Church would readily set aside twenty such Titles as Iulian's to secure their Religion His pretence that Iulian's illegal Oppression of the Christians was the cause of that rough treatment they gave him together with his Insinuation that nothing but their Weakness kept them from taking up Arms against that Apostate to do themselves Right Mr. Dean hath confuted by more arguments than Mr. Iohnson thinks fit to take notice of And that one at which he nibbles is quite too hard for his Teeth Iovian saith Iulian did persecute Legally because all the Emperors Orders and Decrees how unjust soever were Legal He was an Absolute Sovereign who govern'd by purely Regal Power and whose Pleasure howsoever signifi'd whether by Letter or word of Mouth was a Law This is made out abundantly out of the best Authors both Historians and Lawyers and 't is a miserable shift to despise all these Citations as shreds of Civil Law not worthy the least consideration If these Citations are misapplied why doth he not shew it at least in one or two Instances Verily his Readers are too kind if they take his word for it and if any be so rude as to demand better satisfaction Mr. Iohnson is resolv'd to be even with them for their Curiosity They must go many a weary step on his Errand who will trot all the Town over from Shop to Shop till they meet with Gothofred's Vlpian But I confess it was done like one who is his Craft's-Master to refer them to a Book which scarce one in a thousand is ever likely to see But this one Argument is by no means the Substance of what Mr. Dean offers against this new Hypothesis That illegal Oppression and Tyranny was the cause of the Christians rough behaviour towards Julian For he sheweth that other Emperors some of them Christians too were treated as coursely as Iulian particularly Constantius by Hilary Athanasius and Lucifer from whom Mr. Iohnson cites several such passages in his Answer to Constantius the Apostate as are far ruder than any thing in the Third Chapter of his Iulian. So that the Phaenomenon he would solve by this Hyâ—othesis is not Real Fact but a mere Fiction The Christians were not more rough in their behaviour towards Iulian than elder Christians had been towards several of his Predecessors not only Pagan but also Christian Princes Again He shews that Iulian had the malice of a Devil against our Saviour and his Religion in which he persisted against the plain Evidence of Miracles and in spite of many remarkable Judgments of God upon his Uncle and other blasphemers of Christ and persecutors of his Church So that the Christians might reasonably conclude him Irrecoverable and past Repentance and treat him the more severely on that account nay believing him so they might possibly pray for his destruction as the only probable means of the Churches deliverance and yet it followeth not that they would have lifted up their hand against him or been the Instruments of that destruction they prayed for Again he proves if Iulian were guilty of Illegal Oppression and Tyranny so were other Persecuting Emperours before him particularly Galerius so that there was nothing singular in the case of Iulian's Christians nor can he infer from their Example that Illegal Oppression will warrant Subjects to take Arms against their Lawful Prince to do themselves Right In the next Page we find Mr. I. in a very peevish humour quarrelling with Iovian for what he himself said in effect over and over 'T is only the Phrase moves his Choler viz. the main ground of their displeasure was that he did not formally persecute them nor put them to Death enough Mr. Dean explains himself sufficiently the Christians desired rather to be persecuted in the old Decian and Dioclesian way i. e. to have Their Religion made their Crime and Death their Punishment This the Authours referred to in the Margin plainly evince and the instances of Iuventinus and Maximus and Romanus and his fellow Souldiers shew that some under Iulian were as ambitious of the Crown of Martyrdom as the Elder Christians who sought it by voluntary Confession and provoked their Pagan Rulers to persecute them with the utmost Cruelty Mr. I. it seems thinks them too free of their Passive Throats and if they were so fond of Martyrdom they might even as well have hang'd and drown'd themselves and saved their Persecutors the trouble I know not what he can mean else by reviving the Sarcasm of a Pagan Bloody Persecutor Arrius Antoninus who thus reproached voluntary Confession with the desire of Martyrdom Were there no Halters or Precipices in the Roman Empire P. 161. Mr. I. buckles closer to his work and pretends accurately to state the Case of Passive Obedience and saith he and Iovian are perfectly agreed 1. That the King's Person is sacred and Inviolable 2. That Inferiour Magistracy acting by the King's Authority according to Law may not be resisted I am glad to see that the peevish humour hath somewhat spent it self and that he can agree with his Adversary in any thing I presume when he saith that the King's Person is Sacred and Inviolable he means by