Jovian, or, An answer to Julian the Apostate by a minister of London.

Chap. XII. Wherein is shewed, That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience, we are Secure enough of our Lives, Properties, and Religion.

ALL that I have hitherto said of Passive Obe∣dience, hath been to satisfie the Reasons of the Thinking, and Sober Part of Men, and now I proceed to propose some Considerations, which may serve as a sufficient Answer to that Hasty Que∣stion, which timourous and suspicious men are apt to make against this Doctrine, saying, Where then is our Security? How can we be Safe from the ut∣most Tyranny, and Oppression of our Soveraign, if we may not be allowed to Resist?

To which I answer, That I have already shewn, that the Remedy of Resistance is as bad, or worse than the Disease of Tyranny and Persecution; and I furthermore add, that upon supposition there were some Cases allowed, wherein we might take up Defensive Arms against the Soveraign, what Se∣curity could the Soveraign have upon desisting from Tyranny and Persecution, that this Defensive Army would lay down their Arms? Might they not say, that he was not to be trusted, having once broke his Coronation-Oath, and that it was necessary for them to keep up in Arms to prevent a second Perse∣cution? Nay, might they not serve him, as the

Army served our Late Blessed Soveraign, and if they went about to do so, who durst question them for what they did? Perhaps you will reply, that an∣other Army is to be raised to reduce this to their former Obedience: But how difficult would it be for an Oppressed Prince, and People to raise an Ar∣my against another Conquering Army; or if they did, what dismal Consequences, far worse than any Tyranny, would follow thereupon? Besides the Ruines, and Devastations during the War, Slave∣ry, and Arbitrary Government would naturally be the Event of it: For if the first Army prevailed, then the Injured Prince, as well as the People, whom they pretended to defend, must be Subject to their Discretion; but if the King, and his new Army raised to reduce them prevailed, what then will become of our Liberties and Religion, which the first Army rose up to defend?

But perhaps you will object, That you would have this Defensive Army under the Conduct of sworn Trustees for the People; That they should be Disbanded, as soon as they have reduced the Ty∣rannizing Prince. But who shall see that these Tru∣stees shall perform their Trust? How can you be Secure they will not break their Oaths? Or if they be Faithful to their Trust, how can you be secure the Defensive Army will be disbanded by them? Re∣member what hapned between Cromwels Army, and the House. But still you will object, that to pre∣vent these Inconveniences, you would have the Go∣vernment in more Hands than one, you would not have one man only entrusted with it? Well, let it be so: Let us suppose that the Three Estates in Parliament were our Governours, yet I can object as strongly against this: Either they will agree toge∣ther,

or disagree. If they agree, how can you be secure they will not divide the Land among them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in a short time govern us as Arbitrarily as the S••••••ate of Venice, under which the People really are what we call Slaves. But if they disagree, as is most probable, having the Passions of Men, Ambition, Covetousness, and Emulations, then their Govern∣ment will become uncertain, and odious, and the most popular amongst them will take an Opportu∣nity to set up himself; and when he hath mastered his Companions, he must secure his Usurpation by Force, and then his Pleasure must be our Law.

All these Inconveniences would apparently at∣tend the new Model for the Association to back the Exclusion of the next Heir. For either the Heads of it would agree, or disagree. If they continued to agree, then the preposterous Heir, after he was made King, and his People also, must be subject to their Discretion. But if they should disagree, as most probably they would, then as fast as they fell out among themselves, or grew discontented, their Se∣curity would oblige them to revolt unto the Seclu∣ded Heir, and help him to get possession of the Crown. And in what a Miserable Condition would this Nation be during such a Civil War, no Ty∣ranny in all probability could be so Destructive; and whether the Popish Prince, or the Opposing Army at last prevailed, we must be subject to their Sword.

In a word, there neither is, nor can be any ab∣solute Security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects, or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government: And therefore in the second place, it may be a sufficient Answer to the Former Question, to shew, That we have all the Security

against the King, that the King hath against us, e∣ven all the Security, that any People in the World ever had, have, or ought to have. an

For first, We have the Care and Providence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God for our Security, who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the only Ruler of Princes: For as Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, the most High ruleth in the Kingdoms of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever, he will. The Wellfare of the Publick is much more the Object of his Fatherly Care, than the Wellfare of private persons, and he delights to see the Nations of the Earth Happy, and will not let them be Afflicted and Oppressed with Tyrants, but when Tyranny is necessary, for their Punishment, or Cure. But much more is he concerned for his own Family, I mean, for any Nation, whose People are part of his Houshold, which is the Catholick Church. He delights to see them Happy, and were it not for their Sins, he would always set such Princes over them, as would be Nursing Fathers to them, and the Church. But when it is necessary for their Punishment, or Reformation, then he will suffer their Kings to turn Tyrants; and when he doth so, the People, like the People of Israel, must patient∣ly suffer them, as they do other Judgments, and not rise up against them, lest they be found guilty of Rebellion against God.

