of Kings be also asserted And indeed your Friend by this ingenuity of his hath done that Cause a prejudice of which many are sufficiently sensible for this was a secret Doctrine to be instilled in corners in the hearts of Disciples duly prepared for it but not to be owned to the World For if that place prove any thing it will prove that when a King turns from following the LORD his Subjects may conspire and slay him how this would take among the Fifthâ—Monarchy Men I know not but I am sure it will be abhorred by all Protestants and particularly by these who made it an Article of their Confession of Faith That infidelity or difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just power Therefore this being a direct Breach of both fifth and sixth Commands though it be neither marked as condemned nor punished in that short account there given yet it will never warrant the resisting the Ordinance of GOD upon which GOD hath entailed Damnation And whereas your Friend alledgeth the justice of this may be evinced from Scripture it shews that in his Judgment not only Tyranny but the turning from following GOD is a just cause for conspiring against and killing of Kings But I cannot see where he finds what the cause of this Conspiracy was since the Text taxeth only the time but not the cause of it And for the instance of Uzziah the Priests indeed withstood him as they ought to have done as the Ministers of the Gospel ought yet to do if a King would go and consecrate the LORD'S Supper but their withstanding of that imports no violent Opposition the strict signification of the word being only that they placed themselves over against him and so it is rendered by the LXX Interpreters and remember that S. Paul withstood S. Peter to his face Gal. 2.11 Yet I do not apprehend you will suspect he used force As for what follows that the Priests did thrust him out it will not prove they laid hands on him that word signifying only that they made him haste out of the Temple and is the same word which Esther 6.14 is rendered hasted where none will think that the Chamberlains laid violent hands on Haman so all that the Priests did was to charge Uzziah when his Leprosie appeared to get him quickly out of the Temple and some Copies of the LXX have it so rendered and the following words shew there was no need of using force since himself made haste And for the word rendered valiant or sons of valor that word is not always taken for valor but sometimes for activity so Gen. 47.6 sometimes for riches so Ruth 2.1 It is also rendered wealth Gen. 34.29 so this will not prove that Azariah made choice of these men for the strength of their Body but for the Resolution of their Mind that they might stoutly contradict Uzziah and thus you have drawn a great deal more fâ—om me than I intended or these misapplied places needed for clearing of them from the design you had upon them Isot. But is it not clear from 1 Sam. 14.45 that the people of Israel rescued Jonathan from his fathers bloody sentence against him and swore he should not die See pâ—â— â— 5 Crit. That will prove as little for no force was used in the matter only a solemn Protestation was made Next the word rendered rescued is redeemed which is not used in a sense that imports violence in Scripture but rather for a thing done by contract and agreement And the LXX Interpreters render it the people intreated for Ionathan nor need we doubt but Saul was easily prevailed upon to yield to their desire Besides any King that would murder his eldest Son and heir of his Crown upon so bare a pretence after he had signalized his courage so notably as Ionathan did may well be looked upon as one that is furious and so the holding of his hands is very far different from the case of defensive Arms. Isot. But David a man according to GODS heart gathered four hundred Men about him and stood to his defence when cruelly persecuted by Saul 1 Sam. 22.2 Basil. Many things meet in this instance to take away any colour of an argument might be drawn from it for David was by GODS command designed successor to the Crown and so was no ordinary Subject Next Saul was become furious and an evil spirit seized on him so that in his rage he threw Javelins not only at David but at his Son Ionathan Now all confess that when a Sovereign is frenetick his fuâ—y may be restrained Further we see how far David was from resistance he standing on a pure defence so that when he had Saul in his power twice he would do him no hurt yea his heart smote him when he cut off the hem of his garment 1 Sam. 24.4 5. This was not like some you know of who set Guards about their King for the security of his Person forsooth when he had trusted himself into their hands And it is very doubtful if David's gathering that force about him was lawful for these who came to him were naughty Men and discontented and broken with debt whereas had that been a justifiable practice it is like he should have had another kind of following And his offering his service to the Philistins who were Enemies to GOD to fight for them against the people of GOD is a thing which can admit of no excuse But after all this if the actions even of renowned Persons in the Old Dispensation be Precedents you may adduce the instances of Ehud to prove that we may secretly assassinate a Tyrant and of Iael to prove that after we have offered protection to one who upon that trusts to us we may secretly murder him Isot. But what say you to the resistance used by Mattatbâ—as and his Children who killed the Kings