CONSTANTIUS THE APOSTATE: BEING A Short Account of His LIFE, and the Sense of the Primitive Christians about His Succession: AND Their Behaviour toward Him.  
Wherein is shown the Unlawfulness of Excluding the Next Heir upon the Account of Religion, and the Necessity of Passive Obedience, as well to the Unlawful Oppressor, as the Legal Persecutor: BEING A full Answer to a late Pamphlet, entitled julian the Apostate, etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Sopho. 
Let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or patiently suffer and obey such as we deserve.  1 Hom. against Wilful Reb. etc. 
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1683.   

THE Epistle Dedicatory TO Mr. JOHNSON, Author of JULIAN the APOSTATE.  
SIR,  
THE kindness you have for an Apostate (for certainly julian was never better treated than by you) makes me think Constantius hath a particular title to your Protection, especially since we are sure he revolted to Arrianism, and not to Popery. Now whether these kind sentiments proceed from a diffusive Charity, or rather a Natural inclination whereby every thing favours its like, I shall not presume to determine, though the latter is ●he more probable, since, like julian, you took holy Orders, and like him too have, in effect at least, denied a Passive Crucified Saviour: this will be plain to any one that considerately reads your book, and is the only thing hath induced me to say what I have; for I declare I am wholly unacquainted with any thing that belongs to you, but that, your Name and your Character in the Church; so that no personal grudge could be the occasion of these papers; but a just sense of what I owe to my Religion, and the Civil Government under which I live; from which I ill deserve the Protection and Liberty I enjoy, if I should not use my utmost endeavour to sustain it, when it is so evidently supplanted (as now it is) by your pernicious principles. And I cannot think but your Religion is as indifferent to you, as you would have the World believe that of the Rippon-Addressers is to them, since you so palpably explode the glorious end of it Obedience.  
I say this after a due and careful reading of your papers; and I was more exact in the perusal, because your prejudiced friends gave it out, that your book ought to be the perfect measure of our conduct in relation to his R. H. and the true State of that Civil Obedience we owe to a Tyrant; and added likewise, that the Authorities you quoted were unquestionable, your inferences and deductions necessary and pertinent, and your arguments unanswerable: but after the most diligent and impartial search, not a syllable of all this appeared; and indeed when I considered the Vouchers, I laughed at myself for giving credit to any thing they so confidently asserted, since o● late all that have not a mind to b● imposed upon, understand what they say, with the same precaution they believe women, or interpret dreams; and indeed they have that quality of great Liars to have the contrary of what they affirm generally true.  
I hope, Sir, you will not take this for a too severe reflection upon your friends; I am sure they value themselves upon these pious artifices; and it would have been unkind in them, when you had taken so much pains in publishing so many notorious falsities to advance the cause, if they had not advanced the credit of your book by the same means. After these unwelcome truths I can expect little favour from you, and indeed entreat none; all that I desire is, that you would read this as patiently as I did yours, and then, if you please, censure as freely: but of all faults, I am confident you have no reason to accuse me of that, which is almost natural to Dedications, Flattery, and which would have been an unpardonable crime in  
Your Servant.   

THE PREFACE.  
SInce I intent to use the same method i● the Account of the Life of Constan●ius, as is observed in Julians; it will be necessary to take a view of the Preface to that Book, that I may clear all things as I go, leaving nothing unanswered, that has the least appearance of an argument. And that, what he urges may more evidently appear, I shall reduce the force of all he says, to these following Propositions, and give my answers to them distinctly.  