those fine words he may not be resisted and if so it may deserve considering how well he agrees with himself For in his former Book he quoted a shrewd saying of a worthy Person That one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in massacring a Nation Every one knows whose single Arm is meant and no Man who praises that saying can agree that the King's Person may not be resisted How fairly he states the difference between himself and Iovian I have in some measure shewn already Impartial Readers though but of an ordinary Capacity who will be at the pains to compare the Book with this Answer may observe without my help that a great part thereof is employed in confuting his own slanderous Fictions For where doth Iovian assert any of the things imposed upon him as that by the Imperial Laws a Popish Prince may send Forces to murther his Liege People That a Soveraign can Authorize his Forces to do any Act of Illegal Violence Where doth he give the King Boundless Power Or the whole Legislative Power I am sure Mr. I. can shew no such Assertions in the Book he pretends to Answer And therefore how unconscionably doth he abuse both his Adversary and his Reader for almost forty pages together And how impertinently doth he swagger with Citations out of Bracton the Miroir Fortescue Judge Ienkins and King Charles the First of Blessed Memory to disprove what Iovian no where affirms It would indeed have signified something could he have produced but one clear Passage out of all those Authours in which any of them declares it lawful for Subjects to raise but a single Regiment or Troop to resist Forces legally Commissioned even in illegal and uncommissionated Acts of Violence And till he can
since it is so I shall make two or three Observations from his Advertisement and proceed to consider the Book it self And first I cannot but take notice that during the Interval between the Printing and Publishing of this Book Mr. Iohnson had seen his scandalous and malicious suggestions against the Assertors of the Succession and Passive Obedience abundantly confuted It is manifest to all the World that those worthy Persons were not more mistaken in the good hopes they had of a Popish Successor that he would be moderate just and religiously observe his Promises to maintain our Religion and Liberties than he was mistaken in the ill Opinion he had entertained and the Calumnies he had published of them He had traduced them as Persons weary of their Religion Betrayers of their English Liberties and had particularly accused Dr. Hicks of fitting the notion of Passive Obedience on purpose for the use of a Popish Successor to render us an easier prey to the bloody Papists It is evident the Papists themselves had no such opinion of his kindness since he hath been baited for Iovian by all their Pamphleteers and by their procurement was in his own Cathedral in an Assize-Sermon levelled at the Test and Penal Laws most rudely and impudently reviled It is well known how early and zealously the Doctor appeared both in the Pulpit and in Print for the defence of the Protestant Religion that he was one of the first Divines I believe the very first whom King Iames Closeted for Preaching against Popery and animadverting on the Royal Papers Mr. I. is not ignorant that Dr. H. and his Friends who durst not by force of Arms resist a Popish Prince defended their Religion and civil Rights against him with an invincible Courage and repulsed all his attempts upon both as a brave strong Wall would the Batteries of a sorry Engine That neither Bribes nor Menaces could induce them to afford him those assistances in undermining the foundations both of Church and State which many violent Excluders offered him in their Addresses made publick in our Gazettes If Mr. I. had either ingenuity or shame he would not have published this Reply without acknowledging his Errour and retracting his slanderous Insinuations as also he would have made some reparation to the Clergy and Universities whose unsteadiness he sliâ—y forebodes from the Example of Queen Mary's Reign All this might have been done without either much trouble to himself or expence to Mr. Chiswell The reverse of the Title Page or the back side of the Lord Russell's Monument would have afforded him room enough and such a piece of Ingenuity and plain dealing would have gotten him more reputation with good Men than all his Book besides Secondly It is also observable that during the same â—nterval was Published Sir George Mackenzie's Ius Regium in which he vindicates the Scotch Succession and confutes the story of Robert the Second and Elizabeth More as it is related from Hector Boethius and Buchanan by Mr. Hunt Mr. Atwood and Mr. Iohnson He proves against them that from Robert the Second the Crown descended on the next Lineal Heir viz. Robert the Third Eldest Son of the said Elizabeth More who was his first anâ— lawful Wife Married to him solemnly A. D. 1349. and died before his Marriage with Eupheme Daughter of the Earl of Rosse This he supports by Authorities more credible than those