they had delivered up as it were to the Parliament to be dispoil'd of his Royalty and pursu'd with a Holy War They now complain that the Sectarie's are not extirpated which is a most absurd thing to expect the Magistrates should be able to do who never yet were able do what they could to extirpate avarice and ambition those two most pernicious Heresies and more destructive to the Church than all the rest out of the very order and tribe of the Ministers them-themselves For the Sects which they inveigh against I confess there are such amongst us but they are obscure and make no noise in the world The Sects that they are of are publick and notorious and much more dangerous to the Church of God Simon Magus and Diotrephes were the Ring-leaders of ' em Yet are we so far from persecuting these men tho' they are pestilent enough that for all we know them to be ill affected to the Government and desirous of and endeavouring to work a change we allow them but too much Liberty You that are both a French-man and a Va gabond seem displeas'd that the English more fierce and cruel than their own Mastiffs as your barking Eloquence has it have no regard to the lawful Successor and Heir of the Crown Take no care of the King 's Youngest Son nor of the Queen of Bohemia I l'e make ye no answer you shall answer your self VVhen the frame of a Government is changed from a Monarchy to any other the new Modellers have no regard to succession the Application is easy it 's in your Book de primatu Papae The great change throughout Three Kingdoms you say was brought about by a small number of men in one of them If this were true that small number of men would have deserved to have Dominion over the rest Valiant men over faint-hearted Cowards These are they that presumptuously took upon them to change antiquum Regni Regimen in alium qui à pluribus Tyrannisteneatur 'T is well for them that you cannot find fault with them without committing a Barbarous Soloecism you shame 〈◊〉 Grammarians The English will never be able to wash out this stain Nay you though a blot and a stain to all Learned men were never yet able to stain the renown and everlasting Glory of the English Nation that with so great a Resolution as we hardly find the 〈◊〉 recorded in any History having strugled with 〈…〉 not only their Enemies in the Field but the supertitious Persuasions of the common People 〈…〉 to themselves in general amongst all 〈…〉 the name of Deliverers The Body of the people having undertook and performed an enterprise which in other Nations is thought to proceed only from a magnanimity that 's peculiar to Heroes What the protesstants and Primitive Christians have done or would do upon such an occasion â—le tell ye hereafter when we come to debate the merits of the Cause In discoursing it before I should be guilty of your fault who outdo the most impertinent Talkers in Nature You wonder how wee 'l be able to answer the 〈◊〉 Meddle with your own matters you Râ—…gate and be asham'd of your actions since the Church is asham'd of you who though but of late you set your self so fiercely and with so much Ostentation against the Pope's Supremacy and Episcopal Government are now become your self a very Creature of the Bishops You confess that some Protestants whom you do not name have asserted it lawful to depose a Tyrant But though you do not think fit to name them I will because you say they are far wâ—rse than the very Jesuits themselves they are no other than Luther and Zuinglius and Calvin and Buâ—er and Pareus and many others But then you say they refer it to the Judgment of Learned and Wise men who shall be accounted a Tyrant But what for men were these Were they wise men were they men of Learning VVere they anywise remarkable either for Vertue or Nobility You may well allow a People that has felt the heavy Yoke of Slavery to be Wise and Learned and Noble enough to know what is fit to be done to the Tyrant that has oppress'd them though they neither consult with Foreigners nor Grammarians But that this man was a Tyrant not only the Parliaments of England and Scotland have declared by their actions and express words but almost all the people of both Nations assented to it till such time as by the tricks and Artifices of the Bishops they were divided into two Factions and what if it has pleased God to chuse such men to execute his Vengeance upon the greatest Potentates on Earth as he chose to be made partakers of the benefit of the Gospel Not many Wise not many Learned not many Powerful not many Noble That by those that are not be might bring to nought those that are and that no flesh might glory in his sight And who are you that babble to the contrary Dare you affect the Reputation of a Learned man I confess you are pretty well vers'd in Phrase-Books and Lexicons and Glossaries Insomuch that you seem to have spent your time in nothing else But you do not make appear that you have read any good Authors with so much Judgment as to have benefited by them Other Copies and various Lections and words omitted and corruptions of Texts and the like these you are full of but no foot-step of any solid Learning appears in all you have writ Or do ye think your self a wise man that quarrel and contend about the meanest Trifles that may be That being altogether ignorant in Astronomy and Physick yet are always raâ—â—ing at the Professors of both whom all men credit in what things belong to their own Sciences that would be ready to curse them to the Pit of Hell that should offer to deprive you of the vain Glory of having corrected or supply'd the least word or letter in any Copy you 've criticiz'd upon And yet y' are mad to hear your self call'd a Grammarian In a certain triflig Discourse of yours you call Dr. Hammond Knave in plain terms who was one of this King's Chaplains and one that he valu'd above all the rest for no other reason but because he had call'd you a Grammarian And I don't question but you would have been as ready to have thrown the same reproach upon the King himself if you had heard that he had approv'd his Chaplains Judgment of ye Take notice now how much I who am but one of those many English that you have the impudence to call mad men and unlearned and ignoble and wicked slight and despise you for that the English Nation in general should take any notice in publick of such a worm as you are would be an infinite undervaluing of themselves who though one should turn you topsic-turvy and inside out are but a Grammarian Nay as if you had made a foolisher wish than Midas did what ever you
