Julian's arts to undermine and extirpate Christianity together with answers to Constantius the Apostate, and Jovian / by Samuel Johnson.

Answer to the Preface.

IT has been the extream Felicity of this Author, to give such a pregnant Title to his Book, as does alone in effect answer Julian: For as we learn from the beginning of this Preface, Jovian proves that the Empire was Elec∣tive; secondly, Jovian proves the Chri∣stians to have bin quiet and peaceable un∣der Julian; thirdly, proves the Antiochi∣ans Zeal to have been Abusiveness; and fourthly, proves, that Julian's Army in Persia were Christians. But how if

Jovian proves not any one of these Par∣ticulars, but directly the contrary?

For, first, the Election of Jovian, after Constantine's Family was extinct, does by no means prove, that that Family did not inherit the Empire; but it proves the contrary, if the Historians say, that the Army elected Jovian, and on the other side say, that the Army and Senate pro∣claimed and recognized the Sons of Con∣stantine to be the Emperors of the Ro∣mans, but never talk of their electing them.

Neither does Procopius prove that Family not to be extinct in Julian: For pretended Kindred, and much more impudently pre∣tended Kindred, is not Kindred. An House in Cilicia, from which Pro∣copius descended, was not the Flavian House; no more than a Man, who lived all his Life in the quality of an Ʋnder-Writer, or Clerk, was a great Man, and of the Blood; or than a sorry Pen-and-Inkhorn-Fellow, as Themistius describes him, can be said to make a great

Figure in the Times of Constantius and Julian. I thought very innocently, a Man might be allowed to say, That the Line Male of the House of York ended in Ri∣chard the Third, without telling the World a long impertinent Story of Sim∣nel, and Perkin Warbeck; but now I see, that upon such an occasion, unless a Man writes the Memoirs of such Impostors, and Vagabond Landlopers, he shall be represented by our Author as an Impostor himself. However, I regard it the less, because I had not more diversion in rea∣ding heretofore the Tragi-Comedy of this Impostor, than I have now in our Au∣thor's management of him: To see Ju∣lian's Cousin Procopius, standing by him∣self at the bottom of a Genealogy, just like a Cipher, without Father, without Mother, and without Descent; where the Noble Algernon's Cousin might as well have stood, if the Herald had so plea∣sed. But after all, if this famous Procopius must needs be brought into Play, he is clearly on my side: For his setting up for Emperor, under pretence of being of the Constantine Family, is a strong Proof, that the Empire was look'd upon as Heredita∣ry; as Perkin Warbeck's Imposture did suppose the Kingdom to be so here.

Neither, lastly, does the passing by of Varronianus, the Infant-Son of Jovian, sig∣nify any thing; when Edgar Atheling was set aside thrice, and several other Saxon Princes were put by for their Minority. Whereas on the other hand, Valentinian being made Emperor at four Years old, is a greater Argument that the Empire was Hereditary, than the setting aside Ten at that Age, is to prove the contrary.

Secondly; Jovian's quiet Behaviour is no proof that Valentinian, as much a Con∣fessor as he, behaved himself quietly, when he struck the Priest; nor that all the other Christians behaved themselves qui∣etly under Julian, when they did not; particularly the generous and zealous Caesareans, as St. Gregory calls them, who destroyed the Temple of Julian's great Goddess Fortune in his Reign, and made her unfortunate in a fortunate Time. For which Julian was enraged at that whole City, and gave his own Heathens there a severe Reprimand, for not hazarding themselves to defend their Goddess; but they durst not, for the Christians in that City were too many for them. Now on the other hand, how if Jovian himself was as generous, and as zealous a Christi∣an, as any of them? For tho he had

laid down his Commission, and was cashiered for not sacrificing, and obeying the Commandment of the wicked King; yet Julian, in his Expedition for Persia, by Necessity of the approaching War, had him amongst his Commanders, as Socrates's Words are. I have been often puzled, to imagine what that Necessity should be, and have sometimes been inclined to think that Julian stood in need of him for his Conduct, to command some part of his Army, who indeed, for his Abilities, was fittest to have commanded in chief. But that cannot be, for the great Jovian was but a Pike-man in that Expedition, and was not entrusted with any Command, so much as that of a Sergeant, and was no more than a common Foot-Souldier, when he was chosen Emperor. And therefore Julian could not be with∣out him, nor leave him behind him, upon some other account; and whether that were, lest in his absence he should go and live at Caesarea, which was close by Nazi∣anzum, where old Gregory dwelt, or up∣on what other account, I desire to be in∣formed by our Author.

Thirdly; Jovian's being libelled and abused by none but the Heathens of Anti∣och, for making a dishonourable Peace

with the Persians, which Reproach the Christians always wiped off from him, and justly laid it upon Julian's Rashness, or for his being a Christian, (which is undeniably true, as Baronius has already proved it in Jovian's Life, and as I could further prove, if it were worth the while) does by no means prove, that the Christi∣ans of Antioch abused him as well as Julian, and consequently would have abused any Body. Whereas it is evident, both from the Misopogon it self, and from the ex∣press Testimony of Theodoret, that the In∣stances of the Antiochian Christians Ha∣tred to Julian, did proceed purely from the height of their Christianity, and their fervent Love to Christ. It is too much in reason to tell Men a Story, and to find them Ears too; but I will do it for once, as to this Story of Theodoret. The Words were these:

That the Antiochians, who had received their Christianity from the greatest Pair of Apostles, Peter and Paul, and had a warm Affection for the Lord and Saviour of all, did always a∣bominate Julian, who ought never to be remembred; you have his own Word for it: For, for this reason he wrote a Book against them, and called them the Beard-haters.

Now the same Men, that

derived their Christianity from the chiefest Apostles, and had a great Love for our Saviour, were the Men that could not endure Julian, and against whom, for that reason, he writ his Misopogon. So that, according to Theodoret, that Book was caused by their Hatred to Julian, and their Hatred to Julian was caused by their Love to Christ, and their Love to Christ proceeded from their pure and pri∣mitive Christianity. And let our Author find any new ways of shuffling, to call this Zeal Scurrility, if he can.

And, fourthly, Jovian is so far from proving Julian's Army in Persia to be all Christians, or almost all Christians, (as my divided Answerers say) or Christians at all, that it is demonstrable from his Electi∣on, that they were Heathens; for he therefore refused the Empire, because they were Heathens. He refused it at first, when he was chosen by the Army, in the absence of the Commanders; and after∣wards, when the Commanders had agreed to the Army's Choice, and had set him upon a high Stage, and given him all the Titles of Majesty, calling him Caesar and Augustus; still he refused it, not fearing the Princes nor Souldiers altering their Minds for the worse, but told them plainly,

I cannot, being a Christian as I am, take the Government of such Men, nor be the Emperor over Julian's Army, which is principled in a wicked Religi∣on; for such Men, being left destitute of God's Providence, will become an easy Prey and Sport to our Enemies. The Souldiers having heard these Words, cried out with one Voice: O King, let not that Doubt trouble you, neither do you decline the Government of us, as a wicked Government; for you shall reign over Christians, and Men bred up in the true Religion: For the elder a∣mongst us were bred under Constantine, and the rest under Constantius; and the Reign of this Man, who is now dead, has been short, and not sufficient to esta∣blish Heathenism in the Minds of those that have been seduced.

