lawful or not If it be lawful to testify it one way why not another If in paying Tribute why not in solemn promising to pay it If in promising why not in swearing i. e. in calling God to witness that I do it Thus far then we may go we may swear to pay Tribute But on what account Is it not as a Token of Allegiance i. e. of a Duty owing on the account of Protection Then we have gained one step farther viz. that we may swear to perform some parts of Allegiance But why then may we not do so as to all that such an Oath implies If it respects no more than the Duty which we owe with respect to the Publick And that is certainly the meaning of an Oath when all Declarations of Right are left out and only those of Duty expressed as it is in our present Case As to the dreadful Charge of Perjury and Apostacy which some of much greater Heat than Judgment have made use of against those who hold it lawful to take the Oaths If what I have said be true it is little less than ridiculous And it would have had more appearance of Reason if the Pharisees had urged it against our Saviour's Resolution of the Case about Tribute-Mony For had not God by his own Law settled the Government among them And was it not a Fundamental Article of that Law that none should rule over them but one of their Brethren Was the Roman Emperor or Pontius Pilate such Have not all the ancient Zealots of the Law opposed any such Foreign Power What can it be then less than Perjury and Apostacy to give any Countenance to such an open Violation of this Law and to incourage Men to renounce it when they find such Liberties allowed by such a Teacher But I forbear To conclude then I have at your earnest Desire taken this Matter into serious Consideration and have impartially weighed the most pressing Difficulties I have met with I cannot promise to give you Satisfaction but I have satisfied my self and have endeavoured to do the same for you I am heartily sorry for any Breaches among us at this time and it is easy to foresee who will be the Gainers by them But I am glad to understand that the chiefest of those who scruple the Oaths have declared themselves against the Attempts of such an unseasonable Separation and I hope others will be so wise as to follow their Example I am Sir Yours Octob. 15. 1689. Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell THE Case of Allegiance in our present Circumstances considered in a Letter from a Minister in the City to a Minister in the Country 40. A Breviate of the State of Scotland in its Government Supream Courts Officers of State Inferiour Officers Offices and Inferiour Courts Districts Jurisdictions Burroughs Royal and Free Corporations Fol. Some Considerations touching Succession and Allegiance 4to Reflections upon the late Great Revolution Written by a Lay-Hand in the Country for the satisfaction of some Neighbours The History of the Desertion or an Account of all the publick Affairs in England from the beginning of September 1688 to the Twelfth of February following With an Answer to a Piece called The Desertion Discussed in a Letter to a Country-Gentleman By a Person of Quality K. William and K. Lewis Wherein is set forth the inevitable necessity these Nations lie under of submitting wholly to one or other of these Kings And that the matter in Controversy is not now between K. William and K. Iames but between K. William and K. Lewis of France for the Government of these Nations A Sermon preached at Fulham in the Chappel of the Palace upon Easter-Day 1689. at the Consecration of the Right Reverend Father in God Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum By Anthony Horneck D. D. The Judgments of God upon the Roman Catholick Church from its first rigid Laws for universal Conformity to it unto its last End. With a prospect of these near approaching Revolutions viz. The Revival of the Protestant Profession in an eminent Kingdom where it was totally suppressed The last End of all Turkish Hostilities The general Mortification of the Power of the Roman Church in all parts of its Dominions In Explication of the Trumpets and Vials of the Apocalypse upon Principles generally acknowledged by Protestant Interpreters By Drue Cressener D. D. A Discourse concerning the Worship of Images preached before the University of Oxford By George Tully Sub-Dean of York for which he was suspended Two Sermons one against Murmuring the other against Censuring By Symon Patrick D. D. now Lord Bishop of Chichester An Account of the Reasons which induced Charles the Second King of England to declare War against the States General of the United Provinces in 1672. And of the Private League which he entred into at the same Time with the French King to carry it on and to establish Popery in England Scotland and Ireland as they are set down in the History of the Dutch War printed in French at Paris with the Priviledg of the French King 1682. Which Book he caused to be immediately suppress'd at the Instance of the English Ambassador Fol. An Account of the Private League betwixt the late King Iames the Second and the French King. Fol. Dr. Wake 's Sermon before the King and Queen at Hampton-Court Dr. Tennison's Sermon against Self-love before the House of Commons Iune 5. 