A LETTER OF Remarkes UPON JOVIAN. By a Person of QUALITY. LONDON, Printed for H. Jones. M.DC.LXXXIII. A LETTER OF Remarkes ON JOVIAN. SIR, I Must quarrel you for the Promise you extorted from me of giving a short account in writing of my free and Impartial Thoughts of the long expected Jovian. You know we are now under such unhappy Circumstances, that whatsoever is said or done against any false Pretender to the Service of the Crown, is looked upon as an Act of Disloyalty. And I may by some be thought an Enemy to the Imperial Crown, if I go to show wherein one who talks high for it, has really disserved it; But since I am satisfied, that whatsoever mischief is in this, lies only in the Opinion of those Men, whom I need not value; I shall not for their sakes, deny my Promise, or my Friend. I shall not concern myself in the Merits of the Cause between him and his Adversary. I shall only show wherein it has suffered for want of a better Advocate. But thus much is obvious, that if the Prince makes no claim to his Power, in such manner as he ascribes it to him; this Author is guilty of a foul misrepresentation of him, in putting out such a laboured Piece, as it were, on purpose to promote Fears and Jealousies. But then, if he both is so Invested with his Power, and will have it known that he will use it accordingly, as he sees Occasion, a weak and partial proof of it ought to be punished as treacherous. For this Minister of London, as he styles himself, who will not allow the Church of England to be a true Church, Jou. Pref. unless we own the Church of Rome to be so too. I shall in short make it appear, that he has in this Book of his, shown himself neither, 1. Logician, Nor 2. Good Historian, Nor 3. Fair and Equal Writer; 4. Besides that, he Undermines the force of all that he would seem to say, by his Concessions and Contradictions. And then judge what Reward he deserves for his very great pains. 1st. Not Logician, because he doth not, as he should, state the Question. The Paralelism in Julian, is not, between the State and Condition of Christians under Pagan Emperors, who Governed dispotically while the Christians lived precariously, and were always under the Bowstring Law, as now in Turkey; and those Communities of Christians, who upon mutual Stipulation upon Oath, agree to keep such Laws as were then made, or after should be generally agreed unto, according to the Established Legislative. Neither Secondly, Was it the Question what was to be done to Crowned Heads, but what might have lawfully been done to prevent the Succession of one of dangerous or suspected Principles: So that what followed was only Circumstantial. And if it did not show what might be done by Christians in the like Case with those under Julian; at the least, it shown what was the nature of those Prayers and Tears, the acceptableness of which, some would think, God Evidenced by his miraculous Destruction of that Tyrant. 2dly, He shows himself no good HISTORIAN. For which I shall take notice of but four Particulars. 1. (In which he has likewise betrayed great Indiscretion) his producing the Scotch Act of Parliament for the Sacredness and Unalterableness of the Succession, without knowing any thing of that scurvy Story of Elizabeth Mure, or offering at any Disproof of it. 2. His Vouching the Solemn Recognition of King James his Title in Parliament, Pref. as an Argument that King Henry the Eigths Limitation of the like Authority, was void: Crown by the Burnet's Hist. 1st. Part. When if he had read the History of the Reformation, he might have known that the Limitation he mentions, was by an Inauthoritative Will, the direction of the Parliament not having been duly pursued. 3. His carping at the Relation of Sir Simon Dewes, in the business of the Queen of Scots. King James being more concerned for the fame of his Mother, than of our glorious Queen, caused Mr. Camden's Papers to be seized, and delivered into the hands of the then Earl of Northampton, who struck out what he pleased in that Matter; which made the Poor man lament with Tears, as can even at this Day be sufficiently proved. This and the Index Expurgatorius. Sir Simon might well know, who being a Man of consummated Knowledge in all kind of Literature, and Antiquity ought not to be controlled by one, whose utmost effort, after the Corrections and Helps of all his Friends, ends in this dispicable Trifle. 