he thought was to be imputed wholly to the Presbyterians now that he considers the same thing from first to last he thinks the Independents were the sole Actors of it But even now he told us The Presbyterians took up Arms against the King that by them he was beaten taken captive and put in prison Now he says this whole Doctrine of Rebellion is the Independents Principle O! the faithfulness of this man's Narrative How consistent he is with himself What need is there of a Counter narrative to this of his that cuts its own throat But if any man should question whether you are an honest man or a Knave let him read these following lines of yours It is time to explain whence and at what time this Sect of Enemies to Kingship first began VVhy truly these rare Puritans began in Queen Elizabeths time to crawl out of Hell and disturb not only the Church but the State likewise for they are no less plagues to the latter than to the former Now your very speech bewrays you to be a right Balaam for where you designed to spit out the most bitter poyson you could there unwittingly and against your will you have pronounc'd a blessing For it 's notoriously known all over England that if any endeavoured to follow the example of those Churches whether in France or Germany which they accounted best Reformed and to exercise the publick Worship of God in a more pure manner which our Bishops had almost universally corrupted with their Ceremonies and Superstitions or if any seemed either in point of Religion or Morality to be better than others such â—…sons were by the Favourers of Episcopacy termed â—…ans These are they whose Principles you say are so opposite to Kingship Nor are they the only persons most of the Reformed Religion that have not sucked in the rest of their principles yet seem to have approved of those that strike at Kingly Government So that â—hile you inveigh bitterly against the Independents and endeavour to separate them from Christ's flock with the same breath you praise them and those Principles which almost every where you affirm to be peculiar to the Independents here you confess they have been approved of by most of the Reformed Religion Nay you are arrived to that degree of impudence impiety and apostacy that though formerly you maintained that Bishops ought to be extirpated out of the Church Root and Branch as so many pests and limbs of Antichrist here you say the King ought to protect them for the saving of his Coronation-Oath You cannot show your self a more infamous Villain than you have done already but by abjuring the Protestant Reformed Religion to which you are a scandal Whereas you tax us with giving a Toleration of all Sects and Heresies you ought not to find fault with us for that since the Church bears with such a prosâ—igate wretch as you your self such a vain fellow such a lyar such a Mercenary Slanderer such an Apostate one who has the impudence to affirm That the best and most pious of Christians and even most of those who profess the Reformed Religion are crept out of Hell because they differ in opinion from you I had best pass by the Calumnies that fill up the rest of this Chapter and those prodigious tenents that you ascribe to the Independents to render them odious for neither do they at-all concern the cause you have in hand and they are such for the most part as deserve to be laugh'd at and despised rather than receive a serious Answer CHAP. XI YOu seem to begin this Eleventh Chapter Salmasius though with no modesty yet with some sense of your weakness and trifling in this Discourse For whereas you proposed to your self to enquire in this place by what authority sentence was given against the King You add immediately which no body expected from you that 't is in vain to make any such enquiry to wit because the quality of the persons that did it leaves hardly any room for such a question And therefore as you have been found guilty of a great deal of Impupence and Sauciness in the undertaking of this Cause so since you seem here conscious of your own impertinence I shall give you the shorter answer To your question then by what authority the House of Commons either condemn'd the King themselves or delegated that power to others I answer they did it by vertue of the Supreme authority on earth How they come to have the Supreme Power you may learn by what I have said already when I refuted your Impertinencies upon that Subject If you believed your self that you could ever say enough upon any Subject you would not be so tedious in repeating the same things so many times over And the House of Commons might delegate their Judicial Power by the same reason by which you say the King may delegate his who received all he had from the people Hence in that Solemn League and Covenant that you object to us the Parliaments of England and Scotland solemnly protest and engage to each other to punish the Traytors in such manner as the Supreme Judicial Authority in both Nations or such as should have a Delegate power from them should think fit Here you hear the Parliaments of both Nations protest with one voice that they may Delegate their Judicial Power which they call the Supreme so that you move a vain and frivolous Controversie about Delegating this power But say you there were added to those Judges that were made choice of out of the House of Commons some Officers of the Army and that never was known that Soldiers had any right to try a Subject for his life I 'le silence you in a very few words You may remember that we are not now discoursing of a Subject but of an Enemy whom if a General of an Army after he has taken him Prisoner resolves to dispatch would he be thought to proceed otherwise than according to custom and Martial Law if he himself with some of his Officers should sit upon him and try and cendemn him An enemy to a State made a Prisouer of War cannot be lookt upon to be so much as a Member much less a King in that State This is declar'd by that Sacred Law of St. Edward which denies that a bad King is a King at all or ought to be called so Whereas you say it was not the whole but a part of the House of Comâ—â—ons that try'd and condemned the King I give you this answer The number of them who gave their Votes for putting the King to death was far greater than is necessary according to the custom of our Parliaments to transact the greatest Affairs of the Kingdom in the absence of the rest who since they were absent through their own fault for to revolt to the common enemy in their hearts is the worst sort of absence their absence ought not to hinder the rest who continued faithful to the
