Animadversions on Johnsons Answer to Jovian, Letter 1

Animadversions on Johnsons Answer to Jovian · Letter 1

p. 1The First LETTER.

Honoured Sir,

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

If the Title Page had not born his Name, as well as the beginning of the Book speaks him a Clergy-man, my Charity would have carried me to believe, that such a piece as this could not have proceeded from Mr. Iohnson, or any other of his Profession. I should rather have conjectured, that some Republican Bully had espoused the Cause, and entered the Lists, as his Champion. For there is p. 2nothing more difficult than to reconcile such a loose Discourse, with the Character of a Divine, or indeed of a Christian. It is written in a strain wholly unbecoming, either the gravity of his Function, or the weight of the subject under Debate, with little Truth, and less Modesty. With what rudeness and scorn does he all along treat his Learned Adversary, as though he were an ignorant Pretender in all sorts of Literature, and understood nothing? With what a particular kind of assurance doth he ridicule his Arguments instead of answering them?Preface, p. ix. And how much soever he pretends to abhor it, he spares not profane allusions to the Holy Scriptures, to abuse his Adversary. When I come to examine the Authorities of Writers, both Ecclesiastical and profane, cited by him, it will immediately appear, that they are for the most part either impertinently alledged, or most unconscionably perverted. So that though he hath very often most foully misrepresented Iovian, his Antagonist hath the less reason to take it amiss, in regard he useth him no worse, than he hath done most other Authors, he had occasion to meddle with.

I am not at all surprized to hear with what general Applause this Reply is entertained in your Neighbourhood, no nor yet that many of the Gentry and Clergy too, are carried away with his Drolls and Fallacies, and judge the Victory clearly on his side. He wants not those also, who make it their business, in the City, to cry him up in all Companies, and to magnifie his performance, as one of the most absolute Conquests that ever the Pen made. But their Success is not p. 3answerable to their Zeal, especially among the Clergy, who best understand the merits both of the Cause, and the two Persons who are engaged in it on both sides. I dare say, as low as the credit of Passive Obedience runs at this day, Mr. Dean's Reputation, both for Learning and Integrity, is more than fifty per Cent. above Mr. Iohnson's. The great esteem he justly acquired… not only among us his Brethren of the Clergy, in the six years he was a London Minister, but also with the most eminent Persons of all Ranks and Conditions, is not to be blasted by the scurrillous and spiteful Reflections, wherewith this Reply is fraught. And in the judgment of most sober and discerning Men, Mr. Iohnson hath, by this frothy and rude Discourse, lessen'd and exposed himself much more than his Adversary.

I confess he hath many great advantages to recommend his Books among common Readers above Iovian.

1. The Doctrine of Resistance is very grateful to corrupt nature, which affects an absolute freedom from all subjection, or dependance, and abhors the very thoughts of Suffering. This humour in the infancy of the World, engaged our first Parents in a Rebellion against their Creator, and hath derived it self through all succeeding Generations down to ours. And 'tis very well known, that many of Mr. Iohnson's Admirers, are leavened therewith to such a degree, that they cannot bear God's own Government, as wise, just, and gracious as it is, but quarrel at his holy Laws, which restrain their intemperance, their Lusts and Revenge, as intolerable Usurpations upon the natural Rights and Liberties of Mankind. p. 4And though their designs may sometimes oblige them to make a great noise with their concern for Religion, it is notorious, that they have as mean an Opinion of Christianity, as Iulian the Apostate himself, being avowed Enemies, not only to the Doctrine of the Cross, but also to the whole Gospel besides.

2. His loose and comical way of writing is notably suited to the frothy and malicious humour of the present Age, which is delighted in nothing so much as drolling Invectives, nauseates every thing that is close and serious, and must be entertained with somewhat more light and diverting. This scoffing humour hath contributed much to the credit of Iulian, and its defence. Mr. Iohnson's scurrillous Satyrs rellish with too many more than his Adversaries solid and useful Discourse; his spiteful Reflections pass with them as Arguments, and his grossest fallacies go smoothly down in an abusive Jest.

