And how much soever he pretends to abhor it he spares not profane allusions to the Holy Scriptures to abuse his Adversary When I come to examine the Authorities of Writers both Ecclesiastical and profane cited by him it will immediately appear that they are for the most part either impertinently alledged or most unconscionably perverted So that though he hath very often most foully misrepresented Iovian his Antagonist hath the less reason to take it amiss in regard he useth him no worse than he hath done most other Authors he had occasion to meddle with I am not at all surprized to hear with what general Applause this Reply is entertained in your Neighbourhood no nor yet that many of the Gentry and Clergy too are carried away with his Drolls and Fallacies and judge the Victory clearly on his side He wants not those also who make it their business in the City to cry him up in all Companies and to magnifie his performance as one of the most absolute Conquests that ever the Pen made But their Success is not answerable to their Zeal especially among the Clergy who best understand the merits both of the Cause and the two Persons who are engaged in it on both sides I dare say as low as the credit of Passive Obedience runs at this day Mr. Dean's Reputation both for Learning and Integrity is more than fifty per Cent. above Mr. Iohnson's The great esteem he justly acquiredâ— not only among us his Brethren of the Clergy in the six years he was a London Minister but also with the most eminent Persons of all Ranks and Conditions is not to be blasted by the scurrillous and spiteful Reflections wherewith this Reply is fraught And in the judgment of most sober and discerning Men Mr. Iohnson hath by this frothy and rude Discourse lessen'd and exposed himself much more than his Adversary I confess he hath many great advantages to recommend his Books among common Readers above Iovian 1. The Doctrine of Resistance is very grateful to corrupt nature which affects an absolute freedom from all subjection or dependance and abhors the very thoughts of Suffering This humour in the infancy of the World engaged our first Parents in a Rebellion against their Creator and hath derived it self through all succeeding Generations down to ours And 't is very well known that many of Mr. Iohnson's Admirers are leavened therewith to such a degree that they cannot bear God's own Government as wise just and gracious as it is but quarrel at his holy Laws which restrain their intemperance their Lusts and Revenge as intolerable Usurpations upon the natural Rights and Liberties of Mankind And though their designs may sometimes oblige them to make a great noise with their concern for Religion it is notorious that they have as mean an Opinion of Christianity as Iulian the Apostate himself being avowed Enemies not only to the Doctrine of the Cross but also to the whole Gospel besides 2. His loose and comical way of writing is notably suited to the frothy and malicious humour of the present Age which is delighted in nothing so much as drolling Invectives nauseates every thing that is close and serious and must be entertained with somewhat more light and diverting This scoffing humour hath contributed much to the credit of Iulian and its defence Mr. Iohnson's scurrillous Satyrs rellish with too many more than his Adversaries solid and useful Discourse his spiteful Reflections pass with them as Arguments and his grossest fallacies go smoothly down in an abusive Jest. 3. It is another of his Felicities that of the multitudes who admire him very few are competent Judges of the point in dispute which is a subject quite above ordinary Readers and of which no true Judgment can be made without more Learning and Patience than the generality are Masters of There are many points of moment to be seriously weighed many Books to be turned Historians and Fathers both Greek and Latin besides modern Writers Now they who most applaud him have never been at this pains and indeed look upon it as wholly unnecessary they have no mind to have a Case which as he hath put it appears plain to them perplexed by hearing what is said against it and so without examining the Testimonies or considering the Arguments on both sides pronounce in his favour Some who are not altogether so much biassed want abilities to comprehend an Argument to discern a fallacy or to judge of the pertinence and force of his Authorities Others who have abilities and inclination to examine them either want leisure or are under your Circumstances not having the Books at Command and presuming further upon his Fidelity and Modesty than is safe take several things from him upon trust which they would see to be much otherwise had they the Authours to consult So that either through want of Abilities or Books or Patience to examine his plausible Fallacies and perverted Citations most who read him are too easily imposed upon 4. Another great advantage he hath in the propitious Juncture of time in which his Reply comes forth The heady and illegal methods taken to introduce Popery and Oppression which Solomon saith maketh a wise Man mad having driven great numbers of the Nobility and Gentry into Arms against the King his Party is much encreased For they all stand obliged in defence of what they have done to side with him and their successful practice of Resistance hath silenced all Arguments against it To these I might add Mr. Iohnson's particular Confidence which goes a great way with ordinary Readers and inables him to outface the clearest Convictions and impose the grossest falshoods and absurdities upon his willing and easie Proselytes So that his advantages over Iovian lie not in the extraordinary strength of his reasonings and clearness of his Authorities but in the weakness and partiality of his Admirers and the Applauses he meets with must be entirely ascribed to want of judgment or worse defects in those who cry him up His first care is to salve his Credit by an Apology for the late Publication of his Book which was Printed in 1683. though he durst not let it appear till 1689 and truly it had been more for his honour to have eternally suppressed it It will hardly encrease his esteem with wise and good Men to see him fond of such a piece of gross abuse and sophistry after five years consideration and to observe that his bitter Sufferings which I mention not to reproach him for I abhor all Cruelty have not been able to mortifie his insolent scoffing humour How unjust and unmerciful soever his punishment might be as it proceeded from humane revenge yet Mr. Iohnson had great reason to consider God's hand in it and to believe it a necessary piece of Discipline graciously intended to reduce him to a more serious meek and charitable temper of mind I am sorry to find Afflictions have had a contrary effect upon him but
