of a King A King of England of whose Predecessors the Parliament of England had declar'd That they could not assent to any thing that tended to the dis-inherison of the King and his Crown Sir Ed. Coke 4 Inst 14. whereunto they were Sworn But what could the wisest of Men say to it when the Parliament and the Rabble were both of a side And whether they were so or not witness those Tumultuary Routs from the Men of Essex Colchester Devon Somerset Middlesex Hartford Sir W Dagdale's Short View Fol. â—5 London Apprentices Seamen nay the very Women and all for putting the Kingdom into a Posture c On which follow'd those several Associations for suppressing the Popish Malignant Party though in truth it was to pursue the King with all vehemence Id. Dagd 113. for such are the Words of Essex's Letter to the Houses near that time Nor were the Black Cloaks less wanting to their Parts they could blow the Bellows well enough tho' they car'd not how little they wrought at the Forge And therefore seeing the Reverence of his Government was lost with the People and the Great Ones moving at another rate quam ut Imperantium meminissent 〈◊〉 As it was no less than time for His Majesty to retire and pray for fair Weather so our Answerer instead of snarling and catching at his Words might have suffer'd him to depart in Peace But to go on with him I am saith the King not further bound to agree with the Votes of both Houses than I see them agree with the Will of God my Rights as a King and the general good of my People And better for me to die enjoying this Empire of my Soul which subjects me only to God than live with the Title of a King if it carry such a Vassallage with it as not to suffer me to use my Reason and Conscience in which I declare as a King to like or dislike An use of Reason saith our Answerer If he thereby means his Negative Voice most reasonless and unconscionable and the utmost that any Tyrant ever pretended over his Vassals For if the King be only set up to execute the Law which is indeed the highest of his Office he can no more reject a Law offer'd him by the Common than he can new-make a Law which they reject And yet as reasonless and unconscionable as he pretends to make it this Negative Voice is and ever has been the undoubted Right of the Kings of England For besides what I had the occasion to speak to this matter before it is no Statute if the King assent not to it Because if it were all those Bills that have passed both Houses and for want of the Royal Assent lie buried in Oblivion might as occasion serv'd be trump'd up for Laws And if he may dis-assent it is a sufficient Proof of this Negative Voice and that he may refuse or ratifie as he sees cause And withal shews where this Legislation lies though the use of it be restrained to the consent of both Houses whose Rogation which is exclusive of all co-ordinate Power preceeds the Kings Ratification Then for his if the King be only set up c. If this if be false his whole matter falls with it And that it is so I thus prove it The Parliament-Roll 1 Edw. I. n. 8. says That upon the decease of King Richard the Second 9 Edw. 4. Fol. â— 6 the Crown by Law Custom and Conscience descended and belonged to Edmund Earl of March under whom King Edward the Fourth claimed And Henry the Fourth who had usurp'd upon King Richard the Second makes no other Title but as Inheritor to King Henry the Third Sir J. Hayward's 1st year of â—â—n 4. So the Parliament of the first of King James the First Recognize as say they we are bound by the Law of God and Man the Realm of England and the Imperial Crown thereof doth belong to him by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession The same also for Queen Elizabeth 1 Eliz â— 1. as to her Which shews that Kings are neither set up by the People nor have the Titles to their Crowns from the two Houses but by Inherent Birthright Which needs no setting up And so I think what depends upon this if sinks with it though I shall have a further occasion to speak to it in his next Paragraph And here he taxes the King for saying He thinks not the Majesty of the Crown of England to be bound by any Coronation Oath in a blind and brutish formality to consent to whatever its Subjects in Parliament shall require But where does the Law of England say the King is so bound Tho' yet out Answerer is pleas'd to say What Tyrant could presume to say more when he meant to kiâ—â— down all Law Government and Bond of Oath Least considering what his Majesty subjoyns viz. I think my Oath fully discharg'd is that Point by my Governing only by such Laws as my People with the House of Peers have chosen and my self consented to Nor did the Coronation Promise See the Oath in every Hist of his Reign or Oath oblige him to more than To hold and keep the Laws and rightful Customs which the Commonalty of this his Kingdom have and to defend and uphold them to the Honour of God so much as in him lay Whereas had there been any Obligation upon him to have consented to whatever the Parliament shall require it is not to be doubted but it would have been expressed in the Oath as it is not And yet our Answerer less doubts to say That that Negative Voice to deny the passing of any Law which the Commons chuse is both against the Oath of his Coronation and his Kingly Office in that he makes himself Superiour to his whole Kingdom which our standing Laws gainsay as hath been cited to him in Remonstrances That the King hath two Superiors the Law and his Court of Parliament An excellent Proof in the mean time But we 'll examine it a little The Common-Law saith Omnis sub Rege Sir E. Coke 1 Inst 1. c. Every Man is under the King and he under none but God And to the same purpose Bracton Lib. â— Ed. 55. 2 Inst 496. from whom he quotes it His Prerogative is a part of the Law of the Land All offences are said to be against the Peace of our Sovereign Lord the King c. The Laws of England are call'd the King's Laws The Parliament as is confess'd to my hand his Parliament And therein also the King is sole Judge 22 Ed III. 3. the rest but Advisers His is the power of Calling Proroguing and Dissolving them 4 Inst 46. Id. Inst 3. And by his Death they are dissolv'd of course And why all this but that the King is Principium Caput c. The beginning the head and end of a Parliament As he is also the Head of