have said before For whereâ—s you had affirm'd That a King was bound by no Law here you confess he is And you set up two contrary Rights one described by Moses and another by Samuel which is absurd But says the Prophet you shall be Servants to your King Tho I should grant that the Israelites were really so it would not presently follow that it was the Right of their Kings to have them so but that by the Usurpation and Injustice of most of them they were reduc'd to that Condition For the Prophet had foretold them that that importunate Petition of theirs would bring a Punishment from God upon them not because it would be their King 's Right so to harrass them but because they themselves had deserved it should be so If Kings are out of the reach of the Law so as that they may do what they list they are more absolute than any Masters and their Subjects in a more despicable Condition than the worst of Slaves The Law of God provided some Redress for them tho of another Nation if their Masters were Cruel and Unreasonable towards them And can we imagine that the whole Body of the People of a free Nation tho oppress'd and tyranniz'd over and prey'd upon should be left remediless That they had no Law to protect them no Sancturay to betake themselves to Can we think that they were delivered from the Bondage that they were under to the Egyptian Kings to be reduced into a worse to one of their own Brethren All which being neither agreeable to the Law of God nor to common Sense nothing can be more evident than that the Prophet declares to the People the Manner and not the Right of Kings nor the Manner of all Kings but of most Then you come to the Rabbins and quote two of them but you have as bad luck with them here as you had before For it is plain that that other Chapter that Rabbi Joses speaks of and which contains he says the Right of Kings is that in Deuteronomy and not in Samuel For Rabbi Judas says very truly and against you that that Discourse of Samuel's was intended only to frighten the People 'T is a most pernicious Doctrine to maintain that to be any ones Right which in its self is flat Injustice unless you have a mind to speak by contraries And that Samuel intended to affrighten them appears by the 18th Verse And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you and I will not hear you in that day saith the Lord. That was to be their Punishment for their Obstinacy in persisting to desire a King against the Mind and Will of God and yet they are not forbidden here either to pray against him or to endeavour to rid themselves of him For if they might lawfully pray to God against him without doubt they might use all lawful means for their own Deliverance For what Man living when he finds himself in any Calamity betakes himself to God so as to neglect his own Duty in order to a Redress and rely upon his lazy Prayers only But be it how it will what is all this to the Right of Kings or of the English People Who neither asked a King against the Will of God nor had one appointed us by God but by the Right that all Nations have to appoint their own Governors appointed a King over us by Laws of our own neither in Obedience to nor against any Command of God And this being the Case for ought I see we have done well in deposing our King and are to be commended for it since the Israelites sinned in asking one And this the Event has made appear for we when we had a King prayed to God against him and he heard us and delivered us But the Jews who not being under a Kingly Government desired a King he suffered to live in Slavery under one till at last after their return from the Babylonish Captivity they betook themselves to their former Government again Then you come to give us a display of your Talmudical Learning but you have as ill success with that as you have had with all the rest For whilst you are endeavouring to prove that Kings are not liable to any Temporal Judicature you quote an Authority out of the Treatise of the Sanhedrim That the King neither is judged of others nor does himself judge any Which is against the Peoples own Petition in Samuel for they desired a King that might judge them You labour in vain to salve this by telling us that it is to be understood of those Kings that reigned after the Babylonish Captivity For then what say ye to Maimonides He makes this difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and those of Juda that the Kings of the Posterity of David judge and are judged but the Kings of Israel do neither You contradict and quarrel with your self or your Rabbins and still do my work for me This say you is not to be understood of the Kings of Israel in their first Institution for in the 17th Verse 't is said You shall be his Servants that is he shall use ye to it not that he shall have any Right to make you so Or if you understand it of their Kings Right 't is but a Judgment of God upon them for asking a King the effects of which they were sensible of under most of their Kings tho not perhaps under all But you need no Antagonists you are such a perpetual Adversary to your self For you tell us now a Story as if you were arguing on my side how that first Aristobulus and after him Jâ—naeus Sirnamed Alexander did not receive that Kingly right that they pretended to from the Sanhedrim that great Treasury and Oracle of the Laws of that Nation but usurped it by degrees against the Will of the Senate For whose sake you say that Childish Fable of the principal Men of that Assembly being struck dead by the Angel Gabriel was first invented And thus you confess that this magnificent Prerogative upon which you seem mainly to rely viz. That Kings are not to be judged by any upon Earth was grounded upon this worse than an old Wives Tale that is upon a Rabbinical Fable But that the Hebrew Kings were liable to be call'd in Question for their Actions and to be punished with stripes if they were found faulty Sichardus shows at large out of the Writings of the Rabbins to which Author you are indebted for all that you make use of of that sort of Learning and yet you have the Impudence to be thwarting with him Nay we read in the Scripture that Saul thought himself bound by a Decree of his own making and in Obedience thereunto that he cast Lots with his Son Jonathan which of them two should die Uzzias likewise when he was thrust out of the Temple by the Priests as a Leper submitted as every private Person in
