I Have at length gotten leisure to read over Mr. Iohnson's Celebrated Reply to Iovian, of which some time since you were pleased to require my thoughts. And though I find by your last, that my pains may very well be spared, in regard your own Judicious Observation hath furnished you with so many instances of his disingenuous management of the Controversy; yet since you still insist upon it, and have reason in your Complaint, that it is impossible for you in the Country to get a sight of many Books necessary to be consulted, that you may be able to judge of the pertinence and force of the Citations on both sides, which are many, and of great moment in this dispute, I shall the more readily comply with your desires.

If the Title Page had not born his Name, as well as the beginning of the Book speaks him a Clergy-man, my Charity would have carried me to believe, that such a piece as this could not have proceeded from Mr. Iohnson, or any other of his Profession. I should rather have conjectured, that some Republican Bully had espoused the Cause, and entered the Lists, as his Champion. For there is nothing more difficult than to reconcile such a loose Discourse, with the Character of a Divine, or indeed of a Christian. It is written in a strain wholly unbecoming, either the gravity of his Function, or the weight of the subject under Debate, with little Truth, and less Modesty. With what rudeness and scorn does he all along treat his Learned Adversary, as though he were an ignorant Pretender in all sorts of Literature, and understood nothing? With what a particular kind of assurance doth he ridicule his Arguments instead of answering them? Preface, p. ix. 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 acquired • 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.

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 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, Kendrick's Sermon Printed in 1688. 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 sli • 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 • 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 an • 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, Preface, p. 15. 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 con • 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 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, Alluding to a Pamphlet so Entituled, being an Account of English Succession. 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 'tis 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 Iulian, p. 18. 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, 'tis 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, 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 co • 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 in • 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, See Archbishop Vsher's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. p. 386. ed. 1625. 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,Answer to Iovian, p. 209. 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, Ch. 10. which let Mr. I. say what he pleases, is the formal notion of a Soveraign, Iovian from p. 208. to p. 214 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,P. 218, & 219. 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, Preface, p viii. 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 R • 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 • ee how Iovian explains this Distinction, and then what work Mr. I. makes with it.P. 204. 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 • 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,P. 172. 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 'tis 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;Acts 19. 15. 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 Passi • e Doctrine on the Mount either false or foolish because Iulian was thence encouraged to oppress Chri • 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 o • 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 con • 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 • 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 Parasites • 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 harsh • 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 War, it being impossible for the Soveraignty to consist with the Liberty of that pretence. Just as among t • e Romans it was inconsistent with the Soveraign unaccountable Power, which the Masters by Law had over the Slaves, for them to have a liberty of rising up against them on the pretence of Self-defence.

In all Soveraign Governments Subjects must be Slaves in this particular, they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign. You see what this particular is in which Subjects must be Slaves, not the particular of their Lives and Liberties, but they may not levy War against their Soveraign under colour of Self-Defence. And though he saith they must Trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign, it will not follow that he makes them to be wholly at the Discretion of their Prince. If Mr. I. and his Friends will think themselves inslaved because they may not be allowed, what he calls, just and necessary Defence when grieved and oppressed by the Government, I know no Country in the World in which they may enjoy their freedom. I am sure that Prince would purchase their good opinion at too dear a rate, who would allow them that liberty, for they would never want pretences, which they would esteem just and necessary occasions to use it, and quickly make him know, that Kings are only Servants and Trustees, and hold their Crowns and Lives too at the Peoples Discretion. To his Zealous Cant, which, fills the next four Pages of his Preface, I shall say nothing, since they contain nothing of Answer to any part of Iovian. Iulian, p. 92. Indeed he hath answered it all himself, in his first Book in this Proposition: That Christianity destroys no Man's Natural or Civil Rights, but confirms them: for if the Law of the Land make the Soveraign unaccountable and irresistible, and declare, that the People, in whatever capacity considered, have no Authority to levy a Defensive War against him, Christianity by his own Confession confirms those Rights to the Prince, as well as the Civil Liberties to the People. And whoever he is, who asserts a liberty of rising up against him for Self-Defence, is guilty of removing the ancient Landmarks; and the Nation have reason to Curse him. He takes the liberty over and over, to call Passive Obedience the Doctrine of the Bow-string, and Turkish Doctrine, but till he hath proved as well as asserted, that See the contrary of all this fully proved in an excellent Treatise • Entit. Christianity a Doctrine of the Cross, or Passive Obedience, &c. wherein Mr Iohnson's Arguments against Passive Obedience are fully considered. Martyrdome is only suffering according to Law, that our Saviour only forbids the Resisting of legal violence, That St. Paul only forbids resisting the higher Powers, which govern according to Law, as we are to suppose Nero did, and till he shall have answered, the ninth Chapter of Jovian, to which he hath not returned one word, and shewn us, that in all the ten Persecutions the Emperours and their Officers inflicted no illegal punishments upon the Martyrs and Confessors, but that whatever Imprisonments, Tortures, or D • aths they suffered, all was warranted by the Roman Laws, and had it been otherwise they would not have so tamely submitted to their Murtherers; I say till all this be done, Mr. I. hath no right to call the Doctrine of Non Resistance, the Slavish Doctrine of the Bow-string, nor yet will he, in the judgment of Indifferent Persons, have fairly vindicated himself from the charge of burlesquing the Doctrine of the Cross.

There is but one thing more in his Preface to be considered, and that is, whether Iovian be guilty of that cheat which the learned call the fallacy of non causa, pro causa, in asserting that Self Defence doth more mischief than the most outragious and bloody Oppression. This he saith is repeated often, but I cannot find it so much as once; It is true Iovian saith,P. 256. That there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Non-Resistance, but the inconvenience of Resisting the Soveraign is ten times worse, P. 260. and that it is a remedy against Tyranny worse than the disease. And he hath largely proved it by reasons, by instances, and by the Authority of a Book which Mr. I. pretends to honour next his Bible, The Book of Homilies, and to all this he vouchsafes not the least Reply. Only Rebellion is with him Self-Defence, Drawing the Sword without Authority must be righting ones self, and the natural and necessary consequences of this illegal Defence must be accidental only, and then 'tis an errant fallacy to say the Inconveniencies of Resistance are greater and worse than those of Passive Obedience, though ten thousand Lives and Fortunes are destroy'd in an Illegal Defensive War, for ten that would be lost by the Arbitrary stretching the Prerogative beyond its legal bounds. This is fallacy all over, but Mr. I. and his Friends have a notable faculty of charging innocent Men with their own faults, and I fear were they entrusted with the liberty of Self-Defence, they would quickly make a very offensive use of it. They would invade other Mens Lives and Liberties by way of Precaution. They would make sure of giving the first blow without expecting an Assault. And Mr. Iohnson's just and necessary defence, would be a much more destructive murthering piece, than Iovian's Turkish, Slavish, Bow-string, Cut-throat Doctrine of Passive Obedience.

And thus I have done with his Preface. My Observations have swelled to a much greater bulk than I designed when I began them, and instead of half a Letter, I have written a little Book. Having this opportunity of conveying them to you by Mr. R. who goes out of Town to Morrow, I shall break off in the middle, and what remains you may expect (unless I can find some safer hand to entrust therewith) at furthest, by the Carrier, this day Fortnight. I am,

HAving in my former Letter given you a general view of Mr. Iohnson's work, and a particular account of his Preface, I shall now proceed to the Book it self. I shall say nothing either to Iulian's Arts, or his Answer to Constantius, as being no part of the task you were pleased to impose upon me, though by the way there are two things which I cannot but observe.

1. First that he is guilty of a strange omission in enumerating Iulian's Arts to extirpate Christianity, in not allowing one Chapter to a very considerable Stratagem of his, which very well deserved to have been more plainly and largely insisted on. This Stratagem was the granting an unlimited Toleration to all Sects and Heresies whatsoever: this Mr. I. durst only intimate obscurely, and in short hints, for fear of disgusting those who best relish his writings: For as things have since fallen out, it is plain he would have lost your good opinion for ever. If he durst have adventured on the Argument, it is impossible for him to have avoided observing the mischievous • onsequences of that State-Engine of the Papists, falsely called Liberty of Conscience; nor have we reason to think he would have baulkt so diverting a subject as the Donatists Address to Iulian, in which they flattered him in strains of Complement, not unlike those, which some of Mr. I's Friends used to (a Person who is in his esteem) a worse Apostate than Iulian, telling him in effect, That God and his Church were more beholden to him than to any of his Christian Predecessors, who all tyrannically imposed on mens natural Liberty in the •• oice of their Religion, and wickedly usurped the peculiar Jurisdiction of God, whereas he with unparallell'd Justice had done right to both, restoring God to his Dominion over the Consciences of Men, and them to their natural freedom in religious matters. Durst he have undertaken it, he would no doubt have made admirable sport of it; for he hath a great spite at Addresses, and a notable faculty at exposing them: But Liberty of Conscience is too sacred to be touched, 'tis an Engine which will serve others as well as Pagan or Popish Apostates to ruine an established Orthodox Church: 'Tis the great Diana which our Craftsmen cry up, when they have a mind to raise the Mobile, and set them on work to pull down both the Monarchy and Church of England. I cannot forgive him this omission because it's evident that it is a wilful one.

Secondly, I cannot but remark how favourably he speaks of Constantius, and what Censures he passeth (by innuendo's) against Hilary, Lucifer, and Athanasius, for their rude treatment of him, though he will not allow the like treatment of Iulian to be blameable; as also how he insinuates in the Preface to Iulian, that the Orthodox Fathers were too stiff about words. These passages make me call to mind some of his Discourses, in which I have heard him express much tenderness for the Arians, and wrangle with extraordinary heat for the Council of Ariminum, which he would have made of equal Authority with that of Nice. These things consist but indifferently with the Character of a Divine of the Church of England, and would tempt a Man shrewdly to suspect that he is not in earnest when he calls the Arians Hereticks.

This would be a necessary piece of Justice to himself by an express Declaration to satisfy the World, that he is not of the Arian Sentiments in the matter of the Trinity, but believes at least the Orthodox meaning of the word Homoousios, and that all the favour he hath for the Arians is upon the accoun • of their free Principles as to the matter of Resistance, that they were not like the Socinians, fettered with the Slavish Doctrine of Pa • sive Obedience, and 'tis possible it may be the main dislike upon which some of Mr. I's Friends have revolted from Socinus to the Arian perswasion of late years. These things by the way.

Perhaps it hath not been so much his Adversaries felicity to give the pregnant Title of Iovian to his Book, as 'tis Mr. I's, who hath taken advantage thereupon, by making a flourish against the reasons why Mr. Dean pitched upon that Title, to avoid ever looking into the Book; and to excuse himself from the ungrateful task of defending a great part of his former Book: But since it is his pleasure to let so many things in Iulian shift for themselves, let us see how he acquits himself, and answers those parts of Iovian, which he hath vouchsafed to take notice of.

The first Reason which the Author of Iovian offers, why he gave that Title to his Book is, because he was chosen Emperour next to Iulian, though nothing akin to him, while Procopius, a great Man, and of the Bloud, was alive; as also because at his Death he left a Son who was passed by, and Valentinian chosen Emperour by the Army, which overthrows Mr. I's Assertion, that the Empire was Hereditary.

To this he answers, 1. That the Empire was Hereditary in Constantine's Family, because the Historians mention not the Election of his Sons, but only say, that the Army and Senate, Proclaimed and Recognized them to be Emperours. The falshood of this pretence I shall have occasion to shew anon, where I am to consider the importance of those Greek words, whence he would infer, that they were only Proclaimed and Recognized without any Election.

2. He answers, that Procopius was not a great Man, and of the Bloud, but a base Impostor, impudently pretending kindred to Iulian, in whom the Flavian House was extinct.

Here Issue is joined, let us see what proof Iovian offers for the affirmative; and then what Mr. I. hath said to justify his confident denial, that Procopius was a great Man, and of the Bloud.