the Commonwealth And of the Law 1 Inst 73. Id. Inst 99. which he is presum'd to carry in Scrinio pectoris sui And then for the Statute-Law besides those Statutes that call the Kingdom the Kings Ligeance 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 10 11. R. 2. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 3. the King Liege Lord the People his Leige Men it is further declared 16 R. 2. c. 5. That the Crown of England hath been ever so free that it is in no Earthly Subjection but subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other So that of Henry the Eighth which says That by sundry old Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declar'd and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire govern'd by one Supream Head and King 24 H. 8. c. 12. unto whom both Spiritualty and Temporalty are bound and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble Obedience And in another of the same King 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of England is called An Imperial Crown recognizing no Superiour under God but only your Grace i. e. the King Which Statutes being declaratory Statutes as others of that kind made in affirmance of the Common-Law are a guide in praeteritis 2 Inst 308. as saith Sir Edw. Coke and shew us what the Law as before the making of those Statutes Which I the rather urge because our Answerer makes such a sputter about the old Law though as well here as generally throughout his Book he has an odd way with him of keeping it to himself However if this be to have a Superiour be the Superiour he that will and keep it without Envy And for what concerns me I hope I have prov'd that the King of England has no Superiour but God and that neither the Law nor his Coronation-Oath require his undeniable Assent to what Laws the Parliament agree upon but that he may well refuse them without the Imputation of Incomparable Arrogance aâ—â—Vnsufferable Tyranny as he is pleas'd to term it One thing I had forgot Suppose the King had never been Crown'd by which means he could not have taken the Coronation Oath was he the less King for that I should think not And if I am mistaken 3 Inst 7. Sir Edw. Coke was mistaken before me when he says The King iâ— King before Coronation So 7 Coke Calvin's Case and Coronation is but an Ornament or Solemnity of Honour Which in other Words may amount to this That he promises no more at that time that what he was morally pre-oblig'd to do viz. To discharge that Duty honourably which the Laws of God and Nature had requir'd of him without that Royal Promise CHAP. VII Vpon the Queen's Departure and Absence out of England AND truly this Chapter being but a kind of Re-capitulation of the mutual Endearments between the King and his Queen whose Sympathy with his Afflictions had assur'd him and might the World that she lov'd him and not his Fortunes might one would think if not for the King 's have for her own sake escap'd his Venom but poor Lady she was the King's Wife and Malice like Fear where it finds no real Object will be sure to create one And truly it was once in my Thoughts to have spoken more at large to it and had done it but that I fear'd even Truth it self might incurr the suspicion of Flattery What my end was in making this Reply I have already shewn it was to vindicate that good King from this ill Man's Calumnies and the Method I have taken in it has been from the History of that time and the Prior Law of the Land as it came in my way and therefore not to break that Method as I find him hereafter running wide of that Matter I shall purposely leave him as I do at present CHAP. VIII Vpon His Majesty's repulse at Hull and the Fates of the Hothams THIS my repulse at Hull saith the King was the first overt Essay to be made how patiently I could bear the loss of my Kingdoms The hand of that Cloud which was soon after to over-spread the whole Kingdom and cast all into disorder and darkness Which how Prophetically true it was the miserable effects of it both before and since the Restauration have too visibly spoken it And yet our Answerer thus slubbers it over That Hull a Town of great Strength and Opportunity both to Sea and Land Affairs was at that time the Magazine of all those Arms which the King had bought against the Scots The King had left the Parliament and was gone Northward The Queen into Holland where she pawn'd and set to Sale the Crown Jewels a Crime heretofore counted Treasonable in Kings and to what purpose the Parliament was not ignorant and timely sent Sir John Hotham Knight of that County to take Hull into his Custody and some of the Train'd-bands to his Assistance and seeing the King's Drift in raising a Guard for his Person send him a Petition that they might have leave to remove the Magazine of Hull to the Tower of London which the King denies and soon after goes to Hull with Four Hundred Horse and requires the Governour to deliver him up the Town whereof the Governour prays to be excused till he could send notice to the Parliament who had entrusted him and the King being incens'd at it Proclaims him a Traytor before the Town Walls and demands Justice of them as upon a Traytor who declare that Sir John Hotham had done no more than his Duty and therefore was no Traytor And this is the Substance of his 57. 