themselves of the Ignoranceâ— and Infirmity of Humane Nature they have conveyed this Doctrine down to Posterity as the foundation of all Laws which likewise all our Lawyers admit That if any Law or Custom be contrary to the Law of God of Nature or of Reason â—â—ought to be looked upon as null and void Whence it follows that tho it were possible for you to discover any Statute or other publick Sanction which ascribed to the King a Tyrannical Power since that would be repugnant to the Will of God to Nature and to right Reason you may learn from that general and primary Law of ours which I have just now quoted that it will be null and void But you will never be able to find that any such Right of Kings has the least Foundation in our Law Since it is plain therefore that the Power of Judicature was originally in the People themselves and that the People never did by any Royal Law part with it to the King for the Kings of England neither use to judge any Man nor can by the Law do it otherwise than according to Laws settled and agreed to Fleta Book 1. Cap. 17. It follows that this Power remains yet whole and entire in the People themselves For that it was either never committed to the House of Peers or if it were that it may lawfully be taken from them again you your self will not deny But It is in the King's Power you say to make a Village into a Burrough and that into a City and consequently the King does in effect create those that constitute the Commons House of Parliament But I say that even Towns and Burroughs are more Ancient than Kings and that the People is the People tho they should live in the open Fields And now we are extreamly well pleased with your Anglicisms COUNTY COURT THE TURNE HUNDREDA you have quickly learnt to count your hundred Jacobusses in English Quis expedirit Salmasio suam HUNDREDAM Picamque docuit verba nostra conari Magister artis venter Jacobaei Centum exulantis viscera marsupii Regis Quod si dolâ—si spes refulserit nummi Ipse Antichristi modò qui Primatum Papae Minatus uno est dissipare sufflatu Cantabit ultrò Cardmalitium melos Who taught Salmasius that French chatt'ring Pye To aim at English and HUNDRED A cry The starving Rascal flusht with just a Hundred English Jacobusses HUNDRED A blunder'd An out-law'd King 's last stock A hundred more Would make him Pimp for th' Anchristian Whore And in Rome ' s praise employ his poyson'd Breath Who threatn'd once to stink the Pope to death The next thing you do is to trouble us with a long Discourse of the Earls and the Barons to show that the King made them all which we readily grant and for that reason they were most commonly at the King's beck and therefore we have done well to take care that for the future they shall not be Judges of a free People You affirm That the Power of calling Parliaments as often as he pleases and of dissolving them when he pleases has belonged to the King time out of mind Whether such a vile mercenary Foreigner as you who transcribe what some Fugitives dictate to you or the express Letter of our own Laws are more to be credited in this matter we shall enquire hereafter But say you there is another argument and an invincible one to prove the Power of the Kings of England Superior to that of the Parliament the King's Power is perpetual and of course whereby he administers the Government singly without the Parliament that of the Parliament is extraordinary or out of course and limited to particulars only nor can they Enact any thing so as to be binding in Law without the King Where does the great force of this argument lye in the words of course and perpetual Why many inferior Magistrates have an ordinary and perpetual power those whom we call Justices of Peace Have they therefore the Supreme Power and I have said already that the King's Power is committed to him to take care by interposing his Authority that nothing be done contrary to Law and that he may see to the due observation of our Laws not to top his own upon us and consequently that the King has no Power out of his Courts nay all the ordinary power is rather the proples who determine all Controversies themselves by Juries of Twelve Men. And hence it is that when a Malefactor is asked at his Arraignment How will you be tried he answers always according to Law and Custom by God and my Country not by God and the King or the King's Deputy But the authority of the Parliament which indeed and in truth is the Supreme power of the people committed to that Senate if it may be called Extraordinary it must be by reason of its Eminence and Superiority else it is known they are called Ordines and therefore cannot properly be said to be extra ordinem out of order and if not actually as they say yet vertually they have a perpetual power and authority over all Courts and ordinary Magistrates and that without the King And now it seems our barbarous terms grate upon your Critical ears forsooth whereas if I had leisure or that it were worth my while I could reckon up so many Barbarisms of yours in this one Book as if you were to be chastiz'd for them as you deserve all the School-boys Ferulers in Christendom would be broken upon you nor would you receive so many Pieces of Gold as that wretched Poet did of old but a great many more Boxes o' th' ear You say 'T is a Prodigy more monstrous than all the most absurd Opinions in the world put together that the Bedlams should make a distinction betwixt the King's Power and his Person I will not quote what every Author has said upon this subject but if by the words Personam Regis you mean what we call in English the Person of the King Chrysostome who was no Bedlam might have caught you that it is no absurd thing to make a distinction betwixt that and his power for that Father explains the Apostles command of being subject to the Higher Powers to be meant of the thing the Power it self and not of the Persons of the Magistrates And why may not I say that a King who acts any thing contrary to Law acts so far forth as a private person or a Tyrant and not in the capacity of a King invested with a Legal Authority If you do not know that there may be in one and the same man more Persons or Capacities than one and that those Capacities may in thought and conception be severed from the man himself you are altogether ignorant both of Latin and Common sense But this you say to absolve Kings from all sin and guilt and that you may make us believe that you are gotten into the Chair voâ—r self which you have pull'd the Pope
most solemn Oath And by so doing he not only extinguish'd his Right of Conquest if he ever had any over us but subjected himself to be judged according to the Tenor of this very Law And his Son Henry swore to the observance of King Edward's Laws and of this amongst the rest and upon these only terms it was that he was chosen King whilst his Elder Brother Robert was alive The same Oath was taken by all succeeding Kings before they were Crowned Hence our Ancient and Famous Lawyer Bracton in his first Book Chap. 8. There is no King in the case says he where Will rules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Law does not take place And in his Third Book Chap. 9. A King is a King so long as he Rules well he becomes a Tyrant when he oppresses the People committed to his Charge And in the same Chapter The King ought to use the Power of Law and Right as God's Minister and Vice-gerent the Power of wrong is the Devils and not Gods when the King turns aside to do Injustice he is the Minister of the Devil The very same words almost another Ancient Lawyer has who was the Author of the Book called Fleta both of them remembred that truly Royal Law of King Edward that Fundamental Maxim in our Law which I have formerly mentioned by which nothing is to be accounted a Law that is contrary to the Laws of God or of Reason no more than a Tyrant can be said to be a King or a Minister of the Devil a Minister of God Since therefore the Law is chiefly right Reason if we are bound to obey a King and a Minister of God by the very same Reason and the very same Law we ought to resist a Tyrant and a Minister of the Devil And because Controversies arise oftner about Names than Things the same Authors tell us that a King of England tho he have not lost the Name of a King yet is as liable to be judged and ought so to be as any of the Common People Bracton Book 1. Chap. 8. Fleta Book 1. Chap. 17. No Man ought to be greater than the King in the Administration of Justice but he himself ought to be as little as the least in receiving Justice si peccat if he offend Others read it si petat Since our Kings therefore are liable to be judged whether by the Name of Tyrants or of Kings it must not be difficult to assign their Legal Judges Nor will it be amiss to consult the same Authors upon that point Bracton Book 1. Chap. 16. Fleta Book 1. Chap. 17. The King has his Superiors in the Government The Law by which he is made King and his Court to wit the Earls and the Barons Comites Earls are as much as to say Companions and he that has a Companion has a Master and therefore if the King will be without a Bridle that is not govern by Law they ought to bridle him That the Commons are comprehended in the word Barons has been shown already nay and in the Books of our Ancient Laws they are frequently said to have been called Peers of Parliament and especially in the Modus tenendi c. There shall be chosen says that Book out of all the Peers of the Realm Five and twenty Persons of whom five shall be Knight five Citizens and five Burgâ—ssâ—s and two Knights of a County have a greater Vote in granting and rejecting than the greatest Earl in England And it is but reasonable they should for they Vote for a whole County c. the Earls for themselves only And who can but perceive that those Patent Earls whom you call Earls made by Writ since we have now none that hold their Earldoms by Tenure are very unfit Persons to try the King who conferr'd their Honours upon them Since therefore by our Law as appears by that old Book call'd The Mirror the King has his Peers who in Parliament have Cognizance of wrongs done by the King to any of his People and since it is notoriously known that the meanest Man in the Kingdom may even in inferior Courts have the benefit of the Law against the King himself in Case of any Injury or Wrong sustained how much more Consonant to Justice how much more necessary is it that in case the King oppress all his People there should be such as have Authority not only to restrain him and keep him within Bounds but to Judge and Punish him For that Government must needs be very ill and most ridiculously constituted in which remedy is provided in case of little Injuries done by the Prince to private Persons and no Remedy no Redress for greater no care taken for the safety of the whole no Provision made to the contrary but that the King may without any Law ruin all his Subjects when at the same time he cannot by Law so much as hurt any one of them And since I have shown that it is neither good manners nor expedient that the Lords should be the Kings Judges it follows that the Power of Judicature in that case does wholly and by very good Right belong to the Commons who are both Peers of the Realm and Barons and have the Power and Authority of all the People committed to them For since as we find it expresly in our written Law which I have already cited the Commons together with the King make a good Parliament without either Lords or Bishops because before either Lords or Bishops had a being Kings held Parliaments with their Commons only by the very same reason the Commons apart must have the Sovereign Power without the King and a Power of Judging the King himself because before there ever was a King they in the Name of the whole Body of the Nation held Councils and Parliaments had the Power of Judicature made Laws and made the Kings themselves not to Lord it over the People but to Administer their publick Affairs Whom if the King instead of so doing shall endeavour to injure and oppress our Law pronounces him from time forward not so much as to retain the Name of a King to be no such thing as a King and if he be no King what need we trouble our selves to find out Peers for him For being then by all good Men adjudged to be a Tyrant there are none but who are Peers good enough for him and proper enough to pronounce Sentence of Death upon him judicially These things being so I think I have sufficiently proved what I undertook by many Authorities and written Laws to wit that since the Commons have Authority by very good Right to try the King and since they have actually tried him and put him to Death for the mischief he had done both in Church and State and without all hope of amendment they have done nothing therein but what was just and regular for the Interest of the State in discharging of their Trust becoming their Dignity and according to the Laws of
