereby King James stood excluded, I will yield him the Cause. In the mean time, I wonder a Man should offer to make Acts of Parliament no more than waste Paper, when he knows nothing of them; and to talk of the House of Suffolk's Exclusion, when it was never included, nor ever had any Title or Pretensions to the Crown; and above all, to be so very absurd, as to quote the Recognition of the High-Court of Parliament, 1 Jac. cap. 1. where King James's Succession is owned for lawful, when at the same time he is invalidating all Acts of Parliament, which limit and determine of the Succession. For as the same Mr. Mounson argues, ‘It were horrible to say, that the Parliament hath not Authority to determine of the Crown; for then would ensue, not only the annihilating of the Statute 35 Hen. 8. but that the Statute made in the first Year of her Majesty's Reign, of [Page 136] Recognition, should be laid void; a Matter containing a greater Consequent than is convenient to be uttered.’ So that if our Author disables Acts of Parliament, which limit and bind the Descent of the Crown, he likewise disables that Act of Recognition. Our Author's Partner, Mr. Long, has urged this Act of Recognition 1 Jacobi, more strongly than any one Argument in his Book besides; for because it was made since the 13th of Elizabeth, he opposeth it to that, and gives it all the Power of a last Will. To which I shall only say thus much, That the very same Recognition, to a tittle, might have been made to King James, tho Mary Queen of Scots had been still living, and had only stood excluded by Act of Parliament: For, as Mr. Long may see by the Act before the Common-Prayer-Book, 14 Carol. 2. the Law can make great Numbers of Men as if they were dead, and naturally dead, before their Time; yea, tho many of them had a Jus divinum to preach, as being Episcopally ordained, and were descended in a right Line from the very Apostles.
2dly; Our Author quotes two Authorities: The one says, A Bill of Exclusion, if it should pass, would change the [Page 137] Essence of the Monarchy, and make the Crown Elective; or, as another ingenious (but I am sure very scurrilous and irreverent) Pen saith, it would tend to make a Football of the Crown, and turn an Hereditary Kingdom into Elective. The same Answer will serve them both, namely, That an Act of disinheriting from the Crown, does own, and proclaim, and prove the Kingdom to be Hereditary. And further, I would be glad to know in what part of the Globe that Elective Kingdom lies, where the very Essence of it is this, that the present Possessor of the Crown shall have Power in declaring or disabling his Successor.
II. His next Argument is from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, wherein a Minister of London especially ought to have used no Sophistry, because Oaths are sacred Things, and ought not by false Glosses and Interpretations to be turn'd into Snares, to entangle the Consciences of those who hereafter shall be desirous to secure the Protestant Religion; and withal, to involve three successive Houses of Commons in the Guilt of Perjury, only for discharging their Consciences to God and their Country. And because our [Page 138] Author, after he has done thus, stands upon his Justification, and calls his Way of Arguing plain and honest, and says, he is not conscious of the least Sophistry in it; I shall endeavour to make his Sophistry stare him in the face. I shewed him before in my Preface, by the most convincing Proof that could be produced, that by the Heirs and Successors mentioned in these Oaths, are meant Kings and Queens of this Realm of England: And if the old Oath of Allegiance at Common-Law, which I there quoted, had not expresly said so; yet Common-Sense would have taught us the very same: For Allegiance sworn to a Subject must needs be Treason. And therefore, as I there argued, it is a Falshood of very dangerous Consequence, to say, that any Person besides his Majesty hath now any Interest in those Oaths, or can lay claim to any part of them. Our Author had done well to have answered that Argument, before he had fallen to new-vamping of old baffled Fallacies, which I shall now examine.
By the Oath of Supremacy, (as he says true) we are sworn, to our Power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Preheminencies, and Authorities, granted or belonging to the Kings Highness, his Heirs [Page 139] and lawful Successors, united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Now one of these Jurisdictions, granted or belonging to the King's Highness, his Heirs and lawful Successors, united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, is this, That the King, with and by the Authority of the Parliament of England, is able to make Laws and Statutes, of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, and Government thereof. And therefore I ask, if they be not the perjured Persons, who by asserting an unalterable Succession, endeavour to destroy this Jurisdiction, Privilege, and Authority, which they are sworn to maintain? But our Author's honest way of arguing, is to have four Terms in a Syllogism. As thus; We are sworn to defend the Rights of Supremacy vested in the King; Ergo, we are bound to defend an unalterable Succession, which is contrary to the Rights of this Supremacy. Again, we are sworn to defend all Privileges belonging to the King's Heirs and Successors, that is, Kings and Queens of England; Ergo, we are sworn to defend all the Privileges belonging to such as are neither Kings nor Queens, but Subjects of [Page 140] England, and if they be excluded, never can be Kings or Queens of England. And therefore to our Author's first Question, I answer: No Subject can possibly have undoubted, transcendent, and essential Rights, Privileges, and Preheminencies, united to the Imperial Crown of England; for if so, then the Imperial Crown of England is united to his Rights; which I would desire our Author to take heed of affirming, for we can have but one Soveraign, as there is but one Sun in the Firmament. To his second Question, I answer; By lawful Successors, is meant Kings and Queens of England, which have not been always next Heirs by Proximity of Blood; witness Henry 7. Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth, who could not be both Heirs in that manner to Edward the 6th. And further, I say, that the Oath of Supremacy only binds us to the King in being, and not to the whole Royal Family, otherwise we should have a great many Soveraigns at once; and it is made in our Author's Phrase, for the Behoof and Interest of the Crown, and not for the Behoof of him who may never be concern'd in it.
In the next place, we have these Words: Some indeed have said, with our [Page 141] Author, that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath, and so could not be understood in a Sence destructive to the Protestant Religion; which is a meer Shift, and proves nothing, because it proves too much. Sir, I think it was much more a Shift, to find out a way to drive on the Popes Interest by an Oath, which does most solemnly renounce him; and under a pretence of unalterable Succession, of which there is not the least shadow in this Oath, but the direct contrary, to abandon this Protestant Kingdom to the Hellish Tyranny of Rome, which we are sworn to oppose, and all Protestants will oppose, even under a Popish Successor, if any such can be in England; and let Dr. Watson prove it, if he can, to be no less than resisting the Ordinance of God. But methinks it had been time enough to offer to prove that, after the Pope's Power had been re-established by a Law, and not to go about it now, when it is Treason to endeavour to reconcile Men to the Church of Rome. Thus much the Oath of Supremacy proves, which is not nothing, nor a Jot too much. And further, it proves, that we are bound, in order to the keeping out the Pope's Power, which we have utterly renounced, humbly to beg [Page 142] of his Majesty to foreclose a Popish Successor, who will infallibly let it in. I am sure, this way of assisting and defending the Jurisdictions and Authorities of the Crown is in our Power, and so is within the compass of our Oath; and therefore we are treacherous to the Crown, and false to our Oath, as well as to God, and to our Religion, if we will not do so much for any of them as this comes to. And I do seriously and earnestly recommend this Consideration to all that have taken the Oath of Supremacy, and especially to the Clergy of England, who have taken it several times over.