in his right wits can maintain such an Assertion The words immediately after make it as clear as the Sun that the Apostle speaks only of a lawful Power for he gives us in them a Definition of Magistrates and thereby explains to us who are the Persons thus authoriz'd and upon what account we are to yield Obedience lest we should be apt to mistake and ground extravagant Notions upon his Discourse The Magistrates says he are not a Terror to good Works but to evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same For he is the Minister of God to thee for good He beareth not the Sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a Revenger to execute Wrath upon him that doth Evil. What honest Man would not willingly submit to such a Magistracy as is here described And that not only to avoid Wâ—ath and for fear of Punishment but for Conscience sake Without Magistrates and some Form or other of Civil Government no Commonwealth no Humane Society can subsist there were no-living in the World But whatever Power enables a Man or whatsoever Magistrate takes upon him to act contrary to what St. Paul makes the Duty of those that are in Authority neither is that Power nor that Magistrate ordain'd of God And consequently to such a Magistracy no Subjection is commanded nor is any due nor are the People forbidden to resist such Authority for in so doing they do not resist the Power nor the Magistracy as they are here excellently well described but they resist a Robber a Tyrant an Enemy who if he may notwithstanding in some sense be called a Magistrate upon this account only because he has Power in his hands which perhaps God may have invested him with for our punishment by the same reason the Devil may be called a Magistrate This is most certain that there can be but one true Definition of one and the same thing So that if St. Paul in this place define what a Magistrate is which he certainly does and that accurately well He cannot possibly define a Tyrant the most contrary thing imaginable in the same words Hence I infer that he commands us to submit to such Magistrates only as he himself defines and describes and not to Tyrants which are quite other things For this Cause you pay Tribute also He gives a Reason together with a Command Hence St. Chrysostome Why do we pay Tribute to Princes says he Do we not thereby reward them for the care they take of our Safety We should not have paid them any Tribute if we had not been convinc'd That it was good for us to live under a Government So that I must here repeat what I have said already That since Subjection is not absolutely enjoined but upon a particular Reason that reason must be the rule of our Subjection where that reason holds we are Rebels if we submit not where it holds not we are Cowards and Slaves if we do But say you the English are far from being Freemen for they are wicked and flagitious I will not reckon up here the Vices of the French tho they live under a Kingly Government neither will I excuse my own Countrey-men too far but this I may safely say Whatever Vices they have they have learnt them under a Kingly Government as the Israelites learnt a great deal of Wickedness in Egypt And as they when they were brought into the Wilderness and lived under the immediate Government of God himself could hardly reform just so 't is with us But there are good hopes of many amongst us that I may not here celebrate those men amongst us that are eminent for their Piety and Virtue and Love of the Truth of which sort I persuade my self we have as great a number as where you think there are most such But they have laid a heavy yoke upon the English Nation What if they have upon those of them that endeavoured to lay a heavy yoke upon all the rest Upon those that have deserved to be put under the hatches As for the rest I question not but they are very well content to be at the Expence of maintaining their own Liberty the Publick Treasury being exhausted by the Civil Wars Now he betakes himself to the Fabulous Rabbins again He asserts frequently that Kings are bound by no Laws and yet he proves That a cording to the sense of the Rabbins a King may be guilty of Treason by suffering an Invasion upon the Rights of his Crown So Kings are bound by Laws and they are not bound by them they may be Criminals and yet they may not be so This man contradicts himself so perpetually that Contradiction and he seem to be of kiâ— to one another You say that God himself put many Kingdoms under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzâ—r King of Babylon I confess he did so for a time Jer 27. 7 but do you make appear if you can that he put the English Nation into a condition of Slavery to Charles Stuart for a minute I confess he suffered them to be enslaved by him for some time but I never yet heard that himself appointed it so to be Or if you will have it so that God shall be said to put a Nation under Slavery when a Tyrant prevails why may he not as well be said to deliver them from his Tyranny when the People prevail and get the upper hand Shall his Tyranny be said to be of God and not our Liberty There is no evil in the City that the Lord hath not done Amos 3. So that Famine Pestilence Sedition War all of them are of God and is it therefore unlawful for a People afflicted with any of these Plagues to endeavour to get rid of them Certainly they would do their utmost tho they know them to be sent by God unless himself miraculously from Heaven should command the contrary And why may they not by the same reason rid themselves of a Tyrant if they are stonger than he Why should we suppose his weakness to be appointed by God for the ruin and destruction of the Commonwealth rather than the Power and Strength of all the People for the good of the State 〈◊〉 be it from all Commonwealths from all Societies of free-born men to maintain not only such pernicious but such stupid and senseless Principles Principles that subvert all Civil Society that to gratitie a few Tyrants level all Mankind with Brutes and by setting Princes out of the reach of humane Laws give them an equal power over both I pass by those foolish Dilemma's that you now make which that you might take occasion to propose you feign some or other to assert that that superlative power of Princes is derived from the people though for my own part I do not at all doubt but that all the power that any Magistrates have is so Hence Cicero in his Orat. pro Flacco Our wise