For the affirmative are alledged the Testimonies of good Historians See Iovian, p. 75, 76., who expresly say, he was near of Kin to Iulian and Constantius. Ammianus Marcell. saith, that he was Born of a noble Stock in Cilicia, and bred accordingly, and regarded as an eminent Person, in consideration of his near Kindred to Iulian, who was afterwa • ds Emperour, and often mentions him as his Kinsman. Zosimus mentions his Kin to Iulian thrice over; telling us, that at Sirmium, when he with Lucilian and Valentinian, were dispatched into Pannonia, with the news of Iulian's Death, and the advancement of Iovian to the Empire; the Souldiers who killed Lucilian for bringing so ill tidings, and had killed Valentinian also, but that he was too nimble for them, spared Procopius, for the respect they had to Iulian's Kindred. On the same account he tells you, Iulian intrusted him in joint Commission with Sebastianus, with a brave Army in the Persian Expedition, and delivered to him the Imperial Purple. He tells you further the credit he had with both the Roman Legions, and the Barbarous Nations their Allies, who flocked in to him when he set up, was all on the account of his being Iulian's Kinsman, and his Companion in all his Wars. Philostorgius also testifies his relation to Iulian, upon which account, it is likely he had the care of his Funeral. Zonaras and Cedrenus go further to say what the Relation was, and upon the whole matter the Learned Vales. ad lib. 23. c. 3. p. 354. H. Valesius in his Notes upon Ammian. Marc. concludes Iulian and Procopius to have been Cousin Germans. And thus much in proof that he was of the Blood. To prove that, he made a considerable Figure in the time of Constantius and Iulian, he produces Ammian. Marcell. giving an account of his being one of the Notarii, or Secretaries to the Emperour: of his being sent Ambassadour into Persia: as likewise how Iulian intrusted him with a Detachment of thirty thousand, or, as others relate it, but twenty thousand chosen Men. Now what saith Mr. I. to all this? doth he say the Citations are false? or that they are perverted and mis-applied? or doth he confront the • e Authorities with Historians of better credit, who give a contrary account of these things? Truly no. But having nothing to say against them, he with more craft than honesty, takes not the least notice of these Authorities in the Book to which the Preface refers: But falls to his reasons against it, as though it were not plain matter of fact fully made out by good Historians.

And let us see what worthy proof he brings to exclude Procopius the Imperial, or Flavian House. First, He was born of an House in Cilicia, and what then? might not a Daughter of the Flavian House match into a Noble Cilician Family? what though his Fathers name be lost? Did not a Vide Trebell. Poll. in D. Claudio. Constantine, Sister to Constantius Chlorus, marry with an Assyrian Tribune, whose name the Historian mentions not, and perhaps knew not any more than the name of their great Grandfathers. The Father of Claudius, Quintillus, and Crispus, could not be recovered by him, though it were his design in writing that Life, to flatter Constantius Chlorus, with a Panegyrick of his great Uncle Claudius. It is worth observing too how shy Mr. I. is of citing his Authour, who inform'd him, that Procopius was of an House in Cilicia: he dares not trust his Reader with direction to the place in Ammian. Marcell. for fear, that instead of a Perkin he should find a true Plantagenet. • The Authour Lib. 26. c. 6. Insigni Genere Procopius in Ciliciâ natus & educatus, eâ consideratione qua propinquitate Julianum postea • Principem contingebat, à primo gradu eluxit. — Notarius diu perspicaciter militans & Tribunus jamq; Summatibus Proximus, post Constantii obitum in rerum conversione velut Imperatoris Cognatus altius anhelabat admixtus consortio Comitum. saith, he was born of a noble stock in Cilicia, I need not tell you why Mr. I. stifles the Epithete, with many other things which will not consist with the Character of a base Impostor. I will set them down in the margin, for a Specimen of his fidelity and modesty. Well but for all this, Ammian. Mar. makes him a Pretender, and his Kindred to be pretended Kindred; which is none at all. This I confess is very subtle, but are all pretences false? Is the word pretend always taken in a bad sense? If his Admirers know no better, I am sure Mr. I. doth, and must confess, that the justest Allegations in the World, brought to make good a claim, are ordinarily call'd Pretences.

Well, but Themistius makes him an impudent Pretender, a mean Fellow, a sorry Pen and Inkhorn-Fellow, an Under-writer, or Clerk. Perhaps by the help of that unconscionable stretch in translating Themistius, possibly Mr. I. may perswade the greatest part of those that admire his performance, that Procopius was a Iustice's Clerk, or an Atturney's Clerk, or it may be that he was a Brewer's Clerk. And truly it were happy for him, if he were in this point as ignorant as his credulous Readers are. But Mr. I. cannot be ignorant, that the Notarii were in a Post of great Honour and Trust. That they were not sorry Clerks and Vnder-writers, but the Emperours Secretaries, who had such an esteem for their Order, that to assert their dignity which was considerable, there is a whole Title in the Vide Theodos. Cod. vi. Tit. x. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vocant Graeci.— Fuit ergo haec Notariorum Schola—magnae dignitati • . Vnde & Militia Nobilis dicitur. l. ult hoc. tit. & Praeclarum Collegium. l. ult. de Senatoribus Supr. — in Consistorio Principis acta & secreta notabant. — Foràs efferebant Imperialia Responsa — Missi etiam ab Imperatoribus Caesarum actibus explorandis, &c. Consule Iac. Gothofredi Comment. in l. 1. hujus tituli. Notariorum Primicerios—non solum Vicariis anteponi, sed etiam Proconsulibus, aequari sancimus, ut nihil nisi tempus intersit. Eodem honore — sequens Primicerium — perfruatur. Alios porro Notarios & Tribunos, Vicariis jubemus aequari, & si priores id vocari coeperint, anteferri. l. 2. & 3. Theodosian Code, in which the first and second of the Order are made equal to Proconsuls: The rest equal to the Vicarii, and Comites Orientis & AEgypti, to precede according to Seniority. Ammian. Marc. makes Procopius a Primicerius & secundicerius Notariorum à Marcellino vocantur Summates. Habiti enim erant inter Summas Dignitates. Vide Cod. x. Tit. x. l. 21. Notary, and Tribune, next in order to the Summates, that is, the fir • t and second who had Proconsular Dignity. Nor was it such a strange and insolent thing for a Person of that Rank to pretend to the Empire. For Ammian. Marc. mentions Lib. 25. c 8. lib. 26 c. 6. Iovianus primus inter Notarios omnes — Iuliano perempto, ipse à paucis quo que nominatus, ut Imperio dignus, nec post creatum Iovianum egit modeste, &c. another Iovian, who was the chief of the Order of Notaries, who upon Iulian's Death, was nominated by some as worthy of the Imperial Purple, and his Namesake thought not himself secure till he had excluded him out of the World. This was the brave Man, who at the Siege of Majozamalcha in Persia, with a few others, made their way into the Town through a Mine, and surpriz'd the place, as Amm. Marcellinus and Zosimus both agree; and therefore the Learned Jos. Scaliger in Animadv. in Euseb Chron. p. 257. a. Scaliger is mistaken in applying that passage in Zosimus to the Emperour Iovian. But not to digress: Why must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be translated an Vnder-writer, or Clerk • I am confident Mr. Iohnson did not find it so rendred in any Lexicon. I have a better opinion of his Grecianship, than to believe, that he needed to consult a Lexicon for the true sense of the word. But if Procopius must needs be an Under-writer; why may we not say, that Iulian was an Vnder-Reader? for Naz. Orat. 3. p. 94. Sozom. l. 5. c. 7. Greg. Naz. saith, he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Sozomen, that he did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I am not Herald enough to settle the matter of Precedence between an Under-writer, and an Under-reader, perhaps Mr. I. is: But I am sure I should render my self very ridiculous, should I translate that word after his Example, and thence inferr, that it is unlikely that Iulian was of the Flavian House, and that he was an Impudent Pretender.

But when all is done, where is the ingenuity of out-facing the plain evidence of so many grave Historians, with a flattering Panegyrick, spoken to Valens, on occasion of his Victory over Procopius; in which Parum sincerè haec & adulatoriè dicta. Constat enim Valenoem mirum in modum perculsum & consternatum fuisse. Petavius ad Themistium, Par. 1618. p. 591. Post victoriam in Tyranni fautores atrocissimè saevitum est — sed eruditus Adulator Themistius ejusdem clementiam in sontes & noxios humanitatem exto •• it hâc Oratione, p. 590. Dicta h • c ad Principis adulationem & ambi • iosè ficta. Quam atrociter enim vi • toriam persecu • us sit Valens docet Ammian. l. 26. & Zosim. &c p. 600. Haec habet Zosimus, l. 4. p. 739. in Hist. Rom. Scriptores Graec. Francof. 1590. Petavius ob • erves, that he falsly celebrates his unshaken constancy; whereas Amm. M. saith, he was in great consternation upon the news that Procopius set up for the Empire: that he celebrates his Clemency and Compassion towards his Enemies, whereas the Historians represent the Executions after his Victory to have been more Cruel than our Bloody Western Assizes after Monmouth's defeat, and had been in all likelyhood much more cruel than they were, but for the Death of Serenianus, who would have urg'd the Emperour, naturally too revengeful, unto greater inhumanities. Now as Themistius was to employ all the Forces of his Eloquence to Tyranni s • evitiam exaggerat, & ex adverso legitimi Principis mansuetudinem & clementiam. Petavius p. 590. extol the Conquerour above his merit; so doubtless he did as extravagantly run down Procopius, whose unfortunate Enterprize and Death, rendred it safe to rail at him, and perhaps the humour of Valens made it necessary so to do. Wherefore upon the whole matter, the Evidence of Themistius is to be set aside, and his testimony is no balance to the Authority of those Historians alledged by Iovian.

He further adds, that Procopius setting up for the Empire, under pretence of being of the Constantine Family, is a strong proof that the Empire was lookt upon as Hereditary. But by his leave, if we had not such abundant proof to the contrary, it would be at most but a presumption, which falls very far short of a strong proof: whereas the passing by Procopius, after the death of Iulian, and Varronianus, after the death of Iovian, are double presumption against him, and much more strongly infer the contrary.

I have been more prolix on this head, to • hew how conscientiously Mr. Iohnson cites Authors, and must add a word or two more, to shew you how much he abhors the abuse of Scripture • to expose an Adversary. As he is ridiculing Procopius, who stands by himself at the bottom of the Flavian Genealogy, he applies to him the Apostle's description of Melchizedek, Heb. 7. 3. without Father, without Mother, and without Descent. I appeal to all the World, whether he did not forget his Character as a Clergyman, and his professed abhorrence of the abuse of Scripture, when he took this liberty to expose an Impostor, and Vagabond Landloper, as he calls Procopius, in the very terms, wherein among others, Melchizedek is by the Fathers taken to be described as a Type of Christ. If Mr. I. be immoveably resolved as to Iulian, that he will not abate one syllable in the whole Book, yet I hope he will take more modest resolutions touching the defence of it, and upon second thoughts, retract this irreverent and profane Allusion.

Thirdly, He answers to the instance of Iovian's Son Varronianus, who was passed by, and a Stranger Elected, whereas the younger Valentinian, at four years old, was Created Emperour: That the setting aside the former signifies nothing, but the Case of Valentinian is a greater Argument that the Empire was Hereditary, than the setting aside of Ten at that Age is to prove the contrary. I would know for what reason besides Mr. I's will and pleasure, the making Edgar Atheling's Case parallel, is meer amusement. For besides, that his Father before him was excluded by the Power of the Danes, and himself by the Friends of Harold, and after by the Conquest of William, the greatest Friends to the Succession will not undertake for a strict Hereditary Descent of the Crown in the Saxon times.

