endure wicked Princes as we do Inundations or Scarcitie which are of Gods sending These you say p. 20. are full and pregnant proofs and I think ad hominem cogent for if as you observe from Eusebius the Empire was to descend as other Paternal Inheritances then it must be more unlawful to resist or exclude a Prince from enjoying his Inheritance than any private person And then surely no sound Christian could have joyned in an Address to Constantius to exclude a person appointed as it were by the Voice of God as you say of Constantine that he was declared absolute Emperour by the 〈◊〉 and long before that by God himself the great King of all p. 21. And St. Augustine says the same viz. God that gave the Empire to Constantine gave it to Julian Onely by the way I do not think that your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither will in the sence of the Greek Fathers bear your interpretation of the Law of Nature for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used by Greek Authors for Custom And I believe that Father whom you mention intended no more than a Right of Succession for two or three Generations which carried the name of a Law as it doth also in our Common Law where Consuetudo Lex est And it is well known that when the Heirs of the Emperors have been living the Roman Souldiers have created their Emperours out of Obscure Families but these are no Patterns for us Christians to follow nor for us in this Nation above others For William the Conqueror claimed the Crown not so much by his Sword as by Right of Succession if you will believe the Author of that Fanatical book called The Rights of the Kingdom to King Edward whose Kinsman he was and his Heir by Will as appears by the Laws of St. Edward and William p. 197. So that in this respect the Descent of the Crown of England is much more firm and established than that of the Empire having been continued through more Generations and confirmed by many Laws which whoever shall infringe takes off the Government from its Hinges and leaves all to Confusion For when a private Estate is intailed on a man and his Heirs it is necessary that to bar the Heir and alienate the Estate the original Intail must be cut off and then he that is in possession may dispose of the Inheritance to one or more And perhaps this was the intent of the Bill for Exclusion to make it an Act for the Dissolution of Monarchy and reduce us to a Commonwealth again And it were better we should suffer some Inconveniencies if the Will of God be so which yet are uncertain than against the Will of God to do things unjust and draw more certain troubles on our own heads For in the Contest between the Houses of York and Lancaster when the first alway pleaded the Right of Descent the other alleadged the Acts of Parliaments there were infinite troubles which cost the lives of above 200000 men whereof eight were Kings and Princes forty Dukes Marquesses and Earls besides Barons and Gentlemen and after all the Kingdom fixed on this Maxime Jus Sanguinis nullo Jure dirimi possit i. e. The Right of Bloud cannot be abrogated by any Law And the Author of the Rights of the Kingdom says that in the days of Henry the Third and Richard the First when was a motion of some great men that a Bastard might inherit the Parliament at Merton cried out Nolumus leges Angliae mutare p. 264. Therefore I wonder that the same Author p. 98. making a Supposition That if any one man of all the Commons in Parliament should usurp the Crown with all its dues He mentions not the whole House for that hath been done already What should I what may I do saith he and answers Nothing but mind my Calling and attend the Judgment of the highest Court that I know that may command my Body and Judgement much It is a Maxime in our Law That the King never dies The King and his Heirs are looked on in the eye of the Law as an Individual and to prevent Tumults and Disputes they are joyned in most of those Acts that concern the Dignity of the Crown and publick Peace and the Son hath sometime been Crowned in his Fathers life-time Yet we plead not Providence in the long continuance of the Succession nor the Law of the Land upon which for other matters you lay the stress of your whole Discourse but upon the Law of God Deut. 17.8 where it was ordained as a Statute of Judgment i. e. say Fagius and Munster a firm and immutable Law and as the Vulgar Sanctum Lege perpetua That IF A MAN DYE WITHOVT CHILDREN THE INHERITANCE MVST BE GIVEN TO HIS BRETHREN And Ainsworth from Solomon Jarchi says The Brother of him that was dead or his Brothers seed shall inherit All this hath been observed by the Law of Nations where Kingdoms are hereditary That as it is unjust so it hath been always unhappie to alter the Succession and even in private estates the disinheriting the right Heir hath been very much condemned and unfortunate And yet p. 22. you say the