JOVIAN. OR, AN ANSWER TO JULIAN THE APOSTATE.  
BY A Minister of LONDON.  
LONDON, Printed by Sam, Roycroft, for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXIII.   

THE PREFACE  
THere are many Remarkable Particulars in the Life of Jovian, and so very disagreeable to the chief Assertions, which I have found in Julian the Apostate, that I have been Invited by them to call this Answer to that Book by his August Name.  
For first, He was chosen Emperor next after Julian, although he was nothing Akin to him, while 
(a) P. 74, 75, 76.  Procopius, a Great Man, and one of the Blood was Alive, in the Way, and at the Head of a Great Army; which shows, that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary, as the Author of Julian hath with great Confidence asserted in his 2d. Chapter. He also left behind him a little Son called 
(b) Amm. Marcell. l. 25. c. 10. Zonar. T. 3. Eutrop. l. 10. In fine.  Varronianus, whom he had made Consul with himself a little before his death, and the Empire, had it been Hereditary, must have descended upon him without Choice; but after a short Interregnum, which is 
(c) Cook in calvin's Case.  inconsistent with a Lineal Succession, the Army unanimously chose Valentinian, without taking notice of young Varronianus, who yet, was as fit for the Empire, as Valentinian Junior the Son of Valentinian, 
(d) Amm. Marc. l. 30. c. 10. Zonar. Tom. 3. Zosim. hist. l. 4. Aurel. vict. Epit.  whom the Soldiers chose Emperor after his Father's death being but 4 years old, and afterwards saluted him Augustus, while he was carried in his Cradle about the Camp.  
But secondly, Jovian was a 
(e) Socrat. Hist. Ecc. l. 3. c. 22. Theodoret Hist. Ecc. l: 4. C. 1.  Confessor of the Chistian Religion in the Reign of Julian, who chose rather to quit his Preferments, than to Sacrifice, as Valens, Valentinian, and other Great Captains likewise did, quietly, and peaceably behaving themselves, while Julian did so outrage the Church; which shows, that either he did not Illegally Persecute his Christian Subjects (as Mr. J. saith he did) or else, that they thought in their Duty, as Christians, quietly to submit even to an Apostate Emperor, when he persecuted contrary to Law.  
Thirdly, Though he was so Zealous and Orthodox a 
(f) Theodor. l. 4. c. 1, 2. Socrat. l. 3. c. 24. Sozom. l. 6. c. 3, 4.  Christian, and so great a Blessing to the Church, yet, as I have 
(g) P. 103.  shown, he was worse treated by the Antiochians, than Julian himself, which proves, that it was the evil Humour of that People to abuse every one, who did displease them, which the Apostate did by his Morose Philosophical Humour, and by setting too low a Price upon the Market-Provisions; upon which account purely, and not upon the score of Religion (as Mr. J. would make us believe) it was that they Lampooned, and Burlesqued him, as I have shown at large in the 3d. Chapter.  
Fourthly, When Jovian was Elected Emperor by the Soldiers of Julian, 
(h) P. 171.  (g) they cried out with one common Voice, That they were all Christians; which shows how absurd it is to ascribe their Passive Behaviour under the Apostate to want of Strength, and Numbers, as our Author hath done more like a Jesuit, than a Protestant Writer, against the consent of so many Pious, and learned Protestants, who have commended unto us the Christian Subjects of Julian as most perfect Examples of Passive Obedience, for practising the Doctrine of Nonresistance, when they were so much tempted, and so able to resist. To this purpose 
(i) In his Book of Christian Subjection, part 3. p. 123. printed at London 1586.  saith Bishop Bilson: The Christian Soldiers under Julian, as St. Augustine saith, served their Temporal Lord, though and Idolater and Apostate, not for lack of Force to resist, but for respect of their Everlasting Lord in Heaven: Otherwise the Christian Soldiers had Julian in his Voyage against the Persians, far from Home, and from Help, and might have done with him what they would; and yet they chose rather to spend their Lives for him, than to lift up their hands against him; and the Christian World stirred not in his absence against him, but with patience endured his Oppression, and with silence expected his Return. The same Observation is made more at large by the Learned Dr. Hakewell in his 
(k) L. 3. c. 3. Num vobis vires desunt? At teste Sozomeno l. 5. c. 14. Tanta erat ecrum multitudo, ut magistratus cujusque civitatis aegrè eorum calculum subducere & in tabulas refer potucrint, & in ipso exercitu tantus numerus, ut cùm post Juliani mortem Jovianu● Christianus ad Imperium raptus Imperare recusâssèt, milites porte omnes acri voce velut ex composito se quoque Christum colere acola marent. Num ductoribus vobis opus est habetis Jovianum, Valen tinianum, Valentem, Autemium—  Scutum Regium, to whose words in the Margin I refer the Reader; as likewise by that Prodigy of Learning 
(l) Ita sub Juliano, licèt impio Apostatâ, merebant Christiani milites, nec quisquam illi vim fecit, quo nihil fuit faciliùs, cum ferè totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit. p. 53.  Sam. Bochart, who in his Epistle To Dr. Morley saith, That the Christian Soldiers served under Julian though an Impious Apostate; neither did any of them offer Violence unto him, which had been very easy for them to do, seeing it did appear after his death at the Election of Jovian, that almost the whole Army were Christians.  
I have added these Authorities, under this last Particular, which invited me to call this Book Jovian, because I forgot them, while I was writing the 8th Chapter, as indeed I found upon a Review, that I have omitted some other material Observations, which I beg leave of the Readers Patience here to supply.  
First then, whereas I have 
(m) P. 61.  asserted, That there was no such thing as Entail, nor any Notion of it among the Romans, I think it necessary here to add, That this limited way of Hereditary Succession unto one Line is grounded wholly upon the 
(n) Molinae. ad Consuct. par. tit. des Fiefs. n. 5.  Feudal Laws, which had nothing common at all with the old Roman or Civil Laws, but were received from the Customs of the Barbarous Nations, which invaded the Empire, and after settled in it; and particularly of the Germans, from whom the Italians, and the French received them, and we from the Normans at the Conquest. Hence, according to Littleton, and 
(o) L. 1. c. 2, 9, 13, 18.  Cook upon him, Entailing is derived from the French word tailler scindere, and feodum talliatum, or an Estate entailed is according to them, Haereditas in quandam certitudinem limitata; or plainer, as in 
(p) Gloss. v. Feodúm.  Spelman, Feodum talliatum est, quod ita talliatur, hoc est amputatur & rescinditur, ut ad nullos transeat haeredes, nisi a corpore certae alicujus personae emanantes, etc. Now this way of entailing Estates and of limited and lineal Succession unto them was never in practice among the Romans, nor had they any Notion of it, while the Empire was purely Roman, every man being left at his liberty by the Civil Law to sell the Inheritance of his Ancestors, or any part of it, or to divide it among his Children by his last Will and Testament in what Proportions he thought fit; nay, to past by, or disinherit any, or all of his Children under the pretence of Ingratitude, till Justinian the Emperor out of favour to the next akin, reduced the pretended Reasons of Ingratitude to 14. which the Reader may consult. Novel. 11●. c. 3.  
Wherefore there being so great a Distance between the Laws and Customs of the Romans, as to Hereditary Succession, and the Laws, and Customs relating to Tenors, which we derive from the 
(q) See the Customer of Normandy.  Normans, as the Italians did from the Lombard's, it was great Ignorance, or great Deceitfulness in our Author to assert the Roman Empire to be Hereditary, and a vain attempt to go about to prove, that it descended upon Constantin, Constantius, and Julian in the same limited and lineal way of Succession, that this Imperial Crown descends upon the next Heir in a lineal Order according to Proximity of Blood. He might with as much Reason have asserted, that the Roman Senate was such a Parliament as ours, or that the private Estates of the Empire descended upon the next lineal Heir in a limited Hereditary Succession, as that the Empire itself did: For the Emperors, no more than their Subjects had any such Notion of lineal Settlements, nor would any one of them have known how to entail the Crown, or limit the Descent, or Succession of it to the Heirs for ever of any one Favourite, although it had been at his Disposal, as much as his private Lands, and Estates.  
This is plain from the Practife of those Emperors, who end avoured as much as they could, to pass over the Empire in part or in whole, like an Inheritance, unto those they loved best. For, Sometimes they preferred Strangers before their own Kindred, and made them Caesar's; and sometimes the Remoter of their own Kindred, before the nearer in Blood. Sometimes they would make one, and sometimes two, or more Caesars, according to the number of their Children, as the Reader will find in the first Chapter of this Answer; but none of them ever attempted to get it settled upon one man and his future Children after him, much less upon his Heirs Males, or Females in a lineal Succession for ever. They were as Ignorant of this sort of Settlement and Heirship, as their Subjects; which is worth observing to all those, who read the Latin or Greek Authors, that they be not imposed upon by the words Heir, Hereditary, Inheritance, or Patrimony, which never signify in that special manner, as they do among us in relation to Entailed Kingdoms and Estates, but as they do in other Countries with respect to goods and Chattels, to which no man succeeds but as a Testamentary Heir, if the deceased person made a Will, or if he died Intestate, as Heir at Law. Under the former Character some of the Emperors indeed might be said in a large, and 
(r) Thus the Panegyrist to Constantine the Great, Ut quum tibi Pater [Constantius] Imperium reliquisset, Caesares tamen appellatione contentus expectare malueris, ut idem te qui illum declaret Augustum, si quidemipsum ipsum Imperium hoc fore pulchrius judicabas, si id non haered●●rium ex successione ●●●●sses, sed virtutibus tuis debitum a summo Imperatore meruisses.  complimental Sense to have the Empire descend upon them in an Hereditary Succession, because it was bequeathed unto them as much as it could be by the Testaments of their Predecessors: But under the latter, none ever claimed med the Empire, but 
(s) Vid. Vopiscum in Florian.  Florianus the Brother of Tacitus, who had scarce reigned two Months, before the Senate, and Army chose another Emperor after the usual Manner; whereupon his own Soldiers slew him, as an Usurper. Indeed the Emperor Quintillus did also succeed his Brother Claudius, but the Historian takes care to let us know that it was by virtue of his 
(t) Treb. Pollio in Claudio. Quintillus frater ejusdem vir sanctus, et sui fratris vere frater delatum sibi omnium judicio suscepit Imperium nom haereditarium, sed merito virtutum, qui factus esset Imperator, etiamsi frater Claudii Principes non fuisset.  Election, and not as Heir at Law, and therefore if the Roman Empire could not descend like a Private Estate from an Intestate Emperor unto a Brother, as Heir at Law, I leave Mr. J. and his Oracle Mr. H. to consider, how far it was from being Hereditary in a limited and lineal Succession, as entailed Kingdoms, and particularly this of England is.  
Thus much by way of supplement, to what I had omitted in the first Chapter; to which I shall add a few other Observations, which I hope will not be unworthy of the Readers notice; as first, concerning 
(u) P. 97, 98.  Lucifer Calaritanus, who, as I have shown, gave his own Sovereign Constantius Junior, though a Christian, as contumelious Names as any Mr. J. can show the Christians gave Julian, which besides something of extreme Severity, which was in the Temper of the Man, is to be resolved into this false Principle which discovers itself in his Tract De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus, viz. That the Servants of God (by whom he specially meant the Clergy) were to take the same liberty in Reproving and Correcting their Kings, that the Prophets did under the Old Testament, and upon this mistaken Principle be justifies his reproachful manner of treating the Emperor, as consistent with his Duty to him. This I thought worth observing by way of Apology for the Good man, who, as he Erroneously followed the Example of the Prophets in the great Liberty, and Severity, which he used in Chastising the Emperor; so, like a Prophet, he was a great Patron and Example of Passive Obedience, being so far from exhorting the Orthodox to resist Constantius, when he so severely persecuted them, that he wrote a little Book to exhort them to Patience, and Constancy in their Sufferings, Entitled, 
(x) In Biblioth. Patrum. Ed. Par.  Moriendum esse pro Dei Filio.  
In the fourth Chapter among other Arguments which I have used, to show, the utter improbability of Old Gregory's undertaking to kick Julian, I forgot this, That it is not reasonable to believe, that so Good and Apostolic a Bishop, would so deliberately resolve to kick any man, much less his own Sovereign, contrary to the express Rules of the Apostle, who saith, That a Bishop must be no 
(y) 1 Tim. 3.3. Tit. 1.7.  Striker, but on the contrary, that 
(z) 2 Tim. 2.24.  the Servant of the Lord, must not strive, but be Gentle unto all men, apt to teach, and Patient. This special Rule about the Patient and Meek Behaviour of Clergymen we find enlarged in the 9th. of the Apostolical Canons, in these words; If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon beat any Believer, or Unbeliever, that doth him wrong,— we command, that he be deposed, because our Lord hath in no wise taught us so to do; but on the contrary, when he was stricken, he did not strike again, when he was reviled he reviled not again, when he suffered, he threatened not. And Balsamon, and Zonar. on this Canon both say, That a Clergyman rather than strike another, ought to him that smiteth him on the one Cheek, to turn the other also. And as the Church does straight forbid Clergymen to strike, so did she also severely forbid both Clergy men, and Laymen to affront an Emperor, or Ruler, the former under the penalty of being deposed, and the latter of being excluded from the Holy Communion, as may be seen in the 84th. Apostolical Canon; which makes it still more Incredible, that such an Holy Bishop, as young Gregory describes his Father to be, should suffer his Zeal so outrageously to transport him beyond all the Rules of common Decency, and Duty to resolve upon kicking the Emperor, against the Example of Christ, the reiterated Precepts of the Apostle, and the Canons and Censures of the Church.  
Among other Examples, which I have brought towards the latter end of the 5th. Chapter to show, that there was nothing Singular, or Extraordinary in the Behaviour of Valentinian, Publia, etc. towards Julian, as our Author would make his Reader believe, I beg leave to add one more of a 
(a) Johannes dictus in martyrologio Usuardi, Adonis, Notkeri, et in vetere Romano, die 7 Setp. Valenius in Annotat. ad cap. 5. lib. 8. Hist. Eccl. Eusebii.  Christian of great Rank, and Quality in Nicomedia, who, as Eusebius, the Relater of the Story, saith, being acted by a Divine Zeal, and a flaming Faith, pulled down the Imperial Edict for destroying the Churches in Nicomedia, from the Pillar, upon which it was fixed in the most resorted place of all the City, and tore it in pieces, as a most Wicked, and ungodly Order, although two of the Emperors Dioclesian, and Galerius, were then in the Town. For this Contempts, not of the Authority, but of the Tyranny of the Emperors, he was seized, and tortured to death, & had the Honour to be the Proto-martyr of the Dioclesian Persecution. Now according to Mr. J. had any of the christian Subjects of Julian, like stout Champions of Christ, served him in this manner, it must not have been put upon the score of their Zeal to suffer for Christ, but have been represented as an Effect of their special Hatred, and Contempt of him, as an Apostate, and a Persecutor against Law. But much more if any Christian City had forcibly opposed any of his Officers, or Captains, as the 
(b) Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 13.  People of Constantinople in a Violent Insurrection opposed Hermogenes one of the Captains of Constantius, (whose House they set on Fire, and dragged him about the Streets, till be was dead) or if any Discontented Ambitious Man had by chance Rebelled against Julian, under the Masque of Religion, as 
(c) Baron. An. 350. n. 1. Am. 353. n. 5.  Magnentius did against Constants, and Constantius, Mr. J. according to his way of arguing, would have turned the matter into a general Conclusion, That the same Men who would quietly have submitted under a Nero, and Dioclesian, do nevertheless resist an Apostate, and a Persecutor against Law, and pursue him like a Midnight Robber. But God be praised the Banner of the Cross was never displayed agianst the Apostate by any of his Christian Subjects; nor did they raise any Seditions against him, having recovered much of the Primitive, and Genuine Temper of Christianity, from which many of them, by reason of the great heats between the Arrians, and Orthodox, had a little degenerated in his Predecessors Reign. But in his time they behaved themselves with Exemplary Patience under the highest Provocations; for laying aside their Mutual Animosities, they prayed together (as our 
(d) Preface p. 28.  Author observes) and like true Champions of Christ, despised the Power, and Threaten of the Tyrant, being ready in the Apostles passive Sense of the words, to resist him unto Blood.  
But what if any of them had risen up in Rebellion against him, or Stirs, and Seditions had happened in some of the great Cities upon the Account of Religion? Would the Exorbitant Practices of some, (according to our Author's way of arguing) have been a sufficient ground for a General Imputation upon all the Christian of the Empire? Would the Behaviour of some particular Persons, or Companies, have justified such general Phrases, as are wont to be expressed with they, and their. If this be good Logic, than the Stirs and Tumults at Paul's Cross in Queen Mary's days may be yet authorized by Mr. J. upon all the Protestants of London, and the Rebellion of Wyatt, and his Adherents upon all the Protestants of the Nation, as their General Act. He may make another Book, and tell the People in his deceitful way of writing, that they threw Stones, and Daggers at 
(e) Mr. Bourn. Speed in Q. Mary. Fox Acts in Q. M. Dr. Burnet's Hist. Reform. Par. 2. p. 245.  some, and discharged Pistols at 
(f) Dr. Pendleton. Speed. Ib.  other Priests, who were sent by the Qu. and Counsel to preach unto them; that they taught a 
(g) Id. ib.  Maid to speak Seditious Speeches against the Queen in a Wall, so that the People believed it was the Voice of an Angel; that they put a Cope upon a Cat, shaved her Crown, and tied something like a Waser between her Forelegs, and then in derision of Popery hanged her upon a Gallows at Cheap-Cross. In a word, that they risen up agianst her in Defence of their 
(h) The Rebellion of Sir Turmas Wyatt, was upon the Account of Religion, as is plain our of Fox, who faith, That the Queen's Marriage was very ill taken of the People and of many of the Nobility, who for this, and for Religion made a Rebellion; and that Sir Thomas Wyatt the Chief, said, That the Queen by her Marriage would, bring Servitude upon the Realm, and establish the Popish Religion. So faith Mr. Bradford of them, in his Exhortation to the Professors of the Gospel in England. Now for the Victory given to the Queen, if men had any Godly Wit, they might see many things in it: First God hath done it to win her heart to the Gospel. Again, he hath done it, because they that went against her, put their Trust in Horses, and Power of Men, and because in their doing, they fought not the Propagation of God's Gospel, which thing is now plainly seen. Therefore no marvel, why God fought against them. They were Hypocrites, and under the Cloak of the Gospel would have debarred the Queen's Highness of her Right, but God would not so Cloak them.  Religion, and so shown their Hatred to her, and how they held her in the lowest degree of Contempt.  
If a Man should set his Wit to give such an Account of the Behaviour of the Protestants towards Queens Mary, picking up such Stories as these, and concealing their Loyalty in setting her upon the Throne, and their Meek and Passive Behaviour under her Persecution, he might make just such another Fallacious Book as that of Mr. Js. who hath gleaned 3, or 4, Particular Stories out of the Histories of the Apostate, upon which he hath put false Colours, and suppressed, and concealed as much as he could the Loyalty and Passive Obedience of his Subject, and what he could not conceal, he hath (and I verily believe against his own Conscience) resolved into a wrong Cause.  
In the 7th. Chapter about Julian's death, I omitted one good Argument to prove he was not Treacherously killed by a Christian, taken from this Expression in his last 
(i) Amm. Mar. l. 25. c. 3 Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 148.  Speech: Sempiternum veneror Numen, quod non clan destinis insidiis, nee longá morborum asperitate, nee damnatorum fine, sed in medio cursu florentium gloriarum hunc merui clarum e mundo digressum: I bless the Eternal Deity (saith he) that I do not die by secret treachery, etc. which very Expression seems to prove that he himself did not in the least suspect, that he was struck by a Roman, much less a Christian Hand, as Mr. J. designs his Reader should believe. I might also have observed, that Mr. J. is the first Writer of the Church of England, whose Genius hath led him to follow the Example of 
(k) His verbis: Nobilis Historicus Sozomenus l. 6. c. 2. Militem, si quis forte Julianum Imperatorem occidisset (uti eo tempore quidam accusabant) Jure & cum laude fecisse ait. Hakewells Scutum Reg. p. 142.  Mariana (whom Ruteford the Author of Lex Rex accounted an approved Author) in citing of Sozomen for Justifying (as he saith) the Murder of Julian by one of his own Soldiers. But, as I have observed, Soz. did neither justify, nor commend, but only extenuat the Crime, for which he hath been severely censured by other 
(l) Sozomenum mendacii arguit Gregorius Magnus, stupiditatis incredibils Baronius. Ibid.  Authors; but Mr. J. let him pass without Rebuke, though, I confess, he hath called the Fact a Traitorous Assassination, but with what appearance of Integrity, let the Impartial Reader judge.  
In the beginning of his Preface he makes a mighty Flourish, and in very fallacious Rhetoric, against the Loyal Addressers for being contrary to themselves, promising to maintain his Majesty, and the Religion established, with their Lives, and Fortunes, and a Popish Successor too. But though common Readers cannot, yet others can look through this Malicious Fallacy; for it was not the Popish Successor, as popish, but the Succession, which they promised to maintain, and not the Person, who shall succeed, in his endeavours to overthrow the Protestant Religion, there they will desert him, as the Suffolk-Protestants did Queen Mary; but in all other things they will serve a Popish Successor with their Lives, and Fortunes, as the Christians did a Pagan, and particulary Julian, so that he may keep the Horns of Mahomet's Angels, which were half Fire, and half Snow, as an Emblem for such Protestants, who can sight against the Person of their Prince in Defence of his Authority, and who are wont to qualify their professed Zeal for him with such Cooling Considerations, as do perfectly extinguish it, as Snow doth Fire.  
Then he goes on to tell us, that A Popish Successor will be an Heavy Judgement: But then (saith he reflecting upon the Addressers) Did ever Men pray for a Judgement, and make it their Humble Request, that they might be sure of it? But did any of the Loyal Addressers Pray or Desire, that the next Successor might be a Papist, or is Mr. J. or any of the Excluders sure, that he that is next will succeed to the Crown? Nay, do not the Truly Loyal Party pray, and endeavour to make him a Good Protestant; and were they not in Parliament for making of Good Laws for our Security against him: And hath not the Author of Julian very much Forehead, to say of so considerable a part of the Nation, That if they be Protestants, yet he thinks them men weary of their Religion, who are Undone for a Prince, a Great Part of whose Religion is to Persecute, and Extirpate theirs? But doth he not know, That they Love the King, and pray for his Preservation, and wish that he may live for ever? Does he not know, that they wish him a Numerous Posterity, and that there were a Succession of many Young Princes, between him and the Collateral Heir? And have they not (at least) as good Reasons to declare for the Succession, as the Excluders have to declare against it, who by an Act of Exclusion would likely bring as great a Plague, and as Heavy a Judgement upon the Nation, as a Popish Prince will do?  
But yet so bend is this Man to Exclusion, that he tacitly commends King Edward for Impeaching the Succession of his Sister Mary by the most Unauthoritative and unjust, Act, that a good Prince could be guilty of. Every body knows (saith he) that King Edward the Sixth, to prevent his Popish Sister from Succeeding, bequeathed his Kingdom by Will to the Lady Jane, and every body knows, who put the young Prince upon it; and I wish too many of those who were for persuading (shall I say) or forcing his Majesty to Exclude his only Brother, be not such Self-designing Protestants, as they. And I need not (adds he) say what Bishops were concerned, nor how far they were concerned in that Business. This (you must know) is a Reflection on the Bishops for voting against the Bill of Exclusion; but how little this Story makes against them, you shall hear from Archbishop Crammer, who indeed was more concerned in that Business, than our Author is willing the World should know. I am (saith he in his Letter to the Queen) constrained most lamentably, and with most penitent and sorrowful Heart to ask Mercy, and Pardon for my Heinous Folly, and Offence, in consenting and following the Testament, and last Will of our Sovereign Lord King Edward your Grace's Brother, which Will, God he knoweth, I never liked, nor never any thing grieved me so much, as that your Grace's Brother did; and if by any means it had been in me to have letted the making of that Will, I would have done it; and what I said therein, as well to his Counsel, as himself, divers of your Majesty's Counsel can report, but none so well, as the Marquis of Northampton, & the L. Darcy, which two were present at the Communication between the King, and me. I designed to talk with the King's Majesty alone, and at good leisure my trust was, that I should have altered him from that purpose, but they being present, my Labour was in vain— Acknowledging mine Offence with most grievous, and sorrowful Heart— The Duke of Northumberland said unto me, That it became not me to say to the King, as I did, when I went about to dissuade him from the said Will.  
From the Bishops, who consented to the Will of King Edward, he goes on to the Bishops, who concurred in making the Statute of 13 Eliz. Chap. 1. which makes it High Treason during the Queen's Life, and forfeiture of Goods, and Chattels after her Death, to say, That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient Force, and Validity to limit, and bind the Crown of this Realm, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, and Government thereof.  
This Act of Parliament is the Palladium of the Excluders, but all the Arguments that can be taken from it, are so well answered in the 
(m) The Great Point of Succession Discussed. A True and Exact History of the Succession, to which I refer the Reader.  two Answers to the Brief History of the Succession, and the Power of Parliaments in the Case of Succession, that Mr. J. had better not have mentioned it, nor would he (I suppose) have done so, but to take occasion to make an Invidious Paralled betwixt the Bishops of that time, and the present Bishops of the Church. For he presents us with a List of their Names, and tell us, That many of them were Confessors, and that they were active and zealous for such Acts as these.  
I know not what he means by such Acts as these, for it cannot be proved from Sir Simon Dewes his 
(n) P. 140.  Journal, which he hath cited, That they consented to this Act about limiting the Succession, but for any thing we find there to the contrary, they might be concluded in the Majority of the Lords. But if it were certain they did all concur to that Act, they had very good Reason for so doing, because it was so highly conducive at that Season to secure the Queen (whose Title was disputeable) from being ejected, or dispossessed of the Crown, by the Queen of Scotland & her Heirs. But as the 
(o) 28 ch. 7.34 ch. 1. censured as unjust by Judge Jenkins. Jenkins Rediu. p. 29.  Statutes of Henry the 8th, which impowered him to limit the Descent of this Imperial Crown, had not the honour to be formally repealed, but were virtually declared Null, and Void from the beginning by the 3 Estates 1 Jacob. ch. 1. in an Act of Recognition, of King James his Immediate, Lawful, and Undoubted Right unto the Crown, as the next Lineal Heir: So this of Queen Elizabeth's, which is now left out of the Statute-Book, received its deaths Wound thereby, as being a Virtual Repealing of it, or an Implicit Anti-Declaration, That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient force, and validity to limit, and bind the Descent of the Crown, when the Succession is clear, and indisputable, as (God be thanked) it now is.  
From this Act of Queen Eliz. he passes on to the Paper of Reasons to prove the Queen's Majesty bound him Conscience to proceed with severity in this Case of the late Queen of Scots. He Fathers this Paper with great confidence upon the Bishops, contrary to Sir Simons Opinion, calling of it their Writing, although I am confident, that, would he impartially speak what he thinks, he must needs say, that he doth not believe, they had any hand in the thing. For  
First, It is uncertain where, or by whom the Reasons were framed: Sir Simon saith, 
(*) P. 207.  That most likely they were framed in the House of Commons, 
(o) P. 215.  and calls them their Reasons. Secondly, It is very probable they were framed by some private Person, who speaks often in the singular Number, as God I trust in time shall open her Eyes: To those men I think God himself, and his Angels will seem cruel; and therefore, Thirdly, It is not probable, that they should be presented unto the Queen (if they were presented at all, as Sir Simon doth but conjecture) in the Name, or as the Sense of the Bishops, especially if we consider that the Paper is anonymous, and many of the Reasons in it are, the very same which the Papists urge for putting Heretic, and the Scotizing Presbyterians (of which there were 
(p) Vid. Bancrosts Dangerous Positions.  many in Queen Elizabeth's time) for putting Popish Princes to death. I desire Mr. J. to read them again, and then to tell me, Whether he thinks in his Conscience the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish, or Presbyterian Piece? It is credible to believe, that they could argue so falsely upon the Principles of the Jewish Theocracy to the like proceed in Christian States? If this way of arguing be true, than the Queen was bound to burn many Popish Towns in her Kingdom, and smite the Inhabitants with the Sword, and to pull down all the Churches especially the Cathedrals, because they had been polluted with Idols. For my part, I must declare, that it cannot enter into my Heart to believe, that those Bishops would liken themselves to Samuel, the Queen to Saul, and the Queen of Scots unto Agag; or compare themselves to the Man of God, her Majesty to Achab, and the Queen of Scots to Benhadad, or parallel her Case with that of Jesabel, and Athaliah: Or propose unto her Majesty the Example of Solomon, who spared not his own natural, yea, and his elder Brother Adonijah for Suspicion, and likelihood of Treason, for a Marriage purposed only, but put him to death for the same, and that speedily without course of Judgement; Or lastly, Argue from Deut. 13.6. If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother, etc. In citing of which it is evident upon whom our Author did reflect. I would fain know of him, if he approve of this way of arguing, or no; if he do not, why should be think the Reason of those learned Prelates so much weaker than his own? But if he do, may be please to consult Dr. Hickes his Peculium Dei, where he will be better informed.  
But besides this inconclusive way of arguing from the Laws, and Examples of the Jewish Theocracy, there is in those Reasons a Passage about Constantinus Magnus, which is not consistent with the Learning, and Integrity of those Fathers. It is this, That C.M. caused Licinius to be put to death, being not his Subject, but his Fellow-Emperor, for that the said Licinius laboured to subvert the Christian Religion; which is not true, for Licinius had rendered himself, and his Purple to Constantine upon condition of Life, and so was become a private Person, and he caused him to be put to death for new Attempts against his Promise, after he became his Subject, as I have showed, p. 43.  
If the Reader please to consult this Anonymous Paper at large, he will find it Presbyterian and Scottish from one end to the other, and a Brat so unlike the Bishops, upon whom the true Author hath fathered it, that a man may almost safely swear, that it was none of Theirs. Indeed there is one Good Argument in it, why the Queen's Subjects might have been urgent with her Majesty to put the Queen of Scots to death, and that is this, That she sought the Life of the Queen, and endeavoured to disinherit, and destroy her. These Attempts put her perfectly out of the Queen's Protection, and though for this Reason she might lawfully be excluded out of the World, yet still the question remains, Whether she could be excluded from the Crown? To be excluded out of the World, and from the Crown, are things of a disparat Nature, and the former may, and sometimes aught to be done, when the latter neither can, nor aught. As for Example, among the Jews it was the Birthright of the 
(q) Selden de Successionibus. c. 5.  only Son to succeed to his Father's whole Estate, or when there were more, of the eldest to have a double share; and though they ought to have been put to death by the Hebrew Laws for Smiting, or Cursing their Father, yet could they not be disinherited, or excluded from the Succession, which shows our Authors great Fallacy in which he Triumphs, in arguing, as it were a fortiori, from the Exclusion of the Heir of the Crown out of the World, unto the Exclusion of him from the Crown. They (saith he of the Bishops) were Excluders with a witness, for they were for excluding the next Heir, not only from the Succession, but out of the World. And again; A Bill of Exclusion is perfect Courtship to these Reasons. Let those therefore that have run down 3 successive Houses of Commons for that Bill, turn their. Fury and Reproaches with more Justice upon these old Excluders. But all these fine Words are nothing to the purpose, for these Old Excluders were not Excluders from the Succession, which spoils the parity of the Instance; and to let him see that it doth so, he may assure himself, That the same Loyal Men, who run down 3 Houses of Commons for the Bill to Exclude his R.H. from the Succession, would nevertheless upon sufficient Proof that he sought the Life of his dear Brother (to whom hitherto he hath showed himself the most Obedient of his Subjects) be willing to do him Justice, and exclude him out of the World. Furthermore, to let Mr. J. see what a great difference there is between these two Exclusions, I must remind him, that in case Queen Elizabeth had died between the Sentence of Mary Queen of Scots, and her Execution, that the Descent of the Crown would have purged Her of all Crimes, and that ' she would have had the same Right unto it, which the Parliament declared her Son James afterwards had upon Queen Elizabeth's death.  
But yet, though the Descent of the Crown purges all Defects, and would bring back the greatest Malefactor of an Heir, not only from a Prison, but from the Scaffold, and from the Block to the Throne; yet our Author with unparallelled Confidence 
(r) Preface p. 19  challenges all that were against impeaching the Succession, To give him but one Reason to prove a Bill of Exclusion to be Unlawful, which they will own to be a Reason a Week after, and not be ashamed of it, and he doth solemnly promise to join with them in renouncing these Old Reformers, and thereafter will follow their New Guides, and New Lights.  
I never in all my Life read any thing so bold from a Man of Mr. Js. mediocrity, who here challenges the House of Lords, the 3 Estates of Scotland, the University of Cambridge, one of the Secretaries of State, the Loyal Addressers, and several other Persons of Note, whom he ought to believe, are at least as wise, and learned, and as good Protestants as himself.  
First, The House of Lords, who were the first, that in his Phrase run down the House of Commons for the Bill of Exclusion, upon which his Majesty sent the House this Message, That He was confirmed in his Opinion against that Bill, by the Judgement of the House of Lords, who rejected it; and may not one presume, that many of them rejected it, because they thought it disagreeable to the Lex Legum, or great standing Law of this Inheritable Kingdom, That nothing is to be consented to in Parliament, which tends to the disinherison of the Crown, whereunto they are sworn. This is the great Rule by which all Acts of Parliament are to be framed, and if any of them transgress it they are as null and void from the beginning, as Marriage with a person, who hath a natural Impediment, or Imperfection. By this Supreme Inviolable Law, an Act of Parliament for dissolving the Monarchy, or for debarring the King of the Service of his Subjects, or for giving the Crown unto a Foreigner, or for making it Homageable to a Superior Power, or for dividing the Monarchy into Copartnership unto two Heirs, or for Excluding the whole Royal Family, (as many of the Excluders grant) would all be Null, and Void from the beginning; and so, I verily believe, most of them think that an Act for Excluding the next Heir would be so too, which made them so zealous to back it with an Act for an Association, which the Author of the Power of Parliaments ingeniously calls a Club-Law.  
I Know not what any Excluder can reply to this, but either to say, That an Act of Parliament, which tends to the Disinherison of the Crown is nevertheless valid, or that an Act of Exclusion hath no tendency thereunto; To assert the former would be a Contradiction to the most Eminent Lawyers Ancient, and Modern, and many Declarations in Parliament, and would also suppose, that an Act for destroying the Monarchy itself, etc. would be valid. And to assert the latter, is virtually to say, That an Act for Disinheriting the next Heir, doth not tend to the disinherison of the Crown; which would be difficult to maintain, because the same Power that puts by One Heir, may put by Ten, either altogether, or Successively, and so Adieu to the Royal Family, and the Hereditary Succession, which may be laid aside in part or in whole, when the King, and Parliament shall please.  
But to return to this Fundamental-Law of the Monarchy, which seems to invalidate all Acts of Parliam. that tend to the Disinherison, or Destruction of the Crown, and particularly all those, which limit, and bind the Succession. It was by this Law that the 
(s) 35 H. 8. ch. 1.1 Eliz. ch. 3.  Act of Parliament which Imp●●vered King Henry the 8th. to dispose of the Crown by his Last Will and Testament to what person, or persons soever he pleased, proved Ineffectual to the House of Suffolk, to which he bequeathed it, after the death of Queen Elizabeth; which made a Gentleman, as was reported, put this Dilemma in the House of Commons, which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered. Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory, or Valid, or they were not: If not, then Acts of Parliament, which impeach the Succession are without any more ado, Null and Void in Law; but if they were, by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded, and King James admitted to the Crown, contrary to many Statutes against him? notwithstanding all which the 
(t) Jacob. I.  High Court of Parliament declared, That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright, and lawful and undoubted Succession, descend unto his Majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully next, and sole Heir of the Royal Blood. Here His Succession is owned for Lawful, and Undoubted, against the foresaid Acts; Lawful, not by any Statute, but contrary to Statutes, by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom, which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions, as tending to the Disinberison, and Prejudice of the Crown.  
For as the Most Learned, and Loyal 
(u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen, etc. p. 98.  Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons, a Bill of Exclusion, if it should pass, would change the Essence of the Monarchy, and make the Crown Elective; or, as another 
(x) Author of the Power of Parliaments. p. 39  Ingenious Pen saith, It would tend to make a Football of the Crown, and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective. For by the same Reason, that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion, other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences, and so consequently by such Exclusions, Elect whom they please.  
The next Reason, which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful, is the Oath of Supremacy, which most of the King's Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion, or other, and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House.  
By this Oath every one, who takes it swears to Assist, and Defend all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminences, and Authorities, granted or belonging to the King's Highness, his Heirs, and lawful Successors, or united, and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And I appeal to every Honest, and Loyal Englishman, whether it be not one of the most undoubted, transcendent, and Essential Rights, Privileges, and Preeminences belonging to the King's Heirs, and united to the Imperial Crown of England, that they succeed unto the Crown, as it comes to their turn, according to Proximity of Blood. Secondly, I desire to know, Whether by Lawful Successors, is not to be understood, such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Common-Law of England, and if so, how any Man, who is within the Obligation of this Oath, can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion, which deprives the next. Heir (and in him virtually the whole Royal Family) of the Chief Privilege, and Pre-eminence which belongs unto him, by the Common-Law of this Realm; Or how any Man, who hath taken this Oath, which is so apparently designed for the Preservation, of the Rights, and Privileges of the Royal Family, can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death, according to the Common Right of Hereditary Succession, which by Common-Law belongs unto Him, and is annexed to the Crown? What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the King's Heirs and Lawful Successors in general, must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them; but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and Interest of the King's Heirs, is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them; and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order of Hereditary Succession, when it shall come to their turn to succeed.  
I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves, and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it. Some indeed have said, with our Author, that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath, and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion, which is a mere Shift, and proves nothing, because it proves too much. For according to this Answer we might dispense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King, if any should hereafter turn such, because the Oaths of Allegiance, and Supremacy, are Protestant Oaths, and are not to be understood, according to them, in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion.  
Secondly, Though they are Protestant Oaths, yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants, but as lawful, and rightful King, and Heirs, according to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom; and therefore Moderate Papists, will take the Oath of Supremacy, as well as of Allegiance (as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of 
(y) 35 H. 8. ch. 1. § 11.  H. 8.) which they could not do, were they made to the King, and his Heirs, as Protestants.  
But Thirdly, As they are Protestant Oaths, they bind us the more Emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Usurpation of the Pope, who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings, and of Excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession (Witness Henry the 4th;) and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne, so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs, and Successors, when their Rights shall fall.  
I have joined the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy, because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Heirs, and Successors, and Him, and them to defend to the utmost of our Power; And I here protest to all the World, That when I took these Oaths, I understood the Words Heirs, and Successors, for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordinary Course of Hereditary Succession: And I appeal to the Conscience of every Honest Protestant, if he did not understand them so.  
Other Excluders I have heard maintain, that the King, and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Exclusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths, Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Heirs, and Lawful Successors, but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance, (which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy)  
I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any other person whatsoever, hath Power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part theoreof: And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth, but by the Person, or Persons to whom, and for whose behoof it was made.  
To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person, is to give him, what his Justice would abhor, a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men; which Consideration, I suppose, as well as the Popish Practice of Exclusion, made the great Man, above cited, say, For my part, I think there is more of Popery in this Bill, than there can possibly be in the Nation without it; for none but Papists, and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion. But some Men will say, Why should not Protestant's Disinherit Popish, as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes? To which the Answer is easy by another Question, Why should not Protestant's Depose Popish, as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings?  
I am not Conscious to myself, that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing, as I have done, from the Oaths of Allegiance, and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion; yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths 
(z) Preface p. 19  shameful Sophistry, and the Conscientious Regard, that Honest Protestants have unto them, deceitful Prejudice, which (he saith) is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual, and Possible Heirs. But he is very much, and I fear very Wilfully mistaken; For the Faith, and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs, when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession, or to speak yet more 
Otherwise thus: Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance, and Supremacy, swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Sovereigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown.  plainly, our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs, and is to be made good, and performed unto them, and every one of them, when by the Providence of God, they shall come to be actual, according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession; and thus for Example, to use his own Instance, The Excise is granted to the King's Heirs, and Successors; i e. To the King's Future Heirs, and Successors, upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession; and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by virtue of that Grant, when of a Possible he shall by God's Providence (who determines the days of Kings) become an Actual Heir, or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Undoubted Succession, according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm.  
A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown, which is 
(b) Coke Littleton, fol. 1.6. The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion, of which none is the Author but God alone: And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes, the Kings of England have always styled themselves Dei Gratiâ, and the Royal Shield carries this Motto, Dieu, & mon droit. Nay Queen Elizabeth, who through the Dubiousness of her Title, courted the People so much, yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands, printed 1585. speaks, as it became such a Sovereign Princess, in this manner; Although Kings, and Sovereign Princes owing their Homage, and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings, and in that Respect not bound to yield Account, or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Sovereign; and though among the most Ancient, and Christian Monarches the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Sovereignty of this Kingdom of England, and other Dominions, which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God; and thereby—  God alone, who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance, and hath by his Providence ordained, that it should come to one of them after the decease of another, according to Birthright, and Proximity of Blood.  
From this Principle many good Men, who are as Wise, and as Learned as any of the Excluders, infer this Conclusion, That it would be Usurpation, without a manifest Revelation from God, to Alienate the Crown from this Family, to which he only hath given it, or to preclude any Person of it, much more the next Heir, whether Apparent or Presumptive, from succeeding thereunto.  
This Argument is not so slight, as perhaps Mr. J. will make it; for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God, who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family, than it is very reasonable to conclude, That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery, would be Opposition to the Will of God. This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant, and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue, That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family, but most of all the next Heir upon the Line, from the absolute Right, or Birthright, which God alone hath given him, would be also to oppose the Will of God.  
All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the 
(c) Third Part. p. 63, 64,  Address to the Freemen, and Freeholders of England; and were also owned by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the 
(d) Ib. p. 97, 98.  House of Commons; and it is above a Week since, and I am confident they will still own them, without being ashamed of them, and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man, than he is, to follow, as he speaks, their New Light.  
Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession, are owned by the Three Estates of Scotland, and would (I am confident) be owned by them, were they to meet again. I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament, Entitled,  

An Act acknowledging, and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland. August 13. 1681.  
THe Estates of Parliament considering, That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone, do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood, which cannot be interrupted, suspended, or diverted, by any Act, or Statute whatsoever; and that none can attempt to alter, or divert the said Succession, without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion, and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War: Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty, recognise, acknowledge, and Declare, That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right, and the Nature of the Monarchy, as well as by the Fundamental, and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted, and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood, And that upon the death of the King, or Queen, who actually Reigns, the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law, Duty, and Allegiance, to obey the next, immediate, and Lawful Heir, either Male, or Female, upon which the Right, and Administration of the Government is immediately devolved. And that no Difference in Religion, nor no Law, or Act of Parliament, made, or to be made, can alter, or divert the Right of Succession, and Lineal Descent of the Crown to the Nearest, and Lawful Heirs, according to the Degrees aforesaid; nor can stop, or hinder them in the Full, Free, and Actual Administration of the Government according to the Laws of this Kingdom, Like as our Sovereign Lord—   
To this Declaration of the Three Estates in Scotland, I shall and the Judgement of the Vice-Chancelor, Heads of Houses, Doctors, and other Learned, and Loyal Members of the University of Cambridge, in their 
(e) Gazett. n. 1653.  Address to His Majesty at Newmarket Sept. 18. 1681. wherein they declare, That they will still believe and maintain that our Kings derive not their Titles from the People, but from God, that to Him only they are Accountable; that it belongs not to Subjects either to Create, or Censure, but to Honour and Obey their Sovereign, who comes to be so by a Fundamental Hereditary Right of Succession, which no Religion, no Law, no Fault, or Forfeiture can Alter or Diminish. These Learned Men indeed have not so plainly given their Reasons for their Opinion, but by the Hints, which they have given of them, we may perceive, that they are the same, which I have insisted upon, and (I believe) they will still own them, and never be ashamed thereof.  
But Mr. J. it seems, hath learned another Lesson, since he left the University; A Good Wit upon the Fret, and the great Advantage of having such a Conductor as Mr. H. have made him do Wonders against the Succession, and bless the World with a New Discovery, That 
(f) Preface p. 12.  the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion, to the great Reproach of all the Bishops, who it may be, had not preferred some Great Men in their own Opinion, according to their fancied Deserts. But alas! All these Fathers Sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus Theologus, had but one Beard, and what they said was not determining, as Casuists, but as Orators, declaiming against Constantius for choosing, or making of Julian Caesar, which is nothing to a Bill of Exclusion, or the Merits of Lineal Hereditary Succession, of which the Father, or the Fathers had no more Notion than of Guns, and Printing, or of a Senate consisting of 2 Houses, and 3 Estates.  
But Mr. J. hath shown how much of the Serpent he hath in him, in Writing with so much Guile and Venom, especially against the Succession, and Passive Obedience, and in Winding, and Turning the Words of Good Authors from their Genuine Sense, to his own Purposes, as that Famous Passage of Gregory 2 Invect. p. 123. where the Father saith, That they were destitute of all Humane Aid, and had no other Armour, nor Wall, nor Defence left them, but their Hope in God. This Place, as I have shown p. 152. Bishop Montague understood of Free, and Voluntary Passive Obedience, and so did the learned 
(g) Scutum Regium l. 3. p. 143. Num ductoribus vobis opus est? at hab●tis Jovianum, Valentinianum, Valentem, qui postea sunt Imperii gubernaculis potiti, & denique Artemium sub ipso Constantino artis militaris peritiâ celebrem, vobis interea idem animus, eadem mens, quae Gregorio Nazianzeno. De his Juliani temporibus loquens, Nobis quibus nulla alia arma, nec muri, nec presidia, etc.  Dr. Hakewell, as every Man needs must, who understands the History of those Times.  
But Mr. J. with what Ingenuity let others judge, hath 
(h) P. 94.  cited the Words to signify forced Passive Obedience, such as that of the Papists hath been of late in England, who undoubtedly are Passive for no other Reason, but because they want sufficient Numbers, and Strength.  
But as all Sophistical Writers are apt to do, so Mr. J. hath contradicted himself as to this, and other Particulars: An in the 26th. page of his Preface, where he shows out of Sozom. That julian's Army were Christians; and in the 8th. page of his Book out of Nazianzen, That there were more than 7000 of them (i. e. an indefinite great Number) who did not bow the knee to Baal, but repulsed Julian, as a brave strong Wall does a sorry Engine, that is played against it. Now if julian's Army were Christians, and above 7000 of them repulsed Julian with their Passive Valour as a strong Wall does a sorry Engine, was it not a great Contradiction, and great Disingenuity in Mr. J. to represent them as Few, and Defenceless, and their Passive Obedience, as performed by them upon mere Necessity, and Force?  
It is usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers to set forth the Constancy of the Martyrs, and Confessors by the Metaphor of a Pillar or Wall. Thus the Christians of Lions, and Vienna in their 
(i) Euseb. l. 5. c. 1.  Epistle in which they give an Account of their Sufferings, say, That the Grace of God did fight in them against the Devil, and fortify the Weak, and set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Firm Pillars among them, who by their Patience, and Constancy drew all the Assaults of the Devil upon themselves. This I have observed for the sake of the Common Readers of Julian, some of which, to my knowledge, understood that Phrase of Repelling Julian, as a brave strong Wall, in the Sense, wherein Mr. J. perhaps designed they should take it, for Active, and not for Passive Resistance; which puts me in mind of Hugh Peter, who preached up Rebellion on those Words, Heb. 12.4. Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood.  
But to Instance in another of his Contradictions, p. 21. he citys Eusebius for saying, That Constantius Chlorus passed over the Inheritance of the Empire, by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine; Where by that Phrase, passed over, he would have his Reader (or else it is nothing to the purpose) understand Entailed: And yet p. 1. he citys the same Author again, for saying that Constantine at his death gave to his Eldest Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which should be rendered) his Grandfather's share, and not, that part which came by his Ancestors, as our Author doth. But now if Constantius Chlorus Entailed, or Past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine M. how could he give it at his death to his Eldest Son Constantine the second? I desire to know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. who is Fit to Resolve the Question, If a Man can succeed to the same Estate both as Heir by Testament, and Entail.  
The Admirers of Julian, whereof some pretend to be great Masters of Reason, might with half an Eye purged of Bad Humours, have discerned these, and all other Inconsistencies, which I have observed in this following Answer, but by some of them, who took so much Pains to Recommend, and Disperse the Book, we find the Proverb true by Experience, That there is none so Blind; as those who will not See.  
I had almost forgot to tell the Reader, that when I declared in the Introduction, That I was well satisfied with the Author's Comparison of Popery, and Paganism, I had not observed, that he seems to deny the Truth of this Proposition, That the Church of Rome is a True Church of Christ, only Corrupt.  
This I thought necessary to observe, left I should be thought to side with Mr. J. against the most Learned Reformers in the Particular, which I declare I do not, believing the Church of Rome to be a True Church, as a Man that hath the Plague, or Leprosy is a True Man. If I were not of this Opinion, I should be puzzled to tell, how the Church of England, which was once, as Antichristian, as It, came to be a True Church; or how the Romish Church herself should come to be true, if She did Reform.  
I shall add no more, but only tell the Author of Julian, who Thraso-like hath Despised this Answer before he saw it, That I as much Despise his Great Boasts. Confidence, and Hectoring I know, are sometimes Serviceable to a Coward in Sword-quarrels, but what Influence they may have in Conflicts of the Pen, I am such a Novice in writing Controversies, that, I profess, I cannot tell. However, if he, or any other Person, will make a Fair, Close, and Substantial Answer to what I have here written, they will Oblige me by the Performance, and the World may reap Advantage from a Plain, and Solid Management of the Matters of Controversy between us. But if instead of such an Answer, as I hope this of mine is, they shall but shuffle, and prevaricate, and take Sanctuary in Cavil, satire, and Scurrility, I shall think myself obliged to pass over such kind of Replies in Silence, and Contempt.   

THE CONTENTS.  

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

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

Ignatius Oxon. 1644.47.  
Tertullianus. Paris. 1641.  
Cyprianus. Oxon. 1682.  
Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. Paris. 1659.  
Socrates & per Hen. Paris. 1668.  
Sozomen per Hen. Paris. 1668.  
Theodoretus, Valesium Paris. 1673.  
Philostorg. Valesium Paris. 1673.  
Athanasius. Par. 1627.  
Hilarius. Par. 1631.  
Greg. Nazianz. Par. 1630.  
Epiphanius. Par. 1622.  
Lucifer Calarit. In Biblioth. Partrum.  
Gelasius Cyzicen. Octavo. Paris. 1601.  
Lactantius. Lugd. Bat. 1660.  
— De Moritibus Persecutorum. Oxon.  
Zonaras. Basil. 1557.  
Cedrenus. Basil. 1563.  
Suidas. Col. Allob. 1619.  
Bocharti Epistola. Octavo. 1650.  
Versio Gregor. Nazianz. citata p. 120.   

Extat in Biblioth. Coll. Zion.  
Plutarch. Franc. 1620.  
Tacitus. Per Lipsium Antverp. 1668.  
Eutropius. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590.  
Xiphilinus. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590.  
Herodianus. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590.  
Zosimus. Per Sylburgium Franc. 1590.  
Libanius. Par. 1627.  
Theophilus' Antecessor. Par. 1638.  
Ammianus Marcellinus. Par. 1681.  
Eumenius inter XIV. Panegyricos. Paris. 1643.  
Pomponius Laetus inter Hist. Rom. Script. In Oct. Editos per H. Steph. 1568.  
Aurelius' Victor. Lugd. Bat.  
Julius Capitolinus. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.  
Fl. Vopiscus. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.  
Treble. Pollio. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.  
Lampridius. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.  
Spartianus. Inter Hist. Aug. Scriptores. Lug. Batav.  
Book of Homilies. London. 1623.  
Acts and Monuments. London. 1610.  
The Trials of the Regicides. London. 1679.    

The Reader is desired to Correct the following Mistakes of the Press.  
P. 3. l. 23. read handing. p. 27. l. 21. r. successful against. p. 81. l. 14. for two r. three. p. 88 l. 13. r. Legal Absolute. p. 89. l. 21. for. Zos'. r. Soz. p. 96. l. antepen. that they did. p. 119. l. 3. for that r. than. p. 021. for credible r. possible. p. 201. l. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 214. l. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 241. l. 6. r. only Subject. ib. l. 31. controlling. p. 252. l. 13. deal not. p. 257. l. 11. r. yet let alone. p. 296. deal while he. p. 299. l. 4. for that r. which. ib. l. 17. for safety r. duty.  
Besides these there are many Faults in the Margin, especially in the Greek, the most considerable are Collected and Subjoined. The lesser Faults, I mean in Spirits, Accents, and Letters of like Figure, particularly the Mistake of the double Consonant ς for σ, the Learned Reader will easily observe, and, I hope, as easily pardon.  
P. 7. l. 17.734. l. 21.736. p. 8. l. 1.736. p. 16. l. 13. consalutatur. p. 21. l. 10. agere: triumphavit. l. 15. consulatibus. p. 22. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 24. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 42. l. 10. l. 1. c. 26. p. 75. l. 27. pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 76. l. 5. Sozim. l. 4. p. 739. p. 87. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 89. l. 12. Socr. l. 3. c. 3. Sozom. l. 5. c. 7. p. 103. l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Ex Joan. Antiocheno Excerpt. per H. Vales. Ed. 1634. p. 845. p. 105. l. 10. lege c. 1 p. 137. Ibid. c. 1. p. 155. p. 108. l. 1. Gelas. Cyz. p. 148. l. 11 Socrat. l. 3. p. 167. l. 3. pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 188. l. 21. largiter. p. 189. l. 2. hominem, p. 210. l. 8. pro lex, lege Rex. p. 256. l. 14. antequam.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
THe Apostasy of Julian the Emperor did not perhaps make a greater Noise in the Cities of the Roman Empire, than the Short Account of his Life, called, Julian the Apostate, did in the City of London at its First Publication. It started from the Press, as Racers usually do from the Post, with a great and mighty Shout, and was attended all along with loud Acclamations of men set on purpose to cry it up in all Places, as indeed they apparently combine to disperse, and cry up any thing, that is plausibly written against the Doctrine of Non-Resistence, the Succession, or any of the Rights of Sovereignty, which keep the Crown firm upon the Kings Head.  
O! saith Mr. Nelth. the very Morning, that Julian came out, to two or three Gentlemen, Have you seen Julian? It is an Unanswerable Piece, it hath quite undone your Pleas for Succession, and your Passive Obedience; and it is written by a Church-Divine, and we thank God, that there is one among them, who is not for enslaving the People.  
And saith the worthy Son of as worthy a Peer who was a Spectator at that Riotous Election of Sheriffs (when they justled my Lord Mayor, and cried, Take away the Sword) God, here's a Company of Brave Fellows, O that Joh. were hereto preach Julian unto them! And saith Mr. P. to Mr. B. a Minister holding up Julian in his Hand. Have you seen this Book? What Book, saith he Julian the Apostle replies Mr. P. it was this day presented to my Lord, and he says it is an Admirable Piece. To be short, Julian was the Oracle of the Cause, the Pocket-Book of all the Party; it was carried to Change and Coffeehouses in Triumph, and at last called in Print by the (
(*) 4. vol. n. 30. , Courantier, the Plaguy Unanswerable Julian.  
The Author of it hath boasted to several that it had the Approbation of Sir W. J. whom I suppose he means in his Preface by that great Assertor of Religion and Laws now with God: Mr. H. hath also owned that he perused it in the Manuscript, and these men's Breath conspiring in his Praises with the Breath of the People, have blown him into such a Conceit of his Performance, that he hath challenged the World to Answer it, and expose him to open shame, if he have done amiss.  
Having heard of these, and many other things about Julian, I got the Book, and at the first cursory perusal discerned, as I thought, many contradictions and much fallacious Reasoning in it: upon this I took Heart and read it again more observantly, and then plainly saw that it was not Unanswerable, though it was a very cunning and malicious piece. The Author of it shows what Company he keeps by his scurrilous and irreverent Phrases: I can never think of the following Passages, the 
(†) p. 89.  slavish Principle of Passive Obedience, the 
(‖) p. 78.  bloody Doctrine of Passive Obedience, the 
(*) Preface.  Doctrine of the Bowstring, the slippery Trick in Persia, the 
(†) p. 30.  Mountebank receipt of Prayers, and Tears, the old Lacrymist, 
(‖) p. 78.  the murdering piece of Passive Obedience, the 
(*) p. 88  wheedling of men out of their Lives, and 
(†) p. 91.  the making the World for Banditi by it, and the many more Exceptions against their Artillery of Prayers, and Tears, I say, I can never think of these and many more of his Lampoons upon the Doctrine of the Cross, but they make me think of the Appeal, and Fitz-harris his Libel, and that the Spirit of that Author hath passed into this.  
These and such like scurrilous Expressions of his in Religious Matters, as 
(‖) p. 127.  the handling of Prayers like Brickhats out of a Cart determine my Thoughts to Lambswooll, and such like Stories, and make me fear, that the Author hath lost the meek and serious Temper of a Divine in that sort of Company: Indeed he hath showed himself to be a man of great Parts and Contrivance from the beginning of the Preface to the end of the Book, both of which are so Artificially and Plausibly written, that they must needs deceive all persons that are either unable, or unwilling to examine them, and it is for the Sake of such, especially of the former, that I have taken the First Part of the Book to task: For as for the Comparison of Popery and Paganism I do assure him that the Author of this following Answer, and 
(*) P. 93.  I believe all the rest that have so thundered of late with the Thebaean Legion, bating some irreverent Phrases, are as well satisfied with it, as he himself is.   

