Animadversions on Johnsons Answer to Jovian, Letter 3

Animadversions on Johnsons Answer to Jovian · Letter 3

p. 87The Third LETTER.

Dear Sir,

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

His Argument, à fortiori, if design'd to prove, that the Christians of the fourth Century, would in our Circumstances have been for Exclusion of a Popish Successor, is wretched Fallacy, because of the vast disparity of their Case, and Ours. For Mr. I. hath not been able to maintain his Paradox, that the Empire was Hereditary, against Iovian's Arguments. And if it be design'd to prove, that had the Christians known Iulian to be a Pagan, they would have done all in their Power to have kept him from the Crown, it is no less wretched Impertinence, in regard his Adversary undertakes, that the Fathers of our Church would readily set aside twenty such Titles as Iulian's, to p. 88secure their Religion. His pretence that Iulian's illegal Oppression of the Christians, was the cause of that rough treatment they gave him, together with his Insinuation that nothing but their Weakness kept them from taking up Arms against that Apostate to do themselves Right, Mr. Dean hath confuted by more arguments than Mr. Iohnson **P. 158.thinks fit to take notice of. And that one at which he nibbles, is quite too hard for his Teeth. Iovian, saith Iulian, did persecute Legally, because all the Emperors Orders, and Decrees, how unjust soever, were Legal. ††Iov. P. 86.He was an Absolute Sovereign, who govern'd by purely Regal Power, and whose Pleasure [howsoever signifi'd, whether by Letter, or word of Mouth] was a Law. ‖‖P. 86,87,88,90,91.This is made out abundantly out of the best Authors both Historians, and Lawyers, and 'tis a miserable shift to despise all these Citations as shreds of Civil Law, not worthy the least consideration.

If these Citations are misapplied, why doth he not shew it, at least in one or two Instances? Verily, his Readers are too kind if they take his word for it; and if any be so rude as to demand better satisfaction, Mr. Iohnson is resolv'd to be even with them for their Curiosity. They must go many a weary step on his Errand, who will trot all the Town over from Shop to Shop, till they meet with Gothofred's Vlpian. But I confess it was done like one who is his Craft's-Master to refer them to a Book, which scarce one in a thousand is ever likely to see.

But this one Argument is by no means the Substance p. 89of what Mr. Dean offers against this new Hypothesis. That illegal Oppression, and Tyranny, was the cause of the Christians rough behaviour towards Julian. For he sheweth that other Emperors, some of them Christians too, were treated as coursely as Iulian, particularly Constantius by Hilary, Athanasius, and Lucifer, from whom Mr. Iohnson cites several such passages in his Answer to Constantius the Apostate, as are far ruder than any thing in the Third Chapter of his Iulian. So that the Phaenomenon he would solve by this Hy…othesis, is not Real Fact, but a mere Fiction. The Christians were not more rough in their behaviour towards Iulian, than elder Christians had been towards several of his Predecessors, not only Pagan, but also Christian Princes.

Again, He shews that Iulian had the malice of a Devil against our Saviour, and his Religion in which he persisted against the plain Evidence of Miracles,See Iov… p. 141. and to the end of the vi. Ch. and in spite of many remarkable Judgments of God upon his Uncle, and other blasphemers of Christ and persecutors of his Church. So that the Christians might reasonably conclude him Irrecoverable, and past Repentance, and treat him the more severely on that account, nay believing him so, they might possibly pray for his destruction, as the only probable means of the Churches deliverance; and yet it followeth not that they would have lifted up their hand against him, or been the Instruments of that destruction they prayed for.

Again he proves, if Iulian were guilty of Illegal Oppression, and Tyranny, See Iov. Ch. ix.so were other Persecuting p. 90Emperours before him, particularly Galerius; so that there was nothing singular in the case of Iulian's Christians, nor can he infer from their Example, that Illegal Oppression will warrant Subjects to take Arms against their Lawful Prince to do themselves Right.