the nature of the thing it self So that whether you make the world of your mind or no your Doctrine must needs be mischievous and destructive and such as cannot but be abhorred of all Princes For if you should work men into a perswasion that the Right of Kings is without all bounds they would no longer be subject to a Kingly Government if you miss of your aim yet you make men weary of Kings by telling them that they assume such a power to themselves as of right belonging to them But if Princes will allow of those Principles that I assert if they will suffer themselves and their own power to be circumscribed by Laws instead of an uncertain weak and violent Government full of cares and fears they will reign peaceably quietly and securely If they slight this counsel of mine though wholsome in its self because of the meanness of the Author they shall know that it is not my counsel only but what was anciently advised by one of the wisest of Kings For Lycurgus King of Lacedemon when he observed that his own Relations that were Princes of Argos and Messana by endeavouring to introduce an Arbitrary Government had ruin'd themselves and their people he that he might benefit his Countrey and secure the Succession to his own Family could think upon no better expedient than to communicate his Power to the Senate and taking the great men of the Realm into part of the Government with himself and by this means the Crown continued in his Family for many ages But whether it was Lycurgus or as some learned men are of opinion Theopompus that introduced that mixt form of Government among the Lacedemonians somewhat more than a hundred years after Lycurgus his time of whom it is recorded That he used to boast that by advancing the Power of the Senate above that of the Prince he had setled the Kingdom upon a sure Foundation and was like to leave it in a lasting and durable condition to his Posterity which of them soever it was I say he has left a good Example to Modern Princes and was as creditable a Councellor as his Counsel was safe For that all men should submit to any one man so as to acknowledge a Power in him superior to all humane Laws neither did any Law ever Enact nor indeed was it possible that any such Law should ever be for that cannot be said to be a Law that strikes at the root of all Laws and takes them quite away It being apparent that your Positions are inconsistent with the nature of all Laws being such as render them no Laws at all You endeavour notwithstanding in this Fourth Chapter to make good by Examples what you have not yet been able to do by any Reasons that you have alledged as yet Let 's consider whether your Examples help your Cause for they many times make things plain which the Laws are either altogether silent in or do but hint at We 'll begin first with the Jews whom we suppose to have known most of the mind of God and then according to your own method we 'll come to the times of Christianity And first for those times in which the Israelites being subject to Kings who or howsoever they were did their utmost to cast that flavish yoke from off their necks Eglon the King of Moab had made a Conquest of them the Seat of his Empire was at Jericho he was no contemner of the True God when his Name was mentioned he rose from his Seat The Israelites had served him Eighteen Years they sent a present to him not as to an Enemy but to their own Prince notwithstanding which outward Veneration and Profession of Subjection they kill him by a wile as an Enemy to their Countrey You 'l say perhaps that Ehud who did that action had a Warrant from God for so doing He had so 't is like and what greater Argument of its being a warrantable and praise-worthy action God useth not to put men upon things that are unjust treacherous and cruel but upon such things as are virtuous and laudable But we read no where that there was any positive Command from Heaven in the case The Israelites called upon God So did we And God stirred up a Saviour for them so he did for us Eglon of a Neighbouring Prince became a Prince of the Jews of an Enemy to them he became their King Our Gentleman of an English King became an Enemy to the English Nation so that he ceas'd to be a King Those Capacities are inconsistent No man can be a Member of a State and an Enemy to it at the same time Antony was never lookt upon by the Romans as a Consul nor Nero as an Emperor after the Senate had voted them both Enemies This Cicero tells us in his Fourth Philippick If Antony be a Consul says he Brutus is an Enemy but if Brutus be a Saviour and Preserver of the Commonwealth Antony is an Enemy none but robbers count him a Consul By the same reason say I who but Enemies to their Countrey look upon a Tyrant as a King So that Eglon's being a Foreigner and King Charles a Prince of our own will make no difference in the case both being Enemies and both Tyrants they are in the same circumstances If Ehud kill'd him justly we have done so too in putting our King to Death Sampson that Renowned Champion of the Hebrews tho his Countrey-men blam'd him for it Dost thou not know say they that the Philistines have dominion over us yet against those Philistines under whose Dominion he was he himself undertook a War in his own person without any other help and whether he acted in pursuance of a Command from Heaven or was prompted by his own Valour only or whatever inducement soever he had he did not put to death one but many that tyranized over his Countrey having first called upon God by Prayer and implored his Assistance So that Sampson counted it no act of Impiety but quite contrary to kill those that enslaved his Countrey ' tho they had dominion over himself too and tho the greater part of his Countrey-men submitted to their Tyranny But yet David who was both a King and a Prophet would not take away Saul's life because he was God's Anointed Does it follow that because David refused to do a thing therefore we are obliged not to do that very thing David was a private person and would not kill the King is that a president for a Parliament for a whole Nation David would not revenge his own quarrel by putting his Enemy to death by stealth does it follow that therefore the Magistrates must not punish a Malefactor according to Law He would not kill a King must not an Assembly of the States therefore punish a Tyrant He scrupled the killing of God's Anointed must the People therefore scruple to condemn their own Anointed Especially one that after having so long professed Hostility against his own