But the reason why Varronian was passed by, and Valentinian the Younger, in the like Nonage was made Emperour, is very obvious. Iovian reigned not long enough to oblige the great Men in the Senate and Army, he was forced to make a Peace upon such Terms as he could get with the Persians, and his short Rule gave him neither time nor opportunity, by any glorious Atchievements, to recover his Credit, and endear himself to the Army and People. Whereas Valentinian Reigned gloriously twelve Years, and was very Popular, had Merobaudes his firm Friend, who was a wise Man, and by his Policy the younger Valentinian was Created Emperour; Not that the Hereditary Right of the Valentinian House, would otherwise have been usurped upon; for Valentinian the Father was the first Emperour of that Race, and left his Brother Valens, and Elder Son Gratian, in possession of the Imperial Throne; but as Ammi. Marcell. intimates for fear lest on Valentinian's Death, the Legions in Gaul (who very well knew the Empire was not Hereditary) should create another Emperour, perhaps Sebastianus, who was for that reason sent far enough out of the way Lib. 30. c. 10..

A second Reason for the Title Iovian, was his being a Confessour for his Religion, under the Apostate, who is said to have persecuted against Law, and yet Iovian demeaned himself quietly. To this he replies, that if Iovian were quiet, Valentinian was not so, when he struck the Priest, nor the Caesareans who destroyed the Temple of Fortune. But what is this to the Point? did they offer to take Arms against Iulian, or to Rebel against him that persecuted their Religion against Law?

The impertinence of these instances Mr. I. was aware of, and for that reason intimates somewhat, which if true, would be more to the Purpose, (viz.) that Iulian durst not trust Iovian himself, nor leave him behind, lest he should rebel during his absence in Persia.

This is the plain meaning of what Mr. I. doth not speak out. He cannot imagine what necessity Iulian should have of Iovian's Company in the Persian War, for that he was in no Post where his service could be considerable, but a Pikeman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , p. 101. not intrusted with any Command, so much as of a Serjeant, being no more than a common Foot-Souldier. Here is Fiction upon Fiction, without the least Authority to give it colour. What a pregnant fancy hath our Authour, who can manage a slight hint to • uch advantage, and improve a single word into so formal a story? He doth not quote his Authour for this, who was Themistius. He had reason to conceal him, lest his Reader should take pains to consult the place, and find no such thing but a plain intimation to the contrary, as you shall see anon; and I wonder how he adventured to cite Socrates, who flatly contradicts his groundless Assertion, that Iovian was no more than a common foot Souldier. I will cite the entire passage, according to the Translation of Valesius.

Iovian being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Soc. l. 3. c. 22. Tribunus Militum. Valesius. a Tribune when Iulian gave the Souldiers their option by a Law, either to Sacrifice or be cashier'd, chose rather to lay down his Commission, than to obey the Command of that ungodly Prince. Nevertheless Iulian being constrain'd by the necessity of the approaching War 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 frequenter pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usurpatur., retain'd him among his Commanders. So Valesius more fully expresseth the true importance of the greek word, than Mr. I. who renders it had him among his Commanders.

This place manifestly implies, that Iovian, notwithstanding his refusal to Sacrifice, continued in the same Command: for though he chose rather to lay down his Commission than Sacrifice, yet Iulian chose rather to dispense with his own Edict, than part with such an excellent Officer. So then Iovian was neither cashier'd nor reform'd, as neither were Valentinian nor Valens, upon their refusal to Sacrifice. For Socrates, in the beginning of the next Book, relating the Election of Valentinian, and how steddy in their Religion both he and his Brother Valens were, expresly saith, that though they both chose rather to lose their Employments than to Sacrifice, yet the Emperour Iulian knowing them to be very serviceable to the Commonwealth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. l. 4. c. 1. removed neither of them from their military stations, nor yet Iovian who Reigned after him. And it is further evident, that Valentinian was not dismissed his Command, from Theod. l. 3. c. 16. Theodoret's relation of his striking the Priest, for which he incurred Iulian's displeasure. The Historian tells us, that he was a Tribune, and Captain of the Life-Guards, which kept the Apostates Palace: whereas if he had been cashier'd, he would not have been obliged to have attended Iulian to his Pagan-Worship, and by consequence would have had no provocation to strike the Priest, for which he was Imprisoned.

But to return to Iovian. Domesticorum ordinis primus. Amm. Marc. l. 25. c. 5. Ammian. Marcell. saith expresly, that he was Captain of the Domestici, or Life-Guards: and St. Ex Primicerio Domesticorum Imperator sactus est. Hieron. in Chron. Hierome in his Continuation of Eusebius saith the same; and sure Mr. I. is a bold Spark, who undertakes to perswade the World, that Iulian intrusted him with no Command, no not so much as that of a Serjeant, and insinuates a suspition in the Apostate, that Iovian would prove false to him had he been left behind, when so good Authours assure us, that he trusted his Life in his hands. I verily believe, that Mr. I. took this hint of Iovian's being a Pikeman from the words of Themistius, cited by In notis ad Ammian. p. 430. Edit. 1681. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Valesius, in his notes on Ammian. Mar. and if so, it was disingenuously done to wrest them against the express testimony of that Historian, as also of Eutropius and St. Hierome, both cited in the same note, but if he took it at the first hand from Themistius, it is evident in the same page, that by using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 idem quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 satelles, ita vocantur Protectores Domestici, quorum Primicerius extitit Iovianus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. l. 1. c. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that Orator had no design to represent Iovian as an ordinary Pikeman, and no more than a common foot Souldier, as Mr. I. pretends, but to shew from what rank of Military dignity Iovian rose to the Imperial Throne, (viz.) Captain of the Houshold-Guards, who were armed with Spears and Lances, and if Mr. I. had pleased he might have made a Trooper of him, for some of them were Horse, as In voce, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Suidas informs us. The Protectores domestici were in a Post of Honour and Trust, unto which the Veteran Souldiers of extraordinary merit were wont to be preferred in recompence of their long and gallant Service. Thus was Julian Ep. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Leontius preferred by Iulian. And in the Cod. vi. Tit. 24. l. 5. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Theodosian Code, this Order is considered as a dignity of the Empire, and great Priviledges granted and confirmed by several Princes in their Laws there extant. The Primate, or Chief of this Order, which was Iovian's station) together with the Ten next below him, had the Dignity of Senators, and the Title of Clarissimi, with other Honours, too long for me here particularly to recount. And when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Themistius commends the Modesty of Iovian, who was advanc'd from a Rank which was not one of the very prime and most eminent, to the Supreme Dignity; he very manifestly supposeth him to have been an Officer of considerable Quality; as also, where he mentions his lowly and courteous demeanour towards such as, before his creation, were his Inferiours and Equals in Dignity. You see, by this Instance, how far Mr. I. is to be trusted, and how much he presumes upon either the Favour or Ignorance of his Admirers, who advances a Supposition against plain matter of fact, attested by the best Historians, and draws Inferences from his Fiction to support a desperate Cause.

A Third Reason for the Name Iovian, was, because the Antiochians abused and libelled him as well as Iulian: which shews, That it was the evil humour of that People to lampoon and libel every body that displeas'd them. And he further sheweth, That their Quarrel with Iulian, was upon other accounts, there mentioned, rather than his Religion.

To this Mr. I. answers, That none but the Heathens of Antioch abused Iovian, probably because he was a Christian: whereas 'tis evident, from his Misopogon and Theodoret, That the Hatred of the Christians of Antioch to Iulian, proceeded from the height of their Christianity and fervent Love to Christ; and he quarrels with his Adversary as a Shuffler for calling their Zeal Scurrility, P. 103, 104.

Certainly Mr. I. would lay a very signal Obligation upon the World, if, out of the depth of his Grecianship, he would furnish us with some sure Rule, by which it may be known when the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be understood of none but the Heathens of Antioch, and when only of the Christians of that City. I acknowledge, That he doth not expresly say, that none but the Christians of Antioch abused Iulian; but he fouly insinuates as much, when taking no notice that the Heathens also libelled him, he citeth Theodoret to prove, That their Libels were the effect of an Heroical degree of Christianity. The Historians alledged by P. 99. Iovian do all impute the Libels, and Abuses offered to both those Princes, indefinitely, and without distinction, to the Antiochians. Wherefore till I see some better Authority for it than Mr. I's bare word, I shall crave leave to suspend my Belief, that none but the Heathens of Antioch lampoon'd and reviled Iovian, upon account of the Peace made with the Persians: as for his Religion, none of their Libels do so much as obliquely reflect upon it, unless Mr. I. or Baronius have met with more of them than Suidas could give an account of.

Again, Mr. I. answers none of Iovian's Citations, which shew expresly that it was his morose and philosophick Humour, and setting so low a price on Provisions at Antioch, that the Country People and Corn-Merchants could not afford to sell them at so cheap rates, and thereupon left off the Market, whereupon ensued great Scarcity: Neither doth he take notice of those Vid. Jovian. p. 99. ad p. 104. other Testimonies, which prove the evil humour of the people, who were voluptuous Lovers of the Theater, and Shews, given to Satyrs and Lampoons; he turns his back upon them all, which I confess is more tolerable, than it would be for him impudently to outface so many full and express Authorities.

Lastly, That a good zeal may be expressed in very extravagant, and unwarrantable ways, is no new discovery; it is an old and necessary distinction, which is commonly made of the pious affection from the indiscreet, and sometimes sinful efforts thereof. And that in the height of their Christianity, some People may fly out into as great an height of scurrility, we need no other proof than Mr. I. himself; the height of whose Protestantism, and hatred of Popery, hath made him cast many scurrilous reflections, not only on his Adversary, but also upon the best of the Primitive Bishops, and the best of the present English Church.

The fourth and last reason for the name Iovian, was that to encourage him to accept the Empire upon Iulian's Death, the Souldiers all cryed out with one common Voice, that they were Christians; which shews, that their Passive Behaviour under the Apostate, proceeded not from want of strength and numbers.

Mr. I. replies, that all Iulian's Army were professed Heathens, besides Iovian and Valens, he never read of any professed Christians among them, unless he be added whom Libanius and Sozomen talk of. i. e. As suspected to have kill'd the Apostate. He seems, in the height of his Charity, almost willing to believe, that his Answerers are mistaken, and that their errour lies in jumbling together the beginning and the latter end of Iulian's Reign, which ought to have been carefully distinguished; because in the beginning of his Reign, the Christians had a legal establishment, had numbers and Arms sufficient for their defence, which • hey had not in the latter end of his Reign, being disbanded and disarmed; and by this notable expedient of a distinction, he labours to solve the passages of Greg. Nazian. and St. Augustine, which prove the fidelity of the Christian Souldiers to a Pagan Apostate.

Here Mr. I. according to his old custom, takes no notice of the other Arguments which Iovian offers to prove, that it was impossible the Christians should want strength and numbers, if they had the will to resist Iulian; nor doth he consider how easy a matter it had been for them, in the Western part of the Empire, to have set up an Emperour of their own Religion, while Iulian was employed in the East. There were undoubtedly many Legion • in Gaul, in Britain, in Spain, and Africk, in Germany, Helvetia, and Italy it self, and generally Christians, for we read nothing of cashiering Christian Officers in all these Countries; so that admitting Iulian's Army in Persia to have been composed wholly of profest Pagans, yet Mr. I. hath by no means made out what he insinuates in his Taunton Proverb, that the Christians wanted not a stomach, but only force for a Rebellion. It doth not follow because we read not the Names of any professed Christians in Iul •• n's Army besides Iovian, and Valens, therefore they were all professed Heathens. I am apt to believe the Test was not put upon all the Souldiers, but on Officers only; and not on them generally but only on such as did militare in Palatio, who had Offices in the Guards. But I will not be positive.