In the next Page we find Mr. I. in a very peevish humour, quarrelling with Iovian for what he himself said in effect over and over. 'Tis only the Phrase moves his Choler, viz. the main ground of their displeasure was, that he did not formally persecute them, nor put them to Death enough. Mr. Dean explains himself sufficiently, the Christians desired rather to be persecuted in the old Decian, and Dioclesian way, i. e. to have Their Religion made their Crime, and Death their Punishment. This the Authours referred to in the Margin plainly evince, and the instances of Iuventinus, and Maximus, and Romanus, and his fellow Souldiers shew, that some under Iulian, were as ambitious of the Crown of Martyrdom, as the Elder Christians, who sought it by voluntary Confession, and provoked their Pagan Rulers to persecute them with the utmost Cruelty. Mr. I. it seems, thinks them too free of their Passive Throats, and if they were so fond of Martyrdom, they might even as well have hang'd, and drown'd themselves, and saved their Persecutors the trouble. I know not what he can mean else by reviving the Sarcasm of a Pagan, Bloody Persecutor,Apud Tertull. ad Scap. c. 4. foreign. Arrius Antoninus, who thus reproached voluntary Confession with the desire of Martyrdom. Were there no Halters, or Precipices in the Roman Empire? p. 91P. 161. Mr. I. buckles closer to his work, and pretends accurately to state the Case of Passive Obedience, and saith, he and Iovian are perfectly agreed, 1. That the King's Person is sacred, and Inviolable. 2. That Inferiour Magistracy acting by the King's Authority, according to Law, may not be resisted.

I am glad to see that the peevish humour hath somewhat spent it self, and that he can agree with his Adversary in any thing. I presume when he saith, that the King's Person is Sacred and Inviolable, he means by those fine words, he may not be resisted: and if so, it may deserve considering, how well he agrees with himself. For in his former Book he quoted a shrewd saying of a worthy Person, Iul. p. 88.That one single Arm unresisted may go a great way in massacring a Nation. Every one knows whose single Arm is meant, and no Man who praises that saying can agree, that the King's Person may not be resisted.

How fairly he states the difference between himself and Iovian, In the First Letter.I have in some measure shewn already: Impartial Readers, though but of an ordinary Capacity, who will be at the pains to compare the Book with this Answer, may observe, without my help, that a great part thereof is employed in confuting his own slanderous Fictions. For where doth Iovian assert any of the things imposed upon him, as that by the Imperial Laws, a Popish Prince may send Forces to murther his Liege People?Answ. p. 162, 163. 164, 166. p. 169, 181, &c. That a Soveraign can Authorize his Forces to do any Act of Illegal Violence? p. 92Where doth he give the King Boundless Power? Or the whole Legislative Power? I am sure Mr. I. can shew no such Assertions in the Book he pretends to Answer. And therefore how unconscionably doth he abuse both his Adversary and his Reader for almost forty pages together? And how impertinently doth he swagger with Citations out of Bracton, the Miroir, Fortescue, Judge Ienkins, and King Charles the First, of Blessed Memory, to disprove what Iovian no where affirms?

It would indeed have signified something, could he have produced but one clear Passage out of all those Authours in which any of them declares it lawful for Subjects to raise but a single Regiment, or Troop, to resist Forces legally Commissioned even in illegal, and uncommissionated Acts of Violence. And till he can at least shew this in our Law-Books, he hath no right to call Mr. Dean a Proteus of Passive Obedience, or reproach him as not consistent with himself. It is no Contradiction to allow Subjects the Liberty of Private Resistance, when illegal Violence is offerred to them, and yet to deny them Power to raise Forces, and to wage a Defensive War against those, who, as Mr. I. maliciously supposeth, will murther in Troops. I hope he will not be so hardy as to say, that a single Captain can be made, or that one private Souldier can be listed according to our Laws, without Their Majesties Commission, or that in their Realms and Dominions, and besides Their Majesties is vested with Legal Authority to grant Commissions to levy Forces. Tho' the Laws secure mens Lives and Properties, against Arbitrary Power, yet they do it not by giving Subjects the Power of the Sword.

p. 93By this you may see, Sir, how mean Judges your Neighbours are, who discern not how gross a Fallacy Mr. I. puts upon them, when he insinuates, that his Adversary is so sensless as to allow. That 'tis lawful to resist a single Cutthroat, and yet makes it a damnable sin to resist Cut-throats, Answ. p. 163. 169.as also to hold "that the Sovereign can Authorize Forces, and great Numbers, tho' he cannot single Persons, to do Acts of illegal Violence.

