CONSTANTINE the Great having by his last Will divided his Empire between his three Sons, Constantine, Constantius, Constance, died in the Suburbs of Nicomedia, no one of his Sons being pre­sent at his death: But Constantius, not so [Page 2] far off as the other two, first came to Court; where having paid the usual respects that are due to the memory of a deceased Parent, as if all other tyes of Nature were buried with his Father, he commanded, or at least permitted, the execution of his Uncle and Cousins, Constantius Dalmatius and his Sons. [ Atha. p. 856.] About three months after the Brothers were proclaim'd Emperours by the Army, each took his share, though not without some dissatisfaction and disturbance; but things being happily compos'd for the present, they retir'd to their respective Pro­vinces.

This agreement did not last long, for Con­stantine thought himself hardly dealt with­all, and not content with his share of F [...]ance, Spain and Britain, would needs en­croach upon his Brother Constance, who had Italy and Africk, but was slain in the prose­cution: Thus the Empire of the West de­volv'd to Constance, but all this new accessi­on could not prevent his being assasinated by Magnentius an Usurping Rebel: who at length after many defeats by Constantius, was forced to that degree of despair, that he slew himself, and left his Conquerour in the quiet possession of all the Empire.

I was unwilling to perplex this brief ac­count of his coming to the entire possession of the Empire, with the relation of any of his particular actions, reserving it rather [Page 3] to this place where I may doe it with less interruption.

Constantius had not been long upon the Throne, but by the insinuations of an Arian Priest, he was brought over to be a great favourer of that Heresie; the account of his perversion, is at large in most Ecclesiastical Histories; and because it may be material, I shall give it at length out of Theodoret [ l. 2. c. 3.]

Constantia, Sister to Constantine the Great, was very intimate with an Arian Priest, who, dissembling his own opinion, made it his business to defend or excuse Arius; this man, upon her death-bed, she recommended to her Brother's care, who was signally kind to him; and as a particular mark of his fa­vour, entrusted his last Testament in his hands: the delivery of which to Constantius, when he came to Court, was sufficient to recommend him to his favour; and gave him an interest, that in a short time became pernicious to the whole Christian World; [...]or he improving the opportunity he had of being nigh the Emperour, and making his advantage of an inconstant humour that was peculiar to him, easily made him out of love with the true Religion, and as zealous for the false. He perswaded the Emperour, who was but too prone to hearken to any thing that was ill, ( Ath. p. 883.) that all the di­sturbances in the Church arose from intro­ducing [Page 4] the word Consubstantial into the Ar­ticles of Faith, which was no-where to be found in Holy Scripture, and the blame of this was laid upon Athanasius. Thus was that unhappy Emperour perverted to a He­resie, the most dangerous that ever infested the Church, for Athanasius tells us (who had certainly good reason to know) they deny'd Christ. [ p. 590.]

Athanasius was the first man that suffer'd by the Emperour's Apostacy; for his piety and learning rendring him formidable to those Hereticks, they soon traduced him to Constantius, who sent part of his Army to seize him at Alexandria, but by a miraculous escape, he prevented the danger and fled to Rome.

Georgius an Arian succeeded him in his Diocess, who repeated all the Cruelties of the former Persecutions, which were ten times worse in him, than in the Heathens, since he at least profest Christianity; he whipt the Men with rods, stript the Virgins naked, and brought them to the fire, [ Nicep. Cal. Eccl. Hist.] and in fine, acted all those torments a busie malice could invent, or a blind fierce zeal could execute.

But Alexandria was not the onely Scene of Persecution; it spread it self in a short time as far as the Heresie that was the cause of it; but it raged particularly in Constan­tinople: for Macedonius despising the known [Page 5] methods of cruelty as too mean for an Arian to exercise, had recourse to those that were particularly of his own invention; he did not onely punish those that would not Com­municate with him, with the ordinary pu­nishments of Whips, Chains, Death: but by an unpresidented cruelty, would force open their mouths with Clubs, and then throw into them the sacred Elements.

Women likewise and Children, though not initiated nor baptiz'd, were preposte­rously forced to be partakers of the Holy Sacrament, and were made, as far as it lay in his power, Hereticks before they knew what Religion was. [ Nic. Call. ib.] This certainly was a far greater wickedness than that of Iulian; when by adding the Images of the Heathen gods to his own, he design'd to deceive the Christians into Idolatry; for this was down-right forcing them (if it were possible) into Heresie.

Upon these unheard-of methods of Perse­cution, and other bodily torments no less strange, that are at large set down in that History, the Authour makes this severe re­mark: Insolitum sane id, exoticumque suppli­cium, ab iis, qui Christum professi sunt, inven­tum; quod ea quae olim Graecorum Tyranni magno studio & ambitione excogitarunt, longè post se reliquit. (Ni. Cal. ib.)

[Page 6] AEgypt and Lybia were depriv'd of all their Orthodox Bishops, whose places were supply'd by Arians. Ath. Epis. ad Soli. vi.

Liberius, Hosius, Paulinus, Dionysius, Eu­sebius, Luciferus, were Banish'd for refusing to subscribe against Athanasius, who had been acquitted by so many Synods be­fore. Ib.

And Constantius himself at length pro­ceeded to that degree of cruelty against the Orthodox Christians, that he made an Edict, not onely to banish them, but to put them to death. Athan. p. 8. 53.

And the same Father tells us, that when Maximianus (Constantine's Father) persecu­ted the Christians, the Heathens themselves would conceal them, and were so generous often as to suffer fines and imprisonment, rather than betray those that fled to them for Protection: but the New Hereticks act just the contrary, they voluntarily take up­on them the office of Searchers, and Execu­tioners, and think that he that hides a Chri­stian is as much their enemy as he that's hid.

And then speaking of Constantius, he says ( Atha. p. 8. 36.) Maximianus sent the Con­fessours into one common place of Banish­ment; so that in all their mi [...]fortunes, they had one comfort left (and that no small one) of mutual society. But Constantius industri [...] [...]rted those that were friends, [Page 7] that he might make the misery of their ba­nishment more insupportable, and prevent the onely happiness they desir'd, not to be parted till they died. This was so great a Cruelty, that never can be excus'd, and no body but a Primitive Christian could bear it without repining.

It would be an endless piece of business to recount all the sufferings of the Church, under this cruel Apostate, who was no less a Tyrant in Civil affairs, than a Persecutour in Religious; it being an observ'd Maxim, that under him no one had escap'd Condemna­tion, of whom it had been but whisper'd that he was guilty; for he seldom heard above one side, viz. the whispering Arian or Eunuch, and 'twas counted as insolent for any one accus'd to pretend to make a defence as to protest against Arianism. Am­mian. in 21 tells us, Si affectatae dominationis ansam quandam falsam reperiisset, aut leve [...], hanc sine fine scrutando fasque eodem modo ducens ac nefas, Caligulae, Domitiani, & Com­modi immanitatem facile superavit.

So that if a Roman Emperour can act con­trary to the Law (as Mr. Iohnson affirms), certainly Constantius did: For what can be more evident, than that no man should be condemn'd without being first heard, or his Accuser appearing, was an Establisht Law of the Empire? But yet that he acted quite contrary to this, we may plainly see in Atha­nasius: [Page 8] For how many were drag'd to death, without daring to offer at a defence? Which would have been so far from excusing them, that it would onely have rendred them more guilty in the eye of the Judge; who being always resolv'd to condemn, must needs re­s [...]nt any thing ill, that look't as if it design'd to prevent him.

And if putting People to death upon pre­tence and shamms was the particular mark (as Mr. Iohnson delivers) of an Arbitrary lawless Tyrant, certainly Constantius put in as fair for the Title as any one; For what could be more so, than the Actions of his Deputies in AEgypt by his Commission? Where innocent children, and [...]oolish old women were executed; these for prescribing, those for wearing an insignificant charm a­gainst an Ague, under the pretence that they dealt in Sorcery. The first time certainly that people ever died for being fools, or that old women suffer'd for superstition, which in them is as necessary an effect of Age as grey hairs; and they might as justly have been executed for being ugly, or ha­ving wrinckles.

Neither were the Emperour's actions at home less unaccountable; for when his Sy­cophants had once persuaded him, that the safety of the World did so much depend up­on his, that it must cease to be with him, (wh [...]ch he vain man believed!) he sus­pected [Page 9] all that came nigh him to have de­signs upon him; a whisper or a wry look was death; discontent at any thing was mis-interpreted disaffection to the govern­ment; and a man must not be angry, for fear it should be thought he was displeas'd at the Emperour. These, and many o [...]her things of this inhumane strain, are recounted at large in the Histories of that age. Where, if any one will please to look, he will find that I have just occasion to say a great deal more than I have.