58. 59 Pages How and by their own Authority which was none the Houses had rais'd an Army and made Essex General I have already shewn and though the King had not yet set up his Standard he knew he had a Magazine at Hull which might either help to defend himself or certainly annoy him if it fell into his Enemies Hands and therefore in order to a Self-Preservation takes a Journey to York where the Parliament had been before him with a Committee then lying there as Spies upon his Actions However upon Petition of that County to have the Magazine of Hull to remain there for the greater Security of the Northern Parts His Majesty thought fit to take it into his own Hands and appointed the Earl afterwards Duke of Newcastle to be Governour of Hull but the Townsmen had been so influenc'd by that Committee that they refused the Earl The Queen also had borrow'd some Moneys of the Hollanders upon the Crown Jewels a Crime heretofore counted treasonable in Kings but not a word of when or by what Law not in the least considering the Crown it self was the King's or how the King of England could commit Treason against himself The Houses during this time wanting no Intelligence from their Committee nick the Opportunity and send down Sir John Hotham who was receiv'd as
That all Kings are the Lord 's Anointed it were yet absurd to think that the Anointment of God should be as it were a Charm against Law I know not what he means by that all Kings Saul was David was and particularly laments the fall of Saul As if he had not been anointed with Oil. 2 Sam. 1.11 And I never found any reason to doubt but that all Christian Hereditary Kings are the same too and consequently exempt from the Law forasmuch as concerneth the coactive force of the Law though not forasmuch as concerneth the directive Power of the Law Lord â—leâ—meâ—'s post â—â—ti 106. Subjects are bound to fullfil the Law by necessity of Compulsion but the Prince only by his own Will in regard of the common good For seeing the Law is but a kind of Organ or Instrument of the Power that governeth Hist of the World 29â— it seems saith Sir Walter Rawleigh that it cannot extend it self to bind any one whom no humane power can controul or lay hold of And therefore till I find better Authority for this his Iustice than he has yet given I shall look upon it as I do on the rest of his Book a thing meerly stuffed out to deceive the People If Subjects also by the Law of the Church so much approv'd by this King be invested with a Power of Judicature both without and against their King it will be firm and valid against him though pretending and by them acknowledg'd next and immediately under Christ Supream Head and Governour But what King or Queen of England besides Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Mary for her two first Years ever us'd that word Head Or in what Age was it that the Church of England ever pretended a power of Judicature both without and against their Kings He says if they are invested with such a Power but shews not that they are and instead thereof tells us that St. Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius the Emperour which he calls a Spiritual putting to death The like did St. German by Vortiger And two other Kings of Wales excommunicated by their respective Bishops Subjects of those Kings And admitting it I never heard that any of those Bishops ever perswaded the People that it was lawful to Murther those Kings or how does it make out this his Iustice against the King 'T is a shrewd sign a Man is sinking when he takes hold of Twigs Then he comes up with the particular Laws and Acts of Greece Athens Sparta Rome c. But what 's that to England must we be govern'd as they were Their Laws were for it the Laws of England directly against it Nor is there any Country whatever but has its particular Laws or Customs If a Man steal an Oxe or a Horse in the Isle of Man it is no Felony 4 Inst 285. for having no Woods the Offender cannot hide them but if he steal a Capon or a Pig he shall be hang'd for it But what need we saith he search after the Laws of other Lands for what is so fully and so plainly set down lawful in our own Where antient Books tell us Bracton Fleta and others that the King is under the Law and inferiour to his Parliament As for Bracton the Words that he means may be perhaps these Rex habet Superiorem Deum scilicet Item Legem per quam factus est Rex Item curiam suam viz. Comites Barones The King hath a Superiour to wit God But doth not say Superiours in the Plural Number Also a Law by which he is made King i. e. He hath a Law but says not a word of Punishment Also his Court to wit his Earls and Barons Not a Court as if it were of some others Constitution but a Court of his own Where the word habet in Propriety of Latin is necessarily understood 1 Inst 1. Or otherwise he would be contradictory to himself when he saith Omnis sub Rege Bra. l. 4. c. 24. S. 5. c. Every Man is under the King and he is under none but God He is not inferiour to his Subjects and hath no Peer in his Realm But saith no where that he is under the Law and inferiour to his Parliament which word his sufficiently denotes where the Superiority lies And for Fleta he saith Lib. 1. c. 17. f. 16. None can judge in Temporal Matters but only the King and his Substitutes Id. F. 66. And he hath his Court in his Council in his Parliaments c. And for the Mirrour of Justice a Book written in Edward the First 's time that says Mirâ— 232. Jurisdiction is the chief Dignity that