Selected quad for the lemma: daughter_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A44455
|
Animadversions on Mr Johnson's answer to Jovian in three letters to a country-friend.
|
Hopkins, William, 1647-1700.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing H2753; ESTC R20836
|
74,029
|
140
|
the Government of the Succession in the R. Empire was in the hands of the Emperour shews that Succession to be Arbitrary and not Hereditary and is so far from answering Iovian's Objections that it yields the Point Wherefore to his second and third Positions I shall return him an answer almost in his own words and desire he would inform me in what part of the Globe that Hereditary Kingdom lies where the present Possessor of the Crown hath the Power of declaring whom he will Relation or Stranger his Successor What sort of Hereditary Succession was that in which the first of the Family named a single Successor the second named a third and the Survivour of them though he had no other choice if Mr. I. mistake not yet did amiss in naming Iulian and ought to have named a Stranger I conceive that Succession is every whit as much Elective which depends on the free choice and nomination of one Person as that which is determined by the majority of a hundred Votes What he addeth to prove the Empire Hereditary in the Families of Valentinian and Theodosius serves only to encrease that dislike which I ever had to works of Supererogation It being all meer Rhetorick such good wishes and Complements as might have been made a King of Poland And therefore I am much amazed at Mr. I's confidence in affirming that every one knows the present Kings Children in an Elective Kingdom are furthest off from succeeding who ever succeeds they shall not He excepts only the German Empire when every one that knoweth any thing of the State of Europe can tell him of two other famous Monarchies both Elective in which being of the Royal Family is not a prejudice to their Claim but a Commendation to the Crown The one is the Kingdom of Denmark which was elective till within these thirty Years and yet all along from Waldemar to Frederick IV. they chose one of the same Family and for the most part the next lineal Heir The other viz. the Crown of Poland goes by Election to this day which yet in the present Century was successively worn by Sigismond and his two Sons Ladislaus and Casimir and it was a great advantage to Sigismund in his pretences to the Crown that he was of the Iagellonian Race and Grandson by the Mother-side to Sigismund and before that the Iagellonian Race Reigned two hundred Years and yet the Poles had no Jealousy that their Elective Constitution should be changed into Hereditary Nay where the Male Issue hath failed they have either chosen a Daughter or else made her Husband King as in the Case of Hedwig Daughter of Ludovicus Married to Iagello and Anne Daughter of Sigismund first Married to King Stephen Not to add that if Mr. I. have read the Rep. of Hungary he cannot but have seen that that Crown though held Electionis jure hath ordinarily descended to the King's Son or Brother or other Relation You see Sir How little reason we have to trust either Mr. I's Honesty or Politicks We have done at length with those miserable Fallacies which Mr. I. was forced to muster for the support of his desperate Assertion that the Empire was Hereditary which he himself hath so little confidence in that he denies the stress of his Argument to lie upon that Assertion that the Empire was Hereditary in Iulian's time Certainly he was of another mind when he wrote his former Book and thought it necessary to the fidelity of his proceedings to consider how the Roman Succession stood c. Well but on second thoughts Iovian's Concessions will serve his turn as well Iulian was Caesar expectant of and next to the Imperial Throne and yet such pretensions the Christians would have set aside for the security of their Religion and for fear of it the Apostate dissembled it for ten years together Now Sir I desire you only to read Iovian's comparison of a Caesar and a Prince of Wales and you will quickly see how unlike the Cases of Iulian and our Popish Successor were and how little could be concluded from the former in the latter case Iovian shalâ— readily grant him that it is a great sin in those who can legally and justly prevent a Popish Successor and do it not That the Fathers had been to blame if they had known Iulian's Religion and Temper and had not been for degrading him from the Caesar-ship nay he undertakes that the Fathers of our Church whom Mr. I. so much vilifies in comparison with the Bishops 13 o Eliz. would set aside a thousand such Titles as Iulian's to secure the Reformed Religion So that Mr. I's After-game will not save his stake I am now come to his Discourse about the Bill of Exclusion to which I shall say the less because I always esteemed it an Argument quite above me and looked upon it as no small Felicity that my station in the World freed me from those perplexities I should have been in had I been a Member of that honourable Body in which that weighty Case was so often debated and on whose votes the Decision of it so much depended So far as I understand that Controversie you know my Sentiments already which as they do not in all things exactly concur with those of Iovian so do they much less accord with his Adversary's You very well observe many passages in this Answer to Iâ—vian which are meer Jests and not Replies and particularly his Cavil against Mr. D'â— distinction whereby he vindicates those who addressed against the Bill of Exclusion That it was not a Popish Successour as Popish but the Succâ—ssion which they promised to maintain A Zeal for the Lineal Succession where the next Heir is a Papist and a Zeal for the nextâ— Heir as Popish are things very different and are not meerly in notion distinct but in reality insomuch that those very Persons who stickled most against the Exclusion of a Popish Successour deserted him as Iovian undertook they would in his Endeavours to overthrow the Protestant Religion Who were fittest Tools for that Service the whole Nation knows and if Mr. I's Jest is too precious to be lost he is too well acquainted with another sort of Addressers to whom the Distinction not as Protestants but as Addressers may be more properly and truly applied I am sure they very much need the help of some good Friend to bring them off with honour and if either this or any other distinction Mr. I. can devise will solve the Paradox and reconcile their fiery Zeal against Popery with their Addresses of Thanks for a Declaration design'd to introduce it and their Promises to chuse such a Parliament as would destroy our best Securities against Popery I shall acknowledge him the greatest Man I ever met with In his Vindication of the Paper of Reasons whereof he will have the Bishops to be the Authours there are many things very strange and diverting First he will