1. The Rippon-Addressers are very solicitous, lest his Majesty should agree to the Bill of Exclusion (pag. 4.) and thence infers, that if they were Protestants, they were men weary of their Religion, p. 6.  
2. The Primitive Christians conduct contrary to that of the Addressers.  
3. If they had known Julian's Religion before Constantius' Death, he had not succeeded. p. 7.  
4. Passive Obedience necessary for the first Christians, because the Laws were against them; (p. 7.) but not for those under Julian, because they had the Laws on their side; for when 'tis prescribed without Law, and against Law, 'tis Mahometan (p. 8.)  
5. Passive Obedience contrary to the Gospel; this he pretends to prove from 1 Cor. 7. 21, 22, 23 verses, with Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase: and by the example of St. Paul, Act. 22. 25, 26, etc. 16. 39, etc. p. 9  
6. Passive Obedience contrary to the Law of the Land.   
As to the first of these.  
I don't find the Addressers of Rippon are fond of a Popish, but a lawful Successor: and if Mr. Johnson infers from their aversion to the Bill of Exclusion, that they are weary of their Religion; certainly he doth not think them Protestants now. For what can be a greater mark of that sacred profession, than to be severely cautious to prevent an Action that would be contrary to all Laws divine and humane? They are strangers to that way of preserving their Religion, by acting contrary to the dictates of it; and will hardly venture to do an unjust thing now, that they may go quietly to Church hereafter. Certainly we are not by this means to avoid Persecution; this is nothing else, but preferring the eternal torments of the next world, before the little pressures of this, and leaping into Hell to avoid the Cross. I should have made a far different construction of this Address; for if the Gentlemen of Rippon were sure his R. H. were a Papist (whereof no man yet ever made a legal proof) yet what they did was their duty; for they knew Imperatores bonos voto expetendos, qualescunque tolerandos: And that this was the opinion of the Primitive Christians, as well as Tacitus. Which will be more fully made out in my answer to the second Position, which is, That the Conduct of the Primitive Christians, was quite contrary to that of the Addressers.  
It will be hard to reconcile this saying of his, not only to truth, but sense; for if the Primitive Christians acted quite contrary to the Addressers, then when these made it their humble Petition to his Majesty not to exclude his R. H. they supplicated to Constantius to put by Julian; but this was not so, as he himself assures us (p. 18.) so that his saying the Primitive Christians acted contrary to the Gentlemen of Rippon, when he acknowledges they did nothing at all, must either be nonsense, or made out by a new definition of contraries.  
But I will suppose he means had the Christians known Julian's Apostasy, they would have used all possible means to have prevented hi● coming to the Empire. Which is the substance ● the third Position to be answered.  
Certainly he ought to have good grounds for this assertion, and know of some precedents of their precluding the next Heir upon the account of Heresy or Apostasy; or at least that it is manifest, from some principles they owned, that they would, if it had lain in their power: If he knows any thing of this nature, he would do well to inform the world of it, and give us a second Edition of his Book, which only such an Addition could make considerable. For in his Preface he gives no reason at all afore what he asserts; and in the second Chapter of his Book, where proofs of this kind would be very necessary, he only tells as that Gregory Nazianzen [highly before disobliged by Julian] in an invective long after his death tells Constantius [then in Heaven] that he did ill in saving and making Julian King; who was both ill saved, and made an ill King: and then concludes, Constantius would not have done so, if he had known Julian's Apostasy. Sure this Gentleman has had the misfortune that the Christian's Children had under Julian, to be denied the use of Logic and Rhetoric; for how else could he make such an absurd inference, or understanding the nature of an Invective, undertake to deduce a concluding argument from any thing that is delivered in one? I declare, (though I have the greatest veneration for the Holy Father's imaginable, and especially for that great Name Gregory Nazianzen) yet I cannot think it my duty strictly to believe all they say in the height of a Panegyric, or an Invective; there are certain allowances to be made in our belief of Speeches, that are the effects of either kindness or anger; and the distinction may not be improperly ad●mitted, between the Father, and the Orator: but this will be more evident, to any impartial man, when I shall prove that many things in Gregory's Invective said in favour of Constantius, or against Julian, are not precisely true: for every one knows Constantius had faults; for 'tis acknowledged (p. 29.) that he was guilty of the Murder of his kindred and innovation in matters of Faith (for 'tis there said he repent of these things at his death) and I shall add, of a severe Persecution (which will be seen anon.) Granting this to be true, how could he justly merit this Compliment from Gregory? You were led by the hand of God into every counsel and enterprise, whose wisdom was admired above your power, and again your power, more than your wisdom; but your piety was valued above them both. (Greg. Inu.)  
If Mr. Johnson thinks this deservedly said of Constantius, he must either think all Histories that give us an account of that unhappy Emperor's life, fabulous, or entitle God to his Apostasy; but I suppose he is not arrived to that height of folly, to believe the former, or of impiety, to admit of the latter. 'Tis probable he will rather conform to the general opinion of all understanding men, that Gregory did, and might say more in an Invective, than would be allowable in a History or a Sermon.  
Again, that he should make the Devil steal in along with the Consult (p. 25.) can only be imputed to the uncontrollable liberty of an Invective; for St. Austin tells us, God that gave the Empire to the Christian Prince Constantine, gave it also to Julian the Apostate. Those things without doubt, that One and the True God doth govern and rule as he pleaseth, by causes, although hidden, yet not unjust. (Aug. de Civ. D. 5. c. 21.) Origen likewise tells us, that bad and good Princes are both the gift of God, Si mali sunt actus nostri, & operamur malignum in conspectu dei; dantur nobis principes secundum cor nostrum. [Orig. in lib. jud. Hom. 4.] Now which is in the right, St. Austin or Gregory, let any man judge. But farther, can any man believe that the Father spoke in earnest, when he tells Constantius he did ill to save Julian, (p. 23.) i. e. he had done well if he had Murdered him (for there is no difference in the Court of Conscience, between doing an injury yourself, and permitting it to be done by others, if it lie in your power to prevent it,) if by that means he had prevented his succession; since 'tis contrary, not only to Scripture, but common prudence, to prevent a future inconvenience by a present ill, and by a sin endeavour to avert only a possible misfortune.  
I can't tell how difficult it is to satisfy other people; but for my own part, I think, I can justly conclude from these instances, that every thing in Gregory's Invective, is not to be urged for proof: And this doth not at all derogate from the truth and sincerity of his other works, because the nature of the thing gives him liberties now; which, as they are not allowable in his other Writings, so neither are they usual.  
But certainly nothing in the world is more senseless and ridiculous, than that which Mr. Johnson urges to enhanse the credit of this Invective (p. 27.) where he says the things [concerning Julian] were not delivered coldly, and nakedly set down, but with an Emphasis, and the greatest vehemency: For all people know, the passion they were delivered with, aught to make us suspect the truth of them; for angry men often speak what they don't think themselves; they do not consider what ought to be said, but what makes most against their enemy; and their fury improves every thing into a weapon to serve their revenge: For I would fain know of Mr. Johnson, which he thinks more exactly true, Tully's Offices, or his Philippics; and yet how nakedly and coldly one is delivered, and with what vehemence and pomp of words the other, is easily seen.  
Therefore (with all submission) I think Gregory's authority in this Invective, aught to have no more weight with us, than Grotius allows to the sayings of Orators [Prol. l. 1. de Ju. Bel. & Pa.] Nos saepe iis utimur, non tam ut inde astruamus fidem, quam ut his quae dicere volumus, ab ipsorum dictis, aliquid ornamenti accedat.  
I can hardly imagine that Holy Father himself, had he been at the Consult, would have encouraged Constantius to exclude Julian, though he knew his Apostasy; because it cannot be easily supposed, that he would coolly have done an Action, contrary to the Law of Nature: the revealed word of God: and the practice of the Primitive Christians.  
1. That the Exclusion of Julian, would have been contrary to the Law of Nature, may be gathered from what Mr. Johnson says of his Title to the Crown (p. 19) viz. that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that destroying this, must needs be a great breach of the Law of Nature, which cannot be allowable upon any Consideration; for a Heathen will tell us, Nec derogari aliquid ex hâc [lege naturae] licet, neque tota abrogari potest: neque verò per Senatum, aut per populum, solvi hâc lege possumus; nec est quaerendus interpres, aut explanator ejus alius; nec erit alia l●x Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac: sed & omnes gentes, & omni tempore, una lex & sempiterna & immortalis continebit; unusque erit communis quasi magister, & imperator omnium, Deus ille legis hujus inventor, disceptator, lator; cui qui non parebit ipse se fugiet, & naturam hominis aspernabitur; atque hoc ipso luet maximas poenas, etiamsi caetera supplicia quae putantur effugerit. [This is quoted Lact. 6. Inst. 8. out of Cic. Books de Repub. that are lost.] If this be true (which I am sure no man of common knowledge will deny) what becomes of the lawfulness of Excluding Julian? 'Twould have been equally as just to have prevented his Succession by death as any other means; for any thing tending to this had been a breach of the Law of Nature, and would only differ from the former, as robbing a man doth, from cutting his Throat.  
2. That such an attempt is contrary to the revealed Law of God, may necessarily be inferred from the exact agreement there is between the Scriptures and the Law of Nature; This, being only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legis illius architypae & aeternae quae est immensè divina; and those, his revealed will: but 'tis expressly set down in Scripture, that the Right of Succession is entailed on Primogeniture; for Gen. 49. 3. when Jacob blessed his sons, he called Reuben his firstborn the Excellency of dignity, and the Excellency of power; and in 2 Chron. 21. 3. 'tis said, that Jehoram succeeded Jehosaphat, because he was the firstborn. I might fill my Margin with quotations to this purpose, but I shall only add that great instance of the Right of Primogeniture, Gen. 4. 7. where God tells Cain of his younger brother Abel, Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him; which are the very words which God spoke Chap. 3. v. 16. when he gave the man dominion over the woman. Now that this right extends to proximity of blood, no body questions; so that unless we have some warrant from Scripture to rescind this title, it is the highest sacrilege imaginable to attempt it; and I challenge all the world to show where that warrant is. God himself, indeed, may dispose of the right that he first gave; but I would fain know what people could ever lawfully pretend to alter the Succession, without an express warrant from God? David, I confess, made Solomon King, but he declares 'twas by God's immediate appointment; and of all my sons, for the Lord hath given me many sons, he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the Throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel, 1 Chron. 28. 5. Now I shall readily grant the Author of Julian's friends, Enthusiasts; but I can hardly admit they have a particular revelation for what they would now be at; and without this, I think the Exclusion of the Next Heir utterly unlawful.  
And that this was the sense of the first Christians, will be evident from the Apology of Athenagoras to M. Aurelius, and his son Commodus: where having declared the Christians were of all others most piously inclined toward God and their Empire, he concludes with this profession: We pray for your Empire, that the Son (as it is most fit) may in the Kingdom succeed the Father, and that your Empire may increase and flourish, all being made 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. I think nothing can be fuller than this to prove what I designed, for that in these words he declared the sense of the Church, we must necessarily grant, if we consider what his Character then was, when he spoke them. Athe. Legat. pro Christ.  
But to come nigher to the business in hand; the Primitive Christians did know Julian's Apostasy, before Constantius died: For as soon as ever he was declared Emperor by the Soldiers, he laid by all pretence to Christianity; for going through every City, he opened the Temples, and called himself the High Priest (Soz.) So that, like Mr. Johnson, he did not lay by the name of Priest, though he turned Apostate. Now that the Army should be ignorant of what Julian did so publicly in the face of the Sun, is not to be imagined; especially if Constantius himself knew it; which Mr. Johnson would have us believe, from the passage he citys from Gregory Naz. that Constantius repented his declaring Julian his Successor; which could only be upon the account of his Apostasy, so that he must needs know it.  
But if we give any credit to Marcellinus (whose authority I am sure Mr. Johnson seems much to value) if Constantius did know that Julian was a Pagan, it was impossible he should repent of his leaving him his Successor: for he tells us (l. 21.) that upon his falling sick he did in his right understanding [integro sensu] nominate Julian his heir, and (l. 22.) with his last breath [supremâ voce] pronounced hi● Emperor: Now that he spoke or showed any signs of his repentance after his death, Mr. Johnson will hardly allow, because that looks too like a Popish Miracle.  
I am rather inclined to believe that Constantius thought the Right of Succession was so inviolable, that the highest provocation imaginable ought not to prevail with him to alter it; for else why did he not endeavour to exclude him, when he had been guilty of the highest ingratitude, in procuring himself to be declared Emperor by the Army, and afterwards in justifying his title by an open rebellion? It had certainly been but justice to have proceeded with the greatest rigour against him for so insolent an Usurpation. But alas! he knew his Edicts in this case would be superseded by a greater Law, and that they would be of little force against that title from which he first derived the power to make them.  
I hope this is a sufficient answer to the second Chapter, wherein Mr. Johnson pretends to show the sense of the Primitive Christians about Julian's Succession, but makes one man's opinion the sense of the whole Church, and takes that opinion too of his, from his Invectives: this is so disingenuous, it could never be excused: but that the badness of the cause he is engaged in, can find nothing else to support it.  
As to the fourth Position, that Passive Obedience was necessary for the first Christians, because the Laws were against them, but not to those under julian, because the Laws were for them. I answer; that this distinction is frivolous; for since the will of their Emperor was a Law (as Gregory acknowledges In. p. 92.) if they were executed by his Command, they died lawfully. But I shall refer the farther proof of this to a particular Chapter of Passive Obedience.  
But since he urges the Authority of holy Scripture to confirm what he says in this place, we must, for method sake, take notice of it: which is the fifth thing to be answered, viz.  
That Passive Obedience is contrary to the Gospel, as may be seen 1 Cor. 7. 21, 22, 23 verses, with Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase.  
'Tis very strange, that when our Saviour so often recommends sufferings to us as our duty, and the badge of our profession, that quietly and patiently submitting to them, should be contrary to the Gospel; certainly he has a particular Bible to himself; for we find in ours, that suffering is particularly the business of the Gospel; and is the great concluding beatitude, (Mat. 5. 11.) nay 'tis evident that misery and persecution were first entailed on Christianity; for the Jews had the prospect of Temporal blessings: Riches and honours were the lot of their inheritance; but we are commanded to take up the Cross, and despise the shame of it, that thereby we might imitate him, who condescended to be our great exemplar: But however, it will not be amiss to see what Reason he has for this monstrous assertion; and because every one has not Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase at hand (which I am confident is the reason he quoted it) I shall give it you here with the Text.  
V. 21. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayst be made free, use it rather.  
Para. [In what condition of life soever a man is, when he is converted to Christianity, let him contentedly continued in it, and not think that Christian Religion frees a man from any obligation that lay upon him before; for that is to make Christian Religion a pretence to covetousness, or lust, or secular advantages, (see 1 Tim. 6.) if either being a Christian might manumit a servant, or free a husband, or a wife from former obligation. He therefore that being a bondman is converted to Christianity, must not think that it is any disparagement to his Christianity, that he continues a servant still, nor be solicitous of changing his condition. Yet this is not so to be understood, but that if by any fair regular means, he can obtain his freedom, he may then make use of them, and prefer liberty before servitude; for so he might have done, had he never been a Christian.]  
Ver. 22. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman; likewise he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.  
Para. [For he that being in the condition of a servant, is converted to Christianity, doth by his conversion become a freeman in respect of Christ; not that he ceases to be a servant to his former master, or reaps any secular advantages thereby, but his advantages are spiritual, viz. that by being a Christian he is freed from many servitudes, that of sin, etc. that lie upon all others; and to live in Christ's family as one of his freemen, though in respect of the world he continue as a servant. And so on the other side, he that is a freeman, and turns Christian, becomes thereby a servant of Christ's, undertaking Obedience to his Command, though he lose not his liberty in the world by that means. (By which 'tis clear, that Christ meddles not with the secular Government of this world, nor changes any man's outward condition by his becoming Christian.)]  
Ver. 23. Ye are bought with a price, be not servants of men.  
Para. [Ye that are Christians, and not formerly servants to Heathens, do not voluntarily put yourselves in that condition, but choose liberty rather.]  
Certainly Mr. Johnson has a different Edition of Dr. Hammond, as well as of the Bible, from that which is in use with us; for from these Texts above cited, nothing can be inferred to prove what he designs, viz. that we are encouraged by Christianity to procure more civil Liberties and Franchises; for it is positively set down in the Paraphrase, that Christ meddles not with the secular government of this world, nor changes any man's outward condition, by his becoming Christian.  
One would think, by this way of procedure, Mr. Johnson, like Julian, only reads the Scriptures, to pervert other people by an ill application of them, and to use the Gospel against his Saviour.  
2. His inference, that St. Paul was against Passive Obedience [Act. 22. 26, etc.] because he told the Captain (that was ignorant of his condition) that he was a Roman, and consequently exempt from the punishment he was going to inflict upon him, is the most absurd reasoning imaginable.  
I perceive after all his bawling against Passive Obedience, he is perfectly ignorant what it is; for to suffer torments when we can avert them by lawful means, is not Passive Obedience, but stupidity: this is not taking up the Cross (as a great Man observes) but pulling it down upon us: Christianity allows us to make a defence, but we are not to resist; we may certainly tell our story; but if that will not be heard, we must submit with patience. And these were the Methods of the Primitive Christians, they prayed to God, they supplicated to their Emperors, to avert a threatened persecution; but if these means would not do, they had Gregory Nazianzen's comfort left still, to die patiently. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Since Passive Obedience is not only allowed, but enjoined by the Gospel (as is briefly shown already, and shall be more fully proved by and by) that it should be contrary to the Law of the Land (which is the sixth and last thing he lays down) cannot be admitted, since our Laws must necessarily conform to the determinations of the Holy Scriptures; and whatsoever is enacted contrary to them, is ipso facto void; and I am sure whatever he says, will hardly induce any man in his right senses to think otherwise. I am sure the Case he brings (p. 9) is nothing to the purpose; for he can only infer from that, That a man may kill an aggressour, and the Law take no hold of him. If he could prove from any instance that the Law obliges a man (if he can) to kill one that offers violence to him, he had said something: But there is a vast difference between what the Law permits, and what it commands; he is not indeed obnoxious to any legal punishment here, but the verdict of a jury will not absolve him from a guilt he has contracted by disobeying our Saviour, who has commanded us not to resist evil, [evil not signifying a thing, but a person] Mat. 5. 39 So that the kill of a Pursuivant, though it be excused in the eye of the Law, it will not be so hereafter in heaven; For if he only designed an arrest (as 'tis owned he did) a man ought not to take away his life: this is plain from Dr. Hammond [Prac. Cat. p. 164.] where he tells us a private man may not by the Law of Christ take away another's life, to save his own goods, or to repel any such kind of injury, because life is more than goods; nay, 'twould be better to avoid taking away another's life, though to save his own; thereby imitating his Saviour who laid down his life for his enemies. lbid.  
As to those arguments (p. 15.) from Sir Simon Ewe's journal to prove the lawfulness and necessity of excluding a Popish Successor. I hardly think them worth the least remark. For what can be more unreasonable, than that which they seem to enforce, that it had been just and warrantable not only to have disinherited the Queen of Scots, but to have taken away her life too, for her Religion?  
For what just pretence could Queen Elizabeth have to Condemn a Princess altogether as independent as herself, and one that was only accountable to God for her actions? they might as well have addressed against the French King or the Pope for endeavouring to pervert her majesty's Subjects, for the Queen had equal power over these Princes, though she had them not in possession: And though an Act of Parliament against them, would not perhaps have been of very great force, yet it would have been expedient to have shown her good will (as Mr. Johnson calls it.)  
But we shall find the weakness of these arguments in the effect they bade on the Queen; for she was so far from being persuaded that the fact was lawful, that she always denied her being consenting, or so much as privy to it, when it was done; and though there might be some probable reasons to believe she was innocent, yet the very suspicion of her being privy to it, has fixed an eternal blot upon her (otherwise unspotted) reputation.  
So that these arguments will seem of very little weight to his present Majesty, when all the world knows how unjustly, and unsuccessfully too, they were urged against his great Ancestor, to a Princess that was her mortal enemy, and one but too desirous of her destruction.  
There is nothing now left in the Preface that is worth taking notice of, but the Act of the 13 of Queen Elizabeth, whereby 'twas enacted Treason during her life, to affirm that she, and her Parliament, could not make Laws and Statutes, of sufficient force and validity, to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, etc. I shall not presume to determine of the equity and justice of this Act, or whether it were in their power to do as they did; but the Excellent Author of a late Pamphlet, entitled, The Great point of Succession discussed, being an Answer to the History of Succession, etc. though he was a Member of those very Parliaments that were so hot for the Bill of Exclusion, freely declares that the Crown of England is, and aught to be, inseparably annexed to proximity of blood, by the Laws of God, and Nature, and this Realm; so that consequently any Act, that pretends to alter the Succession, is utterly unlawful, and ipso facto void: and so it ought to be adjudged when it ever comes to the Question before the Reverend judges, p. 35. If any one requires fuller satisfaction, I refer him to the Book itself, which will convince not only the diffiders, but the prejudiced too, of the truth of what is here delivered.  
As for the great Subscribers to that Act, we have a Hierarchy not at all inferior to them, either in piety or learning, who are of the contrary opinion; and till I know the reasons why they subscribed, I shall not be swayed by their Authorities, when I think I have as great to balance them.  
'Twill be time now to give some account of the ensuing Work, but any considering man will read the design in the Title Page, or at least will find it in the Book itself, from which I shall no longer detain him.   