which garnish Mr. I's Margin so that till the story be better supported and what Sir George hath said against it be disproved it must pass for a Fiction Now I blame neither him nor his Friends for reporting it after such Authours but since he would not let a mistake in History which he saith is not material escape him without advertising the Reader I understand not the ingenuity of letting so gross a mistake in story and so very material pass without adding one line more to warn him of it or offering better proof to maintain it Thirdly Mr. I's reason for suppressing his Book five years together may serve for an answer to your clamorous Neighbours who expect Mr. Dean should reply to this Book and conclude him baffled because he hath not answered it almost before he can have read it But if he never answer it let them know that Victory doth not always attend him who hath the last word and if the times which would not bear it salved Mr. I's honour whilst his Book lay dormant why may not Mr. Dean be allowed to use the same discretion I doubt not but he will consider this Reply and be ready to defend himself against the most formidable Arguments in it if he find it expedient but I conceive he stands no way obliged to take notice of this thing called an Answer to Iovian having declared in the close of his Preface to that Book that if instead of a fair close and substantial Answer he should only nibble shuffle and prevaricate and take Sanctuary in cavil satyr and scurrillity he would pass over such kind of replies with silence and conâ—empt This you will find the exact Character of this celebrated performance of Mr. I's and therefore he deserves not to be considered by his Learned Adversary That Man must have an unreasonable partiality for the cause of Exclusion and Resistance who will allow this to be a full Answer to Iovian wherein nothing is said to a great part of that Book neither is there any notice taken of many Arguments levelled against his two darling notions viz. That nothing is more plain than that the Empire was Hereditary and that it is lawful to resist a Prince by force of Arms if he persecute against Law as Julian did To disprove the former of these Mr. Dean hath shewn that the Succession to the Roman Empire was Elective Casual and Arbitrary and to make it out hath been at the pains to give a succinct account from all the Writers of the Imperial History both Greek and Latin how every Emperour from Iulius to Iulian came to the Throne from which account it appears that although many Princes endeavoured to secure the Succession in their own Families yet none esteemed the Empire to be their Inheritance or made claim to it by a right founded in proximity of blood but on the contrary pretended upon the nomination of their Predecessors or the choice sometimes of the Army sometimes of the Senate and sometimes of both and that when it continued some while in the same Family no regard was had to the next lineal Heir but adopted Sons have been preferred before the natural the more remote Kindred before those who were nearer and the Empire hath been divided between two or three Augustus's at once All which and a great deal more which may be true for ought he knows by his own Confession is utterly inconsistent with an Hereditary Succession as that of England is whose Laws do not allow our Kings to disinherit a Son or prefer the Issue of a
as to the coercive part is subject to no man under God The King of Poland hath a Crown but what is it At his Coronation it is conditioned with the People That if he shall not govern them according to such Rules they shall be freed from their Homage and Allegiance But the Crown of England is and always was an Imperial Crown and so sworn not subject to any Humane Tribunal or Judicature whatsoever God forbid I should intend any Absolute Government by this c. In like manner Mr. Deaâ— making all such Princes as the King of Poland not to be Proper Compleat and Imperial Soveraigns tells you what he means by an Imperial Soveraign viz One who is supream in his Dominions next under God who hath full perfect and entire Jurisdiction from God alone and all others in his Dominions by Emanation from him But though he asserts the Kings of this Realm to be true proper and Imperial Soveraigns yet he is as far as Mrâ— I. from asserting an Arbitrary and boundless Power in them For he at the same time declareth that to be Arbitrary is no way of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign and though after Sir Edw. Cook he cites the Titles of Edgar and Edward it is not to prove that the Saxon Kings were Arbitrary and Absolute but to shew that they were Compleat Unconditional and Independent Soveraigns the Natural Consequence of which is that they are unaccountable free from Coercion of force and not to be resisted Therefore Mr. I. needed not to have taken all that pains he hath done p. 183. to prove it Nonsence to say that Boundless Power may be limited in the Exercise His Adversary saith nothing like it But only asserts that a King under the Direction of Laws may