them But he sayes one greate hogge may doe as much mischiefe in a garden as many litle swine And it seemes that the like evill spirit as entred into the heard of swine hath possest this libeller and driven him on head long in his Rebellious impudence The King sayes he was some times prone to thinke that had he called this last Paâ—liament to any other place in England the sad consequences might have been prevented To shew that the place could have made noe change the libeller instances in his Majest first Parliament at oxford which was dissolved What doth that prove to contradict what his Majest sayes that if he had called the Parliament at another place these sad consequences might have been prevented Does the libeller thinke that because there was misvnderstanding betweene the King and some of his Parliaments that they would therefore have run to the same extreamities that the faction in this last did or that these factionists could have brought this mischeife vpon the kingdome by like Tumults in another place He goes on to say that the King called his last Parliament at Oxford a Mungrell Parliament consisting all of his friends Noe doubt there were in that Parliament many loyally affected to his Majest but it cannot be denyed for time hath tryed it that there were many among them that were spyes and disturbers corrupted by the Rebell faction at Westminster and their owne base inclinations who sought to disorder all Councells and consultations The libeller would comprehend the whole people of England within the Tumults interprett the Kings prayer against the tumults to be a prayer against his people Is it not God that stilleth the raging of the sea madnes of the people And is not a prayer for the people to pray they may be delivered from such madnes and yet this libeller sayes that the king praying to be delivered from the Tumults prayeth to be delivered from the people and blasphemously concludes God save the people from such intercessours And we cannot beleive that God is in his thoughts whose mouth soe often abuseth his name Vpon the Bill for TRIENNIALL PARLIAMENTS and for setling this c. HE sayes the Bill for Trienniall Parliaments was a good Bill and the other for setling this at that time very expedient And this he sayes in the kings owne words was noe more then what the world was fully confirmed he might in Iustice reason honour and conscience graunt them for to that end he affirmes to have done it This man hath a confirmed enmitie against truth cannot make a right recitall The kings words are that the world might be fully confirmed in my purposes at first to contribute what in Iustice reason honour and conscience I could to the happy succes of this Parliament I willingly past the Bill for Trienniall Parliaments The greatenes of the trust which his Majest put vpon the people by passing that Bill was a strong Argument that he would deny nothing which in Justice reason honour and conscience he might graunt not that the world was confirmed he might graunt that Bill in reason honour and conscience in respect of the matter of it for a greate part of the world was of opinion he might with better reason have denyed it had not his desire to shew his purposes of contributing what he could to the happy successe of the Parliament moved him And they might be confirmed thereby of his purposes to deny nothing which in Justice reason honour and conscience he could contribute to the happy successe of the Parliament It is the Kings manner to make vertues of his necessities and that neither prayse nor thankes are due to him for these beneficiall Acts. It cannot be expected that Rebells will retaine gratitude that have cast of loyaltie but let vs looke on his reasons and the first is that this first Bill graunts much lesse then two former statutes yet in force by Edw. the 3. that a Parliament should be called every yeare or oftner if neede were Either the libeller is vaine in producing this instance or in commending the Bill that gave much lesse then two former lawes in force and he must make the Parliament very inconsiderate that would soe much importune a law soe farr short of what former lawes had enacted His ancient law booke called the mirror and his late Treatise that Parliaments by our old lawes were to be twice a yeare at London carry as litle Authoritie as cleerenes what those Parliaments were they mention but neither the statutes nor law bookes did ever affirme the right of calling Parliaments in any other then the King or that he might not deferr the calling of them if he saw cause and these statutes were made to declare the subjects dutie to attend the King in his Parliament once a yeare or oftner if neede were and there was noe reason why oftner should have been inserted into the law if any obligation were intended thereby vpon the King And its contrary vnto the writt whereby Parliaments are called that the time of Parliaments should be defined for it is recited to be an Act of Councell to call a Parliament which needed not if it were necessary at a prefixed time The second Bill he sayes was soe necessary that nothing in the power of man more seemed to be the stay of all things from ruine then that Act. We are sure that nothing did more confirme the designes of the Traytours nor hasten that ruine of the Kingdome they have wrought then that Act. All men descerne the fraudulent artifices vsed to gaine that Bill by pretending publique debts which seditious faction had contracted and intended to encrease for the carrying on of their Rebellion and his Majest in graunting that Bill hoped to take of those occasions of it the Reports which they cast out among the people of his vnwillingnes to rayse money for discharge of the Armyes These charges were occasioned by the Kings ill stewardshipp but the world is satisfied it was from a trayterous conspiracie of the guides of this Rebellion He alleadges his needeles raysing of two Armies to withstand the Scotts which noe man but a profest Rebell can soe call for should he have raysed noe Army but left all to the mercy of the invader next he had beggerd both himselfe the publique When by this libellers owne confession the King had received noe supplies from the publique for raysing those Armies and these shameles Traytours blush not to talke of the Kings beggering of the people when the greate plentie his Government had enriched them with is soe visible in those vast leavies which the Rebells have since made vpon them The King left vs vpon the score of his needy Enemies If they had not been too much friends to the traytours of England there had been noe score to them for all men know whatever they received from England was by the contrivance of the Trayterous faction in Parliament to accomplish their ends To
prescribe him though the Major part of Parliament involve the whole It s against all reason to include the King who is allwayes furnisht by law with his other Councells may see good reason to preferr the Counsell of the smaller number and that law which ordained the Parliament to be called and dissolved by the King had destroyed what it ordained if the King had been bound to consent to all advices given him by the Parliament Such a restraint vpon the King not only makes voyde and vseles those select Councells which by law are continually to advise him but destroyes the Government of Monarchy which the law cannot intend and gives the Parliament the absolute soveraigntie which the people would not live vnder being contrary to their desires and dispositions the trust reposed in such as they elected The Kings judgment may dissent he sayes to the destruction of himselfe and Kingdome And soe doubtles may the judgment of a major part in Parliament and we have found by long experience that Parliaments have produced Acts to the preiudice of the state and corruption of Religion but this libeller holds all meanes frustraneous that beget not Rebellion and as in his affection he preferrs the judgment of the Parliament before the Kings soe any Company or committee of Lords that conspire against him as appeares by his late remembred instance against Rich the 2 And what power he would have in the Parliament over the King he would place in the Tumults his admired Iron flaile over the Parliament and prayes vnto God to send them that they may purge the Parliament and prescribe lawes both to the King and them and therefore he judges that it is vnlawlike that a remedy soe slender should be the vtmost meanes of publique safetie And we are sure that Rebellion the only remedy which he approves is the destruction of al publique safetie and shewes the Libeller as vnable to judge of law as vnwilling to obey any He concludes that the Kings negative voyce was never a law but a reasonles Custome growne vp from flattery or vsurpation And how shall wee judge that soe long a Custome without contradiction was noe law that the contrary was an vnwritten law and constantly enjoyed claimed Can he thinke that because the support of Rebellion is a subversion of law that therefore Rebells reasons are the rule of law And yet he is confident it is better evidence then Rolls and records as they deale with law soe with Scripture making their fantasticke dreames Diabolicall infusions the Canon of their Religion And the Monarchy of David and his successours ordeined by God and that had both a negative and affirmative voyce was a reasonlesse Custome from flattery or vsurpation He proceedes to shew the strength of his Argument Because the negative voyce is claimed to one man not as a wise or good man but as a King And how doth he claime the power of the Parliament as to wise or good men or as to elected men And it may be easily supposed that the Major part of the Parliament may not be soe wise and good as their King especially soe assisted by other Councells as kings are and it were noe abusive thing to Summon Parliaments though the King doe take their advices by weight not by number but it were an abusive thing that such as were called to advise should take vpon them to determine The King sayes The whole Parliament represents not him in any kinde To this sayes the Libeller If the Parliament represent the whole kingdome the king represents only himselfe and a king without his kingdome in a Civill sense is nothing nor without nor against the representative and soe his negative as good as nothing and though we should allow him something yet not equall to the whole kingdome nor them that represent it But what answeare is this to the King that being not represented cannot be bound by the votes of them that represent him not Is the Libellers making him nothing or not equall to the representative any reason why he should be bound by their votes The King is by law reason the representative of the Kingdome as this sottish libeller cannot deny it out of Parliament so he might well see that the election of persons to advise him doth not take away that supream representation which the law hath given him there can be nothing more absurd then that an elected company representing subjects to their King should take away the Kingly representation it is a ridiculous sophistrie that because the king is not the subject therefore he is without his kingdome The people in Parliament are represented petitioning and consenting not commaunding and revolting it is repugnant to their condition to be equall or not inferiour to their King which were to destroy the relation of king subject The king maintaines to be no further bound to agree with the votes of both houses then he sees them to agree with the will of God with his just rights as a King and the generall good of the people The Libeller would allow him freedome with due bounds but not that he should have a negative vpon that which is agreed by the whole Parliament Where are his bounds now for if he have noe freedome where they agree he hath none at al for if they doe not agree he can neither consent nor dissent but such poore sophismes are the reason of these popular Tribuns and they will have both affirmative and negative in the Tumults but not in the King To know the will of God better then his whole Kingdome whence should he have it The Libeller doubtles will affirme that himselfe knowes the will of God better then many whole Kingdomes and why will he deny that possible to a King I may aske him why he should call the judgment of the Parliament or a Major part of it the judgment of the whole Kingdome when the Major part of the Kingdome be of another minde if because they represent it then why may not the Kings judgment in the highest representation be preferred before theirs If the Libeller were put to tell whenever such an Action had happened that the king dissented from his whole kingdome he would hardly finde it when people have in greatest multitudes opposed their king they were rarely or never in the right To know the will of God better then his whole kingdome he askes whence should he have it Court breeding he sayes and conversation of flatterers was a bad schole But conversation with Sectaries Rebels was worst of al kings may be presumed to have better breeding then any others and the Libeller in another place argues from the kings breeding a greater expectation of abilitie Flatterers are most hatefull to kings and their principall breeding is to avoyde the insinuations of such deceivers but the present faction have outdone all Court flatterers in falshood The king could not judge of his owne