The Editions of those Authors that are Cited.  

AThanasius 2 Vol. 
Par. 1627.  Lactantius 
Basil. 1563.  Origen con. Cel. 
Cantab. 1658.  August. Opera 
Bas. 1569.  Gregory Naz. 
Par. 1609.  Tertullian 
Par. 1616.  Ambrose 
Bas. 1555.  Athenagoras 
Par. 1577.  Theodoret 
Par. 1673.  Rufinus 
Par. 1580.  Nicep. Call. 
Fran. 1588.  Socratis and Sozome. Histor. Eccl. 
Par. 1668.  Homilies 
Lon. 1623.    
The Editions of Dr. Hammond, Bishop Taylor, etc. of the English Divines, are not so various that I need to set down here the particular times or places when and where they were printed.   
Constantius THE APOSTATE.  

CHAP. I. A Short Account of the Life of Constantius.  
CONSTANTINE the Great having by his last Will divided his Empire between his three Sons, Constantine, Constantius, Constance, died in the Suburbs of Nicomedia, no one of his Sons being present at his death: But Constantius, not so far off as the other two, first came to Court; where having paid the usual respects that are due to the memory of a deceased Parent, as if all other ties of Nature were buried with his Father, he commanded, or at least permitted, the execution of his Uncle and Cousins, Constantius Dalmatius and his Sons. [Atha. p. 856.] About three months after the Brothers were proclaimed Emperors by the Army, each took his share, though not without some dissatisfaction and disturbance; but things being happily composed for the present, they retired to their respective Provinces.  
This agreement did not last long, for Constantine thought himself hardly dealt withal, and not content with his share of F●ance, Spain and Britain, would needs encroach upon his Brother Constance, who had Italy and afric, but was slain in the prosecution: Thus the Empire of the West devolved to Constance, but all this new accession could not prevent his being assassinated by Magnentius an Usurping Rebel: who at length after many defeats by Constantius, was forced to that degree of despair, that he slew himself, and left his Conqueror in the quiet possession of all the Empire.  
I was unwilling to perplex this brief account of his coming to the entire possession of the Empire, with the relation of any of his particular actions, reserving it rather to this place where I may do it with less interruption.  
Constantius had not been long upon the Throne, but by the insinuations of an Arian Priest, he was brought over to be a great favourer of that Heresy; the account of his perversion, is at large in most Ecclesiastical Histories; and because it may be material, I shall give it at length out of Theodoret [l. 2. c. 3.]  
Constantia, Sister to Constantine the Great, was very intimate with an Arian Priest, who, dissembling his own opinion, made it his business to defend or excuse Arius; this man, upon her deathbed, she recommended to her Brother's care, who was signally kind to him; and as a particular mark of his favour, entrusted his last Testament in his hands: the delivery of which to Constantius, when he came to Court, was sufficient to recommend him to his favour; and gave him an interest, that in a short time became pernicious to the whole Christian World; ●or he improving the opportunity he had of being nigh the Emperor, and making his advantage of an inconstant humour that was peculiar to him, easily made him out of love with the true Religion, and as zealous for the false. He persuaded the Emperor, who was but too prone to hearken to any thing that was ill, (Ath. p. 883.) that all the disturbances in the Church arose from introducing the word Consubstantial into the Articles of Faith, which was nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture, and the blame of this was laid upon Athanasius. Thus was that unhappy Emperor perverted to a Heresy, the most dangerous that ever infested the Church, for Athanasius tells us (who had certainly good reason to know) they denied Christ. [p. 590.]  
Athanasius was the first man that suffered by the Emperor's Apostasy; for his piety and learning rendering him formidable to those Heretics, they soon traduced him to Constantius, who sent part of his Army to seize him at Alexandria, but by a miraculous escape, he prevented the danger and fled to Rome.  
Georgius an Arian succeeded him in his Diocese, who repeated all the Cruelties of the former Persecutions, which were ten times worse in him, than in the Heathens, since he at least professed Christianity; he whipped the Men with rods, stripped the Virgin's naked, and brought them to the fire, [Nicep. Cal. Eccl. Hist.] and in fine, acted all those torments a busy malice could invent, or a blind fierce zeal could execute.  
But Alexandria was not the only Scene of Persecution; it spread itself in a short time as far as the Heresy that was the cause of it; but it raged particularly in Constantinople: for Macedonius despising the known methods of cruelty as too mean for an Arian to exercise, had recourse to those that were particularly of his own invention; he did not only punish those that would not Communicate with him, with the ordinary punishments of Whips, Chains, Death: but by an unpresidented cruelty, would force open their mouths with Clubs, and then throw into them the sacred Elements.  
Women likewise and Children, though not initiated nor baptised, were preposterously forced to be partakers of the Holy Sacrament, and were made, as far as it lay in his power, Heretics before they knew what Religion was. [Nic. Call. ib.] This certainly was a far greater wickedness than that of julian; when by adding the Images of the Heathen gods to his own, he designed to deceive the Christians into Idolatry; for this was downright forcing them (if it were possible) into Heresy.  
Upon these unheard-of methods of Persecution, and other bodily torments no less strange, that are at large set down in that History, the Author makes this severe remark: Insolitum sane id, exoticumque supplicium, ab iis, qui Christum professi sunt, inventum; quod ea quae olim Graecorum Tyranni magno study & ambitione excogitarunt, longè post se reliquit. (Ni. Cal. ib.)  
Egypt and Lybia were deprived of all their Orthodox Bishops, whose places were supplied by Arians. Ath. Epis. ad Soli. vi.  
Liberius, Hosius, Paulinus, Dionysius, Eusebius, Luciferus, were Banished for refusing to subscribe against Athanasius, who had been acquitted by so many Synods before. Ib.  
And Constantius himself at length proceeded to that degree of cruelty against the Orthodox Christians, that he made an Edict, not only to banish them, but to put them to death. Athan. p. 8. 53.  
And the same Father tells us, that when Maximianus (Constantine's Father) persecuted the Christians, the Heathens themselves would conceal them, and were so generous often as to suffer fines and imprisonment, rather than betray those that fled to them for Protection: but the New Heretics act just the contrary, they voluntarily take upon them the office of Searchers, and Executioners, and think that he that hides a Christian is as much their enemy as he that's hid.  
And then speaking of Constantius, he says (Atha. p. 8. 36.) Maximianus sent the Confessors into one common place of Banishment; so that in all their misfortune's, they had one comfort left (and that no small one) of mutual society. But Constantius industri●●●●●●●●rted those that were friends, that he might make the misery of their banishment more insupportable, and prevent the only happiness they desired, not to be parted till they died. This was so great a Cruelty, that never can be excused, and no body but a Primitive Christian could bear it without repining.  
It would be an endless piece of business to recount all the sufferings of the Church, under this cruel Apostate, who was no less a Tyrant in Civil affairs, than a Persecutor in Religious; it being an observed Maxim, that under him no one had escaped Condemnation, of whom it had been but whispered that he was guilty; for he seldom heard above one side, viz. the whispering Arian or Eunuch, and 'twas counted as insolent for any one accused to pretend to make a defence as to protest against Arianism. Ammian. in 21 tells us, Si affectatae dominationis ansam quandam falsam reperiisset, aut leve●, hanc sine fine scrutando fasque eodem modo ducens ac nefas, Caligulae, Domitiani, & Commodi immanitatem facile superavit.  
So that if a Roman Emperor can act contrary to the Law (as Mr. johnson affirms), certainly Constantius did: For what can be more evident, than that no man should be condemned without being first heard, or his Accuser appearing, was an Established Law of the Empire? But yet that he acted quite contrary to this, we may plainly see in Athanasius: For how many were dragged to death, without daring to offer at a defence? Which would have been so far from excusing them, that it would only have rendered them more guilty in the eye of the Judge; who being always resolved to condemn, must needs resent any thing ill, that looked as if it designed to prevent him.  
And if putting People to death upon pretence and shamms was the particular mark (as Mr. johnson delivers) of an Arbitrary lawless Tyrant, certainly Constantius put in as fair for the Title as any one; For what could be more so, than the Actions of his Deputies in Egypt by his Commission? Where innocent children, and ●oolish old women were executed; these for prescribing, those for wearing an insignificant charm against an Ague, under the pretence that they dealt in Sorcery. The first time certainly that people ever died for being fools, or that old women suffered for superstition, which in them is as necessary an effect of Age as grey hairs; and they might as justly have been executed for being ugly, or having wrinkles.  
Neither were the Emperor's actions at home less unaccountable; for when his Sycophants had once persuaded him, that the safety of the World did so much depend upon his, that it must cease to be with him, (wh●ch he vain man believed!) he suspected all that came nigh him to have designs upon him; a whisper or a wry look was death; discontent at any thing was misinterpreted disaffection to the government; and a man must not be angry, for fear it should be thought he was displeased at the Emperor. These, and many o●her things of this inhuman strain, are recounted at large in the Histories of that age. Where, if any one will please to look, he will find that I have just occasion to say a great deal more than I have.  
If these provocations could not urge the Primitive Christians to have so much as ill thoughts of their Emperor, what can do it? The benefits of Constantine the Great, the first Patron of their Religion, and Establisher of their happiness, were still fresh in their memories, which must needs make their wounds deeper now; for having once sound the joys of a peaceful settled Church, where (as they do in heaven now) they enjoyed the purest Religion, and the most perfect peace; certainly it must needs be matter of the highest discontent, to have all these comforts snatched from them, and by the Son of the Great Constantine that gave them: Here are the most aggravating circumstances imaginable; but their patience was not to be conquered, they still made good that saying of Athanasius, That Persecution was the lot of Christianity, Atha. p. 836. But this will be more evident when we come, in the third Chapter, to show the behaviour of the Christians toward Him.   