Fathers had the Conscience to set aside such a Title They could not do it with a good Conscience the thing being in it self evil for as the Law of God forbids to countenance a poor man in his Cause so doth it also to defraud the rich or follow a multitude to do evil neither to speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment None of us would judge it reasonable to be deprived of his right contrary to Law and why then should we think it lawful to deprive another of that right to which we owe the preservation of our own Athenagoras more clearly shews what was the consent of the Fathers in this case We pray for your Empire and that the Son as it is just may succeed in his Fathers Throne And yet they both were Pagans But what would the Consent of Fathers and the sense of the primitive Christians signifie against the Decree and Laws of Heaven who cannot more plainly declare his will to us than by the voice of Nature by his written Word by pointing out as by his finger in his Providence in making Heirs to Kingdoms as well as other Estates by a long and legal discent and as St. Augustine said God that gave the Empire to good Constantine gave it also to Julian So Tertullian Inde est Imperator unde Homo antequam Imperator And Irenoeus By whose command they were born Men by his they are ordained Kings And yet all this Crack of the Fathers and Primitive Christians and p. 31. the whole Christian world produceth nothing but a flash of Rhetorick from an Invective in Gregory Nazianzen against Julian from which if we appeal to the same Author in a more temperate and Christian Zeal when he delivered himself
shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do farther swear That I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable Doctrine and Position that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And all these things I plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sence and understanding of the same words without any Equivocation or mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever c. Now let any man judge whether you have not taught the Jesuits themselves how to equivocate and to make void that solemn Oath by affirming that there can be no such person as an Heir to the Crown while the King is living Your own distinction of an Heir Apparent and Presumptive seems a sufficient Confutation of your sensless Assertion Besides though it may be true of a Testamentary Heir that he is not actually so till the death of the Testator yet a Legal Heir upon whom an Estate is intailed as the Royal Crown of England is upon the next in Bloud is truly an Heir and ought to inherit And in this Opinion I am confirmed by the Apostle Gal. 4.1 who says That though the Heir as long as he is a child i.e. as long as his Father liveth differeth nothing from a servant yet he is Lord of all and if he be a Son or next in Bloud to a Prince whose Kingdom is hereditary then is he his Heir v. 7. as St. Paul argues You seem to grant that this is the Law-sence of the words Heirs and Successors in an Act of Parliament as in the Duty of Excise granted to the King his Heirs and Successors But an Oath of Allegiance you say ought to be conceived in plain words and in the common sence of those words Which I should think to be that which the Lawyers that penned that Oath and the Lawgivers that enjoyned it did intend and unless you will justifie Papists in their Equivocations and absolve them from the obligation of that Oath it cannot be taken in any other but the Law-sence Well say you if it be so and so it must be let them be sure to keep it in that sence in which they have or should take it at sixteen years of age in the Court-Leet viz. I will be true Liegeman and true faith and troth bear to our Soveraign Lord the King that now is and to his Highness Heirs and lawful Successours Kings and Queens of this Realm of England To which you add this pitiful and worse than Jesuitical Evasion It is plain to every body that no one certain or known person in the world hath any interest at present in the Oath of Allegiance besides his Majesty that now is For which you give this as a Reason which is none at all For who shall be King or Queen of England hereafter none but God himself knows And if God by whom Kings reign had not wonderfully restored his Majesty we should have had none at this time But God by a Miracle hath restored the right Heir against all oppesition Pag. 21. He brings in another Objection against the Bill of Exclusion fetched from the Common-Prayer to which I perceive he is no great Friend viz. No Church of-England-man can be for it with a good Conscience being to the prejudice of his R. H. because we there pray that God would prosper him with all happiness here and hereafter Now by the way no such words as here and hereafter are expressed though we grant they are implied under the word All. But we especially