3. It is another of his Felicities, that of the multitudes who admire him, very few are competent Judges of the point in dispute, which is a subject quite above ordinary Readers, and of which no true Judgment can be made, without more Learning and Patience than the generality are Masters of. There are many points of moment to be seriously weighed, many Books to be turned, Historians and Fathers, both Greek and Latin, besides modern Writers. Now they who most applaud him have never been at this pains, and indeed look upon it as wholly unnecessary; they have no mind to have a Case, which (as he hath put it) appears plain to them, perplexed by hearing what is said against it, and so without p. 5examining the Testimonies, or considering the Arguments on both sides, pronounce in his favour. Some, who are not altogether so much biassed, want abilities to comprehend an Argument, to discern a fallacy, or to judge of the pertinence and force of his Authorities. Others who have abilities and inclination to examine them, either want leisure, or are under your Circumstances, not having the Books at Command, and presuming further upon his Fidelity and Modesty than is safe, take several things from him upon trust, which they would see to be much otherwise, had they the Authours to consult. So that either through want of Abilities, or Books, or Patience to examine his plausible Fallacies, and perverted Citations, most who read him are too easily imposed upon.

4. Another great advantage he hath in the propitious Juncture of time, in which his Reply comes forth. The heady and illegal methods taken to introduce Popery, and Oppression, which (Solomon saith) maketh a wise Man mad,Eccles. 7. 7.Eccl 7:7 having driven great numbers of the Nobility and Gentry into Arms against the King, his Party is much encreased. For they all stand obliged in defence of what they have done to side with him, and their successful practice of Resistance hath silenced all Arguments against it.

To these I might add Mr. Iohnson's particular Confidence, which goes a great way with ordinary Readers, and inables him to outface the clearest Convictions, and impose the grossest falshoods and absurdities upon his willing and easie Proselytes. So that his advantages over Iovian p. 6lie not in the extraordinary strength of his reasonings, and clearness of his Authorities, but in the weakness and partiality of his Admirers; and the Applauses he meets with must be entirely ascribed to want of judgment, or worse defects in those who cry him up.

His first care is to salve his Credit by an Apology for the late Publication of his Book, which was Printed in 1683. though he durst not let it appear till 1689, and truly it had been more for his honour to have eternally suppressed it. It will hardly encrease his esteem with wise and good Men, to see him fond of such a piece of gross abuse and sophistry, after five years consideration; and to observe, that his bitter Sufferings (which I mention not to reproach him, for I abhor all Cruelty) have not been able to mortifie his insolent scoffing humour. How unjust and unmerciful soever his punishment might be, as it proceeded from humane revenge, yet Mr. Iohnson had great reason to consider God's hand in it, and to believe it a necessary piece of Discipline graciously intended to reduce him to a more serious, meek, and charitable temper of mind. I am sorry to find Afflictions have had a contrary effect upon him; but since it is so, I shall make two or three Observations from his Advertisement, and proceed to consider the Book it self.

And first I cannot but take notice, that during the Interval between the Printing and Publishing of this Book, Mr. Iohnson had seen his scandalous and malicious suggestions against the Assertors of the Succession, and Passive Obedience abundantly confuted. It is manifest to all the World, that those worthy Persons were not more mistaken in p. 7the good hopes they had of a Popish Successor, that he would be moderate, just, and religiously observe his Promises to maintain our Religion and Liberties, than he was mistaken in the ill Opinion he had entertained, and the Calumnies he had published of them.

He had traduced them as Persons weary of their Religion, Betrayers of their English Liberties, and had particularly accused Dr. Hicks of fitting the notion of Passive Obedience, on purpose for the use of a Popish Successor, to render us an easier prey to the bloody Papists. It is evident, the Papists themselves had no such opinion of his kindness, since he hath been baited for Iovian by all their Pamphleteers, and by their procurement, was in his own Cathedral, in an Assize-Sermon,Kendrick's Sermon Printed in 1688. levelled at the Test and Penal Laws, most rudely and impudently reviled. It is well known how early and zealously the Doctor appeared, both in the Pulpit and in Print, for the defence of the Protestant Religion; that he was one of the first Divines (I believe the very first) whom King. Iames Closeted for Preaching against Popery, and animadverting on the Royal Papers. Mr. I. is not ignorant that Dr. H. and his Friends, who durst not by force of Arms, resist a Popish Prince, defended their Religion, and civil Rights against him with an invincible Courage, and repulsed all his attempts upon both, as a brave strong Wall would the Batteries of a sorry Engine. That neither Bribes nor Menaces could induce them to afford him those assistances in undermining the foundations both of Church and State, which many violent Excluders offered him, in their Addresses p. 8made publick in our Gazettes. If Mr. I. had either ingenuity or shame, he would not have published this Reply, without acknowledging his Errour, and retracting his slanderous Insinuations; as also he would have made some reparation to the Clergy and Universities, whose unsteadiness he sli…y forebodes from the Example of Queen Mary's Reign. All this might have been done without either much trouble to himself, or expence to Mr. Chiswell. The reverse of the Title Page, or the back side of the Lord Russell's Monument, would have afforded him room enough, and such a piece of Ingenuity and plain dealing, would have gotten him more reputation with good Men, than all his Book besides.