 
It concerned him very much to impose this upon his Reader, for if the Empire was not indeed Hereditary, than the Case of a Popish Successor in England, and of the Pagan Successor to Constantius will prove so very different, that our admired Author who builds upon that Principle, will himself I hope acknowledge, that he hath conjured up the Ghost of his Julian to no purpose, and wrote his Plaguy Book in vain.  
Therefore (in his own words) To proceed more faithfully and clearly in this Matter, it will be necessary to consider how the Succession stood in the Roman Empire, and in the frist place there is nothing more plain than the Contradiction of his Assertion, that the Empire was not Hereditary, but that the Succession to the Imperial Throne was Elective, Casual, Uncertain, and Arbitrary; and this I will show by giving a brief Account of it from Julius to Julian, wherein the impartial Reader shall see how much this unanswerable Man did prevaricate, when he told his Reader, that there was nothing more plain (not that two and two are four) than that the Empire was Hereditary.  
Julius Caesar returning Victorious to Rome from the Conquest of the Pompees was 
(†) Florus l .4. c. 2. Ep. lib. 116. & Dio. l. 44.  received with all manner of Public Joy, and Respect. The Senate, as 
(‖) Ibidem.  Anthony the Consul told them, in his Funeral Oration, honoured him as a Father, and loved him as a Benefactor, and decreed him such Honours, as they never did to any other Man, and thought all too little for him, They desired to have him for the 
(⋆) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib.  Perpetual Perfect of the City and Empire, and for this reason they invested him with the Civil, Military, and Ecclesiastical Supremacy, for they 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib.  created him Consul, 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch. p. 734.  perpetual Dictator, General, and Chief Pontif, and after all publicly acknowledged him Pater Patriae, or Father of the Country, the more to endear him to the People.  
Besides all this, they decreed, That he should always wear the Triumphant Stole, ride in the Triumphant Chariot, and that the Lictors should carry Crowns of Laurel before him: Moreover they caused Money to be coined with his Image, they set him up two Statues in the great Oratory, and one in all the Temples of Rome, and made him (⋆) sole and perpetual Censor, 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and last of all decreed him a Golden Throne, and a Monument, and a Guard of Senators and Gentlemen, as the Kings of old used to have. The Guards indeed he refused, however these Royal Honours of the Senate, 
(†) Plutarch. edit. Franc. p. 730.  together with some pretended Prophecies, made the People Salute him King, which Title he privately affected, though he durst not openly admit it; for when 
(‖) Florus. lib. 4. c. 2. Dio. lib. 44.  Anthony the Consul after this saluted him by the Title of King in the Name of all the People, and tied the Royal Diadem about his Head, he showed no displeasure (saith Dio) at the Action, but any replied, That Jupiter was the King of the Romans, to whom in Compliment he sent the Diadem to be hung up in his Temple. But however he declined the Title of King, he began to treat the Senate as their Sovereign; for when they came one day to him, as he was sitting in the Temple of his Mother Venus, to tell him what Honours they had enacted for him, he would not rise up, but received them, and their Message 
(⋆) Plutarch. p, 736. Dio l. 44.  upon his Breech, which very much offended the Senate, and others, and gratified the Conspirators, who now thought it a seasonable time to put their Bloody Design in Execution, and accordingly not long after they dispatched him in the Senate as another 
(†) Brutus & Cassius sic Caesarem quasi Tarquinium depulisse regno videbantur, Flor. l. 4. c. 7.  Tarquin, before he could settle himself in the Throne.  
The Fall of Caesar contrary to the Expectation of the Conspirators was much lamented by the People, 
(‖) Sueton. c. 83.  who began to be enraged against them after his (‑) Will was published, for he named many of the Conspirators Tutors of his Children, if he should have had any; Brutus in particular he had put in the second Order of his Heirs, and gave to the People of Rome some Gardens upon the Banks of Tiber, and a Dole of 300 Sesterces a man. After the Funeral, which was was performed with all Magnificence and Solemnity, the 
(⋆) Plutarch. p. 740.  People run in haste to fire the Houses of Brutus, and Cassius, and Octavius taking this advantage of the People, and Armies Affection to his Father, and obliging them to his Interest more firmly by Gifts, pursued Brutus and Cassius the chief Conspirators, who 
(†) Plutarch. 740, 741.  killed themselves because they would not fall alive into his Hands.  
Octavius was then 
(‖) Ordinatâ magis ut poterat, quàm ut debebat, in triumviros republicâ, Flor. l .4. c. 7. vid. Dion. l. 46.  Triumvir, or one of the Three, who governed all, Lepidus and Marc Anthony were the other two, but Lepidus being laid aside, Octavius, and Anthony ruled all, till growing Jealous of one another, they fell out into open War, and Octavius surviving Conqueror after the Victory at Actium, had now all in his own Power.  
Being now absolute Lord without Competitor, he had some thoughts after his Return to Rome of 
(⋆) Dio. l. 52.  resigning his Power to the Senate and People, and restoring the Roman Liberty again. Being uncertain what to resolve, he consults Agrippa, and Maecenas: Agrippa speaks first and offers many plausible Reasons, why he should not assume the Monarchy; But Maecenas spoke last, replies to the plausible Reasons of Agrippa, and shows the way how he might easily govern the Roman Empire. The same year he assumes the Title of 
(†) Dio, l. 53.  Emperor, not in a Military Sense, as Dio observes, but as it signified the plenitude of Civil Power, and Command, in which Sense it had been decreed unto Julius and the Sons of his Body. Then he proceeds as Colleague of Agrippa the Censor, to visit the Senate, wherein finding many bare Gentlemen and Plebeians, who had crept into it, during the Civil Wars, he turned them out, and having restored the Senate to its ancient Dignity, and so obliged the Fathers, he applies himself to get them to make him Emperor; and to that end sets out an Edict to dissolve the Power of the Triumvirate, which was so odious to the People; and then being made the first time Consul, he comes into the Reformed Senate, where after he had declared the greatness of his Power, and how easily he could keep it, desires leave to Resign it all unto them, telling them, That as it was the Glory of his Father Julius to refuse the Monarchical Power, which they offered him: So it would be his, to part with it, even when he was in possession thereof.  
But the Fathers, some of them suspecting that he dissembled, others certainly knowing that he did so, and others again being weary of the Commonwealth, and all desiring Peace, to which they knew he was inclined, 
(‖) Dio. l. 53.  beseeched him to take the Government upon him, and when he refused, they urged him to do so with many Arguments, and forced him as it were to be their 
(⋆) Nomine Principis sub Imperium accipit Tacit. An. l. 1.  Prince. The Provinces also, as 
(†) Neque provinviae illum rerum siatum abnuchant suspecto Senâtus populique imperio ob certamina potentium, Annal. l. 2.  Tacitus tells us, consented, being grown weary of the Contests of the Great Men under the Commonwealth. But Caesar that he might decline all envy, and effectually gain the Good Will of the People, politicly refused to take upon him the Government of the whole Empire, but chose the most Unpeaceable Provinces, especially those upon the Borders, and left the more peaceable to the Care of the Senate, and furthermore would take the Monarchy upon him but for 10 Years. But he knew very well, that if he had the Administration of the Troublesome Provinces, where the Legions were, he could command the rest when he pleased, and that if he Reigned quietly the first ten Years, he could, as it proved, reign his whole Life.  
After he had accepted of the Government, the Senate among many other Honours, would have decreed him the Title of 
(‖) Tractatum etiam in Senatu, an quia condidisset Imperium, Romulus vocaretur, Florus l. 4. c. 17.  Romulus, as being the Founder of the Second Roman Monarchy, but he declining the Envious Name of a King, chose the Venerable Title of Augustus.  
Augustus' being thus advanced to the Empire, began to contrive how he might secure the Succession to his own Relations, among whom he had a great Love for Caius and Lucius his Grandsons, and his Wives two Sons Tiberius and Drusus. To the two former he gave the Titles of General, and to the two latter the Titles of Princes of the Youth; and though they were not as yet 17 years old, he designed to have them made Consuls. But cain's and Lucius, and Drusus dying not long after, Tiberius was now the only Expectant of the Empire, and all men's Eyes were turned upon him. Indeed there was yet remaining another Grandson of Augustus, Brother to Caius, and Lucius, Agrippa Posthumus, but he being of a stupid and brutish Disposition, the Empress in favour of her Son, easily persuaded the old Emperor to banish him into the Island Planasia: There he remained while Tiberius was Adopted by Augustus, made Partner with him in the Empire, and in the Tribuneship, and showed openly unto the Legions, as one that was designed for their Future Prince. A little before Augustus died it was discoursed, that he intended to restore Agrippa, which made many fear that a Civil War might arise between him and Tiberius after the Emperor's death. But as soon as Augustus died, he was upon private Orders dispatched by his Keeper, so that Tiberius having no Rival, the 
(⋆) Romae ruere in servitium consuls, Patres, Eques, Tacit. An. l. 1.  Servile Romans of all sorts strove who should show themselves most readly to obey him. The two Consuls first of all took an Oath of Allegiance unto him, than they required it of the Captain of the Guards, and the Providor General, then of the Senators, afterwards of the Soldiers, and last of all of the People.  
After the Funeral of his Father Augustus was over, the Senate, as he very much 
(†) Dabat & famae ut vocatus clectusque potiùs a repub. videretur, quàm per uxorium ambitum & senili adoptione irreps●sse, ib.  desired, in a most 
(‖) Precantem Senatum & procumbentem sibi ad genua— Suet. 24. Patres in questus lacrymas, vota effundi ad Deos, ad effigiem Augusti, ad genua ipsies manus tendere, Tacit.  suppliant manner begged him to take the Government upon him; and the more he seemed to refuse it, the more importunate they were with him, to accept it; so that at last he seemed to take it upon him, as a man doth a 
(⋆) Tandem quasi ceactus,— Suet. 24.  Burden upon his Back, merely to comply with their Desires.  

(†) Filiorum neque naturalem Drusum, neque adoptivum Germanicum patriâ charitate dilexit.  He had two Sons: One ●●●ural by his Wife Agrippina 〈◊〉 Daughter of Vipsanius A●●●●●●a, who was called Drusus, 〈◊〉 ●ther by Adoption, the Gal●●●● 〈◊〉 Germanicus his 
(‖) Germanicum Druso ortum adsciri per adoptionem à Tiberio jussit, quanquam esset in domo Tiberii filius juvenis, Tacit. An. l.  Brother ●●●●●us his eldest Son. They 〈◊〉 died and left Sons, Germa●●●● three, Nero, Drusus, and ●●●●ula: 
(⋆) Crebris cum lachrymis minorem en nepotibus complexus truci alterius vultu occides hunc tu (inquit) & te alius, Tacit. An. l. 6.46.  Drusus one, Tiberius ●●●●llus, taken off by Caligula, 〈◊〉 he came to be Emperor, as ●●●berius his foretold. (†) Nero 〈◊〉 Drusus his two eldest Grand●●●●●●●e recommended to the Se●●●● but because the Favour of 〈◊〉 ●enate and People too came 〈◊〉 ●●●st upon them, he after●●●● 
(‖) Gnarum hoc principi, eoque dibitavit de tradendâ repub. primum inter nepotes, quorum Druso genitus sanguine & charitate proprior, sed nondum pubertatem ingressus Germanici filio robur juventae vulgi studia, eáque apud avum odii causa. Etiam de Claudio agitanti, quod is compositâ aetate bonarum artium cupiens erat, imminuta mens ejsis obstitit. Sin Extra domum Successor quereretur, ne memoria Augusti, ne, nomen Cae●●●am in Ludibria, & contumelias vertcret, metuebat, Tac. An. 6.46. Dso. l. 56.  procured their death. this time he was grown and Infirm, but could (‖) resolve who to No●●●●●●●●e and recommend for his ●●●●ssor: He hated Caligula 〈◊〉 ●●●se he was so dear to the 〈◊〉 ●●●●e and the Army for the 〈◊〉 of his Father Germanicus, 〈◊〉 ●●●ived, and died their Dar●●●● and especially because the 〈…〉 Men began to make their 〈◊〉 ●●●●t too soon unto him, which 〈◊〉 ●●●e him tell Macro 
(†) Occidentem ab eo deseri orientem spectari exprobravit.  That 〈◊〉 forsaken the setting to worship the Rising Sun. For this Reason he sometimes thought to set up Tiberius his Grandson by Drusus (who was nearest to him in Blood and Affection) to prevent Caligula, but could not well do it, because he was not yet 14 years old. Sometimes he thought of his Nephew Claudius' brother to Germanicus, who was of full Age, and of a Studious Disposition, but had not Parts sufficient for the Government of the Empire. Sometimes again he thought of Nominating a Stranger for his Successor, but that he was loath to do, because it would have been so great a Scandal and Reproach to the Name, and Family of the Caesars; and in this incertitude growing weaker and weaker, he would name none, but left the matter to the Fates.  
He died of a lingering Sickness, which gave Caligula, the Darling of the City and Provinces upon the Account of his Father Germanicus, opportunity of securing the Succession to himself, although he was 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dio. l. 58.  never named nor appointed his Successor by Tiberius, but only adorned by him with some Honours, as if he had intended him for his Successor.  

(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. l. 59 In principio  Nay Dio tells us for certain that Tiberius in his last Will and Testament bequeathed the Empire to his Young Grandson Tiberius; But Caligula his Interest in the Consuls and other Senators, got it declared void in the Senate, as being made by the Emperor, when he was not compos mentis, as it did appear by his bequeathing the Empire to a Boy, who was not of age to be a Senator.  
The Will of Tiberius being declared void, Caligula comes to Rome, where by the Joint 
(‖) Ingressóque urbem, statim consensu Senatûs, & irrumpentis in curiam turbae, jus arbitriumque omnium rerum illi permissum est, Sueton. 14.  Consent of the Senate, and the People, who rushed into the Senate-house, he was declared Emperor. Never any Prince came with more 
(†) Exoptatissimus princeps maximae parti provincialium, quod infantem plerique cognoverant, sed & universae plebi Urbanae ob memoriam Germanici Patris, Sueton. 13.  advantage to the Crown, but never Prince more disappointed the Expectation of the People, being one of the greatest Monsters of Vice that ever the World saw. He had not reigned quite 4 years before his destruction was designed and effected by Cheraea, and Sabinus in the Palace, and after he was slain the Consuls having placed Guards in all Parts of the City, convened the Senate into the Capitol.  
The Senate being set, some were for 
(‖) Dio. l. 60. In principio. Sueton. 60.  restoring the Commonwealth, and abolishing the Memory of the Caesars; others were for continuing the Monarchy, but differed in the Nomination of the Persons, whom they would have succeed unto it; and so spent all that day, and the next night in Uncertain Debates.  
In the mean while the Soldiers plundering, and ransacking the Palace, found Claudius, the Brother of Germanicus, who had hid himself in that Distraction, and as soon as they knew who it was, they, besides his Expectation, Saluted him Emperor, and took him to the Camp, where he was made Emperor by the Choice of the whole Army, because he was a Good Man, and of the Imperial House. The Consuls hearing this, sent the Tribunes of the people to charge him not to take the Empire upon him, but to remain under the Obedience of the Senate and the People; but the Army standing firm to their New Emperor, they were forced to consent, and to choose him Emperor too.  
Claudius' after the death of Messalina 
(‖) Tacit. l. 12.4, 5. Dio. l. 60.  marrieth his own Niece Agrippina Daughter to his Brother Germanicus, and Mother to Nero; and she had the ascendent so much over him, as to make him Adopt her Son, although he 
(†) Cluadius Britannicus By Messalina, vid. Sueton. 27. Dio. l. 60.  had a Son of his own. After his Adoption she prevailed with him to marry him to his own Daughter Octavia, although she was betrothed to another Man.  
After this she laboured all she could to secure the Succession unto Nero; and being Jealous of Britannicus, whose Interest the Emperor's great Favourite, and her Enemy Narcissus openly owned, she took Advantage of her Husbands first Sickness to poison him; and concealing his Death for some time, ordered all things in the interim for the Advantage of Nero, who going to the Guards with Burrhus their Captain, was at his instance, received with great Acclamations, though some of them discovering another Inclination, 
(†) Dubitavisse quosdam ferunt expectantes, rogitantesque, ubi Britannicus esset, Tac. An. 12.69.  asked where Britannicus was. From the Guards he was carried in a Chair to the 
(‖) Illatusque, castris Nero Imperator consultatur, sententiam militum secuta patrum consulta, nec dubitatum est apud Provincias, Tac. An. 12.60.  Camp, where having made a Speech and promised great Largesses to the Army, he was chosen Emperor by them, and the Choice was confirmed by the Senate, neither did any of the Provinces refuse him for their Prince.  
But he proved a Plague to the Empire; and being for his Execrable Tyranny 
(†) Sueton. 40.42, 47.  deserted by all Mankind, and declared a public Enemy by the Senate, at lastin despair he laid violent hands upon himself, after he had afflicted the World about 14 years.  
He was the 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eutrop. lip. 7. Progenies Caesarum in Nerone defeoit, Sueton. in Galb. 1. Finitâ Juliorum Claudiorumque domo: Galba ad Pison, Tac. Hist. l. 16.  last man and Emperor of the Family of the Caesars; wherein it is plain from matter of Fact, that the Emperors had Power to Name or Recommend their Successors, Secondly, that they might name Strangers as well as those of their own Family: And thirdly, that of their own Family they might prefer their Adopted, before their Natural Sons, and the remoter before the nearer in Blood.  
Secondly, It is plain that the Nominated Successors were chosen, First by the Senate who gave the Army, Caesars, and then by the Army, who afterwards gave Caesar's unto the Senate and People.  
Thirdly, That the Senate might choose a Person, who was not nominated by the deceased Emperor, and reject another who was nominated by him. Nay,  
Fourthly, That as yet they had a 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dio. l. 60. in princ. ●●●atus in asserendâ libetate adso consen●it— quidam vero abolendum Caesarum memorian, censuerum, Sueton. in Calig. 60.  Right to resume the Empire (had they not been overpowred by the Army) and upon the decease of an Emperor, to give it to a Stranger, as well as to one of Caesar's House. And now was not this a brave Hereditary Empire, wherein the Succession to the Crown was so Casual, Irregular, and Arbitrary? and may not a man with as much reason call Black White, a Triangle Square, or any one Species by the name of another, as to call this an Hereditary, which was an Irregular Elective Empire, wherein not one of the Emperors, hitherto at least, came to the Crown by virtue of a Lineal Hereditary descent?  
I desire the Unanswerable Man to consult his Oracles of Law, and then to tell me if the Succession be in the Royal House of the Stuarts, as it was in the House of the Caesars; or if the Julian and Claudian Princes were born, like ours, unto the Crown? Indeed the 
(†) 108 Years.  long continuance of the Empire in in the Family of the Caesars made it look something like their Inheritance, 
(‖) Sub Tiberio & Caio, & Claudio unius familiae quasi haereditas fuimus. Tacit. Hist. l. 16.  quasi haereditas, as Galba told Piso, and so the long continuance of it in the House of Austria makes it now look somewhat like an Inheritance, though it be perfectly, Th●●ive, but still at best it is but quasi haereditas, as the French King understands very well.  
But it may be, though it were Elective hitherto, it might afterwards come to be Hereditary? It might so, for any thing that nine parts of ten who cry up Julian, know to the contrary; and therefore let us ●o on with Matter of Fact, to see if it were so, or no?  
Nero being dead, Old Galba was chosen to the Empire by the 
(†) Eutrop. l. 7.  Gauls, and Spaniards, and then by the whole Army, according to the Prediction of 
(‖) Sueton. in Galba, 4.  Augustus, who told him when he was a Boy that he should live to be Emperor. 
(†) In Ep. Xiphil.  Dio tells us, that Tiberius also foretold him, that he should live to taste of the Empire; and indeed he did but taste, having reigned but 7 Months according to Suetonius, whom Cedrenus follows; or according to Dio 9, before he was murdered in the Forum by the Procurement of Otho, who secretly hated him, because he Adopted Piso, when he expected that Honour himself.  
Galba being slain, his Murderer Otho succeeded, being made Emperor not only by the Consent of the Soldiery at Rome, but by the 
(‖) Dio. Xiphil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vocat Senatum ●raetor Urbanus, accurrunt Patres, deternitur Othoni t●●bunitia potestas, nomen Augusti● & omnes Principum honores, Tacit. Hist. l. 1.47.  Election of the Senate. But about the same time the Germane Legions set up Vitellius for Emperor, who marched strait into Italy, where near Verona he gained a small Victory over Otho, who rather than try the Fortune of War the Second time, in the 95th. day of his Reign, or as Dio saith, in the 10th Month, he killed himself to prevent the Effusion of Roman Blood.  
Otho being dead, Sabinus the Perfect of Rome made all the Soldiers in the City swear Allegiance to Vitellius, 
(‖) A flavio Sabim praefecto urbis, quod erat in urbe militum sacramento Vitellii adactum, In Senatu cuncta longis aliorum Principatibus composita statim decernuntur, Tacit. Hist. l. 2.55.  and the Senate also decreed him all the Power and Honours that any of the Precedent Emperors enjoyed. In the mean time 
(†) Sueton. in Vitell. 15. in Vespes. 6. Dio. Xiph.  Vespasian while he was making War in Judaea, was created Emperor first by the Moesian Legions, then by Tiberius Alexander the Governor of Egypt, and the Army there, and last of all by the Army in Judea, from whence he marched to Alexandria, leaving his Son Titus to beseige Jerusalem.  

(‖) Vid. Dion. in Xiphil. Eutrop. l. 7. c. 1. Oros. l. 7.  He stayed at Alexandria sometime, having sent Mucianus and Domitian with Forces to Rome; but before Mucian arrived there, Vitellius falling into Despair upon what was done by Sabinus and Domitian, hid himself in a Dog-Kennel, thinking to escape by Night to his Brother at Tarracina, but being found by the Soldiers, they brought him with his Hands bound behind him from the Palace to the Forum, where after much contumelious usage they Barbarously put him to death.  
He being dead, Vespasian wa● immediately 
(†) Romae Senatus cuncta Principibus solita Vespasiano decermt, Tac. Hist. l. 4. c. 3.  declared Emperor by the Senate; and his two Sons Titus, and Domitia● voted Caesar's. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dio.   
This 
★ Occultan lege sati, & ostentis ac responsis destinatum Vespasiano, ac liberis ejus imperium post fortunam credimus, Tacit. Hist. l. 11.  Fortunate Prince the Favourite of God and Men, made his Son Titus 
(‖) Neque ex eo destitit participem, atque tutorem imperii agere●triumphavit cum patre, censuramque gessit und, eidem Collega & in Tribunitia potestate, & in septem Consulibue fuit, receptâque ad se ommium officiorum curacirc;— Sucton. 6. Vespasianus & Titus Imperatores— Orosius l. 7. c. 9 Vid. Dium. Xiph. in Vesp. & Tito.  Copartner with him in the Empire; he let him triumph with him in that Famous Triumph over Jerusalem; he made him his Colleague in the Censorship and Tribuneship, and in 7 Consulships successively; in a word, he had the whole care of the Empire committed to him: He made Orations in the Senate, dictated Epistles, and signed Edicts with his own Name and his Fathers, and was called Emperor as well as his Father, having been proclaimed so by the Army at the taking of Jerusalem. His Father reigned 10 years, and he survived him but two years and two months.  
This 
★ Occultan lege sati, & ostentis ac responsis destinatum Vespasiano, ac liberis ejus imperium post fortunam credimus, Tacit. Hist. l. 11.  Fortunate Prince the Favourite of God and Men, made his Son Titus 
(‖) Neque ex eo destitit participem, atque tutorem imperii agere●triumphavit cum patre, censuramque gessit und, eidem Collega & in Tribunitia potestate, & in septem Consulibue fuit, receptâque ad se ommium officiorum curacirc;— Sueton. 6. Vespasianus & Titus Imperatores— Orosius l. 7. c. 9 Vid. Dion. Xiph. in Vesp. & Tito.  Copartner with him in the Empire; he let him triumph with him in that Famous Triumph over Jerusalem; he made him his Colleague in the Censorship and Tribuneship, and in 7 Consulships successively; in a word, he had the whole care of the Empire committed to him: He made Orations in the Senate, dictated Epistles, and signed Edicts with his own Name and his Fathers, and was called Emperor as well as his Father, having been proclaimed so by the Army at the taking of Jerusalem. His Father reigned 10 years, and he survived him but two years and two months.  
He was succeeded by the Second Nero, his Brother Domitian, who was murdered by his own 
(†) Lactantius de Mort. Persecut. Dio Xiph. Orosius l. 7. c. 10. Sueton. 17.  Domestics, the Empress herself being in the Conspiracy, when he had reigned 15 years. The Chief of the Conspirators, besides Domitia the Empress, were Parthenius and Sigerus, Gentlemen of his Bedchamber, and Entellus his Secretary of State, who coming by a strange Accident to read their Names among others whom the Emperor had destined to Destruction, were resolved to be beforehand with him, but first sought out for a Successor to the Empire, and after Nerva had promised to take the Government upon him, they put their Design in execution, when he was asleep.  
Domitian being dead Nerva by the Interest of Petronius Secundus the Praefectus Praetorio, and the forementioned Parthenius, was declared Emperor by the 
(‖) Dio Xiph. Oros. l. 7.11. Eutrop. l. 8.  Senate: He was old and infirm, and died after he had reigned 18 Months. Before he died, he 
(†) Dio Xiph.  publicly adopted Trajan in the Capitol 
(⋆) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. ●●  though he had Relations of his own; and afterwards declared him Caesar in the Senate, merely for his Virtues, though he was no 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dio Xiph.  Roman, but a Spaniard, and of obscure Original; and he was the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stranger, that succeeded to the Imperial Cro●●,  
Here we may see the Skill, or Ingenuity of our Author, who declared this Incertum & quasi vagum Imperium, as 
(†) In Vesp. I.  Suetonius once called it, to be an Hereditary Empire, which was fixed to no Family, but to which every Free Subject in it, Roman or not Roman, might possibly succeed, as every Freeman in London, of what Family or Country soever, may come to be Lord Mayor. Let him go to his great Mystae in politics to help him to reconcile the definition of an Hereditary Empire, to such a vagrant and desilro●y Succession as I have shown this to be, if he can do it, I will no longer believe that the Notions of things are fixed and immutable, but that the same Number may be Even and Odd, and the same Element Fire and Water. The Angel's Horns in the Vision of his Mahomet, which were half Snow, and half Fire, are not half so great a Contradiction as such an Hereditary Empire, for the Fire & Snow were visionary, or if they were real, the Fire might be lambent & not melt the Snow, but Electivemelts down the Notion of Hereditary with its very looks, they are utterly inconsistent, and can no more belong to one common Subject, than a Table can be round and square.  
But to return to this strange Hereditary Succession; Trajan the best of the Roman Emperors died after he had reigned 19 years. In his life time he would Adopt none, not Adrian his Countryman and nearest Kinsman, who had been bred under him, and married his Niece. But 
(†) Dio Xiph.  after he was dead, Plotina the Empress, concealing his death, wrote Letters in his Name to the Senate, wherein was declared, That he had Adopted Adrian; after which she declared him Emperor, while he was at Antioch, of which he was Governor: But before he stirred from thence, he wrote to the Senate to desire them to confirm him in the Empire, which they did, and over and above 
(‖) O●osius l. 7. c. 13. Spartian in Adrian.  gave him the ancient Title of Pater Patriae, and his Wife the Title of Augusta. He first Adopted 
(†) Dio. Xiph.  Lucius Commodus, or as Spartian calls him 
(‖) Qui & Aelius Verus appellatus est, Spartian.  Ceionius Commodus Verus; but he dying, he sent for the Chief of the Senators to his Palace, where he lay very sick, and most earnestly 
(‖) Dio. Xiph. Sparta. in Adriano.  recommended unto them Arrius, or Aurelius Antoninus, whom he Adopted, and the Senate forthwith admitted him for theri 
(‖) Xiph. in Ant. Pio.  Emperor. Aurelius Antoninus being Adopted, and declared Emperor, his Father Adrian commanded him presently to Adopt 
(*) The Son of Ceionius Commodus, Dio. Xiph. in Adriano. Spait. in Aelio Vero. Huic Pater C. Commodus, quem alii Verum, alii Lucium Aurelium, multi Annium prodiderunt.  Annius Verus Antoninus, and Marcus Antoninus: Spartian saith that Adrian Adopted him upon that 
(†) Sed eâ demum lege, ut ille sibi duos adoptaret Annium Verum, & Marcum Antoninum. In Adriano.  Condition, that he should Adopt them. However it was, shortly after these Adoptions Adrian died, after he had reigned 20 years.  
After he was dead, the Senate refused him the Compliment of Divine Honours, but upon the Tears and Requests of Antoninus they at length decreed them, and gave Antoninus, who Capitolinus calls the Second Numa, the Titles of Augustus and Pius, which he very well deserved. He died at his Country House about 12 Miles off Rome, after he had reigned according to Eutropius 23, but according to Xiphilin and Cedrenus 24 years, and after his death was Canonised by the unanimous Vote of the Senate.  
He was succeeded by his two Adopted Sons Marcus Antoninus, and Annius Verus Antoninus, who married Lucilla the Daughter of Marcus Antoninus. These two Ruled 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eutrop. Verus certe cum Mareo equale gessit imperium, nam ipsi sunt, qui primo da● Augusti appellati sunt, & quorum fastis consularibus sic nomina praesaribuntur. Sparta. in Aelio Vero.  together with equal Authority, being both called Augusti, and so Registered in the Consular Calendars. Verus died first of an Apoplexy in tHe 11 th' 
(‖) Imperavit cum fratre annus undecem. Capitol. in Vero.  year of their Reign, and was survived by Marcus 9 years, who died in the 20th year of His.  
I might here remind our Author of his Hereditary Empire, and ask him how it could descend upon 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Zosim. l. 1.  two Heirs at once, but I pass on to Commodus, Son and Successor to Marcus Antoninus, who dying in the Camp, commended his Son to the Army a little before his death. As soon as his Funeral Solemnities were over, Commodus gives mighty Largesses to the Army, to bind them more firmly to his Interest, and presently returns in haste to Rome. When he came near the City, the whole Senate and People went out to meet him with Laurels and Flowers in their Hands: For they mightily loved him for his Father and and Grandfather's sake, and because he was born and bred among them, and had so much Senatorian Blood in his Veins. For his Father descended of one of the most Illustrious Families of the Senatorian Order, and his Mother Faustina the Empress was Daughter to Antoninus Pius, and Niece to Adrian; and his Extraction added to his Virtuous Education, and comely Form, made them dote upon him, and receive him with Acclamations and all other Signs of Joy, 
Herodian l. 1.  as strewing Crowns and Flowers upon the Ground as he entered into Rome. After he came to the City he went in Procession to visit the Temples; after which having given thanks to the Senators, and Gratuities to the Guards for their Fidelity to him, he went unto the Palace. But the Romans were as much disappointed in him, as their Ancestors had been in the Son of Germanicus, for the proved a Second Caligula, and for his Cruelties was murdered by his Concubine Marcia, after he had reigned 12 years.  
Commodus being dispatched, Electus and Laetus who conspired his death with Marcia, 
Eutrop. l. 8. Dio. Xiph. Herodian l. 2. Orosius l. 7. 16.  brought the news of it to Pertinax, who was then Perfect of Rome. After he had certified himself of the Truth of the Matter, he goes to the Camp, and promises large Donatives to the Soldiers, and having secured them, he was afterwards declared Emperor by the unanimous Consent of the Senate, who would also have declared his Wife Augusta, and his Little Son Caesar, but he would let neither be done. He had reigned but 66 days before he was killed in his Palace by the Guards, who hated him for his severe Discipline.  
The Soldiers having dispatched him, they immediately from the walls of Rome published the Sale of the Empire to him that would give most. Two bid for it, Sulpicianus Father-in-Law to Pertinax within the City, and Julianus without. Sulpicianus offered 
(*) A Drachma is about the value of 7 d. ob. Sterl.  5000 Drachmas to every man of them, but Julianus being the Richer, 
Dio. Xiph. He rhodian l. 2.  offered 1250 more: And the Bargain being made, the Soldiers let down their Ladders from the Walls, upon which he and his Friends mounted into the City. After he was entered, the Soldiers declared him Emperor, and conducted him strait into the Senate-House, whither the Senators immediately repairing, for fear, confirmed the Soldier's Choice.  
But Severus, who had sworn Allegiance to Pertinax, hearing what was done, marched from the Banks of Danubius with all expedition to Rome: He met with no Opposition by the way, for Julianus durst not march out to encounter him. 
Herodian l. 2. Dio. Xiph. Eutropius l. 8.  When he drew near Rome with his Forces, Julianus fell into great distraction, and the Consul convocating the Senate, who knew in what a Consternation he was they voted him to death, and Severus to the Empire. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herod l. 2. Vid. etiam Sparta. in Didio Juliano.  After this they met Severus at the Gates of the City, and saluted him as their Emperor, and the People received him with joyful Acclamations, although he was an African born. He was a Virtuous Prince, and successful against; his Enemies, and died at York after he had reigned 17 years.  
He left two Sons Geta, and Bassianus surnamed Caracalla, both of which he designed for his 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod. in Severo.  Successors to rule the Empire with joint and equal Authority, as the two 
(†) Severum quam moriretur Laetatum quod duos Antonines pari imperio reip, relinqueret exemplo Pii, qui Verum & Marcum Antoninous per adoptionem filios repip, reliquit, hic per●se genitos Rectores Roman●e reip, daret Antininum Bassianum, & Getam. Sparta. in Severo. Vid. Cedrenum.  Antonines had done before. But their Father was no sooner dead, but they grew Jealous one of another, and all along their Journey from Britain to Rome lay in different Houses, neither Eating nor Drinking together all the way.  
When they came near the City, the People and Senate went out to congratulate their Arrival; and the Form of the Procession into the City was thus.  
The two Princes in their Royal Purple went first, the Consuls followed after them, carrying the Urn wherein were the Ashes of Severus, and then in order all that came out to salute the New Emperors. They put the Urn in the Temple where the Monuments of the former Princes were, and having performed all the Customary Rites, the two Princes retire into different Apartments in the Palace, and had different Guards.  
After the Apotheosis of their Father, they sought one another's Destruction, each seeking to have the Empire alone. The greater part was inclined to Geta, and their Mother being afraid of the Tragical Effects of their Discord, sought, but all in vain, to make them Friends. At length they agree to divide the Empire, and the Terms of the Agreement were these: Bassian was to have Europe and the Western Parts of Africa; 
Herodian. in Caracalla.  and Geta was to have Asia, and the Eastern Parts of Africa; and of the Senators as many as were Romans were to stay at Rome with the one, and the rest were to go into Asia with the other. But their Mother ask them with Tears in her Eyes how they could divide her, made them break off the Agreement, at which she was glad, hoping at length she should reconcile them. But all her Endeavours were vain, for now they conspire one another's destruction: But Bassian being the more fiery and impatient, was resolved to be beforehand with his Brother Geta, and therefore coming suddenly upon him, he gave him his death's wound, of which he presently died in his Mother's Arms.  
Upon this he presently flies out of the Palace to the Camp, where telling the Soldiers what dangers he had escaped, and how he had killed his Brother in his own defence; and promising every one of them two thousand and two hundred Drachmas a man, and half as much more Provision as they used to have, and likewise giving them leave to plunder the Treasuries and the Temples, they presently proclaim him Emperor. He remained all that Night in the Camp, and the next day marched in the Head of the Army to the Senate, and having 
(†) Sparta. in Caracalla. Herod. in Caracalla.  placed the Soldiers between the Senators Seats, he mounts the Imperial Throne, and excuses the Murder of his Brother in a Seech. After he had reigned with much Cruelty six years, his death was conspired by his Praefectus Praetoria Macrinus, who killed him by the hands of Martialis the Centurion in Charrae a City of Mesopotamiâ, while he was at Stool. The Soldiers thinking that Martialis had killed him merely to revenge his Brother's death, whom he had slain, pursued him, and killed him without enquiring further into the Conspiracy.  
After the death of Caracalla, the Army deliberated two days about the Choice of an Emperor, and at length agreed in the Choice of one Audentius; but he refusing it, they chose Macrinus, who after he had concluded a Peace with Artabanus King of Persia, marched to Antioch, 
(‖) Herodian in Macrino.  from whence he sent a Letter unto the Senate, wherein he apologized for the meaness of his Extraction, and promised that his Government should look rather like a Commonwealth, than a Kingdom; and highly reflected upon Commodus and other Emperors who succeeded their Fathers, because looking upon the Empire 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as their Due by Inheritance, they abused it, 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as their own Patrimony, whereas those who received it from the Senate were their Debtors, and bound to requite their Kindness.  
Upon the reading of this Respectful Letter, he was immediately declared Emperor by the Senate, and had all the Imperial 
(*) Such as the Title of Augustus, the Consulship, the Proconsulship, the Tribuneship, the Censorship, and the Office of Pontifex Maximus. Vid. Dion l, 53.  Honours and Offices conferred upon him. Before he sent this Letter, as soon as he was Elected Emperor by the Soldiers, he declared his Son 
(‖) Capitol. in Macrino. Herod, in Macrino.  Diadumenus, Caesar, and made him his Partner in the Empire. But his ill-gotten Empire lasted not long, for the Legions coming to understand that he conspired against the Life of the last Emperor, began to hate him; and the Fates, as Profane Authors call Providence, made way for their Revolting from him. The Story is in short this:  
Moesa a Phaenician Lady, Sister to Julia the Wife of Severus, and Mother to Caracalla, had lived a long time in the Court, and heaped up vast Riches. She had two Grandsons by two Daughters, both Priests of the Sun, Bassianus surnamed 
(†) Or Heliogabalus.  Heloeagabalus, and Alexianus. Heliogabalus was a Youth of extraordinary Form and Beauty, and much admired and commended by the Soldiers, who frequented the Temple of the Sun. Moesa finding the young Priest so much in Favour with the Soldiers, 
Capitolin in Macrino. Herol. in Macrino & Heliog. Dio Xiph. in Macrino.  privately gave it out, that he was the Son of Caracalla, and at the same time gave great Gifts among the Soldiers.  
Uon this the Soldier's revolt from Macrinus, and receive Heliogabalus as the Son of Caracalla, surname him Antoninus from 
(†) Antoninus Caracalla.  his supposed Father, put the Royal Purple upon him, and declare him Emperor.  
Macrinus hearing this, sends Julianus with another part of the Army against the Revolters; but as soon as they drew near the City where the New Emperor was, the Soldiers shown him unto them, crying out, The Son of Antoninus, the Son of Antoninus; and also shaking Bags of Money in their Hands. Upon this the Forces of Julianus cut off his Head, and join with the Revolters to Heliogabalus. This ill News makes Macrinus march with all his Forces against Heliogabalus, who met him in the Confines of Syria and Phoenicia, where a little after the Battle was begun; the Soldiers of Macrinus joined in great Numbers with the Army of this Pseudo-Antoninus; he perceiving the Treachery, flies, and was taken and killed in Bithynia, after he had reigned about a year.  
Macrinus, and his Son Diadumenus Caesar being killed, the whole Army proclaim Heliogabalus Emperor, and when the Senate received the News of it, being forced to make a Virtue of 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod.  Necessity, they confirmed their Choice.  
Heliogabalus being confirmed in the Empire, Adopts his Brother Alexanus, but two years younger than himself, and declares him Caesar; and thereupon makes him Consul with himself, and; then gets the Senate 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodian.  most rediculously to confirm the Adoption of his Brother, against all Law, which 
(‖) Adoptio enim naturam imitatur, debet itaque is qui filium sibi per adoptionem facit plenâ pubertate, i.e. decem & octo annis precedere. Inst. l. 1.11.  requires that the Adopter should be 18 years older than the person adopted.  
After Alexianus, otherwise called Alexander, was adopted, the Soldiers and Citizens beginning to hate Heliogabalus for his Cruelty, Effeminacy, and Affectation of Foreign Fashions, 
(*) In Alexandrum omnes. inclinantes, qui jam Caesar erat a senatu dictus. Lomprid.  set their Affections and Expectations upon his Brother. Heliogab. understanding all this, sought to destroy him, but not being able to compass his death, he resolved to 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodian. Misit ad milites literas quibus jussit ut abrogaretur nomen Caesaris Alexandro. Lampred.  depose him from the Caesarship, and in order to it, would not let him stir abroad. But the Soldier's mutining upon it, he was forced to bring him into the Camp, where the Army thinking they had a fair Opportunity to secure Alexander, and the Empire unto him, killed Heliogab., and forthwith declared Caesar Emperor, and attended him unto the Palace.  
Alexander being declared Emperor by the Army, had all Imperial Honours and Offices conferred upon him by the 
(†) Certatim denique omnia decreta sunt & nomina generum, & potestatum. Lamprid. in Severo.  Senate, and after a peaceable and happy Reign in all things, excepting the Persian Expedition, was at last killed by the procurement of Maximin, who conspired against him, as he lay with the Army on the Frontiers of Germany, in the 14th year of his Reign.  
A fine Hereditary Empire this was, which by reason of its Elective Succession became a 
(‖) Invadentibus multis remp. res Romana praedombus direptui fuit. Lamprid. in Severo.  Prey to every base and villainous Usurper; For Maximin a 
(*) Barbaro patre & matre genitus. Capitolin.  Semibarbarian, as Herodian calls him, was at first but a Shepherd, and then a common Soldier, and afterwards a Commander, and yet so gained the Affections of the Soldiery, that he was made Emperor first by a Legion of younger Soldiers over whom he had the Command, and then by the whole 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Herodian in Alexand.  Army; to which he gave double Allowance of Provision, and promised mighty Donatives, as the Candidates for the Empire used to do.  
Being declared 
(‖) Sine decreto Senatûs Augustus ab exercitu appellatus est, silio sibimet in participatum dato. Capitolin. But he was he was afterwards confirmed by the Senate: According to Aurelius Victor, Potentiam cepit suffragi is legionum, quod tamen etiam patres, dum periculosum existimant inermes armato resistere, approbaverunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedrenus.  Augustus in the Camp, he made his Son Partner with him in the Empire, and War with the Germans, against whom he was mighty Successful, and magnified his Victories over them in very insolent Letters to the Senate. In the mean while the Army in Africa hearing of his barbarous Pride and Cruelty, brought the Purple to Gordianus the Proconsul, and made him Emperor against his 
(‖) Reclamantem & terra se affligentem opertum purpurâ imperare coegerunt. Capitolin.  Will. He sends word to Rome of what the Soldiers had done to him, and the Senate out of hatred to Maximin confirms the Choice of the African Soldiers, and declares Gordianus and his Son Augusti, and denounces Maximin and his Son Enemies to the Empire, 
Capitolin. and Herodian in Maximin. & Cap. in Gord.  and sent Letters to all the Provinces to defend themselves against them. At the same time Capellianus in Africa rebels against Gordian, who losing his Son, whom he sent to reduce him, in the first Battle, hanged himself. The Senate hearing of the death of the two Gordians, immediately created Maximus Pupienus Perfect of the City, and Clodius Balbinus Emperors, and the (†) Grandson of old Gordian Caesar, 
* Capitol in Maximin. in Gord. in Maximo & Galb.  at the desire of the Soldiers and People. Hereupon Maximin marches with all his Forces into Italy, where he found the Country without Forage, and the Cities fortified against him, particularly Aquileia, at the Siege whereof he and his Son were killed by his own Soldiers, to the great Joy of Rome and all the Provinces, who looked upon him as another 
(‖) Ut illum alii Cyclopem, alii Busiridem, alii Phalarim, multi Typhonem vocarent. Capitolin, Maximus dicebat se non contra hominem sed contra Cyclopem bellum gerere. Cap. in Maxim. & Balb.  Cyclops or Busiris, and gave solemn thanks to the Gods for their deliverance by his death.  
A few Months after, the Army of Maximin, 
(*) Dixisse fertur Maximus, vereor ne militum odium sentiamus & mortem. ib.  as Maximus foresaw, disdaining the Emperors of the Senate, had a mind to have one of their own choosing, and therefore watching a fit Opportunity they seized the Palace, and slew the Emperors, and made Gordianus the young 
(‖) Gordianus Caesar sublatus a militibus Imperator est appellatus, id est, Augustus, quia non erat alius in present. ib.  Caesar, Emperor or Augustus in their steads.  
Gordianus after he had reigned 6 years, was basely betrayed and murdered by his ungrateful Praefectus Praetorio Philippus in the Frontiers of Persia, where he was made 
(†) Capitolin. in Gordiano Tertio. Eutrop. l. 9 Zosim. l. 2. Aurel. Victor. Pompon. Laetus.  Emperor by the Army. He was surnamed Arabs from his Country, and made his Son Partner with him in the Empire. But as he betrayed his Master in Persia, so Decius betrayed him in Pannonia, where he was 
(‖) Zosim. ibid.  made Emperor by the Mutinous Legions, whom he was sent to reduce. Philip hearing how Decius had put on the Purple, marches against him with his Son, and in the first Battle was slain with his Son, after they had reigned about six years. Decius and his Son both lost their Lives in the Scythian Expedition by the Treachery of Gallus, before he had reigned quite two years.  
Upon the death of Decius, Gallus was created Emperor by the Soldiers and the 
(‖) Haec ubi patres comparere. Gallo Hostiliano Augusta Imperia, Volusianum Gallo editum Caesarem decernunt. Pompon. Laetus.  Senate, and Volusianus his Son declared Caesar; but he had not reigned many days before the Pannonian Legions, after their Victory over the Scythyans under the Conduct of AEmilianus, chose him their Emperor: Upon which he marched into Italy, and was met by Gallus and his Army at Interamnia, 
Eutrop. l. 9 Zosim. l. 1. Aurel. Victor. Pomp. Laet.  But Gallus his Soldiers seeing themselves much inferior to the Enemy, slew their Emperor and his Son, and revolted to Aemilianus, who was shortly after declared Augustus by the Senate. But he had not reigned 3 Months, before Valerianus was declared Emperor by the Celtic and Germane Legions, which the Soldiers at Rome hearing, and not being willing to spend their Blood in the defence of an Emperor of such ignoble Extraction, killed him in his Palace, and likewise declared Valerian Emperor.  
Valerian was received by the Senate, who created his Son 
(‖) Eutrop. l. 9 Aurel. Victor.  Gallienus Caesar, whom he made 
(†) Trebellius Pollio.  Partner with him in the Empire, leaving him the European forces to defend the Germane Frontiers, while he marched into Persia against Sapores, 
Lactant. de Mort. Persecut.  who took him Captive after he had reigned 6 years. Gallienus after his Father's death wholly addicted himself to Ease, Wine, and Wantonness, 
(†) Triginta propè tyrannos passus est. Treble. Pollio in Gallien. Tumultuarios Imperatores ac Regulos. Ib. in Claudio.  quietly suffering almost 30 several persons to usurp several Parts of the Empire, and take upon them the Titles of Augusti, till at last some Officers of the Army not being able to endure him any longer, killed him at Milan with his Brother Valerian, who was also called Augustus.  
He was succeeded by 
(†) Eutrop. l. 9 Treble. Poll. in Gallien.  Claudius the Second, who was chosen Emperor by the Army, and afterwards declared Augustus by the Senate. He had not reigned quite two years when he died, to the great grief of the Senate, who chose his Brother Quintillus Emperor, who was 
(‖) Treble. Pollio. Eutrop. l. 9  slain by the Soldiers in the 17th day of his Reign; 
(†) Pompon Laetus. Zosimus. Cedrenus.  others say he killed himself, after he heard that the Army had chosen Aurelian Emperor, whom as Pompon Laetus saith, Clodius recommended to the Senate, when he first was taken sick.  
My 
(‖) Treble. Poll.  Author, speaking of Quintillus his succeeding of his Brother to the Empire, saith, Delatum sibi omnium judicio suscepit Imperium non Haereditarium, sed merito virtutum, which I leave to the Author and Superviser of Julian to construe, if they can, into this English; There is nothing more plain, than that the Empire was Hereditary.  
Aurelian his Successor did mighty things, but was slain by the Treachery of his Secretary, 
(‖) Zosimus. l. 2. Eutrop. l. 9 Aurel. Victor. Pompon. Laetus.  who having been threatened by him for some Misdemeanours, counterfeited orders in his Majesty's Name and Hand for killing of some Military Officers; which he pretended out of Kindness privately to show some of them, exhorting them to prevent their own death, by the Emperors. They believing this Shame to be true, presently conspired against him, and killed him at Caenophrurion between Heraclea and Byzantium, after he had reigned six years.  
After the death of Aurelian, there was an 
(†) Flavius Vopiscus in Tacito.  Interregnum (which is inconsistent with an Hereditary Empire) for six months, which was spent in Compliments betwixt the Army, and the Senate, which of the two should choose the new Emp. At length the Senate chose 
(★) Flavius Vopiscus. Eutropius l. 9 Aurell. Victor.  Tacitus a grave Senior of their own Body; but he scarce lived to do any thing more, than to revenge the Murder of Aurelian, dying after he had reigned 6 Months.  
After he was dead his Brother Florianus (saith 
(‖) Post fratrem arripuit Imperium non Senatûs autoritate, sed suo motu, quasi haeredi●●rium esset Imperium.  Vopiscus) usurped the Empire, without the Authority of the Senate, as if it had been an Hereditary Empire, which by the Favour of Unanswerable Mr. J. implies plainly that it was not so. He reigned not above two months before he was killed by the Soldiers at Tarsus, and (as some suspected) by the contrivance of Probus, the Second Hannibal, who was chosen Emperor by the universal Consent of the Army and Senate, 
Tantus autem Probus fuit in re militari, ut illum Senatus optaret, miles eligerit, ipse populus Romanus acclamationibus peteret. Vopiscus.  & after he had quelled many Rebellions, was slain in a Mutiny of the Soldiers at Sirmium, 
Eutrop. l. 9 Aurel. Victor. Vopiscus.  after he had reigned six years.  
The Senate and People mightily bewailed the death of Probus, who was succeeded by Carus the Praefectus Praetorio, who as soon as he was made Emperor by the 
(‖) Vopiscus. Pompon Laetus.  Army, declared his two Sons Carinus and Numerianus, Caesar's, and about a year after he took the Empire upon him, he was killed by Lightning in his Camp upon the Banks of Tigris. Presently after he was dead, Numerianus falling sick, was killed by Arrius Aper his own Father-in-Law, who thought to succeed Probus in the Empire.  
But he was much disappointed in his Expectation, for the Army chose Dioclesian a man of obscure Parentage; 
Vopiscus. Eutrop. l. 9 Pomp. Laet.  and he being declared Augustus, revenged the death of Numerianus upon Aper with his own Hand. Aper being slain, he presently set himself against Carinus, whom after many Battles he at last quite routed at the River Margus, where Carinus was slain.  
After the death of Carinus he was declared 
(†) Pompon Laetus. Eutrop. l. 9 Lactant. de Mort. Persecut.  Augustus by the Senate, and joyfully received by the People of Rome: But finding the Empire infested with Rebellions, he declared Maximianus, surnamed Herculeus, Caesar, and then Augustus, and made him his Brother and Partner in the Empire, which they governed together in perfect 
(‖) Pompon. Laet. Eutrop. l. 9 Lactant. de Mort. Pers. Euseb. de Mart. Palaest. c. 3.  Concord, till they both resigned together in the 20th. year of their Reign.  
They were succeeded by their own Adopted Sons and Caesar's, Constantius Chlorus whom Maximian adopted, and Galerius Maximianus, 
Aurel. Victor. Pompon Laet. Lactant. de Mort. Pers.  whom Dioclesian adopted; who being forced after their Adoption to put away their former Wives, Constantius married Theodora, Daughter-in-Law to Maximian, and Galerius, Valeria, the Daughter of Dioclesian.  
When Dioclesian resigned to Galerius, he was forced by him much against his Inclination to nominare Severus and Maximinus, who was Nephew to Galerius, Caesar's, at which the Army was much surprised, expecting that he should have nominated 
(†) Constantinum omnes intuebantur. Nulla erat dubitatio, milites, qui ad●rant, & priores militum electi, ac acciti ex regionibus in hune unum intenti gaudebant, optabant, & vota fa●iebant, etc.— Lactant. de Mort. Persec. p. 38.  Constantinus Son to Constantius, who was now in Britain.  
Constantine was then in the Court of Dioclesian, and continued after his Retirement with Galerius but very uneasy, because another was set up Caesar over his Head: Galerius hated him, and had ill Designs upon him, of which he was very sensible, which made him beg leave of his Majesty to go into Britain to his Father Constantius, which he obtained with much difficulty upon his Father's Letters; but leave being once obtained, away he posts, arriving at York but a 
(‖) Pervenit ad patrem jam deficientem. Lact. de Mort. Pers.  little before his Father died.  
His Father had declared him Caesar before his Arrival, as Pomp. Laet. saith, when he first fell sick; and at his death left his part of the Empire to him, and commended him to the Army for their New Emperor. This vexed Galerius to the Heart, who yet fearing the British Legions, durst not but send him the Imperial Purple, which yet he stained 
(†) Illud excogitavit, ut Severum, qui erat aetate maturior Augustum nuncuparet, Constantinum vero non Imperatorem, sicut erat factus, sed Caesarem cum Maximino appellari juberet, ut eum de secundo loco rejiceret in quartum. Lact. ib.  by making Severus Emperor, and only giving him the Title of Caesar.  
Not long after Maxentius, Son of Maximian was made Emperor at Rome by the Soldiers: Galerius sends Severus with an Army against him, but as soon as he arrived at the City, his Soldier's revolt from him to Maxentius; upon which he slyes; and in his Flight was killed at Ravenna.  
Upon these new Motions, old Maximian surnamed Herculeus, putting on his Purple, goes to Dioclesian, and would have persuaded him that they might join, and resume the Empire; but he refusing, he lays by his Purple, and goes to Constantine, and persuades him for his own ends, to go against the Franconians, who were then in Rebellion; and in his Absence sets up for Emperor again. Constantine hearing of this, returns sooner than he could expect him, besieges him in Marseilles, and takes him and severely rebuking him for his Treachery, pulls off the Purple from him, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 8.13. Lactant. de Mort. Persec.  and makes him a Private Man again. Being enraged at this, he attempts to kill Constantine by Treachery, which being discovered by his Daughter Fausta, who put an Eunuch in his stead, Maximian hanged himself in despair.  
In the mean time Galerius fearing Maxentius at Rome, and being Jealous of Constantine in Gaul; dedeclares Licinius, Augustus, and makes him his Partner in the Empire: 
Lact. de Mort. Persec. 32. Ed. Oxon.  Upon this Maximin grew discontented, which forced him at last to declare him Emperor and Constantine too.  
After this he was stricken with a loathsome Disease, of which he died; and about two years after him Maximinus died at 
(†) Aurel. Victor. Lactant. saith, he poisoned himself, de Mort. Pers. 49.  Tarsus, whether he fled from Licinius, who pursued him after he had routed his Forces in Illyrium.  
In the mean while Constantine being 
(‖) Pomp. L. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. c. 26, 27.  invited by the Senate and People of Rome, provoked and encouraged by the 
(†) Euseb. ibid. c. 28. Zonar. l. 3. in Const. Cedrens.  Heavenly Vision, goes against Maxentius, whom he overthrew near Rome in a pitched Battle. Maxentius seeing his Forces routed, strove to escape, but as he passed over the River Tiber on a Timber-bridge which 
(‖) Zosim. l. 2. Lactant. saith, that the Bridge was Pons Milvius, and that it was cut in two by Treachery. de Mort. Pers. 44.  broke under him, he fell in, and was drowned.  
There was now of all these Augustus'es' (for Dioclesian died in his Retirement in Dalmatia) only Constantine, and Licinius, to whom Constantine gave his Sister Constantia in Marriage. But they continued not long in Friendship before they fell into Civil War, in which after a Drawn Battle in Thrace, Peace was made, and confirmed with Oaths on both sides, but soon after broken by the Provocations of Licinius, who being brought to the last extremity, surrendered himself and his Purple to Constantine, only upon condition of Life confirmed by the 
(†) Zosim. l. 2. Eutrop. l. 10.  Oath of Constantine to his Sister Constantia. But being sent to Thessalonica, and not being able to abstain from 
(‖) Opinio fuit immorantem Thessalonicae Licinium imisse consilium de resumendis armis, & ideo missos interfectores. Pomp. Laet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Credenus. Euseb de Vit. Const. l. 2. c. 43. Theod. l. 1. c. 7.  new Attempts, Constantine ordered him to be put to death.  
Now Constantine was sole Emperor, and made his Three Sons Caesar's, Constantine in the Tenth, 
Euseb. de Vit. Const. l 4. c. 40.  Constantius in the 20th, & Constans in the 30th year of his Reign; among whom, not at his death, as 
(†) Ch. 1. p. 5.  our Author fraudulently saith, but 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. de vit. Const. c. 60. Edit. Vales.  sometime before, he divided the Empire, like [or as it were] a Paternal Inheritance. After his Death and Funeral, The Tribunes of the Army dispatched away men that had been remarkable for their Love and Fidelity to Constantine, unto the Caesars, to give them notice of what had happened, and the Armies every where, as soon as they heard of the Emperor's Death, did as it were by Divine Inspiration as unanimously consent to acknowledge and admit none for Emperors but his Three Sons, as if he had been living among them, and accordingly not long after they saluted them all by the Name of Augusti, which is the Ceremony of creating Emperors; and of this they gave notice to one another by Letters; and their Harmonious Consent in the Choice of the New Emperors was known every where at the same time.  
This is, as near as I can render it, the sense of the 60. Ch. of 
(†) Edit. Vales.  Eusebius in his 4. B, of the Life of Constantine; but a Leaf or two from the former Citation which our 
(‖) P. 1.  Author took so much notice of, but this Chapter and the next unto it, which mentions the Senate and Peoples 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 69.  unanimous Confirmation of the Military Choice, he passed over, knowing very well, that two such Harmonious and Solemn Elections of the 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vit. Const. l. 1. Proaem.  Three Caesars into the Augustusship was utterly inconsistent with an Hereditary descent.  
And so indeed was the Division of the Empire, whether it were by Constantine's Designation, as Euseb. saith; or by Agreement among the Three Coesars after his death, as 
(‖) L. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quidam tradunt Constantinum orbem haeredibus testamento divisisse, quidam filios sorte fecisse. Pomp. Laet.  Zosimus relates it. For could His Majesty, for Example, if he had Three Sons or Brothers, leave England to one, Scotland to another, and Ireland to a third; or could they if they would, after his decease, legally parcel this Hereditary Empire into Three Parts, like an Estate left in Common to three? I suppose if our Author put these Questions to his Superviser, whom I take to be the better Lawyer of the two, he will tell him No.  
But to go on with a few more Questions, I desire these two Gentlemen to tell me, whether Constantine might not have named Four, which 
(†) Eutrop. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pomp. Laet. Dalmatium Anavalliani fratris filium Caesarem fecit, & unà cum filiis haeredem statuit.  some writ he did, as well as Three Caesars and Successors, or two, or one? or if he had pleased none, but left it, as some of his Predecessors did, to Fate, or the Senate to choose his Successor? or whether he might not have preferred his base 
(‖) Vid. Pomp. Laet. & Zosim. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Son Crispus Caesar, if he had lived, or his Nephew Dalmatius before his own Children, or a Stranger before them all? If he might have done so, as according to the Laws and Custom of the Empire he might, then let them tell me, where is their Hereditary Empire, and the Lineal Succession of the House of Chlorus to the Imperial Crown?  
Lastly let me ask them, If the Three Caesars designed by Constantine 
(†) Feliciano & Titiano Coss.  commenced Augusti like our Princes, 
His Coss. Constantinus Aug. ad Caelestia Regna ablatus est xi. Cal. Jun. Et ipso anno nuncupati sunt tres Augusti Constantinus, & Constantius, & Constans v. id. Septemb. Ida. Fast. Consular. From whence it is evident that Constantinus M. died the 20th. of May, but his Three sons were not declared Augusti till the 8th. of September following; and in the mean time, as Candidates for the Empire, rather than Emperors, they styled themselves Caesars, as is evident from Constantine Juniors Letter in favour of Athanasius dated the 25th. or the Calends of July next after his Father's death, wherein he styles himself Caesar. ib.  in the moment of their Father's death? or whether they were not formally made so by the Suffrage of the Legions? and whether the Suffrage of the Legions, and the unanimous Consent of the Senate according to the Custom of the Empire, would not have made any Strangers as rightful Emperors as they? When they have considered of an Answer to these Questions, I hope they will find that there is nothing more plain, than that the Empire was not Hereditary, which I undertook to prove.  
After the death of Constantine, the Empire remained not long Tripartite; for Constantine his eldest Son being killed in a Battle with the 
(‖) Cedrenus. Pomp. Laet. Zonaras.  Soldiers of Constans, it was reduced to the two surviving Brothers; whereof 
(†) Zosim. l. 2.  Constans the youngest being killed in a Battle agianst the Rebel Magnentius in the 14th. year of his Reign, the whole devolved upon Constantius, who of his 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. l. Invect. p. 62.  goodness made his Cousin-german Gallus, elder Brother to Julian, Caesar, and not long after deposed him from the 
(‖) Edicto Gallum dignitate privavit. Pomp. Laet.  Caesarship, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Julian. ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 498, & 500 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zon. l. 3. p. 18. Vid. Philostorg. Hist. Ecc. l. 3. p. 492.  and put him to death for his Disobedience, 
(†) Vid. Amm. Marcell. l. 14. c. 2, 7, 9, 11. Onerosus bonis omnibus Caesar.— Ausurus hostilia in auctorem suae felicitatis— Ferociens ut Leo cadaveribus pastus.— Ablatis regiis monumentis Caesarem tunicâ texit communi.  and Murder of Domitian and Montius.  
After the death of Gallus, he made his Brother Julian, Caesar, and gave him his Sister Helena to Wife. Having made him Caesar, he sent him into Gaul, where he was very successful against the Enemies of the Empire; and having got the hearts of the Army by Donatives and other Arts, they proclaimed him 
(‖) Zosim. l 3. p. 711. Am. Marcell. l. 20. Zonar. l. 3. p. 08. Socrates, l. 2. c. 47. & l. 3. c. 1.  Imperator, Augustus, 
Zosom l. 5. 1.  and put the Diadem upon him, 
(†) Amm. Marcell. l. 22.  and afterwards swore Allegiance to him; upon which Contantius returns from the Persian Expedition, and marches against him with his Army, designing to reduce him, but dies in his March in Cilicia, 
(‖) Amm. Marcell. l. 21. saith it was reported, That Constantius at his death nominated Julian his Successor in the Empire, and made him his Heir.  leaving him in the Possession of the Empire, in which after his Majesty's death he was perpectly confirmed by the consent of 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim. l. 3. Vid. Zonar. l. 3. p. 21.  his Army.  

