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
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
since it is so I shall make two or three Observations from his Advertisement and proceed to consider the Book it self And first I cannot but take notice that during the Interval between the Printing and Publishing of this Book Mr. Iohnson had seen his scandalous and malicious suggestions against the Assertors of the Succession and Passive Obedience abundantly confuted It is manifest to all the World that those worthy Persons were not more mistaken in the good hopes they had of a Popish Successor that he would be moderate just and religiously observe his Promises to maintain our Religion and Liberties than he was mistaken in the ill Opinion he had entertained and the Calumnies he had published of them He had traduced them as Persons weary of their Religion Betrayers of their English Liberties and had particularly accused Dr. Hicks of fitting the notion of Passive Obedience on purpose for the use of a Popish Successor to render us an easier prey to the bloody Papists It is evident the Papists themselves had no such opinion of his kindness since he hath been baited for Iovian by all their Pamphleteers and by their procurement was in his own Cathedral in an Assize-Sermon levelled at the Test and Penal Laws most rudely and impudently reviled It is well known how early and zealously the Doctor appeared both in the Pulpit and in Print for the defence of the Protestant Religion that he was one of the first Divines I believe the very first whom King Iames Closeted for Preaching against Popery and animadverting on the Royal Papers Mr. I. is not ignorant that Dr. H. and his Friends who durst not by force of Arms resist a Popish Prince defended their Religion and civil Rights against him with an invincible Courage and repulsed all his attempts upon both as a brave strong Wall would the Batteries of a sorry Engine That neither Bribes nor Menaces could induce them to afford him those assistances in undermining the foundations both of Church and State which many violent Excluders offered him in their Addresses made publick in our Gazettes If Mr. I. had either ingenuity or shame he would not have published this Reply without acknowledging his Errour and retracting his slanderous Insinuations as also he would have made some reparation to the Clergy and Universities whose unsteadiness he sliâ—y forebodes from the Example of Queen Mary's Reign All this might have been done without either much trouble to himself or expence to Mr. Chiswell The reverse of the Title Page or the back side of the Lord Russell's Monument would have afforded him room enough and such a piece of Ingenuity and plain dealing would have gotten him more reputation with good Men than all his Book besides Secondly It is also observable that during the same â—nterval was Published Sir George Mackenzie's Ius Regium in which he vindicates the Scotch Succession and confutes the story of Robert the Second and Elizabeth More as it is related from Hector Boethius and Buchanan by Mr. Hunt Mr. Atwood and Mr. Iohnson He proves against them that from Robert the Second the Crown descended on the next Lineal Heir viz. Robert the Third Eldest Son of the said Elizabeth More who was his first anâ— lawful Wife Married to him solemnly A. D. 1349. and died before his Marriage with Eupheme Daughter of the Earl of Rosse This he supports by Authorities more credible than those which garnish Mr. I's Margin so that till the story be better supported and what Sir George hath said against it be disproved it must pass for a Fiction Now I blame neither him nor his Friends for reporting it after such Authours but since he would not let a mistake in History which he saith is not material escape him without advertising the Reader I understand not the ingenuity of letting so gross a mistake in story and so very material pass without adding one line more to warn him of it or offering better proof to maintain it Thirdly Mr. I's reason for suppressing his Book five years together may serve for an answer to your clamorous Neighbours who expect Mr. Dean should reply to this Book and conclude him baffled because he hath not answered it almost before he can have read it But if he never answer it let them know that Victory doth not always attend him who hath the last word and if the times which would not bear it salved Mr. I's honour whilst his Book lay dormant why may not Mr. Dean be allowed to use the same discretion I doubt not but he will consider this Reply and be ready to defend himself against the most formidable Arguments in it if he find it expedient but I conceive he stands no way obliged to take notice of this thing called an Answer to Iovian having declared in the close of his Preface to that Book that if instead of a fair close and substantial Answer he should only nibble shuffle and prevaricate and take Sanctuary in cavil satyr and scurrillity he would pass over such kind of replies with silence and conâ—empt This you will find the exact Character of this celebrated performance of Mr. I's and therefore he deserves not to be considered by his Learned Adversary That Man must have an unreasonable partiality for the cause of Exclusion and Resistance who will allow this to be a full Answer to Iovian wherein nothing is said to a great part of that Book neither is there any notice taken of many Arguments levelled against his two darling notions viz. That nothing is more plain than that the Empire was Hereditary and that it is lawful to resist a Prince by force of Arms if he persecute against Law as Julian did To disprove the former of these Mr. Dean hath shewn that the Succession to the Roman Empire was Elective Casual and Arbitrary and to make it out hath been at the pains to give a succinct account from all the Writers of the Imperial History both Greek and Latin how every Emperour from Iulius to Iulian came to the Throne from which account it appears that although many Princes endeavoured to secure the Succession in their own Families yet none esteemed the Empire to be their Inheritance or made claim to it by a right founded in proximity of blood but on the contrary pretended upon the nomination of their Predecessors or the choice sometimes of the Army sometimes of the Senate and sometimes of both and that when it continued some while in the same Family no regard was had to the next lineal Heir but adopted Sons have been preferred before the natural the more remote Kindred before those who were nearer and the Empire hath been divided between two or three Augustus's at once All which and a great deal more which may be true for ought he knows by his own Confession is utterly inconsistent with an Hereditary Succession as that of England is whose Laws do not allow our Kings to disinherit a Son or prefer the Issue of a
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