Now this is a Demonstration, that Julian's Army were profest Heathens: for it is Nonsence to say, that Jovian, who was so well ac∣quainted with the Army, and was all along with it in that Expedition, did not know what Religion the Army profest. Or I would fain know what Danger he was in, for declaring against Heathenism in a Christian Army; that Theodoret should say,

This brave Man, using his

accustomed Boldness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (that is, says our Author, p. 105. confessing Christ boldly in the midst of his Enemies, in ap∣parent Danger of Torture or Death) not fearing the Princes or Armies Alte∣ration for the worse, said, I cannot, be∣ing a Christian, take upon me the Go∣vernment of such Men.

It may indeed be demanded, why the Army, knowing his Religion as well as he knew theirs, should nevertheless chuse him for their Emperor? But all the Ecclesiastical Historians furnish us with this ready Answer, That the Ar∣my was in miserable Straits and Perplexi∣ty, and had been all lost, without a Man of his matchless Courage and Conduct to head them: And then their own De∣claration shews, that they were Heathens only upon liking, and had not been long enough to contract an Aversion to that Religion, in which they were bred.

For my part, I never read of any other profest Christians in Julian's Army in Per∣sia, besides Jovian and Valens, (for I can assure our Author, that Valentinian was not there, unless he march'd like an Ele∣phant, with his Castle on his Back, for he was then in Prison for striking the Priest) except we should likewise add him, whom Libanius and Sozomen talk of.

But when Jovian had thus resolutely declared himself, the Army like∣wise declared themselves Christians, and gave him a very good Reason, why he should not distrust their sudden Conver∣sion. They were such Christians, as we have in great plenty at the end of every one of the Primitive Persecutions, who turn'd Heathens to save themselves, and when the Danger was over, immediatly return'd to the Church again. Which was the worse in these Christians, I mean Jovian's Christians, and Julian's Heathens, because, as St. Jerome observes,

Julian's Persecution was a winning Persecution, rather leading, than driving Men to Heathenism.

However, this is less to be wondred at in an Army, when we have seen the same Unsteadiness and Volubility in Universities, Clergy, and Convocations, who, to the reproach of this Nation, without so much as Julian's Persecution, or Jovian's Declaration, have been Papists or Protestants, as their Princes were in∣clined; and have made more haste to turn to and fro, than these Souldiers did.

This plain Matter of Fact, which I have therefore set down the more at large, does evidently shew the Falshood of that

Assertion, That Julian's Army in Persia was for the most part Christian. It may be my Answerers fell into this Mistake, if it be not wilful, by jumbling toge∣ther the Beginning and latter End of Ju∣lian's Reign. For our Author might ea∣sily see, that Gregory mentions the Rem∣nant of more than Seven Thousand, which had not bowed the Knee to Baal, before Julian had made any Edict against the Christians in any kind, so much as to call them Galileans; before he had ensna∣red them with his Donative, and used many other Arts of corrupting them, or made his Edict of cashiering the Christians. And it is intolerable false Reasoning, to conclude, that the State of Affairs in the end of Julian's Reign, was the same that it was in the beginning: For, as Gregory observes, in the beginning of Julian's Reign, Christianity was the establish'd and prevailing Religion; and therefore for Julian to attempt to alter and disturb it, was no other thing than to shake the Roman Empire, and to hazard the whole Commonwealth; and that afterwards the Empire was actually filled with Sedition, Confusion, and Fighting, on that account.

But now let us take a view of the Face of Things in the latter end of his

Reign, at which time he had set the Jews on work to repair their Temple at Jeru∣salem; but Fire came out from the Foun∣dation, in such a wonderful violent man∣ner, as killed many of them, and forced them all to desist.

These Things did not happen, says St. Chrysostom, in the Reign of godly Emperors, but at a time when we were in a miserable low Condition; when we all went in dan∣ger of our Lives, when the common Freedom of Mankind was taken from us, when Paganism flourish'd; when the Christians either hid themselves in their Houses, or were fled into the Wil∣derness, and were not to be seen in pub∣lick, then these Things happened, that no manner of impudent Pretence might be left the Jews, and that they might not be able to say, that the Christians came upon them, and put a stop to the Work.

No, alas! they were not in a condition to disturb any Body, if they had had never so much mind to it. Impu∣dence it self cannot say, that the Christi∣ans were able to hinder the Jews in this Work. That is the Father's reasoning in this place.

You have seen already, what Strength of Numbers the Christians had, in Julian's

Army: And as for what Force of Arms and Ammunition they had out of the Army, appears fully by Julian's Edict, a considerable time before, wherein he charges all the Christian Laity in the Em∣pire, not to be persuaded by their Bishops to take up Stones, and disobey the Magistrate. Truly, a very dangerous Magazine! Can any thing be more plainly said, to shew that the Christians were disarmed, and naked, and defenceless, even to contempt? And that they might well complain, with Gregory, that they had neither Arms nor Ammunition, nor Wall, nor Weapon, nor any Defence left them, but their Hope in God, as being deprived and retrench'd of all humane Aid: That is, as our Author explains this Passage, p. 178. They had Walls, and Weapons, and humane Aid; and they had them not: Not that they wanted Strength and Numbers, but by the Principles of their suffering Religion they could not use them. Now they never had them to use, contrary to the Principles of their Religion; why then does Gregory say, they had them not left? It seems they once had them, in the same Sence in which they now wanted them. Did ever any Man complain that he wanted Bread, meaning, that he had a Peck-Loaf

standing by him, but wanted a Sto∣mach, or inward Principle of eating? If a thousand Transcribers interpret Authors at this rate, I shall beg all their Pardons. As for that indefinite Speech of St. Austin, that Christian Souldiers served under Julian, it is very true, if they did so in any part of his Reign, or if to the number of two served under him; and therefore proves nothing in this matter: For Christiani Milites is either Units, or Tens, or Tens of Millions. And when our Author tells me how many they were, and when they served under him, I will give him a fur∣ther Answer.

The next Thing he touches upon in his Preface, is, That the Roman Empire was not entailed, (he should have said, unless it were entailed by the Law of Na∣ture, or else he uses Eusebius very unci∣villy) from whence he concludes, That it was either great Ignorance, or great De∣ceitfulness in me, to assert it to be Hereditary. I desire to know which of the two it was in Bishop Bilson, who asserted it al∣most an hundred Years before I did, in these Words:

The Roman Empire it self, from Constantine the Great, and be∣fore, till the Time of Otho the Third,

that is, seven hundred Years, and up∣wards, went by Succession, save where the Right-Lines failed, or Sedition distur∣bed the Heir.

Where he likewise matches it with the Hereditary Kingdoms of Eng∣land, France, Spain, Scotland, and others. And further, I desire to know, at what time afterwards the Empire began to be Hereditary, if it were not so in Constan∣tine's Family, where there was an unin∣terrupted Succession of Five from Her∣culeus Maximianus to Julian? But be∣sides such an Instance of uninterrupted Succession, which is a great Rarity in Kingdoms that are undoubtedly Heredita∣ry, which, tho it be matter of Fact, is no Proof of Right, the express Testimony of Eusebius is so full and convincing, that it descended from Father to Son, like any other Patrimony, that I needed not to have added other Proofs, for I see that alone cannot be answered. I was not in the least concern'd to prove, that the Empire descended in a right Line, from the twelve Caesars down to Constantine, and therefore our Author needed not to have writ his long impertinent History of broken Suc∣cession; which, I confess, I did slight when I heard of it, but not so much as now I see it: For who would go to use

such a deceitful Medium, as a History of broken Succession, to prove an Empire to be Elective? I am sure, if our Author consider that Argument better, he will not abide by it.