If these provocations could not urge the Primitive Christians to have so much as ill thoughts of their Emperour, what can doe it? The benefi [...]s of Constantine the Great, the first Patron of their Religion, and Esta­blisher of their happiness, were still fresh in their memories, which must needs make their wounds deeper now; for having once sound the joys of a peacefull settl'd Church, where (as they do in heaven now) they en­joy'd the purest Religion, and the most per­fect peace; certainly it must needs be mat­ter of the highest discontent, to have all these comforts s [...]atch't from them, and by the Son of the Great Constantine that gave them: Here are the most aggravating cir­cumstances imaginable; but their patience was not to be conquer'd, they still made good that saying of Athanasius, That Per­secution was the lot of Christianity, Atha. [Page 10] p. 836. But this will be more evident when we come, in the third Chapter, to shew the behaviour of the Christians to­ward Him.

COnstantius came to the Crown with the profession of that Religion his Father was so eminent a defender of; so that the Christians under Constantine (without the gift of Prophecy) could not well expect his Apostacy. But I am induced to believe, that if they had, there would have been no Petitions to the Emperour to exclude his Son, to secure their Religion; but rather assurances from them, that this was not a just way to preserve it; there would have been no Bill from the Senate with a Contradiction in the belly of it, to tell the Emperour they would by no means attempt the violation of his Prerogative, or the alteration of the fun­damental Laws of the Empire; and yet in the very next clause, offer at the Exclusion [Page 11] of his lawfull Heir; the nature of the thing will not allow me to make any proof from History that it was so, but I don't question to make it more than probable it would have been so, if there had been occasion.

For since the Right of the next Heir to the Crown is so strongly secur'd by the Laws of God and Nature, (as I hope has been sufficiently prov'd in the Preface) and that it is plain Constantius had this right, be­ing descended from Constantine; I can't ima­gine that the fears of the Christians (though they had the assurance of Constantius being an Arian) could authorize them to attempt his Exclusion; for besides that it is contra­dictory to the Principles of their Religion, to prevent a future inconvenience, by a pre­sent ill, (as is shown before) if we may conclude what they would have done then, from what their forefathers did before, or they themselves afterwards, we shall find that they thought no reason great enough to put by the lawfull Heir.

For when a Heathen was to succeed, there was not the least attempt to bar him; not onely because they doubted their strength, and therefore thought their endeavours would be in vain, but because they thought the contrary their duty; for they did not onely not make it their business to prevent his coming to the Empire, but as much as in them lay assisted it; for as 'tis above cited [Page 12] from Athenagoras, they declar'd they thought it most just that Commodus, as rightfull Heir, should succeed his Father M. Aurelius; nay 'twas their constant prayer to Almighty God that he might: which certainly had been the greatest madness in the world (he being a Heathen, and consequently their mortal enemy) if they had not thought it so ne­cessary a duty incumbent upon them, that no consideration of their future quiet, or the unmolested enjoyment of their Religion, could exempt them from. So that if the Actions of these Christians have any Autho­rity with us, if we have not disclaim'd their very principles as well as piety, we shall not think it so strange, as Mr. Iohnson would have the world believe we do, for Christi­ans not to oppose the Succession of their lawfull Prince, though part of his Religion be to extirpate theirs. If it were our own case, we might lawfully pray for his con­version, and I don't question but we should doe it very heartily, for the free exercise of our Religion is the greatest happiness we can wish for on this side heaven; but if we could have it but for an evil thought, 'twere much too dear, and not to be purchased at that rate: And therefore I have often look't with horrour upon that unchristian prayer of the Protestants under Queen Mary, which was certainly (whatever Mr. Iohnson declares to the contrary) never heard or read, to have [Page 13] been us'd by any good Christian man against any Prince, though he were a Pagan or Infi­del, &c. [Pream. to the Act] (as shall be seen at large when I come to treat of the Christians prayers) and it was deservedly made Treason then, for it was so long before in the eye of heaven; for if an evil thought or wish against our neighbour, is made as much murther, by the Gospel, as actually striking him to the heart, why such a noto­rious profession of our hatred to our Prin­cess, and desire of her destruction (upon what consideration soever) should not in­curr a proportionable guilt, I cannot easily imagine.

But to come nigher to the case in hand, 'twill be evident to any, never so little con­versant in the Ecclesiastical Writers, that most of those very people, that Mr. Iohnson represents to the world for such fierce Ex­cluders of a Prince, that profest a contrary Religion to theirs, did not think (or at least did not act as if they thought) that a Prince could be barr'd of his Right of Succession, upon the score of Religion; for not two years after Iulian's death, Valens a furious Arian, and bitter persecutour of those that dissented from him, was peacefully admitted to be Emperour, and assisted too by the Army; whom we can't think in the least in­clin'd to favour that Heresie (for they were Iovinian's Souldiers) but they knew their duty to their Prince.

[Page 14]I hope these plain instances will satisfie any reasonable man, that the Primitive Chri­stians did not think it consistent with the Principles of their Religion, to exclude a lawfull Successour upon any terms, since we see that neither being a Heathen or an Arian (two the most dangerous enemies to Christianity) could prevail with them to attempt it.

'Twould be easie here to answer all the pretended Arguments and Authorities Mr. Iohnson brings, to prove the contrary actions of the Primitive Christians toward Iulian: but I suppose the Reader remembers what has been already said of them particularly in the Preface; so that I shall not need to trou­ble him, or my self, with a repetition.

But I shall hasten to give an Account of their Behaviour toward Constantius, and leave the world to judge whether it be not more agreeable to the Gospel, than that which Mr. Iohnson falsely scandalizes the Christians, under Iulian, with; and consequently fittest for our imitation.

'TIS a strange account Mr. Iohnson gives us of the Christians behaviour to­wards their Emperour, though a Persecu­tour, and an Apostate; for railing is cer­tainly so far from being Evangelical, that it is contrary to the Principles of common breeding. But perhaps these were some of those unhappy people the Emperour had in­terdicted the benefit of going to School to, and now he deservedly found the effect of his cruelty. But then he ought to have told us so, and not to have laid it down in such general terms, as if it were the approv'd practice of the whole Church: This is the strangest injustice to that famous age imagi­nable, and onely exposing those examples, one would think, by the end of his book, he designs we should imitate; for from the scope of his Book, I can conclude nothing but this, viz. That he intends to give us an account how the Christians in former ages [Page 16] behav'd themselves toward an Apostate, to inform us what we may doe on the like oc­casion. I must confess he has done most of his own party a considerable kindness; for they hitherto have rail'd without president, as well as without cause: And I suppose Greek e'er long will be much in fashion with them, as a Language that will extremely ac­complish them for that Christian liberty. But as for us, we shall rather fetch the me­thods of our Conduct from the graver Wri­tings of the Fathers of those times; and not imitate him, who, like our late travelling Sparks, onely observes, and treasures up the vices and follies of the places he visits, and exposes them, when he comes home, for ra­rities and accomplishments.

None certainly but the scum and rabble of that age could be guilty of those indigni­ties to their Emperour: but Mr. Iohnson tells us, no less a man than Theodoret com­mends them for their Nick-names and Re­proaches, and quotes his 3 d Book and c. 22. for what he says; I have look't with both eyes, and cannot find any thing like it: He commends indeed the Antiochians for their Zeal, but not their rudeness.

As to the Example of Maris, which he brings as the second and last argument to ju­stifie ill language given to an Emperour, if an Apostate, is of very little force; for with­out all doubt, it was an indiscreet Action, [Page 17] and nothing but his great Zeal for Religion could make any colourable excuse for it; For who, unless he had a mind to be a Mar­tyr, would affront an Emperour in the height of his devotion, and upbraid his gods when he was paying his adorations to them? Ori­gen I am sure would have counted such an Action down-right madness; for he tells us, when we doe nothing contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad or fu­rious as to stir up, against our selves, the wrath of the King or of the Magistrate, which would bring upon us blows, Orig. l. 8. con­tra Cel. torments, and divers kinds of death.

And I have some reason to assert this, from the quite different Conduct of all the Fathers that liv'd under Constantius; that were so far from doing any thing of this na­ture, unprovok't, that all the Cruelties that Apostate Emperour could inflict, did not ex­tort the least mis-becoming expression from them.