appertains to the King And for what concerns the King's Oath it has been several times altered since that And what this King's Oath was I have particularly shewn before Chap. 6 Those objected Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy we swore not to his Person but as it was invested with his Authority The same said the Spencers in Edward the Second's time but it was condemned for Treason by two Acts of Parliament 7 Coke 11 12. And Sir Edw. Coke calls it a damnable detestable and execrable Treason For Corps natural le Roy politique sont un Corps Plowd 213.234.242 and are inseparable and indivisible for both make but one King 4 Inst 46. The death of the King dissolveâ— a Parliament Now if this referr'd only to his politick Capacity the Parliament would continue after his Death because a Body Politick never dies And now as the Covenant once help'd the Houses at a dead lift it must do our Accuser the like Job at parting or this his Iustice will be little beholding to it Certainly no discreet Person can imagine it should bind us to him in any stricter Sense than those Oaths formerly And truly I must approve him when he deals ingenuously no certainly it did not for they broke all three The intent of the Covenant as it was to extirpate Prelacy to preserve the Rights of Parliament and the Liberties of the Kingdom so they intended so far as it might consist with these to preserve the King's Person and Authority but not otherwise for that had been to swear us into Labirynths and Repugnancies We vow'd farther to bring Delinquents to open Tryal and condign Punishment So that to have done so by the King hath not broke the Covenant but it would have broke the Covenant to have sav'd him the chief Actor as they thought him at the time of taking that Covenant Ye have heard what he says and I leave it to every Man to apply it as he pleases But because this matter has already taken up a whole Chapter between us I referr my Reader to what I have there said Chap. 14 And now to close all and if there be any Man has a Mind to learn how to break Oaths by Providence and forswear himself to the Glory of God To say Grace to the action be it never so ungodly and give Thanks for the Success be it never so wicked To carry on a Design under the name of Publick Good and make the slavery of a Nation the liberty of the People Or in a word to hold forth any useful though notorious Untruth with convenient Obstinacy until he believes it himself and so renders it no Sin let him read this Book of Mr. Milton's and if he does not improve upon it he may thank God for it FINIS
what the Memorandum further says That King Charles the Second and the Duke of York did assure him it was none of the said King 's compiling c. An Earl it is said wrote it and I dispute it not but this I say That neither the King nor the Duke could speak it of their own knowledge but as by report from others because the King then Prince of Wales from his Expedition into the West with General Ruthien from whence he went off to France could not have seen His Father in near four Years before His death and therefore it seems improbable that the King should have shewn him a Letter To the Prince of Wales and at the same time told him it was not of his own compiling when yet the Letter says Id. Iâ—â—n 221. Son if these Papers come to your hands c. and concludes Farewel till we meet if not on Earth yet in Heaven And if the King did not tell him so then what he assured the Earl could not be of his own knowledge And for the Duke of York he was under Thirteen at the Surrender of Oxford from whence he was brought to St. James's where he made his Escape for Dort so that except when he saw his Royal Father at Hampton-Court which could not be often he could not have seen him in two Years and an half before his Death Nor seems it probable that the King should communicate his Thoughts with a Person of those Years albeit a Prince and his Son but not his next Heir But on the contrary more probable for both that what they so spake was but by report which young Princes are but too apt to take up from those who to cover their own Ignorance perswade them it smells too strong of the Pedant for a King to take up a Pen when yet the greatest of former Ages are oftner remmembred by their Pens than their Swords Caesar yet lives in his Commentaries M. Aurelius in his Philosophy and we may read Trajan by his Epistles to Pliny But to come nearer home Our Henry the first is as well known by the Name of Beauclerke as of King of England Henry the Eighth's Pen not his Sword gave him the Title of Defender of the Faith And this the Royal Portraict of our murther'd Sovereign shall outlast every thing but it self and Time Lastly And if there yet want some living credible Testimony of that time or matter of Record since Sir William Dugdate an indefatigable Searcher of our English Antiquities and perfect Master of the Transactions of his own Time gives us this gradual account viz. That these Meditations had been begun by His Majesty in Oxford long before he went from Oxford to the Scots under the Title of Suspiria Regalia That the Manuscript it self written with his own Hand being lost at Naseby was restored to him at Hampton-Court by Major Huntington who had obtain'd it from Fairfax That Mr. Thomas Herbert who waited on His Majesty in his Bed-Chamber in the Isle of Wight and Mr. William Levett a Page of the Back-stairs frequently saw it there and not only read several parts of it but saw the King divers times writing farther on it And that that very Copy was by his Majesty's direction to Bishop Duppa sent to Mr. R. Royston a Bookseller at the Angel in Ivy-Lane the 23d of December 1648. who made such