Sir, you know the Author of Iovian, is as far as Mr. Iohnson himself from believing that Numbers are Sacred, or can Legitimate Oppression; or that the Sovereign can give a Valid Commission to his Forces to outrage, or Murther his Liege People, and render them unaccountable for such Acts of Violence. He no where denieth Subjects the Liberty of making a Legal Defence against any number of Thieves, and Cut-Throats how great soever, and by whomsoever Commissioned. Nor doth he in the least insinuate that the damnableness of resisting lies in that they are Forces. But he makes it to consist in raising Forces without lawful Authority to resist with, and in defending themselves in such a manner as casts off Subjection, and is a manifest, and dangerous Usurpation upon the Legal Rights of an English Sovereign. He makes that Law the measure of the Subjects Power as well as of the Kings, and this it seems is his great Crime.

If Subjects be allowed to defend themselves at discretion, the King must hold his Crown but during pleasure. Some of Mr. Iohnson's Friends, will complain, that their Throats are in danger, p. 94and will never think them safe till they have the King's Throat in their Power. They have made so good advantage formerly of what he calls Legal Defence against the Vnauthoriz'd Illegal Violence of Subjects, that I do not wonder that they would fain be at the same Trade again. But I cannot forget that they held the King's Person as Sacred as Mr. Iohnson doth, and were as clamorous Zealots for Religion, and Property, who notwithstanding brought their Majesties Royal Grand-Father to the Block, subverted the Ancient, and Excellent Constitution of this Noble Realm both in Church and State, and enslaved the whole Nation.

Neither you nor I can have while to entertain our selves with so diverting a Spectacle as Mr. Iohnson's Triumphs over an Adversary of Straw of his own making, and therefore leaving him for some time at that Sport by himself, bateing a few strictures here and there, I shall say little till I meet him p. 201.

Among several things worthy of Censure, the first I shall note, is the rude treatment of a very Eminent Protestant Writer,p. 165. where having impertinently cited two passages out of Bracton, and K. Edwards, Laws, for they contradict nothing in Iovian, he concludes in these words. These I hope are better Authorities in this matter, than Sam. Bochart, our Author's French Oracles, &c. Certainly, Mr. I. is the first man who ever mention'd that great Name without some Addition of Respect, not to say with scorn and contempt. And that Epistle, which he so much vilifies, hath ever been in great Esteem with all sorts of men. It is in p. 95effect an Apologetick Declaration of the whole Protestant French-Church, professing their just abhorrence of the great Rebellion, which ended in the most execrable Murther of the King. In a word, the Memory of Mr. Bochart will ever be precious whilst the world pretends to retain any degree of Honour for eminent Piety and Learning.

In the next page he chargeth Mr. Dean with attributing to the Sovereign the whole Legislative Power, P. 166.and by his answer, it is plain he accuseth him of giving the Kings of England that vast Power. I marvel how Mr. I. hath disposed of his Conscience, if he ever had any, or with what face he can obtrude so gross a slander.

It is very evident that no such thing can be intended in the place he refers to. For, 1. Mr. Dean is speaking of All proper, and compleat Sovereigns, as well States, as Monarchs, and not in particular of our Kings.

2. He doth not ascribe to such Sovereigns the Whole Legislative Power. The word Whole is added by Mr. I. who could not otherwise have found any thing to cavil at.

