An Apologie for the Royal Party (1659); and A Panegyric to Charles the Second (1661) by John Evelyn
page 23 of 61 (37%)
page 23 of 61 (37%)
|
body; would he have condescended to half so much, as you have offered for
a toleration of Papists, he needed not now have made use of this Apology, or wanted the assistance of the most puissant Princes of _Christendome_ to restore him, of whom he has refused such conditions as in prudence he might have yielded to, and the people would have gladly received; whilst those who know with what persons you have transacted, what truck you have made with the _Jesuites_, what secret Papists there are amongst you, may easily divine why they have been no forwarder to assist him, and how far distant he is from the least wavering in his Faith. But since you have now declared that you will tollerate all Religions, without exception; do not think it a sin in him, to gratifie those that shall most oblige him. For his vertues and Morality, I provoak the most refined Family in this Nation to produce me a Relation of more piety and moderation; shew me a Fraternity more spotlesse in their honour, and freer from the exorbitances of youth, then these three Brothers, so conspicuous to all the world for their Temperance, Magnanimity, Constancy, and Understanding; a friendship and humility unparallel'd, and rarely to be found amongst the severest persons, scarcely in a private family. It is the malice of a very black Soul, and a virulent _Renegado_ (of whom to be commended were the utmost infamy) that has interpreted some compliances, to which persons in distress are sometimes engaged, with those whom they converse withall, to his Majesties disadvantage: _whilst these filthy dreamers defile the flesh themselves, and thinking it no sin to despise dominion, speak evill of dignities, and of the things which they know not. But woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Kain, and run greedily after the errour of Balaam, for reward, having mens persons in admiration because of advantage._ For the rest, I suppose the same was said of Holy _David_, when in his |
|