As for our Author's saying, That moderate Papists will take the Oath of Supremacy; I shall only say this to it, Let him shew me a Man that has taken this Oath, and prove him to be a Papist, and I will prove him perjured.
Again, he says, As these are Protestant Oaths, they bind us the more emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Ʋsurpation of the Pope, who pretends to a Power of deposing Kings, and of excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession.
Answ. We are bound emphatically to renounce all Power of the Pope, and therefore this among the rest; but we [Page 143] are bound to assert many Instances of that Power to the King, which we deny to the Pope, of which I have proved the Power of excluding a Popish Prince to be one: Which if the Pope himself exercises upon Protestant Princes, where he but pretends to be Supream; he is a Wretch if he complains, or any Body for him, that the like is done by them who really are Supream. This, in short, is your plain and honest Arguing: We are sworn to deny the Pope's usurped Power; Ergo, we are sworn to deny the King's just and lawful Power, which by the same Oath we are bound to maintain.
In the next Paragraph, our Author protests to all the World, that he has sworn Allegiance and Supremacy to Subjects, or to the unalterable Succession, or to I know not what, for he is not very clear. But as for all others, who have taken no such rash and unlawful Oath, they need no Absolution from it; and consequently, there had not been such a World of Popery in the Bill of Exclusion upon that Score. And therefore I desire our Author not to trouble his Head about it; and he may speak to the Great Man, whom he quotes for that notable Observation, to do so too. If he himself has been so forward, as to [Page 144] swear before-hand to a Subject, he has done it in his own Wrong, and he knows how by Repentance to disengage himself from a rash, void, and unlawful Oath; for he ought to have sworn only to our Sovereign Lord the King that now is, and to his Highness Heirs and lawful Successors, Kings or Queens of this Realm of England, and other his Dominions depending on the same.
I never in my Life read any thing of that kind with greater pleasure, than his Conclusion of this second Argument; to see a Man bewildred, and confounded, and lost in his own Sophistry. I took notice in my Preface, of an Abuse in Common Speech, where Men that are only in possibility of being Heirs, are called Heirs, next Heirs, &c. in which absurd and dangerous Sence some weak Men have taken the Heirs and Successors mentioned in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and thereupon were against a Bill of Exclusion. I then proved it, and therefore had the confidence to call it a deceitful Prejudice, and must now add, that it is a very silly Prejudice, because every Bill, Bond, Release, and almost any other Writing, that passes in common Intercourse among [Page 145] Men, wherein Heirs are mentioned, is sufficient to correct it; for where Men are concerned to speak properly, Heirs are always understood to be those who actually inherit. Now as in a Covenant, I promise to pay A. B. and to his Heirs, the yearly Rent of, &c. without promising, one Farthing to his eldest Son, or without being bound that his eldest Son shall be his Heir after his Death, or without being obliged not to express a desire that A. B. would disinherit his eldest Son, if he have given manifest proof that he will utterly ruine the Estate and Family: So it is in these Oaths, with this difference, That it would be only the Absurdity and Inconvenience of paying my Rent twice over, to take Heirs, for possible Heirs, in this lower and more familiar Instance of a Covenant, whereas it would involve us in Treason, to take Heirs in that Sence in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. But this unconscionable Man will have them taken in both Sences in these Oaths. Heirs and Successors, in the very same place, shall signify Subjects, and not Subjects, but Kings and Queens. Heirs shall stand for those that actually inherit, and not for them, but for those that may, and may [Page 146] not inherit, and in case of Exclusion never shall: And lawful Successors shall stand for such as lawfully succeed their Predecessors, and in the self-same place shall stand for unlawful Successors, a sort of Successors before their time.
In one word, Heirs and lawful Successors, in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, must either signify Kings and Queens, (as the Oath of Allegiance at Common-Law expounds it self, which the Lawyers call, Benedicta expositio ex visceribus causae, a blessed Exposition out of the Bowels of the Cause) or else they must signify Subjects; for it is contradictious, and Transubstantiation-Non-sence, to say they signify both. If they signify Kings and Queens, then we are no ways bound to any Person under that degree by those Oaths; and they have been very unfairly as well as mischievously urged against a Bill of Exclusion. If any Man say, they signify Subjects, then this grievous Inconvenience unavoidably follows, That we have promised, from henceforth, that is, from the Time we were sworn, and so onwards, to bear them Faith and true Allegiance; which, I suppose, no Minister of London, nor Minister of State in England, will think fit to affirm.
[Page 147]III. And now comes his third Argument, atttended with a marginal Superfaetation of little sucking Arguments, such as Dei gratiâ, Note: Quere, Whether Dei Gratiâ, written with the very same Letters and Syllables in the Stile of the King of Poland, and of the Duke of Venice, does also prove an hereditary, and, which is much more, an unalterable Succession, in those two Countries? Dieu & Mon droit, &c. all equally concluding against a Bill of Exclusion. The main Argument, for which he quotes Cook upon Littleton, of Tenures, is this: The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion, of which none is the Author, but God alone. The King holds of none but God; He has no superiour Lord, as Cook explains himself in the same place; the Crown is no Norman Fee: Ergo, the King cannot bind and limit the Succession. I thought he could the sooner for that; for what shall hinder him from disposing of his own, for the Welfare, and with the Consent of his Kingdom, who have a greater Interest in their King than our Author is aware of.
From the aforesaid Principle, he gives us to understand that the Wise and the Learned infer this Conclusion, That it would be Ʋsurpation, without a manifest Revelation from God, to preclude any Person [Page 148] of the Royal Family from succeeding to the Crown. The Learned may do much; but I will go upon his Errand an hundred Miles an end, who will shew any other Man how to infer that Conclusion from that Argument. But for all that, they shew themselves neither learned, nor wise, in calling for a manifest Revelation from God for a Bill of Exclusion, because that may occasion others to demand a manifest Revelation for any Papist's Right to succeed in a Protestant Kingdom, where, by the Laws of that Kingdom, if he be reconciled to the Church of Rome, he has not a Right to live: A manifest Revelation to shew, why a *Bp. Bilson, pag. 420. Extreme Folly and Frenzy be just Causes to remove Princes from bearing the Sword. Margin. And in the Text thus: As if the Right Heir to any Crown be a natural Fool; or he that is invested in the Crown, wax mad, and run besides himself: In either of these two Cases, any Realm, by publick Consent and Advice, may chuse another. Natural Fool or Mad-man, who cannot help it, may be put by the Succession, as not fit to govern; but a Papist, who is more dangerous and destructive to a Protestant Kingdom than both of them, and that by his own Fault too, may not be prevented. In a Word, a manifest Revelation to shew, how a publick Enemy, as every Person who is reconciled to the [Page 149] Church of Rome is in the Eye of the Law, can possibly be the Fountain of Justice and Mercy, which is the true Notion of an English King. These things do stand more in need of a manifest Revelation to clear them up, than a Bill of Exclusion does, which is as manifestly lawful, as that the King and Parliament have power to make a just and necessary Law.