On the other hand, when a sinful People turn from those Sins, by which they provoke God, he will set Just, and Merciful, and Valiant Princes over them, who shall Love them; and Protect them as their own Children; and this he can do both ways, either by taking away Good, or Bad Princes, or by turning of their Hearts, For the Hearts of Kings are in his Rule, and Governance, and

he doth dispose, and turn them, as seemeth best to his Godly Wisdom: According to what Solomon said, and perhaps upon his own Experience, That the Kings Heart is in the Hand of the Lord, as the Rivers of Wa∣ter, he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Jealous, and Suspicious Men indeed may have a thousand Contrivances, and Phancied Demonstra∣tions to prevent or remove Evil Princes; but when God shall see it fit to punish them that way, he will in a Moment baffle, and defeat them all. And on the other side, Princes may have a thousand Devises how to oppress, or enslave their People, but God, whose Instruments they are, can in a Moment over∣turn them, and their Devices, he can resist the Strength of the Strongest Leviathan, as he said un∣to Senaccherib; I know thy Abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy Rage against me, and be∣cause thy Rage, and thy Tumult is come into mine Ears, therefore I will put my Hook in thy Nose, and my Bridle in thy Lips, and I will turn thee back by the way in which thou camest.

Wherefore, as the Princes best Security against the People is the watchful Providence of God: So the same watchful Providence is the Peoples best Se∣curity against the Prince. The same God who stil∣leth the Noise of the Waves, and the Tumult of the People in defence of the King, doth likewise still the Thunder, and asswage the Fury of the King in defence of the People, and neither could be safe one from the other, unless God did Watch and Preside, and as it were pitch his Tent between them both.

Wherefore as it is the securest way for a Prince to have Peaceable, and Obedient Subjects to serve God, whose Vicegerent he is: So on the other

hand, the best Security the People can have for their Property, and Liberty against the Prince, is to obey God, who setteth up one King, and pulleth down an∣other, and changeth their Hearts as he sees fit. I hope Mr. J. will not think me singular in this piece of Di∣vinity, because it is taught by the Church in the next best Book to the Bible, to which he, and the Doctor have both subscribed, in The first part of the Sermon against Rebellion.

God (say the Holy Scriptures) maketh a Wicked Man to Reign for the Sins of the People. Again, God giveth a Prince in his Anger, meaning an Evil One, and taketh away a Prince in his Displeasure, meaning especially when he taketh away a Good Prince for the Sins of the People—God giveth Wisdom unto Princes, and maketh a wise, and good King to Reign over that People, whom he loveth, and who loveth him.—If therefore we will have a good Prince either to be given us, or to continue, let us by our Obedience to God, and to our Prince, move God thereunto. If we will have an Evil Prince, when God shall send such an one, taken away, and a Good in his place, Let us take away our Wickedness, which provoketh God to place such an one over us, and God will either displace him, or of an Evil Prince make him a Good Prince, so that we first will change our Evil into Good. For will you hear the Scriptures? The Heart of the Prince is in Gods Hand, which way so∣ever it shall please him he turneth it. Thus say the Scriptures, Wherefore let us turn

from our Sins unto the Lord with all our Hearts, and he will turn the Heart of the Prince unto our Quiet and Wealth. Else for Subjects to deserve for their Sins to have an Evil Prince, and then to Rebel a∣gainst him, were double, and treble evil by provoking God more to plague them. Nay, let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or let us patiently suffer, and obey such as we deserve. Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved punishment, to give them an Indiscreet, and Evil Prince, and also Rebel against him, and withal against God, who for the punish∣ment of their Sins did give them such a Prince? I leave Mr. J. to give the Church an Answer to this her Interrogatory, and so proceed to the second thing, which we have for our Securi∣ty, and that is the Conscience of the Prince: For as the Princes Security against the Insurrection of his Sub∣jects consists very much in the Conscience that they have of the Duty, which they owe unto him: So their Security against his tyrannical abuse of his Power consists as much un the sense of that Duty, which he ows unto them. He hath the same Principles with∣in him to check his Passions, that they have to check, and bridle their; and hath all the Moral Obligati∣ons, and the Fear of God, who hateth Tyrants, to keep him from oppressing them, that they have to keep them from Rebelling against him.