Expedition that the Impression was finish'd before that dismal 30th of January on which the King was bereft of his Life As may be better read from himself Sir W. Dugdâ—â—â—'s Short View c. p. 380 381. in his Short View of the late Troubles in England And this further I speak of my own Knowledge That the very next Morning after that horrid Act I saw one of them and read part of it under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which it now bears And for matter of Record and that the World may the more undeniably be convinc'd that both King Charles the Second and King James the Second did believe this Book was written by their Royal Father let him that doubts it but look upon Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae Printed it the Year 1662 or any Impression of this Book since that time and he will find prefix'd to them a Privilege or Patent of King Charlâ— the Second to the said Mr. Royston his Executors c. for the sole Printing and Publishing the Book intituled Reliquiae c. and all other the Works of his said Royal Father and moâ— especially mentions these most excellent Meditation and Soliioquies by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it so happening that most of that Impression in 1662. coming to be lost in the Fire of London whereby the Book became very dear anâ— scarce to be had King James the Second upon his coming to the Crown reciting those former Letters Patent grants him the like Privilege for the Printing and Publishing the said Book as it had been in the Year 1662. And now what shall an honest Man do in such a Case sâ—aâ— he give Credit to a bare Memorandum of what another said and as 't is most probable by report only or say the Circumstances before were not of weight to two Records For my part I take the King's Certificate to be of high nature yet I should hardly believe thâ— King himself against any one single Record against which the Law of England admits no Averrment and therefore I think no Man ought to make more of a Posthumous Memorandum than what the Law makes of it In a word these Pathetick Meditations no sooner came abroad than the Nation was undeceiv'd concerning the Author the Scales were fallen from their Eyes and they religiously look'd on Him whom in the simplicity of their Hearts they had pierced These our Pharisees saw and confest it themselves but said they if we let it alone the Romans will come and take away our City And therefore finding they could not suppress them they made it their Eusiness what in them lay to blot them Nay to that impudence they were arrived that and I saw it my self this Icon was exposed to Sale bound up with the Alcoran III. What end I proposed to my self in making this Reply And that 's easily shown nor is it forbidden any Man to burn Incense where the Air 's infected That this Royal Martyr has been calumniated is but too visible but how justly I am coming to examine In which I have this advantage to my hand That Time the Mother of Truth has justified her Daughter concerning Him and might have stopt the Rancour of his most inveterate Enemies but that nothing how evident soever can affect those that have a secret against blushing To be short my end is to vindicate this Good this Just however Unfortunate Prince to blow off that Froth that has been thrown on his Memory and according to my strength deliver him to the World as he was A great if not the only steddy
in the matter I shall not be shie in it It is and ever was the Law of England that the sole supream Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all places of Strength is and ever were the undoubted Right of His Majesty and of his Royal Predecessors Kings and Queens of England Or else what means that of Fitz-Herbert Nat. Brev. p. 113. It is the Right of the King to defend his Kingdom To make Leagues and denounce War only belongs to the King 7 Coke 2â— as a Right of Majesty which cannot be conferred upon any other And how can he do it without the power of the Sword that is the sole Command of the Militia To levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King unto whom it only belongeth Id. Coke 3 Inst 9. was High Treason at the Common-Law before the Statute de proditionibus 25 Ed. 3. And a latter Statute not introductive of a new Law but declaratory of the old Law has the very Words touching the sole Command of the Militia 13 Car. 2. c. 2. c. before-mention'd with this farther That both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same nor can or lawfully may raise or levy War offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors Short View c. Fol. 86. And was confest by themselves when they acknowledg'd the Militia an inseparable Flower of the Crown and subject to no command but his Authority And yet contrary to this known Law these two Houses not only Petition the King That the Tower of London c. as before be forthwith put into such Hands as shall be recommended to him by both the Houses but upon his recess from Whitehall send him a Peremptory Petition That unless the King by those Commissioners then sent assure them of their former desires Mar. 1. 