hundreds of horse at Kingston shewes how greedy they are of pretences that make such a scare crow a cause of their Rebellion And the Queenes buying of Armes and the forces raysed in yorke shire were much lesse then needed when the Rebells had assumed the Militia of the Kingdome vnder their owne Commaund And their petitioning the King for peace which the Libeller mentions to be that while was that the King would submit to their Government and doe what they required and with what face now could any ingenuous man deny that the cheife designe of the warr was either to destroy his person or force his judgment As to act of hostilitie it is not much materiall in whome it first begun after such Counoells and preparations It is materiall to the truth of the fact whatever the Councells were but he hath not named a Councell or preparation for warr but succeeding the designe of Rebellion and violence begun against their rage all that he supposes on the Kings part that looked towards a warr being only defensive and on the part of the Rebells plainely oppressive But he sayes in the Act alsoe the King will be found to have had the preceedenice if not at London by the assault of his armed Court vpon the naked people and his attempt vpon the house of Commons yet certainly at Hull first by his close practices on that Towne next by his seidge Was the Kings going with his guard to the house of Commons a proper army to make a waâ—… they heeretofore called it a breach of priviledge and is it now growne soe big with time to be called a warr And must that which continued not an hower be defended with an Army raysed many moneths after And is his Iron flaile and the Parliaments Clients that were soe terrible to make lawes by force become a naked people the ragged Regiment a formidable Army But if these doe not prove the King to have done the first act for it seemes he doubted it would not yet at Hull he is sure and if the King had fortified all or any of the Townes of his Kingdome is that the act of warr Is not the law evident that he may doe it and hath it not been the approved practice of all ages And if he beseidged Hull who began the warr they that surprized it or he that would recover it And yet the Libeller gravely concludes from this fardle that the King is truly charged with beginning the warr though the particulars themselves evince the contrary He sayes that at the Isle of weight he charged it vpon himselfe at the publique Treatie What he did at that Treatie is well knowne to be in order to the procuring of peace and though they that treated with him would have an Act to acquitt them for their securitie yet that could not alter the fact and the King tooke nothing on himselfe by consenting to passe an act if the Treatie tooke effect which act by law to whose interpretation only it was subject could not be expounded to charge the king with the beginning of that warr but so mainfest is the vntruth of their pretence that they would aide their cause by inferences from an Act of their owne importunitie and violence for their owne securitie He sayes the securing of Hull was noe suâ—…prifal but a timely prevention But was it not allwayes in the Kings power and Custodie before and what they did to Hull they did to his other Castles and is it noe surprizall to dispossesse those that are in possession He sayes it were folly beyound ridiculous to count our selves a free nation if the King against the Parliament might appropriate to himselfe the strength of a whole nation as his proper goods And is it lesse ridiculous to count themselves a free nation if the Parliament may appropriate to themselves all the strength of the kingdome as their owne proper goods against al the people are they more a free nation because they have many Masters Our nation justly accounted it selfe a free nation and yet a king had all the strength of the kingdome appropriated to him as his owne proper goods and they have seene how their libertie was preserved by that constitution how it hath been lost by vsurpation of this right in the name of Parliament The Parliament had never the life and death of lawes in their power and the people never thought it for their Securitie that they should and the Libeller may with as good reason call succeeding acts preventions aswell as this taking of Hull a Securing Are not the taking of Townes Acts of hostilitie vnder what name soever had not the taking of Hull been an Act of hostilitie in an Enemy And is it lesse in a Rebell The question is now of an act of hostilitie not the right of it and that the taking of a Towne is not an act of hostilitie wil be incredible to the meanest capacitie and noe lesse that the Parliament have a power of hostilitie against the king He sayes the law of the land is at best but the reason of Parliament And the reason of Parliament is noe reason if it differ from the opinion of Sectaries witnes his censure of voting the kings concessions a ground for peace it were as dissonant from law as reason that a kingly Government should be subject to the reason of a Major part in Parliament The king sayes they knew his cheifest Armes left him were those only which the ancient Christians were wont to vse against their persecutors prayers and teares At this the Libeller makes an exclamation O Sacred reverence of God respect and shame of men whither were ye fled when these hipocrisies were â—…ttered Was the Kingdome at all that cost of blood to remove prayers and teares Shakespeare could not have framed a fitter exclamation for Rich. 3. Doubtles reverence of God respect and shame of men are fled from this man that makes this vaine prophane outcry Doth it follow that because the King got strength therefore he was possest of it when they rebelled against him doth not he reproach him that all his adherents hardly amounted to the making vp of one ragged Regiment strong enough to assault the vnarmed house of Commons And can he thinke there is a God that cryes out sacred reverence of God vpon occasion of these words of his Majest was ever king more destitute of aide and might more truly vse that expression then he Those thousands of Cavileers whose number he soe often despised and now advances are a conviction of his contempt of God and men and his prophanes is more abominable then any oaths curses and carouses he supposes And the numbers mustred on Heworth Moore were a sufficient proofe of the Kings want of Armes to make a warr as they were then the matter of the Rebells scorne were not the Libeller as vaine as wicked he would not have mentioned the sale of the Crowne Iewells to buy Armes for a
Authors descant vpon the Kings words of the incommunicable Iewell of his conscience discovers how he hath exposed his owne to the flatterie and slaverie of his Masters and had he thoughts of conscience he would not have valued it at the basest price The breeding of Most kings hath ever been sensuall and most humoured He speakes it of his owne sense and inclination to such base offices Kings have greatest cause to avoyde such breeding and persons of such condition The kings dissent from his whole kingdome is a supposition of that which never was and were impossible ever to happen but should it happen they that are governed must submitt to the governour and that by all the Rules of divine and humane law The Libeller saying the king preferrs his love of truth before the love of his people the Kings words are the love I have of my peoples place hath greate influence vpon me but the love of truth and inward peace hath more And who thinkes not that it ought to have soe For his search of truth he had gone amisse if he had rested on those propounders which the Libeller prescribes him And that vnaccountable Prerogative which the Libeller sayes is the truth he loves would have been judged a truth by the Libeller if he had reteined either feare of God or love to his Countrey It is our ill hap that three kingdomes should be pestred with one conscience which scrupled to graunt what the Parliament advised him But it was the miserie of the three kingdomes that a faction of depraved men that had cast away conscience should oversway the Parliament and demaund graunts for their owne ambition against the kingdome These scruples to many he sayes seeme pretended to others vpon as good grounds may seeme reall And to this it seemes the Libeller inclines for noe reason wil permitt that he should suffer soe much vpon a pretence of conscience It was the just judgment of God that he who was soe cruell and remorseles to other mens consciences should have a conscience soe cruell to himselfe And were not they that were soe cruell to his conscience condemned by their owne being heerein the instruments of hell to afflict the consciences of others but these miscreants can sport themselves with their owne siâ—…s and others sufferings Hath he made asmuch as a pretence of the Kings crueltie to any mans innocencie The Libeller recites that the King said he thought fit to deny some things in honour Policie though he could approve them which is not at al said by the King but that some things which a King might approve yet in honour Policie might be denyed at some time to some men And who doubts it can there be a want of such considerations in a King Good Princes thought it their happines to be allwayes graunting How could that be if it be true which he sayes they had nothing to graunt But good subjects never demaunded that which should make their King vnable to graunt any more He remembers himselfe now that good things were to be graunted for the things sake indifferent things for the peoples sake and he hath made it his continued Theame that the King could graunt nothing in favour but all was necessary in Justice and it is apparent that the kings large concessions invited these ingratefull Rebells to make those shameles demaunds which themselves knew noe king in honour Policie and Justice could graunt Vndoubtedly his Coronation oath bindes him to a generall and implicite consent to whatever the Parliament desired And then vndoubtedly the king must be in worse condition then