to which he hath given no sort of answer to let you see how little reason his Admirers have to magnifie this Reply in which he declines medling with the most considerable Arguments urged against him which stand in full force against his first Book notwithstanding the Shew he makes of defending it To avoid being tedious I purposely omit the mention of many other considerable things in Iovian of which he takes no notice And having shewn that he hath given no full Answer to that Book I shall proceed to shew that this Reply is not a fair one but full of fallacy and deceit 1. As he doth not consider many of Iovian's Arguments so when he vouchsafes to Reply to others he frequently misrepresents them or coâ—cealeth the Reasons and Authorities which support and inforce them and shams them off with a Droll Which is very unbecoming a fair and generous Adversary and unworthy I will not say of a Christian or Divine but even of an honest Man and a Scholar though a meer Pagan I will not trouble you with particular instances of such foul dealing because they will frequently occur in my Remarks on several passages of his Book such as the shuffle he makes to exclude Procopius from the Flavian house the account he gives of the distinction of Laws inâ—o Imperial and Political 2. His main Authorities are Rhetorical Amplifications and flourishes in Panegyricks and Invectives in which the Orator doth not tie him strictly to truth and the proper use of words so that there is no arguing from the literal sence but abatements must be made for Hyperbolical Speech on both hands for lofty strains of Complement in Panegyrick and for heavy and Tragical Aggravation in the Steliteutick or Invective This deceitful artifice is the Masterpiece of our Popish Adversaries when they pretend the Father's Authority for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. they ransack their Declamatory pieces for lofty Expressions touching the dignity and benefits of the Holy Eucharist and take Metaphors and Metonymies in a proper and literal sence They urge this very Apostrophe of Gregory Nazianzen to Constantius whence Mr. Iohnson would infer the Doctrine of Exclusion as a notable Testimony for the Invocation of Saints and for my part I think it proves the one as much as the other This foul play his Adversaries have sufficiently complained of but cannot prevail with him to leave it he is conscious that he needs such advantages and dares not let them go For having made such a wild assertion as that the Empire was Hereditary and being hard pressed by his Answerers and withal resolved not to bate them one syllable in his whole Book he is forced to outface plain History with strains of Rhetorick in which the Orator frequently allows fancy as licentious flights as the very Poets and nay even to stretch Hyperboles too by an advantageous Translation Now this argues great want of Ingenuity an unchristian and wrangling temper and that he contends not so much for the love of truth as for Glory and Victory Whether he hath obtained it or not will be further seen in the particular Remarks to which I am proceeding His Intimation that Mr. Dean waited to see the other Answers to Iulian and then gave the substance of them in his Book scarce deserves any notice It is well known that Iovian was written currente prelo and great part of it Printed before those Answers appeared The expectation of it made my self and divers others never look into them and quite spoiled the sale of Mr. Long 's Book as the Bookseller concerned hath complained to many It is more material for me to enquire whether Iovian hath given us an outlandish notion of a Soveraign for if he hath not the deceit will lie at Mr. Iohnson's Door If his Notion be supported by the joint Authority of the Common and Statute Laws it is great injustice to call it an outlandish one Now Iovian doth not set up an English Soveraign furnished with an Arbitrary and boundless Power like that of the French King or Grand Seignior He acknowledgeth him to be under the direction of the Law though he ascribe to him a Supremacy over all Persons within his Dominions which let Mr. I. say what he pleases is the formal notion of a Soveraign unless the word be taken in an improper sence This Supremacy he proves to belong to an English Soveraign by many Statutes and the Testimony of our most eminent Lawyers both Ancient and Modern against which Mr. Iohnson hath not one word to reply He proceeds to a particular recital of the Essential Rights and Properties of a true Soveraign viz. to be unaccountable to have the sole power of the Sword to be free from Coercion and Military Resistance He sheweth these Prerogatives to be the King 's due by express Statute Law which Statutes do not vest any new Right in the Crown but only declare what always hath been the Ancient and Fundamental Law of this Realm in those Cases So that Iovian's Soveraign is an English Soveraign for ought Mr. I. hath proved to the contrary and therefore his Jest of a Dutch Scale in a Map of Middlesex is both false and impertinent For though the Miles of several Countries have no formal Conceptions in which they all agree as Individuals of the same Species yet all proper Soveraigns have viz. Supremacy from which the foremention'd rights are inseparable Nor will his doughty Demonstration from an Act of Parliament which useth the Term in a lax and improper sence convince Mr. Dean or any Man else that the Notion of a Soveraign implies nothing in it but Superiority For at that rate there will be no fixing the formal Conception of any thing if it must be stretcht so wide as to take in whatsoever though improperly bears the same name The sence of the Term Soveraign with respect to a civil Society is so very well known and agreed upon in the World that upon the very hearing it every body forms a conception in his mind of somewhat more than Superiority and understands thereby such a superiour as is above all and hath none above him which imports Supremacy and Mr. I. might as well have argued that the formal conception of a Baron of England doth not imply Peerage with all the Râ—ghts Essential to a Peer of this Realm because the Baron of Kinderton the Barons of the Cinque-Ports and the Barons of the Exchequer are not Peers and have none of those great Privileges The next material thing in his Preface is his quarrel against the Distinction of Imperial and Political Laws Now let us first â—ee how Iovian explains this Distinction and then what work Mr. I. makes with it He calls those Imperial Laws which ascertain the Rights of the Soveraign and those Political which secure the Rights of the Subject That there are Laws of both sorts I presume Mr. I. will not
