JOVIAN. OR, AN ANSWER TO JULIAN THE APOSTATE.

BY A Minister of LONDON.

LONDON, Printed by Sam, Roycroft, for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops Head in St. Paul's Church-yard. MDCLXXXIII.

THE PREFACE

THere are many Remarkable Parti­culars in the Life of Jovian, and so very disagreeable to the chief Assertions, which I have found in Julian the Apo­state, that I have been Invited by them to call this Answer to that Book by his Au­gust Name.

For first, He was chosen Emperor next after Julian, although he was nothing Akin to him, whileP. 74, 75, 76. Pro­copius, a Great Man, and one of the Blood was Alive, in the Way, and at the Head of a Great Army; which shews, that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary, as the Author of Julian hath with great Confidence asserted in his 2d. Chapter. He also left behind him a little [Page]Son calledAmm. Marcell. l. 25. c. 10. Zonar. T. 3. Eutrop. l. 10. In fine. Varroni­anus, whom he had made Consul with himself a little before his death, and the Empire, had it been Hereditary, must have descended upon him without Choice; but after a short Interregnum, which isCook in Calvins Case. inconsistent with a Li­neal Succession, the Army unanimously chose Valentinian, without taking notice of young Varronianus, who yet, was as fit for the Empire, as Valenti­nian Junior the Son of Valentinian, Amm. Marc. l. 30. c. 10. Zonar. Tom. 3. Zo­sim. hist. l. 4. Aurel. vict. Epit. whom the Souldiers chose Emperor after his Fathers death heing but 4 years old, and afterwards saluted him Augustus, while he was carried in his Cradle about the Camp.

But secondly, Jovian was aSocrat. Hist. Ecc. l. 3. c. 22. Theodoret Hist. Ecc. l: 4. C. 1. Confessor of the Chistian Religion in the Reign of Julian, who chose rather to quit his Preferments, than to Sacrifice, as Va­lens, [Page] Valentinian, and other Great Cap­tains likewise did, quietly, and peaceably behaving themselves, while Julian did so outrage the Church; which shews, that either he did not Illegally Persecute his Christian Subjects (as Mr. J. saith he did) or else, that they thought in their Duty, as Christians, quietly to submit even to an Apostate Emperor, when he perse­cuted contrary to Law.

Thirdly, Though he was so Zealous and Orthodox aTheodor. l. 4. c. 1, 2. Socrat. l. 3. c. 24. So­zom. l. 6. c. 3, 4. Christian, and so great a Blessing to the Church, yet, as I haveP. 103. shewn, he was worse treated by the Antiochians, than Julian himself, which proves, that it was the evil Humour of that People to abuse every one, who did displease them, which the Apostate did by his Morose Philosophical Humour, and by setting too low a Price upon the Market-Provisions; upon which account purely, and not upon the score of Religion (as Mr. J. would make us believe) it was [Page]that they Lampooned, and Burlesqued him, as I have shewn at large in the 3d. Chapter.

Fourthly, When Jovian was Elected Emperor by the Souldiers of Julian, P. 171. (g) they cryed out with one common Voice, That they were all Christians; which shews how absurd it is to ascribe their Passive Behaviour under the Apostate to want of Strength, and Numbers, as our Author hath done more like a Jesuit, than a Pro­testant Writer, against the consent of so many Pious, and learned Protestants, who have commended unto us the Christian Subjects of Julian as most perfect Exam­ples of Passive Obedience, for practising the Doctrine of Non-resistance, when they were so much tempted, and so able to resist. To this purposeIn his Book of Christian Subjection, part 3. p. 123. printed at London 1586. saith Bishop Bilson: The Christian Souldiers un­der Julian, as St. Augustine saith, served their Temporal Lord, though and Idolater [Page]and Apostate, not for lack of Force to resist, but for respect of their Ever­lasting Lord in Heaven: Otherwise the Christian Souldiers had Julian in his Voyage against the Persians, far from Home, and from Help, and might have done with him what they would; and yet they chose rather to spend their Lives for him, than to lift up their hands against him; and the Christian World stirred not in his ab­sence against him, but with patience endured his Oppression, and with si­lence expected his Return. The same Observation is made more at large by the Learned Dr. Hakewell in hisL. 3. c. 3. Num vobis vires desunt? At teste Sozomeno l. 5. c. 14. Tanta erat ecrum mul­titudo, ut magistratus cujus (que) civitatis aegrè eorum calculum subdu­cere & in tabulas re­ferre potucrint, & in ip­so exercitu tantus numerus, ut cùm post Juliani mortem Jovianu [...] Christianus ad Imperium raptus Imperare recusâssèt, milites porte omnes acri voce velut ex composito se quo (que) Christum colere acola marent. Num ductoribus vobis opus est habetis Jovianum, Valen tinianum, Valentem, Avtemium— Scutum Regi­um, to whose words in the Margent I refer the Rea­der; as likewise by that [Page]Prodigy of LearningIta sub Juliano, licèt impio Apostatâ, merebant Christiani mi­lites, nec quisquam illi vim fecit, quo nihil fuit faciliùs, cum ferè totum exercitum ex Christia­nis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit. p. 53. Sam. Bochart, who in his Epistle To Dr. Morley saith, That the Christian Souldiers served under Julian though an Im­pious Apostate; neither did any of them offer Violence unto him, which had been very easie for them to do, seeing it did appear after his death at the Election of Jovian, that almost the whole Army were Christians.

I have added these Authorities, under this last Particular, which invited me to call this Book Jovian, because I forgot them, while I was writing the 8th Chap­ter, as indeed I found upon a Review, that I have omitted some other material Observations, which I beg leave of the Readers Patience here to supply.

First then, whereas I haveP. 61. asserted, That there was no such thing as Entail, nor any Notion of it among the Romans, I think [Page]it necessary here to add, That this limit­ed way of Hereditary Succession unto one Line is grounded wholly upon theMolinae. ad Con­suct. par. tit. des Fiefs. n. 5. Feudal Laws, which had nothing common at all with the old Roman or Civil Laws, but were received from the Customs of the Barbarous Nations, which invaded the Empire, and after settled in it; and particularly of the Germans, from whom the Italians, and the French received them, and we from the Normans at the Conquest. Hence, according to Littleton, andL. 1. c. 2, 9, 13, 18. Cook upon him, Entailing is de­rived from the French word tailler scin­dere, and feodum talliatum, or an E­state entailed is according to them, Hae­reditas in quandam certitudinem li­mitata; or plainer, as inGloss. v. Feodúm. Spelman, Feodum talliatum est, quod ita talliatur, hoc est amputatur & rescinditur, ut ad nul­los transeat haeredes, nisi a corpore [Page]certae alicujus personae emanantes, &c. Now this way of entailing Estates and of limited and lineal Succession unto them was never in practise among the Romans, nor had they any Notion of it, while the Empire was purely Roman, every man being left at his liberty by the Civil Law to sell the Inheritance of his Ancestors, or any part of it, or to divide it among his Children by his last Will and Testament in what Proportions he thought fit; nay, to past by, or disinherit any, or all of his Children under the pretence of Ingrati­tude, till Justinian the Emperor out of favour to the next akin, reduced the pre­tended Reasons of Ingratitude to 14. which the Reader may consult. Novel. 11 [...]. c. 3.

Wherefore there being so great a Di­stance between the Laws and Customs of the Romans, as to Hereditary Successi­on, and the Laws, and Customs relating to Tenures, which we derive from theSee the Custo­mer of Normandy. Normans, as the Ita­lians did from the Lom­bards, [Page]it was great Ignorance, or great Deceitfulness in our Author to assert the Roman Empire to be Hereditary, and a vain attempt to go about to prove, that it descended upon Constantin, Constanti­us, and Julian in the same limited and lineal way of Succession, that this Im­perial Crown descends upon the next Heir in a lineal Order according to Proximity of Blood. He might with as much Rea­son have asserted, that the Roman Se­nate was such a Parliament as ours, or that the private Estates of the Empire descended upon the next lineal Heir in a limited Hereditary Succession, as that the Empire it self did: For the Emperors, no more than their Subjects had any such Notion of lineal Settlements, nor would any one of them have known how to entail the Crown, or limit the Descent, or Succes­sion of it to the Heirs for ever of any one Favourite, although it had been at his Disposal, as much as his private Lands, and Estates.

This is plain from the Practife of those Emperors, who ende avoured as much as they could, to pass over the Empire in part or in whole, like an Inheritance, unto those they loved best. For, Sometimes they preferred Strangers before their own Kind­red, and made them Caesars; and some­times the Remoter of their own Kindred, before the nearer in Blood. Sometimes they would make one, and sometimes two, or more Caesars, according to the number of their Children, as the Reader will find in the first Chapter of this Answer; but none of them ever attempted to get it set­tled upon one man and his future Chil­dren after him, much less upon his Heirs Males, or Females in a lineal Succession for ever. They were as Ignorant of this sort of Settlement and Heirship, as their Subjects; which is worth observing to all those, who read the Latine or Greek Au­thors, that they be not imposed upon by the words Heir, Hereditary, Inheri­tance, or Patrimony, which never sig­nifie [Page]in that special manner, as they do a­mong us in relation to Entailed King­doms and Estates, but as they do in other Countries with respect to goods and Chat­tels, to which no man succeeds but as a Te­stamentary Heir, if the deceased per­son made a Will, or if he died Intestate, as Heir at Law. Ʋnder the former Cha­racter some of the Emperors indeed might be said in a large, andThus the Pane­gyrist to Constantine the Great, Ut quum tibi Pater [Constantius] Imperium reliquisset, Caesares tamen appella­tione contentus expecta­re malueris, ut idem te qui illum declaret Au­gustum, si quidemipsum ipsum Imperium hoc fore pul­chrius judicabas, si id non haered [...]rium ex successione [...]sses, sed virtutibus tuis debi­tum a summo Impera­tore meruisses. complemental Sense to have the Empire descend upon them in an Heredi­tary Succession, because it was bequeathed unto them as much as it could be by the Testaments of their Predecessors: But under the latter, none ever clai­med med the Empire, butVid. Vopiscum in Florian. Florianus the Brother of Tacitus, who had scarce reigned two Months, before the Senate, and Army chose another Emperor after the usual Manner; [Page]whereupon his own Souldiers slew him, as an Ʋsurper. Indeed the Emperor Quin­tillus did also succeed his Brother Clau­dius, but the Historian takes care to let us know that it was by vertue of hisTreb. Pollio in Claudio. Quintillus frater ejusdem vir san­ctus, et sui fratris vere frater delatum sibi om­nium judicio suscepit Imperium nom haeredi­tarium, sed merito vir­tutum, qui factus esset Imperator, etiamsi fra­ter Claudii Principes non fuisset. Electi­on, and not as Heir at Law, and therefore if the Roman Empire could not descend like a Private Estate from an Intestate Emperor unto a Brother, as Heir at Law, I leave Mr. J. and his Oracle Mr. H. to consider, how far it was from being Hereditary in a limited and lineal Succession, as entailed King­doms, and particularly this of England is.

Thus much by way of supplement, to what I had omitted in the first Chapter; to which I shall add a few other Observa­tions, which I hope will not be unworthy of the Readers notice; as first, concern­ingP. 97, 98. Lucifer Calarita­nus, [Page]who, as I have shewn, gave his own Soveraign Constantius Junior, though a Christian, as contumelious Names as any Mr. J. can shew the Christians gave Ju­lian, which besides something of extream Severity, which was in the Temper of the Man, is to be resolved into this false Prin­ciple which discovers it self in his Tract De non parcendo in Deum delin­quentibus, viz. That the Servants of God (by whom he specially meant the Clergy) were to take the same liberty in Reproving and Correcting their Kings, that the Prophets did under the Old Testament, and upon this mistaken Principle be justifies his reproachful manner of treat­ing the Emperor, as consistent with his Du­ty to him. This I thought worth observing by way of Apology for the Good man, who, as he Erroneously followed the Example of the Prophets in the great Liberty, and Severity, which he used in Chastising the Emperor; so, like a Prophet, he was a great Patron and Example of Passive [Page]Obedience, being so far from exhorting the Orthodox to resist Constantius, when he so severely persecuted them, that he wrote a little Book to exhort them to Patience, and Constancy in their Sufferings, Enti­tuled,In Biblioth. Pa­trum. Ed. Par. Moriendum esse pro Dei Filio.

In the fourth Chapter among other Ar­guments which I have used, to shew, the utter improbability of Old Gregory's un­dertaking to kick Julian, I forgot this, That it is not reasonable to believe, that so Good and Apostolick a Bishop, would so deliberately resolve to kick any man, much less his own Soveraign, contrary to the ex­press Rules of the Apostle, who saith, That a Bishop must be no 1 Tim. 3.3. Tit. 1.7. Striker, but on the con­trary, that2 Tim. 2.24. the Ser­vant of the Lord, must not strive, but be Gentle unto all men, apt to teach, and Patient. This special Rule about the Patient and Meek Behaviour of Cler­gy-men we find enlarged in the 9th. of [Page]the Apostolical Canons, in these words; If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Dea­con beat any Believer, or Unbeliever, that doth him wrong,—we com­mand, that he be deposed, because our Lord hath in no wise taught us so to do; but on the contrary, when he was stricken, he did not strike again, when he was reviled he reviled not a­gain, when he suffered, he threatned not. And Balsamon, and Zonar. on this Canon both say, That a Clergy-man ra­ther than strike another, ought to him that smiteth him on the one Cheek, to turn the other also. And as the Church does straitly forbid Clergy-men to strike, so did she also severely forbid both Clergy men, and Lay-men to affront an Emperor, or Ruler, the former under the penalty of being deposed, and the latter of being excluded from the Holy Commu­nion, as may be seen in the 84th. Aposto­lical Canon; which makes it still more Incredible, that such an Holy Bishop, as [Page]young Gregory describes his Father to be, should suffer his Zeal so outragiously to transport him beyond all the Rules of common Decency, and Duty to resolve up­on kicking the Emperor, against the Ex­ample of Christ, the reiterated Precepts of the Apostle, and the Canons and Cens­ures of the Church.

Among other Examples, which I have brought towards the latter end of the 5th. Chapter to shew, that there was nothing Singular, or Extraordinary in the Beha­viour of Valentinian, Publia, &c. to­wards Julian, as our Author would make his Reader believe, I beg leave to add one more of aJohannes dictus in martyrologio Usuar­di, Adonis, Notkeri, et in vetere Romano, die 7 Setp. Valenius in An­notat. ad cap. 5. lib. 8. Hist. Eccl. Eusebii. Christian of great Rank, and Quality in Nicomedia, who, as Eusebius, the Relater of the Story, saith, being act­ed by a Divine Zeal, and a flaming Faith, pulled down the Imperial Edict for de­stroying the Churches in Nicomedia, from the Pillar, upon which it was fixed [Page]in the most resorted place of all the City, and tore it in pieces, as a most Wicked, and Ʋngodly Order, although two of the Empe­rors Dioclesian, and Galerius, were then in the Town. For this Contempts, not of the Authority, but of the Tyranny of the Empe­rors, he was seized, and tortured to death, & had the Honour to be the Proto-martyr of the Dioclesian Persecution. Now according to Mr. J. had any of the christian Sub­jects of Julian, like stout Champions of Christ, served him in this manner, it must not have been put upon the score of their Zeal to suffer for Christ, but have been re­presented as an Effect of their special Ha­tred, and Contempt of him, as an Apo­state, and a Persecutor against Law. But much more if any Christian City had for­cibly opposed any of his Officers, or Cap­tains, as theSocrat. Hist. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 13. People of Constantinople in a Violent Insurrection opposed Hermoge­nes one of the Captains of Constantius, (whose House they set on Fire, and dragged [Page]him about the Streets, till be was dead) or if any Discontented Ambitious Man had by chance Rebelled against Julian, under the Masque of Religion, asBaron. An. 350. n. 1. Am. 353. n. 5. Magnentius did against Constants, and Constantius, Mr. J. according to his way of arguing, would have turned the matter into a ge­neral Conclusion, That the same Men who would quietly have submitted under a Nero, and Dioclesian, do ne­vertheless resist an Apostate, and a Per­secutor against Law, and pursue him like a Midnight Robber. But God be praised the Banner of the Cross was never display'd agianst the Apostate by any of his Christian Subjects; nor did they raise any Seditions against him, having recovered much of the Primitive, and Ge­nuine Temper of Christianity, from which many of them, by reason of the great heats between the Arrians, and Orthodox, had a little degenerated in his Predeces­sors Reign. But in his time they behaved [Page]themselves with Exemplary Patience un­der the highest Provocations; for laying aside their Mutual Animosities, they pray­ed together (as ourPreface p. 28. Author observes) and like true Champions of Christ, despised the Power, and Threatnings of the Tyrant, being ready in the Apostles passive Sense of the words, to resist him unto Blood.

But what if any of them had risen up in Rebellion against him, or Stirs, and Seditions had hapned in some of the great Cities upon the Account of Religion? Would the Exorbitant Practises of some, (according to our Authors way of arguing) have been a sufficient ground for a Gene­ral Imputation upon all the Christian of the Empire? Would the Behaviour of some particular Persons, or Companies, have justified such general Phrases, as are wont to be expressed with they, and their. If this be good Logique, then the Stirs and Tumults at Paul's Cross in Queen Mary's days may be yet authorized by [Page]Mr. J. upon all the Protestants of Lon­don, and the Rebellion of Wyat, and his Adherents upon all the Protestants of the Nation, as their General Act. He may make another Book, and tell the People in his deceitful way of writing, that they threw Stones, and Daggers atMr. Bourn. Speed in Q. Mary. Fox Acts in Q. M. Dr. Burnets Hist. Reform. Par. 2. p. 245. some, and discharged Pistols atDr. Pendleton. Speed. Ib. other Priests, who were sent by the Qu. and Counsel to preach unto them; that they taught aId. ib. Maid to speak Seditious Speeches a­gainst the Queen in a Wall, so that the People believed it was the Voice of an An­gel; that they put a Cope upon a Cat, shaved her Crown, and tied something like a Waser between her Forelegs, and then in derision of Popery hanged her upon a Gal­lows at Cheap-Cross. In a word, that they rose up agianst her in Defence of theirThe Rebellion of Sir Turmas Wyat, was upon the Account of Religion, as is plain our of Fox, who faith, That the Queens Mar­riage was very ill ta­ken of the People and of many of the Nobility, who for this, and for Religion made a Rebellion; and that Sir Tho­mas Wyat the Chief, said, That the Queen by her Marriage would, bring Servitude upon the Realm, and establish the Popish Religion. So faith Mr. Bradford of them, in his Exhortation to the Professors of the Gospel in England. Now for the Victory given to the Queen, if men had any Godly Wit, they might see many things in it: First God hath done it to win her heart to the Gospel. Again, he hath done it, because they that went against her, put their Trust in Horses, and Power of Men, and because in their doing, they fought not the Propagation of Gods Gospel, which thing is now plainly seen. Therefore no marvail, why God fought against them. They were Hypocrites, and under the Cloke of the Gospel would have debarred the Queens Highness of her Right, but God would not so Cloke them. Religion, and so shewed their Hatred to her, and how they held [Page]her in the lowest de­gree of Contempt.

If a Man should set his Wit to give such an Account of the Behaviour of the Protestants towards Queens Mary, picking up such Stories as these, and concealing their Loyalty in setting her upon the Throne, and their Meek and Passive Be­haviour under her Persecution, he might make just such another Fallacious Book as that of Mr. Js. who hath gleaned 3, or 4, Particular Stories out of the Histories of the Apostate, upon which he hath put false Colours, and suppressed, and concealed as [Page]much as he could the Loyalty and Passive Obedience of his Subject, and what he could not conceal, he hath (and I verily believe against his own Conscience) resol­ved into a wrong Cause.

In the 7th. Chapter about Julian's death, I omitted one good Argument to prove he was not Treacherously killed by a Christian, taken from this Expression in his lastAmm. Mar. l. 25. c. 3 Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 148. Speech: Sempiternum veneror Numen, quod non clan destinis insidiis, nee longá morborum asperitate, nee damnatorum fine, sed in medio cursu florentium gloriarum hunc merui clarum e mundo digres­sum: I bless the Eternal Deity (saith he) that I do not dye by secret treachery, &c. which very Expression seems to prove that he himself did not in the least suspect, that he was struck by a Roman, much less a Christian Hand, as Mr. J. designs his Reader should believe. I might also have observed, that Mr. J. is the first Writer of [Page]the Church of England, whose Genius hath led him to follow the Example ofHis verbis: No­bilis Historicus Sozome­nus l. 6. c. 2. Militem, si quis forte Julianum Imperatorem occidisset (uti eo tempore quidam accusabant) Jure & cum laude fecisse ait. Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 142. Mariana (whom Ru­teford the Author of Lex Rex accounted an ap­proved Author) in citing of Sozomen for Justify­ing (as he saith) the Mur­der of Julian by one of his own Soldiers. But, as I have observed, Soz. did neither justifie, nor commend, but only extenuat the Crime, for which he hath been severely censured by otherSozomenum men­dacii arguit Gregorius Magnus, stupiditatis incredibils Baronius. Ibid. Authors; but Mr. J. let him pass without Re­buke, though, I confess, he hath called the Fact a Traiterous Assas­sination, but with what appearance of In­tegrity, let the Impartial Reader judge.

In the beginning of his Preface he makes a mighty Flourish, and in very fal­lacious Rhetoric, against the Loyal Ad­dressers for being contrary to themselves, [Page]promising to maintain his Majesty, and the Religion established, with their Lives, and Fortunes, and a Popish Successor too. But though common Rea­ders cannot, yet others can look through this Malicious Fallacy; for it was not the Popish Successor, as popish, but the Succes­sion, which they promised to maintain, and not the Person, who shall succeed, in his endeavours to overthrow the Protestant Religion, there they will desert him, as the Suffolk-Protestants did Queen Mary; but in all other things they will serve a Popish Successor with their Lives, and Fortunes, as the Christians did a Pagan, and particulary Julian, so that he may keep the Horns of Mahomets Angels, which were half Fire, and half Snow, as an Emblem for such Protestants, who can sight against the Person of their Prince in Defence of his Authority, and who are wont to qualisie their professed Zeal for him with such Cooling Considerations, as do perfectly extinguish it, as Snow doth Fire.

Then he goes on to tell us, that A Po­pish Successor will be an Heavy Judg­ment: But then (saith he reflecting up­on the Addressers) Did ever Men pray for a Judgment, and make it their Humble Request, that they might be sure of it? But did any of the Loyal Ad­dressers Pray or Desire, that the next Suc­cessor might be a Papist, or is Mr. J. or any of the Excluders sure, that he that is next will succeed to the Crown? Nay, do not the Truly Loyal Party pray, and endea­vour to make him a Good Protestant; and were they not in Parliament for making of Good Laws for our Security against him: And hath not the Author of Julian very much Forehead, to say of so consider­able a part of the Nation, That if they be Protestants, yet he thinks them men weary of their Religion, who are Un­done for a Prince, a Great Part of whose Religion is to Persecute, and Extirpate theirs? But doth he not know, That they Love the King, and pray for his [Page]Preservation, and wish that he may live for ever? Does he not know, that they wish him a Numerous Posterity, and that there were a Succession of many Young Princes, between him and the Collateral Heir? And have they not (at least) as good Reasons to declare for the Succession, as the Excluders have to declare against it, who by an Act of Exclusion would like­ly bring as great a Plague, and as Heavy a Judgment upon the Nation, as a Popish Prince will do?

But yet so bent is this Man to Exclusi­on, that he tacitly commends King Ed­ward for Impeaching the Succession of his Sister Mary by the most Ʋnauthoritative and Ʋnjust, Act, that a good Prince could be guilty of. Every body knows (saith he) that King Edward the Sixth, to pre­vent his Popish Sister from Succeed­ing, bequeathed his Kingdom by Will to the Lady Jane, and every body knows, who put the young Prince upon it; and I wish too many of those who were for [Page]perswading (shall I say) or forcing his Maje­sty to Exclude his only Brother, be not such Self-designing Protestants, as they. And I need not (adds he) say what Bishops were concerned, nor how far they were concerned in that Business. This (you must know) is a Reflection on the Bi­shops for voting against the Bill of Exclu­sion; but how little this Story makes a­gainst them, you shall hear from Archbi­shop Crammer, who indeed was more con­cerned in that Business, than our Author is willing the World should know. I am (saith he in his Letter to the Queen) con­strained most lamentably, and with most penitent and sorrowful Heart to ask Mercy, and Pardon for my Hai­nous Folly, and Offence, in consenting and following the Testament, and last Will of our Sovereign Lord King Edward your Graces Brother, which Will, God he knoweth, I never liked, nor never any thing grieved me so much, as that your Graces Brother [Page]did; and if by any means it had been in me to have letted the making of that Will, I would have done it; and what I said therein, as well to his Counsel, as himself, divers of your Majesties Counsel can report, but none so well, as the Marquis of Northampton, & the L. Darcy, which two were present at the Communication between the King, and me. I designed to talk with the Kings Majesty alone, and at good leisure my trust was, that I should have altered him from that purpose, but they being present, my Labour was in vain—Acknowledging mine Offence with most grievous, and sor­rowful Heart—The Duke of Northumberland said unto me, That it became not me to say to the King, as I did, when I went about to disswade him from the said Will.

From the Bishops, who consented to the Will of King Edward, he goes on to the Bishops, who concurred in making the Sta­tute [Page]of 13 Eliz. Chap. 1. which makes it High Treason during the Queens Life, and forfeiture of Goods, and Chattels af­ter her Death, to say, That an Act of Par­liament is not of sufficient Force, and Validity to limit, and bind the Crown of this Realm, and the Descent, Limi­tation, Inheritance, and Government thereof.

This Act of Parliament is the Palla­dium of the Excluders, but all the Ar­guments that can be taken from it, are so well answered in theThe Great Point of Succession Discussed. A True and Exact History of the Successi­on, to which I refer the Reader. two Answers to the Brief History of the Successi­on, and the Power of Parliaments in the Case of Succession, that Mr. J. had better not have mentioned it, nor would he (I suppose) have done so, but to take occasion to make an Invidious Pa­ralled betwixt the Bishops of that time, and the present Bishops of the Church. For he presents us with a List of their Names, [Page]and tell us, That many of them were Con­fessors, and that they were active and zea­lous for such Acts as these.

I know not what he means by such Acts as these, for it cannot be proved from Sir Simon Dewes hisP. 140. Journal, which he hath cited, That they consented to this Act about limiting the Succession, but for any thing we find there to the contrary, they might be concluded in the Majority of the Lords. But if it were certain they did all concur to that Act, they had very good Reason for so doing, because it was so highly conducive at that Season to secure the Queen (whose Title was disputeable) from being ejected, or dispossessed of the Crown, by the Queen of Scotland & her Heirs. But as the28 ch. 7.34 ch. 1. censured as unjust by Judge Jenkins. Jenkins Rediv. p. 29. Statutes of Henry the 8th, which impowered him to limit the Descent of this Imperial Crown, had not the honour to be formally repealed, but were virtually declared Null, and Void from the be­ginning [Page]by the 3 Estates 1 Jacob. ch. 1. in an Act of Recognition, of King James his Immediate, Lawful, and Undoub­ted Right unto the Crown, as the next Lineal Heir: So this of Queen E­lizabeths, which is now left out of the Statute-Book, received its deaths Wound thereby, as being a Virtual Repealing of it, or an Implicit Anti-Declaration, That an Act of Parliament is not of suffi­cient force, and validity to limit, and bind the Descent of the Crown, when the Succession is clear, and indis­putable, as (God be thanked) it now is.

From this Act of Queen Eliz. he passes on to the Paper of Reasons to prove the Queens Majesty bound him Conscience to proceed with severity in this Case of the late Queen of Scots. He Fathers this Paper with great confidence upon the Bishops, contrary to Sir Simons Opinion, calling of it their Writing, although I am confident, that, would he impartially speak what he thinks, he must needs say, [Page]that he doth not believe, they had any hand in the thing. For

First, It is uncertain where, or by whom the Reasons were framed: Sir Simon saith,P. 207. That most likely they were framed in the House of Com­mons,P. 215. and calls them their Reasons. Secondly, It is very proba­ble they were framed by some private Per­son, who speaks often in the singular Num­ber, as God I trust in time shall open her Eyes: To those men I think God himself, and his Angels will seem cruel; and therefore, Thirdly, It is not probable, that they should be presented unto the Queen (if they were presented at all, as Sir Simon doth but conjecture) in the Name, or as the Sense of the Bishops, espe­cially if we consider that the Paper is ano­nymous, and many of the Reasons in it are, the very same which the Papists urge for putting Heretick, and the Scotizing Presbyterians (of which there wereVid. Bancrosts Dangerous Positions. many in [Page]Queen Elizabeths time) for putting Po­pish Princes to death. I desire Mr. J. to read them again, and then to tell me, Whether he thinks in his Conscience the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish, or Presbyterian Piece? It is credible to believe, that they could argue so falsly upon the Principles of the Jewish Theocracy to the like proceedings in Christian States? If this way of argu­ing be true, then the Queen was bound to burn many Popish Towns in her King­dom, and smite the Inhabitants with the Sword, and to pull down all the Churches especially the Cathedrals, because they had been polluted with Idols. For my part, I must declare, that it cannot enter into my Heart to believe, that those Bi­shops would liken themselves to Samuel, the Queen to Saul, and the Queen of Scots unto Agag; or compare themselves to the Man of God, her Majesty to Achab, and the Queen of Scots to Benhadad, or parallel her Case with that of Jesabel, [Page]and Athaliah: Or propose unto her Ma­jesty the Example of Solomon, who spared not his own natural, yea, and his elder Brother Adonijah for Suspi­tion, and likelyhood of Treason, for a Marriage purposed only, but put him to death for the same, and that speedily without course of Judgment; Or lastly, Argue from Deut. 13.6. If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother, &c. In citing of which it is evident up­on whom our Author did reflect. I would fain know of him, if he approve of this way of arguing, or no; if he do not, why should be think the Reason of those learn­ed Prelates so much weaker than his own? But if he do, may be please to consult Dr. Hickes his Peculium Dei, where he will be better informed.

But besides this inconclusive way of arguing from the Laws, and Examples of the Jewish Theocracy, there is in those Rea­sons a Passage about Constantinus Mag­nus, which is not consistent with the Lear­ning, [Page]and Integrity of those Fathers. It is this, That C.M. caused Licinius to be put to death, being not his Subject, but his Fellow-Emperor, for that the said Licinius laboured to subvert the Christian Religion; which is not true, for Licinius had rendred himself, and his Purple to Constantine upon condition of Life, and so was become a private Person, and he caused him to be put to death for new Attempts against his Promise, after he became his Subject, as I have shewed, p. 43.

If the Reader please to consult this A­nonymous Paper at large, he will find it Presbyterian and Scottish from one end to the other, and a Brat so unlike the Bi­shops, upon whom the true Author hath fa­thered it, that a man may almost safely swear, that it was none of Theirs. Indeed there is one Good Argument in it, why the Queens Subjects might have been urgent with her Majesty to put the Queen of Scots to death, and that is this, That she sought the Life of the Queen, and [Page]endeavoured to disinherit, and de­stroy her. These Attempts put her per­fectly out of the Queens Protection, and though for this Reason she might lawfully be excluded out of the World, yet still the question remains, Whether she could be excluded from the Crown? To be exclu­ded out of the World, and from the Crown, are things of a disparat Nature, and the former may, and sometimes ought to be done, when the latter neither can, nor ought. As for Example, among the Jews it was the Birthright of theSelden de Suc­cessionibus. c. 5. only Son to suc­ceed to his Fathers whole Estate, or when there were more, of the eldest to have a double share; and though they ought to have been put to death by the Hebrew Laws for Smiting, or Cursing their Father, yet could they not be disinhe­rited, or excluded from the Succession, which shews our Authors great Fallacy in which he Triumphs, in arguing, as it were a fortiori, from the Exclusion of the Heir [Page]of the Crown out of the World, unto the Exclusion of him from the Crown. They (saith he of the Bishops) were Excluders with a witness, for they were for ex­cluding the next Heir, not only from the Succession, but out of the World. And again; A Bill of Exclusion is per­fect Courtship to these Reasons. Let those therefore that have run down 3 successive Houses of Commons for that Bill, turn their. Fury and Re­proaches with more Justice upon these old Excluders. But all these fine Words are nothing to the purpose, for these Old Excluders were not Excluders from the Succession, which spoyls the parity of the Instance; and to let him see that it doth so, he may assure himself, That the same Loyal Men, who run down 3 Houses of Commons for the Bill to Exclude his R.H. from the Succession, would neverthe­less upon sufficient Proof that he sought the Life of his dear Brother (to whom hitherto he hath shewed himself the most [Page]Obedient of his Subjects) be willing to do him Justice, and exclude him out of the World. Furthermore, to let Mr. J. see what a great difference there is between these two Exclusions, I must remind him, that in case Queen Elizabeth had died between the Sentence of Mary Queen of Scots, and her Execution, that the Des­cent of the Crown would have purged Her of all Crimes, and that 'she would have had the same Right unto it, which the Parliament declared her Son James af­terwards had upon Queen Elizabeths death.

But yet, though the Descent of the Crown purges all Defects, and would bring back the greatest Malefactor of an Heir, not only from a Prison, but from the Scaf­fold, and from the Block to the Throne; yet our Author with unparallelled Consi­dencePreface p. 19. challenges all that were against impeaching the Succes­sion, To give him but one Reason to prove a Bill of Exclusion to be Un­lawful, [Page]which they will own to be a Reason a Week after, and not be asha­med of it, and he doth solemnly pro­mise to joyn with them in renouncing these Old Reformers, and thereafter will follow their New Guides, and New Lights.

I never in all my Life read any thing so bold from a Man of Mr. Js. mediocrity, who here challenges the House of Lords, the 3 Estates of Scotland, the University of Cambridge, one of the Se­cretaries of State, the Loyal Addressers, and several other Persons of Note, whom he ought to believe, are at least as wise, and learned, and as good Protestants as himself.

First, The House of Lords, who were the first, that in his Phrase run down the House of Commons for the Bill of Exclu­sion, upon which his Majesty sent the House this Message, That He was confir­med in his Opinion against that Bill, by the Judgment of the House of Lords, who rejected it; and may not one [Page]presume, that many of them rejected it, be­cause they thought it disagreeable to the Lex Legum, or great standing Law of this Inheritable Kingdom, That nothing is to be consented to in Parliament, which tends to the disinherison of the Crown, whereunto they are sworn. This is the great Rule by which all Acts of Parlia­ment are to be framed, and if any of them transgress it they are as null and void from the beginning, as Marriage with a per­son, who hath a natural Impediment, or Imperfection. By this Supream Invio­lable Law, an Act of Parliament for dis­solving the Monarchy, or for debar­ring the King of the Service of his Subjects, or for giving the Crown un­to a Forainer, or for making it Ho­mageable to a Superiour Power, or for dividing the Monarchy into Co­partnership unto two Heirs, or for Ex­cluding the whole Royal Family, (as many of the Excluders grant) would all be Null, and Void from the beginning; [Page]and so, I verily believe, most of them think that an Act for Excluding the next Heir would be so too, which made them so zealous to back it with an Act for an Asso­ciation, which the Author of the Power of Parliaments ingeniously calls a Club-Law.

I Know not what any Excluder can re­ply to this, but either to say, That an Act of Parliament, which tends to the Disin­herison of the Crown is nevertheless valid, or that an Act of Exclusion hath no ten­dency thereunto; To assert the former would be a Contradiction to the most E­minent Lawyers Antient, and Modern, and many Declarations in Parliament, and would also suppose, that an Act for destroy­ing the Monarchy it self, &c. would be valid. And to assert the latter, is virtu­ally to say, That an Act for Disinheriting the next Heir, doth not tend to the disin­herison of the Crown; which would be difficult to maintain, because the same Power that puts by One Heir, may put by [Page]Ten, either altogether, or Successively, and so Adieu to the Royal Family, and the Hereditary Succession, which may be laid aside in part or in whole, when the King, and Parliament shall please.

But to return to this Fundamental-Law of the Monarchy, which seems to invali­date all Acts of Parliam. that tend to the Disinherison, or Destruction of the Crown, and particularly all those, which limit, and bind the Succession. It was by this Law that the35 H. 8. ch. 1.1 Eliz. ch. 3. Act of Parliament which Im­p [...]vered King Henry the 8th. to dispose of the Crown by his Last Will and Testa­ment to what person, or persons soever he pleased, proved Ineffectual to the House of Suffolk, to which he bequeathed it, after the death of Queen Elizabeth; which made a Gentleman, as was reported, put this Dilemma in the House of Commons, which I never yet heard satisfactiorily An­swered. Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory, or Valid, [Page]or they were not: If not, then Acts of Par­liament, which impeach the Succession are without any more ado, Null and Void in Law; but if they were, by what autho­rity was the House of Suffolk Excluded, and King James admitted to the Crown, contrary to many Statutes against him? notwithstanding all which theJacob. I. High Court of Par­liament declared, That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright, and lawful and undoubt­ed Succession, descend unto his Ma­jesty, as being lineally, justly, and law­fully next, and sole Heir of the Royal Blood. Here His Succession is owned for Lawful, and Ʋndoubted, against the foresaid Acts; Lawful, not by any Sta­tute, but contrary to Statutes, by the Com­mon-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom, which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions, as tending to the Disinberison, and Prejudice of the Crown.

For as the Most Learned, and Loyal [Page] Third part of The Address to the Free­men, &c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons, a Bill of Exclusion, if it should pass, would change the Essence of the Monarchy, and make the Crown Ele­ctive; or, as anotherAuthor of the Power of Parliaments. p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith, It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown, and turn an He­reditary Monarchy into Elective. For by the same Reason, that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion, o­ther Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences, and so consequently by such Exclusions, Elect whom they please.

The next Reason, which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful, is the Oath of Supremacy, which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occa­sion, or other, and which the Represen­tatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House.

By this Oath every one, who takes it swears to Assist, and Defend all Juris­dictions, Priviledges, Preheminences, and Authorities, granted or belong­ing to the Kings Highness, his Heirs, and lawful Successors, or united, and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And I appeal to every Ho­nest, and Loyal English-man, whether it be not one of the most undoubted, transcen­dent, and Essential Rights, Priviledges, and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs, and united to the Imperial Crown of England, that they succeed unto the Crown, as it comes to their turn, according to Proximity of Blood. Secondly, I desire to know, Whether by Lawful Successors, is not to be understood, such Heirs as suc­ceed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Com­mon-Law of England, and if so, how any Man, who is within the Obligation of this Oath, can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion, which deprives the next. Heir [Page](and in him virtually the whole Royal Family) of the Chief Priviledge, and Pre­heminence which belongs unto him, by the Common-Law of this Realm; Or how any Man, who hath taken this Oath, which is so apparently designed for the Preservation, of the Rights, and Privi­ledges of the Royal Family, can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death, ac­cording to the Common Right of Heredi­tary Succession, which by Common-Law belongs unto Him, and is annexed to the Crown? What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors in general, must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them; but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and In­terest of the Kings Heirs, is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them; and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order [Page]of Hereditary Succession, when it shall come to their turn to succeed.

I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves, and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it. Some in­deed have said, with our Author, that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath, and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion, which is a meer Shift, and proves no­thing, because it proves too much. For according to this Answer we might dis­pense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King, if any should hereafter turn such, because the Oaths of Allegi­ance, and Supremacy, are Protestant Oaths, and are not to be understood, accor­ding to them, in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion.

Secondly, Though they are Protestant Oaths, yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants, but as lawful, and rightful King, and Heirs, according [Page]to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom; and therefore Moderate Pa­pists, will take the Oath of Supremacy, as well as of Allegiance (as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of35 H. 8. ch. 1. § 11. H. 8.) which they could not do, were they made to the King, and his Heirs, as Protestants.

But Thirdly, As they are Protestant Oaths, they bind us the more Emphati­cally to assist and defend the King against the Ʋsurpation of the Pope, who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings, and of Ex­cluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession (Witness Henry the 4th;) and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne, so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs, and Successors, when their Rights shall fall.

I have joyned the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy, because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs, and [Page]Successors, and Him, and them to defend to the utmost of our Power; And I here protest to all the World, That when I took these Oaths, I understood the Words Heirs, and Successors, for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordina­ry Course of Hereditary Succession: And I appeal to the Conscience of every Ho­nest Protestant, if he did not understand them so.

Other Excluders I have heard main­tain, that the King, and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Ex­clusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths, Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs, and Lawful Successors, but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance, (which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy)

I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any other person whatsoever, hath Power to absolve me of this Oath, or any [Page]part theoreof: And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth, but by the Person, or Persons to whom, and for whose behoof it was made.

To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Per­son, is to give him, what his Justice would abhor, a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men; which Considerati­on, I suppose, as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion, made the great Man, above cited, say, For my part, I think there is more of Popery in this Bill, than there can possibly be in the Nation without it; for none but Papists, and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go a­bout to Disinherit Princes for their Religion. But some Men will say, Why should not Protestants Disinhe­rit Popish, as well as Popish Disinhe­rit Protestant Princes? To which the [Page]Answer is easie by another Question, Why should not Protestants Depose Popish, as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings?

I am not Conscious to my self, that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing, as I have done, from the Oaths of Allegi­ance, and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion; yet Mr. J. hath the Confi­dence to call these Arguments taken from those OathsPreface p. 19. shameful Sophistry, and the Con­scientious Regard, that Honest Protestants have unto them, deceitful Prejudice, which (he saith) is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual, and Pos­sible Heirs. But he is very much, and I fear very Wilfully mistaken; For the Faith, and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs, when they shall become Actual according to the com­mon Order of Succession, or to speak yet moreOtherwise thus: Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance, and Supremacy, swear to accept and take the Possi­ble Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown. plainly, our Faith [Page]and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs, and is to be made good, and per­formed unto them, and every one of them, when by the Providence of God, they shall come to be actual, according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession; and thus for Example, to use his own Instance, The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs, and Successors; i. e. To the Kings Fu­ture Heirs, and Successors, upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession; and every one of them will have a Right to the Ex­cise by vertue of that Grant, when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence (who determines the days of Kings) become an Actual Heir, or have the Crown fall up­on his Head by Lawful and Ʋndoubted Succession, according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm.

A Third Reason against the Bill of Ex­clusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown, which [Page]isCoke Littleton, fol. 1.6. The Inheri­tance of our Lord the King is a direct Do­minion, of which none is the Author but God alone: And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes, the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ, and the Royal Shield carryes this Mot­to, Dieu, & mon droit. Nay Queen Elizabeth, who through the Dubi­ousness of her Title, courted the People so much, yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands, printed 1585. speaks, as it became such a Soveraign Princess, in this manner; Although Kings, and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage, and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings, and in that Respect not bound to yield Account, or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign; and though among the most Ancient, and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England, and other Dominions, which we hold immedi­ately of the same Almighty God; and thereby— God alone, who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance, and hath by his Providence ordained, that it should come to one of them after the decease of another, according to Birthright, and Proximi­ty of Blood.

From this Principle many good Men, who are as Wise, and as Learned as any of the Excluders, infer this Conclusion, That it would be Ʋsurpation, without a manifest Revelation from God, to Alie­nate the Crown from this Family, to which he only hath given it, or to preclude any [Page]Person of it, much more the next Heir, whether Apparent or Presumptive, from succeeding thereunto.

This Argument is not so slight, as per­haps Mr. J. will make it; for if the Im­perial Crown of England be Subject to none but God, who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family, then it is very reasonable to conclude, That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery, would be Oppo­sition to the Will of God. This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant, and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue, That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family, but most of all the next Heir upon the Line, from the absolute Right, or Birthright, which God alone hath given him, would be also to oppose the Will of God.

All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious [Page]and Loyal Authors of theThird Part. p. 63, 64, Address to the Free­men, and Freeholders of England; and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in theIb. p. 97, 98. House of Commons; and it is above a Week since, and I am con­fident they will still own them, without be­ing ashamed of them, and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man, than he is, to follow, as he speaks, their New Light.

Nay all these Reasons against Exclu­ding the next Heir from the Succession, are own'd by the Three Estates of Scot­land, and would (I am confident) be owned by them, were they to meet again. I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament, Entituled,

[Page]

An Act acknowledging, and as­serting the Right of Successi­on to the Imperial Crown of Scotland. August 13. 1681.

THe Estates of Parliament considering, That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almigh­ty Alone, do succeed lineally there­to according to the known De­grees of Proximity in Blood, which cannot be interrupted, sus­pended, or diverted, by any Act, or Statute whatsoever; and that none can attempt to alter, or di­vert the said Succession, without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebelli­on, and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Conse­quences of a Civil War: Do therefore from an hearty and sin­cere [Page]Sense of their Duty, recog­nise, acknowledge, and Declare, That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by In­herent Right, and the Nature of the Monarchy, as well as by the Fundamental, and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmit­ted, and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Prox­imity of Blood, And that upon the death of the King, or Queen, who actually Reigns, the Sub­jects of this Kingdom are bound by Law, Duty, and Allegiance, to obey the next, immediate, and Lawful Heir, either Male, or Fe­male, upon which the Right, and Administration of the Govern­ment is immediately devolved. And that no Difference in Reli­gion, nor no Law, or Act of Par­liament, made, or to be made, can alter, or divert the Right of Suc­cession, [Page]and Lineal Descent of the Crown to the Nearest, and Lawful Heirs, according to the Degrees aforesaid; nor can stop, or hinder them in the Full, Free, and Actual Administration of the Government according to the Laws of this Kingdom, Like as our Soveraign Lord—

To this Declaration of the Three E­states in Scotland, I shall and the Judg­ment of the Vice-Chancelor, Heads of Houses, Doctors, and other Learned, and Loyal Members of the Ʋniversity of Cam­bridge, in theirGazett. n. 1653. Ad­dress to His Majesty at New-Market Sept. 18. 1681. where­in they declare, That they will still be­lieve and maintain that our Kings de­rive not their Titles from the People, but from God, that to Him only they are Accountable; that it belongs not to Subjects either to Create, or [Page]Censure, but to Honour and Obey their Soveraign, who comes to be so by a Fundamental Hereditary Right of Succession, which no Religion, no Law, no Fault, or Forfeiture can Al­ter or Diminish. These Learned Men indeed have not so plainly given their Reasons for their Opinion, but by the Hints, which they have given of them, we may perceive, that they are the same, which I have insisted upon, and (I be­lieve) they will still own them, and never be ashamed thereof.

But Mr. J. it seems, hath learnt another Lesson, since he left the Ʋni­versity; A Good Wit upon the Fret, and the great Advantage of having such a Conducter as Mr. H. have made him do Wonders against the Succes­sion, and bless the World with a New Discovery, ThatPreface p. 12. the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion, to the great Reproach of all the Bishops, who [Page]it may be, had not preferred some Great Men in their own Opinion, according to their fancied Deserts. But alas! All these Fathers Sanctus Gregorius Na­zianzenus Theologus, had but one Beard, and what they said was not deter­mining, as Casuists, but as Orators, de­claiming against Constantius for choo­sing, or making of Julian Caesar, which is nothing to a Bill of Exclusion, or the Merits of Lineal Hereditary Successi­on, of which the Father, or the Fathers had no more Notion than of Guns, and Printing, or of a Senate consisting of 2 Houses, and 3 Estates.

But Mr. J. hath shewn how much of the Serpent he hath in him, in Writing with so much Guile and Venom, especially against the Succession, and Passive Obe­dience, and in Winding, and Turning the Words of Good Authors from their Ge­nuine Sense, to his own Purposes, as that Famous Passage of Gregory 2 Invect. p. 123. where the Father saith, That [Page]they were destitute of all Humane Aid, and had no other Armour, nor Wall, nor Defence left them, but their Hope in God. This Place, as I have shewn p. 152. Bishop Montague under­stood of Free, and Voluntary Passive Obedience, and so did the learnedScutum Regium l. 3. p. 143. Num du­ctoribus vobis opus est? at hab [...]tis Jovianum, Valentinianum, Valen­tem, qui postea sunt Imperii gubernaculis po­titi, & deni (que) Arte­mium sub ipso Constan­tino artis militaris peritiâ celebrem, vobis interea idem animus, eadem mens, quae Gregorio Nazianzeno. De his Juliani tempori­bus loquens, Nobis quibus nulla alia arma, nec muri, nec pre­sidia, &c. Dr. Hakewell, as every Man needs must, who understands the Hi­story of those Times.

But Mr. J. with what Ingenuity let o­thers judge, hathP. 94. ci­ted the Words to signifie forced Passive Obedience, such as that of the Papists hath been of late in England, who undoubtedly are Passive for no other Reason, but because they want sufficient Numbers, and Strength.

But as all Sophistical Writers are apt to do, so Mr. J. hath contradicted himself as to this, and other Particulars: An in the 26th. page of his Preface, where he shews out of Sozom. That Julians Army were Christians; and in the 8th. page of his Book out of Nazianzen, That there were more than 7000 of them (i. e. an indefinite great Number) who did not bow the knee to Baal, but repul­sed Julian, as a brave strong Wall does a sorry Engine, that is plaid a­gainst it. Now if Julians Army were Christians, and above 7000 of them re­pulsed Julian with their Passive Valour as a strong Wall does a sorry Engine, was it not a great Contradiction, and great Dis­ingenuity in Mr. J. to represent them as Few, and Defenceless, and their Passive Obedience, as performed by them upon mere Necessity, and Force?

It is usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers to set forth the Constancy of the Martyrs, and Confessors by the Metaphor [Page]of a Pillar or Wall. Thus the Christi­ans of Lyons, and Vienna in theirEuseb. l. 5. c. 1. Epistle in which they give an Account of their Sufferings, say, That the Grace of God did fight in them against the Devil, and fortifie the Weak, and set up [...], Firm Pillars among them, who by their Patience, and Constan­cy drew all the Assaults of the Devil upon themselves. This I have obser­ved for the sake of the Common Readers of Julian, some of which, to my know­ledge, understood that Phrase of Repel­ling Julian, as a brave strong Wall, in the Sense, wherein Mr. J. perhaps de­signed they should take it, for Active, and not for Passive Resistance; which puts me in mind of Hugh Peters, who preach­ed up Rebellion on those Words, Heb. 12.4. Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood.

But to Instance in another of his Con­tradictions, p. 21. he cites Eusebius for saying, That Constantius Chlorus past [Page]over the Inheritance of the Empire, by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine; Where by that Phrase, past over, he would have his Reader (or else it is nothing to the purpose) understand En­tailed: And yet p. 1. he cites the same Author again, for saying that Constan­tine at his death gave to his Eldest Son [...], (which should be ren­dred) his Grandfathers share, and not, that part which came by his Ance­stors, as our Author doth. But now if Constantius Chlorus Entailed, or Past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Con­stantine M. how could he give it at his death to his Eldest Son Constantine the second? I desire to know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. who is Fitter to Resolve the Question, If a Man can succeed to the same E­state both as Heir by Testament, and Entail.

The Admirers of Julian, whereof some pretend to be great Masters of [Page]Reason, might with half an Eye purged of Bad Humours, have discerned these, and all other Inconsistencies, which I have observed in this following Answer, but by some of them, who took so much Pains to Recommend, and Disperse the Book, we find the Proverb true by Experience, That there is none so Blind; as those who will not See.

I had almost forgot to tell the Reader, that when I declared in the Introduction, That I was well satisfied with the Au­thors Comparison of Popery, and Pa­ganism, I had not observed, that he seems to deny the Truth of this Proposi­tion, That the Church of Rome is a True Church of Christ, only Cor­rupt.

This I thought necessary to observe, left I should be thought to side with Mr. J. against the most Learned Reformers in the Particular, which I declare I do not, believing the Church of Rome to be a True Church, as a Man that hath the [Page]Plague, or Leprosie is a True Man. If I were not of this Opinion, I should be puzled to tell, how the Church of Eng­land, which was once, as Antichristian, as It, came to be a True Church; or how the Romish Church her self should come to be true, if She did Reform.

I shall add no more, but only tell the Author of Julian, who Thraso-like hath Despised this Answer before he saw it, That I as much Despise his Great Boasts. Confidence, and Hectoring I know, are sometimes Serviceable to a Coward in Sword-quarrels, but what Influence they may have in Conflicts of the Pen, I am such a Novice in writing Controversies, that, I profess, I cannot tell. However, if he, or any other Person, will make a Fair, Close, and Substantial Answer to what I have here written, they will O­blige me by the Performance, and the World may reap Advantage from a Plain, and Solid Management of the Matters of Controversie between us. But if instead [Page]of such an Answer, as I hope this of mine is, they shall but shuffle, and pre­varicate, and take Sanctuary in Cavil, Satyr, and Scurrility, I shall think my self obliged to pass over such kind of Replyes in Silence, and Contempt.

THE CONTENTS.

  • THe Introduction. p. 1.
  • CHAP. 1. The Roman Empire not Hereditary. p. 5.
  • CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian. p. 84.
  • CHAP. III. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in Words. p. 93.
  • CHAP. IV. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in their Actions. p. 115.
  • [Page]CHAP. V. Of the Behaviour of the Christians to­wards Julian in their Devotions, and first of their Psalms. p. 126.
  • CHAP. VI. Of their Prayers and Tears. p. 137.
  • CHAP. VII. Of Julians Death. p. 154.
  • CHAP. VIII. Shewing, That the Christian Subjects of Julian practised Passive Obedience, when they were in an Able Condition to Resist. p. 164.
  • CHAP. IX. Shewing, That the Former Christians be­fore the time of Julian suffered as much, or more than Julians Subjects did, not only, without, but Contrary to Law. p. 186.
  • CHAP. X. Wherein is defended the Doctrine of Pas­sive Obedience against Law. p. 199.
  • [Page]CHAP. XI. Wherein are further considered the Reasons for Passive Obedience, or Non-Resistance; and wherein it is shewn, that Resistance would be a Greater Mischief, than Pas­sive Obedience. p. 239.
  • CHAP. XII. Wherein is shewed, That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience, we are Secure enough of our Lives, Properties, and Religion. p. 263.
  • The Conclusion. p. 282.

For the Readers Ease in Exa­mining my Citations, I thought Good to give Him this Ac­count of the Editions I have made Ʋse off.

  • Ignatius Oxon. 1644.47.
  • Tertullianus. Paris. 1641.
  • Cyprianus. Oxon. 1682.
  • Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. Paris. 1659.
  • Socrates & per Hen. Paris. 1668.
  • Sozomen per Hen. Paris. 1668.
  • Theodoretus, Valesium Paris. 1673.
  • Philostorg. Valesium Paris. 1673.
  • Athanasius. Par. 1627.
  • Hilarius. Par. 1631.
  • Greg. Nazianz. Par. 1630.
  • Epiphanius. Par. 1622.
  • [Page]Lucifer Calarit. In Biblioth. Partrum.
  • Gelasius Cyzicen. Octavo. Paris. 1601.
  • Lactantius. Lugd. Bat. 1660.
  • —De Moritibus Persecutorum. Oxon.
  • Zonaras. Basil. 1557.
  • Cedrenus. Basil. 1563.
  • Suidas. Col. Allob. 1619.
  • Bocharti Epistola. Octavo. 1650.
  • Versio Gregor. Nazianz. citata p. 120.
Extat in Biblioth. Coll. Sion.
  • Plutarchus. Franc. 1620.
  • Tacitus. Per Lipsium Antverp. 1668.
  • Eutropius. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590.
  • Xiphilinus. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590
  • Herodianus. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590
  • Zosimus. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590
  • Libanius. Par. 1627.
  • Theophilus Antecessor. Par. 1638.
  • Ammianus Marcellinus. Par. 1681.
  • Eumenius inter XIV. Panegyricos. Paris. 1643.
  • Pomponius Laetus inter Hist. Rom. Script. In Oct. Editos per H. Steph. 1568.
  • [Page]Aurelius Victor. Lugd. Bat.
  • Julius Capitolinus. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.
  • Fl. Vopiscus. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.
  • Trebell. Pollio. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.
  • Lampridius. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.
  • Spartianus. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.
  • Book of Homilies. London. 1623.
  • Acts and Monuments. London. 1610.
  • The Tryals of the Regicides. London. 1679.

The Reader is desired to Correct the following Mistakes of the Press.

P. 3. l. 23. read handing. p. 27. l. 21. r. successful against. p. 81. l. 14. for two r. three. p. 88. l. 13. r. Legal Absolute. p. 89. l. 21. for. Zos. r. Soz. p. 96. l. antepen. that they did. p. 119. l. 3. for that r. than. p. 021. for credible r. possible. p. 201. l. 18. [...]. p. 214. l. 33. [...] p. 241. l. 6. r. only Subject. ib. l. 31. controlling. p. 252. l. 13. dele not. p. 257. l. 11. r. yet let alone. p. 296. dele while he. p. 299. l. 4. for that r. which. ib. l. 17. for safety r. duty.

Besides these there are many Faults in the Margent, especially in the Greek, the most considerable are Collected and Subjoyned. The lesser Faults, I mean in Spirits, Accents, and Letters of like Figure, particularly the Mistake of the double Consonant ς for σ, the Learned Reader will easily observe, and, I hope, as easily pardon.

P. 7. l. 17.734. l. 21.736. p. 8. l. 1.736. p. 16. l. 13. consalutatur. p. 21. l. 10. agere: triumphavit. l. 15. consulatibus. p. 22. l. 10. [...]. p. 24. l. 16. [...]. p. 42. l. 10. l. 1. c. 26. p. 75. l. 27. pro [...] lege [...] p. 76. l. 5. Sozim. l. 4. p. 739. p. 87. l. 6. [...]. p. 89. l. 12. Socr. l. 3. c. 3. Sozom. l. 5. c. 7. p. 103. l. 14. [...] Ibid. Ex Joan. Antiocheno Excerpt. per H. Vales. Ed. 1634. p. 845. p. 105. l. 10. lege c. 1 p. 137. Ibid. c. 1. p. 155. p. 108. l. 1. Gelas. Cyz. p. 148. l. 11 Socrat. l. 3. p. 167. l. 3. pro [...] lege [...]. p. 188. l. 21. largiter. p. 189. l. 2. hominem, p. 210. l. 8. pro lex, lege Rex. p. 256. l. 14. antequam.

THE INTRODUCTION.

THe Apostacy of Julian the Emperor did not perhaps make a greater Noise in the Cities of the Roman Empire, than the Short Account of his Life, called, Julian the Apo­state, did in the City of London at its First Publication. It started from the Press, as Racers usually do from the Post, with a great and mighty Shout, and was attended all along with loud Acclamations of men set on purpose to cry it up in all Places, as indeed they apparently combine to dis­perse, and cry up any thing, that is plausibly writ­ten against the Doctrine of Non-Resistence, the Suc­cession, or any of the Rights of Soveraignty, which keep the Crown firm upon the Kings Head.

O! saith Mr. Nelth. the very Morning, that Ju­lian came out, to two or three Gentlemen, Have you seen Julian? It is an Unanswerable Piece, it hath quite undone your Pleas for Succession, and your Passive Obedience; and it is written by a Church-Divine, and we thank God, that there is one a­mong [Page 2]them, who is not for enslaving the People.

And saith the worthy Son of as worthy a Peer who was a Spectator at that Riotous Election of Sheriffs (when they justled my Lord Mayor, and cried, Take away the Sword) God, here's a Com­pany of Brave Fellows, O that Joh. were hereto preach Julian unto them! And saith Mr. P. to Mr. B. a Minister holding up Julian in his Hand. Have you seen this Book? What Book, saith he Julian the Apostle replyes Mr. P. it was this day pre­sented to my Lord, and he says it is an Admirable Piece. To be short, Julian was the Oracle of the Cause, the Pocket-Book of all the Party; it was carried to Change and Coffee-Houses in Triumph, and at last called in Print by the (4. vol. n. 30., Courantier, the Plaguy Ʋnanswer­able Julian.