Athanasius tells the Emperour in his Apo­logy; ‘I am not mad, O King, neither have I forgot the voice of God that saith, Atha. Apol. ad Const. Curse not the King, Ath. ibid. no not in thy heart.’ And again, ‘I did not op­pose the Command of your Majesty, God forbid. I am not such a man as would oppose the very Treasurer of the City, [Page 18] much less so great an Emperour; I was not so mad as to contradict such a Com­mand as yours; I neither did oppose the Command of your Majesty, nor will now attempt to enter into Alexandria, untill you, of your Goodness, will please, I shall.’

And in another place of the same Apolo­gy he tells Constantius, ‘If I had been ac­cus'd before others, I had appeal'd unto your Majesty, as the Apostle appeal'd un­to Caesar—But seeing they have taken the boldness to calumniate me before Thee, to whom shall I appeal from Thee, but to the Father of him who said, I am truth, that he may incline thy heart to mercy?’

St. Hilary tells him (and in the time of Persecution too) ‘your mild nature (blessed Lord) agreeth with your graci­ous disposition; and because of your great mercy, we don't doubt of easily ob­taining what we desire of you; we beg of you not onely with words, but tears, that the Catholick Church be no longer persecuted by our brethren. Hilar. ad Const. l. 2.’

And 20 Bishops of the West, in the con­clusion of a Letter from a Synod at Arimi­num, ‘We beseech you, that you cause us not to stay from our Charges; but that the Bishops, together with their own Peo­ple, may with peace employ themselves [Page 19] in prayers and the service of God, making supplication for your Kingdoms safety and peace, in which the divine Majesty long preserve you. Atha. Epist. de Syn. Ari. &c.’

Hosius likewise (a man of an extraordi­nary Zeal and Courage) though provok't by the severest Persecutions imaginable, can't think it lawfull for him to speak so much as dis-respectfully of the Empe­rour: but tells him, ‘Since he had re­ceiv'd his Imperial Power from God, whosoever did detract any thing from that, should be look't upon as an opposer of the Ordinance of God.’

It would be easie to seem very learned up­on this point, that is, to stuff my Margin with quotations; but that's a vanity I am not over-desirous to be thought guilty of. I hope the authorities I have already cited, will be sufficient to prove what I design'd, viz. That it was the judgment of the Primi­tive Christians, that no ill usage from their Emperour, though a Heathen or Apostate, could authorize them to affront him; and that difference of Religion, doth not, by any means, cancell our Obedience to him.

Now that the face of things should be so soon chang'd, as that it should be damnation to speak ill of the Emperour under Constan­tius; and under Iulian, his immediate Suc­cessour, not onely permitted, but merito­rious, [Page 20] to curse him (as Mr. Iohnson acquaints us) is very strange.

I am confident if they did those Actions he lays to their charge, they had no president for them in former ages; and the doctrine they govern'd themselves by, was perfectly new and their own: For 'tis well known all the first Christians acted quite contrary; they continually night and day pray'd for the safety of the Emperour, [ Cypr. ad De­met.]

It would be easie out of the Martyrolo­gies of the first times, to give instances of the Christians submission, as strange, as the cruelty of their Persecutours: But this will be unnecessary, since their sufferings and patience are so well known, that Mr. Iohn­son himself is forc't to own it; but tells us withall, 'twas their duty to suffer patiently, because they were persecuted according to law. This answer is of very little force, for there was no other law but the will of their Emperours against them, or their Edicts, which were onely their will manifested; both which were as much Laws in Iulian's time, as N [...]ro's: Therefore why the Christi­ans should think it their duty patiently to submit to all the inhumane cruelties of that first Persecutour, and those under Iulian re­bell, or at least murmur at those lighter pres­sures of their Emperour, I am not able to re­solve.

[Page 21]I am inclin'd to think, that Mr. Iohnson's Christians were not so good as they should be; for those that will onely submit quietly to Persecution upon some conditions (for he tells u [...], though they resisted Iulian, they would patiently have bore the cruelty of a Heathen persecutour) are govern'd rather by humour than Religion; for the Gospel I am sure makes no distinction, and 'tis a re­ceiv'd maxim, Ubi lex non distinguit nemo distinguere debet; Where the Law makes no distinction, no man ought to doe it.

But besides, it has been sufficiently prov'd, that Constantius's proceedings were altoge­ther as illegal and arbitrary, as those of Iu­lian could possibly be; they were both Apo­states, and though indeed the latter was less to be excus'd (it being something a worse de­fection to Paganism than Arianism) yet in respect of the quiet and security of the Church, they were both equally dangerous. And yet we see from the Examples of so ma­ny Bishops, the prayers of all the people, that they were so far from cursing him or giving him to the Devil for his due, that they seem to be fond of his life, and make the establish­ment and welfare of the Empire, to be the first business of their prayers. For hence it is that we give respect to a Heathen, if put in Authority; for though he be most unworthy of it himself, who holding God's place, gives the Devil thanks for it; but the honour we [Page 22] give him, his place challengeth. [ Q. 35. exerc. Nov. Test. Tom 4. op. Av.]

BEfore I give an Account of the Christi­ [...] [...] their Actions toward [...] [...]ll be necessary to make [...] R [...]m [...]ks upon those two Actions of a Souldier and a [...]ishop under Iulian, which Mr. Iohnson saith m [...]y manifest how the Pri­mitive Christians despis'd him (besides that it i [...] very foul pl [...]y to infer the general sense of the Church from that of but two mem­bers of it) I cannot grant that the Primitive Christians would by any means allow of these Actions.

As to the first, that of Valentinian, I must needs own 'twas far more excusable than what old Gregory did, for his Character, and the meanness of the person that suffer'd by him, may plead something in his behalf, stri­king in a Souldier being more pardonable than in a Bishop, and bea [...]ing a Priest, more tole­rable, than kicking an Emperour; but this will not justifie the violence, for it was un­doubtedly a fault, though the praises the Historian gives it, would seem to prove the [Page 23] contrary. For to this I answer, That the Action deserv'd to be prais'd, not for its own sake, but because it shew'd an extraordinary Zeal for Christianity; it was the Motive, and not the Fact, that was to be commen­ded; and that this is not purely a [...], but the real truth of the matter, we may i [...] ­fe [...] from this plain instance. In the Primi­tive Church many kill'd themselves, when they could by no other means avoid sacri­ficing to Idols; and they stand now upon Record for Martyrs. This Action of theirs was certainly self-mur [...]her, and consequently criminal; and Dr. Hammond aff [...]rms, that it was a fault in them too; but the love of God, and the fear they should be polluted by Idols, was the cause of it. And so though it might as a frailty be pardon'd by God's mercy in Christ, yet sure this killing them­selves was not that which made them Mar­tyrs; but that great love of God, and resol­ving against Idolatrous worship, which testi­fied it self in their killing themselves for that Cause: This it was that made them pass for Martyrs, and that other incident fault of theirs, was not, in that case, thought so great, as to divest them or rob them of that Ho­nour, [Dr. Ham. Pr. C [...].] and [...] highly probable that this was Valentinian's Case; 'twas not his striking the Priest, but his Con­fession, that gave him a title to two King­doms, that of the Empire and Heaven.

[Page 24]But I need not have said so much of this, for Mr. Iohnson himself allows it to be an unaccountable Action, p. 44.

As to the extravagant Action of old Gre­gory Nazianzen (for I can't justly give it a milder Epithet) certainly nothing but the partiality of a Son can excuse it, and 'tis a fault even in him to commend it; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed (sure the Foot is not excepted) and be guiltless (1 Sam. 26. 9.) St. Chrysostom's forbidding the Empress Eudoxia to come with­in the Church, was not half so insolent as this Act of Gregory's, yet he severely repented of it, and tells us, in the cooler hours of his life, he did more than he could justifie.

If I were to specifie the particular Actions of the Primitive Christians under Constantius, in opposition to those under Iulian, I should be as prolix and tedious as Mr. Iohnson is in his comparison of Popery and Paganism; I shall add in general terms, (and I defie any one to disprove me out of the Writings of the Fa­thers, the Histories, and the Martyrologies of that age) that the Souldiers, (though of a contrary opinion) fought for him. The Fathers (though banish'd) pray'd for him, as likewise did the Martyrs under persecu­tion, till the Ex [...]cutioner put an end at once, both to their devotion, and their lives.

I Don't think there is so much difference between Prayers and Psalms, as to treat of them severally in two distinct Chapters. But shall speak of them here together (I hope) without any great absurdity.