deny in this and all other Kingdoms and so I see no reason for his fury against any person who invents Terms to distinguish them But Mr. I. represents this Distinction most disingenuously and quite contrary to the Authour's Mind As though it set up a new sort of Law never heard of in this Nation Authorizing our Kings to do all manner of Injustice nay to commission others also to Murder Plunder and commit all manner of outrage and â—o indemnifie them when they have done it And that he may the more effectually delude his Reader into this belief he fraudulently confounds Imperial Power by which Fortescue cited by him understands Absolute and Arbitrary Power which is no where given by Iovian to our Kings with Imperial Laws and then deduces from it the most odious consequences he could devise Now I defy him to shew where Mr. Dean ascribes to our Kings Imperial Power in Fortescue's sence or pretends that the Imperial Laws of this Realm allow them to Act or Authorize any of those outrages he talks of Where doth he deny that the Advisers or Instruments of such Oppressions are accountable and punishable or pretend that any Commission will warrant and bear them out Therefore all his odious consequences vanish into smoke and his tedious citation out of Fortescue is wholly impertinent since Iovian no where gives our Kings absolute and Imperial Power though he say that the Imperial Laws of this Realm forbid Subjects all Military Resistance when their Soveraign strains Prerogative beyond its legal bounds Mr. Iohnson in his former Book demanded in case we are persecuted for Religion under a Popish Successor by what Law we must die And he supposes his Adversary devised this Distinction to answer that question Admit it to be so he saith by the Imperial Laws we must die Yet it is plain he doth not pretend that those Laws authorize the Popish Successor to persecute or give him power to subvert the established Religion or condemn and execute its Professors against Law All he saith is that those Laws forbid me in those circumstances to save my Life by Rebellion Had I been to answer his Book I would have turned the question upon him and have demanded by what Law I am allowed to draw the Sword and raise Forces against my Soveraign for self defence Those Laws which give him the sole power of the Sword and condemn a defensive War against the King whether levied by the body Collective or body Representative of the people do in effect require me to submit to be murthered and in that case he himself will admit that I must die my time is come If splitting this same Law of the Land into Imperial and Political displease him it is because he was in a peevish humour for I never yet have learned that 't is a faulty distinction which divides the whole into its parts However you see he grants the Imperial as well as Political Laws to be the Law of the Land and if they be so let the World judge whether he hath shewn the Charity of a Christian or the Candour of a generous Adversary in thus representing the Distinction I will not reckon his Allusion to the words of the Devil Iesus I know and Paul I know but who are ye among his profanations of Holy Scripture But he is a very sorry Exorcist who will be gravelled with his Question Common Law we know and Statute Law we know but who are ye For the Imperial and Political Laws are both common and Statute Law and by his own Confession the Law of the Land If his suggestion were true that Passive Obedience as it is taught by his Adversaries is Popery established by a Law by which he only means that it would be an encouragement to a Popish Prince to set it up without Law an irresistible temptation to persecute the Reformed Religion and to commit all manner of Lawless Oppression I say if this were true it is no Argument that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience is false because ill Governours may take occasion to abuse it Is our Saviour's Passiâ—e Doctrine on the Mount either false or foolish because Iulian was thence encouraged to oppress Chriâ—tianity and becoming his own Chaplain Preached it himself This is the very fallacy a non causa which he unjustly in another place of this Preface chargeth upon his Answerer If the Laws oblige us to non Resistance and allow no pretence of levying defensive War and this liberty denied will as surely establish Popery as 10000 Political Acts oâ— Parliament let him arraign the Laws and not this poor innocent Distinction or Iovian who only teacheth obedience according to Law But I pray you may not ill Men make as wicked and dangerous advantages of the conâ—rary Doctrine why may not the Doctrine of civil liberty as well as Christian Liberty be made a Cloak of maliciousness It is notorious that it hath been so abused yet I would urge no Man to renounce his interest either in the one or the other on that account Are not Subjects as apt to be clamorous and turbulent as Princes to be Arbitrary are not the former as apt to claim undue Liberties as the latter undue Prerogatives Is it an unhappiness peculiar