An Answer to our Author's CHAP. I. A short Account of Julian's Life.

I Shall not interrupt my Discourse, which is designed as a Vindication of the Loy­alty of the Primitive Christians, against the false, impudent, and impious Ca­lumnies of this Author, with a Histo­ry of Julian's Life, which I intend in a more full and impartial Relation by it self. It shall therefore suffice to observe here with our Au­thor, p. 9. That Julian charged the people that they should injure none of the Christians, nor reproach them, nor draw them to sacrifice a­gainst [Page 66]their wills. So that the violencies of­fered to the Christians, were more from the insolencie of the Heathen, than any Law made by Julian, as our Author observes. And in­deed the Heathen, even in Julian's time, ne­ver acted such Cruelties upon the Christians, as the Arians and Donatists did; which made Ammianus Marcellinus a Heathen, to say, that no Beasts were so cruel to one another as the Christians were. And, in a word, if we should [...] all that our Author says of Julian's per­ [...]ting the Christians in this Chapter, and all that he says of the Christians persecuting Ju­lian in all the rest, to be true, we might be tempted to think that the Christians were the greatest Persecutors.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. II.

THis Chapter you say contains the sense of the Primitive Christians about his Succession; of which you speak, p. 19. under these two heads:

• 1. how the Succession stood, and
• 2. what Right and Title Julian had to suc­ceed to the Empire.

This first, I confess, you have (but against your will) clearly stated; and it will be enough to discredit all that you suggest concerning the second; which is, That the Christians would have been willing to set aside his Title, and to have excluded him purely for his Religion; which upon your Reasons I suppose the generalitie of Chri­stians would never have attempted, though some few might have been willing enough.

As to the first, the reason you mention from Eusebius is, That the Throne of the Empire de­scended to Constantine from his Father, and by the Law of Nature (which is a divine Law) was reserved for his Sons and their Posteritie, and was to descend for ever, as another Paternal Inheritance doth. And that this is the Law of Nature, you confirm from Eumenius a Hea­then [Page 58]then, (and others) who says, It was not the ca­sual consent of men, or any sudden effect of their favour, which made (Julian) a Prince; he gai­ned it by being born into the world: which seems to me the first and greatest Gift of the Gods. Now if by the Law of Nature, as well as of the Empire, Julian was to succeed; I cannot see how the Christians could by their Principles resist him in the administration of it, without resisting the Ordinance of God. For this, I have quoted Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase on Rom. 13.1, 2. &c. and that Saying of Tacitus, That we ought to endure wicked Prin­ces as we do Inundations or Scarcitie, which are of Gods sending.

These, you say, p. 20. are full and pregnant proofs; and I think, ad hominem cogent: for if, as you observe from Eusebius, the Empire was to descend as other Paternal Inheritances, then it must be more unlawful to resist or ex­clude a Prince from enjoying his Inheritance, than any private person. And then surely no sound Christian could have joyned in an Ad­dress to Constantius to exclude a person ap­pointed as it were by the Voice of God, as you say of Constantine that he was declared absolute Emperour by the [...] and long before that, by God himself the great King of all, p. 21. And St. Augustine says the same, viz. God that gave the Empire to Constantine, gave it to Julian. [Page 59]Onely by the way, I do not think that your [...], nor [...] neither, will, in the sence of the Greek Fathers, bear your interpreta­tion of the Law of Nature: for [...] is often used by Greek Authors for Custom. And I believe that Father whom you mention, in­tended no more than a Right of Succession for two or three Generations; which carried the name of a Law, as it doth also in our Common Law, where Consuetudo Lex est. And it is well known, that when the Heirs of the Emperors have been living, the Roman Souldiers have created their Emperours out of Obscure Fa­milies: but these are no Patterns for us Chri­stians to follow, nor for us in this Nation a­bove others. For William the Conqueror claimed the Crown not so much by his Sword, as by Right of Succession, (if you will believe the Author of that Fanatical book called The Rights of the Kingdom) to King Edward, whose Kinsman he was, and his Heir by Will, as appears by the Laws of St. Edward and William, p. 197. So that in this respect the Descent of the Crown of England is much more firm and established than that of the Empire, having been continued through more Generations, and confirmed by many Laws, which whoever shall infringe, takes off the Government from its Hinges, and leaves all to Confusion. For when a private Estate is [Page 60]intailed on a man and his Heirs, it is necessary that to bar the Heir, and alienate the Estate, the original Intail must be cut off, and then he that is in possession may dispose of the Inhe­ritance to one or more. And perhaps this was the intent of the Bill for Exclusion, to make it an Act for the Dissolution of Monarchy, and reduce us to a Commonwealth again. And it were better we should suffer some Inconve­niencies (if the Will of God be so) which yet are uncertain, than against the Will of God to do things unjust, and draw more cer­tain troubles on our own heads. For in the Contest between the Houses of York and Lan­caster, when the first alway pleaded the Right of Descent, the other alleadged the Acts of Parliaments; there were infinite troubles, which cost the lives of above 200000 men, whereof eight were Kings and Princes, forty Dukes, Marquesses and Earls, besides Barons and Gentlemen; and after all, the Kingdom fixed on this Maxime, Jus Sanguinis nullo Jure dirimi possit, i. e. The Right of Bloud cannot be abrogated by any Law. And the Author of the Rights of the Kingdom says, that in the days of Henry the Third and Richard the First, when was a motion of some great men that a Bastard might inherit, the Parliament at Merton cried out, Nolumus leges Angliae mu­tare, p. 264. Therefore I wonder that the [Page 61] same Author, p. 98. making a Supposition. That if any one man of all the Commons in Par­liament should usurp the Crown with all its dues: (He mentions not the whole House, for that hath been done already) What should I? what may I do? (saith he) and answers, Nothing, but mind my Calling, and at­tend the Judgment of the highest Court that I know, that may command my Body and Judge­ment much. It is a Maxime in our Law, That the King never dies: The King and his Heirs are looked on in the eye of the Law as an In­dividual; and to prevent Tumults and Dis­putes, they are joyned in most of those Acts that concern the Dignity of the Crown and publick Peace; and the Son hath sometime been Crowned in his Fathers life-time. Yet we plead not Providence in the long continu­ance of the Succession, nor the Law of the Land, upon which for other matters you lay the stress of your whole Discourse; but upon the Law of God, Deut. 17.8. where it was ordain­ed as a Statute of Judgment, (i. e. say Fagius and Munster, a firm and immutable Law, and as the Vulgar, Sanctum Lege perpetua) That IF A MAN DYE WITHOƲT CHILDREN, THE INHERITANCE MƲST BE GIVEN TO HIS BRETHREN. And Ainsworth from Solomon Jarchi, says, The Brother of him that was dead, or his Brothers seed, shall inherit. All [Page 62]this hath been observed by the Law of Nations where Kingdoms are hereditary, That as it is unjust, so it hath been always unhappie to alter the Succession; and even in private e­states, the disinheriting the right Heir hath been very much condemned and unfortu­nate.

And yet, (p. 22. you say) the Fathers had the Conscience to set aside such a Title. They could not do it with a good Conscience, the thing being in it self evil: for as the Law of God forbids to countenance a poor man in his Cause, so doth it also to defraud the rich, or follow a multitude to do evil, neither to speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judg­ment. None of us would judge it reasonable to be deprived of his right contrary to Law; and why then should we think it lawful to deprive another of that right to which we owe the preservation of our own? Athenago­ras more clearly shews what was the consent of the Fathers in this case: We pray for your Empire, and that the Son, as it is just, may succeed in his Fathers Throne. And yet they both were Pagans. But what would the Consent of Fathers, and the sense of the primitive Chri­stians signifie against the Decree and Laws of Heaven? who cannot more plainly declare his will to us, than by the voice of Nature, by his written Word, by pointing out, as by his [Page 63]finger, in his Providence, in making Heirs to Kingdoms as well as other Estates by a long and legal discent: and, as St. Augustine said, God that gave the Empire to good Constantine, gave it also to Julian. So Tertullian: Inde est Impe­rator, unde & Homo antequam Imperator.—And Irenoeus: By whose command they were born Men, by his they are ordained Kings.

And yet all this Crack of the Fathers and Primitive Christians, and (p. 31.) the whole Christian world, produceth nothing but a flash of Rhetorick from an Invective in Gregory Na­zianzen against Julian; from which if we ap­peal to the same Author in a more temperate and Christian Zeal, when he delivered him­self dogmatically to the people committed to his charge, we shall find him teaching and exhorting a different Doctrine and Pra­ctice from what is here delivered by him: of which I shall speak at large hereafter; and onely note by the way, That the Oration was made long after Julian's death: which savou­red not very much of humanity; and if it were upon occasion of some disappointment, as is reported, it had as little of Christianity. And this will appear a truth, that he did ex­ceed as well in the praise of Constantius the first Arian Emperiour, as in the dispraise of Julian, and the misrepresentation of the Chri­stians in his time. All which circumstances [Page 64]considered, and no other proof produced, our Authour deserves to do publick Penance for a­busing the Fathers and Primitive Christians, and, as he saies, the whole Christian world. And yet what can Gregory blame in Constantius, but that which he calls his Ignorance or Mi­stake? not being aware of his Apostacie. And it was too unchristian to blame the Emperour not onely for making him a King, but keeping him alive. This (you say, p. 24.) is enough to shew that Constantius would never have made Julian Caesar if he had known him to have been such. And, in my judgment, here is as much said to prove that Constantius ought to have slain him when his Brother Gallus was slain; Although this was a thing which he repented of in his Death-bed, and would undoubtedly be more unworthy of a Christian Emperour to exclude him out of the life, than to leave him to a Succession that descended by inheritance to him. And if it be such a Bill of Exclusion that you contend for, I am sure none of the Fathers nor any good Christian would ever consent to it.

P. 24. Is an Exclamation against the Empe­rour, having first said that Constantius did far ex­cel all other Kings in Wisdom and Ʋnderstanding, p. 25. and that he was led by the Hand of God into every Counsel and Enterprize (what, in tur­ning Arian, and persecuting Athanasius and o­ther [Page 65] Orthodox Bishops, and putting Arians in their seats?) your wisdom was admired above your power, and again your power more than your wisdom: but your Piety was valued above them both. Then he comes to blame the Emperour as the onely ignorant and inconsiderate per­son — and which of the Devils stole in along with you at that Consult? And yet again, p. 26. he saies of this first Arian Emperour, That he would have parted not onely with his Em­pire, and all that he had in this world, even his Life it self, for the securitie and safetie of the Christian Religion, &c. And our Author saies, that at his death he shewed with much ear­nestness the concernment he had for the true Reli­gion, p. 28, 29.

But for ought I yet see, Julian's Apostacie was not yet known, but he was generally ac­counted both a pious and a stout man; and therefore his repenting of making Julian Cae­sar was not on the account of Religion, but for some other respect, Julian having been declared Augustus by his Souldiers, who often disposed of the Empire, and being then on his march to dispute the Title with Constan­tius; (for hitherto Julian kept to the Chri­stian Assemblies, and was not known to be a Pagan, as you shew from Ammianus Marcelli­nus, p. 28.) After that Julian was declared Emperour, he still feigned himself a Christian; [Page 66]and though in private he performed his Heathen­ish Rites, trusting some few with the secret, yet he publickly went to Church on Twelfth-day; and after he had been devout at the Service, he came away again. This was done at Vienna, not quite Ten Moneths before the Emperour's death.

This is all that our Author produceth for the sense of the Fathers and primitive Chri­stians for the Exclusion of Julian; his Title was divine, his Religion at most onely suspected, not know. Yet saies our Author, p. 30. If this Doctrine (concerning the alteration of Succession) shall displease any, which is contra­ry to what these Fathers (which will not a­mount to one single person) assert with so much vehemencie: He thinks it reasonable that first they confute this Doctrine (of Exclusion) which they dislike. And secondly, That they would never fetch their Mountebank-Receipts of Prayers and Tears▪ and suchlike encouragements to Arbitrarie Government, out of the Writings of these very Fathers. This our Author knew could easily be done, and therefore he thought to prejudice his Readers against it, by calling them Mountebank-Receipts, and Antimonarchi­cal Authors, and encouragements to Arbitrarie Government. Than which I scarce know a­ny thing more profane, but the down-right Blasphemie of the Doctrine of Christ, and the [Page 67]practice of the best Christians, who counted not their lives dear unto them, that the Doctrine of the Gospel might not be evil spoken of, as if Christianity were an utter Enemie to Caesar, or as another Mahomet to establish his King­dom by the Sword. What an easie matter doth our Author think it, to impose any false­hood on the Vulgar, when he tells them of Fathers and primitive Christians with so much vehemencie asserting the lawfulness of exclu­ding Julian; and instead of all other proofs, produceth onely a Rhetorical Expression of a person in some passion; from which it might be proved as lawful to Murder Julian, as to Exclude him from the Succession? Hercules tuam fidem! But to answer our Author's de­mand.

I shall endeavour to confute his Doctrine, (viz.) That the Fathers and Primitive Chri­stians of the whole World were for the Exclu­sion of Julian from the Empire. Iraeneus, Ter­tullian, and St. Augustin, you have seen to be of a contrarie Judgment.

• 1. The true Christians could not be for it, upon your Position, That he had a right to it by the Law of Nature, and the Hand of God gave it him: which you seem to assert.
• 2. It is certain the Arian Fathers were not, as hath been alreadie shewn; they congratulated Julian's advent to the Kingdom: Much less [Page 68]could the Orthodox be for it upon Gregories surmise that Constantius would have excluded him out of the Life as well as the Empire.
• 3. From their behaviour towards Constan­tius a vehement Arian, the Orthodox Fathers shew they were not for Exclusion. Constans his Brother was joyned with him in the Em­pire, and he defended Athanasius and the Or­thodox Bishops against Constantius; yet these Christians never sided with Constans against Constantius: they never resisted or sought to depose or exclude him, although his Heresie was extreamly dangerous, and propagated by Force and Persecution of more eminent Divines than any that suffered under Julian. And as our Author says that Poperie is ten times worse than Paganism; so I have heard as wise and good men as himself say, that Socinianism is as bad as Poperie; and the Ari­ans, who denied the Deity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, were much like our Socinians. Mr. Baxter hath so much Charitie as to think that some that died in the Communion of the Church of Rome are Saints in Heaven; though he will scarce grant it to such as die in the Communion of the Church of England, and therefore much less to those that die in the belief of the Socinians, who renounce the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and the use and efficacie of the Holy Sacraments.
• [Page 69]4. Constantius himself would never have consented to the Murder of Julian, upon due consideration; the Murder of others being repented of upon his Death-bed: and here is but one Argument for both his Exclusion and his Murder.

Now although our Author hath sufficient­ly refuted himself in what hath been said, yet because the Calumnie against the Chri­stians of that Age, though asserted onely with noise and confidence, (and, as the say­ing is, Fortiter Calumniare aliquid adhaerebit) may beget a false opinion both of those Pri­mitive Christians, and the Doctrine of Chri­stianitie it self, and also infect the present Generation, in which too many are glad to hear what power they may exercise on such Governours as are not of their own Judg­ment; I shall in due time enquire strictly in­to this Authors Opinion concerning Resistance, and shew, that his whole Fabrick will be crush'd by the authoritie and reason of those very Authors upon whose bare names he seeks to raise it. But for this I must desire the Readers patience.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. III. Their Behaviour towards him in Words.

THe Reader may understand that our Author hath done with Julian as a Successor, and now shews how the Christians treated him when he was in full possession of the Empire, and that by Divine Appointment (as he grants). And therefore I hope it will be considered, that the following Reflections do shew, from the practice of the Christians of that Age, how the Christians of this may behave themselves towards their lawful Go­vernours. And he begins, p. 32. with a great varietie of Instances, as he calls them, of the hatred and contempt of those Christians towards Julian. And I shall also desire that the Rea­der will consider not onely the matters of fact, but the lawfulness of such Words and A­ctions as were spoken and done against Julian. A facto ad jus non valet argumentum. And then by what number of Christians, and of what condition they were that spoke and acted such things as were spoken and acted: For we have known in our Age such things spoken [Page 71]and done, by no small companie of men, a­gainst a Prince of known Integrity, as will make all sober Christians to be ashamed and confounded at the report of them. And if such behaviour of our present Christians shall be a hundred years hence read in our Annals, it will be a grand Calumnie against such as were more Loyal and Pious, for any Reader to conclude that such was the general pra­ctice of the Christians in that Age; or that because one discontented Bishop turn'd Apo­state, and fought against his Prince, that all the Bishops and Christians then alive were Re­bels.

P. 33. Of their behaviour you inform us under these three Heads.

• 1. Of their Words.
• 2. Their Actions.
• 3. Their Devotions.

Of their Words. You say they were quit with him for calling them Galilaeans, in calling him Idolianus. This, I confess, savours of the Wit of that Age: So the Arians called Athanasius Sathanasius; so the Pharisees cal­led our Saviour Beelzebub. But did they re­turn railing for railing? I am sure they taught us to return Blessing and Prayers even to our Persecutors. What if the Antiochians libel­led him, and plaid with his Beard, and twit­ted him with some natural Blemishes and Im­perfections, whereof he himself gives the world an account in his Misopogon? Is that [Page 72]sufficient authority for us to libel our Gover­nours? Is it becoming a Christian to deride the bodily Infirmities, as the Shape of the Bo­dy, the Gate, the Beard, and, as you say, p. 33. every thing that belonged to him? Julian him­self shewed more wisdom and humanity in scorning these impotent Reproaches, than they did Christianity in seeking by such boyish language to vex every Vein in his Royal Heart, p. 66. It is a sign that he had more of mo­deration than they; for had they had his Power, (by your description of them) they wanted no Will utterly to ruine him. But I think it more agreeable to Truth, though some few over-zealous persons might Lampoon his sorrie Beard as fit to make Ropes of, &c. that yet the generality were better princi­pled, and neither used their Tongues nor their Swords against that Heathen Emperour. As for those that did so reproach him, Julian tells them truly they had renounced the Laws, and him that had the keeping of them, (i. e. They dealt with him, as you say, like Barbari­ans). And if the Christians were first in the Transgression, it was not like Julian would be long behind them, or be less barbarous than they. And yet though he could have re­venged himself with the Sword, he did it one­ly with the Pen: And when he was put into a fit of anger, he onely told them as a [Page 73]punishment that he would see them no more. Nondum ira quam ex compellationibus & probris conceperat emolitâ loquebatur, aspe­riùs se eos asserens postea non visurum, Am. Marcell. l. 23. I think in this particular one would take them to be the Apostates, and not Julian (as you say, p. 66.)