Besides, where was the Wisdom of our Author, or his Friends, in demanding a Revelation from God for a necessary Alteration of the Succession, when they themselves cannot pretend to one for the Establishment of it? Since it is an undeniable Maxime, both in Law and Reason, that Things are dissolved, as they be contracted; and an Obligation only by Word of Mouth, needs not Hand and Seal to discharge it. For by these unreasonable Demands, which are contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom, they put Men upon Enquiries nice and unprofitable: As how, and for what cause the Monarchy of England came to be Hereditary? And whether a Popish Prince does not perfectly overthrow that excellent Constitution, and disinherit himself? This is laid down for a known and acknowledged Truth, in the Reasons [Page 150] of the House of Commons, 14 Elizab. against Mary Queen of Scots. Queen Elizabeth was contented to disable the Queen of Scots, Sir Simon D'Ewes, p. 216. as a Person unworthy of any Hope or Title, Preheminence or Dignity within this her Land; and the Law so to run, that if any should enterprise to deliver her out of Prison after her Disablement, either in her Majesty's Life, or after the same, to be convicted immediatly of High-Treason; and her self assenting thereunto, to be likewise adjudged as a Traytor in Law. This the Commons in their large Answer represent both as needless, and as insufficient: ‘Whereas it is said, that it standeth to very good purpose, to proceed only in disabling of the Scotish Queen for any Claim or Title to the Crown; we take it, by your Majesty's favour, that such an especial disabling of the Scotish Queen, is in effect a special Confirmation of a Right that she should have had: Quia privatio praesupponit habitum. And further, we do take it for a known Truth, that by the Laws and Statutes of this Land now in force, she is already disabled; and therefore it is to small purpose, rem actam agere.’
[Page 151]And now I have done with our Author's Arguments, as they are his; for as they are Scotch or Newmarket Positions, I have nothing to say to them. Only it would be worth our Author's Pains, and he may get the Addressing Part of the University to help him, to reconcile this Scotch Act, which makes such a brave shew in his Preface, with the History of Succession in Scotland; lest, while he is so industrious to serve the Interest of a Popish Successor, he be found overthrowing the Titles of all the Kings of Scotland for these three hundred Years, not excepting his present Majesty's Title to that Kingdom, no, nor the Expectations of that very Person to whom he is so much devoted. The History in short is this:
Robert Stuart, the hundredth King of Scotland, and first of the Family of the Stuarts, Genealogy of the Kings of Scotland, in Sir Tho. Murrat's Collect. of Statutes, printed at Edinburgh, 1681. p▪ 230. Appendix to King Alfred's Life, dedicated to the King. had a Concubine named Elizabeth More, the Daughter of Sir Adam More, by whom he had three Sons, and two Daughters; and himself marrying Eufemia, the Daughter of the Earl of Ross, took care to marry Elizabeth More to one Giffard, a Noble-Man in the County of Louthien. By Eufemia he had Issue, Walter and David, Earls of Athol [Page 152] and Strathern, and Eufemia, who was afterwards married to James Duglass, Son to the Earl of that Name. The Queen Eufemia dying,Note: Sanderson's Life of King Charles, p. 230, 231, &c. concerning the Descent of the Earl of Strathern. and Giffard, the Husband of Elizabeth More, dying much about the same time,Note: Rerum Scoticar. lib. 9. fol. 96, 97. the King marries Elizabeth More, his former Concubine, and presently ennobles the Sons which he had by her,Note: Nec hâc munisicentiâ contentus, Comitiis ad Sconam indictis obtinuit, ut praeteritis Eufemiae liberis, in Rege creando gradus aetatis observarentur. Holinshed's Hist. of Scotland, p. 245. creating John Earl of Carrike, Robert Earl of Menteith, and Alexander Earl of Bucquhane. Nor was he content with doing so much for them, but he also obtained from a Parliament at Scone, that (the Children which he had by Eufemia being past by) these should come to the Crown in their Course.
No Man will offer to say, that the Children of Elizabeth More were made inheritable by that After-Marriage: for, besides the apparent Insufficiency of it for that purpose, what need was there then of obtaining an Act of Parliament to make them so, and to set by the Children of Eufemia? Now, if no Law, or [Page 153] Act of Parliament, made, or to be made, can alter or divert the Right of Succession, according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood; what then becomes of the Scone Act? But if an Act made at Scone, can set aside three Persons at once, with all their numerous Descendents, for no Fault nor Forfeiture at all; why might not an Act made at Westminster, have done as much for one single Person alone, especially when that Westminster Act would have been in some respects as favourable as an Act of Grace? If our Author can tell why, he shall be a greater Oracle to me than the great Apollo.
There is nothing betwixt this, and the End of the Preface, worth answering, which has not already been answered, unless it be that Passage where he withdraws his general Approbation of what I had written against Popery, as rashly given, because I seem to deny that the Church of Rome is a true Church of Christ. I desire our Author to make but one Business of it, and at the same time to withdraw his hearty Subscription to the Homilies, which do more than [Page 154] seem to deny it, especially in the second part of the Homily for Whit-Sunday; for that whole Sermon is spent in shewing, first, what the true Church of Christ is, and then in conferring the Church of Rome therewith, to discern how well they agree together; and, lastly, in concluding, that because the Church of Rome is not the true Church of Christ; and the Bishops of Rome, and their Adherents, are not in the Church, therefore they have not the Holy-Ghost, tho they have for a long time made a sore Challenge thereunto; but by their Practices make it plain to all the World, that they have the Spirit of the Devil. It affirms, and, which is more, proves, That the Church of Rome is not a true Church, nor has been these nine hundred Years, and odd. So that our Author must go a great way back to seek his true Church of England, in his true Church of Rome.
I wonder in my Heart what those Gentlemen mean, who pretend to be the only Sons of the Church of England, and yet make nothing of blowing up whole Homilies at once, and are continually disgracing all the Protestant Principles [Page 155] of our glorious Reformers with one odious Name or other; and above all, are so very desirous to have it believed, that the pretended Church of Rome, but real Synagogue of Satan, is a true Church of Christ; which they are no more able to make out, than to prove the Devil to be a true Angel of Light. For instead of being a Catholick Church, it is a plain Catholick Apostacy, as the Protestation of Archbishop Ʋsher, Sanderson's Life of K. Charles, p. 66. and the rest of the Irish Bishops, Novemb. 1626. does justly term it.
AN ANSWER TO THE BOOK.
HAving now done with the Preface, before I return an Answer to any part of the Book, I shall set down the Substance of it, whereby the Reader will be enabled to judg what parts of it do require an Answer. The Design of my Book was to shew, that the Primitive Christians would have been for a Bill of Exclusion; which I proved, by shewing how much they were against a Pagan Successor, both by their hearty Wishes he had been fore-closed, [Page 157] and by their Uneasiness under him, when he was Emperor.
Our Author answers the former of these Proofs, by endeavouring to shew that the Empire was not Hereditary, which I have already considered in the Preface. And as for the other Proof, which was the Behaviour of the Christians toward Julian, when he was Emperor, it is all Matter of Fact; and therefore, tho our Author wrangles, and raises many Cavils about it, some of which I shall examine anon, yet he cannot disprove one Syllable of it. Now this Argument concludes à fortiori thus: Would not the Christians have petitioned at least for Julian's Exclusion, when he was a Subject, seeing they spent so many Prayers and Tears for his Destruction, when he was Emperor? Would that whole Church, which leaped for Joy, and triumphed at his untimely and violent Death, have scrupled his Exclusion? Would they have thought Julian wronged, in being barred from succeeding to the Empire, who thought themselves wronged and injured, in that Constantius did not kill him, instead of making him Caesar? Misopog. p. 89. Which Julian himself represents as the Sence of the City of Antioch.