1689. Mr. Tully's Sermon of Moderation before the Lord-Mayor May. 12. 1689. An Examination of the Scruples of those who refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance By a Divine of the Church of England A Dialogue betwixt two Friends a Iacobite and a Williamite occasioned by the late Revolution of Affairs and the Oath of Allegiance The Case of Oaths stated 4to A Letter from a French Lawyer to an English Gentleman upon the Present Revolution 4to The Advantages of the present Settlement and the great danger of a Relapse The Interest of England in the Preservation of Ireland The Answer of a Protestant Gentleman in Ireland to a late Popish Letter of N. N. upon a Discourse between them concerning the present Posture of that Country and the Part fit for those concern'd there to act in it 4to An Apology for the Protestants of Ireland in a brief Narrative of the late Revolutions in that Kingdom and an Account of the present State thereof By a Gentleman of Quality 4to A true Representation to the King and People of England how Matters were carried on all a long in Ireland by the late K. Iames in favour of the Irish Papists there from his Accession to the Crown to the 10th of April 1689. The Mantle thrown off or the Irish-Man dissected 4to Reflections upon the Opinions of some Modern Divines concerning the Nature of Government in general and that of England in particular With an Appendix relating to this Matter containing 1. The Seventy fifth Canon of the Council of Toledo 2. The Original Articles in
Feudatary to the same he could not challenge Allegiance as due to him but to the Pope as Lord Paramount And it was pleaded against him That although he could not dispose of his Crown without Consent of his Barons yet he might demise it And upon his Resignation he ceased to be King and so the Throne was vacant And by that means there was a devolution of Right to the BARONS to fill up the Vacancy who made choice of LEWIS by the Right of his Wife who was Heir to King John. If after all this an Oath of Allegiance to him was lawful then I say an Oath to a King de facto is so for King Iohn was no more 2. As to the Barons calling in Lewis and forsaking K. Iohn it is necessary to observe on what Reason it is that our Homilies condemn it For the whole design of that Homily is to shew the Popes Vsurpations over Princes and their stirring up Subjects to Rebellion against them by discharging them from their Oaths and for those the Instance of King John is produced As appears by the words just before Now had English-men at that time known their Duty to their Prince set forth in God's Word would a great many Nobles and other English-men natural Subjects for this foreign and unnatural Vsurper his vain Curse of the King and for his feigned discharging them of their Oath and Fidelity to their Natural Lord upon so slender or no Ground at all have rebelled against their Sovereign Lord the King Would English Subjects have taken part against the King of England and against English Men with the French King and French Men being incensed against this Realm by the Bishop of Rome 3. This doth not concern the present Case For Men may condemn those English Men who sent for Lewis and yet may lawfully take the present Oaths By which Men are not bound to justify such Proceedings but to promise Faith and Allegiance to such as are in actual Possession of the Throne Which the Oaths taken to K. Iohn will justify Thus I have considered the greatest Difficulties I have yet met with about taking the Oaths and have not dissembled the strength of any of them There is only one thing remains and that is the Answer given to the Case of Tiberius who was an Vsurper and yet our Saviour said Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's The Answer is That although it were a forcible Vsurpation in Julius Cesar yet before that time the Matter was accorded between the Senate and the Emperors and they reigned unquestioned without any competition from the Senate So that it was not lawful to swear Allegiance to Iulius Cesar who had the full Possession of the Power but it was to Tiberius And why so Where was the Right of Government in the time of Iulius Cesar In the Senate and People And so it continued all Iulius Cesar's time But how came the Senate and People to lose their Right in the time of Tiberius 1. Had they given it up by any solemn Act of theirs as many say they did by the Lex Regia which Iustinian confidently affirms Then all the Right which the Emperor had was by Devolution from the People and so they acted by virtue of that Power which the People gave them Populus comprehends both Senate and Community And then the Emperors had their Rights of Soveraignty from the People and not from God. For here was no other Act