Secondly, It is also observable, that during the same …nterval, was Published Sir George Mackenzie's Ius Regium, in which he vindicates the Scotch Succession, and confutes the story of Robert the Second, and Elizabeth More, as it is related from Hector Boethius, and Buchanan, by Mr. Hunt, Mr. Atwood, and Mr. Iohnson. He proves against them, that from Robert the Second, the Crown descended on the next Lineal Heir, viz. Robert the Third, Eldest Son of the said Elizabeth More, who was his first an… lawful Wife, Married to him solemnly, A. D. 1349. and died before his Marriage with Eupheme Daughter of the Earl of Rosse. This he supports by Authorities more credible than those which garnish Mr. I's Margin, so that till the story be better supported, and what Sir George hath said against it be disproved, it must pass for a Fiction. Now I blame neither him nor his Friends for reporting it after such Authours, but since he would not let a mistake in p. 9History, which he saith is not material, escape him without advertising the Reader,Preface, p. 15. I understand not the ingenuity of letting so gross a mistake in story, and so very material, pass, without adding one line more to warn him of it, or offering better proof to maintain it.

Thirdly, Mr. I's reason for suppressing his Book five years together, may serve for an answer to your clamorous Neighbours, who expect Mr. Dean should reply to this Book, and conclude him baffled, because he hath not answered it, almost before he can have read it. But if he never answer it, let them know, that Victory doth not always attend him, who hath the last word, and if the times, which would not bear it, salved Mr. I's honour, whilst his Book lay dormant, why may not Mr. Dean be allowed to use the same discretion. I doubt not but he will consider this Reply, and be ready to defend himself against the most formidable Arguments in it, if he find it expedient: but I conceive he stands no way obliged to take notice of this thing called an Answer to Iovian, having declared in the close of his Preface to that Book, that if instead of a fair, close, and substantial Answer, he should only nibble, shuffle, and prevaricate and take Sanctuary in cavil, satyr, and scurrillity, he would pass over such kind of replies with silence and con…empt. This you will find the exact Character of this celebrated performance of Mr. I's, and therefore he deserves not to be considered by his Learned Adversary.

That Man must have an unreasonable partiality for the cause of Exclusion and Resistance, who will allow this to be a full Answer to Iovian, wherein p. 10nothing is said to a great part of that Book, neither is there any notice taken of many Arguments levelled against his two darling notions, viz. That nothing is more plain than that the Empire was Hereditary, and that it is lawful to resist a Prince, by force of Arms, if he persecute against Law, as Julian did.

To disprove the former of these, Mr. Dean hath shewn, that the Succession to the Roman Empire was Elective, Casual, and Arbitrary; and to make it out, hath been at the pains to give a succinct account from all the Writers of the Imperial History, both Greek and Latin, how every Emperour, from Iulius to Iulian, came to the Throne; from which account it appears, that although many Princes endeavoured to secure the Succession in their own Families, yet none esteemed the Empire to be their Inheritance, or made claim to it by a right founded in proximity of blood, but on the contrary, pretended upon the nomination of their Predecessors, or the choice sometimes of the Army, sometimes of the Senate, and sometimes of both, and that when it continued some while in the same Family, no regard was had to the next lineal Heir, but adopted Sons have been preferred before the natural, the more remote Kindred before those who were nearer, and the Empire hath been divided between two or three Augustus's at once. All which, and a great deal more, which may be true for ought he knows (by his own Confession) is utterly inconsistent with an Hereditary Succession, as that of England is, whose Laws do not allow our Kings to disinherit a Son, or prefer the Issue of a younger before the elder Son's Posterity, much less to p. 11adopt Strangers, nor yet to divide their three Kingdoms among three Sons, or to set them up all together joint Soveraigns and Kings of the whole British Empire. Now to all this what saith Mr. I.? Truly nothing in effect; but thinks to sham it all with a piece of Republican Cant, Alluding to a Pamphlet so Entituled, being an Account of English Succession.he calls it the History of the broken Succession in the Empire (which is as good as he and his Friends will allow the English Succession to have been) and then he tells us, that it is of so small concernment in the Controversy, that he hath never examined it. Whether he hath examined it or no, I cannot tell. I am sure 'tis much his interest, that no body else should examine it. There is a Cloud of Witnesses against him, and they all speak home to the point, and I think if any Man will have Patience to examine them, he must have Mr. I's own Forehead, if he dare say their Testimony is of small concernment in the Controversy. He once believed it a matter of such moment to prove the Empire Hereditary, that he thought he could not **Iulian, p. 18.proceed faithfully without doing it, and therefore unless some great Revolution hath since happened in his Mind, he cannot esteem so full and clear a proof of the contrary of little or no concernment in the dispute. Perhaps it was prudently done to slight and overlook what he could not Answer, but Mr. I. hath in all appearance, undertaken to answer some other passages in Iovian, without examining them.