I must confess there seems some weight in the instance Mr. Iohnson urges of the young Martyr Theodorus, who curs'd the Emperour out of the Psalms; and when he suffer'd for it, by an extraordinary assistance from Hea­ven, not onely surviv'd, but enjoy'd the tor­ture: But (like all the rest he writes) 'tis onely gloss, and onely fit to be swallow'd by those whose use he designs his book for, the prejudic'd and ignorant: These believe, because they don't understand; Those, be­cause it makes for them. For this Holy Martyr repeated this with the same spirit that David first deliver'd it, by way of de­nouncing God's judgments, not delivering his own sentiments: And Mr. Iohnson may [Page 26] as well say the Priest curses the People in the solemn Service on Ash [...]ednesday, as Theo­dorus did the Emperour then; for the Idola­ters come in for their share there too.

Mr. Iohnson says but little of their prayers, an [...] that little too he draws from Gregory's [...] where he [...]lls the People what a Champion his Father had been against Iu­ [...], how he had stricken him with the joint prayers of the people, &c. If he did, 'twas [...] all that the Christians [...]ver did before him. And then what may we judge of th [...] p [...]yers, but that they were as ex­traordinary and unjustifiable as his threat­ [...]ing to kick the Emperour? the supplicati­ [...] [...] Predecessours were not of this [...] will tell us [That the Scrip­tures enjoin us for shewing the redundancy of our Charity, to pray to God even for our enemies, and wish well unto our per­secutours.] Tertul. Apol. cap. 31, and 32. And in another place, [We pray for the Em­perour's safety, we call upon the eternal God, the true God, the living God, whom the Emperours themselves would wish above all others should be propitious to them. Ibid. 30.]

And what is more, he tells them in the same place, [Having our arms thus spread out unto our God, let the Hooks tear us, the Crosses hang us, the Fires lick us up, &c. the posture of a Christian praying is fitted [Page 27] for all kind of torments: Come ye good Governours, wrest out the soul that is sup­plicating for the Emperour:] Can any thing be greater? This is the patience of a Primi­tive Martyr. By this we see not onely calm­ly to dye for the Truth, but even to dye praying for the Persecutour, was one of the great requisits to obtain so glorious a title.

But perhaps Mr. Iohnson will tell us this is but one Doctor's opinion; but if he will take the pains onely to look in the Indexes of the Fathers, he will be directed to ma­ny places, in each of them, to this pur­pose.

Cyprian speaking to the Emperour, says, [Day and night continually and instantly do we pray, propitiating and appeasing God, for your peace and safety.] Cypr. ad De­met.

Sebastian tells the Emperour Dioclesian, [The Priests of the Temples do possess your Majesty with an unjust suspicion of us, sug­gesting false tales, as if we were enemies to the Commonwealth; whereas by our pray­ers the Commonwealth is better'd and in­creas'd; for we cease not to pray for your Empire and the Roman Army.]

But to come [...]igher home, Athanasius (a man not over tame but when it was his du­ty) gives this reason for celebrating pray­er in the Church of Alexandria, before it [Page 28] was dedicated, that the people earnestly prest him, that they might all pray for the safety of the Emperour in the Church, which he himself had builded; being ready otherwise to go out of the City, and as­semble themselves in the desarts, at the so­lemnity of Easter, which at that time was to be celebrated.

And again, speaking to the Emperour, [You do not forbid, but are willing that all men should pray, knowing that this is the prayer of all, that you may live in safety, and continually reign in peace [...]—And again (O Emperour of God most belov'd) many circuits of years, I pray, may you live, and accomplish the dedication of this Church; for those prayers that are made within for your welfare, don't at all hinder the dedication of the Church.]

This will be enough to satisfie any rea­sonable man, that Cursing an Emperour is not so Catholick a Doctrine as Mr. Iohnson would have us to believe, and that all the Fathers were not of old Gregory's mind. I am inclin'd to believe, that if he could have found but one instance more of such a fiery Zeal, it had certainly appear'd, and been improv'd to the best advantage: For we find by his transcribing so great a part of the Book of Homilies, he is of a good Communicative nature, and keeps nothing [Page 29] to himself that may prove in the least bene­ficial to the publick.

But I believe it will be a hard thing to find the least pretence for this Doctrine, in all the Orthodox Writings in former ages; and any of the Fathers would look upon the broacher of such principles with as much detestation, and call him as many names as Gregory did Iulian the Apostate.

Before I conclude this Chapter, it will not be impertinent to shew, that prayers and tears were not so much out of fashion in the Primitive Church, as to be redicu­lous in ours; as for their prayers, that they were not aim'd against the Emperour, I hope has been sufficiently shew'd already, but one­ly intend [...]d for his safety. And though it may seem unmanly, yet that it was not un­christian to weep, St. Ambrose will inform us; who speaking to his Flock at Milane, tells them, [Willingly I will never forsake you; being constrain'd, I know not how to make opposition; I can sorrow, I can weep, I can sigh, against Armour, Souldiers and Goths: Tears are my weapons, for such is the Armour of a Priest, otherways I cannot, dare not, resist.] Amb. in Ora. de Bas. non Trad.

And this same Father (who had likewise to deal with an Arian Emperour, Valentinian the younger) did not defend himself with his [Page 30] hand or his weapon, but by fastings, and con­tinual watchings, and continuing under the Altars, by his prayers he procur'd God to be a defender both of him and his Church. Ruf. Ec. H. l. 2. c. 26.

And that Prayers and Tears do very well together, St. Bernard tells us, writing to [...]u­dovicus then King of France. [Indeed we will stand and sight even unto death, if need so requires, in our Mothers behalf, with such weapons as we may lawfully use; not with Bucklers and Swords, but with Prayers and Tears to God.] I suppose if he had meant against the Emperour, he would hardly have wrote him word so. Ber. in Ep. 221. ad Ludo. Re.

COnstantius, after having reign'd 38 years, (a great while for a Roman Empe­rour and Persecutour, and yet not too long, for Athanasius wisheth him many Circuits of years) making War in Persia, heard the un­welcome News of Iulian's being proclaim'd Emperour by the Army: 'Tis not to be ima­gined but he resented this treacherous Action with the highest indignation; but we do not hear that he attempted to exclude him for it; he knew he had declar'd Iulian's right to the Succession, by making him Cae­sar; and that consequently it was not in his power to take away that right which was deriv'd from the Law of Nature, and con­firm'd by his Edict, and which could onely cease with Iulian's Life. That these were his thoughts, we shall best judge by his pro­ceedings in this affair; for he did not put out his Edicts to take away the title of Cae­sar from Iulian (which was equivalent to that of H [...]ir-Apparent with us) thereby [Page 32] shewing his design to dis-inherit him; but leaving the prosecution of that War he had begun in Persia, he carried his Army against Iulian, to be reveng'd of that ungratefull Usurper, and to secure himself in the Em­pire; for he might kill Iulian as a Rebell, and so his right would fall of course; but he could not dis-inherit him as such, because God, though he gave the power of life and death to the Magistrate, hath yet reserv'd the disposing of Kingdoms to himself. But to proceed in the Narrative: Constantius, whether from inward grief, or the toil of a long journey, or both (is not material) fell ill at Mopsuecrene, a place between Cappado­ [...]ia and Cilicia, where in a very short time he died of a very high Fever; for Mar­cellinus saith, that he burnt all over like fire, so that his servants could not so much as touch his body. Socrates indeed gives us a far different account of his distemper, attri­buting his Death to an Apoplexy. I shall leave the reconciliation of these two Histo­rians to those that think themselves concern'd in it; for it is not material here of what death he died: but it is certain the News of it was miraculously convey'd to Iulian; for after he had consulted his Gods and Priests about the event of things, and they had as­sur'd him of success above his hopes, yet he was dissatisfied still; he look't upon what they said to be rather slattery than prophe­cy, [Page 33] and thought their predictions rather squar'd to his desires, than truth; but he was quickly satisfied by an extraordinary re­velation; for at the very same time the Em­perour died in Cilicia, a Souldier that lif [...]ed Iulian upon his horse; he being seated, sud­denly himself fell down upon the ground, and cried out in the hearing of all the com­pany, That he who had rais'd him up so high, was fallen himself. Marcel. lib. 21.

Having given this account of his Death, I hope it will not be preposterous to speak a word or two of his Repentance.

Socrates is silent in this matter, and the great Athanasius positively affirms, that he continued in his damnable Heresie till the last. [ [...]] p. 907. And that dying, he desir'd to be bap­tiz'd, but not by a holy man, but by one Euzoius (this is also confirm'd by Socrates) that had been depos'd for Arianism. Ibid.