any subject for noe man but he is bound to such a blinde obedience and it is a strange blindenes in this man to offer such a thing to be beleived which himselfe holds incredible for he sayes the Kings oath cannot binde him against necessary reformation And can it then binde him to make wicked lawes which must be reformed Is the Parliament infallible may they not make ill lawes What is the reason that the Libeller and his Sectaries would not give obedience to Acts of Parliament vpon pretence of conscience ought the king to consent to such lawes as the subjects ought not to obey The King ought not to vie wisedome with the Parliament and why then doe the Libeller and his Sectaries vie wisedome with all former Parliaments Any of the Parliament may as farr excell him in the guift of wisedome as he them in place and dignitie But it s very vnlike and neere to impossible especially if we looke to the experience of all times and it is often found that a King is wiser then all his Councell And though the libeller say sure it was not he meaning the King as wise men as any of his Councell or Parliament thought it was he never good subjects contended with their King for that comparison The king sayes that that were as if Sampson should have consented to put out his eyes that the Philistins might with more safetie mocke and abuse him And this sayes the Libeller out of an vnwise or pretended feare of scorne for yeilding to his Parliament he gives cause of suspition that he made a scorne of his Regall oath Could any man suspect that his Regall oath bound him to such a dispicable slavery that a king should be in greater bondage to his Parliament then any vassall to a Lord a king might justly scorne such an oath that would make him scorned by all when he had taken it but the Libeller had noe better answeare and therefore retreates to his Common refuge of insignificant repetition The King sayes to exclude him from all power of denyall seemes an arrogance The Libeller adds in the Parliament he meanes and askes what in him then to deny against the Parliament It is no arrogance to deny in him that is asked but arrogance in him that askes to receive noe denyall The king sayes its least of all becomminge those that make their addresses in a humble and loyall way of petitioning who by that confesse their inferioritie which oblidgeth them to rest if not satisfied yet quieted with such an answeare as the will and reason of the superiour thinkes fitt to give To this the Libeller sayes petitioning in better English is noe more then requesting or requiring And is it not good English to call our prayers pititions and is it better English to say wee require when we pray and is requesting and requiring the same in good English Is the petitioning of his new Masters requesting or requiring Men require not favours only but their due and that not only from superiours but equalls and inferiours It s the first time that such requiring of favours was heard of and a sorry inference that because men require of â—…qualls they may of superiours and that there is noe difference betweene superioritie of Government and superioritie in fortune or Title It was called petitio consulatus when the noblest Romans went about and
that thing they call a Parliament consisting of a few contemptible persons professe that all the goods of the subjects are at their disposing By the lawes of England noe act can be a law without the king though both houses propounded it and in that negative voyce of the kings the people reposed their libertie which they would not wholly intrust to a Major part of one or both houses The power of the whole nation is vertually in the Parliament But there is noe vertue in it without the king And is it vertually in such a part of the Parliament as either the Army or the Tumults shall picke out The Libeller hath borne wittnes for the kings Martirdome though he intended the contrary and while he names the Rebells war in their owne defence cannot avoyde to tell the world the Rebellion was to take away the Kings negative voyce and establish lawes at their owne will Every man will beare wittnes that it is Martirdome to die rather then burne incense to Idolls or Devills and he that refuses to introduce schisme and disorder into the Church and committ sacrilegious pillage of Church goods and is persecuted to death for his refusall is noe lesse a Martir then he that suffers for denying an Idolatrous worshipp and this is not to die for Religion because establisht but that establishment which we ought to preserve and all the painting dawbing of these Artisans of Rebellion will not deface that Martirdome which their owne wicked hands have testified There are no reformed Churches that have abolisht the Decalogue so long a king that dies by a wicked Rebellion for not consenting to Trayterours demaunds is judged a Martir by the best reformed Churches but he does not looke before he leape that brings in the Romish Priests executed for that which had been established for he might have knowne they were executed by lawes in force and for doing what noe law in force allowed and there is a great deale of difference betweene heretickes dying for errours against vniversall truths and Martirs dying for vniversally received truths The legislative Parliament and law of Coronation and obstinacie of one man his soe often chewed Rhetorique will not aide him to overcome so apparent truth and noe Parliament could have been soe ridiculous and contemptible a thing as they which abuse the name have now made it spurning it too and fro like a footeball at the will of the multitude and noe men are more markes for slaves then such as are destined to such a vassallage vnder such Masters Noe tolleration can please schismatickes that is bounded with any lawes and vnles they have a libertie to treade downe all law and Religion they account it not freedome and such tolleration which other Churches account themselves happy in these Sectaries account despicable that will have it not beneath the honour of a Parliament and free nation to receive a Schismaticall pretended Religion devised by a junto of Mechannickes His suspitions of palliation are of the same stuffe with his positions and we may well thinke vpon his owne grounds that the Kings advice to his Son to be tender of the people was sincere whose destruction would be his vndoing Which might justly move a Prince to that tendernes Powerfull Rebells are noe lesse infamous then greate and these who place the hopes of immortall prayse in the excesse of villanies only erect the Monuments of their impieties the higher that they may be seene by posteritie though they avoyded for the present the heigth of Hamans Gallowes and we may not thinke such men looke to be remembred in mercy with God who shewed none to men They thinke with Cain their sin greater then can be forgiven Although the King Exhort his Son not to study revenge yet they beleive that he or at least they about him intend not to follow that exhortation and that he sayes was seene lately at the Hague It s like he intends the killing of Dorislans their Rebell Agent Is that an Argument of studying revenge after Reconciliation that a profest villaine was slaine in the heate of indignation comming in Triumph with the blood of the Murthred King as his Trophey The Libeller would willingly perswade the multitude that it concernes them asmuch as those impious projectours of Rebellion to feare such revenge and therefore they may not repent but like himselfe maintaine Treason to be the better cause and to returne to loyaltie were ficklenes and instabilitie He cannot endure the Government by Bishopps for he sayes it is away to subdue the consciences of vulgar men to slavish doctrine The doctrine he meanes is order and obedience and he would have a compendious way to schisme and Rebellion and that 's the grudge which Traytours have at this Government and their profest quarrell He will not admit that Parliaments can have freedome if the King may deny any thing which a Major part propounds as if they had noe freedome vnles the prevailing partie were absolute Lords and yet their freedome is preserved though the Army picke out a few to be the Parliament and send packing the rest and this is the foundation of the English freedome as he would have it and that this Conventicle must have the name of Parliament and not of a faction The conclusion that the Libeller would have is that the Parliament should consist of a few Trayterous designers to whose voyce the rest must be only an Eecho and the sound of a Parliament must be noe other then a bagpipe yeilding only such noates as the breath and stopps of the prime Masters allow it We have seene those tapistry Parliaments which he mentions which stay and remove at the pleasure of those Masters of the houshold And should not the King have a power to stopp the extravagant motions of these impetuous Commaunders which blasted all such whose wisedome and gravitie offred wholesome Counsells for publique safetie and ordered their mutes and noughts to signifie their pleasure The Kingdome would be sure of miserie as often as they see a Parliament and the people see they must seeke their preservation in vnitie which is Resident in the head not in those broken fractions the subject of division and such as seeke vents and ouletts from the supreame Government are the whirle windes of misery and confusion but Traytours would have lawes as easily broken as the spiders webb And this Parliament to which the King must be subject himselfe will allow noe more freedome then to sit in the noose of their Military generall which when he pleases to draw to geather with one twitch not only with his negative but positive Commaud shall throttle the whole nation to the wish of Caligula in one necke and this the Kings negative was farr from and if the Libeller stitch togeather all the quibbles of pasquills satirs they will agree vnto his Rebell Masters but lose their propertie by his application to lawfull Government Where they have placed the Militia the