3. In those words which respect an English Sovereign, he ascribes no more to him, than the influence of a principal Efficient, viz. to give our Laws their last form, to give life and soul to Bills prepared by others. And who dares deny that the Royal Assent gives those Bills which pass both Houses, the Name, Essence, and Authority of Laws, and that they are,P. 202. as Iovian speaks, but a dead Letter without it. How honestly Mr. I. calls this giving the Sovereign the whole Legislative Power, I need not observe for you.

p. 96P. 171. Mr. I. will needs have Iovian to have founded his distinction of Imperial, and Political Laws, upon a perverted passage of Fortescue, who distinguisheth Dominion into Imperial, and Political, and mixt of both. But if he would have pleas'd to consider the Book, he pretends to Answer, he might easily have observ'd it, that his Adversary fram'd that distinction upon quite another ground, and useth the Terms in a sense, far different. For as our most eminent Lawyers, and the Laws themselves call this Realm an Empire, and the Crown an Imperial Crown, and the King an Imperial Sovereign,See them cited by Iov. p. 208, & 209. that is as Sir Orlando Bridgman, and Mr. Dean, both expound the Term, a Free Independent, and Vnconditional Sovereign: so the Laws which secure the Rights of the Sovereign are aptly by him call'd Imperial Laws. And Arch-Bishop Cranmer cited in Iovian, useth the Term, tho' not precisely in this sense, to signify those Laws of the Realm which secure the Royal Prerogative against the Usurpations of the Pope.

But neither Mr. Dean, nor Sir O. Bridgman ever intended hereby to give the King Imperial Power, (i. e.) Absolute, and Arbitrary Power, but both declare the contrary. I will cite the words of the latter. It is one thing to have an Imperial Crown, and another to govern absolutely. What is an Imperial Crown? Trial Regis in 4 to. p. 11, 12.It is that which as to the coercive part is subject to no man under God. The King of Poland hath a Crown, but what is it? At his Coronation it is conditioned with the People, That if he shall p. 97not govern them according to such Rules, they shall be freed from their Homage and Allegiance; But the Crown of England is, and always was, an Imperial Crown, and so sworn — not subject to any Humane Tribunal, or Judicature whatsoever. God forbid I should intend any Absolute Government by this, &c.

In like manner Mr. Dea… making all such Princes as the King of Poland, not to be Proper, Compleat, and Imperial Soveraigns, tells you what he means by an Imperial Soveraign, Iov. p. 209.viz One who is supream in his Dominions, next under God, who hath full, perfect, and entire Jurisdiction from God alone, and all others in his Dominions, by Emanation from him. But though he asserts the Kings of this Realm to be true, proper, and Imperial Soveraigns, yet he is as far as Mr… I. from asserting an Arbitrary, and boundless Power in them. For he at the same time declareth, that to be Arbitrary is no way of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign, and though after Sir Edw. Cook he cites the Titles of Edgar, and Edward, it is not to prove, that the Saxon Kings were Arbitrary, and Absolute; but to shew, that they were Compleat, Unconditional, and Independent Soveraigns, the Natural Consequence of which is, that they are unaccountable, free from Coercion, of force, and not to be resisted.

Therefore Mr. I. needed not to have taken all that pains he hath done, p. 183. to prove it Nonsence to say, that Boundless Power may be limited in the Exercise. His Adversary saith nothing like it. But only asserts, that a King under the Direction of Laws, may nevertheless be a proper… p. 98Compleat, 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 p. 99determined, and declared, that he will save all that believe in Jesus Christ, it is impossible for him to suffer all Mankind to perish. If Mr. I. please to consult the old Schoolman, whom Fortescue cites as the Authour de Regimine Principum, Aquin. …um. Theol. p. 1 q 25 art. 5. ad. 1. …ecundum potentiam absolutam, & de potentia ordinata. Vid. Estium. in l 1. sent. dist. 43. §. 2…He will find a Distinction of God's Power into Absolute Power, by which God can do every thing which implies no contradiction in it self, or imperfection in him, and Ordinate Power by which he can do nothing but what is agreeable to the Counsels of his own w…l This distinction plainly shews, that being limited in things implying neither Contradiction in themselves, nor defect in God, is no impeachment of the Truth, or perfection of God's Soveraignty, and therefore being limited by Rules of Government; doth not destroy the Essence of Humane Soveraign Authority. Princes cease not to be Supream in their Dominions, by reason of their Concessions, and submitting their Government to the Regulation of Political Laws… even as God ceaseth not to be the Supream Governour of the World… by reason of his Gracious Purposes, and Promises reveal'd in Holy Scripture, though …t be impossible for him to act any way contrary to those Declarations.