The common Principles of Humanity, Justice, and Equity are engraven by the Finger of God upon the Minds of Kings, as well as upon other Mens; and they cannot do wrong to any particular person, much less to great numbers of their Subjects without

undergoing the same uneasie Remorse, that other Men do, when they injure one another. This hath been found by sad Experience in Pagan Princes, as in Tiberius the Emperor, who was so tormented with the sense of his own Sins, that he could not but discover his own Confusion unto the Senate in a Remarkable Letter, which be∣gan thus: (‖) My Lords, and Gentlemen; If I know what, or how to write, or not to write to you at this time, let all the Gods and Goddesses confound me with a worse Death than by which I feel my self perishing every day. In such a manner, saith the Historian, did the Gods turn his Wicked∣nesses into his own Punishment, so that what Socrates said is very true, That if the Breasts of Tyrants could be laid open, we should see what slashes and gashes they suffer from their own Consciences, and that the Body cannot suffer more from the Whip, than their minds do from the sense of their Tyran∣ny, and Lusts.

And if Conscience be a Restraining Principle in Heathen Princes, if they cannot without such Soul-Torments pervert Justice, and violate their Oaths, and the Laws, it must needs much more be a power∣ful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings, who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers,

and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People, over whom he set them; nay, that he most commonly sends remarkable Judge∣ments upon them or their Families for subverting the Laws, and persecuting the True Religion. Shall the Fear of Gods Anger and Judgements more than any other thing keep so many thousand Subjects from injuring their Soveraign, and shall not the Fear of the same God, and his Judgments keep the Sove∣raign from injuring of them? Or shall the People take warning by the Judgments of God which in all Ages have remarkably fallen upon Rebels, and shall not the Soveraign make as much use of the Remarkable Judgments, which have fallen upon Tyrants? This Principle gives equal Security both ways, and therefore it may well pass for one An∣swer to the former Question, That our Security consists in the Conscience of the Prince.

But in the third place, As we have the Princes Conscience, so we have his Honour for our Securi∣ty. For Princes (like other Men) are tender of their Honour, and Good Name, and are powerful∣ly restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Sub∣jects. They are as loath as other Men to be ex∣posed to the censure of Mankind, or be recorded for Tyrants in the Annals of Time. Though they may be desirous for their Honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests, yet the same Prin∣ciple of Honour, will ordinarily make them asha∣med to have them computed from their Massacres, and Persecutions, which will but get them the Sur∣name of the Bloody, or the Tyrant unto the End of the World. Honour, as Moralists observe, is a Secondary, or Civil Conscience, and if so many

Subjects will abstain from Rebellion merely to avoid the Odious Character of a Traitor, why should we not presume, That a Prince will abstain from Ille∣gal Violence, especially against a great Number of his People to avoid the Odious Name of Tyrant? How Black do Pharaoh, Achab, and Jeroboam look in the Scriptures, and Nero, Domitian, Decius, Va∣lerian, Maximian, Galerius, Maximin, and Julian, in the Ecclesiastical Historians? And a Prince that knows any thing of History, must naturally abhor to be reckoned among such, as these, whose very Names are detested by all Mankind.

This is all the Security, that most other People have, or ever had for their Rights and Properties a∣gainst their Princes; but we, the Inhabitants of this Fortunate Island, have (God be praised for it) a fur∣ther Security from our Laws, to which every Man, be he never so great, is obnoxious, besides the Prince himself. For whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the prejudice of any other person, must be subject to make Reparation by Law, against which the King himself can protect no Man, as long as the Courts of Justice are kept open; so that there can be no Tyranny in England, but the utmost Ty∣ranny, nor any Persecution, but a most Exorbitant and Illegal Persecution, which must presuppose, that Justice is obstructed, the Laws and Lawyers silen∣ced, the Courts of Judicature shut up, and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword. But to suppose this, is plainly to sup∣pose the utmost possibility, which is next to an im∣possibility, a possibility indeed in Theory, but scarce to be reduced into Practice; for in such a Violent Undertaking all Good Men would withdraw from the Service, and Assistance of the King, and the

Bad durst not serve him, because if he died, or re∣pented of his Undertaking, they must be answer∣able for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service.