Officers and armed against him which resistance as it was foretold by Daniel so it is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews That by faith they waxed valiant in fight and turned to flight the Armies of Aliens which by all is applied to the Maccabees And who are you to condemn that which the holy Ghost calls the work of faith in them See p. 18 19. Basil. I see Criticus is weary of speaking and therefore will relieve him for this once and tell you that the title Antiâ—â—hus had to command the Iews is not undoubted for Iosephus lib. 12. cap. 7. and 8. shews how the Iewish Nation was tossed betwixt hands and sometimes in the power of the Kings of Egypt and sometimes of Syria and that the factions among the Iews gave the occasion to their being so invaded for ambitious pretenders to the High Priesthood sought the favour of these Kings and so sacrificed the interests both of Religion and their Country to their own base ends which was the case in Antâ—ochus Epiphanes his time who after his attempt upon Egypt came
not oblige For the common resolution of Casuists being that a Man under an erroneous Conscience is yet to follow its dictates though he sin by so doing then all parties that are oppressed ought to vindicate what they judg to be the truth of GOD. And by this you may see to what a fair pass the peace of mankind is brought by these Opinions But mistake me not as if I were here pleading for sâ—â—mission to patronize the tyranny or cruelty of persecuting Princes who shall answer to God for that great trust deposited in their hands which if they transgress they have a dear account to make to him who sits in heaven and laughs at the raging and consultings of these Kings or Princes who design to throw off his Yoak or burst his bonds in sunder He who hath set his King upon his holy Hâ—ll of Zion shall rule them with a rod of Iron and break them in pieces as a Potter's Vessel And he to whom vengeance doth belong will avenge himself of all the injuries they do his truths or followers but as they sin against him so they aâ—e only countable to him Yet I need not add what hath been often said that it is not the name of a King or the ceremonies of a Coronation that cloaths one with the Sovereign Power since I know there are and have been titular Kings who are indeed but the first Persons of the State and only Administrators of the Laws the Sovereign Power lying in some Assembly of the Nobility and States to whom they are accountable In which Case that Court to whom these Kings must give account is the Supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom and the King is but a Subject Isot. But doth not the Coronation of a King together with his Oath given and the consent of the People demanded at it prove him to have his Power upon the Conditions in that Oath And these Oaths being mutually given his Coronation Oath first and the Oath of Allegiance next do shew it is a Compact and in all mutual Agreements the nature of Compacts is that the one party breaking the other is also free Further Kings who are tied up so that they cannot make nor repeal Laws nor impose Taxes without the consent of the States of their Kingdom shew their Power to be limited and that at least such Assemblies of the States share with them in the Sovereign Power which is at large made out by Ius populi Basil. It is certain there cannot be two co-ordinate Powers in a Kingdom for no man can serve two Masters therefore such an Assembly of the States must either be Sovereign or subject for a middle there is not As for the Coronation of Princes it is like enough that aâ— first it was the formal giving their Power to them and the old Ceremonies yet observ'd in it prove it hath been at first so among us But it being a thing clear in our Law that the King never dies his Heir coming in his place the very moment he expires so that he is to be obeyed before his Coronation as well as after and that the Coronation is nothing but the solemn inaugurating in the Authority which the King possessed from his Father's death shews that any Ceremonies may be used in it whatever the original of them may have been do not subject his Title to the Crown to the Peoples consent And therefore his Coronation Oath is not the condition upon which he gets his Power since he possess'd that before nor is it upon that Title that he exacts the Oath of Alegiance which he likewise exacted before his Coronation This being the practice of a Kingdom passed all Prescription proves the Coronation to be no compact betwixt the King and his Subjects And therefore he is indeed bound by his Coronation Oath to God who will be avenged on him if he break it so the matter of it were lawful but the breaking of it cannot forfeit a prior Right he had to the Peoples Obedience And as for the limitations Kings have consented to pass on their own Power that they may act nothing but in such a form of Law these being either the King 's free Concessions to the People or restraints arising from some Rebellions which extorted such Priviledges will never prove the King a Subject to such a Court unless by the clear Laws and Practices of that Kingdom it be so provided that if he do malverse he may be punished which when made appear proves that Court to have the Sovereign Power and that never weakens my design that Subjects ought not to resist their Sovereign Philar. You have dwelt methinks too long on this though considering the nature of the thing it deserves indeed an exact discussion yet this whole Doctrine appears so