to Princes only to be haunted with Flatterers Have not the People also Parasites and Sycophants about them both Divines and Lawyers who â—latter them into an opinion of a boundless English as much unknown Liberty to our Ancestors as boundless Power in the Prince And have not these Sycophants as much the temptation of interest and as fair a prospect before them in working confusions and revolutions as the other Parasitesâ— can have in the hopes of Court favours To conclude is not Arbitrary Subjection and an ungovernable humour in the people as destructive to Society as Arbitrary Government If then the Inconveniencies which may arise render a Doctrine foolish or wicked the Doctrine of Resistance is full as much in danger as the slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience and the mischievous consequences I fear are not altogether so accidental to the former as to the latter Oh! but Iovian owns the consequences of Non-Resistance and saith expresly p. 242. In all Soveraign Governments Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular that is of their lives and liberties and he would fain know then in what particular they are Freemen Is Mr. I. sure Iovian saith so or is he sure that life and liberty are the particulars as to which he saith Subjects must be Slaves I doubt he is guilty of a mistake or a worse fault The passage as torn from the context and expounded by Mr. I. sounds very harshâ— but I will set it down intire and then a very ordinary Reader will understand the measure of his Candour and Honesty in representing Iovian The passage runs thus Therefore to cut off Resistance in the English Government the three Estates have declared against all Defensive as well as Offensive
and Favorers of Christianity How God possessed the Army with such an esteem of him and affection to him partly for his Father's Merit and partly for his own that they made him Emperour at the first Vote without being made Caesar. His words are these They declared the Young King with their first voice Emperour and Augustus If from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will infer That the Declaration of the Army was a meer Recognition conferring no Right to the Empire but acknowledging an inherent Right in him I know not what will become of Constantine's Divine Right to the Empire forâ— which he contends in his former Book and cites a testimony from Eusebius That Constantine taking the Government upon him immediately being by the Army and long before that by God himself the King of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declared Emperour and Augusto favour'd our Religion It â—hould seem that Constantine ow'd his Crown to his Father alone was beholden neither to God nor Man for it nor needed he to use Dei Gratia in his stile since God did not elect nor create but only proclaim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him Emperour Nay he was Emperour in his Father's Life time for immediately upon his Father's Death the Souldiery declar'd him Emperour and God had done it long before Such work will the straining of words make especially in Panegyricks 2. The Succession of Constantine's Sons was secured by their being made Caesars which would have entituled any stranger as much as them to the Empire The King of the Romans succeeds without a new Election upon Death or Resignation of the Emperour and yet though the Son succeed his Father that Empire is not Hereditary And the passages in Eusebius to which Mr. I. refers do plainly enough intimate that the Senate and Legions did somewhat more than only recognize and proclaim the Sons of Constantine They seem to import somewhat very like an Election Mr. I. durst not produce the passages entire but pick a word out of each which might give a little colour to his false assertion The first runs thus The Armies every where as though by divine Inspiration upon the news of the Emperour's Death with one accord resolved as though the great King had been still living that they would acknowledge none for Emperour of the Romans save only his Sons And not long after were pleased to call them all thenceforward not Caesars but Augusto's which name is the highest title of Sovereign Majesty And this they did signifying each to other every where by Letters their respective Suffrages and Voices and so the unanimous resolution of the Army was in a moment made known to all People every where There are many things fit to be observed from this passage which will not well consist with Mr. I's fancy of a bare Declaration or Recognition 1. Eusebius doth not say what Mr. I. would have him that the Army did not Elect but only Recognize them but he saith that with one accord they resolved to acknowledge none but them only 2. This Resolution plainly shews that they had power to have done otherwise and it was a great wonder they did not set up others as Consorts of the Empire with them for which reason Eusebius ascribes their unanimity to Divine Inspiration â— Here is express mention of the concurring Suffrages of the several parts of the Army which strongly implies an Election 4. The Senate agreed with the Army in the Resolution and they also declared Constantine's Sons and them only without Consorts to be Emperours and Augusto's I hope Mr. I. will not say that Vnanimity is inconsistent with an Election or that it is essential to it that â—everal Candidates should appear and the matter be decided by a Poll. 5. That Constantine's Sons did not take upon them the Title of Augusto immediately upon their Father's decease but 't was given them by the Army and that not presently but after some time You see how false his First Assertion of Fact is and his Second that during that Family there was no Interregnum is no truer For from this Place it appears that they were not Emperours but only Caâ—sars for a while after their Father's death And