[Page 158]The Behaviour of the Christians was so very rough towards Julian, that I could not ascribe it wholly to his being a Pagan, but shewed, that his Illegal Oppression and Tyranny was also the cause why they pursued him with so much Hatred. The Substance of our Author's Answer to this is, That Julian could not oppress them illegally, if he would, because it was his Royal Pleasure to have the Christians suffer after this manner; and his Will, according to Gregory, Pag. 90, 91. was an unwritten Law, and much stronger than the written ones, which were not back'd with Power and Authority. Yes, that is Gregory's Complaint, and the very illegal Oppression against which he exclaims, That when the Christians were under the Protection of the Publick Laws and Edicts, yet they were destroyed by dumb Signs, and private Hints, and oftentimes upon a meer presumption of the Emperor's Pleasure. And whoever will please to read Jacob. Gothofredus his Ʋlpianus, sive de Principe legibus soluto, will see how much our Author has perverted and misapplied all the Shreds of Civil Law, which he hath made use of upon this occasion. In short, our Author grants, that the Christians were highly provoked against Julian; but then he [Page 159] says, p. 182. The main Ground of their Displeasure against him was this, That he would not formally persecute them, nor put them to Death enough. As for the word, Formally, we find that explained, p. 133. He put them not to Death formally, as Christians, but accused and condemned them for other Crimes. Now this is one Instance which I gave of his illegal Oppression and Tyranny, that being it did not stand with his Conveniences, to enact Sanguinary Laws against Christianity, he found out ways of putting the Christians to Death, upon false and pretended Crimes of Sacrilege and Treason: So that tho they died meerly for their Religion, yet they had not the Honour of dying for it, but suffered under the Character of the greatest Malefactors, and both they and their Reputation were murdered at once. This indeed was a just Cause of their Displeasure against Julian; but I cannot say, with our Author, that they were displeased at him, because he did not put them to Death enough; for I thought he had given them their Belly-full of that. Does Gregory call him Dragon, Murtherer, common Cut-Throat, [...] Schol. [...]. or as the Scholiast renders it, bloody Devil, for this, because he did not put them to Death enough? [Page 160] Were there no Halters nor Precipices in the Roman Empire, but must Heaven and Earth be moved against Julian for this, because he would not put them to Death enough? I can only say, 'Tis very much!
This Discourse about Julian's illegal Oppression of the Christians, and their Behaviour thereupon towards him, led me to speak of the Duty of Passive Obedience, or suffering for our Religion, which I asserted to be our Duty only then, when the Laws are against our Religion; and shewed, that Christianity does not oblige us to submit to illegal Violence, but to defend our selves against it. I found a Necessity for the true stating of this Duty, because the Doctrine of Passive Obedience has been so handled of late, as to tempt Oppression and Tyranny into the World, by pressing it upon Mens Consciences as a necessary Duty, that they ought to submit to the most Arbitrary Oppression, and illegal destructive Violence. I shewed, that by this Doctrine, in the Case of a Popish Successor, (which is no impossible Case, witness the Expedient at Oxford) we should be ready bound hand and foot, to invite the Popish Knife; it would expose a [Page 161] whole Protestant People and Nation at once, and give them but one Neck, which a Popish Successor, by the Principles of his Religion, is bound to cut off. In defence of this Doctrine our Author spends the Remainder of his Book; to which, as being a matter of the greatest Consequence, I shall immediately apply my self, and consider the Arguments which he has brought for it.
That I may avoid all Obscurity in an Argument of this weight and importance, wherein the Lives of all English Protestants, and their Posterity, are concerned, I shall,
1. Shew how far this Author and I are perfectly agreed.
2. State the Difference betwixt us.
We are both agreed,
1. That the King's Person is Sacred and inviolable by Law.
2. That inferior Magistrates, acting by the King's Authority according to Law, may not be resisted.
And therefore neither the King's Person, nor his Authority, are any ways included in this Controversy.
[Page 162]But in the second place, it is somewhat more difficult to state the Difference betwixt us; for never was there such a Proteus of Passive Doctrine as this is. Nevertheless, by tracing him carefully quite through this Argument, I find his Sence to be this: That by the Imperial Laws, or Laws of the Prerogative, in case the Forces of a Popish and Tyrannical Prince do outrage and murther 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 [Page 163] 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, [Page 164] 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, [Page 165] 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,Lib. 1. cap. 8. 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, Leges Edovardi Regis, quas confirmavit Gulielmus Bastardus. De Regis Officio, cap. 17. 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,P. 201, 202. or the Rights of the Soveraign, which is full of Equivocation and Fallacy; witness the last particular of it, where he attributes [Page 166] 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 Ʋniversale & 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, Answ. to 19 Prop. p. 96. 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 ha [...]h so moulded this out of a mixture of th [...]se, as to give to this Kingdom [Page 167] (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,Ibid. p. 97. 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 [Page 168] likewise the Prerogatives of the King, which are built upon the same Law of the Land, K. Charles's Message from Nottingham, Aug. 25. 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, Works, pag. 41. 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.
[Page 169]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 [Page 170] 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.
De laudibus Leg. cap. 9. 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 [Page 171] 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 [Page 172] 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 [Page 173] 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 3d 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 [Page 174] when the Power Royal is restrained by a Politick Law. Rejoyce therefore, most worthy Prince, and be glad, that the Law of the Realm wherein you are to succeed, is such; for it shall exhibit and minister to you, and your People, no small Security and Comfort. With such Laws, as saith St. Thomas, should all Mankind have been governed, if in Paradise they had not transgressed God's Commandment: With such Laws also was the Synagogue ruled, while it was under God only as King, who adopted the same to him for a peculiar Kingdom; but at the last, when at their request they had a Man-King set over them, they were then, under Royal Laws only, brought very low.’
‘Chap. 10. Then the Prince thus said; How cometh it to pass, good Chancellor, that one King may govern his People by Power Royal only, and that another King can have no such Power? Seeing both these Kings are in Dignity equal, I cannot chuse but much muse and marvel, why in Power they should thus differ.’ Of which Difference in Authority over their Subjects, the Chancellor in the next Chapter promises to shew the Reason, which is grounded upon [Page 175] the different Originals of those Kingdoms. And accordingly, chap. 12. he shews, that an Absolute Monarchy is founded in the forced Consent of a subdued and inslaved People; and, chap. 13. That a Kingdom of Politick Governance is founded in the voluntary Consent of the Community. And after he has illustrated the first Institution of a Politick Kingdom, by shewing how it resembles the Formation of a natural Body, he thus proceeds in the 13th Chapter.