though not onely intend it to that happiness which flows from the Spirit and grace of God and may bring him and all the Royal Family to Gods everlasting Kingdom and as a means thereunto that he would endue them with his holy Spirit and enrich them with his heavenly Grace You say No man in the Communion of the Church of England prays that Prayer more heartily than you do But if you do indeed think him to be a Julian and your self such as those Christians that sayd their Prayers backward that prayed him to death and would not so much as desire his conversion this would certainly be a Curse in the mouth or heart of any Protestant And I hope there are no such in the Communion of our Church though you intimate that they were all such in the Primitive Church and that we should be such also for p. 96. you say You find not one single wish among the Antients for Julian's conversion but all for his down-right destruction It is a good Rule that Pro quibus orandum pro iis laborandum We should by a meek and Christian behaviour inforce our Devotions for 't is the Prayer of the Righteous man that availeth much If we could thorowly inspect the Arguments that prevailed for the reputed defection of that Prince I believe the unchristian behaviour of those who oppose his Succession was most cogent And who knows but our amendment moderation and meekness might yet reclaim him But to pray coldly without faith for what you say p. 22. there is no hope and to act contrary to your Prayers is to beg a denial And I hope many others pray more heartily than you do For when we pray God to indue him with his Holy Spirit c. we pray that he may return to the Protestant Religion and not that he may be exposed to an invincible Temptation and a kind of necessity to extirpate it as you maliciously accuse us Nor are we to distrust the power of divine Grace either to restrain or sanctifie those whom we pray for and so to limit the Holy One of Israel as if he had not the hearts of Kings in his hand or had no rule over the Governours of the world Cambden p. 5. of his Remains reports that when Brithwald the Monk was troubled about the Succession the Bloud Royal being almost extinguished he heard a voice saying The Kingdom of England is Gods Kingdom and God will provide for it And why should not we acquiesce in the same Divine Providence P. 79. You argue against a Popish Successour à possibili because he may be a Persecutor Some have accounted both our present Soveraign and his Father of blessed memory such they sent the One out of the world with an Exit Tyrannus though the meekest and most gracious Prince in the world and what the effects of a Bill of Exclusion as some men would manage it may be is dreadful to consider But as you suppose the Popish Successessour may be so I suppose he may not be a Persecutor And for the proof of this I appeal to your Friend Plato Redivivus who in p. 207. gives an instance in the Prince of Hanover who was perverted to the Roman Church went to Rome to abjure Heresie and returning home
greater Soloecism of an Emperour of the world awed and terrified with the fear of a kicking But it will not do No the Proverb hinders it None so blind as he that will not see It might have been done easily enough if you had not committed a Soloecism your self in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Brought but had kept the righter sence of that word which Billius the learned Interpreter of Gregory Nazianzen translates immiserat he sent or which your Elias Cretensis useth concitabat he stirred up or compelled to go against that Church which if the Emperour had been in person he need not to have done And therefore I suppose Gregory Nazianzen meant it of the Captain of the Archers that demanded the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not pro imperio by virtue of a Mandamus or Commission from the Emperour for sure the Emperour himself needed no such Commission Nor is it probable that the Emperour himself would in his March against Persia trot up and down from one Church to another for you say he had assaulted many others to make a seizure of them Nor is it a Soloecism to say the Emperour seized those Churches which another did seize by his command Our Author I suppose was led into this errour by taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth induco to lead or introduce whereas the Interpreters that render it immitto or concito being better Grecians than himself understand it to be from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which every Lexicon will give him such a sence as that without a wresting of it it must refer to the Captain of the Archers But we are come to the end of this Tragi-comedy The Emperour kept himself in a whole skin the Bishops Anger vented it self some other way and all was husht and calmed But certainly our Author who hath first begun this Quarrel between the Emperour