1641. Rushw Col. Fol. 92. they shall be enforced to dispose of the Militia by the Authority of both Houses which upon the King's refusal Sir Will. Dugdale 's Short View p. 85. they Vote a Denial and dispose of it themselves And now they begin to unpin the Mask and publish a Declaration wherein they say That what the Houses declare for Law ought not to be question'd by the King That the Sovereign Power resides in both Houses That the King ought to have no Negative Voice That Treason cannot be committed against the King's Person otherwise than as he is entrusted with the Kingdom and discharges that Trust and that they have a Power to judge whether he hath discharged that Trust or not 7 Coke 11. Fine dainty Law And the Spencers Treason in Edward the Second's time but better improv'd In the May following they fall a-branching it into nineteen Propositions Rushw 307. V. The Statutes at large many of which are but the substance of those Acts pass'd by Edward the Third in the fifteenth of his Reign and revoked by him the same Year as derogatory to his Crown and send them to the King which being refus'd by him they Vote The King intended a VVar upon them and thereupon raise an Army and suffering the Mask to drop off make Essex General thereof 12 Jul. 42. and farther Vote They will live and die with him On which the King sets up his Standard at Nottingham the August following Nor will I carry it further at present because I design not a History but only to shew which of the two the King or the Houses intended a Civil VVar and whether they did not undoe what they found well done In short their Endeavours were to strip the King of what God and the Law had given him the King 's was but to keep what he ought to have and therefore viewing both by a true light How can the King be justly charg'd with intending a VVar when it was in a manner but a suing for his own CHAP. VI. Vpon his Majesty 's retirement from Westminster WITH what unwillingness saith His Majesty I withdrew Westminster let them judge who unprovided of Tackling and Victual are forced to Sea by a Storm yet better do so than venture splitting or sinking on a Lee-Shoar And if the Parallel held not in all its Parts our Answerer had done well to have shewn in which it fell short whereas instead thereof he only says He was about to have found fault with the Simile as a garb somewhat more Poetical than for a Statist and finds it the strain of other of his Essays But what 's this to the matter farther than that in the Words His Essays a Truth slipt from him unawares in confessing them to have been written by the King and not by his Houshold Rhetorician as before But to the Argument saith he and I follow him with this by the way to my Reader That he would consider how the Houses had depriv'd the King of his Friends disrobed him of his Power trampled his Authority affronted his Person baited him with a Rabble and left him nothing but what could not be taken from him a good God and the satisfaction of a Conscience founded on a Compositum jus fasque animo Sanctosque recessus Mentis incoctum generoso pectus honesto And then tell me in what condition he was when he left Westminster I stay'd at Whitehall saith His Majesty till I was driven away by Shame more than Fear to see the barbarous rudeness of those Tumults c. a thing so true for matter of Fact that being not able to deny it our Answerer turns it thus That in the whole Chapter next but one before this the King affirms That the danger wherein his Wife his Children and his own Person were by those Tumults was the main cause that drove him c. Whereas what the King and that but in one place of that Chapter says of it is this That he thought himself not bound to prostitute the Majesty of his Place and Person and the safety of his Wife and Children to those who are prone to insult most when they have objects and opportunity most capable of their rudeness and petulancy With this other from Digby as he calls him who knew his Mind as well as any That the principal cause of his Majesty's going thence was to save them from being trod in the Dirt. And where in the name of Goodness lies the Contradiction The Tumults were such they might have been call'd Legion and well make a King asham'd to see them and not be able to disperse them But a direct Fear it could not be in him whom Ille timorum Maximus hand urget Lethi timor and who refused Life at the price of an inglorious Submission And yet in the Case of a private Person was not this ground enough to apprehend a danger and the consequence of it to be trod in the Dirt How much more then in the Case
Alij diutius Imperium tenuerunt nemo tam fortiter reliquit Tacit. Histor Lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417 VINDICIAE CAROLINAE OR A DEFENCE OF ἘΙΚΩΠΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ THE Portraicture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes and Sufferings IN REPLY To a BOOK Intituled ἘΙΚΟÎΟΚΛΑΣΤΗΣ Written by Mr. Milton and lately Re-printed at Amsterdam Vere magnum habere fragilitatem hominis securitatem Dei Seneca London Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCXCII THE PREFACE OUR Author has forespoken his Reader with a long Preface and Custom has so obtain'd that not to take notice of it were to allow it for Truth yet as long soever as it is I may be the shorter in mine in regard there are some things we shall not much differ about As when he begins to discant on the Misfortunes of a Person fallen from so high a Dignity who has also paid his final Debt both to Nature and his Faults is not of it self a thing commendable And I come so near him that I deem it in no wise commendable much less to defend a Party by whose Injustice he fell For Revenge and Envy stop at the Grave and however our Lives are at the Mercy of others even Fortune herself has no Dominion over the Dead But when he says And his Faults and that it is not the intention of his Discourse I referr my Reader to this of mine wherein from the Ordinances of that time and the Law of the Land I have I hope acquitted the King and for the other whatever his intention might be prov'd his Book contrary to what he gives out here He further supposes it no Injury to the Dead but a good Deed rather to the Living to better inform them by remembring them