Without thinking my self bound there∣fore to follow him in his Knight-Errantry, quite through a Succession of three hun∣dred Years, (which in the first Constitu∣tion of it was Hereditary, as he confesses, and quotes Dio for it, p. 9. and was pro∣pagated by Adoption in the Julian Fami∣ly, to the Emperor Nero; and after∣wards, when it was broken, was often pieced again by Adoption, which still shews the Nature of it to be Hereditary) I shall prove, with all the Clearness and Brevity I can, that the Empire was here∣ditary in Constantine's Family, both as to matter of Fact, and matter of Right.

First; They were not elected either by the Senate, or the Army, who only declared, recognized, or proclaimed the new King to be Emperor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Vita Const. lib. 1. cap. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lib. 4. cap. 68. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cap. 69.

2dly; During that Family there was no Interregnum. At Chlorus Death Eusebius says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vit. Const. lib. 1. c. 16. And afterwards says, there was not an Interregnum, no, not for a minute, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3dly; They were either Testamentary Heirs, or Heirs at Law to the Empire, all lawful and undoubted Heirs: Const. Chlorus, as the adopted Son of Maximian; Constantine, as eldest Son to his Father; Constantine's Sons, as Testamentary Heirs; and Julian, as Heir at Law.

I shall in a few Words clear the Titles of Constantine, and his Sons, and especi∣ally of Julian, which is the only one that I needed to insist upon.

First; Of Constantine; Eusebius says, that the Throne descended to him from his Father, as a Patrimony. Socrates says, that he was declared King in his Father's stead, the very Word which is used to describe the Jewish Succession. Eumenius says, he was his Father's lawful Successor, and undoubted Heir.

Secondly; Constantine, being possest of the whole Roman World, which in∣deed was too large for the Government of one single Person, wisely divided it amongst his three Sons, and made them

Heirs by Testament. Theod. Socrat. Ruffin. He left them Heirs, he made them Heirs, he wrote them Heirs. And accordingly St. Ambrose calls Constantius, (who sur∣vived the others, and had it entire again) the Heir of his Fathers Dignity.

Thirdly; Julian was Heir at Law: He had the Empire by Blood and Birth, it fell to him by ordinary Right. And if Jovian had been elected Emperor, while Julian was living, he had been injured, and should have had Wrong done to him, as I shall make appear by these fol∣lowing Testimonies.

1. Julian was lawfully possest of the Empire after Constantius's Death, but not before; for tho he were chosen Emperor by the Army in Constantius's Life-time, yet that Choice only made him an Usur∣per. So Ruffinus tells us, lib. 1. cap. 27. Post quem (scil. Constantium) Julianus praesumptum priùs, deinde ut legitimum, solus obtinuit Principatum.

2. This lawful Title was a Title by Birth and Blood. So Themistius, a Senator, and the Governor of Constantinople, in his Speech to Jovian, speaking of the Constan∣tine Family, and Julian especially, tells him:

You having received the Empire (meaning by Election) have maintained

it better than they who received it in a way of Succession by Birth and Blood.

And this, I doubt not, is what Ammian. Marcell. means by ordinario jure, where he says,

That when Julian had news of Constantius's Death, he, and his whole Army after him, marched merrily for Constantinople; for they saw that the Empire, which they were going to take away by force, with the apprehension of the utmost Hazards, was now unex∣pectedly granted in the ordinary way of Right.

That is, by Constantius's Death, it was Julian's of course: For as for that Flam, that Constantius named Julian his Successor with his last Breath, it is so ri∣diculous a Falshood, that the meanest Sutler in Julian's Army was not silly e∣nough to believe it, when it was so no∣torious, that Constantius was coming to advance him the other way.

3. This ordinary Right by Birth, as he was the sole Heir of the Constantian Fami∣ly, was so just a Title, that if Jovian had been elected Emperor, while Julian was alive, he had been injured by it, and should have had Wrong done him. So the same Themistius, in the same place, where he tells Jovian,

That the Em∣pire was before owing to him for his

Father's Vertue; but at Constantine's Death he deferred to take the Debt, that he might not be thought to usurp upon the last of the Constantine Succession, and was reserved till now, so as to receive his Father's Debt, without doing wrong to any Body.

It seems Julian had been wronged, if he had been put by his Suc∣ccession, therefore he had a Right to it, and the setting him aside had been a pro∣per Exclusion. And yet Gregory and Basil, who did not wear one Beard, and Constantius on his Death-Bed, thought the whole Christian World much more wronged, in that he was not set aside. Q. E. D.

To answer Forty of our Author's trifling Objections at once, such as, Whe∣ther the Law of Nature be for Primogeni∣ture and Gavelkind too? &c. I affirm,

First, That there never was a Successi∣on in the World, that was not alterable, and which might not be directed and go∣verned, either by the Prince, or People, or, as it is here, by both. The Jewish Succession, which was establish'd by God himself in the Line of David, was not so establish'd, as to exclude the Peoples Governance and Disposal of it. A clear

Instance you have of this, 2 Chron. 36.1. and 2 Kings 23.30. Then the People of the Land took Jehoahaz, the Son of Josiah, and made him King in his Father's stead, in Jerusalem. Jehoahaz was the younger Brother, and yet the People of the Land excluded his elder Brother, to make him King. And tho he were the younger Brother, by about two Years, the Scrip∣ture approves the Title and Birth-right, which the People of the Land gave him, for it allows and records him to be the First-born, 1 Chron. 3.15. And the Sons of Josiah were; the First-born, Johanan; the second, Jehojakim, &c. This Joha∣nan is the same with Jehoahaz, as all Com∣mentators are agreed; such variety of Names being very usual in Scripture for the same Person.

2dly; That the Government of the Succession in the Roman Empire, was in the hands of the Emperor; which is the reason that Gregory blames Constantius alone, and neither Souldiery nor Senate, for Julian's succeeding to the Crown. And,

3dly; That in all Hereditary King∣doms, the Succession has been variously ordered and disposed upon occasion, and that justly, by those who had the Go∣vernment

of it. And therefore Chlorus might do as was most fit, to give his Em∣pire to his eldest Son alone; and yet Constantine do as well, to divide his lar∣ger Empire amongst his three Sons. Both which ways of inheriting, according to the Fathers, were still by Divine Right. We have a plain Instance of this likewise in the Articles of Philip and Mary's Mar∣riage, in the united Kingdoms of those two Princes.

I shall add, by way of Supererrogation, that the Empire (after Jovian's untime∣ly and sudden Death) went on again in a way of Hereditary Succession, first in Valentinian's, and afterwards in Theodosi∣us's Family. Gratian, and Valentinian the younger, succeeded Valentinian, as his lawful Heirs. So Symmachus, Praefect of Rome, expresses it: Eum Religionis statum petimus, qui divo parenti vestro cul∣minis servavit Imperium, qui fortunato Principi legitimos suffecit Haeredes. One of them was Emperor when he was a Child; but it was all one for that: For as St. Ambrose says by Theodosius's young Sons, Arcadius and Honorius, who like∣wise succeeded their Father; Nec moveat aetas, Imperatoris perfecta aetas: No-body is to mind their Age, for an Emperor is

always at Age. The Descent of the Im∣perial Crown took away all Defects. And St. Ambrose exhorts the People and Army to pay the same Duty to these Mi∣nors, as they would to Theodosius himself, or rather more; and tells them what Sacrilege it would be to violate their Rights: Plus debetis defuncto, quàm de∣buistis viventi. Etenim si in liberis priva∣torum, non sine gravi scelere minorum jura temerantur; quanto magis in filiis Impe∣ratoris?