and the Bishop is much to be blamed whether he did it ignorantly which is the best construction that his Friends can make or else maliciously which appears by forsaking the Translations of Billius and Cretensis and preferring another that might favour his designe And I challenge him to be as big as his word and make satisfaction for this base Coinage And that you may not be guilty of such a wilful mistake for the future I shall give you this Token to be worn as a Frontlet on your brow That from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Instigator P. 44. Here you have a description of one of the Lachrymists of old c. How far this Bishop was a Lachrymist we shall see hereafter It were fitter for the Wit of a Julian than the Piety of a Christian to deride the Prayers and Tears of those ancient Christians Whatever Garlands and Trophies Nazianzen or Basil erected for that old Bishop are now pulled down by the hands of a young P who represents him as a Hector and a Striker expresly contrary to our Saviour's Example and St. Paul's Injunction You adde p. 44. And now I know no more than the Pope of Rome what to make of all this what they meant by it or on what Principles they proceeded I question not the Principles of those in whom you have instanced it sufficeth me that you say it was done in a fit of boiling anger But when speaking of the Principles of such as offer violence to their lawful Emperours you say you know nò more than the Pope of Rome I say it is pity that you should know or divulge half so much For what you have suggested concerning these pretended Violences offered by Primitive Christians to their lawful Emperours hath a very malign influence on the present Age and for this and other such Reasons as I said I would rather lose my right hand than be the Author of them But if you know their Principles as well as the Pope of Rome you know he holds it lawful to depose or kill any Prince whom he shall judge and Excommunicate as a Heretick or Tyrant and he can teach you to distinguish between resisting Julian and resisting the Devil that was in him That the King is Vniversis minor and that the people who gave him his power may resume it c. You say p. 45. none of those Bishops had ever been in Scotland nor had learnt to fawn upon an Apostate and a mortal Enemie to Religion Parcius ista For though some may think you are reflecting only on a Popish Successor yet others considering you speak of Julian who was now a lawful Emperour may stretch this line too far Scotland indeed hath been glutted with the bloud of their Kings whereof about Thirtie have sussered violent Deaths I acquit those Bishops from confederacie with Scotland they never contributed to the destruction of any I wish I could do so by the Presbyterians Yet I perceive you know how to yoak the Popes Bull and the Scotish Heifer together and with them to make large Furrows on the backs of Kings There was I remember for above Forty years since a great Correspondence between Rome and Scotland who then communicated their Principles to each other and though none of the old Bishops were acquainted with them yet some late Presbyters have espoused them and can on all occasions for the disturbance of our English Nation talk as Whiggishly as ever Knox or Buchanan did But they are so disingenuous as to conceal the names of their good Teachers from whom they learned to distinguish not onely between Julian and the Devil in him but between Charles Stuart and the King that they might destroy him in a double capacity first as a King and then as a Man And if as you say the Laws of our Land do not allow any one to imagine violence to their lawful Emperour And if as Bracton says fama apud graves bonos viros is a proof of Treason I fear an Indictment may lie against the Author of Julian's Life for that Not having the fear of God before his Eyes but being moved c. It is therefore a most profane and Reproachful inference with which you conclude Chap. 6. That in that Age the best Prayers and Tears were those that contributed most to Julian 's destruction An Answer to our Author's CHAP. V. Of their Devotions And first of their Psalms THis was indeed the Devotion of our late Times to begin with a Psalm not regarding the Scriptures or as much as the Commandments Creed or Lords Prayer and then to preach in their Prayers and pray in their Preaching or if you will in our Authors Language to say their Prayers backward In their Devotions you say p. 45. It might be expected we should see the flights of their self-denying and suffering Religion and one may expect they should lay aside their annimositie against Julian though he were their Ememie and for that reason pray the harder