Again, it was by no means fairly done, to represent the account of the Roman Succession as a p. 12meer History, and slight it when he had done, as containing nothing that he was obliged to take notice of. There are many, and (till he shew the contrary, I shall think) concluding proofs drawn from the History, that nothing is more plain than that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary; which, if he meant in earnest to defend his first Book, it concern'd him to Answer. I am sure they were such as have in my presence, made some of the most considerable of his Friends acknowledge, that he was mistaken in asserting the Empire to have been Hereditary. And if he were mistaken in that, all his Discourse from Iulian's Case (which is founded on that supposition) falls to the ground with it. For an Argument from one case to another concludeth not, if the two Cases prove to be very different. Now all that he saith for exclusion in his first Book (abating some things in his Preface which are considered in the Preface to Iovian) is wholly deduced from Iulian's Case, and the sence of the Ancient Fathers and Christians thereupon. And therefore if he have a stock of new Arguments to produce for Exclusion in this Book, 'tis nothing to the state of the Controversy, as it stood between him and his Adversary, who undertook only to answer what he had written, and not to divine what he might say hereafter.

But if the Authour of Iovian had not given us an History of the Roman Succession, and by an Induction (which is one of the strongest sorts of proof, as an Example or Case is the weakest) made it out to be Elective, and not Hereditary: He hath without that sufficiently evinced the disparity of the Cases of Iulian, and the D. of Y. p. 13by shewing, that there were no entailed Estates, nor any such thing as Heir in Tail, or Hereditary Succession to Entailed Estates in the Empire, but that every Man might dispose of his Patrimony by his last Will and Testament, or sell or give it away as he pleased; or in case he died Intestate, it fell to his next Kindred, as Heir, or Heirs at Law. To this Mr. I. makes no Reply. Nor indeed could he make any defence for his Foreign Notion of an Heir and Inheritance, which is in truth as great a fallacy as a scale of Dutch Miles in a Map of Middlesex. For a Roman Heir, and English Heir, like Dutch and English Miles, agree in nothing but an ambiguous Name; they are distinct Species of Title, and have not the same formal Conception, as Dutch and English Miles are distinct species of Measure. Whether there be not more Wit than Truth in his representing Mr. Dean's Notion of a Soveraign to be such a deceit, I shall have another occasion to consider.

The other main Notion in his Book, and that which (for ought I know) he may have the honour of first discovering, is that a Prince persecuting against Law, may lawfully be resisted by force of Arms, and that the reason why the Primitive Christians treated Iulian worse than former persecuting Emperours, was, because they persecuted by virtue of Law against Christianity, whereas he persecuted against Laws which established the Christian Religion. Now to this new Hypothesis of Mr. Iohnson, the Dean objects two things. 1. That it is next to impossible for a Roman Emperour to persecute against Law, considering his absolute power over the Laws, and that his Edicts, Rescripts, and indeed his Pleasure any way p. 14expressed, had the force of a Law. And as for what was done against Christianity, by his Officers presuming on his connivence, and secret approbation, was no more than what had been usual in former Reigns, and therefore could no more justify resistance under Iulian, than it would have done it under former Emperours. And at this answer he just nibbles, p. 158.