Commonwealth is a more perfect form of Goverment thâ—n a Monarchy and more suitable to the condition of Mankind and in the opinion of God himself better for his own people for himself appointed it And could hardly be prevail'd withal a great while after and at their own importunate desire to let 'em change it into a Monarchy But to make it appear that he gave 'em their choice to be Govern'd by a single person or by more so they were justly Govern'd in case they should in time to come resolve upon a King he prescribes Laws for this King of theirs to observe whereby he was forbidden to multiply to himself Horses and Wives or to heap up Riches whence he might easily infer that no power was put into his hands over others but according to Law since even those actions of his life which related only to himself were under a Law He was commanded therefore to transcribe with his own hand all the Precepts of the Law and having writ 'em out to observe and keep 'em that his mind might not be lifted up above his Brethren 'T is evident from hence that as well the Prince as the people was bound by the Law of Moses To this purpose Josephus writes a proper and an able Interpreter of the Laws of his own Country who was admirably well vers'd in the Jewish Policy and infinitely preferable to a thousand obscure ignorant Rabbins He has it thus in the Fourth Book of his Antiquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An Aristocracy is the best form of Government wherefore do not you endeavour to settle any other 't is enough for you that God presides over ye But if you will have a King let him guide himself by the Law of God rather than by his own wisdom and lay a restraint upon him if he offer at more power than the state of your affairs will allow of Thus he expresseth himself upon this place in Deuteronomy Another Jewish Author Philo Judaus who was Josephus his Contemporary a very studious man in the Law of Moses upon which he wrote a large Commentary when in his Book concerning the Creation of the King he interprets this Chapter of Deuteronomy he sets a King loose from the Law no otherwise than as an enemy may be said to be so They says he that to the prejudice and destruction of the people acquire great power to themselves deserve not the name of Kings but that of Enemies For their actions are the same with those of an irreconcilable enemy Nay they that under a pretence of Government are injurious are worse than open enemies We may fence our selves against the latter but the malice of the former is so much the more Pestilent because it is not always easie to be discovered But when is is discover'd why should they not be dealt with as enemies The same Author in his second Book Allegoriar Legis A King says he and a Tyrant are Contraries And a little after A King ought not only to command but obey All this is very true you 'l say a King ought to observe the Laws as well as any other man But what if he will not What Law is there to punish him I answer the same Law that there is to punish other men for I find no exceptions there is no express Law to punish the Priests or any other inferior Magistrates who all of 'em if this opinion of the exemption of Kings from the Penalties of the Law would hold may by the same reason claim impunity what guilt soever they contract because there is no positive Law for their punishment and yet I suppose none of them ever challeng'd such a Prerogative nor would it ever be allow'd 'em if they should Hitherto we have learn'd from the very Text of God's own Law that a King ought to obey the Laws and not lift himself up above his Brethre Let us now consider whether Solomon preacht up any other Doctrine Ch. 8 v. 2. I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evil thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him VVhere the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou It is well enough known that here the Preacher directs not his Precepts to the Sanhedrim or to a Parliament but to private persons and such he commands to keep the King's commandment and that in regard of the oath of God But as they swear Allegiance to Kings do not Kings likewise swear to obey and maintain the Laws of God and those of their own Country So the Reubenites and Gadites promise obedience to Jeshua Josh 1. 17. According as we harkned unto Moses in all things so will we harken unto thee only the Lord thy God be with thee as he was with Moses Here 's an express condition Hear the Preacher else Chap. 9. v. 17. The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools The next caution that Solâ—mon gives us is Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evil thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him That is he does what he will to Malefactors whom the Law authorizeth him to punish and against whom he may proceed with mercy or severity as he sees occasion Here 's nothing like Tyranny Nothing that a good man needs be afraid of Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him VVhat dost thou And yet we read of one that not only said to a King VVhat dost thou but told him Thou hast done foolishly But Samuel you may say was an Extraordinary Person I answer you with your own words which follow in the 49th Page of your Book VVhat was there extraordinary say you in Saul or in David And so say I what was there in Samuel extraordinary He was a Prophet you 'l say so are they that now follow his example for they act according to the will of God either his reveal'd or his secret will which your self grant in your 50th Page The Preacher therefore in this place prudently adviseth private persous not to contend with Princes for it is even dangerous to contend with any man that 's either rich or powerful But what then must therefore the Nobility of a Nation and all the inferior Magistrates and the whole body of the people not dare to mutter when a King raves and acts like a mad-man Must they not oppose a foolish wicked outragious Tyrant that perhaps seeks the destruction of all good men Must they not endeavour to prevent his turning all Divine and Humane things upside down must they suffer him to massacre his People burn their Cities and commit such Outrages upon them daily and finally to have perfect liberty to do what he list without controul O de Cappadocis eques catastis Thou slavish Knight
said in our Law to be an Infant and to possess his Rights and Dignities as a Child or a Ward does his See the Mirror cap. 4. Sect. 22. And hence is that common saying amongst us That the King can do no wrong Which you like a Raseal interpret thus Whatever the King does is no Injury because be is not â—…ble to be punished for it By this very Comment if there were nothing else the wonderful Impudence and Villany of this fellow discovers it self sufficiantly It belongs to the Hâ—ad you say to command and 〈◊〉 to the Members The King is the Head of the Parliament You would not trifle thus if you had any guts in your brains You are mistaken again but there 's no end of your mistakes in not distinguishing the King's Counsellors from the States of the Realm For neither ought he to make choice of all of them nor of any of these which the râ—st do not approve of but for electing any Member of the House of Commons he never so much as pretended to it Whom the people appointed to that Service they were severally chosen by the Votes of all the people in their respective Cities Towns and Counties I speak now of things universally known and therefore I am the shorter But you say 'T is â—alâ—e that the Parliament was instituted by the people as the Worshippers of Saint Independency assert Now I see why you took so much pains in endeavourâ—â—g to subvert the Paâ—â—cy you carry another Pope in your belly as we say For what else should you be in labour of the Wiâ—e of a Woman a He-Wolf impregnated by a She-Wolf but either a Monster or some new sort of Pâ—…cy You now make He-Saints and She-Saints at your pleasure as if you were a true genuine Pope You absolve Kings of all their sins and as if you had utterly vanquish'd and subdu'd your Antagonist the Pope you adorn your self with his spoils But because you have not yet profligated the Pope quite till the Second and Third and perhaps the Fourth and Fifth Part of your Book of his Supremacy come out which Book will nauseate a great many Readers to death sooner than you 'll get the better of the Pope by it let it suffice you in the mean time 〈◊〉 you to become some Antipope or other There 's another She-Saint besides that Independency that you deâ—ide which you have Canonized in good earnest and that is the Tyranny of Kings You shall therefore by my consent be the High Priest of Tyranny and that you may have all the Pope's Titles you shall be a Servant of the Servants not of God but of the Court. For that Curse pronounced upon Canaan seems to stick as close to you as your Shirt You call the People a Beast What are you then your self For neither can that Sacred Confistory nor your Lordship of St. Lou exempt you its Master from being one of the People nay of the Common People nor can make you other than what you really are a most loathsome Beast Indeed the Writings of the Prophets shadow out to us the Monarchy and Dominion of Great Kings by the Name and under the Resemblance of a Great Beast You say That there is no mention of Parliaments held under our Kings that reigned before William the Conqueror It is not worth while to Jangle about a French word The thing was always in being and you your self allow that in the Saxon times Concilia Sapientum Wittena-gemots are mentioned And there are wise Men among the Body of the People as well as amongst the Nobility But in the Statute of Merton made in the twentieth year of King Henry the 3d the Earls and Barons are only named Thus you are always imposed upon by words who yet have spent your whole Life in nothing else but words for we know very well that in that age not only the Guardians of the Cinque-Ports and Magistrates of Cities but even Tradesmen are sometimes called Barons and without doubt they might much more reasonably call every Member of Parliament tho never so much a Commoner by the Name of a Baron For that in the fifty second Year of the same King's Reign the Commoners as well as the Lords were summoned the Statute of Marlbridge and most other Statutes declare in express words which Commoners King Edward the Third in the Preface to the Statute-Staple calls Magnates Comitatum The Great Men of the Counties as you very learnedly quote it for me those to wit That came out of the several Counties and served for them which number of Men constituted the House of Commons and neither were Lords nor could be Besides a Book more Ancient than those Statutes called Modus habendi Parliamenta i. e. The manner of holding Parliaments tells us That the King and the Commons may hold a Parliament and enact Laws tho the Lords the Bishops are absent but that with the Lords and the Bishops in the Absence of the Commons no Parliament can be held And there 's a reason given for it viz. because Kings held Parliaments and Councils with their People before any Lords or Bishops were made besides the Lords serve for themselves only the Commons each for the County City or Burrough that sent them And that therefore the Commons in Parliament represent the whole Body of the Nation in which respect they are more worthy and every way preferable to the House of Peers But the power of Judicature you say never was invested in the House of Commons Nor was the King ever possessed of it Remember tho that originally all Power proceeded and yet does proceed from the People Which Marcus Tullius excellently well shows in his Oration De lege Agraria Of the Agrarian Law As all Powers Authorities and publick Administrations ought to be derived from the whole Body of the People so those of them ought in an especial manner so to be derived which are ordained and appointed for the Common Benefit and Interest of all to which Impolyments every particular Person may both give his Vote for the chusing such Persons as he thinks will take most care of the Publick and withal by voting and making Interest for them lay such Obligations upon them as may entitle them to their Friendship and good Offices in time to come Here you see the true rise and original of Parliaments and that it was much ancienter than the Saxon Chronicles Whilst we may dwell in such a light of Truth and Wisdom as Cicero's Age afforded you labour in vain to blind us with the darkness of obseurer times By the saying whereof I would not be understood to derogate in the least from the Authority and Prudenâ—e of our Ancestors who most certainly went further in the enacting of good Laws than either the Ages they lived in or their own Learning or Education seem to have been capable of and tho sometimes they made Laws that were none of the best yet as being conscious to