fact fully made out by good Historians And let us see what worthy proof he brings to exclude Procopius the Imperial or Flavian House First He was born of an House in Cilicia and what then might not a Daughter of the Flavian House match into a Noble Cilician Family what though his Fathers name be lost Did not a Constantine Sister to Constantius Chlorus marry with an Assyrian Tribune whose name the Historian mentions not and perhaps knew not any more than the name of their great Grandfathers The Father of Claudius Quintillus and Crispus could not be recovered by him though it were his design in writing that Life to flatter Constantius Chlorus with a Panegyrick of his great Uncle Claudius It is worth observing too how shy Mr. I. is of citing his Authour who inform'd him that Procopius was of an House in Cilicia he dares not trust his Reader with direction to the place in Ammian Marcell for fear that instead of a Perkin he should find a true Plantagenet â— The Authour saith he was born of a noble stock in Cilicia I need not tell you why Mr. I. stifles the Epithete with many other things which will not consist with the Character of a base Impostor I will set them down in the margin for a Specimen of his fidelity and modesty Well but for all this Ammian Mar. makes him a Pretender and his Kindred to be pretended Kindred which is none at all This I confess is very subtle but are all pretences false Is the word pretend always taken in a bad sense If his Admirers know no better I am sure Mr. I. doth and must confess that the justest Allegations in the World brought to make good a claim are ordinarily call'd Pretences Well but Themistius makes him an impudent Pretender a mean Fellow a sorry Pen and Inkhorn-Fellow an Under-writer or Clerk Perhaps by the help of that unconscionable stretch in translating Themistius possibly Mr. I. may perswade the greatest part of those that admire his performance that Procopius was a Iustice's Clerk or an Atturney's Clerk or it may be that he was a Brewer's Clerk And truly it were happy for him if he were in this point as ignorant as his credulous Readers are But Mr. I. cannot be ignorant that the Notarii were in a Post of great Honour and Trust. That they were not sorry Clerks and Vnder-writers but the Emperours Secretaries who had such an esteem for their Order that to assert their dignity which was considerable there is a whole Title in the Theodosian Code in which the first and second of the Order are made equal to Proconsuls The rest equal to the Vicarii and Comites Orientis AEgypti to precede according to Seniority Ammian Marc. makes Procopius a Notary and Tribune next in order to the Summates that is the firâ—t and second who had Proconsular Dignity Nor was it such a strange and insolent thing for a Person of that Rank to pretend to the Empire For Ammian Marc. mentions another Iovian who was the chief of the Order of Notaries who upon Iulian's Death was nominated by some as worthy of the Imperial Purple and his Namesake thought not himself secure till he had excluded him out of the World This was the brave Man who at the Siege of Majozamalcha in Persia with a few others made their way into the Town through a Mine and surpriz'd the place as Amm. Marcellinus and Zosimus both agree and therefore the Learned Scaliger is mistaken in applying that passage in Zosimus to the Emperour Iovian But not to digress Why must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be translated an Vnder-writer or Clerk â— I am confident Mr. Iohnson did not find it so rendred in any Lexicon I have a better opinion of his Grecianship than to believe that he needed to consult a Lexicon for the true sense of the word But if Procopius must needs be an Under-writer why may we not say that Iulian was an Vnder-Reader for Greg. Naz. saith he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sozomen that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am not Herald enough to settle the matter of Precedence between an Under-writer and an Under-reader perhaps Mr. I. is But I am sure I should render my self very ridiculous should I translate that word after his Example and thence inferr that it is unlikely that Iulian was of the Flavian House and that he was an Impudent Pretender But when all is done where is the ingenuity of out-facing the plain evidence of so many grave Historians with a flattering Panegyrick spoken to Valens on occasion of his Victory over Procopius in which Petavius obâ—erves that he falsly celebrates his unshaken constancy whereas Amm. M. saith he was in great consternation upon the news that Procopius set up for the Empire that he celebrates his Clemency and Compassion towards his Enemies whereas the Historians represent the Executions after his Victory to have been more Cruel than our Bloody Western Assizes after Monmouth's defeat and had been in all likelyhood much more cruel than they were but for the Death of Serenianus who would have urg'd the Emperour naturally too revengeful unto greater inhumanities Now as Themistius was to employ all the Forces of his Eloquence to extol the Conquerour above his merit so doubtless he did as extravagantly run down Procopius whose unfortunate Enterprize and Death rendred it safe to rail at him and perhaps the humour of Valens made it necessary so to do Wherefore upon the whole matter the Evidence of Themistius is to be set aside and his testimony is no balance to the Authority of those Historians alledged by Iovian He further adds that Procopius setting up for the Empire under pretence of being of the Constantine Family is a strong proof that the Empire was lookt upon as Hereditary But by his leave if we had not such abundant proof to the contrary it would be at most but a presumption which falls very far short of a strong proof whereas the passing by Procopius after the death of Iulian and Varronianus after the death of Iovian are double presumption against him and much more strongly infer the contrary I have been more prolix on this head to â—hew how conscientiously Mr. Iohnson cites Authors and must add a word or two more to shew you how much he abhors the abuse of Scriptureâ— to expose an Adversary As he is ridiculing Procopius who stands by himself at the bottom of the Flavian Genealogy he applies to him the Apostle's description of Melchizedek Heb. 7. 3. without Father without Mother and without Descent I appeal to all the World whether he did not forget his Character as a Clergyman and his professed abhorrence of the abuse of Scripture when he took this liberty to expose an Impostor and Vagabond Landloper as he calls Procopius in the very terms wherein among others Melchizedek is by the Fathers taken to be described as a Type of