have mistaken too and call'd him Julian the Apostle I suppose I need not push this Point any further where the Parallel was intended I am certain it will reach But a larger account of the Proceedings in the City may be expected from a better hand and I have no reason to forestall it In the mean time because there has been no Actual Rebellion the Faction triumph in their Loyalty which if it were out of Principle all our divisions would soon be ended and we the happy People which God and the Constitution of our Government have put us in condition to be but so long as they take it for a Maxim that the King is but an Officer in Trust that the People or their Representatives are superiour to him Judges of Miscarriages and have power of Revocation 't is a plain case that when ever they please they may take up arms and according to Their Doctrine lawfully too Let them joyntly renounce this one opinion as in Conscience and Law they are bound to do because both Scripture and Acts of Parliament oblige them to it and we will then thank their Obedience for our quiet whereas now we are only beholding to them for their Fear The miseries of the last War are yet too fresh in all mens memory and they are not Rebels only because they have been so too lately An Author of theirs has told us roundly the West-Country Proverb Chad eat more Cheese and chad it Their Stomach is as good as ever it was but the mischief on 't is they are either Muzled or want their Teeth If there were as many Fanatiques now in England as there were Christians in the Empire when Julian reign'd I doubt we should not find them much enclin'd to passive obedience and Curse ye Meroz wou'd be oftner preach'd upon than Give to Caesar except in the sense Mr. Hunt means it Having clearly shown wherein the Parallel consisted which no man can mistake who does not wilfully I need not justifie my self in what concerns the sacred Person of his Majesty Neither the French History nor our own could have supplied me nor Plutarch himself were he now alive could have found a Greek or Roman to have compared to him in that eminent vertue of his Clemency even his enemies must acknowledge it to be Superlative because they live by it Far be it from flattery if I say that there is nothing under Heaven which can furnish me with a Parallel and that in his Mercy he is of all men the Truest Image of his Maker Henry the Third was a Prince of a mix'd Character he had as an old Historian says of another Magnas virtutes nec minora vitia but amongst those vertues I do not find his forgiving qualities to be much celebrated That he was deeply engag'd in the bloody Massacre of St. Bartholomew is notoriously known and if the relation printed in the Memoires of Villeroy be true he confesses there that the Admiral having brought him and the Queen Mother into suspition with his Brother then reigning for endeavouring to lessen his Authority and draw it to themselves he first design'd his Accusers death by Maurevel who shot him with a Carabine but fail'd to kill him after which he push'd on the King to that dreadful Revenge which immediately succeeded 'T is true the Provocations were high there had been reiterated Rebellions but a Peace was now concluded it was solemnly Sworn to by both Parties and as great an assurance of Safety given to the Protestants as the Word of a King and Publick Instruments could make it Therefore the Punishment was execrable and it pleas'd God if we may dare to judge of his secret Providence to cut off that King in the very flower of his Youth to blast his Successor in his Undertakings to raise against him the Duke of Guise the Complotter and Executioner of that inhumane Action who by the Divine Justice fell afterwards into the same snare which he had laid for others and finally to dye a violent Death himself murder'd by a Priest an Enthusiast of his own Religion From these Premisses let it be concluded if reasonably it can that we could draw a Parallel where the lines were so diametrically opposite We were indeed obliged by the Laws of Poetry to cast into Shadows the vices of this Prince for an Excellent Critique has lately told us that when a KING is nam'd a HEROE is suppos'd 'T is a reverence due to Majesty to make the Vertues as conspicuous and the Vices as obscure as we can possibly And this we own we have either perform'd or at least endeavour'd But if we were more favourable to that Character than the exactness of History would allow we have been far from diminishing a Greater by drawing it into comparison You may see through the whole conduct of the Play a King naturally severe and a resolution carried on to revenge himself to the uttermost on the Rebellious Conspirators That this was sometimes shaken by reasons of policy and pity is confess'd but it always return'd with greater force and ended at last in the ruine of his Enemies In the mean time we cannot but observe the wonderful Loyalty on the other Side that the Play was to be stopp'd because the King was