4. But then without the least Judgement or Knowledge of the various Acceptation of the Word. Estate both in Records and Histories, he falls foul upon the Lord Hollis, and would have it Treason, because he calls the King a Third Estate. This may be false, but surely no Treason, except he had said, The King had but a Power, and might be overruled by the other. He would suggest, as if the ascribing that Letter about the Bishops Voting in Capital Causes to that Lord, were a wrong and scandal to his Memory. Jou. p. 236. That it was his is passed all doubt, he having owned it in his Life time, and after continued the same Subject, which was Printed after his death, with other Contracts to the same purpose by others: & if the Dr. had been a man conversant in that Learning, he could not but have found by them, Jou. p. 185. that the most Learned and Worthy Author of the Graved Question, is so far from having made good any Imputation upon the Candour and Veracity of that noble Lord, that how much soever he may have Obliged the Age by his many Learned Works, yet he may beconcerned to vindicate himself against the Considerations upon his Book long since Published. 3. I shall very briefly make good my Charge of his being no Fair nor Equal Writer: For this I might instance in his partial Quotations of Bracton, Fleta, and Fortescue, concerning our English Government, which it lies upon Mr. J. to show more at large: but I believe this Author would be loath to receive all their Say for Law, though backed with the Authority of the old Mirror to boot. I shall only evince him to be guilty of a little Impiety in his Quotation of Acts of Parliament, p. 234. according to his own acceptation of the word, when he would apply it to others. You must understand that he splits the Hair very curiously between the Imperial and Political Laws of the Realm, by one of which, it seems, a man may be hanged, or lose what he has, when he is Justifiable by the other; In all Sovereign Governments, Subjects, [he says, p. 245. ] must be Slaves, as to this Particular; they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Sovereign. But the Engglish Realm is a Perfect Sovereignty or Empire, and the King of England, by the Imperial Laws of it, p. 208. is a complete Imperial and Independent Sovereign, to whom the foresaid Rights of Sovereignty do inseparably belong, VIZ. As he had before enumerated them. 1. To be accountable to none but God. 2. To have the sole Power and Disposal of the Sword. 3. To be free from all Coercive and Indicative Power. P. 202. 4. To have the Legislative Power, or the Power that makes any Form of Words a Law. Now he chooses rather to prove that our King is an Absolute Sovereign; and therefore has these Incidents, than that he hath all these in an Absolute Manner, and therefore is an Absolute Sovereign. But it falls out unluckily, that when in some Cases, the very Enacting Parts of Statutes, shall signify nothing to Him; yet the most tolerable Proof that he brings, to show that all the Civil Rights of the Nation are in the King's Hands, to do as he pleases with any particular Person, especially (THOUGH THE PERSONAL ORDERS BY WHICH HE TOUCHES THIS OR THAT, OR THESE OR THOSE MEN, ARE NOT DRAWN INTO PRECEDENT, AND EFFECT NOT OTHERS:) p. 193. The best Proof of this (I say,) is drawn from the Preambles of Acts of Parliament about Ecclesiastical Affairs, most of them against the Usurpation of the Roman See, upon this Imperial and Independent Crown; and the strongest of them very unfairly cited. Intending here but a taste of his Dis-ingenuity, I shall give but two Examples, and that in 24. H. 8. c. 12. and 25. H. 8. c. 21. He tells us. P. 108. By the whole Parliament, 24. H. 8. c. 12. it was Resolved, and so declared, that by sundry Authentic Histories and Chronicles, it is manifestly Declared and Expressed, that this Realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the World, Governed by one Supreme Head and King, having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same. P. 213. After the words before cited, it follows, (says he) unto whom a Body Politic— been bounden and owen to bear next unto God, a natural and humble Obedience, he being instituted and furnished with plenary, whole and Entire Power, Pre-eminence, Authority, etc. Thus far he. But methinks, if he had intended fairness, he would at least have Answered the Objection from the following words, which some may take as Restrictive, Viz. Prerogative and Jurisdiction to RENDER and YIELD Justice and Final Determination to all manner of Folk, Resiants, or Subjects within this his Realm, in all Causes, Matters, Debates and Contentions, happening