Indeed were our Kings Immortal, or would they not (like other Men) grow weary, and repent of their Unjust Practises, then Men, who had no Re∣ligion, but their Interest, would willingly by Instru∣ments of their Tyranny; but seeing they may re∣pent, and must die like other Men, no Man that would be safe, will venture to serve them against the Law, no Rational Man will venture into such a Sea of Troubles, where there is no Haven.

This Consideration would help very much to quiet the Minds of Men, would their Fears but let their Reason have its perfect work. It would help them in a great measure to see, that a Popish Successor, notwithstanding all the dismal Characters of him, would not be able, especially on the sud∣den, to outrage his Protestant Subjects; for as long as the Laws were open he could not hurt them, and to shut them up, and obstruct, or pervert Justice, would for the former Reasons, prove an exceeding difficult, and almost impracticable Undertaking, be∣cause all his Good Subjects, and all the Bad too that tendred their own safety, would desert him; nay, Foreiners upon this Account would make a difficulty to serve him, because he could not protect them a∣gainst his own Laws.

Wherefore a Popish Prince, though he were ne∣ver so Blood-thirsty, and had never so little regard to Humanity, and his Coronation-Oath, would be infinitely puzled to persecute his Protestant Subjects. He must be supposed to obstruct Justice, and govern Arbitrarily by the Sword; which (as I have shew'd)

would be almost an Impossibility, because it would be so exceeding difficult for him to get sufficient Numbers of Men to assist him in such a dangerous Attempt. But upon supposition, that he could find Means to maintain such a Tyrannical State, I here assert from what I have written in the Doctors Vindication in the 10th, and 11th Chapters, That we ought as Christian Subjects patiently to endure such a Contralegal Persecution, being forbid by the Imperial Laws of this Realm, and by the Gospel, which confirms the Imperial Laws of all Govern∣ments to rise up in Arms against the King, or repel his Military Forces, by Military Violence and Force.

Furthermore from this Consideration, that there can be no Illegal Persecution in this Realm while the Law is kept open, It may appear to every Impar∣tial Reader, how maliciously the Author of Julian traduced Dr. Hickes and his Sermon, as if he had taught the People, That they were to Suffer, when they might be Protected by Laws. There are very many Fallacious Passages in his Book to this purpose, as where he talks of Throwing away our Lives, and Prostituting our Lives: and where he seems to assert this strongly against the Doctor, That if a man be illegally assaulted, in the way of Violence, and Assassination, he may use all Lawful Remedies to defend themselves. But how doth the Doctors Sermon, or the Notion of Passive Obedience any way contradict this? Con∣tra sicarium quilibet homo est miles; The Laws of all Governments allow every Man to defend his Life a∣gainst an Illegal Assassin, and he that doth not so when he can, dies not like a Martyr, but a Fool. He that doth not use all Lawful Means, and Remedies for his own Preservation is mightily to be blamed, as

altogether unworthy of such Protection, as bles∣sed be God, we enjoy. But the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, as taught in general by the Doctor, is not justly chargeable with any such odious Infe∣rences as Mr. J. makes from it, as only forbidding such Defence, as a man makes against the Laws of his Country, when he draws or uses the Sword a∣gainst such persons, or in such a manner to defend himself, as the Law hath not permitted him to do. In a word, the Doctrine of Passive Obedience only condemns Illegal Resistance, such Resistance as the Laws of every Soveraign Government forbid, against the King, his Army, or Officers; such Re∣sistance more especially, as is a Transgression of the Imperial Laws. Those are the Laws, which require Passive Obedience; those are the Laws which the Doctor had a regard to in teaching that Doctrine: And as Christianity doth not devest any People from their Rights and Priviledges, so neither doth it devest the Soveraign of His.