nevertheless be a properâ— Compleat and Imperial Soveraign And his Illustration of the matter by the similitude of a Fountain is clear and apposite and what nobody but Mr. I. will deride The Essence of Soveraign Power is not destroyed or changed by this limitation it receives from Concessions and Civil Contracts though the extent of it may be somewhat lessened It is still Supream Unconditional and Independent and the Prince who enjoys it though he be bound in Conscience to govern according to such Laws and Compacts yet may not be call'd to an account or punish'd by any save God his only Superiour for violating those Laws and transgressing the Legal Bounds of his Power His Answer to Mr. Dean's other Illustration of the Point viz. That being confin'd in the Exercise doth not destroy the Perfection of Soveraign Power because then the Power of God himself could not be Soveraign c. is not at all satisfactory I confess what he saith would be pertinent and considerable if God were confin'd only from such things as are evil in themselves and therefore inconsistent with the Perfection of the Divine Nature But we all know that the free Counsels of his own Will have set such bounds to the Exercise of his Almighty Power as render many things neither impossible in themselves nor yet repugnant either to the Wisdom Holiness or Goodness of God impossible for him to do For Example No Man will presume to deny That God if he had so pleas'd might have left faln Man to have perished without a Saviour and that without the least impeachment of his Wisdom Justice or Goodness And yet God having determined and declared that he will save all that believe in Jesus Christ it is impossible for him to suffer all Mankind to perish If Mr. I. please to consult the old Schoolman whom Fortescue cites as the Authour de Regimine Principum He will find a Distinction of God's Power into Absolute Power by which God can do every thing which implies no contradiction in it self or imperfection in him and Ordinate Power by which he can do nothing but what is agreeable to the Counsels of his own wâ—â—l This distinction plainly shews that being limited in things implying neither Contradiction in themselves nor defect in God is no impeachment of the Truth or perfection of God's Soveraignty and therefore being limited by Rules of Government doth not destroy the Essence of Humane Soveraign Authority Princes cease not to be Supream in their Dominions by reason of their Concessions and submitting their Government to the Regulation of Political Lawsâ— even as God ceaseth not to be the Supream Governour of the Worldâ— by reason of his Gracious Purposes and Promises reveal'd in Holy Scripture though â—t be impossible for him to act any way contrary to those Declarations The twelfth Chapter of Iovian wherein the Authour shews what security Subjects have of their Lives Properties and Religion under a Popish Prince notwithstanding the Doctrine of Non-Resistance is a rational grave and pious Discourse and deserves to be consider'd after another fashion than Mr. I. hath done He was pleas'd to droll it off but whosoever shall with sobriety and a mind void of prejudice weigh what hath been said on both sides will find a better sort of reasoning a better Spirit and a deeper sense of Religion in Iovian's Discourse than appears in this Answer It is certain that an Absolute Security against Rebellion on the one hand or against Arbitrary Government and Oppression on the other neither Prince nor People must expect For this cannot be had till either the People be so effectually inslav'd as to render them as little able to serve and assist their Prince as they are to disturb and dethrone him or till the Prince hath so little Power left him that he will be equally unable either to protect or oppress his Subjects And in such a state both King and People will be in a most desperate condition So that whether the one or other compass their ends for the present and obtain that absolute security which they affected they will enjoy it but a little while for both will inevitably hereby become the Subjects of Foreign Tyranny and Oppression A Moral security therefore must â—erve the turn and both Prince and People must acquiesce therein and trust each other with such a measure of Power as if abused may be of very ill consequence But vain and unreasonable Fears on either part must not be regarded or provided against If what he saith be not satisfactory to some of Mr. I's Friends we are the less to wonder seeing some of them profess to think that God hath not given so satisfactory an assurance of his own Being and Providence and of the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures of the last Judgment and a future State of Rewards and Punishments as they expect All Men confess that the measures of the Jesuits who during the last Reign had too great an Influence on Publick Affairs are utterly unaccountable And the Credit that Order had with King Iames carried him to Undertakings as contrary to his own Interest as to those of the Nation and by consequence a