nothing more though he had denyed the Bill Though the King say he could have suffred nothing more though he had â—…ed the Bill he never finds that repentance came not from him till long after but knew very well his repentance followed the fact close at the heeles He askes a question how he could vnderstandingly repent of letting that be Treason which the Parliament and whole nation so judged He hath already told vs it was al thost the whole nation and the greater part of the Parliament but he finds now that any diminution induces doubt and it must be the Parliament and whole nation May not a man vnderstandingly repent because the whole nation was in the same fault how many Acts of Parliament have been made whereof it had been happy for King and people they had repented there neede not an cnumeration in so Knowne a truth It was a worldly repentance not a consciencious or els a strange Tyrany which his conscience had got over him to vex him like an evill spirit for doing one act of Iustice to fortefie his resolution from ever doing so any more We may see what account this man makes of sin or conscience that thus derides the terrours of conscience We may beleive their consciences cauterized that are such strangers to vexations of conscience and that sin and Rebellion have got a strange Mastery of them that fortifies their resolutions against all repentance and the approbation of it in others This libeller cannot perswade himselfe that when he calls murther Justice and Rebellion loyaltie that he is beleived though he professe admiration that men disrelish those his prime qualities and makes the execration of such wickednes to be strange infatuation and hardnes of heart and so calls the Kings vnwilling and forced consent to an act he judged evill the tasting of a just deede and his repentance for it he calls spattring at it The Devills are tormented with the repentance of others and their Agents blasphemously deride it and its doubtfull whether the pittie or detestation ought to be greater to wards such desperate persons that call the consent to an execrable murder tasting of one good deede and the resolution against the like spattring at it no doubt this man spatters at conscience direlishes all repentance nothing being so naturall to him as the opposition to pietie That wo is denounced to the Scribes and Pharisees for straining at a gnat and swallowing a Cammell We scarcely finde so greate a Cammel swallowed by the Scribes and Pharisees as many that are greedily devoured by this libeller His prophane and malitious scornes and reproaches of repentance in this very section and magnifying an execrable Murther are Cammells in the Judgment of true Christians though it seeme not so to that sense which is wholy reprobate the straining at gnats and swallowing Cammels was never more apparent in any sect of men then this libeller and his crew and if the ruine of three Kingdomes be soe big bulky as he confesses and would falsely have to be the deedes of his late Majest and that a wo belongs to them what may this libeller his Complices expect that have strained at formes and Ceremonies swallowed downe not only periuries and Murthers the desence of odious sins and the reproaching of Christian duties but have vndoubtedly brought this ruine vpon his Majest three Kingdomes He followes his common place of reproaching his Majest conscience and sayes if it were come to that vnnaturall diâ—…rasie to digest poyson it was not for his Parliament and Kingdomes to feede with him any longer This Chapter the libeller hath composed for a satyre against conscience to make it more a bhord by his crew of Caniballs with whome none can feede but blood thirstie savages Could he name a greater discrasie then what he commends that consines conscience to shed blood exludes it from sparing These Traytours had made falshood and disobedience unnaturall to them and thereby they caused such as sought to preserve themselves from that pestilence to avoyde them those venemous persons according to their malitious qualitie sought to infect with their disposition or destroy by their rage all that came neere them or restrained their Company That the King would perswade vs that the Parliament escaped not some touches of remorse for putting Strafford to death in forbidding it to be a President for the future but he sayes in faire construction that act implyed rather a desire to pacifie the Kings minde not imagining that this after Act should be retorted on them whether it were made a President or not no more then the want of a President for this It s some what strange that the Image breaker finding his rigour only to rayle would medle with this Argument but it seemes he apprehended the hope of a fallacie in the word after would insinuate that this Act was made after the murther which was made to authorise it and in a faire construction it hath not the least shadow of a desire to pacifie the King for it did not diminish any of their power or purposes that contrived that Act but only to exclude this fact from ordinary Justice which in a faire construction implyes that it was not law but will and power whereby they proceeded The truth was themselves saw that by the consequence of that fact of theirs all mens lives and fortunes were exposed to danger and ruine and no Magistrate or officer but might be drawne within the compasse of Treason by the Rules they had held with the Earle of Strafford all they that were present at the debates of that busnies know well that their proper feares caused that provision in the Act and though themselves were not bound to Presidents they were affraid that others would follow their Presidents as in truth they ought if this President had been according to law He would not have that this Act argued in the Parliament their least repenting when it argued so litle in the King who accused the six members for the same Crymes which he would not thinke treasonable in the Earle The accusation of those six members was of other and higher Crymes besides some of those objected to the Earle of Strafford and vpon better grounds and if it had been only those it shewes apparently that they that would not proceede vpon that accusation repented of what they had done against the Earle of Strafford or had no conscience at all but were only guided by corrupt respects of person and interest and his Majest might try what they would doe against persons evidently guiltie of that which they had judged so high a Cryme in another For the discovery of their former false proceedings that the King held nothing Treason but against himselfe He hath been already told was the judgment of the accusers of the Earle of Strafford and he might have knowne it to be so farr from a Tyranicall principle as he calls it that it is the rule of
law and Government for have not his Masters changed the stile of proceedings against offenders which the law formerly vsed in regard of their change of Government and devised one according to their new modell It s possible they that devised that clause in the Act did not expect it would be retorted vpon them they were blinded with their fury and precipitation But the Image breaker might have observed that a greater evidence of their injustice could not have been provided He that is so shamelesse to insinuate the Kings instigation to that clause in the Act for the death of the Earle Strafford which were a madnes in any man to suppose may aswell pretend it for his death The six members must stand condemned if he acquit them for the contrary of what he affirmes is constantly true And it were folly to aske him why he should conclude the six members guiltles that never were tryed when they were accused of such facts as he himselfe sayes were Treason in others for he will certainly say it though he thinke it not He concludes against the Kings conscience in saying that he bare that touch of conscience with greater regret then any other in regard of the proditory aide he supposes sent to Rochell and Religion abroade and a Prodigalitie of shedding blood at home as he phrases it There cannot be a greater evidence of the Kings innocence and the Rebels lewdenes then their absurd accusations of him who after their barbarous reproaches and crueltie make his greatest Cryme the resistance of their Rebellion and the misfortune of an expedition in favour of Rochell and Religion No man is so senseles to beleive that Rochell could have defended it selfe without other aide then their owne if the King had not intended their releife he needed not have vndertaken such chrageable and dangerous expeditions whence can any reasonable man collect that the Kings assistance to them could beproditory when they were not their by hindred to vse their vtmost endeavours besides the English succours and heereby wee may see how miserably the people of England have been misled by hipocriticall Traytours who while they made profession of conscience and Religion acted the greatest villanies against Religion and conscience that the worst of Atheists ever attempted and shame not at such assertions of falshood as common States blush to be detected of The reason he sayes is worth the notinge why the King would have notice taken of so much tendernes which is he hoped it would be some evidence before God and man to all posteritie that he was farr from bearing that vast loade and guilt of blood laid vpon him by others which hath he sayes the likenes of a subtill dissimulation When the Prophet David humbled himselfe and put on sackcloth even that was turned to his reproach and his Majest teares and afflictions of soule are no lesse reproached by theis vipers then the greatest sins that could be repented of Cursed shimi will call David a man of blood and his repentance for the murther of one man with bitternes of soule shal be counted a dissimulation rather then the wretch will allow it any evidence that he was innocent of that blood he would lay to his charge This was not the first time his Majest charged himselfe with that innocent blood the Rebells published his Cabinet wherein they found it and he might well hope that God would cleere his innocence as the light and his righteousnes as the noone day Prayers may be made for mercy to a mans name and a penitent may piously hope God will make his repentance evident to men and his sorrowes for one sin an evidence he was not guiltie of many of the same Kinde His Majest hopes not that his expressions heere wil be evidence but that his regretts which were Knowne not only to God but men could be evidence how farr he was from the guilt of what his Enemies charged him with and to declare a hope of the benifit of repentance is no more like a dissimulation then repentance is like a justification If his Majest had shed the blood of thousands whome he counted Rebells as this Author mentions he could not suffer regretts of conscience though he had a sorrow of heart his vnderstanding being satisfied of the Justice and necessitie of the fact But those horrid Traytours that imbrewed themselves in the blood of that innocent King were hardned against the sparing of multitudes and would secure their consciences by reproaching his Majest repentance and transferring the blood of warr vpon him which their Rebellion and crueltie had spilt This libeller in this very page within few lines told vs that strafford was by him put to death vnwillingly and presently concludes thus by dipping voluntarily the tipp of his finger in the blood of strafford whereof all men cleere him he thinkes to escape that sea of blood wherein his owne guilt hath plunged him And may not a mans owne conscience strike him for that which all men cleere him of but that himselfe hath related to be otherwise in this case where so many concurred in Judgment against the death of the Earle of Strafford and when so many have made confession of their owne vnhappines in the consent to that Action and so few at present that doe not abhorre it and thinke it a greate cause of Gods displeasure against the nation it is farr from truth that all men cleere him The Libeller holds a single murther but dipping the tip of the finger in blood gives just cause to conclude that his conscience is not toucht with shedding aâ—…ea of blood Al men must confesse it a cause of greater regret to have his hand in the blood of one man against the perswasion of his conscience then erroneously to enter into a warr where many are distroyed vpon the opinion of Justice but the knowne Justice of his Majest cause layes the blood of this warr at the Rebells doores whose malice and Treason not ignorance or errour drew vpon them the guilt of that blood of Strafford those thousands which the warr hath devoured If the King had never published his repentance for the blood of Strafford all knowing men would have judged he had cause to doe it and if he had never gone about to purge himselfe of that blood which the warr had shed all men would have cleered him of it Vpon his going to the HOUSE OF COMMONS COncerning his vnexcusable and hostile march from the Court to the house of Commons there needs not much be said There neede litle to be said for his Majest defence in going to the house of Commons who had so high a provocation to make an hostile March and tooke the way of so milde and peaceable a comming to it but this Authors impudence in calling it vnexcusable after the many violences and hostile Marches of his Masters vnto that house and their taking out and driving away the members will never be excused How shameles