P. 36. You give a particular instance of a single man in Berea, whose Son warping to the false Religion, his Father turned him out of doors and disinherited him; who related this whole matter to the Emperour, then coming to Berea. The Emperour being arrived, invited among other Magistrates and Chief men, this young man and his Father, and set these two next himself; and tells the Father, that in his mind it was not just to force a mans Judgment otherwise inclined, to reduce it to the other side: Therefore don't you (saies Julian) force your Son against his mind to follow your Opinion; for nei­ther do I force you to follow mine, though I could easily compel you. The Father sharpning his Dis­course, with a Divine Faith, answered, O King, do you speak of this Villain, who is hated by God, and hath preferred a Lye, before the true Religion? But saies Julian, putting on a vizard of Meekness again, Friend, leave railing; and turning to the young man, said, I will take care of you my self, since I have not prevailed with your Father to do it. This Berean deserves [Page 74]the Title of Noble for his Zeal; but it reach­eth not to a demonstration of what you pro­duce it for, p. 35. that the Christians took the freedom to reproach him and his Religion to his face: for though he despised his Religion, yet for ought that appears, he owned his Authori­ty, and reverenced his Person, bespeaking him by the Title of O King. And here is no ex­ample for railing words, neither from that No­ble Berean against Julian, nor from Julian a­gainst him.

P. 38. you give another instance of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, who being blind, was led to the Emperour as he was Sacrificing to Fortune, for which he called him Impious Apostate, and Atheist; and Julian reproached him again with his blindness, saying, his Galilaean God would not cure him. Maris replied, I thank God for stri­king me with blindness, that I may not see thy face. This was bold and well; for he refle­cted not on his Person, but his Paganism. The sayings of Juventinus and Maximus you think fit to omit; but I shall shortly mind you of them. It is strange that our Author could find no instances more pertinent to his purpose than these two, wherein (as he says, p. 45.) they shewed themselves to be men of like passions with other men: though neither of them shewed themselves to be men of a capricious humour, but declaring their just indignation against his [Page 75] Apostacie, yet spared his Person and his Office; as knowing that they ought not to speak evil of the Ruler of the People, though they were such as had been Ʋsurpers, and caused them to be smitten contrary to the Law, as St. Paul informs us; much less when they onely smite us with their tongues, as Julian did in the case alledged. And if it were done in passion, as you intimate, you know how our Saviour condemned that in his own Disciples that would call for fire from Heaven on the Samaritans.

Now against the speaking evil of Dignities, which Jude, vers. 8. sharply reproves in the Gnosticks of his time, I shall produce the pra­ctices of other eminent Christians, even in Ju­lians Reign. Athanasius was a great Pillar of the Church at that time, and a great example of passive Obedience under the severe Persecu­tions both of Constantius and Julian; yet he gave his Oath that he never spake evil of him, as you shall hear anon. St. Ambrose spake of the same times, The Christian Ledentibus non irascitur, Spoliantibus non resistit, caedentibus non repugnat, &c. Lactantins lived somewhat sooner, but shews the practice of Christians in his time, which was under Dioclesian and Ma­ximian, the two greatest Tyrants: Cum tam nefanda perpetimur, NE VERBO quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimus ultionem, Instit. l. 5. c. 21. and the same patience he says was [Page 76]practised every where; That though they en­dured unspeakable miseries, yet none of the Chri­stians did resist, so much as in a word.

P. 38. It would be endless (you say; that is, it would not be to your end and intent) to reckon up the Sayings of Juventinus and Ma­ximus; which you name again, p. 39. but wisely pass by. For they being accused for speaking against Julian, by some such Witnes­ses as your self, do without any maledictions thus plead for themselves: We, O Emperour, who were brought up in the true Religion, and have lived in obedience to those excellent Laws made by Constantine and his Sons, cannot but greatly lament to see all things defiled with im­pietie—our Meats and Drink are polluted. (The Emperour had caused some of the Water, or the Sacrifices offered to his Gods, to be mixt or sprinkled with their Meat; which did not hinder the most Christians from using them, according to what the Apostle allowed, 1 Cor. 10.): But do they rail or rebel? No: they are Lachrymists; Those things (say they) cause us to shed many tears at home, and they con­strain us to make our sorrowful complaint before thee. We are offended at nothing else in your Government. This you wisely omitted; u­sing onely their names, to make up a number. Ad populum has Phaleras.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. IV. Of their Actions.

FRom their Words you come to speak of Blows; yet none that I perceive fell up­on Julian's person: for you give us but two Instances of this; and neither of them reached his person, and but one an Officer that was in­feriour to him that struck him: and that was Valentinian, a Colonel of the Houshold-guards, who as he was going before the Em­perour to the Temple of Fortune, was sprin­kled with Holy Water by one of the Chaplains (as our Author calls him): which coming nigh to Valentinian's Clothes, he strook the Sacrist, saying, It would rather defile than cleanse him. I am at a loss how to reconcile this History with another more generally re­ported by Gregory Nazianzen, as well as o­thers, That Valentinian voluntarily stript himself of his Military Girdle (that is, laid down his Commission) upon an Edict of Juli­an's, That no Christian should bear Office in his Army; for which noble act St. Augustine (De civit. Dei, lib. 18. cap. 52.) calls him a Con­fessor. [Page 78]But if it be true that he was Colonel of the Guards when he made this Assault, and that Julian ipso facto sent him away to a Garison lying by a Desart to spend his days there, then the other History must be false; and I think it more safe to believe that History which Gregory Nazianzen delivers, attested by many others, than that which comes on the single report of Theodoret. But if the Colonel of the Guards had struck a Sprinkler of Holy Water, what was this to the striking of Julian?

The next Instance is from a passage of Gre­gory Nazianzen, of which this is a brief account. Who is there to be found that more despised the Emperour, or had a greater hand in destroying him, than my Father? Of his contempt, amongst many others, both those Archers and THEIR COMMANDER are a proof, whom HE BROƲGHT against our Church, as either to take possession of it, or to destroy it: for ha­ving assaulted many others; he came hither like­wise with the same intent, and imperiously de­manded the Temple. He so far failed of accom­plishing any thing of what he desired, that if he had not presently got out of my Fathers way (be­ing aware of it, either of himself, or by some bo­dies advice) he might have gone away kicked; the Bishop boyling with Anger against him, and with Zeal for the Temple. A very hot fit of Anger and Zeal together, it must needs be, that [Page 79]did animate so ancient a Bishop (being ninety years old) to lift up his heel against a young Emperour of thirty two, in the head of an Ar­my, who having assaulted many other Chur­ches, came resolved to seize this also. Who can think Julian would be diverted with the notice of the old Bishops lying in wait for him; or that he who had read what David said concerning Saul, (after that he also had apostatized from God, as I suppose that old Bishop had done) viz. Who can lift up his hand against the Lords Anointed & be guiltless, 1 Sam. 26.9. should think of lifting up his heels against Julian in the head of his Army? Either there­fore this must be such an [...] as is not to be parallel'd in all Longinus, or such an heroick intention as never entered into the heart of a­ny Zealot among the Jews. But to come more close to the matter; you say, p. 43. You have often tried to make this beating intended for the Captain of the Archers, and have been ready to make Solaecisms in the Greek, to avoid the grea­ter Soloecism of an Emperour of the world awed and terrified with the fear of a kicking. But it will not do. No; the Proverb hinders it, None so blind as he that will not see. It might have been done easily enough, if you had not committed a Soloecism your self, in transla­ting the word [...], he Brought, but had kept the righter sence of that word, which Billius, [Page 80]the learned Interpreter of Gregory Nazianzen translates immiserat, he sent; or, which your Elias Cretensis useth, concitabat, he stirred up, or compelled to go against that Church; which if the Emperour had been in person, he need not to have done. And therefore I suppose Gregory Nazianzen meant it of the Captain of the Archers, that demanded the Church [...], not pro imperio, by virtue of a Mandamus or Commission from the Empe­rour: for sure the Emperour himself needed no such Commission. Nor is it probable that the Emperour himself would in his March a­gainst Persia trot up and down from one Church to another: for you say, he had as­saulted many others to make a seizure of them. Nor is it a Soloecism to say the Emperour seized those Churches which another did seize by his command. Our Author I suppose was led in­to this errour by taking the word [...] from [...], which signifieth induco, to lead or intro­duce: whereas the Interpreters that render it immitto, or concito, being better Grecians than himself, understand it to be from the Verb [...], of which every Lexicon will give him such a sence, as that, without a wresting of it, it must refer to the Captain of the Archers. But we are come to the end of this Tragi-co­medy: The Emperour kept himself in a whole skin; the Bishops Anger vented it self some [Page 81]other way, and all was husht and calmed. But certainly our Author, who hath first be­gun this Quarrel between the Emperour and the Bishop, is much to be blamed, whether he did it ignorantly (which is the best constru­ction that his Friends can make) or else ma­liciously, which appears by forsaking the Translations of Billius and Cretensis, and pre­ferring another that might favour his designe. And I challenge him to be as big as his word, and make satisfaction for this base Coinage. And that you may not be guilty of such a wilful mistake for the future, I shall give you this Token to be worn as a Frontlet on your brow, That from [...] is derived [...], an Insti­gator.

P. 44. Here you have a description of one of the Lachrymists of old, &c. How far this Bi­shop was a Lachrymist, we shall see hereafter. It were fitter for the Wit of a Julian, than the Piety of a Christian, to deride the Prayers and Tears of those ancient Christians. Whatever Garlands and Trophies Nazianzen or Basil ere­cted for that old Bishop, are now pulled down by the hands of a young P— who represents him as a Hector, and a Striker, expresly con­trary to our Saviour's Example, and St. Paul's Injunction.

You adde, p. 44. And now I know no more than the Pope of Rome, what to make of all this; [Page 82]what they meant by it, or on what Principles they proceeded. I question not the Principles of those in whom you have instanced; it suf­ficeth me that you say it was done in a fit of boiling anger. But when, speaking of the Principles of such as offer violence to their lawful Emperours, you say you know nò more than the Pope of Rome: I say, it is pity that you should know or divulge half so much: For what you have suggested concerning these pretended Violences offered by Primi­tive Christians to their lawful Emperours, hath a very malign influence on the present Age; and for this and other such Reasons, (as I said) I would rather lose my right hand than be the Author of them. But if you know their Principles as well as the Pope of Rome, you know he holds it lawful to depose or kill any Prince whom he shall judge and Excommunicate as a Heretick or Tyrant; and he can teach you to distinguish between resisting Julian, and resisting the Devil that was in him: That the King is Ʋni­versis minor, and that the people who gave him his power may resume it, &c.

You say, p. 45. none of those Bishops had e­ver been in Scotland, nor had learnt to fawn upon an Apostate, and a mortal Enemie to Reli­gion. Parcius ista: For though some may think you are reflecting only on a Popish Suc­cessor; [Page 83]yet others, considering you speak of Julian, who was now a lawful Emperour, may stretch this line too far. Scotland in­deed hath been glutted with the bloud of their Kings; whereof about Thirtie have sussered violent Deaths. I acquit those Bishops from confederacie with Scotland; they never con­tributed to the destruction of any: I wish I could do so by the Presbyterians. Yet I per­ceive you know how to yoak the Popes Bull and the Scotish Heifer together, and with them to make large Furrows on the backs of Kings. There was, I remember, for a­bove Forty years since, a great Correspondence between Rome and Scotland, who then com­municated their Principles to each other; and though none of the old Bishops were ac­quainted with them, yet some late Presbyters have espoused them, and can on all occasi­ons (for the disturbance of our English Na­tion) talk as Whiggishly as ever Knox or Bu­chanan did. But they are so disingenuous as to conceal the names of their good Teachers, from whom they learned to distinguish not onely between Julian and the Devil in him, but between Charles Stuart and the King, that they might destroy him in a double capacity; first, as a King, and then as a Man. And if, as you say, the Laws of our Land do not al­low any one to imagine violence to their lawful [Page 84]Emperour: And if, as Bracton says, fama apud graves & bonos viros, is a proof of Treason, I fear an Indictment may lie against the Au­thor of Julian's Life; for that— Not having the fear of God before his Eyes, but being mo­ved, &c. It is therefore a most profane and Reproachful inference, with which you con­clude Chap. 6. That in that Age the best Prayers and Tears were those that contributed most to Julian's destruction.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. V. Of their Devotions: And first of their Psalms.

THis was indeed the Devotion of our late Times, to begin with a Psalm, not regarding the Scriptures, or as much as the Commandments, Creed, or Lords Prayer; and then to preach in their Prayers, and pray in their Preaching; or, if you will, in our Au­thors Language, to say their Prayers back­ward. In their Devotions, you say, p. 45. It might be expected we should see the flights of their self-denying and suffering Religion; and one may expect they should lay aside their annimositie against Julian, though he were their Ememie, and for that reason pray the harder for him.— This certainly was their duty, where­in they might have shewn themselves Chri­stians indeed: But this, our Author thinks, was fit onely for the Christians in Dioclesians time, and those that lived in the most Primi­tive times. I am as sure that they used the right method of Devotion in praying for their Heathen Persecutors, as our Author can be of what he seems to glorie in, that these in Ju­lian's [Page 86]time prayed the wrong way, p. 46. They cannot sing a Psalm (saies he) but they make his Confusion the burden of it. Such Psalms as these, are none of the Songs of Sion, which should make for Peace; nor had he the Wis­dom of Solomon that composed them, or they the Spirit of Christ that sung them. Our Saviour (as we read) sung a Hymn a little be­fore his Passion; but it was not for confusion of those that came to apprehend and crucified him; he prayed for them: Father, forgive them, &c. Now though the Brethren of Scot­land bave been silent of late, yet among the Sisters there are many such sweet Singers still, who in their Rhapsodies dart up Arrows, Fire­brands, and Death against Heaven it self; which have deservedly recoiled on their own heads, and spoiled their singing. And if such be their running Verses, and the Burden of their Songs, sing Quicunque vult for me; I will be none of that black Quire: St. Stephens example is fitter for a Christian, who prayed for his Persecutors while they were stoning of him, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, Acts 7. v. 60. And all sober Christians will rather take St. James his advice than the Au­thor of Julian, who tells us, if we use our Tongues to bless God even the Father, and to curse men which are made after the similitude of God, (and Princes have a double Image of [Page 87]God; as they are Men, and as they are Prin­ces) if we are double-tongued, and out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing: my brethren (saies he) these things ought not so to be, James 3.9, 10. And now let us con­sider his Proofs. And first, as to the instance of those who removed the Bones of Babilas; it was ill done to set David's Psalms to the tune of Sheba's Trumpet, We have no portion in David, neither have we any inheritance in the Son of Jesse: Every man to his Tents, O Is­rael. Doubtless, they should rather have prayed for his Conversion than his Confusion. How unsuitable was this to the Funeral-So­lemnitie of a Martyr, when they should have rather blessed God for the example of the Faith and Patience of Babilas, than have provoked the Emperour to have made it their own Fu­neral-dirge! Our Saviour advised his Disci­ples to flee from persecution, not to draw it on their own heads.

The second instance, is of Publia and her Maidens, who sung to the same tune, and contra­ry to what St. James prescribes; having praised God her Creator, by and by, in a fit of Rage, whereof (you say, p. 50.) there seemed to be some quantitie, she turned her Devotion into Curses plainly levell'd at the head of Ju­lian: And it is a wonder, that having to do with such an Emperour, that they had not like [Page 88] Swans ended their Lives with their Songs. But did any companie of Christians at that time meet solemnly together, and make use of such a Directorie for their publick Devo­tions? No; they were but the passionate acts of a few private persons, contrary to the gene­ral practice of the Fathers and serious Chri­stians, as shall most undeniably appear anon. But this calls to my mind a more rude and barbarous behaviour of some (who accounted themselves the best Christians) towards the Royal Martyr, who honouring one of their Congregations with his presence, when they came to sing a Psalm, by whose instigation it was I know not, the 52 Psalm was named, and begun to be read:

Whereat the good King lifting up himself, saies, I pray you to sing the 56 Psalm,

And the Congregation cheerfully sung with his Majestie. This was one great fault (saith he) of the Common-prayer, that it taught them to pray so often for me; to which prayers they [Page 89]had not loyaltie enough to say Amen. It is a most profane Custom, though it hath of late years been too much in use, to turn our Prayers into Satyrs, and our Psalms into Pasquils and Libels; and to vomit forth our Spleen, when we should pour out our Hearts before God.

I shall conclude this Chapter with Atha­nasius his answer to Constantius, when he had been accused for stirring up Constans against his Brother Constantius to restore him by Arms. I am not so mad, O Emperour, that you should suspect me to have had any such thought. I call God to witness against my Soul, and I swear, the Lord can bear me witness, and his Anointed your Brother, I never mentioned you for any evil before your Brother; neither ever stirred him up against you, as these (Arians) slander me: but whenever I had access to him, he himself mentioned your gracious inclination; And God knows what mention I made of your godly disposition. —I am not so mad, neither have I forgotten the voice of God, which saith, Curse not the King in thine heart, nor the mighty in the secret of thy chamber; for the birds of the air shall reveal it, &c. If the things spoken in secret touching you Princes cannot be hid, is it likely that I in the presence of a Prince, and many standing by, would say any thing of you otherwise than what was good? —I beseech your Highness call to mind my be­haviour [Page 90]when you admitted me to your presence at Vimimachum, at Caesaria, and Antioch; whether I did so much as offer an evil word of Eusebius my bitter Enemy, or of any my perse­cutors: And if I refrained my tongue when I was to plead against them in my own defence, what madness had it been to traduce an Empe­rour before an Emperour, and to stir up one Brother against another? Athanasii Apol. ad Imperatorem Constantius. Yet was this Bi­shop turn'd out of his Church without kick­ing the Emperour, or any Officer of his, as may be there read: he departed peaceably; and though the Citizens were ready to take Arms on Ambrose his behalf, he pacified them and departed.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. VI. Their Prayers and Tears.

WHereof, he says, Gregory gives a large account. So large indeed, that our Author onely pickt and chose what might make most for his purpose, omitting what was most material: for in that second Oration against Julian, p. 127. he says, [...] How great provision of Armour and inventions of Engines; how many myriads of men and armed Souldiers could effect those things which we by our Prayers onely, and God by his Will hath done? Nor is it probable that the Christians at that time did want force to restrain the violence of the Emperour, seeing our Author confesseth, that he who though it a small business to conquer the Persians, thought it a great work to reduce the Christians. And doubtless that Pagan wanted not malice to root them out, but he distrusted his Power: for even of that Army which he led into Per­sia, the far greatest part, if not all, were Christi­ans; which appears not onely by their chu­sing [Page 92] Jovian to be their EmperourGreg. p. 117. immediately after his death) who had renounced all his Honour, & suffered exile for Christianity; but by their unani­mousSee Russ. l. 2. c. 1. Socr. l. 3. c. 22. Theod. l. 4. c. 1. Acclamation, when Jovian told them he was unwilling to undertake the Government of a Pagan Army, We are all Christians! we are all Christians!

