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
the Law of Nature to oppress their Subjects and go unpunished because as circumstances may fall out it may sometimes be a less mischief to bear with them than to remove them Remember what your self once wrote concerning Bishops against a Jesuit you were then of another opinion than you are now I have quoted your words formerly you there affirm that seditious Civil dissentions and discords of the Nobles and Common people against and amongst one another are much more tolerable and less mischievous than certain misery and destruction under the Government of a single person that plays the Tyrant And you said very true For you had not then run mad you had not then been bribed with Charles his Jacobusses You had not got the King's-Evil I should tell you perhaps if I did not know you that you might be ashamed thus to prevaricate But you can sooner burst than blush who have cast off all shame for a little profit Did you not remember that the Commonwealth of the people of Rome flourished and became glorious when they had banished their Kings Could you possibly forget that of the Low-Countries which after it had shook off the yoke of the King of Spain after long and tedious Wars but Crown'd with success obtained its Liberty and feeds such a pitiful Grammarian as your self with a Pension not that their youth might be so infatuated by your Sophistry as to chuse rather to return to their former Slavery than inherit the Glorious Liberty which their Ancestors purchased for them May those pernicious principles of yours be banished with your self into the most remote and barbarous corners of the World And last of all the Commonwealth of England might have afforded you an example in which Charles who had been their King after he had been taken captive in War and was found incurable was put to death But they have defaced and impoverished the Island with Civil broils and discords which under its Kings was happy and swam in Luxury Yea when it was almost buried in Luxury and Voluptuousness and the more inured thereto that it might be enthralled the more easily when its Laws were abolished and its Religion agreed to be sold they delivered it from Slavery You are like him that published Simplicius in the same Volume with Epictetus a very grave Stoick Who call an Island happy because it swims in Luxury I 'm sure no such Doctrine ever came out of Zeno's School But why should not you who would give Kings a power of doing what they list have liberty your self to broach what new Philosophy you please Now begin again to act your part There never was in any King's Reign so much blood spilt so many Families ruined All this is to be imputed to Charles not to us who first raised an Army of Irishmen against us who by his own Warrant Authorized the Irish Nation to conspire against the English who by their means slew Two hundred Thousand of his English Subjects in the Province of Uâ—… besides what Numbers were sâ—ain in other parts of that Kingdom who sollicited two Armies towards the destruction of the Parliament of England and the City of London and did many other actions of Hostility before the Parliament and people had Listed one Soldier for the preservation and defence of the Government What Principles what Law what Religion ever taught men rather to consult their ease to save their money their blood nay their lives themselves than to oppose an enemy with force for I make no difference betwixt a Foreign Enemy and another since both are equally dangerous and destructive to the good of the whole Nation The People of Israel saw very well that they could not possibly punish the Benjamites forSpanâ— Murthering the Levite's Wife without the loss of many Men's lives And did that induce them to sit still Was that accounted a sufficient Argument why they should abstain from War from a very Bloody Civil War Did they therefore suffer the Death of one poor Woman to be unrevenged Certainly if Nature teacheth us rather to endure the Government of a King though he be never so bad than to endanger the lives of a great many Men in the recovery of our Liberty it must teach us likewise not only to endure a Kingly Government which is the only one that you argue ought to be submitted to but an Aristocracy and a Democracy Nay and sometimes it will persuade us to submit to a Multitude of Highway-men and to Slaves that Mutiny Fulvius and Rupilius if your Principles had been received in their days must not have engaged in the Servile War as their Writers call it after the Praetorian Armies were Slain Crassus must not have Marched against Spartacus after the Rebels had destroyed one Roman Army and spoil'd their Tents Nor must â—â—mpâ—y have undertaken the Piratick War But the State of Rome must have pursued the dictates of Nature and must have submitted to their own Slaves or to the Pyrates rather than run the hazard of losing some Mens lives You do not prove at all that Nature has imprinted any such notion as this of yours on the minds of Men And yet you cannot forbear boding us ill luck and denouncing the Wrath of God against us which may Heaven divert and inflict it upon your self and all such Prognosticators as you who have punished as he deserved one that had the name of our King but was in Fact our implacable Enemy and we have made Atonement for the Death of so many of our Countreymen as our Civil Wars have occasion'd by shedding his Blood that was the Author and Cause of them Then you tell us that a Kingly Government appears to be more according to the Laws of Nature because more Nations both in our days and of old have submitted to that Form of Government than ever did to any other I answer If that be so it was neither the effect of any Dictate of the Law of Nature nor was it in Obedience to any Command from God God would not suffer his own People to be under a King he consented at last but unwillingly what Nature and right Reason dictates we are not to gather from the practice of most Nations but of the wisest and most prudent The Grecians the Romans the Italians and Carthagenians with many other have of their own accord out of choice preferr'd a Commonwealth to a Kingly Government and these Nations that I have named are better instances than all the rest Hence Sulpitius Severus says That the very Name of a King was always very odious among freeborn People But these things concern not our present purpose nor many other Impertinences that follow over and over again I 'll make haste to prove that by Examples which I have proved already by Reason viz. That it is very agreeable to the Law of Nature that Tyrants should be punished and that all Nations by the instinct of Nature have punished them which will expose your Impudence and