And if the Doctrine of Passive Obedience be not inconsistent with that Defence, which the Law al∣lows every Man to make against an Illegal Assassin, much less is it inconsistent, as he (†) maliciously asserts, with that Civil Defence, which every man is bound to make for himself before the Magistrate. St. Paul (saith he) was not for Passive Obedience; even when the Lawful Magistrate persecuted him, if it were in an Ʋnlawful way, but he stood upon his Birthright.—As he was a Roman; and more-over, That he ought not to be scourged Uncondemned. But what is this Civil pleading to Forcible and Mi∣litary Resistance? What is the Defence, which a Man makes with his Tongue before any Tribunal,

to the Defence which he makes with his Sword in the Field? I appeal to the Conscience of Mr. J. as he will answer it to God, whether he thinks, That the Doctrine of Passive Obedience precludes any man from pleading his Civil Rights, or whether the Doctor would contradict his own Doctrine, if he should plead his Birthright, as an English man, or the 29th Chapter of Magna Charta before a Popish Prince, or Judg? If he thinks he would not, then why would he shew so little common Honesty, as to fasten such Invidious Consequences, upon that Doctrine, and the Doctor, against his own Con∣science, and Belief?

To as little purpose hath he told us the Story of the Pursuivant of the High-Commission-Court, who was sent by the Commissioners to Arrest the Body of a Man to bring him before them, and in the stri∣ving was killed. Whether this was Murder, or not (saith he out of (†) Coke) was doubted: And upon conference at the next Assizes, it was re∣solved, that the Arrest was Tortius (i. e. wrongful, or without Lawful Authority) and by consequence, that it was no Murder. But then (with his wonted Integrity) he conceals the main Circumstance from the Common Reader, which is implyed by Coke, and expressed by (‖) Brownlow, viz. That is was found Homi∣cide, or Manslaughter, which is a breach of the 6th Commandment, and Murder in the Eyes of God. For there are several degrees of Murder, whereof some are more Grievous than o∣thers. There is Murder Premeditate, and Murder Ʋnpremeditate; murdering of a Private Man, and murdering of an Officer, as an Officer in the execution

of his Office. The Ʋnpremeditate Murder of a pri∣vate Man, or of an Officer not in the Execution of his Office is a less grievous sort of Murder, which our Law calls Manslaughter, but the Premeditate Murder of a Private Man, or of an (†) Officer not doing his Office,(‖) as also the Ʋnpremedi∣tate Murder of an Officer doing his Office as being more grievous sorts of Murder, are in our Law especially called Murder, and so the Difference between Manslaugh∣ter, and Murder is only Gradual, the Law allowing the benefit of Clergy to that, but not to this. Now the Pursuivant was a proper Officer of the High-Commission, but because that Court could give no Power to arrest any Mans Body, but only to cite him to appear before them as Ecclesiastical Courts do, therefore the killing of their Pursuivant in ma∣king the Arrest, was judged Manslaughter, because it was Unpremeditate, and he was not doing his Of∣fice; but yet the Verdict for Manslaughter lays the Pursuivants Blood not upon his own, but upon his Murderers Head. He that killed him was a Mur∣derer, and was to answer for his Blood to God, without Repentance, and to the King with his own Life, had he not read his Neck Verse. And if Mr. J. think otherwise, as he seems to do, that an Ho∣micide is not guilty of the Blood, which he sheds, then before the time of Henry the 8th, no killing could be Murder, because till then there was no di∣stinction betwixt Manslaughter and Murder, but all Homicides whatsoever were equal in the Eye of the Law, and all Homicides had equally the Benefit of Clergy.

I am confident Mr. J. by his learned Conversati∣on with Mr. H. could not but know all this, and if he did, why did he go about to wash the Guilty Man Clean of the Pursuivants Blood, in saying only that the killing of him was not found Murder, and that his Blood was upon his own Head? But the Rea∣son is apparent, for had he told the Story with that plainness, that it became an Honest Writer; the Guilt of Manslaughter would have spoiled the Grace of the Story, as it is told by him to justifie Resi∣stance, and the Resistance of a Pursuivant, and of a Pursuivant unto Blood.

These Pursuivants it seems, are plaguy Officers, but let them look to't, if any of them come to Arrest the Body of Mr. J. and do it not with all Exactness of Law, at his own peril be it, he knows what to do, and he may safely trust to his Neck Verse, and then the poor mistaken Pursuivants Blood shall be upon his own head.

But suppose the Law gave a Man leave to kill an Officer in a False Arrest, to defend his Liberty, would Mr. J. take the advantage of the Law? Will he do, or omit the doing of every thing that the Law allows him? Will he make the Law the com∣pleat, and adequate Rule to walk by? If so, he may do, or omit the doing of many things, for which he shall be damned. He may abuse his Fa∣ther, Mother, Sister, Brother, Wife, Children, Neighbours, nay and his Prince too, to a mighty degree, and yet be safe within the Limits of the Law. He may write Seditious Books, burlesque the Doctrine of the Cross, slander the Ancient Christians, falsifie good Authors, and injure those

that never did him hurt, and yet transgress no Hu∣mane Law.