This consideration, drew from the Learned Mountague upon the relation of St. Gregory ( [...]) this Note; It was not because they could not, but because they would not resist: for they had strength sufficient to have sup­pressed the Tyrant, as St. Augustine and Gregory declare: The Christian interest was so largely propagated, and had taken such deep roots, that it could not be destroyed, unless the Em­pire had perished with it. Tertullian says, the Christians were pars pene major cujusque Civita­tis, & vestra Omnia implevimus; And if they had but deserted the Empire, it would have been as a Wilderness: Yet it appeared to be true, That Christianus nullius est hostis nedum Imperatoris. And St. Cyprian ad Demetr. Ne­mo nostrum quando apprehenditur reluctatur, nee se adversus injustam violentiam vestram, (quam­vis nimius & copiosus sit populus noster) ulcisci­tur.) But those Christians had learn'd pati­ence in the School of Christ, as well by ex­ample [Page 93]as precept; and not to overturn and bring all to confusion, with a ‘Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.’ So the Learned Mountague. So that when Gregory says, they had no other defence, but all was cut off from them, he may be well under­stood, concerning the use of any other means, all violence and resistance being forbidden them; for, id possumus quod Jure possumus: they were forbid to use the Sword for revenging themselves upon the Emperour. And St Gregory in his 1. Orat. says, that the enemy of Christianity was defeated by Gods mercy, and the Christians tears, which were many, and shed by many, [...], having no other remedy against that Persecutor.

Besides, as they wanted not Souldiers, so neither valiant and experienced Captains that had the entire affections of the Souldiers, and which were approved Christians. Jovianus, Valentinian, and Valens (which three after the death of Julian were successively chosen Em­perours) could each of them have engaged Legions to follow them: and how well the Souldiers were affected to them, you have seen already by their choice of Jovian present­ly on the death of Julian. So that it might be as truly objected that they wanted Souldiers and Commanders, as that they wanted Arms, [Page 94]Castles and Fortresses. They had not indeed suprized any of the Imperial Forts, or held them out in actual Rebellion against Julian, (as you know who did in the last Age:) but ma­ny of them were Garisoned with Christian Souldiers, who doubtless would have declared for the Christian Religion, against the Atheism and Persecution of Julian, had not these re­nowned Confessors been restrained by the Com­mand of Christ to fear God and honour the King,

Besides, I have two other Considerations of great weight with me, that it was not for want of Strength, or doubt of Success, that the Christians did not oppose Julian.

As first, it was usual with the Roman Soul­diers upon any disgust with their Emperours, to kill their Emperours, and set others in their Thrones. Six of the twelve Caesars were slain, pas some Historians account; but never was there such a thing done by the Christian Souldiers: For after such time as the Roman Strength was put into the hands of Chri­stians, they never deposed any one of their Emperours, though there wanted no Strength on their parts, nor Provocations on their e­nemies part, many of them being Persecuting Arians. And though Julian by his rashness, against the advice of Sallustius, a man of great experience, and generally beloved of his whole [Page 95]Army, was resolved on the Persian War, and had foolishly exposed them to great hazards and danger, by his following the directions of a Renegado Persian, who led them into a barren, and almost inaccessible Country, and burning his Ships that might have served for a retreat; yet was there no Associating or ban­ding against him in his life-time; but as soon as he was dead, they all professed themselves Christians, and chose a Christian Empe­rour.

Secondly, The power which the Clergy had with the People, who could hardly re­strain then from tumults and fighting in their desence, is another Argument with me: for e­ven at that time Athanasius convened in the great City of Alexandria, a great number, not onely of the Bishops of the Greek Church, which were near at hand, but from Italy, E­gypt, Arabia, and Libya; which argues that the affairs of Christianity were in no low or despisable condition. And if it be true that Gregories Father alone thought of braving the Emperour, what might the united Interest of these Bishops and the Souldiery in their Sees have done? But they thought it better to flee as Athanasius did, or betake themselves to their Spiritual Armory of prayers and tears, than to lift up a hand against Julian. And I cannot but think that St. Gregory was of the [Page 96]same Judgment, when he wrote without any passion to the Citizens of Alexandria, being affrighted with the noise of Persecution, in his 17th Oration, to this effect: (N. B.) this is one of our Laws, and of those laudable ones most ex­cellently ordained by the Spirit of God, who knew best how to temper his Law with a mixture of what was possible to us, and honest in it self, That as Servants should be obedient to their Masters, and Wives to their Husbands, and the Church to our Lord, and Disciples to their Pastors and Teachers: So should we also be subject to all higher powers, not onely for fear of punish­ment, but also for. Conscience sake. St. Gre­gory also in a Funeral-Oration, n. 20. for St. Ba­sil, records an Answer of his to Modestus Gover­nour of his Country under Valens an Arian Emperour— Where the Cause of God is in dan­ger, we neglect other things, and look onely to him: Fire, Sword, and Beasts, are matters of rejoycing to us, rather than terrour: Reproach, threaten, and do to us what thou pleasest, em­ploy thy Authority, let the Emperour also hear of this; Thou shalt not overcome nor perswade us to consent to Impiety. So that both Gregory and Basil the Divine, and Basil the Great, which were no Mountebanks, but Great Do­ctors of the Church, were for the prescription of prayers and tears, although you would force them to the contrary.

I have reserved another Testimony of A­thanasius for this place, being an account of the Publick Prayers made by himself for Con­stantius the Emperour, though he had reme­ved him from his Pastoral charge. In his A­pologie to Constantius. Witness hereof (saith he) is first the Lord, who heard us, and gran­ted unto you the intire Empire, which was left un­to you by your Ancestors; then those who at that time were present: for the words I used were these onely; Let us pray for the welfare of the most religious Emperour Constantius; and the whole People with one voice cried presently, O Christ, be favourable to Constantius; and so continued praying a long time. And then he concludes, Let truth take place with you, and leave not the whole Church under a suspition, as though such things (as tended to the death of Constans) should be thought on or written by Christians, and especially by Bishops. Athana­sius was also accused for celebrating Publick Prayers in the Church of Alexandria; which he confesseth he did, being urged thereto by the importunity of the People; that they might pray for the welfare of the Emperour in that Church which he himself had builded, being ready otherwise to go out of the City, and to assemble themselves in the Desarts. But thus he expostulates with the Emperour: And you, O King, most beloved of God, where [Page 98]would you have had the People stretch out their hands and pray for you? there where the Pa­gans did pass by, or in the place which bore your name, and which from the first foundation there­of all men did call a Church? And then he prays thus for the Emperour—O Lord Christ, who art indeed King of kings, the onely begotten Son of God, the Word and Wisdom of the Father; because the People have implored thy goodness, and by thee called upon thy Father, who is God over all, for the welfare of thy most religious servant Constantius, I am now accused. And then speaking to the Emperour, You do not for­bid, but are willing that all men should pray, knowing that this is the Prayer of all, that you may live in safetie, and continually reign in peace.—And as for you, O Emperour, beloved of God, many years I pray you may live, and accom­plish the Dedication of this Church: for those Prayers that are made therein for your welfare, do no way hinder the solemnitie of the Dedica­tion. And whereas Athanasius was accused also for not obeying the Emperours Com­mand to depart from Alexandria, he says, I do not oppose the Command of your Majestie; God forbid; I am not such a man as would oppose the very Treasurer of the Citie, much less so great an Emperour.— I was not so mad as to oppose such a Command of yours: I neither did oppose it, nor will enter into Alexandria, until you of [Page 99]your humanitie be pleased I shall so do. If old Gregory was of another mind, it was but one Doctors Opinion. And I think our Author in the same case is a Dissenter from all Christian Divines, as well as from the Church of Eng­land; and from Mr. Baxter too, who saies, that hurtful prayers and desires are seldom from God: and he speaks it in the very case of Ju­lian, p. 17. of his Direct. part 4.

I shall here add the example of that Legion which was called [...], or the Thundring Legion, consisting of 6666 Christians, under marcus Aurelius; of whom Zephiline speaks thus: The Emperours Army being in great di­stress for want of water, and being compassed a­bout by their Adversaries, the Praefect of the Praetorians told Marcus, That there was nothing which those Christians could not obtain by their Prayers: Marcus therefore desired the Praefect that he would intreat them to pray unto their God; which they had no sooner done, but the Lord by thunder and lightning discomfited their enemies, and with seasonable showers refreshed the whole Army, which otherwise might have perished.

St. Ambrose was another of those Lachry­mists which our Author derides; he lived un­der Valentinian the younger, another Arian Emperour; and yet, as Ruffinus says of him, (Hist. Eccless. l. 2. c. 26.) he did not defend him­self [Page 100]by his hand or weapon, but with fastings and continual watchings, and remaining under Gods Altar, by his Prayers prevailed with God to be a Defender both of him and his Church. I will give you St Ambrose his own words to his Church at Millain:— I will never forsake you willingly; being constrained, I know not how to make opposition. Dolere potero, potero flere, potero gemere adversus arma Milites Gothos; Lachrymae meae arma sunt; talia enim mu­nimenta sunt Sacerdotis; aliter NEC DE­BEO NEC POSSUM RESISTERE. I can sorrow, I can weep, I can sigh against Arms, Souldiers, and Goths; Tears are my weapons; for such is the Munition of a Priest; in any o­ther manner I OƲGHT NOT, I CANNOT RESIST. And his People were much of the same mind, as he describes it, Epist. 33. or as in some Editions, the 13. Ad Marcellinam, What could have been better spoken by Christian men, than that which the Holy Ghost spake in you this day? Rogamus, Auguste, non pugna­mus, We entreat, O Emperour, we fight not; we are not afraid, yet we entreat. This (saith St. Ambrose) doth become Christians, that both the tranquillity of peace be desired by them, and their constancie in faith and truth should not be deserted, no not with the peril of death. And in his Tract de Renovatione fidelium: Laude magis scribendum est, non tam male facere non [Page 101]posse, quam nolle; whereof St. Peter told us the sence long before, 1 Pet. 2.19. This is thank-worthie to God, if a man endure grief, suf­fering wrongfully: And that man doth cer­tainly suffer wrongfully, that hath the Laws of God and man on his side. But there is no Law of God for resistance of a lawful Ma­gistrate. The Apostle did not calculate his Doctrine for the three first Centuries under Heathen, and that it should expire under Christian Magistrates: the Spirit of God foresaw that Kings should be nursing Fathers to his Church, and made good Laws for the se­curitie thereof; but he never meant that Princes should be resisted, though in some things they should act contrary to those Laws.

So that when our Author demands by what Law we must die? p. 81. and answers, Not by the Law of God, for being of that Religion which he approves: I answer, Yes,

• 1. By the Law of God, rather than make resistance; that we may bear testimony to that Law by suffering of death for our Religion, rather than to violate it by our Rebellion.
• 2. By the Laws of our Country too: for though by the favour of Christian Princes many good Laws are made for obedient Subjects, which the Prince may not violate without his great sin against God; yet hath the Supreme Autho­rity [Page 102]of the Land provided especially for the security of the Prince, who is a Common good.

We see how in Nature light things do some­times descend, and things that are heavie will ascend, against their natural propension, for the preservation of the Universe; and if pri­vate men do submit themselves to some Vio­lencies and Injustice for the preservation of the publick Peace, it is but their duty: and if the Prince do invade our Rights, that is no ground for us to invade his, in whom the happiness of the whole Nation doth consist.

St. Bernard was another Lachrymist, Epist. 221. speaking to Lewis then King of France; Whatever it pleaseth you to do concerning your Kingdom, Crown, and Soul, we that are the Chil­dren of the Church, cannot conceal the injuries done to our Mother; we will stand and fight e­ven to death for our Mother, if need be; but Armis quibus licet; non scutis & gladiis, sed precibus fletibusque ad Deum: with such Arms as are allowed us; not with Sword and Buckler, but with Prayers and Tears to God.

I could multiply many Testimonies in this kind; nor can any other than such as our Au­thor produceth of some private passionate and mistaken Christians, be pretended to the con­trary, until such time as the Pope erected the Standard of Antichrist against Christian Kings, which was after the time of Gregory the [Page 103]Great; or, until Presbyterie, as a Reformado, fought under the same Banner.

Now to say as you do, in the close of this Chapter, p. 55. That in that Age the best Prayers and Tears were those which did best ex­ecution upon an Apostate Emperour, and contri­buted most to his destruction; and again, p. 96. I do not find among the Ancients one single wish for Julian's Conversion, but all for his down-right Destruction, is a very unchristian insinuation, especially for one who pretends to say the Prayer for the Royal Family as heartily as any man (in the Preface.)

P. 93. Our Author, by way of Postscript, tells us, he hath many more exceptions against the Artillery of Prayers and Tears, than he can stay to insist on. The first is a great excepti­on indeed, which makes St. Gregory to over­throw all that our Author had quoted from him; for St. Gregory, p. 57. of the first In­vective (Eaton-edition) says thus: Julian was hindered by the goodness of God, and the Tears of Christians, which were shed in great plentie by many who had this onely remedie a­gainst the Persecutor. Now it is well observed by our Author, here are no Prayers mentioned; none at all for his confusion, no such Prayers as are no better than Treason by our Law, p. 95. Secondly, Gregory doth not tell us here that they had no Arms, or Walls, or that these La­chrymists [Page 104]cried, CHƲD EAT CHEESE AN CHAD IT; but that they had this onely Re­medie against the Persecutor, (i. e.) as our Author says, They had no other way to help themselves: And though here be no Prayers mentioned, yet in other places St. Gregory men­tions Prayers, and was as great a Lachrymist at Prayer as any.

P. 96. Our Author parallels these Prayers with some, which he says were made Treason in Queen Mary's days, of which the Act says, (Anno 1. and 2. of Philip and Mary, lib. 9.) That some prayed that God would turn her heart from Idolatrie to the true Faith, or else to shor­ten her days, or take her quickly out of the way. Though they had used such Prayers in secret, they should methinks for their own sakes have for born them in their Conventicles, where the Act says they were used, and where (as you would have it) such murdering Prayers are too frequent in our Age. And I doubt whe­ther God might not have rejected such Pray­ers with a Quis requisivit? I believe verily it was never in our Saviour's mind, when he bids us to pray for them that persecute us; nor of his Apostle, when he injoyns that Prayers and Supplications, &c. be made for Kings and all that are in Authoritie, 1 Tim 2.1. And whereas that Act saith, Such a Prayer was never heard or read to have been used by any good Christian [Page 105]man against any Prince, though he were a Pa­gan; you think you have given presidents for it in the case of Julian, where the Chri­stians prayed for his Destruction, not his Con­version. If (as you say) you pray as hearti­ly for his R. H. as any man, in the Collect for the Royal Family, you cannot but mind his Con­version. And no president that ever I heard of will warrant any other Prayers, but to this effect: ENDƲE THEM WITH THY HOLY SPIRIT, INRICH THEM WITH THY HEAVENLY GRACE, PROSPER THEM WITH ALL HAPPINESS, AND BRING THEM TO THINE EVERLASTING KINGDOM, &c. Here is nothing at all for Destruction, but all for Conversion. And though I know you are a daring man, yet pray do not think of reforming the English Liturgie by your Julian nor Gregorian Account, and teach us by your example to say our Prayers back­ward.

Gregory himself was so great a Lachrymist, that our Author, if he have any spark of Grace, or intention to repent, must needs weep with him, and (as he did) recant that as publickly, in other more serious Writings, which he delivered in a fit of Passion, or to shew his Rhetorick. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 17. p. 267. to the Citizens of Nazian­zum, that were in great fear by reason of the [Page 106]displeasure of their Praefect, perswades them to make use of these weapons, [...], Ps. 34.17. If thou turn to the Lord with mourning, thou shalt be saved: Ye see (saith Gregory) how Salvation is annexed to Mourn­ing, [...], nothing can come between your Prayers and the Blessings that you ask. Doth the Spirit of God prescribe Moun­tebank-Receipts in the opinion of Gregory? or ought not he to repent that calls them Moun­tebank-Receipts▪

Then minding them of the instability of Humane Affairs, and of the great benefit they may reap by their patience and submis­sion to Gods Chastisements, he adds, —Let us submit our selves to God, to one another, and to those who have the Government on Earth, (the word is [...], the same that St. Paul u­seth Rom. 13.5.) —To God in all things, to each other in brotherly charitie, and to our Go­vernours for the sake of good order. (He adds) it is a hainous and dangerous thing to exhaust the Clemencie (of the Ruler) by needing daily pardon. Among other Laws of our Religion, we have this given us by the Spirit of God; who hath joyned that which we are able to do, to that which is just and honest, and hath establi­shed it by a most laudable Law; That as Ser­vants obey their Masters and Wives their Hus­bands, and the Church Christ, and Disciples [Page 107]their Pastors; so we also are commanded to o­bey the higher Powers, not onely for Wrath, but for Conscience-sake, as being bound to yield them Tribute; nor let us give occasion by our wickedness to bring the Law into contempt, and to provoke the revenging Sword, but rather be­ing made better through our fears, endeavour to obtain praise from the higher Powers. Decies repetite placebit. I wish I could say of our Author, Et hinc illae Lacrymae; but our Au­thor hath other thoughts: he thinks he hath much obliged the whole Nation, turning their Mourning into Mirth, and instructing them, after the new fashions of Rome and France, to exchange their Prayers and Tears for Fire and Sword, for Gun-powder, Pistols, Poniards? and therefore he first saies it was a Christian that killed Julian; and from Zozomen, that he was to be commended for the fact, p. 60, 61.

Sigebert, in his Chron. ad Anno 1088. tells us, That this noveltie, that I say not Heresie, was not yet risen up in the world, that the Priests of God (who saith to a King Remove, and maketh an Hypocrite to reign for the sins of a people) should teach the people that they owe no subje­ction to wicked Kings; and though they have gi­ven an Oath of Fidelity to them, yet they owe no Fidelity to them; nor are to be accounted perjured, though they fight against them; and that he that obeyeth the King shall be excom­municated, [Page 108]and he that opposeth him shall be ab­solved from the guilt of Injustice and Perjurie. So that although these Ancient Bishops were never in Scotland, yet a man may think our Scotizing Presbyters have been at Rome; whose Principles and Practices run such paral­lels, as would sill a bigger Volume than I in­tend.

I shall onely shew, that the Fathers give us a better Form of praying for Kings than your Directorie doth; and the Law of God and Man enjoyns us Ʋniformitie in the use of it.

Tertul. Apol. c. 31, &c. You that say we re­gard not the welfare of Caesar, look into our Scriptures, which command us to pray for our Enemies and Persecutors, especially that we pray for Kings, and all in authoritie: For with them the whole Empire is shaken, and we our selves as Members thereof are in hazard: therefore we sacrifice for the safetie of the Emperour, but to God; and as God hath commanded, with pure Prayer we pray for them and their Officers and Magistrates, for faithful Armies, seasonable Times, and a quiet Age, &c. Having our arms spread to God, let Hooks tear us, Crosses hang us, &c. a praying Christian is prepared for any torment: Come then, you Praefects, and force out our Souls praying for the Emperour.

Athenagoras in his Apologie to M. Aurelius: We pray for your Empire, that the Son ( [...]) as it is most just, may succeed the Fa­ther in the Kingdom, and that your Empire may increase and flourish; all being subject to you: which would be much for our good, that we lea­ding a quiet and peaceable life, may readily o­bey you in all your commands.