2. He saith, that if oppressing the Christians contrary to former Laws, their civil Liberties as Romans, were persecuting against Law, the former Christians, as many as were Roman Citizens, were also persecuted against Law, put to Death upon shams, and pretended Crimes of Treason, tortured to deny their Religion, which was their pretended Crime, and not as other Malefactors, to bring them to confess it, denied the Liberty of making their defence, which the Laws of the Empire allowed all Men, and this he makes good by the Testimony of Tertullian; and he shews at large, how Galerius invaded the civil rights of all Men, as well as the Christians, subverted the fundamental Laws of the Empire, and endeavoured to introduce the Persian Tyrannical Form of Government, and to enslave the freeborn Roman People. His illegal and barbarous treatment of his Subjects in general, is described from Lactantius and Eusebius, and yet never in any Persecution did the Christians suffer more patiently than in this Galerian Persecution, when if Persecution against Law would warrant Resistance, they had sufficient provocation to take Arms; if in other Persecutions they were discouraged by want of sufficient Force and Numbers, yet in this they could not want either, but might have expected, p. 15that their Pagan Neighbours would have joined with them for their common defence against such a Monster and Tyrant. And what saith the unanswerable Man to all this? Why truly not one word, no not so much as that this Chapter is of small concernment in the Controversy. I have noted these material parts of Iovian, to which he hath given no sort of answer to let you see how little reason his Admirers have to magnifie this Reply, in which he declines medling with the most considerable Arguments urged against him, which stand in full force against his first Book, notwithstanding the Shew he makes of defending it. To avoid being tedious, I purposely omit the mention of many other considerable things in Iovian, of which he takes no notice. And having shewn, that he hath given no full Answer to that Book, I shall proceed to shew, that this Reply is not a fair one, but full of fallacy and deceit.

1. As he doth not consider many of Iovian's Arguments, so when he vouchsafes to Reply to others, he frequently misrepresents them, or co…cealeth the Reasons and Authorities which support and inforce them, and shams them off with a Droll. Which is very unbecoming a fair and generous Adversary, and unworthy (I will not say of a Christian or Divine, but even) of an honest Man, and a Scholar, though a meer Pagan. I will not trouble you with particular instances of such foul dealing, because they will frequently occur in my Remarks on several passages of his Book, such as the shuffle he makes to exclude Procopius from the Flavian house, the account he gives of the distinction of Laws in…o Imperial and Political.

p. 162. His main Authorities are Rhetorical Amplifications, and flourishes in Panegyricks and Invectives, in which the Orator doth not tie him strictly to truth, and the proper use of words, so that there is no arguing from the literal sence, but abatements must be made for Hyperbolical Speech on both hands, for lofty strains of Complement in Panegyrick, and for heavy and Tragical Aggravation in the Steliteutick, or Invective. This deceitful artifice is the Masterpiece of our Popish Adversaries; when they pretend the Father's Authority for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, &c. they ransack their Declamatory pieces for lofty Expressions, touching the dignity and benefits of the Holy Eucharist, and take Metaphors, See Archbishop Vsher's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. p. 386. ed. 1625.and Metonymies in a proper and literal sence. They urge this very Apostrophe of Gregory Nazianzen to Constantius, whence Mr. Iohnson would infer the Doctrine of Exclusion as a notable Testimony for the Invocation of Saints; and for my part, I think it proves the one as much as the other. This foul play his Adversaries have sufficiently complained of, but cannot prevail with him to leave it, he is conscious that he needs such advantages, and dares not let them go. For having made such a wild assertion, as that the Empire was Hereditary, and being hard pressed by his Answerers, and withal resolved not to bate them one syllable in his whole Book,Answer to Iovian, p. 209. he is forced to outface plain History with strains of Rhetorick, in which the Orator frequently allows fancy as licentious flights, as the very Poets, and p. 17nay even to stretch Hyperboles too by an advantageous Translation. Now this argues great want of Ingenuity, an unchristian and wrangling temper, and that he contends not so much for the love of truth, as for Glory and Victory. Whether he hath obtained it, or not, will be further seen in the particular Remarks to which I am proceeding.

His Intimation, that Mr. Dean waited to see the other Answers to Iulian, and then gave the substance of them in his Book, scarce deserves any notice. It is well known, that Iovian was written, currente prelo, and great part of it Printed before those Answers appeared. The expectation of it made my self and divers others never look into them, and quite spoiled the sale of Mr. Long's Book, as the Bookseller concerned hath complained to many.