his own Court What you mean by the Members of the Court I would gladly know You enumerate the Calamities that the Romans underwent by changing their Kingdom into a Commowealth In which I have already shown how grosly you give your self the lye What was it you said when you wrote against the Jesuit You demonstrated That in an Aristocracy or a popular State there câ—uld but he Seditiâ—â—s and Tumults whereas under a Tyrant nothing was to be lâ—ked for but certain Ruin and Destruction And dare you now say you vain corrupt Mortal That thâ—se Seditions were Punishments inflicted upon them fâ—r Banâ—shing their Kings to wit because King Charles gave you a hundred Jacobussâ—s afterward Therefore the Romans shall be punished for Banishing their Kings But they that kill'd Julius Caesar did not prosper afterwards I confess if I would have had any Tyrant spared it should have been him For altho he introduced a Monarchical Government into a 〈◊〉 State by force of Arms yet perhaps himself deserved a Kingdom best and yet I conceive that none of those that killed him can be said to have been punished for so doing any more than Caius Anthonius 〈…〉 's Colleague for destroying Cataline who when he was afterward condemn'd for other Crimes says Cicero in his Oration Pro Flacco Cataline's Sepulchâ—… was adâ—rn'd with Flowers For they that fa voured Cataline then rejoyced They gave out then that what Cataline did was just to encrease the Peoples hatred against those that had cut him off These are Artifices which wicked Men make use of to deter the best of Men from punishing Tyrants and slagitious Persons I might as easily say the quite contrary and instance in them that have killed Tyrants and prospered afterwards if any certain inference might be drawn in such â—…ases from the Events of things You object further That the English did not put their Hereditary King to Death in like manner as Tyrants use to be slain but as Robbers and Traytors are executed In the first place I do not nor can any wise Man understand what a Crowns being Hereditary should contribute to a King's Crimes being unpunishable What you ascribe to the Barbarous Cruelty of the English proceeded rather for their Clemency and Moderation and as such deserves Commendation who tho the beinâ— a Tyrant is a Crime that comprehends all sorts of Enormities such as Robberies Treasons and Rebellions against the whole Nation yet were contented to inflict no greater punishment upon him for being so than they used of course to do upon any Common Highway-man or ordinary Traytor You hope some such Men as Harmodius and Thrasibulus will rise up amongst us and make Expiation for the King's Death by shedding thâ—ir Blood that were the Authors of it But you will run â—…d with despair and be detested by all good Men and put an end to that wretched Life of yours by hâ—nging your self before you see Men like Hâ—…dius avenging the Blood of a Tyrant upon such 〈◊〉 hâ—ve done no other than what they did themselves That you will come to such an end is most proâ—â—ble nor can any other be expected of so great a Rogue but the other thing is an utter impossibility You mention thirty Tyrants that rebelled in Callienus's time And what if it fall out that one Tyrant happens to oppose another must therefore all they that resist Tyrants be accounted such themselves You cannot persuade Men into such a belief you Slave of a Knight nor your Author Trebellius Pollio the most inconsiderable of all Historians that have writ If any of the Emperors were declared Enemies by the Senate you say it was done by Faction but could not have been by Law You put us in mind what it was that made Emperours at first It was Faction and Violence and to speak plainer it was the Madness of Anthony that made Generals at first Rebel against the Senate and the People of Rome there was no Law no Right for their so doing Galba you say was punished for his Insurection against Nero. Tell us likewise how â—â—spasian was punished for taking up Arms against Vitellius There was as much difference you say betwixt Charles and Nero as betwixt those English â—…chers and the Roman Senators of thâ—â— Age. Desâ—icâ—ble Villain by whom it is Scandalous to be commended and a Praise to be Evil spoken of But a few Periods before discoursing of this very thing you said That the Roman Senate under the Emperors was in effect but an Assembly of Slaves in Robes And here you say That very Senate was an Assembly of Kings which if it be allowed then are Kings according to your own Opinion but Slaves with Robes on Kings are blessed that have such a Fellow as you to write in their praise than whom no Man is more a Rascal no Beast more void of Sense unless this one thing may be said to be peculiar to you that none ever brayed so learnedly You make the Parliament of England more like to Nero than to the Roman Senate This itch of yours of making silly Similitudes enforces me to rectify you whether I will or no And I will let you see how like King Charles was to Nero. Nero you say commanded his own Mother to be run through with a Sword But Charles murdered both his Prince and his Father and that by Poyson For to omit other evidences he that would not suffer a Duke that was accused for it to come to his Tryal must needs have been guilty of it himself Nero slew many thousands of Christians but Charles slew many more There were those says Suetonius that praised Nero after he was dead that long'd to have had him again That hung Garlands of Flowers upon his Sepulchre and gave out that they would never prosper that had been his Enemies And some there are transported with the like Phrensy that wish for King Charles again and extol him to the highest degree imaginable of whom you a Knight of the Halter are a Ringleader The English Soldiers more Savage than their own Mastiffs erectâ—d a new and unheard-of Court of Justice Observe this ingenious Symbol or adage of Salmasius which he has now repeated six times over More Savage than their own Mastiffs Take notice Orators and School-Masters pluck if you are wise this Elegant Flower which Salmasius is so very fond of Commit this Flourish of a Man that is so much a Master of words to your Desks for safe Custody lest it be lost Has your rage made you forget words to that degree that like a Cuckcow you must needs say the same thing over and over again What strange thing has befallen you The Poet tells us That Spleen and Rage turn'd Hecuba into a Dog and it has turn'd you the Lord of St. Lupus into a Cuckow Now you come out with fresh Contradictions You had said before page 113. That Princes were not bound by any Laws neither Câ—ercive nor Directory that they were bound by no Law