In a word, if the Empire were not Hereditary, in that period of it which my Discourse led me to speak of, and for a long time after, the Christians, as well as Heathens, have not only imposed upon the World, but, which is far worse, have mocked God in their Prayers. Firmicus prays the great Sun and Stars, together with the most High God, to make the Government of Constantine, and his Sons, perpetual; and grant, says he, that they may reign over our Posterity, and the Posterity of our Posterity, in a continued Series of infinite Ages. Sozomen prays, that God would transmit Theodosius's Kingdom to his Children's Children. To which Prince, Cyrill, Archbishop of Alexandria, says,

The Queen, glorious

in having Children by you, gives hope of Perpetuity to the Empire.

Now from any one of these Expressions, it is plain that the Empire was not Elective; For every one knows, that the present King's Children, in an Elective Kingdom, are farthest off from succeeding: Who∣ever succeeds, they shall not, for fear they should alter the Constitution of the Kingdom, and make it Hereditary. It is indeed otherwise in the Empire of Ger∣many, but there is a peculiar Reason for it: None but the House of Austria, which has so large Hereditary Domini∣ons and Countries, and so scituate, as to be a Bulwark against the Turk, being ca∣pable of defending and preserving that Empire.

After all, to shew how much our Au∣thor is mistaken, in thinking the Stress of my Argument lies upon this Assertion, That the Empire was Hereditary in Juli∣an's time, (which nevertheless I desire him to confute, if he can, in fourscore Pages more,) I do assure him, that the Conclusions which are drawn from his own Premises, will serve my Turn as well.

Our Author says, pag. 51. That the Caesarship only made a Man Candidate, and Expectant of the Empire; or, as he ex∣presses himself afterwards, it was a Re∣commendation to the Augustus-ship. Tho by the way, Candidate or Expectant is not the English of Spartianus's Latine, which he there quotes; for designed or appoin∣ted Heirs of the Imperial Majesty are more than Candidates; and Eumenius, who understood the Roman Empire and Language better than any modern Man, opposes those two Words to one another: Sacrum illud palatium, non Candidatus Im∣perii, sed designatus intrasti. However, to take the Character of a Caesar at the very lowest, he was recommended to the Empire, and stood fairest for it. And be∣cause the Empire had generally gone that way, he might plead Custom, tho not a strict Right; and at the least, was next to the Chair. Nevertheless the Christians were for setting aside one that had these Pretensions to the Empire of the Roman World, meerly because he was not of their Religion; they would not have a Heathen to reign over them. Now I did not go to ask their Opinion concerning the 13th of Elizabeth, and half a dozen Acts of Parliament more; or

whether our King and Parliament have not equal power to exclude a Popish Successor, as Constantius had to degrade a Pagan Caesar? Of which I never doubted, nor dare our Author deny it. But my Enquiry was, Whether Paganism was a sufficient Bar to hinder a Man from an Empire? and whether it unqualified him from reigning over Christians? And their Answer was, as I have faithfully re∣ported it, that it was a great Sin in those who could prevent such a Person's coming to the Crown, if they did not do it. And whether an Act of Parliament can∣not govern the Norman Entail, we will never ask the Fathers. To conclude, if my Comparison of Popery and Paganism hold true, which this Author has been pleased to grace and fortify with his Ap∣probation; then the Case of Conscience is thus resolved by the Fathers: That it is not only just to prevent a Popish Suc∣cessor; but that it is a very great Sin in those who can legally prevent him, un∣less they do it.

Again; If Julian's Title were not a Right of Inheritance, but lay in the Choice of the Legions; then Julian was already lawful Emperor, while he was in France, as well as Gordianus, Philip,

Decius, p. 37. and others in other pla∣ces of our Author. And yet Julian durst not then own himself a Pagan, tho he had been so for ten Years; but, as Ammi∣anus confesses, went to Church a long time after, to curry Favour with the Christians, and to avoid Impediments. It seems he was afraid, even then, that the Christians would put a Spoke in his Cart, and was so apprehensive of meeting with some dangerous Rubs from them, that he slavishly dissembled his Religion.

The next thing in the Preface, worth observing, is, our Author's taking offence at my general way of speaking concer∣ning the Behavior of the Christians under Julian, that I say they, and their, when only particular Persons are mentioned.

I answer; Where I have made a ge∣neral Inference from the Behaviour of particular Persons, either those Persons were Fathers themselves, who by common Construction are Representatives, and deliver to us the Sence of the Church; or else the Thing which is done by them, is commended and applauded by the Fa∣thers, which is the same thing as if they had done it themselves. But a great part of the Instances which I give, are the

general and publick Acts of great Num∣bers in the Church, a Congregation, a City, or the like; not to mention what was done by the whole Church. And therefore these Instances ought not to be levell'd with those which our Author pro∣duces in Queen Mary's Days, of Things which were done but not owned, and which, as we use to say, No-Body did: For our Author might have had the Re∣ward of Twenty Marks, and Thanks, if he could have inform'd who it was that hang'd up the Cat. And as for Wyat's Rebellion, it was upon account of the Spanish Match, and Religion was only pretended, as our Author's own Quotation from Mr. Bradford does ac∣knowledg.

I shall overlook the rest, till I come to his Discourse about the Bill of Exclusion; where, in the first place, we meet with a subtil Defence for the Addressers: For it was not the Popish Successor, as Popish, but the Succes∣sion, which they promised to maintain. I like the Distinction very well, only our Author applies it by the halves; for I wonder he does not say, that they made this Promise too, not as Protestants, but as Addressers. But it seems, the Suffolk-Protestants did

thus maintain the Succession of Queen Mary. They did so, but the Case was very dif∣ferent; for then there was no possibility of a Bill of Exclusion: Q. Mary, by virtue of an Act of Parliament, was actually Queen; and yet they gave her no assis∣tance, but upon her Promise to maintain the established Protestant Religion: Which Promise was so well and truly per∣formed, that we may well be excused from trusting any Popish Prince, as those poor Men did, who afterwards had the Opportunity of seeing their Error, from the Vantage-Ground of a Pillory, and by the Fire-Light in Smithfield.

As for Archbishop Cranmer's disclai∣ming and recanting his being concern'd in setting up King Edward's Will against an Act of Parliament; it manifestly makes for me, and shews what authority Cran∣mer ascribed to an Act of Parliament, which gave Queen Mary all her Title, after he himself had been the greatest In∣strument of rendring her Illegitimate, by causing her Mother's Marriage to be de∣clared null and void from the beginning. Tho I might well have taken no notice of it, because our Author is pleased to do the same by Bishop Ridley's Sermon at Paul's-Cross, where he put by the ap∣pointed

Preacher, only to have an Op∣portunity of telling the People, what Reason they had to put by Queen Mary. Would that brave Martyr have been a∣gainst a Bill of Exclusion, who was so zealous for Exclusion without a Bill?

Presently after, we have Objections thick and threefold, against the Bishops Reasons in Q▪ Elizabeth's time, recorded by Sir Sim. D'Ewes. He will not allow the Bishops by any means to be the Authors of them, that so he may take the greater Liberty in vilifying, and speaking his pleasure of them: Just as p. 236. he dissembles his Knowledg of a Book to be my Lord Hollis's, which, to my know∣ledg, he knew to be his as well as I, only that he might the more safely persist in calling it Impious and Treasonable. And because he appeals to me, whether I think the Bishops of the Church of England could pen such a Popish or Presbyterian Piece? I answer; 1. That I do veri∣ly believe they did pen that Piece; and further, that there were few others in those Days, who were able to pen so learned a Piece. And, 2. I will join issue with him when he pleases, that it is neither a Popish nor Presbyterian Piece, but worthy of the zealous Prelates of

that Age, and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Homilies, to which all the Clergy of England have subscribed; which is more than can be said of Dr. Hickes's Pe∣culium Dei.

First, There is no ground in the World to suspect, but these Arguments were part of the Reasons presented to the Queen in Parliament, because the Title says they were, and it is manifest that they are all in the same strain, and of a piece; and further, Sir Simonds says, that then, which was above fifty Years ago, there were written Copies of them remaining in ma∣ny hands; at which time it was very ea∣sy, if they had been forged, to have dis∣covered it. 2dly; This Paper of Rea∣sons ought not to be called Anonymous; for in the Body of it, the Bishops are na∣med as the Authors of it, whereby the certain Authors of a Book are better known, than by a Title or Inscription. 3dly; There is nothing in those Reasons, but what was fit for Bishops in Parlia∣ment to urge; I say, in Parliament, where there was full Authority to have enacted all their Conclusions; but had been very improper to urge to a Judg at an Assizes: which very different Cases I am afraid the Peculium doth not distinguish. In

short, those Reasons are foully misre∣presented by this Author, and rendred as only fit to proceed from a Scotizing Presbyterian.

Suppose now I should do the same by Jovian, and with more Justice say, it was a Book written by the Priests in Newgate; as not believing that a Book, which mani∣festly carries on Coleman's Design, and is made up of the very Doctrine of his De∣claration for dissolving the Parliament, could come from a Minister of London. This would not be well taken; therefore our Author must pardon me, if it raises my Indignation, to have a Bench of as Reverend Bishops as ever were in the World, treated in the same manner. And I do again renew my Promise, that if he will please to print the Reasons of that Parliament at large, as I desired the Rea∣der to peruse them at large, and add a Confutation of the Bishops Arguments, it shall not want an Answer.

Is it a Popish Piece, because it was for having a Law to put an Idolater to Death? Why then our Homilies are Popish too, for commending the Christian Iconoclast Emperors, who punished Image-worship∣pers, and Image-maintainers with Death. Or a Presbyterian Piece? Truly that is

very notably guessed. What? because it talks of Godly Bishops, where it says,

We see not how we can be accounted Godly Bishops, or faithful Subjects, if in common Peril we should not cry and give warning?

A Scotizing Presbyte∣rian would as soon have talkt of black Swans.

Well, but according to our Author, from excluding the next Heir to the Crown out of the World, there is no Consequence at all to excluding him from the Crown: I thought there had, but this it is not to be skilled in Jewish Lear∣ning: For, he says, a rebellious First-born amongst the Jews might be put to Death, but not disinherited. This is the prettiest Argument in the Book, if it were true; but it is like the rest, and notori∣ously false. For his own Selden, whom he quotes for such a Saying as Pax est bona, in the 24th Chap. of the very same Book, shews him several ways how the First-born, or only Son, or any Son might be disinherited, and defeated of his Succession. I see every Body has not a Petavius to direct him. However, a Man that could but read the English Transla∣tion of the Bible, might know that a Jewish Father had power to disinherit,

because, Deut. 21.15. that Power is re∣strained in one particular Case. Grotius upon the place gives the reason of that Restraint; says he, The Father might for just cause transfer the Right of the First-born to a younger Brother; but the Law took away that Liberty from a Man who had two Wives together, where there was danger it might be done upon light and trifling Occasions. And truly the Case of an Hebrew Heir had been very hard, if it had been Neck or nothing; if he might by the Law have been put to Death for that, for which he might not be disinherited. Tho, by the way, the Rabbins say, That Law of putting a Son to Death was never practised, no more than that of Retaliation, an Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth.

He falsely and invidiously says: I chal∣lenge the House of Lords, the three Estates of Scotland, &c. to give but one Reason to prove a Bill of Exclusion to be unlawful. I did not look so high, nor think of those great Persons, but of those whom I have often conversed with, and who, according to the Character I there gave of them, have furiously reproached three successive Houses of Commons upon account of that Bill: And I am afraid I shall have

occasion to call upon them for their Rea∣sons, even after this Author's perfor∣mance. I always meant those Men who have misled too many, and too great Per∣sons into a Belief, that a Bill of Exclusion is against both Law and Conscience; that it is such Injustice, as ought not to be done to save the World from perishing: And after they have asserted this, and laid it down for Gospel, are not able to say one wise Word in defence of it; and till they do, I am sure all the World will give me leave to follow them with this reasonable Demand.

I. His first Argument is, That an Act of Exclusion is void, because it tends to the Disherison of the Crown. This is so far from being true, that an Act of Parlia∣ment, which should deny the King and Parliament a Power of governing the Succession, would be a proper Act of Disherison of the Crown, because it would destroy one of the greatest Prero∣gatives of the Crown, and devest the King of such a Power as is part of his Crown, and which alone, in many Cases, can secure the whole to him. According to what Serjeant Manwood affirm'd in Parliament, 13 Eliz.

That as for the

Authority of Parliament (in determi∣ning of the Crown) it could not in reasonable Construction be otherwise; for whosoever should deny that Autho∣rity, did deny the Queen to be Queen, and the Realm to be a Realm.

The truth of it is, it tears up the very Foun∣dations of our Government: For as Bishop Bilson has exprest it, The Foun∣dation of all the Laws of our Country is this, That what the Prince, and most Part of her Barons and Burgesses shall confirm, that shall stand for Good. But to come to the Point, this unalterable Norman Entail, whence is it? It was certainly made with hands, tho all the Roman Em∣perors had not the Art of making one. Now I assert, That the King in his Parlia∣ment, when ever he pleases to call one, has all the Power upon Earth, and full as much as ever was upon English Ground; and consequently can govern this Norman Entail, as shall be most for the Preservati∣on of his Majesty's Sacred Person from Popish Plots, and of this Protestant Realm from the Hellish Power of Rome. And to deny this, were to disherit and disable the Crown, and as Mr. Mounson, in the 13th of Eliz. expresses it, were an horrible Saying.

As an Appendix to this first Argument, first, he asks a shrewd Question, If the Acts of Hen. VIII. about Succession were valid, by what Authority was the House of Suffolk excluded, and King James admit∣ted to the Crown, contrary to many Statutes against him? If our Author will shew me but one of those many Statutes where∣by King James stood excluded, I will yield him the Cause. In the mean time, I wonder a Man should offer to make Acts of Parliament no more than waste Paper, when he knows nothing of them; and to talk of the House of Suffolk's Ex∣clusion, when it was never included, nor ever had any Title or Pretensions to the Crown; and above all, to be so very ab∣surd, as to quote the Recognition of the High-Court of Parliament, 1 Jac. cap. 1. where King James's Succession is owned for lawful, when at the same time he is invalidating all Acts of Parliament, which limit and determine of the Succession. For as the same Mr. Mounson argues,

It were horrible to say, that the Parlia∣ment hath not Authority to determine of the Crown; for then would ensue, not only the annihilating of the Statute 35 Hen. 8. but that the Statute made in the first Year of her Majesty's Reign, of

Recognition, should be laid void; a Matter containing a greater Consequent than is convenient to be uttered.

So that if our Author disables Acts of Par∣liament, which limit and bind the Descent of the Crown, he likewise disables that Act of Recognition. Our Author's Partner, Mr. Long, has urged this Act of Recognition 1 Jacobi, more strongly than any one Argument in his Book besides; for because it was made since the 13th of Elizabeth, he opposeth it to that, and gives it all the Power of a last Will. To which I shall only say thus much, That the very same Recognition, to a tittle, might have been made to King James, tho Mary Queen of Scots had been still li∣ving, and had only stood excluded by Act of Parliament: For, as Mr. Long may see by the Act before the Common-Prayer-Book, 14 Carol. 2. the Law can make great Numbers of Men as if they were dead, and naturally dead, before their Time; yea, tho many of them had a Jus divinum to preach, as being Episco∣pally ordained, and were descended in a right Line from the very Apostles.

2dly; Our Author quotes two Au∣thorities: The one says, A Bill of Ex∣clusion, if it should pass, would change the

Essence of the Monarchy, and make the Crown Elective; or, as another ingenious (but I am sure very scurrilous and irreve∣rent) Pen saith, it would tend to make a Football of the Crown, and turn an Here∣ditary Kingdom into Elective. The same Answer will serve them both, namely, That an Act of disinheriting from the Crown, does own, and proclaim, and prove the Kingdom to be Hereditary. And further, I would be glad to know in what part of the Globe that Elective Kingdom lies, where the very Essence of it is this, that the present Possessor of the Crown shall have Power in declaring or disabling his Successor.

II. His next Argument is from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, where∣in a Minister of London especially ought to have used no Sophistry, because Oaths are sacred Things, and ought not by false Glosses and Interpretations to be turn'd into Snares, to entangle the Consciences of those who hereafter shall be desirous to secure the Protestant Religion; and with∣al, to involve three successive Houses of Commons in the Guilt of Perjury, only for discharging their Consciences to God and their Country. And because our

Author, after he has done thus, stands upon his Justification, and calls his Way of Arguing plain and honest, and says, he is not conscious of the least Sophistry in it; I shall endeavour to make his Sophistry stare him in the face. I shewed him be∣fore in my Preface, by the most convin∣cing Proof that could be produced, that by the Heirs and Successors mentioned in these Oaths, are meant Kings and Queens of this Realm of England: And if the old Oath of Allegiance at Common-Law, which I there quoted, had not expresly said so; yet Common-Sense would have taught us the very same: For Allegiance sworn to a Subject must needs be Trea∣son. And therefore, as I there argued, it is a Falshood of very dangerous Conse∣quence, to say, that any Person besides his Majesty hath now any Interest in those Oaths, or can lay claim to any part of them. Our Author had done well to have answered that Argument, before he had fallen to new-vamping of old baffled Fallacies, which I shall now examine.

By the Oath of Supremacy, (as he says true) we are sworn, to our Power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Preheminencies, and Authorities, granted or belonging to the Kings Highness, his Heirs

and lawful Successors, united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Now one of these Jurisdictions, granted or be∣longing to the King's Highness, his Heirs and lawful Successors, united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, is this, That the King, with and by the Au∣thority of the Parliament of England, is able to make Laws and Statutes, of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm, and the Descent, Li∣mitation, Inheritance, and Government thereof. And therefore I ask, if they be not the perjured Persons, who by asserting an unalterable Succession, endeavour to destroy this Jurisdiction, Privilege, and Authority, which they are sworn to main∣tain? But our Author's honest way of arguing, is to have four Terms in a Syllo∣gism. As thus; We are sworn to defend the Rights of Supremacy vested in the King; Ergo, we are bound to defend an unalterable Succession, which is contrary to the Rights of this Supremacy. Again, we are sworn to defend all Privileges be∣longing to the King's Heirs and Succes∣sors, that is, Kings and Queens of Eng∣land; Ergo, we are sworn to defend all the Privileges belonging to such as are neither Kings nor Queens, but Subjects of

England, and if they be excluded, never can be Kings or Queens of England. And therefore to our Author's first Question, I answer: No Subject can possibly have undoubted, transcendent, and essential Rights, Privileges, and Preheminencies, united to the Imperial Crown of England; for if so, then the Imperial Crown of England is united to his Rights; which I would desire our Author to take heed of affirming, for we can have but one Soveraign, as there is but one Sun in the Firmament. To his second Question, I answer; By lawful Successors, is meant Kings and Queens of England, which have not been always next Heirs by Proximity of Blood; witness Henry 7. Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth, who could not be both Heirs in that manner to Ed∣ward the 6th. And further, I say, that the Oath of Supremacy only binds us to the King in being, and not to the whole Royal Family, otherwise we should have a great many Soveraigns at once; and it is made in our Author's Phrase, for the Behoof and Interest of the Crown, and not for the Behoof of him who may never be concern'd in it.

In the next place, we have these Words: Some indeed have said, with our

Author, that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath, and so could not be under∣stood in a Sence destructive to the Protestant Religion; which is a meer Shift, and proves nothing, because it proves too much. Sir, I think it was much more a Shift, to find out a way to drive on the Popes Interest by an Oath, which does most solemnly renounce him; and under a pretence of unalterable Succession, of which there is not the least shadow in this Oath, but the direct contrary, to abandon this Prote∣stant Kingdom to the Hellish Tyranny of Rome, which we are sworn to oppose, and all Protestants will oppose, even un∣der a Popish Successor, if any such can be in England; and let Dr. Watson prove it, if he can, to be no less than resisting the Ordinance of God. But methinks it had been time enough to offer to prove that, after the Pope's Power had been re-established by a Law, and not to go about it now, when it is Treason to en∣deavour to reconcile Men to the Church of Rome. Thus much the Oath of Su∣premacy proves, which is not nothing, nor a Jot too much. And further, it proves, that we are bound, in order to the keeping out the Pope's Power, which we have utterly renounced, humbly to beg

of his Majesty to foreclose a Popish Suc∣cessor, who will infallibly let it in. I am sure, this way of assisting and defending the Jurisdictions and Authorities of the Crown is in our Power, and so is within the compass of our Oath; and therefore we are treacherous to the Crown, and false to our Oath, as well as to God, and to our Religion, if we will not do so much for any of them as this comes to. And I do seriously and earnestly recommend this Consideration to all that have taken the Oath of Supremacy, and especially to the Clergy of England, who have taken it several times over.

As for our Author's saying, That mode∣rate Papists will take the Oath of Suprema∣cy; I shall only say this to it, Let him shew me a Man that has taken this Oath, and prove him to be a Papist, and I will prove him perjured.

Again, he says, As these are Protestant Oaths, they bind us the more emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Ʋsurpation of the Pope, who pretends to a Power of deposing Kings, and of excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession.

Answ. We are bound emphatically to renounce all Power of the Pope, and therefore this among the rest; but we

are bound to assert many Instances of that Power to the King, which we deny to the Pope, of which I have proved the Power of excluding a Popish Prince to be one: Which if the Pope himself exer∣cises upon Protestant Princes, where he but pretends to be Supream; he is a Wretch if he complains, or any Body for him, that the like is done by them who really are Supream. This, in short, is your plain and honest Arguing: We are sworn to deny the Pope's usurped Power; Ergo, we are sworn to deny the King's just and lawful Power, which by the same Oath we are bound to maintain.

In the next Paragraph, our Author protests to all the World, that he has sworn Allegiance and Supremacy to Subjects, or to the unalterable Succession, or to I know not what, for he is not very clear. But as for all others, who have taken no such rash and unlawful Oath, they need no Absolution from it; and consequently, there had not been such a World of Popery in the Bill of Exclusion upon that Score. And therefore I desire our Author not to trouble his Head about it; and he may speak to the Great Man, whom he quotes for that notable Observation, to do so too. If he himself has been so forward, as to

swear before-hand to a Subject, he has done it in his own Wrong, and he knows how by Repentance to disengage himself from a rash, void, and unlawful Oath; for he ought to have sworn only to our Sovereign Lord the King that now is, and to his Highness Heirs and lawful Succes∣sors, Kings or Queens of this Realm of England, and other his Dominions de∣pending on the same.

I never in my Life read any thing of that kind with greater pleasure, than his Conclusion of this second Argument; to see a Man bewildred, and confounded, and lost in his own Sophistry. I took notice in my Preface, of an Abuse in Common Speech, where Men that are only in possibility of being Heirs, are called Heirs, next Heirs, &c. in which absurd and dangerous Sence some weak Men have taken the Heirs and Successors mentioned in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and there∣upon were against a Bill of Exclusion. I then proved it, and therefore had the confidence to call it a deceitful Prejudice, and must now add, that it is a very silly Prejudice, because every Bill, Bond, Re∣lease, and almost any other Writing, that passes in common Intercourse among

Men, wherein Heirs are mentioned, is sufficient to correct it; for where Men are concerned to speak properly, Heirs are always understood to be those who actually inherit. Now as in a Covenant, I promise to pay A. B. and to his Heirs, the yearly Rent of, &c. without promi∣sing, one Farthing to his eldest Son, or without being bound that his eldest Son shall be his Heir after his Death, or without being obliged not to express a desire that A. B. would disinherit his el∣dest Son, if he have given manifest proof that he will utterly ruine the Estate and Family: So it is in these Oaths, with this difference, That it would be only the Absurdity and Inconvenience of pay∣ing my Rent twice over, to take Heirs, for possible Heirs, in this lower and more familiar Instance of a Covenant, whereas it would involve us in Treason, to take Heirs in that Sence in the Oaths of Alle∣giance and Supremacy. But this uncon∣scionable Man will have them taken in both Sences in these Oaths. Heirs and Successors, in the very same place, shall signify Subjects, and not Subjects, but Kings and Queens. Heirs shall stand for those that actually inherit, and not for them, but for those that may, and may

not inherit, and in case of Exclusion ne∣ver shall: And lawful Successors shall stand for such as lawfully succeed their Predecessors, and in the self-same place shall stand for unlawful Successors, a sort of Successors before their time.

In one word, Heirs and lawful Succes∣sors, in the Oaths of Allegiance and Su∣premacy, must either signify Kings and Queens, (as the Oath of Allegiance at Common-Law expounds it self, which the Lawyers call, Benedicta expositio ex visceribus causae, a blessed Exposition out of the Bowels of the Cause) or else they must signify Subjects; for it is contra∣dictious, and Transubstantiation-Non-sence, to say they signify both. If they signify Kings and Queens, then we are no ways bound to any Person under that degree by those Oaths; and they have been very unfairly as well as mischievously urged against a Bill of Exclusion. If any Man say, they signify Subjects, then this grievous Inconvenience unavoidably fol∣lows, That we have promised, from hence∣forth, that is, from the Time we were sworn, and so onwards, to bear them Faith and true Allegiance; which, I sup∣pose, no Minister of London, nor Mini∣ster of State in England, will think fit to affirm.

III. And now comes his third Argument, atttended with a marginal Superfaetation of little sucking Argu∣ments, such as Dei gratiâ, Dieu & Mon droit, &c. all equally concluding a∣gainst a Bill of Exclusion. The main Argument, for which he quotes Cook upon Littleton, of Tenures, is this: The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion, of which none is the Author, but God alone. The King holds of none but God; He has no supe∣riour Lord, as Cook explains himself in the same place; the Crown is no Norman Fee: Ergo, the King cannot bind and limit the Succession. I thought he could the sooner for that; for what shall hin∣der him from disposing of his own, for the Welfare, and with the Consent of his Kingdom, who have a greater Interest in their King than our Author is aware of.

From the aforesaid Principle, he gives us to understand that the Wise and the Learned infer this Conclusion, That it would be Ʋsurpation, without a manifest Revelation from God, to preclude any Person

of the Royal Family from succeeding to the Crown. The Learned may do much; but I will go upon his Errand an hundred Miles an end, who will shew any other Man how to infer that Conclusion from that Argument. But for all that, they shew themselves neither learned, nor wise, in calling for a manifest Revelation from God for a Bill of Exclusion, because that may occasion others to demand a manifest Revelation for any Papist's Right to succeed in a Protestant Kingdom, where, by the Laws of that Kingdom, if he be reconciled to the Church of Rome, he has not a Right to live: A manifest Revelation to shew, why a Natural Fool or Mad-man, who cannot help it, may be put by the Succession, as not fit to govern; but a Pa∣pist, who is more dange∣rous and destructive to a Protestant Kingdom than both of them, and that by his own Fault too, may not be prevented. In a Word, a manifest Reve∣lation to shew, how a publick Enemy, as every Person who is reconciled to the

Church of Rome is in the Eye of the Law, can possibly be the Fountain of Justice and Mercy, which is the true Notion of an English King. These things do stand more in need of a manifest Revelation to clear them up, than a Bill of Exclusion does, which is as manifestly lawful, as that the King and Parliament have power to make a just and necessary Law.

Besides, where was the Wisdom of our Author, or his Friends, in demanding a Revelation from God for a necessary Al∣teration of the Succession, when they themselves cannot pretend to one for the Establishment of it? Since it is an unde∣niable Maxime, both in Law and Reason, that Things are dissolved, as they be con∣tracted; and an Obligation only by Word of Mouth, needs not Hand and Seal to discharge it. For by these unrea∣sonable Demands, which are contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom, they put Men upon Enquiries nice and unpro∣fitable: As how, and for what cause the Monarchy of England came to be Hereditary? And whether a Popish Prince does not perfectly overthrow that excellent Constitution, and disinherit himself? This is laid down for a known and acknowledged Truth, in the Reasons

of the House of Commons, 14 Elizab. against Mary Queen of Scots. Queen Elizabeth was contented to disable the Queen of Scots, as a Person unworthy of any Hope or Title, Preheminence or Dignity within this her Land; and the Law so to run, that if any should enterprise to de∣liver her out of Prison after her Disable∣ment, either in her Majesty's Life, or after the same, to be convicted immediatly of High-Treason; and her self assenting thereunto, to be likewise adjudged as a Traytor in Law. This the Commons in their large Answer represent both as need∣less, and as insufficient:

Whereas it is said, that it standeth to very good pur∣pose, to proceed only in disabling of the Scotish Queen for any Claim or Title to the Crown; we take it, by your Maje∣sty's favour, that such an especial disabling of the Scotish Queen, is in effect a special Confirmation of a Right that she should have had: Quia privatio praesupponit habitum. And further, we do take it for a known Truth, that by the Laws and Statutes of this Land now in force, she is already disabled; and therefore it is to small purpose, rem actam agere.

And now I have done with our Au∣thor's Arguments, as they are his; for as they are Scotch or Newmarket Positions, I have nothing to say to them. Only it would be worth our Author's Pains, and he may get the Addressing Part of the University to help him, to reconcile this Scotch Act, which makes such a brave shew in his Preface, with the History of Succession in Scotland; lest, while he is so industrious to serve the Interest of a Popish Successor, he be found overthrow∣ing the Titles of all the Kings of Scotland for these three hundred Years, not excep∣ting his present Majesty's Title to that Kingdom, no, nor the Expectations of that very Person to whom he is so much devoted. The History in short is this:

Robert Stuart, the hundredth King of Scotland, and first of the Family of the Stuarts, had a Concubine named Eliza∣beth More, the Daughter of Sir Adam More, by whom he had three Sons, and two Daughters; and himself marrying Eufemia, the Daughter of the Earl of Ross, took care to marry Elizabeth More to one Giffard, a Noble-Man in the County of Louthien. By Eufemia he had Issue, Walter and David, Earls of Athol

and Strathern, and Eufemia, who was after∣wards married to James Duglass, Son to the Earl of that Name. The Queen Eufemia dy∣ing, and Giffard, the Hus∣band of Elizabeth More, dying much about the same time, the King marries Eli∣zabeth More, his former Concubine, and presently ennobles the Sons which he had by her, creating John Earl of Carrike, Robert Earl of Menteith, and Alexander Earl of Bucquhane. Nor was he content with doing so much for them, but he also obtained from a Parli∣ament at Scone, that (the Children which he had by Eufemia being past by) these should come to the Crown in their Course.

No Man will offer to say, that the Children of Elizabeth More were made inheritable by that After-Marriage: for, besides the apparent Insufficiency of it for that purpose, what need was there then of obtaining an Act of Parliament to make them so, and to set by the Chil∣dren of Eufemia? Now, if no Law, or

Act of Parliament, made, or to be made, can alter or divert the Right of Successi∣on, according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood; what then be∣comes of the Scone Act? But if an Act made at Scone, can set aside three Persons at once, with all their nume∣rous Descendents, for no Fault nor Forfeiture at all; why might not an Act made at Westminster, have done as much for one single Person alone, especially when that Westminster Act would have been in some respects as favourable as an Act of Grace? If our Author can tell why, he shall be a greater Oracle to me than the great Apollo.

There is nothing betwixt this, and the End of the Preface, worth answe∣ring, which has not already been an∣swered, unless it be that Passage where he withdraws his general Approbation of what I had written against Popery, as rashly given, because I seem to deny that the Church of Rome is a true Church of Christ. I desire our Author to make but one Business of it, and at the same time to withdraw his hearty Subscription to the Homilies, which do more than

seem to deny it, especially in the second part of the Homily for Whit-Sunday; for that whole Sermon is spent in shew∣ing, first, what the true Church of Christ is, and then in conferring the Church of Rome therewith, to discern how well they agree together; and, lastly, in concluding, that because the Church of Rome is not the true Church of Christ; and the Bishops of Rome, and their Adherents, are not in the Church, therefore they have not the Holy-Ghost, tho they have for a long time made a sore Challenge thereunto; but by their Practices make it plain to all the World, that they have the Spirit of the Devil. It affirms, and, which is more, proves, That the Church of Rome is not a true Church, nor has been these nine hundred Years, and odd. So that our Author must go a great way back to seek his true Church of England, in his true Church of Rome.

I wonder in my Heart what those Gentlemen mean, who pretend to be the only Sons of the Church of England, and yet make nothing of blowing up whole Homilies at once, and are continu∣ally disgracing all the Protestant Principles

of our glorious Reformers with one odi∣ous Name or other; and above all, are so very desirous to have it believed, that the pretended Church of Rome, but real Synagogue of Satan, is a true Church of Christ; which they are no more able to make out, than to prove the Devil to be a true Angel of Light. For instead of being a Catholick Church, it is a plain Catholick Apostacy, as the Protestation of Archbishop Ʋsher, and the rest of the Irish Bishops, Novemb. 1626. does justly term it.

Notes

• Constantianam praetendenti necessitudinem. Ammian.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Themist. Orat. 9. p. 206.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ibid. p. 194.
• See the Ge∣nealogy in Jovian, p. 41.
• Invect. 1. p. 91. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Sozom. l. 5. c. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 19.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Lib. 3. c. 22.
• Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 22.
• Theod. lib. 4. cap. 1.
• Chronic. An. 365. Blanda Persecutio il∣liciens magis quàm impel∣lens ad sa∣crificandum.
• Invect. 1. p. 75.
• Ibid. p. 80.
• Chrysost. ad∣versus Ju∣daeos. Orat. 3.
• Julian Ep. ad Bostrens.
• In. 2. p. 123.
• In Psal. 124.
• Christ. Sub∣ject. Oxon. 1585. p. 515
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Law of the same Em∣pire says.
• Vit. Const. lib. 1.
• Lib. 1. cap 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Pan. 8. Suc∣cessorem legi∣timum, neque enim erat dubium, quin ei compe∣teret haereditas quem primum Imperatori filium fata de∣dissent.
• Epist. 13.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The∣mist. p. 277.
• Lib. 22. ad init.
• Themist. pag. 274. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Primo Mar. Parl. 2. c. 2.
• —Apud Am∣bros. Ep. 11.
• Concio in O∣bit. Theod.
• Lib. 1. cap. 4.
• Dedicat. Hi∣stor.
• De rectâ fide ad Theod.
• Pan. 8.
• Ut{que} omnes, nullo impedi∣ente, ad suum favorem alli∣ceret, inhaere∣re cultui Chri∣stiano finge∣bat, &c. Lib. 21.
• But how if the House of Lords did not think the Bill of Ex∣clusion un∣lawful?
• Sir Sim. D'Ewes Journ. p. 165
• Christ. Sub∣ject. p. 536.
• Journal, p. 164.
• Quere, Whether Dei Gratiâ, written with the very same Letters and Syl∣lables in the Stile of the King of Poland, and of the Duke of Venice, does also prove an hereditary, and, which is much more, an unalterable Succession, in those two Countries?
• Bp. Bilson, pag. 420. Extreme Folly and Frenzy be just Causes to remove Princes from bearing the Sword. Margin. And in the Text thus: As if the Right Heir to any Crown be a natural Fool; or he that is invested in the Crown, wax mad, and run besides himself: In either of these two Cases, any Realm, by publick Con∣sent and Advice, may chuse another.
• Sir Simon D'Ewes, p. 216.
• Genealogy of the Kings of Scotland, in Sir Tho. Mur∣rat's Collect. of Statutes, printed at Edinburgh, 1681. p▪ 230.

  Appendix to King Alfred's Life, dedicated to the King.
• Sanderson's Life of King Charles, p. 230, 231, &c. concerning the Descent of the Earl of Strathern.
• Rerum Scoticar. lib. 9. fol. 96, 97.
• Nec hâc munisicentiâ con∣tentus, Comitiis ad Sconam indictis obtinuit, ut praeteri∣tis Eufemiae liberis, in Rege creando gradus aetatis ob∣servarentur. Holinshed's Hist. of Scotland, p. 245.
• Sanderson's Life of K. Charles, p. 66.