justifie resistance of lawful Powers having in effect not onely drawn the Sword but cast away the Scabbard We are told of one that was ready to kick an Emperour and of others that play'd with his Beard but this is little less than kicking at the Crown and striking a blow at the root to render the whole Family as glorious as they made the Father of it Unless he can give some other sence of it than this Rather than not exclude the D. we will exclude the glorious Family of the Stuarts And in what sence he calls it a glorious Family needs his explication But will the Exclusion of the D. as certainly prevent our misery as his Succession effect it Did you never read how zealous some Priests and Pharisees were for a Bill of Exclusion against a far better person John 11.47 48. What do we for this man doth many Miracles if we let him thus alone all men will believe on him the Romans will come take away both our place nation And did not the passing that Bill make way for the Romans to bring all their fears on their own heads And was not our late dear King excluded from Crown Kingdom and life upon such fears and was that a means of our Peace and Happiness I wish I could say our fears now are as false as they were then We have his R. H. Declaration for our Security viz. That the Members of the Church of England are the best supporters of the Crown Insomuch that if it fall to him to be concerned he will ever countenance and preserve them and it And p. 225. Why may we not suppose that a Popish Successor will defend his Regalia against the Pope Our Ancient Kings did so in the Reign of Rich. 2.16 c. 5. In a Statute of Praemunire the Parliament declares That the Crown of England against the Encroachments of the Pope hath been so free at all times that so hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalty of the same Crown and to none other And God defend say they that it should be submitted to the Pope and the Laws and Statutes of the Realm be by him defeated and avoided at his will in perpetual destruction of the Soveraignty of the King our Lord his Crown Regalty and of all his Realm And I hope his Royal Highness will say as they did God defend Moreover the Commons say That the things so attempted viz. purchasing Bulls from Rome executing Judgments given in the Court of Rome translating of Prelates out of the Realm or from one Preferment to another be clearly against the Kings Crown and Regalty used and approved of the time of all his Progenitors Wherefore they and all the siege Commons of the same Realm will stand with our said Lord the King and his Crown and Regalty in the Cases aforesaid and in all other cases attempted against him and his Crown and Regalty in all points to live and to dye And moreover they pray the king and him require by way of Justice that he would examine all the Lords in the Parliament as well Spiritual as Temporal severally and all the Estates of the Parliament how they think of the Cases aforesaid which be so openly against the Kings Crown and in derogation of his Regalty how they will stand in the same cases with our Lord the King in upholding the rights of the said Crown and Regalty The like promises were made by the Lords Temporal and Spiritual and the default was to be punished by a Praemunire which is To be put out of the King protection and their Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King and that they be attached by their bodie if they may be found and brought before the King and his Council there to answer to the Cases aforesaid c. Now if these professed Papists did so resolutely and unanimously contest the Regalia against the Pope what greater zeal and resolution may we justly expect from a Protestant Parliament for such we may have if it be not our own fault if the Pope or any Agents of his should attempt to destroy the foundations of our established Religion and Laws Moreover in the days of Queen Mary we read how much time and what contrivances and largesses it cost that Queen to form a Parliament to lier liking though then the Nation were mostly Papists and how much they contended still for the Regalia against the Pope and reserving of Abby-lands c. to the Purchasers nor when all was done did any man suffer without publick process in form of Law there were no throats cut nor bloudshed by private Messengers or Assassinates as we are taught to expect from every Justice of Peace and Tything man p. 85. and by I know not what Janizaries and that we shall be slain to see what Grimaces we make p. 89. Besides the number that suffered in her five years were not comparable to the number that have been slain in one hours fight during the Rebellion nor indeed to those that were Martyred for their Religion and Loyalty by illegal proceedings in the Mock-Courts of Justice during that Vsurpation the number of the Marian Martyrs being not above three or four hundred though they were too many Now a Wise man should look back upon the mischiefs that have befallen the Nation by resisting the lawful Prince and the endeavours to alter the Succession from the right Heir as well as