scorn to have Charles compared with so cruel a Tyrant as Nero he resembled him extremely much For Nero likewise often threatned to take away the Senate Besides he bore extreme hard upon the Consciences of good men and compelled them to the use of Ceremonies and Superstitious Worship borrowed from Popery and by him re-introduced into the Church They that would not conform were imprisoned or Banisht He made War upon the Scots twice for no other cause than that By all these actions he has surely deserved the name of a Tyrant once over at least Now I 'le tell you why the word Traytor was put into his Indictment When he assured his Parliament by Promises by Proclamations by Imprecations that he had no design against the State at that very time did he List Papists in Ireland he sent a private Embassie to the King of Denmark to beg assistance from him of Arms Horses and Men expresly against the Parliament and was endeavouring to raise an Army first in England and then in Scotland To the English he promised the Plunder of the City of London to the Scots that the four Northern Counties should be added to Scotland if they would but help him to get rid of the Parliament by what means soever These Projects not succeeding he sent over one Dillon a Traytor into Ireland with private Instructions to the Natives to fall suddenly upon all the English that inhabited there These are the most remarkable instances of his Treasons not taken up upon hear-say and idle reports but discovered by Letters under his own Hand and Seal And finally I suppose no man will deny that he was a Murderer by whose order the Irish took Arms and put to death with most exquisite Torments above a hundred thousand English who lived peaceably by them and without any apprehension of danger and who raised so great a Civil War in the other two Kingdoms Add to all this that at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight the King openly took upon himself the guilt of the War and clear'd the Parliament in the Confession he made there which is publickly known Thus you have in short why King Charles was adjudged a Tyrant a Traytor and a Murderer But say you why was he not declared so before neither in that Solemn League and Covenant nor afterwards when he was delivered to them either by the Presbyterians or the Independents but on the other hand was receiv'd as a King ought to be with all reverence This very thing is sufficient to persuade any rational man that the Parliament entred not into any Councils of quite deposing the King but as their last refuge after they had suffered and undergone all that possibly they could and had attempted all other ways and means You alone endeavour maliciously to lay that to their charge which to all good men cannot but evidence their great Patience Moderation and perhaps a too long forbearing with the King's Pride and Arrogance But in the month of August before the King suffered the House of Commons which then bore the only sway and was governed by the Independants wrote Letters to the Scots in which they acquainted them that they never intended to alter the form of Government that had obtain'd so long in England under King Lords and Commons You may see from henâ—e how little reason there is to ascribe the deposing of the King to the principles of the Independents They that never used to dissemble and conceal their Tenents even then when they had the sole management of affairs profess That they never intended to alter the Government But if afterwards a thing came into their minds which at first they intended not why might they not take such a course tho before not intended as appear'd most advisable and most for the Nation 's Interest Especially when they found that the King could not possibly be intreated or induced to assent to those just demands that they had made from time to time and which were always the same from first to last He persisted in those perverse sentiments with respect to Religion and his own Right which he had all along espoused and which were so destructive to us not in the least altered from the man that he was when in Peace and War he did us all so much mischief If he assented to any thing he gave no obscure hints that he did it against his will and that whenever he should come into power again he would look upon such his Assent as null and void The same thing his Son declared by writing under his hand when in those days he ran away with part of the Fleet and so did the King himself by Letters to some of his own Party in London In the mean time against the avowed sense of the Parliament he struck up a private Peace with the Irish the most barbarous Enemies imaginable to England upon base dishonourable terms but whenever he invited the English to Treaties of Peace at those very times with all the power he had and interest he could make he was preparing for War In this case what should they do who were intrusted with the care of the Government Ought they to have betrayed the safety of us all to our most bitter Adversary Or would you have had them leâ—â— us to undergo the Calamities of another Seven years War not to say worse God put a better mind into them of preferring pursuant to that very solemn League and Covenant their Religion and Liberties before those thoughts they once had of not rejecting the King for they had not gone so far as to vote it all which they saw at last tho indeed later than they might have done could not possibly subsist as long as the King continued King The Parliament ought and must of necessity be entirely free and at liberty to provide for the good of the Nation as occasion requires nor ought they so to be wedded to their first Sentiments as to scruple the altering their minds for their own or the Nation 's good if God put an opportunity into their hands of procuring it But the Scots were of 〈…〉 opinion for they in a Letter to Charles the King's Son call his Father a most Sacred Prince and the putting him to death a most execrable Villany Do not you talk of the Scots whom you know not we know them well enough and know the time when they called that same King a most â—…rable person a Murtherer and Traytor and the putting a Tyrant to Death a most sacred action Then you pick holes in the King's Charge as not being properly penn'd and you ask why we needed to call him a Traytor and a Murtherer after we had stiled him a Tyrant since the word Tyrant includes all the Crimes that may be And then you explain to us grammatically and critically what a Tyrant is Away with those Trisles you Pedagogue which that one definition of Aristotle's that has lately beeen cited will utterly confound
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