St. Cyprian to Demetrian: We pray day and night, propitiating and appeasing God for your peace and safetie, and that the Reign of Valerian and Galien may continue unshaken. So Eusebius observes, l. 6. c. 11. Eccl. Hist. of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, That he prayed for the same Emperours, that their Kingdom might continue. St. Sebastian lived under Di­oclesian and Maximian, and fought for them, and prayed; and assures us, the rest of the Souldiers did the like. The Priests of the Temples do possess your Majesties minds (saith he) with unjust surmises, as if we (the Chri­stians) were Enemies to the Commonwealth; whereas by our Prayers the Commonwealth is bet­tered and increased: for we cease not to pray for your Empire, and the safetie of the Roman Armie. See Surius on Jan. 20.

Optatus, l. 3. contra Parmen. The Apostle teacheth us to pray for Kings and those that are in Authoritie, etiamsi talis eslet Imperator qui Gentiliter viveret, though he were a Pa­gan. [Page 101]The Council of Paris 6th, p. 534. of the Second Tome of the French Councils: If Jeremy the Prophet admonished to pray for the Life of Nebuchadonozor that Idolatrous King, how much more ought Supplications to be made for all Christian Kings? Aphraates a zealous Christian, being demanded by Va­lens an Arian Emperour, whither he went; I am going (saith he) to pray for your Em­pire. Theophilus Bishop of Antioch: I will honour the King, not adoring him, but praying for him.

So likewise in the Preamble of the Coun­cil of Agatha, where the Catholick Bishops pray for an Arian King after this manner: With Knees bended on the ground, we pray for the continuance of your Kingdom and People; that as you have granted us libertie to assemble our selves, so God would extend your Kingdom with Happiness, govern it with Justice, and pro­tect it with Virtue. Prooemium Synodi Aga­thensis.

When by the instigation of Pope Paschal the Second, the Emperour was unjustly de­prived, the Church of Liege blame the Pope for it, saying, If he were such as you describe him, yet should we suffer him to reign over us, because our Sins have deserved it; and such a Prince ought not to be repelled by taking Arms against him, but by pouring out our Prayers. [Page 111]Resp. Eccles. Leoardensis ad Epistolam Pasch. 2d.

So that whether our Author will or no, it will still be owned as a Maxime among Chri­stians, Preces & lachrymae sunt Arma Ecclesiae. Prayers and Tears are the Churches Artille­ry; and your new MILITIA will never prevail against this COMMISSION OF AR­RAY.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. VII. Julian's Death.

THis Chapter is mostly the relation of two wonderful discoveries of Julian's Death; the one of a Christian Schoolmaster, (for it seems the Christians at Antioch, though it were the place that Julian most hated, had Christian Masters to instruct their Children) who being askt by Libanius the Sophister what the Carpenters Son was doing, answered, He is making a Coffin. And yet perhaps he thought no more of Julian's death than Libanius, whose expression of a Carpenters Son might give occasion to such a Reply.

Then for his other story of his double St. Julian Sabba, (for our Author hath Sainted him before and behind); That he whilst he was praying should be in a Trance, and cry out, The wild Boar, the Enemie of the Lords Vineyard, hath suffered the punishment of his faults, and lies dead: I cannot admit such Miracles into my Creed [...] but look on them no otherwise than such conjectures as Julian himself made, when at the fall of the man that lifted him up [Page 113]to his horse, he cried out, He that raised me up is fallen; and as the Historian says, Con­stantius died at that very time. But the mer­riest Scene is behind, p. 58. That as soon as the Christians at Antioch heard of it, they had publick joyful meetings, and had not onely Dances in the Churches and Chappels of their Martyrs, (and then likely they had the musick of Or­gans, or some other instruments too) but likewise in the Theatre they proclaimed the Vi­ctorie of the Cross. Such Thanksgivings we had in this Nation at the Butchery of the Roy­al Martyr. But though they brought their Horse-guards into St. Pauls, I do not find they danced in the Churches.

The manner of his death our Author re­ports, p. 59. as an uncertainty, but jumps in his Opinion with the Heathen Libanius, that he who killed him was a Christian, although I have quoted two Authors who aver that it was done by the hand of an Enemie: Yet to serve his Hypothesis, that it is lawful for a Christian to kill a Heathen Emperour, he will needs cast it on the Christians.

Yet our Author, p. 60. says, Truly this is a strange concession: but that which we may more wonder at, is, that Zozomen should justifie such a traiterous Assassination, as he doth (in these words, p. 60.) It is not improbable that some one of the Souldiers might take into consideration [Page 114]how the Heathens and all men to this day do still praise those who long since have killed Ty­rants, as men that were willing to die for the Common Libertie, and defended in that manner their Country men, Kinsmen, and Friends: and you can hardly blame him who shews himself so courageous for God, and for that Religion which he approves; in Zozomen's words, [...], (i. e.) quam colebat, referring not to God, but the Votarie. And then at this rate, the Murder of the two Henries of France, and that of our Royal Soveraign may be justified, by our Au­thor's Rule, because they were slain as Ene­mies to that Religion which their Assassinates professed: A very dangerous insinuation this, and not fit to be presented to such a Prince as Theodosius was. Yet that Author speaks of the Opinion of the Heathen Greeks, and of slaying Tyrants in the days of old (not after Christianitie prevailed, that teacheth a contra­ry behaviour.)

They were the [...], and they were Heathens that commended them: for the ancient Greek Cities had wholly rejected the Government of Kings, and set up Aristo­cracie or Democracie, so that in time the word Tyrannus, which in a good old sence signified a King, was by them generally used for a Ty­rant or Oppressor; and if any such attempted the reducing their Popular Government into [Page 115] Monarchie, they thought it lawful to kill them. But will this warrant a Clement or Ravilliack to assassinate their Prince; or a High Court of Justice to murder their King? If Zozomen or our Author mean this, I look on them as Heathen Greeks still, of whom it hath been observed, ‘Inter Regem & Tyrannum non discernunt Graii.’ Lampridius wondered that no man slew Heli­ogabalus the Tyrant, Cum Neroni, Vitellio, Ca­ligulae, caeterisque hujusmodi nunquam Tyranni­cida defuerit. But no such thing was attem­pted by good Christians.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. VIII. How they used his Memory.

DE mortuis nil nisi bonum: That we ought to speak well of the dead, or no­thing, is a Rule commonly received by all men. To trample on a dead Lion is no point of valour, much less to rail at them that have received the just punishment of their sins. Such language therefore as Gregory useth, and our Author would have inscribed on Julian's Pillars long after his death, was as unseason­able, as it would have been offensive in his life­time, viz. p. 63. Thou Persecutor next to He­rod, thou Traitor next to Judas, (onely thou hast not testified thy Repentance by hanging thy self) thou killer of Christ after Pilate, and next to the Jews thou hater of God. These are ve­ry hard names in the mouth of a Divine, con­cerning a dead Emperour.

Well may our Author say he is wearie of such reproachful and ignominious Titles which the Christian Tongues lavishly bestowed on him. Doubtless you cannot find in all the rest of the Ecclesiastical Historians such as these: and [Page 117]if an Index expurgatorius had past onely on such Sentences, it would have been less culpa­ble than it is.

But what Protestants (say you) ever trea­ted their worst Persecutors at this rate? Shall I tell you again what sort of Protestants treated not a Persecutor, but a meek and gracious Prince, at a far worse rate? And who ever called Queen Mary Mad Bitch? Sir, you do very ill to prepare such expressions for the Vulgar: Children are too apt to learn naughty things of their Teachers. Some have called a Queen of England by the names of Proserpine, and Lupam Anglicanam; which I forbear to Eng­lish. But what little reason there was for all these passionate Expressions, you shew us in the next.

An Answer to our Author's CHAP. IX. Reflections on the Behaviour of those Christians.

JUlian's Persecution was but a Flea-biting to what the Christians formerly felt; a short and weak assault of the Devil; so that if any fell from Christianitie, they were ridiculously o­vercome; and if they persevered, it was no great matter to lose a Trade or Profession for their Re­ligion; — and this was the greatest severitie (says our Author) of all Julian's Edicts.— To speak properly, he was rather a Tempter than a Persecutor; seducing some with Money, others with Places of Trust and Honours of all sorts; others by the witchcraft of his words, and by his own example.—And as for what he designed a­gainst Christianitie, it was far short of what o­ther Emperours had executed. So far our Au­thor, whom I must name, lest you should not think it his: For how could the man of such a Character deserve all those virulent expres­sions of Gregory (of which before) or those rudenesses of some Christians which follow in our Author? p. 66. How do the Christians treat this Emperour, reproaching him, ruffling [Page 119]with him, vexing every vein in his royal Heart, saying all their Prayers backwards, calling down vengeance upon his head, dancing and leaping for joy at his death, and insulting over his memory; calling him by the bloudiest names of the Devil! P. 67. and (pray mark them, they are our Authors words) But for he name of Christians, he had better fallen among Barbarians. And would our Author have these to be examples for true Protestants?

But doth not our Author also say his les­son backward, and write a Panegyrick for Ju­lian, and Invectives against Christians? Or is it his meaning, that if a Prince incline (though but a little) to Tyranny or Irreligion, it is law­ful to use him as those Christians did Julian? He doth plainly at once Calumniate the whole body of Christians and their Teachers in that Age, from the mis-behaviours of a few; and seeks to debauch the present Generation, which are too bad already.

Julian taught better Doctrine to them that were his Christian Subjects, (though he did it spightfully— Not to avenge themselves, not to go to Law, nor render evil for evil, but pray for and wish well to their persecutors) than you do for their behaviour towards their Princes, and that spightfully enough: for this (as you ac­knowledge) is a right course to gloss away all their duty, and to break all the measures by which [Page 120]all the Ancient and Suffering Christians have gone in all former persecutions. And doth it become a Christian, or a Divine, one that would be numbred among the more peaceable and stricter sort of his Brethren, to vent such things? What? to deride the prayers and tears, the faith and patience of Martyrs and Confessors, and to applaud the insolencies and extravagancies of the seditious Rabble? Let me whisper it softly in your ear: I think Ju­lian the Apostate did less prejudice the Chri­stian Religion, than such a one as Lucian the Scoffer. Mr. Baxter, Christian Direct. p. 20. I do not think Nero or Dioclesian martyred near so many, as the People turned loose would have done. Much more was Julian a Prote­ctor of the Church from popular rage, &c. And you shall sooner wash a Black-more white, than cleanse your self from that Contagious Leprosie which over-runs your whole Book: (and I pray God it hath not seized on your Heart), which you do in vain endeavour by the fol­lowing Discourse; which I now consider.

P. 68. you say, The truth of the Matter is this: Their case differed very much, and they were in quite other circumstances than the first Christians were. When Julian came to the Crown, he found them in full and quiet possession of their Religion, which they had enjoyed with­out interruption for almost fifty years, and which [Page 121]was such an inestimable blessing, that they had plainly undervalued it, if they had not done their utmost to keep it: and then to have this treasure wrested out of their hands by one bred up in the bosom of the Church, who professed himself a Chri­stian, and never pull'd off his Masque till it was too late for them to help themselves; this was e­nough to raise not onely all their Zeal, but all their Indignation too. Your almost saves your computation of fifty years wherein the Chri­stians enjoyed a full and quiet possession of their Religion without interruption, from a great Untruth: for it was a good while after Constantine came to the Empire, that he did or could shew any great favour to the Chri­stians, he being brought up under Dioclesian, and not being baptized himself until towards the end of his Reign. That he banished Atha­nasius the great Pillar of the Christian Religi­on, is not to be denyed; nor that Constantius was himself an Arian, and promoted those destructive errours in such a manner, as that the Orthodox Bishops whom Constantius had banished, and were recalled by Julian, seemed to be in a better condition under him than under Constantius; many Bishops being ba­nished for refusing to subscribe against A­thanasius and his Creed in the Council of Mil­lain: And Athanasius, with many others of his perswasion, lived in desart places until the [Page 122]death of Constantius. So that though the fifty years did run out at length; yet in all Constantius his time, which was reckoned a­bove twenty years, the Orthodox were migh­tily afflicted by the Arians, Donatists, and Cir­cumcellians. And you may as well say the Church of England had a full and quiet posses­sion of their Religion without interruption in the times of our late Confusion, when e­very Mushrome-Sect sprung up above it, as that it was so with the Primitive Christians during the time of Constantius.

I might add much more; but desire the Reader to be satisfied with that one instance of the Arians dealing with old Hosius a Bishop of a hundred years old; whom in a Council of theirs at Sirmium they so tormented, that they forced him to subscribe to them to save his life. And how ill it was with others, even in the days of Constantine, see the History of the Donatists lately printed.

But then for the poor Primitive Christians of all, they were born to Persecution; they nei­ther knew better, nor expected it— The Laws of the Empire were alwaies in force against them— their Religion at best was in the world but upon sufferance, as Abraham in the Land of Canaan, where he had no Inheritance, no not so much as to set his foot on. But as his afflicted Posteritie were afterward Lords of that Country, so after a­nother [Page 123]Egyptian Bondage, Christianitie was ad­vanced to be the established Religion of the Em­pire. All this, and much more, is but Mr. Hunts Argument in other words: for p. 46. he says, The Reformed Religion hath acquired a civil Right, and the protection of Laws: if we ought not to lose our Lives, Liberties and E­states, but where forfeited by Law, we ought much rather not to lose them for the profession of the best Religion, which by Law is made the publick National Religion. And it is strange that some men of the same Religion in profession, can think (that notwithstanding) it makes no matter what is done to a man if he be Religious; but if he be not so, the least publick injuries and injustice may be resisted, vindicated, remedied, and by right defended by old Laws, or new ones to be made for that purpose. The Christian Religion was publisht when the whole world was Pagan, and therefore it was submitted to such usage as the Governours would give it. But when the Chri­stian Faith had by Miracles of patience declared it self to be of Heaven, according to the Prophe­cies on that behalf, it took possession of the Em­pire, and Crowns and Scepters became submitted to the Cross; and the Christians acquired a civil Right of protection and immunity, which they ought not, they cannot relinquish and aban­don, no more than they can destroy themselves. Such as thus perish, shall never wear a Martyrs [Page 124]Crown, but perish in the next world for perishin in this. This will be interpretatively Crucifying Christ afresh, after that he is received up into Glory, (i. e.) after his Religion is exalted into Dignity, Honour, and civil Authority, &c.

Thus far Simeon and Levi are agreed; and these were precious hints to our Julian; for till he hit on this new Notion, there was nothing in the whole Book, that favoured of Common sence, or had any shew of Reason; but his Pa­ges, as the Builders of Babel, misunderstand one another; and what one builds up, the other throws down; and after a long evapo­ration of smoak and ashes, and sometimes fire, (as ancient Historians relate of Aetna) our modern Historian makes the same Mountain to pour out such a deluge of Water as drowns all the Faith and Patience Christian men, and leaves onely Julian to triumph at the over­throw of Christianity.

If these men be not in too great haste, and their Guilt and Fears drive them not into Corners, I would expostulate with them a while: Can the Laws of men make void the Law of God? and have you Authoritie to distinguish where the Law of God makes no distinction? Doth not that speak plain, that we must submit not onely to Masters that are good and gentle, but also to the froward, 1 Pet. 2.18. and to Parents that correct us according [Page 125]to their pleasure: and the believing Wife is to sub­mit her self to her unbelieving Husband in every thing, Eph. 5.24. not contrary to Gods Word? and is it not true, that what is said of the sub­mission of Servants, Children, and Wives, the same may be said of Subjects? as St. Augustine affirms, after Gregory Nazianzen. Was a Hea­then Emperour to be submitted to in all things, and not a Christian? Shall the Pri­viledges which Christian Princes grant us, be used as Weapons to fight and rebel against them? Was it lawful for the Catholicks to rebel against Constantius when he was a de­clared Heretick, and by great violence pro­moted that damnable Heresie, as Bishop Ʋsher calls it, suppressing and banishing the Ortho­dox, and setting up the Arian? Is it not said, that if we suffer wrongfully, (i. e. against Law and Equity) and take it patiently, this is thank­worthy with God?

Can you without Sacriledge take away the Crowns from all the Martyrs that died ever since Julians time, and tell us they died like Fools or mad men, and were felo's de se, for not selling their Lives at a dearer rate, and like Sampson, pull down the Pillars of the Empire, with an [...], If I must perish, let the whole world perish with me! Or can you think that they perished in the next world for perishing in this, when Christ tells them, [Page 126] he that loseth his life shall save it? If it be unjust in the Prince to deprive us of our Rights a­gainst the Law of the Land, is it not much more so, for us to deprive him of his against the Law of God, as well as that of the Land too? And have we not generally (I mean the Clergie at least) Subscribed, That it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, (not of Religion, nor of the Laws) to take up Arms? &c. Non debet minor potestas ira­sci, si major praelata sit: The Laws of the Land must give place to the Law of God.

The contrary to all these, are the mon­strous Consequences of your new distinction, that allows of Rebellion when we suppose the Laws of the Land to be on our side: I say, suppose them; for Wars have been raised and maintained on such a false Supposition. And if when the Prince declares that he doth and will govern by the known Laws, we shall Re­monstrate that he doth not, and suggest our groundless and unreasonable Fears and Jea­lousies that he will not; who shall be Judge in this Case? Shall the people take the Sword in their hands to cut this Gordian-knot, and cut us all in pieces? We have (God be thanked) many good Laws for our securi­ty, and a gracious Prince that hitherto hath and will govern by them: but we have one great Law of God, and another of the Land, [Page 127]that though he should not, yet we may not rebel.

That excessive commendation which our Author gives of Constantius, makes me think he hath exceeded also in the dispraise of Ju­lian, p. 70. Never any man in this world set his heart so much upon any other thing, as he did to see the Christians flourish, and to have all the advantages of glorie and power: And neither conquered Nations, nor a well-govern'd Empire, nor great Treasures, nor excessive Glorie, nor being King of Kings, nor all other things which make up other mens notions of Happiness, did delight him so much, as to have the honour of bringing honour to the Christians, and of lea­ving them established for ever in the possession of Power and Authoritie. And yet as it was said of Naaman that mightie man of Valour, But he was a Leper: so it is recorded of Constan­tius, he was an Arian, and persecuted the Church of God.

I think I have said enough already to con­fute the insignificant Instances produced by our Author, when I gave you the more sober sence of St. Gregorie himself, of St. Basil, Am­brose, and Bernard, all which lived when they had the Laws on their side, and the best Reli­gion in the world to defend; and yet they durst not do it by the Sword, if they could have done it; for I shall not now question [Page 128]their power; Tertullian did assert that of old, and the Learned Hammond hath put the truth of it out of question, in his Answer to Mr. Stephen Marshal.