If any one enquires into the credit of this great Father, I shall refer him to Gregory Nazianzen's own Speech in commendation of him, which he thus begins, [In praising Athanasius, I praise Vertue it self, &c.] Greg. Nazian. in Land. Athan. And to Constantius's Character of him (who certainly might be believ'd when he commended one he hated) in a Letter he sent to the people of Alexan­dria, wherein he highly commends his in­tegrity, [Page 34] &c. Athan. Works. Epist. 2. ad Pop. Alex. Now which is to be believed, Atha­nasius or Gregory, in the account of Con­stantius's dying a Convert or an Apostate, I leave the Impartial Reader to judge.

But the authority he useth to induce us to believe a Christian did that treacherous act, is much to be suspected; for Amm. Mar­cell. lib. 24. is silent as to that, who was con­cern'd in the expedition, and an eye-witness of what past; as likewise Eutropius. But Aurelius Victor affirms the quite contrary, viz. that he was kill'd by a Horse-man of the enemies, and one that was [...]lying too. But Theodoret tells us positively, cap. 25. lib. 3. [...]; Who it was that struck this just stroke, no man knows to this day. And that it was not probable that a Christian would be guilty of this fact, will manifestly enough appear, from the passionate resentments they shew'd at his death. See Marcell. l. 24.

THE Primitive Christians were so far from offering any injury to the Me­mory of Constantius, that as if they had onely remembred he was their Emperour; and now by his being dead, own'd a new ob­ligation superadded to that, to speak well of Him; they deplore his loss with all the de­monstrations of a real sorrow: the eyes that were wet when he persecuted them, wept afresh at his funeral, as if they had perfectly learn't that great lesson of their Saviour, not onely to bear with, but even to love their enemies. The Souldiers you would think, by the extravagance of their grief, had forgot their Character; and Constantine himself died not more lamented than his Son. Iu­lian, who had no great reason to be fond of his life, if he consulted his own safety, assisted at his Obsequies, and made a very considerable figure in that sorrowfull pro­cession; and if we reade Gregory Nizian­zen's description of his funeral, we must needs [Page 36] stand amaz'd at the greatness of their Charity; He tells us, that he was carried forth with all the solemnity the Christians us'd to honour the Corps of a Pious Hero with; and would fain persuade the people to believe that the very Angels themselves, in reward of his un­usual piety, contributed their assistance to inhance the Glories of his Funeral; but whe­ther this is one of that Father's flights, or really true, I shan't contend: this is certain from all the Histories of that age, that he died ge­nerally lamented; and that those that suf­fer'd by his Edicts, did not presume to blas­pheme the Memory of him that made them.

This was the Conduct of the Primitive Christian; and if they ever acted contrary, it was not to be imputed to their Religion, but their Passions. I shall easily grant that there are some severe reflexions upon Iulian to be met withall in Authours of very good note; but I hope Mr. Iohnson will not infer from that, that they are warrantable. If he reades those very Fathers thorough, he will find that their Theory runs sometimes con­trary to their Practice, and that they don't always act according to their own principles; and I don't know why he should draw those passages into presidents for us, which the Authours themselves in their cooler minutes were asham'd to own.

THat the Persecution under Constantius was much severer than any of the ten former, is evident to any one that considers the Cruel [...]ies that were daily acted by the Arian Hereticks; who as they were much more zealous for their Opinions than the Heathens, so consequently they were more eager in prosecuting those that dissented from them: The loss of a Trade or Profession was not the punishment of their Non-conformity, but of Life too; nay, there were penalties inflicted where death was the least part of the punishment: But all these heavy grie­vances did not make them question God's Providence, or remonstrate to the Decrees of the Emperour; they did not make their pressures just, by impatiently submitting to them; nor frustrate the reward of their suf­ferings, by reviling their Persecutours; there­by [Page 38] by rendring their Persecution onely an un­profitable affliction: they look't upon their miseries as necessary tryals of their faith, knowing that the power of even wicked and hurtfull Kings is from God.

What therefore can justifie the Primitive Christians carriage toward Iulian, if it were according to the account Mr. Iohnson gives of it, p. 66? That they vext every vein in his Royal heart; said all their prayers back­ward; and call'd down for vengeance upon his head, &c. And at last concludes, They seem to have broke all the measures by which all the ancient and suffering Christians have gone by in their Per [...]ecutions, p. 68. The reasons he brings to justifie their Actions, are these:

1. That their case was different from that of the first Christians, because Christianity was now the Establisht Religion of the Em­pire, and they were justly incensed at Iulian in offering to disturb them in the exercise of it.

2. Since Constantius had repeal'd all the sanguinary Edicts against them, they were persecuted contrary to Law.

To the first of these I answer; That if he takes Christianity for the true Religion Constantine profess'd and maintain'd, his as­sertion is utterly false; for the Emperour's Religion, which is likewise the Religion of [Page 39] the Empire, as far as Edicts can make it, (and Constantine had no other way to establish any thing) was Arianism; for Constantius had long maintain'd that damnable Heresie, and had supply'd all the places of the Or­thodox Bishops, who were banish'd for their Confession with the most violent professours of it. So that when Iulian came to the Empire, the Church was far from enjoying that peace and tranquillity Mr. Iohnson de­scribes, p. 68. for it was miserably rent with divisions, and hardly visible but in a few persecuted, distressed members: For grant­ing that Constantius did at last repent, it was so late first, he had no time to settle the true Religion, but left the Empire infected with the Heresie he first introduced: which was no more Christianity then, than Mahume­tism is now; for though they acknowledg­ed a Saviour, 'twas one of their own making, and the Notions they entertain'd of Christ may perhaps onely entitle them to greater damnation, than the Heathens that never heard his name: So that the quiet enjoy­ment of their Religion could not make them so [...]ierce against Iulian, for designing to mo­lest them, for he could not put them into a greater confusion than they were in already: Nay, they rather found the contrary; for whoever will take the pains to compare Iu­lian's Usage of the Christians with that of [Page 40] Constantius, he will find that the Heathen was less a Persecutour than the Arian; and that the Church had more quiet minutes in the short Reign of Iulian, than in 30 years before; for he (upon what private designs matters not) call'd home the Banish'd Bi­shops, and r [...]stor'd them to their places in the Church: And though he ridicul'd Chri­stianity, he did not often persecute the pro­fessours of it; he endeavour'd indeed to gain Pro [...]lytes, but yet, like Arians, he did not compell people to his Altars: Nay if we will take Mr. Iohnson's word, he was rather a Tempter than a Persecutour. I hope this is enough to shew, that there is not a word true of all that gay description Mr. Iohnson gives u [...], p. 68, 69, &c. of the flourishing condition of the Church; and consequently the just sense of the happiness they enjoy'd, and a fear to be rob'd of it, could not ani­mate the Christians to that degree that he tells us it did.

2. As to the second, That Constantine re­peal'd all the sanguinary Edicts against the Christians, and therefore if they were per­secuted, 'twas contrary to Law; it is a very [...]hallow inference: For though that first Christian Emperour repeal'd all the sangui­nary Edicts, yet his Successour was not in the l [...]ast ti [...]d up: One single word of his would put them all in force again. Nay if [Page 41] we believe Iustinian (who certainly was a good judge in the case) the Emperour could not act contrary to Law; for what he did, was according to his pleasure, and his plea­sure was a Law, Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem, [Just. Inst. l. 1. c. 2.] and the Edicts were altogether as Arbitrary, for they were onely the Emperour's will more pub­lickly made known; for Theop. defines them, Edicta sunt, cum Princeps motu proprio, [...] aliquid constituit ad ho­nestatem & utilitatem reipublicae; for what­ever the Emperour enacted, how ill soever, was suppos'd to be so; for as his sentence was always presum'd to be just [ Principis sententia praesumitur semper justa unde ab ea non appellatur;] so likewise were all his actions: So that whether Iulian put the Christians to death upon sanguinary Edicts, or rather accus'd them of other Crimes (that he might avoid the invidious name of a Per­secutour) and so destroy'd them, is not ma­terial, for ' [...]is certain he commanded them to be executed; and if he did, they dy'd lawfully, for his Command was a Law; and that the Emperour's Command had this au­thority, is evident from the Protestation of the people of Alexandria, Athan. p. 858. [If it be the Emperour's Command we should be persecuted, we are all ready to suffer Martyrdom; but if there be no such thing, [Page 42] we beseech Maximus, the Governour of E­gypt, and all the Magistrates, that they would entreat his Majesty that no such thing may be attempted against us.] So that what Mr. Iohnson means, p. 72. by saying the first Chri­stians suffer'd according to the Laws of their Country, whereas those under Iulian were persecuted contrary to Law, is hard to de­termine; for every one knows the will of their Emperours was the Law of their Coun­try, for they were as Arbitrary then as he that now Usurps their Throne; and I hope no body will say the great Turk persecutes his Subjects contrary to Law, when he kills 5 or 6000 of them for diversion: That he acts unjustly, I grant, but the Laws (that is, his will and pleasure) are on his side.