(†) L. 3.  Zosimus tells us, That Constantius after the death of Gallus deliberated whether he should create a new Caesar, or take a Partner to the Empire, after the Example of former Emperors; but not knowing any whom he durst trust in the Augustusship with himself, he was very uncertain what he should do, till Eusebia the Empress persuaded him by many Arguments to constitute Julian Caesar.  
After the Death of Gallus, Ammianus Marcellinus saith, That many of the Courtiers were 
(†) Caveri debere Caesaris nomen replicantes gesta sub Gallo.  against his making of Julian Caesar, but that the Empress openly opposed them all, saying, That the Emperor 
(‖) Ommibusque memerans anteponi debere ●ropinquum.  ought to prefer his Kinsman before a Stranger: And Julian was so sensible of the Empresses Kindness, that he afterwards wrote an 
(†) Orat. 3. p. 217. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And p. 218. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  Oration in her praise to express his Gratitude unto her, in which he owns all that he had to the Emperor's free Bounty and Generosity; and accordingly 
(‖) Tom. 3. p. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Zonaras tells us, That Constantius sent this Message to him after he had Usurped the Empire, that he ought to remember how much he was indebted to his Kindness, Not only for making of him Caesar, but that he had bred him up from a Child. From all which it is plain, First, That Constantius had the liberty after the death of Gallus, whether he would choose any Caesar, or no. 2. That he might by the Laws and Customs of the Empire have created any other man Caesar, as well as Julian. 3. That after he had freely chosen him he might freely have deposed him from the Caesarship as he did his Brother Gallus, as 
(†) In Syriâ Augusti vehiculum irascentis per spatium mille pass●um fere pedes Antegressus est Galerius purpuratus. Am. Marc. l. 14. Vid. Bapt. Egn.  Galerius was afraid Dioclesian would have deposed him, and as Adrian designed to depose 
(‖) Hic tamen valetudinis adeo ●●serae fuit, ut Adrianum statim adoptionis paeniteret, potuer●to; eum amovere à familiâ Impera●oriâ, quum saepe de aliis cogitaret, siforte vixisset. Sparta. in Elio Vero.  Ceionius Commodus, otherwise called Aelius Verus, because he was a Weak and Unhealthy man. Nay the 
(†) Zonar. Loc, cit Zosim. l. 3. p. 711.  Historians agree, That Constantius commanded Julian after he rebelled to put off the Habit of Caesar, and betake himself to a private condition. All which things how agreeable they are with the Birthright of Julian, and the notion of an Hereditary Empire, I leave to the meanest Capacity to judge.  
This very Contradiction is plainly discernible in our Authors First and Second Chapters, notwithstanding all the Art and Fallacies he hath used to disguise the Cheat from vulgar Readers. There we have: Made Julian Caesar; Would never have made Julian Caesar; the making of Julian Caesar; He would not have made Julian Caesar. The Nature of Julian's Elective Succession, and the Manner in which Nazianzen hath expressed himself about it obliged our Author so to speak. For Naz. in the 
(‖) Invect. 1. p. 50.  Place which he citys, useth the most emphatical word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express how Constantius made or created Julian Caesar; for as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make or ordain a Clergyman: so in Ecclesiastical Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies to make, create, or constitute a King [as the Greeks called a Caesar] and so it is used by the Septuagint for the making of Saul Ishbosheth Kings, because they were Kings purely by 
(‖) 2 Sam. 8. 22.2 Sam. 2.9. Vid. 1 Sam. 12.1. Is. 7.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scholar  Election. And because Julian was made Caesar as they were made Kings purely by Election, therefore Naz. ascribes it wholly to the 
(†) p. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Invect. p. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— p. 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 65.  Goodness & Bounty of his Elector, and last of all makes it as free an Act in him to bestow the Caesarship upon Julian, as it was in 
(‖) p. 66.  Alexander the Great to give King Porus his Life and Kingdom, after he had conquered him. If then Constantius made or created Julian Caesar, as our Author is forced to confess, where was his Birthright? Therefore to prevent this cross Question in the Mind of his Reader, he tells him in the 
(†) P. 27.  Margin, That a Romaen Caesar was somewhat like the Prince of Wales, or the King of the Romans: That he was more than somewhat like the King of the Romans we will grant him, but this somewhat like will appear to be a very piteous somewhat, if Caesar be compared with the Prince of Wales.  
For First, The Caesarship only made a man a 
(†) Spartianus in Celonio Commodo. Maximianus atque Constantius Caesares dicti sunt, qaasi quidam Principum filii viri, & designati Augustae Majestatis haeredes.  Candidate and Expectant of the Empire, or some part of it. 2. It was conferred upon many, as well as upon one, (for Antoninus Pius left two, and Constantine four Caesars) and in this case they might be all equal Expectants of the Empire either in common, 
Ca●sabon in locum.— Ut essent Caesares velut Candidati quidam Imperii & designati ejus Haeredes.  or in several Jurisdictions. 3. After the Emperor had freely conferred this Honour upon any man, he might as freely, without any regard to Birth or Birthright, divest him of again, as Constantius did Gallus, and as 
(‖) Misit ad milites literas quibus jussit, ut abregaretur nomen Caesaris Alexandro. Lamprid. Vid. Herod. l. 5.  Heliogabalus designed to do to his Brother Alexander, Probus to his Son 
(†) Pater si vixisset abregare saepius cogitavit filio Caesaris nomen & confer Constantio. Pomp. Laet. in Carino.  Carinus, 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zosim. l. 3. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 711. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zonar. t. 3. p. 18.  and Constantius himself to Julian, a little before he usurped the Empire. 4. The Emperor had free Power to confer this Dignity upon whom he would, and to give it to Strangers, as Nerva did to Trajan, and Maximian Hercideus to Constantius, 
(†) Valentiniano's Principi percunctanti quemnam ad Imperii consortium assumeret? Dagalaiphus respondet fidentiùs: Si tuos amas (Imperator optime) habes fratrem, ●si rempub. quaere quem vestigas. Amm. Marcell. l. 26.  postponing their own Blood. 5. It gave no proper Right or Title, but only a bare Recommendation to the Augustusship; and it was in the Power of the Army and Senate, whether or no they would choose the person recommended by that Character, if there was but one, or how many of the Number, when there were more.  
These things being evident from Matter of Fact, I desire the Author, or rather his Superviser the Lawyer to tell me, in which of these Particulars Caesar and the Prince of Wales are alike? Can the King of England make any man (or any but one man) Prince of Wales? can he confer that Dignity upon many at once? can he divest the Prince of it after he has once invested him in it? Is it any thing more, than a mere state of Honour and greater Liberty or Emancipation? Doth it give the Prince any new Right or Expectation to the Crown? or is he to be chosen unto it by any Army or Senate after his Father's death? I protest when I consider these things, it almost tempts me to believe, That these Men, like many others, are for an Elective and Republican sort of Monarchy, and that they hearty wish that Caesar and the Prince of Wales, were not only somewhat, but altogether alike.  
I hope I have made it as clear to any Impartial Reader, that the Roman was an Elective, as that the English is an Hereditary Monarchy fixed in one Family, and Lineally descending in proximity of Blood; and yet as if the Right and Title of Julian were of the same nature with that of his R. H. to the British Throne: Saith he, 
(‖) P. 22.  The Fathers (and yet he mentions but one) had the Conscienoe to set aside such a Title as this, and 100 more such to secure their Religion. If they had not, they had been very much to blame; and I dare boldly affirm, That all the Fathers of our Church would set aside Ten Thousand such Titles to secure theirs. I mean 10000 such Titles, as Julian or Constantine either, had by Birth; for upon supposition that God interposed and declared them Emperors, that Declaration must pass, as it did in Saul's Case, for an Elelection, and proves that they were not Heirs of Hereditary Monarchies, for than it had been needless for God to interpose. For what need God, for example, have declared Constantine Emperor, if he must necessarily have succeeded his Father, as Sons of Hereditary Monarches do; it had been sufficient for him to let him survive him, if he would have had him succeed.  
As for that Passage in Eusebius l. 8. c. 13. where after he tells us, That Constantine was declared Supreme Emperor and Augustus by the Army, than he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and long before this by God himself the Supreme Emperor of all. This Expression if it be not purely 
(†) Such as that in Pliny's Panegyric to Trajan; Principem tamen nestrum liqueret divinitùs constitutum— A Jove ipso coram, ac palam repertus— Quem tandem exorata terris numina dedissent, etc. And that of Eumen. to Constantine. Nobis praecipue te principem dii creaverunt. Grat. Act. Const. Aug.  Panegyrical, then to expound Eusebius by himself, it relates to the special Providence which presided over Constantine, and was visible in his Preservation; and more particularly to some Divine Indications by which he was miraculously delivered from the Snares of Dioclesian and Galerian: This Eusebius takes notice of in the 20th Chapter of the First Book of his Life, where he saith, That the Emperors envying and fearing the Courage and Wisdom of Constantine, waited for all opportunities to do him mischief, but that the young Prince discovering their Treacherous Practices again, and again by 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  secret Signs from God, saved himself like the Great Prophet Moses by flight; and that God cooperated with him in all his Undertake, forecasting that he should be present to succeed his Father in the Empire. Accordingly 
(‖) Eum Pater ●antea Caesarem fecerat Coelesti Nuntio admonitus quum aegrotaret, ut primum Constantinum successorem faceret, qui esset à Tyran●●● Romanum Imperium liber aturus, & militibus D●i opem laturu●.  Pomponius Laetus saith, That Constantius by the Admonition of an Angel when he first fell sick, made him Caesar before his Arrival, understanding that he was the Man, whom God had designed for the Deliverer of the Empire. Now if God had saved Julian by such miraculous Signs, and afterwards sent an Angel to Constantius to bid him choose him Caesar, because he had designed him for his Successor; and Nazianzen had known so much, he would never have expostulated with the Ghost of Constantius about the Choice, nor blamed him, as he did, for leaving his Empire, and the Royal Priesthood of the Christians to an Enemy of Christ.  
Indeed Julian had the Vanity to pretend to a Divine Commission for usurping the Empire, to justify his Rebellion against Constantius. For in his Apologetical Epistle to the Senate and People of Athens he tells them, that when the Soldiers first attempted to make him Emperor, He 
(‖) p. 521, 522. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See also julian's Vision of the Public Genius. Amm. Marcell. l. 20.  prayed unto Jupiter to give him a Sign, if he would have him accept the Empire; which the God presently did, admonishing him not to resist the Good Will of the Army. And in his 
(†) Ep. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Epist. to his wicked Uncle Julian, he saith, That he assumed the Empire upon the Command of the Gods, who charged him as he valued his own Safety to obey them. He also pretended to have the Death of Constantius revealed unto him by a Divine 
(‖) Zosim. l. 3. p. 711. Amm. Marcel. l. 22.  Vision; and it was also reported of him, that as he made his Entrance into a City of Gaul, a 
(†) Socrat. Hist. ●c. l. 2. c. 1.  Crown which was hung up between two Pillars fell exactly upon his Head, which the Spectators looked upon as an Omen that he should be Emperor. And upon the account of these and other signs to which he pretended, he looked upon himself, as made Emperor by Jupiter, and therefore in all his Pictures which were drawn for public places, he caused Jupiter to be 
(‖) Zosim. l. 5. p. 117. ed. Val.  drawn as appearing from Heaven, and reaching unto him the Imperial Crown and Sceptre; which explains the special meaning he had in that Passage cited by our Author out of his Epist. to the Jews, wherein he tells them, That he had freed them from Taxes and Troubles; that enjoying Peace and Quietness by his Favour, they might pray for him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the best God, and Creator of all things, who had vouchsafed to crown him with his unspotted Right Hand. For Julian acknowledged one chief Eternal God, Maker of all Things, visible and invisible, as he professeth in his Panegyrical Oration in praise of his Admired God, the Sun, which he owns to be the Creature of the invisible Sun, or Supreme Deity, to whom in Platonical Terms he gives the 
(†) Orat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sempiternum numen. In orat. extrema ad Amicos, Amm. Marc. l. 25.  Attributes of the only true God.  
This I take to be the Special Meaning of that Passage, if it have a Special Emphatical Meaning; but I hope our Author would not have his Reader ascribe the lying Signs which the Pagan Gods (who were Devils) shown unto this Magician (if they shown any at all) unto the True God. Methinks it was very odd in a Protestant Minister, after he had cited a Passage in Eusebius to show that God had declared Constantine Emperor, to produce another out of Julian to show that he had made him so too. I hope he makes a difference between the Miracles and Miraculous Signs which God 
(‖) Eus●b. Vit. Const. l. 1. c. 28. Zon. t. 3. p. 3. Philostorg. H. Ecc. l. 1. c. 6.  wrought for Constantine (among which we may reckon that Vision of the Cross,) and the Signs which Julian saith Jupiter gave unto him: If he do not, he is but like some of the Admirers of his Julian; but if he do, why did he cite the Apostates Authority to prove that he was crowned by God? I am confident none of those, who have so thundered of late with the Thebaean Legion, could be guilty of such Prevarication, as this.  
But then if that Saying of his Julian have no Special Meaning in it, it is to be taken like many other Expressions which occur in Authors in a general and metaphorical signification only for julian's coming to the Empire by the Providence of God, by which he disposes of Crowns and Kingdoms, and thus that most emphatical Recognition which Dionysius made of Valerianus and Galienus'es' Right to the Empire is to be understood, when he said in the Name of the Christians, 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. l. 7. c. 11. Hi●t. Ecc.  We worship that one God the Creator of all things, who hath given the Empire to Valerianus and Galienus the Emperor's most beloved of God. As also that of Athanasius to Constantius, although in English it sounds thus; 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. in Apol. ad Const.  O Almighty Lord, Eternal King, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, thou by thy Word hast given the Empire to thy Servant Constantius. How would our Author have triumphed if he had found but one fuch Passage as either of those about Julian in any Christian Writer; and yet they amount to no more than solemn acknowledgements of God's Providence in disposing the Empire to the aforesaid Emperors according to that of 
(†) L. 5. c. 4.  Irenaeus, Cujus enim jussu homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & reges constituuntur; That Kings are made by his Appointment, by whose Appointment men are born. And so indeed Julian came to be Emperor by God's Providential Appointment, and no otherwise; for it was merely by God's Providential Appointment that Constantius resolved to choose a Caesar; when he might have taken unto him a Copartner in the Empire, that Eusebia pressed him to make Julian Caesar after he resolved to choose one, 
(‖) Vid. Jul. Ep. ad S. P. Q. Athen.  that he sent him into Gaul, that he had such Success there against the Barbarians, that the Army declared him Augustus, that the Emperor died in his March against him, and that after his death his Soldiers submitted unto him. But yet our Fallacious Author represents the matter, as if he had been Emperor by particular Designation from God, like David, or Constantine; and then cries out, Yet the Fathers had the conscience to set aside such a Title as this.  
But Julian was not made Caesar by particular Order from God, but by the free Choice of Constantius, to whom he owned the Honour of the Caesarship. It was he, that set him upon the next step to the Empire, when he might have set another upon it; he by doing that, which he was free not to have done, was the occasion of his coming so easily to the Empire: Julian had no antecedent Right to the Caesarship or the Government of Gaul, but he owed both to the Generosity of Constantius: And this is the true Ground of all the Rhetorical Interrogatories of Gregory, and of Constantius his bewailing and repenting at his death for doing what he had done for him, because he was free to have done otherwise; indeed as free as Henry the 7th, or his eldest Son Prince Arthur had he lived, would have been to have made his Brother Henry, who was designed for a Churchman, Archbishop of Canterbury or York.  
This our Author knew very well, and this the very Expressions which he brings out of Nazianzen imply; but yet, lest the vulgar Reader should discern the Fallacy, he keeps a great Jingling with Foreclosing, and Excluding Julian; which words, (as all terms of Privation connote the Habit) insensibly carry the understanding of the unwary Reader to think of some antecedent Birthright which Julian had to his Cousin's Throne; whereas strictly speaking, he had no more right unto it, than the Superviser of his Book to the Judge's place in Ireland, from which (in his abusive sense of the words) he was Excluded and Foreclosed.  
And I would fain ask our Author, who hath so artificially disguised the Nature of the Imperial Succession, whether at the time of writing he was not conscious to himself of this Fallacy, which he is guilty of, in calling the Nonelection or Preterition of Julian by the name of Exclusion and if he were not, whether he be not convinced of his Mistake now? If he be not, than I desire him to tell me, whether Julian after the death of Constantius could [by virtue of Birthright] have challenged the Roman Empire, as Henry of Lancaster did the English [mutatis mutandis] in these words: 
(‖) Great point of succession. p. 15.  I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Realm of England with all the Members and the Appurtenances, as I am descended by right line of the Blood coming from the Good Lord King Henry the Third, and through that Right which God of his Grace hath sent me— Or whether the Senate of Rome could have made such a Recognition of Julian's Right, as the Parliament made to King 
(†) Great Point of Succession. p. 23.  James at his first coming to the Crown. We being thereunto bound both by the Laws of God and Man, do with unspeakable Joy recognize and acknowledge, that immediately upon the decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England, etc. did by inherent Birthright, lawful, and undoubted Succession descend and come to your Majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm— and thereunto we do humbly submit and oblige ourselves, our Heirs, and Successors for ever—  
If these things could not have been applied to Julian upon the death of his Cousin Constantius, than I hope Mr. J. will grant me, that his Arguings from the Authority of Nazianzen are fraudulent and inconclusive, and that for all he can make of that single father's Poetical Exclamations to the Ghost of Constantius, the English Succession may be unalterable, there being so wide a difference between the Roman and English Monarchy, That being Elective, and This Hereditary; That being Casual, Arbitrary, Uncertain, and most Irregular in its descent, and this being fixed to one House, in a lineal Descent, according to Proximity of Blood.  
But still after all this we are pressed with the Authority of Eusebius, who, as our Author tells us, saith, That the Empire was entailed by the Edict of Nature, which (saith he) I think is the most sure and Divine Settlement that can be, But Eusebius neither hath said, nor could say so, nor any thing equivalent thereunto; for there was no such thing as Entail, nor any notion of it among the Romans, neither as to the Empire, nor the Estates of Private Men; the Emperors as well as their Subjects had always liberty to 
(†) Inst. l. 2. Tit. 13.  disinherit their next Relations, and make who they would their Heirs; and if a man chanced to die 
(‖) Inst. l. 3. Tit. 2.  Intestate, they had Rules whereby the Estate was divided among his Posterity; or if he had none, the 
(†) Ib. Tit. 3.  Collateral Kindred were his Heirs at Law. Let us therefore— consider the Passages of Eusebius, wherein our Author triumphs before the Victory; and first it is true, That in his first 
(†) De vit. Const. l. 1. c. 9 edit. Val. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Quotation, Eusebius, saith, that the Throne of the Empire descended upon Constantine from his Father, but then, agreeably to the report of all other Authors, he implies but two Lines above his 2d. Quotation, 
(‖) De vit. Const. l. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dispositis deinde ex arbitrio rebus suis, as Val. renders it.  that it was by the Order and Disposal of his Father, which is inconsistent with an Entail; and I would fain know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. how Constantius his part of the Empire came to be entailed upon his eldest Son, when hehad many, by the Edict and Law of Nature; and Maximians part of it was not so entailed upon his only Son Maxentius. who was casually chosen to the Crown.  
What hindered the Law of Nature to take place in the behalf of Maxentius the Resignation or death of his Father? how came he not to have the benefit of it, if the Law and Edict of Nature in his Quotations of Eusebius signify a 
(‖) According to that Definition; Jus naturale est dictatum rectae rationis indicans actui alicui ex ejus convenientiâ, aut disconvenientiâ cum ipsâ naturâ rationali, inesse moralem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem, ac consequenter ab auctore naturae Deo, talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi. Grot. de Jure. l. 1.10.  Prime Indispensable Law of Nature, as he would have his Reader to believe: What else doth he mean by the 
(†) P. 21.  most sure and divine Settlement that can be; and by his implying in the same page, That God declared Constantine Emperor by this Law of Nature before he was declared by the Army; and that the Choice of the Army was only in obedience to this Law of God and Nature; by which Constantine, as the eldest Son of Constantius had a Right unto the Crown. He hath so artificially tacked the two Texts of Eusebius together, as to tempt the unwary Reader to think so, and supposing he will so understand them: Then he adds, if this will not do, I know not what measure of Divine Right will serve their turn, unless they would have a Crown to drop from the Clouds. Then he tells us, That Julian pretended to such a Title and after triumphantly concludes, That the Fathers (as he calls Nazianzen) had the conscience to set aside such a Title, as this. Had they so? Then they were very much to blame, to deprive a man of a Right, which belonged unto him by the Laws of God and Nature, or rather by the prime Indispensable Law of Nature, which is the unwritten Law of God.  
I say, they are to blamed, and not to be imitated for so doing, if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Eusebius be to be taken in such a strict sense; but if they are not (as indeed it is impossible they should be) than they are very reconcileable with the Elective Nature of the Empire, and the Casual and Elective Succession of Constantine and his three Sons, (who were all freely nominated by their Fathers, and freely chosen by the Army) unto the Imperial Crown.  
I say 'tis impossible, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Eusebius should be taken for the Law of Nature in the strict and proper sense; and this is evident from the two Quotations, in the 2d of which p. 21. Eusebius saith, 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. de vit. Const. l. 1. c. 21. edit. Val.  That Constantius passed over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his eldest Son Constantine: But in the First, p. 19 
(‖)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he saith that the Throne of the Empire descended upon Constantine from his Father, and by the Law of Nature wss reserved for his Sons, and for their Posterity, and propagated like a Patrimony for ever.  
By his Sons here, he means his Three Sons, among whom 
(*) De vit. Const l. 4. c. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  he tells us in another place, he divided the Empire, like a Paternal Inheritance. Now if the Law of Nature be taken by Eusebius in the strict sense, in which it always commands the same things, how could Constantius by the Law of Nature leave the Empire only to his eldest Son, and Constantine by the same Law divide it among Three? Can the Law of Nature be both for Primogeniture, and Gavel-kind too?  
I would further ask our Author, upon supposition that the three Sons of Constantine had every one of them had Three Sons, whether their respective Parts of the Empire by the Law of Nature must have been divided into equal shares among them, as the whole was divided among their Fathers; or whether by the Law of Nature they must have been restrained to the Eldest Son, and the Younger been laid aside? By that time he hath considered of an Answer to these Questions, he will be forced to grant, That by the Law of Nature, Eusebius meant no more in his lose Panegyrical way of writing, than the dictates of Reason grounded upon natural Kindness and Affection, by which a man is prompted in the first place to make Provision for his Children, or if he have no Children, for his next Relations; and these dictates of Reason grounded upon natural Affection may be called the Law of Nature in a large and secondary Sense. Thus we say a man is bound to provide for his Children, or Nature binds man to provide for his Children, and to prefer them before Strangers, but then these and such like Say are not absolutely, but only Hypothetically true, upon such and such Suppositions: They are only general Rules of Natural Justice and Equity, from which there may be a Thousand Exceptions. As for Example, Nature, or Natural Justice and Equity binds me to study the Advancement of my Children, but not to places for which they are not fit, or of which they are not worthy, &c: But if I have Places of Honour and Trust at my disposal, of which my Children, or next Relations are as capable, and worthy as other men, then if no mischief will thereby arise to them, nor the Public, Natural Justice requires, that I should prefer them; and upon this Supposition, that Commodus, Son to Marcus Antoninus inherited all the Virtues of his Father, as the World believed, Athenagoras in his Apology told his Majesty, that the Christians prayed that his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as was most just, might succeed his Father in the Throne. So Eumenius saith, that Constantius Chlorus; ut decebat, as it became him, nominated Constantine for his Successor; and these two last Phrases have the full force of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Eusebius, by which he meant no more, than the Dictates of natural Reason, and Affection, by which Constantius was prompted to leave his Empire to his Eldest Son; other Reasons concurring, why he should not divide it among them all, and Constantine to divide it among his three Sons; other Reasons concurring to persuade him, why he should not divide it among more (suppose Eusebius be in the Right) nor wholly leave it unto one. He might if he had pleased have left his two Brothers Constantius and Anaballianus, and his Naphew Dalmatius Caesar Sharers in the Empire, or the Army, and Senate, if they pleased, might have chosen these three, and rejected the others; but they did not only postpone them, but killed them, which (by the way) is a violent Presumption, that the Empire was not Entailed upon the House of Chlorus, to which the 
(†) Vid. Zosim. l. 2. c. 11. Ep. Jul. ad S. P. Q. Ath.  Army and Constantius were mighty injurious in taking away so many of its Supports.  
Thus have I fairly examined the Authorities of Eusebius, in which it is also remarkable that he doth not say, That the Empire was a Paternal Inheritance, but only that it was left or divided, like a Paternal Inheritance; just as Galba, speaking of the Empire which continued so long in the House of the Caesars said, Sub Tiberio, Caio, Claudio unius Familiae quasi haereditas fuimus. We have been as it were the Inheritance of one House under Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. And it is further to be taken for a Rule, that wheresoever the words Heir, Patrimony, Inheritance, or such like words occur in Authors that speak of the Descent, Succession, or Conveyance of the Empire or private Estates among the Romans, they are never to be understood as we understand them, when they are strictly used with reference to Entailed Estates.  
For (as I said before) there was no such thing as Entail or Birthright among the Romans, which our Author would make his Reader believe there was, by that Compliment of Eumenius in his Panegyric to Constantine, Imperium nascendo meruisti, which signifies no more than that singular advantage and pretention he had to the Empire by being the Son of so Good an Emperor, and is no more than what a Panegyrist might say to the Son of an Excellent King of Poland, if he were chosen to succeed his Father to the Crown. For Gratitude would oblige the Electors of any Empire, to prefer the 
(†) According to that of Eu●●n. to Constantine; Imperatoris igitur filius, & tanti Imperatoris, & ipse ●ain feliciter 〈◊〉 Imperium—  Son of a good deceased Prince before all others that were his Equals in Merit; and this was the ground of the following Passage in Commodus his Speech to the Army, which, if our Author had known of it, would have founded far better for his Purpose, than the foresaid Expression of Eumenius: 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herodian. l. 1. in Commodo.  Fortune hath made me your Emperor after my Father, not being a Stranger, or Adopted Son as my Ancestors have been, nor glorying in an acquired Empire, but I am the only Prince that hath been born unto you in the Court; and not being of private Extraction, I was received in the Royal Purple as soon as I was born, and the same Sun, that first saw me a Man, saw me a Prince too. I pray consider this, and then love me as your natural born Sovereign, and not as one given unto you by Choice.  
How would Mr. J. have spread his Feathers if he had known of this Passage! He would have said, There is nothing more plain than that the Empire was Hereditary; there are not words in the World to express it more plainly; if this will not do, I do not know what Blood and Birthright means! And yet every Scholar knows, that these Expressions are not to be understood in literal strictness, but with allowance and latitude, as they are nothing but the Rhetorical Amplification of Young Commodus, who prided himself in this, That he was born the Son of an Emperor, which none of his Ancestors had been, and was Swaithed, as it were, in the Royal Purple, as soon as he came from his Mother's Womb.  
And if these Rhetorical expressions in the Speech of Commodus be not to be understood in literal strictness, much less is the foresaid Compliment of Eumenius literally true of Constantine, as we shall find if we consult the whole Passage whereof our Author very fraudulently presents us but with as much, as he thought would serve his own Design. But to the clear understanding of it, I must here inform my Reader that 
† Ventum est ad Principem Claudium, qui nobis intuitu Constantii Caesaris cum curâ in literis digerendus est— De Claudii genere & familiâ saltem pauca dicenda sunt, nè ea quae scienda sunt praeteriisse videamur. Claudius, Quintillus, & Crispus fratres fuerunt. Crispi filia Claudia: ex eâ & Eutropio nobilissimo Gentis Dardanae viro Constantius Caesar est genitus. Treble. Pollio. in Divo Claudio.  Constantius, Father of Constantine, descended from Claudius the Second Emperor of that Name, by his Niece Claudia, Daughter to his youngest Brother Crispus, and not by his Daughter, as Eutropius saith. This the Panegyrist refers unto: First of all telling Constantine, That his Father's 
I Quinimo patrem tuum ipsum ve●us illa Imperatoriae domûs praerogativa provexit.  Royal Extraction was the occasion of his being promoted to the Crown; by which means he 
II Ut jam summo g●adu, & supra human●rum rerum fata consisteres post dues familiae tuae tertius Imperator.  seemed to be raised to a pitch above the Fate of other men, in that he was the Third Emperor of his own Family; and that he had this 
III Inter omnes (inquam) participes majestatis tuae hoc habes Constantine praecipuum, quod Imperator natus es.  Special Glory among his Partners of the Imperial Majesty, that he was born Emperor. 
IV Tantaque est nobilitas origin●s tuae, ut nihil tibi addi●erit ●●noris Imperium.  And that the Nobility of his Birth was such, that the Empire added no honour unto him: Nor 
V Nec possit fortuna numini suo imputare quod tuum est, omisso ambitu. & suffragatione.  could Fortune lay claim to any thing he had, who had never stood for the Empire, nor been chosen by Suffrage thereunto. This very Expression supposes, that ambitus, and suffragatio were the ordinary way of acquiring the Empire, according to that Rule of Law, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. And then it follows where our Author gins: 
VI Non fortuita hominum concensio, non repentinus aliquis favoris eventus te Principem fecit Imperium nascendo meruisti.  It was not the casual Consent of men, nor any sudden effect of Favour, that made you Emperor [like other men] but you gained the Empire by the Merit of your Birth: i.e. You were born unto all that preparatory Greatness to the Empire, which other men attain unto by Labour and Toil: This, and no more is the Sense of those Rhetorical Expressions, Imperator natus es, and Imperium nascendo meruisti; as is plain from the next words, 
VII Quod quidem mihi Deorum immortalium munus, et primum videtur, et maximum in lucem statim felicem venire, et ea quae alli vix totius vitae laboribus consequuntur jam domi parta suscipere.  Which seems to me the first and greatest Gift of the Gods for one to come great into the World, and to find at home [an Empire] ready for him, which others hardly attain with the Toil, and Labour of their whole Lives.  
Nay so far was Eumenius from thinking, that Constantine came to the Crown by virtue of such a Title as that of his R. H. that a little after the place which our Author hath cited, he expressly ascribes it to his Father's Election of him; Quinimo statim sententiam rogatus, cui Imperium discerneret, ut decebat, dixit Constantinum, manifestè enim Patris sententiâ electus est, He never canvassed for the Empire, as others did, nor was formally chosen by the suffrage of the Army, but by his Father Constantius, after whose death, the Soldiers unanimously admitted him for their Emperor, as the same Panegyrist observes, Purpuram statim tibi, cum primum copiam tui fecit egressus, milites injecere lachrymanti. But besides the Interest of his Father, there was also the joint interest of another great Man, which made the Army so readily embrace him, as it appears from 
(‖) In Epitome.  Aurel. Victor. Constantio mortuo, cu●●●●is qui aderant annitentibus, sed praecipuè Eroco Alamannorum rege, auxilii gratiâ Constantium comitato, Imperium capit. And if he was first Elected by his Father, then Admitted by the Army, which had Power to reject him, and last of all Confirmed by 
(†) De Mort, Pers.  Galerius, as Lact. tells us, where was his Hereditary Descent?  
But in the 3d. place; so far is this passage of Eumenius from being a full and pregnant Proof of the Hereditary Nature of the Empire, or that Constantine was born unto it, as our Author 
(‖) P. 20.  speaks, that he was born 14 years before his Father Constantius was made Caesar: For 
(†) De vit. Const. l. 1. c. 5. Ed. Val.  Eusebius saith, That he reigned more than 30 years, and was above 60 years old when he died; and by consequence he was at least 30 years old when he came to the Crown in the year of our Lord 306. But his Father Constantius Chlorus was made Caesar by Dioclesian, and Maximian in the 
(‖) Vid. Baluz. in Lact. de Mort. Pers. p. 13. Ed. Oxon.  Year 293. by which Account Constantine must have been full 14 years old before his Father was made Caesar, and about 29 before he was made Augustus, which was about a year before he died.  
Eumenius could not but know this, and therefore his Compliment of Nascendo Imperium meruisti, signifies no more than his getting the Empire by occasion of being the 
(†) Which was a mighty Advantage according to that of Nazar. in his Paneg. to Constantin. Tuos Constantine maxim, tuos liberos, ac deinceps nepotes tecum optat [Roma] ut tanto a pluribus petantur, quanto ad majora nascuntur.  Son of an Emperor, Imperatoris filius & tanti Imperatoris, as he afterwards speaks. If our Author had pleased, he might as well have proved Constantius to have been heir to the Empire, from that Passage to Constantine, Patrem tuum ipsum vetus illa Imperatoriae domus praerogativa provexit; This Latin might have been turned into plausible English for our Author's purpose, but he well knew, that Claudius was succeeded by Four or Five elected Emperors of different Families, before Constantius was chosen Emperor, and that the Posterity of a Brother, most of all the youngest to an Emperor elected from a private man, can derive no Title to the Crown. Yet Eumenius derives the Succession both of Constantius, and 
(‖) Post duos familiae tuae tertius Imperatir.  Constantine from Claudius, but our Author cunningly took no notice of that, because it proves that the Panegyrist had no design to give either of them any proper Hereditary Title, but only to declare the Honour and Advantages they both had by being descended of such high Blood.  
But suppose Constantine had been born after his Father Constantius was made Emperor, yet his Birth and Primogeniture could Entitle him to no more, than his Father's Share of the Empire, which Euseb. calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet to qualify him for this [for when this 
(†) In which Constantius his taking of Massilia is the last Exploit for which the Panegyrist commends him. Vid. Lactant. de Mort. Pers. p. 57 Ed. Oxon.  Panegyric was made he had no more] Eumenius himself tells us, he was Nominated and Recommended by his Father, chosen by the Army after his Father's death, and confirmed by the following Suffrage of the Senate, which would have given any of his Brothers, nay any other man, as good a Right to the Empire, as he himself had.  
After the Authority of Eusebius he serves us with another out of Julian, but to as little purpose. Julian, saith he, in his Panegyric to the Empress Eusebia saith, That Constantius married her to have Heirs for his great Lordship of almost all the World: And then he adds, He having none, Julian himself was the sole, and undoubted Heir, for in him the Family was afterwards extinct. Our Author, I see, delights much in Panegyrics, but he was very unlucky in citing this, which proves the Succession of Julian, although 
(‖) P. 20.  he was the Nephew of Constantine and had the same Royal Blood flowing in his Veins, to have been purely Arbitrary and Elective. For (as I said before) 
(†) Eâdem annitente, Caesar à Constantio dictus est, horum igitur in se beneficiorum gratias hâc oratione refert. Petavius in Orat. III. Jul. Vid. p. Orat. 218, 220, 224, 225, 229.  Julian wrote this Oration in praise of the Empress out of mere Gratitude to her, because she had persuaded the Emperor against his Inclinations to create him Caesar, and accordingly he often 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 217. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 218. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 220. To which agrees that of Zosim. l. 3. p. 711. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of Zonaras t. 3. p. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Vid. P. 224, 225, 229.  acknowledges in it, That next under God he had received all he had from the Free Choice and Generosity of his Majesty; which expression, with the rest in the Margin, are very repugnant to the nature of an Hereditary Lineal Succession, but very proper for an Elected Candidate to use.  
Besides, in the words which he citys, Julian saith not, That 
(‖) Orat. 3. p. 203. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Constantius married her to have Heirs for his great Lordship of almost all the World, but that He being Lord of almost all the World, made choice of her to bring him Sons [in the plural Number] who might be Heirs of Honour, and Power. This is a general Expression, and it may be presumed, that Julian expressed himself in general words on purpose, because the Sons succeeding their Fathers in the Roman Empire was so Arbitrary and Uncertain, though in the general they could not sail to be Heirs of Honour and Power. But had the Expression been as particular, as our trusty Author hath falsely rendered it, yet the word Heirs is to be taken in the sense it then had for chosen, or constituted Heirs, or Successors, and not for Heirs by Entail, in which case purely Elected Emperors, as 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 11. Invect. p. 118. l. 1.  Jovian the Successor of Julian, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heirs of the Empire; and accordingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered by the Latin Translator, Quos haeredes relinqueret, whom he might make or create Heirs: So that the true Sense of julian's Compliment is this, That Constantius being Lord of almost all the World, married Eusebia to bring him Sons, whom he might make Heirs of Honour (or if our Author please to have it so) of his Honour and Power.  
Before I go farther, I cannot but observe, what a Trick he hath used to prevent his Readers from enquiring who succeeded Julian, or to forestall their Objection against the Hereditary Succession, in case they should by chance, or enquiry come to understand, That first 
(‖) Amm. Marcell. l. 25. c. 15. ed. ult. Par. 1681.  salustius, and than Jovian, who were nothing related to the House of Constantine, were chosen Emperors by the Army, after the death of Julian. To obviate this Objection of choosing, and of choosing those, who had none of the Royal Blood, (as he fallaciously speaks) flowing in their Veins, 
(†) p. 20.  he tells us, That Constantius having no Sons, Julian himself was the sole and undoubted Heir, for in him the Family was afterwards extinct.  
Little do his Admirers know how much he hath imposed upon them in this Particular, for whether he did not know it, or whether he dissembled it, I will not stand guessing; Julian was not the last of the Blood, but left behind him one of the 
(†) Stirpis Imperatoriae. Amm. Marc. l. 6. c. 6. 11. Culminis summi prosapia. c. 7.  Imperial Stock, descended of 
(‖) Procopio Constantianam praetendenti necessitudinem.  Constantius and Constantine, 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedrens. & Zonar.  Nephew, or Cousen-German by the Father's side to Julian, by name Procopius, who was a Commander of great Note in the Army, whom he had privately made 
(†) Ibi moratus aliquot dies dicitur ante arras, nullo arbitrorum admisso, occultè paludamentum purpureum propinquo suo tradidisse Procopio, mandasséque arripere fidentiùs principatum, si se interisse didicerit apud Parthos— Illicà, ut antea cogitaverat, triginta millia lectorum militum eidem commisit Procopio. Am. Marc. l. 23. c. 3. 〈◊〉 Zosim. l. 3. p. 733. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & l. 4. p. 736. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Vid. & p. 738. & Amm. Marc. l. 26. c. 7. & Philostorg l. 9 p. 517.  Caesar, and commanded him briskly to assume the Empire, if he heard he was killed in Persia. If Procopius had been an umbratic, obscure person, our Author might have been in part excused for saying, that Julian was the last of the Constantian Family, but seeing he made so great a Figure in the times of Constantius, and Valentinian, as well as of Julian, I know not what his Admirers will say in his Defence.  
In the time of Constantius, Procopius was one of his 
(‖) Amm. Marc. l. 17. c. 14. l. 18. c. 6. id. l. 26. c. 6.  Secretaries, and sent by him Ambassador to the King of Persia, and in the time of Valentinian, and Valens, he rebelled upon this Occasion. It came to be known that Julian had privately made him Caesar, and given him private Instructions to invade the Empire, if he should die in the Persian Expedition. It came also to be reported, but very falsely, that Julian with his last Breath nominated him his Successor, and these things made him jealous of the New Emperors, because he feared these stories would make them jealous of him. Wherefore as soon as he had buried Julian in the Suburbs of Tarsus, he 
(†) Amm. Marcell. l. 25. c. 9  retired and could not be found, though diligent search and enquiry was made after him. 
(‖) L. 4. 346.  Zosimus saith, That after Jovian was chose Emperor he presently went to him in all haste, and delivered up his Purple unto him, telling him how he had received it, and desired leave of him to leave his Service, and retire to Caesaraea in Cappadocia, where he had great Possessions, and lived quietly all the time of Jovian; but however growing suspected after his death to Valentinian, and Valens, he absconded, and skulked about, till being wearied with want and solitude, he grew desperate, and Rebelled, hoping to be assisted with the Julian-Interest, but being deserted, and betrayed by his own Officers, he was delivered bound to Valens, 
(†) Amm. Marc. l. 26. c. 9 Zosim. l. 8. c. 8.  who presently ordered him to be put to death. This is the short Account of Procopius, Julian's Nephew (as is more probable) or Cousen-German by the Father's side, who from the death of Constantius, as 
(‖) L. 25. c. 6. Post Constantii obitum in rerum conversione velut Imperatoris cognatus altiùs anhelabat, & apparebat eum, si unquam potuisset, fore quietis publicae perturbatorem.  Marcell, tells us, had an eye upon the Empire, and seemed to be one, who would dispute for it, if an Opportunity were offered, which made Julian, as it was muttered about, give him the forementioned Instructions of assuming the Government, when he was dead. And now let the World think what it will of our Author for asserting, that the House of Constantius, or Constantine was extinct in Julian, when so Famous a Man, who makes so great a part of the History of his Time, was then surviving of it; and let all impartial men judge, whether the Imperial Crown was entailed upon the Progeny of Constantius Chlorus, when the Army of Constantius, and Julian his Grandsons in eight months' time chose 
(†) Salustius, who refused the Empire because of his Age and Weakness; Jovian, who accepted it, and Valentinian his Successor.  Three Emperors without taking notice of Procopius [his Great Grandson if he were julian's Nephew, but his Grandson if they were Brothers Children] or he of the Injustice of their Choice. Furthermore, if he was Nephew to Julian, he must have been second Cousin to Constantius, and Son to the Niece of Constantine the Great; or if he were his Cousin by the Father's side, than he was likewise Cousin to Constantius, and Nephew to Constantine the Great; and besides all this, he was a Man as well qualified, and educated for the Government, as any of the three mentioned before; who, if the Empire was Hereditary, were all Usurpers and illegally chosen over his Head.  
But although we had wanted the Instance of Procopius, yet it would have been a bold and precarious Assertion to say, that the House of Chlorus was extinct in Julian, for there were many Branches of it, of whose Posterity Histories are silent, and say nothing; but than it doth not follow from thence, that they had none. It doth not follow, for Example, that Constantinus eldest Son to Constantius Chlorus by Theodora, or Nepotianus his Grandson by Eutropia had no Children, because we do not read of them; for as the Parents of Procopius, so the Children of these and others Branches may not have been spoke of by Historians; but men that will write against the Monarchy, or the Succession, or the Rights of Sovereignty, may venture to say any thing, they may be as bold as blind Bayard, they may contradict themselves, or commonsense, and yet shall not want an Association to cry them up for Unanswerable, be they never so much besides the Truth.  
Having now shown how the Succession stood in the Roman Empire, and answered all the Impertinent Citations, which our Author hath fallaciously brought to prove it to be Hereditary, I hope by this time his Admirers will acknowledge that he is not Unanswerable, but that the Foundation upon which he argued, being destroyed, the Superstructure of his Conclusions must fall to the Ground. For his Industrious Attempt to prove the Roman Empire to have been Hereditary doth sufficiently declare it to be his own Sense, that there can be no Parallel between the case of Julian and a Popish Successor, but upon that supposition; and that otherwise, there can be no good arguing from Nonelection or Preterition to Exclusion, and from no Right and Title to Birthright, or Inheritance, which is the constitutive difference between an Elective and Hereditary Crown.  
The Nature of Birthright, and Inheritance, which is not founded on the Statutes, but upon the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government, which is an Hereditary Monarchy, makes it debateable whether an Act of Exclusion would be Valid or Invalid? And upon supposition that it would be Valid, there are many Arguments which makes it disputable, whether it would be safe or unsafe, expedient, or unexpedient; and whether the Mischiefs it would bring upon us would not be as great, as those which it would prevent. But in the case of Julian there was no such matters for debate; and therefore the sense which Nazianzen had of his Succession is nothing to us, who are under another sort of Government, and in other Circumstances; the Consideration of which makes many Sincere and Honest Protestants, who dread Popery and a Popish Successor, as much as our Author, zealous for the Lineal Succession; and this distinction between the Succession, and a Popish Successor makes it no Contradiction in the Addressers, and particularly in his and Shr. Beth's Friends of Rippon to beseech his Majesty not to agree to the Bill of Exclusion, and yet to be ready to hazard their Lives and Fortunes, and spend that last Drop of their Blood in Defence of his Majesty, and the Religion established by Law.  
It is one thing to be for the Succession, and another to be for a Popish Successor, as it is one thing to be for the Monarchy, and another thing to be for a Popish Monarch; and there are many for the Former, who as hearty pray to God to prevent the Latter, as for their daily Bread. But our Author, who is an excellent Artist in Fallacies, so words it in the beginning of his Preface, as to induce his Reader to think that those, who address to his Majesty to preserve the Lineal Succession, do make it their humble Request to him, that they may be sure of a Popish Successor, as if they had consulted Gadbury or the Fates, and were sure that his R.H. whom he means by the Popish Successor, without an Act of Exclusion, should certainly come to the Crown.  
Nay so far are all those, who are so tender of the Succession, from having any tenderness for a Popish Successor, that they dread him like the Plague, and therefore would have had Provisional Laws made to bind up such an one, and put him under very close legal Confinement, in case he should be King. But nothing would serve the other Protestants but an Act of Exclusion backed with another for an Association, to which, I am confident, that Nazianzen himself, had he then sat on the Spiritual Bench, would never have said, Content.  
And truly, to make the case of Julian, and his R. H. exactly parallel, we must not only suppose, that the Succession to the Empire was Hereditary, but that Constantine the Great had been murdered after a long Rebellion by the Aerians, his Son Constantius miraculously preserved and restored, and the ruined Church restored with him; that from the time of his Restauration the Aerians resumed their old practices against the Church and the Monarchy, and underhand helped Julian, after he had left the Communion of the Church, to get an Indulgence for themselves and the Pagans; that the Church was almost ruined and the Empire much weakened by this Indulgence, and other Contingences; and that however the Aerians and Pagans were opposite in other things, yet they agreed in conspiring against the Established Christian Religion, even in the Senate, where they always voted alike.  
We must also suppose, that the Aerians were generally Commonwealthsmen, that they were a very busy and dangerous interest of men against the Government, that they took all Advantages against it, especially when the People's minds were distracted by the discovery of a Pagan Plot upon julian's Apostasy, that then they represented the Orthodox Christians, especially the Bishops, and the Clergy for Pagans, and Half-Pagans; that the Emperor had promised the discontented Senate (which now I must suppose like our Parliament) to pass any Acts for the Security of the Christian Religion, which were consistent with the Succession; that the Western Empire was satisfied with the Emperor's Declaration, and had made it Treason to call the Succession into Question; that the Monarchy was weakly supported; 
〈◊〉  that Julian was but two years younger than the Emperor, and not of so healthful a Constitution; that the Empress might die, and the Emperor marry again; that Julian's own Children the next Heirs after him were firm Christians; that in case he should come to the Crown he would find an Empty Exchequer, and a poor Revenue; that the Senate would never Supply him, but upon their own Terms; that he could not persecute without almost insuperable Difficulties; that an Act for Disinheriting of him would be a very dangerous Precedent, and of dangerous Consequence, especially since the Western Empire had declared for the Succession; that it would signify nothing without an Act for Association; and that an Act for Association would legalize a standing Army, and entail War upon the two Empires, and end in Arbitrary Government. These, and many more things besides the Hereditary Succession to the Roman Empire, must be supposed to make the Parallel exact between Julian, and his R. H. and to make a good Consequence from Nazianzens' sense about julian's Succession in that Scheme of Affairs, to the sense he probably would have had of it in such a Scheme as ours. I am sure there is no Consequence from one to the other, although his Expostulations with the Soul of Constantius should not pass for mere Rhetoric, and if they must not, I desire Mr. J. to say, if they will not prove the Invocation of Saints? If they must be understood as Rhetoric, than they are (as indeed they are) poor Shame Arguments to prove either the Invocation of Saints, or That the Fathers would have set aside an 100 such Titles as that of the Heir of England to secure their Religion; but if they must not be so understood, then do they not equally prove both. Indeed were an Act of Exclusion the only way of securing our Religion, were it certain that the Popish Successor so presumed must if he were not excluded, succeed, or were the exclusion of him not the most disputable way of securing our Religion, and very hurtful to the Monarchy, or were it not, as the Excluders would back it with an Act for Association, attended with as pernicious inconveniences, as it would prevent, than indeed our Author might have better presumed to determine what the Fathers would have done in such a case; but since it is not the only Expedient, but such an one as is very disputable and dangerous too, he was, methinks, too bold with their Beards in asserting, That they would have set aside an Hundred such Titles, to secure their Religion, when other probable Means more agreeable to the Constitution of the Government, were offered for the Security thereof. In such a case the Fathers might have professed their Zeal for the Christian Religion, and yet like our Loyal Addressers, have made it their humble Request to the Emperor, not to have passed the Bill of Exclusion, that is but one among other Expedients; and a man may be free in the Choice of means, without being Guelph, and Gibeline at once.  
I am sure there is no such Contrariety in such Addresses, as for a Minister of our Church to write such a Book as Julian, to be Lamb without, and Wolf within; to wear the Church's Livery, and yet in secret to list himself with her Enemies; to pretend a mighty concern for Religion, and yet to slander the Primitive Christians, and scoff at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience; this indeed is to be contrary to his Profession, and to be Guelph, and Gibeline at once.   