CHAP. II. The Sense of the Primitive Christians about his Succession.  
COnstantius came to the Crown with the profession of that Religion his Father was so eminent a defender of; so that the Christians under Constantine (without the gift of Prophecy) could not well expect his Apostasy. But I am induced to believe, that if they had, there would have been no Petitions to the Emperor to exclude his Son, to secure their Religion; but rather assurances from them, that this was not a just way to preserve it; there would have been no Bill from the Senate with a Contradiction in the belly of it, to tell the Emperor they would by no means attempt the violation of his Prerogative, or the alteration of the fundamental Laws of the Empire; and yet in the very next clause, offer at the Exclusion of his lawful Heir; the nature of the thing will not allow me to make any proof from History that it was so, but I don't question to make it more than probable it would have been so, if there had been occasion.  
For since the Right of the next Heir to the Crown is so strongly secured by the Laws of God and Nature, (as I hope has been sufficiently proved in the Preface) and that it is plain Constantius had this right, being descended from Constantine; I can't imagine that the fears of the Christians (though they had the assurance of Constantius being an Arian) could authorise them to attempt his Exclusion; for besides that it is contradictory to the Principles of their Religion, to prevent a future inconvenience, by a present ill, (as is shown before) if we may conclude what they would have done then, from what their forefathers did before, or they themselves afterwards, we shall find that they thought no reason great enough to put by the lawful Heir.  
For when a Heathen was to succeed, there was not the least attempt to bar him; not only because they doubted their strength, and therefore thought their endeavours would be in vain, but because they thought the contrary their duty; for they did not only not make it their business to prevent his coming to the Empire, but as much as in them lay assisted it; for as 'tis above cited from Athenagoras, they declared they thought it most just that Commodus, as rightful Heir, should succeed his Father M. Aurelius; nay 'twas their constant prayer to Almighty God that he might: which certainly had been the greatest madness in the world (he being a Heathen, and consequently their mortal enemy) if they had not thought it so necessary a duty incumbent upon them, that no consideration of their future quiet, or the unmolested enjoyment of their Religion, could exempt them from. So that if the Actions of these Christians have any Authority with us, if we have not disclaimed their very principles as well as piety, we shall not think it so strange, as Mr. johnson would have the world believe we do, for Christians not to oppose the Succession of their lawful Prince, though part of his Religion be to extirpate theirs. If it were our own case, we might lawfully pray for his conversion, and I don't question but we should do it very heartily, for the free exercise of our Religion is the greatest happiness we can wish for on this side heaven; but if we could have it but for an evil thought, 'twere much too dear, and not to be purchased at that rate: And therefore I have often looked with horror upon that unchristian prayer of the Protestants under Queen Mary, which was certainly (whatever Mr. johnson declares to the contrary) never heard or read, to have been used by any good Christian man against any Prince, though he were a Pagan or Infidel, etc. [Pream. to the Act] (as shall be seen at large when I come to treat of the Christians prayers) and it was deservedly made Treason then, for it was so long before in the eye of heaven; for if an evil thought or wish against our neighbour, is made as much murder, by the Gospel, as actually striking him to the heart, why such a notorious profession of our hatred to our Princess, and desire of her destruction (upon what consideration soever) should not incur a proportionable guilt, I cannot easily imagine.  
But to come nigher to the case in hand, 'twill be evident to any, never so little conversant in the Ecclesiastical Writers, that most of those very people, that Mr. johnson represents to the world for such fierce Excluders of a Prince, that professed a contrary Religion to theirs, did not think (or at least did not act as if they thought) that a Prince could be barred of his Right of Succession, upon the score of Religion; for not two years after Iulian's death, Valens a furious Arian, and bitter persecutor of those that dissented from him, was peacefully admitted to be Emperor, and assisted too by the Army; whom we can't think in the least inclined to favour that Heresy (for they were Iovinian's Soldiers) but they knew their duty to their Prince.  
I hope these plain instances will satisfy any reasonable man, that the Primitive Christians did not think it consistent with the Principles of their Religion, to exclude a lawful Successor upon any terms, since we see that neither being a Heathen or an Arian (two the most dangerous enemies to Christianity) could prevail with them to attempt it.  
'Twould be easy here to answer all the pretended Arguments and Authorities Mr. johnson brings, to prove the contrary actions of the Primitive Christians toward julian: but I suppose the Reader remembers what has been already said of them particularly in the Preface; so that I shall not need to trouble him, or myself, with a repetition.  
But I shall hasten to give an Account of their Behaviour toward Constantius, and leave the world to judge whether it be not more agreeable to the Gospel, than that which Mr. johnson falsely scandalises the Christians, under julian, with; and consequently fittest for our imitation.   

CHAP. III. Their Behaviour towards Him in Words.  
'TIS a strange account Mr. johnson gives us of the Christians behaviour towards their Emperor, though a Persecutor, and an Apostate; for railing is certainly so far from being Evangelical, that it is contrary to the Principles of common breeding. But perhaps these were some of those unhappy people the Emperor had interdicted the benefit of going to School to, and now he deservedly found the effect of his cruelty. But then he ought to have told us so, and not to have laid it down in such general terms, as if it were the approved practice of the whole Church: This is the strangest injustice to that famous age imaginable, and only exposing those examples, one would think, by the end of his book, he designs we should imitate; for from the scope of his Book, I can conclude nothing but this, viz. That he intends to give us an account how the Christians in former ages behaved themselves toward an Apostate, to inform us what we may do on the like occasion. I must confess he has done most of his own party a considerable kindness; for they hitherto have railed without precedent, as well as without cause: And I suppose Greek e'er long will be much in fashion with them, as a Language that will extremely accomplish them for that Christian liberty. But as for us, we shall rather fetch the methods of our Conduct from the graver Writings of the Fathers of those times; and not imitate him, who, like our late travelling Sparks, only observes, and treasures up the vices and follies of the places he visits, and exposes them, when he comes home, for rarities and accomplishments.  
None certainly but the scum and rabble of that age could be guilty of those indignities to their Emperor: but Mr. johnson tells us, no less a man than Theodoret commends them for their Nicknames and Reproaches, and quotes his 3 d Book and c. 22. for what he says; I have looked with both eyes, and cannot find any thing like it: He commends indeed the Antiochians for their Zeal, but not their rudeness.  
As to the Example of Maris, which he brings as the second and last argument to justify ill language given to an Emperor, if an Apostate, is of very little force; for without all doubt, it was an indiscreet Action, and nothing but his great Zeal for Religion could make any colourable excuse for it; For who, unless he had a mind to be a Martyr, would affront an Emperor in the height of his devotion, and upbraid his gods when he was paying his adorations to them? Origen I am sure would have counted such an Action downright madness; for he tells us, when we do nothing contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad or furious as to stir up, against ourselves, the wrath of the King or of the Magistrate, which would bring upon us blows, 
Orig. l. 8. contra Cel.  torments, and divers kinds of death.  
And I have some reason to assert this, from the quite different Conduct of all the Fathers that lived under Constantius; that were so far from doing any thing of this nature, unprovok't, that all the Cruelties that Apostate Emperor could inflict, did not extort the least mis-becoming expression from them.  
Athanasius tells the Emperor in his Apology; I am not mad, O King, neither have I forgot the voice of God that saith, 
Atha. Apol. ad Const.  Curse not the King, 
Ath. ibid.  no not in thy heart. And again, I did not oppose the Command of your Majesty, God forbid. I am not such a man as would oppose the very Treasurer of the City, much less so great an Emperor; I was not so mad as to contradict such a Command as yours; I neither did oppose the Command of your Majesty, nor will now attempt to enter into Alexandria, until you, of your Goodness, will please, I shall.  
And in another place of the same Apology he tells Constantius, If I had been accused before others, I had appealed unto your Majesty, as the Apostle appealed unto Caesar— But seeing they have taken the boldness to calumniate me before Thee, to whom shall I appeal from Thee, but to the Father of him who said, I am truth, that he may incline thy heart to mercy?  
St. Hilary tells him (and in the time of Persecution too) your mild nature (blessed Lord) agreeth with your gracious disposition; and because of your great mercy, we don't doubt of easily obtaining what we desire of you; we beg of you not only with words, but tears, that the Catholic Church be no longer persecuted by our brethren. Hilar. ad Const. l. 2.  
And 20 Bishops of the West, in the conclusion of a Letter from a Synod at Ariminum, We beseech you, that you cause us not to stay from our Charges; but that the Bishops, together with their own People, may with peace employ themselves in prayers and the service of God, making supplication for your Kingdom's safety and peace, in which the divine Majesty long preserve you. Atha. Epist. de Syn. Ari. etc.  
Hosius likewise (a man of an extraordinary Zeal and Courage) though provoked by the severest Persecutions imaginable, can't think it lawful for him to speak so much as dis-respectfully of the Emperor: but tells him, Since he had received his Imperial Power from God, whosoever did detract any thing from that, should be looked upon as an opposer of the Ordinance of God.  
It would be easy to seem very learned upon this point, that is, to stuff my Margin with quotations; but that's a vanity I am not over-desirous to be thought guilty of. I hope the authorities I have already cited, will be sufficient to prove what I designed, viz. That it was the judgement of the Primitive Christians, that no ill usage from their Emperor, though a Heathen or Apostate, could authorise them to affront him; and that difference of Religion, doth not, by any means, cancel our Obedience to him.  
Now that the face of things should be so soon changed, as that it should be damnation to speak ill of the Emperor under Constantius; and under julian, his immediate Successor, not only permitted, but meritorious, to curse him (as Mr. johnson acquaints us) is very strange.  
I am confident if they did those Actions he lays to their charge, they had no precedent for them in former ages; and the doctrine they governed themselves by, was perfectly new and their own: For 'tis well known all the first Christians acted quite contrary; they continually night and day prayed for the safety of the Emperor, [Cypr. ad Demet.]  
It would be easy out of the Martyrologies of the first times, to give instances of the Christians submission, as strange, as the cruelty of their Persecutors: But this will be unnecessary, since their sufferings and patience are so well known, that Mr. johnson himself is forced to own it; but tells us withal, 'twas their duty to suffer patiently, because they were persecuted according to law. This answer is of very little force, for there was no other law but the will of their Emperors against them, or their Edicts, which were only their will manifested; both which were as much Laws in Iulian's time, as N●ro's: Therefore why the Christians should think it their duty patiently to submit to all the inhuman cruelties of that first Persecutor, and those under julian rebel, or at least murmur at those lighter pressures of their Emperor, I am not able to resolve.  
I am inclined to think, that Mr. Johnson's Christians were not so good as they should be; for those that will only submit quietly to Persecution upon some conditions (for he tells u●, though they resisted julian, they would patiently have boar the cruelty of a Heathen persecutor) are governed rather by humour than Religion; for the Gospel I am sure makes no distinction, and 'tis a received maxim, Ubi lex non distinguit nemo distinguere debet; Where the Law makes no distinction, no man ought to do it.  
But besides, it has been sufficiently proved, that Constantius' proceedings were altogether as illegal and arbitrary, as those of julian could possibly be; they were both Apostates, and though indeed the latter was less to be excused (it being something a worse defection to Paganism than Arianism) yet in respect of the quiet and security of the Church, they were both equally dangerous. And yet we see from the Examples of so many Bishops, the prayers of all the people, that they were so far from cursing him or giving him to the Devil for his due, that they seem to be fond of his life, and make the establishment and welfare of the Empire, to be the first business of their prayers. For hence it is that we give respect to a Heathen, if put in Authority; for though he be most unworthy of it himself, who holding God's place, gives the Devil thanks for it; but the honour we give him, his place challengeth. [Q. 35. exerc. Nou. Test. Tom 4. op. Au.]   