Valesius in his Notes on the 67th Chapter expresly saith That after the death of Constantine there was an Interregnum of three Months and an half During that space there was no Augusto though the Empire was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Caesars took care of the Government And if upon the death of Chlorus there was no Interregnum in his share of the Empire for Mr. I's Testimonies relate only to that it must be ascribed to the speedy Agreement of the Army to advance Constanâ—ine to the Throne according to his Father's desire without expecting an answer from Galerius and the Caesars to whom Constantine had given an Account of his Father's death and desir'd to know their pleasure as to the Government This I have upon the Authority of Eumenius on which Mr. I. depends much But if his Assertion as to Fact were true admit there were no Interregnum the same may happen in an Elective Succession If a King of the Romans happen to be chosen there is no Interregnum upon the Death of the German Emperour Though wheresoever an Interregnum may be it is certain the Crown is not Hereditary yet it follows not on the other side that the Kingdom in which an Interregnum actually happens not is for that reason Hereditary As for his last matter of Fact it is neither true nor pertinent nay it 's plainly against him and sheweth the great disparity of the English and Roman Laws of Succession If Chlorus succeeded as the adopted Son of Maximinian you know no such Title is allowed of in Feudal Successions as ours is For in such the Inheritance descends lineally according to Proximity of Blood and Adoption doth not create Alliance in Blood And if the Sons of Constantine were Testamentary â—eirs it shews a vast disparity in the Case since our Kings have no power to devize by Will their Realms or divide them as a Roman Testator might his Patrimony between two three or four Heirs But if what he saith were pertinent yet it 's not true For none succeeded as Heirs at Law to the Empire though some of the Constantine Family were Heirs at Law to their Predecessors An Incumbent dying may be succeeded in his Benefice by the Person who is his Heir at Law but not as his Heir much less as Heir at Law to the Benefice Several Princes of the Austrian Famiâ—y have been Heirs at Law to their Predecessors The present Emperour was so to his Father but he succeeded him not as Heir much less as Heir at Law or Heir in Tail to the Empire So likewise here neither the Sons of Constantine nor Iulian succeeded their Predecessors in the Empire as Heirs but in Right of Caesarship
at least shew this in our Law-Books he hath no right to call Mr. Dean a Proteus of Passive Obedience or reproach him as not consistent with himself It is no Contradiction to allow Subjects the Liberty of Private Resistance when illegal Violence is offerred to them and yet to deny them Power to raise Forces and to wage a Defensive War against those who as Mr. I. maliciously supposeth will murther in Troops I hope he will not be so hardy as to say that a single Captain can be made or that one private Souldier can be listed according to our Laws without Their Majesties Commission or that in their Realms and Dominions and besides Their Majesties is vested with Legal Authority to grant Commissions to levy Forces Tho' the Laws secure mens Lives and Properties against Arbitrary Power yet they do it not by giving Subjects the Power of the Sword By this you may see Sir how mean Judges your Neighbours are who discern not how gross a Fallacy Mr. I. puts upon them when he insinuates that his Adversary is so sensless as to allow That 't is lawful to resist a single Cut-throat and yet makes it a damnable sin to resist Cut-throats as also to hold that the Sovereign can Authorize Forces and great Numbers tho' he cannot single Persons to do Acts of illegal Violence Sir you know the Author of Iovian is as far as Mr. Iohnson himself from believing that Numbers are Sacred or can Legitimate Oppression or that the Sovereign can give a Valid Commission to his Forces to outrage or Murther his Liege People and render them unaccountable for such Acts of Violence He no where denieth Subjects the Liberty of making a Legal Defence against any number of Thieves and Cut-Throats how great soever and by whomsoever Commissioned Nor doth he in the least insinuate that the damnableness of resisting lies in that they are Forces But he makes it to consist in raising Forces without lawful Authority to resist with and in defending themselves in such a manner as casts off Subjection and is a manifest and dangerous Usurpation upon the Legal Rights of an English Sovereign He makes that Law the measure of the Subjects Power as well as of the Kings and this it seems is his great Crime If Subjects be allowed to defend themselves at discretion the King must hold his Crown but during pleasure Some of Mr. Iohnson's Friends will complain that their Throats are in danger and will never think them safe till they have the King's Throat in their Power They have made so good advantage formerly of what he calls Legal Defence against the Vnauthoriz'd Illegal Violence of Subjects that I do not wonder that they would fain be at the same Trade again But I cannot forget that they held the King's Person as Sacred as Mr. Iohnson doth and were as clamorous Zealots for Religion and Property who notwithstanding brought their Majesties Royal Grand-Father to the Block subverted the Ancient and Excellent Constitution of this Noble Realm both in Church and State and enslaved the whole Nation Neither you nor I can have while to entertain our selves with so diverting a Spectacle as Mr. Iohnson's Triumphs over an Adversary of Straw of his own making and therefore leaving him for some time at that Sport by himself bateing a few strictures here and there I shall say little till I meet him p. 201. Among several