clear to a discerning Mind that I cannot imagine whence all the mist is raised about it can spring except from the corrupt Passions or Lusts of men which are subtle enough to invent excuses and fair colors for the blackest of Crimes And the smoak of the bottomless pit may have its share in occasioning the darkness is raised about that which by the help of the light of God or of reason stands so clear and obvious But when I consider the instances of sufferings under both Dispensations I cannot see how any should escape the force of so much evident proof as hangs about this opinion And if it had been the Peoples duty to have reformed by the force of Arms under the Old Dispensation so that it was a base and servile Compliance with the Tyranny and Idolatry of their Kings not to have resisted their subverting of Religion and setting up of Idolatry where was then the fidelity of the Prophets who were to lift up their voices as Trumpets and to shew the house of Iacob their iniquities And since the watch-man who gave not warning to the wicked from his wicked way was guilty of his Blood I see not what will excâ—se the silence of the Prophets in this if it was the Peoples duty to reform For it is a poor refuge to say because the People were so much inclin'd to Idolatry that therefore it was in vain to exhort them to reform See pag. 10 11. since by that Argument you may as well conclude it to have been needless to have exhorted their Kings to Reformation their inclination to Idolatry being so strong but their duty was to be discharged how small soever the likelihood was of the Peoples yielding obedience to their warnings If then it was the Peoples duty to reform the oâ—ission of it was undoubtedly a Sin how then comes it that they who had it in commission to cause Ierusalem to know her abominations under so severe a Certificate do never charge the People for not going about a popular Reformation nor coâ—rcing these wicked Kings who enacted so much Idolatry backing it with such Tyranny nor ever require them to set about it I know one hath pick'd out some
them some Towns for their security to be kept by them for twenty years at the end whereof the late King remanding them the Protestants were instant to keep them longer to which he yielded for three or four years in the end he wisely determined saith that Gentleman to take them out of their hands Upon which they met in an Assembly at Rochel and most imprudently he adds and against their duty both to God and the King they resolved to keep them still by force But at that time there was a National Synod at Alais where M. du Moulin presided who searching into the posture of Affairs in that Country where many of these places of strength lay he found the greater and better part inclined to yield them up to the King upon which he wrote an excellent Letter to the Assembly at Rochel disswading them from pursuing the Courses they were ingaging in where he shews it was the general desire of their Churches that it might please God to continue peace by their giving Obedience to the King and since his Majesty was resolved to have these Places in his own hands that they would not on that account ingage in a War But that if Persecution was intended against them all who feared God desired it might be for the Profession of the Gospel and so be truly the cross of Christ and therefore assured them the greater and better part of their Churches desired they would dissolve their meeting if it could be with security to their Persons And presses their parting from that Assembly with many Arguments and obviates what might be objected against it And craves pardon to tell them They would not find inclinations in those of the Religion to obey their resolutions which many of the best quality and greatest capacity avowedly condemned judging that to suffer on that account was not to suffer for the Cause of God And therefore exhorts them to depend on God and not precipitate themselves into Ruin by their Impatience And he ends his Letter with the warmest and serventest language imaginable for gaining them into his opinion It is true his Letter wrought not the desired Effect yet many upon it deserted the meeting Upon the which that Gentleman shews that what was then done ought not to be charged on the Protestant Churches of France since it was condemned by the National Synod of their Divines and three parts of four who were of the Religion continued in their dutiful Obedience to the King without ingaging in Arms with those of their Party Amirald also in his incomparable Apology for those of the Reformed Religion Sect. 2. vindicates them from the imputations of disloyalty to their Prince and after he hath asserted his own opinion that Prayers and Tears ought to be the only weapons of the Church as agreeing best with the nature of the Gospel and the practice of the first Christians he adds his regrates that their Fathers did not crown their other Virtues with invincible Patience in suffering all the Cruelty of their Persecutors without resistance after the Example of the Primitive Church by which all color of reproaching the Reformation had been removed Yet he shews how they held out during the Reign of Francis I. and Henry II. notwithstanding all the Cruelty of the Persecution though their Numbers were great What fell out after that he justifies or rather excuses for he saith he cannot praise but blame it on the Grounds we have already mentioned of the minority of their Kings and of the Interest of the Princes of the Blood And for