‘Now you understand, most noble Prince, the Form of Institution of a Kingdom Politick, whereby you may measure the Power, which the King thereof may exercise over the Law and Subjects of the same. For such a King is made and ordained for the Defence of the Law of his Subjects, and of their Bodies and Goods, whereunto he receiveth Power of his People, so that he cannot govern his People by any other Power. Wherefore to satisfy your Request, in that you desire to be certified, how it cometh to pass that in the Power of Kings there is so great diversity: Surely in mine Opinion, the diversity of the Institutions, or first Ordinances of those Dignities, which I have now declared, [Page 176] is the only Cause of this foresaid Difference, as of the Premises by the Discourse of Reason you may easily gather. For thus the Kingdom of England, out of Brute's Comitiva. Retinue of the Trojans, which he brought out of the Coasts of Italy and Greece, first grew to a Politick and Regal Dominion. Thus also Scotland, which sometime was subject to England, as a Dukedom thereof, was advanced to a Politick and Royal Kingdom. Many other Kingdoms also had thus their first beginning, not only of Regal, but also of Politick Government. Wherefore Diodorus Siculus, in his second Book of ancient History, thus writeth of the Egyptians: The Egyptian Kings lived at first, not after the licentious manner of other Rulers, whose Will and Pleasure is instead of Law; but as it had been private Persons, they were bound by the Law; neither did they think much at it, being persuaded, that by obeying the Laws they should be happy: For by such Rulers, as followed their own Lusts, they thought many Things were done, whereby they should incur divers Harms and Perils. And in his fourth Book, thus he writeth: The Ethiopian King, [Page 177] as soon as he is created, he ordereth his Life according to the Laws, and doth all things after the Manner and Custom of his Country, assigning neither Reward nor Punishment to any Man, other than the Law made by his Predecessors appointeth. He reporteth much the same of the King of Saba, in Arabia Faelix; and of certain other Kings, which in old Time reigned happily.’
‘Chap. 14. To whom the Prince thus answered: You have, good Chancellor, with the clear Light of your Declaration, dispelled the Clouds wherewith my Mind was darkned; so that I do most evidently see, that no Nation did ever of their own voluntary Mind incorporate themselves into a Kingdom, for any other Intent, but only to the end that they might enjoy their Lives and Fortunes (which they were afraid of losing) with greater Security than before. And of this Intent should such a Nation be utterly defrauded, if then their King might spoil them of their Goods, which before was lawful for no Man to do. And yet should such a People be much more injured, if they should afterwards be governed [Page 178] by foreign and strange Laws, yea, and such as they peradventure deadly hated and abhorred. And most of all, if by those Laws their Substance should be diminished, for the Safeguard whereof, as also for the Security of their Persons, they of their own accord submitted themselves to the Governance of a King. No such Power for certain could proceed from the People themselves; and yet, unless it had been from the People themselves, such a King could have had no Power at all over them. Now on the other side, I perceive it to stand much otherwise with a Kingdom, which is incorporate by the King's sole Power and Authority, because such a Nation is subject to him upon no other Terms, but that this Nation, which was made his Kingdom by his Will and Pleasure, should obey and be governed by his Laws, which are nothing else but the same Will and Pleasure. Neither have I yet, good Chancellor, forgotten that, which in your Treatise of the Nature of the Law of Nature, you have learnedly proved, that the Power of these two Kings is equal; while the Power of the one, whereby he is at liberty to [Page 179] deal wrongfully, is not by such Liberty augmented; as to have Power to decay and die, is not Power, but because of the Privations which are added to it, is rather to be called Impotency, and Want of Power, because, as Boetius saith, Power is not but to Good. So that to be able to do Evil, (which the King who rules Regally is more at liberty to do, than the King that has a Politick Dominion over his People) is rather a Diminution than an Increase of his Power: For the Holy Spirits, which are now established in Glory, and cannot sin, do in Power far excell and pass us, who have a delight and pleasure to run headlong into all kind of Wickedness.’
It is plain to any attentive Reader,Regnorum amborum, fol. 30 a. Reges ambo, fol. 28. a. Horum duorum Regum, fol. 35. a. that throughout this long Discourse, Fortescue speaks but of two sorts of Kingdoms, an absolute Monarchy, and a limited Monarchy; the latter of which he sometimes calls a Politick Government, and sometimes he calls the very same Regal and Politick, to distinguish it more expresly from an Aristocracy or Democracy.
But I will prove this beyond contradiction, by some other Passages in Fortescue, [Page 180] where he tells us, that some of the former Kings of England would fain have changed the Laws of England for the Civil Law,Cap. 33. fol. 78. a. and did all they could to shake off this Politick Yoke of the Law of England, that they also might rule, or rather rage over their Subjects in Regal wise only;Cap. 37. f. 88. a. and for this end, endeavoured with might and main to cast away their Politick Government. This is what our Author would have, and 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, Cap. 35. f 83. a. Cap. 36. f. 86. a. 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 [Page 181] 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 [Page 180] [...] [Page 181] [...] [Page 182] be produced, that his Assertion of an absolute unbounded Power in the King,Quod Lex attribuit ei, videlicet dominationem & potestatem. Lib 1. cap. 8. 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, Works, p. 131. 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;Declarat. to the Ministers and Freeholders of the County of York. 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, [Page 183] 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;Pag. 110. 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 [Page 184] in these Words:Pag. 111. ‘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 [Page 185] 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 [Page 186] did. I am ashamed to see Rolls of Parliament quoted for such poor Trifles; for it is plain,K. Edward's Laws, cap. 17. de Officio Regis, confirmed by the Conqueror, and sworn to by all succeeding Kings. 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 was limited and restrained by Law, and Rules of Right, as is largely set down in the Mirrour,Testam Alfredi. Et m [...] cum tota nobilitas West-Saxonicae gentis pro re to jure consentiunt quod me oportet dimittere eos ita liberos sicut in homine cogitatio ipsius consisti [...]. p. 8. Es [...]ierent de eux un Roy a reigner sur eux, & governer le People d'Dieu, & a maintainer & defendre les persons & les biens en quiet per les Rules d'droit; & al comencement ilz fieront le Roy jurer que il mainteindroit la sanct foy Christian ove tout son poyar, & sa people guideroit per droit, sans regard a ascun person, & serroit abbeissant a suffre droit come autres de son people. And, p. 9. in case the King did Wrong to any of his People, that he might not be Judg and Party too, Convient per droit que le Roy ust Compaignions pur Oyer & Terminer aux Parliaments trestouts les breves & plaints de torts de le Roy, de la Roigne, & de lour Infans, & de eux especialment de que torts leu ne poit aver autrement Common droit. And for this [Page 187] purpose, as well as to make Laws for the good Government of the People, it was ordained in King Alfred's time, for a perpetual Usage, that a Parliament should meet twice a Year at London, and oftner, if need were, as you have it, p. 10. And you have a great many particular Laws, which were made in those Parliaments, p. 15. Amongst other things it was ordained, that all Plaintiffs should have Writs of Remedy in the King's Court: Aussi bien sur le Roy ou sur la Roigne, come sur autre del people, d' chestun injury, fors (que) en vengeances d' vie & d' membre, ou pleint tient lieu sans brief. And in the last place, to avoid prolixity, this Book, speaking of the Abusions of the Common Law, that is, Practices which are Frauds to the Law, and repugnant to Right, pag. 282. hath these Words: La primier & la soveraigne abusion est que le Roy est oustre la ley, ou il duist Vid. Leg. Estre. ceste subject; sicome est contenus in son serement.
