Animadversions on Johnsons Answer to Jovian, Letter 2

Animadversions on Johnsons Answer to Jovian · Letter 2

p. 29The Second LETTER.

Dear Sir,

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, p. 30falsely 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 p. 31in 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 p. 32himself, 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 p. 33in 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 p. 34into 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, p. 35that 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 p. 36Honour and Trust. That they were not sorry Clerks and VnderUnder-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. foreign 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 p. 37Namesake 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 foreign be translated an VnderUnder-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 VnderUnder-Reader? for ††Naz. Orat. 3. p. 94. Sozom. l. 5. c. 7.Greg. Naz. saith, he was foreign, and Sozomen, that he did foreign. 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 p. 38his 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 p. 39Family, 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: p. 40That 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) p. 41should 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, ††foreign, 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 p. 42should 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 **foreign 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 ††foreignfrequenter pro foreign 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 p. 43saith, 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, **foreign. 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 p. 44by **In notis ad Ammian. p. 430. Edit. 1681. foreign.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 ††foreign idem quod foreign satelles, ita vocantur Protectores Domestici, quorum Primicerius extitit Iovianus. foreign. Socr. l. 1. c. 13.foreign, 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, foreign.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. foreign.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, p. 45which 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 **foreign.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 p. 46fervent 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 foreign 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: p. 47Neither 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 p. 48the 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 p. 49they 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 p. 50supposed 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 p. 51see 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 p. 52to 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.Ps 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, p. 53the 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 onelyonly 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 p. 54their 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 **foreign. Sozom. l. 5. c. 17. And the punishment was Cashiering & Expulsion from the Court. foreign. 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. p. 55I 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?

p. 56What 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 **foreign. 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 ††foreign. 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 p. 57and 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 foreign Bishops, which word signifies the **foreign. Phot. Nomocan. Ti. de Fide c. 31. in Textu.Inferiour Clergy, as distinguished from their Bishop; and is thus used ††foreign. 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 p. 58resisted 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. **foreign. Themist. Orat. 1^a p. 2. Edit. Paris. 1684. Item Orat. xvii. ex Edit. Petavii, 1618. foreign. Vid. Notas.The p. 59former 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, p. 60somewhat 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 p. 61Hereditary; 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. 62**P. 114. foreign.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. ††foreign, 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, p. 63**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. foreign … i. e. Non primò Caesarem, sed Augustum statim renunciarunt. Idem Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 13. foreign, i. e. non Caesar sed Imperator, foreign.Sir 50:8the 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 foreign 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 p. 64cites 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 [foreign] 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 [foreign] 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. foreign.as though by divine Inspiration, upon the p. 65news of the Emperour's Death, **foreign …with one accord resolved, as though the great King had been still living, that they would ††foreign.acknowledge none for Emperour of the Romans, save only his Sons. ‖‖foreign.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 **foreign.respective Suffrages and Voices, and so the ††foreign.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.

p. 664. The Senate agreed with the Army in the Resolution, and they also declared Constantine's **foreign.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 foreign, 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 p. 67the 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 p. 68Realms, 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 p. 69he 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. ††foreign. Cr…atus est Imperator in locum Patris Valesius.He saith, he was declar'd King in his Father's stead, foreign. What a lucky discovery is this? What a Du…ce, or Knave, was Valesius to translate, foreign, 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 p. 70before 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, foreign, 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 foreign, ut 2 Kings xv. 10, 14, 30.2 Kgs 15:102 Kgs 15:142 Kgs 15:30you will not once meet foreign. 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 p. 71it 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 p. 72pass; 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 p. 73the 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 p. 74Royal 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 p. 75cannot 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 p. 76had 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 13^o 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, p. 77deserted 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 p. 78though 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.

p. 79Fifthly, 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 p. 80from 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 81Forehead, 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.

(1.) That Iovian talks of Statutes against King Iames's Succession, and whereas he saith, If our Authour can shew me but one of those many Statutes, whereby King James stood Excluded, I will yield him the Cause. I doubt he will hardly stand to his word. What are the 35 H. 8. which impowers the King to devise the Crown by Will, and the Act of Recognition, 1 Eliz. which confirms the 35 H. 8. but Statutes against the Succession of K. Iames? For K. Henry made a Will, in which next his own Daughter, he limits the Crown to the Daughters of his second Sister, the French Queen,See H. 8. Will in Full. C. H…st. Cent. 16. by Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, passing by the Scotch Line. I know very well what was said against that Will of K. H. 8. by Mr. Maitland in favour of the Queen of Scot…and, in a Letter to the Lord Cecil, publish'd in the Collection of Papers, in the end of the first Volume of Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation: but what he saith to invalidate the Will was never proved, and this Paper lying unknown, could not (if true) influence that Parliament p. 82which recognized K. Iames his Lineal Descent from Elizabeth Daughter of K. Edward the Fourth.

(2.) He quarrels with his Adversary for talking of the Exclusion of the House of Suffolk, which he saith, never had any pretensions to the Crown. Sure Mr. I. was in a very cavilling humour. The Daughters of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, by the French Queen, and their Issue, are those whom Iovian intends by the House of Suffolk, and why they may not as properly be call'd the House of Suffolk, as the present Line the House of Scotland, I know not. For denying the pretensions of that Line to the Crown, I leave him to answer to the Duke of Somerset, and the Earl of Derby, and some other Noble Lords descended thence.

(3.) He represents Iovian as very absurd, for quoting the Act of Recognition, 1 Iacobi, when he is for invalidating all Acts of Parliament that limit and determine the Succession. But the absurdity is his own. He seem'd well enough to understand the difference of Declaring or Recognizing from Creating and Electing about 20 pages before; 'tis much he should so soon forget it. An Act of Recognition confers no Title, but supposes it, An Act which limits the Descent of the Crown creates a Title when it was not.

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 p. 83taking 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, p. 84as 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 p. 85and 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.

March 14. 1689. I remain, Dear Sir, Your most humble Servant.