represented May we have many such proofs of their Duty and respect but there was no occasion for them here 'T is to be suppos'd that his Majesty himself was made acquainted with this objection if he were so he was the supream and only Judg of it and then the Event justifies us If it were inspected only by those whom he commanded 't is hard if his own Officers and Servants should not see as much ill in it as other men and be as willing to prevent it especially when there was no sollicitation us'd to have it acted 'T is known that noble person to whom it was referr'd is a severe Critique on good Sense Decency and Morality and I can assure the World that the Rules of Horace are more familiar to him than they are to me He remembers too well that the vetus Comaedia was banish'd from the Athenian Theatre for its too much licence in representing persons and would never have pardon'd it in this or any Play What opinion Henry the Third had of his Successor is evident from the words he spoke upon his Death-bed He exhorted the Nobility says Davila to acknowledge the King of Navarre to whom the Kingdom of right belong'd and that they should not stick at the difference of Religion for both the King of Navarre a man of a sincere noble nature would in the end return into the bosom of the Church and the Pope being better inform'd would receive him into his favour to prevent the ruine of the whole Kingdom I hope I shall not need in this Quotation to defend my self as if it were my opinion that the Pope has any right to dispose of Kingdoms my meaning is evident that the
in Queen Maries time against the Protestants neither do I any way excuse them But it follows not that every Popish Successor shou'd take example by them for every ones Conscience of the same Religion is not guided by the same Dictates in his Government Neither does it follow that if one be cruel another must especially when there is a stronger Obligation and greater Interest to the contrary For if a Popish King in England shou'd be bound to destroy his Protestant People I wou'd ask the Question over whom he meant to Reign afterwards and how many Subjects would be left In Queen Maries time the Protestant Religion had scarcely taken root And it is reasonable to be suppos'd that she found the number of Papists equalling that of the Protestants at her entrance to the Kingdom especially if we reckon into the account those who were the Trimmers of the times I mean such who privately were Papists though under her Protestant Predecessour they appear'd otherwise Therefore her difficulties in persecuting her reform'd Subjects were far from being so insuperable as ours now are when the strength and number of the Papists is so very inconsiderable They who cast in the Church of England as ready to embrace Popery are either Knaves enough to know they lye or Fools enough not to have consider'd the Tenents of that Church which are diametrically opposite to Popery and more so than any of the Sects Not to insist on the quiet and security which Protestant Subjects at this day enjoy in some parts of Germany under Popish Princes where I have been assur'd that Mass is said and a Lutheran Sermon preach'd in different parts of the fame Church on the same day without disturbance on either side nor on the Priviledges granted by Henry the Fourth of France to his Party after he had forsaken their Opinions which they quietly possess'd for a long time after his death The French Histories are full of Examples manifestly proving that the fiercest of their Popish Princes have not thought themselves bound to destroy their Protestant Subjects and the several Edicts granted under them in favor of the Reform'd Religion are pregnant instances of this truth I am not much given to Quotations but Davila lies open for every man to read Tolerations and free exercise of Religion granted more amply in some more restraindly in others are no sign that those Princes held themselves oblig'd in Conscience to destroy men of a different Perswasion It will be said those Tolerations were gain'd by force of Arms In the first place 't is no great credit to the Protestant Religion that the Protestants in France were actually Rebels But the truth is they were only Geneva Protestants and their opinions were far distant from those of the Church of England which teaches passive obedience to all her Sons and not to propagate Religion by Rebellion But 't is further to be consider'd that those French Kings though Papists thought the preservation of their Subjects and the publick Peace were to be consider'd before the gratification of the Court of Rome and though the number of the Papists exceeded that of the Protestants in the proportion of three to one though the Protestants were always beaten when they fought and though the Popes press'd continually with Exhortations and Threatnings to extirpate Calvinism yet Kings thought it enough to continue in their own Religion themselves without forcing it upon their Subjects much less