King has taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oath the Archbishop stepping to 〈◊〉 side of the Stage erected for that purpose asks the people four several times in these words Do you consent to have this man to be your King Just as if he spoke to them in the Roman Stile Vultis Jubetis hunc Regnare Is it your pleasure do you appoint this man to Reign Which would be needless if the Kingdom were by the Law hereditary But with Kings Usurpation passes very frequently for Law and Right You go about to ground Charles's Right to the Crown who was so often conquered himself upon the Right of Conquest William surnamed the Conqueror â—orsooth subdued us But they who are not strangers to our History know full well that the Strength of the English Nation was not so broken in that one Fight at Hastings but that they might easily have renewed the War But they chose rather to accept of a King than to be under a Conqueror and a Tyrant They swear therefore to William to be his Liege-men and he swears to them at the Altar to carry to them as a good King ought to do in all respects When he broke his word and the English betook themselves again to their Arms being diffident of his strength he renewed his Oath upon the Holy Evangelists to observe the Ancient Laws of England And therefore if after that he miserably oppressed the English as you say he did he did it not by Right of Conquest but by Right of Perjury Besides it is certain that many ages ago the Conquerors and Conquered coalesced into one and the same people So that that Right of Conquest if any such ever were must needs have been antiquated long ago His own words at his death which I give you out of a French Manuscript written at Cane put all out of doubt I appoint no man says he to inherit the Kingdom of England By which words both his pretended Right of Conquest and the Hereditary Right were disclaim'd at his death and buried together with him I see now that you have gotten a place at Court as I foretold you would you are made the King's Chief Treasurer and Steward of his Court-Craft And what follows you seem to write ex Officio as by virtue of your Office Magnificent Sir If any preceding Kings being thereunto compelled by Factions of Great Men or Seditions amongst the Common People have receded in some measure from their Right that cannot prejudice the Successor but that he is at liberty to resume it You say well if therefore at any time our Ancestors have through neglect lost any thing that was their Right why should that prejudice us their Posterity If they would promise for themselves to become Slaves they could make no such promise for us who shall always retain the same Right of delivering our selves out of Slavery that they had of enslaving themselves to any whomsoever You wonder how it comes to pass that a King of Great Britain must now-adays be looked upon as one of the Magistrates of the Kingdom only whereas in all other Kingly Governments in Christendom Kings are invested with a Free and Absolute Authority For the Scots I remit you to Buchanan For France your own Native Countrey to which you seem to be a stranger to Hottoman's Franco Gallia and Girardus a French Historian for the rest to other Authors of whom none that I know of were Independents Out of whom you might have learned a quite other lesson concerning the Right of Kings than what you teach Not being able to prove that a Tyrannical Power belongs to the Kings of England by Right of Conquest you try now to do it by Right of Perjury Kings profess themselves to Reign By the Grace of God What if they had professed themselves to be gods I believe if they had you might easily have been brought to become one of their Priests So the Archbishops of Canterbury pretended to Archbishop it by Divine Providence Are you such a fool as to deny the Pope's being a King in the Church that you may make the King greater than a Pope in the State But in the Statutes of the Realm the King is called our Lord. You are become of a sudden a wonderful Nomenclator of our Statutes But you know not that many are called Lords and Masters who are not really so You know not how unreasonable a thing it is to judge of Truth and Right by Titles of Honour not to say of Flattery Make the same Inference if you will from the Parliament's being called the King's Parliament for it is called the King's Bridle too or a Bridle to the King and therefore the King is no more Lord or Master of his Parliament than a Horse is of his Bridle But why not the King's Parliament since the King summons them I 'le tell you why because the Consuls used to indict a Meeting of the Senate yet were they not Lords over that Council When the King therefore summons or calls together a Parliament he does it by vertue and in discharge of that Office which he has received from the people that he may advise with them about the weighty affairs of the Kingdom not his own particular Affairs Or when at any time the Parliament debated of the King 's own Affairs if any could properly be called his own they were always the last things they did and it was in their choice when to debate of them and whether at all or no and depended not upon the King's Pleasure And they whom it concerns to know this know very well That Parliaments anciently whether summoned or not might by Law meet twice a Year But the Laws are called too The King's Laws These are flattering ascriptions a King of England can of himself make no Law For he was not constituted to make Laws but to see those Laws kept which the People made And you your self here confess That Parliaments Meet to make Laws Wherefore the Law is also called the Law of the Land and the Peoples Law Whence King Ethelstane in the Preface to his Laws speaking to all the People I have granted you every thing says he by your own Law And in the form of the Oath which the Kings of England used to take before they were made Kings The People stipulate with them thus Will you grant those Just Laws which the People shall chuse The King Answers I will And you are infinitely mistaken in saying That When there is no Parliament sitting the King Governs the whole state of the Kingdom to all intents and purposes by a Regal Power For he can determine nothing of any moment with respect to either Peace or War nor can he put any stop to the Proceedings of the Courts of Justice And the Judges therefore Swear That they will do nothing Judicially but according to Law tho the King by Word or Mâ—…te or Letters under his own Seal should command the contrary Hence it is that the King is often