2 Abusion est que ou les Parlaments se duissent faire pur le salvation des Almes de Trespassors, & ceo a Londres & deux foits per An, la ne se font ils ore fors (que) rarement, & a la volunt le Roy pur aides & cuilets de tresore, &c. Vide Abusion 153, p. 308.
[Page 188]I hope this pure old French, of which Chancellor Fortescue says the modern is but a Corruption, will inform our Author what Power a Saxon King had, and what Basileus, Imperator & Dominus signified.
I come now to the next Head, to examine some Preambles of Statutes, which he either quotes to no purpose, or else mangles them, in the same manner as Scripture was once quoted to our Saviour, and for the self-same end, namely, to teach Men to tempt God and Danger at once.
His first Collection of Preambles, pag. 212, 213, consists of Declarations, that the Crown and Realm of England is not in subjection to the Pope: which make nothing at all to our Author's purpose, but very much against it, if he did not stifle them with Et caetera's, and long Strokes; for the Truth of which I refer the Reader to those Statutes, and shall only set down 25 H. 8. cap. 21. for I am not at leisure either to transcribe the Statute-Book, or to winnow all our Author's Chaffe.
He says, pag. 212. The Parliament directing their Declaration to the King, enacted [Page 189] and declared, ‘That this your Graces Realm, recognizing no Superiour under God, but only your Grace, hath been, and is free from Subjection, &c.’ Now the following Words are these: ‘To any Man's Laws, but such as have been devised, made and ordained within this Realm, for the Wealth of the same, or to such other, as by Sufferance of your Grace, and your Progenitors, the People of this your Realm have taken at their free Liberty, by their own Consent, to be used amongst them, and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to the Observance of the same; not as to the Observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince, Potentate, or Prelate, but as to the Custom and ancient Laws of this Realm, originally establish'd as Laws of the same, by the said Sufferance, Consents, and Custom, and none otherwise. It standeth therefore with natural Equity and good Reason, that all and every such Laws Humane, made within this Realm, or induced into this Realm, by the said Sufferance, Consents and Custom, your Royal Majesty, and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, representing the whole State of your Realm in this [Page 190] your most High Court of Parliament, have full Power and Authority, not only to dispence, but also to authorize some elect Person or Persons to dispence with those, and all other Humane Laws of this your Realm, and with every one of them, as the quality of the Persons or Matter shall require; and also the said Laws, and every of them, to abrogate, adnull, amplify, or diminish.’
Now our Author, it is possible, may find out of these Words an unalterable humane Law of Succession, or that the King has the whole Legislative Power, or that there are Imperial Laws ordained within this Realm, which are not for the Wealth of the same, but may destroy the Political Laws at every turn: And so may any Body else make the same Discoveries, who is resolved before-hand to do it.
His other Collection is, p. 218, 219. not one of which concerns the present Question, no, not that wherein he triumphs, and slavishly braggs, That the very Doctrine of the Bow-string is declared by Act of Parliament. 'Twere better the Doctrine of the Bowstring were about his Neck, tho his Name were Legion. I see that if the whole Nation were [Page 191] enslaved, we have some of the Brood of Cham amongst us, who would rejoice at it, and make themselves as merry with it, as Nero was at the Flames of Rome, and would dance after his Harp. But such impotent Malice, and poor-spirited Insolence, is below an English-Man's Indignation, and therefore I shall calmly desire our Author to look over again that Declaration, 13 Car. 2. cap. 6. and to tell me, in which Clause, Word, or Syllable of it he finds the Doctrine of the Bow-string declared. For my part, I have read it very often over, and cannot see any more in it than this, That it is unlawful for both, or either of the Houses of Parliament, to raise or levy any War offensive or defensive against the King; which was always Treason for any Subjects to do. But was ever a legal Defence against unauthorized illegal Violence of Subjects, called by the Name of levying War against the King? Shew me That in any authentick Book of Common-Law, in any Statute, or in any Resolution of all the Judges in England, and I will be as passive as any Man.
Before I go any further, I must not forget a Passage which does more nearly concern me, p. 221, 222. wherein I am [Page 192] taxed 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, [Page 193] 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.
[Page 194]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:Chap. 37. ‘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,Toties emptae & redemptae libertates. 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, [Page 195] all and all manner of Treasons, Misprisions of Treason, Murthers, Felonies,12 Car. 2. cap. 11. 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 24th 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 [Page 196] 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,Judg Jenkins Works, p. 134. 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 [Page 197] 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 12th 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 [Page 198] and Providence, which we always forfeit, unless we take care of our selves; and the Security of a Popish Prince's Conscience, against which we desire Counter-Security; and the Security of a Popish Prince's Honour, which is to be Sainted for extirpating the pestilent Northern Heresy, and for driving all Protestants and their Religion out of the World; and the Security of the Political Laws, which he has proved to be Bankrupt, and not half so good Security as a Broom-staff. In the last place, to our unspeakable Comfort, he tells us that the Imperial Laws cannot be put in Execution: For in such a violent Ʋndertaking, all good Men would withdraw from the Service of the King, and the Bad durst not serve him. So that according to our Author, a Popish Prince will be left to do his Work all alone; for no Popish Cut-Throats, no Irish Ruffians, no Forces can be had, for Love or Money.
Now People may take this Security which our Author offers them, if they please; they may have their Throats cut with a Feather, if they have a mind to it: But for my part, I must acknowledg my own Infirmity, I cannot swallow such gross Shams, I cannot believe incredible [Page 199] Things, upon any Man's Authority whatsoever, not tho he deliver them with all the seeming Gravity and Seriousness, as if he were saving a Soul.
To our Author's Conclusion in praise of a Martyrdom, I have only this to say, That there is a Time for all Things; and God be thanked, that that Discourse is very impertinent. As it would have concern'd us, so it would have edified us more, if Magna Charta, and all the Laws which establish the Protestant Religion, had been repealed; but for all that, I hope they will stand, when he, and his Invention of Imperial Laws are forgotten. The Discourse is a good Discourse, but methinks it would have look'd more in earnest, if it had been dated, as the last Page of it was, E Carcere: for, considering all Circumstances, I am no otherwise affected with it, than I was with the precious Passive Doctrine, and the good Protestant Religion of our good Church, in Coleman's Declaration for dissolving the Parliament. If by the Providence of God, in some such Calamity as a casual Fire, I fall into Poverty, and a Fellow-Sufferer with me bids me possess my Soul in Patience, and comforts [Page 200] me with Considerations proper for such a Condition, telling me, that our Blessed Saviour himself had not where to lay his Head; and that the Apostles, of whom the World was not worthy, nevertheless had no certain Dwelling-Place in it, and yet were contented in that low Condition; I shall look upon him as an Angel from Heaven. But if a Company of us be travelling near Shooters-Hill, with all that we have in the World, and the whole Subsistence of our selves and Families, about us; and a Gentleman well mounted and accoutred, shall come and preach up to us the Advantages of Poverty at a strange rate, telling us likewise, that by our Saviour's Precept, and the Apostles Example, we ought not to carry Money in our Scrips; and that in case we be set upon, to be rifled of all we have, we are by no means to defend our selves, but, like the Primitive Christians, whom the Apostle commends, to take joyfully the spoiling of our Goods: I believe this kind of Discourse would look very suspiciously to all of us, and (God forgive me for it if I wronged him) I should hardly take him for a True-man, but for the Confederate of some mischievous Gang hard by, who, as a famous [Page 201] Captain of them heretofore used to say, would ease us of our Ʋnchristian Incumbrance, and send us lighter to Heaven. And I should think not one Jot the better of him, but much the worse, for his abounding with Scripture, and applying it in that manner.