destroying them who profess'd another But it will be objected those Edicts of Toleration were not kept on the Papists side They wou'd answer because the Protestants stretch'd their Privileges further than was granted and that they often relaps'd into Rebellion But whether or no the Protestants were in fault I leave History to determine 't is matter of fact that they were barbarously massacred under the protection of the Publick Faith Therefore to argue fairly either an Oath from Protestants is not to be taken by a Popish Prince or if taken ought inviolably to be preserv'd For when we oblige our selves to any one 't is not his person we so much consider as that of the most high God who is call'd to witness this our action and 't is to him we are to discharge our Conscience Neither is there or can be any tye on humane Society when that of an Oath is no more regarded which being an appeal to God he is immediate Judge of it and Chronicles are not silent how often he has punish'd perjur'd Kings The instance of Vladislaus King of Hungary breaking his faith with Amurath the Turk at the instigation of Julian the Popes Legate and his miserable death ensuing it shows that even to Infidels much more to Christians that obligation ought to be accounted sacred And I the rather urge this because it is an Argument taken almost verbatim from a Papist who accuses Catharine de Medicis for violating her word given to the Protestants during her Regency of France What securities in particular we have that our own Religion and Liberties wou'd be preserv'd though under a Popish Successour any one may inform himself at large in a Book lately written by the Reverend and learned Doctor Hicks call'd Jovian in answer to Julian the Apostate in which that truly Christian Author has satisfy'd all scruples which reasonable men can make and prov'd that we are in no danger of losing either and wherein also if those assurances shou'd all fail which is almost morally impossible the Doctrine of Passive Obedience is unanswerably demonstrated a Doctrine deliver'd with so much sincerity and resignation of spirit that it seems evident the Assertor of it is ready if there were occasion to seal it with his blood I have done with mannerly Mr. Hunt who is only magni nominis umbra the most malicious and withal the most incohaerent ignorant Scribler of the whole Party I insult not over his misfortunes though he has himself occasion'd them and though I will not take his own excuse that he is in passion I will make a better for him for I conclude him crack'd and if he should return to England am charitable enough to wish his only Prison might be Bedlam This Apology is truer than that he makes for me for writing a Play as I conceive is not entring into the Observators Province neither is it the Observators manner to confound truth with falsehood to put out the eyes of People and leave them without understanding The quarrel of the Party to him is that he has undeceiv'd the ignorant and laid open the shameful contrivances of the new vampt Association that though he is on the wrong side of life as he calls it yet he pleads not his Age to be Emeritus that in short he has left the Faction as bare of Arguments as Esops Bird of feathers and plum'd them of all those fallacies and evasions which they borrowed from Jesuits and Presbyterians Now for my Templar and Poet in association for a Libel like the
what I have said to Mr. Hunt but I thank them by the way for their instance of the fellow whom the King of Navarre had pardon'd and done good to yet he wou'd not love him for that Story reaches home somewhere I must make haste to get out of hearing from this Billingsgate Oratory and indeed to make an end with these Authors except I could call Rogue and Rascal as fast as they Let us examine the little reason they produce concerning the Exclusion Did the Pope the Clergy the Nobility and Commonalty of France think it reasonable to exclude a Prince for professing a different Religion and will the Papists be angry if the Protestants be of the same Opinion No sure they cannot have the impudence First here 's the different Religion taken for granted which was never prov'd on one side though in the King of Navarre it was openly profess'd Then the Pope and the three Estates of France had no power to alter the Succession neither did the King in being consent to it or afterwards did the greater part of the Nobility Clergy and Gentry adhere to the Exclusion but maintain'd the lawful King succesfully against it as we are bound to do in England by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy made for the benefit of our Kings and their Successors The Objections concerning which Oath are fully answer'd by Doctor Hicks in his Preface to Jovian and thither I refer the Reader They tell us that what it concerns Protestants to do in that case enough has been heard by us in Parliament Debates I answer that Debates coming not by an Act to any Issue conclude that there is nothing to