The Author of it hath boasted to several that it had the Approbation of Sir W. J. whom I suppose he means in his Preface by that great Assertor of Re­ligion and Laws now with God: Mr. H. hath also own'd that he perused it in the Manuscript, and these Mens Breath conspiring in his Praises with the Breath of the People, have blown him into such a Conceit of his Performance, that he hath challeng­ed the World to Answer it, and expose him to open shame, if he have done amiss.

Having heard of these, and many other things a­bout Julian, I got the Book, and at the first cursory perusal discerned, as I thought, many contradictions and much fallacious Reasoning in it: upon this I took Heart and read it again more observantly, and then [Page 3]plainly saw that it was not Unanswerable, though it was a very cunning and malicious piece. The Author of it shews what Company he keeps by his scurrilous and irreverent Phrases: I can never think of the following Passages, the p. 89. slavish Principle of Passive Obedience, the p. 78. bloody Doctrine of Passive O­bedience, the Preface. Doctrine of the Bow­string, the slippery Trick in Persia, the p. 30. Mountebank receit of Prayers, and Tears, the old Lacrymist, p. 78. the mur­dering piece of Passive Obedience, the p. 88. wheedling of men out of their Lives, and p. 91. the making the World for Banditi by it, and the many more Exceptions against their Artillery of Prayers, and Tears, I say, I can never think of these and many more of his Lampoons upon the Doctrine of the Cross, but they make me think of the Appeal, and Fitz-harris his Libel, and that the Spirit of that Author hath passed into this.

These and such like scurrilous Expressions of his in Religious Matters, asp. 127. the hand­ling of Prayers like Brickhats out of a Cart determine my Thoughts to Lambswooll, and such like Stories, and make me fear, that the Author hath lost the meek and seri­ous Temper of a Divine in that sort of Company: Indeed he hath shewed himself to be a man of great Parts and Contrivance from the beginning of the Preface to the end of the Book, both of which are so Artificially and Plausibly written, that they must needs deceive all persons that are either unable, or unwilling to examin them, and it is for the Sake of such, especially of the former, that I have taken [Page 4]the First Part of the Book to task: For as for the Comparison of Popery and Paganism I do assure him that the Author of this following Answer, andP. 93. I believe all the rest that have so thundered of late with the Thebaean Legion, bating some irreverent Phrases, are as well satisfied with it, as he himself is.

[...]

It concerned him very much to impose this upon his Reader, for if the Empire was not indeed Heredi­tary, then the Case of a Popish Successor in Eng­land, and of the Pagan Successor to Constantius will prove so very different, that our admired Au­thor who builds upon that Principle, will himself I hope acknowledge, that he hath conjured up the Ghost of his Julian to no purpose, and wrote his Plaguy Book in vain.

Therefore (in his own words) To proceed more faithfully and clearly in this Matter, it will be neces­sary to consider how the Succession stood in the Ro­man Empire, and in the frist place there is nothing more plain than the Contradiction of his Assertion, that the Empire was not Hereditary, but that the Suc­cession to the Imperial Throne was Elective, Ca­sual, Ʋncertain, and Arbitrary; and this I will shew by giving a brief Account of it from Julius to Ju­lian, wherein the impartial Reader shall see how much this unanswerable Man did prevaricate, when he told his Reader, that there was nothing more plain (not that two and two are four) than that the Empire was Hereditary.

Julius Caesar returning Victorious to Rome from the Conquest of the Pompees wasFlorus l .4. c. 2. Ep. lib. 116. & Dio. l. 44. received with all man­ner of Publick Joy, and Re­spect. The Senate, asIbidem. An­thony the Consul told them, in his Funeral Oration, honoured him as a Father, and loved him as a Benefactor, and decreed him such Honors, as they never did to any other Man, and thought all too little for him, They desired to [Page 7]have him for the [...], ib. Perpetual Prefect of the City and Empire, and for this reason they invest­ed him with the Civil, Military, and Ecclesiastical Supremacy, for they [...], ib. created him Consul, [...]. Plutarch. p. 734. perpetual Dictator, General, and Chief Pontif, and after all publickly acknowledged him Pater Patriae, or Father of the Country, the more to endear him to the People.

Besides all this, they decreed, That he should always wear the Triumphant Stole, ride in the Triumphant Chariot, and that the Lictors should carry Crowns of Lawrel before him: Moreover they caused Money to be coyned with his Image, they set him up two Statues in the great Oratory, and one in all the Temples of Rome, and made him (⋆) sole and per­petual Censor, [...]. and last of all decreed him a Golden Throne, and a Monument, and a Guard of Senators and Gentlemen, as the Kings of old u­sed to have. The Guards indeed he refused, how­ever these Royal Honours of the Senate,Plutarch. edit. Franc. p. 730. together with some pretended Prophecies, made the People Salute him King, which Title he privately affected, though he durst not o­penly admit it; for whenFlorus. lib. 4. c. 2. Dio. lib. 44. Anthony the Consul after this saluted him by the Title of King in the Name of all the [Page 8]People, and tied the Royal Diadem about his Head, he shew'd no displeasure (saith Dio) at the Action, but ony replyed, That Jupiter was the King of the Ro­mans, to whom in Compliment he sent the Diadem to be hung up in his Temple. But however he de­clined the Title of King, he began to treat the Se­nate as their Soveraign; for when they came one day to him, as he was sitting in the Temple of his Mother Venus, to tell him what Honours they had enacted for him, he would not rise up, but received them, and their MessagePlutarch. p, 736. Dio l. 44. upon his Breech, which very much offended the Senate, and others, and gratified the Con­spirators, who now thought it a seasonable time to put their Bloody Design in Execution, and accord­ingly not long after they dispatched him in the Se­nate as anotherBrutus & Cassius sic Caesarem quasi Tar­quinium depulisse regno videbantur, Flor. l. 4. c. 7. Tarquin, be­fore he could settle himself in the Throne.

The Fall of Caesar contrary to the Expectation of the Con­spirators was much lamented by the People,Sueton. c. 83. who began to be enraged against them after his (|) Will was published, for he named many of the Conspirators Tutors of his Children, if he should have had any; Brutus in particular he had put in the second Order of his Heirs, and gave to the People of Rome some Gardens upon the Banks of Tyber, and a Dole of 300 Sesterces a man. After the Fune­ral, which was was performed with all Magnificence and So­lemnity, thePlutarch. p. 740. People run in hast to fire the Houses of Brutus, and Cassius, and [Page 9] Octavius taking this advantage of the People, and Armies Affection to his Father, and obliging them to his Interest more firmly by Gifts, pursued Brutus and Cassius the chief Con­spirators, whoPlutarch. 740, 741. killed them­selves because they would not fall alive into his Hands.

Octavius was thenOrdinatâ magis ut poterat, quàm ut debe­bat, in triumviros repu­blicâ, Flor. l .4. c. 7. vid. Dion. l. 46. Trium­vir, or one of the Three, who govern'd all, Lepidus and Marc Anthony were the other two, but Lepidus being laid aside, O­ctavius, and Anthony ruled all, till growing Jealous of one another, they fell out into open War, and Octavius surviving Conqueror after the Victory at Actium, had now all in his own Power.

Being now absolute Lord without Competitor, he had some thoughts after his Return to Rome ofDio. l. 52. resigning his Power to the Se­nate and People, and restoring the Roman Liberty again. Being uncertain what to resolve, he consults Agrippa, and Maecenas: Agrippa speaks first and offers many plau­sible Reasons, why he should not assume the Mo­narchy; But Maecenas spoke last, replies to the plausible Reasons of Agrippa, and shews the way how he might easily govern the Roman Empire. The same year he assumes the Title ofDio, l. 53. Emperor, not in a Military Sense, as Dio observes, but as it signified the plenitude of Civil Power, and Command, in which Sense it had been decreed unto Julius and the Sons of his Body. Then he proceeds as Colleague of Agrippa the Censor, to visit the Senate, wherein [Page 10]finding many bare Gentlemen and Plebei [...]ns, who had crept into it, during the Civil Wars, he turned them out, and having restored the Senate to its an­cient Dignity, and so obliged the Fathers, he ap­plies himself to get them to make him Emperor; and to that end sets out an Edict to dissolve the Power of the Triumvirat, which was so odious to the People; and then being made the first time Con­sul, he comes into the Reformed Senate, where af­ter he had declared the greatness of his Power, and how easily he could keep it, desires leave to Re­sign it all unto them, telling them, That as it was the Glory of his Father Julius to refuse the Monar­chical Power, which they offered him: So it would be his, to part with it, even when he was in possessi­on thereof.

But the Fathers, some of them suspecting that he dissembled, others certainly knowing that he did so, and others again being weary of the Common­wealth, and all desiring Peace, to which they knew he was inclined,Dio. l. 53. beseeched him to take the Government upon him, and when he refused, they urged him to do so with many Arguments, and forced him as it were to be theirNomine Principis sub Imperium accipit Tacit. An. l. 1. Prince. The Provinces also, asNe (que) provinviae il­lum rerum siatum ab­nuchant suspecto Senâ­tus populi (que) imperio ob certamina potentium, Annal. l. 2. Tacitus tells us, consented, being grown weary of the Contests of the Great Men under the Common­wealth. But Caesar that he might decline all envy, and effectually gain the Good Will of the Peo­ple, politickly refused to take upon him the Government of the whole Empire, but chose the most Unpeace­able [Page 11]Provinces, especially those upon the Borders, and left the more peaceable to the Care of the Se­nate, and furthermore would take the Monarchy upon him but for 10 Years. But he knew very well, that if he had the Administration of the Trouble­some Provinces, where the Legions were, he could command the rest when he pleased, and that if he Reigned quietly the first ten Years, he could, as it proved, reign his whole Life.

After he had accepted of the Government, the Senate among many other Honours, would have decreed him the Title ofTractatum etiam in Senatu, an quia condi­disset Imperium, Romu­lus vocaretur, Florus l. 4. c. 17. Romulus, as being the Founder of the Second Roman Monarchy, but he declining the Envious Name of a King, chose the Ve­nerable Title of Augustus.

Augustus being thus advanced to the Empire, be­gan to contrive how he might secure the Succession to his own Relations, among whom he had a great Love for Caius and Lucius his Grandsons, and his Wives two Sons Tiberius and Drusus. To the two former he gave the Titles of General, and to the two latter the Titles of Princes of the Youth; and though they were not as yet 17 years old, he design­ed to have them made Consuls. But Cains and Lu­cius, and Drusus dying not long after, Tiberius was now the only Expectant of the Empire, and all mens Eyes were turned upon him. Indeed there was yet remaining another Grandson of Augustus, Brother to Caius, and Lucius, Agrippa Posthumus, but he be­ing of a stupid and brutish Disposition, the Empress in favour of her Son, easily perswaded the old Em­peror to banish him into the Island Planasia: There he remained while Tiberius was Adopted by Augu­stus, [Page 12]made Partner with him in the Empire, and in the Tribuneship, and shew'd openly unto the Legi­ons, as one that was designed for their Future Prince. A little before Augustus died it was discoursed, that he intended to restore Agrippa, which made many fear that a Civil War might arise between him and Tiberius after the Emperors death. But as soon as Augustus died, he was upon private Orders dis­patched by his Keeper, so that Tiberius having no Rival, theRomae ruere in ser­vitium Consules, Pa­tres, Eques, Tacit. An. l. 1. Servile Romans of all sorts strove who should shew themselves most readly to obey him. The two Consuls first of all took an Oath of Al­legiance unto him, then they required it of the Cap­tain of the Guards, and the Providor General, then of the Senators, afterwards of the Souldiers, and last of all of the People.

After the Funeral of his Father Augustus was o­ver, the Senate, as he very muchDabat & famae ut vocatus clectus (que) potiùs a repub. videretur, quàm per uxorium am­bitum & senili adopti­one irreps [...]sse, ib. desired, in a mostPrecantem Senatum & procumbentem sibi ad genua—Suet. 24. Patres in questus la­crymas, vota effundi ad Deos, ad effigiem Augusti, ad genua ip­sies manus tendere, Tacit. sup­pliant manner begg'd him to take the Government upon him; and the more he seem'd to re­fuse it, the more importunate they were with him, to accept it; so that at last he seemed to take it upon him, as a man doth aTandem quasi ceactus,—Suet. 24. Burden upon his Back, meerly to comply with their Desires.

Filiorum ne (que) naturalem Drusum, ne (que) adoptivum Germani­cum patriâ charitate dilexit. He had two Sons: One [...]ural by his Wife Agrippina [...] Daughter of Vipsanius A­ [...]a, who was called Drusus, [...] [...]ther by Adoption, the Gal­ [...] [...] Germanicus hisGermanicum Druso ortum adsciri per adoptionem à Tiberio jussit, quanquam esset in domo Tiberii filius ju­venis, Tacit. An. l. Brother [...]us his eldest Son. They [...] died and left Sons, Germa­ [...] three, Nero, Drusus, and [...]ula: Crebris cum la­chrymis minorem en nepotibus complexus tru­ci alterius vultu occi­des hunc tu (inquit) & te alius, Tacit. An. l. 6.46. Drusus one, Tiberius [...]llus, taken off by Caligula, [...] he came to be Emperor, as [...]berius his foretold. (†) Nero [...] Drusus his two eldest Grand­ [...] [...]e recommended to the Se­ [...] but because the Favour of [...] [...]enate and People too came [...] [...]st upon them, he after­ [...] Gnarum hoc prin­cipi, eo (que) dibitavit de tradendâ repub. pri­mum inter nepotes, quo­rum Druso genitus san­guine & charitate pro­prior, sed nondum pu­bertatem ingressus Ger­manici filio robur ju­ventae vulgi studia, eá (que) apud avum odii causa. Etiam de Claudio agi­tanti, quod is compositâ aetate bonarum artium cupiens erat, imminuta mens ejsis obstitit. Sin Extra domum Successor quereretur, ne memoria Augusti, ne, nomen Cae­ [...]am in Ludibria, & contumelias vertcret, metuebat, Tac. An. 6.46. Dso. l. 56. procured their death. this time he was grown and Infirm, but could (‖) resolve who to No­ [...] [...]e and recommend for his [...]ssor: He hated Caligula [...] [...]se he was so dear to the [...] [...]e and the Army for the [...] of his Father Germanicus, [...] [...]ived, and died their Dar­ [...] and especially because the [...] Men began to make their [...] [...]t too soon unto him, which [...] [...]e him tell Macro Occidentem ab eo deseri orientem spectari exprobravit. That [...] [...]orsook the setting to wor­ship [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 14]the Rising Sun. For this Reason he sometimes thought to set up Tiberius his Grandson by Drusus (who was nearest to him in Blood and Affection) to prevent Caligula, but could not well do it, be­cause he was not yet 14 years old. Sometimes he thought of his Nephew Claudius brother to Germa­nicus, who was of full Age, and of a Studious Dis­position, but had not Parts sufficient for the Go­vernment of the Empire. Sometimes again he thought of Nominating a Stranger for his Successor, but that he was loath to do, because it would have been so great a Scandal and Reproach to the Name, and Family of the Caesars; and in this incertitude growing weaker and weaker, he would name none, but left the matter to the Fates.

He died of a lingring Sickness, which gave Cali­gula, the Darling of the City and Provinces upon the Account of his Father Germanicus, opportunity of securing the Succession to himself, although he was [...], Dio. l. 58. ne­ver named nor appointed his Successor by Tiberius, but only adorned by him with some Ho­nours, as if he had intended him for his Successor.

[...]&c. l. 59. In principio Nay Dio tells us for cer­tain that Tiberius in his last Will and Testament bequeathed the Empire to his Young Grandson Tiberius; But Caligula his In­terest in the Consuls and other Senators, got it declared void in the Senate, as being made by the Emperor, when he was not compos mentis, as it did appear by his bequeathing the Empire to a Boy, who was not of age to be a Senator.

The Will of Tiberius being declared void, Caligula comes to Rome, where by the JoyntIngressó (que) urbem, statim consensu Senatûs, & irrumpentis in cu­riam turbae, jus arbitri­um (que) omnium rerum illi permissum est, Sue­ton. 14. Consent of the Senate, and the People, who rushed in­to the Senate-house, he was de­clared Emperor. Never any Prince came with moreExoptatissimus princeps maximae parti provincialium, quod in­fantem plerique cogno­verant, sed & univer­sae plebi Urbanae ob memo­riam Germanici Pa­tris, Sueton. 13. ad­vantage to the Crown, but ne­ver Prince more disappointed the Expectation of the People, being one of the greatest Mon­sters of Vice that ever the World saw. He had not reign­ed quite 4 years before his de­struction was designed and ef­fected by Cheraea, and Sabinus in the Palace, and after he was slain the Consuls having placed Guards in all Parts of the City, convened the Senate into the Capitol.

The Senate being set, some were forDio. l. 60. In principio. Sueton. 60. restoring the Com­monwealth, and abolishing the Memory of the Caesars; others were for continuing the Monarchy, but differed in the Nomination of the Persons, whom they would have succed unto it; and so spent all that day, and the next night in Uncertain Debates.

In the mean while the Souldiers plundering, and ransacking the Palace, found Claudius, the Brother of Germanicus, who had hid himself in that Distra­ction, and as soon as they knew who it was, they, besides his Expectation, Saluted him Emperor, and took him to the Camp, where he was made Empe­ror by the Choice of the whole Army, because he was a Good Man, and of the Imperial House. The [Page 16] Consuls hearing this, sent the Tribunes of the people to charge him not to take the Empire upon him, but to remain under the Obedience of the Senate and the People; but the Army standing firm to their New Emperor, they were forced to consent, and to choose him Emperor too.

Claudius after the death of Messalina Tacit. l. 12.4, 5. Dio. l. 60. marrieth his own Neece Agrippina Daughter to his Brother Germanicus, and Mo­ther to Nero; and she had the as­cendent so much over him, as to make him Adopt her Son, al­though heCluadius Britan­nicus By Messalina, vid. Sueton. 27. Dio. l. 60. had a Son of his own. After his Adoption she prevailed with him to marry him to his own Daughter Octavia, although she was betroathed to another Man.

After this she laboured all she could to secure the Succession unto Nero; and being Jealous of Britan­nicus, whose Interest the Emperors great Favou­rite, and her Enemy Narcissus openly owned, she took Advantage of her Husbands first Sickness to poyson him; and concealing his Death for some time, ordered all things in the interim for the Ad­vantage of Nero, who going to the Guards with Burrhus their Captain, was at his instance, received with great Acclamations, though some of them discovering another Inclination,Dubitavisse quos­dam ferunt expectantes, rogitantes (que), ubi Bri­tannicus esset, Tac. An. 12.69. asked where Britannicus was. From the Guards he was car­ried in a Chair to theIllatus (que), castris Nero Imperator consultatur, sententiam militum secuta patrum con­sulta, nec dubitatum est apud Provincias, Tac. An. 12.60. Camp, where having made a Speech [Page 17]and promised great Largesses to the Army, he was chosen Emperor by them, and the Choice was con­firmed by the Senate, neither did any of the Pro­vinces refuse him for their Prince.

But he proved a Plague to the Empire; and being for his Execrable TyrannySueton. 40.42, 47. deserted by all Mankind, and de­clared a publick Enemy by the Se­nate, at lastin despair he laid violent hands upon him­self, after he had afflicted the World about 14 years.

He was the [...],Eu­trop. lip. 7. Progenies Caesarum in Nerone de­feoit, Sueton. in Galb. 1. Finitâ Juliorum Claudiorum (que) domo: Galba ad Pison, Tac. Hist. l. 16. last man and Emperor of the Family of the Caesars; wherein it is plain from matter of Fact, that the Em­perors had Power to Name or Recommend their Successors, Secondly, that they might name Strangers as well as those of their own Family: And thirdly, that of their own Family they might prefer their Adopted, before their Natural Sons, and the remoter before the nearer in Blood.

Secondly, It is plain that the Nominated Succes­sors were chosen, First by the Senate who gave the Army, Caesars, and then by the Army, who after­wards gave Caesars unto the Senate and People.

Thirdly, That the Senate might choose a Person, who was not nominated by the deceased Emperor, and reject another who was nominated by him. Nay,

Fourthly, That as yet they had a [...], Dio. l. 60. in princ. [...]atus in asserendâ libetate adso consen [...]it—quidam vero abolendum Caesarum memorian, censue­rum, Sueton. in Calig. 60. Right to resume the [Page 18]Empire (had they not been overpowred by the Ar­my) and upon the decease of an Emperor, to give it to a Stranger, as well as to one of Caesars House. And now was not this a brave Hereditary Empire, wherein the Succession to the Crown was so Casual, Irregular, and Arbitrary? and may not a man with as much reason call Black White, a Triangle Square, or any one Species by the name of another, as to call this an Hereditary, which was an Irregular Elective Empire, wherein not one of the Emperors, hitherto at least, came to the Crown by virtue of a Lineal He­reditary descent?

I desire the Unanswerable Man to consult his O­racles of Law, and then to tell me if the Successi­on be in the Royal House of the Stuarts, as it was in the House of the Caesars; or if the Julian and Claudian Princes were born, like ours, unto the Crown? Indeed the108 Years. long continuance of the Empire in in the Family of the Caesars made it look something like their In­heritance,Sub Tiberio & Caio, & Claudio unius familiae quasi haeredi­tas fuimus. Tacit. Hist. l. 16. quasi haereditas, as Galba told Piso, and so the long continuance of it in the House of Austria makes it now look somewhat like an Inheritance, though it be perfect­ly, Th [...] [...]ive, but still at best it is but quasi haereditas, as the French King understands very well.

But it may be, though it were Elective hitherto, it might afterwards come to be Hereditary? It might so, for any thing that nine parts of ten who cry up Julian, know to the contrary; and there­fore let us [...]o on with Matter of Fact, to see if it were so, or no?

Nero being dead, Old Galba was chosen to the Empire by theEutrop. l. 7. Gaules, and Spaniards, and then by the whole Army, according to the Predi­ction ofSueton. in Galba, 4. Augustus, who told him when he was a Boy that he should live to be Emperor.In Ep. Xiphil. Dio tells us, that Tiberius also foretold him, that he should live to tast of the Em­pire; and indeed he did but tast, having reigned but 7 Months according to Suetonius, whom Cedre­nus follows; or according to Dio 9, before he was murdered in the Forum by the Procurement of Otho, who secretly hated him, because he Adopted Piso, when he expected that Honour himself.

Galba being slain, his Murderer Otho succeeded, being made Emperor not only by the Consent of the Souldiery at Rome, but by theDio. Xiphil. [...]. Vo­cat Senatum [...]raetor Ur­banus, accurrunt Pa­tres, deternitur Othoni t [...]bunitia potestas, no­men Augusti [...] & omnes Principum honores, Ta­cit. Hist. l. 1.47. Election of the Senate. But about the same time the Ger­man Legions set up Vitellius for Emperor, who marched straight into Italy, where near Verona he gained a small Victory over Otho, who rather than try the Fortune of War the Second time, in the 95th. day of his Reign, or as Dio saith, in the 10th Month, he killed himself to prevent the Effusion of Roman Blood.

Otho being dead, Sabinus the Prefect of Rome made all the Souldiers in the City swear Allegiance [Page 20]to Vitellius, A flavio Sabim praefecto urbis, quod e­rat in urbe militum sa­cramento Vitellii ada­ctum, In Senatu cuncta longis aliorum Princi­patibus composita sta­tim decernuntur, Tacit. Hist. l. 2.55. and the Senate also decreed him all the Power and Honours that any of the Prece­dent Emperors enjoyed. In the mean timeSueton. in Vitell. 15. in Vespes. 6. Dio. Xiph. Vespasian while he was making War in Judaea, was created Emperor first by the Moesian Legions, then by Tiberius Alexander the Gover­nour of Egypt, and the Army there, and last of all by the Ar­my in Judea, from whence he marched to Alexandria, leaving his Son Titus to be­seige Jerusalem.

Vid. Dion. in Xiphil. Eutrop. l. 7. c. 1. Oros. l. 7. He stay'd at Alexandria sometime, having sent Mucia­nus and Domitian with Forces to Rome; but before Mucian arri­ved there, Vitellius falling into Despair upon what was done by Sabinus and Domi­tian, hid himself in a Dog-Kennel, thinking to e­scape by Night to his Brother at Tarracina, but be­ing found by the Souldiers, they brought him with his Hands bound behind him from the Palace to the Forum, where after much contumelious usage they Barbarously put him to death.

He being dead, Vespasian wa [...] immediatelyRomae Senatus cuncta Principibus soli­ta Vespasiano decermt, Tac. Hist. l. 4. c. 3. declared Em­peror by the Senate; and his two Sons Titus, and Domitia [...] voted Caesars. [...], Dio.

ThisOccultā lege sa­ti, & ostentis ac respon­sis destinatum Vespasi­ano, ac liberis ejus im­perium post fortunam credimus, Tacit. Hist. l. 11. Fortunate Prince the Favourite of God and Men, made his Son Titus Ne (que) ex eo desti­tit participem, at (que) tu­torem imperii agere [...]tri­umphavit cum patre, censuram (que) gessit und, eidem Collega & in Tribunitia potestate, & in septem Consulibue fuit, receptâ (que) ad se ommium officiorum cu­racirc;— Sucton. 6. Ves­pasianus & Titus Im­peratores—Orosius l. 7. c. 9. Vid. Dium. Xiph. in Vesp. & Ti­to. Copart­ner with him in the Empire; he let him triumph with him in that Famous Triumph over Jerusa­lem; he made him his Colleague in the Censorship and Tribune­ship, and in 7 Consulships suc­cessively; in a word, he had the whole care of the Empire com­mitted to him: He made Ora­tions in the Senate, dictated E­pistles, and signed Edicts with his own Name and his Fathers, and was called Emperor as well as his Father, having been pro­claimed so by the Army at the taking of Jerusalem. His Fa­ther reigned 10 years, and he survived him but two years and two months.

ThisOccultā lege sa­ti, & ostentis ac respon­sis destinatum Vespasi­ano, ac liberis ejus im­perium post fortunam credimus, Tacit. Hist. l. 11. Fortunate Prince the Favourite of God and Men, made his Son Titus Ne (que) ex eo desti­tit participem, at (que) tu­torem imperii agere [...]tri­umphavit cum patre, censuram (que) gessit und, eidem Collega & in Tribunitia potestate, & in septem Consulibue fuit, receptâ (que) ad se ommium officiorum cu­racirc;— Sueton. 6. Ves­pasianus & Titus Im­peratores—Orosius l. 7. c. 9. Vid. Dion. Xiph. in Vesp. & Ti­to. Copart­ner with him in the Empire; he let him triumph with him in that Famous Triumph over Jerusa­lem; he made him his Colleague in the Censorship and Tribune­ship, and in 7 Consulships suc­cessively; in a word, he had the whole care of the Empire com­mitted to him: He made Ora­tions in the Senate, dictated E­pistles, and signed Edicts with his own Name and his Fathers, and was called Emperor as well as his Father, having been pro­claimed so by the Army at the taking of Jerusalem. His Fa­ther reigned 10 years, and he survived him but two years and two months.

He was succeeded by the Second Nero, his Bro­ther Domitian, who was mur­dered by his ownLactantius de Mort. Persecut. Dio Xiph. Orosius l. 7. c. 10. Sueton. 17. Dome­stics, the Empress her self be­ing in the Conspiracy, when he had reigned 15 years. The Chief of the Conspirators, besides Domitia the Em­press, were Parthenius and Sigerus, Gentlemen of his Bed-Chamber, and Entellus his Secretary of State, who coming by a strange Accident to read their Names among others whom the Emperor had destined to Destruction, were resolved to be before­hand with him, but first sought out for a Successor [Page 22]to the Empire, and after Nerva had promised to take the Government upon him, they put their De­sign in execution, when he was asleep.

Domitian being dead Nerva by the Interest of Petronius Secundus the Praefectus Praetorio, and the forementioned Parthenius, was declared Emperor by theDio Xiph. Oros. l. 7.11. Eutrop. l. 8. Senate: He was old and infirm, and died after he had reigned 18 Months. Before he died, heDio Xiph. publickly adop­ted Trajan in the Capitol [...] l. [...] though he had Relations of his own; and afterwards declared him Caesar in the Senate, meerly for his Vertues, though he was no [...], Dio Xiph. Roman, but a Spaniard, and of obscure Original; and he was the first [...] Stranger, that succeeded to the Imperial Cro [...],

Here we may see the Skill, or Ingenuity of our Author, who decla [...]d this Incertum & quasi vagum Imperium, asIn Vesp. I. Suetonius once called it, to be an Hereditary Em­pire, which was fixed to no Fa­mily, but to which every Free Subject in it, Roman or not Roman, might possibly succeed, as every Free­man in London, of what Family or Country soever, may come to be Lord Mayor. Let him go to his great Mystae in poli [...]ics to help him to reconcile the defi­nition of an Hereditary Empire, to such a vagrant and desilro [...]y Succession as I have shewn this to be, if he can do it, I will no longer believe that the Noti­ons of things are fixed and immutable, but that the same Number may be Even and Odd, and the same Element Fire and Water. The Angels Horns in the [Page 23]Vision of his Mahomet, which were half Snow, and half Fire, are not half so great a Contradiction as such an Hereditary Empire, for the Fire & Snow were visiona­ry, or if they were real, the Fire might be lambent & not melt the Snow, but Electivemelts down the Notion of Hereditary with its very looks, they are utterly in­consistent, and can no more belong to one common Subject, than a Table can be round and square.

But to return to this strange Hereditary Successi­on; Trajan the best of the Roman Emperors died after he had reigned 19 years. In his life time he would Adopt none, not Adrian his Countryman and nearest Kinsman, who had been bred under him, and married his Neece. ButDio Xiph. after he was dead, Plo­tina the Empress, concealing his death, wrote Letters in his Name to the Senate, wherein was declared, That he had Adopted Adri­an; after which she declared him Emperor, while he was at Antioch, of which he was Governour: But before he stirred from thence, he wrote to the Senate to desire them to confirm him in the Em­pire, which they did, and over and aboveO [...]osius l. 7. c. 13. Spartian in Adrian. gave him the an­cient Title of Pater Patriae, and his Wife the Title of Augusta. He first AdoptedDio. Xiph. Lucius Com­modus, or as Spartian calls himQui & Aelius Ve­rus appellatus est, Spar­tian. Ceionius Commodus Verus; but he dying, he sent for the Chief of the Senators to his Pa­lace, where he lay very sick, and most earnestlyDio. Xiph. Spart. in Adriano. recommend­ed unto them Arrius, or Aurelius Antoninus, whom he Adopted, and the Senate forthwith admitted him [Page 24]for theriXiph. in Ant. Pio. Emperor. Aure­lius Antoninus being Adopted, and declared Emperor, his Fa­ther Adrian commanded him presently to AdoptThe Son of Cei­onius Commodus, Dio. Xiph. in Adriano. Spait. in Aelio Vero. Huic Pater C. Commodus, quem alii Verum, alii Lucium Aurelium, multi Annium prodiderunt. Annius Verus Antoninus, and Marcus An­toninus: Spartian saith that A­drian Adopted him upon thatSed eâ demum lege, ut ille sibi duos a­doptaret Annium Ve­rum, & Marcum An­toninum. In Adriano. Condition, that he should Adopt them. However it was, shortly after these Adoptions A­drian died, after he had reigned 20 years.

After he was dead, the Senate refused him the Compliment of Divine Honours, but upon the Tears and Requests of Antoninus they at length decreed them, and gave Antoninus, who Capitolinus calls the Second Numa, the Titles of Augustus and Pius, which he very well deserved. He died at his Coun­try House about 12 Miles off Rome, after he had reigned according to Eutropius 23, but according to Xiphilin and Cedrenus 24 years, and after his death was Canonized by the unanimous Vote of the Se­nate.

He was succeeded by his two Adopted Sons Mar­cus Antoninus, and Annius Verus Antoninus, who married Lucilla the Daughter of Marcus Antoninus. These two Ruled [...]. Eutrop. Verus certe cum Mareo equale gessit imperium, nam ipsi sunt, qui primo da [...] Augusti appellati sunt, & quorum fastis consularibus sic nomina prae­saribuntur. Spart. in Aelio Vero. together with equal Authority, being both called Augusti, and so Re­gistred [Page 25]in the Consular Kalenders. Verus died first of an Apoplexy in tHe 11 thImperavit cum fratre annus undecem. Capitol. in Vero. year of their Reign, and was survived by Marcus 9 years, who died in the 20th year of His.

I might here remind our Author of his Hereditary Empire, and ask him how it could descend upon [...], Zosim. l. 1. two Heirs at once, but I pass on to Commodus, Son and Successor to Marcus An­toninus, who dying in the Camp, commended his Son to the Army a little before his death. As soon as his Funeral Solemnities were over, Commo­dus gives mighty Largesses to the Army, to bind them more firmly to his Interest, and presently re­turns in hast to Rome. When he came near the City, the whole Senate and People went out to meet him with Laurels and Flowers in their Hands: For they mightily loved him for his Father and and Grandfathers sake, and because he was born and bred among them, and had so much Senatorian Blood in his Veins. For his Father descended of one of the most Illustrious Families of the Senato­rian Order, and his Mother Faustina the Empress was Daughter to Antoninus Pius, and Neece to A­drian; and his Extraction added to his Vertuous Education, and comely Form, made them dote upon him, and receive him with Acclamations and all other Signs of Joy,Herodian l. 1. as strewing Crowns and Flowers upon the Ground as he entred into Rome. After he came to the City he went in Pro­cession to visit the Temples; after which having given thanks to the Senators, and Gratuities to the [Page 26]Guards for their Fidelity to him, he went unto the Palace. But the Romans were as much disappoint­ed in him, as their Ancestors had been in the Son of Germanicus, for the proved a Second Caligula, and for his Cruelties was murdered by his Concubine Marcia, after he had reigned 12 years.

Commodus being dispatched, Electus and Laetus who conspired his death with Marcia, Eutrop. l. 8. Dio. Xiph. Herodian l. 2. Orosius l. 7. 16. brought the news of it to Pertinax, who was then Pre­fect of Rome. After he had cer­tified himself of the Truth of the Matter, he goes to the Camp, and promises large Donatives to the Souldiers, and having secu­red them, he was afterwards declared Emperor by the unanimous Consent of the Senate, who would also have declared his Wife Augusta, and his Little Son Caesar, but he would let neither be done. He had reigned but 66 days before he was killed in his Palace by the Guards, who hated him for his severe Discipline.

The Souldiers having dispatched him, they immedi­ately from the walls of Rome published the Sale of the Empire to him that would give most. Two bid for it, Sulpicianus Father-in-Law to Pertinax within the City, and Julianus without. Sul­picianus offeredA Drachma is about the value of 7 d. ob. Sterl. 5000 Drach­mas to every man of them, but Julianus being the Richer,Dio. Xiph. He ro­dian l. 2. offe­red 1250 more: And the Bar­gain being made, the Souldiers let down their Ladders from the Walls, upon which he and his Friends mounted into the City. After he was entred, the Souldiers declared him Emperor, and conducted him straight into the Senate-House, [Page 27]whither the Senators immediately repairing, for fear, confirmed the Souldiers Choice.

But Severus, who had sworn Allegiance to Perti­nax, hearing what was done, marched from the Banks of Danubius with all expedition to Rome: He met with no Opposition by the way, for Julianus durst not march out to encoun­ter him.Herodian l. 2. Dio. Xiph. Eutropius l. 8. When he drew near Rome with his Forces, Julianus fell into great distraction, and the Consul convocating the Se­nate, who knew in what a Consternation he was they voted him to death, and Severus to the Empire. [...]. Herod l. 2. Vid. etiam Spart. in Didio Juliano. After this they met Severus at the Gates of the City, and saluted him as their Emperor, and the People received him with joyful Accla­mations, although he was an African born. He was a Vertu­ous Prince, and successful aganist; his Enemies, and died at York after he had reigned 17 years.

He left two Sons Geta, and Bassianus surnamed Caracalla, both of which he de­signed for his [...] Herod. in Severo. Successors to rule the Empire with joynt and equal Authority, as the twoSeverum quam moriretur Laetatum quod duos Antonines pari imperio reip, relinqueret exemplo Pii, qui Verum & Marcum Antoninous per adoptionem filios repip, reliquit, hic per [...]se genitos Rectores Roman [...]e reip, daret Antininum Bassianum, & Getam. Spart. in Severo. Vid. Cedrenum. Antonines had done before. But their Father was no sooner dead, but they grew Jealous one of another, and all along [Page 28]their Journey from Brittain to Rome lay in diffe­rent Houses, neither Eating nor Drinking together all the way.

When they came near the City, the People and Senate went out to congratulate their Arrival; and the Form of the Procession into the City was thus.

The two Princes in their Royal Purple went first, the Consuls followed after them, carrying the Urn wherein were the Ashes of Severus, and then in or­der all that came out to salute the New Emperors. They put the Urn in the Temple where the Monu­ments of the former Princes were, and having per­formed all the Customary Rites, the two Princes retire into different Apartments in the Palace, and had different Guards.

After the Apotheosis of their Father, they sought one anothers Destruction, each seeking to have the Empire alone. The greater part was inclined to Geta, and their Mother being afraid of the Tragi­cal Effects of their Discord, sought, but all in vain, to make them Friends. At length they agree to divide the Empire, and the Terms of the Agree­ment were these: Bassian was to have Europe and the Western Parts of Africa; Herodian. in Caracalla. and Geta was to have Asia, and the Eastern Parts of Africa; and of the Senators as many as were Romans were to stay at Rome with the one, and the rest were to go into Asia with the other. But their Mother asking them with Tears in her Eyes how they could divide her, made them break off the Agreement, at which she was glad, hoping at length she should reconcile them. But all her Endeavours were vain, for now they conspire one anothers destruction: But Bassian [Page 29]being the more fiery and impatient, was resolved to be before-hand with his Brother Geta, and there­fore coming suddenly upon him, he gave him his deaths wound, of which he presently died in his Mothers Arms.

Upon this he presently flyes out of the Palace to the Camp, where telling the Souldiers what dangers he had escaped, and how he had killed his Brother in his own defence; and promising every one of them two thousand and two hundred Drachmas a man, and half as much more Provision as they used to have, and likewise giving them leave to plunder the Treasuries and the Temples, they presently pro­claim him Emperor. He remained all that Night in the Camp, and the next day marched in the Head of the Army to the Senate, and havingSpart. in Cara­calla. Herod. in Ca­racalla. placed the Souldiers between the Senators Seats, he mounts the Imperial Throne, and excuses the Murder of his Brother in a Seech. After he had reigned with much Cruelty six years, his death was conspired by his Praefectus Praetoria Macrinus, who killed him by the hands of Martialis the Centurion in Charrae a Ci­ty of Mesopotamiâ, while he was at Stool. The Souldiers thinking that Martialis had killed him meerly to revenge his Brothers death, whom he had slain, pursued him, and killed him without enqui­ring further into the Conspiracy.

After the death of Caracalla, the Army delibera­ted two days about the Choice of an Emperor, and at length agreed in the Choice of one Audentius; but he refusing it, they chose Macrinus, who after he had concluded a Peace with Artabanus King of [Page 30] Persia, marched to Antioch, Herodian in Ma­crino. from whence he sent a Letter unto the Senate, wherein he a­pologized for the meaness of his Extraction, and promised that his Government should look rather like a Commonwealth, than a Kingdom; and highly reflected upon Commodus and other Emperors who succeeded their Fathers, be­cause looking upon the Empire [...]. as their Due by Inheritance, they abused it, [...]. as their own Patrimony, whereas those who received it from the Senate were their Debtors, and bound to requite their Kindness.

Upon the reading of this Respectful Letter, he was im­mediately declared Emperor by the Senate, and had all the ImperialSuch as the Title of Augustus, the Con­sulship, the Proconsul­ship, the Tribuneship, the Censorship, and the Office of Pontifex Max­imus. Vid. Dion l, 53. Honours and Offices conferred upon him. Before he sent this Letter, as soon as he was Elected Empe­ror by the Souldiers, he de­clared his SonCapitol. in Ma­crino. Herod, in Ma­crino. Diadumenus, Caesar, and made him his Partner in the Empire. But his ill-gotten Em­pire lasted not long, for the Legions coming to un­derstand that he conspired against the Life of the last Emperor, began to hate him; and the Fates, as Profane Authors call Providence, made way for their Revolting from him. The Story is in short this:

Moesa a Phaenician Lady, Sister to Julia the Wife of Severus, and Mother to Caracalla, had lived a long time in the Court, and heaped up vast Riches. She [Page 31]had two Grandsons by two Daughters, both Priests of the Sun, Bassianus surnamedOr Heliogabalus. Heloeagabalus, and Alexianus. Heliogabalus was a Youth of ex­traordinary Form and Beauty, and much admired and commended by the Souldiers, who frequented the Temple of the Sun. Moesa finding the young Priest so much in Favour with the Souldiers,Capitolin in Macri­no. Herol. in Macrino & Heliog. Dio Xiph. in Ma­crino. privately gave it out, that he was the Son of Ca­racalla, and at the same time gave great Gifts among the Souldiers.

Uon this the Souldiers revolt from Macrinus, and receive Heliogabalus as the Son of Caracalla, surname him Antoninus fromAntoninus Cara­calla. his supposed Father, put the Royal Purple upon him, and de­clare him Emperor.

Macrinus hearing this, sends Julianus with ano­ther part of the Army against the Revolters; but as soon as they drew near the City where the New Emperor was, the Souldiers shewed him unto them, crying out, The Son of Antoninus, the Son of Anto­ninus; and also shaking Bags of Money in their Hands. Upon this the Forces of Julianus cut off his Head, and joyn with the Revolters to Helioga­balus. This ill News makes Macrinus march with all his Forces against Heliogabalus, who met him in the Confines of Syria and Phaenicia, where a little after the Battel was begun; the Souldiers of Macri­nus joyned in great Numbers with the Army of this Pseudo-Antoninus; he perceiving the Treachery, flyes, and was taken and killed in Bithinia, after he had reigned about a year.

Macrinus, and his Son Diadumenus Caesar being kill'd, the whole Army proclaim Heliogabalus Em­peror, and when the Senate received the News of it, being forced to make a Ver­tue of [...] Herod. Necessity, they con­firmed their Choice.

Heliogabalus being confirmed in the Empire, A­dopts his Brother Alexanus, but two years younger than himself, and declares him Caesar; and there­upon makes him Consul with himself, and; then gets the Senate [...]. Herodian. most redicu­lously to confirm the Adoption of his Brother, agaist all Law, whichAdoptio enim na­turam imitatur, debet ita (que) is qui filium sibi per adoptionem facit plenâ pubertate, i.e. de­cem & octo annis precedere. Inst. l. 1.11. requires that the A­dopter should be 18 years older than the person adopted.

After Alexianus, otherwise called Alexander, was adopted, the Souldiers and Citizens beginning to hate Heliogabalus for his Cruelty, Effeminacy, and Affectation of Foreign Fashions,In Alexandrum omnes. inclinantes, qui jam Caesar erat a se­natu dictus. Lomprid. set their Affections and Ex­pectations upon his Brother. Heliogab. understanding all this, sought to destroy him, but not being able to compass his death, he resolved to [...]. He­rodian. Misit ad mi­lites literas quibus jus­sit ut abrogaretur no­men Caesaris Alexan­dro. Lampred. depose him from the Caesarship, and in order to it, would not let him stir abroad. But the Souldiers mutining up­on it, he was forced to bring him into the Camp, where the [Page 33]Army thinking they had a fair Opportunity to se­cure Alexander, and the Empire unto him, killed Heliogab., and forthwith declared Caesar Emperor, and attended him unto the Palace.

Alexander being declared Emperor by the Army, had all Imperial Honours and Offices conferred upon him by theCertatim deni (que) omnia decreta sunt & nomina generum, & po­testatum. Lamprid. in Severo. Senate, and after a peaceable and happy Reign in all things, excepting the Persian Expedition, was at last killed by the procurement of Maximin, who conspired a­gainst him, as he lay with the Army on the Fron­tiers of Germany, in the 14th year of his Reign.

A fine Hereditary Empire this was, which by reason of its Elective Succession became aInvadentibus multis remp. res Roma­na praedombus direptui fuit. Lamprid. in Se­vero. Prey to every base and villanous Usurper; For Maximin aBarbaro patre & matre genitus. Ca­pitolin. Semibarbarian, as Herodian calls him, was at first but a Shepherd, and then a common Souldier, and after­wards a Commander, and yet so gained the Affections of the Souldiery, that he was made Emperor first by a Legion of younger Souldiers over whom he had the Command, and then by the whole [...]—Herodian in A­lexand. Army; to which he gave double Allowance of Pro­vision, and promised mighty Donatives, as the Candidates for the Empire used to do.

Being declaredSine decreto Se­natûs Augustus ab ex­ercitu appellatus est, si­lio sibimet in partici­patum dato. Capitolin. But he was he was afterwards confirmed by the Se­nate: According to Aurelius Victor, Poten­tiam cepit suffragi is le­gionum, quod tamen e­tiam patres, dum peri­culosum existimant in­ermes armato resistere, approbaverunt. [...] Cedrenus. Augustus in the Camp, he made his Son Partner with him in the Empire, and War with the Germans, a­gainst whom he was mighty Suc­cessful, and magnified his Vi­ctories over them in very inso­lent Letters to the Senate. In the mean while the Army in A­frica hearing of his barbarous Pride and Cruelty, brought the Purple to Gordianus the Procon­sul, and made him Emperor a­gainst hisReclamantem & terra se affligentem o­pertum purpurâ impe­rare coegerunt. Capi­tolin. Will. He sends word to Rome of what the Soul­diers had done to him, and the Senate out of hatred to Maxi­min confirms the Choice of the African Souldiers, and declares Gordianus and his Son Augusti, and denounces Maximin and his Son Enemies to the Empire,Capitolin. and He­rodian in Maximin. & Cap. in Gord. and sent Letters to all the Provinces to defend themselves against them. At the same time Capellianus in Africk re­bels against Gordian, who losing his Son, whom he sent to reduce him, in the first Battel, hanged him­self. The Senate hearing of the death of the two Gordians, immediately created Maximus Pupienus Prefect of the City, and Clodius Balbinus Emperors, and the (†) Grandson of old Gordian Caesar, Capitol in Maxi­min. in Gord. in Maxi­mo & Galb. at the desire of the Souldiers and People. Here­upon Maximin marches with all his Forces into Italy, where he found the Country [Page 35]without Forage, and the Cities fortified against him, particularly Aquileia, at the Seige whereof he and his Son were killed by his own Souldiers, to the great Joy of Rome and all the Provinces, who look­ed upon him as anotherUt illum alii Cy­clopem, alii Busiridem, alii Phalarim, multi Typhonem vocarent. Capitolin, Maximus dicebat se non contra hominem sed contra Cyclopem bel­lum gerere. Cap. in Maxim. & Balb. Cy­clops or Busiris, and gave solemn thanks to the Gods for their de­liverance by his death.

A few Months after, the Army of Maximin, Dixisse fertur Maximus, vereor ne militum odium sentia­mus & mortem. ib. as Maximus foresaw, disdaining the Empe­rors of the Senate, had a mind to have one of their own choo­sing, and therefore watching a fit Opportunity they seized the Palace, and slew the Emperors, and made Gordianus the youngGordianus Caesar sublatus a militibus Im­perator est appellatus, id est, Augustus, quia non erat alius in present. ib. Caesar, Emperor or Augustus in their steads.

Gordianus after he had reigned 6 years, was base­ly betrayed and murdered by his ungrateful Praefectus Praetorio Philippus in the Frontiers of Persia, where he was madeCapitolin. in Gordiano Tertio. Eutrop. l. 9. Zosim. l. 2. Aurel. Victor. Pompon. Laetus. Emperor by the Army. He was surnamed A­rabs from his Country, and made his Son Partner with him in the Empire. But as he betray'd his Master in Persia, so Decius be­tray'd him in Pannonia, where he wasZosim. ibid. made Emperor by the [Page 36]Mutinous Legions, whom he was sent to reduce. Philip hearing how Decius had put on the Purple, marches against him with his Son, and in the first Battel was slain with his Son, after they had reigned about six years. Decius and his Son both lost their Lives in the Scythian Expedition by the Treachery of Gallus, before he had reigned quite two years.

Upon the death of Decius, Gallus was created Em­peror by the Souldiers and theHaec ubi patres comparere. Gallo Hosti­liano Augusta Imperia, Volusianum Gallo edi­tum Caesarem decer­nunt. Pompon. Laetus. Senate, and Volusianus his Son declared Caesar; but he had not reigned many days before the Pannonian Legions, after their Victory over the Scythyans under the Conduct of AEmilia­nus, chose him their Emperor: Upon which he marched into Italy, and was met by Gallus and his Army at Interamnia, Eutrop. l. 9. Zosim. l. 1. Aurel. Victor. Pomp. Laet. But Gallus his Souldiers seeing themselves much inferiour to the Enemy, slew their Emperor and his Son, and revolted to Aemilianus, who was shortly after declared Augustus by the Senate. But he had not reigned 3 Months, before Valerianus was declared Emperor by the Celtic and German Le­gions, which the Souldiers at Rome hearing, and not being willing to spend their Blood in the de­fence of an Emperor of such ignoble Extraction, killed him in his Palace, and likewise declared Va­lerian Emperor.

Valerian was received by the Senate, who crea­ted his SonEutrop. l. 9. Aurel. Victor. Gallienus Caesar, whom he madeTrebellius Pollio. Partner with him in the Empire, leaving him the European forces to defend [Page 37]the German Frontiers, while he marched into Persia against Sa­pores, Lactant. de Mort. Per­secut. who took him Captive af­ter he had reigned 6 years. Gallienus after his Fa­thers death wholly addicted himself to Ease, Wine, and Wantonness,Triginta propè tyrannos passus est. Tre­bell. Pollio in Gallien. Tumultuarios Imperato­res ac Regulos. Ib. in Claudio. quietly suffering almost 30 several per­sons to usurp several Parts of the Empire, and take upon them the Titles of Augusti, till at last some Officers of the Army not being able to endure him any longer, killed him at Milan with his Brother Va­lerian, who was also called Augustus.

He was succeeded byEutrop. l. 9. Trebell. Poll. in Gal­lien. Clau­dius the Second, who was cho­sen Emperor by the Army, and afterwards declared Augustus by the Senate. He had not reigned quite two years when he died, to the great grief of the Senate, who chose his Brother Quintillus Emperor, who wasTrebell. Pollio. Eutrop. l. 9. slain by the Souldiers in the 17th day of his Reign;Pompon Laetus. Zosimus. Cedrenus. o­thers say he killed himself, af­ter he heard that the Army had chosen Aurelian Emperor, whom as Pompon Laetus saith, Clodius recommended to the Senate, when he first was taken sick.

MyTrebell. Poll. Author, speaking of Quintillus his succeeding of his Brother to the Empire, saith, Delatum sibi omnium judicio suscepit Imperium non Hae­reditarium, sed merito virtutum, which I leave to the Author and Superviser of Julian to construe, if they [Page 38]can, into this English; There is nothing more plain, than that the Empire was Hereditary.

Aurelian his Successor did mighty things, but was slain by the Treachery of his Se­cretary,Zosimus. l. 2. Eutrop. l. 9. Aurel. Victor. Pompon. Laetus. who having been threatned by him for some Mis­demeanours, counterfeited or­ders in his Majesties Name and Hand for killing of some Military Officers; which he pretended out of Kindness privately to shew some of them, exhorting them to prevent their own death, by the Emperors. They believing this Sham to be true, presently conspired against him, and killed him at Caenophrurion between Hera­clea and Byzantium, after he had reigned six years.

After the death of Aurelian, there was anFlavius Vopis­cus in Tacito. Interregnum (which is inconsistent with an Hereditary Empire) for six months, which was spent in Compliments betwixt the Army, and the Senate, which of the two should choose the new Emp. At length the Senate choseFlavius Vopis­cus. Eutropius l. 9. Au­rell. Victor. Tacitus a grave Senior of their own Body; but he scarce lived to do any thing more, than to revenge the Murder of Aurelian, dying after he had reign­ed 6 Months.

After he was dead his Brother Florianus (saithPost fratrem ar­ripuit Imperium non Senatûs autoritate, sed suo motu, quasi haeredi­ [...]rium esset Imperium. Vopiscus) usurped the Em­pire, without the Authority of the Senate, as if it had been an Hereditary Empire, which by the Favour of Unanswerable Mr. J. [Page 39]implyes plainly that it was not so. He reigned not above two months before he was killed by the Soul­diers at Tarsus, and (as some suspected) by the contri­vance of Probus, the Second Han­nibal, who was chosen Emperor by the universal Consent of the Army and Senate,Tantus autem Pro­bus fuit in re militari, ut illum Senatus opta­ret, miles eligerit, ipse populus Romanus accla­mationibus peteret. Vo­piscus. & after he had quelled many Rebellions, was slain in a Mutiny of the Soul­diers at Sirmium, Eutrop. l. 9. Aurel. Victor. Vopiscus. after he had reigned six years.

The Senate and People mightily bewailed the death of Probus, who was succeeded by Carus the Praefectus Praetorio, who as soon as he was made Emperor by theVopiscus. Pom­pon Laetus. Army, declared his two Sons Carinus and Numerianus, Caesars, and about a year after he took the Empire upon him, he was killed by Lightning in his Camp upon the Banks of Tigris. Presently after he was dead, Nu­merianus falling sick, was killed by Arrius Aper his own Father-in-Law, who thought to succeed Pro­bus in the Empire.

But he was much disappointed in his Expectati­on, for the Army chose Diocle­sian a man of obscure Parentage;Vopiscus. Eutrop. l. 9. Pomp. Laet. and he being declared Augustus, revenged the death of Numeria­nus upon Aper with his own Hand. Aper being slain, he presently set himself against Carinus, whom af­ter many Battels he at last quite routed at the River Margus, where Carinus was slain.

After the death of Carinus he was declaredPompon Laetus. Eutrop. l. 9. Lactant. de Mort. Persecut. Augustus by the Senate, and joyfully recei­ved by the People of Rome: But finding the Empire infested with Rebellions, he declared Maximianus, surnamed Herculeus, Caesar, and then Augustus, and made him his Brother and Partner in the Empire, which they governed together in per­fectPompon. Laet. Eutrop. l. 9. Lactant. de Mort. Pers. Euseb. de Mart. Palaest. c. 3. Concord, till they both resigned together in the 20th. year of their Reign.

They were succeeded by their own Adopted Sons and Caesars, Constantius Chlorus whom Maximian adopted, and Galerius Maximi­anus, Aurel. Victor. Pom­pon Laet. Lactant. de Mort. Pers. whom Dioclesian adopted; who being forced after their A­doption to put away their for­mer Wives, Constantius married Theodora, Daughter-in-Law to Maximian, and Galerius, Valeria, the Daughter of Dioclesian.

When Dioclesian resigned to Galerius, he was forced by him much against his Inclination to nomi­nare Severus and Maximinus, who was Nephew to Galerius, Caesars, at which the Army was much sur­prized, expecting that he should have nominatedConstantinum om­nes intuebantur. Nulla erat dubitatio, milites, qui ad [...]rant, & prio­res militum electi, ac acciti ex regionibus in hune unum intenti gaudebant, optabant, & vota fa [...]iebant, &c.— Lactant. de Mort. Persec. p. 38. Constantinus Son to Constantius, who was now in Brittain.

Constantine was then in the Court of Dioclesian, and continued after his Retirement with Galerius but [Page 41]very uneasie, because another was set up Caesar over his Head: Galerius hated him, and had ill Designs upon him, of which he was very sensible, which made him beg leave of his Majesty to go into Brittain to his Father Constantius, which he obtained with much difficulty upon his Fathers Letters; but leave be­ing once obtained, away he posts, arriving at York but aPervenit ad pa­trem jam deficientem. Lact. de Mort. Pers. little before his Father died.

His Father had declared him Caesar before his Arrival, as Pomp. Laet. saith, when he first fell sick; and at his death left his part of the Empire to him, and commended him to the Army for their New Emperor. This vexed Galerius to the Heart, who yet fearing the Brittish Legions, durst not but send him the Imperial Purple, which yet he stainedIllud excogitavit, ut Severum, qui erat aetate maturior Augu­stum nuncuparet, Con­stantinum vero non Im­peratorem, sicut erat fa­ctus, sed Caesarem cum Maximino appellari juberet, ut eum de se­cundo loco rejiceret in quartum. Lact. ib. by ma­king Severus Emperor, and on­ly giving him the Title of Cae­sar.

Not long after Maxentius, Son of Maximian was made Emperor at Rome by the Souldiers: Galerius sends Severus with an Army against him, but as soon as he arrived at the City, his Souldiers revolt from him to Maxentius; upon which he slyes; and in his Flight was killed at Ravenna.

Upon these new Motions, old Maximian surnamed Herculeus, putting on his Purple, goes to Dioclesian, and would have perswaded him that they might joyn, and resume the Empire; but he refusing, he [Page 42]lays by his Purple, and goes to Constantine, and perswades him for his own ends, to go against the Franconians, who were then in Rebellion; and in his Absence sets up for Emperor again. Constan­tine hearing of this, returns sooner than he could expect him, besieges him in Marseilles, and takes him and severely rebuking him for his Treachery, pulls off the Purple from him,Euseb. Hist. l. 8.13. Lactant. de Mort. Per­sec. and makes him a Private Man again. Being enraged at this, he attempts to kill Constantine by Treachery, which being discovered by his Daugh­ter Fausta, who put an Eunuch in his stead, Maximian hanged himself in despair.

In the mean time Galerius fearing Maxentius at Rome, and being Jealous of Constantine in Gaul; de­declares Licinius, Augustus, and makes him his Partner in the Empire:Lact. de Mort. Per­sec. 32. Ed. Oxon. Upon this Maximin grew discontented, which for­ced him at last to declare him Emperor and Constan­tine too.

After this he was stricken with a loathsome Dis­ease, of which he died; and about two years af­ter him Maximinus dyed atAurel. Victor. Lactant. saith, he poy­son'd himself, de Mort. Pers. 49. Tarsus, whether he fled from Licinius, who pursued him af­ter he had routed his Forces in Illyrium.

In the mean while Constantine beingPomp. L. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. c. 26, 27. invited by the Senate and People of Rome, provoked and encouraged by theEuseb. ibid. c. 28. Zonar. l. 3. in Const. Cedren. Hea­venly Vision, goes against Max­entius, whom he overthrew near [Page 43] Rome in a pitched Battel. Maxentius seeing his Forces routed, strived to escape, but as he passed over the River Tyber on a Tim­ber-bridge whichZosim. l. 2. La­ctant. saith, that the Bridge was Pons Mil­vius, and that it was cut in two by Treachery. de Mort. Pers. 44. broke un­der him, he fell in, and was drown'd.

There was now of all these Augustus'es (for Dio­clesian died in his Retirement in Dalmatia) only Con­stantine, and Licinius, to whom Constantine gave his Sister Constantia in Marriage. But they continued not long in Friendship before they fell into Civil War, in which after a Drawn Battel in Thrace, Peace was made, and confirmed with Oaths on both sides, but soon after broken by the Provocations of Lici­nius, who being brought to the last extremity, sur­rendred himself and his Purple to Constantine, only upon condition of Life confir­med by theZosim. l. 2. Eu­trop. l. 10. Oath of Constan­tine to his Sister Constantia. But being sent to Thessalonica, and not being able to abstain fromOpinio fuit im­morantem Thessalonicae Licinium imisse consili­um de resumendis ar­mis, & ideo missos in­terfectores. Pomp. Laet. [...]— Credenus. Euseb de Vit. Const. l. 2. c. 43. Theod. l. 1. c. 7. new Attempts, Constantine ordered him to be put to death.