Having in the beginning of this Discourse made mention of our Author's Cavils, which he has raised against Matter of Fact, I shall here give the Reader a Taste of them. Our Author may call them my whole Store, as he speaks, p. 109. with which Passage I shall begin; and in Answer to a Heap of Falsifications, I shall tell him the very Words of Juventinus and Maximus, to which I referr'd, and which they spoke publickly, and for which they were accused, and which Theodoret calls admirable Expressions: For thou hast delivered us, said they, to an unrighteous Emperor, such an Apostate as is not again upon the Face of the Earth, cap. 14. but three or four Lines before what he himself quotes out of the same Chapter, to sham us; which too much discovers the Man. As for the Souldiers, who were trepann'd into Sacrificing, of whom I said, that they did not spare Julian in [Page 202] the least, of whom our Author discourses, p. 111, &c. Theodoret says this concerning them, They went to Court with their Outcries, exclaiming against the Juggles and Fallacies of the Tyrant, insomuch, as the Historian adds, that they made Julian mad.
But because these Souldiers did not form themselves into a Posture of Defence against such a lawless Tyrant as Julian, our Author threatens, p. 114. that they, together with Juventinus and Maximus, shall be the Thundring Legion for the time to come; and the musty Thebaean Legion, as he calls it, shall be laid aside, and give place to this. Now suppose these Souldiers had been a Legion compleat, into what Posture of Resistance could they have formed themselves, to have beaten eleven Legions? for a Roman Army consisted of twelve. But this terrible Legion wherewith we are menaced, which, because it did not confound Julian, must ruine us, consists of a dozen or fourteen Men at the most, (for they all rose up from one Table) and together with Juventinus and Maximus, are sixteen Men effective; so that we have just 6650 Faggots. For Fallacies, and for false Musters, I never yet knew our Author's Match.
[Page 203]It would be tedious to shew, how he shuffles with the Stories of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, the Nobleman of Berea, and Publia, which cannot be parallel'd in any other Age, (for Julian's Reign, tho very short, and yet much too long, did happen in a certain Age of the World). The first of these made a hard shift to go to Court, on purpose to tell Julian his own very publickly, whither, I am well assured, some other Men would have gone crouching with their baise Mains. The other, besides disinheriting his Son for turning to the Emperor's Religion, told the Emperor to his Face, that his Son was a Villain, and hated of God for it, and had embraced a Lie instead of the true Religion. So that Julian might well complain to his dearest Brother Libanius, of his ill Usage at Beraea, which cut him to the Heart,Julian. Ep. 27. [...] as you may see in his Letter to Libanius; where he says, that he had some Talk with the Senate about Religion, but to no purpose, for they behaved themselves impudently towards him; and wonders, by the Gods, that some Men should be ashamed of Vertue, and others again should pride themselves in Sacrilege and Sottishness.
[Page 204]And then as for Publia's counting Julian fit to be despised and derided, and picking out proper Psalms for him, and watching for Opportunities of bestowing her Blessings upon him, it cannot be match'd by all Antiquity. For I do not wonder, that in the midst of Agonies, or upon the sight of a Martyr's being put to death, the Zeal of some former Christians did break forth into such like Expressions: But all these that I speak of, were in cold Blood; and Julian was so far from provoking them, that they were fain to whet their own Zeal themselves.
According to our Author, p. 127. the Psalms of the Antiochians, at which Julian was so enraged as he never was in his Life, and could not contain himself, did only wish Julian what they themselves counted the greatest Happiness in the World, namely his Conversion to Christianity, and that to be wrought by no harsher Penance than a Deboist, which every Fresh-man at Cambridg has often undergone, upon much smaller Accounts, and which, the Learned say, comes from our Author's Hebrew Word, [...]. But I must crave leave to inform our Author, that the Word confounded, (and so the [Page 205] Word ashamed) in David, signifies much more than being put to the Blush; for it implies some very great Evil, some astonishing Calamity, and terrible Rebuke. And therefore these Words are frequently put together, Let them be confounded and perish. Psal. 71.11. Confusion is opposed to Deliverance and Safety; and, Psal. 53.6. which is the mildest Acceptation of the Word, Thou hast put them to Confusion, is as much as, Thou hast broken their Bones. But it may be our Author, when he says the last Verse of Te Deum, which is taken from the first Verse of the 25 or 71 Psalm, O Lord, in thee have I trusted, let me never be confounded; prays only that he may never blush: which I am apt to think, or else we had had none of this Stuff.
Again, p. 139. the joint and publick Prayers, the Common-Prayer of a whole City, in their Cathedral Church, for Julian's Destruction, must not be called their Prayers. That's hard! when old Gregory himself, being a Bishop, might write We, and yet [...], and Words of Multitude must not be called They. Further, if the Practice of the purest Church in that Age, a Church that was called the New Jerusalem, Orat. 19. p. 297. and Noah's [Page 206] Ark in those Days, and which Nazianzen says, was like Bethlehem, the Metropolis of all the World, must not pass for the Practice of the Church; then there is no such thing in Antiquity as the Practice of the Church, and it is in vain to talk of it.
In the same Page, our Author put me in great hopes, that he would shew me a Prayer for Julian's Conversion, by saying that he could produce one Example, and by upbraiding my wilful Blindness in missing such a Barn-Door, when I was so near it; but I was grievously disappointed, when I found that this Example was Sozomen's Account of Dydimus his Prayer and Fasting: For there is not one Word or Syllable in Sozomen, of Julian's Conversion or Repentance; neither do I know by what Authority he forges and foists Words into Authors at his pleasure. But on the other hand, the miraculous Answer of Dydimus's Prayer is a strong Proof that he prayed for Julian's Destruction: For it was at that time, in a very wonderful manner revealed to him, that Julian was that day killed, and he was bid to tell the News to Athanasius the Bishop, who, I suppose, was another that contributed to Julian's Destruction, as well as the two Gregories, and the [Page 207] Church of Nazianzum; and as the Historian adds, immediatly upon this he fell to eating, as if his Fasting had now attained its End. And further, the whole Design of that Chapter in Sozomen is to shew,Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 2. that Julian's Death and Destruction was from God, because he laid waste his Churches. Upon which account the Prophets and Apostles entred into a Consultation against him, as you have it in the first Vision of that Chapter; and two of their Number going out in all haste, as it should seem, to dispatch him, returned the next Night to the Assembly, with an Account of his Death. And I had not Room in a little Book for all those Stories, or else the Reader should have had them.