CHAP. II. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian.  
HAving showed in the First Chapter the Falseness of his First Principle, That the Roman Empire was Hereditary, I proceed in this to lay open all his other sham's and Falsifications, by which, to use his own words, 
(†) P. 68  he hath glossed away all his Duty, as a Christian Subject, and broken all the measures by which all the Ancient Suffering Christians went in former Persecutions.  
For first, after he hath most artificially aggravated the Behaviour of the Christians against Julian, and made it look like very Criminal and Barbarous; then he undertakes to Apologise for them, telling us, That truly, 
(‖) P. 68  their Case differed very much from that of the First Christians, and that they were in quite other Circumstances; 
(†) P. 71.  The sum of all which is this, That the first Christians suffered according to the Law of their Country, whereas these under Julian were persecuted contrary to Law, it being manifest that Julian oppressed them in a very illegal way. He did not fairly Enact Sanguinary Laws, but he put them to death upon sham's, and pretended Crimes of Treason and Sacrilege, etc. And this their Suffering against Law he brings to justify their seeming Misbehaviour, and Barbarous Usage of him; which after he had magnified to the height in Expressions not becoming a Divine, p. 66. than he adds, But for the Name of Christians, he had better have fallen among Barbarians.  
I shall not examine the Merits of their Behaviour towards Julian, till I have proved that they were not illegally persecuted by him, because this being once proved, it must needs follow, That if they broke the Primitive Measures of Christian Subjection, and Obedience, they are to be blamed for it, and cannot signify any thing as a Precedent for us to follow, in case (which God forbidden) we should be persecuted contrary to Law.  
He tells us, That 
(†) P. 66.  they so treated this Emperor, that one would have taken them to be the Apostates, and most falsely and plainly 
(‖) P. 94, 95.  suggests, like a Jesuit, That they would have rebelled, but that they wanted Strength: What (saith he) would they have a few defenceless Christians do, when they had lost their Strength? Have they never heard a West-Country-man say, Chud eat Cheese and chad it? Nay he hath done his best to make it probable, that Julian was killed by a Christian. It is easy to guests whether all this tends; His Reflections on the Behaviour of these Christians, are to draw on his Reader, and prepare his mind for what he hath said upon Passive Obedience, and therefore to spoil the Precedency of their Behaviour in their Words, Actions, and Devotions, and to show to what little purpose he hath written 6 Chapters about it, I shall here show that Julian did persecute them legally, because all his Orders and Decrees, how unjust soever, were legal, and in particular that Juventinus, and Maximus, who, he saith, were put to death upon shams, were notwithstanding legally put to death, because they were put to death by the Sentence, and Command of the Emperor, who was an Absolute Sovereign, who governed by Despotic or Regal Power, and whose very Pleasure was a Law. He may as well say, That a Man who dies in England legislatively, by virtue of a Bill of Attainder enacted into a Law, dies illegally, whereas by the English Constitution, the King, and Parliament (or the King with the Consent of the Parliament) are legal Masters of every man's Life, and Fortune, and can put to death whom they please. In like manner what the King and Parliament, or, to speak in the words of Learned Chancellor 
(†) De laud. Leg. Angl. ch. 9  Fortescue, what the Regal and Political Power can in conjunction do here, the Regal, or Imperial Power could do alone in the Roman Empire, where, as Dan. speaks of Nebuchad. For the Majesty that God gave the Emperor, all People, Nations, and Languages trembled, and feared before him: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he pulled down.  
This is most amply and elegantly set down by 
(‖) L. 53.  Dio, who tells us. That all Power Civil and Ecclesiastical was in the Emperor; the Consular, Proconsular, Censorian, Tribunitian, and Pontifical; and that he had all this Power and Authority not by Force and Usurpation, but by Law, the Senate and People consenting thereunto. That therefore all things were done according to the Pleasure of the Emperors, as in Kingdoms, and that though they were not called Kings, and Dictator's, yet they had the Regal Dictatorian Power; that by virtue of these Offices they had Power of raising Armies, and Money, of making War and Peace; of making, deposing, and kill Senators; and in a word, of 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  putting any man to death as an expiratory Sacrifice without Trial; who they thought injured them never so little in Word or Deed.  
Furthermore he saith, That they were 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  above the Laws, and free from all Legal Necessity, and might do any thing, having all things belonging to Absolute Regal Authority, but only the Name of King.  
This is the Sum of what Dio saith of the Imperial Leviathan, to which the Civil Law agrees; which tells us, That 
(†) L. 1. T. 3. 31. & T. 4. Princeps legibus solutus. 4, Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem, utp●te cum lege Regiâ populus ei & in eum omne suum Imperium & potestatem cons●rat. Quodcunque igitur Imperator, etc. Vid. I. L. 1, 2.  the Emperor was above Law, that whatsoever pleased him had the nature of a Law, because by the Lex Regia, the People had surrendered unto him all their Authority, and Power: Whatsoever therefore the Emperor appointed by Letters, or knowingly decreed, or declared in his Interlocutories, or commanded by an Edict, was a Law; and his Laws in distinction to the Senatus consul●●, etc. were called Constitutions, and they were either General, or only 
(‖) Plane ex his quaedam sunt personales, nec ad exemplum trahuntur, etc. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophe.  Personal, which were not to be drawn into precedent or example, as his Indulgences to his Favourites, his Acts of Grace to Criminals, or his 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph.  Punishing as he pleased those that were in his Displeasure; all these were personal Constitutions, for the 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph.  Emperor was absolute Lord of his Subjects Lives and Estates.  
It was by this Plenitude of Absolute Legal Power that Constantine the Great put to death his Father-in-Law Maximian, his Wife Fausta, his eldest Son Crispus, and Licinius after he became his Subject, and Prison●●. By virtue of the same Power it was, that Constantius put to death Dalmatius Caesar, and Gallus, julian's eldest Brother; and therefore it is matter of Wonder to me, that Mr. J. should lay down this groundless Assertion, That Julian the Emperor persecuted the Christians, and put Juventinus and Maximus to death contrary to Law. He might have been better instructed by the Apostate, in one of his 
(†) Orat. 1. ad. Constant.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. l. 2.  Orations cited by himself, in which he tells Constantius, That he lived more like a Subject than an Emperor, who had Power over the Laws. Methinks also his Superviser, who should be well versed in the Fathers of our English Law, might have taught him better out of Chancellor 
(‖) De Laud. Leg. Angl. c. 9  Fortescue, who stating the Difference betwixt a purely Regal and Political Government, explains the former from the Civil Law, which saith. The Prince his Pleasure hath the Force of Law.  
Wherefore he was also much by the Cushion in his First Chapter, where he asserts, That all the Outrages, which the Heathens committed against the Christians by the toleration and connivance of Julian, were not only without, but against Law; for julian's Connivance, or Approbation of things against Law, or secret Direction to do them was a sufficient declaration of his Pleasure, and had the Force of Law. Therefore 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. p. 504.  Philostorg. saith that the Heathens in so doing fulfilled his Pleasure; who, as 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. c. 15.  Zos. observes, however he did blame them in words, [which was very 
(*) Once the Alexandrians. Soz. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 5. c. 9  seldom] yet underhand, and indeed he exhorted them to do what they did; and 
(†) Theod. l. 3. c. 6.  made the most cruel and impious Heathens Officers both in the Army, and over the Cities and Provinces, whom he left to their own Discretion to treat the Christians as they pleased; and when the Christians sent their Representatives to complain, 
(‖) Soz. l. 5. c. 3. Vid. l. 5. c. 9 Naz. 1. Invect. p. 92.  he refused to admit them, or if he admitted them he was only to tell them; That 
(†) Socr. l. 3. c. 14.  they were bound by their Religion to suffer Injuries. 
(‖) L. 7. 503.  Philostorgius saith, He exceedingly rejoiced when he heard of the Christians Sufferings; all which were sufficient significations of his Pleasure in this Particular, that the Heathens should outrage the Christians, any former Law, or Edict whatsoever notwithstanding. Accordingly 
(†) Invect. l. p. 74.  Gregory calls his Will in this particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unwritten Law; For (saith he) the Emperor dividing his Power into two Parts, Persuasion, and Force; Persuasion, which is the Gentler Method, he took into his own Hands; and Force, as being the more Inhuman, he left to the People, 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib.  not by any Public Edict, but by Toleration and Connivance declaring his Pleasure, which is an Unwritten Law. But our Author, as indeed he hath an excellent Talon that way, quite misrepresents the Case, 
(‖) P. 12.  The Heathens (saith he) did not stay for Laws, and Edicts to warrant such Proceed,— but as soon as they knew how Julian was affected, they took that for their Cue to act these Tragedies upon the Christians; They knew it would please the Emperor, and that was an Unwritten Law. How then did they act against Law, if the Pleasure of the Emperor so directing, was an Unwritten Law? They acted according to his Pleasure, which, as Gregory observes, was published unto them by his Words, and Actions, as plainly as by any 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invect. l. p. 92.  Edict, and 
(‖) Ib.  the Pleasure of the Emperor (saith the Father upon the cruel Reprimand which Julian gave to the Governor of Gaza) is an Unwritten Law defended with Power, and much stronger than Written Ones, not supported by Authority.  
Such say as these to his Governors, 
(‖) Invect. p. 92.  What great matter is it if one Heathen kill ten Christians? were sufficient Indications and Directions of his Royal Pleasure, to make it have the force of Law, and give it the nature of a Personal Constitution by virtue of the Lex Regia, otherwise called 
(†) Lex Imperii solemnibus juris Imperatorem solvit. l. Ex imperfecto C. de testamentis.  Lex Imperii, which exempted the Emperor from Formalities of Law, and Justice, and gave him Authority above all written Laws.  
I have now, I hope, sufficiently proved the falseness of our Authors Second Principle, that his Julian persecuted contrary to Law. And I have taken so much pains to confute it, not that it is necessary to do so, to defend the Doctrine of Passive Obedience (which as I shall hereafter show would be best defended upon this Assertion) but to let the Admirers of Julian see, how he hath imposed upon them in falsely representing the Christians like Barbarians in their Behaviour towards their Emperor, and then in justifying of it by this Shame, That Julian persecuted contrary to Law. If any of them have taken the pains to read this Answer thus far, I hope they will make a Pause to argue to this purpose from what I have written in this Chapter: Either the Behaviour of the Christians was really as Barbarous and Exorbitant against Julian as Mr. J. hath represented it, or it was not; if it were, than they must bear the Blame of it, having no such Warrant for it, as he told us they had; but if it really were not, than he hath done neither like a Scholar, nor a Christian, to exaggerate and misrepresent it with a design to deceive the World.  
I am afraid, The best Friends Mr. J. hath, cannot keep him from being Obnoxious to one of these two Consequences; and therefore in the next place let us inquire, Whether the Christians did behave themselves so like Apostates, and Barbarians against their Lawful Emperor, as he hath endeavoured to make the World believe they did. Surely if the Passages be examined, which he hath produced, it will appear that some of them are Dubious, others False, some Laudable, many of them Innocent, and those few that are unblamable, or that he would have to be so, Excusable in a great measure, and having nothing Singular in them, which have not been done to other Emperors before.   

CHAP. III. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in Words.  
I Shall begin with their Behaviour towards him in Words, as it is set down in his Third Chapter, where all along he most unjustly charges what was said but by one, or a few Christians upon the whole Number, although the Examples, which he hath brought are nothing in proportion to the whole Eastern Empire, much less to the Western, in which perhaps not one Instance of that which he calls Barbarous Behaviour towards Julian, can be produced. At his rate of arguing from one, or a few Examples to the whole Church, a man may prove out of the Scriptures, that the Christians were a very untoward People, for there, as he is pleased to phrase it, A man may almost lose himself in the great variety of Instances, which may be given of their great, and manifold Miscarriages, if what some particular Men or Churches did amiss, might be charged upon the whole Body of Christians, and be called theirs.  
Thus saith he of the Christians in general; They sufficiently requited him for calling them Galilaeans, for they named him Idolianus instead of Julianus, and Pisaeus, and Adonaeus from his worshipping of Jupiter, and Adonis; and Bull-burner from the great number of them, which he sacrificed. One would think as he hath represented the matter, that all the Christians used thus to Nickname Julian, and yet if we consult that place of Nazianzen, which he citys for it in the Margin, we shall find that it was not the general Practice of the Christians so to call the Apostate in requital, but of some of one sort. 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. 1. Invect. p. 87, 88  For (saith the Father) if the Christians had a mind to give new Names, they might find many base ones very fit, and applicable to him; for what should hinder us jeering of him as he doth us, to call him Idolianus and Pisaeus, and Adonaeus, and Bull-Burner, as some of the merry and facetious men among us have taken the liberty to call him?  
But yet, though they were but the Facetious, and some of the Facetious Christians too, who called Julian by those Names; yet our trusty Author makes no Bones of charging the matter upon them in General: They (saith he) requited him for calling them Galilaeans, for they named him Idolianus, etc.  
But this is not the only Instance, where Mr. J. hath played the Jesuit with good Authors, and what fair dealing is to be expected from a man, who imposes upon his Reader in the very 
(†) P. 1.  first Citation, with which he gins his Book? Constantine the Great (saith he) Famous for being the first Christian Emperor, divided the whole Empire at his death amongst his three Sons, as a Father doth his Estate among his Children; that part which came by his Ancestors, the West, he gave to the eldest—. This indeed sounds somewhat like an Entailed Inheritance, whereas, had he truly and entirely rendered the place, it would not have favoured that Design; For Eusebius saith, That Constantius the Great 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 52.  when he had gotten the whole World into his Power, he divided the whole Empire, like a Patrimony, amongst his three Sons; as being the most Beloved of his Heirs. That Part which came by his Father he gave to the Eldest—. There is some difference betwixt saying, That Constantine divided the whole Empire like a Patrimony, and as a Father divides his Estate, and very much betwixt saying simply, That he divided it among his Sons, and that he divided it among his Sons, as the best beloved of his Heirs. It was not for the Interest of a man, that asserted the Roman Empire to be Hereditary, to let his Reader know, that Constantine had other Heirs in View besides his Sons, this would have given them to understand, That he might have passed by his Sons, and given the Empire to them, or made these Copartners with those. So it was for his Interest to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which came by his Ancestors, as if the West-part of the Empire which Constantine received from his Father, had Lineally devolved upon him through many Hereditary Descents.  
But to return to the Nicknames, which the pleasanter sort of Christians gave unto Julian, what Injury did they do him thereby? There was nothing more common among the Pagan Emperors, than to surname themselves from their Gods. Dioclesian assumed the Surname of Jovius, and Maximian of Herculeus; and if some of the Wits among the Christians sportingly did the same thing for Julian, that other Emperors did for themselves, what Precept of the Christian Religion did they transgress thereby? But these were 
(†) P. 32.  Instances of their Hatred and Contempt of Julian; perhaps they were so, but not of the Man, nor of the Emperor, but of the Apostate and Idolater, whom the Christian Religion would have allowed a Confessor to have called so to his very face. And be it known unto Mr. J. that many of those who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion, would think it rather their Duty, than any Breach of it, to tell not only a Popish Prince, but a Popish King to his Face, did he openly profess the Popish Religion, that he was an Idolater, a Bread-worshipper, a Goddess-worshipper, a Creature-worshipper, an Image-worshipper, a Wafer-worshipper, etc. which would be a far greater contempt of him, than to Nickname him from his Popish-Idols, and mock him with them behind his back.  
But let us suppose that these merry Gentlemen did transgress the duty of Christians in playing upon the Name of Julian, yet there was nothing of tendency to Rebellion in it, nothing specific that can tempt a man to think, that they did it because he persecuted the Christians contrary to Law. Our blessed Lord called Herod Fox, and St. Paul called Nero Lion, and had Mr. J. found these Names for his Julian in the Writings of the Christians, he would in all probability have told us, that they looked upon him as a Wild Beast, whom every man had a right to slay. St. Cyprian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, calls the Emperor Decius Antichrist; and in his Epist. to Antonianus, he calls him Tyrant, and Raging Tyrant, and Lucianus the Presbyter in his 
(†) Cyprian Epist. Oxon. edit. p. 47.  Epist. to Celerinus calls him the Great Snake, and forerunner of Antichrist, which are as ill Names, as any Mr. J. can show that Julian received from the Christians of his Time. The Proconsul in the Roman Empire, was in every Province the next in Authority under the Emperor, and yet Cyprian in the Reply, which he sent unto Demetrianus Proconsul of Africa, calls him, Impious, Mad, Raging, Blind, Deaf, and Brute, and he tells him in the very beginning of it, That he had long despised him, who barked with his Sacrilegious Mouth, and Impious Words against the one true God.  
I do not justify the Father for this contumelious way of speaking, it seems to me not strictly consistent with that respect, which he ought to an ordinary Judge, or Subselliar Counsellor, as the Learned Annotator in the Oxford Edition, endeavours, against the common opinion, to make it probable Demetrianus was; but notwithstanding his Conjectures, to which I refer my Reader, the common opinion still remains as probable, and therefore may very well be preferred.  
But of that very small number of Ancient Christians, who were guilty of rude and undutiful Language to Princes, none were comparable to Lucifer C●laritanus, who in his Defence of Athanasius, and Tract of Apostate Princes, both written to Constantius, calls his Majesty, Persecutor, Heretic, Saul, Ahab, Murderer, Apostate, Impious, Antichrist, Liar, Executioner, Enemy and Despiser of God, and Destroyer of God's Religion, with many more most reproachful Names and Passages, which I love not to recite.  
What would Mr. J. have given to have found Julian treated at this contumelious rate in any Christian Writer, especially in a Bishop of his time, he would doubtless have gloried in the Discovery, and it must not have been charged upon the peevish, and morose Temper, and monastic Manners of the Father; but it must have been solved, like his other Phaenomena, by his new, but friendly Hypothesis to Rebellion of reproaching, and ruffling of Julian, nay of pursuing him like a Midnight Thief, or High-way-Robber, because he persecuted them contrary to Law.  
His next Instance which he produces of julian's reproachful usage among the Christians, is the Antiochians; wherein he hath not dealt fairly in representing the matter so, as if the Christians of Antioch only were guilty of those abuses, which provoked him to write his Misopogon against them. For first it is plain, That there were yet a considerable number of Heathens in Antiock, from the Anniversary Rites of Adonis, which happened to be kept on the same day, 
(†) Evenerat autem iisdem diebus annuo cursu completo Adonia veteri ritu celebrari— Et visum est triste, quod amplam urbem introcunti Imperatori, nunc primum, ululabiles undique planctus, & lugubres sonitus audiebantur Marcell. l. 22. Vid. Liban. Legat. ad Julianum. p. 162. Edit. Lut. 162.  when Julian made his Entrance into the City, and it seemed to many a sad Omen, that the Emperor should then enter into it, when so much howling, and weeping, and lamentation was heard. Indeed it is difficult to guests, what proportion the Heathens had to the Christians, but if we may take measure from the City of 
(‖) Sozom. de caede Georgii Alexandrini. l. 5. c. 9  Alexandria at that time, they were enough to make head against them, though 'tis certain they were the lesser part. Sozomen after he had said in general, that the Antiochians reproached Julian, and that he wrote his Misopogon against the Antiochians, he immediately adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the Christians that were there he treated as usually, and studied to advance the Heathen Interest, and Religion: But Mr. J. without taking notice of the Heathens, covertly lays the whole blame of Julian's evil treatment upon the Christians of Antioch, 
(†) Socrat. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. 18. Zosim. l. 3. p. 713. Amm. Mare. l. 22. Juliani Misopog.  when all the Writers lay it upon the Antiochians in general, and assign the common Causes thereof.  
These common Causes were first the great 
(‖) Socrat. Sozom. Marcel. loc. cit. Misopog. p. 90, 108. Liban. Legat. ad Jul. p. 155.  scarcity and want of Provisions caused by one of Julian's Edicts, to lessen the market Prices, which made the Victuallers and Heglars of all sorts keep up their Provisions, which the Antiochians, being a luxurious People, were not able to endure. Secondly, his 
(†) Misopog. p. 59, 60, 75, 78, 90.  discountenancing of the Spectacula, and Plays in which they so much delighted, and affecting an austere Garb and strict sort of Life, so disagreeable to their Effeminate Humour.  
These were the Common Causes, which set the Antiochians against him, who at first 
(†) Urbi propinquans, in speciem alicujus numinis votis excipitur publicas miratus voces multitudinis magnae salutare sidus illuxisse Eois partibus acclamantis. Marcell. l. 22.  received him with the highest demonstration of Affection, and Duty, as if he had been some God. But 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Zosim. l. 3: p: ●13.  being by nature Lovers of theatres, and plentiful and delicious Fare, which he despised, they soon began to hate him, and from hating of him, as soon proceeded to lampoon him, being, as 
(†) L. 3. c. 17.  Socrates describes them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a most invective People, and given to Libelling. This is the Matter of Fact, in which both the Heathen, and Christian Historians agree, and from hence it is plain, that the Heathens, as well as Christians at Antioch, were guilty of Burlesquing Julian, as appears out of his Misopogon, where for the most part he speaks of them in general, but more particularly 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. ib. p. 164.  p. 87. charges the whole City, and all the Citizens without distinction, for loving to make, and hear Lampoons. Indeed there are some particular Passages in it, which relate to the Christians, as that of chi, and kappa, which our Author seems to cite on purpose to make his Reader think they were all Christians, but then there are others which as certainly relate to the Heathens, as where he 
(‖) P. 97, 98, 99  chides them for not providing at least an Ox to sacrifice on the Solemn Festival of Apollo, and for 
(†) P. 67.  flocking unto him in the Temples, and receiving of him in them with Theatrical Applause. In another place he distinguisheth betwixt the Pagan, and Christian part of the People: I have (saith he) offended most, I had almost said all of you, the Senate, the Wealthy, and the People: 
(‖) P. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  For most of the People are grieved at me, but especially all those who deny the Gods, because they see me addicted to the Rites of our Ancestors. And unless there were a considerable Number of Heathens among them, it cannot be imagined that Libanius would have written an Apologitical Oration for them unto Julian, wherein 
(†) P. 162.  he tells him, that when he was in Gaul, they prayed in private meetings for him unto Jupiter, that he might be Emperor.  
From these Passages it is plain, that the Heathens were exasperated against Julian, and guilty of his ill usage at Antioch, as well as the Christians; and that, the first occasion of their despightful carriage against him was upon a General Account, although afterwards he might become more particularly odous unto the Christians for removing the Bones of Babylas, and shutting up the 
(†) Majorem Ecclesiam Autiochiae Claudi— Marcell. l. 22.  Cathedral Church. But what if all Antioch had been Christians, or what if only the Christians of Antioch had been the Libelers of Julian, or what if they had Libelled him merely upon the account of his Apostasy, or Tyranny, what is that to us? Must we follow the Example of such Luxurious, Dissolute, and Profane Christians, who daily flocked to the theatres, Cirques, and Hippodroms, whither, the former, Christians, would have died, rather than have come. It was against the very Letter of their Baptismal Vow, and was always aggravated by the 
(†) Tertul. de Spectaculis. Igitur si ex Idololatriâ universam spectaculorum paraturam constare constiterit, indubitati praenuntiatum erit etiam ad spectacula pertinere renuntiationis nostrae testimonium in lavacro— Sed circo quid Amarius, ubi ne principibus quidem, nec civibus suis parcent. Ignotus autor de Spectaculis in Cypriano. Nam quando id, quod in honore alicujus idoli ab ethnicis agitur a fidelibus Christianis spectaculo frequentatur, & Idololatria gentilis asseritur, & in contumeliam Dei— ad scenae jam sales inverecundos transitum faciam— Salvian l. 6. In Baptismo salutari Christianorum prima confessio ut renuntiare se diabolo, ac pompi● ejus, atque spectaculis, & operibus protestentur.— Quomodo Christiani spectacula post Baptismum sequeris— Chrysost. Homil. 15. de calamitate Antioch. de paenitentiâ. Hom. 8. etc.  Christian Writers as Idolatrous, and as one of the most provoking and dangerous Sins, which a Christian could commit.  
Certainly their Scommatical and Burlesquing humour, was none of their Virtues; They were censured for it by many Authors, and commended for it by none, no not by 
(‖) P. 35. Theodor. l. 3. c. 28.  Theodoret, who only saith, they abominated Julian, without commending their Scurrility, for which 
(†) Socr. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. c. 19  Socrates and 
(†) Socr. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. c. 19  Sozomen justly condemn them, as an 
(‖) Herod. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Heathen Writer, did the Alexandrians for Burlesquing the Emperor Caracalla: But they paid dearly for it, and if the Antiochians, our Author brave Antiochians, who followed their example, had been so requited, their Blood had been upon their own Heads.  
They were the only City of the Empire, and the only Body of Christians in it, who thus abused the Emperor Julian; and had they done so for a sound Reason, which would have justified their doing of it, and given satisfaction to other Christian Cities, doubtless they would have done so too. But alas! it was the Evil Humour of the Place; they were given to libelling in Songs, and Pasquil's; and to show that there was nothing peculiar in their abusive usage of Julian; they treated his Successor Jovian, who was a Christian, and had been a Christian 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suidas.  Confessor under Julian, as bad, or worse than they treated Julian, Lampooning him in 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Fam●sis Libellis. Excerpt. per Hen. Vales. Ed. 1634. p. 345. Vid. Suid.  Ballads, and Libels, and Fragments of Poetry, for the Dishonourable Peace, which he made with the Persians, and for Burning a Fine Temple erected by the Emperor Adrian in Honour of Trajan, which Julian had converted into a Library with all the Books. Some of their Libels against him they 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suidas.  cast about the Streets for any to take up, others they fixed upon the Walls, and among many more, which may be seen in Suidas, they applied this following Verse in Homer unto him.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
We see thee Safe, but wish some Persian Dart  
Had struck through thine, as well, as julian's Heart.  
This is a great deal worse than calling of Julian Bull burner, and drolling upon his Beard. Nay, so fashionable was Scurrility, & Impudence among them, that an Old Woman beholding his Goodly Stature, took the confidence to say, What a longitude, and profundity of a Fool is this! And another took the boldness to Deride him openly in the Cirque, and Mischief had followed upon it, if salustius had not appeased the Stir. Had Julian been treated thus by them, we should have heard of it from Mr J. at both Ears, and then he would have brought them off with saying, But it was Julian, and those who quietly submitted to the Laws under Dioclesian, do nevertheless pursue an Apostate, as if he were a Midnight-Thief.  
As for the Story of the Berean Noble Man, there is nothing in it, but what became a Valiant Christian; and as for that of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, it is nothing to his Purpose, having nothing singular, or specific in it to serve his Supposition about Julian, but is an ordinary Instance of that great Courge, boldness, and liberty of speaking, and acting, which was common among Confessors, by which they shown to the Enemies of God, the Greatness of their Zeal to suffer for him, and how much they despised their Authority, and Threaten, when they stood in competition with their Duty to God.  
The Jews called this the Spirit of Fortitude, and the Greeks by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Translation renders 
(‖) Acts 4.13, 21.  boldness, and 
(†) Acts 28.31.  confidence: And from hence the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the New Testament to signify that 
(*) Acts 13.46.18.25, 26.1 Thessal. 2.2.  boldness, with which the Apostles preached the Gospel in danger of their Lives; and from the New Testament both the Noun, and the Verb came to be used in Ecclesiastical Writers for 
(†) A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. p. 128.  Confession in the special signification, as it signifies to confess Christ boldly among his Enemies in 
(‖) Chrysost. Hom. 5. in. Ep. ad Phil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  actual Torment, or in apparent danger of Torture, or Death. Now this Boldness was always looked upon as the Effect of Divine Zeal and Fervent Love of God, as in Apollo's, Acts 18.25, 26. who being fervent in Spirit, began [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to speak boldly in the Synagogue, where he was in danger to be torn in pieces by the Jews. So Eusebius speaking of Vettius Epagathus, who at the hazard of his Life voluntarily undertook to plead for the Christians before the Tribunal, he saith, he had 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. p. 126.  much Zeal for God, and was Fervent in Spirit. It was also looked upon in part as the effect of supernatural courage, with which God was wont to inspire those, whom he called to suffer for his Holy Name. And therefore St. Peter prayed for it, Acts 4.29. Lord (saith he) behold their Threaten, and grant unto thy Servant's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that with all boldness we may speak thy Word. This inspired Courage is most evident in very Young, and very Old People, as also in Women, who have little Natural Courage, as 
(†) L. 5. c. 1.  Eusebius observes in the Martyrdom of Young Blandina, and old Pothius, and many others, as of Young 
‖ De Mart. Palaest. c. 4.  Apphianus, and 
† C. 7. ib.  Theodosia the Virgin, to whom I refer the Reader in his History of the Palestine Martyrs.  
Now the Persons thus inspired with Zeal and Courage, used ordinarily to show it in the Freedom of their Speech before Kings, and Governors, especially before those whom they knew to be spiteful Enemies of their Religion, and Blasphemers of God. Thus one of the Seven Brethren in the 
‖ 2 Mach. ch. 7.  Macchabees called Antiochus Fury, another told him He despised his Laws, a third bid him remember, that though he was a King, yet he was Corruptible; a fourth called him Godless Man, and of all other most Wicked; and the rest threatened him with the Judgements of God. The three Jews in Daniel told King Nabuchadnezzar very bluntly; that they cared not to answer him in the matter of the Image, but if his Decree was so, God was able to deliver them, but if he will not, (say they like true Confessors) be it known unto thee, we will not serve thy Gods, nor worship the Golden Image that thou hast set up.  
When Numerianus, or Decius (for my 
† Philostorg. l. 7. p. 506.  Author knows not which of the two it was) would have entered into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Worship, Babylas the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch, shut the Door against him, telling him that he would not suffer him, who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheepfold of Christ. Domninus was Famous among the Christians of Palaes;tine for this singular Freedom of Speech, and is celebrated for it by Eusebius in the 7th Chapter of his History of the Palestine Martyrs; and in Justin the Martyr's first Apology we read of one Lucius, who standing by at the condemnation of Ptolemaeus a Christian, boldly spoke to the Precedent thus: What reason hast thou, O Vrbioius! to condemn a man merely for the Name of Christian, who is neither Whoremonger, nor Adulterer, nor Murderer, nor Thief, nor Robber, nor is guilty of any one Crime; let me tell thee, thy Sentence is very unworthy of the Emperor, who is called Pious, and of his Son surnamed Philosopher, and of the Senate, which is styled the Holy.  
It would be endless to enumerate all the Examples of the Confessorian Parrhesia, or Liberty of Speech; there are Examples of it in most Persecutions, but these may suffice to let Mr. J's Admirers see, how Fallaciously he hath dealt with them, in representing the Free Speeches of the Berean Nobleman, and Maris the Bishop, unto Julian, as singular Instances of Contempt, whereas such Freedom was of ordinary practice in former Persecutions among Christian Cofessors, a sort of men, I fear, for whom he hath but little Veneration, or Respect.  
But more particularly, as to Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, if there be any thing singular, or unjustifiable in that Dialogue of his with Julian, it may fairly be laid at his own Door, who was a most violent Arrian, guilty of many blameworthy Practices, which are not to be put upon the general Account.  

(†) Gelas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. c. 2. Acta Metroph. apud Phot. Cod. 256.  He was one of the 18 Bishops in the Nicene Council that defended Arrius, and his Doctrine; 
(‖) Socrat. l. 1. c. c. 27, 31, 35.  he was one of Athanasius his most bitter Enemies; 
(*) Socrat. l. 2. c. 12.  he is reckoned among the Arrianizers, that ordained Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople [after Eusebius died] in opposition to Paulus elected by the Orthodox. 
(†) Id. lib. c. 2. 41.  He is called an Acasian, and subscribed the Confession of the Council of Arimini, in a Council of 50 Bishops at Constantinople, where they abrogated the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(‖) Sosom. l. 4. c. 24.  He was one that witnessed against Athanasius in the Council of Tyre, attesting the Charge against him of breaking the Chalice, etc. in a Parish Church of Maraeotis, and afterwards before 
(*) Sosom. l. 2. c. 25.  the Emperor Constantine. 
(†) Ib. c. 28.  He was one of the Bishops sent by the Council of Tyre into Egypt to inquire into the matter, where 
(‖) L. 2. c. 25.  Sozom. saith, they managed the Enquiry partially; but 
(*) Lib. 1. c. 30.  Theodoret plainly accuses him and his Companions, of framing a Lie against him, forgeing false Acts, and reviving the old confuted Slanders against him. Lastly the 
(†) Theodor. l. 2. c. 8.  Fathers of the Council of Sardica in their Synodical Epistle, reckon him among the False Accusers of Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, though they do not depose him with the rest of his Arrian Accomplices, all which show that he was a Man of Heterodox Opinions and Irregular Practices, whose Example ought not to be cited, as a Precedent to conclude any thing in general upon the Christians, or Bishops of his Time.  
In the Conclusion of the Chapter he tells us, That it would be endless to reckon up the Say of Juventinus, and Maximus in their Anniversary Sermon of St. Chrysost, of those Soldiers that were trepanned into Sacrificing by Julian, and of many others, who did not spare him in the least. One would wonder how this man should come to be so learned in all that was said against Julian, 
(‖) De Juliano Testimonia before julian's Works.— Vituperationem autem apud Gregorium Nazianz. Steletenticis 11. ac Cyrill. Meminit & Chrysostomus contra Judaeos. Hom. 3. & in S.S. Juventinum & Maximum & in S. Babylani. Item Hieron. in 3. cap. Habacuc. August. vide civitate Dei. cap. 25.  but that Petavius in 4 lines hath directed him to all that ever was written against him, out of which he hath taken all that was for his purpose; and notwithstanding he tells his Reader, that he must be satisfied with a Taste, yet he hath served him up with his whole Store. For the Say of Juvent. and Max. and of those Soldiers, whom Julian had trepanned to sacrifice, are so far from making for him, that they are very much against him, or else we may be sure, had they been to his purpose, they had not been suppressed. As for the former, they are such as they said at Table; such as they said when they were cast into Prison for what they had said at Table; such as they said to those whom Julian underhand sent to tempt them in Prison; or lastly, to give him the benefit of Theodoret, such as they said to the Emperor himself.  
That which they said at Table among other Soldiers by way of Discourse, was this: They bewailed the Sadness of the Times they lived in, and blessed the former days. They said it was not worth the while to live, to see the Holy Laws trodden under foot, the Lord of all put to open shame, and to behold all places so full of the Nidor and Smoke of profane Sacrifices, that a man could not breath in pure Air. When they were in Prison, they exceedingly rejoiced and said, They had no further need of Money, or Fine clothes. To the Tempter's, whom Julian sent to tempt them with hopes of greater Honours, and the Example of other Officers who had lapsed, they answered thus; We are resolved for this Reason to stand out manfully, that we may offer up ourselves as it were Sacrifices to expiate for their Fall: For if we do not die now, we shall die (we are certain) shortly after; and it is better to die for the King of Angels, than in the Service of such a Wicked Man; it is better to lay down our Lives for an Heavenly Kingdom; than for an Earthly one, which we tread under foot. for if a man die in the Emperor's Service, he can receive no Reward for his Valour, nay perhaps he may not get a Grave, but be left to be devoured by Dogs; but if we die for the King of Angels, we shall be sure to receive Glorious Bodies, and to have Crowns and Rewards greater than our Sufferings can deserve. Wherefore let us take up Spiritual Weapons; we have no need of Darts and Arrows, and other Bodily Armour, our Tongues [by which we are to confess Christ] are sufficient Arms for us, and out of our Mouths shall we shoot Arrows against the Devils Head. These are the Say of these two Captains in St. Chrysost. but they sounded so like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius in the Thebaean Legion, that our Author durst not recite them, lest his Readers should find out such a Famous Instance of Passive Obedience among the Commanders of julian's own Army, who were so willing to be put to death by him contrary to Law.  
What they said to the Tyrant's Face was this: We have been educated in the True Religion; we have always been Obedient to the Laws which were made by Constantine and his Sons; and now we cannot but lament to see all things filled with Abominations, and even Meat and Drink defiled with Impure Sacrifices: This we have bewailed in private with Tears, and now lament in your presence. This is all they said to julian's Face; and now all that our Author can get by it, (to use his own petulant Phrase) he may put in his Eye. 
(†) L. 3. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodoret commends their Zeal, and put this Confession wholly upon that Score.  
As for the Soldiers who were trepanned to Sacrifice by Julian, this is the short of the Story: Julian on a certain day called his Army unto him to receive Donatives according to their Quality, and places. The Ceremony was ordered as in the time of the Pagan Emperors: The Emperor sat in great State, there was Gold set before him on one hand, and Frankincense on the other, and the Soldiers were told, that according to Ancient Custom they were to cast a bit of this into the Fire, 
Vid. Sozom lib. 5. c. 17.  before they received any of that. The 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. p. 85.  whole Army, were ensnared, some, it is likely, through love of the Gold, but many of them as it afterwards appeared, through mere Ignorance, and Simplicity, and the specious pretence of Ancient Custom: For when the Solemnity was done, the Soldiers went to their Quarters, where they eat together; and as some of them 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib.  looking up to Heaven, and signing themselves with the Sign of the Cross, gave thanks unto Christ: One among the rest asked them, how they could call upon Christ after they had denied him? How, replied they half-dead with the Question, how have we denied Christ? Insomuch (replied the other) as you have Sacrificed Frankincense, which is in effect to deny Christ. Upon this immediately rising from the Table, they became like distracted Men; and being heated with Zeal and Indignation, they ran about the Marketplace, crying, out, and saying, We are Christians, we are Christians in our Hearts; we declare it to all men, and before all men unto God, to whom we live, and for whom we will die. O Saviour Christ we have not betrayed thee, we have not denied the Faith; for however we have offended thee with our Hands, we are upright in our Hearts; the Emperor deceived us, and we are not tainted with his Gold, we renounce this ungodly Act, we will wash it off with our Blood. And then running to the Emperor, and throwing down their Gold, cried out, Sir, we have not received Gifts from you, but our own Death and Damnation; you called us, not to Honour us by them, but to mark us with Disgrace; Now do us who are your Soldiers, the Favour, as to kill us for Christ to whom alone we are Subject; as we are polluted, so let us be purged by Fire; reduce us into Ashes, as we did the Frankincense; cut off our Hands, which we stretched out in offering of it, and our Feet, which carried us to the place; and give our Gold to others, who have not repent of that, they have already received: Christ is sufficient for us, whom we prefer above all things in the World. Having said this to the Emperor, they informed others of the Cheat he had put upon them, and exhorted them to make Satisfaction to their Saviour's Honour with their Blood. The Emperor was very mad at them, but would not kill them, because they should not be counted Martyrs, but banished them.  
If the Thebaean Legion was an Example of Passive Obedience, much more were these Soldiers of Julian, who behaved themselves with such Exemplary Modesty, and Submission towards an Apostate Emperor, who dealt so basely with his Army, and persecuted the greater part of his Subjects (as Mr. J. saith) not only without, but against Law. One would think upon Mr. J's Principles, that they should rather have mutined, and form themselves into a Posture of Resistance against such a Lawless Tyrant; but instead of that, they speak unto him like Apostles, and desire to be killed for the Sake of Christ. Mr. J. knew this very well, which made him only refer unto the Story, which he knew not one of an hundred among his Readers would, nor one in ten could examine: I am confident neither of his Supervisers, neither he, who is now with God, nor he, who is still among Men, knew the Truth of these Stories; if they did, they were very ill-advised not to blot out the Reference, which hath caused me to bring them upon the Stage: We thank them for it, and to requite them, we will Thunder no more with the musty Thebaean Legion, but Juventinus, and Maximus, and the Soldiers of Julian shall be our Thundering Legion for the time to come.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in their Actions.  
OUr Author having showed us how the Christians behaved themselves towards Julian in Words, proceeds in two Examples to give an Account of their Actions, which, as he saith, make manifest their Hatred to him, and how they held him in the very lowest degree of Contempt. We may be sure these two Examples are the best he could pick out; but as for the first, he hath unluckily taken off from it the Efficacy he intended it should have, by observing out of Theodoret and St. August. that Valentinian did what he did to the Sacrist, as a Confessor of the Christian Religion; which implies that he did it, not out of hatred to Julian, or with a Design to affront his Majesty, but out of love to his Saviour, and to own his Religion, and to testify his Fidelity to him.  
For in those straits, wherein he was surprised, he was either to receive the Sprinklings of the Lustral Water quietly, as the Heathens did, and then he had polluted himself, or else he was bound to show by some Sign, that he was no Heathen, nor Apostate, but a true Christian; and having no time to deliberate, which was the most decent, and inoffensive way, we need not wonder, that he struck the Sacrist, or, as the 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. l. c. 16.  Original may be rendered, that he pushed him with his Fist. If he had spit in his Face, or in the Holy Water, or shaked it off his clothes, it had been all one; something was to be done on so public an Occasion to own his Religion; and he could not do it more effectually, than by disowning the Heathen Rites. Theodoret saith, that he was not able to 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib.  dissemble the Zeal which he had for the Christian Religion, and if his Master Julian were offended at him for it, and looked upon himself as contemned by the Action, it was an Accidental and not a Designed Offence.  
His next Instance is in old Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum, in which he hath discovered much Partiality, and Dis-ingenuity in rendering that obscure Passage of his Son so, as to make his Reader believe, that the good old man intended to kick Julian: For first it is plain, that the Text is imperfect, which made him confess, that he had more trouble with that Passage, than with all the rest in the Book; 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Naz. Orat. 19 p. 308.  the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which goes before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nothing answering unto it; the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seems to imply, that there is something wrong, and who can tell what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is? and therefore methinks though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify Kicking, and seem to refer unto the Emperor, as the words stand in the printed Copy, yet one would think that a Protestant Divine in Charity should have presumed, that this seeming Sense of that Imperfect Passage could not be the Real, because it is so absurd to imagine, that so Pious a Bishop, for whom, his Son tells us, God wrought as great a 
(‖) p. 304, 305.  Miracle, as for Hezekiah, should, contrary to the practice of all Christianity before him, design to stretch forth hand, or foot against his Sovereign, whose person (according to our Authors own 
(†) P. 84.  Confession) was Sacred and Inviolable, and aught by no means to have had any violence offered unto him. It was methinks a greater Solecism in Mr. J. than any he could make in the Greek, to think old Gregory had less Conscience than himself. If ye will believe him, he durst not offer Violence to the person of a Popish King; and yet this old withered Lachrymist, would have made no Bones of of Kicking Julian, no not when he was scarce able to creep. For in the next words to those, which he citys out of Young Gregory about his Father's Kicking, he tells us of his 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  old Mortified Body; and two or three pages after he saith he was so 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  broken with Age, and Sickness, that upon an Occasion when he had all his Zeal about him, he was scarce able to go, and yet 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 311.  this dody Body of an old Man, scarce able to breath, was resolved to kick Julian in the head of a Troop; and what is yet stranger, Julian, who had fought so many Battles in the Head of his Legions, having happily got Intelligence of his Design, was so terrified at the danger, that he ran away. Besides, it is not imaginable, that a Roman Emperor should put himself in the Head of a Captain and his Company of Archers to lead them on to the storming of a Church; it was very proper for him to command such a Captain, and his Company upon the Service, but to lead them on himself, was not consistent with the Emperor's Majesty, who never marched any where, but attended with the Praetorian Guards.  
These Considerations methinks might have made Mr. J. consider the Greek better, and if he had, he would not have thought it any Solecism to understand the Place of the Captain of the Archers, because he who led them on demanded the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to, or by virtue of his Orders, which could not have been said of the Emperor, if he had demanded it himself.  
But to make the whole Passage more easy, it is to be observed, That young Gregory's Design in this place is to show, 1. First, How much his Father despised and undervalved all the Mischief that Julian could design against him; and 2dly. What means he used for his Destruction, and the Deliverance of the Church. Of the First he saith, That the Captain and his Archers, whom he led up against their Church, was an Example; and of the Second, that he not fearing the times, prayed 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Publicly among the people for julian's Destruction, and also in 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Private, Fasting and Praying, and lying whole Nights upon the Ground. Who (saith he) can be found who more contemned Julian, or more endeavoured his Destruction that my Father? Of his Contempt of him, among many others, those Archers, and their Captain are a Proof, whom he (the Captain) led on against our Church, as one that would take it, or demolish it. For having assaulted many others, he came hither also with the same Intention, and demanded the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] according to his Orders, or as the special Sense of the Word requires, according to the Emperor's Orders.  
This is the most natural sense of the place, and I find it accordingly translated by Bilibaldus Perkheymerus, the greatest Grecian of his Time, who was a great Collector of Greek Manuscripts, and who, if we may believe Erasmus his great Correspondent, 
(†) Et eximium illum Christianae Philosophiae praeconem Greg. Nazianzenum sic Latinè loquentem nobis docet, ut Graeci Sermonis fontes nemo desideraturus fuerit. Erasm. in Ep. Illustriss. Principi Georgio Saxoniae Duci.  turned Nazianzen into such Latin, that no man need desire the Greek.  
His Words are these: Hunc quis magis, quàm pater meus despexisse, aut dissolvisse est repertus? Contemptus itaque praemultis aliis judex est praefectus sagittariorum cum suis quos ducebat, ut sacras domos nostras occuparet, aut subjugaret. Quum●nim multos alios agressus fuisset, huc quoque cum eâdem pervenit intention, ac templum petebat cum mandatis.  
I hope we have now pretty well secured the Emperor's Honour, and laid the Kicking upon the Captain; but what then? Is it reasonable to think, that a Bishop would kick an Officer, that came with the Emperor's Orders? or that such a Feeble old Soul, as this would undertake to kick a Captain in the Head of his Company, or if he should be so mad, is it credible to believe, that the Captain was afraid of his Toes? No truly, these are all very great Absurdities, and therefore the 
(†) Vid. Vitam Perkeymeri à Conrado Rittershusio scriptam, & Wolfgangum Musculum in praefatione version. Greg. Naz. Excus. Basil. 1550.  Wonder of his Age, the Noble and Learned Perkheymerus saw nothing of kicking in the Passage, but goes on thus.  
But he so far failed of accomplishing what he intended, that he was in hazard of being excluded by my Father, which when he understood either by himself, or by some others that told him, he went away, although he had illness, or pain in his Feet, seeing the Bishop did so burn with Zeal for the Temple, and with Anger against him. Verum tantum abfuit ut quae vellet peragere, posset, ut paruin defucrit, quin a patre meo excluderetur. Id quum per semetipsum intelligeret, aut ab alio quodam consulente aud●visset, licet pedum dolore laboraret, discessit, quum Sacerdos irâ ac zelo contra eum templi causa arderet.  
It is not to be doubted, but that Perkheymerus had very good reason from his own Manuscripts to translate this obscure passage, as he hath done, and particularly for his rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, although he had Illness in his Feet, for the Phrase being Synecdochical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be the Patient, and not the Instrumental Agent [for than it must have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and may be properly rendered in English, Although he was bruised or battered [with Marching] in his Feet. And this sense, which makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Patient unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is agreeable to Phavorinus, who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Passive voice by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to beat, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer, or be ill.  
As for the Authority of his Metropolitan it signifies nothing, because the Latin which he hath cited is not (as he seems to think) the Original, but only the Translation of his Comment upon Nazianzen, and there is violent presumption to think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the merit of the Controversy lies, was in his Comment, as well as in Gregory's Text.  
But what if after all it should appear to be a kicking, and that this kicking was intended for the Emperor, what would Mr. J. get by one Eccentrick Example in 360 years from all Primitive Christianity, and particularly from all the Bishops of the Church? By his own Principle he was bound to condemn him, and not to propose him for an Example, because it was by no means lawful to offer any Violence unto Julian. It had been more agreeable to his Hypothesis to let it have been the kicking of the Captain, for though the persons of Princes are Sacred and Inviolable 
(‖) P. 86.  yet (saith he) the Lives of Subjects under an Apostate Prince are not to lie at the Mercy of every Commission-Officer, or Janisary, no! illegal Force must be repelled by Force.  
I shall conclude this Chapter with a Remark upon some of his petulant Expressions, altogether unbecoming a Man, that professes Divinity, especially one of his Robe. In the Story of Valentinian out of Theodoret he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Chaplain, where he would rather be guilty of a Solecism, than not to be Sarcastical, for he might more properly have rendered it 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweep, hence Suidas renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Cleaner of the Temple, and Hesy●h. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that adorns it.  Sexton, or 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that takes Care of the Temple.  Churchwarden; but he had learned of his Ch●●nies of the Faction, to ridicule the use of Chaplains in Great Families, because they are generally Loyal men, who are able and willing to defend the King, and the Church.  
In the Story of Old Gregory, upon whom he was resolved to fasten the kicking of Julian, he scoptically calls him one of the Old Lachrymists, to please the wretched Humour of the same sort of men, who love to droll upon the Doctrine of the Cross. But however he hath taken the liberty to abuse the Memory of that Holy, and Zealous Father, he was no more than a Lachrymist, he never designed any personal Violence to Julian, but only to keep his Church-Door against the Captain of his Archers, who was sent to take it, or destroy it; and there was nothing singular in that, which had been done by Babylas' Bishop of Antioch against Decius, and afterwards by St. 
(†) Theodor. l. 5. c. 18.  Ambrose against Theodosius, and might perhaps be innocently done in the like circumstances by a Protestant Bishop, who will be a Confessor, against his own Prince.  
Last of all, as it were in triumph over the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, I know no more than the Pope of Rome (saith he) what to make of all this, what they (Valentinian and Gregory) meant by it, or upon what Principles these men proceeded, whether the Laws of their Country allowed them to offer Violence to their Lawful Emperor?— But now it appears they offered him no Violence, or if they had, does he not know whether the Laws of their Country allowed them to do so? If he did not, he was very ignorant, and if he did, he was very disingenuous to say so against his own Knowledge, and then he thinks he concludes bravely with a Sarcasme upon the Excellent Primate, and Bishops of Scotland, only this we may be assured of, that none of those Bishops (Maris nor Old Gregory) had ever been in Scotland, nor had learned to fawn upon an Apostate, and a mortal Enemy to their Religion. His R. H. is much obliged to him for his New Titles; His Majesty for the Honour he hath done his only Brother, and Viceroy in his other Kingdom; and the other half of the British Bishops for being represented as a Company of Fawning Spaniels upon and Apostate, and the utter Enemy of their Religion.  
This is a Doughty Hero to attack a King, and a Prince; nay his own natural King and Prince, with Fourteen Bishops at a time: Every one knows he alludes to the Letter, which the Bishops of Scotland sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to let his Grace, and their Brethren in England know, how much they were beholden to his R. H. for his Protection of them against the Churches sworn Enemies; and I can see no ground for the Justice of his foul Reflection upon them for this Action, unless Justice, and Gratitude be Crimes. If a Visier should do very kind Offices for the Christian Bishops, and Religion, in any one of his Master's Provinces, would it be Fawning upon him for them to write to the Patriarch of Constantinople to acquaint him with it, and desire him to give him Thanks? Or to make the Parallel more exact; Suppose that in the Western Empire there had been of old a Bloody Aerian Faction, who held Episcopacy to be an Antichristian Usurpation, and who had bound themselves in a Solemn League and Covenant to Extirpate the Apostolical Function, and in pursuance of that Design had Rebelled against Constantine, and by the help of their Brethren in the Eastern Empire had conquered him, and then put him to death: That 12 years after it pleased God to Restore his Son Constantius; after which the Aerian Faction began again to assemble in Armed Meetings, which ended in a form Rebellion; that after this Rebellion Constantius was persuaded to give them an Indulgence, by the Benefit of which they grew strong, and insolent, till at length they presumed to beat and murder the Orthodox Clergy, wheresoever they met them, and more especially sought opportunity to Murder the Bishops, many of which for Fear of them durst not live in their Dioceses; that they came to be so bold, as to Face, and Skirmish the Emperor's Soldiers in Parties; that they assaulted the Patriarch of Rome in the midst of the City, and afterwards murdered him on the Road in a most Barbarous manner, and within 6 Weeks after his Murder universally rebelled; that after this Rebellion was over, Constantius sent Julian (a Prince who for his Excellencies had been the Darling of the People before he was suspected of Paganism) to govern the Western Empire, where he declared he would uphold the Church as it was established, both against Paganism, and Aerianism; that accordingly he cheerfully procured a Law to prevent both the Pagans, & Aerians from having any share in the Government, Civil, Military, or Ecclesiastical; that besides all this he was most Exemplary Respectful to the Bishops, and Episcopal Clergy, and frequently renewed his Promises to them of upholding the Established Religion: Last of all, that all his Servants and Attendants were Orthodox Christians; that he kept two, or three Orthodox, and learned Presbyters in his Family, to Catechise, Preach, and and Administer the Holy Eucharist, and do all other Spiritual Offices among them, as occasion did require. All this being supposed, let Mr. J. tell me, if it would have been Fawning, or Justice, Gratitude, and Prudence in the Western Bishops to send an Account of this most Generous and perhaps Surprising Goodness of Julian to the Orthodox Church, and Clergy, notwithstanding the general suspicions that went abroad of his being a Pagan, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, to desire him, when Caesar returned to the Court, to give him Humble thanks.  
Nay, I would desire Mr. J. to tell me, whether upon this Supposition, it would not have been great Impudence, and Malice in a Private Presbyter so to censure the Western Bishops, and miscall the just Civility, which they showed to Julian, Fawning upon an Apostate (although his Apostasy was never yet proved) and a mortal Enemy to their Religion, to which he had been so great a Friend.   