Now Constantine was sole Emperor, and made his Three Sons Caesars, Constan­tine in the Tenth,Euseb. de Vit. Const. l 4. c. 40. Constantius in the 20th, & Constans in the 30th year of his Reign; among whom, not at his death, asCh. 1. p. 5. our Au­thor [Page 44]fraudulently saith, but [...] Euseb. de vit. Const. c. 60. E­dit. Vales. sometime before, he divi­ded the Empire, like [or as it were] a Paternal Inheritance. After his Death and Funeral, ‘The Tribunes of the Army dis­patched away men that had been remarkable for their Love and Fidelity to Constantine, un­to the Caesars, to give them no­tice of what had happened, and the Armies e­very where, as soon as they heard of the Emperors Death, did as it were by Divine Inspiration as u­nanimously consent to acknowledge and admit none for Emperors but his Three Sons, as if he had been living among them, and accordingly not long after they saluted them all by the Name of Augusti, which is the Ceremony of creating Emperors; and of this they gave notice to one an­other by Letters; and their Harmonious Consent in the Choice of the New Emperors was known e­very where at the same time.’

This is, as near as I can render it, the sense of the 60. Ch. ofEdit. Vales. Eusebius in his 4. B, of the Life of Constantine; but a Leaf or two from the former Citation which ourP. 1. Author took so much notice of, but this Chapter and the next unto it, which mentions the Senate and Peoples [...] Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 69. unanimous Confir­mation of the Military Choice, he passed over, knowing very well, that two such Harmoni­ous [Page 45]and Solemn Elections of the [...] Vit. Const. l. 1. Proaem. Three Caesars into the Au­gustusship was utterly inconsistent with an Hereditary descent.

And so indeed was the Division of the Empire, whether it were by Constantines Designation, as Eu­seb. saith; or by Agreement among the Three Coe­sars after his death, asL. 2. [...]. Quidam tradunt Con­stantinum orbem haere­dibus testamento divi­sisse, quidam filios sor­te fecisse. Pomp. Laet. Zosi­mus relates it. For could His Majesty, for Example, if he had Three Sons or Brothers, leave England to one, Scotland to an­other, and Ireland to a third; or could they if they would, after his decease, legally parcel this Hereditary Empire into Three Parts, like an Estate left in Common to three? I suppose if our Author put these Questions to his Superviser, whom I take to be the better Lawyer of the two, he will tell him No.

But to go on with a few more Questions, I desire these two Gentlemen to tell me, whether Constantine might not have na­med Four, whichEutrop. l. 10. [...] Pomp. Laet. Dalmatium A­navalliani fratris fili­um Caesarem fecit, & unà cum filiis haeredem statuit. some write he did, as well as Three Caesars and Successors, or two, or one? or if he had pleased none, but left it, as some of his Prede­cessors did, to Fate, or the Se­nate to choose his Successor? or [Page 46]whether he might not have pre­ferred his baseVid. Pomp. Laet. & Zosim. l. 2. [...]. Son Crispus Caesar, if he had lived, or his Nephew Dalmatius before his own Children, or a Stranger be­fore them all? If he might have done so, as according to the Laws and Custom of the Empire he might, then let them tell me, where is their Hereditary Empire, and the Lineal Succes­sion of the House of Chlorus to the Imperial Crown?

Lastly let me ask them, If the Three Caesars designed by Con­stantine Feliciano & Titiano Coss. commenced Augusti like our Princes,His Coss. Constanti­nus Aug. ad Caelestia Regna ablatus est xi. Cal. Jun. Et ipso anno nuncupati sunt tres Au­gusti Constantinus, & Constantius, & Con­stans v. id. Septemb. Ida. Fast. Consular. From whence it is evi­dent that Constantinus M. died the 20th. of May, but his Three sons were not declared Augusti till the 8th. of September following; and in the mean time, as Candidates for the Empire, rather than Emperors, they stiled themselves Caesars, as is evident from Con­stantine Juniors Letter in favour of Athanasius dated the 25th. or the Calends of July next after his Fathers death, wherein he stiles himself Caesar. ib. in the moment of their Fathers death? or whe­ther they were not formally made so by the Suffrage of the Legions? and whether the Suf­frage of the Legions, and the unanimous Consent of the Se­nate according to the Custom of the Empire, would not have made any Strangers as rightful Emperors as they? When they have considered of an Answer to these Questions, I hope they will find that there is nothing more plain, than that the Em­pire was not Hereditary, which I undertook to prove.

After the death of Constantine, the Empire remai­ned not long Tripartite; for Constantine his eldest Son being killed in a Battel with theCedrenus. Pomp. Laet. Zonaras. Souldiers of Constans, it was reduced to the two survi­ving Brothers; whereofZosim. l. 2. Constans the youngest being kil­led in a Battel agianst the Rebel Magnentius in the 14th. year of his Reign, the whole devolved upon Constantius, who of his [...]. Nazi­anz. l. Invect. p. 62. goodness made his Cozen-German Gallus, elder Brother to Julian, Caesar, and not long after deposed him from theEdicto Gallum dignitate privavit. Pomp. Laet. Caesarship, [...]. Julian. ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 498, & 500. [...]. Zon. l. 3. p. 18. Vid. Philostorg. Hist. Ecc. l. 3. p. 492. and put him to death for his Disobedience,Vid. Amm. Marcell. l. 14. c. 2, 7, 9, 11. Onerosus bonis omni­bus Caesar.—Ausurus hostilia in auctorem suae felicitatis— Ferociens ut Leo cadaveribus pastus. —Ablatis regiis monumentis Caesarem tunicâ texit communi. and Murder of Domitian and Mon­tius.

After the death of Gallus, he made his Brother Julian, Caesar, and gave him his Sister Helena to Wife. Having made him Caesar, he sent him into Gaul, where he was very successful against the Ene­mies of the Empire; and having got the hearts of the Army by Donatives and other Arts, they proclaimed himZosim. l 3. p. 711. Am. Marcell. l. 20. Zonar. l. 3. p. 08. Socrates, l. 2. c. 47. & l. 3. c. 1. Imperator, Augustus, Zosom l. 5. 1. and put the Diadem [Page 48]upon him,Amm. Marcell. l. 22. and afterwards swore Allegiance to him; upon which Contantius returns from the Persian Expedition, and marches against him with his Army, designing to reduce him, but dies in his March in Cilicia, Amm. Marcell. l. 21. saith it was re­ported, That Constan­tius at his death nomi­nated Julian his Suc­cessor in the Empire, and made him his Heir. leaving him in the Possessi­on of the Empire, in which after his Majesties death he was per­pectly confirmed by the consent of [...] Zosim. l. 3. Vid. Zonar. l. 3. p. 21. his Army.

L. 3. Zosimus tells us, That Constantius after the death of Gallus deliberated whether he should create a new Caesar, or take a Partner to the Empire, after the Example of former Emperors; but not knowing any whom he durst trust in the Au­gustusship with himself, he was very uncertain what he should do, till Eusebia the Empress perswaded him by many Arguments to constitute Julian Cae­sar.

After the Death of Gallus, Ammianus Mar­cellinus saith, That many of the Courtiers wereCaveri debere Caesaris nomen repli­cantes gesta sub Gallo. against his making of Julian Caesar, but that the Empress openly opposed them all, saying, That the Emperor Ommibus (que) me­merans anteponi debere [...]ropinquum. ought to prefer his Kinsman before a Stranger: And Julian was so sensible of [Page 49]the Empresses Kindness, that he afterwards wrote anOrat. 3. p. 217. [...]. And p. 218. [...]. — O­ration in her praise to express his Gratitude unto her, in which he owns all that he had to the Em­perors free Bounty and Genero­sity; and accordinglyTom. 3. p. 19. [...]— Zo­naras tells us, That Constantius sent this Message to him after he had Usurped the Empire, that he ought to remember how much he was indebted to his Kindness, Not only for making of him Caesar, but that he had bred him up from a Child. From all which it is plain, First, That Constantius had the li­berty after the death of Gallus, whether he would choose any Caesar, or no. 2. That he might by the Laws and Customs of the Empire have created any other man Caesar, as well as Julian. 3. That after he had freely chosen him he might freely have deposed him from the Caesarship as he did his Brother Gallus, asIn Syriâ Augu­sti vehiculum irascen­tis per spatium mille pass [...]um fere pedes An­tegressus est Galerius purpuratus. Am. Marc. l. 14. Vid. Bapt. Egn. Gale­rius was afraid Dioclesian would have deposed him, and as A­drian designed to deposeHic tamen va­letudinis adeo [...]serae fuit, ut Adrianum statim adoptionis pae­niteret, potuer [...]to; eum amovere à familiâ Im­pera [...]oriâ, quum saepe de aliis cogitaret, siforte vixisset. Spart. in Elio Vero. Ceionius Commodus, otherwise called Aelius Verus, because he was a Weak and Ʋnhealthy man. Nay theZonar. Loc, cit Zosim. l. 3. p. 711. Historians agree, That Constantius commanded Julian after he rebelled to put off the Habit of Caesar, and betake him­self [Page 50]to a private condition. All which things how agreeable they are with the Birthright of Julian, and the notion of an Hereditary Empire, I leave to the meanest Capacity to judge.

This very Contradiction is plainly discernable in our Authors First and Second Chapters, notwith­standing all the Art and Fallacies he hath used to disguise the Cheat from vulgar Readers. There we have: Made Julian Caesar; Would never have made Julian Caesar; the making of Julian Caesar; He would not have made Julian Caesar. The Nature of Julian's Elective Succession, and the Manner in which Na­zianzen hath expressed himself about it obliged our Author so to speak. For Naz. in theInvect. 1. p. 50. Place which he cites, useth the most emphatical word [...], to express how Constantius made or created Julian Caesar; for as [...] from [...]signifies to make or ordain a Clergy-man: so in Ecclesiastical Writers [...] from [...], signifies to make, create, or constitute a King [as the Greeks called a Caesar] and so it is used by the Septuagint for the making of Saul Ishbosheth Kings, because they were Kings purely by2 Sam. 8. 22.2 Sam. 2.9. Vid. 1 Sam. 12.1. Is. 7.6. [...]. Schol. Election. And be­cause Julian was made Caesar as they were made Kings purely by Election, therefore Naz. ascribes it wholly to thep. 50. [...]— Invect. p. 50. [...]— p. 64. [...]. p. 65. Goodness & Bounty of his Elector, and last of all makes it as free an Act in him to bestow the Caesarship up­on Julian, as it was inp. 66. Alexan­der the Great to give King Porus his Life and Kingdom, after he had conquered him. If then Constantius made or created Julian Caesar, [Page 51]as our Author is forced to confess, where was his Birthright? Therefore to prevent this cross Que­stion in the Mind of his Reader, he tells him in theP. 27. Margent, That a Romaen Caesar was some­what like the Prince of Wales, or the King of the Romans: That he was more than somewhat like the King of the Romans we will grant him, but this some­what like will appear to be a very piteous somewhat, if Caesar be compared with the Prince of Wales.

For First, The Caesarship only made a man aSpartianus in Celonio Commodo. Maximianus at (que) Con­stantius Caesares dicti sunt, qaasi quidam Principum filii viri, & designati Augustae Ma­jestatis haeredes. Candidate and Expectant of the Empire, or some part of it. 2. It was con­ferred upon many, as well as upon one, (for Antoninus Pius left two, and Constantine four Caesars) and in this case they might be all equal Expectants of the Empire either in common,Ca [...]sabon in locum. —Ut essent Caesares ve­lut Candidati quidam Imperii & designati ejus Haeredes. or in several Jurisdictions. 3. Af­ter the Emperor had freely con­ferred this Honour upon any man, he might as freely, without any regard to Birth or Birthright, devest him of again, as Con­stantius did Gallus, and asMisit ad milites literas quibus jussit, ut abregaretur nomen Cae­saris Alexandro. Lam­prid. Vid. Herod. l. 5. Heliogabalus designed to do to his Brother Alexander, Probus to his SonPater si vixisset abregare saepius cogitavit filio Caesaris no­men & conferre Constantio. Pomp. Laet. in Carino. Carinus, [...]. Zosim. l. 3. p. 710. [...]. p. 711. [...]. Zonar. t. 3. p. 18. and Constantius himself to Julian, a little before he usur­ped [Page 52]the Empire. 4. The Emperor had free Power to confer this Dignity upon whom he would, and to give it to Strangers, as Nerva did to Trajan, and Maximian Hercideus to Constan­tius, Valentiniano Prin­cipi percunctanti quem­nam ad Imperii consor­tium assumeret? Daga­laiphus respondet fiden­tiùs: Si tuos amas (Im­perator optime) habes fratrem, [...]si rempub. quaere quem vestigas. Amm. Marcell. l. 26. postponing their own Blood. 5. It gave no proper Right or Title, but only a bare Recommendation to the Augu­stusship; and it was in the Power of the Army and Senate, whe­ther or no they would choose the person recommended by that Character, if there was but one, or how many of the Number, when there were more.

These things being evident from Matter of Fact, I desire the Author, or rather his Superviser the Lawyer to tell me, in which of these Particulars Caesar and the Prince of Wales are alike? Can the King of England make any man (or any but one man) Prince of Wales? can he confer that Dignity upon many at once? can he devest the Prince of it after he has once invested him in it? Is it any thing more, than a mere state of Honour and greater Li­berty or Emancipation? Doth it give the Prince any new Right or Expectation to the Crown? or is he to be chosen unto it by any Army or Senate after his Fathers death? I protest when I consider these things, it almost tempts me to believe, That these Men, like many others, are for an Elective and Republican sort of Monarchy, and that they hear­tily wish that Caesar and the Prince of Wales, were not only somewhat, but altogether alike.

I hope I have made it as clear to any Impartial Reader, that the Roman was an Elective, as that [Page 53]the English is an Hereditary Monarchy fixed in one Family, and Lineally descending in proximity of Blood; and yet as if the Right and Title of Julian were of the same nature with that of his R. H. to the Brittish Throne: Saith he,P. 22. The Fathers (and yet he men­tions but one) had the Conscienoe to set aside such a Title as this, and 100 more such to secure their Religion. If they had not, they had been very much to blame; and I dare boldly affirm, That all the Fathers of our Church would set aside Ten Thousand such Titles to secure theirs. I mean 10000 such Titles, as Julian or Constantine either, had by Birth; for upon supposition that God inter­posed and declared them Emperors, that Declara­tion must pass, as it did in Saul's Case, for an Ele­lection, and proves that they were not Heirs of He­reditary Monarchies, for then it had been needless for God to interpose. For what need God, for ex­ample, have declared Constantine Emperor, if he must necessarily have succeded his Father, as Sons of Hereditary Monarchs do; it had been sufficient for him to let him survive him, if he would have had him succeed.

As for that Passage in Eusebius l. 8. c. 13. where after he tells us, That Constantine was declared Su­pream Emperor and Augustus by the Army, then he adds, [...]; and long before this by God himself the Supream Emperor of all. This Expression if it be not purelySuch as that in Pliny's Panegyric to Trajan; Principem ta­men nestrum liqueret divinitùs constitutum—A Jove ipso coram, ac palam repertus — Quem tandem exorata terris numina dedissent, &c. And that of Eu­men. to Constantine. Nobis praecipue te principem dii creaverunt. Grat. Act. Const. Aug. Panegyrical, then to expound Eusebius by himself, it relates to [Page 54]the special Providence which presided over Con­stantine, and was visible in his Preservation; and more particularly to some Divine Indications by which he was miraculously delivered from the Snares of Dioclesian and Galerian: This Eusebius takes no­tice of in the 20th Chapter of the First Book of his Life, where he saith, That the Emperors envying and fearing the Courage and Wisdom of Constantine, wait­ed for all opportunities to do him mischief, but that the young Prince discovering their Treacherous Practises again, and again by [...] secret Signs from God, saved himself like the Great Prophet Moses by flight; and that God cooperated with him in all his Ʋndertakings, forecasting that he should be pre­sent to succeed his Father in the Empire. AccordinglyEum Pater [...]an­tea Caesarem fecerat Coelesti Nuntio admo­nitus quum aegrotaret, ut primum Constanti­num successorem face­ret, qui esset à Tyran­ [...] Romanum Imperium liber aturus, & militibus D [...]i opem laturu [...]. Pom­ponius Laetus saith, That Constan­tius by the Admonition of an An­gel when he first fell sick, made him Caesar before his Arrival, under­standing that he was the Man, whom God had designed for the De­liverer of the Empire. Now if God had saved Julian by such miracu­lous Signs, and afterwards sent an Angel to Constantius to bid him choose him Cae­sar, because he had designed him for his Successor; and Nazianzen had known so much, he would ne­ver have expostulated with the Ghost of Constantius about the Choice, nor blamed him, as he did, for leaving his Empire, and the Royal Priesthood of the Christians to an Enemy of Christ.

Indeed Julian had the Vanity to pretend to a Di­vine Commission for usurping the Empire, to justi­fie his Rebellion against Constantius. For in his A­pologetical Epistle to the Senate and People of A­thens he tells them, that when the Souldiers first at­tempted to make him Emperor, Hep. 521, 522. [...]. See also Julians Vision of the Publick Genius. Amm. Marcell. l. 20. prayed unto Jupiter to give him a Sign, if he would have him accept the Empire; which the God presently did, admonishing him not to resist the Good Will of the Army. And in hisEp. 13. [...] Epist. to his wick­ed Uncle Julian, he saith, That he assumed the Empire upon the Command of the Gods, who charged him as he valued his own Safety to obey them. He also pretended to have the Death of Constantius re­vealed unto him by a DivineZosim. l. 3. p. 711. Amm. Marcel. l. 22. Vision; and it was also reported of him, that as he made his Entrance into a City of Gaul, aSocrat. Hist. [...]c. l. 2. c. 1. Crown which was hung up between two Pil­lars fell exactly upon his Head, which the Spectators looked upon as an Omen that he should be Emperor. And upon the account of these and other signs to which he pretended, he look­ed upon himself, as made Emperor by Jupiter, and therefore in all his Pictures which were drawn for publick places, he caused Jupi­ter to beZosim. l. 5. p. 117. ed. Val. drawn as appear­ing from Heaven, and reaching unto him the Imperial Crown and Scepter; which explains the [Page 56]special meaning he had in that Passage cited by our Author out of his Epist. to the Jews, wherein he tells them, That he had freed them from Taxes and Troubles; that enjoying Peace and Quietness by his Favour, they might pray for him, [...], To the best God, and Creator of all things, who had vouchsafed to crown him with his unspotted Right Hand. For Julian acknowledged one chief Eternal God, Maker of all Things, visible and in­visible, as he professeth in his Panegyrical Oration in praise of his Admired God, the Sun, which he owns to be the Creature of the invisible Sun, or Supream Deity, to whom in Platonical Terms he gives theOrat. 4. [...], &c. Sempiternum numen. In orat. extrema ad Amicos, Amm. Marc. l. 25. Attributes of the only true God.

This I take to be the Special Meaning of that Passage, if it have a Special Emphatical Meaning; but I hope our Author would not have his Reader ascribe the lying Signs which the Pagan Gods (who were Devils) shewed unto this Magician (if they shew­ed any at all) unto the True God. Methinks it was very odd in a Protestant Minister, after he had cited a Passage in Eusebius to shew that God had declared Constantine Emperor, to produce another out of Juli­an to shew that he had made him so too. I hope he makes a difference between the Miracles and Miraculous Signs which GodEus [...]b. Vit. Const. l. 1. c. 28. Zon. t. 3. p. 3. Phi­lostorg. H. Ecc. l. 1. c. 6. wrought for Con­stantine (among which we may reckon that Vision of the Cross,) and the Signs which Julian saith Jupiter gave unto him: If he do not, he is [Page 57]but like some of the Admirers of his Julian; but if he do, why did he cite the Apostates Authority to prove that he was crowned by God? I am confi­dent none of those, who have so thundered of late with the Thebaean Legion, could be guilty of such Pre­varication, as this.

But then if that Saying of his Julian have no Spe­cial Meaning in it, it is to be taken like many other Expressions which occur in Authors in a general and metaphorical signification only for Julians coming to the Empire by the Providence of God, by which he dis­poses of Crowns and Kingdoms, and thus that most emphatical Recognition which Dionysius made of Valerianus and Galienus'es Right to the Empire is to be understood, when he said in the Name of the Christians, [...] Euseb. l. 7. c. 11. Hi [...]t. Ecc. We worship that one God the Creator of all things, who hath given the Empire to Vale­rianus and Galienus the Emperors most beloved of God. As also that of Athanasius to Constan­tius, although in English it sounds thus; [...]. Athan. in Apol. ad Const. O Almighty Lord, E­ternal King, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, thou by thy Word hast given the Empire to thy Servant Constantius. How would our Author have triumphed if he had found but one fuch Pas­sage as either of those about Ju­lian in any Christian Writer; and yet they amount to no more than solemn acknowledgments of Gods Providence in disposing the Empire to the aforesaid [Page 58]Emperors according to that ofL. 5. c. 4. Irenaeus, Cujus enim jussu ho­mines nascuntur, hujus jussu & re­ges constituuntur; That Kings are made by his Ap­pointment, by whose Appointment men are born. And so indeed Julian came to be Emperor by Gods Pro­vidential Appointment, and no otherwise; for it was merely by Gods Providential Appointment that Constantius resolved to choose a Caesar; when he might have taken unto him a Co-partner in the Em­pire, that Eusebia pressed him to make Julian Caesar af­ter he resolved to choose one,Vid. Jul. Ep. ad S. P. Q. Athen. that he sent him into Gaul, that he had such Success there against the Barbarians, that the Army declared him Augustus, that the Emperor died in his March against him, and that after his death his Souldiers submitted unto him. But yet our Falla­cious Author represents the matter, as if he had been Emperor by particular Designation from God, like David, or Constantine; and then cries out, Yet the Fathers had the conscience to set aside such a Title as this.

But Julian was not made Caesar by particular Order from God, but by the free Choice of Constantius, to whom he owned the Honour of the Caesarship. It was he, that set him upon the next step to the Empire, when he might have set another upon it; he by doing that, which he was free not to have done, was the occa­sion of his coming so easily to the Empire: Julian had no antecedent Right to the Caesarship or the Government of Gaul, but he owed both to the Ge­nerosity of Constantius: And this is the true Ground of all the Rhetorical Interrogatories of Gregory, and of Constantius his bewailing and repenting at his [Page 59]death for doing what he had done for him, because he was free to have done otherwise; indeed as free as Henry the 7th, or his eldest Son Prince Arthur had he lived, would have been to have made his Bro­ther Henry, who was designed for a Churchman, Archbishop of Canterbury or York.

This our Author knew very well, and this the very Expressions which he brings out of Nazianzen imply; but yet, lest the vulgar Reader should dis­cern the Fallacy, he keeps a great Jingling with Foreclosing, ande Excluding Julian; which words, (as all terms of Privation connote the Habit) insen­sibly carry the understanding of the unwary Rea­der to think of some antecedent Birthright which Julian had to his Cosens Throne; whereas strictly speaking, he had no more right unto it, than the Su­perviser of his Book to the Judges place in Ireland, from which (in his abusive sense of the words) he was Excluded and Foreclosed.

And I would fain ask our Author, who hath so artificially disguised the Nature of the Imperial Suc­cession, whether at the time of writing he was not conscious to himself of this Fallacy, which he is guil­ty of, in calling the Non-Election or Preterition of Ju­lian by the name of Exclusion and if he were not, whether he be not convinced of his Mistake now? If he be not, then I desire him to tell me, whether Julian after the death of Constantius could [by vertue of Birthright] have challenged the Roman Empire, as Henry of Lancaster did the English [mutatis mu­tandis] in these words:Great point of succession. p. 15. I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Realm of England with all the Members and the Appurtenances, as I am descended by right line of [Page 60]the Blood coming from the Good Lord King Henry the Third, and through that Right which God of his Grace hath sent me — Or whether the Senate of Rome could have made such a Recognition of Julians Right, as the Parliament made to KingGreat Point of Succession. p. 23. James at his first coming to the Crown. We be­ing thereunto bound both by the Laws of God and Man, do with unspeakable Joy recog­nize and acknowledge, that immediately upon the decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England, &c. did by inherent Birth­right, lawful, and undoubted Succession descend and come to your Majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm— and thereunto we do humbly submit and oblige our selves, our Heirs, and Successors for ever—

If these things could not have been applyed to Julian upon the death of his Cousen Constantius, then I hope Mr. J. will grant me, that his Arguings from the Authority of Nazianzen are fraudulent and inconclusive, and that for all he can make of that single fathers Poetical Exclamations to the Ghost of Constantius, the English Succession may be unal­terable, there being so wide a difference between the Roman and English Monarchy, That being Ele­ctive, and This Hereditary; That being Casual, Arbitrary, Uncertain, and most Irregular in its des­cent, and this being fixed to one House, in a lineal Descent, according to Proximity of Blood.

But still after all this we are pressed with the Au­thority of Eusebius, who, as our Author tells us, saith, That the Empire was entailed by the Edict of Na­ture, which (saith he) I think is the most sure and Di­vine Settlement that can be, But Eusebius neither hath [Page 61]said, nor could say so, nor any thing equivalent thereunto; for there was no such thing as Entail, nor any notion of it among the Romans, neither as to the Empire, nor the Estates of Private Men; the Emperors as well as their Sub­jects had always liberty toInst. l. 2. Tit. 13. disinherit their next Relations, and make who they would their Heirs; and if a man chanced to dieInst. l. 3. Tit. 2. Intestate, they had Rules whereby the Estate was divided among his Posterity; or if he had none, theIb. Tit. 3. Collateral Kindred were his Heirs at Law. Let us therefore— consider the Passages of Eusebius, wherein our Au­thor triumphs before the Victory; and first it is true, That in his firstDe vit. Const. l. 1. c. 9. edit. Val. [...] Quotation, Eusebius, saith, that the Throne of the Empire descended upon Constantine from his Father, but then, agreeably to the report of all other Authors, he implies but two Lines above his 2d. Quota­tion,De vit. Const. l. 1. 21. [...]. Dis­positis deinde ex arbi­trio rebus suis, as Val. renders it. that it was by the Or­der and Disposal of his Father, which is inconsistent with an Entail; and I would fain know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. how Con­stantius his part of the Empire came to be entailed upon his eldest Son, when he|had many, by the E­dict and Law of Nature; and Maximians part of it was not so entailed upon his only Son Maxentius. who was casually chosen to the Crown.

What hindered the Law of Nature to take place in the behalf of Maxentius the Resignation [Page 62]or death of his Father? how came he not to have the benefit of it, if the Law and Edict of Nature in his Quotations of Eusebius signifie aAccording to that Definition; Jus natu­rale est dictatum rectae rationis indicans actui alicui ex ejus conveni­entiâ, aut disconveni­entiâ cum ipsâ naturâ rationali, inesse mora­lem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem, ac consequenter ab au­ctore naturae Deo, talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi. Grot. de Jure. l. 1.10. Prime Indispensable Law of Nature, as he would have his Reader to believe: What else doth he mean by theP. 21. most sure and divine Settlement that can be; and by his implying in the same page, That God decla­red Constantine Emperor by this Law of Nature before he was de­clared by the Army; and that the Choice of the Army was only in obedience to this Law of God and Nature; by which Constan­tine, as the eldest Son of Con­stantius had a Right unto the Crown. He hath so artificially tacked the two Texts of Eusebius together, as to tempt the unwary Reader to think so, and supposing he will so under­stand them: Then he adds, if this will not do, I know not what measure of Divine Right will serve their turn, unless they would have a Crown to drop from the Clouds. Then he tells us, That Julian pretended to such a Title and after triumphantly concludes, That the Fathers (as he calls Nazianzen) had the conscience to set aside such a Title, as this. Had they so? Then they were very much to blame, to deprive a man of a Right, which belonged unto him by the Laws of God and Nature, or rather by the prime Indispensable Law of Nature, which is the unwrit­ten Law of God.

I say, they are to blamed, and not to be imi­tated for so doing, if the [...] and [...] [Page 63]of Eusebius be to be taken in such a strict sense; but if they are not (as indeed it is impossible they should be) then they are very reconcileable with the Ele­ctive Nature of the Empire, and the Casual and E­lective Succession of Constantine and his three Sons, (who were all freely nominated by their Fathers, and freely chosen by the Army) unto the Imperial Crown.

I say 'tis impossible, that the [...] and [...] of Eusebius should be taken for the Law of Nature in the strict and proper sense; and this is evident from the two Quotations, in the 2d of which p. 21. Eusebius saith, [...]. de vit. Const. l. 1. c. 21. edit. Val. That Constantius pas­sed over the Inheritance of the Em­pire by the Law of Nature to his eldest Son Constantine: But in the First, p. 19.— [...]. he saith that the Throne of the Empire descend­ed upon Constantine from his Fa­ther, and by the Law of Nature wss reserved for his Sons, and for their Posterity, and propagated like a Patrimony for ever.

By his Sons here, he means his Three Sons, among whomDe vit. Const l. 4. c. 51. [...] he tells us in another place, he divided the Empire, like a Pa­ternal Inheritance. Now if the Law of Nature be taken by Euse­bius in the strict sense, in which it always commands the same things, how could Constantius by the Law of Nature leave the Empire only to his eldest Son, and Constantine by the same [Page 64]Law divide it among Three? Can the Law of Na­ture be both for Primo-geniture, and Gavel-kind too?

I would further ask our Author, upon suppositi­on that the three Sons of Constantine had every one of them had Three Sons, whether their respective Parts of the Empire by the Law of Nature must have been divided into equal shares among them, as the whole was divided among their Fathers; or whether by the Law of Nature they must have been restrained to the Eldest Son, and the Younger been laid aside? By that time he hath considered of an Answer to these Questions, he will be forced to grant, That by the Law of Nature, Eusebius meant no more in his loose Panegyrical way of wri­ting, than the dictates of Reason grounded upon natural Kindness and Affection, by which a man is prompted in the first place to make Provision for his Children, or if he have no Children, for his next Relations; and these dictates of Reason grounded upon natural Affection may be called the Law of Nature in a large and secondary Sense. Thus we say a man is bound to provide for his Children, or Nature binds man to provide for his Children, and to prefer them before Strangers, but then these and such like Sayings are not absolutely, but only Hy­pothetically true, upon such and such Suppositions: They are only general Rules of Natural Justice and Equity, from which there may be a Thousand Ex­ceptions. As for Example, Nature, or Natural Justice and Equity binds me to study the Advance­ment of my Children, but not to places for which they are not fit, or of which they are not worthy, &c: But if I have Places of Honour and Trust at my disposal, of which my Children, or next Relati­ons [Page 65]are as capable, and worthy as other men, then if no mischief will thereby arise to them, nor the Publick, Natural Justice requires, that I should pre­fer them; and upon this Supposition, that Commo­dus, Son to Marcus Antoninus inherited all the Ver­tues of his Father, as the World believed, Athe­nagoras in his Apology told his Majesty, that the Christians prayed that his Son [...], as was most just, might succeed his Father in the Throne. So Eumenius saith, that Constantius Chlo­rus; ut decebat, as it became him, nominated Con­stantine for his Successor; and these two last Phrases have the full force of the [...], and [...] of Eusebius, by which he meant no more, than the Dictates of natural Reason, and Affection, by which Constantius was prompted to leave his Empire to his Eldest Son; other Reasons concurring, why he should not divide it among them all, and Constan­tine to divide it among his three Sons; other Rea­sons concurring to perswade him, why he should not divide it among more (suppose Eusebius be in the Right) nor wholly leave it unto one. He might if he had pleased have left his two Brothers Constan­tius and Anaballianus, and his Naphew Dalmatius Caesar Sharers in the Empire, or the Army, and Se­nate, if they pleased, might have chosen these three, and rejected the others; but they did not only post­pone them, but killed them, which (by the way) is a violent Presumption, that the Empire was not Entailed upon the House of Chlorus, to which theVid. Zosim. l. 2. c. 11. Ep. Jul. ad S. P. Q. Ath. Army and Constantius were mighty in­jurious in taking away so many of its Supports.

Thus have I fairly examined the Authorities of Eusebius, in which it is also remarkable that he doth not say, That the Empire was a Paternal Inheri­tance, but only that it was left or divided, like a Paternal Inheritance; just as Galba, speaking of the Empire which continued so long in the House of the Caesars said, Sub Tiberio, Caio, Claudio unius Fa­miliae quasi haereditas fuimus. We have been as it were the Inheritance of one House under Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. And it is further to be taken for a Rule, that wheresoever the words Heir, Patrimo­ny, Inheritance, or such like words occur in Au­thors that speak of the Descent, Succession, or Con­veyance of the Empire or private Estates among the Romans, they are never to be understood as we understand them, when they are strictly used with reference to Entailed Estates.

For (as I said before) there was no such thing as Entail or Birthright among the Romans, which our Author would make his Reader believe there was, by that Complement of Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Constantine, Imperium nascendo meruisti, which sig­nifies no more than that singular advantage and pre­tension he had to the Empire by being the Son of so Good an Emperor, and is no more than what a Pane­gyrist might say to the Son of an Excellent King of Poland, if he were chosen to succeed his Father to the Crown. For Gratitude would oblige the E­lectors of any Empire, to pre­fer the According to that of Eu [...]n. to Con­stantine; Imperatoris igitur filius, & tanti Imperatoris, & ipse [...]ain feliciter [...] Imperium — Son of a good de­ceased Prince before all others that were his Equals in Merit; and this was the ground of the following Passage in Commodus his Speech to the Army, which, [Page 67]if our Author had known of it, would have founded far better for his Purpose, than the foresaid Expression of Eume­nius: [...] Herodian. l. 1. in Commodo. ‘Fortune hath made me your Emperor after my Fa­ther, not being a Stranger, or Adopted Son as my Ancestors have been, nor glorying in an acquired Empire, but I am the only Prince that hath been born unto you in the Court; and not being of private Extracti­on, I was received in the Royal Purple as soon as I was born, and the same Sun, that first saw me a Man, saw me a Prince too. I pray consider this, and then love me as your natural born Sovereign, and not as one given unto you by Choice.’

How would Mr. J. have spread his Feathers if he had known of this Passage! He would have said, There is nothing more plain than that the Empire was Heredi­tary; there are not words in the World to express it more plainly; if this will not do, I do not know what Blood and Birthright means! And yet every Scholar knows, that these Expressions are not to be under­stood in literal strictness, but with allowance and latitude, as they are nothing but the Rhetorical Amplification of Young Commodus, who prided himself in this, That he was born the Son of an Em­peror, which none of his Ancestors had been, and was Swaithed, as it were, in the Royal Purple, as [Page 68]soon as he came from his Mothers Womb.

And if these Rhetorical expressions in the Speech of Commodus be not to be understood in literal strict­ness, much less is the foresaid Complement of Eume­nius literally true of Constantine, as we shall find if we consult the whole Passage whereof our Author very fraudulently presents us but with as much, as he thought would serve his own Design. But to the clear understanding of it, I must here inform my Reader that Ventum est ad Principem Claudium, qui nobis intuitu Con­stantii Caesaris cum curâ in literis digeren­dus est — De Clau­dii genere & familiâ saltem pauca dicenda sunt, nè ea quae scienda sunt praeteriisse videa­mur. Claudius, Quin­tillus, & Crispus fra­tres fuerunt. Crispi filia Claudia: ex eâ & Eutropio nobilissimo Gentis Dardanae viro Constantius Caesar est genitus. Trebell. Pollio. in Divo Claudio. Con­stantius, Father of Constantine, descended from Claudius the Se­cond Emperor of that Name, by his Neece Claudia, Daughter to his youngest Brother Crispus, and not by his Daughter, as Eu­tropius saith. This the Panegyrist refers unto: First of all tel­ling Constantine, ‘That his Fa­thers Quinimo patrem tuum ipsum ve [...]us illa Imperatoriae domûs prae­rogativa provexit. Royal Extraction was the occasion of his being promoted to the Crown; by which means he Ut jam summo g [...]adu, & supra hu­man [...]rum rerum fata consisteres post dues fa­miliae tuae tertius Im­perator. seemed to be raised to a pitch above the Fate of other men, in that he was the Third Emperor of his own Family; and that he had this Inter omnes (inquam) participes majestatis tuae hoc habes Con­stantine praecipuum, quod Imperator natus es. Spe­cial Glory among his Partners of the Imperial Majesty, that he was born Emperor. Tanta (que) est nobilitas origin [...]s tuae, ut nihil tibi addi [...]erit [...]noris Imperium. And that the Nobility of his Birth was such, that the Empire added [Page 69]no honor unto him: Nor Nec possit fortuna numini suo imputare quod tuum est, omisso ambitu. & suffraga­tione. could Fortune lay claim to any thing he had, who had never stood for the Empire, nor been chosen by Suffrage thereunto.’ This very Expression supposes, that ambi­tus, and suffragatio were the ordinary way of acqui­ring the Empire, according to that Rule of Law, Ex­ceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. And then it fol­lows where our Author begins: ‘Non fortuita ho­minum concensio, non repentinus aliquis fa­voris eventus te Prin­cipem fecit Imperium nascendo meruisti. It was not the casual Con­sent of men, nor any sudden effect of Favour, that made you Emperor [like other men] but you gained the Empire by the Me­rit of your Birth: i.e.’ You were born unto all that preparatory Greatness to the Em­pire, which other men attain unto by Labour and Toyl: This, and no more is the Sense of those Rhe­torical Expressions, Imperator natus es, and Imperium nascendo meruisti; as is plain from the next words, ‘Quod quidem mi­hi Deorum immortalium munus, et primum vide­tur, et maximum in lu­cem statim felicem veni­re, et ea quae alli vix to­tius vitae laboribus con­sequuntur jam domi parta suscipere. Which seems to me the first and greatest Gift of the Gods for one to come great in­to the World, and to find at home [an Empire] ready for him, which others hardly attain with the Toyl, and Labour of their whole Lives.’

Nay so far was Eumenius from thinking, that Con­stantine came to the Crown by vertue of such a Title as that of his R. H. that a little after the place which our Author hath cited, he expresly ascribes it to his Fathers Election of him; Quinimo statim sententi­am rogatus, cui Imperium discerneret, ut decebat, dixit Constantinum, manifestè enim Patris sententiâ electus est, [Page 70]He never canvassed for the Empire, as others did, nor was formally chosen by the suffrage of the Army, but by his Father Constantius, after whose death, the Soul­diers unanimously admitted him for their Emperor, as the same Panegyrist observes, Purpuram statim tibi, cum primum copiam tui fecit egressus, milites injecere la­chrymanti. But besides the Interest of his Father, there was also the joynt interest of another great Man, which made the Army so readily embrace him, as it appears from In Epitome. Aurel. Victor. Constantio mortuo, cu [...]is qui ade­rant annitentibus, sed praecipuè Eroco Alamannorum rege, auxilii gratiâ Constantium comitato, Imperium capit. And if he was first Elected by his Father, then Admitted by the Army, which had Power to reject him, and last of all Confirmed by De Mort, Pers. Galerius, as Lact. tells us, where was his Hereditary Descent?

But in the 3d. place; so far is this passage of Eu­menius from being a full and pregnant Proof of the He­reditary Nature of the Empire, or that Constantine was born unto it, as our Author P. 20. speaks, that he was born 14 years before his Fa­ther Constantius was made Caesar: For De vit. Const. l. 1. c. 5. Ed. Val. Eusebius saith, That he reigned more than 30 years, and was above 60 years old when he died; and by conse­quence he was at least 30 years old when he came to the Crown in the year of our Lord 306. But his Fa­ther Constantius Chlorus was made Caesar by Dioclesian, and Maximian in the Vid. Baluz. in Lact. de Mort. Pers. p. 13. Ed. Oxon. Year 293. by which Account Con­stantine must have been full 14 years old before his Father was made Caesar, and about 29 before he was made Augustus, which was about a year before he died.

Eumenius could not but know this, and therefore his Complement of Nascendo Imperium meruisti, sig­nifies no more than his getting the Empire by occa­sion of being the Which was a mighty Advantage ac­cording to that of Na­zar. in his Paneg. to Constantin. Tuos Con­stantine maxime, tuos liberos, ac deinceps ne­potes tecum optat [Ro­ma] ut tanto a pluri­bus petantur, quanto ad majora nascuntur. Son of an Emperor, Imperatoris filius & tanti Imperatoris, as he after­wards speaks. If our Author had pleased, he might as well have proved Constantius to have been heir to the Empire, from that Passage to Constantine, Pa­trem tuum ipsum vetus illa Impera­toriae domus praerogativa provexit; This Latine might have been turned into plausible English for our Authors pur­pose, but he well knew, that Claudius was succeed­ed by Four or Five elected Emperors of different Fa­milies, before Constantius was chosen Emperor, and that the Posterity of a Brother, most of all the youngest to an Emperor elected from a private man, can derive no Title to the Crown. Yet Eumenius derives the Succession both of Constantius, and Post duos familiae tuae tertius Imperatir. Constantine from Claudius, but our Author cunningly took no notice of that, because it proves that the Panegyrist had no design to give either of them any proper Hereditary Title, but only to declare the Honour and Advantages they both had by being descended of such high Blood.

But suppose Constantine had been born after his Father Constantius was made Emperor, yet his Birth and Primo-geniture could Entitle him to no more, than his Fathers Share of the Empire, which Euseb. calls [...], and yet to qualifie him for [Page 72]this [for when this In which Con­stantius his taking of Massilia is the last Ex­ploit for which the Pa­negyrist commends him. Vid. Lactant. de Mort. Pers. p. 57. Ed. Oxon. Panegy­rick was made he had no more] Eumenius himself tells us, he was Nominated and Recommended by his Father, chosen by the Army after his Fathers death, and confirmed by the following Suffrage of the Senate, which would have given any of his Brothers, nay any other man, as good a Right to the Empire, as he himself had.

After the Authority of Eusebius he serves us with another out of Julian, but to as little purpose. Ju­lian, saith he, in his Panegyrick to the Empress Eu­sebia saith, That Constantius married her to have Heirs for his great Lordship of almost all the World: And then he adds, He having none, Julian himself was the sole, and undoubted Heir, for in him the Fami­ly was afterwards extinct. Our Author, I see, de­lights much in Panegyricks, but he was very unlucky in citing this, which proves the Succession of Julian, although P. 20. he was the Nephew of Constantine and had the same Royal Blood flo­wing in his Veins, to have been purely Arbitrary and Elective. For (as I said before) Eâdem annitente, Caesar à Constantio di­ctus est, horum igitur in se beneficiorum gra­tias hâc oratione re­fert. Petavius in Orat. III. Jul. Vid. p. Orat. 218, 220, 224, 225, 229. Julian wrote this Oration in praise of the Empress out of meer Grati­tude to her, because she had per­swaded the Emperor against his Inclinations to create him Cae­sar, and accordingly he often [Page 73] [...] p. 217. [...] p. 218. [...] p. 220. To which agrees that of Zosim. l. 3. p. 711. [...] And of Zonaras t. 3. p. 19. [...] — Vid. P. 224, 225, 229. acknowledges in it, That next under God he had received all he had from the Free Choice and Generosity of his Majesty; which expression, with the rest in the Margent, are very repugnant to the nature of an Hereditary Lineal Succession, but very pro­per for an Elected Candidate to use.

Besides, in the words which he cites, Julian saith not, That Orat. 3. p. 203. [...]. Constantius married her to have Heirs for his great Lordship of almost all the World, but that He being Lord of almost all the World, made choice of her to bring him Sons [in the plural Num­ber] who might be Heirs of Honour, and Power. This is a ge­neral Expression, and it may be presumed, that Ju­lian expressed himself in general words on purpose, because the Sons succeeding their Fathers in the Ro­man Empire was so Arbitrary and Uncertain, though in the general they could not sail to be Heirs of Ho­nour and Power. But had the Expression been as par­ticular, as our trusty Author hath falsely rendered it, yet the word Heirs is to be taken in the sense it then had for chosen, or constituted Heirs, or Succes­sors, [Page 74]and not for Heirs by Entail, in which case purely Elected Emperors, as [...] Nazianz. 11. Invect. p. 118. l. 1. Jovian the Successor of Ju­lian, are called [...], Heirs of the Empire; and accordingly [...], is rendred by the Latine Tran­slator, Quos haeredes relinqueret, whom he might make or create Heirs: So that the true Sense of Ju­lians Compliment is this, That Constantius being Lord of almost all the World, married Eusebia to bring him Sons, whom he might make Heirs of Honour (or if our Author please to have it so) of his Honour and Power.

Before I go farther, I cannot but observe, what a Trick he hath used to prevent his Readers from enquiring who succeeded Julian, or to forestall their Objection against the Hereditary Succession, in case they should by chance, or enquiry come to under­stand, That first Amm. Marcell. l. 25. c. 15. ed. ult. Par. 1681. Sallustius, and then Jovian, who were no­thing related to the House of Constantine, were chosen Em­perors by the Army, after the death of Julian. To obviate this Objection of choosing, and of choosing those, who had none of the Royal Blood, (as he fallaciously speaks) flowing in their Veins, p. 20. he tells us, That Constantius having no Sons, Ju­lian himself was the sole and un­doubted Heir, for in him the Family was afterwards ex­tinct.

Little do his Admirers know how much he hath imposed upon them in this Particular, for whether he did not know it, or whether he dissembled it, I [Page 75]will not stand guessing; Julian was not the last of the Blood, but left behind him one of the Stirpis Impera­toriae. Amm. Marc. l. 6. c. 6. 11. Culminis sum­mi prosapia. c. 7. Imperial Stock, descended of Procopio Constan­tianam praetendenti ne­cessitudinem. Constantius and Constantine, [...] Ce­dren. & Zonar. Nephew, or Cousen-German by the Fathers side to Julian, by name Proco­pius, who was a Commander of great Note in the Army, whom he had privately made Ibi moratus a­liquot dies dicitur ante aras, nullo arbitrorum admisso, occultè palu­damentum purpureum propinquo suo tradi­disse Procopio, mandas­sé (que) arripere fidentiùs principatum, si se in­terisse didicerit apud Parthos — Illicà, ut antea cogitaverat, triginta millia lectorum militum eidem commi­sit Procopio. Am. Marc. l. 23. c. 3. [...] Zosim. l. 3. p. 733. [...] & l. 4. p. 736. [...]—Vid. & p. 738. & Amm. Marc. l. 26. c. 7. & Philostorg l. 9. p. 517. Caesar, and commanded him briskly to assume the Empire, if he heard he was killed in Persia. If Pro­copius had been an umbratic, ob­scure person, our Author might have been in part excused for saying, that Julian was the last of the Constantian Family, but seeing he made so great a Figure in the times of Constantius, and Valentinian, as well as of Julian, I know not what his Admirers will say in his Defence.

In the time of Constantius, Procopius was one of his Amm. Marc. l. 17. c. 14. l. 18. c. 6. id. l. 26. c. 6. Se­cretaries, and sent by him Am­bassador to the King of Persia, and in the time of Valentinian, and Valens, he rebelled upon this Occasion. It came to be known that Julian had privately made him Caesar, and given him private Instructions to [Page 74] [...] [Page 75] [...] [Page 76]invade the Empire, if he should dye in the Persian Ex­pedition. It came also to be reported, but very false­ly, that Julian with his last Breath nominated him his Successor, and these things made him jealous of the New Emperors, because he feared these stories would make them jealous of him. Wherefore as soon as he had buried Julian in the Suburbs of Tarsus, he Amm. Marcell. l. 25. c. 9. retired and could not be found, though diligent search and enquiry was made af­ter him. L. 4. 346. Zosimus saith, That after Jovian was chose Emperor he presently went to him in all hast, and delivered up his Purple unto him, telling him how he had re­ceived it, and desired leave of him to leave his Ser­vice, and retire to Caesaraea in Cappadocia, where he had great Possessions, and lived quietly all the time of Jovian; but however growing suspected after his death to Valentinian, and Valens, he absconded, and skulked about, till being wearied with want and solitude, he grew desperate, and Rebelled, hoping to be assisted with the Julian-Interest, but being deserted, and betrayed by his own Officers, he was delivered bound to Va­lens, Amm. Marc. l. 26. c. 9. Zosim. l. 8. c. 8. who presently ordered him to be put to death. This is the short Account of Procopius, Julian's Nephew (as is more probable) or Cousen-German by the Fathers side, who from the death of Constantius, as L. 25. c. 6. Post Constantii obitum in rerum conversione ve­lut Imperatoris cogna­tus altiùs anhelabat, & apparebat eum, si unquam potuisset, fore quietis publicae perturbatorem. Marcell, tells us, had an eye upon the Em­pire, and seemed to be one, who would dispute for it, if an Op­portunity [Page 77]were offered, which made Julian, as it was muttered about, give him the forementioned Instructions of assuming the Government, when he was dead. And now let the World think what it will of our Author for asserting, that the House of Constantius, or Constantine was extinct in Julian, when so Famous a Man, who makes so great a part of the History of his Time, was then surviving of it; and let all impartial men judge, whether the Imperial Crown was entailed upon the Progeny of Constan­tius Chlorus, when the Army of Constantius, and Ju­lian his Grandsons in eight Months time chose Salustius, who refused the Empire be­cause of his Age and Weakness; Jovian, who accepted it, and Valentinian his Suc­cessor. Three Emperors without taking notice of Procopius [his Great Grandson if he were Julians Nephew, but his Grandson if they were Bro­thers Children] or he of the In­justice of their Choice. Fur­thermore, if he was Nephew to Julian, he must have been second Cousen to Constantius, and Son to the Neece of Constantine the Great; or if he were his Cousen by the Fathers side, then he was like­wise Cousen to Constantius, and Nephew to Constan­tine the Great; and besides all this, he was a Man as well qualified, and educated for the Government, as any of the three mentioned before; who, if the Empire was Hereditary, were all Usurpers and ille­gally chosen over his Head.

But although we had wanted the Instance of Pro­copius, yet it would have been a bold and precarious Assertion to say, that the House of Chlorus was ex­tinct in Julian, for there were many Branches of it, of whose Posterity Histories are silent, and say no­thing; but then it doth not follow from thence, that they [Page 78]had none. It doth not follow, for Example, that Constantinus eldest Son to Constantius Chlorus by Theodora, or Nepotianus his Grandson by Eutropia had no Children, because we do not read of them; for as the Parents of Procopius, so the Children of these and others Branches may not have been spoke of by Historians; but men that will write against the Mo­narchy, or the Succession, or the Rights of Sove­raignty, may venture to say any thing, they may be as bold as blind Bayard, they may contradict themselves, or common-sense, and yet shall not want an Association to cry them up for Unanswer­able, be they never so much besides the Truth.

Having now shewed how the Succession stood in the Roman Empire, and answered all the Imperti­nent Citations, which our Author hath fallaciously brought to prove it to be Hereditary, I hope by this time his Admirers will acknowledge that he is not Unanswerable, but that the Foundation upon which he argued, being destroy'd, the Superstructure of his Conclusions must fall to the Ground. For his Industrious Attempt to prove the Roman Empire to have been Hereditary doth sufficiently declare it to be his own Sense, that there can be no Parallel be­tween the case of Julian and a Popish Successor, but upon that supposition; and that otherwise, there can be no good arguing from Non-Election or Preterition to Exclusion, and from no Right and Title to Birth­right, or Inheritance, which is the constitutive diffe­rence between an Elective and Hereditary Crown.

The Nature of Birthright, and Inheritance, which is not founded on the Statutes, but upon the Origi­nal Custom and Constitution of the English Govern­ment, which is an Hereditary Monarchy, makes it [Page 79]debateable whether an Act of Exclusion would be Valid or Invalid? And upon supposition that it would be Valid, there are many Arguments which makes it disputable, whether it would be safe or unsafe, expedient, or unexpedient; and whether the Mischiefs it would bring upon us would not be as great, as those which it would prevent. But in the case of Julian there was no such matters for de­bate; and therefore the sense which Nazianzen had of his Succession is nothing to us, who are under an­other sort of Government, and in other Circum­stances; the Consideration of which makes many Sincere and Honest Protestants, who dread Popery and a Popish Successor, as much as our Author, zea­lous for the Lineal Succession; and this distinction between the Succession, and a Popish Successor makes it no Contradiction in the Addressers, and particu­larly in his and Shr. Beth's Friends of Rippon to be­seech his Majesty not to agree to the Bill of Exclusi­on, and yet to be ready to hazard their Lives and For­tunes, and spend that last Drop of their Blood in De­fence of his Majesty, and the Religion established by Law.

It is one thing to be for the Succession, and ano­ther to be for a Popish Successor, as it is one thing to be for the Monarchy, and another thing to be for a Popish Monarch; and there are many for the Former, who as heartily pray to God to prevent the Latter, as for their daily Bread. But our Author, who is an excellent Artist in Fallacies, so words it in the beginning of his Preface, as to induce his Reader to think that those, who address to his Ma­jesty to preserve the Lineal Succession, do make it their humble Request to him, that they may be sure of a Popish Successor, as if they had consulted Gad­bury or the Fates, and were sure that his R.H. whom [Page 80]he means by the Popish Successor, without an Act of Exclusion, should certainly come to the Crown.

Nay so far are all those, who are so tender of the Succession, from having any tenderness for a Popish Successor, that they dread him like the Plague, and therefore would have had Provisional Laws made to bind up such an one, and put him under very close le­gal Confinement, in case he should be King. But no­thing would serve the other Protestants but an Act of Exclusion backed with another for an Associati­on, to which, I am confident, that Nazianzen him­self, had he then sat on the Spiritual Bench, would never have said, Content.

And truly, to make the case of Julian, and his R. H. exactly parallel, we must not only suppose, that the Succession to the Empire was Hereditary, but that Constantine the Great had been murdered after a long Rebellion by the Aerians, his Son Con­stantius miraculously preserved and restored, and the ruined Church restored with him; that from the time of his Restauration the Aerians resumed their old practises against the Church and the Mo­narchy, and underhand helped Julian, after he had left the Communion of the Church, to get an In­dulgence for themselves and the Pagans; that the Church was almost ruined and the Empire much weakned by this Indulgence, and other Contin­gences; and that however the Aerians and Pagans were opposite in other things, yet they agreed in conspiring against the Established Christian Religi­on, even in the Senate, where they always voted alike.

We must also suppose, that the Aerians were ge­nerally Commonwealths-men, that they were a very busie and dangerous interest of men against the [Page 81]Government, that they took all Advantages a­gainst it, especially when the Peoples minds were distracted by the discovery of a Pagan Plot upon Ju­lians Apostacy, that then they represented the Or­thodox Christians, especially the Bishops, and the Clergy for Pagans, and Half-Pagans; that the Em­peror had promised the discontented Senate (which now I must suppose like our Parliament) to pass any Acts for the Security of the Christian Religion, which were consistent with the Succession; that the Western Empire was satisfied with the Emperors Declaration, and had made it Treason to call the Succession into Question; that the Monarchy was weakly supported; [...] that Julian was but two years younger than the Emperor, and not of so healthful a Constitution; that the Empress might dye, and the Emperor marry again; that Julians own Chil­dren the next Heirs after him were firm Christians; that in case he should come to the Crown he would find an Empty Exchequer, and a poor Revenue; that the Senate would never Supply him, but upon their own Terms; that he could not persecute without almost insuperable Difficulties; that an Act for Dis-inheriting of him would be a very dan­gerous Precedent, and of dangerous Consequence, especially since the Western Empire had declared for the Succession; that it would signifie nothing without an Act for Association; and that an Act for Association would legalize a standing Army, and entail War upon the two Empires, and end in Arbitrary Government. These, and many more things besides the Hereditary Succession to the Ro­man Empire, must be supposed to make the Parallel exact between Julian, and his R. H. and to make a good Consequence from Nazianzens sense about Ju­lians [Page 82]Succession in that Scheme of Affairs, to the sense he probably would have had of it in such a Scheme as ours. I am sure there is no Consequence from one to the other, although his Expostulations with the Soul of Constantius should not pass for mere Rhetorick, and if they must not, I desire Mr. J. to say, if they will not prove the Invocation of Saints? If they must be understood as Rhetorick, then they are (as indeed they are) poor Sham Arguments to prove either the Invocation of Saints, or That the Fathers would have set aside an 100 such Titles as that of the Heir of England to secure their Religion; but if they must not be so understood, then do they not equally prove both. Indeed were an Act of Ex­clusion the only way of securing our Religion, were it certain that the Popish Successor so presumed must if he were not excluded, succeed, or were the ex­clusion of him not the most disputable way of se­curing our Religion, and very hurtful to the Mo­narchy, or were it not, as the Excluders would back it with an Act for Association, attended with as pernicious inconveniences, as it would prevent, then indeed our Author might have better presumed to determine what the Fathers would have done in such a case; but since it is not the only Expedient, but such an one as is very disputable and dangerous too, he was, methinks, too bold with their Beards in asserting, That they would have set aside an Hun­dred such Titles, to secure their Religion, when other probable Means more agreeable to the Constitution of the Government, were offered for the Security thereof. In such a case the Fathers might have pro­fessed their Zeal for the Christian Religion, and yet like our Loyal Addressers, have made it their hum­ble Request to the Emperor, not to have passed the [Page 83]Bill of Exclusion, that is but one among other Ex­pedients; and a man may be free in the Choice of means, without being Guelph, and Gibeline at once.

I am sure there is no such Contrariety in such Ad­dresses, as for a Minister of our Church to write such a Book as Julian, to be Lamb without, and Wolf with­in; to wear the Churches Livery, and yet in secret to list himself with her Enemies; to pretend a mighty concern for Religion, and yet to slander the Primi­tive Christians, and scoff at the Doctrine of Pas­sive Obedience; this indeed is to be contrary to his Profession, and to be Guelph, and Gibeline at once.

CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian.

HAving shew'd in the First Chapter the False­ness of his First Principle, That the Roman Empire was Hereditary, I proceed in this to lay open all his other Shams and Falsifications, by which, to use his own words, P. 68. he hath glossed away all his Duty, as a Christian Subject, and broken all the measures by which all the Ancient Suffering Christi­ans went in former Persecutions.

For first, after he hath most artificially aggra­vated the Behaviour of the Christians against Ju­lian, and made it look like very Criminal and Bar­barous; then he undertakes to Apologize for them, telling us, That truly, P. 68. their Case differed very much from that of the First Christians, and that they were in quite other Circumstances; P. 71. The sum of all which is this, That the first Christians suffered according to the Law of their Country, whereas these un­der Julian were persecuted contrary to Law, it being manifest that Julian oppressed them in a very illegal way. He did not fairly Enact Sanguinary Laws, but he put them to death upon Shams, and pretended Crimes of Treason and Sacrilege, &c. And this their Suffer­ing [Page 85]against Law he brings to justifie their seeming Misbehaviour, and Barbarous Usage of him; which after he had magnified to the height in Expressions not becoming a Divine, p. 66. then he adds, But for the Name of Christians, he had better have fallen among Barbarians.

I shall not examine the Merits of their Behaviour towards Julian, till I have proved that they were not illegally persecuted by him, because this being once proved, it must needs follow, That if they broke the Primitive Measures of Christian Subjecti­on, and Obedience, they are to be blamed for it, and cannot signifie any thing as a Precedent for us to follow, in case (which God forbid) we should be persecuted contrary to Law.

He tells us, That P. 66. they so treated this Emperor, that one would have taken them to be the A­postates, and most falsly and plain­ly P. 94, 95. suggests, like a Jesuit, That they would have rebelled, but that they want­ed Strength: What (saith he) would they have a few defenceless Christians do, when they had lost their Strength? Have they never heard a West-Country-man say, Chud eat Cheese and chad it? Nay he hath done his best to make it probable, that Julian was killed by a Christian. It is easie to guess whe­ther all this tends; His Reflections on the Be­haviour of these Christians, are to draw on his Reader, and prepare his mind for what he hath said upon Passive Obedience, and therefore to spoil the Precedency of their Behaviour in their Words, Acti­ons, and Devotions, and to shew to what little pur­pose he hath written 6 Chapters about it, I shall here shew that Julian did persecute them legally, [Page 86]because all his Orders and Decrees, how unjust so­ever, were legal, and in particular that Juventinus, and Maximus, who, he saith, were put to death up­on shams, were notwithstanding legally put to death, because they were put to death by the Sen­tence, and Command of the Emperor, who was an Absolute Soveraign, who govern'd by Despotic or Regal Power, and whose very Pleasure was a Law. He may as well say, That a Man who dyes in England legislatively, by virtue of a Bill of Attainder enacted into a Law, dyes illegally, whereas by the English Constitution, the King, and Parliament (or the King with the Consent of the Parliament) are legal Masters of every mans Life, and Fortune, and can put to death whom they please. In like manner what the King and Parliament, or, to speak in the words of Learned Chancelor De laud. Leg. Angl. ch. 9. Fortescue, what the Regal and Political Power can in con­junction do here, the Regal, or Imperial Power could do alone in the Roman Em­pire, where, as Dan. speaks of Nebuchad. ‘For the Majesty that God gave the Emperor, all People, Nations, and Languages trembled, and feared be­fore him: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he pulled down.’