things worthy of Censure the first I shall note is the rude treatment of a very Eminent Protestant Writer where having impertinently cited two passages out of Bracton and K. Edwards Laws for they contradict nothing in Iovian he concludes in these words These I hope are better Authorities in this matter than Sam. Bochart our Author's French Oracles c. Certainly Mr. I. is the first man who ever mention'd that great Name without some Addition of Respect not to say with scorn and contempt And that Epistle which he so much vilifies hath ever been in great Esteem with all sorts of men It is in effect an Apologetick Declaration of the whole Protestant French-Church professing their just abhorrence of the great Rebellion which ended in the most execrable Murther of the King In a word the Memory of Mr. Bochart will ever be precious whilst the world pretends to retain any degree of Honour for eminent Piety and Learning In the next page he chargeth Mr. Dean with attributing to the Sovereign the whole Legislative Power and by his answer it is plain he accuseth him of giving the Kings of England that vast Power I marvel how Mr. I. hath disposed of his Conscience if he ever had any or with what face he can obtrude so gross a slander It is very evident that no such thing can be intended in the place he refers to For 1. Mr. Dean is speaking of All proper and compleat Sovereigns as well States as Monarchs and not in particular of our Kings 2. He doth not ascribe to such Sovereigns the Whole Legislative Power The word Whole is added by Mr. I. who could not otherwise have found any thing to cavil at 3. In those words which respect an English Sovereign he ascribes no more to him than the influence of a principal Efficient viz. to give our Laws their last form to give life and soul to Bills prepared by others And who dares deny that the Royal Assent gives those Bills which pass both Houses the Name Essence and Authority of Laws and that they are as Iovian speaks but a dead Letter without it How honestly Mr. I. calls this giving the Sovereign the whole Legislative Power I need not observe for you P. 171. Mr. I. will needs have Iovian to have founded his distinction of Imperial and Political Laws upon a perverted passage of Fortescue who distinguisheth Dominion into Imperial and Political and mixt of both But if he would have pleas'd to consider the Book he pretends to Answer he might easily have observ'd it that his Adversary fram'd that distinction upon quite another ground and useth the Terms in a sense far different For as our most eminent Lawyers and the Laws themselves call this Realm an Empire and the Crown an Imperial Crown and the King an Imperial Sovereign that is as Sir Orlando Bridgman and Mr. Dean both expound the Term a Free Independent and Vnconditional Sovereign so the Laws which secure the Rights of the Sovereign are aptly by him call'd Imperial Laws And Arch-Bishop Cranmer cited in Iovian useth the Term tho' not precisely in this sense to signify those Laws of the Realm which secure the Royal Prerogative against the Usurpations of the Pope But neither Mr. Dean nor Sir O. Bridgman ever intended hereby to give the King Imperial Power i. e. Absolute and Arbitrary Power but both declare the contrary I will cite the words of the latter It is one thing to have an Imperial Crown and another to govern absolutely What is an Imperial Crown It is that which
be wiser than his Authour Sir Simon Dewes and make the Bishops Authours of a Paper which as Iovian observes Sir Simon supposeth to have been drawn up in the House of Commons 2. He accuseth the justly admired days of Queen Elizabeth of most horrid Duncery when he professeth to believe That few besides the Bishops in those days were able to pen such a Piece I presume he will allow Serjeant Manwood or Mr. Mounson were some of those few and if so the Reasons might be framed in the H. of Commons Thirdly He will not allow the paper to be called Anonymous although though not signed by one hand I have heard that in a Parliament a paper hath been rejected as such though entituled the Humble Petition of the Gentlemen and Freeholders of the County of Middlesex because not subscribed by them But what tho' the Bishops be mentioned in the Body of the paper what though it talks of Godly Bishops â— may it not nevertheless be composed by a Scotizing Prebyterian Hath Mr. I. forgot the good Protestant Religion of our Good Church in Coleman's Declaration or will he say that neither Coleman nor any Papist could be the Authour they would have talked of black Swans as soon as of the Good Protestant Religion Sure the matter and scope of any Writing discovers the Authour's principles much more certainly than a single phrase perhaps design'd for amusement Fourthly He hath found out a new priviledge of Parliament viz. That the Bishops and I presume any Member of either H. for the same reason may urge false and unconcluding Arguments because there is fâ—lâ— Authority to enact their Conclusions Iovian hath shewn in this Paper gross Mistakes in Divinity and Church-History and the inconsequence of several Arguments Yet saith Mr. I. There is nothing in those Reasons but what was fit â—or Bishops to urge in Parliament to urge I say in Parliament where there was full Authority to have enacted their Conclusions No matter whether the premises will inferr the Point in debate The Authority of King Lords and Commons is sufficient to purge all defects and maketh the Conclusion valid in Law which was not so in Logick Fifthly It is very pleasant to see a Man who saith his Adversary hath raised Objections thick and threefold against this Paper challenge him to write against and threaten to answer him if he doth and yet not offer one word of Answer to what he hath already said against it I have the Charity to believe whatever Mr. I. in an heat may say that he will not stand