the business of Renaudy in Francis II. his time he tells how Calvin disapproved it and observes from Thuan that he who first discovered it was of the Reformed Religion and did it purely from the Dictate of his Conscience He also shews that the Protestants never made War with a common Consent till they had the Edicts on their side so that they defended the King's Authority which others were violating But adds withal that the true cause of the Wars was reason of State and a Faction betwixt the Houses of Bourbon and Guise and the defence of the Protestants was pretended to draw them into it And for the late Wars he charges the blame of them on the ambition of some of their Grandees and the factious Inclinations of the Town of Rochel And vindicates the rest of their Church from accession to them whatever good wishes the common Interest of their Religion might have drawn from them for these whose danger they so much apprehended And for the Affaus of our Britain which was then in a great Combustion for which the Protestants were generally blamed as if the Genius of their Religion led to an opposition of Monarchy he saith strangers could not well judge of matters so remore from them but if the King of England was by the constitutions of that Kingdom a Sovereign Prince which is a thing in which he cannot well offer a dicision then he simply condemns their raising a War against him even though that report which was so much spread of his design to change the Reformed Religion settled there were true Neither are these opinions of Amirald to be look'd on as his private thoughts but that Apology being published by the approbation of these appointed to license the Books of the Religion is to be received as the more common and received Doctrine of that Church And what ever approbation or assistance the neighboring Princes might have given the Protestants in the latter or former Wars it will not infer their allowing the Precedent of Subjects resisting their Sovereign though persecuted by him since it is not to be imagined many Princes could be guilty of that But the Maxims of Princes running too commonly upon grounds very different from the Rules of Conscience and tending chiefly to strengthen themselves and weaken their Neighbors we are not to make any great account of their approving or abetting of these Wars And thus far you have drawn from me a great deal of Discourse for justifying the Confâ—rmists design of vindicating the Reformed Churches from the Doctrine and Practice of Subjects resisting their Sovereign upon pretexts of Religion Isot. A little time may produce an Answer to all this which I will not now attempt but study these accounts more accurately But let us now come home to Scotland and examine whether the King be an accountable Prince or not You know well enough how Fergus was first called over by the Scots how many instances there are of the States their coercing the King how the King must swear at his Coronation to observe the Laws of the Kingdom upon which Allegiance is sworn to him so that if he break his part why are not the Subjects also free since the Compact seems mutual I need not add to this that the King can neither make nor abrogate Laws without the consent of the Estates of Parliament that he can impose no Tax without them And from
these things it appears that the King of Scotland is a limited King who as he originally derived his Power from their choice so is still limited by them and liable to them All which is at large made out by the Author of Ius populi Basil. Now you are on a rational Point which I acknowledge deserves to be well discussed for if by the Laws of Scotland the King be liable to his People then their coercing him will be no Rebellion But this point is to be determined not from old Stories about which we have neither Record nor clear account for giving light how to direct our belief nor from some tumultuary Practices but from the Laws and Records of the Kingdom and here the first word of our Laws gives a shrewd Indication that the King's Power is not from the People which is anno 1004 according to Sir Iohn Skeen's Collection of them King Malcome gave and distributed all his Lands of the Realm of Scotland among his men and reserved nothing in property to himself but the Royal Dignity and the Mure-hill in the Town of Scone Now I dare appeal to any Person whether this be not the Stile of a Sovereign and if this prove not the King's Title to the Crown to be of another nature than that of a voluntary Compact The next vestige is to be found in the Books of Regiam Majestatem held to be published by King David I. Anno 1124 and declared authentical by following Parliaments where the third Verse of the Preface is That our most glorious King having the Government of the Realm may happily live both in the time of Peace and of warfare and may ride the Realm committed to him by God who hath no Superior but the Creator of Heaven and Earth ruler over all things c. And let the plain sense of these words tell whether the King of Scotland hath his power from the People and whether he be accountable to any but to God It is also clear that all were bound to follow the King to the Wars and punishment was decreed against those who refused it see the Laws of Alexander II. Cap. 15. and Iac. 1. Parl. 1. Cap. 4. Iac. 2. p. 13. Cap. 57. And this shews they were far from allowing War against the King The Parliaments were also originally the Kings Courts at which all his Vassals were bound to appear personally and give him Counsel