This is most amply and ele­gantly set down by L. 53. Dio, who tells us. That ‘all Power Civil and Ecclesiastical was in the Emperor; the Consu­lar, Proconsular, Censorian, Tribunitian, and Pontifical; and that he had all this Power and Authority not by Force and Usurpation, but by Law, the Senate and People consenting thereunto. [Page 87]That therefore all things were done according to the Pleasure of the Emperors, as in Kingdoms, and that though they were not called Kings, and Di­ctators, yet they had the Regal Dictatorian Power; that by virtue of these Offices they had Power of raising Armies, and Money, of making War and Peace; of making, deposing, and killing Senators; and in a word, of [...]. putting any man to death as an expiratory Sacrifice without Tryal; who they thought injured them ne­ver so little in Word or Deed.’

Furthermore he saith, That ‘they were [...]. above the Laws, and free from all Legal Neces­sity, and might do any thing, having all things belonging to Absolute Regal Authority, but only the Name of King.’

This is the Sum of what Dio saith of the Impe­rial Leviathan, to which the Civil Law agrees; which tells us, That L. 1. T. 3. 31. & T. 4. Princeps le­gibus solutus. 4, Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem, utp [...]te cum lege Regiâ popu­lus ei & in eum omne suum Imperium & po­testatem cons [...]rat. Quod­cun (que) igitur Imperator, &c. Vid. I. L. 1, 2. ‘the Emperor was above Law, that whatsoever pleased him had the nature of a Law, because by the Lex Regia, the People had surrendered unto him all their Authority, and Power: Whatsoever therefore the Em­peror appointed by Letters, or knowingly decreed, or de­clared in his Interlocutories, or commanded by an Edict, was a Law; and his Laws in distinction to the Senatus consul [...], &c. were called Constitutions, and they were either Ge­neral, [Page 88]or only Plane ex his quaedam sunt persona­les, nec ad exemplum trahuntur, &c. ib. [...] The­ophe. Personal, which were not to be drawn into precedent or example, as his Indulgences to his Favou­rites, his Acts of Grace to Cri­minals, or his [...] The­oph. Punishing as he pleased those that were in his Displeasure; all these were personal Constitutions, for the [...] Theoph. Emperor was absolute Lord of his Subjects Lives and Estates.’

It was by this Plenitude of Absolute Legal Power that Constantine the Great put to death his Fa­ther-in-Law Maximian, his Wife Fausta, his eldest Son Crispus, and Licinius after he became his Sub­ject, and Prison [...]. By virtue of the same Power it was, that Constantius put to death Dalmatius Caesar, and Gallus, Julians eldest Brother; and therefore it is matter of Wonder to me, that Mr. J. should lay down this groundless Assertion, That Julian the Emperor persecuted the Christians, and put Ju­ventinus and Maximus to death contrary to Law. He might have been better instruct­ed by the Apostate, in one of his Orat. 1. ad. Con­stant. — [...] Theoph. l. 2. Orations cited by himself, in which he tells Con­stantius, That he lived more like a Subject than an Emperor, who [Page 89]had Power over the Laws. Methinks also his Super­viser, who should be well versed in the Fathers of our English Law, might have taught him better out of Chancelor De Laud. Leg. Angl. c. 9. Fortescue, who stating the Difference betwixt a purely Regal and Political Go­vernment, explains the former from the Civil Law, which saith. The Prince his Pleasure hath the Force of Law.

Wherefore he was also much by the Cushion in his First Chapter, where he asserts, That all the Outrages, which the Heathens committed against the Christians by the toleration and connivence of Julian, were not only without, but against Law; for Julians Connivence, or Approbation of things against Law, or secret Direction to do them was a sufficient declaration of his Pleasure, and had the Force of Law. Therefore [...] l. 7. p. 504. Philostorg. saith that the Hea­thens in so doing fulfilled his Pleasure; who, as [...] l. 5. c. 15. Zos. ob­serves, however he did blame them in words, [which was very Once the Alex­andrians. Soz. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 5. c. 9. seldom] yet underhand, and in­deed he exhorted them to do what they did; and Theod. l. 3. c. 6. made the most cruel and impious Heathens Of­ficers both in the Army, and over the Cities and Provinces, whom he left to their own Discretion to treat the Christians as they pleased; and when the Christi­ans sent their Representatives to complain, Soz. l. 5. c. 3. Vid. l. 5. c. 9. Naz. 1. In­vect. p. 92. he refused to ad­mit them, or if he admitted them he was only to tell them; [Page 90]That Socr. l. 3. c. 14. they were bound by their Religion to suffer Inju­ries. L. 7. 503. Philostorgius saith, He exceedingly rejoyced when he heard of the Christians Sufferings; all which were sufficient significations of his Pleasure in this Parti­cular, that the Heathens should outrage the Chri­stians, any former Law, or Edict whatsoever not­withstanding. Accordingly Invect. l. p. 74. Gregory calls his Will in this particular [...] an Un­written Law; For (saith he) the Emperor dividing his Power into two Parts, Perswasion, and Force; Perswasion, which is the Gentler Method, he took into his own Hands; and Force, as being the more Inhumane, he left to the People, [...] Ib. not by any Publick Edict, but by Toleration and Conni­vence declaring his Pleasure, which is an Ʋnwritten Law. But our Author, as indeed he hath an excellent Talent that way, quite misrepresents the Case, P. 12. The Heathens (saith he) did not stay for Laws, and Edicts to warrant such Proceedings,—but as soon as they knew how Julian was affected, they took that for their Cue to act these Tragedies upon the Christians; They knew it would please the Emperor, and that was an Ʋnwritten Law. How then did they act against Law, if the Pleasure of the Emperor so directing, was an Unwritten Law? They acted according to his Pleasure, which, as Gregory observes, was published unto them by his Words, and Actions, as plainly as by [Page 91]any [...] Invect. l. p. 92. Edict, and Ib. the Plea­sure of the Emperor (saith the Father upon the cruel Repri­mand which Julian gave to the Governour of Gaza) is an Ʋn­written Law defended with Power, and much stronger than Written Ones, not supported by Authority.

Such sayings as these to his Governours, Invect. p. 92. What great mat­ter is it if one Heathen kill ten Christians? were sufficient Indications and Directi­ons of his Royal Pleasure, to make it have the force of Law, and give it the nature of a Personal Con­stitution by virtue of the Lex Re­gia, otherwise called Lex Imperii so­lemnibus juris Impera­torem solvit. l. Ex im­perfecto C. de testa­mentis. Lex Imperii, which exempted the Emperor from Formalities of Law, and Justice, and gave him Authority above all written Laws.

I have now, I hope, sufficiently proved the false­ness of our Authors Second Principle, that his Ju­lian persecuted contrary to Law. And I have taken so much pains to confute it, not that it is necessary to do so, to defend the Doctrine of Passive Obedi­ence (which as I shall hereafter shew would be best defended upon this Assertion) but to let the Admi­rers of Julian see, how he hath imposed upon them in falsely representing the Christians like Barbarians in their Behaviour towards their Emperor, and then in justifying of it by this Sham, That Julian perse­cuted contrary to Law. If any of them have taken the pains to read this Answer thus far, I hope they will make a Pause to argue to this purpose from [Page 92]what I have written in this Chapter: Either the Behaviour of the Christians was really as Barbarous and Exorbitant against Julian as Mr. J. hath repre­sented it, or it was not; if it were, then they must bear the Blame of it, having no such Warrant for it, as he told us they had; but if it really were not, then he hath done neither like a Scholar, nor a Chri­stian, to exaggerate and misrepresent it with a de­sign to deceive the World.

I am afraid, The best Friends Mr. J. hath, can­not keep him from being Obnoxious to one of these two Consequences; and therefore in the next place let us enquire, Whether the Christians did behave themselves so like Apostates, and Barbarians against their Lawful Emperor, as he hath endeavoured to make the World believe they did. Surely if the Passages be examined, which he hath produced, it will appear that some of them are Dubious, others False, some Laudable, many of them Innocent, and those few that are Blameable, or that he would have to be so, Excusable in a great measure, and having nothing Singular in them, which have not been done to other Emperors before.

CHAP. III. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in Words.

I Shall begin with their Behaviour towards him in Words, as it is set down in his Third Chap­ter, where all along he most unjustly charges what was said but by one, or a few Christians upon the whole Number, altho the Examples, which he hath brought are nothing in proportion to the whole Eastern Empire, much less to the Western, in which perhaps not one Instance of that which he calls Barbarous Behaviour towards Julian, can be produced. At his rate of arguing from one, or a few Examples to the whole Church, a man may prove out of the Scriptures, that the Christians were a very unto­ward People, for there, as he is pleased to phrase it, A man may almost lose himself in the great variety of Instances, which may be given of their great, and manifold Miscarriages, if what some particular Men or Churches did amiss, might be charged upon the whole Body of Christians, and be called theirs.

Thus saith he of the Christians in general; They sufficiently requited him for calling them Galilaeans, for they named him Idolianus instead of Julianus, and Pisaeus, and Adonaeus from his worshipping of Jupiter, and Adonis; and Bull-burner from the great number of them, which he sacrificed. One would think as he [Page 94]hath represented the matter, that all the Christians used thus to Nickname Julian, and yet if we con­sult that place of Nazianzen, which he cites for it in the Margent, we shall find that it was not the general Practise of the Christians so to call the A­postate in requital, but of some of one sort. [...] Naz. 1. Invect. p. 87, 88. For (saith the Fa­ther) if the Christians had a mind to give new Names, they might find many base ones very fit, and applicable to him; for what should hinder us jearing of him as he doth us, to call him Idolianus and Pi­saeus, and Adonaeus, and Bull-Burner, as some of the merry and facetious men among us have taken the liberty to call him?

But yet, though they were but the Facetious, and some of the Facetious Christians too, who called Ju­lian by those Names; yet our trusty Author makes no Bones of charging the matter upon them in Ge­neral: They (saith he) requited him for calling them Galilaeans, for they named him Idolianus, &c.

But this is not the only Instance, where Mr. J. hath plaid the Jesuit with good Authors, and what sair dealing is to be expected from a man, who im­poses upon his Reader in the ve­ry P. 1. first Citation, with which he begins his Book? ‘Constan­tine the Great (saith he) Famous for being the first Christian Emperor, divided the whole Empire at [Page 95]his death amongst his three Sons, as a Father doth his Estate among his Children; that part which came by his Ancestors, the West, he gave to the eldest—.’ This indeed sounds somewhat like an Entailed Inheritance, whereas, had he truly and entirely rendred the place, it would not have fa­voured that Design; For Eusebius saith, That Con­stantius the Great [...] Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 52. when he had gotten the whole World into his Power, he divided the whole Em­pire, like a Patrimony, amongst his three Sons; as being the most Beloved of his Heirs. That Part which came by his Father he gave to the Eldest—. There is some difference betwixt saying, That Constantine divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony, and as a Father divides his Estate, and very much betwixt saying simply, That he divided it among his Sons, and that he divided it among his Sons, as the best beloved of his Heirs. It was not for the Interest of a man, that asserted the Roman Empire to be Hereditary, to let his Reader know, that Constantine had other Heirs in View besides his Sons, this would have given them to understand, That he might have passed by his Sons, and given the Empire to them, or made these Co-partners with those. So it was for his Interest to render [...] that which came by his Ance­stors, as if the West-part of the Empire which Con­stantine received from his Father, had Lineally de­volved upon him through many Hereditary De­scents.

But to return to the Nicknames, which the pleasanter sort of Christians gave unto Julian, what Injury did they do him thereby? There was nothing more common among the Pagan Emperors, than to surname themselves from their Gods. Dio­clesian assumed the Surname of Jovius, and Maxi­mian of Herculeus; and if some of the Wits among the Christians sportingly did the same thing for Julian, that other Emperors did for themselves, what Pre­cept of the Christian Religion did they transgress thereby? But these were P. 32. Instances of their Hatred and Con­tempt of Julian; perhaps they were so, but not of the Man, nor of the Emperor, but of the Apostate and Idolater, whom the Christi­an Religion would have allowed a Confessor to have called so to his very face. And be it known unto Mr. J. that many of those who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion, would think it ra­ther their Duty, than any Breach of it, to tell not only a Popish Prince, but a Popish King to his Face, did he openly profess the Popish Religion, that he was an Idolater, a Bread-worshipper, a Goddess-wor­shipper, a Creature-worshipper, an Image-worshipper, a Wafer-worshipper, &c. which would be a far greater contempt of him, than to Nickname him from his Po­pish-Idols, and mock him with them behind his back.

But let us suppose that these merry Gentlemen did transgress the duty of Christians in playing upon the Name of Julian, yet there was nothing of tendency to Rebellion in it, nothing specifick that can tempt a man to think, that they did it because he persecuted the Christians contrary to Law. Our blessed Lord called Herod Fox, and St. Paul called Nero Lyon, [Page 97]and had Mr. J. found these Names for his Julian in the Writings of the Christians, he would in all pro­bability have told us, that they looked upon him as a Wild Beast, whom every man had a right to slay. St. Cyprian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, calls the Emperor Decius Antichrist; and in his Epist. to Antonianus, he calls him Tyrant, and Raging Tyrant, and Lucianus the Presbyter in his Cyprian Epist. Oxon. edit. p. 47. Epist. to Celerinus calls him the Great Snake, and fore­runner of Antichrist, which are as ill Names, as any Mr. J. can shew that Julian received from the Christians of his Time. The Proconsul in the Roman Empire, was in every Pro­vince the next in Authority under the Emperor, and yet Cyprian in the Reply, which he sent unto De­metrianus Proconsul of Africa, calls him, Impious, Mad, Raging, Blind, Deaf, and Brute, and he tells him in the very beginning of it, That he had long despised him, who barked with his Sacrilegious Mouth, and Impious Words against the one true God.

I do not justifie the Father for this contumelious way of speaking, it seems to me not strictly consistent with that respect, which he ought to an ordinary Judge, or Subselliar Counsellor, as the Learned Annotator in the Oxford Edition, endeavours, against the com­mon opinion, to make it probable Demetrianus was; but notwithstanding his Conjectures, to which I refer my Reader, the common opinion still remains as probable, and therefore may very well be preferred.

But of that very small number of Ancient Chri­stians, who were guilty of rude and undutiful Lan­guage to Princes, none were comparable to Lucifer C [...]laritanus, who in his Defence of Athanasius, and [Page 98]Tract of Apostate Princes, both written to Constan­tius, calls his Majesty, Persecutor, Heretick, Saul, Ahab, Murderer, Apostate, Impious, Antichrist, Lyar, Executioner, Enemy and Despiser of God, and De­stroyer of Gods Religion, with many more most re­proachful Names and Passages, which I love not to recite.

What would Mr. J. have given to have found Julian treated at this contumelious rate in any Christian Writer, especially in a Bishop of his time, he would doubtless have gloried in the Discovery, and it must not have been charged upon the peevish, and morose Temper, and monastick Manners of the Father; but it must have been solved, like his other Phaenomena, by his new, but friendly Hypo­thesis to Rebellion of reproaching, and ruffling of Ju­lian, nay of pursuing him like a Midnight Thief, or High-way-Robber, because he persecuted them con­trary to Law.

His next Instance which he produces of Julians reproachful usage among the Christians, is the Antio­chians; wherein he hath not dealt fairly in represent­ing the matter so, as if the Christians of Antioch only were guilty of those abuses, which provoked him to write his Misopogon against them. For first it is plain, That there were yet a considerable number of Hea­thens in Antiock, from the Anniversary Rites of A­donis, which hapned to be kept on the same day, Evenerat autem iisdem diebus annuo cursu completo Adonia veteri ritu celebrari—Et visum est triste, quod amplam urbem intro­cunti Imperatori, nunc primum, ululabiles undi (que) planctus, & lugubres sonitus audiebantur Marcell. l. 22. Vid. Liban. Legat. ad Julianum. p. 162. Edit. Lut. 162. when Julian made his Entrance into the City, and it seemed to many a sad Omen, that the Emperor should then enter into it, when [Page 99]so much howling, and weeping, and lamentation was heard. Indeed it is difficult to guess, what proportion the Heathens had to the Christians, but if we may take measure from the City of Sozom. de caede Georgii Alexandrini. l. 5. c. 9. Alexandria at that time, they were enough to make head against them, though 'tis certain they were the lesser part. Sozomen after he had said in general, that the Antiochians reproached Julian, and that he wrote his Misopogon against the Antiochians, he im­mediately adds [...], but the Christians that were there he treated as usually, and studied to advance the Heathen Interest, and Religion: But Mr. J. without taking notice of the Heathens, covertly lays the whole blame of Julians evil treat­ment upon the Christians of An­tioch, Socrat. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. 18. Zosim. l. 3. p. 713. Amm. Mare. l. 22. Juliani Misopog. when all the Writers lay it upon the Antiochians in general, and assign the com­mon Causes thereof.

These common Causes were first the great Socrat. Sozom. Marcel. loc. cit. Miso­pog. p. 90, 108. Liban. Legat. ad Jul. p. 155. scarcity and want of Provisions caused by one of Julians Edicts, to lessen the market Prices, which made the Victuallers and Heglars of all sorts keep up their Provisions, which the Antiochians, being a luxuri­ous People, were not able to endure. Secondly, his Misopog. p. 59, 60, 75, 78, 90. dis­countenancing of the Spectacula, and Playes in which they so much delighted, and affecting an austere Garb and strict sort of Life, so disagreeable to their Effeminate Humour.

These were the Common Causes, which set the Antiochians against him, who at first Urbi propinquans, in speciem alicujus nu­minis votis excipitur publicas miratus voces multitudinis magnae sa­lutare sidus illuxisse E­ois partibus acclaman­tis. Marcell. l. 22. received him with the highest demonstration of Affe­ction, and Duty, as if he had been some God. But [...] — Zosim. l. 3: p: [...]13. being by nature Lovers of Theaters, and plentiful and delicious Fare, which he despised, they soon began to hate him, and from hating of him, as soon proceeded to lam­poon him, being, as L. 3. c. 17. Socra­tes describes them, [...], a most invective People, and given to Libelling. This is the Matter of Fact, in which both the Heathen, and Christian Historians agree, and from hence it is plain, that the Heathens, as well as Christians at Antioch, were guilty of Burlesquing Julian, as appears out of his Misopogon, where for the most part he speaks of them in general, but more particularly [...]. Lib. ib. p. 164. p. 87. char­ges the whole City, and all the Citizens without distinction, for loving to make, and hear Lam­poons. Indeed there are some particular Passages in it, which relate to the Christians, as that of chi, and kappa, which our Author seems to cite on purpose to make his Reader think they were all Christians, but then there are others which as cer­tainly relate to the Heathens, as where he P. 97, 98, 99. chides them for not providing at least an Ox to sa­crifice on the Solemn Festival of [Page 101]Apollo, and for P. 67. flocking un­to him in the Temples, and receiv­ing of him in them with Theatri­cal Applause. In another place he distinguish­eth betwixt the Pagan, and Christian part of the People: I have (saith he) offended most, I had almost said all of you, the Senate, the Wealthy, and the Peo­ple:P. 90. [...]—For most of the People are grieved at me, but especially all those who deny the Gods, because they see me addicted to the Rites of our Ancestors. And unless there were a considerable Num­ber of Heathens among them, it cannot be imagined that Libanius would have writ­ten an Apologitical Oration for them unto Julian, wherein P. 162. he tells him, that when he was in Gaul, they prayed in private meetings for him unto Jupiter, that he might be Emperor.

From these Passages it is plain, that the Heathens were exasperated against Julian, and guilty of his ill usage at Antioch, as well as the Christians; and that, the first occasion of their despightful carriage against him was upon a General Account, although afterwards he might become more particularly od­ous unto the Christians for removing the Bones of Babylas, and shutting up the Majorem Eccle­siam Autiochiae Clau­di — Marcell. l. 22. Cathedral Church. But what if all Antioch had been Christians, or what if only the Christians of Antioch had been the Libellers of Julian, or what if they had Libelled him mere­ly upon the account of his Apostacy, or Tyranny, what is that to us? Must we follow the Example of such Luxurious, Dissolute, and Profane Chri­stians, [Page 102]who daily flocked to the Theaters, Cirques, and Hippodroms, whither, the former, Christians, would have dyed, rather than have come. It was against the very Letter of their Baptismal Vow, and was always aggrava­ted by the Tertul. de Spe­ctaculis. Igitur si ex Idololatriâ universam spectaculorum paratu­ram constare constiterit, indubitati praenuntia­tum erit etiam ad spe­ctacula pertinere renuntiationis nostrae testimonium in lavacro—Sed circo quid Amarius, ubi ne principibus quidem, nec civibus suis parcent. Ignotus autor de Spectaculis in Cypriano. Nam quando id, quod in honore alicujus idoli ab ethnicis agitur a fide­libus Christianis spectaculo frequentatur, & Idololatria gentilis as­seritur, & in contumeliam Dei — ad scenae jam sales invere­cundos transitum faciam — Salvian l. 6. In Baptismo salutari Christianorum prima confessio ut renuntiare se diabolo, ac pompi [...] ejus, at (que) spectaculis, & operibus protestentur.—Quomodo Chri­stiani spectacula post Baptismum sequeris — Chrysost. Homil. 15. de calamitate Antioch. de paenitentiâ. Hom. 8. &c. Christian Wri­ters as Idolatrous, and as one of the most provoking and dange­rous Sins, which a Christian could commit.

Certainly their Scommatical and Burlesquing hu­mour, was none of their Vertues; They were cen­sured for it by many Authors, and commended for it by none, no not by P. 35. Theodor. l. 3. c. 28. Theodo­ret, who only saith, they abomina­ted Julian, without commending their Scurrility, for which Socr. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. c. 19. So­crates and Socr. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. c. 19. Sozomen justly con­demn them, as an Herod. l. 4. [...]— Heathen Writer, did the Alexandrians for Burlesquing the Emperor Caracalla: But they paid [Page 103]dearly for it, and if the Antiochians, our Author brave Antiochians, who followed their example, had been so requited, their Blood had been upon their own Heads.

They were the only City of the Empire, and the only Body of Christians in it, who thus abused the Emperor Julian; and had they done so for a sound Reason, which would have justified their doing of it, and given satisfaction to other Christian Cities, doubtless they would have done so too. But alas! it was the Evil Humour of the Place; they were given to libelling in Songs, and Pasquills; and to shew that there was nothing peculiar in their abu­sive usage of Julian; they treated his Successor Jo­vian, who was a Christian, and had been a Chri­stian [...]. Sui­das. Confessor under Julian, as bad, or worse than they trea­ted Julian, Lampooning him in [...] i. e. Fam [...]sis Libellis. Excerpt. per Hen. Va­les. Ed. 1634. p. 345. Vid. Suid. Ballads, and Libels, and Fragments of Poetry, for the Dishonourable Peace, which he made with the Persians, and for Burning a Fine Temple erected by the Emperor Adrian in Ho­nour of Trajan, which Julian had converted into a Library with all the Books. Some of their Libels against him they [...]. Suidas. cast about the Streets for any to take up, others they fix­ed upon the Walls, and among [Page 104]many more, which may be seen in Suidas, they applyed this following Verse in Homer unto him.

[...].
We see thee Safe, but wish some Persian Dart
Had struck through thine, as well, as Julians Heart.

This is a great deal worse than calling of Julian Bull burner, and drolling upon his Beard. Nay, so fa­shionable was Scurrility, & Impudence among them, that an Old Woman beholding his Goodly Stature, took the confidence to say, What a longitude, and pro­fundity of a Fool is this! And another took the boldness to Deride him openly in the Cirque, and Mischief had followed upon it, if Sallustius had not appeased the Stir. Had Julian been treated thus by them, we should have heard of it from Mr J. at both Ears, and then he would have brought them off with say­ing, But it was Julian, and those who quietly submitted to the Laws under Dioclesian, do nevertheless pursue an Apostate, as if he were a Midnight-Thief.

As for the Story of the Berean Noble Man, there is nothing in it, but what became a Valiant Christian; and as for that of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, it is no­thing to his Purpose, having nothing singular, or spe­cifick in it to serve his Supposition about Julian, but is an ordinary Instance of that great Courge, bold­ness, and liberty of speaking, and acting, which was common among Confessors, by which they shewed to the Enemies of God, the Greatness of their Zeal to suffer for him, and how much they despised their Authority, and Threatnings, when they stood in competition with their Duty to God.

The Jews called this the Spirit of Fortitude, and the Greeks by the name of [...], which our Tran­slation [Page 105]renders Acts 4.13, 21. boldness, and Acts 28.31. confidence: And from hence the Verb [...] is used in the New Testament to signi­fie that Acts 13.46.18.25, 26.1 Thessal. 2.2. boldness, with which the Apostles preached the Gospel in danger of their Lives; and from the New Testament both the Noun, and the Verb came to be used in Ecclesiastical Writers for A [...]. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. p. 128. Confession in the special signification, as it signifies to confess Christ boldly among his Enemies in Chrysost. Hom. 5. in. Ep. ad Phil. [...]. actual Torment, or in apparent danger of Tor­ture, or Death. Now this Bold­ness was always looked upon as the Effect of Divine Zeal and Fervent Love of God, as in A­pollos, Acts 18.25, 26. who be­ing fervent in Spirit, began [ [...]] to speak boldly in the Synagogue, where he was in danger to be torn in pieces by the Jews. So Eusebius speaking of Vettius Epagathus, who at the hazard of his Life voluntarily undertook to plead for the Christians be­fore the Tribunal, he saith, he had [...]. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. p. 126. much Zeal for God, and was Fervent in Spirit. It was also looked upon in part as the effect of supernatural courage, with which God was wont to inspire those, whom he called to suffer for his Holy Name. And there­fore St. Peter prayed for it, Acts 4.29. Lord (saith he) behold their Threatnings, and grant unto thy Ser­vants [...] that with all boldness we may speak thy Word. This inspired [Page 106]Courage is most evident in very Young, and very Old People, as also in Women, who have little Natural Courage, as L. 5. c. 1. Euse­bius observes in the Martyrdom of Young Blandina, and old Po­thius, and many others, as of Young De Mart. Palaest. c. 4. Apphianus, and C. 7. ib. Theodosia the Virgin, to whom I refer the Reader in his History of the Palaestine Martyrs.

Now the Persons thus inspired with Zeal and Courage, used ordinarily to shew it in the Freedom of their Speech before Kings, and Governours, especi­ally before those whom they knew to be spiteful E­nemies of their Religion, and Blasphemers of God. Thus one of the Seven Brethren in the 2 Mach. ch. 7. Macchabees called An­tiochus Fury, another told him He despised his Laws, a third bid him remember, that though he was a King, yet he was Corruptible; a fourth called him Godless Man, and of all other most Wicked; and the rest threatned him with the Judgments of God. The three Jews in Daniel told King Nebu­chadnezzar very bluntly; ‘that they cared not to an­swer him in the matter of the Image, but if his De­cree was so, God was able to deliver them, but if he will not, (say they like true Confessors) be it known unto thee, we will not serve thy Gods, nor worship the Golden Image that thou hast set up.’

When Numerianus, or Decius (for my Philostorg. l. 7. p. 506. Author knows not which of the two it was) would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Worship, Ba­bylas the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch, shut the Door against him, telling him that he would [Page 107]not suffer him, who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheepfold of Christ. Domninus was Famous among the Christians of Palaes;tine for this singular Freedom of Speech, and is celebrated for it by Eusebius in the 7th Chapter of his History of the Palaestine Mar­tyrs; and in Justin the Martyr's first Apology we read of one Lucius, who standing by at the condemna­tion of Ptolemaeus a Christian, boldly spoke to the President thus: ‘What reason hast thou, O Ʋr­bioius! to condemn a man merely for the Name of Christian, who is neither Whoremonger, nor A­dulterer, nor Murderer, nor Thief, nor Robber, nor is guilty of any one Crime; let me tell thee, thy Sentence is very unworthy of the Emperour, who is called Pious, and of his Son surnamed Philo­sopher, and of the Senate, which is styled the Ho­ly.’

It would be endless to enumerate all the Exam­ples of the Confessorian Parrhesia, or Liberty of Speech; there are Examples of it in most Persecu­tions, but these may suffice to let Mr. J's Admirers see, how Fallaciously he hath dealt with them, in representing the Free Speeches of the Berean Noble-Man, and Maris the Bishop, unto Julian, as singular Instances of Contempt, whereas such Freedom was of ordinary practise in former Persecutions among Christian Cofessors, a sort of men, I fear, for whom he hath but little Veneration, or Respect.

But more particularly, as to Maris Bishop of Chal­cedon, if there be any thing singular, or unjustifiable in that Dialogue of his with Julian, it may fairly be laid at his own Door, who was a most violent Ar­rian, guilty of many blameworthy Practises, which are not to be put upon the general Account.

Gelas. [...] 2. c. 2. Acta Metroph. a­pud Phot. Cod. 256. He was one of the 18 Bi­shops in the Nicene Council that defended Arrius, and his Do­ctrine; Socrat. l. 1. c. c. 27, 31, 35. he was one of Atha­nasius his most bitter Enemies; Socrat. l. 2. c. 12. he is reckoned among the Arrianizers, that ordained Ma­cedonius Bishop of Constantinople [after Eusebius died] in opposition to Paulus elected by the Ortho­dox. Id. lib. c. 2. 41. He is called an Acasi­an, and subscribed the Confessi­on of the Council of Arimini, in a Council of 50 Bishops at Constantinople, where they abrogated the words [...] and [...] Sosom. l. 4. c. 24. He was one that witnes­sed against Athanasius in the Council of Tyre, attesting the Charge against him of breaking the Chalice, &c. in a Parish Church of Maraeotis, and afterwards before Sosom. l. 2. c. 25. the Emperor Con­stantine. Ib. c. 28. He was one of the Bishops sent by the Council of Tyre into Aegypt to enquire into the matter, where L. 2. c. 25. Sozom. saith, they managed the Enquiry partially; but Lib. 1. c. 30. Theodoret plainly accuses him and his Com­panions, of framing a Lye against him, forgeing false Acts, and revi­ving the old confuted Slanders a­gainst him. Lastly the Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. Fathers of the Council of Sardica in their Synodical Epistle, reckon him among the False Accusers of Athanasi­us, Marcellus, and Asclepas, though they do not de­pose him with the rest of his Arrian Accomplices, [Page 109]all which shew that he was a Man of Heterodox Opi­nions and Irregular Practises, whose Example ought not to be cited, as a Precedent to conclude any thing in general upon the Christians, or Bishops of his Time.

In the Conclusion of the Chapter he tells us, ‘That it would be endless to reckon up the Sayings of Juventi­nus, and Maximus in their Anniversary Sermon of St. Chrysost, of those Souldiers that were trepan­ned into Sacrificing by Julian, and of many others, who did not spare him in the least.’ One would wonder how this man should come to be so learned in all that was said against Ju­lian, De Juliano Te­stimonia before Julians Works. — Vitupera­tionem autem apud Gregorium Nazianz. Steletenticis 11. ac Cy­rill. Meminit & Chry­sostomus contra Judaeos. Hom. 3. & in S.S. Ju­ventinum & Maximum & in S. Babylani. I­tem Hieron. in 3. cap. Habacuc. August. vide civitate Dei. cap. 25. but that Petavius in 4 lines hath directed him to all that e­ver was written against him, out of which he hath taken all that was for his purpose; and not­withstanding he tells his Rea­der, that he must be satisfied with a Tast, yet he hath served him up with his whole Store. For the Sayings of Juvent. and Max. and of those Souldiers, whom Julian had trepanned to sacri­fice, are so far from making for him, that they are very much against him, or else we may be sure, had they been to his purpose, they had not been suppressed. As for the former, they are such as they said at Table; such as they said when they were cast into Prison for what they had said at Table; such as they said to those whom Ju­lian under-hand sent to tempt them in Prison; or lastly, to give him the benefit of Theodoret, such as they said to the Emperor himself.

That which they said at Table among other Soul­diers by way of Discourse, was this: ‘They bewai­led the Sadness of the Times they lived in, and blessed the former days. They said it was not worth the while to live, to see the Holy Laws trod­den under foot, the Lord of all put to open shame, and to behold all places so full of the Nidor and Smoke of profane Sacrifices, that a man could not breath in pure Air.’ When they were in Prison, they exceedingly rejoyced and said, They had no fur­ther need of Money, or Fine Cloathes. To the Temp­ters, whom Julian sent to tempt them with hopes of greater Honours, and the Example of other Officers who had lapsed, they answered thus; ‘We are resol­ved for this Reason to stand out manfully, that we may offer up our selves as it were Sacrifices to expiate for their Fall: For if we do not dye now, we shall dye (we are certain) shortly after; and it is bet­ter to dye for the King of Angels, than in the Ser­vice of such a Wicked Man; it is better to lay down our Lives for an Heavenly Kingdom; than for an Earthly one, which we tread under foot. for if a man dye in the Emperors Service, he can receive no Reward for his Valour, nay perhaps he may not get a Grave, but be left to be devoured by Dogs; but if we dye for the King of Angels, we shall be sure to receive Glorious Bodies, and to have Crowns and Rewards greater than our Sufferings can deserve. Wherefore let us take up Spiritual Weapons; we have no need of Darts and Arrows, and other Bodily Armour, our Tongues [by which we are to confess Christ] are sufficient Arms for us, and out of our Mouths shall we shoot Arrows against the Devils Head.’ These are the Sayings of these two Captains in St. Chrysost. [Page 111]but they sounded so like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius in the Thebaean Legion, that our Au­thor durst not recite them, lest his Readers should find out such a Famous Instance of Passive Obedi­ence among the Commanders of Julians own Army, who were so willing to be put to death by him contrary to Law.

What they said to the Tyrants Face was this: ‘We have been educated in the True Religion; we have always been Obedient to the Laws which were made by Constantine and his Sons; and now we cannot but lament to see all things filled with Abo­minations, and even Meat and Drink defiled with Impure Sacrifices: This we have bewailed in pri­vate with Tears, and now lament in your pre­sence.’ This is all they said to Julians Face; and now all that our Author can get by it, (to use his own petulant Phrase) he may put in his Eye. L. 3. c. 16. [...]. Theodoret com­mends their Zeal, and put this Confession wholly upon that Score.

As for the Souldiers who were trepanned to Sa­crifice by Julian, this is the short of the Story: Ju­lian on a certain day called his Army unto him to receive Donatives according to their Quality, and places. The Ceremony was ordered as in the time of the Pagan Emperors: The Emperor sat in great State, there was Gold set before him on one hand, and Frankincense on the other, and the Souldiers were told, that according to Ancient Custom they were to cast a bit of this into the Fire, Vid. Sozom lib. 5. c. 17. before they re­ceived [Page 112]any of that. The [...] Nazianz. p. 85. whole Army, were ensnared, some, it is likely, through love of the Gold, but many of them as it afterwards appeared, through mere Ignorance, and Simplicity, and the specious pretence of An­cient Custom: For when the Solemnity was done, the Souldiers went to their Quarters, where they eat together; and as some of them [...] Ib. looking up to Hea­ven, and signing themselves with the Sign of the Cross, gave thanks unto Christ: One among the rest asked them, how they could call up­on Christ after they had denyed him? How, re­plyed they half-dead with the Question, how have we denyed Christ? Insomuch (replyed the other) as you have Sacrificed Frankincense, which is in effect to deny Christ. Upon this immediately ri­sing from the Table, they became like distracted Men; and being heated with Zeal and Indignati­on, they ran about the Market-place, crying, out, and saying, ‘We are Christians, we are Christians in our Hearts; we declare it to all men, and before all men unto God, to whom we live, and for whom we will dye. O Saviour Christ we have not betrayed thee, we have not denyed the Faith; for however we have offen­ded thee with our Hands, we are upright in our Hearts; the Emperor deceived us, and we are not tainted with his Gold, we renounce this ungodly Act, we will wash it off with our Blood.’ And then running to the Em­peror, and throwing down their Gold, ‘cryed out, Sir, we have not received Gifts from you, but our own Death and Damnation; you called us, not to Honour us by them, but to mark us with Disgrace; Now do us who [Page 113]are your Souldiers, the Favour, as to kill us for Christ to whom alone we are Subject; as we are polluted, so let us be purged by Fire; reduce us into Ashes, as we did the Frankincense; cut off our Hands, which we stretched out in offering of it, and our Feet, which carried us to the place; and give our Gold to others, who have not repented of that, they have already received: Christ is sufficient for us, whom we prefer above all things in the World.’ Having said this to the Em­peror, they informed others of the Cheat he had put upon them, and exhorted them to make Sa­tisfaction to their Saviours Honour with their Blood. The Emperor was very mad at them, but would no kill them, because they should not be counted Martyrs, but banished them.

If the Thebaean Legion was an Example of Passive Obedience, much more were these Souldiers of Julian, who behaved themselves with such Exem­plary Modesty, and Submission towards an Apostate Emperor, who dealt so basely with his Army, and persecuted the greater part of his Subjects (as Mr. J. saith) not only without, but against Law. One would think upon Mr. J's Principles, that they should ra­ther have mutined, and formed themselves into a Po­sture of Resistance against such a Lawless Tyrant; but instead of that, they speak unto him like Apo­stles, and desire to be killed for the Sake of Christ. Mr. J. knew this very well, which made him only re­fer unto the Story, which he knew not one of an hundred among his Readers would, nor one in ten could examine: I am confident neither of his Su­pervisers, neither he, who is now with God, nor he, who is still among Men, knew the Truth of these Stories; if they did, they were very ill-advised not [Page 114]to blot out the Reference, which hath caused me to bring them upon the Stage: We thank them for it, and to requite them, we will Thunder no more with the musty Thebaean Legion, but Juven­tinus, and Maximus, and the Souldiers of Julian shall be our Thundring Legion for the time to come.

CHAP. IV. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in their Actions.

OUr Author having shewed us how the Christi­ans behaved themselves towards Julian in Words, proceeds in two Examples to give an Ac­count of their Actions, which, as he saith, make manifest their Hatred to him, and how they held him in the very lowest degree of Contempt. We may be sure these two Examples are the best he could pick out; but as for the first, he hath unluckily ta­ken off from it the Efficacy he intended it should have, by observing out of Theodoret and St. August. that Valentinian did what he did to the Sacrist, as a Confessor of the Christian Religion; which im­plyes that he did it, not out of hatred to Julian, or with a Design to affront his Majesty, but out of love to his Saviour, and to own his Religion, and to te­stifie his Fidelity to him.

For in those streights, wherein he was surprized, he was either to receive the Sprinklings of the Lustral Water quietly, as the Heathens did, and then he had polluted himself, or else he was bound to shew by some Sign, that he was no Heathen, nor Apostate, but a true Christian; and having no time to delibe­rate, which was the most decent, and inoffensive way, we need not wonder, that he struck the Sa­crist, [Page 116]or, as the [...]. Theodor. l. c. 16. Original may be rendered, that he pushed him with his Fist. If he had spit in his Face, or in the Holy Water, or shaked it off his Cloaths, it had been all one; something was to be done on so publick an Occasi­on to own his Religion; and he could not do it more effectually, than by disowning the Heathen Rites. Theodoret saith, that he was not able to [...]. Ib. dissemble the Zeal which he had for the Chri­stian Religion, and if his Ma­ster Julian were offended at him for it, and looked upon himself as contemned by the Action, it was an Accidental and not a Design­ed Offence.

His next Instance is in old Gregory Bishop of Na­zianzum, in which he hath discovered much Partia­lity, and Dis-ingenuity in rendring that obscure Pas­sage of his Son so, as to make his Reader believe, that the good old man intended to kick Julian: For first it is plain, that the Text is imperfect, which made him confess, that he had more trouble with that Passage, than with all the rest in the Book; [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat. 19. p. 308. the [...] which goes before [...] hath no­thing answering unto it; the Particle [...], seems to imply, that there is something wrong, and who can tell what [...] is? and therefore me­thinks though [...] should signifie Kicking, and seem to refer unto the Emperor, as the words stand in the printed Co­py, [Page 117]yet one would think that a Protestant Divine in Charity should have presumed, that this seeming Sense of that Imperfect Passage could not be the Real, because it is so absurd to imagine, that so Pious a Bishop, for whom, his Son tells us, God wrought as great a p. 304, 305. Miracle, as for Hezekiah, should, contrary to the practise of all Christia­nity before him, design to stretch forth hand, or foot against his Soveraign, whose person (according to our Authors own P. 84. Con­fession) was Sacred and Invio­lable, and ought by no means to have had any violence offered unto him. It was methinks a greater Solecism in Mr. J. than any he could make in the Greek, to think old Gregory had less Conscience than himself. If ye will believe him, he durst not offer Violence to the person of a Popish King; and yet this old withered Lachrymist, would have made no Bones of of Kicking Julian, no not when he was scarce able to creep. For in the next words to those, which he cites out of Young Gregory about his Fathers Kicking, he tells us of his [...]. old Mortified Body; and two or three pages after he saith he was so [...]. broken with Age, and Sick­ness, that upon an Occasion when he had all his Zeal about him, he was scarce able to go, and yet [...]. p. 311. this dody Body of an old Man, scarce able to breath, was resolved to kick Julian in the head of a Troop; and what is yet stranger, Julian, who had fought so many [Page 118]Battles in the Head of his Legions, having happily got Intelligence of his Design, was so terrified at the danger, that he ran away. Besides, it is not imaginable, that a Roman Emperor should put him­self in the Head of a Captain and his Company of Archers to lead them on to the storming of a Church; it was very proper for him to command such a Captain, and his Company upon the Service, but to lead them on himself, was not consistent with the Emperors Majesty, who never marched any where, but attended with the Praetorian Guards.

These Considerations methinks might have made Mr. J. consider the Greek better, and if he had, he would not have thought it any Solecism to understand the Place of the Captain of the Archers, because he who led them on demanded the Church [...], according to, or by vertue of his Orders, which could not have been said of the Emperor, if he had demanded it himself.

But to make the whole Passage more easie, it is to be observed, That young Gregory's Design in this place is to shew, 1. First, How much his Father despised and undervalued all the Mischief that Juli­an could design against him; and 2dly. What means he used for his Destruction, and the Deliver­ance of the Church. Of the First he saith, That the Captain and his Archers, whom he led up against their Church, was an Example; and of the Se­cond, that he not fearing the times, prayed [...]. Publickly among the people for Julians Destruction, and also in [...]— Private, Fasting [Page 119]and Praying, and lying whole Nights upon the Ground. Who (saith he) can be found who more contemned Ju­lian, or more endeavoured his Destruction that my Fa­ther? ‘Of his Contempt of him, among many o­thers, those Archers, and their Captain are a Proof, whom he (the Captain) led on against our Church, as one that would take it, or demolish it. For having assaulted many others, he came hither also with the same Intention, and demanded the Church [...]] according to his Orders, or as the special Sense of the Word requires, according to the Emperors Orders.’

This is the most natural sense of the place, and I find it accordingly translated by Bilibaldus Perkhey­merus, the greatest Graecian of his Time, who was a great Collector of Greek Manuscripts, and who, if we may believe Erasmus his great Correspondent, Et eximium il­lum Christianae Philo­sophiae praeconem Greg. Nazianzenum sic Lati­nè loquentem nobis docet, ut Graeci Sermonis fontes nemo desideraturus fuerit. Erasm. in Ep. Illustriss. Principi Georgio Saxoniae Duci. turned Na­zianzen into such Latine, that no man need desire the Greek.

His Words are these: ‘Hunc quis magis, quàm pater meus despexisse, aut dissol­visse est repertus? Contemptus ita (que) praemultis aliis judex est praefectus sagittariorum cum suis quos ducebat, ut sa­cras domos nostras occuparet, aut subjugaret. Quum [...] ­nim multos alios agressus fuisset, huc quo (que) cum eâdem pervenit intentione, ac templum petebat cum mandatis.’

I hope we have now pretty well secured the Em­perors Honour, and laid the Kicking upon the Cap­tain; but what then? Is it reasonable to think, that [Page 120]a Bishop would kick an Officer, that came with the Emperors Orders? or that such a Feeble old Soul, as this would undertake to kick a Captain in the Head of his Company, or if he should be so mad, is it credi­ble to believe, that the Captain was afraid of his Toes? No truly, these are all very great Absurdities, and therefore the Vid. Vitam Per­keymeri à Conrado Rit­tershusio scriptam, & Wolfgangum Muscu­lum in praefatione ver­sion. Greg. Naz. Excus. Basil. 1550. Wonder of his Age, the No­ble and Learned Perkheymerus saw nothing of kicking in the Passage, but goes on thus.

‘But he so far failed of accomplishing what he intended, that he was in hazard of being exclu­ded by my Father, which when he understood ei­ther by himself, or by some others that told him, he went away, although he had illness, or pain in his Feet, seeing the Bishop did so burn with Zeal for the Temple, and with Anger against him. Verum tantum abfuit ut quae vellet peragere, posset, ut paruin defucrit, quin a patre meo excluderetur. Id quum per semetipsum intelligeret, aut ab alio quodam consulente aud [...]visset, licet pedum dolore laboraret, discessit, quum Sacerdos irâ ac zelo contra eum templi causa arderet.’

It is not to be doubted, but that Perkheymerus had very good reason from his own Manuscripts to tran­slate this obscure passage, as he hath done, and par­ticularly for his rendring of [...], although he had Illness in his Feet, for the Phrase being Synec­dochical [...], must be the Patient, and not the In­strumental Agent [for then it must have been [...],] in reference to [...], and may be properly ren­dred in English, Although he was bruised or battered [Page 121][with Marching] in his Feet. And this sense, which makes [...] the Patient unto [...], is agreeable to Phavorinus, who renders [...] in the Passive voyce by [...] signifies to beat, but [...] to suf­fer, or be ill.

As for the Authority of his Metropolitan it signifies nothing, because the Latine which he hath cited is not (as he seems to think) the Original, but only the Translation of his Comment upon Nazianzen, and there is violent presumption to think that [...], where the merit of the Con­troversie lyes, was in his Comment, as well as in Gregories Text.

But what if after all it should appear to be a kick­ing, and that this kicking was intended for the Em­peror, what would Mr. J. get by one Eccentrick Ex­ample in 360 years from all Primitive Christianity, and particularly from all the Bishops of the Church? By his own Principle he was bound to condemn him, and not to propose him for an Example, because it was by no means lawful to offer any Violence unto Ju­lian. It had been more agreeable to his Hypothesis to let it have been the kicking of the Captain, for though the persons of Princes are Sacred and Invio­lable P. 86. yet (saith he) the Lives of Subjects under an Apostate Prince are not to lye at the Mercy of every Commission-Officer, or Janizary, no! illegal Force must be repelled by Force.

I shall conclude this Chapter with a Remarque upon some of his petulant Expressions, altogether unbecoming a Man, that professes Divinity, especially one of his Robe. In the Story of Valentinian out of Theodoret he translates [...] by Chaplain, where [Page 122]he would rather be guilty of a Solecism, than not to be Sarcastical, for he might more properly have rendred it [...] to sweep, hence Suidas renders it [...], the Cleaner of the Temple, and Hesy [...]h. [...], he that adorns it. Sexton, or [...], He that takes Care of the Tem­ple. Churchwarden; but he had learnt of his Ch [...]nies of the Faction, to ridicule the use of Chaplains in Great Families, because they are generally Loyal men, who are able and willing to defend the King, and the Church.

In the Story of Old Gregory, upon whom he was resolved to fasten the kicking of Julian, he scopti­cally calls him one of the Old Lachrymists, to please the wretched Humour of the same sort of men, who love to droll upon the Doctrine of the Cross. But however he hath taken the liberty to abuse the Me­mory of that Holy, and Zealous Father, he was no more then a Lachrymist, he never designed any per­sonal Violence to Julian, but only to keep his Church-Door against the Captain of his Archers, who was sent to take it, or destroy it; and there was nothing singular in that, which had been done by Babylas Bishop of Antioch against Decius, and af­terwards by St. Theodor. l. 5. c. 18. Ambrose a­gainst Theodosius, and might per­haps be innocently done in the like circumstances by a Prote­stant Bishop, who will be a Confessor, against his own Prince.

Last of all, as it were in triumph over the Do­ctrine of Passive Obedience, I know no more than [Page 123]the Pope of Rome (saith he) what to make of all this, what they (Valentinian and Gregory) meant by it, or upon what Principles these men proceeded, whether the Laws of their Country allowed them to offer Violence to their Lawful Emperor?—But now it appears they offered him no Violence, or if they had, does he not know whether the Laws of their Country allowed them to do so? If he did not, he was very ignorant, and if he did, he was very dis-ingenuous to say so against his own Knowledge, and then he thinks he concludes bravely with a Sarcasme upon the Excellent Primate, and Bishops of Scotland, only this we may be assured of, that none of those Bishops (Maris nor Old Gregory) had ever been in Scotland, nor had learnt to fawn upon an Apostate, and a mortal Enemy to their Religion. His R. H. is much obliged to him for his New Titles; His Majesty for the Ho­nour he hath done his only Brother, and Viceroy in his other Kingdom; and the other half of the Brit­tish Bishops for being represented as a Company of Fawning Spanels upon and Apostate, and the utter Enemy of their Religion.

This is a Doubty Hero to attack a King, and a Prince; nay his own natural King and Prince, with Fourteen Bishops at a time: Every one knows he alludes to the Letter, which the Bishops of Scotland sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to let his Grace, and their Brethren in England know, how much they were beholden to his R. H. for his Prote­ction of them against the Churches sworn Enemies; and I can see no ground for the Justice of his foul Reflection upon them for this Action, unless Ju­stice, and Gratitude be Crimes. If a Visier should do very kind Offices for the Christian Bishops, and Religion, in any one of his Masters Provinces, would [Page 124]it be Fawning upon him for them to write to the Pa­triarch of Constantinople to acquaint him with it, and desire him to give him Thanks? Or to make the Pa­rallel more exact; Suppose that in the Western Em­pire there had been of old a Bloody Aerian Faction, who held Episcopacy to be an Antichristian Usurpa­tion, and who had bound themselves in a Solemn League and Covenant to Extirpate the Apostolical Function, and in pursuance of that Design had Re­belled against Constantine, and by the help of their Brethren in the Eastern Empire had conquered him, and then put him to death: That 12 years after it pleased God to Restore his Son Constantius; after which the Aerian Faction began again to assemble in Armed Meetings, which ended in a formed Rebel­lion; that after this Rebellion Constantius was per­swaded to give them an Indulgence, by the Benefit of which they grew strong, and insolent, till at length they presumed to beat and murder the Or­thodox Clergy, wheresoever they met them, and more especially sought opportunity to Murder the Bishops, many of which for Fear of them durst not live in their Diocesses; that they came to be so bold, as to Face, and Skirmish the Empe­rors Souldiers in Parties; that they assaulted the Patriarch of Rome in the midst of the City, and afterwards murdered him on the Road in a most Barbarous manner, and within 6 Weeks after his Murder universally rebelled; that after this Rebellion was over, Constantius sent Julian (a Prince who for his Excellencies had been the Darling of the People before he was suspected of Paganism) to govern the Western Empire, where he declared he would up­hold the Church as it was established, both against Paganism, and Aerianism; that accordingly he [Page 125]cheerfully procured a Law to prevent both the Pa­gans, & Aerians from having any share in the Govern­ment, Civil, Military, or Ecclesiastical; that be­sides all this he was most Exemplary Respectful to the Bishops, and Episcopal Clergy, and frequently renewed his Promises to them of upholding the E­stablished Religion: Last of all, that all his Ser­vants and Attendants were Orthodox Christians; that he kept two, or three Orthodox, and learned Presbyters in his Family, to Catechise, Preach, and and Administer the Holy Eucharist, and do all o­ther Spiritual Offices among them, as occasion did require. All this being supposed, let Mr. J. tell me, if it would have been Fawning, or Justice, Gra­titude, and Prudence in the Western Bishops to send an Account of this most Generous and perhaps Sur­prising Goodness of Julian to the Orthodox Church, and Clergy, notwithstanding the general suspitions that went abroad of his being a Pagan, to the Pa­triarch of Constantinople, to desire him, when Cae­sar returned to the Court, to give him Humble thanks.

Nay, I would desire Mr. J. to tell me, whether upon this Supposition, it would not have been great Impudence, and Malice in a Private Presbyter so to censure the Western Bishops, and miscal the just Civility, which they shew'd to Julian, Fawning upon an Apostate (although his Apostacy was never yet proved) and a mortal Enemy to their Religion, to which he had been so great a Friend.

CHAP. V. Of the Behaviour of the Christians to­wards Julian in their Devotions, and first of their Psalms.

FRom the Behaviour of the Christians in their Actions towards Julian, he proceeds to their Devotions, and Prayers; where from one or two Examples he still draws a General Conclusion, en­deavouring to make what was done but by one man, or once upon some special Occasion, so appear, as if it had been the General Practise of the Christi­ans of the Roman Empire, i. e. of almost the whole Catholic Church. ‘These Passages (saith he) which we have hitherto related were in common Conversati­on—where the Christians might chance not to have their Religion about them—but when they go to Church and enter upon Holy Ground, or when­ever they make their Addresses to God in Prayers and Praises, there one may expect to see the Flights of their Self-denying, and Suffering Religion. There one may justly expect they should lay aside all their Ani­mosity against Julian, though he were their Enemy, and for that Reason pray the harder for him; yes s [...] they do the wrong way, they cannot sing a Psalm, but they make his Confusion the Burden of it.’ One would think after such a General Charge he should have brought at least an Hundred Instances to prove it, but in all his Search, he hath found but Two; and the [Page 127]First of them, which he sets off with so much shew, is nothing to his Purpose, because the Original words in the [...] Hebrew, and [...]. Greek, which ours and all the Provincial Languages ren­der by Confound from the vulgar Latine, signifie Confusion, as it is put for Shame, as we say in our Language, Such a man was much con­founded, that is, much Abashed, and Ashamed; or as the French ordinarily say, Vous me donnez de la Confusion, you make me Ashamed. So Psal. 35.4, Let them be [...] confounded and [...] put to shame, that seek after my Soul, might be rendred, let them be put to shame, and blushing, that seek after my Soul. So Psal. 40.14. Let them be ashamed and confounded together, that seek after my Soul to destroy it, might be rendred, Let them be [...] ashamed and [...] blush, &c. The Words signifie, that shame of Mind, and con­fusion of Face with which a man is affected, who is, become sensible of his Error or Misdoing; and so the Christians of Ant. in Praying after Davids Example and in the sense of his Words, for the Confusion of the Pagans, prayed not for their Destruction, but for their Conversion; especially upon that Solemn Oc­casion, when the Bones of the Martyrs had silenced Apollo, the God of Julian, (in the Praise of whose Divinity he had written an Orat. 4. [...], Ad Sal­lustiu [...]. Oration) they could never more aptly and seasonably apply that Charitable Prayer of David; Confounded be all they that serve [Page 128]Graven Images, and that boast themselves of Idols, wor­ship him all ye Gods.

But that the Reader may perceive how apt our Author is to pick up, and mis-apply all Passages in Good Historians to his own Design, I beg leave that I may tell the Story after him, which in short is this: ‘Julians Elder Brother Gallus Caesar, while he was at Antioch, being very much grieved to see the pleasant Place of Daphne so polluted with Idola­try, and Gentile Superstition, was resolved to Cleanse it, and Hallow it in this manner;Sozom. l. 6. c. 19. He thought if he built an Oratory over-against Apollos Temple, and placed the Body of Babylas the Martyr in it, it would bring the Christians from the Town to Worship there, and so the Temple of Apollo would soon grow unfrequented. Accordingly it hapned, for from the time the Martyrs Bones were put there, the Daemon grew Dumb, and so continued till Julian came to Anti­och, where he found the Temple of his God neg­lected, and desolate; and when they told him that the God had not spoke of a long time, he pre­tended it was because he had been so neglected; and therefore to make him ample Amends, he of­fered him Sacrifices in such excessive Numbers, that the Heathens called him Bull-burner as well as the Christians, and Superstitiosus ma­gis, quàm Sacrorum le­gitimus observator, in­numeras sine parsimo­niâ pecudes mactans, ut aestimaretur, si revertisset de parthis boves jam defuturos. Mar­cell. l. 25. censured him for his Extravagance and Superstition in that point. Yet for all this Apollo stood mute, [Page 129]till Julian again, and again begging him to tell him how he should succeed in his Persian Ex­pedition, he at length answered, that he was hin­dered from delivering Oracles by the dead Bodies, which were buried so near unto him. Julian by this perceived, that he meant especially the Body of Babylas, though some other Martyrs were bu­ried there about him, and therefore he forthwith made the Christians remove them all, as L. 3. c. 10. Theodoret saith; But L. 3. c. 18. Socrates, L. 6. c. 19. Sozom. and Homilia de Hie­ro martyre Babylâ. Chrysost. say, that they only removed the Coffin of Babylas, and as they carried it in solemn Procession into the City, the Praecen­tors sang Psalms, and the Chorus made up of Men, Women, and Children at every Pause, sang the 7th Verse of the 79th Psalm, Confounded, or asha­med be all they that serve Graven Images, and boast themselves of Idols. Julian not bearing this Dis­grace, commanded the Leaders of the Procession to be apprehended; But Sallustius, his Praefectus Praetorio, who was then an Heathen, endeavoured to perswade him not to gratifie the Christians so far as to meddle with them, who were desirous of the Glory of Martydom. But when he saw he could not perswade him, he apprehended many Christians and put them in Prison, and tortured Theodorus, a young Man, whom he first seized, in in the presence of all the People; and when he was upon the Rack, he sung over the same Psalm, which they had sung the day before in the Processi­on; and his wonderful Constancy in his Torments, made Julian cease from punishing the rest.’

And now let any impartial Man judge, whether this was to call for Vengeance from Heaven upon the Pagan Emperor to sing Psalms upon such a trium­phant Occasion? certainly if these had held their peace, the Stones would have immediately cryed out; could they do less at the removal of a Body, by which God was pleased to work such a Miracle, the Body of an Eminent Martyr, who had been their own Bishop? And could they say any thing, that could likely make deeper Impression upon Julian, and bring him to a sense of the Vanity of his Idols, than to pray to God that he might be put to Shame and Con­fusion by the Miracle, and especially to do it in those pungent words of the Psalmist, which he had read a Thousand times in the Church of Nicomedia; Let them be confounded that serve Graven Images—. The Apostle saith, that the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged Sword, pier­cing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit; and in this Sense indeed, I believe, they hoped that their Psalms, and the Burden of them, might by Gods Blessing have proved Darts, and Swords, and Ar­rows to cut the Apostate to the Heart. Otherwise they knew the worst of it would be to suffer for the Te­stimony they gave of their Religion, but this they were so far from fearing, that as [...]. Sallustius told Julian, They were desirous and ambitious of it. But this Passage our Author very prudently opmitted in his P. 47. Translation of the Story out of Theodoret, because he was not willing to let Readers understand, that the Christians had a mind to suffer under an Apostate, [Page 131]who (according to his new Hypothesis) persecuted contrary to Law.