CHAP. V Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in their Devotions, and first of their Psalms.  
FRom the Behaviour of the Christians in their Actions towards Julian, he proceeds to their Devotions, and Prayers; where from one or two Examples he still draws a General Conclusion, endeavouring to make what was done but by one man, or once upon some special Occasion, so appear, as if it had been the General Practise of the Christians of the Roman Empire, i. e. of almost the whole Catholic Church. These Passages (saith he) which we have hitherto related were in common Conversation— where the Christians might chance not to have their Religion about them— but when they go to Church and enter upon Holy Ground, or whenever they make their Addresses to God in Prayers and Praises, there one may expect to see the Flights of their Selfdenying, and Suffering Religion. There one may justly expect they should lay aside all their Animosity against Julian, though he were their Enemy, and for that Reason pray the harder for him; yes s● they do the wrong way, they cannot sing a Psalm, but they make his Confusion the Burden of it. One would think after such a General Charge he should have brought at least an Hundred Instances to prove it, but in all his Search, he hath found but Two; and the First of them, which he sets off with so much show, is nothing to his Purpose, because the Original words in the 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Hebrew, and 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek, which ours and all the Provincial Languages render by Confound from the vulgar Latin, signify Confusion, as it is put for Shame, as we say in our Language, Such a man was much confounded, that is, much Abashed, and Ashamed; or as the French ordinarily say, Vous me donnez de la Confusion, you make me Ashamed. So Psal. 35.4, Let them be 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  confounded and 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  put to shame, that seek after my Soul, might be rendered, let them be put to shame, and blushing, that seek after my Soul. So Psal. 40.14. Let them be ashamed and confounded together, that seek after my Soul to destroy it, might be rendered, Let them be 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  ashamed and 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  blush, etc. The Words signify, that shame of Mind, and confusion of Face with which a man is affected, who is, become sensible of his Error or Misdoing; and so the Christians of Ant. in Praying after David's Example and in the sense of his Words, for the Confusion of the Pagans, prayed not for their Destruction, but for their Conversion; especially upon that Solemn Occasion, when the Bones of the Martyrs had silenced Apollo, the God of Julian, (in the Praise of whose Divinity he had written an 
(‖) Orat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ad Sallustiu●.  Oration) they could never more aptly and seasonably apply that Charitable Prayer of David; Confounded be all they that serve Graven Images, and that boast themselves of Idols, worship him all ye Gods.  
But that the Reader may perceive how apt our Author is to pick up, and misapply all Passages in Good Historians to his own Design, I beg leave that I may tell the Story after him, which in short is this: julian's Elder Brother Gallus Caesar, while he was at Antioch, being very much grieved to see the pleasant Place of Daphne so polluted with Idolatry, and Gentile Superstition, was resolved to Cleanse it, and Hollow it in this manner; 
Sozom. l. 6. c. 19  He thought if he built an Oratory over-against Apollo's Temple, and placed the Body of Babylas the Martyr in it, it would bring the Christians from the Town to Worship there, and so the Temple of Apollo would soon grow unfrequented. Accordingly it happened, for from the time the Martyr's Bones were put there, the Daemon grew Dumb, and so continued till Julian came to Antioch, where he found the Temple of his God neglected, and desolate; and when they told him that the God had not spoke of a long time, he pretended it was because he had been so neglected; and therefore to make him ample Amends, he offered him Sacrifices in such excessive Numbers, that the Heathens called him Bull-burner as well as the Christians, and 
(†) Superstitiosus magis, quàm Sacrorum legitimus observator, innumeras sine parsimoniâ pecudes mactans, ut aestimaretur, si revertisset de parthis boves jam defuturos. Marcell. l. 25.  censured him for his Extravagance and Superstition in that point. Yet for all this Apollo stood mute, till Julian again, and again begging him to tell him how he should succeed in his Persian Expedition, he at length answered, that he was hindered from delivering Oracles by the dead Bodies, which were buried so near unto him. Julian by this perceived, that he meant especially the Body of Babylas, though some other Martyrs were buried there about him, and therefore he forthwith made the Christians remove them all, as 
(‖) L. 3. c. 10.  Theodoret saith; But 
(1) L. 3. c. 18.  Socrates, 
(2) L. 6. c. 19  Sozom. and 
(3) Homilia de Hiero martyr Babylâ.  Chrysost. say, that they only removed the Coffin of Babylas, and as they carried it in solemn Procession into the City, the Praecentors sang Psalms, and the Chorus made up of Men, Women, and Children at every Pause, sang the 7th Verse of the 79th Psalm, Confounded, or ashamed be all they that serve Graven Images, and boast themselves of Idols. Julian not bearing this Disgrace, commanded the Leaders of the Procession to be apprehended; But salustius, his Praefectus Praetorio, who was then an Heathen, endeavoured to persuade him not to gratify the Christians so far as to meddle with them, who were desirous of the Glory of Martydom. But when he saw he could not persuade him, he apprehended many Christians and put them in Prison, and tortured Theodorus, a young Man, whom he first seized, in in the presence of all the People; and when he was upon the Rack, he sung over the same Psalm, which they had sung the day before in the Procession; and his wonderful Constancy in his Torments, made Julian cease from punishing the rest.  
And now let any impartial Man judge, whether this was to call for Vengeance from Heaven upon the Pagan Emperor to sing Psalms upon such a triumphant Occasion? certainly if these had held their peace, the Stones would have immediately cried out; could they do less at the removal of a Body, by which God was pleased to work such a Miracle, the Body of an Eminent Martyr, who had been their own Bishop? And could they say any thing, that could likely make deeper Impression upon Julian, and bring him to a sense of the Vanity of his Idols, than to pray to God that he might be put to Shame and Confusion by the Miracle, and especially to do it in those pungent words of the Psalmist, which he had read a Thousand times in the Church of Nicomedia; Let them be confounded that serve Graven Images—. The Apostle saith, that the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged Sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit; and in this Sense indeed, I believe, they hoped that their Psalms, and the Burden of them, might by God's Blessing have proved Darts, and Swords, and Arrows to cut the Apostate to the Heart. Otherwise they knew the worst of it would be to suffer for the Testimony they gave of their Religion, but this they were so far from fearing, that as 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  salustius told Julian, They were desirous and ambitious of it. But this Passage our Author very prudently opmitted in his 
(‖) P. 47.  Translation of the Story out of Theodoret, because he was not willing to let Readers understand, that the Christians had a mind to suffer under an Apostate, who (according to his new Hypothesis) persecuted contrary to Law.  
And to this great zeal, and desire of Suffering for Christ [which I shall hereafter insist more upon] is to be ascribed that heroical Attempt of Publia the Diaconess, his second Example of singing of Psalms. This Woman, resolving to show how much the Rage, and Threaten of Julian were to be despised by all Christians, was resolved to be at least a Confessor, and therefore with a Company of Professed Virgins 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. l. 3. c. 18.  Fortified with Divine Zeal, she was wont to sing Praises to God the Creator, and Redeemer; and when the Emperor passed by, they would be sure to sing their Psalms the louder, accounting such a 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  furious and destructive Enemy of the Christian Religion to be despised and derided. Now at such times they used to sing those Psalms especially, which Sarcastically set forth the weakness of Idols, saying after David, The Idols of the Heathen, are Silver and Gold, the Work of men's Hands: And after thus showing the Senselesness of them, they added, Let them that make them be like unto them, and all those that put their Trust in them. He hearing them sing thus, was very much grieved, and commanded them to be silent at such times as he passed by; but Publia not regarding his Command, filled her Choir of Virgins with more Courage; and when he passed by the next time, commanded them to sing, Let God arise, and let his Enemies be scattered Julian taking this very ill, commanded Publia to be brought before him, and without any regard to her Age, Sex, or Virtue, commanded one of the Soldiers to beat her on both sides of her Face, till he had made it all Bloody with his Hands. But she [like a true Confessor] receiving this contumelious Usage, as the Highest Honour, wentback to her House, but after her usual manner, she still pelted him with her Spiritual Songs.  
Theodoret, who tells this Story of Publia and her Choir of Virgins, ascribes it to their Divine Zeal, and afterwards tells us, that she received her cruel and disgraceful Beating, as the highest Honour, which is as much, as if he had said in St. Luke's phrase, That she rejoiced, like the Apostles, that she was counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ. This makes it plain that Suffering is the thing, they would have been at; and if our Author had not been wilfully blind, he might in these Psalms have seen the flights of their selfdenying and suffering Religion, who made themselves Confessors in that Exigence, and would fain have been martyrs for Jesus Christ. For Julian out of Policy (as I shall hereafter show) would not kill the Christians, because their Martyrdom made them and their Religion more Illustrious; and therefore many of them, thought they should do God good Service to provoke him to break his Measures in putting them death; endeavouring, as Nazianzen said of his Soldiers above mentioned, to make themselves Martyrs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as lay in their own Power. Hence, as that 
(†) 1 Invect. p. 72, 73, 74.  Father tells us, it was more delightful to the Christians to suffer for their Religion, than to see it undermined by new Arts; and therefore he complains of the Politic Gentleness of Julian, as the greatest Cruelty, that ever the Christians underwent. 
(‖) Hom. in Juvent. & Max.  St. Chrysost. tells us, That Julian used to say, That the Christians flew to Martyrdom as Bees to their Hive: And therefore the true Ground why the Christians so provoked him, was not, that he Persecuted them Illegally, but that he did not take the old way of Persecution, which was so honourable to the Christians, and advantageous to the Church, of putting them to death: Or if here and there he put them to death, that he put them not to death formally, as Christians, but accused and condemned them for some other Crimes.  
This indeed raised their Animosity against him, that he 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Naz. 1. Inu. p. 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sallust. ad Jul. Soz. l. 4. c. 20.  envied them the Glory, and the Church the mighty 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chryst. Hom. in juvent. & Max. Vid. Sozom. l. 5. c. 4.  Advantage of a downright Bloody Persecution; and if their extraordinary Zeal in suffering Martyrdom, and watering the Church with their Blood did transport any of them, beyond the bounds of decency, or strict Duty in their Behaviour to the Emperor, or those who were put in Authority under him, it transported former Christians, as much.  
In the Dioclesian Persecution, 
(‖) Passio Sancti Felicis, Edit Oxon. ad Calcem. Lactant. de Mort. Persecu●.  Felix Bishop of Tubyza told the Governor of the City, That their Gods were Stones, the Works of men's Hands, which had Eyes but saw not, Ears but heard not, Mouths but spoke not, etc. and then added, [in the words of Publia] They that make them are like unto them, and so is every one that putteth his Trust in them. And when he was brought before Anulinus the Proconsul, he asked him his Name? to which he replied, I am a Christian: The Proconsul replied, I did not ask what Religion you were of, but what was your Name? To which he bluntly replied, As I said before, so I say again, I am a Christian, and a Bishop; which made the Proconsul Angry. Might not a man here ask in our Author's words, Where is the Reverence due to Authority? What dutifulness was there shown by the Bishop in refusing to comply with so reasonable a Command as to tell his Name? and had it been Julian, to whom the Bishop had been so uncomplyant, than he would have triumphantly said, But it was Julian, and he did not owe him so much Service.  
In the Gallic Persecution in the time of the Antonines, St. 
(†) Eu●eb. Hist. Ecc. l. 5. c. 1.  Attalus would neither tell his Name, nor his Country, nor the City where he was born, nor whether he was bound, or free? but to all these Questions only answered in Latin, I am a Christian. And good old 
(‖) Ibid.  Pothinus Bishop of Lions, who was prosecuted by the Magistrates, and People of the City, when the Proconsul asked him who was the God of the Christians? answered very uncomlaisantly, If thou wert worthy, thou shouldest know. Had this been Maris, or Old Gregory, or any other Christian that had answered Julian so, than it must have been brought for a Special Example of the Christians Hatred to Julian, and how they had him in the lowest degree of Contempt. I cannot (would he have said) find out any profound primitive Obedience in this Behaviour. Where is the Reverence due to Majesty? What Dutifulness did they show in refusing to comply, with so Reasonable a Command as to tell their Names, or who was the God of the Christians, But it was Julian, and they did not owe him so much Service.  
Methinks a Man, that could find so many Arguments to Justify his Fellow-Subjects for Petitioning their Sovereign against his express Command, might have said something to Excuse Publia for her Noncompliance with Julian, and not have charged her with Disobedience, and breach of Duty for doing of that, which Theodoret, who hath so much Credit with him, ascribed to the Primitive Principle of Divine Zeal. He might have called to mind the Uncomplyable behaviour of Jesus before Pilate, of which Divines give this Account: That seeing Pilate so willing to release him, he would not answer him, as being afraid by his Compliance to prevent his Sufferings at the appointed time. In like manner many of the Primitive Christians, having 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. de Vettio Epagatho martyr, l. 5. c. 1.  very much Zeal for Christ, and fervency in Spirit to suffer for him, as Proto-Martyrs of the several Persecutions, did designedly behave themselves in that Stoical manner before the Tribunals, as being unwilling to prevent their own sufferings, or at least afraid to be thought Timorous, or willing to escape. More particularly in the Time of Julian, many to whom God gave the Spirit of 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid.  Proto-Martyrs, did industriously provoke him to down right Bloodshed, for the Reasons above mentioned, and yet were never charged with want of Reverence or breach of their Duty to him, in the Particulars by which they did it, or with doing any thing more against him upon that Account, than was done to other Emperors, or their Ministers by Martyrs, and Confessors of former times.   

CHAP. VI Of their Prayers and Tears.  
WE come now to their Prayers and Tears, which (saith he) 
(†) P. 46.  were the Arms of the Church indeed, for they were Darts, and Arrows, and Firebrands, and Death. Cruel Christians! so to dart their Prayers against Julian, and then to be so flippant as to express it by a Word which might more properly be employed to describe, the throwing of the Javelin, which afterwards stuck in his Liver. Oh but it was Julian! and in that Age those were accounted the best Prayers, and Tears, which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor, and contributed most to his Destruction.  
This is a very pretty Declamation, and would almost persuade a man to think, that the Christians in Julian's Time had Army-Chaplains among them, and that they prayed to the Lord of Hosts for his Destruction in Field-Conventicles, with Javelins in their Hands, and Swords by their Sides. The Nightly Squadrons, and lying upon the Ground doth much countenance this Notion; and if the unwary Readers of Julian be carried into such Mistakes by the Author's Artillery-Metaphors, as some I know have been, is he not to Answer to God for it? Especially considering, that after so many false and groundless Charges upon those Christians in general: At length he 
(‖) P. 95.  represents them; as Rebels in their Hearts, and saith, That they made use of other Ingredients besides Prayers, and Tears in their Composition against a Persecutor.  
I shall hereafter show the Falseness of that Charge, and now proceed to examine the Justice of this. How doth it appear that the Christians in Julian's Time prayed for his Destruction? The Charge is General, & like all other general Charges ought to be proved from a great Number of Particulars, especially since the Society so charged is little less than the Catholic Church. Doth any Author say in general, That the Christians prayed for the death of Julian; or can he furnish us with so many particular Instances in different places, as may, by the Laws of Induction serve to ground such a General Charge upon? But instead of that he presents us but with two Instances, which really are but one, even the Example of Old Gregory, and his Church at Nazianzum, for the We in Young 
(†) Invect. 1. p. 123.  Gregory relates to the Christians of that City, of whom he being one, speaks in the Plural Number, We called for the Sword and the Plagues of Egypt; and We besought him to judge his own Cause, etc. And then, speaking more particularly of himself, These (saith he) were my mental, and verbal Prayers unto God.  
But what is the Practice of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches, and Cities of the Empire? Is this, without more Examples, sufficient to prove that the rest of the Churches in the Roman Empire did publicly strike the Villain [for so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] with their Joint Prayers and Supplications, or that other Bishops generally, speaking privately, Fasted, and Watched, and Prayed for his Destruction, and taught their People so to do? Would the singular Practice of one English Bishop, and of his People following his Example, be a sufficient Ground for a General Charge upon the whole Church of England? If it would not, how much less can the Example of one Bishop or Church in the Roman Empire, signify any thing to prove the General Practise of the rest? But yet in our Author's Logic, one Instance is ground enough for a Lawful Induction. It must be their Prayers, and their Tears, and they followed Hezekiahs' Example, and they darted these Prayers: But we need not wonder at his making an Induction from one Particular, when he calls the few Months of Julian's Reign an Age, p. 55. In that Age (saith he) the best Prayers, and Tears, were those which did best Execution upon an Apostate Emperor.  
I do not question but that the Christians generally prayed for the Deliverance of the Church, but than it is reasonable to believe, that they generally prayed for julian's Conversion at the same time: Of this we can produce one Example, though our Author 
(‖) P. 96.  saith, That he could not find so much as one single Wish among the Ancients for julian's Conversion, but all for his downright Destruction. If he could not, it was his own Fault, I fear the fault of his own wilful Blindness; for in the very next Chapter to that 
(†) P. 59 Sozom. l. 6. c. 1.  which he hath cited out of Sozom, to prove that a Christian killed Julian, he might have read of Didymus, whom the Historian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, an 
(‖) Vid. Suicceri Thesaur. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Orthodox Doctor of Alexandria, 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. l. 6.  who being in great Sorrow for the Apostasy of Julian, Fasted, and Prayed for his Repentance, and for the sad Estate of the Church.  
Now from this Example, in our Author's way of arguing, I might prove that the Christians prayed for julian's return from his Error, and for the Deliverance of the Church by that way: I am sure it is very agreeable to their Charity, to think, That all would pray for his Repentance, that believed him capable of Repentance; and that none absolutely prayed for his Destruction, but such as thought him utterly uncapable of Repentance, and that he had sinned the Sin unto death, for which it was in vain to pray.  
And indeed there was very good Reasons to presume, that he was Irrecoverable, and had the Malice of a Devil against Christ, and the Christian Religion, and good grounds upon that presumption to pray for his Destruction, and after his death in that unnatural Apostasy, to lodge him, as our Author observes, in Hell.  
Now to make out this Hypothesis, let us consider the Nature of his Apostasy; his Devotedness to the Devil, and his Spite to Christ, and the Christians.  
As for his Apostasy, it was first occasioned by his 
(‖) Theod. l. 3. c. 3.  Ambitious Thirst after the Empire, which made him go about Greece to find out Conjurers, and Fortune-Tellers, of whom he might inquire, if he should obtain his Desire. At length he met with a Magician, who promised him to tell him his Fortune, and to that end led him into an Idoll-Temple, where in the Adytum, or inner Recesses he conjured up the Devil, and there initiated him in the Diabolical Mysteries, & made him eat of the Sacrifice, which was an Abomination to Christ. This was after his Brother Gallus was made Caesar, when 
(‖) Invect. 1. p. 61.  being left alone, he had greater opportunities to converse with Astrologers and Magicians, whereof there was great plenty in Asia; and before this, as 
(†) Ibid.  Gregory saith, he was a concealed Pagan, using to dispute with his Brother Gallus in Defence of Paganism, which he would own in company, where he was safe. This is very agreeable to 
(‖) L. 22. Et quanquam à rudimentis pueritiae primis inclinatior erat erga numinum cultum—  Marcellinus, who saith, that he was addicted to Paganism from a Child; and yet to cover the matter, he professed himself 
(†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 2. Naz. 1 Invect. p. 59 Theod. l. 3. c. 2.  a Zealous Christian, going often to Church, and letting himself be ordained a Reader, and joining with his Brother in building a Stately Church over the Sepulchre of St. Mamas.  
But, whatever his Inclinations were, we cannot date his Apostasy, but from his going into the Idols Temple with the forementioned Magician, where he virtually renounced Christ, although for many years after, till he was firm in the Empire, he still professed himself a Christian, and sometimes went to 
(‖) Ammian. Mar. l. 21. c. 2. Utque omnes, nullo impediente, ad sui favorem illiceret, adhaerere cultui Christiano fingebat, à quo tam pridem occultè desciverat, arcanorum particibus paucis aruspicinis auguritsque intentus, & caeteris quae deorum semper fecere cultores— Et ut haec interim celarentur, feriarum die, quem celebrantes mense Januario christiani Epiphania dictitant, progressus in corum Ecclesiam, solemniter numine orato, decessit.  Church. Yet in all this interim he practised Magic, and Demonolatry, for he 
(†) Id. l. 16. c. 5.  privately worshipped Mercury, and pretended to Revelations from Jupiter, and Visions of the Genius Publicus, while he was in Gaul. While he lay with his Forces in Illyricum, he spent much of his time in Gazing upon Entrails, and making Augurial Observations, and had the Death of Constantius foretold unto him by Aprunculus, from a Liver with a double Coat.  
After he publicly owned Paganism, there was no end of his Sacrifices, and performing of Magical Rites, and Ceremonies. 
(‖) Amm. Mar. l. 22. c. 12.  He would sometimes Sacrifice an Hundred Bulls and Flocks of several sorts of cattle at a time, and permitted every one, that would, to profess the Arts of Divination, of which he was a great Admirer; and out of his extreme Superstition, for which he is censured by 
(†) Loc. Cit  Marcellinus, he opened the Prophetic Castalian Fountain in the Suburbs of Antioch, which Adrian had shut up. Before he marched into Persia, he 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. l. 3. c. 10.  consulted all the Oracles of the Empire, and 
(†) Theod. l. 3. c. 26.  after his death there were found in Antioch Chests full of men's Heads, and pits full of dead men's Bodies, whom he had killed to inspect their Livers. And at 
(‖) Ib. c. 27.  Charrae in Mesopotamia, where he quartered in his March to Persia, he went into a Temple, with some of his Secretaries in Magic, where they stayed some time; and when they came forth, he commanded the Door to be made fast, and sealed it with his Seal, and set a Guard to keep it, commanding, that none should go into it, till he returned. But after he was Slain, they entered into it, and there found a Woman hung up by the Hair of her Head, with her Hands stretched out, whose Belly they had ripped up, to Divine upon her Liver.  
I have said thus much of the Apostasy of Julian,— and his Idolatrous and Magical Practices, to show how reasonable it was for the Christians, to look upon him as irrecoverable out of the Snare of the Devil, and upon that Supposition to pray for his Destruction. But then the Reasonableness of this Presumption will better appear, if we consider, as 
(†) L. 5. c. 2.  Sozomen observes, That he was born of most Religious Christian Parents, and initiated from a Child in the Holy Scriptures, and educated under Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Men. He was perfectly skilled in the Christian Religion, and yet fell from it both into Daemonolatry and Magic; and what is yet worse, he Apostatised at first, and afterwards persevered in his Apostasy against the evidence of Miracles, which makes it yet more reasonable to believe, That he sinned against the Holy Ghost.  
For when his Brother 
(†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 2. Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Invect. 1. p. 59  Gallus, and he went about to build the forementioned Oratory over the Tomb of St. Mamas that part which Gallus undertook went up apace, but that of Julian's had the quite contrary Effect: For in some places, as often as they laid the Foundation, so often the Earth threw up the Stones; and other parts of it, which seemed well built up, would suddenly fall down again; and frequently when the Workmen went to lay down a Stone, they would find a Resistance sensibly thrust it back again. The first time that he went into an Idols Temple, as above related, being frighted with the Apparition of the Devil, and the terrible Noises, and filthy Odours 
(‖) Theod. l. 3. c. 3. 1. Invect. p. 71.  he met with there, he signed himself with the Sign of the Cross; upon which the Spectre vanished, which caused the Priest to chide him, and tell him, that the Daemon was not afraid of the Cross, as he thought, but abominated it, and so disappeared.  

(‖) Sozom. loc. cit.  Another time, when he was viewing Entrails with some others of his Companions, there appeared the Sign of the Cross upon them circled about with a Crown; upon which they were very much afraid, conjecturing from the Crown, that the Cross would be Victorious; and from the circular Figure of it, that it would last for Ever, because a Circle had not End. But the Priest bid him to be of good Courage, assuring him, That the circular Figure about the Cross did portend, that the Christian Religion should be reduced within a little Compass, and not spread every where, as it had done.  
Another time he slighted the Evening Apparition of the 
(‖) Sozom. l. 5. c. 1.  Vines with Sour Grapes in the Confines of Illyrium, and the falling of the Dew in Drops upon his clothes, and the clothes of all his Retinue in the Form of a Cross.  
He knew, that the Bones of Babylas the Martyr, had silenced his Apollo, and that 
(†) Theod. l. 3. c. 11. Sozom. l. 5. c. 20.  his Temple was burnt by Lightning, as soon as they were removed. 
(‖) Id. l. 3. c. 12, 13. Philostorg. l. 7. p. 507.  He knew that his Uncle Julian the Apostate was presently struck with a Loathsome Disease in which his Bowels rotten, and he discharged his Excrements at his Mouth, after he had rob the Church of the Rich Vessels which Constantine had given for Sacred Uses, and pissed upon the Altar: And that Felix the Apostate also died as suddenly by Bleeding, 
(‖) Quibus ordinatis terrebatur [Julianus] omino quodam praesentissimo. Felice enim L. G. pr●f● vio sanguinis repentè extincto, e●mque Comite Juliano extincto, vulgus publicos cont●ens titules, Felicem, Julianum, Augustúmque pronunti●iat. Marcell l. 23. c. 1.  after he had tauntingly said, In what Fine Vessels is the Son of Mary served?  
Lastly, 
(†) Theod. l. 5. c. 20. Invect 2. p 111, ●●●, 113. Socrat. l. 3 〈◊〉 Sozom l 5 c. 22. H●● lostorg. l. 7. 506. Vid. pag. 508. Ambros. Ep. 29 ad The●●●. Chrysost. Orat. 3. Adversus Judaeos. Rufinus l 1. c. 3●●●.  When the Jews went upon his Instigation, and Commission, under the Conduct of Alypius, to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, he knew how they were hindered after many successive Attempts, by Hurricanes, and Lightnings, and Earthquakes, and Fire rising from the Foundations, which killed the Workmen; and were attended with the Appearance of the Cross by Night in Heaven; and likewise with the sudden appearance of black Crosses upon their clothes; which things converted great Numbers of those, that saw them, and enquired into the Matter of Fact.  
The Truth of this last Story is attested by 
(‖) L. 23. c. 1.— Metuendi globi flammarum prope fundamenta, crebris assultibus erumpentes faccre locum, exustis aliquoties operantibus, inaccessum, hócque modo elemento destinatiús repellente, cessavit inceptum.  Marcellinus an Heathen Historian, who lived in those times; but all these, and 
(†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 21.  other Miracles of his Reign, together with the Heavenly Vision of his Uncle Constantine, of which he could have no doubt, had no Effect upon his hard Heart, which might tempt a very charitable Christian to believe, that he might be one of those, whom it was impossible to renew unto Repentance, according to that of the Apostle; For it is impossible for those, who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and were made Partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good Word of God, and the Powers of the World to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again unto Repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open Shame.  
This did Julian in a most eminent manner, having an implacable Spite at Christ, and the Christian Religion, and deriding of them in a most blasphemous manner. As for Christ, he used to call him the Galilaean God, and the Carpenter's Son, 
Theod. l. 3. c. 23.  and the Pagans followed his Example, insomuch, that when Libanius by way of Scorn, asked an Eminent Schoolmaster of Antioch, What the Carpenter's Son was a doing? He replied, The Creator of the World, whom thou reproachfully callest the Carpenter's Son, is making a Coffin, meaning for Julian; and accordingly not many days after, his Body was brought in a Coffin to Antioch. And coming to understand that there was a Famous Statue of 
(‖) Sozom. l. 5. c. 21.  Christ at Caesaraea in Palestine, which had been set up in Honour of him by the Woman in the Gospel, who had been healed of her Issue of Blood, he made it be taken down, and his own set up instead of it; but it had not been long up, before Fire from Heaven smote off the Head, and shattered all the Breast of it, and tinged the rest of the Body with Sulphurous Smoke. He wrote an 
(†) Ep. 51.  Epistle to the Alexandrians, and very likely to many other Christian Cities, wherein he most scurrilously derides Christ, and the Christian Religion, saying, he was ashamed, that there should be one Galilaean among them; and tauntingly telling them, That they believed him, whom neither they, nor their Fathers ever saw, to be God the Word. In his Caesars, he represents the Christian Religion to be nothing else but a Sanctuary for Rogues, and Villains; and in his Epist. to the B●strens he represents the Christian Clergy, as Tyrants, and Knaves. He 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. l. 3. c. 21.  called the Christians by way of Reproach Galilaeans, and 
(‖) 1 Invect. p. 81.  commanded them to be called by no other Name. And in short, he set himself by all means imaginable to suppress Christianity, and advance Paganism; or as Gregory speaks, to enslave the World to Daemons again.  
To this end he forbidden the 
(†) Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Socrat. l. 3. c. 12.  Children of Christians to be taught Poetry, Rhetoric, or Philosophy, which was so cruel an Edict, that 
(‖) L. 22. c. 10. Illud autem inclemens, obruendum perenni filentio, quod arcebat docere magistros rhetoricos, & grammaticos, ritûs christiani cultores.  Marcellinus blames him for it. He 
(†) Socrat. l. 2. c. 1. Sozom. l. 5. c. 3.  caused all the Heathen Temples to be repaired, cleansed, and set open, and caused many Christian Churches to be shut up. He 
(‖) Socr. l. 3. c. 13.  tempted the Christian Soldiers by all Arts possible to renounce their Religion; and those that would not, he turned them out of Service; among whom were Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, great Officers, who were afterwards made Emperors, and the two former by the Choice of the Army. He hated Christian Cities; whereof he 
(‖) Sozom. l. 5. c. 3.  subjected some unto the Jurisdiction of Pagan Cities: Others he disfranchised of their Ancient Privileges, and Liberties, and Confiscated the Revenues of their Churches to his own Exchequer. But as for the Cities where Paganism prevailed, he 
(†) Sozom. Loc. cit.  favoured them, and would write to them to encourage them to ask new Privileges of him. In some places he 
(‖) Socrat. l. 3. c. 13.  imposed severe Mulcts on those who would not sacrifice; in others 
(†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 18. Invect. 1. p. 94. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he deprived them of their Freedom, and made them incapable of bearing Office in any place of Magistracy, or Command, or of receiving any kind of Honours. He deprived the 
(‖) Sozom. l. 5. c. 5.  Clergy of their Immunities, Honours, and Revenues, and abrogated all the Laws, which Constantine, and Constantius had made in their Favour; Nay he 
(†) Id. l. 5. c. 15.  Banished them out of the Cities, on purpose that the Christian Religion should not be taught in them; and in many places 
(‖) Sozom. l. 5. c. 5.  commanded them to rebuild the Heathen Temples, which had been destroyed in the time of Constantine, and Constantius, which when they could not do, he tortured them, and other Christians with them, and cast them into Prison. He put the 
(†) Theod. l. 3. c. 6.  Cruelest of Heathens into Civil, and Military Offices, on purpose, that they might vex the Christians; and underhand encouraged the Heathens to 
(‖) Philostorg. l. ●. p. 503. Naz. 2 Invect. p. 126. 1 Invect. p. 87, 88, 89. Theod. l. 3. c. 7. Socrat l. 3. c. 11.  outrage them in most barbarous manner, insomuch, that they digged up the Bones of Saints and Martyrs, and mixing them with the 
(†) Epiphan. Haeres. Anomaeorum 76. In principto.  Bones of Beasts, burned them together. Nay in some places they tasted the Livers of murdered Christians, and sacrificed their Bodies upon their Altars; and when Julian heard of these Barbarities, he very much rejoiced: And if at any time the Christians sent to Complain unto him, he either would not 
(‖) Sozom. l. 5. c. 3.  admit their Deputies, or if he did, it was only to Mock them, and tell them, that they were bound by their Religion to 
(†) Socrat. l. 3. c. 14. 1 Invect. p. 94.  suffer Injuries, and to do good to those, that did them hurt. And when he peeled, and rob the Christians, he jearingly said, That 
(‖) Ep. 43. ad Ecebolum.  he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That they might go with greater ease into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Lastly, he went about to reform Paganism according to the Excellent Rules and Institutions of Christian Discipline, striving to bring it, as near, as he could in resemblance to those Methods, and Constitutions of the Church, by which he had observed Christianity had so prevailed in the World. For this reason Gregory calls him the Christians 
(†) 1 Invect. p. 102.  Ape, because he set up 
(‖) Ib. Vid. Jul. Fragm. Orationis. p. 528. & Ep. 49. ad Arsac. & apud Soz. l. 5. c. 16. Vid. & Jacob. Gotofredi. Julianum Orat. 2.  Schools, and Liturgies, and Hospitals, and Monasteries, the use of Commendatory Epistles, and Excommunication; and took special care for advancing the Honour and Reputation, and reforming the Lives of the Pagan Clergy, as the most effectual Means of drawing the People into the Temples.  
Last of all, in the Persian Expedition, he wrote against the Christian Religion in Seven Books, which Cyrill, of Alexandria hath confuted in ten. And these Generals, without descending to 
(‖) 1 Invect. p. 87, 88, 89.  Particular Instances are enough to make it a violent Presumption, That Julian had a Diabolical Malice against Christ, and that he was one of those irrecoverable Apostates, who had trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, and unholy Thing, and who had done despite unto the Spirit of Grace. He had hardened his Heart against Divine Miracles, like 
(†) 2 Invect. p. 110.  Pharaoh, and therefore it is no wonder if some of them called for the Plagues of Egypt upon him. He reproached the Living God like Senaccherib, and that made some of them 
(‖) 2 Invect. p. 123.  like Hezekiah, Beseech God to bow down his Ear, and hear; and to open his Eyes, and see, how Julian reproached the Son of God, and thereupon to say, O Lord our God, we beseech thee to save us out of his hand, that all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know, that thou art the Lord God, and that Jesus, whom Julian doth so reproach, is thy Son, and Christ.  

(†) 1 Invect. p. 93.  Gregory saith, That he designed worse things against the Christians, than Dioclesian, Maximian, or Maximin ever did, and that he was 
(‖) 2 Invect. p. 100, 111.  Jeroboam, Pharaoh, Achab, and Nabuchadnezzar all in one; Jeroboam in Apostasy, Pharaoh in hardness of Heart, Achab in Cruelty, and Nabuchadnezzar in Sacrilege; and therefore it is not to be wondered, That the Christians, who had such good reason to despair of the Conversion of such a Complicate Tyrant, prayed for his Destruction, because there was no other apparent way of delivering the Church. And if it should please God for our Sins to Plague the Church with such a Spiteful Enemy of Christ, and suffer a Popish Julian indeed to reign over us: I here declare, That I should believe him uncapable of Repentance, and upon that Supposition should be tempted to pray for his Destruction, as the only means of delivering the Church. I hope this Declaration is not 
(‖) P. 89.  calculated, or fitted on purpose for the Use, and Encouragement of a Popish Successor; but on the other hand, I must also declare, that I would do nothing but pray against him; I would draw forth no Squadrons against him, but such as Old Gregory did against Julian, Squadrons of Prayers, and Tears; I would die rather than resist him, or those, that were put in Authority under him, and if this make a Man 
(†) P. 81.  a Parasite, Sycophant, and Murderer, the Christian Subjects of Julian were such, and I must be so unto my Lives End.  
For when their 
(‖) 2 Invect. p. 123, 124. Montague in locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Non quod non possent, sed quod nollent, abunde enim vires suppetebant ad comprimendum tyrannum, ut docet etiam Augustinus, & noster indicat, cum adeo diffusas, & prop●gatas res Christianorum dicat, cùm tam altas egisse radices, ut non nisi subverso simul Imperio de medio tolli posse viderentur, sed patientiam dedicerant illi Scholâ Christi cum verbo, tum exemplo commendatam, non Caelum & Terras commiscere, etc.  Hope in God was their only Armour, Wall, and Defence, as being altogether deprived, and cut short of Humane Assistance, than they betook themselves to God, who hears Prayer, and is able to repel the Threats of Tyrants. This the Father spoke, as shall hereafter be showed, not that they could not, but that as Disciples of Christ, they were fettered, and manacled with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience, and would not resist. But yet this Protestant- Bellarmine had the Conscience 
(†) P. 51, 94.  twice to wrest this Passage to the contrary sense, as if the Christian Subjects of Julian, betook themselves unto their Prayers, because they could do nothing else.   

CHAP. VII. Of Julian's Death.  
IN this Jesuitical Masque he goes on to the next Chapter, where, in pursuance of his Design, he hath used his utmost Art to insinuate, that the Christians conspired the Death of Julian, and that accordingly he was struck with a Javelin, thrown by a Christian Soldiers Hand. What else can be his Meaning, and Design in relating the Story, of the Schoolmaster of Antioch, who told Libanius, when Julian was ready for his March to Persia (where he was Slain) that the Carpenter's Son was making a Coffin? And of his Death's being revealed on the same Day, and in the same Hour, to Julian the Syrian Monk, although he was more than 20 days Journey off the Place.  
Why did he not give us the Story of 
(†) Sozom. l. 6. c. 2.  julian's intimate and familiar Acquaintance, to whom his Death was revealed a day or two before it happened, in a very remarkable Vision? Why did he not also tell us how 
(‖) Ibid.  it was proclaimed the very same Hour in which he died, by Celestial Horsemen, to Dydimus at Alexandria? and to a certain Judge at 
(†) Zonar. L. 3. p. 24.  Antioch, an Heathen, who, as he was watching by Night about the Praetorium, saw a Range of Stars in the Heavens, form into these Words; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
This Day is Julian slain in Persia.   
No, this would not serve his Design so well, for to have discovered the Commonness of these Revelations to Pagans, as well as Christians, would have left no room to insinuate a Christian Conspiracy; and besides, it would have too much confirmed the Report of his falling by the stroke of a 
(‖) Theodor. l. 3. c. 25.  good, or 
(*) Callistus apud Socrat. l. 3. c. 21.  bad Angel, which yet is no more strange, than that the Angel of the Lord should smite Herod, because he did not give Glory to God.  
Indeed there are various Reports among the Historians, how he came by his deaths-wound. 
(†) L. 25. c. 3.  Amm. Marcellinus, who was at the Battle, says it was uncertain, who threw the Javelin, but that the 
(‖) Ib. c. 26.  Persians shortly after did upbraid them for Traitors, and Regicides, having heard by the Relation of some of their own Revolted Soldiers, upon an uncertain report, That Julian was struck with a Roman Dart. But 
(†) Eutrop. lib. 10. p. 133.  Eutropius, another Pagan Historian, who was then in the Field, saith positively, hostili manu interfectus est, That he was slain by the hand of the Enemy; and Festus Rufus, and the 
(‖) Ab uno ex hostibus & quidem fugiente cento perentitur.  Epitome of Victor report the very same. 
(†) Lib. 3. c. 21.  Socrates tells us, That it is uncertain who killed him, for some said, that it was a revolted Persian, but others, that it was a Roman Soldier, which was the more common Report. But Callistus the Poet (saith he, who was one of his Guards, and who wrote his Exploits in Heroic Verse, saith, that he was killed by a Daemon, which it may be (saith he) is but a Poetical Fiction, but perhaps it may be the real truth, for the Furies (by which he means the Destroying Angels) have punished very many. 
(‖) Lib. 6. c. 1.  Sozomen saith, that when he was killed, the Air was full of Mist, and Dust, and Darkness, so that no body could tell who the Horseman was, who slew him; but that some said that it was a Persian, others that it was a Saracen, others again, that it was a Roman, who was offended at him, for bringing the whole Army by his Rashness and Folly into such straits. 
(†) Theodor. l. 3. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For instead of taking Care, or making Provision for so great a Body of men, he led them into Desert places, where they wanted both Guides, & Meat, and Drink, and they were lamenting, and sighing for the sad Fate of the Roman Army, when he received the Fatal Stroke. 
(‖) Ibid  Theodoret saith, That no Body knew who struck him; but whether it was Man; or Angel, certain it is, that he was the Minister of the Divine Will. 
(†) Lib. 8. p. 500  Philostorgius leaves the Fact between a Saracen and Roman, and saith, That many inclined to believe, that it must be a Roman, because the stroke was so sudden, that no Body saw when it was given.  
I have been more particular in showing what all the Historians have said of the Death of Julian, the better to set forth the Presumption, Malice, and Partiality of Libanius the Sophist and Magician, who, as our Author tells us, was resolved to find out the Man that killed Julian, and he doth it thus: First he proves, That it was no Persian, because the King of Persia proclaimed a Reward to him, that killed him, but no body ever came to challenge the Reward: From hence he concludes, they were to look for the Murderer among themselves, but who among them could do it, but one of them, who did not live according to his Laws, and had conspired formerly against Him, and then having an Opportunity, put their Design in Execution.  
It was apparently the Design of our Author, in setting down the Conjecture of Libanius, to persuade his Reader, that he was a Christian, who killed Julian; otherwise, why did he not tell us, That this was the Single Conjecture of Libanius, who was the Master of Julian, and a Magician, and a most mortal and spiteful Enemy of Christ, and the Christians. 2dly. That his Conjecture is supported only upon his own Authority, who saith, That the King of Persia proclaimed a Reward to him that killed Julian. 3dly. That he asserts a notorious Lie, viz. That the Christians had formerly 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  plotted his Destruction, etc.  
But instead of this he brings in 
(‖) ●. 6. ●. ●.  Sozomen justifying the Murder of Julian, which indeed he doth not absolutely, but from the Greek, or Pagan Principles in answer to Libanius. It may be (saith he) it was true, that he who killed Julian, was a Christian; for it is not improbable, that some one of the Soldiers might take into consideration, how the Greeks, and all Men to this day, still praise the killers of Tyrants in former times, as men that were willing to die for the Common Liberty, and delivered their Countrymen, Kindred, and Friends. And one than can scarce blame him, who shows himself so brave for God, and for that Religion, which he approves. These words of Sozomen are to be taken as an Answer to Libanius the Greek, upon the Greek Principles; for if according to the Greeks, he deserved Praise, who would hazard his life, to kill a Tyrant for the Common Liberty, upon the same Principles, one would scarce blame a man, who does the same, for God, and for the Religion which he approves.  
But although the words were to be taken absolutely, and not as a Reply to Libanius, yet they are no Justification, but only an Extenuation of the Fact. The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one would scarce blame, doth still imply in strictness, That such an one was to be blamed, though the Provocation was very great.  
But what if it had been certain, that a Christian, perverted with Greek Principles, had killed Julian, what is that to the rest of the Christians of that Age? There was a very great number of the Murderers of our late Blessed Sovereign, who was put to death as a Tyrant, but yet it doth not follow that the Doctrine of Killing Lawful Kings, when they turn Tyrants, is generally approved among the English Protestants, though it may likely be approved by some, who, as Mr. Hobbes hath observed, have sucked in Ill Principles about Government from Greek, and Latin Authors, and, I pray God, our Author be not such an one; else why should he so slily insinuate upon the bare Conjecture of one Antichristian Villain and Magician, That he was a Christian, who killed Julian, even there, where it was his professed Design, to show that they treated him like Barbarians, that they had no Reverence for his Majesty, but pursued him like a Midnight Thief, or a Robber. One would have expected such a Junius-Brutus-way of writing from a Bellarmine or Mariana, a Knox or Buchanan, rather than from a Minister of the Church of England, who in her Book of Homilies, which is one of the 
(†) P. 104.  best Books in the World next to the Bible, and to 
(‖) P. 101.  which the whole Clergy of England have subscribed, teacheth her Children, 
(†) 2 Part of the Sermon of Obedience.  That it is the Calling of God's People to be patiented and on the suffering side, and to render Obedience to Governors although they be wicked, and wrong-doers, and in no case to resist and stand against them.  
But you will say in defence of our Author, That he called the Murder of Julian a 
(‖) P. 60.  Traitorous Assassination, and in another place, 
(‖) Preface p. 26.  That he would rather have lost his own life, than have served him, such a slippery Trick. I protest, I am willing to be on the charitable side with Mr. J. and wish I could hearty believe, what he saith: But if indeed he thought it a Traitorous Assassination, and would have lost his own Life rather than have been guilty of it, why doth he so industriously endeavour to prove, that he was a Christian, who did it, and that a Christian Writer justified the Fact, and yet neither blame the one, nor censure the other, according as they deserved? A man can hardly detest that himself, which he doth not condemn, much more which he likes in another; and besides, he hath with great delight and industry, most injuriously represented the Christian Subjects of Julian, as Buchanan and Bellarmine represented the Christians before them, as men that did not resist, not from any Christian Principle of Obedience, but because they were not in a probable Capacity, wanting sufficient Numbers, and Strength. Moreover, if he would rather have died, than murdered Julian, why doth he speak so slightly of the Fact, calling it only a Slippery Trick? The Learned Monsieur Nicol in his Logic, commonly called, the Jansenists Logic, distinguisheth between the Principal, and Accessary signification of words. The Principal signification he calls that which signifies the Thing, and the Accessary is that which signifies the Love, or Hatred, the Honour or Contempt, the Delight or Abhorrence of him, who speaks or writes of the Thing. As for Example, There are some Words to express Fornication, which besides the Principal signification, would plainly signify, that he who used them, loved, and delighted, and was pleased with the thing. And others again there are, which besides the Principal signification, would signify the Turpitude of the thing, and the Abhorrence which the Speaker, or Writer had thereof. The great difference in Words and Phrases comes from these Accessary Significations, and therefore methinks if Mr. J. who is a Man of Art, and a Divine, would have had his Readers, especially the Serious Part, really believe that he would have lost his own Life, rather than have murdered Julian, he should have found out fitting Words to have expressed the Horror of the Wickedness, and not have called it a Slippery Trick. I should be loath to trust myself in the Company of Fellows who counted Robbery, and Murder but Slippery Tricks, or commit my Daughter to the Custody of a Man, who, though he protested he would rather die, than Deflower her, yet made no more of Fornication, than a Slippery Trick.  
I think it not worth the while to give a particular Answer to the next Chapter, wherein he shows, How the Christian Writers used his Memory; only I shall observe that it was usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers, to call Tyrants, and Persecutors after their deaths, by such Names, as served to set forth their Cruel, and Bloody Nature. He may see if he pleases, what a reproachful, and ignominious Character 
(†) Consulite commentarios vestros, illic reperietis primum Neron●m in han● sectam Caesariano gladio ferocisse, sed tali dedicatore damnationis nostrae etiam gloriamur; qui enim s●it illum intellig●re potest non nisi grande aliquot bonum a Nerone damnatum. Tentaverat & Domi●●●nus portio Neronis de crudelitate tales semper nobis insecuteres injusti, impii, turpes,—  Tertullian gives of Nero and Domitian, and in general of the Persecuting Emperors before his time. He may see, if he pleases, what a lovely Monument 
(‖) Lib. 8. c. 14. Eccles. Hist.  Eusebius hath erected to the Memory of Maxentius, and Maximin, not much short of that Stately One, which Gregory hath erected for Julian, and if he will go to Lactantius, in his Book of the Deaths of the Persecuting Emperors, there, to use his own Phrase, He may bless himself, to see what Titles of Honour he hath bestowed upon them, although he wrote in Latin, which hath not the happy facility of compounding words, as the Greek hath. He calls Nero Execrable, and Mischievous Tyrant, and Harbinger of the Devil, coming to lay the Earth waist, and destroy all Mankind, with many more such Titles and Characters, which he may read at his leisure.  
He calls Domitian as great a Tyrant, as Nero; Decius he calls Execrable Animal; Valerian, Impious Madman; Aurelius, Furious and Praecipitant Tyrant; and as for his Characters of Dioclesian, Maximian, Galerius, and Maximin, in whose Reigns he had lived, he hath set them forth as wild Beasts, as Monsters of Rapine, and Cruelty, and Rebels against God.  
Nay, so far are the Invectives of Nazianzen from being a just ground of such singular Conclusions, and Observations about Julian, that Hilary Bishop of Poictou, wrote as keen, and bitter an Invective against Constantius, shortly after he died. There he calls him Antichrist, Deceitful, Persecutor, Flattering Enemy, the Cruelest of all Cruelties, the most Wicked of Mortals, Ravening Wolf, Enemy to God's Religion, and the Memory of Saints, and Rebel to his Father's Piety, etc. and compares him to Judas for betraying the Priests of Christ with a Kiss: Nay, he makes him worse than 
(‖) P. 289.  Nero, Decius, and Maximin, and wishes he had lived in their Reigns, rather than in his. The Book is very little, if any thing, inferior to the Invectives, in Sharp, Bitter, and Contumelious Language, but charges him home with Tyranny and Malice, and pursues him, as if he had been a Midnight-Thief, or a Robber: and loads him with the 
(†) Anathema tibi trecenti & decem octo— Anathema tibi Pater tuus est, cui Nicaea Synodus curae fuit. p. 298.  Anathemas of his Father, and the Nicene Council, which is as bad, as Lodging him in Hell.   

