THE FREE-HOLDER.

I Have purpoſely avoided du⯑ring the whole Courſe of this Paper, to ſpeak any Thing concerning the Treatment which is due to ſuch Perſons as have been concerned in the late Rebellion, becauſe I would not ſeem to irritate Juſtice againſt thoſe who are under the Proſecution of the Law, nor incenſe any of my Readers againſt unhappy, tho' [4] guilty Men. But when we find the Proceed⯑ings of our Government in this particular traduced and miſrepreſented, it is the Duty of every good Subject to ſet them in their proper Light.

I am the more prompted to this Undertak⯑ing by a Pamphlet, intituled, An Argument to prove the Affections of the People of England to to be the beſt Security of the Government; humbly offer'd to the Conſideration of the Patrons of Severi⯑ty, and applied to the preſent Juncture of Affairs. Had the whole Scope of the Author been anſwerable to his Title, he would have only undertaken to prove what every Man in his Wits is already convinced of. But the Drift of the Pamphlet is, to ſtir up our Compaſſion towards the Rebels, and our Indignation againſt the Government. The Author who knew that ſuch a Deſign as this could not be carried on without a great deal of Artifice and Sophiſtry, has puzzled and perplexed his Cauſe, by throw⯑ing his Thoughts together in ſuch a ſtudied Confuſion; that upon this Account, if upon any his Pamphlet is, as the Party have repreſented it, unanſwerable.

The famous Monſieur Bayle compares th [...] anſwering of an immethodical Author, to the Hunting of a Duck: when you have him full in your Sight, and fancy your ſelf within reach of him, he gives you the ſlip and becomes in⯑viſible. His Argument is loſt in ſuch a va⯑riety [5] of Marter, that you muſt catch it where you can as it riſes, and diſappears in the ſeveral Parts of his Diſcourſe.

The Writer of this Pamphlet could doubt⯑leſs have ranged his Thoughts in much bet⯑ter Order, if he had pleaſed: But he knew very well, that Error is not to be advanced by Perſpicuity. In order therefore to An⯑ſwer this Pamphlet, I muſt reduce the Sub⯑ſtance of it under proper Heads: And diſ⯑embroil the Thoughts of the Author, ſince he did not think fit to do it himſelf.

In the firſt place, I ſhall obſerve, That the Terms which the Author makes uſe of, are looſe, general, and undefined, as will be ſhewn in the Sequel of this Paper; and, what leſs becomes a fair Reaſoner, he puts wrong and invidious Names on every Thing to colour a falſe Way of arguing.

He allows that the Rebels indiſputably merit to be ſeverely chaſtiſed; that they deſerve it ac⯑cording to Law; and that if they are puniſhed, they have none to thank but themſelves (Pag. 7.) How can a Man after ſuch a Conceſſion make ſometimes uſe of the Word Cruelty, but gene⯑rally of Revenge, when he pleads againſt the ex [...]ſe of that, which, according to his own Notion, is at the moſt but rigid Juſtice! Or why are ſuch Executions, which, according to his own Opinion are Legal, ſo often to be called Violences and Slaughter? Not to mention the Appellations given to thoſe [6] who do not agree with him in his Opinion for Clemency, as the Blood-thirſty, the Politi⯑cal Butchers, State Chirurgeons, and the like.