But says our Author, p. 70. For Julian, who by his Baptism first, and entring into Or­ders after, and going to Church after that, suf­ficiently engaged himself to maintain Christia­nitie; to endeavour on the other hand to dis­possess them of their Freehold, is an insuppor­table injurie. It was so indeed: and I would have our Author consider, whether for a man that hath been received into the Bosom of the Church, and hath eaten of her Bread, and approved of her Doctrine, to become an A­postate from that holy Profession, and ex­pose that Church and Christianity it self to scorn and contempt, be not to out-do Ju­lian.

I shall desire the Reader patiently to look on, while I remove those few Blockadoes which our Author hath laid in my way; and then I shall attack that inchanted Castle, wherein those two Giants think themselves so secure, as to laugh at all opposition that can be made against them. That of Juventinus and Ma­ximus, mentioned a third time in p. 72. is al­ready level'd: if there were a Sham-plot a­gainst them, our Author seems to be one of their accusers for talking too boldly against the [Page 129]Emperour, which they utterly denied. A second Sham-plot was of Sacriledge, p. 72. but I see no man concerned in that; neither shall I fight with Shadows, as our Author doth.

P. 73. Old Bracton is conjured up; and he presently flies in the face of the Conjurers, and tells them, that when Laws are made by. the consent of the people and the Royal Autho­rity, they cannot be altered or destroyed without the joynt consent of all those by whom they were concerned: And yet the Laws of Queen Elizabeth for keeping her Subjects in due obe­dience are exploded as some of the Grievan­ces of the Nation. With what face can they plead the Laws of the Land for their securi­ty, who daily violate and contemn them, and teach others to do so?

And in p. 74. our Author is surprised with the Thebaean Legion, which appeared to him as a Legion of Noon-day Devils; and he wonders who should raise them up: he cries out as that Legion, Matth. 8.22. Art thou come to torment us? What have we to do with thee, O Thebaean Legion! what have we to do with their Example! No, I'll warrant my Au­thor he shall never die for his Religion as they did, he hath parted with that already for fear of what might come. And this The­baean Legion is such a terrible immortal Army, [Page 130]as will defeat all Rebels to the worlds end. Are we (says our Author) to go to Mass to morrow, or else to have our Throats cut? No; nor are we to cut our Princes Throat to day, for fear lest he should compel us to go to Mass to morrow. Such fears were as ground­less in the daies of Charles the First, as of Charles the Second, yet we see what was then done.

Again, Are we under a Sentence of Death according to the Laws of our Country, if we do not presently renounce our Religion? No; but if we presently renounce our Religion, as our Author hath done, and then contrive a Rebel­lion, we are under a Sentence of a two-fold death; one by the Law of God, and another by the Law of Man. The Thebaean Legion so frighted our Author, that he cannot get them out of his mind: Poor men they were! to sacrifice or be sacrificed! They never heard the Doctrine of Resistance preached to them, but professed another Doctrine which they received according to the commandment of Christ, and practised after his example, suf­fering patiently for well doing. They never were in Scotland, to learn that there was a reward due to them that should kill tyrannical Princes: They never had the examples of a Christians killing Julian, and being commen­ded for it in Ecclesiastical History. These glo­rious [Page 131]lights and atchievements were reserved for our blessed Age, whereof (notwithstan­ding) the Scripture foretold, that in the lat­ter days there should be traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. And many such who have cal­led themselves good Protestants, have made a shift to die in Rebellion under the pretence of their Religion.

But the comfort is, as our Author says, That can never happen to us, but by our own trea­cherie to our Religion, in parting with those good Laws which protect it, and in agreeing to those that shall destroy it. What needs then all these Celeusma's and barbarous clamours of Ho-up against a Popish Successor which may never come; or if he should, can never do us hurt without our own consent? Queen Mary her self could not so much as out a Pa­rish-Priest, till she had procured a Parliament for her turn; and still kept the Church-lands, and by Parliament had the Supremacy set­led on her as far as any of her Predecessors enjoyed it. And if such things can never hap­pen but by our treachery in parting with those good Laws as protect our Religion, and agreeing to such as shall destroy it, why are we so wil­ling to part with those, whereby that other­wise-impregnable Fortress and Bulwork against [Page 132] Popery is preserved, and to make new ones for Comprehension, Indulgence, and Toleration, even of Popery it self, as well as other Sects and Factions? which is the ready way cast up by our Adversaries to bring us to confu­sion. When it is come plainly to this Dilem­ma, That we must agree to obey our Supe­riors, or perish; we must agree among our selves as Brethren, or be swallowed up by a common Enemie: Yet no Law of God or man can prevail to keep us in obedience to our Governours, or Charity among our selves; Is not this as neer a way to ruine, as our Adver­saries can chalk out?

P. 76. It is a general Notion among the Fa­thers, that we ought to spare our persecutors, and not suffer them to be guilty of Murder: Gre­gory gives that as a very good reason of Marcus his flight from Arethusa. Gregory gives a bet­ter reason than that, viz. that he was moved by that Precept of our Saviour, Matth. 10.23. When you are persecuted in one City, flee ye to another; and p. 88. he foresaw, that if he had tarried, the people might for his defence have risen against the Officers and Souldiers of the Emperour; and if they had died then, they had been felo's de se. To prevent their de­struction therefore, as well as the guilt of their Persecutors, he quietly yielded himself into their hands; and though he endured [Page 133]great torments, yet, as if he had been a felo de se, is he as little pitied by Gregory as by his Persecutors: for Gregory having noted that this Mark was one of them that saved Julian's life when Gallus was slain; for this one thing (saith Gregory) [...], he suffered those things deservedly, and was worthy to have suffered more. This Passive Obedience is an abominable thing!

In the same p. he relates a passage of Chry­soslom, and infers from it, that David meant no more than onely to prevent the effusion of inno­cent bloud, as appears by the several opportuni­ties he had to cut off Saul, but the sense of his duty made him to abhor the least thought of it. This I like so well, that I shall transcribe a little more concerning David's behaviour to­wards Saul, out of the excellent Book of Ho­melies. P. 287. Now let David answer to such demands as men desirous of Rebel­lion do use to make: Shall not we, being so good men as we are, rise and rebel a­gainst a Prince hated of God, and Gods e­nemy? and therefore likely not to prosper either in war or peace? but to be hurtful and pernicious to the Commonwealth? No, saith good and godly David, Gods and such a Kings faithful Subject: and so con­victing such Subjects as attempt any Re­bellion against such a King, to be neither good subjects nor good men. But say they, [Page 134]Shall we not rise and rebel against so un­kind a Prince, nothing considering and regarding our true faith and painful Ser­vice, nor the safe guard of our posterity? No, saith good David, whom no such un­kindness could cause to forsake his due O­bedience to his Soveraign. Shall we not, say they, rise and rebel against our known mortal and deadly enemy that seeks our lives? No, saith good David, who had learned that lesson which our Sa­viour afterward plainly taught, that we should do no hurt to our fellow-subjects, though they hate us and be our enemies; much less to our Prince, though he were our enemy. Shall not we assemble an Army of such good fellows as we are, and by hazarding our lives, and the lives of such as stand with us, and withal hazard­ing the State of our Country, remove so naughty a Prince? No, saith godly David; for I when I might, without assembling force, without tumult, or hazard of any mans life, or shedding a drop of blood, have delivered my self and Country of an evil Prince, yet would I not do it. Are not they, say some, lusty and couragious Cap­tains, that do venture to kill and depose their King, being a naughty Prince, and their mortal enemy? They may be as couragious as they list, yet, saith godly Da­vid, they can be no good or goodly men that so do; for I not onely have rebuked, but commanded him to be stain as a wicked man, which slew King Saul my enemy, [Page 135]though he being weary of his life, desired that man to slay him. What shall we then do to an evil and unkind Prince, an ene­my to us, hated of God, hurtful to the Commonwealth? &c. Lay no violent hands upon him, saith good David, but let him live until God appoint and work his end by natural death, or in War by law­ful enemies, not by traiterous subjects. So far our Homily: and if good and godly men answered No to all these Questions, they are not of the godly party, though they call themselves so, who answer Yea to them; al­though it be not against a wicked, malicious, and Apostate Prince, as Saul was, but a pious and gracious one.

P. 77. We are to suffer persecution [...] if need be, as St. Peters words are, and not else. Now I humbly conceive, seeing the Writ De Hae­retico comburendo is taken away in time, and the Laws protect us in our Religion, it is a need­less thing to go to Smithfield, and there be burnt for an Heretick. It is better, if it pleased God, that we should die as Hereticks, if with St. Paul we truly worship God in a way that is so called, than to go to Tyburn and be hanged as Traitors and Regicides— For, though that Law be taken away, yet the Law of God stands firm, which enjoyns us to submit our selves not onely for fear, but for Conscience sake; and the [...] in St. Peter in the case of our [Page 136]submission for Conscience sake as well as for fear of wrath, is determined by St. Paul with an [...] ye must needs be subject.

P. 77. And so far it is fit to inform the Po­pish Crew; lest they should be mistaken in the good Protestant Religion of our good Church, as Coleman calls it. I pray let them not be infor­med that we obey more for fear than for Con­science sake; No, nor that we are afraid to dye for our Religion of God call us to do it. As to your Parenthesis that we have no apprehension of persecution from any other quarter; I tell you, we have felt a greater persecution in our Age from Geneva, than from Rome; and if the one have since the Reformation in this Nation killed a thousand, the other have slain ten thousand.

Your next Reflection is on the Pulpit-law (as you say the Lord Faulkland called it) of Sibthorp and Manwaring, and complained it had almost ruined the Nation. That noble Lord was indeed a great lover of his Religion and Country, and therefore was an enemy to Arbitrary Government. But when he percei­ved that the outcry against Arbitrarie power in the King, was made with a designe to grasp it into other mens hands; and they began to exercise it not onely on the Gentry, Clergie, and Nobility of the Land, but the Royal Fa­mily also; he repented, and so faithfully ad­hered [Page 137]to the King in defence of his Authority, that he lost his life in the Quarrel. It was the Pulpit-law in 41. and 42. that destroyed us, and brought in Arbitrary Power.

But how near doth our Author come to put a border of Treason on his impolitick dis­course, p. 78. where he says, The Arbitrary Do­ctrine of those times, (to which both he and Mr. Hunt impute the beginning of the Late War) did not bring any great terrour with it; it was then but a Rake, and served onely to scrape up a little paltrie passive money: But now it is become a Murdering-piece loaden with I know not how many bullets. Who are they, I wonder, that preach up such an Arbitrarie Power? or who are they that make such a Murdering-piece of it? Is it not rather a Fiction of some men, who would find a pretence for a second War?

For if, as Mr. Hunt says, p. 52. That the Pa­nick fear of a change of the Government that this Doctrine (to wit, of Arbitrary Power before 41.) occasioned, and the Divisions it made a­mong us, was the principal cause of the Late War, is it not evident that the same fears are now made Panick or Popular, to prepare the hearts of the People for another War? What else mean the bleatings of the Sheep, and the lowing of Oxen? the Vulgar Murmurs, and loud Cries of the Multitude, as if it were intended we [Page 138]should be ruled by a Standing Armie, and That his Majesties Guards are a grievance; That the dissolution of a Parliament gave us cause to fear that the King had no more business for Par­liaments? Hunt, p. 22. and p. 60. of our Au­thor, That Parliaments should sit till they have done that for which they were called, (i. e. says our Author in his Marginal Note) till all Grievances are redressed, and Petitions answer­ed. And then for ought I know, they might sit for ever, and so no more need of a King. What means the denying him a Supply, when Tangier was like to be lost? and not onely with-holding their own, but denying him to dispose of his Credit or Revenues for his just occasions? What mean our new Associations and Bandying into Parties, and advice even to the Clergie, not to suspend all the legal securitie they have upon the life of our present King? Hunt, p. 49. All these strongly argue that they have a suspition of Arbitrary Power; and that, by our Author's confession, was in 41, (and therefore may be suspected to be made use of now as) an incitement to Rebellion.

And though our Author (p. 78.) confes­seth, That the malignitie of this Doctrine can­not be discovered under his Majesties gracious Reign; yet he thinks fit to put him in mind of the Securitie he hath given the Nation by his Coronation-Oath, which all Protestant Princes [Page 139]value & look upon as Sacred; and likewise of many gracious Promises that he will govern according to Law. All this caution argueth more than Suspition, it looks like an Accasation; though I know no defect, but the neglect of execu­ting the Laws against Transgressors. But if it do not fall out in his Majesties Reign, it will appear in its colours, and we may feel the sting of it, if it please God so sharply to punish us for our sins, as to let us fall under a Popish Succes­sour, p. 78, 79. We have (I confess) deser­ved such a punishment, for kicking against our Protestant Princes: but by the blessing of God, we may not have such a One: For who shall be King or Queen of this Realm of England hereafter (you tell us) none but God himself knows, p. 21. of the Preface.

But you tell us of another may be; the Successor may be a Papist, and then he may persecute: but he may not be; or if he be so, yet I have proved he may not persecute; and our Author hath granted, p. 75. That it can never happen but by our own Treacherie, &c. Such a formidable Persecution as you suggest, is a thing impracticable, and morally impos­sible: it hath never yet been acted by any Prince, Papist or Heathen: the Marian Tem­pest did not so destroy Protestants, though it had been but newly planted, but in Queen Elizabeth's Reign it grew up again, and co­vered [Page 140]the Land in a few days. Now to di­sturb our Peace and Settlement with two such may be's as are more likely may not be; to suppose such things as are morally impossible, is unreasonable, and to fear where no fear is, (saith Mr. Hunt, p. 250.)

But such suppositions as our Author makes, ought not at all to be supposed: for there is greater hurt to be feared from them, (as Mr. Faukner says, p. 545. of his Christian Loyaltie) than from the thing supposed; since it is much more likely that such designes should be imagined and believed to be true, when they are false (as they were in the unjust Outcries against our late gracious Soveraign) than that they should be certainly true: And every good man, yea every reasonable man, may have as great confidence that no such Case will really happen, as can be had con­cerning the future state and condition of any thing in this world. For which he there gives many Reasons, to which I refer the Reader, and pro­ceed.

P. 80. In this case (says our Author) all Protestants cannot flie—and many may be per­swaded not to flie. And men are taught that the Gospel doth prescribe no other remedy but slight, allowing no other means between denying and dying for the Faith. It is cer­tain this is the special remedy prescribed by our Saviour, though there be other means [Page 141]which may be as effectual as this; Prayers and Tears, and Fasting and Humiliation have done mighty wonders. When God by Joel (cap. 22.) threatned his People with an Enemie great and strong, there hath not been e­ver the like, neither ever shall be, even to the years of many Generations; the chief means prescribed by God himself, you may see was this, vers. 12. Therefore now, saith the Lord, turn ye unto me with all your heart, and with fasting, weeping, and mourning: who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him? And vers. 17. Let the Priests the Ministers of the Lord weep between the Porch and the Altar, and let them say, Spare thy peo­ple, O Lord, and give not thy Heritage to re­proach, that the heathen should rule over them. Wherefore should they say among the heathen, Where is their God? Then will the Lord be jea­lous over his Land, and spare his people. I hope our Author will not deride such Lachrymists: if he do, Solomon tells him who will laugh at him when calamitie comes on him, Prov. 1.

Again, Supplications and Petitions to our Kings may have the desired success: for hi­therto the Kings of England have been merciful Kings; nor have any of them taken delight in shedding bloud, or designed the general ruine of their people; their own interest being bound up in theirs. Magnanimo, satis est pros [...]asse.

Besides, it is the duty of the Chief Clergie to reprove them with meekness and lowliness, to mind them of a Superiour Potentate who will judge all men without respect of persons; which is excellently done by Gregory, Orat. 17. You govern together with Christ, and reign with him; you are the Image of God, and should imitate him in shewing mercie, and not the Devil in ex­ercising crueltie; but should remember that he hath a Master in Heaven, who will so judge him as he doth the people committed to his charge. That whole Oration is worthy your perusal. When Theodosius had made a great slaughter among the Thessalonians, to the number of seven thousand, and coming afterward to the Church, St. Ambrose shuts the doors against him, and minds him of his Cruelty; and tells him, That from dust he came, and to dust he shall return: Let not therefore the brightness of thy clothes hide from thee the weakness of thy flesh that is under them. Thy subjects are of the same metal with thee, and serve the same Lord—wilt thou with those hands which yet drop with the bloud of Innocents, receive the bo­die of the Lord? Depart, and refuse not this sentence which the Lord doth ratifie in Heaven. This wrought so with him, that he repented, and with much ado obtained Absolution.

The Church of Liege wrote an Epistle to Pope Paschal, when he perswaded Robert Earl [Page 143]of Flanders to rebel against the Emperour, and invade his Dominions, wherein they told the Pope, That Princes must be admonished and reproved gently; and if they will not amend, are to be left to the just judgment of God. Omne sub Regno graviore Regnum—Reges in ipsos imperium est Jovis.

To the Assertion of an unnamed Doctor, That the Gospel prescribes no other remedy but flight against the Persecutions of a lawful Magistrate, our Author answers, p. 80. It is one thing what the Gospel prescribes; what it al­lows, another. As if the Gospel did allow any thing contrary to its Precepts: This is that the Author would be at: for none ever que­stioned but things in their nature indifferent and expedient, are allowed by the Gospel with­out an express command. But that which this Author contends for, is Resistance of a lawful power in case of persecution; which is against many express Precepts of the Gospel. The Gnosticks held it lawful (for the avoiding of persecution) to deny Christ, and to comply with either Jews or Gentiles. And to resist the Ordinance of God, rather than to suffer persecu­tion, will be interpreted a denial and betraying of our Religion (i. e. of Christ himself). An Argument of so low a Spirit, as falls beneath the courage of a Heathen, or the hearty pro­fessors of any Religion. Seneca says of his [Page 144]wise man, Placebit ei ignis per quem bona fides collucebit; That he will embrace the Fire, rather than betray his Faith. And the Stoick says, Tormenta à me abesse velim, sed si susti­nenda fuerint, ut me in illis fortiter, animosè, ho­nestè geram, optabo. How is the valour of a Souldier known, but by following his Com­mander with a generous contempt of death? and shall the Christian Souldier that hath so good a Captain, be the onely coward, and fol­low his Master at a distance, and utterly for­sake him, when any Conflict is at hand?

When therefore he demands by what Law we must die; I answer, By the Law of God: rather than resist a lawful Power, we must sub­mit to the Will of God and our Saviour, who have promised, that he that loseth his life shall preserve it, Luke 17.33. and if we suffer, we shall also reign with him, 2 Tim. 2.12. And herein Christ himself hath given us an example, 1 Pet. 2.21. that we should walk in his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: yet when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatned not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteous­ly. And to such a Passive Obedience we are called, saith the Apostle. And it is not our calling onely, but an act of Grace and good will, [...], given to us, as to believe in Christ, so to suffer for Christs sake, Phil. 1.29. which [Page 145]they that refuse to do, are said to deny Christ. So that there is little difference between resi­sting the Command and Ordinance of Christ, and denying him: the sin is the same, and the punishment also; which St. Paul says is Dam­nation.