by those Principles which are the Foundation of a great part of that Paper which he calls the Bishops Arguments I cannot believe he thinks the Political Laws which God by Moses delivered to the Children of Israel are still in force and ought to be received in all Christian Governments That all Crimes punishable with Death by those Laws ought to be Capital in all Christian Realms and on the contrary That it is not lawful to punish with Death any Crime which was not made a Capital Offence by the Law of Moses This Principle runs through that Paper or a worse viz. That all the Scripture Examples of good Men are at least imitable if they have not the Force of a Precept If Mr. I. will undertake the defence of these Principles I am sure he will be justly chargeable of making wast Paper of most Acts of Parliament Though Mr. Dean may in part he mistaken in the Instance he makes to prove it yet he is not mistaken in saying That though there was one good Argument why the Queen 's good Subjects might urge her Majesty to put the Queen of Scots to death viz. That She sought the Queen's Life yet the question remains whether she could be excluded from the Crown There is no Conseâ—uence from the Justice of punishing Treason according to the known Laws of the Realm with Death to the Excluding the next Heir from the Crown meerly for being a Papist And therefore Mr. Dean adds that those who addressed for preserving the Succession and were against Excluding the D. of Y. would upon sufficient Proof that he sought the Life of his Brother have been willing to Exclude him out of the World This fully answers Mr. I. and therefore with his usual discretion he takes no notice of it but falls upon the Instance of the Hebrew First-born who Mr. Dean saith might not be dis-inherited for cursing or smiting their Father though they might be put to death The Instance indeed holds not where the First-born had other Brothers but in case of the onely Son it is true for Mr. Selden in the Chapter to which Mr. I. refers limits the power of the Father in making his Heirs to one of his Sons if he have several Sons He may dis-inherit the Eldest Son if he have a Second or Third to make his Heir but he may not dis-inherit an onely Son or all his Sons and make a Brother his Heir because a Brother was not by Law a Co-heir with a Man's Sons or Daughters So that the Instance is not wholly mistaken I am confident did Mr. Dean think fit to vindicate Iovian which you see it were very easie for him to do he would readily acknowledge this or a greater Mistake he hath not Mr I's Forehead he hath more Humility and Modesty than to boast that he will not abate one syllable in his whole Book as Mr. I. doth To his flout as to Mr. Dean's Skill in Jewish Learning I shall only say That when Mr. I. shews as much of that Learning and to so good a purpose as Dr. Hicks hath done in his Peculium Dei I will forgive him all the Blunders and Prevarications of Iulian and this Defence of it Page 135. Mr. I. chargeth his Adversary with three things of which I shall easily clear him 1. That Iovian talks of Statutes against King Iames's Succession and whereas he saith If our Authour can shew me but one of those many Statutes whereby King James stood Excluded I will yield him the Cause I doubt he will hardly stand to his word What are the 35 H. 8. which impowers the King to devise the Crown by Will and the Act of Recognition 1 Eliz. which confirms the 35 H. 8. but Statutes against the Succession of K. Iames For K. Henry made a Will in which next his own Daughter he limits the Crown to the Daughters of his second Sister the French Queen by Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk passing by the Scotch Line I know very well what was said against that Will of K. H. 8. by Mr. Maitland in favour of the Queen of Scotâ—and in a Letter to the Lord Cecil publish'd in the Collection of Papers in the end of the first Volume of Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation but what he saith to invalidate the Will was never proved and this Paper lying unknown could not if true influence
Church would readily set aside twenty such Titles as Iulian's to secure their Religion His pretence that Iulian's illegal Oppression of the Christians was the cause of that rough treatment they gave him together with his Insinuation that nothing but their Weakness kept them from taking up Arms against that Apostate to do themselves Right Mr. Dean hath confuted by more arguments than Mr. Iohnson thinks fit to take notice of And that one at which he nibbles is quite too hard for his Teeth Iovian saith Iulian did persecute Legally because all the Emperors Orders and Decrees how unjust soever were Legal He was an Absolute Sovereign who govern'd by purely Regal Power and whose Pleasure howsoever signifi'd whether by Letter or word of Mouth was a Law This is made out abundantly out of the best Authors both Historians and Lawyers and 't is a miserable shift to despise all these Citations as shreds of Civil Law not worthy the least consideration If these Citations are misapplied why doth he not shew it at least in one or two Instances Verily his Readers are too kind if they take his word for it and if any be so rude as to demand better satisfaction Mr. Iohnson is resolv'd to be even with them for their Curiosity They must go many a weary step on his Errand who will trot all the Town over from Shop to Shop till they meet with Gothofred's Vlpian But I confess it was done like one who is his Craft's-Master to refer them to a Book which scarce one in a thousand is ever likely to see But this one Argument is by no means the Substance of what Mr. Dean offers against this new Hypothesis That illegal Oppression and Tyranny was the cause of the Christians rough behaviour towards Julian For he sheweth that other Emperors some of them Christians too were treated as coursely