misfortune could befall Soveraign Princes than to have such an Advocate as you are Poor unhappy wretch what blindness of mind has seiz'd you that you should unwittingly take so much pains to discover your Knavery and folly and make it visible to the world which before you conceal'd in some measure and disguis'd that you should be so industrious to heap disgrace and ignominy upon your self What offence does Heaven punish you for in making you appear in publick and undertake the defence of a desperate Cause with so much impudence and childishness and instead of defending it to betray it by your ignorance What enemy of yours would desire to see you in a more forlorn despicable condition than you are who have no refuge left from the depth of misery but in your own imprudence and want of sense since by your unskilful and silly defence you have rendred Tyrants the more odious and detestable by ascribing to them an unbounded liberty of doing mischief with Impunity and consequently have created them more enemies than they had before But I return to your Contradictions When you had resolved with your self to be so wicked as to endeavour to find out a foundation for Tyranny in the Law of Nature you saw a necessity of extolling a Monarchy above other sorts of Government which you cannot go about to do without doing as you use to do that is contradicting your self For having said but a little before That all forms of Government whether by more or fewer or by a single person are equally according to the Law of Nature now you tell us that of all thâ—se sorts of Government That of a single person is most natural Nay though you had said in express terms but lately That the Law of Nature does not allow that any Government should reside entirely in one man Now upbraid whom you will with the putting of Tyrants to death since you your self by your own folly have â—ut the Throats of all Monarchs nay even of Monarchy it self But it is not to the purpose for us here to dispute which form of Government is best by one single person or by many I confess many eminent and famous men have extolled a Monarchy but it has always been upon this supposition that the Prince were a very excellent person and one that of all others deserved best to reign without which Supposition no form of Government can be so prone to Tyranny as Monarchy is And whereas you resemble a Monarchy to the Government of the World by one Divine Being I pray answer me Whether you think that any other can deserve to be invested with a power here on earth that shall resemble his power that Governs the World than such a person as doth infinitely excel all other men and both for Wisdom and Goodness in some measure resemble the Deity and such a person in my opinion none can be but the Son of God himself And whereas you make a Kingdom to be a kind of a Family and make a comparison betwixt a Prince and a Master of a Family observe how lame the Parallel is For a Master of a Family begot part of his Houshold at least he feeds all those that are of his house and upon that account deserves to have the Government but the reason holds not in the case of a Prince nay 't is quite contrary In the next place you propose to us for our imitation the example of inferiour Creatures especially of Birds and amongst them of Bees which according to your skill in Natural Philosophy are a sort of Birds too The Bees have a King over them The Bees of Trent you mean do'nt you remember all other Bees you your self confess to be â—…wealths But leave off playing the fool with Bees they 〈◊〉 to the Muses and hate and you see confute â—…etle as you are The Quails are under a Captain Lay 〈◊〉 snares for your own Bitterns you are not Fowler good enough to catch us Now you begin to be personally concerned Galius Gallinaceus a Cock say you has both Cocks and Hens under him How can that be since you your self that are Gallus and but too much Gallinaceus by report cannot Govern your own single Hen but let her Govern you So that if a Gallinaceus Bee a King over many Hens you that are a slave to one must own your self not to be so good as a Gallinaceus but some Sterâ—orarius Gallus Dunghill-Cock or other For matter of Books there is no body publishes huger Dunghills than you and you disturb all people with your shitten Cock-crow that 's the only property in which you resemble a true Cock I 'le throw you a great many Barley-corns if in ransacking this Dunghill Book of yours you can show me but one Jewel but why should I promise you Barley that never pâ—â—kt at corn as that honest plain Cock that we read of in Aesop but at Gold as that Roguey Cock in Plautus though with a different event for you found a hundred Jacobusses and he was struck dead with Euclio's Club which you deserve more than he did But let us go on That same natural reason that designs the good and safely of all mankind requires that whoever is once promoted to the Sâ—…ignty be preserved in the possession of it Whoever question'd this as long as his preservation is consistent with the safety of all the rest But is it not obvious to all men that nothing can be more contrary to natural reason than that any one man should be preserved and defended to the utter ruin and destruction of all others But yet you say it is better to keep and defend a bad Prince nay one of the worst that ever was than to change him for another because his ill Government cannot do the Commonwealth so much harm as the disturbances will occasion which must of necessity be raised before the people can get rid of him But what is this to the right of Kings by the Law of Nature If nature teacheth me rather to suffer my self to be robbed by High-way men rather if I should be taken captive by such to purchase my Liberty with all my Estate than to fight with them for my life can you infer from thâ—… that they have a natural right to rob and spoil me Nature teacheth men to give way sometimes to the violence and outrages of Tyrants the necessity of affairs sometimes enforceth a Toleration with their enormities what foundation can you find in this forced patience of a Nation in this compulsory submission to build a right upon for Princes to Tyrannize by the Law of Nature that right which Nature has given the people for their own preservation can you affirm that she has invested Tyrants with for the people's ruin and destruction Nature teacheth us of two evils to chuse the least and to bear with oppression as long as there is a necessity of so doing and will you infer from hence that Tyrants have some right by
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