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-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
our Northern Counties and kept Garisons in the best Towns of those Parts and had the King himself in Custody whilest they likewise encouraged the tumultuating of those of their own Faction who did more than threaten the Parliament both in City and Country and through whose means not only a Civil but a War with Scotland too shortly after brake out If it has been always accounted praise-worthy in private Men to assist the State and promote the publick Good whether by Advice or Action our Army sure was in no fault who being ordered by the Parliament to come to Town obey'd and came and when they were come quell'd with ease the Faction and Uproar of the King's Party who sometimes threatned the House it self For things were brought to that pass that of necessity either we must be run down by them or they by us They had on their side most of the Shopkeepers and Handicrafts-men of London and generally those of the Ministers that were most factious On our side was the Army whose Fidelity Moderation and Courage were sufficiently known It being in our Power by their means to retain our Liberty our State our Common-safty do you think we had not been fools to have lost all by our negligence and folly They who had had places of Command in the Kings Army after their Party were subdued had laid down their Arms indeed against their Wills but continued Enemies to us in their hearts and they flock'd to Town and were here watching all opportunities of renewing the War With these Men tho they were the greatest Enemies they had in the World and thirsted after their Blood did the Presbyterians because they were not permitted to exercise a Civil as well as an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over all others hold secret Correspondence and took measures very unworthy of what they had formerly both said and done and they came to that Spleen at last that they would rather enthral themselves to the King again than admit their own Brethren to share in their Liberty which they likewise had purchased at the price of their own Blood they chose rather to be Lorded over once more by a Tyrant polluted with the Blood of so many of his own Subjects and who was enraged and breath'd out nothing but revenge against those of them that were left than endure their Brethren and Friends to be upon the square with them The Independents as they are called were the only men that from first to last kept to their point and knew what use to make of their Victory They refus'd and wisely in my opinion to make him King again being then an Enemy who when he was their King had made himself their Enemy Nor were they ever the less averse to a Peace but they very prudently dreaded a new War or a perpetual slavery under the name of a Peace To 〈◊〉 our Army with the more reproaches you begin a silly confused Narrative of our Affairs in which tho I find many things false many things frivolous many things laid to our charge for which we rather merit yet I think it will be to no purpose for me to write a true relation in answer to your false one For you and I are arguing not writing Histories and both sides will believe our reasons but not our narrative and indeed the nature of the things themselves is such that they cannot be related as they ought to be but in a set History so that I think it better as Salust said of Carthage Rather to say nothing at all than to say but a little of things of this weight and importance Nay and I scorn so much as to mention the praises of great men and of Almighty God himself who in so wonderful a course of Affairs ought to be frequently acknowledged amongst your Slanders and Reproaches I 'le therefore only pick out such things as seem to have any colour of argument You say the English and Scotch promised by a Solemn Covenant to preserve the Majesty of the King But you omit upon what terms they promised it to wit if it might consist with the safety of their Religion and their Liberty To both which Religion and Liberty that King was so averse to his last breath and watcht all opportunities of gaining advantages upon them that it was evident that his life was dangerous to their Religion and the certain ruin of their Liberty But then you fall upon the King's Judges again If we consider the thing aright the conclusion of this abominable action must be imputed to the Independents yet so as the Presbyterians may justly challenge the glory of its beginning and progress Hark ye Presbyterians what good has it done you how is your Innocence and Loyalty the more cleared by your seeming so much to abhor the putting the King to death You your selves in the opinion of this everlasting talkative Advocate of the King your accuser went more than half-way towards it you were seen acting the fourth Act and more in this Tragedy you may justly be charged with the King's death since you ban'd the way to it 't was you and only you that laid his head upon the Block Wo be to you in the first place if ever Charles his Posterity recover the Crown of England assure your selves you are like to be put in the Black List But pay your Vows to God and love your Brethren who have delivered you who have prevented that calamity from falling upon you who have saved you from inevitable ruin tho against your own wills You are accused likewise for that some years ago you endeavoured by sundry Petitions to lessen the Kings authority that you publisht some scandalous expressions of the King himself in the Papers you presented him with in the name of the Parliament to wit in that Declaration of the Lords and Commons of the 26th of May 1642 you declar'd openly in some mad Positions that breath'd nothing but Rebellion what your thoughts were of the King's authority Hotham by order of Parliament shut the Gates of Hull against the King you had a mind to make a trial by this first act of Rebellion how much the King would bear What could this man say more if it were his design to reconcile the minds of all English men to one another and alienate them wholly from the King for he gives them here to understand that if ever the King be brought back they must not only expect to be punisht for his Father's death but for the Petitions they made long ago and some acts that past in full Parliament concerning the putting down the Common-Prayer and Bishops and that of the Triennial Parliament and several other things that were Enacted with the greatest consent and applause of all the people that could be all which will be look'd upon as the Seditions and mad Positions of the Presbyterians But this vain fellow changes his mind all of a sudden and what but of late when he considered it aright