make it evident that you take a liberty to publish palpable down-right lies You begin with the Egyptians and indeed who does not see that you play the Gipsy your self throughout Amongst them say you there is no mention extant of any King that was ever slain by the People in a Popular Insurrection no War made upon any of their Kings by their Subjects no attempt made to depose any of them What think you then of Osiris who perhaps was the first King that the Egyptians ever had Was not he slain by his Brother Typhon and five and twenty other Conspirators And did not a great part of the Body of the People side with them and fight a Battel with Isis and Orus the late King's Wife and Son I pass by Sesostris whom his Brother had well-nigh put to Death and Chemmis and Cephrenes against whom the People were deservedly enraged and because they could not do it while they were alive they threatned to tear them in pieces after they were dead Do you think that a People that durst lay violent hands upon good Kings had any restraint upon them either by the Light of Nature or Religion from putting bad ones to Death Could they that threatened to pull the dead Bodies of their Princes out of their Graves when they ceased to do mischief tho by the Custom of their own Country the Corps of the meanest Person was sacred and inviolable abstain from inflicting Punishment upon them in their Life-time when they were acting all their Villanies if they had been able and that upon some Maxim of the Law of Nature I know you would not stick to answer me in the Affirmative how absurd soever it be but that you may not offer at it I 'll pull out your Tongue Know then that some Ages before Cephrene s time one Ammosis was King of Egypt and was as great a Tyrant as who has been the greatest him the People bore with This you are glad to hear this is what you would be at But hear what follows my honest tell-truth I shall speak out of Diodorus They bore with him for some while because he was too string for them But when Actisanes King of Ethiopia made War upon him they took that oppotunity to revolt so that being deforced he was easily subdued and Egypt became an Accession to the Kingdom of Ethiopia You see the â—…tians as soon as they could took up Arms against a Tyrant they joyned Forces with a Foreign saince to depose their own King and disinherit his Posterity they chosâ— to live under a moderate and good Prince as Actisanes was tho a Foreigner rather than under a Tyrant of their own The same People with a very unanimous Consent took up Arms against Apries another Tyrant who relied upon Foreign Aids that he had hired to assist him Under the Conduct of Amasis their General they Conquered and afterward Strangled him and placed Amasis in the Throne And observe this Circumstance in the History Amasis kept the 〈◊〉 aptive King a good while in the Palace and treated him well At last when the People comâ—â—…d that he nourished his own and their Enemy he put him into their hands who put him to Death in the manner I have mentioned There things are related by Heroditus and Diodorus Where are you now Do you think that any Tyrant would not chuse a Hatchet rather than an Halter Asâ—… say you when the Egyptians were brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Persians they continued faithful to 〈◊〉 which is most false they never were faithful to 〈◊〉 For in the fourth year after Cambyses had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thâ—m they rebelled Afterward when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamed them within a short time after 〈◊〉 râ—volted from his Son Artaxerxes and set up one 〈◊〉 to be their King After whose Death they rebell'd again and made one Tachus King and made War upon Artaxerxes Mnemon Neither were they better Subjects to their own Princes for they deposed Tachus and confer'd the Government upon his Son Nectanebus till at last Artaxerxes Ochus brought them the second time into Subjection to the Persian Empire When they were under the Macedonian Empire they declared by their Actions that Tyrants ought to be under some restraint They threw down the Statutes and Images of Ptolomaeus Physco and would have killed himself but that the Mercenary Army that he Commanded was too strong for them His Son Alexander was forced to leave his Country by the meer Violence of the People who were incensed against him for killing his Mother And the People of Alexandria dragged his Son Alexander out of the Palace whose Insolent Behaviour gave just Offence and killed him in the Theatre And the same People deposed Ptolomaeus Auletes for his many Crimes Now since it is impossible that any Learned Man should be ignorant of these things that are so generally known and since it is an inexcusable fault in Salmasius to be ignorant of them whose profession it is to teach them others and whose very asserting things of this Nature ought to carry in its self an Argument of Credibility it is certainly a very scandalous thing either that so Ignorant Unlearned a Blockhead should to the Scandal of all Learning profess himself and be accounted a Learned Man and obtain Salaries from Princes and States or that so impudent and notorious a Lyar should not be branded with some particular Mark of Infamy and for ever banished from the Society of learned and honest Men. Having searched among the Egyptians for Examples let us now consider the Ethiopians their Neighbours They adore their Kings whom they suppose God to have appointed over them almost as if they were a sort of gods themselves And yet whenever the Priests condemn any of them they kill themselves And on that manner says Diodorus they punish all their Criminals they put them not to death but send a Minister of Justice to command them to kill themselves In the next place you mention the Assyrians the Medes and the Persians who of all others were most observant of their Princes And you affirm contrary to all Historians that have wrote any thing concerning those Nations That the Regal Power there had an unbounded Liberty annexed to it of doing what the King listed In the first place the Prophet Daniel tells us how the Babylonians expelled Nebuchadnezzar out of human Society and made him graze with the Beasts when his pride grew to be insufferable The Laws of those Countries were not entituled the Laws of their Kings but the Laws of the Medes and Persians which Laws were irrevocable and the Kings themselves were bound by them Insomuch that Darius the Mede tho he earnestly desired to have delivered Daniel from the hands of the Princes yet could not effect it Those Nations say you thought it no sufficient pretence to reject a Prince because he abused the Right which was inherent in him as he was Sovereign But in the very writing of these words you are so stupid
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