out of The King you say is supposed not capable of committing any crime because no punishment is consequential upon any crime of his Whoever therefore is not punisht offends not it is not the theft but the punishment that makes the thief Salmasius the Grammarian commits no Soloecisms now because he is from under the Ferular when you have overthrown the Pope let these for God's sake be the Canons of your Pontificate or at least your Indulgences whether you shall chuse to be called the High Priest St. â—yranny or of St. Slavery I pass by the Reproachful language which towards the latter end of the Chapter you give the State of the Commonwealth and the Church of England 't is common to such as you are you contemptible Varlet to rail at those things most that are most praise-worthy But that I may not seem to have asserted any thing rashly concerning the Right of the Kings of England or rather concerning the Peoples Right with respect to their Princes I will now alledg out of our ancient Histories a few things indeed of many but such as will make it evident that the English lately tried their King according to the setled Laws of the Realm and the Customs of their Ancestors After the Romans quitted this Island the Britains for about forty years were sui Juris and without any Kings at all Of whom those they first set up some they put to death And for that Gildas reprehends them not as you do for killing their Kings but for killing them uncondemned and to use his own words Non pro veri examinatione without inquiring into the matter of fact Vortigerne was for his Incestuous Marriage with his own Daughter condemn'd as Nennius informs us the most ancient of all our Historians next to Gildas by St. German and a General Council of the Britains and his Son Vortimer set up in his stead This came to pass not long after St. Augustine's death which is enough to discover how â—utilous you are to say as you have done that it was a Pope and Zachary by name who first held the lawfulness of judging Kings About the year of our Lord 600 Morcantius who then Reign'd in Wales was by Oudeceus Bishop of Landaff condemn'd to Exile for the Murther of his Uncle though he got the Sentence off by bestowing some Lands upon the Church Come we now to the Saxons whose Laws we have and therefore I shall quote none of their Presidents Remember that the Saxons were of a German Extract who neither invested their Kings with any absolute unlimited power and consulted in a Body of the more weighty affairs of Government whence we may perceive that in the time of our Saxon Ancestors Parliaments the name it self only excepted had the Supreme Authority The name they gave them was Councils of Wise-men and this in the Reign of Ethelbert of whom Bede says That he made Laws in imitation of the Roman Laws cum concilio sapientum by the advice or in a Council of his Wise-men So Edwyn King of Northumberland and Ina King of the VVest-Saxons having consulted with their VVise-men and the Elders of the people made new Laws Other Laws K. Alfred made by the advice in like manner of his Wise-men and he says himself That it was by the consent of them all that they were commanded to be observed From these and many other like places it is as clear as the Sun that chosen Men even from amongst the Common People were Members of the Supreme Councils unless we must believe that no Men are wise but the Nobility We have likewise a very Ancient Book called the Mirror of Justices in which we are told That the Saxons when they first subdued the Brittains and chose themselves Kings required an Oath of them to submit to the Judgment of the Law as much as any of their Subjects Cap. 1. Sect. 2. In the same place 't is said that it is but just that the King have his Peers in Parliament to take Cognizance of wrongs done by the King or the Queen and that there was a Law made in King Alored's time that Parliaments should be holden twice a year at London or oftner if need were Which Law when through neglect it grew into disuse was revived by two Statutes in King Edward the Third's time And in another ancient Manuscript called Modus tenendi Parliamenta we read thus If the King dissolve the Parliament before they have dispatcht the business for which the Council was summon'd he is guilty of Perjury and shall be reputed to have broken his Coronation Oath For how can he be said to grant those good Laws which the people chuse as he is sworn to do if he hinders the People from chusing them either by summoning Parliaments seldomer or by dissolving them sooner than the Publick Affairs require or admit And that Oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation has always been looked upon by our Lawyers as a most sacred Law And what remedy can be found to obviate the great Dangers of the whole State which is the very end of summoning Parliaments if that Great and August Assembly may be dissolved at the pleasure many times of a silly head-strong King To absent himself from them is certainly less than to dissolve them and yet by our Laws as that Modus lays them down the King neither can nor ought to absent himself from his Parliament unless he be really indisposed in Health nor then neither till twelve of the Peers have been with him to inspect his Body and give the Parliament an account of his Indisposition Is this like the Carriage of Servants to a Master On the other hand the House of Commons without whom there can be no Parliament held tho summoned by the King may withdraw and having made a Secession expostulate with the King concerning Male-administration as the same Book has it But which is the greatest thing of all amongst the Laws of King Edward commonly called the Confessor there is one very excellent relating to the Kingly Office which Office if the King do not discharge as he ought Then says the Law He shall not retain so much as the Name of a King And lest these words should not be sufficiently understood the Example of Chilperic King of France is subjoyn'd whom the People for that Cause deposed And that by this Law a wicked King is liable to Punishment that Sword of King Edward called Curtana denotes to us which the Earl of Chester used to carry in the Solemn Procession at a Coronation A token says Mathew Paris that he has Authority by Law to punish the King if he will not do his Duty and the Sword is hardly ever made use of but in Capital Punishments This same Law together with other Laws of that good King Edward did William the Conqueror ratifie in the Fourth Year of his Reign and in a very full Council held at Verulam confirm'd it with a
Will both of Senate and People gets as great a number as he can either of Enemies or profligate Subjects to side with him against the Senate and the People The Parliament therefore allowed the King as they did whatever he had besides the setting up of a Standard not to wage War against his own people but to defend them against such as the Parliament should declare Enemies to the State If he acted otherwise himself was to be accounted an Enemy since according to the very Law of St. Edward or according to a more sacred Law than that the Law of Nature it self he lost the name of a King and was no longer such Whence Cicero in his Philip. He forfeits his Command in the Army and Interest in the Government that employs them against the State Neither could the King compel those that held of him by Knight-Service to serve him in any other War than such as was made by consent of Parliament which is evident by many Statutes So for Customs and other Subsidies for the maintenance of the Navy the King could not exact them without an Act of Parliament as was resolved about twelve years ago by the ablest of our Lawyers when the King's Authority was at the height And long before them Fortescue an Eminent Lawyer and Chancellor to King Henry the 6th The King of England says he can neither alter the Laws nor exact Subsidies without the people's consent nor can any Testimonies be brought from Antiquity to prove the Kingdom of England to have been merely Regal The King says Bracton has a Jurisdiction over all his Subjects that is in his Courts of Justice where Justice is administred in the King's name indeed but according to our own Laws All are subject to the King that is every particular man is and so Bracton explains himself in the places that I have cited What follows is but turning the same stone over and over again at which sport I believe you are able to tire Sisiphus himself and is sufficiently answered by what has been said already For the rest if our Parliaments have sometimes complimented good Kings with submissive expressions tho neither favouring of Flattery nor Slavery those are not to be accounted due to Tyrants nor ought to prejudice the peoples Right good manners and civility do not infringe Liberty Whereas you cite out of Sir Edw. Coke and others That the Kingdom of England is an Absolute Kingdom that is said with respect to any Foreign Prince or the Emperor because as Cambden says It is not under the Patronage of the Emperor but both of them affirm that the Government of England resides not in the King alone but in a Body Politick Whence Fortescue in his Book de laud. leg Angl. cap. 9. The King of England says he governs his people not by a merely Regal but a Political power for the English are govern'd by Laws of their own making Foreign Authors were not ignorant of this Hence Philip de Comines a Grave Author in the Fifth Book of his Commentaries Of all the Kingdoms of the earth says he that I have any knowledge of there is none in my opinion where the Government is more moderate where the King has less power of hurting his people than in England Finally 'T is ridiculous say you for them to affirm that Kingdoms were ancienter than Kings which is as much as if they should say that there was Light before the Sun was created But with your good leave Sir we do not say that Kingdoms but that the people were before Kings In the mean time who can be more ridiculous than you who deny there was Light before the Sun had a being You pretend to a curiosity in other mens matters and have forgot the very first things that were taught you You wonder how they that have seen the King upon his Throne at a Session of Parliament sub aureo serico Coelo under a golden and silken Heaven under a Canopy of State should so much as make a question whether the Majesty resided in him or in the Parliament They are certainly hard of belief whom so lucid an Argument coming down from Heaven cannot convince Which Golden Heaven you like a Stoick have so devoutly and seriously gaz'd upon that you seem to have forgot what kind of Heaven Moses and Aristotle describe to us for you deny that there was any Light in Moses his Heaven before the Sun and in Aristotle's you make three temperate Zones How many Zones you observed in that Golden and Silken Heaven of the King 's I know not but I know you got one Zone a Purse well tempered with a Hundred