But to put an end to this matter, 'twill be evident to any that have read the former part of this Book, that all the sanguinary Acts against Christians were not repeal'd; for those made by Constantius, which were se­vere enough (if we believe Athanasius, p. 821.) stood still in force till Iulian his immedia [...]e Successour came to the Crown.

But Mr. Iohnson need not have given him­self all this trouble to justifie the Actions of the Primitive Christians, for they were ne­ver guilty of any that wanted an excuse; for the Church under Iulian never own'd those principles or practices that tended to [Page 43] the dishonour of their Emperour, as has been shew'd at large in the 2, 3, 4 Chapters, &c. of this book.

I shall con [...]ine my self no longer to the Actions of a particular people or Nation, but consider what is our duty as Christians in re­lation to our Governours; and what sub­mission is due to them when they persecute us according to Law, or destroy us by an uncontrollable Arbitrary power.

As to the first of these, the case is plain, and agreed upon on all hands, that submis­sion is necessarily requir'd to a Persecutour, that acts according to the Laws of his Coun­try: this Mr. Iohnson allows, p. 92. in these words: [When the Laws of God and our Country interfere, and 'tis made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian, then we are to lay down our lives for Christ's sake.]

So that all the dispute is about our Sub­mission to a Persecutour, that acts without the authority of the Law, and contrary to it.

Mr. Iohnson denies that Submission is due to him by the Gospel, [ ibid.] but I shall make the contrary appear from the plain au­thority of the Holy Scriptures, the sense of the Primitive Christians, as likewise from that too of our present Church.

[Page 44]For, first, if we are not oblig'd to submit to a Tyrant that acts contrary to the Law, we may resist him, for there is no Medium, flying being part of our Passive Obedience that is acknowledg'd due to a Persecutour that acts according to Law: but resisting is not in any case allowable; for besides our Saviour's own words, [...], 'tis forbidden, Rom. 12. 17. to return any man evil for evil. And again v. 19. Dearly beloved, avenge not your selves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Ven­geance is mine, I will repay it, saith the Lord. Now if no man may pay evil to his brother that has injur'd him, but by the hand of the Supreme Power, how can it be allowable to render evil for evil to the Supreme Power it self? It cannot be done but by a Superi­our, and He onely is God. We have re­dress indeed against the violence of our fel­low subject, by applying our selves to the Magistrate, who may punish the offender, being authorized by God so to doe [ Rom. 3. 4.] But we don't find the People have the like Power over the Magistrate: Obedience is our business, which is inconsistent with the liberty of resisting. Grotius tells us plainly, Si, quia summum imperium habenti libet, injuria nobis inferatur, toleranda potius est quam vi resistendum; For though by the Law of Nature we have the power of Re­pelling [Page 45] injuries, yet we have a greater obli­gation from the Civil Government under which we live, that wholly devests us of this right. Potest igitur Civitas jus illud resistendi promiscuum publicae pacis & ordinis causâ pro­hibere, cap. 4. l. 2. de Iu. Bel. & Pa. So that this patient submitting to the Arbitrary determinations of the Magistrate is not one­ly from the doctrine of our Saviour, but from the principl [...]s of Civil prudence: For the Lawyers will tell us, that a mischief is better than an inconvenience; not that the first formally consider'd is to be preferr'd to the latter, but that an inconvenience, whose consequence would reach unto the general, should be prevented rather than a mischief, that would onely endamage particular. Hence it is that opposing the Magistrate is forbid upon any terms whatsoever, since the indulgence of it would bring a train of ill consequences, ten times worse than all the mischiefs we can possibly suffer from the cruelty of a lawless Tyrant; For as Grotius has it in his Commentary on the 13 of the Romans, Reges constituuntur ut improbitate repressa tutiùs vivant boni, hoc autem plenissi­mè praestant boni reges, mali quoque aliquatenus vel sui causa, & quanquam aliquando vitii aliquid interveniat, nunquam tamen non tu­tiùs est esse Principes, quam non esse: Rectè ergo Tacitus, vitia erunt donec homines, sed [Page 46] neque haec continua & meliorum interventu pensantur.

It was a Maxim the former Heathens learnt from their Philosophers, [...], and that this anger was not always suppos'd to be just, a Latin saying, to the same pur­pose, will shew us, ames parentem si aequus est, si non, feras; and that the same, if not much greater difference is to be paid to our com­mon Father, is out of question.

In some cases I allow it is lawfull not to obey our Parent, or our King, but in all cases 'tis necessary not to resist. St. Peter Commands Servants to be subject to their Masters, with all fear; not onely the good and gentle, but also the froward; for this is thank­worthy, if a man for conscience-sake toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully: and Grotius will tell us, Quod dicitur subjectio­nem dominis deberi etiam duris, idem ad re­ges quoque referendum. Nay we owe a grea­ter submission to our Governours, than a Ser­vant doth to his Master; for if he complains of wrongfull usage, redress is to be had from the Magistrate; but we can onely appeal to God.

But to put this matter beyond all contro­versie, let's consider what St. Paul says, Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever resists the power, re­sists the ordinance of God; and they that re­sist, shall receive to themselves damnation. [Page 47] Here is a general rule laid down without the least exception; and that it belongs to us, will be evident, if we consider who gave it St. Paul, who being the Apostle of the Gentiles, what he delivers is universal. And why should we presume to be wiser than the Law, and make distinctions where we find none? St. Paul tells us, Whoever resists the power, shall be damn'd. Mr. Iohnson tells us, we may resist one that acts contrary to Law: This distinction might be plausible, if this wicked power were not the Ordi­nance of God; but since it is (as I shall evidently make out by and by) the resist­ing this Ordinance contracts a guilt, that makes us obnoxious to eternal torments. Mr. Iohnson indeed quotes Bracton to prove, that a Magistrate can have no power from God, to act contrary to the Law, Quia po­testas juris solius Dei est, potestas autem in­juriae Diaboli: But I wonder what Divine [...]ver consulted a common Lawyer before a­bout a Case of Conscience; for I believe Westminster-Hall Divinity is as bad as Pulpit­law: He may likewise, if he please, make use of Scotch Politicks, and he will find his Friend [...], Knox and Buchanan, of his opinion: But St. Augustine will tell him ( Praef. in Enar. 2 Ps. 29.) [Every evil man hath in himself the will to hurt; but to be able to hurt, is not in his power: In that he hath the will [Page 48] to hurt, he is already guilty; but that he should have the ability, is permitted by the secret dispensation of God's Providence; toward some for Punishment; toward some for Tryal; toward some for obtaining a Crown: For punishment, as the Philistins were permitted to subdue the people of Is­rael, because they had sinned against God: For tryal, the Devil was permitted to assault Iob; but Iob was tryed, the Devil con­founded: For winning the Crown, the Per­secutours were let loose against the Mar­tyrs; the Martyrs were slain, the Persecu­tours thought they had gotten the day; these did falsly triumph in publick, the o­ther were truly crown'd in secret: There­fore that he is permitted to deal against any, proceedeth from the secret dispensation of God's Providence; but that he hath a will to hurt, cometh from the man himself.] Here we see opposing even a Persecutour, is re­sisting the Ordinance of God (since he hath his power from above,) and what the consequence of that is, no Christian can be ignorant of. Now that this was not Ca­sually spoken by that Great Father, but his setled opinion, is plain from his constant ad­hering to it: For in another place he says, ( l. 5. de C. D. c. 8.) [From whom [God] are all powers, howsoever all mens wills are not from him;] and again ( Id. de Na. Bon. &c.) [Page 49] [The power even of hurtfull Kings is from God.] Theod. likewise on the 13 to the Romans, Quum vult eos qui peccant castigare à malis Magistratibus regi permittit. And Isi­dore tells us plainly, [Hence we see both a bad and good power is ordained by God, Bonam propitio, malam irato; for we owe good Kings to the gift of God, but evil ones to our sins; Reges quando boni sunt, [...]uneris est De [...], quando vero mali sceleris est Populi.] But some may say the Fathers are men, and consequently may err; to obviate this Ca­vil, I shall add the undoubted authority of Scripture, Rom. 13. 1. There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God: and Iob 34. 10. God maketh a wicked man to reign for the sins of the People.