And to this great zeal, and desire of Suffering for Christ [which I shall hereafter insist more upon] is to be ascribed that heroical Attempt of Publia the Diaconess, his second Example of singing of Psalms. This Woman, resolving to shew how much the Rage, and Threatnings of Julian were to be despised by all Christians, was ‘resolved to be at least a Confessor, and therefore with a Company of Professed Virgins [...]. The­od. l. 3. c. 18. Forti­fied with Divine Zeal, she was wont to sing Praises to God the Creator, and Redemer; and when the Emperor passed by, they would be sure to sing their Psalms the louder, ac­counting such a [...]. furious and destructive Enemy of the Christian Religion to be despised and derided. Now at such times they u­sed to sing those Psalms especially, which Sarcasti­cally set forth the weakness of Idols, saying after David, The Idols of the Heathen, are Silver and Gold, the Work of Mens Hands: And after thus shewing the Senselesness of them, they added, Let them that make them be like unto them, and all those that put their Trust in them. He hearing them sing thus, was very much grieved, and commanded them to be silent at such times as he passed by; but Publia not regarding his Command, filled her Quire of Virgins with more Courage; and when he passed by the next time, commanded them to sing, Let God arise, and let his Enemies be scattered Julian taking this very ill, commanded Publia to be brought before him, and without any regard [Page 132]to her Age, Sex, or Virtue, commanded one of the Souldiers to beat her on both sides of her Face, till he had made it all Bloody with his Hands. But she [like a true Confessor] receiving this contumelious U­sage, as the Highest Honour, wentback to her House, but after her usual manner, she still pelted him with her Spiritual Songs.’

Theodoret, who tells this Story of Publia and her Quire of Virgins, ascribes it to their Divine Zeal, and afterwards tells us, that she received her cruel and disgraceful Beating, as the highest Honour, which is as much, as if he had said in St. Lukes phrase, That she rejoyced, like the Apostles, that she was counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ. This makes it plain that Suffering is the thing, they would have been at; and if our Author had not been wilfully blind, he might in these Psalms have seen the flights of their self-denying and suffering Religion, who made themselves Confessors in that Exigence, and would fain have been martyrs for Jesus Christ. For Julian out of Policy (as I shall hereafter shew) would not kill the Christians, because their Martyr­dom made them and their Religion more Illustri­ous; and therefore many of them, thought they should do God good Service to provoke him to break his Measures in putting them death; endeavour­ing, as Nazianzen said of his Souldiers above men­tioned, to make themselves Martyrs, [...] as much as lay in their own Power. Hence, as that 1 Invect. p. 72, 73, 74. Father tells us, it was more delightful to the Christians to suffer for their Religion, than to see it undermined by new Arts; and therefore he complains of the Politic Gentle­ness of Julian, as the greatest Cruelty, that ever the [Page 133]Christians underwent. Hom. in Juvent. & Max. St. Chrysost. tells us, That Julian used to say, That the Christians flew to Martyrdom as Bees to their Hive: And therefore the true Ground why the Christians so provoked him, was not, that he Persecuted them Illegally, but that he did not take the old way of Persecution, which was so honour­able to the Christians, and advantagious to the Church, of putting them to death: Or if here and there he put them to death, that he put them not to death formally, as Christians, but accused and condemned them for some other Crimes.

This indeed raised their Animosity against him, that he [...]. Naz. 1. Inv. p. 72. [...]. Sallust. ad Jul. Soz. l. 4. c. 20. envied them the Glory, and the Church the mighty [...]. Chryst. Hom. in ju­vent. & Max. Vid. Sozom. l. 5. c. 4. Advantage of a down­right Bloody Persecution; and if their extraordinary Zeal in suf­fering Martyrdom, and watering the Church with their Blood did transport any of them, beyond the bounds of decency, or strict Duty in their Behaviour to the Emperor, or those who were put in Authority under him, it trans­ported former Christians, as much.

In the Dioclesian Persecution, Passio Sancti Fe­licis, Edit Oxon. ad Calcem. Lactant. de Mort. Persecu [...]. Felix Bishop of Tubyza told [Page 134]the Governour of the City, ‘That their Gods were Stones, the Works of Mens Hands, which had Eyes but saw not, Ears but heard not, Mouths but spoke not, &c. and then added, [in the words of Pu­blia] They that make them are like unto them, and so is every one that putteth his Trust in them. And when he was brought before Anulinus the Pro-con­sul, he asked him his Name?’ to which he replyed, I am a Christian: The Pro-consul replyed, I did ‘not ask what Religion you were of, but what was your Name? To which he bluntly replyed, As I said before, so I say again, I am a Christian, and a Bishop; which made the Pro-consul Angry.’ Might not a man here ask in our Authors words, ‘Where is the Reverence due to Authority? What dutifulness was there shewn by the Bishop in refusing to comply with so reasonable a Command as to tell his Name?’ and had it been Julian, to whom the Bishop had been so un­complyant, then he would have triumphantly said, But it was Julian, and he did not owe him so much Ser­vice.

In the Gallic Persecution in the time of the Antonines, St. Eu [...]eb. Hist. Ecc. l. 5. c. 1. Attalus would neither tell his Name, nor his Country, nor the City where he was born, nor whether he was bound, or free? but to all these Questions only an­swered in Latine, I am a Chri­stian. And good old Ibid. Pothi­nus Bishop of Lyons, who was prosecuted by the Magistrates, and People of the City, when the Pro-consul asked him who was the God of the Christians? answered very uncomlai­santly, If thou wert worthy, thou shouldest know. Had this been Maris, or Old Gregory, or any other Chri­stian [Page 135]that had answered Julian so, then it must have been brought for a Special Example of the Christians Hatred to Julian, and how they had him in the lowest degree of Contempt. I cannot (would he have said) find out any profound primitive Obedience in this Behaviour. Where is the Reverence due to Majesty? What Dutifulness did they shew in re­fusing to comply, with so Reasonable a Command as to tell their Names, or who was the God of the Christians, But it was Julian, and they did not owe him so much Service.

Methinks a Man, that could find so many Argu­ments to Justifie his Fellow-Subjects for Petitioning their Soveraign against his express Command, might have said something to Excuse Publia for her Non­compliance with Julian, and not have charged her with Disobedience, and breach of Duty for doing of that, which Theodoret, who hath so much Credit with him, ascribed to the Primitive Principle of Di­vine Zeal. He might have called to mind the Un­complyable behaviour of Jesus before Pilate, of which Divines give this Account: That seing Pilate so willing to release him, he would not an­swer him, as being afraid by his Complyance to prevent his Sufferings at the appointed time. In like manner many of the Primi­tive Christians, having [...] Eu­seb. de Vettio Epaga­tho martyre, l. 5. c. 1. very much Zeal for Christ, and fer­vency in Spirit to suffer for him, as Proto-Martyrs of the several Persecutions, did designedly be­have themselves in that Stoical manner before the Tribunals, as being unwilling to prevent their own sufferings, or at least afraid to be thought Time­rous, or willing to escape. More particularly in [Page 136]the Time of Julian, many to whom God gave the Spirit of [...] Ibid. Proto-Martyrs, did industriously provoke him to down right Bloodshed, for the Reasons above mentioned, and yet were never charged with want of Reverence or breach of their Duty to him, in the Particulars by which they did it, or with do­ing any thing more against him upon that Account, than was done to other Emperors, or their Ministers by Martyrs, and Confessors of former times.

CHAP. VI. Of their Prayers and Tears.

WE come now to their Prayers and Tears, which (saith he) P. 46. were the Arms of the Church in­deed, for they were Darts, and Arrows, and Firebrands, and Death. Cruel Chri­stians! so to dart their Prayers against Julian, and then to be so flippant as to express it by a Word which might more properly be employed to describe, the throw­ing of the Javelin, which afterwards stuck in his Li­ver. Oh but it was Julian! and in that Age those were accounted the best Prayers, and Tears, which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor, and contri­buted most to his Destruction.

This is a very pretty Declamation, and would al­most perswade a man to think, that the Christians in Julians Time had Army-Chaplains among them, and that they prayed to the Lord of Hosts for his Destru­ction in Field-Conventicles, with Javelins in their Hands, and Swords by their Sides. The Nightly Squadrons, and lying upon the Ground doth much countenance this Notion; and if the unwary Rea­ders of Julian be carried into such Mistakes by the Authors Artillery-Metaphors, as some I know have been, is he not to Answer to God for it? Especi­ally considering, that after so many false and ground­less Charges upon those Christians in general: At [Page 138]length he P. 95. represents them; as Rebels in their Hearts, and saith, That they made use of other Ingredients besides Prayers, and Tears in their Compo­sition against a Persecutor.

I shall hereafter shew the Falseness of that Charge, and now proceed to examine the Justice of this. How doth it appear that the Christians in Julians Time prayed for his Destruction? The Charge is General, & like all other general Charges ought to be proved from a great Number of Particulars, especially since the Society so charged is little less than the Catholik Church. Doth any Author say in general, That the Christians prayed for the death of Julian; or can he furnish us with so many particular Instances in diffe­rent places, as may, by the Laws of Induction serve to ground such a General Charge upon? But instead of that he presents us but with two Instances, which really are but one, even the Example of Old Gre­gory, and his Church at Nazian­zum, for the We in Young Invect. 1. p. 123. Gregory relates to the Christians of that City, of whom he being one, speaks in the Plural Number, We called for the Sword and the Plagues of Egypt; and We besought him to judge his own Cause, &c. And then, speaking more particular­ly of himself, These (saith he) were my mental, and verbal Prayers unto God.

But what is the Practise of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches, and Cities of the Em­pire? Is this, without more Examples, sufficient to prove that the rest of the Churches in the Roman Empire did publickly strike the Villain [for so he ren­ders [...]] with their Joynt Prayers and Suppli­cations, or that other Bishops generally, speaking [Page 139]privately, Fasted, and Watched, and Prayed for his Destruction, and taught their People so to do? Would the singular Practise of one English Bishop, and of his People following his Example, be a suf­ficient Ground for a General Charge upon the whole Church of England? If it would not, how much less can the Example of one Bishop or Church in the Roman Empire, signifie any thing to prove the General Practise of the rest? But yet in our Au­thors Logick, one Instance is ground enough for a Lawful Induction. It must be their Prayers, and their Tears, and they followed Hezekiahs Example, and they darted these Prayers: But we need not wonder at his making an Induction from one Parti­cular, when he calls the few Months of Julians Reign an Age, p. 55. In that Age (saith he) the best Prayers, and Tears, were those which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor.

I do not question but that the Christians generally prayed for the Deliverance of the Church, but then it is reasonable to believe, that they generally pray'd for Julians Conversion at the same time: Of this we can produce one Example, though our Author P. 96. saith, That he could not find so much as one single Wish among the Ancients for Julians Conversion, but all for his downright Destruction. If he could not, it was his own Fault, I fear the fault of his own willful Blindness; for in the very next Chapter to that P. 59. Sozom. l. 6. c. 1. which he hath cited out of Sozom, to prove that a Christian killed Julian, he might have read of Didymus, whom the Historian [Page 140]calls [...], that is, an Vid. Suicceri Thesaur. in [...] Orthodox Doctor of Alexandria, [...] Sozom. l. 6. who being in great Sorrow for the Apostacy of Julian, Fasted, and Prayed for his Repentance, and for the sad Estate of the Church.

Now from this Example, in our Authors way of arguing, I might prove that the Christians prayed for Julians return from his Error, and for the Deli­verance of the Church by that way: I am sure it is very agreeable to their Charity, to think, That all would pray for his Repentance, that believed him capable of Repentance; and that none abso­lutely prayed for his Destruction, but such as thought him utterly uncapable of Repentance, and that he had sinned the Sin unto death, for which it was in vain to pray.

And indeed there was very good Reasons to pre­sume, that he was Irrecoverable, and had the Ma­lice of a Devil against Christ, and the Christian Re­ligion, and good grounds upon that presumption to pray for his Destruction, and after his death in that unnatural Apostacy, to lodge him, as our Author ob­serves, in Hell.

Now to make out this Hypothesis, let us consider the Nature of his Apostacy; his Devotedness to the Devil, and his Spite to Christ, and the Christi­ans.

As for his Apostacy, it was first occasioned by his Theod. l. 3. c. 3. Ambi­tious Thirst after the Empire, which made him go about Greece to find out Conju­rers, and Fortune-Tellers, of whom he might en­quire, if he should obtain his Desire. At length he met with a Magician, who promised him to tell him his Fortune, and to that end led him into an Idoll-Temple, where in the Adytum, or inner Recesses he con­jured up the Devil, and there initiated him in the Di­abolical Mysteries, & made him eat of the Sacrifice, which was an Abomination to Christ. This was after his Brother Gallus was made Caesar, when Invect. 1. p. 61. being left alone, he had greater opportu­nities to converse with Astro­logers and Magicians, whereof there was great plenty in Asia; and before this, as Ibid. Gregory saith, he was a concealed Pagan, using to dispute with his Brother Gallus in Defence of Paganism, which he would own in company, where he was safe. This is very agreeable to L. 22. Et quan­quam à rudimentis pue­ritiae primis inclinati­or erat erga numinum cultum— Marcellinus, who saith, that he was addicted to Paganism from a Child; and yet to cover the matter, he professed himself Sozom. l. 5. c. 2. Naz. 1 Invect. p. 59. Theod. l. 3. c. 2. a Zealous Christian, going often to Church, and letting himself be ordained a Reader, and joyning with his Brother in building a Stately Church over the Sepulcher of St. Mamas.

But, whatever his Inclinations were, we cannot date his Apostacy, but from his going into the Idols [Page 142]Temple with the forementioned Magician, where he virtually renounced Christ, although for many years after, till he was firm in the Empire, he still professed himself a Christian, and sometimes went to Ammian. Mar. l. 21. c. 2. Ut (que) omnes, nullo impediente, ad sui favorem illiceret, ad­haerere cultui Christia­no fingebat, à quo tam pridem occultè descive­rat, arcanorum parti­cibus paucis aruspi­cinis augurits (que) inten­tus, & caeteris quae de­orum semper fecere cul­tores—Et ut haec interim celarentur, fe­riarum die, quem cele­brantes mense Januario christiani Epiphania di­ctitant, progressus in corum Ecclesiam, solemniter numine orato, decessit. Church. Yet in all this interim he practised Magic, and Demonolatry, for he Id. l. 16. c. 5. pri­vately worshipped Mercury, and pretended to Revelations from Jupiter, and Visions of the Ge­nius Publicus, while he was in Gaul. While he lay with his Forces in Illyricum, he spent much of his time in Gazing up­on Entrals, and making Augu­rial Observations, and had the Death of Constantius foretold unto him by Aprunculus, from a Liver with a double Coat.

After he publickly own'd Paganism, there was no end of his Sacrifices, and performing of Magi­cal Rites, and Ceremonies. Amm. Mar. l. 22. c. 12. He would sometimes Sacrifice an Hundred Bulls and Flocks of several sorts of Cattel at a time, and permitted every one, that would, to profess the Arts of Divination, of which he was a great Ad­mirer; and out of his extream Superstition, for which he is censured by Loc. Cit. Mar­cellinus, he opened the Prophe­tic Castalian Fountain in the Sub­urbs of Antioch, which Adrian had shut up. Before [Page 143]he marched into Persia, he [...] Theod. l. 3. c. 10. consulted all the Oracles of the Empire, and Theod. l. 3. c. 26. after his death there were found in Antioch Chests full of mens Heads, and pits full of dead mens Bodies, whom he had killed to inspect their Livers. And at Ib. c. 27. Charrae in Mesopotamia, where he quar­tered in his March to Persia, he went into a Temple, with some of his Secretaries in Magic, where they stayed some time; and when they came forth, he commanded the Door to be made fast, and sealed it with his Seal, and set a Guard to keep it, command­ing, that none should go into it, till he return'd. But after he was Slain, they entred into it, and there found a Woman hung up by the Hair of her Head, with her Hands stretched out, whose Belly they had ript up, to Divine upon her Liver.

I have said thus much of the Apostacy of Julian,—and his Idolatrous and Magical Practices, to shew how reasonable it was for the Christians, to look upon him as irrecoverable out of the Snare of the Devil, and upon that Supposition to pray for his De­struction. But then the Reasonableness of this Pre­sumption will better appear, if we consider, as L. 5. c. 2. Sozomen ob­serves, That he was born of most Religious Christian Parents, and initiated from a Child in the Holy Scriptures, and educated under Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Men. He was per­fectly skilled in the Christian Religion, and yet fell from it both into Daemonolatry and Magic; and what is yet worse, he Apostatized at first, and af­terwards persevered in his Apostacy against the evi­dence [Page 144]of Miracles, which makes it yet more rea­sonable to believe, That he sinned against the Holy Ghost.

For when his Brother Sozom. l. 5. c. 2. Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Invect. 1. p. 59. Gal­lus, and he went about to build the forementioned Oratory o­ver the Tomb of St. Mamas that part which Gallus under­took went up apace, but that of Julians had the quite contrary Effect: For in some places, as often as they laid the Foundation, so often the Earth threw up the Stones; and other parts of it, which seemed well built up, would suddenly fall down a­gain; and frequently when the Workmen went to lay down a Stone, they would find a Resistance sen­sibly thrust it back again. The first time that he went into an Idols Temple, as above related, being frighted with the Apparition of the Devil, and the terrible Noises, and filthy O­dours Theod. l. 3. c. 3. 1. Invect. p. 71. he met with there, he signed himself with the Sign of the Cross; upon which the Spectre vanished, which caused the Priest to chide him, and tell him, that the Daemon was not afraid of the Cross, as he thought, but abominated it, and so disap­peared.

Sozom. loc. cit. Another time, when he was viewing Entrails with some others of his Companions, there appeared the Sign of the Cross upon them circled about with a Crown; upon which they were very much a­fraid, conjecturing from the Crown, that the Cross would be Victorious; and from the circular Figure of it, that it would last for Ever, because a Circle had no End. But the Priest bid him to be of good [Page 145]Courage, assuring him, That the circular Figure a­bout the Cross did portend, that the Christian Re­ligion should be reduced within a little Compass, and not spread every where, as it had done.

Another time he slighted the Evening Apparition of the Sozom. l. 5. c. 1. Vines with Sour Grapes in the Confines of Illy­rium, and the falling of the Dew in Drops upon his Cloathes, and the Cloathes of all his Retinue in the Form of a Cross.

He knew, that the Bones of Babylas the Martyr, had silenced his Apollo, and that Theod. l. 3. c. 11. Sozom. l. 5. c. 20. his Temple was burnt by Lightning, as soon as they were removed. Id. l. 3. c. 12, 13. Philostorg. l. 7. p. 507. He knew that his Uncle Julian the Apostate was presently struck with a Loathsome Disease in which his Bowels rotted, and he discharged his Excrements at his Mouth, after he had robbed the Church of the Rich Vessels which Con­stantine had given for Sacred Ʋses, and pissed upon the Altar: And that Felix the A­postate also died as suddenly by Bleeding,Quibus ordinatis terrebatur [Julianus] omino quodam praesen­tissimo. Felice enim L. G. pr [...]f [...] vio sanguinis re­pentè extincto, e [...]m (que) Comite Juliano extincto, vulgus publicos cont [...]ens titules, Felicem, Julianum, Augustúm (que) pronunti [...]iat. Marcell l. 23. c. 1. after he had taunting­ly said, In what Fine Vessels is the Son of Mary served?

Lastly, Theod. l. 5. c. 20. Invect 2. p 111, [...], 113. Socrat. l. 3 [...] Sozom l 5 c. 22. H [...] lostorg. l. 7. 506. Vid. pag. 508. Ambros. Ep. 29 ad The [...]. Chrysost. Orat. 3. Adversus Judaeos. Rufinus l 1. c. 3 [...] [...]. When the Jews went upon his Instigation, and Commission, under the Con­duct [Page 146]of Alypius, to rebuild the Temple at Jerusa­lem, he knew how they were hindred after many suc­cessive Attempts, by Hurricanes, and Lightnings, and Earthquakes, and Fire rising from the Foundations, which killed the Workmen; and were attended with the Appearance of the Cross by Night in Heaven; and likewise with the sudden appearance of black Crosses upon their Cloathes; which things converted great Numbers of those, that saw them, and enquired into the Matter of Fact.

The Truth of this last Story is attested by L. 23. c. 1.—Metuendi globi flamma­rum prope fundamenta, crebris assultibus erum­pentes faccre locum, ex­ustis aliquoties operan­tibus, inaccessum, hóc (que) modo elemento destina­tiús repellente, cessavit inceptum. Marcellinus an Heathen Historian, who lived in those times; but all these, and Sozom. l. 5. c. 21. other Miracles of his Reign, together with the Hea­venly Vision of his Uncle Con­stantine, of which he could have no doubt, had no Effect upon his hard Heart, which might tempt a very charitable Chri­stian to believe, that he might be one of those, whom it was impossible to renew unto Repentance, according to that of the Apostle; For it is impossible for those, who were once enlightned, and have tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and were made Partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good Word of God, and the Powers of the World to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again unto Repentance, seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open Shame.

This did Julian in a most eminent manner, having an implacable Spite at Christ, and the Christian Religion, and deriding of them in a most blasphe­mous manner. As for Christ, he used to call him [Page 147]the Galilaean God, and the Car­penters Son, Theod. l. 3. c. 23. and the Pagans fol­lowed his Example, insomuch, that when Libanius by way of Scorn, asked an E­minent Schoolmaster of Antioch, What the Carpen­ters Son was a doing? He replyed, The Creator of the World, whom thou reproachfully callest the Carpen­ters Son, is making a Coffin, meaning for Julian; and accordingly not many days after, his Body was brought in a Coffin to Antioch. And coming to un­derstand that there was a Fa­mous Statue of Sozom. l. 5. c. 21. Christ at Caesaraea in Palaestine, which had been set up in Honour of him by the Woman in the Gospel, who had been healed of her Issue of Blood, he made it be taken down, and his own set up in­stead of it; but it had not been long up, before Fire from Heaven smot [...] off the Head, and shatter'd all the Breast of it, and tinged the rest of the Body with Sulphurous Smoke. He wrote an Ep. 51. Epistle to the A­lexandrians, and very likely to many other Christian Cities, wherein he most scur­rilously derides Christ, and the Christian Religion, saying, he was ashamed, that there should be one Galilaean among them; and tauntingly telling them, That they believed him, whom neither they, nor their Fathers ever saw, to be God the Word. In his Caesars, he represents the Christian Religion to be nothing else but a Sanctuary for Rogues, and Vil­lains; and in his Epist. to the B [...]strens he represents the Christian Clergy, as Tyrants, and Knaves. He [...] Theod. l. 3. c. 21. called the [Page 148]Christians by way of Reproach Galilaeans, and 1 Invect. p. 81. commanded them to be called by no other Name. And in short, he set himself by all means ima­ginable to suppress Christianity, and advance Paga­nism; or as Gregory speaks, to enslave the World to Daemons again.

To this end he forbid the Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Socrat. l. 3. c. 12. Children of Christians to be taught Poetry, Rhetorick, or Philosophy, which was so cruel an Edict, that L. 22. c. 10. Illud autem inclemens, obru­endum perenni filentio, quod arcebat docere ma­gistros rhetoricos, & grammaticos, ritûs chri­stiani cultores. Marcellinus blames him for it. He Socrat. l. 2. c. 1. Sozom. l. 5. c. 3. cau­sed all the Heathen Temples to be repaired, cleansed, and set open, and caused many Christi­an Churches to be shut up. He Socr. l. 3. c. 13. tempted the Christian Soul­diers by all Arts possible to re­nounce their Religion; and those that would not, he turned them out of Service; among whom were Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, great Officers, who were afterwards made Emperors, and the two former by the Choice of the Army. He hated Chri­stian Cities; whereof he Sozom. l. 5. c. 3. sub­jected some unto the Jurisdicti­on of Pagan Cities: Others he disfranchised of their Ancient Priviledges, and Li­berties, and Confiscated the Revenues of their Churches to his own Exchequer. But as for the Cities where Paganism prevail­ed, he Sozom. Loc. cit. favoured them, and would write to them to encou­rage them to ask new Privileges of him. In some places he Socrat. l. 3. c. 13. im­posed [Page 149]severe Mulcts on those who would not sacrifice; in others Sozom. l. 5. c. 18. Invect. 1. p. 94. [...]. he de­prived them of their Freedom, and made them incapable of bearing Office in any place of Magistracy, or Command, or of receiving any kind of Ho­nours. He deprived the Sozom. l. 5. c. 5. Clergy of their Immunities, Ho­nours, and Revenues, and abro­gated all the Laws, which Con­stantine, and Constantius had made in their Favour; Nay he Id. l. 5. c. 15. Banished them out of the Ci­ties, on purpose that the Christian Religion should not be taught in them; and in many places Sozom. l. 5. c. 5. commanded them to rebuild the Heathen Temples, which had been destroyed in the time of Constantine, and Constantius, which when they could not do, he tortured them, and other Christians with them, and cast them into Prison. He put the Theod. l. 3. c. 6. Cruellest of Heathens into Civil, and Military Offices, on purpose, that they might vex the Christians; and underhand encouraged the Heathens to Philostorg. l. [...]. p. 503. Naz. 2 Invect. p. 126. 1 Invect. p. 87, 88, 89. Theod. l. 3. c. 7. So­crat l. 3. c. 11. outrage them in most barbarous manner, insomuch, that they digged up the Bones of Saints and Martyrs, and mixing them with the Epiphan. Haeres. Anomaeorum 76. In principto. Bones of Beasts, burnt them together. Nay in some places they tasted the Livers of murdered Chri­stians, and sacrificed their Bodies upon their Al­tars; [Page 150]and when Julian heard of these Barbarities, he very much rejoyced: And if at any time the Chri­stians sent to Complain unto him, he either would not Sozom. l. 5. c. 3. ad­mit their Deputies, or if he did, it was only to Mock them, and tell them, that they were bound by their Religion to Socrat. l. 3. c. 14. 1 Invect. p. 94. suffer In­juries, and to do good to those, that did them hurt. And when he pilled, and rob­bed the Christians, he jearingly said, That Ep. 43. ad Ece­bolum. he did it [...], That they might go with greater ease into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Lastly, he went about to reform Paganism accor­ding to the Excellent Rules and Institutions of Christian Discipline, striving to bring it, as near, as he could in resemblance to those Methods, and Constitutions of the Church, by which he had ob­served Christianity had so prevailed in the World. For this reason Gregory calls him the Christians 1 Invect. p. 102. Ape, because he set up Ib. Vid. Jul. Fragm. Orationis. p. 528. & Ep. 49. ad Arsac. & apud Soz. l. 5. c. 16. Vid. & Jacob. Gotofredi. Julia­num Orat. 2. Schools, and Li­turgies, and Hospitals, and Mo­nasteries, the use of Commen­datory Epistles, and Excommu­nication; and took special care for advancing the Honour and Reputation, and reforming the Lives of the Pagan Clergy, as the most effectual Means of drawing the People into the Temples.

Last of all, in the Persian Expedition, he wrote against the Christian Religion in Seven Books, which Cyrill, of Alexandria hath confuted in ten. And [Page 151]these Generals, without descen­ding to 1 Invect. p. 87, 88, 89. Particular Instances are enough to make it a violent Presumption, That Julian had a Diabolical Malice against Christ, and that he was one of those irrecoverable Apostates, who had trod­den under foot the Son of God, and counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, and un­holy Thing, and who had done despite unto the Spirit of Grace. He had hardened his Heart against Divine Miracles, like 2 Invect. p. 110. Pharaoh, and therefore it is no wonder if some of them called for the Plagues of Egypt upon him. He reproached the Living God like Senaccherib, and that made some of them 2 Invect. p. 123. like Hezekiah, ‘Beseech God to bow down his Ear, and hear; and to open his Eyes, and see, how Julian reproached the Son of God, and thereupon to say, O Lord our God, we beseech thee to save us out of his hand, that all the King­doms of the Earth may know, that thou art the Lord God, and that Jesus, whom Julian doth so reproach, is thy Son, and Christ.’

1 Invect. p. 93. Gregory saith, That he de­signed worse things against the Christians, than Dioclesian, Max­imian, or Maximin ever did, and that he was 2 Invect. p. 100, 111. Jeroboam, Pha­raoh, Achab, and Nebuchadnez­zar all in one; Jeroboam in Apostacy, Pharaoh in hard­ness of Heart, Achab in Cruelty, and Nebuchadnezzar in Sacrilege; and therefore it is not to be wondred, That the Christians, who had such good reason to despair of the Conversion of such a Complicate Ty­rant, [Page 152]pray'd for his Destruction, because there was no other apparent way of delivering the Church. And if it should please God for our Sins to Plague the Church with such a Spiteful Enemy of Christ, and suffer a Popish Julian indeed to reign over us: I here declare, That I should believe him uncapable of Repentance, and upon that Supposition should be tempted to pray for his Destruction, as the only means of delivering the Church. I hope this Declara­tion is not P. 89. calculated, or fitted on purpose for the Ʋse, and En­couragement of a Popish Successor; but on the other hand, I must also declare, that I would do nothing but pray against him; I would draw forth no Squadrons against him, but such as Old Gregory did against Julian, Squadrons of Pray­ers, and Tears; I would dye rather than resist him, or those, that were put in Authority under him, and if this make a Man P. 81. a Pa­rasite, Sycophant, and Murderer, the Christian Subjects of Ju­lian were such, and I must be so unto my Lives End.

For when their 2 Invect. p. 123, 124. Montague in lo­cum. [...]: Non quod non pos­sent, sed quod nol­lent, abunde enim vi­res suppetebant ad comprimendum tyrannum, ut docet etiam Au­gustinus, & noster indicat, cum adeo diffusas, & prop [...]gatas res Christianorum dicat, cùm tam altas egisse radices, ut non nisi sub­verso simul Imperio de medio tolli posse viderentur, sed patientiam dedicerant illi Scholâ Christi cum verbo, tum exemplo commen­datam, non Caelum & Terras commiscere, &c. Hope in God was their only Armour, Wall, and Defence, as being altogether deprived, and cut short of Humane Assistance, then they betook them­selves [Page 153]to God, who hears Prayer, and is able to repel the Threats of Tyrants. This the Father spoke, as shall hereafter be shew'd, not that they could not, but that as Disciples of Christ, they were fettered, and manacled with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obe­dience, and would not resist. But yet this Prote­stant-Bellarmine had the Consci­ence P. 51, 94. twice to wrest this Pas­sage to the contrary sense, as if the Christian Subjects of Julian, betook themselves unto their Prayers, because they could do nothing else.

CHAP. VII. Of Julians Death.

IN this Jesuitical Masque he goes on to the next Chapter, where, in pursuance of his Design, he hath used his utmost Art to insinuate, that the Christians conspired the Death of Julian, and that accordingly he was struck with a Javelin, thrown by a Christian Souldiers Hand. What else can be his Meaning, and Design in relating the Story, of the Schoolmaster of Antioch, who told Libanius, when Julian was ready for his March to Persia (where he was Slain) that the Carpenters Son was making a Coffin? And of his Deaths being revealed on the same Day, and in the same Hour, to Julian the Syrian Monk, although he was more than 20 days Journey off the Place.

Why did he not give us the Story of Sozom. l. 6. c. 2. Julians intimate and familiar Acquaintance, to whom his Death was revealed a day or two before it hapned, in a very remarkable Vision? Why did he not also tell us how Ibid. it was proclaimed the very same Hour in which he died, by Caele­stial Horsemen, to Dydimus at Alexandria? and to a certain Judge at Zonar. L. 3. p. 24. Antioch, an Hea­then, who, as he was watching by Night about [Page 155]the Praetorium, saw a Range of Stars in the Hea­vens, formed into these Words;

[...].
This Day is Julian slain in Persia.

No, this would not serve his Design so well, for to have discovered the Commonness of these Reve­lations to Pagans, as well as Christians, would have left no room to insinuate a Christian Conspiracy; and besides, it would have too much confirmed the Report of his falling by the stroke of a Theodor. l. 3. c. 25. good, or Callistus apud So­crat. l. 3. c. 21. bad Angel, which yet is no more strange, than that the Angel of the Lord should smite Herod, because he did not give Glory to God.

Indeed there are various Reports among the Historians, how he came by his deaths-wound. L. 25. c. 3. Amm. Mar­cellinus, who was at the Battel, says it was uncertain, who threw the Javelin, but that the Ib. c. 26. Per­sians shortly after did upbraid them for Traytors, and Regicides, having heard by the Relation of some of their own Revolted Souldiers, upon an un­certain report, That Julian was struck with a Ro­man Dart. But Eutrop. lib. 10. p. 133. Eutropius, another Pagan Historian, who was then in the Field, saith po­sitively, hostili manu interfectus est, That he was slain by the hand of the Enemy; and Festus Ru­fus, and the Ab uno ex hosti­bus & quidem fugiente cento perentitur. Epitome of Victor [Page 156]report the very same. Lib. 3. c. 21. So­crates tells us, That it is un­certain who killed him, for some said, that it was a revolted Persian, but others, that it was a Roman Souldier, which was the more common Report. But Callistus the Poet (saith he, ‘who was one of his Guards, and who wrote his Exploits in Heroic Verse, saith, that he was killed by a Daemon, which it may be (saith he) is but a Poe­tical Fiction, but perhaps it may be the real truth, for the Furies (by which he means the Destroying Angels) have punished very many.’ Lib. 6. c. 1. Sozomen saith, that when he was killed, the Air was full of Mist, and Dust, and Darkness, so that no body could tell who the Horseman was, who slew him; but that some said that it was a Persian, others that it was a Saracen, others again, that it was a Roman, who was offended at him, for bringing the whole Army by his Rashness and Folly into such streights. Theodor. l. 3. c. 25. [...]. ‘For instead of taking Care, or ma­king Provision for so great a Body of men, he led them in­to Desert places, where they wanted both Guides, & Meat, and Drink, and they were la­menting, and sighing for the sad Fate of the Roman Army, when he received the Fatal Stroke.’ Ibid Theodoret saith, That no Body knew who struck him; but whether it was Man; or An­gel, certain it is, that he was the Minister of the Divine Will.Lib. 8. p. 500. Philostorgius [Page 157]leaves the Fact between a Saracen and Roman, and saith, That many inclined to believe, that it must be a Roman, because the stroke was so sudden, that no Body saw when it was given.

I have been more particular in shewing what all the Historians have said of the Death of Julian, the better to set forth the Presumption, Malice, and Partiality of Libanius the Sophist and Magician, who, as our Author tells us, was resolved to find out the Man that killed Julian, and he doth it thus: ‘First he proves, That it was no Persian, because the King of Persia proclaimed a Reward to him, that killed him, but no body ever came to chal­lenge the Reward: From hence he concludes, they were to look for the Murderer among themselves, but who among them could do it, but one of them, who did not live according to his Laws, and had conspired formerly against Him, and then having an Opportunity, put their Design in Execution.’

It was apparently the Design of our Author, in setting down the Conjecture of Libanius, to per­swade his Reader, that he was a Christian, who killed Julian; otherwise, why did he not tell us, That this was the Single Conjecture of Libanius, who was the Master of Julian, and a Magician, and a most mortal and spiteful Enemy of Christ, and the Christians. 2dly. That his Conjecture is supported only upon his own Authority, who saith, That the King of Persia proclaimed a Reward to him that killed Julian. 3dly. That he asserts a no­torious Lye, viz. That the Christians had formerly [...]— plot­ted his Destruction, &c.

But instead of this he brings in [...]. 6. [...]. [...]. Sozomen justifying the [Page 158]Murder of Julian, which indeed he doth not absolu­tely, but from the Greek, or Pagan Principles in answer to Libanius. ‘It may be (saith he) it was true, that he who killed Julian, was a Christian; for it is not improbable, that some one of the Souldiers might take into consideration, how the Greeks, and all Men to this day, still praise the killers of Ty­rants in former times, as men that were willing to dye for the Common Liberty, and delivered their Country-men, Kindred, and Friends. And one then can scarce blame him, who shews himself so brave for God, and for that Religion, which he approves.’ These words of Sozomen are to be ta­ken as an Answer to Libanius the Greek, upon the Greek Principles; for if according to the Greeks, he deserved Praise, who would hazard his life, to kill a Tyrant for the Common Liberty, upon the same Principles, one would scarce blame a man, who does the same, for God, and for the Religion which he approves.

But although the words were to be taken abso­lutely, and not as a Reply to Libanius, yet they are no Justification, but only an Extenuation of the Fact. The Phrase [...], one would scarce blame, doth still imply in strictness, That such an one was to be blamed, though the Provo­cation was very great.

But what if it had been certain, that a Christian, perverted with Greek Principles, had killed Julian, what is that to the rest of the Christians of that Age? There was a very great number of the Mur­derers of our late Blessed Soveraign, who was put to death as a Tyrant, but yet it doth not follow that the Doctrine of Killing Lawful Kings, when they turn Tyrants, is generally approved among the Eng­lish [Page 159]Protestants, though it may likely be approved by some, who, as Mr. Hobbes hath observed, have sucked in Ill Principles about Government from Greek, and Latine Authors, and, I pray God, our Author be not such an one; else why should he so slily insinuate upon the bare Conjecture of one An­tichristian Villain and Magician, That he was a Christian, who killed Julian, even there, where it was his professed Design, to shew that they treated him like Barbarians, that they had no Reverence for his Majesty, but pursued him like a Midnight Thief, or a Robber. One would have expected such a Junius-Brutus-way of writing from a Bellarmine or Mariana, a Knox or Buchanan, rather than from a Minister of the Church of England, who in her Book of Homi­lies, which is one of the P. 104. best Books in the World next to the Bible, and to P. 101. which the whole Clergy of England have subscribed, teacheth her Children, 2 Part of the Sermon of Obedience. That it is the Calling of Gods People to be patient and on the suf­fering side, and to render Obedience to Governours al­though they be wicked, and wrong-doers, and in no case to resist and stand against them.

But you will say in defence of our Author, That he called the Murder of Julian a P. 60. Traiterous Assassination, and in another place, Preface p. 26. That he would rather have lost his own life, than have served him, such a slippery Trick. I pro­test, I am willing to be on the charitable side with Mr. J. and wish I could heartily believe, what he saith: But if indeed he thought it a Traiterous As­sassination, and would have lost his own Life rather [Page 160]than have been guilty of it, why doth he so indu­striously endeavour to prove, that he was a Christi­an, who did it, and that a Christian Writer justi­fied the Fact, and yet neither blame the one, nor censure the other, according as they deserved? A man can hardly detest that himself, which he doth not condemn, much more which he likes in ano­ther; and besides, he hath with great delight and industry, most injuriously represented the Christian Subjects of Julian, as Buchanan and Bellarmine repre­sented the Christians before them, as men that did not resist, not from any Christian Principle of Obe­dience, but because they were not in a probable Ca­pacity, wanting sufficient Numbers, and Strength. Moreover, if he would rather have dyed, than mur­dered Julian, why doth he speak so slightly of the Fact, calling it only a Slippery Trick? The Learned Monsieur Nicol in his Logique, commonly called, the Jansenists Logique, distinguisheth between the Principal, and Accessory signification of words. The Principal signification he calls that which signifies the Thing, and the Accessory is that which signifies the Love, or Hatred, the Honour or Contempt, the Delight or Abhorrence of him, who speaks or writes of the Thing. As for Example, There are some Words to express Fornication, which besides the Principal signification, would plainly signifie, that he who used them, loved, and delighted, and was pleased with the thing. And others again there are, which besides the Principal signification, would signifie the Turpitude of the thing, and the Abhor­rence which the Speaker, or Writer had thereof. The great difference in Words and Phrases comes from these Accessory Significations, and therefore me­thinks if Mr. J. who is a Man of Art, and a Di­vine, [Page 161]would have had his Readers, especially the Serious Part, really believe that he would have lost his own Life, rather than have murdered Julian, he should have found out fitting Words to have expressed the Horrour of the Wickedness, and not have called it a Slippery Trick. I should be loth to trust my self in the Company of Fellows who counted Robbery, and Murder but Slippery Tricks, or commit my Daughter to the Custody of a Man, who, though he protested he would rather dye, than Deflower her, yet made no more of Fornica­tion, than a Slippery Trick.

I think it not worth the while to give a particular Answer to the next Chapter, wherein he shews, How the Christian Writers used his Memory; only I shall observe that it was usual among the Ecclesi­astical Writers, to call Tyrants, and Persecutors after their deaths, by such Names, as served to set forth their Cruel, and Bloody Nature. He may see if he pleases, what a reproachful, and ignomi­nious Character Consulite com­mentarios vestros, illic reperietis primum Ne­ron [...]m in han [...] sectam Caesariano gladio fero­cisse, sed tali dedica­tore damnationis nostrae etiam gloriamur; qui enim s [...]it illum intelli­g [...]re potest non nisi grande aliquot bonum a Nerone damnatum. Tentaverat & Domi­ [...]nus portio Neronis de crudelitate tales semper nobis insecuteres injusti, impii, turpes,— Tertullian gives of Nero and Domitian, and in general of the Persecuting Emperors before his time. He may see, if he pleases, what a lovely Monument Lib. 8. c. 14. Eccles. Hist. Eusebius hath erected to the Memory of Maxentius, and Maximin, not much short of that Stately One, which Gregory hath erected for Julian, and if he will go to La­ctantius, [Page 162]in his Book of the Deaths of the Persecuting Emperors, there, to use his own Phrase, He may bless himself, to see what Titles of Honour he hath bestowed upon them, although he wrote in Latine, which hath not the happy facility of compounding words, as the Greek hath. He calls Nero Execrable, and Mis­chievous Tyrant, and Harbinger of the Devil, coming to lay the Earth wast, and destroy all Mankind, with many more such Titles and Characters, which he may read at his leisure.

He calls Domitian as great a Tyrant, as Nero; Decius he calls Execrable Animal; Valerian, Impi­ous Madman; Aurelius, Furious and Praecipitant Tyrant; and as for his Characters of Dioclesian, Maximian, Galerius, and Maximin, in whose Reigns he had lived, he hath set them forth as wild Beasts, as Monsters of Rapin, and Cruelty, and Rebels a­gainst God.

Nay, so far are the Invectives of Nazianzen from being a just ground of such singular Conclusions, and Observations about Julian, that Hilary Bishop of Poictou, wrote as keen, and bitter an Invective against Constantius, shortly after he died. There he calls him Antichrist, Deceitful, Persecutor, Flattering E­nemy, the Cruellest of all Cruelties, the most Wicked of Mortals, Ravening Wolf, Enemy to Gods Religion, and the Memory of Saints, and Rebel to his Fathers Piety, &c. and compares him to Judas for betraying the Priests of Christ with a Kiss: Nay, he makes him worse than P. 289. Nero, Decius, and Maximin, and wishes he had lived in their Reigns, ra­ther than in his. The Book is very little, if any thing, inferiour to the Invectives, in Sharp, Bit­ter, and Contumelious Language, but charges [Page 163]him home with Tyranny and Malice, and pursues him, as if he had been a Midnight-Thief, or a Robber: and loads him with the Anathema tibi trecenti & decem octo—Anathema tibi Pater tuus est, cui Ni­caea Synodus curae fuit. p. 298. Anathemas of his Fa­ther, and the Nicene Council, which is as bad, as Lodging him in Hell.

CHAP. VIII. Shewing, That the Christian Subjects of Julian practised Passive Obedience, when they were in an Able Condition to Re­sist.

HAving now shewed, 1. That the Roman Em­pire was not Hereditary; 2. That Julian did not persecute his Christian Subjects contrary to Law: and having in the Third place shewn, That there was nothing Singular, and Ʋnparallelled in the Be­haviour of the Christians towards that Apostate Em­peror; nor any thing so Barbarous and unlike the Behaviour of Former Christians, as our Author re­presented it to be: I should now proceed to Exa­mine his Ninth Chapter, wherein he hath endea­voured to evacuate the Doctrine of Passive Obedience: But as a Preparatory thereunto, I shall first take the Forfeiture of his Main Assertion, That Julian per­secuted his Christian Subjects contrary to Law; and from thence shew, That Passive Obedience is due, by the Gospel, to the Soveraign Power, when the Soveraign persecutes contrary to Law. Our Au­thor was aware of this Consequence, and there­fore to obviate the Objection of the Non-resistance of Julians Christian Subjects, who was so Spiteful, Cruel, and Crafty, and, according to him, so Il­legal a Persecutor, he represents the case, as if they were but a small and defenceless Number, stript of all [Page 165]Humane Assistance; and so makes them to have been Patient, and Passive out of mere necessity; but however, that they had a hearty mind to Rebel, and wanted nothing but Strength and Numbers, to bring them into the Field. P. 94 What (saith he) would you have a few defenceless Christians do, when they had lost all their Strength, and so many of their Numbers? Have they never heard a West-Country-man say, Chud eat Cheese, and Chad it?

I thought to have shewn, how much Mr. J. hath play'd the part of a Jesuit in ascribing the Passive Obedience of Julians Christian Subjects, unto their weak and defenceless Condition; but I am prevent­ed in that, by the Loyal, and Ingenious Author of the Apostate Protestant, to whom I refer the Reader, and shall content my self, to shew the Falseness of his Jesuitical Evasion, which, I am confident, though he had so little Conscience, as to assert, yet he could not be so ignorant, as to believe.

For First, If we enquire into the State of Chri­stianity in the time of Paganism, we shall find, that in the Reign of Severus, when Tertullian wrote his Apologetic for the Christians, that nothing but their Si non apud a­stam disciplinam magis occidi liceret, quàm oc­cidere— Religion kept them from resisting the Forces of the Empire, when they were Si enim—de [...]sset nobis vis num [...]r [...]r [...]n & copiarum? Plu­res nimirum Mauri, & Marcomanni, ips [...] (que) Parthi?— more in Number, within the Bowels of it, than the Moors, & Germans, & Parthians, and all its Enemies without. Nay, he ap­peals unto their Judges, if all Vestra omnia implevimus urbes, insulas, cas [...]ella, municipia, con­ciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decu [...]ias, palatium, senatum, forum, sola vobis relinquimus templa. [Page 166]Places were not full of Christians? and tells them, That without Rebelling they were able Potuimus & in­ermes nec rebelles, sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidiâ adversus vos dimicâsse. Si enim tanta vis ho­minum in aliquem or­bis remoti sinum abru­pissemus à vobis, suffu­dissit uti (que) dominatio­nem vestram tot qua­lium [...]un (que) amissio civium, imo etiam & ipsâ destitutione puniisset, Proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium re­rum.— to destroy the Em­pire, and lay is wast and soli­tary, by withdrawing into o­ther Parts of the World. And in his Address to Scapula Go­vernour of Carthage, he saith, That they were the greater part of almost every City. Tanta hominum multitudo pars pene major civitatis cu­jus (que).

This was hundred and Sixty years before the time of Julian, and about Fifty years after this Nemo nostrûm, quando apprehenditur reluctatur, nec so ad­versus injustam violen­tiam vestram, quam­vis nimius & copiosus noster sit populus, ul­liscitur. Cyprian, in his Book to Demetrianus, tells him, That they let themselves be apprehended without Resistance, nor endeavoured to revenge the Inju­ries they suffered, although they were very copious in their Numbers, and more than enough for the Hea­thens. About Fifty years after this again in the Reign of Dioclesian, Christianity was become the General Religion of the Em­pire, [...] Euseb, l. 8. c. 1. &. c. 4. when the Christians [Page 167]met every where in infinite numbers, and built large and spacious Churches in all Cities, and still in­creased more and more, inso­much that the [...] Id. de Mart. Palaest. c. 9. Temples of the Idols were every where de­solate, and the Emperor, being awed by the greatness of their Numbers, durst scarce venture upon a Persecution.

This was the State of Christianity before the Di­oclesian Persecution, to which Constantine put an hap­py End, who, as Gregory saith of his Son Constan­tius, Set his Heart upon nothing so much as to see the Christians flourish, and to have all the Advantages of Glory and Power. He reigned alone 30 years, and Constantius 24, which make up 54 years, in which time Christianity became the Religion both of the Emperors, and the Empire; the Cross was made the imperial Standard, and Paganism lay every where languishing in the Cities, the Country, and the Camp.

This very consideration made1 Invect. p. 80. Gregory deride the Design which Julian had to extirpate the Christian Religion, as former Emperors had en­deavoured to do. The most wise, and best Emperor (saith he ironically) did not consider, that in former Persecutions, the Confusion, and Disorder was but little, because the Christian Religion, was not propagated a­mong the Multitude, being professed but by a few, and not having had the Lustre it now hath: But now, that it is diffused every where, and Reigns so powerfully among [Page 168]us, [...]. to attempt to change and overthrow it, would be to shake, and hazard the Roman Empire, and to suffer from our selves a worse Mischief, than our Enemies can wish us.

Therefore if the Christians in the former times of Severus, Decius, and Dioclesian, who yet were enough to resist the Forces of the Roman Empire, were counted by Gregory, but a few, in comparison to the Christians who stood firm in the time of Ju­lian; and if Christianity had then so diffused and propagated it self, that it could not be extirpated without the Subversion of the Roman Empire, Let any man of common Reason, Judge, whether the Professors of Christianity in Julians time, were a small, and defenceless Number, not able to resist. This is so far wide of the real Truth, that the same Gregory tells us, That [...] 1 Invect. p. 99. 80. there ‘were two things more especial­ly, about which Julian was most sollicitous, the Galilaeans, as he reproachfully called the Christians, and the Persians, who stoutly persisted in War; but his Design against the Ga­lilaeans seemed so much the greater Undertaking, and did so much take up his Thoughts, that he counted the War with the Persians, but a Trifle, and [Page 169]a Sport in comparison to that.’ This was said of Julian, after he had done his worst to tempt the Christians to Apostacy by Rewards, Honours, and Preferments, when he made preparations against the Persians; and indeed he had reason to look upon the Design of reducing the Christians, as abundantly more difficult, than conquering the Persians, having in a few months time met with so many desperate Experiments of Christian Sufferance, Fortitude, and Contempt of Perferments, not only among the Churchmen, and Citizens, but even in the Camp. For when he was made Emperor, the Roman Legi­ons were in a manner all Chri­stians, Theod. l. 3. c. 3. Constantine having taken special care, to get them instructed in the Christian Religion, and his Sons af­ter him to confirm them in it; in particular Con­stantius, called his whole Army together, before he gave Battel to Magnentius, and told them, That the term of Life was incertain, especially in War, and therefore exhorted them all, to be forthwith Baptized; and moreover told them, That no Un­baptized person should continue in his Service.

This is the Reason why Ju­lian Amm. Mar. l. 21. c. 2. Zonar. Tom. 3. p. 19. Theodor. l. 3. c. 3. feigned himself to be a Christian, till after the death of Constantius, fearing lest his own Army should revolt from him, and that of Constantius refuse him for their Emperor, being both almost all Christians. But after he was firm in the Throne, he tempted the Souldiers by all Arts, especially by Rewards and Preferments, to quit their Religion, but in this he was not so Successful, as he hoped to be. For when at the Solemn time of giving Donatives, he ordered [Page 170]the Ceremony after the old Custom, that every one as he came to receive his Donative should Sacrifice to the Gods, L. 5. c. 17. ‘Some (saith Sozomen) shew'd their courage openly, and would neither Sa­crifice, nor receive any Gifts of the Emperor, o­thers being deceived with the specious pretence of old Custome, did not consider what they did; o­thers again being baited with the sight of the Gold, and surprized with Fear and Confusion at the Sight of this New Scene, did not decline to Sacrifice, though they knew it was a Pagan Rite; and of those, who ignorantly did so, some came back a­gain to the Emperor, when they knew what they had done, and begged him to take back his Gold, and put them to death.’ But before he attempted the Army, he had "1 Invect. p. 75. reformed his own Houshold, killing, or removing all those, who con­tinued Faithful to Christ; but after he had done all that he could, very near Ibid. half the Army still remained Christians, of whom Greg. speak­ing by allusion, saith, That there remained above seven thousand, who would not bow their knees to Baal, nor wor­ship the Golden Image, among which there were many both of the [...] Ib. greatest Comman­ders, and of the Common Soul­diers too.

From hence it is plain, that when Julian had done all that he could, still almost half his Army, Offi­cers and common Souldiers too, were Professed [Page 171]Christians, which made St. Enarr. in Psalm 124. Aug. who remembred the times of Julian, say of him, Julian was an Infidel Emperor, nay, was he not an Apostate, and unjust, and an Idolater? and yet the Christian Souldiers served under this Infidel Em­peror. And as for the revolting part of the Army, they were only Counterfeit Revolters, who waited for an Opportunity to declare Christians again, as is plain from the Answer, which they gave to Jo­vian, Theodor. l. 4. c. 1. Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. Socrat. l. 3. c. 22. who telling them free­ly upon his Election, That he would not put on the Royal Purple because he was a Christi­an, nor command such men, who were imbued with Pagan Principles, they all cryed out, ‘We are Christians, and make no doubt, O Emperor, to undertake the Conduct of us, for you shall be Emperor of Christians, bred up in the Holy Faith, the oldest of us under Constantine, and the rest, under Constantius, and the short Reign of him, who now lyes dead, was not sufficient to strike the Infection deep into the Minds of those that were deceived.’

This was the State of Julians Army, which consist­ed in a manner wholly of professing Christians, and counterfeit Apostates from Christianity, of whose Dissimulation the professing part could not be igno­rant, if they had had a mind to Rebel. But besides the open, and concealed Christians that were in Ju­lians Army, there were many Great and Popular Men among the Legions turn'd out of their Employ­ments, as Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, who might have set up the Holy Standard, which Julian had taken down, and soon have got an Army of [Page 172]Christians, if Julians Christian Souldiers, or Sub­jects barbarously used as they were, had thought it lawful to Rebel.

The two former especially, had such interest in Julians own Army, that they were successively chosen Emperors by it within 8 Months after his death; and considering how spitefully the whole Christian Clergy had been used by Julian, the Chri­stians outraged by the Heathens, the Christian Soul­diers discontented, so many Christian Cities dis­franchised, and such brave and noble Comman­ders to head the Numberless Sufferers of all sorts, it is most absurd to ascribe their Peaceable and Suffering Behaviour to want of Strength, Num­bers, or Opportunity; and difficult to imagine, had they thought Resistance Lawful, but that having all these Advantages, they should at least have at­tempted to Rebel.

How easie had it been for Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, and other disbanded Commanders, to have filled all the corners of the Empire with Declarati­ons, and Remonstrances against Julian, and to have addressed themselves to their Fellow Christian Sub­jects to this purpose:

To all the Suffering, and Oppressed Christians of the Roman Empire, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, &c. Send Greeting.

WE having taken into Consideration the Sad and deplorable Condition of the Christi­ans throughout the Roman Empire under the Reign [Page 173]of this Tyrant, and Apostate, and utter Enemy of Christ, do resolve, by Gods Assistance, to rise up against him in Defence of our selves, and our Holy Religion; and send forth this our Declara­tion to all the Provinces of both Empires, to invite our Fellow-Souldiers and Subjects to joyn with us, and to giye them satisfaction why we have broken all the Measures by which the Ancient and Suffering Chri­stians have gone in former Persecutions.

The plain Truth of the matter is, P. 68, 69, 70, 71, &c. their Case and ours differs very much, and we are in quite other Circumstances, than the former Christians were. For when this Apostate came to the Crown, he found us in full and quiet possession of our Re­ligion, which we and our Fathers had enjoyed for above Fifty years, and which is so inestimable a Blessing, that we shall plainly undervalue it, if we do not our best to keep it. But the former Christians were born to Persecution, they neither knew better, nor expected it; they professed their Religion, as in some places they propound new Laws, with Halters about their Necks; for the Laws of the Empire were always in force against them, though not always put in Execution; and the Edge of the Ax stood always towards them, though it were not at all times stained with their Blood. They perpetually lay at the mer­cy of their Enemies; their Religion at the best was in the World but upon sufferance, as Abraham was in the Land of Canaan, where he had none Inheritance, not so much as to set his Foot on.

But as his afflicted Posterity were afterwards Lords of that Country, so after another Egyptian Bondage, Chri­stianity was advanced by Constantine of Blessed Me­mory, to be the Religion of the Empire: Never any man in this World set his Heart so much upon any thing, as he [Page 174]did to see the Christians flourish, and to have all the Ad­vantages of Glory and Power; and we hope that all men, who value the Establishment of their Religion, at this rate will not easily part with it. We hope they will not let Ju­lian, who by his Baptism first, and by entring into Or­ders after, and by his going to Church after that, suffi­ciently engaged himself to maintain Christianity, dispos­sess them of their Freehold: No, it is an unsupportable Injury. Consider, we beseech you, is there no difference between being turn'd out as Sheep among Wolves, which was the Deplorable, but unavoidable case of the first Christians, and being worried by one of their own Flock? Hath a man no more Right, nor Priviledge, after he is Naturalized, than when he was a Stranger, or Alien, or accounted an Enemy? Do not the same Laws, which forbid men to invade other mens Rights, enable them to maintain, and defend their own? These are the plain and palpable differences between the State of the former Chri­stians, and us; They suffered according to the Laws of their Country, whereas we are persecuted contrary to Law: And the Gospel only requires Passive Obedience from Christians when the Laws are against them, and when the Laws of the Land make it death to profess Christianity, then, and then only we are to lay down our Lives for Christs sake.

Therefore we cannot but much wonder at such men, who trouble the World with the unseasonable Prescription of Prayers and Tears, and the Passive Obedience of the Thebaean Legion in the last Persecution, which were proper only at such times, when the Laws of the Empire were armed against our Religion. But what have we to do with the Thebaean Legion now? Blessed be God, who hath made the difference between us, and the former Chri­stians: Poor men, they died as Glorious Martyrs in re­spect of their Religion, yet they died as Criminals and Malefactors in the Eye of the Law. But we shall plain­ly [Page 175]throw away our Lives, if we practise any such Pas­sive Obedience, who have the Laws on our side: Nay, we justly deserve to be so used as the Thebaean Legion was, and moreover, to be loaded with the Curses of all Posteri­ty, if we suffer our selves to be brought into that Condition. Away then with the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears, and the unseasonable Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which makes the World for the Cut-Throats of Julian, and our Throats the Perquisites of their Places: It is not now essential to the Gospel to be a Suffering Religion, that is an Evil which only attends it in bad times, when the Laws are against it, as in the Neronian, Decian, and Dioclesian Persecutions, when the Christians quietly submitted to the Laws; but all this is nothing to us, who may pursue Julian like a Midnight Thief, or High­way Robber.

Consider what he hath done, and what he hath suffered to be done, not only without, but against Law. Remember what hath been done at Ascalon and Gaza; remember Georgius of Alexandria, and Marcus of 1 Invect. p. 91. Arethusa; remem­ber Theodorus at Antioch, and upon what Shams he put our Fellow-Souldiers Artemius, Juventinus, and Maximus to death. Remember his Mockery, and Reproaches, and Blasphemies against Christ; all these things call upon us to defend our selves and our Religion against him: And upon the forementioned Con­siderations have we taken Arms, and are ready like Moses, Othniel, and Gideon, to be Captains over those that will joyn with us; and we hope that God, for whom we fight, will give Success to our Arms

But instead of Remonstrating at this rate upon the Principles of our Author, or making the least attempt to resist, they, and the rest of the disband­ed [Page 176]Officers and Souldiers, together with all the Christians of the Empire, followed the Example of the former Christians, in patiently suffering, as Martyrs, and Confessors for Jesus Christ. There never was greater Examples of Passive Obedience, than in the short Reign of Julian, whose Christian Subjects, and Souldiers, tho far more numerous, than in any Age before them, not only patiently endured many grievous Miseries, but, what was the most provoking and grievous of all Miseries, they daily heard and saw themselves, their Religion, and their Blessed Saviour most blasphemously scorned and re­viled. Though he was an Apostate that was their Persecutor, and had their Religion like a Treasure wrested out of their hands; by one that had been bred in the Bosom of the Church; yet all the Armour they u­sed against him, were the old Primitive Arms of Prayers and Tears.

