that Parliament which recognized K. Iames his Lineal Descent from Elizabeth Daughter of K. Edward the Fourth 2. He quarrels with his Adversary for talking of the Exclusion of the House of Suffolk which he saith never had any pretensions to the Crown Sure Mr. I. was in a very cavilling humour The Daughters of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk by the French Queen and their Issue are those whom Iovian intends by the House of Suffolk and why they may not as properly be call'd the House of Suffolk as the present Line the House of Scotland I know not For denying the pretensions of that Line to the Crown I leave him to answer to the Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Derby and some other Noble Lords descended thence 3. He represents Iovian as very absurd for quoting the Act of Recognition 1 Iacobi when he is for invalidating all Acts of Parliament that limit and determine the Succession But the absurdity is his own He seem'd well enough to understand the difference of Declaring or Recognizing from Creating and Electing about 20 pages before 't is much he should so soon forget it An Act of Recognition confers no Title but supposes it An Act which limits the Descent of the Crown creates a Title when it was not It is worth observing how strange an Answer he gives to two Authorities cited by Iovian importing a Bill of Exclusion which changeth our Succession from Hereditary to Elective Saith he An Act of Disinheriting from the Crown doth own and proclaim and prove the Kingdom to be Hereditary Right But it makes it quite otherwise So the Act for taking away the King's Office doth own this Realm to be a Monarchy but made it a Commonwealth The Ordinance for abolishing Episcopacy doth own and prove the Government of these Churches to be Episcopal and at the same time destroyed it I suppose that implicit acknowledgment did not cure the manifest Injustice of those Acts. His Reflection on Iovian's way of arguing is Childish if there be four Terms in the Syllogism or Enthymeme they are of his own making and he is to answer for the honesty of it himself No less ridiculous is his pretence that his Adversary professeth to have sworn Allegiance to Subjects It is possible an Oath of Allegiance may be broken by injuries done to a Subject and yet no Allegiance be sworn to that Subject for instance by ravishing or killing the Queen or the Prince and yet both the Queen and Prince are no more than Subjects Whether an attempt to debar the next Lineal Heir from Succeeding be not an Invasion of the Rights and Prerogative of the present King especially when he is averse to it and an offence against his Crown and Dignity may possibly be a doubt with Persons of more Learning and Conscience than Mr. I. hath shewn either in Iulian or his Defence of it Whether it be or not I will not determine The Rant wherewith he closeth his Answer to Iovian's Preface is to the tune of Lewis du Moulin Yet I presume no body takes Mr. Dean to have renounced the Doctrine of our Glorious Reformers or thinks him one step nearer Rome on that Account Some such Zealots against Popery as Mr. I. about 60. years since fell foul on Bishop Hall who in his old Religion acknowledgeth the Roman to be a true though a corrupt Church and occasioned him to publish an Apologetical Epistle call'd the Reconciler in which he faith that to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a True Church was common with the best Reformed Divines and had been done by himself with the Approbation and Applause of the whole Representative Body of the Clergy of this Kingdom He explains himself as Iovian doth asserting that in different senses the Church of Rome is both a True and a False Church True in Existence False in Belief that is hath a Natural not a Moral Trueness As a Thief or a Cheat is truly a Man though not a True Man or as the Devil is a true Spiri◠or Angel though not as Mr. I. fallaciously expresseth himself a true Angel of Light a false lying Spirit He addeth that Antichristianism though it justly makes the Church of Rome odious and execrable to God Angels and Men yet it cannot utterly dischurch it He saith in this Doctrine he followeth Zanchy Luther Calvin Iunius Plessis Hooker Andrews Field Crakanthorp Bedel and others who deny not the Natural Verity of the Church of Rome though they deny it to be veram puram They own it to be a True Church such as the Ten Tribes were notwithstanding the Idolatrous Worship set up by Ieroboam which is little to the advantage of the Roman Church being only in effect to say They are neither Jews Turks nor Pagans though misbelieving Heretical and Idolatrous Christians and this Epistle and Doctrine is approved by Bishop Morton Davenant and Prideaux as also by Mr. Primrose Minister of the French Church Thus I have attended Mr. I. through his first Stage and here I think it best for me to rest a while with him My motion hath been somewhat slower than I intended and I confess in point of time I have broken my word with you But you will pardon me when you consider that his numberless Frauds which I had to detect required more time than I allowed my self for Fallacies are not laid open and confuted in as few words as they are committed And withal I have been the more particular in exposing this first part of his Answer because here it is that I am most capable of serving you by shewing how wretchedly he prevaricates in abusing many good Authours which you have not at hand to consult I hope to make a shorter business of what is behind a great part of it being already examin'd in my former Letter March 14. 