forward upon the mischiefs that may never be and which upon a supposition of a Popish Successour are aggravated almost beyond a possibilitie of being effected Remember what it cost the Nation when the Succession to the Crown was disputed between the Houses of York and Lancaster There perished in that War as Historians do account two Kings one Prince ten Dukes two Marquesses twentie one Earls twentie seven Lords two Viscounts one Lord Prior one Judge one hundred thirtie nine Knights four hundred twentie one Esquires and of the Gentrie and Commons an incredible number So that in such cases the Remedie is generally worse than the Disease I have not said this God is my witness to abate the just and honest care of the Nation to keep out Poperie by such timely provision as his Majestie and his great Council shall see most probable but to allay the inordinate Hearts which may set the whole Kingdom in a sudden flame onely to prevent the fear of the suffering a Trial of our Faith if God should call us to it And I cannot consider without some horror what sore and long Wars and Devastations may follow upon a Bill of Exclusion as well as on a Popish Successor And if of two evils the least is to be chosen I should rather if the Will of God so be submit to my lot how hard soever under such a One than that the whole Nation should be rent in pieces again either by a Rebellion at home or Invasions
this Recognition declare so often as he doth particularly in p. 198. that the Succession of the Crown is the right of the whole Community their appointment their constitution and creature in Parliament Did he never read what is said by Grotius de Jure belli He says If a Kingdom descend by Succession an Act of Alienation is in itself null l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Which agrees with what Bishop Sanderson delivered before And Mr. Hunt himself says Grotius is more than ten witnesses and if you add the Bishops I think them of more value than a hundred In quâ tandem Civitate Catilina arbitraris te vivere saith Cicero you that make Hue and cry after such as write for Religion and Loyalty as if they were ready to banish themselves or prove felo's de se consider I pray under what Government you are and though you may escape the Magistrates wrath yet you ought to be solicitous 〈◊〉 you may escape the wrath of God to which you have made your self obnoxious I have but one Remark more on Mr. Hunt which is that he hath consulted another famous Author one Mr. Thomas White who being a Romish Emissary made it his business to continue our distractions This man wrote a Book entituled The Grounds of Obedience and Government And his Motto is Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto whereof I have given you the genuine sence already Now among many other Notes transcribed by Mr. Hunt from this Jesuitical Writer p. 158. he comes to answer the Objections of Divines concerning the Authoritie of Princes and non-resistance Vp steps the Divine saith he to preach us out of Scripture the Dutie we owe to Kings no less than Death and Damnation being the guerdons of Disobedience and Rebellion And p. 159. They will speak Reason too telling us that God by nature is high Lord and Master of all That whoever is in power receiveth his right from him That Obedience consists in doing the Will of him that commandeth and conclude that his Will ought to be obeyed till God taketh away the Obligation i. e. till he who is to be obeyed himself releaseth the Right Besides p. 160. They alledge that God by his special command transferred the Kingdom from Saul to David from Rehoboam to Jeroboam So that in fine all that is brought out of Scripture falleth short of proving that no time can make void the right of a King once given him by the hand of God Now mark what Mr. White says to overthrow the sense of these Scriptures The reason says he of THIS WEAK WAY OF ALLEADGING SCRIPTVRE is that when they read that God commandeth or doth this they look not into Nature to know what this Commanding or Doing is but presently imagine God commands it by express and direct words and doth it by an immediate position of the things said to be done whereas in Nature the Commands are nothing but the natural Light God hath bestowed on Mankind and which is therefore frequently called the Law of Nature Likewise Gods doing a thing is many times onely the course of natural second Causes to which because God gives the Direction and Motion he both doth and is said to do all that is done by them Now to the same end viz. to prove that Kingly Government is not from God but the People and therefore may be altered and resisted and in the same words for the most part doth Mr. Hunt deliver this black invention of Mr. White p. 144. The nature of Government and its Original hath been prejudiced by men that understand nothing but words and Grammar-divines that without contemplating