It is more material for me to enquire, whether Iovian hath given us an outlandish notion of a Soveraign, for if he hath not, the deceit will lie at Mr. Iohnson's Door. If his Notion be supported by the joint Authority of the Common and Statute Laws, it is great injustice to call it an outlandish one. Now Iovian doth not set up an English Soveraign furnished with an Arbitrary, and boundless Power, like that of the French King, or Grand Seignior. He acknowledgeth him to be under the direction of the Law, though he ascribe to him a Supremacy over all Persons within his Dominions,Ch. 10. which let Mr. I. say what he pleases, is the formal notion of a Soveraign,Iovian from p. 208. to p. 214 unless the word be taken in an improper sence. This Supremacy he proves to belong to an English p. 18Soveraign by many Statutes, and the Testimony of our most eminent Lawyers both Ancient and Modern, against which Mr. Iohnson hath not one word to reply. He proceeds to a particular recital of the Essential Rights and Properties of a true Soveraign, viz. to be unaccountable, to have the sole power of the Sword, to be free from Coercion,P. 218, & 219. and Military Resistance. He sheweth these Prerogatives to be the King's due by express Statute Law, which Statutes do not vest any new Right in the Crown, but only declare what always hath been the Ancient and Fundamental Law of this Realm in those Cases. So that Iovian's Soveraign is an English Soveraign, for ought Mr. I. hath proved to the contrary, and therefore his Jest of a Dutch Scale in a Map of Middlesex, is both false and impertinent. For though the Miles of several Countries have no formal Conceptions, in which they all agree, as Individuals of the same Species, yet all proper Soveraigns have, viz. Supremacy, from which the foremention'd rights are inseparable. Nor will his doughty Demonstration from an Act of Parliament,Preface, p viii. which useth the Term in a lax and improper sence, convince Mr. Dean, or any Man else, that the Notion of a Soveraign implies nothing in it but Superiority. For at that rate there will be no fixing the formal Conception of any thing, if it must be stretcht so wide as to take in whatsoever, though improperly, bears the same name. The sence of the Term Soveraign, with respect to a civil Society, is so very well known, and agreed upon in the World, that upon the very hearing it, every body forms a conception in his mind of p. 19somewhat more than Superiority, and understands thereby such a superiour as is above all, and hath none above him, which imports Supremacy, and Mr. I. might as well have argued, that the formal conception of a Baron of England doth not imply Peerage, with all the R…ghts Essential to a Peer of this Realm, because the Baron of Kinderton, the Barons of the Cinque-Ports, and the Barons of the Exchequer, are not Peers, and have none of those great Privileges.

The next material thing in his Preface, is his quarrel against the Distinction of Imperial and Political Laws. Now let us first …ee how Iovian explains this Distinction, and then what work Mr. I. makes with it.P. 204. He calls those Imperial Laws which ascertain the Rights of the Soveraign, and those Political which secure the Rights of the Subject. That there are Laws of both sorts, I presume Mr. I. will not deny, in this and all other Kingdoms, and so I see no reason for his fury against any person who invents Terms to distinguish them.

But Mr. I. represents this Distinction most disingenuously, and quite contrary to the Authour's Mind. As though it set up a new sort of Law never heard of in this Nation, Authorizing our Kings to do all manner of Injustice; nay, to commission others also to Murder, Plunder, and commit all manner of outrage, and …o indemnifie them when they have done it. And that he may the more effectually delude his Reader into this belief, he fraudulently confounds Imperial Power, (by which Fortescue, cited by him, understands Absolute and Arbitrary Power, which is no where given by Iovian to our Kings) with Imperial Laws, p. 20and then deduces from it the most odious consequences he could devise.

Now I defy him to shew where Mr. Dean ascribes to our Kings Imperial Power in Fortescue's sence or pretends, that the Imperial Laws of this Realm allow them to Act, or Authorize any of those outrages he talks of. Where doth he deny, that the Advisers or Instruments of such Oppressions are accountable and punishable, or pretend that any Commission will warrant and bear them out? Therefore all his odious consequences vanish into smoke,P. 172. and his tedious citation out of Fortescue is wholly impertinent, since Iovian no where gives our Kings absolute and Imperial Power, though he say, that the Imperial Laws of this Realm forbid Subjects all Military Resistance, when their Soveraign strains Prerogative beyond its legal bounds.

Mr. Iohnson in his former Book demanded, in case we are persecuted for Religion, under a Popish Successor, by what Law we must die? And he supposes his Adversary devised this Distinction to answer that question. Admit it to be so, he saith by the Imperial Laws we must die. Yet it is plain, he doth not pretend that those Laws authorize the Popish Successor to persecute, or give him power to subvert the established Religion, or condemn and execute its Professors against Law. All he saith, is, that those Laws forbid me in those circumstances to save my Life by Rebellion. Had I been to answer his Book, I would have turned the question upon him, and have demanded by what Law I am allowed to draw the Sword, and raise Forces against my Soveraign for self defence. Those Laws which give him the sole power of the p. 21Sword, and condemn a defensive War against the King, whether levied by the body Collective, or body Representative of the people, do in effect require me to submit to be murthered, and in that case he himself will admit that I must die, my time is come.