1689. I remain Dear Sir Your most humble Servant The Third LETTER Dear Sir I Am now come to what Mr. I. is pleas'd to call an Answer to Iovian and concur with your Observation that Brevity is the only good thing in it craving leave to add that it would have been abundantly more commendable upon that account had he forborn Cavils and spiteful misrepresentations of his Adversary without which his Answer would not have exceeded the fifth part of its present bulk as small as it is His Argument à fortiori if design'd to prove that the Christians of the fourth Century would in our Circumstances have been for Exclusion of a Popish Successor is wretched Fallacy because of the vast disparity of their Case and Ours For Mr. I. hath not been able to maintain his Paradox that the Empire was Hereditary against Iovian's Arguments And if it be design'd to prove that had the Christians known Iulian to be a Pagan they would have done all in their Power to have kept him from the Crown it is no less wretched Impertinence in regard his Adversary undertakes that the Fathers of our
hath given the true sense of the Greek cited at large in the Margin he was not bound to give a literal Translation I wonder Mr. I. is not asham'd here to accuse him of forging and foisting in words at pleasure as he had charg'd him before with Falsifications nay a whole heap of them without being able to asâ—ign one single fraud He might as well have accused him of Bulglary or Horse-stealing and he hath equal Evidence for them and a pack of Readers prepared to swallow any Calumny I acknowledge that it was the Historian's design in this Chapter to shew that Iulian's destruction was from God for laying waste his Church and that account of the Prayers of Didymus for the Apostate's Conversion dropt from him on the by we should never have heard of them but for the miraculous Revelation of Iulian's Death But this doth not impeach its Truth nay it is a fair ground to believe notwithstanding the silence of Historians that many other Christians did the same However I can by no means grant that the miraculous Answer to his Prayer was a strong Proof that Didymus prayed for Iulian's destruction or that his breaking Fast upon the News gives the least support to the conceit The express words of Sozomen â— shew the contrary And the miraculous Revelation proves no more than the Historian designed viz. That he fell by the just Judgment of God for making havock of his Church Didymus had the Answer of his Prayers in the Churches Deliverance which God if he had seen meet was able to have accomplished by Iulian's Conversion as easily as by his Death and his breaking Fast upon the News only shews his firm belief that the Dream was Divine and the Revelation true The occasion of his Fasting was now over God had deliver'd his Church and Iulian was incapable of receiving benefit by his Prayers Mr. I. might as reasonably have concluded that David fasted and pray'd for the Destruction of his Child because assoon as he heard he was dead he call'd for meat and fell to eating Pag. 208. I perceive that Mr. I. is very loth to quit the honour of his notable discovery that Iulian narrowly scap'd a kicking from old Gregory tho' he be not able to answer any one of Iovian's proofs of the vanity of that conceit Yet he stands in it that the words of Gregory will bear no other sense 1. He saith it was Iulian in person and not the Captain of Archers for Elias Cretensis expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by ille impius I grant it but then neither Elias nor Billius ever dreamt that Iulian led those Souldiers to Nazianzum but say only he sent them against that and other Churchesâ— And probably the Greek Elias Cretensis and some other MSS. of Nazianzen read in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Transubstantiation Soloecism is avoided But trusty Mr. I. conceals this which is really a fraud and falsifieth the Authorâ— whose Testimony he produceth 2. Whereas Iovian saith it could not be Iulian but the Captain because he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Orders Mr. I. saith the Greek words are falsely rendered with the Emperor's Orders and that they signify in an Imperious way I believe Billius was not of his mind but by pro imperio jussis meant according to his Orders and instructions I doubt not in the least but by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregory meant the Edict for demolishing Christian Churches which in all probability the Officer