As for Valentinian, our Author says, p. 116. That if he had shaked the Holy Water off his Cloaths, it had been all one, and he had thereby owned his Religion, as well as by striking the Priest. Now Valentinian the Confessor not only shook the Holy-Water off but tore off that part of his Cloaths upon which the Holy-Water fell, and said he was polluted by it: And yet that did not serve his Turn, but he struck the Priest too before Julian's Face, which Julian resented as a high Contempt, and [Page 208] punished him thereafter. And it lies upon our Author to prove, that ever Valentinian excused himself, and begg'd the Emperor's Pardon.
The next thing, in the same Page, is the Instance which I gave of old Gregory's Behaviour, against which our Author raises such a Multitude of little Exceptions, as will not all of them amount to one real Objection. However, in Answer to them I say, that He, the Person in Controversy, is Julian: For besides that Elias Cretensis renders [...], Impius ille, and there is no Construction in Words, if it be understood of any other Person, as every School-boy knows; there is likewise a Transubstantiation-Solaecism in our Author's way of rendring it: For then the Captain (being included in [...], [...].) must lead himself, and march at the Head of himself; which, tho it goes down in the Mass for Mystery, will never pass in an Author for Sence. Again, [...] is falsely rendred, with the Emperor's Orders, for it signifies, with peremptory Commands, Jussis, or in an Imperious way he demanded the Church. But above all, his rendring [...], to be ill, shews the depth of his Grecianship; for according to his [Page 209] own Quotation of Phavorinus, [...], is to suffer a beating, or to be beaten passively. So that if our Author will have [...] signify to be beaten on the Feet, or drubb'd, instead of kickt, I shall not contend; provided he will first agree the Matter with Billius, who renders it calcibus caesus, and with the only Elias Cretensis we have, who renders it pedibus contusus, to whose Authority I purposely and expresly referred my self, knowing I had to do with captious Persons; and provided he will let the English Word, kick'd, serve to express a contemptuous Beating, because in this Country, the way of setting a Man upon his Head, and beating the Soles of his Feet, is not so well understood. And as upon these Conditions I will not fall out with him upon this one Criticism, so he has Reason to take this Concession kindly; for I do assure him, that I will not make him such another again, nor bate him one Syllable in my whole Book besides. Lastly, as for the Ʋncanonicalness and Eccentricity, as our Author calls it, of Gregory's Intentions in this Passage, let both the Gregories, and the Church of Nazianzum, who thought it a great part [Page 210] of the old Man's Praises, look to't; I am no ways concern'd.
In the same Chapter, p. 122. he finds a Plot against the Chaplains, and the Government, in rendring [...], Chaplain. It is always rendred Aedituus in Latine, which Gouldman says, is the Prelate of the Temple or Church, the Parson: Now as from Aedes comes Aedituus, so from Chappel comes Chaplain; and that was the very Reason of my chusing that Word; which I did the rather, because Julian's Temple of Fortune was but a Chappel, and stood within the Palace. There is likewise in the same Chapter, p. 124. somewhat that is like the Letter from Legorn, from on board the Van-Herring; but that being a mysterious sort of Writing, is out of my way, and therefore I shall say nothing at all to it.
Our Author's frequent Inconsistencies and Contradictions would fill a Book. The Roman Empire, he says, was Elective, and yet, p. 9. in the fundamental Constitution of it, it was decreed by the Senate to Julius Caesar, and the Sons of his Body. P. 222. He calls this an Atheistical Principle, That all Power is radically in the People; And yet it seems it was otherwise [Page 211] at Sparta; for, p. 240, he tells us, The Kings of Sparta had only the Exercise of the Sovereign Power, but not the Sovereign Power it self; that was radically and originally in the People: And so in the same Page, The Magistrates in Switzerland derive their Power from the People. Now I thought, that what was really Atheism in one Country, would never prove to be good Divinity in another, but must be Atheism every where.
But because our Author is pleased to call this an Atheistical as well as an Illegal Principle in England; I shall here set down the Words of Mr. Hooker, as great a Man, perhaps, as ever England bred; whose Book has been deservedly recommended by several Kings, and admired by all Men, and who does not use to be charged with broaching Atheistical and Illegal Principles. Eccles. Pol. lib. 1. cap. 10. ‘All Publick Regiment, of what kind soever, seemeth evidently to have risen from deliberate Advice, Consultation, and Composition between Men.’ And after a large Discourse to that purpose, he has these Words: ‘That which we spake before concerning the Power of Government, must here be applied to [Page 212] the Power of making Laws whereby to govern; which Power God hath over all; and by the Natural Law whereunto he hath made all Subject, the lawful Power of making Laws to command whole Politick Societies of Men, belongeth so properly unto the same entire Societies, that for any Prince or Potentate, of what kind soever, upon Earth, to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express Commission, immediately and personally received from God, or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent, upon whose Persons they impose Laws, it is no better than meer Tyranny.’
It is wonderful to see what a Dust he raises about the Pursuivant, p. 276, 277, &c. which yet may be all layed by one Word, and by only saying, That Brownlow's Reports were writ for those that understood the Word Homicide, which amongst other things is Chance-medley, or Se Defendendo, as well as Man-Slaughter. And in this very Case, Simpson's Case, which you have over again in Coke's 4th part Inst. of Eccles. Courts, p. 333. with more exactness of Circumstances; my Lord Chief-Justice Coke says expresly, it was Se defendendo [Page 213] in Simpson. And yet how many Reflections does our Author load me with, upon occasion of that ignorant Mistake, just as he has done in many other places of his Book! But it would be hard indeed, if one Man's Honesty and Integrity were to be all forfeited by another Man's Ignorance. There is, I confess, in that large abusive Discourse, one material Question, which he puts to me in these Words: Will he make the Law the compleat and adequate Rule to walk by? Which I should answer my self, but I will get Bishop Hall to do it better for me, in these Words: ‘What then if the Thief,Resolutions of Practical Cases of Conscience, Dec. 2. Case 1. after his Robbery done, ceasing any further Danger of Violence, shall betake himself to his Heels, and run away with my Money? In such a Case, if the Sum be so considerable, as that it much imports my Estate, however our Municipal Laws may censure it, (with which,Dalton, p. 244. of old, even a killing Se defendendo was no less than Felony of Death) my Conscience should not strike me, if I pursue him with all my Might, and in hot Chase so strike him, as that by this means I disable him from a further Escape, for the recovery of my own; and if hereupon [Page 214] his Death shall follow, however I should pass with Men, God and my own Heart would acquit me.’
Sir, you see the Bishop is so far of your Mind, that he does not think the Law a compleat and adequate Rule to walk by; for he would have exceeded and transgress'd the Law, in defence of his own Right; nay, he would not have thought himself hindred by his Clerical Character, but with his own Episcopal Hand,See the same Case, p. 100, 101. whether the Law had given him leave or no, would have slain a Thief, running away with his Purse. And yet Simpson must make a narrow Escape, by Repentance and his Neck-Verse, from Hell and the Gallows, for strugling to rescue himself from a Man-catcher, who was running away with his Person.
Our Author's Law, and Casuistical Divinity are so well match'd, that it is pity they should ever be parted; of both which I shall take my leave at present, because I intended a little Book, and not a Folio.
FINIS.