CHAP. VIII. Showing, That the Christian Subjects of Julian practised Passive Obedience, when they were in an Able Condition to Resist.  
HAving now showed, 1. That the Roman Empire was not Hereditary; 2. That Julian did not persecute his Christian Subjects contrary to Law: and having in the Third place shown, That there was nothing Singular, and Vnparallelled in the Behaviour of the Christians towards that Apostate Emperor; nor any thing so Barbarous and unlike the Behaviour of Former Christians, as our Author represented it to be: I should now proceed to Examine his Ninth Chapter, wherein he hath endeavoured to evacuate the Doctrine of Passive Obedience: But as a Preparatory thereunto, I shall first take the Forfeiture of his Main Assertion, That Julian persecuted his Christian Subjects contrary to Law; and from thence show, That Passive Obedience is due, by the Gospel, to the Sovereign Power, when the Sovereign persecutes contrary to Law. Our Author was ware of this Consequence, and therefore to obviate the Objection of the Nonresistance of julian's Christian Subjects, who was so Spiteful, Cruel, and Crafty, and, according to him, so Illegal a Persecutor, he represents the case, as if they were but a small and defenceless Number, stripped of all Humane Assistance; and so makes them to have been Patient, and Passive out of mere necessity; but however, that they had a hearty mind to Rebel, and wanted nothing but Strength and Numbers, to bring them into the Field. 
(†) P. 94  What (saith he) would you have a few defenceless Christians do, when they had lost all their Strength, and so many of their Numbers? Have they never heard a West-Country-man say, Chud eat Cheese, and Chad it?  
I thought to have shown, how much Mr. J. hath played the part of a Jesuit in ascribing the Passive Obedience of julian's Christian Subjects, unto their weak and defenceless Condition; but I am prevented in that, by the Loyal, and Ingenious Author of the Apostate Protestant, to whom I refer the Reader, and shall content myself, to show the Falseness of his Jesuitical Evasion, which, I am confident, though he had so little Conscience, as to assert, yet he could not be so ignorant, as to believe.  
For First, If we inquire into the State of Christianity in the time of Paganism, we shall find, that in the Reign of Severus, when Tertullian wrote his Apologetic for the Christians, that nothing but their 
(†) Si non apud astam disciplinam magis occidi liceret, quàm occidere—  Religion kept them from resisting the Forces of the Empire, when they were 
(‖) Si enim— de●sset nobis vis num●r●r●●n & copiarum? Plures nimirum Mauri, & Marcomanni, ips●que Parthi?—  more in Number, within the Bowels of it, than the Moors, & Germans, & Parthians, and all its Enemies without. Nay, he appeals unto their Judges, if all 
(*) Vestra omnia implevimus urbes, insulas, cas●ella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decu●ias, palatium, senatum, forum, sola vobis relinquimus templa.  Places were not full of Christians? and tells them, That without Rebelling they were able 
(†) Potuimus & inermes nec rebels, sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidiâ adversus vos dimicâsse. Si enim tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus à vobis, suffudissit utique dominationem vestram tot qualium●unque amissio civium, imo etiam & ipsâ destitutione puniisset, Proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum.—  to destroy the Empire, and lay is waste and solitary, by withdrawing into other Parts of the World. And in his Address to Scapula Governor of Carthage, he saith, That they were the greater part of almost every City. 
(‖) Tanta hominum multitudo pars pene major civitatis cujusque.   
This was hundred and Sixty years before the time of Julian, and about Fifty years after this 
(†) Nemo nostrûm, quando apprehenditur reluctatur, nec so adversus injustam violentiam vestram, quamvis nimius & copiosus noster sit populus, ulliscitur.  Cyprian, in his Book to Demetrianus, tells him, That they let themselves be apprehended without Resistance, nor endeavoured to revenge the Injuries they suffered, although they were very copious in their Numbers, and more than enough for the Heathens. About Fifty years after this again in the Reign of Dioclesian, Christianity was become the General Religion of the Empire, 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb, l. 8. c. 1. &. c. 4.  when the Christians met every where in infinite numbers, and built large and spacious Churches in all Cities, and still increased more and more, insomuch that the 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. de Mart. Palaest. c. 9  Temples of the Idols were every where desolate, and the Emperor, being awed by the greatness of their Numbers, durst scarce venture upon a Persecution.  
This was the State of Christianity before the Dioclesian Persecution, to which Constantine put an happy End, who, as Gregory saith of his Son Constantius, Set his Heart upon nothing so much as to see the Christians flourish, and to have all the Advantages of Glory and Power. He reigned alone 30 years, and Constantius 24, which make up 54 years, in which time Christianity became the Religion both of the Emperors, and the Empire; the Cross was made the imperial Standard, and Paganism lay every where languishing in the Cities, the Country, and the Camp.  
This very consideration made 
(†) 1 Invect. p. 80.  Gregory deride the Design which Julian had to extirpate the Christian Religion, as former Emperors had endeavoured to do. The most wise, and best Emperor (saith he ironically) did not consider, that in former Persecutions, the Confusion, and Disorder was but little, because the Christian Religion, was not propagated among the Multitude, being professed but by a few, and not having had the Lustre it now hath: But now, that it is diffused every where, and Reigns so powerfully among us, 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to attempt to change and overthrow it, would be to shake, and hazard the Roman Empire, and to suffer from ourselves a worse Mischief, than our Enemies can wish us.  
Therefore if the Christians in the former times of Severus, Decius, and Dioclesian, who yet were enough to resist the Forces of the Roman Empire, were counted by Gregory, but a few, in comparison to the Christians who stood firm in the time of Julian; and if Christianity had then so diffused and propagated itself, that it could not be extirpated without the Subversion of the Roman Empire, Let any man of common Reason, Judge, whether the Professors of Christianity in julian's time, were a small, and defenceless Number, not able to resist. This is so far wide of the real Truth, that the same Gregory tells us, That 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Invect. p. 99 80.  there were two things more especially, about which Julian was most solicitous, the Galilaeans, as he reproachfully called the Christians, and the Persians, who stoutly persisted in War; but his Design against the Galilaeans seemed so much the greater Undertaking, and did so much take up his Thoughts, that he counted the War with the Persians, but a Trifle, and a Sport in comparison to that. This was said of Julian, after he had done his worst to tempt the Christians to Apostasy by Rewards, Honours, and Preferments, when he made preparations against the Persians; and indeed he had reason to look upon the Design of reducing the Christians, as abundantly more difficult, than conquering the Persians, having in a few months' time met with so many desperate Experiments of Christian Sufferance, Fortitude, and Contempt of Perferments, not only among the Churchmen, and Citizens, but even in the Camp. For when he was made Emperor, the Roman Legions were in a manner all Christians, 
(†) Theod. l. 3. c. 3.  Constantine having taken special care, to get them instructed in the Christian Religion, and his Sons after him to confirm them in it; in particular Constantius, called his whole Army together, before he gave Battle to Magnentius, and told them, That the term of Life was incertain, especially in War, and therefore exhorted them all, to be forthwith Baptised; and moreover told them, That no Unbaptized person should continue in his Service.  
This is the Reason why Julian 
(‖) Amm. Mar. l. 21. c. 2. Zonar. Tom. 3. p. 19 Theodor. l. 3. c. 3.  feigned himself to be a Christian, till after the death of Constantius, fearing lest his own Army should revolt from him, and that of Constantius refuse him for their Emperor, being both almost all Christians. But after he was firm in the Throne, he tempted the Soldiers by all Arts, especially by Rewards and Preferments, to quit their Religion, but in this he was not so Successful, as he hoped to be. For when at the Solemn time of giving Donatives, he ordered the Ceremony after the old Custom, that every one as he came to receive his Donative should Sacrifice to the Gods, 
(†) L. 5. c. 17.  Some (saith Sozomen) showed their courage openly, and would neither Sacrifice, nor receive any Gifts of the Emperor, others being deceived with the specious pretence of old Custom, did not consider what they did; others again being baited with the sight of the Gold, and surprised with Fear and Confusion at the Sight of this New Scene, did not decline to Sacrifice, though they knew it was a Pagan Rite; and of those, who ignorantly did so, some came back again to the Emperor, when they knew what they had done, and begged him to take back his Gold, and put them to death. But before he attempted the Army, he had 
(†)" 1 Invect. p. 75.  reform his own Household, killing, or removing all those, who continued Faithful to Christ; but after he had done all that he could, very near 
(‖) Ibid.  half the Army still remained Christians, of whom Gregory speaking by allusion, saith, That there remained above seven thousand, who would not bow their knees to Baal, nor worship the Golden Image, among which there were many both of the 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib.  greatest Commanders, and of the Common Soldiers too.  
From hence it is plain, that when Julian had done all that he could, still almost half his Army, Officers and common Soldiers too, were Professed Christians, which made St. 
(‖) Enarr. in Psalm 124.  Aug. who remembered the times of Julian, say of him, Julian was an Infidel Emperor, nay, was he not an Apostate, and unjust, and an Idolater? and yet the Christian Soldiers served under this Infidel Emperor. And as for the revolting part of the Army, they were only Counterfeit Revolters, who waited for an Opportunity to declare Christians again, as is plain from the Answer, which they gave to Jovian, 
(†) Theodor. l. 4. c. 1. Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. Socrat. l. 3. c. 22.  who telling them freely upon his Election, That he would not put on the Royal Purple because he was a Christian, nor command such men, who were imbued with Pagan Principles, they all cried out, We are Christians, and make no doubt, O Emperor, to undertake the Conduct of us, for you shall be Emperor of Christians, bred up in the Holy Faith, the oldest of us under Constantine, and the rest, under Constantius, and the short Reign of him, who now lies dead, was not sufficient to strike the Infection deep into the Minds of those that were deceived.  
This was the State of julian's Army, which consisted in a manner wholly of professing Christians, and counterfeit Apostates from Christianity, of whose Dissimulation the professing part could not be ignorant, if they had had a mind to Rebel. But besides the open, and concealed Christians that were in julian's Army, there were many Great and Popular Men among the Legions turned out of their Employments, as Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, who might have set up the Holy Standard, which Julian had taken down, and soon have got an Army of Christians, if julian's Christian Soldiers, or Subjects barbarously used as they were, had thought it lawful to Rebel.  
The two former especially, had such interest in julian's own Army, that they were successively chosen Emperors by it within 8 Months after his death; and considering how spitefully the whole Christian Clergy had been used by Julian, the Christians outraged by the Heathens, the Christian Soldiers discontented, so many Christian Cities disfranchised, and such brave and noble Commanders to head the Numberless Sufferers of all sorts, it is most absurd to ascribe their Peaceable and Suffering Behaviour to want of Strength, Numbers, or Opportunity; and difficult to imagine, had they thought Resistance Lawful, but that having all these Advantages, they should at least have attempted to Rebel.  
How easy had it been for Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, and other disbanded Commanders, to have filled all the corners of the Empire with Declarations, and Remonstrances against Julian, and to have addressed themselves to their Fellow Christian Subjects to this purpose:  
To all the Suffering, and Oppressed Christians of the Roman Empire, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, etc. Send Greeting.  
WE having taken into Consideration the Sad and deplorable Condition of the Christians throughout the Roman Empire under the Reign of this Tyrant, and Apostate, and utter Enemy of Christ, do resolve, by God's Assistance, to rise up against him in Defence of ourselves, and our Holy Religion; and send forth this our Declaration to all the Provinces of both Empires, to invite our Fellow-soldiers and Subjects to join with us, and to giye them satisfaction why we have broken all the Measures by which the Ancient and Suffering Christians have gone in former Persecutions.  
The plain Truth of the matter is, 
P. 68, 69, 70, 71, etc.  their Case and ours differs very much, and we are in quite other Circumstances, than the former Christians were. For when this Apostate came to the Crown, he found us in full and quiet possession of our Religion, which we and our Fathers had enjoyed for above Fifty years, and which is so inestimable a Blessing, that we shall plainly undervalue it, if we do not our best to keep it. But the former Christians were born to Persecution, they neither knew better, nor expected it; they professed their Religion, as in some places they propound new Laws, with Halters about their Necks; for the Laws of the Empire were always in force against them, though not always put in Execution; and the Edge of the Axe stood always towards them, though it were not at all times stained with their Blood. They perpetually lay at the mercy of their Enemies; their Religion at the best was in the World but upon sufferance, as Abraham was in the Land of Canaan, where he had none Inheritance, not so much as to set his Foot on.  
But as his afflicted Posterity were afterwards Lords of that Country, so after another Egyptian Bondage, Christianity was advanced by Constantine of Blessed Memory, to be the Religion of the Empire: Never any man in this World set his Heart so much upon any thing, as he did to see the Christians flourish, and to have all the Advantages of Glory and Power; and we hope that all men, who value the Establishment of their Religion, at this rate will not easily part with it. We hope they will not let Julian, who by his Baptism first, and by entering into Orders after, and by his going to Church after that, sufficiently engaged himself to maintain Christianity, dispossess them of their Freehold: No, it is an unsupportable Injury. Consider, we beseech you, is there no difference between being turned out as Sheep among Wolves, which was the Deplorable, but unavoidable case of the first Christians, and being worried by one of their own Flock? Hath a man no more Right, nor Privilege, after he is Naturalised, than when he was a Stranger, or Alien, or accounted an Enemy? Do not the same Laws, which forbidden men to invade other men's Rights, enable them to maintain, and defend their own? These are the plain and palpable differences between the State of the former Christians, and us; They suffered according to the Laws of their Country, whereas we are persecuted contrary to Law: And the Gospel only requires Passive Obedience from Christians when the Laws are against them, and when the Laws of the Land make it death to profess Christianity, then, and then only we are to lay down our Lives for Christ's sake.  
Therefore we cannot but much wonder at such men, who trouble the World with the unseasonable Prescription of Prayers and Tears, and the Passive Obedience of the Thebaean Legion in the last Persecution, which were proper only at such times, when the Laws of the Empire were armed against our Religion. But what have we to do with the Thebaean Legion now? Blessed be God, who hath made the difference between us, and the former Christians: Poor men, they died as Glorious Martyrs in respect of their Religion, yet they died as Criminals and Malefactors in the Eye of the Law. But we shall plainly throw away our Lives, if we practise any such Passive Obedience, who have the Laws on our side: Nay, we justly deserve to be so used as the Thebaean Legion was, and moreover, to be loaded with the Curses of all Posterity, if we suffer ourselves to be brought into that Condition. Away then with the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears, and the unseasonable Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which makes the World for the Cutthroats of Julian, and our Throats the Perquisites of their Places: It is not now essential to the Gospel to be a Suffering Religion, that is an Evil which only attends it in bad times, when the Laws are against it, as in the Neronian, Decian, and Dioclesian Persecutions, when the Christians quietly submitted to the Laws; but all this is nothing to us, who may pursue Julian like a Midnight Thief, or Highway Robber.  
Consider what he hath done, and what he hath suffered to be done, not only without, but against Law. Remember what hath been done at Ascalon and Gaza; remember Georgius of Alexandria, and Marcus of 
(‖) 1 Invect. p. 91.  Arethusa; remember Theodorus at Antioch, and upon what sham's he put our Fellow-soldiers Artemius, Juventinus, and Maximus to death. Remember his Mockery, and Reproaches, and Blasphemies against Christ; all these things call upon us to defend ourselves and our Religion against him: And upon the forementioned Considerations have we taken Arms, and are ready like Moses, Othniel, and Gideon, to be Captains over those that will join with us; and we hope that God, for whom we fight, will give Success to our Arms  
But instead of Remonstrating at this rate upon the Principles of our Author, or making the least attempt to resist, they, and the rest of the disbanded Officers and Soldiers, together with all the Christians of the Empire, followed the Example of the former Christians, in patiently suffering, as Martyrs, and Confessors for Jesus Christ. There never was greater Examples of Passive Obedience, than in the short Reign of Julian, whose Christian Subjects, and Soldiers, though far more numerous, than in any Age before them, not only patiently endured many grievous Miseries, but, what was the most provoking and grievous of all Miseries, they daily heard and saw themselves, their Religion, and their Blessed Saviour most blasphemously scorned and reviled. Though he was an Apostate that was their Persecutor, and had their Religion like a Treasure wrested out of their hands; by one that had been bred in the Bosom of the Church; yet all the Armour they used against him, were the old Primitive Arms of Prayers and Tears.  
This was so evident to our Author, especially out of Gregory's Invectives, that contrary to his own knowledge, he would rather put it upon the Score of their Defenseless Condition, like the Writers among the Jesuits, than let it pass for the genuine Effect of their Christian Faith, and Patience, as it really was. Here (saith 
(‖) 1 Invect. p. 52.  Gregory) my Oration exults for joy, and calls all Christians unto this Spiritual Dance, both those who have addicted themselves to Fasting, Weeping, and Prayers, begging day, and night for a Redress of our present grievous Calamaties, and a seasonable Remedy to our Evils, being strengthened with Hope, which maketh not ashamed: And those, who having endured great Conflicts, and Sufferings, and been wounded with many and grievous Outrages of these Times, were made a Spectacle, as the Apostle saith, to the World, to Angels, and to Men; and who being broken, and made Cripples in their Bodies, kept their Souls upright, and invincible, being able to endure all things through Christ that strengthened them: As also those, who quitting all worldly greatness, and occasion of Sin, and receiving the loss of their goods with Joy, or being banished injuriously from their Country, or separated for a short time from their Husbands, or Wives, or Parents, or Children, or other dear Relations, bring forth the Fruit of sufferings for Christ by virtue of the Blood of Christ, and may fitly say, or sing that of the Psalmist, Thou hast caused men to ride over our Heads, we went through Fire, and through Water, but thou hast brought us into a Wealthy Place.  
If Mr. J. search all the Ecclesiastical Records, he will scarce find any one Passage, which more emphatically sets forth the Prayers, and Tears, and Sufferings of the former Christians, than this doth those of the Christian Subjects of Julian, though they were so strong, and numerous, and he the worst of Tyrants, who persecuted contrary to Law. Nay, it was the Maxim of the Christians then, as well as in former Ages, that Tears (which imply Prayers) were the only remedy against persecuting Princes; for (saith 
(†) 1 Invect. p. 91.  Gregory) this thundering Gregory, speaking how Julian designed worse Evils against the Christians, than ever Dioclesian, or Maximian thought of, But he was restrained by the Mercy of God, and the Tears of the Christians, which many of them shed in great abundance, 〈◊〉 this only Remedy against the Persecutor. And in 
(‖) Ib. p. 73.  another place, speaking of the Satisfaction, which the Christians than had in their private Sufferings, when Julian envied them the Glory of a Formal Martyrdom, It is more pleasant (saith he) to the Christians to suffer for their Religion, though no man should know of it, than it was for Aristaeus, Empedocles, Trophonius, and such wretched Pagans, to acquire Glory by Impiety, because we are not concerned to please men, but all our desire is to be approved, and honoured of God. Nay, doth he not show at large in his 2d. 
(†) p. 123, 124.  Invective, how the Christians betook themselves to Prayer against Julian, their Hope in God being their only Weapons, and Wall, and every other Defence, as being deprived and cut off from all Humane Assistance; not for want of Strength and Numbers, [for as I have showed, almost all the People, and half of the Army were professed Christians] but by the Principles of their Suffering Religion, which allowed Subjects no other Remedy against Persecuting Sovereigns, but Patience, Prayers, and Tears. Had they thought Resistance Lawful, it had been very easy for the professed Christian part of the Army, especially with the Assistance of the concealed Christians, to have delivered the Church from the Execrable Tyrant; but instead of that, they only put up Prayers against him, which 
(‖) Invert. ●8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gregory told him, would stop his Blasphemous Mouth, although he might strut it for a while, and be siffered with his Devils to act the Tragedy of his Impieties; Instead of that, as St. 
(†) Loc. supra Cit— Quando autem dicebat, producite ac●em, ite en●ra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant, distingucbant dominum aeternum a domino temporali, & tamen subditi erant propter dominum aeternum etiam domino temporali. Et vero quam obsequiosoes seize Juliano Christiani milites praebuerint, elegantissimo Augustini testimonio docemur. Jacob. Gotofred. in Oratione 2. Julianus nuncupatâ.  Augustin observed, They marched at his Command against the Enemy, being Subject to their Temporal, for the sake of their Eternal Lord. They were not ignorant of his Spite and Malice against Christ, and the Christians, they knew all the Evil he had done, and all that he intended to do against them, and yet they were as Faithful and Obedient to him, as ever they had been to their old Masters Constantine, and Constantius, although he was the first Apostate Tyrant, and, as our Author will have it, persecuted contrary to Law. 
(‖) Preface p. 26.  Mr. J. hath done all he could to put a Slur upon this eminent Instance of Christian Subjection, and Obedience unto Julian: As for th●se Soldiers (saith he) fight under Julian against the Persians, or other common Enemies of the Empire,— and obeying the Word of Command, when they received his pay, it is such a low part of honesty, that any man may pretend unto it; if I had been there a Soldier of Fortune, I should have done the same. But their fight under Julian against the Persians, and obeying the Word of Command, is not all for which they were cited by 
(‖) Sermon p 15.  Dr. H. but that they did not resist the Tyrant, when they were in such a Posture of Resistance, that they did not so much as draw their Swords against him, under the Specious Pretence of defending their Religion, and preventing the extirpation of it: And now their Example becomes yet more exemplary upon Mr. J's Assertion, for which the Dr. is bound to thank him, That Julian persecuted contrary to Law. It seems neither the Defence of their Laws, nor Religion, nor Fellow-Christians, nor the preventing the Effusion of Innocent Blood, could make them resist the worst of Tyrants: And I appeal to all that have read his Book, whether it is probable, that he, would have done the same, he that hath burlesqued the Doctrine of the Cross, He that hath said that 
(†) P. 88  Passive Obedience is a Doctrine fit to turn a Nation into a Shambles, and enough to invite Tyranny and Cruelty into the World. Lastly, he that hath 
(‖) P. 87.  said in his own name, and the name of some Potential Legions, Through the Grace of God, though we cannot hinder the Papists from being Idolaters, we will endeavour to keep them from being Murderers, they shall not have that to Answer for too. Doth this sound like a man that would have been an Obedient Soldier to Julian? It is more reasonable to believe he would have been the Soldier that struck the Javelin into his Side.  
Perhaps Mr. J. may think, that I am very fond of the Army of Julian; If I am, he hath made me so, by so undervaluing their Exemplary Patience, and Subjection under the Tyrant, and shamming of it off, as he hath done. And if the Behaviour of Juventinus and Maximus, and of the Soldiers, who ignorantly sacrificed, may be a sufficient ground for conjecture, I must further tell him, we may well presume, that the Christian Legions of Julian rather than resist, would have died Martyrs, like the Thebaean Legion, with their Swords by their Sides. Besides what I have said of the latter in the 3d. Chap. I must here tell him again out of 
(†) Lib. 3. c. 17.  Theodoret, That after they had brought back their Gold to Julian, and desired him to purge them by Fire, he was so enraged at them, that he commanded them to be beheaded; and as they were led out of the City to the place of Execution, a great multitude followed them, admiring their Courage and Boldness in suffering for their Religion. When they were come to the place of Execution, the Senior of them desired the Hangman to behead the Youngest first, lest he seeing the Execution of the others, should be frighted by it. But as he laid down his Head, and the Hangman had drawn his Sword, one came with a Pardon, and forbidden the Execution, (for Julian envied them the Glory of Martyrdom) but the young Soldier being sorry, that he was saved, said, I see Romanus is not worthy to be a Martyr of Jesus Christ. What Fools were these to 
(‖) P. 75.  throw away their Lives, certainly they were weary of them to practise such Passive Obedience, and with such Gallantry too, when the Laws were not against them? Had they not b●●ter have gone to their Fellow-soldiers, and conjured them by the Great Name of Constantine, and Constantius, to rise up against that enormous Tyrant, and Apostate, who had broken all the Laws, laid aside the Holy Standard, polluted all things and places with Idolatrous Nidor and Sprinklings, and hated, and blasphemed the Name of Christ. I am confident, were our Author, or his Admirers, to answer for them, they would say, they sold have done so, Because their case, was quite different from the former Christians, whose Religion at best was but upon Sufferance, but theirs was become the Established Religion of the Empire. But poor men as they were, they had learned no such Distinctions, they practised the Doctrine of the Cross, like other Doctrines of the Gospel, in Gospel-Simplicity, and were content to die as Martyrs for their Religion, when they were not Criminals in the Eye of the Law. Nay, there is nothing more evident in the 
(‖) Naz. 1 Invect. p. 74. Socr. l. 3. c. 12. Sozom. l. 5. c. 4. 15, 17, 20. Theod. l. 3. c. 11, 17. 1 Invect. p. 72, 82, 86. Chrysost. hom. in Juvent. & Max.  Ecclesiastical Writers, than that the main ground of the Christians Displeasure against Julian was this, That he would not Formally persecute them, nor put them to death enough. Had he but persecuted in the Decian and Dioclesian Fashion, he would have pleased them better; but they were very angry at him, that he was a 
(†) Vid. Jac. Gotofredi Julianum p. 58, 59  Tempter more than a Persecutor, and that, like some Hunters, he catched them with Snares, and Nets, when he could not take them by Force. This 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Invect. 1 p. 74.  seeming Getleness of his, they hated worse than down right Cruelty, of which, though he exercised enough, yet they would have had him exerise an hundred times more. They hated him for stealing Persecutions upon them, and for envying them the Glory, and the Church the Benefit of Martyrdom; and he knew the Temper of his Christian Subjects so well, that (as it is cited before) he said, they would fly to Martyrdom, like Bees unto an Hive. He knew they would rather die, than resist him; he knew that Passive Obedience was their Principle, and this made him so secure of them, and so bold to abuse them, their Religion, and their Saviour, although they were so Numerous, That 
(†) Sozom. l. 5. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  the Magistrates in every City, were scarce able to take the Numbers of those that refused to Sacrifice. I reserved this Authority till now, to show there was no general defection among them, and to answer that Passage of Asterius, which our unanswerable Author hath cited out of his Sermon against Convetousness; Quantus ab Ecclesiâ ad Altaria factus est concursus? quam multi per honorum escas & illecebras unà cum ips● [Juliano] Apostasiae hamum devor ârunt: This the Father spoke not as an Historian, but as a Preacher, lamenting the Fall of those few, who are tempted by Preferments and Money, to deny Christ. I say of those few, who yet were too many, though they had no proportion to the Numberless Numbers of those, who stood firm. This is plain from the very next words of the good Father, Qui nunc quidam stigma●ici civitatis oberrant, omnibus odio, ac ludibrio habiti, tanquam Christi domini propter pauxillum argentum proditores, expuncti Christianorum albo sicut Judas Apost●lorum, Apostatarum appellatione noti. It seems they were comparatively but a few, when they were known like Stigmatised Persons in all Cities; but it is not unusual for our Author to omit, or conceal such Passages in Authors, as best serve to let the World see, how much he wrists them from their Genuine Sense. This I showed before out of Eusebius, Eumenius, etc. And I desire him to consider, what a worthy Prelate said of that, which he saith is my Lord 
(†) P. 51, 91.  Hollis his Book, That if he might use the Scriptures, as that Author hath used the Records, he could prove there was no God, for leave ou● The Fool hath said in his Heart, and then it follows, ●●ere is no God.  
And now let the Impartial Reader Judge, what Reason so many men had to cry up Julian for an unanswerable Book, besides their Inclinations to have it so? Or why that Noble Lord should carry it in his Pocket for a Jewel, and swear by his Creator, That he would give the Author of it, the best Parsonage in his Gift? It was sworn like the Son of such a Loyal Father; and if indeed his Lordship's best Parsonage must be the Reward of his Pains, much Good do'● him, it is better worth than Thirty Pieces of Silver, but I am confident none of those, who have thundered so much of late with the Thebaean Legion, would have been the Authors of Julian, for his Lordship's whole Estate.  
But see the Difference of men; Mr. J. notwithstanding is very fond of it, it is his Firstborn, his Might, and his Strength, and so very like him, that he hath Reason to Dote upon it, and may be excused for taking of it ill from his Bookseller, that he did not put his Name unto it. By the Bookseller I do not mean Langley Curtis on Ludgate-Hill, who is the Honester Man of the two, but him, That kept the Books in his Back-Shop, and of whom (I presume) Mr. J. learned (for he was best able to tell) That my Lord Hollis was the Author of the Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend, showing, That the Bishops are not to be Judges in Parliament in Capital Cases. This Book was privately Printed by the same Man in 1679, just against the Parliament was to Meet, but it pleased God they were Dissolved; and by that time another sat down, the Writers Candour, and Veracity were effectually discovered by the most Learned, and Worthy Author of the Grand Question, who hath been a Blessing to the Age, and Obliged it by his many Learned Works.   

CHAP. IX. Showing, That the Former Christians before the time of Julian Suffered as much, or more than Julian's Subjects did, not only without, but Contrary to Law.  
HAving showed at large, how the Subjects of Julian, and more especially his Soldiers, suffered with most Exemplary Patience, when they were in a very probable Capacity to resist, I proceed to show, That there was no such Difference betwixt the Sufferings of the Former Christians, and them, as our Author pretends there was, p. 71. where he positively tells his Reader, That the First Christians suffered according to the Laws of their Country, whereas those under Julian were persecuted Contrary to Law.  
It will very much enervate the Strength of his Book to discover the Falseness of his Assertion, and therefore upon his own Supposition, That the Christian Subjects of Julian were oppressed in a very Illegal way, I shall make it appear, that the Former Christians were oppressed in the same manner, not only without, but against Law. First then, Did Julian put the Christians to death upon sham's, and pretended Crimes of Treason, etc. as our Author speaks? So did the Former Persecutors too, as 
(†) Agmen nunc claudat fictum, utque omnium accusationum complementum, seditionis, tumultûs, rebellionis, majestatisque crimen, unicum & alias saepe crimen eorum, qui crimine vacant. Fuit haec scilicèt, ut anteriorum principum & persecutorum ita Juliani potissima●, Christianos eorumque antistites in haec crimina convenir●.—  Gotofred observes in his Julianus. 
(‖) Tacit. Annal. l. 15. c. 44. Qui se●●am mentiuntur ad S●●p. 4.  Nero, the first Persecutor of the Church, laid the Burning of Rome (of which he himself was the Author) to the Charge of the Christians, and punished them with most exquisite Torments, upon that Account. 
(†) Euseb. l. 4. c. 7. Minut. Felix. Tertull. Apol. 2. & 9  The grievous Crimes of Incest, and Murder, and of being public Enemies of the Empire, were laid to the charge of the whole 
(*) Divina Secta. Tertul. Ap. 37.  Sect; and they were ordinarily put to death as certainly guilty of them, without any further Process at Law. This Tertullian complains of in his time, when they were so Numerous, as is showed in the last Chapter, and in a Condition very able to resist; and afterwards in the Dioclesian Persecution when they were yet more Numerous. 
(‖) Lactant de Mort. persecut. c. 14.  Maximinus Caesar privately fired the Emperor's Palace in Nicomedia, and accused the Christians of the Household for doing of it, which so enraged the Emperor, that he caused them all to be put to death. From hence it is plain, that Julian, though he was a Fox, yet he was not the First who found out the way of putting the Christians to death upon sham's; he was not the first, that dressed up Accusations of Treason and Sacrilege against them; and therefore, as they did not, so they had no reason, to break the Measures of Passive Obedience, by which the mo● Ancient, and Suffering Christians had gone in former times.  
But 2dly, Did the Heathens outrage the Christians in Julian's Reign, and did he underhand direct and encourage them to act such Tragedies upon them? So they did in former Ages, not only using great Cruelties unto the Living Christians, by Stoning and Burning of them, but also by digging up their Dead Bodies, and Tearing, and Mangling of them in Pieces, against the most 
(‖) Inst. l. 2. Tit. 1. De rerum divisione 9  Sacred Laws of the Roman Empire, when, as 
(†) Apol. 37. Quoties etiam, praeteritis vebis, suo jure nos inimic●m vulgus invadit lapidibus & incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis, nee mortuis parcunt Christianis, quin illos de requie sepulture, de Asylo quodam mertis, jam alios, jam nec totos a vellant, dissecent, distrahant. Quid tamen unquam denotastis de tam conspiratis, de tam animatis ad mortem usque pro injuria repensatum, quando vel una no● paucis faculis largitur ultionis posset operari, si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret.  Tertullian saith, they could have easily revenged themselves, if they would. It was utter Impunity, and the Connivance of the Governors, that made the Heathens in this Barbarous and Insolent manner insult it over the former Christians, against the Laws of the Empire; and therefore the same sort of Illegal Violence and Oppression, could be no special reason to the Christians under Julian, to alter their Behaviour, or break the Gospel-Measures of Christian Patience, in which their Predecessors had possessed their Souls. No, they followed their Example, as they followed Christ's; and practised this Slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience, even then, when they saw the Execrable Heathens rip up their Fellow-Christians, and taste their Livers, and stuff their Bodies with Barley, and throw them to be devoured by Swine, or anoint them over with Oil and Honey, to expose them to Bees, Wasps, and Hornets; nay Sacrifice them upon their Altars, unto the Devils, whom they worshipped for Gods.  
But in the 3d. place, Did Julian, as our Author saith, persecute the Christians contrary to Law? So did Former Emperors, and Governors much more, for as Tertullian observes, If Christianity was a Crime, they were tortured not like other Malefactors, to confess, but to deny it, contrary to the End, for which Torture, not only in the Roman Empire, but in all other Governments, was used. The common Reason why Torture was instituted was, to force Stubborn Malefactors to confess the Crimes for which they were suspected, and accused; but clean contrary to this end they tortured 
(†) Christianum hominum omnium scelerum reum deorum, Imperatorum, legum, morum, naturae totius inimicum existimas, & cogis, negare ut absolvas, quem non p●t●ris absolvere nisi negaverit. Praevaricaris in leges— torquemur confitentes, & absolvimur negantes. Hoc sum, quod quaeris an s●m? quid me torques? confiteor, & torques, quid faceres, s●●negarem.  Christians to make them deny: And could there be any thing more absurd or illegal, than to Rack those Criminals, who had already confessed the Charge, and acquit those, who denied it? They accounted the Christians the worst of Malefactors, public Enemies of the Gods, and the Emperor; and yet when they had confessed the Crime, they would torture them, to retract their Confessions, and then set them Free.  
The Reason of these Partial, Absurd, and Unjust Proceed against them, was, the same Father observes, That they were punished for the 
(†) Non scelus aliquod in causa est, sed nomen.  Name of Christian, and therefore the Confessing, or Denying of themselves to be Christians, made them Guilty or Innocent of Murder, and many other presumptive Crimes. But if they persevered in their Confession, then in the second place, they were condemned forthwith as Murderers, etc. against one of the Laws of the 12 Tables, and one of the Fundamental Laws not only of the Empire, but of all Civil Governments, 
(‖) Si certum est nos nocentissimos esse, cur à vobis ipsis aliter tractamur, quam pares nostri, id est, caeteri nocentes, cum ejusdem n●xietatis eadem tractatio debet intervenire. Quodcunque decimur, cum alii dicuntur, & proprio ore, & mercenariâ advocatione ad innocentiae suae commendationem, respondendi, altercandi facultas patet, quando nec liceat inoffensos, & inauditos damnari, sed Christianis solis nihil permittitur loqui, quid causam purget, quod veritatem defendat, quod judicem non faciat injustum.— In omnibus nos alitèr dispenitis, quàm caeteros nocentes.—  without being heard.  
All other Malefactors had the liberty of defending their Lives, and the benefit of Counsel, but the Christians only were denied the privilege of their Birthright, being condemned in a most Arbitrary and Tyrannical manner to death for 
(†) Praesumptis non probatis criminibus de suâ solà confession damnatur— cum praesumatis de secleribus nostris ex nominis confession.  Presumed Crimes, of which there was made no Proof. This made the Father, who himself was bred a Lawyer, expostulate with the Governors of the Empire, about the Illegality of their Proceed, and tell them, That if it was the same thing to be guilty of Murder, and Incest, and to be a public Enemy of the Empire, as to be a Christian, than they should 
(‖) Quid de tabellâ recitatis illum Christianum cur non & homicidam?—  Indict every Christian of Murder, and Incest by his proper Name, and prove the Indictment against him, and not presume that the Title of a Christian implies all those Crimes. I say he expostulates with them very warmly about the 
(†) Suspecta sit vobis ista perversitas, ne qua vis lateat in occulto, quae vos adversus formam, adversus naturam Judicandi, contra ipsas quoque leges ministret. Nisi enim fallor, leges malos erui jubent, non abscondi, confessos damnari praescribunt non absolvi, hoc senatus consulta, hoc principum mandata definiunt. Hoc Imperium cujus ministri estis civilis non tyrannica dominatio est.  Illegality of their Proceed against the Christians, and I have put his Expressions in the Margin, on purpose that our Author and his Admirers may consider them, and thereby be convinced, that the Primitive Christians did practise the Slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience in that Sense, wherein, 
(‖) Preface p. 8.  he saith, It is not Evangelical, but Mahometan, and the very Turkish Doctrine of the Bowstring, as it is taught, and prescribed both without, and against Law.  
For the Bowstring in Turkey is not more Unjust, Tyrannical, and Destructive, than this way of proceeding against the Christians was, which the Apologist tells the Judges, was against the Constitution of the Empire, the Acts of the Senate, and the Mandates of the Emperors; and this plainly implies, That Severus, who then was Emperor, had made no such Orders for their proceeding against the Christians: For if they had proceeded so against them in Obedience to his Pleasure, there had been no ground for such a particular, and smart Charge upon them, nor indeed for writing his Apology to any but the Emperor himself, to show him the Injustice of such Laws.  
But the Father wrote his Apology to the Governors, and Judges of the Roman Empire, to whose care the Emperor had left the Civil Administration, being wholly taken up himself in Wars; and besides, he was a great 
(‖) Ad Scapulam. 4. Ipse etiam Severus christianorum memor fuit, nam & proculum Christianum, qui eum per oleum aliquando curaverat, requisivit, & in palatio suo habuit, usque ad mortem ejus.— & clarissimas faeminas, & clarissimos viros sciens hujus sectae esse, non modo non laesit, verum et testimonio exornavit, & populo furenti in nos palam restitit.  Favourer of the Christians, as the same Author tells us; and therefore the Persecution under him, as it seems to me, ought rather to be ascribed to his Governors, or perhaps to Plantianus, his great Favourite, who was an Enemy to the Christians, and had the ascendent so much over him, that he durst accuse the Empress before him; and as 
(†) Xiph. lib. 21 p. 413, 414.  Dio observes, was more Emperor than Herald  
But what the Christians suffered now contrary to Law, was but a Flea-biting, as it were, to what was done against them in the Reign of Galerius Maximianus, who Tyrannised contrary to Law. For though, as I have showed in the Second Chapter, the Emperor had absolute Power over his Subjects Lives, and Estates, as to do what he pleased to particular Persons, or Parties of Men, yet he had no Right to Enslave the whole People, by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government, from a 
(‖) Hoc Imperium, cujus ministri estis, civilis non tyrannica dominatio est. Tert. loc. cit.  Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion, or from a Government, wherein the People had Liberty, and Property, into such a Government as the Persian was, and the Turkish now is, where the Subjects are the Prince's Family, and all that they have is his by Law. In this sort of Government all the Subjects, or the whole People, are formal Slaves by Law; and it differs almost as much from an absolute Civil Monarchy, as an absolute Civil Monarchy doth from a limited Civil Monarchy, because the Subjects in such a Government, are born their Prince's Slaves, and not to Liberty and Freehold, as in Civil Governments they are; where though the Prince be absolute, and have Power over the Lives, and Fortunes of his Subjects, yet his personal Orders by which he touches this, or that, or these or those men, are not 
(†) Quae nec ad exemplum trahuntur. Inst. l. 1. Tit. 2.  drawn into precedent, nor affect his other Subjects, not 
(‖) Personam non transgreditur. Ib.  going further than the person, or persons, about whom they are made. The Exercise of this Power, which Absolute Princes have in Civil Monarchies is not counted Ordinary, but Extraordinary, nor so much Legal, as Supra legal; but in Tyrannical Governments, where the Subjects are the Princes Personal Estate, this Despotic Power is the Ordinary Law, and the Subjects are Perfect, and Actual Slaves.  
Now Galerius, as 
(‖) De Mort. Persecut. 21. Adeptus igitur maximam potestatem ad vexandum orbem animum intendit. Nam post devictas Persas, quorum hic ritus, hic mos est, ut regibus suis in servitium se addicant, & reges populo suo, tanquam familiâ utantur, hunc morem nefarius homo in Romanam terram voluit inducere, quem ex illo tempore victoriae sine pudore laudabat. Et quia id aperté jubere non poterat, sic agebat, ut & ipse libertatem hominibus auferret. Vid. & Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.  Lactantius tells us, after he had conquered the Persians, attempted to introduce the Slavish Persian Government (which he used to commed) into the Roman Empire, & because he had not Power to Enact such an Alteration, yet he treated his Subjects in the Persian manner, as if they had been born his Slaves. He tortured, and crucified the most Honourable and Gallant Men every where like Malefactors and Slaves; he ravished the most 
(†) Matres-familias ingentes, ac nobiles in Gynaecaeum rapiebantur. Ibid.  Noble Matrons, and took them from their own Husbands to put them in his Seraglio: His Ordinary Recreations were, to see Men devoured by huge Bears, which he kept for the purpose, and to laugh at the tearing of their Limbs; and he never Supped without Killing a Man. The Islands, Prisons, and the Quarries he esteemed but light Punishments; nay Beheadding itself was accounted a Favour; and Burning, Crucifying, and being devoured by Wild Beasts, were the easiest deaths, which he did Inflict. As for his Domestics, the Lance, was their ordinary Reprimand: In a word (†) he dissolved the Laws, 
(‖) Eloquentia extincta, causidici sublati, Juris Consulti, aut relegati, aut necati. Literae autem inter malas art● habitae, & qui eas n●verant pro inimicis, hostibusque protriti, & execrati. Licentia rerum omnium, solutis legibus, assump●● & judicibus dat●. Judices Militares humanitatis literarum rudes, sine adsessoribus, in provincias immissi. Ib.  forbidden all Pleading, banished, or killed the Lawyers, and instead of Learned Men, made his rude Soldiers, who were utterly ignorant of Law, and Learning, sole Judges over the Provinces, and gave them Power to do what they pleased.  
To conclude, 
(‖) Ibd. c. 23.  He made all men's Estates be surveyed, and the Number of their cattle, Vines, and Timber-trees be taken, and had all Cities, Villages, and Families numbered by the Pole; nay for fear any man should conceal any thing he had, he most illegally ordered Servants to be tortured against their Masters, and Wives against their Husbands, and if no discovery came that way, he ordered all sorts of men to be tortured in person to discover the utmost Penny they were worth. And lest any man under the pretence of being a Beggar should escape Tax-free, against all the Laws of the Empire, and of Humanity, he caused all the Beggars every where to be seized, and to be put aboard on little Vessels, and sunk into the Sea. In short, he filled the Provinces with Lamentation, and Mourning, and used his Subjects, as if they had been his Captives in War; and had the Sultan of Persia conquered the Empire, he could not have used them worse.  
If ever Government was changed from Civil into Tyrannical, if ever Free People were enslaved, Laws, and Lawyers suppressed, and Lust and the Sword tyrannised against Law, it was in the Eastern Empire under the Reign of Galerius, but yet the Christians [among whom were 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 8. c. 4.  very many disbanded Officers, and Soldiers] though so highly provoked above the rest of his Subjects, were so far from resisting, that, according to the Writers, who describe the Tenth Persecution, they let themselves be led, like Lambs to the Slaughter, and rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name of Christ. 
(‖) Ib. c. 6.  Euseb saith, That both Men and Women leapt into the Fire, with a Divine Alacrity, which cannot be expressed, and that no 
(†) Ib. c. 10.  Eloquence was able to set forth their Courage, and Fortitude in their Torments: And 
(‖) Hist. Sacr. l. 2. c. 47.  Sulp. Severus tells us, That the Christians were the more desirous of Martyrdom, than the Ambitious Clergymen were of Bishoprics in his Time. And truly so it did appear by the Thebaean Legion, with which some men of late have so much disturbed the Christian Spirit of Mr. J. And, poor Man, I am afraid this account of the Galerian, which was one of the most Bloody Acts of the Dioclesian Persecution, may yet disturb him more. For then the Christians were persecuted at a time, when they could not want the Help, nor likely the Solicitations of their oppressed Heathen Fellow-Subjects, then if ever they might have taken up Arms under the Fine Pretence of defending their Liberties and the Laws, but there was not one word of that among them: No, poor Wretches, they were manacled and fettered with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience, which Christ and his Apostles, had taught them: The Christian prevailed above the Greek Principles in their Consciences: And the Tyrant knew, he was secure in their Numbers, even from his Greek Subjects, among whom it was not only an allowed Principle to kill a Tyrant, but also counted a Meritorious Work. Had the Greeks been then the Prevailing Number, the Monster, had likely been served like Nero; but the Empire was become Christian, and Passive, and his Security consisted in that.  
Wherefore, to conclude this Chapter, seeing the Former Christians, especially those under Galerius, were Persecuted, Oppressed, and Enslaved, not only as Christians, but as Subjects too, contrary to all Law. Illegal Persecution could be no specific Reason for the Christian Subjects and Soldiers of Julian to resist him; No! they were not so Jesuited, and Presbyterianized from the Gospel Simplicity; as it appears, it was all one to them, as well, as to their Predecessors, whether they were martyred Legally, or Illegally, or whether they were worried by a Natural, or by an Apostate, by an Unbaptized, or Baptised Wolf. When they could not have the Benefit of Law, they could contentedly suffer against it; as yet their only Remedy was that Mountebank Receipt of Prayers, and Tears; none of the Fathers, as yet was become an Antimonarchical Author, they valued their Established Religion very much, but they would not Fight for it; they knew not Medium between Flying, or Suffering, nor as yet had invented and Distinctions to justify the resisting of Lawful Princes, but followed the Passive Examples of Former Times, without making any Difference betwixt dying for their Religion with, or without, according to, or contrary to Law.   

CHAP. X. Wherein is defended the Doctrine of Passive Obedience against Law.  
HAving premised so much about the Sufferings of the Ancient Christians both under Julian, and other Tyrants before him, It is time to proceed to the Justification of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience in its full Latitude against the Exceptions of our Author, who distinguishes (and in a very triumphant manner) betwixt Suffering according to, and contrary to Law, and then upon the ground of this Unanswerable Distinction (Dictator-like) he condemns the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for Intolerable, as it hath been taught, and practised contrary to Law, 
(†) Preface p. 8.  There (saith he, meaning in Dr. Hickes Sermon) it was I met with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which, when it is taught without any regard to Laws, and is prescribed without Law, and against Law, is not Evangelical, but Mahometan, and the very Turkish Doctrine of the Bowstring. And in his Ninth Chapter, wherein he hath endeavoured to confute the Doctrine of Passive Obedience as it is so taught, and practised; all that he hath said, is comprised in Prop. 3. p. 92. When the Laws of God (saith he) and our Country interfere, and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a Good Christian, 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. And in p. 75. saith he, Men throw away their Lives, and are certainly weary of them, if they practise Passive Obedience against the Laws, and the Truth of it is, we justly deserve to be so used as the Thebaean Legion was, and moreover to be loaded with the Curses of all Posterity, if we suffer ourselves to be brought into their Condition, for that can never happen, but by our own Treachery to our Religion, in parting with those good Laws, that protect it, and in agreeing to such, as shall destroy it.  
I am very well satisfied, that the Case of the Thebaean Legion, or any other like it, can never happen in Great Britain, we of these Kingdoms having such Security against Tyranny, as no People ever had; but upon supposition, that it may happen, I am very well assured, that we ought patiently to suffer it, or any other Condition like unto it, though our sufferings would be against Law.  
But to state this matter clearly, and to the satisfaction of the Reader, I must here beg leave to distinguish between the Laws in any Government, which declare, and ascertain the Rights of the Sovereign, and those, which secure the Rights of the Subject. By the Rights of the Sovereign, I understand those Prerogatives, and Pre-Eminences of Power and Greatness, which are involved in the formal Conception of Sovereignty, and are inseparably annexed to the Sovereign, whether it be the People, as in Democracies; or a few of the Chief, as in Aristocracies; or one single Person, as in Monarchies: For there are certain Essential Rights of Sovereignty, or Supremacy, which equally belong to Sovereigns of all Sorts, as to have Sense belongs to all Sorts of Animals, and which without destroying the very Notion of a Sovereign, you cannot abstract from him, no more than roundness from a Circle or Sphere. For they 
(†) Ad nullum pertinent, nisi ad coronam & dignitatem regiam, nec à coronâ separari poterunt cum faciant ipsam coronam. Bract. l. 2. c. 24.  constitute the Essential difference between Supremacy and Subjection, so that, whosoever hath them, is a Complete Sovereign, and whosoever wants them, or any of them, is a Subject, or at least, an Incomplete Sovereign; and in all Perfect and Regular Governments, these Essential Rights of Sovereignty equally belong to the Supreme Power, whether Princes or States, by the Common, and Statute Laws thereof.  
Such as these, in the First place, is to be 
(†) Sam. Bochart. Ep. p. 32.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God: For if there be any Power to which Princes, or States are accountable, within their Dominions, let their Names sound never so big, they are not Sovereign, but Subject; Sovereignty, as the very Notion implies, being such a Preheminent Jurisdiction, as makes all other persons, within the Lines of it, accountable unto it, but it, or the person, or persons invested with it, accountable to none.  
Secondly, To have the 
(‖) Ibid. p. 90.  Sole Power, & Disposal of the Sword, for to suppose, that another hath a Right to bear the Sword besides the Sovereign, is to suppose, that the Sovereign hath an Equal; which is a Contradiction to the Notion of Sovereignty, and that in the same Government there may be two Sovereign Powers.  
Thirdly, To be free from all Coercive, and Vindicative Power; for if in any Government there were a Power, which had Authority to compel, or punish the Sovereign, for this Reason he would not be Sovereign, but a Subject to that Power.  
Fourthly, Not to 
(‖) Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 41, 87. Ib. 140, 141. Dr. Falconers Christ. Loyalty, v. 2. ch. 2.  be resisted or withstood by Force upon any pretence whatsoever; for otherwise the Sovereign would be controulable by Force, which is inconsistent with the Majesty, and Dignity of the Sovereign Power, and supposes that Subjects have a Right to Judge when they may resist, or withstand their Sovereign, which is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Societies, than patiently submitting to the Abuse of the Sovereign Power.  
Lastly, To have the Legislative Power, or the Power that makes any form of Words a Law. The Sovereign Power may indeed be limited as to the Exercise of this Power, which may be confined to Bills, and Writings prepared by others, but still it is the Sovereign Authority, who gives Life, and Soul to the dead Letter of them; and all Princes, or States which want this Authority, let their Names and Titles be never so great, are not complete Sovereigns, but Subjects, because upon this supposition, they have not Power to make Laws to bind others, but others have Power to make Laws to bind them.  
Now the Laws by which these, and other Essentials of Sovereignty are established, may be called the Imperial Laws, or the Common Laws of Sovereignty, and Christianity, which our 
(†) P. 92.  Author well observes, destroys no man's Natural, or Civil Rights, doth not destroy these Essential Rights of Sovereignty, but confirms them unto the Legal Sovereign in every Government, commanding his Subjects to observe them, and particularly the Imperial Law of of not resisting, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake.  
Wherefore in answer to his 
(‖) P. 81.  Question, By what Law we must die in Illegal Persecution? I answer, By the Imperial Laws in every Government, and by the Laws of the Gospel, which (as I shall hereafter show) establish those Laws. In all perfect Governments, and particularly in the English, all these Rights legally belong to the Sovereign, who is the King, especially to be accountable to none but God, to have the sole Power and Disposal of the Sword, and to be free from all Coercive, and Vindicative Power, and from Resistance by Force, It is by these Common Laws of Sovereignty, that the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, which is but another name for Nonresistance; these Laws are in Eternal Force against the Subjects in defence of the Sovereign, 
(†) Sa. Boch, ep. p. 61.  be he good, or evil, just, or unjust, Christian, or Pagan; be what he will, no Subject, or 
(‖) Ib. p. 54, 55.  number of Subjects can lift up his Hand against his Sovereign, & be Guiltless by these Laws. 
(†) P. 84.  Where there is no Law indeed, there is no Transgression; But for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Sovereign, or to defend themselves by Force against him, or his Forces, is against the Common Laws of Sovereignty; and by consequence 
(‖) Ib. p. 86, 87.  Passive Obedience even unto death, becomes a duty in Sovereign Governments by virtue of those Laws.  
By the help of this Distinction between the Imperial Laws, which ascertain the Rights of the Sovereign, and the political, which are made to secure the Rights of the Subject, the heedful Reader may easily solve all that Mr. J. hath written by the help of Mr. H. his Superviser, against Dr. Hickes. For he hath, as himself 
(‖) P. 92.  confesseth, reduced all the Strength and Force of what he hath written against him in opposition to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience into 5 Propositions; every one of which I shall here, I hope, effectually evacuate, by adding a few Words, which may enable a common Capacity to see, how he hath perplexed the Truth.  