vnusuall force and though he resolved to beare a repulse with patience he could not resolve to tempt the malice and insolence of those that wayted but opportunitie to destroy him But had he provided any force to secure himselfe against insolence does that condradict his bearing the repulse with patience and heere the libeller casts away his Argument that he may vse his scurrilitie that the Kings heart served him not for such a desperate Scuffle Soe the greate hostilitie and provisions for a Massacre is come to noe more then to have hazarded a desperate Scuffle with the vnarmed house of Commons The Kings heart served him for the highest hazards where he held his courses just and honourable but it never served him to act such violences as these Rebells have fayned he intended There were two statutes that declared he ought first to have acquainted the Parliament who were the accusers These statutes this Author nor any man els ever read and if there had been such statutes that men ought not to be accused before the Parliament be acquainted who were the Accusers they were much to blame that committed so many for Treason without any Accusers and that these two statutes should never be practised or knowne before now How comes it that the King nor his Attorney generall can accuse a man of high Treason when the meanest subject of the Kingdome may doe it It s well knowne that the house of Commons vpon the word of M R. Pym without the least knowledge of the fact or any accuser or witnes charged the â—…arle of Strafford of high Treason where were these lawes then His Majest still professing to governe by law as he sayes did no way breake it and he was noe way oblidged to name any accusers especially to the Parliament where a Rebellious and potent faction vnited themselves to the Accused members that had contrary to their owne Rules denyed that proceeding which they declared just and according to law The faire trâ—…all which was offred was noe other then to take opportunitie for justifying those members what ever the proofe were Had it been thinkes he a prudent Act in the King to have accused Traytours and made a Commission to their fellowes to judge of the fact He could not doubt of the same Justice from these men which he found in many other occurrents Could he suppose that they would condemne a Traytour that had combined to prosecute the Treason and it was not for want of just matter but the forefight of injustice that caused his Majest to lett fall his proceedings When Rebells are protected by open force when the power and impetuositie of Tumults are boasted of by this Author when the inclination of the potent faction vnto the members is confessed he would yet have the King chuse such a Tryall He would have it a thirst of revenge in the King against the members for opposition against his Tyranous proceedings If their innocence of the Treason had been as evident as his Majest of Tyranous proceedings they had never been accused and if they had not been conscious of their guilt they would never have sought Tumultuary protection and if his Majest had thirsted for revenge he needed not have gone to the house of Commons to have satisfied it but Malefactours count legall pcoceedings the malice of Enemies and effects of displeasure To that the King sayes he missed but litle to have produced writings vnder some mens hands the libeller sayes he missed though their chambers trunkes and studies were sealed vp and searched which though altogeather false there might be such writings and its like there were which caused the house of Commons to be soe jealous least their chambers should have been searched that they made an order to vse violence against any that should search a very grave vote and a sure signe of good Justice if the fact had been brought before them that would prevent the discovery and deny a search of persons accused for Treason The King sayes Gods providence would have it soe and to that the Libeller joynes that curbes the raging of proud Monarchs aswell as of madd multitudes Is it the curbing of proud Monarchs when the misse of evidence against Traytours If the King had produced this writing he mentions had that been a Monarchs rage But why doth he joyne the madd multitudes whose rage was then soe feirce he may beleive as he sayes that God will set bounds vnto it and turne them against their misleaders Why pregnant grounds and probabilities may not both concurr in one cause noe man vnderstands though this Author would have probabilities a diminution after pregnant grounds had been vsed His resemblance of Queene Maries cushion whereto he likens the Kings proofes would have suted with the clout and pistoll the stables vnder ground the Danish fleete and their many other ridiculous devised Conspiracies the bringing vp of the northerne Army the landing of the french at Portsmouth cutting throates by the Papists and the disignes of the spanish fleete fitt only for the story of the knight of the Son or the wandring Jew As Kings goe now what shadowy conceite or groundlâ—…s toy will not create a jealosie And was his Majest jealosie created by a toy when those persons have acted that which he was then jealous of Can this breaker accuse him of causeles jealosie when he defends the fact And is it a shadowie conceite if Kings ar jealous of such Rebellious inclinations as this Rebell vaunts of And if these Rebells might have their will there should not be a King left to be jealous and while they professe their purposes accuse Kings of vnjust jealosie and if subjects goe now in other places as in England the world will have cause to know that al the jealosies of Kings were necessary to the preservation of mankinde that there is no jealosie of any King so causles as the attempts of ambitious Reformers That his Majest denies he hath design'd to assault the house of Commons is not contradicted by his answeare to the Citie that any course of violence had been very justifiable The libeller guesses it was not farr from his designe because it might be soe and concludes as senselesly that because his Majest forbare an act which he held justifiable it discovered in him an excessive eagernes to be aveng'd on them that crossed him and that to have his will he stood not to dâ—…e things never soe much below him Soe eager is the man to rayle himselfe out of reason If he had an eagernes to be revenged he would have done high things and not below him It was no becomming sight to see the King of England so affronted and abused by his owne subjects many beholding disobedience and vulger insolence with sad hearts and greiving at the ruine of Government and that his Majest was constrained to call for Justice and be denyed it Such as lament the misfortunes of Princes cannot but abhorr the Rebellion of subjects and
many vnder such profession of pietie and Religious strictnes as hath since exceeded the most blasphemous Atheist and had the king sooner distrusted he had in humane reason prevented much of the Calamitie that hath befallen himselfe and his kingdome That those Acts of the Kings did not argue that he meant peace knowing that what he graunted out of feare he might assoone repeale by force It is noe argument that he would doe it because he might doe it but it is one of the libellers vsuall Arguments to conclude from the possibilitie to the being and there cannot be a greater Argument of a mans desire of peace then to part with his right to prevent a warr and by this rule of the libeller there must never be peace nor end of Rebellion but by the destruction of the king because their guilt is still vnsecure That the Tumults threatned to abuse all acts of grace and turne them into wantonesse This sayes the libeller is abusing of Scripture not becomming such a saint to adulterate sacred words from the grace of God to the acts of his owne grace And is it an abuse of Scripture to say the King did Acts of grace and whence then comes it to be an abuse of Scripture to say the people abused the Kings grace or turned it into wantonesse was it not a sin of wantonesse in the people and may it not be soe exprest without any abuse of Scripture Scripture is abused when it is applyed to a prophane ludicrous sense but the words heere are not transferred from a right signification There are diverse words that signifie both divine and humane Actions there is noe abuse of them in either sense And the libeller having excepted to the vse of an expression of Scripture presently makes bold with Scripture saying that Herod was eaten vp with wormes for suffering others to compare his voyce to the voyce of God when as the Scripture sayes he was eaten vp of wormes because he gave not God the glory And is not this to adulterate Scripture but nothing is sacred to Rebells That the King by this Phrase gives jealosie that he likens his owne Acts of grace to the Acts of Gods grace cannot be vnderstood noe more then the vse of the name of mercy or justice should give jealosie of likening humane vertues to divine Attributes though there be a difference betweene resembling and comparing The libeller sayes from prophanes he scarce comes of with perfect sense To prove that he shewes himselfe senseles The Kings words are that being not in a Capacitie to have taken râ—…ge in a hostile way he could not have given his Enemies a more desired advantage then by soe vnprincely inconstancie to have assaulted them with Armes thereby to scatter them whome but lately he had solemnely setled And where is the libellers exception he sayes what place could there be for his inconstancie to doe a thing wherein he was in noe capacitie There was place for inconstancie if he had endeavoured to vndoe that which he had done though he were not in a capacitie to have effected it and if the libeller had sense he would not have missed it come of without it He would not have that considerations of hazard and dishonour with-held the King from that course and that he would prove because he made a warr yet objects feares to him for the cause of all his Actions and â—…om thenâ—… might well conclude that nothing but extreamitie caused him to defend himselfe by warr The king sayes his letting some men goe vp to the Pinnacle of the Temple was a temptation to them to cast him downe headlong By this sayes the libeller he compares himselfe to Christ who is not at al named The Parliament to the Devill which is not neither and that â—â—â—ling Act his letting them goe vp to the Pinnacle of the Temple The libeller sayes its a goodly vse of Scripture Similitudes of Actions imply noe Comparisons of persons but the congruitie of the allusion made the libeller angry and yet he may not be beleived that the Actions of some Traytours and particularly his Masters may not be resembled to that of Judas without comparing the person betrayed to Christ. He sayes it was noe Pinnacle of the Temple but a Nabucadnezars Pallace from 〈◊〉 and Monarchy fell headlong togeather Those Rebells have robbed and ruined the Temple as Nebucadnezar did and they that glory in casting king and Monarchy headlong have the spiritt of that tempter which perswaded our saviour to cast himselfe downe The people now as theis of old finde it the extreamitie of desolation to be without King and Church and it is an horrour to them that the vncleane spiritts of Rebellion inhabite the Kings Pallaces The King sayes All the Kingdomes of the world are not worth gaining by wayes of sin which hazard the soule And sayes the Libeller he left nothing vnhazarded to â—…pe three He hazarded nothing but what he was bound to God and his people for the preservation of his Kingdomes and these Rebells left noe wickednes vnattempted to gett them The Act of setling was noe sin of his will and the Libeller sayes It was a sin of his vnwillingnes But his fals hood is proved willfull in this as in most of his assertions The King confesses the ill consequence of that Act but he sayes it was not a sin of his will because it proceeded from other mens malice and though he willingly past the Act yet he judged the Evill ensuing not the Act of his will and it was a sin of the Libellers will that soe knowingly perverted his meaninge The Libeller sayes that at his prayers he had before him the sad presage of his ill succes And is it his fault to descerne his Enemies crueltie and his owne afflicted condition But he sayes his prayer books noe sooner shutt but other hopes flattered him and that was his destruction It s not impossible but he might have hopes but his misfortunes will be the guilt and destruction of them that caused it without Gods greate mercie which they yet despise Vpon his RETIREMENT FROM WESTMINSTER THe King sayes I staid at white hall till I was driven away by shame more then feare And sayes the Libeller in his Messages and declarations and in the whole Chapter next but one before this he affâ—…rmes that the danger wherein his wife children and his â—…e person were by those Tumults was the maine cause that drove him from white hall and affirmes heere it was shame more then feare from whence and the Ld. Digbies speech to the same purpose he sayes wee may descerne what false and frivolous excuses are avowed for truth We may see how willfully and absurdly this Libeller will contradict truth and himselfe that not only in one Chapter but in every Chapter past vpbraids his Majest with feares boasts that by feares he was compelled to consent to the death of the Earle of Strafford and to passe those Acts for