This was so evident to our Author, especially out of Gregories Invectives, that contrary to his own knowledge, he would rather put it upon the Score of their Defenseless Condition, like the Writers a­mong the Jesuits, than let it pass for the genuine Effect of their Christian Faith, and Patience, as it really was. Here (saith 1 Invect. p. 52. Gre­gory) ‘my Oration exults for joy, and calls all Christians unto this Spiritual Dance, both those who have ad­dicted themselves to Fasting, Weeping, and Prayers, begging day, and night for a Redress of our present grievous Calamaties, and a seasonable Remedy to our Evils, being strengthned with Hope, which maketh not ashamed: And those, who having endured great Conflicts, and Suffer­ings, and been wounded with many and grievous [Page 177]Outrages of these Times, were made a Spectacle, as the Apostle saith, to the World, to Angels, and to Men; and who being broken, and made Cripples in their Bodies, kept their Souls upright, and invincible, being able to endure all things through Christ that strengthned them: As also those, who quitting all worldly greatness, and oc­casion of Sin, and receiving the loss of their goods with Joy, or being banished injuriously from their Country, or separated for a short time from their Husbands, or Wives, or Parents, or Chil­dren, or other dear Relations, bring forth the Fruit of sufferings for Christ by vertue of the Blood of Christ, and may fitly say, or sing that of the Psalmist, Thou hast caused men to ride over our Heads, we went through Fire, and through Water, but thou hast brought us into a Wealthy Place.’

If Mr. J. search all the Ecclesiastical Records, he will scarce find any one Passage, which more emphatically sets forth the Prayers, and Tears, and Sufferings of the former Christians, than this doth those of the Christian Subjects of Julian, though they were so strong, and numerous, and he the worst of Tyrants, who persecuted contrary to Law. Nay, it was the Maxim of the Christians then, as well as in former Ages, that Tears (which imply Prayers) were the only remedy against persecuting Princes; for (saith 1 Invect. p. 91. Gregory) this thundring Gregory, speak­ing how Julian designed worse Evils against the Christians, than ever Dioclesian, or Maximian thought of, But he was restrained by the Mercy of God, and the Tears of the Christians, which many of them shed in great abundance, [...] [Page 178]this only Remedy against the Per­secutor. And in Ib. p. 73. another place, speaking of the Satisfa­ction, which the Christians then had in their pri­vate Sufferings, when Julian envied them the Glory of a Formal Martyrdom, It is more pleasant (saith he) to the Christians to suffer for their Religion, though no man should know of it, than it was for Aristaeus, Em­pedocles, Trophonius, and such wretched Pagans, to acquire Glory by Impiety, because we are not concerned to please men, but all our desire is to be approved, and honoured of God. Nay, doth he not shew at large in his 2d. p. 123, 124. Invective, how the Christians betook themselves to Prayer against Julian, their Hope in God being their only Weapons, and Wall, and every other Defence, as being deprived and cut off from all Humane Assistance; not for want of Strength and Numbers, [for as I have shewed, almost all the People, and half of the Army were professed Chri­stians] but by the Principles of their Suffering Reli­gion, which allowed Subjects no other Remedy a­gainst Persecuting Soveraigns, but Patience, Prayers, and Tears. Had they thought Resistance Lawful, it had been very easie for the professed Christian part of the Army, especially with the Assistance of the concealed Christians, to have delivered the Church from the Execrable Tyrant; but instead of that, they only put up Prayers against him, which Invert. [...]8. [...]. Gregory told him, would stop his Blasphe­mous Mouth, although he might [Page 179]strut it for a while, and be siffered with his Devils to act the Tragedy of his Impieties; Instead of that, as St. Loc. supra Cit. — Quando autem di­cebat, producite ac [...]em, ite en [...]ra illam gen­tem, statim obtempera­bant, distingucbant do­minum aeternum a do­mino temporali, & ta­men subditi erant prop­ter dominum aeternum etiam domino tempora­li. Et vero quam ob­sequiosos sese Juliano Christiani milites prae­buerint, elegantissimo Augustini testimonio docemur. Jacob. Goto-fred. in Oratione 2. Ju­lianus nuncupatâ. Au­gustin observed, They marched at his Command against the Enemy, being Subject to their Temporal, for the sake of their Eternal Lord. They were not ignorant of his Spite and Malice against Christ, and the Christians, they knew all the Evil he had done, and all that he intended to do against them, and yet they were as Faithful and Obedient to him, as ever they had been to their old Masters Constantine, and Con­stantius, although he was the first Apostate Tyrant, and, as our Author will have it, persecu­ted contrary to Law. Preface p. 26. Mr. J. hath done all he could to put a Slur upon this eminent Instance of Christian Subje­ction, and Obedience unto Julian: As for th [...]se Souldiers (saith he) fighting under Julian against the Persians, or other common Enemies of the Empire,—and obeying the Word of Command, when they received his pay, it is such a low part of honesty, that any man may pretend unto it; if I had been there a Souldier of Fortune, I should have done the same. But their fight­ing under Julian against the Persians, and obeying the Word of Command, is not all for which they were cited by Sermon p 15. Dr. H. but that they did not resist the Ty­rant, when they were in such a Posture of Resistance, that they did not so much as [Page 180]draw their Swords against him, under the Specious Pretence of defending their Religion, and prevent­ing the extirpation of it: And now their Example becomes yet more exemplary upon Mr. J's Asserti­on, for which the Dr. is bound to thank him, That Julian persecuted contrary to Law. It seems neither the Defence of their Laws, nor Religion, nor Fel­low-Christians, nor the preventing the Effusion of Innocent Blood, could make them resist the worst of Tyrants: And I appeal to all that have read his Book, whether it is probable, that he, would have done the same, he that hath burlesqued the Doctrine of the Cross, He that hath said that P. 88. Passive Obedience is a Doctrine fit to turn a Nation into a Shambles, and enough to invite Tyranny and Cruel­ty into the World. Lastly, he that hath P. 87. said in his own name, and the name of some Potential Legions, Through the Grace of God, though we cannot hinder the Papists from being Idolaters, we will endeavour to keep them from being Murderers, they shall not have that to Answer for too. Doth this sound like a man that would have been an Obedient Soul­dier to Julian? It is more reasonable to believe he would have been the Souldier that struck the Javelin into his Side.

Perhaps Mr. J. may think, that I am very fond of the Army of Julian; If I am, he hath made me so, by so undervaluing their Exemplary Patience, and Subjection under the Tyrant, and shamming of it off, as he hath done. And if the Behaviour of Juventinus and Maximus, and of the Souldiers, who ignorantly sacrificed, may be a sufficient ground for conjecture, I must further tell him, we may [Page 181]well presume, that the Christian Legions of Julian rather than resist, would have died Mar­tyrs, like the Thebaean Legion, with their Swords by their Sides. Besides what I have said of the lat­ter in the 3d. Chap. I must here tell him again out of Lib. 3. c. 17. Theodo­ret, That after they had brought back their Gold to Julian, and desired him to purge them by Fire, he was so enraged at them, that he commanded them to be beheaded; and as they were led out of the City to the place of Execution, a great multitude fol­lowed them, admiring their Courage and Boldness in suffering for their Religion. When they were come to the place of Execution, the Senior of them desired the Hangman to behead the Youngest first, lest he seeing the Execution of the others, should be frighted by it. But as he laid down his Head, and the Hangman had drawn his Sword, one came with a Pardon, and forbid the Execution, (for Julian envied them the Glory of Martyrdom) but the young Souldier being sorry, that he was saved, said, I see Romanus is not worthy to be a Martyr of Jesus Christ. What Fools were these to P. 75. throw away their Lives, certainly they were weary of them to practise such Passive Obedience, and with such Gallantry too, when the Laws were not a­gainst them? Had they not b [...]ter have gone to their Fellow-Souldiers, and conjured them by the Great Name of Constantine, and Constantius, to rise up against that enormous Tyrant, and Apo­state, who had broken all the Laws, laid aside the Holy Standard, polluted all things and places with Idolatrous Nidor and Sprinklings, and hated, and blasphemed the Name of Christ. I am confident, were our Author, or his Admirers, to answer for [Page 182]them, they would say, they sould have done so, Be­cause their case, was quite different from the former Chri­stians, whose Religion at best was but upon Sufferance, but theirs was become the Established Religion of the Empire. But poor men as they were, they had learnt no such Distinctions, they practised the Do­ctrine of the Cross, like other Doctrines of the Gospel, in Gospel-Simplicity, and were content to dye as Martyrs for their Religion, when they were not Criminals in the Eye of the Law. Nay, there is nothing more evident in the Naz. 1 Invect. p. 74. Socr. l. 3. c. 12. So­zom. l. 5. c. 4. 15, 17, 20. Theod. l. 3. c. 11, 17. 1 Invect. p. 72, 82, 86. Chrysost. hom. in Ju­vent. & Max. Ecclesiastical Writers, than that the main ground of the Christians Displeasure against Julian was this, That he would not Formally persecute them, nor put them to death enough. Had he but persecuted in the De­cian and Dioclesian Fashion, he would have pleased them better; but they were very angry at him, that he was a Vid. Jac. Goto­fredi Julianum p. 58, 59. Tempter more than a Persecutor, and that, like some Hunters, he catched them with Snares, and Nets, when he could not take them by Force. This [...]. Invect. 1 p. 74. seeming Getleness of his, they hated worse than down right Cruelty, of which, though he exercised enough, yet they would have had him ex­erise an hundred times more. They hated him for stealing Persecutions upon them, and for envying them the Glory, and the Church the Benefit of Mar­tyrdom; and he knew the Temper of his Christian Subjects so well, that (as it is cited before) he said, they would fly to Martyrdom, like Bees unto an Hive. [Page 183]He knew they would rather dye, than resist him; he knew that Passive Obedience was their Principle, and this made him so secure of them, and so bold to abuse them, their Religion, and their Saviour, al­though they were so Numerous, That Sozom. l. 5. c. 15. [...]— the Magistrates in every City, were scarce able to take the Numbers of those that refused to Sacrifice. I reserved this Authori­ty till now, to shew there was no general defection among them, and to answer that Passage of A­sterius, which our unanswerable Author hath cited out of his Ser­mon against Convetousness; Quantus ab Ecclesiâ ad Al­taria factus est concursus? quam multi per honorum escas & illecebras unà cum ips [...] [Juliano] Apostasiae hamum de­vor ârunt: This the Father spoke not as an Historian, but as a Preacher, lamenting the Fall of those few, who are tempted by Preferments and Money, to deny Christ. I say of those few, who yet were too many, though they had no proportion to the Numberless Numbers of those, who stood firm. This is plain from the very next words of the good Father, Qui nunc quidam stigma [...]ici civitatis oberrant, omnibus odio, ac ludibrio habiti, tanquam Christi domini propter pauxillum argentum proditores, expuncti Christianorum albo sicut Judas Apost [...]lorum, Apostatarum appellatione noti. It seems they were com­paratively but a few, when they were known like Stigmatized Persons in all Cities; but it is not un­usual for our Author to omit, or conceal such Passages in Authors, as best serve to let the World see, how much he wrests them from their Genuine Sense. This I shew'd before out of Eusebius, Eu­menius, [Page 184]&c. And I desire him to consider, what a worthy Prelate said of that, which he saith is my Lord P. 51, 91. Hollis his Book, That if he might use the Scri­ptures, as that Author hath u­sed the Records, he could prove there was no God, for leave ou [...] The Fool hath said in his Heart, and then it follows, [...]ere is no God.

And now let the Impartial Reader Judge, what Reason so many men had to cry up Julian for an un­answerable Book, besides their Inclinations to have it so? Or why that Noble Lord should carry it in his Pocket for a Jewel, and swear by his Creator, That he would give the Author of it, the best Par­sonage in his Gift? It was sworn like the Son of such a Loyal Father; and if indeed his Lordships best Parsonage must be the Reward of his Pains, much Good do' [...] him, it is better worth than Thir­ty Pieces of Silver, but I am confident none of those, who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion, would have been the Authors of Julian, for his Lordships whole Estate.

But see the Difference of men; Mr. J. notwith­standing is very fond of it, it is his First-born, his Might, and his Strength, and so very like him, that he hath Reason to Dote upon it, and may be excused for taking of it ill from his Bookseller, that he did not put his Name unto it. By the Bookseller I do not mean Langley Curtis on Lud­gate-Hill, who is the Honester Man of the two, but him, That kept the Books in his Back-Shop, and of whom (I presume) Mr. J. learnt (for he was best able to tell) That my Lord Hollis was the Au­thor of the Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend, shew­ing, That the Bishops are not to be Judges in Parlia­ment [Page 185]in Capital Cases. This Book was privately Printed by the same Man in 1679, just against the Parliament was to Meet, but it pleased God they were Dissolved; and by that time another sat down, the Writers Candour, and Veracity were effectually discovered by the most Learned, and Worthy Au­thor of the Grand Question, who hath been a Bles­sing to the Age, and Obliged it by his many Learn­ed Works.

CHAP. IX. Shewing, That the Former Christians be­fore the time of Julian Suffered as much, or more than Julians Subjects did, not only without, but Contrary to Law.

HAving shew'd at large, how the Subjects of Julian, and more especially his Souldiers, suffered with most Exemplary Patience, when they were in a very probable Capacity to resist, I pro­ceed to shew, That there was no such Difference betwixt the Sufferings of the Former Christians, and them, as our Author pretends there was, p. 71. where he positively tells his Reader, That the First Christians suffered according to the Laws of their Coun­try, whereas those under Julian were persecuted Contrary to Law.

It will very much enervate the Strength of his Book to discover the Falseness of his Assertion, and therefore upon his own Supposition, That the Christi­an Subjects of Julian were oppressed in a very Illegal way, I shall make it appear, that the Former Christians were oppressed in the same manner, not only with­out, but against Law. First then, Did Julian put the Christians to death upon Shams, and pretended Crimes of Treason, &c. as our Author speaks? So did [Page 187]the Former Persecutors too, as Agmen nunc claudat fictum, ut (que) om­nium accusationum com­plementum, seditionis, tumultûs, rebellionis, majestatis (que) crimen, u­nicum & aliàs saepe crimen eorum, qui cri­mine vacant. Fuit haec scilicèt, ut anteriorum principum & persecu­torum ita Juliani po­tissima [...], Christianos eo­rum (que) antistites in haec crimina convenir [...].— Gotofred observes in his Julia­nus. Tacit. Annal. l. 15. c. 44. Qui se [...]am mentiuntur ad S [...]p. 4. Nero, the first Perse­cutor of the Church, laid the Burning of Rome (of which he himself was the Author) to the Charge of the Christians, and punished them with most exqui­site Torments, upon that Ac­count. Euseb. l. 4. c. 7. Minut. Felix. Tertull. Apol. 2. & 9. The grievous Crimes of Incest, and Murder, and of being publick Enemies of the Em­pire, were laid to the charge of the whole Divina Secta. Tertul. Ap. 37. Sect; and they were ordinarily put to death as certainly guilty of them, with­out any further Process at Law. This Tertullian complains of in his time, when they were so Numerous, as is shew'd in the last Chapter, and in a Conditi­on very able to resist; and af­terwards in the Dioclesian Perse­cution when they were yet more Numerous. Lactant de Mort. persecut. c. 14. Maximinus Cae­sar privately sired the Emperors Palace in Nicome­dia, and accused the Christians of the Houshold for doing of it, which so enraged the Emperor, that he caused them all to be put to death. From hence it is plain, that Julian, though he was a Fox, yet he was not the First who found out the way of putting the Christians to death upon Shams; he was not the first, that dressed up Accusations of Trea­son and Sacrilege against them; and therefore, as they did not, so they had no reason, to break the [Page 188]Measures of Passive Obedience, by which the mo [...] Ancient, and Suffering Christians had gone in for­mer times.

But 2dly, Did the Heathens outrage the Christi­ans in Julians Reign, and did he underhand direct and encourage them to act such Tragedies upon them? So they did in former Ages, not only u­sing great Cruelties unto the Living Christians, by Stoning and Burning of them, but also by digging up their Dead Bodies, and Tearing, and Mangling of them in Pieces, against the most Inst. l. 2. Tit. 1. De rerum divisione 9. Sacred Laws of the Roman Empire, when, as Apol. 37. Quo­ties etiam, praeteritis vebis, suo jure nos ini­mic [...]m vulgus invadit lapidibus & incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium fu­riis, nee mortuis par­cunt Christianis, quin illos de requie sepultu­re, de Asylo quodam mertis, jam alios, jam nec totos a vellant, dis­secent, distrahant. Quid tamen unquam denota­stis de tam conspiratis, de tam animatis ad mortem us (que) pro inju­ria repensatum, quan­do vel una no [...] paucis faculis largitur ultio­nis posset operari, si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret. Tertullian saith, they could have easily revenged themselves, if they would. It was utter Im­punity, and the Connivence of the Governours, that made the Heathens in this Barbarous and Insolent manner insult it over the former Christians, against the Laws of the Empire; and therefore the same sort of Ille­gal Violence and Oppression, could be no special reason to the Christians under Julian, to alter their Behaviour, or break the Gospel-Measures of Christian Patience, in which their Prede­cessors had possessed their Souls. No, they followed their Ex­ample, as they followed Christs; and practised this Slavish Do­ctrine of Passive Obedience, even then, when they saw the Execrable Heathens rip up their Fellow-Christians, [Page 189]and tast their Livers, and stuff their Bo­dies with Barley, and throw them to be devoured by Swine, or anoint them over with Oil and Honey, to expose them to Bees, Wasps, and Hornets; nay Sacrifice them upon their Altars, unto the Devils, whom they worshipped for Gods.

But in the 3d. place, Did Julian, as our Author saith, persecute the Christians contrary to Law? So did Former Emperors, and Governours much more, for as Tertullian observes, If Christianity was a Crime, they were tortured not like other Malefactors, to confess, but to deny it, contrary to the End, for which Torture, not only in the Roman Empire, but in all other Governments, was used. The common Reason why Torture was instituted was, to force Stubborn Malefactors to confess the Crimes for which they were suspected, and accused; but clean contrary to this end they tortured Christianum ho­minum omnium scele­rum reum deorum, Im­peratorum, legum, mo­rum, naturae totius i­nimicum existimas, & cogis, negare ut absol­vas, quem non p [...]t [...]ris absolvere nisi negave­rit. Praevaricaris in le­ges — torquemur confitentes, & absolvi­mur negantes. Hoc sum, quod quaeris an s [...]m? quid me torques? con­fite [...]r, & torques, quid faceres, s [...]negarem. Christians to make them deny: And could there be any thing more absurd or illegal, than to Rack those Criminals, who had already con­fessed the Charge, and acquit those, who denied it? They accounted the Christians the worst of Malefactors, publick Enemies of the Gods, and the Emperor; and yet when they had confessed the Crime, they would torture them, to retract their Confessions, and then set them Free.

The Reason of these Partial, Absurd, and Un­just Proceedings against them, was, the same [Page 190]Father observes, That they were punished for the Non scelus ali­quod in causa est, sed nomen. Name of Christian, and therefore the Confessing, or Denying of them­selves to be Christians, made them Guilty or Innocent of Murder, and many other presumptive Crimes. But if they persevered in their Confession, then in the second place, they were condemned forthwith as Murderers, &c. a­gainst one of the Laws of the 12 Tables, and one of the Fundamental Laws not only of the Empire, but of all Civil Governments, Si certum est nos nocentissimos esse, cur à vobis ipsis aliter tracta­mur, quam pares nostri, id est, caeteri nocentes, cum ejusdem n [...]x­ietatis eadem tractatio debet intervenire. Quodcun (que) decimur, cum alii dicuntur, & proprio ore, & mercenariâ advocatione ad innocentiae suae commendationem, respondendi, altercandi facultas patet, quando nec liceat inoffensos, & inauditos damnari, sed Christianis solis nihil permittitur loqui, quid causam purget, quod veritatem defendat, quod judicem non faciat injustum.—In omnibus nos alitèr dispenitis, quàm caeteros nocentes.— without being heard.

All other Malefactors had the liberty of defend­ing their Lives, and the benefit of Counsel, but the Christians only were denyed the privilege of their Birthright, being condemned in a most Arbitrary and Tyrannical manner to death for Praesumptis non probatis criminibus de suâ solà confessione dam­natur—cum praesu­matis de secleribus no­stris ex nominis con­fessione. Presumed Crimes, of which there was made no Proof. This made the Father, who himself was bred a Lawyer, ex­postulate with the Governours of the Empire, about the Ille­gality of their Proceedings, and tell them, That if it was the same thing to be guil­ty [Page 191]of Murder, and Incest, and to be a publick E­nemy of the Empire, as to be a Christian, then they should Quid de tabellâ recitatis illum Christi­anum cur non & ho­micidam?— Indict every Christian of Murder, and In­cest by his proper Name, and prove the Indictment against him, and not presume that the Title of a Christian implyes all those Crimes. I say he expostu­lates with them very warmly a­bout the Suspecta sit vo­bis ista perversitas, ne qua vis lateat in occul­to, quae vos adversus formam, adversus na­turam Judicandi, con­tra ipsas quo (que) leges ministret. Nisi enim fallor, leges malos erui jubent, non abscondi, confessos damnari prae­scribunt non absolvi, hoc senatus consulta, hoc principum manda­ta definiunt. Hoc Im­perium cujus ministri estis civilis non tyran­nica dominatio est. Illegality of their Proceedings against the Christi­ans, and I have put his Expres­sions in the Margent, on pur­pose that our Author and his Admirers may consider them, and thereby be convinced, that the Primitive Christians did pra­ctise the Slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience in that Sense, wherein, Preface p. 8. he saith, It is not Evangelical, but Mahumetan, and the very Turkish Doctrine of the Bow-string, as it is taught, and pre­scribed both without, and against Law.

For the Bow-String in Turkey is not more Unjust, Tyrannical, and Destructive, than this way of proceeding against the Christians was, which the Apologist tells the Judges, was against the Consti­tution of the Empire, the Acts of the Senate, and the Mandates of the Emperors; and this plainly implyes, That Severus, who then was Emperor, had made no such Orders for their proceeding a­gainst the Christians: For if they had proceeded so [Page 192]against them in Obedience to his Pleasure, there had been no ground for such a particular, and smart Charge upon them, nor indeed for writing his A­pology to any but the Emperor himself, to shew him the Injustice of such Laws.

But the Father wrote his Apology to the Gover­nours, and Judges of the Roman Empire, to whose care the Emperor had left the Civil Administration, being wholly taken up himself in Wars; and besides, he was a great Ad Scapulam. 4. Ipse etiam Severus chri­stianorum memor fuit, nam & proculum Chri­stianum, qui eum per oleum aliquando cura­verat, requisivit, & in palatio suo habuit, us (que) ad mortem ejus.—& clarissimas faeminas, & clarissimos viros sci­ens hujus sectae esse, non modo non laesit, verum et testimonio exornavit, & populo furenti in nos palam restitit. Favourer of the Chri­stians, as the same Author tells us; and therefore the Persecu­tion under him, as it seems to me, ought rather to be ascribed to his Governours, or perhaps to Plantianus, his great Favou­rite, who was an Enemy to the Christians, and had the ascen­dent so much over him, that he durst accuse the Empress be­fore him; and as Xiph. lib. 21 p. 413, 414. Dio ob­serves, was more Emperor than He.

But what the Christians suffered now contrary to Law, was but a Flea-biting, as it were, to what was done against them in the Reign of Galerius Maximianus, who Tyrannized contrary to Law. For though, as I have shewed in the Second Chap­ter, the Emperor had absolute Power over his Sub­jects Lives, and Estates, as to do what he pleased to particular Persons, or Parties of Men, yet he had no Right to Enslave the whole People, by alter­ing [Page 193]the Constitution of the Ro­man Government, from a Hoc Imperium, cu­jus ministri estis, civi­lis non tyrannica domi­natio est. Tert. loc. cit. Civil into a Tyrannical Domi­nion, or from a Government, wherein the People had Liberty, and Property, into such a Government as the Per­sian was, and the Turkish now is, where the Sub­jects are the Princes Family, and all that they have is his by Law. In this sort of Government all the Subjects, or the whole People, are formal Slaves by Law; and it differs almost as much from an absolute Civil Monarchy, as an absolute Civil Monarchy doth from a limited Civil Monarchy, because the Sub­jects in such a Government, are born their Princes Slaves, and not to Liberty and Freehold, as in Ci­vil Governments they are; where though the Prince be absolute, and have Power over the Lives, and Fortunes of his Subjects, yet his personal Orders by which he touches this, or that, or these or those men, are not Quae nec ad ex­emplum trahuntur. Inst. l. 1. Tit. 2. drawn into precedent, nor af­fect his other Subjects, not Personam non transgreditur. Ib. going further than the person, or persons, about whom they are made. The Exercise of this Power, which Absolute Princes have in Civil Monarchies is not counted Ordinary, but Extraordinary, nor so much Legal, as Supra legal; but in Tyrannical Govern­ments, where the Subjects are the Princes Personal Estate, this Despotick Power is the Ordinary Law, and the Subjects are Perfect, and Actual Slaves.

Now Galerius, as De Mort. Perse­cut. 21. Adeptus igi­tur maximam potesta­tem ad vexandum or­bem animum intendit. Nam post devictas Per­sas, quorum hic ritus, hic mos est, ut regibus suis in servitium se ad­dicant, & reges popu­lo suo, tanquam fami­liâ utantur, hunc mo­rem nefarius homo in Romanam terram vo­luit inducere, quem ex illo tempore victoriae sine pudore laudabat. Et quia id aperté ju­bere non poterat, sic a­gebat, ut & ipse liber­tatem hominibus aufer­ret. Vid. & Euseb. l. 8. c. 14. Lactan­tius tells us, after he had con­quered the Persians, attempted to introduce the Slavish Persian Government (which he used to commed) into the Roman Em­pire, & because he had not Power to Enact such an Alteration, yet he treated his Subjects in the Persian manner, as if they had been born his Slaves. ‘He tor­tured, and crucified the most Honourable and Gallant Men every where like Malefactors and Slaves; he ravished the most Matres-familias ingentes, ac nobiles in Gynaecaeum rapiebantur. Ibid. Noble Matrons, and took them from their own Hus­bands to put them in his Sera­glio: His Ordinary Recreati­ons were, to see Men devoured by huge Bears, which he kept for the purpose, and to laugh at the tearing of their Limbs; and he never Supped without Killing a Man. The Islands, Prisons, and the Quar­ries he esteemed but light Punishments; nay Behead­ding it self was accounted a Favour; and Burning, Crucifying, and being devoured by Wild Beasts, were the easiest deaths, which he did Inflict. As for his Do­mesticks, the Lance, was their ordinary Reprimand: In a word (†) he dissolved the [Page 195]Laws, Eloquentia extin­cta, causidici sublati, Juris Consulti, aut relegati, aut necati. Literae autem inter malas art [...] habitae, & qui eas n [...]verant pro inimicis, hostibus (que) protriti, & execrati. Licentia rerum omnium, solutis legibus, assump [...] & judicibus dat [...]. Judices Militares humanitatis literarum rudes, sine adsessoribus, in provincias immissi. Ib. forbid all Pleading, banished, or killed the Lawyers, and instead of Learned Men, made his rude Souldiers, who were utterly ignorant of Law, and Learning, sole Judges over the Pro­vinces, and gave them Power to do what they pleased.’

To conclude, Ibd. c. 23. He made all Mens Estates be surveyed, and the Number of their Cattel, Vines, and Timber-trees be taken, and had all Ci­ties, Villages, and Families numbred by the Pole; nay for fear any man should conceal any thing he had, he most illegally ordred Servants to be tortu­red against their Masters, and Wives against their Husbands, and if no discovery came that way, he ordred all sorts of men to be tortured in person to discover the utmost Penny they were worth. And lest any man under the pretence of being a Beggar should escape Tax-free, against all the Laws of the Empire, and of Humanity, he caused all the Beg­gars every where to be seized, and to be put aboard on little Vessels, and sunk into the Sea. In short, he filled the Provinces with Lamentation, and Mourning, and used his Subjects, as if they had been his Captives in War; and had the Sultan of Persia conquered the Empire, he could not have used them worse.

If ever Government was changed from Civil into Tyrannical, if ever Free People were ensla­ved, Laws, and Lawyers suppressed, and Lust and the Sword tyrannized against Law, it was in the Eastern Empire under the Reign of Galerius, but [Page 196]yet the Christians [among whom were [...]. Eu­seb. l. 8. c. 4. very many dis­banded Officers, and Souldiers] though so highly provoked a­bove the rest of his Subjects, were so far from resisting, that, according to the Writers, who describe the Tenth Persecution, they let themselves be led, like Lambs to the Slaughter, and re­joyced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name of Christ. Ib. c. 6. Euseb saith, That both Men and Women leapt into the Fire, with a Divine Ala­crity, which cannot be expressed, and that no Ib. c. 10. Eloquence was able to set forth their Courage, and For­titude in their Torments: And Hist. Sacr. l. 2. c. 47. Sulp. Severus tells us, That the Christians were the more desirous of Martyrdom, than the Ambitious Clergy-men were of Bishopricks in his Time. And truly so it did appear by the Thebaean Legion, with which some men of late have so much di­sturbed the Christian Spirit of Mr. J. And, poor Man, I am afraid this account of the Galerian, which was one of the most Bloody Acts of the Dioclesian Persecution, may yet disturb him more. For then the Christians were persecuted at a time, when they could not want the Help, nor likely the Sollicitati­ons of their oppressed Heathen Fellow-Subjects, then if ever they might have taken up Arms under the Fine Pretence of defending their Liberties and the Laws, but there was not one word of that a­mong them: No, poor Wretches, they were mana­cled [Page 197]and fettered with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience, which Christ and his Apostles, had taught them: The Christian prevailed above the Greek Principles in their Consciences: And the Tyrant knew, he was secure in their Numbers, e­ven from his Greek Subjects, among whom it was not only an allowed Principle to kill a Tyrant, but also counted a Meritorious Work. Had the Greeks been then the Prevailing Number, the Mon­ster, had likely been served like Nero; but the Em­pire was become Christian, and Passive, and his Security consisted in that.

Wherefore, to conclude this Chapter, seeing the Former Christians, especially those under Ga­lerius, were Persecuted, Oppressed, and Enslaved, not only as Christians, but as Subjects too, con­trary to all Law. Illegal Persecution could be no specifick Reason for the Christian Subjects and Souldiers of Julian to resist him; No! they were not so Jesuited, and Presbyterianized from the Gospel Simplicity; as it appears, it was all one to them, as well, as to their Predecessors, whether they were martyred Legally, or Illegally, or whether they were worried by a Natural, or by an Apostate, by an Unbaptized, or Baptized Wolf. When they could not have the Benefit of Law, they could contentedly suffer against it; as yet their only Remedy was that Mountebank Re­ceipt of Prayers, and Tears; none of the Fathers, as yet was become an Antimonarchical Author, they valued their Established Religion very much, but they would not Fight for it; they knew no Me­dium between Flying, or Suffering, nor as yet [Page 198]had invented and Distinctions to justifie the re­sisting of Lawful Princes, but followed the Pas­sive Examples of Former Times, without ma­king any Difference betwixt dying for their Re­ligion with, or without, according to, or contrary to Law.

CHAP. X. Wherein is defended the Doctrine of Pas­sive Obedience against Law.

HAving premised so much about the Sufferings of the Ancient Christians both under Julian, and other Tyrants before him, It is time to pro­ceed to the Justification of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience in its full Latitude against the Excepti­ons of our Author, who distinguishes (and in a ve­ry triumphant manner) betwixt Suffering according to, and contrary to Law, and then upon the ground of this Unanswerable Distinction (Dictator-like) he condemns the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for Intollerable, as it hath been taught, and practised contrary to Law, Preface p. 8. There (saith he, meaning in Dr. Hickes Ser­mon) it was I met with the Do­ctrine of Passive Obedience, which, when it is taught without any regard to Laws, and is prescribed without Law, and against Law, is not Evangelical, but Ma­humetan, and the very Turkish Doctrine of the Bow-String. And in his Ninth Chapter, wherein he hath endeavoured to confute the Doctrine of Passive O­bedience as it is so taught, and practised; all that he hath said, is comprized in Prop. 3. p. 92. When the Laws of God (saith he) and our Country interfere, and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a Good Christian, then we are to lay down our [Page 200]Lives for Christs Sake. This is the only Case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, namely, when the Laws are against a Man, and this was the case of the first Christians. And in p. 75. saith he, Men throw away their Lives, and are certainly weary of them, if they practise Passive Obedience against the Laws, and the Truth of it is, we justly deserve to be so used as the Thebaean Legion was, and moreover to be loaded with the Curses of all Posterity, if we suffer our selves to be brought into their Condition, for that can never hap­pen, but by our own Treachery to our Religion, in part­ing with those good Laws, that protect it, and in agree­ing to such, as shall destroy it.

I am very well satisfied, that the Case of the The­baean Legion, or any other like it, can never hap­pen in Great Brittain, we of these Kingdoms having such Security against Tyranny, as no People ever had; but upon supposition, that it may happen, I am very well assured, that we ought patiently to suffer it, or any other Condition like unto it, though our sufferings would be against Law.

But to state this matter clearly, and to the satis­faction of the Reader, I must here beg leave to di­stinguish between the Laws in any Government, which declare, and ascertain the Rights of the Sove­raign, and those, which secure the Rights of the Sub­ject. By the Rights of the Soveraign, I understand those Prerogatives, and Pre-Eminences of Power and Greatness, which are involved in the formal Conception of Soveraignty, and are inseparably an­nexed to the Soveraign, whether it be the People, as in Democracies; or a few of the Chief, as in Aristocracies; or one single Person, as in Monar­chies: For there are certain Essential Rights of So­veraignty, or Supremacy, which equally belong to [Page 201]Soveraigns of all Sorts, as to have Sense belongs to all Sorts of Animals, and which without destroying the very Notion of a Soveraign, you cannot ab­stract from him, no more than roundness from a Circle or Sphaere. For they Ad nullum per­tinent, nisi ad coronam & dignitatem regiam, nec à coronâ separari poterunt cum faciant ipsam coronam. Bract. l. 2. c. 24. constitute the Essential diffe­rence between Supremacy and Subjection, so that, whosoever hath them, is a Compleat Sove­reign, and whosoever wants them, or any of them, is a Sub­ject, or at least, an Incompleat Soveraign; and in all Perfect and Regular Govern­ments, these Essential Rights of Soveraignty equal­ly belong to the Supream Power, whether Princes or States, by the Common, and Statute Laws thereof.

Such as these, in the First place, is to beSam. Bochart. Ep. p. 32. [...] accountable to none except God: For if there be any Power to which Princes, or States are account­able, within their Dominions, let their Names sound never so big, they are not Soveraign, but Subject; Soveraignty, as the very Notion implyes, being such a Preheminent Jurisdiction, as makes all other persons, within the Lines of it, accountable unto it, but it, or the person, or persons invested with it, accountable to none.

Secondly, To have the Ibid. p. 90. Sole Power, & Disposal of the Sword, for to suppose, that another hath a Right to bear the Sword besides the Soveraign, is to suppose, that the Soveraign hath an Equal; which is a Contradiction to the Notion of Sove­raignty, and that in the same Government there may be two Soveraign Powers.

Thirdly, To be free from all Coercive, and Vin­dicative Power; for if in any Government there were a Power, which had Authority to compel, or pu­nish the Soveraign, for this Reason he would not be Soveraign, but a Subject to that Power.

Fourthly, Not to Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 41, 87. Ib. 140, 141. Dr. Faulkners Christ. Loyalty, v. 2. ch. 2. be resisted or withstood by Force upon any pretence whatsoever; for otherwise the Sove­raign would be controulable by Force, which is inconsistent with the Majesty, and Dignity of the Soveraign Power, and supposes that Subjects have a Right to Judge when they may resist, or withstand their Soveraign, which is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Societies, than patient­ly submitting to the Abuse of the Soveraign Power.

Lastly, To have the Legislative Power, or the Power that makes any form of Words a Law. The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the Exercise of this Power, which may be confined to Bills, and Writings prepared by others, but still it is the Soveraign Authority, who gives Life, and Soul to the dead Letter of them; and all Princes, or States which want this Authority, let their Names and Titles be never so great, are not compleat So­veraigns, but Subjects, because upon this suppositi­on, they have not Power to make Laws to bind o­thers, but others have Power to make Laws to bind them.

Now the Laws by which these, and other Essen­tials of Soveraignty are established, may be called the Imperial Laws, or the Com­mon Laws of Soveraignty, and Chri­stianity, which our P. 92. Author [Page 203]well observes, destroys no mans Natural, or Civil Rights, doth not destroy these Essential Rights of Sove­raignty, but confirms them unto the Legal Soveraign in every Government, commanding his Subjects to observe them, and particularly the Imperial Law of of not resisting, not only for Wrath, but for Con­science sake.

Wherefore in answer to his P. 81. Question, By what Law we must dye in Illegal Persecution? I answer, By the Imperial Laws in every Government, and by the Laws of the Gospel, which (as I shall hereafter shew) establish those Laws. In all per­fect Governments, and particularly in the English, all these Rights legally belong to the Soveraign, who is the King, especially to be accountable to none but God, to have the sole Power and Disposal of the Sword, and to be free from all Coercive, and Vindica­tive Power, and from Resistance by Force, It is by these Common Laws of Soveraignty, that the Gos­pell requires Passive Obedience, which is but ano­ther name for Non-resistance; these Laws are in E­ternal Force against the Subjects in defence of the Soveraign, Sa. Boch, ep. p. 61. be he good, or evil, just, or unjust, Christian, or Pagan; be what he will, no Subject, or Ib. p. 54, 55. number of Subjects can lift up his Hand against his Soveraign, & be Guiltless by these Laws. P. 84. Where there is no Law in­deed, there is no Transgression; But for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Soveraign, or to defend themselves by Force against him, or his Forces, is against the Common Laws of Soveraignty; and by consequence Ib. p. 86, 87. Passive Obedience even unto death, becomes a duty in Soveraign Governments by vertue of those Laws.

By the help of this Distinction between the Im­perial Laws, which ascertain the Rights of the So­veraign, and the political, which are made to se­cure the Rights of the Subject, the heedful Reader may easily solve all that Mr. J. hath written by the help of Mr. H. his Superviser, against Dr. Hickes. For he hath, as himself P. 92. con­fesseth, reduced all the Strength and Force of what he hath written against him in opposition to the Doctrine of Passive O­bedience into 5 Propositions; every one of which I shall here, I hope, effectually evacuate, by adding a few Words, which may enable a common Capa­city to see, how he hath perplexed the Truth.

The Propositions.
  • 1. Christianity destroys no Mans Natural, or Civil Rights, but confirms them; and by consequence it destroys not the forementioned Rights of the So­veraign, but confirms them.
  • 2. All Men have both a Natural, and Civil Right and property in their Lives, till they have forfeited them by the Laws of their Country, i. e. by the Political Laws, which are made to defend the Rights of the Subject, but in case the Soveraign will tyrannically take away a Subjects Life against the Political Laws, the Sub­ject is bound by the Laws Imperial, or Common Laws of Soveraignty, not to resist him, or defend his Life against him by Force.
  • 3. When the Laws of God, and our Country interfere, and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian, then we are to lay down our Lives for Christs Sake. So far is very true, because every man is bound to submit to the Penalties of the Govern­ment [Page 205]under which he lives: But then what follows is false, This is the only case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, namely, when the [Politica] Laws are a­gainst a Man; because the Gospel requires our submission to the Imperial, as well as the Po­litical Laws; but by the Imperial Laws in every perfect Government, the Subjects are absolute­ly forbidden to bear the Sword against the Soveraign, or to resist him upon any pretence whatsoever, and therefore are bound to suffer death wrongfully, ra­ther than resist.
  • 4. That the killing of a Man contrary to Law, is Murder; And if the Soveraign kill a Man contrary to Law, he is guilty of Murder, but must answer for it to God only.
  • 5. That every Man is bound to prevent Murder, as far as the Law allows; But the Imperial, or Preroga­tive Law, allows no Man to prevent his own Mur­der, by rising up against, or resisting his Soveraign, and therefore the last words are false, And ought not to submit to be murdered, if he can help it; unless by help it, he means help it by Prayers, and Tears.

I hope I have already sufficiently enervated the Strength, and Force of our Authors Arguments a­gainst Passive Obedience, or Non-resistance; and now after his Example, I shall reduce the Strength and Force of what I have hitherto said, into these following Propositions.

  • I. Every Man, but more especially a Christian, is bound to submit to the Laws of the Government, under which he lives.
  • II. The Government consists in the Imperial, as well as the Political Laws.
  • [Page 206]III. The Imperial Laws of every Government forbid resisting the Soveraign, and by consequence re­quire Non-resistance.
  • IV. Non-resistance is the same thing with Passive Obe­dience, and by consequence Passive Obedience is required by the Imperial Laws of every Govern­ment.
  • V. Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of any Government require of its Subjects, if it be not contrary to Gods Laws, they are bound to perform it.
  • VI. Passive Obedience, or patient Suffering of Injuries from the Soveraign, is not forbid by Gods Laws, and therefore Subjects are bound to perform it, where it is required by the Imperial Laws.

And now I shall desire these Men, who of late have thundred so much with Julian against the Thebean Legion, to consider well, what I have said in gene­ral about the Common Laws of Soveraignty; when they have digested it well, they will be convinced, how fallaciously the Author of that Pamphlet hath dealt with them in suppressing this Notion, and making them believe, That there were no Laws belonging to Government, but those, which I call Political Laws. But, as I have shewed, there are two Tables belonging to every perfect, and regular Government, one which concerns the Majesty of the Soveraign, Gods Vicegerent, which I may call the first Table; and another, which concerns the Good and Safety of the People, which may be called the second Table; and these two together are the Compleat and Adequate Rule of Civil Obedience and Subjection, and Passive Obedience, or the Pa­tient bearing of the greatest Injuries, when it is not a Duty by This, is very often so by That. When [Page 207]the Laws are against us, then it is our Duty by the second Table; and when the Soveraign is against us contrary to the Laws of the second Table, then it is our Duty by the Laws of the first, which absolute­ly forbid us to bear the Sword against him, or to re­pel his Forces by Force. Wherefore to answer our Authors P. 87. Question, I am con­fident Dr. Hicks was very serious, and in earnest when he taught, and preached up Passive Obedience for Evangelical in this case. It may be seen by the Drs. Sermon, and other of his Pieces, that he doth not write rashly; and I have reason to presume that he asserted Passive Obedience upon the same bot­tom, that I now defend it. He is far from having Men to prostitute their Lives to Malice, and Violence, for he would rather have them to abscond, or fly; but if they can, or will do neither in times of Illegal Persecution, he thinks there remains nothing for them to do, but patiently to submit to unavoidable Death. He had no reason to distinguish betwixt suffering according to, and contrary to Law, because he knew that neither the Laws of God, nor Man allow any Subject the Benefit of forcible defence a­gainst the illegal Violence of his Soveraign, but that by the Laws Imperial he ought to dye rather than resist: And if this P. 87. was too light for the Pulpit, and just such another Piece of Drollery, as that in the Dedication to Oliver Cromwel before Killing no Murder, I protest, I know not what it is to be serious in the Pulpit, nor what Apostolical Divinity is. The Gospel from one end to the o­ther is full of this kind of Drollery; and for my own I seriously protest, I had rather be Passive, were [Page 208]it possible, under a Thousand deaths in an Illegal Persecution, than be guilty of such Scurrility, not to say Blasphemy, against the Doctrine of the Cross.

Our Author in this, and such like Reflections, writes more like an Apostate from the Christian Re­ligion, than a Minister of it; and if any thing in this Answer may contribute to make him sensible of his Sin, and bring him to the Humiliation and Re­pentance of his Elder Brother Ecebolius, I shall think my pains well spent.

But to bring this general Discourse about the Common Laws of Soveraignty to our own Case, I shall now proceed to shew, That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire, and that the King of England, by the Imperial Laws of it, is a Com­pleat, Imperial, and Independent Soveraign, to whom the foresaid Rights of Soveraignty do inseparably belong.

The English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty, and Sir Orl. Bridg­mans Speech to the Re­gicides, p. 12, 13. Empire, and the King a Compleat, and Impe­rial Soveraign. Cooks Instit. p. 4. c. 74. Thus by the whole Parliament 24 H. 8. c. 12. it was resolved, and so declared, That by sundry Authen­tick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed, that his Realm of England is an Em­pire, and so hath been accepted in the World, governed by one Supream Head, and King, having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same. So 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of this Kingdom is af­firmed to be an Imperial Crown, in these words: In great Derogation of your Imperial Crown and Au­thority Royal. So 27 H. 8. c. 24. Most Ancient Pre­rogatives and Authorities appertaining to the Imperial [Page 209]Crown of this Realm. So 1 Eliz. c. 2. Restoring and Ʋniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Anci­ent Jurisdictions, &c. So 1 Jacob. cap. 1. A more Famous, and Greater Ʋnion of two Mighty, Famous, and Ancient Kingdoms under one Imperial Crown. And before the Conquest King Rot. Parl. 1 E, 4. parte. 6. at large in Cokes Inst. part. 4, p. 359. Edgar stiled himself in his Char­ter Basileus, Imperator, & Domi­nus; and his Son St. Edward in a Charter, which he made to the Abbot of Ramsey (which my Lord Cook saith he had) stiled himself, Ego Edwardus totius Albionis Dei moderante Gubernatione Basileus.

Thus much may serve to shew, that the Realm of England is a Perfect Soveraignty, or Empire, and the King a Compleat Imperial Soveraign: Where, for the Readers satisfaction, I must observe, That the Regal Estate is then Imperial, when the King is Supream in his Dominions next under God, and hath full, perfect, and entire Jurisdiction from God alone, and all others within his Dominions, by ema­nation from him. Now this Perfection and Fulness of Imperial Power which makes an Imperial Sove­raign, is of two sorts, such as is limited by the Laws of God and Nature only, or such as is limited by the Laws of God, and Nature, and Civil Laws, and Pactions too. The Power in both sorts of So­veraigns is Imperial, i. e. full, perfect, absolute, and entire, but the Exercise of it is differently bounded, and regulated, one by the Laws of God and Nature; and the other by Humane Positive Laws; and the latter Limitation doth no more de­stroy the Fulness, and Perfection, and Supremacy of the Power, than the former; because the Sove­raign, who is under Political Limitations, as to the [Page 210] Exercise of his Power, hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely, fully, and entirely in himself, as he that is only under the limitation of Divine, and Na­tural Laws.

Thus the Learned De laudibus Le­gum Angliae c. 9. Rex Angliae—Prin­cipatu nedum regali, sed & politico, suo po­pulo dominatur.—Regnum sic institui ut lex non liberè valeat po­pulum tyrannide gu­bernare, quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politicâ cohibetur. Chan­cellor Fortescue, grants the King of England to have Regal, or Imperial Power, although it be under the Restraint and Regula­tion of the Power Political, as to the Exercise thereof. And as a Fountain, which hath Channels or Pipes made for it, within which its Waters are bounded in their passage, and through which they are to flow, is ne­vertheless as perfect a Fountain, and hath its Wa­ters as fully, and entirely within it self, as any other Fountain whose Waters flow from it at liberty with­out any such Regulation: So a King, whose Impe­rial Power is limited by Humane Constitutions in the Exercise of it, is nevertheless as Compleat a Soveraign, and hath the Soveraign Power as fully and entirely within himself, as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority, as he will. To be Arbi­trary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial So­veraign, than to be free in the course of its Waters is of the Essence of a Fountain, but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct, for Example, is as perfect in its Kind, and generally more beneficial, and useful to Mankind, than a Free-flowing Spring: So limited Soveraigns are as perfect and essential Soveraigns, as the purely Arbitrary or Despotic, and generally more Beneficial, and Salutary to the World.

All that I have hitherto said, may be better un­derstood by distinguishing between the Being, and Essence of Imperial, or Soveraign Power, and the Exercise and Emanation thereof. As to the Being and Essence of it, it is in as full perfection in the Limited as in the Arbitrary Soveraign, though the Law confines and limits him in the Exercise thereof; but to be confined in the Exercise doth not destroy the Being, nor diminish the perfection of Soveraign Power, for then the Power of God himself could not be Soveraign, because there are certain immu­table Rules of Truth, and Justice, within which it is necessarily limited, and confined. But God is nevertheless a perfect Imperial Soveraign over the Universe, though the Exercise of his Government over his Creatures be limited by the Eternal Laws of Truth and Equity. It is true, that this Limitation of Almighty God is Intrinsecal, and proceeds from the perfection of his Righteous and Holy Nature, but yet it shews, that the most perfect and absolute Imperial Power may, without a Contradiction, be confined within bounds, and limited in the actual Exercise thereof; and that such moderation, and limitation of Power Absolute, and Imperial, doth only qualifie, and temper, and not destroy the Es­sence thereof. And therefore Cook in Caudreys Case saith, That by the Ancient Laws of this Realm Eng­land is an Absolute Empire, and Monarchy; and that the King is furnished with Plenary, and Entire Power, Prerogative, and Jurisdiction, and is Supream Gover­nour over all Persons within this Realm.

And if any man will but attend well to his own Thoughts, he will find no Inconsistency between the Fulness of Soveraign, or Imperial Power in the Root and Essence of it, and a legal limitation of [Page 212]the Use, and Exercise thereof. And from hence it comes to pass, That the King of England, though he be limited in the Ʋse and Exercise of his Power, yet he is as much the Fountain of all Power, and Jurisdiction within his Dominions, as if he were Arbitrary; He hath none to share with him in the Soveraignty, but all Power and Authority is deri­ved from him like Light from the Sun; in Him a­lone it is Radically and Originally placed; He hath no Sharers or Co-partners in the Soveraignty; none Co-ordinate with him in Government; no Equal, nor Superior, but only God, to whom alone he is Subject. Hence saith Lib. 1. c. 8. Bra­cton, who wrote in the Reign of Henry the Third, Omnis quidem sub rege, & ipse sub nullo, sed tantum sub Deo; non est inferior sibi subjectis, non parem habet in regno suo. And afterwards, Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub Homine, sed sub Deo: And then, to shew that he is a Sove­raign doubly limited in the Use of his Power, by the Laws of God, and the Civil Laws of his King­dom, he adds, Et sub Lege, quia Lex facit Reg [...]m. In the same place he calls him Vicarius Dei, and saith, Vices gerit Jesu Christi; and nothing greater could be said of Caesar, or the most Despotic Sove­raign, that ever was.

So the Statute of Praemunire 26 R. 2 c. 5. de­clares, That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection, but immediately Subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown. And in 25 H. 8. c. 21 the Parliament directing their Declaration to the King, enacted and declared, That this your Graces Realm recognizing no Superiour under God, but only your Grace, hath been, and is free from Subjection, &c. [Page 213]And in 24. H. 8. c. 12. after the words before cited it follows, unto whom a Body Politick—been bounden and owen to bear next unto God a Natural, and Humble Obedience, He being instituted and furnished, with plenary, whole, and entire Power, Preheminence, Authority, &c. So 2 Ed. 6. c. 2.—Seing that all Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty, as Su­pream Head of these Churches and Realms. — So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testifie, and declare in my Conscience; that the Queens Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm.

To all this I may add, the common Stile of both Houses in Parliament, Our Gracious Soveraign, and our Dread Soveraign Lord the King: Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De tournes de Viscontes, You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithfull to our Soveraign Lord Edward—.Hence by Sheringham. Kings Suprem. c. 4. Common Law many Pre­rogatives belong to the King by vertue of his Soveraignty. He cannot give any Man the Stile, or Title of Dominus, because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus. He can hold Land of no Man, because he can have no Superior; and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord, whereby his Heir became a Ward, the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land, because, as Glanvil saith, L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem, multo minus Superiorem. The reason is given by Bracton, l. 2. c. 37. And as C. 22. Stanford shews in his Exposition of the [Page 214]Kings Prerogative, By the Common Law there lyeth no Action, or Writ against the King, but when he sei­zeth his Subjects Lands, or Goods, having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do; Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath, and this Petition is called, A Petition of Right.

Having now shew'd, that the Realm of England is a perfect Soveraignty, or Empire, and the King, a Compleat, and Imperial Soveraign, Subject unto none but God, it must needs follow, that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Soveraignty be­longing unto him, as to be unaccountable to any Hu­mane Power; to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword; to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power; to be irresistable, and unopposeable, or not to have his Forces repelled by Force. A Stranger, that hath read, what I have written to shew, that he is a Compleat and Imperial Soveraign, must needs pre­sume, that these, and all other Essential Rights of Soveraignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Soveraignty, or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights. It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown, to acknowledge the King for Supream over all Persons, to say he hath no Superior but God, that he is Subject to him alone, and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power, unless he have all those Rights, which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty, as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customes of this Realm. For first, To say that he is the only Supream Governour within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none, but God, must needs imply, that he is [...], or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribu­nal but that of Heaven, whose Vicegerant he is. If [Page 215]there were any Power in his Kingdoms, that could call him to account for Maladministration, for that very Reason he would not be a Compleat Soveraign, but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior, and not he. It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary, whole and entire Power, and Jurisdiction, that he must be Unaccountable; for from whom shall any person, or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account? All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual, and Temporal is derived and deducted from him, as Supream Head of these Churches, and Realms; and from whom then shall any Man, or state of Men derive Authority of Judging, or Trying him? It can be from none but himself; But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Juris­diction, is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi, and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Na­ture, if that be true, which the Cokes Inst. part 4. p. 14. Suprema Ju­risdictio & potestas Re­gia, etsi Princeps ve­lit, se s [...]p [...]rari non pos­sunt; sunt enim ipsa forma & substantialis essentia Majestatis, ergo manente rege ab eo ab­dicari non possunt. Ca­vedo. Pract. Observ. p. 2. Decis. 40. n. 8. Lords and Commons de­clared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third, That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament, that tended to the Dis­inherison of the King, and his Crown. This Phrase of the Dis­inherison of the King, and the Crown in other Statute of Prae­munire, 16 R. 2. c. 5. Acts of Par­liament is called, The Destructi­on of the Kings Soveraignty, his Crown, his Regality, and things that tend thereunto, things that are openly against the Kings Crown in Derogation of his Regality. So that, if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Soveraignty, [Page 216]it would be of no more Force, than an Act to make another King Co-partner with him in the Supream Power, or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Fo­reign Prince.

But 2dly, To say that the King is the only Supream Governour, instituted, and furnished with plenary, whole, and entire Power, and Jurisdiction, must needs imply, that he alone hath the Power of the Sword; for were the Power of the Sword in any else, he could not be furnished with plenary, whole, and en­tire Power. Besides, the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military, and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him, and the Military in any other Person or State, the English Realm would have two Soveraigns, one Civil, and another Military, which is most absurd to think. Therefore by the Common Laws of Soveraignty, the Power of the Sword, like all other Temporal Power must be derived, and deducted from him, as Supream Head, and Gover­nour of this Realm; and indeed his Soveraignty would be an empty insignificant nothing, were the Scepter in his Hand, and the Sword in any others. And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg. & consuet. regni Anglae, supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King. Re­giam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam, sed & legibus; The Kings Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms, but with Laws; with Arms in the first place, without which his Laws would be little worth. So saith Fletal. 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura—Et materialem gladium, qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum. So saith Bracton in the be­ginning of his first Book, In rege qui rectè regit, ne­cessaria sunt duo haec, Arma videlicet & Leges, &c. And if the Sword be originally in the Kings Hand, [Page 217]and none can bear it without Authority derived from him, it must needs follow from hence, that he must be free from all Coercive, and Vindicative Power, and that no Man can lawfully resist him, or his Forces, because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword [except for private Defence] but by Commission from him. I would fain be resolved by the Super­viser of Julian, who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies, or who hath Autho­rity (for example) to make him a Captain, or as much as a Drummer of a Company, if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands? All Commissions of that na­ture would be unauthoritative; and therefore how a man can either give, or receive such unauthorita­tive Commissions, or oppose, or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them, without sin, I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer, and Mr. J. as a Divine, to re­solve.

It is true what he P. 84. saith, That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants, but then the Question, which he puts to the Doctor upon it, is Fallacious, in de­siring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts [in the Soveraign] which carry no Obligation at all, can oblige men to Obedience? I answer for the Do­ctor, If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience, no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty, No! He ought ra­ther to suffer himself; but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience, [or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose] I answer, That it is the Christian, the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign [till le­gal[Page 218]Remedy can be had] because to oppose, or re­sist him, and his Forces by Force, is unauthoritative, and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm.

But because we live in an Age, wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons, who are deaf to all Reason, and Common Law, which is nothing but Common Reason, when it is urged in defence of the Crown, I will now shew, that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty, which I have been discoursing of, are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm.

First then, He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects, or obnoxious to their Coercive Power, 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Duty­ful, and Loyal Subjects the Lords, and Commons in Parliament assembled, beseech your most Excellent Ma­jesty, that it may be declared, and be it hereby declared, that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together, in Parliament, or out of Parliament, nor the People Collectively, or Repre­sentatively, nor any other Persons whatsoever, ever had, have, or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared, without excepting any man­ner of Cases, or Pretences to the contrary, That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm, gi­ving them Aid, or Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, is Treason. And 3 Inst. p. 9. Coke upon the place, saith, That this was High Treason before by the Com­mon Law; for no Subject can levy War within the [Page 219]Realm without Authority from the King. If any levy War (saith he) to expulse Strangers, to deliver men out of Prisons, to remove Counsellors, or a­gainst any Statute, or to any other End, pretending Reformation, of their own Heads without Warrant, this is Levying of War against the King, because they take upon them Royal Authority. Sheringhams Kings Suprem. c. 3. In the 7th. year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made, wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged, and force of Armour to belong to him: And saith Jenkinsius Re­divivus, p. 19. Judge Jenkins, All Jurisdictions do, and of right ought to belong to the King; all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King; the Power of War only belongs to the King; it belongs to the King to De­fend his People, and to provide Arms, and Force. 13 Car. 2.1. Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm, or without: And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War, it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Su­pream Government, Command, and Disposition of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea, and Land, and of all Forts, and places of Strength, is, and by the Laws of England ever was the Ʋndoubted Right of his Ma­jesty, and his Royal Predecessors, and that both, or ei­ther of the Houses of Parliament, cannot, or ought to pretend to the same, nor can, nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive, or Defensive against his Majesty, his Heirs, and Lawful Successor. Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Ampli­tude, the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament. Were the two Houses serious [Page 220]and in earnest when they made this Declaration? Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence, when the Laws of God and the King­dom Protect them? Surely this is too Light for the Parliament, and is just such another piece of Drollery, as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder. Bating that De­dication, there was never any thing like this Passive A [...] of Parliament, for wheedling the People out of their Lives. Alas! Alas! This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles, and enough to tempt, and in­vite Cruelty into the World. For let a Prince be ei­ther a Papist, or an Atheist, and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act, and then what hin­ders, but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates, and Heresie together, and the other, as many, to see what Faces, and Grimmaces they will make. Accord­ing to this Act, the Lives of the best Men in the King­dom shall be exposed to the Fiery, and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist, or the Extravagant Ʋnaccountable Humours of a Wretch, and hang at their Girdles, as Souls do at the Popes.

Is it not a sad thing, to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament, to leave us nothing to defend our selves, but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears? But yet, so Wise as Legislators, so Religious as Christians, and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parlia­ment, that they made this Declaration the second time, as it may be seen 13, 14 Car. 2. cap. 3.

And by all these Statutes cited, it appears, That the King is Accountable to none but God; That the Sword is solely his, and theirs to whom He commits it; That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power, nor ought any way to be resisted by Force.