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

I. Every Man, but more especially a Christian, is bound to submit to the Laws of the Government, under which he lives.  
II. The Government consists in the Imperial, as well as the Political Laws.  
III. The Imperial Laws of every Government forbidden resisting the Sovereign, and by consequence require Nonresistance.  
iv Nonresistance is the same thing with Passive Obedience, and by consequence Passive Obedience is required by the Imperial Laws of every Government.  
V Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of any Government require of its Subjects, if it be not contrary to God's Laws, they are bound to perform it.  
VI Passive Obedience, or patiented Suffering of Injuries from the Sovereign, is not forbid by God's Laws, and therefore Subjects are bound to perform it, where it is required by the Imperial Laws.   
And now I shall desire these Men, who of late have thundered so much with Julian against the Thebean Legion, to consider well, what I have said in general about the Common Laws of Sovereignty; when they have digested it well, they will be convinced, how fallaciously the Author of that Pamphlet hath dealt with them in suppressing this Notion, and making them believe, That there were no Laws belonging to Government, but those, which I call Political Laws. But, as I have showed, there are two Tables belonging to every perfect, and regular Government, one which concerns the Majesty of the Sovereign, God's Vicegerent, which I may call the first Table; and another, which concerns the Good and Safety of the People, which may be called the second Table; and these two together are the Complete and Adequate Rule of Civil Obedience and Subjection, and Passive Obedience, or the Patient bearing of the greatest Injuries, when it is not a Duty by This, is very often so by That. When the Laws are against us, than it is our Duty by the second Table; and when the Sovereign is against us contrary to the Laws of the second Table, than it is our Duty by the Laws of the first, which absolutely forbidden us to bear the Sword against him, or to repel his Forces by Force. Wherefore to answer our Author's 
(†) P. 87.  Question, I am confident Dr. Hicks was very serious, and in earnest when he taught, and preached up Passive Obedience for Evangelical in this case. It may be seen by the Drs. Sermon, and other of his Pieces, that he doth not write rashly; and I have reason to presume that he asserted Passive Obedience upon the same bottom, that I now defend it. He is far from having Men to prostitute their Lives to Malice, and Violence, for he would rather have them to abscond, or fly; but if they can, or will do neither in times of Illegal Persecution, he thinks there remains nothing for them to do, but patiently to submit to unavoidable Death. He had no reason to distinguish betwixt suffering according to, and contrary to Law, because he knew that neither the Laws of God, nor Man allow any Subject the Benefit of forcible defence against the illegal Violence of his Sovereign, but that by the Laws Imperial he ought to die rather than resist: And if this 
(‖) P. 87.  was too light for the Pulpit, and just such another Piece of Drollery, as that in the Dedication to Oliver Cromwell before Killing no Murder, I protest, I know not what it is to be serious in the Pulpit, nor what Apostolical Divinity is. The Gospel from one end to the other is full of this kind of Drollery; and for my own I seriously protest, I had rather be Passive, were it possible, under a Thousand deaths in an Illegal Persecution, than be guilty of such Scurrility, not to say Blasphemy, against the Doctrine of the Cross.  
Our Author in this, and such like Reflections, writes more like an Apostate from the Christian Religion, than a Minister of it; and if any thing in this Answer may contribute to make him sensible of his Sin, and bring him to the Humiliation and Repentance of his Elder Brother Ecebolius, I shall think my pains well spent.  
But to bring this general Discourse about the Common Laws of Sovereignty to our own Case, I shall now proceed to show, That the English Realm is a perfect Sovereignty or Empire, and that the King of England, by the Imperial Laws of it, is a Complete, Imperial, and Independent Sovereign, to whom the foresaid Rights of Sovereignty do inseparably belong.  
The English Realm is a perfect Sovereignty, and 
(‖) Sir Orl. Bridgmans' Speech to the Regicides, p. 12, 13.  Empire, and the King a Complete, and Imperial Sovereign. 
(†) Cooks Instit. p. 4. c. 74.  Thus by the whole Parliament 24 H. 8. c. 12. it was resolved, and so declared, That by sundry Authentic Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed, that his Realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the World, governed by one Supreme Head, and King, having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same. So 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of this Kingdom is affirmed to be an Imperial Crown, in these words: In great Derogation of your Imperial Crown and Authority Royal. So 27 H. 8. c. 24. Most Ancient Prerogatives and Authorities appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So 1 Eliz. c. 2. Restoring and Uniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Ancient Jurisdictions, etc. So 1 Jacob. cap. 1. A more Famous, and Greater Union of two Mighty, Famous, and Ancient Kingdoms under one Imperial Crown. And before the Conquest King 
(†) Rot. Parl. 1 E, 4. part. 6. at large in Coke Inst. part. 4, p. 359.  Edgar styled himself in his Charter Basileus, Imperator, & Dominus; and his Son St. Edward in a Charter, which he made to the Abbot of Ramsey (which my Lord Cook saith he had) styled himself, Ego Edwardus totius Albionis Dei moderante Gubernation Basileus.  
Thus much may serve to show, that the Realm of England is a Perfect Sovereignty, or Empire, and the King a Complete Imperial Sovereign: Where, for the Readers satisfaction, I must observe, That the Regal Estate is then Imperial, when the King is Supreme in his Dominions next under God, and hath full, perfect, and entire Jurisdiction from God alone, and all others within his Dominions, by emanation from him. Now this Perfection and Fullness of Imperial Power which makes an Imperial Sovereign, is of two sorts, such as is limited by the Laws of God and Nature only, or such as is limited by the Laws of God, and Nature, and Civil Laws, and Pactions too. The Power in both sorts of Sovereigns is Imperial, i. e. full, perfect, absolute, and entire, but the Exercise of it is differently bounded, and regulated, one by the Laws of God and Nature; and the other by Humane Positive Laws; and the latter Limitation doth no more destroy the Fullness, and Perfection, and Supremacy of the Power, than the former; because the Sovereign, who is under Political Limitations, as to the Exercise of his Power, hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely, fully, and entirely in himself, as he that is only under the limitation of Divine, and Natural Laws.  
Thus the Learned 
(‖) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 9 Rex Angliae— Principatu nedum regali, sed & politico, suo populo dominatur.— Regnum sic institui ut lex non liberè valeat populum tyrannide gubernare, quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politicâ cohibetur.  Chancellor Fortescue, grants the King of England to have Regal, or Imperial Power, although it be under the Restraint and Regulation of the Power Political, as to the Exercise thereof. And as a Fountain, which hath Channels or Pipes made for it, within which its Waters are bounded in their passage, and through which they are to flow, is nevertheless as perfect a Fountain, and hath its Waters as fully, and entirely within itself, as any other Fountain whose Waters flow from it at liberty without any such Regulation: So a King, whose Imperial Power is limited by Humane Constitutions in the Exercise of it, is nevertheless as Complete a Sovereign, and hath the Sovereign Power as fully and entirely within himself, as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority, as he will. To be Arbitrary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial Sovereign, than to be free in the course of its Waters is of the Essence of a Fountain, but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct, for Example, is as perfect in its Kind, and generally more beneficial, and useful to Mankind, than a Free-flowing Spring: So limited Sovereigns are as perfect and essential Sovereigns, as the purely Arbitrary or Despotic, and generally more Beneficial, and Salutary to the World.  
All that I have hitherto said, may be better understood by distinguishing between the Being, and Essence of Imperial, or Sovereign Power, and the Exercise and Emanation thereof. As to the Being and Essence of it, it is in as full perfection in the Limited as in the Arbitrary Sovereign, though the Law confines and limits him in the Exercise thereof; but to be confined in the Exercise doth not destroy the Being, nor diminish the perfection of Sovereign Power, for then the Power of God himself could not be Sovereign, because there are certain immutable Rules of Truth, and Justice, within which it is necessarily limited, and confined. But God is nevertheless a perfect Imperial Sovereign over the Universe, though the Exercise of his Government over his Creatures be limited by the Eternal Laws of Truth and Equity. It is true, that this Limitation of Almighty God is Intrinsecal, and proceeds from the perfection of his Righteous and Holy Nature, but yet it shows, that the most perfect and absolute Imperial Power may, without a Contradiction, be confined within bounds, and limited in the actual Exercise thereof; and that such moderation, and limitation of Power Absolute, and Imperial, doth only qualify, and temper, and not destroy the Essence thereof. And therefore Cook in Caudreys' Case saith, That by the Ancient Laws of this Realm England is an Absolute Empire, and Monarchy; and that the King is furnished with Plenary, and Entire Power, Prerogative, and Jurisdiction, and is Supreme Governor over all Persons within this Realm.  
And if any man will but attend well to his own Thoughts, he will find no Inconsistency between the Fullness of Sovereign, or Imperial Power in the Root and Essence of it, and a legal limitation of the Use, and Exercise thereof. And from hence it comes to pass, That the King of England, though he be limited in the Use and Exercise of his Power, yet he is as much the Fountain of all Power, and Jurisdiction within his Dominions, as if he were Arbitrary; He hath none to share with him in the Sovereignty, but all Power and Authority is derived from him like Light from the Sun; in Him alone it is Radically and Originally placed; He hath no Sharers or Copartners in the Sovereignty; none coordinate with him in Government; no Equal, nor Superior, but only God, to whom alone he is Subject. Hence saith 
(†) Lib. 1. c. 8.  Bracton, who wrote in the Reign of Henry the Third, Omnis quidem sub rege, & ipse sub nullo, sed tantum sub Deo; non est inferior sibi subjectis, non parem habet in regno suo. And afterwards, Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub Homine, sed sub Deo: And then, to show that he is a Sovereign doubly limited in the Use of his Power, by the Laws of God, and the Civil Laws of his Kingdom, he adds, Et sub Lege, quia Lex facit Reg●m. In the same place he calls him Vicarius Dei, and saith, Vices gerit Jesu Christi; and nothing greater could be said of Caesar, or the most Despotic Sovereign, that ever was.  
So the Statute of Praemunire 26 R. 2 c. 5. declares, That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection, but immediately Subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown. And in 25 H. 8. c. 21 the Parliament directing their Declaration to the King, enacted and declared, That this your Grace's Realm recognising no Superior under God, but only your Grace, hath been, and is free from Subjection, etc. And in 24. H. 8. c. 12. after the words before cited it follows, unto whom a Body Politic— been bounden and owen to bear next unto God a Natural, and Humble Obedience, He being instituted and furnished, with plenary, whole, and entire Power, Pre-eminence, Authority, etc. So 2 Ed. 6. c. 2.— Seing that all Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the King's Majesty, as Supreme Head of these Churches and Realms.— So in the Oath of Supremacy 1 Eliz. I A. B. do utterly testify, and declare in my Conscience; that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm.  
To all this I may add, the common Style of both Houses in Parliament, Our Gracious Sovereign, and our Dread Sovereign Lord the King: Which is also used in the old Oath of Allegiance mentioned in Britton in cap. 29. De turns de Viscontes, You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord Edward—. Hence by 
(†) Sheringham. Kings Suprem. c. 4.  Common Law many Prerogatives belong to the King by virtue of his Sovereignty. He cannot give any Man the Style, or Title of Dominus, because he himself is Omninium subditorum Supremus Dominus. He can hold Land of no Man, because he can have no Superior; and if a Man formerly held Land of the King and of another Lord, whereby his Heir became a Ward, the King had the Custody of the Heir and Land, because, as Glanvil saith, L. 7. c. 10. Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem, multo minus Superiorem. The reason is given by Bracton, l. 2. c. 37. And as 
(†) C. 22.  Stanford shows in his Exposition of the King's Prerogative, By the Common Law there lieth no Action, or Writ against the King, but when he seizeth his Subjects Lands, or Goods, having no Title by Order of his Laws so to do; Petition is all the Remedy the Subject hath, and this Petition is called, A Petition of Right.  
Having now showed, that the Realm of England is a perfect Sovereignty, or Empire, and the King, a Complete, and Imperial Sovereign, Subject unto none but God, it must needs follow, that he hath all the Essential Rights of perfect Sovereignty belonging unto him, as to be unaccountable to any Humane Power; to have the sole Right and Disposal of the Sword; to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power; to be irresistible, and unopposeable, or not to have his Forces repelled by Force. A Stranger, that hath read, what I have written to show, that he is a Complete and Imperial Sovereign, must needs presume, that these, and all other Essential Rights of Sovereignty belong to him by the Common Laws of Sovereignty, or that by the Imperial Laws of his Realm he must be invested with the foresaid Rights. It would be a Contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown, to acknowledge the King for Supreme over all Persons, to say he hath no Superior but God, that he is Subject to him alone, and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power, unless he have all those Rights, which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Sovereignty, as I have explained it from the Statutes and Customs of this Realm. For first, To say that he is the only Supreme Governor within his Realm and Dominions and Subject to none, but God, must needs imply, that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or unaccountable for what he doth amiss to any Tribunal but that of Heaven, whose Vicegerant he is. If there were any Power in his Kingdoms, that could call him to account for Maladministration, for that very Reason he would not be a Complete Sovereign, but the Power to whom he was accountable would be Superior, and not he. It must also follow from his being instituted and furnished with plenary, whole and entire Power, and Jurisdiction, that he must be Unaccountable; for from whom shall any person, or state of Men have Power and Authority to call his Majesty to Account? All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual, and Temporal is derived and deducted from him, as Supreme Head of these Churches, and Realms; and from whom then shall any Man, or state of Men derive Authority of Judging, or Trying him? It can be from none but himself; But to imagine that he will subject himself to any Superior Jurisdiction, is an apparent Absurdity in Hypothesi, and in Thesi such an Act would be void by its own Nature, if that be true, which the 
(†) Coke Inst. part 4. p. 14. Suprema Jurisdictio & potestas Regia, etsi Princeps velit, se s●p●rari non possunt; sunt enim ipsa forma & substantialis essentia Majestatis, ergo manente rege ab eo abdicari non possunt. Cavedo. Pract. Observe. p. 2. Decis. 40. n. 8.  Lords and Commons declared in full Parliament in the time of Edw. the Third, That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament, that tended to the Disinherison of the King, and his Crown. This Phrase of the Disinherison of the King, and the Crown in other 
(‖) Statute of Praemunire, 16 R. 2. c. 5.  Acts of Parliament is called, The Destruction of the King's Sovereignty, his Crown, his Regality, and things that tend thereunto, things that are openly against the King's Crown in Derogation of his Regality. So that, if an Improvident King should consent to an Act so Destructive of his Sovereignty, it would be of no more Force, than an Act to make another King Copartner with him in the Supreme Power, or an Act to pass over the Realm to a Foreign Prince.  
But 2dly, To say that the King is the only Supreme Governor, instituted, and furnished with plenary, whole, and entire Power, and Jurisdiction, must needs imply, that he alone hath the Power of the Sword; for were the Power of the Sword in any else, he could not be furnished with plenary, whole, and entire Power. Besides, the Civil Power is insignificant without the Military, and therefore if the Civil Power were seated in him, and the Military in any other Person or State, the English Realm would have two Sovereigns, one Civil, and another Military, which is most absurd to think. Therefore by the Common Laws of Sovereignty, the Power of the Sword, like all other Temporal Power must be derived, and deducted from him, as Supreme Head, and Governor of this Realm; and indeed his Sovereignty would be an empty insignificant nothing, were the Sceptre in his Hand, and the Sword in any others. And therefore Glanvil in his Prologue before his Tractat. de leg. & consuet. regni Anglae, supposeth the Power of the Sword primarily necessary for the King. Regiam majestatem non solum armis oportet esse decoratam, sed & legibus; The King's Majesty ought to be fortified not only with Arms, but with Laws; with Arms in the first place, without which his Laws would be little worth. So saith Fletal. 1. c. 17. Habet Rex in manu suâ omnia Jura— Et materialem gladium, qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum. So saith Bracton in the beginning of his first Book, In rege qui rectè regit, necessaria sunt duo haec, Arma videlicet & Leges, etc. And if the Sword be originally in the King's Hand, and none can bear it without Authority derived from him, it must needs follow from hence, that he must be free from all Coercive, and Vindicative Power, and that no Man can lawfully resist him, or his Forces, because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword [except for private Defence] but by Commission from him. I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian, who can Array the People against their Sovereign and his Armies, or who hath Authority (for example) to make him a Captain, or as much as a Drummer of a Company, if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands? All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative; and therefore how a man can either give, or receive such unauthoritative Commissions, or oppose, or resist the King and his Armies by virtue of them, without sin, I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer, and Mr. J. as a Divine, to resolve.  
It is true what he 
(‖) P. 84.  saith, That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants, but then the Question, which he puts to the Doctor upon it, is Fallacious, in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts [in the Sovereign] which carry no Obligation at all, can oblige men to Obedience? I answer for the Doctor, If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience, no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty, No! He ought rather to suffer himself; but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience, [or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose] I answer, That it is the Christian, the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Sovereign [till legal Remedy can be had] because to oppose, or resist him, and his Forces by Force, is unauthoritative, and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm.  
But because we live in an Age, wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons, who are deaf to all Reason, and Common Law, which is nothing but Common Reason, when it is urged in defence of the Crown, I will now show, that these Essential Rights of Sovereignty, which I have been discoursing of, are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm.  
First then, He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects, or obnoxious to their Coercive Power, 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful, and Loyal Subjects the Lords, and Commons in Parliament assembled, beseech your most Excellent Majesty, that it may be declared, and be it hereby declared, that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together, in Parliament, or out of Parliament, nor the People Collectively, or Representatively, nor any other Persons whatsoever, ever had, have, or aught to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared, without excepting any manner of Cases, or Pretences to the contrary, That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm, giving them Aid, or Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, is Treason. And 
(†) 3 Inst. p. 9  Coke upon the place, saith, That this was High Treason before by the Common Law; for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King. If any levy War (saith he) to expulse Strangers, to deliver men out of Prisons, to remove Counsellors, or against any Statute, or to any other End, pretending Reformation, of their own Heads without Warrant, this is Levying of War against the King, because they take upon them Royal Authority. 
(‖) Sheringhams' Kings Suprem. c. 3.  In the 7th. year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made, wherein the King's Power over the Militia is acknowledged, and force of Armour to belong to him: And saith 
(†) Jenkinsius Redivivus, p. 19  Judge Jenkins, All Jurisdictions do, and of right aught to belong to the King; all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King; the Power of War only belongs to the King; it belongs to the King to Defend his People, and to provide Arms, and Force. 
(‖) 13 Car. 2.1.  Since his Majesty's Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm, or without: And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War, it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supreme Government, Command, and Disposition of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea, and Land, and of all Forts, and places of Strength, is, and by the Laws of England ever was the Undoubted Right of his Majesty, and his Royal Predecessors, and that both, or either of the Houses of Parliament, cannot, or aught to pretend to the same, nor can, nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive, or Defensive against his Majesty, his Heirs, and Lawful Successor. Behold the Doctrine of Nonresistance in its full Amplitude, the very Doctrine of the Bowstring declared by Act of Parliament. Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration? Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence, when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them? Surely this is too Light for the Parliament, and is just such another piece of Drollery, as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwell in the Book called Killing no Murder. Bating that Dedication, there was never any thing like this Passive A●● of Parliament, for wheedling the People out of their Lives. Alas! Alas! This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles, and enough to tempt, and invite Cruelty into the World. For let a Prince be either a Papist, or an Atheist, and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act, and then what hinders, but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates, and Heresy together, and the other, as many, to see what Faces, and Grimmaces they will make. According to this Act, the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery, and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist, or the Extravagant unaccountable Humours of a Wretch, and hang at their Girdles, as Souls do at the Popes.  
Is it not a sad thing, to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament, to leave us nothing to defend ourselves, but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears? But yet, so Wise as Legislators, so Religious as Christians, and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament, that they made this Declaration the second time, as it may be seen 13, 14 Car. 2. cap. 3.  
And by all these Statutes cited, it appears, That the King is Accountable to none but God; That the Sword is solely his, and theirs to whom He commits it; That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power, nor ought any way to be resisted by Force.  
Indeed our Author 
(‖) P. 84.  doth freely acknowledge, that according to the known Laws of England, a Popish Prince, when he is Lawfully possessed of the Crown, will be Inviolable and unaccountable, as to his own Person, and aught by no means to have any Violence offered to him. This is something, but it is not all; 'tis the Truth, but not the Whole Truth: For I have shown by the known Laws of this Land, that the People can make no Military, or Forcible Resistance against the King; they must not rise up against Him, and his Armies in their own Defence; the Laws have fettered and manacled them with the Slavish Principle of Passive Obedience; they must not lift up their Hands against their Sovereign to oppose him or his Forces, for they have no Right to the Sword, but what he gives them (except for private Defence) no body without his Authority can Array them, and by these Laws there are no Cases excepted, no, not the Case of a Popish Successor, which makes our Author's Heart ache, & for not excepting of which in his Bow-Sermon, he is so angry at Dr. Hickes. But the Dr. as 
(†) P. 90.  Ignorant as he hath made him in the English Historians, was (it seems) better versed in the English Antiquities, and Customs, and in the Old Lawyers, and Common, and Statute-Laws of the Land, than to make any Exception, or Distinction, where the Law makes none, according to that Old Maxim, Vbi lex non distinguit, ibi non est distinguendum. And besides, the Dr. remembered what his Uncharitable Brother Mr. J. had forgot, That according to the Act of Uniformity, he had subscribed, declared, and acknowledged, That it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King, and that he did abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him. It was apparently the Design of the Three Estates in this Act, to secure the Nation of such Ministers, as would preach up the Doctrine of Nonresistance without distinction; and whether the Doctor that hath so preached it, or Mr. J. that hath so maliciously opposed it, is more Conformable to the Act, and True to his Oath, let the World judge. He granted, as I observed before, that the Person of the King is Inviolable, and free from Violence; but then, as if he had granted too much, he seems to retract it in part again; For, 
(†) P. 88  saith he with the Noble Peer, whom he calls a Worthy Person, one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in Massacring a Nation. And p. 85. How far men may endeavour notwithstanding [the Kings Person is Inviolable] to save themselves, when Princes will be the Executioners of their own Cruelty, without, breach of their Allegiance—, If they have a mind they may ask. Ask, of whom? of Harry Nevil? or Mr. H. or of which of the Heretic Lawyers? Which of the discontented Enemies of the Prerogative will oblige the World with this New Discovery? Or if Mr. J. knew it, why did he hid his Talon, and put the World to the trouble of Ask? But I am afraid, because he did not, it is something he durst not tell, some State-Mystery that his Great Assertor of Laws, and Religion now with God told him was not safe to speak, some Plat●-Redivivus-Doctrine; likely something, that depended upon this Atheistical, as well as Illegal Principle in England, That all Power is Radically in the People, and that the King is their Minister, and not the Minister of God.  
Whatever it was, I will stand no longer guessing: But having showed that Passive Obedience is required in all Perfect, and Regular Governments by the Common Laws of Sovereignty, and more particular in this Realm by the Imperial Laws thereof; I will proceed to inquire how far the Church, and Ancient Churchmen have agreed with the Three Estates; for I find, that our Author makes much use of Ecclesiastical Authority, particularly of our Reformers, and of the Book of Homilies, when they favour him; but how far he will value them, when they are against him, especially in this Controversy between him, and the Doctor, about Passive Obedience, I will not undertake to tell.  
I will begin with the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, set forth by King Henry the 8th. with the Advise of his Reforming Clergy, who were the Compilers of it, such as Cramner, and other Martyrs, who on the Fifth Commandment writ thus: Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty, Truth, Love, and Obedience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be, ne for any cause they may Conspire against his Person, ne do any thing towards the Hindrance, or Hurt thereof, nor of his Estate. And afterwards they prove this out of Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist the Ordinance of God shall get to themselves Damnation. And upon the Sixth Commandment: No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for any cause whatsoever it be, nor against any other (saving for Lawful Defence) without their Prince's Licence— And although Princes, which be the Supreme Heads of their Realms, do otherwise than they ought to do; yet God hath assigned no judges over them in this World, but will have the judgement of them reserved to himself, and will punish them, when he seethe his time— So much for the Authority of Cramner, Ridley, Redman, etc. From whence I pass to the Book of Homilies, which p. 104. he hath recommended to every Bodies Reading, as one of the best Books, that he know; in the World, next the Bible. In the second part of the Sermon of Obedience; Subjects are bound to obey them as God's Ministers, although they be Evil, not only for Fear, but also for Conscience sake; and here Good People, let us all mark diligently, That it is not lawful for Inferiors, and Subjects, in any case to resist, and stand against the Superior Powers: For St. Paul's words be plain, That whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation.— Our Saviour Christ himself, and his Apostles received many, and divers Injuries of the Unfaithful, and Wicked Men in Authority; yet we never read that they, or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority. We read oft that they patiently suffered all Troubles, Vexations, Slanders, Pangs, and Pains, and Death itself obediently without Tumult, or Resistance— Christ taught us plainly, that even the wicked Rulers have their Power, and Authority from God; and therefore [mark the Reason] it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them, although they abuse their Power: And yet Mr. J. in contradiction to this Book, which he hath recommended, as the best Book next to the Bible, 
† Preface p. 8.  saith, That this Doctrine is Intolerable and contrary both to the Gospel, and the Law of the Land. But this Homily further tells us, That the Vocation, and Calling of God's People is to be patiented, and of the suffering Side, and that we ought to obey Governors, although they be wicked, and wrong-doers. Afterwards it proves from the Example of David, The we may not withstand, nor in any wise hurt an 
(‖) Sam. Bochart. Ep. ad D. Morley, p. 80.  Anointed King, [mark the Reason again] which is God's Lieutenant, Vicegerent, and Highest Minister, in that Country where he is King.— He durst not once lay Hands upon God's High Officer the King, whom he did know to be a Person reserved, and kept only to God's Punishment.— A General Rule and Lesson to all Subjects in the World not to withstand their Liege Lord, and King, nor to take a Sword by their private Authority against their King, God's Anointed, who only beareth the Sword by God's Authority, for the Maintenance, etc.— Who only by God's Law hath the Use of the Sword at his Command—. It is an intolerable Madness, Ignorance, and Wickedness for Subjects to make any murmuring, rebellion, resistance, or withstanding Commotion, or Insurrection against their Sovereign Lord. We may not in any wise withstand violently, or rebel against Rulers, or make any Insurrection, Sedition, or Tumults either by force of Arms, or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord, or his Officers, but we must in such case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries, referring the Judgement of our Cause only to God.  
Here we have Line upon Line, and Precept upon Precept, for Passive Obedience: Here we are taught, that we must suffer all sorts of Wrongs, and Injuries from our Sovereign, without Resistance, and withstanding of him; and in this Realm, I am sure the Sovereign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects, but contrary to the Political Laws. But to go on with this next best Book to the Bible: In the second part of the Homily against Disobedience, and wilful Rebellion. David was fain to save his Life, not by Rebellion, or any Resistance, but by Flight, and hiding himself from the King's Sight.— Shall not we, being good Men, as we are, Rise and Rebel against a Prince hated of God, and God's Enemy, and likely to be Hurtful, and Pernicious to the Commonwealth? Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so Unkind a Prince, nothing considering, or regarding our True, Faithful, and Painful Service, or the Safeguard of our Posterity? Shall we not Rise and Rebel, against our known, mortal, and deadly Enemy, that seeketh our Lives? No, saith Godly David. What shall we do then to an Evil, to an Unkind Prince, an Enemy to us, hated of God, hurtful to the Commonwealth, etc. Lay no Violent hand upon him, saith Good David, but let him live until God appoint, and work his End.— If King David would make these Answers, as by his Deeds, and Words recorded in the Holy Scriptures indeed he doth make unto all such Demands concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes, Unkind Princes, Cruel Princes, Princes that be to their good Subjects mortal Enemies, Princes that are out of God's Favour, and so Hurtful, or like to be Hurtful to the Commonwealth, what Answer?  
And now to use out Unanswerable Authors 
(‖) P. 111.  own words, I have been the more Copious in these Citations, to show, that this is the stunding Doctrine of the Church of England, to which all Orders of the Clergy have subscribed, and Mr. J. among the rest. The Church of England long since 
(†) P. 89.  calculated and fitted this Doctrine for the use of a Popish Successor: And if the Doctor hath been ill taught by his Mother, the Blame is to be laid upon her, and he is to be excused. It is She that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a 
(‖) P. 81.  Parasite, Sycophant, and Murderer, Poor Man! He sucked it in his Mother's Milk, it was bred in his Bone, and I fear it will never go out of his Flesh. Nay, to see what a sad Fate attends some Men, he had the Misfortune to be bred in Oxford, where Passive Obedience hath long been the Doctrine of the Malignant place, as appears by Mr. 
(†) In the Preface to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons.  Gillespic, one of Mr. J.'s Old Masters, who called Preces, & Lachrymae, the New Oxford Divinity, which however is somewhat less Offensive, than the Mountebank Receipt of Prayers, and Tears. Nay, so determined was the Doctor by his unhappy Stars to imbibe that Slavish Principle, that he was bred in the very same College, where the Immortal Sanderson drew up the Universities Unanswerable Reasons against the Covenant out of which Mr. J. hath 
(‖) Preface p. 3.  taken the most witty Allusion in his Book, where speaking of Passive Obedience without a Law to require it, he saith, It is like one of the marvellous Accidents of Transubstantiation, which makes a Shift to subsist when it hath lost its Subject; which is the very same Illustration that the 
(‖) Judicium Acad. Oxon. de faedere, p. 66. Rex vel in propriâ suâ personâ coram, & corporaliter adest, vel absens praesentiam suam supplet per delegatos quosdam [sive commissionarios] suos magni sigilli autoritate ad hoc deputatos, quaevis alia praesentia realis aenigmatis instar est, transubstantiationis monstro haud absimilis, spectrum scilicet, & phantasma.—  University made use of to set forth the monstrous Absurdity of pretending the King's Authority and Presence, where he was neither in Person, nor by his Commissioner. I think it not amiss to put Mr. J. in mind of his vain Distinction, lest his Superviser, should teach him to reply, That the Imperial Laws above cited, regard the Politic, and not the natural Person of the Sovereign. But to prevent him from flying to this miserable shift, I must tell him, That in the 
(†) Coke in calvin's Case, p. 439.  Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers, the Father and the Son, to cover their Treason, invented this damnable Opinion, That Homage, and Allegiance was due to the King more upon the account of his Politic Capacity, than his Natural Person: Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents; 1. That if the King did not demean himself by Reason in the Right of his Crown, his Liege's were bound by Oath to remove him. 2. That when the King could not be reform by Suit of Law, that aught to be done by the Sword. 3. That his Liege's be bound to Govern in Aid of him, and in Default of him. And which were condemned by two Parliaments, one in the Reign of Ed. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le Spencer, and the other in Ann. 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1.  
If I should produce no more Authorities, but these already cited, it were enough to show the Concurrence of the Church, and Churchmen with the Three Estates of this Realm as to the Doctrine of Nonresistance, or Passive Obedience, but because I have undertaken the Doctor's Vindication, I will show what brave Men before him have defended this Bloody Doctrine, that so, if he cannot be Justified, he may at least be Excused.  
I begin with Bishop Bilson, as I find him speaking in his Book of the True Difference between Christian Subjection, and unchristian Rebellion, written against the Papists in Queen Elizabeth's Time, and printed 1586. There p. 256. Theoph. saith, Our Saviour foreteaching his Disciples, that they should be brought before Kings, and Rulers, and put to death, and hated of all men for his Names sake, addeth not as you would have it, and he that first rebelleth, but he that Endureth to the End shall be saved; And again, Nor with Violence restrain them, but in patience possess your Souls. p. 260. Deliverance if you would have, obtain it by Prayer, and expect it in Peace, those be Weapons for Christians. p. 262. The Subject hath no refuge against his Sovereign, but only to God, by Prayer, and Patience. p. 278. Your Spanish Inquisitions, and French Massacres, where you murdered Men, Women, and Children by thousands and ten thousands, against the very Grounds of all Equity, Piety, and Humanity, without convicting, accusing, or calling them before any Judge to hear what was misliked in them, are able to set Grave and Good Men at their Wit's end, and to make them justly doubt, since you refuse the course of all Divine, and Humane Laws with them, whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such Barbarous Bloodsuckers, yet we stand not on that, if the Laws of the Land, where they converse, do not permit them to Guard their Lives, when they are assaulted against Law (or if they take Arms as you do, to Depose Princes) we will never excuse them from Rebellion. p. 279. For my part I must confess, except the Laws of those Realms do permit the People to stand on their Right, if the Prince would offer that Wrong, I dare not allow their Arms.  
This is his determination in case of a Massacre, which is the Extremity of Tyranny, and it is agreeable not only to the Scripture, but to the Practice of the Primitive Christians, who against Equity, Humanity, and the Common Law of all Civil Governments, endured many Tyrannical Massacres, when they were able to resist.  
And Bishop Jewel, whom I should have set first, in his Defence of the Apology p. 15. saith unto Harding, We teach the people, at St. Paul doth, to be Subject to the Higher Powers, not only for Fear, but also for Conscience: We teach them, that whos● striketh with the Sword by private Authority, shall perish with the Sword. If the Prince happen to be wicked, or cruel, or burdensome, we teach them to say with St. Ambrose, Arma nostra sunt preces, & lachrymae; Tears and Prayers be our Weapons. He reckons this Bishop among the Worthies p. 14. of Preface, but according to him he must have been, but a Quack in Divinity, for he was for the old Mountebank Receipt of Prayers and Tears. The Peole of England it seems were taught in his time, as the Doctor taught the Citizens of London in his Bow-Sermon, and therefore Passive Obedience was either Heterodox Divinity then, or else it is none now. Nay, it was taught by the Martyrs themselves in Queen Mary's days; for Bradford in his Letter saith,— Howbeit, never for any thing resist or rise up against the Magistrates. And Bishop Latimer in King Edward the Sixths' days, taught it very plainly in his 4th. Sermon before the King, in his Familiar Homespun Style; When I was travailed in the Tower (saith he) my Lord Darsy was telling me of the Faithful Service, that he had done the King's Majesty, that dead is. And had I seen my Sovereign Lord in the Field (said he) and had I seen his Grace come against us, I would have lighted from my Horse, and taken my Sword by the Point, and yielded it into his Grace's Hands. Marry (quoth I) but in the mean season you played not the part of a Faithful Subject, in holding with the People in a Commotion, and Disturbance. It hath been the Cast of all Traitors to pretend nothing against the King's Person, they never pretend the matter to the King, but to others. Subjects may not resist any Magistrates; nor ought to do nothing contrary to the King's Laws.;  
I could produce much more to the same purpose, out of Archbishop Sandys his Sermons, Dr. Willet upon Rom. 13. Dr. Hakewels Scutum Regium, Dr. Boys his Postils, Dean Nowell on the 5th. Com. Dr. Owen in his Antiparaeus, Mr. Perkins on the 5th. Com. the Little Book called Deus & Rex, not to mention Bishop Sanderson, and other latter Divines, but I have said enough to Justify Dr. Hickes, or Condemn the Church of England, and her Reformers, and the most Famous Divines that She hath bred. Let Mr. J. look to it, either the Dr. hath done well, or else they are all in the same Condemnation with him. And that he may know what a severe Censure he deserves for opposing this Evangelical Principle, which the Dr. preached up, I refer him to Erasmus in Luc. 22.36. especially to these words; Mihi nulla haeresis videtur perniciosior, nulla blasphemia secleratior, quam si quis philistinorum exemplo Evangelici agri puteos, qui a Christo venam habent aqua vivae scatentis in vitam aeternam, terrâ oppleta & sensum spiritualem vertat in carnalem, doctrinam caelestem depravet in terrenam, ac sacro-sancta Christi dogmata detorqueat, imò corumpat, idque reclamantibus omnibus ejus praeceptis, reclamante totâ ipsius vitâ, reclamante doctrinâ Apostolicâ, refragantibus tot martyrum millibus, repugnantibus vetustis interpretibus. I do not accuse him of Heresy, Blasphemy, or perverting the Truths of the Gospel, but if Erasmus do it, I cannot help it, he must get off, as well, as he can.  
Having now, I hope, shown that Passive Obedience is required of all Subjects by the Common Laws of Sovereignty, and in particular of the English by the Laws Imperial belonging to this Crown, I might here conclude this Chapter, but that having undertaken the Defence of the Doctor, I am obliged to answer some particular Passages, which cannot well be answered but apart by themselves.  
In the 80th. p. he citys this Passage out of the Doctor's Sermon, Neither doth the Gospel prescribe any Remedy but Flight against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate, allowing of no other Mean, when we cannot escape, betwixt denying, and dying for the Faith. To this he Replies, What the Gospel Prescribes is one thing, what it Allows is another: There are ten ten thousand things allowed by the Gospel, not one of which is prescribed by it. But what is this to the purpose? the Doctor speaks there of the only Gospel-Expedient, or Remedy against Persecution, which is Flight. He asserts, that the Gospel allows of no other Mean against the Persecutions of the Lawful Magistrate; and if it allow no other, then certainly it prescribes That. The Physician that allows but of one only Medicine against the Plague, doth certainly prescribe it to the Patient: And to make no more words about the matter, Flight, by the Gospel, is a prescription as necessary for a Christian Subject that would save his Life in time of Persecution, as a Ship to a Man that would cross the Seas.  
Afterwards he saith p. 89. That he is afraid, that the Doctor calculated, and fitted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for the use of a Popish Successor, and to make us an easier Prey to the Bloody Papists. This is a very Uncharitable Censure from a Brother; and I am verily persuaded, that if Mr. J. would speak the Truth betwixt God and his own Conscience, he doth not believe, that the Doctor fitted that Doctrine on the 30th. of Jan. for the use of a Popish Successor, but for the proper Design of the Day, To show (as he speaks in his Sermon) the great Difference betwixt the Principles, and Practices of Christ and the Primitive Christians, and the Principles and Practices of our New Reformers. Had it been some New Notion never started before, had it not been taught by all the Episcopal Divines of the English Reformation, nay, had it not been a plain Gospel-Notion taught and practised by Christ, and his Apostles, who (to use our Authors Irreverent words in a Reverend manner) turned the Church into a Shambles, than he might have said that it was Calculated, and Fitted by the Doctor, but now I have made it appear, how it was calculated and fitted to his Hands. It was calculated, and fitted by Bishop Latimer in the time of King Edw. 6. against the time of his Popish Successor Queen Mary, and he suffered at a Stake, to Exemplify his Doctrine in the following Popish Persecution, and so (I am confident) would the Doctor, and the rest of his Thebaean Brethren, (however My. J. may please to slander them) by the help of God's Assistance do so too.  
But let us see his pretended Reasons for this Uncharitable Censure. Why else (saith he) is there all that Wrath against every little Pamphlet, which opposes that Interest? The Pamphlets cited by the Doctor in p. 29. of his Sermon, are, The Appeal from the City to the Country, Plate Redivivus, A Brief History of the Succession, A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend, showing that the Bishops are not to be Judges, etc. Dialogue between Tutor and Pupil; And these Pamphlets, which the Dr. hath there showed to be Calculated, and fitted against the True English Government, and to be Impious, and Treasonable Pieces, he represents as written only in Opposition to the Popish Interest. How (saith he) comes the History of the Succession to be an Impious and Treasonable Book? Why, I'll tell him in the words of Dr. 
(‖) True and Exact History of the Succession. p. 2.  Br. It is an Impious Book for falsifying such Ancient Historians as William of Malmsbury, Henry of Huntingdon, Simeon Dunelm, Ailredus, Abbas Rivallensis, and others, whose Words, if he had faithfully cited them, would have been of no use to him; for often in the Middle of the Sentences, and of the Records which he hath cited, he hath left out such Words, and Matters, as would have ruined the Design of his History. He may see many Instances of this Charge in the Parallel at the End of the Doctor's Book, who concludes thus; These are some of his many wilful mistakes, and indeed there is scarce one Instance in the Pamphlet, that is | not either falsely cited, or falsely applied. I think it is plain Knavery, and Impiety thus to falsify and wrest good Authors, and that it is proper English to call all those Impious Books, which so pervert the Truth. This Dr. Br. hath been a very Troublesome Man to Impious Falsifiers of Ancient Historians, and Records; and as one upon reading the Title Page of his Book against Mr. Petit, said, If this Charge be made good, Mr. Petit may be ashamed to walk the Streets: So say I, if the words I have ciged out of his Answer to the Brief History of the Succession be true, the Book is Impious, and the Author a Knave. But it is Mr. J's Interest, that the Perverters and Wresters of Good Authors may not incur such severe Censures, for however he hath 
(‖) Preface p. 29.  declared, that he hath been as Careful in his Citations, as ever he was in telling Money, and that he is ready to make them Good: Yet I have made it appear, That though his Money is right, as to the Tale, yet it is deficient in the Intrinsic, often wanting Purity, and Weight.  
But secondly, It is a Treasonable Book, because it asserts, That the Descent of the Crown doth not purge all Defects whatsoever, p. 17. And because p. 6, & 7. he manifestly Favours Popular Elections of Princes, and the Deposition of them for the Breach of their Coronation Oaths, although he could not but know, That a King hath all the Rights of Sovereignty without Coronation, 
(†) Calvin's Case, Coke Reports part 7.  and that it is not necessary, though it be expedient for his own Honour, and the People's Satisfaction, that he should be Crowned. The Kings of England are Completely and Absolutely Kings before Coronation; and many of them, as Henry the 6th, have lived many years uncrowned; and others of them, as Henry the 3d. and Richard the 1st. were twice Crowned; as we read of David, that he was twice anointed by the People. But there are Heretics among Lawyers, as well as Divines, and they will wrest the Laws, as the other do the Scriptures to their own Damnation: And truly this Doctrine of Deposing Kings, makes the King of England a Subject, and the Three Estates his Sovereign. And it is a Treasonable Doctrine in the same sense that the Act of Uniformity declares the Position of taking up Arms by the Kings, Authority against his Person, a Traitorous Position, because it tends to Treason: And if a man should write a Book to prove it, it would be a Treasonable or Traitorous Book.  
For the same Reason the Book, of which he saith my Lord Hollis is the Author, is an Impious, and Treasonable Book; Impious, because it abounds with Falsifications of Records, as the Authors of the Rights of the Bishops, and the Grand Question have proved; and Treasonable, because it asserts this Traitorous Position, that the King is one of the three Estates. The belief of this very Position, made Mr. Baxter, (as he himself declares) a Rebel, and I question not, but it made thousands more besides him; and never did man disgrace the Memory of a Peer more, than Julian hath done that of my Lord, in reporting him to be the Author of the Book: For he being a man Learned in the Laws, could not assert this Position but against his Conscience, and with an Ill Intent, which makes Mr. J. answerable to the Heir, for the Scandal he hath fixed upon his dead Father, who is not able to Justify himself. The Dialogue between the Tutor and Pupil, is also a Wicked and Treasonable Piece, because it misrepresents the English Government, as if there were a Reciprocal Contract betwixt the King, and the People, and as if the Parliament ought, whether or no the King pleased, to sit, till all Grievances were redressed, and Petitions answered, contrary to the standing Maximm of the English Government, Rex est Principium, Caput, & finis, Parliamenti.  
He also censures the Doctor for saying, That the Brief History of the Succession was but a New Dress of Dolemans' Title to the Crown; If (saith he) he had read the Ancient Historians of England instead of Dissenters Say, he would likewise have found it possible to write an History of the Succession without borrowing from Doleman. But the possibility of the Thing is another matter; the Doctor asserted, that it was Doleman all over, Doleman in a New Dress, and whether it is not true, he refers himself to the True and Exact History of the Succession, and to the Apostate Protestant, where it is shown, not only how much that Author, but Mr. H. too, if they be not the same Man, have Trucked, and Traded with the Jesuit, as much as the Collection of Speeches, etc. the Treatise of the Broken Succession, or Bradshaw himself ever did.  
I refer him also to the Apostate Protestant for an Answer to his childish Reflection upon the Dr. about the Dissenters Say, there he may see how well versed the Doctor is in the Fanatical Originals, how his Sermon was made before the first of those Books was printed; and I will further assure him, that if he please to come to the Doctor's Study, he shall find set in an odd Corner many of the Famous, both Ancient and Modern Fanatical Treatises: There he shall see Junius Brutus, Lex Rex, Prynn● Sovereign Power of Parliaments, Naphthali, Jus Populi Vindicatum, Miltons' Apology, Plato Redivious, with very many others, and Julian the Apostate among the rest.   

CHAP. XI. Wherein are further considered the Reasons for Passive Obedience, or Nonresistance; and wherein it is shown, that Resistance would be a Greater Mischief, than Passive Obedience.  
I Have showed in the Precedent Chapter, how the Common Laws of Sovereignty, and more particularly the Laws Imperial of this Realm, and the Doctrine of the Church of England, do condemn all Resistance, and Force against the Sovereign; and I think it will not be Superfluous to my Design in this Undertaking, to weigh and consider a little further, the Reasons, which the Acts, and Authors above cited assign for this Doctrine; and the most General, and that which comprehends all the rest, is this, That the Sovereign hath neither Superior, nor Equal upon Earth, but is next unto God, whose Anointed and Vicegerent he is.  
By the Sovergain must be always understood the Real, and Complete Sovereign, because there are many seeming Sovereigns, which are not really Such. As for Example, The Kings of Sparta exercised the Sovereign Power, but they were not Real Sovereigns, because they were accountable for their Misgovernment to the Ephori, who were chosen for that purpose by the People. And therefore neither the Kings, who were Subject to the Ephori, nor the Ephori, who were appointed by the People, but the People themselves was the real Sovereign next under God: The Kings had only the Exercise of the Sovereign Power, but not the Sovereign Power itself, that was Radically, and Originally in the People, and derivatively in the Kings, who were no more than Ministers, and trusties of the People, whom they could call to an Account by Judges of their own Appointment.  
So in the Government of Venice, though there be but one Duke, yet because the Supreme Power is not invested in him but in the Senate, that State is not really Monarchical, but Aristocratical; and the Duke is not a Real, but only a Titular, or Umbratical Sovereign, the very Creature of the Senate, which is his Superior, and the true Sovereign next under God.  
So in the Cantons of Suitzerland, though the Administration of the Government be in the Magistrates, and so make it look like an Aristocracy, yet in reality it is a Democracy, because they derive their Power from the People, and are to give an Account of the Exercise of it to them, or those whom they appoint.  
On the other hand, in the English Government, though the House of Commons bears the Show of a Democracy, and the Peers look like an Aristocracy among us, yet our Government is a perfect Monarchy, because the Supreme Power is, (as I have proved) neither in the one, nor in the other, nor in both together, but solely in the Person of the King.  
I was the more willing to make this Observation, that when I speak of Sovereign Princes, I may not be maliciously traduced, as if I spoke of them exclusively of other Sovereigns, as if Monarchy were of Sole Divine Right. For want of this Distinction other Writers have had this invidious Imputation laid upon them; But this Reason of not Resisting the Sovereign, because he is God's Vicegerent, and only 〈◊〉 Subject to him, is a Common Reason of Passive Obedience to all Sovereigns, as well, as unto Kings, and unto Kings, as well as unto any other Sovereigns.  
The forecited Acts, and Authors, render no other Reason but this, which indeed is virtually many other Reasons; for if the Government of Men, as well as of Angels, be from God, than it must follow, First, That upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Sovereign Authority, he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis, or Essential Rights of Sovereignty, according to that Maxim, Qui dat esse, dat & omnia pertinentia ad esse; He that gives the Essense, gives also the Properties belonging to the Essense. Wherefore as an Architect, who makes a Piece of Timber a Cube, or a Sphere, gives it all the Properties of a Cube, or a Sphere: So God, when he makes any Man a Sovereign, he gives him all the Essential Rights of Sovereignty, one of which is to be free from Resistance, or Forcible Repulse; For if any man, or number of men under him, had lawful Power to take up Defensive Arms, or use Defensive Force against the Sovereign, and his Forces, he could not for this Reason be Sovereign, because he would be Subject unto a Controllable Power. For according to this Supposition, his Subjects would have a Power of Judging of his Actions, whether they were Just, or Injurious, Lawful, or Unlawful, and when they might make a War Defensive, and when not, which is in effect to destroy Sovereignty, and make the Sovereign Inferior to the People: And therefore to cut off all pretences of Resistance in the English Government, the Three Estates (as I have proved before) have declared against all Defensive, as well as Offensive War, it being impossible for the Sovereignty to consist with the Liberty of that Pretence: Just as among the Romans it was inconsistent with the Sovereign Unaccountable Power, which the Masters by Law had over the Slaves, for them to have a Liberty of Rising up against them, under the pretence of Self-defence.  
In all Sovereign Governments Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular; they must trust their Lives, and Liberties with their Sovereign, and therefore 
(†) Quod dicitur subjectionem dominis deberi etiam duris, idem ad reges quoque referendum, nam quod sequitur ei fundamento superstructum, non minus subditorum, quàm servorum officium est. De Jure, l. 1. c. 4, 6.  Grotius, after St. August. applies that place in 1 Pet. 2.19. which concerns the Passive Behaviour of Servants unto their Masters under the Roman Government, unto all Subjects: Servants, be Subject to your Masters with all Fear, not only to the Good, and Gentle, but also to the Froward; 
(‖) Quod autem dixi de domino, hoc intelligite de potestatibus & regibus & ominibus culminibus hujus seculi, aliquando enim potestates bonae sunt & timent Deum, aliquando non timent Deum. Julianus extitit infidelis Imperator nonne extitit Apostata, Iniquus, Idololatra, milites Christiani servierunt Imperatori infideli, etc. In Ps 1●4. Vid. Sam. Bochart. Ep. ad D. Morley, p. 77, 78, 79.  for this is thankworthy, or acceptable to God: If a Man for Couscience-sake towards God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what Glory is it, if when you are buffeted for your Faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if when you do well, and suffer for it, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an Example, that we should follow his Steps. For Real and Complete Sovereigns, whether Arbitrary, or Limited, can●●y under nothing but Moral Restraint, and Obligations not to Injure their Subjects, for if they were under the 
(†) Sir Orl. Bridgmans' Speech to the Regicides, p. 13, 14.  Coaction of another Power, or under Legal Perils, or Penalties, they could not be Real, and Complete Sovereigns: And therefore our Old Lawyer Bracton, who so often declares the King to be next unto God, doth also declare, That when he acts Illegally, not as God's Minister, but as the Minister of the Devil, as our 
(‖) P. 84.  Author well observes, yet he is not to be contravened, or resisted. Locus erit supplicationi quod [Rex] factum suum corrigat, & emendet; quod quidem si non fecerit, satis sufficit ei ad poenam, quod Dominum expectet ultorem. Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare, multo fortiùs contra factum suum venire, l. 2. c. 7. If the Reader please to consult that Chapter, he will find by many Expressions, that the King hath no other, but a Moral Obligation to observe the Laws. Sic & beata Dei genitrix virgo Maria, quae singulari privilegio supra Legem fuit, pro ostendendo tamen humilitatis exemplo legalibus subdi non refugit institutis: But then if he will be a Tyrant, and act Illegally, it is sufficient for his Punishment, that he hath God for his Avenger; for no Man must dispute against what he doth, much less oppose, or resist it. The King is bound in Justice, and Equity, and for Example sake to observe his Laws; but if he will lay aside all Conscience, and the Fear of God his only Superior, the Rights of Sovereignty secure the 
(‖) Nec praetereundum, quod Samuel jussus Israelitis jus regium edisserere, 1 Sam. 8, 9 Hoc (inquit) est juris regii, qui regnabit super vos. Filios vestros tollet, & imponet curribus suis, etc. Ait haec esse juris regii, non quod coram Deo justa sint, nec enim David Uriae uxorem, ne● Achab Nabato vineam eripere potuerunt sine crimine, sed quia hujusmodi scelera reges tam impunè perpetrant, quàm si essent maximè licita, ideò additur populum, ita oppressum Deum imploraturum, quia contra vim regis nulla sunt humana remedia. Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 87.  Tyrant as well, as the Good King, from Resistance.— Si autem Princeps, vel Rex, vel alius, qui superiorem non habue●it, nisi dominum, contra ipsum non habebitur remedium per assisam, immo tantùm locus ●rit supplicationi, u● factum suum corrigat, & emendet, quod si non fecerit, sufficiet ei pro paena, quod Dominum expectet ultorem. If it be the King, or any other [Duke, etc.] who hath no Superior, but God, that shall [Illegally disseise] there shall be 〈◊〉 Remedy against him by Assize, only there shall be place for Petition, that he would correct, or amend, what he hath done amiss; which if he refuse to do, it is sufficient for his Punishment, that he may expect God for his Avenger.  
This Moral Obligation, which the King hath to observe the Laws, is further increased by his Coronation-Oath, as Bracton observes l. 3. the Action. c. 9 But then, as in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King, but what they are bound to perform unsworn: So the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People, but what in Justice, and Equity he is bound to perform unsworn. Ad hoc (saith Bracton) electus, & creat●● est, ut justitiam faciet universis, etc. and Separare a●tem debet Rex, cum sit Dei Vicarius, jus ab injuria aequum ab iniquo, etc. But then if he will pervert the great End, for which God made him King, if he will not Act, as it becomes God's Vicar, if he will obstruct, or pervert the Laws, and govern Tyrannically, yet still there is left no Remedy to his Subjects By the Law, but Moral Persuasion, for the Laws Imperial of this Realm have declared him to be a 
(†) Sir Orl. Bridgmans' Speech, p. 12, 13, 14.  Free, Unconditional, and Independent Sovereign, and exempted him from all Coaction, and Force. Nay, to show that the Kings of England were in this respect as perfect Sovereigns, as the Caesars, he applies unto them those Memorable Say of Valentinian the Younger, and Alexander Severus; 
(†) Majus Imperio est submittere legibus principatum. Bract. l. 3. de Act. c. 9 & l. 4. c de Leg. & Const.  It really is a greater thing than the Empire, for the Prince to submit to the Laws. And 
(‖) Nihil tam proprium est Imperii, quàm legibus vivere. Bract. ib. l. 3. c. de Test.  There is nothing more proper for the Empire, than that the Emperor should live according to Law. To which, ●f he pleased, he might have added that set down so often in the 
(*) Instit. quibus modis Testam. infirm. 8. Secundum hoc Divi Severus & Antoninus saepissime rescripserunt, licèt enim (inquiunt) legibus soluti sumus, attamen legibus vivimus.  Rescripts of Severus, and Antoninus; Although we be loosed from the Laws, yet we live by the Laws, Indeed our Kings differ from the Caesars in this, th●● (as the same 
(†) Lib. 1. c. 2. De Laud. Leg Ang. c. 9  Bracton, and (‖) Fortescue long since observed) That they are limited in the Exercise of their Legislative Power, not being able to make, or repeal Laws without the consent of the Three Estates. But still, if they will turn Tyrants, neither fearing God, nor the Censures of Good Men, they are by the Law of the English Empire, as free from Punishment, Compulsion, or Resistance, as the Caesars were.  
But Secondly, The foresaid General Reason of not resisting the Sovereign because he is God's Vicegerent, doth imply that he hath all his Power from God. This is very Ancient Divinity, as appears from what Daniel said unto Nabuchadnezzar, c. 2.37. Thou O King, art a King of Kings, for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom, Power, and Strength, and Glory; and from what he said to his Grandson Belshazzar, c. 5.18, 19 The Most High God gave Nabuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom, and Majesty, and Glory, and Honour, and for the Majesty that he gave him, all People, Nations, and Languages trembled, and feared before him: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, whom he would he set up, and whom he would he pulled down. Accordingly it is written of Cyrus the Heathen Emperor, Isa. 45.1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus, whose Right Hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him. And 2 Chron. 36.23. Thus saith Cyrus' King of Persia, all the Kingdoms of the Earth hath the Lord God given me. So Prov. 8.15, 16. By me Kings Reign, and Princes decree Justice; by me Princes Rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth. And God declared by Jeremy, c. 27.5, 6. I have made the Earth, and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me; and now I have given all these Lands into the hand of King Nabuchadnezzar my Servant.  
Now, if according to these Express Texts the Sovereign have all his Power from God, he must by consequence have the Power of the Sword from him, as St. Paul particularly observes, He beareth not the Sword in vain, for he is the Minister of God. And if he have the Power of the Sword from him, it must needs follow, 
(‖) Praeterea cum in regno gladii jus nulli competat, praeterquam ipsi regi, aut iis, quibus a rege id concessum est; peto quo jure quis aude●t in summum animadvertere, utrum jure concesso an usurpato? Si concesso dixerit, rursus petam a quo concesso? Utrum a principe vel ab aliquo alio praeter principem? Si a principe respondeat, hoc ipso ●rit ridiculus, quia non est credibile principem ulli indulgere jus gladio in seipsum utendi— Quantamcunque in alium transferat princeps potestatem semper manet Superior. Sam Bochart. Ep, p. 90, 91.  That the People have no Right to bear it, neither for Offence, nor Defence or Resistance, without Commission from him. He may indeed abuse this, as well as any other Branch of his Power; he may bear the Sword not for the Defence, but for the Offence and Destruction of his Subjects, but if he do, they have no Authority to Resist him, they cannot without sinful Usurpation oppose their Swords to his; as it was written by the Apostle in the time of a 
(†) Jam nequis haec dici putet de bonis duntaxat regibus, cogitandum est Petrum, & Paulum vel sub Claudio, vel sub Nerone scripsisse, quorum ille vecors fuit, hic monstrum hominis, quibus tamen Christianos jubent esse subditos, non solum metu paenae, sed & ●b conscientiam, & propter Deum. Nec multo meliorem fuisse Tiberium cui Christus reddi voluit ea, quae ●rant Caesaris. Ib. p ●2.  Wicked Tyrant, He that resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to to themselves Damnation. And how can a Man be guiltless that draws and uses his Sword, without Authority from him to whom the jus gladii belongs? much more if he useth it against him, who only hath the Authority of the Sword. This very Consideration made Grotius condemn all violent defence against unjust Force from Public Authority, Contra vim injustissimam sed publico nomine illatam. De Imp. c. 3. n. 6.  
Our Blessed Saviour never intended to diminish, or destroy the Rights of Sovereignty, but on the contrary was very tender of them, commanding his Disciples to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesar's, and this was said by him with respect to Tiberius, who was a Man excessive in Cruelty, Drunkenness, and Lust. It was said indeed upon the account of paying Tribute, but holds as well to all the Rights of Sovereignty, and particularly as to this of being the Master of the Sword; and therefore when St. Peter drew his Sword in his Master's Defence against the Officers of the Cruel Sanhedrim, he sharply rebuked him, saying, Put up thy Sword, for he that useth the Sword, shall perish by the Sword. This very Text was ever understood by the Primitive Christians, as an absolute Prohibition to use any Violence against the Sovereign, and was applied by Maunitius the Commander of the Thebaean Legion, when he charged his Soldiers in Christ's Name, not to Resist under the Specious Pretext of Self-Defence.  
And truly, if the Christian Religion had given a Right to the Professors of it to defend themselves, and it against the Illegal Violence of the Sovereign, it had not been a taking up of the Cross, but of the Sword, not Evangelical, as our Author speaks of Passive Obedience, but Mahometan; and truly one who knew no more of the Gospel, than what he might learn of it out of Julian, would never imagine that Jesus had said, If any man will come after me let him deny himself, and take up his Cross, and follow me. And whosoever shall lose his Life for my sake and the Gospels, the same shall save it. And every one that forsaketh Houses, or Brethren, or Sisters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands for my Names sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit Everlasting Life. Or that his Beloved Disciple the Prophet of the New Testament had said of the Martyrs of the 
(†) Dr. Moor's Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, c. 13.10. c. 14.12, 13.  Protestant Religion, Here is the Patience, and Faith of the Saints; Here is the Patience of the Saints; Blessed are the Dead, or the Martyrs, that die in the Lord. But the Author of Julian, it seems, will show no Faith, nor Patience but in a Legal Persecution, he will not die a Martyr, but when the Laws are against him; but if his Sovereign attack him against Law, i. e. against the Laws which are made for the Defence of the Subject, he will be even with him, he will without Authority take up Defensive Arms against him contrary to the Laws which are made for the Defence and Honour of the Sovereign, and so commit as Damnable a Sin one way, as his Prince doth the other.  
This is plainly, as Max. Tyrius speaks of Private Revenge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do one Injury for another. His Sovereign injures him against the second, and he will therefore injure his Sovereign against the first Table of Civil Government. He will sin against the Laws Imperial, because his Prince sins against the Political. Well, let him do so at his Peril, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Senses, he may be legally Hanged for it in this World, and (without Repentance) will be Damned for it in that which is to come.  
But in the third place, The General Reason assigned for Not-resisting the Sovereign, because he is God's Vicegerent, doth imply, That to resist him, is to resist God, who hath made him Sovereign, and set him above all Coercion, and Force. If the Nature of Sovereignty, and of a Crown Imperial did not require, that he should not be violently resisted, yet the Honour of God, whose Image, and Substitute he is, would require the Subject not to do so, lest he should seem to resist God. The King (saith 
† C. 21.  Agapetus to Justinian the Emperor) in regard of the Nature of his Body is of the same Mould with every Man, but in respect of the Eminency of his Dignity, he is like unto God, who is Lord over all, whose Image he beareth, and by whom he holdeth that Power which he hath over Men. And 
‖ De re Mil. l. 2. c. 5.  Vegetius saith, That next after God the Emperor is to be Honoured and Loved, because he is a Corporeal God.  
I had made a small Collection of Testimonies to this purpose out Christian Writers, to show how the King is the Minister, and Image of God, but I have since found them all, with far many more in Archbishop Ushers Admirable Book Of the Power communicated by God to the Prince, To which I refer the Reader.  
Hence it is that the Common Law of England doth also attribute unto the King the Divine Perfections. Finch lib. 2. deal Leg. c. 1. as cited by Mr. Sheringham, Roy est le test del●bien public immediate desoubs deiu, etc. The King is Head of the Commonwealth immediately under God, over all Persons, and in all Causes: And therefore because he represents the Person of God, and bears his Image, the Law attributeth unto him a Similitudinary Manner, a Shadow of Divine Excellencies, namely, Sovereignty— Majesty— Infiniteness— Perpetuity— Perfection— Truth— Justice—. Now to assert that Sovereign Princes are the Vicegerents, and Images of God, is very agreeable to Holy Scriptures, Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy People; God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods, I have said ye are Gods, and all of you the Children of the most High; Accordingly saith Jesus, Joh. 10.34. Is it not written in your Law [of Princes] I said ye are God: If he called them Gods, of whom the Word of God there speaks, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, thou Blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God. These Earthly 
† Addo haud dubiè regibus primariò— precipuè convenire, quod Scriptura magistratibus indulget Deorum nomen, ut Exod. 2.1.6.22.18. 1 Sam. 2.25. Ps. 82.6. proinde Solomon Ps. 45. quod quidem ad Christum refert Apostolus, Solomonis typo adumbratum, sed sensus typicus literalem non excludit, imo supponit. Itaque etiam Solomon suo modo fuit Deus, nempe ut rectè Diotogenes apud Stovaeum, Rex cum Imperium habeat nulli obnoxium, & sit ipse viva lex Dei instar est inter homines, & Eaphantus ejusdem sect●e. Quod Deo quidem inest, inest & regi, ut sibi ipse imperet, unde vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nulli autem subjiciatur, Proinde in suum regem quisquis insurgit est Gigas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sam. Bochart. Ep. p. 84, 85.  Gods, these Vicegerents and Images of the Almighty Sovereign; these Anointed of the Lord must not be resisted by those whom God hath sujected unto them. If they do wrong, if they tyrannize it over their Subjects, he will punish them, and turn their Hearts, if he see fit. But their Subjects must not defend themselves by Violence against him, they must not take up Defensive Arms against them, because they are in God's stead, for whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. In that place: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify, that Resistance is inconsistent with Subjection, or to show that a Subject to a perfect Sovereign ought not to resist.  
Thus have I branched the General Reason for Nonresistance into three, and every one of them is common to the Regulated or Limited, as well as the Arbitrary Sovereign; and I know not what can be replied to them, but either to deny, that the Sovereign is God's Vicegerent, and doth 〈◊〉 derive his Authority from him, or else to assert that Self-Defence is enjoined by the Law of Nature. But to deny the Former will be to deny the Bible, and contradict the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Christians, the Acts or Parliament, Book of Homilies, and the Liturgy, especially in the 
‖ Thy chosen Servant— Our King and Governor, that he knowing, whose Minister he is— And that we, and all his Subjects duly considering, whose Authority he hath—  Collect of the Communion-Service for the King, and therefore I will suppose, that my Brother J. dare not do it; and before he asserts the Latter, I desire him to consult Dr. Falconers Christian Loyalty, a Book, which ought to be read by every English Subject.  
I shown him before out of the Second Part of the Homily of Obedience, That Subjects are not in any Case to Resist, or stand against the Sovereign, although he be Wicked, or a Wrong-Doer; And now I will show that the Principle, into which I have resolved it, is plainly taught in the First. There our Late Sovereign King James is called the Gift of God, there the Authority of Kings, their making of Laws, Judgement, and Offices are said to be Ordinances not of Man, but of God. This is also asserted by Old 
(†) De laudibus Legum Angliae c. 3.  Chancellor Fortescue, in these words; All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God, for as the Apostle saith, All Power is from the Lord God, wherefore the Laws that are made by Man, which thereunto have received Power from the Lord, are also Ordained of God; And if all Laws of Men, be the Laws, and Ordinances of God, than I suppose the Common, and Statute-Laws of every Empire, which absolutely forbidden the Subject to resist the Sovereign are so too; and I desire to know, whether it can be safe for a Christian to be guilty of the Breach of those Laws.  
But to return to the Homily, it further teacheth us, That the High Powers, are set in Authority by God, that they are Gods Lieutenants, God's Precedents, God's Judges ordained of God himself. And if these Precedents, and Lieutenants of God will transgress the Bounds within which they ought to act, we must not forcibly resist, or repulse them, but give place to their Wrath, and suffer according to the Will of God, committing our Souls to him in well doing, as unto a Faithful Creator, to him that judgeth righteously. Like the Masters under the Roman Government, they are bound to do that which is Just, and Equal, and Legal unto their Subjects, as knowing they have a Master in Heaven; but if they forget their Duty to their Master to whom alone they are acconntable; their Subjects, like the Servants, from whom the Law took all Power of violent Resistance, must only withstand them with Supplications, and Tears. This is all the Gospel allows, or could indeed in Reason allow, because there must somewhere be fixed, and acknowledged such a Sovereign Authority, which none have Power to resist, or against which none have Power of taking Arms; but had the Gospel allowed Resistance against the Sovereign, it had unhinged all Government by putting the Sword into private men's Hands. This Precept (saith 
(†) In Math. 26.52.  Grotius) of putting up the Sword belongeth to all Christians, who are called unto punishment upon the Account of Religion; for it is the Pleasure of God, when that necessity lies upon us, that we should testify our Patience, and commit our Souls unto our Creator; and what can be more just than that we should lay down our Lives for his Honour from whom we received them? This St. Pet. hath taught us in his Master's Name Ep. 1. c. 4.16, 19— And if it be once admitted (saith he) that private men, when they are injured by the Magistrate, may forcibly resist him, all places would be full of Tumults, and there would be no Force, or Authority of Laws, and Judicatures, because all men are apt to favour themselves. Wherefore Reason compels us to confess, that Oppression is to be endured, lest too much Liberty follow upon the contrary, and the Examples of the Ancient Christians teach us, That any Violence is to be endured, which the Supreme Power lays upon us upon the account of our Religion● For they are in a great Error, who think, that the Christians before the time of Constantine abstained from Resistance, because they wanted sufficient Strength. And if they did not abstain for that reason before the time of Constantine, I appeal to our Author, Whether they did abstain for that reason after his time; and what Account he will give to God, or Man, for slandering the Christian Subjects of 
(‖) Ita sub Juliano licèt impio Apostatâ merebant Christiani milites nec quisquam illi vim fecit, quo nihil fuisset faciliùs, cum fere totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit. Sam. Bochart. Ep. p. 53.  Julian, in saying, What would you have a few defenceless Christians do,; have you never heard a West-Country-Man say, Chud eat more Cheese if chad it.  
But to return from this digression unto 
(†) Vot. pro pace. ad Act 16. vid. Dr. Falk. p. 373.  Grotius; In his Latter and Wiser years he approved of the University of Oxford's Determination against Paraeus upon the Romans, Subditos nullo modo, etc. That Subjects ought by no means to 
(‖) Quinta lex est, Prov. 30.31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rex in quem nemo insurgit, i. e. in quem subditorum nemo debet insurgere. Alioquin enim multi insurgunt, sed id faciunt praeter jus et fas, ut Rex hic vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alkum, quia in eum nemo insurgit. Ita palladem alibi observo fuisse vocatam à Phaenicibus Ela alkuma Deam in quam nemo insurgit, et Laeotiae urbem illi sacram Gaecâ flexione Alalcomenas quae parva cum esset et in plano extructa, semper tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intacta et inviolata mansit, quia ob deae reverentiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab omni v● omnes abstinebant. Pausan. Eaeot. Strab. l. 9 Ib. p. 41.  resist their Sovereign by force, nor ought they to take either Offensive or Defensive Arms against him for the Cause of Religion, or any other whatsoever. Here is the University of Oxon teaching the very Doctrine of the Bowstring, and Grotius approving of it; and furthermore affirming, That if Paraeus, or Mr. J's Exceptions were admitted against St. Paul, That no Government could be any longer safe, than while those who have such Sentiments, want Strength.  
It was upon this Principle, that the Prophets, and other Saints in great numbers, patiently suffered under the Idolatrous Kings of Israel, who, as Mr. J. might have remembered, persecuted against Law. And in like manner our blessed Saviour, who had so great a regard for Government, and for the Good of Mankind, for which Government was ordained, absolutely forbids Subjects to resist their Sovereign, and because he foresaw, that the pretence of Religion, would of all others be the most Popular, and Specious, therefore took he such Care to have himself proposed for an Example of Patience, and Suffering unto his Disciples, and to assure them, that if they suffered with him, they should also Reign with him. Indeed there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, or Nonresistance, but it is an Inconvenience, which cannot be prevented, unless we should remove the Centre upon which Government is fixed; and admit the Inconvenience of Resisting the Sovereign, which would be 
(†) Cùm probaverim hactenus summum principem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & a solo Deo pendere, solum hoc addo pro mantissâ quod si liceret inragem ideo insurgere, quia malus est, et potestate suâ abutitur, Non tamen id expedire & populo esse consultiùs ut ab iis remediis abstineat, quae plerumque morbo ipso pejora sunt, quibusque adeo vulnus exasperatur, potiùs quàm sanatur. Ea mala toleranda sunt, quae sine magná pernicie non possunt emendari.— praestat unius hominis scelera esse impunita, quàm innumeros insontes certo exitio exponere, quod ab illis ferè fit, qui in reges quid moliuntur. Neque enim expectandum est, ut citati judicio se sistant, et plebeiorum instar unius aut alterius victoris Imperio se submittant, quin copias conscribi oportet, et multorum saepe praeliorum aliae subeundae, an't quam possint cogi in ordinem. Unde magna strages sequitur et provinciarum devastatio, quod Britannia vestra vel me tacente clamat. Itaque multo satius est Dei judicio rem committere, et converti ad preces, & lachrymas, quae vera Christianorum arma sunt, quàm ad ea remedia confugere quae sunt violentiora. Sam. Bochart. 10.140, 141.  ten times worse than it. For if the Former make a Land obnoxious now, and then unto a Tyrant; the Latter would make it perpetually obnoxious to the Rage, and Fury of the deluded Rabble, who in Riots, Tumults, and Insurrections (for which they would never want Pretences, were Resistance in any case allowed) are able to do more mischief in a Week, than ever any Tyrant yet did in a Year. Indeed the Strokes of a Tyrant, like those of Thunder, make a great Noise, and all places ring with it, and it puts the World in great affright; but yet alone, and unresisted, a Tyrant cannot spill so much Blood, especially in a Limited Empire, as would be shed by Resistance in a Defensive War; for the Rage of the worst of Tyrants generally wrecks itself upon particular persons, or parties of Men; but in Civil War, which is worse than any Tyranny, all must suffer without distinction, and however it may be called Defensive, and at first be so designed, yet it will certainly degenerate into Offensive; and Rapine, Bloodshed, and Devastations will be the ordinary Concomitants thereof. The late Rebellion among us was called by the Raiser's of it, and I believe verily intended by some of them, for a War merely Defensive, but it soon proved Offensive, the Managers of it being forced in their own defence to seek Advantages to set upon the King, as he did to set upon them. Indeed when the Defensive Party is very much the stronger, than the War, if the Defenders please, may be merely Defensive, but when the Party Offensive is as strong or stronger than they, than they cannot defend themselves without taking the Advantage of Offence. Besides, if we consider the Passions of Men set in Military Opposition one against another, the Notion of a Defensive War, like many Notions in Geometry, though it may be true in the Theory ' yet it will be impossible in the Practice; and therefore I cannot but admire the Wisdom, as well, as the Goodness of God, in forbidding us to Resist, or Defend ourselves by Force against the Sovereign, and his Forces, because Defence doth so naturally degenerate into Offence.  
These things considered, I desire Mr. J. the fierce, and almost blasphemous Opposer of Passive Obedience, to consider, Whether (as he saith) He 
(†) Pref. p. 11.  hath honestly pursued the End of our Saviour's Coming into the World, which was not to destroy men's Lives, but to save them. For had our Saviour allowed Subjects, under the pretence of defending themselves, and their Religion, to resist their Sovereign, he had come indeed to destroy men's Lives; and, as he said in another sense, Not to send Peace on Earch, but a Sword: He had then indeed set Subjects at variance against their Sovereign, and made the World for Rebels, the worst of Banditi, by the Gospel, which had then been a Doctrine of War, and not of Peace. But this was not consistent with his Infinite Wisdom, and Goodness, and the Care which he had for Government, and the Peace, and welfare of Mankind. Though Tyranny be ill, yet he knew Resistance was worse, and therefore he hath commanded us to lay down our Lives for our Religion, but not to take up the Sword in defence of it, contrary to the Imperial Law. For all that draw, or use the Sword, without Authority from the Sovereign, whose right it is to bear it, he hath left obnoxious to the Sword of Justice, and to incur the Punishment of death; Put up thy Sword into its place (saith he to Peter) for all that take the Sword, shall perish with the Sword. Wherefore let Mr. J. talk never so much against a Popish Successor, and let him have what Characters men please to give him; nay let them suppose him to be a Complicate Tyrant, and, as Gregory saith of Julian, to be Pharaoh, Achab, Hieroboam, and Nabuchadnezzar all in one; nay let the Spirit of Galerius, Maximin, and Maxentius come upon him, yet I am sure it will cost fewer Lives, and less Desolation, to let him alone, than to resist him; but if it would not, I had rather die a Martyr, than a Rebel; this is my Resolution by the Grace of God; I can be content to be barbarously murdered, I know to whom I must pay my Passive Obedience, to my God, and to my King; the Laws of God, and the Imperial Laws of the Land require it of me; For though 
(†) P. 80.  God approves our Religion, and would have all the World to embrace it, and hold it fast, yet he doth not approve of Resistance, that's no part of Christian Liberty, and he would have none embrace that. And though 
(‖) Ibid.  Protestancy is so far from being Criminal by the Laws of our Country, that it is Death to turn Papist, as it was to turn Idolater among the Jews, yet Passive Obedience is part of the Established Protestant Religion, as it was of the Jewish, and the Laws of our Country (God be praised for it) make it Capital to resist.  
Therefore I resolve by God's Assistance neither to turn Papist, nor Resist; But if I cannot escape, I will suffer according to the Gospel and the Church of England; and Mr. J. hath the Liberty to despise the Gospel, and the Church, and to resist his supposed Tyrant, if he will. He may preach and practise Resistance, but I am resolved to preach, and practise Passive Obedience after the Example of the Jewish Prophets and Martyrs, who suffered against Law; and in my most Melancholy Prospect of things, I can comfort myself with the hopes of a Reward for dying at a Stake, which he shall never have for dying in the Field.  
But for fear I should move the Indignation of Mr. J. too much, by showing the utter Inconveniences of Resisting, and how it is a Remedy against Tyranny, worse than the Disease, I will endeavour to temper him with a few Words out of his next best Book to the Bible, in the First Part of the Homily against Disobedience. What shall Subjects do then? Shall they obey Valiant, Stout, Wise, and Good Princes, and Contemn, Disobey, and Rebel, against Children being their Princes, or against Indiscreet, and Evil Governors? God forbidden. For first, What a Perilous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the Judgement, which Prince is Wise, and Godly, and his Government Good, and which is otherwise, as though the Foot must judge of the Head; an Enterprise very heinous, and must needs breed Rebellion: For who else be they, that are most inclined to Rebellion, but such Haughty Spirits, from whom springeth such foul ruin of Realms? Is not Rebellion the greatest of all Mischiefs? And who are most ready to the greatest Mischiefs, but the worst Men?— What an unworthy matter were it then to make the Naughtiest Subjects, and most inclined to Rebellion, and all Evil, Judges over the Princes, over the Government, and over their Counsellors to determine, which of them be Good, and Tolerable, and which be Evil, and so Intolerable, that they must needs be removed by Rebels, being ever ready, as the Naughtiest Subjects soon to Rebel— But whereas indeed a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince, and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto hath been, both Rebels are unmeet Ministers, and Rebellion an unfit, and unwholesome Medicine to reform any small Lacks in a Prince, or to cure any little Grief in a Government, such lewd Remedies being far worse, than any other Maladies, and Disorders, that can be in the Body of a Commonwealth.  
I appeal to the Late Rebellion, which the Rebels called a Defensive War to verify this Doctrine; for there was more Blood shed in it in one Battle, than in all the Tyrannies and Persecutions of the Nation since the Conquest; and in the two Kingdoms there hath been more Christian Blood shed in Rebellions since the Reformation by pretended Undertakers of Defensive War, than throughout the whole Roman Empire in nine of the first ten Famous Persecutions. There is scarce any other Kingdom in the World, wherein it may not be showed by woeful example, how disadvantageous, and prejudicial it would be to the Commonwealth, that it should be Lawful for the People to take up Arms for Defence of their Liberties, and Religion: Civil Wars would be the constant Effect of such an Exorbitant Power, because there would never want Turbulent and Ambitious Spirits, to make the Populace Jealous of their Sovereign, and by consequence ready upon the first Alarm to rise up in defence of their Rights.  
Had the People of this, and the Neighbouring Nation had such a Power of Resistance granted unto them, this Island had been made a Theatre of War almost ever since his Majesty's Happy Restauration: nay, in all appearance, there had been more Blood shed in the Land these 4 last years of our Fears and Jealousies, than can without Resistance be shed in a Persecution of 20 years long: Nay, let us imagine a Popish Prince as bigoted in Religion, and as sanguinary in his Temper, as may be now Reigning over us, yet he could not likely cause so much Ruin, Bloodshed, and Desolation in his whole Reign, as a War between him and his Resisting Subjects would cause in one Year. Wherefore it is plain, that it is the Interest even of the People themselves, that so great a Power should be in the Sovereign, that none should withstand him, or rise up against him, and that nothing can be more pernicious to the Commonwealth in any Government, than that the Subjects should have a Power of taking up Arms to defend their Liberties, and Religion.   