But I ſhall now ſpeak of that Point which is the great and reigning Fallacy of the Pam⯑phlet and runs more or leſs through every Paragraph. His whole Argument turns up⯑on this ſingle Conſideration; Whether the King ſhould exert Mercy or Juſtice towards thoſe who have openly appeared in the preſent Rebellion? By Mercy he means a general Pardon; by Ju⯑stice a general Puniſhment; ſo that he ſuppoſes no other Method practicable in the Juncture, than either the forgiving All, or the execut⯑ing All. Thus he puts the Queſtion, Whether it be the Intereſt of the Prince to deſtroy the Rebels by Fire, Sword, or Gibbet (pag. 4.) And ſpeak⯑ing of the Zealots for the Government, he tells us, They think no Remedy ſo good as to make clear Work; and that they declare for the utter Extir⯑pation of all who are its Enemies in the moſt mi⯑nute Circumſtances: As if Amputation were the ſole Remedy theſe political Butchers could find out for the Diſtempers of a State; or that they thought the only way to make the Top flouriſh, were to lop off the Under-Branches. (p. 5.) He then ſpeakes of the Coffee-houſe Politicians, and the Caſuiſts in Red-Coats; Who, he tells us, are for the utmoſt Rigour that their Laws of War or Laws of Conveniencie can inſpire them with. (p. 5.) Again, It is repreſented, ſays he, that the Rebels deſerve the highest Puniſhment the Laws can inflict. (p. 7.) [7] And afterwards tells us, The Queſtion is, Whe⯑ther the Government ſhall ſhew Mercy, or take a Reverend Divine's Advice, to ſlay Man and Wo⯑man, Infant and Suckling? (p. 8.) Thus again he tells us, The Friends to ſevere Counſels alledge, that the Government ought not to be moved by Com⯑paſſion; and that the Law ſhould have its Courſe. (p. 9.) And in another Place puts theſe Words in their Mouths, He may ſtill retain their Affection, and yet let the Laws have their Courſe in puniſhing the Guilty. (p. 18.) He goes upon the ſame Suppoſition in the fol⯑lowing Paſſages: It is impracticable in ſo gene⯑ral a Corruption to deſtroy All who are infected; and unleſs you deſtroy All you do nothing to the purpoſe. (p. 10.) Shall our rightful King ſhew himſelf leſs the true Father of his People, and af⯑ford his Pardon to None of thoſe People, who (like King Lear to his Daughter) had ſo great a Confi⯑dence in his Vertue as to give him All. (p. 25.) I ſhall only add, that the concluding Para⯑graph which is worked up with ſo much artificial Horrour, goes upon a Suppoſition anſwerable to the whole Tenor of the Pam⯑phlet; and implies, that the Impeach'd Lords were to be Executeed without Exception or Diſcrimination.

Thus we ſee what is the Author's Idea of that Juſtice againſt which all his Arguments are levell'd. If, in the next place, we con⯑ſider the Nature of that Clemency which he [8] recommends, we find it to be no leſs uni⯑verſal and unreſtrain'd.

He declares for a General Act of Indemnity, (p. 20.) and tells us, It is the Senſe of every diſpaſſionate Man of the Kingdom, that the Rebels may, and ought to be Pardoned, (p. 19.) One popular Act, ſays he, would even yet retrieve all, (p. 22.) He declares himſelf not over-fond of the Doctrines of making Examples of Traitors, (ibid.) And that the Way to prevent Things from being brought to an Extremity, is to deal mildly with thoſe unfortunate Gentlemen engaged in the Rebellion.

The Reader may now ſee in how fallaci⯑ous a Manner this Writer has ſtated the Controverſy: He ſuppoſes there are but two Methods of treating the Rebels; that is, by cutting off every one of them to a Man, or pardoning every one of them without Di⯑ſtinction. Now if there be a third Method between theſe two extreams, which is on all Accounts more eligible than either of them, it is certain that the whole Courſe of his Argumentation comes to nothing. Every Man of the plaineſt Underſtanding will eaſily conclude, that in the Caſe before us, as in moſt others, we ought to av [...]id both Extreams; that to deſtroy every Rebel would be an exceſſive Severity, and to for⯑give every one of them an unreaſonable Weakneſs. The proper Method of Pro⯑ceeding, is that which the Author has pur⯑poſely [...] [17] Becauſe, ſays he, The very Means, or the Ap⯑prehenſions of them, have brought Things to the Paſs in which they are, and conſequently will reduce them from Bad to Worſe, (P. 10.) And afterwards, This Growth of Diſaffection is in a great Meaſure owing to the groundleſs Jealouſies Men entertained of the preſent Adminiſtration; as if they were to expect nothing but Cruelty un⯑der it. If our Author would have ſpoken out, and have applyed theſe Effects to the real Cauſe, he would have aſcribed this Change of Affections among the People, to nothing elſe but the Change of the Miniſtry; for we find that a great many Perſons loſt their Loyalty with their Places; and that their Friends have ever ſince made Uſe of the moſt baſe Methods to infuſe thoſe ground⯑leſs Diſcontents into the Minds of the com⯑mon People, which have brought ſo many of them to the Brink of Deſtruction, and proved ſo detrimental to their fellow Subjects.