The twelfth Chapter of Iovian, wherein the Authour shews, what security Subjects have of their Lives, Properties, and Religion, under a Popish Prince, notwithstanding the Doctrine of Non-Resistance, is a rational, grave and pious Discourse, and deserves to be consider'd after p. 100another fashion than Mr. I. hath done. He was pleas'd to droll it off **Answ. p. 197, 198., but whosoever shall with sobriety, and a mind void of prejudice, weigh what hath been said on both sides, will find a better sort of reasoning, a better Spirit, and a deeper sense of Religion in Iovian's Discourse than appears in this Answer.

It is certain, that an Absolute Security against Rebellion on the one hand, or against Arbitrary Government, and Oppression on the other, neither Prince nor People must expect. For this cannot be had, till either the People be so effectually inslav'd, as to render them as little able to serve, and assist their Prince, as they are to disturb and dethrone him; or till the Prince hath so little Power left him, that he will be equally unable, either to protect, or oppress his Subjects. And in such a state, both King and People will be in a most desperate condition. So that whether the one or other compass their ends for the present, and obtain that absolute security which they affected, they will enjoy it but a little while; for both will inevitably hereby become the Subjects of Foreign Tyranny and Oppression.

A Moral security therefore must …erve the turn, and both Prince and People must acquiesce therein, and trust each other with such a measure of Power, as if abused, may be of very ill consequence. But vain and unreasonable Fears on either part, must not be regarded, or provided against. If what he saith be not satisfactory to some of Mr. I's Friends, we are the less to wonder, seeing some of them profess to think, that p. 101God hath not given so satisfactory an assurance of his own Being, and Providence, and of the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, of the last Judgment, and a future State of Rewards and Punishments, as they expect.

All Men confess, that the measures of the Jesuits, who during the last Reign, had too great an Influence on Publick Affairs, are utterly unaccountable. And the Credit that Order had with King Iames, carried him to Undertakings as contrary to his own Interest, as to those of the Nation, and by consequence a Regard to his own Honour and Safety, did not prove so effectual a Restraint from Arbitrary Proceedings, as the Authour of Iovian hoped, and all wise Men reasonably expected. Yet Experience hath however confirm'd the Opinion of Iovian, and in violent Vndertakings, far short of the Cruelty of Massacres, all good men did withdraw from the service of that Unfortunate Prince, and many bad men durst not serve him. As for those few who did, they are likely to suffer exemplary Punishment according to their Demerit.

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

He begins with Mr. Dean's Discourse about Iuventinus and Maximus, which he makes to be a whole Heap of Falsifications. Perhaps the Falsification lies in not mentioning the precise words in Theodoret, to which Mr. I. refers, Thou hast delivered us to an Vnrighteous King, and such an Apostate as is not again upon the …ace of the Earth. Now who knew them till Mr. I. in this Answer vouchsafed to tell what the words were? In his first p. 102Book he cited no words, and refers to St. Chrysostom's Homily on their Anniversary; is it a Falsification that Iovian doth not insert this passage of Theodoret into their Speech, as St. Chrysostom relates it? This were very hard. Mr. Dean had no Interest to conceal their words, nor do I see any great advantage Mr. I. can make of them. Do they prove that Iuventinus, and Maximus would have been for a Bill of Exclusion, had they liv'd in our days? Or that they would have rebelled in defence of their Religion? There is nothing in them which founds that way. Whoever reads these Speeches as rendred from Chrysostom in Iovian, or… the Story as Mr. I. himself relates it ou… of Theo…oret, will find the Primitive Passive Spirit the Faith and Patience of the Ancient Saints in these two Christian Captains… the same Ambition to be crown'd with Martyrdom, and that Iovian commits no falsification when he tells us that their sayings sound like the Speeches of Mauritius and Exuperius, in the Theb…an Legion.