which proving a burden to the small Barons they were dispenced with for their appearance in Parliament 1. Iac. Parl. 7. cap. 101. which shews that the coming to the Parliament was looked on in these days rather as an homage due to the King than a priviledg belonging to the Subjects otherwise they had been loth to have parted with it so easily And 2. Fac. 6. Parl. cap. 14. It is ordained that none rebel against the King's person nor his Authority and whoso makes such Rebellion is to be punished after the quality and quantity of such Rebellion by the advice of the three Estates And if it happens any within the Realm openly or notoriously to rebel against the King or make war against the King's Laeges against his forbidding in that case the King is to go upon them with assistance of the whole Lands and to punish them after the quantity of the trespass Here see who hath the Sovereign power and whether any may take Arms against the King's command and the 25. Ch. of that same Parl. defines the points of Treason It is true by that Act those who assault Castles or Houses where the King's person was without the consent of the three Estates are to be punished as Traytors From which one may infer that the Estates may besiege the King but it is clear that was only a provision against these who in the minority of the Kings used to seize upon their Persons and so assumed the Government and therefore it was very reasonable that in such a case provision should be made that it were not Treason for the Estates to come and besiege a place where the Kings Person were for recovering him from such as treasonably seized on him And this did clearly take its rise from the confusions were in that King's minority whom sometimes the Governor sometimes the Chancellor got into their keeping and so carried things as they pleased having the young King in their hands The King is also declared to have full Jurisdiction and free Empire within his Realm 3. Fac. Parl. 5. cap. 30. And all along it is to be observed that in asserting his Majesties Prerogative Royal the phrases of asserting and acknowledging but never of giving or granting are used so that no part of the King's Prerogative is granted him by the Estates and Iac. 6. Parl. 8. cap. 129. his Majesties Royal Power and Authority over all Estates as well spiritual as temporal within the Realm is ratified approved and perpetually confirmed in the person of the King's Majesty his Heirs and Successors And in the 15. Parl. of that same King Chap. 251. these words are Albert it cannot be denied but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Sovereign Power having as great liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and priviledg of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentate whatsoever And in the 18. Parl. of the same King Act. 1. The Estates and whole body of that present Parliament all in one valuntary faithful and united heart mind and consent did truly acknowledge his Majesties Sovereign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and priviledg of his Crown over all Estates Persons and Causes within his said Kingdom By this time I suppose it is past debate that by the Tract of the whole Laws of Scotland his Majesty is a Sovereign unaccountable Prince since nothing can be devised more express than are the Acts I have cited For what you objected from the Coronation Oath remember what was said a great while ago that if by the Coronation the King got his Power so that the Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance were of the nature of a mutual stipulation then you might with some reason infer that a failing of the one side did free the other but nothing of that can be alledged here where the King hath his Authority how soon the breath of his Father goes out and acts with full Regal power before he be crowned so that the Coronation is only a solemn inauguration in that which is already his right Next let me tell you that the King 's swearing at his Coronation is but a late practice and so the Title of the Kings of Scotland to the Crown is not upon the swearing of that Oath And here I shall tell you all that I can find in our Laws of the King 's swearing or promising The first instance that meets me is Chap. 17. of the Statutes of King Robert the Second where these words are For fulfilling and observing of all the premises the King so
Expressions See Answer to the Letter to the Author of Ius populi which to his thoughts sound that way but truly they are so remote from the sense he stretches them to that I should wonder much at his Glosses did I not know that the Bell seems often to ring the hearer's fancy From these let us pass to the instances of the first Christians who endured the sharpest Persecutions with the greatest patience Polyh Here is a large Theme for much discourse if I should adduce all might be said on this head Indeed the Persecutions the Christians groaned under for three hundred years are such that scarce can they be read without horror the last especially which continued for about twenty years under Dioclesian and his Colleagues and Successors and by the number that suffered we may easily guess what the strength of the Christians was But this can be doubted by none who have ever looked upon History Pliny lib. 10. Ep. 97. writes to Trajan which is reckoned to have been the 104. year of Christ that in Pontus and â—ithynia where he was then Proâ—onsul there were many Christians of all Ages Ranks and Sexes and that not only in the Cities but through