the Truth of what they themselves know to be mis-affirm'd And I agree with him for if a Man may not make the Blind to go out of his way there is this Charity due to a Short-sighted Multitude to point them at least where they first went astray and by bringing them back to the old Paths both shew them how they lost their Way and set them right for the future Yet agree as we will we must part at last for instead of not discanting on the Misfortunes of his murther'd Sovereign and of better informing the People of what he slily insinuates themselves know to be mis-affirm'd by the King the whole drift of his Book is to blast the one and spread a Mist before the other whereas mine is to vindicate the King and what in me lies to clear the Air of that Pestilent Vapour In the mean time and until I come to it I shall briefly consider the matter of his Preface and the manner of putting it together As to the former it is an abstract of his Book written in Scandal to the King's Book and himself And saith he for their Sakes who thro' Custom Simplicity or want of better Teaching have not more seriously consider'd Kings than in the gaudy name of Majesty in behalf of Liberty and the Commonwealth That is to say Licentiousness and Democracy words altogether foreign to the English whose Constitutions know nothing but an Hereditary Imperial Monarchy recognizing no Superiour under God but only the King unto whom both Spiritualty and Temporalty are bound and owe a Natural Obedience Unto which his Notions are directly contrary for if the Soveraignty lay in the People the King were not Supream but himself subject to that Power which is transcendent to his as appertaining to them and then the State of England were Democratical if it lay in the Nobles then were it Aristocratical or if in either or all of them it were in no wise Monarchical which both the Common-Law and Statute-Law of England have ever declar'd this Kingdom to be as shall be shewn in its proper place And yet he doubts not to impose upon his Reader That the People heretofore were wont to repute for Saints those faithful and couragious Barons as he calls them who lost their Lives in the Field making glorious War against Tyrants for the common Liberty As Simon de Monfort Earl of Leicester against Henry the Third Thomas Plantagenet Earl of Lancaster against Edward the Second And truly Siqua est ea Gloria England wants not wherein to Glory though I think neither of these comes under his Character For the first of them a Frenchman by Extraction ran into open Rebellion against Henry the Third whose Sister he had first vitiated then Married Took the King Prisoner and carried him about in the Army as Cromwell did this King and made him own all his the Earl's Actions as the Parliament but ineffectually endeavour'd it also and was at last slain in actual Rebellion at the Battle of Evesham by the Prince our English Justinian the Man who by rescuing oppress'd Laws taught the Crown of England not to serve and first deliver'd it from the Wardship of the Barons These Barons the Descendants of those where the Devil in the Father turn'd Monk in the Son for being conscious to themselves that whatever they had whether of Honour or Possessions had been commenc'd in Conquest and Rapine what better way of securing both than by siding with the People who had by this time forgotten they were the Posterity of those who had beggar'd their Ancestors And for the other of Lancaster he also was taken in a like Rebellion against Edward the Second and being thereof Convicted was Beheaded at Pomfrect nor other than Rebellion do I find any Remark of him but that his Name was Plantagenet and the Mobb call'd him King Arthur And therefore the most that can be said of them is what Aaron of his Calf These be thy Gods O Israel And having laid this Foundation for Matter who could expect his manner of doing it should be better more than that Grapes may be gathered of Thorns or Figs of Thistles Nor has he in the least deceiv'd me in it when though there 's a decency of Language due to the meanest of Men and Mankind insults not over a Slave in Misery yet neither in his Preface or his whole Book doâ—s he ever mention the King or his â—ctions without that irreverence as would put a modest Man to the Blush in reading it What the particular Expressions are I forbear to mention them where I may possibly avoid it and referr the Reader to them as they every where occur lest otherwise I be like him that pretends to answer a Seditious Book and Prints that with his answer that it may be remembred cum Privilegio However this from the whole though the Scripture calls Princes Gods that Prince is yet to be born whose some action or other did not confess Humanity and require Candour Moses was King among the Righteous and David a Man after God's own Heart and yet it cannot be said of either of them In nullo erratum est And therefore instead of raking the Graves of Princes we