The same Spirit appear…ng in tho…e Souldiers who had been trapann'd into Sacrificing, gave Mr. Dean occasion to say that Iuventinus, and Maximus with these Souldiers should be his Thundring Legion for the future. Now, what Mr. I. replies, is a shameful childish Cavil, which any School Boy who had once read Butler's Rhetorick, is able to see thro', and would deride. He would easily comprehend the true sense of so common a Figure, and understand that Iovian never intended to muster them for a compleat Legion, or represent them as a force able to have beaten Iulian's whole Army, but only to shew that they had the same Passive Braver… with the Thebaean p. 103Legion, the same Zeal for Christ, and forwardness to lay down their Lives for his Religion, had the Apostate put them to it, and tho' they had been a full Legion, nay, eleven Legions to one, they would have died like them, with their Swords in their Scabbards, and not have drawn them in defence of their lives against this Lawless, Apostate Persecutor. Thus the fallacy lies at Mr I's own door.

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

The Authour of Iovian sheweth that there was nothing singular in these stories; that elder times had many Instances, some of which he m…ntions, wherein the Martyrs and Confessors used no less Heroick Freedom of speech before other Pagan Emperours and Magistrates. As for Maris, he adds, that if there be any thing singular in his case, it ought not to be drawn into example, because he was an ill Man, a persecuting Arrian Zealot, which he hath proved by unanswerable Testimonies, to which Mr. I. replies not one word; but slides away, leaving behind him an uncharitable Surmise; for it was no more when he wrote it, but it is now improved into an impudent and malicious Slander, by the Publication, after that his Learned Adversary hath given so many and ample p. 104Proofs of a sincere Zeal against Popery, not a jot less fervent, and abundantly more Regular and Useful than his own

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

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

In the same page Mr. I. complains that he is not permitted to call the joint Prayers of Gregory and his Church of Nazianzum, their Prayers; and that the Practice of the purest Church of that Age, must not pass for the practice of the Church. But the Question still remains unanswered. What is p. 105the Practice of Old Gregory and his Church to all the Churches of the Empire?

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

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

I acknowledge that it was the Historian's design p. 106in this Chapter to shew that Iulian's destruction was from God, for laying waste his Church, and that account of the Prayers of Didymus for the Apostate's Conversion, dropt from him on the by; we should never have heard of them, but for the miraculous Revelation of Iulian's Death. But this doth not impeach its Truth, nay, it is a fair ground to believe, notwithstanding the silence of Historians, that many other Christians did the same.

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

Pag. 208. I perceive that Mr. I. is very loth p. 107to quit the honour of his notable discovery, that Iulian narrowly scap'd a kicking from old Gregory, tho' he be not able to answer any one of Iovian's proofs of the vanity of that conceit. Yet he stands in it, that the words of Gregory will bear no other sense.

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

2. Whereas Iovian saith it could not be Iulian but the Captain, because he came foreign with Orders. Mr. I. saith, the Greek words are falsely rendered with the Emperor's Orders, and that they signify in an Imperious way. I believe Billius was not of his mind, but by pro imperio & jussis meant according to his Orders, and instructions. I doubt not in the least but by foreign Gregory meant the Edict for demolishing Christian Churches, which in all probability the Officer carried with him. The Emperours Edicts are commonly styled foreign. So Iulian calls his own **Epist. 52. p. 213. foreign.Edicts. So they p. 108are styled by **l. 5. c. 10 foreign. Item c. 15. bis.Sozomen frequently, and by ††foreign, p. 74. foreign. p. 86.Nazianzen himself, in this Invective, where this particular Edict for demolishing of Churches is so called. This is a much more natural and easie sence of the words than that which Mr. I. would force upon them. Lastly, whereas Iovian sheweth, out of Phavorinus, that foreign signifieth to suffer, and foreign implies the Feet to be the Subject hurt, not the Instrument offering that Violence, of which Mr. I. will have the Apostate in danger, and so renders the words, though he was ill of his Feet. Mr. I. takes occasion to despise his Adversary's Grecianship, and will not take notice that Mr. Dean was not the first who took the words in that sence, but followeth Bilibaldus Perkeymer, a great Master in the Greek, and Restorer of Learning, who had thus rendered the words above an hundred years before Mr. Dean was born. Nor is it at all necessary that foreign should signifie being beaten with a Club on the soles of the Feet, as Mr. I. drollingly insinuates. Being foundred, or foot-sore with a hard March, may far more easily be reconciled with Elias Cretensis, who renders it pedibus contusus, than his device of drubbing.