P. 82. As for the Kings Prerogative, I dare not be so bold with that as you are: the Dis­putes between that and Priviledge have cost us dear already: if it were as well known as other parts of the Law are, you would not make so bold with it, though you set light by some other Laws. But even other parts of the Law, which are very well known and ap­proved, are yet disobeyed, despised, and opposed, (as well as the Kings Prerogative) and coun­ted the Grievance of a great Partie.

P. 82. Old Bracton appears again, and is made to eat his own words: for whereas he had said of the King, That every one is under him, and he under none but God; and that he can have no equal in his Kingdom; for so he should lose his command, because one equal hath no power over another: now he is made to contradict himself, That Rex est sub lege, quia lex facit Regem, &c. which is utterly false, not onely because the Kings Predecessors came in by Conquest, but also because it is the Royal Assent that passeth all Bills into Laws. Mr. Baxter answers this, p. 14. part 4. of Chri­stian [Page 146]Directory: That Lex being taken for the signification of the Soveraigns will to oblige the Subject, the Law doth not make the King, but the King the Law. For which he quoteth Grotius, lib. 8. p. 195. Neminem sibi imperare posse, à quo mutatâ voluntate nequeat recedere. And Grotius quotes S. Augustine, Imperatorem non esse subjectum Legibus suis. And doubtless this is true in every Free Monarchie; as Eng­land is by Historians and Lawyers granted to be.

Now consider that Bracton wrote in the Reign of Henry the Third, when his Earls and Barons often confederated, and rose actual War against him, and made him to capitulate with them, having got the strength of the Nation in their hands; in favour of whom he seems to write, and calls them the Kings higher Court: not (as some) higher than the King, but than other of the Kings Courts. Yet was this no Parliament, for the Commons are not mentioned by Bracton. Now let any judge when Bracton was in the right, and when in the wrong opinion, by what followeth in the same Chapter: for as our Author blames the Doctor for not reading on; so do I much more blame him, because he came nearer to it. And thus Bracton says: Si autem ab eo peccatur, locus erit supplicationi quod factum su­um corrigat & emendat: quod si non fecerit, [Page 147]satis sufficit ei ad poenam quod Dominum expe­ctet Ʋltorem: Nemo quidem de factis suis prae­sumat disputare, multo fortius contra factum suum venire. (i. e.) If the King do offend, there is libertie of petitioning that he would amend what is amiss: which if he will not do, there is no pu­nishment for the King, but to expect God to be his Avenger: but let no man presume to dispute of his doings, much less to make opposition against what he doth. And this is agreeable to that Scripture, Eccles. 8.4. Who may say to him, What dost thou? If therefore we should grant it to be true what Bracton says, accor­ding to practice rather than Law, in those lawless times; yet Now, (as Plowden, as great a Lawyer as Bracton, says) the Case is altered: And the Oath of Supremacie against the Pope, which Bracton would by no means ad­mit, and the Oath of Allegiance, and Act of Parliament for not taking up Arms on any pre­tence whatsoever, would have quite overthrown Bracton's Opinion, if he had not done it him­self.

Our Author seems to apply the Premises onely against a Popish Successor; and freely grants, that when he is lawfully possest of the Crown, he is inviolable, and unaccountable as to his own person, and ought by no means to have any violence offered to him, p. 84. To what purpose then hath he given Instances of re­proach [Page 148]proachful and provoking Language, Prayers and Devotions that helpt on his death, all for his Destruction, none for his Conversion; threat­ning to kick him, and (from Zozomen) en­couraging the Assassination of him, when Julian was in quiet possession of the Empire?

P. 94. You quote a Saying of Asterius; How great a resort is there from the Church to the Altars? &c. This is answered by Bishop Bilson, p. 502. of Christian Subjection: You find (saith he) that multitudes ran from Christ to Paganism after Julian, to Arianism after Va­lens; but do you find that the Godly did rebel against them? What presumption is this in you, to controul the Wisdom and Goodness of God, sifting his Church by the rage and fury of wicked Princes, and crowning those that be his, as pa­tient in Trial and constant in Truth! Were you throughly perswaded that the hearts of Kings are in the hands of God, and that the hairs of our heads are numbered, so that no persecution can apprehend his, which he disposeth not for the experience of their faith, or recompence of their sins; you would as well honour the Justice of God in erecting Tyrants that our unrighteousness may be punished in this world, as embrace his Mercie in giving rest to his Church by the favour of good Princes. Experto Crede. This good Bishop says, We have these twenty seven years endured all sorts of calamities that may befal men in exile, [Page 149]therefore charge not us to be worldly minded, p. 501. See Mr. Baxter to this purpose, part 4. of the Christian Directory.

What our Author says concerning Passive Obedience, p. 85. &c. shall be considered a­non.

P. 89. He is very angry that the Doctor should reflect on some dangerous Pamphlets, as that of the History of Succession, The Dia­logue between Tutor and Pupil, and another that affirms, That Parliaments should sit till they have done that for which they were called. And contrariwise, so far commends the treasonable Popish book of Doleman, as that it was impossible to write a Historie of Succession, without borrow­ing from it. Their Tools are so dull, they must needs be beholding to the Philistines to set an edge on them upon their Whetstones of Lyes and Forgeries. Quam bene conveniunt!

P. 91. The Thebaean Legion, like a malus Genius, meets him again; and for their sakes, he is resolved rather to die a Murtherer than a Martyr: for p. 85. he puts the Case, though he confesseth it to be a rare Case: for bad Princes seldom stoop so low as to be Executioners of their own cruelty. But the Question is, if they should, How far, notwithstanding, men may endeavour to save themselves without breach of their Allegiance, and of that true Faith and Loy­altie which they ought to bear of life and limb, [Page 150]and terrene honour. If they have a mind to know, they may ask advice, (i. e.) How far, notwith­standing the Oath of Allegiance, men may resist their Prince. For the Authors part, he is re­solved already, but will not discover to every one what is in his heart: if he thought it un­lawful to resist the Kings person, in case he should offer violence to a Subject, he would certainly have published it; but his Silence speaks his Consent. Now if the King be for­ced for his defence to take an armed Guard, as our Late Soveraign was; And our Author, with other Malecontents that think themselves highly wronged, because they are not rewar­ded according to their deserts, should meet him with another Armed Company, and fight him; he may kill his person, without break­ing his Allegiance for bearing true Faith and Loyalty of life and limb, or any way injuring the King: for the King may be at Westminster, when they are fighting against him in the Field; And it is not Julian they resist, but the Devil that is in him. And yet I suppose that our Author, as the Law requires, hath declared his abhorrence of that traiterous Posi­tion of taking Arms by his authoritie against his person, or against those that are commissionated by him. But where shall we go to be resolved in this weighty Case? shall we go to the Ro­mish Casuists? they are positively for killing [Page 151]the King; Mariana, and Bellarmine, and ma­ny others, own it in divers cases. But we need not go so far; our Author hath, tanquam ex Tripode, determined it, in the Case of Ju­lian, that such a King is to be pursued, as if he were a Midnight-Thief, or a Highway Robber, p. 73. and 'tis as lawful to destroy him, as for a hungrie Welsh man to eat up his Cheese, and cry, Chud eat meer an chad it, p. 95. To this end Our Author quoteth Gregory cal­ling on the Angels whose work it was to destroy the Tyrant, who had not killed a Sihon King of the Amorites, nor an Og the King of Basan, but (in so doing) had killed the Dragon, an Apo­state, the great Designer, the common Enemy and Adversary of all, with an &c. p. 23. And a­gain, p. 61. If any one had killed Julian, he was not to be blamed (no, but to be rewarded ra­ther) as one who shewed himself so courageous for God, and for that Religion which he approves. St. Chrysostom in his first Homily of David and Saul, teacheth another Doctrine: If we reverence and fear those Magistrates (saith he) that are elected by the King, although they be wicked, although they be Thieves and Robbers, although they be unjust; and whatever they be, not despising them for their wickedness, but stan­ding in awe of them for the dignitie of him that did elect them; much more ought we thus to do in the Case of God. And Gregory Nazianzen [Page 152]speaks home to the Case, in that 27 Oration, p. 171. Continue faithful to your Kings; but first of all to God, and for him to them also, to whom you have been committed by him. And Elias Cretensis gives this Reason for it; Be­cause if ye fear God, and studiously observe his Commandments, you will be faithful also to your Kings for Gods sake. Now Julian's Souldiers, as our Author says, p. 8. were men principl'd in the true Religion, and therefore thought Julian stood in fear of them, as he says; yet they never did him hurt by Open Rebellion, or Se­cret Conspiracies: nor is our Author too old to learn of them.

P. 92. He sums up the strength of what hath been said, in these Five

P. 93. Now I desire those men who of late have thundred in all publick places with the Thebaean Legion, to keep that complete and ad­mirable Example till they have got another Maximian, and till that Maximian hath got authority at once to cut 6666 throats.

I think there was never more need than now, to press that noble Example: for though [Page 155]we have not a Maximian, but another Con­stantine set over us; no Julian that com­mands us to sacrifice to Idols, but One that makes it his business that we should all with one consent worship God and our Saviour in the beauty of Holiness. Though he have all the Laws of God and man to secure him from ma­litious and violent men, yet how are the tongues of wicked men sharpned against him, (and all his Ministers in Church and State!) How are all those devilish arts of Calumny and Reproach, the fears and jealousies of Arbitrary Power and Popery renewed, which encouraged a Rebellious multitude to the cutting of the throats not of one Legion, but of twenty at least; and the cutting off the head of a most incomparable Prince too! Would the Thebaean Legion, that laid down their lives at the Com­mand of a Maximian, have murtered a word against so good a Governour? And when the same things are attempted a second time, shall we not bring forth the Thebaean Legion to withstand such impious practices, and rise up in judgment against them, who, notwith­standing the Laws of God and our Country too, would not onely decimate us, but, if it were in their power, destroy us (as Nero wisht that the Citizens of Rome had but one Neck, that he might cut them all off) at a stroke? I would gladly add the consideration of the [Page 156] Thundering Legion to this of the Thebaean: They by their Prayers obtained relief from Heaven, and Victory too, for the Army of a persecuting Heathen; we are taught to pray for the Confusion of a Christian Prince. But this shall suffice.

Under those cruel Emperours, Dioclesian and Maximian, that most illustrious example of Passive Obedience presenteth it self to our view, which the Thebaean Legion shewed, con­sisting of 6666 valiant Christians; the tenth man of whom when Maximian had caused to be executed for refusing to slay their Fellow-Christians, and to offer Sacrifice to his false Gods; Mauritius taking the rest of the Legion aside, used this Oration unto them (as Euche­rius Archbishop of Lions relateth in the Acts of their Martyrdom.)

I congratulate your Vertue, most worthy Fel­low-Souldiers, that for the love of Religion the Command of Caesar wrought no fear at all in you. You have seen your Fellow-Souldiers, in a manner with rejoycing minds, to have been de­livered up to a glorious death. How did I fear lest any of you, as it was easie for armed men to do (under pretence of Defence) should by lifting up his hands give interruption to their most bles­sed Funerals? I had now readie at hand for the forbidding this attempt, the Example of our Christ, who by the Command of his own mouth— [Page 157]Put up thy Sword which was unsheathed by his Apostle: teaching thereby, that the Vertue of Christian-Confidence is greater than all Wea­pons: here Christ our God did clearly Prohi­bit our minds and hands, that none with mortal hands should resist the Divine Work, but rather with ever-continued Religion add a consummati­on to the work begun. Hitherto we have read examples inserted into the Holy Scriptures, but even now we our selves have beheld whom we ought to imitate.

After this, Maximian having commanded a second decimation of those that remained, (a­mong which it is likely that Mauritius suffer'd) Exuperius taking the Ensigns of his Legion, spake thus:

My most worthy Fellow-Souldiers, I hold as you see the Ensigns of a secular warfare; but to those Arms I provoke you not: I excite not your Courage and Valour to such wars as these; another kind of fight is to be chosen by us. It is not by these Swords that you can make your way to the Kingdom of Heaven.

And then wisheth this Message might be returned to the persecuting Emperour:

We are thy Souldiers indeed; but withal, Gods Servants: to thee we owe our imployment in the War, to him our Innocence; from thee have we received the reward of our labour, to him we are beholding for the beginning of our life: we can­not [Page 158]so follow thee in this, though our Prince, as to deny God who is our Maker, and, whether thou wilt or wilt not, is thine also— As for us, even this necessitie of our Life doth not drive us to Rebellion— Despair it self, which most strength­neth men in dangers, hath not been able▪ to arm us against thee. Behold, we have our Wea­pons, and yet resist not, as willing rather to die than overcome; and chusing rather to perish in­nocent, than live Traitors. If to what thou hast already decreed against us, thou wilt add more, be it Fire, Torture, or Sword, we are ready for it. WE ARE CHRISTIANS; and such as our selves we cannot persecute. Consider, O Caesar, the courage of this Legion: our Weapons we cast away, and thy Executio­ner shall find our hands unarmed, but our breasts armed with the Catholick Faith. Kill us, down with us, without all fear; we offer our Necks to be cut off by the Swords appointed to slay us.

And so they were all cut in pieces, and each of them were more than Conquerours, obtaining a Crown and Kingdom infinitely more glorious than that of the Roman Em­pire.

Now suppose some Dissenting Apostate Chaplain of that noble Army, that had ra­ther lose his Religion than his Life, and had [Page 159]more hopes to divide the spoils of a Tempo­ral Crown, than to trust his Saviour for an entire Eternal one, had held forth▪ to them af­ter this manner:

Such have been the Harangues of Dissen­ters in our latter Age, and by them they have led on a multitude to Rebellion and destructi­on: and to such an end our Author hath pro­posed the example of the Julian-Christians.

But there was not one of these Worthies (of whom the world was not worthie) durst mutter a syllable to such a purpose; they had not so learnt Christ, as to scandalize and de­fame him and his Doctrine, as if they were enemies to Caesar: We are Christians (say they) we have Christs Example before our eyes to teach us Obedience and Patience, and his Command not to unsheath our Swords against lawful Authoritie, neither in our own or his de­fence. We value not the honours of this life, [Page 165]but hasten to the glories of a better; and in confidence of a speedie enjoyment of them, we will not make resistance, nor accept deliverance by any ungodly act. And though we see the ex­ample of Crueltie before our eyes in the death of our Brethren that have been cut asunder and slain with the Sword, we are readie to suffer as patiently, as we hope to reign gloriously with them.

Now let any serious man among us judge which were the best Christians; these Primi­tive Worthies, who often took their lives in their hands to fight the battels of a Pagan and Tyrannical Emperour, and patiently laid them down at last, rather than make resistance a­gainst him; or those Modern Zealots, who will hazard their lives against a Christian and gra­cious Prince, and by their resistance, rather take away his life, than live in obedience to him, or surrender their own into the hands of God that gave it, when God calls for it? They who say of a Heathen Persecutor, He is Gods Minister, we must obey him, not onely for fear, but for Conscience sake; he hath no power but what is given him from above for the punish­ment of our sins: Or they that say, This is the Heir, come, let us kill him, and the Inheritance shall be ours?

If our Author be to be credited in any thing, this which he says, p. 68. is the plain truth of [Page 166]the matter: The Julian Christians were in quite other circumstances than the first Christians were; they were in full and quiet possession of their Religion, when Julian came to the Crown; and they should have undervalued it, if they had not done their utmost to keep it:—whereas the poor Primitive Christians were born to persecution; they neither knew better, nor expected it. And after a large flourish, he sums up all in a word, p. 71. The first Christians suffered according to the Laws of their Countrie, whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrarie to Law.

We never heard that the Christians in Ju­lian's time pleaded the Laws for their indem­nite: Nor had they any ground so to do more than the Thebaean Legion had. For,

• 1. No Law of Man could make void the Law of God, of worshipping God onely: And if (as St. Augustine says) he that disobeys the Praefect that he may obey the Emperour▪ is guilt­less; so is he that disobeys the Emperour that he may obey God.
• 2. There was no Publick Law that one Legion should be cut in pieces for being Chri­stians, by another; yet this was their case: They were commanded by that Tyrant Ma­ximius to assist him in destroying the Chri­stians. But they answered. We are Christians, and such as our selves we cannot persecute. So that either the Emperour's Will was a Law, [Page 167]or else they suffered contrarie to Law.

Therefore the truth of the matter is this: Our Author had committed an errour in the Foundation, and now is forced to patch and daub for hiding of it; He supposeth the Chri­stians in Julian's time did generally do or ap­prove of what he represents some few of the weak and ungovernable part to have done; the contrarie whereof, as to the sounder, more learned, and pious bodie of the Christians of that Age, hath been sufficiently demonstra­ted.

So that I shall now appeal to the Judge­ment of the Reader, and to the Conscience of the Author (if it be not seared) whether this be not the plain truth of the matter which fol­lows. The Primitive Christians, for the first 300 years, abounded in Christian sim­plicitie; they never relished the pleasures of the World; Ambition and Covetousness ne­ver possest nor adulterated their spirits; the Bloud and Spirit of Christ and his Apostles ran warm in their Veins, and leapt for joy, as brisk as generous Wine, when it was poured out, for the Gospel sake, to bear witness to the truths thereof. Then it was that they were afraid to speak evil of Dignities in the Church or State: then it was said, Ecce quam se invicem diligunt! Behold how they love one another! Then it was that such Dissen­ters [Page 168]that betrayed any truth of the Gospel, or any of their Fathers or Brethren, were branded with the black character of Traditores or Traitors. If ever we will learn puritie of Doctrine, or innocencie of Life, we must take our measures from the Example and Practice of those Primitive times, whenas yet they had so many Apostolical Guides among them, that sealed their Doctrine with their bloud, as Clemens, and Ignatius, and Polycarp, Justine Martyr, Irenaeus, &c. And therefore we of all others should abhor the Doctrine of Resi­stance on pretence of the Laws, when our Laws say, We may not resist under any pretence what­soever.

Again, is not this the truth of the matter, that when Constantine established the Church in outward splendour, and Christianitie was the way to Preferment and Secular honours and advantages, Hodie Venenum infusum est Ec­clesioe? From thenceforward the sins of Am­bition, Emulation, and Contention, imbitter­ed and poisoned their Spirits; they grew wanton, and began to vex and disquiet their Governours; to supplant, bite and devour one another. And Constantine himself favoured the Cause of Arius. But when Constantius e­spoused and made it the established Religion, then, like Jonas Gourd, Arianism and Donatism sprung up in a night, and over-topt the whole [Page 169]Church: Totus mundus miratur se factum Ari­anum. Then it was that Christ was crucified afresh indeed, when his Deity was openly deni­ed and disputed, and those few Christians that with Athanasius, Basil, Apollinaris, and some others, defended it, were banished, and ac­counted Impostors, and Seducers of the peo­ple, and dealt with accordingly.