Mr. I. is very fond of the suggestion of Libanius, that a Christian killed Iulian; but if that instance serve the Hypothesis of Resistance, it doth overthrow what he insinu •• es in this place, (viz.) that there was not a fourth Christian in the Apostate's Army. For Libanius might have soon found out the Murtherer, and have describ'd him by name, had there been no more than three Christians in the Army, whereas he only describes him by his Religion, and supposeth many of the same Character to have been in the Army when Iulian Sozom. l. 6. c. 1. receiv'd his death's wound.

But to proceed to his distinction, which his Answerers have been so blind as not to observe, that the state of things was vastly different in the latter end of Iulian's Reign from what it was in the beginning. • hope he doth not pretend to the honour of the first discovery; if he doth, he is very unjust to Bellarm. de Po • . Summi Pontif adversus Barclaium. c. 7. p. 92. Edit. Colon. 1611. B • llarmine, who being pressed with this Authority of St. Augustine, evades it with the very same disti • ction, of the beginning and later part of Iulian's Reign; fo • hat he is beholding to that great Jesuit for this choice distinction, as he was to another of that Society for his observation, that Jo Mariana deRege & Regis Instit. lib. 1. c. 6. Sozomen justified the supposed Assassination of Iulian by some Christian.

Mr. I. is pleas'd in great scorn to call his Answerers, Transcribers, p. 112. but if it be a scandalous Title, I had rather, with Mr. Dean, be twitted with transcribing Bishop Bilson, Dr. Hakewell, Mr. Bochart, than with him deserve reproach by transcribing Bellarmine and Mariana, out of Books expresly written to maintain the deposing and King-killing Doctrine.

But since he hath given himself the trouble, let us see whether it were worth his while to fetch this distinction so far as Rome; let us try how it solves Nazianzen's Testimony. Mr. I. for a certain reason, thought it not fit to trust it entire with his Reader, but I will give it at large. The Orat. 3. p. 75. Father having recounted Iulian's Arts, by which he perverted the greater part of the Army, proceeds thus. But he did not draw off the whole, for he [the Devil] who persecuted by him, gave him not so much power against us, but still there were left above seven thousand who bowed not the knee to Baal, nor yet worshipped the golden Image, nor were wounded of the Serpents [but were preserved] by looking at the Serpent which was hanged up, and destroyed by the Sufferings of Christ. There were many in places of Power and high Dignity, and the more likely to be overcome both by Fears and Hopes; as also many of inferiour Condition, remarkable only for their Numbers; by whom (when he assaulted them) he was repulsed, as a brave strong Wall doth the Batteries of a sorry Engine. Saith Mr. I. our Authour might easily see that Gregory mentions this Remnant, of more than 7000. &c. before Iulian had made any Edict against the Christians, in any kind, &c. And it is intolerable false Reasoning to conclude, That the state of Affairs in the End of Iulian's Reign, was the same that it was in the Beginning. And it is as false Reasoning to infer, from the mention of this Remnant of 7000. genuine brave Christians before Iulian's Edicts against Christianity, That there were none of them left in the latter end of his Reign; but that this passage entirely respects the quiet Beginnings of his Government, before any Edict made against them, before the ensnaring Donative, and many other Arts of corrupting were used. And to apply it thus, renders this Passage intolerable Nonsense: why should Nazianzen speak of a Remnant who bravely retained their integrity, before any considerable number had Apostatized in hopes of Preferment, or for fear of Cashiering? Why doth he allude to the state of the Israelites under Ahab, when the Prophet Elijah thought that almost no body was left besides himself, who had not Apostatized to Baal's worship, if he had respect only to the beginning of the Apostate's time, when Christianity was the established Religion of the Empire? Why doth he allude to the three Childrens refusal to worship the Golden Image, if the Christians incurred no danger by refusing to Sacrifice? If there had been no Edict against them, no not so much as to give them the nick-name of Galilaeans, much less any Edict to Cashier the Christians, how ridiculous is it for Gregory to celebrate their constancy, which is generally in persons of great Power and Dignity, more liable to be shaken through fear or hopes? What was there applied to work upon their fear, if no severe Edicts had passed against them? or what should move their ambitious Hopes, if no Baits of Preferment were laid to ensnare them? In fine, how could Gregory say, That they repulsed the Assaults of the Apostate, as a brave strong Wall doth a sorry Engine, before any Assault or Battery was made upon them? but rather than lose the benefit of Bellarmine's distinction, Mr. I. is content that Gregory shall speak neither Truth nor Sence.

Let us see whether it answer the Testimony of St. August. any better: the place, because curtail'd by Mr. I. you will find intire in the Margin. Iulianus extitit infidelis Imperator • nonne extitit Apostata, iniquus Idololatra? Mili • es christiani servi erant Imperatori Infideli. Vbi veniebant ad causam Christi, non agnoscebant nisi Illum qui in coelo erat. Quando volebat ut Idola colerent, ut thurificarent, praeponebant issi Deum: Quando autem dicebat, producite aciem, ite contra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant. Distinguebant Dominum aeternum à domino temporali, & tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum, etiam domino temporali. Aug tom. 8. in Psal. 124. When he [Iulian] would have them to worship Idols, and offer Incense, they preferr'd God before him: but when he said, Lead forth the Army, march against such a Nation, they immediately obeyed. They distinguished their eternal Lord from their temporal lord, &c. The Christian Souldiers were some of them, it seems, Commanders of great quality in the Army; for the words, producite Aciem, plainly import it. And if Mr. I's way of Arguing upon Nazianzen will hold, That, because he mentions the Remnant of 7000. before the Edicts, the Passage must relate to the former part of Iulian's Reign; St. August. Testimony will as well prove Christians commanding the Apostate's Army after the Edict, which obliged all to sacrifice to Idols or quit their Places; for he mentions their Refusal to sacrifice before their Obedience to lawful Commands of the Apostate: But 'tis very false Reasoning to infer the order of time from the order in which things happen to be mentioned. We have clearer Evidence that this passage of St. August. relates to the latter part of Iulian's Government; for the Persian Expedition was in the later end of his Reign, and this was the only Expedition on which the Apostate went. The Persians were the onely Nation against which Iulian's Christian Officers led forth their Soldiers. To prosecute the War, the Apostate came to Antioch eleven Months before his Death, (viz.) about the 26th. of Iuly, 362. and continued there till March 5. when he took the field against the Persians, and before his arrival at Antioch, and indeed before he left Constantinople, he discovered his Malice to Christianity, and began to abridge and Vid. Cod. Theod. Cod. xii. Tit de Decurionibus. leg. 50. repeal the Priviledges granted by Constantine and his Sons to the Christians, especially the Clergy. But immediately after his coming to Antioch, he began openly to persecute the Christian Religion: and yet after this we find Christians both in the Court and Camp. Iuventinus and Maximus, whose bold Remonstrance against the Impiety of Iulian procur'd them the Crown of Martyrdom, were both in the Apostate's Life-Guards at Antioch, where they sealed their good Confession with their Blood. The story of the Donative plainly imports the number of Christians not to have been so very inconsiderable in the Apostate's Palace and Guards: for Sozomen relating the fraudulent Trick, saith, that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. l. 5. c. 17. And the punishment was Cashiering & Expulsion from the Court. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is the ground of my Conjecture, That the Edict of requiring all to sacrifice or to lay down their Arms, was not throughly executed, but only in the Praetorian Bands, & other Guards & Troops which did in Palati • militare. an occasion of shewing their Courage to many who served in the Palace. He proposeth so many several Causes of the Compliance of the Christian Soldiers, that we have reason to believe the number was not small; some through Simplicity and deference to old Customes; some through Fear and Surprise; others blinded by Covetousness: and besides these, some there were who shewed an heroick Christian Courage, refusing both to Sacrifice and to receive the Emperors Donative; or as Theodoret relates the matter, absented themselves under the pretence of sickness. And those who did comply, continued Christians still. They did understand it to be an implicite denial of Christ; though they were circumvented, and ensnared, they did not abjure their Saviour, nor did they leave the Army; none were cashier'd but those that came to expostulate with the Emperour for trapanning them into Idolatry. So that after this ensnaring Donative, many Christians were still in Arms about the Emperour's Person, and it is reasonable to believe, greater numbers in the rest of the Army. I find no reason to doubt, but that Victor and Arintheus Ammian. Marcell. l. 25. c. 5., who were both eminent Commanders in the Army of Constantius, and under Iulian, both Vide Zosim. l. 3. p. 162, 163. Amm. Marc. l. 24. c. 1. general Officers in the Persian Expedition, were Christians in Iulian's time, who appeared so zealously and couragiously in defence of the Orthodox Faith, to the very face of the Theodor. l. 4. c. 33. Emperour Valens, but not having any Court Employments, their distance secured them from those Tryals, which those who were near at hand could not avoid.

Thus you see that after all Mr. I's. pains to sink the number of professed Christians in the Apostate's Army, into two, or at most three, in the latter end of his time, their number appears not so contemptible; and in case any great Man should have set up against Iulian, upon the score of his enmity to the Christian Faith, the new Converts, who were not sincere Pagans, would have been likely to have sided with him.

His Arguments to prove, that the Christians wanted Arms, are very trifling. As for what force of Arms and Ammunition they had out of the Army, appears fully by Julian. Ep. 52. quae est ad Bostrenos. Iulian's Edict, a considerable time before, wherein he charges all the Christian Laity in the Empire, not to be perswaded by their Bishops, to take up stones and disobey their Magistrates. Truly a very dangerous Magazine! Can any thing be more plainly said, to shew that the Christians were disarmed?

What wretched Sophistry is this? He neither offers nor can produce any positive and express evidence, that the Lay Christians throughout the Empire were disarmed by Iulian. None of his Historians mention any Edict of that Importance, much less the Execution of any such Law. He may as easily squeeze water out of a Flint, as a plain proof that the Christians had no other Weapons but the stones in the streets, out of that passage of the Epistle, or Edict of the Apostate, cited by him. What though the Rabble, on a sudden provocation, threw stones at a Pagan Priest, or a busy small Officer, for which, upon complaint, Iulian chides the Bostrians, and makes this constitution? doth it follow, that nothing can be more plainly said, to shew that the Christians, i. e. all the Christian Laity of the Empire (as he just before expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which perhaps may respect only the Bostrians, and their Neighbours. Iulian's words) were disarmed, naked and defenceless, even to contempt? For my part, I confess, that I have not Logick enough to discern the connexion of Mr. I's inference with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Julian. Ep. 52. the words he cites; and I know many othe • s to whom an express testimony of some good Historian, that Iulian caused all the Christians every where to be disarmed, would be plainer evidence than these words. A Man of the next Generation, who shall read, that Dr. Lamb was st • ned to Death by the London Mobile, in the time o • King Charl • s the F •• st, and pe • use all the Writings which represent that Excellent K • ng as an Arbitrary a •• Tyrannical P ••• ce, may even as ev • dently and plainly conclude thence, that all the People of London were disarmed, that there was neither Sword, nor Spear, neither Pistol, nor Musquet, neither Powder nor Bullet in the whole City, that they had no other Magazine of Weapons for offence, but the stones of the street. But no more of this matter till we meet Iulian at Nazianzum, in danger of kicking or drubbing by old Gregory.

Before I leave this passage, I must acquaint you how much • r • . hath improved the Apostate's Calumny, in translating his words. He renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bishops, which word signifies the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Phot. Nomocan. Ti. de Fide c. 31. in Textu. Inferiour Clergy, as distinguished from their Bishop; and is thus used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Julian. ibid. by Iulian himself in this very Epistle, not many lines from this passage What Iulian very falsly chargeth on the Inferiour Clergy, Mr. I. maketh him impute to the Bishops, viz. that they stirred up the People to make Riots, and raised Sedition. What service this may do his Cause, I am not able to guess, I am sure it shews what a Friend he is to the Episcopal Order.