as Iulian particularly Constantius by Hilary Athanasius and Lucifer from whom Mr. Iohnson cites several such passages in his Answer to Constantius the Apostate as are far ruder than any thing in the Third Chapter of his Iulian. So that the Phaenomenon he would solve by this Hyâ—othesis is not Real Fact but a mere Fiction The Christians were not more rough in their behaviour towards Iulian than elder Christians had been towards several of his Predecessors not only Pagan but also Christian Princes Again He shews that Iulian had the malice of a Devil against our Saviour and his Religion in which he persisted against the plain Evidence of Miracles and in spite of many remarkable Judgments of God upon his Uncle and other blasphemers of Christ and persecutors of his Church So that the Christians might reasonably conclude him Irrecoverable and past Repentance and treat him the more severely on that account nay believing him so they might possibly pray for his destruction as the only probable means of the Churches deliverance and yet it followeth not that they would have lifted up their hand against him or been the Instruments of that destruction they prayed for Again he proves if Iulian were guilty of Illegal Oppression and Tyranny so were other Persecuting Emperours before him particularly Galerius so that there was nothing singular in the case of Iulian's Christians nor can he infer from their Example that Illegal Oppression will warrant Subjects to take Arms against their Lawful Prince to do themselves Right In the next Page we find Mr. I. in a very peevish humour quarrelling with Iovian for what he himself said in effect over and over 'T is only the Phrase moves his Choler viz. the main ground of their displeasure was that he did not formally persecute them nor put them to Death enough Mr. Dean explains himself sufficiently the Christians desired rather to be persecuted in the old Decian and Dioclesian way i. e. to have Their Religion made their Crime and Death their Punishment This the Authours referred to in the Margin plainly evince and the instances of Iuventinus and Maximus and Romanus and his fellow Souldiers shew that some under Iulian were as ambitious of the Crown of Martyrdom as the Elder Christians who sought it by voluntary Confession and provoked their Pagan Rulers to persecute them with the utmost Cruelty Mr. I. it seems thinks them too free of their Passive Throats and if they were so fond of Martyrdom they might even as well have hang'd and drown'd themselves and saved their Persecutors the trouble I know not what he can mean else by reviving the Sarcasm of a Pagan Bloody Persecutor Arrius Antoninus who thus reproached voluntary Confession with the desire of Martyrdom Were there no Halters or Precipices in the Roman Empire P. 161. Mr. I. buckles closer to his work and pretends accurately to state the Case of Passive Obedience and saith he and Iovian are perfectly agreed 1. That the King's Person is sacred and Inviolable 2. That Inferiour Magistracy acting by the King's Authority according to Law may not be resisted I am glad to see that the peevish humour hath somewhat spent it self and that he can agree with his Adversary in any thing I presume when he saith that the King's Person is Sacred and Inviolable he means by those fine words he may not be resisted and if so it may deserve considering how well he agrees with himself For in his former Book he quoted a shrewd saying of a worthy Person That one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in massacring a Nation Every one knows whose single Arm is meant and no Man who praises that saying can agree that the King's Person may not be resisted How fairly he states the difference between himself and Iovian I have in some measure shewn already Impartial Readers though but of an ordinary Capacity who will be at the pains to compare the Book with this Answer may observe without my help that a great part thereof is employed in confuting his own slanderous Fictions For where doth Iovian assert any of the things imposed upon him as that by the Imperial Laws a Popish Prince may send Forces to murther his Liege People That a Soveraign can Authorize his Forces to do any Act of Illegal Violence Where doth he give the King Boundless Power Or the whole Legislative Power I am sure Mr. I. can shew no such Assertions in the Book he pretends to Answer And therefore how unconscionably doth he abuse both his Adversary and his Reader for almost forty pages together And how impertinently doth he swagger with Citations out of Bracton the Miroir Fortescue Judge Ienkins and King Charles the First of Blessed Memory to disprove what Iovian no where affirms It would indeed have signified something could he have produced but one clear Passage out of all those Authours in which any of them declares it lawful for Subjects to raise but a single Regiment or Troop to resist Forces legally Commissioned even in illegal and uncommissionated Acts of Violence And till he can