Gods Attributes or the Nature of man or the reasonableness of moral Precepts have undertaken to declare the sence of Scripture and infer that Soveraign Power is not of Humane Institution but of Divine Appointment because they find it there written That by him Kings reign Imagining that when the Scripture saith God commands or doth this that God commanded it by express words or doth it by an immediate position of the thing done whereas in nature his Commands are nothing but the natural Light God hath bestowed on Mankind Likewise Gods doing a thing is onely the course of natural and second Causes to which because God gives Direction and Motion he doth both and is said to do all that is done Likewise Gods doing a thing is onely the course of natural and second Causes to which because God gives the Direction or Motion he doth both and is said to do all that is done All this is verbatim Mr. White So is his Raillerie in the same Phrase to bring an Odium on Divines that would prove Government out of the Scripture White calls them Grammar-Divines Verbal and wind-blown Divines p. 162. And Mr. Hunt calls them Men that understand nothing but Words and Grammar-divines Who saith Mr. White without Logick Philosophie or Morality undertake to be Interpreters of the Sacred Bible Who saith Mr. Hunt without contemplating Gods Attributes or the Nature of man or the Reasonableness of Moral Precepts have undertaken to declare the sense of the Scripture It is not strange to me having read a Defiance to the Royal Family to read the like against the Clergie But that the Scripture also should suffer and the uncertain and mutable Traditions and Effects of natural Causes be made equivalent with the immediate Commands of God in the Scripture though it be no new thing among Jesuits yet a true Protestant should abhor it The man is so angry that he hath done the ungrateful Bishops any right that he will have satisfaction right or wrong from the rest of the Clergie And though he call the younger sort onely Coxcombs yet his design is to bring the whole Clergy into contempt But any young Divine may draw such Conclusions out of the Premises as might exclude him out of the Society of all good and learned men 1. That to conclude from the sence of Scripture is a weak way of Arguing In this Mr. White and Mr. Hunt consent 2. That non obstante what the Scripture says of Divine Right of Soveraign Power it is not of Divine but Humane Institution 3. That Providence and the Effects of second Causes being influenced by God are of equal Authority with the Precepts enjoyned by the Word of God 4. That the Soveraign Power being but of Humane Institution may be resisted and is alterable 5. That they who mock the Messengers of God do go on to despise the Word of God and abuse his Prophets a sin which often stirs up the Wrath of God so as there is NO REMEDY And this I observe in the behalf of the abused Clergie 6. That having cast off our Loyaltie to our Governours and their Laws puts us in a fair way to cast off the Soveraignty of God and his Laws 7. That the worst of Papists and their most Atheistical Arguments are made use of by some that call themselves true Protestants against the express
193. as it is marked in my Copy is verbatim this Speaking of the Duke Let him attempt the Crown notwithstanding an Act of Parliament for his Exclusion he is all that while but attempting to make us miserable if he be not excluded he doth it certainly we exclude onely his Person not his Posterity And WE WILL NOT ENTAIL A WAR VPON THE NATION THOVGH FOR THE SAKE AND INTEREST OF THE GLORIOVS FAMILY OF THE STVARTS Is not this spoken Dictator-like Did Cromwel say more when he bragg'd that he had the Parliament in his pocket Then We will have this and we will not have that We will proclaim the Family of the Stuarts Traitors and we will have our own will His premise is this If the Duke be not excluded he doth certainly make us miserable by entailing a War upon the Nation which may be false if the ancient Proverb be true Gen. 22.12 In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen it was spoken when the knife was lifted up to make Isaac a Scrifice and we know that the burning bush was not consumed But the Conclusion is certainly most impious We will not entail a War up-the Nation though for the sake and interest of the glorious Family of the Stuarts To let pass that Irony of THE GLORIOVS FAMILY OF THE STVARTS The plain sence of the words to a Logician is this Rather than not exclude the Duke of York who will certainly make us miserable we will exclude the glorious Family of the Stuarts This is as much as need to be said at present to cure the preiudice of a deluded and unthinking people as Mr. Hunt calls them Had. Mr. Hunt's Preface and Postscript come to my hands before I had well-nigh finished my Answer and sent some sheets to the Press the rest being called for