carried with him The Emperours Edicts are commonly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Iulian calls his own Edicts So they are styled by Sozomen frequently and by Nazianzen himself in this Invective where this particular Edict for demolishing of Churches is so called This is a much more natural and easie sence of the words than that which Mr. I. would force upon them Lastly whereas Iovian sheweth out of Phavorinus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to suffer and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies the Feet to be the Subject hurt not the Instrument offering that Violence of which Mr. I. will have the Apostate in danger and so renders the words though he was ill of his Feet Mr. I. takes occasion to despise his Adversary's Grecianship and will not take notice that Mr. Dean was not the first who took the words in that sence but followeth Bilibaldus Perkeymer a great Master in the Greek and Restorer of Learning who had thus rendered the words above an hundred years before Mr. Dean was born Nor is it at all necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie being beaten with a Club on the soles of the Feet as Mr. I. drollingly insinuates Being foundred or foot-sore with a hard March may far more easily be reconciled with Elias Cretensis who renders it pedibus contusus than his device of drubbing Thus you see Sir that here is no evidence of Iulian's being at Nazianzum or receiving any affront in Person from the old Bishop nor yet of his imminent danger of being kick'd which he scap'd by a seasonable retreat Were it either necessary or worth while I am confident a Man might from Ammianus Marcellinus and the date of his Edicts in the Theodosian Code give such an account of Iulian's Residence from his leaving Constantinople till he left Antioch to march against the Persians as would prove it scarce possible for Iulian to have been in person at Nazianzum We have no account that Iulian with all his Zeal against Christianity ever went in person to see this Edict put in Execution and there is no reason to doubt but if he had done it Nazianzen who omits no circumstance that may aggravate Iulian's Crimes and the Historians would have recorded it as an instance of his devilish Spite against Christ Jesus In the next page he tells us that his Adversary's Inconsistencies and Contradictions would fill a Book If he had such choice Mr. I. was much to blame that he did not pick out more evident and palpable Instances of it than those two he produceth I cannot see that inconsistence in them he pretends The Roman Empire he saith was Elective Well! What then Iulius Caesar left no Sons but died and the Monarchy with him For Octavius did not take the Empire upon him till long after Caesar's death he did not as an Adopted Son claim it by Hereditary Right in Vertue of that Decree which no Author but Dio ever mentions And this Decree if ever it had the force of a Law was abrogated by contrary Usage being never put in Execution or so much as once mention'd in the long Succession of Emperors down to Iulian. The other Instance hath as little of Contradiction in it Yet pag. 240. he acknowledges That in SPARTA the King had not the Sovereign Power which was Radically and Originally in the People And again that the Magistrates in Switzerland
Regard to his own Honour and Safety did not prove so effectual a Restraint from Arbitrary Proceedings as the Authour of Iovian hoped and all wise Men reasonably expected Yet Experience hath however confirm'd the Opinion of Iovian and in violent Vndertakings far short of the Cruelty of Massacres all good men did withdraw from the service of that Unfortunate Prince and many bad men durst not serve him As for those few who did they are likely to suffer exemplary Punishment according to their Demerit I am now come to see how justly Mr. I. chargeth his Adversary with raising Cavils against matter of Fact pag. 157. and 201. He begins with Mr. Dean's Discourse about Iuventinus and Maximus which he makes to be a whole Heap of Falsifications Perhaps the Falsification lies in not mentioning the precise words in Theodoret to which Mr. I. refers Thou hast delivered us to an Vnrighteous King and such an Apostate as is not again upon the â—ace of the Earth Now who knew them till Mr. I. in this Answer vouchsafed to tell what the words were In his first Book he cited no words and refers to St. Chrysostom's Homily on their Anniversary is it a Falsification that Iovian doth not insert this passage of Theodoret into their Speech as St. Chrysostom relates it This were very hard Mr. Dean had no Interest to conceal their words nor do I see any great advantage Mr. I. can make of them Do they prove that Iuventinus and Maximus would have been for a Bill of Exclusion had they liv'd in our days Or that they would have rebelled in defence of their Religion There is nothing in them which founds that way Whoever reads these Speeches as rendred from Chrysostom in Iovian orâ— the Story as Mr. I. himself relates it ouâ— of Theoâ—oret