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-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
Aristotle whom you name so often if you had read him would have taught you as much in the beginning of his Politicks where he says they judge amiss that think there is but little difference betwixt a King and a Master of a Family For that there is not a numerical but a specifical Difference betwixt a Kingdom and a Family For when Villages grew to be Towns and Cities that Regal Domestick Right vanished by degrees and was no more owned Hence Diodorus in his first Book says That anciently Kingdoms were transmitted not to the former King's Sons but to those that had best deserved of the People And Justine Originally says he the Government of Nations and of Countries was by Kings who were exalted to that height of Majesty not by popular Ambition but for their Moderation which commended them to good Men. Whence it is manifest that in the very beginning of Nations that Fatherly and Hereditary Government gave way to vertue and the peoples right Which is the most natural reason and cause and was the true rise of Kingly Government For at first men entred into Societies not that any one might insult over all the rest but that in case any should injure other there might be Laws and Judges to protect them from wrong or at least to punish the wrong doers When men were at first dispers'd and scattered asunder some wise and eloquent man perswaded them to enter into Civil Societies that he himself say you might exercise Dominion over them when so united Perhaps you meant this of Nimrod who is said to have been the first Tyrant Or else it proceeds from your own malice only and certainly it cannot have been true of those great and generous spirited men but is a fiction of your own not warranted by any authority that I ever heard of For all ancient Writers tell us that those first Instituters of Communities of men had a regard to the good and safety of Mankind only and not to any private advantages of their own or to make themselves great or powerful One thing I cannot pass by which I suppose you intended for an Emblem to set off the rest of this Chapter If a Consul say you had been to be accused before his Magistracy expired there must have been a Dictator created for that purpose though you had said before that for that very reason there were two of them Just so your Positions always agree with one another and almost every Page declares how weak and frivolous whatever you say or write upon any subject is Under the ancient English-Saxon Kings you say the people were never called to Parliaments If any of our own Country-men had asserted such a thing I could easily have convinced him that he was in an error But I am not so much concerned at your mistaking our affairs because y' are a Foreigner This in effect is all you say of the Right of Kings in general Many other things I omit for you use many digressions and put things down that either have no ground at all or are nothing to the purpose and my design is not to vye with you in impertinence CHAP. VIII IF you had published your own opinion Salmasius concerning the Right of Kings in general without affronting any persons in particular yet notwithstanding this alteration of affairs in England as long as you did but use your own liberty in writing what your self thought fit no English man could have had any cause to have been displeased with you nor would you have made good the opinion you maintain ever a whit the less For if it be a positive command both of Moses and of Christ himself That all men whatsoever whether Spaniards French Italians Germans English or Scotch should be subject to their Princes be they good or bad which you asserted Page 127. to what purpose was it for you who are a foreigner and unknown to us to be tampering with our Laws and to read us Lectures out of them as out of your own Papers and Miscellanies which be they how they will you have taught us already in a great many words that they ought to give way to the Laws of God But now it is apparent that you have undertaken the defence of this Royal Cause not so much out of your own inclination as partly because you were hired and that at a good round price too considering how things are with him that set you on work and partly 't is like out of expectation of some greater reward hereafter to publish a scandalous Libel against the English who are injurious to none of their Neighbours and meddle with their own matters only If there were no such thing as that in the case is it credible that any man should be so impudent or so mad as though he be a stranger and at a great distance from us yet of his own accord to intermeddle with our affairs and side with a party What the Devil is it to you what the English do amongst themselves What would you have Pragmatical Puppy what would ye be at Have you no concerns of your own at home I wish you had the same concerns that that famous Olus your fellow busie-bosie body in the Epigram had and perhaps so you have you deserve them I 'm sure Or did that Hotspur your Wife who encouraged you to write what you have done for out-law'd Charles his sake promise you some profitable Professors place in England and God knows what Gratifications at Charles his Return But assure your selves my Mistress and my Master that England admits neither of Wolfes nor Owners of Wolfes So that it 's no wonder you spit so much venom at our English Mastiffs It were better for you to return to those Illustrious Titles of yours in France first to that hunger-starved Lordship of yours at St. Lou and in the next place to the Sacred Consistory of the most Christian King Being a Counsellor to the Prince you are at too great a distance from your own Country But I see full well that she neither desires you nor your Counsel nor did it appear she did when you were there a few years ago and began to lick a Cardinal's Trencher she 's in the right by my troth and can very willingly suffer such a little fellow as you that are but one half of a man to run up and down with your Mistress of a Wife and Desks full of Trifles and Fooleries till you light some where or other upon a Stipend large enough for a Knight of the Grammar or an Illustrious Critick on Horseback if any Prince or State has a mind to hire a Vagabond Doctor that is to be sold at a good round Price But here 's one that will bid for you whether you 're a Merchantable Commodity or not and what you are worth we shall see by and by You say The Parricides assert that the Government of England is not meerly Kingly but that it is a mixt