However, this Proceeding has ſhewen how dangerous it would have been for his Maje⯑ſty to have continued in their Places of Truſt, a Set of Men, ſome of whom have ſince actu⯑ally joined with the Pretender to his Crown, while others may be juſtly ſuſpected never to have been faithful to him in their Hearts, or at leaſt, whoſe Principles are precarious, and viſibly conducted by their Intereſt. In a word, if the removal of theſe Perſons from their Poſts has produced ſuch popular Com⯑motions [18] the continuance of them might have produced ſomething much more fatal to their King and Country, and have brought about that Revolution which has now been in vain attempted. The Condition of a Britiſh King would be very poor indeed, ſhould a Party of his Subjects threaten him with a Rebellion upon his bringing Male⯑factors to Juſtice, or upon his refuſing to employ thoſe whom he dare not truſt.

I ſhall only mention another Argument againſt the Puniſhment of any of the Rebels, whoſe Executions he repreſents as very ſhocking to the People, becauſe they are their Country-men. (p. 12.) And again, ‘"The Quality of the Sufferers, their Alli⯑ance, their Character, their being Engliſh⯑men, with a thouſand other Circumſtances will contribute to breed more ill Blood than all the State Chirurgeons can poſſibly let out." (p. 12.)’ The impeached Lords likewiſe in the laſt Paragraph of the Pamph⯑let are recommended to our Pity, becauſe they are our Country-men. By this way of reaſoning, no Man that is a Gentleman, or born within the three Seas, ſhould be Sub⯑ject to capital Puniſhment. Beſides, who can be guilty of Rebellion that are not our Country-men? As for the endearing Name of Engliſhmen, which he beſtows upon every one of the Criminals, he ſhould conſider that a Man deſervedly cuts himſelf off from [19] the Affections as well as the Priviledges of that Community which he endeavours to ſubvert.

Theſe are the ſeveral Arguments which appear in different Forms and Expreſſions thro' this whole Pamphlet, and under which every one that is urged in it may be reduced: There is indeed another Set of them, de⯑rived from the Example and Authority of great Perſons, which the Author pro⯑duces in favours of his own Scheme. Theſe are William the Conqueror, Henry the 4th. of France our late King William, King Solomon and the Pretender. If a Man were diſpoſed to draw Arguments for Severity out of Hiſtory, how many Inſtances might one find of it among the greateſt Princes of every Nation; but as different Princes may act very laudably by different Methods in diffe⯑rent Conjunctures, I cannot think this a concluſive way of reaſoning. However, let us examine this Set of Arguments and we ſhall find them no leſs defective than thoſe above-mentioned.

‘"One of the greateſt of our Engliſh Mo⯑narchs, ſays our Author was William the Con⯑queror, and he was the greater, becauſe he put to Death only one Perſon of Quality that we read of, and him after repeated Treacheries; yet he was a Foreigner, had Power ſufficient, and did not want Pro⯑vocations to have been more bloody." (p. 27.)’ [20] Perſon of Quality was the Farl of Waltheof, who being overtaken with Wine, engaged in a Conſpiracy againſt this King, but repent⯑ing of it the next Morning, came to him in Perſon and revealed the whole Matter, not⯑withſtanding of which, he was Beheaded upon the Defeat of the Conſpiracy; for hav⯑ing, but thus far tampered in it, and as for the reſt of the Conſpirators, who roſe in an actual Rebellion, the King uſed them with the utmoſt Rigor, he cut off the Heads of ſome, put out the Eyes of others, ſome were hanged upon Gibbets, and thoſe who faired the beſt were ſent into Baniſhment. There are indeed the moſt dreadful Examples of Se⯑verity in this Reign: Tho' it muſt be con⯑feſt, that, after the manner of theſe Times, the Nobility generally eſcaped with their Lives, tho' Multudes of them were puniſh⯑ed with Baniſhment, perpetual Impriſon⯑ment, Forfeitures, and other great Severities; while the poor People who had been delud⯑ed by theſe their Ring-Leaders, were executed with the utmoſt Rigour. A Partiality, which I believe, no Commoner of England will ever think it to be either juſt or reaſonable.