but that of the People giving up their Right And then the Case of Obedience to the Roman Emperors will be found very different from that of the Northern Kingdoms where the People never gave up their Rights in such a manner but in Cases of Difficulty concerning Succession the three Estates did look on themselves as particularly concerned as might be easily proved if it were needful in all the Northern Kingdoms 2. But suppose they did not formally give up their Right but were partly wheedled and partly forced out of it Doth this give a good Title Suppose Augustus had by his Acts procured the Consent of the People as to his own Government What was this to Tiberius Did they give him a Power to make whom he pleased his Successor Something may be said from Dion and Strabo as to the former but there is no Pretence as to the latter For it was a meer Arbitrary Act in Augustus to nominate Tiberius and all the Title he had at first was from the Praetorian Band and Legions Afterwards the Consuls and Senate and Souldiers and People did swear Allegiance to him as the Historians tell us Now here I desire to know whether Tiberius were any more than Emperor de facto when they did thus swear to him For all the Right he had was from their voluntary Submission to him at Rome As to the Roman Provinces Tacitus saith They were content with the present change of Government because they suffered by the Factions and Avarice of the great Men which made them weary of the Government by the Senate and People But this only shews they were willing to change their Masters hoping they might mend their Condition but signifies little to the matter of Right Since after they were made Provinces they owned their Subjection to the Roman Government by paying Tribute and receiving Magistrates from it however that Government was managed whether by Senate or People or by one who had the Imperial Power whatever Name he were called by But as to the Province of Iudea in particular there are several Conditions of it to be considered 1. While it was tributary to the Kings of Persia and Syria Jaddus the High Priest told Alexander that they had taken an Oath of Fidelity to Darius and therefore could not bear Arms against him while he lived But was Darius King de jure or de facto over the Iews He was not King over them by a lineal Succession from their own Princes nor by the Fundamental Constitution of their Government which owned no legal King that was not of their Brethren I do not say they were not to submit to but not to chuse any other But what Right had Darius over the Iews any more than succeeding in the Persian Monarchy gave a Right to the Chaldean Conquests I grant the Iews did act under the Persian Monarchs as Nehemiah was Governour under Artaxerxes and that they did swear to them appears by Iaddus but the Question is On what Right that Oath was founded and whether upon Alexander's Conquest they could not as well take a new Oath to him For why should not present actual Dominion give as much Right as succeeding into anothers Right of Dominion which was at first gained by Conquest If Possession gives Right in one case why not in the other since there is more Reason for Allegiance where there is a Power of Protection than where there is none And so we find Iaddus and the Iews did submit to Alexander
must give an equitable sense of these Oaths or there must be Perjury on all sides For those who had first sworn to Maud could not transfer their Allegiance on any other account either to Stephen or H. 2. during her Life For we never read that she was present at the Agreement or resigned her Right to the Crown The next Instance I shall produce is in the Oaths that were taken during the Controversies between the Houses of York and Lancaster Which was not so plain a Case as Men commonly imagin and in Truth if the just legal Title be the only Rule of Conscience in this Case it was hard to take the Oaths on either side For as on the one side a lineal Descent was pleaded from the Daughter of the Duke of Clarence who was elder Brother to Iohn Duke of Lancaster from whom by Marriage the Duke of York claimed his Title so on the other side it was objected that there was no sufficient Evidence of the Legitimacy of Philippa Daughter to the Duke of Clarence because as Fortescue observes the Duke of Clarence was abroad from before the time of her Conception till after her Birth and that he never owned her Mother after that she never assumed the Arms of the Duke as her Father nor those descended from her till the Duke of York pretended to the Crown that E. 3. made an Entail of the Crown upon his Heirs Male of which I have seen a written Account as old as the time of H. 6. which not only affirms the Absence and Divorce of the Duke of Clarence but that E. 3. seized all his Lands into his Hands and in Parliament soon after entailed the Crown on his Heirs Male and that his Daughters there present agreed to the same But besides they pleaded that so long a Prescription as the House