to incur, insurg, or begin within the Limits thereof, without Restraint or Provocation to any Foreign Princes or Potentates of the World. Then the Statute 25. H. 8. c. 21. has no more Ploughs Treatment than the former. The words he has occasion for, are these. P. 212. That this your Grace's Realm, Recognising no Superior under God, but only your Grace has been, and is free from Subjection. Now methinks, this is a strange kind of Breach: to say that this Realm is under God and the King, and yet free from Subjection, sounds a little oddly; wherefore we must look further for their meaning: The Act goes on thus, TO ANY MAN'S LAWS but only such as have been Devised, Made and Ordained within this Realm, for the Wealth of the same, or to such other as by Sufferance of your Grace, and your Progenitors, THE PEOPLE OF THIS YOUR REALM HAVE TAKEN AT THEIR FREE LIBERTY BY THEIR OWN CONSENT, to be used amongst them; and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom, to the observance of the same, NOT AS TO THE LAWS OF ANY FOREIGN PRINCE, POTENTATE, OR PRELATE, but as to the Customed and Ancient Laws of this Realm by the said Sufferance, Consent and Custom, and NONE OTHERWISE. It standeth therefore WITH NATURAL EQUITY, AND GOOD REASON, that in all and every such Laws humane, made within this Realm, by the said Sufferance, Consents, and Custom, your Royal Majesty, and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons REPRESENTING THE WHOLE STATE OF YOUR REALM, IN THIS YOUR MOST HIGH COURT OF PARLIAMENT, have full Power and Authority not only to dispense, but also to authorize some Select Persons to dispense with Those and all other Humane Laws of your Realm, and with every one of them, as the Quality of the Persons and Matter shall require, and also the said Laws, and every of them to ABROGATE, ADNUL, AMPLIFY, OR DIMINISH, as it shall seem good to your Majesty, and the Nobles. and Commons of your Realm, as by divers good and wholesome Acts of Parliaments Made & Established as well in your Time, as in the Time of your most Noble Progenitors, it may plainly and evidently appear. Now who can help it, if some unlucky Fellow, observing these gross Omissions, should retort that Saying of the Worthy Prelate, That if he might use the Scriptures as this Author hath used the Statutes, Jou. p. 184. he could prove there was no God; for leave out, The Fool hath said in his Heart, and then it follows, There is no God. 4thly. HE IS CONTRADICTORY in his Principal and Fundamental Points, or at least yields enough to destroy them, which are these three. 1. To show that the Parallel between julian's Succession and the Doctor's here will not hold. 2. That the Succession is Sacred and Unalterable by Humane Law. 3. That the Author of the Life of Julian is out in his Notion of Passive Obedience; and that 'Tis as much a Duty when ever the King exerts his Prerogative, or Imperial Law, as when he has declared any Law in Parliament, according to the Politic Constitution of the Nation For the 1. He tells us that 'tis absurd in J. to suppose that the Empire was Hereditary in Julians Time. Pref. Because limited Inheritances came not in till after, with the Feudal Law; and not with us till the Normans. and yet he citys Dio, who says, that the Empire was decreed BY THE SENATE UNTO JULIUS AND THE SONS OF HIS BODY. Pag. 9 Nay, he tells us, Pag. 78. that this is an Entailed Kingdom by the Original Constitution of the Government: that is, it was Entailed before there was any such thing as a Limited Fee. But it seems, with him, nothing is an Inheritance, but what is claimed by an ancient Entail: thence he supposes that the Empire was not Hereditary, because the Emperors sometimes gave it to Adopted Sons and disposed of it as an Inheritance of their own Purchase or Acquisition: Pag. 65. he further will have it, that 'tis the nature of an Entailed Estate, that it can by no means be docked, and the Limitations defeated: which no man can suppose that the Author of the Life of Julian ought to prove against himself. 