rights but he had a right to keepe them when they were judged He sayes the king had noe right by law to judge in any Court. And yet he judged in all Courts all judgments being in his name and we are sure that the lower house could never judge of the smallest cases nor the higher but in respect of the kings presence among them because the king judges by his delegates doth he not judge or can they judge his Crowne to themselves That the king cannot judge of Treason fellony because he is held a partie And why did he then exclaime that the king should hold noe Treasons but against himselfe but if that were the reason his Judges were incompetent aswell as he but it is necessary that in a learned profession as the law the king should judge by others The kings rights he sayes must give place to generall good But it is generall evill to take away his rights He may not yeilde to Traytours that desire him to part with them for their owne advantages It is noe arrogance in a king to suppose a cleerer insight of the generall good then others though chosen for the Parliament whose breeding and condition could not quallifie them for such a descerninge and it is a fond imagination in the Libeller to suppose the Parliament the kings Councell and suppose the king voyde of Judgment to descerne the soundnes of their advice They have most authoritie to judge of the publique good who for that purpose are chosen out and sent by the people to advise him But it necessarily followes that he hath most authoritie whome they are sent to advise their authoritie being to advise his to determine and being sent to advise they destroy their owne authoritie and office when they Commaund If the King see oft the major part of them not in the right it had been more his modestie to have doubted their seeing him more oft in the wrong The libeller prescribes modestie to the king insolence impudence to subjects that the Rule of their Rebellion If the king had not governed his Actions by good advice nor seene the often Levitie and precipitation of a Major part he should have doubted of their seeing him in the wrong however they owne him dutie as their king he no submission to them That the King ought to graunt the peoples rights and liberties because of right demaunded it being his dutie not his bountie to graunt these things But it is the subjects miserie aswell as their madnes to demaund the kings rights as their owne and we know that the demaunds of Rebells are for themselves and to take away the peoples rights aswell as loyaltie and wee finde that there were such as the king mentions whome noe fountaine of Royall bountie was able to overcome and for whome the comparision of hidropike thirst was very favourable being more insatiate then gusters in a wine sellar and neerer the nature of horse leaches and swine The King confesses a rationall soveraigntie of soule and freedome of within every man and yet with an implicite repugnancie would make vseles that freedome of will in all other men but himselfe That cannot be by vsing the libertie of his negative voyce for are the wills of other men captivated because they cannot doe as they will because the king will not doe what they will have him and because men are subject to Government is freedome of will denyed them Them that yeilde him the obedience meaning the king he pronounces worthy to be slaves which he inferrs from these words of the King the he deserves to be a slave who captivates the rationall soveraignetie of soule and libertie of his will to compulsion And how can the libeller draw any such conclusion from these words Lawes that restraine Actions doe not capâ—…te the will nor doth he consent to have his will captivated that snbmitts to Government But he captivates his will that Acts what another directs him though he judge it evill and in such case a law may not be obeyed though violence may not be vsed against the law-maker What that Freedome is which cannot be denyed him as a King because it belongs to him as a man a Christian the Libeller sayes he vnderstands not if it be his negative voyce it concludes all men who have not such a negative as his against the whole Parliament to be neither men nor Christians And aswell he might have said that because every man ought to have freedome in giving his vote in Parliament therefore every man ought to be there The Libeller neede not be ashamed to confesse ignorance that blushes not at such fooleries The king argues that he could not be debarred of that as a king which belonged to him as a man and a Christian which was libertie of will in giving his vote and by what Logicque could the Libeller thence conclude that all that have not a negative voyce to what the Parliament propounds are noe men nor Christians If the king have not a negative voyce he hath noe voyce every members of Parliament hath a voyce affirmative negative and they deny that to the king in denying his negative voyce which they allow all that have any voyce He demaunds what was he himselfe all this while that we denyed it him as a King He had the freedome of his will when he gave noe vote against it but all the world sayes that you were Traytours in the deniall His naturall libertie of will was not taken from him by your Trayterous violence though his right to vse it in his kingly office were Rebelliously withstood If a King be prohibited the vse of his reason in his Government he is denied that which belongs to him as a man and a Christian and these impudent Traytours are soe cauterized that they scoffe at their Lewde villany asking whether he did not enjoy the libertie of his will when they had imprisoned and deposed him He askes might not the King have enjoyed both reason and conscience governinge vs as free men by what lawes we our selves would be governed And how could he governe if you make the lawes he might be governed And who shall governe when every man is a law-maker and he could not enjoy reason nor conscience governing by lawes he approved not It was not the inward vse of his reason and conscience that would content him Doubtles it ought not being a King but sayes he to vse them both as a law over all his subjects in whatsoever he declared as a King to like or dislike The King were noe King if his subjects might make lawes without him and his reason and conscience ought to be his lawes in governing and he justly said It were better to be without the Title of King if it should carry with it such a vassallage as not to suffer him to vse his reason and conscience in what he declared as a King to like or dislike which vse of reason sayes the
libeller most reasonles and vnconscionable is the vtmost that any Tyrant ever pretended over his vassalls Tyrants were never esteemed by their pretences but by their Actions it shewes that these men knew not what Tyrany was who make a just right of all Governours the vse of reason Tyrany and that which never king was thought fitt to be denyed though Tyrants abused it Tyrany is in the abuse of power not in the rule of Government In all wise nations the Legislative power and the judiciall execution of that power have been distinct But never devided being allwayes subordinate one to the other the judiciall execution depending on the Legislative He makes an assumption If then the king be only sett vp to execute the law he ought noe more to make or forbidd the making of any law then other inferiour Iudges But if the king be set vp to make law by the advice of his Councell the Parliament can they make lawes without him but this Libeller that would be thought soe strong at Arguments talkes himselfe into contradictions and allowes the king neither the one power nor the other for he affirmes the king cannot judge and make lawes he must not and what will he conclude sure that his owne nation is not wise nor himselfe honest or rationall He cannot reject a law offred him by the Commons no more then make a law which they reject And hath it sense that because a man cannot doe an Act without the advice of another therefore he must doe what that other advises The man dictates and would be beleived though the Commons never did nor could offer a law to the king for he wel knowes it must passe the Lords before it come to the king but he was loath to mention the Lords least it should cry downe the noyse he hath made of the kings single judgment for the Lords house may not have a negative in his judgment notwithstanding their number But why is it offred the king if he may not reject it and whence hath it been that so many Bils have been rejected in al ages without any complaint When Kings come soe low as to fall vpon Philosophy which before he neither valued nor vnderstood is a figne they are then put to their last trump If the king had not valued nor vnderstood Philosophy he could not have made soe pertinent vse of it and if the Libeller had vnderstood Philosophy or valued truth he would have given better signes of it Could not his Majest discourse of his reason and will but it must be out of the way or above his abilitie But why is this a signe that kings are then put to their trump why the vse of Philosophy more then other learning Though kings come low Rebells will come to seeke corners to hide themselves He shewes not how Philosophy breakes the necke of their cause or how he hath made advantage of Philosophy against the king but we finde how his elaborate contradictions have broken the necke of his owne cause through out all his discourses The king sayes he cannot thinke the Majest of the Crowne of England to be bound by any Coronation oath in a blinde and brutish formalitie to consent to whatever its subjects in Parliament shall require And sayes the Libeller What Tyrant could presume to say more And the law it selfe Religion and reason never said lesse It cannot but be yeilded that the oath which bindes him to performance of his trust ought in reason to containe the summe of what his cheife trust and office is But what if it doe not is there an argument to be drawne from what the oath ought to be but is not The oath may containe the