and hope for them in vain under the Rule of a King They who are of opinion that these things cannot be compass'd but under a King and a Lord it cannot well be expressed how mean how base I do not say how unworthy thoughts they have of themselves for in effect what do they other than confess that they themselves are lazy weak senseless silly Persons and fram'd for Slavery both in Body and Mind And indeed all manner of Slavery is scandalous and disgraceful to a freeborn ingenious Person but for you after you have recovered your lost Liberty by God's Assistance and your own Arms after the performance of so many valiant Exploits and the making so remarkable an Example of a most Potent King to desire to return again into a Condition of Bondage and Slavery will not only be scandalous and disgraceful but an impious and wicked thing and equal to that of the Israelites who for desiring to return to the Egyptian Slavery were so severely punish'd for that sordid slavish Temper of mind and so many of them destroy'd by that God who had been their Deliverer But what say you now who would perswade us to become Slaves The King say you had a Power of pardoning such as were guilty of Treason and other Crimes which evinces sufficiently that the King himself was under no Law The King might indeed pardon Treason not against the Kingdom but against himself and so may any body else pardon wrongs done to themselves and he might perhaps pardon some other Offences tho not always but does that follow because in some Cases he had the Right of saving a Malefactor's life that therefore he must have a Right to destroy all good Men If the King be impleaded in an inferior Court he is not obliged to Answer but by his Attorney Does it therefore follow that when he is summon'd by all his Subjects to appear in Parliament he may chuse whether he will appear or no and refuse to Answer in Person You say That we endeavour to justify what we have done by the Hollander ' s Example and upon this occasion fearing the loss of that Stipend with which the Hollanders seed such a Murraine and Pest as you are if by reviling the English you should consequentially reflect upon them that maintain you you endeavour to demonstrate how unlike their Actions and ours are The Comparison that you make betwixt them I resolve to omit tho many things in it are most false and other things flattery all over which yet you thought your self obliged to put down to deserve your Pension For the English think they need not alledge the Examples of Foreigners for their Justification They have Municipal Laws of their own by which they have acted Laws with relation to the matter in hand the best in the World They have the Examples of their Ancestors Great and Gallant Men for their imitation who never gave way to the Exorbitant Power of Princes and who have put many of them to Death when their Government became insupportable They were born free they stand in need of no other Nation they can make what Laws they please for their own good Government One Law in particular they have a great Veneration for and a very Ancient one it is enacted by Nature it self That all Humane Laws all Civil Right and Government must have a respect to the safety and welfare of good Men and not be subject to the Lusts of Princes From hence to the end of your Book I find nothing but Rubbish and Trifles pick'd out of the former Chapters of which you have here raised so great a heap that I cannot imagine what other design you could have in it than to presage the ruin of your whole Fabrick At last after an infinite deal of tittle tatle you make an end calling God to witness that you undertook the defence of this Cause not only because you were desired so to do but because your own Conscience told you that you could not possibly undertake the Defence of a better Is it fit for you to intermedâ—le with our matters with which you have nothing to do because you were desired when we our selves did not desire you to reproach with contumelious and opprobrious language and in a Printed Book the Supreme Magistracy of the English Nation when according to the authority and power that they are entrusted with they do but their duty within their own Jurisdiction and all this without the least injury or provocation from them for they did not so much as know that there was such a man in the world as you And I pray by whom were you desired By your Wife I suppose who they say exercises a Kingly Right and Jurisdiction over you and whenever she has a mind to it as Fulvia is made to speak in that obscene Epigram that you collected some Centoes out of Pag. 320. cries Either write or let 's fight That made you write perhaps lest the â—ignal should be given Or were you asked by Charles the Younger and that proâ—ligate Gang of Vâ—gabond Courtiers and like a second Balaam call'd upon by another Balak to restore a desperate Cause by ill writing that was lost by ill fighting That may be but there 's this difference for he was a wise understanding man and rid upon an Ass that could speak to curse the People of God Thou art a very talkative Ass they self and rid by a Woman and being surrounded with the healed heads of the Bishops that heretofore thou hadst wounded thou seem'st to represent that Beast in the Revelation But they say that a little after you had written this Book you repented of what you had done 'T is well if it be so and to make your repentance publick I think the best course that you can take will be for this long Book that you have writ to take a Halter and make one long Letter of your self So Judas Iscariot repented to whom you are like and that young Charles knew which made him send you the Purse Judas his Badg for he had heard before and found afterward by experience that you were an Apostate and a Devil Judas betray'd Christ himself and you betray his Church you have taught heretofore that Bishops were Antichristian and you are now revolted to their party You now undertake the Defence of their Cause whom formerly you damn'd to the pit of Hell Christ delivered all men from Bondage and you endeavour to enslave all mankind Never question since you have been such a Villain to God himself his Church and all mankind in general but that the same fate attends you that befel your equal out of despair rather than repentance to be weary of your life and hang your self and burst asunder as he did and to send before-hand that faithless and treacherous Conscience of yours that railing Conscience at good and holy men to that place of torment that 's parpared for you And now I think through God's
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