CHAP. IU. ●h●ir Actions.  
BEfore I give an Account of the Christi●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Actions toward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●ll be necessary to make 〈◊〉 Remarks upon those two Actions of a Soldier and a bishop under julian, which Mr. johnson saith m●y manifest how the Primitive Christians despised him (besides that it i● very foul pl●y to infer the general sense of the Church from that of but two members of it) I cannot grant that the Primitive Christians would by any means allow of these Actions.  
As to the first, that of Valentinian, I must needs own 'twas far more excusable than what old Gregory did, for his Character, and the meanness of the person that suffered by him, may plead something in his behalf, striking in a Soldier being more pardonable than in a Bishop, and bea●ing a Priest, more tolerable, than kicking an Emperor; but this will not justify the violence, for it was undoubtedly a fault, though the praises the Historian gives it, would seem to prove the contrary. For to this I answer, That the Action deserved to be praised, not for its own sake, but because it showed an extraordinary Zeal for Christianity; it was the Motive, and not the Fact, that was to be commended; and that this is not purely a 〈◊〉, but the real truth of the matter, we may infer from this plain instance. In the Primitive Church many killed themselves, when they could by no other means avoid sacrificing to Idols; and they stand now upon Record for Martyrs. This Action of theirs was certainly self-murder, and consequently criminal; and Dr. Hammond affirms, that it was a fault in them too; but the love of God, and the fear they should be polluted by Idols, was the cause of it. And so though it might as a frailty be pardoned by God's mercy in Christ, yet sure this kill themselves was not that which made them Martyrs; but that great love of God, and resolving against Idolatrous worship, which testified itself in their kill themselves for that Cause: This it was that made them pass for Martyrs, and that other incident fault of theirs, was not, in that case, thought so great, as to divest them or rob them of that Honour, [Dr. Ham. Pr. C●.] and 〈◊〉 highly probable that this was Valentinian's Case; 'twas not his striking the Priest, but his Confession, that gave him a title to two Kingdoms, that of the Empire and Heaven.  
But I need not have said so much of this, for Mr. johnson himself allows it to be an unaccountable Action, p. 44.  
As to the extravagant Action of old Gregory Nazianzen (for I can't justly give it a milder Epithet) certainly nothing but the partiality of a Son can excuse it, and 'tis a fault even in him to commend it; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed (sure the Foot is not excepted) and be guiltless (1 Sam. 26. 9) St. Chrysostom's forbidding the Empress Eudoxia to come within the Church, was not half so insolent as this Act of Gregory's, yet he severely repent of it, and tells us, in the cooler hours of his life, he did more than he could justify.  
If I were to specify the particular Actions of the Primitive Christians under Constantius, in opposition to those under julian, I should be as prolix and tedious as Mr. johnson is in his comparison of Popery and Paganism; I shall add in general terms, (and I defy any one to disprove me out of the Writings of the Fathers, the Histories, and the Martyrologies of that age) that the Soldiers, (though of a contrary opinion) fought for him. The Fathers (though banished) prayed for him, as likewise did the Martyrs under persecution, till the Executioner put an end at once, both to their devotion, and their lives.   

CHAP. V. Of their Devotion, their Psalms and Prayers.  
I Don't think there is so much difference between Prayers and Psalms, as to treat of them severally in two distinct Chapters. But shall speak of them here together (I hope) without any great absurdity.  
I must confess there seems some weight in the instance Mr. johnson urges of the young Martyr Theodorus, who cursed the Emperor out of the Psalms; and when he suffered for it, by an extraordinary assistance from Heaven, not only survived, but enjoyed the torture: But (like all the rest he writes) 'tis only gloss, and only fit to be swallowed by those whose use he designs his book for, the prejudiced and ignorant: These believe, because they don't understand; Those, because it makes for them. For this Holy Martyr repeated this with the same spirit that David first delivered it, by way of denouncing God's judgements, not delivering his own sentiments: And Mr. johnson may as well say the Priest curses the People in the solemn Service on Ash●ednesday, as Theodorus did the Emperor then; for the Idolaters come in for their share there too.  
Mr. johnson says but little of their prayers, an● that little too he draws from Gregory's 〈◊〉 where he ●lls the People what a Champion his Father had been against Iu●●, how he had stricken him with the joint prayers of the people, etc. If he did, 'twas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that the Christians ●ver did before him. And then what may we judge of th●● p●●yers, but that they were as extraordinary and unjustifiable as his threatening to kick the Emperor? the supplications 〈◊〉 Predecessors were not of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will tell us [That the Scriptures enjoin us for showing the redundancy of our Charity, to pray to God even for our enemies, and wish well unto our persecutors.] Tertul. Apol. cap. 31, and 32. And in another place, [We pray for the Emperor's safety, we call upon the eternal God, the true God, the living God, whom the Emperors themselves would wish above all others should be propitious to them. Ibid. 30.]  
And what is more, he tells them in the same place, [Having our arms thus spread out unto our God, let the Hooks tear us, the Crosses hang us, the Fires lick us up, etc. the posture of a Christian praying is fitted for all kind of torments: Come ye good Governors, wrest out the soul that is supplicating for the Emperor:] Can any thing be greater? This is the patience of a Primitive Martyr. By this we see not only calmly to die for the Truth, but even to die praying for the Persecutor, was one of the great requisits to obtain so glorious a title.  
But perhaps Mr. johnson will tell us this is but one Doctor's opinion; but if he will take the pains only to look in the Indices of the Fathers, he will be directed to many places, in each of them, to this purpose.  
Cyprian speaking to the Emperor, says, [Day and night continually and instantly do we pray, propitiating and appeasing God, for your peace and safety.] Cypr. ad Demet.  
Sebastian tells the Emperor Dioclesian, [The Priests of the Temples do possess your Majesty with an unjust suspicion of us, suggesting false tales, as if we 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 Roman Army.]  
But to come ●igher home, Athanasius (a man not over tame but when it was his duty) gives this reason for celebrating prayer in the Church of Alexandria, before it was dedicated, that the people earnestly pressed him, that they might all pray for the safety of the Emperor in the Church, which he himself had builded; being ready otherwise to go out of the City, and assemble themselves in the deserts, at the solemnity of Easter, which at that time was to be celebrated.  
And again, speaking to the Emperor, [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 safety, and continually reign in peace's— And again (O Emperor of God most beloved) many circuits of years, I pray, may you live, and accomplish the dedication of this Church; for those prayers that are made within for your welfare, don't at all hinder the dedication of the Church.]  
This will be enough to satisfy any reasonable man, that Cursing an Emperor is not so Catholic a Doctrine as Mr. johnson would have us to believe, and that all the Fathers were not of old Gregory's mind. I am inclined to believe, that if he could have found but one instance more of such a fiery Zeal, it had certainly appeared, and been improved to the best advantage: For we find by his transcribing so great a part of the Book of Homilies, he is of a good Communicative nature, and keeps nothing to himself that may prove in the least beneficial to the public.  
But I believe it will be a hard thing to find the least pretence for this Doctrine, in all the Orthodox Writings in former ages; and any of the Fathers would look upon the broacher of such principles with as much detestation, and call him as many names as Gregory did julian the Apostate.  
Before I conclude this Chapter, it will not be impertinent to show, that prayers and tears were not so much out of fashion in the Primitive Church, as to be ridiculous in ours; as for their prayers, that they were not aimed against the Emperor, I hope has been sufficiently showed already, but only intended for his safety. And though it may seem unmanly, yet that it was not unchristian to weep, St. Ambrose will inform us; who speaking to his Flock at Milane, tells them, [Willingly I will never forsake you; being constrained, I know not how to make opposition; I can sorrow, I can weep, I can sigh, against Armour, Soldiers and Goths: Tears are my weapons, for such is the Armour of a Priest, otherways I cannot, dare not, resist.] Amb. in Ora. de Bas. non Trad.  
And this same Father (who had likewise to deal with an Arian Emperor, Valentinian the younger) did not defend himself with his hand or his weapon, but by fastings, and continual watchings, and continuing under the Altars, by his prayers he procured God to be a defender both of him and his Church. Ruf. Ec. H. l. 2. c. 26.  
And that Prayers and Tears do very well together, St. Bernard tells us, writing to ●udovicus then King of France. [Indeed we will stand and sight even unto death, if need so requires, in our Mother's behalf, with such weapons as we may lawfully use; not with Bucklers and Swords, but with Prayers and Tears to God.] I suppose if he had meant against the Emperor, he would hardly have wrote him word so. Ber. in Ep. 221. ad Ludo. Re.   

CHAP. VI Constantius' Death.  
COnstantius, after having reigned 38 years, (a great while for a Roman Emperor and Persecutor, and yet not too long, for Athanasius wisheth him many Circuits of years) making War in Persia, heard the unwelcome News of Iulian's being proclaimed Emperor by the Army: 'Tis not to be imagined but he resented this treacherous Action with the highest indignation; but we do not hear that he attempted to exclude him for it; he knew he had declared Iulian's right to the Succession, by making him Caesar; and that consequently it was not in his power to take away that right which was derived from the Law of Nature, and confirmed by his Edict, and which could only cease with Iulian's Life. That these were his thoughts, we shall best judge by his proceedings in this affair; for he did not put out his Edicts to take away the title of Caesar from julian (which was equivalent to that of H●ir-Apparent with us) thereby showing his design to disinherit him; but leaving the prosecution of that War he had begun in Persia, he carried his Army against julian, to be revenged of that ungrateful Usurper, and to secure himself in the Empire; for he might kill julian as a Rebel, and so his right would fall of course; but he could not disinherit him as such, because God, though he gave the power of life and death to the Magistrate, hath yet reserved the disposing of Kingdoms to himself. But to proceed in the Narrative: Constantius, whether from inward grief, or the toil of a long journey, or both (is not material) fell ill at Mopsuecrene, a place between Cappado●ia and Cilicia, where in a very short time he died of a very high Fever; for Marcellinus saith, that he burned all over like fire, so that his servants could not so much as touch his body. Socrates indeed gives us a far different account of his distemper, attributing his Death to an Apoplexy. I shall leave the reconciliation of these two Historians to those that think themselves concerned in it; for it is not material here of what death he died: but it is certain the News of it was miraculously conveyed to julian; for after he had consulted his Gods and Priests about the event of things, and they had assured him of success above his hopes, yet he was dissatisfied still; he looked upon what they said to be rather slattery than prophecy, and thought their predictions rather squared to his desires, than truth; but he was quickly satisfied by an extraordinary revelation; for at the very same time the Emperor died in Cilicia, a Soldier that lifted julian upon his horse; he being seated, suddenly himself fell down upon the ground, and cried out in the hearing of all the company, That he who had raised him up so high, was fallen himself. Marcel. lib. 21.  
Having given this account of his Death, I hope it will not be preposterous to speak a word or two of his Repentance.  
Socrates is silent in this matter, and the great Athanasius positively affirms, that he continued in his damnable Heresy till the last. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] p. 907. And that dying, he desired to be baptised, but not by a holy man, but by one Euzoius (this is also confirmed by Socrates) that had been deposed for Arianism. Ibid.  
If any one inquires into the credit of this great Father, I shall refer him to Gregory Nazianzen's own Speech in commendation of him, which he thus begins, [In praising Athanasius, I praise Virtue itself, etc.] Greg. Nazian. in Land. Athan. And to Constantius' Character of him (who certainly might be believed when he commended one he hated) in a Letter he sent to the people of Alexandria, wherein he highly commends his integrity, etc. Athan. Works. Epist. 2. ad Pop. Alex. Now which is to be believed, Athanasius or Gregory, in the account of Constantius' dying a Convert or an Apostate, I leave the Impartial Reader to judge.  
But the authority he useth to induce us to believe a Christian did that treacherous act, is much to be suspected; for Amm. Marcell. lib. 24. is silent as to that, who was concerned in the expedition, and an eye-witness of what past; as likewise Eutropius. But Aurelius Victor affirms the quite contrary, viz. that he was killed by a Horseman of the enemies, and one that was ●lying too. But Theodoret tells us positively, cap. 25. lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Who it was that struck this just stroke, no man knows to this day. And that it was not probable that a Christian would be guilty of this fact, will manifestly enough appear, from the passionate resentments they showed at his death. See Marcell. l. 24.   