The next Inſtance is Henry the 4th. of France, ‘"Who (ſays our Author) ſo handſome⯑ly expreſt his Tenderneſs for his People, when at ſigning the Treaty of Vervines, he ſaid, That by one Daſh of his Pen he had overcome more Enemies than he could [21] ever be able to do with his Sword."’ Would not an ordinary Reader think this Treaty of Vervins was a Treaty between Henry the 4th. and a Party of his Subjects, for otherwiſe, how can it have a Place in the preſent Argu⯑ment. But inſtead of that, it was a Treaty between France and Spain. So that the Speech expreſſed an equal Tenderneſs to the Spaniards and French: As Multitudes of either Nation muſt have fallen in that War, had it continued longer. As for this King's Treatment of the Conſpirators (tho' he is quoted thrice in the Pamphlet as an Ex⯑ample of Clemency) you have an eminent Inſtance of it in his Behaviour to the Mar⯑ſhall de Biron, who had been his old faithful Servant, and had contributed more than any one to his Advancement to the Throne. This Marſhall upon ſome Diſcontent was entred into a Conſpiracy againſt his Maſter, and refuſing to open the whole Secret to the King, he was ſent to the Baſtile, and there Beheaded, notwithſtanding he ſought for Mercy with great Importunities, and in the moſt moving Manner: There are other In⯑ſtances in this King's Reign, who notwith⯑ſtanding, was remarkable for his Clemency, of Rebels and Conſpirators who were hang⯑ed, beheaded, or broken alive on the Wheel.

The late King William was not diſturbed by any Rebellion from thoſe who had once ſubmitted to him; But we know he treated the [22] Perſons concerned in the Aſſaſination-Plot, as ſo horrid a Conſpiracy deſerved. As for the Saying which this Author imputes to that Monarch, it being a Piece of ſecret Hiſtory, One doth not know when it was ſpoken, or what it alluded to, unleſs the Author had been more particular in the Account of it.

The Author proceeds in the next Place, to no leſs an Authority than that of Solomon: ‘"Amongſt all the general Obſervations of the wiſeſt Princes we know of, I think there is none holds more univerſally, that Mercy and Truth preſerve a King, and his Throne is eſtabliſhed in Mercy," (P. 18.)’ If we compare the different Sayings of this wiſe King, which relate to the Conduct of Prin⯑ces, we cannot queſtion, but that he means by this Mercy, that Kind of it which is con⯑ſiſtent with Reaſon and Government, and by which we hope to ſee his Majeſty's Throne eſtabliſhed. But our Author ſhould conſider, that the ſame wiſe Man hath ſaid in another Place, That an evil Man ſeeketh Rebellion, there⯑fore a cruel Meſſenger ſhall be ſent againſt him. Accordingly his Practice was agreeable to his Proverb, no Prince having given a greater Teſtimony of his Abhorrence to Undertak⯑ings of this treaſonable Nature. For he diſ⯑patched ſuch a cruel Meſſenger as is here mentioned, to thoſe who had been engaged in a Rebellion, many Years before he him⯑ſelf was on the Throne, and even to his elder [23] Brother, upon the bare Suſpicion, That he was projecting ſo wicked an Enterprize.

How the Example of the Pretender came into this Argument, I am at a Loſs to find out, ‘"The Pretender declared a general Par⯑don to all, and, ſhall our rightful King ſhew himfelf leſs the true Father of his People, and afford his Pardon to none," &c. (P. 25.)’ The Pretender's general Pardon was to a People who were not in his Power; and had he ever reduced them under it, it was only promiſed to ſuch as immediately joined with him for the Recovery of what he called his Right. It was ſuch a general Pardon as would have been conſiſtent with the Execu⯑tion of more than nine Parts of ten of the Kingdom.