Indeed our Author P. 84. doth freely acknowledge, that accord­ing to the known Laws of Eng­land, a Popish Prince, when he is Lawfully possest of the Crown, will be Inviolable and Ʋnaccountable, as to his own Person, and ought by no means to have any Vio­lence offered to him. This is something, but it is not all; 'tis the Truth, but not the Whole Truth: For I have shewn by the known Laws of this Land, that the People can make no Military, or Forcible Re­sistance against the King; they must not rise up a­gainst Him, and his Armies in their own Defence; the Laws have fettered and manacled them with the Sla­vish Principle of Passive Obedience; they must not lift up their Hands against their Soveraign to op­pose him or his Forces, for they have no Right to the Sword, but what he gives them (except for pri­vate Defence) no body without his Authority can Array them, and by these Laws there are no Cases excepted, no, not the Case of a Popish Successor, which makes our Authors Heart ake, & for not excepting of which in his Bow-Sermon, he is so angry at Dr. Hickes. But the Dr. as P. 90. Ignorant as he hath made him in the English Historians, was (it seems) bet­ter versed in the English Antiquities, and Customs, and in the Old Lawyers, and Common, and Sta­tute-Laws of the Land, than to make any Excep­tion, or Distinction, where the Law makes none, according to that Old Maxim, Ʋbi lex non distin­guit, ibi non est distinguendum. And besides, the Dr. remembred what his Uncharitable Brother Mr. J. had forgot, That according to the Act of Uni­formity, he had subscribed, declared, and acknow­ledged, That it is not lawful, upon any pretence [Page 222]whatsoever, to take Arms against the King, and that he did abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him. 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; and whether the Doctor that hath so preached it, or Mr. J. that hath so maliciously opposed it, is more Conformable to the Act, and True to his Oath, let the World judge. He granted, as I ob­served before, that the Person of the King is Invio­lable, and free from Violence; but then, as if he had granted too much, he seems to retract it in part a­gain; For, P. 88. saith he with the Noble Peer, whom he calls a Worthy Person, one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in Massacring a Na­tion. And p. 85. How far men may endeavour not­withstanding [the Kings Person is Inviolable] to save themselves, when Princes will be the Executioners of their own Cruelty, without, breach of their Alle­giance —, If they have a mind they may ask. Ask, of whom? of Harry Nevil? or Mr. H. or of which of the Heretick Lawyers? Which of the discontented Enemies of the Prerogative will oblige the World with this New Discovery? Or if Mr. J. knew it, why did he hide his Talent, and put the World to the trouble of Asking? But I am afraid, because he did not, it is something he durst not tell, some State-Mystery that his Great Assertor of Laws, and Religion now with God told him was not safe to speak, some Plat [...]-Redivivus-Doctrine; likely some­thing, that depended upon this Atheistical, as well as Illegal Principle in England, That all Power is [Page 223]Radically in the People, and that the King is their Mi­nister, and not the Minister of God.

Whatever it was, I will stand no longer guessing: But having shewed that Passive Obedience is required in all Perfect, and Regular Governments by the Common Laws of Soveraignty, and more particu­lar in this Realm by the Imperial Laws thereof; I will proceed to enquire how far the Church, and Ancient Churchmen have agreed with the Three E­states; for I find, that our Author makes much use of Ecclesiastical Authority, particularly of our Re­formers, and of the Book of Homilies, when they favour him; but how far he will value them, when they are against him, especially in this Controver­sie between him, and the Doctor, about Passive O­bedience, I will not undertake to tell.

I will begin with the Necessary Doctrine and Eru­dition for any Christen Man, set forth by King Henry the 8th. with the Advise of his Reforming Clergy, who were the Compilers of it, such as Cramner, and other Martyrs, who on the Fifth Commandment write thus: Subjects be bound not to with­draw their Fealty, Truth, Love, and Obe­dience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be, ne for any cause they may Conspire against his Person, ne do any thing towards the Hinderance, or Hurt thereof, nor of his Estate. And afterwards they prove this out of Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist the Ordinance of God shall get to themselves Damnation. And upon the Sixth Commandment: No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for any cause whatsoever it be, nor against any [Page 224]other (saving for Lawful Defence) without their Princes License— And although Princes, which be the Supream Heads of their Realms, do otherwise than they ought to do; yet God hath assigned no Iudges o­ver them in this World, but will have the Iudgment of them reserved to himself, and will punish them, when he seeth his time— So much for the Authority of Cramner, Ridley, Red­man, &c. From whence I pass to the Book of Ho­milies, which p. 104. he hath recommended to every Bodies Reading, as one of the best Books, that he know; in the World, next the Bible. In the second part of the Sermon of Obedience; Subjects are bound to o­bey them as Gods Ministers, although they be Evil, not only for Fear, but also for Conscience sake; and here Good People, let us all mark diligently, That it is not lawful for Inferiors, and Subjects, in any case to resist, and stand against the Superior Powers: For St. Pauls words be plain, That whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation.—Our Saviour Christ himself, and his Apostles received many, and di­vers Injuries of the Ʋnfaithful, and Wicked Men in Authority; yet we never read that they, or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority. We read oft that they patiently suffered all Troubles, Vexa­tions, Slanders, Pangs, and Pains, and Death it self obediently without Tumult, or Resistance—Christ taught us plainly, that even the wicked Rulers have their Power, and Authority from God; and therefore [mark the Reason] it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them, although they abuse their Power: And yet Mr. J. in contradiction to this Book, which he hath recommended, as the best Book next to [Page 225]the Bible, Preface p. 8. saith, That this Doctrine is Intolerable and con­trary both to the Gospel, and the Law of the Land. But this Homily further tells us, That the Vocation, and Calling of Gods People is to be patient, and of the suffering Side, and that we ought to obey Governours, although they be wicked, and wrong-doers. Afterwards it proves from the Example of David, The we may not withstand, nor in any wise hurt an Sam. Bochart. Ep. ad D. Morley, p. 80. Anointed King, [mark the Reason again] which is Gods Lieutenant, Vicegerent, and Highest Minister, in that Country where he is King. —He durst not once lay Hands upon Gods High Officer the King, whom he did know to be a Person re­served, and kept only to Gods Punishment.—A General Rule and Lesson to all Subjects in the World not to withstand their Liege Lord, and King, nor to take a Sword by their private Authority against their King, Gods Anointed, who only beareth the Sword by Gods Authority, for the Maintenance, &c.—Who only by Gods Law hath the Use of the Sword at his Command—. It is an intolerable Madness, Ig­norance, and Wickedness for Subjects to make any mur­muring, rebellion, resistance, or withstanding Commo­tion, or Insurrection against their Soveraign Lord. We may not in any wise withstand violently, or rebel against Rulers, or make any Insurrection, Sedition, or Tumults either by force of Arms, or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord, or his Officers, but we must in such case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries, re­ferring the Judgment of our Cause only to God.

Here we have Line upon Line, and Precept upon Precept, for Passive Obedience: Here we are taught, [Page 226]that we must suffer all sorts of Wrongs, and Inju­ries from our Soveraign, without Resistance, and withstanding of him; and in this Realm, I am sure the Soveraign cannot wrong or injure his Sub­jects, but contrary to the Political Laws. But to go on with this next best Book to the Bible: In the second part of the Homily against Disobedience, and wilful Rebellion. David was fain to save his Life, not by Rebellion, or any Resistance, but by Flight, and hi­ding himself from the Kings Sight.—Shall not we, being good Men, as we are, Rise and Rebel a­gainst a Prince hated of God, and Gods Enemy, and likely to be Hurtful, and Pernicious to the Common­wealth? Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so Ʋn­kind a Prince, nothing considering, or regarding our True, Faithful, and Painful Service, or the Safeguard of our Posterity? Shall we not Rise and Rebel, against our known, mortal, and deadly Enemy, that seeketh our Lives? No, saith Godly David. What shall we do then to an Evil, to an Ʋnkind Prince, an Enemy to us, hated of God, hurtful to the Commonwealth, &c. Lay no Violent hand upon him, saith Good David, but let him live until God appoint, and work his End.— If King David would make these Answers, as by his Deeds, and Words recorded in the Holy Scriptures in­deed he doth make unto all such Demands concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes, Ʋnkind Princes, Cruel Princes, Princes that be to their good Subjects mortal E­nemies, Princes that are out of Gods Favour, and so Hurtful, or like to be Hurtful to the Commonwealth, what Answer?

And now to use out Unanswer­able Authors P. 111. own words, I have been the more Copious in these [Page 227]Citations, to shew, that this is the stunding Doctrine of the Church of England, to which all Orders of the Clergy have subscribed, and Mr. J. among the rest. The Church of England long since P. 89. calcu­lated and fitted this Doctrine for the use of a Popish Successor: And if the Doctor hath been ill taught by his Mother, the Blame is to be laid upon her, and he is to be excused. It is She that taught him to preach up Passive Obedi­ence like a P. 81. Parasite, Sycophant, and Murderer, Poor Man! He sucked it in his Mothers Milk, it was bred in his Bone, and I fear it will never go out of his Flesh. Nay, to see what a sad Fate attends some Men, he had the Misfortune to be bred in Oxford, where Passive O­bedience hath long been the Doctrine of the Ma­lignant place, as appears by Mr. In the Preface to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons. Gillespic, one of Mr. J.'s Old Masters, who called Preces, & Lachrymae, the New Oxford Divinity, which however is somewhat less Offensive, than the Mountebank Re­ceipt of Prayers, and Tears. Nay, so determined was the Doctor by his unhappy Stars to imbibe that Slavish Principle, that he was bred in the very same College, where the Immortal Sanderson drew up the Ʋniversities Ʋnanswerable Reasons against the Co­venant out of which Mr. J. hath Preface p. 3. taken the most witty Allusion in his Book, where speaking of Passive Obedience without a Law to re­quire it, he saith, It is like one of the marvellous Ac­cidents of Transubstantiation, which makes a Shift to subsist when it hath lost its Subject; which is the very [Page 228]same Illustration that the Judicium Acad. Oxon. de faedere, p. 66. Rex vel in propriâ suâ personâ coram, & cor­poraliter adest, vel ab­sens praesentiam suam supplet per delegatos quosdam [sive commis­sionarios] suos magni sigilli autoritate ad hoc deputatos, quaevis alia praesentia realis aenig­matis instar est, tran­substantiationis mon­stro haud absimilis, spe­ctrum scilicet, & phan­tasma.— U­niversity made use of to set forth the monstrous Absurdity of pre­tending the Kings Authority and Presence, where he was neither in Person, nor by his Commissioner. I think it not amiss to put Mr. J. in mind of his vain Distinction, lest his Su­perviser, should teach him to reply, That the Imperial Laws above cited, regard the Politick, and not the natural Person of the Soveraign. But to prevent him from flying to this miserable shift, I must tell him, That in the Coke in Calvins Case, p. 439. Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers, the Father and the Son, to cover their Treason, invent­ed this damnable Opinion, That Homage, and Al­legiance was due to the King more upon the account of his Politick Capacity, than his Natural Person: Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents; 1. That if the King did not demean himself by Reason in the Right of his Crown, his Lieges were bound by Oath to remove him. 2. That when the King could not be reformed by Sute of Law, that ought to be done by the Sword. 3. That his Lieges be bound to Govern in Aid of him, and in Default of him. And which were condemned by two Parlia­ments, one in the Reign of Ed. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le Spencer, and the other in Ann. 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1.

If I should produce no more Authorities, but these already cited, it were enough to shew the Con­currence of the Church, and Church-men with the Three Estates of this Realm as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance, or Passive Obedience, but because I have undertaken the Doctors Vindication, I will shew what brave Men before him have defended this Bloody Doctrine, that so, if he cannot be Ju­stified, he may at least be Excused.

I begin with Bishop Bilson, as I find him speaking in his Book of the True Difference between Christian Subjection, and Ʋnchristian Rebellion, written against the Papists in Queen Elizabeths Time, and printed 1586. There p. 256. Theoph. saith, Our Saviour foreteaching his Disciples, that they should be brought before Kings, and Rulers, and put to death, and hated of all men for his Names sake, addeth not as you would have it, and he that first rebelleth, but he that Endureth to the End shall be saved; And again, Nor with Vio­lence restrain them, but in patience possess your Souls. p. 260. Deliverance if you would have, obtain it by Prayer, and expect it in Peace, those be Weapons for Christians. p. 262. The Subject hath no refuge against his Soveraign, but only to God, by Prayer, and Patience. p. 278. Your Spanish Inquisitions, and French Massa­cres, where you murdered Men, Women, and Children by thousands and ten thousands, against the very Grounds of all Equity, Piety, and Humanity, without convicting, accusing, or calling them before any Judge to hear what was misliked in them, are able to set Grave and Good Men at their Wits end, and to make them justly doubt, since you refuse the course of all Divine, and Humane Laws with them, whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such Barbarous Blood­suckers, yet we stand not on that, if the Laws of the [Page 230]Land, where they converse, do not permit them to Guard their Lives, when they are assaulted against Law (or if they take Arms as you do, to Depose Princes) we will ne­ver excuse them from Rebellion. p. 279. For my part I must confess, except the Laws of those Realms do per­mit the People to stand on their Right, if the Prince would offer that Wrong, I dare not allow their Arms.

This is his determination in case of a Massacre, which is the Extremity of Tyranny, and it is a­greeable not only to the Scripture, but to the Pra­ctise of the Primitive Christians, who against E­quity, Humanity, and the Common Law of all Civil Governments, endured many Tyrannical Mas­sacres, when they were able to resist.

And Bishop Jewel, whom I should have set first, in his Defence of the Apology p. 15. saith unto Harding, We teach the people, at St. Paul doth, to be Subject to the Higher Powers, not only for Fear, but also for Conscience: We teach them, that whos [...] striketh with the Sword by private Authority, shall perish with the Sword. If the Prince happen to be wicked, or cruel, or burdensom, we teach them to say with St. Ambrose, Arma nostra sunt preces, & lachrymae; Tears and Prayers be our Weapons. He reckons this Bishop a­mong the Worthies p. 14. of Preface, but accord­ing to him he must have been, but a Quack in Di­vinity, for he was for the old Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears. The Peole of England it seems were taught in his time, as the Doctor taught the Citizens of London in his Bow-Sermon, and there­fore Passive Obedience was either Heterodox Divi­nity then, or else it is none now. Nay, it was taught by the Martyrs themselves in Queen Maries days; for Bradford in his Letter saith,—Howbeit, [Page 231]never for any thing resist or rise up against the Magi­strates. And Bishop Latimer in King Edward the Sixths days, taught it very plainly in his 4th. Ser­mon before the King, in his Familiar Homespun Stile; When I was travailed in the Tower (saith he) my Lord Darsy was telling me of the Faithful Service, that he had done the Kings Majesty, that dead is. And had I seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field (said he) and had I seen his Grace come against us, I would have lighted from my Horse, and taken my Sword by the Point, and yielded it into his Graces Hands. Mary (quod I) but in the mean season you played not the part of a Faithful Subject, in hold­ing with the People in a Commotion, and Disturbance. It hath been the Cast of all Traytors to pretend nothing against the Kings Person, they never pretend the matter to the King, but to others. Subjects may not resist any Magistrates; nor ought to do nothing contrary to the Kings Laws.

I could produce much more to the same purpose, out of Archbishop Sandys his Sermons, Dr. Willet upon Rom. 13. Dr. Hakewels Scutum Regium, Dr. Boys his Postils, Dean Nowell on the 5th. Com. Dr. Owen in his Antiparaeus, Mr. Perkins on the 5th. Com. the Little Book called Deus & Rex, not to mention Bishop Sanderson, and other latter Divines, but I have said enough to Justifie Dr. Hickes, or Con­demn the Church of England, and her Reformers, and the most Famous Divines that She hath bred. Let Mr. J. look to it, either the Dr. hath done well, or else they are all in the same Condemnation with him. And that he may know what a severe Censure he deserves for opposing this Evangelical [Page 232]Principle, which the Dr. preached up, I refer him to Erasmus in Luc. 22.36. especially to these words; Mihi nulla haeresis videtur perniciosior, nulla blasphe­mia secleratior, quam si quis philistinorum exemplo E­vangelici agri puteos, qui a Christo venam habent aqua vivae scatentis in vitam aeternam, terrâ oppleta & sensum spiritualem vertat in carnalem, doctrinam caelestem depravet in terrenam, ac sacro-sancta Christi dogma­ta detorqueat, imò corumpat, id (que) reclamanti­bus omnibus ejus praeceptis, reclamante totâ ipsius vitâ, reclamante doctrinâ Apostolicâ, refragantibus tot mar­tyrum millibus, repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus. I do not accuse him of Heresie, Blasphemy, or per­verting the Truths of the Gospel, but if Erasmus do it, I cannot help it, he must get off, as well, as he can.

Having now, I hope, shewn that Passive Obedi­ence is required of all Subjects by the Common Laws of Soveraignty, and in particular of the Eng­lish by the Laws Imperial belonging to this Crown, I might here conclude this Chapter, but that having undertaken the Defence of the Doctor, I am obliged to answer some particular Passages, which cannot well be answered but apart by themselves.

In the 80th. p. he cites this Passage out of the Doctors Sermon, ‘Neither doth the Gospel prescribe any Remedy but Flight against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate, allowing of no other Mean, when we cannot escape, betwixt denying, and dying for the Faith.’ To this he Replyes, ‘What the Gospel Prescribes is one thing, what it Allows is another:’ There are ten ten thousand things allowed by the Gospel, not one of which is prescribed by it. But what is this to the purpose? the Doctor speaks there of the only Gospel-Expedient, or Remedy against Persecution, [Page 233]which is Flight. He asserts, that the Gospel allows of no other Mean against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate; and if it allow no other, then certainly it prescribes That. The Physitian that al­lows but of one only Medicine against the Plague, doth certainly prescribe it to the Patient: And to make no more words about the matter, Flight, by the Gospel, is a prescription as necessary for a Chri­stian Subject that would save his Life in time of Persecution, as a Ship to a Man that would cross the Seas.

Afterwards he saith p. 89. That he is afraid, that the Doctor calculated, and fitted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for the use of a Popish Successor, and to make us an easier Prey to the Bloody Papists. This is a very Uncharitable Censure from a Brother; and I am verily perswaded, that if Mr. J. would speak the Truth betwixt God and his own Conscience, he doth not believe, that the Doctor fitted that Do­ctrine on the 30th. of Jan. for the use of a Popish Successor, but for the proper Design of the Day, To shew (as he speaks in his Sermon) the great Diffe­rence betwixt the Principles, and Practises of Christ and the Primitive Christians, and the Principles and Practises of our New Reformers. Had it been some New Notion never started before, had it not been taught by all the Episcopal Divines of the English Reformation, nay, had it not been a plain Gospel-Notion taught and practised by Christ, and his A­postles, who (to use our Authors Irreverent words in a Reverent manner) turned the Church into a Sham­bles, then he might have said that it was Calculated, and Fitted by the Doctor, but now I have made it appear, how it was calculated and fitted to his Hands. It was calculated, and fitted by Bishop [Page 234] Latimer in the time of King Edw. 6. against the time of his Popish Successor Queen Mary, and he suffered at a Stake, to Exemplifie his Doctrine in the fol­lowing Popish Persecution, and so (I am confident) would the Doctor, and the rest of his Thebaean Bre­thren, (however My. J. may please to slander them) by the help of Gods Assistance do so too.

But let us see his pretented Reasons for this Un­charitable Censure. Why else (saith he) is there all that Wrath against every little Pamphlet, which opposes that Interest? The Pamphlets cited by the Doctor in p. 29. of his Sermon, are, The Appeal from the City to the Country, Plate Redivivus, A Brief Histo­ry of the Succession, A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend, shewing that the Bishops are not to be Judges, &c. Dialogue between Tutor and Pupil; And these Pamphlets, which the Dr. hath there shew'd to be Calculated, and fitted against the True English Go­vernment, and to be Impious, and Treasonable Pieces, he represents as written only in Opposition to the Popish Interest. How (saith he) comes the Hi­story of the Succession to be an Impious and Treason­able Book? Why, I'le tell him in the words of Dr. True and Exact History of the Succes­sion. p. 2. Br. It is an Impious Book for falsifying such Ancient Historians as Wil­liam of Malmsbury, Henry of Huntington, Simeon Dunelm, Ailredus, Abbas Rival­lensis, and others, whose Words, if he had faithfully cited them, would have been of no use to him; for of­ten in the Middle of the Sentences, and of the Records which he hath cited, he hath left out such Words, and Matters, as would have ruined the Design of his Hi­story. He may see many Instances of this Charge in the Parallel at the End of the Doctors Book, who [Page 235]concludes thus; These are some of his many wilfull mi­stakes, and indeed there is scarce one Instance in the Pamphlet, that is | not either fasly cited, or falsly applyed. I think it is plain Knavery, and Impiety thus to fal­sifie and wrest good Authors, and that it is proper English to call all those Impious Books, which so pervert the Truth. This Dr. Br. hath been a very Troublesom Man to Impious Falsifiers of Ancient Historians, and Records; and as one upon reading the Title Page of his Book against Mr. Petit, said, If this Charge be made good, Mr. Petit may be ashamed to walk the Streets: So say I, if the words I have ciged out of his Answer to the Brief History of the Succession be true, the Book is Impious, and the Author a Knave. But it is Mr. J's Interest, that the Perverters and Wresters of Good Authors may not incur such severe Censures, for however he hath Preface p. 29. declared, that he hath been as Careful in his Citations, as ever he was in telling Money, and that he is ready to make them Good: Yet I have made it ap­pear, That tho his Money is right, as to the Tale, yet it is deficient in the Intrinsick, often wanting Purity, and Weight.

But secondly, It is a Treasonable Book, because it asserts, That the Descent of the Crown doth not purge all Defects whatsoever, p. 17. And because p. 6, & 7. he manifestly Favours Popular Elections of Princes, and the Deposition of them for the Breach of their Coronation Oaths, although he could not but know, That a King hath all the Rights of Soveraignty with­out Coronation, Calvins Case, Cokes Reports part 7. and that it is not necessary, though it be ex­pedient for his own Honour, and the Peoples Satis­faction, [Page 236]that he should be Crown'd. The Kings of England are Compleatly and Absolutely Kings before Coronation; and many of them, as Henry the 6th, have lived many years uncrowned; and o­thers of them, as Henry the 3d. and Richard the 1st. were twice Crowned; as we read of David, that he was twice anointed by the People. But there are Hereticks among Lawyers, as well as Divines, and they will wrest the Laws, as the other do the Scriptures to their own Damnation: And truly this Doctrine of Deposing Kings, makes the King of England a Subject, and the Three Estates his Sove­raign. And it is a Treasonable Doctrine in the same sense that the Act of Uniformity declares the Position of taking up Arms by the Kings, Authority a­gainst his Person, a Traiterous Position, because it tends to Treason: And if a man should write a Book to prove it, it would be a Treasonable or Trai­terous Book.

For the same Reason the Book, of which he saith my Lord Hollis is the Author, is an Impious, and Treasonable Book; Impious, because it abounds with Falsifications of Records, as the Authors of the Rights of the Bishops, and the Grand Question have proved; and Treasonable, because it asserts this Traiterous Position, that the King is one of the three Estates. The belief of this very Position, made Mr. Baxter, (as he himself declares) a Rebel, and I question not, but it made thousands more besides him; and never did man disgrace the Memory of a Peer more, than Julian hath done that of my Lord, in reporting him to be the Author of the Book: For he being a man Learned in the Laws, could not as­sert this Position but against his Conscience, and with an Ill Intent, which makes Mr. J. answerable [Page 237]to the Heir, for the Scandal he hath fixed upon his dead Father, who is not able to Justifie himself. The Dialogue between the Tutor and Pupil, is also a Wicked and Treasonable Piece, because it misre­presents the English Government, as if there were a Reciprocal Contract betwixt the King, and the People, and as if the Parliament ought, whether or no the King pleased, to sit, till all Grievances were redressed, and Petitions answered, contrary to the standing Maximm of the English Government, Rex est Principium, Caput, & finis, Parliamenti.

He also censures the Doctor for saying, That the Brief History of the Succession was but a New Dress of Dolemans Title to the Crown; If (saith he) he had read the Ancient Historians of England instead of Dissenters Sayings, he would likewise have found it possible to write an History of the Succession without borrowing from Doleman. But the possibi­lity of the Thing is another matter; the Doctor asserted, that it was Doleman all over, Doleman in a New Dress, and whether it is not true, he re­fers himself to the True and Exact History of the Succession, and to the Apostate Protestant, where it is shewn, not only how much that Author, but Mr. H. too, if they be not the same Man, have Trucked, and Traded with the Jesuit, as much as the Collection of Speeches, &c. the Treatise of the Broken Succession, or Bradshaw himself ever did.

I refer him also to the Apostat Protestant for an An­swer to his childish Reflection upon the Dr. about the Dissenters Sayings, there he may see how well versed the Doctor is in the Fanatical Originals, how his Ser­mon was made before the first of those Books was [Page 238]printed; and I will further assure him, that if he please to come to the Doctors Study, he shall find set in an odd Corner many of the Famous, both Ancient and Modern Fanatical Treatises: There he shall see Junius Brutus, Lex Rex, Prynn [...] Soveraign Power of Parliaments, Naphthali, Jus Populi Vindicatum, Miltons Apology, Plato Redivious, with very many others, and Julian the Apostate a­mong the rest.

CHAP. XI. Wherein are further considered the Reasons for Passive Obedience, or Non-Resistance; and wherein it is shewn, that Resistance would be a Greater Mischief, than Pas­sive Obedience.

I Have shewed in the Precedent Chapter, how the Common Laws of Soveraignty, and more particu­larly the Laws Imperial of this Realm, and the Do­ctrine of the Church of England, do condemn all Resistance, and Force against the Soveraign; and I think it will not be Superfluous to my Design in this Undertaking, to weigh and consider a little further, the Reasons, which the Acts, and Authors above cited assign for this Doctrine; and the most Gene­ral, and that which comprehends all the rest, is this, That the Soveraign hath neither Superior, nor Equal upon Earth, but is next unto God, whose Anointed and Vicegerent he is.

By the Sovergain must be always understood the Real, and Compleat Soveraign, because there are many seeming Soveraigns, which are not really Such. As for Example, The Kings of Sparta ex­ercised the Soveraign Power, but they were not Real Soveraigns, because they were accountable for their Mis-government to the Ephori, who were chosen for that purpose by the People. And there­fore neither the Kings, who were Subject to the E­phori, [Page 240]nor the Ephori, who were appointed by the Peo­ple, but the People themselves was the real Soveraign next under God: The Kings had only the Exercise of the Soveraign Power, but not the Soveraign Power it self, that was Radically, and Originally in the People, and derivatively in the Kings, who were no more than Ministers, and Trustees of the People, whom they could call to an Account by Judges of their own Appointment.

So in the Government of Venice, though there be but one Duke, yet because the Supream Power is not invested in him but in the Senate, that State is not really Monarchical, but Aristocratical; and the Duke is not a Real, but only a Titular, or Um­bratical Soveraign, the very Creature of the Senate, which is his Superior, and the true Soveraign next under God.

So in the Cantons of Suitzerland, though the Administration of the Government be in the Ma­gistrates, and so make it look like an Aristocracy, yet in reality it is a Democracy, because they derive their Power from the People, and are to give an Account of the Exercise of it to them, or those whom they appoint.

On the other hand, in the English Government, though the House of Commons bears the Shew of a Democracy, and the Peers look like an Aristocra­cy among us, yet our Government is a perfect Mo­narchy, because the Supream Power is, (as I have proved) neither in the one, nor in the other, nor in both together, but solely in the Person of the King.

I was the more willing to make this Observati­on, that when I speak of Soveraign Princes, I may not be maliciously traduced, as if I spoke of them [Page 241]exclusively of other Soveraigns, as if Monarchy were of Sole Divine Right. For want of this Di­stinction other Writers have had this invidious Im­putation laid upon them; But this Reason of not Resisting the Soveraign, because he is Gods Vice­gerent, and only [...] Subject to him, is a Common Reason of Passive Obedience to all Soveraigns, as well, as unto Kings, and unto Kings, as well as unto any other Soveraigns.

The forecited Acts, and Authors, render no o­ther Reason but this, which indeed is vertually ma­ny other Reasons; for if the Government of Men, as well as of Angels, be from God, then it must fol­low, First, That upon whomsoever God is under­stood to bestow the Soveraign Authority, he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis, or Essential Rights of Soveraignty, ac­cording to that Maxim, Qui dat esse, dat & omnia pertinentia ad esse; He that gives the Essense, gives also the Properties belonging to the Essense. Wherefore as an Architect, who makes a Piece of Timber a Cube, or a Sphere, gives it all the Properties of a Cube, or a Sphere: So God, when he makes any Man a Soveraign, he gives him all the Essential Rights of Soveraignty, one of which is to be free from Resistance, or Forcible Repulse; For if any man, or number of men under him, had lawful Power to take up Defensive Arms, or use Defensive Force a­gainst the Soveraign, and his Forces, he could not for this Reason be Soveraign, because he would be Subject unto a Controllable Power. For according to this Supposition, his Subjects would have a Power of Judging of his Actions, whether they were Just, or Injurious, Lawful, or Unlawful, and when they might make a War Defensive, and when not, which [Page 242]is in effect to destroy Soveraignty, and make the Soveraign Inferior to the People: And therefore to cut off all pretenses of Resistance in the English Go­vernment, the Three Estates (as I have proved be­fore) have declared against all Defensive, as well as Offensive War, it being impossible for the Sove­raignty to consist with the Liberty of that Pretense: Just as among the Romans it was inconsistent with the Soveraign Unaccountable Power, which the Ma­sters by Law had over the Slaves, for them to have a Liberty of Rising up against them, under the pre­tence of Self-defence.

In all Soveraign Governments Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular; they must trust their Lives, and Liberties with their Soveraign, and therefore Quod dicitur sub­jectionem dominis de­beri etiam duris, idem ad reges quo (que) referen­dum, nam quod sequi­tur ei fundamento su­perstructum, non minus subditorum, quàm ser­vorum officium est. De Jure, l. 1. c. 4, 6. Grotius, after St. August. applyes that place in 1 Pet. 2.19. which concerns the Passive Behaviour of Servants unto their Masters under the Ro­man Government, unto all Sub­jects: Servants, be Subject to your Masters with all Fear, not only to the Good, and Gentle, but also to the Froward; Quod autem dixi de domino, hoc intelli­gite de potestatibus & regibus & ominibus cul­minibus hujus seculi, a­liquando enim potesta­tes bonae sunt & timent Deum, aliquando non timent Deum. Julia­nus extitit infidelis Im­perator nonne extitit Apostata, Iniquus, Idololatra, milites Christiani servierunt Imperatori infideli, &c. In Ps 1 [...]4. Vid. Sam. Bochart. Ep. ad D. Morley, p. 77, 78, 79. for this is thank­worthy, or acceptable to God: If a Man for Couscience-sake towards God endure grief, suffering wrong­fully. For what Glory is it, if when you are buffeted for your Faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if when you do well, and suffer for it, this is acceptable with God. [Page 243]For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suf­fered for us, leaving us an Example, that we should fol­low his Steps. For Real and Compleat Soveraigns, whether Arbitrary, or Limited, can [...]y under no­thing but Moral Restraint, and Obligations not to Injure their Subjects, for if they were under the Sir Orl. Bridg­mans Speech to the Re­gicides, p. 13, 14. Coaction of another Power, or under Legal Perils, or Penalties, they could not be Real, and Compleat Soveraigns: And there­fore our Old Lawyer Bracton, who so often declares the King to be next unto God, doth also declare, That when he acts Illegally, not as Gods Mi­nister, but as the Minister of the Devil, as ourP. 84. Author well observes, yet he is not to be con­travened, or resisted. Locus erit supplicationi quod [Rex] factum suum corrigat, & emendet; quod qui­dem si non fecerit, satis sufficit ei ad poenam, quod Do­minum expectet ultorem. Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare, multo fortiùs contra factum suum ve­nire, l. 2. c. 7. If the Reader please to consult that Chapter, he will find by many Expressions, that the King hath no other, but a Moral Obligation to observe the Laws. Sic & beata Dei genitrix virgo Maria, quae singulari privilegio supra Legem fuit, pro ostendendo tamen humilitatis exemplo legalibus subdi non refugit institutis: But then if he will be a Ty­rant, and act Illegally, it is sufficient for his Pu­nishment, that he hath God for his Avenger; for no Man must dispute against what he doth, much less op­pose, or resist it. The King is bound in Justice, and Equity, and for Example sake to observe his Laws; but if he will lay aside all Conscience, and the Fear of God his only Superior, the Rights [Page 244]of Soveraignty secure the Nec praetereun­dum, quod Samuel jus­sus Israelitis jus regium edisserere, 1 Sam. 8, 9. Hoc (inquit) est juris regii, qui regnabit su­per vos. Filios vestros tollet, & imponet curri­bus suis, &c. Ait haec esse juris regii, non quod coram Deo justa sint, nec enim David Uriae uxorem, ne [...] Achab Na­bato vineam eripere po­tuerunt sine crimine, sed quia hujusmodi scelera reges tam impunè per­petrant, quàm si essent maximè licita, ideò ad­ditur populum, ita op­pressum Deum implora­turum, quia contra vim regis nulla sunt huma­na remedia. Sam. Bo­chart Ep. p. 87. Tyrant as well, as the Good King, from Resistance.—Si autem Princeps, vel Rex, vel ali­us, qui superiorem non habue [...]it, nisi dominum, contra ipsum non ha­bebitur remedium per assisam, immo tantùm locus [...]rit supplicationi, u [...] factum suum corrigat, & emendet, quod si non fecerit, sufficiet ei pro paena, quod Dominum expectet ul­torem. If it be the King, or any other [Duke, &c.] who hath no Superior, but God, that shall [Il­legally disseize] there shall be [...] Remedy against him by Assize, only there shall be place for Petition, that he would correct, or amend, what he hath done amiss; which if he refuse to do, it is sufficient for his Punishment, that he may expect God for his Avenger.

This Moral Obligation, which the King hath to observe the Laws, is further increased by his Coro­nation-Oath, as Bracton observes l. 3. de Action. c. 9. But then, as in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King, but what they are bound to perform unsworn: So the King in his Corona­tion-Oath promises nothing to the People, but what in Justice, and Equity he is bound to perform unsworn. Ad hoc (saith Bracton) electus, & creat [...] est, ut justitiam faciet universis, &c. and Separare a [...] ­tem debet Rex, cum sit Dei Vicarius, jus ab injuria aequum ab iniquo, &c. But then if he will perver [...] [Page 245]the great End, for which God made him King, if he will not Act, as it becomes Gods Vicar, if he will obstruct, or pervert the Laws, and govern Ty­rannically, yet still there is left no Remedy to his Subjects By the Law, but Moral Perswasion, for the Laws Imperial of this Realm have declared him to be a Sir Orl. Bridg­mans Speech, p. 12, 13, 14. Free, Unconditio­nal, and Independent Soveraign, and exempted him from all Co­action, and Force. Nay, to shew that the Kings of England were in this respect as perfect Soveraigns, as the Caesars, he applyes unto them those Memorable Sayings of Valentinian the Younger, and Alexander Severus; Majus Imperio est submittere legibus principatum. Bract. l. 3. de Act. c. 9. & l. 4. c de Leg. & Const. It really is a greater thing than the Empire, for the Prince to sub­mit to the Laws. And Nihil tam pro­prium est Imperii, quàm legibus vivere. Bract. ib. l. 3. c. de Test. There is nothing more proper for the Em­pire, than that the Emperor should live according to Law. To which, [...]f he pleased, he might have added that set down so often in the Instit. quibus mo­dis Testam. infirm. 8. Secundum hoc Divi Se­verus & Antoninus sae­pissime rescripserunt, li­cèt enim (inquiunt) le­gibus soluti sumus, at­tamen legibus vivi­mus. Rescripts of Severus, and Antoninus; Although we be loosed from the Laws, yet we live by the Laws, Indeed our Kings differ from the Caesars in this, th [...] (as the same Lib. 1. c. 2. De Laud. Leg Ang. c. 9. Bracton, and (‖) Fortescue long since observed) That they are limited in the Exercise of their Legislative Power, not being able to make, or repeal Laws without the consent of the Three Estates. But still, if they will turn Tyrants, nei­ther fearing God, nor the Censures of Good Men, [Page 246]they are by the Law of the English Empire, as free from Punishment, Compulsion, or Resistance, as the Caesars were.

But Secondly, The foresaid Generall Reason of not resisting the Soveraign because he is Gods Vice-gerent, doth imply that he hath all his Power from God. This is very Ancient Divinity, as ap­pears from what Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar, c. 2.37. Thou O King, art a King of Kings, for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom, Power, and Strength, and Glory; and from what he said to his Grandson Belshazzar, c. 5.18, 19. The Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom, and Majesty, and Glory, and Honour, and for the Majesty that he gave him, all People, Nations, and Languages trembled, and feared before him: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, whom he would he set up, and whom he would he pulled down. Accordingly it is written of Cyrus the Heathen Emperor, Isa. 45.1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus, whose Right Hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him. And 2 Chron. 36.23. Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia, all the Kingdoms of the Earth hath the Lord God given me. So Prov. 8.15, 16. By me Kings Reign, and Princes decree Justice; by me Princes Rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth. And God declared by Jeremy, c. 27.5, 6. I have made the Earth, and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me; and now I have given all these Lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar my Servant.

Now, if according to these Express Texts the Soveraign have all his Power from God, he must by consequence have the Power of the Sword from [Page 247]him, as St. Paul particularly observes, He beareth not the Sword in vain, for he is the Minister of God. And if he have the Power of the Sword from him, it must needs follow, Praeterea cum in regno gladii jus nulli competat, praeterquam ipsi regi, aut iis, qui­bus a rege id concessum est; peto quo jure quis aude [...]t in summum a­nimadvertere, utrum jure concesso an usurpa­to? Si concesso dixerit, rursus petam a quo con­cesso? Utrum a prin­cipe vel ab aliquo alio praeter principem? Si a principe respondeat, hoc ipso [...]rit ridiculus, quia non est credibile principem ulli indul­gere jus gladio in seip­sum utendi—Quantamcun (que) in ali­um transferat princeps potestatem semper manet Superior. Sam Bochart. Ep, p. 90, 91. That the People have no Right to bear it, neither for Offence, nor Defence or Resistance, without Commission from him. He may indeed abuse this, as well as any other Branch of his Power; he may bear the Sword not for the Defence, but for the Offence and Destruction of his Subjects, but if he do, they have no Au­thority to Resist him, they can­not without sinful Usurpation oppose their Swords to his; as it was written by the Apostle in the time of a Jam nequis haec dici putet de bonis dun­taxat regibus, cogitan­dum est Petrum, & Paulum vel sub Clau­dio, vel sub Nerone scrip­sisse, quorum ille vecors fuit, hic monstrum hominis, quibus tamen Christianos jubent esse subditos, non solum metu paenae, sed & [...]b conscientiam, & propter Deum. Nec multo meliorem fuisse Tiberium cui Chri­stus reddi voluit ea, quae [...]rant Caesaris. Ib. p [...]2. Wicked Ty­rant, He that resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to to themselves Damnation. And how can a Man be guiltless that draws and uses his Sword, with­out Authority from him to whom the jus gladii belongs? much more if he useth it against him, who only hath the Autho­rity of the Sword. This very [Page 248]Consideration made Grotius condemn all violent defence against unjust Force from Publick Authori­ty, Contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam. De Imp. c. 3. n. 6.

Our Blessed Saviour never intended to diminish, or destroy the Rights of Soveraignty, but on the contrary was very tender of them, commanding his Disciples to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesars, and this was said by him with respect to Tibe­rius, who was a Man excessive in Cruelty, Drunken­ness, and Lust. It was said indeed upon the ac­count of paying Tribute, but holds as well to all the Rights of Soveraignty, and particularly as to this of being the Master of the Sword; and there­fore when St. Peter drew his Sword in his Masters Defence against the Officers of the Cruel Sanhedrim, he sharply rebuked him, saying, Put up thy Sword, for he that useth the Sword, shall perish by the Sword. This very Text was ever understood by the Primi­tive Christians, as an absolute Prohibition to use any Violence against the Soveraign, and was applyed by Maunitius the Commander of the Thebaean Legion, when he charged his Souldiers in Christs Name, not to Resist under the Specious Pretext of Self-De­fence.

And truly, if the Christian Religion had given a Right to the Professors of it to defend themselves, and it against the Illegal Violence of the Soveraign, it had not been a taking up of the Cross, but of the Sword, not Evangelical, as our Author speaks of Passive Obedience, but Mahumetan; and truly one who knew no more of the Gospel, than what he might learn of it out of Julian, would never ima­gine that Jesus had said, If any man will come after me let him deny himself, and take up his Cross, and fol­low [Page 249]me. And whosoever shall lose his Life for my sake and the Gospels, the same shall save it. And every one that forsaketh Houses, or Brethren, or Sisters, or Fa­ther, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands for my Names sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit Everlasting Life. Or that his Beloved Dis­ciple the Prophet of the New Testament had said of the Martyrs of the Dr. Mores Apo­calypsis Apocalypseos, c. 13.10. c. 14.12, 13. Pro­testant Religion, Here is the Patience, and Faith of the Saints; Here is the Patience of the Saints; Blessed are the Dead, or the Mar­tyrs, that die in the Lord. But the Author of Juli­an, it seems, will shew no Faith, nor Patience but in a Legal Persecution, he will not die a Martyr, but when the Laws are against him; but if his Sove­raign attack him against Law, i. e. against the Laws which are made for the Defence of the Subject, he will be even with him, he will without Authority take up Defensive Arms against him contrary to the Laws which are made for the Defence and Honour of the Soveraign, and so commit as Damnable a Sin one way, as his Prince doth the other.

This is plainly, as Max. Tyrius speaks of Private Revenge, [...], to do one Injury for another. His Soveraign injures him against the second, and he will therefore injure his Soveraign against the first Table of Civil Government. He will sin against the Laws Imperial, because his Prince sins against the Political. Well, let him do so at his Peril, [...] in both Senses, he may be legal­ly Hanged for it in this World, and (without Re­pentance) will be Damned for it in that which is to come.

But in the third place, The General Reason as­signed for Not-resisting the Soveraign, because he is Gods Vicegerent, doth imply, That to resist him, is to resist God, who hath made him Soveraign, and set him above all Coercion, and Force. If the Na­ture of Soveraignty, and of a Crown Imperial did not require, that he should not be violently resisted, yet the Honour of God, whose Image, and Substi­tute he is, would require the Subject not to do so, lest he should seem to resist God. The King (saith C. 21. Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor) in regard of the Na­ture of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man, but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity, he is like unto God, who is Lord over all, whose Image he beareth, and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5. Vegetius saith, That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved, because he is a Corporeal God.

I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers, to shew how the King is the Minister, and Image of God, but I have since found them all, with far many more in Archbishop Ʋshers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince, To which I re­fer the Reader.

Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfe­ctions. Finch lib. 2. del Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham, Roy est le test del [...]bien public immediate de­soubs deiu, &c. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God, over all Persons, and in all Causes: And therefore because he represents the Per­son [Page 251]of God, and bears his Image, the Law attri­buteth unto him a Similitudinary Manner, a Shadow of Divine Excellencies, namely, Soveraignty—Maje­sty — Infiniteness— Perpetuity— Perfe­ction — Truth— Justice—. Now to assert that Soveraign Princes are the Vicegerents, and Images of God, is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures, Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy People; God standeth in the Congrega­tion of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods, I have said ye are Gods, and all of you the Children of the most High; Accordingly saith Jesus, Joh. 10.34. Is it not written in your Law [of Princes] I said ye are God: If he called them Gods, of whom the Word of God there speaks, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, thou Blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God. These Earthly Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò — precipuè convenire, quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum no­men, ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18. 1 Sam. 2.25. Ps. 82.6. proinde Solomon Ps. 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Aposto­lus, Solomonis typo ad­umbratum, sed sensus typicus literalem non ex­cludit, imo supponit. I­ta (que) etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus, nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum, Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium, & sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines, & Ea­phantus ejusdem sect [...]e. Quod Deo quidem inest, inest & regi, ut sibi ipse imperet, unde vocatur [...], nulli autem subjiciatur, Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas [...], &c. Sam. Bochart. Ep. p. 84, 85. Gods, these Vicegerents and I­mages of the Almighty So­veraign; these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them. If they do wrong, if they tyrannize it over their Subjects, he will punish them, and turn their Hearts, if he see fit. But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him, they must not take [Page 252]up Defensive Arms against them, because they are in Gods stead, for whosoever resisteth the Power, re­sisteth the Ordinance of God. In that place: [...] is opposed to [...] to signifie, that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection, or to shew that a Subject to a perfect Soverain ought not to resist.

Thus have I branched the General Reason for Non-resistance into three, and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited, as well as the Arbitrary Soveraign; and I know not what can be replyed to them, but either to deny, that the Soveraign is Gods Vicegerent, and doth [...] derive his Authority from him, or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoyned by the Law of Nature. But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible, and contradict the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Christians, the Acts or Parliament, Book of Homilies, and the Li­turgy, especially in the Thy chosen Ser­vant— Our King and Governour, that he knowing, whose Mi­nister he is—And that we, and all his Subjects duly considering, whose Authority he hath— Collect of the Communion-Service for the King, and therefore I will suppose, that my Brother J. dare not do it; and before he asserts the Latter, I desire him to consult Dr. Falkners Christian Loyalty, a Book, which ought to be read by every English Subject.

I shewed him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience, That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist, or stand against the So­veraign, although he be Wicked, or a Wrong-Doer; And now I will shew that the Prin­ciple, into which I have resolved it, is plainly taught in the First. There our Late Soveraign [Page 253]King James is called the Gift of God, there the Authority of Kings, their making of Laws, Judg­ment, and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man, but of God. This is also asserted by Old De laudibus Le­gum Angliae c. 3. Chancellor Fortescue, in these words; All Laws pu­blished by Men have also their Authority from God, for as the Apostle saith, All Power is from the Lord God, where­fore the Laws that are made by Man, which there­unto have received Power from the Lord, are also Ordained of God; And if all Laws of Men, be the Laws, and Ordinances of God, then I suppose the Common, and Statute-Laws of every Empire, which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Soveraign are so too; and I desire to know, whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws.

But to return to the Homily, it further teacheth us, That the High Powers, are set in Authority by God, that they are Gods Lieutenants, Gods Presidents, Gods Judges ordained of God himself. And if these Presidents, and Lieute­nants of God will transgress the Bounds within which they ought to act, we must not forcibly re­sist, or repulse them, but give place to their Wrath, and suffer according to the Will of God, committing our Souls to him in well doing, as unto a Faithful Creator, to him that judgeth righteously. Like the Masters under the Roman Government, they are bound to do that which is Just, and Equal, and Legal un­to their Subjects, as knowing they have a Master in Heaven; but if they forget their Duty to their Ma­ster to whom alone they are acconntable; their Subjects, like the Servants, from whom the Law [Page 254]took all Power of violent Resistance, must only withstand them with Supplications, and Tears. This is all the Gospel allows, or could indeed in Reason allow, because there must somewhere be fixed, and acknowledged such a Soveraign Autho­rity, which none have Power to resist, or against which none have Power of taking Arms; but had the Gospel allowed Resistance against the Sove­raign, it had unhinged all Government by putting the Sword into private Mens Hands. This Prae­cept (saith In Math. 26.52. Grotius) of putting up the Sword belongeth to all Chri­stians, who are called unto punish­ment upon the Account of Religion; for it is the Plea­sure of God, when that necessity lyes upon us, that we should testifie our Patience, and commit our Souls unto our Creator; and what can be more just than that we should lay down our Lives for his Honour from whom we received them? This St. Pet. hath taught us in his Masters Name Ep. 1. c. 4.16, 19. —And if it be once admitted (saith he) that private men, when they are injured by the Magistrate, may forcibly resist him, all places would be full of Tumults, and there would be no Force, or Authority of Laws, and Judicatures, be­cause all men are apt to favour themselves. Wherefore Reason compels us to confess, that Oppression is to be en­dured, lest too much Liberty follow upon the contrary, and the Examples of the Ancient Christians teach us, That any Violence is to be endured, which the Supream Power lays upon us upon the account of our Religion [...] For they are in a great Error, who think, that the Chri­stians before the time of Constantine abstained from Resistance, because they wanted sufficient Strength. And if they did not abstain for that reason before the time of Constantine, I appeal to our Author, Whe­ther [Page 255]they did abstain for that reason after his time; and what Account he will give to God, or Man, for slandering the Christian Sub­jects of Ita sub Juliano licèt impio Apostatâ merebant Christiani mi­lites nec quisquam illi vim fecit, quo nihil fuisset faciliùs, cum fe­re totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit. Sam. Bochart. Ep. p. 53. Julian, in saying, What would you have a few defence­less Christians do,; have you never heard a West-Country-Man say, Chud eat more Cheese if chad it.

But to return from this digres­sion unto Vot. pro pace. ad Act 16. vid. Dr. Falk. p. 373. Grotius; In his Lat­ter and Wiser years he approved of the University of Oxfords Determination against Paraeus upon the Romans, Subditos nullo modo, &c. That Subjects ought by no means to Quinta lex est, Prov. 30.31. [...] Rex in quem nemo in­surgit, i. e. in quem sub­ditorum nemo debet in­surgere. Alioquin e­nim multi insurgunt, sed id faciunt praeter jus et fas, ut Rex hic vocatur [...] Alkum, quia in eum nemo insurgit. Ita pal­ladem alibi observo fu­isse vocatam à Phaeni­cibus Ela alkuma Deam in quam nemo insurgit, et Laeotiae urbem illi sa­cram Gaecâ flexione A­lalcomenas quae parva cum esset et in plano ex­tructa, semper tamen [...] intacta et inviolata mansit, quia ob deae reverentiam [...] ab omni v [...] omnes abstinebant. Pausan. Eaeot. Strab. l. 9. Ib. p. 41. resist their Sove­raign by force, nor ought they to take either Offensive or Defensive Arms against him for the Cause of Religion, or any other whatsoever. Here is the University of Oxon teaching the very Doctrine of the Bow-string, and Grotius appro­ving of it; and furthermore affirming, That if Paraeus, or Mr. J's Exceptions were admit­ted against St. Paul, That no Government could be any longer safe, than while those who have such Sentiments, want Strength.

It was upon this Principle, that the Prophets, and other Saints in great numbers, patiently suffered un­der the Idolatrous Kings of Israel, who, as Mr. J. might have remembred, persecuted against Law. And in like manner our blessed Saviour, who had so great a regard for Government, and for the Good of Mankind, for which Government was ordain'd, absolutely forbids Subjects to resist their Soveraign, and because he fore­saw, that the pretence of Religion, would of all others be the most Popular, and Specious, therefore took he such Care to have himself proposed for an Example of Patience, and Suffering unto his Disciples, and to assure them, that if they suffered with him, they should also Reign with him. Indeed there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, or Non-resistance, but it is an Incovenience, which cannot be prevented, unless we should remove the Center upon which Government is fixed; and admit the Inconvenience of Resisting the Soveraign, which would be Cùm probave­rim hactenus summum principem esse [...], & a solo Deo pendere, solum hoc addo pro mantissâ quod si liceret inragem ideo insurgere, quia malus est, et potestate suâ abutitur, Non tamen id expedire & populo esse consultiùs ut ab iis remediis abstineat, quae plerum (que) morbo ipso pejora sunt, quibus (que) adeo vulnus exaspe­ratur, potiùs quàm sanatur. Ea mala toleranda sunt, quae sine magná pernicie non possunt emendari. —praestat unius hominis scelera esse impunita, quàm innumeros insontes certo exitio exponere, quod ab illis ferè fit, qui in reges quid moliuntur. Ne (que) enim ex­pectandum est, ut citati judicio se sistant, et plebeiorum instar u­nius aut alterius victoris Imperio se submittant, quin copias conscri­bi oportet, et multorum saepe praeliorum aliae subeundae, ant quam possint cogi in ordinem. Unde magna strages sequitur et provincia­rum devastatio, quod Britannia vestra vel me tacente clamat. I­ta (que) multo satius est Dei judicio rem committere, et converti ad preces, & lachrymas, quae vera Christianorum arma sunt, quàm ad ea remedia confugere quae sunt violentiora. Sam. Bochart. 10.140, 141. ten times worse than it. For if the For­mer [Page 257]make a Land obnoxious now, and then unto a Tyrant; the Latter would make it perpetually ob­noxious to the Rage, and Fury of the deluded Rabble, who in Riots, Tumults, and Insurrections (for which they would never want Pretences, were Resi­stance in any case allowed) are able to do more mis­chief in a Week, than ever any Tyrant yet did in a Year. Indeed the Strokes of a Tyrant, like those of Thunder, make a great Noise, and all places ring with it, and it puts the World in great af­fright; but yet alone, and unresisted, a Tyrant cannot spill so much Blood, especially in a Limited Empire, as would be shed by Resistance in a Defen­sive War; for the Rage of the worst of Tyrants generally wrecks it self upon particular persons, or parties of Men; but in Civil War, which is worse than any Tyranny, all must suffer without distincti­on, and however it may be called Defensive, and at first be so designed, yet it will certainly degenerate into Offensive; and Rapin, Bloodshed, and Deva­stations will be the ordinary Concomitants thereof. The late Rebellion among us was called by the Rai­s [...]rs of it, and I believe verily intended by some of them, for a War merely Defensive, but it soon proved Offensive, the Managers of it being forced in their own defence to seek Advantages to set upon the King, as he did to set upon them. Indeed when the Defensive Party is very much the stronger, then the War, if the Defenders please, may be merely Defensive, but when the Party Offensive is as strong or stronger than they, then they cannot defend themselves without taking the Advantage of Of­fence. Besides, if we consider the Passions of Men set in Military Opposition one against another, the Notion of a Defensive War, like many Notions in [Page 258]Geometry, though it may be true in the Theory' yet it will be impossible in the Practise; and there­fore I cannot but admire the Wisdom, as well, as the Goodness of God, in forbidding us to Resist, or Defend our selves by Force against the Soveraign, and his Forces, because Defence doth so naturally degenerate into Offence.

These things considered, I desire Mr. J. the fierce, and almost blasphemous Opposer of Passive Obe­dience, to consider, Whether (as he saith) He Pref. p. 11. hath honestly pursued the End of our Saviours Co­ming into the World, which was not to destroy mens Lives, but to save them. For had our Saviour allowed Sub­jects, under the pretence of defending themselves, and their Religion, to resist their Soveraign, he had come indeed to destroy Mens Lives; and, as he said in another sense, Not to send Peace on Earch, but a Sword: He had then indeed set Subjects at vari­ance against their Soveraign, and made the World for Rebels, the worst of Banditi, by the Gospel, which had then been a Doctrine of War, and not of Peace. But this was not consistent with his In­finite Wisdom, and Goodness, and the Care which he had for Government, and the Peace, and Well-fare of Mankind. Though Tyranny be ill, yet he knew Resistance was worse, and therefore he hath commanded us to lay down our Lives for our Reli­gion, but not to take up the Sword in defence of it, contrary to the Imperial Law. For all that draw, or use the Sword, without Authority from the So­veraign, whose right it is to bear it, he hath left obnoxious to the Sword of Justice, and to incur the Punishment of death; Put up thy Sword into its place (saith he to Peter) for all that take the Sword, shall pe­rish [Page 259]with the Sword. Wherefore let Mr. J. talk ne­ver so much against a Popish Successor, and let him have what Characters men please to give him; nay let them suppose him to be a Complicate Tyrant, and, as Gregory saith of Julian, to be Pharaoh, Achab, Hierobo­am, and Nebuchadnezzar all in one; nay let the Spirit of Galerius, Maximin, and Maxentius come upon him, yet I am sure it will cost fewer Lives, and less Deso­lation, to let him alone, than to resist him; but if it would not, I had rather die a Martyr, than a Rebel; this is my Resolution by the Grace of God; I can be content to be barbarously murdered, I know to whom I must pay my Passive Obedience, to my God, and to my King; the Laws of God, and the Imperial Laws of the Land require it of me; For though P. 80. God approves our Reli­gion, and would have all the World to embrace it, and hold it fast, yet he doth not approve of Resistance, that's no part of Christian Liberty, and he would have none embrace that. And though Ibid. Protestancy is so far from being Criminal by the Laws of our Country, that it is Death to turn Papist, as it was to turn Idolater among the Jews, yet Passive Obedience is part of the Established Pro­testant Religion, as it was of the Jewish, and the Laws of our Country (God be praised for it) make it Ca­pital to resist.

Therefore I resolve by Gods Assistance neither to turn Papist, nor Resist; But if I cannot escape, I will suffer according to the Gospel and the Church of England; and Mr. J. hath the Liberty to de­spise the Gospel, and the Church, and to resist his sup­posed Tyrant, if he will. He may preach and practise Resistance, but I am resolved to preach, and practise Passive Obedience after the Example of the Jewish [Page 260]Prophets and Martyrs, who suffered against Law; and in my most Melancholy Prospect of things, I can comfort my self with the hopes of a Reward for dy­ing at a Stake, which he shall never have for dying in the Field.

But for fear I should move the Indignation of Mr. J. too much, by shewing the utter Inconveniences of Resisting, and how it is a Remedy against Tyranny, worse than the Disease, I will endeavour to temper him with a few Words out of his next best Book to the Bible, in the First Part of the Homily against Disobedience. What shall Subjects do then? Shall they obey Valiant, Stout, Wise, and Good Princes, and Contemn, Disobey, and Rebel, against Children being their Princes, or against Indiscreet, and Evil Gover­nours? God forbid. For first, What a Perillous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the Judgment, which Prince is Wise, and Godly, and his Govern­ment Good, and which is otherwise, as though the Foot must judge of the Head; an Enterprise very hainous, and must needs breed Rebellion: For who else be they, that are most inclined to Rebellion, but such Haughty Spirits, from whom springeth such foul ruin of Realms? Is not Rebellion the greatest of all Mischiefs? And who are most ready to the greatest Mischiefs, but the worst Men? —What an unworthy matter were it then to make the Naughtiest Subjects, and most inclined to Rebellion, and all Evil, Judges over the Princes, over the Government, and over their Counsellers to determine, which of them be Good, and Tolerable, and which be Evil, and so Intolerable, that they must needs be removed by Rebels, being ever ready, as the Naughtiest Subjects soonest to Rebel—But where­as indeed a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince, and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of [Page 261]the worst Prince that hitherto hath been, both Re­bels are unmeet Ministers, and Rebellion an unfit, and unwholesome Medicine to reform any small Lacks in a Prince, or to cure any little Grief in a Government, such lewd Remedies being far worse, than any other Ma­ladies, and Disorders, that can be in the Body of a Commonwealth.

I appeal to the Late Rebellion, which the Rebels called a Defensive War to verifie this Doctrine; for there was more Blood shed in it in one Battel, than in all the Tyrannies and Persecutions of the Nation since the Conquest; and in the two Kingdoms there hath been more Christian Blood shed in Re­bellions since the Reformation by pretended Under­takers of Defensive War, than throughout the whole Roman Empire in nine of the first ten Famous Perse­cutions. There is scarce any other Kingdom in the World, wherein it may not be shewed by woful ex­ample, how disadvantagious, and prejudicial it would be to the Commonwealth, that it should be Lawful for the People to take up Arms for Defence of their Liberties, and Religion: Civil Wars would be the constant Effect of such an Exorbitant Power, because there would never want Turbulent and Am­bitious Spirits, to make the Populace Jealous of their Soveraign, and by consequence ready upon the first Alarm to rise up in defence of their Rights.

Had the People of this, and the Neighbouring Nation had such a Power of Resistance granted unto them, this Island had been made a Theater of War almost ever since his Majesties Happy Restauration: nay, in all appearance, there had been more Blood shed in the Land these 4 last years of our Fears and Jealousies, than can without Resistance be shed in a Persecution of 20 years long: Nay, let us ima­gine [Page 262]a Popish Prince as bigotted in Religion, and as sanguinary in his Temper, as may be now Reigning over us, yet he could not likely cause so much Ruin, Bloodshed, and Desolation in his whole Reign, as a War between him and his Resisting Subjects would cause in one Year. Wherefore it is plain, that it is the Interest even of the People themselves, that so great a Power should be in the Soveraign, that none should withstand him, or rise up against him, and that nothing can be more pernicious to the Com­monwealth in any Government, than that the Sub­jects should have a Power of taking up Arms to de­fend their Liberties, and Religion.