the Villages and Country Places that the Temples were almost desolate the Sacrifices long intermitted and that none almost were found to buy the Victims The number of the Christians being so early risen to that height we may easily imagine to what it swelled before Constantine's times not long after that we find a whole Legion of Marcus Aurelius his Army to have been Christians And if we believe Tertullian their numbers were formidable in his time for after he had purged the Christians of his times from the designs of doing mischief to their Enemies by stealth he adds Apol. cap. 37. Should we carry towards you not as secret avengers but as open enemies would we want the strength of numbers and armies Are the Maurs the Marcomans or the Parthians themselves or any Nations shut up within their own Country or bounds more than the whole World We are strangers to you and yet we fill all your places your Towns your Islands your Castles your Villages your Councils your Camps your Tribes your Decuries your Palaces your Senate and your Market place Only we come not to your Temples but abandon those to you To what War had we not been both fit and ready even tho our Forces had been fewer who are butcher'd so willingly if our Discipline did not allow us rather to be killed than to kill And he goes on telling that such was the number of the Christians that would they but change their dwellings and leave the Roman Empire it would have thereby become an amazing Solitude since almost all their Citizens were Christians And the same writer saith elsewhere ad Scap. cap. 2. That tho the Romans who were Idolaters were found guilty of many Conspiracies against their Emperors yet never were any Christians found guilty of these Practices And adds That a Christian was no mans enemy much less the Emperors but knowing him to be constituted by God he doth find himself bound to love reverence honor and wish well to him with the whole Roman Empire as long as the World lasts Therefore saith he We worship the Emperor so as befits him and is lawful for us as a man next God who hath obtained all he hath from GOD and is inferior to none but God only And a little after Cap. 5. he tells us of the numbers of the Christians and how undaunted they were at the Persecution so that when one Arrius Antoninus in Asia was persecuting the Christians the whole City ran to his Tribunal declaring themselves Christians And he adds If the like were to be done at Carthage what would become of all the thousands were there of every Sex Age and Rank From this we may guess both of the strength and numbers of the Christians of that time and yet there was not the least inclination among them to resistance If any doubt the truth of what Tertullian saith as is p. 30. he must charge him with very much Impudence who durst offer such writings to the Heathens in matters of fact which could not but be notoriously enough known Neither do I adduce these places because I lay so much weight on Tertullian's opinion in this matter but because he shews us what was the sense of the Christians of his time A little after him Cyprian lived who also tells us ad Demetrianum That none of the Christians when apprehended struggled with those who seized on them nor avenged themselves of that unjustice though their number was great and copious But their belief of the Vengeance shâ—uld follow on their Persecutors made them patient so that the Innocent yielded to the Guilty And we may judge of the number of the Christians of that Age by what Cornelius who was Bishop of Rome anno 254. in Euseb. 6. Book cap 43. tells of the State of the Roman Clergy in his time how there were in it 46 Presbyters 7 Deacons 42 Acolyths 52 Exorcists Lectors and Porters and of Widows and poor Persons 150â— and where so many Poor were maintain'd you must confess the number of the Christians was very great But if we go to Dâ—â—clesian's time we find the number of the Christians incredible and the Cruelties used against them to have been such that â—ell could devise nothing beyond them Some were burnt alive others had boiling Lead poured on them others had their flesh and joints toâ—n off them by burning Pinceâ—s others were broken to pieces others stretched all out of joint others hanged up by the Thumbs and cut in slices others hanged up by-the heels And this was universal through the whole Empire and to such a degree that it continued for many years and in Egypt alone they were often killed by hundreds a day as Euâ—ebius tells who was a witness to much of it And Godean reckons that in one month there were seventeen thousand Martyrs killed and during that persecution in the Province of Egypt there were an hundred foâ—ty and four thousand who died by the violence of their Persecutors and seven hundâ—ed thousand who died through the fatigues of Banishment or of the publick works to which they were condemned I had almost forgot one sort of persecution which as it was the most dreaded so hath in it that which could not but provoke all to the utmost of horror and despair which was the prostituting of their Virgins more dreaded than any death But among all these vast numbers none offered to resist with the Swordâ— and yet they were so marvellously assisted by God that in their sufferings they expressed the greatest joy in God by their Hymns and Psalms and the most of mildness to their Persecutors And dare you say Isotimus that these were a stupid self-murdering Crew Or do you think that had they been guilty of such a Crime as you seem to fasten on