Thus you see, Sir, that here is no evidence of Iulian's being at Nazianzum, or receiving any affront, in Person, from the old Bishop, nor yet of his imminent danger of being kick'd, which he scap'd by a seasonable retreat. Were it either necessary or worth while, I am confident a Man might, from Ammianus Marcellinus, and the date of his Edicts in the Theodosian Code, give such an account p. 109of Iulian's Residence from his leaving Constantinople, till he left Antioch to march against the Persians, as would prove it scarce possible for Iulian to have been in person at Nazianzum. We have no account that Iulian with all his Zeal against Christianity ever went in person to see this Edict put in Execution, and there is no reason to doubt, but if he had done it, Nazianzen, who omits no circumstance that may aggravate Iulian's Crimes, and the Historians would have recorded it, as an instance of his devilish Spite against Christ Jesus.

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

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

The other Instance hath as little of Contradiction in it.

p. 110Iovian, p. 222. Condemns this Principle as Atheistical and Illegal here in England. That all Power is radically in the People, and that the King is their Minister, and not God's.Yet pag. 240. he acknowledges, That in SPARTA the King had not the Sovereign Power, which was Radically, and Originally in the People. And again, that the Magistrates in Switzerland derive their Power from the People.

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

But if the consistency of the propositions be only cons…d…red, the bare denial. That all Power is p. 111radically in the People… doth not infer that Sovereign Power is no where in the People. The opposition of Mr. Dean's two propositions set at variance by Mr. I. is neither contradictory, nor contrary, but what the Logicians call Sub-contrary concerning which every Freshman hath learnt this Rule, that such propositions are consistent, and may be both true together. But Mr. I. is a happy man, he hath so candid Readers that they will overlook the greatest mistakes in Logick, History, Law, or any thing else, that he can either ignorantly, or wilfully commit.

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

The last matter of Fact is, Simson's Case, who killed the Pursuivant. Mr. Dean accuseth Mr. I. with the fraudulent concealing, that according to Brownlow it was found Homicide, or Man-slaughter; and Mr. I. with most wonderful scorn, replieth, That Brownlow's Reports were writ for p. 112those? who understood the word Homicide, which among, other things is Chance Medley, or se defendendo. I confess the word Homicide, as a common genus includes them, and so it doth Murther also, yet by Mr. I's leave in Verdicts, and (where Jurors doubt) in the Opinions of Judges, it must have a more strict Notion, and imports Man-slaughter in the Law-sense, as it's oppos'd to all other kinds of Homicide. So that this scurrilous …lout…, is an unjust as well as a rude Reflection.

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

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

But admitting Lord Coke to be in the Right, Mr. Dean put a close Question, which Mr. I. evades like a Jesuit, instead of answering. 'Tis whether he would make the Law the adaequate rule of p. 113his Actions? The plain meaning of this Question is, Whether a Man may with a good Conscience take the utmost liberties of self-defence, which are out of the reach of the Law? Instead of an Honest, and Categorical Answer he cites a Case out of Bishop Hall, quite of a different nature, and insinuates, that the Law gives a Man less liberty of self-defence, than he may honestly use. Now, Sir, he is a very mean Casuist, who knows not that a Man may not with a safe Conscience do many things which will not bring his Neck into danger, and that Tyburn is not the only way to Hell.

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

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

Would Mr. I. take or approve taking advantage of a Misnomer, to kill a Bailiff, and escape? If p. 114he durst take such a Liberty of Self-defence, he hath not that tender regard to Mens Lives which he professeth; and if he durst not, I wonder for what reason he cites Simson's Case. Such Ghostly Fathers as he, are sometimes out in their Law, and encourage Men to exceed the Legal bounds of Self-Defence, and so cheat Men out of their Lives as well as their Salvation. But if they are not, you know, Sir, as well as I, that those are none of the honestest, or safest Spiritual Guides, who teach Men how near to sin they may adventure without danger, and having remov'd all rubs out of the way, send Men to Hell with a quiet Conscience.

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

May 6. 1689. Dear Sir, Your very faithful Servant.

FINIS.