If splitting this same Law of the Land into Imperial and Political displease him, it is because he was in a peevish humour, for I never yet have learned, that 'tis a faulty distinction which divides the whole into its parts. However you see he grants the Imperial as well as Political Laws to be the Law of the Land; and if they be so, let the World judge whether he hath shewn the Charity of a Christian, or the Candour of a generous Adversary in thus representing the Distinction.

I will not reckon his Allusion to the words of the Devil;Acts 19. 15.Acts 19:15 Iesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye? among his profanations of Holy Scripture. But he is a very sorry Exorcist, who will be gravelled with his Question. Common Law we know, and Statute Law we know, but who are ye? For the Imperial and Political Laws are both common and Statute Law, and by his own Confession the Law of the Land.

If his suggestion were true, that Passive Obedience, as it is taught by his Adversaries, is Popery established by a Law, by which he only means, that it would be an encouragement to a Popish Prince to set it up without Law, an irresistible temptation to persecute the Reformed Religion, and to commit all manner of Lawless Oppression; I say, if this were true, it is no Argument that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience is false, because p. 22ill Governours may take occasion to abuse it. Is our Saviour's Passi…e Doctrine on the Mount either false or foolish because Iulian was thence encouraged to oppress Chri…tianity, and becoming his own Chaplain, Preached it himself? This is the very fallacy, a non causa, which he unjustly in another place of this Preface chargeth upon his Answerer.

If the Laws oblige us to non Resistance, and allow no pretence of levying defensive War, and this liberty denied will as surely establish Popery as 10000 Political Acts o… Parliament, let him arraign the Laws, and not this poor innocent Distinction, or Iovian, who only teacheth obedience according to Law. But I pray you, may not ill Men make as wicked and dangerous advantages of the con…rary Doctrine? why may not the Doctrine of civil liberty, as well as Christian Liberty, be made a Cloak of maliciousness? It is notorious, that it hath been so abused, yet I would urge no Man to renounce his interest, either in the one or the other, on that account. Are not Subjects as apt to be clamorous and turbulent as Princes to be Arbitrary? are not the former as apt to claim undue Liberties, as the latter undue Prerogatives? Is it an unhappiness peculiar to Princes only to be haunted with Flatterers? Have not the People also Parasites and Sycophants about them, both Divines and Lawyers, who …latter them into an opinion of a boundless English as much unknown Liberty to our Ancestors, as boundless Power in the Prince? And have not these Sycophants as much the temptation of interest, and as fair a prospect before them in working confusions and revolutions, as the other p. 23Parasites… can have in the hopes of Court favours? To conclude, is not Arbitrary Subjection, and an ungovernable humour in the people, as destructive to Society as Arbitrary Government? If then the Inconveniencies which may arise, render a Doctrine foolish or wicked, the Doctrine of Resistance is full as much in danger as the slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience, and the mischievous consequences, I fear, are not altogether so accidental to the former as to the latter.

Oh! but Iovian owns the consequences of Non-Resistance, and saith expresly, p. 242. In all Soveraign Governments Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular, that is, of their lives and liberties; and he would fain know then in what particular they are Freemen? Is Mr. I. sure Iovian saith so? or is he sure that life and liberty are the particulars as to which he saith Subjects must be Slaves? I doubt he is guilty of a mistake, or a worse fault. The passage as torn from the context, and expounded by Mr. I. sounds very harsh… but I will set it down intire, and then a very ordinary Reader will understand the measure of his Candour and Honesty, in representing Iovian. The passage runs thus. Therefore to cut off Resistance in the English Government, the three Estates have declared against all Defensive, as well as Offensive War, it being impossible for the Soveraignty to consist with the Liberty of that pretence. Just as among t…e Romans it was inconsistent with the Soveraign unaccountable Power, which the Masters by Law had over the Slaves, for them to have a liberty of rising up against them on the pretence of Self-defence.