CHAP. VII. How they used his Memory.  
THE Primitive Christians were so far from offering any injury to the Memory of Constantius, that as if they had only remembered he was their Emperor; and now by his being dead, owned a new obligation superadded to that, to speak well of Him; they deplore his loss with all the demonstrations of a real sorrow: the eyes that were wet when he persecuted them, wept afresh at his funeral, as if they had perfectly learned that great lesson of their Saviour, not only to bear with, but even to love their enemies. The Soldiers you would think, by the extravagance of their grief, had forgot their Character; and Constantine himself died not more lamented than his Son. julian, who had no great reason to be fond of his life, if he consulted his own safety, assisted at his Obsequies, and made a very considerable figure in that sorrowful procession; and if we read Gregory Nizianzen's description of his funeral, we must needs stand amazed at the greatness of their Charity; He tells us, that he was carried forth with all the solemnity the Christians used to honour the Corpse of a Pious Hero with; and would fain persuade the people to believe that the very Angels themselves, in reward of his unusual piety, contributed their assistance to enhance the Glories of his Funeral; but whether this is one of that Father's flights, or really true, I shan't contend: this is certain from all the Histories of that age, that he died generally lamented; and that those that suffered by his Edicts, did not presume to blaspheme the Memory of him that made them.  
This was the Conduct of the Primitive Christian; and if they ever acted contrary, it was not to be imputed to their Religion, but their Passions. I shall easily grant that there are some severe reflections upon julian to be met withal in Authors of very good note; but I hope Mr. johnson will not infer from that, that they are warrantable. If he reads those very Fathers through, he will find that their Theory runs sometimes contrary to their Practice, and that they don't always act according to their own principles; and I don't know why he should draw those passages into precedents for us, which the Authors themselves in their cooler minutes were ashamed to own.   