will find the Primitive Passive Spirit the Faith and Patience of the Ancient Saints in these two Christian Captainsâ— the same Ambition to be crown'd with Martyrdom and that Iovian commits no falsification when he tells us that their sayings sound like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius in the Thebâ—an Legion The same Spirit appearâ—ng in thoâ—e Souldiers who had been trapann'd into Sacrificing gave Mr. Dean occasion to say that Iuventinus and Maximus with these Souldiers should be his Thundring Legion for the future Now what Mr. I. replies is a shameful childish Cavil which any School Boy who had once read Butler's Rhetorick is able to see thro' and would deride He would easily comprehend the true sense of so common a Figure and understand that Iovian never intended to muster them for a compleat Legion or represent them as a force able to have beaten Iulian's whole Army but only to shew that they had the same Passive Braverâ— with the Thebaean Legion the same Zeal for Christ and forwardness to lay down their Lives for his Religion had the Apostate put them to it and tho' they had been a full Legion nay eleven Legions to one they would have died like them with their Swords in their Scabbards and not have drawn them in defence of their lives against this Lawless Apostate Persecutor Thus the fallacy lies at Mr I's own door His next quarrel with Iovian is for shuffling with the Stories of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon the Nobleman of Beraea and Publica By Mr. I's favour a direct Answer is not shuffling and such an Answer he hath received Mr. Dean tells him that these Stories are impertinently alledged and will not make out his Hypothesis That Iulian was worse used than former Pagan Emperours because he persecuted contrary to Law The Authour of Iovian sheweth that there was nothing singular in these stories that elder times had many Instances some of which he mâ—ntions wherein the Martyrs and Confessors used no less Heroick Freedom of speech before other Pagan Emperours and Magistrates As for Maris he adds that if there be any thing singular in his case it ought not to be drawn into example because he was an ill Man a persecuting Arrian Zealot which he hath proved by unanswerable Testimonies to which Mr. I. replies not one word but slides away leaving behind him an uncharitable Surmise for it was no more when he wrote it but it is now improved into an impudent and malicious Slander by the Publication after that his Learned Adversary hath given so many and ample Proofs of a sincere Zeal against Popery not a jot less fervent and abundantly more Regular and Useful than his own His Reflection on what is said touching the Antiochian Psalms is a mixture of Scurrility and Prophaneness dressed to the gust of his Admirers I am sure Men of Sence and Sobriety will think never the better of him for his rude Sarcasm nor the worse of Iovian for expounding that passage of the Palmist in a milder sence than he likes Mr. D. followed good Versions and Authours herein Dr. Patrick had paraphrased it thus Which may well make them all ashamed and they shall be confounded by him if they will not renounce their Errours who worship graven Images Certainly the Phrase hath a milder acceptation than breaking of bones in many places of the Psalms as in Ps. 83. 16. Fill their Faces with shame that they may seek thy Name O Lord otherwise that Learned Expositor is frequently mistaken particularly on Psal. 25. 71. which Mr. I. hath expounded in Burlesque to abuse his Adversary Be it as it will I am sure that Man acts more like a good Christian and Casuist who makes the best of the doubtful Actions of the Primitive Christians than he who represents them in the worst Colours and at the same time proposeth them for Patterns In the same page Mr. I. complains that he is not permitted to call the joint Prayers of Gregory and his Church of Nazianzum their Prayers and that the Practice of the purest Church of that Age must not pass for the practice of the Church But the Question still remains unanswered What is the Practice of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches of the Empire If Mr. Dean were too severe when he charged Mr. I. with willfull Blindness for saying that he could not find one single Wish for Iulian's Conversion among the Ancients the Censure is now become Just since he refuseth to see one when 't is shewn him Sozomen's words are these Didymus upon the Emperour's Apostasie in Religion being extreamly grieved both for him Julian who was in a grievous Error and also for the Church's Affliction fasted and made supplications to Godâ— on that Account Here it is very evident that Didymus was grieved and concerned not only for the Church's Sufferings but also for Iulian's Error and that he made supplication to God as well for Iulian as for the Church Now what can we imagine that he should ask of God with respect to Iulian for whose Error he was grieved but his Conversion and Return to the True Religion By this it appears that Mr. Dean