Having thus answered Iovian with a few cavils against the Reasons given for the Name, he makes some shew of defending his strange Assertion, that the Roman Empire was Hereditary, and alledgeth a passage out of Bishop Bilson, importing as much. But since Mr. I. set so light by the Authority of that good Bishop, when used by Preface to Iovian. p. 4, 5. Iovian, to shew, that the Christia • s did not want sufficient force to have resisted the Apostate, would their Principles have allowed it, no Man will believe that Mr. Iohnson thinks that Learned Prelate Infallible. And I see no reason why Mr. Dean may not take the same Liberty Mr. I. hath done, and beg his Pardon too. 'Tis a palpable Errour. And yet though such a loose passage might unwarily fall from Bishop Bilson, in a matter not directly in controversy, without impeaching his Learning or Integrity, Mr. Iohnson must not be so excused, who hath studied the point, and writes a Book whereof the main design depends on the Truth of this Assertion.

You tell me, Sir, how much his boast of an uninterrupted Succession of five of the Constantine Family takes with many, and passeth for a demonstration, which I wonder at, when Mr. I. himself confesseth, that it is no proof of Right. Unless those five claimed the Imperial Crown, as their Birthright, by vertue of Proximity of Blood; this Allegation is nothing to the purpose, were it true. But 'tis no less false than impertinent: For Maximianus Herculeus was not of the Flavian house, his relation to Constantius Chlorus came by the Adoption of Constantius, which engrafted not Maximian into the Family of his Adopted Son, but contrarywise, made Chlorus a branch of Maximian's stock; but I need not stand with him for so small a matter. It is plain, from his own kind Friends Themistius and Eumenius, that Maximianus Her • . was not esteemed of the same house with Constantine and his Sons, nor was their Succession counted from him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Themist. Orat. 1a p. 2. Edit. Paris. 1684. Item Orat. xvii. ex Edit. Petavii, 1618. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vid. Notas. The former of them, in a flattering Oration on Constantius Iunior, recounting the various Subjects of the several Panegyricks made on the Emperour, tells us, that some Orators chose the Nobility of his Family, and Three Successions in the Imperial Throne, viz. of his Grandfather, his Father, and himself; whereas if they could have hooked in Maximian into the Succession, those Orators would not have failed to have called it a Royal Succession of Four Descents in the same house. And the later, calling Constantius the Great a third Emperour of the same Family, doth not derive his Pedigree from Maximian, but from De Claudio—Ab illo generis autore in te Imperii fortuna descendit. Eumenius in Panegyrico dicto Const. Claudius, who was Great Uncle to Constantine, by the Mother's side, from whom no lineal Succession could be derived. And had not Constantius Chlorus been made Caesar, neither his Descent from Claudius, nor his Adoption by Maximian, would have given him any colourable Title to the Imperial Crown.

Thus, Sir, you see that the uninterrupted Succession in which your Neighbours triumph, was of no more than Four, which is no such Rarity, as they are made to believe. But to prove an Empire Hereditary, it's not so material to shew how many of one Family have reigned, as by what Title one succeeded another.

Now for some shew of Right, Mr. I. is forced to trump up again a Passage of Eusebius, cited in his former Book; which though fully considered by P. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. Iovian, and so clearly answered, that he hath not one word to reply; yet with a sort of Assurance, somewhat peculiar to himself, he tells the Reader it cannot be answered.

If in this Passage Eusebius had declared that the Flavian house was the Royal Family, or that the Laws of the Empire gave the Son a right to succeed the Father, it would have been somewhat to the purpose; but he meddles not with the Roman Constitution, he only tells us that Constantine receiving the Empire from his Father, left it to his Sons, for whom, and their Posterity, it was reserv'd as an everlasting Inheritance. It is no more than a good abode, that Constantine leaving three Sons all Caesars, the Empire would continue for ever in his Family. And as much might be said in a Panegyrick on the present Emperour of Germany, if he shall leave three Sons behind him, having had the happiness to get the eldest made King of the Romans in his life time.

But if Mr. I. think this single passage an unanswerable proof that the Empire was Hereditary, he is a very unreasonable Man to call Iovian's account of the Roman Succession a deceitful medium to prove the Empire Elective; for it is a fair and compleat Induction, shewing that none of the several Emperours, from Iulius to Iulian, claimed by Blood, but either by the Designaation of their Predecessours, or Caesarship, or the Election of the Senate, or Army, or both. To this matter of fact, he addeth Testimonies of the best Authours, expresly shewing the Empire not to be Hereditary, which together make the strongest and most convincing sort of evidence in Questions of this Nature. And Mr. I. grosly abuseth his kind Readers, when he insinuates, that the same Medium would prove the English Monarchy not Hereditary; for 'tis notorious, that the Interruptions of our Succession have no parity of Reason with the Arbitrary Translations of the Roman Empire from one Family to another, without regard to Blood and Birth-right. Our Crown hath all along from Henry the Second, at least. descened in the same line, and where the next lineal Heir hath been disturbed, it hath been by mere Violence, or on pretence that the Person in possession was not the next lineal Heir, which was the Plea of the house of Lancaster; or that he was illegitimate, which was the Suggestion of Richard the Third against his Brother's Issue, as also of those who were against the Succession of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth.

Now, these Allegations plainly suppose, what our Laws expresly declare, That the Succession to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is Hereditary; whereas none that set up for the Roman Empire, ever objected any thing of this Nature against their Competitours, nor was it necessary, since by the Favour of the Senate, and Legions any Family was capable thereof.

But Mr. I. is a generous Adversary, and though he needed not to have added further Proof, after this Testimony of Eusebius; yet he is resolved to be liberal, and produce fresh Arguments for his Assertion, and those so clear and convincing, as to justify a Triumphant Q. E. D.

To clear the Point, as to matter of Fact, he asserts, [P. 1.]

1. That the Emperours of Constantine's Line were only declared, recognized and proclaimed, not elected, by the Senate or Army. And to make out this, he refers to some Passages in P. 114. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eusebius, which I shall particularly examine, though indeed the whole stress of his Proof lies on the single Greek words there mentioned, which, as he would make us believe, signifie no more than to declare, recognize, or proclaim the Emperour.

It is not for lack of Grecianship, but of some Accomplishments much more valuable, that Mr. I. presumes to impose upon the credulity of his Admirers at this gross rate. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is equivalent to nuncupare, renunciare, salutare, appellare Caesarem, Imperatorem, &c. which notoriously signifie to create; nay • and even declarare too, as appears by this Passage of Latinus Pacatus of Theodosius, Repulsam patitur Principatus, & unus est ambitus Candidati, ne declararetur. I need not inform you that one of those Words is ordinarily used, by the best Authours, to signify such a Declaration as confers a Right to the Person, and creates him what he is declared.

It oft signifies the Creation or Election of a Prince or other Magistrate, of Vide Plutarch. in Galb • Herodian. Zosim. Dion. Socrat. Sozom. Zonar. & alios passim. Caesars, of Emperours unquestionably elected, of annual Magistrates, as Plut in Crasso, p. 552. Consuls. Nay Plutarch useth the word to signifie the choice of Virginius Rufus by the Army, who refused the Empire. Plut. in Galbâ. p. 1055.

But to come to particulars. 1. As for Constantine, it is very evident, from Lactantius, that he was, upon his Qui ei militibus commendato Imperium p • r manus tradidit. Lact. de mort. Perscut. c. 24. Which Passage may imply a Resignation to him. Father's recommendaton, Constantinum verò non Imperatorem sicut factus erat, sed Caesaremappellari juberet. c. 25. created Emperour by the British Legions. And De Vitâ Constant. l. 1. c. 18, & 20. Eusebius twice over mentions it as a special Providence, that he came seasonably to his Father, before his death, to succeed him in the Empire, which otherwise he might have fairly missed. The design of Eusebius in De Vitâ Const. l. 1. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • i. e. Non primò Caesarem, sed Augustum statim renunciarunt. Idem Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. non Caesar sed Imperator, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the Passage he cites, was not to shew, that Constantine was proclaimed only, not elected Emperour by the Army; but to shew how God (who punished the Persecutors of his Church with miserable Ends, and the extirpation of their Posterity) blessed Constantine and his Father, who were good Princes 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, for • 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 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] declared Emperour and Augusto, favour'd our Religion. It • 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 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] 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, Vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 68, 69. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as though by divine Inspiration, upon the news of the Emperour's Death, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • with one accord resolved, as though the great King had been still living, that they would 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . acknowledge none for Emperour of the Romans, save only his Sons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . respective Suffrages and Voices, and so the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

• . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 • 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 'twas 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 Ca • sars for a while after their Father's death. And Post obitum Constantini Interregnum fuit. Nec ullus in orbe Romano Augustus imperavit— tribus mensibus ac dimidio Orbis Romanus sine Augusto imperio fuit. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 Constan • ine to the Throne, according to his Father's desire, Illico—universus in 〈◊〉 consedit Exercitus, te omnium mentes oculiq • signârunt; & quanquam tu ad seniores Principes de summa Reipub. quid fieri placeret, retulisses, praevenêrunt tamen studio, quod illi mox judicio approbaverunt. Eumen. in Panegyr. 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, De Adoptivis—qui Iure feudali non succedunt. Cragii Jus Feud. l. 2. p. 231. 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 Corv. Jus Feudale, l. 2. Tit. 5. Quoniam Feuda dantur sanguini. Adoptio jus sanguinis non adfert. of Blood; and Adoption doth not create Alliance in Blood. And if the Sons of Constantine were Testamentary • 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 Fami • 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.

Hitherto for matter of fact, the Demonstration proceeds but untowardly, and notorious falshood • have been imposed upon the Reader; nor shall we meet with more ingenuous dealing, when we come to see how he clears up matter of Right. For he hath recou • se wholly to Panegyricks, to support an Hereditary Right of Succession in the Flavian House: he useth no other testimonies than some of their Rhetorical flourishes, harping upon loose expressions and words improperly, used, confining them to their native and proper significations. At this rate of arguing, I would undertake to prove out of his own Authours, that Iulian had no title to the Crown, which was Iovian's Right upon the Death of Constantius Iunior. Themistius sai • h so; as also, that Constantius had no regard to Iulian as his Kinsman, when he made him Caesar, but advanced him to that pitch of Majesty, because he was a Philosopher. I could prove against him, that Varronianus was not set aside for Nonage, by the Testimony of St. Ambrose, which he cites [p. 120] An Emperour is always at Age; the Descent of the Imperial Crown takes away all defects. But if in Theological Disputations we are not allow'd to draw Arguments from Parables; I think the loose and lofty strains of Panegyrick are full as unconcluding in Questions of Law and Right.

For this reason I may, upon the Authority of Socrates, overlook the testimony of Eusebius, as the loose expression of an Orator, who is not obliged to accuracy and the proper sense of words. But without making the least abatement for Rhetorick, Mr. Dean hath Iovian, p. 66. fully shown this passage, like an Inheritance imports, that it was not so. But I suppose the s • rength of his Evidence for Constantine's Hered • tary Right, lies in the Authority of Socrates; who gives an account of Constantine's Succession in the very word, which is used to d • scribe the Iewish Succession. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cr • atus est Imperator in locum Patris Valesius. He saith, he was declar'd King in his Father's stead, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . What a lucky discovery is this? What a Du • ce, or Knave, was Valesius to translate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was Created Emperour; when the very word which is used to describe the Iewish Succession, immediately follow'd, and should have directed him to render the words, was declared Emperour? But you see, Sir, what it is to read the Fathers carefully, and with a design in their head. Yet before we finally condemn Valesius; it is but reasonable to know, whether the very word used to describe the Iewish Succession, be the Greek word in his Margin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the English word, in his stead. Now I am apt to believe it is not the Greek word, and then Valesius is not to be blamed. I am confident, if you read the Sept • agint Version of both the Books of Kings and Chronicles, Lxxii. passim usurpant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ut 2 Kings xv. 10, 14, 30.you will not once meet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And if Mr. I. would have us believe, that the English words, in his stead, import a lineal and Hereditary Succession, I beg his Pardon; because I read that Shallum conspired against Zachariah, and killed him, and Reigned in his stead; and that Menahem slew Shallum, and Reigned in his stead; and others, who had no Hereditary Title to the Crown of Israel, nor indeed any at all, but that of Invasion, slew their Predecessors, and Reigned in their stead. But 'tis a great felicity for a Man to know his Readers beforehand: he may say any thing, who hath insured their favour. The passage cited from Eumenius, comes very much short of the point. I know no body will deny, but that Constantine might be his Father's lawful Successor, without an Hereditary Title. The Right, upon which he as eldest was preferable to his Brothers, was a meer congruity; and if the Empire had been to descend from Chlorus, as a Roman Patrimony, he would have been but one of the three lawful Heirs, and only one third part would have faln to his share.