CHAP. VIII. Reflections on the Behaviour of these Christians, wherein, of Passive Obedience.  
THat the Persecution under Constantius was much severer than any of the ten former, is evident to any one that considers the Cruelties that were daily acted by the Arian Heretics; who as they were much more zealous for their Opinions than the Heathens, so consequently they were more eager in prosecuting those that dissented from them: The loss of a Trade or Profession was not the punishment of their Nonconformity, but of Life too; nay, there were penalties inflicted where death was the least part of the punishment: But all these heavy grievances did not make them question God's Providence, or remonstrate to the Decrees of the Emperor; they did not make their pressures just, by impatiently submitting to them; nor frustrate the reward of their sufferings, by reviling their Persecutors; thereby by rendering their Persecution only an unprofitable affliction: they looked upon their miseries as necessary trials of their faith, knowing that the power of even wicked and hurtful Kings is from God.  
What therefore can justify the Primitive Christians carriage toward julian, if it were according to the account Mr. johnson gives of it, p. 66? That they vexed every vein in his Royal heart; said all their prayers backward; and called down for vengeance upon his head, etc. And at last concludes, They seem to have broke all the measures by which all the ancient and suffering Christians have gone by in their Persecutions, p. 68 The reasons he brings to justify their Actions, are these:  
1. That their case was different from that of the first Christians, because Christianity was now the Established Religion of the Empire, and they were justly incensed at julian in offering to disturb them in the exercise of it.  
2. Since Constantius had repealed all the sanguinary Edicts against them, they were persecuted contrary to Law.  
To the first of these I answer; That if he takes Christianity for the true Religion Constantine professed and maintained, his assertion is utterly false; for the Emperor's Religion, which is likewise the Religion of the Empire, as far as Edicts can make it, (and Constantine had no other way to establish any thing) was Arianism; for Constantius had long maintained that damnable Heresy, and had supplied all the places of the Orthodox Bishops, who were banished for their Confession with the most violent professors of it. So that when julian came to the Empire, the Church was far from enjoying that peace and tranquillity Mr. johnson describes, p. 68 for it was miserably rend with divisions, and hardly visible but in a few persecuted, distressed members: For granting that Constantius did at last repent, it was so late first, he had no time to settle the true Religion, but left the Empire infected with the Heresy he first introduced: which was no more Christianity then, than Mahumetism is now; for though they acknowledged a Saviour, 'twas one of their own making, and the Notions they entertained of Christ may perhaps only entitle them to greater damnation, than the Heathens that never heard his name: So that the quiet enjoyment of their Religion could not make them so ●ierce against julian, for designing to molest them, for he could not put them into a greater confusion than they were in already: Nay, they rather found the contrary; for whoever will take the pains to compare Iulian's Usage of the Christians with that of Constantius, he will find that the Heathen was less a Persecutor than the Arian; and that the Church had more quiet minutes in the short Reign of julian, than in 30 years before; for he (upon what private designs matters not) called home the Banished Bishops, and restored them to their places in the Church: And though he ridiculed Christianity, he did not often persecute the professors of it; he endeavoured indeed to gain Proselytes, but yet, like Arians, he did not compel people to his Altars: Nay if we will take Mr. Johnson's word, he was rather a Tempter than a Persecutor. I hope this is enough to show, that there is not a word true of all that gay description Mr. johnson gives u●, p. 68, 69, etc. of the flourishing condition of the Church; and consequently the just sense of the happiness they enjoyed, and a fear to be robbed of it, could not animate the Christians to that degree that he tells us it did.  
2. As to the second, That Constantine repealed all the sanguinary Edicts against the Christians, and therefore if they were persecuted, 'twas contrary to Law; it is a very shallow inference: For though that first Christian Emperor repealed all the sanguinary Edicts, yet his Successor was not in the lest ti●d up: One single word of his would put them all in force again. Nay if we believe justinian (who certainly was a good judge in the case) the Emperor could not act contrary to Law; for what he did, was according to his pleasure, and his pleasure was a Law, Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem, [Just. Inst. l. 1. c. 2.] and the Edicts were altogether as Arbitrary, for they were only the Emperor's will more publicly made known; for Theop. defines them, Edicta sunt, cum Princeps motu proprio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquid constituit ad honestatem & utilitatem reipublicae; for whatever the Emperor enacted, how ill soever, was supposed to be so; for as his sentence was always presumed to be just [Principis sententia praesumitur semper justa unde ab ea non appellatur;] so likewise were all his actions: So that whether julian put the Christians to death upon sanguinary Edicts, or rather accused them of other Crimes (that he might avoid the invidious name of a Persecutor) and so destroyed them, is not material, for '●is certain he commanded them to be executed; and if he did, they died lawfully, for his Command was a Law; and that the Emperor's Command had this authority, is evident from the Protestation of the people of Alexandria, Athan. p. 858. [If it be the Emperor's Command we should be persecuted, we are all ready to suffer Martyrdom; but if there be no such thing, we beseech Maximus, the Governor of Egypt, and all the Magistrates, that they would entreat his Majesty that no such thing may be attempted against us.] So that what Mr. johnson means, p. 72. by saying the first Christians suffered according to the Laws of their Country, whereas those under julian were persecuted contrary to Law, is hard to determine; for every one knows the will of their Emperors was the Law of their Country, for they were as Arbitrary then as he that now Usurps their Throne; and I hope no body will say the great Turk persecutes his Subjects contrary to Law, when he kills 5 or 6000 of them for diversion: That he acts unjustly, I grant, but the Laws (that is, his will and pleasure) are on his side.  
But to put an end to this matter, 'twill be evident to any that have read the former part of this Book, that all the sanguinary Acts against Christians were not repealed; for those made by Constantius, which were severe enough (if we believe Athanasius, p. 821.) stood still in force till julian his immediate Successor came to the Crown.  
But Mr. johnson need not have given himself all this trouble to justify the Actions of the Primitive Christians, for they were never guilty of any that wanted an excuse; for the Church under julian never owned those principles or practices that tended to the dishonour of their Emperor, as has been showed at large in the 2, 3, 4 Chapters, etc. of this book.  
I shall con●ine myself no longer to the Actions of a particular people or Nation, but consider what is our duty as Christians in relation to our Governors; and what submission is due to them when they persecute us according to Law, or destroy us by an uncontrollable Arbitrary power.  
As to the first of these, the case is plain, and agreed upon on all hands, that submission is necessarily required to a Persecutor, that acts according to the Laws of his Country: this Mr. johnson allows, p. 92. in these words: [When the Laws of God and our Country interfere, and 'tis made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian, than we are to lay down our lives for Christ's sake.]  
So that all the dispute is about our Submission to a Persecutor, that acts without the authority of the Law, and contrary to it.  
Mr. johnson denies that Submission is due to him by the Gospel, [ibid.] but I shall make the contrary appear from the plain authority of the Holy Scriptures, the sense of the Primitive Christians, as likewise from that too of our present Church.  
For, first, if we are not obliged to submit to a Tyrant that acts contrary to the Law, we may resist him, for there is no Medium, flying being part of our Passive Obedience that is acknowledged due to a Persecutor that acts according to Law: but resisting is not in any case allowable; for besides our Saviour's own words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis forbidden, Rom. 12. 17. to return any man evil for evil. And again v. 19 Dear beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay it, saith the Lord. Now if no man may pay evil to his brother that has injured him, but by the hand of the Supreme Power, how can it be allowable to render evil for evil to the Supreme Power itself? It cannot be done but by a Superior, and He only is God. We have redress indeed against the violence of our fellow subject, by applying ourselves to the Magistrate, who may punish the offender, being authorized by God so to do [Rom. 3. 4.] But we don't find the People have the like Power over the Magistrate: Obedience is our business, which is inconsistent with the liberty of resisting. Grotius tells us plainly, Si, quia summum imperium habenti libet, injuria nobis inferatur, toleranda potius est quam vi resistendum; For though by the Law of Nature we have the power of Repelling injuries, yet we have a greater obligation from the Civil Government under which we live, that wholly devests us of this right. Potest igitur Civitas jus illud resistendi promiscuum publicae pacis & ordinis causâ prohibere, cap. 4. l. 2. de Iu. Bel. & Pa. So that this patient submitting to the Arbitrary determinations of the Magistrate is not only from the doctrine of our Saviour, but from the principles of Civil prudence: For the Lawyers will tell us, that a mischief is better than an inconvenience; not that the first formally considered is to be preferred to the latter, but that an inconvenience, whose consequence would reach unto the general, should be prevented rather than a mischief, that would only endamage particular. Hence it is that opposing the Magistrate is forbid upon any terms whatsoever, since the indulgence of it would bring a train of ill consequences, ten times worse than all the mischiefs we can possibly suffer from the cruelty of a lawless Tyrant; For as Grotius has it in his Commentary on the 13 of the Romans, Reges constituuntur ut improbitate repressa tutiùs vivant boni, hoc autem plenissimè praestant boni reges, mali quoque aliquatenus vel sui causa, & quanquam aliquando vitii aliquid interveniat, nunquam tamen non tutiùs est esse Principes, quam non esse: Rectè ergo Tacitus, vitia erunt donec homines, sed neque haec continua & meliorum interventu pensantur.  
It was a Maxim the former Heathens learned from their Philosophers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that this anger was not always supposed to be just, a Latin saying, to the same purpose, will show us, ames parentem si aequus est, si non, feras; and that the same, if not much greater difference is to be paid to our common Father, is out of question.  
In some cases I allow it is lawful not to obey our Parent, or our King, but in all cases 'tis necessary not to resist. St. Peter Commands Servants to be subject to their Masters, with all fear; not only the good and gentle, but also the froward; for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience-sake toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully: and Grotius will tell us, Quod dicitur subjectionem dominis deberi etiam duris, idem ad reges quoque referendum. Nay we owe a greater submission to our Governors, than a Servant doth to his Master; for if he complains of wrongful usage, redress is to be had from the Magistrate; but we can only appeal to God.  
But to put this matter beyond all controversy, let's consider what St. Paul says, Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever resists the power, resists the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Here is a general rule laid down without the least exception; and that it belongs to us, will be evident, if we consider who gave it St. Paul, who being the Apostle of the Gentiles, what he delivers is universal. And why should we presume to be wiser than the Law, and make distinctions where we find none? St. Paul tells us, Whoever resists the power, shall be damned. Mr. johnson tells us, we may resist one that acts contrary to Law: This distinction might be plausible, if this wicked power were not the Ordinance of God; but since it is (as I shall evidently make out by and by) the resisting this Ordinance contracts a guilt, that makes us obnoxious to eternal torments. Mr. johnson indeed quotes Bracton to prove, that a Magistrate can have no power from God, to act contrary to the Law, Quia potestas juris solius Dei est, potestas autem injuriae Diaboli: But I wonder what Divine ●ver consulted a common Lawyer before about a Case of Conscience; for I believe Westminster-Hall Divinity is as bad as Pulpit-law: He may likewise, if he please, make use of Scotch Politics, and he will find his Friend●, Knox and Buchanan, of his opinion: But St. Augustine will tell him (Praef. in Enar. 2 Ps. 29.) [Every evil man hath in himself the will to hurt; but to be able to hurt, is not in his power: In that he hath the will to hurt, he is already guilty; but that he should have the ability, is permitted by the secret dispensation of God's Providence; toward some for Punishment; toward some for Trial; toward some for obtaining a Crown: For punishment, as the Philistines were permitted to subdue the people of Israel, because they had sinned against God: For trial, the Devil was permitted to assault job; but job was tried, the Devil confounded: For winning the Crown, the Persecutors were let loose against the Martyrs; the Martyrs were slain, the Persecutors thought they had gotten the day; these did falsely triumph in public, the other were truly crowned in secret: Therefore that he is permitted to deal against any, proceedeth from the secret dispensation of God's Providence; but that he hath a will to hurt, cometh from the man himself.] Here we see opposing even a Persecutor, is resisting the Ordinance of God (since he hath his power from above,) and what the consequence of that is, no Christian can be ignorant of. Now that this was not Casually spoken by that Great Father, but his settled opinion, is plain from his constant adhering to it: For in another place he says, (l. 5. de C. D. c. 8.) [From whom [God] are all powers, howsoever all men's wills are not from him;] and again (Id. de Na. Bon. etc.) [The power even of hurtful Kings is from God.] Theod. likewise on the 13 to the Romans, Quum vult eos qui peccant castigare à malis Magistratibus regi permittit. And Isidore tells us plainly, [Hence we see both a bad and good power is ordained by God, Bonam propitio, malam irato; for we owe good Kings to the gift of God, but evil ones to our sins; Reges quando boni sunt, ●uneris est De●, quando vero mali sceleris est Populi.] But some may say the Fathers are men, and consequently may err; to obviate this Cavil, I shall add the undoubted authority of Scripture, Rom. 13. 1. There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God: and job 34. 10. God maketh a wicked man to reign for the sins of the People.  
Since therefore 'tis plain from these many instances, that the power of wicked Princes is from God, our resistance cannot be any ways warrantable: We may as well quarrel with Providence for sending Plagues among us, or murmur at the Almighty when he visits us with his Judgements, as resist a Persecutor; for he is sent to punish us for our sins; he is only the instrument, the rod in God's hand, which we ought rather to kiss than burn.  
I hope it has been sufficiently proved from the Scriptures, and Sense of the Fathers, that the power of wicked Princes is from God, and consequently it is our duty to submit to them, though they act never so illegally. It remains now, that I should prove, that this is likewise the Doctrine of our present Church; and here I might refer my Reader to all the Writings of our Eminent Divines since the Reformation, whose business it has been to preach up Obedience to Governors, and have unanimously declared against resistance upon any terms whatsoever: I might transcribe great part of Bishop Bilson, Bishop Taylour and Dr. Hammond's Tracts upon this subject, but I shall rather choose only to quote the Homilies, it being agreed on all sides, that in them is contained the true Doctrine of our Church; and Mr. johnson deservedly styles them the next best book to the Bible. I wish he could commend them upon his own knowledge; but I am afraid he never read any more of them than served for a present purpose, and cares as little for them otherwise as the Country people do: For if he had met with the Homilies against Rebellion and Disobedience, we should never have had that assertion, p. 92. That the only Case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, is when the Laws are against a man: For in the first Homily against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion, there are these words, [We shall find in very many and almost infinite places in Holy Scripture, as well of the Old Testament as the New; as well the Evil as the Good do reign by God's Ordinance, and we are bound to obey them.] And again— [It cometh not of chance and fortune (as they term it) nor of the ambition of mortal men and women climbing up of their own accord to dominion, that there be Kings, Queens and Princes, and other Governors over men, being their Subjects; but All Kings and Queens and other Governors are especially appointed by the Ordinance of God.]— And again, [What shall Subjects do then? shall they obey the valiant, stout, wise and good Princes, and contemn, disobey and rebel against Children, or against indiscreet and evil Governors? God forbid, etc.] And the reason follows— [For a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince, and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto has been.]— And in another place, [Shall the Subjects both by their wickedness provoke God for their deserved punishment, to give them an undiscrect or evil Prince, and also rebel against them, and also against God, who for the punishment of their sins did give them such a Prince?] I am weary of transcribing out of a Book that ought to be almost as well known to us as our Bibles; but I can't forbear to insert this passage, which is so pertinent to the business in hand, and makes it plain that we ought by our repentance to avert the miseries of a wicked Prince, and not by resisting his power; the words are these,— [Let us take away our wickedness, that provoked God to set such an one over us, and God will either displace him, or of an evil Prince, make him a good Prince; so that we first change our evil into good; for Subjects to deserve through their sins, to have an evil Prince, and to rebel against him were double and treble evil, by provoking God more to plague them: Nay, let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or let us patiently suffer and obey such as we deserve.]  
Having thus secured the Supreme Magistrate from the violence of his Subjects, it will be necessary to take some care of his under Officers; whose power, since it is the Ordinance of God (for Epiphanius proves, that the many Magistrates under one King are Ordained of God, from the 13 to the Romans) ought no more to be resisted than the King's.  
Though this may seem something harsh in an English man's ears, who will acknowledge perhaps that the King can do no injury, and is above the censure of the Law, yet he knows his Officers are accountable for any illegal act; and the very Command of the Prince cannot secure them from being impeached by the People: granting this to be very true; yet I shall still assert, that the inferior Magistrate, though in the execution of an illegal act is not to be repelled by force; for though Bracton tells us, Ei qui vult viribus uti erit viriliter resistendum; and the law in our own defence permits us to kill our enemy, 
R●f 17. 18.  yet (as it is sufficiently declared before) we sin in so doing; and though we escape here, judgement will overtake us hereafter. Let's hear St. Peter's opinion in the case, 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. Submit yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the King as supreme, or unto governor's, as unto them that are sent by him●— For this is the will of God, etc.— From this 'tis plain that we ought to submit to inferior Officers for the Lord's sake, as well as supreme; this subordinate power being from God, though not immediately: This is sufficiently acknowledged in our Saviour's answer to Pilate, Thou couldst have no power over me, except it were given thee from above; and we all know he was under the Emperor.  
I am not ignorant that the abovecited Text from St. Peter has been perverted to serve upon a far different occasion; the improper proper translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 humane Ordinance giving occasion to some ignorant or ill-minded people to infer, that all government is of humane institution; but to any considering man 'tis plain, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies a person, and not a thing, from the division subjoined, whether it be to Kings as Supreme, or Governors, etc. and therefore the best Translation runs, Submit yourselves to every humane creature. Here it may be objected, that this explication is too large, because undoubtedly we are not to submit to all men: To this I answer, that sentences delivered in general terms are not always to be taken in their full extent; but restrictions are allowable, provided they are had from parallel places in Scripture; for this Command of subjecting ourselves to all men, implies no more but this, We must submit ourselves to all men to whom submission is due: of Haymo in Rom. 13. Subditi estote omni creaturae, i.e. omnibus hominibus nobis praepositis. But that which gives colour for the allowance of this restriction, is the like expression in the same Chapter, v. 17. where we are commanded to honour all men. Certainly the meaning of this is not that the King should honour his Subjects, or the Father his Children. But as Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on the place, [Give every man the Honour and Obedience that is due to him:] and St. Paul confirms this, Rom. 13. 7. Give all men their due, Tribute to whom tribute— Honour to whom honour.  
But to make this point of our submission to under Officers, as plain a● possible, let us consider the example of our Saviour, who when he was set upon by a great multitude with swords and staves, etc. who certainly acted very illegally, for they had no just Commission for what they did, nor could have (for our Saviour tells them, Luke ●2. 53. This is your hour, and the power of darkness; which Dr. Hammond explains in his Paraphrase, [This is the time when the Devil and you are permitted to work your wills on me.] Yet he was so far from resisting them (though he had ten Millions of Angels at his command) that he severely rebuked Peter for drawing his sword in his defence, and bid him put it up, for all that take the sword, shall perish by the sword. Here we see our Saviour doth not only encourage us by his example to submit patiently to those that wrongfully assault us, but by his Precept enjoy●s it as our duty; he doth not leave it at our disposal, whether we will submit or no; nor is this only a Counsel of Perfection, which brings honour and reward to those that keep it; but to those that do not, no manner of danger at all (as Mr. johnson speaks, p. 68 from Greg. Naz.) for we see here a penalty threatened to the resister; though if any case might be excepted, this aught to claim the privilege, for the sword could never be drawn in a better cause, or by a better hand: But the Precept is universal and unalterable. St. Peter himself must not resist, though to defend his Saviour.  
This is a hard lesson (I know) to flesh and blood, but we must not Consult them when we are to take up the Cross; which is the indispensable duty of every Christian, 2 Tim. 3. 12. And again, Heb. 11. 6, 7, 8. For whom the Lord loveth, he chas●eneth; and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  
I hope I have not omitted any thing in Mr. Johnson's book that might deserve the least Consideration; but to make the surer work, it will be necessary to make some particular remarks upon those five Propositions, p. 92. into which he tells us there he has reduced the force and strength of what was formerly delivered in his Book.  
1. Christianity destroys no man's natural or civil Rights, but confirms them.  
Ans. Christianity doth not at all meddle with our Civil Rights [1 Cor. 7. 20, 21. with Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase.] And as for Natural Rights, some it has confirmed, but destroyed others; for many things were lawful to us as men, which are not so as Christians. Nay, there were many things allowed under the jewish Oeconomy, which Christ hath absolutely forbid; and particularly in this case of private revenge, and resisting the unlawful Oppressor. See Matth. 5. v. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. with Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase.  
2. All men have a natural and civil Right and Property in their Lives, till they have forfeited them by the Laws of their Country.  
Ans. We had indeed a natural Right to our Lives, and we might have defended them by force, and those weapons that nature had bestowed upon us; but this Right is superseded not only by the Maxims of Christianity, but Civil policy too (as has been shown from Grotius); and we can no more defend our Lives by violence, than we can destroy them upon private discontent; both the preserving and destroying the Subject being lodged in the hands of the Supreme Magistrate.  
3. When the Laws of God and our Country interfere, and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian, than we are to lay down our lives for Christ's sake. This is the only case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, namely, when the Laws are against a man: And this was the case of the first Christians.  
Ans. 1. The rule of our Obedience and Submission is universal, there is no person excepted; nay, 'tis plain from Scripture that we ought not only to submit when the Laws are against us, but when they are for us, and we are illegally oppressed: For if our Saviour commands us, Matth. 5. 38, 39, etc. not to resist a private person that offered us an injury, (which is certainly illegal, and acknowledged so all over the world, since he acts without so much as any pretended authority) how much rather ought we to submit to the Magistrate, though he acts contrary to Law; for besides the general obligation we have just now mentioned, there is another that more particularly restrains us, viz. St. Paul's Command, to submit to his power as he is a Magistrate, and consequently ordained by God.  
2. The Laws were no more against the first Christians, than they were against those under julian; for they suffered both by the same Law, viz. the uncontrollable will of their Emperor.  
4. That killing a man contrary to Law is Murder.  
Ans. I can't grant this universally true, for sometimes 'tis more than Murder, viz. Treason, sometimes less, viz. Manslaughter: but that Murder is Murder, I allow. I hope the Reader will pardon the seeming lightness of this Answer, since it is necessary to show how hard it is for Mr. johnson to speak truth or sense in the most trivial concerns.  
5. That every man is bound to prevent Murder as far as the Law allows, and ought not to submit to be Murdered if he can help it.  
Ans. How plausible soever this seems, 'tis utterly false: We ought indeed to prevent Murder by all the means our Laws command, for they can command nothing contrary to the Scriptures, but not by those they barely allow; for 'tis evident from what has been delivered already, that the Law permits some means that are not warranted by the Gospel, and those we must not, cannot use; for we ought not to damn ourselves to prevent the violence of a Murderer, though offered to ourselves; for our Saviour assures us we don't lose our lives by this patient submission to death, but gain them.  
'Twill not be impertinent now to take notice of some Quotations picked up out of Bracton, to countenance Mr. Johnson's Doctrine, p. 83. who certainly has a peculiar way of perverting the sense of Authors: For how else could he arm Bracton against his Prince? who, good man! little thought his authority should be made use of to countenance disobedience, or to pull down the Prerogative, of which he really was so just and vigorous a defender: But our Law-books may well be debauched to serve the purposes of ill men, when the Bible is, and Bracton has not so much reason to complain of the injury, since he hath St. Paul for a fellow Sufferer: The substance of all he citys from Bracton is this; Rex est sub Deo & sub Lege quia Lex facit Regem. If Mr. johnson would but let Bracton interpret himself, we should have none of the absurd inferences he makes, p. 83. for he tells us, ●. 3. c. 26. Rex habet superiorem Deum item Legem per quam factus est Rex, item Curiam suam, viz. Comites & Barones. Here we see there is no more power allowed to the Law, than there is to the Earls and Barons; and that they can't civilly oblige the King to Obedience, but only morally oblige his Conscience when he is persuaded their Counsels are just, I am sure Mr. johnson himself will allow: Therefore 'tis evident that those words cannot relate to any coercive power, but only directive; for he says just before, Nec factum Regis nec Chartam potest quis judicare ita quod factum Domini Regis irritetur: And what he delivers in the following words, only implies a Moral superiority, by reason of a directive power in the Law, and likewise in the Earls, etc. not any civil jurisdiction or coercive power; for he declares, cap. 4. p. 17. that for all the ill the King can do, God only can punish him: Satis sufficit ei pro poena quod Dominum expected ultorem. This is enough to satisfy those that never did, and perhaps never may see Bracton's Books of the meaning of that great Lawyer; as for those that understand him, they know that he of all men is not in the least guilty of any saying that may derogate from the Prerogative of the Prince, for he has evidently made it his business to justify it in its fullest extent.  
I might here conclude, but that Mr. johnson will give us another touch of the Primitive Christians, p. 93. where he tells us we have no occasion for that admirable example of the Thebaean Legion: If he had not forgot the Service of the Church, he would know the patience of Martyrs was not only the business of our imitation, but the subject of our prayers too: And though we have not always occasion to follow their example, yet it is our constant duty to thank God for it. And therefore in the most peacefully settled times this sad story is not impertinent from the Pulpit; we have solemn days to Commemorate the sufferings of our blessed Saviour and the Apostles: And though the Church has not thought fit to give this glorious Action a place in the Calendar, it ought certainly to be eternally fixed in our Memories; for than if ill times should come (and if we consider impartially God's justice and our own sins, we have little reason to expect otherwise) the Example and Conduct of the Thebaean Legion will be of great use to us; there we shall see Soldiers die with the same Mien they used to triumph; and Chieftains not inspiring their Soldiers with Courage, but instilling the softer Maxims of Patience: Eucherius tells the Emperor (after a second Decemation of the Legion, and upon his Command to destroy them all) [Despair itself, O Emperor, which is strongest in dangers, hath not armed us against thee: Behold we have weapons, and yet offer not to resist, because we had rather die than overcome, choosing rather to die innocent, than live guilty, etc.] No body but Mr. johnson would say this great Example is not universally to be imitated; and his reason is, because they suffered according to the Laws of their Country. This shift of his has been sufficiently exposed already; but that he may not have the least pretence to it hereafter, I shall show that the Christians under julian had power to resist (and he declares the Laws were for them,) and yet they did not; so that his assertion, p. 94. that they would if they could; and consequently that we may, is utterly false. Now that the Christians were able, appears from all the Historians that speak of that age; for not only the greatest part of the world were Christians, but Iulian's Army was entirely so; for when they chose jovinian for their Emperor, he refused the Honour, telling them, That since he was a Christian, he could not Command over Heathens; but they all, with one accord, cried out, We are Christians.] Rusin. l. 2. c. 1. Theodoret is more full in this case; for he makes the Army tell him, that he shall command Christians that were ever bred up to that profession [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] for those that were elder, had Constantine for their Teacher, the younger Constantius; nay, they assure him they could not be Heathens, for julian did not live long enough to pervert them: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Th. l. 4. c. 1. This Mr. johnson himself knew, for all he saith, p. 94. [What would they have a few desenceless Christians do, when they had lost their strength, and so many of their numbers?] for in his Preface, p. 25. he quotes St. Aug. in Ps. 124. who there saith, [Though julian was an Apostate, an Oppressor and Idolater, yet Christian Soldiers served under him.] Now whether these were unarmed or defenceless when they were to fight, let any reasonable man judge; and for their Numbers, I appeal to the Historians.  
Thus I hope I have performed my promise, viz. 1. I have shown the Unlawfulness of Excluding the next Heir upon the account of his Religion, and that it is a practice altogether unknown to the Primitive Christians.  
2. I have proved the necessity of Passive Obedience from the Scripture, the Sense of the Primitive Fathers, and the Doctrine of our present Church.  
3. I have not left any thing unanswered in julian, etc. that opposed the Right of the next Heir, or justified Resistance.  
As for the latter part of the Book, since I am not concerned in the Vindication of the Papists, I shall leave it to the censure of those that are. But I must needs say, that Mr. johnson had more effectually routed the Papists, if he had rather set down the Arguments with which those great Men confuted their Doctrines, than only the Rhetoric they exposed them with; for we, (whether it be the civility or judgement of the age, I shan't determine) are not much affected with the Old Elizabeth-way of railing.  
FINIS.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THere is now in the Press another Answer to Julian the Apostate, Entitled JOVIAN. An Answerto Julian the Apostate. By a Minister of London.  