generall dutie of Justice right but it neither did nor could comprehend all the wayes of effecting it The libeller sayes that the Kings negative voyce is not contained in that oath But that oath oblidges him to governe by just lawes which comprehends a negative to all vnjust lawes and can it impose an obligation vpon the king of doing Justice and not give him a libertie of judging what is just or vnjust The Libeller sayes that his oath requires only his assent to those lawes which the people have already chosen or shall chuse there is noe such word in that oath and his mention of the Lattine and old English of that oath are of another sense that the libeller was conscious of therefore he sayes All reason admits that the people should not loose vnder a new king what freedome they had before but their freedome consists not in an exemption from soveraigne power It is the custome of Rebels to contradict corrupt al lawes vpō pretence of their private reason allow no reason but what concludes against just authoritie he wel knew there was not that double sense he assignes but we wil make his sens the kings oath if the peoples choise be referred to the time past it implies not that their choise was or ought to be a law though they had a choise in the laws made as stil they have they could not loose what they never had the Parliament which at first mētioned the kings oath acknowledged that as they did not determine the questiō how far foorth the king is obliged to follow the judgmēt of his parliament so as to conclude that a new law might be mad without his consent so they acknowledge that the contrary may be truly inferred out of al they had said That if the King deny what the Parliament hath chosen he makes himselfe superiour to his whole Kingdome And who doubts but he is doe not they which take the oath of supreamacie acknowledge it The libeller sayes the generall maximes of Policie gainsay it The general maximes of Rebellion doe but Policy cannot It is impossible in Policy that he to whome every soule must be subject should not be superiour to them all Our owne standing lawes gainsay it as hath been cited in Remonstrances that the King hath two superiours the law and his Court of Parliament The merit of those remonstrances are neere the rate of this libell though as yet they never mentioned such standing lawes if there had been such standing lawes the Author would have found them enrolled but that he doth not how absurdly such a pretence is obtruded whē the superiotie of persōs places is in quesstiō to name the superiority of law which holds comparisō with sciences not with persōs that the Parliament should be above the king who is the head of the Parliament without whom a Parliament hath no being is as Monstrous to reasō as law it is impossible that the law cā say that the king hath no superiour but God say that the Parliament is his superiour the king might wel say that this was blinde brutish formalitie and no part of the law his oath or dutie but such brutish formalities Rebells vse to blinde the people The
of subjects in Parliament to commaund al things But this man is of Achitophells minde that if his Councell be not followed he will goe home hang himselse Advice from subjects to a King is ordained by law but the subjection of a King to advise is monstrous and vnsupposable The Authors repetitions of rayling Epithites vpon what concernes the King or his Actions commendation of the wicked Actions against him will not alter the nature of one or other and his vehement asseveration that the law and Coronall oath require the Kings vndeniable assent to what lawes the Parliament agree vpon is not out of opinion of truth but the strength of his language himselfe shewing the contrary aswell as the Parliament The King sayes he had rather weare a Crowne of thornes with our saviour then to exchange that of gold for one of lead whose imbast flexiblenes shal be forced to binde and comply to the various oft contrary Dictates of any faction when insteede of reason publique concernement they obtrude nothing but what makes for the interest of parties and flowes from the partialitie of private â—…ills passions The libeller sayes many would be all one with our saviour whome he will not know They who governe ill those Kingdomes which they have right to have to our saviours Crowne of thornes noe right at all Such as are Rebells to lawfull Princes vsurpe Kingdomes will never weare a Crowne of thornes with their saviour nor can hope to be knowne by him while they sucke the blood of his anointed and Tyranize over kingdomes soe wickedly gotten That Crowne of thornes which this libellers savage souldiers and others set vpon the last king is now his Crowne of rejoycing in heaven honour among men the infamy of these hellish miscreants The libeller twists thornes and snares for himselfe by his shameles Calumnies seeking to make the assassination of a gracious king his owne demeritts A Crowne of gold is not due to him who cannot first weare a Crowne of lead not only for the weight of that greate office but for the compliance with them who are to Councell him A leaden Crowne may well expresse stupiditie and basenes and the Crowne of gold better agrees with sound Councell which is compared to apples of gold in pictures of silver then lead which shewes only that imbast flexiblenes to the various and oft contrary Dictates of any faction and is only a weight of punishment not of office which the gold represents but Traytours cannot endure a Crowne of gold vpon the head of their king they will only allow him a Crowne of thornes or lead The libeller taxes the king for want of modestie in imputing want of reason and neglect of the publique rather to the faction then to himselfe because the faction was the Parliament And he must be a man voyde of all modestie that doth not judge such Actions as the king complayned of to proceede from want of reason neglect of the publique interest of parties partialities of private will and passion The sectaries were wont to deprecate all accusations of irreverence to their King and complaine that they were wronged but the question is now changed contempt of the King is their greate vertue The libeller throughout this whole discourse rejects the consideration of the Kings conscience heereto these words of the Kings I know noe resolutions more worthy a Christian King then to preferre his conscience before his Kingdomes sayes the sentence is faire in seeming but fallacious for the conscience may be ill edifred And because it may be soe is it fallacious that conscience must be preferred before Kingdomes These hipocrites that pretend to Rebell for their conscience accuse the king for refusing to passe a law in regard of the contrary perswasion of his conscience and it must be an ill edified conscience in him to forbeare an act a rightly informed conscience in them that commit an act so bloody scandalous to the whole world so dangerous to the soules of many that were drawne headlong into that sin the Kings conscience cannot be preserved without his negative voyce and therefore he might justly assert it to be his right by law when the libeller can perswade men that Parliaments are infallible and free from faction that Rebells are best judges of what is for the Kingdomes good he may hope to be beleived that the king denyed that which law his oath and office bid him graunt And all men see that vnder the name of the advice of Parliament Rebels have introduced their owne wils for lawes Vpon the QUEENES DEPARTURE WHat concernes it vs heere to heare a husband divulge his houshold privacies extolling to others the vertues of his wife an infirmitie not seldome incident to those who have least cause Just Testimony to vertue is never an infirmitie but necessary from the husband where conjugall affection hath derived the hatred of his Enemies to his wife If the divulging of houshold privacies concerned him not it is his lewdenes to take occasions of derision base language from it Treasons to the minde are as pestilence to the body that turnes all diseases into its owne malignant humour for this Libeller cannot forbeare despite to the King for speaking that which he saith doth not concerne others nor to the Queene for being named How good a wife shee was to himselfe how bad a subject is not much disputed And to whome was shee a subject to the Rebells Those that acknowledge themselves subjects to the King wil have the Queene esteemed a bad subject for her Zeale to his State and safetie these evill spiritts that possesse the Rebells perswade men that it is a fault to be bad subjects and yet will allow none to be subjects but the King his wife and children It neede be made noe wonder though shee left a Protestant Kingdome with as liâ—…le honour as her mother left a Popish This mention of her mother shewer the extension of a Trayterous malice that spares noe relations nor conditions though vnconcerned Those that compelled the Queenes departure did more contribute to the dishonour of a Protestant Kingdome the Protestant Religion whereof they take the name without the truth then the greatest Enemy to the Protestant Religion could have effected what the case of her mother was wee enquire not but the world sees that theis injuries to her Majest exceeded example Rebells injustice fixes noe dishonour but on themselves The king sayes this is the first example of any Protestant subjects that have taken vp Armes against their King a Protestant The Libeller sayes it can be to Protestants noe dishonour when it shal be heard that he first leavied warr on them and to the interest of Papists more then of Protestants But then it is dishonour if he first leavied not warr vpon them And all that reade his booke must conclude that they first leavyed warr vpon him what els doth
his exclamations What is it that the blindenes of hipocrisie dare not doe It dares pray and thinke to hide that from the eyes of God which it cannot from the open view of men We finde this very frequent in this Author and in this very Period that in contempt of God men charges the King with Crymes he not only knew false but which are soe knowne vnto the whole world and conclude against ' his owne narrations and others view Vpon his repulse AT HULL and the fate of the HOTHAMS HE makes an introduction that Hull was the Magazine of Armes which the king had bought with money illegally extorted from his subjects He thinkes that if goods be ill gotten its lawfull for him and his Sectaries to rob him that possesses them els to what vse is it mentioned with what money the King bought these Armes But had the king noe meanes to procure Armes but by illegall exaction sure that will conduce litle to the Apollogy of this breaker that Galumniates the King soe much for seeking meanes from his subjects for publique safetie Next he sayes these Armes were bought to be vsed in a causeles and most vnjust Civill warr against Scotland What was the warr in Scotland to Hothams taking of Hull or seizing the Magazine when the warr was ended Rayling will neither make the warr vnjust nor the mention of it heere any way extenuate the vsurpation but shewes the barrennes of his matter by his repeated insignificant falshoods The Queene he sayes was gone to Holland to sett to sale the Crowne Iewells a Cryme heeretofore counted Treasonable in Kings It s like such a Treason as he makes to buy a Magazine of Armes to resist an invader he should have done well to have told when this heeretofore was It s likely they that held it Treason in Kings to have sold Jewells of the Crowne would have made it some Cryme to have bought Jewells for the Crowne and it is noe Treason now to sell the Crowne Jewells and all by his cut throate crew The Parliament was not ignorant to what inâ—…ent these