And from hence most probably it was, that Julian first learnt the Principles of his Aposta­cie, which were improved by the Pagan Phi­losophers that were his Tutors, who could disprove the Divinity of Christ from the Do­ctrine of the Arians, that were the greatest part of Professing Christians; and Julian made use of some of their Arguments against Chri­stianity, concluding, that if he were not God, he ought not to be worshipped. And that Apostate often expressed a greater favour to Arius, and particularly to George an Arian Bishop of Alexan­dria, whose writings he made use of against the Christians, ut Ecclesiam suis configeret telis, than to any of the most pious & learned Catholicks.

Moreover, Julian perceived that the ha­tred and contention of Christians was so im­placable, that his giving them the reins would be a means to destroy them, without his use of the Sword or Whip to drive them on (as when the dogs and wolves had declared war, the wolves sent a spy to discover their numbers, [Page 170]who brought word their number was great, but their colours were divers, and they did so snarl and quarrel with each other, that they were not to be feared at all.) But though the truth of the Matter appears, yet we are not come to the root of the Matter, (for that is not grounded on Truth) and the bitter root lieth deep under the ground; and this it is: (saith our Author) The first Christians suffered according to the Laws of their Country, whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrarie to Law. Against which though I have said enough already to con­vince impartial men, yet I shall now add this further: I wonder how such men can plead the Laws of the Country against Persecution, who every day persecute those Laws, and live in open defiance and opposition of them; contriving and practising how to over-throw the Religion and Government established by those Laws. If the Julian Christians did (as you say) pray for the Destruction of their Em­perours, reproach and brave them to their ve­ry beards, and threaten to kick them; I won­der what Law of the Land did maintain such practices: or if they could have found out some such Law, yet the Law of God being vi­olated by such practices, God might justly punish them for the breach of his Laws: for no Law of man, that is temporarie and mu­table, can indemnifie us against the Laws of [Page 171]God. This is a Maxime with Lawyers (as Leli­us de privilegiis Eccl.) Nulla lex valèat contra jus Divinum.

But, p. 68. Julian found their Religion in quiet possession. What Religion I pray was then in full and quiet possession? If any, it was the Arian, which your self cannot call Christian, except you add dissenting. And if, as it hath been said, it were as bad as Po­pery, it was worse than Paganism. Perhaps this is the Religion of our Author: for no man likely can deride the Doctrine, but he that denies the Deity of Christ. But I have so far a good opinion of you, that you con­sidered this; and do not therefore give it the Appellative of Christian Religion, but the pro­per name of their Religion, viz. the Arians, or dissenting Christians.

If this were not the Religion that was in full and quiet possession, what was it? to revile, and threaten, and pray for the destruction of the Emperour, and to contend earnestly a­gainst the Divinity of Christ, as Constantius Julian's predecessor did? who, as Bishop Ʋsher observes, promoted that damnable errour with all his might. Was this that which you call the reigning Religion? So was that in Crom­wels days, when Iniquity was established by a Law, (such as that lawless Ʋsurper could pro­cure.) Can you produce any Ʋniversal Laws [Page 172]made by Constantine, that the Christian Re­ligion should obtain throughout all his Domi­nions? Licinius and Maximian cruelly op­pressed them long after Constantine came to the Throne. And his Senate consisted of un­converted Romans for a great part. Eusebius, chap. 55. of the Life of Constantine, says, he compelled none to turn Christians; and chap. 59. forbid any one to molest another for his Re­ligion. Our Author might have gone for one of the Godly partie in those daies.

I do not read that there was one Law ex­tended throughout the whole Roman Empire, which was almost Ʋniversal, but that several Kingdoms and Cities were governed by their own Laws. So were the Jews and Heathen, as well as Christian Subjects, in their several Ci­ties and remote Provinces. As Julian told the Bishops that were of several Perswasions, that they should not disturb the publick peace of the Empire, and then they might enjoy their own Liberties and Religion. Con­stantine seemed to be almost of a like perswa­sion: for why else did he not suppress the A­rian Heresie, which from Alexandria infected the whole Empire? He did take care to pre­vent Schism and Sedition among Christians, that the administration of the Government might be more easie: But this great man banished Athanasius into France, where he re­mained [Page 173]till Constantine his Son recalled him, as Eusebius in his Chronologie.

But what if there were some Edicts for the establishment of Christian Religion in Constantine's days, nothing was confirmed by the Senate; that was accounted then a needless thing. Nor did the Edicts of one Emperour bind another: by the same Autho­ritie as Constantine might have setled the Or­thodox Religion, Constantius setled the Arian, and after him Julian the Pagan Religion; I mean, by his own Imperial power and E­dicts. For the Roman Emperour was an Ab­solute Monarch; their Will was a Law, as Gre­gory Nazianzen, quoted by you, p. 13. The Will and Pleasure of the Emperour is an un­written Law, backed with Power, and much stronger than written ones which were not suppor­ted by Authority. So that though he did not, as you term it, fairly enact Sanguinary Laws, yet had he the Law of the Sword in his hands. And I think it was a great mercie of God to the Christians under him, that he did not by publick Edicts put the Sword out of his own hands, into the hands of his Heathen Magi­strates, who would have written them all in bloud. Therefore Mr. Baxter saies, p. 20. of 4th part of his Direct. Julian was a protector of the Church from Popular Rage in comparison of other Persecutors, though in other respects he was a Plague.

Valentinian was a right Christian Emperour, and when he was chosen, the Souldiers were importunate that he should assume another as an Associate in the Empire: he tells them, It lay in you to chuse me your Emperour; but being chosen, what you desire is not in your power but mine; it belongs to you as Subjects to be quiet, and rest contented, and to me as your King to consider what is fit to be done. Zozo­men, l. 6.86.

Justinian was another good Emperour, and he assumed the sole administration of the Em­pire to himself; and demands in his Novels, Quis tantae authoritatis, ut nolentem Principem possit ad convocandos Patres caetorosque Proceres coarctare? Who can claim so great Authori­ty, as to constrain the Prince to assemble the Senate against his will? And Justinian (No­vel 105.) excepts the Emperour from the coercive power of the Law, to whom, says he, God hath subjected the Laws themselves, sending him as a [...], living Law unto men; And the Gloss noteth, That the Emperour is the Father of the Law; whereupon the Laws also are subject to him. When Vespasian was Emperour, it was declared by the Senate, That he might make Leagues with whom he plea­sed: And though Tiberius, Claudius or Ger­manicus had made certain Laws, yet Vespasian was not obliged by them. And Pliny in his [Page 175]Panegyrick to Trajan, tells him, how happie he was that he was obliged to nothing. So that the Christians had no more pretence of ha­ving the Laws on their side under Julian, than under Dioclesian, Maximus, or Constantius; nor did they ever plead them to justifie a Re­bellion against him, for want of such an Ad­vocate or Leader as our Author.

Gregory Nyssene tells us also what the pow­er of the King or Emperour was: he defines him to be [...], one that hath Absolute power in himself, no Master nor E­qual: Cont. Eunomium, l. 1.

So that our Author's great Babel is fallen, viz. that the Julian Christians had their Reli­gion established by Law, and that they were long possessed of it: For, Laws or no Laws, by the Lex Regia the Emperour could re­verse the old, and establish new as it pleased him: and for want of Laws, where the word of the Emperour was, there was power, and none might say to him, What dost thou? Thus it was with Constantine and Constantius, and why not with Julian? And now I hope the good Christians of our Age will no longer trust to such broken Reeds as our Author puts into their hands, much less that they should take up the Sword (which will be no other than a broken Reed also, not onely to fail them, but to pierce through their sides).

Now if we should turn the Tables, and ask our Author, Whether when Jovian and Valenti­nian were Emperours, and had made some new Edicts for the Orthodox Christians, as well as against the Arians and Pagans, it had been lawful for the Arians or Pagans to rebel in defence of their Religion? Or, to come nea­rer home, Whether when Queen Mary had established Popery by Law in this Nation, it had been lawful for the Papists to have rebel­led against Queen Elizabeth, they having the Laws on their side, yea and questioning her Right of Succession too: yet we do not read that they did contrive a General Rebel­lion; though, for ought I see, our Author would have justified them, when he tells us from Zozomen, what men may do for the Re­ligion whereof they are well perswaded.

Or neerer yet: when the Long, too Long Parliament, pretended against the King, that their Religion was in danger by Poperie and Superstition, their Laws and Liberties invaded by an Arbitrary Power; did they well or ill from these pretences to raise that War a­gainst the King, that turned the Nation to an Aceldama? Were the Laws such as could ju­stifie that Rebellion, or no? If they could not, then I am sure they cannot now, since the late Act for Treason, in the 13th of our King, and a Declaration of Parliament, That [Page 177]it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever, &c And by several Statutes it is declared, That the King is the Onely Supreme Governour of his Dominions, over all Persons and Causes whatso­ever. And the power of the Sword or Mili­tia is put into his hands, as well by the Law of the Nation, as of God; and I trust he will not bear it in vain.

Having thus stript this full-fac'd Bird of a few borrowed and painted Feathers, how just­ly is he exposed to be hooted at by every boy, or dealt with as in the Apologue of such another bird, that seeing the Pidgeons to be well meated and live securely, he would get him­self to be coloured and arrayed like one of them, and feed among them, that he might no longer be forced to prey abroad for his livelihood: but having fed with the Pidgeons a while, they per­ceived that neither head, nor beak, nor claws, were like theirs; and therefore they expel him out of their societie; and then thinking to re­turn to his old manner of life, the rest fall on him, and banish him from them also; so that he was forced to remain alone as one in the Desart. The Moral is onely this: Though some men may for their own concerns, and for a little time, love the Treason, yet generally all men hate the Traitor.

For my part, I cannot see any one particu­lar that did so justly render Julian odious to [Page 178]the Primitive Christians, as that he had been (an Apostate) Lecturer in an Assembly of Christians. And if any such shall (for am­bitious, covetous, or vainglorious ends) seek Protection and Encouragement from some Great men in this our Age; I shall earnest­ly beseech them to consider, that as some have entertained good Angels unawares. so o­thers have evil ones to be their Familiars, who usually drive them over Precipices to perish in the deep: and by their fruits you may know them. For as our Saviour said, (Joh. 8.44.) Ye are of your father the devil, because they did the works of the devil; so they, certainly, that by lyes and falshood provoke to Envie, Contention, and Bloudshed; they that falsely accuse innocent and pious persons, and bring railing Accusations against their Governours, such as Michael the Archangel durst not bring against Satan himself: however they may pass for Angels of light with some deluded people, will appear to sober and discerning persons, not as an evil Spirit under a Prophets Mantle, but in his proper colours and terrours, breathing out Flames of fire, raising Storms and Earthquakes; and at last vanish, leaving an infectious and noisome stench behind them.

If this Reflection savours too much of an Invective, it is what our Author's two great Leaders have suggested. So Bracton says of [Page 179]a wicked King, that he is Minister Diaboli dum declinat ad injuriam; he is the Devils Mini­ster that acts injuriously: and Gregory says it not onely of Julian, That the Devil was in him, but even of Constantius, That some Devil (he knows not of what kind) stole in with him to his Consultations, p. 25. And when our Au­thor calls the Prayers and Tears of the Primi­tive Christians, Mountebank-prescriptions. And p. 74. Much wonders at those who trouble the Nation at this time of the day with the unsea­sonable prescriptions of Prayers and Tears, and the Passive Obedience of the Thebaean Legion. And p. 75. That they throw away their lives, and are certainly wearie of them, who practise any such Passive Obedience. And p. 77. That he is a felo de se, and guiltie of his own Murder. And thereupon prepares men for resistance of a lawful Power (though it be exercised un­lawfully) with an Ei qui vult viribus uti, erit viriliter resistendum; applying what was spo­ken by Bracton against the violent attempts of one private person against another, to the actions of lawful Princes; and so doth teach the Doctrine of Devils: for, as St. James says, Such wisdom comes not from above, but is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

Though this might excuse the sharpness of my Reflections on the Author, yet when I shall shew the provocation I had thereunto, I [Page 180]think every truly Christian Reader will justifie me. And this it was. When I had read that passage in our Author, quoted by him (out of Zozomen) p. 60. it came to my remem­brance that Milton (Cromwel's Secretarie) in his Defence of the People of England for mur­thering King Charles the First of blessed me­morie, made use of the same quotation, toti­dem verbis, p. 44. From him also he took the Theme on which he declaims in so many Chapters. For thus Milton: Quid Antio­cheni homines apprime Christiani? What did the Antiochians, who were the chiefest Christi­ans? did they pray for Julian the Apostate, to whom they came publickly, and rent him (or, as our Author interprets it, vext every vein in his Royal heart) with their reproaches, and scoffing at his long Beard, bid him make Ropes of it? And when they heard of his death, appointed publick Supplications, Feastings, and Mirth, can you think that they ever prayed for his life and safetie? What? when it is also reported that he was slain by a Christian Souldier?

These are the Pillars on which our English Solomon hath raised to himself that Temple of Honour; which yet may prove but as so ma­ny Pillars of Smoak to the eyes of all that shall inspect them; and perhaps may have a worse effect (which smoak that hath so much fire under it is wont to have) upon the Author. [Page 181]But, let us observe what worthie Lectures our Author reads us on these Texts of Milton. Chap. 3. They reproached him in words. This Chapter consists of 7 pages. Chap. 4. Of their Actions. This hath about 7 more. Chap. 5. and 6. Of their Prayers and their o­ther Devotions, makes 11 pages. Chap. 7. His Death by a Christian Souldier; where you have the passage at large out of Zozomen, commending such as kill Tyrants, 6 pages. Chap. 8. How they used his memorie, by joy and feasting at his death, by calling him Per­secutor, Traitor, Killer of Christ, &c. with o­ther Reflections on their Behaviour. Chap. 9. Ad finem.

He quotes also the same passages out of Bracton which Milton made use of, p. 81. Non est Rex, ubi dominatur voluntas, & non Lex: exercere debet Rex potestatem Juris, ut Vicarius & Minister Dei; potestas autem injuriae Diobali est, non Dei: cum declinat ad injuriam Rex, Dia­boli Minister est. And as if these Arguments which that Mercenarie man made use of to ju­stifie the death of Charles the first, were not enough, our Author adds more to them; to what end, he best knows. But certainly, if that Execrable Book deserved to be burnt by the common Hangman in France, this book de­serves to be used so by every Loyal Subject in England; it being of much worse consequence [Page 182]than that of Milton: Milton's book being writ­ten when the Father was in his Grave, and this when the Son by many miracles of mercie is setled and preserved in the Throne: where God long preserve and prosper him.

And this I suppose is the reason that our Author and Mr. Hunt cannot endure the men­tion of 48, no more than that of the The­baean Legion; because these men are the very Marshals and Miltons, the Contrivers and Ju­stifiers of whatever shall be done according to that pattern in the Mount, as the old Phrase was: A Mount like that which is described Heb. 12.18. So full of terrours, as made Moses himself to tremble exceedingly. Perhaps they finding no Preferment in the Established Go­vernment, hope to get a Bootie by fishing in troubled waters; and like the two Sons of Zebedee (for they were Fishermen also) to sit the one at the right, and the other at the left hand of some Great person, when he shall come into his Kingdom. Or if the hopes of the translation of the Kingdom should fail, and degenerate into a Commonwealth, one of them may be, as Milton was, a mercenarie Historian, or under-Secretarie of State. But now I think on it, they will never be so fit as Milton was, of whom they come as short in accuracie of Stile, as they may in time exceed him in o­ther of his Vertues and Preferments.

I would advise our Divine Lecturer to take a Doctor's degree at Salamanca (for he may despair of it here in England) and then he may be the fitter to be a Casuist and Con­fessor to the States General, to resolve their Cases of Conscience. And for our Lawyer, if he do but read one Lecture more on Doleman, and pursue his Argument as he hath begun, he that is yet esteemed of but as the Pick-lock of the Law, and speaks things doubtfully and my­steriously, as the Devils Oracles were wont, may come to that Top of Preferment which Mr. Br. a Quondam Brother attained: And though he never sit in Judgment, as he did; yet he shall, if his Friends will be at the cost, have that Inscription on his Tomb, which was provided for the other.

Mr. Hunt speaking of his Adversary, says, p. 152. he observes for our imitation, that the Orthodox did not depose the Arian Emperours. And answers, We ought undoubtedly to imitate them therein, for that no man, much less a Prince, ought to lose any right for a Speculative errour, or meer misbelief: But onely for wicked practi­ces, and opinions that promote, excite, and en­courage them. As if Opinions that overthrow the Doctrine of Christs Divinity, did not di­rectly tend to wicked practices! Hath not this Lawyer been fee'd by the Socinians to be­come their Advocate? But might not an [Page 184] Arian Emperour be resisted, and One who is truly Christian, and a Defender of the Apostolick Faith, be opposed? And doth our Author know of any more than a Speculative errour (if so much) in him whom he prosecutes so violently? Or was not Constantius his being of the Arian perswasion, the cause of many actual cruelties practised against the Orthodox, not in remote places onely, but chiefly at Constantinople, where he mostly resided? and were not many of those Cruelties acted by the authoritie of his Edicts? as I have noted con­cerning Macedonius his Cruelties.

And so for the Sitting of Parliaments till all Grievances are redressed. Milton, p. 80. Si Rex Parliamentum prius dimiserit quam ea om­nia transigantur quorum causa Concilium in­dictum erat, perjuris reus erit. Mr. Hunt re­sembles him in this, as well as if there had been a transmigration of Souls. Let his Maje­stie satisfie his people never so well by Rea­son and Authoritie, and serious promises of frequent Parliaments; yet this man insinuates, that he acts as if there were no intent to call a Parliament any more; And that the design of the Addressers was for discontinuance of Par­liaments, and for a Popish Successor: though he himself observes, that in thanking his Majestie for his promise of frequent Parliaments, they do desire them. See his Preface.

P. 152. He says, as our Author doth after him, That the behaviour of the Church towards the Roman Pagan Emperours was much different from that which they bore to Julian, who succeed­ed to Christian Emperours, was educated a Christian, and sometime bore a place in the Church: for whereas the Apostles had enjoyned the Christians to pray for the Pagan Emperours, though actual persecutors of the Church; yet THE WHOLE CHƲRCH did curse and A­nathematize Julian with an Anathema, Quo Deus rogatur ut aliquem è medio tollat. In Julianum, cum defectioni adderet Machinationes evertendi Christianismi, usa est Ecclesia isto extremae ne­cessitatis telo, & a Deo est audita. Grotius on Luk. c. 6. v. 22. The whole of Grotius his Note to this purpose, is in these words: Sunt quae­dam delicta tam atriocia, ut si contumacia acce­dat; nemo non videat esse [...]. pro tali­bus, dum tales manent, Ecclesia non intercedit precum suffragio, quod solis poenitentibus patet: Generaliter tamen his, ut & infidelibus, men­tem optat meliorem.