As for Constantine's Wisdom in dividing the Roman World amongst his three Sons, I question it not; but how doth that prove the Empire Hereditary? If there be any thing in the reason, which Eumenius gives, why Constantine was his Father's undoubted Heir, viz. Primogeniture, there was more Prudence than Justice in Constantine's Testament. But since the Roman Empire could be devized by Will, 'tis a President from whence no Argument can be drawn touching the Right of Succession in this Kingdom. In the proper and ordinary sense of the term, no Kingdom is understood to be Hereditary, which may be devized by Will of the Prince, and that if he please, from his own Children to Strangers.

The Title of Iulian to the Empire is out of all dispute: but that it was founded on blood and birthright, or that he succeeded Constantius as Heir at Law, is an impudent sham. For the ordinary Right, by which Amm. Marcell. saith, he obtain'd the Empire, was Caesarship: which, (as Iovian largely proves) was freely conferr'd upon him by Constantius, and which he might have deprived him of again, or have conferr'd on another, as Consort with him, who would have been his Collegue in the Empire upon the Death of Constantius, by the same ordinary Right. By Ordinary Right, upon the resignation of Dioclesian, and Maximianus Herculeus, Constantius, and Galerius, succeeded in the Imperial Throne; and not Maxentius the Son of Herculeus, whose the Empire was, if blood and birthright had been the ordinary right by which it went.

I am quite tired with exposing his gross Sophistry, and those Childish fallacies with which he puts us off instead of Demonstrations. I shall only add, that if lofty strains of Panegyrick may pass; the Popish Writers have admirably demonstrated, that Transubstantiation was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; and therefore I hope Mr. I. hath by better Arguments proved its Absolute Impossibility.

After this Bravade of Demonstration our Authour thinks he may despise all Iovian's Arguments as trifling objections, and without considering them particularly, bloweth them off forty at one puff, and advances three Positions against them.

The first is this, That there never was an unalterable Succession in the World, and what then? This hath some shew of an Argument for Exclusion, but how he will thence infer against Iovian, that the uncertain and arbitrary Succession in the Roman Empire was nevertheless Hereditary, I cannot discern consequences at distance enough to comprehend: But if it were to the purpose, I conceive his Instance of Iehoahaz doth not make out the Peoples right to govern the Jewish Succession in David's Line: for Nudè, & historicè narrata: Vid. Sanderson. de Obligatione Conscien. Praelect. 3. Sect. 6, 7, 8, 9 • &c. a bare relation of the fact in Scripture proves not the justice thereof, Mr. I. is not so mean a Casuist, as not to know • that many things not censured, are not to be drawn into Example, though done by good men: And the Order of the Genealogy, 1 Chron. 3. 15. doth no more infer a Scripture approbation of this Action, than our Saviour's Genealogy, Matth. 1. 3. argues the Evangelists approbation of Iudah's incest with his Daughter-in-Law.

His second Position, that the Government of the Succession in the R. Empire, was in the hands of the Emperour, shews, that Succession to be Arbitrary, and not Hereditary, and is so far from answering Iovian's Objections, that it yields the Point. Wherefore to his second and third Positions, I shall return him an answer almost in his own words, and desire he would inform me in what part of the Globe that Hereditary Kingdom lies, where the present Possessor of the Crown hath the Power of declaring whom he will, Relation or Stranger, his Successor. What sort of Hereditary Succession was that, in which the first of the Family named a single Successor, the second named a third, and the Survivour of them though he had no other choice (if Mr. I. mistake not) yet did amiss in naming Iulian, and ought to have named a Stranger. I conceive that Succession is every whit as much Elective, which depends on the free choice, and nomination of one Person, as that which is determined by the majority of a hundred Votes.

What he addeth to prove the Empire Hereditary in the Families of Valentinian and Theodosius, serves only to encrease that dislike which I ever had to works of Supererogation. It being all meer Rhetorick, such good wishes and Complements as might have been made a King of Poland. And therefore I am much amazed at Mr. I's. confidence in affirming, that every one knows the present Kings Children, in an Elective Kingdom, are furthest off from succeeding, who ever succeeds they shall not. He excepts only the German Empire, when every one that knoweth any thing of the State of Europe, can tell him of two other famous Monarchies both Elective, in which being of the Royal Family, is not a prejudice to their Claim, but a Commendation to the Crown. The one is See Fowler's History of Swethland and Poland. Mart. Cromeri Polonia, lib. 2. A centum & ampliùs octoginta annis regnavit perpetua Successione Iagellonia magnorum Ducum Lithuaniae progenies. Non haereditario tamen, sed Electionis jure. Phil. Honorius de Interregno Polon. de Jagellone—Cujus propago sive linea postmodum annos ducentos foeliciter regnavit. Jo. Boterus in descriptione Polon.— Quamvis Corona Poloniae à Decreto Nobilitatis dependet, non tamen legitur ipsos unquam Successores Regios exclusis • e, aut praeteriisse, nec Regnum in aliam Familiam transtulisse, exceptâ unâ vice— Filiarum Regum quo que semper Ratio habita est—Sigismundo tertio non parum profuit natum fuisse Catharinâ Sigismundi August. & Annae sorore ut coronam Poloniae adipisceretur. the Kingdom of Denmark which was elective till within these thirty Years; and yet all along from Waldemar to Frederick IV. they chose one of the same Family, and for the most part the next lineal Heir.

The other (viz.) the Crown of Poland, goes by Election to this day, which yet in the present Century was successively worn by Sigismond, and his two Sons, Ladislaus, and Casimir; and it was a great advantage to Sigismund, in his pretences to the Crown, that he was of the Iagellonian Race, and Grandson, by the Mother-side, to Sigismund, and before that the Iagellonian Race Reigned two hundred Years, and yet the Poles had no Jealousy that their Elective Constitution should be changed into Hereditary. Nay, where the Male Issue hath failed, they have either chosen a Daughter, or else made her Husband King; as in the Case of Hedwig Daughter of Ludovicus, Married to Iagello, and Anne Daughter of Sigismund, first Married to King Stephen. Not to add, that if Mr. I. have read the Rep. of Hungary, he cannot but have seen, that that Crown, though held P. 214. Electionis jure, hath ordinarily descended to the King's P. 117, &c. Son, or Brother, or other Relation. You see, Sir, How little reason we have to trust either Mr. I's. Honesty or Politicks.

We have done, at length, with those miserable Fallacies which Mr. I. was forced to muster for the support of his desperate Assertion, that the Empire was Hereditary, which he himself hath so little confidence in, that he denies the stress of his Argument to lie upon that Assertion, that the Empire was Hereditary in Iulian's time, Certainly he was of another mind when he wrote his former Iulian, p. 18, 19. Book, and thought it necessary to the fidelity of his proceedings, to consider how the Roman Succession stood, &c.

Well but on second thoughts, Iovian's Concessions will serve his turn as well. Iulian was Caesar expectant of, and next to the Imperial Throne, and yet such pretensions the Christians would have set aside for the security of their Religion, and for fear of it, the Apostate dissembled it for ten years together. Now, Sir, I desire you only to read Iovian's Iovian, p. 51, 52. comparison of a Caesar, and a Prince of Wales, and you will quickly see how unlike the Cases of Iulian, and our Popish Successor were, and how little could be concluded from the former in the latter case. Iovian shal • readily grant him, that it is a great sin in those who can legally and justly prevent a Popish Successor, and do it not. That the Fathers had been to blame, if they had known Iulian's Religion and Temper, and had not been for degrading him from the Caesar-ship; nay, he undertakes that the Fathers of our Church (whom Mr. I. so much vilifies, in comparison with the Bishops 13o Eliz.) P. 53. would set aside a thousand such Titles as Iulian's to secure the Reformed Religion, So that Mr. I's After-game will not save his stake.

I am now come to his Discourse about the Bill of Exclusion, to which I shall say the less, because I always esteemed it an Argument quite above me, and looked upon it as no small Felicity that my station in the World freed me from those perplexities I should have been in, had I been a Member of that honourable Body in which that weighty Case was so often debated, and on whose votes the Decision of it so much depended. So far as I understand that Controversie, you know my Sentiments already; which, as they do not in all things exactly concur with those of Iovian, so do they much less accord with his Adversary's.

You very well observe many passages in this P. 126. Answer to I • vian, which are meer Jests and not Replies, and particularly his Cavil against Mr. D' • distinction, whereby he vindicates those who addressed against the Bill of Exclusion, That it was not a Popish Successour, as Popish, but the Succ • ssion which they promised to maintain. A Zeal for the Lineal Succession where the next Heir is a Papist, and a Zeal for the next • Heir as Popish are things very different, and are not meerly in notion distinct, but in reality; insomuch that those very Persons who stickled most against the Exclusion of a Popish Successour, deserted him (as Pref. p. 24. Iovian undertook they would) in his Endeavours to overthrow the Protestant Religion. Who were fittest Tools for that Service, the whole Nation knows, and if Mr. I's Jest is too precious to be lost, he is too well acquainted with another sort of Addressers, to whom the Distinction, not as Protestants but as Addressers, may be more properly and truly applied. I am sure they very much need the help of some good Friend to bring them off with honour, and if either this, or any other distinction Mr. I. can devise will solve the Paradox, and reconcile their fiery Zeal against Popery with their Addresses of Thanks for a Declaration design'd to introduce it, and their Promises to chuse such a Parliament as would destroy our best Securities against Popery, I shall acknowledge him the greatest Man I ever met with.

In his Vindication of the Paper of Reasons, whereof he will have the Bishops to be the Authours, there are many things very strange and diverting. First, he will 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 • 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 Answ. to Iov. p. 199. 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 f • l • Authority to enact their Conclusions.

Preface, p. 33, 34. 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 • 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 p. 128. 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 Conse • 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 Preface, p. 38. 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 De Success. in bon. c. 2 • . Fas esse h • eredes pro libitu instituere ex iis, qui ex lege cohaeredes forent. 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 Vid cap. 1. & Misna ibi citat. Vid. etiam Ma • monid. More Nev. P 3. c. 24. 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,Answ. to Iov. p. 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.

It is worth observing how strange an Answer he gives to two Authorities, cited by Iovian, importing a Bill of Exclusion, P. 137. which changeth our Succession from Hereditary to Elective. Saith he, An Act of Disinheriting from the Crown, doth own, and proclaim, and prove, the Kingdom to be Hereditary. Right. But it makes it quite otherwise. So the Act for taking away the King's Office, doth own this Realm to be a Monarchy, but made it a Commonwealth. The Ordinance for abolishing Episcopacy, doth own and prove the Government of these Churches to be Episcopal, and at the same time destroyed it. I suppose that implicit acknowledgment did not cure the manifest Injustice of those Acts.

His Reflection on Iovian's way of arguing is Childish, P. 139. if there be four Terms in the Syllogism, or Enthymeme, they are of his own making, and he is to answer for the honesty of it himself.