In all Soveraign Governments Subjects must be p. 24Slaves in this particular, they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign. You see what this particular is in which Subjects must be Slaves, not the particular of their Lives and Liberties, but they may not levy War against their Soveraign under colour of Self-Defence. And though he saith they must Trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign, it will not follow that he makes them to be wholly at the Discretion of their Prince. If Mr. I. and his Friends will think themselves inslaved because they may not be allowed, what he calls, just and necessary Defence when grieved and oppressed by the Government, I know no Country in the World in which they may enjoy their freedom. I am sure that Prince would purchase their good opinion at too dear a rate, who would allow them that liberty, for they would never want pretences, which they would esteem just and necessary occasions to use it, and quickly make him know, that Kings are only Servants and Trustees, and hold their Crowns and Lives too at the Peoples Discretion. To his Zealous Cant, which, fills the next four Pages of his Preface, I shall say nothing, since they contain nothing of Answer to any part of Iovian. Iulian, p. 92.Indeed he hath answered it all himself, in his first Book in this Proposition: That Christianity destroys no Man's Natural or Civil Rights, but confirms them: for if the Law of the Land make the Soveraign unaccountable and irresistible, and declare, that the People, in whatever capacity considered, have no Authority to levy a Defensive War against him, Christianity by his own Confession confirms those Rights to the Prince, as well as the Civil p. 25Liberties to the People. And whoever he is, who asserts a liberty of rising up against him for Self-Defence, is guilty of removing the ancient Landmarks; and the Nation have reason to Curse him. He takes the liberty over and over, to call Passive Obedience the Doctrine of the Bow-string, and Turkish Doctrine, but till he hath proved as well as asserted, that **See the contrary of all this fully proved in an excellent Treatise… Entit. Christianity a Doctrine of the Cross, or Passive Obedience, &c. wherein M^r Iohnson's Arguments against Passive Obedience are fully considered.Martyrdome is only suffering according to Law, that our Saviour only forbids the Resisting of legal violence, That St. Paul only forbids resisting the higher Powers, which govern according to Law, as we are to suppose Nero did, and till he shall have answered, the ninth Chapter of Jovian, to which he hath not returned one word, and shewn us, that in all the ten Persecutions the Emperours and their Officers inflicted no illegal punishments upon the Martyrs and Confessors, but that whatever Imprisonments, Tortures, or D…aths they suffered, all was warranted by the Roman Laws, and had it been otherwise they would not have so tamely submitted to their Murtherers; I say till all this be done, Mr. I. hath no right to call the Doctrine of Non Resistance, the Slavish Doctrine of the Bow-string, nor yet will he, in the judgment of Indifferent Persons, have fairly vindicated himself from the charge of burlesquing the Doctrine of the Cross.

There is but one thing more in his Preface to be considered, and that is, whether Iovian be guilty of that cheat which the learned call the fallacy of non causa, pro causa, in asserting that Self Defence doth more mischief than the most outragious p. 26and bloody Oppression. This he saith is repeated often, but I cannot find it so much as once; It is true Iovian saith,P. 256. That there is some inconvenience in the Doctrine of Non-Resistance, but the inconvenience of Resisting the Soveraign is ten times worse, P. 260.and that it is a remedy against Tyranny worse than the disease. And he hath largely proved it by reasons, by instances, and by the Authority of a Book which Mr. I. pretends to honour next his Bible, The Book of Homilies, and to all this he vouchsafes not the least Reply. Only Rebellion is with him Self-Defence, Drawing the Sword without Authority must be righting ones self, and the natural and necessary consequences of this illegal Defence must be accidental only, and then 'tis an errant fallacy to say the Inconveniencies of Resistance are greater and worse than those of Passive Obedience, though ten thousand Lives and Fortunes are destroy'd in an Illegal Defensive War, for ten that would be lost by the Arbitrary stretching the Prerogative beyond its legal bounds. This is fallacy all over, but Mr. I. and his Friends have a notable faculty of charging innocent Men with their own faults, and I fear were they entrusted with the liberty of Self-Defence, they would quickly make a very offensive use of it. They would invade other Mens Lives and Liberties by way of Precaution. They would make sure of giving the first blow without expecting an Assault. And Mr. Iohnson's just and necessary defence, would be a much more destructive murthering piece, than Iovian's Turkish, Slavish, Bow-string, Cut-throat Doctrine of Passive Obedience.

p. 27And thus I have done with his Preface. My Observations have swelled to a much greater bulk than I designed when I began them, and instead of half a Letter, I have written a little Book. Having this opportunity of conveying them to you by Mr. R. who goes out of Town to Morrow, I shall break off in the middle, and what remains you may expect (unless I can find some safer hand to entrust therewith) at furthest, by the Carrier, this day Fortnight. I am,

Feb. 2. 168…. Dear Sir, Your most affectionate Servant.