of Lancaster had of above threescore years was allowed by the Ius Gentium to purge the Defects of the first Title These are things which deserved Consideration against such a meer lineal Descent as the House of York insisted upon And against the House of Lancaster the Intrusion of H. 4. upon the Deposition of R. 2. is an invincible Objection to such as found Allegiance on the Right of Succession But that which I lay the greatest weight upon is the Way of ending this Difference in Parliament which hath several remarkable things in it 1. That the Duke of York notwithstanding his Title takes an Oath of Allegiance in Parliament to H. 6. during his Life reserving to himself the Right of Succession after him For he swears to do nothing to the Prejudice of his Reign or Dignity-Royal nor against his Life or Liberty and that he would to the utmost of his Power withstand all Attempts to the contrary The same Oath was taken by his Sons Edward Earl of March afterward E. 4. and Edward Earl of Rutland Was this a lawful Oath or not To say it was unlawful is to reflect on the Wisdom of the Three Estates who looked on this as the best Expedient for the Publick Good as being the way to prevent the Effusion of Christian Blood. And it is not easy to prove such an Oath unlawful as containing nothing unlawful nor to the Prejudice of a third Person when he who was chiefly concerned voluntarily took it If it were a lawful Oath then an Oath of Allegiance on the account of Possession is a lawful Oath For the matter of Right is not mentioned in it and Richard Duke of York did not renounce the opinion of his own Right hereby whether true or false but did bind up himself to do nothing to the Prejudice of the Royal Dignity of H. 6. and yet he look'd on him as meer Possessor of it therefore in his Judgment and the Parliament's an Oath of Allegiance may lawfully be taken on the account of the Possession of the Crown although Persons be not satisfied of the Right of it The Words of his Agreement are remarkable to this Purpose as they are to be found in the Parliament-Rolls The said Title notwithstanding and without Prejudice of the same the said Richard Duke of York tenderly desiring the Weal Rest and Prosperity of this Land and to set apart all that might be trouble to the same and considering the Possession of the said King Henry the sixth and that he hath for his time be named taken and reputed King of England and France and Lord of Ireland is content agreeth and consenteth that he be had reputed and taken King of England and of France with the Royal Estate Dignity and Preeminence belonging thereto and Lord of Ireland during his Life natural and for that time the said Duke without hurt or prejudice of his said Right and Title shall take worship and honour him for his Sovereign Lord. Here was certainly an Oath taken to a King whom the Person taking it looked on only as a King de facto and not de jure and yet this Oath was taken and allowed nay contrived in Parliament and that for no less an end than for the Weal Rest and Prosperity of the Land i.e. for the Publick Good. It may be said That the Case is different for Richard Duke of York parted with his own Right but we cannot with anothers which we have sworn to preserve I answer That he did not look on such an Oath as parting with his Right but as a thing fitting to be done on the account of Possession for the Publick Good. And so many others taken such another Oath of Allegiance wherein there is no Declaration as to Right but the same things required which the Duke of York promised in his Oath to Hen. 6. But Allegiance is not due but where there is a Right to claim it and that cannot be where there is no Right to the Crown I answer That an Oath of Allegiance may be twofold 1. Declarative of Right and in that case none can be owned to have Right but he that hath it 2. Submissive Allegiance where no more is required than is contained in the Duke of York ' s Oath and yet he declared this was no Prejudice to his Right But it may be said He declared so much before he took the Oath and so gave the Sense in which he took it I answer That His putting in his Claim and his Title being allow'd after the King in being had been sufficient but in our case there is no need of a Declaration since the declaratory part is left out which is a fuller Declaration of the sense of the Oath than our Words can make But to proceed 2. The first Objection the Parliament made to the Duke of York's Claim was from the Oaths they had taken to H. 6. To which the Duke of York gave a large Answer that Oaths must not bind against Truth and Iustice. But this was to take it for granted that he had the Truth and Justice of his side whereas there was a long Possession