There is but one more hiſtorical Argu⯑ment, which is drawn from King Philip's Treatment of the Catalans: ‘"I think it would not be unſeaſonable for ſome Men to recollect what their own Notions were of the Treatment of the Catalans, how many Declamations were made on the Barbari⯑ty uſed towards them by King Philip," (P. 29.)’ If the Author remembers, theſe Declamations, as he calls them, were not made ſo much on the Barbarity uſed towards them by King Philip, as on the Barbarity uſed towards them by the Engliſh Govern⯑ment. King Philip might have ſome Colour for treating them as Rebels, but we ought to [24] have regarded them as Allies; and were o⯑bliged by all the Ties of Honour, Conſci⯑ence, and publick Faith, to have ſheltered them from thoſe Sufferings which were brought upon them by a firm and inviolable Adherence to our Intereſts. However, none can draw into a Parallel the Cruelties which have been inflicted on that unhappy People, with thoſe few Inſtances of Severity which our Government has been obliged to exert to⯑wards the Britiſh Rebels. I ſay, no Man would make ſuch a Parallel, unleſs his Mind be ſo blinded with Paſſion and Prejudice, as to aſſert in the Language of this Pamphlet, That no Inſtances can be produced of the leaſt Le⯑nity under the preſent Adminiſtration, from the firſt Hour it commenced to this Day, (P. 20.) with other aſtoniſhing Reflections of the ſame Nature, which are contradicted by ſuch innumerable Matters of Fact, that it would be an Affront to a Readers Under⯑ſtanding to endeavour to confute them. But to return to the Catalans, during the whole courſe of the War, ſays the Author, which ever of them ſubmitted to Diſcretion, were received to Mercy. (p. 22.) This is ſo far from being truly related, that in the beginning of the War they were executed without Mercy, but when in Conjunction with their Allies, they became Superior to King Philips Party in Strength, and extended their Conqueſts up to the very Gates of Madrid: It cannot [17] [...] [18] [...] [19] [...] [20] [...] [21] [...] [22] [...] [23] [...] [24] [...] [25] be ſuppoſed the Spaniſh Court would be ſo in⯑fatuated as to perſiſt in their firſt Severities againſt an Enemy that could make ſuch ter⯑rible Reprizals; However, when this Reaſon of State ceaſed, how dreadful was the Havock made among this brave, but unhappy People, the whole Kingdom without any Diſtincti⯑on, to the ruin of many thouſands of its innocent Inhabitants, was ſtript of its Im⯑munities, and reduced to a State of Slavery, Barcelona was filled with Executions, and all the Patriots of their Ancient Liberties, ei⯑ther Beheaded, ſtowed in Dungeons, or con⯑demned to work in the Mines of America.

God be thanked, we have a King who puniſhes with Reluctancy, and is averſe to ſuch Cruelties, as were uſed among the Catalans, as much as to thoſe practiſed on the Perſons concerned in Monmouth's Re⯑bellion, our Author indeed condemns theſe Weſtern Aſſizers in King James's Reign (p. 26.) And it would be well if all thoſe who ſtill adhere to the Cauſe of that unfortunate King, and are clamorous at the Proceedings of his preſent Majeſty, would re⯑member, that notwithſtanding, that Rebellion fell very much ſhort of this, both in the Number and Strength of the Rebels, and had no Tendency either to deſtroy the National Religion, to introduce an Ar⯑bitrary Government, or to ſubject us to a Foreign Power: Not only the Chief of the Rebels was be⯑beheaded, but even a Lady, who had only harbour⯑ed one of the Offenders in her Houſe, was in her extream old Age put to the ſame Kind of Death: That about Two Hundred and Thirty were hanged, drawen, and quartered, and their Limbs diſperſed thro' ſeveral Parts of the Country, and ſet up as Spe⯑ctacles of Terror to their fellow Subjects. It would be too tedious a Work to run thro' the numberleſs [26] Fines, Impriſonments, Corporal Puniſhments and Tranſportations, which were then likewiſe practiſed as wholeſome Severities.

We have now ſeen how fallaciouſly the Author has ſtated the Cauſe he has undertaken, by ſuppoſing that nothing but unlimited Mercy, or unlimited Puniſhment, are the Methods that can be made uſe of in our preſent Treatment of the Rebels; That he has omitted the middle Way of Proceeding be⯑tween theſe two Extreams: That this Middle-Way is the Method in which his Majeſty, like all other Wiſe and Good Kings, has choſen to proceed, that it is agreeable to the Nature of Government, Religion, and onr Britiſh Conſtitution: And that every Argu⯑ment which the Author has produced from Reaſon and Example, would have been a true one, had it been urged from that reſtrained Clemency which his Majeſty has exerciſed; But it is a falſe one, when applyed to ſuch a general undiſtinguiſhing Mercy, as the Author would recommend.

Having thus anſwered, that, which is the main Drift and Deſign of this Pamphlet, I ſhall touch upon thoſe other Parts of it, which are interwoven with the Arguments, to put Men out of Humour with the preſent Government.