Since therefore 'tis plain from these many instances, that the power of wicked Princes is from God, our resistance cannot be any ways warrantable: We may as well quarrel with Providence for sending Plagues among us, or murmur at the Almighty when he vi­sits us with his Judgments, as resist a Perse­cutour; for he is sent to punish us for our sins; he is onely the instrument, the rod in God's hand, which we ought rather to kiss than burn.

I hope it has been sufficiently proved from the Scriptures, and Sense of the Fathers, that [Page 50] the power of wicked Princes is from God, and consequently it is our duty to submit to them, though they act never so illegally. It remains now, that I should prove, that this is likewise the Doctrine of our present Church; and here I might refer my Reader to all the Writings of our Eminent Divines since the Reformation, whose business it has been to preach up Obedience to Gover­nours, and have unanimously declar'd a­gainst resistance upon any terms whatsoe­ver: I might transcribe great part of Bishop Bilson, Bishop Taylour and Dr. Hammond's Tracts upon this subject, but I shall rather chuse onely to quote the Homilies, it being agreed on all sides, that in them is contain'd the true Doctrine of our Church; and Mr. Iohnson deservedly stiles them the next best book to the Bible. I wish he could commend them upon his own knowledge; but I am afraid he never read any more of them than serv'd for a present purpose, and cares as little for them otherwise as the Country people do: For if he had met with the Homilies against Rebellion and Disobe­dience, we should never have had that asser­tion, p. 92. That the onely Case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, is when the Laws are against a man: For in the first Homily against Disobedience and Wilfull Rebellion, there are these words, [We [Page 51] shall find in very many and almost infinite places in Holy Scripture, as well of the Old Testament as the New; as well the Evil as the Good do reign by God's Ordinance, and we are bound to obey them.] And again— [It cometh not of chance and fortune (as they term it) nor of the ambition of mor­tal men and women climing up of their own accord to dominion, that there be Kings, Queens and Princes, and other Governours over men, being their Subjects; but All Kings and Queens and other Governours are espe­cially appointed by the Ordinance of God.] —And again, [What shall Subjects doe then? shall they obey the valiant, stout, wise and good Princes, and contemn, diso­bey and rebell against Children, or against indiscreet and evil Governours? God for­bid, &c.] And the reason follows—[For a Rebell is worse than the worst Prince, and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto has been.] —And in another place, [Shall the Sub­jects both by their wickedness provoke God for their deserved punishment, to give them an undiscrect or evil Prince, and also rebell against them, and also against God, who for the punishment of their sins did give them such a Prince?] I am weary of transcribing out of a Book that ought to be almost as well known to us as our Bibles; but I can't [Page 52] forbear to insert this passage, which is so pertinent to the business in hand, and makes it plain that we ought by our repentance to avert the miseries of a wicked Prince, and not by resisting his power; the words are these,—[Let us take away our wicked­ness, that provok'd God to set such an one over us, and God will either displace him, or of an evil Prince, make him a good Prince; so that we first change our evil in­to good; for Subjects to deserve through their sins, to have an evil Prince, and to re­bell against him were double and treble evil, by provoking God more to plague them: Nay, let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or let us patiently suffer and obey such as we deserve.]

Having thus secur'd the Supreme Magi­strate from the violence of his Subjects, it will be necessary to take some care of his un­der Officers; whose power, since it is the Ordinance of God (for Epiphanius proves, that the many Magistrates under one King are Ordain'd of God, from the 13 to the Romans) ought no more to be resisted than the King's.

Though this may seem something harsh in an English man's ears, who will acknow­ledge perhaps that the King can doe no in­jury, and is above the censure of the Law, [Page 53] yet he knows his Officers are accountable for any illegal act; and the very Command of the Prince cannot secure them from be­ing impeach't by the People: granting this to be very true; yet I shall still assert, that the inferiour Magistrate, though in the exe­cution of an illegal act is not to be repell'd by force; for though Bracton tells us, Ei qui vult viribus uti erit viriliter resistendum; and the law in our own defence permits us to kill our enemy, R [...]f 17. 18. yet (as it is sufficiently declar'd before) we sin in so doing; and though we escape here, judgment will over­take us hereafter. Let's hear St. Peter's opi­nion in the case, 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. Sub­mit your selves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the King as supreme, or unto governours, as unto them that are sent by him [...]—For this is the will of God, &c.—From this 'tis plain that we ought to submit to inferiour Officers for the Lord's sake, as well as supreme; this sub­ordinate power being from God, though not immediately: This is sufficiently ac­knowledged in our Saviour's answer to Pi­late, Thou couldst have no power over me, ex­cept it were given thee from above; and we all know he was under the Emperour.

I am not ignorant that the above-cited Text from St. Peter has been perverted to serve upon a far different occasion; the im­proper [Page 54] proper translation of [...] hu­mane Ordinance giving occasion to some ignorant or ill-minded people to infer, that all government is of humane institution; but to any considering man 'tis plain, that [...] here signifies a person, and not a thing, from the division subjoyn'd, whether it be to Kings as Supreme, or Governours, &c. and therefore the best Translation runs, Submit your selves to every humane creature. Here it may be objected, that this explication is too large, because undoubtedly we are not to submit to all men: To this I answer, that sentenc [...]s deliver'd in general terms are not always to be taken in their full extent; but restrictions are allowable, provided they are had from parallel places in Scripture; for this Command of subjecting our selves to all men, implies no more but this, We must sub­mit our selves to all men to whom submission is due: of Haymo in Rom. 13. Subditi estote omni creaturae, i.e. omnibus hominibus nobis praepositis. But that which gives colour for the allowance of this restriction, is the like expression in the same Chapter, v. 17. where we are commanded to honour all men. Cer­tainly the meaning of this is not that the King should honour his Subjects, or the Fa­ther his Children. But as Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on the place, [Give every man the Honour and Obedience that is due [Page 55] to him:] and St. Paul confirms this, Rom. 13. 7. Give all men their due, Tribute to whom tribute—Honour to whom honour.

But to make this point of our submission to under O [...]icers, as plain a [...] possible, let us consider the example of our Saviour, who when he was set upon by a great multitude with swords and staves, &c. who certainly acted very illegally, for they had no just Commission for what they did, nor could have (for our Saviour tells them, Luke [...]2. 53. This is your hour, and the power of dark­ness; which Dr. Hammond explains in his Paraphrase, [This is the time when the De­vil and you are permitted to work your wills on me.] Yet he was so far from re­sisting them (though he had ten Millions of Angels at his command) that he severe­ly rebuked Peter for drawing his sword in his defence, and bid him put it up, for all that take the sword, shall perish by the sword. Here we see our Saviour doth not onely encourage us by his example to submit pa­tiently to those that wrongfully assault us, but by his Precept enjoy [...]s it as our duty; he doth not leave it at our disposal, whe­ther we will submit or no; nor is this one­ly a Counsel of Perfection, which brings honour and reward to those that keep it; but to those that doe not, no manner of [Page 56] danger at all (as Mr. Iohnson speaks, p. 68. from Greg. Naz.) for we see here a penal­ty threatned to the resister; though if any case might be excepted, this ought to claim the privilege, for the sword could never be drawn in a better cause, or by a better hand: But the Precept is universal and un­alterable. St. Peter himself must not re­sist, though to defend his Saviour.

This is a hard lesson (I know) to flesh and blood, but we must not Consult them when we are to take up the Cross; which is the indispensable duty of every Christian, 2 Tim. 3. 12. And again, Heb. 11. 6, 7, 8. For whom the Lord loveth, he chas [...]eneth; and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

I hope I have not omitted any thing in Mr. Iohnson's book that might deserve the least Consideration; but to make the surer work, it will be necessary to make some particular remarks upon those five Proposi­tions, p. 92. into which he tells us there he has reduced the force and strength of what was formerly delivered in his Book.

1. Christianity destroys no man's natural or civil Rights, but confirms them.

[Page 57] Ans. Christianity doth not at all meddle with our Civil Rights [1 Cor. 7. 20, 21. with Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase.] And as for Natural Rights, some it has confirm'd, but destroy'd others; for many things were lawfull to us as men, which are not so as Christians. Nay, there were many things allow'd under the Iewish Oeconomy, which Christ hath absolutely forbid; and parti­cularly in this case of private revenge, and resisting the unlawfull Oppressour. See Matth. 5. v. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. with Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase.