Stanly was gained to that Party which cost him his Life And they went so far as to conclude it Treason to stand by the Possessor against the next lineal Heir Which I take to have been the true Occasion of the Statute 11 H. 7. which doth certainly Indemnify those who adhere to the Possessor although another may claim a better Right and thereby declares a Possessory Right to be a sufficient Ground of Allegiance as far as that Act goes There are three sorts of Persons may be said to have Possession of the Crown an Vsurper a King de jure and a King de facto and because the distinction between these doth not seem to be well understood I shall briefly explain it An Usurper is one who comes in by Force and continues by Force A King de jure is one who comes in by lineal Descent as next Heir and whose Right is owned and Recognized by the Estates of the Realm A King de facto is one who comes in by Consent of the Nation but not by Virtue of an immediate Hereditary Right but to such a one being owned and receiv'd by the Estates of the Realm the Law of England as far as I can see requires an Allegiance Or else the whole Nation was perjur'd in most of the Reigns from the Conquest to H. 8. for the two Williams six at least of the seven Henries King Stephen and King Iohn were all Kings de facto for some time at least for they came not in as next Heirs in a lineal Descent But still Oaths of Allegiance were taken to them and no such Scruples appear to have been made all that time nor any charge of Perjury on those who did what our Law and Constitution required Was the Nation perjured in the Time of H. 7. who as all know had no Pretence of an Hereditary Right Yet being received and Crowned the Oaths of Allegiance were taken to Him before he was Married to the Daughter of E. 4. For he was Crowned 30 Octob. 1485. Had the Crown entailed in Parliament Nov. 7. and was Married Ian. 18. But the first Parliament of R. 3. endeavoured to make void the Title of the Children of E. 4. upon pretence of a Precontract with the E. of Shrewsburies Daughter and of George Duke of Clarence by his Attainder thereby to make R. 3. Right Heir to the Crown but lest these things should fail to his Claim of Inheritance they join their own Election and desire him to accept the Crown as to him of Right belonging as well by Inheritance as by lawful Election It seems they would have made him a King de jure as well as de facto but the excluding the Children of E. 4. never gave Satisfaction since the Lady Lucy her self disowned it to the Mother of E. 4. And if such an Allegation would hold the whole Succession both of York and Lancaster might be questioned for both derive from H. 3. whose Mother was believed at that Time to have been precontracted at least to Hugh le Brun before She was married to K. Iohn and was married to Him whilst his former Wife was living And if Q. Eleanor's Divorce from the K. of France were not Good as it is hard to prove it so what becomes of all the Line of H. 2. who married Her after She had two Children by her former Husband But if Mens Consciences are tied to a strict legal and lineal Descent they must be satisfied in all these Points But supposing the Right of the Children of E. 4. to have been never so Good what doth this make towards the justifying the Oaths of Allegiance which were made to H. 7. whom some will not allow to have any Claim by the House of Lancaster since they say the same Act which legitimated Iohn of Gaunt's Children by Kath. Swinford did exclude them from any Title to the Crown Yet the Oaths of Allegiance were taken by the whole Nation in the time of H. 7. and no Dispute was then made about it because it was then believed that quiet Possession was a sufficient Ground for Allegiance It is objected That it cannot be agreeable to the Law of England to swear Allegiance to a King de facto when the Duke of Northumberland suffered by the Law for adhering to a Queen de facto A King de facto according to our Law as I said is one in quiet Possession of the Crown by Consent of Parliament without Hereditary Right such as H. 4 5 6 7. were all thought to be by those who made this Distinction For as far as I can find the Distinction of a King de facto and de jure was then started when the House of York so much insisted on their Hereditary Right and so many of our Kings had governed the Kingdom by Consent without it Therefore the Lawyers to find a sufficient Salvo for the Kings of the House of Lancaster framed this Distinction of Kings de facto and de jure but still they meant Kings Regnant as they called them or in full Possession of the Royal Dignity by a National Consent The Distinction had been better of a two-fold Right viz. Possessory and Hereditary But this was far from being the Case of Queen Iane who was set up by a particular Party against the General Sense of the Nation as soon appeared for the main Point her Title stood upon was this Whether the King by his Grant could dispose of the Crown against an Act of Parliament which setled the Succession and that this was the true Point appears evidently by Judge Mountague's Papers who was imployed against his Will in drawing up the Grant. So that the Duke of Northumberland's Case doth by no Means reach the Point of a King de facto But it is further urged from our Homilies That our Church therein condemns those English who did swear Fidelity to the Dauphin of France breaking their Oath of Fidelity to their Natural Lord the King of England To which I answer 1. That King Iohn was only a King de facto himself if a Legal Succession makes a King de jure For 1. His eldest Brother's Son Arthur was then living as all confess 2. He was convicted of Treason against his Brother R. 1. and the Sentence pronounced against him by Hugo de Pudsey Bishop of Durham as the King of France pleaded to the Pope's Legat who came to solicit for him 3. Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury declar'd at his Coronation that he came not in by Hereditary Right but by Election and he accepted of it so 4. What Right he had after the Death of his Nephew he gave up by the Resignation of his Crown to the Pope He could have no Hereditary Right while Arthur's Sister lived who survived him and was kept in the Castle at Bristol But supposing it I do not understand how he that gave up his Right of Dominion to the Pope could still retain it And if he was
Latin out of which the Magna Charta of King Iohn was framed 〈◊〉 The true Magna Charta of King Iohn in French By which the Magna Charta in Matth Paris is cleared and justified and the Alterations in the Common Magna Charta discovered Of which see a more particular Account in the Advertisement before the Appendix All three Englished The Doctrine of Non-Resistance or Passive Obedience no way concerned in the Controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Iacobites Jacobi Usserii Armachani Archiep. Historia dogmatica Controversiae inter Orthodaros Pontificios de Scripturis Sacris Vernaculis nunc primum edita Accesserunt Ejusdem dissertationes de Pseudo-Dionysii scriptis de Epistola ad Laodicenos ante hac inedite Descripsit digessit notis atque Auctuario completavit Henricus Wharton A. M. R. Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Unreasonableness of a new Separation on Account of the Oaths With an Answer to The History of Passive Obedience A Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Commission opened in the Ierusalem Chamber Octob. 10. 1689. Less de Iust. Iure l. 2. c. 17 n. 52. Molina de Iust. Iure tr 3. disp 150. De Cive c. 8. n. 7. Arist. Nic. l. 8. c. 13. Sen. de Clem. l. 1. c. 18. Mutua quidem debet esse Dominii Homagii fidelitatis connexio ita quod quantum debet homo Domino ex homagio tantum illi debet Dominus ex Dominio praeter solam Reverentiam Glanvil l. 9. c. 4. Bracton l. 2. §. 2. Cust. Norm c. 43. Zoës in Dig. l. 12. Tit. 2. n. 66 Jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest A. G. 454. Magnates Brit. Regem Vortigernum penitus deserentes unanimiter filium suum in Regem sublimaverunt Mat. West p. 83 Cum autem modis omnibus male tractaret eos legesque antecessorum suorum propter commodum suum vel depravaret vel mutaret Matt. West A. D. 756. H. Huntingd. l. 4. p. 196. A G 758. Gen. de Regno Merciorum contra Regem suum Beornredum insurgens pro eo quod Populum non aequis legibus sed per tyrannidem gubernaret convenerant in unum omnes tam nobiles quam ignobiles Offa Duce ipsum à Regno expulerunt Mat. West Nam ipse Brithricus caeteri infra Inam Reges licet Natalium splendore gloriantes quippe qui de Cerdicio originem traherent non parum tamen à lineâ regiae stirpis exorbitaverant Will. Malmsb. de Gestis Reg. Angl l. 1. c. 2. Regnum per Inam novatum qui Cinegisli ex Fratre Cuthbaldo pronepos magis pro insitlvae virtutis industria quam successivae sobolis prosapia in Principatum ascitur id ib. Matth. West A. D. 854 867. Mat. West p. 101. Bromton p. 862. W. Malmsbur l. 1. c. 3. p. 14. Mat. West A. D. 934. A. D. 939. Mat. West A. 946. Bromton p. 862. Flor. Wigorn A. 949. A. 957. A. 975. Florent Wigorn. A. D. 1016. W. Malm. l. 2. p. 35. 2. Mat. West A. D. 1013 1015 1016 A. 1055. Wil. Malm. l. 2. p. 40. Mat. West A. 1015. Florent A. 102. Append. 7. ad vit Alt. Bromton inter 10. Script p. 877. Florentin Wigor A. D. 1014. H. Huntin l. 6. p 207. 2. Malmsb. hist. Novel l. 1. p. 100 105. 2. Rad. de Diceto A. D. 1153. Matt. Westm. A. 1153. Mat. Paris ib. Gervas A. D. 1153. Gul. Neoburg l. 1. c. 30. Matt. Westm. S. 1153. Rot. Pa l. 39. H. 6. n. 21. N. 20. Mat. West A. 1200. Sixth Part of the Homily against wilful Rebellion Mat. Paris f. 280. Matt. Westm. A. 1216. Mat. Paris A. 1199. Mat. Paris A. 1216. l. 281. Tacit. l. 1. Tacit. ib. Joseph l. 11. c. 8. Deut. 17. 15. Neh. 8. 9. Joseph 12. c. 13. 1 Maccab. 14. 16. 40. 15. 33. 34. * Principatum quamvis neque occupare confetim neque agere dubitâsset et statione milirum hoc est vi et specie dominationis assumpta diu tamen recusavit impudentissimo animo Sutton c. 24. †Sed defuncto Augusto signum praetoriis cohortibus ut Imperator dederat Excubiae Arma catera Aulae Miles in forum miles in curiam comitabat literas ad Exercitus ranquam adepto Principatu misit nusquam cunctabundus nisi cum in Senatu loqueretur Tacit. l. 1. Dio. l. 57. Dio l. 54.