Golden Stars by your Astronomy CHAP. X. SInce this whole Controversie whether concerning the Right of Kings in general or that of the King of England in particular is rendred difficult and intricate rather by the obstinacy of parties than by the nature of the thing it self I hope they that prefer Truth before the Interest of a Faction will be satisfied with what I have alledged out of the Law of God the Law of Nations and the Municipal Laws of my own Countrey That a King of England may be brought to Tryal and put to Death As for those whose minds are either blinded with Superstition or so dazeled with the Splendor and Grandure of a Court that Magnanimity and true Liberty do not appear so glorious to them as they are in themselves it will be in vain to contend with them either by Reason and Arguments or Examples But you Salmasius seem very absurd as in every other part of your Book so particularly in this who tho you â—ail perpetually at the Independents and revile them with all the terms of Reproach imaginable yet assert to the highest degree that can be the Independâ—ncy of the King whom you defend and will not allow him to owe his Soveraignty to the people but to his Descent And whereas in the beginning of your Book you complain'd that he was put to plead for his Life here yâ—u complain That he perish'd without being heard to spâ—… for himself But if you have a mind to look into the History of his Trial which is very faithfully publish'd in French it may be you 'l be of another opinion Whereas he had liberty given him for some day together to say what he could for himself he made use of it not to clear himself of the Crimes 〈◊〉 to his Charge but to disprove the Authority oâ— his Judges and the Judicature that he was called before And whenever a Criminal is either mute or says nothing to the purpose there is no Injustice in condemning him without hearing him if his Crimes are notorious and publickly known If you say that Charles dyed as he lived I agree with you If you say that he died piously holily and at ease you may remember that his Grandmother Mary Queen of Scots and infamous Woman dyed on a Scaffold with as much outward appearance of
the Government of England into a Tyranny thought he could not bring it to pass till the Flower and Strength of the Military Power of the Nation were cut off Another of his Crimes was the causing some words to be struck out of the usual Coronation-oath before he himself would take it Unworthy and abominable Action The Act was wicked in it self what shall be said of him that undertakes to justifie it For by the Eternal God what greater breach of Faith and Violation of all Laws can possibly be imagin'd What ought to been more sacred to him next to the Holy Sacraments themselves than that Oath Which of the two do you think the more flagitious Person him that offends against the Law or him that endeavours to make the Law equally guilty with himself Or rather him who subverts the Law it self that he may not seem to offend against it For thus that King violated that Oath which he ought most religiously to have sworn to but that he might not seem openly and publickly to violate it he craftily adulterated and corrupted it and least he himself should be accounted perjur'd he turn'd the very Oath into a Perjury What other could be expected then that his Reign would be full of Injustice Craft and Misfortune who began it with so detestable an Injury to his People And who durst pervert and adulterate that Law which he thought the only Obstacle that stood in his way and hindred him from perverting all the rest of the Laws But that Oath thus you justify him lays no other Obligation upon Kings then the Laws themselves do and Kings pretend that they will be bound and limited by Laws tho indeed they are altogether from under the Power of Laws Is it not prodigious that a Man should dare to express himself so sacrilegiously and so senselesly as to assert that am Oath sacredly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists mary be dispensed with and set aside as a little insignifi cant thing without any Cause whatsoever Charles himself refutes you you Prodigy of Impiety Who thinking that Oath no light matter chose rather by a Subterfuge to avoid the force of it or by a Fallacy to elude it than openly to violate it and would rather falsifie and corrupt the Oath then manifestly forswear himself after he had taken it But The King indeed swears to his People as the People do to him but the People swear Fidelity to the King not the King to them Pretty Invention Does not he that promises and binds himself by an Oath to do any thing to or for another oblige his Fidelity to them that require the Oath of him Of a truth every King swâ—ears Fidelity and Service and Obedience to the People with respect to the performance of whatever he promiseth upon Oath to do Then you run back to William the Conqueror who was forced more than once to swear to perform not what he himself would bâ—…t what the People and the great Men of the Realm requir'd of him If many Kings are Crown'd without the usual Solemnity and Reign without taking any Oath the same thing may be said of the People a great many of whom never took the Oath of Allegiance If the King by not taking an Oath be at Liberty the People are so too And that part of the People that has sworn swore not to the King only but to the Realm and the Laws by which the King came to his Crown and no otherwise to the King than whâ—…st he should act according to those Laws that the Common People that is the House of Commons should chuse quas Vulgus elegerit For it were folly to alter the Phrase of our Law and turn it into more genuine Latin This Clause Quas Vulgus elegerit Which the Commons shall abuse Charles before he was Crown'd procured to be razed out But say you without the King's assent the People can chuse no Laws and for this you cite two Statutes viz. Anno 37 H. 6. Cap. 15. and 13 Edw. 4. Cap. 8. but those two Statutes are so far from appearing in our statute-Statute-books that in the years you mention neither of those Kings enacted any Laws at all Go now and complain That those Fugitives who pretended to furnish you with matter out of our Statutes imposed upon you in it and let other People in the mean time stand astonish'd at your Impudence and Vanity who are not asham'd to pretend to be throughly vers'd in such Books as it is so evident you have never look'd into nor so much as seen And that Clause in the Coronation-Oath which such a brazen-fac'd Brawler as you call fictitious The King's Friends you say your self acknowledge that it may possibly be extant in some Ancient Copies but that it grew into disuse because it had no convenient signification But for that very reason did our Ancestors insert it in the Oath that the Oath might have such a signification as would not be for a Tyrant's conveniency If it had really grown into disuse which yet is most false there was the greater need of reviving it but even that would have been to no purpose according to your Doctrine For that Custom of taking an Oath as Kings now-adays generally use it is no more you say then a bare Ceremony And yet the King when the Bishops were to be put down pretended that he could not do it by reason of that Oath And consequently that reverend and sacred Oath as it serves for the Kings turn or not must be solemn and binding or an empty Ceremony Which I earnestly entreat my Country-men to take notice of and to consider what manner of a King they are like to have if he ever 〈◊〉 back For it would never have entred into the thoughts of this Rascally-foreign Grammarian to write a Discourse of the Rights of the Crown of England unless both Charles Stuart now in Banishment and tainted with his Fathers Principles and those Prosâ—igate Tutors that he has along with him had induâ—uiously to suggested him what they would have writ They dictated to him That the whole Parliament were liable to be proceded against as Traitors because they declar'd without the Kings Assent all them to be Traitors who had taken up Arms against the Parliament of England and that the Parliaments were but the King's Vassals That the Oath which our Kings take at their Coronations is but a Ceremony And why not that a Vassal too So that no reverence of Laws no sacredness of an Oath will be sufficient to protect your Lives and Fortunes either from the Exorbitance of a furious or the Revenge of an exasperated Prince who has been so instructed from his Cradle as to think Laws Religion nay and Oaths themselves ought to be subject to his Will and Pleasure How much better is it and more becoming your selves if you desire Riches Liberty Peace and Empire to obtain them assuredly by your own Virtue Industry Prudence and Valour than to long after
of the Roman State Left all Men be involv'd in one Mans fate Continue us in Wealth and Peace Let Wars and Tumults ever cease So that if 't is by God that Kings now adays Reign 't is by God too that the People assert their own Liberty since all things are of him and by him I 'm sure the Scripture bears witness to both that by him Kings reign and that by him they are cast down from their Thrones And yet experience teacheth us that both these things are brought about by the People oftner than by God Be this Right of Kings therefore what it will the Right of the People is as much of God as it And when ever any People without some visible Designation of God himself appoint a King over them they have the same Right to put him down that they had to set him up at first And certainly 't is a more God like Action to depose a Tyrant than to set up one And there appears much more of God in the People when they depose an unjust Prince than in a King that oppressâ—th an Innocent People Nay the People have a Warrant from God to judge wicked Princes for God has conferrd this very honour upon those that are dear to him that celebrating the praises of Christ their own King they shall bind in Chains the Kings of the Nations under which Appellation all Tyrants under the Gospel are included and execute the Jidgments written upon them that challenge to themselves an Exemption from all written Laws Psalm 149. So that there 's but little reason left for that wicked and follish Opinion that Kings who commonly are the worst of Men should be so high in Gods acâ—â—unt as that he should have put the World under 〈◊〉 to be at their 〈◊〉 and be govern'd according to their humour and that for their sakes alone he shâ—uld have reduced all Mankind whom he made 〈◊〉 his own Image into the same condition with 〈◊〉 After all this rather than say nothing you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a countenancer of Tyranny but 〈…〉 better have let him alone I can't say 〈…〉 aâ—â—irm'd that Princes are accountable 〈…〉 God 's Tribunal But Xiphilene indeed out of whom you quote those words of M. Aurelius mentions a certain Government which he calls an Autarchy of which he makes God the only Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that this word Autarchy and Monarchy 〈◊〉 Synonymous I cannot â—â—sily perswade my self to believe And the more I read what goes before the 〈◊〉 I find my self inclinable to think so And certainly whoever considers the Context will not easily apprehend what coherence this sentence has with it and must needs wonder how it comes so abruptly into the Text especially since Marcus Aurelius that Mirrour of Princes carried himself towards the people as Capitolinus tells us just as if Rome had been a Common-wealth still And we all know that when it was so the Supreme Power was in the People The same Emperour honoured the memory of Thraseas and Hâ—lvidius and Cato and Dio and Brutus who all were Tyrant-slayers or affected the reputation of being thought so In the first Book that he writes of his own Life he says that he propos'd to himself a form of Government under which all men might equally enjoy the benefit of the Law and Right and Justice be equally administred to all And in his fourth Book he says The Law is Master and not he He acknowledged the right of the Senate and the people and their Interest in all things We are so far says he from having any thing of our own that we live in your Houses These things Xiphiline