Limitations Though our Accuser thinks it enough for him to have said Those Limitations were not more dangerous to him than he was to their Liberty and Religion His next is that Antichristian Hierarchy which was there vowed to be cast out of the Church c. Whether God planted it or not is not the question the King's Progenitors had bountifully water'd it and the Law of England set a Hedge about it They held their Possessions in Barony the Statute pro Clero calls them Peers of the Realm and another of Queen Elizabeth 2â— Ed. 3. c. 6. 8 Eâ— c. 1. one of the greatest States of this Realm And for a Fag-end of a Parliament without the King's Consent nay contrary to his Will to take upon them to extirpate so ancient so establish'd an Order and dis-seize them of their Free-hold without a legal Trial whatever the Liberty or Religion of it might be I am sure it was contrary to Magna Charta And himself says it is a Point not to be argu'd but of a clear Moral Necessity to be done And a most expeditious Answer though it may seem much in the dark to every Man but himself and the Actors in it Nor was it saith his Majesty less than superfluous to enjoyn Oaths where former Religious and Legal Engagements bound Men sufficiently to all necessary Duties But it was saith he the Practice of all reforming Churches Israel were bound enough before by the Law of Moses to all necessary Duties yet with Asa their King entred into a new Covenant at the beginning of a Reformation c. And as well might he have prov'd it out of the first Words of Genesis Is the Beginning i. e. In the beginning of Formation the World was Created and in the beginning of Reformation the Covenant was produc'd But to give it a direct Answer This New Covenant of which he speaks was not about Pretended Privileges or disputable Liberties in matters of State nor any Conjectural Fancies in Point of Religion 2 Chron. 15.12.15 but to seek the God of their Fathers in which also the King joyn'd with them and it is said of it that God was found of them and gave them rest round about which cannot be said of ours And which may be further observable of all the Covenants made by the Jews there was no one of them ever Sworn against the Will of the Supream or at least Subordinate Rulers not opposed but rather countenanced by the Supream and the matter of their Covenant was always enjoyn'd by God himself And whereas he further says The Jews after the Captivity without Consent demanded of that King who was their Master took a Solemn Oath to walk in the Commandments of God See how he slurs it upon the unwary People That King c. The Jews from the Captivity to the coming of our Saviour had no Kings of their own but were govern'd by Deputies and Vicegerents who had not Supream Authority in themselves but as it pleas'd the Persian Monarchs and afterward Alexander and his Successors to assign them and these were call'd Heads or Princes of the Captivity of whom Zerobabel was the first and upon the Restauration of the Captivity by Cyrus came back again with them to Jerusalem and Judah and with him Nehemiah as one of the chief of the Fathers For in the third of Nehemiah ver 16. he is call'd a Ruler and in the fifth verse 14. Governour in the Land of Judah With this Nehemiah it was that the Princes and the Priests made the Covenant our Answerer speaks of Nehem. 10.1 and Nehemiah seal'd to it as the Tirshatha or Governour and the People clave to their Brethren their Nobles Ver. 29. and entred into an Oath to walk in God's Laws And now what need was there to demand that King's Artaxerxes Consent when his Vicegerent joyn'd with them In a matter too which terminated in themselves and their own Worship without the least design of extirpating their Masters the Syrians or Babylonians And when he calls it a Solemn Oath what other is it than to wheedle the People into an easier swallow of it and that the Solemn League and Covenant was just such another And yet our Answerer will not away with it when the King says They made their Covenant like Manna not that it came from Heaven as this did agreeable to every Man's Palate For the drift saith he is that Men should loath it Whereas if we truly consider the thing never was Comparison more aptly applicable Exod. 16.15 For when Israel first saw it they said one to another Manna or What is this for they wist not what it was Ver. 20. and if they kept it above a day it bred Worms and stank CHAP. XV. Vpon the many Jealousies rais'd and Scandals cast upon the King to stir up the People against him THere is a great deal of difference between Accusations and Calumnies the first necessary to all Popular States whereby to keep any one's growing too great for the rest as may be seen in the Athenian Ostracism or Banishment for ten Years and the Syracusian Petalism for five Years but Calumnies were ever exploded as the bane and destruction of Common Society And if they are so dangerous to Commonwealths what must they be to Monarchy which is never truly supported but by being at unity within it self And yet such were the Artifices of those times that they rais'd their Babel on no other Foundation and what the effect of it was we have all seen however it must not seem strange that our Answerer bred at the Feet of those Gamaliels should all along Copy so exactly after the Original But to pass his railing and come to his Matter which is so loose and thin that I was once going to throw it away till I better consider'd that the best way to undeceive the People was to undraw the Curtain and shew them how they had been deceiv'd and if in the doing it they have not tack'd together all the shreds and parings of Policy let any Man judge What the Plot of the Play was appears in their last Act and that was by the Murther of their Lawful Soveraign to transform and new model an ancient Monarchy into a Mushrome of a Commonwealth But many things were to be done by the way and without the People it was impossible to effect it They knew the People lov'd the King but had withal taken a discontent at somewhat but what that was not a Man of them could tell Nor were they to learn of what importance the aspersing a Prince is to boil up that discontent to a height fit for a Rebellion To have done this directly had been to betray themselves No they first commend him for a good Prince a King that would do any thing for his People But alas There are some about him The more 's the pity However God in his time can mend all And yet the less they spake of