No less ridiculous is his pretence, that his Adversary professeth to have sworn Allegiance to Subjects. It is possible an Oath of Allegiance may be broken by injuries done to a Subject, and yet no Allegiance be sworn to that Subject; for instance, by ravishing, or killing the Queen, or the Prince, and yet both the Queen and Prince are no more than Subjects. Whether an attempt to debar the next Lineal Heir from Succeeding, be not an Invasion of the Rights and Prerogative of the present King, especially when he is averse to it, and an offence against his Crown and Dignity, may possibly be a doubt with Persons of more Learning and Conscience than Mr. I. hath shewn, either in Iulian, or his Defence of it. Whether it be or not I will not determine.

The Rant wherewith he closeth his Answer to Iovian's Preface, is to the tune of Lewis du Moulin. Yet I presume no body takes Mr. Dean to have renounced the Doctrine of our Glorious Reformers, or thinks him one step nearer Rome on that Account. Some such Zealots against Popery, as Mr. I. about 60. years since fell foul on Bishop Hall, who in his old Religion, acknowledgeth the Roman to be a true, though a corrupt Church, and occasioned him to publish an Apologetical Epistle call'd the Reconciler, Bishop Hall's Works. Vol. 2. in which he faith, that to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a True Church, was common with the best Reformed Divines, and had been done by himself with the Approbation, and Applause of the whole Representative Body of the Clergy of this Kingdom. He explains himself as Iovian doth, asserting, that in different senses the Church of Rome is both a True, and a False Church, True in Existence, False in Belief, that is, hath a Natural not a Moral Trueness. As a Thief, or a Cheat, is truly a Man, though not a True Man, or as the Devil is a true Spiri • , or Angel, though (not as Mr. I. fallaciously expresseth himself, a true Angel of Light) a false, lying Spirit. He addeth, that Antichristianism, though it justly makes the Church of Rome odious, and execrable to God, Angels and Men, yet it cannot utterly dischurch it. He saith in this Doctrine he followeth Zanchy, Luther, Calvin, Iunius, Plessis, Hooker, Andrews, Field, Crakanthorp, Bedel and others, who deny not the Natural Verity of the Church of Rome, though they deny it to be veram & puram. They own it to be a True Church, such as the Ten Tribes were, notwithstanding the Idolatrous Worship set up by Ieroboam, which is little to the advantage of the Roman Church, being only in effect to say, They are neither Jews, Turks, nor Pagans, though misbelieving, Heretical, and Idolatrous Christians, and this Epistle and Doctrine is approved by Bishop Morton, Davenant and Prideaux, as also by Mr. Primrose, Minister of the French Church.

Thus I have attended Mr. I. through his first Stage, and here I think it best, for me, to rest a while with him. My motion hath been somewhat slower than I intended, and I confess in point of time, I have broken my word with you. But you will pardon me when you consider, that his numberless Frauds, which I had to detect, required more time than I allowed my self; for Fallacies are not laid open, and confuted in as few words as they are committed. And withal I have been the more particular in exposing this first part of his Answer, because here it is that I am most capable of serving you, by shewing how wretchedly he prevaricates in abusing many good Authours, which you have not at hand to consult. I hope to make a shorter business of what is behind, a great part of it being already examin'd in my former Letter.

I Am now come to what Mr. I. is pleas'd to call an Answer to Iovian, and concur with your Observation, that Brevity is the only good thing in it, craving leave to add, that it would have been abundantly more commendable upon that account, had he forborn Cavils, and spiteful misrepresentations of his Adversary, without which his Answer would not have exceeded the fifth part of its present bulk, as small as it is.

His Argument, à fortiori, if design'd to prove, that the Christians of the fourth Century, would in our Circumstances have been for Exclusion of a Popish Successor, is wretched Fallacy, because of the vast disparity of their Case, and Ours. For Mr. I. hath not been able to maintain his Paradox, that the Empire was Hereditary, against Iovian's Arguments. And if it be design'd to prove, that had the Christians known Iulian to be a Pagan, they would have done all in their Power to have kept him from the Crown, it is no less wretched Impertinence, in regard his Adversary undertakes, that the Fathers of our 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 P. 158. 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. Iov. P. 86. 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. P. 86,87,88,90,91. This is made out abundantly out of the best Authors both Historians, and Lawyers, and 'tis 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 Hy • 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,See Iov • p. 141. and to the end of the vi. Ch. 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, See Iov. Ch. ix. 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. 'Tis 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,Apud Tertull. ad Scap. c. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, Iul. p. 88. 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, In the First Letter. 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? Answ. p. 162, 163. 164, 166. p. 169, 181, &c. 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 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 'tis lawful to resist a single Cutthroat, and yet makes it a damnable sin to resist Cut-throats, Answ. p. 163. 169. 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,p. 165. 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, P. 166. 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,P. 202. 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,See them cited by Iov. p. 208, & 209. 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? Trial Regis in 4 to. p. 11, 12. It is that which 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. Dea • 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, Iov. p. 209. 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 Mr • 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 proper • 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, Aquin. • um. Theol. p. 1 q 25 art. 5. ad. 1. • ecundum potentiam absolutam, & de potentia ordinata. Vid. Estium. in l 1. sent. dist. 43. §. 2 • 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 w •• 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 Laws • even as God ceaseth not to be the Supream Governour of the World • by reason of his Gracious Purposes, and Promises reveal'd in Holy Scripture, though • 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 Answ. p. 197, 198., 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 • 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 Regard to his own Honour and Safety, did not prove so effectual a Restraint from Arbitrary Proceedings, as the Authour of Iovian hoped, and all wise Men reasonably expected. Yet Experience hath however confirm'd the Opinion of Iovian, and in violent Vndertakings, far short of the Cruelty of Massacres, all good men did withdraw from the service of that Unfortunate Prince, and many bad men durst not serve him. As for those few who did, they are likely to suffer exemplary Punishment according to their Demerit.

I am now come to see how justly Mr. I. chargeth his Adversary with raising Cavils against matter of Fact, pag. 157. and 201.

He begins with Mr. Dean's Discourse about Iuventinus and Maximus, which he makes to be a whole Heap of Falsifications. Perhaps the Falsification lies in not mentioning the precise words in Theodoret, to which Mr. I. refers, Thou hast delivered us to an Vnrighteous King, and such an Apostate as is not again upon the • ace of the Earth. Now who knew them till Mr. I. in this Answer vouchsafed to tell what the words were? In his first Book he cited no words, and refers to St. Chrysostom's Homily on their Anniversary; is it a Falsification that Iovian doth not insert this passage of Theodoret into their Speech, as St. Chrysostom relates it? This were very hard. Mr. Dean had no Interest to conceal their words, nor do I see any great advantage Mr. I. can make of them. Do they prove that Iuventinus, and Maximus would have been for a Bill of Exclusion, had they liv'd in our days? Or that they would have rebelled in defence of their Religion? There is nothing in them which founds that way. Whoever reads these Speeches as rendred from Chrysostom in Iovian, or • the Story as Mr. I. himself relates it ou • of Theo • oret, will find the Primitive Passive Spirit the Faith and Patience of the Ancient Saints in these two Christian Captains • the same Ambition to be crown'd with Martyrdom, and that Iovian commits no falsification when he tells us that their sayings sound like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius, in the Theb • an Legion.

The same Spirit appear • ng in tho • e Souldiers who had been trapann'd into Sacrificing, gave Mr. Dean occasion to say that Iuventinus, and Maximus with these Souldiers should be his Thundring Legion for the future. Now, what Mr. I. replies, is a shameful childish Cavil, which any School Boy who had once read Butler's Rhetorick, is able to see thro', and would deride. He would easily comprehend the true sense of so common a Figure, and understand that Iovian never intended to muster them for a compleat Legion, or represent them as a force able to have beaten Iulian's whole Army, but only to shew that they had the same Passive Braver • with the Thebaean Legion, the same Zeal for Christ, and forwardness to lay down their Lives for his Religion, had the Apostate put them to it, and tho' they had been a full Legion, nay, eleven Legions to one, they would have died like them, with their Swords in their Scabbards, and not have drawn them in defence of their lives against this Lawless, Apostate Persecutor. Thus the fallacy lies at Mr I's own door.

His next quarrel with Iovian is, for shuffling with the Stories of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 203. the Nobleman of Beraea, and Publica. By Mr. I's favour, a direct Answer is not shuffling, and such an Answer he hath received. Mr. Dean tells him, that these Stories are impertinently alledged, and will not make out his Hypothesis: That Iulian was worse used than former Pagan Emperours, because he persecuted contrary to Law.

The Authour of Iovian sheweth that there was nothing singular in these stories; that elder times had many Instances, some of which he m • ntions, wherein the Martyrs and Confessors used no less Heroick Freedom of speech before other Pagan Emperours and Magistrates. As for Maris, he adds, that if there be any thing singular in his case, it ought not to be drawn into example, because he was an ill Man, a persecuting Arrian Zealot, which he hath proved by unanswerable Testimonies, to which Mr. I. replies not one word; but slides away, leaving behind him an uncharitable Surmise; for it was no more when he wrote it, but it is now improved into an impudent and malicious Slander, by the Publication, after that his Learned Adversary hath given so many and ample Proofs of a sincere Zeal against Popery, not a jot less fervent, and abundantly more Regular and Useful than his own

His Reflection on what is said touching the Antiochian Psalms, is a mixture of Scurrility and Prophaneness dressed to the gust of his Admirers. I am sure Men of Sence and Sobriety will think never the better of him for his rude Sarcasm, nor the worse of Iovian for expounding that passage of the Palmist Psal. 97. 7. in a milder sence than he likes. Mr. D. followed good Versions and Authours herein. Dr. Patrick had paraphrased it thus, Which may well make them all ashamed (and they shall be confounded by him if they will not renounce their Errours) who worship graven Images. Certainly the Phrase hath a milder acceptation than breaking of bones, in many places of the Psalms, as in Ps. 83. 16. Fill their Faces with shame that they may seek thy Name, O Lord; otherwise that Learned Expositor is frequently mistaken, particularly on Psal. 25. & 71. which Mr. I. hath expounded in Burlesque to abuse his Adversary.

Be it as it will, I am sure that Man acts more like a good Christian and Casuist, who makes the best of the doubtful Actions of the Primitive Christians, than he who represents them in the worst Colours, and at the same time proposeth them for Patterns.

In the same page Mr. I. complains that he is not permitted to call the joint Prayers of Gregory and his Church of Nazianzum, their Prayers; and that the Practice of the purest Church of that Age, must not pass for the practice of the Church. But the Question still remains unanswered. What is the Practice of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches of the Empire?

If Mr. Dean were too severe when he charged Mr. I. with willfull Blindness for saying that he could not find one single Wish for Iulian's Conversion among the Ancients, the Censure is now become Just, since he refuseth to see one when 'tis shewn him. Sozomen's Sozom • l. 6. c. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . words are these, Didymus upon the Emperour's Apostasie in Religion, being extreamly grieved both for him [Julian] who was in a grievous Error, and also for the Church's Affliction, fasted, and made supplications to God • on that Account. Here it is very evident, that Didymus was grieved and concerned, not only for the Church's Sufferings, but also for Iulian's Error; and that he made supplication to God as well for Iulian as for the Church. Now what can we imagine that he should ask of God, with respect to Iulian, for whose Error he was grieved, but his Conversion and Return to the True Religion.

By this it appears that Mr. Dean hath given the true sense of the Greek cited at large in the Margin, he was not bound to give a literal Translation. I wonder Mr. I. is not asham'd here to accuse him of forging and foisting in words at pleasure, as he had charg'd him before with Falsifications; nay, a whole heap of them without being able to as • ign one single fraud. He might as well have accused him of Bulglary, or Horse-stealing, and he hath equal Evidence for them, and a pack of Readers prepared to swallow any Calumny.