relates of him So little did he arrogate ought to himself by vertue of his Soveraign Right When he died he recommended his Son to the Romans for his Successor if they should think he deserv'd it So far was he from pretending to a Commission from Heaven to exercise that absolute and imaginary right of Soveraignty that Autarchy that you tell us of All the Laâ—â—n and Greâ—k Bâ—…s are full of Authorities of this nature But we have heard none of 'em yet So are the Jewish Authors And yet you say The Jews in many things allow'd but too little to their Princes Nay you 'l find that both the Grâ—â—ks and the Latins allow'd much less to Tyrants And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews allow'd them would appear if that Book that Samuel wrote of the manner of the Kingdom were extant which Book the Hebrew Doctors tell us their Kings â—…re in pieces and burnt that they might be more at liberty to Tyrannize over the people without controul or fâ—â—r of punishment Now look about ye again and catch hold of somewhat or other In the last place you come to wrest David's words in the 17th Psalm 〈◊〉 my sentence come forth from thy 〈◊〉 Therefore says Barnachmoni God only can judge the King And yet it 's most likely that David 〈◊〉 this Psalm when he was persecuted by Sâ—… at which time though himself were Anointed he did not decline being judged even by Jonathan Notwithstanding if there be â—…ity in me stay me thy self 1 Sam 20. At least in this Psalm he does no more than what any person in the world would do upon the like occasion being falsely accus'd by men he 〈…〉 the judgment of God himself Let thine 〈…〉 that is right thâ—â— hast prâ—vâ—d and â—… What relation has this to a Temâ—… Câ—rtainly they do no good office to 〈…〉 Kings that thus discover the weakness of its 〈…〉 Then you come with that thread-bare 〈…〉 which of all others is most in vogue with our 〈◊〉 Against thee thee only have I sinned Psal 51. 〈◊〉 As if David in the midst of his Repentance when ovâ—â—whelm'd with sorrow and almost 〈…〉 hâ— was humbly imploring God's 〈◊〉 had 〈…〉 right of his when his heart was so low that he thought he deserv'd not the right of a slave And can we think that he despis'd all the people of God his own Brethren to that degree as to believe that he might murder 'em plunder 'em and commit Adultery with their wives and yet not sin against them all this while So holy a man could never be guilty of such insufferable pride nor have so little knowledg either of himself or of his duty to his Neighbour So without doubt when he says Against thee only he means against thee chiefly have I sinned c. But whatever he meant the words of a Psalm are too full of Poetry and this Psalm too full of Passion to afford us any exact definitions of Right and Justice nor is it proper to argue any thing of that nature from ' â—m But David was never question'd for this nor made to plead for his life before the Sanâ—edrim What then How should they know that any such thing had been which was done so privately that perhaps for some years after not above one or two were privy to it as such secrets there
the same principle and notion of Government has obtained all along in Civiliz'd Nations Pindar as he is cited by Herodotus calls the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King over all Orpheus in his Hymns calls it the King both of Gods and Men. And he gives the reason why it is so Because says he 't is that that sits at the helm of all humane affairs Plato in his Book de Legibus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that that ought to have the greatest sway in the Common-wealth In his Epistles he commends that Form of Government in which the Law is made Lord and Master and no scope given to any Man to tyrannize over the Laws Aristotle is of the same Opinion in his Politicks and so is Cicero in his Book De Legibus That the Laws ought to Govern the Magistrates as they do the people The Law therefore having always been accounted the highest Power on Earth by the judgment of the most Learned and wise men that ever were and by the Constitutions of the best ordered States and it being very certain that the Doctrine of the Gospel is neither contrary to reason nor the Law of Nations that man is truly and properly subject to the higher Powers that obeys the Law and the Magistrates so far as they govern according to Law So that St. Paul does not only command the people but Princes themselves to be in subjection who are not above the Laws but bound by them For there is no power but of God that is no form no lawful Constitution of any Government The most ancient Laws that are known to us were formerly ascribed to God as their Author For the Law says Cicero in his Philipp is no other than a rule of well grounded reason derived from God himself enjoyning whatever is just and right and forbidding the contrary So that the institution of Magistracy is Jure Divino and the end of it is that Mankind might live under certain Laws and be govern'd by them but what particular form of Government each Nation would live under and what Persons should be entrusted with the Magistracy without doubt was left to the choice of each Nation Hence St. Peter calls Kings and Deputies Humane Ordinances And Hâ—sea in the 8th Chapter of his Prophesy They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not For in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews where upon matters of great and weighty Importance they could have access to God himself and consult with him they could not chuse a King themselves by Law but were to refer the matter to him Other Nations have received no such Command Sometimes the very Form of Government if it be amiss or at lest those Persons that have the Power in their hands are not of God but of Men or of the Devil Luke 4. All this power will I give unto thee for it is delivered unto me and I give it to whom I will Hence the Devil is called the Prince of this World and in the 12th of the Revelations the Dragon gave to the Beast his Power and his Throne and great Authority So that we must not understand St. Paul as if he spoke of all sorts of Magistrates in general but of lawful Magistrates and so they are described in what follows We must also understand him of the Powers themselves not of those Men always in whose hands they are lodged St. Chrysostome speaks very well and clearly upon this occasion What says he is every Prince then appointed by God to be so I say no such thing says he St. Paul speaks not of the Person of the Magistrate but of the Magistracy it self He does not say there is no Prince but who is of God He says there is no Power but of God Thus far St. Chrysostome for what Powers are are ordained of God So that St. Paul speaks only of a lawful Magistracy For what is Evil and amiss cannot be said to be ordain'd because 't is disorderly order and disorder cannot consist together in the same Subject The Apostle says The Powers that be and you interpret his words as if he had said The Powers that now be that you may prove that the Romans ought in Conscience to obey Nero who you take for granted was then Emperor I 'm very well content you should read the words so and draw that Conclusion from them The Consequence will be that English Men ought to yield Obedience to the present Government as 't is now establisht according to a new Model because you must needs acknowledge that it is the present Government and ordain'd of God as much at least as Nero's was And lest you should object that Nero came to the Empire by a Lawful Succession it 's apparent from the Roman History that both he and Tiberius got into the Chair by the Tricks and Artifices of their Mothers and had no right at all to the Succession So that you are inconsistent with your self and retract from your own Principles in affirming that the Romans owed Subjection to the Government that then was and yet denying that Englishmen owe Subjection to the Government that now is But 't is no wonder to hear you contradict your self There are no two things in the World more directly opposite and contrary to one another than you are to your self But what will become of you poor Wretch You have quite â—â—done the young King with your Witicisms and ruin'd his Fortunes utterly for according to your own Doctrine you must needs confess that this present Government in England is ordain'd of God and that all Englishmen are bound in Conscience to submit to it â—ake notice all ye Criticks and Texâ—…ries Do not you presume to meddie with this Text. Thus Salmasius corrects that Passage in the Epistle to the Romans He has made a discovery that the Words ought not to be read The Powers that are but The Powers that now are And all this to prove that all Men owed Subjection and Obedience to Nero the Tyrant whom he supp sed to have been then Emperor This Epistle which you say was writ in Nero's time was writ in his Predecessor's time who was an honest well-meaning Man And this Learned Men evince by undeniable Arguments But besides the five first years of Nero's Reign were without Exception So that this thread-bare Argument which so many Men have at their Tongue 's end and have been deceived by to wit that Tyrants are to be obeyed because St. Paul injoyns a Subjection to Nero is evident to have been but a cunning Invention of some ignorant Parson He that resists the Powers to wit a lawful Power resists the Ordnance of God Kings themselves come under the Penalty of this Law when they resist the Senate and act contrary to the Laws But do they resist the Ordinance of God that resist an unlawful Power or a Person that goes about to overthrow and destroy a lawful one No Man living
pains as to show that you confute your self and destroy your own Positions I 'll begin with that first Position which you lay down as a Fundamental and that shall be the Groundwork of my ensuing Discourse The Law of Nature say you is a Principle imprinted on all mens minds to regard the good of all mankind considering men as united together in Societies But this innate Principle cannot procure that common good unless as there are people that must be governed so that very Principle ascertain who shall govern them To wit lest the stronger oppress the weaker and those persons who for their mutual Safety and Protection have united themselves together should be disunited and divided by Injury and Violence and reduced to a bestial savage life again This I suppose is what you mean Out of the number of those that united into one body you say there must needs have been same chosen who excelled the rest in Wisdom and Valour that they either by force or by persuasion might restrain those that were refractory and keep them within due bounds sometimes it would so fall out that one single Person whose Conduct and Valour was extraordinary might be able to do this and sometimes more assisted one another with their Advice and Counsel But since it is impossible that any one manshould order all things himself there was a necessity of his consulting with others and taking some into part of the Government with himself So that whether a single person reign or whether the Supreme Power reside in the body of the People since it is impossible that all should administer the affairs of the Common-wealth or that one man should do all the Government does always lye upon the shoulders of many And afterwards you say Both Forms of Government whether by many or a few or by a single person are equally according to the Law of Nature for both proceed from the same Principle of Nature viz. That it is impossible for any single person so to govern alone as not to admit others into a share of the Government with himself Tho I might have taken all this out of the Third Book of Aristotle's Politicks I chose rather to transcribe it out of your own Book for you stole it from him as Prometheus did Fire from Jupiter to the ruin of Monarchy and overthrow of your self and your own opinion For enquire as diligently as you can for your life into the Law of Nature as you have described it you will not find the least footstep in it of Kingly Power as you explain it The Law of Nature say you in ordering who should govern others respected the universal good of all mankind It did not then regard the private