be done against a Law establish'd and fundamental of the Monarchy They dare not infer a Right of taking up Arms by vertue of a Debate or Vote and yet they tacitly insinuate this I ask them what it does concern Protestants to do in this case and whether they mean any thing by that expression They have hamper'd themselves before they were aware for they proceed in the very next lines to tell us they believe the Crown of England being Hereditary the next in Blood have an undoubted right to succeed unless God make them or they make themselves uncapable of Reigning So that according to them if either of those two Impediments shall happen then it concerns the Protestants of England to do that something which if they had spoken out had been direct Treason Here 's fine Legerdemain amongst them they have acknowledg'd a Vote to be no more than the Opinion of an House and yet from a Debate which was abortive before it quicken'd into a Vote they argue after the old Song that there 's something more to be done which you cannot chuse but guess In the next place there 's no such thing as Incapacity to be suppos'd in the immediate Successor of the Crown That is the rightful Heir cannot be made uncapable on any account whatsoever to succeed It may please God that he may be inhabilis or inidoneus ad gerendam Rempublicam unfit or unable to govern the Kingdom but this is no impediment to his right of reigning he cannot either be excluded or depos'd for such imperfection For the Laws which have provided for private men in this case have also made provision for the Soveraign and for the Publick and the Council of State or the next of Blood is to administer the Kingdom for him Charles the sixth of France for I think we have no English Examples which will reach it forfeited not his Kingdom by his Lunacy though a victorious King of England was then knocking at his Gates but all things under his Name and by his Authority were manag'd The case is the same betwixt a King non compos mentis and one who is nondum compos mentis a distracted or an Infant King Then the People cannot incapacitate the King because he derives not his Right from them but from God only neither can any Action much less Opinion of a Soveraign render him uncapable for the same reason excepting only a voluntary Resignation to his immediate Heir as in the case of Charles the fifth for that of our Richard the second was invalid because forc'd and not made to the next Successor Neither does it follow as our Authors urge that an unalterable Succession supposes England to be the Kings Estate and the People his Goods and Chattels on it For the preservâ—tion of his Right destroys not our Propriety but maintains us in it He has ty'd himself by Law not to invade our Possessions and we have oblig'd our selves as Subjects to him and all his lawful Successors By which irrevocable Act of ours both for our selves and our Posterity we can no more exclude the Successor than we can depose the present King The Estate of England is indeed the Kings and I may safely grant their supposition as to the Government of England but it follows not that the People are his Goods and Chattels on it for then he might sell alienate or destroy them as he pleas'd from all which he has ty'd himself by the Liberties and Priviledges which he has granted us by Laws There 's little else material in this Pamphlet for to say I wou'd insinuate into the King a hatred to his capital City is to say he shou'd hate his best friends the last and the present Lord Mayor our two Honourable Sheriffs the Court of Aldermen the worthy and Loyal Mr. Common Serjeant with the rest of the Officers who are generally well affected and who have kept out their factious Memfrom its Government To say I wou'd insinuate a scorn of Authority in the City is in effect to grant the Parallel in the Play For the authority of Tumults and Seditions is only scorn'd in it an Authority which they deriv'd not from the Crown but exercis'd against it And for them to confess I expos'd this is to confess that London was like Paris They conclude with a Prayer to Almighty God in which I therefore believe the Poet did not club to libel the King through all the Pamphlet and to pray for him in the conclusion is an action of more prudence in them than of piety perhaps they might hope to be forgiven as one of their Predecessors was by King James who after he had rail'd at him abundantly ended his Lampoon with these two Verses Now God preserve our King Queen Prince and Peers And grant the Author long may wear his Ears To take a short review of the whole 'T is manifest that there is no such Parallel in the Play as the Faction have pretended that the Story wou'd not bear one where they have plac'd it and that I cou'd not reasonably intend one so contrary to the nature of the Play and so repugnant to the Principles of the Loyal Party On the other side 't is clear that the Principles and Practices of the Publick Enemies have both formerly resembled those of the