2dly. He is to prove that it is not in the Power of an Act of Parliament to defeat the Right of him who in ordinary Course should succeed to the Crown of England: the force of all his Arguments for this, is that it is the nature of Birthright and Inheritance, Jou. p. 78. which is not founded upon the Statutes, but upon the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government, and the Laws of the Government being Established by the Laws of the Gospel. P. 203. Pref. Thence God alone is the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown, Whence some will argue, that if according to the Laws of the Government, the King may Adopt another in Parliament, God himself would be the Author of this Adoption. But the main Question is, how this London Minister shows this to have been the Original Custom and Constitution of the Government. Is it because this Custom hath been derived down without Interruption? That he doth not go about to prove: or doth he show how it comes to pass, that Interruptions in the Succession to the Empire, are an Argument that that was not Hereditary, and yet are no Obstacles here? Nay, doth he not own that this was not the Original Custom and Constitution, in saying, that it first came in with the Normans? Pref. 3. He undertakes to show that the Author of the Life of Julian, is out in his Notion of Passive Obedience; and that it is as much a Duty when ever the King exerts his Prerogative, or Imperial Law, as when he has declared any Law in Parliament, according to the Politic Constitution of the Nation: or to use this London Minister's own Words, That Passive-Obedience is due by the Gospel to the Sovereign Power, P. 164. when the Sovereign Persecutes contrary to Law. It is observable that his Antagonist never speaks of the least resistance to be made to the Sacred Person of the King, but to Ministers or Officers, acting without, or contrary to the Authority of his Laws, by which he speaks to his Subjects in a way not to be questioned, much less controlled: and truly I am much deceived, if this Man says less in his Lucid Intervals, after some vain Rave, he hath these words, If by an inevitable necessity of defending themselves, P. 279. P. 280. he understands sudden and private Defence against an Assassin sent by the King's Order, as his Malice seems to suggest, than it is nothing to his purpose, because the King's Law, which is his most Authoritative Command allows us (as I suppose) that benefit, and if it do, it, doth not in the least contradict the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which allows a Man to resist or use the Sword to defend his Life, when the Laws (from which I except all Laws destructive of the King's Crown and Regality) Authorize him so to do. This sort of Resistance, you see, is not here excepted as Destructive of the Regality, but here he yields, 1. That the King in his Parliament speaks to us with greater Authority than out of it, or that the Political Law is above the Imperial Law; for by the Imperial Law Subjects must be so far Slaves, P. 242. they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Sovereign. Yet this, it seems is wholly frustrated by the King's Laws for their Preservation, which may Authorize the using one that acts under, or by virtue of the Imperial Law, as an Assassin. 2. By just consequence from what is here granted, it follows, that if one acting barely under that Authority has no legal or sufficient Warrant, than he is guilty of a Breach of the King's Peace, and a Constable, who by his Office is to keep the Peace, may assist the Party that is set upon, and require Numbers to join with him, and so they may go from Parish to Parish in fresh Pursuit. 3. This doth not in the least contradict the Doctrine of Passive Obedience. 4. To the three foregoing Heads, you may add a fourth from another place of his. P. 192. Even where an Emperor has Absolute Power over his Subjects Lives and Estates, as to do what he pleases with particular Persons, he has not thereby right to enslave the whole People, by altering the Constitution of the Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion; or from a Government wherein the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was, and the Turkish now is, where the Subjects are the Prince's Family, and all that they have is his by Law. To tell you plainly, I am almost as sorry as the Authors own Friends can be, that he should raise all men's Expectations to so little purpose, as any one may observe by this Just, though General Censure. 'Tis a hard case that a man should run the hazard of a Judicial and more Authoritative Censure, and yet do no Service to any Interest, or to his own Reputation. But thus it often happens when Clergymen will be hooking in Civil Rights in ordine ad Spiritualia; and if they meet with the Fates of their Predecessors Sybthorp and Manwaring, they can be but pitied at the most by SIR, Your Humble Servant. ERRATA. Page 6. l. 14. r. Despicable. ib. l. 29. r. Tractats. p. 8. l. 12. r. Vindicative.