Chap. XII. Wherein is showed, That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Nonresistance or Passive Obedience, we are Secure enough of our Lives, Properties, and Religion.  
ALL that I have hitherto said of Passive Obedience, hath been to satisfy the Reasons of the Thinking, and Sober Part of Men, and now I proceed to propose some Considerations, which may serve as a sufficient Answer to that Hasty Question, which timourous and suspicious men are apt to make against this Doctrine, saying, Where then is our Security? How can we be Safe from the utmost Tyranny, and Oppression of our Sovereign, if we may not be allowed to Resist?  
To which I answer, That I have already shown, that the Remedy of Resistance is as bad, or worse than the Disease of Tyranny and Persecution; and I furthermore add, that upon supposition there were some Cases allowed, wherein we might take up Defensive Arms against the Sovereign, what Security could the Sovereign have upon desisting from Tyranny and Persecution, that this Defensive Army would lay down their Arms? Might they not say, that he was not to be trusted, having once broke his Coronation-Oath, and that it was necessary for them to keep up in Arms to prevent a second Persecution? Nay, might they not serve him, as the Army served our Late Blessed Sovereign, and if they went about to do so, who durst question them for what they did? Perhaps you will reply, that another Army is to be raised to reduce this to their former Obedience: But how difficult would it be for an Oppressed Prince, and People to raise an Army against another Conquering Army; or if they did, what dismal Consequences, far worse than any Tyranny, would follow thereupon? Besides the Ruins, and Devastations during the War, Slavery, and Arbitrary Government would naturally be the Event of it: For if the first Army prevailed, than the Injured Prince, as well as the People, whom they pretended to defend, must be Subject to their Discretion; but if the King, and his new Army raised to reduce them prevailed, what then will become of our Liberties and Religion, which the first Army risen up to defend?  
But perhaps you will object, That you would have this Defensive Army under the Conduct of sworn trusties for the People; That they should be Disbanded, as soon as they have reduced the Tyrannising Prince. But who shall see that these trusties shall perform their Trust? How can you be Secure they will not break their Oaths? Or if they be Faithful to their Trust, how can you be secure the Defensive Army will be disbanded by them? Remember what happened between Cromwel's Army, and the House. But still you will object, that to prevent these Inconveniences, you would have the Government in more Hands than one, you would not have one man only entrusted with it? Well, let it be so: Let us suppose that the Three Estates in Parliament were our Governors, yet I can object as strongly against this: Either they will agree together, or disagree. If they agree, how can you be secure they will not divide the Land among them, 〈◊〉 in a short time govern us as Arbitrarily as the S●●●ate of Venice, under which the People really are what we call Slaves. But if they disagree, as is most probable, having the Passions of Men, Ambition, Covetousness, and Emulations, than their Government will become uncertain, and odious, and the most popular amongst them will take an Opportunity to set up himself; and when he hath mastered his Companions, he must secure his Usurpation by Force, and then his Pleasure must be our Law.  
All these Inconveniences would apparently attend the new Model for the Association to back the Exclusion of the next Heir. For either the Heads of it would agree, or disagree. If they continued to agree, than the preposterous Heir, after he was made King, and his People also, must be subject to their Discretion. But if they should disagree, as most probably they would, then as fast as they fell out among themselves, or grew discontented, their Security would oblige them to revolt unto the Secluded Heir, and help him to get possession of the Crown. And in what a Miserable Condition would this Nation be during such a Civil War, no Tyranny in all probability could be so Destructive; and whether the Popish Prince, or the Opposing Army at last prevailed, we must be subject to their Sword.  
In a word, there neither is, nor can be any absolute Security either for the Sovereign against the Subjects, or for the Subjects against the Sovereign in any Government: And therefore in the second place, it may be a sufficient Answer to the Former Question, to show, That we have all the Security against the King, that the King hath against us, even all the Security, that any People in the World ever had, have, or aught to have. an  
For first, We have the Care and Providence 〈◊〉 God for our Security, who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the only Ruler of Princes: For as Daniel told Nabuchadnezzar, the most High ruleth in the Kingdoms of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever, he will. The Welfare of the Public is much more the Object of his Fatherly Care, than the Welfare of private persons, and he delights to see the Nations of the Earth Happy, and will not let them be Afflicted and Oppressed with Tyrants, but when Tyranny is necessary, for their Punishment, or Cure. But much more is he concerned for his own Family, I mean, for any Nation, whose People are part of his Household, which is the Catholic Church. He delights to see them Happy, and were it not for their Sins, he would always set such Princes over them, as would be Nursing Fathers to them, and the Church. But when it is necessary for their Punishment, or Reformation, than he will suffer their Kings to turn Tyrants; and when he doth so, the People, like the People of Israel, must patiently suffer them, as they do other Judgements, and not rise up against them, lest they be found guilty of Rebellion against God.  
On the other hand, when a sinful People turn from those Sins, by which they provoke God, he will set Just, and Merciful, and Valiant Princes over them, who shall Love them; and Protect them as their own Children; and this he can do both ways, either by taking away Good, or Bad Princes, or by turning of their Hearts, For the Hearts of Kings are in his Rule, and Governance, and he doth dispose, and turn them, as seemeth best to his Godly Wisdom: According to what Solomon said, and perhaps upon his own Experience, That the King's Heart is in the Hand of the Lord, as the Rivers of Water, he turneth it whithersoever he will.  
Jealous, and Suspicious Men indeed may have a thousand Contrivances, and fancied Demonstrations to prevent or remove Evil Princes; but when God shall see it fit to punish them that way, he will in a Moment baffle, and defeat them all. And on the other side, Princes may have a thousand Devises how to oppress, or enslave their People, but God, whose Instruments they are, can in a Moment overturn them, and their Devices, he can resist the Strength of the Strongest Leviathan, as he said unto Senaccherib; I know thy Abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy Rage against me, and because thy Rage, and thy Tumult is come into mine Ears, therefore I will put my Hook in thy Nose, and my Bridle in thy Lips, and I will turn thee back by the way in which thou camest.  
Wherefore, as the Prince's best Security against the People is the watchful Providence of God: So the same watchful Providence is the People's best Security against the Prince. The same God who stilleth the Noise of the Waves, and the Tumult of the People in defence of the King, doth likewise still the Thunder, and assuage the Fury of the King in defence of the People, and neither could be safe one from the other, unless God did Watch and Preside, and as it were pitch his Tent between them both.  
Wherefore as it is the securest way for a Prince to have Peaceable, and Obedient Subjects to serve God, whose Vicegerent he is: So on the other hand, the best Security the People can have for their Property, and Liberty against the Prince, is to obey God, who setteth up one King, and pulleth down another, and changeth their Hearts as he sees fit. I hope Mr. J. will not think me singular in this piece of Divinity, because it is taught by the Church in the next best Book to the Bible, to which he, and the Doctor have both subscribed, in The first part of the Sermon against Rebellion.  
God (say the Holy Scriptures) maketh a Wicked Man to Reign for the Sins of the People. Again, God giveth a Prince in his Anger, meaning an Evil One, and taketh away a Prince in his Displeasure, meaning especially when he taketh away a Good Prince for the Sins of the People— God giveth Wisdom unto Princes, and maketh a wise, and good King to Reign over that People, whom he loveth, and who loveth him.— If therefore we will have a good Prince either to be given us, or to continue, let us by our Obedience to God, and to our Prince, move God thereunto. If we will have an Evil Prince, when God shall send such an one, taken away, and a Good in his place, Let us take away our Wickedness, which provoketh God to place such an one over us, and God will either displace him, or of an Evil Prince make him a Good Prince, so that we first will change our Evil into Good. For will you hear the Scriptures? The Heart of the Prince is in God's Hand, which way soever it shall please him he turneth it. Thus say the Scriptures, Wherefore let us turn from our Sins unto the Lord with all our Hearts, and he will turn the Heart of the Prince unto our Quiet and Wealth. Else for Subjects to deserve for their Sins to have an Evil Prince, and then to Rebel against him, were double, and triple evil by provoking God more to plague them. Nay, let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or let us patiently suffer, and obey such as we deserve. Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved punishment, to give them an Indiscreet, and Evil Prince, and also Rebel against him, and withal against God, who for the punishment of their Sins did give them such a Prince? I leave Mr. J. to give the Church an Answer to this her Interrogatory, and so proceed to the second thing, which we have for our Security, and that is the Conscience of the Prince: For as the Prince's Security against the Insurrection of his Subjects consists very much in the Conscience that they have of the Duty, which they own unto him: So their Security against his tyrannical abuse of his Power consists as much un the sense of that Duty, which he owes unto them. He hath the same Principles within him to check his Passions, that they have to check, and bridle their; and hath all the Moral Obligations, and the Fear of God, who hateth Tyrants, to keep him from oppressing them, that they have to keep them from Rebelling against him.  
The common Principles of Humanity, Justice, and Equity are engraven by the Finger of God upon the Minds of Kings, as well as upon other men's; and they cannot do wrong to any particular person, much less to great numbers of their Subjects without undergoing the same uneasy Remorse, that other Men do, when they injure one another. This hath been found by sad Experience in Pagan Princes, as in Tiberius the Emperor, who was so tormented with the sense of his own Sins, that he could not but discover his own Confusion unto the Senate in a Remarkable Letter, which began thus: 
(‖) Quid scribam vobis P. C. aut quomodo scribam, aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore, dii me déaeque pejus perdant, quam perire quotidie sentio, si scio. Adeo facinora atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant neque frustra praestantissimus sapientiae affirmari solitus est, si recludantur tyrannorum mentes posse aspici laniatus et ictus, quando, ut corpora verberibus, ita savitiâ, libidine, malis consultis animus dilaceretur. Quip Teberium non fortuna, non solitudines protegebant, quin tormenta pector is, suasque ipse paenas fateretur. Tacit. An. l. 6. c. 6.  My Lords, and Gentlemen; If I know what, or how to write, or not to write to you at this time, let all the Gods and Goddesses confound me with a worse Death than by which I feel myself perishing every day. In such a manner, saith the Historian, did the Gods turn his Wickednesses into his own Punishment, so that what Socrates said is very true, That if the Breasts of Tyrants could be laid open, we should see what slashes and gashes they suffer from their own Consciences, and that the Body cannot suffer more from the Whip, than their minds do from the sense of their Tyranny, and Lusts.  
And if Conscience be a Restraining Principle in Heathen Princes, if they cannot without such Soul-Torments pervert Justice, and violate their Oaths, and the Laws, it must needs much more be a powerful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings, who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers, and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People, over whom he set them; nay, that he most commonly sends remarkable Judgements upon them or their Families for subverting the Laws, and persecuting the True Religion. Shall the Fear of God's Anger and Judgements more than any other thing keep so many thousand Subjects from injuring their Sovereign, and shall not the Fear of the same God, and his Judgements keep the Sovereign from injuring of them? Or shall the People take warning by the Judgements of God which in all Ages have remarkably fallen upon Rebels, and shall not the Sovereign make as much use of the Remarkable Judgements, which have fallen upon Tyrants? This Principle gives equal Security both ways, and therefore it may well pass for one Answer to the former Question, That our Security consists in the Conscience of the Prince.  
But in the third place, As we have the Prince's Conscience, so we have his Honour for our Security. For Princes (like other Men) are tender of their Honour, and Good Name, and are powerfully restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Subjects. They are as loath as other Men to be exposed to the censure of Mankind, or be recorded for Tyrants in the Annals of Time. Though they may be desirous for their Honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests, yet the same Principle of Honour, will ordinarily make them ashamed to have them computed from their Massacres, and Persecutions, which will but get them the Surname of the Bloody, or the Tyrant unto the End of the World. Honour, as Moralists observe, is a Secondary, or Civil Conscience, and if so many Subjects will abstain from Rebellion merely to avoid the Odious Character of a Traitor, why should we not presume, That a Prince will abstain from Illegal Violence, especially against a great Number of his People to avoid the Odious Name of Tyrant? How Black do Pharaoh, Achab, and Jeroboam look in the Scriptures, and Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian, Maximian, Galerius, Maximin, and Julian, in the Ecclesiastical Historians? And a Prince that knows any thing of History, must naturally abhor to be reckoned among such, as these, whose very Names are detested by all Mankind.  
This is all the Security, that most other People have, or ever had for their Rights and Properties against their Princes; but we, the Inhabitants of this Fortunate Island, have (God be praised for it) a further Security from our Laws, to which every Man, be he never so great, is obnoxious, besides the Prince himself. For whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the prejudice of any other person, must be subject to make Reparation by Law, against which the King himself can protect no Man, as long as the Courts of Justice are kept open; so that there can be no Tyranny in England, but the utmost Tyranny, nor any Persecution, but a most Exorbitant and Illegal Persecution, which must presuppose, that Justice is obstructed, the Laws and Lawyers silenced, the Courts of Judicature shut up, and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword. But to suppose this, is plainly to suppose the utmost possibility, which is next to an impossibility, a possibility indeed in Theory, but scarce to be reduced into Practice; for in such a Violent Undertaking all Good Men would withdraw from the Service, and Assistance of the King, and the Bad durst not serve him, because if he died, or repent of his Undertaking, they must be answerable for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service.  
Indeed were our King's Immortal, or would they not (like other Men) grow weary, and repent of their Unjust Practices, than Men, who had no Religion, but their Interest, would willingly by Instruments of their Tyranny; but seeing they may repent, and must die like other Men, no Man that would be safe, will venture to serve them against the Law, no Rational Man will venture into such a Sea of Troubles, where there is no Haven.  
This Consideration would help very much to quiet the Minds of Men, would their Fears but let their Reason have its perfect work. It would help them in a great measure to see, that a Popish Successor, notwithstanding all the dismal Characters of him, would not be able, especially on the sudden, to outrage his Protestant Subjects; for as long as the Laws were open he could not hurt them, and to shut them up, and obstruct, or pervert Justice, would for the former Reasons, prove an exceeding difficult, and almost impracticable Undertaking, because all his Good Subjects, and all the Bad too that tendered their own safety, would desert him; nay, Foreiners upon this Account would make a difficulty to serve him, because he could not protect them against his own Laws.  
Wherefore a Popish Prince, though he were never so Bloodthirsty, and had never so little regard to Humanity, and his Coronation-Oath, would be infinitely puzzled to persecute his Protestant Subjects. He must be supposed to obstruct Justice, and govern Arbitrarily by the Sword; which (as I have showed) would be almost an Impossibility, because it would be so exceeding difficult for him to get sufficient Numbers of Men to assist him in such a dangerous Attempt. But upon supposition, that he could find Means to maintain such a Tyrannical State, I here assert from what I have written in the Doctor's Vindication in the 10th, and 11th Chapters, That we ought as Christian Subjects patiently to endure such a Contralegal Persecution, being forbid by the Imperial Laws of this Realm, and by the Gospel, which confirms the Imperial Laws of all Governments to rise up in Arms against the King, or repel his Military Forces, by Military Violence and Force.  
Furthermore from this Consideration, that there can be no Illegal Persecution in this Realm while the Law is kept open, It may appear to every Impartial Reader, how maliciously the Author of Julian traduced Dr. Hickes and his Sermon, as if he had taught the People, That they were to Suffer, when they might be Protected by Laws. There are very many Fallacious Passages in his Book to this purpose, as where he talks of Throwing away our Lives, and Prostituting our Lives: and where he seems to assert this strongly against the Doctor, That if a man be illegally assaulted, in the way of Violence, and Assassination, he may use all Lawful Remedies to defend themselves. But how doth the Doctor's Sermon, or the Notion of Passive Obedience any way contradict this? Contra sicarium quilibet homo est miles; The Laws of all Governments allow every Man to defend his Life against an Illegal Assassin, and he that doth not so when he can, dies not like a Martyr, but a Fool. He that doth not use all Lawful Means, and Remedies for his own Preservation is mightily to be blamed, as altogether unworthy of such Protection, as blessed be God, we enjoy. But the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, as taught in general by the Doctor, is not justly chargeable with any such odious Inferences as Mr. J. makes from it, as only forbidding such Defence, as a man makes against the Laws of his Country, when he draws or uses the Sword against such persons, or in such a manner to defend himself, as the Law hath not permitted him to do. In a word, the Doctrine of Passive Obedience only condemns Illegal Resistance, such Resistance as the Laws of every Sovereign Government forbidden, against the King, his Army, or Officers; such Resistance more especially, as is a Transgression of the Imperial Laws. Those are the Laws, which require Passive Obedience; those are the Laws which the Doctor had a regard to in teaching that Doctrine: And as Christianity doth not divest any People from their Rights and Privileges, so neither doth it divest the Sovereign of His.  
And if the Doctrine of Passive Obedience be not inconsistent with that Defence, which the Law allows every Man to make against an Illegal Assassin, much less is it inconsistent, as he 
(†) Preface p. 8.  maliciously asserts, with that Civil Defence, which every man is bound to make for himself before the Magistrate. St. Paul (saith he) was not for Passive Obedience; even when the Lawful Magistrate persecuted him, if it were in an Unlawful way, but he stood upon his Birthright.— As he was a Roman; and moreover, That he ought not to be scourged Uncondemned. But what is this Civil pleading to Forcible and Military Resistance? What is the Defence, which a Man makes with his Tongue before any Tribunal, to the Defence which he makes with his Sword in the Field? I appeal to the Conscience of Mr. J. as he will answer it to God, whether he thinks, That the Doctrine of Passive Obedience precludes any man from pleading his Civil Rights, or whether the Doctor would contradict his own Doctrine, if he should plead his Birthright, as an English man, or the 29th Chapter of Magna Charta before a Popish Prince, or Judge? If he thinks he would not, then why would he show so little common Honesty, as to fasten such Invidious Consequences, upon that Doctrine, and the Doctor, against his own Conscience, and Belief?  
To as little purpose hath he told us the Story of the Pursuivant of the High-Commission-Court, who was sent by the Commissioners to Arrest the Body of a Man to bring him before them, and in the striving was killed. Whether this was Murder, or not (saith he out of 
(†) Rep. 12. p. p. 49.  Coke) was doubted: And upon conference at the next Assizes, it was resolved, that the Arrest was Tortius (i. e. wrongful, or without Lawful Authority) and by consequence, that it was no Murder. But then (with his wont Integrity) he conceals the main Circumstance from the Common Reader, which is employed by Coke, and expressed by 
(‖) Rep. 2. part p. 15.  Brownlow, viz. That is was found Homicide, or Manslaughter, which is a breach of the 6th Commandment, and Murder in the Eyes of God. For there are several degrees of Murder, whereof some are more Grievous than others. There is Murder Premeditate, and Murder Vnpremeditate; murdering of a Private Man, and murdering of an Officer, as an Officer in the execution of his Office. The Vnpremeditate Murder of a private Man, or of an Officer not in the Execution of his Office is a less grievous sort of Murder, which our Law calls Manslaughter, but the Premeditate Murder of a Private Man, or of an (†) Officer not doing his Office, 
(‖) See Crooks Rep. in Cook's Case, Term Pasch. in Banc. reg. an. 15 Caroli Regis.  as also the Vnpremeditate Murder of an Officer doing his Office as being more grievous sorts of Murder, are in our Law especially called Murder, and so the Difference between Manslaughter, and Murder is only Gradual, the Law allowing the benefit of Clergy to that, but not to this. Now the Pursuivant was a proper Officer of the High-Commission, but because that Court could give no Power to arrest any Man's Body, but only to cite him to appear before them as Ecclesiastical Courts do, therefore the kill of their Pursuivant in making the Arrest, was judged Manslaughter, because it was Unpremeditate, and he was not doing his Office; but yet the Verdict for Manslaughter lays the Pursuivants Blood not upon his own, but upon his Murderers Head. He that killed him was a Murderer, and was to answer for his Blood to God, without Repentance, and to the King with his own Life, had he not read his Neck Verse. And if Mr. J. think otherwise, as he seems to do, that an Homicide is not guilty of the Blood, which he sheds, then before the time of Henry the 8th, no killing could be Murder, because till then there was no distinction betwixt Manslaughter and Murder, but all Homicides whatsoever were equal in the Eye of the Law, and all Homicides had equally the Benefit of Clergy.  
I am confident Mr. J. by his learned Conversation with Mr. H. could not but know all this, and if he did, why did he go about to wash the Guilty Man Clean of the Pursuivants Blood, in saying only that the kill of him was not found Murder, and that his Blood was upon his own Head? But the Reason is apparent, for had he told the Story with that plainness, that it became an Honest Writer; the Gild of Manslaughter would have spoiled the Grace of the Story, as it is told by him to justify Resistance, and the Resistance of a Pursuivant, and of a Pursuivant unto Blood.  
These Pursuivants it seems, are plaguy Officers, but let them look to't, if any of them come to Arrest the Body of Mr. J. and do it not with all Exactness of Law, at his own peril be it, he knows what to do, and he may safely trust to his Neck Verse, and then the poor mistaken Pursuivants Blood shall be upon his own head.  
But suppose the Law gave a Man leave to kill an Officer in a False Arrest, to defend his Liberty, would Mr. J. take the advantage of the Law? Will he do, or omit the doing of every thing that the Law allows him? Will he make the Law the complete, and adequate Rule to walk by? If so, he may do, or omit the doing of many things, for which he shall be damned. He may abuse his Father, Mother, Sister, Brother, Wife, Children, Neighbours, nay and his Prince too, to a mighty degree, and yet be safe within the Limits of the Law. He may write Seditious Books, burlesque the Doctrine of the Cross, slander the Ancient Christians, falsify good Authors, and injure those that never did him hurt, and yet transgress no Humane Law.  
For the Law hath the Civil, and not the Christian Capacity of the Man for its Object, therefore it only Commands, or Forbids things, the not doing or doing of which do visibly tend to the destruction of the Peace, Order, and Welfare of the Common wealth; and he that is so little a Christian, as to teach the People how far they may be troublesome and vexatious to their Superiors without transgressing the Law, doth teach them how to use their Liberty for a Cloak of Maliciousness, and a sure, and easy way to Hell.  
But Mr. J. saith, That any man may see that his Discourse of the Pursuivant doth not descend to such Petty Matters, as False Arrests, though a man's Liberty is not to be despised; To what then did that Story tend? Well, you may know his Meaning by his Mumping, it is to let the People understand, how tender the Laws, are of their Lives, and what a particular Care they have taken of all those, who are put upon an inevitable necessity of defending themselves against the Assaults of Violent, and Evil-disposed Persons. But the Laws are more tender of our Sovereign's Honour, as he is God's Minister, than of his Subjects Lives, and therefore have forbidden us to defend ourselves in private Defence against his Person, or in public Insurrections against his Forces, though he be never so violent, or evil-disposed, because he is answerable to none, but God. But if by Inevitable necessity of defending themselves he understands sudden and private defence against an Assassin sent by the King's Order, as his Malice seems to suggest, than it is nothing to his purpose, because the King's Law, which is his most Authoritative Command, allows us (as I suppose) that Benefit; and if it do, it doth not in the least contradict the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which allows a Man to Resist, or use the Sword to defend his Life, when the Laws [from which I except all Laws Destructive of the King's Crown, and Regality] authorise him so to do.  
But in truth this last is a Case, which, though Malicious Men may suggest, yet ought not at all to be supposed, or taken into consideration; for a Popish Prince, as I argued before, will either let the Law have its free Course, or else he will obstruct it: If he let the Law have its Free Course, than the most wicked Man will not dare to serve him in Private Assassinations against Law, because he cannot protect them against it; but if he Obstruct it, than he must Govern solely by an Army, and so public Violence will supersede this private way of Assassination, and many other Cases, which Men do a great deal of hurt to talk of, and suppose.  
For as the talking of Spirits, and Goblins do mightily influence the Imaginations of Children, and make them fancy them to be in the Room; So all this Noise of a Popish Successor, and the presuming, and supposing of what Cruelties he will do, makes the People take it for granted not only that his R. Hs. is a Real Papist, but that he is bigoted into the worst Principles of Popery, into a Bloody Persecuting Humour, so that he will do nothing but assassinate his Protestant Subjects, were he once upon the Throne. But whoever thus represent him, as they act contrary to all Rules of Candour, and Christian Charity: So they contradict the Belief of many, as good Protestants, as themselves, who have the Honour to know Him, and his Temper better than these sort of Men do; and withal they do Infinite Disservice to the Protestant Religion, whilst they dispose Well-meaning People to such Ill Practices, as (were they agreeable to their Principles) would give his R. H. very Just Occasion to entertain as bad Thoughts of Protestant Subjects, as They have of a Popish Prince.   

The CONCLUSION.  
HAving discoursed of the Laws by which Passive Obedience is due from the Subjects to the Sovereign, and also showed the Reasons, into which those Laws are resolved; and having also shown for the further Satisfaction of the Reader, That notwithstanding the Doctrine of Nonresistance, the People of this Nation have all the Security against Tyranny, or Illegal Oppression, that Subjects can, or aught to have: I think, I cannot more profitably entertain the Serious Reader in this last Sheet, than in setting before his Eyes a True Landscape of Persecution, which the Author of Julian, and many other Late Writers have partially represented, with a Design to enrage the People, concealing from them one main part, which ought to have been put in the Scene of Persecution, to give them a True, and Just Idea thereof.  
They have indeed most accurately painted the Jails, and Fetters, and Dungeons, and Gibbets, and Flames, and all other Instruments of Torment to provoke them beyond the Measures of Christian Patience, but they have said nothing of Faith, Hope, and the Love of God, and of the Special Assistances which he gives in times of Persecution, because the Consideration of these Things would at the same time have spoiled their Design by quieting the Minds of their Readers, and qualifying their Fears, and letting them see that Persecution really was not so Terrible, and Intolerable, as they represented it to be.  
Wherefore, as they have set forth the Tyranny of Persecution as Greeks, I shall now set it forth as a Christian Writer, showing from the Scriptures, and other Ecclesiastical Acts and Monuments of Persecution, that it is a Condition, which Christians may endure with Comfort, and Satisfaction, nay, in which they may delight, and rejoice, if they look unto Jesus the Author, and Finisher of our Faith; who for the Joy, that was set before him endured the Cross, and despised the shame of it, for which he is set down at the Right Hand of God.  
When the 
(†) Acts 5.  Apostles were beaten by Order of the Sanhedrim, they departed from the presence of the Council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer for his Name: And when 
(‖) Acts 16.  Paul, and Silas had been whipped with many Stripes, and were hurried upon it into the innermost Prison, and set in the Stocks there, they prayed and sang Praises unto God, doubtless for enabling them by the Assistance of his Holy Spirit to preach his word boldness, and suffer patiently in his Cause. How often doth St. Paul in his Epistles glory in his Infirmities, which is a Scripture-term for Sufferings; and with what pleasure doth he 
(†) 2 Cor. c. 6. c. 11. c 12.  speak of his Afflictions, Necessities, and Distresses, of his Stripes, Imprisonments, Labours, Tumults, Watch, Fast, Shipwrach, and daily danger of Death. Then the Christians suffered after the Example of their Saviour according to the Will of God, who called them unto Suffering, committing their Souls unto him as unto a Faithful Creator, and for 
(†) Rom. 8.36.  his Sake were killed all the day long, and were accounted as Sheep for the Slaughter; insomuch that in the time of Trajan, Tiberius the Precedent of Palestine gives this Account of their Passive Temper in his 
(‖) Usser. ap. Ign. p. 9  Letter to the Emperor; I am weary with punishing, and destroying the Galilaeans, who are called here Christians, according to your Majesty's Command, and yet they cease not to discover themselves, that they may be slain. I have laboured both by Entreaties, and Menaces to make them conceal themselves from being known to be Christians, but I cannot make them put an End to their own Persecution.  
And when Arrius, or Aurelius Antoninus Proconsul of Asia raised a severe Persecution against the Christians; they presented themselves before him like an Army, at which he being astonished, contented himself to execute some few, and cried out unto the rest, O wretched men, if you have a mind to die, have you not Halters and Precipices enough, but must you come hither for an Execution? This Story is told by Tertullian to Scapula Precedent of Carthage, who also tells him, That if he had a mind to go on with the Persecution, so many thousands of Christian Men, and Women of all Ages, and Conditions would offer themselves unto him, that he would be hard put to it to get Fires, and Swords enougn to destroy them.  
Hitherto, and much longer they were so far from declining Sufferings, or being terrified into Tumultuous Combinations with those Miseries, which they foresaw, that they freely offered themselves to the Fury of their Persecutors, and strove, as 
(†) Lib. 2. c. 47.  Sulpitius Severus observes of the Dioclesian Persecution, who should first enter the Lists of those Glorious Conflicts, being more Ambitious of Martyrdom in those days, than in after times of Bishoprics, and the Greatest Preferments of the Church.  
I have chosen these out of many more Instances to show the Passive Temper of the Primitive Christians in Times of Persecution, and to take occasion to inquire into the true Causes, which made them, and our own Ancestors after their Example, so meek, and calm, cheerful in such sad Trials, and so ready to lay down their Lives for Christ. Now in this Enquiry into the Causes of such wonderful Patience, and Alacrity, we ought in the first place to assign a good Life, or a Conscience void of Offence towards God, and towards Man. This is the Cornerstone in the Foundation of True Christian Confidence and Courage against the Fears of Death, for he, whose Heart doth not condemn him hath confidence towards God, and need not fear him, that can kill the Body, but is not able to kill the Soul, because he lived in the Fear of him, who is able to destroy both Body and Soul in Hell. Who is he, that will harm you (saith the Apostle) if ye be followers of that which is good, but if ye suffer for Righteousness-sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their Terror, neither be troubled. Hence (saith Justin Martyr) of Crescens the Stoic, who laid wait for his Life, as Anytus, and Melitus did for that of Socrates, Crescens may kill me, but he cannot hurt me. And speaking of the Occasion of his Convers●ion to Christianity, 
(‖) Ap. I. p. 50.  When I saw the Christians (saith he) embrace Death, and Torments without fear, I thought with myself, that they could not live in Sin, and sensual Pleasure. For what Epicure, or Incontinent person, that places his Happiness in pleasing the Flesh, would so readily embrace death to deprive himself of his Felicity, but rather strive to live here for ever.  
The Second Cause of such wonderful Patience and Courage in the Confessors, and Martyrs of the Christian Religion, was Faith, or their full and undoubted Persuasion of receiving those great Rewards, which the Gospel promised them for Suffering according to that Definition of the Apostle, which saith, That Faith consists in the Substance, or Confidence of things hoped for, and in the Evidence of things not seen. It was through this Faith, that the Jewish, and Primitive Christian Martyrs were tortured, not accepting of Deliverance, that they might have a better Resurrection, i. e. the Resurrection of the Just; that others of them had trial of cruel Mockings, and Scourge, yea moreover of Bonds, and Imprisonments, and that others also were Stoned, Sawn asunder, Impaled, and slain with the Sword; and lastly, That others, who took the allowed Benefit of Flight, wandered about in Sheepskins, and Goatskins, and in Deserts, and Mountains, and in Dens, and Caves of the Earth. It was this Faith, which the Apostle compares to a Shield, and by which (he saith) the Just did live in times of Persecutions, and overcame the World, according to St. John, who saith, This is the Victory, that overcometh the World, even our Faith. Hence saith the Apostle to the Hebrews, Cast not away your Confidence which hath great Recompense of Reward; in the full persuasion of receiving whereof, he also said in his 2d. Epist. to Timothy, I have fought a good Fight, I have finished my Course, I have kept the Faith, Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness, which the Lord will give me at that day. And for this cause (saith he) we faint not, for though our Outward Man Perisheth, yet the Inward Man is renewed day by day, for our light Affliction, which is but for a Moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory, while we look not at the things that are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things, which are seen are Temporal, but the things, which are not seen are Eternal.  
From these places it is plain, that the Faith of the Primitive Christians was one main Cause of their Courage, which the Pagan Atheist 
(†) De Mort. Peregr. L. 2. p. 763.  Lucian had learned of them, as appears from these words; The Miserable Wretches (saith he) persuade those of their own Party, that they shall surely be Immortal, and live for ever, upon which account they despise Death, and offer themselves voluntarily to it. And in Minutius Felix, Cecilianus objects it against the Christians as a piece of Arrogance, Quod Coelo & Stellis interitum denunciant, sibi tamen ipsis aeternitatem repromittunt; That they denounced Destruction to Heaven and the Stars, but assured themselves of Eternal Life. And again, They despise Torments, that are present, and yet fear those, that are Future, and Uncertain; and while they fear to die after death, in the mean time they are not afraid to die. It was a great Truth which the Ignorant Pagan objected; For in this Assurance of Faith, they let themselves be led like Sheep to the Slaughter, quietly suffering all the Extremities of Death and Torments, which Men, or Devils could bring upon them without desiring to hurt, or seeking to revenge themselves upon those that Injured them, as Justin Mart. often observes in in his 
(‖) P. 236, 323, 363.  Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The Foresight and Joy of their Heavenly Reward made them endure the Cross, and despise the Shame of it, because they knew, that if they Suffered with him, they should also Reign with him.  
The 
(†) Dr. Caves Prim. Christ. p. 2. ch. 7.  40 Christian Soldiers, in the time of Licinius, which were starved to death in a Pond of Water in Cold Frosty Wether, comforted one another, as they stood together by Balancing their Present Sufferings, with their Future Hopes. Is the Wether Sharp (said they) Paradise is Comfortable, and Delightful. Is the Frost Cold and Bitter? they rest that remains is Sweet, and Pleasant. Let us but hold out a Little, and Abraham's Bosom will Refresh us; We shall change this One Night for an Eternal Age of Happiness. And, Blessed be God saith Bishop Ridley, in his Letter to Master Bradford) with all our evil Reports, Grudge, and Restraints; we are Merry in God, of whom we look, and hope after these Temporal and Momentary Miseries, to have Eternal Joy and Perpetual Felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord,  
The Third Principle, into which the Meek, and Passive Behaviour of former Christians is to be resolved, is the Love of God by which Faith 
(†) Gal. 5, 6. 1 Thes. 5, 3.  worketh, or is actuated to do or suffer any thing for the Sake of Christ. So saith the Apostle, Rom. 8. 35. Who shall separate us from the Love of Christ, shall Tribulation, or Distress, or Persecution, or Famine, or Nakedness, or Peril, or Sword, (as it is written, for thy sake are we killed all the day long, we are counted, as Sheep for the Slaughter) nay in all these things we are more than Conquerors through him, that loved us; for I am persuaded, that neither [Fear of] Death, nor [Hope of] Life, nor Angels of Satan, nor Princes, nor Potentates, nor Sufferings Present, nor Sufferings to come, nor Heights of Preferment, nor Depth of Disgrace shall be able to separate us from the Love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So saith St. John most excelcently to the same purpose, 1 Ep. 4. We have known, and believed the Love, that God hath unto us, for God is Love, and he that dwelleth in the Love of God, dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein consists the Consummation, or Perfection of our Love, that the we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Boldness, or Courage to Confess Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the day of Trial, for there is no Fear in Love, but perfect Love casteth out Fear, because Fear is attended with Torment, and Anxiety, so that he, that feareth Dangers, or Death is not arrived to the Perfection of Love.  
This great Love of Christ which enables us to suffer for him, is founded, as the fame Apostle teacheth upon the consideration of his Love in dying for us, We love him (saith he) i. e. we ought to love him, because he first loved us. And God commendeth his Love towards us (saith St. Paul) in that while we were yet Sinners, Christ died for us. After the Apostles themselves there never was a greater Example of this flagrant Love of Christ, than the Holy Martyr Ignatius S● John's Disciple and Bishop of ●●●och, who, though he rejoiced hearty in the little Respite the Christians enjoyed from Persecution in the time of Nerva upon the Church's account, yet he 
(†) Dubitavit enim apud seipsum, etc. Martyr. S. Ignat. p. 2.  doubted with himself, Whether he had arrived to the perfect Love of God, and was a complete Disciple of Christ, because as yet he had not called him to Martyrdom. And therefore shortly after, when Trajan the Emperor commanded the Soldiers to bind him in Chains, and carry him bound to Rome to be devoured in the Amphitheatre, he 
(‖) Ib. p. 4.  received the Sentence with Joy, and said, O Lord, I thank thee that thou hast made me perfect in thy Love, and made me worthy with thy Apostle St. Paul to be bound in Ironchains. Accordingly in his 
(†) Euseb. I. 3. c. 36.  Journey to Rome, and in his 
(‖) Ex ed. Usser. vel Vossian.  Epistle which he sent thither before his Arrival, he breathed nothing but the Perfection of Divine Love. O, saith he, that I might come to those Wild Beasts, which are prepared for me, I will encourage them to devour me, if they are afraid to touch me, as they have been to touch others; nay, I will provoke them, if they will not set upon me. You must pardon me, I know what is for my Advantage; I am now indeed Christ's Disciple; I am afraid of your Love, lest it be a Hindrance to me, but let me be devoured by the Beasts. It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ, than to be Emperor of all the World. Let Fire, and the Cross, and the Wild Beasts, let Dissections of my Flesh, pulling in Pieces, and breaking of Bones, let Distortion of Members, and Bruising the whole Body, and all the Torments, which the Devil can invent come upon me, so that I Enjoy Jesus Christ.  
The Fourth Reason into which the Meek, and Passive Temper of the Former Christians is to be resolved, is Inspired Patience, and Courage, whereby God enabled them to bear their Torments in such a Generous and Gallant Manner, as without such Assistance they could not have done. You (saith Octavius in Minutius Felix) extol men of Passive Courage unto the Skies, as Mutius Scaevola, who had died obscurely among his Enemies but for the Gallantry of his Right Hand; but how many of ours have suffered not only the burning of their Hands, but of their whole Bodies without a Shriek, when they might have been set free. But I need not compare our men with Mutius, Aquilius, and Regulus, our very Women and Children by 
(†) Inspiratâ patientiâ illudunt.  Inspired Patience despise the Cross, the Rack, and the Wild Beasts, and all manner of of Terrible Punishments. To the same purpose speaks 
(‖) L. 5. c. 13. Neipsam patientiam sine Deo cruciatos tantos posse superare.— Quia deest illis inspirata patientia.  Lactantius; When the People see men torn into Pieces with such variety of Torments, and tyre out their Executioners with unconquerable Patience, they guess what the real truth is, that the Consent and Perserverance of so many dying Persons is not in vain, nor that any Patience, unless it were from God, could overcome such great Torments. Robbers, and men of robust Bodies cannot endure such Tortures without shrieking, and sighing, because they have not Inspired Patience, but our Women and Children conquer their Torturers, nor can the Fire so much as make them Sigh.  
This is most exactly agreeable to what is taught in the Gospel, as in 1 John 4.4. You are of G●● (saith the Apostle) and have overcome them, because stronger is he, that is in you, than he, that is in the World. This I take to be the true meaning of that great Saying of 
(†) Ad Smym.  St. Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that is near unto the Sword is near unto God, and he that is among the Wild Beasts, is in the midst of God. So saith St. 
(‖) Ep. 10. Ed. Oxon.  Cyprian to the Martyrs and Confessors, That Christ Fights, and Conquers in his Servants, That he is present at their Conflicts, and upholds, strengthens, and supports them. This made St. Paul, speaking of his Sufferings, say, I can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth me. And when all Men forsook him, at his first Hearing he said, That the Lord stood with him, and strengthened him, 2. Tim. 4.16. So in Coloss. 1.11. He prays, That They might be strengthened with all might according to his Glorious Power unto all Patience, and Long-sufferance with Joyfulness. And in his Epistle to the Philippians saith he, To you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to Believe, but Suffer for his sake.  
Accordingly I find our Glorious Predecessors and Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days making most grateful acknowledgement of the Divine Courage, and Assistance which they received from Christ. Jesus Christ (saith Bishop Ridley to the Dispersed Brethren) hath given unto you a Manly Courage, and hath so strengthened you in the Inner Man by the Power of his Spirit, that you can contemn all the Flatteries of the World. And so in his Answer to Mr. Grindall, As the Weight of his Cross hath increased upon us, so he hath not, nor doth not cease to multiply his Mercies to strengthen us. And to Mr. Bradford; Blessed be God, who is the Giver of all Strength and Stomach in time of Adversity. And in another Letter to him, The Spirit bringeth in him [Dr. Taylor] in you and in your Company such blessed Fruits of Boldness, of Patience, and Constancy in the Lords Cause. In another— Thanksgiving unto God for his manifold Gifts of Grace, whereby it is manifest that God did assist you mightily. And in his Letter to Aug. Bernher. I trust to God it shall please him of his Goodness to strengthen me to make up the 
(†) Rogers, and Grindall were the other two.  Trinity out of Paul's Church to suffer for Christ. So Bishop Hooper to certain of his beloved Friends; In the Name, and in the Strength, and Virtue, and Power of his Holy Spirit, prepare yourselves in any case to Adversity, and Constancy. Much more to this purpose may be collected out of the Book of Martyrs and the Martyr's Letters, to show how Powerful, and Visibly Christ assists all those, whom he calls to Sufferings, as St. Peter most emphatically sets it out in those words, If ye are reproached for the Name of Christ, Happy are ye, for the Spirit of Glory and of God resteth upon you; implying, That the Spirit of God rested upon Martyrs, and Confessors, as the Glory used to do upon the Temple, so that it might be seen by all the People, according to what Eusebius saith of the Martyrs in the Dioclesian Persecution, Then (saith he) we beheld the most admirable Forwardness, and 
(‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— l. 8. c. 3.  Divine Power, and Alacrity of those, who professed Christ.  
Hence he ordinarily ascribes their Courage, and Boldness, and Patience, and Constancy to Divine Inspiration, as in the Martyrdom of Apphianus, of whom he speaks, as of a Champion assisted with the 
(†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Mart. Pal. c. 4.  Spirit of God, and acted by a Divine Power, without which it is impossible to solve, or give any satisfactory Account of the Gallantry of many of our English Martyrs in the time of Henry the Eighth, and Queen Mary, who were as Valiant Soldiers of Christ, as ever suffered for his Holy Name. How could Nicholas Peke, for Example, defy those who tempted him to Recant while he was burning in the Fire, unless he had been specially assisted by God. How could Dr. Taylor have leapt, and danced for Joy when he drew near the Place of Execution, and kissed the Stake after he had Prayed, unless God had inspired him with Courage. Or how could Archbishop Cranmer, without the special Assistance of God, endure the burning of his Right Hand, which he held immovable in the Flame, before his Body was touched: Or, which is yet more wonderful, how could Rose Allen a poor Maid-Servant, without the wonderful Grace of God, endure the burning of her hand until the Sinews shrank, without the least Complaint, thanking God for it, and bidding the Tyrant who held her hand over the Candle, if he pleased, to burn her Feet, and her Head also. Afterwards this English Blandina sang for Joy at her Execution: And in general so wonderful was the Courage, and Patience of our martyred Ancestors, that the Papists ascribed it to the Devil, as Julian the Apostate did that of the Primitive Christians to Evil Spirits, thereby confessing that it was Supernatural, and above the ordinary Strength of Man.  
And to this Divine Grace of Inspired Courage, and Patience, I may also add the wonderful work of God, in rebating, or taking away the Sense of Pain from his Holy Martyrs in the time of their Execution, according to what 
(‖) De Mart. Palest. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius writes, who speaking of the Courage with which Romanus the Martyr bore the cutting out of his Tongue; He declared (saith he) by his Behaviour, that there is always a Divine Power present with those, who suffer Torments for the True Religion, which lessens their Pains, and strengthens their Courage. And so in the Martyrdom of 
(†) Ec. Hist. l. 5. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Blandina he tells us she was plied with a Succession of fresh Torturers, and Tortures from Morning to Night, to the Astonishment of her Torments, till her whole Body was shattered, and mangled into pieces, and during the time of her Execution she enjoyed sensible Intermissions of Refreshment, in which she was not sensible of what was done unto her; and this happened as often as she repeated the words of Confession, I am a Christian, and there is no Evil done among us.  
So when 
(‖) Theodor. l. 3. c. 16.  Theodorus was tortured from morning till night by fresh Torments, at the command of Julian, he declared to those, who asked him if he were Sensible of what was done unto him, That in the beginning he felt a little pain, but afterwards a Beautiful Youth appeared to him, who stood by him, and with a soft, and cool Handkerchief wiped the Sweat off his Face, which so delighted him, that he wished he had still continued under the hands of the Executioners.  
Thus in our Martyrologies 
(†) Fox's Acts and Monuments, An 1555. p. 1711.  Thom. Tomkins the English Scevola, whose hand was held by Bonner over a Wax Candle with four We●ks, declared afterwards to James Hinse, That his Spirit was so wrapped up, while his Hand was burning, that he felt no Pain. And Mr. Farrar, told a young Gentleman, 
(‖) Id. p. 1724.  who lamented the painfulness of the Death he was to suffer, that if he saw him once stir in the Flames he should give no credit to his Doctrine; and as he foretold (doubtless by Divine Impulse) so he patiently stood in the Fire, till he was knocked down with a Staff. Thus likewise 
(†) Id. p. 1767.  Thomas Hawks, who had promised to give his Friends a Sign in the midst of the Fire, if the pains of burning were so tolerable that a man might patiently, and quietly endure them; after a long and patiented continuance in the Flames, when his Skin was shrunk up, and his Fingers consumed with Fire, at last he reached up his Hands burning on a light Fire, and with great appearance of Rejoicing, clapped them thrice together. So 
(‖) Id. p. 1172.  James Baynham, while he while he was burning at the Stake, and his Arms and Legs half consumed, he said, Behold, Oye Papists, ye look for Miracles, and here now you may see one, for in this Fire I feel no more pain, than if I were in a Bed of Down, but it is to me as Sweet as a Bed of Roses. We read of others, who sang Psalms in the Flames, as of Mr. John Denly, at whom Story commanded the Tormenter to throw a Faggot, which when he had done, he told him scoffingly, that he had marred a good old Song. And of Thomas Spicer, John Denny, and Edmond Pool, who praised God with such an Audible Voice in the Fire, as astonished those that stood by.  
Now all these things, as the Apostle saith, happened unto them for our Example, and were written for our Consolation, if ever we should be called to suffer, as they were. We cannot likely meet with more Cruel usage from the merciless Papists, than they found at their hands; and if we do, we shall be sure (if we be not wanting to ourselves) to receive the same Gracious Aids, and Assistances from God in all our Spiritual Combats, that they, and the Primitive Christians did. There can no Trial, or Temptation take us, but such as is common to Christian Men, and hath happened to them before us, and God is still Faithful, and will not suffer us at any time to be tempted beyond what we can endure, but will certainly with the Temptation (be it never so great) find out a way for us that we may be able to bear it. And if God be for us, as the Apostle speaks, who can be against us? And if he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not together with him also truly give us All these things? Mr. J. may laugh and scoff at this Passive Divinity as he pleaseth, but for my own part, I am so fully persuaded, that God will Inspire me with Supernatural Patience, and Courage, if he call me to suffer for him, that the Dismal Scene which his, and other Unchristian Pencils have drawn of a Popish Persecution, do not affright or discompose me, because I set the mighty Advantages of a Good Conscience, a strong Faith in the promised Reward for Suffering, a Zealous Love for God, and lastly, of his special Aids, Assistances, and Consolations against all the Difficulties, and Torments with which alone they have painted Persecution; and so tempering the terrible Appearance of the One, with the comfortable, and delightful Prospect of the Other, I am no more concerned for a Po; pish Persecution, than for other common Calamities, which happen to Good Men: Nor shall the Fear of it (by God's Grace) ever transport me beyond the Bounds of Christian Decency, and Moderation; much less make me write such a wicked Book as the Life of Julian, which indeed would make me afraid to die even for my Religion, before I had renounced it, and begged the Pardon of God, and Man.  
The Author of it had spent his time far better, and more like a Primitive Christian, and a Minister of the Passive Church of England, if he had employed his Parts in writing a Book upon the Principles, which I have here laid down, to allay the Fears, and quiet the Minds of the Fearful, and Impatient Multitude, by showing of them, That Persecution was not so Black as Sense would paint it, nor so Terrible as it looked at a Distance, especially to a People, that had lived long in Ease, Pleasure, and Plenty, but that God would assuredly give us Suffering Spirits, if he called us to Suffering Times; and thereupon to exhort them to possess their Souls in Patience, and endeavour to prevent it by constant and hearty Prayer to God, and forsaking those sinful Courses, for which perhaps the eye of Infinite Wisdom sees, that Persecution will be the most Effectual Cure.  
This is the Design, that I have had in drawing this new and complete Landscape of Persecution, and I am so well satisfied with the truth and certainty of these things, that I have added to Mr. J's Pourtraicture of it, That if it please God to suffer a Popish Prince to Reign over us, rather than he should prove a Julian indeed to Undermine our Religion by Crafty Arts, and tempt us out of it by Worldly Honours and Rewards, I hearty wish for the Churches good that he may rather prove a Maximin, or Dioclesian (I mean a down right Bloody persecutor) though I were the Proto-Martyr of the Cause. I speak this not relying on my own Strength, but on the Gracious Assistance of God, in whom I trust, that he will Inspire me with the boldness of a Confessor, and the Patience, Courage, and Constancy of a Martyr, whensoever he shall please to call me to Confess his Truths, and suffer for his Holy Name.  
In the mean time, let the Event of things be what it will, I shall wait the good Pleasure of God, and carefully endeavour (as my Safety obligeth me) to prepare myself for Persecution, according to the Principles which I have here laid down, and the Godly Admonition of that Famous Martyr Mr. John Bradford, which he wrote in the New Testament of one of his Friends.  
This Book is called Sermo Crucis, the Word of the Cross, because the Cross doth always accompany it: So that if you will be a Student hereof, you must needs prepare yourself for the Cross, which you began to learn, before you learned your Alphabet: And Christ requireth it of every one, that will be his Disciple, therein not swerving from the common Trade of Callings, and Vocations; for no Profession, or kind of Life wanteth his Cross. So that they are far overseen, which think, that the Profession of the Gospel, which the Devil most Envieth, the World most Hateth, and the Flesh most Repineth at, can be without a Cross: Let us therefore pray, That God ●●●ld enable us to take up our Cross by denying ourselves: Amen.  
E Carcere 18 Februarii 1555. JOHN BRADFORD.  
THE END.   


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