Chap. XII. Wherein is shewed, That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience, we are Secure enough of our Lives, Properties, and Religion.

ALL that I have hitherto said of Passive Obe­dience, hath been to satisfie the Reasons of the Thinking, and Sober Part of Men, and now I proceed to propose some Considerations, which may serve as a sufficient Answer to that Hasty Que­stion, which timourous and suspicious men are apt to make against this Doctrine, saying, Where then is our Security? How can we be Safe from the ut­most Tyranny, and Oppression of our Soveraign, if we may not be allowed to Resist?

To which I answer, That I have already shewn, that the Remedy of Resistance is as bad, or worse than the Disease of Tyranny and Persecution; and I furthermore add, that upon supposition there were some Cases allowed, wherein we might take up Defensive Arms against the Soveraign, what Se­curity could the Soveraign have upon desisting from Tyranny and Persecution, that this Defensive Army would lay down their Arms? Might they not say, that he was not to be trusted, having once broke his Coronation-Oath, and that it was necessary for them to keep up in Arms to prevent a second Perse­cution? Nay, might they not serve him, as the [Page 264]Army served our Late Blessed Soveraign, and if they went about to do so, who durst question them for what they did? Perhaps you will reply, that an­other Army is to be raised to reduce this to their former Obedience: But how difficult would it be for an Oppressed Prince, and People to raise an Ar­my against another Conquering Army; or if they did, what dismal Consequences, far worse than any Tyranny, would follow thereupon? Besides the Ruines, and Devastations during the War, Slave­ry, and Arbitrary Government would naturally be the Event of it: For if the first Army prevailed, then the Injured Prince, as well as the People, whom they pretended to defend, must be Subject to their Discretion; but if the King, and his new Army raised to reduce them prevailed, what then will become of our Liberties and Religion, which the first Army rose up to defend?

But perhaps you will object, That you would have this Defensive Army under the Conduct of sworn Trustees for the People; That they should be Disbanded, as soon as they have reduced the Ty­rannizing Prince. But who shall see that these Tru­stees shall perform their Trust? How can you be Secure they will not break their Oaths? Or if they be Faithful to their Trust, how can you be secure the Defensive Army will be disbanded by them? Re­member what hapned between Cromwels Army, and the House. But still you will object, that to pre­vent these Inconveniences, you would have the Go­vernment in more Hands than one, you would not have one man only entrusted with it? Well, let it be so: Let us suppose that the Three Estates in Parliament were our Governours, yet I can object as strongly against this: Either they will agree toge­ther, [Page 265]or disagree. If they agree, how can you be secure they will not divide the Land among them, [...] in a short time govern us as Arbitrarily as the S [...]ate of Venice, under which the People really are what we call Slaves. But if they disagree, as is most probable, having the Passions of Men, Ambition, Covetousness, and Emulations, then their Govern­ment will become uncertain, and odious, and the most popular amongst them will take an Opportu­nity to set up himself; and when he hath mastered his Companions, he must secure his Usurpation by Force, and then his Pleasure must be our Law.

All these Inconveniences would apparently at­tend the new Model for the Association to back the Exclusion of the next Heir. For either the Heads of it would agree, or disagree. If they continued to agree, then the preposterous Heir, after he was made King, and his People also, must be subject to their Discretion. But if they should disagree, as most probably they would, then as fast as they fell out among themselves, or grew discontented, their Se­curity would oblige them to revolt unto the Seclu­ded Heir, and help him to get possession of the Crown. And in what a Miserable Condition would this Nation be during such a Civil War, no Ty­ranny in all probability could be so Destructive; and whether the Popish Prince, or the Opposing Army at last prevailed, we must be subject to their Sword.

In a word, there neither is, nor can be any ab­solute Security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects, or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government: And therefore in the second place, it may be a sufficient Answer to the Former Question, to shew, That we have all the Security [Page 266]against the King, that the King hath against us, e­ven all the Security, that any People in the World ever had, have, or ought to have. an

For first, We have the Care and Providence [...] God for our Security, who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the only Ruler of Princes: For as Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, the most High ruleth in the Kingdoms of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever, he will. The Wellfare of the Publick is much more the Object of his Fatherly Care, than the Wellfare of private persons, and he delights to see the Nations of the Earth Happy, and will not let them be Afflicted and Oppressed with Tyrants, but when Tyranny is necessary, for their Punishment, or Cure. But much more is he concerned for his own Family, I mean, for any Nation, whose People are part of his Houshold, which is the Catholick Church. He delights to see them Happy, and were it not for their Sins, he would always set such Princes over them, as would be Nursing Fathers to them, and the Church. But when it is necessary for their Punishment, or Reformation, then he will suffer their Kings to turn Tyrants; and when he doth so, the People, like the People of Israel, must patient­ly suffer them, as they do other Judgments, and not rise up against them, lest they be found guilty of Rebellion against God.

On the other hand, when a sinful People turn from those Sins, by which they provoke God, he will set Just, and Merciful, and Valiant Princes over them, who shall Love them; and Protect them as their own Children; and this he can do both ways, either by taking away Good, or Bad Princes, or by turning of their Hearts, For the Hearts of Kings are in his Rule, and Governance, and [Page 267]he doth dispose, and turn them, as seemeth best to his Godly Wisdom: According to what Solomon said, and perhaps upon his own Experience, That the Kings Heart is in the Hand of the Lord, as the Rivers of Wa­ter, he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Jealous, and Suspicious Men indeed may have a thousand Contrivances, and Phancied Demonstra­tions to prevent or remove Evil Princes; but when God shall see it fit to punish them that way, he will in a Moment baffle, and defeat them all. And on the other side, Princes may have a thousand Devises how to oppress, or enslave their People, but God, whose Instruments they are, can in a Moment over­turn them, and their Devices, he can resist the Strength of the Strongest Leviathan, as he said un­to Senaccherib; I know thy Abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy Rage against me, and be­cause thy Rage, and thy Tumult is come into mine Ears, therefore I will put my Hook in thy Nose, and my Bridle in thy Lips, and I will turn thee back by the way in which thou camest.

Wherefore, as the Princes best Security against the People is the watchful Providence of God: So the same watchful Providence is the Peoples best Se­curity against the Prince. The same God who stil­leth the Noise of the Waves, and the Tumult of the People in defence of the King, doth likewise still the Thunder, and asswage the Fury of the King in defence of the People, and neither could be safe one from the other, unless God did Watch and Preside, and as it were pitch his Tent between them both.

Wherefore as it is the securest way for a Prince to have Peaceable, and Obedient Subjects to serve God, whose Vicegerent he is: So on the other [Page 268]hand, the best Security the People can have for their Property, and Liberty against the Prince, is to obey God, who setteth up one King, and pulleth down an­other, and changeth their Hearts as he sees fit. I hope Mr. J. will not think me singular in this piece of Di­vinity, because it is taught by the Church in the next best Book to the Bible, to which he, and the Doctor have both subscribed, in The first part of the Sermon against Rebellion.

God (say the Holy Scriptures) maketh a Wicked Man to Reign for the Sins of the People. Again, God giveth a Prince in his Anger, meaning an Evil One, and taketh away a Prince in his Displeasure, meaning especially when he taketh away a Good Prince for the Sins of the People—God giveth Wisdom unto Princes, and maketh a wise, and good King to Reign over that People, whom he loveth, and who loveth him.—If therefore we will have a good Prince either to be given us, or to continue, let us by our Obedience to God, and to our Prince, move God thereunto. If we will have an Evil Prince, when God shall send such an one, taken away, and a Good in his place, Let us take away our Wickedness, which provoketh God to place such an one over us, and God will either displace him, or of an Evil Prince make him a Good Prince, so that we first will change our Evil into Good. For will you hear the Scriptures? The Heart of the Prince is in Gods Hand, which way so­ever it shall please him he turneth it. Thus say the Scriptures, Wherefore let us turn [Page 269]from our Sins unto the Lord with all our Hearts, and he will turn the Heart of the Prince unto our Quiet and Wealth. Else for Subjects to deserve for their Sins to have an Evil Prince, and then to Rebel a­gainst him, were double, and treble evil by provoking God more to plague them. Nay, let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or let us patiently suffer, and obey such as we deserve. Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved punishment, to give them an Indiscreet, and Evil Prince, and also Rebel against him, and withal against God, who for the punish­ment of their Sins did give them such a Prince? I leave Mr. J. to give the Church an Answer to this her Interrogatory, and so proceed to the second thing, which we have for our Securi­ty, and that is the Conscience of the Prince: For as the Princes Security against the Insurrection of his Sub­jects consists very much in the Conscience that they have of the Duty, which they owe unto him: So their Security against his tyrannical abuse of his Power consists as much un the sense of that Duty, which he ows unto them. He hath the same Principles with­in him to check his Passions, that they have to check, and bridle their; and hath all the Moral Obligati­ons, and the Fear of God, who hateth Tyrants, to keep him from oppressing them, that they have to keep them from Rebelling against him.

The common Principles of Humanity, Justice, and Equity are engraven by the Finger of God upon the Minds of Kings, as well as upon other Mens; and they cannot do wrong to any particular person, much less to great numbers of their Subjects without [Page 270]undergoing the same uneasie Remorse, that other Men do, when they injure one another. This hath been found by sad Experience in Pagan Princes, as in Tiberius the Emperor, who was so tormented with the sense of his own Sins, that he could not but discover his own Confusion unto the Senate in a Remarkable Letter, which be­gan thus: Quid scribam vo­bis P. C. aut quomodo scribam, aut quid om­nino non scribam hoc tempore, dii me déae (que) pejus perdant, quam pe­rire quotidie sentio, si scio. Adeo facinora at (que) flagitia sua ipsi quo (que) in supplicium verterant ne (que) frustra praestantissimus sapien­tiae affirmari solitus est, si recludantur tyranno­rum mentes posse aspici laniatus et ictus, quan­do, ut corpora verberi­bus, ita savitiâ, libidi­ne, malis consultis ani­mus dilaceretur. Quip­pe Teberium non fortu­na, non solitudines pro­tegebant, quin tormen­ta pector is, suas (que) ipse paenas fateretur. Tacit. An. l. 6. c. 6. My Lords, and Gentlemen; If I know what, or how to write, or not to write to you at this time, let all the Gods and Goddesses confound me with a worse Death than by which I feel my self perishing every day. In such a manner, saith the Historian, did the Gods turn his Wicked­nesses into his own Punishment, so that what Socrates said is very true, That if the Breasts of Tyrants could be laid open, we should see what slashes and gashes they suffer from their own Consciences, and that the Body cannot suffer more from the Whip, than their minds do from the sense of their Tyran­ny, and Lusts.

And if Conscience be a Restraining Principle in Heathen Princes, if they cannot without such Soul-Torments pervert Justice, and violate their Oaths, and the Laws, it must needs much more be a power­ful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings, who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers, [Page 271]and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People, over whom he set them; nay, that he most commonly sends remarkable Judge­ments upon them or their Families for subverting the Laws, and persecuting the True Religion. Shall the Fear of Gods Anger and Judgements more than any other thing keep so many thousand Subjects from injuring their Soveraign, and shall not the Fear of the same God, and his Judgments keep the Sove­raign from injuring of them? Or shall the People take warning by the Judgments of God which in all Ages have remarkably fallen upon Rebels, and shall not the Soveraign make as much use of the Remarkable Judgments, which have fallen upon Tyrants? This Principle gives equal Security both ways, and therefore it may well pass for one An­swer to the former Question, That our Security consists in the Conscience of the Prince.

But in the third place, As we have the Princes Conscience, so we have his Honour for our Securi­ty. For Princes (like other Men) are tender of their Honour, and Good Name, and are powerful­ly restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Sub­jects. They are as loath as other Men to be ex­posed to the censure of Mankind, or be recorded for Tyrants in the Annals of Time. Though they may be desirous for their Honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests, yet the same Prin­ciple of Honour, will ordinarily make them asha­med to have them computed from their Massacres, and Persecutions, which will but get them the Sur­name of the Bloody, or the Tyrant unto the End of the World. Honour, as Moralists observe, is a Secondary, or Civil Conscience, and if so many [Page 272]Subjects will abstain from Rebellion merely to avoid the Odious Character of a Traitor, why should we not presume, That a Prince will abstain from Ille­gal Violence, especially against a great Number of his People to avoid the Odious Name of Tyrant? How Black do Pharaoh, Achab, and Jeroboam look in the Scriptures, and Nero, Domitian, Decius, Va­lerian, Maximian, Galerius, Maximin, and Julian, in the Ecclesiastical Historians? And a Prince that knows any thing of History, must naturally abhor to be reckoned among such, as these, whose very Names are detested by all Mankind.

This is all the Security, that most other People have, or ever had for their Rights and Properties a­gainst their Princes; but we, the Inhabitants of this Fortunate Island, have (God be praised for it) a fur­ther Security from our Laws, to which every Man, be he never so great, is obnoxious, besides the Prince himself. For whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the prejudice of any other person, must be subject to make Reparation by Law, against which the King himself can protect no Man, as long as the Courts of Justice are kept open; so that there can be no Tyranny in England, but the utmost Ty­ranny, nor any Persecution, but a most Exorbitant and Illegal Persecution, which must presuppose, that Justice is obstructed, the Laws and Lawyers silen­ced, the Courts of Judicature shut up, and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword. But to suppose this, is plainly to sup­pose the utmost possibility, which is next to an im­possibility, a possibility indeed in Theory, but scarce to be reduced into Practice; for in such a Violent Undertaking all Good Men would withdraw from the Service, and Assistance of the King, and the [Page 273]Bad durst not serve him, because if he died, or re­pented of his Undertaking, they must be answer­able for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service.

Indeed were our Kings Immortal, or would they not (like other Men) grow weary, and repent of their Unjust Practises, then Men, who had no Re­ligion, but their Interest, would willingly by Instru­ments of their Tyranny; but seeing they may re­pent, and must die like other Men, no Man that would be safe, will venture to serve them against the Law, no Rational Man will venture into such a Sea of Troubles, where there is no Haven.

This Consideration would help very much to quiet the Minds of Men, would their Fears but let their Reason have its perfect work. It would help them in a great measure to see, that a Popish Successor, notwithstanding all the dismal Characters of him, would not be able, especially on the sud­den, to outrage his Protestant Subjects; for as long as the Laws were open he could not hurt them, and to shut them up, and obstruct, or pervert Justice, would for the former Reasons, prove an exceeding difficult, and almost impracticable Undertaking, be­cause all his Good Subjects, and all the Bad too that tendred their own safety, would desert him; nay, Foreiners upon this Account would make a difficulty to serve him, because he could not protect them a­gainst his own Laws.

Wherefore a Popish Prince, though he were ne­ver so Blood-thirsty, and had never so little regard to Humanity, and his Coronation-Oath, would be infinitely puzled to persecute his Protestant Subjects. He must be supposed to obstruct Justice, and govern Arbitrarily by the Sword; which (as I have shew'd) [Page 274]would be almost an Impossibility, because it would be so exceeding difficult for him to get sufficient Numbers of Men to assist him in such a dangerous Attempt. But upon supposition, that he could find Means to maintain such a Tyrannical State, I here assert from what I have written in the Doctors Vindication in the 10th, and 11th Chapters, That we ought as Christian Subjects patiently to endure such a Contralegal Persecution, being forbid by the Imperial Laws of this Realm, and by the Gospel, which confirms the Imperial Laws of all Govern­ments to rise up in Arms against the King, or repel his Military Forces, by Military Violence and Force.

Furthermore from this Consideration, that there can be no Illegal Persecution in this Realm while the Law is kept open, It may appear to every Impar­tial Reader, how maliciously the Author of Julian traduced Dr. Hickes and his Sermon, as if he had taught the People, That they were to Suffer, when they might be Protected by Laws. There are very many Fallacious Passages in his Book to this purpose, as where he talks of Throwing away our Lives, and Prostituting our Lives: and where he seems to assert this strongly against the Doctor, That if a man be illegally assaulted, in the way of Violence, and Assassination, he may use all Lawful Remedies to defend themselves. But how doth the Doctors Sermon, or the Notion of Passive Obedience any way contradict this? Con­tra sicarium quilibet homo est miles; 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. He that doth not use all Lawful Means, and Remedies for his own Preservation is mightily to be blamed, as [Page 275]altogether unworthy of such Protection, as bles­sed be God, we enjoy. But the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, as taught in general by the Doctor, is not justly chargeable with any such odious Infe­rences as Mr. J. makes from it, as only forbidding such Defence, as a man makes against the Laws of his Country, when he draws or uses the Sword a­gainst such persons, or in such a manner to defend himself, as the Law hath not permitted him to do. In a word, the Doctrine of Passive Obedience only condemns Illegal Resistance, such Resistance as the Laws of every Soveraign Government forbid, against the King, his Army, or Officers; such Re­sistance more especially, as is a Transgression of the Imperial Laws. Those are the Laws, which require Passive Obedience; those are the Laws which the Doctor had a regard to in teaching that Doctrine: And as Christianity doth not devest any People from their Rights and Priviledges, so neither doth it devest the Soveraign of His.

And if the Doctrine of Passive Obedience be not inconsistent with that Defence, which the Law al­lows every Man to make against an Illegal Assassin, much less is it inconsistent, as he Preface p. 8. maliciously asserts, with that Civil Defence, which every man is bound to make for himself before the Magistrate. St. Paul (saith he) was not for Passive Obedience; even when the Lawful Magistrate persecuted him, if it were in an Ʋnlawful way, but he stood upon his Birthright.—As he was a Roman; and more-over, That he ought not to be scourged Uncondemned. But what is this Civil pleading to Forcible and Mi­litary Resistance? What is the Defence, which a Man makes with his Tongue before any Tribunal, [Page 276]to the Defence which he makes with his Sword in the Field? I appeal to the Conscience of Mr. J. as he will answer it to God, whether he thinks, That the Doctrine of Passive Obedience precludes any man from pleading his Civil Rights, or whether the Doctor would contradict his own Doctrine, if he should plead his Birthright, as an English man, or the 29th Chapter of Magna Charta before a Popish Prince, or Judg? If he thinks he would not, then why would he shew so little common Honesty, as to fasten such Invidious Consequences, upon that Doctrine, and the Doctor, against his own Con­science, and Belief?

To as little purpose hath he told us the Story of the Pursuivant of the High-Commission-Court, who was sent by the Commissioners to Arrest the Body of a Man to bring him before them, and in the stri­ving was killed. Whether this was Murder, or not (saith he out of Rep. 12. p. p. 49. Coke) was doubted: And upon conference at the next Assizes, it was re­solved, that the Arrest was Tortius (i. e. wrongful, or without Lawful Authority) and by consequence, that it was no Murder. But then (with his wonted Integrity) he conceals the main Circumstance from the Common Reader, which is implyed by Coke, and expressed by Rep. 2. part p. 15. Brownlow, viz. That is was found Homi­cide, or Manslaughter, which is a breach of the 6th Commandment, and Murder in the Eyes of God. For there are several degrees of Murder, whereof some are more Grievous than o­thers. There is Murder Premeditate, and Murder Ʋnpremeditate; murdering of a Private Man, and murdering of an Officer, as an Officer in the execution [Page 277]of his Office. The Ʋnpremeditate Murder of a pri­vate Man, or of an Officer not in the Execution of his Office is a less grievous sort of Murder, which our Law calls Manslaughter, but the Premeditate Murder of a Private Man, or of an (†) Officer not doing his Office,See Crooks Rep. in Cooks Case, Term Pasch. in Banc. reg. an. 15 Caroli Regis. as also the Ʋnpremedi­tate Murder of an Officer doing his Office as being more grievous sorts of Murder, are in our Law especially called Murder, and so the Difference between Manslaugh­ter, and Murder is only Gradual, the Law allowing the benefit of Clergy to that, but not to this. Now the Pursuivant was a proper Officer of the High-Commission, but because that Court could give no Power to arrest any Mans Body, but only to cite him to appear before them as Ecclesiastical Courts do, therefore the killing of their Pursuivant in ma­king the Arrest, was judged Manslaughter, because it was Unpremeditate, and he was not doing his Of­fice; but yet the Verdict for Manslaughter lays the Pursuivants Blood not upon his own, but upon his Murderers Head. He that killed him was a Mur­derer, and was to answer for his Blood to God, without Repentance, and to the King with his own Life, had he not read his Neck Verse. And if Mr. J. think otherwise, as he seems to do, that an Ho­micide is not guilty of the Blood, which he sheds, then before the time of Henry the 8th, no killing could be Murder, because till then there was no di­stinction betwixt Manslaughter and Murder, but all Homicides whatsoever were equal in the Eye of the Law, and all Homicides had equally the Benefit of Clergy.

I am confident Mr. J. by his learned Conversati­on with Mr. H. could not but know all this, and if he did, why did he go about to wash the Guilty Man Clean of the Pursuivants Blood, in saying only that the killing of him was not found Murder, and that his Blood was upon his own Head? But the Rea­son is apparent, for had he told the Story with that plainness, that it became an Honest Writer; the Guilt of Manslaughter would have spoiled the Grace of the Story, as it is told by him to justifie Resi­stance, and the Resistance of a Pursuivant, and of a Pursuivant unto Blood.

These Pursuivants it seems, are plaguy Officers, but let them look to't, if any of them come to Arrest the Body of Mr. J. and do it not with all Exactness of Law, at his own peril be it, he knows what to do, and he may safely trust to his Neck Verse, and then the poor mistaken Pursuivants Blood shall be upon his own head.

But suppose the Law gave a Man leave to kill an Officer in a False Arrest, to defend his Liberty, would Mr. J. take the advantage of the Law? Will he do, or omit the doing of every thing that the Law allows him? Will he make the Law the com­pleat, and adequate Rule to walk by? If so, he may do, or omit the doing of many things, for which he shall be damned. He may abuse his Fa­ther, Mother, Sister, Brother, Wife, Children, Neighbours, nay and his Prince too, to a mighty degree, and yet be safe within the Limits of the Law. He may write Seditious Books, burlesque the Doctrine of the Cross, slander the Ancient Christians, falsifie good Authors, and injure those [Page 279]that never did him hurt, and yet transgress no Hu­mane Law.

For the Law hath the Civil, and not the Christi­an Capacity of the Man for its Object, therefore it only Commands, or Forbids things, the not doing or doing of which do visibly tend to the destruction of the Peace, Order, and Welfare of the Common wealth; and he that is so little a Christian, as to teach the People how far they may be troublesome and vexatious to their Superiours without transgres­sing the Law, doth teach them how to use their Li­berty for a Cloack of Maliciousness, and a sure, and easie way to Hell.

But Mr. J. saith, That any man may see that his Discourse of the Pursuivant doth not descend to such Petty Matters, as False Arrests, though a mans Li­berty is not to be despised; To what then did that Story tend? Well, you may know his Meaning by his Mumping, it is to let the People understand, how tender the Laws, are of their Lives, and what a particular Care they have taken of all those, who are put upon an inevitable necessity of defending themselves a­gainst the Assaults of Violent, and Evil-disposed Per­sons. But the Laws are more tender of our Sove­raigns Honour, as he is Gods Minister, than of his Subjects Lives, and therefore have forbid us to de­fend our selves in private Defence against his Per­son, or in publick Insurrections against his Forces, though he be never so violent, or evil-disposed, because he is answerable to none, but God. But if by Inevitable necessity of defending themselves he un­derstands sudden and private defence against an As­sassin [Page 280]sent by the Kings Order, as his Malice seems to suggest, then it is nothing to his purpose, because the Kings Law, which is his most Authoritative Command, allows us (as I suppose) that Benefit; and if it do, it doth not in the least contradict the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which 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 Kings Crown, and Regality] autho­rize him so to do.

But in truth this last is a Case, which, though Malicious Men may suggest, yet ought not at all to be supposed, or taken into consideration; for a Po­pish Prince, as I argued before, will either let the Law have its free Course, or else he will obstruct it: If he let the Law have its Free Course, then the most wicked Man will not dare to serve him in Pri­vate Assassinations against Law, because he cannot protect them against it; but if he Obstruct it, then he must Govern solely by an Army, and so publick Violence will supersede this private way of Assassi­nation, and many other Cases, which Men do a great deal of hurt to talk of, and suppose.

For as the talking of Spirits, and Goblins do mightily influence the Imaginations of Children, and make them fancy them to be in the Room; So all this Noise of a Popish Successor, and the presu­ming, and supposing of what Cruelties he will do, makes the People take it for granted not only that his R. Hs. is a Real Papist, but that he is bigotted in­to the worst Principles of Popery, into a Bloody Per­secuting Humour, so that he will do nothing but assassinate his Protestant Subjects, were he once upon the Throne. But whoever thus represent him, as they [Page 281]act contrary to all Rules of Candour, and Christian Charity: So they contradict the Belief of many, as good Protestants, as themselves, who have the Honour to know Him, and his Temper better than these sort of Men do; and withal they do Infinite Disservice to the Protestant Religion, whilst they dis­pose Well-meaning People to such Ill Practises, as (were they agreeable to their Principles) would give his R. H. very Just Occasion to entertain as bad Thoughts of Protestant Subjects, as They have of a Popish Prince.

The CONCLƲSION.

HAving discoursed of the Laws by which Pas­sive Obedience is due from the Subjects to the Soveraign, and also shew'd the Reasons, into which those Laws are resolved; and having also shewn for the further Satisfaction of the Reader, That notwithstanding the Doctrine of Non-resistance, the People of this Nation have all the Security against Tyranny, or Illegal Oppression, that Subjects can, or ought to have: I think, I cannot more profitably entertain the Serious Reader in this last Sheet, than in setting before his Eyes a True Landskip of Perse­cution, which the Author of Julian, and many other Late Writers have partially represented, with a Design to enrage the People, concealing from them one main part, which ought to have been put in the Scene of Persecution, to give them a True, and Just Idea thereof.

They have indeed most accurately painted the Jailes, and Fetters, and Dungeons, and Gibbets, and Flames, and all other Instruments of Torment to provoke them beyond the Measures of Christian Patience, but they have said nothing of Faith, Hope, and the Love of God, and of the Special Assistances which he gives in times of Persecution, because the Consideration of these Things would at the same time have spoiled their Design by quieting the Minds of their Readers, and qualifying their Fears, and letting them see that Persecution really was not so Terrible, and Intolerable, as they re­presented it to be.

Wherefore, as they have set forth the Tyranny of Persecution as Greeks, I shall now set it forth as a Christian Writer, shewing from the Scriptures, and other Ecclesiastical Acts and Monuments of Persecution, that it is a Condition, which Christi­ans may endure with Comfort, and Satisfaction, nay, in which they may delight, and rejoyce, if they look unto Jesus the Author, and Finisher of our Faith; who for the Joy, that was set before him endured the Cross, and despised the shame of it, for which he is set down at the Right Hand of God.

When the Acts 5. Apostles were beaten by Order of the Sanhe­drim, they departed from the presence of the Councel rejoycing that they were counted worthy to suffer for his Name: And when Acts 16. Paul, and Silas had been whipt with many Stripes, and were hurried upon it into the innermost Prison, and set in the Stocks there, they prayed and sang Praises unto God, doubtless for enabling them by the Assistance of his Holy Spi­rit to preach his word boldness, and suffer pa­tiently in his Cause. How often doth St. Paul in his Epistles glory in his Infirmities, which is a Scripture­term for Sufferings; and with what pleasure doth he 2 Cor. c. 6. c. 11. c 12. speak of his Afflictions, Necessities, and Distresses, of his Stripes, Im­prisonments, Labours, Tumults, Watchings, Fastings, Shipwrach, and daily danger of Death. Then the Christians suffered after the Example of their Saviour according to the Will of God, who called them unto Suffering, committing their Souls unto him as unto [Page 284]a Faithful Creator, and for Rom. 8.36. his Sake were killed all the day long, and were accounted as Sheep for the Slaughter; insomuch that in the time of Trajan, Tiberius the President of Palastine gives this Account of their Passive Temper in his Usser. ap. Ign. p. 9. Letter to the Emperor; I am weary with pu­nishing, and destroying the Galilaeans, who are called here Christians, according to your Majesties Command, and yet they cease not to discover themselves, that they may be slain. I have laboured both by Entreaties, and Menaces to make them conceal themselves from being known to be Christians, but I cannot make them put an End to their own Persecution.

And when Arrius, or Aurelius Antoninus Procon­sul of Asia raised a severe Persecution against the Christians; they presented themselves before him like an Army, at which he being astonished, con­tented himself to execute some few, and cryed out unto the rest, O wretched men, if you have a mind to dye, have you not Halters and Precipices enough, but must you come hither for an Execution? This Story is told by Tertullian to Scapula President of Carthage, who also tells him, That if he had a mind to go on with the Persecution, so many thousands of Chri­stian Men, and Women of all Ages, and Conditi­ons would offer themselves unto him, that he would be hard put to it to get Fires, and Swords enougn to destroy them.

Hitherto, and much longer they were so far from declining Sufferings, or being terrified into Tumultuous Combinations with those Miseries, which they foresaw, that they freely offered themselves to the Fury of their Persecutors, and [Page 285]strove, as Lib. 2. c. 47. Sulpitius Severus observes of the Dioclesian Perse­cution, who should first enter the Lists of those Glorious Conflicts, being more Ambiti­ous of Martyrdom in those days, than in after times of Bishopricks, and the Greatest Preferments of the Church.

I have chosen these out of many more Instances to shew the Passive Temper of the Primitive Chri­stians in Times of Persecution, and to take occa­sion to enquire into the true Causes, which made them, and our own Ancestors after their Example, so meek, and calm, chearful in such sad Tryals, and so ready to lay down their Lives for Christ. Now in this Enquiry into the Causes of such won­derful Patience, and Alacrity, we ought in the first place to assign a good Life, or a Conscience void of Offence towards God, and towards Man. This is the Cornerstone in the Foundation of True Christian Confidence and Courage against the Fears of Death, for he, whose Heart doth not condemn him hath confidence towards God, and need not fear him, that can kill the Body, but is not able to kill the Soul, because he lived in the Fear of him, who is able to destroy both Body and Soul in Hell. Who is he, that will harm you (saith the Apostle) if ye be followers of that which is good, but if ye suffer for Righ­teousness-sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their Terrour, neither be troubled. Hence (saith Justin Martyr) of Crescens the Stoick, who laid wait for his Life, as Anytus, and Melitus did for that of So­crates, Crescens may kill me, but he cannot hurt me. And speaking of the Occasion of his Convers [...]ion to Christianity, Ap. I. p. 50. When I saw the Christians (saith he) embrace [Page 286]Death, and Torments without fear, I thought with my self, that they could not live in Sin, and sensual Plea­sure. For what Epicure, or Incontinent person, that places his Happiness in pleasing the Flesh, would so rea­dily embrace death to deprive himself of his Felicity, but rather strive to live here for ever.

The Second Cause of such wonderful Patience and Courage in the Confessors, and Martyrs of the Christian Religion, was Faith, or their full and undoubted Perswasion of receiving those great Re­wards, which the Gospel promised them for Suffer­ing according to that Definition of the Apostle, which saith, That Faith consists in the Substance, or Confidence of things hoped for, and in the Evi­dence of things not seen. It was through this Faith, that the Jewish, and Primitive Christian Martyrs were tortured, not accepting of Delive­rance, that they might have a better Resurrection, i. e. the Resurrection of the Just; that others of them had tryal of cruel Mockings, and Scourgings, yea moreover of Bonds, and Imprisonments, and that others also were Stoned, Sawn asunder, Em­paled, and slain with the Sword; and lastly, That others, who took the allowed Benefit of Flight, wandered about in Sheepskins, and Goatskins, and in Deserts, and Mountains, and in Dens, and Caves of the Earth. It was this Faith, which the Apostle compares to a Shield, and by which (he saith) the Just did live in times of Persecutions, and over­came the World, according to St. John, who saith, This is the Victory, that overcometh the World, even our Faith. Hence saith the Apostle to the Hebrews, Cast not away your Confidence which hath great Recompence of Reward; in the full per­swasion of receiving whereof, he also said in his [Page 287]2d. Epist. to Timothy, I have fought a good Fight, I have finished my Course, I have kept the Faith, Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righ­teousness, which the Lord will give me at that day. And for this cause (saith he) we faint not, for though our Outward Man Perisheth, yet the In­ward Man is renewed day by day, for our light Af­fliction, which is but for a Moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory, while we look not at the things that are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things, which are seen are Temporal, but the things, which are not seen are Eternal.

From these places it is plain, that the Faith of the Primitive Christians was one main Cause of their Courage, which the Pagan A­theist De Mort. Peregr. L. 2. p. 763. Lucian had learnt of them, as appears from these words; The Miserable Wretches (saith he) perswade those of their own Party, that they shall surely be Immortal, and live for ever, upon which account they despise Death, and offer themselves volun­tarily to it. And in Minutius Felix, Cecilianus ob­jects it against the Christians as a piece of Arro­gance, Quod Coelo & Stellis interitum denunciant, sibi tamen ipsis aeternitatem repromittunt; That they de­nounced Destruction to Heaven and the Stars, but assured themselves of Eternal Life. And again, They despise Torments, that are present, and yet fear those, that are Future, and Ʋncertain; and while they fear to dye after death, in the mean time they are not afraid to dye. It was a great Truth which the Ignorant Pagan objected; For in this As­surance of Faith, they let themselves be led like Sheep to the Slaughter, quietly suffering all the Ex­tremities [Page 288]of Death and Torments, which Men, or Devils could bring upon them without desiring to hurt, or seeking to revenge themselves upon those that Injured them, as Justin Mart. often observes in in his P. 236, 323, 363. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The Foresight and Joy of their Heavenly Reward made them endure the Cross, and despise the Shame of it, because they knew, that if they Suffered with him, they should also Reign with him.

TheDr. Caves Prim. Christ. p. 2. ch. 7. 40 Christian Souldiers, in the time of Licinius, which were starved to death in a Pond of Water in Cold Frosty Wea­ther, comforted one another, as they stood together by Ballancing their Present Sufferings, with their Future Hopes. Is the Weather Sharp (said they) Paradise is Comfortable, and Delightful. Is the Frost Cold and Bitter? they rest that remains is Sweet, and Pleasant. Let us but hold out a Little, and A­brahams Bosom will Refresh us; We shall change this One Night for an Eternal Age of Happiness. And, Blessed be God saith Bishop Ridley, in his Letter to Master Bradford) with all our evil Reports, Grudg­ings, and Restraints; we are Merry in God, of whom we look, and hope after these Temporal and Momentary Miseries, to have Eternal Joy and Perpetual Felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord,

The Third Principle, into which the Meek, and Passive Behaviour of former Christians is to be re­solved, is the Love of God by which Faith Gal. 5, 6. 1 Thes. 5, 3. worketh, or is actuated to do or suffer any thing for the Sake of Christ. So saith the Apostle, Rom. 8. 35. Who shall separate [Page 289]us from the Love of Christ, shall Tribulation, or Di­stress, or Persecution, or Famine, or Nakedness, or Pe­ril, or Sword, (as it is written, for thy sake are we killed all the day long, we are counted, as Sheep for the Slaughter) nay in all these things we are more than Conquerors through him, that loved us; for I am per­swaded, that neither [Fear of] Death, nor [Hope of] Life, nor Angels of Satan, nor Princes, nor Po­tentates, nor Sufferings Present, nor Sufferings to come, nor Heights of Preferment, nor Depth of Disgrace shall be able to separate us from the Love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So saith St. John most excel­cently to the same purpose, 1 Ep. 4. ‘We have known, and believed the Love, that God hath un­to us, for God is Love, and he that dwelleth in the Love of God, dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein consists the Consumation, or Perfection of our Love, that the we have [...] Boldness, or Cou­rage to Confess Christ [...] in the day of Tryal, for there is no Fear in Love, but per­fect Love casteth out Fear, because Fear is attend­ed with Torment, and Anxiety, so that he, that feareth Dangers, or Death is not arrived to the Perfection of Love.’

This great Love of Christ which enables us to suffer for him, is founded, as the fame Apostle teacheth upon the consideration of his Love in dy­ing for us, We love him (saith he) i. e. we ought to love him, because he first loved us. And God com­mendeth his Love towards us (saith St. Paul) in that while we were yet Sinners, Christ died for us. After the Apostles themselves there never was a greater Example of this flagrant Love of Christ, than the Holy Martyr Ignatius S [...] Johns Disciple and Bishop of [...]och, who, though he rejoyced [Page 290]heartily in the little Respit the Christians enjoyed from Persecution in the time of Nerva upon the Churches account, yet he Dubitavit enim apud seipsum, &c. Mar­tyr. S. Ignat. p. 2. doubted with himself, Whether he had arrived to the perfect Love of God, and was a compleat Disciple of Christ, because as yet he had not called him to Martyrdom. And therefore shortly af­ter, when Trajan the Emperor commanded the Souldiers to bind him in Chains, and carry him bound to Rome to be devoured in the Amphitheater, he Ib. p. 4. received the Sentence with Joy, and said, O Lord, I thank thee that thou hast made me perfect in thy Love, and made me worthy with thy A­postle St. Paul to be bound in Iron-Chains. According­ly in his Euseb. I. 3. c. 36. Journey to Rome, and in his Ex ed. Usser. vel Vossian. Epistle which he sent thither before his Arrival, he breathed nothing but the Per­fection of Divine Love. O, saith he, that I might come to those Wild Beasts, which are prepared for me, I will encourage them to devour me, if they are afraid to touch me, as they have been to touch others; nay, I will provoke them, if they will not set upon me. You must pardon me, I know what is for my Advantage; I am now indeed Christs Disciple; I am afraid of your Love, lest it be a Hindrance to me, but let me be devoured by the Beasts. It is better for me to dye for Jesus Christ, than to be Emperor of all the World. Let Fire, and the Cross, and the Wild Beasts, let Dissections of my Flesh, pulling in Pieces, and breaking of Bones, let Distortion of Members, and Bruising the whole Body, and all the Torments, which the Devil can invent come upon me, so that I Enjoy Jesus Christ.

The Fourth Reason into which the Meek, and Passive Temper of the Former Christians is to be resolved, is Inspired Patience, and Courage, where­by God enabled them to bear their Torments in such a Generous and Gallant Manner, as without such Assistance they could not have done. You (saith Octavius in Minutius Felix) extol men of Passive Courage unto the Skies, as Mutius Scaevola, who had died obscurely among his Enemies but for the Gallantry of his Right Hand; but how many of ours have suffer­ed not only the burning of their Hands, but of their whole Bodies without a Shreek, when they might have been set free. But I need not compare our men with Mutius, Aquilius, and Regulus, our very Women and Children by Inspiratâ patien­tiâ illudunt. Inspired Patience despise the Cross, the Rack, and the Wild Beasts, and all manner of of Terrible Punishments. To the same purpose speaks L. 5. c. 13. Ne­ipsam patientiam sine Deo cruciatos tantos posse superare. — Quia deest illis inspirata pa­tientia. Lactan­tius; When the People see men torn into Pieces with such variety of Torments, and tire out their Exe­cutioners with unconquerable Pati­ence, they guess what the real truth is, that the Consent and Perserverance of so many dying Persons is not in vain, nor that any Patience, unless it were from God, could overcome such great Torments. Robbers, and men of robust Bodies cannot endure such Tortures without shreeking, and sighing, because they have not Inspired Patience, but our Women and Chil­dren conquer their Torturers, nor can the Fire so much as make them Sigh.

This is most exactly agreeable to what is taught in the Gospel, as in 1 John 4.4. You are of G [...] (saith the Apostle) and have overcome them, because [Page 292]stronger is he, that is in you, than he, that is in the World. This I take to be the true meaning of that great Saying of Ad Smym. St. Ignatius, [...]. He that is near unto the Sword is near unto God, and he that is among the Wild Beasts, is in the midst of God. So saith St. Ep. 10. Ed. Oxon. Cyprian to the Martyrs and Confessors, That Christ Fights, and Conquers in his Servants, That he is present at their Conflicts, and up­holds, strengthens, and supports them. This made St. Paul, speaking of his Sufferings, say, I can do all things through Christ, who strengthneth me. And when all Men forsook him, at his first Hearing he said, That the Lord stood with him, and strengthned him, 2. Tim. 4.16. So in Coloss. 1.11. He prays, That They might be strengthned with all might according to his Glorious Power unto all Patience, and Long-suffe­rance with Joyfulness. And in his Epistle to the Phi­lippians saith he, To you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to Believe, but Suffer for his sake.

Accordingly I find our Glorious Predecessors and Martyrs in Queen Maries Days making most grateful acknowledgment of the Divine Courage, and Assistance which they received from Christ.‘Jesus Christ (saith Bishop Ridley to the Dispersed Bre­thren) hath given unto you a Manly Courage, and hath so strengthned you in the Inner Man by the Power of his Spirit, that you can contemn all the Flatteries of the World.’ And so in his Answer to Mr. Grindall, ‘As the Weight of his Cross hath in­creased upon us, so he hath not, nor doth not cease to multiply his Mercies to strengthen us. And to Mr. Bradford; Blessed be God, who is the Giver of [Page 293]all Strength and Stomach in time of Adversity.’ And in another Letter to him, ‘The Spirit bringeth in him [Dr. Taylor] in you and in your Company such blessed Fruits of Boldness, of Patience, and Con­stancy in the Lords Cause. In another— Thanksgiving unto God for his manifold Gifts of Grace, whereby it is manifest that God did assist you mightily. And in his Letter to Aug. Bernher. I trust to God it shall please him of his Goodness to strengthen me to make up the Rogers, and Grin­dall were the other two. Trinity out of Pauls Church to suffer for Christ.’ So Bishop Hooper to certain of his beloved Friends; ‘In the Name, and in the Strength, and Vertue, and Power of his Holy Spirit, prepare your selves in any case to Adversity, and Constancy.’ Much more to this purpose may be collected out of the Book of Martyrs and the Martyrs Letters, to shew how Powerful, and Visibly Christ assists all those, whom he calls to Sufferings, as St. Peter most emphatically sets it out in those words, If ye are re­proached for the Name of Christ, Happy are ye, for the Spirit of Glory and of God resteth upon you; implying, That the Spirit of God rested upon Martyrs, and Confessors, as the Glory used to do upon the Tem­ple, so that it might be seen by all the People, ac­cording to what Eusebius saith of the Martyrs in the Dioclesian Persecution, Then (saith he) we beheld the most admirable Forwardness, and [...]— l. 8. c. 3. Divine Power, and Alacrity of those, who professed Christ.

Hence he ordinarily ascribes their Courage, and Boldness, and Patience, and Constancy to Divine Inspiration, as in the Martyrdom of Apphianus, of [Page 294]whom he speaks, as of a Champion assisted with the [...]. De Mart. Pal. c. 4. Spirit of God, and act­ed by a Divine Power, without which it is impossible to solve, or give any satisfactory Account of the Gallantry of many of our English Martyrs in the time of Henry the Eighth, and Queen Mary, who were as Valiant Souldiers of Christ, as ever suffered for his Holy Name. How could Ni­cholas Peke, for Example, defie those who tempted him to Recant while he was burning in the Fire, un­less he had been specially assisted by God. How could Dr. Taylor have leaped, and danced for Joy when he drew near the Place of Execution, and kissed the Stake after he had Pray'd, unless God had inspired him with Courage. Or how could Archbishop Cranmer, without the special Assistance of God, endure the burning of his Right Hand, which he held immoveable in the Flame, before his Body was touched: Or, which is yet more won­derful, how could Rose Allen a poor Maid-Servant, without the wonderful Grace of God, endure the burning of her hand until the Sinews shrank, with­out the least Complaint, thanking God for it, and bidding the Tyrant who held her hand over the Candle, if he pleased, to burn her Feet, and her Head also. Afterwards this English Blandina sang for Joy at her Execution: And in general so won­derful was the Courage, and Patience of our mar­tyred Ancestors, that the Papists ascribed it to the Devil, as Julian the Apostate did that of the Pri­mitive Christians to Evil Spirits, thereby confessing that it was Supernatural, and above the ordinary Strength of Man.

And to this Divine Grace of Inspired Courage, and Patience, I may also add the wonderful work of God, in rebating, or taking away the Sense of Pain from his Holy Martyrs in the time of their Execu­tion, according to what De Mart. Palest. c. 2. [...]. Eu­sebius writes, who speaking of the Courage with which Roma­nus the Martyr bore the cutting out of his Tongue; He declared (saith he) by his Behaviour, that there is always a Divine Power present with those, who suffer Torments for the True Re­ligion, which lessens their Pains, and strengthens their Courage. And so in the Mar­tyrdom of Ec. Hist. l. 5. c. 1. [...]. Blandina he tells us she was plied with a Successi­on of fresh Torturers, and Tor­tures from Morning to Night, to the Astonishment of her Tormenters, till her whole Body was shattered, and mangled into pieces, and during the time of her Execution she enjoyed sensible Intermissions of Refreshment, in which she was not sensible of what was done unto her; and this hapned as often as she repeated the words of Confession, I am a Christian, and there is no Evil done among us.

So when Theodor. l. 3. c. 16. Theodorus was tortured from morning til night by fresh Tormenters, at the com­mand of Julian, he declared to those, who asked him if he were Sensible of what was done unto him, That in the beginning he felt a little pain, but af­terwards a Beautiful Youth appeared to him, who stood by him, and with a soft, and cool Handker­chief wiped the Sweat off his Face, which so de­lighted [Page 296]him, that he wished he had still continued under the hands of the Executioners.

Thus in our Martyrologies Foxes Acts and Monuments, An 1555. p. 1711. Thom. Tomkins the English Scevola, whose hand was held by Bonner over a Wax Candle with four We [...]ks, declared af­terwards to James Hinse, That his Spirit was so wrapt up, while his Hand was burning, that he felt no Pain. And Mr. Farrar, told a young Gentleman, Id. p. 1724. who lamented the painfulness of the Death he was to suffer, that if he saw him once stir in the Flames he should give no credit to his Do­ctrine; and as he foretold (doubtless by Divine Im­pulse) so he patiently stood in the Fire, till he was knocked down with a Staff. Thus likewise Id. p. 1767. Thomas Haukes, who had promised to give his Friends a Sign in the midst of the Fire, if the pains of burning were so tolerable that a man might pati­ently, and quietly endure them; after a long and patient continuance in the Flames, when his Skin was shrunk up, and his Fingers consumed with Fire, at last he reached up his Hands burning on a light Fire, and with great appearance of Rejoycing, clap­ped them thrice together. So Id. p. 1172. James Baynham, while he while he was burning at the Stake, and his Arms and Legs half consumed, he said, Behold, Oye Papists, ye look for Miracles, and here now you may see one, for in this Fire I feel no more pain, than if I were in a Bed of Down, but it is to me as Sweet as a Bed of Roses. We read of others, who sang Psalms in the Flames, as of Mr. John Den­ly, [Page 297]at whom Story commanded the Tormenter to throw a Fagot, which when he had done, he told him scoffingly, that he had marred a good old Song. And of Thomas Spicer, John Denny, and Edmond Pool, who praised God with such an Au­dible Voice in the Fire, as astonished those that stood by.

Now all these things, as the Apostle saith, hap­ned unto them for our Example, and were written for our Consolation, if ever we should be called to suffer, as they were. We cannot likely meet with more Cruel usage from the merciless Papists, than they found at their hands; and if we do, we shall be sure (if we be not wanting to our selves) to re­ceive the same Gracious Aids, and Assistances from God in all our Spiritual Combats, that they, and the Primitive Christians did. There can no Tryal, or Temptation take us, but such as is common to Christian Men, and hath hapned to them before us, and God is still Faithful, and will not suffer us at any time to be tempted beyond what we can en­dure, but will certainly with the Temptation (be it never so great) find out a way for us that we may be able to bear it. And if God be for us, as the A­postle speaks, who can be against us? And if he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not together with him also truly give us All these things? Mr. J. may laugh and scoff at this Passive Divinity as he pleaseth, but for my own part, I am so fully perswaded, that God will Inspire me with Supernatural Patience, and Courage, if he call me to suffer for him, that the Dismal Scene which his, and other Unchristian Pen­cils have drawn of a Popish Persecution, do not af­fright or discompose me, because I set the mighty [Page 298]Advantages of a Good Conscience, a strong Faith in the promised Reward for Suffering, a Zealous Love for God, and lastly, of his special Aids, Assistances, and Consolations against all the Difficulties, and Tor­ments with which alone they have painted Persecuti­on; and so tempering the terrible Appearance of the One, with the comfortable, and delightful Prospect of the Other, I am no more concerned for a Po;pish Persecution, than for other common Calamities, which happen to Good Men: Nor shall the Fear of it (by Gods Grace) ever transport me beyond the Bounds of Christian Decency, and Moderation; much less make me write such a wicked Book as the Life of Julian, which indeed would make me afraid to dye even for my Religion, before I had renoun­ced it, and begg'd the Pardon of God, and Man.

The Author of it had spent his time far better, and more like a Primitive Christian, and a Minister of the Passive Church of England, if he had em­ployed his Parts in writing a Book upon the Prin­ciples, which I have here laid down, to allay the Fears, and quiet the Minds of the Fearful, and Im­patient Multitude, by shewing of them, That Per­secution was not so Black as Sense would paint it, nor so Terrible as it looked at a Distance, especi­ally to a People, that had lived long in Ease, Plea­sure, and Plenty, but that God would assuredly give us Suffering Spirits, if he called us to Suffer­ing Times; and thereupon to exhort them to pos­sess their Souls in Patience, and endeavour to pre­vent it by constant and hearty Prayer to God, and forsaking those sinful Courses, for which perhaps the eye of Infinite Wisdom sees, that Persecution will be the most Effectual Cure.

This is the Design, that I have had in drawing this new and compleat Landskip of Persecution, and I am so well satisfied with the truth and certainty of these things, that I have added to Mr. J's Pourtrai­cture of it, That if it please God to suffer a Popish Prince to Reign over us, rather than he should prove a Julian indeed to Undermine our Religion by Crafty Arts, and tempt us out of it by Worldly Honours and Rewards, I heartily wish for the Churches good that he may rather prove a Maximin, or Dioclesian (I mean a down right Bloody persecutor) though I were the Proto-Martyr of the Cause. I speak this not rely­ing on my own Strength, but on the Gracious Assi­stance of God, in whom I trust, that he will Inspire me with the boldness of a Confessor, and the Patience, Courage, and Constancy of a Martyr, whensoe­ver he shall please to call me to Confess his Truths, and suffer for his Holy Name.

In the mean time, let the Event of things be what it will, I shall wait the good Pleasure of God, and carefully endeavour (as my Safety obligeth me) to prepare my self for Persecution, according to the Principles which I have here laid down, and the God­ly Admonition of that Famous Martyr Mr. John Brad­ford, which he wrote in the New Testament of one of his Friends.

This Book is called Sermo Crucis, the Word of the Cross, because the Cross doth always accompany it: So that if you will be a Student hereof, you must needs pre­pare your self for the Cross, which you be­gan to learn, before you learned your Al­phabet: And Christ requireth it of every one, that will be his Disciple, therein not [Page 300]swerving from the common Trade of Cal­lings, and Vocations; for no Profession, or kind of Life wanteth his Cross. So that they are far overseen, which think, that the Profession of the Gospel, which the Devil most Envieth, the World most Hateth, and the Flesh most Repineth at, can be without a Cross: Let us therefore pray, That God [...]ld enable us to take up our Cross by de­nying our selves: Amen.

E Carcere 18 Fe­bruarii 1555.
JOHN BRADFORD.
THE END.
Books Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-yard.
  • H. Mori Opera Theologica, & Rhilosophica, Fol. Three Vol.
  • Dr. More's Reply to the Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry. With his Appendix. Octavo.
  • —Remarques on Judge Hales, of Fluid Bodies, &c. Octavo.
  • —Exposition on the Apocalyps. Quarto.
  • —Exposition on Daniel. Quarto.
  • —Confutation of Astrology, against Butler. Quarto.
  • Dr. Sherlock's Discourse of the Knowledge of Jesus Christ. With his Defence. Octavo.
  • —Answer to Danson. Quarto.
  • —Account of Ferguson's Common-place-Book. Quarto.
  • Dr. Falkener's Libertas Ecclesiastica. Octavo.
  • —Christian Loyalty. Octavo.
  • —Vindication of Liturgies. Octavo.
  • Dr. Fowler's Libertas Evangelica. Octavo.
  • Mr. Scot's Christian Life. Octavo.
  • Dr. Worthington's great Duty of Self-Resignation. Octavo.
  • Dr. Smith's Pourtraict of Old Age. Octavo.
  • Mr. Kidder's Discourse of Christian Fortitude. Oct.
  • Mr. Allen's Discourse of Divine Assistance. Oct.
  • —Christian Justification stated. Oct.
  • —Against Fergusen, of Justification. Oct.
  • —Perswasive to Peace and Unity. With a large Preface. Octavo.
  • —Preface to the Perswasive. Alone. Octavo.
  • —Against the Quakers. Octavo.
  • —Mystery of Iniquity unfolded against the Papists. Octavo.
  • —Serious and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists. Octavo.
  • —Practical Discourse of Humility. Octavo.
  • Mr. Lamb's stop to the Course of Separation. Octavo.
  • —Fresh Suit against Independency. Octavo.
  • [Page]Mr. Hotchkis Discourse of the Imputation of Christs Righteous­ness to us, and our Sins to him. In two Parts. Octavo.
  • Mr. Long's History of the Donatists. Octavo.
  • —Character of a Separatist. Octavo.
  • —Against Hales, of Schism. With Mr. Baxter's Arguments for Conformity. Octavo.
  • —Non-Conformists Plea for Peace, Impleaded against Mr. Baxter. Octavo.
  • Dr. Grove's Vindication of the Conforming Clergy. Quarto.
  • —Defence of the Church, and Clergy of England. Quar­to.
  • —Defensio suae Responsionis ad nuperum Libellum, qui Inscri­bitur Celeusma, &c. Quarto.
  • —Responsio ad Celeusma, &c. Quarto.
  • The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the Mouths of Fanatical Protestants. Fol.
  • Dr. Hicks's Sermon at the Act at Oxford. Quarto.
  • —Before the Lord Mayor. Peculium Dei. Quarto.
  • — Notion of Persecution. Quarto.
  • Dr. Hicks's Sermon before the Lord Mayor, Jan. 30. at Bow-Church. 1682.
  • Dr. Sharp's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.
  • —Sermon at the Spittle, and York-shire Feast. Quarto,
  • —Sermon before the House of Commons. April 11, 1679.
  • —At the Election of the Lord Mayor. 1680.
  • Dr. William Smith's Unjust Mans Doom, and Discourse of Partial Conformity. Octavo.
  • —Two Assize Sermons. Octavo.
  • —Two Sermons, on the 3d. of May, and 29th. of May.
  • — Lent Sermon. Quarto.
  • Dr. Thorp's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.
  • Dr. Woodrof's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.
  • Mr. Williams's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.
  • —Christianity abused by the Church of Rome, and Popery shewed to be a Corruption of it: Being an Answer to a late Printed Paper given about by Papists, In a Letter to a Gentle­man. Quarto.
  • Remarks on the Growth and Progress of Nonconformity. In Quarto.
  • Baxters Vindication of the Church of England in her Rites and Ceremonies, Discipline and Church Orders.
  • Mr. Lynford's Sermon Quarto.
  • [Page]Mr. Bryan Turner's Sermon. Testimonium Jesu. Quarto.
  • Mr. John Turner's Sermon of Transubstantiation. Quarto.
  • Dr. Butler's Sermon before the King at Windsor.
  • Mr. Lamb's Sermon before the King at Windsor.
  • Mr. Browns Visitation Sermon. Quarto.
  • Dr. Fowler's Sermon at the Assizes at Gloucester. Quarto.
  • Mr. Cutlove's two Assize Sermons at St. Edmunds-Bury. Quar­to.
  • Mr. Inet's Sermon at the Assizes at Warwick. Quarto.
  • Mr. Edward Sermon's Sermon before the L. Mayor.
  • Mr. Resbury's Sermon before the Charter-House Scholars. In Quarto.
  • —Sermon at the Funeral of Sir Allen Broderick.
  • Mr. Needham's six Sermons at Cambridge. Octavo.
  • Dr. Eachard's Dialogue against Hobbs. 2d. Part.
  • Mr. Hallywel's Discourse of the Excellency of Christianity. O­ctavo.
  • —True and Lively Representation of Popery: Shewing that Popery is only new-modelled Paganism. Quarto.
  • —Account of Familism against the Quakers.
  • —Sacred Method of saving Humane Souls by Jesus Christ.
  • —Discourse of the Polity, and Kingdom of Darkness. O­ctavo.
  • Dr. Goodall's Vindication of the Colledge of Physicians. O­ctavo.
  • Mr. L'Emery's Course of Chymistry, With the Appendix.
  • Dr. Grew's Anatomy of Trunks. With nineteen Copper Plates. Octavo.
  • D. Sydenhami Observationes de Morbis Acutis. Octavo.
  • —Epistolae duae de Morbis Epidemicis, & de Lue Venerea. Octavo.
  • —Dissertatio Epistolaris de Variolis, ne [...]non de Affectione Hysterica et de Hypochondriaca. Octavo.
  • Lossii Observationes Medicae. Octavo.
  • Mayow Tractatus. 5 E. Med. de Sal. nitro, &c. Octavo.
  • Burnetii Telluris Theoria Sacra de Diluvio et Paradiso, Quar­to.
  • Spenseri dissertat. de Urim, et Thummim. Octavo.
  • Speed Epigrammata Juvenilia. Encomia, Seria, Satyrae, et [...] [...] ­cosa. Octavo.
  • Lord Bacon's Essays. Octavo.
  • [Page]Gage's Survey of the West-Indies.
  • Mr. Claget's Reply to the Mischief of Impositions. In Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon. Quarto.
  • The True English-man Humbly proposing something to rid us of the Plot in the State, and Contentions in the Church. Quarto.
  • A Perswasive to Reformation and Union, as the best Security a­gainst the Designs of our Popish Enemies. Quarto.
  • The Roman Wonder: Being Truth confest by Papists, &c. Being the Jesuites Morals Condemned, Fol.
  • Essex Free-holders Behaviour, &c. Fol. Two Sheets.
  • The Country Club; A Poem. Quarto.
  • Amyraldus Discourse of Divine Dreams. Octavo.
  • Dr. Arden's Directions about the Matter and Stile of Sermons. Twelves.
  • Protestant Loyalty fairly drawn. In Answer to a Dialogue at Ox­ford, between a Tutor and Pupil, &c. And an Impartial Ac­count of the late Addresses, &c. Quarto.
  • Mr. Tho. Smith's Sermon concerning the Doctrine, Unity, and Pro­fession of the Christian Faith. Preached before the University of Oxford. With an Appendix concerning the Apostles Creed. Quarto. 1682.
  • Mr. Lamb's Sermon before the Lord Mayor, Feb. 5. 1682.
  • Dr. Calamy's Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, at Bow-Church on the 29. of May. 1682.
  • Prosecution no Persecution: Or, the Difference between Suffering for Disobedience and Faction, In a Sermon upon Phil. 1.29. Preached at Bury St. Edmunds in Susfolk, on the 22 of March, 1681 By Nath. Bisbie, D. D,
  • The Modern Pharise. By Nath. Bisby D. D.
  • Moderation stated, In a Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, at Guild-Hall Chappel O­ctober 22. 1682. By John Evans, M. A. Rector of of St. Ethelbo­rough, London.
  • A Discourse to Prove that the Strongest Temptations are Conquer­able by Christians: In a Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, Jan. 14. 1676, 1677. By George Hicks, D. D.
  • Constantius the Apostate: Being a Short Account of his Life, and the Sense of the Primitive Christians about his Succession: Being a Full Answer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, Julian the Apo­state. Octavo.

Also several other Books on various Subjects.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.