with all expedition that the Printer might not be prejudiced by the edition of other Tracts on this subject I should have taken a more particular view of all that is contained in them whereas I can now onely cursorily make a few Remarks and leave the Reader to judge Ex ungue leonem We live saith he p. 150. in an Age of mystery and prodigie producing things monstrous and unnatural and our language must be agreeable to the things we speak And so it is very obscure and yet unnatural But I shall endeavour to drag this Author to the light and present him with his three heads The first is his Invective against the Clergy This poureth forth flouds of Contempt upon the whole Order The second is his Justification of the late Vnnatural War and this Head breaths out an horrible and infectious stink The third his endeavour to promote another such War as that was And this Head casteth out Firebrands and Swords to alarm and arm all the Malecontents in the Nation for a resistance of their Governours I know he doth not want his lurking holes and Subterfuges to hide these monstrous deformities but all in vain Treason will out and Magna est veritas prevalebit The first Head breaths out a contempt of the Clergie to which he makes way by a Preamble that will rather aggravate than excuse the Crime 1. Our Author complains that his honest design as he calls it to serve the Church hath been by many perverted p. 1. of the Preface and p. 5. that some have endeavoured to set his two Discourses viz. his Argument for Bishops and his Postscript at variance that the first was written to set off the latter with some advantage and that the Author designed to get from the Argument a more pardonable libertie of inveighing against the Church-men in the Postscript Habetis consitentem Reum Doubtless the Argument did not effect that grateful Acknowledgement from the Bishops which he expected They knew him perhaps to be a mercenary man one that had or would write as much falsely against them as he had done truly for them if it might tend to his better advantage and therefore he was resolved to pull down what he had built up and to seek more beneficiary Patrons Let us therefore consider who they were that thus resented and complained of Mr. Hunt p. 5. If it had been says he the conceit of the Popish Faction onely and not also of those Gentlemen whom I principally designed to serve and in them the Church of England c. Here it is as plain as if it had been written with a Sun-beam that he means the Bishops who were mostly if not onely concerned in that Argument But how maliciously doth he suggest that they were influenced by the Popish Faction who p. 6. he says had corrupted some of our Church-men with Principles that subvert our Government and betray the Rights of our people They have debauched the manners of our Church-men and lessened their Athoritie and Esteem with the people The Order is inslaved by collation of Preferments upon less worthy men Qui beneficium accepit libertatem amisit Is not this a stout Advocate for Bishops that tells the world that those of that Order indefinitely are contemptible slaves that have sold their Libertie for Preferment that they are corrupted in their Principles to the subverting of our Government and betraying the Rights of the people and so debauched in their manners as that they have lessened their esteem and authoritie with the people Is not this the old Censor Morum or Cato Redivivus And is it possible that a learned man should thus prevaricate and contradict himself so grosly as it were in the same breath Let not Mr. Hunt think to evade this and say he speaks this of our younger Divines of which we shall hear enough by and by to make all good mens ears tingle at the horrid falsehood of it he speaks this of the Order and particularly of the dignified men of that Order of these it is that he speaks p. 7. for he is not yet come to his distinction of young and old Divines those that are inslaved by the Preferment they have and those that seek Preferment by other arts of which anon That they lick up the Vomit of Popish Priests and whatever is said maliciously by them against the first Reformers is daily repeated by now come in our young Clerks out of the Pulpit with advantages of immodestie and indiscretion Now for our young Divines whom p. 50. of the Postscript he calls good-natur'd Gentlemen of the Clergie Tom Triplet is the onely young man that I knew who was so lasht after he came from the University Old Gill never laid on so unmercifully as this Demagogue doth p. 9. We have a sort of young men that have left nothing behind them in the Vniversitie but the taint of a bad example and brought no more Learning with them thence than what serves to make them more assured and more remarkable Coxcombs who will undertake to discourse continually of the Interest of Religion of which they have no manner of sense and of the