good of any particular person not of a Prince so that the King is for the People and consequently the People superior to him which being allowed it is impossible that Princes should have any right to oppress or enslave the people that the inferior should have right to tyrannize over the superior So that since Kings cannot pretend to any right to do mischief the right of the people must be acknowledged according to the Law of Nature to be superior to that of Princes so that by the same right that before King hip was known men united their Strength and Counsels for their mutual Safety and Defence by the same right that for the preservation of all mens Liberty Peace and Safety they appointed one or more to govern the rest by the same right they may depose those very persons whom for their Valour or Wisdom they advanced to the Government or any others that rule disorderly if they find them by reason of their slothfulness folly or impiety unfit for Government since Nature does not regard the good of one or of a few but of all in general For what sort of persons were they whom you suppose to have been chosen You say they were such as excelled in Courage and Conduct to wit such as by Nature seemed fittest for Government who by reason of their excellent Wisdom and Valour were enabled to undertake so great a Charge The consequence of this I take to be That right of Succession is not by the Law of Nature that no man by the Law of Nature has right to be King unless he excel all others in Wisdom and Courage that all such as Reign and want these qualifications are advanced to the Government by Force or Faction have no right by the Law of Nature to be what they are but ought rather to be Slaves than Princes For Nature appoints that Wise men should govern Fools not that Wicked men should rule over Good men Fools over wise men And consequently they that take the Government out of such mens hands act according to the Law of Nature To what end Nature directs Wise men should bear the Rule you shall hear in your own words viz. That by Force or by Persuasion they may keep such as are unruly within due bounds But how should he keep others within the bounds of their duty that neglects or is ignorant of or wilfully acts contrary to his own Alledg now if you can any dictate of Nature by which we are enjoyned to neglect the Wise Institutions of the Law of Nature and have no regard to them in Civil and Publick Concerns when we see what great and admirable things Nature her self effects in things that are inanimate and void of sense rather than lose her end Produce any Rule of Nature or Natural Justice by which inferior Criminals ought to be punished but Kings and Princes to go unpunished and not only so but tho guilty of the greatest Crimes imaginable be had in Reverence and almost adored You agree That all Forms of Government whether by many or a few or by a single person are equally agreeable to the Law of Nature So that the person of a King is not by the Law of Nature more sacred than a Senate of Nobles or Magistrates chosen from amongst the common people who you grant may be punished and ought to be if they offend and consequently Kings ought to be so too who are appointed to rule for the very same end and purpose that other Magistrates are For say you Nature does not allow any single person to bear rule so entirely as not to have Partners in the Government It does not therefore allow of a Monarch it does not allow one single person to rule so as that all others should be in a slavish subjection to his Commands only You that give Princes such Partners in the Government as in whom to use your own words the Government always resides do at the same time make others Colleagues with them and equal to them nay and consequently you settle a power in those Colleagues of punishing and of deposing them So that while you your self go about not to extol a Kingly Government but to establish it by the Law of Nature you destroy it no greater
as that with the same breath that you commend the Obedience and Submissiveness of those Nations of your own accord you make mention of Sardanapalus'r being deprived of his Crown by Arbaces Neither was it he alone that accomplished that Enterprise for he had the assistance of the Priests who of all others were best versed in the Law and of the people and it was wholly upon this account that he deposed him because he abused his authority and power not by giving himself over to cruelty but to luxury and effeminacy Run over the Histories of Herodotus Ctâ—sias Diodorus and you will find things quite contrary to what you assert here you will find that those Kingdoms were destroyed for the most part by subjects and not by foreigners that the Assyrians were brought down by the Medes who then were their subjects and the Medes by the Persians who at that time were like wise subject to them Your self confess that Cyrus rebell'd and that at the same time in divers parts of the Empire little upstart Governments were formed by those that shook off the Medes But does this agree with what you said before does this prove the obedience of the Medes and Persians to their Princes and that Jus Regium which you had asserted to have been universally received amongst those Nations What Potion can cure this brainsâ—… frenzy of yours You say It appears by Herodotus how absolute the Persian Kings were Cambyses being desirous to marry his Sister consulted with the Judges who were the Interpreters of the Laws to whose Judgment all difficult matters were to be referred What answer had he from them They told him They knew no Law which permitted a Brother to marry his Sister but another Law they knew that the Kings of Persia might do what they listed Now to this I answer if the Kings of Persia were really so absolute what need was there of any other to interpret the Laws besides the King himself Those superfluous unnecessary Judges would have had their abode and residence in any other place rather than in the Palace where they were altogether useless Agâ—in if those Kings might do what ever they would it is not credible that so ambitious a Prince as Cambyses was should be so ignorant of that grand Prerogative as to consult with the Judges whether what he desired were according to Law What was the matter then either they designed to humour the King as you say they did or they were afraid to cross his inclination which is the account that Herodotus gives of it and so told him of such a Law as they knew would please him and in plain terms made a fool of him which is no new thing with Judges and Lawyers now a days But say you Artabanus a Persian told Themistocles that there was no better Law in Persia than that by which it was Enacted That Kings were to be honoured and adored An excellent Law that was without doubt which commanded subjects to adore their Princes but the Primitive Fathers have long ago damned it and Artabanus was a proper person to commend such a Law who was the very man that a little while after slew Xerxes with his own hand You quote Regicides to assert Royalty I am afraid you have some design upon Kings In the next place you quote the Poet Claudian to prove how obedient the Persians were But I appeal to their Histories and Annals which are full of the Revolts of the Persians the Medes the Bactrians and Babylonians and give us frequent instances of the Murders of their Princes The next person whose authority you cite is Otanes the Persian who likewise killed Smerdis then King of Persia to whom out of the hatred which he bore to a Kingly Government he reckons up the impieties and injurious actions of Kings their violation of all Laws their putting men to death without a legal conviction their rapes and adulteries and all this you will have called the right of Kings and slander Samuel again as a teacher of such Doctrine You quote Homer who says that Kings derive their authority from Jupiter to which I have already given an answer For King Philip of Macedon whose asserting the right of Kings you make use of I 'le believe Charles his description of it as soon as his Then you quote some Sentences out of a fragment of Diogenes a Pythagorean but you do not tell us what sort of a King he speaks of Observe therefore how he begins that Discourse for whatever follows must be understood to have relation to it Let him be King says he that of all others is most just and so he is that acts most according to Law for no man can be King that is not just and without Laws there can be no Justice This is directly opposite to that Regal right of yours And Ecphantas whom you likewise quote is of the same opinion Whosoever takes upon him to be a King ought to be naturally most pure and clear from all imputation And a little after Him says he we call a King that governs well and he only is properly so So that such a King as you speak of according to the Philosophy of the Pythagoreans is no King at all Hear now what Plato says in his eighth Epistle Let Kings says he be liable to be called to account for what they do Let the Laws controul not only the people but Kings themselves if they do any thing not warranted by Law I 'le mention what Aristotle says in the Third Book of his Politicks It is neither for the Publick Good nor is it just says he where all men are by nature alike and equal that any one should be Lord and Master over all the rest neither where there are no Laws nor is it for the Publick Good or Just that one man should be a Law to the rest nor is it so where there are Laws nor that any one tho a good man thould be Lord over other good mâ—n nor a bad man over bad men And in the Fifth Book says he That King whom the people refuse to be govern'd by is no longer a King but a Tyrant Hear what Xenophon says in Hiero People are so far from revenging the Deaths of Tyrants that they confer great Honour upon him that Kills one and erect Statues in their Temples to the Honour of Tyrannicides Of this I can produce an 〈◊〉 witness Marcus Tullius in his Oration pro Milone The Grecians says he ascribe Divine Worship to such as kill Tyrants What things of this nature have 〈◊〉 my self seen at Athens and in other Cities of Greece How many Religious Observances have been inâ—…ted in honour of such men How many Hymns They are consecrated to Immortality and Adoration and their Memory endeavoured to be perpetuated And â—…ly Polybius an Historian of great Authority and Gravity in the Sixth Book of his 〈◊〉 says thus When Princes began to in 〈◊〉 their own Lusts and sensual Appetites then â—…doms