For the Law hath the Civil, and not the Christi∣an Capacity of the Man for its Object, therefore it only Commands, or Forbids things, the not doing or doing of which do visibly tend to the destruction of the Peace, Order, and Welfare of the Common wealth; and he that is so little a Christian, as to teach the People how far they may be troublesome and vexatious to their Superiours without transgres∣sing the Law, doth teach them how to use their Li∣berty for a Cloack of Maliciousness, and a sure, and easie way to Hell.

But Mr. J. saith, That any man may see that his Discourse of the Pursuivant doth not descend to such Petty Matters, as False Arrests, though a mans Li∣berty is not to be despised; To what then did that Story tend? Well, you may know his Meaning by his Mumping, it is to let the People understand, how tender the Laws, are of their Lives, and what a particular Care they have taken of all those, who are put upon an inevitable necessity of defending themselves a∣gainst the Assaults of Violent, and Evil-disposed Per∣sons. But the Laws are more tender of our Sove∣raigns Honour, as he is Gods Minister, than of his Subjects Lives, and therefore have forbid us to de∣fend our selves in private Defence against his Per∣son, or in publick Insurrections against his Forces, though he be never so violent, or evil-disposed, because he is answerable to none, but God. But if by Inevitable necessity of defending themselves he un∣derstands sudden and private defence against an As∣sassin

sent by the Kings Order, as his Malice seems to suggest, then it is nothing to his purpose, because the Kings 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 De∣structive of the Kings Crown, and Regality] autho∣rize him so to do.

But in truth this last is a Case, which, though Malicious Men may suggest, yet ought not at all to be supposed, or taken into consideration; for a Po∣pish Prince, as I argued before, will either let the Law have its free Course, or else he will obstruct it: If he let the Law have its Free Course, then the most wicked Man will not dare to serve him in Pri∣vate Assassinations against Law, because he cannot protect them against it; but if he Obstruct it, then he must Govern solely by an Army, and so publick Violence will supersede this private way of Assassi∣nation, and many other Cases, which Men do a great deal of hurt to talk of, and suppose.

For as the talking of Spirits, and Goblins do mightily influence the Imaginations of Children, and make them fancy them to be in the Room; So all this Noise of a Popish Successor, and the presu∣ming, and supposing of what Cruelties he will do, makes the People take it for granted not only that his R. Hs. is a Real Papist, but that he is bigotted in∣to the worst Principles of Popery, into a Bloody Per∣secuting Humour, so that he will do nothing but assassinate his Protestant Subjects, were he once upon the Throne. But whoever thus represent him, as they

act contrary to all Rules of Candour, and Christian Charity: So they contradict the Belief of many, as good Protestants, as themselves, who have the Honour to know Him, and his Temper better than these sort of Men do; and withal they do Infinite Disservice to the Protestant Religion, whilst they dis∣pose Well-meaning People to such Ill Practises, as (were they agreeable to their Principles) would give his R. H. very Just Occasion to entertain as bad Thoughts of Protestant Subjects, as They have of a Popish Prince.

Notes

• (‖)

  Quid scribam vo∣bis P. C. aut quomodo scribam, aut quid om∣nino non scribam hoc tempore, dii me déae{que} pejus perdant, quam pe∣rire quotidie sentio, si scio. Adeo facinora at{que} flagitia sua ipsi quo{que} in supplicium verterant ne{que} frustra praestantissimus sapien∣tiae affirmari solitus est, si recludantur tyranno∣rum mentes posse aspici laniatus et ictus, quan∣do, ut corpora verberi∣bus, ita savitiâ, libidi∣ne, malis consultis ani∣mus dilaceretur. Quip∣pe Teberium non fortu∣na, non solitudines pro∣tegebant, quin tormen∣ta pector is, suas{que} ipse paenas fateretur. Tacit. An. l. 6. c. 6.
• (†)

  Preface p. 8.
• (†)

  Rep. 12. p. p. 49.
• (‖)

  Rep. 2. part p. 15.
• (‖)

  See Crooks Rep. in Cooks Case, Term Pasch. in Banc. reg. an. 15 Caroli Regis.