And here we may obſerve, that it is our Authors Method, to ſuppoſe Matters of Fact, which are not in Being, and afterwards to diſcant upon them, as he is very ſenſible, that the Cauſe will not bear the Teft of Reaſon, he has indeed every where choſen ra⯑ther Topicks for Declamation than Argument, thus he intertains us with a laboured Invective againſt a ſtanding Army; But what has this to do in the pre⯑ſent Caſe; I ſuppoſe he would not adviſe his Maje⯑ſty to disband his Forces, while there is an Army of Rebels in his Dominions: I cannot imagine he would think the Affections of the People of England a Security of the Government in ſuch a Juncture, were it not at the ſame Time defended with a ſuffi⯑cient Body of Troops. No Prince has ever given a greater Inſtance of his Inclinations to rule without a ſtanding Army, if we conſider, that upon the very [27] firſt News of the Defeat of the Rebels, he declared to both Houſes of Parliament, that he had put an immediare Stop to the Levies, which he had begun to raiſe at their Requeſt, and that he would not make uſe of the Power which they had entruſted him with, unleſs any new Preparations of the Enemy ſhould make it neceſſary for our Defence; This Speech was received with the greateſt Gratitude by both Houſes, and it is ſaid, that in the Houſe of Com⯑mons, a very candide and honourable Gentleman (who generally votes with the Minority) declared that he had not heard ſo gracious a Speech from the Throne, for many Years laſt paſt.

In another Place, he ſuppoſes that the Govern⯑ment has not [...]eavoured to gain the Applauſe of the Vulgar, by doing ſomething for the Church; And very gravely makes Excuſes for this their pre⯑tended Neglect. What greater Inſtances could his Majeſty have given of his Love to the Church of England, than theſe he has exhibited by his moſt ſo⯑lemn Declarations; by his dayly Example, and by his Promotions of the moſt eminent amongſt the Clergy, to ſuch Vacancies as have happened in his Reign: To which we muſt add for the Honour of his Government in this Particular, that, it has done more for the Advantage of the Clergy, than thoſe who are the moſt zealous for their Intereſt, could have expected in ſo ſhort a Time: Which will further appear, if we reflect upon the Valuable and Royal Donative to one of our Univerſities, and the Proviſion made for thoſe who are to officiate in the Fifty new Churches. His Majeſty is indeed a Prince of too much Magnanimity and Truth, to make uſe of the Name of the Church, for drawing his Peo⯑ple into any Thing that may be prejudicial unto them: For what our Author ſays to this Purpoſe, redounds as much to the Honour of the preſent Ad⯑miniſtration, as to the Diſgrace of others: Nay, I wiſh with all my Soul they had ſtooped a little ad captum vulgi to take in theſe fluttering Hearts, which are to be caught by any Thing called with the Name of Church. P. II. Again the Authorasks, Whether Terror is to become [28] the only National Principle; with other Queſtions of the ſame Nature: And in ſeveral Parts of his Book harangues very plentifully againſt ſuch a Notion, where he talks in Generals upon this Topick: There is no Queſtion, but every Whig and Tory in the Kingdom, perfectly agrees with him in what he ſays, but if he would inſinuate, as he ſeems to do in ſe⯑veral Places, that there ſhould be no Impreſſions of Awe upon the Mind of a Subject, and that a Go⯑vernment ſhould not create Terror in thoſe who are diſpoſed to do Ill, as well as encourage thoſe that do their Duty: In ſhort, if he is for an entire Exclu⯑ſion of that Principle of Fear, which is ſuppoſed to have ſome Influence in every Law, he oppoſes him⯑ſelf to the Form of every Governm [...] [...] the World, and to the common Senſe of Mankind.

The Artifice of this Author in ſtarting Objections, to the Friends of the Government, and the fooliſh Anſwers which he ſuppoſes they return to them, is ſo very viſible, that every one ſees they are deſign'd rather to divert his Reader, than to inſtruct him.

I have now examined this whole Pamphlet, which indeed is written with a great deal of Art, and as much Argument as the Cauſe would bear; And af⯑ter having ſtated the true Notion of Clemency, Mer⯑cy, Compaſſion, Good-Nature, Humanity, or whatever elſe it may be called, ſo far as it is conſiſtent with Wiſdom, and the Good of Manking, or in other Words, ſo far as it is a Moral Virtue, I ſhall readily concur with the Author in the higheſt Panegyrick that he has beſtowed upon it; As likeways, I heartily join with him in every Thing, he has ſaid againſt Juſtice, if it concludes as his Pamphlet ſup⯑poſes, the Extirpation of every Criminal, and is not exerciſed with a much greater Mixture of Clemency than Rigour. Mercy in the true Senſe of the Word, is that Virtue, by which a Prince approaches neareſt to him, whom he repreſents; And whilſt he is nei⯑ther remiſs, nor extream to animadvert upon thoſe who offend him, that Logick will hold true of him, which is applyed to the great Judge of all the Earth: With thee there is Mercy, therefore ſhalt thou be feared.