words for you were conscious to your self that you imposed upon your Readers in quoting them which I presently smelt out tho I could not find the place of a sudden For that Expression is not Tacitus's own who is an approved Writer and of all others the 〈◊〉 Enemy to Tyrants but Tacitus relates that â—…us a Gentleman of Rome being accused for a Capital Crime amongst other things that he said to save his life flattered Tiberius on this manner it is in the Sixth Book of his Annals The Gods have entrusted you with the ultimate Judgment in all things they have left us the honour of obedience And you cite this passage as if Tacitus had said it himself you 〈◊〉 together whatever seems to make for your Opinion either out of oftentation or out of weakness you would leave out nothing that you could find in a Baker's or a Barber's Shop â—ay you would be glad of any thing that looked like an Argument from the Hang-man himself If you would have read Tacitus himself and not have transcribed some loose Quotations out of him by other Authors he would have taught you whence that Imperial Right had its Original After the Conquest of Asia says he the whole state of our Affairs was turned upside down nothing of the ancient integrity of our Forefathers was left amongst us all men shook off that former equality which had been observed and began to have a reverence for the Mandates of Princes This you might have learned out of the Third Book of his Annals whence you have all your Regal Right When that ancient equality was laid aside and instead thereof Ambition and Violence took place Tyrannical Forms of Government started up and fixed themselves in many Countries This same thing you might have learned out of Dio if your natural Levity and Unsetledness of Judgment would have suffered you to apprehend any thing that 's solid He tells us in his Fifty third Book of his History out of which book you have made some quotation already That Octavius Caesar partly by Force and partly by Fraud brought things to that pass that the Emperors of Rome became no longer fettered by Laws For he tho he promised to the people in publick that he would lay down the Government and obey the Laws and become subject to others yet under pretence of making War in several Provinces of the Empire still retained the Legions and so by degrees invaded the Government which he pretended he would forgo This was not regularly getting from under the Law but breaking forcibly through all Laws as Spartacus the Gladiator might have done and then assuming to himself the style of Prince or Emperor as if God or the Law of Nature had put all men and all Laws into subjection under him Would yoâ— enquire a little further into the Original of the Right of the Roman Emperors Mircus Antonius whom Caesar when by taking up Arms against the Commonwealth he had got all the Power into his hands had made Consul when a Solemnity called the Luperelia was celebrated at Rome as had been contrived before-hand that he should set a Crown upon Caesar's head though the people sighed and lamented at the sight and caused it to be entred upon record That Mirous Antonius at the Lupercalia made Caesar King at the Instance of the people Of which action Cicero in his second Philippick Was Lucius Tarquinius therefore expelled says he Spurius Cassius Sp. Milius and Marcus Manilius put to death that after many ages Marcus Antonius should make a King in Rome contrary to Law But you deserve to be tortured and loaded with everlasting disgrace much more than Mark Antony tho I would not have you proud because he and your self are put together for I do not think so despicable a Wretch as you fit to be compared with him in any thing but Impiety you that in those horrible Lupercalia of yours set not a Crown upon one Tyrant's head but upon all and such a Crown as you would have limited by no Laws nor liable to any Indeed if we must believe the Oracles of the Emperors themselves for so some Christian Emperors as Theodosius and Valens have called their Edicts â—od lib. 1. tit 14. the Authority of the Emperors depends upon that of the Law So that the Majesty of the Person that reigns even by the Judgment or call it the Oracle of the Emperors themselves must submit to the Laws on whose Authority it depends Hence Pliny tells Trajan in his Panegyrick when the Power of the Emperors was grown to its height A Principality and an Absolute Sovereignty are quite different things Trajan puts down whatever looks like a Ringdom he rules like a Prince that there may be no room for a Magisterial Power And afterwards Whatever I have said of other Princes I said that I might show how our Prince reforms and corrects the Manners of Princes which by long custom have been corrupted and depraved Are not you ashamed to call that the Right of Kings that Pliny calls the corrupt and depraved Customs of Princes But let this suffice to have been said in short of the Right of Kings as it was taken at Rome How they dealt with their Tyrants whether Kings or Emperors is generally known They expelled Tarquin But say you How did they expel him Did they proceed against him judicially No such matter When he would have come into the City they shut the gates against him Ridiculous Fool What could they do but shut the gates when he was hastning to them with part of the Army And what great difference will there be whether they banished him or put him to death so they punished him one way or other The best men of that age kill'd Caesar the Tyrant in the very Senate Which action of theirs Marcus Tullius who was himself a very excellent man and publickly call'd the Father of his Countrey both elsewhere and particularly in his second Philippick extols wonderfully I 'll repeat some of his words All good Men kill'd Caesar as far as in them lay Some Men could not advise in it others wanted Courage to act in it others wanted an Opportunity all had a good will to it And afterwards What greater and more glorious Action ye holy gods ever was performed not in this City only but in any other Country what Action more worthy to be recommended to everlasting memory I am not unwilling to be included within the number of those that advised it as within the Trojan Horse The passage of Seneca may relate both to the Romans and the Grecians There cannot be a greater nor more acceptable Sacrifice offered up to Jupiter than a wicked Prince For if you consider Hercules whose words these are They shew what the Opinion was of the principal Men amongst the Grecians in that Age If the Poet who flourished under Nero and the most worthy Persons in Plays generally express the Poet 's own Sense then this passage shows us
even against Kings themselves if they act contrary to Law Aristotle likewise in the third Book of his Politicks Of all Kingdoms says he that are govern'd by Laws that of the Lacedemonians seems to be most truly and properly so And he says all forms of Kingly Governments are according to setled and establisht Laws but one which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Absolute Monarchy which he does not mention ever to have obtain'd in any Nation So that Aristotle thought such a Kingdom as that of the Lacedemonians was to be and deserve the name of a Kingdom more properly than any other and consequently that a King tho subordinate to his own people was nevertheless actually a King properly so called Now since so many and so great Authors assert that a Kingly Government both in name and thing may very well subsist even where the people tho they do not ordinarily exercise the Suâ—… Power yet have it actually residing in them and exercise it upon occasion Be not you of so mean a soul as to fear the down-fall of Grammer and the 〈◊〉 of the signification of words to that deâ—… as to betray the Liberty of Mankind and the State rather than your Glossary should not hold water And know for the future that words must be conformable to things not things to words By this means you 'l have more wit and not run on in infinitum which now you 're afraid of It was to no purpose then for Seneca you say to describe those three forms of Government as he has done Let Seneca do a thing to no purpose so we enjoy our Liberty And if I mistake us not we are other sort of men than to be enslav'd by Seneca's flowers And yet Seneca though he says that the Soveraign Power in a Kingly Government resides in a single person says withal that the power is the people's and by them committed to the King for the welfare of the whole not for their ruin and destruction and that the people has not given him a propriety in it but the use of it Kings at this rate you say do not reign by God but by the people As if God did not so over-rule the people that they set up such Kings as it pleases God Since Justinian himself openly acknowledgeth that the Roman Emperours derived their Authority from that Royal Law whereby the people granted to them and vested in them all their own power and authority But how oft shall we repeat these things over and over again Then you take upon you to intermeddle with the Constitution of our Government in which you are no ways concerned who are both a stranger and a foreigner but it shows your sawciness and want of good manners Come then let us hear your Soloecisms like a busie Coxcomb as you are You tell us but 't is in false Latin that what those Desperadoes say is only to deceive the people You Rascal was it for this that you a Renegado Grammarian were so forward to intermeddle with the affairs of our Government that you might introduce your Soloecisms and Barbarisms amongst us But say how have we deceiv'd the people The form of Government which they have set up is not Popular but Military This is what that herd of Fugitives and Vagabonds hired you to write So that I shall not trouble my self to answer you who bleat what you know nothing of but I 'le answer them that hired you Who excluded the Lords from Parliament was it the people Yea it was the people and in so doing they threw an intollerable yoke of Slavery from off their necks Those very Soldiers who you say did it were not foreigners but our own Country-men and a great part of the people and they did it with the consent and at the desire of almost all the rest of the people and not without the authority of the Parliament neither Was it the people that cut off part of the House of Commons forcing some away c. Yes I say it was the people For whatever the better and sounder part of the Senate did in which the true power of the people resided why may not the people be said to have done it What if the greater part of the Senate should chuse to be slaves or to expose the Government to sale ought not the lesser number to interpose and endeavour to retain their Liberty if it be in their power But the Officers of the Army and their Soldiers did it And we are beholden to those Officers for not being wanting to the State but repelling the Tumultary violence of the Citizens and Mechanicks of London who like that Rabble that appear'd for Clodius had but a little before beset the very Parliament House Do you therefore call the right of the Parliament to whom it properly and originally belongs to take care of the Liberty of the people both in Peace and War a Military power But 't is no wonder that those Traytors that have dictated these passages to you should talk at that rate so that profligate faction of Anthony and his adherents used to call the Senate of Rome when they armed themselves against the enemies of their Country The Camp of Pompey And now I 'm glad to understand that they of your party envy Cromwell that most valiant General of our Army his undertaking that Expedition in Ireland so acceptable to Almighty God surrounded with a joyful crowd of his Friends and prosecuted with the well-wishes of the people and the prayers of all good men For I question not but at the news of his many Victories there they are by this time bursten with spleen I pass by many of your impertinencies concerning the Roman Soldiers What follows is most notoriously false The power of the people say you ceases where there is a King By what Law or Right is that Since it is known that almost all Kings of what Nations soever received their Authority from the people upon certain conditions which if the King do not perform I wish you would inform us why that Power which was but a Trust should not return to the people as well from a King as from a Consul or any other Magistrate For when you tell us that 't is necessary for the Publick Safety you do but trifle with us for the safety of the Publick is equally concerned whether it be from a King or from a Senate or from a Triumvirate that the power wherewith they were entrusted revert to the people upon their abuse of it and yet you your self grant that it may so revert from all sorts of Magistrates a King only excepted Certainly if no people in their right wits ever committed the Government either to a King or other Magistrates for any other purpose than for the common good of them all there can be no reason why to prevent the utter ruin of them all they may not as well take it back again from a King as from other Governors nay