younger before the elder Son's Posterity much less to adopt Strangers nor yet to divide their three Kingdoms among three Sons or to set them up all together joint Soveraigns and Kings of the whole British Empire Now to all this what saith Mr. I. Truly nothing in effect but thinks to sham it all with a piece of Republican Cant he calls it the History of the broken Succession in the Empire which is as good as he and his Friends will allow the English Succession to have been and then he tells us that it is of so small concernment in the Controversy that he hath never examined it Whether he hath examined it or no I cannot tell I am sure 't is much his interest that no body else should examine it There is a Cloud of Witnesses against him and they all speak home to the point and I think if any Man will have Patience to examine them he must have Mr. I's own Forehead if he dare say their Testimony is of small concernment in the Controversy He once believed it a matter of such moment to prove the Empire Hereditary that he thought he could not proceed faithfully without doing it and therefore unless some great Revolution hath since happened in his Mind he cannot esteem so full and clear a proof of the contrary of little or no concernment in the dispute Perhaps it was prudently done to slight and overlook what he could not Answer but Mr. I. hath in all appearance undertaken to answer some other passages in Iovian without examining them Again it was by no means fairly done to represent the account of the Roman Succession as a meer History and slight it when he had done as containing nothing that he was obliged to take notice of There are many and till he shew the contrary I shall think concluding proofs drawn from the History that nothing is more plain than that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary which if he meant in earnest to defend his first Book it concern'd him to Answer I am sure they were such as have in my presence made some of the most considerable of his Friends acknowledge that he was mistaken in asserting the Empire to have been Hereditary And if he were mistaken in that all his Discourse from Iulian's Case which is founded on that supposition falls to the ground with it For an Argument from one case to another concludeth not if the two Cases prove to be very different Now all that he saith for exclusion in his first Book abating some things in his Preface which are considered in the Preface to Iovian is wholly deduced from Iulian's Case and the sence of the Ancient Fathers and Christians thereupon And therefore if he have a stock of new Arguments to produce for Exclusion in this Book 't is nothing to the state of the Controversy as it stood between him and his Adversary who undertook only to answer what he had written and not to divine what he might say hereafter But if the Authour of Iovian had not given us an History of the Roman Succession and by an Induction which is one of the strongest sorts of proof as an Example or Case is the weakest made it out to be Elective and not Hereditary He hath without that sufficiently evinced the disparity of the Cases of Iulian and the D. of Y. by shewing that there were no entailed Estates nor any such thing as Heir in Tail or Hereditary Succession to Entailed Estates in the Empire but that every Man might dispose of his Patrimony by his last Will and Testament or sell or give it away as he pleased or in case he died Intestate it fell to his next Kindred as Heir or Heirs at Law To this Mr. I. makes no Reply Nor indeed could he make any defence for his Foreign Notion of an Heir and Inheritance which is in truth as great a fallacy as a scale of Dutch Miles in a Map of Middlesex For a Roman Heir and English Heir like Dutch and English Miles agree in nothing but an ambiguous Name they are distinct Species of Title and have not the same formal Conception as Dutch and English Miles are distinct species of Measure Whether there be not more Wit than Truth in his representing Mr. Dean's Notion of a Soveraign to be such a deceit I shall have another occasion to consider The other main Notion in his Book and that which for ought I know he may have the honour of first discovering is that a Prince persecuting against Law may lawfully be resisted by force of Arms and that the reason why the Primitive Christians treated Iulian worse than former persecuting Emperours was because they persecuted by virtue of Law against Christianity whereas he persecuted against Laws which established the Christian Religion Now to this new Hypothesis of Mr. Iohnson the Dean objects two things 1. That it is next to impossible for a Roman Emperour to persecute against Law considering his absolute power over the Laws and that his Edicts Rescripts and indeed his Pleasure any way expressed had the force of a Law And as for what was done against Christianity by his Officers presuming on his connivence and secret approbation was no more than what had been usual in former Reigns and therefore could no more justify resistance under Iulian than it would have done it under former Emperours And at this answer he just nibbles p. 158. 2. He saith that if oppressing the Christians contrary to former Laws their civil Liberties as Romans were persecuting against Law the former Christians as many as were Roman Citizens were also persecuted against Law put to Death upon shams and pretended Crimes of Treason tortured to deny their Religion which was their pretended Crime and not as other Malefactors to bring them to confess it denied the Liberty of making their defence which the Laws of the Empire allowed all Men and this he makes good by the Testimony of Tertullian and he shews at large how Galerius invaded the civil rights of all Men as well as the Christians subverted the fundamental Laws of the Empire and endeavoured to introduce the Persian Tyrannical Form of Government and to enslave the freeborn Roman People His illegal and barbarous treatment of his Subjects in general is described from Lactantius and Eusebius and yet never in any Persecution did the Christians suffer more patiently than in this Galerian Persecution when if Persecution against Law would warrant Resistance they had sufficient provocation to take Arms if in other Persecutions they were discouraged by want of sufficient Force and Numbers yet in this they could not want either but might have expected that their Pagan Neighbours would have joined with them for their common defence against such a Monster and Tyrant And what saith the unanswerable Man to all this Why truly not one word no not so much as that this Chapter is of small concernment in the Controversy I have noted these material parts of Iovian
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
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
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