2. All men have a natural and civil Right and Property in their Lives, till they have forfeited them by the Laws of their Country.

Ans. We had indeed a natural Right to our Lives, and we might have defended them by force, and those weapons that na­ture had bestowed upon us; but this Right is superseded not onely by the Maxims of Christianity, but Civil policy too (as has been shewn from Grotius); and we can no more defend our Lives by violence, than we can destroy them upon private discontent; both the preserving and destroying the Sub­ject being lodg'd in the hands of the Su­preme Magistrate.

[Page 58]3. When the Laws of God and our Coun­try interfere, and it is made death by the Law of the Land to be a good Christian, then we are to lay down our lives for Christ's sake. This is the onely case wherein the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, namely, when the Laws are against a man: And this was the case of the first Christians.

Ans. 1. The rule of our Obedience and Submission is universal, there is no person excepted; nay, 'tis plain from Scripture that we ought not onely to submit when the Laws are against us, but when they are for us, and we are illegally opprest: For if our Saviour commands us, Matth. 5. 38, 39, &c. not to resist a private person that offer'd us an injury, (which is certainly illegal, and acknowledged so all over the world, since he acts without so much as any pretended a [...]thority) how much rather ought we to submit to the Magistrate, though he acts contrary to Law; for besides the general obligation we have just now mentioned, there is another that more particularly re­strains us, viz. St. Paul's Command, to sub­mit to his power as he is a Magistrate, and cons [...]quently ordained by God.

2. The Laws were no more against the first Christians, than they were against those [Page 59] under Iulian; for they suffered both by the same Law, viz. the uncontrollable will of their Emperour.

4. That killing a man contrary to Law is Murther.

Ans. I can't grant this universally true, for sometimes 'tis more than Murther, viz. Treason, sometimes less, viz. Manslaughter: but that Murther is Murther, I allow. I hope the Reader will pardon the seeming lightness of this Answer, since it is necessary to shew how hard it is for Mr. Iohnson to speak truth or sense in the most trivial concerns.

5. That every man is bound to prevent Murther as far as the Law allows, and ought not to submit to be Murthered if he can help it.

Ans. How plausible soever this seems, 'tis utterly false: We ought indeed to prevent Murther by all the means our Laws com­mand, for they can command nothing con­trary to the Scriptures, but not by those they barely allow; for 'tis evident from what has been delivered already, that the Law permits some means that are not war­ranted by the Gospel, and those we must [Page 60] not, cannot use; for we ought not to damn our selves to prevent the violence of a Mur­therer, though offered to our selves; for our Saviour assures us we don't lose our lives by this patient submission to death, but gain them.

'Twill not be impertinent now to take notice of some Quotations pickt up out of Bracton, to countenance Mr. Iohnson's Doc­trine, p. 83. who certainly has a peculiar way of perverting the sense of Authours: For how else could he arm Bracton against his Prince? who, good man! little thought his authority should be made use of to coun­tenance disobedience, or to pull down the Prerogative, of which he really was so just and vigorous a defender: But our Law­books may well be debaucht to serve the purposes of ill men, when the Bible is, and Bracton has not so much reason to complain of the injury, since he hath St. Paul for a fellow Sufferer: The substance of all he cites from Bracton is this; Rex est sub Deo & sub Lege quia Lex facit Regem. If Mr. Iohnson would but let Bracton interpret himself, we should have none of the absurd inferences he makes, p. 83. for he tells us, [...]. 3. c. 26. Rex habet superiorem Deum item Legem per quam factus est Rex, item Curiam suam, viz. Comites & Barones. Here we see [Page 61] there is no more power allowed to the Law, than there is to the Earls and Barons; and that they can't civilly oblige the King to Obedience, but onely morally oblige his Conscience when he is persuaded their Coun­sels are just, I am sure Mr. Iohnson himself will allow: Therefore 'tis evident that those words cannot relate to any coercive power, but onely directive; for he says just before, Nec factum Regis nec Chartam potest quis ju­dicare ita quod factum Domini Regis irrite­tur: And what he delivers in the following words, onely implies a Moral superiority, by reason of a directive power in the Law, and likewise in the Earls, &c. not any civil jurisdiction or coercive power; for he de­clares, cap. 4. p. 17. that for all the ill the King can doe, God onely can punish him: Satis sufficit ei pro poena quod Dominum ex­pected ultorem. This is enough to satisfie those that never did, and perhaps never may see Bracton's Books of the meaning of that great Lawyer; as for those that under­stand him, they know that he of all men is not in the least guilty of any saying that may derogate from the Prerogative of the Prince, for he has evidently made it his bu­siness to justifie it in its fullest extent.

[Page 62]I might here conclude, but that Mr. Iohn­son will give us another touch of the Pri­mitive Christians, p. 93. where he tells us we have no occasion for that admirable example of the Thebaean Legion: If he had not forgot the Service of the Church, he would know the patience of Martyrs was not onely the business of our imitation, but the subject of our prayers too: And though we have not always occasion to follow their example, yet it is our con­stant duty to thank God for it. And therefore in the most peacefully settled times this sad story is not impertinent from the Pulpit; we have solemn days to Comme­morate the sufferings of our blessed Savi­our and the Apostles: And though the Church has not thought fit to give this glorious Action a place in the Kalendar, it ought certainly to be eternally fixt in our Memories; for then if ill times should come (and if we consider impartially God's justice and our own sins, we have little reason to expect otherwise) the Example and Conduct of the Thebaean Legion will be of great use to us; there we shall see Souldiers dye with the same Meen they used to triumph; and Chieftains not inspi­ring their Souldiers with Courage, but in­stilling the softer Maxims of Patience: Eu­cherius [Page 63] tells the Emperour (after a second Decemation of the Legion, and upon his Command to destroy them all) [Despair it self, O Emperour, which is strongest in dangers, hath not arm'd us against thee: Behold we have weapons, and yet offer not to resist, because we had rather dye than overcome, chusing rather to dye innocent, than live guilty, &c.] No body but Mr. Iohnson would say this great Example is not universally to be imitated; and his reason is, because they suffered according to the Laws of their Country. This shift of his has been sufficiently exposed already; but that he may not have the least pretence to it here­after, I shall shew that the Christians under Iulian had power to resist (and he declares the Laws were for them,) and yet they did not; so that his assertion, p. 94. that they would if they could; and consequently that we may, is utterly false. Now that the Christians were able, appears from all the Historians that speak of that age; for not onely the greatest part of the world were Christians, but Iulian's Army was entirely so; for when they chose Iovinian for their Emperour, he refused the Honour, telling them, That since he was a Christian, he could not Command over Heathens; but they all, with one accord, cried out, We are Christians.] Rusin. l. 2. c. 1. Theodoret is [Page 64] more full in this case; for he makes the Army tell him, that he shall command Chri­stians that were ever bred up to that pro­fession [ [...]] for those that were elder, had Constantine for their Teacher, the younger Constantius; nay, they assure him they could not be Heathens, for Iulian did not live long enough to pervert them: [...]. Th. l. 4. c. 1. This Mr. Iohnson himself knew, for all he saith, p. 94. [What would they have a few desenceless Christi­ans doe, when they had lost their strength, and so many of their numbers?] for in his Preface, p. 25. he quotes St. Aug. in Ps. 124. who there saith, [Though Iulian was an A­postate, an Oppressour and Idolater, yet Christian Souldiers served under him.] Now whether these were unarm'd or defenceless when they were to fight, let any reasonable man judge; and for their Numbers, I appeal to the Historians.

Thus I hope I have performed my pro­mise, viz. 1. I have shewn the Unlawful­ness of Excluding the next Heir upon the account of his Religion, and that it is a practice altogether unknown to the Primi­tive Christians.

[Page 65]2. I have proved the necessity of Passive Obedience from the Scripture, the Sense of the Primitive Fathers, and the Doctrine of our present Church.

3. I have not left any thing unanswered in Iulian, &c. that opposed the Right of the next Heir, or justified Resistance.

As for the latter part of the Book, since I am not concerned in the Vindication of the Papists, I shall leave it to the censure of those that are. But I must needs say, that Mr. Iohnson had more effectually routed the Papists, if he had rather set down the Argu­ments with which those great Men confuted their Doctrines, than onely the Rhetorick they exposed them with; for we, (whether it be the civility or judgment of the age, I shan't determine) are not much affected with the Old Elizabeth-way of railing.