Chrysostomus, ubi anathema pronunciandum, ait, adversus facta, non adversus homines, intel­ligit districtum illud anathema, quo Deus roga­tur ut aliquem e medio tollat. Hujus sanè ra­rior est usus; non tamen Nullus: nam in Juli­anum, cum defectioni adderet machinationes ever­tendi Christianismi, usa est Ecclesia isto extremae necessitatis telo, & a Deo est exaudita.

If our Author had not been afraid to disco­ver from what Writers he collected his Posie of Daisies, as he calls it, p. 95. he would have repeated this of Mr. Hunt, which seems to carry more of Reason and Authority than any thing else in all his Treatise of Julian. And because I suspect that he may keep this for a Reserve (for I have heard that he intends to pursue his design against all Opposers) if he bring no other weapons but such as these of the Church-Censures, we shall not fear: for these are Spiritual weapons which the Church makes use of, (and that onely against incorrigi­ble offenders that had committed a sin to death) as their last refuge in extream necessity: yet of these he onely says, the Church doth not intercede by supplications proper to the peni­tents; yet, generally, even to these, as also to In­fidels, it prays for a better mind. St. Chryso­stome (says Grotius) speaking of the Anathe­ma that is to be pronounced against the Actions, not the Persons, understands this severe Anathe­ma whereby God is intreated to take away the offender from the midst of the people, &c.

So that Grotius and Chrysostome having de­livered their Judgements clearly in other pla­ces concerning Prayers for Heathenish and Per­secuting Emperours, they cannot be understood here to write against their own, and the judge­ment of all those other Christians afore-men­tioned. [Page 187]To which I adde this of Tertull, ad Scapulam: Christianus Nullius est hostis nedum Imperatoris, quem sciens à Deo suo constitui, NECESSE EST ut eum diligat, revereatur, & salvum velit. And in his Apol. We reverence in our Emperours Gods judgement that made them Governours; for we know that to be in them which God would have; and of this we make account as of a great Oath. And the Oath of Christian Souldiers (as Vegetius de re Militari, l. 2. c. 5.) was; Per Deum, & per Christum, & per Spiritum Sanctum, & per Majestatem Imperatoris, &c. By God, and Christ, and by the Holy Ghost, and by the Ma­jestie of the Emperour, who next to God was to be loved and reverenced— they swore to yield him faithful Devotion, and vigilant Service, &c. And he gives this reason for it: For a man, whether private or military, doth serve God, when he faithfully loves him who reigns by Gods authoritie.

P. 151. Mr. Hunt hath another Observa­tion that deserves a special remark: Neither will we (saith he) make use in our defence of the Papists excluding the King of Navarre, a Protestant King in France, no more than we will allow the French to murder a Protestant Mi­nister, because we execute a seditious, traite­rous Roman Priest.

Ans. It is well known, the Romish Priests [Page 188]are not executed in England upon the account of their Religion, but for such crimes as are made Treason by the Laws of our Land. And if the Protestants were not executed but up­on the breach of such Laws, the cause of Complaint would be less than now it is. But why, on your Principles, a Protestant Prince may not be excluded by Papists, who perhaps are as fully perswaded of the truth of their Religion as we are of ours, and do aver that Salvation is not to be attained in any Com­munion but that of their own Church, I see no sufficient reason. For they may as well plead that Dominion is founded in Grace, as you do; and that may equally justisie both parties in case of Resistance: (i. e.) it can justifie neither. And the consequences of that Act of Exclusion may dread us from doing the like: For when the Guises, and other contrivers of the Holy League (as they called it) had by great importunitie prevailed with the present King Henry the Third to agree to the Exclu­sion of Henry the Fourth, the dreadful slaugh­ters of the Subjects on both sides were not the onely evil consequences that ensued; but the Guisian Faction grew so insolent, as to affront and distress the King himself, so far, that fear­ing his own destruction, he was constrained to joyn his Partie to that of the King of Na­varre, (to whose Exclusion he had consented) [Page 189]that he might preserve himself from being excluded by the prevailing Faction. So that your Quere, p. 153. Whether if the Crown should devolve upon a Roman Successor we could justifie the dethroning of him, (which the Au­thor of Julian resolves we may not) though the French Papists could not be justified in re­jecting the King of Navarre, requires no long consideration.

I cannot omit another bold attempt of Mr. Hunt in his Preface, where he conjures up the old Smectymnuan Monster of Curse ye Meroz, to affright all men from an accursed Nutrali­tie, to bring them into the blessed Association. It was a wise Law of Solon (saies he) that if the Commonwealth at any time should be di­vided into Factions, that the Neuters should be noted with infamie. And that you may know what he means, he addes, If all that are TRƲE PROTESTANTS and TRƲE LOVERS OF OƲR GOVERN­MENT would declare themselves on the be­half of our Religion and Government in such terms as befit honestmen, and as the exigencie of our pre­sent state shall require, we shall find the num­bers of Addressers reduced to the Dukes Pen­sioners and Creatures. And again: Our Trai­tors [Page 190]would disappear, if we had no Neuters. And to slur the proceedings of his Majestie against E. S. he says, that the name of E. S. in the Abhorrences of the Nation, were but like the name of John-a-Styles and John-an-Oakes, in putting a fictitious Case. So that it is most evident that he invites, and threatens all men that refuse, to joyn in an Association: and to what that tends, the Nation is indisserently well satisfied already.

If not the Comments which these men make upon that Text, the Authors and Instruments which they make use of, such as were the most notorious Incendiaries in our late War, some Jesuites and eminent Factors for Rome, some Regicides that died in their impeniten­cie; these, and the present endeavours to act over all the Tragedies that were plotted by them a second time, may fully convince us that there is Mors in Olla, some deadly Collo­quintida that hath so imbittered and poisoned such sort of Writings.

I must beg the Readers pardon that I have not been more particular in my Remarks on Mr. Hunt: his Book came but lately to my hands; a part of mine being first in the Press, and the rest called for, so that I made it onely an Essay to provoke some more emi­nent persons of his own Gown to chastise him according to his demerit, who have more [Page 191] health and help, more time and advantages than I have. And all that love their Religion and Peace, will abhor such persons, as by the same Methods, the same Libels, and pretences of Arbitrarie Government and Poperie, the same Arguments as were used to defend the War, and the Murder of Charles the First, seek to in­volve us in another such; and rather than not effect it, will employ and associate with any sort of Fanaticks, Jesuits, and Regicides, such as Doleman, White, and Milton their great Exemplar and Tutor.

I cannot stand to give this Age a character of that Pest of the former; I mean this Mil­ton, whose very Sores and Impostumes these Authors suck, and spit them out to poyson the People. He was one that wrote against the whole Ministrie and their Maintenance; that would have Divorces practised on every slight occasion. And when I shall say, that against his knowledge and Conscience he mali­ciously opposed the best of Kings, I need say no more to prove him the worst of men.

That Mercenarie wretch was, I confess, a man of more than ordinarie parts: and when he came in his Chap. 4. to defend the Do­ctrine of Resistance and Regicide against that Argument of Salmasius, which proved that none of the Christians before St. Augustine's time did practise or allow of resisting the law­ful [Page 192]Magistrate, though a Heathen or an Arian; he stretched his Wit and his Reading so far, as to bankrupt the reputation of them both; as will evidently appear in my Answer to the same Arguments, which both Mr. Hunt and our Author have borrowed from him.

And because it hath been creditably reported that Milton died a Papist, and it is certain that he had been at Rome, and was there caressed by some great men, (Cardinals and others) I shall desire the Reader to consider with me, whether that defence which he makes of the Popish Doctrine for deposing of Kings, in the same Chapter, be not a probable Argument of the truth of that Report. For thus saith Mil­ton, chap. 4. p. 47. As to what concerns the Pope, against whom you DECLAIME MANY THINGS TO NO PƲRPOSE, I give you li­bertie to talk till you are hoarse: yet that which you assert so largely, to take with the vulgar and unlearned, That every Christian was subject to their Kings, whether they were just, or whether they were Tyrants, until the power of the Pope was acknowledged to be greater than that of the King, and till be absolved Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelitie; I have shewn that to be most false by many examples. Nor doth that seem more true which you say in the last place, that Pope Zachary did abselve the French from their Oath of Allegiance; (his reason is) for Hot­toman, [Page 193] a French-man and a Lawyer, denieth that Chilperick was deposed by the Popes au­thoritie, or that his Kingdom was given to Pe­pin; but that all this was transacted by the authoritie of the great Council of that Nation, as appears by ancient Annals, which shew that there was no need of absolving the Subjects from that Oath; which also Pope Zachary utterly de­nied: for in the French Histories it is recorded, as Hottoman and Girardus witness, That the French did from the beginning reserve to them­selves a power as of chusing, so of deposing their Kings; and that they were not wont to swear any other Fidelitie to the Kings whom they created, than that they would yield them Faith and Alle­giance, if their Kings did perform that which they also swore to do. So that if the King by male-administration first broke his Oath, there was no need of the Pope, the perfidiousness of the King having absolved the subjects from their Oath.

Yet lest this Invention of Milton's own should not be of weight to clear his Holiness, he brings the Popes infallible testimonie for himself: Pope Zachary (says he) who you say did arrogate that authoritie to himself, excuseth it, and lays it on the People: for the Popes words are these; If the Prince be obnoxious to the People by whose beneficence he posses­seth his Kingdom, the People that make the [Page 194]King may depose him. So that the result of all is, the Pope and Fanatick are agreed in this Principle, The Majestas realis is in the People; as Bellarmine with Buchanan do as­sert; and, They that create the King, may de­stroy him with the same breath.

How industrious this Mercenarie man is to vindicate the Pope, whenas his own Creatures acknowledge that he was the Dux Gregis, the grand Instrument of dethroning that King, and sharing his Inheritance!

In a Dialogue between Theophilus a Chri­stian, and Philander a Jesuit, Bishop Bilson (p. 418. of Christian Subjection) brings in Theophilus saying: Your Law doth not stick to boast that Zacharias deposed Childerick King of France, and placed Pepin in his room. Phi­lander answers, And so he did. Theoph. Who says so besides you? Philand. Platina saith, Ejus authoritate regnum Franciae Pipino adjudica­tur; By Zachary's authoritie the Kingdom of France was adjudged to Pepin. And Frisin­gensis affirmeth that Pepin was absolved from the Oath of Allegiance (by Pope Steven) which he had given to Childerick, and so were the rest of the Nobles of France; and then the King being shaven, and thrust into a Monasterie, Pepin was anointed King: which you think much the Pope should do in our days. Theoph. Zachary was consulted with whether it might lawfully be done [Page 195]or no: he did not openly intermeddle with the matter, whatever his privie practices were; though many of your Bishops and Monks, to grace the Pope, make it his onely act. —But hear Za­chary's own words, when Volorade and Bur­chard were sent to understand his judgment: I find (saith he) in the sacred storie of Di­vine Scripture, that the people fell away from their wretchless and lascivious King that de­spised the Counsel of the Wise men of his Realm, and created a sufficient man of them­selves King, (This was likely the case of Jero­boam, who had a special Warrant from God.) God himself allowing their doings. All pow­er and rule belongs to God; Princes are his Ministers, and therefore chosen for the people, that they should follow the Will of God, and not do what they list.—All that he hath, as Power, Glorie, Riches, Honour, and Dignitie, he receiveth of the People: the People create the King, and may when the cause requireth, forsake the King: It is therefore lawful for the Franks, refusing this Monster Childerick, to chuse one able in War and Peace, by his wisdom to protect and keep in safetie their Wives, Children, Parents, Goods, and Lives. This is the Popes Divinitie, saith Bishop Bilson, that Kings have their power of the People, which the Scripture saith they have from God.

Now as to the Annals of France, it is true that the Pope had not intirely grasped the power of deposing Princes in those days, but made use of other Instruments; yet this was done, say the Annals, Pontifice prius consulto, as Sabellicus, and the Gloss in verb. Deposuit, (i. e.) deponentibus, consensit. The true rea­son was this: Pepin was a man on whom the Pope relied to quell the Lombards, and defeat the Grecians, that he and Pepin might divide the Spoils of the West, as it came to pass: for the Emperour was turned out of Italy.

Now let the Reader judge how diligent an Advocate Milton is for the Pope; that not­withstanding his own words advising it, and the testimonie of his own creatures affirming it, and the matter of fact and the event de­monstrating it, would yet excuse him from having a hand in deposing of that French King. And is this a fit Guide for our Modern Writers? Is it not possible (as our Author says) but to take many things from Doleman in the case of Succession? and many more from Milton, when you would irritate or defend the People of England in case of Resistance and Re­gicide?

Have the Boutefeus of this Age nothing to set the Nation into a flame, but those Fire­brands which were rak'd up in the Ashes of that prosligate Villain Milton, who pleaded [Page 197]the Cause of the Pope Gratis, and for money that of—Good God! what a Spirit of Rebel­lion is spread over the Land! when, as it was observed by Dr. Heylen at the beginning of the last unnatural War, No times were more full of Odious Pamphlets, no Pamphlets more ap­lauded, nor more dearly bought, than such as do most deeply wound those Powers and Dignities to which the Law hath made us subject. Me­thinks we are like the man in the Gospel, Matth. 12.44. out of whom the unclean Spi­rit being cast out, it walked up and down through drie places, seeking rest and finding none: then said he, I will return to my house from whence I came out; and finding it emptie, swept, and garnished, he taketh with him seven other Spi­rits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Deus avertat O­men!

I beg my Readers pardon that I may ani­madvert a little on these Libellers, and ac­quaint them, that to their Progenitors we owed the kindling, fomenting, and inflaming those late Wars, that made us a confusion at home, a scorn and a reproach abroad. Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, were like so many Fo­xes let loose and encouraged, like the Priests and Preco's of Mars, to scatter Fire-brands through the Nation. Nor would the times [Page 198]permit a little water to be sprinkled for the quenching of them, but fed them with oyl. The Laws were silenced and out-lawed then, as they are now, as if indeed we were inter Arma: there wanted not scourges to punish them, but an arm to inflict the legal Sanctions.

Then it was, first, That Burton in a sediti­ous Sermon compared that excellent Prince to Julian, and his Chapel to Julian's Altar: And tells the same storie of Maris Bishop of Chal­cedon, who called Julian Atheist and Apostate to his face, as our Author hath done in print. That Male-content having been admitted to the Kings Chappel for a while, and defeated of a Bishoprick to which he aspired, turned Apo­state, and defamed the whole Order as Anti­christian. He had served that excellent Prince in his Closer; and missing of the Preferment in the Court, for his turbulency, being bani­shed thence, he began to court the People, and sought it in the Camp; not being ashamed to profess himself an old out-cast Courtier, worn our of favour and Friends there; which was the reason that he became a Professed enemy both to King and Court.

Then it was that he made his Pulpit a Drum, to beat up for Sedition and War. Prynne, Bastwick, Leyton, and many others, took the Alarm; and dipping their Pens in Gall, made way for the Sword, that glutted it self with so [Page 199]much bloud. He presumes to dedicate his Seditious Harangues, as so many Fire-brands, to the Houses of Parliament; where finding too much combustible matter, he made such a flame, as warmed him a little, but made a general conflagration through the three King­doms.

Had it not been much better that two or three such Boutefeus had suffered according to their deserts, than that the whole Nation should fall a Sacrifice to those Idols of a Seditious party?

There wanted not then good Laws against such disturbers of the publick peace. The Sta­tute of Westm. the first provided, That no man should publish or tell any false News whereby dis­cord or occasion of discord or slander may grow be­tween the King and his People or Nobles. And a Statute was made the second of Richard 2. ch. 5, for punishing counterfeiters of false news, and lyes, of Prelates, Earls, Dukes, &c. of things which by them were never spoken, to the slander of the Prelates, &c. And the punishment was left to the discretion of the King and Council. And old Bracton records this ancient usage: Si quis Machinatus fuerit, vel aliquid fecerit, &c. If any one shall contrive or do any thing a­gainst the life of the King, or to make Sedition in his Army, or shall give consent or counsel there­to, although they effect not the mischief which [Page 200]they designed; he shall be guilty of Treason. And accordingly one John Bonnet a Wool-man was drawn and hanged for scattering seditious Li­bels in London. In the 4th year of Hen. 5. as Stow relates, Sir William Stanly, a person of great valour, was condemned and executed as a Traitor, for saying (less than our Author doth) That if he thought Perkin Warbeck to be the undoubted Son of Edward the 4th, he would never bear Arms against him. And in the 9th year of H. 7. Bagnal, Scot, Heath, and Kennington, who had taken Sanctuary in St. Martins le grand, were taken out, and three of them executed, for forging Seditious Bills to the slander of the King and Council. The like proceedings were made against Barrow, Greenwood, Penry, Ʋdal, and many others, who were condemned, and some of them ex­ecuted for the like Seditious Writings against Queen Eliz. and her Government: concer­ning which I shall present to our Authors Her Majesties Proclamation.

Now, either our Authors knew these things, or no: if not, they may give me thanks for minding them of these Laws, some of which are still in force, which ought to bind up their hands from the like practices, lest they meet with the like punishment. Sure I am, they are obliged in Conscience, if not in Interest, time­ly to beg pardon, and make▪ their Recantations as publick as their Crimes. But if they did know these things, and yet act so considently and industriously against them, Miror admodum ut quorum facta imitantur, eorum exitus non per­timescunt. Certainly these men think them­selves in some Ʋtopian Commonwealth, ubi sentire quoe velis, & quoe sentias loqui licet; where they think according to their own lusts, and talk as lavishly. as they think: In [Page 205]magna fortunâ, minima licentia. Every action of our Superiours, every word, yea, the very thoughts and intentions of their hearts, are arraigned, censured, and condemned, as if they onely were to be accountable: But as for the Mobile, Nos numerus summus, & magno domi­namur Atridi. The confidence of their num­bers makes them confident of impunity; and the Priviledges of the People far exceed the Prerogative of the Prince. Quidvis impune facere, hoc Regium est.

Though other Restraints have proved inef­fectual, all the wholsome Laws of the Land, all the sad experiences of the national plagues of the Sword, Fire, and Pestilence, which have fallen; or rather have been drawn down on our own heads by our Ingratitude and Rebel­lion against God and our Superiours, have been baffled: yet those stronger ties of Gods Commandments, so plainly, so frequently, and under such intolerable penalties bound upon our very Souls and Consciences, should yet con­strain us to live more piously and peaceably than hitherto we have done: Or at least the Mercies of God, who saved and redeemed us with an out-stretched Arm, and hath set over us the meekest and most merciful Prince on the Earth. His patience and long-suffering to­wards us after so long and heinous provoca­tions, his defeating the hellish Plots of our [Page 206]Adversaries, who unweariedly watch for an opportunitie to devour us, should at last lead us to Repentance, and cause us to consider and do, in this our day, the things that belong to our peace, before they are hid from our eyes.

Against the Sophistrie of such unreasona­ble men for Resistance, I shall oppose the Do­ctrine of the Apostle for Obedience and Sub­jection, which he delivers, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves dam­nation. v. 5. Wherefore we must needs be sub­ject, not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake.