can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person is to give him what his Justice would abhor a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men which Consideration I suppose as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion made the great Man above cited say For my part I think there is more of Popery in this Bill than there can possibly be in the Nation without it for none but Papists and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion But some Men will say Why should not Protestants Disinherit Popish as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes To which the Answer is easie by another Question Why should not Protestants Depose Popish as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings I am not Conscious to my self that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing as I have done from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths (z) Preface p. 19. shameful Sophistry and the Conscientious Regard that Honest Protestants have unto them deceitful Prejudice which he saith is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual and Possible Heirs But he is very much and I fear very Wilfully mistaken For the Faith and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession or to speak yet more Otherwise thus Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown plainly our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs and is to be made good and performed unto them and every one of them when by the Providence of God they shall come to be actual according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession and thus for Example to use his own Instance The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs and Successors i. e. To the Kings Future Heirs and Successors upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by vertue of that Grant when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence who determines the days of Kings become an Actual Heir or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Vndoubted Succession according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown which is (b) Coke Littleton fol. 1.6 The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion of which none is the Author but God alone And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ and the Royal Shield carryes this Motto Dieu mon droit Nay Queen Elizabeth who through the Dubiousness of her Title courted the People so much yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands printed 1585. speaks as it became such a Soveraign Princess in this manner Although Kings and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings and in that Respect not bound to yield Account or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign and though among the most Ancient and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England and other Dominions which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God and thereby God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birthright and Proximity of Blood From this Principle many good Men who are as Wise and as Learned as any of the Excluders infer this Conclusion That it would be Vsurpation without a manifest Revelation from God to Alienate the Crown from this Family to which he only hath given it or to preclude any Person of it much more the next Heir whether Apparent or Presumptive from succeeding thereunto This Argument is not so slight as perhaps Mr. J. will make it for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family then it is very reasonable to conclude That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery would be Opposition to the Will of God This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family but most of all the next Heir upon the Line from the absolute Right or Birthright which God alone hath given him would be also to oppose the Will of God All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the (c) Third Part. p. 63 64 Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of England and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the (d) Ib. p. 97 98. House of Commons and it is above a Week since and I am confident they will still own them without being ashamed of them and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man than he is to follow as he speaks their New Light Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession are own'd by the Three Estates of Scotland and would I am confident be owned by them were they to meet again I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament Entituled An Act acknowledging and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland August 13. 1681. THe Estates of Parliament considering That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty recognise acknowledge and Declare That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right and the Nature of the Monarchy as well as by the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually Reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law Duty and Allegiance to obey the
as ill Names as any Mr. J. can shew that Julian received from the Christians of his Time The Proconsul in the Roman Empire was in every Province the next in Authority under the Emperor and yet Cyprian in the Reply which he sent unto Demetrianus Proconsul of Africa calls him Impious Mad Raging Blind Deaf and Brute and he tells him in the very beginning of it That he had long despised him who barked with his Sacrilegious Mouth and Impious Words against the one true God I do not justifie the Father for this contumelious way of speaking it seems to me not strictly consistent with that respect which he ought to an ordinary Judge or Subselliar Counsellor as the Learned Annotator in the Oxford Edition endeavours against the common opinion to make it probable Demetrianus was but notwithstanding his Conjectures to which I refer my Reader the common opinion still remains as probable and therefore may very well be preferred But of that very small number of Ancient Christians who were guilty of rude and undutiful Language to Princes none were comparable to Lucifer Câ—laritanus who in his Defence of Athanasius and Tract of Apostate Princes both written to Constantius calls his Majesty Persecutor Heretick Saul Ahab Murderer Apostate Impious Antichrist Lyar Executioner Enemy and Despiser of God and Destroyer of Gods Religion with many more most reproachful Names and Passages which I love not to recite What would Mr. J. have given to have found Julian treated at this contumelious rate in any Christian Writer especially in a Bishop of his time he would doubtless have gloried in the Discovery and it must not have been charged upon the peevish and morose Temper and monastick Manners of the Father but it must have been solved like his other Phaenomena by his new but friendly Hypothesis to Rebellion of reproaching and ruffling of Julian nay of pursuing him like a Midnight Thief or High-way-Robber because he persecuted them contrary to Law His next Instance which he produces of Julians reproachful usage among the Christians is the Antiochians wherein he hath not dealt fairly in representing the matter so as if the Christians of Antioch only were guilty of those abuses which provoked him to write his Misopogon against them For first it is plain That there were yet a considerable number of Heathens in Antiock from the Anniversary Rites of Adonis which hapned to be kept on the same day (†) Evenerat autem iisdem diebus annuo cursu completo Adonia veteri ritu celebrari Et visum est triste quod amplam urbem introcunti Imperatori nunc primum ululabiles undique planctus lugubres sonitus audiebantur Marcell l. 22. Vid. Liban Legat. ad Julianum p. 162. Edit Lut. 162. when Julian made his Entrance into the City and it seemed to many a sad Omen that the Emperor should then enter into it when so much howling and weeping and lamentation was heard Indeed it is difficult to guess what proportion the Heathens had to the Christians but if we may take measure from the City of (‖) Sozom. de caede Georgii Alexandrini l. 5. c. 9. Alexandria at that time they were enough to make head against them though 't is certain they were the lesser part Sozomen after he had said in general that the Antiochians reproached Julian and that he wrote his Misopogon against the Antiochians he immediately adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Christians that were there he treated as usually and studied to advance the Heathen Interest and Religion But Mr. J. without taking notice of the Heathens covertly lays the whole blame of Julians evil treatment upon the Christians of Antioch (†) Socrat. l. 3. c. 17. Sozom. l. 5. 18. Zosim l. 3. p. 713. Amm. Mare l. 22. Juliani Misopog when all the Writers lay it upon the Antiochians in general and assign the common Causes thereof These common Causes were first the great (‖) Socrat. Sozom. Marcel loc cit Misopog p. 90 108. Liban Legat. ad Jul. p. 155. scarcity and want of Provisions caused by one of Julians Edicts to lessen the market Prices which made the Victuallers and Heglars of all sorts keep up their Provisions which the Antiochians being a luxurious People were not able to endure Secondly his (†) Misopog p. 59 60 75 78 90. discountenancing of the Spectacula and Playes in which they so much delighted and affecting an austere Garb and strict sort of Life so disagreeable to their Effeminate Humour These were the Common Causes which set the Antiochians against him who at first (†) Urbi propinquans in speciem alicujus numinis votis excipitur publicas miratus voces multitudinis magnae salutare sidus illuxisse Eois partibus acclamantis Marcell l. 22. received him with the highest demonstration of Affection and Duty as if he had been some God But (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim l. 3 p â—13 being by nature Lovers of Theaters and plentiful and delicious Fare which he despised they soon began to hate him and from hating of him as soon proceeded to lampoon him being as (†) L. 3. c. 17. Socrates describes them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most invective People and given to Libelling This is the Matter of Fact in which both the Heathen and Christian Historians agree and from hence it is plain that the Heathens as well as Christians at Antioch were guilty of Burlesquing Julian as appears out of his Misopogon where for the most part he speaks of them in general but more particularly (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. ib. p. 164. p. 87. charges the whole City and all the Citizens without distinction for loving to make and hear Lampoons Indeed there are some particular Passages in it which relate to the Christians as that of chi and kappa which our Author seems to cite on purpose to make his Reader think they were all Christians but then there are others which as certainly relate to the Heathens as where he (‖) P. 97 98 99. chides them for not providing at least an Ox to sacrifice on the Solemn Festival of Apollo and for (†) P. 67. flocking unto him in the Temples and receiving of him in them with Theatrical Applause In another place he distinguisheth betwixt the Pagan and Christian part of the People I have saith he offended most I had almost said all of you the Senate the Wealthy and the People (‖) P. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For most of the People are grieved at me but especially all those who deny the Gods because they see me addicted to the Rites of our Ancestors And unless there were a considerable Number of Heathens among them it cannot be imagined that Libanius would have written an Apologitical Oration for them unto Julian wherein (†) P. 162. he tells him that when he was in Gaul they prayed in private meetings for him unto Jupiter that he might be Emperor From
derived from him it must needs follow from hence that he must be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and that no Man can lawfully resist him or his Forces because no Man can lawfully bear the Sword except for private Defence but by Commission from him I would fain be resolved by the Superviser of Julian who can Array the People against their Soveraign and his Armies or who hath Authority for example to make him a Captain or as much as a Drummer of a Company if there should fall out an hopeful Occasion of recovering some lost Bishops-Lands All Commissions of that nature would be unauthoritative and therefore how a man can either give or receive such unauthoritative Commissions or oppose or resist the King and his Armies by vertue of them without sin I desire Mr. H. as a Lawyer and Mr. J. as a Divine to resolve It is true what he (‖) P. 84. saith That a Popish Successor can have no Authority to exercise any illegal Cruelty upon Protestants but then the Question which he puts to the Doctor upon it is Fallacious in desiring him to resolve how far such Inauthoritative Acts in the Soveraign which carry no Obligation at all can oblige men to Obedience I answer for the Doctor If by Obedience he means Active service and obedience no man is bound to serve the King in exercising any illegal Cruelty No! He ought rather to suffer himself but if by Obedience he means Passive Obedience or else his Question is nothing to the Purpose I answer That it is the Christian the English Subjects Duty to suffer patiently such unauthoritative Cruelty from his Soveraign till legal Remedy can be had because to oppose or resist him and his Forces by Force is unauthoritative and against the Imperial Laws of this Realm But because we live in an Age wherein there are great Numbers of Disaffected and Deluded Persons who are deaf to all Reason and Common Law which is nothing but Common Reason when it is urged in defence of the Crown I will now shew that these Essential Rights of Soveraignty which I have been discoursing of are declared to belong to the person of the King by the express Statutes of this Realm First then He is declared to be not accountable to his Subjects or obnoxious to their Coercive Power 12 Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties said Dutyful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and be it hereby declared that by the Undoubted and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm By the 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. it is declared without excepting any manner of Cases or Pretences to the contrary That to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And (†) 3 Inst p. 9. Coke upon the place saith That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King If any levy War saith he to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation of their own Heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority (‖) Sheringhams Kings Suprem c. 3. In the 7th year of Edw. 1. a Statute was made wherein the Kings Power over the Militia is acknowledged and force of Armour to belong to him And saith (†) Jenkinsius Redivivus p. 19. Judge Jenkins All Jurisdictions do and of right ought to belong to the King all Commissions to levy men for War are Awarded by the King the Power of War only belongs to the King it belongs to the King to Defend his People and to provide Arms and Force (‖) 13 Car. 2.1 Since his Majesties Restauration it was also in General Terms declared Treason To levy War against the King within this Realm or without And to cut off all popular pretences of Defensive War it is declared by 13 Car. 2. c. 6. That the sole Supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the Vndoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot or ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War Offensive or Defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successor Behold the Doctrine of Non-resistance in its full Amplitude the very Doctrine of the Bow-string declared by Act of Parliament Were the two Houses serious and in earnest when they made this Declaration Would they really have Men prostitute their Lives to Malice and Violence when the Laws of God and the Kingdom Protect them Surely this is too Light for the Parliament and is just such another piece of Drollery as that which was Dedicated to Oliver Cromwel in the Book called Killing no Murder Bating that Dedication there was never any thing like this Passive Aâ—â— of Parliament for wheedling the People out of their Lives Alas Alas This is an Act fit to turn the Nation into a Shambles and enough to tempt and invite Cruelty into the World For let a Prince be either a Papist or an Atheist and his Subjects fettered and manacled with this Slavish Act and then what hinders but the one of them may destroy Millions for their Estates and Heresie together and the other as many to see what Faces and Grimmaces they will make According to this Act the Lives of the best Men in the Kingdom shall be exposed to the Fiery and Ambitious Zeal of a Papist or the Extravagant Vnaccountable Humours of a Wretch and hang at their Girdles as Souls do at the Popes Is it not a sad thing to have the Murdering piece of Passive Obedience planted against the people by an Act of Parliament to leave us nothing to defend our selves but the old Artillery of Prayers and Tears But yet so Wise as Legislators so Religious as Christians and so Loyal as Subjects was that Parliament that they made this Declaration the second time as it may be seen 13 14 Car. 2. cap. 3. And by all these Statutes cited it appears That the King is Accountable to none but God That the Sword is solely his and theirs to whom He commits it That he can be Subject to no Coercive or Vindicative Power nor ought any way to be resisted by Force Indeed our Author (‖) P.
and Lieutenants of God will transgress the Bounds within which they ought to act we must not forcibly resist or repulse them but give place to their Wrath and suffer according to the Will of God committing our Souls to him in well doing as unto a Faithful Creator to him that judgeth righteously Like the Masters under the Roman Government they are bound to do that which is Just and Equal and Legal unto their Subjects as knowing they have a Master in Heaven but if they forget their Duty to their Master to whom alone they are acconntable their Subjects like the Servants from whom the Law took all Power of violent Resistance must only withstand them with Supplications and Tears This is all the Gospel allows or could indeed in Reason allow because there must somewhere be fixed and acknowledged such a Soveraign Authority which none have Power to resist or against which none have Power of taking Arms but had the Gospel allowed Resistance against the Soveraign it had unhinged all Government by putting the Sword into private Mens Hands This Praecept saith (†) In Math. 26.52 Grotius of putting up the Sword belongeth to all Christians who are called unto punishment upon the Account of Religion for it is the Pleasure of God when that necessity lyes upon us that we should testifie our Patience and commit our Souls unto our Creator and what can be more just than that we should lay down our Lives for his Honour from whom we received them This St. Pet. hath taught us in his Masters Name Ep. 1. c. 4.16 19. And if it be once admitted saith he that private men when they are injured by the Magistrate may forcibly resist him all places would be full of Tumults and there would be no Force or Authority of Laws and Judicatures because all men are apt to favour themselves Wherefore Reason compels us to confess that Oppression is to be endured lest too much Liberty follow upon the contrary and the Examples of the Ancient Christians teach us That any Violence is to be endured which the Supream Power lays upon us upon the account of our Religion◠For they are in a great Error who think that the Christians before the time of Constantine abstained from Resistance because they wanted sufficient Strength And if they did not abstain for that reason before the time of Constantine I appeal to our Author Whether they did abstain for that reason after his time and what Account he will give to God or Man for slandering the Christian Subjects of (‖) Ita sub Juliano licèt impio Apostatâ merebant Christiani milites nec quisquam illi vim fecit quo nihil fuisset faciliùs cum fere totum exercitum ex Christianis constitisse in ejus morte apparuerit Sam. Bochart Ep. p. 53. Julian in saying What would you have a few defenceless Christians do have you never heard a West-Country-Man say Chud eat more Cheese if chad it But to return from this digression unto (†) Vot pro pace ad Act 16. vid. Dr. Falk p. 373. Grotius In his Latter and Wiser years he approved of the University of Oxfords Determination against Paraeus upon the Romans Subditos nullo modo c. That Subjects ought by no means to (‖) Quinta lex est Prov. 30.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rex in quem nemo insurgit i. e. in quem subditorum nemo debet insurgere Alioquin enim multi insurgunt sed id faciunt praeter jus et fas ut Rex hic vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alkum quia in eum nemo insurgit Ita palladem alibi observo fuisse vocatam à Phaenicibus Ela alkuma Deam in quam nemo insurgit et Laeotiae urbem illi sacram Gaecâ flexione Alalcomenas quae parva cum esset et in plano extructa semper tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intacta et inviolata mansit quia ob deae reverentiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab omni v◠omnes abstinebant Pausan Eaeot Strab. l. 9. Ib. p. 41. resist their Soveraign by force nor ought they to take either Offensive or Defensive Arms against him for the Cause of Religion or any other whatsoever Here is the University of Oxon teaching the very Doctrine of the Bow-string and Grotius approving of it and furthermore affirming That if Paraeus or Mr. J's Exceptions were admitted against St. Paul That no Government could be any longer safe than while those who have such Sentiments want Strength It was upon this Principle that the Prophets and other Saints in great numbers patiently suffered under the Idolatrous Kings of Israel who as Mr. J. might have remembred persecuted against Law And in like manner our blessed Saviour who had so great a regard for Government and for the Good of Mankind for which Government was ordain'd absolutely forbids Subjects to resist their Soveraign and because he foresaw that the pretence of Religion would of all others be the most Popular and Specious therefore took he such Care to have himself proposed for an Example of Patience and Suffering unto his Disciples and to assure them that if they suffered with him they should also Reign with him Indeed there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non-resistance but it is an Incovenience which cannot be prevented unless we should remove the Center upon which Government is fixed and admit the Inconvenience of Resisting the Soveraign which would be (†) Cùm probaverim hactenus summum principem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a solo Deo pendere solum hoc addo pro mantissâ quod si liceret inragem ideo insurgere quia malus est et potestate suâ abutitur Non tamen id expedire populo esse consultiùs ut ab iis remediis abstineat quae plerumque morbo ipso pejora sunt quibusque adeo vulnus exasperatur potiùs quà m sanatur Ea mala toleranda sunt quae sine magná pernicie non possunt emendari praestat unius hominis scelera esse impunita quà m innumeros insontes certo exitio exponere quod ab illis ferè fit qui in reges quid moliuntur Neque enim expectandum est ut citati judicio se sistant et plebeiorum instar unius aut alterius victoris Imperio se submittant quin copias conscribi oportet et multorum saepe praeliorum aliae subeundae an t quam possint cogi in ordinem Unde magna strages sequitur et provinciarum devastatio quod Britannia vestra vel me tacente clamat Itaque multo satius est Dei judicio rem committere et converti ad preces lachrymas quae vera Christianorum arma sunt quà m ad ea remedia confugere quae sunt violentiora Sam. Bochart 10.140 141. ten times worse than it For if the Former make a Land obnoxious now and then unto a Tyrant the Latter would make it perpetually obnoxious to the Rage and Fury of the deluded
next immediate and Lawful Heir either Male or Female upon which the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolved And that no Difference in Religion nor no Law or Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the Right of Succession and Lineal Descent of the Crown to the Nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the Degrees aforesaid nor can stop or hinder them in the Full Free and Actual Administration of the Government according to the Laws of this Kingdom Like as our Soveraign Lord To this Declaration of the Three Estates in Scotland I shall and the Judgment of the Vice-Chancelor Heads of Houses Doctors and other Learned and Loyal Members of the Vniversity of Cambridge in their (e) Gazett n. 1653. Address to His Majesty at New-Market Sept. 18. 1681. wherein they declare That they will still believe and maintain that our Kings derive not their Titles from the People but from God that to Him only they are Accountable that it belongs not to Subjects either to Create or Censure but to Honour and Obey their Soveraign who comes to be so by a Fundamental Hereditary Right of Succession which no Religion no Law no Fault or Forfeiture can Alter or Diminish These Learned Men indeed have not so plainly given their Reasons for their Opinion but by the Hints which they have given of them we may perceive that they are the same which I have insisted upon and I believe they will still own them and never be ashamed thereof But Mr. J. it seems hath learnt another Lesson since he left the Vniversity A Good Wit upon the Fret and the great Advantage of having such a Conducter as Mr. H. have made him do Wonders against the Succession and bless the World with a New Discovery That (f) Preface p. 12. the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion to the great Reproach of all the Bishops who it may be had not preferred some Great Men in their own Opinion according to their fancied Deserts But alas All these Fathers Sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus Theologus had but one Beard and what they said was not determining as Casuists but as Orators declaiming against Constantius for choosing or making of Julian Caesar which is nothing to a Bill of Exclusion or the Merits of Lineal Hereditary Succession of which the Father or the Fathers had no more Notion than of Guns and Printing or of a Senate consisting of 2 Houses and 3 Estates But Mr. J. hath shewn how much of the Serpent he hath in him in Writing with so much Guile and Venom especially against the Succession and Passive Obedience and in Winding and Turning the Words of Good Authors from their Genuine Sense to his own Purposes as that Famous Passage of Gregory 2 Invect p. 123. where the Father saith That they were destitute of all Humane Aid and had no other Armour nor Wall nor Defence left them but their Hope in God This Place as I have shewn p. 152. Bishop Montague understood of Free and Voluntary Passive Obedience and so did the learned (g) Scutum Regium l. 3. p. 143. Num ductoribus vobis opus est at habâ—tis Jovianum Valentinianum Valentem qui postea sunt Imperii gubernaculis potiti denique Artemium sub ipso Constantino artis militaris peritiâ celebrem vobis interea idem animus eadem mens quae Gregorio Nazianzeno De his Juliani temporibus loquens Nobis quibus nulla alia arma nec muri nec presidia c. Dr. Hakewell as every Man needs must who understands the History of those Times But Mr. J. with what Ingenuity let others judge hath (h) P. 94. cited the Words to signifie forced Passive Obedience such as that of the Papists hath been of late in England who undoubtedly are Passive for no other Reason but because they want sufficient Numbers and Strength But as all Sophistical Writers are apt to do so Mr. J. hath contradicted himself as to this and other Particulars An in the 26th page of his Preface where he shews out of Sozom. That Julians Army were Christians and in the 8th page of his Book out of Nazianzen That there were more than 7000 of them i. e. an indefinite great Number who did not bow the knee to Baal but repulsed Julian as a brave strong Wall does a sorry Engine that is plaid against it Now if Julians Army were Christians and above 7000 of them repulsed Julian with their Passive Valour as a strong Wall does a sorry Engine was it not a great Contradiction and great Disingenuity in Mr. J. to represent them as Few and Defenceless and their Passive Obedience as performed by them upon mere Necessity and Force It is usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers to set forth the Constancy of the Martyrs and Confessors by the Metaphor of a Pillar or Wall Thus the Christians of Lyons and Vienna in their (i) Euseb l. 5. c. 1. Epistle in which they give an Account of their Sufferings say That the Grace of God did fight in them against the Devil and fortifie the Weak and set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Firm Pillars among them who by their Patience and Constancy drew all the Assaults of the Devil upon themselves This I have observed for the sake of the Common Readers of Julian some of which to my knowledge understood that Phrase of Repelling Julian as a brave strong Wall in the Sense wherein Mr. J. perhaps designed they should take it for Active and not for Passive Resistance which puts me in mind of Hugh Peters who preached up Rebellion on those Words Heb. 12.4 Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood But to Instance in another of his Contradictions p. 21. he cites Eusebius for saying That Constantius Chlorus past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine Where by that Phrase past over he would have his Reader or else it is nothing to the purpose understand Entailed And yet p. 1. he cites the same Author again for saying that Constantine at his death gave to his Eldest Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be rendred his Grandfathers share and not that part which came by his Ancestors as our Author doth But now if Constantius Chlorus Entailed or Past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine M. how could he give it at his death to his Eldest Son Constantine the second I desire to know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. who is Fitter to Resolve the Question If a Man can succeed to the same Estate both as Heir by Testament and Entail The Admirers of Julian whereof some pretend to be great Masters of Reason might with half an Eye purged of Bad Humours have discerned these and all other Inconsistencies which I have observed in this following Answer but by some of them who took so much Pains to Recommend and Disperse the Book