cause from preserving the State which when it was in a tottering condition and almost quite reduced to Slavery and utter ruin the whole body of the people had at first committed to their fidelity prudence and courage And they acted their parts like men they set themselves in opposition to the unruly wilfulness the rage the secret designs of an inveterate and exasperated King they prefer'd the common liberty and safety before their own they out-did all former Parliaments they out-did all their Ancestors in Conduct Magnanimity and steddiness to their cause Yet these very men did a great part of the people ungratefully desert in the midst of their undertaking though they had promised them all fidelity all the help and assistance they could afford them These were for Slavery and peace with sloth and luxury upon any terms Others demanded their Liberty nor would accept of a peace that was not sure and honourable What should the Parliament do in this case ought they to have defended this part of the people that was sound and continued faithful to them and their Country or to have sided with those that deserted both I know what you will say they ought to have done You are not Eurulochus but Elpenor a miserable Enchanted Beast a filthy Swine accustomed to a sordid Slavery even under a Woman so that you have not the least relish of true Magnanimity nor consequently of Liberty which is the effect of it You would have all other men slaves because you find in your self no generous ingenuous inclinations you say nothing you breath nothing but what 's mean and servile You raise another scruple to wit That he was the King of Scotland too whom we condemn'd as if he might therefore do what he would in England But that you may conclude this Chapter which of all others is the most weak and insipid at least with some witty querk There are two little words say you that are made up of the same number of Letters and differ only in the placing of them but whose significations are wide asunder to wit Vis and Jus might and right 'T is no great wonder that such a three letter'd man as you Fur a Thief should make such a Witticism upon three Letters 'T is the greater wonder which yet you assert throughout your Book that two things so directly opposite to one another as those two are should yet meet and become one and the same thing in Kings For what violence was ever acted by Kings which you do not affirm to be their Right These are all the passages that I could pick out of nine long Pages that I thought deserved an answer The rest consists either of repetitions of things that have been answered more than once or such as have no relation to the matter in hand So that my being more brief in this Chapter than in the rest is not to be imputed to want of diligence in me which how irksome soever you are to me I have not slackned but to your tedious impertinence so void of matter and sense CHAP. XII I Wish Salmasius that you had left out this part of your Discourse concerning the King's crimes which it had been more advisable for your self and your party to have done for I 'm afraid lest in giving you an answer to it I should appear too sharp and severe upon him now he is dead and hath received his punishment But since you chose rather to discourse confidently and at large upon that Subject I 'le make you sensible that you could not have done a more inconsiderate thing than to reserve the worst part of your cause to the last to wit that of ripping up and enquiring into the Kings Crimes which when I shall have proved them to have been true and most exorbitant they will render his memory unpleasant and odious to all good men and imprint now in the close of the Controversie a just hatred of you who undertake his defence on the Readers minds Say you His accusation may be divided into two parts one is conversant about his Morals the other taxeth him with such â—…lts as he might commit in his publick capacity I 'le be 〈◊〉 to pass by in silence that part of his life that he spent in Banqueâ—tings at Plays and in the conversation of Women for what can there be in Luxury and Excess worth relating And what would those things have been to us if he had been a private person But since he would be a King as he could not live a private life so neither could his Vices be like those of a private person For in the first place he did a great deal of mischief by his example In the second place all that time that he spent upon his lust and in his sports which was a great part of his time he stole from the State the Government of which he had undertaken Thirdly and lastly he squandered away vast Sums of Money which were not his own but the publick Revenue of the Nation in his Domestick Luxury and Extravagance So that in his private life at home he first began to be an ill King But let us rather pass over to those Crimes that he is charged with on the account of misgovernment Here you lament his being condemned as a Tyrant a Traytor and a Murderer That he had no wrong done him shall now be made appear But first let us define a Tyrant not according to vulgar conceits but the judgment of Aristotle and of all Learned Men. He is a Tyrant who regards his own welfare and profit only and not that of the people So Aristotle defines one in the Tenth Book of his Ethicks and elsewhere and so do very many others Whether Charles regarded his own or the peoples good these few things of many that I shall but touch upon will evince When his Rents and other publick Revenues of the Crown would not defray the Expences of the Court he laid most heavy Taxes upon the people and when they were squandred away he invented new ones not for the benefit honour or defence of the State but that he might hoard up or lavish out in one House the Riches and Wealth not of one but of three Nations When at this rate he broke loose and acted without any colour of Law to warrant his proceedings knowing that a Parliament was the only thing that could give him check he endeavoured either wholly to lay aside the very calling of Parliaments or calling them just as often and no oftner than to serve his own turn to make them entirely at his devotion Which Bridle when he had cast off himself he put another Bridle upon the people he put Garrisons of German Horse and Irish Foot in many Towns and Cities and that in time of Peace Do you think he does not begin to look like a Tyrant In which very thing as in many other Particulars which you have formerly given me occasion to instance in though you
and teach such a Doctor as you That the word Tyrant for all your concern is barely to have some understanding of words may be applied to one who is neither a Traytor nor a Murtherer But the Laws of England do not make it Treason in the King to stir up Sedition against himself or the people Nor do they say That the Parliament can be guilty of Treason by deposing a bad King nor that any Parliament ever was so tho they have often done it but our Laws plainly and clearly declare that a King may violate diminish nay and wholly lose his Royalty For that expression in the Law of St. Edward of losing the name of a King signifies neither more nor less than being deprived of the Kingly Office and Dignity which befel Chilperic King of France whose example for illustration-sake is taken notice of in the Law it self There is not a Lawyer amongst us that can deny but that the highest Treason may be committed against the Kingdom as well as against the King I appeal to Glanvile himself whom you cite If any man attempt to put the King to death or raise Sedition in the Realm it is High Treason So that attempt of some Papists to blow up the Parliament-House and the Lords and Commons there with Gunpowder was by King James himself and both Houses of Parliament declared to be High Treason not against the King only but against the Parliament and the whole Kingdom 'T would be to no purpose to quote more of our Statutes to prove so clear a Truth which yet I could easily do For the thing it self is ridiculous and absurd to imagine That High Treason may be committed against the King and not against the people for whose good nay and by whose leave as I may say the King is what he is So that you babble over so many Statutes of ours to no purpose you toil and wallow in our Ancient law-Law-Books to no purpose for the Laws themselves stand or fall by Authority of Parliament who always had power to confirm or repeal them and the Parliament is the sole Judge of what is Rebellion what High Treason Iaesa Majestas and what not Majesty never was vested to that degree in the Person of the King as not to be more conspicuous and more August in Parliament as I have often shown But who can endure to hear such a senseless Fellow such a French Mountebank as you declare what our Laws are And you English Fugitives so many Bishops Doctors Lawyers who pretend that all Learning and Ingenuous Literature is fled out of England with your selves was there not one of you that could defend the King's Cause and your own and that in good Latin too to be submitted to the judgment of other Nations but that this brain-sick beggarly Frenchman must be hired to undertake the Defence of a poor indigent King surrounded with so many Infant-Priests and Doctors This very thing I assure you will be a great imputation to you amongst Foreigners and you will be thought deservedly to have lost that Cause that you were so far from being able to defend by Force of Arms as that you cannot so much as write in behalf of it But now I come to you again good-man goose-cap who scribble so finely if at least you are come to your self again for I find you here towards the latter end of your Book in a deep sleep and dreaming of some voluntary Death or other that 's nothing to the purpose Then you deny that 't is possible for a King in his right wits to embroil his people in Seditions to betray his own Forces to be slaughtered by Enemies and raise Factions against himself All which things having been done by many Kings and particularly by Charles the late King of England you will no longer doubt I hope especially being addicted to Stoicism but that all Tyrants as well as profligate Villains are downright mad Hear what Horace says Whoever through a senseless Stupidity or any other cause whatsoever hath his Understanding so blinded as not to discern truth the Stoicks account of him as of a mad-man And such are whole Nations such are Kings and Princes such are all Man kind except those very few that are Wise So that if you would clear King Charles from the Imputation of acting like a Mad-man you must first vindicate his integrity and show that he never acted like an ill man But a King you say cannot commit Treason against his own Subjects and Vassals In the first place since we are as free as any People under Heaven we will not be impos'd upon by any Barbarous Custom of any other Nation whatsoever In the second place Suppose we had been the King's Vassals that Relation would not have obliged us to endure a Tyrant to Reign and Lord it over us All Subjection to Magistrates as our own Laws declare is circumscribed and confined within the bounds of Honesty and the Publick Good Read Leg. Hen. 1. Cap. 55. The Obligation betwixt a Lord and his Tenants is mutual and remains so long as the Lord protects his Tenant this all our Lawyers tells us but if the Lord be too severe and cruel to his Tenant and do him some heinous Injury The whole Relation betwixt them and whatever Obligation the Tenant is under by having done Homage to his Lord is utterly dissolv'd and extinguish'd These are the very words of Bracton and Fleta So that in some Case the Law it self warrants even a Slave or a Vassal to oppose his Lord and allows the Slave to kill him if he vanquish him in Battle If a City or a whole Nation may not lawfully take the Course with a Tyrant the Condition of Freemen will be worse than that of Slaves Then you go about to excuse King Charles's shedding of Innocent Blood partly by Murders committed by other Kings and partly by some Instances of Men put to Death by them lawfully For the matter of the Irish Massacre you refer the Reader to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I refer you to Eiconoclastes The Town of Rochel being taken and the Towns-men betray'd assistance shown but not afforded them you will not have laid at Charlos's door nor have I any thing to say whether he was faulty in that business or not he did mischief enough at home we need not enquire into what Misdemeanors he was guilty of abroad But you in the mean time would make all the Protestant Churches that have at any time defended themselves by force of Arms against Princes who were profess'd Enemies of their Religion to have been guilty of Rebellion Let them consider how much it concerns them for the maintaining their Ecclesiastical Discipline and asserting their own Integrity not to pass by so great an Indignity offered them by a Person bred up by and amongst themselves That which troubles us most is that the English likewise were betray'd in that Expedition He who had design'd long ago to convert