I acknowledge that it was the Historian's design in this Chapter to shew that Iulian's destruction was from God, for laying waste his Church, and that account of the Prayers of Didymus for the Apostate's Conversion, dropt from him on the by; we should never have heard of them, but for the miraculous Revelation of Iulian's Death. But this doth not impeach its Truth, nay, it is a fair ground to believe, notwithstanding the silence of Historians, that many other Christians did the same.

However, I can by no means grant that the miraculous Answer to his Prayer was a strong Proof that Didymus prayed for Iulian's destruction, or that his breaking Fast upon the News, gives the least support to the conceit. The express words of Sozomen • shew the contrary: And the miraculous Revelation proves no more than the Historian designed, viz. That he fell by the just Judgment of God for making havock of his Church. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Didymus had the Answer of his Prayers in the Churches Deliverance, which God if he had seen meet, was able to have accomplished by Iulian's Conversion, as easily as by his Death, and his breaking Fast upon the News, only shews his firm belief that the Dream was Divine, and the Revelation true. The occasion of his Fasting was now over, God had deliver'd his Church, and Iulian was incapable of receiving benefit by his Prayers. Mr. I. might as reasonably have concluded that David fasted and pray'd for the Destruction of his Child, because assoon as he heard he was dead, he call'd for meat, and fell to eating.

Pag. 208. I perceive that Mr. I. is very loth to quit the honour of his notable discovery, that Iulian narrowly scap'd a kicking from old Gregory, tho' he be not able to answer any one of Iovian's proofs of the vanity of that conceit. Yet he stands in it, that the words of Gregory will bear no other sense.

1. He saith it was Iulian in person, and not the Captain of Archers, for Elias Cretensis expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by ille impius: I grant it, but then neither Elias, nor Billius, ever dreamt that Iulian led those Souldiers to Nazianzum, Elias Cretensis quos impius ille adversus Ecclesias concitabat. Naz. To. 2. Col 747. Billius Tom. 1. p. 307. quos in Ecclesias nostros immiserat. but say only he sent them against that and other Churches • And probably the Greek Elias Cretensis, and some other MSS. of Nazianzen read in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so the Transubstantiation Soloecism is avoided. But trusty Mr. I. conceals this which is really a fraud, and falsifieth the Author • whose Testimony he produceth.

2. Whereas Iovian saith it could not be Iulian but the Captain, because he came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Orders. Mr. I. saith, the Greek words are falsely rendered with the Emperor's Orders, and that they signify in an Imperious way. I believe Billius was not of his mind, but by pro imperio & jussis meant according to his Orders, and instructions. I doubt not in the least but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gregory meant the Edict for demolishing Christian Churches, which in all probability the Officer carried with him. The Emperours Edicts are commonly styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Iulian calls his own Epist. 52. p. 213. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Edicts. So they are styled by l. 5. c. 10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Item c. 15. bis. Sozomen frequently, and by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , p. 74. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 86. Nazianzen himself, in this Invective, where this particular Edict for demolishing of Churches is so called. This is a much more natural and easie sence of the words than that which Mr. I. would force upon them. Lastly, whereas Iovian sheweth, out of Phavorinus, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to suffer, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 implies the Feet to be the Subject hurt, not the Instrument offering that Violence, of which Mr. I. will have the Apostate in danger, and so renders the words, though he was ill of his Feet. Mr. I. takes occasion to despise his Adversary's Grecianship, and will not take notice that Mr. Dean was not the first who took the words in that sence, but followeth Bilibaldus Perkeymer, a great Master in the Greek, and Restorer of Learning, who had thus rendered the words above an hundred years before Mr. Dean was born. Nor is it at all necessary that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signifie being beaten with a Club on the soles of the Feet, as Mr. I. drollingly insinuates. Being foundred, or foot-sore with a hard March, may far more easily be reconciled with Elias Cretensis, who renders it pedibus contusus, than his device of drubbing.

Thus you see, Sir, that here is no evidence of Iulian's being at Nazianzum, or receiving any affront, in Person, from the old Bishop, nor yet of his imminent danger of being kick'd, which he scap'd by a seasonable retreat. Were it either necessary or worth while, I am confident a Man might, from Ammianus Marcellinus, and the date of his Edicts in the Theodosian Code, give such an account of Iulian's Residence from his leaving Constantinople, till he left Antioch to march against the Persians, as would prove it scarce possible for Iulian to have been in person at Nazianzum. We have no account that Iulian with all his Zeal against Christianity ever went in person to see this Edict put in Execution, and there is no reason to doubt, but if he had done it, Nazianzen, who omits no circumstance that may aggravate Iulian's Crimes, and the Historians would have recorded it, as an instance of his devilish Spite against Christ Jesus.

In the next page, he tells us, that his Adversary's Inconsistencies and Contradictions, would fill a Book. If he had such choice, Mr. I. was much to blame, that he did not pick out more evident and palpable Instances of it, than those two he produceth. I cannot see that inconsistence in them he pretends.

The Roman Empire, he saith, was Elective. Well! What then? Iulius Caesar left no Sons,Yet p. 9. It was decreed by the Senate to Iulius Caesar, and the Sons of his Body. but died, and the Monarchy with him. For Octavius did not take the Empire upon him till long after Caesar's death, he did not as an Adopted Son, claim it by Hereditary Right in Vertue of that Decree, which no Author but Dio ever mentions. And this Decree, if ever it had the force of a Law, was abrogated by contrary Usage, being never put in Execution, or so much as once mention'd in the long Succession of Emperors down to Iulian.

The other Instance hath as little of Contradiction in it.

Iovian, p. 222. Condemns this Principle as Atheistical and Illegal here in England. That all Power is radically in the People, and that the King is their Minister, and not God's. Yet pag. 240. he acknowledges, That in SPARTA the King had not the Sovereign Power, which was Radically, and Originally in the People. And again, that the Magistrates in Switzerland derive their Power from the People.

I am not able to discern the Contradiction he talks of. All Power is not Radically in the People. i. e. The People have not the Sovereign Power in all Nations. In England they have not, in Spain and France, they have it not. But in Sparta they had, and in Switzerland they have it. Ay, but he calls this principle Atheistical, and what is Atheism in one Country is so all the World over: True. But Mr. I. now and then, meets with Gentlemen, who so assert All Power to be radically in the People, as to give St. Paul the lie, and make Government to be no Divine Institution, but a pure Humane Invention, and with respect to them Iovian calls this Principle Atheistical as may appear by the latter Assertion added to explain the former, that the King is their [viz. the People's] Minister, and not GOD's. This Mr. I. fraudulently omitted. These are notoriously the sentiments of most of our English Republicans, and they are Atheistical every where as well in Popular Governments as in Monarchies. And it would be no less Atheistical to assert that All Power is radically and originally in the King, so as to exclude its derivation from God.

But if the consistency of the propositions be only cons • d • red, the bare denial. That all Power is radically in the People • doth not infer that Sovereign Power is no where in the People. The opposition of Mr. Dean's two propositions set at variance by Mr. I. is neither contradictory, nor contrary, but what the Logicians call Sub-contrary concerning which every Freshman hath learnt this Rule, that such propositions are consistent, and may be both true together. But Mr. I. is a happy man, he hath so candid Readers that they will overlook the greatest mistakes in Logick, History, Law, or any thing else, that he can either ignorantly, or wilfully commit.

The King's recommendation of Mr. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, doth not make the Authour infallible, nor yet imply his Majesties Assent to every Proposition in that Excellent Work. I am sure the passage he cites could never obtain his Majestie's Approbation. Vid. Christ. Directory, part 4. pag. 10, 11. And Mr. Baxter, who cannot be supposed to have any design to advance Arbitrary Government, hath at large solidly confuted Mr. Hooker's notion. Though when All's done, what Mr. I. cites out of Mr. Hooker, is nothing like the Propositions condemn'd in Iovian. He doth not make the King the People's Minister, nor doth he allow them to resume the Power, which by mistake he supposeth to have been once derived from them, or any way else favour the Doctrine of Resistance.

The last matter of Fact is, Simson's Case, who killed the Pursuivant. Mr. Dean accuseth Mr. I. with the fraudulent concealing, that according to Brownlow it was found Homicide, or Man-slaughter; and Mr. I. with most wonderful scorn, replieth, That Brownlow's Reports were writ for those? who understood the word Homicide, which among, other things is Chance Medley, or se defendendo. I confess the word Homicide, as a common genus includes them, and so it doth Murther also, yet by Mr. I's leave in Verdicts, and (where Jurors doubt) in the Opinions of Judges, it must have a more strict Notion, and imports Man-slaughter in the Law-sense, as it's oppos'd to all other kinds of Homicide. So that this scurrilous • lout • , is an unjust as well as a rude Reflection.

But sure Mr. I. made this Answer without ever looking into Brownlow, who doth not use the word Homicide, but saith it was found Man-slaughter. Homicide in Iovian was added as a synonymous Term, by Mr. Dean, on the Authority of Iudge Crook, cited in the Margin. So that Mr. I. hath no reason to insult, or yet to enter a Caveat against the forfeiture of his Integrity, by another Man's ignorance; I very much fear that it is already forfeited, and for faults not so pardonable as Ignorance.

I find that the Lord Coke, in that report to which Mr. I. refers in this Answer, saith it was found se defendendo, and I shall not take upon me to Umpire the matter between him and Brownlow. Nor do I think it necessary to Apologize for Iovian's Ignorance of this Report, it being unreasonable to expect that a Divine should be able to Cap Cases with the whole Post of Republican Lawyers.

But admitting Lord Coke to be in the Right, Mr. Dean put a close Question, which Mr. I. evades like a Jesuit, instead of answering. 'Tis whether he would make the Law the adaequate rule of his Actions? The plain meaning of this Question is, Whether a Man may with a good Conscience take the utmost liberties of self-defence, which are out of the reach of the Law? Instead of an Honest, and Categorical Answer he cites a Case out of Bishop Hall, quite of a different nature, and insinuates, that the Law gives a Man less liberty of self-defence, than he may honestly use. Now, Sir, he is a very mean Casuist, who knows not that a Man may not with a safe Conscience do many things which will not bring his Neck into danger, and that Tyburn is not the only way to Hell.

I need not tell you how great a Stranger I am to the Law-Books, but my desire to serve you in the only thing wherein you could need my help (the Examining of Citations in Books you could not consult in the Country) oblig'd me to look into Judge Crook's Reports, where I found a Case by accident much to the purpose of Mr. Dean's Question.

Sir H. Ferrers Baronet, Crook's Rep. Part 3. p. 372. being Arrested, some in his own Company kill'd a Bailiff, and Sir H. was brought to a Tryal. He pleaded that the Bailiff had no Authority to Arrest him, because the Warrant was by the name of Sir H. F. Knight, and he was never Knighted. It was held, by all the Court, that it was a variance in an Essential part of Name, and they had no Authority to arrest Sir H. F. Baronet. So it was an ill Warrant, and the Killing an Officer in the Execution of it, could not be Murder.

Would Mr. I. take or approve taking advantage of a Misnomer, to kill a Bailiff, and escape? If he durst take such a Liberty of Self-defence, he hath not that tender regard to Mens Lives which he professeth; and if he durst not, I wonder for what reason he cites Simson's Case. Such Ghostly Fathers as he, are sometimes out in their Law, and encourage Men to exceed the Legal bounds of Self-Defence, and so cheat Men out of their Lives as well as their Salvation. But if they are not, you know, Sir, as well as I, that those are none of the honestest, or safest Spiritual Guides, who teach Men how near to sin they may adventure without danger, and having remov'd all rubs out of the way, send Men to Hell with a quiet Conscience.

Sir, my readiness to oblige you hath put me under a necessity of having too much to do with a Casuist, of whom I now most joyfully take leave; and after the performance of so ungrateful a task, in obedience to your Commands, I am sure you can have no reason to doubt that I am,