Books Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard.  

DR. Fowler's Libertas Evangelica. Octavo. Mr. Kidder's Discourse of Christian Fortitude. Oct.  
Mr. Allen's Discourse of Divine Assistence. Oct.  
— Christian Justification Stated. Oct.  
— against Ferguson of Justification. Oct.  
— Persuasive to Peace and Unity: with a large Preface against the Quakers. Oct.  
— Mystery of Iniquity unfolded, against the Papists. Oct.  
— Serious and Friendly Address to the Non-conformists. Oct.  
— Practical Discourse of Humility. Oct.  
Mr. Lamb's Stop to the Course of Separation. Oct.  
— Fresh Suit against Independency. Oct.  
Mr. Long's History of the Donatists. Oct.  
— Character of a Separatist. Oct.  
— against Hale's of Schism: with Baxter's Arguments for Conformity. Oct.  
— Non-conformists Plea for Peace Impleaded, against Mr. Baxter. Oct.  
Dr. Grove's Vindication of the Conforming Clergy. Quarto.  
— Defence of the Church and Clergy of England. Qu.  
— Responsio ad Celeusma. Qu.  
— Defentio suae Responsionis ad nuperum Libellum qui inscribitur Celeusma. Qu.  
Remarks on the Growth and Progress of Nonconformity. Qu.  
Baxter's Vindication of the Church of England, in her Rights and Ceremonies, Discipline and Church-Order. Qu.  
Mr. Halliwell's Discourse of the Excellency of Christiani●y. Qu.  
— True and lively Representation of Popery: showing that Popery is only New-modelled Paganism. Qu.  
— Account of Familism, against the Quakers. Oct.  
— Sacred Method of saving Humane Souls. Qu.  
— Discourse of the Kingdom of Darkness. Oct.  
Cleget's Reply to the Mischief of Impositions, in Answer to Dr. Stilling crete's Sermon. Qu.  
The True Englishman: Humbly proposing something to rid us of the Plot in State and Contention in the Church. Qu.  
A Persuasive to Reformation and Unity, as the best security against the Designs of our Popish Enemies. Qu.  
The Harmony of Natural and Positive Divine Laws: by Walter Charleton, M. D.