as to the coercive part is subject to no man under God The King of Poland hath a Crown but what is it At his Coronation it is conditioned with the People That if he shall not govern them according to such Rules they shall be freed from their Homage and Allegiance But the Crown of England is and always was an Imperial Crown and so sworn not subject to any Humane Tribunal or Judicature whatsoever God forbid I should intend any Absolute Government by this c. In like manner Mr. Deaâ— making all such Princes as the King of Poland not to be Proper Compleat and Imperial Soveraigns tells you what he means by an Imperial Soveraign viz One who is supream in his Dominions next under God who hath full perfect and entire Jurisdiction from God alone and all others in his Dominions by Emanation from him But though he asserts the Kings of this Realm to be true proper and Imperial Soveraigns yet he is as far as Mrâ— I. from asserting an Arbitrary and boundless Power in them For he at the same time declareth that to be Arbitrary is no way of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign and though after Sir Edw. Cook he cites the Titles of Edgar and Edward it is not to prove that the Saxon Kings were Arbitrary and Absolute but to shew that they were Compleat Unconditional and Independent Soveraigns the Natural Consequence of which is that they are unaccountable free from Coercion of force and not to be resisted Therefore Mr. I. needed not to have taken all that pains he hath done p. 183. to prove it Nonsence to say that Boundless Power may be limited in the Exercise His Adversary saith nothing like it But only asserts that a King under the Direction of Laws may nevertheless be a properâ— Compleat and Imperial Soveraign And his Illustration of the matter by the similitude of a Fountain is clear and apposite and what nobody but Mr. I. will deride The Essence of Soveraign Power is not destroyed or changed by this limitation it receives from Concessions and Civil Contracts though the extent of it may be somewhat lessened It is still Supream Unconditional and Independent and the Prince who enjoys it though he be bound in Conscience to govern according to such Laws and Compacts yet may not be call'd to an account or punish'd by any save God his only Superiour for violating those Laws and transgressing the Legal Bounds of his Power His Answer to Mr. Dean's other Illustration of the Point viz. That being confin'd in the Exercise doth not destroy the Perfection of Soveraign Power because then the Power of God himself could not be Soveraign c. is not at all satisfactory I confess what he saith would be pertinent and considerable if God were confin'd only from such things as are evil in themselves and therefore inconsistent with the Perfection of the Divine Nature But we all know that the free Counsels of his own Will have set such bounds to the Exercise of his Almighty Power as render many things neither impossible in themselves nor yet repugnant either to the Wisdom Holiness or Goodness of God impossible for him to do For Example No Man will presume to deny That God if he had so pleas'd might have left faln Man to have perished without a Saviour and that without the least impeachment of his Wisdom Justice or Goodness And yet God having determined and declared that he will save all that believe in Jesus Christ it is impossible for him to suffer all Mankind to perish If Mr. I. please to consult the old Schoolman whom Fortescue cites as the Authour de Regimine Principum He will find a Distinction of God's Power into Absolute Power by which God can do every thing which implies no contradiction in it self or imperfection in him and Ordinate Power by which he can do nothing but what is agreeable to the Counsels of his own wâ—â—l This distinction plainly shews that being limited in things implying neither Contradiction in themselves nor defect in God is no impeachment of the Truth or perfection of God's Soveraignty and therefore being limited by Rules of Government doth not destroy the Essence of Humane Soveraign Authority Princes cease not to be Supream in their Dominions by reason of their Concessions and submitting their Government to the Regulation of Political Lawsâ— even as God ceaseth not to be the Supream Governour of the Worldâ— by reason of his Gracious Purposes and Promises reveal'd in Holy Scripture though â—t be impossible for him to act any way contrary to those Declarations The twelfth Chapter of Iovian wherein the Authour shews what security Subjects have of their Lives Properties and Religion under a Popish Prince notwithstanding the Doctrine of Non-Resistance is a rational grave and pious Discourse and deserves to be consider'd after another fashion than Mr. I. hath done He was pleas'd to droll it off but whosoever shall with sobriety and a mind void of prejudice weigh what hath been said on both sides will find a better sort of reasoning a better Spirit and a deeper sense of Religion in Iovian's Discourse than appears in this Answer It is certain that an Absolute Security against Rebellion on the one hand or against Arbitrary Government and Oppression on the other neither Prince nor People must expect For this cannot be had till either the People be so effectually inslav'd as to render them as little able to serve and assist their Prince as they are to disturb and dethrone him or till the Prince hath so little Power left him that he will be equally unable either to protect or oppress his Subjects And in such a state both King and People will be in a most desperate condition So that whether the one or other compass their ends for the present and obtain that absolute security which they affected they will enjoy it but a little while for both will inevitably hereby become the Subjects of Foreign Tyranny and Oppression A Moral security therefore must â—erve the turn and both Prince and People must acquiesce therein and trust each other with such a measure of Power as if abused may be of very ill consequence But vain and unreasonable Fears on either part must not be regarded or provided against If what he saith be not satisfactory to some of Mr. I's Friends we are the less to wonder seeing some of them profess to think that God hath not given so satisfactory an assurance of his own Being and Providence and of the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures of the last Judgment and a future State of Rewards and Punishments as they expect All Men confess that the measures of the Jesuits who during the last Reign had too great an Influence on Publick Affairs are utterly unaccountable And the Credit that Order had with King Iames carried him to Undertakings as contrary to his own Interest as to those of the Nation and by consequence a