summs were raysed their owne actions told all the world they were necessary to be raysed The Kings refusing to settle the military power in trustie hands vpon their petitions and doubting he would possesse himselfe of Hull they were necessitated by the turbulence and danger of the times of their owne authoritie to putâ—… the Kingdome into a posture of defence and to send Sr. Iohn Hotham to take Hull into his possession How many lewde lyes have they sent abroade into the world that the King made warr vpon them and it was the Libellers owne pretence in the beginning of the last Chapter now plainly tells they seized Hull because they suspected the King intended it and because he would not settle the militia as they desired If he had no power over the Militia why did they petition him If the Parliament be his superiour why did they petition at all Doe superiours petition inferiours But what was that turbulence danger of the Kingdome was there any more then what themselves had made by rumours and Tumults and is not the seizing of a fort an Act of warr The King had attempted the same before And was that any cause for them because the King sends to his Castles or forts must they therefore take them from him And he sayes letters of the Lord Digbâ—… were intercepted wissâ—…ing the King to retire to some safe place And therefore these Rebells would provide he should be safe in noe place The King offred to gâ—…e in person into Ireland and that he would Arme his guard from his Magazine of Hull The Parliament he sayes foreseeing the kings drift petition him that they might have leave to remove the Magazine of Hull to the Tower of London Soe carefull they were to have the Rebellion in Ireland proceede that they desired his Majest to forbeare his going into Ireland out of consideration of danger to his person when as they intended to destroy him at home and the true cause was that they would deteine theis Armes to make warr against him if he would not submitt to be deposed and to keepe the money given for Ireland to drive on the warr heere The King afterward going to Hull required the Governour to deliver him the Towne whereof the Governour humbly desired to be excused till he could sâ—…nd to the Parliament It seemes the libeller would not have that a denyall The King proclaimed Hotham Trayâ—…our before the Towne â—…lls And noe man dobuted but he was soe The King gave order to stopp all passages betweene him and the Parliament And had he not reason to prevent supplies and intelligences to a Traytour Yet sayes the Libeller he demaunded Iustice as vpon a Traytour vsing a strange iniquitie to require Iustice vpon him whome he had debarred from his apparence Traytours must be apprehended before their apparence and it was a strange iniquitie in them that would not apprehend a Traytour as in Justice they ought but a most execrable impietie in such as pretend Justice to cleere a malefactour without hearing both parties as the libeller sayes the Parliament did Sr. Iohn Hotham for he sayes the Parliament noe sooner vnderstood what had passed they declare Sr. Iohn Hotham had done noe more then was his dutie They meant noe doubt his dutie to them as fellow Traytours not to his king and soveraigne That this proves that to be false which is heere affirmed by the King that his greatest Enemies had scarce confidence enough to abett or owne it And such as knew the manner of their proceedings at that time know the truth of what the King affirmes and though the necessitie of their engagement made them owne it yet there were very few or none that esteemed it an act of Justice in them but of Policie for their owne securitie The king sayes it affected him more with sorrow for others then anger for himselfe nor did the affront trouble him soe much as their sin The libeller sayes there is vse of this booke to shew vs what a deluded thing the creature is which is called the vulgar who will beleive such vaine glories as these And surely we cannot beleive any creature soe deluded as those for whose capacitie the libeller writes that makes the deluded vulgar judges of lawes and kings yet heere spurnes it as a despised creature The strangenes of beleife that he imagines as that the King proclaimed him Traytour without due proces of law If he could have told what the due proces of law was no doubt he would If a theife or murtherer be taken in the Act or escape must there not be a proclamation for his apprehension If Traytours be in Armes against their King is it choler or rashnes to proclaime them Traytours The King had lately been convinced of his illegallitie with the five members He was injuriously denyed Justice against them which produced the second insolence of
subtill sense they were of another minde how thē could their dependence be a cause of their perswasion or was their sense subtill and grossely mistaken Thus those blattering devills that in the beginning of the Parliament charged the Bishopps to be Antimonarchicall thereby to conceale their malice against the king now make it their Cryme to favour Monarchy He hath found a very strong proofe as he would have it out of the Historie of the Councell of Trent that Bishopps are most potent when Princes are weakest that argues not their dependence vpon Princes nor that aversion to Bishopps is not aversion to Princes it was spoken of Bishopps depending on the Pope not on Princes and such Clergy men as have their dependence on Pope or people wil never wish that the king should be potent to master their dependencie From this the King sett himselfe to the removall of those men whose doctrine he feared would be the vndoing of Monarchy And needed he the Councells of Bishopps to provide for his safetie against such men And is that the evill interest of Tyrany and Episcopacie to prevent the designes of Traytours Who were Traytours if they were not that would vndoe Monarchy The doctrine and designes of the schismatickes are heereby apparent to be against Monarchy and yet the prevention of such conspiracies is the Tyrany and the corrupt Councells of Bishopps which the hipocrites cry out on Noe temporall law could touch the innocencie of their lives And had they innocency that plotted the vndoing of Monarchy vnder which they lived and could not the law touch it Their disobedience to lawes was a Cryme inconsistent with innocence and must necessarily be punished by the lawes they disobey and that which he calls persecution of their consciences and laying scandalls before them was only the requiring of their obedience to Acts of Parliament whose authoritie he soe frequently cryes vp and the inflicting of just penalties on their bodies and Estates according to the lawes was the dutie of the Magistrate to whome the execution of them belonged although the indulgence they found from his Majest in mitigating the penalties of law was a greate cause of their insolence and that Calamitie they have brought vpon the kingdome and if the lives of these men be sought into their pride impudence calumnie lying perjurie covetuousnes and crueltie declare their lives farr from innocent The man now breakes out into a thankesgiving for the successes of their Rebellion and though these hipocrites despise the thought of a Church and have noe Communion with any Church ancient or moderne yet the resistance of them is warr against the Church Noe Papist could speake more scandalously against reformation then that Episcopacie was the constant practice of all Christian Churches till of late yeares Tumult pride faction and covetuousnes invented new modells vnder the Title of Christs Government It neede not be observed againe how the Libeller is affected to the reformation that despises all but his owne Babell and Tumults factions pride and covetuousnes the causes of some new modells touches not soe many as he supposes there being soe many of the reformed Churches that receive not these new modells but whoever they be that obtrude them as Christs Government Scepter and Religion they will be marked with the same names that are heere mentioned by the greatest number if not all of the reformed Churches The Apostles were not properly Bishopps next Bishopps were not Successours of Apostles in the function of Apostleshipp If the Apostles were not properly Bishopps he should have told how they were improperly Bishopps for by his caution properly he admits they were someway Bishopps and the Bishopps therein their Successours though not in that part of the Apostleshipp which concerned speciall guifts and the Testimonie of Christs conversation on earth whereof they were eye wittnesses If they were Apostles they could not be precisely Bishopps and why not precisely if Bishopps They could not be Apostles his reason is because that of Apostle was vniversall extraordinary and immediate the other ordinary fixed and particular charge and inspection The calling of the seventie disciples was vniversall extraordinarie and immediate and yet they were noe Apostles and because callings were at first extraordinary must not they whose office it was to provide Successours to themselves and others in the Church of God ordaine others into their functions and is it an Argument that because when the Church was gathered men had particular care of certaine Churches therefore they were not of the same calling with others that preceeded them in gathering these Churches and the latitude of territorie in the exercise of a mans calling doth not make difference in the function It is against reason and Charitie to suppose an ignorance and deviation of the ancient Church taught by the Apostles in a point that destroyed the calling of such as were to reproach the gospell and the suddennesse is not imaginable in the introduction of Prelacy vnles by Apostolicall constitution in regard of the vniversalitie and the Author cannot name any manifest corruption so sudden and vniversall after the Apostles though he pretend many The Ecclesiasticall Historie proves it cleerely to be false that noe example since the first age for 1500 yeares can be produced of any setled Church wherein were many Ministers and congregations which had some Bishopps over them And his proofe is out of Sozomen who he sayes wrote above 1200 yeares agoe and his Testimony that in the Churches of Cyprus and Arabia they had Bishopps in every village what then he sayes what could these be more then Presbiters Yes they were Bishopps for doth any man doubt that Bishopps and Presbiters were not distinct in Sozomens time who soe frequently mentions it and the Libeller complaines of the corruption of introducing them in the ages foregoing there are many Councells before Sozomen which were vniversally received and in them subordinate of Presbiter to Bishopp is the vndeniable practice of the Church and the quantitie or quallitie of Townes or Territories wherein Bishopps were placed noe way proves the lessening of their order neither can it be collected because Bishopps were in small villages that therefore they were noe other then Presbiters but heerein the Libeller shewes his malicious opposition to truth in abusing Sozomen who having said that Churches had several customes instances that though there were many Citties in Scithia there was one Bishopp only over all and in other Countreyes Bishopps were in villages not every village he might aswell conclude noe Presbiters in Scithia as none but Presbiters in Arabia and Cyprus The same Author tells the like of other nations and that Episcopall Churches did not condemne them Wherefore should they condemne them It s like they would if they had taken vpon them to exercise the calling of Bishopps being but Presbiters for that was long before condemned by the Canons He makes a large leape from sozomen to fower hundred yeares agoe and then he sayes